by Adam Hartung | Apr 26, 2011 | Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Everyone discriminates in hiring – just some is considered bad, and some considered good
- Only “good discrimination” inevitably leads to homogeneity and “group think” leaving the business vulbnerable to market shifts
- Efforts to defend & extend the historical success formula moves beyond hiring to include using internal bias to favor improvement projects and disfavor innovations
- Amazon has grown significantly more than Wal-Mart, and it’s value has quadrupled while Wal-mart’s has been flat, because it has moved beyond its original biases
The long list of people attacking Wal-Mart includes a class-action law suit between former female workers and their employer. The plaintiffs claim Wal-Mart systematically was biased, via its culture, to pay women less and limit their promotion opportunities. The case is prompting headlines like BNet.com‘s “Does Your Company Help You Discriminate?”
Actually, all cultures – and hiring programs – are designed to discriminate. It’s just that some discrimination is legal, and some is not. At Google it’s long been accepted that the bias is toward quant jocks and those with highest IQs. That’s not illegal. Saying that men, or white people, or Christians make better employees is illegal. But there is risk in all hiring bias – even the legal kind. To avoid the illegal discrimination, its smarter to overcome the “natural bias” that cultures create for hiring. And the good news is that this is better for the business’s growth and rate of return!
Successful organizations build a profile of “who did well around here – and why” as they grow. It doesn’t take long until that profile is what they seek. The downside is that quickly there’s not a lot of heterogeneity in the hiring – or the workforce. That leads to “group think,” which reinforces “not invented here.” Everyone becomes self-assured of their past success, and believes that if they keep doing “more of the same” the future will work out fine. Whether Wal-Mart’s hiring biases were legal – or not – it is clear that the group think created at Wal-Mart has kept it from innovating and moving into new markets with more growth.
Markets shift. New products, technologies and business practices emerge. New competitors figure out ways of providing new solutions. Customers drift toward new offerings, and growth slows. Unfortunately, bias keeps the early winner from accepting this market shift – so the company falls into serious growth troubles trying to do more, better, faster, cheaper of what worked before. Look at Dell, still trying to compete in PCs with its supply chain focus long after competitors have matched their pricing and started offering superior customer service and other advantages. Meanwhile, the market growth has moved away from PCs into products (tablets, smartphones) Dell doesn’t even sell.
Wal-Mart excels at its success formula of big, boring, low price stores. And its bias is to keep doing more of the same. Only, that’s not where the growth is in retailing any longer. The market for “cheap” is pretty well saturated, and now filled with competitors that go one step further being cheap (like Dollar General,) or largely match the low prices while offering better store experience (like Target) or better selection and varied merchandise (like Kohl’s). Wal-Mart is stuck, when it needs to shift. But its bias toward “doing what Sam Walton did that made us great” has now made Wal-Mart the target for every other retailer, and stymied Wal-Mart’s growth.
A powerful sign of status quo bias shows itself when leaders and managers start overly relying on “how we’ve done things here” and “the numbers.” The former leads to accepting recommendations fro hiring and promotion based upon similarity with previous “winners.” Investment opportunities to defend and extend what’s always been done sail through reviews, because everyone understands the project and everyone believes that the results will appear.
Nearly all studies of operational improvement projects show that returns rarely achieve the anticipated outcomes. Because these projects reinforce the status quo, they are assumed to be highly accurate projections. But planned efficiences do not emerge. Headcount reductions do not happen. Unanticipated costs emerge. And, most typically, competitors copy the project and achieve the same results, leading to price reductions across the board benefitting customers rather than company profits.
Doing more of the same is easily approved and rarely questioned – whether hiring, or investing. And if things don’t work out as expected results are labeled “business necessity” and everyone remains happy they made the original decision, even if it did nothing for market share, or profit improvement. Or perhaps turns out to have been illegal (remember Enron and Worldcom?)
To really succeed it is important we overcome biases. Look no further than Amazon. Amazon could have been an on-line book retailer. But by overcoming early biases, in hiring and new projects, Amazon has grown more than Wal-Mart the last decade – and has a much brighter future. Amazon now leads in a large number of retail segments, far beyond books. It has products which allow anyone to take almost any product to market – using the Amazon on-line tools, as well as inventory management.
And in publishing Amazon has become a powerhouse by helping self-published authors find distribution which was before unavailable, giving us all a much larger variety of book products. More recently Amazon pioneered e-Readers with Kindle, developing the technology as well as the inventory to make Kindle an enormous success. Simultaneously Amazon now offers a series of technical products providing companies access to the cloud for data and applications.
Where most companies would say “that’s not our business” Amazon has taken the approach of “if people want it, why don’t we supply it?” Where most organizations use numbers to kill projects – saying they are too risky or too small to matter or too low on “risk adjusted” rate of return Amazon creates a team, experiments and obtains real market information. Instead of worrying whether or not the initial project is a success or failure, market input is treated as learning and used to adapt. By continuously looking for new opportunities, and pushing those opportunities, Amazon keeps growing.
Every business develops a bias. Overcoming that bias is critical to success. From hiring to decision making, internal status quo police try to reinforce the bias and limit change. Often on the basis of “too much risk” or “too far from our core.” But that bias inevitably leads to stalled growth. Because new competitors never stop beating down rates of return on old success formulas, and markets never stop shifting.
Wal-Mart should look upon this lawsuit not as a need to defend and extend its past practices, but rather a wake-up call to be more open to diversity – in all aspects of its business. Wal-mart doesn’t need to win this lawsuit neary as badly as it needs to create an ability to adapt. Until then, I’d recommend investors sell Wal-Mart, and buy Amazon.com.
Chart of WMT stock performance compared to AMZN last 5 years (source Yahoo.com)
by Adam Hartung | Apr 17, 2011 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Research in Motion pioneered the smartphone business. While Motorola, Samsung and others thought the answer to market growth was making ever cheaper mobile phones, RIM figured out that corporations wanted to put phones in employee hands, control usage cost, while also securely offering email distribution and texting. Blackberry handsets and servers met user needs while providing IT departments with everything they needed.
This success formula was a winner, driving tremendous growth for RIM. People joke about their “crackberry” connecting them to their company 24×7, but it was a tremendous productivity enhancer. RIM produced a consistent string of growing revenues and earnings, meeting or exceeding projections. RIM still dominates the “enterprise” smartphone business. The overwhelming majority of mobile phones issued by companies are still Blackberries.
