Lessons from a good vertical: Skift.com

 

For digital media companies, creating good verticals that breed small but valuable audiences has become essential. On that subject, here are my takeaways following a conversation with Rafat Ali, founder and CEO of Skift.com. In 20 months, Rafat’s company has become a reference in the travel intelligence business. 

There is no excuse for not trying to build a vertical digital service (web site & mobile app) for a strong media company shifting to digital. As long as you have a powerful (not to be confused with profuse) newsroom coupled with a well-structured contents system, trying a foray in a specific domain is worth considering. As an example, see Atlantic Media, one of the most innovative media brands, as it deploys a series of verticals nested in its Government Executive Media Group. These units all generate small but extremely valuable and loyal audiences — and enviable revenue per user (more on the Atlantic in a future Monday Note).

Building a vertical is a mere matter of implementation, you might say. But a look below the surface shows how such process demands much more than merely putting a small group of good writers in a digital stable, and asking them to gather news on a specific subject.

That’s why Skift.com drew my attention. In less than twenty months, manned by only 9 people crammed in an mid-town Manhattan office, Skift.com has become a strong voice and a reference in the travel industry: airlines, booking systems, hotels, tour operators – and all the the sector’s disruptors.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

I met Rafat Ali five years ago in Hyderabad, India; we were both of speaking at the same conference. Rafat was about to exit his first and remarkable startup, PaidContent.org (a terrible name he now laughs off), one of the first blogs decoding the media industry’s transformation. After building it from scratch and spending eight exhausting years producing and editing stories, Rafat sold it to the Guardian for a reported $30m – right before the 2008 crisis. (Last year, PaidContent was acquired by GigaOm).

After a short transition, Rafat was free to go. So did he. In 2010, at the age of 36, he left for a two-year series of trips to Oman, Iceland, Burma, India (where he has family), radiating from his bases in New York and London. At last out of PaidContent’s trenches, he took the time to read a hundred books during his journeys. Following @rafat on Twitter, you could feel his excitement, and also his growing interest in the travel sector.

‘You have to remember, it was 2010, the iPad had just been launched, everyone was thinking about what to build on it’, said Rafat. His first idea was to re-invent the travel guide book for the iPad. But he soon realized how crappy the whole travel industry’s information ecosystem was: ‘I was blown away.’ While the transactional part of the travel business had been completely broken apart by a massive, unprecedented disintermediation — benefiting the customer, trade information remained frozen in the past, with its sets of professional printed publications perpetuating a jargon-filled verbiage offering little or no actionable intelligence, nor useful data

Nature (and digital business) abhors vacuum, so does Rafat Ali, who decided to fill the void. When asked to define Skift in a nutshell, he said this: ‘In late 2011, we wanted to build the Bloomberg News of travel’. (When it comes to business information, this is quite a goal. Never aim low, I can’t agree more.) Rafat’s wanted to build something based on a few concepts: rely heavily on data, capitalize on the open-web, use APIs aggressively (to connect with third party data sets), aim at professionals, consultants, experts, and — last but not the least — prosumers who often know more than merchants. (Read Rafat’s post on the “Mediata” Startups).

The other key to Skift’s concept — which means shift in Danish — was tearing apart the silo culture that plagued the travel industry for decades: ‘You have airlines, airports, cruises, hotels, technology… All of these silos have collapsed in global interconnected megatrends, and we knew we could make our voice heard across all…’, explained Rafat while pointing at this graph:

SkiftCircularGraphic-b
Graph ©
Skift.com

As far as editorial is concerned, Rafat believes journalistic content is needed to create addiction, daily use, while-data related products generate usefulness, stickiness, loyalty and, ultimately, monetization. Content-wise, at the beginning, the site was built on four “legs”: aggregation (collecting headlines); curation (with a tweet-length phrase to describe a story); licensed content (full articles brought from news providers); and originally produced articles. Today, Skift is down to two items: 40% of articles are licensed (mostly Newscred) and 60% are original content — about 15-20 short business stories (produced by a staff of three…)

Business-wise, Skift positioned itself primarily as a B2B company, then secondarily as B2B-2C. Its traffic is still modest (1m UVs/mo), but growing fast; so does its newsletter business, expected to reach 75,000 subscribers by year end. No mobile apps in sight as the mobile web works well for Skift: mobile users account for 35% of web traffic and 50% of newsletters readings.

