"Just wait."
So powerful. So easy to say. So appealing when your current products are behind the curve, and the press and analysts are beating you up about it. You can shut up the critics instantly if you just drop a few hints about the next generation product that's now in the labs.
So dangerous.
The phrase "just wait" ought to be locked behind glass in the marketing department, like a fire extinguisher, with a sign that says, "Break glass only in emergency." And then you hide the hammer someplace where no one can find it.
Saying "just wait" is dangerous because it invites customers to stop buying your current products. You're basically advertising against yourself. If your company is under financial or competitive stress, the risk is even greater because people are already questioning your viability.
This danger is especially potent in the tech industry (as opposed to carpeting or detergent) because tech customers worship newness, and they use the Internet aggressively to spread information. One vague hint at a conference in Japan can turn into a worldwide product announcement overnight.
This danger has been well understood in the tech industry dating at least back to 1983, when portable computing pioneer Adam Osborne supposedly helped destroy his PC company by pre-announcing a new generation of computers before they were ready to ship (link). Palm reinforced the lesson in 2000 by pre-announcing the m500 handheld line and stalling current sales (link).
But maybe memories have faded, because we've been hearing "just wait" a lot lately:
--Nokia announced that it's switching its software to Windows Phone, and promised new devices based on the OS by this fall. Nokia executives have hammered that message over and over, even making detailed promises about features including ease of use, battery life, imaging, voice commands, cloud services, and price (link). Some execs have even told audiences that they have a prototype in their pockets, but coyly refused to show it (link). What's the thinking here? Does refusing to show the product somehow nullify the fact that you just told everyone not to buy what you sell today?
--In February 2011, HP pre-announced a series of new smartphones that were supposed to come out over the next year. The most attractive-sounding one, the Pre3, was supposed to ship last. Not only did this obsolete HP's current products, but it also overshadowed the other new products HP launched in the interim. HP's interim smartphone sales turned out to be so bad that it killed the business before the Pre3 could even launch in the US.
--Speaking of HP, the company just announced that it will be selling its PC business because it's not doing well. As Jean-Louis Gassee pointed out, that's like inviting customers to switch to another vendor who actually wants to be in the business (link). That forced HP executive Todd Bradley to boost confidence by going on tour pre-announcing himself as future CEO of the theoretical spun-out company, even though HP's Board won't even meet to decide on a spinout until December (link).
--RIM announced that it's moving BlackBerry to a new operating system, which will apparently not run on its existing smartphones. It has spent much of the last year telling people how great all the new features of the OS will be. The company also pre-announced that it will enable Android applications to run on its future phones. Meanwhile, market share of its current products has been dropping steadily. The latest rumors say RIM's new phones will not be out until Q1 of 2012 (link), meaning the company has probably sabotaged its own Christmas sales for 2011.
--Microsoft announced that it's replacing Windows in about a year. That's not necessarily a problem, since it says the new version of Windows will run on existing hardware. But Microsoft also said it's introducing a new development platform based on HTML 5. This set off a huge amount of teeth-gnashing among today's app developers worried that their skills are about to become obsolete (check out the excellent overview by Mary-Jo Foley here).
Why are companies doing this over and over? Sometimes you have no choice. For example, Nokia couldn't lay off the Symbian team without saying something about its OS plans. However, it didn't have to be so noisy about the plans, so I think that wasn't its only motivation.
Sometimes the cause is a mismatch between the needs of a hardware business and the needs of a software business. If you're making a software platform, you pre-announce it as early as possible to build confidence and get developers ready at launch. But if you're selling hardware, you want to keep new stuff a secret until the day you ship. When you mix hardware and software, you are pulled in both directions. I think that disconnect probably affected Nokia, which is now run by a CEO who worked in software for most of his career.
Companies also sometimes pre-announce products because it placates investors. Wall Street analysts always ask what you're developing in the future, and executives sometimes can't resist the urge to tell them and prop up the stock price. Ironically, this may help the stock for a quarter, but often has the long-term effect of hurting a company's value when the pre-announcement slows sales. But each CEO always seems to believe he or she will be the one who gets away with it. I believe investor pressure was one of the drivers when Palm pre-announced the m500, and I believe it also explains some of the pre-announcements by HP and RIM.
Sometimes internal company politics also plays a role. An executive may pre-announce a product in the hope that the announcement will put more pressure on the development team to deliver "on time." Or a business leader will pre-announce something to pre-empt internal competition from another group. I've seen both of those happen at places where I worked. Needless to say, any company that allows internal politics to drive external communication has much bigger problems than its announcements policy.
Pre-announcements also create other problems. They educate the competition about what you're doing, and give them time to prepare a response. This is especially dangerous if you're trying to come from behind, which is usually the situation when a company pre-announces. So a competitor is already out-maneuvering you, and now you're giving them more notice of your plans?
But I think the worst effect of a pre-announcement is that it invalidates any signals you get from the market. You can't actually tell if your underlying business is healthy or not. Did HP's smartphone sales slow down because people hated its products, or because HP had invited customers to wait for the new ones? Have BlackBerry sales been suffering because customers don't want them, or because RIM invited people not to buy? Was the enormous drop in Nokia smartphone sales due to flaws in the products, or due to Nokia's relentless promotion of new phones that aren't yet shipping?
There's no way to tell for sure. And so, if you're running one of those companies, you don't know whether or not you should panic -- or more to the point, what exactly you should panic about. You have now trapped yourself in limbo, and there is no way out until your new products ship.
So, as you can guess, I am generally against pre-announcements. But they can be very powerful, and there are a couple of special cases in which they're appropriate.
When it's safe to pre-announce
If you're entering a new business. If you don't have any current sales to cannibalize, it's relatively safe to pre-announce. You're still alerting the competition, which I dislike, but at least you won't tank your current business. Apple pre-announced the first iPhone and iPad before they shipped, but you'll notice that they've been very secretive about the follow-ons.
A variant on this is when a competitor is ahead of you in a new category and you want to slow down their momentum. You pre-announce your own version of their product, in the hope that customers will wait to get it from you rather than buying from the competition. This can be especially effective in enterprise markets, where IT managers tend to develop long-term buying relationships with a few vendors. IBM used this technique relentlessly during the mainframe era, and Microsoft picked up the habit from them.
Pre-announcements are less effective against competitors in consumer markets, where people are sometimes driven by the urge to buy now. They also don't do much in cases where it's easy to switch vendors. For example, Google pre-announcing a web service isn't likely to stop people from using competitors to it in the interim. A pre-announcement can intimidate venture capitalists, though, and I wonder if Google doesn't sometimes announce a direction in order to hinder a potential competitor's ability to raise money.
If there is a seamless, zero-hassle upgrade path. If customers will be able to move easily to your new products, without obsoleting what they use today, and without big expense, a pre-announcement can be safe. For example Apple generally pre-announces new versions of Mac OS, and it's not a major problem because currently-available Mac hardware can run the new OS. Where RIM went wrong with its OS announcement is that its current hardware apparently can't run the new OS. So RIM has announced the pending obsolescence of everything it sells today.
If you are messing with the mind of a competitor. Theoretically, if you're dealing with a competitor who's very imitative, you can make them waste time and money by leaking news of future products that you don't actually plan to build. The competitor will feel obligated to spin up a business unit to copy your phantom product, leaving less money to respond to what you're actually doing.
When I was at Apple, we used to joke that we could waste $20 million a pop at Microsoft by seeding and then strenuously denying rumors that we were working on weird but plausible products. Handheld game machines, anyone? Television remote controls? Apple today is so influential that it could manipulate entire industries by doing that, not just individual companies.
But when you do this you gradually erode your credibility with your customers. If the rumor is plausible enough to dupe a competitor, it will also dupe some customers, who will then be disappointed when you don't deliver. Eventually you won't be able to get customers excited when you announce real products. Look at the skepticism people often express today when Google announces a new initiative.
The most famous case in which misdirection supposedly worked was not in business but in international politics. Some historians say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was hastened by the huge investments it made trying to keep up with Reagan Administration defense initiatives, some of which had no hope of actually working, but which still seemed plausible enough that the Soviets felt obligated to cover them.
I'm not so sure that really caused the collapse of the Soviet Union; big economic changes are usually driven by big economic forces, not by tactics. But more to the point, you're not Ronald Reagan, this isn't the Cold War, and if you try to pull off a fake this complicated you'll probably just confuse your customers and employees.
So unless you're entering a new market, or have a seamless low-cost upgrade path to the new product, your best bet is to grit your teeth, shut up, and next time plan better so you'll be ahead of the market instead of playing catch-up.
Wednesday, 31 August 2011
Tuesday, 30 August 2011
HOW TO HATCH A HERO
A fierce wind raged through our campground----collapsing, tearing, breaking one fellow's tent. He's gathering the pieces for the dumpster. I know it's his only home and he's faced with sleeping in his car. I have an impulse to rescue-----BUT THEN----A 2000 yr old story flashed in my head----and I get a better Idea. I'll tell you the story---it's a true one---and you won't forget it:
In 415 BC, an army and a fleet from Athens laid seige to the city of Syracuse (Sicily) and was on the brink of overrunning it. Syracuse, in desperation, asked mighty Sparta for help----and expected phalanxes of gleaming Spartan helmets to come to their rescue. Instead, only one Spartan soldier was sent----smuggled into the city---carrying a note for its rulers----it said: THIS IS GYLIPPUS---OUR BEST GENERAL----HE IS ALL YOU NEED!! They were stunned---and demoralized---but desperate. So they gave him command. Under cover of darkness, he assembled the rag tag defenders and told them they were terrific soldiers---that they would shatter the Athenians so completely that few, if any would escape the Island. He then directed emergency wall mending---utilized feints, ploys, flanking maneuvers, concentrations of forces-----and in short order had the Athenians on the run. He trapped their entire force and almost none escaped. For the Athenians it was the disasterous turning point in the Peloponnesian wars.
The message I take away is obvious: WHAT WE MOST NEED IS NOT RESCUE---BUT INSPIRATION.
You're looking at a victorious soldier----who has saved his home from destruction. And new ideas came rushing out of him---why not secure his tent inside this shelter.
And he did!! And lived happily ever after. Ah sweet people---I can tell you: It's Waaaay more fun to inspire than rescue----and waaay more fun to hatch a hero than be one
In 415 BC, an army and a fleet from Athens laid seige to the city of Syracuse (Sicily) and was on the brink of overrunning it. Syracuse, in desperation, asked mighty Sparta for help----and expected phalanxes of gleaming Spartan helmets to come to their rescue. Instead, only one Spartan soldier was sent----smuggled into the city---carrying a note for its rulers----it said: THIS IS GYLIPPUS---OUR BEST GENERAL----HE IS ALL YOU NEED!! They were stunned---and demoralized---but desperate. So they gave him command. Under cover of darkness, he assembled the rag tag defenders and told them they were terrific soldiers---that they would shatter the Athenians so completely that few, if any would escape the Island. He then directed emergency wall mending---utilized feints, ploys, flanking maneuvers, concentrations of forces-----and in short order had the Athenians on the run. He trapped their entire force and almost none escaped. For the Athenians it was the disasterous turning point in the Peloponnesian wars.
