Biometric adoption needs to speed up to exploit the digital bonanza

The idea of biometric identification is not new, though to realise the full benefits of the digital economy, adoption needs to increase and move away from hardware.

Speaking at AfricaCom, Barbara Iyayi, Chief Growth Officer for Element, didn’t so much attempt to justify biometric identification and authentication, but pushed for wider and more rapid adoption. As a disclaimer, it should be worth noting that Iyayi is pitching the case for her business to make more money, but there were a few useful points to be taken away from the presentation.

First of all, let’s set the scene. The world is becoming increasingly digital and companies are spending less time in front of their customers. This of course has its benefits, but at the same time a connection is lost with the customer. This connection not only depersonalises the situation, but also makes it difficult to track customers. As Iyayi pointed out, if you don’t know who your customer is, you’re in a pretty weak position.

This is not a new point, but occasionally it is worth restating the obvious. There are of course various means to identify and authenticate customers, however, there isn’t a perfect scenario right now. Some of the ways in which customers are being identified and authenticated is through the SIM or social media accounts. And here is the issue, neither of these routes are immune from abuse. If your SIM has been used to authenticate, losing your phone could mean losing your digital life, while social media accounts are all too easy to fake; we’ve all watched an episode or two of Catfish.

This is where biometrics are increasingly playing a role. Every new phone can now be unlocked by facial recognition or the users finger print, which is specific to that individual, but this is local to the device. The identifiers are locked into the hardware and not transportable to other areas of the digital economy. Iyayi’s pitch for her business is on the software side of things, removing the authentication from devices and creating interoperability throughout the entire digital economy. Again, it is worth noting this was essentially a sales pitch at the conference, though that shouldn’t take away from a very valid point.

Digital profiles are already being created dependent on the services you use online, your financial and employment histories and also your interests. However, without linking these profiles back to an individual, the system is open to abuse, and the accelerated value of the digital economy cannot be realised. This is where biometrics, in a software world, can play a role.

It is a simple idea, though adoption might not be as high as some would hope. The other issue which needs to be addressed is user acceptance of biometric identification and authentication. While Iyaya played down any resistance to the technology, we’re not as convinced. Digital natives might well be open to biometrics, which is of course promising for the future, but what about the generations who existed before the always-connected era. Perhaps anyone from the age of 40 upwards would be sceptical about such a scheme. It is more invasive that identifiers of previous generations, and there will of course be Big Brother conspiracy theorists out there…

Stories from some of the more freedom-adverse countries such as China will not help. Here, the government has been collecting identification data on individuals for what most would only assume are monitoring ambitions, though India has also been attempting to build its own database for less nefarious reasons. Some generations might be sceptical, though the same could have been said about texting taking over as the defacto means of communicating. As the younger generations get older, such ideas are adopted as the norm.

This will probably be the case for biometric identification and authentication. Soon enough, biometrics will penetrate such areas as payments, though for this to happen there needs to be more openness. Iyayi is right, biometrics are crucially important for the digital economy to reach the promised peaks.

We should be regulating AI, but no-one really knows how

A conundrum which has existed throughout the life of the technology and telco industry around the perfect balance between innovation and regulation.

From a technologists perspective, the question is a simple one to answer; don’t pin us back with red-tape, allow us to explore new ideas with complete and utter freedom. However, with technology becoming increasingly invasive, most sensible people would suggest there is a need to build a rulebook.

One of the main issues with regulation is the strength and depth. Striking the right balance between freedom and guidelines is an incredibly difficult task. Where the lines should be drawn is an answer which will vary dependent on who you speak to, as will the flexibility of these lines. And then of course you have the pace of change. Technology is constantly years ahead of regulation, so is it even a reasonable objective to attempt to achieve.

And then you have artificial intelligence. A technology which has great promise and is advancing faster than anything before it, but risks stripping people of their livelihoods, invading individuals privacy and compounding inherent human bias because written code. This is an incredibly complicated field, and when asked the question whether AI should be regulated, lawyers from Webber Wentzel gave a resounding yes.

Speaking to Webber Wentzel CIO Warren Hero after his presentation at AfricaCom, the issue with regulating AI is simply down to a lack of understanding and a non-existent conversation between the stakeholders in the industry. To build a reasonable legislative and regulatory foundation for AI, technologists, governments and consumer-interest representatives should all be sat around a table and contributing, but they simply aren’t.

Part of this is down to the on-going conflict between industry and red-tapers, but another factor to consider is understanding the technology itself.