“RIM’s CEO is Annoyed that People Don’t Appreciate Our Profits” headlined Silicon Alley Insider. He can’t understand why the stock languishes, despite meeting financial projections. When challenged about whether or not RIM is as secure as it claims, “RIM CEO Abruptly Ends an Interview After Getting Annoyed About Security Questons” (SAI).
That the CEO is annoyed is the first of two reasons you need to sell RIMM now. If you are waiting for a recovery to old highs, forget about it. Won’t happen. Can’t happen.
The mobile phone/smartphone market has taken an enormous shift. Apple’s iPhone introduced the “app” phenomenon – allowing smartphone users to do a plethora of things on their devices that aren’t possible on a Blackberry. If we just count apps, as a baseline, iPhone users can do some 350,000 things that Blackberry users cannot. Additionally, iPhones – and increasingly Android phones – are simply a lot easier to use, with bigger touch screens, more built-in functionality and easier user navigation.
As charted in my last column, RIM has only about 5% the apps of iPhone. And less than 10% the apps of Android. Even Microsoft will soon provide more apps than Blackberry. But the CEO of RIM is stuck – defending his company and its success formula – rather than aggressively migrating the company into new products. He’s hoping all those company employees, including execs, now carrying 2 phones – their corporate Blackberry and personal iPhone – will keep doing that.
He’s letting the re-invention gap between RIMM and Apple/Google widen with every passing quarter. While no other provider offers the “enterprise solution” of RIM, increasingly the gap between the usability of new solutions and RIM is widening. It won’t be long before users won’t put up with having 2 phones – and the loser will clearly be RIM
And it won’t be long before people completely stop carrying laptops as well. Rather quickly we are seeing a market shift to tablets. Into this market RIMM launched its Playbook product last week. And that’s the second reason you need to sell RIMM.
We all know the iPad has been a remarkable success. To date, nobody has developed a tablet that users, or reviewers, find comparable. Unfortunately, RIM launched its Playbook tablet to entirely consistent reviews, such as “The Playbook: Blackberry’s ‘Unfinished’ Product” headlined at TheWeek.com. The Playbook simply isn’t comparable to an iPad – and doesn’t look like it ever will be.
Most concerning, to use a Playbook you must also have a Blackberry. Playbook relies on the Blackberry to provide connectivity – via Bluetooth. In other words, RIM is trying to keep customers locked-in to Blackberries, using Playbook to defend and extend the original company product. Playbook doesn’t even look like it’s ever intended to be a stand-alone winner. And that’s a really bad strategy.
RIM sees Playbook is seen as an extension of the Blackberry product line; the first in a transition to a new operating system for all products. Not a product designed to compete heads-up against other tablets. It lacks apps, it lacks its own connectivity, it has a smaller screen, and it doesn’t have the intuitive interface. Basically, it’s an effort to try and keep Blackberry users on Blackberries – an effort to defend and extend the original success formula.
When markets shift it is absolutely critical competitors shift with them. Xerox invented desktop publishing at its PARC facility, but tried to defend xerography and lost the new market to Apple. Kodak invented digital cameras, but tried to defend the film business and lost the new market to Japanese competitors. When the CEO tries to defend and extend the old success formula after a market shifts only bad things happen. When new products are extensions of old products, while competitors are bringing out game changers, the world only becomes uglier and uglier for the stuck, old-line competitor.
The analysts are right. RIM has no future growth. Companies are already switching into iPhones, iPads and Androids. Simultaneously, Microsoft will pour billions into helping Nokia push Windows 7 phones and future tablets the next 2 years, and that will be targeted right at “enterprise users” which are RIM’s “core.” Microsoft will spend far more resources than RIM could ever match trying to defend its “installed base.” RIMM is stuck fighting to keep current users, while the market growth is elsewhere, and those emerging competitors are quickly going to hollow out RIM’s market.
There’s simply no way RIM can increase its value. Time to sell.
Update 4/20/2011 Goldman Sachs Survey Results – CIO intention to adopt Tablets by Operating System provider:
Published in SiliconAlleyInsider.com
by Adam Hartung | Apr 7, 2011 | Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
Most folks know that Apple is now worth more than Microsoft. Although few realize the huge difference. After years of dominating as the premier “PC” company, Microsoft is now worth only about 2/3 the value of Apple – $224B versus $310B this week (or, said differently, Apple is worth about 50% more than Microsoft.) Apple’s run by Microsoft the last year has been like a rock out of a slingshot. But that’s largely because Apple grew revenues almost 50% in fiscal 2009 and 2010, while Microsoft saw revenue decline 3% in 2009, and only grow 7% in 2010, putting revenues up a net 3% over the 2 years.
What few realize is how much Microsoft spent trying to grow, but failed. A look at 2009 R&D expenditures showed Microsoft outspent all tech competitors in its class – spending 8 times what Apple spent! 
Source: Silicone Alley Insider Chart of the Day from BusinessInsider.com
What did customers and investors receive for this whopping Microsoft spend? An updated operating system and set of office automation tools to run on existing products. Nothing that created new demand, or incremental sales. On the other hand, for its much lower spending Apple gave investors upgrades to iPods, the iPhone and the operating system for the later released iPad.
Simply put, Microsoft opened the check book and spent like crazy in its effort to defend its historical PC products business. And the cost was more than just dollars. That “focus” cost Microsoft its position in other growth markets; like smartphones. Few recall that as recently as 2008 Microsoft was the leading smartphone platform: 
In order to defend its “core” business, Microsoft under-invested in smartphones and over-invested in its historical personal computing products. Now, PC growth has stalled as people are switching to new products based on cloud computing – like smartphones and tablets.
Apple is cleaning up with its investments, while Microsoft is hoping it can catch up by enticing its former executive, now the CEO at Nokia, to revamp their line using the Windows Phone 7 operating system. Good luck, because the market is already way, way out front with Apple and Android products
That was the past. What we’d like to know is whether Apple will keep growing like crazy, and whether Microsoft will do what’s necessary to grow as well. And that’s where some recent announcements point out that Apple, quite simply, is better managed. So it will grow, and Microsoft won’t.
ZDNet reported on the “changing of the guard” at Apple in March. Due to its different investment approach, iOS is now bigger than the MacOS at Apple. The “legacy” product – that made Apple into a famous company in the 1980s – has been eclipsed by the new product. And the old technology leader is graciously moving on to do research in a scientific community, while Apple pours its resources into developing products for the future.