The message I take away is obvious: WHAT WE MOST NEED IS NOT RESCUE---BUT INSPIRATION.
So--- Gylippus-like, I move into his life and tell him that anything can be fixed--for about $5 and some imagination. He shows me the rips and the broken part. I go with him to Ace Hardware and tell him that somewhere in this store is a functional replacement----and I amble around the aisles with him---as he looks at plastic fittings and other stuff. Suddenly in the conduit aisle he finds a 45 degree fitting of the right diameter. He's delighted---we return--it works. I lend him needle and thread and he stitches the rips. He's in business again---AND DELIGHTED WITH HIMSELF.
Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Thanks, Steve
I've never even met you, but I wouldn't have my career if not for you. So I thought this would be a good time to say thanks.
It was the Macintosh computer you championed that first drew me into developing software. That business didn't make me rich, but it eventually got me hired by Apple. Unfortunately, you left a year before I got to Apple, but the company's goals were still the things you preached -- do something insanely great, change the world.
I spent ten years at the company you co-founded, and it was both a great education and a fun ride. Unfortunately, in a case of spectacularly poor judgment, I quit in early 1997, after the NeXT acquisition but before you took back control of the company. I didn't believe you'd take over, and I lost faith in the previous management. My only contact with you was a single meeting that you and I both attended. I was there as an observer, so I sat in the back and said nothing. My only impression of you was, "wow, he really doesn't wear socks."
Perhaps it's just as well that I quit.
Although I was no longer with Apple, you still played a huge role in my career. For a time in the late 1990s, it looked like Silicon Valley was becoming a backwater in technology. Software was dominated by Microsoft after its demolition of Netscape, AOL on the east coast was the online leader, and Dell in Texas plus the Asian companies were the leaders in PC hardware. The Valley's leadership role was saved, I believe, by Yahoo and Google in the web world, and by Apple's resurrection in computer systems.
Other people are doing a great job of recapping all of Apple's product successes since your return, so I won't bother repeating them here. But I want to talk about two other accomplishments that stand out to me. The first is how you've reset the way the tech industry looks at consumer products. Even a few years ago, most people still said that Microsoft's business model -- in which the hardware was designed separately from the software -- was the only viable way to make computing devices. Today, everyone talks about codeveloping hardware and software, and it's because of you.
The other accomplishment that stands out to me is your creation of an organization at Apple that could turn out hit after hit, reliably and with great quality. Most people don't appreciate how hard that is, mostly because Apple makes it look so easy.
It's because of the organization you built that I'm confident Apple will continue to do well, even as you reduce your role. I hope your health will improve, and it would be great to see you back as CEO some day. But that's speculation for another time.
Right now, I just wanted to say thanks, Steve. It was insanely great, and you did indeed change the world.
It was the Macintosh computer you championed that first drew me into developing software. That business didn't make me rich, but it eventually got me hired by Apple. Unfortunately, you left a year before I got to Apple, but the company's goals were still the things you preached -- do something insanely great, change the world.
I spent ten years at the company you co-founded, and it was both a great education and a fun ride. Unfortunately, in a case of spectacularly poor judgment, I quit in early 1997, after the NeXT acquisition but before you took back control of the company. I didn't believe you'd take over, and I lost faith in the previous management. My only contact with you was a single meeting that you and I both attended. I was there as an observer, so I sat in the back and said nothing. My only impression of you was, "wow, he really doesn't wear socks."
Perhaps it's just as well that I quit.
Although I was no longer with Apple, you still played a huge role in my career. For a time in the late 1990s, it looked like Silicon Valley was becoming a backwater in technology. Software was dominated by Microsoft after its demolition of Netscape, AOL on the east coast was the online leader, and Dell in Texas plus the Asian companies were the leaders in PC hardware. The Valley's leadership role was saved, I believe, by Yahoo and Google in the web world, and by Apple's resurrection in computer systems.
Other people are doing a great job of recapping all of Apple's product successes since your return, so I won't bother repeating them here. But I want to talk about two other accomplishments that stand out to me. The first is how you've reset the way the tech industry looks at consumer products. Even a few years ago, most people still said that Microsoft's business model -- in which the hardware was designed separately from the software -- was the only viable way to make computing devices. Today, everyone talks about codeveloping hardware and software, and it's because of you.
The other accomplishment that stands out to me is your creation of an organization at Apple that could turn out hit after hit, reliably and with great quality. Most people don't appreciate how hard that is, mostly because Apple makes it look so easy.
It's because of the organization you built that I'm confident Apple will continue to do well, even as you reduce your role. I hope your health will improve, and it would be great to see you back as CEO some day. But that's speculation for another time.
Right now, I just wanted to say thanks, Steve. It was insanely great, and you did indeed change the world.
Sunday, 21 August 2011
I'm Speaking at Mobile 2.0
FYI, I'll be speaking on a panel at the Mobile 2.0 conference September 1, 2011 in San Francisco (link). The panel is about native apps vs. web, and should be a lot of fun, especially since Marc Davis is also on the panel. He's a great thinker and speaker.
The Mobile 2.0 folks have offered a discount to Mobile Opportunity readers. If you register using the code "TwentyFive" you'll get a 25% discount.
The Mobile 2.0 folks have offered a discount to Mobile Opportunity readers. If you register using the code "TwentyFive" you'll get a 25% discount.
Saturday, 20 August 2011
THE PEOPLE "OVER THERE"
"ENJOY THE LAND BUT OWN IT NOT" (THOREAU)---THE DREADFUL DREADFUL COST OF POSSESSION---(AND THE GLORIOUS ALTERNATIVE)
Over there!!!---is a high priced land development. People paid big bucks---200 to 500 thoiusand to enjoy a lakefront view from their home.
The same view that I enjoy from the window of my rig for about two dollars---yes--just two dollars.
And these wonderful trails are just one mile away.
And the sunsets thrill me as much as the "People over there."
And here is the sad part----The "people over there" ---feel the need to close themselves off---from the rest of the world. Here's the locked gate. Frost's poem: Mending Wall came to mind.
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.
....Before I built a wall, I'd ask to know what I was walling in or walling out.
And to whom I was like to give offense."
Naturally, I want to go there to see what this Shangralai can teach me. And I managed to do so----rumbling 6 miles down a washboard road to a party at the community center. I noticed many places for sale and chatted with some property owners. I got the impression they feel trapped---by an ill considered vision of the good life. One told me that he had sunk so much money into his lot and house that he couldn't afford to escape the bitter winters.
RANDY PHILOSOPHIZES:
AAAhh dear readers---Which side of the lake do you choose? Want to possess and be possessed by a house and land over there? Want to pay the price and live in a gated community over there?--- Or mingle with the masses over here? The land over there serves 2 hundred---this land serves 2 thousand ---in a weekend.
A curious incident at the party is instructive: As the music played, a spunky lady and I got up and danced. The crowd broke into applause as we whirled---seemingly delighted at our boldness. I asked myself if secluded communities breed timidity.
Friday, 19 August 2011
The Part of Palm that Smartphone Companies Should be Bidding For
Anytime a CEO gets ousted in disgrace, his or her pet projects are vulnerable to a quick trip to the gallows if they falter. Mark Hurd was the CEO who bought Palm, so it was at risk from the moment Hurd left. HP's mobile device performance had not been good this year -- the Veer smartphone launched and vanished on the same day, and the TouchPad turned out to be a sales disaster. If Leo Apotheker had chosen to invest further in the business, it would have turned into his responsibility. It's far easier to just walk away.
You can make an argument that HP should have given the business more time, and it's a shame that we'll never get to see the Pre 3. But Palm's sales have been troubled for years, and I think its fundamental mistake was that it tried to be too much like Apple. From the start, Pre was aimed at the same users and the same usages as the iPhone (even down to a failed effort to tie the phone directly to iTunes). HP proved that most people don't want to buy an incremental improvement to the iPhone that can't run iOS apps.
Then just for kicks, HP went and proved the same point again with the TouchPad.
The lesson to other mobile companies, I think, is that unless you're a low-cost Asian vendor, you need to differentiate from Apple, not draft behind it.
I'd love to see Web OS live on, but the hardware debacle makes that less likely. As I mentioned the other day, licensees choose an OS because they think it'll generate a lot of unit sales for them. Since Web OS couldn't do that for HP, who else would want to license it?
If you believe that every smartphone company needs to own its own OS, we ought to see a mad bidding war between LG, HTC, Sony Ericsson, Dell, and maybe Samsung to buy Web OS. (The loser could get RIM as a consolation prize.) Maybe a buyout will still happen, but I think HP has probably been quietly shopping Web OS for a while, and if there were interest it would have tried to close a deal before today's announcement.
(By the way, HTC, if you do buy Web OS, you should insist that HP give you the Palm brand name as well. It's still far better known than the HTC brand in the US. The same logic applies for LG.)
But I'm not persuaded that buying an OS is the right way to go for any smartphone company. Turning yourself into a second-class imitation of Apple isn't a winning strategy, especially if your company doesn't know how to manage an operating system. (Case in point, look what it did to HP.) You can create great mobile systems without controlling the OS; all you need is a great system development team and the freedom to put a software layer on top of whatever OS you use.
That means the real crown jewel in the Web OS business unit is the system development people -- the product managers and engineers -- that HP just threw in the garbage. In my opinion, that's the part of Palm that smartphone companies should be fighting for.
You can make an argument that HP should have given the business more time, and it's a shame that we'll never get to see the Pre 3. But Palm's sales have been troubled for years, and I think its fundamental mistake was that it tried to be too much like Apple. From the start, Pre was aimed at the same users and the same usages as the iPhone (even down to a failed effort to tie the phone directly to iTunes). HP proved that most people don't want to buy an incremental improvement to the iPhone that can't run iOS apps.
Then just for kicks, HP went and proved the same point again with the TouchPad.
The lesson to other mobile companies, I think, is that unless you're a low-cost Asian vendor, you need to differentiate from Apple, not draft behind it.
I'd love to see Web OS live on, but the hardware debacle makes that less likely. As I mentioned the other day, licensees choose an OS because they think it'll generate a lot of unit sales for them. Since Web OS couldn't do that for HP, who else would want to license it?
If you believe that every smartphone company needs to own its own OS, we ought to see a mad bidding war between LG, HTC, Sony Ericsson, Dell, and maybe Samsung to buy Web OS. (The loser could get RIM as a consolation prize.) Maybe a buyout will still happen, but I think HP has probably been quietly shopping Web OS for a while, and if there were interest it would have tried to close a deal before today's announcement.
(By the way, HTC, if you do buy Web OS, you should insist that HP give you the Palm brand name as well. It's still far better known than the HTC brand in the US. The same logic applies for LG.)
