When Reporting Sales Numbers, Honesty is the Best Policy

Google has activations, Amazon doesn’t release any numbers, Microsoft touts licensees sold. Truly knowing the success of a device or platform is hard when companies selling the devices or supporting the platforms don’t share with us actual sell through numbers. I am rarely interested in how many devices or software licensees are sold into the retail, carrier, or OEM channel. I am interested in how many people are actually using these devices and have personal ownership of them.

Take Amazon for example. Why Amazon gives no indication as to how many Kindle products (namely the Fire) they are selling is beyond me?. If it is doing remarkably well wouldn’t you want to tell people this. Especially if you want developers creating applications for your Android fork. You would think if developers knew what their total addressable market would be on Amazon’s platform, that it would be helpful and lure them if the number was attractive.

Then there is Google. They proclaim Android figures by way of activations. No one truly knows what that means but now Google is changing the methodology to report only those device which activate Google services, namely the Play Store, rather than just an activation of any Android device that pings their servers. There are many more millions of Android devices access to Google service, which now makes it harder than ever to know how many Android devices are sold and actually in the hands of users. At least Google’s new reporting more accurately reflects devices in use, and using Google’s services, but even then we have some discrepancies. John Kirk points that out here.

Samsung is a little better. But only at times. Some quarters they will tell us how many specific device models they sold. But then sometimes they won’t specify sales of specific device models and just lump all devices together and tell us how many smartphones they sold.

Now I turn to Microsoft. The buzz last week around the fact that they had sold 100m copies of Windows 8. On this point, I must highly recommend an article Charles Arthur wrote in the Guardian where he built upon my Tech.pinions colleague Patrick Moorhead’s methodology for calculating actual Windows 8 devices in use.

Moorhead combines the NetMarketShare figure from April, which shows a 4.2% share, with the 1.4bn installed base to come up with a figure of 58.6m machines presently running Windows 8. That’s an average of less than 10m per month since it went on sale – which doesn’t feel like a lot, especially since the run rate for Windows 7, once it got into its stride, was 20m per month.


100m copies sold. Not yet in use. They will get there by the end of the year. If they don’t we have a real problem.

Then, in an attempt to counter some of the hard hits they took this past week, Microsoft’s Corporate Vice President of Corporate Communications Frank Shaw wrote an interesting blog post. One quote stood out in particular.

So let’s pause for a moment and consider the center. In the center, selling 100 million copies of a product is a good thing. In the center, listening to feedback and improving a product is a good thing. Heck, there was even a time when acknowledging that you were listening to feedback and acting on it was considered a good thing.

Frank is right. Selling 100 million copies of anything is a good thing. But as Charles and Patrick point out, there are far less than 100m copies in the hands of consumers. Furthermore, I would ask Frank a question about these 100m copies sold. What choice do the OEMs have? If you want to make a PC, and you are not Apple, where else can you get your operating system? The answer is no where. OEMs are bound to Windows if they want any chance to hit sales numbers. So realistically they are going to buy whatever Microsoft sells them. Harsh reality but its true. And yes Frank, listening to feedback is a good thing. I’m just worried Microsoft is not listening to all the RIGHT feedback.

Microsoft will continue to sell 100s of millions of copies of Windows each year by default. The OEMs have no viable alternative. Maybe this will always be true, maybe it won’t, time will tell. Maybe Chromebooks will be the alternative. Android clamshells certainly aren’t the answer. But I can tell you one thing I am extremely confident about. Microsoft and their partners worst nightmare should be if Apple ever decided to get price competitive with their Macs.

Giving all the facts with regard to sales numbers that reflect their actual use by customers is the only way to be genuine and forthcoming. Consumers either want your products or they do not. By telling us how many of them are actually buying them, using them, and not returning them, is the only metric for us to truly gauge whether your company or its products are actually viable and growing true market share.

I can only conclude that by not giving us the whole story, that the whole truth is not as rosy as its made out to be.


Extra Thoughts:
– Keep in mind most of those 100m copies were sold to OEMs making PC, hybrid, and convertible hardware, all who hope to sell them through the retail channel for actual customers to use.
– Of course by Macs being price competitive I mean in the sub $599 range. That is where the Windows volume is and will be.
– There are other companies who aren’t specific when it comes to numbers, I just mentioned the ones with the biggest spotlight on them.
– It should go without mentioning but I will anyway. Good or bad, Apple is the only one who gives real sell through numbers.

The Definitive Answer Guide to Which Smartphone You Should Buy

Forget all the rumors of an Apple iWatch. Ignore the surprisingly good reviews of Google Glass. Neither of these will come close to replacing your smartphone. Not for many, many years; probably never. The question is not whether  you will buy a smartphone – you will. The question is: which smartphone should you buy?

I am here to help. Don’t worry, I promise this will be painless.

I’ve traversed two decades in the telecommunications industry and have spent ridiculous amounts of time over the years testing and sampling various smartphones across just about every single platform, price point and form factor. If it means anything to you, I even own a MeeGo. Looks great, but unfortunately it works about as well as your four-year-old netbook.

Let’s begin.

Dear Brian…

Which smartphone should I buy?

The iPhone 4S.

Perfectly designed, flawless to operate, affordable. Apple offers the best, most robust, most pleasing ecosystem of apps, games, content, payments, customer support, product integration and accessories. I cannot say exactly how many billions Microsoft, Google and others have spent over the years attempting to equal the iPhone’s operating system – iOS – but I can say that none have yet met the challenge.

Apple’s iPhone repeatedly tops the competition in customer satisfaction ratings. iPhone users are much more likely to stick with iPhone compared to Android users. That should tell you all you need to know.

Done! That was easy.

What? You have more questions? My singular advice simply not enough? Fine. What else?

Why not iPhone 5?

There is a reason why the iPhone 4S continues to sell so well around the globe: on form and function, ecosystem and compatibility, the 4S offers the best bang for the buck of any smartphone on the market, bar none.

Yes, the iPhone 5 is a great device. It has superior hardware specs to the 4S. In my opinion, however, it feels too delicate. It’s design is not perfect. iPhone 5 is too long and narrow. For many people, particularly women, they can’t control the entire screen with a single swipe of the thumb.

iPhone 5

I hate Apple!

No, you do not. Besides, Apple, just like Nokia, Google, Samsung et al is a giant, for-profit corporation unaware of your existence. This is not about them, this is about you – and the best smartphone for you. Get the iPhone 4S.

Don’t care. I refuse to buy an iPhone!

Fine. Buy an HTC One, it’s a good phone.

You’re saying the HTC One is better than the Samsung Galaxy S4?

No. I think the S4 is slightly better. But if you buy the S4 all your friends will think you did so only because of all those Samsung commercials.

Not a Droid or LG?

No.

Shouldn’t I just wait for the latest model?

I cannot recommend that which does not exist.

I read that Android has surpassed iPhone. True?

After years of slavishly copying iPhone, the Android UI inexplicably remains almost willfully confusing. This is compounded by the greed and short-sightedness of carriers and handset makers. However, Google nearly makes up for this with great search, maps, Google Now notifications and other services optimized for Android. Plus, many handset makers like Samsung put amazing hardware into their devices. If you simply cannot bring yourself to get iPhone, an Android is a suitable alternative.

What about all the “phablets” I keep hearing about? Should I get one of those?

No.

But…

Do not be swayed by that big screen – even if you can hold the device in one hand comfortably.  Smartphones are not televisions. You take your smartphone with you everywhere. You use it constantly. A phablet is almost certainly not right for you. Form is a primal factor in choosing the right smartphone and the phablet form is an evolutionary dead-end. The one thing it does well – offer a very large display – simply cannot overcome all that it does bad. Phablets are too big, too wide, too heavy and not optimized for the role they attempt to fill: a multi-purpose, always-on, fully mobile personal computer.

I’m going to buy a phablet anyway. I like the big screen.

If you insist, then I recommend you get the new Samsung Galaxy Note II. You will regret this.

You obviously hate Windows Phone.

How Nokia could have blown through two plus years of development and delivered only the Lumia 920 and the 928 (soon), is beyond my comprehension. Windows Phone deserves a far better flagship device.

But I do not hate Windows Phone – the operating system. It’s a beautiful, reasonably intuitive, highly customizable UI that delivers real-time updates probably better than any other platform. The problem, though, is that Microsoft simply made the wrong UI choice. I suspect they will never recover from it. Singular, static apps really do work better for smartphones – as iPhone has proven repeatedly – than the “live tiles” format that Windows Phone adopted.

My daughter loves Facebook. Should I get her one of those HTC Facebook Phones?

No.

But she really loves Facebook.

Get her any other (non-Windows Phone) phone listed here. I promise you, she will be fine.

I think you’re wrong about the iPhone 5.

The iPhone 5 was a very clever attempt by Apple to build a device with a larger display – as the market demanded – while maintaining all the benefits of their app ecosystem. Apple can and will do better.

I cannot afford any of these devices.

Whatever smartphone you choose, assume you will have it for between 1-3 years. The cost of the device itself will almost certainly be less than the cost for voice, data and texting services. Plus, you will buy apps, music and other content, and accessories – such as a car charger, stereo speaker and case – for your smartphone. Factor all of these costs into your decision.

If you still decide to go with a low-priced device, get last year’s top-of-the-line Samsung: the Galaxy S III. If you can get a refurbished model, this is a truly great buy. If you cannot afford this, I would encourage you to not buy a smartphone at all. Get a quality feature phone with a physical QWERTY keyboard. There are many options available.

My company doesn’t allow me to use iPhone or Android.

Delta doesn’t allow me to have my smartphone running during take-off. That’s never stopped me.

I can’t possibly type on that touchscreen. I need a real keyboard.

You will learn.

I refuse.

Then, wait. Very soon you can have a BlackBerry Q10. I think you will be impressed. (Note: do not get the BlackBerry Z10)

Blackberry_Q10

Which carrier should I go with?

That I cannot help you with. They all have their own unique set of faults.

