The enduring Apple TV Fantasy

 

We all want TV Done Right, free of the Soviet Era set-top box, UI and opaque contracts. We imagine Apple will put all the pieces together. But what’s desirable and “obvious” might not be so simple or soon…

“When I go into my living room and turn on the TV, I feel like I have gone backwards in time by 20 to 30 years,” Apple CEO Tim Cook told . NBC’s Brian Williams “It’s an area of intense interest. I can’t say more than that.”

These words — and similar ones in a substantial Bloomberg interview — launched yet another round of frenzied speculation about the mythical Apple TV.

Piper Jaffray’s Gene Munster insists that an Apple TV in 2013 is a sure thing. “It will be the biggest thing in consumer electronics since the smartphone“. (Of course, Munster has been saying this every year for the last three years…)

Another analyst, Wells Fargo’s Maynard Um, agrees that the device is inevitable, if only because a full-fledged television is “more in tune” with Apple than a simple set-top box.

Hmmm…

First, let’s take a calmer look at Tim Cook’s words. As many have noted, there’s nothing new here. Cook said essentially the same things at the D10 Conference last May and has repeated the message on earnings conference calls. The only changes to the Apple TV script in the past twelve months are the stated number of black pucks sold in the last fiscal year (more than 5 million), and an upgrade from “hobby” to “intense interest”. The actual meaning of this “interest” is widely open to interpretation.

Speculation aside, Cook has one thing right: The set-top box experience does place one back in time by 20 to 30 years:

– We still can’t order channels à la carte or search the program grid. For the latter you have to go to your tablet. And forget about the former.

– You can’t buy your own set-top box; you have to rent it from your carrier. For STB makers, there’s no incentive to build a better product.

– Add in the contorted rights and packages games played by the content providers and you end up with today’s mess.

The solution? Channels, shows, special events should all be presented as apps. Click, pay, and play, with standard fare for free. Catch the 6 pm news when you get home at 9:30; watch two programs side-by-side with Android 7 or iOS 9, all on your screen of choice: smartphone, tablet, PC, or TV.

The technology isn’t an issue. There’s enough bandwidth on cable (or pretend-fiber) networks, plenty of storage on servers, and all the required computing power in current or future TV boxes, from Apple and its competitors.

But there’s an obstacle in the tangled, encrusted business models that the Comcasts, CBSs, and Disneys cling to out of fear that Apple will wrest control of their content, that they’ll be disintermediated a la iTunes or the iPhone/iPad App Store.

Second, I simply don’t believe Apple will make, or even wants to make, a TV set. To realize the dream, as discussed previously, you need to put a computer — something like an Apple TV module — inside the set. Eighteen months later, as Moore’s Law dictates, the computer is obsolete but the screen is just fine. No problem, you’ll say, just make the computer module removable, easily replaced by a new one; more revenue for Apple…and you’re right back to today’s separate box arrangement. And you can spread said box to all HDTVs, not just the hypothetical Apple-brand set.

If carriers and content owners can be tricked, bribed, sued, or otherwise made to see the light and wisdom of higher revenue per subscriber, the TV Done Right will descend from Heaven in the form of a next generation Apple set-top box, not a TV set.

So why is Tim Cook talking about Apple TV at all?

The simplest explanation is that he’s simply answering an interviewer’s question. Possible… but not likely in such tightly choreographed exercises.

A cheekier possibility is that the answer is a head fake. Cook, a noted College Football fan, is trying to draw Google offsides, to provoke then into yet another embarrassing Google TV moment. And maybe even goad Microsoft into another WebTV dud.

Amusing… but not likely.

In Google’s case, the failed experiment has been digested and the next iteration will be much sharper. (Note well that Google’s subsidiary Motorola is putting its set-top box business up for bids, with “vendor financing possible”…)

For Microsoft, the company is happy with its successful Xbox ecosystem and its ability to provide TV content through its game console, even if that content doesn’t flow onto its phone and tablets as nicely as they would like. In any event, Tim Cook wishes Steve Ballmer no ill — au contraire, Cook wants Ballmer to stay on the job as long as he keeps helping his friends in Cupertino.

A more serious interpretation: Apple’s CEO is indicating that he’ll continue to invest talent and money until the TV obstacles are finally surmounted. In other words: “Join us and ride the wave that will sweep away the competition”.

Speaking of the competition, Sony is trying to break free from its profitless HDTV past by building a new 4K TV business.

If you have the opportunity, treat yourself to a 4K TV demo at a Sony Store. The spectacle is stunning: You see the delicate capillaries on a baby’s eyelids, feathers on birds, minute details on street scenes without any of the blurring you get on today’s HDTV.

With 3,840 by 2,160 pixels on an 80-inch TV screen, the 4K boasts 4 times the resolution of 1080p (1920 by 1080)… and an even greater price tag ratio: $25K vs $2K or less. The 4K TV is delivered with a server that contains full-resolution movies because cable and satellite carriers provide no such content — and have no plans to do so.

Sony has a valuable asset in its movie library and a need to push its new 4K TV technology. Could this portend an Apple-Sony alliance? The two companies have worked well together in the past, a CEO-level conversation could easily happen. But even if an Apple TV box provided a strong showcase for a Sony 4K TV set, carriers would still have to be shown how to milk the opportunity.

On still more sober musings, let’s consider Apple TV’s place in the company’s business. In the 2012 fiscal year ending last september, Apple’s total revenue was $156B. 5 million Apple TVs translates into $500M; that’s 0.3% of the company’s total.

Why bother? In 2014, Apple’s revenue could exceed $250B. Even if Apple TV sales were to grow by ten times, they would still represent no more than a 2% fragment of the total.

The answer is that Apple TV isn’t meant to generate revenue but to enhance the value of the more muscular, profit-making members of the ecosystem: iPhones, iPads and, to a lesser extent, Macs. In a similar, grander, and now well-understood way, iTunes isn’t in the business of making money by itself. iTunes made the iPod larger than the Mac in 2006, and it made the App Store possible — and the iPhone and the iPad as profit engines.

For Apple TV, is there a path from today’s supporting role to a $50B size, to 20% of Apple’s revenue in 2014? (Gene Munster thinks there is.)

My belief is that Apple TV sales numbers will continue to increase as the device is slowly, patiently improved and the ecosystem is enhanced. In a not-too-distant future we’ll see explicit Apple TV apps, similar to those on iPhones and iPads.

And someday, Apple will reach a limited agreement with a carrier such as Comcast. The enhanced experience will create a wedge — and will spur competitors. As a result, TV will at last become “modern” — sitting down in front of your TV set will no longer send you time traveling to 1992.

JLG@mondaynote.com

——————
Late update, an amusing coincidence: a just-discovered “Apple TV set” at Lyfe, a modern Palo Alto eatery.
With my apologies for the low quality pictures, this is the menu on five TV sets, side-by-side in portrait mode:

And, if you’re curious, you discover five Mac Minis bolted to the back of the TV sets:

Gene Munster should take a look.

Schibsted’s extraordinary click machines

 

The Nordic media giant wants to be the #1 worldwide of online classifieds by replicating its high-margin business one market after another, with great discipline. 

It all starts in 2005 with a Power Point presentation in Paris. At the time, Schibsted ASA, the Norwegian media group, is busy deploying its free newspapers in Switzerland, France and Spain. Schibsted wants its French partner Ouest-France — the largest regional newspapers group — to co-invest in a weird concept: free online classifieds. As always with the Scandinavian, the deck of slides is built around a small number of key points. To them, three symptoms attest to the maturity of a market’s online classified business:  (a) The number one player in the field ranks systematically among the top 10 web sites, regardless of the category; (b) it is always much bigger than the number two; (c) it reaps most of the profits in the sector. “Look at the situation here in France”, the Norwegians say, “the first classifieds site ranks far down in Nielsen rankings. The market is up for grabs, and we intend to get it”. The Oslo and Stockholm executives already had an impressive track record: in 2000, they launched Finn.no in Norway and, in 2003, they acquired Blocket.se in Sweden. Both became incredible cash machines for the group, with margins above 50% and unabated growth. Ouest-France eventually agreed to invest 50% in the new venture. In november 2010, they sold their stake back to Schibsted at a €400m valuation. (As we’ll see in a moment, the classified site Le Bon Coin is now worth more than twice that number.)

