Giants Becoming Dinosaurs

Written by Chris Ng

First, we see Nokia (a leader in mobile phone industry), its market share has been gradually reduced by the power of Apple, HTC and other Android-based phone makers.

Next, we see similar fate befalling the biggest Japanese eletronic products maker, Sony which is trying hard to sustain its business growth and long term viability.

Recently, investors are wondering what is wrong with the once-monopoly of computer operating systems, Microsoft, in which its market capitalisation has fallen behind that of Apple and IBM.

Closer to home, we see Malaysia Airlines reporting losses and slowly losing out to Air Asia. Proton is scrambling to maintain its profitable run (through ad hoc strategies, e.g rebadging of Mitsubishi Lancer,etc).

All these companies are once giants but with the rapidly changing forces of the industry and intensifying competition, they are gradually becoming the dinosaurs of the past.....

Nokia

Internal Memo from the CEO of Nokia:

Hello there,
There is a pertinent story about a man who was working on an oil platform in the North Sea. He woke up one night from a loud explosion, which suddenly set his entire oil platform on fire. In mere moments, he was surrounded by flames. Through the smoke and heat, he barely made his way out of the chaos to the platform's edge. When he looked down over the edge, all he could see were the dark, cold, foreboding Atlantic waters.

As the fire approached him, the man had mere seconds to react. He could stand on the platform, and inevitably be consumed by the burning flames. Or, he could plunge 30 meters in to the freezing waters. The man was standing upon a "burning platform," and he needed to make a choice.

He decided to jump. It was unexpected. In ordinary circumstances, the man would never consider plunging into icy waters. But these were not ordinary times - his platform was on fire. The man survived the fall and the waters. After he was rescued, he noted that a "burning platform" caused a radical change in his behaviour.

We too, are standing on a "burning platform," and we must decide how we are going to change our behaviour.

Over the past few months, I've shared with you what I've heard from our shareholders, operators, developers, suppliers and from you. Today, I'm going to share what I've learned and what I have come to believe.

I have learned that we are standing on a burning platform. And, we have more than one explosion - we have multiple points of scorching heat that are fuelling a blazing fire around us.

For example, there is intense heat coming from our competitors, more rapidly than we ever expected. Apple disrupted the market by redefining the smartphone and attracting developers to a closed, but very powerful ecosystem.

In 2008, Apple's market share in the $300+ price range was 25 percent; by 2010 it escalated to 61 percent. They are enjoying a tremendous growth trajectory with a 78 percent earnings growth year over year in Q4 2010. Apple demonstrated that if designed well, consumers would buy a high-priced phone with a great experience and developers would build applications. They changed the game, and today, Apple owns the high-end range.

And then, there is Android. In about two years, Android created a platform that attracts application developers, service providers and hardware manufacturers. Android came in at the high-end, they are now winning the mid-range, and quickly they are going downstream to phones under €100. Google has become a gravitational force, drawing much of the industry's innovation to its core.

Let's not forget about the low-end price range. In 2008, MediaTek supplied complete reference designs for phone chipsets, which enabled manufacturers in the Shenzhen region of China to produce phones at an unbelievable pace. By some accounts, this ecosystem now produces more than one third of the phones sold globally - taking share from us in emerging markets.

While competitors poured flames on our market share, what happened at Nokia? We fell behind, we missed big trends, and we lost time. At that time, we thought we were making the right decisions; but, with the benefit of hindsight, we now find ourselves years behind.

The first iPhone shipped in 2007, and we still don't have a product that is close to their experience. Android came on the scene just over 2 years ago, and this week they took our leadership position in smartphone volumes. Unbelievable.

We have some brilliant sources of innovation inside Nokia, but we are not bringing it to market fast enough. We thought MeeGo would be a platform for winning high-end smartphones. However, at this rate, by the end of 2011, we might have only one MeeGo product in the market.

At the midrange, we have Symbian. It has proven to be non-competitive in leading markets like North America. Additionally, Symbian is proving to be an increasingly difficult environment in which to develop to meet the continuously expanding consumer requirements, leading to slowness in product development and also creating a disadvantage when we seek to take advantage of new hardware platforms. As a result, if we continue like before, we will get further and further behind, while our competitors advance further and further ahead.

At the lower-end price range, Chinese OEMs are cranking out a device much faster than, as one Nokia employee said only partially in jest, "the time that it takes us to polish a PowerPoint presentation." They are fast, they are cheap, and they are challenging us.

And the truly perplexing aspect is that we're not even fighting with the right weapons. We are still too often trying to approach each price range on a device-to-device basis.

The battle of devices has now become a war of ecosystems, where ecosystems include not only the hardware and software of the device, but developers, applications, ecommerce, advertising, search, social applications, location-based services, unified communications and many other things. Our competitors aren't taking our market share with devices; they are taking our market share with an entire ecosystem. This means we're going to have to decide how we either build, catalyse or join an ecosystem. This is one of the decisions we need to make. In the meantime, we've lost market share, we've lost mind share and we've lost time.

On Tuesday, Standard & Poor's informed that they will put our A long term and A-1 short term ratings on negative credit watch. This is a similar rating action to the one that Moody's took last week. Basically it means that during the next few weeks they will make an analysis of Nokia, and decide on a possible credit rating downgrade. Why are these credit agencies contemplating these changes? Because they are concerned about our competitiveness.

Consumer preference for Nokia declined worldwide. In the UK, our brand preference has slipped to 20 percent, which is 8 percent lower than last year. That means only 1 out of 5 people in the UK prefer Nokia to other brands. It's also down in the other markets, which are traditionally our strongholds: Russia, Germany, Indonesia, UAE, and on and on and on.

How did we get to this point? Why did we fall behind when the world around us evolved? This is what I have been trying to understand. I believe at least some of it has been due to our attitude inside Nokia. We poured gasoline on our own burning platform. I believe we have lacked accountability and leadership to align and direct the company through these disruptive times. We had a series of misses. We haven't been delivering innovation fast enough. We're not collaborating internally.

Nokia, our platform is burning. We are working on a path forward -- a path to rebuild our market leadership. When we share the new strategy on February 11, it will be a huge effort to transform our company. But, I believe that together, we can face the challenges ahead of us. Together, we can choose to define our future.

The burning platform, upon which the man found himself, caused the man to shift his behaviour, and take a bold and brave step into an uncertain future. He was able to tell his story. Now, we have a great opportunity to do the same.

Stephen.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/08/nokia-ceo-stephen-elop-rallies-troops-in-brutally-honest-burnin/

Sony

From Guardian Online:

One investor said - "I have been sceptical about Sony for a long time. Sony has been overtaken by Apple and other companies," said Yuuki Sakurai, chief executive and president of Fukoku Capital Management in Tokyo. "The management is not able to show shareholders the future of the company."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/23/sony-fourth-quarter-results/print

Microsoft

From Malaysia Insider:

The software giant, which was the largest US company by market value in the late 1990s, has since been overtaken by Apple Inc and IBM in market value, and is no longer seen as a dominating force in technology after a failure to capitalise on new Internet and mobile computing markets.Microsoft to consider strategic alternatives for its money-losing online business, which has so far failed to win share from online search leader Google Inc.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/business/article/hedge-fund-star-calls-for-microsoft-ceo-to-go/

Malaysia Airlines

From Bloomberg:

Malaysian Airline System Bhd. (MAS), which will be removed from the MSCI Malaysia (MXMY) Index at the end of this month, slumped to a first-quarter loss due to higher fuel costs and a stronger ringgit.