Don’t forget, the Lisa was a product that Steve Jobs personally took to market – yet didn’t succeed. He personally remained involved, converting Lisa into the wildly successful 1980s Mac (see AOL Small Business story on history of Lisa and Mac.) You gotta love it when that CEO, and his leadership team and all the managers, can transition their loyalty and put resources into the future product line in order to keep growing! MacOS is not dead, nor is it going to be devoid of resources. But the future of Apple lies in growing the new platform, and that is where the best talent and dollars are being spent.
Comparatively, Microsoft announced this week it was changing its Chief Marketing Officer (SeattlePI.com.) And, not surprisingly, they did NOT select someone with smartphone, tablet or even gaming expertise for the role. Instead of identifying a leader who is deep into understanding the growth markets, Microsoft appointed as the next CMO the fellow who had been responsible for selling – wait – guess – Office, Sharepoint, Exchange and the other historical, legacy Microsoft products. Those products which have had no growth – only maintenance sales. Instead of reaching into the future for its leadership, CEO Ballmer once again reached into the past.
If you ever wonder why Apple is worth so much more to investors than Microsoft, just think about this moment in the marketplace. Apple is investing its best talent and resources into new products in new markets that are demonstrating growth. Microsoft, struggling with its growth, keeps placing “old guard” leaders into top positions, attempting to defend the historical business – hoping to recapture the old glory.
Too bad the market has already shifted and doesn’t care what Microsoft thinks.
When it comes to networking, cloud computing and the future of how we all are going to be productive Microsoft just isn’t in the game. And its attempt to have a fast falling Nokia save it by distributing second rate mobile products that are late to market while iPhones and Androids keep extending their lead won’t make Microsoft great again. Especially when the leadership keeps wanting, in its heart, to sell more PCs.
Apple is just better managed, because it keeps looking to the future, while Microsoft simply can’t seem to get over its past. Good thing Steve Ballmer is already rich. Too bad all the Microsoft employees aren’t.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 31, 2011 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Leadership, Lock-in
Here’s a link to a very short video (1-2 minutes) posted on Facebook today about Lock-in. Hope you enjoy! Please provide feedback and comments!
Adam Hartung on Lock-in – Why we do it, and how to be better by managing it! Includes a discussion about using social media – why it is so important, why so many people are overlooking these tools and the success application can create.
I was recently asked to be interviewed regarding most of the major themes of “Create Marketplace Disruption” and why they are timely – and important – to businesses globally. A few exerpts from those interviews have been edited, and are being sent to me for posting on YouTube and Facebook. This is the first in the series.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 25, 2011 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
It is unlikely anyone in business or government thinks productivity is a bad thing. Productive students get their homework done faster, and learn more in the available time. Productive musicians make more recordings, and tend to learn more over their careers. And productive companies produce more goods and services with less inputs – like labor – thus offering more to customers at lower cost while making more money for investors. At a national level, the more productive we are at everything from growing wheat to making cabinets to writing smartphone apps improves the quantity of goods available to our population – growing the gross domestic product (GDP.) Improving productivity is one of the most critical activities to creating and maintaining a healthy economy, improving incomes and generating wealth.
Then why is American policy so anti-productivity?
American manufacturers today are about the most productive in the world. In the Wall Street Journal's "The Truth About U.S. Manufacturing" we learn that American factory workers are producing triple the output of 1972. The use of ever more sophisticated equipment, often with digital controls, and a higher trained workforce has made it possible to make more and more stuff with less and less labor. While considerable manufacturing has gone offshore, it is not because our workers are competitively unproductive. To the contrary, productivity is amongst the highest in the world!
Unfortunately, most of America's business/economic policy at the government level has been trying to preserve jobs that are, well, not that productive. Take for example agriculture subsidies. They pay farmers to produce less and otherwise make less productive use of land, feedstocks, grains, etc. By giving farmers (most of which are now huge corporations, not the "family farm" circa 1970 and before) subsidies it actually lowers agricultural productivity.
Similarly, bank and auto bailouts (and all subsidies to any manufacturer) in effect lowers productivity. It gives money to a bank, which makes nothing. Or to an unproductive manufacturer to keep its plant operating when the value of the output is insufficient to cover costs. These spending programs serve only to defend and extend the least productive jobs in society – jobs that are economically unviable. By spending money in these areas the government attempts to preserve the old (companies such as GM and Chrysler) at the expense of productivity.
America can create highly productive jobs
"Amazon.com On Hiring Spree" is the Seattle Times headline. Amazon has revolutionized book retailing, publishing and is changing a number of other markets as well. The result is a far more productive workforce in these industries than previous competitors. Borders, to cite a recent example, could not be nearly as efficient selling or publishing books with its out of date model, so it recently followed 90% of other book sellers into bankruptcy. The more productive company, Amazon, is hiring people as fast as it can to grow its business. Its productivity allows Amazon to sell more and create jobs.
Had the government chosen to bail out Borders there would have been a public outcry. Why should we protect the jobs of those store shelf stockers? Likewise, as the number of printed books drops, replaced by digital books, should it be government policy to subsidize book (or magazine, or newspaper) publishers/printers? Whenever a business is no longer competitively productive – whether it be agricultural, manufacturing or anything else – bailouts serve only to keep the unproductive competitor alive. Which actually harms the more competitive company that subsequently must fight the subsidized competitor.
The right policy would be to subsidize Amazon. Amazon is growing. Theoretically, the more money Amazon has the faster it could grow and the more jobs it could create. But, of course, nobody feels good about subsidizing a growing, profitable concern. And Amazon isn't asking for subsidies, anyway.
Our public investments are shifting in the wrong direction.
The right public policy is to invest in creating new Amazons. New businesses that create products and services which are desirable to customers, productively using resources and creating jobs. By helping these new businesses get going the government spending creates new markets. Government money "primes the pump" for investors. Early stage funding allows the business to get started, create a product or service, generate initial revenues, demonstrate a P&L and entice others to invest. The payback to society is a growing enterprise that creates jobs, both of which creates future tax revenues which repay the early investment funding.
The current administration touts investing in the tools for creating growth. In early February the MercuryNews.com reported on a Presidential speech in Michigan, "Obama Promotes Plan for Near Universal High-Speed Wireless." But, like previous Presidential administrations, this is just a lot of talk. While Mr. Obama may think national wireless technology to promote economic growth is good, there is no money for it. In the same article it is noted that Michigan congressional representatives, who resoundingly backed putting billions into the auto bailouts, question the efficacy of investing in emerging infrastructure tools. Protecting the past, while questioning (or opposing) investments in the future.
