Running On Fumes

Despite reporting an operating loss of over 1 billion dollars, Nokia managed to pull off a feat to mollify the investors - 1 million Lumia Windows Phone device sales. That’s actually quite a respectable result considering the device has yet to make a showing in markets such as North America and Australia.

But aside from that, Nokia’s future doesn’t appear to be looking any brighter than it was a year ago, in fact maybe it’s even a little bleaker. What Nokia use to have in the market was exclusivity and scale. The tandem of those two factors ultimately led to Nokia’s commanding success. 

Nokia has neither of these two factors today, aside from the exclusivity of being a 100% committed Windows Phone partner, but really that’s only working for Microsoft. The N9 running Meego Harmattan was certainly an exclusive, but with the promised commitment to run full steam with Windows Phone, Meego Harmattan’s potential may never be realised, or at most, a peripheral pursuit. 

Of course, it’s not like Meego Harmattan had a big chance anyway.

And scale, is something Nokia simply can’t obtain given the R&D required to build any good smartphone, especially if you’re Nokia and really trying to deliver with a bang. Nokia’s now signature polycarbonate shell in the N9 and Lumia 800, 900 models is a feat of engineering that simply couldn’t have been achieved if the company had floored it and delivered a tsunami of Windows Phones in generic form factors and hardware variations. 

The only segment where any economy of scale is possible, is in feature phones, once Nokia’s money-reeling gem but now declining precipitously in developed markets. Of course, there’s still money to be made there, and with most cellphone vendors relaying their focus to encompass smartphones 100%, Nokia is really in a position to take full control of the feature phone market. But there’s a reason why the world and the industry is stepping with both feet into the smartphone pool, it’s because not doing so would be committing to a world that will cease to exist in a very short time.

For Nokia, it’s even more crucial than this. As a company undergoing a brand image overhaul, investing excessively into feature phones would do nothing but hamper Nokia’s planned course to become viewed as a forward thinking company. Consumers can’t think of Nokia and see number keypads anymore.

Aside from the fact that Nokia no longer has significant leverage in the development chain to pump their business anymore, there’s also the issue of getting consumers to sign a contract to their phones which run on a platform that hasn’t gained the amount of traction that the company probably thought it would. Aside from getting the nod from reviewers, consumers are yet to see the great value proposition in Windows Phone.

Sure, 1 million sales exhibits promise, but it’s early days. The company has most likely skimmed the piece of market that gravitated towards Nokia in the first place, but from now on, it’s war and Nokia needs to pose some real fight - not only to lure consumers away from the eminent iOS and Android, but also to funnel them away from the other Windows Phone vendors in HTC, LG and Samsung among others.

The latter, an easy task that the company should win, but the former being a spectacularly tall order.

It stands to beg the question of why Nokia didn’t pursue the Android paved path in the first place. I can imagine it being an appealing option, Nokia’s acclaimed hardware quality and design paired with an OS that has solidified its position in the marketplace. It’s always nice to be on a winning team. But Nokia took a risk with Windows Phone, as a consumer I applaud the path they’ve taken, and from Nokia’s vantage, I would’ve done the exact same thing. 

Success in Windows Phone will yield a significantly greater reward that would be irksome to supplant, whereas success with Android would simply be providing another option, as opposed to a different option. 

It’s an uphill climb from here, and by sucking dry their loyal customer base in the first million sales, Nokia is essentially running on fumes. But since when is business not an uphill battle?  Build beautiful things, make sure people know about it and you can’t really go wrong. 

Also on A Pony For President

Apple and Foxconn's Working Conditions

This is not an issue for Apple, it’s Foxconn’s problem and no consumer electronics company that sources their production to Foxconn can do a thing about it. 

It’s not Apple’s job to make sure that worker conditions in production facilities is acceptable, the fact that the company audits these factories at all is already generous. And, if from the goodness of their own heart (heh, doubt it) Apple really does give the slightest care about worker conditions in China, they’re not in a position to dictate terms. Apple can beg and beseech, but poke the bear and you’re treading on super thin ice.

Apple relies solely on Foxconn to make their nut. The majority of Apple’s supply and manufacturing, as with many other consumer electronics companies, is sourced to Foxconn. No other company in the world exists that can manufacture to quite the scale, speed and efficiency that Foxconn does. 

Foxconn relies on almost the entire industry to make their nut, so really, Apple, though of course a cash cow of a customer, doesn’t mean nearly as much to Foxconn as Foxconn does to Apple. The Chinese monster knows this, and permits themselves to cut corners and cross moral lines knowing that Apple really isn’t going to do anything about it, aside from throw a few unsubstantial ‘demands’ for better working conditions. It’s all PR.

As long as the company doesn’t significantly attract government attention or that of rights activists, Foxconn really does have the freedom to hire as many under-age workers as they want, have as many 12 hour workers as they want, and ignore as many safety regulations as they want. Chi-ching. Money, money, more money.

Even then Foxconn has the Chinese government in a strangle hold too, why would the Chinese government dare hamper the growth of such a lucrative corporate gem? They’re probably sitting there in their spin around chairs going, ‘Dayum our economy good’. And who’s to blame them, their economyis good.

To point fingers at Apple, or Sony or Dell or Microsoft as acting immorally and permitting torturous slave like conditions in Foxconn is akin to blaming your professor for poor grades, not their problem.

They’ve done their job, Apple has done their job in R&D, their job is to dream the ideas and create beautiful products for an end user. Foxconn’s job is to make it, and all the unfair blood, pain and suffering that goes into the birth of an Apple product is weighted on the manufacturing side of things.

Don’t blame Apple, blame Foxconn, it’s their job and they’re the ones doing it wrong. They’re the ones acting immorally on so many different fronts, not only by providing abysmal worker conditions but by abusing their monopoly position to permit themselves to do it even more.

Foxconn has a history of issues, a mainstay in which was the fourteen suicides in late 2010. The company resolved the problem by installing suicide prevention netting, like that was totally attacking the source of the problem. Not only does it show that Foxconn doesn’t get the staggering effect of their actions, but that they simply don’t care. 

But that’s business, and that’s capitalism. When someone makes some killer cash, somebody has to be on the other end of the trigger. When we look for something that is both awesome and affordable, and seek the best of everything, somebody has to end up with nothing.

The world is full of compromises, all we’re doing is shifting them, playing with the economics of life. I’ll just drop by my carrier store and get an iPhone that doesn’t quite burn the bank, while you, get no iPhone and pay for my cash savings through your weary eyes, swollen leg and back pains. 

The worst thing is, we’re all just like each other, I’m just like everyone else. While I do care about the workers, when its buying time I’ll do everything to nail that Mac at the best price possible.  

It doesn’t have to be this way though, Foxconn just needs to show a little heart. But shit, who am I kidding, it’s all money and vested interest.


Also on A Pony For President

Sony's big opportunity

CES 2012 has come and gone and if there was one thing that really stood out, it was perhaps surprisingly the smart TV and what it means as companies work harder to integrate their sparse hardware offerings. Samsung impressed, but Sony, of all the exhibitors at CES demonstrated the cuts to make this ecosystem thing really happen.

Samsung on the most superficial level was the ecosystem warrior at CES 2012, making a noise about its television sales numbers, which are objectively impressive and their focused strategy consisting of the three verticals - content, service and connectivity. With the reach of Samsung's TV user base, the reach of its enormous smartphone user base and the reach the company obtains by providing not only consumer electronics but home appliances, Samsung, in every possible way appears set to take the ecosystem war against Apple by storm.

By not conforming to the Google TV bandwagon, Samsung are playing their chances on the TV revolution alone. With a thriving developer community, popular smart TV platform and a successful consumer electronics business to leverage, why wouldn't they? Well because Samsung along with most of the industry are wrong about the Smart TV, and only Sony seems to get it.

