Paul Wallbank – Brilliant Communications

Category: Internet

Why the Microsoft Faithful are wrong about Windows Phone
Late last year an event organiser recounted how she’d been told to only approaching Microsoft for event sponsorship if the occasion was related to mobile telephony as “all of our marketing budgets are focused on Windows Phone.”

So it wasn’t a surprise to read at the beginning of this year that Microsoft were allocating $200 million for marketing Windows Phone in the US alone.*

The Consumer Electronics Show is the high temple of tech journalism with thousands flying in from around the world to breathlessly report on the latest wide screen gizmo or mobile device

At the 2010 show, 3D television was going to be the big consumer item while at the 2011 event it was going to be Android based tablets that were going to crush the Apple iPad.

Despite the millions of words written and spoken about these products, both flopped. So it was no surprise we were going to see plenty of coverage of Microsoft given the budgets available and it being the last time Microsoft’s CEO, Steve Ballmer, would give the CES keynote.

Microsoft’s CES publicity blitz kicked off with a rather strange profile of Microsoft’s CEO in BusinessWeek which if anything illustrated the isolation and other worldliness of the company’s senior management.

The PR blitz worked though with Microsoft tying for first place in online mentions during the show according to the analytics company Simply Measured.

After the show the PR love for Microsoft continues with Business Insider having a gorgeous piece about why Windows Phone will succeed and criticising tech blogger Robert Scoble’s view that the mobile market is all about the number of apps available.

Scoble replied on his Google+ page explaining why apps do matter and adding that most of the people he meets hate Windows Phones, the latter point not being the most compelling argument.

The most telling point of Scoble’s though is his quoting Skype’s CEO that they aren’t developing an app for Windows Phone as “the other platforms are more important, so he put his developers on those”.

Microsoft spent 8.5 billion dollars buying Skype and intends to lay out over $200 million promoting Windows Phone. Surely there’s a few bucks somewhere in those numbers to pay for a few developers to get Skype functionality on the new platform.

Since writing this, Robert Scoble has issued a correction from the Skype CEO stating a version is being built for the next version of Windows Phone

The fact Microsoft can’t organise this seems to indicate not all senior executives share the vision for Windows Phone. It’s difficult to image Google or Apple having this sort of public dissent on a key product.

Management issues aside, Microsoft’s real problem are they are late to the mobile party and don’t have anything to gain attention.

There’s nothing wrong about being late to the party – Apple were late to enter the MP3 player, smart phone and tablet markets – but in each case they bought something new that changed the sector and eventually gave them leadership of each sector.

With Windows Phone, there’s so far little evidence Microsoft are going to deliver anything radically new to the sector. With Apple’s iOS and Android dominating, it’s going to be a tough slog for Microsoft and they are going to have to have to carefully spend every cent of that big marketing budget.

At least Microsoft’s PR team is doing a great job, the challenge is for the rest of the organisation to sell it as well.

*As an aside, it’s interesting the author of that article about Microsoft’s marketing budgets boasts how he “been sitting on this information for weeks so that Microsoft can make its big announcement at CES this coming week”. It’s good to know where Paul Thurrott thinks his responsibilities lie – certainly not with his readers.

Similar posts:
January 15, 2012
Has Google peaked?
This article originally appeared in Technology Spectator as Google’s Wavering Trust Presumption.

Google revolutionised the Internet when the service appeared just over a decade ago, the search engine’s clean and reliable results saw it quickly capture two thirds of the market from then competitors like Altavista and Yahoo!.

One of the keys to that success was trust – Google’s users had a fair degree of confidence that the service’s results would be an accurate representation of whatever they were looking for on the web.

With the continuing integration of social media services, local search, paid advertising and travel services into those search results, it’s time to ask whether we can continue to trust what Google delivers us.

Google’s attempt to become a social media service is seeing results being skewed with by Google Plus profiles. Search Engine Land’s Danny Sullivan yesterday illustrated how Google+ profiles are changing Google’s search results.

One thing that notable in these searches – and Google’s behaviour in enforcing “real names” on its Plus social media service – is the importance of brands and celebrities.

It’s no coincidence in the example Danny Sullivan shows above that typing “Brit” into a Google search comes up with the instant suggestions of Brittany Spears and British Airways.

More troubling is Google’s foray into travel with the purchase of travel software company ITA. The travel industry site Tnooz recently looked at how searches for flights is now returning results from Google’s own service before the airlines or other travel websites.

Another of Google’s search strengths was the clean interface. When advertising was introduced, most users accepted this was the cost of a free service. Today a search result on Google is cluttered with Google+ suggestions, local business locations, travel results along with the ubiquitious advertising.

Suddenly Google’s search results aren’t looking so good and when you do find them, you can’t be sure they haven’t been skewed by the search engine’s determination to kill Google, Facebook or the online travel industry.

