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.

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. 

Willy-nilly Walkman

A fortnight ago, Sony unveiled a selection of new Walkman MP3 players namely a new 'A series' touch screen Walkman, 'S series' compact Walkman, and 'E series' basic video Walkman. Walkman unveilings are always interesting particularly in analysing how Sony responds to not only the grave challenge of Apple's iPod and cheaper MP3 players, but also their attempt to maintain consumer relevance in the gradually dying market of dedicated music players. Sony's recent Walkmans have been ultimately a let down, hence the most recent one that evoked any hype was the X series in 2009 which is currently either dead or dormant. My loyal readers will know that I'm a Walkman fanboy at heart, forking out the same sum of money of an iPod Touch on an infinitely less capable Walkman X. Yet I stand by my Walkman devotion, because nothing beats out of the box noise cancellation and the raw beauty of Walkman sound quality.

From where I stand, there are many things that hamper the potential success of these current Walkmans. But ironically it has nothing to do with strong competition coming from Apple's ubiquitous iPod, Sony is shooting themselves in the foot. Purely from Sony's vantage, the Walkman works because the brand has been able to carve a niche for itself throughout its last decade in the digital MP3 market. Where the iPod has struggled to gain respect, the Walkman has been embraced with open arms. I'm referring to the audiophile community, the people who still carry around a dedicated music player because it provides marginally better audio fidelity than their phones, and the folks who will fork out more on headphones than on the actual player. This is the consumer demographic that appreciates Walkman for what it is, and this is what Sony's target market should be. 

Somehow, I don't get the feeling that Sony are fully catering to this market, and half wasting their time on the long lost game of the average consumer market. The new Walkmans, save for the E and W series all come equipped with Bluetooth technology. I understand that Bluetooth has many practicalities beyond unwired headphones, but unwired headphones, judging by marketing is Sony's primary offering with Bluetooth technology. Despite the general subjectivity on the scale in which Bluetooth degrades sound quality, it's simply not debatable that Bluetooth does pale in comparison to a direct 3.5mm stereo jack connection. Long story cut short, the Bluetooth transfer requires compression which by its very nature reduces sound quality. So why would an audiophile want this, when what an audiophile really wants is the best their money can buy? Sure, average consumers would enjoy the convenience, but average consumers would enjoy an iPod too. 

And then there's the larger problem at hand, and that's by and large the Walkman's inability to enjoy any consistency in its brand and lineup and its inability to integrate with similar Sony products and services. Like I said, the Walkman's relationship with audiophiles won't be going anywhere even in the face of major strategic blunders, because let's face it, the Walkman will always sound great. What concerns me is the inconsistency and dilution of Sony's use cases for the Walkman name. Currently, the Walkman monicker is present on Sony Ericsson Walkman phones and obviously Walkman MP3s. Yeah, it's only a couple I know but both these devices are acutely different, they are in two completely different universes, heck they're not even made by the same company. Sound quality on Sony Ericsson Walkmans fall tremendously short in comparison to the dedicated players. That doesn't help the brand in any way, a brand that sells itself on its sound quality. 

The Walkman will never shine with its old luster, but the least Sony could do is to try and leverage what they do have with the Walkman to boost other aspects of their business, or just as usefully, use current aspects of their business to boost the Walkman. What naturally pops into my mind first is Qriocity, the media streaming service by Sony that has gotten quite a bit of stick from journos regarding the hacking matter from months ago. Nevertheless, Qriocity is satanically not available on any Walkman. The matter is a loop-hole free no-brainer - a music streaming service for a music player. 3G is the issue here, but Sony need to find a way to get Qriocity onto Walkman devices because if there's one thing for certain it's that it's sure going to open more doors than it closes. Not only would this work to create a really solid offering that matches up against the times, but Qriocity users would then find it practical to use Qriocity on other supported devices to gain value for money thus indirectly forcing consumers to buy further into Sony's ecosystem. The Walkman as it stands is a lonely product.

My sentiments regarding the Walkman are iffy, I'll always be a Walkman consumer but not everyone will be and the path they're taking isn't going to take them to a handy destination. The Walkman brand could be likened to a headless chicken, alive simply for the continuity of an iconic brand, but with ultimately no foreseeable vision or trajectory ahead.

Playstation Vita sentiments and a forecast for the gaming handheld

Evolution is a biological term that aims to explain the development and change of living organisms throughout a long progression of time. It is universally known that humans as a species used to be apes. Though I still know some people who have not quite left this state. For gamers, the passion and love for their devices pathologically turns them into living organisms, and thus it can be said that they evolve over time, through the biological process. This can be certainly said for gaming which has gone through its fair share of 'natural' evolution. Its consumer demographics, manufacturers and content have all evolved dramatically throughout time. Along with this, gaming turned from a cult, into a passion and now into a pastime. Now, with the spread of gaming's accessibility, is it now turning casual?

Core gamers grimace at the very thought that their absolute passions can turn out to be someone else's method of time wasting. However the past 5 years to the present has seen gaming go through yet another one of these evolutions; this time, it is the inexorable rise of smartphone gaming. Gaming back in the day was a form of media split by two extremes, you were either a gamer or you weren't. Handheld gaming only existed in forms applicable to people who actually wanted to game. You wouldn't buy a DS or a PSP because you wanted to web browse or take photos. However, for smartphones, gaming is a second thought. Smartphones and similar devices have certainly widened the consumer demographic for gaming but in a much more diluted kind of fashion.

The once dichotomous relationship between gamers and non-gamers has now turned into an almost sibling like relationship, in that core gamers and casual gamers are both gamers alike, but fiercely rivalled kin in one big happy family. Having said this, all of this mobile gaming talk is irrelevant unless I put it into context. What does it mean for the core gaming scene? What does it mean for the Playstation Vita?

I've been very frustrated with Sony recently, I didn't believe Sony made the entirely correct decision to opt for Android on their mobile devices, and their blatant apathy to what was once their strongest brand - the Walkman - has been nothing short of unresourceful. Sony was criticised by many sceptics with the initial announcement of the NGP for cooking a tried and failed recipe. Hardware superiority since the earliest days has always been one of Sony's key strengths, however the critics argued that Sony once again betting on pure hardware superiority would prove to be a game loser. These claims though, were short-sighted. From where I stand, the Playstation Vita's (NGP's) unfaltering approach is the best decision Sony has made in a very long time.

Now I have a bit of a confession to make: I'm not a game fanatic, in actual fact it will surprise you that I'm not a gamer at all and my gaming accolade can be summed up with the occasional session of 'Pipe Riders' on Miniclip and a 2 kill streak playing Call of Duty: Black Ops on a PS3 at my mate's place. While camping.