Let's back up a little. Televisions are simply not like smartphones, and therefore applying the same principles that have made the smartphone a raging success simply won't work. Smartphones and the app approach have been a ground breaking success simply because smart, simple, streamlined apps are what's necessary to achieve anything when on the go. Minimise the number of button presses as possible, make things as simple, quick and engaging as possible and you have a big winner.

Do any of these values apply to television? Sure.

Sure it would preferable to have smart, simple and streamlined television apps, but looking at the broader picture, is apps really what's going to drive the TV revolution forward? To put it bluntly, no. Unlike mobile where things need to be snappy and fast, television is lazy and passive. Television is about content consumption, not content creation or content engagement. Although apps will be a hit gimmick sell, television will always be about consuming content - an area that Samsung simply isn't addressing with nearly enough punch and where Sony is flying high and mighty.

Sony Entertainment Network, a major talking point at Sony's press event may very well be Sony's big break. With significant leverage from the company's Playstation products, and the foundations of Android and Google TV rooted into its latest products, the company has the groundwork to make the content ecosystem its own.

The addition of cross-platform support in Sony Entertainment Network will not only allow the company to deliver highly compelling tablets, smartphones and connected products, but with SEN's unique placement as a single unified source for entertainment, Sony has the potential to turn its entertainment network into a cash cow.

Despite Samsung's breadth and sales, why Samsung isn't poised to take advantage of the TV revolution as well as Sony is, is simply because Samsung is placing too much of their efforts in their own hands. By developing every single facet of its own Smart TV and trying to be the be all, end all approach, the company can't use those same resources towards what really matters - deliver a truly compelling content delivery system.

Sony on the other hand, are taking advantage of Google's already established Google TV platform to gain them instantaneously what Samsung are working so hard to maintain whilst placing their own efforts into delivering an unsurpassed content platform with the deep cross device integration that the Japanese company promises.

Speaking from my own personal vantage, the ecosystem has always been something desirable, yet something I can never really obtain given the fickle nature of my technology desires. I own a Vaio PC, yet also own a Mac. I own a Windows Phone, yet use a Blackberry Playbook for my tablet needs. Hence, I've never had the coveted opportunity to be truly invested in any ecosystem.

iTunes never stuck with me because despite owning a Mac and a PC, my distinct lack of Apple mobile products eliminated much of iTunes' value proposition (besides, I'm more a fan of streaming). I trialled Zune Pass for 14 days when I purchased my Windows Phone, I loved the service but the fact that I couldn't use it on my Blackberry Playbook, TV or Walkman didn't prove it to be a worthy investment. The ability to help people like me is Sony's remarkably big opportunity.

No company has thus far delivered a single unified media distribution platform. If Sony plays their cards right, SEN could end up being just that. With support for all Android phones, upcoming support for iPhone and presumably iPad and of course, built in support with all Playstation products, Sony have formed the underpinnings for this master plan.

Deliver the service onto every platform imaginable (Windows Phone, Blackberry, Blackberry QNX, webOS etc...) and Sony have themselves an impossible to say no to, content 'sub-ecosystem' empire. Pair that with the advantages of owning a content studio (Sony Pictures) and it's hard not to envision a phenomenally compelling service.

While Samsung pays lip service to the success of its Smart TV offerings and integrated ecosystem trajectory, the inability to envision the larger picture may eventually have Samsung scrambling into the open arms of Google TV and have companies like Sony reign supreme in the TV revolution simply with their ability to deliver what it's really all about - content.

TECHGEEK.com.au - Windows Phone 7 is far from dead

Check out my article on TECHGEEK.com.au in response to 'Is Windows Phone's Consumer Focus Killing It?' published on Wired Epicenter.

"Wired Epicenter recently published an article on Windows Phone titled 'Is Windows Phone's Consumer Focus Killing It?' It's certainly reasonable to propose that the consumer focus is a reason for Windows Phone's less than spectacular adoption, but to say that Microsoft's will to satisfy the end consumers to the highest degree possible will be a prominent cause in the platform's possible demise is pushing it much too far.

That's obviously not to plainly suggest that Microsoft taking a very Apple-like approach with smartphones isn't holding them back even slightly. It's a large reason for Windows Phone's general lack of awareness amongst phone shoppers, and the obvious lack of sparkle in Microsoft's Windows Phone lineup. Unlike Google with its Android operating system, Microsoft places strict hardware guidelines on manufacturers developing Windows Phones. OEMs are not permitted to have a screen resolution that is beyond or below 800 X 480 and processor requirements remain particularly strict and unmoving..."

Open sourcing webOS changes nothing

A couple of months after the company announced the death of webOS, HP's new CEO Meg Whitman has thrown the OS a lifeline in the form of the open source community. The greatest takeaway from this announcement is the fact that webOS is not dead. It's now vastly in the hands of passionate developers to build upon and improve efficiently whilst being freely distributed for anyone to use.

From the outset, we couldn't have possibly gotten it better, open source developers as a collective can make changes and improvements much more quickly and efficiently than the vast bureaucratic corporate structure of HP ever could. And speaking from a consumer's own vantage, we have another free operating system to contribute to the highly valued element of choice. As well as being a free operating system, webOS exhibits polish, the kind of quality you'd generally expect to pay for.

Looking past the thin veil of optimism, none of this changes the fact that HP webOS failed tremendously, such to the point that it was actually dead for a period of time. It doesn't change the fact that there is yet to be any worthy complementing hardware for webOS and in no way does it contribute to the operating system's relatively minute app developer community. It offers no succour for the fact that iOS, Android and even Windows Phone already have significant market share to leverage whilst webOS has virtually none to boot. Most importantly, it doesn't change the fact that HP is still yet to find any significant value proposition in webOS to gain hardware partners.

It's quite clear that keeping webOS as a proprietary OS in the hands of HP was no longer a viable option. The fledgling operating system was already skating on thin ice even before HP's immense Touchpad failure, and the heat of the competition from Apple and Google was slowly melting away at HP's chances of even minor success. The Touchpad, as the inaugural HP/webOS tablet had to be pretty darn good, but it wasn't.

I've always believed that it takes multiple subsequent impressions to eliminate the sentiments from a single first impression, and HP's first efforts at a truly mobile operating system in webOS left consumers and pundits with a sour sour taste. It would take the bare minimum of two years to manufacture sufficient subsequent efforts to try and clean the taste, and even then, imminent slow sales could hamper the webOS image even further and render the $1.2 billion acquisition essentially worthless. It would be too risky. Leo Apotheker wasn't completely out of his mind to cancel HP's webOS project altogether.

So, as much as persevering with webOS would have been a desirable trajectory, the plan was ultimately destined for failure. HP had various other options including licensing and selling the operating system off. Both these options I believe would have been higher on HP's priority list given their capabilities of monetization. But licensing was always an unreachable dream given the free availability of an operating system in Android with a lot more to offer, and there simply isn't a discernible target market large enough for those hardware manufacturers wanting webOS purely for diversity. To add insult to injury, clearly nobody was interested in buying webOS from HP.

By the looks of it, open sourcing was just a last resort for an HP that had completely run out of ideas. They couldn't make it work for themselves, they couldn't license it, they couldn't sell it so they've decided simply give it away.

HP is a profit-seeking corporation, they certainly wouldn't want to open source and wouldn't have made the decision had they not be in a position that forced it. The soul reason that Google voluntarily open-sources Android is because they have an ecosystem to tie users into so they can profit from users consequentially by putting their services into as many hands as possible.

All HP has is a lonesome operating system, tied into an ecosystem with little value, and no web services aside from a fairly deserted sandpit of an app store attached to it. Open sourcing doesn't cater to HP's personal vantage aside from the distant goal that perhaps they could capitalise on webOS in any way in the future if it ever gains any traction - but that's a far-fetched dream with various apples and green robots obstructing the path to the gold medallion.