Bloomberg, the Internet, and Trust

We’ve just begun to see the fallout from Bloombgerg LP that, in the word of CEO Dan Doctoroff, “Bloomberg News reporters had access to limited customer relationship management data through their use of the Bloomberg terminal.” In blunter words, Bloomberg reporters were using their access to terminal log information to spy on customers’ activities. Considering that Bloomberg’s customers are the titans of Wall St. and government and that they are typically paying $20,000 per terminal per year, I expect the consequences to be nasty.

But the issues go well beyond Bloomberg. The internet, and society in general, operates as a network of trust that demands that certain lines never be crossed. Email providers have access, at a minimum, of extensive information on who you are exchanging mail with and often to the contents of the messages as well; you assume, without even thinking about it, that your email host is not selling the information to your competitors. You mobile phone service also has extensive records about both who you have called and where you have been. You assume these records also stay private. Bloomberg crossed that line. There are good technical reasons why the company–or any service provider–needs to collect log data that can reveal a good bit about client activity. And there are good legal and ethical reasons why that information must remain tightly restricted.

Breaches have, of course, occurred in the past. When I worked for BusinessWeek, we had a leak of market-moving information. employees of one of our printers were selling advance copies of an Wall Street column to traders. It turned out that one editorial employee was using the same information to trade on his own; both the printers and the editor went to jail. The electronics age makes this sort of thing both easier to do and harder to stop.

What remains to be seen in the Bloomberg case is just how widespread the practice was, exactly what information reporters had access to, what senior executives knew about it, and how long it went on. The initial damage will be to Bloomberg, but this episode (along with mounting reports of extensive government snooping on citizens) further weakens the delicate fabric of trust that lets the economy and society work.

 

 

The Rise of “Magging”

Something very interesting is happening in the publishing world, or at least something I think is interesting. The rise of quality digital screens like the iPad and Kindle, along with the ease of distribution through app stores, has opened the door to new breeds of digital magazines. Before such devices like the iPad or Kindle, the production cost of a printed quality magazine made the barrier to entry quite high. While production costs still exist they are far lower and thus opens the door to new players doing interesting things.

In the tech world, sites like Engadget with Distro or The Next Web Magazine are examples of tech sites doing interesting things with their brand. There are two, however, I want to point out and make some observations on.

The first is The Magazine which was created and released by Instapaper creator Marco Arment. I jumped on the premise with the first edition of the Magazine and I have loved everyone. Marco points out in his forward that when The Magazine started it was geared to be about technology related subjects that tech geeks found interesting, written by tech writers. But then, Marco points out, they evolved and broadened the scope to all good writers, writing interesting stories. That is exactly what The Magazine is. Its a return to quality long form writing across a range of subjects. The Magazine is one of the few apps in my Newsstand where when a new edition appears, I make time to read it in its entirety the same day.

Yesterday Jim Dalrymple took on a magazine endeavor all his own called The Loop Magazine. I have the great privilege of contributing an article to the launch edition of the Loop Magazine and I encourage you to check it out. I read the Loop Magazine all they way through and it is going to be another must read for me. [pullquote] Apple was on the forefront of desktop publishing and they are again on the forefront of the next publishing revolution.[/pullquote]

What we are witnessing, I believe, is the evolution of publishing. I’m not sure I would fully consider what has gone on with blogs as the future of publishing. They certainly played a role in bringing digital publishing to where we are but I don’t believe we are where we need to be. The Magazine and The Loop Magazine offer up insight as to how publishing could evolve. I’m loosely calling this term “Magging” until I come up with something better. These are not blogs, but they are highly curated–and highly edited–platforms for quality long form content. This can lead to the discovery of new authors or content sources in which readers can get more from the author through books, media, or other forms of content. Perhaps some of those authors will launch “mags” of their own. This is the opportunity of this new medium. Interestingly Apple was on the forefront of desktop publishing and they are again on the forefront of the next publishing revolution.

What I like about this trend is that it opens the door for many of these digital “mags” to exist and serve all kinds of readers of all interest levels. I sincerely hope Marco, Jim, and all others who go down this road are extremely successful. The world needs good writers and story tellers. Many criticized the blogs and predicted they would kill quality curated editorial content. Andrew Keen made this case in his book The Cult of the Amateur. I was on a panel with Andrew many years ago regarding this subject and we had a fierce debate. Let’s hope that the return to long form writing, and the business models that can sustain them, proves to be the anti-thesis of Andrew’s premise. Hopefully this trend will lead to the cult of the professional.

Samsung’s Real Threat to Apple

When the iPhone was introduced, a Sr. Apple exec put the iPhone on a table in front of me and asked me what I saw? I replied by saying that I saw a black piece of glass on the table. He pointed out that what I saw was correct and then added that the real magic of the iPhone was the software. Over the last five years, smartphone vendors have continued to increase the size of the glass, put more physical bells and whistles on the hardware in areas such as audio, cameras, etc., and tried to make the hardware the real gem of their new smartphones.

If you look at the iPhone, the physical design has pretty much stayed the same. In fact, some could say its design is minimalist compared to the newer smartphones hitting the market today. Of course, that is not true. Apple has made it sleeker, put faster processors and higher resolution screens and better cameras and audio in every next generation of the iPhone. But as far as I am concerned, its crown jewels are iOS and the total ecosystem behind it that makes the iPhone sing and dance.

All of Apple’s competitors understand this but most are saddled with a core mobile OS like Android that, while getting better, is the same OS that all Android licensees have access to as well. While that is good for most, to really be competitive against Apple, vendors also know that differentiating around hardware, software, and services is what will ultimately make them competitive.

Separating From the Pack

HTC was one of the first to add its own UI layer on top of Android. Amazon and Barnes and Noble also use specialized UIs on top of their Android OS in order to make them easier to use with their own software and services. While basic Android is the same to all, one key thing that Google does allow is their partners ability to add their own UI on top of Android to enhance their devices and differentiate them from other Android vendors. This is one of big mistakes Microsoft has made with Windows Phone. All vendors can only use the Microsoft Windows Mobile UI and so all of their partners devices look and work the same (this is true of Windows 8 as well). [pullquote]While hardware may differ, the magic is in the software and from the start Microsoft gives their partners a real disadvantage when it comes to allowing them to differentiate in the area that counts the most–with software.[/pullquote]

It’s no wonder that Apple has 57% of all of the smartphone profits and Samsung 43% of smartphone + feature phone profits for the quarter. Incredible, really, when you think about it.

I have been watching Samsung very closely for many years. In fact, from 1990-1998 I consulted with them on their US retail strategy and always saw them as a major player in tech, even through their PC business in the US struggled. One of the things I understood, even back then, was their vertical integration. This means that for the most part, they make their own components that go into their devices. This gives them a real advantage over other vendors who have to outsource all or most of their components for their products. This is one area that continues to be a threat to Apple as Samsung’s vertical integration gives them quite an edge.

However, when it came to software and services I saw that this was an area that they were very weak at. This remained true until about three years ago, about the time they started going to school on Apple’s successful model. Like all of Apple’s competitors, they now know that for them to succeed they have to deliver very competitive hardware, software, AND services. To Samsung’s credit they have really taken the software challenge to heart and have been expanding their skill set and expertise in software design and development in a big way. In fact, we hear that a big part of Samsung’s facility expansions in San Jose, CA will be focused on software development.

This is really evident in the new Samsung S4 smartphone. I have been testing one for the last week and am very impressed with their software prowess. It is clear to me that while Apple’s software skills, expertise, and ecosystem is still much stronger then Samsung currently, in my opinion, I have no doubt that Samsung is serious about software innovation and is building up the team to give them the skills needed to compete with Apple head-on at the software level. They are still weak and tied to Google when it comes to services, but even here there is a chance Samsung could enhance their service position in the future.

Going Down Their Own Path

Two features really stick out among the dozens of new UI enhancements in the S4. The first is called Air View, which allows you to hover your finger over an email or message and the first 5 lines with the subject and email or message pops up so you can see the gist of the email without opening it. The other feature is called Air Gesture, which allows you to just wave your hand to answer a call or turn a page. Both of these new features tell me that Samsung understands the need to innovate at the software level and that they racing forward to do it. Regardless of how you feel about these features or whether they are gimmicky, strong hardware + software chops were required to execute.

On a side note, Samsung’s recent decision to integrate their own OS called Bada, into Tizen, an open source mobile OS backed by Intel, is also strategic. For Samsung to be successful over the long-haul they must control their own destiny. By using Google’s Android as a core OS, they are still beholden to Google for their OS directions. I personally think that over time they will eventually migrate completely to Tizen but only time will tell if this will actually happen.

Although reviews of the Galaxy S4 have been mixed, I believe that this phone starts a new chapter in Samsung’s strategy in which software is now seen as the crown jewel and for Apple and all of Samsung’s competitors, this becomes an area to watch closely as they try to use it to really set them apart from Apple and the rest of the Android vendors they compete with.

The biggest threat Samsung poses to Apple, and others for that matter, is their goal of further becoming a software company. Only time will tell if they can forget their own software path but regardless they are going to try.

Our New Look

Many of our regular readers may have noticed something different with our site this morning. We have upgraded our look. This is the first major redesign of Tech.pinions since we launched the site in June of 2011. The goal was to eliminate as much clutter and all un-necessary design elements in order to put the focus on the columns. Our goal was to simplify the reading experience to focus on the content and I think we did just that.

Another goal was to make a better experience for mobile devices. I am particularly fond of how the site looks on iPad (and other tablets of course). We have a great team of designers working with us and we will keep building upon this new experience to continually bring new features and functions to the site.

As always we love to hear from our readers so we appreciate any thoughts and feedback on the re-design. We are always in search of new features to add so ideas are, of course, always welcome. Goal number one for us is to cater to those who find reading our long form editorials valuable and provide them with the best content and experience possible.

Tech.pinions started with a simple idea: Create a credible destination for long form opinion commentary about the technology industry from seasoned industry professionals. Our new design and many of our upcoming features will continue us down that path.