November 2012. I’m sitting in the office of Olivier Aizac, CEO of Le Bon Coin, the French iteration of Schibsted’s free classifieds concept. The office space is dense and scattered over several floors in a building near the Paris Bourse. Since my last 2009 visit (see a previous Monday Note Learning from free classifieds), the startup grew from a staff of 15 to 150 people. And Aizac tells me he plans to hire 70 more staff in 2013. Crisis or not, the business is booming.

A few metrics: According to Nielsen, LeBonCoin.fr (French for The Right Spot) ranks #9 in France with 17m monthly unique users. With more than 6 billion page views per month, it even ranks #3, behind Facebook and Google. Revenue-wise, Le Bon Coin might hit the €100m mark this year, with a profit margin slightly above… 70%. Fort the 3rd quarter of this year, the business grew by 50% vs. a year ago.

In terms of competition it dominates every segment: cars, real estate (twice the size of Axel Springer’s SeLoger.com) and jobs with about 60,000 classifieds, roughly five times the inventory of a good paid-for job board (LeBonCoin is not positioned in the upper segment, though, it mostly targets regional small to medium businesses).

Le Bon Coin’s revenue stream is made of three parts: premium services (you pay to add a picture, a better ranking, tracking on your ad); fees coming from the growing number professionals who flock to LBC (many car dealerships put their entire inventory here); and advertising for which the primary sectors are banking and insurance, services such as mobile phone carriers or pay-TV, and automobile. Although details are scarce, LBC seems to have given up the usual banner sales, focusing instead on segmented yearly deals: A brand will target a specific demographic and LBC will deliver, for half a million or a million euros per annum.

One preconceived idea depicts Le Bon Coin as sitting at the cheaper end of the consumer market. Wrong. In the car segment, its most active advertiser is Audi for whom LBC provides tailored-made promotions. (Strangely enough Renault is much slower to catch the wave.) “We are able to serve any type of market”, says Olivier Aizac who shows an ad peddling a €1.4m Bugatti, and another for the brand new low-cost Peugeot 301, not yet available in dealerships but offered on LBC for €15,000. Similarly, LBC is the place to go to rent a villa on the Cote d’Azur or a chalet for the ski season. With more than 21 millions ads at any given moment, you can find pretty much anything there.

Now, let’s zoom out and look at a broader picture. How far can Le Bon Coin go? And how will its cluster of free classifieds impact Schibsted’s future?

Today, free online classifieds weigh about 25% of Schibsted revenue (about 15bn Norwegian Kroner, €2bn this year), but it it accounts for 47% of the group’s Ebitda (2.15bn NOK, €300m). All online activities now represent 39% of the revenue and 62% of the Ebitda.

The whole strategy can be summed up in these two charts: The first shows the global deployment of the free classifieds business (click ton enlarge):

Through acquisitions, joint ventures or ex nihilo creations, Schibsted now operates more than 20 franchises. Their development process is highly standardized. Growth phases have been codified in great detail, managers often gather to compare notes and the Oslo mothership watches everything, providing KPIs, guidelines, etc. The result is this second chart showing the spread of deployment phases. More than half of the portfolio still is in infancy, but most likely to follow the path to success:

Source: Schibsted Financial Statements

This global vision combined to what is seen as near-perfect execution explains why the financial community is betting so much on Schibsted’s classified business.

When assessing the potential of each local brand, analysts project the performances of the best and mature properties (the Nordic ones) onto the new ones. As an example, see below the number of visits per capita and per month from web and mobile since product launch:

Source : Dankse Market Equities

For Le Bon Coin’s future, this draws a glowing picture: according to Danske Market Equities, today, the Norwegian Finn.no generates ten times more revenue per page view than LBC, and twenty times more when measured by Average revenue per user (ARPU). The investment firm believes that Le Bon Coin’s revenue can reach €500m in 2015, and retain a 65% margin. (As noted by its CEO, Le Bon Coin has yet to tap into its trove of data accumulated over the last six years, which could generate highly valuable consumer profiling information).

When translated into valuation projections, the performance of Schibsted classifieds businesses far exceed the weight of traditional media properties (print and online newspapers). The sum-of-the-parts valuations drawn by several private equities firms show the value of the classifieds business yielding more than 80% of the total value of this 173 year-old group.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com
Disclosure: I worked for Schibsted for nine years altogether between 2001 and 2010; six years indirectly as the editor of 20 minutes and three years afterwards, in a business development unit attached to the international division.
——- 

Wintel: Le Divorce Part II

 

At CES 2011, Ballmer told the world Windows would “fork”, that it would also run on lower power ARM chips for mobile devices. This was seen as a momentous breach in the long-standing Wintel duopoly. Two years later, the ARM tooth of the fork looks short and dull.

This is what I wrote almost two years ago:

After years of monogamy with the x86 architecture, Windows will soon run on ARM processors.

As in any divorce, Microsoft and Intel point fingers at one another. Intel complains about Microsoft’s failure to make a real tablet OS. They say MS has tried to shoehorn “Windows Everywhere” onto a device that has an incompatible user interface, power management, and connectivity requirements while the competition has created device-focused software platforms.

Microsoft rebuts: It’s Intel’s fault. Windows CE works perfectly well on ARM-based devices, as do Windows Mobile and now Windows Phone 7. Intel keeps telling us they’re “on track”, that they’ll eventually shrink x86 processors to the point where the power dissipation will be compatible with smartphones and tablets. But…when?

Today, a version of Windows (RT) does indeed run on an ARM processor, on Microsoft’s Surface tablet-PC hybrid. Has Microsoft finally served Intel with divorce papers?

Not so fast. The market’s reaction to Redmond’s ambitious Surface design has fallen far short of the heights envisioned in the company’s enthusiastic launch: Surface machines aren’t flying off Microsoft Store shelves. Ballmer himself admits sales are “modest” (and then quickly backpedals); Digitimes, admittedly not always reliable, quotes suppliers who say that Surface orders have been cut by half; anecdotally, but amusingly, field research by Piper Jaffray’s Gene Munster (who can be a bit excitable) shows zero Surfaces sold during a two hour period at the Mall of America on Black Friday, while iPads were selling at a rate of 11-an-hour.

Traditional PC OEMs aren’t enthusiastic either. Todd Bradley, head of HP’s Personal Systems Group, is unimpressed:

“It tends to be slow and a little kludgey as you use it .…”

Acer exec Linxian Lang warns:

“Redmond will have to eat ‘hard rice’ with Surface…it should stick to its more readily-chewed software diet.”

To be sure, there are happy Surface users, such as Steve Sinofsky, the former Windows Division President, as captured in lukew’s Instagram picture:

(An aside: I went back to Sinofsky’s 8,000 words blog post that lovingly describes the process of developing “WOA” — Windows on ARM. At the time, WOA was presented as part of the Windows 8 universe. Later, Microsoft swapped the “8″ designation and chose to use “RT” instead. These naming decisions aren’t made lightly. Is there any wonder why WOA was moved out of the Windows 8 camp?)

It’s possible that the jury is still out… Surface sales could take off, Windows RT could be embraced by leading PC OEMs… but what are the odds? In addition to the tepid reception from customers and vendors alike, Microsoft must surmount the relentless market conquest of Android and iOS tablets whose numbers (210 million units) are expected to exceed laptop sales next year.

So, no… the Wintel Divorce isn’t happening. Intel’s x86 chips will remain the processors of choice to run Windows. Next month, we’ll have CES and its usual burst of announcements, both believable and dubious (remember when 2010 was declared the Year Of The Tablet PC?). We’ll have to sort the announcements that are merely that from those that will yield an actual device, but in the end I doubt we’ll see many new and really momentous Windows RT products out there.