Despite the aura of optimism and excitement shrowding the open sourcing of webOS, webOS is still in a poor position to compete. I hate to be the pessimist, in fact, I'm usually the optimist - I believed for a long time that if Sony played it right they could compete against Apple's iPod, I still believe that RIM can get right back into the smartphone game and I believed that HP had a shot at tablet market share if the Touchpad hadn't been a year out of date.

webOS has polish, it has a clean interface, it works darn well but that's not enough for a world so invested in apps, content and cross device integration. HP's open source plan will maintain webOS as a niche platform for a community of passionate webOS die-hards, but it will never find the mainstream traction HP were hoping for simply because it doesn't have the ecosystem lever that companies like Google, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft possess.

Carrier IQ isn't tracking you, it's helping you

With a class action lawsuit and the whole world against them, Carrier IQ have found themselves in a place they never thought they'd be in - a target for litigation with the torch of the public eye shining right in their faces.

Trevor Eckhart, a 25 year old man from Connecticut discovered a mysterious piece of software by the name of 'IQRD' installed on his HTC Android smartphone. It wasn't seen in his running programs list in task manager, but it was always running, and virtually impossible to stop. Through investigation, Eckhart discovered that this humble little software was capable of much more than any other application on his phone. It could see what he was doing.

Carrier IQ has software installed on almost 150 million phones, software which has the capability of tracking your every activity - your keystrokes, your text messages, your calls and even your browsing history. The company didn't do themselves any favours by sending a cease and desist letter to Eckhart. After all, telling someone to shut up, albeit in a orderly and business-like manner isn't too different from telling the rest of the world that you have something very sinister to hide. But this ill-informed perception multiplied by the sensationalist media is quite contrary to reality, Carrier IQ have nothing to hide. And surely nothing sinister to hide.

The whole scandal has been in most part an enormous public relations disaster, with what is genuinely a small issue being blow exponentially out of proportion. The phrase 'your phone is tracking you' has an unnecessarily dire ring to it and unsurprisingly it's been a phrase that the media has overused countless times throughout the duration of this scandal. The truth is, even though your phone is capable of tracking your every move, is it really? And to be entirely pragmatic, why would the carrier have even the slightest concern on the content of your text message or browsing history?

Sure, Carrier IQ, along with the carriers may have stumbled into a moral grey area by not clearly informing consumers of the presence of the tracking software on phones. But the basic use case of Carrier IQ's software doesn't deem it as a necessity. Despite the fact that Carrier IQ can see everything you're doing, the software acts a lot like a drug sniffing dog. It sniffs into every nook and cranny but only barks when it finds drugs. Carrier IQ reads everything, but only records abnormal or undesired behaviour - like a dropped call, unloading webpage or a failed text message. The software discards everything else almost as soon as it comes in.

At that, Carrier IQ is really just a mandatory process, another gear in the whole working mechanics of the carriers and your phones. Your carrier contract doesn't inform you that your calls and texts operate by sending signals to satellites and that your phone operates by passing electronic currents through wires and complicated circuit-boards. Why then, would it be necessary to inform users that their phone occasionally picks up abnormal data in order to ultimately better their phone experience? It's just part of the process.

By the hard stencilled writing of the law, the company have potentially acted illegally, breaching federal wire-tapping law. But to what good is the law when it can't account for crucial contextual detail, and in this case Carrier IQ have engaged in unlawful activity but whilst benefiting everyone involved. What they're doing simply isn't a bad thing.

To give the company what they've been handed in the past week is unquestionably unfair. As the world shoots at the company for immoral and unethical behaviour, this destructive negativity itself is in breach of ethics. It's unethical to throw metaphorical faeces at an innocent company simply doing their job.

Nobody's reading your text messages, nobody's looking at your web history, nobody is stalking you. Carrier IQ is helping you, while the media attempts to earn the ad dollars by selling the lopsided hyperbole they're here to write.

It's time that people got a look at the broader picture of the Carrier IQ 'scandal', instead of spreading the word that Carrier IQ is 'tracking you', 'stalking you', 'watching you' and a bunch of other bull excrement that the media put into their mouths. 

The Social Factor

So, what is the social factor? The social factor is a collective term I like to use to describe a service or product that embraces active user engagement. User engagement not in the sense of poking and prodding said item physically, but personal engagement with a product and personal engagement between users. Thus, commenting and reviewing apps and music on iTunes can be coined as a product of the the social factor, communicating with Youtubers in a comment flame war is an element of the social factor and of course Twitter and Facebook among other social networks are examples of the social factor in its purest form - social networking.

The social realm has received a generous ignition recently, with the release of Google's own Google+ service as well as the revealing - not unveiling - of Microsoft's oddly named Socl service. It's a completely different landscape from not too long ago when the heavenly abode of social was occupied almost exclusively by Facebook and Twitter. Myspace was descending precipitously with the accolade of an also-ran.

Fast forward a few years, to now, and for the most part the social realm paints a fairly similar picture when looking at the colours of the raw hard numbers. Facebook dominates the social networking space with upwards of 800 million active users, and Twitter with a user base of more than 100 million still trumps that of a fast growing Google+. That's all not to mention actual user engagement, an aspect that Google+ has struggled to maintain following the pre-release hype.

Numbers don't count for everything though, and despite Facebook's considerable lead, Google+ isn't out of the game, and Microsoft Socl isn't dead on arrival. Far from it.

The term social networking is a particularly deceitful monicker given the image that most people have of what a social network is. To most people, a social network is simply what Facebook is - a platform for interacting with friends, and sharing content with friends. At that, Facebook's greatest value proposition isn't in the service itself, but the users that inhabit it. In such a business where the most effective way to get users, is to have users, anyone attempting to beat Facebook at its own games playing by the same rules will end up with a slap on the face and a disheartening, unsurprising disappointment.

Google+ and Microsoft Socl are both great platforms by their very own merits, they're not trying to be Facebook killers, and if they were, then they would quite literally be throwing an untrained army of 50 million against a heavily armed pack of 800 million. It's not possible. It will never work. It will never happen. Let's talk about Google+, and what this element of social plays for Google.

Jolie O'Dell of Venturebeat published a comprehensive article recounting Google's Bradley Horowitz's views on their very own 'social network', Google+. Initially, I assumed his general carefree aura on the, I wouldn't say failure, but perhaps under-performance, of Google+ could be none more than the typical cavalier executive talk. But, Horowitz revealed a vision for Google+ that not only negated my impulse expectations, but his trajectory for the Google+ was elegant and clever, bringing to light that the social factor has implications far beyond the superficiality of people interaction.

Google+ is all about an online identity, an online persona that we have - a virtual porting of our real selves. When you're able to put yourself into the products and services that you use, the seeming triviality of technology is put into perspective and given context. It transforms technologies that are passive, into an actively intricate emulation of our real social communications and inner selves. Essentially, even if social interactions form the core of what constitutes social networking and the social factor, it's greater purpose is to make technology that much more personal.

You see, it's basic human nature that we hold much more sentimental value to the things that are closest to our hearts. For most non-cyborg human beings, the 'things' that we are most emotionally attached to are the people around us, our friends, our family, our boyfriends, our girlfriends. Sure I'd cry if I dropped my phone off the balcony but I'd cry a heck of a lot harder if my mom died. I have a mate who was driving himself half bonkers because he misplaced a pen his girlfriend had given him despite that fact that there were many smoother and inkier pens lying around.

Taking into account this hierarchy of sentimental importance, it makes sense to integrate our personal lives into our products because it allows for a much greater degree of emotional attachment - a sly, but clever tactic to keep consumers loyal.

Microsoft Socl in many ways aims to pursue this same vision of a more personal technology, however aims to add more practical benefits to this.