Unfortunately, for the last 50 years American policy has been headed in the wrong direction! Innovation investment projects peaked around the Kennedy administration (early 1960s) with several American efforts to dominate new technologies through programs such as the famous "space race." Since then, less and less has gone into America's future, and more and more has been spent preserving the past – through entitlements, military spending and tax cuts which provide less and less incentive to invest in unproven projects.
Source: Silicon Alley Insider Chart of the Day from BusinessInsider.com
Since 1953 government "pump priming" by spending on R&D for innovations has declined by 50%!!! No longer is even 1% of Gross Domestic Product spent on R&D. Businesses, which require an immediate return on investment and are generally loath to spend money on things which are uncertain, have been left to fill the vacuum. As a result, total spending has been stagnant. Worse, most spending by business is on sustaining innovations – improvements which defend and extend an existing business – rather than on breakthroughs which create new markets, and a lot more jobs (for more on sustaining innovation investments by business read Clayton Christenson's books including "The Innovator's Dilemma.") Investment in innovation has been woefully underfunded, allowing America's economic leadership position to shrink.
America is driving innovation offshore
The Wall Street Journal has reported "More Companies Plan to Put R&D Offshore." When things are equal, business will invest where the costs are lowest. With little incentive to undertake innovation in America, increasingly U.S. companies are moving their R&D — along with manufacturing, customer service, telesales, etc. — to emerging markets. And their plans are to increase this movement offshore by 50-100% by 2015!
![[EMERGING]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BK032A_EMERG_NS_20110221173344.jpg)
What will happen if innovation investments move from America into emerging markets? Will intellectual property remain an American advantage? Will new product development be done in America, or elsewhere? If the manufacturing is already in these markets, is it hard to predict that new products will increasingly be made offshore as well? Asked another way, if we outsource the innovation jobs – what jobs will America have left?
A dramatic change in American policy is needed
Last week America started bombing Libya. Part of protecting the national interest. But, this is not free – reportedly costing Americans $100M/day. Two weeks is $1.4B (probably a lot more, to be honest.). Let's not debate whether this is necessary, but rather recognize (as Roseanne Rosannadanna used to say on Saturday Night Live) "it's always something." There are programs, policies, military bases, agricultural lands, national parks and jobs to protect in every district of America – and its interests around the globe. And that's increasingly where America's money goes. Not into innovation.
So why are Americans surprised that job growth struggles? When the head of GE, a company that has moved manufacturing, information technology, engineering and R&D to offshore centers across the last decade, is made head of the U.S. jobs initiative is there much doubt? When the spending and incentives, as well as the selected leaders, have as their #1 interest preserving the past – largely in areas where American productivity lags – why would anyone expect new job creation?
America's protectionist mentality is causing its lead in innovation to slip away. The President, administration officials, Senators and Congresspeople needs to quit thinking that talking about innovation is going to make any difference in investments, or job creation. If America wants to remain globally economically vibrant it requires a change in investments – starting with more money for R&D via grants, subsidies and tax breaks.
If America wants jobs, and healthy economic growth, it needs innovation. Innovation that will create new, highly productive jobs And that requires investing in the future, rather than spending all the money protecting the past.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 22, 2011 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Summary:
- The Japanese nuclear crisis is the result of historical industry decisions to build very large facilities and transmit power to distant locations – a strategy at risk of “force majure” activities
- U.S. electric utilities are locked-in to identical approaches to generation and transmission, which puts them at equal risk AND limits their willingness to innovate or implement new solutions
- Historical industry approaches to planning are all based on extending the past, even though new technologies and approaches offer potentially better, and less risky, solutions. Utilities are merely one example
- Google is expert in a far better planning approach, using scenario planning for identifying and taking to market innovations and new solutions
- All companies, would benefit from planning like Google, rather than using traditional approaches – and several are bullet listed below
- The electric utility industry really needs to adopt a Google approach, or everyone remains at risk
Everybody is now aware of the great radiation risk Japan faces from its damaged nuclear reactor powered electricity generators. This has repercussions on U.S. electric utilities, as Americans have renewed concerns about the safety of similar General Electric supplied reactors.
For example, Crain’s Chicago Business reports “Exelon Faces Regulatory Fallout After Japanese Nuclear Disaster.” The country’s largest nuclear plant operator is facing stepped-up reviews, likely delays in expansion, and discussions about long-term viability of facilities that are 30 years into an anticipated 40 year life. All of this threatens the viability of meeting affordable electricity needs for millions of midwestern Americans in as little as 5 years. And it puts a lot of risk on the viability of Exelon as a going concern should the regulators require extensive re-investment to keep the plants open, or build replacements – most likely without a rate increase. All utilities dependent upon nuclear – and coal as well – for generation are now facing significant challenges.
This points out a horrible weakness in planning by most participants in America’s electric utility industry. Almost all planning boils down to “we need to increase capacity to meet needs. The cost of new plants, plant expansions and transmission lines from massive facilities to customers is $X, therefore, we need to lobby regulators, rate-setters and the populace to allow us a rate increase of $.xxx per kilowatt hour to cover the cost.” Planning entirely driven by the past. Projecting the future based upon historical demand, sources of generation, cost of fuel, etc. utilities mostly keep planning to do what they have always done, and asking regulators and customers to fund doing what they always did. If you want anything new (like a renewables effort) then the companies want the cost for that added on top of the “business as usual” price increase.
But customers are increasingly tired of hearing about rising rates, while they are constantly trying to conserve. The old “compact” in which the price regulators guaranteed utilities a rate of return is under considerable stress. Increasingly, people are asking why they need to pay more, why these plants are so expensive, why the industry keeps doubling down on old technologies and fuel sources. Customers, and regulators, are asking for innovation, but the industry offers almost nothing, because it’s planning is all about extending the past, and defending its historical approach and investments.
Today we know that the industry’s future will not be like the past. Increasingly customers (with government support in many cases) are demanding changes in the sourcing of electricity. Requesting decommissioning of polluting generators (coal in particular), shut-downs of perceived risky, and now aging, nuclear facilities, more supply from renewable, or sustainable, sources — and without higher prices.
There are a lot of new technologies available. And some customers recommend a dramatic change in approach, from huge, centralized generation facilities to many smaller, safer, renewable generation facilities that are decentralized and closer to end-users. But most industry veterans are unable to even consider these options, because they see no way to get to the future from today. They are locked-in to defending and extending what the industry has always done, even if it means extending known risks, environmental concerns and creating higher prices for fuel and maintenance.
