Silicon Valley Study Tour

Here we are!

This is the Forum for the attendees of Bari Univesites to get the chance to attend to the Silicon Valley Study Tour 2016- august 22-26.

Discuss the attach article, tell your thinking, share yr ideas and links.

Mid June we'll ask for your Cv...and will judge the best to come with us!   

Join me in the launch conference in Poli Bari Aula Magna , May 20th 2016, 4 pm (attach)

Views: 7833


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

1: The businesses should be more about the people and people working in it than profits. (i-e) It should also address the socioeconomic issues that arise from it.

2: Business should not only makes profit but also works for the greater good of the
society. Modern day business not only improve peoples lives but can also address a lot of the social issues.

3: Looking after the employees from day one can make any employee feel at home. Treating your employee as a part of your business will not only bring the best in his abilities but will be beneficial for the business. In this regard google has a very progressive approach.

4: If the challenge is that one company is eating away another companies profits then a
strategic partnership is a wise choice. In modern times its ever more easy to work with
a partner company. Especially in IT source code sharing and tackling any issues can be
very easy when multiple multinational companies are involved.

5: A few years ago when Microsoft revealed its source code a lot of new tech companies took the opportunity to merge their applications along with existing Microsoft
applications. And what came out was an endless line of smart applications that we use today.

6: People use a lot of smart applications to send messages. In this situation a telecommunications company can partnership with other smart app messager providers to allow them to use their communications hardware in return for some share in the profits.

7: Smart phones are here to stay. So a lot of communication companies who already have an up and running communications system, can launch their own application or a hardware device to match the market.

8: With Google, Apple and Tesla investing in autonomous cars should be a great
opportunity for Toyota, BMW and GMC to partner with these companies. Autonomous cars can be the starting point but a partnership with a car manufacturing giant can open door to autonomous trucks for short route deliveries or autonomous vans for disabled people. This will directly cut costs for the buyers.

9: Publishing is old school now. I think its time the publishing houses take a different
approach. Most of the modern news papers have a website but they all should have an app as well. The 72% of the ads are online these days. Of course a lot of publishing houses have lost money from it but a few smart moves and they can be back in the market.

10: Innovation is the key these days. Every business should have an innovation department where they are always thinking about new ideas, products and ways to get
consumer numbers. Apple is struggling in the market these days only because since ipod and iphone they are struggling to come up with another hit product.

Honestly, I do not agree with your 4th point. Do you really think such big companies like Google, Microsoft and so on, need to share their profits with weaker ones?

I do not think they want a partnership (actual mobile OS market is divided between Android and iOS. You will never see a partnership because they are enough strong and competitor at high level).

If your company is not strong enough, it will die soon unless you solve your issues. What big strong companies want, in my opinion, is to get all the profit from a specific side of the market. If there is a competitor, I want to cut it off from my view; if it has interesting ideas and it is weak I would adsorb it, that is actually what big companies are doing with little start-ups around the world.

You can buy gainful ideas for few money, improve and sell them with your (trustful and renowned) name.

Hi Gaetano! I belive that a specific partnership with companies And startups Can add value . I talk about differentiation And innovation for traditional businesses.

In modern time its fail To find innovative tecnological solutions And must necessarily work together.

I think 'The solution' of many problems as an economist I Can easily observe . (Problem solving ) this  might increase The GDP.

In USA many companies pratice it. For example Apple has bought dozen of startups And innovative companies.

U Just have to create a structured relationship And in this Way The traditional companies would Buy innovatIon But The startups founds would need To grow.

Thank you for replying Anna!

I guess we are talking about the same thing but from different points of view. I agree with the partnership idea, but at some conditions. When a start-up is bought, it is very difficult that it can grow “easily”. Look at the start-ups bought by Facebook. I take you an example:

It is about Glancee developed by Andrea Vaccari (he should be a SVST student).

Facebook bought it and then the start-up disappeared. Now that team works in FB (it is said in the article) and all the innovation you talk about will be signed “by FB”.