Apple Is Playing Chicken With The Mobile Carriers

“The game of chicken, also known as the hawk-dove game or snow-drift game, is an influential model of conflict for two players in game theory. The principle of the game is that while each player prefers not to yield to the other, the worst possible outcome occurs when both players do not yield.” ~ Wikipedia

800 Android Carriers vs. 240 iPhone Carriers

“The narrative has been focused on the consumer demand, and the narrative needs to shift to the operator…” ~ Horace Dediu, former in-house analyst for Nokia

Android sells devices through almost all of the world’s 800 carriers while Apple sells the iPhone through only about 240. (Only about 500 of the world’s global operators have the network capabilities needed to handle the iPhone, but that number is quickly increasing.)

The reason for the discrepancy between the number of carriers supplying Android and the iPhone is that Apple prices their phones above $600 and places sales quotas and other requirements on the carriers before they are permitted to sell the iPhone. Potential partners must determine whether taking on these obligations is worth the benefit of offering the device.

Examples of holdouts are China Mobile Ltd., the world’s biggest phone company, and NTT DoCoMo Inc., Japan’s largest mobile carrier. On the other hand, other companies are succumbing to Apple’s demands. T-Mobile added the iPhone to its lineup in April and they announced that they have sold 500,000 iPhones in just under a month. And U.S. Cellular (USM), had long contended that the iPhone cost too much, yet last week they announced that they had agreed to sell $1.2 billion worth of handsets over three years, after conceding that their failure to carry the iPhone was costing them customers.

Are The Carriers In Control…

Adam Satariano of Bloomburg reviewed the current carrier impasse and concluded:

“Apple Inc. (AAPL) is missing out on a chance to court as many as 2.8 billion new smartphone customers, many of them in Asia, as wireless-service providers balk at conditions imposed by the iPhone maker and drag their heels in signing on as partners.”

“Carriers are starting to question Apple’s pricing strategy and are supporting multiple other platforms,” said Shah at Strategy Analytics. “They no longer need Apple.”

…Or Is Apple In Control?

The unasked question here is: If Apple is losing the opportunity to sell more iPhones because of their onerous conditions, then why does Apple continue to impose those conditions? The unstated answer should be – but apparently isn’t – obvious.

Clearly Apple – unlike the vast majority of tech pundits and Wall Street Analysts – does not see a pressing need to acquire additional operators at any cost. Of course Apple wants more customers, and that’s only going to happen if Apple expands its carrier base. However, unlike most of the rest of the world, Apple feels that they can patiently wait until the carriers come to them and meet their terms. Does that make Apple arrogant and out-of-touch with reality or does that make them master negotiators?

Four Realities That Favor Apple: Capacity, Real Growth, Retention and Profits

First, Apple was at their iPhone manufacturing capacity for much of the holiday quarter. It doesn’t make much sense for Apple to increase the number of addressable customers until and unless they have the capacity to provide those new customers with product.

2013-04-2413-33-31-v1-620x630

Second, as you can see from the trajectory of the chart of the iPhone’s cumulative sales, above, Apple is still enjoying significant real growth in the sales of their phones. This truth is often obscured and overshadowed by market share numbers.

Third, as markets approach saturation in the U.S. and Europe, retention and churn become far bigger issues and when it comes to customer satisfaction and retention, Apple has it all over their competitors.

Notice how Apple started with only AT&T in the U.S., and then slowly and methodically ground down the opposition of the other carriers until Verizon, then Sprint, then T-Mobile, then U.S. Cellular and many other small carriers caved in as the churn caused by the iPhone crushed their sales and then caved in their profits.

Fourth, Apple takes in 57% of the profits in the mobile industry with only 8% of the sector’s market share. That is some serious leverage.

Apple is Enigmatic But Still Susceptible To Analysis

I contacted Apple to see what their actual negotiation strategy was but, oddly, they were not very forthcoming. Go figure. Tim Cook has failed to return my several calls (or even had the courtesy to lift the current restraining order against me) and my $605,000 attempt to have coffee with him failed when it was discovered that I had used a stolen credit card. C’est la vie.

So we’re going to have to use analysis (i.e., guesswork) instead. My best guess is that Apple’s strategy is to go after the whales and ignore the minnows. (The minnows will fall all over themselves to jump on board once the whales are lined up, anyway.) Apple only has so much capacity to manufacture phones as it is and they’d prefer to expand first in those markets that count and count the most.

Further, Apple is a damn patient negotiator. While the rest of the world is screaming at the top of their lungs that Apple has to “DO SOMETHING”, Apple is patiently waiting for the carriers to realize that they can’t compete without the iPhone in their mobile portfolio. And based upon the capitulation of Sprint, T-Mobile and U.S. Cellular, Apple may just be right.

So who will win this game of Chicken? Right now, Wall Street and a whole lot of investors are betting against Apple. But if you look at the history of Apple’s negotiations with the music labels, with AT&T and with all of Apple’s recent carrier acquisitions, you can see that Apple has played – and won – this game before.

Only time will tell us which side will blink first. But me – I’m not betting against Apple.

Can Microsoft Compete in a Post-PC World?

Microsoft says it sold 100 million licenses for Windows 8 in the six months it was on sale. Not spectacular, but not bad either. But for Windows RT, Widows 8’s tablet-friendly little brother, things haven’t been so hot. Microsoft hasn’t given out numbers, but IDC estimates sales of Microsoft’s Surface RT at a bit over a million for October through March. It seems likely that combined sales of OEM RT products–all four of them–were even lower. By contrast, Apple is selling nearly 1.5 million iPads a week.

The failure of Windows RT–and it is getting very hard to call it anything else–leaves Microsoft in a terrible bind, as least a s a seller of consumer products. The post-PC era is upon us, not in the sense that traditional PCs are going way, but that they are no longer the center of the computing world, either in most people’s usage, in mindshare, or in sales. We’ve just entered this new era and it should be possible for a company with Microsoft’s resources to recover. But the first step in recovery is recognizing that you have a problem, and Microsoft doesn’t seem to quite be there yet. Consider Board Chairman Bill Gates’ comments on CNBC:

Windows 8 really  is revolutionary in that it takes the benefits of the tablet and the benefits of the PC and it’s able to support both of those. On Surface and Surface Pro, you have the portability of the tablet but the richness in terms of the keyboard and Microsoft Office…. A lot of [iPad] users are frustrated. They can’t type, they can’t create documents, they don’t have Office there. We’re providing them something with the benefits they’ve seen that have made that a big category without giving up the benefits of the PC.

In other words, what people want is more mobile versions of traditional PCs, and that’s what Microsoft is determined to give them. The problem is that this is a serious misreading of why customers are flocking to tablets. Mobility is, of course, an important attribute of the tablet. But so–and here is where Gates and Microsoft go wrong–simplicity. The iPad has limitations which users accept in exchange for wonderful simplicity and great ease of use. Tablets, and especially, the iPad, have the shallowest learning curve in the history of computing. Their software does not break. The process of updating their software is simple automatic. They don’t run Office but, while this may come as a surprise to Gates, many people do not see that as a disadvantage. They are, as my colleague Ben Bajarin would put it, a great example of “good enough” computing.

So what can Microsoft do about this? I have always thought the company made a strategic mistake when it decided to adapt desktop Windows to tablets rather than follow Apple’s lead by using an enhanced version of Windows Phone. It ended up compromising both the desktop and the tablet experience (based on the reports we’ve been hearing lately, such as this from ZDnet’s Mary Jo Foley, the upcoming “Blue” update to Windows is designed more to address Windows 8’s shortcomings as a desktop OS than to rescue Windows RT.[pullquote]I have always thought the company made a strategic mistake when it decided to adapt desktop Windows to tablets rather than follow Apple’s lead by using an enhanced version of Windows Phone.[/pullquote]

Windows 8/RT was a radical step for Microsoft, but in the end it just didn’t go far enough to succeed on tablets while perhaps going too far to win friends on the desktop. A true tablet OS simply would not have a Desktop mode that depends on a keyboard and mouse for usability, and Windows RT regularly requires going into Desktop for critical tasks (we can only hope that Blue will fix this.) The vaunted availability of Office is no advantage at all for most users because the Desktop Office apps simply don’t work well on a tablet. True touch versions of Office applications are reportedly in the works, but they are not expected before late 2014.

OEMs disappointed with Windows RT are building Windows 8 tablets. The most PC-like of these may succeed as sort of Ultra-ultrabooks, Windows 8 is fundamentally unsuited to a pure tablet. It requires too much process, too much battery power, too much storage, and too much keyboard. The same OEMs, even those most loyal to Microsoft, are also hedging their bets with Android.

That may well be too late. iOS 7, expected this fall, is likely to be a major enhancement of the iPad and we may see iOS 8 before the Windows tablet software upgrade is complete. Android tablet software still lags; the operating system has not made nearly as much progress on tablets as on phones. But Google and its partners will get it right sooner or later, and probably before Microsoft.

None of this means that Microsoft is going away. It’s back-end software powers most enterprise computing and its clients continue to have a vital place in business. For some business users, Gates might even be right about tablets: they need Office worse than they need the elegance and simplicty of an iPad. But with the mass of consumers, for whom a conventional PC is more likely to be a place where they store stuff rather than do stuff, Microsoft is in real trouble with no easy way out.

 

 

The Difference Between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs

Yesterday Bill Gates took some heat in the media when he proclaimed that Windows 8 and Surface tablets are giving the masses what they really want in a tablet product. I watched his remarks in the CNBC video and they are not as bad as many made them out to be. But reading much of the commentary got me thinking. The tablet form factor may be the ultimate showcase of the differences between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

Some of the best business advice you consistently hear, as well as the root of many entrepreneurs success stories, is to create products that you would find desirable and would want to use. Both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are/were men of great vision. But they both also created products with this philosophy in mind. They made products that not only fit their vision but were something they genuinely wanted to use. In fact Steve Jobs was more vocal on this point than anyone. On numerous occasions he pointed out that his–and Apple’s–core culture is to make the type of products that they themselves would be delighted using.