Microsoft’s lackluster attempt at Post-PC infidelity doesn’t help Intel in its efforts to gain a foothold in the mobile world. Intel’s perennial efforts to break into the mobile market with lower power, lower cost x86 chips have, also perennially, failed. As a result, there is renewed speculation about a rapprochement between Intel and Apple, that the Santa Clara microprocessor giant could become an ardent (and high-volume) ARM SoC foundry.

As discussed here, some of this makes sense: Samsung is Apple’s biggest and most successful competitor in the smartphone/tablet space, spending billions more than anyone else in global marketing programs. At the same time, the South Korean company is Apple’s only supplier of ARM chips. Intel has the technology and manufacturing capacity to become an effective replacement for Samsung.

This wouldn’t be an easy decision for Intel: the volumes are high — as high as 415M ARM chips for 2013 according to one analyst — but the margins are low. And Intel doesn’t do low margins. Because of the Wintel duopoly, Intel’s x86 chips have always commanded a premium markup. Take Windows out of the picture and the margin disappears.

(As another aside, the 415,000 ARM chips number seems excessive. Assuming about 50 million iPhone 5s and 15 million iPads in the current quarter, and using the 4X rule of thumb for the following calendar year, we land somewhere between 250M and 300M ARM chips for Apple in 2013.)

Also, Intel would almost certainly not be Apple’s sole supplier of ARM chips. Yes, Apple needs to get out of its current and dangerous single source situation. But Tim Cook’s Supply Chain Management expertise will come into play to ensure that Apple doesn’t fall into a similar situation with Intel, that the company will secure at least a second source, such as the rumored TSMC.

The speculation by an RBC analyst that Intel will offer its services to build ARM chips for the iPhone on the condition Apple picks an x86 device for the iPad is nonsensical: Apple won’t fork iOS. Life is complicated enough with OS X on Intel and iOS on ARM.

Historically, a sizable fraction of Intel’s profits came from the following comparison. Take two microprocessor chips of equal “merit”: manufacturing cost, computing output, power dissipation… And add one difference: one runs Windows, the other doesn’t. Which one will get the highest profit margin?

In the ARM world and its flurry of customized chips and software platforms, the “runs Windows” advantage is no longer. ARM chips generate significantly lower margins than in the Intel-dominated world (its competitor AMD is ailing).

This leaves the chip giant facing a choice: It can have a meager meal at the tablet/smartphone fest, or not dine at all at the mobile table…while it watches its PC business decline.

In other news… Paul Otellini, Intel’s CEO, unexpectedly announced he’ll leave next May, a couple years ahead of the company’s mandatory 65-year retirement age. No undignified exit here. Intel’s Board pointedly stated they’ll be looking outside as well as inside for a successor, another unusual move in a company that so far stuck to successions orchestrated around carefully groomed execs. This could be seen as a sanction for Otellini missing the mobile wave and, much more important, a desire to bring new blood willing and able to look past the old x86 orthodoxy.

JLG@mondaynote.com

 

The Release Windows Archaism

 

Television and media industry are stuck in a wasteful rear-guard fight for the preservation of an analog era relic: the Release Windows system. Designed to avoid destructive competition among media, it ends up boosting piracy while frustrating honest viewers willing to pay.  

A couple of months ago, I purchased the first season of the TV series Homeland from the iTunes Store. I paid $32 for 12 episodes that all landed seamlessly in my iPad. I gulped them in a few days and was left in a state of withdrawal. Then, on September 30th, when season 2 started over, I would have had no alternative to downloading free but illegal torrent files. Hundreds of thousands of people anxious to find out the whereabouts of the Marine turncoat pursued by the bi-polar CIA operative were in the same quandary (go to the dedicated Guardian blog for more on the series).

In the process, the three losers are:
– The Fox 21 production company that carries the risk of putting the show together (which costs about $36m per season, $3m per episode)
– Apple which takes its usual cut. (The net loss for both will actually be $64 since the show has been signed up for a third season by the paid-for Showtime channel and I wonder if I’ll have the patience to wait months for its availability on iTunes.)
– And me, as I would have to go through the painstaking task of finding the right torrent file, hoping that it is not bogus, corrupted, or worse, infected by a virus.

Here, we put our finger on the stupidity of the Release Windows system, a relic of the VHS era. To make a long story short, the idea goes back to the 80′s when the industry devised a system to prevent different media — at the time, movie theaters, TV networks, cable TV and VHS — from cannibalizing each other. In the case of a motion picture, the Release Windows mechanism called for a 4 months delay before its release on DVD, additional months for the release on Pay-TV, Video-On-Demand, and a couple of years before showing up on mainstream broadcast networks (where the film is heavily edited, laced with commercial, dubbed, etc.)

The Western world was not the only one to adopt the Release Window system. At the last Forum d’Avignon cultural event a couple of weeks ago, Ernst & Young presented a survey titled  Mastering tempo: creating long-term value amidst accelerating demand (PDF in English here and in French here).

The graph below shows the state of the windows mechanism in various countries:

Europe should be happy when comparing its situation to India’s. There, it takes half a year to see a movie in DVD while the box-office contributes to 75% of a film’s revenue. Ernst & Young expects this number to drop only slightly, to 69%, in 2015 (by comparison, the rate is only 28% in the UK). Even though things are changing fast in India, internet penetration is a mere 11.4% of the population and movie going still is a great popular entertainment occasion.

In the United States, by comparison, despite a large adoption of cable TV, Blue-Ray or VOD, and a 78% penetration rate for the internet (84% in the UK and higher in Northern Europe), the Release Windows system shows little change: again, according to the E&R survey, it went from 166 days in 2000 to 125 days in 2011:

Does it makes sense to preserve a system roughly comparable to the one in India for the US or Europe where the connected digital equipment rate is seven times higher?

Motion pictures should probably be granted a short head start in the release process. But it should coincide with the theatrical lifetime of a production that is about 3-4 weeks. Even better, it should be adjusted to the box-office life — if a movie performs so well that people keep flocking to theaters, DVDs should wait. On the contrary, if the movie bombs, it should be given a chance to resurrect online, quickly, sustained by a cheaper but better targeted marketing campaign mostly powered by social networks.

Similarly, movie releases should be simultaneous and global. I see no reason why Apple or Microsoft are able to make their products available worldwide almost at the same time while a moviegoer has to wait three weeks here or two months there. As for the DVD Release Windows, it  should go along with the complete availability of a movie for all possible audiences, worldwide and on every medium.  Why? Because the release on DVD systematically opens piracy floodgates (but not for the legitimate purchase on Netflix, Amazon Prime or iTunes).

As for the TV shows such as Homeland and others hits, there is not justification whatsoever to preserve this calendar archaism. They should be made universally available from the day when they are aired on TV, period. Or customers will vote with their mouse anyway and find the right file-sharing sites.

The “Industry” fails to assess three shifts here.

–The first one is the globalization of audiences. Worldwide, about 360m people are native English speakers; for an additional 375m, it is the second language, and 750m more picked English as an foreign language at school. That’s about 1.5 billion people likely to be interested in English-speaking culture. As a result, a growing proportion of teenagers watch their pirated series without subtitles — or scruples.

–Then, the “spread factor”: Once a show becomes a hit in the United States, it becomes widely commented in Europe and elsewhere, not only because a large number of people speak serviceable English, but also because many national websites propagate the US buzz. Hollywood execs would be surprised to see how well young (potential) audiences abroad know about their productions months before seeing them.

–And finally, technology is definitely on the side of the foreign consumer: Better connectivity (expect 5 minutes to download an episode), high definition image, great sound… And mobility (just take a high-speed train in Europe and see how many are watching videos on their tablets).