But I'm not persuaded that buying an OS is the right way to go for any smartphone company. Turning yourself into a second-class imitation of Apple isn't a winning strategy, especially if your company doesn't know how to manage an operating system. (Case in point, look what it did to HP.) You can create great mobile systems without controlling the OS; all you need is a great system development team and the freedom to put a software layer on top of whatever OS you use.
That means the real crown jewel in the Web OS business unit is the system development people -- the product managers and engineers -- that HP just threw in the garbage. In my opinion, that's the part of Palm that smartphone companies should be fighting for.
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Google and Motorola: What the #@!*%?
It's two days later and I'm still confused. When I saw the headline yesterday, my jaw literally dropped. "Google bought who? That's got to be a misprint. They must have bought a mobile operator, like Sprint or something. But Motorola? Really?"
Usually when a big tech merger happens you can see the logic behind it. Even if you don't agree with the logic, you understand why they made the deal. But in this case the more I think about it the more confused I get.
Did Google buy Motorola for the patents? If so, why isn't it spinning out the hardware business? Or did Google buy Motorola because it wants to be in the hardware business? If so, does it understand what a world of other problems that will create for Android and the rest of Google? Seriously, if Google tries to integrate Motorola into its business we could end up citing this as the deal that permanently broke Google.
Why roll the dice like that? Maybe I'm missing something, maybe Google has a screw loose, maybe both of the above. Or maybe I'm wrong to look for airtight logic. Companies sometimes make decisions on impulse, especially when they are under stress, and it's a sure thing that Google is under stress these days on IP issues.
So I have a lot more questions than answers. My questions are about Google's intent, its next steps, and how other companies will react...
Why did Google do it, really? The conventional answer is that Google wanted Motorola Mobility for its patents. That's what Google itself implied, and Marguerite Reardon over at CNET agreed (link). That might well be the explanation. Om Malik had a really intriguing take: Google bought Motorola as a defensive move to prevent Microsoft from getting the Motorola patents (link). And Richard Windsor of Nomura, who I respect deeply, said in an e-mail that this is all about the patents. He predicts that Google's new patent portfolio will create a balance of power enabling Google to quickly force a settlement to the patent lawsuits against its licensees.
But if you wanted only the patents, I think you'd buy Motorola, keep the patents and then spin out the hardware company to avoid antagonizing your licensees. Google says it intends to keep Motorola and run it.
Besides, as Andrew Sorkin pointed out in the New York Times, Google could have bought a different but also important mobile patent portfolio from InterDigital for about $10 billion less than Motorola (link). Maybe there's some magic patent at Motorola that Google feels is worth $10 billion more, or maybe there are some terms in Motorola's patent cross-license agreements that Google desperately needs. But again, if that's the case, why not keep the patents and resell the hardware business?
Unless Google is lying about keeping Motorola intact, I think Google intends to be in the mobile hardware business. Which raises the next question...
Does Google know how to run a hardware business? No, of course not. The processes, disciplines, and skills are utterly different. The same business practices that made Google good in software will be a liability in hardware. Google's engineers-first, research driven product management philosophy is effective in the development of web software, because you can run experiments and revise your web app every day in response to user feedback. But in hardware, you have to make feature decisions 18 months before you ship, and you have to live with those decisions for another 18 months while your product sells through. You can't afford to wait for science. Instead, you need dictatorial product managers who operate on artistry and intuition. All of those concepts (dictatorship, artistry, intuition) are anathema to Google's culture. Either Google's worldview will dominate and ruin Motorola, or worse yet the Motorola worldview will infect Google. Google with Motorola inside it is like a python that swallowed a minivan.
To put it another way, I think Google has about as much chance of successfully managing a device business as Nokia had of running an OS business.
But the real question is, does Google realize that it doesn't know how to make hardware? I doubt it. Speaking as someone who worked at PalmSource for its whole independent history, an OS company always believes that it could do a better job of making hardware than its licensees. It's incredibly frustrating to have a vision for what people should do with your software, and then see them screw it up over and over. The temptation is to build some hardware yourself, just to show those idiots how to do it right.
I think maybe Google just gave in to that temptation.
But if Google really wants to sell hardware, that raises questions for the other Android licensees...
How will Google really manage Motorola? Google says it's going to treat Motorola as an independent company without any special access to the Android team. But what's the point in that? Motorola hasn't exactly been dominating the mobile device world lately, so I find it very, very hard to believe that Google would buy it and leave it intact. Wouldn't you want to have Motorola create special products that take advantage of the latest Android features? Kind of like a flagship operation? Then when you announce a new initiative at Google IO, you can have some nice new Motorola hardware ready to ship with it on day one. Of course, the other Android licensees will be allowed to participate too. They're welcome to run flat out to keep up with every Google software initiative, disregarding expense and business risk, just like Google's Motorola subsidiary will.
Which makes you wonder...
How will the Android licensees react? I think we can safely disregard the positive quotes from the other Android licensees. What would you do if your company depended utterly on Android, and Google called you up twelve hours before the announcement and asked for a quote? Would you risk Google's anger by refusing to give a nice quote? Of course not.
But would you honestly be happy? Of course not. In the last year, you gained share at the expense of Motorola. Now instead of being a weak and failing vendor you can snack on, Motorola has infinite financial resources and cannot physically go broke. Sure, I am happy to compete with that.
The other issue is the one everyone else has already pointed out -- even though Google says there will be a firewall between Motorola and Android, you suspect it'll be semi-permeable, meaning you'll always be at a bit of a disadvantage.
So what do you do? A lot of people are predicting that Android could be in danger of losing licensees. For example, Horace Dediu at Asymco drew a parallel to the Symbian consortium, whose members were uncomfortable because Nokia held the largest share of the ownership (link). But when Symbian was launched, those companies were happy to sign up, despite the asymmetric ownership, because they thought Symbian was going to dominate the mobile OS market, and they were scared of Microsoft. They dropped out only after it was proven conclusively that only Nokia was capable of making a Symbian phone that sold well in Europe.
I can tell you from personal experience at Palm that licensees don't care about governance issues when they think your OS will help them sell a lot of units. It's only after growth slows down that they get twitchy. As long as Android continues to grow explosively, the licensees will be right there with it because they're terrified not to be.
Google probably knows the licensees can't go anywhere. In fact, it has a history of treating them very roughly in private (check out the nasty tone in the private memos between Google and Samsung exposed by the Skyhook lawsuit here). So in some ways the Motorola deal is just more of the same.
But there is still a risk to Google. Android licensees will probably be more willing to talk to Microsoft now, and they might do a few more Windows Phone products, if only to get leverage against Google. So Google has just thrown a lifeline to Windows Phone, which otherwise might have been headed for extinction if the first round of Nokia products failed.
This might also be an opportunity for other mobile platforms. If there were any...
Is there a third path? The Android licensees are probably pretty wary of both Google and Microsoft at this point, and may be wishing forlornly that there was a third alternative for mobile operating systems.
Unfortunately, I don't think there is. The handset vendors' embrace of "royalty-free" Android strangled the other Linux mobile platforms. TrollTech was bought by Nokia and then killed, while Access's evolution of Palm OS died for lack of customers.
There's speculation that HP might broadly license Web OS (link). But HP has its own hardware conflict of interest (a much stronger one than either Google or Microsoft). Far more importantly, keep in mind that mobile phone companies license an OS because they believe it's going to sell millions of units for them. If HP, with all of its resources and channel presence and strong brand, can't sell significant numbers of Web OS phones, why would HTC or Samsung believe they could do it?
[Edit: In the original version of this post, I failed to mention MeeGo. A couple of people have told me that was unfair, and I think they are right. Based on past experience, I have a lot of skepticism about OS consortia, especially ones involving Intel. But if MeeGo's ever going to get serious consideration from hardware companies, now is the time, and I should have acknowledged that.]
Hint to Android licensees: If you build up HTML 5 as a platform, you won't have to depend on anyone else's platform. But in the meantime, your realistic choices are Android and Microsoft.
Speaking of Microsoft...
What will Microsoft do now? Steve Ballmer faces a very interesting decision. Windows Phone just got a boost because it's now seen as a more vendor-neutral platform than Android. The door is probably open for Microsoft to build deeper relationships with Android licensees. If Microsoft sill believes in its licensing model, it will focus on walking through that door.
But as others have pointed out, Microsoft's position is now a bit lonely in some ways. The other major smartphone platforms (iOS and Android) now have captive hardware arms. Even RIM has both hardware and OS, although it's been a while since RIM was held up as a model for others to emulate. Will Microsoft feel exposed without its own hardware business? And if it does feel exposed, will it buy Nokia?
I'd be very surprised if it did. Buying Nokia would decisively end the Windows Mobile licensing business. You'd be betting Microsoft's mobile future even more completely on the ability of Nokia to execute in hardware. Besides, why buy the cow when you're already milking it?
I'd also like to think that Microsoft learned from the Zune debacle that it's not great at creating mobile hardware.
And then there's the fruit company...
What will Apple do? Apple's history since Steve returned is that it doesn't react to competitors; it forces competitors to react to it. Apple is brilliant at setting the terms of the competition so other companies are forced to compete on Apple's turf. Everyone else is focused on building licensed commodity hardware, so Apple creates integrated systems. Everyone else has optimized their supply chains to sell through third party retailers, so Apple creates its own stores. Everyone else stopped making touchscreen smartphones, so what does Apple make?
You get the picture. So I don't expect Apple to make any changes in response to the Motorola deal, but I would be shocked if Apple didn't have plans for changing the terms of the competition again now that Google is trying to build more integrated hardware and software. There are all sorts of game-changing moves Apple could make -- do a much larger push in web services, create an iPhone Nano (fewer features and lower price), even create its own search engine or social network (potentially valuable just to make Google crazy).
What's next?
To sum it all up, it's impossible to predict what will happen. Hopefully the new balance of power in patents will make the big lawsuits go away, although I doubt we'd see a resolution before the deal closes, and that could take many months. If Google bought Motorola for the patents, it'll either sell the company or let it gracefully rot, and we'll go back to business as usual.
On the other hand, if Google tries to integrate Motorola into its business, that's a noble mission, and I hope they'll succeed because the mobile industry needs more competition to Apple in systems design. I dearly hope Google will take the challenge seriously and recognize that it'll need to make fundamental changes to its culture. But those changes would be daunting even for a company experienced in mergers, and Google's never done a deal this big before. I think the most likely outcome of the Google-Motorola merger is some flavor of train wreck.
I hope I'm wrong.
Usually when a big tech merger happens you can see the logic behind it. Even if you don't agree with the logic, you understand why they made the deal. But in this case the more I think about it the more confused I get.
Did Google buy Motorola for the patents? If so, why isn't it spinning out the hardware business? Or did Google buy Motorola because it wants to be in the hardware business? If so, does it understand what a world of other problems that will create for Android and the rest of Google? Seriously, if Google tries to integrate Motorola into its business we could end up citing this as the deal that permanently broke Google.
Why roll the dice like that? Maybe I'm missing something, maybe Google has a screw loose, maybe both of the above. Or maybe I'm wrong to look for airtight logic. Companies sometimes make decisions on impulse, especially when they are under stress, and it's a sure thing that Google is under stress these days on IP issues.