Both Bill gates and Steve Jobs had the correct vision of how the tablet would become the broader future of computing. Bill Gates’ vision for tablets led to Windows XP Tablet PC edition. This vision was representative of the type of tablet Bill wanted to use and the experience he valued. Steve Jobs’ vision led to the iPad. This vision encompassed Steve’s desired experience with a tablet computer.

I think its clear which product captured the hearts of the mass consumer market. The difference between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs is that ones man’s desired product is more reflective of the mass consumer market. Bill’s vision appealed more to the business audience while Steve’s vision, and his own product desires, appealed to the masses. Apple and Microsoft are in very different places today because of this reality.

Time to upgrade Your PC

While preparing for a presentation I was going to give, I looked at some historical data. I like to do that to set the stage for my talks and give the audience a chance to get in synch with my comments.

When you’re running in the trenches 24-7 you tend to forget some of the outside world events, and that happened to me I’m embarrassed to say. A historical review reset my perspective.

A 2009 Intel has just released the Core i7 Nehalem Processor and AMD brought out its 6-core CPU Istanbul processors. We thought those new processors were amazing, and for the time they were, but that was four years ago, and things move fast in this industry.

If you bought an IBM PC in the US for $3,000 in 1981, you were actually spending the equivalent of $7,461 in 2012 dollars. A notebook PC bought in 2009 for $630 would cost the equivalent today of $672, but the ASP of a notebook today is only $546.07.

Screen Shot 2013-05-06 at 8.43.05 PM

Meanwhile, while the cost of living index has been steadily going up, the average selling price of PCs has been coming down.

Screen Shot 2013-05-06 at 8.45.27 PM

Not only have PC prices been going down, but also due to Moore’s law, the performance has been going up.

Screen Shot 2013-05-06 at 8.46.53 PM

More computing power is great, but its costs money to run a PC. And electricity, like every thing else is getting more expensive every year.

Screen Shot 2013-05-06 at 8.55.18 PM

Yet, even with more powerful processors, bigger disks, and more memory, the average power consumption, thanks again to Moore’s law, has been going down.

Screen Shot 2013-05-06 at 8.49.03 PM

Today’s PCs use less power, which save costs, while delivering more performance.

So today, you can get a more powerful computer for fewer dollars than the old 2008 or 2009 unit you have. In addition, the new PCs can do so much more.

The newest applications and programs need more CPU horsepower, and memory. Consider the latest games, Windows 8, Office 2010, video transcoding, photo editing, and peripherals that require the latest I/O such as HDMI 1.4, USB 3.0, and DisplayPort 2.2, and soon 4k displays.

Also, with the new memory technologies like LP-DIMM, you can now have 48GB to 144GB of Ram in your system, which makes everything run faster.

Consumers and business that have old machines, which are ever more expensive to maintain and keep running (and run slowly when they do), have been stalled in their normal update or refresh process by the fanfare over how wonderful tablets are. Tablets are indeed wonderful, and are a nice contribution and companion to the computing environment. But as has been said by so many and now so often, tablets are certainly not a replacement for most of what a PC is used for. They are at best a compromise for trying to emulate what one does with a PC.

Now’s the time to get a new PC, the cost-benefits couldn’t be better.

On the Impact of Paul Otellini’s CEO Years at Intel

Intel’s CEO Paul Otellini is retiring in May 2013. His 40-year career at Intel now ending, it’s a timely opportunity to look at his impact on Intel.

Intel As Otellini Took Over

In September 2004 when it was announced that Paul Otellini would take over as CEO, Intel was #46 on the Fortune 100 list, and had ramped production to 1 million Pentium 4’s a week (today over a million processors a day). The year ended with revenues of $34.2 billion. Otellini, who joined Intel with a new MBA in 1974, had 30 years of experience at Intel.

The immediate challenges the company faced fell into four areas: technology, growth, competition, and finance:

Technology: Intel processor architecture had pushed more transistors clocking faster, generating more heat. The solution was to use the benefits of Moore’s Law to put more cores on each chip and run them at controllable — and eventually much reduced — voltages.

Growth: The PC market was 80% desktops and 20% notebooks in 2004 with the North America and Europe markets already mature. Intel had chip-making plants (aka fabs) coming online that were scaled to a continuing 20%-plus volume growth rate. Intel needed new markets.

Competition: AMD was ascendant, and a growing menace.  As Otellini was taking over, a market research firm reported AMD had over 52% market share at U.S. retail, and Intel had fallen to #2. Clearly, Intel needed to win with better products.

Finance: Revenue in 2004 recovered to beat 2000, the Internet bubble peak. Margins were in the low 50% range — good but inadequate to fund both robust growth and high returns to shareholders.

Where Intel Evolved Under Paul Otellini

Addressing these challenges, Otellini changed the Intel culture, setting higher expectations, and moving in many new directions to take the company and the industry forward. Let’s look at major changes at Intel in the past eight years in the four areas: technology, growth, competition, and finance:

Technology

Design for Manufacturing: Intel’s process technology in 2004 was at 90nm. To reliably achieve a new process node and architecture every two years, Intel introduced the Tick-Tock model, where odd years deliver a new architecture and even years deliver a new, smaller process node. The engineering and manufacturing fab teams work together to design microprocessors that can be manufactured in high volume with few defects. Other key accomplishments include High-K Metal Gate transistors at 45nm, 32nm products, 3D tri-gate transistors at 22nm, and a 50% reduction in wafer production time.

Multi-core technology: The multi-core Intel PC was born in 2006 in the Core 2 Duo. Now, Intel uses Intel Architecture (IA) as a technology lever for computing across small and tiny (Atom), average (Core and Xeon), and massive (Phi) workloads. There is a deliberate continuum across computing needs, all supported by a common IA and an industry of IA-compatible software tools and applications.

Performance per Watt: Otellini led Intel’s transformational technology initiative to deliver 10X more power-efficient processors. Lower processor power requirements allow innovative form factors in tablets and notebooks and are a home run in the data center. The power-efficiency initiative comes to maturity with the launch of the fourth generation of Core processors, codename Haswell, later this quarter. Power efficiency is critical to growth in mobile, discussed below.

Growth

When Otellini took over, the company focused on the chips it made, leaving the rest of the PC business to its ecosystem partners. Recent unit growth in these mature markets comes from greater focus on a broader range of customer’s computing needs, and in bringing leading technology to market rapidly and consistently. In so doing, the company gained market share in all the PC and data center product categories.

The company shifted marketing emphasis from the mature North America and Europe to emerging geographies, notably the BRIC countries — Brazil, Russia, India, and China. That formula accounted for a significant fraction of revenue growth over the past five years.

Intel’s future growth requires developing new opportunities for microprocessors:

Mobile: The early Atom processors introduced in late 2008 were designed for low-cost netbooks and nettops, not phones and tablets. Mobile was a market where the company had to reorganize, dig in, and catch up. The energy-efficiency that benefits Haswell, the communications silicon from the 2010 Infineon acquisition, and the forthcoming 14nm process in 2014 will finally allow the company to stand toe-to-toe with competitors Qualcomm, nVidia, and Samsung using the Atom brand. Mobile is a huge growth opportunity.

Software: The company acquired Wind River Systems, a specialist in real-time software in 2009, and McAfee in 2010. These added to Intel’s own developer tools business. Software services business accelerates customer time to market with new, Intel-based products. The company stepped up efforts in consumer device software, optimizing the operating systems for Google (Android), Microsoft (Windows), and Samsung (Tizen). Why? Consumer devices sell best when an integrated hardware/software/ecosystem like Apple’s iPhone exists.

Intelligent Systems: Specialized Atom systems on a chip (SoCs) with Wind River software and Infineon mobile communications radios are increasingly being designed into medical devices, factory machines, automobiles, and new product categories such as digital signage. While the global “embedded systems” market lacks the pizzazz of mobile, it is well north of $20 billion in size.

Competition

AMD today is a considerably reduced competitive threat, and Intel has gained back #1 market share in PCs, notebooks, and data center.

Growth into the mobile markets is opening a new set of competitors which all use the ARM chip architecture. Intel’s first hero products for mobile arrive later this year, and the battle will be on.

Financial

Intel has delivered solid, improved financial results to stakeholders under Otellini. With ever more efficient fabs, the company has improved gross margins. Free cash flow supports a dividend above 4%, a $5B stock buyback program, and a multi-year capital expense program targeted at building industry-leading fabs.

The changes in financial results are summarized in the table below, showing the year before Otellini took over as CEO through the end of 2012.

GAAP 2004 2012 Change
Revenue 34.2B 53.3B 55.8%
Operating Income 10.1B 14.6B 44.6%
Net Income 7.5B 11B 46.7%
EPS $1.16 $2.13 83.6%

 

The Paul Otellini Legacy

There will be books written about Paul Otellini and his eight years at the helm of Intel. A leader should be measured by the institution he or she leaves behind. I conclude those books will describe Intel in 2013 as excelling in managed innovation, systematic growth, and shrewd risk-taking:

Managed Innovation: Intel and other tech companies always are innovative. But Intel manages innovation among the best, on a repeatable schedule and with very high quality. That’s uncommon and exceedingly difficult to do with consistency. For example, the Tick-Tock model is a business school case study: churning out ground-breaking transistor technology, processors, and high-quality leading-edge manufacturing at a predictable, steady pace of engineering to volume manufacturing. This repeatable process is Intel’s crown jewel, and is a national asset.

Systematic Growth: Under Otellini, Intel made multi-billion dollar investments in each of the mobile, software, and intelligent systems markets. Most of the payback growth will come in the future, and will be worth tens of billions in ROI.

The company looks at the Total Addressable Market (TAM) for digital processors, decides what segments are most profitable now and in the near future, and develops capacity and go-to-market plans to capture top-three market share. TAM models are very common in the tech industry. But Intel is the only company constantly looking at the entire global TAM for processors and related silicon. With an IA computing continuum of products in place, plans to achieve more growth in all segments are realistic.