To conclude, let’s have a quick look at the numbers. Say a full season of Homeland costs $40m to produce. Let’s assume the first release is supposed to cover 40% of the costs, that is $16m. Homeland is said to gather 2 million viewers. Each viewer will therefore contribute for $8 to the program’s economics. Compare to what I paid through iTunes: my $32 probably leave about half to the producers; or compare to the DVD, initially sold for $60 for the season, now discounted at $20. You get my point. Even if the producer nets on average $15 per online viewer, it would need only 1.6 million paid-for viewers worldwide to break-even (much less when counting foreign syndication.) Even taking in account the unavoidable piracy (which also acts as a powerful promotional channel), with two billion people connected to the internet outside the US, the math heavily favors the end of the counter-productive and honest-viewer-hostile Release Windows archaism.

–frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Apple Can Finish What Microsoft’s Sinofsky Started

 

In 2007, Microsoft introduces a new version of Windows called Vista, a grand name for what turns out to be an embarrassing dud. (Memories of my first and determining interaction with Vista can be found here.)

Steven Sinofsky, once a Bill Gates technical assistant and, at the time, head of Microsoft Office development, is given a shovel (and a pad of pink slips) and told to clean the stables. To create a new, respectable version of Windows in a mere 30 months will require great discipline, a refusal to compromise, the rejection of distracting advice, relentless attention to the schedule, as well as the merciless pruning of features and people who get in the way. Sinofsky had it all: superb technical skills, the dogged drive of a rassar, and the political will to mow down the obstacles.

In July 2009, Microsoft unveils Windows 7, a product widely acclaimed as absolving Vista’s sins, and Sinofsky is promoted to president of the Windows division, a title parsimoniously bestowed.

Sinofsky immediately begins work on the next version of Windows, following his proven strategy of adding solid, well-defined details while maintaining backwards compatibility and avoiding the rat trap of “feature creep”. But something happens along the way: In early 2010, the iPad comes out. Although the device is initially misunderstood by Microsoft — Steve Ballmer speaks of “slates and tablets and blah blah blah” — it doesn’t take long for the Redmond company to realize that it needs an answer, it needs to defend its PC empire against the interloping tablet that has been so warmly embraced by the public.

The company changes course and Sinofsky gets a new mission: Windows 8 isn’t going to be a mere clean-up job, it’s not an “embrace and extend” improvement, but a new ”reimagined” Windows, a PC Plus that will straddle the PC and tablet worlds. The new OS will provide a radically new look-and-feel, a touch-screen interface in addition to a keyboard and mouse (or trackpad), and it will stray from the comfy x86 monogamy to also work on ARM processors.

A little over three years later, right after delivering Windows 8, Sinofsky is abruptly sacked.(Excuse me, he’s “amicably” sacked… by his own “personal and private” choice).

Windows 8, Windows RT, and the Surface tablet are now on full display, as are the reviews — and they’re not pretty. As summarized in this June 2012 Business Insider piece, the pundits were concerned and baffled right from the start:

“Worst of all, the traditional desktop is buried — it’s just another Metro app — but there are still some things you can only do from the desktop, and some only from Metro.” (Matt Rosoff)

“In my time with Windows 8, I’ve felt almost totally at sea — confused, paralyzed, angry, and ultimately resigned to the pain of having to alter the way I do most of my work.” (Farhad Manjoo)

“Windows 8 looks to me to be an unmitigated disaster that could decidedly hurt the company and its future… The real problem is that it is both unusable and annoying.” (John Dvorak)

Perhaps these were simply hasty judgments meant to capture eyeballs, maybe customers would ignore the critics and embrace Windows 8. But no. Five months later, Paul Thurrott, the author of the respected Windows Supersite blog, gives us this post:

“Sales of Windows 8 PCs are well below Microsoft’s internal projections and have been described inside the company as disappointing.”

As head of HP’s Personal Systems Group (PCs and printers, a $55B/year business), Todd Bradley’s opinion of Microsoft’s latest creations carries considerable weight. Last week, in a long CITEworld interview, Bradley wasn’t impressed:

“I’d hardly call Surface competition.

CITEworld: Why not?

TB: One, very limited distribution. It tends to be slow and a little kludgey as you use it. I just don’t think it’s competitive. It’s expensive. Holistically, the press has made a bigger deal out of Surface than what the world has chosen to believe.”

As reported two weeks ago, I quickly encountered Windows 8′s split personality when I tried to use my new Surface, but I wanted the bigger picture.

Was Windows 8 running on a PC — Microsoft’s home turf — really an “unmitigated disaster”? I head over to the big Microsoft Store in the Stanford Shopping Center to buy the full version of the new OS — and they don’t have it. The upgrade version, yes, but no copies of the “System Builder” DVD that you need for a complete, from-scratch installation. Curious.

I head back home, order a copy from Amazon, buy an additional license from Microsoft for my second machine, and two days later I’m in business. The installation process is flawless (one with VMware Fusion, the other with Parallels), but things quickly go downhill. The problems I had with the Surface are just as distracting and frustrating on a PC: One moment you’re in the new, elegant, and, yes, reimagined User Interface, the next moment you’re foraging in the old Windows 7 Desktop. And, of course, existing Office apps have no place in the new UI.

It’s no wonder that customers aren’t keen to buy Windows 8. As a recent survey shows, “about one-third of Windows 7, Windows Vista and Windows XP users who are ready to buy a new personal computer say they intend to switch to an Apple product.

According to the Thurrott post mentioned earlier, the inside story is that Sinofsky was let go because of his “divisiveness”, that his departure isn’t a consequence of Window 8′s poor numbers. But if we imagine a different reality, one in which Sinofsky stands before a big Mission Accomplished banner, where critics rave about the beauty, harmony, and impeccable polish of a Windows 8 that runs flawlessly on PCs, laptops, tablets, and Surface-like hybrids…do we think for a moment Ballmer would have shown Sinofsky the door?

I think the real story behind Sinofsky’s removal contains elements of both personality and (Windows 8) performance. It’s no secret that Sinofsky made a lot of enemies while he pulled off a not-so-minor miracle with Windows 7. As a reward for his accomplishment, he was given a much more difficult assignment. Windows 8 had become a 21-blade Swiss Army knife: a great list of features on paper, dubious usability in practice. Add the need to adapt the operating system and the sacrosanct (and golden goose) Office applications to the new ARM processor and you end up with a Mission Impossible.

The same traits that made Sinofsky an extremely successful turnaround artist after the Vista mess — his monomaniacal pursuit of a clear goal — became liabilities in this reimagined world. He slipped and fell, the enemies saw their chance, the bayonets came out. Even supremely gifted [redacted] have a sell-by date.

Of course, none of this says anything about who came up with the mission. Was it Ballmer’s idea or Sinofsky’s? Microsoft isn’t talking.

Now let’s turn to Apple. The “recomplicated” Windows hands the Cupertino company an intriguing opportunity. They can capitalize on Microsoft’s misstep, extend a welcoming hand to the Windows users who intend to switch to Apple, and make the iPad the sine qua non of what a Post-PC device should be. (I use the “Post-PC” moniker for lack of a better one. For me, it doesn’t stand for the end of the PC but for its broadening into three instances: classic, tablet, smartphone.)

From the beginning, the iPad, designed to be a new genre, not a derivative, came with limitations. Yes, you could do some productivity work, but iOS’s lack of multi-tasking, a favorite whipping boy of the critics, made it difficult. To be sure, the OS supported concurrent activities inside the device, but running several applications at the same time was a no-no. The processor couldn’t handle it and, even if it could have, battery life would have been terrible.

So whether it was divine inspiration or simply a bowing to necessity, Apple shunned the temptation to make a PC-only-smaller, and created a whole new genre of personal computers. Microsoft couldn’t resist and gave us Windows Mobile with a Start button.

Almost five years have elapsed since the birth of iOS. (We’ll give a quick but deep hat tip to its ferocious and now deposed champion, Scott Forstall, and leave the discussion of his own exit for a future Monday Note.) With the latest iPad hardware, we have a fast processor and there are even faster ones in the making. Does the more muscular hardware and road-tested OS portend a future that supports the running of two applications side-by-side in a split-screen arrangement? Or perhaps a slidebar that reveals and hides the second app.

