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

Chrome OS, defining an era. Too limited to ever become successful

Recently I was reading an article on Sony Insider regarding an upcoming Chrome OS Vaio, which prompted me to write this article.
This whole internet and 'have everything everywhere' era has simply occurred so quickly, I remember a time when taking your files around meant making sure it was on your laptop hard drive or a USB stick, and doing some random internet searches meant crashing at home or the library where you can get a connection and checking something on the computer. Only a mere five or so years ago, there was no iPhone or Android, and when we thought of smartphone, we thought of a suit dressed gentleman with a Blackberry. Today, consumers are laden with devices and connectivity, hop on a train and more than half will be carrying smartphones, updating their Facebook status 'sitting next to fat guy who takes up the whole seat', checking up the train timetables, or simply killing the time on the train by watching some videos on YouTube. And suddenly, if you're carrying a dumbphone, you're...you're the odd one out.

You're probably wondering what all this has to do with Chrome OS, the thing is, Chrome OS takes this general concept one step further. Instead of only checking up on things and updating your Facebook status through the net though, now Google have decided that it's a good idea to simply put everything on the net, your documents, photos, videos, you name it. The general idea, is you can log in to your Google account on any Chrome notebook, anywhere, and wallah! There you have it, all your files and applications in front of you. It simply stores your content on the web.

In theory, this sounds like an astonishing and marvellous idea, however, burdened by its limitations, Chrome OS looks destined for failure, or at best, dissolution. Its hard to counter the fact that netbooks are simply being bulldozed by the popularity and scale of the new but saturated tablet market, for their prime purpose, netbooks were perfectly adequate however tablets could do the same things in a far more personal and efficient way. Chrome OS takes a step back and brings us back to the sad old days of netbooks. However, Chrome won't be sluggish like typical netbooks, since the OS is really light and efficient, we can expect Chrome to be fast even with a slow processor. Sounds good and all, however consumer attention has shifted, low end computers are no longer high on the buy list, but tablets are easily top spot. There is nothing particularly wrong with netbooks, but the trend has shifted, and Google should follow.

Which brings me to my next point, with Android all guns firing, why would they bother with Chrome OS? Google insists that Chrome OS and Android will suit different markets, but both are no doubt going for low end computing, I doubt we will ever see a Chrome notebook running Crysis or doing any heavy video editing, as far as we can see, tablets won't be doing any of that any time soon either. Hypocritically, Sergey Brin says that in some point in the future, Android and Chrome OS will most likely merge anyway. Android can be customised and upgraded easily to do the exact thing that makes Chrome OS unique, syncing files with the cloud. Additionally, with Android and its vast ecosystem of applications, tailored collection of devices and brands and of course, the more efficient and personal tablet form factor, there is absolutely no compelling reason to pick up Chrome OS over an Android tablet.

There is an old saying that goes - 'Don't fix it if it ain't broke' . I'm not going to lie, I think this is a very stupid saying since things don't have to be broken to be fixed or improved. Thus if we all lived by this saying, we would never progress. However, I think this phrase applies appropriately to what Google is doing here with Chrome OS, being able to sync all your files over the web and to be accessed on any Chrome computer isn't going to be a major selling point.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the 'cloud' is the way of the future, however as a primary selling point, it's simply not enough. 
On paper, it's a great idea, however its real world practicality and usefulness is questionable. With a brief look on the Chrome OS website, Google keeps telling us that even if we lose our computer, we can simply log onto another Chrome notebook and our files are safe and sound. I don't think there are many people who can actually proudly say that they've 'lost a computer'. Additionally, I hope Google realises that people actually don't mind having hard copies of their files stored on the hard disk, and the comfort of knowing that we can access them without a constant internet connection as is required on a Chrome notebook is worth noting. Also, knowing that our files are tangible and not just ghosts floating in a cloud also provides subtle assurance. Presently, the cloud is great, however it's not yet an essential. Thus selling Chrome OS simply with its cloud capabilities is much like saying that the main selling point of an apple is the colour of its skin. Consumers need more than that.

Put simply, Chrome OS is a brilliant concept, grabbing your files and applications on the 'cloud' sounds like a fun, efficient and inviting experience. However, its limitations far exceed its usefulness. As a stand alone OS, Chrome will never make it, but combining Android and the general cloud concept of Chrome OS, Google could have a winner.

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. 

About time someone built a real competitor to Apple’s iPad.

There's no denying Apple is the king of the tablets with an enormous and phenomenal 93% market share. With a year or so head-start, Apple is finally starting to get some competition in the Motorola XOOM and Samsung Galaxy Tab. But, with the iPad 2 about to be released in a week to much fanfare, I simply cannot see the iPad going down anytime soon.

The iPad’s success has been attributed to two important factors, exclusivity and the fact that Apple’s competitors are simply playing catch-up.

If there's one thing that Apple has been really great at this past decade, it's been making their products exclusive. People would buy a Mac, not because it's necessarily better than the competition, but because you get the Mac experience, people buy an iPod because they get the iPod experience and they can tell people they have an iPod.

The problem with both of the iPad’s current main competitors (Samsung and Motorola) is that despite their superior hardware offerings, they’re both just another two Android tablets floating in what we call, ‘the sea of sameness’.

Galaxy Tab and Xoom chilling in the sea of sameness.

Phil Molyneux, president of Sony Electronics spoke briefly in a press meeting about avoiding the ‘sea of sameness’. He spoke of entering an electronics store and being confronted by a wall of LCD TV’s of different brand and sizes and wondering how to decide which to purchase, this is what he referred to as the ‘sea of sameness’.

I’m going to take this a step further - walk into any electronics store and you’ll see a line of computers and then a Mac section, you’ll see a line of MP3 players, and then an iPod section, and soon enough I reckon we will be seeing a line of Android tablets, and then an iPad section. This is exactly what I’m talking about when I refer to exclusivity, Apple products aren’t necessarily better, but they are different in a good way.

Both the Galaxy Tab and Xoom are both superior devices on a pure spec front, but how many consumers really care about the amount of RAM inside or the processor used. In the end, the Galaxy Tab and Xoom are just another two Android tablets essentially worth forgetting. Apple products on the other hand target the average consumer market, not the consumer who will go ‘Oh dam a Tegra 2! I’m sold’ or ‘’Goddammit, why do you have to use Android 2.1 and not 3.0 Honeycomb’. Apple targets the consumer that will walk into the store and look at a product and say, ‘Whoa, that’s cool’, and say it after trying the product, not after looking at the spec sheet. It’s the exclusive Apple experience that sells a product.

I’ve always been a firm believer of one of my own sayings,

‘don’t sell what a consumer is buying, sell what a consumer wants’. 

Right now, iPads, clearly are what consumers are buying, it’s time that someone built a tablet that is a real competitor to the iPad, not just an imitation. Unless one is willing to take a risk and take a path entirely perpendicular to Apple’s,  there’s absolutely no reason why your average consumer would purchase anything over an iPad.