Speculation that mobile and casual gaming will bring detriment to core portable gaming devices and other dedicated consoles is...well nothing more than speculation. The slow sales of the Nintendo 3DS and PSP, particularly the PSP Go has fuelled this short-sighted theory, and the success of Apple's mobile contraptions have continued to feed this fat rumour monster.

Looking down on casual gamers. Those n00bs!

It must be considered though, that dedicated handheld gaming has never quite appealed hugely to the masses, and in many ways has simply been considered as an extension to the primary gaming machine, which is the console hooked up to your television. It's a niche, and will most likely remain that way. I would say that the slow sales of these handheld gaming devices has been attributed to a lack of innovation from the manufacturers but also just a natural lack of potential consumers. The PSP 3000 and Nintendo DS both successfully skimmed the portable gamers from the top of the gaming pack, and their successors haven't provided anything worthy to warrant a necessary upgrade.

Frankly, I think Apple's dominance in the mobile devices market has had almost aught effects in core gaming. In actual fact, relating them in the first place is simply an impertinent comparison. When Steve Job's boasted that the iPod Touch had outsold Sony and Nintendo we all found the very notion quite astounding, that a newcomer could create such a splash. However the statistics were a grossly unfair comparison summed up perfectly with the most overused pun in consumer electronics: comparing apples to oranges. This superficial look at the handheld gaming segment didn't address on key factor, and that is that gaming is not the primary and only selling point with the iPod Touch and iPhone. Like I mentioned before, for smartphones, gaming is a second thought. This gives these devices one enormous advantage when its come to their selling power: and that is multiple selling points, and thus a larger potential consumer demographic.

So, it's not surprising that the iPod Touch outsold Nintendo and Sony combined, because in essence it is more than one device. A more just comparison would have been to place side by side Nintendo and Sony's sales against the consumers who bought an iPod Touch specifically for gaming. I'll be damned if Apple still emerged the winner. The point I'm trying to make is that the dedicated handheld gaming market is here to stay. Casual gaming devices like the iPod Touch don't quite have the firepower, and probably never will to penetrate the desires of core gamers.

The Playstation Vita exemplifies Sony's sentiments regarding core gaming, and that is that core gaming will never turn casual. In the mobile gaming market, casual will always be king purely in terms of the magnitude of its customer base, and that's an unavoidable fact. But, conversely there will always be a small market for the consumers who want to take the experience of their home console wherever they go, and that's where Playstation Vita comes in. By sticking steadfastly by their niche market, Sony have maintained the value of their Playstation brand, and the loyalty of their consumers who, like the company they idolise, will never go casual. Betting on hardware superiority was not only the right way to go because it leveraged Sony's strength in hardware, but it's a product that their current consumer base can connect with. And with a price like US$250 for the base Wi-Fi model, it's an invitation for outsiders to join the family.

It can be argued that the likes of smartphones and other forms of casual gaming will eventually reach the level of core gaming through technological progression, after all, there's no end to improvement. However it is a fact, that it's impossible to ever reach the potential of a dedicated device on a less focused one. Smartphones have managed to reach a similar level of gaming that the PSP 3000 or PSP Go currently offer. By raising the benchmark almost impossibly high with Playstation Vita, Sony has brought very deep sentimental pleasure to core gamers. Now, handheld gamers don't have to feel like the casual invasion is catching up on them. Additionally, this is finally a worthy upgrade for current PSP users.

Having said that, what does 'Vita' mean? Kaz had a lot to say about the term Vita at E3:

"Vita means life, and we're confident that Playstation Vita will be the first product that truly blurs those lines between Playstation entertainment and your real life." - Kaz Hirai.

Recollecting Sony's handling of the hacker quandary: Stringer must go.

Given it's the biggest tech news going around these two weeks I thought I would comment on the PSN hacking debacle and how Sony have handled it, or not handled it. I'm not going to go into detail about the specifics and intermediates of the event as you've probably read it millions of times and are sick of the same news all over again. Overall, I would rate Sony's handling of the situation decent, but to be honest not too flash. It was largely because of the initial delayed responses and the general lack of specifics that made consumers nervous, and even angry. However, updates have been consistent and frequent which is great, and the occasional Q & A's have really assisted in keeping nervous consumers informed.

I'm not a Playstation or Qriocity customer myself, which you might say is odd given that I blog about this stuff weekly. There were many aspects of Sony's handling that I found disappointing. The fact that Kaz Hirai addressed and apologised to the public in an entirely Japanese press meeting was unacceptable. It's not modern news that Sony is a Japanese company and many of the execs speak Japanese much more fluently and understandably than they do English, however this is a worldwide problem and the least they could do is address a worldwide audience. We have seen the execs speak English at CES, which is a proud and beneficial event for an electronics corporation. However in this case of shame and mortification it is abundantly clear they've chosen to hide behind the language barrier.

Which brings me to my next point, and most important point, where was Howard Stringer? In this situation of desperation where a leader need be present to show agitated consumers who's in control. Perhaps casually lazing by a pool or a high-end game of golf with other wealthy figures. It's not a good image when a leader is present in such events like CES to promote products, yet goes missing for a fortnight when he's most needed to repair the products. Being a leader is not a title or a job. Becoming a leader is crafted by actions, and Stringer's lack of action and commitment has seen my respect bar for him drop to a new low. It was only today, two weeks after the situation began that he issued a public letter to consumers. Even this was simply an echo of what has already been said far too many times by the Sony group. Themes like 'we are sorry', 'we've been working around the clock', 'the hacking was a criminal act' were rampant in Stringer's letter, and yet the letter failed to offer any strong answers to the questions that have been haunting customers for the last 14 days. The media has been all over him for not going public since the incident began, this overdue letter is simply to seek the praise and acceptance of the media.


I believe that this lack of commitment shows us that Stringer is certainly not the right person to head Sony. It's time that Stringer left the helm. It's time for a new face for Sony, one that represents light and potential for the corporation. Stringer's charisma fooled me, he is definitely not the man for the job.


Stringer's need to leave isn't solely because of the hacker outbreak, but this incident represents a possible breaking point. Now I realise that he's a funny and painfully charming man with not enough knowledge in consumer electronics and consumer behaviour to really drive Sony forward. When Stringer took the top job in 2005, he brought along with him several goals with which he wanted to achieve by the end of his tenure. Most notably, the one he wanted to achieve was breaking down 'silo walls'. He wanted the company to integrate its technologies, to work together on projects instead of separately, and to create a unified product line. So far that hasn't happened. I understand that company turnarounds of such magnitude require time but 6 years is simply too long. He turned Sony into a shallow corporation, throwing big parties, huge events and flashy marketing campaigns for products that would never live up to the hype. Walkman X for example was launched in a decorated train carriage, however Walkman X wasn't even able to create a ripple in the MP3 market. The PS3 is now fighting for top spot, when its predecessor the PS2 had an almost impassable lead. And besides all this, the corporation's media subsidiaries Sony Pictures and Sony Music still aren't creating any worthy synergy with the hardware that the company sells.

