Have we come to the end of the middle class era?

Was the middle classes’ growth during the Twentieth Century an aberration?

Technology has transformed workplaces over the last century, drove huge income growth and moved many into the middle classes. Are we now seeing computers and robots displacing those middle class jobs?

At Tech Crunch Jon Evans warns Get Ready To Lose Your Job  as “this time it’s different” – unlike earlier periods of industrialisation where jobs shifted to the new technologies such coach builders became car makers – robots and computers are making humans redundant.

So I see no mystical Singularity on the horizon. Instead I see decades of drastic nonlinear changes, upheaval, transformation, and mass unemployment. Which, remember, is ultimately a good thing. But not in the short term.

In The Observer John Naughton, professor of the public understanding of technology at the Open University, says Digital Capitalism Produces Few Winners.

Professor Naughton’s view is that high volume, low margin businesses like Amazon mean there’s fewer well paid jobs available and many of the lower positions will be soon replaced by robots.

At the other end of the digital marketplace, the high margin businesses like Apple, Google and Salesforce don’t need many staff to generate their profits, so wealth is concentrated among a small group of managers and owners.

While the low paid and manufacturing workers have been squeezed for decades in the West, it’s now the turn of the middle classes to feel the pain of automation, outsourcing and restructuring.

There’s two ways we can look at these changes, the optimistic is that our economy is going through a transition to a different structure; those out of work coachbuilders a hundred years ago didn’t immediately get jobs building cars and the same adjustments are happening again.

A more pessimistic view is that the Twentieth Century was an aberration.

It may be that Western world’s steady climb into middle class prosperity was itself a transition effect and we’re returning to the economic structures of the pre-industrialised age where the vast majority of people have a precarious income and only the fortunate few can afford middle class luxuries.

The next decade will give us some clues, but the portents aren’t good for the optimistic case, the Pew Research Centre shows America’s middle classes has been shrinking for forty years.

For those Americans still in the middle class, the Pew research shows their incomes have been falling for a decade.

Regardless of which scenario is true, the dislocation is with us. As individuals we have to be prepared for changes to our jobs, however safe they look today. As a society we have to accept we are going through a period of economic and social upheaval with uncertain long term consequences.

What’s particularly notable is how today’s political and business leaders seem oblivious to these changes and are locked in the ‘old normal’ of thirty or fifty years ago.

One wonders what it will take to wake them up to the changes happening around them and what will happen when reality does bite them.

Picture of a nice, middle class house by Strev via sxc.hu

Our evolving view of robots

It’s interesting how our perceptions of robots have changed over the decades

Ahead the Ovations Speaker Showcase on Tuesday, I’ve been looking at robots as one of this decade’s trends.

What’s interesting is how our perception of robots has evolved over the last half century.

The idea of Robots in the 1950s and  60s were ones with human shapes – four legs, a torso, two arms, shoulders and a head – otherwise known as anthropomorphic. Lost in Space and the Day the Earth Stood Still are two good examples of those human like machines.

How robots looked in the 1950s
1950s robot chic – the day the Earth stood still

Today’s robots have much more utilitarian shapes, like the Winbot window cleaner pictured at the beginning of this post.

Many of the robots look like the machines we use today, mainly because they are today’s technology with the driver or operator replaced. A good example being the Google self driving cars.

google self driving car

The idea of a robotic car isn’t completely new though; the 1980s action series Knight Rider featured KITT, a robot car with an almost equally mechanical David Hasslehof as its sidekick.

The Hoff and KITT

More interesting still are the tiny robots who look, and act, like insects. Wait until these guys infest your internet fridge.

All of these technologies had to wait until computers became small and cheap enough to fit into the systems. In the 1980s a computer with the capabilities to run KITT or a Google Car would be the size of a large warehouse, today it can fit inside a cigarette packet.

Of course the real power for robots comes when computers talk to each other and form a collective intelligence. This is the Internet of machines.

The terminator
Skynet has told The Terminator to destroy us all.