This isn’t exactly an original idea: Samsung just released a firmware update providing a split-screen multitasking view. And, of course, as explained here, the Snap feature in Windows 8 provides a neat way to run two apps side-by-side on a laptop or tablet.

Today, preparing a Keynote document that incorporates elements from other apps requires clumsy mental and physical gymnastics. Having access to the source and destination documents at the same time would be a welcome relief and a boost to business uses.

There are other quirks. You can edit a Mac-originated Pages or Numbers document on your iPad, but no such joy awaits users of Apple’s well-loved Preview. Upload a Preview PDF into iCloud from your MacBook and then grab your iPad and see if you can find it… No, you need to use DropBox or the (excellent) Microsoft SkyDrive. (One “explanation” for this state of affairs is the strong security that pervades iOS. Inter-application communication can open backdoors to malware, which is still quite rare in iOS. But if it can be done for Pages and other iWork apps…)

Now that all OS X and iOS software is under one hat, Craig Federighi‘s, perhaps we can expect these workflow speed bumps to be ironed out. Multiple concurrent applications, a document store that’s common to all apps… This is Apple’s opportunity: Stick to its guns, keep laptops and tablets clearly distinct, but make iPads easier to love by business users. The comparison between a worst-of-both-worlds Surface hybrid and the iPad would be no contest. iPad mini for media consumption, everywhere; iPad for business and everything else.

Apple can finish the job Sinofsky started.

JLG@mondaynote.com

 

It’s the Competitive Spirit, Stupid

 

Legacy media suffer from a deadly DNA mutation: they’ve lost  their appetite for competition; they no longer have the will to fight the hordes of new, hungry mutants emerging from the digital world. 

For this week’s column, my initial idea was to write about Obama’s high tech campaign. As in 2008, his digital team once again raised the bar on the use of data mining, micro-targeting, behavioral analysis, etc. As Barack Obama’s strategist David Axelrod suggested just a year ago in Bloomberg BusinessWeek, compared to what they were working on, the 2008 campaign technology looked prehistoric. Without a doubt, mastering the most sophisticated practices played a crucial role in Obama’s November 6th victory.

As I researched the subject, I decided against writing about it. This early after the election, it would have been difficult to produce more than a mere update to my August 2008 story, Learning from the Obama Internet Machine. But, OK. For those of you interested in the matter, here are a couple of resources I found this week: An interesting book by Sasha Issenberg, The Victory Lab, The Secret Science of  Winning Campaigns, definitely worth a read; or previously unknown tidbits in this Stanford lecture by Dan Siroker, an engineer who left Google to join the Obama campaign in 2008. (You can also feast on a Google search with terms like “obama campaign + data mining + microtargeting”.)

I switched subjects because something jumped at me: the contrast between a modern election campaign and the way traditional media cover it. If it could be summed up in a simplistic (and, sorry, too obvious) graph, it would look like this :

The 2012 Election campaign carries all the ingredients of the fiercest of competitions: concentrated in a short time span; fueled by incredible amounts of cash (thus able to get the best talent and technology money can buy); a workforce that is, by construction, the most motivated any manager can dream of, a dedicated staff led by charismatic stars of the trade; a binary outcome with a precise date and time (first Tuesday of November, every four years.) As if this was not enough, the two camps actually compete for a relatively small part of the electorate, the single digit percentage that will swing one way or the other.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have traditional media. Without falling into caricature, we can settle for the following descriptors: a significant pool of (aging) talent; a great sense of entitlement; a remote connection with the underlying economics of the business; a remarkably tolerance for mediocrity (unlike, say, pilots, or neurosurgeons); and, stemming from said tolerance, a symmetrical no-reward policy — perpetuated by unions and guilds that planted their nails in the media’s coffin.

My point: This low level of competitive metabolism has had a direct and negative impact on the economic performance of legacy media.

In countries, regions, or segments where newsrooms compete the most on a daily basis (on digital or print), business is doing just fine.

That is the case in Scandinavia which enjoys good and assertive journalism, with every media trying to beat the other in every possible way: investigation, access to sources, creative treatment, real-time coverage, innovations in digital platforms… The UK press is also intensively competitive — sometimes for the worse as shown in the News Corp phone hacking scandal. To some extent, German, Italian, Spanish media are also fighting for the news.

At the other end of the spectrum, the French press mostly gave up competing. The market is more or less distributed on the basis readers’ inclinations. The biggest difference manifests itself when a source decides to favor one media against the others. Reminding someone of the importance of competing, of sometimes taking a piece of news from someone else’s plate tends to be seen as ill-mannered, not done. The result is an accelerating drop in newspapers sales. Strangely enough, Nordic media will cooperate without hesitation when it comes to sharing industrial resources such as printing plants and distribution channels while being at each other’s throat when it comes to news gathering. By contrast, the French will fight over printing resources, but will cooperate when it’s time to get subsidies from the government or to fight Google.

Digital players do not suffer from such a cumbersome legacy. Building organizations from scratch, they hired younger staff and set up highly motivated newsrooms. Pure players such as Politico, Business Insider, TechCrunch and plenty of others are fighting in their beat, sometimes against smaller but sharper blogs. Their journalistic performance (although uneven) translates into measurable audience bursts that turn into advertising revenues.

Financial news also fall into that same category. Bloomberg, DowJones and Reuters are fighting for their market-mover status as well for the quality — and usefulness — of their reporting; subscriptions to their service depends on such performance. Hence the emergence of a “quantifiable motivation” for the staff. At Bloomberg — one of the most aggressive news machine in the world — reporters are provided financial incentives for their general performance and rewarded for exclusive information. Salaries and bonuses are high, so is the workload. But CVs are pouring in — a meaningful indicator.

Digital newsrooms are much more inclined to performance measurements than old ones. This should be seen as an advantage. As gross as it might sound to many journalists, media should seize the opportunity that comes with modernizing their publishing tools to revise their compensation policies. The main index should be “Are we doing better than the competition? Does X or Y contribute to our competitive edge?”. Aside from the editor’s judgement, new metrics will help. Ranking in search engines and aggregators; tweets, Facebook Likes; appearances on TV or radio shows; syndication (i.e. paid-for republication elsewhere)… All are credible indicators. No one should be afraid to use them to reward talent and commitment.

It’s high time to reshuffle the nucleotides and splice in competitive DNA strands, they do contribute to economic performance.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

 

Minding The (Apple)Store

 

As I’ve written many times in the past, I’m part of the vast chorus that praises the Apple Store. And not just for the uncluttered product displays, the no-pressure sales people (who aren’t on commission), or the Genius Bar that provides expert help, but for the impressive architecture. Apple beautifies existing venues (Regent Street in London, rue Halevy near the Paris Opera) or commissions elegant new buildings, huge ones at times.

It’s a relentlessly successful story. Even the turmoil surrounding John Browett’s abbreviated tenure as head of Apple’s worldwide retail organization hasn’t slowed the pace  of store openings and customer visits. (As always, Horace Dediu provides helpful statistics and analysis in his latest Asymco post.)

It has always struck me as odd that in Palo Alto, Apple’s heartland and Steve Jobs’ adopted hometown, Apple had only a modestly-sized, unremarkable venue on University Avenue, and an even smaller store in the Stanford Shopping Center.

All of that changed on October 27th when the black veil that shrouded an unmarked project was removed, and the newest Apple Store — what some are calling a “prototype” for future venues, a “flagship” store — was revealed. (For the civic-minded — or the insomniac — you can read the painfully detailed proposal, submitted to Palo Alto’s Architectural Review Board nearly three years ago, here.)

I came back from a trip on November 2nd, the day the iPad mini became available, and immediately headed downtown. The new store is big, bold, elegant, even more so at night when the very bright lights and large Apple logo on its front dominate the street scene. (So much so I heard someone venture that Apple has recast itself as the antagonist in its 1984 commercial.)