Sony's inability to provide competitive products in a competitive market has been troubling. The inability to create a unified platform despite their bounty of resources is disappointing. And more importantly, their inability to recapture the spirit of the old days is the biggest problem of them all. The PSN predicament is the bubble burst for Stringer. Stringer had the right idea, however didn't go about them effectively. Under Stringer, the company has created products and attempted to integrate them later, however products need to be created with the sole purpose of integration in mind.

Is Kaz Hirai the right man for the job then? I thought so, however I think Kaz Hirai's reputation has been jeopardised by Stringer's ineptitude. In my opinion, a young fresh mind is what the company needs to feed its innovation appetite once again. A young fresh mind, or a beginners mind. Beginners minds are great because they aren't hampered by difficult past experiences, their minds aren't infected by 'oh, we tried that, this won't work'. Like infants, they are curious and creative, and their thoughts are ocassionally out of line with deemed reality, yet can often lead to ridiculously innovative ideas. The best products aren't created through thorough market research, however purely from a sense of the consumers desires. Additionally, I believe that it would be preferable to have someone who can't be associated with such mishaps like this hacker debacle.

Perhaps it's a good thing that the hacking has happened, its allowed Sony to rethink what's gone wrong and possibly make for a restructuring of the company's board. Stringer is a good man no doubt, however his lack of commitment and passion for the Sony group has been clearly evident this fortnight, and this is the last thing Sony needs.

What are your thoughts on Stringer?

Competing in a fat tablet market, and why Android is the culprit.

We can't all help but notice the continuing overflow of tablets coming into the market. Tablet after tablet, here and there, most of no differentiation to one another. The announcement of Sony's tablet comes as no surprise as inevitably Sony would want to join the big party, albeit a little late. The product didn't surprise me either: Honeycomb, Qriocity, 'Playstation Certified' were all expected, the dual screen clamshell was surprising, especially Sony's odd design. Instead of the traditional linear chassis, instead they have opted for a distinctively curved design, which looks astoundingly similar to those glasses cases that have the ability of closing from both directions. I hope you know what I'm talking about as I am at a loss in better ways to explain it.

Nonetheless, Sony's entrance into the tablet space is well, just another tablet. Just another Android tablet.

I wanted to discuss the overflow of products in this segment with this article, it has been discussed many times before but it simply gets all the more prominent every passing day. Almost everyday, when I hang out on tech blogs, there's bound to be a new post with a table, displaying a new tablet's specifications, display size, processor, Honeycomb no doubt. And possibly a release date. Ok, cool. Forgotten. Another new tablet: Wow, Tegra 2, 1ghz dual-core! Cool story bro. Another one? The point is that all these devices are flooding in, and most of them don't manage to take hold and are just dropping in like dead fish into the sea of sameness. Instead of being, a glorious and vibrant emerging market, the tablet segment is becoming a breeding zone for 'me too' devices. We're not seeing a great collection of products that scream innovation and freshness, but rather a pile of cheap devices made simply with the mentality of 'I can do that too'.
I can sum it up pretty well in this rather clever analogy, the tablet market isn't expanding in a good way, too many devices of no value or differentiation don't add value to magnitude, rather the tablet market is becoming much like an obese person, filled with fat and excess, with little muscle.

If I was to pick someone to blame for this shocking outcome, you'll be surprised at who I'm pointing my finger at: Android.

This is certainly not a bad thing, and given some of my previous articles you might be deceived into thinking that I'm not a fan of Android. In actual fact, speaking as a consumer, we can never really get enough options or choices and Android has provided us virtually limitless choices. Speaking from a vendor's point of view however, Android's benefits have been countered almost equally by a set of growing disadvantages. There's no doubting that the sole benefit that Android has provided to its OEM's is a very good operating system with a vast app store, to compete sufficiently with the iOS app store. Additionally, OEM's will not have to spend time and funds to build their own operating system which would inherently be inferior due to the initial lack of third party applications. Sounds great at first glance, but what is most disadvantageous, is that all potential OEM's have access to this operating system, thus creating an enormous environment of virtually identical devices made by different manufacturers.

This creates the quite grand problem of finding a way to make your product exclusive amongst almost indistinguishable competitors. It's impossible to stand out in terms of app selection. It's possible to stand out in terms of user experience, but Android can only be skinned so much until it becomes loaded and impractical. Simply, in terms of the devices software, there is no way to give it enough exclusivity to warrant a no-brainer purchase over other Android competitors nor is there enough exclusivity to warrant a significant price gap over competitors as well. Thus, competing purely with software, the only hole-proof way to win in the Android space is via competitive pricing. And because bare-bones products with rock bottom prices is not feasible to many licensees, it is evident that many vendors have decided that in order to attract consumers, they must win in the hardware space. It's very obvious: high end processors, better graphic capabilities, more RAM, and faster 3G or 4G internet access. Instead of placing an emphasis on a great user experience, it appears that the focus is now on the fact that it's fast, it's light and possibly more physical connectivity to peripherals. Maybe even an attachable keyboard.
These are all good things but at the end of the day the consumer makes a decision based on four fundamental factors: how enjoyable something is to use, how easy it is to use, how customisable the device is and how attractive the product design is. Of these four major factors, only one corresponds directly to the quality of the hardware.

It's common knowledge that in a digital and connected age, the software takes precedence over the hardware. TV's are no longer purchased primarily on the quality of the picture, phones are no longer focused on call quality, nor are tablets made or broken by the specifications of the components inside. The software is what consumers experience and feel and 'connect' with, if the software isn't up to scratch, there's no way hardware can save that. This is why the Xoom was so astoundingly underwhelming at launch, and more importantly its sales volume was vastly disappointing. The Xoom was just another Honeycomb tablet, albeit the first one, and it didn't quite strike a home run with its hardware either. Despite its Tegra 2 and powerful innards, the display quality disappointed.

It's difficult, and more or less a Catch 22 situation for Android OEM's. Either win in the hardware arena or create a cheap no-frills Android tablet. None of these options is optimal in winning back market share from Apple. Through my eyes, I see two ways out of this quagmire: either introduce an exclusive service, or go out on a limb and just create an innovative and entirely new product. Possibly even start up a sub-market within the tablet segment. Neither of these are as simple as it sounds. However if there's one company off the top of my head that has the framework to achieve both of these, it's Sony.

