I stumbled upon an article titled, “The Best Tablet Not Always the iPad“. I was curious as to why the author thought this way so I read through it to understand his arguments. Not surprisingly, as is so common with most unfavorable reviews of the iPad or iPhone, the reviewer finds specific technical specifications of the iPad  (or lack thereof), compares it to devices that have bigger or more powerful technical specs, and comes to the conclusion that the iPad is not as good as those other devices. Generally these types of reviews miss the forest for the trees and do not take into account the entire user experience that has made the Apple devices so popular. And many technical writers wonder why the general public is buying Apple devices like hotcakes while ignoring other products of arguably better technical specifications.

The author bases his argument that the iPad is not the best tablet primarily upon another story that is linked within his article. That story states, “As we detailed in our Thrive [a tablet device] review, the full-sized USB port, HDMI port, and SD card make it a more productive tablet than the iPad.” Both authors have a pretty specific definition of “productive”, being that one can plug various other technology into a device without “expensive accessories”.

And thus, we quickly see why so many “techies” have a hard time figuring out why the general public loves their iOS devices: techies think that in order for a device to be “productive”, the device must have specific technology features. The general public knows that being productive means that the device works reliably, is easy to use, and does what they want it to do. Most people could care less about ports. They have found little need to physically connect other things as much as some would lead them to believe. If you don’t believe me, the numbers the author claims to be astounded by should be the proof. If the general public had such a great need for ports or other technical specs, then the iPad would not continue to sell so well – especially to business users.

The author states that he is astounded by the sales figures of the iPad, “considering how little you can do on an iPad out of the box”. I would find his opinion astounding, except for the fact that I have had many conversations like this with techie-types since the iPhone first came out. It simply comes down to the different ways of thinking the “Old World of Technology” has as compared to the “New World of Technology”. Again, he believes the iPad is limited because one can’t plug things into it right out of the box. Most other people believe the iPad is limitless out of the box because they can so quickly and easily get it working. Right away they are on the App Store downloading from an incredible selection of software that will make them productive without the need of a USB device, an SD card, or an HDMI cable. No other company can match the ease-of-use and user experience that Apple has provided for the iPad (and all iOS devices). This is the secret to Apple’s success and everyone else is struggling to simply copy Apple’s hardware – and still missing the point entirely!. The hardware is not so important when compared to the entire user experience.

And if we want to throw down when it comes to technology features, I could argue that technologies like AirPlay make physical connectivity a thing of the past. Why bother with USB and HDMI when one can wirelessly stream their media? Especially when one can still have physical connectivity IF they need it with OPTIONAL accessories (and I don’t agree that a $29 adapter is expensive). No other tablet has a feature that even comes close to the reliability, ease-of-use, and acceptance of AirPlay, so if we want to play the geek card I think Apple still has ‘em beat.

Keep Reading →

Late today, the technology industry was rocked by yet another major announcement: Steve Jobs officially stepped down as Apple CEO after a 7 month medical leave of absence. A quick search on the Internet should provide as much coverage as you care to read, but I think many are missing a simple fact. Since January, when Jobs went on medical leave, he wasn’t acting as CEO anyway. So this really doesn’t change anything except make permanent the situation that has existed for 7 months.

It is also important to note that Jobs has been elected Apple’s chairman of the board and director. While this is being reported as fact, it seems that many are also missing the significance of this development. Steve Jobs is still going to exert his influence on Apple. While he may have officially given up CEO duties, his real value to Apple is not lost.

As Steven Covey, author of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, made famous, there is a crucial difference between leadership and management.

Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall.

Leaders provide the vision and set the direction of their organization. Managers carry out the mission that the leaders have defined. Steve Jobs has clearly brought back the vision to Apple that it was lacking in the late 80′s and 90′s. With that vision, Apple has become the largest company in the world and has completely changed the technology industry and the world in general. Luckily for Apple (and perhaps all of us), Steve Jobs’ visionary mind is still around and he will continue to put his mark on the new world of technology he helped kickstart.