If it were only search and online advertising that Google was tinkering with, we could excuse this as being an innovative company experimenting with new business models in a developing industry, but a bigger problem lies outside its core business.

The purchase of Motorola Mobility – which is still subject to US government approval – changes the game for Google. Motorola Mobility employs 19,000 staff, increasing Google’s headcount by 60%.

Even if Google has only bought Motorola for the patents, closing down or divesting the operations and laying off nearly twenty thousand staff would be a big enough management distraction but there is real possibility though that Google want to make phones.

Google as a phone manufacturer, their previous attempt with the Nexus One wasn’t a great success, creates the problem of channel conflict with its partners who sell mobile phones with the Android operating system installed.

Right now those partners are having great success selling phones through mobile telcommunications companies who desperately want an alternative to the iPhone given they perceive, quite correctly, that Apple is taking their customers and the associated profits.

Apart from Apple the incumbents of the mobile phone industry are failing as Motorola have given up and are selling themselves to Google while Nokia are desperately seeking salvation in the arms of Microsoft.

Microsoft’s failure to take advantage of Google’s missteps is also instructive. Microsoft seem to be unable to capitalise on the conflicts in the mobile handset industry with Windows Phone while their competing search engine, Bing, seems to following Google’s cluttered inferface and anti-competitive practices.

With Microsoft largely out of the way with as an innovative competitor, it has fallen on newer business to challenge Google.

In social media we clearly have Facebook and Twitter while in phones Apple is by far the biggest and most profitable opponent, something emphasised by Google giving Android away for free.

The biggest question though is who can replace Google in web search, while there are worthy attempts like DuckDuckGo, Blekko and even Microsoft Bing, it’s difficult to see one of these displacing the dominant player right now.

Which isn’t to say it can’t happen; as we see with the examples of Nokia, Motorola and possibly Microsoft, the speed of change in modern business means empires fall quickly.

For Google, the lack of management focus on their core businesses may well cost them dearly in the next few years if web users stop trusting the company’s search results.

Similar posts:
January 14, 2012
Tightening the screws
Google had a big boost this week with Spanish bank BBVA announcing its 110,000 staff will switch to use the cloud based productivity software.

This wouldn’t be good news for Microsoft as their struggle to retain their almost monopoly position in corporate desktop applications and will undoubtedly mean reducing licensing fees and accepting tighter margins on their products.

BBVA’s move is interesting on a number of fronts although there’s a few myths among the trend towards cloud computing services and office productivity.

Cost saving myth

Part of the focus of selling these products is on cost and the head of Google Enterprise apps in Europe, Sebastien Marotte, said that his corporate customers on average achieved cost savings of between 50% and 70%.

The cost aspect is interesting, I’ve posted before about exaggerated claims for cloud computing savings, and Marotte’s statement deserves a closer look.

It’s highly likely the claimed cost savings are based on licensing – the standard Google Apps cost of $50 per user per year is substantially less than even the discounted rates large corporations receive on Microsoft licenses.

While the licensing cost is a serious line item, particularly when you have 110,000 employees, it isn’t the whole story; there’s training, maintenance, disaster recovery, security and a whole range of other issues.

Cloud computing services address a lot of those costs, but nothing like the order of 50 to 70%. In fact, it would be hard to find an enterprise that had the sort of slack in its IT operations to achieve those sort of savings.

In one respect, this is where its disappointing that cloud computing vendors tout those sort of savings – not only does it commoditise their industry but it perpetuates the myth amongst executives that IT staff spend the bulk of their time playing video games.

While there are real savings to be made for businesses switching to cloud computing, any sales person claiming a 50% or greater saving should be asked to justify their claims or shown the door.

Clean slate

Another interesting point with BBVA switching to Google is how the bank wants employees to leave all their old email and data in their old systems. Carmen Herranz, BBVA’s director of innovation, says we “want to start from scratch… don’t want to carry across old behaviours”.

Not migrating data is an interesting move and how BBVA’s users deal with retrieving their contact lists, dealing with existing email conversations and how staff will deal with feature differences like document revision tracking – an area where Microsoft Office outdoes Google Docs.

Internal use only

BBVA are only applying the Google services to internal documents as well which means the bank will be using other software – probably Microsoft Office – for corresponding externally.

This makes it even more unlikely the touted cost savings of 50 to 70% are achievable, and may actually increase support costs while reducing productivity as many customer facing staff will have to deal with two systems.

Having one system for use inside the business and another for external communications seems to be a European trend – before Christmas French company Atos announced it was abolishing email within the company but still using it for outside messages.

Both abolishing email and moving to cloud based office packages are really about improving productivity in a business while cost savings are nice, the main focus on adopting cloud computing – or any other new technology – should be on freeing your staff to do more productive work.