The Playstation brand is much like a stepping stone for everywhere that Sony decides to go, and I understand and I encourage that since it would be wasteful to not utilise such a strong brand. Unfortunately though they've decided to ruin the potential exclusivity of 'Playstation Certified' by allowing it to be used by all Android vendors. However, Qriocity is still an exclusive Sony only service presently and represents the first way out of the Android dilemma: introducing an exclusive service. Like I said it's not as simple as just implementing the service into Sony devices. Qriocity is not yet a strong enough brand in its own right, and iTunes still has the immense trust and loyalty of its consumers. Also speaking of trust and reliability, Qriocity's reputation has already been damaged by the hacker predicament from the last week involving credit card access and service shut downs. Qriocity is still in relative infancy and requires time to grow, and just as importantly more funds need to be directed into marketing.

Additionally, in regards to 'creating an innovative and entirely new product' Sony has the building blocks for this too, and it was just announced this week. I'm referring to the S2 tablet, the dual-screen sun glasses case looking contraption. In my next article I will be talking more deeply about the advantages and disadvantages of the dual-screen concept. What I can say now is that dual screen has great potential if executed correctly. I don't think I've seen any manufacturer quite nail the two screen idea yet, apart from Nintendo. And even though the Nintendo DS has been a winner in the sales department, there's certainly room for improvement.

All the same, you've probably inferred it's becoming increasingly difficult for manufacturers to compete in an ever expanding tablet market. Each time a new generic Android device pops up, no matter how poor it is, everyone takes a hit. The Android arena has more or less been split into two major segments: low end no frill tablets for the simple minded and high end power tablets for the tech savvy. Here, the high end manufacturers are putting all their eggs into the hardware basket in an attempt to fend off competing Android tablets but are mindlessly missing the bigger picture. iPad. In essence, despite their obviously smaller ecosystems, platforms like webOS, and Blackberry tablet OS are in a better position, merely because they don't have to compete against generic rivals in a price battle. They can consequently put their focus into slaying the monster (iPad), not their 'allies'. Being exclusive has these advantages.

My analysis concludes that the availability of Android is become as much of a problem as it as an advantage. Given the immense scale of the Android ecosystem, manufacturers of Android tablets therefore have to deal with two battles: the battle against competing Android vendors and the more important battle against the iPad. If the race continues this way, individual Android OEM's will never be winners unless of course they can create a winning formula in either two methods I described earlier: introduce exclusive services or create entirely new products.

Confessions from a Walkman devotee. How long can a fan hold on?

Dear Sony, when are you due for a Walkman X upgrade?

Often I ask myself this question, yet I can never be sure whether a new Walkman is in the works. Nobody really knows if Sony have completely given up on the Walkman, the X series I mean. Will there still be a market for standalone PMPs in around 5 years time? Questionable. My Walkman X1060 isn't getting old or dilapidated by any means, in actual fact I can proudly say it's in pristine condition. My leather case has protected my little baby well. But why do I always search Walkman in Google news to see what rumors have sparked regarding an upgrade. I guess, it's just the comfort I'm seeking of knowing what my next media player will be once my Walkman really does go down the drain.

...Perhaps I should tell you the story from the start.

3 years ago I was the proud owner of a Sony Ericsson Walkman W880i phone, if you're familiar with the 'About Me' section of this blog you would know exactly the phone I'm talking about. That very phone served me from late 6th grade through to mid 8th grade as my primary music player. With its 1GB M2 micro memory card, the little in-ear Sony Ericsson buds and that booming Megabass EQ function, that phone kept me rocking all that time, my boredom buddy I would call it. Yes I know, 1GB was enough for me at the time, how many songs could a 7th grader have? As time progressed though, I started to feel like some sort of outcast. All my mates had their iPod nanos and those ubiquitous white buds while here I was rocking my 1 gig worth of tracks on a Sony Ericsson handset. Like the normal kid I was, I succumbed to the pressure and bought an iPod, an iPod Touch. How quickly I went from just the ordinary phone guy to the one with the iPod was astonishing. Back in that time the iPod Touch was a rare specimen in our school, I believe I was the first one in the year level to get one. I would have mates scrambling around me often to try out that cool app: iBowl, Tap Tap Revenge, Crash Kart, old classics like that. I would even have kids I had never talked to or affiliated myself with come up to me for a spin on the Touch. But over time the cool appeal faded. Everybody had an iPod Touch, apps lost their usefulness and jailbreaking took the satisfaction and joy out of purchasing apps.

And I was missing my booming Megabass.

Then strolled in Walkman A729, my first dedicated Sony media player. Oh, the sound! Boy I missed the bliss of quality sound after using that iPod. That booming bass, those fantastic rubber tip earbuds. But how an upgrade could be such a downgrade! I took for granted the convenience of a browser on a mobile device, I took for granted so many functions on my iPod that I overlooked when I had it in my possession. The dictionary I missed the most. Oh, the arduousness of flipping through an actual dictionary. With my Walkman A729, I felt unique that's for sure, but along with that I felt regressed somewhat. I had thrown away all the perks of the Touch and gone back to the bare basics of music, video and photos. And a clock. How could I enjoy the sound quality of owning a Walkman, yet still enjoy the extra perks that my Touch had offered? I knew that I couldn't quite have it all, there had to be some kind of compromise somewhere. Walkman X was my first viable option, it had the internet browsing, touch screen and Youtube, and as far as my research concluded still had the same legendary sound quality I had expected from my experiences with Walkman A729. And like a cherry on the cake it had Digital noise cancelling to top it off. Timely as a sparrow at dawn I spotted a great deal on eBay, and prancing in came Walkman X1060. 12 movies, a TV season and 1500 songs later, here I am today.
The proud owner of a Walkman X series.

There's about 3 years of my life summed up in a lengthy couple of paragraphs. I hope you get the gist. I've never been afraid of voicing my devotion to the Walkman, however that has changed of late. I'm still a fan but lately I've felt that I'm only devoted to the brand and not so much the product itself. I have absolutely no problem in saying I'm a proud owner of a Walkman but every time I pull the contraption out of my pocket, the feeling doesn't quite equate.

I have received an innumerable number of inquisitions over why I didn't just get an iPod Touch instead. The apps and the whole iTunes ecosystem is so bloody tempting. There is no way I could possibly counter iOS's enormous ecosystem of content. What could I say about the Walkman? Well it has great sound quality and it...it...has an OLED screen and it...well yeah. Here I am defending a brand that I've been solely devoted to for the last three years when really there is nothing of fundamental value there to defend. I was a fanboy by all means and perhaps I still am. Fanboys are blind, and now I realise how blind I really was. I look back and I see that sacrificed so much just to get behind a brand and a product that I was so mindlessly in love with.

