About Jean-Louis Gassée

http://

Posts by Jean-Louis Gassée:

Apple Ads Only Samsung Could Love

Over the years, Apple has produced a number of memorable TV commercials. The “1984” Super Bowl spot, with its dystopian noir and portrayal of Big Blue as Big Brother, is arguably the most celebrated commercial ever made. This bit of sixty-second cinema by Ridley Scott (now Sir Ridley) — director of epoch-making films such as The Duellists, Alien, and, my favorite, Blade Runner — was, and still is, mesmerizing. After the ad was screened for the first time at Apple’s Fall 1983 Sales Meeting in Honolulu the crowd sat in stunned silence… for about three seconds.

When Steve Jobs rebooted Apple in 1997, he needed a rallying cry…and he found one that still resonates: Think Different. Richard Dreyfuss narrated the campaign’s “The Crazy Ones” commercial, but there’s another, never-aired version voiced by Jobs that still moves me to tears. (Last year, on the occasion of Jobs’ demise, AdWeek edited the famous commercial and spliced in a smiling picture of the young Steve at the ending, right after the image of the child opening her eyes… )

Then there’s the long and well-loved “I’m A Mac, You’re a PC” series, featuring John Hodgman and Justin Long (the link gives you access to all 66 TV spots of this historic campaign). It’s more than good fun, it’s a great, lasting example of a classic (a polite way of saying apparently “unoriginal”) strategy: Us vs. Them. The ads are brilliant, consistent, cleanly executed with simple, unencumbered visuals and a sly, understated humor. A joy.

Occasionally, Apple’s sense-of-commercial misses the mark, such as in this PowerMac G4 dud that features tanks and a US Army sergeant voice-over. But the missteps have been few; Apple advertising is typically well thought out and well done. Good ideas, near flawless execution.

That brings us to today. Over the past few months, Apple has put out a series of commercials that fall into two categories: a good idea poorly executed, and the great execution of a troubling concept.

First, we have the “Genius” ads. The Apple Store Geniuses provide, undoubtedly, the best tech support in the industry, leading the company’s products to top scores in customer satisfaction surveys. An ad campaign that promotes this advantage while poking subtle fun at the immodesty of the “Genius” designation should have been a straight shot. The idea lends itself to a series of humorous vignettes that end with a relieved customer, a show back on the road, a CEO in distress saved from embarrassment, and so on.

But in practice, as you can see for yourself here, here, and here, the ads fail. The worthy idea is ruined by stories that feel forced and overly cute, the message falls far short of the clarity we expect from Apple’s marketing campaigns… and they’re just not funny. Even the production seems cheap and hurried, right down to continuity problems: A sleeping Genius, garbed in his official blue t-shirt, is roused by a panicked knock on the door and appears a split-second later… with his badge-cum-business card holder now draped around his neck.

The ads were widely panned and, soon, mercifully yanked.

In the more troublesome category, we have the Siri commercials featuring celebrities Zooey Deschanel, Samuel L. Jackson, John Malkovich, and Martin Scorsese. They’re smart and well-produced, they’re flatteringly imitable — and Samsung must love them.

Why?

Because they’re pernicious: They dilute the focus, they detract from Apple products’ own well-deserved and well-earned celebrity.

As a comparison and a template, regard the series of Louis Vuitton ads produced by the great photographer Annie Leibovitz. What, or rather, who do you see? Sean Connery, Catherine Deneuve, Michael Gorbachev, Roger Federer, Keith Richards, Muhammad Ali…

… with a Louis Vuitton bag.

The message is cynical but clear: Our bag is no better than a Gucci or an Hermès, but if you sport our logo, you’ll have something in common with iconic athletes, artists, intellectuals… You, too, can be like Mikhail Gorbachev or Michael Phelps… if only in our accoutrements. (The Annie Leibovitz campaign is pompously called “Core Values” — or, given the roster of subjects, is this unconscious honesty?).

This is an exceedingly well-thought out and executed plan; Louis Vuitton is an astute, superbly managed company, at the top of its game. But what does it say about the iPhone if Apple feels it has to use Louis Vuitton-like tactics to entice consumers?

Until the Siri celebrity campaign, Apple products had always been the focus of Apple marketing. The product is the hero, the ad extolls what it does and how it does it. The recourse to celebrity endorsement sends a new message: The product isn’t strong enough, it needs the propinquity of the famous. And that message becomes even more dangerous because the ads are so slick, so well executed. (The Scorsese ad even includes a sweet visual joke that refers to the director’s 1976 Taxi Driver movie. A nice touch…but it has nothing to do with Apple.)

That’s why Samsung must have an extra reason to smile when they see Ms. Deschanel dance in her pajamas, and that’s why these ads should be yanked and why the celebrity strategy — a first for Apple if memory serves — should be reconsidered.

And, then, at the risk of piling on, there is the product being promoted: Siri.

Doubtless, it works for some people, but how many?

How many give up after a few tries?

I recently asked an Apple insider that very question. The individual thought a moment but couldn’t recall seeing a Siri-using colleague.

There is a difference between a beta product such as a spreadsheet exhibiting annoying but reasonably well-defined bugs — and a beta like Siri that “kind of works” and discourages some users while pleasing others.

I have no doubt Apple has thought out ambitious long term plans for Siri, plans that might unfold in time and make Siri as universally and reliably usable as a other iPhone functions and apps. But, for the time being, besides their feeble Vuitton-like recourse to celebrities, the slick Siri ads could be perceived as misleading. Another reason to shelve them.

As for the Genius campaign: Fire the ad agency, but keep the concept. Press the reset button, keep the message, rewrite the ads. The idea has potential for a series of effective and fun ads.

JLG@mondaynote.com

Apple Never Invented Anything

Monsieur Voiture, you hopeless [redacted French slur], you still can’t prepare a proper mayonnaise! I’ll show you one last time while standing on one foot…”

[Bear with me, the connection with today's title will become apparent in a moment.]

The year is 1965, I’m midway through a series of strange jobs that I take between dropping out of college and joining HP in 1968 — my “psychosocial moratorium”, in California-speak. This one approaches normal: I’m a waiter in a Paris restaurant on rue Galande, not far from Notre-Dame.

Every day, before service starts, it’s my job to make vinaigrette, remoulade, and mayonnaise, condiments for the hors d’oeuvres (French for appetizers) I’ll wheel around on a little cart — hence the Monsieur Voiture snicker from the chef.

The vinaigrette and remoulade are no problem, but the mayonnaise is not my friend: Day after day, my concoction “splits” and the chef berates me.

So now, pushed beyond limit, he grabs a cul-de-poule (a steel bowl with a round bottom), throws in the mustard, vinegar, and a bit of oil, cracks an egg on the bowl’s edge, separates and drops the yolk into the mixture — all with one hand. I see an opportunity to ingratiate myself: Obligingly, I reach for a whisk.

“No, all I need is a fork.”

Up on one foot, as promised, he gives the mixture a single, masterful stroke — and the mayonnaise begins to emulsify, I see the first filaments. The chef sniffs and walks away. I had been trying too hard…the rest was obvious: a thin trickle of oil, whisk calmly.

Clearly, the episode left its mark, and it came back to mind when I first saw the iPad.

For thirty years, the industry had tried to create a tablet, and it had tried too hard. The devices kept clotting, one after the other. Alan Kay’s Dynabook, Go, Eo, GridPad, various Microsoft-powered Tablet PCs, even Apple’s Newton in the early nineties….they didn’t congeal, nothing took.