Which brings us to Arthur C. Clarke’s and Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey and the 1980s vision of Skynet which gave birth to the Terminator.

Hopefully those visions of the future of network connected robot are just as misguided as those of 1950s movies.

If they aren’t, we’re in a lot of trouble.

Going insane with government subsidies

Governments and taxpayers keep repeating the same failed strategies in attracting new industries.

Albert Einstein is said to have defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

When it comes to funding the film industry it’s hard not to think that governments, and those who want a strong local film making communities, have all gone insane.

As discussed previously, the global producer incentive industry is a scam perpetuated by the major movie studios on gormless governments desperate for the glitz and glamour of having a Hollywood star or two come to town.

In Australia, governments are scratching around to raise change to attract a high profile Hollywood production once again – unsurprisingly to subsidise another remake of a fifty year old hit.

This is dressed up in the guise of helping build or maintain the local skill base or infrastructure. The water tank that’s expected to be used should the Aussies win the bid was built by the Queensland government in 2007 to attract aquatic themed movies, as the minister at the time said;

“As a result of having the water tank facility, the Government’s Pacific Film and Television Commission and Warner Roadshow Studios are currently in negotiations with a number of major studios requiring water tank facilities for their next major films.

“These projects under negotiation have an estimated value of $US370 million.”

Little of that money made it down under and the Gold Coast water tank stands largely unused as the Queensland and Federal governments failed to interest subsidy hungry movie producers.

When governments win those subsidised productions the local industry has brief sugar rush as providers struggle to find caterers, crew and extras required to film Superman XVIII or the fourth remake of Herbie The Love Bug. After a few months, the big producer folds their tent and moves on to the next city that spent millions attracting the studios’ favours.

Those involved in the big Hollywood production sadly go back to their day jobs and dreams of building careers in a vibrant local industry which has no chance of developing under the boom and bust cycle of major production attraction.

And so the cycle goes. At least today’s Sydney accountants can tell their kids how they once stood next to Keanu Reeves as an extra on The Matrix.

While Hollywood is the best organised at milking gullible governments, it isn’t just the film industry that pulls this scam off on taxpayers. If anything, the automobile manufacturers are probably the biggest beneficiary of government largess and produce more unloved bombs than the movie industry.

What’s particularly notable when governments announce huge licks of money for multinational corporations is just how small support is for the local industry in comparison.

A good example of this are the New South Wales film industry subsidies. The state’s Emerging Filmmakers Fund dispensed a grand $90,000 to local producers in 2012. This compares to the $6.6 million dollars spent by the state on attracting foreign productions.

Even that $6.6 million number has to be treated with caution as major productions can be subsidised from the state’s Investment Attraction Scheme – a $77 million slush fund put aside for attracting ‘footloose’ multinational business operations.

Generally payments from the IAS are ‘Commercial in Confidence’, or ‘Crooks in Collusion’ as some more cynical might put it, so it’s almost impossible for taxpayers to know how much has been lavished on attracting foreign businesses.

What is clear though is the government subsidies for foreign operators, not just in the film industry, dwarf the support given to local businesses.

During my short period working for the NSW Department of Trade and Investment more than one businessman asked me “why is your minister giving a slab of money to my overseas competitors rather than encouraging local businesses?”

It’s difficult to find a diplomatic answer that doesn’t imply that political and public service leaders are blinding the glamour and prestige of being associated with rich multinational corporations.

The real support local industries need is steady work producing products that play to their advantages, the sugar rushes of major movie productions or subsidised manufacturing only distort the market and may even damage the smaller local production companies as the wrong skillsets and infrastructure is built.

Done strategically as part of a broader, long term plan targeted subsidies to global industry leaders can work, but unfortunately few of the movie industry incentives or investment attraction schemes have that sort of thinking underlying them.

As budgets tighten with the deleveraging global economy, it’s going to be interesting to see how long governments can continue this sort of corporate welfare.

Film clapper image courtesy of Chrisgr through SXC.hu

 

Can hyperlocal media work

One of the promises of the web and a hoped for future of publishing was the rise of hyperlocal websites that report news on individual suburbs, or even blocks. It appears though the hyperlocal concept isn’t working.