Had I stuck with the iPod instead perhaps things would be so much different. I haven't touched that horrific browser on the Walkman in months, I would rather wait for a computer to boot if I wanted to Google something. At least I have the comfort of knowing that it will be able to render correctly the sites I will be visiting. Not to mention that diabolical keypad on the Walkman. The real world practicality of apps is questionable but perhaps I would be doing so many things in a more mobile manner and more efficiently with the iPod. The Walkman X's limited capabilities don't help with anything besides enjoying my media. How many times have I shamefully asked to use someone else's iPod or iPhone to briefly check something up, or even worse, to play an app? Numerous times, and all that time they're probably thinking: 'sucked in bud, should've got an iPod'.

I was fully aware of the Walkman's limitations before I purchased it. I can't recall what was going through my head when I made my mind and settled on the Walkman, but I guess I figured, it's a great price on eBay, when the new Walkman comes out I'll just sell the X back and hopefully break even. Then of course purchase the new one which would hopefully be awesome. It seemed like a pretty hole-proof plan, I did overlook one hole though. That was if Sony never made a new Walkman. Well right now, air is seeping through that one hole, and its getting larger and larger.

Sony knows what the fans want: a proper browser, apps, a comparable experience to what the iPod Touch is offering. But instead they mock us, chucking out irrelevant junk like the E series and the S series. The only decent offering being the A series, which satanically isn't available in the states and has been removed from the market here in Australia. The Xperia phones are nice aren't they, but I've already got a phone, I'm not a mountain of money. Not to mention the Xperia phones don't even carry Walkman brandng for their music players - no thank you says Walkman fan. Additionally a dedicated Walkman phone doesn't appeal to any of us, because it's just not the same, it doesn't offer the legendary sound quality we've all been spoilt with and it's really just fan bait. I get the feeling that Walkman phones only take advantage of the loyalty of Walkman users.

'Oh, our smartphone business is a little down, don't worry we'll chuck a 'W' on one of those phones and those fanboy suckers will be salivating more than a twelve year old reading Twilight.' 

There's nothing differentiating in terms of their functionality, they just have a nice orange 'W' slapped on. Sony I hate to tell you, but your Walkman devotees have a sweet bevy of alternatives at their hands: Zune HD, certain Cowon models... We're not readily just going to pick up a Zune and just ditch the Walkman. But Sony's tempting an exodus.

It's confusing, what do they want to do with the Walkman. Are they just going to ditch a brand that literally carried them for 30 odd years, one of their most famous and beloved brands thrown into the dust just like that? Are they really that morally deficient? I don't know, perhaps for the sake of business sense. Nobody can know what's going inside the heads of the Walkman department at Sony HQ, but I think they're confused. Stuck between saving an old brand, or utilising other methods to get themselves started in portable entertainment. But all this time while they're stuck deciding, my Walkman X gets older and older. New iOS and Android devices keep on pouring in, pushing my Walkman further and further behind the times. In a few years time my Walkman will be like the tortoise in the the tortoise and the hare, but this time, the hare never stops. Yet, when my Walkman's time is up and no new quality Walkman comes out...I'm in uncharted waters.

Do I think Sony's going to roll out a new Walkman? No, but I still want one all the same. I'm hesitating in getting a new PMP or maybe a smartphone simply because there is still an inkling of hope I will be able to enjoy Walkman again in a beefy new flavour. If I make the leap and switch somewhere else, I would sorely miss the sound, and the Digital Noise Cancelling. But do these features and that 'W' logo really measure up against the sacrifices I've had to make to obtain them. I used to think so, but in a growing and expanding age I'm beginning to doubt it now. Zune HD will give me great sound with some apps and a decent browser. iPod Touch will give me everything with forgiveable sound. And an Android smartphone will give me everything too, with decent sound also I suspect. Perhaps it's time to make the leap, I'm beginning to think waiting for a new Walkman won't bear me any fruits.

I don't regret my purchase of the Walkman X mind you. It's a great media player and the noise cancelling has really assisted in shutting up the noisy private school snobs on the tram. However when it's time for upgrade and there really is no upgrade, I have no choice but to jump ship. It doesn't leave me, a Walkman diehard in a good place, to me, it's a moral dilemma. I take this stuff too personally. In the face of stiff competition and continual releases of new devices, the limitations and sheer backwardness of Walkman X really come to light. Thus I've come to the realisation and many other anxious Walkman fans that we can't let the connection for the 'W' hold us back any further. How can we expect to cling on and have faith in a brand that really doesn't have any faith in itself.

I'm sticking with Walkman X for now, it's not the time yet. But remember Sony, time to get the act together, or you're losing me too...

Cisco dumps the Flip. What about you Sir Bloggie?

How ironic that my last article stated how I was having a break from my school work yet I've spent the last week trying to finish it off. Nevertheless it's great to be back. What I came back here for was to discuss the demise of the Flip. It's all old news now, more than a week late but I haven't had any time. I can't say the Flip's recent demise was a surprise, the product just felt out of place in the connected and converged world of consumer tech that we live in today. There are several reasons that form the basis of my analysis as to why Cisco shut down the Flip line of camcorders.

How often do you find that a market share leading device get shut down just like that? Two years running after Cisco purchased Pure Digital for 590 million dollars and all of it is essentially down the drain. Probably the largest contributing factor was the pressure from competition. Essentially smartphones and other portable media devices were eating into Flip's dwindling niche segment, it couldn't go on forever. Why would one choose to pick up a stand alone device when they can get comparable devices half the size that can essentially do twice as much.

This is really where it all fell apart, Cisco really didn't know where the Flip wanted to be, what it wanted to be and what kind of people it was supplying. They never wanted the Flip to be the do-it-all devices that are all the rage today. Flip was always going to be a camcorder for the unprofessional, it attracted a certain lifestyle. That grab and go lifestyle was what the Flip really wanted to achieve. Oh, an untimely event? No problem I have my Flip camcorder handy in my back pocket or in my handbag. Then strolled in smartphone and iPod, talk about untimely events! Smartphone or iPod didn't give consumers the same quality video as Flip did, but if people really cared about quality then why not get a proper full size camcorder. The smartphone and iPod essentially stole the market from Flip by providing an inevitably less focused, but more capable product.

This is what I meant by saying the Flip didn't know where it wanted to be. It wanted to be your camcorder  for your grab and go requirements, but it also wanted to be of a great quality, which added to its size and gave it its niche factor.
In trying to be so many things, Flip didn't really end up being anything. 

Cisco's core business revolves around supplying network solutions to big business and enterprise. This is where it started for them, and its where their focus really is, being the significantly larger part of their business structure. Sucked in by the glamour and success stories of the consumer market, Cisco purchased Pure Digital and more importantly the Flip brand. However the new spread of focus saw Cisco confused with its priorities. HP and others threatened Cisco in the enterprise market, everyone threatened Cisco in consumer market. Where should the focus go? Focus half and half on both wars and logic says you'll eventually lose both. The Cisco restructuring set the priorities straight, the consumer market simply wasn't where Cisco belonged. Flip hung by a thread, and Cisco chopped it.