Then, in January 2010, Chef Jobs walks on stage with the iPad and it all becomes obvious, easy. Three decades of failures are forgotten.

This brings us to last week’s animated debate about Apple’s talent for invention in the Comments section of the “Apple Tax” Monday Note:

“…moving from stylus to touch (finger) was a change in enabling technology, not some invention by Apple – even gesture existed way back before the iPhone. Have an IPAQ on my desk as a reminder – a product ahead of the implementing technology!
Unfortunately Apple have run out of real innovation…”

In other words: “Nothing new, no innovation, the ingredients were already lying around somewhere…”. The comment drew this retort from another reader:

“iPaq as a precursor to iPad?
Are you on drugs? Right now?”

Drugged or sober, the proud iPaq owner falls into the following point: The basic ingredients are the same. Software is all zeroes and ones, after all. The quantity and order may vary, but that’s about it. Hardware is just protons, neutrons, electrons and photons buzzing around, nothing original. Apple didn’t “invent” anything, the iPad is simply their variation, their interpretation of the well-known tablet recipe.

By this myopic logic, Einstein didn’t invent the theory of relativity, Henri Poincaré had similar ideas before him, as did Hendrik Lorentz earlier still. And, come to think of it, Maxwell’s equations contain all of the basic ingredients of relativity; Einstein “merely” found a way to combine them with another set of parts, Newtonian mechanics.

Back to the kitchen: Where does talent reside? Having access to commonly available ingredients or in the subtlety, the creativity — if not the magic — of their artful combination? Why are the great chefs so richly compensated and, yes, imitated? Alain Ducasse, Alain Senderens, and Joel Robuchon might be out of our price range, but Pierre Herme’s macarons are both affordable and out of this world — try the Ispahan, or the salted caramel, or… (We’ll note that he opened his first boutique in Tokyo, where customers pay attention to details.)

In cars, Brand X (I don’t want to offend) and BMW (I don’t drive one) get their steel, aluminum, plastics, rubber, and electronics from similar — and often the same — suppliers. But their respective chefs coax the ingredients differently, with markedly different aesthetic and financial outcomes.

Did IBM invent the PC? Did HP invent the pocket calculators or desktop computers that once put them at the top of the high tech world? Did Henry Ford invent the automobile.

So, yes, if we stick to the basic ingredients list, Apple didn’t invent anything…not the Apple ][, nor the Macintosh, not the iPod, the iPhone, or the iPad…to say nothing of Apple Stores and App Stores. We’d seen them all before, in one fashion or another.

And yet, we can’t escape a key fact: The same chef was involved in all these creations. He didn’t write the code or design the hardware, but he was there in the kitchen — the “executive chef” in trade parlance — with a unique gift for picking ingredients and whipping up unique products.

JLG@mondaynote.com

As a postscript, two links:

– Steve Wildstrom valiantly attempts to clear up the tech media’s distortions of the patents that were — and weren’t — part of the Apple-Samsung trial:

Whatever happens on appeal, I think the jury did an admirable job making sense of the case they were given. They certainly did better than much of the tech media, which have made a complete mess of the verdict.

– This August 2009 Counternotions post provides a well-reasoned perspective on the iPhone’s risks and contributions, as opposed to being a mere packaging job. (The entire Counternotions site is worth reading for its spirited dissection of fashionable “truths”.)

.

The Apple Tax, Part II

Once upon a time, Steve Ballmer blasted Apple for asking its customers to pay $500 for an Apple logo. This was the “Apple Tax“, the price difference between the solid, professional workmanship of a laptop running on Windows, and Apple’s needlessly elegant MacBooks.

Following last week’s verdict against Samsung, the kommentariat have raised the specter of an egregious new Apple Tax, one that Apple will levy on other smartphone makers who will have no choice but to pass the burden on to you. The idea is this: Samsung’s loss means it will now have to compete against Apple with its dominant hand — a lower price tag — tied behind its back. This will allow Apple to exact higher prices for its iPhones (and iPads) and thus inflict even more pain and suffering on consumers.

There seems to be a moral aspect, here, as if Apple should be held to a higher standard. Last year, Apple and Nokia settled an IP “misunderstanding” that also resulted in a “Tax”…but it was Nokia that played the T-Man role: Apple paid Nokia more than $600M plus an estimated $11.50 per iPhone sold. Where were the handwringers who now accuse Apple of abusing the patent system when the Nokia settlement took place? Where was the outrage against the “evil”, if hapless, Finnish company? (Amusingly, observers speculate that Nokia has made more money from these IP arrangements than from selling its own Lumia smartphones.)

Even where the moral tone is muted, the significance of the verdict (which you can read in full here) is over-dramatized. For instance, see this August 24th Wall Street Journal story sensationally titled After Verdict, Prepare for the ‘Apple Tax’:

After its stunning victory against rival device-maker Samsung Electronics Co., experts say consumers should expect smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices that license various Apple Inc., design and software innovations to be more expensive to produce.

“There may be a big Apple tax,” said IDC analyst Al Hilwa. “Phones will be more expensive.”

The reason is that rival device makers will likely have to pay to license the various Apple technologies the company sought to protect in court. The jury found that Samsung infringed as many as seven Apple patents, awarding $1.05 billion in damages.

The $1B sum awarded to Apple sounds impressive, but to the giants involved, it doesn’t really change much. Samsung’s annual marketing budget is about $2.75B (it covers washer-dryers and TVs, but it’s mostly smartphones), and, of course, Apple is sitting on a $100B+ cash hoard.

Then there’s the horror over the open-ended nature of the decision: Apple can continue to seek injunctions against products that infringe on their patents. From the NYT article:

…the decision could essentially force [Samsung] and other smartphone makers to redesign their products to be less Apple-like, or risk further legal defeats.

Certainly, injunctions could pose a real threat. They could remove competitors, make Apple more dominant, give it more pricing power to the consumer’s detriment…but none of this is a certainty. Last week’s verdict and any follow-up injunctions are sure to be appealed and appealed again until all avenues are exhausted. The Apple Tax won’t be enforced for several years, if ever.

And even if the “Tax” is assessed, will it have a deleterious impact on device manufacturers and consumers? Last year, about half of all Android handset makers — including ZTE, HTC, Sharp — were handed a Microsoft Tax bill ($27 per phone in ZTE’s case), one that isn’t impeded by an obstacle course of appeals. Count Samsung in this group: The Korean giant reportedly agreed to pay Microsoftbetween $10 and $15 – for each Android smartphone or tablet computer it sells.” Sell 100M devices and the tax bill owed to Ballmer and Co. exceeds $1B. Despite this onerous surcharge, Android devices thrive, and Samsung has quickly jumped to the lead in the Android handset race (from Informa, Telecoms & Media):

Amusingly, the Samsung verdict prompted this gloating tweet from Microsoft exec Bill Cox:

Windows Phone is looking gooooood right now.

(Or, as AllThingsD interpreted it: Microsoft to Samsung. Mind if I Revel in Your Misfortune for a Moment?)

The subtext is clear: Android handset makers should worry about threats to the platform and seek safe harbor with the “Apple-safe” Windows Phone 8. This will be a “goooood” thing all around: If more handset makers offer Windows Phone devices, there will be more choices, fewer opportunities for Apple to get “unfairly high” prices for its iDevices. The detrimental effects, to consumers, of the “Apple Tax” might not be so bad, after all.