The store is impressive… but its also unpleasantly, almost unbearably noisy. And mine isn’t a voice in the wilderness. The wife of a friend walked in, spent a few minutes, and vowed to never return for fear of hearing loss. She’d rather go to the cramped but much more hospitable Stanford store.

A few days later, I heard a similar complaint from the spouse of an Apple employee. She used to enjoy accompanying her husband to the old Palo Alto store, but now refuses because of the cacophony.

‘Now you know the real reason for Browett’s firing’, a friend said, half-seriously. ‘How can you spend North of $15M on such a strategically placed, symbolic store, complete with Italian stone hand-picked by Jobs himself…and give no consideration to the acoustics? It’s bad for customers, it’s bad for the staff, it’s bad for business, and it’s bad for the brand. Apple appears to be more concerned with style than with substance!’

Ouch.

The sound problem stems from a combination of the elongated “Great Hall”, parallel walls, and reflective building materials. The visually striking glass roof becomes a veritable parabolic sound mirror. There isn’t a square inch of sound-absorbing material in the entire place.

A week later, I returned to the store armed with the SPL Meter iPhone app. As the name indicates, SPL Meter provides a Sound Pressure Level (SPL) measurement in decibels.(Decibels form a logarithmic scale where a 3 dB increase means roughly twice as much sound pressure — noise in our case; +10 dB is ten times the sound pressure.)

For reference, a normal conversation at 3 feet (1m) is 40 to 60 dB; a passenger car 30 feet away produces levels between 60 and 80 dB. From the Wikipedia article above: “[The] EPA-identified maximum to protect against hearing loss and other disruptive effects from noise, such as sleep disturbance, stress, learning detriment, etc. [is] 70 dB.”

On a relatively quiet Saturday evening, the noise level around the Genius Bar exceeded 75 dB:

Outside, the traffic noise registered a mere 65 dB. It was 10 db noisier inside the store than on always-busy University Avenue!

Even so, the store on that Friday was a virtual library compared to the day the iPad mini was launched, although I can’t quantify my impression: I didn’t have the presence of mind to whip out my iPhone and measure it.

Despite the (less-than-exacting) scientific evidence and the corroborating anecdotes, I began to have my doubts. Was I just “hearing things”? Could Apple really be this tone deaf?

Then I saw it: An SPL recorder — a professional one — perched on a tripod inside the store.

I also noticed two employees wearing omnidirectional sound recorders on their shoulders (thinking they might not like the exposure, I didn’t take their pictures.) Thus, it appears that Apple is taking the problem seriously.

But what can it do?

It’s a safe bet that Apple has already engaged a team of experts, acousticians who tweak the angles and surfaces in concert halls and problem venues. I’ve heard suggestions that Apple should install an Active Noise Control system: Cancel out sound waves by pumping in their inverted forms — all in real time. Unfortunately, this doesn’t work well (or at all) in a large space.

Bose produces a rather effective solution…in the controlled environment of headphones.

This prompted the spouse mentioned above to suggest that Apple should hand out Bose headphones at the door.

Two days after the noisy Apple store opened its doors, Browett was shown the exit. Either Tim Cook is fast on the draw or, more likely, my friend is wrong: Browett’s unceremonious departure had deeper roots, most likely a combination of a cultural mismatch and a misunderstanding of his role. The Browett graft didn’t take on the Apple rootstock, and the newly hired exec couldn’t accept that he was no longer a CEO.

Browett’s can’t be scapegoated for the acoustical nightmare in the new Apple Store. Did the rightly famous architectural firm, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, not hear the problem? What about the highly reputable building contractor (DPR) which has built so many other Apple Stores? Did they stand by and say nothing, or could they simply not be heard?

Perhaps this was a case of “Launchpad Chicken”, a NASA phrase for a situation where many people see trouble looming but keep quiet and wait for someone else to bear the shame of aborting the launch. It reminds me of the Apple Maps fiasco: An obvious problem ignored.

What a waste spending all that money and raising expectations only to move from a slightly undersized but well-liked store to a bigger, noisier, colder environment that turns friends away.

Having tacitly admitted that there’s a problem, Apple’s senior management can now show they’ll stop at nothing to make the new store as inviting as it was intended to be.

JLG@mondaynote.com

The press, Google, its algorithm, their scale

 

In their fight against Google, traditional media firmly believe the search engine needs them to refine (and monetize) its algorithm. Let’s explore the facts.

The European press got itself in a bitter battle against Google. In a nutshell, legacy media want money from the search engine: first, for the snippets of news it grabs and feeds into its Google News service; second, on a broader basis, for all the referencing Google builds with news media material. In Germany, the Bundestag is working on a bill to force all news aggregators to pay their toll; in France, the executive is pushing for a negotiated solution before year-end. Italy is more or less following the same path. (For a detailed and balanced background, see this Eric Pfanner story in the International Herald Tribune.)

In the controversy, an argument keeps rearing its head. According to the proponents of a “Google Tax”, media contents greatly improve the contextualization of advertising. Therefore, the search engine giant ought to pay for such value. Financially speaking, without media articles Google would not perform as well it does, hence the European media hunt for a piece of the pie.

Last week, rooting for facts, I spoke with several people possessing deep knowledge of Google’s inner mechanics; they ranged from Search Engine Marketing specialists to a Stanford Computer Science professor who taught Larry Page and Sergey Brin back in the mid-90′s.

First of all, pretending to know Google is indeed… pretentious. In order to outwit both competitors and manipulators (a.k.a, Search Engine Optimization gurus), the search engine keeps tweaking its secret sauce. Just for the August-September period, Google made no less than 65 alterations to its algorithm (list here.) And that’s only for the known part of the changes; in fact, Google allocates large resources to counter people who try too game its algorithm with an endless stream of tricks.

Maintaining such a moving target also preserves Google’s lead: along with its distributed computing capabilities (called MapReduce), its proprietary data storage system BigTable, its immense infrastructure, Google’s PageRank algorithm is at the core of the search engine’s competitive edge. Allowing anyone to catch up, even a little, is strategically inconceivable.

Coming back to the Press issues, let’s consider both quantitative and qualitative approaches. In the Google universe — currently about 40 billion indexed pages –, contents coming from media amount to a small fraction. It is said to be a low single-digit percentage. To put things in perspective, on average, an online newspaper adds between 20,000 and 100,000 new URLs per year. Collectively, the scale roughly looks like millions of news articles versus a web growing by billions of pages each year.

Now, let’s consider the nature of searches. Using Google Trends for the last three months, the charts below ranks the most searched terms in the United States, France and Germany (click to enlarge):


Do the test yourself by going to the actual page: you’ll notice that, except for large dominant American news topics (“Hurricane Sandy” or “presidential debate”), very few search results bring back contents coming from mainstream media. As Google rewards freshness of contents — as well as sharp SEO tactics — “web native” media and specialized web sites perform much better than their elder “migrants”, that is web versions of traditional media.

What about monetization ?  How do media contents contribute to Google’s bottom line? Again let’s look at the independent rankings of the most expensive keywords, those that can bring $50 per click to Google — through its opaque pay-per-click bidding system. For instance, here is a recent Wordstream ranking (example keywords in parenthesis):

Insurance (“buy car insurance online” and “auto insurance price quotes”)
Loans (“consolidate graduate student loans” and “cheapest homeowner loans”)
Mortgage (“refinanced second mortgages” and “remortgage with bad credit”)
Attorney (“personal injury attorney” and “dui defense attorney”)
Credit (“home equity line of credit” and “bad credit home buyer”)
Lawyer (“personal  injury lawyer”, “criminal defense lawyer)
Donate (“car donation centers”, “donating a used car”)
Degree (“criminal justice degrees online”, “psychology bachelors degree online”)
Hosting (“hosting ms exchange”, “managed web hosting solution”)
Claim (“personal injury claim”, “accident claims no win no fee”)
Conference Call (“best conference call service”, “conference calls toll free”)
Trading (“cheap online trading”, “stock trades online”)
Software (“crm software programs”, “help desk software cheap”)
Recovery (“raid server data recovery”, “hard drive recovery laptop”)
Transfer (“zero apr balance transfer”, “credit card balance transfer zero interest”)
Gas/Electricity (“business electricity price comparison”, “switch gas and electricity suppliers”)
Classes (“criminal justice online classes”, “online classes business administration”)
Rehab (“alcohol rehab centers”, “crack rehab centers”)
Treatment (“mesothelioma treatment options”, “drug treatment centers”)
Cord Blood (“cordblood bank”, “store umbilical cord blood”)

(In my research, several Search Engine Marketing specialists came up with similar results.)