It reported a net loss of 242.3 million ringgit ($79 million), or 7.25 sen per share, in the three months ended March 31, compared with a profit of 310.1 million ringgit, or 10.64 sen, a year earlier, the national carrier said in an exchange filing late yesterday. Revenue fell 3.3 percent to 3.19 billion ringgit even as it carried 10 percent more passengers over the period from a year ago, it said.

In contrast, look at its rival Air Asia (at least it is still profitable):

AirAsia Bhd. (AIRA), the Sepang, Selangor-based biggest discount airline, yesterday reported a 23 percent decline in first- quarter net income to 171.9 million ringgit, partly due to higher fuel prices.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-25/malaysian-air-reports-loss-on-jet-fuel-costs-stronger-ringgit.html

Proton

News on the rebadging, after 15 years in operation.. so much for the pride for our "National Car"....well, at least it is profitable for its latest quarter but the same question remains - now that foreign imported cars are getting cheaper, how will Proton withstand the growing competition?

http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2010/10/proton-rebadges-mitsubishi-lancer-and.html

Our Final Thoughts

- Evolution or revolution of a particular industry is inevitable and business dynamics are no longer constant

- Old companies will die, new companies will emerge

- Moral of story: Continue to break barriers, do not stay within your comfort zone. Innovation will save your business.

Nokia: An Excess of Cleverness

I'm looking forward eagerly to Nokia's strategy announcement this week.  Although Nokia is not highly esteemed in the US, most of the rest of the world recognizes it as an enormously important company: a brilliant manufacturer, a symbol of status and affluence in the developing world, and a source of great pride to its many fans in Europe and elsewhere.  If Nokia could combine its strengths with better execution in software and smartphones, it could be a formidable force in the computing industry as a whole, not just in mobile.

In anticipation of the new strategy, I wanted to share a few thoughts on why Nokia has struggled with the intersection of phones and computing, and what it might do to fix the problems. 

A couple of disclosures first:
--Several years ago I did a consulting project for Nokia.  I've also met with them, I have had a lot of briefings from them, and I know several people who work there.  No inside information from any of those sources has gone into this note.
--Before someone posts a comment saying so, yes my views are colored by the place I live, Silicon Valley.  Your paradigm may vary.

As is often the case for big successful companies, I think Nokia's strengths are also its weaknesses:


Strength 1: Nokia focuses very well...which can lead to denial of reality 

Nokia has a very intense, delivery-focused culture that has enabled it to pursue strategies with awesome focus and determination.  Over the years, the company has transformed itself from a paper mill to a rubber boots company to a video monitor company, etc, etc.  I can think of very few modern firms that are capable of that sort of huge transformation.

But I think that same determination has also sometimes enabled Nokia to live in denial of reality.  As an outsider who has dealt with Nokia a lot over the years, the company often comes across to me as the opposite of a learning organization.  Rather than getting inquiry and questions, when you discuss an issue with Nokia you tend to find that there is already an official Nokia answer to it: self-assured, hermetically sealed, and often sounding slightly condescending.

When Nokia was on a roll and executing beautifully, that self-assurance was entirely justified.  As somebody once said, "it's not arrogance if you can do it."  But as the company faltered, I think its belief in its own specialness and power led it to resist making changes that would have happened at most other companies several years ago.  This deepened Nokia's problems.

A quick look at the company's financials tells the story.  In 2006, Nokia was on a roll.  Its revenue was growing nicely, and it had operating profits of about 12% before taxes.  But starting in 2007, Nokia hit a wall.  Its revenue flattened and then fell.  Despite the revenue problem, Nokia held its R&D, marketing, and administrative spending almost steady in Euro terms, increasing them as a percent of revenue.  It's as if Nokia believed four years of revenue stagnation were just a temporary glitch to be endured rather than a fundamental problem that had to be fixed.

(Note: Fiscal years, all figures in $millions.  The numbers above and below were restated from euros to dollars.  I also excluded miscellaneous revenue and expenses, and one-time charges, because they distort the trends.)

To give you an idea of the impact of Nokia's slowdown, here are a couple of comparisons to Apple.


First, revenue...


Yes, Apple is now a bigger company than Nokia in terms of revenue.  That alone is pretty astonishing to me, and I'm sure it irritates the folks at Nokia, since they routinely bristle at this sort of comparison (link).


Here are expenses (R&D, marketing, and administration) as a percent of revenue.  Lower is better.


Apple has done a nice job of holding its expense growth below its revenue growth.


And here's the payoff:  Operating income


Financially, Apple has just plain run away from Nokia.


When Stephen Elop was announced as CEO of Nokia, people made a lot of hay about his background as a Canadian.  I think that was the wrong bit to focus on.  To me, the most important element of Elop's background was the ten years he spent in Silicon Valley.  I wondered what a Silicon Valley guy would think when coming into a company and seeing financials like these.  I believe the reaction would be horror: "Why didn't you people panic back in 2008?"  The accepted wisdom here is that you just don't let expenses stay high through four years of declining revenue.  That lets the problems fester.  Nokia is now a bit like a patient who has delayed routine medical treatment for so long that he ends up in the emergency room needing surgery.

Elop's now-famous memo on Nokia's problems speaks volumes about the company's culture (link).  Assuming the memo is real (I am taking the word of the press on this), Elop likens Nokia's situation to jumping from a burning oil derrick into the North Sea -- where, as anyone in the Nordic countries would know, you can die of hypothermia in minutes. 

What does it say about the employees' resistance to change that the CEO feels he has to be this alarming? 


Strength 2: Nokia manufactures wonderfully...which produces sterile, inartistic smartphones

Nokia is one of the most efficient manufacturing companies on the planet.  Very few western companies have ever withstood an all-out assault by China Inc, but Nokia, a company from high-cost Finland, has also been for years the world's lowest-cost major producer of phones.  Elop's memo says that cost leadership is now under threat, but still it's an unbelievable accomplishment that ought to be studied in every business school worldwide. 

But the same manufacturing-driven culture that turns out great, cheap feature phones by the dozen breaks down when asked to craft an intricate smartphone in which overall system integration is the most important feature.  Nokia designs phones using a manufacturing-like process in which different groups create features in parallel.  So (to make up an example) one group might do the user interface, another the mail app, and another the browser.  That's very efficient for creating lots of phones quickly, but it means it's very difficult to integrate all of the pieces together closely so they produce a great user experience.  The best smartphones, like the iPhone, are designed holistically, with all of the pieces coordinated together.  A product manager controls the process and can enforce compliance with the product vision.  This process is much slower and less efficient than Nokia's, but when you're creating a product with a lot of software, it ensures that everything works together well.

Apple can get away with this less efficient process because it produces one phone at a time.  Nokia has 89 different phone models available currently in Europe (link).


Strength 3: Nokia makes fantastic plans...over and over and over again

Nokia has for decades been able to hire the brightest people from a very bright country, Finland.  After meeting a lot of Nokia employees, I can tell you that it probably has one of the smartest workforces anywhere.  But all that intelligence has produced an analytical culture that breeds complicated plans elaborately fleshed out by committees.  Its history in the last decade is a series of wickedly clever, logical strategies that were so complex and took so long to develop and implement that they were often obsolete before they came to fruition.  It sometimes seems as if Nokia has been crippled by an excess of cleverness.