The Samsung trial recalls the interesting peace agreement that Apple and Microsoft forged in 1997, when Microsoft “invested” $150M in Apple as a fig-leaf for an IP settlement (see the end of the Quora article). The interesting part of the accord is the provision in which the companies agree that they won’t “clone” each other’s products. If Microsoft could arrange a cross-license agreement with Apple that includes an anti-cloning provision and eventually come up with its own original work (everyone agrees that Microsoft’s Modern UI is elegant, interesting, not just a knock-off), how come Samsung didn’t reach a similar arrangement and produce its own distinctive look and feel?

Microsoft and Apple saw that an armed peace was a better solution than constant IP conflicts. Can Samsung and Apple decide to do something similar and feed engineers rather than platoons of high-priced lawyers (the real winners in these battles)?

It’s a nice thought but I doubt it’ll happen. Gates and Jobs had known one another for a long time; there was animosity, but also familiarity. There is no such comfort between Apple and Samsung execs. There is, instead, a wide cultural divide.

JLG@mondaynote.com

Fantasy Apple TV

On August 15th, The Wall Street Journal published yet another story about Apple’s imminent invasion of the TV business. According to people who are “familiar with the matter”, the Cupertino company is…

in talks with some of the biggest U.S. cable operators about letting consumers use an Apple device as a set-top box for live television and other content…

The article has triggered an explosion of comments, speculation, purported leaks, and ”channel checks”. After the enormous success of the iPhone and the iPad, is TV going to be Apple’s Next Big Thing?

(If you Google “Apple iTV”, you get about 32M hits; “Apple TV” yields 700M. Curiously, Microsoft’s Bing gives you only 11M and 250M. I don’t know what to make of the disparity between the Google and Bing numbers, but a cursory look shows more useful results on Bing. As we know, this now depends on who’s asking and when.)

The topic excites writers and readers alike for good reason: We’re all frustrated with TV as it is, and we have a vague, hopeful sense that a disruptor such as Apple (or Google) could break through the obstacles that have been constructed by operators (cable/satellite) and content owners (studios).

Wouldn’t it be nice to get What we want, When we want it, Where we want it, on the device we like without having to deal with brain-dead set-top box program guides and channel bundle rip-offs?

The precedent has been set: CBS Interactive offers the excellent $4.99 60 Minutes iPad app. NBC, ABC, and other networks have an array of separate apps for news, sports, and entertainment. But this is sliced and diced content, carefully picked and edited, not the real What When Where thing.

For example, where can I get the Olympics opening ceremony? I missed it, I hear it was TV Worth Watching. NBC’s site? No. I even checked the NBC Olympics Live Extra app… no joy. YouTube has a few snippets here and there, but I want the whole thing, beginning to end, the excess and the embarrassment. I’ll sit through an ad or two, if need be, or, better yet, offer me a one-click payment so I can skip the ads.

Why is this so difficult?

First, there’s the fear factor: Having seen how Steve Jobs dominated the music distribution industry, TV studios and operators aren’t eager to let Apple hop into the driver’s seat. The major players foresee a significant drop in ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) if viewers are allowed to unbundle channels, if we can go ”à la carte”, if we can point, click, and pay our way into the TV universe. The impression that Apple “destroyed” the music industry conveniently omits what pirates were doing when iTunes came onto the scene and provided a clean, well-lighted distribution channel, but the fear remains.

Then there’s the complexity: Today’s TV revenue stream, the money sucked out of our pockets, divides into a maze of rivulets that flow to operators, distributors, content owners, and producers. Music is relatively simple compared to TV…but even so,  remember how long it took for the Beatles to become available on iTunes? Nine years.

And is it even worth it to Apple? Although Apple TV sales keep growing — +170% year-to-year for the last quarter — the numbers are still relatively small, only 4 million units for FY 2012 so far. At $100 apiece, such volume doesn’t “move the needle”, it’s immaterial when compared to iPhone and iPad revenue and profit.

Still, are these persistent Apple TV rumors totally unfounded?

The answer lies in Apple’s one and only business model: hardware revenue.

Everything else Apple does — software, iTunes, Genius Bars — only exists to push up hardware sales and profits.

With this in mind, today’s Apple TV does more than just deliver Netflix and iTunes movies: It’s a neat part of the ecosystem, it makes Macs (now with AirPlay), iPhones, and iPads more valuable. Your iPhone vacation pictures will show quite nicely on the family TV. Go to a conference room equipped with Apple TV and make your Keynote presentation from your iPhone, iPad, or Mac, no cable required. (PowerPoint doesn’t run on iPads, but a PDF output works just as well.) With the latest 10.8 rev (Mountain Lion) of OS X, all content available on the Web can now appear on your TV.

There’s another, longer term strategy at work: At some point, the growing Apple TV installed base will gain enough mass to become a viable distribution channel. (The same would apply to a successful Google TV effort.) When this happens, someone will crack. ESPN will offer its fare as apps — some free with ads, some paid-for without intrusions — and the others will follow.

It’s a nice theory, it plays into Apple’s ability to deploy the iOS platform more fully on Apple TV, to offer a UI miles ahead of today’s set-top boxes. But in order to matter, the product line will eventually have to reach revenue in the $100B range. What sort of numbers can an Apple TV bring in?

Let’s start with a modest $100/month cable bill. What portion does Apple want? We see the 30% number bandied around, I’m skeptical such a percentage would fly but let’s go with that for the order of magnintude experiment. If we look into a distant future, a time when Apple has 100 million TV subscribers (today, in the US, we have about 50M cable and 35M satellite TV customers), that’s $3B/month, about $40B per year in recurring revenue. If we assume that the new-fangled Apple TV hardware fetches $300 per box, we get an additional yield of $30B — stretched over the number of years needed to reach 100M customers.

This leaves us with difficult questions: How fast can Apple get to 100 million Apple TV-equipped homes? Will operators and content owners/distributors “give” Apple a $30 ARPU? How often will customers be willing to upgrade their TVs (certainly not as often as the iPhone/iPad)? Can Apple broaden its business model to include content and services?

I hope so, I’d love to throw away my ugly set-top box, but I have trouble seeing a path to that happy event. Apple might just continue to improve the black puck, open it to iOS app developers and, in Tim Cook’s words, see where it leads the company.

As for  a full-fledged 50″ TV set…I don’t think so. The computer inside would be obsolete well before the display goes dim. This seems to favor a separate Apple TV box.

Who knows, all this agitation might scare TV providers into providing us with better hardware and services…

(See previous Monday Notes on the subject here, here, here, and here.)

Summer Fun: The HR-Less Performance Review

The idea for today’s off-topic note came to me when I read “Microsoft’s Lost Decade“, an aptly titled Vanity Fair story. In the piece, Kurt Eichenwald tracks Microsoft’s decline as he revisits a decade of technical missteps and bad business decisions. Predictably, the piece has generated strong retorts from Microsoft’s Ministry of Truth and from Ballmer himself (“It’s not been a lost decade for me!” he barked from the tumbrel).

But I don’t come to bury Caesar — not, yet, I’ll wait until actual numbers for Windows 8 and the Surface tablets emerge. Instead, let’s consider the centerpiece of Eichenwald’s article, his depiction of the cultural degeneracy and intramural paranoia that comes of a badly implemented performance review system.

