Something is Rotten in the State of Washington

In case you didn’t know – which really it appears most people didn’t know or cared – Microsoft killed their Kin phones after 6 weeks of shipping. And no that’s not a typo, it was in fact only 6 WEEKS after releasing the Kin that they cancelled these phones. Rumors abound that they only sold 500 Kin phones. Again, that’s not a typo – only five HUNDRED phones sold. At first that rumor seemed fantasy. But for Microsoft to kill this product so quickly makes that rumor seem credible. Wow. In today’s hot and heavy world of smartphones, this is a failure of unprecedented proportions. And the fallout may spread far and wide beyond the walls of the Kin team at Microsoft, as this article points out.

It seems that some of the leadership team responsible for the Kin debacle was either already on the Microsoft Windows Mobile team (recently renamed “Windows Phone”) or has been moved to that team now that the Kin team has been disbanded. Microsoft’s mobile strategy will live or die based on how well their completely redesigned Windows Phone 7 Series (yes, that’s a mouthful) does in the marketplace. Already they are behind the 8-ball as Microsoft has floundered under the iPhone assault and is now losing ground to Google Android devices. To make matters worse, the rumored release dates for Windows Phone 7 devices are in the fall or winter of this year. Because Windows Phone 7 is basically a “reboot” on Microsoft’s mobile devices, it is truly as if they are entering the smartphone market from scratch. This obviously has given Apple and Google a long headstart. If Microsoft fumbles Windows Phone 7 at all, this could completely kill their mobile business. And if they have no mobile business, one must start to seriously question if Microsoft has much of a future at all.

If it seems unplausible that a giant like Microsoft could fall, one only needs to look at history and see how giants like IBM fell before them. The disaster that was the Kin, similar to the disaster that was Vista, may be another symptom of a company that is in a state of complete disfunction. Again, history has shown that all great “empires” fall from within. This anonymous comment on the above linked article from an apparent Microsoft employee really sums it up well:

My morale has never been lower.

A billion dollars wasted on Kin, 500 phones sold and a huge amount of ground lost in the mobile space. Everything I hear about Windows Phone is negative. Leadership is shrugging its shoulders like this disaster is no big deal.

Enterprise Agreement renewals continue to trend downward, and at an alarming rate. Even major DoD deals can’t be landed. We position Microsoft for selling solutions and compensate the field for moving product. The disconnect is frustrating.

Windows 7 is a solid product, that we are marketing ineffectively. Office 2010 has launched with a quiet whimper. The CMG is as dysfunctional as a Cold War era gulag, and I can’t see any value from Mitch Matthews leadership.

I have no faith in our senior leadership (Ballmer, Turner, Ozzie, Brummel), but I don’t see any apparently leader that could step in and make the hard choices and forge a new, urgently needed direction, unless Bill Gates returns. Even then, I don’t know if the company can be steered off of the painful path it is now headed on.

The stock price is going in the wrong direction and poorly positioned if we move into a double dip recession. Our leadership team also shrugs this off as if it isn’t a major issue.

I remember Steve Ballmer promising to all at a company meeting four or five years ago, in response to an e-mail from an employee that complained about the stock price. The employee wrote to Ballmer that because of the languishing stock value he/she could not build an addition to their home. Steve B boomed that in two years he/she would be able to build a new home, never mind an addition, with where the stock price was going, and the crowd roared with thunderous applause. Where is the increased equity? What other company on the planet would have a flat lined stock price for a decade despite solid growth and not have the shareholders and board calling for the leadership heads on a platter?

Haven’t seen a promo in 3 years, got an E/110 last year and hear nothing but excuses (well promos are thin, budgets are tight). I don’t think anyone on my team has gotten a promo in two or three years.

Our budgets have been cut to the point that we can even support our commitments. When I follow the dollars I feel very insecure about my role and future. I’ve seen the overall organization get increasingly dysfunctional with each passing year.

The review process is completely broken. Calibration and compensation has already happened before employees even writes one word on how they felt they performed. How can I have any faith in the review process, where I’m told I have a voice, that peer feedback has impact, when none of it is even considered by the leadership team as they horse trade for compensation. It is a favoritism system that is riddled with inequity. I have seen incompetence rewarded and success punished. The process does a tremendous job of angering employees, who then quit and go to work for competitors with the single purpose of proving Microsoft wrong. Either that or they go to work as a vendor and get a 2X to 3X pay increase in the process.