I'm reminded of a short story by science fiction legend Arthur C. Clarke, Superiority.  In it he described a society that lost a war by continually focusing on the new weapons that were about to come out of the labs, rather than mass-producing the ones that it already knew how to build.

To make matters more difficult, Nokia defined almost every major company in computing and telecommunications as its enemy.  At one time or another it has decided that it needed to dominate or defeat Microsoft, Apple, RIM, Google, the entire handset industry, the network equipment suppliers, and of course the mobile operators.  Even the US government tries to fight only two wars at once; Nokia has been fighting at least five.

There are so many examples of Nokia's busted plans that I don't know where to start.  The Symbian adventure, in all of its permutations, is an obvious one.  Nokia has gone through a number of different organizational structures, each of which was supposed to optimize it to compete in the new world of computing and internet.  But the one that sticks out at the moment is Nokia's venture in tablet computing.

Don't get me wrong, I do know the differences between an iPad and an n900.  They are dramatically different devices that reflect profoundly different design philosophies.  But both were designed for a similar high-level goal -- to make computing and web access mobile.  Nokia shipped its product first, more than three years ago.  Apple shipped last year.  Apple is selling seven million units a quarter, while n900 sales are what, a few hundred thousand?  Nice, but not a new industry.  I know Nokia has learned a lot, and has built a lot of infrastructure, but at some point you have to generate revenue rather than just having a great learning experience.


What do you do, Mr. Elop?

I think the biggest challenge facing Stephen Elop is that he needs to preserve the strengths of Nokia even as he undoes their effects.  Expenses have to come down, but at the same time he needs to invest in innovation.  The company must keep its manufacturing strength, even as it adopts a design philosophy that undercuts manufacturing efficiency.  People at Nokia have to be free to innovate independently, but when left to itself the Nokia culture tends to seek consensus and compromise.

I suspect that given all these changes, even motivating the Nokia workforce may become a challenge.  The Nokia people I've talked to love the company and desperately want it to get better.  But nobody could live through the last few years without getting a bit burned out.  Now the CEO says your home is on fire and you need to jump into freezing water.  Would that memo motivate you to work harder, or would it motivate you to work on your resume?  I was discussing the memo with several of my old friends from Apple today, and one of them joked that the message to employees was, "Everybody come to the communication meeting Friday!  Oh, and you might want to pack up your personal belongings and bring them, just in case."  On Friday, Nokia's people will need to see a carrot -- an attractive, plausible vision for the future of the company -- rather than just a stick.

I'll be watching carefully for that vision.  We're hearing rumors that Nokia is planning to shift away from its current operating systems and build on top of Windows Phone 7.  I doubt that's the full story.  For one thing, Nokia can't completely cut off its current software and switch to something else; there would have to be a long transition.  Besides, in the Nokia earnings call last month, Elop dropped some hints about his plans.  He talked about maintaining two platforms, one aimed at the mass market and another at the high end.  He said Nokia's biggest challenge is at the high end, so that's where I would expect a change is most likely.  Elop also went out of his way to praise the QT software layer, so I would be very surprised if it's killed.  If Windows Phone is in Nokia's future, I think we'd see it at the high end, paired with QT.  So we'd get a hybrid OS with Microsoft's plumbing and Nokia APIs. 
   
That would be a bold move, but it's also extremely complicated.  I remember when Palm tried to build its future on Windows Mobile, and gave up in disgust a couple of years later when Microsoft licensed Palm's innovations to other phone companies.  How would Nokia restrain Microsoft from doing the same thing again?  Elop worked at Microsoft, so I'm sure he has some ideas. 
   
Overall, it sounds like a high risk strategy, almost wickedly clever.  Exciting stuff.  And yet I keep remembering how Nokia's other wickedly clever strategies have worked out.

Note:  I've added more commentary on the Nokia announcement here.

Quick Takes: The RIM Tragedy, Lame Market Research, Ebooks Closer to Tipping, Flip vs. Cisco, Google as Microsoft, Nokia and the Word "Primary"

Short thoughts on recent tech news...


RIM as Greek tragedy

I wrote last fall that I was worried about RIM's financial stability (link), but I never expected the company to start inflicting damage on itself.  RIM has always come across as a calm, dependable company.  Maybe not as flashy as some other firms, but reliable and smart.  But as we approached the PlayBook launch, the company has started to look like its own worst enemy.

It's clear that the PlayBook was designed initially as a companion device for people who have BlackBerry phones, and only those people.  That's an interesting choice -- not one I would have made, but I can see RIM's logic.  But apparently RIM decided late in the game that it needed to market the tablet to a broader range of customers.  It started talking up the features those users would need, without making clear that the features would not be included in the device at launch.  Many of the things the company has been touting -- such as Android app compatibility and the ability to check e-mail messages independently of a BlackBerry -- were not available when the device shipped.  RIM has been marketing vaporware.  That guarantees disappointed reviews that focus on what the device doesn't do, rather than what it does.  Check out Walt Mossberg's write-up (link).

While this has been going on, RIM co-CEO Mike Lazaridis has been compounding the problem by creating a personal reputation as a loose cannon.  His latest escapade was ending a TV interview with BBC when they asked about security issues.  The use of the word "security" was mildly provocative, but if you've ever dealt with the British press, you know they specialize in goading people to get an interesting reaction.  The more senior your title, the more they'll poke at you, to see if you can take the heat.

The way this game works, there are several techniques you can use to deal with an aggressive question.  You can laugh at it, you can calmly point out the flaw in the question, you can answer it earnestly and patiently, and you can even pretend not to understand it (I did that once on a UK TV show and it drove the interviewer crazy because he didn't have time to rephrase the question).  But the one thing you can't do is stop the interview.  If you do that, the BBC will post a clip of you online that makes you look like a gimlet-eyed prima donna (link).

The fact that Lazaridis did this means either he's losing personal control under pressure, or not being properly briefed by his press people, or both.  Whatever the cause, it is unprofessional, and it's making RIM's challenges harder.

If you want to understand the damage being done, you can read the forward-looking obituary of RIM that Slate just ran (link).  Or check out this column by Rob Pegoraro of the Washington Post (link). Rob's a very fair-minded, professional journalist who isn't given to hyperbole.  But he called Lazaridis' actions "profoundly foolish from any sane marketing perspective...Seriously, does RIM not realize whom it’s competing with? The company is all but begging to get crushed by Apple."

I haven't written off RIM by any means.  They have a huge customer base, a great brand, and a long history of overcoming skepticism from people like me.  I hope they can do it again.  But at a minimum, RIM's management needs to recognize that they do not have the marketing skills needed to play in the world of increased smartphone competition.  They need professional help, immediately.  And I worry that the marketing problems are actually symptoms of much deeper disorder within the company.


The lamest market research study of the year

It's still early in the year, but I think someone's going to have to work pretty hard to do a lamer market research study than Harris Interactive's EquiTrends survey of mobile phone brands in the US.  Harris says the survey indicated that Motorola has the most "brand equity" of mobile phone brands in the US, followed by HTC, Sony Ericsson, Nokia, and Apple.  Harris also provided a nice chart of the results (link):



There are a couple of problems here.  The first is that the reportedly best-selling mobile phone brand in the US, Samsung, was not included in the results (link).  Oops.