So I have a lot more questions than answers. My questions are about Google's intent, its next steps, and how other companies will react...
Why did Google do it, really? The conventional answer is that Google wanted Motorola Mobility for its patents. That's what Google itself implied, and Marguerite Reardon over at CNET agreed (link). That might well be the explanation. Om Malik had a really intriguing take: Google bought Motorola as a defensive move to prevent Microsoft from getting the Motorola patents (link). And Richard Windsor of Nomura, who I respect deeply, said in an e-mail that this is all about the patents. He predicts that Google's new patent portfolio will create a balance of power enabling Google to quickly force a settlement to the patent lawsuits against its licensees.
But if you wanted only the patents, I think you'd buy Motorola, keep the patents and then spin out the hardware company to avoid antagonizing your licensees. Google says it intends to keep Motorola and run it.
Besides, as Andrew Sorkin pointed out in the New York Times, Google could have bought a different but also important mobile patent portfolio from InterDigital for about $10 billion less than Motorola (link). Maybe there's some magic patent at Motorola that Google feels is worth $10 billion more, or maybe there are some terms in Motorola's patent cross-license agreements that Google desperately needs. But again, if that's the case, why not keep the patents and resell the hardware business?
Unless Google is lying about keeping Motorola intact, I think Google intends to be in the mobile hardware business. Which raises the next question...
Does Google know how to run a hardware business? No, of course not. The processes, disciplines, and skills are utterly different. The same business practices that made Google good in software will be a liability in hardware. Google's engineers-first, research driven product management philosophy is effective in the development of web software, because you can run experiments and revise your web app every day in response to user feedback. But in hardware, you have to make feature decisions 18 months before you ship, and you have to live with those decisions for another 18 months while your product sells through. You can't afford to wait for science. Instead, you need dictatorial product managers who operate on artistry and intuition. All of those concepts (dictatorship, artistry, intuition) are anathema to Google's culture. Either Google's worldview will dominate and ruin Motorola, or worse yet the Motorola worldview will infect Google. Google with Motorola inside it is like a python that swallowed a minivan.
To put it another way, I think Google has about as much chance of successfully managing a device business as Nokia had of running an OS business.
But the real question is, does Google realize that it doesn't know how to make hardware? I doubt it. Speaking as someone who worked at PalmSource for its whole independent history, an OS company always believes that it could do a better job of making hardware than its licensees. It's incredibly frustrating to have a vision for what people should do with your software, and then see them screw it up over and over. The temptation is to build some hardware yourself, just to show those idiots how to do it right.
I think maybe Google just gave in to that temptation.
But if Google really wants to sell hardware, that raises questions for the other Android licensees...
How will Google really manage Motorola? Google says it's going to treat Motorola as an independent company without any special access to the Android team. But what's the point in that? Motorola hasn't exactly been dominating the mobile device world lately, so I find it very, very hard to believe that Google would buy it and leave it intact. Wouldn't you want to have Motorola create special products that take advantage of the latest Android features? Kind of like a flagship operation? Then when you announce a new initiative at Google IO, you can have some nice new Motorola hardware ready to ship with it on day one. Of course, the other Android licensees will be allowed to participate too. They're welcome to run flat out to keep up with every Google software initiative, disregarding expense and business risk, just like Google's Motorola subsidiary will.
Which makes you wonder...
How will the Android licensees react? I think we can safely disregard the positive quotes from the other Android licensees. What would you do if your company depended utterly on Android, and Google called you up twelve hours before the announcement and asked for a quote? Would you risk Google's anger by refusing to give a nice quote? Of course not.
But would you honestly be happy? Of course not. In the last year, you gained share at the expense of Motorola. Now instead of being a weak and failing vendor you can snack on, Motorola has infinite financial resources and cannot physically go broke. Sure, I am happy to compete with that.
The other issue is the one everyone else has already pointed out -- even though Google says there will be a firewall between Motorola and Android, you suspect it'll be semi-permeable, meaning you'll always be at a bit of a disadvantage.
So what do you do? A lot of people are predicting that Android could be in danger of losing licensees. For example, Horace Dediu at Asymco drew a parallel to the Symbian consortium, whose members were uncomfortable because Nokia held the largest share of the ownership (link). But when Symbian was launched, those companies were happy to sign up, despite the asymmetric ownership, because they thought Symbian was going to dominate the mobile OS market, and they were scared of Microsoft. They dropped out only after it was proven conclusively that only Nokia was capable of making a Symbian phone that sold well in Europe.
I can tell you from personal experience at Palm that licensees don't care about governance issues when they think your OS will help them sell a lot of units. It's only after growth slows down that they get twitchy. As long as Android continues to grow explosively, the licensees will be right there with it because they're terrified not to be.
Google probably knows the licensees can't go anywhere. In fact, it has a history of treating them very roughly in private (check out the nasty tone in the private memos between Google and Samsung exposed by the Skyhook lawsuit here). So in some ways the Motorola deal is just more of the same.
But there is still a risk to Google. Android licensees will probably be more willing to talk to Microsoft now, and they might do a few more Windows Phone products, if only to get leverage against Google. So Google has just thrown a lifeline to Windows Phone, which otherwise might have been headed for extinction if the first round of Nokia products failed.
This might also be an opportunity for other mobile platforms. If there were any...
Is there a third path? The Android licensees are probably pretty wary of both Google and Microsoft at this point, and may be wishing forlornly that there was a third alternative for mobile operating systems.
Unfortunately, I don't think there is. The handset vendors' embrace of "royalty-free" Android strangled the other Linux mobile platforms. TrollTech was bought by Nokia and then killed, while Access's evolution of Palm OS died for lack of customers.
There's speculation that HP might broadly license Web OS (link). But HP has its own hardware conflict of interest (a much stronger one than either Google or Microsoft). Far more importantly, keep in mind that mobile phone companies license an OS because they believe it's going to sell millions of units for them. If HP, with all of its resources and channel presence and strong brand, can't sell significant numbers of Web OS phones, why would HTC or Samsung believe they could do it?
[Edit: In the original version of this post, I failed to mention MeeGo. A couple of people have told me that was unfair, and I think they are right. Based on past experience, I have a lot of skepticism about OS consortia, especially ones involving Intel. But if MeeGo's ever going to get serious consideration from hardware companies, now is the time, and I should have acknowledged that.]
Hint to Android licensees: If you build up HTML 5 as a platform, you won't have to depend on anyone else's platform. But in the meantime, your realistic choices are Android and Microsoft.
Speaking of Microsoft...
What will Microsoft do now? Steve Ballmer faces a very interesting decision. Windows Phone just got a boost because it's now seen as a more vendor-neutral platform than Android. The door is probably open for Microsoft to build deeper relationships with Android licensees. If Microsoft sill believes in its licensing model, it will focus on walking through that door.
But as others have pointed out, Microsoft's position is now a bit lonely in some ways. The other major smartphone platforms (iOS and Android) now have captive hardware arms. Even RIM has both hardware and OS, although it's been a while since RIM was held up as a model for others to emulate. Will Microsoft feel exposed without its own hardware business? And if it does feel exposed, will it buy Nokia?
I'd be very surprised if it did. Buying Nokia would decisively end the Windows Mobile licensing business. You'd be betting Microsoft's mobile future even more completely on the ability of Nokia to execute in hardware. Besides, why buy the cow when you're already milking it?
I'd also like to think that Microsoft learned from the Zune debacle that it's not great at creating mobile hardware.
And then there's the fruit company...
What will Apple do? Apple's history since Steve returned is that it doesn't react to competitors; it forces competitors to react to it. Apple is brilliant at setting the terms of the competition so other companies are forced to compete on Apple's turf. Everyone else is focused on building licensed commodity hardware, so Apple creates integrated systems. Everyone else has optimized their supply chains to sell through third party retailers, so Apple creates its own stores. Everyone else stopped making touchscreen smartphones, so what does Apple make?
You get the picture. So I don't expect Apple to make any changes in response to the Motorola deal, but I would be shocked if Apple didn't have plans for changing the terms of the competition again now that Google is trying to build more integrated hardware and software. There are all sorts of game-changing moves Apple could make -- do a much larger push in web services, create an iPhone Nano (fewer features and lower price), even create its own search engine or social network (potentially valuable just to make Google crazy).
What's next?
To sum it all up, it's impossible to predict what will happen. Hopefully the new balance of power in patents will make the big lawsuits go away, although I doubt we'd see a resolution before the deal closes, and that could take many months. If Google bought Motorola for the patents, it'll either sell the company or let it gracefully rot, and we'll go back to business as usual.
On the other hand, if Google tries to integrate Motorola into its business, that's a noble mission, and I hope they'll succeed because the mobile industry needs more competition to Apple in systems design. I dearly hope Google will take the challenge seriously and recognize that it'll need to make fundamental changes to its culture. But those changes would be daunting even for a company experienced in mergers, and Google's never done a deal this big before. I think the most likely outcome of the Google-Motorola merger is some flavor of train wreck.
I hope I'm wrong.
Sunday, 14 August 2011
WHAT DOES A WHOLE HUMAN BEING LOOK LIKE?
AND HOW TO BECOME ONE! ----
I wandered away for a few days to Santa Fe for a movie "fix": (Cowboys and Aliens--2 and a half stars---Rise of the Planet of the Apes---4 stars---Captain America --2 stars) --Began reflecting on the above questions----decided to pursue the answers by returning to Tierra Amarilla, NM to chat again with Paul Namkung---A living example. The landscape enroute is a joy to pass through--will show more of it later. It is Georgia Okeefe (famous artist) country--where she lived and worked. That's Ghost Ranch ahead on the right.
Down there is the little village I'm header for.
It made National news once as the focus of land grant fights---google Reies Lopez Tijerina for the full story. (still alive--and returned recently for a visit)
It's Saturday and again musicians work their magic.
Afterwards, some impromptu fun ---Lovely lady does the hoop--with amazing skill.
Then a second lady joins in with new tricks.
I gave it a shot----aaahhh wellll!
But here's what I came for----Paul sits down for another session---what I want to know is more about his "personality path"----what choices or experiences help nudge a person up the scale of being. About one person in a hundred becomes SELF ACTUALIZED---exhibits the quality of creative aliveness. (Want to know more?----scroll down---I have condensed Maslow's study of "whole" people---see how you stack up against the best that humanity has to offer---you may be higher than you think. I will also point to some role models. )
Paul is a delight to chat with---tells great stories----He is the eldest child---was a lifelong maverick, lover of music, fun and creative challenges. His interest were so broad that he neglected for a long time settling down to a career. Eventually became a social worker, couselor, program initiator. Along the way he built a house in the forest, raised pigs, chickens and rabbits, invented, manufactured, sold his drums and then settled here and started this coffeehouse. Says he's learned to enjoy the processes of life rather than end products.
Voltaire
Warren Buffet (see what he said today in the NY Times)
Below, I have summarized Abraham Maslow's study of "whole" people.