“The ability to make a decision is based on the understanding of a concept,” said Hero. “Not enough people understand AI.”

Hero is 100% correct. Such a miniscule proportion of the population understand AI to the degree needed to make any decisions on the future of the technology making it is an almost impossible task. For AI to succeed, there will of course need to be rules to ensure responsible development, though there will also have to be freedoms granted. As we mentioned before, finding this balance is not simple and will require a deep understanding of the technology itself.

The issue which many governments are facing, according to Hero, is attempting to legislate and regulate in the same way governments have for generations. This might not sound terrible, but the digital economy is unlike anything which has come before, and AI presents a completely different dynamic.

Looking at the digital economy first and foremost, this is an area where technologies can continue to scale constantly. The virtual world offers no barriers, just take a look at the cloud computing segment. These companies are already incredibly influential, but how many of the worlds processes have been moved to the cloud. 10%? 5%? Less? The room for growth is exceptional, and should be treated differently to business segments of the past.

Now onto the AI arena specifically. While there are countless companies around the world who consider themselves experts in the AI world, in reality there are only a handful who dominate the space and have the scale to enforce genuine change. The likes of Google, Amazon and Microsoft has created such a strong position at the top of the ecosystem, it will be almost impossible to break the vice-like grip. This concentration, and inevitable continuation, of power is unlike anything which has been seen before.

For both of these reasons, AI (and digital in general) has to be regulated in a different manner. The trend of building new regulations and legislation on top of existing foundations will not create an environment which is healthy for the industry or the consumer.

In short, yes, AI needs to be regulated, but at the moment, there isn’t the breadth and depth of brainpower capable of doing it.

Xiaomi the difference: Chinese smart device maker vows to disrupt UK market

Xiaomi launched Mi 8 Pro, the first time it has unveiled new products outside of Greater China, a sign of its ambition to expand in more mature markets.

At a Hollywoodian event (as almost all smartphone launches are nowadays) in Barbican Centre on Thursday, Xiaomi became the latest Chinese smartphone maker to introduce their latest products in London, following recent launches by Huawei and OnePlus. The company unveiled Mi 8 Pro, an upgrade version of its Mi 8 model launched earlier in China.

After registering impressive growth in India and other markets in Asia, as well as consolidating its position in China, Xiaomi, like some other Chinese brands, is eyeing the mature markets for new growth. Western Europe is an attractive option as the market is not flooded with hundreds of smartphone brands as in India and China, and there is a sizeable open market that is easier for new brands to set a foot in instead of having to crack the carrier market as in the US.

“Today we witness a new chapter in Xiaomi’s global expansion journey, underpinned by our global ambitions. We are thrilled to make great strides by announcing our arrival in the UK,” said Wang Xiang, Senior Vice President of Xiaomi Corporation.” By bringing a range of our amazing products at honest pricing we want to offer more choices and let everyone in the UK enjoy a connected simple life through our innovative technology.”

The newly launched Mi 8Pro and its predecessor share exactly the same hardware and software, powered by Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 845 CPU, 6.21” AMOLED display (yes, need to go to the second decimal digit), 8GB RAM and 128GB onboard memory,12MP+12MP AI dual camera on the back, and 20MP selfie camera, Dual 4G SIM, Dual frequency GPS (to minimise coverage dead zones, like near tall buildings), infra-red facial recognition (to unlock with facial ID in the dark).

On the software side, Xiaomi overlayed a light MIUI skin on top of the latest Android release, plus a couple of its own preloaded apps (browser, messaging, etc.). Presumably the main point is not how many people will use its apps but rather to gather usage data. The Xiaomi executives did stress the number of active MIUI users in the world and in Europe (its products are already being sold in Spain, Italy, and France). It has also preloaded a MS Office suite, one of the first offers Microsoft made to the Android ecosystem back in 2016.

Under the spotlight was its photography technologies including the so-called “4-in-1” super-pixel, that is combining 4 pixels into 1 to take in more light, therefore to capture more details even in low light environment. Also being boasted is the speed the phone focuses (using the so-called Double Pixel Auto Focus, DPAF, technology, demonstrated in a video as faster than both the iPhone XS and the Samsung S9+). Nowadays, no presentation of smartphone cameras is complete without talking AI, and Xiaomi is no exception. The main talking point here was on the analytics capability to separate foreground from background, making post-shot processing easier.

The only genuine upgrade the Mi 8 Pro offers over the Mi 8 looks to be the fingerprint reader. It is at the back of the phone on the Mi 8, but is upgraded to on-screen reader on the Mi 8 Pro.