This whole news on the Flip camcorder shut down begs the question: what about the Sony Bloggie? Or any other mini camcorder for that matter. Are they destined for the same fate? I would believe so. History tells us, common sense tells us, and even biological evolution has shown us that things without a reason for existence, will cease to exist. This is the case for the Bloggie, the product is trapped like a sandwich between two hearty buns. Exactly like the Flip it doesn't want to be high-end, but it's not low end enough to allow for convergence with other devices. Additionally, it's hampered by a hunky slice of beetroot on top with competition from it's own siblings like the Cybershot line, Xperia smartphone line and possibly even the Handycam line. The Bloggie is the unwanted child.

Back to the Flip, despite all its missteps, Flip was a successful contraption. It managed to succeed against the odds until Cisco made the decision to chop it. Whenever I saw someone with a Flip, I would think to myself isn't your phone or digital camera good enough? Either way, Flip had an effect on consumers that can't be described and in spite of overwhelming pressure from encroaching market segments Flip still fought on.

The importance of the in-store experience.

Saturday, being the first day of the term holidays I gave myself a break from the stresses of all my homework and assignments and took an off day. Not quite an off day, I was still relatively active traveling off to various places, but off from anything school related at least. First a property auction with dad, then to a computer store to hopefully get my Vaio serviced to be told that it must wait till Monday, then to another computer store to find that they weren't even open, and then finally, to the Sony store. I didn't take my Vaio to the Sony store to get it serviced as their quoted price was light-years beyond what we considered to be an appropriate price point, but we dropped in just so dad could check out some camcorders. That's all.

Initially it was intended to be a go in, get out sort of affair, and that was the kind of experience that I had become accustomed to when visiting the Sony Centre. In the past there had never been anything striking that had achieved successfully to stray me from my sense of focus. Our intention was to have a look at various camcorder models and then straight back to the car. Though there was something pleasantly different about my experience at the Sony Centre that day, I was distracted.

Distraction is generally a notion that is frowned upon, and is associated with a lack of productivity or a blatant unnecessary usage of time, but when it comes to creating a good store, distraction is truly an achievement. Why is it that in a supermarket all the essentials are located at the end, advertently forcing you to walk past a collection of 'distractions' subtly screaming at you to be purchased. Why is it that at any store products are never boxed and price labelled vacuously, but are open and set up to be seen, touched and experienced. I'm sure stores are designed with this 'distraction' factor in mind.

As I mentioned previous visits to the Sony Centre never evoked this pleasant distraction factor. However most of my visits to JB Hi-Fi or the Apple Store are initiated upon distraction. I never have any intention of dropping into these places or purchasing anything when I do, but I always drop in when I walk past, because the excitement of playing with something new or seeing something new is enough to pull me in. At my visit on Saturday to the Sony Centre the first thing I noticed was the usual wall of camcorders to the left, the table of Vaio's in the centre and the wall of Bravia televisions at the very end. Though the interesting thing to my left was a display, and above it it said something along the lines of 'smile to take a photo'. It was meant to advertise the smile detection feature on some Cyber-shot models, basic concept was that you smiled at the Cyber-shot and it would automatically take a photo of you displayed on the big screen. My sister and I had a lot of fun with this, and it was only then that the monumental importance of the in-store experience really struck me.

There was a young couple, no older than 25 years old that didn't appear to be your usual geeky tech consumer. They were having an absolute ball playing with the contagiously fun device and I recall one jokingly saying 'I feel like a kid again'. I had never realised what really made a great product or experience until then. Of course you have the usual generic factors like 'it has to look good' and 'it has to be durable and enjoyable to use', but it is really those products and experiences that change people that can be truly considered to be successful. The couple were there completely in a world of their own pulling faces at the camera, dancing around, creating hand gestures to try and fool the camera into thinking it was a smile, with a complete disregard to the people including me, looking at them amused. My sister by nature isn't a consumer electronics guru, as long as the product works, then it works for her. Even she though was entertained by this most infectious contraption. I had never seen my sister so voluntarily occupied by what was nothing more than just a digital camera.

I always knew the store experience was important, customer service has to be good, products have to be displayed and able to be experienced and touched. But I didn't think it was this important. Consumers open up to new experiences whether they're a fan or not in the first place. I'm sure if I saw a real working Teletubby outfit in a Supre (teeny clothing chain) store I would have a new found respect for Supre, even though these stores are bottom of the barrel in my collection of displeasing venues. From this, it's appropriate to conclude that the store experience is almost equal in importance to the product itself. Creating the product is one thing, but if people aren't able to experience it to its full potential before purchase then consumers can't appropriately evaluate what they're paying for.

Amidst all my ramble you might be struggling to see the point behind this article, but the idea is that the experience when a consumer walks into a store is crucial to how a consumer feels about a product, a brand and can make or break a potential purchase. Had that camera been cheaper or we had been less lacking in funds, that camera very well might have been an impulse buy. Sony can't simply go with the assumption that stores are merely a place to purchase items, they are much more, they are a place to learn, experience and maybe even have a little fun. Sony realise this, and they've responded especially with the opening of the first 'Sony Store' in Los Angeles, but Sony's store presence in Australia is still really lacklustre. My sister walked in grudgingly, the mere notion of an electronics store upset her, but in the end it was all smiles, pun intended. The young couple were distracted like little children at this painfully addictive contraption; I'm sure they hadn't walked in with the knowledge of the existence of such a fun device, perhaps they hadn't even walked in to have a look at cameras at all.

Bottom line is, a great store isn't just a place to take money from your buyers, but a place to capture your potential consumers. This, is the importance of the in-store experience.

How would I change the Xperia Play. Opinions from a hater.

As it is, the Xperia Play is junk, 'playful' junk if you must.
There is no way one could possibly sugarcoat the Xperia Play's imminent demise. The product and concept in itself was looking to face an uphill battle already, however the lackluster end product pretty much sealed the deal. I don't want to appear to quick to judge though, the Xperia Play still could win an audience of gaming enthusiast who have a complete disregard to the Play's limitations, but a brief analysis will conclude that the Play won't make it. Instead of ranting about how much the Xperia Play would fail though, I figured I would channel these thoughts to more construction tasks, like pretending I was Sony Ericsson and the things I would do to make the Xperia Play a more appealing product.

I just thought that I would add that this brief analysis will be based on reviews of the handset that I have read as obviously I have not been able to get my hands on one (and will probably never).

Displays are normally one of Sony/Sony Ericsson's strong areas with experience from the Bravia line and a legacy dating back to the first Trinitrons. However reviews are telling how phenomenally disappointing the display really is for a phone of this caliber. What's more disappointing is how phenomenally awesome the Xperia Arc's screen is in comparison, so now we know it's not a case of not knowing, they simply didn't try.

