The Carpadium Blog is now hosted at the Carpadium.com site. Please follow the link to find all of the old entries, as well as all of the new entries.
M@
We have moved!
10 years ago
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Can anyone spell "mission critical"?
If you can, then please give the London Stock Exchange a call. They need your help. Seven hours is a whole lot of downtime for the world's 3rd largest market. I suspect it's a long way back from there to meet this year's SLAs.
M@
M@
Monday, September 8, 2008
It's all about the platform
I've been following the blogosphere closely over the last couple of weeks and I'm kicking myself that I didn't get this post out a little earlier! When I read articles like this it just confirms everything I believe about the essential elements of a good product and good product strategy.
That's because a successful, long-term product strategy involves a platform, not just a product. A platform has three essential components: an endpoint, some content and a distribution mechanism. Content and distribution are pretty much self explanatory. By endpoint, I mean a place for consumption to occur. In different markets and different products, the endpoint can be quite different, but its essential property is that it facilitates consumption by the end user.
For example, with cola-flavoured beverages, the content is the drink itself, the distribution mechanism is the fleet of vans and supporting warehouse infrastructure that get the soft drinks into stores, and the endpoint is the can or bottle. In the traditional (ie non-digital) music business, content is obvious - its the music itself - and distribution is pretty straightforward as well, it's the record companies ability to manufacture CDs and get them into the hands of the music buying public. What's the endpoint in this case? Devices like CD players and other stereo equipment components that allow an end user to play music.
With PCs the endpoint is the machine itself. The content is the operating system and applications that rely on it. Distribution revolves around the ability of operating system and application vendors to get their software onto the device and into the hands of users. Microsoft managed to create an amazingly (economically) successful ecosystem around the DOS and Windows operating systems by making sure that PC vendors shipped it pre-installed. The mechanisms they used to make this happen have already been the subject of many column inches, so I won't go into them further here.
Domination in a market occurs if a single player (or group of players) manages to gain control over one or more of the three essential components, or if a player manages to commoditise one or more of the parts. This is best understood by example.
In the PC business, Microsoft's great innovation happened a long time ago - way back in the early days of DOS, and it was only partly technical. Whether or not it was Microsoft's intent at the time is another story altogether, but the the real innovation was that DOS commoditised the hardware platform. DOS created a nexus between hardware and applications that allowed the hardware vendors to ignore the application software, and software vendors to largely ignore the hardware. Consumers ended up with choice in hardware, and consequently, choice in application software. The creation of an intermediary "standard" was the thing that really allowed the PC market to explode. With this in place, there was proliferation of hardware vendors and a proliferation of software vendors too.
This is a classic case of commoditising the endpoint. They also managed to wrap up distribution by tying the sale of Windows to the sale of a new PC, rather than the sale of the operating system itself. Cleverly from Microsoft's point of view, it didn't matter whether the machine actually had the operating system installed because the deals that MS struck with Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) were based on hardware sales. For each box they sold, they had to pay Microsoft a license, a trend that continued right through the transition to Windows.
It's worth considering the fact that while the price of PC hardware has dropped by more than an order of magnitude over the lifetime of Microsoft's operating system dominance, the cost of the operating system has increased by more than an order of magnitude. That makes it pretty clear which part of the network ended up being commoditised.
The music business is interesting because we can see the endpoint/content/distribution framework in action in the traditional physical music market as well as with digital music, but with some very different players. In the traditional music business, distribution is more or less completely controlled by the record companies. Up until the advent of the iTunes Music Store (and notwithstanding the small number of independent music stores) the vast majority of physical music sales occurred through large national or global chain stores, such as Sanity here in Australia, Virgin and, HMV globally, and Walmart in North America. The music played on radio stations is also heavily influenced by record companies, by legal means or otherwise. The subtlety of that part of the music business is beyond the scope of this post, but if you're interested, see Wikipedia for "payola".
The difference with digital music is not that the endpoint/content/distribution framework has changed, but rather that the players have changed. And if you have any remaining questions that Apple's iTunes Music Store has changed the game in the music business, then the fact the store sold its 5 billionth song in June this year should relieve you of any doubt.
What Apple managed to do to change the game is create a great endpoint in the iPod that consumers the world over just love, and a highly compelling distribution model in the iTunes Music Store that makes it so easy to buy digital music that it verges on the transparent. The end-to-end user experience enabled by the iPod and iTunes is so compelling that the iPod is now the most successful consumer product of all time. Tellingly, the company that Apple knocked off the perch for most successful product of all time (Sony, with the Walkman) is also one of the companies likely to experience some pain when their control over the distribution of music changes as consumer tastes switch from CDs to digital music.
In many ways, the change in the game that occurred in the music business has strong parallels in the PC business. The pattern is clear: a new player emerges on the back of a compelling endpoint, and then delivers a distribution mechanism that just blows away the competition. The iPod/iTMS combination is vastly superior in terms of the end-to-end experience (but arguably, not sound quality) than the CD/store combination. The Google user experience changed the game on search, which they then went on to overlay with an amazingly profitable advertising business model, as well as a variety of new user services which the competition just do not seem to be able to match.
In both cases, the incumbent didn't really see the change coming, and when they finally did, tried everything to ignore it or make it go away. By the time they reacted, it was just too late. Or at least, it looks like it was too late. Apple's success with the iPod and iTunes represents one of the most amazing turnarounds in corporate history, and although there is a lot of competition, both in terms of MP3 devices and distribution mechanisms for digital music, few apart from Apple seem to have any real traction.
In terms of the operating system market, we are probably a little further away from declaring such a convincing winner, but the signs are definitely there. They must be worrying for Microsoft as it continues to struggle for mind share with Vista. Perhaps more worrying is the fact that its online properties (with the exception of PhotoSynth - which is really brilliant) have little to recommend them. There is no question that the Microsoft business model generates staggering amounts of cash from operating systems and desktop applications, but the point here is simply that its not impenetrable.
What I find fascinating is that few seem to have noticed that Apple looks very likely to repeat the success of the iPod/iTMS combination with the iPhone and the iPhone App Store. All of the pieces are in place: a compelling endpoint in the iPhone and a distribution system that connects application developers with consumers like never before. Analysts have been quick to predict failure for Apple and the iPhone, not to mention the end of the run for the iPod. The reality is that Apple just keeps getting stronger, and if Mac sales continue this kind of growth, there may be some very different conversations about the power base of the PC industry in the future.
The amusing thing for an observer is that the role played by Big Music in the iPod/iTMS product mix is now being played by Big Telcos. They just do not seem to get what is going on. And if you need any clearer proof of this fact, check out the pricing plans for an iPhone on Telstra's NextG network here in Australia. Are they serious?
The risk for Apple is in maintaining this success without looking like its developing a monopoly that harms consumers. I don't think that they will have any problems maintaining this with the iPod/iTMS combination because there are many alternatives (just not very many good ones). Just because you have the most compelling product does not mean you are extracting monopoly rents. However, it might be different with the App Store. If its early success continues, then the 30% margin that Apple takes on all App Store sales might raise some questions. However, as with the iPod, no one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. Which is quite a different scenario to the PC world, where even if you do not want to run Windows on your machine, in most cases you still end up paying for it.