All the bells and whistles aside, what Xiaomi most wanted is to stand out in two areas: design and price. It is clearly successful in one, maybe less so in the other. Xiaomi claimed to go down the minimalist route for its design, claiming that it was inspired by the exhibits at the Helsinki Design Museum. It even got the director of the museum to go on video to endorse an earlier product. But what it got to show its innovative design on the new product is a transparent back-cover where the upper part of the inside of the phone is visible. But to those of us old enough to remember the 1990s, this is more a retro than inno. Swatch’s Skeleton series, anyone?

Xiaomi Mi 8 Pro_Front resized Xiaomi Mi 8 Pro_back resized

But when it comes to pricing the strategy is much bolder and more likely to succeed. Xiaomi broke through in the device market in China in 2011 by offering smartphones with decent specs at a very affordable price. This strategy has carried them through ups and downs all the way to London. The Mi 8 Pro will be retailed at £499.99. This is vastly lower than other smartphones with comparable hardware specs. Xiaomi is clearly targeted at the so-called “affordable premium” segment.

On the distribution side, Xiaomi started in China exclusively using online distribution channels. There have been followers with mixed success, but at the same Xiaomi is also diversifying to brick-and-mortar retail outlets in markets like India, Malaysia. Xiaomi also aims at a mixed channel strategy in the UK, it opens its own online shopping channel, getting online and offline channel partners (Amazon, Currys, Carphone Warehouse, Argo, John Lewis, etc.) on board, as well as opening its own authorised retailer in southwest London on 18 November. It also tied a partnership with 3UK, though Xiaomi executives would not tell more details of the terms or the packages 3 plans to offer.

Also introduced to the UK market at the event are a smart wristband (Mi Band 3, main feature being its display larger than previous generations) and an electric scooter, to deliver the “ecosystem” story—the executive stressed Xiaomi is more than a smartphone company. On display in the experience area were also smart speakers, set-top boxes, smart kettle, and smart scale.

Our overall feeling is that, the Mi 8 Pro smartphone is decent but not fantastic. However the price point Xiaomi sets it on is disruptive. This strategy has worked for the company in China and other Asian and European market, taking them to commendable market positions and financial success. It may stand a chance.

Xiaomi event pic2

What to bin and what to keep; the big data conundrum

Figuring out what is valuable data and binning the rest has been a challenge for the telco industry, but here’s an interesting dilemma; how do you know the unknown value of data for the usecases of tomorrow?

This was broadly one of the topics of conversation at Light Reading’s Software Defined Operations & the Autonomous Network event in London. Everyone in the industry knows that data is going to be a big thing, but the influx of questions are almost overwhelming as the number of data sets available.

“90% of the data we collect is useless 90% of the time,” said Tom Griffin of Sevone.

This opens the floodgates of questions. Why do you want to collect certain data sets? How frequently are you going to collect the data? Where is it going to be stored? What are the regulatory requirements? How in-depth does the data need to be for the desired use? What do you do with the redundant data? Will it still be redundant in the future? What is the consequence of binning data which might become valuable in the future? How long do you keep information for with the hope it will one day become useful?

For all the promise of data analytics and artificial intelligence in the industry, the telcos have barely stepped off the starting block. For Griffin and John Clowers of Cisco, identifying the specific usecase is key. While this might sound very obvious, it’s amazing how many people are still floundering, but once this has been identified machine learning and artificial intelligence become critically important.

As Clowers pointed out, with ML and AI data can be analysed in near real-time as it is collected, assigned to the right storage environment (public, private or traditional dependent on regulatory requirements) and then onto the right data lakes or ponds (dependent on the purpose for collecting the data in the first place). With the right algorithms in place, the process of classifying and storing information can be automated, freeing up the time of the engineers to add value, though it also keeps an eye on costs. With the sheer volume of information being collected increasing very quickly, storage costs could rise rapidly.

And this is below the 5G and IoT trends have really kicked in. If telcos are struggling with the data demands of today, how are they going to cope with the tsunami of information which is almost guaranteed in tomorrow’s digital economy.

Which brings us back to the original point. If you have to be selective with the information which you keep, how do you know what information will be valuable for the usecases of tomorrow? And what will be the cost of not having this data?

Softbank is now more of a VC than a telco group

Back in 2016 when Softbank CEO Masayoshi Son announced plans for the $100 billion Vision Fund it looks like a ludicrous plan, but with such incredible growth perhaps we should ask whether Son has been missing his calling for decades.