I love Microsoft. Microsoft has clothed and fed my family, directly or indirectly for almost twenty years. I owe so much to this company. I come in, I give 110%, but I see no direction, I see no recognition, I see no future, I see no leadership.

Microsoft has become its own worst enemy, the leadership team is ineffective, and there is a huge need for house cleaning from the 64 to 68 level. I wish Bill Gates would come back. I wish a lot of bad decisions were never made. I feel that there is no way to change the negative course we are on, and Microsoft is incurably on a path to be only a shell of the company it once was.

Layoffs? Mercy killings comes more to mind.

Ya Think?

An article on Forbes.com states that if Apple starts selling the iPhone on Verizon, it could damage the momentum Google has built up for the Android devices.

I’ve said in the past (here and here) that even just a rumor that an iPhone would be available on a particular network could be enough to damage or short-circuit any momentum competing smartphones generate. Obviously, if the iPhone were to be released on a particular network, it would likely dominate that carrier’s smartphone sales while pent-up demand was filled. But the real proof in the pudding would be head-to-head sales after the initial sales surge. Given the power of Apple’s marketing machine right now, it would be hard to predict any outcome other than Apple coming out on top.

Floating a Bomb

I wrote an “experimental” article back in August where I claimed Apple was going to release the iPhone on Sprint. Of course, this was just a hoax, but I wanted to gauge reaction when people thought they could get an iPhone on Sprint. However, the point of the article was that I thought Apple could “nuke” the landscape of smartphones on a wireless carrier if they simply floated the rumor that the iPhone would be coming to that network “in the near future”. I figured that there were (and still are) many people who really wanted an iPhone but didn’t want to or couldn’t leave their carrier. If these people were given a glimmer of hope that they could soon get an iPhone, they would put off purchasing another smartphone in anticipation of getting an iPhone. Obviously, that kind of thinking could be devastating to the sales of other smartphones trying to gain a foothold in the market.

Recently, there have been a lot of articles being written suggesting that Apple is going to release the iPhone later this year on a multitude of carriers. As I’ve written previously, I highly doubt that Apple is going to release the iPhone for any carriers that are not using the same technology as AT&T’s current network (GSM/GPRS) or their future 4G network (LTE). It simply doesn’t seem to make sense for Apple to devote significant resources to creating an iPhone for network technologies that are soon to be out of use. So the flurry of articles recently written make me wonder if Apple is “dropping the bomb” and trying to derail the momentum of other smartphones.

It seems to make sense. While the various Google phones are not really selling all that well as compared to the iPhone, they have gained a fair amount of “mindshare”, meaning that they are starting to be acknowledged by people as a relevant competitor in the marketplace. However a carefully calculated strike could significantly slow down their momentum. Perhaps Apple feels that this is the time to put the squeeze on their competitors. Perhaps it has something to do with the timing of the iPad. Perhaps it means nothing and Apple is not intentionally doing anything. Or perhaps the articles are correct and we will in fact see the iPhone on other networks this year. But I doubt that last sentence.

Stormy Experience

I had an opportunity to work with a BlackBerry Storm phone for a client the other day. Granted, I believe it was an “original” Storm (which was widely criticized when released but later updates helped fix some issues), but let me just say it really made me appreciate the iPhone so much more. I’ve played around with Storms before, but this particular time I had to enter in a lot of text. And it was basically the difference in the ease of typing that was most glaring. It is really difficult to explain with words how difficult it was for me to type with the Storm, but suffice to say it is evident just how much effort Apple has put into making the Touch OS as user-friendly as possible. For users who have only owned an iPhone or iPod Touch, they may not appreciate or even realize the attention to detail that goes into making their devices as simple and easy to use as they are. Luckily for me I have used many smartphones over the years. I have experience with a lot of different designs so I have a feel for good and bad designs. Still every once in a while I have an experience like this that surprises me.