I, as many are am a little spacey on the tid-bits and details of Microsoft's 'maybe not even coming into market' social network, after all, the only half-decent look we've had at it was when The Verge was granted some much appreciated hands on time. The interface design is fairly standard, calling upon the three column layout shared by Facebook and Google+. And Microsoft were not very creative with the colour scheme either with an eerily similar blue to that of Facebook's, though with a slightly lighter and perhaps more pleasant tinge.

A stand out feature though was something dubbed 'social search'. No, it's far from a revelation, but it shows what social is capable of, and why social is so important to completing a product ecosystem. Social search simply allows your friends to see the queries that you throw at search engines, with the hope that they'll be able to chip in too.

As experience should teach us, it's much easier to extract information out of knowledgeable humans than a knowledgeable website. Hence why we have teachers in classrooms as opposed to a Google homepage. With social search, a Microsoft Bing search has potential to provide better results than a Google search.

What's more, for Microsoft, social search finally allows them to put that tortured little Bing to good use, and as a moral boost, Microsoft can finally start telling people that their foray into search wasn't completely absent of fruits. Microsoft have reiterated that search is an important field that they needed to be involved in, and social search certainly does give it something to show for - a fully integrated Microsoft experience. Without Google. And social search gives Microsoft's Bing a reason to be, because currently, aside from the flashy backdrop of good photography - which, let's be honest is only remotely interesting for those who don't know what they're searching for before they arrive at Bing - Google's a better bet anyway.

The social factor is inarguably invaluable in providing a good ecosystem. Apple tried and failed with iTunes Ping, which demonstrates that even Apple is aware of the capabilities that the emotional and personal attachments of social can have on a consumer.

Aside from providing an online identity as Google+ aims to provide, Google+ unifies Google's too-many-laned highway of products into a flowing single vertical. By having a basic identity tied into all that Google provides, it allows the consumer to act as an umbrella over all the Google services they use and leaves them less chance to drop one, forgotten in the rain. It gives the user more control. Furthermore, Socl social search exemplifies the single greatest thing about the social factor by allowing a company to tap into their single greatest asset - the users themselves. 

How to win in television

As a backdrop to the all too common mobile device war, TVs are starting to capture the attention of technology enthusiasts with the rumours of an Apple television set possibly appearing sometime in 2013. The recently unveiled biography of Steve Jobs has revealed a vague trajectory of Apple's plans in an entrance to the television market. In the meantime, Sony warned investors a fortnight ago of an imminent 2.2 billion dollar loss on its bleeding television business, making it the fourth consecutive year in which Sony's television division has remained unprofitable.

There's a powerful demarcation to be made here - why would investors and pundits be potentially excited over the notion of Apple television when Sony, a long time and trusted manufacturer in this business isn't even capable of hauling in a profit themselves? Most of us, would have never pictured Apple building their very own in house television set, the Apple TV always looked about as far as they would be willing to dip their toes into the deep television pond. The deep television pond infested by manufacturers willing to reap the slimmest margins to undercut competitors.

You see, that's the biggest problem with the television business for Apple, and even Sony, - it's heavily commoditised and highly competitive. With its vast manufacturing scale and supply chains, Samsung is more capable than most other manufacturers of profiting from television, and even their performance remains modest at best. 

Apple as a newcomer to the competition couldn't possibly expect to be able to develop in-house and manufacture quality televisions at the same scale as Samsung or even Sony and be able to deliver an affordable product to the end consumer. On the flip side of the coin, if Apple were to outsource production and buy flat panels from existing manufacturers - like Samsung - then they wouldn't exactly be innovating with their product would they, which by all accounts would most likely oppose Apple's ethic entirely.

Television is a business where it's very hard to differentiate or maintain an exclusive, Sony's Phil Molyneux even criticised the nature of television labelling this monotonous line of similar products as the 'sea of sameness'. Given product differentiation is so difficult to achieve, price differentiation is the only remaining resort, turning television into the bleeding, painful and low margin business that it is today.

Apple doesn't like playing the game that way. Historically speaking, Apple enjoys exclusivity around their products - a business model that doesn't always equate to leading market share, but always pulls in a huge profit, brand loyalty and evidently a glorious stock price. A sweeping dichotomy from conformist television manufacturers. So how do you work around this? How can you win in a business when it's hard to even break even?

First off it's important to evaluate the importance of television in an overall vision, or perhaps more importantly, the role of television in the the direction of the technology industry as a whole. It's fair to say that the whole industry is leading towards an almost universally pursued four screen strategy involving smartphones, tablets, personal computers and of course the television.

When Google and Apple begin hinting at entrances into certain markets, you know things are about to get real, and for television, Google's already waddling in the water albeit with a little uncertainty and we're expecting Apple to take a fully committed chunky dunk. Apple revolutionised the music industry with its ubiquitous iPod. Apple almost single-handedly crafted the modern smartphone, and Google made it big. Apple created and revolutionised a practically non-existent tablet market and Google made sure there was a little more variety to suit everyone. There's no reason that in their monstrous tandem, these two will be able to revolutionise the plateauing television business as well.

Consumers aren't going to be prepared to pay anymore than they are already for a television, especially given the state of the economy. Even if manufacturers gathered to form a pact that ensures a handsome profit for every unit sold, consumers wouldn't buy, even if they had no choice. Televisions are costly, low replacement devices, so consumers typically only replace televisions when they really need to. And a steep price increase for already rather steeply priced televisions would only push consumers to eBay and second hand items. To pursue this current business model in selling televisions as passive displays is not a feasible model, it never was, but now, we have better options.

The analogue age was a time when devices could thrive even when operating on a shallow and superficial microcosmic level. Devices were sold on the merits of their hardware capabilities, the quality of its parts and its physical design, as opposed to its potential for customisation and expansion. That analogue era, was long ago, but for the most part, television is still there - with picture quality and hardware quality still very much on the priority list for TV buyers. To win in television, we must relay our focus completely from commoditised hardware and aim to sell on the merits of potential expansion, integration, connectivity and content. Aim to emulate Amazon's business model for the Kindle Fire tablet - make a small loss or just break even on the hardware, and aim to cover that cost in packaging good software and selling content.

Google TV was initially poised to be the redefining of television but I think it's fair to say that we all misjudged, or more suitably, over-judged it's potential. Logitech's CEO went so far to state that the company had made 'a mistake of implementation of a gigantic nature', and the company had no plans to release a second generation Revue set top box. Sony hasn't achieved much success with their Google TV either.

Google TV never took off and still hasn't largely because it simply doesn't offer anything exclusive in the way of content, it contains Netflix and Pandora among other video and music subscription services but these services are all accessible through other mediums. And with all these content services being provided by third parties, once again we're not making much money on selling content and therefore unable to afford reaping negative or neutral margins on TV units.

But securing profits directly from selling content isn't the key, because most of the revenue is inevitably turned over in royalties to the content owners. In fact, the most popular online music store, iTunes, earned $1.9 billion dollars in revenue in 2007 according to Ed Christman, the retail columnist for the Billboard. However, taking into account royalties and operational expenses, Apple took away less than $400 million on its music store that year. Google recently sent out invitations to a Los Angeles event on November 16 which appears to be hinting at a music store, if Google has indeed struck a deal with the major labels I'll be damned if they're going to make as much dough per song purchase as Apple's iTunes store.

The idea though, in operating content stores is to provide a little extra change to allow for more flexibility when pricing television sets, after all, you can expect to subsidise at least some of the losses on unit sales with profits from content stores. Additionally, content stores that integrate well within an established ecosystem are just another incentive for consumers to want in - a core reason why Google TV has failed to catch on. Google currently has no music or video store and therefore no genuine reason for Android users to invest further in Google's ecosystem; adding insult to injury, the assortment of Google's cloud services like Docs, Gmail and Reader have no meaningful integration in Google TV.