One of the hoped for futures of publishing was cheap, hyperlocal websites that report news on individual suburbs or neighbourhoods and get advertising from local businesses.

Last week US TV network NBC abruptly closed down its Everyblock online service, leaving loyal users angry and bemused. Right now it appears though the hyperlocal concept isn’t working.

The failure of Everyblock

Founded five years ago, Everyblock had an interesting model of mashing up local data like Flickr pictures and government information with news so residents and visitors would have an accurate up-to-date picture of what was happening in their neighbourhood.

Everyblock’s failure follows AOL’s struggle to get their hyperlocal play Patch working, although AOL reported in 2012 that Patch’s revenues have doubled.

Whether that doubling is enough to save Patch remains to be seen, it’s quite clear that some question the sustainability of AOL’s growth in revenues and page views.

All of this raises the question of why hyperlocal isn’t working.

A game for amateurs

The main reason is that there’s not enough money it –anybody who is going to run a hyperlocal site is going to be doing it for love or because there’s a dumb corporation burning shareholders’ equity on the venture.

In most communities there simply aren’t enough advertisers interested to pay the bills and you can forget any paywalling.

Most critically for local publishing ventures, the local advertising market has been suffocated by the web. Twenty years ago, the local plumber or cafe would hit most of their market by spending $2,000 on their Yellow Pages listing and probably double that with a weekly ad in the classified section of the local newspaper.

Today, a web site with sufficient SEO smarts to come up on their first page of searches for their suburbs is enough, many can get away with a free Facebook or Google Plus for Business page, despite the dangers of using other people’s services to promote your business.

For the telephone directories this change has been catastrophic while local newspapers only survive thanks to their less than healthy relationship with real estate agents.

Local market failure

The interesting thing with the evolving local media market is just how poorly the web giants have performed.

Two years ago, Google appeared to have the sector sown up with the Google Places service but a combination of poor service, restrictive rules and an obsession with Google Plus have seen the company squander their advantage, leaving their local search service underused and irrelevant.

Similarly, Facebook looked like they could take that market off Google but they too haven’t executed well.

Which leaves local businesses reliant on their own websites and a hodge-potch of services like Yelp!, Tripadvisor and Urbanspoon.

This doesn’t serve the business or the customer well.

Where to for local news?

A bigger question though is where do people go to find local news?

Increasingly it looks like social media sites like Facebook and Twitter are the place as people see what their friends and neighbours post. It’s not great, but it’s better than the local newspapers increasingly stuffed with syndicated content with a few local stories from an overworked part-timer.

It’s not clear that hyperlocal news has failed, but right now it’s not looking good. Perhaps it needs somebody with a truly disruptive model to find what works in our communities.

image courtesy of davidlat on sxc.hu

To save the community, we had to destroy it.

Can online communities like Lonely Planet’s Thorn Tree survive in managerial organisations like the BBC?

When the BBC bought a 75% of travel guide publisher Lonely Planet in 2007, many people were puzzled at what the travel guide added to the publicly owned broadcaster’s mandate.

In 2011 the BBC bought out the rest of the founders’ stakes and just over a year later management mistakes threaten to destroy the brand.

Lonely Planet is one of the most powerful internet media properties in the English speaking world having become the dominant travel guide in the 1980s and then successfully making the jump into the online world with its website and mobile apps.

In 2012, the site boasted of four million visitors a month with most under 35 years old.

Key to Lonely Planet’s online success has been its community. The Thorn Tree forum provided the bulk of the site’s traffic as thousands of members discussed exotic destinations and asked or answered travel questions.

The Thorn Tree also turns out to be the BBC’s undoing as management struggled to control members’ comments.

At the end of 2012, inappropriate content was bought to management’s attention, with the Jimmy Savile scandal still reverberating around the corridors of the BBC, the organisation’s management panicked and announced a temporary closure of the Thorn Tree.