The second problem is that Harris doesn't directly measure brand equity (which is a pretty fuzzy concept anyway).  What it measures is "Familiarity, Quality, and Purchase Consideration."  Those three ratings were combined into an overall brand equity score.

So this is a made-up rating created through a mathematical formula that Harris hasn't shared with the public, as far as I can tell.  But Harris assures us that it's meaningful: "Those companies with high brand equity are able to avoid switching behaviors of those brands that lack brand equity."  (link).  So, according to Harris's research, people in the US should be switching from other phone brands to Motorola.

But in the real world, the exact opposite has been happening.  Motorola has been losing share.  The number three rated brand, Sony Ericsson, has barely any distribution in the US, so it doesn't have much share to lose.  The number four brand, Nokia, has lost most of its US share.

Harris argues that Apple's mediocre score is driven by the sophistication of the iPhone:  "There is still a large audience of consumers that aren’t interested in a smartphone running their life, and Apple doesn’t have a product to meet that need."  I think that's correct, but HTC also sells only smartphones, and it was ranked number two.

And oh by the way, what's the margin of error in Harris's survey?  I can't find it disclosed anywhere, but my guess is that it's several points plus or minus, in which case everyone except Motorola is in a statistical tie.  That wouldn't have made for a cool looking marketing chart, though.

It's been distressing to see websites pick up the Harris story and repeat it without questioning the results.  PC Magazine swallowed it whole (link), as did MocoNews (link).  A lot of other sites reprinted the Harris press release verbatim.  Even if you didn't dig into the flaws, the study ought to fail the basic sniff test of credibility -- does anyone really believe that HTC has a stronger brand in the US than Apple?

When I worked at Apple and Palm, we hated synthetic brand rating studies like this one (and the JD Power ratings, which are similar) because the results depend more on the secret formula used by the polling company than on the actual behavior of customers.  The polling companies construct these special methodologies because they can then sell long reports to the companies surveyed explaining the results, and also charge the winners for the right to quote the results in their marketing.  Check out the fine print at the bottom of the Harris press release: "The EquiTrend® study results disclosed in this release may not be used for advertising, marketing or promotional purposes without the prior written consent of Harris Interactive."  I don't know for sure that Harris charges to quote the survey, but that's the usual procedure.

The lesson for all of us is that you should never accept any market research study without looking into its background, even if it comes from a famous research company.


Ebooks: Here comes the tipping point

The continued strong sales of iPad, Kindle, and Nook in the US are bringing us steadily closer to the tipping point where it will pay an author to bypass paper publishing and sell direct to ebooks.  The latest evidence is from the Association of American Publishers, which reported that ebooks made up 27% of all book revenue in the US in January-February 2011 (link).  AAP correctly pointed out that the ebooks share was raised temporarily by people buying ebooks to read on all of the e-readers they got for Christmas.  The share will go down later in the year.

Still, at any share over about 20%, it will be more economical for an established author to self-publish through ebooks (where they can retain 70% of sales revenue) rather than working through a paper publisher (where they get at most 15% of revenue).  When we hit that point on a sustained basis, I expect that a lot of authors will move to electronic publishing quickly.

It looks like we'll hit that point sometime this year or next.


Flip aftershocks

Silicon Valley has the attention span of a toddler in a candy store, but it was interesting to see how people around here lingered on the story of Flip's demise several days after the announcement.  There were dark suggestions of ulterior motives at Cisco -- that they had bought the company to strip it of its intellectual property (link) or that they shut it down a viable company only so they could look decisive to Wall Street (link).  And that was just the stuff in the press.  I've heard even more pointed speculation from people working in Silicon Valley.

My guess is the real story is a lot more complicated and nuanced, but at this point it doesn't matter.  Killing Flip may have helped Cisco with Wall Street analysts, but the sequence of buying Flip and then shutting it down has seriously damaged the company's image in Silicon Valley as a leader and a partner.  Silicon Valley is a very forgiving place.  You can make huge strategic mistakes, and waste billions of dollars, and still you'll be forgiven as long as you did it in sincere pursuit of a reasonable business idea.  But Cisco's senior management is now viewed as either overconfident to the point of stupidity, or as the deliberate torture-murderer of a beloved consumer brand.  I've rarely seen this level of hostility toward a management team, and I don't think they will be forgiven anytime soon, if ever.

Does that have any practical impact on Cisco's business?  Not immediately; business is business.  But it will probably be a little harder for Cisco to make alliances and hire ambitious people in the future.


Google 2011 = Microsoft 2000?

It's spooky how Google is sometimes starting to remind me of Microsoft circa 2000.

The latest incident was a quote from a Google executive saying that the company wants iPhone to grow because Google makes a lot of money from it (link).  Microsoft used to say the same sort of thing about Apple, claiming that it made more when a Mac was sold rather than a Windows PC (link).  (The idea was that many Microsoft apps were bundled with Windows at low cost, whereas Mac customers bought Microsoft apps at retail.)
   
In both cases, the statements may be technically true, but what they really point out is that the company has deep internal conflicts between its various business units.  Yes, part of Microsoft wanted to make Macintosh successful, but another part of Microsoft wanted to kill Macintosh.  Microsoft as a whole wanted to do both at the same time, which created internal confusion.  Add in antitrust lawsuits by governments and Wall Street pressure for quarterly growth, and Microsoft quickly became distracted, inwardly focused, and slow-moving.

Parts of Google, I'm sure, think iPhone is great and want it to grow.  But I guarantee that the Android team is trying to kill iPhone (and Nokia, and HP/Palm).  Google has its own set of government distractions, plus a big old lawsuit from Oracle, plus legal action by Microsoft and Apple against Android licensees. 

There are huge differences between Google and Microsoft, of course.  Google is not under the same sort of Wall Street pressure that was applied to Microsoft, and Google's founders have not lost interest in running the company. 

But it's disturbing to see how quickly some of Microsoft's symptoms are showing up at Google.


Hey Nokia, how do you define "primary"?

Microsoft and Nokia said they have finalized the contract for their alliance.  There were a couple of interesting tidbits in the announcement:

--Both companies said they completed the negotiations sooner than they expected.  Usually that sort of statement is hype, but for an agreement of this size, it actually was a pretty fast turnaround.

--They went out of their way to say that Nokia will be paying royalties for Windows Phone similar to what other companies pay.  That's important legally and for regulators, so companies like Samsung can't complain that Microsoft is giving discriminatory pricing.  At the same time, the announcement also made it clear that Microsoft will be passing a ton of money to Nokia for various services and IP, which Nokia wanted on the record to help with its investors.  I think the net effect will be that Nokia gets a free Windows Phone license for a long time.  That will not please Samsung, HTC, and the other Windows Phone licensees, because it puts them as a price disadvantage.

--The companies are apparently cross-licensing a lot of patents.  I wonder if this will help Nokia with its IP warfare against Apple.