Hope you got what I mean! Bye

very good tips...the Forum are  the unchanged part of the old 2007 site on Ning ...all the site is pretty new, made by Nicolo Borghi ( SVST 2007) and Mattia Accornero (SVST2008) today partner in Alwaysbeta newco...I'll put u in touch!

Cool Shapiro thinks thks!

I think that the Chinese devices are not so bad, the Chinese when they try to copy it wrong and often do not produce devices at the height of expectations , while when they develop their concepts can easily compete with other well- known brands ...for example the Chinese Huawei is It has evolved to the point to keep quietly head to a giant like samsung

I love Huawei ahahahah They are becoming a giant. Well, they already were giant in telecommunications, now they are evolving in services sector closer to users.

I remind you that also Asus started like Huawei, and today if I should buy a laptop I would buy an Asus, just because they are not so expensive, great performance and material (aluminium).

Now when I have to choose a mobile, I usually go on Huawei, great quality/cost ratio!

Chinese market is a "weird" market. Sorry but I do not remember who said that chinese companies tend to copy something and so on..I agree with his opinion.

Funny fact: I was in Milan some days ago, and there was a japanese marriage. They had to shoot with those confetti know..but they did not work! and a japanese guy said "Made in China! Made in China!"

China is a competitor for every country, really every :D

I have read the attach article by Peter Diamandis and first of all I have to say I do not really like the word “disruption”.

The examples listed in “12 Industries Disrupted by Tech Companies Expanding Into New Markets” are the RIGHT way every company should move on! For sure it is a sort of disruption when you need to switch into different markets, but is it properly disruption or could it be considered the essence of innovation? OK, these companies are disrupting the obsoleted way to provide services and actually they are EVOLVING!

We are talking about the “big names” of the tech industry. As Mr. Marenco said in the conference, Silicon Valley companies only focus on one problem, doing their best to be the best right there.

So why is Google joining the car industry?

We firstly know Google for the search engine, then smartphones and lately cars. They are expanding their business, their technology to different areas where a PROFIT could be and where they could be the best. We can say the same about all the companies mentioned in the attach article.

Probably Tesla is even a more amazing case. They are going through very different markets in very few time! I have read about the Hyperloop project around one year ago, and some days ago they made the first test. WOW. It looked so unreal but now…it is “almost” reality! And everything started from a simple idea: we could have a better world if transports lasted less.

Here is the idea:
Here is the reality:

Is this a start-up? Really? Unbelievable. Few months and we already have a futuristic reality. What did it make it possible? Yes, money is the first thing, but the challenge of the new world is to find what people need and often what they do NOT know to need. Does Facebook tell you something?

Hi, I'm a new member and I like this project very much, it's a wonderful chance. Moreover, reading and talking about these type of articles is very interesting and useful for each personal cultural training.

Now, let's talk about the article : "12 Industries Disrupted by Tech Companies Expanding Into New Markets".

The main theme of this article is to find a way to create a company having a great success studying other companies' problems and solving them in a better way. This is a first step to create something of innovative, improving something that already exists that it doesn't do it's job good enough. Indeed, this is what the big companies mentioned in the article have done.
Google, for example, improved the search on the web and this has allowed people all around the world to find fastly and efficiently everything like news, cultural material, professional and educational information and so on. So, Google has led a big innovation in one of the most important fields of our era: the information.

Here we can have a look of the countless researches people do everyday about everything:

Google has also created a new operating system, called Android, which is easier, "cheaper" and more intuitive than others and it has changed forever our mobile phone conception because thanks to its features it has spread very fastly.

Facebook, another successfull company, has improved communications all around the world because it created an easy way to message and see friends and relatives far away from us fastly and it allows us also to have a look at their life. So, Facebook has led innovation in the communication field.

Tesla is another company which is bringing innovation in the world creating a new type of transport in order to improve the existing ones and let the world uses a different type of energy which reduce pollution.

So, all these successfull companies didn't disrupt other ones but they became better than them, bringing innovation and creating a new world. Companies like these are rewriting the history of the world and this is what we have to do.

At last, in my opinion a first answer about the questions of the article is looking for something interesting that we can improve with our skills and turn it in an innovative one.