The Google TV saga also serves to teach us that evidently, it's not enough to simply throw in some apps, integrate subscription services and allow native Youtube and web browser access to 'revolutionise' television. That's not enough because a consumer savvy enough to even adopt a young platform in Google TV would most likely be in possession of a tablet; and why compromise the display real estate of the television when you could be web browsing, Facebook-ing and Twitter-ing right from your tablet while watching TV. Essentially, the additions Google TV provides are more novel than genuinely useful.

You see, if Apple had simply thrown in a well-performing web browser, some fun apps and deep music store integration into a basic Blackberry form factor, would Apple still have revolutionised entirely the smartphone industry? No, not at all. Not even a little bit. So it's no surprise that Google hasn't done so with the television.

Apple revolutionised the smartphone because they changed the way we interacted with and used our phones. Apple turned scrolling into flicking, and pushing into pinching. Google on the flip side has only added quasi-useful functionality to television and we're still stuck with the same basic interface model of remote controls and navigational D-pads. Apple is now poised on the precipice of perhaps another revolution, and now couldn't possibly be a more timely hour for Apple given they've created a potentially revolutionary new way to interact with our devices, Siri. Siri, the voice interaction engine more human than anything we've seen before. Or heard before. If Steve Jobs' message to his biographer - 'I finally cracked it' a TV that is 'completely easy to use' - is anything to go by, then Siri is an almost certain implementation.

A lot of the time, it's not alterations in what we use a device for that cause excitement, but how we use it that strikes a certain spark in our fickle emotions. Take the Playstation Move and Xbox Kinect as a classic example, serving the same purpose but in two completely different ways. Sales figures can speak for this story. Siri can be our new remote control, and even then, it could probably do so much more.

We're standing on the very edge, the dividing line, the stepping stone to a new generation of television. And if any company believes that right now is a good time to depart the painful television business, then, well, bad move. Television is a crucial element in the completion of our technological circle, we'll always have living rooms - and to simply exit the business soully because of non-profitability is a little short sighted.

Previously, in the analogue age where products were sold largely on the merits of themselves, as opposed to their integration with other devices, television would have been a poor business. But today, television isn't heading towards being a lucrative business that rakes in an abundance of dough, but rather a crucial business which provides a little chump change. The rise of the 'ecosystem' and cross device integration has allowed for the creation of the 'prison', though more often than not this prison is one that we, as consumers voluntarily move into. Locking consumers in is priceless for those corporations hoping to capitalise on their existing user base, and of course, force loyalty from the consumer.

Apple TV was never enough for Apple because it's simply not enough to add your ecosystem to a television set when you're merely a 'connection' as opposed to the real deal.

This is why I am almost certain that Apple will make a television set, one which has unsurpassed integration with Apple's ecosystem as its highest value proposition. Because a great ecosystem and great software is the only viable path in an industry infested with competitors who are inevitably capable of making better hardware and selling it for less.

Having said that, Apple's not going to be reaping huge profits on television, in fact, television for Apple may very well end up being a loss leader. Apple will probably sell a television set at an enticing price point coupled with revolutionary interaction models (Siri), invoking an almost impulse purchase and naturally building a large user base for Apple's televisions. Sure, they've lost money on selling the television sets at such a price but they can subsidise that loss partially with content sales on the device, via iTunes. To place the cherry on the cake, one more Apple product in the hands of consumers, is just one more reason to invest further and deeper into Apple's ecosystem, equating essentially to subsequent profits from selling more iPods, iPhones, iPads and Macs.

It's a plan for the long term, and that's how you win in television. 

TECHGEEK.com.au - Design Talks - For the iPhone 4S critics

Be sure to check out my article on TECHGEEK.com.au discussing the importance of product design and its applications to the somewhat ill-received and unexciting iPhone 4S. 

"Perhaps one of the most important lessons that Steve Jobs taught us in his tenure is that design is important. In fact, design is often more important than the very things inside that make the magic happen. That’s not to say that you’re better off having an aesthetically marvellous rock than a turd-shaped phone, but it’s saying that from a very very direct and impressionistic stand point, design talks to an audience much more than specs and inner hardware ever can..."

As Windows 8 propels Post-PC

Not too long ago, Microsoft pulled the wraps off the developer preview of its next generation operating system. I say 'next generation' intentionally as opposed 'next' because Windows 8 truly does signify a revolution for not only Microsoft, but personal computing as a whole. With Microsoft's pre-beta release of Windows 8, I can say without hesitation that computing is without doubt driving head-on into the age of direct manipulation computing, or 'Post-PC' if you like.

Anybody who counts Microsoft out as being an influential figure for the next decade of computing would have to be incredibly short-sighted. Eric Schmidt pointed out earlier this year that he considered his gang of the four most influential consumer technology companies to be Google (naturally), Apple, Amazon and Facebook. Microsoft did not make it into his little clique. This itself would seem almost a mathematical impossibility when you account for Microsoft's market share in the PC arena and also a direct affront to the 'chain of command' given the many ways that Microsoft indirectly and directly affects the lives of people and companies around it. Sure, Microsoft doesn't have the strong-hold it had on multiple markets 5-10 years back, but heck, Microsoft has commanding, monopoly-enabling market share in PCs – and market share means power.

We've all seen Microsoft's success as an underdog, and their success has always coalesced with the idea of 'slow and steady wins the race'. And perhaps slow and steady manifests Microsoft itself as a corporation, an influential giant completely devoid of the agility of its start-up days. The world was sceptical about the Xbox when it launched, it took time to gain traction but Microsoft eventually broke through with the product and it is now the best-selling console in the United States. Windows Phone still sits at the bottom of the smartphone pack with a single digit market share to boast, but Microsoft are in no position to give up on Windows Phone (I'm glaring at you, HP). With Nokia paving multiple new pathways and opening new doors for the platform, there isn't much to justify the opinions of anyone who believes Windows Phone is going down. I can see why analysts are bullish on their prospects for the platform.

At that, there's no reason why we as the consumers shouldn't be bullish on Microsoft and its Windows 8 project either. By all intents and purposes if Microsoft decides to dump the Windows monicker in the same way that they dumped 'Windows Mobile' for 'Windows Phone' it would not be completely out of line. After all, the new OS does not look, or more importantly, feel like Windows at all. It's touch-friendly, it's intuitive, it's animated...it's fun. Microsoft made a big case for touch technology at its BUILD 2011 event, slanting heavily towards an ideology that touch is the future of computer interaction, and I agree wholeheartedly.

As we all are fully aware, Microsoft's approach to slates and tablets has always appeared as half-hearted, not bothering to put in the full effort to have an OS optimised for iPad-like devices with the belief that a powerful operating system could justify the poor ease of use. Consumer reception has likewise been half-hearted. Microsoft obviously overlooked the fact that the power factor of the full Windows experience is only sufficiently augmented with the presence of a keyboard and mouse. So when it comes to slates, looking at Windows 8, despite its often frustrating switches between interfaces it's relieving to see that Microsoft has managed to acknowledge the writing on the wall and subsequently put their heart in the right place.

I guess we can thank the iPad for its applications as an impetus for a stagnating PC market. I believe that people and innovators are the creators of their own fate - yeah I know it's corny and it's cliche, but it's true. The technology market, or automotive market or any market that thrives on innovation isn't and should not be bounded by the perceived limitations of eras or times. I get the feeling that people believe that things have to remain a certain way until a specific time comes that rings a bell for a revolution or an overthrow of the current. Perhaps a good example to illustrate this very point would be flexible display technology - we'd all love to see flexible displays right now and the prospects are exciting but there's always going to be the consensus that the concept is simply too far ahead of its time. I'm glad that Microsoft has shown the gut to propel the industry with a revolution in Windows 8, instead of yet another evolution of Windows 7 which would only vitiate the industry's implacable transition into touch and 'post-PC'.