And that’s where Larry Page and Google have a lot to offer the utility industry planners. Instead of planning from the past forward, Google plans from the future back to the present. By helping employees develop future scenarios the leaders at Google identify far better solutions than the linear, historical planning approaches. Once a better future is identified, then the organization is unleashed to create that future by planning backward from the scenario, figuring out how to implement it.
Wired magazine, in “Larry Page Wants to Return Google to its Start-up Roots” gives great insights to how Google has created a $30B business in a decade – using scenario planning at the heart of its approach to business.
- Don’t fear being audacious when setting goals. Even if you don’t reach the ultimate goal, your improvement could be game-changing for the industry and greatly benefit the early adopter
- Instead of saying trying to help somebody with an immediate question, ask what would have the maximum impact in 10 years. Don’t just accept more of the same, look for the best answer
- Leaders should not fear being viewed as having stepped into the future, and returned to tell everyone what they’ve seen
- Don’t assume that the way things are done is the best way. Instead, ask “why is it done like that? Is there possibly a better way?”
- Is the obstacle to future success something that is impossible – say because of the laws of physics – or is the obstacle a need for resources – in engineering, scale design or implementation? Don’t confuse things that can’t be done with things that simply lack resources (even if the initial resource demand seems very high)
- When someone pitches an idea, leader’s should avoid questioning the viability. Rather, they should offer a variation that is an order of magnitude more ambitious and ask why the latter cannot be accomplished.
- Ask regulators what they want, and try really hard to achieve that goal rather than arguing with them. Offer creative solutions that are non-traditional, but that just might achieve the goal. Change the conversation to achieving the goal, rather than extending the past.
- If an idea requires creative thinking, be excited about it. Don’t hesitate to represent unrealistic expectations.
- Speed is really, really important. If there is merit, rush it toward the future state as fast as possible. Let implementation and the marketplace determine what’s successful, rather than trying to guess.
- Do the numbers, but don’t expect those who disagree to believe your numbers. It’s easy for people to pooh-pooh projections. Don’t let disagreement over forecasts stop you from proceeding.
- Don’t let potential legal problems stop you. Take action, and deal with legal issues when, and if, they arise.
Planning for the future, and being ambitious about what that future entails, has created a slew of new products from Google that have benefited everyone around the world. Google’s use of scenario planning to drive development and investments is a business implementation of an historical echo – asking not what Google needs from historical customers to succeed, but rather what Google can do to create something future customers will value. Google uses planning to rush headlong into providing a growing and profitable future, rather than trying to optimize the historical solution.
Giant, centralized distribution facilities that use nuclear or fossil fuels, then sending electricity over massive distances losing upwards of 70-80% of the power in transmission, is the historical utility industry approach. For a very long time it worked pretty darn well. But the limitations of that approach are being seen, and felt, in many locations – causing blackouts in various regions, health risks in others, rising polution levels, rising demands for limited fuels, higher costs (especially for maintenance and upgrades) and potential deadly disasters from unexpected events of mother nature. Industry outsiders question whether America’s growth will be limited (due to supply or pricing issues) if this approach is not changed.
Lots of options exist for the electric utility industry to do things differently. But it will take a big change in how the industry leaders plan. Maybe they’ll ask the folks at Google for a few ideas on how to change their approach to planning. Can you imagine a future where Google managed the electric grid?
by Adam Hartung | Mar 15, 2011 | Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
You gotta love the revenue growth in companies like Apple and Google. From 2000 to 2010 Apple revenues jumped from $8B to $65B. Google grew from nothing to $29B. But for some organizations, amidst market shifts, simply maintaining revenues is an enormous challenge.
In a dynamic world, many companies are losing revenues to new competitors who seem on a suicide mission to destroy industry profitability! In this situation, the ability to grow takes on an entirely different flavor. As “core” markets retract (in revenues or profits,) can the company find a way to enter new markets in order to maintain revenues – and possibly grow profits? For many organizations, facing radical market shifts, moving from no-growth, declining profit markets into higher growth, better profit markets is a huge challenge.
Recall that IBM once completely dominated the computer industry. An IBM skunk works program in Florida is credited for creating the modern day personal computer – and because of the team’s decision to use external componentry (an IBM heresy at the time) creating Microsoft. As the market shifted toward these smaller computers, IBM focused on defending its traditional mainframe base, eschewing PC sales entirely. By the 1990s IBM was almost bankrupt! In trying to preserve its old, “core,” mainframe business IBM completely missed the market shift and waited until its customers started disappearing before taking action. But by then new competitors had claimed the new market!
In came an outsider, Louis Gerstner, who saw the trend toward far greater user of external services by people in information technology. He pushed IBM from being a “hardware” company to an “IT services” provider (overly simplified explanation, to be sure) and IBM roared back as a tremendous turnaround success story.
But, what would be next? As Mr. Gerstner left IBM the company’s “core” market was in for another huge upheaval. Vast armies of IT consultants had been created in other companies, such as Electronic Data Systems (EDS), Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) and audit firms such as Anderson (now named Accenture) Coopers & Lybrand and Deloitte & Touche. This created rampant competition and margin pressures from so much capacity.
Simultaneously, the emergence of similar armies, often even more highly trained, of consultants in India at companies such as Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and Infosys – at dramatically lower cost and using development standards such as the Capability Maturity Model – was further transforming the landscape of service providers. More and more services contracts were going to these new competitors in foreign countries at prices a fraction of historical rates. Domestic margins were tanking!
As IT integration and services lost its margin several big competitors began paying enormous premiums to buy customer computer shops, completely taking them over customer via a new approach called “outsourcing” – a solution offering that nearly bankrupted EDS due to the razor thin margins. The market IBM entered to save itself, and make Mr. Gerstner famous, was no longer capable of keeping IBM a profitably growing concern.
In 2002 it was by no means clear whether IBM would remain successful, or end up again in dire straights. But, as detailed in Fortune’s CNNMoney web site, “IBM’s Sam Palmisano: A Super Second Act” things haven’t gone too badly for IBM this decade as profits have grown 4 fold.