Hi guys, I'm a new member of this forum too, and I study in Polytechnic. I was always fascinated by Silicon Valley and even before this conferences in our university I've seen some documentaries on TV about italian guys who works there.

This is of course a reason why I chose to study computer engineering and automation.

Discussing the article 2 of your list let me share with you the link of this fascinating documentary that I found:

I consider important in order to understand even better all that we've heard yesterday with Mr. Paolo about what is the mentality over there.

A very significant sentence of this documentary says: "... here, in Silicon Valley, we don't try to open companies to provide jobs for people, but here are created companies that are focused to replace the man in their works..." 

Altough most of the population, especially Italian, should be frightened by this point of view, especially in this difficult period.

And if you think about that, in every time of the history thank to new tecnologies a lot of jobs have been created and many others have been deleted. This will be happening again if you think to taxi drivers or truck drivers that will lost theirs jobs because of self driving cars or trucks. It's the forced evolution to which in Silicon Valley try to improved. 

So, Yes. I think that every business which introduces a new service, a new possibility for a user, despite everything, provide an important contribution for the greater good of the society.

The world of economy is composed by several players,such as the State,businesses,customers,providers and so on,which have different roles in the "theatre" called society:there are partnerships between some of them to help themselves achieving more ambitious results,vertical and horizontal integrations and,of course,appropriate rivalries which increase the challenge between businesses.As known in economy,the life of a business is radically linked to the strategy chosen and carried on,whose final result in every possible case,must always be one:be able to remunerate the sources.There is a wide range of different strategies which could be adopted by businesses such as the corporate or the competitive one.In particular the former politic,based on the analysis of the market,the opportunities offered by it and the abilities and skills that a business could show off or use properly,suggest which should be the most appropriate move that a business should take in order to occupy,for example,a more competitive position and to cut down the competition. The latter one,instead,consists in the creation of the competitive differentials,unique characteristics of products which differentiate it from the similar ones and which people recognise as an added value worth of a little higher price to pay.The exponential growth and upgrade of technologies is,at the same time,decreasing the gap created by differentials since the majority of the businesses are now able to offer products with high performances; in other words,being competitive is getting more difficult,supporting exactly,as a reaction,the attitude of disrupting other businesses. Now,according to this last statement,it is a natural and spontaneous thing that businesses tend to "disrupt" themselves. Their aim,as a matter of fact,is the increase of the earning and these are the steps they should follow to goal their targets.
I definitely agree with this "disruption theory" and I think that,no matter what could be stated to deny it,nowadays we are always sorrounded by evidences of great impact that do not do anything else than confirming it. I would draw the attention,for example,on another business which,according to me,was worth of being mentioned in the article:Spotify.
Spotify is a business whose boom is absolutely recent. What does it offer? It offers the possibility to hear music with no limits. The possible choices a customer has to take are two: listen to music bearing the several advertisements during his use of the app and being not able to access to some more sophisticated functions or buy with little price the subscription,to "get a full experience".
Consequently,the earnings of Spotify come from the advertisements played for free customers and from the subscriptions payed by the other half of people. This is a clever idea,but,on the other hand,it is destroying the possibility to obtain a proper earn living for some artists ( ).The disruption of an adjacency,sadly,is a feedback or a demonstration of the success of the business.

