Microsoft’s Crazy Windows 8 Bet – How you can invest smarter

This week people are having their first look at Windows 8 via the Barcelona, Spain Mobile World Congress.  This better be the most exciting Microsoft product since Windows was created, or Microsoft is going to fail. 

Why? Because Microsoft made the fatal mistake of "focusing on its core" and "investing in what it knew" – time worn "best practices" that are proving disastrous! 

Everyone knows that Microsoft has returned almost nothing to shareholders the last decade.  Simultaneously, all the "partner" companies that were in the "PC" (the Windows + Intel, or Wintel, platform) "ecosystem" have done poorly.  Look beyond Microsoft at returns to shareholders for Intel, Dell (which recently blew its earings) and Hewlett Packard (HP – which says it will need 5 years to turn around the company.)  All have been forced to trim headcount and undertake deep cost cutting as revenues have stagnated since 2000, at times falling, and margins have been decimated. 

This happened despite deep investments in their "core" PC business.  In 2009 Microsoft spent almost $9B on PC R&D; over 14% of revenues.  In the last few years Microsoft has launched Vista, Windows 7, Office 2009 and Office 2010 all in its effort to defend and extend PC sales.  Likewise all the PC manufacturers have spent considerably on new, smaller, more powerful and even cheaper PC laptop and desktop models.

Unfortunately, these investments in their core expertise and markets have not excited users, nor created much growth.

On the other hand, Apple spent all of the last decade investing in what it didn't know much about in 2000.  Rather than investing in its "core" Macintosh business, Apple invested in the trend toward mobility, being an early leader with 3 platforms – the iPod, iPhone and iPad.  All product categories far removed from its "core" and what it new well.  But, all targeted at the trend toward enhanced mobility.

Don't forget, Microsoft launched the Zune and the Windows CE phones in the last decade.  But, because these were not "core" products in "core" markets Microsoft, and its partners, did not invest much in these markets.  Microsoft even brought to market tablets, but leadership felt they were inferior to the PC, so investments were maintained in traditional PC products.  The Zune, Windows phone and early Windows tablets all died because Microsoft and its partner companies stuck to investing their most important, and best known, PC business.

Where are we now?  Sales of PC's are stagnating, and going to decline.  While sales of mobile devices are skyrocketing.

Tablet sales projections 2012-2015
Source: Business Insider 2/14/12

Today tablet sales are about 50% of the ~300M unit PC sales.  But they are growing so fast they will catch up by 2014, and be larger by 2015.  And, that depends on PC sales maintaining.  Look around your next meeting, commuter flight or coffee shop experience and see how many tablets are being used compared to laptops.  Think about that ratio a year ago, and then make your own assessment as to how many new PCs people will buy, versus tablets.  Can you imagine the PC market actually shrinking?  Like, say, the traditional cell phone business is doing?

By focusing on Windows, and specifically each generation leading to Windows 8, Microsoft took a crazy bet.  It bet it could improve windows to keep the PC relevant, in the face of the evident trend toward mobility and ease of use. Instead of investing in new technologies, new products and new markets – things it didn't know much about – Microsoft chose to invest in what it new, and hoped it could control the trend. 

People didn't want a PC to be mobile, they wanted mobility.  Apple invested in the trend, making the MP3 player a winner with its iPod ease of use and iTunes market.  Then it made smartphones, which were largely an email device, incredibly popular by innovating the app marketplace which gave people the mobility they really desired.  Recognizing that people didn't really want a PC, they wanted mobility, Apple pioneered the tablet marketplace with its iPad and large app market. The result was an explosion in revenue by investing outside its core, in technologies and markets about which it initially knew nothing.

Apple revenue by segment july 2011

Apple would not have grown had it focused its investment on its "core" Mac business.  In the last year alone Apple sold more iOS devices than it sold Macs in its entire 28 year history!

IOS devices vs Mac sales 2.12
Source: Business Insider 2/17/2012

Today, the iPhone business itself is bigger than all of Microsoft. The iPad business is bigger than the desktop PC business, and if included in the larger market for personal computing represents 17% of the PC market.  And, of course, Apple is now worth almost twice the value of Microsoft.

We hear, all the time, to invest in what we know.  But it turns out that is NOT the best strategy.  Trends develop, and markets shift.  By constantly investing in what we know we become farther and farther removed from trends.  In the end, like Microsoft, we make massive investments trying to defend and extend our past products when we would be much, much smarter to invest in new technologies and markets that are on the trend, even if we don't know much, if anything, about them.

The odds are now stacked against Microsoft.  Apple has a huge lead in product sales, market position and apps.  It's closest challenger is Google's Android, which is attracting many of the former Microsoft partners (such as LG's recent defection) as they strive to catch up. Company's such as Nokia are struggling as the technology leadership, and market position, has shifted away from Microsoft as mobility changed the market.