Windows 8 is not a perfect operating system, it's far from perfect and will most likely take a generation or two to eradicate legacy requirements which are by far its biggest gripe. I'm not predicting that Windows 8 will sell like hot cakes, will be insanely successful or by all means, not be a Vista. The developer preview of Windows 8 though is purely representational of Microsoft's trajectory, and the most I can say is that Microsoft have pointed their unwieldy ship in the right direction. They have proven themselves in the past that they are more than capable of winning a game slow and steady and have proven their ability to successfully leverage their assets and integrate tightly their cobweb of products and services. As far as I can see, these are a few crucial underpinnings for imminent success.  

iQuit - An Apple with Steve Jobs and an Apple without him

There aren't many times when we can look back at a CEO and say honestly that they changed the world. Sure, there are many CEOs who have changed their companies, improved operations and maybe even lead to some pretty successful product launches, but Steve Jobs I believe is the manifestation of true success. Not only did he revitalise Apple, but he managed to influence and even create several markets, when most leaders struggle to even touch one. 

Regretfully, due to poor health Steve Jobs has made the hard decision to resign as CEO of Apple. This very event has sparked a mass amount of praise and respect for Steve Jobs from people of all shapes and sizes, even from those who do not spend all their time reading technology blogs and playing with their Apple products. Strangely, it has even opened the hearts of some of the infamous Apple haters. But it has also sparked massive debates between pundits, analysts and the like regarding Apple's future. Is Apple capable of maintaining its success without Steve Jobs and sustaining the growth that it has experienced in the last decade? Can Apple still excite people and remain, well you know...cool? Or on the flip side, will Apple fall in the same fatal path subsequent to Jobs' initial departure?

Well, let me just say that the Apple that we see today will by and large be the same shining red Apple that we'll be seeing for at least the next 5 years. With products and strategies most likely laid out for the coming years, it's hard to imagine any plateauing in growth or anything that we wouldn't expect of the Steve Jobs Apple that we're well and truly accustomed to today. Tim Cook has assumed the role of CEO in the past during the events of Steve Jobs' health bouts, so it's safe to say that he's already well-versed in the operations and procedures of the captain's seat. Steve Jobs' resignation was simply reiterating in ink what was already written in pencil for Tim Cook. 

However, when the day comes that Steve Jobs actually isn't there, we definitely won't be speaking of Apple with this same assurance. It's not a bad time to start forecasting an Apple without Steve Jobs.

Allow me to just answer one budding question that has been foolishly debated - can Apple be the same without Steve Jobs? No. It is foolish to believe that Apple can remain the same without Steve, thus why the need for Steve? If his vision, his achievements, and his capabilities can and could have all been entirely replicated by someone else, Steve would have been a useless leader. Steve Jobs' became CEO of Apple because he had capabilities that no one else in the company had, thus his absence will leave a hole in the company's core. Steve Jobs leaves behind some enormous shoes that even a person of Tim Cook's calibre will have feet too small.

To me, Tim Cook has always felt like an emergency as opposed to a permanent solution. He would come in and keep the big boat afloat while Steve Jobs was away, and then Steve would come back and really propel the cruiser forward. The perceived permanence of this week's decision tells us that Steve probably won't be coming back to the helm, which only leaves me with an uneasy feeling regarding Apple's future under Tim Cook. There's just this little something that tells me that Cook is more of a numbers guy, a negotiator, or an operational guy as opposed to a creative and idea driven guy. Steve Jobs managed to create an unprecedented culture of innovation within his company, and if Cook is driven by entirely different motives it will only destroy the morale within Apple that has taken it to such peaks of success.

So how will Apple change? It's a big question with a big many answers. Perhaps it is only fitting to look back at the things that add up to what simply can't put any better than unprecedented genius.

This is quite a cliché statement but I'm going to repeat it because I believe it's one of the most monumental things that Steve Jobs will be taking away with him - his vision. I've always gone by one of my own sayings that vision is what separates those that make a profit from those that make an impact, and I can't think of a better illustration of this very idea than Steve Jobs. Sure, we can all be like Samsung and make multitudes of phones without thought and make a truck-load of money and earn market share, but will we look back on the age of smartphones and say that Samsung made a difference? I'll be damned. Steve Jobs didn't just sell his products, he sold his vision and that has made all the difference. 

Jobs has the uncanny ability to think ahead of the times and almost design the future like an architect, and then be willing to bet big on it. I'm sure we can all remember the semi-transparent iMac without the floppy drive which was insane at the time. In spite of that, this omission propelled Apple into the future of compact discs. More recently, the iPhone without a keyboard was laughed off by Steve Ballmer as being unsuitable for businessmen, it has proven a revelation. And the download-only Mac OS X Lion is only the very start of a rising era.  

Having said this, there's probably no greater exemplification of Steve Jobs' incredible forward thinking than the originality of the iPad. There are few people in this world who can look at people, live their lives and find the holes in which ideas and potential products could fit in. Whilst everyone else endlessly filled the vacancies with compromises, Jobs saw through this and without an inkling of market research he dreamt the iPad purely through the roots of his own creativity. Competitors are having a hard time fighting against the iPad because they're pursuing a vision that is not their own, but that of Steve Jobs, which is one they're not entirely sure of. If we look back in time at the most innovative and inspirational leaders and entrepreneurs, most did not believe in the 'effectiveness' of market research. Akio Morita, the co-founder of Sony Corp. famously said 'Carefully watch how people live, get an intuitive sense of what they might want and then go with it. Don't do market research.' The man created the Walkman which revolutionised our lifestyles and the music industry purely through intuition. Market research only tells us what people are buying, but not necessarily what they want, and Steve Jobs knew this. 

Oh yeah - did someone say Apple keynote without Steve? Not sure, because I can't imagine one. I simply can't imagine a keynote without Jobs up on stage in his trademark black turtleneck and junners with such subtle child-like excitement, love, and admiration for his own products. Who's going to be up there to say 'it's magical' or 'it's just fantastic' or 'one more thing'. Jobs' is a natural salesman. I could probably write a couple of thousand words on Steve Jobs' capabilities as a salesman, someone more intelligent could probably write a thesis, heck people have written books on how to be insanely great at speaking and persuading like Steve Jobs. Jobs' keynotes weren't him telling us features and specs that we could read ourselves, it wasn't him playing the commonplace PR game, nor was it him attempting to excite us over dreams he may or may not deliver. He spoke of the things that mattered to us at the most primal level - the magic of a product, how it changes 'everything' and he spoke about how things were beautiful and amazing without sounding like he fell out of a rainbow. We can only wait and see whether Tim Cook has charisma enough to get people waiting overnight in lines to get their hands on the next iPhone or the next iPad, or even the next Mac. 

So now what? What will happen to Apple? From where I stand, I have no doubt that Apple will continue to be successful for the next coming years, or even a few years after Steve Jobs takes the last step away from the company. But I hate to say that there will come a time when without a visionary like Steve Jobs at the helm or in the higher ranks, the company will stagnate when it comes that time for a revolutionary idea to keep the company in the limelight. That doesn't mean that the company will stop being successful, it simply means that the company will cease to become highly influential. 

Do all good things come to an end? Maybe. Unfortunately for Apple it seems that they've reached peaks so high that the only way for them to go is down. It's hard to imagine a visionary beyond Steve Jobs' calibre. With the culture that Apple have established within their company they're sure to find and attract talent but I doubt, I highly doubt we will find someone so talented in so many ways as Steve Jobs. Let me tell you now, Tim Cook is probably not going to cut it. It will be interesting to watch Apple's Steve-less evolution churn out. What's important for the people at Apple isn't to keep thinking 'what would Steve do?' Following a vision that is not your own is always, always second to following your own. In spite of everything I have confidence that Apple will be able to find someone who isn't quite Steve Jobs, but is just like him in a completely different way. 