Tolerate, even enjoy ambiguity
3. ACCEPT THEMSELVES AND OTHERS
Self - A relative lack of overriding guilt, crippling shame and severe anxiety
They accept their own human nature in stoic style, their shortcomings and discrepancies.
Others - They also accept others with their shortcomings and discrepancies.
4. ENJOY THEMSELVES WITHOUT SHAME
5. LACK DEFENSIVENESS AND POSE
Distaste for guile, hypocrisy, front, face
6. EXPRESS SPONTANEITY - SIMPLICITY - NATURALNESS
7. ARE MOTIVATED BY AN URGE TO GROW (Versus deficiency motivation)
Living vs. preparing to live
They don’t strive, they develop
They attempt to grow to perfection - to develop more and more fully their own style.
8. FOCUS ON PROBLEMS OUTSIDE THEMSELVES
They are problem-centered rather than ego-centered.
They usually have some mission in life.
9. HAVE THE QUALITY OF DETACHMENT
They remain unruffled, undisturbed by that which produces turmoil in others.
They find it easy to be aloof, reserved, calm, serene.
They take personal misfortune without reacting violently.
They are more objective and therefore can concentrate better.
They don’t need others in the ordinary sense.
They are self-governing, self-disciplined.
They are the deciding agent rather than a pawn.
They have more free will.
10. HAVE A GREATER NEED FOR PRIVACY
11. ARE MORE INDEPENDENT OF CULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT
12. HAVE A CONTINUED FRESHNESS OF APPRECIATION
They count their blessings.
13. HAVE HAD A MYSTIC EXPERIENCE (a peak experience)
These are experiences, usually brief, of limitless horizons opening up to the vision.
The feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and more helpless than ever.
The feeling of great ecstasy, wonder, awe.
The loss of placing in time and space.
The conviction that something extremely important and valuable has happened so that
One is to some extent transformed and strengthened.
14. HAVE DEEPER FEELINGS OF IDENTIFICATION, SYMPATHY AND AFFECTION.
Despite occasional anger, impatience, disgust.
15. DESIRE TO HELP THE HUMAN RACE.
16. HAVE DEEPER, MORE PROFOUND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS.
Capable of more fusion, greater love, more perfect identification.
Especially deep ties with fewer people
Circle of friends rather small
17. ARE DEMOCRATIC
Are friendly with anyone with suitable character, regardless of class, education, or race
18. CAN DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN MEANS AND ENDS, GOOD AND EVIL
They are clear in themselves though often their notions of right and wrong are not the
conventional ones.
19. ARE PHILOSOPHICAL
20. HAVE A NON-HOSTILE SENSE OF HUMOR
21. ARE CREATIVE
22. ARE RESISTANT TO ENCULTURATION
They transcend any particular culture.
I wandered away for a few days to Santa Fe for a movie "fix": (Cowboys and Aliens--2 and a half stars---Rise of the Planet of the Apes---4 stars---Captain America --2 stars) --Began reflecting on the above questions----decided to pursue the answers by returning to Tierra Amarilla, NM to chat again with Paul Namkung---A living example. The landscape enroute is a joy to pass through--will show more of it later. It is Georgia Okeefe (famous artist) country--where she lived and worked. That's Ghost Ranch ahead on the right. 
Down there is the little village I'm header for. 
It made National news once as the focus of land grant fights---google Reies Lopez Tijerina for the full story. (still alive--and returned recently for a visit) 
It's Saturday and again musicians work their magic. 
Afterwards, some impromptu fun ---Lovely lady does the hoop--with amazing skill. 
Then a second lady joins in with new tricks. 
I gave it a shot----aaahhh wellll! 
But here's what I came for----Paul sits down for another session---what I want to know is more about his "personality path"----what choices or experiences help nudge a person up the scale of being. About one person in a hundred becomes SELF ACTUALIZED---exhibits the quality of creative aliveness. (Want to know more?----scroll down---I have condensed Maslow's study of "whole" people---see how you stack up against the best that humanity has to offer---you may be higher than you think. I will also point to some role models. ) 
Paul is a delight to chat with---tells great stories----He is the eldest child---was a lifelong maverick, lover of music, fun and creative challenges. His interest were so broad that he neglected for a long time settling down to a career. Eventually became a social worker, couselor, program initiator. Along the way he built a house in the forest, raised pigs, chickens and rabbits, invented, manufactured, sold his drums and then settled here and started this coffeehouse. Says he's learned to enjoy the processes of life rather than end products. RANDY PHILOSOPHIZES: As open and responsive as he was, I still come away not understanding why some people climb high on the ladder of being and most don't. I don't want to believe that it's genes but maybe it is. I speculate that a long series of tiny choices---small moments of curiosity/ creativity /courage build on each other---opening door after door of new experience / insight----making subsequent moments of them easier and more fun----activating a feedback loop--a self-enhancing spiral--- upwards---like evolution-- that may last a lifetime and giving to the world a polished, exciting, contributing personality. But I'm guessing! Perhaps my readers have a theory that explains advanced personalities.
Here are a few personalities, fictional and real that I think illustrate self actualization:
Zorba the Greek (movie)
Gus McCrae--(movie--Lonesome Dove)
Benjamin FranklinVoltaire
Warren Buffet (see what he said today in the NY Times)
Below, I have summarized Abraham Maslow's study of "whole" people.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SELF-ACTUALIZED PEOPLE
1. HAVE MORE EFFICIENT PERCEPTION
Unusual ability to detect the spurious, the fake, dishonesty in personality
In general, to judge people correctly and efficiently.
They can see reality more clearly.
2. ARE NOT FRIGHTENED BY THE UNKNOWN 1. HAVE MORE EFFICIENT PERCEPTION
Unusual ability to detect the spurious, the fake, dishonesty in personality
In general, to judge people correctly and efficiently.
They can see reality more clearly.
Tolerate, even enjoy ambiguity
3. ACCEPT THEMSELVES AND OTHERS
Self - A relative lack of overriding guilt, crippling shame and severe anxiety
They accept their own human nature in stoic style, their shortcomings and discrepancies.
Others - They also accept others with their shortcomings and discrepancies.
4. ENJOY THEMSELVES WITHOUT SHAME
5. LACK DEFENSIVENESS AND POSE
Distaste for guile, hypocrisy, front, face
6. EXPRESS SPONTANEITY - SIMPLICITY - NATURALNESS
7. ARE MOTIVATED BY AN URGE TO GROW (Versus deficiency motivation)
Living vs. preparing to live
They don’t strive, they develop
They attempt to grow to perfection - to develop more and more fully their own style.
8. FOCUS ON PROBLEMS OUTSIDE THEMSELVES
They are problem-centered rather than ego-centered.
They usually have some mission in life.
9. HAVE THE QUALITY OF DETACHMENT
They remain unruffled, undisturbed by that which produces turmoil in others.
They find it easy to be aloof, reserved, calm, serene.
They take personal misfortune without reacting violently.
They are more objective and therefore can concentrate better.
They don’t need others in the ordinary sense.
They are self-governing, self-disciplined.
They are the deciding agent rather than a pawn.
They have more free will.
10. HAVE A GREATER NEED FOR PRIVACY
11. ARE MORE INDEPENDENT OF CULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT
12. HAVE A CONTINUED FRESHNESS OF APPRECIATION
They count their blessings.
13. HAVE HAD A MYSTIC EXPERIENCE (a peak experience)
These are experiences, usually brief, of limitless horizons opening up to the vision.
The feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and more helpless than ever.
The feeling of great ecstasy, wonder, awe.
The loss of placing in time and space.
The conviction that something extremely important and valuable has happened so that
One is to some extent transformed and strengthened.
14. HAVE DEEPER FEELINGS OF IDENTIFICATION, SYMPATHY AND AFFECTION.
Despite occasional anger, impatience, disgust.
15. DESIRE TO HELP THE HUMAN RACE.
16. HAVE DEEPER, MORE PROFOUND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS.
Capable of more fusion, greater love, more perfect identification.
Especially deep ties with fewer people
Circle of friends rather small
17. ARE DEMOCRATIC
Are friendly with anyone with suitable character, regardless of class, education, or race
18. CAN DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN MEANS AND ENDS, GOOD AND EVIL
They are clear in themselves though often their notions of right and wrong are not the
conventional ones.
19. ARE PHILOSOPHICAL
20. HAVE A NON-HOSTILE SENSE OF HUMOR
21. ARE CREATIVE
22. ARE RESISTANT TO ENCULTURATION
They transcend any particular culture.
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
The Case for Software Patents
It's become popular lately to call for the elimination of software patents. Tim Lee at Forbes sounded the call last month (link), and this week Mark Cuban joined the chorus (link):
I have a ton of respect for many of the people arguing against software patents, but I disagree strongly with their arguments. I think software patents play an important role in encouraging innovation, especially by small companies. The loss of them would make it harder for small companies to survive, and would discourage fundamental innovation in software.
The online debate about software patents is very contentious, and much of it focuses on philosophical issues like the nature of software and whether that's inherently patentable. The debate also often gets mixed with the contention that all software should be free. I'm not going to get into either topic; the arguments are arcane, sometimes quasi-religious in their fervor, and besides they've already been debated to death online.
What I want to focus on is the broader issue of the economic role of patents and how that applies to software. The patent system is designed to encourage innovation by giving a creator a temporary monopoly on the use of an invention. Does that mechanism work in software? What are the problems? And what's the best way to fix them?
When you take that perspective, I think it's clear that there are some genuine problems with software patents. (Actually, there are problems with patents in general, and software is just the most prominent example.) But I think there are better ways than a ban to solve those problems. To me, banning software patents to solve patent problems would be like banning automobiles to stop car theft. The cure is far worse than the disease.
The value of software patents
Let me start with a personal example. As I've mentioned before, I'm working on a startup. When we brief people on what we're doing, one of the first questions we get is, "how will you prevent [Google / Apple / Microsoft / insert hot web company here] from copying you?"
A big part of the answer is, "we've filed for a patent."
A patent isn't magic protection, of course. It might not be granted, and even if it's granted, patents are difficult to enforce against a really big company. But it reassures investors, and more importantly if a Facebook or Google wanted to copy our work, the patent makes it safer and quicker for them to buy our company rather than just ripping us off. So it helps to protect the value of our company.
Without the patent, I think it could be open season on us the moment we announce our product.
Advocates of eliminating software patents say there are other ways to protect software companies. The first is that software can be copyrighted. That's technically true, but the only thing copyright protects you from is word for word theft of your source code; it does not protect inventions. For most software innovations, copyright is no protection at all.
The second argument is that small companies should move quickly, so the big companies can't catch up with them. The idea is that if you move fast enough, you won't need patents. I think there's a consumer web app bias in that advice -- it works best for small apps that can be adopted quickly, or that have a strong social effect (so the user base is part of your competitive protection). It doesn't work well for software tools that have a slower adoption curve. The more complex and powerful the software, the slower the adoption cycle. This is especially true for enterprise tools. Without patents, those companies are exquisitely vulnerable to being ripped off soon after they launch, when they're just starting to gain word of mouth.