You see where I’m heading to. By construction, traditional media do not bring money to the classification above. In addition, as an insider said to me this week, no one is putting ads against keywords such as “war in Syria” or against the 3.2 billion results of a “Hurricane Sandy” query. Indeed, in the curve of ad words value, news slides to the long tail.

Then, why is Google so interested in news contents? Why has it has been maintaining  Google News for the past ten years, in so many languages, without making a dime from it (there are no ads on the service)?

The answer pertains to the notion of Google’s general internet “footprint”. Being number one in search is fine, but not sufficient. In its goal to own the semantic universe, taking over “territories” is critical. In that context, a “territory” could be a semantic environment that is seen as critical to everyone’s daily life, or one with high monetization potential.

Here are two recent examples of monetization potential as viewed by Google: Flights and Insurance. Having (easily) determined flight schedules were among the most sought after informations on the web, Google dipped into its deep cash reserve and, for $700m, acquired ITA software in July 2010. ITA was the world largest airline search company, powering sites such as Expedia or TripAdvisor. Unsurprisingly, the search giant launched Goolge Flight Search in Sept 2011.

In passing, Google showed its ability to kill any price comparator of its choosing. As for Insurance, the most expensive keyword, Google recently launched its own insurance comparison service in the United Kingdom… just after launching a similar system for credit cards and bank services.

Over the last ten years, Google has become the search tool of choice for Patents, and for scientific papers with Google Scholar. This came after shopping, books, Hotel Finder, etc.

Aside of this strategy of making Google the main — if only — entry point to the web, the search engine is working hard on its next transition: going from a search engine to a knowledge engine.

Early this year, Google created Knowledge Graph, a system that connects search terms to what is known as entities (names, places, events, things) — millions of them. This is Google’s next quantum leap. Again, you might think news related corpuses could constitute the most abundant trove of information to be fed into the Knowledge Graph. Unfortunately, this is not the case. At the core of the Knowledge Graph resides Metaweb, acquired by Google in July 2010. One of its key assets was a database of 12 million entities (now 23m) called Freebase. This database is fed by sources (listed here), ranging from the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) to the Library of Congress, Eurostat or the India Times. (The only French source of the list is the movie database AlloCine.)

Out of about 230 sources, there are less than 10 medias outlets. Why? Again, volume and, perhaps even more important, ability to properly structure data. When the New York Times has about 14,000 topics, most newspapers only have hundreds of those, and a similar number of named entities in their database. (As a comparison, web native medias are much more skilled at indexation: the Huffington Post assigns between 12 and 20 keywords to each story.) By building upon acquisitions such as Metaweb’s Freebase, Google now has about half billion entries of all kinds.

Legacy media must deal with a harsh reality: despite their role in promoting and defending democracy, in lifting the veil on things that mean much for society, or in propagating new ideas, when it come to data, news media compete in the junior leagues. And for Google, the most data-driven company in the world, having newspapers articles in its search system is no more than small cool stuff.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Tablets Trade-Offs And Compromises

 

A couple of hours after landing in SFO from Paris, I find myself setting up two new tablets: a Microsoft Surface and an iPad mini. While on the road, I had read much on both products and felt reasonably well prepared for the tasks.

This proved correct. But the product experience was another thing.

First, the Surface: Unpack, plug in, boot up, no problem. The magnetic touch keyboard and power adapter latch onto the tablet-PC without ado, the machine’s virgin launch is a breeze: I answer a few simple questions, enter my hotmail credentials and I’m in business… sort of.

In order to get a taste for the full Surface experience, I fire up Word 2013 (included with the tablet) to write this Monday Note. Not so slick, the keyboard and touchpad aren’t very helpful. When I ordered the Surface, I chose the slim $119.99 Touch Cover combo rather than the thicker $129.99 Type Cover. Building a keyboard into a protective cover is a great idea, but, as the name implies, the Touch version doesn’t have a real keyboard. Instead, you have to work with an unsatisfying, felt-like surface without tactile feedback. For “real” typing, I need the “real” Type Cover. I’m off to Stanford’s MS Store to correct my expensive mistake.

Keyboard problem solved, I hit another snag. While Word 2013 does a good job zooming using a two-finger touch, the Control Panel and other essential parts of Windows RT are (barely) touch-enabled retreads from Windows 7; they ignore your zoom. I discover this when I need to type accented characters such é or ñ, characters that, of course, don’t appear on the keyboard. Normally, this isn’t a problem; go to the Windows Control Panel, select the English International keyboard as the input mode, and you’re set. You type ~ followed by n to get ñ.

But how does this actually work in the reimagined Windows RT? I fumble around and finally find my old friend, the Control Panel:

From there, I go to Clock, Language, and Region, pop open the Input Method menu… and select the wrong mode. Because of the lack of zoom, picking the right option in a list a game of chance. You need the sanded fingertips Steve Jobs famously derided when asked about smaller tablets.

If I use the Touch Cover trackpad instead of directly touching the Control Panel on the ironically named Surface screen, things improve dramatically: My fat fingers now become delicate. This might explain why Microsoft insists on selling a keyboard with its Surface tablet. Without one, in my admittedly limited experience, it’s not quite useable.

Then there’s the UI formerly known as Metro. In the current state of Windows 8 and Windows RT, it’s only skin-deep: Using Office apps or modifying system settings quickly calls up the old Windows 7 UI. It’s not the end of the world, the UI will evolve with future versions but, in the meantime, the much-hyped Surface tablet cum PC feels far from polished and consistent. And the no-less-touted reimagination of Windows doesn’t go much deeper than the very neat and imaginative UI on its… surface.

At least the vaunted Surface kickstand works quite well… although only in landscape mode, and, even then, only if you’re sitting. If you type while standing or want landscape mode, forget the kickstand.

I’ll keep using the product in personal writing and presentations to make sure I’m not missing some killer feature. In the meantime, I’d be interested to know if Steve Ballmer or Microsoft Board Members use a Surface tablet rather than a MacBook Air running Windows 8, a truly excellent combination in my own paid-for experience.

On to the iPad mini.

Like its forebears — and its current competitors — setup is fast and easy. If you already have an iPad or an iPhone backed-up in iCloud, everything syncs and downloads nicely.

But what about the “mini” part?

I bought a Nexus 7 when it came out and liked the fact I could pocket it, whether in jeans or in jacket. The iPad mini is larger than the Nexus, slightly more than half an inch (14.7mm) wider. Still, the “mini” will fit inside the front pocket of most jeans. Unfortunately, it’s too tall for most shallower back pockets, but it’ll fit nicely in outside jacket and topcoat pockets (as measured in this August 2nd, 2009 Monday Note where I hoped for a pocketable Apple tablet) — and doctors’s and nurses’ lab coats…

Regardless of how you carry it, the iPad mini’s hardware is neatly detailed. It’s thin and light and the “aluminium”, as Sir Jonathan Paul Ive (KBE) rightly pronounces it in the Queen’s English, works well with the white front bezel. The (stereo) speakers sound good although, to my ears, they’re surprisingly no better or louder than the latest iPhone’s, themselves a marked improvement over earlier generations.