HP's webOS riddles

Less than two years ago when HP acquired the fledgling Palm company, I was a half-hearted with the notion. HP, being a relatively professional and straight-edged company didn't quite seem to fit the Palm profile of curved and cute devices with a...well curved and cute OS. I expected, and in retrospect would have preferred the likes of Nokia or Sony to have acquired the innovative Palm. However my dreams were left unrealised and Nokia is now committed fully to Windows Phone and Sony are heading towards a deep investment in the Android ecosystem, its amazing how times change. Join me as I recount HP's problem leading up to the discontinuation of first party webOS devices.

The outcome of webOS under HP's tenure has been disappointing, even looking on the bright side it has drastically fallen below the excitement and hype that the initial announcement of the Touchpad and Pre 3 had warranted. When HP unveiled the Touchpad at their Think Beyond event in February, the prospects and the possibilities were incredible and seemingly prosperous. The Touchpad wasn't perfect though, page turning when reading eBooks was choppy and the user experience as a whole wasn't up to scratch. It didn't feel like a finished product. But we were all excited because we figured heck, the problems should all be ironed out prior to the launch in 7 months time, and perhaps the hardware upgraded to keep in close quarters with the fast progression of consumer technology. But it wasn't. Looking back at the bug-riddled launch of the Touchpad I simply can't help but wonder what the hell went on in that lengthy 7 months. 7 months is plenty of time to perfect bugs and polish a product that was definitely already in the later phases of semi-completion. Believe it or not, I even expected HP to launch the device early and surprise us.

It's odd, because this whole time I believed that the acquisition of Palm by HP was what would be instrumental in preventing a late and sorry launch. Palm, prior to HP simply didn't have the resources to go about it on their own, they didn't have the manufacturing scale that HP possessed, nor the cash to effectively market their products. More importantly they didn't have the human resources they needed to quicken general operations. HP had this, but taking 7 months to launch an imperfect product disappointingly shows that it did not translate for webOS. 

Looking from the outside, HP's webOS failure could be attributed partially to a lack of focus, a fatally distracted vision for webOS. By no means does a distracted vision necessarily have to be a poor vision, and this was exactly the case with HP webOS. HP were hoping to expand the platform across all their devices, including printers to share a common ecosystem amongst the products we use most. I'm not going to lie, it's a brilliant idea, but fantasising over unrealised dreams while delivering an incomplete foundation in the company's smartphones and tablets only spells trouble. Dreams are like anything, you have to keep feeding them to stay alive, and feeding them lackluster products with insufficient marketing doesn't assist in building a large enough consumer base to springboard other projects. We all know what happens if you start building the top of a skyscraper before the foundation is complete - it collapses. 

Which brings us to this morning's bombshell of an announcement, HP is stopping production of its webOS hardware altogether. You read right, it's just the hardware, which is not surprising given how out of touch the Touchpad's hardware is in comparison to the competition and the times. Despite only cancelling the hardware and almost certainly going ahead with the idea of licensing the OS, the whole ideal has just been one huge PR tragedy. Announcing the cancellation of hardware production for an operating system that only has one hardware vendor is the right way to give everybody a wrong impression. HP now run the risk of not being able to find a licensing partner within the timeline that they have set to officially cancel webOS device production. If this does end up being the case which lets face it, is entirely plausible, then it would be correct by definition to officially call webOS dead, after all, nobody's making any webOS devices. 

Let's get real, is there anyone who really wants to invest in webOS? Samsung and HTC are the two most likely vendors, doing anything and everything to expand their portfolios. Both are already heavily invested and clear leaders in the Android ecosystem, however with offerings in Windows Phone which will most likely be undermined by the looming release of the Nokia Windows Phones. So, webOS wouldn't be a terrible idea but then we must ask the question, why? Why would they bother supporting a dying ecosystem when they're already high and mighty in a thriving one? Sony Ericsson, LG and several others are also possible candidates, but I doubt that any of these companies have the resources to risk in investing in an ecosystem that has failed...twice - once under Palm and now under HP. 

Its sad, but ultimately true that HP have dug their own grave. Palm had built an image of freshness and innovation behind the Palm name, being one of the most advanced touch-screen smartphones of its time, whilst maintaining a highly approachable and friendly industrial design. I know friends who wanted a Palm prior to the HP days simply because of the curved design, and the invitingly simple look and feel of the OS. By ridding and replacing the Palm name with HP subsequent to the acquisition, HP threw away the oh so precious image and value of the Palm brand. Strategically, this move made sense in order to bring webOS both physically and symbolically closer to the HP family. However HP didn't have the confidence nor the skill to turn webOS into a game-changing product, and are now trying to license the operating system in a much less valuable incarnation than what they initially purchased it for. 

So can webOS be resurrected? I used to think so but in a connected world where growth grows upon growth, webOS is really struggling to just make the inaugural step. On the other end of the spectrum, Android and iOS are making exponential strides. In spite of this, there's a little bit inside all of us that knows webOS can still make it, and then there's a big part in all of us that really wants webOS to make it. The world doesn't need anymore Android slabs, but we could sure as hell do with a sweet OS like webOS. I think its clear that webOS's square peg doesn't belong in the circle of HP. So here's hoping that HP sells it off to a company that can treat it with the respect it deserves. Any takers?

An inside look at RIM's bumbling business

Well, RIM has been in all the news for the past month for all the wrong reasons: lackluster sales, sales estimate cuts and a plummeting share price, you name it. It's always sad to see a once great brand that builds great products diminish in such a way and in such proportions. I obviously wasn't old enough, or perhaps not even born but many will remember when Apple in the late 80s to the mid 90s began to lose its feet and if it wasn't for Steve Job's return to the company he created we mightn't be seeing the iPhone and Mac as they are that have influenced and helped to greatly shape consumer electronics. Sony, currently are elbow deep in a similar sort of decline, in which once ubiquitous and world changing products they created are struggling to even be noticed in a tidal wave of competition. For many, the advent of the Apple iPhone and rise of Google Android marked a beginning of a rapid decline for the maker of the Blackberry.

WHERE RIM STUMBLED:

Perhaps it is only suitable to begin this here editorial with a discussion of how Research In Motion have found themselves in this precarious conundrum. Let's face it, RIM were breezing before the iPhone came around. They had a clear vision for their products and their devices were selling well to both their two distinct consumer groups at the time: the social savvy and the enterprise consumer. I believe that much of the reason that made their vision so straightforward was the fact that the concept of the smartphone itself was so uniform back then. Smartphone was deemed as a device with exclusive features for people who needed them, not wanted them for mindless time consumption or...fun, for want of a better word. Having said that, there was ultimately nothing truly fun about a smartphone when the 'Berry was king, at least not to the extent to which it could be considered more entertaining than the average dumb-phone.

There were several things that made Blackberry unique, and thus, far superior to their competitors: the keyboard, BES services, BBM and of course just the unmistakeable look and feel of a Blackberry. BES services and BBM are the two key points here and they really serve to highlight what went so right with RIM, and subsequently with the arrival of Apple and Google, what went so wrong. Essentially, RIM knew who their products were for and therefore delivered appropriately. A potent combination of a high-quality keyboard and the acclaimed Blackberry Messenger sealed the deal for a solid product for the social consumers. Additionally, BES (Blackberry Enterprise Server) provided a secure and powerful experience for the business consumers, completing once again, a flawless offering.

So what went wrong? The introduction of the Apple iPhone, initially laughed off by Steve Ballmer (don't get me wrong, I love Steve Ballmer) augured a significant shift in the smartphone landscape. The iPhone didn't just bring the smartphone concept to the mass market, but it shifted the entire form factor of the traditional smartphone entirely. Suddenly, the things that had made the Blackberry unique, were undermined significantly. The novelty of the capacitive touchscreen iPhone diminished the appeal of RIM's small display and keyboard combination. Not only this, but the introduction of the now enormous App Store raised the iPhone's after-market appeal enormously and more importantly widened the devices' potential use cases. Blackberry users began to question 'hey, why can't my phone do that?'