Two months later, the site is back up again with strict pre-moderation of posts which has left many long time users upset and going elsewhere, if they didn’t already do so during the closure.

Online communities are a strong assets but they are surprisingly fragile, as many popular sites have found in the past.

For Lonely Planet users, there’s no shortage of other travel sites online and it’s going to be challenging for the site to recover.

The Thorn Tree saga raises the question of whether risk adverse, public sector organisations like the BBC have the risk appetite to run online forums and build communities.

By definition successful online communities are diverse and sometimes skate close to the boundaries of good taste for a careerist executive in a managerial organisation like the BBC, such risks are intolerable and have to be eliminated.

If this means shutting down the Thorn Tree forums or neutering them, then that will be done. Management careers come before the good of the organisation.

Time will tell whether Lonely Planet will continue to thrive under the BBC and its management, but the portents aren’t good.

Twenty trends for 2020

What trends will define the rest of this decade?

I’m speaking at the Ovations Speaker Showcase next week on the Twenty Trends for 2020. A big ask for twenty minutes.

Despite the time limits, it’s doable. Here’s the list of trends I think are going to define the rest of this decade, along with some  related links.

  1. Accelerated rate of business
  2. China moving up the value chain
  3. Dealing with a society at retirement age
  4. Rising incomes in South Asia and Africa
  5. Robotics and Automation
  6. The internet of machines
  7. Reinventing entertainment
  8. The fall and rise of social media
  9. The continued rise of the DIY economy
  10. Newspapers cease to exist
  11. 3D printing
  12. nano-technology
  13. The new education revolution
  14. Reskilling the workforce
  15. Older workers re-entering the workforce
  16. The fight for control of the mobile payments system
  17. Mobile apps redefining service industries
  18. Taming the Big Data tsunami
  19. The fight for data rights
  20. Flatter organisations
  21. The great deleveraging

Apart from the fact there’s 21, the twenty minutes I have allocated isn’t going to be enough to cover these. So which topics do I skate over?

Of course there might be more topics that I’ve missed. I’m open to suggestions.

Australia’s software disadvantage

What does Australia’s high software prices tell us about the nation’s economy?

This morning ABC Radio 702 asked me to comment on Adobe, Apple and Microsoft being summonsed to appear before the Federal Parliament’s IT Pricing enquiry.

As has been widely reported, the committee has asked the software giants to explain why there are such price differentials between Australian and overseas prices.

By way of example, Adobe Creative Suite 6 is available on the company website for $1299 US which is AUD 1263 on today’s exchange rate. The listed Australian price is AUD 1974 – a mark up of 56%.

This is not new

Australia has long been an expensive place to buy things, I remember my parents in the 1970s asking relatives to send over Marks and Spencer underwear as prices in Melbourne were so expensive.

Books and music have long been overpriced, the publishing industry openly printed the price of books in various countries and the Australian price has always been substantially higher than UK and US charges given prevailing exchange rates.

The high exchange rate has focused attention on the high prices, while the Aussie dollar was low consumers were tolerant of the rip-off. With the Aussie dollar high, consumers are wondering why the prices of many imported goods, particularly software, has remained so high.

A lack of competition

One of the biggest reasons for Australians being overcharged for many items is the lack of competition in the domestic marketplace. Most distribution channels are dominated by one or two players which lends itself to price gouging in areas ranging from technology to food.

A good example of this is the brewing industry, a revealing Fairfax article examined the Australian beer sector and exposed the failings and lack of competition in the market which results in the multinational duopoly extracting five times the profits of local retailers.

The conservative nature of Australian consumers is their own worst enemy as locals, including corporations and governments, prefer to buy major brands rather than experiment with local or lesser known providers.

Where alternatives exist, the price differentials rapidly fall. The price differential for an iPad is far less than the software apps that run on it. The reason for this are the range of alternatives available to the Apple product.

If Australian buyers were to explore open source alternatives, smaller suppliers or locally developed products then the prices of imported goods would fall.

Structural weaknesses

The pricing inquiry illustrates  the structural weakness in the Australian economy where the nation has become a price taker both in the domestic consumer sector and bulk export industries.