Performance assessments are, of course, an important aspect of a healthy company. In order to maintain fighting weight, an organization must honestly assay its employees’ contributions and cull the dead wood. This is tournament play, after all, and the coach must “release” players who can’t help get the team to the finals.

But Microsoft’s implementation — “stack ranking”, a bell curve that pits employees and groups against one another like rats in a cage — plunged the company into internecine fights, horse trading, and backstabbing.

…every unit was forced to declare a certain percentage of employees as top performers, then good performers, then average, then below average, then poor…For that reason, executives said, a lot of Microsoft superstars did everything they could to avoid working alongside other top-notch developers, out of fear that they would be hurt in the rankings.

Employees quickly realized that it was more important to focus on organization politics than actual performance:

Every current and former Microsoft employee I interviewed—every one—cited stack ranking as the most destructive process inside of Microsoft, something that drove out untold numbers of employees.

This brought back bad memories of my corpocrat days working for a noted Valley company. When I landed here in 1985, I was dismayed by the pervasive presence of Human Resources, an éminence grise that cast a shadow across the entire organization. Humor being the courtesy of despair, engineers referred to HR as the KGB or, for a more literary reference, the Bene Gesserit, monikers that knowingly imputed an efficiency to a department that offered anything but. Granted, there was no bell curve grading, no obligation to sacrifice the bottom 5%, but the politics were stifling nonetheless, the review process a painful charade.

In memory of those shenanigans, I’ve come up with a possible antidote to manipulative reviews, an attempt to deal honestly and pleasantly with the imperfections of life at work. (Someday I’ll write a Note about an equally important task: How to let go of people with decency — and without lawyers.)

A review must start with three key ingredients, in this order:

  • First: Because your performance meets/exceeds requirements, we’ll renew our vows, our work relationship will continue.
  • Second: Here are your new numbers: salary, bonus, stock.
  • Third: We’re sufficiently happy with your performance as it stands today, so feel free to disregard the observations and suggestions for improvement I’m about to make. Now let’s talk…

This might sound a little too “different” (that’s Californian for “batty”), but there’s a serious purpose, here. We’ve all been reviewed, we all know the anxiety — and sometimes the resentment — that precedes the event. Mealy-mouthed comments about team-spirit, loyalty, how the company cares for its people and other insufferable HR pablum only makes things worse. You tune out, you can only hear the noises in your own head: Am I being led to the exit? Am I being shafted out of a raise/bonus/stock? Am I supposed to think that loyalty is its own — and only — reward?

To be heard, the reviewer must silence these questions. Hence the preamble: Your job is safe; here are the $$; we like what you do enough that you can safely continue to behave in the manner we have come to expect, no need to course-correct.

There follows a pause to let the news sink in. Anxiety quelled, the reviewee is now prepared — and willing — to listen.

On to the observations and suggestions. It’s probably a good idea to start with the minus side of the ledger — this isn’t much different from a sales pitch: Get the product’s negatives out of the way first. Stick to specific comments about goals missed, undesirable habits, and the like. “When you arrive 20 minutes late at our staff meetings, you’re being disrespectful to your colleagues, including me.” Defensive reactions to the negative part of a review are unavoidable, so you sing the refrain: The objectionable behavior, while imperfect, doesn’t jeopardize your job.

(As an aside, and seriously: Objecting to a behavior that you insist will be tolerated because of the overall goodness of the relationship…this approach works wonders outside of work. It’s a lot more constructive than the comminatory “You must stop doing this”, which invites the sarcastic and unhelpful response: “And if I don’t? What? You’ll divorce me?”)

The review can now proceed to the positive, to praising the individual’s performance and giving thanks. Saccharine is to be avoided, examples are a must, and exaggeration is only welcome in moderate doses.

Finally, ask for feedback… but don’t kid yourself: Hierarchy trumps honesty, so you may have to ask twice. Explain that you understand the challenge in giving feedback to the reviewer. You might get some useful tidbits, especially if they sting a bit.

Back in the real world, this simple, direct approach might not fit a large organization where you need to protect the rest of the team from the demoralization of a metastasized employee. The habitual backstabber, the knee-jerk naysayer, the self-appointed “Fellow” must be excised before too much harm is done. It’s a difficult task that requires a degree of human judgment and courage that’s not afforded by a mechanical ranking system.

Next week, we might return to topics such as Apple’s uneasy relationship with file systems, Android tablets and phablets, or some such tech disquisition.

Saving Private RIM

Over the past couple weeks, we’ve read a number of bedtimes stories about RIM’s next move. They all start with the same trope: Once upon a time, late last century, Apple was on the edge of the precipice and still managed to come back — and how! Today, RIM’s situation isn’t nearly as dire as Apple’s was then. Unlike Apple, it doesn’t need a cash transfusion and, in the words of Thorsten Heins, RIM’s new CEO: “If you look at the platform it’s still growing, if you look at the devices we’ve got a single phone that’s sold 45 million units.” RIM will pull off an Apple-like rebound and live happily ever after.

Equating RIM 2012 with Apple 1997 is, in so many respects, delusional. Let me count the ways.

First, the context, the marketplace. In its dark days, Apple faced PC clones running Windows. With Microsoft’s 95% market share, it wasn’t even a two-platform race. Microsoft came to Apple’s rescue with a $150M investment and a commitment to continue writing apps for the Macintosh. This was enlightened self-interest on Microsoft’s part: Discreetly tucked into the agreement was the settlement of a brewing IP suit. And by keeping their highly visible (if economically unthreatening) competitor alive, Microsoft hoped to score a few goodwill points in the face of the DOJ’s antitrust investigations.

Fifteen years later, there’s no looming smartphone monopoly. We have a genuine two-horse race between Android and iOS, and a third horse, Microsoft, circling in the paddock. This is a very different world, a much rougher one with bruisers such as Apple, Samsung, Huawei, and ZTE…with this many players, there’s no rationale for investing in a fallen player.

Second, ecosystems. In Stephen Elop’s ringing (if infelicitously timed) words, yesterday’s platform struggles have become all-out ecosystem wars. To claw back into the race, let alone to return to its former CrackBerry glory, RIM must build an array of content and services that can equal or better those that will be offered by the dominant players in 2013.

This isn’t just about app stores — a challenge unto itself when developers ask why they should commit to a troubled player. Smartphone and tablet users expect entertainment, navigation, synchronization between their devices and other Cloud services.

In the Daily Telegraph interview quoted earlier, Thorsten Heins boasts that BB10, the upcoming BlackBerry 10 OS, will have “true multitasking, … potentially running a car’s navigation, entertainment and gaming systems for the whole family“. Elsewhere, he refers to a new world of applications in which your Blackberry will connect to “the embedded systems that run constantly in the background of everyday life – from parking meters and car computers to credit card machines and ticket counters“. (Home automation can’t be very far off.) Even more majestically, Heins tells us that RIM’s mission is “to build a new mobile computing platform to empower a people in a way they didn’t think possible“.

This all sounds like a noble and worthy goal…but it’s a bit vague. How will RIM’s approach be different from — or better than — the competing ecosystems?

This leads us to our third point: The engineering team (or, “it’s simply a matter of implementation”). When Steve Jobs reverse-acquired Apple in 1997, he brought with him the creators of NextStep, the likes of Avie Tevanian, Bertrand Serlet, and Scott Forstall. They led a team of talented, like-minded computer scientists whose goal was clear: Replace the decrepit Mac OS with a truly modern foundation. It took them the better part of five years to produce what we know as OS X.