From a product perspective, the takeaway here is how powerful the combination of great endpoint, compelling distribution and engaging content can be. The advice to incumbents at risk of losing their endowments is to consider that all three parts of the platform need to be working effectively. When one leg weakens, the whole stool can fall down, but when all three are strong, then it forms the basis of a truly great product.
M@
That's because a successful, long-term product strategy involves a platform, not just a product. A platform has three essential components: an endpoint, some content and a distribution mechanism. Content and distribution are pretty much self explanatory. By endpoint, I mean a place for consumption to occur. In different markets and different products, the endpoint can be quite different, but its essential property is that it facilitates consumption by the end user.
For example, with cola-flavoured beverages, the content is the drink itself, the distribution mechanism is the fleet of vans and supporting warehouse infrastructure that get the soft drinks into stores, and the endpoint is the can or bottle. In the traditional (ie non-digital) music business, content is obvious - its the music itself - and distribution is pretty straightforward as well, it's the record companies ability to manufacture CDs and get them into the hands of the music buying public. What's the endpoint in this case? Devices like CD players and other stereo equipment components that allow an end user to play music.
With PCs the endpoint is the machine itself. The content is the operating system and applications that rely on it. Distribution revolves around the ability of operating system and application vendors to get their software onto the device and into the hands of users. Microsoft managed to create an amazingly (economically) successful ecosystem around the DOS and Windows operating systems by making sure that PC vendors shipped it pre-installed. The mechanisms they used to make this happen have already been the subject of many column inches, so I won't go into them further here.
Domination in a market occurs if a single player (or group of players) manages to gain control over one or more of the three essential components, or if a player manages to commoditise one or more of the parts. This is best understood by example.
In the PC business, Microsoft's great innovation happened a long time ago - way back in the early days of DOS, and it was only partly technical. Whether or not it was Microsoft's intent at the time is another story altogether, but the the real innovation was that DOS commoditised the hardware platform. DOS created a nexus between hardware and applications that allowed the hardware vendors to ignore the application software, and software vendors to largely ignore the hardware. Consumers ended up with choice in hardware, and consequently, choice in application software. The creation of an intermediary "standard" was the thing that really allowed the PC market to explode. With this in place, there was proliferation of hardware vendors and a proliferation of software vendors too.
This is a classic case of commoditising the endpoint. They also managed to wrap up distribution by tying the sale of Windows to the sale of a new PC, rather than the sale of the operating system itself. Cleverly from Microsoft's point of view, it didn't matter whether the machine actually had the operating system installed because the deals that MS struck with Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) were based on hardware sales. For each box they sold, they had to pay Microsoft a license, a trend that continued right through the transition to Windows.
It's worth considering the fact that while the price of PC hardware has dropped by more than an order of magnitude over the lifetime of Microsoft's operating system dominance, the cost of the operating system has increased by more than an order of magnitude. That makes it pretty clear which part of the network ended up being commoditised.
The music business is interesting because we can see the endpoint/content/distribution framework in action in the traditional physical music market as well as with digital music, but with some very different players. In the traditional music business, distribution is more or less completely controlled by the record companies. Up until the advent of the iTunes Music Store (and notwithstanding the small number of independent music stores) the vast majority of physical music sales occurred through large national or global chain stores, such as Sanity here in Australia, Virgin and, HMV globally, and Walmart in North America. The music played on radio stations is also heavily influenced by record companies, by legal means or otherwise. The subtlety of that part of the music business is beyond the scope of this post, but if you're interested, see Wikipedia for "payola".
The difference with digital music is not that the endpoint/content/distribution framework has changed, but rather that the players have changed. And if you have any remaining questions that Apple's iTunes Music Store has changed the game in the music business, then the fact the store sold its 5 billionth song in June this year should relieve you of any doubt.
What Apple managed to do to change the game is create a great endpoint in the iPod that consumers the world over just love, and a highly compelling distribution model in the iTunes Music Store that makes it so easy to buy digital music that it verges on the transparent. The end-to-end user experience enabled by the iPod and iTunes is so compelling that the iPod is now the most successful consumer product of all time. Tellingly, the company that Apple knocked off the perch for most successful product of all time (Sony, with the Walkman) is also one of the companies likely to experience some pain when their control over the distribution of music changes as consumer tastes switch from CDs to digital music.
In many ways, the change in the game that occurred in the music business has strong parallels in the PC business. The pattern is clear: a new player emerges on the back of a compelling endpoint, and then delivers a distribution mechanism that just blows away the competition. The iPod/iTMS combination is vastly superior in terms of the end-to-end experience (but arguably, not sound quality) than the CD/store combination. The Google user experience changed the game on search, which they then went on to overlay with an amazingly profitable advertising business model, as well as a variety of new user services which the competition just do not seem to be able to match.
In both cases, the incumbent didn't really see the change coming, and when they finally did, tried everything to ignore it or make it go away. By the time they reacted, it was just too late. Or at least, it looks like it was too late. Apple's success with the iPod and iTunes represents one of the most amazing turnarounds in corporate history, and although there is a lot of competition, both in terms of MP3 devices and distribution mechanisms for digital music, few apart from Apple seem to have any real traction.
In terms of the operating system market, we are probably a little further away from declaring such a convincing winner, but the signs are definitely there. They must be worrying for Microsoft as it continues to struggle for mind share with Vista. Perhaps more worrying is the fact that its online properties (with the exception of PhotoSynth - which is really brilliant) have little to recommend them. There is no question that the Microsoft business model generates staggering amounts of cash from operating systems and desktop applications, but the point here is simply that its not impenetrable.
What I find fascinating is that few seem to have noticed that Apple looks very likely to repeat the success of the iPod/iTMS combination with the iPhone and the iPhone App Store. All of the pieces are in place: a compelling endpoint in the iPhone and a distribution system that connects application developers with consumers like never before. Analysts have been quick to predict failure for Apple and the iPhone, not to mention the end of the run for the iPod. The reality is that Apple just keeps getting stronger, and if Mac sales continue this kind of growth, there may be some very different conversations about the power base of the PC industry in the future.
The amusing thing for an observer is that the role played by Big Music in the iPod/iTMS product mix is now being played by Big Telcos. They just do not seem to get what is going on. And if you need any clearer proof of this fact, check out the pricing plans for an iPhone on Telstra's NextG network here in Australia. Are they serious?
The risk for Apple is in maintaining this success without looking like its developing a monopoly that harms consumers. I don't think that they will have any problems maintaining this with the iPod/iTMS combination because there are many alternatives (just not very many good ones). Just because you have the most compelling product does not mean you are extracting monopoly rents. However, it might be different with the App Store. If its early success continues, then the 30% margin that Apple takes on all App Store sales might raise some questions. However, as with the iPod, no one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. Which is quite a different scenario to the PC world, where even if you do not want to run Windows on your machine, in most cases you still end up paying for it.
From a product perspective, the takeaway here is how powerful the combination of great endpoint, compelling distribution and engaging content can be. The advice to incumbents at risk of losing their endowments is to consider that all three parts of the platform need to be working effectively. When one leg weakens, the whole stool can fall down, but when all three are strong, then it forms the basis of a truly great product.
M@
Monday, August 18, 2008
Update: iPhone arrives
Here's an update to my previous entry regarding the arrival of my new iPhone. The phone did eventually arrive, but not before about 4 visits to the Optus store to ask them where it was. I'm not sure who was telling stories in this process, Apple or Optus, but the bottom line was simply that the user experience of acquiring the phone was pretty crappy.