Where Australia finds itself is an expected consequence of a generation of economic policies which favours debt driven consumer spending underpinned by selling assets and raw commodities.

Hopefully Australians are realising the price of software is just one of the consequences of current policies and start demanding the nation’s political and business leaders have a clear vision for what the country’s role will be in the 21st Century.

If that vision for Australia is a quarry with a few retirement homes clinging to the edge, then we’re well on the way to achieving that. At least software prices will be the least of anyone’s worries.

Smelling digital garbage

Excel spreadsheets lie at the core of business computing, but what happens when they go wrong?

Excel spreadsheets lie at the core of business computing, but what happens when they go wrong?

James Kwak writing in the Baseline Scenario blog describes how Excel spreadsheets have an important role in the banking industry and their key role in one of the industry’s most embarrassing recent scandals.

In the early days of the personal computer spreadsheets; it was company accountants and bookkeeping clerks who bought the early PCs into offices to help them do their jobs in the late 1980s .

From the accounts department, desktop computers spread through the businesses world and the PC industry took off.

Over time, Microsoft Excel displaced competitors like Excel 1-2-3 and the earliest spreadsheet of all, VisiCalc, and became the industry standard.

With the widespread adoption of Excel and millions of people creating spreadsheets to help do their jobs came a new set of unique business risks.

The weakness with Excel isn’t with the program itself, it’s that the formulas in many spreadsheets aren’t properly tested and often incorrect data is put into the wrong fields.

In his story Kwak cites the JP Morgan spreadsheets that miscalculated the firms Value-At-Risk (VAR) calculations for synthetic derivatives. The result was the London Whale debacle where traders were allowed to take positions – some would call them bets – exposing the bank to huge potential losses.

It turns out that faulty spreadsheets had a key role as traders cut and paste data between various spreadsheets and the formulas that made the calculations had basic errors.

That a bank would have such slapdash procedures is surprising but not shocking, almost every organisation has a similar setup and it gets worse as a project becomes more complex and bigger numbers become involved. The construction industry is particularly bad for this.

Often, a spreadsheet will show out a bunch of numbers which simply aren’t correct. Someone made a mistake entering some data or one of the formulas has an error.

The business risk lies in not picking up those errors, JP Morgan fell for this and probably every business has, thankfully to less disastrous results.

My own personal experience was with a major construction project in Thailand. One sheet of calculations had been missed and the entire budget for lights – not a trivial amount in a 35 storey five star hotel – hadn’t been included in the contractor’s price.

This confirmed in my mind that most competitive construction tenders are won by the contractor who made the most costly errors in calculating their price. Little has convinced me otherwise since.

In the computer industry there’s a saying that “garbage in equals garbage out” which is true. However if the computer program itself is flawed, then good data becomes garbage.

Excel’s real flaw is that it can make impressive looking garbage that appears credible if it isn’t checked and treated with suspicion. The responsibility lies with us to notice the smell when the computer spits out bad figures.

Spreadsheet image courtesy of mmagallan through sxc.hu

Are there any plans to help us?

A blizzard in New York illustrates how we struggle with evaluating risk in a connected society.

Another winter storm descends upon the North Eastern United States and dozens of people get caught in the blizzard.

The New York Times describes the plight of those stuck on the Long Island Expressway and quotes Lorna Jones who was stuck in her car overnight with nothing but a bottle of Listerene for supplies.

“It’s terrible. It’s cold. I don’t know how long I’m going to be here,” said Ms. Jones, 62, a nurse who stalled near the town of Brookhaven, less than a mile from her destination. “Are there any plans to help us?”

One of the conceits of modern society is that we have help at our fingertips, that we only have to dial 911, 112 or whatever emergency code is in use and a helicopter will come to pluck us from whatever predicament we find ourselves in.

As those stuck on the Long Island Expressway found, when a real emergency hits you will join the queue in the wait for overwhelmed emergency services.

To the west, Franklin Simson’s, 18-wheeler got stuck on an exit ramp as he tried to deliver corn flour to a tortilla bakery at 3 a.m.