So for companies creating new categories of software, and especially for enterprise software tools, I think patents remain the best (and really only) protection from theft.
But what about the damage being caused by abuse of the patent system? If we keep software patents, are we then endorsing those abuses?
I don't think so. In the articles I've seen, there are two primary arguments for eliminating software patents: Trolls and patent warfare. They need to be discussed separately.
Discouraging patent trolls. The troll problem is something we all know about: patent licensing companies buy large collections of patents and then extort fees from companies that had no idea they were violating the patents. That's the core of the problem Mark Cuban was talking about above, and it is outrageous. These surprise lawsuits can have a devastating effect on smaller companies that can't afford to hire a lawyer to defend themselves. Even if you're in the right, it can be so expensive to defend yourself that you just have to give up and pay the license fee. That definitely has a chilling effect on innovation, it is contrary to the intent of the patent system, and therefore it needs to be restrained.
But I think the answer in that case is not to eliminate software patents; it's to restrict the right of "non-practicing entities" (patent trolls) to sue for patent infringement. That would still have a financial effect on small companies -- in the case of my startup, it would make it harder for us to sell our patent if we wanted to. But patent law exists to protect the process of innovation, not to protect inventors for their own sake. If you can't put your patent to good use, you aren't contributing to the public good and you shouldn't get the same level of protection as a company that has built a business around a patent.
Patent warfare is a very different issue. Several large tech companies are using patent lawsuits to slow down competitors and pull revenue out of them. Eliminating software patents would not stop these wars; they're also based on hardware patents, antitrust law, and any other field of law that the companies can apply. It's like one of those cartoon fights in a kitchen where a character opens up a drawer and throws everything inside it.
Yeah, like that.
The underlying problem here isn't about patents; it's about the use (and abuse) of the legal system as a competitive tool. I've had more involvement in tech industry legal wars than I want to think about: I gave depositions in the Apple-Microsoft IP wars, and I testified in Washington in the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. The overall experience left me plenty cynical about the legal system, but it also persuaded me that big tech companies are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves in court. They do not need our help. You should think of lawsuits as just another way that tech companies express love for one-another.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Android vendors being sued by Apple, but a lot of it is their own fault. HTC in particular has no one to blame but itself for its situation, in my opinion. HTC was one of the first companies in mobile computing, creating PDAs for Compaq and early smartphones for Orange and O2. I've got to believe that if HTC had been thinking clearly about patents, there are a lot of fundamental mobile inventions it could have patented. Then it would have had a big enough patent portfolio to force a cross-licensing deal with Apple.
The same thing goes for Google. When it decided to enter the mobile OS business, it should have expected that it would end up at war with Apple and Microsoft (heck, anyone could have predicted that). Google should have bought up a big mobile patent portfolio (like maybe Palm's) back when they were inexpensive.
Are we obligated to change the patent laws just because Google and HTC were careless? No. Is it in the public interest for us to intervene anyway? I doubt it. Here's how the mobile patent wars will play out: The big boys will do a whole bunch more legal maneuvering, they'll scream bloody murder, and in the end one of them will write a check to the other. Then they'll all go back to work.
My advice: If it bothers you, stop reading the news stories about it. Or sit back and enjoy it as theatre. It's hardly an important enough issue to justify stripping the patent protection from every small software company in the US.
A world without software patents
If you want to understand the importance of software patents, go back and talk to the first people who patented software. That's what I did. Two years ago, I corresponded with Martin Goetz, holder of the first software patent (link).
Goetz was a manager at Applied Data Research, one of the first independent app companies in the 1960s. ADR made applications for mainframes, and IBM copied and gave away a version of ADR's Autoflow application (the first commercially marketed third party software app). ADR might have been wiped out, but it had patented Autoflow, and it was able to successfully sue IBM. That lawsuit, plus a related one by the US government, laid the foundations of the independent software industry by forcing IBM to stop giving away free apps for its mainframes.
The lawsuits involved a lot of legal issues, including antitrust, so you can't say that software patents alone led to the birth of the software industry. But I think it's clear that patents helped codify the value of software independent from hardware. If that value hadn't been recognized, the antitrust suit would have been meaningless because there would have been no damages.
So antitrust and patent law have worked together to help protect software innovation. Antitrust helped to restrain big companies from giving away free competitors to an app (although that protection has eroded lately), while patents restrained big companies from copying apps directly. It's like a ladder. If you pull out either leg, I worry that it won't stand.
In his online memoirs (link), Goetz makes the case that application innovation was slow and unresponsive to users in the decade before software patents, and accelerated dramatically in the decade after. I agree. That is exactly the sort of innovation that patent law was meant to encourage, and so I view software patents as a success.
Without software patents, I think it would be far too easy to go back to the bad old days when the big computing companies walked all over small software companies, the software industry consisted of only consultants and custom developers, and software innovation moved at a much slower pace.
_____
More reading: Software entrepreneur and investor Paul Graham wrote a nuanced and detailed take on the subject here. Some of his conclusions differ a bit from mine, but the essay is well worth reading.
"Because of software and process patents any company could be sued for almost anything. It is impossible to know what the next patent to be issued will be and whether or not your company will be at complete risk. It is impossible to go through the entire catalog of patents issued over the last 10, 15, 20 years and determine which will be used to initiate a suit against your company."
I have a ton of respect for many of the people arguing against software patents, but I disagree strongly with their arguments. I think software patents play an important role in encouraging innovation, especially by small companies. The loss of them would make it harder for small companies to survive, and would discourage fundamental innovation in software.
The online debate about software patents is very contentious, and much of it focuses on philosophical issues like the nature of software and whether that's inherently patentable. The debate also often gets mixed with the contention that all software should be free. I'm not going to get into either topic; the arguments are arcane, sometimes quasi-religious in their fervor, and besides they've already been debated to death online.
What I want to focus on is the broader issue of the economic role of patents and how that applies to software. The patent system is designed to encourage innovation by giving a creator a temporary monopoly on the use of an invention. Does that mechanism work in software? What are the problems? And what's the best way to fix them?
When you take that perspective, I think it's clear that there are some genuine problems with software patents. (Actually, there are problems with patents in general, and software is just the most prominent example.) But I think there are better ways than a ban to solve those problems. To me, banning software patents to solve patent problems would be like banning automobiles to stop car theft. The cure is far worse than the disease.
The value of software patents
Let me start with a personal example. As I've mentioned before, I'm working on a startup. When we brief people on what we're doing, one of the first questions we get is, "how will you prevent [Google / Apple / Microsoft / insert hot web company here] from copying you?"
A big part of the answer is, "we've filed for a patent."
A patent isn't magic protection, of course. It might not be granted, and even if it's granted, patents are difficult to enforce against a really big company. But it reassures investors, and more importantly if a Facebook or Google wanted to copy our work, the patent makes it safer and quicker for them to buy our company rather than just ripping us off. So it helps to protect the value of our company.
Without the patent, I think it could be open season on us the moment we announce our product.
Advocates of eliminating software patents say there are other ways to protect software companies. The first is that software can be copyrighted. That's technically true, but the only thing copyright protects you from is word for word theft of your source code; it does not protect inventions. For most software innovations, copyright is no protection at all.
The second argument is that small companies should move quickly, so the big companies can't catch up with them. The idea is that if you move fast enough, you won't need patents. I think there's a consumer web app bias in that advice -- it works best for small apps that can be adopted quickly, or that have a strong social effect (so the user base is part of your competitive protection). It doesn't work well for software tools that have a slower adoption curve. The more complex and powerful the software, the slower the adoption cycle. This is especially true for enterprise tools. Without patents, those companies are exquisitely vulnerable to being ripped off soon after they launch, when they're just starting to gain word of mouth.
So for companies creating new categories of software, and especially for enterprise software tools, I think patents remain the best (and really only) protection from theft.
But what about the damage being caused by abuse of the patent system? If we keep software patents, are we then endorsing those abuses?
I don't think so. In the articles I've seen, there are two primary arguments for eliminating software patents: Trolls and patent warfare. They need to be discussed separately.
Discouraging patent trolls. The troll problem is something we all know about: patent licensing companies buy large collections of patents and then extort fees from companies that had no idea they were violating the patents. That's the core of the problem Mark Cuban was talking about above, and it is outrageous. These surprise lawsuits can have a devastating effect on smaller companies that can't afford to hire a lawyer to defend themselves. Even if you're in the right, it can be so expensive to defend yourself that you just have to give up and pay the license fee. That definitely has a chilling effect on innovation, it is contrary to the intent of the patent system, and therefore it needs to be restrained.
But I think the answer in that case is not to eliminate software patents; it's to restrict the right of "non-practicing entities" (patent trolls) to sue for patent infringement. That would still have a financial effect on small companies -- in the case of my startup, it would make it harder for us to sell our patent if we wanted to. But patent law exists to protect the process of innovation, not to protect inventors for their own sake. If you can't put your patent to good use, you aren't contributing to the public good and you shouldn't get the same level of protection as a company that has built a business around a patent.
Patent warfare is a very different issue. Several large tech companies are using patent lawsuits to slow down competitors and pull revenue out of them. Eliminating software patents would not stop these wars; they're also based on hardware patents, antitrust law, and any other field of law that the companies can apply. It's like one of those cartoon fights in a kitchen where a character opens up a drawer and throws everything inside it.
Yeah, like that.
The underlying problem here isn't about patents; it's about the use (and abuse) of the legal system as a competitive tool. I've had more involvement in tech industry legal wars than I want to think about: I gave depositions in the Apple-Microsoft IP wars, and I testified in Washington in the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. The overall experience left me plenty cynical about the legal system, but it also persuaded me that big tech companies are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves in court. They do not need our help. You should think of lawsuits as just another way that tech companies express love for one-another.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Android vendors being sued by Apple, but a lot of it is their own fault. HTC in particular has no one to blame but itself for its situation, in my opinion. HTC was one of the first companies in mobile computing, creating PDAs for Compaq and early smartphones for Orange and O2. I've got to believe that if HTC had been thinking clearly about patents, there are a lot of fundamental mobile inventions it could have patented. Then it would have had a big enough patent portfolio to force a cross-licensing deal with Apple.
The same thing goes for Google. When it decided to enter the mobile OS business, it should have expected that it would end up at war with Apple and Microsoft (heck, anyone could have predicted that). Google should have bought up a big mobile patent portfolio (like maybe Palm's) back when they were inexpensive.
Are we obligated to change the patent laws just because Google and HTC were careless? No. Is it in the public interest for us to intervene anyway? I doubt it. Here's how the mobile patent wars will play out: The big boys will do a whole bunch more legal maneuvering, they'll scream bloody murder, and in the end one of them will write a check to the other. Then they'll all go back to work.
My advice: If it bothers you, stop reading the news stories about it. Or sit back and enjoy it as theatre. It's hardly an important enough issue to justify stripping the patent protection from every small software company in the US.