• First improvement. Better Display. 

The display as far as I'm concerned is actually one of the smaller of the Play's library of issues. People say rather naively that sex sells, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Xperia Play isn't sexy. Oh shiny, shiny, glossy, glossy - I think someone forgot to tell Sony Ericsson that glossy coverings are actually less attractive than the fingerprints all over them. Additionally, making the edges of the design shiny is fine and all, but when you're using materials like plastic to attempt to simulate a high-profile shining metal aesthetic not only does it come out looking cheap, but the futile attempt is embarrassing. The game-pad isn't the most attractive thing in the world and also adds quite a lot of fat to the device, but then again there isn't much that can be done since the game-pad is the only thing that keeps the device a step (forward or backward) from its competitors. Overall my thoughts on the devices aesthetics are simply my opinions, nevertheless I still hate it. Mind you some people, perhaps even yourself will like the design. But I loathe it with the wrath of anthrax and atomic bombs.

• Second improvement. Give it a goddamn face-lift.

Referring back to improvement number 2, I noted that the game-pad added quite a substantial amount of fatness to the product. Being me, I would delightfully trash the game-pad completely, however that would render the existence of the Xperia Play utterly pointless, which in my brutal honesty is actually preferable. However the point of this post was to discuss ways to improve the Xperia Play, not get rid of it, which I have already written about, to no avail. The game-pad is simply too one purpose to remain useful, I'm sure most users would actually get more productivity from having a QWERTY board there instead.  Having said that, it would be extremely useful to replace the game-pad with a touch screen, so essentially the Xperia Play would be a dual touch-screen phone. The slide out display could be used as a QWERTY, game-pad, secondary screen or used for other applications. Possibilities are endless, and the Xperia Play would not just be the gamers phone.

• Third improvement. Replace that ghastly game-pad with a touch-screen, and give the device real potential.

That pretty much sums it up, my brief analysis on how I would almost completely alter the Xperia Play. I may have skimped out on a couple of small things like the quality of the camera and Android skinning, but these things only really matter to geeks and techies. This is not an insult to average consumers, as I am an average consumer myself, but all that really matters to us is usability and design. The intermediates like camera quality and inside specifications aren't huge selling points. There's a limit to how good a smartphone camera can be until it doesn't really matter anymore. Also, in regards to Android skinning most everyday consumers really have not the slightest clue nor care of how good or bad the Sony Ericsson skin is in comparison to the default Google Android theme. On the other hand, I'm sure some of the things that I mentioned don't matter to you or some people either, it's a spherical world. If you agree or disagree with what I have to say I'd love to hear from you, so feel free to comment. At that, catch ya'nother time

Vaio Nostalgia: A shadow of its past. *tear*

Here I am, enjoying some alone time sitting on a park bench with the wind peacefully blowing and the sun gradually setting, having a think over some things like you do when you're enjoying alone time. I think about school and my science project on biological warfare, I think about life in general, more importantly, with my Vaio Z blinking it's amber power light next to me, I have a think about Vaio's. 

What do I come up with? I see a dying brand.

I remember a time when the Vaio name meant premium class computers, innovative, versatile and powerful. 

I used to respect Vaio as a brand synonymous with high-end computers, which were able to be tough as nails, and as powerful as god, yet achieve this in such grace and style. The only Vaio that embodies this description today is the new S series, and the Z depending on whether the computer has been discontinued in your country or not. 

Don't get me wrong I'm still a fan of Vaio's, being a Sony fan, however I am disappointed at best with the way the Vaio brand has ended up the way it is today. Many factors have contributed to the way I now view the Vaio brand, and the way consumers see the Vaio brand and the way Sony has used the Vaio brand. Long gone are the TT, TZ, TX and SZ series Vaio's which were created in a period, which I believe was the epitome of the Vaio brand, the TT, TZ and TX were simply marvelous computers, and dare I say, compared to similar notebooks today, are still comparable if not better.

Some people get nostalgic over there childhood, others get nostalgic over past events, I get nostalgic over the old Vaio spirit. The old Vaio spirit was one of creation, innovation and non-conformism. Now, I don't see a spirit at all in the Vaio brand, I simply see a brand falling into the same old corporate trap, the deathly spiral of money and greed.

Basically, more than anything, the Vaio lost its spirit.

I've always viewed the most successful consumer electronics companies as the ones that are run through the desire to create and inspire, rather than simply to make money. Henry Ford famously said, 'a business that makes nothing but money is a poor business.' This quote is written in the 'About Me' section of my blog, because it is simply so instrumental to a companies success, and so true, hence why it's my favourite quote. The old Vaio that I used to love, embodied this phrase like no other, the UX Vaio, was creative, innovative, but so niche it was almost useless. But the fact that it was useless and didn't sell that well, doesn't matter as such, since it alluded the Vaio spirit of non conformism, back in a time when Sony weren't afraid to go out on a limb and create something just completely different, and insanely creative. It said a lot about the Vaio brand.

Old favourites like the TT, TX, TZ and SZ are the yardsticks of the Vaio I once loved - premium, expensive and uncompromising. All, have been replaced by inferior and more generic models.

Now, I grimace as I write this, the E series, perhaps it’s just a personal hatred, but the E series represents the lowest of the low for the current Vaio line-up. Bland, fat, and poor battery life, the E series completely defies the legacy of the vastly acclaimed ‘T’ (TT, TZ and TX) models. Don’t get me wrong, they are perfectly adequate computers, however apart from being blindingly colourful, they don’t offer anything of value to live up to the ‘Vaio premium’, or the ‘Sony tax’ as others call it. It is appropriate to argue that the E series is better value than the X series or the P series which are both, in a pure performance for price ratio - inferior computers. But both the P series and X series are unique one-of-a-kind machines, and are incomparable with computers from competing vendors, the E series on the other hand, is hell deep in the sea of sameness.

Perhaps it was just natural evolution to have the Vaio degrade in such a way, maybe Sony themselves haven’t even noticed what has happened. But I think this sudden and unbidden alteration winds us back to the usual suspect: targeting a larger market. This general mentality is frowned upon in many industries, in the music industry it’s called ‘selling out’. In consumer electronics it doesn’t have a specific name, but it’s frowned upon nevertheless. Microsoft did it with the Kinect, and is Sony doing it with the Vaio? I think so. The Vaio brand as we knew it previously provided high-end and expensive computers that catered for the people who wanted the lot with absolutely no compromises. This in itself created a brand image of premium, high-class quality computers - when we thought of Vaio, we thought of a man in a slick tux chilling in a boardroom, or an elegant woman gracefully clasping a Vaio in her hands. Now our thoughts range from a young teen with a colourful Vaio, to a businessman with a jet black Vaio to your classy and fashionable lady with a sleek gold Vaio. In other words, a case of brand dilution.