--In an interview with AllThingsD (link), Microsoft and Google Nokia said Windows Phone was Nokia's "primary smartphone operating system." That leaves open the door for Nokia to play with other smartphone operating systems, and it leaves completely unanswered the question of tablets.  I'm sure the Symbian/Meego fans will be all over that as a ray of hope for their platforms, but to me it just leaves some prudent wiggle room for Nokia in the future.  I'd love to know how the agreement defines the words "smartphone" and "primary" -- or if it even has definitions for them.

(Note: Edited on April 22 to fix an embarrassing typo.)

Quick Takes: Nokia's culture, RIM's interface, and living in the paradigm of engineers

This post is an experiment.  I sometimes run across information that I think is worth sharing, but that doesn't fit into my usual publishing tools.  Generally it'll be something too complicated to tweet, but too simple for one of my usual long blog posts.  I've decided to try compiling those tidbits into an occasional post, which I call "Quick Takes."

Please let me know if you find this useful.

This time I want to talk about the aftermath of the Nokia-Microsoft deal, Android on BlackBerry, wireless insecurity, and WikiLeaks as a model for the future of human society.


More aftershocks from the Nokia-Microsoft deal

In the flood of commentary about Nokia's deal with Microsoft, I ran across three items with interesting perspectives on the deal.  They helped me understand how much work Nokia still needs to do.  If you're interested in the deal, or just in organizational change, I think they're worth checking out...

The engineering-driven culture.  Adam Greenfield, a former Nokia employee, discussed Nokia's culture and explained how it produces wonderful mobile phone devices but poor user experiences (link).  The key sentence:

The value-engineering mindset that’s so crucial to profitability as a commodity trader is fatal as a purveyor of experiences.

When I've written in the past that Nokia needs to learn how to do real product management, this is what I was trying to say.

This is how it feels to have an alliance dumped on you.  Meanwhile, if you want to get a sense of how corporate alliances get built, check out Engadget's interview with Aaron Woodman of Microsoft (link).  Aaron is a Microsoft spokesman and a key player in the Windows Phone team, so you might expect him to know chapter and verse about the plans for the alliance with Nokia.  But he doesn't, and you can feel his discomfort as Engadget tries to pin him down on some details:

Q:  There will be no preferential treatment given to Nokia in terms of the level of customization that they can apply to their devices. Is that correct, or no?
A: So it's an interesting question -- you say, like, preferential treatment, so say more about that. Is that like oh, they can modify...

The reality is that a big corporate alliance is created from the top down.  Senior management negotiates the broad outlines, and then announces the deal (because it's material to both companies and has to be announced to prevent insider trading).  Then the mid-level employees have to painstakingly work out what the agreement actually means.  I believe that's happening as you read this, and that process will probably continue for some months.  Meanwhile, Aaron can't answer most of Engadget's questions because the answers don't yet exist.  I give him a lot of credit for not trying to make up something to make himself sound better.

Anyway, if you see some vagueness from Microsoft and Nokia in the next few months, don't be alarmed.  It's how these things are done.

When is an installed base not an installed base?  I've been delighted to watch the rise of Horace Dediu, a former Nokia employee who has built himself a huge online following through very cogent analysis of Apple, and now the overall mobile market.  Although I usually find myself agreeing with everything he says, I thought he was a bit off base in some recent commentary about Nokia (link).

Dediu plotted the installed base of every mobile platform, and pointed out that Symbian has a far larger installed base than any other mobile platform.  He said Nokia has decided to throw away that installed base:

The disposal of such a large installed base must count among the largest divestitures in technology history and, when coupled with the adoption of the least-tested alternative as a replacement, elevates platform risk-taking to a new level. It may seem bold, but there is a fine line between courage and recklessness.

If all of those Symbian users understood that Symbian was their OS, had purchased applications for it, and felt that Symbian added value to their devices, then Nokia would indeed be taking a huge risk.  But virtually the only people who were even aware of Symbian were the people reading and writing blogs about the mobile industry.

Try this -- go look at a typical Nokia Symbian phone.  What is the brand you see on it?  Start the software, launch some apps.  Do you see the word "Symbian" displayed prominently?

Have you ever seen an ad for Symbian?  A billboard perhaps, or a big glossy ad on the back cover of the Economist?

Maybe a teensy little text ad inside the Economist?  Anything?

Indeed not.  Because Nokia didn't want the name Symbian to be prominent.  Heck, it didn't even let Symbian create its own user interface, let alone advertise its brand.  Nokia made Symbian into anonymous plumbing, because Nokia wanted Nokia to be the brand that users bought.  And considering how things worked out, that was something the company did right.

When I was at Palm and we surveyed mobile phone users, we asked Symbian users what OS was on their phones.  Most of them had no idea.  Among the minority who said they knew what their OS was, more of them thought it was Windows than knew it was Symbian.

Let me say that again, more Symbian users thought they were using Windows than knew they were using Symbian.  I guarantee that hasn't changed in the years since we did our surveys.

So, if Nokia executes its marketing properly, it should be able to flip most Symbian users to Windows Phone easily.  Just grin, tell them it's the cool new Nokia smartphone, and move on.  In that vein, the riskiest thing Nokia has done in the past couple of weeks is play up its deal with Microsoft.  It would have been better to play it down, so Nokia customers wouldn't get a message of disruption.

But I doubt most of them are listening anyway.

If there's anything reckless in the Nokia-Microsoft deal, it's the huge number of things that both companies need to execute very well in order to make it work.  But I think there's nothing reckless about the basic idea of ditching Symbian.


Android apps on BlackBerry?

There have been persistent rumors that RIM is trying to get software that will let its PlayBook tablet run Android apps (link).  Now there's some evidence that they may be looking to do the same on BlackBerry phones as well (link).  This seems like a reasonable thing to do, but I'm astounded that they're only working on it now.  The time to plan the app platform for your tablet is when you're creating the software for it, about a year before it ships.  It's not the sort of thing you dink around with a couple of months before shipment.  And you especially don't tell the public about it right before the hardware launches -- all that does is undercut any chance you had of getting native app development on your platform.


Wireless isn't secure (duh)

This isn't news if you've been paying attention.  For years the security companies have been telling us that wireless networks (especially wifi) can easily be snooped.  I'm not sure why the wireless insecurity story has never gotten much traction outside the beltway.  Maybe we weren't using enough web apps to care, or maybe no one listens to the security companies because they're presumed to be alarmists who just want to charge you $49.95 a year for something that'll make your computer run slow.

Anyway, it seems to me that the story is now popping up all over the place.  In December the Wall Street Journal ran a series on the information collected by mobile apps (link), this week The New York Times ran a story on the third party tools available to hack wifi hotspots (link), and a professor at Rice University posted on the types of data his class could sniff from his Android phone (link).  A surprising find -- two apps unrelated to location services were broadcasting his GPS location.

Why is this significant?  The mobile operators plan to offload traffic to wifi to reduce network congestion.  If those networks turn out to be insecure, the operators might be blamed for security breaches that result.  Or if more wifi networks are restricted due to security fears, the operators might find it harder to do that offloading in the first place.  Bottom line -- it is risky to depend on someone else's infrastructure as part of your core product.


WikiLeaks: Human society as designed by an open source engineer

O'Reilly ran a fascinating review of Inside WikiLeaks, a new book describing how WikiLeaks operates (link).  It reminded me of some thoughts I had after I heard a talk by Ward Cunningham, one of the creators of the wiki (link).