Rather than simply trying to do more of what Mr. Gerstner did, Mr. Palmisano lead IBM into developing a new scenario of the future, leading to the birth of the Smarter Planet program. Not dissimilar from how Steve Jobs used Apple’s scenario planning to push the company from Macs into new growth product markets, the scenario planning such as Smarter Planet opened many doors for new business opportunities at IBM. The result has been a dramatic increase (well more than doubling) its more profitable software sales, as well as development of new solutions for everything from global banking to transportation management, government systems and a whole lot more. New solutions driven by the desire to fulfill the future scenario – and solutions that are considerably more profitable than the gladiator war that had become IT services.
Using scenario planning to create White Space where employees can develop new solutions is a hallmark of successful companies. By redirecting resources away from defensive activities, new solutions can be created before the proverbial roof collapses in the declining margin business. By spending money on new product development, and new market development, new revenues are generated where there is more growth – and less competition. And that allows the company to shift with the marketplace, rather than be stuck in a bad business when it’s way too late to shift — because new competitors have already captured the new markets.
(For a White Space primer, check out the InnovationManagement.com article “White Space Mapping – Seeing the Future Beyond the Core.”)
When markets shift the first sign is intense competition, driving down margins. Too many leaders decide to “hunker down” and put all resources into defending the old business. Costs are slashed and all spending is put into competitive warfare. This, inevitably, leads to ugly results, because such behavior ignores the market shift. Being Smarter means recognizing the market shift, and changing investments – putting more money into new projects directed at finding new revenues, and most often higher rates of return.
Not all companies are growing like Apple, Google, Facebook or Groupon. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t on the road to growth by shifting their revenues into new markets – like IBM. What ties these companies together is their use of scenario planning to focus on the future, rather than relying on traditional planning systems firmly tied to the past. And investing in White Space so the company can find new markets, and new solutions, before competition eliminates the margin altogether.
If Mr. Palmisano is soon to leave IBM, as the article indicates is likely, we can surely hope the Board will seek out a replacement who is equally willing to make the right investments. Keeping the company pushing forward by developing future scenarios, and creating solutions that fulfill them.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 9, 2011 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, eBooks, Food and Drink, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness
Summary:
- McDonald's relies on operational improvements to raise profits, these are short-lived and give no growth
- McDonald's growth cycles, and investors forget long-term it isn't growing much at all
- You can't depend on recurring recessions to make your business look good
- Apple has shown how to create long-term revenue growth, and greater investor wealth, by developing new markets and solutions
- Investors in McDonald's are likely to be less pleased than investors in Apple
Subway is now #1 in size, as "McDonald's Loses World's Biggest Title to Subway" according to Crain's Chicago Business. The transition wasn't hard to predict, since Subway has been much larger in the USA for several years. Now Subway has gained on McDonald's internationally. What's striking about this is that McDonald's could see it coming, and really did nothing about it. While Subway keeps focused on growth, McDonald's has focused on preserving its historical business. And that bodes poorly for long-term investor performance.
For more than a decade McDonald's size has swung back and forth as it opened stores, then closed hundreds in an "operational improvement program," before opening another round of stores – to then repeat the cycle. McDonald's has not shown any US store growth for a long time, and has relied on expanding its traditional business offshore.
Even the menu remains almost unchanged, dominated by burgers, fries and soft drinks. "New" product rollouts have largely been repeats of decades old products, like McRib, which cycle on and off the menu. And the most "strategic" decision we hear about was executives spending countless hours, along with thousands of franchisees, trying to figure out whether or not to reduce the amount of cheese on a cheeseburger (which they did, saving billions of dollars.) Even though it spent almost a decade figuring out how to launch McCafe, the whole idea gets little atttention or promotion. There just isn't much energy put into innovation, or growth at McDonald's. Or even trying to be a leader in new marketing tools like social media, where chains like Papa John's have done much better.
Most people have forgotten that McDonald's acquired and funded the growth of Chipotle's, one of the fastest growing quick food chains. But in 2006 McDonald's leadership sold Chipotle's to raise cash to fund another one of those operational improvement rounds. The business that showed the most promise, that has much more growth opportunity than the tiring McDonald's brand, was sold off in order to Defend and Extend the known, but not so great, McDonald's.
Sort of like selling your patents in order to pay for maintenance and upgrades on the worn out plant tooling.
Soon after Chipotle's sale the "Great Recession" started. And people quit dining out – or went downmarket. Thousands of restaurants closed, and chains like Bennigan's declared bankruptcy. As people started eating a bit more frequently in McDonald's investors cheered. But, this was really more akin to the old phrase "even a stopped clock is right twice a day." McDonald's was the benefactor of an unanticipated economic event. And as the economy has improved McDonald's has cheered its improved oprations and higher profits. But, where is future growth? What will create long-term growth into 2015 and 2020? (To be honest, I'm not sure where this will be for Subway, either.)
This cycle of bust and repair – which will lead to another bust when a competitor or other external event challenges McDonald's unaltered success formula – is very different from what's happened at Apple. Rather than raising money to defend its historical business (the Macintosh business) Apple actually cut back its Mac products to fund development of new businesses – the big winner being iPod and iTunes. Then Apple focused on additional new markets, transforming smart phone growth with the iPhone and altering the direction of computing with the iPad. Rather than trying to Defend its past and Extend into new markets (like McDonald's international efforts) Apple has created, and led, new markets.
Performance at Apple has been much better than McDonald's. As we can see, only during the clock-stopped period at the height of the recession did investors lose faith in Apple's growth, while defaulting to defensiveness at McDonald's.
Chart source: Yahoo Finance
Steve Toback at bNet.com gives us insight into how Apple has driven its growth in "10 Ways to Think Different – Inside Apple's Cult-like Culture." These 10 points look nothing like the McDonald culture – or hardly any company that has growth problems. A quick scan gives insight to how any company can identify, develop and grow with new solutions in new markets:
- Empower employees to make a difference.
- Value what's important, not minutiae
- Love and cherish the innovators
- Do everything important internally
- Get marketing
- Control the message
- Little things make a big difference
- Don't make people do things, make them better at doing things
- When you find something that works, keep doing it
- Think different
What's most worrisome is that the protectionist culture we see at McDonald's, and frankly most U.S. companies, is the kind that led General Motors to years of faultering results and eventual bankruptcy. Recall that GM once bought Hughes Aircraft and EDS as growth devices (around 1980,) and opened the greenfield Saturn division to learn how to compete with offshore auto makers head-on. But the first two were sold, just like McDonald's sold Chipotle, to raise funds for propping up the poorly performing auto business. Saturn was gutted of its uniqueness in cost-saving programs to "align" it with the other auto divisions, and closed in the recent bankruptcy. (Read more detail on The Fall of GM in this short eBook.)