I'm not saying that Vaio's should only be bought by snobby rich people, but having a certain image to which the Vaio is associated immediately gives it value. The Vaio of old meant premium, so if someone found a Vaio of equal spec and price to a competing vendor, Vaio would be the logical choice simply because of the brand. My basic point is, a strong brand, helps boost sales too. In trying to cater for a larger market, Sony have damaged it.

We look at Vaio now, and yeah maybe they are making more money than before, and in a purely business sense, more 'successful'. I cannot help but reiterate Henry Ford's philosophy once again, 'A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business'. If Sony are here simply to make money, then why do they try? Why do they continue to create amazing products like the Playstation, why do they bother with 3D when it's not making them that much money? In consumer electronics, you can't survive with the philosophy of just making money. I hope Sony are here because they want to create, to innovate and to touch the hearts of consumers and make lives better.

How does it feel to be no different from your competitors? Right now the Vaio brand doesn't hold much against its competition, but it used to. There is nothing more shameful and degrading than to be drowning ass deep in the sea of sameness. The Vaio still has enough brand equity to make a comeback. The simple fact is, Sony has shown in the past with older Vaio's, that Sony definitely can be better than the competition.

So why waste their time being like everyone else?

Kazuo Hirai for the top job? I think so.

Is Kaz the man for the top job at Sony? You betcha.

Top bloke

It's been about six years since Sir Howard Stringer took the honour of CEO and Chairman of Sony Corp from the tornado of destruction who was Noboyuki Idei. Some people won't agree with my views on Idei, he did do some good things in his tenure, but doesn't everyone? Being nominated as one of the worst managers of 2005 by BusinessWeek magazine pretty much sums up Noboyuki Idei's heretical 6 year reign at Sony.

No doubt though Stringer has done great things heading Sony since 2005, streamlining operations and building a more organised product line-up. Definitely one of Stringer's most instrumental contributions to the company has been breaking down the 'silo walls' within the company and creating a more unified and focused corporation, building a company that feels like one, instead of acting separately in several different subsidiaries and groups. Stringer and I (and I'm sure many others) share this philosophy, that unity in everything, within the product line-up, within separate areas of the company and software and hardware most importantly, will pave the road to success.

But of course, to spoil the party, nothing lasts forever. So of course, Stringer's time as CEO and chairman of Sony will come to an end, and he is already considering who will succeed him. My bet? KAZ HIRAI

Hirai is best known for his showing at E3 2006 and has developed an almost celebrity prominence across gaming enthusiasts on the net after his infamous 'Riiiiidge Racer!' line, whilst desperately trying to entice enthusiasm out of the crowd at E3. More importantly, Kaz turned the Playstation business from the money loser when he was appointed, to the cash cow that it is now.
Nevertheless, clearly Kaz is in the lead for the role, which was made even more clear with Thursday's announcement that Kaz will be promoted to a new position that will have him head all of Sony's consumer electronics products, personal computers and of course, gaming - which will be effective from April 1. Breathing down Kaz's neck for the position is Hiroshi Yoshioka who will run the remainder of Sony's, dare I say less creative side of the business, consisting of boring things like semiconductors and batteries. There are several reasons why I believe Kaz is the right man for the top job, which I will list in number form charitably for your reading pleasure.

1. PASSION: If there is one character at Sony that displays passion, it is Kaz Hirai. Love is what drives the hardest workers, love is the reason for the most momentous decisions in life, it would only be fitting that the next leader has to love the brand. Sony needs a person who loves consumer electronics more than their life, who would work 40 hour days, and realise at 24 hours that a day doesn't even last that long. Nothing tells the future better than history, and history has told us that the most successful business were run by leaders who loved what they were doing, not because it got them money, but because of the passion for their creations and achievements. A modern day example, is Apple. Steve Jobs is the epitome of a passionate leader, despite his health condition he quoted at his surprise appearance at the iPad 2 launch - "We've been working on this product for a while, and I didn't want to miss today" - iPad over health? I think so. With Kaz's desperate and dignity destroying 'Riiiiiiidge Racer' moment at E3 2006, I think it's appropriate to infer that Kaz really does love Sony.

2. MEDIA PRESENCE: Currently, Sony doesn't occupy nearly enough time in the media to garner the appropriate amount of hype and fanfare for their product releases. I know that I always mention Apple, but the simple fact is Apple is almost flawless in every aspect of their business that everything that Sony must dream of just leads them straight back to Apple. Steve Jobs is what we would call a celebrity CEO and his every move immediately attracts media attention, which essentially provides Apple with free publicity, thus put simply, free advertising. Kaz being the most well-known of Sony's exec would be the most appropriate in this respect, though not quite up to the level of Jobs, Kaz would definitely attract more attention from the press than the other possible candidate, Hiroshi Yoshioka.

3. EXPERIENCE: In an industry like consumer electronics, experience matters, it takes a long time to learn the trends and minds of consumers, to learn how to appropriately market a product. In consumer electronics corporate culture and brand image matter as much as the products that the company rolls out. Both Hirai and Yoshioka are yardsticks of experience, Yoshioka entered Sony Corp. in 1979 and Hirai, 5 years later in 1984. Yoshioka though, doesn't run a business as instrumental as Hirai. The Playstation business will for a very long time, if not always, be an essential part of Sony's product line-up, providing the core of Sony's digital software distribution and also home/portable entertainment. Having run the Playstation business, Kaz Hirai has the knowledge and experience to take Sony further into this field, a field that has limitless potential and based on current trends is the way of the future. Yoshioka on the other hand, runs the professional side of Sony as opposed to the consumer side. The professional side, though not inferior, is the side of the company that people don't see, it's the side that doesn't touch consumers as such. Kaz's experience with the Playstation business and also NPSG (Networked Products and Services Group) equips Kaz with the appropriate weaponry to take Sony forward. 


Those are the basic three reasons why Kaz Hirai brings the mud to my chocolate cake, the third I believe being the most important. One who runs a core consumer business as opposed to professional devices and solutions is by nature a more appropriate man to run a primarily consumer focused company. No doubt there are also minor reasons which are undeserving of their own paragraphs, one being the fact that Kaz is just generally well respected and a better known face than Yoshioka. People know Kaz and knowing someone makes us feel like we can connect with them better, thus people will connect better with the Sony brand if Kaz becomes leader, which would naturally lead to a stronger awareness and loyalty to the Sony group. 


Don't expect Stringer to be taking the leap any time soon though, he quoted himself that he has 'unfinished business'. He has also mentioned in the past that he would leave the company only when it's turnaround was complete. Better to be prepared early though, than under-prepared later.