Tag: smartphones

It’s all in the timing

Being first is no guarantee of success if your timing is wrong.

This morning I sat in on a corporate breakfast and heard a well known presenter talk about social media for business owners and managers.

The advice was terrible and what was valid could have come from a 2008 book on business social media marketing.

But the room loved it and obviously the client – a major bank – thinks the speaker’s work is worthwhile. He has a market while many of us who’ve been covering this field for a decade don’t.

Timing is everything in business. Earlier this week stories went around the Internet about how Microsoft could have invented the first smart phone.

Microsoft could well have done it, they tried hard enough with Windows CE devices through the late 1990s and there was also the Apple Newton and the Palm Pilot.

While all these companies could have developed the smartphone in the 1990s it wouldn’t have mattered as neither the infrastructure or the market were ready for it.

Had Microsoft released the smartphone in the mid 199os it would have been useless on the analogue and first generation GSM cellphone networks of the time.

Customers were barely using the web on their personal computers, let alone on their mobile phones, so the smartphone would have been useless and unwanted.

Ten years later things had changed with 3G networks and real consumer demand so Apple seized the gap in the marketplace left by Motorola, Nokia and the other phone manufacturers with the iPhone and now own the market.

Apple weren’t the first to market with a smartphone, just as Microsoft weren’t the first with a Windows-style operating system and Facebook weren’t the first social media platform.

Those who were first to the market stood by while upstarts stole the market they built.

Plenty of people have gone broke when their perfectly correct investment strategies have been mistimed – “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent” is often proved true.

That’s the same with the speaker this morning; he’s not the first to discover social media’s business benefits but his timing is impeccable.

Being first is no guarantee of success if your timing is wrong.

Similar posts:

The tough world of smartphones

Competing in the smartphone market is tough as Dell have discovered.

Dell’s announcement they are going to exit the Smartphone business – for the second or possibly even third time – comes on the same day Nielsen release a survey showing smartphones are now the bulk of US mobile phone purchases.

For Dell this shows the problem they have in being locked into the commodity PC business, what was once a lucrative business is now suffering softening margins and slowing sales. In desperation they are looking to other product lines but struggle to differentiate themselves in other markets.

The difficulties of doing this in the smartphone sector is shown in Nielsen’s analysis of what phones are selling.

Of those sold in the last three months, a whopping 43% were Apple products while 48% were Google Android devices.

Even more frightening in those Nielsen figures is Blackberry’s collapse where the Canadian product has 12% of the market but only 5% of sales in recent months. It’s little wonder Blackberry’s owner RIM is laying off senior managers.

For Microsoft, that only 4% of phones were “other” than Android, Apple or RIM show just how tough the task of selling Windows Phone is going to be, something that won’t be helped with dumb marketing stunts.

Google’s apparent success in mobile isn’t all that it seems either; while the Android platform has nearly half the smartphone market it doesn’t appear to be particularly profitable.

The Guardian’s Charles Arthur looked at a number of legal cases involving Google’s mobile patents and extrapolated the claimed damages to get an estimate of how much Google earns from Android.

Arthur estimates Android has earned Google $543 million dollars between 2008 and 2011 which, given Google’s mobile revenues last year were claimed to be $2.5 billion last year, indicates Google makes more money from Apple devices than it does from its own products.

While Arthur’s estimates are debatable, they show how Apple’s profits dominate the smartphone market. Google, like Dell in computers, are locked into the commodity, low margin end of the market.

Just as Dell have learned that entering new markets doesn’t guarantee success, Google may have to learn the same lesson.

To be fair to Google, at least management are aware of being too dependent upon one major source of revenue.

Whether mobile services built around the Android platform can provide an alternative cashflow of similar size to their web advertising services remains to be seen.

Similar posts:

Towards heterogeneous networks

Why HetNets are a great hope of the technology sectors

A new idea might cut the size of many phone bills, as usual though the devil is in the detail.

One of the hallmarks of the technology industry is the use of jargon; every few months a new buzzword or phrase comes along that captivates the industry and dominates the tech media.

A phrase that’s going to become common in the next few months is Heterogeneous Networks, the concept that mobile phones will be able to switch between phone systems and wireless networks without the user noticing.

Overnight the two major standards organisations agreed to work towards a common framework for phones to run these networks which also go by the name of HetNets.

For consumers the benefit with heterogeneous networks is they can reduce costs as phones automatically switch to cheaper, and usually faster, Wi-Fi hotspots.