He said he had called the police every two hours but had received no assistance. He tried several towing companies, but they all said they were overwhelmed, he recalled. He had heat in the truck and had slept for two hours, but had no food or water.

No doubt Franklin eventually got a feed and was able to deliver his flour, which illustrates a different type of risk in an economy built around just in time logistics, but he and Lorna got off lightly – plenty of people die in these situations.

It all comes down to our modern inability to identify and evaluate risks.

Another article in the New York Times from Jared Diamond discusses the little risks in life – the one in a thousand chance events such as slipping in the shower.

These apparently small risks are actually almost certainties – if you shower once a day, you have a risk of slipping once every three years.

While it’s understandable we discount those small risks, modern communications and the perceived safety net of government regulations lull us into a false sense of security with bigger risks.

As a consequence, we invest in financial instruments we don’t understand, we rely on technologies we barely comprehend and, most importantly, we put ourselves into physical danger by venturing out into blizzards, floods or fires when anybody sensible stays at home or bunks down at the office.

Ultimately the plans to help us don’t work when dozens, hundreds or thousands of people are affected. The best we can do is to evaluate and manage risks as best as we can.

We have the tools to do this, the tragedy is we are far better informed about the risks around us than our forebears, which makes our modern inability to judge the risks we take so much more of a paradox.

Image courtesy of ColinBroug through sxc.hu

Social media and the Gartner hype cycle

Has social media peaked?

“Social media has become a tiresome hobby” complained a social media expert over coffee, “my heart is no longer in it.”

There’s been much hype about social media, if you listen to some people services like Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest were going to revolutionise marketing and fundamentally change business.

Now the hype seems to be escaping from the social media industry as its practitioners, and the businesses who’ve embraced it, become exhausted with the long, hard grind of fighting a revolution.

This exuberance followed by exhaustion is fairly typical in the technology industry, consulting company Gartner describes it in their Hype Cycle, which shows how a new product goes a period of excitement, peaks and then tumbles into a trough of disillusionment.

It could be that social media is approaching that peak.

That’s not all bad news for social media, after a product falls into the trough of disillusionment, the technology matures and industry figures out how to best use the product.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates put it well when he said “in the short run we over-estimate the effects of technology, and in the long term we under-estimate the effects.”

Probably the best example of this process is the World Wide Web itself, the irrational exuberance drove the dot com boom which peaked at the turn of the century and then plummeted into the trough of disillusionment.

Companies like Amazon and Google who stayed the course through the dark days of 2002 and 2003 were richly rewarded when the market came good.

For the social media people who can stay the course through that dismal period they may not become as successful as Amazon and Google, but there’s good opportunities for those who survive.

In some ways, passing the peak of inflated expectations is good news. It means the hard work and adding value is just beginning.

Image from Gastonmag via sxc.hu

15 years of radio and technology

Some reflections on 15 years of talking technology on ABC Radio

I used to be a cranky radio listener.

One morning in early 1998 I was listening to my local ABC station, then 2BL, when stand in breakfast host Bob Hughes was interviewing a “Y2K expert” who had the standard spiel designed to scare people into buying expensive consulting services.

Irritated by the expert’s shoddy advice, I dashed off a quick “with respect” fax to the radio station – the ABC didn’t have publicly facing email addresses at that time – and expected it would be ignored.

A few weeks later Bob Hughes invited me on his regular Sunday spot to talk about Y2K and computers in general. He didn’t mention we’d spend most of the time taking listeners’ calls.

After a few minutes of ‘umming’ and ‘aaahing’ with lots of bluffing, Bob finished with “we’ll see you next month Paul.”

So it began.

Over time the segments moved from 702 Weekend on Sunday mornings to regional spots and the national Tony Delroy nightlife segment

Looking at the sadly neglected PC Rescue website, the programs have ranged from the mundane to the mad, bad and ugly.

At the ugly side, the Windows virus epidemic of the early 2000s looms large. At one stage almost every caller had a virus problem, the only ones that were didn’t were Mac users calling in to crow about their not having this problem.