Keep Reading →

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Apple will release an iPhone for Sprint in October. It’s been rumored before, but this article is pretty firm on its assertion. If this ends up being true, then the WSJ has just gotten a huge scoop. Otherwise, they’ll be eating a lot of crow soon. Stay tuned …

Keep Reading →

I’ve written before about how consumers are now pushing their technology preferences into their workplaces. This change in how technology is deployed and utilized comes after the era where the IT departments of companies would dictate what technology their employees would use. By extension, what people used at work is what they generally used at home. Now, what people are using for their own personal or home technology is what they want to use at work, and increasingly forcing their IT departments to ensure compatibility.

I first wrote about this almost exactly two years ago, but I had observed this trend at least a couple of years earlier. Yet it seems that some big companies still don’t get it. Case in point, I recently read an article where a self-described “loyal BlackBerry user and fan of RIM” explained why he made the difficult decision to return his RIM PlayBook (also commonly known as the BlackBerry PlayBook). Even though he feels the PlayBook is technically superior in some ways to the iPad , his reasons for returning the device were not about the technology.

He gave three reasons why he felt that RIM was “screwing it up”. His first was “Not recognizing the consumer power shift”. To quote the article:

The fundamental pattern of technology adoption is shifting. In the old world, in which corporate IT departments determined which technology to approve and employees (users) simply had to follow suit, BlackBerry wielded a clear advantage. IT departments loved RIM’s solution for its security and reliability.

But the winds of adoption are shifting. Employees are in the driver’s seat. They are convincing their IT departments to adopt the platforms employees desire. The winners of tomorrow need to create solutions that appeal to consumers, not just their employers.

He then goes on to say that

Such adoption shifts have taken down giants.

He gives an example of beer purchasing in Japan, but we have examples much closer to home with Blockbuster and Borders. Companies failing to see changes in technology affecting consumer choices is a key reason they fail. This is nothing new, but yet it still seems that the lesson has not been learned – or many companies are just bad at executing change.

It took me 45 minutes from opening the box to being able to explore my new PlayBook. When my wife bought her iPad, she was already connected, and exploring within 10 minutes.

It’s time to make sure your company is recognizing the changing tides in technology. Don’t be late to the party like Blockbuster, Borders, and RIM.

Keep Reading →

In the second shocking technology announcement of the week (after the Google announcement that they are going to buy Motorola Mobility), HP revealed that they are killing the TouchPad product after only 6 weeks, as well as their WebOS-based phone line. Additionally, HP stated they are considering leaving the PC business, possibly spinning-off the division that made the mobile devices and makes their PCs.

Let’s get clear just how important these announcements are.

1) The biggest PC company in the world threw in the towel after just 6 weeks in the “tablet” market. Why did I put the word tablet in quotes? More on that in a bit.

2) The biggest PC company in the world wants to get out of the PC business. The same business that brings in one-third of its revenue.

For a company to throw in the towel after 6 weeks is almost unprecedented (only Microsoft has done this with their Kin phones of last year). Sales of the Touchpad must have been utterly abysmal. This just shows how much of a lock on the market Apple has with their iPad. This is why I put the world “tablet” in quotes. As I’ve said before, along with a growing number of others, there really is no such thing as a tablet market. There is only an iPad market. People do not seem to want anything except the iPad. Most people probably aren’t even aware that the other tablets compete with the iPad. I wouldn’t be surprised if they think that the iPad is the only product of its kind – which in many respects, it is. Just look at the recent report that 97% of all web traffic by tablets is from the iPad.

This utter domination of the tablet market by Apple’s iPad explains why HP bailed out on their TouchPad so quickly. But it doesn’t explain why HP wants to get out of the PC business. Or does it?