RIM acquired QNX, the foundation for BB10, a mere two years ago. After a quick bow to the work ethic and technical manhood of RIM’s engineers, one must ask if they’re in the same league as the team Jobs brought to Apple 2.0, if they can accomplish everything they need to do by early 2013. Weren’t most of these engineers already onboard when RIM fell asleep at the switch?

Fourth and last, leadership. Using Apple 1997 as the model for turning around a once-great company invites challenging comparisons. Or, more accurately, a single comparison: Is Thorsten Heins made of the same unobtainium as Steve Jobs? This isn’t a question of IQ, of neo-cortex, but of Mind, of being sufficiently agitated, of having the right animal inside.

The prodigal Jobs returned to Apple having known stellar business success with Pixar, and just-as-stellar lack thereof at NeXT (despite the company’s technical prowess). Heins, by contrast, is an insider. He’s been part of RIM’s problem since 2007.

But enough of this fantasy. Let’s turn to the latest story: RIM’s CEO has conceded that the company might have to license its platform:

To deliver BB10 we may need to look at licensing it to someone who can do this at a way better cost proposition than I can do it.

Dumbfoundingly, the licensing idea (which, presumably, will include BlackBerry Messenger), has been met with approval: ”RIM is in trouble and is seemingly finally listening to reason“.

This gambit doesn’t work. It didn’t work for Palm (twice!), nor for Nokia with Symbian. And it really didn’t work for Apple when it licensed the Mac OS to PowerComputing and Motorola in 1995. The Mac clones quickly underpriced the original products and siphoned profits out of Apple’s income statement. Jobs reversed that decision in 1997, and, after much initial criticism, was ultimately vindicated.

With these examples, what drives Heins to think that the BlackBerry 10 clones won’t underprice RIM’s own devices and empty the cash register? BlackBerry Messenger may be well-liked, but it’s also under attack by free, multi-device services such as iMessage.

So, where does this leave RIM? The use of “Private” in this note’s title isn’t a facile pun. It points to a possible avenue for the BlackBerry maker. If it decides to license the software layer of its (formerly) proprietary platform, RIM will indisputably see hardware dollars disappear much faster than software licenses can be signed. RIM will forego a known source of revenue in order to grow a new income stream that, given enough time, might be strong enough to keep the company solvent.

For a publicly-traded company, switching business models in this way is a factual impossibility, it defies business gravity. Shareholders might applaud the long-term strategy but when the cheering stops, they’ll dump the stock.

If RIM wants to do something bold, such as focusing on software and services, they might consider taking the company private. As I write this, RIM has a market cap that’s less than $4B and more than $2B in apparently unencumbered cash. Management and the Board could work with a Private Equity fund, a KKR-type organization, and buy the company from the shareholders.

The ink dries, the curtains close. Backstage, in private, the company performs painful surgery, sheds the groups and businesses that are no longer required by the new, tighter focus. This may be hard on employees, but it’s unavoidable either way: Lose some of the company now, or the entire thing soon enough.

In theory, the company re-emerges smaller but stronger, with a highly profitable software and services business model.

Will this work for RIM? I don’t think so. Given the company’s low market cap and the availability of private capital, if this were an attractive move, it would have been attempted already. Cold-hearted investors looking at the risk involved must have already asked themselves the burning question: How do you compete with free? How do you sell licenses when Android hands them out, gratis (even if licensees have to pay for a few Microsoft patents)?

Sadly for former BlackBerry fans like yours truly — or for current ones who appreciate its core functionality — there aren’t many moves left for RIM on the smartphone chessboard.

JLG@mondaynote.com

Apple: Three Intriguing Numbers

No Monday Note last week: I was in The Country of Sin, enjoying pleasures such as TGV trips across a landscape of old villages, Romanesque churches, Rhône vineyards — and a couple of nuclear power plants. All this without our friendly TSA.

Back in the Valley, Apple just released their latest quarterly numbers. They weren’t as good as expected, a fact that launched a broadside of comments ranging from shameless pageview whoring (I’m looking at you, Henry) to calm but worried (see Richard Gaywood’s analysis).

As I’ll attempt to explain below, Apple’s latest quarterly performance is unusual. But, stepping back a bit, the company’s numbers are nonetheless phenomenal.

Net sales, growing 23%, are more than three times larger than Amazon’s — and Apple’s net income is more than 1,000 times larger, $8.8B vs. a tiny $7M for the Seattle giant, whose shares went up after disclosing its earnings release anyway.

Turning to Google, Apple sales of $35B are more than three times Google’s $11.3B (including Motorola, for the first time), with net income numbers in a similar ratio at $8.8B and $2.8B respectively.

Ending comparisons with Microsoft, its revenue grew 4% to $18B, about half of Apple’s and, for the first time, the company posted a net loss of $492M, due to the huge $6.2B aQuantive write off, a one time event. Excluding that number, Microsoft net income would have been about $5.5B, two thirds of Apple’s. iPhone revenue at $16B for the quarter, approaches Microsoft’s number for the entire company, iPad, at $9B is about half.

For in-depth coverage of Apple’s Q3 FY 2012, you can turn to Philip Ellmer-DeWitt’s Apple 2.0 or Horace Dediu’s Asymco — possibly the best source of fine-grained industry analysis. I can also recommend Daring Fireball for John Gruber’s lapidary comments and carefully chosen links, and Brian Hall’s Smartphone Wars — vigorous commentary and insights, occasionally couched in NSFW language. Of course, you can always wade through Apple’s 10-Q SEC filing, if you have the time and inclination. Of particular interest is Section 2 MD&A, Management Discussion and Analysis, starting on page 21.

Out of this torrent of information and argument, I suggest we look at three numbers.

First, the 3% “Miss”, Wall Street’s term for failing to hit the revenue bull’s eye. I’m not referring to the guessing games played by Wall Street analysts, both the pros and the so-called amateurs. In the past, the amateurs have done a consistently better job of forecasting revenue, gross margin, profit, unit volumes, but this time, the pros won. Although almost everyone substantially overestimated Apple’s numbers, the pros weren’t nearly as optimistic as the amateurs.”

Instead of measuring Apple’s performance against the predictions of the traders and observers, we can recall what the company itself told us to expect. About a month into each quarter, management provides an official but non-committal estimate of the quarter’s revenue. This guidance is a delicate dance: You want to be cautious, you want to sandbag a little, but not so much that your numbers aren’t taken seriously. Unavoidably, a lot of second-guessing ensues.

Apple has consistently beaten its own guidance, by 19% on average over the past three years, and as much as 35% in Q1 2010. But in this past quarter, Apple “achieved” a historic low: Actual revenue came in at only 3% above the guidance number. Richard Gaywood provides a helpful graphic in his TUAW piece:

Apple management offered explanations during the conference call following the earnings release: The economy in Europe isn’t doing so well, “rumors” about the iPhone 5 have slowed sales of iPhone 4s… These might very well be the causes of the lackluster performance, but one has to wonder: Weren’t these issues known two months ago when the guidance number was announced? Apple is praised for its superbly managed supply chain, its global distribution network, its attention to detail. How is it possible that it didn’t see that the European economy was already cooling? How could management not have heard the steady murmur about an upcoming iPhone?

