April 9, 2013 12:38 PM
Posted by: Ron Miller
Facebook as the center of your mobile life is a non-starter.
After Facebook made its Android announcement called Facebook Home last week, my first reaction was “this is nuts,” but I decided to let it sit. After almost a week, I still think the idea is a non-starter.
There are so many reasons this is a bad idea, but let’s just explore a few of them.
* Who in their right mind wants to have Facebook as the center of their phoning lives? Zuckerberg made it sound like a feature that my friends’ information comes up on my phone, even when it’s locked. As my colleague Wayne Rash pointed out, unless your socially obsessed, this approach isn’t for you. Is the latest George Takei ditty so fascinating that it can’t wait for me to open the Facebook app and see it? I don’t think so. Facebook just isn’t as important as it wants us to believe.
* Aside from the fact that Facebook thinks I want it at the center of my life, when I don’t, there are other reasons to leave Facebook safely locked in the browser or an app. I don’t want Facebook having access to my entire mobile life. It’s bad enough, the amount of information Facebook has on our lives, do we really want to give it control of our mobile phones? Om Malik thinks not. I’m inclined to agree.
As Malik wrote, “In fact, Facebook Home should put privacy advocates on alert, for this application erodes any idea of privacy. If you install this, then it is very likely that Facebook is going to be able to track your every move, and every little action.” It’s a scary scenario and no thanks, Facebook.
It’s precisely the reason if I were a Bing user, I wouldn’t add Facebook search to my results. I don’t want Facebook and Microsoft sharing all this information about me and how I search and what I do on Facebook. It’s bad enough that Facebook knows what it does, I’m not giving it any more ammunition from my mobile phone. No thanks.
* It’s a blatant power grab of the Android platform. Why would users who choose the Android platform for its openess, give that up to Facebook? The fact is most people wouldn’t. As Alexandra Chang put it on Wired, ” It isn’t a phone made by Facebook. It’s something better than that, and in some ways, more important: a deeply integrated application with its hooks set tightly into the Android platform. Think of it as an apperating system.”
With this move, if people actually did it, Facebook would get the best of all worlds. It would attack Google at the heart of its OS by taking it over before you even get past the lock screen. Great for Facebook, but for users, not so much.
Facebook Home is Zuckerberg’s wet dream of what he wants the mobile experience to be — centered around his service while weakening a key competitor in Google in the process, but this isn’t some teen dream about mobile. It’s reality and nobody in their right mind other than the completely Facebook-obsessed (and even my teen has backed off from it a great deal) are going to go for this.
This makes great theater for tech journalists like me and we love the drama of the announcement and watching Zuckerberg grow as a pitch man, but this approach is a non-starter and I’m predicting right now it’s not going anywhere.
Photo Credit: Kris Krug on flickr. Used under CC 2.0 Share Alike/Attribution license.
March 29, 2013 10:46 AM
Posted by: Ron Miller
, Blackberry 10
BlackBerry is like this Zombie, still walking, but not really alive
So Blackberry had a good quarter and it sold a few Z10s. Good for them. They’re a company that’s been down so long, looks like up to them, but don’t confuse a smidgen of success with a turn-around.
Chances are the surge is nothing more than a short-lived little burst of energy. As Zack Whittaker cleverly put it on ZDnet, they have done little more than “lived to die another day.”
Sure, it feels good to write something positive about a once dominant company that somehow defies the odds and finds its way to profitability, but that’s not what happened here. As Whittaker wrote, “[In spite of the good quarter], the picture was still pretty bleak on the top line, reporting revenue of $11.1 billion, down 40 percent year-over-year.”
That’s a precipitous drop in revenue, folks and even though many including Wayne Rash at eWeek think BlackBerry hit the requisite homerun here with the hardware and the OS, there are fundamental issues with a lack of apps.
I can say personally saw a Z10 at the Mobile World Congress last month and it has style and polish and some very neat OS features that differentiate it from the competition. In short, it was a competitive high-end phone. I walked away impressed.
But what even Rash, who gave the phone a positive review, acknowledged that its achilles’s heel could be its dearth of decent apps. You can have the best phone in the world, but if you don’t have apps, nobody is coming to your party. And that could be a huge issue for Blackberry going forward.