While McDonald's isn't at risk of immediate bankruptcy, investors need to understand that it's value is unlikely to rise much. Operational improvements are not the source of growth. They are short-term tactics to support historical behaviors which trade off short-term profit improvement for long-term new market development. In McDonald's case, this latest round of performance focus matched up with an economic downturn, unexpectedly benefitting McDonald's very quickly. But long-term value comes from creating new business opportunities that meet changing needs. And for that you need to not sell your innovations — instead, invest in them to drive growth.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 2, 2011 | Books, Defend & Extend, eBooks, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
What separates business winners from the losers? A lot of pundits would say you need to be efficient, cost conscious and manage margins. Others would say you need to be really good (excellent) at something – much better than anyone else. Unfortunately, that sounds good but in our fast-paced, highly competitive world today those platitudes don’t really create winners. Success has much more to do with the ability to shift. And to create shifts.
Think about Amazon.com. This company was started as an on-line retail channel for books most stores would not stock on their shelves. But Amazon used the shift to internet acceptance as a way to grow into selling all books, and eventually came to dominate book sales. Not only have most of the small book stores disappeared, but huge chains like B. Dalton and more recently Borders, were driven to bankruptcy. Amazon then built on this shift to expand into selling lots more than books, becoming a force for selling all kinds of products. And even opening itself to become a portal for other on-line retalers by routing customers to their sites, and even taking orders for products shipped from other e-tailers.
More recently, Amazon has taken advantage of the shift to digitization by launching its Kindle e-reader. And by making thousands of books available for digital downloading. By acting upon market trends, Amazon has shifted quickly, and has caused shifts in the market where it participates. And this shifting has been worth a lot to Amazon. Over the last 5 years Amazon’s stock has risen from about $30/share to about $180/share – about a 45%/year compounded rate of return!
Chart source: Yahoo Finance
In the middle to late 1990s, as Amazon was just starting to appear on radar screens, it appeared like Sears would be the kind of company that could dominate the internet. After all Sears was huge! It was a Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) member that had ample resources to invest in the emerging growth market. Sears had a history of pioneering markets. It had once dominated retail with its catalogs, then became a powerhouse in free standing retail stores, then led the movement to shopping malls as an anchor chain, and even used its history in lending to develop what became Discover card, and had once shown its ability to be a financial services company and even an insurer! Sears had shifted with historical trends, and surely the company would see that it could bring its resources to the shifting retail landscape in order to remain dominant.
Unfortunately, Sears went a different direction, prefering to focus on defending its current business model. As the chain struggled, it was dropped from the DJIA. Eventually a financier, Edward Lampert, used his takeover of bankrupt KMart (by buying up their bonds) to take over Sears! Under his leadership Sears focused hard on being efficient, controlling costs and managing margins. Extensive financial rigor was applied to Sears to improve the profitability of every line item, dropping poor performers and closing low margin stores. While this initially excited investors, Sears was unable to compete effectively against other retailers that were lower cost, or had better merchandise or service, and the value has declined from about $190/share to $80; a loss of about 60% (at its recent worst the stock fell to almost 30 – or a decline of 84% peak to trough!)
Chart Source: Yahoo Finance
Meanwhile the world’s #1 retailer, Wal-Mart, has long excelled at being the very best at supply chain management, and low-price leadership in retailing. Wal-Mart has never varied from its original business model, and in the retail world it is undoubtedly the very best at doing what it does – buy cheap, sell cheap and run a very tight supply chain from purchase to sale. This excited some investors during the “Great Recession” as customers sought out low prices when fearing about their jobs and future.
But this strategy has not been able to produce much growth, as stores have begun saturating just about everywhere but the inner top 30 cities. And it has been completely unsuccessful outside the USA. As a result, despite its behemoth size, the value of Wal-Mart has really gone nowhere the last 5 years. While there has been price gyration (from $42 low to $62 high) for long-term investors the stock has really gone nowhere – mired mostly around $50.
Chart Source: Yahoo Finance
Investors in Amazon have clearly fared much better than Sears or Wal-Mart
Chart Source: Yahoo Finance
Too often business leaders spend too much time thinking about what they do. They think about costs, margins, the “business model” and execution. But success really has less to do with those things than understanding trends, and capitlizing on those trends by shifting. You don’t have to be the lowest cost, or most efficient or even the most passionate. What works a lot better is to go where the trends are favorable, and give customers solutions that align with the trends. And if you do this early, before anyone else, you’ll have a lot of time to figure out how to make money before competitors try to cut your margins!
Recognize that most “execution” is about preserving what happened in the past. Trying to do things better, faster and cheaper. But in a rapidly changing world, new competitors change the basis of competition. Amazon isn’t a better classical bookseller, or retailer. It’s a company that leveraged trends – market shifts – to take advantage of new technologies and new ways of people shopping. First for books and then other things. Later it built on trends toward digitization by augmenting the production of electronic publications, which is destined to change the world of book publishing altogether – and even has impact on the publishing of everything from periodicals to manuals. Amazon is now creating market shifts, which is changing the fortunes of others.
For investors, employees and suppliers you are better off to be with the company that shifts. It has the ability to grow with the trends. And the faster you get out of those companies which are stuck, locked-in to their old business model and practices in an effort to defend historical behaviors, the better off you’ll be. Despite the P/E multiples, or other claims of “value investing,” to succeed you’re a lot better off with the company that’s finding and building on trends than the ones managing costs.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 15, 2011 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Nokia agreed to develop smartphones with Microsoft software
- But Microsoft’s product is without users, developers or apps
- Apple and Google Android dominate developers, app base and users
- Apple and Google Android have extensive distribution, and customer acceptance
- Microsoft brings Nokia very little
- Nokia hopes it can succeed simply by ramming Microsoft product through distribution. This will be no more successful than its efforts with Symbian
- Apple is the winner, because Nokia didn’t select Google Android
“For First Time Ever, Smartphones Outsell PCs in Q4 of 2010” headlined BGR.com. This is a big deal, as it creates something of an inflection point – possibly what some would call a “tipping point” – in the digital technology market. For over 2 years some of us, using IDC data such as reported in ReadWriteWeb, have been predicting that PCs are on the way to extinction – much like mainframes and mini-computers went. Smartphone sales last quarter jumped 87.2% year-over-year to about 101M units. Meanwhile PC sales, a market manufacturers hoped would recover as “enterprises” resumed buying post-recession, grew only 5.5% in the like period, to 92.1M units. No doubt the installed base of the latter product is multiples of the former, but we can see that increasingly people are ready to use the newer, alternative technology.