Skift sells few but high yield ads, to the point that Rafat is about to create a tiny studio to create bespoke brand contents. (Maintaining the mandatory Chinese wall could be tricky in such a small structure.)

But Skift’s true gem is its industry dashboards and data collection system, a well-structured tree that leads to scores of statistics and rankings. Inside, you’ll learn that AirBnB — whose valuation is now higher than Hyatt — has a Skift Score (a combination of indicators) roughly twice the “bookings & tools” industry average. Or that Dutch airline KLM scores way better than the hippest Virgin Atlantic. Or that Hertz masters the social ecosystem way better than the trendy Über.

Using data analytics, Skift produces reports — short and updated twice a month (as opposed to quarterly “bibles” prone to quick obsolescence.) ‘We will focus mainly on marketing, strategy and technology to produce competitive intelligence’, said Skift’s CEO. Rafat’s intense focus on doing few things but doing them well extends to the obligatory conference business: Skift intends to do just a single event about the Future of Travel, in a similar fashion to Quartz’sThe Next Billion conference (see the #qznextbillion hashtag for a list of tweets linking to videos). In both cases, these events are built on strong editorial concepts, ‘We want to make a conference about leadership instead of a vendors-to-vendors type…’ said Rafat.

What’s next for Skift? First, an off-site staff meeting in Iceland. Actually, Rafat Ali is considering a global franchise set in Reykjavik. Less anecdotal, Skift founder wants to apply his news and contents formula beyond the travel industry to what he feels are interconnected sectors — at least in discretionary spending — namely food & beverage and retail sectors.

One final note. Looking at the state of travel information, I can’t help but discern a complete failure of traditional, legacy journalism. Too cozy with the main players and their corrupting PR machines, too filled-up with press junkets and freebies, the mainstream media coverage of this $6.5 trillion/260 million jobs sector has become mostly illegible. This leaves a large open field to new players.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

 

TV Done Right: Still A Dream

 

As the strong reactions to even the slightest Apple TV rumor demonstrate, there’s a vigorous appetite for a simple, modern Internet TV experience. The technology is ready but carriers aren’t.

Last week started with Big Apple TV News in an authoritative-sounding Wall Street Journal article:

“Apple Inc. is in talks with Comcast Corp. about teaming up for a streaming-television service that would use an Apple set-top box and get special treatment on Comcast’s cables to ensure it bypasses congestion on the Web, people familiar with the matter say.”

Search for “Comcast” in a news aggregator such as Feedly (there are many other good choices), and you’ll see a wide range of reactions to the Apple-Comcast rumor. Given the heat the article generated, it’s odd that there has been zero follow-up from the main players — nothing from Apple and Comcast, no additional information in the WSJ or any other journal. When a deal of such importance is in the works, “people familiar with the matter” have a strong incentive to keep talking, to add color, to spin their side of the story. Of course, no one expects Apple to do much leaking, but the radio silence from Comcast spinmeisters is another matter entirely.

Philip Elmer-DeWitt offers the most likely explanation: The Wall Street Journal got played by someone intent on throwing a wrench into Comcast’s plan to acquireTime Warner’s cable operations. (This wouldn’t be the first time: Cellphone carriers have repeatedly used the WSJ to air their perennial Poor Me complaints about excessive smartphone subsidies.)

Echoes of the WSJ non-story ricocheted around the blogosphere. Some, such as this BBC article, make painful points about the abuse that US consumers undergo at the hands of broadband carriers:

Broadband Cost

As a sharp-witted Be engineer liked to remark: “It costs more… But it does less.”

Carriers take too much money for a user-hostile experience simply because they can. In most locations, cable companies have little or no competition, so there’s no reason for them to do anything more than milk the most profit from a cheap infrastructure. As Apple Insider’s Neil Hughes reminds us, the user experience isn’t a priority for cable providers. Indeed, as I write this from Paris, I have to juggle set-top box restarts and malfunctioning secondary content subscriptions only reluctantly allowed by the main provider.

It doesn’t have to be that way. No miracle is required to make our Cable TV experience easy and gratifying.