It could be why Larry Dignan reported on ZDNet that BlackBerry is predicted to lose money in every quarter in fiscal 2014 and only survive on its substantial cash horde, a situation that is obviously not sustainable long-term. Of course, it’s worth noting experts predicted a loss this quarter too and they were wrong. Unfortunately, even beating expectations didn’t impress investors all that much as the Wall Street Journal reported the stock dropped 0.08 percent after initially rising 10 percent on the earnings report.
The same WSJ report called a new plan by BlackBerry to distribute a range of phones a risky one. The feeling at BlackBerry is it ultimately can’t compete at the high end of the market with Apple and Samsung, so it’s aiming lower down where it might sell more phones across a range of price points in a wider variety of markets.
Regardless of the plan or the quality of Z10 or the profitable quarter, BlackBerry has been toast for a long time, they just have too much cash to lie down and die. The best they can hope for is that they have set themselves up as a more attractive takeover target.
I know it would be a nice story if they could rise up and compete again, but this isn’t a fairy tale, and no matter how good the Z10 is, it’s not saving the company. It’s too late for that.
Photo Credit: My name is Randy on Flickr. Used under CC 2.0 license.
March 25, 2013 1:14 PM
Posted by: Ron Miller
Amazon Web Services
Oracle’s business model is under attack from cloud alternatives and shifting priorities as companies begin to support more and more mobile devices.
As disruption from cheaper, smaller and more agile upstarts begins to have an impact on Oracle’s business, it reported its third losing quarter in the last two years, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.
The WSJ article reported subscriptions slid 2 percent in the latest quarterly earnings report and the stock market didn’t deal well with news as the stock price dropped 9.7 percent.
Oracle is in fact just the type of company ripe for disruption by smaller more agile ones offering the same types of services, whether database management or CRM and marketing monitoring and automation (to name just a few of the enterprise categories in which Oracle has products), customers who once turned to Oracle are turning to cheaper open source and cloud alternatives.
As an example, the Wall Street Journal article cites the price difference for Oracle’s marketing software and the similar offering from rival Salesforce.com. Oracle charges $5,795 per user license with a 10 license minimum. Salesforce.com charges $125 per user per month for a similar service with a year commitment. Any way you slice it, that’s undercutting Oracle’s offering in a big way.
Oracle faces disruption on a number of levels. As a company trying to sell hardware and enterprise software to run on it, it faces competition, not only from Salesforce and other cloud alternatives, but from open source choices like Hadoop for data analysis and cheaper cloud infrastructure providers such as Amazon Web Services.
When companies looking to cut costs look at the bottom line, Oracle faces tough going against cheaper alternatives. What’s more, after years of aggressive pricing, customers are happy to find other options.
Meanwhile, in spite of the fact that Oracle has bought a number of cloud vendors over the last several years in an attempt to move some of its offerings to the cloud, it remains at its core very much an on-premise enterprise software vendor trying to sell a stack of software at a time when IT is looking for cheaper and faster vendors.
As the WSJ article points out, Oracle has a loyal customer base, but companies looking at new offerings aren’t looking to Oracle anymore when it comes to enterprise software, not when they can find alternatives that are far more economical — and that doesn’t bode well for the long-term future of the company.
What’s more, Oracle faces the classic “innovator’s dilemma” as defined by Harvard professor Clayton Christensen. They are forced to protect their most lucrative clients, and even though they must recognize the competitive pressure from younger, faster, cheaper companies starting out at the bottom end of the market and working their way up. Yet because companies like Oracle want to protect its most lucrative customers, they can’t afford to pay attention to the lower end ones the competition is gobbling up.
Oracle isn’t going anywhere because it has a bad quarter, but it’s the third bad quarter in two years from a company that used to consistently hit its targets and could be a sign that the disruptors are having an impact.
It can try to answer the disruptive forces, but it can’t fundamentally change what it is: A large company that was created to answer an enterprise need in a different decade under different market conditions. As such, it will very likely continue to suffer a death by a 1000 cuts as disruptive forces attack it at every turn.