One good thing was that when the phone did arrive, the guys in the Optus store went out of their way to provision it for me, considering I walked into the store about 5 mins after it closed. It did require me to have a minor conniption first, but in the end they stayed around for an extra five minutes to make sure the phone worked.
As for the phone itself ... well, that's another story altogether. Apart from one freeze-up on the wife's phone (yet to be repeated so far), we've not had any of the problems that seem to have been reported elsewhere. Apparently, there will be a software update soon. We'll see.
One of the most impressive things about the phone is the AppStore. The ease with which I can get an app deployed to my phone as an end user, and the equal ease with which I can build a deploy an app to a ready marketplace as a developer are a truly remarkable bit of business building on the part of Apple.
M@
One good thing was that when the phone did arrive, the guys in the Optus store went out of their way to provision it for me, considering I walked into the store about 5 mins after it closed. It did require me to have a minor conniption first, but in the end they stayed around for an extra five minutes to make sure the phone worked.
As for the phone itself ... well, that's another story altogether. Apart from one freeze-up on the wife's phone (yet to be repeated so far), we've not had any of the problems that seem to have been reported elsewhere. Apparently, there will be a software update soon. We'll see.
One of the most impressive things about the phone is the AppStore. The ease with which I can get an app deployed to my phone as an end user, and the equal ease with which I can build a deploy an app to a ready marketplace as a developer are a truly remarkable bit of business building on the part of Apple.
M@
Moving to a new hosting provider
Today I kicked off the process of changing the company's hosting provider. What I initially thought was going to be a nightmare process, actually turned out to be pretty easy. I'm amazed at the level of sophistication of hosting providers these days, and the prices are pretty low as well. As expected, I'm still waiting for all of the domain transfers to happen, so we'll see if I'm still thinking this was good idea in two days time.
M@
M@
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Two different ways to say the same thing
[1] Ideas are just a multiplier of execution Derek Sivers, ONlamp.com
[2] The Hollow Men T S Eliot
Tip o' the hat to Daring Fireball for spotting the first one. Which twigged me onto the second one - probably my favourite lines of poetry ever.
It’s so funny when I hear people being so protective of ideas.
(People who want me to sign an NDA to tell me the simplest idea.)
To me, ideas are worth nothing unless executed. They are just a
multiplier. Execution is worth millions.
Explanation:
AWFUL IDEA = -1
WEAK IDEA = 1
SO-SO IDEA = 5
GOOD IDEA = 10
GREAT IDEA = 15
BRILLIANT IDEA = 20
NO EXECUTION = $1
WEAK EXECUTION = $1000
SO-SO- EXECUTION = $10,000
GOOD EXECUTION = $100,000
GREAT EXECUTION = $1,000,000
BRILLIANT EXECUTION = $10,000,000
To make a business, you need to multiply the two. The most brilliant
idea, with no execution, is worth $20. The most brilliant idea takes
great execution to be worth $20,000,000. That’s why I don’t want to
hear people’s ideas. I’m not interested until I see their execution.
[2] The Hollow Men T S Eliot
...
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long
...
Tip o' the hat to Daring Fireball for spotting the first one. Which twigged me onto the second one - probably my favourite lines of poetry ever.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Search is a solved problem ... or is it?
How's this for an out of the blue development. Just when you thought that search was a solved problem, with Google the only answer - along comes this: Cuil. Apparently "Cuil" is shorthand for "cool". Or a synonym, perhaps.
If nothing else, the look and feel of this search engine really sets it apart from Google. I know that the minimalist feel of Google has always been part of its charm, but am I the only one who things that it's starting to look a little tired these days?
Or maybe this is another Google job application. Perhaps not, the founders of Cuil appear to have a prior (employment) connection with Google.
M@
If nothing else, the look and feel of this search engine really sets it apart from Google. I know that the minimalist feel of Google has always been part of its charm, but am I the only one who things that it's starting to look a little tired these days?
Or maybe this is another Google job application. Perhaps not, the founders of Cuil appear to have a prior (employment) connection with Google.
M@
Is it smashed crab, bruised knee or dropped pie?
Apparently, my photo is causing enormous offense to friends, family and colleagues. So I'll be taking it down over the weekend and replacing it with a new one. Unless someone can think of something better?
M@
M@
Friday, July 11, 2008
Remind me, to what does my $50 iPhone holding deposit entitle me Mr Optus?
When the iPhone 3G was announced at the WWDC last month, I had the misfortune (or good fortune, depending on how you look at it) of being awake at 5:00am in the morning thanks to a pair of restless children. Making the most of the opportunity, I had a look at Apple's web site and noticed that there were some links to where the iPhone would be available in Australia. Again, as luck would have it, the carrier that currently lugs around my BlackBerry, Optus, was mentioned as a source of iPhone 3G goodness, so I followed a few links [1] and found myself in what I thought was the privileged position of laying down a $50 holding deposit. Without really knowing what I was getting myself in for, I happily signed up for not one, but two new 3G iPhones. Of course, the fine print doesn't promise anything of the sort (as we will soon see).
I was quite happy with myself for doing this, and there was certainly more than one occasion between then and today when I had gloated (quietly, of course) to friends and family about how I was on a short list to get an iPhone. I only kicked up my gloating ever so slightly when news spread that both Optus and Vodafone had stopped taking reservations. I though that I was sitting pretty.
However, this is just about when it all started to go pear shaped. After receiving an e-mail from Optus reinforcing my sense of hipness, I was encourged to log onto a special iPhone site, designed only for Optus customers. Perhaps "designed" is overstating the case a little. First of all, I simply could not log on. This was not a load issue, it was (apparently) an "incorrect registration code" issue. I tried again, to no avail, then checked the FAQ, which politely informed me that the problems were "mostly to do with people incorrectly typing in their passwords and registration codes". Sure. The fact that you have to put an entry like that into the FAQ tells me something is wrong, and it's not with the users.
After several failed log in attempts I tried a password reset, and that failed as well. I was starting to get concerned. I shot them off a quick "can you help" e-mail. And guess what? I got not response. Not even an automated one. Hmmm. This is starting to look grim. I tried again the next day (Tuesday of this week), and there you go, I'm in. I wonder if there had been some late night development work behind the scenes ... or was it just that all of the users clued up at the same time? Who knows.
Anyway, what did I get for my efforts? A page that contained details of my deposit. Hot diggity. That was worth the wait.
Apart for the mind blowing 12 point Courier <pre> copy of my deposit, there were some instructions about what to do on iPhone day. The main nugget of advice was to bring a printed copy of the receipt, along with appropriate ID, to the Optus store where you had registered your interest. And it also informed me that I was very, very lucky indeed to be eligible to line up on iPhone Day in the priority queue. Tops.
To be perfectly honest, I wasn't all that interested in going out of my way just to get an iPhone on the first day. I would have much preferred to have put in an online order (which I would have been happy to pay for in advance) and then just waited in the comfort of my own home for the thing to arrive. But no, for whatever reason, all of the local Australian telcos have decided that the only way to get an iPhone is to line-up like an knob out the front of a store. Like I've said before, I'm a fan of Apple kit, but I really don't get all of this product worship crap. The beauty is in the use, not in the worship.