Microsoft's technology sales used to be based upon convincing IT departments to use its platform.  But today users largely buy mobile devices with their own money, and eschew the recommendations of the IT department. Just look at how users drove the demise of Research In Motion's Blackberry.  IT needs to provide users with tools they like, and use platforms which are easy and low-cost to leverage with big app bases.  That favors Apple and Android, not Microsoft with its far, far too late entry.

You can be smarter than Microsoft.  Don't take the crazy bet of always doubling down on what you know.  Put your focus on the marketplace, and identify shifts.  It's cheaper, and smarter, to bet early on trends than constantly trying to fight the trend by investing – usually at an ever higher amount – in what you know.

 

It’s not about “execution” its about Results – Tribune Corp., LATimes, Chicago Tribune, Sara Lee, General Motors

If your boss told you that he enjoyed your hard work, but he wanted to cut your pay 50% I bet you would feel – well – violated.  Your hard work is just that; hard work.  If you received $100,000 (or $50,000 or $250,000) for that work last year it would be hard to accept receiving some fractionally lower amount for that same work next year.  Especially given that every year you are able to work smarter, better and faster at what you do.  Because your execution constantly improves you'd expect to receive more every year.

But in reality, it doesn't matter how hard we workWhat matters is the value of that work.  It's why nearly incoherent ball players and actors make millions while skillful engineers barely make 6 figures.  In other words, pay inevitably ends up being the result of not only the output – it's volume and quality – but what it is worth.  And that the compensation is a marketplace result – and not something we actually control – is hard for us to understand.

Every years many pundits decry "excessive" executive pay.  There is ample discussion about how an executive received a boat load of money, meanwhile the company sales or profits or customer performance was less than average, or possibly even declined.  Of course the executives don't think they are overpaid.  They say "I worked hard, did my job, did what I thought was best and was agreed to by my Board of Directors.  I did what most investors and my peers would have expected me to do.  Therefore, I deserve this money – regardless of the results.  I can't control markets or their many variables (like industry prices, costs of feedstock, international currency values, or the loss of a patent or other lawsuit, an industrial accident, or the development of a competitive breakthrough technology) so I can't control the results (like total revenues, or total profits or the stock prices).  Therefore I deserve to be compensated for my hard work, even if things didn't work out quite like investors, customers, employees or suppliers might have liked."

This answer is hard for the detractors to accept.  To them, if top management isn't responsible for results, who is?  Yet, shockingly, each time this happens investment fund managers that own large stock positions will be interviewed, and they will agree the executives are doing their jobs so they should get paid based up on their title and industry – regardless the results.

An example of this behavior was reported by Crain's Chicago Business in "Tribune's $43M Bonus Plan Lambasted by Trustee."  Even though Tribune Corporation's leadership, under Sam Zell, took the company from profitable to bankruptcy, and even though they've been unable to "fix" Tribune sufficiently to appease bondholders and develop a plan to remain a going concern thus exiting bankruptcy, the management team thinks it should be paid a bonus.  Why?  Because they are working diligently, and hard.  So, even though there really are no acceptable results, they want to get paid a bonus.

We all have to realize that our company sales and profits are a result of the marketplace in which we compete, and the Success Formula we apply.  The combination can produce very good results sometimes; even for a prolonged period.  Newspapers had a good, long profitable run.  But markets shift.  When markets shift, we see that the old Success Formula must change because RESULTS deteriorate.  Slow (or no, or negative) growth in revenues and/or profits and/or cash flow is a clear sign of a market shift creating a problem with the Success Formula.  When this happens, rewarding EXECUTION (or hard work) is EXACTLY the WRONG thing to do!  Doing more of the same will only exacerbate bad results – not fix them

What's bad for the business, in revenues/profits/cash flow, must (of necessity) be bad for the employees.  Not because they are bad people.  Or lazy, or incompetent, or arrogant, or any of many other bad connotations.  But because the results are clearly saying that the value has eroded from the Success Formula .  Usually because of a market shift (like readers and advertisers going from newspapers/print to the internet).  What we MUST reward are the efforts to change the Success Formula, to get back to growing.  Not hard work.  As much as we'd like to say that hard work deserves money – we all know that money flows to the things we value regardless of  how hard we work.

I've long been a detractor of many executives – Brenda Barnes at Sara Lee has been a frequent victim of this blog.  Whitacre of GM another.  Steve Ballmer at Microsoft.  That the Boards of these companies compensate these leaders, and the teams they lead, is horrific.  It reinforces the notion that what matters is hard work, willingness to toe the line of the old Success Formula, willingness to remain Locked-in to industry or company traditions – rather than results.  Results which give independent feedback from the marketplace of the true value of the Success Formula.

Let's congratulate the Tribune Trustee.  For once, more attention is being paid to results than to "hard work" or "execution."  Tribune – like General Motors – needs a wholesale makeover.  An entirely new team of leaders willing to Disrupt old Lock-ins and use White Space to define a new Success Formula.  Willing to move the resources in these companies, including the employees, back into growth markets.  If more Boards acted like the Tribune Trustee we'd be a lot better off because more companies would grow and maybe we'd move forward out of this recession.