The benefit for mobile phone network operators is that data demands are swamping their networks that were originally designed for voice communications. By offloading some of the load to private Wi-Fi systems they hope to manage their systems better.

Of course one should never underestimate a telco’s desire to make a buck and most telecommunications companies see the opportunity to make a few dollars out of offering the feature.

A major concern in putting together these systems is going to be security, using anybody’s Wi-Fi network requires a degree of trust and if a smart phone or tablet computer is accessing these without the owner knowing the risks are substantially higher.

These risks are even higher still if the banking and telco industries manage to convince people to use their mobile phones as an electronic wallet.

Seamlessly connecting to networks is one of the holy grails for mobile device manufacturers and software designers and it’s something that consumers will probably welcome when it becomes reliable.

For the moment we can expect to hear breathless articles about developments in the area and the promises from suppliers about the technology.

As usual the early adopters will leap in and suffer the usual disappointments and heartbreak that is life on the bleeding edge of technology.

Eventually though, long after the hype has settled down, these systems will become commonplace and expected by consumers.

Whether it makes more money for telcos though is another matter.

Similar posts:

Who will be the future Betamaxes?

A modern version of the video tape standard wars is being fought on our phones

This morning Paypal announced its PayPal Here service, a gizmo that turns a smartphone into a credit card reader.

On reading PayPal’s media release in the pre-dawn, pre-coffee light I found myself grumpily muttering “which platforms?” as the announcement kept mentioning “smartphones” without saying whether it was for iPhone, Android or other devices.

It turns out to be both Google Android and Apple iOS. It adds an interesting twist to the Point Of Sale market we’ve looked at recently.

The omission of platforms like Windows Phone raises the question of which platforms are going to go the way of Betamax?

Sony’s Betamax and JVC’s VHS systems were the dominant competitors in the video tape market in the early 1980s. They were totally incompatible with each other and users had to make a choice if they wanted to join one camp or the other when they went to buy a video recorder.

On many measures Betamax was the better product but ultimately failed because VHS offered longer program times and Panasonic’s licensing out of their technology meant there were more cheaper models on the market.

A few days ago Bloomberg Businessweek listed the Betamax device as one of the “technology’s failed promises”

With a superficial comparison, Apple would seem to the Betamax while Google and possibly Microsoft are the VHS’s given their diverse range of manufacturers their systems run on and Apple’s refusal to license out iOS, which was one of the reasons for Sony’s failure.

But it isn’t that simple.

In the smartphone wars, it’s difficult to compare them to VCRs as the video tape companies never controlled content and advertising the way smartphone systems do – although Sony did buy Columbia Studios at the peak of the Japanese economic miracle in 1987.

This control of content is what makes the stakes so high in the smartphone and tablet operating systems war. A developer or business that dedicates their resources to one platform could find themselves stranded if that platform fails or changes their terms of services to the developer’s detriment.

Another assumption is there is only room for one or two smartphone systems; it could turn out the market is quite happy with two, three or a dozen different systems and incompatibilities can be overcome with standards like HTML5.

In a funny way, it could turn out to be Android becomes the Smartphone Betamax due to having too diverse a range of manufacturers.

One of the first questions that jumps out when someone announces a new Android app is “which version?” The range of Android versions on the market is confusing customers and not every app will run on each version.

More importantly for financial apps like PayPal Here and Google Wallet, smartphone updates include critical security patches so many of the older phones that miss out on updates pose a risk to the users.

In the financial world confidence is everything and if customers aren’t confident their money is safe or will be promptly refunded in the event of fraud they won’t use the service.

Whether this uncertainty will eventually deal Google out of the game or present an opportunity for Microsoft and other companies is going to be one of the big questions of the mobile payments market.

Similar posts:

Is it time for Microsoft to make a clean break?

Is Windows past its use by date?

Over the weekend Christina Bonnington in Wired magazine looked at how Microsoft is struggling to decide whether to have separate operating systems for their tablet and desktop products – as Apple have – or design one that works on both.

Creating another version of Windows risks further confusing the marketplace given Microsoft already has between its four different versions of Windows and six flavours of Office.

Although Apple haven’t suffered at all by having different operating systems. Mac OSX is more popular than ever and iOS dominates its markets.

Perhaps its time for Microsoft to copy something else Apple did and have a clean break – rework all the Windows code and build a new system.