Looking at the financials for the first half of 2018, the most interesting story aspect is linked back to the Softbank Vision Fund (SVF) and Delta Fund (DF) investment bodies. Over the first six months, net sales for the Softbank Group came in at roughly $41 billion, with the team collecting an operating income of roughly $12.5 billion. The operating income attributable to the SVF and DF is $5.7 billion, roughly 45%.

45% might sound like a good number, but it becomes even more impressive when you consider how the funds are accelerating. In the first three months of 2018, the funds accounted for approximately 33% of operating income, but this ratio increases to 55% when you look at the second quarter alone. As you can see from the table below, the cash being generated by the funds is quickly racking up.

Q3 2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018
Gain on investments for SVF and DF $530 million $860 million 2.18 billion 3.55 billion
Realized gain on investments NA NA NA 1.29 billion
Unrealized gain on valuation of investments $490 million $830 million $2.24 billion $2.27 billion
Interest and dividend from investments $33 million $20 million $12 million $10 million

(Approximate values after currency conversion)

The fund itself, which has come under pressure recently due to involvement from Saudi Arabia, has consistently been consistently questioned by investors, though perhaps monstrous profit is a language which they will be more familiar with. Son has prioritised artificial intelligence in a portfolio which contains investments in Uber, Nvidia, Arm, GM Cruise, Doordash and Compass. The only one which doesn’t really fit into the family is WeWork, a shared office business which would be more comfortable inside a real-estate investment portfolio. That said, few will argue with the results.

Looking at the rest of the business, the story is pretty positive if less glamorous next to these monstrous profits. Total revenues and profits are up in the Softbank telco business, while the net gain on customer subscriptions is up approximately 1.2 million in comparison to the same period of 2017. Churn was also at a healthy 0.93% for the quarter and ARPU is flat. Not a bad return for the period. Sprint in another which is performing surprisingly well. Although subscription numbers are down sequentially, year-on-year Sprint managed to find 520,000 subscriptions from somewhere.

Son’s traditional stomping ground is looking very healthy, though with the acceleration of the VCs you really have to wonder whether the audacious businessman has been in the wrong industry all these years.

Telcos are getting pretty good an impersonal communications

They might be slowly headed in the right direction, but telcos are still not great at relating to customers.

In the pursuit of relevance in the digital economy, personalised experiences are a hot topic, but the telcos are no-where near as good on the delivery front as the internet giants. There are of course many reasons for this, but one of the most apparent is the structure of the organization according to Intent HQ CEO Jonathan Lakin.

Here is the current state of affairs. The telcos have access to the same technology, a tsunami of information on the customer and (in theory) access to the same talent pool as the internet giants. The ingredients for success are on both the telco and OTT work surfaces, suggesting the organization itself is to blame.

The FANG companies are incredibly well-known for personalising experiences for customers. Not only does this create more opportunity to drive revenues, placing the right product in front of the right person at the right time, it creates a tie to the customer. The customer feels heard and has a stronger emotional connection to the brand, ultimately reducing churn. Both are benefits which would be of interest to telcos.

But the issue is structural. Telcos are organized in siloes, each of which is excellent at building an in-depth, narrow image of the customer. Whether it is insight on customer churn, or interaction and product history, the telco can build knowledge of the customer but without combining all of these images personalisation will never be a reality.

A good example is product offerings to customers, and a bugbear of many around the world. Whether it is offering products who have already been purchased, or even ones which might be out of the customers price range, without combining the siloes and making more use of the swathes of information available, personalised messaging will not be achievable.

The other issue for the telcos is that of priorities. Lakin pointed out that the main priority for telcos is profitability, which influences how products are developed and sold, and in turn evolving communication strategies and platforms. This not only creates a nightmare for integration in the IT department, but reinforces the siloes. The customer is sitting down the priority list, which is not going to aid the push towards personalised messaging.

Right now, the structure in not in place to create a personalised messaging culture. The ingredients are all there to create a sumptuous recipe, but the organizations are set up right.

Sky flexes its AI muscles

Artificial intelligence might be the buzzword of 2018, but few actually know what to do with the technology. That said, Sky seems to be surging ahead of the pack.

At the Telco Data Analytics and AI conference in London, an interesting statistic was put to the audience; 60% of the AI R&D spend in the telco industry is being directed towards network optimization. This is certainly a valid quest, though the problem with inward R&D investment is that it won’t prevent the slow wander towards utilitisation. To create value, telcos need to be investing in projects which actually create value, drive diversification and capitalise on new revenues. This is exactly what Sky seems to be doing.