A world without software patents
If you want to understand the importance of software patents, go back and talk to the first people who patented software. That's what I did. Two years ago, I corresponded with Martin Goetz, holder of the first software patent (link).
Goetz was a manager at Applied Data Research, one of the first independent app companies in the 1960s. ADR made applications for mainframes, and IBM copied and gave away a version of ADR's Autoflow application (the first commercially marketed third party software app). ADR might have been wiped out, but it had patented Autoflow, and it was able to successfully sue IBM. That lawsuit, plus a related one by the US government, laid the foundations of the independent software industry by forcing IBM to stop giving away free apps for its mainframes.
The lawsuits involved a lot of legal issues, including antitrust, so you can't say that software patents alone led to the birth of the software industry. But I think it's clear that patents helped codify the value of software independent from hardware. If that value hadn't been recognized, the antitrust suit would have been meaningless because there would have been no damages.
So antitrust and patent law have worked together to help protect software innovation. Antitrust helped to restrain big companies from giving away free competitors to an app (although that protection has eroded lately), while patents restrained big companies from copying apps directly. It's like a ladder. If you pull out either leg, I worry that it won't stand.
In his online memoirs (link), Goetz makes the case that application innovation was slow and unresponsive to users in the decade before software patents, and accelerated dramatically in the decade after. I agree. That is exactly the sort of innovation that patent law was meant to encourage, and so I view software patents as a success.
Without software patents, I think it would be far too easy to go back to the bad old days when the big computing companies walked all over small software companies, the software industry consisted of only consultants and custom developers, and software innovation moved at a much slower pace.
_____
More reading: Software entrepreneur and investor Paul Graham wrote a nuanced and detailed take on the subject here. Some of his conclusions differ a bit from mine, but the essay is well worth reading.
Monday, 8 August 2011
FOUND: A HERO IN THE HINTERLANDS
HEROIC DEEDS ARE USUALLY ONE-SHOT EVENTS, BUT I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO AN HEROIC LIFESTYLE; A MAN WITH THE COURAGE TO RESPOND TO HIS FASCINATIONS OVER THE LONG HAUL. Word reached me of such a man---ensconced--in the tiny village of Tierra Amarillo, New Mexico---about a hundred miles northwest of Santa Fe.
People are drawn from all over by the charm of his character and the good things to be found at his coffee shop. This crowd is assembled to hear music by an impromptu band---every Saturday 2 to 5.
That's him on the right playing a drum of his invention. Sounds great---like a deep Conga. Here is a youtube video of them playing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFm3LXrYEDA
Then he switches to his trash can base (fiddle?). It sounds exactly like one---with the same range.
The coffee house is named THE THREE RAVENS------and here they are on the porch roof.
His 4000 sq foot building-----Once a derelict scheduled for bulldozing---but he says he loved it when he saw it---bought it for a song---and spent the next nine years renovating it. It cost about $250,000 to bring it to this condition----and he did so without borrowing money. Mostly he paid for it by selling his wonderful drums at Craft fairs. (he charges about $350 apiece)
The heart of the coffee shop---with a range of sandwiches, goodies and coffee.
Of course I want the story---and on this day I caught him out back, unloading wood. Meet Paul Namkung---the personality that has breathed life and purpose into a dying town. He agrees to an interview.
Makes his drums here: fascinating story with almost metaphysical implications: He saw a guy drumming on an orange crate in SanFrancisco---sounded good---wondered if he could improve on the idea----did experiments with wood and sounds---found a special North forest wood with a super good sound, discovered the perfect thickness--sound holes etc---constructed to also be a seat for the drummer. They are a work of art and lots of fun to play on.
He demonstrates for me.
Then settled himself for an extensive Q&A. Here's the story in a nutshell: 72 yrs old, born in Korea---lived in many places the world round----China, Singapore, Indonesia---settled in the Bay Area---had a 30 yr career as a social worker/counselor----invented his drum and began to sell them at Craft fairs---met a lady who showed him the charms of Northern New Mexico---then-While touring one day, saw this building and immediately decided to sink his roots here. Living modestly, using his social skills to blend with the local culture, (not everyone can move into a "alien" community and win the affection of neighbors) he began the 9 yr task of renovating the building. About 2 years ago he conceived the idea for the coffee shop---lots of people were drawn into the enterprise---now it has the feel of a cheerful, bustling restaurant
Paul working in his office--pulling up something to show me. I noticed that members of his "team" flutter around him like friends rather than employees. A lady brought him that cup of coffee unasked. Charismatics are advanced personalities that draw others near and "infect" them with their magic. To hang around one is to become one yourself. (from the bible: And the crowd perceived that they (the desciples) had been with Jesus)
As we chatted, I noted that he interacts with about everyone who walked in---cheerful banter mostly. The world seemingly has beat a path to his door. One casual visitor was the chief justice of NM Supreme court---whom paul teased a bit---then ended up receiving an order for a musical instrument.
I gave the drums a shot----Hey---I'm pretty rhythmic. Maybe everyone should have music in their life.
Saw this on the wall of an old building in the area----and suddenly--BINGO---my thoughts came together for this entry: Paul has no such difficulty planning his day----ENJOYING THE WORLD IS HIS WAY OF IMPROVING THE WORLD.
People are drawn from all over by the charm of his character and the good things to be found at his coffee shop. This crowd is assembled to hear music by an impromptu band---every Saturday 2 to 5.
That's him on the right playing a drum of his invention. Sounds great---like a deep Conga. Here is a youtube video of them playing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFm3LXrYEDA
Then he switches to his trash can base (fiddle?). It sounds exactly like one---with the same range.
The coffee house is named THE THREE RAVENS------and here they are on the porch roof.
His 4000 sq foot building-----Once a derelict scheduled for bulldozing---but he says he loved it when he saw it---bought it for a song---and spent the next nine years renovating it. It cost about $250,000 to bring it to this condition----and he did so without borrowing money. Mostly he paid for it by selling his wonderful drums at Craft fairs. (he charges about $350 apiece)
The heart of the coffee shop---with a range of sandwiches, goodies and coffee.
Of course I want the story---and on this day I caught him out back, unloading wood. Meet Paul Namkung---the personality that has breathed life and purpose into a dying town. He agrees to an interview.
Makes his drums here: fascinating story with almost metaphysical implications: He saw a guy drumming on an orange crate in SanFrancisco---sounded good---wondered if he could improve on the idea----did experiments with wood and sounds---found a special North forest wood with a super good sound, discovered the perfect thickness--sound holes etc---constructed to also be a seat for the drummer. They are a work of art and lots of fun to play on.
He demonstrates for me.
Then settled himself for an extensive Q&A. Here's the story in a nutshell: 72 yrs old, born in Korea---lived in many places the world round----China, Singapore, Indonesia---settled in the Bay Area---had a 30 yr career as a social worker/counselor----invented his drum and began to sell them at Craft fairs---met a lady who showed him the charms of Northern New Mexico---then-While touring one day, saw this building and immediately decided to sink his roots here. Living modestly, using his social skills to blend with the local culture, (not everyone can move into a "alien" community and win the affection of neighbors) he began the 9 yr task of renovating the building. About 2 years ago he conceived the idea for the coffee shop---lots of people were drawn into the enterprise---now it has the feel of a cheerful, bustling restaurant
Paul working in his office--pulling up something to show me. I noticed that members of his "team" flutter around him like friends rather than employees. A lady brought him that cup of coffee unasked. Charismatics are advanced personalities that draw others near and "infect" them with their magic. To hang around one is to become one yourself. (from the bible: And the crowd perceived that they (the desciples) had been with Jesus)
As we chatted, I noted that he interacts with about everyone who walked in---cheerful banter mostly. The world seemingly has beat a path to his door. One casual visitor was the chief justice of NM Supreme court---whom paul teased a bit---then ended up receiving an order for a musical instrument.
I gave the drums a shot----Hey---I'm pretty rhythmic. Maybe everyone should have music in their life.
Saw this on the wall of an old building in the area----and suddenly--BINGO---my thoughts came together for this entry: Paul has no such difficulty planning his day----ENJOYING THE WORLD IS HIS WAY OF IMPROVING THE WORLD. RANDY PHILOSOPHIZES: He is living proof that FINDING OUR OWN HAPPINESS IS THE BEST WAY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE HAPPINESS OF OTHERS. Drums--led to the Lady--led to the tiny village/ big building---to the Coffee Shop---to other artists and musicians (three other craftsmen/artists have since moved in, bought houses. Here is an art-colony-in-the-making. Paul invites all to come feel the village---see if it "speaks" to you. The famous artist, Georgia O'keif settled in just down the road at Abique, NM. For more--click here:
http://www.worlddrums.org/coffeehouse.phpWednesday, 3 August 2011
Quick Takes: Logitech's Misstep, Nokia's New Names and Fonts
Short thoughts on recent tech news...
Logitech strays from the path
I haven't written much about Logitech here, but they've long been one of my favorite tech companies because they have a history of breaking all the rules of Silicon Valley:
--The Valley says you can't make money in commodity hardware, but Logitech makes good profits from the most commoditized bits of the computer industry.
--The Valley says you especially can't make money in low-end consumer hardware, but that's where Logitech thrives.
--The Valley says that if you want to make money in hardware, you need to be based in a low-cost part of the world like China. But Logitech is Swiss-owned and headquartered in Silicon Valley, two of the highest-cost places to do business in the world.
Logitech succeeded by picking well-established markets like keyboards and webcams where its skills in design, user experience, and added-value features let it charge a bit more than the commodity players. As the folks at Logitech will tell you, "we're chefs, not farmers." In other words, we don't create new markets, we come to existing markets and do an especially nice job of rearranging the ingredients.
But Logitech's financial performance hasn't been great for the last two years, and the company's most recent quarter was a loss. The disappointing earnings report stood out to me because Logitech put much of the blame on its Google TV product, which apparently had apocalyptic negative sales last quarter (more returns from retailers than shipments) (link). Apparently somebody at Google convinced Logitech to do some farming, and the company is paying dearly for it.
I'm usually an advocate of companies taking risks and pioneering new markets, and I think that's something Logitech has the skills to do if it's careful. But in this case, it chose a terrible target: the uncertainties of a new market, but with a user experience constrained by Google's software. So Logitech took on the risks of farming without the ability to fully apply its own strengths. Logitech was more or less a passenger on Google's boat.
The lesson, obviously: Be very careful when you step away from your proven strategy. Oh, and never trust Google to develop a new market for you.
Good luck naming your phones, Nokia (again)
Nokia announced that it has changed the naming system for its phones, going back from letters to numbers (link). The last time Nokia changed its naming, five years ago, I wrote a piece saying why technology naming schemes eventually break down after about six years. This morning I thought about updating the post, but actually I think it's still valid as-is, except that naming schemes now apparently last only five years. Here's a link to the article, so you can judge the rest of it for yourself (link).
Font games
Speaking of Nokia, there are few things more embarrassing for a company than announcing to the world that you have chosen a new font for your corporate communication. Making font and logo changes is often interpreted as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic -- "we can't fix our fundamental problems but by God at least we'll fix the font!" That's unfair, of course; Apple changed its logo in the middle of its rebirth, ditching the six colors, and it turned out just fine. So I didn't blame Nokia when it announced on March 25 that it was moving to a new font (link).