However, in this case, I was on a priority queue. So off I trundle this morning at about 7am for a nice morning walk up to my nearest Optus phone store. When I get there - perhaps not surprisingly - there was a lineup of about 250 people. Fair enough. But I'm in a priority queue. As it turns out, no I'm not. In fact, there is no such thing as a priority queue, it's every person for themselves. All 250-odd of them.
And it's right about now that it gets even better. I poked my nose into the front of the queue where there was a pair of Optus phone drones handing out raffle tickets to people in the line and asked them about the priority queue. Nope. No priority queue. You have to line up. Great. Next bit of news. There are only 5 16GB iPhones in the store. And they were already gone.
At this point, I shrugged my shoulders in disgust and walked off. There was no way - NONE - that I was going to wait in a line with 300 other people (yeah, it'd had grown by 50 people by now) to wait for the opportunity to be frustrated that I would not be able to get the phone I wanted. So, all I managed to get for my pair of $50 deposits was a nice walk through North Sydney on a crisp but clear winter morning. I'll just have to wait a little bit longer to my hands on an iPhone. The really bizzare thing, however, is that when I checked my credit card transactions after the walk, I noticed that Optus had already given me a refund on the deposits. Very strange. Perhaps they knew something that I didn't.
The puzzling thing about all this is that it would have to be the complete antithesis of my recent Mac purchase experience. Traditionally, Apple is an organisation that likes to exert significant control over the entire, end-to-end user experience. And for the most part, that experience is a very, very good one. In my case today, it wasn't. It sucked.
How'd you go with your iPhone quest?
M@
[1] For those of you playing at home, the Optus website is perhaps only exceeded in its maddening horribleness by the Telstra BigPond website. For example, the Optus site is so bad, that if your session times out, you have to close the browser before it will let you back in. Both of these organisations are Telcos. I think there's a pattern developing here ...
[2] And to top this all off, we heard this evening that the first nutter in the queue at the George St Sydney Optus store ... wait for it ... was an Optus employee. Not a plant, says Optus. No, of course not! On reflection, I'm probably prepared to believe them on this - they couldn't organise a simple priority queue, so why would I expect them to be able to pull of this stunt? Never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence.
I was quite happy with myself for doing this, and there was certainly more than one occasion between then and today when I had gloated (quietly, of course) to friends and family about how I was on a short list to get an iPhone. I only kicked up my gloating ever so slightly when news spread that both Optus and Vodafone had stopped taking reservations. I though that I was sitting pretty.
However, this is just about when it all started to go pear shaped. After receiving an e-mail from Optus reinforcing my sense of hipness, I was encourged to log onto a special iPhone site, designed only for Optus customers. Perhaps "designed" is overstating the case a little. First of all, I simply could not log on. This was not a load issue, it was (apparently) an "incorrect registration code" issue. I tried again, to no avail, then checked the FAQ, which politely informed me that the problems were "mostly to do with people incorrectly typing in their passwords and registration codes". Sure. The fact that you have to put an entry like that into the FAQ tells me something is wrong, and it's not with the users.
After several failed log in attempts I tried a password reset, and that failed as well. I was starting to get concerned. I shot them off a quick "can you help" e-mail. And guess what? I got not response. Not even an automated one. Hmmm. This is starting to look grim. I tried again the next day (Tuesday of this week), and there you go, I'm in. I wonder if there had been some late night development work behind the scenes ... or was it just that all of the users clued up at the same time? Who knows.
Anyway, what did I get for my efforts? A page that contained details of my deposit. Hot diggity. That was worth the wait.
Apart for the mind blowing 12 point Courier <pre> copy of my deposit, there were some instructions about what to do on iPhone day. The main nugget of advice was to bring a printed copy of the receipt, along with appropriate ID, to the Optus store where you had registered your interest. And it also informed me that I was very, very lucky indeed to be eligible to line up on iPhone Day in the priority queue. Tops.
To be perfectly honest, I wasn't all that interested in going out of my way just to get an iPhone on the first day. I would have much preferred to have put in an online order (which I would have been happy to pay for in advance) and then just waited in the comfort of my own home for the thing to arrive. But no, for whatever reason, all of the local Australian telcos have decided that the only way to get an iPhone is to line-up like an knob out the front of a store. Like I've said before, I'm a fan of Apple kit, but I really don't get all of this product worship crap. The beauty is in the use, not in the worship.
However, in this case, I was on a priority queue. So off I trundle this morning at about 7am for a nice morning walk up to my nearest Optus phone store. When I get there - perhaps not surprisingly - there was a lineup of about 250 people. Fair enough. But I'm in a priority queue. As it turns out, no I'm not. In fact, there is no such thing as a priority queue, it's every person for themselves. All 250-odd of them.
And it's right about now that it gets even better. I poked my nose into the front of the queue where there was a pair of Optus phone drones handing out raffle tickets to people in the line and asked them about the priority queue. Nope. No priority queue. You have to line up. Great. Next bit of news. There are only 5 16GB iPhones in the store. And they were already gone.
At this point, I shrugged my shoulders in disgust and walked off. There was no way - NONE - that I was going to wait in a line with 300 other people (yeah, it'd had grown by 50 people by now) to wait for the opportunity to be frustrated that I would not be able to get the phone I wanted. So, all I managed to get for my pair of $50 deposits was a nice walk through North Sydney on a crisp but clear winter morning. I'll just have to wait a little bit longer to my hands on an iPhone. The really bizzare thing, however, is that when I checked my credit card transactions after the walk, I noticed that Optus had already given me a refund on the deposits. Very strange. Perhaps they knew something that I didn't.
The puzzling thing about all this is that it would have to be the complete antithesis of my recent Mac purchase experience. Traditionally, Apple is an organisation that likes to exert significant control over the entire, end-to-end user experience. And for the most part, that experience is a very, very good one. In my case today, it wasn't. It sucked.
How'd you go with your iPhone quest?
M@
[1] For those of you playing at home, the Optus website is perhaps only exceeded in its maddening horribleness by the Telstra BigPond website. For example, the Optus site is so bad, that if your session times out, you have to close the browser before it will let you back in. Both of these organisations are Telcos. I think there's a pattern developing here ...
[2] And to top this all off, we heard this evening that the first nutter in the queue at the George St Sydney Optus store ... wait for it ... was an Optus employee. Not a plant, says Optus. No, of course not! On reflection, I'm probably prepared to believe them on this - they couldn't organise a simple priority queue, so why would I expect them to be able to pull of this stunt? Never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Facebook worth less?
In a followup to this post [1], it seems that some are now questioning the real value of Facebook [2].
And who is "some" in that sentance? Facebook itself. And the internal value is about US$3.75 billion, which is a whole lot less than the the US$15 billion that was placed on them after the injection of funds from Microsoft.
Update: I really, really, profoundly apologise to all the Hypercard fans for the slur! Sorry about that. I genuinely do think Hypercard was a brilliant innovation, it just missed the simple step of enabling remote decks. Had it done that, I think the Internet would look a whole lot different. The connection I was trying to draw was more along the lines of the fact that I suspect both of them will represent intersting cul-de-sacs in the history of technology, but will not ultimately end up as a ubiquitous platform. Kind of like PointCast [3], I suspect.