Photo Credit: (c) Can Stock Photo
March 18, 2013 7:39 AM
Posted by: Ron Miller
With so many flavors of Android, is it still a single operating system?
As Android becomes increasingly fragmented, it’s fair to ask if it’s a single operating system or many separate ones. I’m inclined to believe that it’s breaking into separate ones, but a couple of experts I spoke to think as long as generic apps run on the platform, it’s fair to call it a single platform
At the recent Mobile World Congress, I had a chance to play with the new HTC One, which was a nice piece of hardware. I’m not an Android expert by any means, but a colleague who was with me indicated HTC had gone out on its own on this one in terms of the interface and Android fans might find it confusing as a result.
Meanwhile, Twitter was aflutter on Friday with news of the Samsung Galaxy s4. Ryan Faas writing on CITEworld suggested Samsung is introducing its own Android platform (with its eyes on the enterprise). He wrote that with so many flavors, that some of these can “credibly considered to be their own platform.”
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, a freelance technology journalist who writes frequently about open source including Android, see it differently though. He says all these flavors of Android remain essentially the same OS even though each manufacturer is putting their own stamp on it. “Android has always been fragmented. Even today there are seven–count ‘em 7–different Android variations ranging from Eclair to Jelly Bean with at least 1% of the market. But, not counting corner cases like Aliyun OS, it’s never been forked. What HTC and Samsung are doing is just adding their own special sauce on the Android goodies,” he said.
Vaughan-Nichols adds, “Now, when it becomes impossible for a third-party generic Android app. to run on those devices then we’ll have something to worry about.”
The Samsung Galaxy s4 has its own unique flavor of Android.
Rob Pegoraro, a freelance writer for USA Today and other sites, who covers Android agrees and doesn’t see it as an issue. “If you look at Android as a way to run apps, it still appears as a single platform–thanks to a lot of hard work by developers that users don’t see,” he said.
He notes, however, that for users, the look and feel could change fairly dramatically from device to device. “But if you consider it as a common interface that you only need to learn once every few years, it’s pretty much forked. You can’t count on something as basic as the back button being in the same spot on different vendors’ phones,” he explained
The problem for me is that every member of my family could have Android phones and they could all look, feel and operate completely differently. Yet they are all called the “Android” OS because at their core they are Android and run Android apps.
But Pegoraro explains it might be better to think of the different flavors in the way we think of dialects. They are the same language even though they sound a lot different. “The difference between an HTC-style Android interface and a Samsung-esque one used to be something like the difference between Boston and New York accents. Now it’s more like the gap between Cajun and Nebraskan dialects, or maybe American and British English: There’s a lot more distinct vocabulary, and you need to work more to decipher the other party’s speech at first,” he told me.
For now, Android gets counted as a single OS regardless of flavor, but you have to wonder if Samsung and HTC continue on their own path if this will continue or if at some point we will have different Android flavors counted as separate operating systems. Time will tell.
Photo Credit 1: (c) Can Stock Photo
Photo Credit 2: Samsung
March 14, 2013 8:15 AM
Posted by: Ron Miller
During my recent trip to Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, I got to handle a bunch of phones I had heard about, but never actually held and saw updates to some I hadn’t seen in a while. After playing with phones for a few days, I came to a couple of conclusions.
First of all, there is a lot of nice hardware out there — the BlackBerry Z10, The Nokia 920, The Motorola Droid Razr HD — and there were lots of others made with quality hardware and gorgeous displays.
There are tons of nice phones out there, but Samsung and Apple dominate the market.
Second of all, I came to the conclusion it didn’t matter how nice a phone was because the market is essentially frozen in place and the two manufacturers that rule the roost are Samsung and Apple. Too bad, so sad for everyone else.
That may sound harsh, but it’s the truth. The Wall Street Journal reports that Samsung and Apple dominate the worldwide market with a combined share of 51 percent (according to IDC). This is in line with Strategy Analytic’s numbers which found the two companies had a combined share of 49.8 percent for 2012. Close enough for rock and roll.
The numbers tell a story and, it’s the two dominant players have a strong-hold on the smartphone market. I don’t have break-downs by country, but I suspect it holds pretty consistently, although there is a fight in the works for emerging markets.