Most of the social structures in the world today were designed by two groups of people, religious leaders and lawyers.  The religious leaders gave us governments based on moral codes and hierarchies; the lawyers gave us governments based on laws, property, and checks and balances.  In both cases, the people creating the system built into it their own worldviews, their own assumptions about human nature.  The assumptions were so fundamental that I think they didn't even realize they were using them; they just baked them into the system.

Wikipedia, WikiLeaks, and movements like them are profoundly new because they attempt to structure society around the social assumptions of a third group of people: engineers.  And not just any engineers, but open source engineers.  That culture believes in the rationality of human beings and the existence of absolute truth.  It assumes that if the same information were available to everyone we'd be able to settle all disputes through logical discourse.  And it is intensely hostile to authority structures, because by definition they're assumed to get in the way of free discussion.

WikiLeaks is an attempt by that culture to restructure society.  I know that sounds crazy, but here's a quote from the book:

In the world we dreamed of, there would be no more bosses or hierarchies, and no one could achieve power by withholding from the others the knowledge needed to act as an equal player.

If you want to see this idea taken to its logical extreme, check out the short story "The Ungoverned" by science fiction author Vernor Vinge (it's online here).  I'm not saying that's the world we're headed for, but I think we'd all be foolish to assume that WikiLeaks will be the last attempt at open source social engineering.

I think it's actually just the beginning.

Can Google's Chromebook Break Windows?

Summary.  Google is right: Windows is an old, creaky, virus-ridden product that deserves to be replaced by something better.  But to displace an established computing platform you need to do a lot of things right, and Google hasn't shown the focus and coordination needed to pull it off.  Unless there are dramatic changes in Google's Chromebook plans, I think they are likely to fail.
   

Google's Chromebook vision is seductive: sleek and simple net-connected notebook computers, backed by the world's biggest web company, replace the bloated, unstable Windows PCs that dominate the desks and laps of the computing world.  Google painted that picture at its IO developer conference last week, and it tantalized a lot of people:

"Google...might have just changed the industry."  -Engadget (link)

"Microsoft could lose billions in sales to Google's Chromebook."  -Beta News (link)

"Google Chromebooks will likely seduce businesses."  -Tech Republic (link)

"Chromebooks may just be the next best solution for small to medium-sized businesses looking to untether from Microsoft Office."  -PC World (link)

I wish it were true.  Windows deserves to be replaced.  It's just plain old, weighted down with decades of compromises and tweaks.  The OS steadily degrades as you use it, and the security software companies will tell you privately that it's impossible to fully protect it from hostile software.  I'm sure that with a clean start we could do better.

So I love Google's idea.  Unfortunately, the Chromebook as currently defined is woefully unready to take on Windows.  It may capture some niches and verticals, but it won't have a major effect on the industry unless Google makes major changes to it.  And some of the biggest barriers to its success are inside Google itself.

In case you're a new reader to my blog, I should give you a brief background on myself, so you'll know where I'm coming from on this issue.  I worked at Apple for a decade, where I was a front-line soldier in the Mac vs. PC war.  I was part of Apple's competitive analysis team and later managed it, and I was in charge of the main Mac vs. Windows marketing team.  Throughout that time, my co-workers and I spent a huge amount of time studying platform transitions -- how computing platforms were displaced in the past, and how could we apply those lessons to defeating "Wintel."

What we found was daunting.  Once a computing platform is established, it's not enough to make a product that's better overall.  You have to duplicate the core benefits of the current product, and be so much better in some areas that you overcome the users' natural resistance to change.  Even when Mac had a graphical interface and the PC was still stuck with DOS, we could convert only a small fraction of the PC installed base.  Users were too attached to their PC programs and all the arcane keyboard commands they had memorized to use them.  Most people moved to graphical interfaces only after Microsoft offered Windows on the PC, which allowed them to keep access to their old software while they gradually came up to speed on Windows.

So when Google brags about the advantages of Chromebooks, I'm completely unimpressed because they are more than wiped out by the enormous sacrifices in basic compatibility and productivity that most people would have to make in order to move off Windows.  The most fundamental problem is Google Docs.

There's no way to put this politely: As a replacement for Microsoft Office, Google Docs stinks.  Its word processor is adequate but limited, its spreadsheet is rudimentary, and its presentation program is so awkward and inflexible that it makes me want to throw something.  In terms of usability and features, Google Docs is about where Macintosh software was in 1987.

In fairness, there are some things Google Docs is great at.  It's fantastic for collaborative editing; using Docs plus a Skype session can be a thing of beauty for brainstorming and working through a list of action items.  But as a replacement for Office, the apps are so limited that using them is like watching a Jerry Lewis movie: you keep asking yourself, "why is this happening?"  I tried very hard to use Google Docs as the productivity software for my startup, and eventually I gave up when it became clear that it was actually destroying my productivity.

If I sound frustrated, it's because I am.  I remember back in 2005 when a startup called Upstartle created Writely, an online competitor to Microsoft Word.  The product was evolving quickly, and as I wrote at the time, I thought it had a good chance of eventually growing into a real challenger to Word (link).  Then Google bought Writely and bundled it into Docs, and I thought "that's even better, now development will really accelerate."

Instead, the evolution of the product has been snail-like.  Six years after the acquisition, the word processor component of Google Docs is improved, but still very primitive compared to Word.  The official Google Docs blog lists lots of new features the team is adding (link), but there are even more missing.  For example, only last month did they add pagination to the word processor.  Part of the problem is that the team is spending a lot of time adding features that have nothing to do with competing with Office.  I sat through a session at Google IO last week on Google Docs, and the main theme was that they are transforming Docs into an online storage system like Dropbox or Box.Net.  The team has added semi-random features like the ability to store videos, do OCR on photos, and sync between devices.  Meanwhile, their presentation module can't even do transitions between slides.

Rather than doing the unglamorous work of competing with Office, the Docs team seems to be chasing after the latest shiny new startup category.  Google says those sexy features were high-priority requests from Docs users, but if so that just shows what's wrong with Google's development process.  The people it should be trying to please are current Office users, not the unusual people who were willing to give up Office for the current mediocre version of Docs.  Get a roomful of Office users and ask them if they'd rather have OCR of photos or a printing architecture that works in most browsers.  As Mom used to say, "you can't have dessert until you finish your peas."  It looks like no one at Google is telling the Docs team to finish its peas.

The limitations of Google Docs are going to be unacceptable to most Office users.  The problem is not that most people create slides with transitions, but they don't want to be cut off from that sort of advanced feature if they ever need it.  The loss of potential future productivity is what keeps people away.

I know, I fought this battle extensively at Apple.  There's a reason why apps have long feature lists -- the feature count drives sales.

Even if a user could come to terms with the limited features of Google Docs, good luck if you need to share your work with the majority of computer users who are still on Office.  Moving documents back and forth between Office and Google Docs routinely mangles some of the features of Office documents.  Now you're not just limiting your own productivity, you are annoying your business partners and coworkers.

Since Google does not seem to be focused on fixing Docs, it's theoretically possible that some other app developer could create an online replacement for Office that really works, and offer it on Chromebooks.  But who would want to invest in that area when Google Docs is there as a competitor?  Docs is just good enough to hinder innovation, but not good enough to take out Office. 