Put another way: What did you know and when did you know it? And, if you didn’t know, why didn’t you?

There is a possible alternative explanation: Samsung is making more substantial inroads than expected, as their impressive quarterly numbers just released would attest: 50.5M smartphones shipped, almost twice as many as Apple’s 26M.

Sharp-eyed readers may protest the comparison: Samsung reports the number of devices “shipped” while Apple reports units “sold”. But even if we allow for unsold inventory, Samsung’s performance is impressive.  (And, as circumstantial evidence, I noticed an unusually heavy amount of advertising for the Galaxy S III during my recent overseas trip.)

Samsung’s strong showing will almost certainly continue — so how will Apple react? A new product? Price moves? Both? In the conference call, Tim Cook assured his audience that Apple won’t create a “price umbrella” for competitors, that it won’t insist on premium price tags and thus leave small-margin money on the table.

Which leads us to the second number: Gross Margin guidance for the current quarter, ending September 30th, is 38.5%, down from 42.8% for the quarter that just ended. In consultant-speak, that’s an evaporation of 430 basis points (hundredths of percent) in just one quarter — and we’re already one month into it with no visible change in the product lineup other than the full availability of newer MacBooks (Air, Pro, Retina), and no evidence of heavy-handed discounting.

During the conference call, a Morgan Stanley analyst noted that Apple hadn’t shown Gross Margin numbers below 40% for the past two years. Would Apple care to comment?

We expect most of this decline to be primarily driven by a fall transition and to a much lesser extent, the impact of the stronger U.S. dollar.

The entire Gross Margin drop of about $34B of sales (the latest guidance) amounts to $1.5B, a sum that will shift in less than two months, and probably less than one as any momentous announcement is unlikely before Labor Day (the first Monday of September for our overseas readers). This could portend a strong price move in the “fall transition”. To put the $1.5B shift in perspective, imagine Apple dropping its “usual” Gross Margin by $100 per device (new or existing); this means 15M lower-margins devices in the three weeks of September after Labor Day. Or perhaps Apple’s CFO is sandbagging the guidance once again.

The third curious number is the most perplexing: While the entire company grew by 23% compared to the same quarter last year, Apple Store revenue grew by only 17% — and this in spite of adding 47 stores over the year, for a total of 372. Why would Apple’s much vaunted retail channel grow more slowly than the company? The weak Euro economy can’t be the explanation, there are relatively less Apple Stores there. The same can be said for “rumors” of newer devices, they impact all channels and not just company stores.

We’ll see if this last quarter was simply a manifestation of a natural “granularity” of its business (as opposed to the unnatural smoothing of quarter after quarter numbers favored by Wall Street), or if the company is entering a new chapter of the smartphone wars and, if this is the case, how it will change tactics.

JLG@mondaynote.com

Business Model Dances

Apple will licence the iOS. An unexpected disturbance is apparent in Apple’s vaunted Supply Chain. It’s not what’s there, but what isn’t: In the past, each new iPhone was preceded by an increase in orders for displays, batteries, memory, cases, etc. But now, as we approach the September/October launch of the new iPhone 5, the manufacturing pipeline is only modestly full.

Concerned by the underflow, I put in a call to a friend at DigiTimes. Is this just a test run that portends a delayed release? According to my friend’s usual sources: No, the launch hasn’t been pushed back. The parts aren’t on order because Apple intends to produce the new iPhone in much smaller numbers offered through online sales only, plus a small subset of the Apple Stores worldwide (no more than 44 stores, says the rumor). But there will, nonetheless, be much rejoicing at the launch, because…

…Apple will announce a broad iOS licensing program.

This is great news for “rational” business people: Apple has finally come to its senses. I imagine the explosion in the media:

Apple sees the light at the end of the tunnel, and it’s the Android locomotive with Samsung at the controls.

or…

Years ago, I told Apple’s CEO: ‘Mr. Jobs, break down that wall’. Thank Heaven, Tim Cook is a reasonable man: the Walled Garden is now open to all.

But I couldn’t help but ask: Why launch a new iPhone at all, why not leave the field fully open to Apple’s new partners? My friend was ahead of me; he had already asked the same question. The answer: Apple must set the proper hardware standards for the iOS platform while leaving room for its OEMs. The iPhone 5 isn’t an ordinary iPhone, its a design point.

As I put down the phone, I spin out the rest of this story:

In order to compete with Android, which is free but for the occasional payoff to the Redmond Patent Troll, the iOS license is forced to essentially zero, as well. Before its epiphany, Apple made about $400 per iPhone. Now enlightened, Apple’s margin for each design point iPhone is around $50 per unit, and the company makes nothing on the huge number of iOS clones sold by Samsung, HTC, Huawei and ZTE, RIM and Nokia (just kidding about these last two).

Within weeks (days?), the big Wall Street funds that own most of AAPL dump their shares and the most valuable high-tech company in history loses 90% of its market cap.

Let’s stop the fiction here and consider the very real peril in switching business models. Once you choose a path, you stick to it for the rest of your life, whether brutish and short, or long and prosperous.

In the mid-nineties, Apple tried to correct the errors of its un-licensing ways and almost paid with its life as Power Computing and Motorola siphoned gross margin money out of Apple’s P&L. When Jobs reverse-acquired Apple, one of the first things he did was stanch the bleeding by canceling the Mac OS licenses. It was met with noisy disapproval –  for a while.

With this in mind, let’s look at two other companies that are trying to finesse difficult business model moves: Microsoft and Google.

Microsoft announces its Surface tablets…pardon…Tablet PCs, and quickly finds itself between two business models: Are they offering a vertically integrated device, a la Xbox; or are they licensing a software platform, as in Windows/Office? As remarked upon by Horace Dediu and others, one day Ballmer says:

“We are working real hard on the Surface. That’s the focus. That’s our core.”

and the next, with equal strength of conviction:

“Surface is just a design point.”

Ballmer isn’t delusional, he knows he can’t dump his OEM vassals and become a vertically integrated tablet maker overnight, setting up manufacturing, distribution, and support for 100 million or more units a year. Also, PC+ wars of words aside, he sees that these annoying “media tablets” are gaining on Windows PCs.

The solution: Announce Tablet PCs that he hopes will spur HP, Dell, and Lenovo to imitate and even outdo Microsoft own Surface devices. In a perfectly Nixonian explanation, Ballmer promises that after years of forcing PC clone makers into a race to the bottom by constantly eating into their margins — and then condemning them for their shoddy products — the new, open Microsoft won’t cheat its business partners, they won’t withhold some of that “openness” for exclusive use by Microsoft’s own devices.

As with the presidential precursor, this could be a very shrewd move…and ultimately doomed.

If it works, Microsoft will have succeeded in “reimagining” Windows.

If it doesn’t work, Ballmer will have a “neither-nor” business model on his hands: He’ll have chased away partners without gaining the time and talent to create a Microsoft tablet business the size of Google’s and Apple’s. Perhaps, in Brian Hall’s words: “Someone should tell Microsoft that PC+ is about as likely as Minicomputer+“.

So far, traditional Windows OEMs have been quiet, with the (perhaps transitory) exception of HP which announced that it won’t make a Windows RT tablet. (That’s the ARM-based variant, as opposed to the more conventional Intel-based one.)

All subject to change, as we know from Ballmer’s constant zigs and zags.