“We have a data liquidity problem,” said Rob McLaughlin, Head of Digital Decisioning and Analytics for Sky UK. “Getting data is not an issue, we get it without trying, it’s about getting value from it.”

It seems the Sky UK team has a lot of ‘nice to have problems’, which demonstrate the effective steps forward the business is making in the intelligence-orientated world. While many telcos are struggling with the basic concepts, Sky is really setting the pace.

Aside from the overwhelming amount of data, McLaughlin complained of the management teams attitude towards artificial intelligence. Here, the team aren’t resisting, but asking for solutions which are overly complex. McLaughlin pointed out the Sky business was missing out on the low-hanging fruit, the simple problems which AI can address, instead the management team is looking for the top-line, super-complex solutions which can bring about revolutionary-change.

As McLaughlin told the audience, this is frustrating, but at least the management team is embracing new concepts and technologies, even if they are trying to run before they can walk. This is arguably a perfect scenario however. Change is led from the top of an organization, and McLaughlin seems to be describing a culture which is desperate to embrace change and create value.

Another interesting point made by McLaughlin was a claim there was no POC.

“We launched these projects at scale from day one,” said McLaughlin. “We didn’t want to do a POC as it was a bit of an insult to our intelligence. Why do they need to test whether data is good for the business?”

This demonstrates the much-hyped fail fast business model which has been employed so effectively by the internet giants. These companies don’t need to prove there is value in personalising services, they just need to make it work. The only way to get the algorithms to work is to get them out in the real world, trained by data, honed by machine learning and real-time experiences. This culture of creating results, not trying to prove perfection, will certainly drive value for Sky.

McLaughlin’s team are implementing AI in four different ways at Sky. Firstly, using customer information to cross sell services and products. Secondly, increasing engagement with products and services customers have already bought. Third, anticipating customer needs and problems, a project which is saving Sky millions in customer services and improving the overall NPS score. Finally, AI is being used in media optimisation to improve the advertising platform.

While these projects are still in the early days, the results are clear according to McLaughlin. NPS has been improving, cost saving are being realised and proactive selling of product through personalisation is increasing. With the cross-selling side, the results are quite remarkable. The success of sales of Sky Sport products are up 57% due to two simple changes. Firstly, putting the product in front of the customer at the right time, Saturday afternoon not Friday night for example, and Secondly, selling the product in the right way. If you know you are engaging a football fan, tell them about the football benefits not Formula One.

“Just crazy we haven’t been doing this for 30 years,” said McLaughlin.

All of these initiatives are built on identity. For McLaughlin this is the most important aspect of any data analytics and AI programme, and receives more attention than anything else. If you cannot identify your customer, it is impossible to personalise services effectively. It seems simple, but it is an aspect which is often overlooked.

“If we have the opportunity to speak to someone, don’t tell them something, treat them as the person the data says they are,” said McLaughlin.

Sky might not have a reputation as an particularly innovative organization, nothing out of the ordinary at least, but this approach to data analytics and artificial intelligence is certainly worth noting. The culture is accepting and proactive, there is an attitude which is geared toward doing, not planning, and the objectives are clearly outlined. McLaughlin might have his frustrations, but if you want an example of an organization which is proving the value of intelligence, you won’t have to look much farther.

Microsoft recognises AI might screw over some employees

Artificial intelligence has been hyped as the technology which will drive profits in the next era, though few in the technology want recognise how painful the technology will be for some segments of society.

The propaganda mission from the technology world was incredibly present at Microsoft’s UK event Future Decoded. Of course, there are benefits from the implementation of AI. Business can be more productive, more intelligent and more proactive, tackling trends ahead of time and gaining an edge on competitors. There is a lot of buzz, but it might just turn out to be justified.

Despite this promise, Microsoft has seemingly done something this morning few other technology companies around the world are brave enough to do; recognise that there will be people screwed by the deployment.

“There is a risk of leaving an entire generation behind,” said Microsoft UK CEO Cindy Rose.

The risk here is the pace of change. While previous generations might have had time to adapt to the impact of next-generation technologies, today’s environment is allowing AI to disrupt the status quo at a much more aggressive pace than ever before. Rose pointed towards the explosive growth of data, pervasiveness of the cloud and much more powerful algorithms, as factors which are accelerating the development and deployment of AI.

One question which should be asked is whether the workforce can be re-educated and reskilled fast enough to ensure society is not being left behind? Yes it can, but Rose stated the UK is not doing enough to keep pace with the disruption.