Just look to one comment by HP’s CEO, who said “the tablet effect is real.” What he is referring to is the thought that tablet (i.e. iPad) sales are eating into PC sales. Up until now, the “tablet effect” has been sort of a hush-hush topic among the PC makers. Sure, PC sales were shrinking for the first time in history, but other factors such as the economy were surely to blame. Certainly the iPad could not be a significant factor, right? Well, now the cat’s out of the bag – big time. There’s no denying it anymore. The iPad is not only dominating the tablet market, but it is eating away at the PC market as well. HP sees the writing on the wall. The PC market has become stagnated with price being the only real differentiator. Competition is fierce and profits are slim. The PC Era is ending, the market is moving towards mobile devices, and the rats are leaving the sinking ship. Well … except for one company.

The only “PC” company that is growing sales, revenue, and profit is … you guessed it … Apple. The Macintosh personal computer, seemingly long forgotten until recently, is seeing tremendous growth while the rest of the PC industry is shrinking. So not only is Apple poised to dominate the “tablet” market, the Macintosh may be the “PC of choice” of the “Post-PC Era”.

Imagine a world where Apple completely dominates the “personal device” market – tablets, smartphones, iPods, laptops, and desktops. Does it seem like fantasy? Perhaps 10 years ago, even 5. But ever since the iPhone was introduced 4 years ago and the iPad just a year and-a-half ago, nothing seems out of reach for Apple. And perhaps companies like HP are waking up to that realization now.

Keep Reading →

In a move that was as surprising as it is rife with possibilities, Google announced today they will purchase Motorola’s Mobility division for a staggering $12.5 billion. It is clear that this move is a game-changer for the smartphone industry. But the real question is who’s game does it change?

Is this move simply a patent portfolio purchase? Perhaps Google is trying to shore itself up against future litigation like the lawsuits their hardware partners are encountering now. But it isn’t evident that Motorola Mobility had any patents worth gobbling up. If so, likely the other players who have been purchasing patent portfolios would have been bidding. And from early reports, it appears that Google will keep Motorola Mobility running as a wholly owned and independent subsidiary. So it doesn’t appear to just be a patent grab – especially considering what Google paid. $12.5 billion is about one-third of their cash reserves.

So if Google is interested in making both the hardware and software (a la the Apple iPhone and iPad), where does this leave Google’s current Android partners? Does Google actually intend to allow other companies to continue to make Android-based phones and tablets while competing against them with their own devices? Does Google think that their partners are excited about this?

If it is true that Google wants to move to an Apple-style production model, it only reinforces the idea that Apple’s top-to-bottom control model is the only viable blueprint for the New World of smartphones. The Old World of smartphones was characterized by one company creating the software, other companies creating the hardware, and the carriers enforcing their whims on both. I’ve written many times how Google was following the footsteps of the Old World smartphone market with potentially disastrous results. Perhaps they’ve figured this out now?

Then the question becomes can Google compete against Apple in the game Apple invented? Apple has been in the hardware manufacturing business for over 35 years, has a minimum 4 year head-start on smartphone manufacturing, and has ample experience with all the business infrastructure required to run a company that makes physical products for their customers (support staff, fabrication contacts, supply chains, etc.). Google has never competed in this market before, and when they tip-toed into it with their Nexus One phone, most agree it was a disaster across the board for Google. Has Google learned from their mistakes or are they hoping that Motorola’s experience will fill in the gaps? Either way, it seems like a long shot for Google to take Apple head-on. But, after a couple of years of doing things the Old World way, perhaps Google has come to the realization it is their only viable strategy?

If so, can Google rollout this new model quickly enough to avoid a potential disaster? If Google chooses this new path, it goes against almost everything Google has said to this point regarding their strategy for the smartphone market. Not only could this destroy some of their credibility in the industry, but it could also devastate their relationships with their current hardware partners. What would happen if their partners suddenly stopped making new phones (say after the holidays this year)? Could Google’s Android platform survive such a blow? Could Google have a full-blown operation running to counter this potential so soon?