M@
[1] Facebook == Hypercard (perhaps I should rename this to ~=)
[2] Facebook worth a guessing game
[3] PointCast Network
And who is "some" in that sentance? Facebook itself. And the internal value is about US$3.75 billion, which is a whole lot less than the the US$15 billion that was placed on them after the injection of funds from Microsoft.
Update: I really, really, profoundly apologise to all the Hypercard fans for the slur! Sorry about that. I genuinely do think Hypercard was a brilliant innovation, it just missed the simple step of enabling remote decks. Had it done that, I think the Internet would look a whole lot different. The connection I was trying to draw was more along the lines of the fact that I suspect both of them will represent intersting cul-de-sacs in the history of technology, but will not ultimately end up as a ubiquitous platform. Kind of like PointCast [3], I suspect.
M@
[1] Facebook == Hypercard (perhaps I should rename this to ~=)
[2] Facebook worth a guessing game
[3] PointCast Network
An interesting spin on the net-neutrality debate
Here's an interesting spin on the net neutrality debate:
The Internet vs The Internet Dynamic
What I like about this is the way Bob Frankston is really asking some very tough "Elephant in the Room" type questions. You can see precisely the type of thinking that underlies Telco's activities in some of the pricing decisions around data plans for the iPhone 3G, here, here, here and here.
What a mess!
M@
The Internet vs The Internet Dynamic
What I like about this is the way Bob Frankston is really asking some very tough "Elephant in the Room" type questions. You can see precisely the type of thinking that underlies Telco's activities in some of the pricing decisions around data plans for the iPhone 3G, here, here, here and here.
What a mess!
M@
Friday, June 27, 2008
An alternative to "yesterday, today, blockages" reporting in an Agile stand-up
The standard reporting technique for an Agile stand-up is to run around the team and get everyone to quickly report on three things:
One thing that we've tried that can improve the stand-up is to reduce the standard three questions down to just two:
I know this might sound a little like heresy, but it does actually work, as long as you are very diligent to watch out for two specific pitfalls. These are:
I don't think that this is a substitute for the normal 3-point reporting style, but some stand-ups just get a little larger than you would like, and often this can be out of your control.
I'll see how this new technique goes over the next couple of weeks, and then follow-up with my findings.
M@
- What I did yesterday
- What I am going to do today
- Blockages
One thing that we've tried that can improve the stand-up is to reduce the standard three questions down to just two:
- Achievements
- Blockages
I know this might sound a little like heresy, but it does actually work, as long as you are very diligent to watch out for two specific pitfalls. These are:
- "My tasks are 95% complete"
- "I have nothing to report"
I don't think that this is a substitute for the normal 3-point reporting style, but some stand-ups just get a little larger than you would like, and often this can be out of your control.
I'll see how this new technique goes over the next couple of weeks, and then follow-up with my findings.
M@
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Facebook == Hypercard ... ?
The New York Times is reporting [1] that LinkedIn is valued at $1b. This is deeply troubling.
Whilst I have a lot more time for LinkedIn than I do for FaceBook (because it actually has a purpose), I'm still deeply concerned about a $1b valuation for it.
If ever there was a "HAM radio for the Internet", it's social networking. And if you need proof, take a look at OpenSocial. This platform takes the data model that underlies any kind of social graph and makes it open and public. In the (very near) future, simply being a social networking site won't be enough, because every site of any form will be able to expose its social graph and interact with other nodes in the wider, semantic web.
FaceBook (and to a lesser extent LinkedIn) have done a great job kicking off the idea, but because they are both closed systems, they will inevitably be overtaken by things like OpenSocial and the rest of the long tail Internet making use of that library and API.
Here's an analogy:
FaceBook == Hypercard
OpenSocial == Internet
Where are they both today?
BTW: If any of the social network sites has a chance of breaking out of simply representing a social graph, it's probably LinkedIn (or maybe Plaxo). Both of these sites actually do something with the graph that is useful to people. LinkedIn is monetising its data through an alternative to traditional job ads, and Plaxo provides a way for poor, troubled Windows users to sync address/calendar across multiple devices (wait until MobileMe arrives!)
FaceBook, on the other hand, just fills your inbox with crap.
And don't just take my word for it. Google agrees: [1].
For the record, I actually think that Hypercard was a far, far more revolutionary idea (for its time) than FaceBook. Had they just made the leap to allow cards to link to cards on other machines, then the web may have been kick started a few years earlier.
M@
[1] A social site, only the businesslike need apply
[2] Google's view: 3 trends in social networking
Whilst I have a lot more time for LinkedIn than I do for FaceBook (because it actually has a purpose), I'm still deeply concerned about a $1b valuation for it.
If ever there was a "HAM radio for the Internet", it's social networking. And if you need proof, take a look at OpenSocial. This platform takes the data model that underlies any kind of social graph and makes it open and public. In the (very near) future, simply being a social networking site won't be enough, because every site of any form will be able to expose its social graph and interact with other nodes in the wider, semantic web.
FaceBook (and to a lesser extent LinkedIn) have done a great job kicking off the idea, but because they are both closed systems, they will inevitably be overtaken by things like OpenSocial and the rest of the long tail Internet making use of that library and API.
Here's an analogy:
FaceBook == Hypercard
OpenSocial == Internet
Where are they both today?
BTW: If any of the social network sites has a chance of breaking out of simply representing a social graph, it's probably LinkedIn (or maybe Plaxo). Both of these sites actually do something with the graph that is useful to people. LinkedIn is monetising its data through an alternative to traditional job ads, and Plaxo provides a way for poor, troubled Windows users to sync address/calendar across multiple devices (wait until MobileMe arrives!)
FaceBook, on the other hand, just fills your inbox with crap.
And don't just take my word for it. Google agrees: [1].
For the record, I actually think that Hypercard was a far, far more revolutionary idea (for its time) than FaceBook. Had they just made the leap to allow cards to link to cards on other machines, then the web may have been kick started a few years earlier.
M@
[1] A social site, only the businesslike need apply
[2] Google's view: 3 trends in social networking
Hardware Pr*n
Up until last week, it was over three years since I spent any real money on computer hardware. I have done some minor upgrades here and there, but no completely new machines. Well, a fortnight ago that all changed when my ageing laptop finally gave up completely.
It had been slowing down for a while - the WiFi was going bleak, the network connector was quite dodgy and required a wiggle every now and again to stay connected, and the built-in monitor was shaky at best, and full of interference lines and static when it was feeling poorly. On top of this, my desktop - once a mighty beast of a machine - was also in its last throws of death.
After a recent attempt to upgrade video cards to support a pair of new 22" monitors, it was suffering from a peculiar illness that caused it to suddenly die cold, with no warning other than the horrifying sound of the fan powering down as the power drained away and my unsaved document faded from view. And continuing the theme of technology decay, my DVD/PVR also gave up the ghost in the same week. By itself, that would not be too much of a problem (who gets time to watch TV anyway?) but it is a VERY BIG problem when two small children can't watch their daily fix of Pooh Bear and The Einsteins. So that needed replacing too. Excellent.