With Google we see what could be the beginning of several contortions. Just like Microsoft, Google seems to have become impatient with their own subjects: “No one seems to be able to do a proper tablet…we’ll have to do it ourselves.” (We know what “proper” means, here: It’s a grudging recognition of the great degree of complexity that belies the iPad’s benign surface.)

So now we have Google’s 7″ Nexus tablet, the first such device to receive the highest of honors — A Tablet To Rival the iPad — bestowed by reviewers from the NYT, the WSJ, Ars Technica, and others.

(I’m getting mine. Here’s my order number: 15731260465432498277.1587861291707893. Thirty-six digits. They must be kidding, right? Or they’re making room for a lot of orders from exoplanets. Not enough for a Googol, though.)

Is Google’s “vertical” move into designing, manufacturing, selling, and supporting its own tablets the same as Microsoft’s? Probably not. In the past, they tried with phones made by HTC, but the experiment didn’t last. Because Amazon was able to pick Android’s lock and create the Android-based yet non-Android Kindle Fire, Google’s current move could be much more serious.

And it could carry serious risks, as well: The gentle folks at Samsung are not going to take this with a smile and a quick genuflection. If they’re not cowed by Apple, they certainly aren’t going to let Google eat into their tablet business. As for phones, there’s Google’s $12.5B subsidiary, Motorola Mobility, another irritant for Samsung and other Android smartphone makers.

Like Microsoft, Google now faces the toxic waste of its own licensing formula: A good, enthusiastically-adopted platform that launches a race to the bottom. With few exceptions, the low margins and the haste to produce model after model have starved engineering teams of the budgets and time they need to to come up with “proper” products. Google becomes unhappy, decides to “do something about it” — and thus pushes itself closer to a business model change in which it competes with its own partners.

For the first Nexus tablet, Google can sell it at cost (or close to it), just like Amazon. But Google doesn’t have Amazon’s ecosystem, its vast store of physical products and digital content that the Kindle Fire helps sell. Sooner or later, this could force Google to make tablets “for their own sake”, as a money-making business unit.

Or they could stick with the current Android strategy: An OEM platform that runs zillions of devices, all with the same goal: Expose the consumer to Google services, to the radiation of its advertising business, all the time, everywhere, on any device.

Or , like Microsoft, end up in a neither here nor there crack of the business model space.

This is going to be interesting.

JLG@mondaynote.com

iPad Mini: Wishful Thinking?

Or another killer product? Or, on the pessimistic side, a loser defensive move showing Apple’s fear of competitors such as Amazon, with its Kindle Fire, and Google’s 7″ Nexus tablet?

Recent leaks from purported sources inside Apple’s traditional suppliers have ignited a new frenzy of speculation. And not just from the usual blogging suspects — often better informed and more insightful than the official kommentariat. BusinessWeek and the Wall Street Journal both stuck their august necks out: The so-called iPad Mini will be launched this coming September.

On this matter, my own biases are on the record.

In an August 2009 Note titled “Apple’s Jesus Tablet: What For?“, I went as far as measuring the pocket on men’s pockets. As a result, I posited a 10″ (diagonal) tablet might not provide the same desirable ubiquity as a 7″ one that men could carry in a coat or jacket pocket, and women in a purse.
(Apple once came to a similar conclusion: the original Newton project started by Steve Sakoman in 1987 was a letter-size tablet. After he and I left, the screen size was cut in half and the actual Newton came out as a pocketable product.)
Five months later, on January 27th, 2010, Steve Jobs stood up and changed the personal computing world for the third time with the 9.7″ (diagonal screen size) iPad. The take-no-prisoners price ($499 for the entry model) was a big surprise. Another one, much less obvious, was Dear Leader’s unusually tentative positioning statement: ‘We’ll see how the iPad finds its place between the iPhone and a MacBook’. (I’m paraphrasing a bit but the tone was there.)
The iPad surprised many, Apple included and, at the beginning, was often misunderstood. I recall my initial disappointment at not being able to perform the same tasks as on my laptop. A huge number of normal humans of all ages thought differently. As we know now, the iPad grew even faster than the iPhone. Notwithstanding Microsoft’s clinging to its ossified PC-centric rhetoric, this turned out to be the true beginning of the Post-PC era.

This excited competitors around the world: You’ll find here a list of 76 tablets announced at CES. By the end of 2011, few had accomplished anything. One exception was Amazon’s Kindle Fire, its Xmas season numbers were rumored to reach more than 4M units, even 6M by some rumored estimates. This rekindled, sorry, rumors of a smaller iPad.
In October 2010, Jobs famously dismissed the idea: “7-inch tablets should come with sandpaper so users can file down their fingers.” None of the journalists present at the time had the presence of mind to ask him about the iPhone screen…
Tim Cook, Steve’s disciple put it well at the D10 conference last June when he affectionately (and accurately) called Jobs a great flip-flopper, citing examples of products features his then boss ended up endorsing after repeatedly nixing them.
In an April 2012 Monday Note, I discussed the possible end of Apple’s One Size Fits All for  iPhones and, in particular, iPads. There, I linked to an A. T. Faust III post lucidly explaining how the original 1024 x 768 resolution could easily scale down to a 7.85″ tablet and achieve a nice 163 ppi (pixels per inch) resolution, the same as pre-Retina iPhones. This leads one to believe there is abundant (and inexpensive) manufacturing capacity for such pre-Retina displays.

A few questions.

First, developers. As we saw with iOS apps for iPhone and iPad, size matters, apps don’t scale. That hasn’t dampened the enthusiasm of developers for investing in app versions that take advantage of each device unique characteristics, as opposed to committing the cardinal sin of “It’s like the other one, only smaller/bigger”.
So, if developers believe a 7″ iPad would sell in large numbers, they’ll happily fire up Xcode, adapt their existing app, or write a new one. As for the belief in large unit volume for a 7″ device, the initial reception accorded to Google’s Nexus tablet shows there is potentially a lot of life in a smaller iPad.

(I ordered a Nexus tablet and will dutifully report. Last April, I bought a Samsung Note phablet and promised a report. Here it is: I’ll sell you mine for $50. A respectable product, I could definitely live with it. But, IMO, too big for a phone, too small for a tablet.)

Second, Apple was on offense. Now, competition succeeded in putting it on the defensive. While initial Kindle Fire sales were rumored to be huge, the same “sources”, checking on display supplier suppliers, now claim sales of Amazon’s tablet dropped precipitously after the Holidays. Amazon keeps mum, but is also rumored to prepare a slew of not one but several tablets for this year’s Xmas quarter.
As for the Nexus tablet, it isn’t shipping yet.
Instead of a defensive move, I think a 7″ iPad might be another take-no-prisoners move:

From the very beginning of the iPad and its surprising low $499 entry price, it’s been clear that Apple wants to conquer the tablet market and maintain an iPod-like share for the iPad. Now that Apple has become The Man, the company might have to adopt the Not A Single Crack In The Wall strategy used by the previous occupant of the hightech throne.

If this cannibalizes 10″ iPad sales, no problem, better do it yourself than let Google, Amazon or Samsung do it.