Similar posts:
January 13, 2012
Blinking
A while back I wrote about leaving customers behind. As a business grows or evolves some customers are left behind.

That’s not to say those customers are wrong or bad, just that they are not the right fit for the long term objectives of your business.

Sometimes those customers are raving fans and passionate patrons are important; if you can meet your clients’ business and emotional needs then you, and your customer, are in a great place.

But not always, sometimes those fans are a boat anchor to your business.

In 1998 Steve Jobs announced he was ditching the Apple Desktop Bus (ADB) standard for Mac computers and moving to the USB standard for new computers. Thousands of outraged Mac fans swore they would never buy an Apple computer again.

Henry Ford is quoted as saying if he’d asked 1890s what they wanted, he’d have built a better horse cart rather than a motor car.

Sometimes customers don’t know what they want and sometimes those who do know what they want aren’t the customers you want.

If you have to make that decision, it has to be firm – blinking in the face of opposition doesn’t work. You’ve shown you’ve blinked on one thing and you’ll be blinking on more. You’re now owned by your customers and the most conservative, risk adverse ones at that.

Once you’ve given ownership of your business to your most conservative customers, you’ll have to fight to regain control.

It’s much better to make a calculated, informed decision and go for it – if you’re right, your business is going to be stronger without those risk adverse and often low margin customers.

A lot of people decided they wouldn’t buy Steve Jobs’ or Henry Ford’s products again. Eventually they did.

Similar posts:
January 12, 2012
Strategic lessons from a security breach
2011 has been the year of the IT security breach. Big and small organisations around the world ranging from major corporations like Sony through to smaller businesses such as security analysts Stratfor found their customer data released onto the web.

The frustrating this is most of these breaches are avoidable and “hacking” is often giving too much credit for the security used by the targeted companies.

While the ‘hackers’ themselves may be skilled, the compromised organisations are often easy targets as they don’t follow the basic rules of protecting their data.

Standards matter

Customer payment account details are covered by the Payment Cards Industry -Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) operated by the PCI Security Standards Council.

The PCI Security Standards Council helpfully has a range of information sheets for merchants of all sizes and if you are taking payments off the web you should make yourself aware of the basic requirements.

For most businesses, the cardinal rule is not to save customer’s card details. Once the payment is approved, you have no business retaining the client’s credit card or bank account numbers.

In Stratfor’s case, they were almost certainly processing payments manually and credit card details were being saved on customers’ records in case of errors or to make renewals easier.

Call in the professionals

There’s no shortage of payment companies, ranging from PayPal through specialist services like eWay to your own bank’s services. Choose the one that works best for you. If you have no idea, call in someone who does.

One of the arguments for using outsourced services, particularly cloud computing, is how data security is a complex field that requires professional and qualified expertise. The internal systems of Sony, Telstra and Stratfor were not up to the demands placed upon. A professional service is better equipped to deal with these issues.

Size doesn’t matter

A major lesson from the last year’s security breaches is that it’s not just the local shop or garage e-commerce business that is careless with data. Some of the world’s biggest companies and government agencies have been compromised.

If anything, Sony’s experience has shown the double standards at work in the application of security rules; there’s no doubt that had a local computer shop been as thoroughly compromised as Sony were, they would have been shut down on the second breach and the management would have been carted off to jail well before the twelfth.

For the management of Sony, there seems to have been little in the way of sanctions of the people nominally responsible for this incompetence. This has to change both within organisations and by those charged with enforcing the rules.

The lesson for customers is you can’t trust anyone with your data; don’t assume the big corporation is any more secure than the serving staff at your local sandwich shop.

Passwords matter

Every time one of these breaches happen we hear about password security, with “experts” pointing out that some of the subscribers were using passwords like ‘statfor’ or ‘password’.

For customers, this actually makes sense if you can’t trust third parties with your details so specific, disposable passwords for each site should be used. There’s little point in having a complex password if some script kiddie is going to post your login details onto 4Chan.

Naturally your passwords for banking and other critical websites should be very different and far more secure than those you use for sites like Stratfor and the Sony Playstation Network.

Will 2012 be any different?

Given the data embarrassments of 2012 for businesses and government agencies, can we expect lessons to be learned in 2012?

While many businesses are going to learn specific lessons from these breaches, there’s a management cultural problem where any spending on information systems is seen as a cost that has to be minimised.

This cost cutting mentality lies at the core at many organisations’ failure to secure their systems properly and until a more responsible culture develops we’ll continue to see these lapses.

Good managers and business owners who understand the importance of guarding their organisation’s and customer’s data are those who are ahead of their competition. Over time, these folk who will have the competitive advantage.

For customers, the sad lesson is we can’t trust anyone and a layered approach to security along with keeping a close eye on our bank accounts and credit card statements is necessary.

Similar posts:
December 30, 2011