Shrewd Risk-Taking: The company is investing $35 billion in capital expenses for new chip-making plants and equipment, creating manufacturing flexibility, foundry opportunities, and demonstrating a commitment to keep at the forefront of chip-making technology. By winning the battle for cheaper and faster transistors, Intel ensures itself a large share of a growing pie while keeping competitors playing catch-up.

History and not analysts will grade the legacy of Paul Otellini as CEO at Intel. I am comfortable in predicting he will be well regarded.

Re-thinking Winners and Losers In Tech

There are narratives that circle the technology industry that are wearing out their welcome. The primary one, and the one where I wish more intelligent heads would prevail, is the narrative that there can only be one winner in this industry. Namely that for Google’s ecosystem to win, means that all the others must fail. Or that for Microsoft’s ecosystem to win it means that Apple’s and Google’s needs to lose. And of course that for Apple to win, Google and Microsoft need to lose.

As far as I can tell these narratives are rooted not only a limited view of the technology industy’s history but also a very short-sighted one. It seems as though since Microsoft’s Windows platform dominated much of computing for several decades, that it must mean that it is inevitable that this domination repeat itself. It seems the expectation from many is that we are simply waiting to see which platform wins. More specifically, which platform will dominate computing market share the way Microsoft did in the past. Let me explain why this is not going to happen.

Big Consumer Markets

The reason I say the one platform to rule them all narrative is deeply flawed is because when Microsoft dominated computing, the market was very small from a global standpoint. The market for PCs was so very small compared to the market for smartphones for example. Small markets favor fewer players who typically dominate the segment.

The global consumer market for technology is massive. Massive global consumer markets can sustain many players, competing for segments of markets, and all making money. Look at how many automobile companies the global consumer market can sustain. Look at how many clothing companies, types of aspirin, types of cereal, etc., the market can sustain. Believing that for Google to win Apple has to lose–or vice-versa–is like believing that for Pepsi to win Coca-Cola has to lose, for Burger King to win McDonald’s has to lose, or for BMW to win Mercedes-Benz has to lose. We all know how silly that sounds and that is the point.

Interestingly, even though a few major conglomerates own many of the underlying products that make up the variety I mention, its success often transcends the product, or company, itself but is wrapped into a larger experience. This larger experience is bound to something central which is key to that companies sustainability in the global consumer market–their brand.

Brands Rule the World

When you look at the global consumer market, you simply will not find a company succeeding and competing on the basis of a product who does not have a strong brand. A strong brand stands out. It is recognizable. It leads to continually high customer satisfaction, loyalty and trust. A strong brand continually re-creates an enjoyable and memorable experience for its customers.

When a company builds a brand that the global consumer market considers valuable, it puts itself in lasting position. Nike, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Coke and Pepsi, McDonald’s, etc., are not in danger of going out of business any time soon. To predict their demise, is as ridiculous as predicting the demise of the strong global consumer brands in the technology industry.

A strong brand is not just sustainable it is also versatile. Brands compete well in the markets they play but a strong brand also allows a company the ability to compete in new markets with new products. A strong brand is one of the strongest, most defensible assets any company has. It is one of the foundational things that often gets overlooked in many analysis.

Its time to re-think winners and losers in the technology industry. Its time to take a more holistic look at who is well positioned to still exist in 20-30-50 or even 100 years. A strong brand today means a strong brand tomorrow. Products come and go, but brands can stand the test of time.

Windows 8: Hardware Innovation Is Outpacing the Software

Aspire R7 photo (Acer)

 

Windows 8 hasn’t spurred a boom in PC sales, but it certainly is inspiring some unusual hardware designs. The problem, though, is that no one seems able to quite master Windows’ touch and keyboard-plus-mouse dual personality.

Acer is the latest to try with the Aspire R7, a striking departure from a company not particularly know for adventurous design. Aimed at what the company calls the “duality of touch and typing,” the R7 is a convertible 15.6″ notebook with a unique “Ezel” hinge that allows the screen to move from a conventional laptop position to horizontal to reversed (for presentations.) It also can lie flat in a slate configuration, but at 5.3 lb. (2.4 kg) it’s unlikely to see a lot of tablet use.

I can see uses for both the horizontal and the reversed positions. It’s the more conventional arrangement that is, in fact, the oddest. The most strikingly unconventional thing about the R7 is the layout of the keyboard deck. The keyboard itself is placed at the very front of the deck, with a large touchpad above it. Yes, you read that correctly. The touchpad is above to top row of keys.

Photo of Aspire R7 (Acer) The display can be set up in two positions. In one (photo top), the bottom end of the screen sits just above the  top of the keyboard, covering the touchpad and looking a bit like a gigantic version of an iPad sitting in a keyboard case. In the other (photo left), the screen opens like a conventional clamshell. I spent a little time using the R7 in both configurations. The screen-forward setup is more convenient for touchscreen use since the display is closer to your hand position on the keys. But in my experience with Windows 8 so far, the limited availability and frequently poor quality of “Modern” (or Metro) apps means I spend most of my time using legacy desktop applications, And since these are not built for touch, they generally don’t work very well without a mouse or touchpad.

In alternative setup, the strange location of the touchpad is a real problem. When I am working in a typing application, I typically use my thumbs for most simple touchpad maneuvers, which lets me control the mouse without moving my hands from the keyboard. There’s no similar simple stretch available to reach the R7 touchpad. Furthermore, most of us now have 15 years practice with below-the-keyboard pointing devices and will spend a lot of time on the R7 poking at empty space. I hope to spend some more time with the R7 soon; perhaps the discomfort of using that oddly placed touchpad will go away quickly.

Microsoft could make this problem mostly go away by fully touch enabling Windows and key Windows applications. Maybe the Windows Blue update due in the fall will help, but there are depressing reports that a fully touch-ready Office won’t arrive until the fall of 2014.

Aspire P3 (Acer)The Acer Aspire P3 takes a different approach to the duality problem. Though billed as a convertible Ultrabook, its design is much more like a Microsoft Surface Pro, a Core i5-powered tablet with a detachable Bluetooth keyboard. But in a sad concession to reality, it offers one thing the Surface doesn’t: A built-in stylus holder on the tablet.

Tom Wheeler and the FCC: The Challenges Ahead

President Obama announces the nomination of Thomas Wheeler (right)

Thomas Wheeler has been influencing  communications policy in Washington for a long time, but always from the sidelines. He ran what was then the National Cable Television Association and then the Cellular Telephone Industry Association until he was driven out in House Majority Leader Tom De Lay’s purge of Democrats at trade associations. He was a top advisor for Vice President Al Gore and a key member of President Obama’s 2008 transition team. Now he is about to move to center stage as Obama’s pick to head the Federal Communications Commission.

If you want to get a sense of the trouble the FCC has had adjusting to the new era of communications technology, just try to find something on its web site. Its biggest problem is that its most important activities are covered by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a seriously flawed law when it was written and one that has not aged at all well. Every time the FCC has tried to push the boundaries of the law, whatever party didn’t like the result sued and, most of the time, won. Yet, there is little hope for new legislation from a Congress that cannot seem to do anything (though the Senate is likely to confirm Wheeler, who has bipartisan backing, without too much trouble.)

In this terrible political and legal environment, the FCC faces two enormous challenges over the next few years. One is finding enough wireless capacity to satisfy the rapidly growing demand for wireless data. The low-hanging fruit has all been picked and the painful progress of incentive auctions to free TV spectrum shows how difficult it will be to reassign chunks of airwaves. The FCCwill have to persuade spectrum holders, many of the civilian or military government agencies, to share nicely and will have to promote the technologies needed to make spectrum sharing work.

The FCC must also grapple with the dull, complex, and extremely important issue of how to retire the nation’s public switched telephone network. This network, a relic of the old monopoly Bell System today operated mostly by Verizon Communications and AT&T, is an engineering marvel that has outlived its usefulness. AT&T has gotten the ball rolling by petitioning the FCC to replace traditional PSTN service with internet-based IP telephony. But a business and regulatory structure built up over the past 125 years, with many billions invested, is not so easily disassembled. A huge part of the regulatory structure that governs communications is based on the PSTN, and even as telephony moves to wireless and IP-based communications, we depend on the old networks in many ways. It’s a system that was built with deep government involvement and the government will have to be deeply involved in its retirement.

Wheeler looks like a good choice to lead the FCC during this difficult period. He combines solid technical knowledge of the issues with the political skills that has often been lacking in FCC commissioners. The fact that his nomination has won praise from sources as disparate as top AT&T lobbyist Jim Cicconi and Public Knowledge’s Harold Feld suggests that he at least starts with a reservoir of good will, though it probably won;t survive his first major decision.

 

FileMaker Can Settle the iPad Productivity Argument

Filemaker screenshot Of all the endless arguments that roil the tech world, there is none I find more tiresome than the endless debate over whether the iPad can be used for “real work.” My iPad has been an indispensable part of my working toolkit since I bought one on the day the original model shipped in 2010. Over time I have learned what it does well and what it is not so good at, but I have never doubted that this go-anywhere tablet made me a lot more productive. For those who still need convincing, however, the results of a new survey from FileMaker should help. Of course, there’s something more than a little self-serving about FileMaker promoting its success on iPads and iPhones–the database management software is owned by Apple. But the survey of 499 customers –I’m surprised they couldn’t find one more to make it an even 500–sheds some interesting light on how tablets are being used in business.

The most striking finding is the extent to which devices are being used from within an organization’s home network rather than out in the field. (The survey unfortunately does not distinguish between iPhone and iPad use, but a Filemaker spokesperson says the majority of the respondents used iPads. Certainly, the Filemaker Go mobile app is more comfortable on a tablet, as pictured above, than on a phone.) Those survey said that 59% of the time they connect to databases over a local area network rather than over the internet or a virtual private network. Unsurprisingly, just over half said the mobile database was being used to replace pen-and-paper processes and that the most popular taks were CRM, inventory, and invoicing, quotes, orders and estimates. It’s a bit ironic that the iPad is pulling off the original mission that Microsoft saw for the Windows Tablet PC when it released it to general disinterest a decade ago.

It’s hardly surprising that the iPad is succeeding where the Tablet PC failed. Tablet PCs were either laptops that converted to a slate-like configuration with a tricky hinge or a few pure slates that were far bigger and heavier than today’s tablets. Battery life fell far short of the all-day usage we have come to expect and the resistive single-touch displays had severe limitations. Worse yet, except for a few applications aimed at verticals such as health care and some customer line-of-business apps, Tablet PC users had to peck with their fingers or styluses at software that was designed for a mouse and keyboard.

FileMaker, by contrast, is a nice example of how Apple uses its software to drive its hardware business. The FileMaker Pro server and desktop versions run on both Mac and Windows (it’s Apple’s only paid Windows software product, but the FileMaker Go mobile gap is for iOS only.) But a key is they way apple made it extremely simple to deploy a FileMaker Pro application to iOS devices. It takes some database and form design skill to put together a decent FileMaker Pro app on the desktop, but once that is done, creation of a FileMaker Go touch-ready mobile version is a matter of pushing a couple of buttons. FileMaker Go apps are not free-standing iOS apps–you must have the fileMaker Go application installed. But they behave like apps and connect automatically and securely to the server or desktop database. You can use the app to read, edit, and create records and you can take advantage of the special abilities of mobile devices, for example, using the iPad or iPhone camera to fill a photo field.

It’s true that tablets are less than ideal for what are regarded as classic productivity applications. Writing or editing large or complex documents is somewhere between difficult and impossible. The display size renders tablets near-useless for any but the smallest spreadsheets.  An iPad is great for viewing a slide presentation, but terrible for creating one. At the same time, however, some imaginative software, such as the FileMaker Pro/Go combo, enables new uses of mobile devices, increasing the productivity of workers away from their desks (if they have desks to begin with) and sometimes replacing much more expensive and more limited specialized devices.

———

As a side note, the illustration at the top of this article is an example of a simple little database I created to catalog artworks in my house. I can go around the house to create the records  and snap pictures of the art (by the way, the first use I have ever found for an iPad camera.) Later I can fill in data I don;t have in my head from filed records.

 

The PCs New Role as an Appliance

I have written and spoken often about my conviction that the role of the PC is changing. The personal computer as defined by a desktop and clamshell form factor was, for many years, the only PC in our lives. Now we have tablets and smartphones in our lives and they have usurped the value the market once attributed to traditional PCs.

On Friday I outlined how the traditional PC, by definition of desktop or notebook, used to be the benchmark for the health of the technology industry. Every year we looked at PC sales as an indicator for growth. This is why many in the media and pundits made such a big deal at all the recent news that PC sales have been slumping. On the surface it seems like a big deal but in reality it is simply a sign of the paradigm shift the technology industry is going through. One where ultra mobile devices like tablets and smartphones will define the future of personal computing.

A Shift in Value

When I was first learning to do consumer market research, one of the things I found most interesting was to discern where the consumer mindset found value. There is a great deal of mindset diversity in the consumer market as value is percieved differently across many segments and sub-segments. The key to understanding price points fundamentally lies at understanding what is valued and what is not.

It is my conviction that the traditional PC is not longer valued the same way that smartphones and tablets are in todays market. In fact I would argue that the true consumer market never really valued the PC in the first place. They valued the Internet the PC form factor brought them.

I say this because of the many observational studies we did in the 2003-2005 time frame where focused on consumer sentiment around desktops and notebooks–all Windows based. In these studies and rounds of consumer interviews several themes kept emerging.

The first was that most consumers did not feel knowledgeable about how to use their PC. It was clear there was a huge computer literacy gap between the early adopters and majority. Because of this many did not use very many applications on their PC regularly. Common tasks were browsing web, email, light gaming, word processing, instant messaging, etc. Light computing tasks were being done by heavy computing hardware. This is why I continually make the claim that in my opinion the traditional PC vastly over serves the mass markets needs with computing devices.

The other theme that seemed to emerge during our studies was that the PC had a very much love/hate relationship with many consumers. We heard many times about extremely frustrating experiences with technical problems or other issues that stood in the way of a delightful experience with PCs. I can’t tell you how many times I heard the phrase “sometimes I want to throw my PC out the window.” Think of the scene from Office Space and the copier, which they hated and later destroyed. This was a common theme I picked up discussing computing with the mass market.

There were experiences which were valued by the mass market in which the PC brought them. Things like email, the web, new ways of communicating, learning, etc. But the problem for the PC is the majority of experiences which are valued by the mass market are not unique to the desktop or notebook form factor. In fact some are vastly better on other devices.

The Appliance Mentality

All of this adds up to what I am calling an appliance like role for PCs. Appliances play important roles in the lives of consumer but not all of them play every day roles or even central roles. They have a specific set of uses and are used only when needed. Similarly the PC in the form of a desktop or notebook will likely be in a majority of homes. However, it will play a role and only be used as necessary. For this reason consumers will hold on to them longer, something they are doing arleady. But also will buy them more with a budget mindset not paying premium prices. This is why the coming low-cost revolution we see happening with PC prices fits right in line with this trend.

Of course the PC will always have value to some key markets but not the majority. This is why I think the “PCs are trucks” line of thinking is apt. Trucks are valued to some but not all. Those who know they need a truck for work or something else, know it and are willing to pay for it. This is where the premium price category will stay strong for many vendors.

Upgrade cycles are the culprit. Consumers don’t feel a need to upgrade, or its simply inconvenient or too difficult to move their data or programs. Whatever their reason it is clear that the desktop and notebook are pshchologically more like an appliance in nature. This means upgrade cycles are simply going to be longer in the 4-5 year range.

The bottom line is the PC simply has a longer shelf life. This is the new normal.

The PC Industry of the Past Is Not the PC Industry of the Future

We are, without question, an industry in transition. The 500 lb. gorillas who once dominated the technology industry are experiencing and undergoing major transitions and a new type of growing pain. And for many, this is extremley painful. These titans will rise or fall based solely on their ability to manage this transition and these new types of growing pains. So what is growing exactly? The opportunity.

From Business to Consumer

For the past 30 years, the computing industry only appealed to a small group of people–namely the business community. Many companies from Microsoft, IBM, Dell, HP, Intel, RIM, etc., got their start bycreating products and solving problems for a business user. What many of these companies are learning is that business users are as different as night and day than ordinary consumers. In fact, I specifically peg Apple’s turnaround to this observation. Apple has and always will be a consumer company. They simply struggled until there was a true consumer market. Now they find success where others have not simply because they have always had a vision of creating products for ordinary folk. Apple simply had to wait more than two decades for their true market to emerge. Now, emerge it has and it is billions strong.

A key point signaling this shift was the recent news about the PCs decline in Q1 sales. Who usually bought PCs in bulk in the first half of the year? It wasn’t consumers. It was businesses. In years past the bulk purchases of enterprise and business buyers helped offset the lack of consumer spending for PCs in this buying cycle. With business shifting to BYOD, it’s doubtful the first half of the year will yield the volumes it once did. What we are witnessing in clamshell PC sales is not really massive declines. It is simply the new normal.

The consumer market will dwarf the business/pro market by magnitudes. The PC industry of the past, is not the PC industry of the future. The opportunity has shifted from business to consumer and it is growing faster than many anticipated. Many were not prepared and the pain of this reality has been life changing for all PC vendors.

From Stationary to Mobile

We were not meant to sit at desks. Yet that is exactly the paradigm that desktops and notebooks brought. Innovations around mobile devices are among the most important innovations for the PC industry of the future. When we first learn to ride a bike we don’t just sit on it and not move. We take it out and explore the world. Smartphones and tablets deliver on a truly mobile computing vision and we are barely scratching the surface of mobile computing. There is still massive software innovation ahead and we still don’t have devices that truly know anything about us. Anyone who believes innovation is dead is wrong and lacks vision. We still have billions of new customers to bring into the digital age and they want innovative products, Many that have not even been invented yet.

At the moment, we are in an adoption cycle phase, not an innovation phase. Why should we expect revolutionary new smartphones, for example, when half the planet doesn’t even have their first smartphone? Do we expect revolutionary new cars every year or even every few? Until the advancements of hybrid technology the industry had hardly changed in decades. People don’t freak out and scream about the collapse of Toyota because they don’t release a revolutionary new car every few years. It’s not a perfect analogy, I admit, but I do believe the consumer market for automobiles brings out applicable insights for the PC industry of the future.

The companies I am not worried about and the ones who will be in the PC industry of the future understand mobilility and understand consumer markets. Right now that is a very short list.

This is also the crux for many who are experiencing growing pains. They have the wrong definition of mobile computing. Couple that with a lack of understanding of consumer markets and it is bad news for the traditional PC vendors unless they really get the mobile religion and deliver mobile products that meet the needs of all their current and future customers.

Touch Computing Is Touching Every Part Of Our Lives

We Live In Amazing Times

We live in amazing times. The modern smartphone (really, a portable pocket computer) is only 6 years old. The modern tablet is only 3 years old. Yet the combination of the internet, simplified touch computing, wireless data downloads and the availability of cheap, innumerable applications on demand, has wholly revolutionized what computing is and will become.

Affecting Our Lives

Touch computers are already a pervasive part of our lives:

49% of the entire U.S. population uses a smartphone. By 2017, the percent of smartphone users is expected to reach 68%.

Tablet ownership increased 177 percent over the past year.

Already, 23% of teens own a tablet.

Affecting Our Lifestyles

The effect on our lifestyles has been even greater:

Four out of five smartphone users check their phones within the first 15 minutes of waking up. 80% of those say it’s the first thing they do in the morning.

79% of smartphone users have their phone on or near them for all but two hours of their waking day; 63% keep it with them for all but one hour. A full quarter of of smartphone owners couldn’t recall a single time of the day when their phone wasn’t in the same room as them.

Mobile users can’t leave their phone alone for six minutes and check it up to 150 times a day.

25% of those aged 12-17 access the Internet “primarily” via a cell phone or smartphone. Among teens with a smartphone, however, 50% access the Internet primarily via the mobile device. Girls are more likely than boys to rely on their smartphone as their primary Internet access device.

More than 80 percent of consumers are multitasking while watching TV.

More people now watch TV and movies on tablets in their bedrooms than they watch them on TVs.

Dissolving The Digital Divide

Surprisingly – at least to me – black and hispanic teens are more likely to own a smartphone than their white counterparts. Some feel that the smartphone could be the tool that eradicates the digital divide. In any case, phones are now the new personal computers of our age, allowing the poor and the isolated to enjoy computing power that was formerly unavailable to them.

Multiple Screens

If, in 2006, you had predicted that individuals would own, not one, but three computers, you would have been laughed at. First, few needed three separate computing devices and second, even fewer could afford them. Yet today, twenty-six percent of consumers in the United States own a laptop, smartphone and tablet.

Let me re-remind you that the modern tablet has only been in existence for a mere THREE YEARS. If 26% of consumers in the United States already own the trio of smartphone, tablet and notebook, then the explosive growth of multiple screen computing ownership is only just beginning.

Touch Computing Is Only Just Beginning

Most technology observers look at phones, and even tablets, as maturing markets. I feel otherwise.

— Phones are just beginning to invade our lives. People who formerly didn’t need a phone – the young, the old, the technologically uninterested – are all adopting smartphones as their go-to computing device.

— People who formerly didn’t have any access to computers – the poor and citizens of third world countries – are also adopting smartphones as their first – and perhaps only – computing device.

— Where we used to own a single family computer, now every member of the family will want to possess their own personal tablet.

— Most people who own a tablet will own a smartphone too, and perhaps a notebook as well.

Our Lives Will Never Be The Same

Most technology observers seem to have a very poor grasp of economics and consumer behavior. They speak in terms of limited resources and assume that technological growth is limited. The truth is that we don’t buy what we need, we buy what we want. And a further truth is that when we want and value something highly enough, we shift our limited resources in order to find a way to obtain it.

In 2006, we only needed a single, cheap desktop or notebook computer. Today we expect and demand access to multiple mobile computing devices.

We don’t NEED tablets, but we WANT them and we’re going to find a way to buy and possess them. And smartphones are rapidly moving from the category of a WANT to something that we both WANT AND NEED in order to merely function in modern society.

Sales of mobile touch computers are about to explode and our lifestyles and our lives will never be the same.

Cord-cutters Beware: It’s Going To Get Expensive

Photo of cable cutting (Fotolia)The are many reasons why television viewers choose to cut the cord, to be among the 15% or so of Americans who get by without a cable or satellite feed. But probably the most important is the desire to pay less for the content by grabbing it out of the airwaves or finding it on the internet.

I have some bad news for penny-pinching cord-cutters. The more people choose to do without a cable subscription, the more expensive the over-the-top alternative is going to become.

The economics of this are stark. Charlie Ergen, CEO of Dish Network, describes the current U.S. environment as “90 million [households] paying $1,000 a year. I don’t think in my lifetime that number goes up.”

Broadcast stations still rely heavily on advertising, but the retransmission fees paid by cable and satellite providers, estimated at about $3 billion a year, are an increasingly important part of their revenues. That’s why broadcasters are so scared of, and are fighting so hard against, Aereo, which provides over-the-air TV over the internet without compensating the stations.

Basic and lower-tier cable-only networks also get advertising revenue, but their rates are often much lower and cable fees represent a larger part of their income. Premium channels depend mainly on subscription fees. Except for the relatively small amounts they pay through subscription internet services such as Netflix and Hulu+, cord cutters are not part of this economy.

Comcast, which plays in pretty much all aspects of the TV game, provides a good look at these economics. Last year, its cable operations generated $20 billion in revenues from video services. Of that, by far the biggest chunk, $8.4 billion, went to pay for content. Its NBC Universal unit received $8.8 billion from its cable channels, $8.2 billion from broadcast (including both the NBC network and 10 owned-and-operated local stations), $5.1billion from movies, and $2.1 billion from theme parks.[pullquote]Somewhere, money will have to be found to feed the content beast. Otherwise, it will be goodbye Game of Thrones, hello Survivor: Mall of America.[/pullquote]

By contrast total Netflix revenues last year were $945 million, the great bulk of it from 27 million U.S. streaming subscribers.

Somewhere, money will have to be found to feed the content beast. Otherwise, it will be goodbye Game of Thrones, hello Survivor: Mall of America.

A number of things are going to have to happen if a significant fraction of customers cut the cord. There’s going to be a lot less free stuff available and the paid content is going to cost more. TV show owners who now regard whatever they get from Netflix for old seasons of Mad Men as gravy will have to drive up the cost if that becomes the primary channel of distribution—and the $9 all-you-can-eat monthly Netflix subscription will be a thing of the past.

HBO will eventually decide to sell content to viewers without cable companies acting as intermediaries; it already has the infrastructure to do this in place with HBO Go. But don’t expect the cost to be much less than the $10 a month or so you’d currently pay for an HBO subscription (the bundling practices of both the cable operators and the content providers make it very hard to figure out the charge for any particular service.) Similarly, access to ESPN sports is going to cost at least as much as the $5 or so per customer per month that cable operators pay for the service.

A second thing that will happen is that content providers are going to become a lot less sanguine about account sharing. Trust me, the services know that you and your three closest friends are sharing one Netflix streaming account or that your college-student son has “borrowed” your Verizon FiOS login credentials to watch HBO Go and ESPN 3. For now, it’s more trouble than it is worth to stop these practices. But as over-the-top revenues grow in importance, the content providers tolerance of such cheating will shrink. A crackdown is inevitable.

Fortunately, getting your television over-the-top has some advantages other than price. You get to watch what you want, where you want, and on the device you want. But all those charges are going to add up, and by the time you’re done, you could be paying as much as you do for a cable subscription. Or more. The byzantine cross-subsidies created by bundled prices mean that at least some customers are getting more than they pay for. In the end, that one payment a month for a big bundle of content may look at lot better than it does today.

 

Facebook Home’s Uniquely Flawed Experience Examined

Facebook announced last week their new experience for Android smartphones, called Facebook Home. This is Facebook’s first major attempt to control more of the phone’s experience without actually selling a phone.   Facebook Home is pre-installed on the HTC First and also users of select HTC and Samsung phones can install it from Google Play.  I primarily use an HTC One X+, installed Facebook Home, and I am sorry to say, the experience was everything I was afraid it would be… a thick and clunky launcher that drains your battery, slows down and gets in the way of everything except Facebook.  I want to share with you my experiences, and based on that and other data points, piece together the implications.  Let me start with some background.

Facebook has received significant investor scrutiny to increase mobile monetization ever since they went public.  Every quarter since they went public, they have been dogged by institutional investors, so the pressure was on Facebook to improve their mobile strategy and execution.  It started with an improved Facebook, Messenger and Camera app (iOS) and it appeared that Facebook was on a little bit of a mobile roll.  Speculation grew that Facebook would in fact, partner with HTC on a “Facebook Phone”, but instead launched Facebook Home.  Let me talk about my experiences…

From the start, Facebook Home looked beautiful, with edge to edge photos of my timeline.  It looked like a combination between XBOX 360 animations and Path simplicity.  If all one wants to do is breeze through timeline and “like” and comment on items, it’s great, but using the other 99 smartphone features the experience starts to unravel.

Swiping my Chat Head up exposes my apps that were in folders or on the top screens.  Note I say “were in folders” because my folders were removed, the apps pulled out and spread out onto four screens that I need to scroll horizontally.  Heck, even Apple learned that phone app icons worked better in folders.  The change is simply confusing. My weather app is now on page four, which defeated the purpose of having it on page one where I wanted it.  If you scroll all the way to left you see “All Apps”, which, of course you scroll vertically to scroll through.  Confused yet? What would really help here is something like Apple’s Spotlight Search.  But hey, Facebook is now at war with Google, so maybe they feel they have to remove search and choose rivalry over usage…. or they assume people don’t have a lot of apps.

After using a non-Facebook app like Pulse Reader, you press the phone’s home button and you are back into Facebook world, which took between 5-10 seconds if over a telephone network.  The screen would be black and a white swirl would spin counter-clockwise, Facebook Home’s version of the hour-glass.  The experience was much better over a WiFi connection. Let’s talk notifications.

In Android, notifications display on the top band of the phone. Facebook Home default installation removes that band, so if you get Twitter, email or low battery notifications, you won’t see them.  Facebook, Instagram, and text notifications show up as Chat Heads.  To see non-Facebook notifications, users must swipe once to see them then swipe twice to pull down the notification menu. If you want to see the status bar, you need to go into Facebook Home settings and click “show status bar”.  Facebook Home also covers up alarms that come through my “Alarm” clock.  You can hear the alarm clock, but you don’t see it and need to plow through menus to snooze or shut it off.  This isn’t what I want to be doing at 5AM.  Let me move to heat and battery life.

Facebook Home is on most of the time and therefore like all active apps, uses power.  I will estimate that my battery life was reduced by 30%.  This is very unscientific test, but what was most telling was the error message that kept popping up. It said, “Battery is low.  The charging current is not enough for device power consumption.  Please switch to AC adapter”.  Problem was is that I was connected to an AC adapter, but my phone and Facebook Home was sucking more power than could be replenished.  As you would expect, Facebook Home heated up my phone, warmer than any game had done.  This is simple physics, but not something you expect from a social media app.   Let me finish off my experience with privacy.

There is no default-privacy with Facebook Home, period.  Your timeline is defaulted “open” for anyone to see.  It is above the lock screen and is just like a screen saver.   Literally, I could walk over to someone’s phone with Facebook Home and watch their timeline…. And “like” and even comment.  Like all Facebook privacy invasions, you can shut this off in settings.

So is it just me who found major issues with Facebook Home?  Absolutely not.  47% people who rated Facebook Home on Google Play gave it a 1 out of 5 stars.  As I dig into the comments, I definitely see most of the issues I outlined below.  This isn’t some anti-Facebook conspiracy as Facebook’s other Android apps receive rave reviews.  As a comparison, Facebook Messenger received 5% one star rating. Net-net, my Facebook Home experiences were shared by many others.  So I have spent a lot of time on the experience, but what about the implications?

As we have seen so many times before with apps like V1 of Apple Maps that received very polarizing rankings, large companies do act as quickly as possible and make quick improvements to their app.  I believe Facebook, who is famous for their all-night hackathons, will move quickly, but with such fundamental and major issues, I’m skeptical they can remove all the issues. Removing folders is a major mistake and Facebook will end up adding those back in or adding some kind of search.  Making it nearly impossible to find your apps isn’t a good way to get the focus on Facebook and without that, many will just uninstall it.

I believe the lagginess, heat generation and the battery life-sucking nature of Facebook Home will be very extremely difficult to fix on current devices like mine without a major architectural change or major sub-optimizations of the code.  Because this most likely won’t get fixed, many people will just uninstall it and move on.

Facebook had an extremely rocky start on a strategically important endeavor.    It demonstrates just how difficult it is to “own” an experience by putting a skin or launcher on top of an operating system.  Facebook will need to go deeper like Amazon did with their own device and experience or sit in “no-man’s land” between themselves, Google, and the handset manufacturers.  While this is a very risky move and not what investors want to hear, Facebook may need to do this to completely monetize mobility.  You will see small baby-steps on this path as Facebook starts to control more of a certain brand’s experience but ultimately Facebook will get out of this middle ground and do their own phone or remain a collection of apps in someone else’s experience.

Forget Mad Men Or Breaking Bad. Give Me The Recurring Tales Of Microsoft.

People are often surprised to discover that I rarely watch television. Make no mistake, though. I’m no culture snob. It’s just that tracking tech companies is so much more fascinating. None more so than Microsoft.

No, not Apple, not Oracle, not Google or Facebook, not even a Marissa Mayer-led Yahoo. Microsoft stands alone, equal parts The Office, Lord of the Rings, and and a really bad, big budget Tom Cruise flick. The stories tumble out, one after the other, always somehow both a shock and painfully obvious.

Founder Bill Gates, we all know, has gone from despised to beloved. Once the face of the evil monopolistic digital land baron, now the big data soul of 21st century philanthropy.

Next, of course, there’s Steve Ballmer, Gate’s Salieri. Ballmer has spent most of his adult life fighting Gate’s wars, living in Gate’s shadow. Small wonder that, despite his many billions earned in sweat and blood and equity, he is now loathe to relinquish his role as lord of Microsoft.

Ballmer is worth as many stories as Gates, and most of them even better. For decades, Ballmer has faithfully spent his days and nights aggressively, angrily growing Windows – convinced it was the very same thing as growing Microsoft. Too late, he discovered the truth. No. Comically, he has yet to discover this truth even though everyone else has.

There’s so much more…

How many billions has Microsoft poured away in its futile efforts to catch up to Google?

How many billions more will it spend now that it has decided catching up to Apple is also necessary?

How many worthy competitors has Microsoft destroyed over the years – obliterated, in fact – only to suddenly later find itself rebuffed by a bumbling Yahoo, or scorned by a geeky Mark Zuckerberg, who decides to stake the future of his company on something as inconsequential as an Android launcher?

I cannot be the only one that finds watching Ballmer transform from an angry grizzly to a toothless Pooh Bear far more entertaining than anything put out by Hollywood.

I cannot be the only one who lived through the Microsoft Terror, watched as Microsoft took on GM, IBM, GE, even governments, now staring dumbfounded as Microsoft runs to France, crying about Google.

The stories write themselves…

The biggest, baddest personal computing company of our age spent years talking about, developing, showing off and building all manner of mobile computing devices. After years of toil they arrived at the gates of the promised land, inexplicably turned around, then mocked Apple and Google as they passed through that magical portal.

Then were turned away when they finally got mobile religion.

Microsoft destroyed Netscape, yet somehow missed out on the Internet’s greatest riches.

Microsoft rode in on a white horse and saved Apple, only to be mesmerized by the wizardry of Steve Jobs.

On its mighty shoulders, Microsoft alone raised up PC companies to the heavens – like Dell and HP – only to sit idly by as they quickly fed upon themselves in a foolish race to the bottom.

The company spent a king’s ransom to destroy Sony only to discover – too late – that Apple was the future of music, movies and gaming.

Microsoft developed the best ever PC operating system – after PCs became damn near irrelevant.

Worse. The company may no longer possess even the ability to right itself as Ballmer has spent the last decade swiftly excising all who possessed even the hint of challenging him.

But you want to see what’s on Netflix?

The company continues to earn ungodly profits – yet their stock refuses to budge.

Their software licensing model, once considered impervious to attack, is now beaten and bloodied. Only, not by free and open but by pricey consumer hardware.

They’ve spent so much over the years on media relations that now no one in the media can stand them.

Microsoft is everywhere yet ignored. Microsoft is giant yet mocked. Microsoft is rich yet may have no future. There is no better story in tech, in fiction nor on the silver screen.

The Revenge of Steve Jobs

steve-jobs2Steve Jobs’ original vision for Apple was to own the PC market. When he and Steve Wozniak created the original Apple PC, they fully expected to be the company that brought the PC to the masses. However, once IBM came into the PC market the game changed. By 1983 the IBM PC was the defacto standard in personal computers and Apple was pretty much left in its dust.

When Jobs introduced the Mac in 1984, he was convinced that his new Apple PC would be considered easier to use than the IBM PC and as a result leapfrog the IBM PC and become the PC for the masses. But at that time, the masses could not afford the price of the Mac or the IBM PC and the real growth in PCs was driven by the business market, a market which IBM compatibles helped define and continues to be the top selling PC even today. Even more galling to Jobs was the fact that Bill Gates, with the intro of the Windows UI, basically took Jobs’ implementation of a GUI and put it onto all PCs and in essence made GUIs the defacto standard in how a person navigates the PC experience. Up to now, Gates and team reaped most of the financial benefits from the growth of the PC market.

Although Jobs introduced the first commercial version of a PC as well as commercialized a radical new UI, the PC market under the leadership of IBM compatible vendors and with Gates’ software, fundamentally has been at the center of the PC revolution and even to date, IBM PC compatible products dominate the market overall for personal computing and Jobs never realized his goal of Apple owning the PC market.

The PCs Run is Over

Earlier this week, IDC updated their forecasts for Q1 of 2013 and gave some guidance about the future growth of PCs throughout this year. In late 2012, IDC forecasted that the PC market would see a negative growth of 7.7% in Q1 of 2013. But in their updated report on PC sales for the last quarter, PC sales were actually down 13.9%, the worst quarterly decline since they began tracking PC shipments.

All Things D published both the IDC and Gartner numbers for Q1, 2013 and wrote about both companies guidance for PC sales for the rest of the year. Even though the IDC numbers and Gartners numbers are a bit different, they both conclude that demand for PCs is in a real decline and that the likelihood of them recovering is slim.

In this article, Arik Hesseldahl of All Things D states “At this time, it has to be said that much of the blame for the damage being done to the PC businesses of all the companies around the world can be laid at Apple’s feet: Sales of the iPad, the world’s leading tablet brand, have a lot to do with the collapse in PC sales.”

When Jobs introduced the iPad, he clearly stated that this product would drive the post PC era. I think he knew that his tablet was finally the reinvention of the PC he had longed to bring to market and that it would actually cause the decline of PCs, even if it meant eating some of his own children (the Mac). More importantly, by the time he introduced the iPad, he had in place all of the hardware, software, and services needed to connect the iPad to his ecosystem and even with any decline in the Mac business, he was fully insulated from the impact any downturn in Mac sales would have on his business. On the other hand, HP, Dell, Acer and other PC OEMs who were totally PC driven are feeling the shock of the decline in their PC businesses and are not any where insulated like Apple to withstand the impact of these sharp declines in PC demand. Their only hope is that Microsoft can deliver key software and services that they can use on tablets and convertibles of their own. But it may be too late for them given the strong position in tablets Apple already has and from strong competitors like Samsung, Amazon, and others who are in many ways better insulated through their own ecosystem of products and services already up and running.

While Steve Jobs is no longer with us, I think he knew that this would happen. Perhaps his last major act was to give us the iPad and finally have revenge for the years of toil in the PC market where he always ended up #2, even though he was first with many of the innovations that actually drove PCs to the masses. If he were with us today I suspect he would not shed any tears to see the decline of the PC market and instead revel in the role the iPad played in bringing his PC competitors to their knees.

Office for Tablets: Delay Could Be Death

Office logo

The usually very well-informed Mary Jo Foley reports at ZDNet that we won’t see major improvement in Microsoft Office for tablets until next year, spring of 2014 for Windows RT and fall for the long-awaited iOS and Android versions. If true, this is big trouble for Microsoft’s cash-cow Office franchise.

The huge threat is that this long wait gives everyone a year to 18 months to continue to learn to live without Office. In tech time, that is more-or-less forever. The longer people go without Office on their tablets and the more that tablets become the dominate computing tools, the less people will want or need the Microsoft software. It will hold on in the enterprise in those roles where Office is indispensable, but that will be a steadily shrinking market.

The bizarre thing is that Microsoft foresaw the future of tablets with the development of the Tablet PC in 2001, but utterly failed to recognize their importance once Apple released the iPad in 2010. The brand-new version of Office relies on Windows’ classic Desktop user interface and its applications are unsuited for use even on Microsoft’s own tablets unless they are effectively configured as laptops with keyboards and a stylus or mouse. Outlook, a key component of the Office suite, is not available at all for RT, the tablet version of Windows (Foley says Outlook RT is fall 0f next year.)

As the latest sales figures suggest, the world is moving decisively to tablets. To the extent that people need Office-like apps, companies more nimble (and less riven by internal politics) than Microsoft will provide them. If Microsoft doesn’t get around to releasing tablet versions of the applications until the fall of 2014, it is likely that very few people by then will care.