This week Mediapost.com reported “Tablet Sales to Hit 242M by 2015.” Both NPD Group and iSuppli are projecting a 10-fold increase wtihin 5 years in the volume of these new devices, which is sure to devastate PC sales. Between smartphones and tablets, as well as the rapid development of cloud-based apps and data storage solutions, it’s becoming quite clear that the life-span of PC technology has its limits. Soon we’ll be able to do more, cheaper, better and faster with these new products than we ever could on a PC.
This is really bad news for Microsoft. Apple and Google dominate both these mobile markets. As Microsoft has fought to defend its PC business by re-investing in Vista, then Windows 7 and Office 2010, the market has been shifting away from the PC platform entirely. It’s common now to hear about corporations considering iPads and other tablets for field workers. And it’s impossible to walk through an airport, or sit in a meeting these days without seeing people use their smartphones and tablets, purchased individually at retail, while leaving their PCs at the office. Most corporate Blackberry users now have either an Apple or Android smartphone or tablet as they eschew their RIM product for anything other than required corporate uses.
Nokia has largely missed the smartphone market, choosing, like Microsoft, to continue investing in defending its traditional business. Long the largest cell phone supplier, Nokia did not develop the application base or developer network for Symbian (it’s proprietary smartphone technology) as it kept pumping out older devices. Nokia is reminiscent of the Ed Zander led Motorola disaster, where the company kept pumping out Razr phones until demand collapsed, nearly killing the company.
So the Board replaced the Nokia CEO. As discussed in Forbes on 5 October, 2010 in “HP and Nokia’s Bad CEO Selections” Nokia put in place a Microsoft executive. Given that Microsoft had missed the smartphone market entirely, as well as the tablet market, moving the Microsoft Defend & Extend way of thinking into Nokia didn’t look like it would bring much help for the equally locked-in Nokia. Exchanging one defensive management approach for another doesn’t create an offense – or new products.
It wasn’t much of a surprise last week when the 5-month tenured CEO, Stephen Elop, announced he thought Nokia’s business was in horrible shape via an internal email as reported in the Wall Street Journal, “Nokia, Microsoft Talk Cellphones.” Rather quickly, a deal was struck in which Nokia would not only pick up the Microsoft mobile operating system, but would use their products to promote other extremely poorly performing Microsoft products. “Nokia to Adopt Microsoft Bing, Adcenter” was another headline at MediaPost.com. Bing and adCenter were very late to market, and even with adoption by early market leader Yahoo! have been unable to make much inroad into the search and on-line ad placement markets dominated by Google.
Mr Elop went with what he knew, selecting Microsoft. I guess he’s the new “chief decider” at Nokia. His decision caused a break out of optimism amongst long-suffering Microsoft investors and customers who’ve gotten very little from the giant PC near-monopolist the last decade. Mediapost told us “Study: Surge of Support for Windows Phone 7” as developers who long ignored the product entirely were starting to consider writing apps for the device. After all this time, new hope beats within the breast of those still stuck on Microsoft.
But if ever there was a case of too little, and way, way too late, this has to be it. Two companies long known for weak product innovation, and success driven by market domination and distribution control strategies, are partnering to take on the two most innovative companies in digital technology as they create entirely new markets with new technologies.
RIM, the smartphone market originator, has seen its fortunes disintegrate as Blackberry sales fell below iPhones – even with over 10,000 apps. Today Microsoft has virtually NO apps, and NO developer base as it just now enters this market, “Google Searches for Mobile App Experts” (Wall Street Journal) as its effort continues to expand its 100,000+ apps base as it chases the 350,000+ apps already existing for the iPhone. Where Microsoft and Nokia hope to build an app base, and a user base, Apple and Google already have both, which theyt are aggressively growing.
Exactly what going to happen to slow Apple and Google’s growth in order to allow Microsoft + Nokia to catch up? In what fairy tale will the early hare take a nap so the awakened tortoise will be allowed to somehow, miraculously get back into the race?
Being late to market is never good. Look at how Sony, and everyone else, were late to digitally downloaded music. iPad and iTunes not only took off but continue to hold well over 50% of the market almost a decade later. Over the same decade Apple has held onto 2/3 of the download video market, while Microsoft’s Zune has struggled to capture less than 1/4 of Apple’s share (about 18% according to WinRumors.com).
Apple (and Google) aren’t going to slow down the pace of innovation to give Microsoft and Nokia a chance to catch up. Today (15 Feb., 2010) ITProPortal.com breaks news “Apple iPhone 5 to have 4 Inch Screen,” an upgrade designed to bring yet more users to its mobile device platform – away from PCs and competitive smarphones. The same article discusses how Google Android manufacturers are bringing out 4.3 inch screens in their effort to keep growing.
So, amidst the “big announcement” of Microsoft and Nokia agreeing to work together on a new platform, where’s the product announcement? Where’s the app base? And exactly what is the strategy to be competitive in 2012 and 2015? Does anyone really think throwing money at this will create the products (hardware and software) fast enough to let either catch up with existing leaders? Does anyone think Microsoft products dependent upon Nokia’s distribution can save either’s mobile business – while Apple has just expanded to Verizon for distribution? And Google is already on almost all networks? And where is Microsoft or Nokia in the tablet business, which is closely associated with smartphone market for obvious issues of mobility and use of cloud-based computing architectures?
The good news here is for Apple fans. Nokia clearly should have chosen Android. This would give the laggard a chance of leveraging the base of technology at Google – including advances being made to the Chrome operating system and its advantages for the cloud. No matter what the price, it’s the only chance Nokia has. With this decision the most likely outcome is big investments by both Microsoft and Nokia to play catch-up, but limited success. Results will not likely cover investment rates, leading Nokia to a Motorola-like outcome. And Microsoft will remain a bit player in the fastest growing digital markets. Both have billions of dollars to throw away in this desperate effort. But the outcome is almost certain. It’s doubtful between the two of them they can buy enough developers, network agreements and users to succeed against the 2 growth leaders and the desperately defensive RIM.
Like I said last month in this blog “Buy Apple, Sell Microsoft.” It’s still the easiest money-making trade of 2011. Now thankfully reinforced by the former Microsoft exec running Nokia.