ZTE announced a new phone called the ZTE Open phone, a low-end device running the open source Firefox mobile OS. I checked out the phone. It’s not great, but it’s not aimed at a market looking for greatness. The target market is young people in Latin America and to a lesser extent Spain who currently have feature phones and can’t afford smart phones. I heard Telefonica planned to sell it in Latin America for well under $100. I asked how they could make any money at that price, but nobody at the Telefonica booth could answer my question.
Nokia, not to be left out, also announced a low-end smartphone running Windows Phone 8 called the Lumia 520. It’s like a baby version of the Lumia 920. It doesn’t have the polish outside or inside of its much more expensive older sibling, but a Nokia spokesperson at the Nokia pavilion told me it’s only $129 Euro ($167 USD) off contract. That means it’s very likely free with one. According to VentureBeat, only T-Mobile will be offering this phone in the US.
All of these companies are trying desperately to break the market stronghold of Apple and Samsung. For a long time Nokia controlled the low end of the market and was the best selling brand in the world, but no longer. Nokia is going to back to its roots in a sense with this lower end Lumia (although its Asha line of phones really is much more suited to the low end of the market).
The conundrum for all these companies is that no matter how hard they try and no matter how sweet the phone looks and feels in your hands, nobody seems to pay attention — or at least not enough people to matter. No matter what the competition does, it seems they are stuck fighting for the scraps left over by Apple and Samsung.
The reality is though that half the worldwide market is still a big piece of the pie. Unfortunately after you subtract Nokia’s 5 percent share, the remaining 45.2 percent is divided among such a wide variety of players with shares so small Strategy Analytics didn’t even bother counting them. Unless somebody emerges from that pile, the numbers don’t lie and it’s harsh market. It’s Apple and Samsung’s world and everyone is just picking up their table scraps.
Photo Credit: Ron Miller. Used under CC 2.0 Share Alike/Attribution license.
February 28, 2013 6:44 AM
Posted by: Ron Miller
Sony defined the portable device market when these were popular, but never were able to capitalize on it in MP3s or smartphones.
I’m camped out at Mobile World Congress this week and as I’ve wandered the halls of this massive conference, I’ve tried to get my hands some phones and tablets I’ve heard about. Some vendors have surprised me by the quality of their phones including Nokia and BlackBerry. Others, not so much — and then there’s HP and Sony.
These two were once mighty brands who wielded great power in the marketplace, but they never quite got mobile and as such they have been left behind. Now they appear to be a couple of brands going through the mobile motions because they pretty much have to, whether their heart is in it or not.
Sony is a particularly sad tale because if you think back to the 80s, the Sony Walkman was the first true portable device and people loved them. It was extremely hip to have one and all through the 90s, Sony was the star consumer electronics brand. I personally was very loyal to the Sony brand in those days. I had a Sony Vaio laptop, two Sony televisions and Sony stereo components.
But the Sony brand hit a bump in the road about the same time Apple came up with the iPod. Like any disrupted company, it didn’t react quickly enough to the MP3 player market, which given their Walkman market, should have been a natural fit. Instead, Sony floundered.
Today they have new Xperia line of tablets and phones. When I went to their booth the other day, I was surprised to see a big counter devoted to the press. Step in the right direction, but I noted on the counter was a big, fancy print catalogue meant to show off the features of the phone — not sure a big old full color catalogue showing off the Xperia screens is quite the right approach these days.
To its credit, Sony did give away a bunch of the phones to journalists here (I didn’t get one) . I spoke to a couple of journalist who received the phones and weren’t super impressed. Both commented that the finish on the back of the phone is quite cheap feeling and they weren’t likely to adopt it as their standard phone.
Then there’s HP, the company that makes one bad decision after another. They have gone through multiple CEOs. They’ve had many major layoffs. They appear to be a company in decline. You know the story of their first foray into tablets with webOS (which got sold to LG this week, who plans to use it for televisions), which lasted all of 45 days.
This show, they’re showing off the new $169 7- inch Android tablet. When I visited their booth they were highly disorganized, didn’t have a ready demo to show off the features of the unit and tried to discourage me from reviewing it because it wouldn’t compare well with existing units on the market. And you wonder why this company has issues?