Besides, Google did a couple of sessions at IO comparing web app development to native app development.  They all concluded that web app development was better for content-playing applications, and that for productivity apps you need native software.  And native software is exactly what Chromebooks won't run.

It makes you wonder if the app guys at Google ever talk to the Chrome guys.

So Google can say all it wants about long battery life, instant on, support costs, and invulnerability to viruses.  Those are all problems that PC users put up with because they are unwilling to give up the advantages of Office and the rest of the PC apps base (think about it, if those issues really motivated people, Macintosh would have 80% share in PCs).  I could picture an IT manager looking at the lower costs of Chrome and wanting to force users off Windows, but that will just produce a user revolt.  I know very few IT departments that are willing to take on that sort of battle.  Maybe some very cost-conscious schools and businesses might force users to switch to Chrome, but for the vast majority, as long as Office is not challenged, neither is Windows.

Ironically, if Google really wanted to replace Windows, Android would probably be a better OS for the job.  It has more momentum, and you can write native software for it.  But that's blocked by Google's own internal politics, which has assigned Android to phones and tablets and Chrome to PCs.

I like the Chromebook vision, and some day I'm sure something will replace Windows.  But Google is utterly unready for the hard, unglamorous work needed to make Chromebook succeed, both in terms of its products and in terms of its internal organization.  Unless Google makes major changes, Chromebook will probably be yet another failed Google initiative that will have us asking "what happened?" a couple of years from now.

Kind of like the way we talk about Jerry Lewis.


Three steps to fix Docs

If Google truly wants to replace Windows, it needs to focus Docs on that task.  Stop the sexy but esoteric stuff like automatic translation of street signs in photos (something that most people don't really need their word processor to do), and make sure the basics like printing work properly.  Here are my top three priorities:

1.  Make it look like an application.  The user interface in Docs is primitive, an awkward mix of web page and application.  It is extremely intimidating to a normal user.  Here's the window I get when I edit a word processing document in Google Docs:

You're looking at two inches of stacked-up interface cruft, including three separate menu bars and 58 different clickable items.  Hey Google, aren't you embarrassed by this?  I didn't think anyone could make the Office ribbon toolbar look efficient, but you managed to do it.

You might be saying to yourself, "well, that's just what happens when you run an app in a browser."  That's no excuse.  If you can't make a browser-based app easy to use, you should give up the pretense that you'll ever replace Windows.

2. Take full advantage of HTML 5.  Google gave a great pitch at IO on all the wonderful new graphical features in HTML 5 and its associated technologies: groovy things like 3D transforms, text bound to a curve, animation, and huge numbers of fonts.  Very little of this graphical power has shown up in Docs.  Google should make Docs (and especially its presentation module) a showcase for the great things you can do with HTML 5.

3.  Make Docs extensible.  No matter how well Google focuses its development, it won't be able to quickly match all of the features in Office.  That's why Docs desperately needs a plug-in architecture.  One of the reasons WordPress became a leading weblog tool is because it enabled developers to easily extend it with a blizzard of widgets and add-on modules. Google should do the same with Docs.  Then rather than Google being responsible for covering all the features of Office, the development community could share the burden.  I bet that with the right plug-in architecture, and a widgets store built into Docs, Google could have a more complete office suite than Windows within 24 months.  That would make Chromebooks a truly potent competitor to Windows, and a product worthy of Google's enormous skill and ambition.

Impact of the Nokia-Microsoft Alliance: Welcome to the Five-Platform World

Like a big collective cow, the blogosphere is continuing to chew on the Nokia-Microsoft announcement.  It seems to be one of those rare events that forces people to stop, step back, and reconsider their assumptions.

I think it's impossible to say today what impact the Nokia-Microsoft alliance will have, because we don't know how well Nokia will execute.  If Nokia executes poorly, there won't be any change at all -- both Microsoft and Nokia will continue to gradually decline in mobile.  If Nokia executes well, I think the impact could be pretty big.  Not asteroid-killing-dinosaurs big, but a very large meteorite, with effects felt worldwide.

For the purposes of this note, I'm going to assume that both Nokia and Microsoft will execute well.  That's a risky assumption -- they would not have formed this alliance if they had been executing well in the past.  But for today we'll give them both the benefit of the doubt.


How many platforms can we stand?

Ignore the hype from Nokia about the "third platform."  The reality is that we're on track to end up with four or five significant smartphone platforms in the US and Europe: Apple, Android, RIM, Windows Phone, and HP/Palm if their new products are excellent.  Japan as usual will be very different, and I don't think all five players will be equally active worldwide.

You might ask if the market can accommodate five platforms.  There's a school of thought that says the smartphone market is destined to go the way of the PC market -- eventually almost everyone will coalesce on a single platform that has the most applications and licensees.  If that's how smartphones are destined to work, nobody seems to have told the customers.  Platforms with small numbers of apps (RIM in particular) have continued to sell well.  Also, back when I was at Palm and we had far more apps than any other mobile device, it didn't let us destroy Pocket PC, or RIM, or Symbian.

I think apps do matter in smartphones, but so far they appear to matter less than they do in PCs.  Without any apps, a PC is useless, whereas most smartphones ship with a lot of functions built in: voice telephony, texting, e-mail, browser, camera, etc.  Third party apps are more gravy than steak, at least for now.

So maybe the magic number is two platforms.  In marketing, many experts believe customers can hold only two major brands in their heads for any market: a leader and a challenger.  Think Coke and Pepsi, Hertz and Avis, Airbus and Boeing.  On the other hand, there are plenty of markets which have dozens of competitors.  Automobiles, for instance.  You can have huge numbers of successful brands there because the market is heavily segmented -- Rolls Royce doesn't compete with Mini Cooper.

I believe the number of smartphone vendors and platforms is going to depend on the actions of the smartphone companies themselves.  If they treat smartphones like a single consolidated market, a shakeout is probably inevitable.  If they segment the market, creating brands and devices that serve different groups of customers differently, I think there's room for all the platforms to survive.

Unfortunately, at this point most of the smartphone companies are focusing only on slavishly copying Apple.  Even RIM, a company with differentiated communicator products, is trying desperately to turn them into iPhone clones.  That's a great strategy to ensure commoditization and market dominance by Apple.

Since we're giving Nokia the benefit of the doubt today, let's assume they create differentiated products that help to segment the market.  I think that would stimulate other handset companies to do the same thing, leading to a relatively stable multiplatform world.

Here's what that means to the rest of the industry...


For the Android licensees, there will be intense competition for shelf space

In a five platform world, I think it'll be hard for all of the Android licensees to survive.  Picture your typical Verisprint store a couple of years from now (Vodorange if you're in Europe).  It probably carries three iPhone devices, because Apple has diversified its line.  There are a couple of RIM devices with keyboards.  We're assuming Nokia and Microsoft are successful, so there are a couple of Nokia smartphones on display.  Since we're giving the benefit of the doubt, we'll also assume HP has paid big comarketing dollars to get two of its devices shelved.  That's nine smartphones.  How much space is left for Android models?  I figure maybe two or three devices, split between Samsung, HTC, Motorola, SonyEricsson, LG, etc.  Life gets very uncomfortable for a couple of those companies.

Or maybe they get lucky and a RIM or HP gets knocked out of the picture.  That would leave space for more Android vendors.  But the Android licensees can't control that -- they're counting on Google to drive one or two of the other handset platforms out of business.  Is Google prepared to fight that sort of alley knife-fight against an HP or RIM, companies that might otherwise be Google partners? 