Consider today’s cable arrangement, simplified for our discussion. A coax cable is strung from the street into your basement or crawl space. You plug the coax into a signal splitter, connect one output to your cable modem for Internet access, while the others feed the TVs in your household.

Next, you run an Ethernet cable from your modem to your WiFi access point and maybe you also run a wire from the access point to your “most trusted” computer. Upstairs, we see a set-top box, an Internet TV streaming device (Roku, Apple TV, Boxee, or other), and, if your TV is of a certain age, a digital adaptor.

That’s four or five devices that you have to connect and, when things go wrong, disconnect, power down, and restart in the “proper” order.

It’s only too easy to imagine how a next-generation Apple TV could collapse this maze of impenetrable interfaces into one box: Coax in, Wifi and HDMI out and, miracle, one and only one remote! This is something that Apple seems to have the taste and resources to do well.

There are no technical obstacles, no new technology is required, no new software platform, just a careful integration job. I realize I’m veering dangerously close to the “mere matter of implementation” deception, but regardless of the amount of work it would take to integrate the various technologies, the benefit to the user would make the engineering effort worth it.

And there are many benefits:  We can throw away our DVRs as content becomes an app that we can stream whenever we want — the 60 Minutes iPad app is an elegant, flexible exemplar of the type. Rather than paying for a “package” of channels that are selected by the cable provider, we’ll be able to buy a la carte shows, series, and channels through iTunes or similar content vendor. We’ll be able to watch the free-with-ads version of a show, or we can pay for the ad-free edition.

Some day, the status quo will break, perhaps as the result of a patient encirclement and infrastructure buildup — a better, vertically integrated Content Delivery Network, both very much compatible with Apple’s playbook. As the reactions to the (possibly planted) Apple-Comcast rumor amply demonstrate, users are becoming increasingly aware of the disconnect between the experience that the cable companies offer and TV Done Right.

JLG@mondaynote.com

Dealing With Data Frenzy

 

Last week, I attended the Newspaper Association of America’s MXC conference in Denver. We were to focus on the publishers’ use of data. A hot topic that sometimes becomes overly broad and leads to unrealistic expectations. Here are some key points I made.   

For any digital publisher, relying on data is no longer an option nor a luxury. It has become a necessity. Each passing quarter confirms the demise of digital advertising: yields continues to fall, programmatic buying (most often operated by large third party players) takes over and continues to fuel deflation. Highly visible media brands — two years ago the Huffington Post, now BuzzFeed — deal with the issue by generating huge quantity of pages saturated with kittens and listicles, each yielding very low CPMs. At the other end of the spectrum, strong media houses develop customized, sophisticated campaigns for high-end brands (see examples on NYT’s IdeaLab page); they also fill their pages and apps with so-called Branded Content items — which very few publishers manage to implement correctly.

For news publishers, the use of data should focus on four goals:
– Increase advertising yields through smarter targeting
– Improve their editorial recommendation engines (hence raising the number of page views per visit)
– Up-sell ancillary products
– Raise the performance of their subscription system (if any.)

Over the recent years, the advertising community managed to find a new gun to shoot itself in the foot. It’s called targeted ads. Everyone has ugly anecdotes about those. Typically, the stories go like this: You do a web search for an item and quickly find it. In the following months you’re deluged by ads for the product you bought. The annoyance prompts many to opt for AdBlocking systems — I did (except for sites I’m in charge of), with no regret nor guilt.

To put it mildly, there is room for improvement, here.

Coming back to profiting from site users’ data, one good example I heard recently is a recent request made by a large airline to the Financial Times: “Find us people who travel on long haul flights and who log on FT.com more than four times per month and from locations scattered along our routes”, i.e. super-frequent flyers used to business or first class, etc. Thanks to IP location analysis yielding geospatial coordinates for each connection, the retrieval of such high-value clientele wasn’t overly complicated. The geolocation principle applies to other requests, such as finding residents of a specific city or suburb, in order to serve effective advertising.

When you think of profiling, use a passport analogy. Anyone who visit a site from a browser (it’s more complicated with mobile apps), is issued a passport in the form of an anonymous cookie, such as this one, injected in my computer by the New York Times:

nyt_cookie

As a digital subscriber, I have inherited no less than 113 cookies from the NYTimes, each one stored in my computer for a specific purpose. They come from every segment of my navigation (pages, sections, articles, blogs), each generates a “stamp” on the passport. The more stamps I get on my passport, the more NYTimes people knows about me. Over time, the process draws a finely defined profile.