The opinions of people are absolutely important about this phenomenon,buy maybe a more qualified voice would deserve to be considered: Knut Haanaes is a business strategist who has worked since 2000 for the "Boston Consulting Group" and who has had also some experiences at Stanford University.
In an interesting talk released a year ago,he examined exactly the topic of success for business companies:the attention is stressed on the balance between exploration and exploitation.
Exploration is intended as a long term activity useful for growth and innovation,which implies a higher percentage of risk and gambling and whose final objective is to discover and expand knowledge. Exploitation,on the other hand,is based precisely on the exploitement of already known things,it is not risky and is applied to make something better and more perfect in the short term.
Therefore,businesses which concentrate their efforts just on one of these two points will finish to fail. The right politic,instead,which has to be followed is to try to reach a balance between exploration and exploitation,therefore expanding but guaranteeing at the same time a good quality of the output realised by the business. (A few examples are Lego,which started to work in the film industry,Toyota,thanking to the realisation of the hybrids and Nestle or Nespresso,to name a few of them).
Realizing a balance is not simple and the difficulty is caused by some traps that keep businesses steady:
1 "Perpetual Search Trap" : a business discover a lucrative idea but,because of a lack of patience,not receiving satisfying feedbacks,it decides to move into other discoveries. Good ideas needs,at least,10-15 years to grow and show profits. The business will continue to change,following the principle of exploration,but developing a frustration that will lead to bad results.
2 "Success trap" : as B.Gates declared once:" Success is a lousy teacher,it seduces us into thinking we can not fail". In our case,a business find an attractive idea,receive a great response by the market and become fixed on that,"sinking" with it when it will be obsolete.
Finally,to avoid these traps,Haanaes suggests to be patient,be sceptical of success and encourages innovation and challenge. Challenge is deeply related to "disruption".
Every business would try to make a step longer than that made by the previous ones and the consequences would be not only economically positive for the business itself but for the development of technologies for all the world.

In conclusion,I believe that disruption,as the article states,is a necessary process,a step which must be done for the development of business,althougph it could be negative for the adjacency. I would add that,trying to analyse the phenomenon from another point of view,it is essential and positive for the growth of society.
As a matter of fact,thanking to these challenges,technologies are moving further making the growth exponential,representing a benefit for the world.
A good point that should be evaluated,instead,would be to try to diffuse some businesses in poor areas of the world with a lack of services,focusing so,not simply on the disruption by the creation of competitive differentials,but also on other geographical areas. The benefit in this case would be to bring services now avalaible only for one third of the world to poor states.
Best regards
Riccardo Maselli

Hello everybody, I'm a nearly-graduate student of Electronic and Telecommunications Engineering at Poliba.

Mr. Marenco, thank you very much for this beautiful opportunity, it would be a pleasure and a privilege to participate and to observe from the inside such a stimulating environment. Yesterday afternoon, the stories of the guys were so inspiring!

Now, about the article, I'd like to underline an aspect that relate some of the mentioned examples, in my opinion. In some cases, the disruptive process is exasperated by the behavior of the companies that lead the market:

  • they are afraid of introducing revolutionary products and services, maybe losing their dominant position
  • they don’t want to change the market because of interests in exploitation of a particular resource or knowhow
  • their attempts to innovate are weak because they use traditional media

For example, think about the decline of the SMS messaging system: with the developing of TLC technologies and internet, it is pretty obvious that the ‘price per information’ ratio is way bigger compared to the internet service. Still today, at least in Italy, telco companies try very hard to resist to this trend, and persist to introduce many SMS and little internet traffic in their subscriptions.

Another noticeable example is the rise of electric car, embodied by Tesla. Now, it’s maybe ten or more years that this is a relevant topic, but companies that lead the automotive market (such as German or European companies) deliberately decelerated this sector: they have proposed ‘hybrid cars’, with not so good performances and very expensive. Without talking about lobbies and ‘conspiracy theories’, clearly the reasons have to be found in the necessity of exploitation of oil resources and in the fact that relevant companies have to start their developing and industrial process nearly from the scratch losing their knowhow and their dominant position.

Another case: Netflix and content streaming. Think about the difference with some Italian provider and services such as Sky (satellite broadcasting, Sky Go, My Sky) and Mediaset (DTT, Infinity). Sure, they addressed towards the ‘on demand’ philosophy, but using traditional media and technologies. Compared to Netflix, their competitor services of content streaming are mediocre: the quality of viewing and content, and applications on various platform are way better on Netflix. Moreover, it integrates a smart feature: an innovative movie recommendation algorithm.  

In conclusion, in my opinion to make a change and grab a slice of the market, it would be an option to observe a sector in which companies (also big companies) are experimenting weak innovations, making it the center of the business, using innovative instruments and not being afraid to disrupt the business to make a new one.

Like we said yesterday, this is the philosophy of the Silicon Valley: to make a change, to make a difference.

Guys, I’d like to hear your opinion, feel free to comment.







© 2018   Created by Nicolò Borghi.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service