But I'm surprised that more than four months later, Nokia's old font is still splattered all over its web pages. You can find the new one in some spots, but a lot of website navigation, headlines, and even new product announcements are in the old font. Here are some examples (click on the images for a larger view):
Nokia Conversations (official company blog), August 2, 2011. Note the use of the old font to announce the company's newest product. That means the use of the old font isn't limited to legacy bits of the website that haven't been converted yet.
Nokia Press website, August 2, 2011. New and old logos together on the same page. That's got to annoy the corporate branding folks.
Nokia UK home page, August 2, 2011. New font used for the headline, but the old font is used elsewhere.
Nokia US home page, August 2, 2011. Old font almost everywhere. Well, you kind of expect Nokia's US site to be behind the times.
Nokia Finland home page, August 2, 2011. The greatest use of the new font -- except when they mention Ovi. Freudian slip?
I feel childish and petty for picking on Nokia about a little detail like this. Fonts stand out to me because I used to run a font company, but I know most people don't even notice them. Nokia has much bigger problems to solve.
However, four months is more than enough time to switch over to a new font, especially in newly-created headlines. Since the criticisms about Nokia's smartphones often center on inattention to detail and slow execution, you'd think they would want to execute crisply wherever they can. In its March announcement, Nokia wrote that the new font is important because "the letters flow into each other somewhat, creating the impression of forward movement." Since the old font lingers, does that create the impression that Nokia's not moving forward?
Logitech strays from the path
I haven't written much about Logitech here, but they've long been one of my favorite tech companies because they have a history of breaking all the rules of Silicon Valley:
--The Valley says you can't make money in commodity hardware, but Logitech makes good profits from the most commoditized bits of the computer industry.
--The Valley says you especially can't make money in low-end consumer hardware, but that's where Logitech thrives.
--The Valley says that if you want to make money in hardware, you need to be based in a low-cost part of the world like China. But Logitech is Swiss-owned and headquartered in Silicon Valley, two of the highest-cost places to do business in the world.
Logitech succeeded by picking well-established markets like keyboards and webcams where its skills in design, user experience, and added-value features let it charge a bit more than the commodity players. As the folks at Logitech will tell you, "we're chefs, not farmers." In other words, we don't create new markets, we come to existing markets and do an especially nice job of rearranging the ingredients.
But Logitech's financial performance hasn't been great for the last two years, and the company's most recent quarter was a loss. The disappointing earnings report stood out to me because Logitech put much of the blame on its Google TV product, which apparently had apocalyptic negative sales last quarter (more returns from retailers than shipments) (link). Apparently somebody at Google convinced Logitech to do some farming, and the company is paying dearly for it.
I'm usually an advocate of companies taking risks and pioneering new markets, and I think that's something Logitech has the skills to do if it's careful. But in this case, it chose a terrible target: the uncertainties of a new market, but with a user experience constrained by Google's software. So Logitech took on the risks of farming without the ability to fully apply its own strengths. Logitech was more or less a passenger on Google's boat.
The lesson, obviously: Be very careful when you step away from your proven strategy. Oh, and never trust Google to develop a new market for you.
Good luck naming your phones, Nokia (again)
Nokia announced that it has changed the naming system for its phones, going back from letters to numbers (link). The last time Nokia changed its naming, five years ago, I wrote a piece saying why technology naming schemes eventually break down after about six years. This morning I thought about updating the post, but actually I think it's still valid as-is, except that naming schemes now apparently last only five years. Here's a link to the article, so you can judge the rest of it for yourself (link).
Font games
Speaking of Nokia, there are few things more embarrassing for a company than announcing to the world that you have chosen a new font for your corporate communication. Making font and logo changes is often interpreted as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic -- "we can't fix our fundamental problems but by God at least we'll fix the font!" That's unfair, of course; Apple changed its logo in the middle of its rebirth, ditching the six colors, and it turned out just fine. So I didn't blame Nokia when it announced on March 25 that it was moving to a new font (link).
But I'm surprised that more than four months later, Nokia's old font is still splattered all over its web pages. You can find the new one in some spots, but a lot of website navigation, headlines, and even new product announcements are in the old font. Here are some examples (click on the images for a larger view):
I feel childish and petty for picking on Nokia about a little detail like this. Fonts stand out to me because I used to run a font company, but I know most people don't even notice them. Nokia has much bigger problems to solve.
However, four months is more than enough time to switch over to a new font, especially in newly-created headlines. Since the criticisms about Nokia's smartphones often center on inattention to detail and slow execution, you'd think they would want to execute crisply wherever they can. In its March announcement, Nokia wrote that the new font is important because "the letters flow into each other somewhat, creating the impression of forward movement." Since the old font lingers, does that create the impression that Nokia's not moving forward?
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
LAST DANCE AT LITO'S BALLROOM
THIS WAS A DAY OF STRANGE EVENTS AND FEELINGS---I've recorded it as best I can with pictures. I show the ending first to suggest how serendippity pulls me where she will. 
This is Carmalita---I was "destined" to meet her before the day was over--in a very strange place.
I saw this and got it into my head to go to the other side of the mountain where that rainbow ended.
It's not easy to get there---first I drove the length of this valley---I take my rig with me---I'm not coming back.
I cross a 9,800 ft pass.
On the far side I'm attracted down this gravel road--- something immense on the horizon is drawing me.
A home-made sign gives me pause. I think it says LAND OF DEATH Zapata lives. A warning?
There's the immense thing that's drawing me. And a village of some sort at it's base. Now I'm intrigued.
Nary a soul in sight---an old old spanish village.
Still, not a soul. Houses everywhere vacant.
Abandoned---like the folks just walked away.
Then out of the blue---this strange sight---a little old lady just staring into this unusual building. Of course I want to engage her. I turn to get my hat and turn off my engine----and suddenly she's gone. Must have gone through that doorway. I'll go find her!
Can you read it? LITO'S BALLROOM----can you believe it---a ballroom in a tiny village.
I'm surprised to find the door slightly jammed. I pushed it open and picked my way through the entryway.
Whoa! What has happened here? A major collapse. I see no sign of the lady.
A bandstand stage---pieces of an old piano.
Then on the far wall---Carmelita----that's the name I've given her. With no one to tell me what happened here----I shall have to improvise: Once this was a lively, thriving, frontier town of happy people who loved to dance and so they constructed a ballroom. The best dancer in the village was Raul----devlishly handsome---and when he took the floor---all the ladies swooned. Carmelita especially lost her heart to him---but alas, she had no talent for dancing and just sat and yearned as Raul swirled the other girls round the dance floor.
Desperately in love--she turned to the holy mother for help. A nearby grotto captures the moment Carmelita begs for the gift of graceful dancing. And in an instant knew in her heart the request was
granted-----that her feet and body were now infused with the fire and skill and rhythm of the gypsies. She made herself a dancing dress and when next the ballroom filled on a snowy winter night, she boldly moved to its center and while curious eyes marveled--- began to sway in perfect rhythm to the music. Alone on the dance floor--so graceful that Raul was smitten. Moving onto the dance floor like a toreador, he embraced her and together they did the dance of love. The band seized the moment to play flamenco music. The couple began to stamp----first one and then the other---then both together in such wild abandon that the walls and ceiling began to shake---the crowd cheered---the couple stomped faster and faster---Suddenly a loud crack and timbers began to fall. The people all ran away but Raul and Carmelita---continued to dance. That was the last the town ever saw of them. Some say they slipped out the back door and ran away together.
Bodies were never found. But as a tribute to the miracle dance they witnessed that night---the townspeople placed the shoes they were wearing on the spot the couple danced the flamenco so fiercely that the roof caved in. And there they remain to this day. Some say that after a long happy life together both passed on---but on special occasions---Carmelita's spirit returns to this ballroom to give thanks again to the virgin mother for her miracle.
Search as I may, I never found the lady---but I'm thankful she led me to this dramatic site.
This is Carmalita---I was "destined" to meet her before the day was over--in a very strange place. 
I saw this and got it into my head to go to the other side of the mountain where that rainbow ended.
It's not easy to get there---first I drove the length of this valley---I take my rig with me---I'm not coming back.
I cross a 9,800 ft pass.
On the far side I'm attracted down this gravel road--- something immense on the horizon is drawing me.
A home-made sign gives me pause. I think it says LAND OF DEATH Zapata lives. A warning?
There's the immense thing that's drawing me. And a village of some sort at it's base. Now I'm intrigued.
Nary a soul in sight---an old old spanish village.
Still, not a soul. Houses everywhere vacant.
Abandoned---like the folks just walked away.
Then out of the blue---this strange sight---a little old lady just staring into this unusual building. Of course I want to engage her. I turn to get my hat and turn off my engine----and suddenly she's gone. Must have gone through that doorway. I'll go find her!
Can you read it? LITO'S BALLROOM----can you believe it---a ballroom in a tiny village. 
I'm surprised to find the door slightly jammed. I pushed it open and picked my way through the entryway.
Whoa! What has happened here? A major collapse. I see no sign of the lady.
A bandstand stage---pieces of an old piano.
Then on the far wall---Carmelita----that's the name I've given her. With no one to tell me what happened here----I shall have to improvise: Once this was a lively, thriving, frontier town of happy people who loved to dance and so they constructed a ballroom. The best dancer in the village was Raul----devlishly handsome---and when he took the floor---all the ladies swooned. Carmelita especially lost her heart to him---but alas, she had no talent for dancing and just sat and yearned as Raul swirled the other girls round the dance floor.
Desperately in love--she turned to the holy mother for help. A nearby grotto captures the moment Carmelita begs for the gift of graceful dancing. And in an instant knew in her heart the request wasgranted-----that her feet and body were now infused with the fire and skill and rhythm of the gypsies. She made herself a dancing dress and when next the ballroom filled on a snowy winter night, she boldly moved to its center and while curious eyes marveled--- began to sway in perfect rhythm to the music. Alone on the dance floor--so graceful that Raul was smitten. Moving onto the dance floor like a toreador, he embraced her and together they did the dance of love. The band seized the moment to play flamenco music. The couple began to stamp----first one and then the other---then both together in such wild abandon that the walls and ceiling began to shake---the crowd cheered---the couple stomped faster and faster---Suddenly a loud crack and timbers began to fall. The people all ran away but Raul and Carmelita---continued to dance. That was the last the town ever saw of them. Some say they slipped out the back door and ran away together.
Bodies were never found. But as a tribute to the miracle dance they witnessed that night---the townspeople placed the shoes they were wearing on the spot the couple danced the flamenco so fiercely that the roof caved in. And there they remain to this day. Some say that after a long happy life together both passed on---but on special occasions---Carmelita's spirit returns to this ballroom to give thanks again to the virgin mother for her miracle.
Search as I may, I never found the lady---but I'm thankful she led me to this dramatic site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)