This experience made me realize something else. In the 3 years since the iPhone was released, the interface has remained almost identical. Yes, there have been improvements, but for the most part it is the same interface as it was in 2007. Contrast this to the phones from BlackBerry, Palm, and most recently Google. Each of those vendors have released several different phones, with different names, each with different hardware interfaces (for example hard keys vs soft keys) and with many differences in software interface. Apple has had 3 total phones. At quick glance, it is hard to distinguish them, especially the 3G and 3GS phones. And that’s the beauty of it. Apple gets it. People don’t care for or necessarily need an excessive amount of choices. Build it and they will come (but build it right the first time – unlike the Storm). And from a marketing standpoint, it is so much easier to promote a singular concept (the “iPhone”) then a mess of devices that all have different features.

Speaking of Strikeouts …

As I mentioned in part 3 of my iPad series of articles, many commentators were downplaying the iPhone prior to its introduction. I stumbled upon this article from 2007, titled “Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone“. It is a classic example of the type of old world thinking that still predominates the technology industry today. After the runaway success of the iPhone this article reads like a parody. It includes such gems as:

“It’s the loyalists who keep promoting this device as if it is going to be anything other than another phone in a crowded market.”

“…the mobile handset business. This is not an emerging business. In fact it’s gone so far that it’s in the process of consolidation with probably two players dominating everything,”

“During this phase of a market margins are incredibly thin so that the small fry cannot compete without losing a lot of money.”

“As for advertising and expensive marketing this is nothing like Apple has ever stepped into. It’s a buzz saw waiting to chop up newbies.”

“… phones go in and out of style so fast that unless Apple has half a dozen variants in the pipeline, its phone, even if immediately successful, will be passé within 3 months.”

“…its survival in the computer business relies on good margins. Those margins cannot exist in the mobile handset business for more than 15 minutes.”

“If it’s smart it will call the iPhone a “reference design” and pass it to some suckers to build with someone else’s marketing budget.”

(This last comment is very interesting in light of what Google is trying to do with the Android.)

Apple’s track record since the return of Steve Jobs has been to introduce revolutionary devices into stagnant markets. This author assumed that the iPhone was just going to be another me-too phone. He failed to have the foresight that the iPhone was going to change the rules of the how the game was played. The iPhone was such a breakthrough device that it completely transformed the cell phone market. Now, this same author is writing articles such as “Apple’s iPad is far from revolutionary“, with the same type of logic that he used with the iPhone article referenced above. I guess some people will never learn.

Sans Texting?

I overheard my wife talking to a friend of ours on her cell phone and she said something like “just text it to me”. Then I heard, “oh your phone doesn’t do texting?” I about did a double-take. No texting? What the heck!? Then I settled down. But I thought it was just another funny example of how far technology has worked itself into our lives that not having texting is such a big deal.

Is there anyone (else) out there who does not regularly use texting? Is it because your phone doesn’t have a “regular” keyboard, is not a smartphone, or for some other reason?

Technology Growth fueled by "iPad"?

According to research group IDC, technology spending will increase in 2010 as part of a global economic recovery. A major factor in this increased spending will be the growth of mobile Internet devices such as the Apple iPhone … and the Apple “iPad”?

Basically IDC is predicting that Apple will release a tablet computer, as so many rumors are predicting as well. If true, this could be another huge hit for Apple and could disrupt the technology market. So stay tuned.

But equally important for all businesses to take note is that if technology spending is up, that means that your competitors are likely improving their infrastructure. If you don’t keep up your technology, you will fall behind in the marketplace.

No Soup for You!

With all the buzz surrounding the Droid and Verizon’s counter-iPhone advertising campaign, many industry analysts are clamoring for Apple to release their iPhone on Verizon’s network. Others are reporting various rumors that Apple is ending their exclusive arrangement with AT&T or will be releasing iPhones for Verizon in 2010. Up until this point, I believed that Apple would not release an iPhone for Verizon until at least 2011. But even I was starting to be swayed by all the hype into thinking that maybe Apple would release an iPhone for Verizon in 2010. That was until I read this excellent article detailing how successful Apple has been with their single-vendor strategy.

The article is rather long and detailed, so I’ll sum up some of the main points here:

1) The technology in Verizon’s current network (CDMA) is different than what AT&T uses (GSM), so it would require designing a new iPhone, along with all the regulatory headaches, and then would require Apple to split their manufacturing, hurting their economies of scale. This would all be for a technology that will be obsolete in a few years. The next generation (4G) of Verizon’s network (LTE) will be the same as AT&T’s, but that will likely not be built out sufficiently until 2011 at earliest.

2) Comparison to Blackberry sales, which are sold on multiple carriers, shows that Apple is neck-and-neck. Apple simply doesn’t need to sell on multiple carriers at this time.

3) Apple would do better growing their global market than trying to capture the Verizon market in the US. Why should Apple spend their resources on a much more technologically challenging and expensive project like a Verizon iPhone, when they can keep their focus on getting more customers in the global GSM market?

4) One reason Apple has been successful is precisely because they followed a single-carrier strategy. This allowed them to dictate more favorable terms, simplify their product lineup, and successfully execute a focused marketing campaign. Other vendors must cede concessions to the carriers, have complicated product matrices, and fracture their marketing efforts across those carriers and products. Had Apple simply copied the more established vendors’ strategies, they would likely have been just another phone vendor. Instead, Apple chose not to follow the herd and single-handedly created an entirely new market.

The article also notes that Google’s strategy for their Android phones is reminiscent of the old, failed way. This does not bode well for success against the iPhone.

These Aren't the Droids You're Looking For

The current Droid teaser ads assert a few points. I’d like to discuss each:

iDon’t have a real keyboard: This has been a common complaint about the iPhone since day one. Honestly, I had serious concerns about the iPhone not having a real keyboard myself when it was first released. And when I first used my iPod Touch (essentially the same thing as an iPhone for purposes of the keyboard) I had some difficulty with it. But the more I practiced, and with each update to the iPhone/iPod Touch software, I got much more efficient with the virtual keyboard. Now I feel completely comfortable with it. And I have observed users who are insanely fast typing on the iPhone – with one hand even! I believe that most people who complain about the iPhone virtual keyboard have never used it or have only given it cursory usage.

But it doesn’t really matter what technical people like myself think. As far as marketshare goes, what is important is what the mainstream user thinks. I believe most mainstream users don’t really understand the relative merits of a “real” keyboard as compared to a virtual keyboard. But if a commercial like this makes them wonder about it, they’d just ask their iPhone using friends (of which they have plenty because smartphone users tend to flock together). Those friends would mostly say that they don’t really have a problem with the iPhone’s keyboard. And that would be the end of this argument in their minds. Score: iPhone 1 – Droid 0

Another point often overlooked about the iPhone’s virtual keyboard is that it can be easily customized for each language. So the exact same iPhone hardware that is manufactured for the US market can be easily loaded, for example, with the Chinese language software. This allows Apple to take advantage of massive economies of scale and worldwide ubiquity. Android phones made by many different manufacturers will need to be custom built for each language they support. This will make it difficult for other phone manufacturers to make as much profit as Apple does from each of their iPhones.

iDon’t run simultaneous apps: There’s nobody who appreciates geeky technology better than me (my wife would say there’s no bigger geek). And I certainly appreciate the ability to run simultaneous apps. But really, in using the iPhone, I can’t honestly say that the lack of running apps simultaneously has bothered me much. While simultaneous app usage is great on a desktop, I don’t think it translates quite as well to a handheld device. Apple’s position is that simultaneous apps can drain battery life (more on that later). That argument is yet to be proven with the Palm Pre and Google Android devices, so we’ll see. But once again, what does the mainstream user think? I think that most users have little concept what “simultaneous apps” could do for them, so this argument just goes over their head – and probably turns them off in the process. iPhone 2 – Droid 0

iDon’t take night shots: This argument is pretty specific and could be pretty effective. But how many smartphone users care that their phone can take night shots? Certainly the geekier among us can appreciate this feature. But I believe most users will think, “that’s neat” and not much more. iPhone 3 – Droid 0

iDon’t do open development: Ummm … yeah. Who cares? What does this even mean? Once again, geeky types might get the warm and fuzzies over this, but the average user has no idea what open development means for them. iPhone 4.5 – Droid 0 (I give the iPhone 1.5 points on this one because this argument is just so weak).

iDon’t customize: Really? I think the iPhone is pretty customizable. But hey, I’m just an average user (well, not really, but close enough). I think the mainstream user would find this confusing. What exactly is customizable? “Oh well, I guess I’m just not smart enough to know what that means so I’ll just ignore the Droid”. iPhone 5.5 – Droid 0

iDon’t have widgets: Honestly, I had to look this up. I wasn’t quite sure what Android widgets were (they weren’t part of the first Android release). And yes, I’m a super-geek as my wife would attest. So if I wasn’t clear on the whole widget concept, how is the average user going to know? Basically, once again, this goes over users heads and possibly turns them off to the whole Droid concept. iPhone 6.5 – Droid 0. Ironically, one of the concerns about widgets is that they may drain battery life, which leads to the next point.

iDon’t have interchangeable batteries: Yet another argument that has been around since day one of the iPhone. So far it hasn’t seemed to hinder iPhone adoption. I theorize that this is because the iPhone’s battery life is more than adequate for most users. Other users can fairly easily charge their phones at least once during the day (the iPhone seems to charge quite quickly). And for those who really need more battery life, there are third party products that can augment the iPhone battery. I believe that most users who own phones that have interchangeable batteries never purchase another battery.

Apple has proven with their MacBook laptops that by designing a battery that isn’t user interchangeable, they can increase the runtime as well as the lifetime of the battery. This is often overlooked by those that argue against the iPhone battery. Sufficient runtime and lifetime of a battery can negate the need for interchangeability. On the counter, if the software is not efficient (simultaneous apps and widgets?), it can increase the likelihood of needing an extra battery.

So far I’ve been fairly harsh on this ad, but let me state what I do like about it. It is clear and concise and plays on the perceived strengths of the Android platform. It isn’t the “100% You” blather that T-Mobile is putting out there, and it isn’t the touchy-feely existentialism that the Palm Pre phone ads portray. Combined with the “pick your network” ad campaign, this looks good for Verizon. The question is just how good?

Overall, I think this ad suffers from the same problem as the Palm Pre ads – they seem to be written by geeks for geeks. Sure the iPhone has a lot of geek appeal, but Apple knows they don’t need to sell to that market. The iPhone has been successful precisely because it targets the mainstream in features, ease of use, and marketing. It seems the other guys haven’t yet figured this out. Until they do, I don’t believe they’ll have much success.

You Can Pick Your Friends …

I’ve observed that Verizon has been running an ad campaign for a couple of weeks subtly attacking the iPhone. The campaign basically claims that Verizon’s network is superior to AT&T’s network by such a large margin that you should forget about any phone that doesn’t run on Verizon’s network. As they claim, “before you pick a phone, pick a network”. Obviously, the underlying message is “forget the iPhone – it doesn’t run on Verizon”.

I think this is actually a very good campaign because the message is clear and Verizon is playing on the perceived strength of its network. It can definitely make people think twice about buying an iPhone if they have any qualms about AT&T’s network. The question will be if the message resonates with enough people to put a dent in iPhone sales. I believe it boils down to whether or not people are more swayed by the marketing of a network or the marketing of devices. Personally, I think it is pretty clear that the mainstream is more apt to gravitate to an exciting, fun device than the relatively boring technology of a wireless network.

I think Verizon realizes this, however. What should not be missed is that Verizon has recently started the Droid campaign. It seems that Verizon is attempting a one-two punch at the iPhone. 1) our network is much better, and 2) we have devices that are better than the iPhone. I’ll write more on the Droid campaign in another article. The question for now is whether Verizon actually believes that Google Android phones are better than the iPhone, or if they are using this campaign to pressure Apple into releasing an iPhone on their network. Likely, Verizon knows that this strategy is their best chance of success either way.

If Verizon grows its customer base large enough with this campaign, they are in a much stronger position to negotiate with Apple, if they feel they even need the iPhone anymore. If enough customers switch away from AT&T (and the iPhone) because of their network, or if Google Android phones start to develop a significant enough following on Verizon’s network for Apple to notice, then it puts pressure on Apple to develop iPhones for Verizon’s network. The risk to Verizon is if this campaign isn’t very successful, it cements the iPhone’s dominance in the market and puts Apple solidly in the driver’s seat in any negotiations.