Turning to the screen, I agree with the many who are less than thrilled with the mini’s display. I think this is the result of a compatibility decision: The mini has the same number of pixels (1024 by 768) as the iPad 2, but at a higher density (163 pixels per inch vs. the original 132 ppi). With the same pixel count as the iPad 2, all apps run unchanged, their screen rendition is just smaller. The visual experience isn’t as pleasant as on the iPad 2 itself, let alone the iPad “3″ and its higher pixel density display.

When you read a Kindle or iBook novel, a magazine such as Bloomberg Businessweek, or the NY Times on your iPhone, the content isn’t simply the iPad version squeezed to fit into the phone’s tiny display. These applications reformat their content, they adapt to be legible… no squinting, no eye strain. Let’s hope these apps will be updated to make better use of the iPad mini screen, as opposed to offering squished iPad 2 rendering.

(We’ve also read the complaints that the mini isn’t a “Retina” device…but on this topic, I must recuse myself: I’ve twice mistaken an iPad 2 for the higher resolution device. Last Spring, as I had just gotten a new high-resolution iPad, at Soho’s Les Amis bistro, I watched a gentleman at the next table flip through beautiful pictures on his iPad. I leaned over and asked how he liked his new iPad “3″. ‘What? No, it’s last year’s iPad 2…’.

A few days later in Paris, I reset my iPad 2 in order to hand it to my Mother-In-Law, a replacement for the MacBook Air that was giving her — and me — headaches. Oops, I actually reset my new Retina iPad, mistaking it for the older iPad 2. No harm done, the iCloud backup resuscitated my new tablet.)

So, which of these two devices will enjoy the brighter future? The “inadequacy” of the mini’s screen quality is an issue — and could become a problem as both Android and Amazon ecosystems keep improving (and continue to undercut Apple’s prices). But I think the improved portability (size, weight), the elegant design and material quality, plus the instant compatibility with the hundreds of thousands of iPad apps will count for a lot.

As for the future of Microsoft’s Surface, as Peter Bright (a noted Microsoft analyst) concludes in his review of Redmond’s new tablet, it really needs a keyboard and pointing device in order to be usable with Office applications. This makes a good case for Apple’s decision to keep laptops and tablets separate, freeing each to do what it does best.

JLG@mondaynote.com

 

The New York Times’ shifting model

 

At the NYT Company, in ten years, the share of quarterly revenue attributed to circulation grew from less than 30% to more than half today… 

The stock market brutally punished the New York Times for its worse-than-expected quarterly earnings. Are financial analysts completely blind? How come they didn’t foresee the decline in advertising revenue that affects the NYTimes — and any publication in the world outside of the BRIC zone? This is incomprehensible. A simple look at the overall ad sector (see the previous column featuring the Internet Split) causes one to realize how much worse the New York Times numbers could have been.

In any event, the demise of the ad market will accelerate the transformation of the Times. Here are the highlights for the third quarter of 2012 that particularly disappointed Wall Street (comparisons are for Q3 2012 vs. Q3 2011, full earnings release here):
– Total revenue decreases by -0.6%
– Advertising revenue drops by -9% across the board. Print ad takes a -11% dive and  digital ad revenue is off by -2.2% (for the second quarter in a row.)
– Costs are not contained enough (again, according to analysts) and rise by 2.3%, mostly because of benefits, performance-based and stock-based compensation and… printing costs.

Thursday, Wall Street dumped the stock, causing its biggest drop since 1980: It plunged by 22% to $8.31. Since the beginning of the year, NYT shares are up by about 6% vs. 12% for the S&P index.

On the bright side: Circulation revenue grew by 7% vs. last year. This is mostly due to the rise in digital subscribers. (Print gains reflect a recent price hike). Paid subs for the NYTimes and the International Herald Tribune totaled 566,000 for the 3rd quarter, a remarkable growth of 11% vs. the 2nd quarter of 2012 (+57,000 subs.)

In hard dollars, though, circulation figures no longer offset the loss in advertising. For the first nine months of 2012, revenue coming from circulation grew by $55m to $695m vs. a $47m loss in ads. But, for last three months, the NYT lost more in ads (-$18m) than it added in circulation (+$17m). In the earnings call with analysts, CFO Jim Follo points to a difficulty with his company’s business model: When advertising revenue goes down, 90% of the decrease translates into a margin loss, but circulation revenue gains generate additional costs.

The last 10 years show an interesting evolution for the advertising vs. circulation ratio. Between 2001 and 2011, revenue for the New York Times Media Group (primarily the newspapers and digital operations), fell by 30% in dollars adjusted for inflation. Advertising revenue decreased by 45% as Circulation revenue grew by 9% (and the “Other” category was slashed by 51%.

As shown in the table below, the New York Times’ revenue stream now relies mostly on circulation: 55% today vs. 29% in 2001. As digital subscriptions gain traction and advertising plummets, the trend accelerates when comparing the full 2011 year with the 3rd quarter of 2012:

              2001   2011  Q3-2012 
Advertising    62%    49%   39%
Circulation    29%    45%   55% 
Others          9%     6%    6%
Source: NYT Co. Financial statements

This evolution shows the strategic importance of the digital subscription system setup by the NY Times 15 months ago. So far, it works fine (see also a previous column NYT Digital Lessons). Thanks to its paywall, the NYT collects an average of 4750 new subscribers each week. Even the Boston Globe grew: +13% digital subscribers (currently 3,000) for this quarter when compared to the previous one .

The system has yet to unleash its full potential. For now, the NYTimes maintains a great deal of paywall porosity. Unlike the FT.com, there is no mandatory registration. It is actually pretty easy to circumvent the limit of 10 free articles per month: simply use different computers and devices. But the New York Times execs in charge of the system are in no rush to tighten the reins. They know mandatory registration will boost the transformation of registered users into full-paid-for ones, but it will be costly in terms of traffic.

Audience-wise, the paywall’s impact is uncertain. Times’ insiders said it had no effect. But, according to GigaOM’s Mathew Ingram (who quotes ComScore data), unique viewers would have fallen by 20% since March 2011 (from 34m Unique Visitors to 27m) and page views by 15%. Ingram suggests this trend could contribute to the erosion in ad revenue (although there is plenty of evidence showing that CMPs — cost per thousands page views — are indeed higher behind a paywall.)

One sure thing: before adding further paywall restrictions, The New York Times wants to find the perfect formula. On the Q3 earnings call, Denise Warren, who oversees the revenue side, explicitly referred to the topic: “We are exploring entry level opportunities as well as higher-ends as well”. In other words, her team is testing all possible prices and packages; current offers are likely to be sliced into multiple segments.

Overall, NYT’s management remains bearish on advertising for the next quarter at least. Jim Follo and Denise Warren invoked business leaders’ evaporating trust in the economy and also mentioned the oversupply in digital inventories (too many page views for sale, everywhere). They also point a finger to the shift in buying practices with, as they call it, “programmatic buying channels” (ad exchange, real-time bidding), who take over the market, pushing prices further down. One exception to this deflationary spiral is the luxury segment, stronger than ever, and well-tapped by The New York Times’ ability to provide customized campaigns.

Future Times revenue streams also lie in its ability to expand abroad. Last summer, the NYT.com launched its Chinese version (under Beijing’s strong vigilance). Next year, says Chairman Arthur Sulzberger, the Times will launch a Portuguese version aimed at the vast Brazilian market (and there are rumors of a Spanish language version.)

Denis Warren, also referred to what she called an “untapped demand in the corporate education segment”. Strangely, her statement echoes Harvard professor Clayton Christensen’s interview with the Neiman Journalism Lab where he discusses his favorite topic, the disruption of legacy businesses:

For the Harvard Business School — we’ve been saying for about 13 years now that management education is going to be disrupted by in-house corporate universities. And nobody just ever imagined that it would happen. In fact, every metric of goodness at the Harvard Business School has been improving and still continues to improve — even as last year the number of people applying to Harvard MBA programs dropped off 22 percent. In the prior year, it went down 11 percent. I really believe that the business schools are just going off the cliff.

I’m concerned: If business schools are going off the cliff, who will produce next generation of media analysts?…
frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com