HP’s last tablet venture lasted 45 days before it pulled the plug. There is little reason to think low-priced Android devices will do well for them.
Both of these companies, once powerful brands have both lost their way and now live on the island of misfit brands hoping a boy, girl or IT pro will come along and love them. Unfortunately for the two companies, it’s Samsung and Apple’s world now and these two are offering way too little, way too late.
Photo of Walkman by Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com on Flickr. Used under CC 2.0 license.
Photo of HP tablets by Ron Miller. Used under CC 2.0 Share Alike/Attribution license.
February 20, 2013 5:06 AM
Posted by: Ron Miller
More than 18 months after its first failed attempt at a tablet, HP is poised to try again. This time with Android in a crowded marketplace. Don’t expect different results.
HP has decided to take another hack at tablets, this time using Android as the operating system. I don’t expect the results to be much different from last time.
For those of you who don’t remember — and HP’s foray into tablets was so brief you would be forgiven if you’ve forgotten — HP bought Palm in April, 2010 for $1.2 billion. The idea at the time was take webOS, Palm’s mobile operating environment and build an HP line of tablets and mobile phones.
It seemed like a surprisingly sound strategy. A year after purchasing Palm, HP came out with the TouchPad tablet running WebOS. There were mobile phones in the pipeline. Everything looked rosy, then a mere 45 days after releasing the first TouchPads, HP pulled the plug on the entire strategy and held a fire sale.
Since that fateful decision to axe its mobile strategy, the company has been in downward spiral. There were plans to spin off the printer and PC divisions that also fell through. There have multiple CEOs. The latest Meg Whitman has overseen a massive layoff and the company appears to be in decline.
Yet HP remains the largest PC maker in the world — for now. The problem being that PC sales are declining as tablets begin their ascension as primary computing devices. As I wrote last week in Tablets are Taking a Bite Out of the PC Market, “Last quarter Apple sold 23 million iPads, while HP — the world’s largest PC maker — sold 15m PCs.”
Even myopic HP can see that having a tablet is essential to any company’s hardware strategy these days. So more than 18 months since it gave up the last one, rumors have surfaced that HP is planning on building and marketing a high-end Android tablet. Talk about being a way too late.
First of all it’s unclear anyone would want a high-end Android tablet. Apple is already firmly entrenched at the high end of the tablet market. Microsoft is trying to offer an alternative hybrid device for even more money than the most expensive iPad. I don’t see how HP can fit into this market and find any space to operate.
It’s even more crowded at the lower end of the market where Amazon is offering the Kindle Fire HD for as low as $199. Google is offering the Nexus 7 for $199 and the Nexus 10 for as low as $399. There are countless other competitors including Lenovo and Asus offering a range of alternatives.
The problem for HP is that market is far more difficult to maneuver in than it was in 2011 and the Android market is crowded with competitors who have been doing it much longer.
Whether HP comes out with a tablet or ignores the tablet market altogether doesn’t really matter because the market has moved on, and HP like so many other decisions in recent years has waited too long and is way late to the game.
February 13, 2013 3:06 PM
Posted by: Ron Miller
Tablets have passed PC sales by a large number and the age of the tablet is here. Photo Credit: (c) Can Stock Photo
The age of the tablet is upon us. The Guardian reports that Tim Cook, speaking at the Goldman Sachs Conference yesterday shared one piece of data that summed it up best. Last quarter Apple sold 23 million iPads, while HP — the world’s largest PC maker — sold 15m PCs.
What’s more, Cook told the audience he didn’t care if the iPad sales were eating into his desktop and laptop computer sales because the future market potential for tablets was so huge, it didn’t matter.
“The projection is that this is going to triple in four years – that’s 375 million, more than the number of PCs being sold around the world. The tablet is attracting people who have never owned a PC, and people who have owned [PCs] but it wasn’t great in the experience,” The Guardian quoted him as saying.
If you doubted the ascendancy of the tablet, these numbers illustrate that it’s happening right now probably faster than anyone believed it would. When I write about these types of changes, I get comments from old-school IT pros who scoff at the idea that a tablet could replace a PC. ‘You won’t someone using an iPad to design a car,’ they tell me.