Android was a fun product for Google when all it meant was bleeding Microsoft.  But it eventually made Apple into an enemy, and now Nokia.  HP is next, and RIM will come after unless it licenses Android.  Is that the lifestyle Google wants?  I doubt it.

By the way, I think the Android shelf space problem is one of the reasons why Nokia went with Microsoft rather than Google.  Nokia has more control over its fate as a Windows Phone vendor, and it knows Microsoft is willing to do anything to win.


What happens to the other Windows Phone licensees? 

It's really hard for me to picture them sticking with the platform in more than a token fashion.  They avoided Symbian because it was a stacked deck in Nokia's favor; I think Windows Phone now looks the same.  The only way they'd invest more is if Nokia's WinPhone products started to take off strongly in a couple of years, and they were afraid of being left out.  I presume that's what Microsoft is counting on (it's how they dealt with IBM in PCs).


Can HP really be the fifth platform? 

HP is by far the weakest of the five mobile platforms.  Although it has a great legacy, it has neglected its developers tragically and its products are late.  The recent HP event shows it still has a legacy of goodwill in Silicon Valley, and you can't count out the world's largest PC company.  But HP's success depends on great execution.  If its products are timely and deliver on their promises, I think it has a good shot.  I am especially impressed by the things HP wants to do to link its products together (another on the long list of things Microsoft fumbled years ago).

But can HP execute?  It's been steering a zigzag course in PCs.  For several years it invested heavily in differentiation, and hired a lot of former Apple staffers.  But in the last year it laid off many of those people, killed its advertising campaign, and focused on Acer-style price competition.  Now suddenly HP is talking like it wants to go back to being a differentiated premium vendor.  That sort of inconsistency will be deadly when competing directly with the other smartphone platforms.

I can't figure out if the HP guys are Jedi knights or middle-aged paunchy men playing with plastic swords.  Based on history, I'm about 60-40 in favor of the plastic swords.


For the mobile operators, all of this produces immense happiness

Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good, and the Nokia-Microsoft deal is a huge stroke of luck for the operators.  They have always wanted the handset vendors to be barefoot and pregnant, too weak and divided to fight with them for control over phone customers.  A five-platform world is immensely attractive to them because the platforms can be played off against one another.  If RIM gets too uppity, you can just tip the product mix toward HP, or vice-versa.

The downside of this for the operators is that five platforms are a lot more work to support.  So they'll have conflicting temptations -- carrying more platforms gives them more leverage, but adds to their costs.  I think the biggest operators will choose the leverage; Verizon proved that it's not healthy to be cut off from a successful platform, and you can never tell which one is going to be successful next. 


For app developers, there will be more pain

The prospect of a five platform market is a nightmare for developers.  It's already hard to support two platforms (Apple and Android); the idea of supporting five is a logistical nightmare.  Most developers will focus on one or two, but that limits their potential revenue because the available market is smaller.

This situation favors large established developers that can afford to do ports to all the platforms.  Unfortunately, large software companies are usually the slowest to innovate, so I fear the net result of a five-platform world is likely to be less innovation in mobile apps.

There will probably be intense interest in cross-platform development environments that let a developer write once and deploy anywhere.  The platform companies will resist, and probably governments will eventually get dragged into the debate as they are asked to define what constitutes restraint of trade in an online app marketplace.

The one silver lining might be if the platform vendors start to compete for developers by giving them benefits -- for example, by loosening restrictions in their app stores, and taking a smaller cut of revenue.  I hope that will happen, but it's not enough to make up for the fractured development platform.


What it means to Nokia: A chance to survive

Although Europe is really a collection of nations rather than a single place, there are a few things that seem to tug on heartstrings across many European countries.  The Eurovision song contest is one, Airbus is another, and Nokia is a third.  It represents European style and marketing prowess, and it proves that people in Europe can lead a high-tech industry.  So the deal with Microsoft represents far more than a business deal; it feels like a betrayal of a European jewel at the hands of a rapacious American company.

It's important to understand what the alternative was for Nokia.  If the company had continued at current course and speed, the decline in gross margins would have put it close to breakeven this year, and it would have started losing money in 2012.  Things were already so bad that restoring 10% operating profit this year would require laying off about a third of the company.  Obviously the cuts won't be that severe because Elop is aiming at a multiyear recovery, but the numbers show how close Nokia was to a death spiral in which spending cuts and revenue declines start reinforcing each other.

Nokia was like a plane rapidly losing altitude.  If you don't pull back on the yoke in time, there's nothing you can do to avoid hitting the ground.  The company was very close to that point.

I believe Nokia's directors knew this when they hired Stephen Elop, and his charter was to restructure the company radically before the problems became unsolvable.  In that sort of situation, you don't ask what products you ought to save.  You figure out how much money you can spend, you make a prioritized list of everything you do, and you start cutting from the bottom of the list until your activities fit into the budget.

I think when Elop and the board did that exercise, all of Nokia's OS business was below the line.  They just couldn't afford it.

Although stepping back from OS is emotionally devastating to many Nokia employees and fans, I don't think it's necessarily bad for the company.  Operating systems are like plumbing; they don't actually add much value to the building, but if they're built wrong they can destroy it.  Symbian advocates talked persuasively about its superior power management and ability to run on low-cost hardware, but as far as I can tell that was never reflected in higher margins for Nokia smartphones.  Most Symbian users didn't even know the OS was there, and if they had they would not have paid extra for it.  Symbian was enormously complex and difficult to work with, and it cost Nokia a fortune.  According to Nokia's annual reports, it paid about $800 million when it bought Symbian, and it reportedly employed at least 2,500 Symbian engineers (link).  Those engineers probably cost about $500m a year, or about $5 per Symbian phone sold.

Nokia went into the OS business because it was afraid of depending on someone else's plumbing.  Now it's betting that Microsoft is weakened enough that it'll actually cooperate with Nokia.  Microsoft will reportedly end up paying Nokia more than a billion dollars to adopt Windows Phone (link), and Nokia can reassign the Symbian engineers to tasks that will actually differentiate Nokia's products.  The deal with Microsoft could end up being not a surrender for Nokia, but a liberation.

But as I've said before, it all depends on execution.  For the folks inside Nokia, things will feel worse before they feel better.  The layoffs are still to come, and until then it will be hard for employees to focus on their jobs.  Even after the layoffs are done, it will be a lot of months before Nokia can ship new devices designed to take advantage of Windows Phone.  Until then, Nokia is unlikely to reverse its gradual loss of share in smartphones. 

When I first held a Nokia n97, I was lost in admiration at how beautifully the hardware was put together.  Everything from the shape of the case to the motion of the sliding hinge screamed elegance.  Then I tried the software and I wanted to toss it out a window.  Nokia's smartphone task is now very simple: produce some great devices like the n97, marry them cleanly with Windows Phone, and partner with Microsoft to get them distributed as broadly as possible.

If Nokia targets those products at real customer needs, and differentiates them from the iPhone rather than just trying to top it, it has a good chance of creating the multi-platform future it's talking about.

It's not as much fun as conquering the entire tech industry, but it's a lot better than going broke.  And it's probably the only choice Nokia had.