The example I often use looks like this (my perspective is from a French business media company):

Based on her past navigation, the user ID:6547dgfc_9088 turned out to be:
– A woman in her 30′s
– Leaving in Toulouse [Thanks to the geolocation of her internet box] She works :
…in the aerospace industry
… most likely in a financial department
… with a special interest in European regulations
… at a fairly high position.
Then we should be able to serve her with:
– Local ads / adjusted for her income and likely tastes [she also visits our lifestyle sections & other online properties in our network] – Adjusted editorial recommendations [related stories] based on her sector and position
– A special deal for our next conference on corporate finance
– A notification when someone in our team or among our partners publishes a book (paper or digital) relevant to her interest
– An abstract of our annual in-depth survey on aerospace
– A sneak-peak at our partner’s COOC (Corporate Open Online Course) featuring four hours of talk by a prominent tax lawyer from Brussels [don't forget the Red Bull] – [And if she's not a subscriber] A promotional, customized, one-time newsletter featuring the economics of commercial airplanes, with past stories from our newsroom, curated links, etc., all of the above driving to the inevitable conclusion: this discerning individual should definitely take advantage of our one-time offer.    

This “internal” profiling can be spectacularly enhanced by working with a major profiling third party. As an example, the large European player Weborama has accumulated a staggering 70 million profiles for an internet population of 52 million French users (each person can be linked to multiple profiles.) All over Europe, Weborama has collected 210 million profiles, roughly 40% of Europeans web users. In our example, by tapping into such large databases, the profile of this upwardly moving female exec from Toulouse will be enhanced up to the minutest detail of her tastes and preferences.

For the media company, reaching such productive interplay between a profiled individual and its ability to serve her with relevant content, services and products requires a well-integrated system — and a critical mass of products.

Understanding someone’s social and semantical genome through internal an external profiling is only a part of the equation. Matching the customer’s profile to the company output (journalism, conferences, publications, surveys…) also demands that the genome of those products be precisely established. If we want to “talk” to the customer’s profile, a story must have its set of tags, keywords and metadata; so does the theme of an upcoming conference that must go beyond a basic presentation, or the description a book. Ideally, every single piece of what the news organization produces must have its semantic genome encoded in a standardized way.

In defining user profiles, media organizations must have a rich and diverse line-up of contents, services and ancillary products. The broader the spectrum of a media brand, the better. All things being equal in terms of editorial quality, an isolated media will be less well armed than a larger company that operates multiple properties ranging from editorial to e-commerce and uses those to construct a wide range of user profiles.

Much more than in print media, isolation is not an attractive option in the digital world.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

Wearables Fever

 

While Google, Motorola, and Samsung seem eager to jump into the wearables market, Apple characteristically keeps its counsel – and wisely so: Smartwatches and other wearables produce more pageviews than profits.

Wearables are a danger to your health – your mental health, that is. Smartwatches and sensor-laden bracelets aren’t so new anymore — see Microsoft’s 2004 SPOT Watch — but the vernal equinox seems to have triggered a bout of Wearables Fever the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Tablet Fever of January, 2011, when 76 tablets were announced at the Consumer Electronic Show in Las Vegas. As so often happens with pandemics, there was a smaller outbreak, called the Dawn of the Tablet PC, days before the January 2010 iPad launch.

In this year’s derangement, we are witnessing the birth of another epoch-making class of product — the Wearable. As Wired sees it, for example, Jawbone Is Now the Startup Apple Should Fear Most.

In one respect, Jawbone’s devices are a lot like Apple’s. The company admires minimalism…[b]ut Apple’s minimalism is cold — all brushed metal and glass — while Jawbone’s is warm, squishy, and textured… There’s a chance Apple has designed itself into a corner. But for Jawbone, the future is full of possibility.

Then there’s this analysis, quoted and mocked by John Gruber [emphasis mine]:

Cadie Thompson, writing for CNBC, “Time Is Ticking for Apple to Announce an iWatch, Say Analysts”. Apple needs an iWatch sooner rather than later, or the company will risk losing its innovative edge to rivals, analysts say.