The bottom line is that this move won’t have any effect on the market until at least the beginning of next year. However, it is not too early for those considering device purchases to ponder the ramifications that this move will have. Primarily, if Google’s move destroys their relationships with their current hardware partners, what will happen to their options for support and upgradability over the next couple of years? If one buys an Android-based Samsung phone today, for example, and expects to keep it for 2 years, will they be orphaned in 6 – 9 months?

Already, Apple iOS devices have an overall ease-of-use and reliability advantage over the various Android-based devices. Now a cloud of uncertainty exists over the future of the current line-up of Android devices. At least until it is clear what Google’s plans are with this purchase and what effect it will have on their current hardware partners, I must recommend extreme prudence to those considering a purchase of an Android device.

Keep Reading →

There has been much hand-wringing in the media and on social networks over the announcement that Borders is going out of business. A lot of talk has been centered around the death of printed books and how the closing of Borders is a sign of this trend. Let me tell you a little secret: eBooks didn’t kill Borders

Mismanagement killed Borders

Lack of vision killed Borders

Failure to adapt killed Borders

It is clear that eBooks are changing the book publishing world just as digital music changed the recorded music business and the Internet changed the news publishing industry. And certainly businesses must adapt to the changing landscape. However, it doesn’t mean that eBooks are a certain death for printed books or stores that sell them.

While the growth of eBooks drove the final nail in the coffin for Borders, it wasn’t the eBook itself that killed Borders. Borders could have adapted to eBooks and even could have used eBooks to save the company. However, missing the eBook train was the last in a long line of mistakes the company made dating back to the early 1990′s

I read two articles back in January (one from Newsweek, the other from The Washington Post) that relayed the story of Borders, detailing the mistakes that took down the company, especially their lack of both Internet and eBook strategies.

The story of Borders is a case study in how technology can either create a business or destroy it. Borders came to prominence because of their technology. Their innovative software allowed the company to better predict which books consumers would want to buy and what to stock. This allowed Borders to create the model of a book superstore, offering not only bestsellers, but a plethora of harder-to-find titles. It is therefore ironic that what ultimately killed the company was the failure of Borders’ management to identify emerging technology and how it would change the competitive landscape.

Take the time to read the articles if they interest you. But ultimately, the moral of the story is that the bad guy isn’t technology. Change is inevitable. It is the inability or unwillingness of companies to adapt that leads to their failure. It is the story of Blockbuster. It is the story of Ultimate Electronics. It is the emerging story of RIM (Blackberry) … and maybe even the not-too-distant future story of Microsoft.

If anything, I believe the emergence of eBooks opens the door for smaller, local bookstores to successfully cater to those who seek printed books. They can provide services and the personal touch that big-box or Internet stores simply can’t. Perhaps, instead of mourning the death of Borders, we should be looking forward to the opportunity small business has in front of it.

Keep Reading →

The now-famous open letter to RIM executives references a quote that one of RIM’s CEOs recently made in regards to RIM’s so-far-not-yet-successful technology transition, “No other technology company other than Apple has successfully transitioned their platform. It’s almost never done, and it’s way harder than you realize. This transition is where tech companies go to die.”

In fact, Apple has done it by my count, 4 times (Apple II to Macintosh, Motorola 68000 processors to PowerPC processors, Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X, PowerPC processors to Intel processors). And now it is possible to argue that Apple is doing it for a 5th time, transitioning from Mac OS to iOS. How does a company like Apple manage to pull off these transitions, during both good times and bad? It stems from their deeply held beliefs that technology must be user-focused. Great technology is born from this and it requires great technology (along with proper execution) to pull off major technology transitions.

As RIM’s CEO said, most companies that try it fail. It’s an incredibly risky time, as RIM is experiencing right now. Poorly executed transitions are opportunities for customers to jump ship. It’s why Microsoft has never done it. They know their continued success is contingent on the inertia that the Windows platform has built up in the industry. But more importantly, Microsoft realizes that this inertia is maintained by all the software that runs on Windows. In order for Microsoft to develop a truly next-generation operating system, they must give up the shaky foundations that Windows is built up. But they know that if they do this, they cut the ties that binds users to Microsoft, as software that runs on Windows would likely need to be modified or completely re-written to run on a next generation of Windows. Only an exceptionally executed transition across all phases would ensure that Microsoft keeps most of their customers. There’s not yet been a need for Microsoft to take that chance. But it is becoming increasingly clear that standing still is also becoming risky. At some point Microsoft, and many other tech companies, will realize that they must make a transition to survive. And that’s when things will become very interesting.

If one pays attention to the market, it is coming into focus that Microsoft is entering (or already has entered) a transitional state. As I alluded to before, the “PC” market is transitioning into mobile devices such as tablets (i.e. the iPad) and smartphones (i.e. the iPhone). Microsoft’s announcements of Windows 8 and their attempts at re-creating their mobile strategy with Windows Phone 7 is evidence that Microsoft has realized the changing state of the market. But a lot hinges on what Microsoft does over the next two years. If Microsoft doesn’t pull off this transition well, the entire future of the company is in doubt. If one doesn’t believe that a company like Microsoft could fall, just a little study of history can show what happened to tech giants like IBM.

Keep Reading →

To those that follow the industry, it’s no secret that the company that makes the Blackberry, RIM, is in trouble. From a sales perspective, they still sell a lot of devices, but from a consumer perspective, they are nearly forgotten outside of the “old” smartphone market (i.e. corporations and tech-savvy people that have had Blackberries for a long time). Industry experts have been warning that RIM has fallen way behind to Apple’s iOS (iPhone and iPad) and Google’s Android platforms for some time now. But it doesn’t take an expert to see that the operating system of the Blackberry is still rooted in it’s original design that was created in the late 90′s. It was great back then, but certainly seems dated today.

An open letter to RIM’s executive management from an anonymous RIM senior manager was recently published on the Internet. The letter portrays a company internally dysfunctional and lost on what it needs to do to successfully compete. This is the major takeaway for anyone who has any interest in the Blackberry platform.

However, while the letter is focused on RIM’s issues, it brings up many topics about the smartphone industry that I have talked about before, both in this blog and to my clients directly. It is those points that I’d like to emphasize, taking quotes from the letter.

We often make product decisions based on strategic alignment, partner requests or even legal advice — the end user doesn’t care. We simply have to admit that Apple is nailing this and it is one of the reasons they have people lining up overnight at stores around the world, and products sold out for months. These people aren’t hypnotized zombies, they simply love beautifully designed products that are user centric and work how they are supposed to work.

I’ve made reference many times to how most smartphone vendors market their products as if they are “made by geeks for geeks”. They talk about specs, speed, capacity, and how “kick-ass” they are. Yet the reality is that most other smartphones simply don’t work as well as the iPhone. What this letter points out, and I can substantiate, is regardless of all the marketing done, if a product simply doesn’t work how it is supposed to (and the common expectation is that it will work as well as the iPhone), then the end-users will not like it. For all the “cool” technology behind a product, users just want something that works and works well. The iPhone should have made this abundantly clear to all tech companies. Obviously, it hasn’t sunk in yet for most.

Until companies embrace user-focused product development AND then figure out how to successfully implement it, they won’t touch Apple. And therein lies the rub. Companies must first embrace this thinking, which is extraordinarily difficult for most tech companies to come to grips with. It won’t happen overnight. There’s a lot of corporate culture to change and that takes time. And then once that long process is over, the company actually has to figure out how to make great, user-friendly products. That of course takes vision and talent, but it also takes experience. That is experience Apple has learned over 35 years. RIM, and most tech companies, have very little of it.

There is no polite way to say this, but it’s true — BlackBerry smartphone apps suck. Even PlayBook, with all its glorious power, looks like a Fisher Price toy with its Adobe AIR/Flash apps.

The original iPhone was successful. It made people stand up and take notice. Looking back, however, it really didn’t make that much of a dent in the smartphone market. It was the next year that Apple changed the world by introducing the App Store. Since that time, the tremendous success of the App Store has catapulted iOS devices into every aspect of society. Overnight it was no longer enough to make a nice smartphone. That smartphone had to run apps – and lots of them. It took a year or two for competitors to even get into the game. Now it seems that Apple’s experience working with third-party developers as well as the polished and mature software development environment provided for the iOS (both honed for years on the Macintosh platform) have put Apple into a position where the quality of their Apps is head-and-shoulders above everyone else. No other tech company (besides Microsoft) has the wealth of experience working with developers and development tools, so it would seem that this puts RIM at a distinct disadvantage.

25 million iPad users don’t care that it doesn’t have Flash or true multitasking, so why make that a focus in our campaigns? I’ll answer that for you: it’s because that’s all that differentiates our products and its lazy marketing … My mother wants an iPad and iPhone because it is simple and appeals to her. Powerful multitasking doesn’t.

Earlier I mentioned how most smartphone companies market their products as if they were “made by geeks for geeks”. Compare this to Apple’s marketing where they highlight the simplicity and ease-of-use of their products. In many cases, Apple’s marketing is inconsequential as the real secret to their growth is word-of-mouth. Apple owners tend to become evangelistic about their devices, proudly showing them off to their friends and family who quickly purchase their own Apple products and continue to spread the word. Again, most tech companies simply don’t understand that “old world” marketing only appeals to tech-savvy people. When the smartphone market was small and made up of mostly geeks, that worked well. Now that Apple has kicked open the doors of the smartphone market to the mainstream, that type of marketing is no longer effective. But again, it will take a complete corporate culture change for a company to embrace this type of thinking, then they must create the products that are user-focused, AND then they must understand how to market it. Again, none of this will happen overnight.

The bottom line is this letter highlights the trouble with RIM, but it basically shows the fundamental weaknesses of most tech companies which Apple is currently exploiting. The secret to Apple’s success is that they are the ONLY company in the market with so much experience in user-focused computing. That experience has been gained over 35 years, starting in the dawn of the personal computer market. No other company can touch that level of expertise and it is showing now. Only the companies that are strong enough to stick around, gain the necessary experience, and change their corporate culture will have any chance of competing with Apple. Unfortunately for RIM, time is a luxury it does not seem they have. Unless RIM can pull off a miracle, dramatically change their company, and introduce products that can feasibly compete in the new world of technology, it seems their days are numbered.

Keep Reading →

April 1, 2011

In an unprecedented move, Microsoft will be giving away free notebooks today in an effort to slow the bleeding the low profit market segment has suffered since the release of the iPad almost exactly 1 year ago. Working with vendors who have seen many of their netbooks sit on shelves or warehouses over the last few months, Microsoft will give away the netbooks at their retail store locations to those lucky enough to qualify for the promotion.

In order to qualify for the free netbook, customers who arrive at the Microsoft retail store must show a printed copy of the e-mail sent out by Bill Gates offering the free netbook, along with all the people they forwarded the message to. Once they show this proof, they will be allowed in a secret back room of the Microsoft store where they may choose their netbook.

When asked about the offer, Steve Ballmer said, “I was in a meeting with a netbook vendor who said that ever since the iPad came out, they can’t give these things away. I didn’t believe him so I figured we would put it to the test. Plus, we need the space in our secret back rooms for all the Zune devices we didn’t sell.”

Questioned why Microsoft decided to promote the offer using chain e-mails from Bill Gates that seem suspiciously like hoax messages floating around the Internet, Ballmer turned a bit red and sweaty and stammered, “Uhh … People love getting e-mail from Bill.” Asked about the fact that Apple can’t make enough iPads to meet demand while netbook vendors must resort to giving them away caused Ballmer to turn brighter red and begin to wave his hands frantically. While attempting to answer, he was pressed to explain if Microsoft really thought that April Fool’s Day was the best timing for the promotion. This caused Ballmer to erupt in a undecipherable tirade as he stormed out of the room.

For more info on the promotion, check your spam filter for any messages forwarded from Bill Gates.

Keep Reading →