Lastly, the price/cost question. As you’ll see on this video, Todd Schoenberger, a Wall Street haruspex visibly off his meds, contends an iPad Mini is a terrible move for Apple, it would be a break with its single product version focus. Like, for the example, the one and only Macintosh, the one and only iPod. Also, he continues, an iPad Mini wouldn’t allow Apple achieve the 37% gross margin it gets from the bigger sibling.
No. If we’re to believe iSuppli, a saner authority on cost matters, the latest 32 GB 4G iPad carries a Bill Of Materials of about $364, for a retail price of $729. Even with a bit of manufacturing overhead, we’re far from 37% today. And, tomorrow, a smaller iPad, with a smaller display, a smaller battery, a correspondingly smaller processor would nicely scale down in cost from the “new” iPad and its expensive display/battery/processor combo.
To where? I won’t speculate, but Apple has shown an ability to be very cost competitive when using previous generation parts and processes. See today’s iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 prices for an example.

I have no inside knowledge and quite a few inclinations: I’d love a pocketable iPad as much as I like small computers such as the defunct Toshiba Libretto and the lively 11″ MacBook Air.

If Apple comes up with a smaller iPad later this year, I think it’ll be a killer product.

–JLG@mondaynote.com

What’s next for RIM?

A sad coincidence provides a stark contrast between the fortunes of two high tech companies, titans present and past. Last week, on (almost) the same day that the iPhone celebrated its fifth birthday, RIM issued very bad quarterly numbers: Down 43% year-to-year to $2.8B; a $518M net loss compared to a $695M profit in the same quarter last year.

A short five years ago, the BlackBerry was sine qua non in the smartphone world. Today, the future looks gloomy: RIM admits that they expect “the next several quarters to be very challenging”; they announce “a global workforce reduction of approximately 5,000 employees”; and, last but not least, they tell us that the new BB10 OS, initially promised for the end of the year, will be delayed until Q1 2013.

The downward trend has been evident for some time. It led to the replacement of RIM’s historic co-CEOs, Messrs. Lazaridis and Balsillie, with former co-COO Thorsten Heins – and it leads us to ask a series of questions about RIM’s survival.

Will BB10, RIM’s answer to iOS and Android — the company’s “number one priority” — ever ship? And, if it does, will it matter?

Probably not…and probably not.

To start with, BB10 isn’t a next-generation OS, it’s not a version N+1. It’s a whole new infrastructure based on QNX. Certainly, QNX is robust, venerable, and respected — but over its nearly 30 years, it has evolved into the premier OS for real-time applications embedded in consumer electronics, medical devices, and automobiles, not smartphones. From the QNX website:

QNX software is the preferred choice for life-critical systems such as air traffic control systems, surgical equipment, and nuclear power plants. And its cool multimedia features have QNX software turning up in everything from in-dash radios and infotainment systems to the latest casino gaming terminals.

When RIM acquired QNX from Harman International in 2010, the OS came with a handful of sophisticated but narrow, focused tool kits and libraries. Tool kits that let developers build “high-value consumer-grade solutions that range from simple media players to multiple-node systems with intra-vehicle multimedia sharing.” Algorithms that “improve the clarity, quality, and accuracy of voice communications for the most challenging acoustic environments … from conference rooms to automobiles.”

Admirable, certainly, but can they do Angry Birds?

What QNX lacks is a general-purpose application framework for developers. This is the most important (and fattest) part of the smartphone operating system. To app developers, the app framework manifests itself as APIs (Application Programming Interfaces). There are more than 1,000 APIs in Android and iOS. Building such a framework is a complex, time consuming task. A vital one, too: No app framework means no developers, no apps, no sale in the smartphone era.

RIM’s CEO saw that the company’s engineers needed more time, bowed to reality, and announced that BB10 would be delayed until “Q1 2013”.

In normal times, delaying an OS release by a few months is almost routine, part of an always arduous development process. But these times aren’t normal: In the smartphone wars, nine months is a very long time. And we suspect there will be further delays: How many of the company’s software engineers will lash themselves to the mast as RIM continues to lose money, market share, partners, credibility? How many of their best techies have already fled to companies where their work will have a chance to matter, to be enjoyed by fellow app developers and by legions of paying customers?

But let’s assume BB10 finally ships (and that it doesn’t suffer from too many early release bugs). Will it matter? By Q1 2013, Android and iOS will be even more entrenched; BB10 — and whatever new hardware RIM can manage to produce while it sinks and lays people off — will have to be strikingly superior to reverse the company’s slide into insignificance. RIM will have to build a real ecosystem (app store, media, companion devices, payment system) that can compete with what Apple and Google deploy…to say nothing of what Samsung appears to be building.

We could stop here. If BB10 doesn’t matter, that’s the end of the road for RIM. Investors seemed to agree. The day after the quarterly earnings release, RIM shares lost 19% of their value. Subtracting RIM’s $2.2B in cash from its latest $3.8B market cap, the company is left with a (putative) enterprise value of $1.6B. Since its high in June 2008 — a mere four years — RIM has lost about 95% of its value.

Which raises another question: Under the circumstances, why are investors now buying RIM shares? (78M shares last Friday, more than 4X the average daily volume.) Are they philanthropists and necrophiliacs…or astute traders? What prospective endgame justifies the uptick?

There are two theories.

First, RIM will be cut up and sold in pieces: A BB10 licensing business, a BBM (BlackBerry Messenger) operation, an entry-level hardware unit. On closer examination, however, this doesn’t make much sense.

– CEO Heins says RIM licensing will be “fully open”, by which he probably means even more open than Android. Right. Who needs a fledgling OS — without an ecosystem?

– BlackBerry Messenger is/was well-loved, and for good reason, but it doesn’t make sense on its own. Which smartphone platform would it run on? Android, iOS, Windows Phone? Or Tizen for high-end feature phones?

– As to the hardware unit, Huawei, ZTE, and others already produce low-cost BlackBerry killers sold in developing countries and, soon, everywhere. They don’t need RIM’s imprimatur, particularly if BBM and BB10 are no longer part of the brand.

Which leads us to the second theory: RIM sold as a whole to a muscular player such as one of the Chinese companies already mentioned. This could present a different sort of problem: BlackBerries are still popular with many government agencies around the world and Huawei, for one, isn’t. As for other wholecloth buyers: Samsung is busy with four platforms already (Bada, Tizen, Windows Phone, Android). Microsoft has its own story with Nokia. Who else?

Speaking of Ballmer & Co., yet another line of thought is that RIM will ditch BB10 and jump on the Windows Phone platform. Easier said than done, we saw what happened when Nokia osborned its Symbian and MeeGo devices. The move would need to be done in secret and quickly. (Allegedly, Nokia got its first Windows Phone devices from Compal, an experienced Taiwanese supplier; that might be a place to look for a quick transition.) Running BBM on top of Windows Phone 8 would please customers. Microsoft’s ecosystem would also help.

Would Microsoft want to see RIM join the Windows Phone party? Probably…but RIM’s CEO nixed that move. Moreover, Heins nixed all such moves, including joining the Android camp: He wants RIM to stay on its own platform.

Can Heins stick to his guns? We’ll see what he has to say after his brand new (effective July 1st) General Counsel, Steve Zipperstein, takes him aside and whispers in his ear about shareholder lawsuits. For almost 10 years, RIM’s new legal eagle worked for the US Department of Justice as a federal prosecutor…

RIM’s $2.2B in cash, no debt, gives it a bit of maneuvering room: It’s a lot easier to sell your company, or parts of it, when there is money in the bank. Further, the 55 days (of average sales) in channel inventory isn’t completely bad news, some of it could be flushed — at a loss — to generate additional cash and more “runway”. But for how long?

JLG@mondaynote.com