Fast-forward three years later, and we see RIM as it is now. Stumbling badly and thus far unable to create a product that truly sticks. What's most saddening isn't that Apple, subsequently Google and potentially Microsoft beat RIM at the smartphone game, but how little RIM did to stop it. The technology industry is a bit like quicksand, the further down you go the progressively harder it gets to climb back up. And I don't mean this in an 8 steps down 8 steps up kind of respect, but more an exponential relationship. Had RIM capitalised on the loyalty of their consumers rather than purely relying on them, the Blackberry's market share probably wouldn't be sliding to quite the extent it is now. Perhaps not sliding at all.

RIM separated themselves somewhat from the emerging smartphone pack and focused on continuing to deliver brilliant messaging and enterprise services whilst the 'fun' factor and user experience so prevalent in competitors slipped by the wayside. This short-sighted decision making was driven by one thing, and one thing only: overconfidence. With the prior success of their products, RIM were simply too confident in their own ways and their own purpose to consider rethinking their products. Consequently, with too much focus to their traditional ways, BBM became the only thing keeping the social savvy consumers attached to their Blackberry's, but the sacrifices that had to be made to obtain this service continued to build to a certain breaking point where the scales tipped out of RIM's favour. Because of this, the Blackberry's market share continues to slip. It reminds me a lot of my situation with my Walkman. The same can be said for the enterprise customers, though certainly to a lesser extent. To many of these business consumers, Blackberry isn't just a phone, it's a way of life. It's so rare and special to be able to boast such exceptional brand loyalty. But if RIM can't deliver products that can simply do more things...well they're going to lose them too.


WHY RIM STILL MATTERS:
This is not just another RIM bashing article, because I strongly believe that RIM still definitely has the assets to get themselves back on track. RIM has not sunk completely into a deep realm of despair and irrelevance. Actually, quite the opposite, to the average Joe's consumer the Blackberry still represents professional and quality handsets and devices.

As much as you can try to convince yourself that it's not, the simple fact is: brand matters. Brand matters a lot. And despite all of RIM's problems, their greatest asset, the intangible 'Blackberry' name is still almost entirely intact. It is arguably the only thing keeping RIM's head above the water. Ask around, and you'll find that most Blackberry users with the exception of the business consumers don't have much in defence of their purchase aside from the fact that 'Bro, it's a Blackberry'. And rightly so, if it's a Blackberry then it must have something going for it. Such a ubiquitous and powerful brand is so rare to see in any industry. In the mobile market the Blackberry name is only rivalled by the iPhone, and from my perspective, is still unmatched. Just the pure delight of telling people that you have a 'Blackberry' goes a very long way. The contributing factors that build this brand though are equally as important to RIM, and these are the things that they can effectively leverage to get themselves back on track. So far, they've made all the right steps towards this redemption.

One thing I've noticed is that there is still something unmistakeably RIM about their products. I had a chance to play with the Blackberry Playbook over the weekend and it was everything that I dreamt it would be: solid, fast and it exhibited a kind of professional polish unparalleled by any Android tablet that I have ever tried. With mobile devices like tablets, even the slightest of lags or missed touches can detract from the user experience significantly because these imperfections are very obvious in touchy-feely devices like this. Having said this, the Playbook ran unbelievably smoothly. Multitasking on the Playbook was brilliant, better than any tablet currently on the market. Most importantly, in just holding, grabbing and using the device I could immediately tell that 'This is a Blackberry'. Such significant brand awareness is enormously hard to achieve, and to have such a powerful asset at their disposal is healthy proof that RIM still matters.

One of the hardest things to achieve in this viciously crammed tablet market is finding ways to differentiate your products from the competition. I outlined this quandary in an older article where I discussed that the accessibility and availability of Android has definitely given consumers choices, but vendors are finding themselves providing virtually identical products to their competitors. RIM has an advantage here, despite their vastly smaller ecosystem, with the acquisition of QNX, RIM decided that it would take the challenging but rewarding path to exclusivity as opposed to the easy path to mediocrity via the Android wave. RIM's announcement that the QNX platform would be used in the company future smartphones is promising in two very important respects: not only are they laying down the foundations for their own platform with their own ecosystem of apps and services but also, given how well QNX works on the Playbook, well, I can only imagine good things.

The Playbook can arguably be considered as RIM's first step to a new beginning. A new platform, a new form factor and a brilliant web experience take a great diversion from the traditional RIM that we have known in the past, the same one that has failed to adapt and is struggling currently. It has been a wobbly first step, no doubt and the continual flooding of Android tablets has offered little succour for a Playbook struggling in a price battle. But I can't help but contemplate whether the Playbook I used over the weekend  was the same Playbook receiving lackluster reviews on many tech sites across the net. It certainly didn't feel like it. It's such a shame then that RIM brought the Playbook to market half-baked and essentially killed off the hype that could have surrounded a potentially exceptional product at launch. Having said this, the Playbook is still a work in progress, but once the omissions are filled (as promised) and the Playbook is able to reach its full potential, I have not an inkling of doubt that the Playbook with its exceptional design, stellar performance and Blackberry name prowess can conquer the shallow 7 inch tablet market.

HOW WOULD I FIX RIM:
So where do we take it from here? The key now, as it always is, is to build an ecosystem around the Blackberry platform and the products and integrate them. Direct integration between the Playbook and Blackberry smartphones is rather lacking currently. Blackberry Bridge perhaps is mildly useful for enterprise consumers but I can't imagine it being very useful for consumers and it would be useless for those without a Blackberry smartphone. RIM need to know that they can't simply lock their consumers in anymore, particularly since their prison is no longer the pleasant stay it used to be. RIM has to realise that ecosystems aren't a selling point of a product but merely a way of providing more integrated services for consumers and furthermore enticing them to buy further into the ecosystem. Thus, a poor product line-up and great ecosystem is of no help since there is no stand out product to effectively lure consumers in in the first place. Engadget 'Switched On' writer Ross Rubin stated 'if you're going to lock in consumers, it's best to build a prison that people want to move into anyway'. I couldn't possibly put it better myself.

RIM in the past thrived on created services and products exclusively for their own devices. But I believe RIM now has to warm up to the idea of working with others and integrating their products with other services out there. For example the Playbook video calling app only works with other Playbooks. Wouldn't it be nice if it talk to other devices too? You could argue that Apple's Facetime is also proprietary, however for Apple it's excusable because they've reached a certain level of ubiquity with their products that it's an unnoticeable hindrance. An owner of a Playbook on the other hand would be hard pressed to find a mate with one too. Even the popular BBM is beginning to lose its popularity as consumers are beginning to find that they can find comparable services that have the ability to converse with other platforms too. With a declining market share, sticking by their proprietary ways would simply convert into a deathly spiral for RIM. They simply no longer have a large enough customer base to make proprietary services useful. It's time for RIM to play nice with others, it's no longer everyone living in RIM's world, it's RIM living in everyone else's world.

That's probably the most important thing I would change at RIM, because proprietary is only really useful if they can leverage a large market share, which is something that RIM has undeniably lost. It's also important that RIM doesn't stop chasing the consumer business. I've read many articles saying that RIM should stick to investing more in enterprise services and providing for enterprise consumers which is traditionally what they've been known for. But the fact is, the Blackberry does mean something to average consumers and it would be wasteful to not take advantage of such a powerful brand. Furthermore, a pursuit of the consumer business is definitely a safer option because, hey, business people like to browse app stores and use 'fun' apps too. If RIM invest solely in the enterprise market and the consumer competitors are able to match or even come close to them in this market, then the competitors' advantage in more 'consumerised' products and services would guarantee a death to RIM's one-trick pony.

Amidst all the negativity, I feel like I'm the only one that has any confidence in RIM. But I think RIM still has plenty of potential. If RIM utilise QNX appropriately and efficiently, I personally do think they have a gem in their possession.

How would you fix RIM?