Looking at statistics which support this statement, Microsoft has released research which found 41% of employees and 37% of business leaders believe older generations will get left behind. Now usually when we talk about older generations and a skills gap, retirees comes to mind. However, those in the late 40s or early 50s could be the more negatively affected. The ability or desire to reskill might not be there due to the individuals entering the final stages of their career before retirement, though the risk of redundancy will be present. How are the people who might be made redundant 3-4 years short of retirement going to be supported? This is a question which has not been answered or even considered by anyone.

To help with imbalance, Microsoft UK has announced the launch of its AI Academy, which is targeted on training 500,000 people on AI skills. This is not just a scheme which is aimed at developers, but also IT professionals, those at risk of job loss and executives in both the business and public sector world.

As the technology industry has pointed out several times, there will be jobs created as part of the AI enthusiasm. But here is the risk, are those who are victims of job displacement suitably qualified to take these jobs? No, they are not. Uber drivers who fall victims to the firms efforts in autonomous driving, or how about the bookmaker who will be made redundant by SAPs powerful accounting software. These are not data scientists or developers, and will not be able to claim a slice of the AI bonanza which is being touted today.

But perhaps the risk has been hyped because there is too much focus on the negative? KPMG’s Head of Digital Disruption Shamus Rae suggested too much attention has been given to the dystopian view of AI, instead of its potential to unlock value and capture new revenues. Comfused.com CEO Louise O’Shea said one way her team implemented AI was to pair technical and non-technical staff to, firstly, allow front line employees to contribute to development and make an application which is actually useful, and secondly remove the fear of the unknown. The technical staff educate the non-technical staff on what the technology means and why it can help.

These are interesting thoughts, and do perhaps blunt the edge of the AI threat somewhat, but there will be those who use AI for purely productivity gains, not the way the industry is selling it. These are not businesses which will survive in the long-term, but they will have a negative impact on employees and society in the short-term. When you are lining up in the dole queue, the promise of an intelligent, cloud-orientated future is little comfort.

Microsoft UK CEO Cindy Rose is right. AI will power the next-generation and create immense value for the economy. But, no-where near enough is being done to help those at risk of job loss to adapt to the new world. The aim here is not to hide the negative with an overwhelming tsunami of benefits, but to minimise the consequences as much as possible. Not enough is being done.

Inward application of tech explains dumb pipe rhetoric

Every telco fears the ‘dump pipe’ label and the push towards commoditisation, but perhaps this trend is being compounded by an inward looking attitude in the application of potentially revolutionary technologies.

This is the conundrum; telcos are missing out on the cash bonanza which is fuelling companies like Facebook and Google, but to keep investors happy, executives are focusing more on improving profitability than replacing lost revenues, such as the voice and SMS cash cows of yesteryear. This might seem like quite a broad sweeping statement, and will not be applicable to every telco, or every department within the telcos, but statement could be proven true at Total Telecom Congress this week.

One panel session caught our attention in particular. Featuring Turk Telecom, Elisa and Swisscom, the topic was the implementation of AI and the ability to capitalize on the potential of the technology. The focus here is on automation, predictive failure detection and improving internal processes such as legal and HR. These are all useful applications of the technology, but will only improve what is already in place.

The final panellist was Google, and this is where the difference could be seen. Google is of course focusing on improving internal processes, but the main focus on artificial intelligence applications is to enhance products and create new services. Spam filters in Gmail is an excellent example, though there are countless others as the Deepmind team spread their influence throughout the organization.

The difference between the two is an inward and outward application of the technology. Telcos are seemingly searching for efficiency, while Google is looking to create more value and products. One will improve profitability of what already exists, the second will capture new revenues and open the business up to new customers. One is safe, the other is adventurous. One will lead a company down a path towards utilitisation, the other will emphasise innovation and expand the business into new markets.

Of course, there are examples of telcos using artificial intelligence to enhance offerings and create new value, but it does appear there is more emphasis on making internal processes more efficient and improving profitability.

This is not to say companies should not look at processes and business models to make a more successful business, but too much of an inward focus will only lead to irrelevance. We’ve mentioned this before, but the telcos seem to be the masters of their own downfall, either through sluggishness or a fear of embracing the unknown, searching for new answers.

The panel session demonstrated the notable difference between the two business segments. The internet players are searching for new value, while telcos seem more interested in protecting themselves. Fortune favours the brave is an old saying, but it is very applicable here.