It is always the same story: ideas are not the most crucial part, execution is…

Apparently the main problem for companies are to go from creativity to innovation, whereas I thought (before having any professional experience) that it was the lack of ideas, at least in big structures.

I really advise you this book, it makes a perfect list of “wrong” business decisions when innovating, giving examples. And it is clear that the most obvious mistakes are still made when it comes to innovation; notably trying to avoid risks at all costs which in the end minimizes the chance of payback.

“The making of the invention and the carrying out of innovation are, economically and sociologically, two entirely different things. They may, and often have been, performed by the same person; but this is merely a chance coincidence which does not affect the validity of the distinction. Personal attitudes—primarily intellectual in the case of the inventor, primarily volitional in the case of the businessman who turns the invention into an innovation—and the methods by which the one and the other work, belong to different spheres” (source: Schumpeter, 1939)

So in his (and my) view, innovation is the commercialisation of an invention, not the invention alone. So, TiVo’s partnership with companies like Thomson and Philips is part of the innovation process as well, as it brings an technology to the market. But that’s merely semantics.

Incidentally if people are wondering why its so quiet on this site, people all over are having exams. Big student-readership here, I guess.

Intel controls everything from R&D (4bn per year) to commercialization, but I speak about microprocessors, it does not include software, you are right Vincent.

For TiVo I did not know about the partners, but I think that they arrived when the product was already realized; it was such an innovation that TiVo did all by itself; it seems that they invest so much in support costs to educate customers that they will never achieve payback, even if the product is a huge success in terms of penetration now.

Thanks guys for participating, you will both have your free beer!

Tivo, I, like many Europeans, am not so familiar with. But some research revealed that it’s a software and that they partner with technology and media-companies. So licensing.

So what about Intel and TiVo?

Regarding iTunes, you can look at it on different levels. Regarding the “code,” a purchase was involved, so integration. Regarding the codecs used (AAC. etc.), it’s licensing (though no fees are paid), as that’s a group-standard. I’m not sure how the distribution works, but I can see some outsourcing, aka orchestration, going on there.

For the medical industry, you are right Fidji. It is one of the oldest industries to use licensing, which makes sense as there’s a very strong tradition of duality - one side creates, the other markets.

I will give all the answers tonight.

Concerning the end of your comment, actually I have read that medical companies are really in advance concerning the use of licensing.

iPod - hiring a consultant (it was just in the economist)
iTunes - I used to know… need my coffee. But Apple does nearly nothing inhouse, it’s like Nike, so I would again guess working with an external party
AIBO - inhouse? Strange, because I played with a gen 1 or 2 when I worked at Sony. But it sounds like something Sony would do.
Dolby - I know Lucasarts had something to do with it, so I would guess partnerships.
Intel - acquisitions and in-house?
TiVo - licensing?

All guesses, no research, so pardon any stupidity.

Licensing is a mechanism that is very popular with patents and universities, and more evolved in the US. Much much less here, though I interviewed a medical incubator in the Netherlands where they were pretty good at it.