Part of the reason that I have waited for such a long time to upgrade was financial. Actually - that's most of the reason. But a small part was that I was waiting for Apple's June WWDC before I made any purchases just on the off chance that there could be some spunky new hardware announced. As expected, the WWDC focused on the iPhone, so I went to my local Apple reseller on Tuesday afternoon to put in an order. As an aside, I had contemplated waiting until the Apple store opened in Sydney last week to make the deal, but although I admit openly to liking Apple kit, its not (yet) to the point where I would prostrate myself at the altar that is the new Sydney Apple Store. Not quite ... Well, actually not at all. Certainly not like these kooks [1].
Also, if it's not obvious, my previous suite of IT kit was almost all beige-box PCs running Windows (there was 1 sneaky MacBook that my wife used), plus several even-older cast-off machines that I had managed to rebuild as Ubuntu boxes for a variety of random development tasks like s Subversion repository and a Wiki. This last bit is significant, because for about 15 years - most of my working life, really - I've been using DOS or Windows PCs.
Because it had been such a long time since I'd bought new equipment, when it came around to tooling up, I went a little nuts. I needed a new laptop AND a new desktop, and something to replace the DVD, not to mention a new laptop for my wife. So the order looked more or less like this: MacMini, check. MacBook, check. MacBook Pro, check. MacPro, double check. I went hard on the MacPro. Two 3.2 GHz quad-core Xeons, and 8Gb of RAM. In just under a week, it all turned up, which is where i got the title of this post. This stuff is hardware porn. I know that sounds completely ridiculous, but that's the best way I can think to describe it in only two words. Actually, its a terrible title, and its not at all what I mean, but it's catchy, and it probably got your attention. Sorry for the cheap trick.
But back to the MacPro - the thing that stands out for me at this early stage of ownership is Apple's attention to detail. Even the process of unboxing the thing was enjoyable. The box is about double the quality of any other PC box I've ever seen, and the internal packaging is even more robust and well put together. You could look at this cynically and say its all a waste of time and money - I'm sure it's not cheap to put together - but what it says to me is this: if Apple is prepared to put that kind of effort into packaging, then it gives me a lot of confidence that they will put the same effort into their hardware and software too.
And I hope that's the case. It's been just under a week now, and I'm loving the new machines on a gut level. I wonder how I'll feel in a couple of
months? Already, I having some serious mental issues adjusting to some simple things like the differences in Control/Option/Command keys. I'm starting to get it, but slowly. Overall, the experience is one of speed, things flow and almost everything is more or less in the place that I expect it to be (something that I can't say about Windows even after 15 years of use). These feelings are all subjective at this stage as I bask in the post-purchase glow that seems to seduce most Apple customers. It will be interesting to come back in 6 months and see if I still feel the same way.
M@
[1] New Apple Store is a Glass Act
It had been slowing down for a while - the WiFi was going bleak, the network connector was quite dodgy and required a wiggle every now and again to stay connected, and the built-in monitor was shaky at best, and full of interference lines and static when it was feeling poorly. On top of this, my desktop - once a mighty beast of a machine - was also in its last throws of death.
After a recent attempt to upgrade video cards to support a pair of new 22" monitors, it was suffering from a peculiar illness that caused it to suddenly die cold, with no warning other than the horrifying sound of the fan powering down as the power drained away and my unsaved document faded from view. And continuing the theme of technology decay, my DVD/PVR also gave up the ghost in the same week. By itself, that would not be too much of a problem (who gets time to watch TV anyway?) but it is a VERY BIG problem when two small children can't watch their daily fix of Pooh Bear and The Einsteins. So that needed replacing too. Excellent.Part of the reason that I have waited for such a long time to upgrade was financial. Actually - that's most of the reason. But a small part was that I was waiting for Apple's June WWDC before I made any purchases just on the off chance that there could be some spunky new hardware announced. As expected, the WWDC focused on the iPhone, so I went to my local Apple reseller on Tuesday afternoon to put in an order. As an aside, I had contemplated waiting until the Apple store opened in Sydney last week to make the deal, but although I admit openly to liking Apple kit, its not (yet) to the point where I would prostrate myself at the altar that is the new Sydney Apple Store. Not quite ... Well, actually not at all. Certainly not like these kooks [1].
Also, if it's not obvious, my previous suite of IT kit was almost all beige-box PCs running Windows (there was 1 sneaky MacBook that my wife used), plus several even-older cast-off machines that I had managed to rebuild as Ubuntu boxes for a variety of random development tasks like s Subversion repository and a Wiki. This last bit is significant, because for about 15 years - most of my working life, really - I've been using DOS or Windows PCs.Because it had been such a long time since I'd bought new equipment, when it came around to tooling up, I went a little nuts. I needed a new laptop AND a new desktop, and something to replace the DVD, not to mention a new laptop for my wife. So the order looked more or less like this: MacMini, check. MacBook, check. MacBook Pro, check. MacPro, double check. I went hard on the MacPro. Two 3.2 GHz quad-core Xeons, and 8Gb of RAM. In just under a week, it all turned up, which is where i got the title of this post. This stuff is hardware porn. I know that sounds completely ridiculous, but that's the best way I can think to describe it in only two words. Actually, its a terrible title, and its not at all what I mean, but it's catchy, and it probably got your attention. Sorry for the cheap trick.
But back to the MacPro - the thing that stands out for me at this early stage of ownership is Apple's attention to detail. Even the process of unboxing the thing was enjoyable. The box is about double the quality of any other PC box I've ever seen, and the internal packaging is even more robust and well put together. You could look at this cynically and say its all a waste of time and money - I'm sure it's not cheap to put together - but what it says to me is this: if Apple is prepared to put that kind of effort into packaging, then it gives me a lot of confidence that they will put the same effort into their hardware and software too.And I hope that's the case. It's been just under a week now, and I'm loving the new machines on a gut level. I wonder how I'll feel in a couple of
months? Already, I having some serious mental issues adjusting to some simple things like the differences in Control/Option/Command keys. I'm starting to get it, but slowly. Overall, the experience is one of speed, things flow and almost everything is more or less in the place that I expect it to be (something that I can't say about Windows even after 15 years of use). These feelings are all subjective at this stage as I bask in the post-purchase glow that seems to seduce most Apple customers. It will be interesting to come back in 6 months and see if I still feel the same way.M@
[1] New Apple Store is a Glass Act
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Is transparent synchronisation the next killer app for mobiles?
So we are finally (officially) getting the iPhone in Australia! In what would have to be one of the most un-secret secrets in recent technology history, Steve Jobs today announced the second generation iPhone, along with a host of new countries where the uber sexy little gadget will be available.
Amid all of the fanfare about the iPhone, something struck me about the new Mobile Me service Apple will release in July. There has been past criticism from some quarters that Apple's .Mac service was poor value. I think you could probably make that argument pretty easily. However, this new service seems to be something else. For a start, it has some truly amazing web design (possibly, even as amazing as this, or this). [As an aside, the kinds of things that people are doing now in rich Internet applications and with the full toolbox of Web2.0 tricks is simply mind blowing. I don't think anyone considered 2 years ago that we would have applications of this quality.]
Mobile Me does two things. Firstly, it elevates all of a typical user's electronic stuff into the cloud. This is great, but certainly not unique - Google has been doing precisely this for some time. I think we can be sure that Apple will bring all of their usual user experience aplomb to the task, so the service will certainly be pleasurable to use. However, I think the real trick comes in the second part. Mobile Me also (at least on paper) appears to seamlessly synchronise this stuff across all of a user's devices.