Apple did this when they introduced OSX in 2001. Among other things it didn’t support floppy disks, the Apple Device Bus, floppy disks or the networking standards used by the older systems. At the time there were howls of protest from long suffering Apple true believers who had invested a lot into the earlier versions of Mac OS.

Despite the protests and early hiccups – we sometimes forget that the first version of OSX, named Cheetah, was terrible – Apple’s clean break with the past was a great success.

Microsoft’s selling point has been backward compatibility; software designed for one version of Windows is expected to work on the next version.

Backward compatibility is the reason for the spyware epidemic of the early 2000s as Microsoft ignored Windows XP’s security features so that they wouldn’t have to ditch older code in other products like Office.

Similarly, the contradiction of redesigning the Windows operating system while minimizing disruption to existing users was one of the reasons why Microsoft Vista was such a disaster.

Perhaps it’s time for Microsoft to bite the bullet and bring Windows into the 21st Century.

Whatever they decide to do, they better hurry as Apple and Google are carving out dominant positions; waiting until 2013 or 14 for the next version of Windows and Windows Phone may be too late in a market where Microsoft is quickly becoming irrelevant.

Similar posts:

The death of the short message service

How SMS revenues are drying up

The New York Times’ Bits Section looks at how in many countries text messaging (SMS) services are declining.

For telcos, the SMS feature was a happy – and extremely profitable – accident with the Short Message Service feature designed as a control channel for the mobile voice networks.

The Short Messaging Service cost almost nothing to develop and quickly became a massive profit centre for mobile phone companies.

Today in markets where smartphones are dominating sales, people are moving many of their communications away from text messages over to Internet based services like email, instant messaging and social media.

Interestingly, in the United States text messaging still growing although at a slower rate than previously. This makes sense as the US is behind countries that have fully adopted 3G networks and subscribers don’t get the full benefit from a smartphone without a reliable and fast data service.

For developing countries, we’ll probably see SMS continue to grow as the attractions of a relatively cheap and simple communications channel like text messaging still make sense in markets where data plans are expensive and smartphones scarce.

As revenues from text messaging drops, we’ll be seeing more telecommunications companies try to replace the lost income with other services. Expect to see more offers for various business and home service bundles and offers to upgrade to the latest phones or packages as providers try to lock profitable customers into cash generating agreements.

The era of accidental profits for telcos is over, the quest for these companies now is to find how they can maintain profits in an era where data services are commoditising their lucrative product lines.

For the managers of these companies, the challenge is on to successfully do this – it remains to be seen how well they do in refocusing their businesses.

Similar posts:

The death of the netbook

Is the cheap, ultra portable computer a dead product line?

“You don’t want to buy one of those of things,” said the electronics store assistant, “they don’t have much memory and the CPUs in the notebooks and ultra books are better.”

I was shopping for a cheap netbook for the kids, each of which had been saving up to buy one as they are sick of me yelling at them for playing Minecraft on my work system, and the consensus from the store staff was to do everything to steer folk away from the cheap systems.

This is understandable as most electronic store staff are on commissions, and these are lean on cheap computers. It’s much better to sell a thousand dollar unit – with upgraded warranties and accessories – than a low margin, one off unit.

For manufacturers, similar problems exists; these cheap unit cannibilised their higher priced products with better margins. Dell recently announced they are getting out the netbook market and others are following.

Netbooks themselves are in trouble as the market they addressed for cheap, portable, Internet connected devices is now largely covered by smart phones and tablets which offer better battery life and usability.

Interestingly, the battery life argument was even used by the computer store salesfolk who pointed out – correctly – that the newer laptops have better power management than their cheaper netbook cousins.

While the netbook as a category is dead; the concept itself isn’t. As the uptake of tablet computers like the iPad show, Internet connected portable devices are becoming the computer of choice for many people and the advantages of a laptop form factor; a proper tactile keyboard, USB ports and other external connectors are still attractive.

Probably the worse thing for the manufacturers and retailers is the price points are now established in customers’ minds – $400 is what people want to pay for laptops, which doesn’t bode well for those higher priced systems.

Those manufacturers can’t even get into the tablet computer market as Apple now own that sector that the PC vendors and Microsoft squandered a decade’s lead with substandard equipment and badly designed software.

Despite the best efforts of the electronic store’s salesfolk, my kids ended up buying cheap, low specced netbooks out of their savings and those systems run Minecraft quite nicely. Which is another problem for shops and manufacturers stuck with a 1990s business model.

Similar posts: