Why Android Is Winning The Battles But Google Is Losing The War: Part 2

A Pyrrhic victory (/ˈpɪrɪk/) is a victory with such a devastating cost that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately lead to defeat. The phrase “Pyrrhic Victory” is named after King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC during the Pyrrhic War. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit. The term “Pyrrhic victory” is used as an analogy in fields such as business, politics, and sports to describe struggles that end up ruining the victor. ~ via Wikipedia

Series Schedule:

  • Mon: The Battle for the PC
  • Tue: The Battle for Mobile Phones Won
  • Wed: The War for Mobile Phones Lost
  • Thu: The Battle for Tablets
  • Fri: Picking Your Battles Is As Important as Winning Them
  • 2) The Battle For Mobile Phones

    The Battle Plan

    Tech insiders have been predicting that peak search would happen for some time, as people shifted from using websites – where search is a natural activity – to using mobile apps.

    Google was far from unprepared. They knew that mobile was the future of search and they carefully crafted a plan:

    Step 1: Create a (putatively) open source mobile operating system called Android.

    Step 2: Give the Android operating system away for free.

    Step 3: Sell mobile ads and other mobile services on those mobile devices running Android in much the same way that they were currently selling ads and services on the PC.

    A Glorious Tactical Success

    Parts 1 and 2 of Google’s plan worked to perfection. In fact, Android was more succesful than anyone, including Google, could have anticipated or even imagined. Internal Google documents revealed at the Oracle v. Google trial show that Android’s growth far exceeded even what Google had projected or expected.

    Just five years after its debut, Google‘s Android mobile operating software now claims 75% of smart phones shipped, according to a new report from market researcher IDC. A simply stunning overall achievment.

    A Glorious Public Relations Success

    And don’t think that Android’s spectacular rise has gone unnoticed:

    CNet:

    “Android’s ascension to glory has been incredible to behold.”

    Dan Lyons:

    “Look, when three out of four phones sold worldwide run your operating system, I think it’s safe to declare victory.”

    CoolSmartphone:

    “Why Android has won”

    CEO Nathan Eagle

    “Why Android Has Already Won the Global Smartphone Race”

    Joe Wilcox

    “Android wins the smartphone wars”

    Chris Pirillo

    Android is the New Windows (I mean that in the most polite way, too)

    Venturebeat

    “As Android hits 75% market share, can anyone tell me why this is not Mac vs PC all over again?”

    An Inglorious Strategic Failure

    “Another such victory and I am undone.” ~ Pyrrhus

    Every report, every study shows that Google got it right. More and more ad revenue is moving to mobile. An analysis of the mobile traffic from a cross section of advertisers reveals up to 25-30% of all paid search traffic is now mobile. And more and more mobile phones are powered by the Android operating system. It’s only logical to assume that the more people buy and use Android phones, the more money Google will make from the sale of search, content and other services.

    Only that’s not happening. That’s not happening at all. Android appears to be an overwhelming success in every way. But it turns out that it is only an overwhelming success in one way – market share. In every way that matters – and especially in profits – Android has been a dismal failure.

    Unexpected, exponential user growth is usually accompanied by a dramatic positive improvement in the finances of a company and a higher return to shareholders. The curious aspect of Android’s success is that it has not had an impact on either. ~ Horace Dediu

    Yearning For Earnings

    During the Q3 2012 Earnings call, Google announced that it had a run rate of $8 billion from its mobile business consisting of revenue from ads, apps and content. That was contrasted with a $2.5 billion run rate of a year ago. CFO Patrick Pichette added “Ads continue to be the bulk of [the $8 billion], the vast majority of it.” Sounds like good news, right?

    The problem with the $8 billlion number is two-fold. First, the increased revenues appear to represent more of an reshuffling of assets than actual growth. Second, despite the presumably large increase in the run rate, Google declined to disclose Nexus 7 sales, app sales, content sales or ad sales and they stoutly refused to address mobile margins and profits.

    What we do know for sure is:

    — Cost-per-click (CPC) was down
    — Traffic Acquisition Costs (TAC) were up
    — Profit from Android was un-reported and possibly non-existant

    Upon revealing the numbers, Google’s stock tanked. With Google’s stock falling a shocking $68 or 9% in a matter of hours, Google was desperate for good news to give to its shareholders. If there was ever a time to reveal Android’s profits, that would have been the time. Instead, managment adamantly refused all requests for specifics on mobile sales, margins or profits.

    With their stock plummeting, you can bet your bottom dollar that if Google had garnered any profits from Android, they not only would have revealed them, they would trumpeted them as loudly as possible. After all, it’s not like Google doesn’t like to brag about Android. They tout their Android activation numbers all the time. The fact that Google did not reveal any good news regarding Android can mean only one thing – there was no good news to reveal.

    After all, there is simply no good reason NOT to reveal Android’s numbers and associated profits. You could argue that Google is being coy and hiding numbers for competitve advantage but what possible competitive advantage could there be?

    Further, there is every reason TO reveal profits. If the numbers are rising at an appreciable rate, that would be an exciting development that Google would want to reveal. It woud prove that their strategy was correct and that Android was winning. It would put to rest any lingering doubts, questions or suspicious that things with Android might not actuallly be as they seem. It would be a demoralizing blow to their competitors and a shot in the arm to their stockholders. And perhaps, best of all, it would be an incentive for their customers to increase their ad spending and hop on board the Android gravy train

    It is, in fact, almost a certainty that Android DOES make Google a profit. But that profit must be so embarrassingly small that it would be counter-productive for Google to announce it. Doing so would not help Google’s stock, it would hurt it as the revelation would expose exactly how little Android has actually accomplished.

    Pyrrhic Victory

    Android has overwhelmingly won the battle for marketshare. But the purpose of market share is to get more developers, more apps, more advertising eyeballs, more content, to deliver more revenue – and most importantly – more profit for all involved. Android isn’t delivering any of that.

    This is a classic Pyrrhic Victory. Android is winning the market share battles but Google is losing the profit war.

    The irony here is poignant. In a reversal of the famous Rolling Stones song, Android got what it wanted – market share – but not what it needed – profits.

    Next

    How could this be? How could there be such a disconnect between the number of Android users and their value to Google?

    Tomorrow: “The War for Mobile Phones Lost.”

    Why Android Is Winning The Battles But Google Is Losing The War: Part 1

    A Pyrrhic victory (/ˈpɪrɪk/) is a victory with such a devastating cost that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately lead to defeat. The phrase “Pyrrhic Victory” is named after King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC during the Pyrrhic War. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit. The term “Pyrrhic victory” is used as an analogy in fields such as business, politics, and sports to describe struggles that end up ruining the victor. ~ via Wikipedia

    Series Schedule:

  • Mon: The Battle for the PC
  • Tue: The Battle for Mobile Phones Won
  • Wed: The War for Mobile Phones Lost
  • Thu: The Battle for Tablets
  • Fri: Picking Your Battles Is As Important as Winning Them
  • 1) The Battle For The PC

    A Glorious Victory

    Google began in January 1996 as a research project by Larry Page and Sergey Brin. While conventional search engines ranked results by counting how many times the search terms appeared on the page, they theorized about a better system that analyzed the relationships between websites. They called this new technology PageRank, where a website’s relevance was determined by the number of pages, and the importance of those pages, that linked back to the original site. via Wikipedia

    The Battle for search on the PC (notebooks and desktops) was a glorious victory for Google. Seldom has a company come so far, so fast, made so much money and so utterly anihilated their competition. By 2006, Google dominated search and was one of the largest, fastest growing companies on the planet. Their PC search strategy had proven to be brilliant and they were virtually printing money.

    I can give Google no greater compliment than this: They make their money by distributing ADVERTISING, yet they are liked by most and even loved by many. The words “amazing” and “awe-inspiring” don’t even begin to cover that achievment.

    All Glory Is Fleeting

    Sic transit gloria mundi

    But Google had two problems, which were really one and the same problem: “peak” and “mobile”.

    Many of us are familiar with the concept of “peak oil”. It’s a term used to describe the fact that oil production had to, at some point in time, peak because there was only a finite amount of oil in the ground and once that peak was reached there must inevitably be a steady, albeit gradual, decline in oil production.

    An equivelent peak is occuring in computing. In fact, two peaks: “peak PC” and “peak search”, both of which raise serious issues for Google.

    For eight straight quarters, search was growing. Then for three straight quarters, that growth deaccelerated. Then last quarter, something happened that had never happened before. People searched less. We have reached peak search.

    Ben Schachter of Macquarie Securities noted this in a research note:

    Notably, total core organic searches declined 4 percent y/y, representing the first decline in total search volume since we began tracking the data in 2006. While this month marks the first y/y decline in total search volume, growth rates have been decelerating since February’s recent peak at 14 percent y/y growth (for the prior two years, growth rates were largely stable in the high single-digit to low double-digit range).


    Not only is search declining, the proft from search is declining too. “Cost-per-click” – how much advertisers pay on average when someone clicks on an ad – is down. Way down. In its third quarter 2012 earnings, Google reported that its cost per click was down 15 percent.

    Cost-per-click” – how much advertisers pay on average when someone clicks on an ad – has been dropping for the past four quarters, after rising for eight previous quarters. Surrounding circumstances make it clear that there is no reason to expect it to rise again.

    Why is peak search happening and why now?

    First, there are fewer and fewer PCs. Like peak oil, we’ve reached peak PC. The PC market is in permanent decline. In fact, the PC market is not only declining, it may be headed for a cliff. (See Tim Bajarin’s fine article on “How the iPad Mini Could Impact Future PC Sales.”)

    Second, the search market is maturing. The places where people are going online just don’t pay as much as they used to.

    Third, less and less people are doing their searches on their desktops and more and more peole are doing them on their mobile devices. When it comes to search, the portability of the mobile device trumps the power of the PC.

    Smartphones have been outselling PCs (notebooks and desktops) since the end of 2010 and by the end of 2012, tablets will make up over 25% of all PC sales. Further, well respected mobile analyst, Mary Meeker believes the global smartphone plus tablet install base will surpass the install base of the PC by the end of Q2 2013.

    Fourth, and finally, try this thought experiment. You’re standing by your PC. You want to know the weather, the score of the big game, where a movie is playing or a local place to eat and how to get there (GPS). Do you perform the search on your PC or on your phone? For more and more people, this is an activity that you do on your mobile device, even when your PC is readily available.

    AUTHOR’S ASIDE: Ya gotta love Microsoft’s play in the desktop search industry. They are losing BILLIONS on Bing, buying into the desktop search market just as it has peaked and started its decline. What a company.

    Now it’s not such a bad thing to be dominating a market that is just past its peak. It means that you’ll be getting great income – nearly as much as you’re getting today – for a long while yet to come. But it also means that your’ve got no longterm future. Unless you plan for one. Which Google did.

    Next

    Tomorrow: “The Battle for Mobile Phones Won.”

    An iPad Mini Epiphany

    So, I’m reading this article entitled: “Physicians excited about lab coat pocket-ability of Apple’s iPad mini” and I suddenly have an epiphany. Or, at least, a mini-ephiphany. Or indigestion. Not exactly sure which.

    Anyway, it occurs to me as I’m reading this article that there is an entire sector of computing where the iPad, in general, and the newly minted iPad Mini, in particular, have no competition. They OWN this market.

    From the article:

    Epocrates, a maker of point-of-care applications for medical professionals, gathered data from 48 different physicians that use its products. One in three of those physicians said they are planning to purchase an iPad mini due to its convenient small size.

    And earlier this year, one survey found that more than a quarter of European doctors use an iPad at work, while another 40 percent said they planned to buy an iPad within six months.

    Emphasis added

    They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Try this thought experiment:

    Picture a doctor walking from patient to patient, either in their private practice or in a hospital setting. Picture them inputing data into an iPad or using the iPad to share information with their patients.

    Now picture them holding the iPad Mini in one hand and doing the same kinds of things…then slipping the iPad Mini into thier coat pocket.

    An easy picture, no? The picture of the iPad works, but the picture of the iPad Mini – held in a single hand – just feels right, at least to me.

    A Smaller Piece Of The Puzzle That Fits In More Places

    In July, I wrote an article entitled: “The PC is the Titanic and the Tablet is the Iceberg. Any Questions?” The purpose of that article was to show how the tablet would undercut the PC because many of the things that the tablet did well, the PC did poorly or not at all. I went back and re-visted that article with the iPad Mini in mind.

    Picture this:

    STANDING:
    Tablets excel at working while you are standing. The iPad Mini would do most of those tasks even better. Tasks done by matre d’s, inventory takers, tour guides, concierges, face-to-face service providers and order takers of every kind, would benefit from the use of the iPad Mini.

    ROOM TO ROOM, DOOR TO DOOR AND REMOTE LOCATIONS:
    Tablets excel at working when one has to move and stop and move yet again. The iPad Mini would do those tasks even better. Car dealerships, like Mercedes Benz, are giving tablets to their salespeople. European doctors are rapidly taking to the tablet. Service technicians at Siemens Energy are using tablets while servicing power installations. Scientists are using tablets during field research. Nurses, realtors, journalists, park rangers, medical technicians…the list of users and uses is nearly endless. They would all benefit from the use of an iPad Mini.

    SALES:
    If you’re in Sales, you’re into Tablets. For some salespeople, the larger iPad would make a better presentation device. For many others – and perhaps most others – the iPad Mini would do the job even better. Whether you’re traveling or standing or presenting or taking an order and acquiring a signature – tablets are a salesperson’s best friend. An iPad Mini would be more like a bosom buddy.

    KIOSKS:
    While the PC makes for a terrible Kiosk, the tablet is almost ideally suited to the task. Tablets as Kiosks are making their presence known in places as diverse as malls, taxi cabs, hospitals, the Louisiana Department of Motor Vehicles, and the FastPass lanes at Disney World. I think the larger sized tablet is more appropriate for a Kiosk that the iPad Mini. But the iPad Mini would be perfect for smaller spaces such as in car dashboards, taxi cabs, banks, and such.

    LOANERS:
    Tablets are starting to show up as “loaners” that are lent out as entertainment devices. They’re being purchased by libraries. Airplanes run by Singapore Airlines and Qantas use them as in-flight entertainment devices. Airports like New York’s LaGuardia, Minneapolis-St. Paul International and Toronto Pearson International, lend them out to waiting passengers. The tablet is ideally suited for the task. It is light, it is portable, it is versatile, it displays content beautifully and it is sublimely easy to use. If the larger size tablet is ideal, then the iPad Mini is a dream come true.

    EDUCATION:
    PCs in schools are mostly relegated to teachers and computer labs. Tablets live in the classroom and they reside in the hands of the students. No one wants to learn HOW to use computers anymore. Students simply want to use computers to help them learn.

    The tablet is starting to take educational institutions by storm. It acts as an electronic blackboard, as a digital textbook and as an interactive textbook.

    It’s at the K-12 level (the San Diego School district just ordered 26,000) and at the Universities (Adams Center for Teaching and Learning at Abilene Christian University, George Fox University, North Carolina State University in Raleigh). Tablets are even finding their way into the top-tier high schools in China.

    Some schools have even reported a 10% improvement in the exam scores of students who use tablets in lieu or paper books.

    We’ll have to see how the education market sorts itself out. But for smaller children at least, the smaller size of the iPad Mini seems like the perfect teaching tool.

    The Competition Comes Up Small

    Now try to picture any of the above tasks being done with an Amzaon Kindle Fire, Google Nexus 7, or Microsoft Surface? More difficult, right?

    — The Amazon Kindle Fire has little chance because it has no tablet optimized apps and because the tablet is designed to pull the user into their store.

    — Nexus has little chane because it has no tablet optimized apps and because it relies on content and ad sales in order to make money.

    — Windows Surface has little chance…yet.

    Microsoft is very good at ecosystem, but their tablet offerings are currently unsuitable for the one-handed tasks that I listed, above. First, their tablets are too large. Second, the 16:9 ratio makes them awkward to hold in portrait mode. Third, their current iterations seemed focused on surface use, not hand held use. Fourth, and most importantly, they do not currently have the job-specific apps necessary to perform the required tasks.

    Job Specific, Proprietary Apps Are The Key

    It is this last point that I want to dwell upon for a moment. When the press and the pundistocracy talk about apps, they usually focus on the big ticket items like Angry birds, Instagram, Facebook, Flipboard, etc. But the key to Apple’s app dominance are the untold number of proprietary, job specific apps designed by and for doctors, hospitals, park rangers, restaurants, entrepreneurs, businesses, educational institutions and government entities. THAT’s where the power of apps lies.

    Neither the 9.7 or the 7.9 inch iPad tablet are competitor proof. But if you need a hand-held tablet that’s serious about apps, then no one competes with the iPad Mini in that space.

    Upside Down Analysis

    These thoughts via Business Insider:

    According to estimates from Canaccord Genuity, Samsung has shot further ahead of the pack as the world’s largest smartphone manufacturer, shipping 56.3 million units in the third quarter.

    Apple’s consolation is that it still takes a larger share of industry profits, despite shipping approximately half as many units as Samsung.

    Today’s analysis of the mobile industry makes my head hurt because it is analysis turned on its head. In business, profits are not the consolation prize. Profits are the ONLY prize.

    Sheesh.

    Windows 8’s Greatest Sin

    Anyone who is in business knows that once you have made a sale, you want the next sale to become as seamless and as automatic as possible. This is why newspapers and magazines push subscriptions so heavily and why so many services, like cable, phone, electricity, etc, rely so heavily upon monthly billing. They know that customers are far more likely to continue buying their goods or services from their existing provider if the purchase of those goods or services becomes routine and automatic. When the customer is given no chance to re-think or re-evaluate their decision, there is far less liklihood that they will change that decision.

    Perhaps Windows 8’s greatest sin is that it is going to force Microsoft’s current customers to have to re-decide; to re-evaluate; to re-think their current purchasing decision. And if you’re the incumbant, that’s never a good thing.

    Netflix

    Netflix started a website that rented videos and delivered those videos to its customers by mail. Netflix introduced the monthly subscription concept to their service in September 1999 and dropped the single-rental model in early 2000. Since that time, the company has built its reputation on the business model of flat-fee, unlimited rentals without due dates, late fees, shipping or handling fees, or per title rental fees. ~ via Wikipedia

    Netflix continued to expand their services by offering streaming video rentals. At the base level, Netflix was charging its customers a flat $10 for both its mail and streaming videos. Then Netflix committed a cardinal sin.

    In the fall of 2011, Netflix dramatically changed its pricing. Customers could no longer continue to pay $10 and get both the mail and streaming services. Customers had to choose between paying $8 for the mail service or $8 for the streaming service or $16 for both. This forced Netflix’ customers to re-evaluate their subscription plans. And when they chose, many of them chose to cancel their subscriptions altogether.

    On October 24, 2011, Netflix announced it had lost 800,000 US subscribers in the third quarter of 2011 and that more subscriber losses were expected.

    Netflix’ decision hardly killed the company but it unnecessarily cost them approximately a million subscribers. By forcing their customers to re-evaluate and re-think their previously automatic decisions, they gave their customers the worst option of all – the option to opt out of their Netflix subscription altogether.

    Windows Upgrades Were the Surest of Sure Things

    Microsoft’s Windows has had a virtual monopoly on personal computing since the mid-ninties. Windows software comes bundled with most new PCs, so the vast majority of operating system upgrades were invisible, automatic and virtually painless.

    There were fewer sure bets than that those who owned a Windows PC were going to buy another Windows PC. The only question was “when”. For most, seeking an alternative to Windows simply didn’t even enter into their minds.

    Windows 8 Will Cause Hesitation

    A new study by Forrester Research — as reported by Social Barrel — shows that only 33% of companies who responded to their new survey have plans to move to Windows 8, Microsoft’s latest upgrade of its operating system.

    Ten percent of the respondents have no intention at all to upgrade. The remaining 40% of the survey respondents stated that they have no plans of upgrading to Windows 8 yet.

    “Social Barrel” says the percentage decline is “massive” in comparison with companies that intended to shift to Windows 7 when it launched in 2009. At that time, 67% of the companies that participated in a Forrester survey intended to shift to Windows 7, with 28% either not considering the update or are totally skipping it. ~ MacNews

    Windows Users Have Other Options

    It’s a whole new computing world out there. In 2006, there were only PCs and a smattering of smartphones and tablets. In 2012, we have:

    — Mobile devices outselling PCs
    — The Mac and the iPad seen as perfectly mainstream
    — Bring Your Own Device and computer decision making moving from the home to the workplace rather than from the workplace to the home
    — iPad’s viewed as all the computer that some people need

    Last week – two days before Windows 8 was announced – Apple introduced a new iPad Mini. But, in a surprise move, Apple also updated their third generation iPad to a fourth generation, and refreshed almost their entire Mac line.

    Do you think that was coincidental? Or do you think that Apple was offering Windows’ existing users a clear alternative to Windows 8?

    If I’m Going To Have To Learn A New User Interface Anyway…

    Windows 8 is remarkable, daring, and innovative. But it’s also a departure from nearly everything that Windows’ customers have known Windows to be. Windows 8 is a radical makeover. It forces people to relearn how to use their computers.

    And if customers have to re-learn how to user their computers anyway, then they might as well consider learning a new operating system. Like a Mac or an iPad.

    If I’m Going To Have To Buy New Computer Hardware Anyway…

    Windows 8 is designed for a touchscreen.

    And if customers have to buy new computer hardware anyway, then they might as well consider buying a new type of computer. Or tablet. Like a Mac or an iPad.

    If I’m Going To Have To Decide Which Type Of Computer To Buy Anyway…

    Microsoft thinks it is giving its customer’s choice, but what it is really doing is foisting decisions upon its user base.

    — Windows RT or Windows 8 Tablet?
    — Surface or one of a plethora of thrid party hardeware options?

    In the abstract, choice is always good. But when you’re trying to get an existing customer to re-buy from you, extensive decision making is the last thing you want.

    If the customer has to decide between this Surface and that, between Arm and x86, between phablets and laplets, then the customer might just decide to exit the Windows ecosystem altogether. Because once you start to think about your options, you start to think about ALL your options, not just the options made available by Microsoft.

    Conclusion

    When you have an existing customer, the worst sin you can commit is to force that customer re-evaluate their past buying decisions. I’m quite sure that Windows 8 is going to sell a LOT of computers. However, many of those computer purchases may end up being Macs or iPads.

    Selling The Amazon Kindle Fire and Google Nexus 7 Is As Silly As Selling Razor Blades To Men Who Love Beards

    Gillette, Amazon, Google and Apple

    — The Gillette business model is to give away the razor in anticipation of making profits from the sale of the blades.

    — The Amazon business model is to give away the Kindle Fire for cost in anticipation of making profits from the sale of content and ads.

    — The Google business model is to give away the Nexus 7 for cost in anticipation of making profits from the sale of ads and content.

    — The Apple business model is to sell the iPad Mini for a profit…AND in anticipation of making additional profits from the sale of content and ads.

    The razor blades business model

    “(T)he razor and blades business model, is a business model wherein one item is sold at a low price (or given away for free) in order to increase sales of a complementary good, such as supplies (inkjet printers and ink cartridges, “Swiffers” and cleaning fluid, mobile phones and service contracts) or software (game consoles and games).

    Though the concept and its proverbial example “Give ’em the razor; sell ’em the blades” are widely credited to King Camp Gillette, the inventor of the disposable safety razor and founder of Gillette Safety Razor Company, in fact Gillette did not originate this model.

    The (razor and blades) marketing model may be threatened if the price of the high margin consumables in question falls due to competition. For the (razor and blades) market to be successful the company must have an effective monopoly on the corresponding goods.”

    ~ via Wikipedia

    Three Flaws

    There are (at least) three flaws in the Amazon Kindle Fire and the Google Nexus 7 business models:

    1) No proof of sales;
    2) No proof of profits;
    3) No monopoly (proprietary) pricing available.

    1) No proof of sales

    The razor and blades business model works, in part, because when the razors are given away at cost or for free, they become ubiquitous, thus making it convenient for razor owning customers to purchase the company’s proprietary blades. There is no evidence to indicate that either the Amazon Kindle Fire or the Google Nexus 7 are selling well despite their subsidized sales prices.

    It’s been estimated that the original Amazon Kindle Fire sold 4.7 million Kindle Fires over a 9 month span and that the Google Nexus 7 sold 3 million units last quarter. These numbers are estimates because neither Amazon nor Google are willing to release the actual sales numbers.

    When you consider the fact that these are both subsidized products being sold at cost, those numbers are remarkably low.

    2) No proof of profits

    The razor and blades business model works, in part, because when the razors are given away at cost or for free, the profit is made from the blades. There is no evidence to indicate that either the Amazon Kindle Fire or the Google Nexus 7 are making substantial profits from the sale of content or ads. In fact, when you look at the company’s recent quarterly earnings reports, there is evidence suggesting that they are NOT making significant revenues or profits from tablet related content and ad sales.

    3) No monopoly (proprietary) pricing available

    The razor and blades business model works, in part, because the blades are proprietary and command the premium price neccessary to offset the lack of profit from the giveaway of the razors.

    For the (razor and blades) market to be successful the company must have an effective monopoly on the corresponding goods.” ~ via Wikipedia

    The Printer Example

    Computer printer manufacturers have gone through extensive efforts to make sure that their printers are incompatible with lower cost after-market ink cartridges and refilled cartridges. This is because the printers are often sold at or below cost to generate sales of proprietary cartridges which will generate profits for the company over the life of the equipment.

    The Game Console Example

    (V)ideo game consoles have often been sold at a loss while software and accessory sales are highly profitable to the console manufacturer. For this reason, console manufacturers aggressively protect their profit margin against piracy by pursuing legal action against carriers of modchips and jailbreaks.

    Atari had a…problem in the 1980s with Atari 2600 games. Atari was initially the only developer and publisher of games for the 2600; it sold the 2600 itself at cost and relied on the games for profit. When several programmers left to found Activision and began publishing cheaper games of comparable quality, Atari was left without a source of profit.

    ~ via Wikipedia

    Neither the Amazon Kindle Fire nor the Google Nexus 7 have a monopoly on the content or the ads that they sell. They cannot command a premium price. In fact, if anyone can command a premium price on the sale of content, it is Apple because of their extensive distribution channels. While Apple is able to sell content in over 90 countries, the content sales channels for both Amazon and Google are extremely limited.

    Cheaper is not necessarily better

    There are rumors that Google may announce a $99 Nexus tablet next week. But in a subsidized model, cheaper is not necessarily better. In fact, it could be counter-productive.

    The razor and blades business model works, in part, because when the blades are given away at cost or for free, they become ubiquitous, but there is no point in giving away the razors to men who love having beards. Similarly, there is no point in selling low-cost Amazon or Google tablets to customers who don’t buy their content or consume their advertising. Subsidized products attract bargain hunting customers and bargain hunters are as useless to Amazon and Google as bearded men are to Gillette.

    The non-existent “Price Umbrella”

    Apple is being criticized for selling the iPad Mini at $329 and leaving a “price umbrella” under which the likes of Amazon and Google tablets can grow and prosper.

    There is no price umbrella. The Amazon Kindle Fire and the Google Nexus 7 are zero-margin products.

    Let me say that again. Amazon and Google make zero profit from tablet sales.

    No matter how much Apple lowers its sales price (and its margins) it won’t be taking any profits away from the Amazon Kindle Fire and the Google Nexus 7 because they already make no profits.

    Now there is an argument to be made that lower Apple iPad Mini prices might reduce Amazon’s and Google’s tablet sales and therefore lower Amazon’s and Google’s tablet related content and ad sales. This presumes that lower iPad Mini prices would spur higher iPad Mini sales. If the iPad is supply constrained, (i.e,, Apple can’t make enough of them) this argument fails.

    Further, both the Amazon and Google tablets are already selling poorly. And there is absolutely no evidence that Amazon or Google are making more than, or even as much as, Apple is in content and ad sales. Lower iPad Mini prices would have a negligible effect on Amazon’s and Google’s ethereal profits but it would have a significantly negative affect on the iPad Mini’s margins.

    Giving razors to men with beards

    “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

    Apple doesn’t need to lower its pricing to deliver “the tablet death blow” to its competitors. Apple’s competitors are doing a fine job of starving themselves of profits as it is.

    When your competition is giving razors to men with beards and hoping to make their profits on the sale of blades, you don’t attack them – you ignore them.

    Microsoft’s Surface: Less Than A Tablet, Less Than A Notebook PC, Less Than Ideal

    Introduction

    I hadn’t planned on writing a review of the Surface today. But after reading over a dozen reviews, a pattern has clearly emerged:

    — Excellent hardware
    — Not as good a tablet as the iPad
    — Not as good a PC as a notebook PC

    The Promise

    But perhaps none of that matters. The Surface, after all, wasn’t designed to be only a tablet or only a notebook PC. It was designed to be a hybrid – the best of both worlds. Perhaps it succeeds in that role?

    As Josh Topolsky of The Verge put it:

    The promise of the Surface was that it could deliver a best-in-class tablet experience, but then transform into the PC you needed when heavier lifting was required. Instead of putting down my tablet and picking up my laptop, I would just snap on my keyboard and get my work done.

    The Surface won’t satisfy the tablet user

    The Good

    It’s clear that Microsoft has really thought through the Windows RT tablet software.

    It’s a new paradigm, and people are uncomforable with new, but new isn’t necessarily bad. And the Windows RT “new” appears to be very, very good indeed.

    It’s not as discoverable as iOS and Android, and it will receive criticism for that but discoverability isn’t everything. Some of the gestures in Windows 8 are brilliantly implemented. Many of the reviewers found it to be more engaging, more immersive, more delightful than either iOS or Android.

    In that way, I believe that Windows RT for the tablet will be like Android on the phone – it will appeal to the more advanced users who will love it for the power that it unlocks.

    The Bad

    There is absolutely no reason to have a desktop OS on the Surface RT tablet. The Surface RT doesn’t even run desktop applications, so why bother?

    Almost all of the reviewer’s complaints stemmed from the schizoid nature of the dual operating systems. Sometimes you were in tablet mode. Then suddenly you were in desktop mode. There were two control panels and two Internet Explorers. In short, there were two too many operating systems in one device, especally when that one device didn’t even run Windows desktop software.

    The Ugly

    The Windows RT store is barren. Could this change? Possibly. But until it does, you’ve bought a tablet that doesn’t have any available tablet apps. And that’s going to make you very un-app-y.

    The Surface won’t satisfy the notebook PC user

    The only Windows desktop software that the Surface RT runs is Windows Office. That’s it.

    There are over 4,000,000 applications that run on Windows. The Surface RT falls 3,999,999 applications short of being an adequate notebook PC. And that’s really short of ideal.

    The Surface won’t satisfy its ideal user

    Ed Bott, of ZDnet, describes the ideal Surface RT user:

    On a busy Sunday evening a few weeks ago, I was sitting in Terminal 4 of the Phoenix Sky Harbor airport waiting for a connecting flight. The guy sitting next to me was clearly an experienced business traveler.

    I watched out of the corner of my eye as he pulled an iPad from his briefcase, checked some football scores, and played Words with Friends for a few minutes.

    Then he put the iPad away and pulled out a well-worn Dell notebook (I swear it had duct tape on one corner). He waited (more patiently than I would have) for Windows XP to load, and then he worked on an Excel spreadsheet for 30 minutes until our flight was called.

    That guy. The one who has to carry around two devices because neither one by itself can do everything that needs to be done. That’s who Microsoft’s new Surface with Windows RT was designed for.

    First let me say this: There aren’t as many of those guys out there as we think. There are a whole lot of people who only need a notebook. And, as I tried to explain in my article entitled: “The PC is the Titanic and the Tablet is the Iceberg. Any Questions?“, there are even more people who only need a tablet.

    But even if they are only a niche, there are still a sizable minority of people who fall into the above description of the Surface’s ideal user. And the most damning thing that I can say about the Surface is that it won’t satisfy it’s own ideal user.

    — He’ll go to check on some football scores and then be frustrated that he doesn’t have access to one of a dozen available alternatives to the official ESPN app.

    — He’ll go to play a game and then be frustrated that he can’t play any one of the 300,000 games available on Android or the game that everyone’s been talking about and that’s been available on iOS for over a year.

    — He’ll go to run a Windows application and then remember that the Office suite are the only Windows applications that run on his device.

    That guy. The one who has to carry around two devices because neither one by itself can do everything that needs to be done. The ideal customer for the Windows RT. That’s the guy who will be totally unsatisfied with the Windows RT.

    Less than a tablet, less than a PC, less than ideal

    Microsoft calls the Windows 8 operating system and the Surface RT a “no compromise” computing solution. But this tablet is such a compromise that it will satisfy no one – not even it’s intended target audience.

    Ironically, it is the software, not the hardware, that is letting Microsoft – the software company – down. And that’s too bad because it would have been much better for Microsoft if it had been the other way around. It’s possible that another hardware partner would have fixed any deficienies in the Surface’s hardware. But no matter how good the hardware, it will still be running the Windows RT operating system. And that’s far from ideal.

    Windows 8: It’s Later For Microsoft Than You Think

    Microsoft Needs To Hurry

    Microsoft has two problems. The first is that they have no presence in mobile and mobile is where it’s at. The second, is that they’ve run out of time.

    Run out of time? How is that possible? The iPhone is only 5 years old. Android is only 4 years old. The iPad only appeared on the market 2 and a half years ago. How can it possibly be that Microsoft is out of time? Three things:

    1) PC sales are declining fast;
    2) Smartphones, and especially tablets, are being adopted at historically unprecedented rates; and
    3) Microsoft’s absence from the market has been ceding the mobile computing business to Apple.

    1) PC Sales Are Declining Fast

    Both Gartner and IDC concur that worldwide PC sales fell by over 8%. Ultrabook sales forcasts were slashed in half for 2012 from 22 million to 10.3 million.

    But as bad as that looks, it’s actually a lot worse than that if you’re Microsoft. If you take out the Apple Mac sales, PC sales in the U.S. actually shrank by 13.8%. And, naturally, as PC sales shrink, so do Microsofts profits.

    It’s not so much that PCs are in decline – it’s PCs running Microsoft windows that are in decline. And the decline is not temporary, it’s permanent. As Mike Gualtieri, principal analyst at Forrester Research, put it:

    “I don’t think [Windows 8] is going to turn [the PC industry] around because nothing’s going to turn it around…”

    2) Smartphones, and especially tablets, are being adopted at historically unprecedented rates

    It’s not computing sales that are down, it’s only PC sales that are down. If you add tablets with PCs, overall sales of computing devices (excluding smartphones) will actually RISE by 12% this year.

    Smartphone sales grew so quickly that they surpassed PC sales in late 2010. And the rise of tablets has been even faster and has been even more spectacular. No other technology has penetrated society so quickly. By the end of this year, tablet sales will jump 90 percent to 124 million units or just over 35 percent of the total PC sales for this year. Tablet sales are expected to outsell PCs by 2016, if not sooner.

    Market Penetration

    Within 18 months after the introduction of the iPad, tablet penetration among U.S. housholds hit 11%. 12 months later it was at 25%.

    A Lost Generation

    Microsoft has lost an entire generation of users. Don’t believe me?

    40% of U.S. teens own an Apple iPhone. 62% want one.

    — More than half (51 percent) of tablet users think that their tablet will be their primary computing device within the next two years.

    Microsoft’s absence from the market has been ceding the mobile computing business to Apple

    Business has long been a Microsoft bastion. It’s been estimated that as many as 92% of all business personal computers once ran on Windows powered machines.

    Consumerization and BYOD

    But Apple is riding the crest of the “consumerization of IT” trend. Truth be told, Apple isn’t riding the wave, it CREATED the wave. For most companies, BYOD doesn’t mean “bring your own device” to work, it means “bring your own iOS device” to work.

    Business Adoption

    94 percent of the Fortune 500 companies are either testing or deploying iPads. Some 70 percent of the Global 500 companies are testing or deploying iPads, too. 3 in 4 American enterprises have adopted the tablet in some way.

    And when 500 of the UK Chief Information Officers (CIO) were polled, 37% choose the iPhone to be the dominant business smartphone in the the next few years.

    “The role of the iPad cannot be overemphasized. Some observers estimate the iPad sales in the business market might represent up to half of all iPad sales,” ~ Charlie Wolf, Needham & Co.

    Use In The Workplace

    77% of tablet users report that their destop usage decreased after getting a tablet. 1 in 4 owners say their tablet is now their primary computer.

    Indispensable

    Not only has the iPad stolen a march on Microsoft in business, it’s going to be hard to dislodge. People love their iPads. In a quirky poll taken earlier this year:

    — Almost half of respondents (47 percent) said they’d rather have an iPad for work than a bigger or better office or a more senior title (34 percent).

    — Sixty-eight percent said they’d rather have an iPad than their own parking space at work, while almost one in four (23 percent) would prefer the tablet over an extra week of vacation each year.

    — When asked what they would go without before they would give up travel with their iPad, nearly half (48 percent) say they would forego meals, 41 percent would skip drinking water, and more than 1 in 3 (35 percent) would give up bathroom breaks. More than half (55 percent) said they would rather forget deodorant than forget their iPad.

    Headlines

    Read these headlines and tell me that Microsoft should not be terrified. Many of the headlines have to do with the demise of RIM, but notice that the busienss is moving to Apple and Android – not Microsoft:

    More car companies link iPhone nav apps to dashboard displays

    The iPad Kiosk: Landing at an Airport Near You

    Urban Outfitters Replaces All Cash Registers With iPads

    BlackBerry Dropped by Booz Allen for Apple, Android

    Australia’s Woolworths drops RIM for iPhones

    U.S. Immigration and Customs (ICE) dropping RIM BlackBerry and purchasing 17,000 Apple iPhones

    Windows 8 Is Late

    Windows 8 is arriving on Friday, October, 26th and it’s none too soon…

    …in fact, as far as mobile goes, it may already be too late.

    Windows 8: Microsoft Is Betting The Company

    I am one of those who thinks that this week is a seminal moment in computing history. The introduction of Windows 8 is the most important time for Microsoft since the launch of Windows 95. Microsoft’s actions – and the buying public’s response to those actions – is going to change the future of Microsoft – and the future of computing – forever.

    Microsoft will survive…

    Let’s take a step back and put things in perspective. Microsoft makes – and will continue to make – a lot of money.

    Microsoft is really an enterprise company. It makes much of its money from business customers with products like Windows Server, management software, SQL databases and development tools. Those businesses are doing well. Further, Enterprises are upgrading to Windows 7 and the Microsoft Office suite. Microsoft will have most enterprises locked up with agreements for three to five more years. Finally, Microsft is sitting on $60 billion in cash. It has deep, deep pockets.

    However, personal computing is no small part of Microsoft’s business. Windows makes up 25% and Microsoft Office makes up 35% of Microsoft’s total sales and a much greater percentage of its profits.

    …but their future in personal computing is not assured

    There are those who argue that Microsoft has plenty of time, plenty of money, plenty of chances to fix Window 8 even if it goes astray. I couldn’t disagree more.

    Did time, money and opportunity allow Microsoft to fix the Zune? Or Windows Phone 7?

    Windows 8 on the desktop may or may not do well. But Windows 8 is all about Microsoft’s efforts to transfer their desktop user base to the tablet and smartphone markets. Mobile is the future of computing and Microsoft has absolutely nothing going on in mobile. If Windows 8 does not kick-start Microsoft’s mobile efforts, Microsoft will have missed the boat for good and no amount of time, effort or resources will allow them to swim fast enough to catch up.

    Microsoft knows this. They remember well the PC wars of the eighties. In those wars, they were the ones sailing into the sunset, leaving Apple and the Mac floundering in their wake. In today’s world, iOS and Android are the new Windows and Windows is the new Mac. And for Microsoft, that ain’t a pretty picture.

    If Windows 8 flounders, Microsoft will survive, but not as the same company we know today

    The times, they are a-changing. The decades old Windows-Intel empire is already crumbling. If Windows 8 doesn’t gain traction in mobile, it will be disastrous for Microsoft. We’re witnessing history – we just don’t know yet what the result of that history will be. October 2012 marks a new beginning for Microsoft’s mobile efforts. Or it marks the beginning of the end for Microsoft’s mobile efforts. By this time next year, we’ll know for sure – one way, or the other.

    Windows 8: Get Your Popcorn Ready…

    Welcome to Windows 8 week.

    On October 26th, Microsoft will be introducing Window 8. Actually, over the next week or so, Microsoft and its partners will be introducing:

    — Windows 8 OS for the desktop
    — Window 8 OS for Intel tablets
    — Third party tablet hardware to run Windows 8
    — Windows Office for Window 8 tablets
    — Windows RT OS for Arm Tablets
    — Windows Office for RT tablets
    — Windows RT Platform (Third-Party apps)
    — Third party tablet hardware to run Window RT
    — A new business model where makes the hardware that runs their Windows 8 software
    — Windows Surface – A Microsoft branded tablet that runs the Windows RT OS
    — Windows 8 OS for the phone
    — Third party phone hardware to run Windows 8

    Wow. That’s a lot of stuff and it’s happening all at once.

    Any one of the above items would have normally justified a major announcement by Microsoft. Taken all together, the above represents a fundamental shift in the way Microsoft – and the world – will view computing from this time forward.

    This launch is so large and so all encompassing that no one article could do it justice. So rather than try to create one article, we’re going to break this down into a series of articles and gather them together in a new section entitled: “A Series of Tech.Pinions.”

    Get your popcorn ready. It’s going to be quite a show.

    7 Inch Tablets Employ An Odd Definition of “Success”

    TROY WOLVERTON at the San Jose Mercury News, talks 7 inch tablets:

    Just two years ago, Apple’s late co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs mocked small-screened tablets as “tweeners” that were too little to compete with the larger iPad but too big to compete with smartphones.

    But after the success that Amazon and Google have had with small-screen tablets…

    Whoa, whoa, whoa! Stop right there.

    Success? What success?

    Success is defined as: “the accomplishment of an aim or purpose.”

    — Research in Motion, Samsung and other manufacturers introduced tablets with seven inch screens that flopped.

    — It’s been estimated that Amazon sold 4.7 million seven inch tablets over a 9 month span.

    — It’s been estimated that Google sold 3 million Nexus 7, seven inch tablets over the last quarter.

    That’s not a “success”. That’s anything but a “success”.

    Notice that the numbers for Amazon and Google are estimates. Their respective companies have not released sales figures. There’s a reason for that.

    Also note that the Amazon and Google products are subsidized, which means that they are being sold at cost. What product wouldn’t sell well if it was sold at cost? Apparently, 7 inch tablets.

    By way of comparison, Apple sells more that 5 million 9.7 inch tablets every month – at full price – and Apple is conservatively expected to sell 25 million iPads this upcoming holiday quarter. Again, at full price.

    I have no doubt that the 7 inch tablet category is viable and I’m guessing that – starting on October 23rd – Apple is going to prove that in a big way. However, we need to stop talking about “the success that Amazon and Google have had with small-screen tablets” or we need to get a new definition for the word “success”. I’m leaning towards the former.

    Truel: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly; The iPad, the Surface and the Nexus 7

    The Plot

    The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a 1966 Italian epic Spaghetti western film directed by Sergio Leone, starring Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Eli Wallach in the title roles. ~ paraphrased from Wikipedia

    Apple, Microsoft and Google are engaged in an epic tablet war starring the iPad, the Surface and the Nexus 7 in the title roles.

    In the Good, the Bad and the Ugly, the plot revolves around three gunslingers competing to find a fortune in hidden Confederate gold.

    In the tablet wars, the plot revolves around three tablet gunslingers competing to find a fortune in hidden tablet profits.

    Clint Eastwood as “Blondie”: The Good. A subdued, cocksure, bounty hunter who both works with and works against Angel Eyes, and Tuco in shifting alliances to find the hidden gold.

    Apple as “iPad”: The Goliath. An implacable, cocksure, bounty hunter who both works with and works against Microsoft and Google in shifting alliances to find the hidden profits.

    Lee Van Cleef as “Angel Eyes”: The Bad. A ruthless, unfeeling and sociopathic mercenary who always finishes the job.

    Microsoft as “Surface”: The Bad (ass). A ruthlessly efficient, relentlessly effective, money making machine who knows how to close.

    Eli Wallach as “Tuco”: The Ugly. A comical, oafish fast talking bandit who proves to be a crafty and surprisingly dangerous opponent.

    Google as “Nexus 7”: The Geeky. A nerdy, engineering and advertising company whose “don’t be evil” exterior masks a surprisingly powerful and unexpectedly ominous corporate bandit.

    The Truel

    In the movie’s climatic final scene, Blondie, Angel Eyes and Tuco face off against one another in a Truel.

    In the climatic autumn of 2012, Apple, Microsoft and Google face off against one another in a truel.

    A truel is: “a neologism for a duel among three opponents, in which players can fire at one another in an attempt to eliminate them while surviving themselves. ~ via Wikipedia

    Each party jockeys for position, each itching to fire first, each wary of what the other two fighters will choose to do.

    In tech, Apple, Microsoft and Google are involved in a great tablet truel. Each party jockeys for position, each itching to eliminate the other, each wary of what the other two competitors will choose to do.

    The three stare each other down in the circular center of the cemetery, calculating alliances and dangers in a Mexican standoff.

    The Apple iPad stands alone at the center of the tablet world. Then the Google Nexus 7 joins in the fray. And finally, on October 26, 2012, the Microsoft Surface steps into the ring. The three stare each other down, calculating alliances and dangers in a Mexican standoff.

    The parties position themselves, the tension grows, the Ennio Morricone film score swells until suddenly, they draw and…

    The Treasure

    Remember the pundits who laughed off the tablet form factor and called them toys? No? Neither does anyone else. They were as wrong as wrong could be.

    Tablets are the second coming of the personal computer. Apple knows it. Microsoft knew it long ago but they were unable to successfully seize the moment and capture the treasure for themselves. Google is only just now realizing the importance of tablets. The company or companies that win the tablet wars win the future of computing. The fight is only just begun but like a gunfight, the battle may soon – and very suddenly – be over.

    The Gunfighters

    Apple iPad

    Apple is like Blondie. Confident. Cock-sure. Perhaps a bit too cock-sure. Apple insists on doing things their own way. Google is counting on Apple’s insistance on having a closed shop to be their undoing. Microsoft is counting on Apple’s unwavering insistance on seperating their touch and desktop devices to be their undoing.

    However, Apple has an advantage. Like Blondie, they know where the gold (profits) is hidden. The key to unlocking the tablet treasure is tablet optimized Apps. And using our gunfight analogy, when it comes to tablet apps, if Google and Microsoft have six shooters, Apple has an Uzi. Or a bazooka. Or a tank…

    Microsoft Surface

    If Apple is the cocky newcomer – the up and coming gunslinger – Microsoft, like Angel Eyes, is the consummate professional – the grizzled vertern who has the experience, knows all the tricks in the book and is extremely confident in their ability to win in a shootout.

    If Apple is cocky because they think they’re good, Microsoft is confident because they know they’re good. Microsoft has not only been through the wars, they’ve won the wars and they’ve won them convincingly.

    However, Microsoft’s secret weapon in the PC wars was compatibility and familiarity. In gunfighter terms, it would be like shooting with the sun at your back. And getting in five shots before your opponent even drew their weapon. And shooting from behind a wall. It was that devastating an advantage.

    When it comes to a gunfight – or a platform war – Microsoft is the best there ever was. But this isn’t yesterday and this is a whole new fight. In mobile, Microsoft’s monopoly advantage is no where to be found. If Microsoft is going to win this gunfight, they’re going to have to do it on merit.

    And Microsoft is very, very late to the fight…

    …and it’s never good for a gunfighter to be late.

    Why is Microsoft’s Surface obsessed with Keyboards?

    The Apple iPad Tablet vs. the Microsoft Surface Anti-Tablet

    Battle Of The Tablet Business Models: Windows 8 And The Microsoft Surface

    Google Nexus 7

    Google, like Tuco, is in good position. Microsoft and Apple know that each is the greatest danger to the other. They will almost certainly fire all their weapons at one another leaving Google (Tuco) free to gain from the exchange.

    Only Google, like Tuco, has a problem.

    It was just last week that Google initiated a program to encourage the creation of tablet optimized apps for Android.

    Last week.

    Tuco doesn’t know it, but he doesn’t have any bullets. Google didn’t know it was important, so they don’t have many tablet optimized apps. And in a truel, being unarmed is a big, big problem to have.

    Google Android Tablet Optimized Apps — Two Years Too Late

    Battle Of The Tablet Business Models: Google Nexus 7

    The Denouement

    The gunfighters move into place. The eyes narrow, the hands twitch, the music swells, the tension mounts, the guns are drawn and then…

    …a single shot is fired…

    …Blondie shoots Angel Eyes. Tuco also tries to shoot, but discovers that his gun is unloaded.

    The mobile wars are a fascinating watch. Apple dominates tablets. Microsoft dominates desktops. Google dominates smartphones. Each knows that the future – the elusive treasure – is in mobile. They can’t all win this truel. One, perhaps two, will be left for dead. Which will it be? Which will it be?

    “You see, in this world there’s two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.” ~ Blondie (Clint Eastwood)

    Unlike The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, no one has seen how this movie ends. Microsoft hopes that this will be a sequel: How Microsoft Won The PC Wars, Part II. Google thinks that this is an entirely new genre of film, the kind where open always outguns closed. Apple thinks that there are two kinds of personal computing companies: Those with platforms loaded with apps.. and those who don’t much matter.

    Me? I think it’s advantage Apple. You don’t grow from nothing in tablets to a world shaker in two and a half years unless you got it right. The essence of tablets is touch. Not keyboards. Touch.

    Microsoft is desperately hoping that Apple got it wrong. Microsoft NEEDS tablets to simultaneously run both touch and desktop operating systems and Microsoft needs both to run well together.

    Google? When it comes to tablets, they’re still digging.

    It’s clear to me that Apple’s iPad is going to remain on top. The rumored iPad mini only makes this more likely.

    Normally, I’d say that – as in phones – Microsoft would have little chance of having their tablets jump past Google and into second place. But circumstances are far from normal. Despite Google’s overwhelming success in phones, they’ve done next to nothing in tablets. And I have little respect for their newly minted subsidized tablet business model and their ever shifting business strategies. And Microsoft has powerful advantages in their ability to leverage a large desktop customer base and utilize their extensive business connections. Microsoft could quite quickly vault Google in tablets and land in second place…

    …and wouldn’t that be interesting. In phones it would be Google-Apple-Microsoft. In desktops it would be Microsoft-Apple-Google. In tablets it would be Apple-Microsoft-Google.

    That can’t possibly last. This is about to get very real, very fast.

    The world of personal computing is in flux. It’s a “truel” world and for some tablet maker – and possibly for several tablet makers – it’s about to go bad and get ugly.

    Rebuttal: Windows 8 “May Or May Not” Be The Disaster This Video Makes It Out To Be

    Steve Kovach at Business Insider has a few words of wisdom regarding Windows 8:

    Microsoft’s new operating system for PCs and tablets, Windows 8, will have a drastic new look.
    The Start menu you’re used to is gone, replaced by a touch-friendly menu of tiles that houses all your apps and settings.

    It’s going to be incredibly jarring for people to use at first.

    Tech pundit Chris Pirillo demonstrates that in a man-on-the-street video where he asks people to try Windows 8 for the first time. The results don’t look good for Microsoft. Almost every person in the video is extremely confused by the new Windows 8 interface.

    Does that mean Windows 8 is a flop?

    Nope.

    So far, I’m with Steve. Discoverability is not the same as usability. Microsoft’s radical new Windows 8 interface changes – particularly on the desktop – may be new but new isn’t necessarily bad. Features may be hard to discover at first – but learn a feature one time and you’ve probably learned it forever.

    I think we can all agree that the lack of discoverability on Windows 8 is going to cause some problems at first. But it’s the overall usability that matters most and I’m not going to judge that until I’ve seen how regular people – you know, people who are not first adopters like you and me – react.

    It’s at this point, however, that Steve and I part ways.

    This is how you push innovation forward. It’s going to be jarring and scary for novices. It’s going to take time for people to learn the new menus. But they’ll catch on.

    Hmm. Not so very sure about that. Sure, innovation CAN be jarring a scary. And jarring and scary is often the price we pay in order to move technology forward. But that doesn’t mean that we should pay that price if we don’t have to. So the question becomes, did Microsoft have to extract a price – or did they sacrifice discoverability on the desktop in order to forward their phone and tablet agendas?

    Imagine giving someone who has never seen and iPhone or Android device before and asking them to use it. That person would be just as confused as the people are in the video below.

    Say what now?

    Kids and total novices can use smartphones and tablets. Ninty-nine year old senor citizens use them. Baby’s use them. Heck, even cats and apes use them.

    As a friend on Twitter put it, “If every interface were designed by man-on-the-street committee we’d all still have Windows 3.1.”

    Yeah, about that. Maybe that’s not so very accurate. Or even a little bit accurate . Perhaps the way Steve’s friend on Twitter should have put it was: “If every interface were designed with the “man-on-the-street” in mind, we’d all be using iOS or Android.”

    Take a look at Pirillo’s video at the bottom of the the original article, here.

    The Microsoft Surface Was Made For Surfaces…But That’s Not What Tablets Were Made For

    The first Microsoft Surface Ad is out. It’s called “The Surface Movement” (although it probably should be called “Click”). In his article entitled: Marketing Surface and Windows 8, Ben Bajarin focuses on what the ad communicates to potential buyers. My focus is on what the ad communicates about Microsoft’s attitude toward tablets.

    HOW MICROSOFT DEFINES A TABLET

    Even before the ad aired, industry observers had picked up a theme:

    The message we seem to be getting from Microsoft with its Surface tablets is that you need a keyboard with your slate to take full advantage of Windows. ~ James Kendrick, ZDNet

    Microsoft is really is focusing on the keyboard as what enables the Surface to work equally well for consumption and creation. ~ Mary Jo Foley, CNet

    It’s all about the keyboard and it’s all about using the keyboard on a flat surface.

    WHAT DEFINES A MICROSOFT SURFACE

    The Microsoft surface has five characteristics that distinguish it from the iPad:

    — Windows 8 user interface;
    — Windows desktop applications;
    — Kickstand;
    — Upturned rear-facing camera; and
    — Attachable keyboard.

    The last four of those five characteristics are most useful when employed on a flat surface…

    …but that’s not what tablets were made for.

    WHAT DEFINES A TABLET

    The tablet has two defining characteristics: It is touchable and totable.

    The tablet was made for standing, and walking; for moving from room to room, and moving from door to door; for sitting back and leaning forward; for remote locations and touch occasions. The tablet was made to be touched and toted. The Surface was made for a surface.

    The Microsoft Surface goes on sale on October 26th. We’ll soon see what really defines a tablet.

    The iPad Mini Hits Windows 8 Where It Ain’t

    Tim Bajarin muses on whether it was a mistake for Microsoft to focus Windows 8 on the the larger screen sizes:

    When Microsoft decided to get into the tablet business again, it pretty much committed to 9- to 11-inch tablets, mostly eyeing the business market.

    … it is clear that Microsoft will stay this course and will not manufacture 7-inch Windows 8 tablets directly or through a partner any time soon.

    I believe this is a major judgment error by Microsoft because the plethora of 7-inch tablets coming out soon will become a huge hit with consumers.

    Consumers appear to be extremely interested in an iPad mini, but I predict many business users will also fancy it…(too)

    Tim goes on to make several excellent points. I would add this. I think the rumored iPad Mini will be a MONSTER hit in education. The current iPad is taking education by storm and the rumored iPad mini will turn the current torrent of iPad adoptions into a virtual flood.

    Microsoft is in a very tough spot. They need to get into tablets. They are wise to go with their strength (business). But they can’t neglect education either. It may sound trite, but children are the future. Kids are already enamored with the iPhone and the iPad. Microsoft is in a dog fight to recapture this generation of tablet users. However, if they let the iPad become the de facto standard in education at the K-12 and college levels, all their efforts may be for naught. While they’re busy fighting for today’s customers, they will have already lost tomorrow’s.

    A Message To Eric Schmidt And Android: Put Up Proof Of Profits Or Shut Up

    There will be one billion Android devices—smartphones and tablets—in use within a year, Google chairman Eric Schmidt said.

    Schmidt made the prediction during an interview with AllThingsD’s Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg at the 92nd Street Y in New York Wednesday night.

    Google is activating 1.3 million Android devices a day.

    “Do the math,” Schmidt said. ~ via Business Insider

    Doing The Math

    All right, Mr. Schmidt. I’ll do the math. Activations are only part of the equation. The numbers that you keep conveniently not telling us are margins, revenues and profits. Activations without those numbers are meaningless. Market share without those numbers are meaningless. You want us to do the math, Mr. Schmidt? Your numbers – without context – are mathematically meaningless.

    Now I have no doubt that Android has margins, has revenues, has profits. I have no doubt that Android is making money. What I SERIOUSLY doubt is just how much money Android is making. You want us to take you seriously, Mr. Schmidt? Tell us those numbers.

    Market Share Myopia

    We are OBSESSED with market share numbers when we should be obsessed with profit.

    — Market share is a COMPONENT of profits. It means nothing in and of itself.
    — Market share is the factor. Profit is the solution.
    — Market share is just one of many top lines. Profit is the one and only bottom line.
    — Market share is the means. Profit is the ends.
    — Market share is not the goal. Profits are the goal.

    Where Are The Numbers?

    A business absolutely devoted to service will have only one worry about profits. They will be embarrassingly large. ~ Henry Ford

    So where are Google’s numbers for Android? They have them. They’re just not sharing them. Why do you suppose that is?

    When a company has favorable numbers, they shout them from the mountain tops. When a company has numbers that are unfavorable, they remain stoically silent. This is the industry norm.

    — Apple seldom talks about Apple TV
    — Samsung stopped reporting their tablet sales numbers
    — Amazon never reveals sales or profit numbers for the Kindle Fire
    — Microsoft actually does reveal the exorbitant amounts they lose on Bing. Go figure.

    When a company says nothing about a product’s profits, they are telling us something. And that something is not good. Their silence speaks volumes.

    No Profit, No Glory

    “Business is all about solving people’s problems – at a profit.” ~ Paul Marsden

    It is somewhat ironic that I keep reading stock market “bears” claiming that Apple is a “bubble” when Apple is one of the few companies that actually reveals their numbers and is built upon a solid foundation of revenues and profits. If a company wants recognition, if a company wants to be taken seriously, if a company wants us to respect what they do, then they need to reveal their profits.

    There should be a new rule when reporting on companies. Unless a company is making a profit, words like “successful”, “winning”, “dominating”, and such should be banished. If a company wants the glory, they should have the guts to reveal their profits.

    Market Share and Margins and Profits, Oh My!

    Everyone obsesses over market share but anyone can achieve market share if they don’t care about profits. All they have to do is lower their prices or sell their goods or services at a loss.

    — Market share is easy.

    — Profit is hard.

    — Market share plus profit share is genius.

    Stop Talking About…

    The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to operate at a profit. ~ Samuel Gompers

    Now here come the excuses, the rationalizations, the justifications. “But, but, but…profit isn’t everything! There are more important things like…”

    Please stop. There’s nothing more important to a business than profits. Stop talking about:

    — market share without context.
    — how much profit you’re going to make in some distant, undefined future.
    — how much you’re making from some undisclosed and undiscoverable content, advertising, data gathering or other nebulous activity.
    — how your business model is different and it shouldn’t be compared to other companies. You’re wrong. Every company’s profits can and should be compared. Profits are the great equalizer.

    The proof is in the profits. If you don’t the have profits, you don’t have the proof. And if you don’t have the proof, then please, just stop talking.

    Office for iOS and Android Embodies Microsoft’s Strategic Failings [Updated]

    Microsoft product manager Petr Bobek has confirmed that (Microsoft) is planning to release native iOS and Android versions of Office 2013 next year. Speaking at a press event in the Czech Republic earlier today, Bobek told Czech site IHNED that native apps will be made available from March 2013. ~ via The Verge

    — Office for iOS will be introduced almost 5 full years after apps for iOS were introduced in April of 2008.
    — Office for iOS will be introduced over three full years after the iPad was introduced in January of 2010.

    Those gaps in time embody the lapses in Microsoft’s strategic thinking. Either Microsoft should have made Office available or they shouldn’t. And if they were going to make Office available, they should have done so at the earliest possible moment. The fact that it took Microsoft five full years to make up its mind and implement its policy is emblematic of why Microsoft has gone from the most valuable computing company in the world to a company that is being out-profited by a single device (the iPhone).

    UPDATE: Microsoft today disavowed comments made by its Czech subsidiary that the company will roll out iOS and Android apps of its Office suite early next year.

    “The information shared by our Czech subsidiary is not accurate. We do not have anything further to share at this time,” a company spokesman said in an email Wednesday. ~ via Macworld

    Mea culpa. I usually don’t comment on rumors and this is one of the reasons why. However, this one seemed rock solid. I’ll refrain from building my analysis on rumors in the future.

    Google Android Tablet Optimized Apps — Two Years Too Late

    On Monday, (Google) published a “tablet app quality checklist” on its Android Developer website that urges developers to build tablet-optimized apps… ~ Wired

    I’d like to applaud Google for this move, I really would. But let’s put this in context:

    — Google should have done this when Samsung introduced the Samsung Tab some two years ago or, at the very latest, when they introduced the tablet-friendly Honeycomb Android operating system in February 2011.

    — Google should have done this long BEFORE Microsoft introduced Windows 8 tablets. Microsoft gave Android tablets a two year head start…and Google frittered it away.

    — Google should have done this BEFORE they changed strategies, introduced the Nexus 7, and made it nearly impossible for any other Android manufacturer to compete in the Android tablet space.

    For the past two years, Google has, at the very least neglected, at the very most sabotaged, their Android tablet efforts. Now they’re asking developers to dedicate their time and their resources to creating tablet specific apps. It’s a great message delivered far too late.

    Battle Of The Tablet Business Models: Lessons Learned And A Look Ahead

    RECAP

    We’ve been looking at the tablet business models of Apple, Amazon, Google, Samsung and Microsoft. Today we wrap up the series by seeing what lessons we have learned and by asking ourselves what the various business models can tell us about the future of tablet computing.

    Lessons Learned

    Lesson #1: Subsidized tablet business models are a niche

    The subsidized business models of the Amazon Kindle Fire and the Google Nexus 7 are very limiting. They can only be sold where their content is sold, they can only be sold to consumers who readily pay for content or consume relevant advertising and they will have little appeal to business, government or education. Even if they are fantastically successful within their confined market space, their markets will have little overlap with the tablets that focus primarily on the importance of apps.

    Lesson #2: Subsidized tablet business models need to be measured differently and judged appropriately

    We tend to judge all things tech by the number of units sold or by overall market share. We should, of course, be focusing on profit instead. Profit is the goal and profit is the standard by which tablet business models should be measured.

    The subsidized tablets of the Amazon Kindle Fire and the Google Nexus 7 need to be judged, not by sales, not by market share, but by the profits generated by the sale of content and advertising. In a subsidized business model, nothing else matters.

    Lesson #3: Conflicting business models are a sign of weakness

    With the Nexus 7 and the Surface tablet, both Google and Microsoft have reversed their licensing models and embraced an integrated approach. There is nothing wrong with adjusting one’s business model to fit the times. There’s a lot wrong with having two conflicting business models.

    Lesson #4: Platform Matters

    Apple has the strongest tablet platform, by far, and it shows in their sales and in their profits.

    Amazon seems to understand platform. However, subsidized business models seem geared more toward content than apps. The Kindle Fire is only a year old. We will have to wait and see how the Amazon platform develops.

    Google doesn’t seem to get platform, even now. Their weak platform has not hurt them in phone sales (yet) but it’s crippled their tablet efforts. And with the introduction of the Google Nexus 7, Google has made it clear that they think that content, not apps, is what matters most.

    Samsung almost certainly understands platform, but they have no control over the Android operating system nor do they control the way Android content and apps are sold. Their only choice is to suffer or get out.

    Microsoft gets platform all too well but they are so very late to the game. The Windows Phone 7 platform went nowhere and Microsoft has to be terribly concerned that the Windows RT and Windows 8 tablets may share the same fate.

    Lesson #5: Skate to where the puck is going to be

    When the market is underserved, products move toward integration. When the market is over served, products move towards modularization. It seems to me that part of the problem with most of the current tablet business models is that their respective companies have misidentified where the market is over served and where it is underserved.

    Apple: In my opinion, Apple is on the right path. Tablet hardware, software, and content distribution are becoming “good enough” and are in danger of being commoditized. Apps and ecosystem are still under serving the market and have a lot of room for growth. Apple is adding value and differentiating itself from its competitors by integrating hardware, software, content and apps into a single, cohesive ecosystem.

    Apple’s problem is that they have traditionally not been very good at internet services. Look at MobileMe, Ping, Siri, Maps, etc. And internet services are the key to the future of mobile computing ecosystems.

    Jonathan Ive is a genius who can design Apple’s hardware but he can’t design a database system that will work with iCloud. Tim Cook’s supply chain prowess turned Apple from a very good company into a great company. What Apple may need to thrive in the future is a Tim Cook for internet services.

    Amazon and Google: I think that both the Amazon and Google subsidized strategies are fundamentally flawed. They are creating an integrated hardware and software product designed to add value via the sale of content. But content distribution has already been commoditized. It makes no sense to subsidize hardware sales in order to enhance content sales if the margins on content are de minimis.

    Samsung: The problem with the current Samsung tablet model is two-fold. First, their hardware is only one part of the value chain. They do not control the software, content, apps or overall ecosystem. Second, the area where they add value – hardware – is rapidly moving towards “good enough” and commoditization.

    Microsoft: In my opinion, Microsoft’s business model is focused on the wrong part of the value chain or stack. Windows RT and Windows 8 is all about creating a superior operating system. But the operating systems currently available from Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS are already more than good enough for most consumers. Microsoft is pouring all of its efforts into an area where consumers are already satisfied or over served. Windows 8 may or may not be a better mobile operating system than either Android or iOS but it is not so much better that it will compel the bulk of consumers to switch to it.

    The Future

    We obsess over tiny diferences between the hardware and operating systems of the various competitors but it is business models that dictate success or failure. Until those business models change, Apple has, and will retain, the lead in tablets. Both Amazon and Google have chosen to ghettoize their tablets. Their inability to generate substantial profits will be obscured by irrelevant sales numbers. Samsung tablets are nowhere and they have nowhere to go.

    Microsoft is trickier. It first has to overcome the hurdle of creating a virtuous platform cycle. If developers can’t attract customers – if customers can’t attract developers – then nothing else matters because the platform will go nowhere. However, if Microsoft can overcome this initial, all-important hurdle, then they have a chance to be relevant. We should be able to gauge just how relevant they’ll be by this time next year.

    Conclusion

    The future of tablets will be determined by their respective business models. Yet most of the current business models are not even directed towards that future.

    Battle Of The Tablet Business Models: Windows 8 And The Microsoft Surface

    RECAP

    We’re looking at the tablet business models of Apple, Amazon, Google, Samsung and Microsoft. Today we focus on Windows 8 and the Microsoft Surface.

    5.0 Windows 8 And The Microsoft Surface

    5.1 WHERE DOES WINDOWS 8 AND THE MICROSOFT SURFACE MAKE ITS MONEY?

    When introducing the new Amazon tablets, Jeff Bezos said:

    “We want to make money when people use our devices, not when they buy our devices.”

    Microsoft now has TWO tablet business models. They license their software to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and make their money from licensing fees. AND they sell their brand spanking new Surface tablet directly to end users and make their money from the sale of the hardware.

    In neither model does Microsoft make (much of) its money from the sale of content or apps.

    It’s important to note that in the licensing model, the OEM is the customer and in the hardware model, the end user is the customer. The different models require entirely different – and possibly conflicting – corporate cultures, philosophies and strategies along with different supply, production, marketing, sales, and distribution structures.

    5.2 WHERE DOES THE WINDOWS FOR THE DESKTOP BUSINESS MODEL PROVIDE VALUE?

    Before we look forward at Microsoft’s tablet business model, let’s look back at Microsoft’s desktop (and notebook) business model.

    Microsoft’s traditional desktop business model brought value to their customers in a wide variety of ways. However, it is vitally important to note that Microsoft’s customers were not end users. They were:

    — The manufacturers who made hardware;
    — The developers who made third-party software; and
    — The business IT departments who authorized the large scale purchases of the hardware running Microsoft’s Windows operating system and the software compatible with the Windows operating system.

  • Licensing Business Model
  • Microsoft licenses their Windows operating system software to all comers. This allows a multitude of companies to create a wide array of hardware offerings with different shapes, sizes, types, prices, etc. The strength of licensing lies in its variety at the hardware level. The software is monolithic. The hardware is diverse.

    Licensing is often considered to be THE reason why Microsoft won the PC wars in the ninties. Licensing allowed for the rapid proliferation of hardware running the Windows operating system. As the number of Windows powered computing units increased, the network effect kicked in and Microsoft’s platform became more and more powerful. Suddenly Microsoft Windows was not a choice, it was the ONLY choice. When one was buying a desktop computer or desktop software in the nineties and the two thousands, the first question asked was whether that hardware or that software was compatible with Windows.

  • Operating System
  • Microsoft’s excellent, high quality Windows operating system software provides their cutomers with great value.

  • Platform
  • Microsoft maintains the platform for software developers to build upon. The importance of Microsoft’s role in adding value by building and supporting their platform cannot be underestimated.

    People mock Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer for his sweaty “developers, developers, developers” chant but he had it exactly right. Ballmer knew that so long as Microsoft took care of their developers, their developers would continue to add ever more value to the Windows platorm and that the more valuable the Windows platform became, the more valuable – and the less vulnerable to competition – the Windows operating system software would be.

    As an aside, compare Microsoft’s stewardship of Windows with how Google has treated Android. Google has created a world class operating system in Android but they have done their hardware licensees a disservice when it comes to platform. Their software updates are severely fragmented, their store is difficult to navigate and lacks content and their app store is clogged with clones, pirates and viruses. As a result, Android owners buy less content and apps and Android app developers make far, far less money than do the developers for competing platforms.

  • Office Suite
  • Microsoft’s Office Suite is THE standard for business software and THE bedrock upon which most businesses operate. If your hardware or your software doesn’t run the Office Suite, it probably doesn’t run in a business enviornment.

  • Business Symbiosis
  • It has already been mentioned that business owners and IT departments, not end users, are one of Microsoft’s prime customers. However, the bond created by Microsoft between their Windows operating system and Business IT departments cannot be overstated. Microsoft catered to IT’s every need and IT reciprocated by making Windows the one and only allowable computing operating system at most small, mid and large business organizations the world around.

  • Monopoly Superpower
  • At its height, with as much as 95% market share, Microsoft was, and still remains, THE de facto standard for desktop computing. The benefits derived from this monopoly position are too many to enumerate. The easiest way to sum it up is to say that Microsoft basically had no competition whatsoever and Windows hardware manufacturers and Windows developers only competed among themselves. They had virtually no external competition at all.

    5.3 HOW DOES THE WINDOWS 8 AND THE MICROSOFT SURFACE BUSINESS MODEL DIFFER FROM THE WINDOWS DESKTOP BUSINESS MODEL?

    It is difficult to project what is going to happen with Microsoft’s tablet business model for at least two reasons.

    First, Microsoft’s new, Windows 8 and Surface tablets don’t go on sale until October 26, 2012. Without hard data to guide us, everything is speculation.

    Second, I think that, for many, the analysis of Microsoft’s future is clouded by beliefs engendered from Microsoft’s past. Many pundits aren’t so much hoping that Microsoft will advance to a glorious future in mobile computing as they are hankering for Microsoft to return to their glorious past. The glow from Microsoft’s past successes is so bright that it is blinding them to the fact that today’s mobile computing markets are very, very different from yesterday’s desktop computing markets. We need to be certain that we are applying today’s reality to Microsoft’s tablet efforts, rather than being swayed by echos from Microsoft’s fabled past.

  • The licensing business model is not the same
  • Microsoft made its name and its fortune from licensing its Windows operating system software to desktop and notebook manufacturers. To say that Microsoft’s licensing model was a success would be one of the biggest understatements in the history of business. However, because Microsoft won the PC wars so convincingly, many industry observers mistakenly concluded that licensing was the one and only viable business model for creating a computer platform. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    A business model is merely a strategy, not a guarantor of success. There is no one right business model. Business models have to be adapted to the existing circumstances. What worked yesterday is no guarantee of success. In fact, doing what worked yesterday may very well guarantee failure.

    Today’s mobile markets are very different from yesterday’s PC market. The question before us isn’t whether licensing works – it does. The question is whether Microsoft’s current licensing strategy has a place in today’s tablet markets under today’s circumstances.

  • The licensing fees are not the same
  • It has been estimated that licensing fees for mobile devices will be lower, and perhaps much lower, than those that Microsoft has been able to command from desktop manufacturers. Microsoft needs to charge less in order to keep their mobile devices from being priced out of the market but they also need to be cognizant of the fact that every reduction in licensing fees is a reduction in their overall revenues.

    The good news is that mobile is where all the growth is and if Microsoft can successfully break into the tablet market, they might ultimately make up in volume what they lose on a per device basis. However, while the Apple Mac – with its premium, integrated software and hardware business model – was able to survive and thrive with only a tiny share of the desktop market, licensing models do not do well as niche players. Since licensing business models only receive a small portion of each product’s total revenue stream, they need to be high volume players in order to generate significant income.

  • Hardware diversity is not necessarily an asset
  • As previously noted, one of the stregnths of the licensing business model is hardware diversity. But hardware diversity can also lead to customer confusion. And confusion is the enemy of sales.

    Microsoft isn’t entering the tablet space with a single tablet entrant. Most of Microsoft’s partners are jumping into the Windows 8 tablet space all at once with a wide and wild assortment of products. Endless choice is nice in theory but real world marketing experts know that too much choice leads to paralysis by analysis, buyer indecision and no sale.

    Another concern is the lack of software optimization. With such a wide variety of screen sizes and types, all coming onto the market at once along with the new Windows 8 operating system, it will be virtually impossible for developers to optimize their programs for the numerous hardware form factors. For more on this, I highly reccomentd Ben Bajarin’s artle on this topic entitled: Windows 8 Tablet Fragmentation and the App Dilemma.

  • Selling hardware is not the same as licensing software
  • With the introduction of the Surface tablet, Microsoft has entered into an entirely new (for them) business model. Breaking from their traditional model of only licensing their software, Microsoft will, in addtion to licensing their tablet software, be selling tablet hardware as well.

    Microsoft has some experience with the creation of hardware (Zune, Xbox) but it can’t be considered a core competency. And their unwillingness to reveal details about the pricing and specifications of the Microsoft Surface, plus their almost paranoid refusal to let anyone outside of their inner circle play with or even touch the unit, has to raise doubts about the devices readiness.

    With regard to the quality of the Surface hardware, I’ll give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt. But until we finally get units in the hands of independent reviewers, the doubt will still remain.

  • Desktop applications are not the same
  • Desktop applications running on Windows 8 tablets is a huge differentiator for Microsoft. But does it truly bring value to their users?

    Ten long years of bad experiences with Microsoft tablets have taught us that desktop applications do not work well on tablets. Yet Microsoft perseveres in their belief that desktop applications DO have a vital role to play on the tablet form factor. We’re about to have an epiphany or Microsoft is about to re-learn a very expensive lesson.

  • Tablet apps are not the same
  • Microsoft wants to bring value to their users with tablet apps the same way that they brought value to their desktop users with desktop applications. They know, better than anyone, that a modern software ecosystem needs a large number of apps to be successful. It’s the very reason that their Windows platform dominated computing for the past twenty years.

    However, Microsoft is very, very late to the tablet game. Modern touch tablets may only be two and a half years old but tablets have been adopted faster than any technology in history. Studies show that 25% of Americans own a tablet. Further, while tablets may only be two and a half years old, the modern day app platform started four and a half years ago, in April 2008, with the iPhone. While Windows 8 is entering the market with between 2,000 and 10,000 apps, the Android and iOS platforms boast 700,000 and 750,000 apps each. And iOS has some 250,000 apps specifically optimized for use on their tablet products.

    The low number of apps is a catch-22 for Microsoft. Developers don’t want to develop until a platform has enough users, while users don’t want to buy your tablets until you have enough apps. Users of iOS and Android devices won’t have much patience with Windows 8 either. Why should they wait for a barren Windows 8 store to fill with product when they can buy from the fully stocked Android and iOS app stores today?

    Microsoft is the master of creating developer relationships but, shockingly, they have failed to successfully woo developers to the Windows 8 platform. Microsoft has actually resorted to PAYING developers to develop for the platform. This is very telling.

    With platform, developers are the canaries in the coal mine. We can gauge how well the platform is doing by measuring how well the platform’s developers are doing. And right now, developers are telling us, in no uncertain terms, that they have no confidence in the platform. They are waiting to see if the platform will be successful before they commit. And with platform, a “wait and see” attitude is the kiss of death. The longer they wait, the less likely it is that the platform will succeed.

    It’s still too soon to definitively say that Windows 8 won’t attract developers. But the time needed for Microsoft to build a successful platform is running out and it’s running out fast.

  • The Office Suite is not the same
  • On the desktop, Microsoft’s Office Suite is THE standard for business software and THE bedrock upon which most businesses operate. Many believe that it will be Microsoft’s killer app for tablets too.

    The problem with that theory is that it totally ignores the divide between the touch input demanded by tablets and pixel specific mouse input demanded by the vertical screens used by notebook and desktop computers. Windows Office is optimized for desktops. The more Microsoft tries to make it work on tablets, the less like Windows Office for the desktop it will become. Windows Office will not be the killer app for the tablet because by the time it works properly on the tablet, it will have morphed into a entirely different program.

    Even worse, from Microsoft’s perspective, is that Microsoft Office has lost its cachet among smartphone and tablet users. The past year alone has taught 650 million smartphone users and 100 million tablet users that they can get by just fine without the need to use Microsoft’s Office Suite.

  • Microsoft’s symbiosis with businesses is not the same
  • Many pundits are expecting IT to embrace the Microsoft tablet in the same way that IT embraced Microsoft Windows for the desktop. The problem with that theory is two-fold.

    First, times have changed. In the ninties, businesses standardized on the Windows operating system and then consumers followed suit. Today, consumers are making many of the critical buying decisions. Consumerization and Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) to work are trends, not fads.

    Second, Windows tablets aren’t attempting to replace an unpopular product. The Apple iPad, for example, has user satisfaction ratings in the high nineties. And in only two and a half years, many businesses are already finding the iPad indispensible.

    When it comes to business, Apple’s popular iPad tablet is viewed as a critical tool…

    “No one doubts the device’s popularity, but what’s really eye-opening about these statistics is just how inextricable the iPad has become from (business) users’ everyday lives. ~ Brainshark

    Windows 8 tablets may or may not do well in business and the Enterprise but we’re never returning to the days when Microsoft dominated IT and IT dominated all the computer purchase decision-making.

  • Microsoft’s monopoly is not the same
  • Microsoft Windows and the Microsoft Office Suite may or may not be the best software in their respective fields but users are familiar with them. No one likes to relearn how to use a software program or a user interface. Users benefit from the consistency in Microsoft’s products and Microsoft benefits from the fact that end users are comfortable using their products. This is one of the reasons why Microsoft has been able to maintain its massive market share among desktop users.

    But that was yesterday.

    A Q4 2011 Forrester survey of 9,900 employees around the world found the average employee used two and a half devices for work. Thanks to gains by Apple and Google, only 63% of respondents reported using a Microsoft OS on one of their work devices.

    That is some startling information. Let’s break it down for further examination:

    — The average employee uses two and a half devices for work. Wow. And since Microsoft is found mostly on desktops and noteboks and found almost not at all on smartphones or tablets, that means that almost all emploees are now spending some of their time on a non-Microsoft device.

    — If 63% of respondents report that they ARE using at least one Microsoft device that means that 37% of employees ARE NOT using ANY Microsoft device AT ALL.

    Microsoft still dominates desktops but it’s no longer a computing monopoly. Not by a long shot.

    Today’s computing world is filled with not just desktops but with smartphones and tablets too. Phones and tablets are touch devices that have wholly different user interfaces than do desktop devices. If you’re going to have to learn an unfamiliar user interface anyway, you look to learn the best. Without its monopoly power, Microsoft’s products have to compete on the merits. And no matter how good Microsoft’s products are, competing on the merits is a very different – and far more difficult – proposition than being the default choice or the only choice.

    5.4 WINDOWS TABLET BUSINESS MODEL – A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF

  • Too Many Agendas
  • A company’s business model often dictates the end user’s experience.

    — Apple wants to provide its end users with the best user experience possible because they want to sell as many tablets as possible.

    — Amazon Kindle Fire and the Google Nexus 7 are willing to sacrifice some the end user’s experience by including advertisments and focusing their tablets soley on their stores, but they hope to make up for it with the lower prices of their tablets.

    — Microsoft’s traditional business model was aimed at IT departments, not end users. IT departments wanted control and features designed specifically for their use and they got it. This sometimes led to a less than optimal end user experience. Microsoft was happy to provide end users with the best experience possible but not if it meant offending their real customers, the IT departments, who made the large scale purchasing decisions.

    Microsoft’s current tablet business model is dictating a compromised end user experience. The problem with Windows 8 on tablets is that it isn’t a platform, it’s an agenda.

    Mobile is the future of computing. Microsoft needs to get in the tablet game or they are going to be shut out of mobile and shut out of the future of computing. Today, Microsof has virtually no presence in mobile computing. What they do have is a massive presence in desktop computing. Windows 8 is all about leveraging Microsoft’s massive desktop market share in order to gain a foothold in mobile computing. This might be good for business but it is not necessarily good for the end user. Microsoft’s business model is not aligned with the welfare of the end user. And in the long run, that’s bad business.

  • Too Many Business Models
  • Microsoft is employing two incompatable business models to sell their tablets. They are licensing their software to manufacturers and they are competing with those same manufacturers by selling their own Microsoft branded Surface tablet. This is similar to what Google is doing with the Nexus 7.

    First, Microsoft is competing with its own partners. That’s never a good thing. Even Microsfoft acknowledged the problem in an SEC filing:

    “…our Surface devices will compete with products made by our OEM partners, which may affect their commitment to our platform.”

    Second, licensing to manufacturers and selling directly to end users requires two entirely different, and oft-times redundant, business structures. Supply, production, distribution, marketing, advertising and sales are all totally different. Just to illustrate the point, Microsoft’s retail stores make perfect sense for selling their hardware to consumers but they serve no purpose at all for licensing their software to manufacturers. Compare this to Apple whose retail store sells virtually every product that Apple makes.

    Third, conflicing business philosophies, strategies and cultures do not bode well for Microsoft. One of the reasons that mergers and acquisitions so often fail is because it impossible for the two companies to align their corporate values and culture. One of Microsoft’s greatest strengths was that they knew who they were and what they stood for. Who and what are they now?

    Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, Microsoft’s dual strategies show a lack of focus, a lack of direction. They’re improvising.

    The purpose of a business model is to direct and guide one’s actions – to be able to foretell a possible future and to act in order to make it so. Multiple, conflicting business models accomplish just the opposite. They are not the embodiment of a strategy, they are the abandonment of strategy.

    Summation

    I’ve spent an awful lot of this article talking about what can go wrong with Microsoft’s tablet business model. Now let me tell you what might go terriblly right. Microsoft might succeed with tablets DESPITE the flaws in their business model because there is no one standing in their way.

    Oh sure, Apple is the 900 pound gorilla in tablets. But they’re not going to acquire 95% market share the way Microsoft did with desktops. Amazon and Google’s business models seem directed at content, not apps. Their subsidized, ad supported models have inherent limitations and are not going to appeal to government, business or education entities. If you want a tablet for serious computing, and you want an alternative to Apple, Microsoft might be your go to guy.

    If you want to know whether Microsoft’s tablet strategy will or will not succeed, forget everything else and focus on developers. If developers start to make significant money, if developers start to develop apps for Windows 8 first or even second, if the Windows store starts to fill up with high quality apps that are equal or superior to those of their rivals – then Windows 8 is going to do just fine.

    Microsoft’s greatest fear should be that Windows 8 for tablets becomes another Windows Phone 7 – a platform with high quality hardware, excellent software, few developers and even fewer users.

    Next

    We’ve now looked at the Apple, Amazon, Google, Samsung and Microsoft tablet business models. Tomorrow, we wrap up the series by seeing what the various business models can tell us about the future of tablet computing.

    Battle Of The Tablet Business Models: Samsung Galaxy Tab

    RECAP

    We’re looking at the tablet business models of Apple, Amazon, Google, Samsung and Microsoft. Today we focus on the Samsung Galaxy Tab.

    4.0 Samsung Galaxy Tab

    4.1 WHERE DOES THE SAMSUNG GALAXY TAB MAKE ITS MONEY?

    When introducing the new Amazon tablets, Jeff Bezos said:

    “We want to make money when people use our devices, not when they buy our devices.”

    Samsung licenses its software for free from Google and, like Apple, they make their money when people buy their tablets. Unlike Amazon and Google, Samsung makes little or no money from the sale of content or apps. Unlike Microsoft, Samsung makes no money from the licensing of an operating system.

    4.2 WHERE DOES THE SAMSUNG GALAXY TAB PROVIDE VALUE?

    Samsung tablets provide value in (at least) three ways.

    First, their hardware is generally very good. It may or may not be of the quality of Apple but it is certainly more than good enough.

    Second, since Samsung gets their operating system software from Google for free, and since Samsung is an extremely efficient manufacturer, they can often offer their tablets for lower or comparable prices.

    The above advantages are somewhat mitigated by the fact that Samsung has to pay Microsoft a licensing fee for the use of Android. Also, Apple’s supply chain prowess has allowed Apple to order supplies in such great quantities that they’ve been able to keep their prices quite low. Still, on the whole, Samsung tablets are almost always available at equal or lower prices than that of the competition.

    Third, Samsung has excellent distribution. This should not be underestimated. The greatest device in the world is of no value to the consumer if it’s not sold in their country or if it’s priced out of their financial reach.

    Samsung’s tablets provide value because they are well made, inexpensive (but not cheap) and available most everytwhere.

    4.3 SAMSUNG GALAXY TAB BUSINESS MODEL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

    Despite Samsung’s many strengths, their business model for tablets is a disaster and it must frustrate the life out of them. Samsung’s hardware, prices and distribution are excellent but it just doesn’t matter.

    First, Samsung gets their Android operating system software from Google for free, and while Android has proven to be an excellent smartphone operating system it is not optimal for tablets. There is a fundamental difference between an app designed for a smaller (3.5 to 5 inch) screen and an app designed for a larger (9.5 to 11 inch) tablet screen. Google’s stubborn refusal to optimize their software in order take advantage of the tablet’s larger screen size has crippled the larger screened Android tablets. For more on this, please see my article entitled: “With Apps, Size Matters.”

    Second, while Apple, Amazon and Google make money from the sale of content and apps, Samsung does not.

    Third, since Google supplies the Android operating system to Samsung, Samsung has no control over the store and no control over the platform. Samsung can do nothing to make the store more attractive for their customers or make the platform more attractive for developers. Samsung is wholly reliant upon, and wholly at the mercy of, Google. This is even more unfortunate for Samsung because Google has proven to be an indifferent steward of the Android store and platform.

    Fourth and finally, with the introduction of the Google Nexus 7, Google – the licensor of the Android operating system software – is now a direct competitor to Samsung. And since Google has decided to subsidize the price of their product, they’ve completly undercut Samsung’s tablet business model. Unlike Google, Samsung can’t make up lost sales revenues with the subsequent sales of content and apps. With Google selling the Nexus 7 for $200, Google has made it all but impossible for Samsung to sell their $400 to $500 tablets.

    Summation

    Samsung is a proud and powerful company but I don’t know how much longer they can continue to compete in the tablet market. They are being attacked from above by Apple, below by Amazon and Google and soon Microsoft will be entering the fray. And Samsung has no competitive advantages. They can compete against Apple on hardware and software but not on ecosystem. They can compete against Amazon and Google on hardware and software but not on price. And the things that Samsung needs to change in order to be competitive – content, apps, ecosystem – are entirely out of their control.

    Samsung is simply in a no-win situation.

    NEXT

    We’ve now looked at the Apple, Amazon, Google and Samsung tablet business models. Next week, we look at Microsoft’s Surface tablet and wrap up the series.

    Battle Of The Tablet Business Models: Google Nexus 7

    RECAP

    We’re looking at the tablet business models of Apple, Amazon, Google, Samsung and Microsoft. Today we focus on the Google Nexus 7.

    3.0 Google Nexus 7

    3.1 WHERE DOES THE GOOGLE NEXUS 7 MAKE ITS MONEY?

    When introducing the new Amazon tablets, Jeff Bezos said:

    “We want to make money when people use our devices, not when they buy our devices.”

    Interestingly, the Google Nexus 7 has the very same business model as do the new Amazon tablets. Google gives away the Nexus 7 hardware at cost and then seeks to make its money by selling content and advertising.

    3.2 WHERE DOES THE GOOGLE NEXUS 7 PROVIDE VALUE?

    The Google Nexus 7 has excellent hardware and it sports one the world’s premiere mobile operating systems in Android’s Jelly Bean. But where Google really brings value to their tablet customers is in the Nexus 7’s low tablet price.

    Google is able to keep their tablet prices low because they don’t intend to make any (or much) money on the initial sale of their devices. They can give their customers more tablet for less because they are making it up in content and advertisement sales. Google wants to lure you into their store with their tablet and then have you buy content there.

    Do the above two paragraphs sound familiar? If you read yesterday’s article on the Amazon Kindle Fire, they should because they are almost word for word the same. (Battle Of The Tablet Business Models: Amazon Kindle Fire, section 2.2.)

    The Google Nexus 7 and the new Amazon tablet share the very same business model so they will naturally compete head-to-head with one another. Which one is likely to prevail over the other? Understanding their similarities and their differences should give us the answer to that question.

    3.3 GOOGLE NEXUS 7 BUSINESS MODEL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

    The Google Nexus 7 has received many fine reviews for both its hardware and its software but I think the reviewers are missing the larger picture. When I look at the Nexus 7 business model, there is little there to like. The Nexus 7 business model has all the downsides of the Amazon tablet business model and few of the upsides. Despite the almost universal praise the Nexus 7 has received from analysts and pundits, I predict that the Nexus 7 will fail to have any long lasting impact on the tablet markets other than to eliminate other Android manufacturers from contention.

    The Google Nexus 7 and the Amazon Kindle Fire business models share many of the same issues:

    — It’s hard to make a significant profit solely from the sale of low margin content and mobile advertising.

    — Devices can only be sold in countries where content can be made available via the Google Play store. Sales of devices outside of those countries are counter-productive.

    — Tablet sales must be carefully targeted at only those customers who voraciously consume (and are willing to pay for) content or who positively respond to advertising. Tablets sold to non-consumers are a waste of time, money and effort.

    — Subsidized tablets draw exactly the wrong type of customer. Bargain hunters are less likely than others to consume content and respond well to advertising.

    — A subsidy business model thrives on low cost hardware and long refresh cycles. However, we live in a world where Apple, Samsung and Microsoft are rapidly iterating their tablet hardware offerings and pushing the barriers of what it is technologically possible for a tablet to do. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to pursue the contradictory goals of spending as little as possible on the tablet hardware while still remaining competitive with the tablet offerings of competitors.

    — A content focused, ad driven tablet will have little or no appeal to government, business or educational entities.

    — Online only distribution will be difficult and other methods of distribution are sparse and immature.

    (For a further discussion of the difficulties inherent in pursuing a subsidized tablet business model, please refer to section 2.3 of my earlier article: Battle Of The Tablet Business Models: Amazon Kindle Fire.)

    In addition to the issues it shares with the Amazon tablets, the Nexus 7 has problems all its own:

    — The business model relies upon making a profit from content sales and content sales are not Google’s core strength. When it comes to online stores, Google Play is a distant third to Amazon and Apple.

    — Open business models are good for many things, but the maintenance of a store is not one of them. While closed companies like Amazon and Apple run their stores with an iron fist, Google runs its store with abandon.

    — Google is not known for its customer service. Its current customers are advertisers, carriers and manufacturers, not end users. The one time Google did sell directly to consumers with the Nexus, their efforts failed. Customer support is hard, Google has little experience in it and it would be a radical shift in their business model. There’s plenty of doubt about whether they can pull it off and until they prove otherwise, they don’t get the benefit of that doubt.

  • Google Nexus 7 v. Amazon Kindle Fire:
  • A head-to-head battle between the Nexus 7 and the Kindle Fire will not end well for the Nexus 7. The Nexus 7 probably has better hardware and software (although I know that Amazon would dispute that) and it also has a very strong and loyal user base. But the subsidy game is all about content and in content, Amazon shines.

    The Google Nexus 7 business model is like a coach taking a great athlete and playing them out of position – like taking a superior skater and having them play baseball instead of hockey, or taking a great baseball hitter and having them play soccer instead of baseball. Amazon is playing to their strengths. Google is playing to their weakness. In the long run, Google’s putative superiority in hardware and software will come to naught. In the battle of the business models, when Amazon and Google go head-to-head in the sale of content, Amazon will win every single time.

  • Content v. Apps:
  • I think Google pursued the wrong strategy. They have focused on the sale of content when, in my opinion, they should have focused on apps and the creation of a stronger app platform. I wrote about their abandonment of tablet optimized apps in my article entitled: “With Apps, Size Matters.”

    However, it’s too late to turn back now. Google’s failure to focus on tablet apps has all but doomed their already faltering tablet efforts.

  • Reversing The Business Model: Open v. Closed:
  • With the Nexus 7, Google abandoned their open business model and adopted a closed business model instead. Now they have none of the advantages of the open model yet they’ve gained few of the advantages of the closed model. Open allowed Google to focus solely on the operating system and to license that operating system to all comers which, in turn, led to the proliferation a wide variety of low cost, inexpensive hardware options. The Google Nexus 7 has none of those advantages. It is made by one manufacturer so its production numbers are limited. It is a single form factor. All of the things that make an open business model great – cost, choice, variety, distribution, ubiquity, etc. – are lost.

    And what is gained in its stead? Not much.

    — The original Android concept was to get Android everywhere in order to capture eyeballs in order to sell mobile advertising. As discussed above, a subsidized model LIMITS production to only those who are willing to buy content.

    — The closed Nexus 7 business model will gut the tablet efforts of the remaining Android manufacturers. How are they supposed to compete with a for-cost Google tablet when they do not share in the profits that Google garners from the sale of content or advertising?

    The change from an open model to the closed Nexus 7 business model will have dramatic long-term negative consequences for Google’s tablet efforts. For the reasons described above, the Nexus 7 will not sell well enough to garner large scale content and advertising profits but it will sell well enough to eviscerate the efforts of all other Android tablet manufacturers. For Google, it’s the worst of both worlds.

    Summation

    The Google Nexus 7 does not represent a coherent business strategy. It represents the abandonment of strategy. While others are singing the praises of the Google Nexus 7, I am singing a dirge.

    I predict that we’ll continue to hear a lot about Android tablet activations but we’ll continue to hear little about content and advertising profits, which is all that matters in a subsidized business model.

    I predict that the already moribund tablet efforts of the other Android manufacturers will simply give up the ghost altogether. (Caveat: I am not counting Amazon as an Android manufacturer since their operating system is so radically forked from Google’s version of Android.)

    I predict that – unless Google makes a dramatic change – the Nexus 7 will all but fade from sight.

    Bold predictions, I know. But they’re dictated, not be me but, by Google’s own flawed business model.

    Next

    We’ve now looked at the Apple, Amazon and Google tablet business models. Tomorrow, we look at Samsung and the Galaxy Tab.

    Battle Of The Tablet Business Models: Amazon Kindle Fire

    RECAP

    We’re looking at the tablet business models of Apple, Amazon, Google, Samsung and Microsoft. Today we focus on the Amazon Kindle Fire.

    2.0 Amazon Kindle Fire

    2.1 WHERE DOES THE AMAZON KINDLE MAKE ITS MONEY?

    When introducing the new Amazon tablets, Jeff Bezos said:

    “We want to make money when people use our devices, not when they buy our devices.”

    Bezos’s description of the Amazon tablet business model would have been slightly more accurate if he had said:

    “We want to make money when people BUY OUR CONTENT OR ACCESS OUR ADVERTISING, not when they buy our devices.”

    Not as catchy, perhaps, but a tad more honest.

    Bezos also said that he doesn’t believe in the razor/razor blade business model but I don’t know why because that is exactly the business model that the Amazon tablets are using. Amazon is selling their tablets (the razor) at or near cost and they are hoping to make their money from the sale of content and/or advertising (the razor blades).

    Of all the tablet makers, Amazon is uniquely situated to make such a strategy work. While tablet makers like Apple, Google and Microsoft are interested in selling tablet owners tablets along with content such as music, books, television shows, movies and apps, Amazon is interested in selling their potential tablet customers EVERYTHING. Amazon has THE largest and most successful online retail store in the world. If Amazon can get you into their store and get you to buy things from their store, they win. To Amazon, the Kindle Fire isn’t so much a tablet as it is a vehicle designed take you to the Amazon store, keep you there and encourage you to spend your money there. It is just another form of advertising, marketing or promotion for the Amazon online store.

    One of the brilliant “twists” to the Amazon strategy is that Amazon is saving money on software development by legally “poaching” their Amazon Kindle Fire operating system from Google’s open source Android. Google does all the work to create Android and then Amazon’s software engineers lift it whole and modify it to fit their specific needs. By the time Amazon’s software engineers are done modifying Android, their product barely resembles Android at all. In addition, they strip out all of Google’s money making properties and replace them with their own.

    It must be particularly galling for Google to know that as they toil to make the Android operating system better and better, they are also toiling make Amazon’s competing tablet efforts better and better too.

    2.2 WHERE DOES THE AMAZON KINDLE PROVIDE VALUE?

    Amazon’s tablet hardware and software is much improved from last year’s offerings but where Amazon really brings value to their tablet customers is in the one-two combo of low tablet prices and an unsurpassed online shopping experience.

    Amazon is able to keep their tablet prices low because they don’t intend to make any (or much) money on the initial sale of their devices. They can give their customers more tablet for less because they are making it up in content and advertisement sales. Amazon wants to lure you into their store with their tablet and then keep you there with their service and overall shopping experience.

    And while it’s true that Amazon is making money off of you when you shop in their online store, people LIKE to shop at Amazon. Amazon’s selection is world class. Their prices are rock bottom. And their Amazon store software provides customers with one of the finest online shopping experiences anywhere.

    A couple of quick analogies to drive home how the Amazon tablet business model works.

    — If Amazon were a movie theatre, they would sell the tickets to the movies for cost and make their money on the sale of popcorn, soda and candy.
    — If Amazon were in the game console business, they would sell their consoles at cost and make their money on the sale of the games.
    — If Amazon were in the clothing business, they would sell T-shirts at cost, but they would put them in the back of their store in the hope that you would buy more of their other merchandise as you went to and fro in their establishment.

    2.3 AMAZON KINDLE FIRE BUSINESS MODEL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

    The advantage of the Amazon tablet business model is that their tablet prices are very attractive to a very large portion of the population. Further, Amazon doesn’t have to provide their customers with the latest or greatest hardware or software operating system in order to be competitive. Customers will overlook the Kindle Fire’s rough edges because they know that they are acquiring the tablet at bargain basement prices.

    However, the Amazon tablet business model has some serious questions and some serious limitations too.

  • Business Model:
  • Does Amazon’s proposed business model even work?

    As we said above, Amazon is using the give away the razor (at cost) and make your money on the sale of razor blades business model. But that model presupposes that the razor blades are being sold at a PREMIUM.

    Famously, Amazon’s margins are razor thin (no pun intended) – as low as four percent. What good does it do Amazon to give away tablets for cost if they’re only making 4% profits on the sale of their content? It makes little sense. Yes, 4% is better than nothing and yes, they’ll make it up in volume but, as we’ll see, giving away tablets at cost is hardly risk free.

  • Who, Where, How and What:
  • WHO

    “The logic of selling a product which has a profit model unrelated to the cost of goods sold is tricky. The incentives are different. The risk is not selling too few but selling too many.” ~ Horace Dedeiu

    Apple, Samsung and Microsoft don’t give a damn about WHO they sell their tablets to. They make their money up front, at the time of the sale. But Amazon has to be terribly careful WHO they sell their tablets to, WHERE their potential customers live, HOW their customers use their tablets and WHAT kind of demographic that potential tablet owner hails from.

    WHERE

    The Amazon store is currently only available in the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. This means that few people outside of those countries would have any interest in purchasing an Amazon Kindle Fire. More importantly, Amazon has no interest at all in selling an Amazon Kindle to customers who don’t reside in those countries. In fact, they have a strong interest in NOT selling their tablets to those who cannot buy their content.

    Remember, the Amazon tablets only make money from the sale of content or advertising. Contrary to the business models of Apple, Samsung and Microsoft, tablet sales numbers do not directly affect Amazon’s bottom line in any way.

    And don’t expect Amazon to suddenly expand their services into other countries any time soon The Apple App Store opened in 2008 and Apple currently sells Apps in some 150 countries. But after a decade of expansion, iTunes still only sells content in 62 countries. Content distribution is hard. If it weren’t, Amazon would already be selling their content in far more countries than they currently are.

    Simply put, Amazon’s geographically limited content distribution means that Amazon tablets can only compete with Apple, Google, Samsung and Microsoft in the United States and France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. For those who are predicting that Amazon’s business model will destroy or put a serious dent in the business models of Apple and others, this should serve as a severe reality check. Even if Amazon does well in the geographic areas that they serve, Amazon tablets will do little to damage the overall sales numbers of their competitiors.

    HOW

    What Amazon tries to do with the brand is ensure that the Fire is in the hands of its most ravenous consumers. ~ Horace Dediu

    Amazon is also interested in HOW their customers use their devices. It you buy an Apple, Samsung or Microsoft tablet and throw it in a drawer and never use it, those companies still make their money. If you take an Amazon tablet and throw it in a drawer, Amazon makes no money. So it’s not enough for Amazon to get their tablets into the hands of consumers, they have to get their tablets into the hands of consumers who will continue to use their tablets and continue to buy Amazon’s other goods and services.

    This is analogous to the newspaper business. Newspapers could have dramatically increased their distribution by giving away their papers for free instead of charging for them. After all, newspapers made their money from the included advertisements and classified ads, not from the sale price of the newspaper. However, if newspapers were free, people who were not really interested in reading the newspaper would acquire them and use them for all sorts of unintended purposes such as lining bird cages or burning them for fuel.

    Newspapers had to charge enough to drive away those who weren’t going to read the newspaper but not charge so much that they drove away their target audience. The Kindle Fire has the same dilemma. It needs to be priced high enough to scare off the cheapskates but low enough to attract the bargain hunters. That’s a very tough, very tricky balancing act.

    WHAT

    Finally, the Amazon model of giving away hardware cheap does not attract the most desirable customers. It does Amazon no good to attract lots of customers if they are money-grubbing, coupon-clippers who refuse to later purchase Amazon’s products or respond to Amazon’s ads. It’s not enough for Amazon to sell their tablets. They have to sell their tablets to people who have money and who are willing to spend that money in the Amazon store.

  • Upgrade Treadmill:
  • During the Amazon Kindle Fire introduction, Bezos also said:

    “We don’t need you to be on the upgrade treadmill. If we made our money when people bought the device, we’d be rolling out programs left and right to try to get you to upgrade. In fact, we’re happy that people are still using Kindle Ones that are five years old.”

    Well, OF COURSE Amazon is happy that people are still using old Amazon Kindles. That’s their business model.

    Amazon makes no money from the sale of their hardware so they’re thrilled to have you continue to use their old hardware. They would like nothing more than for people to use their old hardware for as long as possible so that they don’t have to incur the expense of making and distributing newer hardware. However, this approach has some serious drawbacks and some serious risks.

    First, tablets are a fairly new device category. Tablets based upon Apple’s touch metaphor are only two-and a half years old. Accordingly, the hardware is still rapidly improving.

    While Amazon would like nothing more than to sell you a tablet and have you use it for 7 years — the same way that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo sold their patrons game consoles and hoped that they would use them for 7 years — Apple, Samsung and Microsoft are following the exact opposite approach. They are iterating their hardware just as fast as they can.

    With tablets, as in smartphones, consumers have shown a willingness to rapidly upgrade their hardware and then sell or pass down their legacy devices to others. Bezos speaks of the “Upgrade Treadmill” as a negative but no one is forcing consumers to buy new tablets. They WANT to buy new tablets in order to take advantage of the latest and greatest hardware and software advances. Although it is in Amazon’s best financial interest to slow down the upgrade cycle, I doubt that consumers are going to stand for that. At this stage in the tablet’s evolution, upgrading is a boon, not a curse.

    Second, while a five year old device may be great for Amazon’s business model it’s terrible for Amazon’s platform efforts. Developers want to develop for a platform using a single operating system. (They never get that wish, but that’s what they want.) They want to provide their customers and potential customers with cutting edge software and they can’t do that if they’re forced to support 5 year old legacy devices. Amazon’s platform efforts are already far, far behind those of their tablet competitors and their business model makes it very unlikely that they will ever be able to catch up.

  • Apps:
  • Amazon may have more content that its rivals, but when it comes to Apps, they are woefully behind. Amazon is upgrading their App portfolio as fast as they can but the total number of apps available to Kindle Fire patrons is still relatively low.

    Further, Amazon has few large screen tablet optimized apps. Smartphone apps may be stretched to work on a 7 inch tablet but as tablet size increases, the need for tablet optimized apps increases too.

    Creating a thriving platform is hard. Ask Amiga in the eighties. Ask Windows Phone 7 now. Developers want to make money and they’re not going to make money if their platform is attracting penny-pinching scrooges who don’t want to buy content but do want to hold on to their tablet hardware for 5 years or more.

  • Limited Appeal:
  • The proposed Amazon tablets will be appealing to many consumers but it will also be unappealing to many more conservative groups. No government, business or scholastic organization is going to want to buy tablets that depend on advertising and which direct their constituents to the Amazon online store. Imagine, for example, legislators, or lawyers or students being given an Amazon tablet. It would be totally inappropriate for their purposes.

    Amazon’s business model lowers the price of its tablets and broadens its appeal to the masses. But Amazon’s business model also precludes it from ever being adopted by organizations. This is a significant limitation that seriously crimps Amazon’s potential overall market penetration.

  • Distribution:
  • Amazon’s distribution channels are extremely limited. Most of their sales comes from their existing online Amazon customers. While this is a large pool, it’s a finite pool and it makes it difficult for Amazon to reach out to new, potential customers.

    Further, Amazon’s distribution opportunities are actually becoming even more limited. Companies like Target and Walmart have recently stopped carrying Kindle devices because of perceived unfair competition.

    Many, many people will buy a tablet unseen, untouched, and online. But the vast majority of people will not. Amazon’s unique distribution channel might be viewed as both a blessing and a curse. But mostly, it’s an impediment to the growth of their tablet sales.

    Summation

    Jeff Bezos has made it clear that he’s all in with tablets. I admire him as much as anyone in tech and if anyone can make Amazon’s strategy work, he’s the man who can do it. But, as we’ve seen, Amazon’s business model holds more questions than it provides answers. Pundits will gauge Amazon’s efforts by the number of tablets sold but the number of tablets sold is meaningless. The only thing that matters to Amazon is how much content and advertising revenue those tablets generate. And since Amazon is notoriously stingy with its revenue and profit numbers, it may be a long, long time before we know whether the Kindle Fire’s business model was brilliant or just bizarre.

    We’ve now looked at the Apple and Amazon tablet business models. Tomorrow, we look at Google and the Nexus 7.

    Battle Of The Tablet Business Models: Apple iPad

    Introduction

    Today there are 5 titans battling to win the tablet wars: Apple, Amazon, Google, Samsung and Microsoft. When it comes to evaluating tablets, we often focus on the differences between the competing companies’ various tablet offerings in the hope that we will detect the little things that make a big difference. However, sometimes it’s best to step back and look at the big things that seemingly make all the difference. A company’s business model is one of those big things.

    A tablet business model can be quite intricate but, in essence, it can be broken down into three parts:
    — Where does the tablet make its money?
    — Where does the tablet provide value to its potential customers? (Why is the customer willing, even anxious, to pay for a company’s particular tablet product or services? What makes a tablet unique? Why does a potential customer choose one company’s tablet over that of another?)
    — How well does a company’s business model work overall? How well does it work in comparison to the competition’s business models?

    With the above in mind, over the next few days let’s take a look at the tablet business models for Apple, Amazon, Google, Samsung and Microsoft in order to see if we can find the patterns that will help us predict which tablet business models are going to be the winners and which tablet business models are destined to be the losers in the upcoming tablet wars.

    1.0 Apple iPad

    1.1 WHERE DOES THE APPLE IPAD MAKE ITS MONEY?

    When introducing the new Amazon tablets, Jeff Bezos said:

    “We want to make money when people use our devices, not when they buy our devices.”

    Bezos was purposely contrasting Amazon’s tablet business model to that of Apple’s. But was his characterization of Apple’s tablet business model accurate?

    Pretty much. But Bezos’ description of Apple’s tablet business model, while accurate, doesn’t quite tell the whole tale.

    Apple makes their money when people buy their iPads. Many think that Apple also makes a great deal of money from the sale of content and by taking commissions from the sales of apps, but this is a misnomer. True, Apple makes literally billions from those sales but that still only represents a tiny fraction of the revenues made from the sale of the iPad itself.

    Apple facilitates the sale of content and apps in order to make their iPads even more valuable and even more attractive in order to sell even more iPads in order to make even more money. Content and App sales are crucial to Apple but Apple makes its money from the sale of the iPad, not from the sale of content and apps.

    1.2 WHERE DOES THE APPLE IPAD PROVIDE VALUE?

    The Apple iPad provides good value in both its hardware and its software. Apple’s store is also excellent but it cannot match the prowess of the Amazon store which has far more content selection at equal or better prices.

    The iPad’s real strength lies in its apps and its app ecosystem. No competitor can touch the iPad there. The iPad has more than 250,000 (and counting) tablet optimized apps. More importantly, the iPad has a thriving app platform. Developers develop for the iPad first, developers are well paid for their services and customers see more value in the available iPad apps and readily buy more apps and pay more for them.

    However, in my opinion, an even greater strength of the iPad is how Apple makes all of the various elements — hardware, software, content, apps,iCloud, retail support, etc. — work together as one. Customers get (and are willing pay for) value from the seamless experience rather than from any one particular aspect of the iPad.

    1.3 APPLE IPAD BUSINESS MODEL ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

    The Apple tablet business model is coherent and aligned. (Which is not the same as saying that their tablet business model is the only available business model or that it is always perfectly executed.) Their tablet hardware is the “ticket” that their customer’s buy in order to gain access to “Apple World”. Once customers enter Apple’s walled garden, they seldom want to leave.

    Apple’s primary mission is not to provide their customers with the best of any one thing but, instead, to provide them with the best overall user experience. This gives Apple a tremendous advantage. They don’t always have to be number one in hardware, software, content, apps, etc. So long as their overall user experience is excellent, that is enough, and more than enough, to keep their customer’s satisfied.

    This often baffles industry watchers, pundits and analysts alike. They look at the individual parts of Apple’s tablet offering, find them wanting, then wonder how Apple can continue to compete so very well against other devices that seem to offer more and better features.

    What they fail to understand is that Apple shouldn’t even be trying to add a hardware or software feature to their tablets unless those features perfectly integrate with, and add to, the whole. In a seeming paradox, Apple is not trying to make the best iPad, the best operating system or the best content and app store. Instead, Apple is trying to integrate all the pieces into one coherent whole and provide their customers with the best overall user experience. In this – as reflected by the iPad’s superb customer satisfaction numbers – they have been entirely successful.

    Summation

    Apple’s tablet business model is a very good. The results speak for themselves. However, it’s not the perfect tablet business model and it’s not the only tablet business model. It is now being assaulted from all sides by the entirely different business models of Amazon, Google, Samsung and Microsoft. How does the Apple tablet business model compare and contrast with those competing business models? We’ll see as the week progresses.

    Tomorrow we look at Amazon and the Kindle Fire business model.

    With Apps, Size Matters

    Ben Bajarin has written an important article entitled: “Windows 8 Tablet Fragmentation and the App Dilemma“. I highly encourage you to follow the link and read. it.

    His main thesis is so important that I’m re-stating it here in the hope that it will draw even more attention to his article and even more attention to this vital issue.

    “(Apps) are specifically designed for the current … screen size. (E)verything is placed where it is for a reason.” ~ Ben Bajarin

    There is a FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE between an app designed for a smaller (3.5 to 7 inch) screen and an app designed for a 9.7 inch or larger tablet. The pundits don’t get this. Google doesn’t get this. Amazon may not get this. And Microsoft may be ignoring this fundamental truth because they simply have to. Let me explain.

    The Pundits Don’t Get It

    “And this size (7 inches) is useless unless you include sandpaper so users can sand their fingers down to a quarter of their size.” ~ Steve Jobs

    This Steve Jobs quote baffles many tech observers. There are literally hundreds of thousands of useful apps availabe for our phones and our phones are much smaller than a 7 inch tablet. Why then would Steve Jobs say that apps on a 7 inch tablet are useless when apps on the much smaller phone are perfectly usable?

    Steve Jobs wasn’t talking about EXPANDING 3.5 inch phone applications up to fit on a 7 inch screen. He was talking about SHRINKING 9.7 inch tablet applications down to fit on a 7 inch screen.

    You can blow up a phone app and make it run adequately on a 7 inch screen but if you take an iPad app running on a 9.7 inch screen and shrink it down to run on a 7 inch screen (which is only 45% the area of a 9.7 inch screen) it will be virtually unusable. As Steve Jobs said, you would need to sandpaper your fingers down in order to make them thin enough to interact with the app’s interface.

    Google Doesn’t Get It

    “Nonsense,” the critics cry. “Phone apps work perfectly well on tablets. Even Google’s Andy Rubin says so.”

    It’s true that he does say that. When the Nexus 7 was introduced, Andy Rubin made a point of saying that he was sticking with Google’s strategy of encouraging developers to write a single app for both phones and tablets. This same philosophy was reflected in one of his earlier quotes on the subject:

    “I don’t think there should be apps specific to a tablet…if someone makes an ICS app it’s going to run on phones and it’s going to run on tablets.” ~ Andy Rubin

    And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the exact reason why Android’s 10 inch tablet strategy lies in tatters and its partners tablet sales lie moribund. Google doesn’t get it.

    Optimized apps matter.

    iPad Developers Get It

    There are 700,000 apps in the iOS App Store. 250,000 of them – one quarter of a million – are specifically tailored to run on the iPad.

    Developers don’t develop tablet apps for their health and consumers don’t buy tablet apps for no reason. Some phone apps run adequately when blown up to fit on the iPad’s increased screen real estate. However, most phone apps are less than optimal. Some are virtually unusable.

    If you want an optimal phone or tablet experience, you have to tailor the app to the device’s specific screen size.

    Where Does This Leave Android?

    Until Google changes its philosophy on tablet apps, its tablets will merely run oversized phone apps and they will never have any success with the larger screen sizes and they will never seriously compete with any platform that has tablet optimized apps.

    Where Does This Leave Amazon?

    Amazon just introduced larger sized tablets. As smart as Jeff Bezos is, I think that he’s about to find out that there is a huge difference between a 7 inch tablet that can run stretched out phone apps and a larger tablet that demands apps optimized for the increased screen size(s). Without knowing a thing about the new, larger, Kindle Fire devices, I will predict that the larger form sizes will fall flat because they don’t add much in the way of content viewing over that of a 7 inch tablet and their lack of apps devoted to their form factor means that apps won’t add much to their value either.

    Where Does This Leave Microsoft?

    “In essence (developers) are not simply shrinking or expanding their apps to work on smaller or larger screens, they are in essence creating new app experiences for those screen sizes.

    …..

    Windows 8 touch based hardware will be so fragmented in screen size that we will see touch based Windows 8 hardware ranging from 10” all the way up to 27. If developers feel the need to optimize their software for a screen that is anywhere from a half-inch and even a 2” difference, what will they do when they have 4, 5, or 6 different screen sizes to target in the Windows 8 touch hardware ecosystem?” ~ Ben Bajarin

    Do you want to know the future of Microsoft’s tablet efforts? Then ask yourself: “How many apps are optimized for each of the various Windows RT and Windows 8 tablet form factors? If the answer is “a few” or “not many”, then that form factor is going to struggle.

    And while Windows 8 tablets run both Metro and desktop apps, what is the point of owning a tablet if the tablet apps are missing in action and it only ends up only serving as a lessor substitute for a notebook? You’d be better off buying a notebook instead.

    Conclusion

    Apple’s iOS has 250,000 9.7 inch optimized apps.

    — How many apps are optimized for the various Android large screen tablets?
    — How many apps are optimized for the large screen Amazon Kindle Fire tablets?
    — How many apps are optimized for the various Windows RT and 8 large screen tablets?

    Do you want to know the future of tablets? One of the keys is optimized apps. If you don’t got ’em, you don’t got no future.

    Read Ben’s article and enjoy. Understanding his article is essential if you want to fathom the future of tablets.