As anyone with more than 1 device (desktop PC, laptop, phone) will know, synchronisation is a total nightmare. I currently use a BlackBerry [1], and even today I find myself fragging the BlackBerry calendar and overwriting it with the Outlook calendar on each sync because if I don't, then the BlackBerry will constantly double-up entries (particularly recurring appointments).
Perhaps more annoying is the fact that I have to start this bizzare and idiosyncratic little synchronisation application to make it all happen. As a consequence of the generally poor quality of synchronisation applications, most people have data that is out of sync or inconsistent, or they just don't bother with the process at all.
If Mobile Me delivers on the ability to push my stuff to the cloud, and then allows me to have a seamless, consistent, up-to-date view of that stuff from any device - from desktop, to laptop to mobile phone - then Apple will have pulled off a real coup. My guess is that they will deliver on this promise, underlying again their ability to "innovate through simplicity".
Which brings me to an observation about the relative approaches of Apple, Microsoft and Google - both in terms of technology and business model.
As we all know, Microsoft concentrates on the endpoint (at least traditionally), both on the PC and on the mobile device. It's all about Windows Vista and Windows Mobile. To play in the Microsoft ecosystem, you need to buy a license of some sort, and in the case of the vast majority of PCs, you don't even have a choice about it because the license comes as part of the purchase of each new machine.
Google is at the other end of the scale. Their entire service offering is in the cloud, and they give everything away for free, making (lots of) money on targeted advertising. Microsoft is certainly trying to respond to Google, but if you need any proof that they don't have a plan or a clue about how to compete online, then just check out their recent attempt to buy Yahoo.
So where does Apple fit in? Clearly, they have a strong story at the endpoint. The entire Mac hardware range, from laptops to desktops, is well regarded, and if recent sales figures are to be believed, are selling amazingly well. The Mac operating system is also a stand-out, and in stark contrast to Vista, seems to get almost nothing but high praise.
In my view, Apple's new Mobile Me offering places them equidistant from Microsoft and Google, with a service that makes the best use of their endpoint and operating system expertise, adds a cloud-based service layer that (on the surface) solves many of the traditional problems with synchronising multiple devices, mixed in with a subscription based charging model.
Such an economic proposition almost certainly means that Apple won't achieve the user scale of Google Apps (Mail, Calendar, Docs, etc) for Mobile Me, but it does allow them to target the premium end of the market - precisely the same market that they target with hardware sales, and one that is exceptionally profitable for the company.
In many ways, you could probably think of Mobile Me as a premium version of Google Apps in the same way that you can consider the Mac and Mac OS X as a premium version of a Windows PC. Of course, some would argue that these things are not even playing the same game, but allow me to stretch the metaphor for the sake of the discussion.
The real question is this: Where does it leave Microsoft? As an organisation, Microsoft lacks Google's capability in search or scale in advertising; Vista appears to be losing the operating system battle (at least in mind share, if not in volume) to OS X; and they do not appear to have anything nearly as compelling as Mobile Me as an online application. They will almost certainly attempt to turn the ship to deliver a suite of competitive services over the next 12 months or so, but where will Apple be in that time?
One final point that I think ties into this thread is the constant call for Apple to license OS X to third parties. Leaving aside all of the Hackintosh projects that are popping up, I do not think there is a snowball's chance that Apple will ever license their OS to anyone (again). And in any case, why would they bother? A compelling Mobile Me service that generates US$99/year per subscriber will generate a tidy revenue stream that will not in any way jeopardise Apple's healthy margins on the sales of Mac hardware. At the same time, Windows-based Mobile Me and iPhone users might be seduced to switch in the same way as the droves of iPod users who liked the seamless integration between the iPod and iTunes have done so up to now.
I expect that Apple has done its numbers properly to the point that any revenue lost through foregoing sharing argeements with carriers is more than compensated by a US$99/year subscription to Mobile Me. That is, of course, assuming that they can get enough subscribers. So I also expect that they will be trying to convert a big percentage of all new iPhone owners into Mobile Me subscribers as well.
The extent to which this is possible, I think, comes down to the success of Mobile Me. We have all been looking around for the next real killer application in the mobile space for some time [If you are wondering, the first two were obviously voice calls and SMS texting. UPDATE: Of course! Photos is number 3. Thanks Jen.]
Interestingly, the next killer mobile application may not be a mobile application at all, but rather, an application that makes it completely irrelevant and transparent that I am mobile. Regardless of whether I sit down at my desktop at home, my laptop in the airport lounge, or my phone on the go, I get the same, live, consistent view of all of my electronic stuff.
Apple really looks like they have cracked it with this one.
M@
[1] I was waiting for today's announcements from Apple before I replaced my entire technology kit. It's been over three years since I last splurged on decent technology infrastructure. So, come 9am this morning, I'm off to buy a new laptop and a new desktop. And I've already put my order in with Optus for a couple of 3G iPhones.
Amid all of the fanfare about the iPhone, something struck me about the new Mobile Me service Apple will release in July. There has been past criticism from some quarters that Apple's .Mac service was poor value. I think you could probably make that argument pretty easily. However, this new service seems to be something else. For a start, it has some truly amazing web design (possibly, even as amazing as this, or this). [As an aside, the kinds of things that people are doing now in rich Internet applications and with the full toolbox of Web2.0 tricks is simply mind blowing. I don't think anyone considered 2 years ago that we would have applications of this quality.]
Mobile Me does two things. Firstly, it elevates all of a typical user's electronic stuff into the cloud. This is great, but certainly not unique - Google has been doing precisely this for some time. I think we can be sure that Apple will bring all of their usual user experience aplomb to the task, so the service will certainly be pleasurable to use. However, I think the real trick comes in the second part. Mobile Me also (at least on paper) appears to seamlessly synchronise this stuff across all of a user's devices.
As anyone with more than 1 device (desktop PC, laptop, phone) will know, synchronisation is a total nightmare. I currently use a BlackBerry [1], and even today I find myself fragging the BlackBerry calendar and overwriting it with the Outlook calendar on each sync because if I don't, then the BlackBerry will constantly double-up entries (particularly recurring appointments).
Perhaps more annoying is the fact that I have to start this bizzare and idiosyncratic little synchronisation application to make it all happen. As a consequence of the generally poor quality of synchronisation applications, most people have data that is out of sync or inconsistent, or they just don't bother with the process at all.
If Mobile Me delivers on the ability to push my stuff to the cloud, and then allows me to have a seamless, consistent, up-to-date view of that stuff from any device - from desktop, to laptop to mobile phone - then Apple will have pulled off a real coup. My guess is that they will deliver on this promise, underlying again their ability to "innovate through simplicity".
Which brings me to an observation about the relative approaches of Apple, Microsoft and Google - both in terms of technology and business model.
As we all know, Microsoft concentrates on the endpoint (at least traditionally), both on the PC and on the mobile device. It's all about Windows Vista and Windows Mobile. To play in the Microsoft ecosystem, you need to buy a license of some sort, and in the case of the vast majority of PCs, you don't even have a choice about it because the license comes as part of the purchase of each new machine.
Google is at the other end of the scale. Their entire service offering is in the cloud, and they give everything away for free, making (lots of) money on targeted advertising. Microsoft is certainly trying to respond to Google, but if you need any proof that they don't have a plan or a clue about how to compete online, then just check out their recent attempt to buy Yahoo.