And they’re probably right. Just because the tablet is overtaking the PC, it doesn’t mean that they are full out replacing every one. If HP sold 15 million PCs last quarter, surely that’s still a big number. But tablets have proven to be able to do a lot of tasks, we used to use PCs for or schlepped our laptops along.
And Apple isn’t alone in the market of course. Microsoft is trying its hand at the market, the same one where BlackBerry, HP and others have tried before and failed. Many believe Microsoft’s hybrid approach may be attractive to corporate workers, but the jury is still very much out on that one in spite of reports of selling out the Surface Pro upon release last week. Amazon is selling a fair number and there are a number of other Android tablet makers such as Samsung that appear to be doing doing quite well — to the extent we can know of course.
Cook was skeptical of projected market share numbers that get bandied about by various firms, and which supposedly show his company’s market share dropping under 50 percent. That’s because as he points out, his is the only company that’s actually announcing the number of units sold. But if you’re selling the kind of volume Apple is selling of these devices, you have to feel pretty good about your market position, regardless of what IDC, Gartner or Forrester has to say about it.
If Microsoft does sell 200 million units as a Forrester report projected recently, it could be at the expense of Apple, Google or Amazon or could be part of what appears to be an expanding tablet market where there is certainly room for more than one dominant player. I’ll go on record as saying I’m skeptical about the 200 million number — and I’ll believe it when I see it.
For now, whatever brand you prefer — and it’s entirely possible you have different tablets for different roles — it’s clear that the age of the tablet is here, and while the PC is not going extinct any time soon, its days of dominance might be behind us.
February 7, 2013 8:40 AM
Posted by: Ron Miller
, Cloud computing
Cloud storage has gotten so ridiculously cheap, it’s hard to see why you wouldn’t be using it.
We are in a golden age of cloud storage. We can buy unlimited backup on BitCasa for $99 a year or 10 GB for free. There’s also Dropbox and Sky Drive and Box and Google Drive and iCloud and Amazon — all offer a varying amount of free space and attractive pricing packages if you want more. There are so many options for such low prices, it boggles the mind.
You want local storage, you say? We can get a 2TB portable drive for around $100. .
Like everything else in technology this march to cheap storage has been steady. My first PC had a 20 MB (that’s megabytes, folks) hard drive. Today, I have a 4GB thumb drive on my key chain — one of those that’s just the USB connector and a rubber cover. I recently bought a light-weight 1 tb portable drive that fits in the palm of my hand for $99. It still blows my mind that this little thing holds a terabyte.
Yet even with the low cost of local storage, we never seem to have enough do we? Whether we are an individual or an enterprise, we always seem to fill whatever capacity we have.
I have been buying computers for a long time and each time I’ve bought one, the hard drive had ever more capacity, and I would think — I’ll never fill up that much hard drive space — only to find I did. I’m sure many IT pros have thought the same thing with their storage arrays. There must be some kind of law like Moore’s Law around chip capacity that we will always fill whatever hard drive capacity we have.
That’s the beauty of the cloud. It’s like that old Jay Leno Dorito’s ad — “Don’t worry. We’ll make more. ” It will always scale for you. You don’t have to worry about it because the cloud provider does. I know personally I have at least half a dozen cloud storage accounts. My stuff is spread across the digital heavens because it’s so darn cheap.
Just this week, Bitcasa came out of Beta with a new storage product that provides unlimited storage for $99 a year. I find it hard to believe they can continue to offer unlimited storage for so little, but for now, that’s the price. What’s more, it has client-side encryption, so they have no idea what’s on there and claim there’s no way for them to know — even under threat of subpoena.
Even the most paranoid among us has to like that.
So sure at 2TB for $100 you could back up some stuff and have it locally where it can never be at the mercy of ‘The Man’ –whether the government or the service provider — but when you can get unlimited encrypted storage for $99 a year, that’s gotten to the point where it’s pretty darn hard to resist. And you can get your files anywhere from any device , as well as mark files for offline access if you know you’re not going to have a WiFi connection.
It’s the golden age of cloud storage. You would foolish not take advantage.
Photo Credit: (c) Can Stock Photo