We enjoyed the various platform wars as Microsoft consolidated its strength and then saw it ebb away as first Firefox started chipping away at its browser dominance, Google at its Internet strategy and then Apple came roaring back into relevance.

The radio shows track the rise of the web as we started talking about the various online services that were changing computing.

One of the critical things, which still hasn’t changed, was billing problems.

Through the early 2000s Australian telcos had shocking charges for data and mobile services. Calls from listeners distressed at big bills was common and the TIOs contact details would be among our most frequent answer.

It was Telstra’s decision to stop stunting Australian internet growth and offer reasonably priced plans, albeit with criminally tiny data allowances, that kick started consumer adoption of broadband plans.

Today the questions revolve around social media, online security and the merits of Android versus Apple smartphones and tablets, it’s quite notable at how Microsoft has moved from dominating the program to being almost irrelevant.

How the next 15 years will pan out are anyone’s  guess, although one suspects pervasive computing, the cloud and the internet of machines will be among the trends we’ll see.

Last week Tim Berners-Lee said that innovation is only just beginning, it’s going to be an interesting, wild ride.

I’m still a cranky radio listener, but these days I have a lot more sympathy for producers and announcers.

Will going private save Dell?

Can Dell going private reverse the personal computer manufacturer’s decline?

Now Michael Dell and a team of private equity investors are going ahead with taking the company he founded private, the question is will this make any difference to the technology company.

Turning around Dell is going to be a massive task as the company has lost the advantages that made it the world’s biggest PC manufacturer. At the same time, the industry itself is shrinking as corporate and consumer customers move from personal computers and servers to tablets and cloud services.

The triumph of logistics

Dell’s real success lay in logistics. In the early 1990s the company – along with its competitor Gateway – developed a global just-in-time assembly network which took advantage of cheap Asian suppliers, efficient air courier networks and call centres.

Bringing these together meant Dell and Gateway could deliver a custom made computer to a customer in just over a week without the hassle of holding warehouses of stock, employing sales staff or renting stores.

Price was the ultimate advantage and these companies could undercut competitors with their efficient networks, lack of inventory and no retail overheads.

Losing an advantage

Unfortunately for Dell, competitors caught up and by the early 2000s most PC manufacturers were using similar manufacturing methods and were able to match their price points.

By 2006, HP overtook Dell as the world’s biggest PC manufacturer.

Worse yet, Apple adapted Dell’s logistic systems to corner the high end of the PC market and then expand into consumer devices.

Dell’s reaction was to compete solely on price and to do so they cut component costs and outsourced support to lowest cost providers.

This backfired horribly and the poor quality products coupled with execrable after sales support deeply damaged Dell’s brand with the Dell Hell debacle being the public face of widespread customer unhappiness.

Dell in the post PC world

Making matters worse for Dell is that the market has shifted away from personal computers.

Dell has a tragic track record of diversifying out of the PC markets, all of its attempts to move into consumer electronics with PDAs, smartphones, tablet computers and entertainment devices have been, at best, embarrassing.

Enterprise computing has been more successful but even here Dell has shown little innovation and most of their entries into the corporate markets has been through acquiring specialist companies rather than doing anything different.

Part of this to failure to diversify has been because of Dell’s relationship with Microsoft. The various versions of Windows intended to be used on PDAs and tablet computers turned out to be wholly unsatisfactory and left the market open to Apple with the iPhone and iPad.

Going private

That Microsoft is going to have a financial interest in the privatised Dell is not encouraging for the company’s prospects.

Neither is the continued presence of Michael Dell. His return as the company’s CEO in 2007 has not solved the company’s problems.

It’s difficult to see where the problem was being a public company, Dell’s woes were not because of troublesome board members or activist shareholders.

Going private might allow Michael Dell and his team to experiment without the accountability of quarterly reporting, but that barely seems worth 26 billion dollars.

Dell could surprise us all by reinventing its business and claiming a role in the post-PC world, but right now its hard to see how.