So where does Apple fit in? Clearly, they have a strong story at the endpoint. The entire Mac hardware range, from laptops to desktops, is well regarded, and if recent sales figures are to be believed, are selling amazingly well. The Mac operating system is also a stand-out, and in stark contrast to Vista, seems to get almost nothing but high praise.
In my view, Apple's new Mobile Me offering places them equidistant from Microsoft and Google, with a service that makes the best use of their endpoint and operating system expertise, adds a cloud-based service layer that (on the surface) solves many of the traditional problems with synchronising multiple devices, mixed in with a subscription based charging model.
Such an economic proposition almost certainly means that Apple won't achieve the user scale of Google Apps (Mail, Calendar, Docs, etc) for Mobile Me, but it does allow them to target the premium end of the market - precisely the same market that they target with hardware sales, and one that is exceptionally profitable for the company.
In many ways, you could probably think of Mobile Me as a premium version of Google Apps in the same way that you can consider the Mac and Mac OS X as a premium version of a Windows PC. Of course, some would argue that these things are not even playing the same game, but allow me to stretch the metaphor for the sake of the discussion.
The real question is this: Where does it leave Microsoft? As an organisation, Microsoft lacks Google's capability in search or scale in advertising; Vista appears to be losing the operating system battle (at least in mind share, if not in volume) to OS X; and they do not appear to have anything nearly as compelling as Mobile Me as an online application. They will almost certainly attempt to turn the ship to deliver a suite of competitive services over the next 12 months or so, but where will Apple be in that time?
One final point that I think ties into this thread is the constant call for Apple to license OS X to third parties. Leaving aside all of the Hackintosh projects that are popping up, I do not think there is a snowball's chance that Apple will ever license their OS to anyone (again). And in any case, why would they bother? A compelling Mobile Me service that generates US$99/year per subscriber will generate a tidy revenue stream that will not in any way jeopardise Apple's healthy margins on the sales of Mac hardware. At the same time, Windows-based Mobile Me and iPhone users might be seduced to switch in the same way as the droves of iPod users who liked the seamless integration between the iPod and iTunes have done so up to now.
I expect that Apple has done its numbers properly to the point that any revenue lost through foregoing sharing argeements with carriers is more than compensated by a US$99/year subscription to Mobile Me. That is, of course, assuming that they can get enough subscribers. So I also expect that they will be trying to convert a big percentage of all new iPhone owners into Mobile Me subscribers as well.
The extent to which this is possible, I think, comes down to the success of Mobile Me. We have all been looking around for the next real killer application in the mobile space for some time [If you are wondering, the first two were obviously voice calls and SMS texting. UPDATE: Of course! Photos is number 3. Thanks Jen.]
Interestingly, the next killer mobile application may not be a mobile application at all, but rather, an application that makes it completely irrelevant and transparent that I am mobile. Regardless of whether I sit down at my desktop at home, my laptop in the airport lounge, or my phone on the go, I get the same, live, consistent view of all of my electronic stuff.
Apple really looks like they have cracked it with this one.
M@
[1] I was waiting for today's announcements from Apple before I replaced my entire technology kit. It's been over three years since I last splurged on decent technology infrastructure. So, come 9am this morning, I'm off to buy a new laptop and a new desktop. And I've already put my order in with Optus for a couple of 3G iPhones.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
What I read last week 6.2
[1] Gin, television and social surplus
I just love the idea that there is massive attention tsunami building and building ...
[2] Nick Bostrom's Home Page
If you want to cause a fracas at your next dinner party, read The Simulation Argument. Also, check out his TED Talk on "The 3 Biggest Problems for Humanity", linked off his home page: death, existential risk, and an inability to know how good things can really be.
[3] Where are they? Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing.
He's got a point.
[4] Content with style - A CSS framework.
This is brilliant - someone has applied the logic of software framework design to the creation of a set of stylesheets. Very well done. AppFuse uses this framework (or a variation on it).
I just love the idea that there is massive attention tsunami building and building ...
[2] Nick Bostrom's Home Page
If you want to cause a fracas at your next dinner party, read The Simulation Argument. Also, check out his TED Talk on "The 3 Biggest Problems for Humanity", linked off his home page: death, existential risk, and an inability to know how good things can really be.
[3] Where are they? Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing.
He's got a point.
[4] Content with style - A CSS framework.
This is brilliant - someone has applied the logic of software framework design to the creation of a set of stylesheets. Very well done. AppFuse uses this framework (or a variation on it).
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
How to apply for a job at Google
Simple: just build this:
http://goosh.org/
However, I wonder what Google thinks about the fact that all of their AdWords get stripped out of the search results?
M@
http://goosh.org/
However, I wonder what Google thinks about the fact that all of their AdWords get stripped out of the search results?
M@
Monday, June 2, 2008
What I read last week 6.1
[1] Why Apple will sell 10 million iPhones
I wonder what they'll say when Apple end's up selling 12 million?
[2] Overview of Twine
Do I really need another social networking, information discovery tool?
[3] A tornado in space
I'm glad I don't live near this.
[4] First live images and videos of full screen ANDROID demos
There's something more to this whole story than is immediately obvious. Apple and Google are *very* close (Schmidt is on the board of Apple), so I don't think that either would do anything to screw the other over while they both share a common enemy. I wonder what they are up to?
[5] 'Give it Away and Pray' is Not a Business Model, but it doesn't mean that 'Free' Doesn't Work
There's a whole lot of 'buying a dollar and selling for 75c' in here. Maybe Jonah Peretti's "mullet strategy" is the way of the future?
I wonder what they'll say when Apple end's up selling 12 million?
[2] Overview of Twine
Do I really need another social networking, information discovery tool?
[3] A tornado in space
I'm glad I don't live near this.
[4] First live images and videos of full screen ANDROID demos
There's something more to this whole story than is immediately obvious. Apple and Google are *very* close (Schmidt is on the board of Apple), so I don't think that either would do anything to screw the other over while they both share a common enemy. I wonder what they are up to?
[5] 'Give it Away and Pray' is Not a Business Model, but it doesn't mean that 'Free' Doesn't Work
There's a whole lot of 'buying a dollar and selling for 75c' in here. Maybe Jonah Peretti's "mullet strategy" is the way of the future?
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Guys like us avoid monopolies
I just watched Bill Gates say this (look about 2m:30s into the second video stream):
"Guys like us avoid monopolies ... avoid them because we compete."
This comment is bookended by Steve Ballmer, sitting next to Bill, who has just finished explaining the perils of a potential advertising monopoly from Google.
Wow. What can you say to that?
M@
"Guys like us avoid monopolies ... avoid them because we compete."
This comment is bookended by Steve Ballmer, sitting next to Bill, who has just finished explaining the perils of a potential advertising monopoly from Google.
Wow. What can you say to that?
M@
Sunday, May 25, 2008
SOA What?
I was asked recently to talk to some executives about Service Oriented Architecture. In doing some research for the conversation, I found that there was a lot of information about the technical aspects of SOA, but not so much about the business/technology crossover. So I decided to write a white paper: SOA What?
Click here to see it, and let me know what you think. I've also included a brief precis below.
M@
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