They only have 60 days left to either come up with something or they will disappear,” said Trip Chowdhry, managing director at Global Equities Research. “It will take years for Apple’s $130 billion in cash to vanish, but it will become an irrelevant company… it will become a zombie, if they don’t come up with an iWatch.

I’m guessing the ellipsis denotes when he paused for another line of coke.

Parenthetically, it would be wrong to imply that Mr. Chowdhry might be “incentivized” to shout from the rooftops by rewards more satisfying than pageviews — no allegations of stock manipulation complicity here — but I wonder about the games that he and other anal-ists play. As Philip Elmer-DeWitt pointedly noted in a CNN Money column last year, Mr. Chowdhry urged his clients to unload Apple stock for eight months and then blamed the CEO and CFO “for destroying Apple’s shareholder value”.

If you’re curious enough to look at Mr. Chowdhry’s spartan Global Equities Research site, you’ll see he claims to have Commission Sharing Agreements with Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Barclays, Jefferies, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan. As the Wikipedia article points out, such agreements “ask that broker to allocate a portion of the commission directly to an independent research provider.” Here, one wonders what the word independent really means…

Back to Wearables: The announcements pile on.

Samsung tells us they’re moving their smartwatches away from Android to a version of Tizen, itself based on a version of the ubiquitous Linux.

Google announces Android Wear, a version of Android for smartwatches.

Motorola, soon to be a Lenovo brand, announces that its moto 360 smartwatch is “Coming Summer 2014 in a selection of styles” and provides these artful renderings:

Moto Wrist Edited

and…

Moto Modern

(I write renderings because, as the Android Wear intro video indicates, these are simulated pictures. This doesn’t mean that the final product won’t be better looking– but we’re clearly not there yet.)

Why the haste? Did Tim Cook succeed in misdirecting Apple’s competition when he pronounced wearables a “very key branch of the tree? Or is there a giant business to be had?

We have many unanswered questions.

First, paraphrasing Horace Dediu, there are the twin questions of For What and By Whom: For what job is a smartwatch “hired”, and by whom? If we look at phones as a model, we see two “employers”: Carriers hire smartphones to increase their ARPU; normal consumers use them as small, ubiquitous, always-connected personal computers.

Will this model work for smartwatches? We can almost certainly eliminate carriers from the equation: Subsidies are out of question because a watch is unlikely to generate carrier revenue.

For us users, a smartwatch collects sensor data, connects to our smartphone, displays alerts, responds to touch and voice commands… and even tells us the time. These are all worthwhile functions that make for neat promo videos, but to keep users interested after the novelty wears out, smartwatches will have to do more than log the miles we’ve run, give us weather updates, and show us the name of the person who’s ringing the smartphone in our pocket. Put another way: We’re willing to pay a premium for our smartphones (whether directly or by contract) because of the huge range of features they provide, the enormous number of apps in the app stores. Will we be as durably aroused – and willing to part with substantial amounts of money – by (yet another) pulse rate app?

Another batch of questions: Since we no longer need a dedicated timepiece to tell us the time — our smartphone does that — Who wears a (dumb) watch these days, How, When, and Why?

Simplifying a bit, younger people don’t wear watches at all and older generations use them as jewelry — and gender-specific jewelry, at that. Furthermore, how many veteran watch-wearers wear the same watch all the time? Many of us own more than one watch, and select the appropriate timepiece (or two — or none at all) for the occasion. These aren’t trivial issues, they’re uncharted territory for mobile device makers and marketers.

Next question: How will smartwatch makers handle the delicate equilibrium between computing power and battery power? As smartwatches evolve and offer more features, a better display, and a more responsive user interface, they’ll need more computing power — and more computing power means a quicker battery drain. Will we put up with watches that run out of power at the end of the day? Will designers retard functionality in order to extend battery life to 24 hours and beyond… or make a smartwatch so big it’ll look like a miniature phone?

The power equilibrium question is why Samsung moved to a dedicated (and pared down) version of Tizen, and why Google did the same for Android Wear. All without giving much information of battery life.

Finally: Is there a business, there? Here in the Valley, Pebble CEO Eric Migicovsky claims to have sold 400,000 watches since January, 2013. At around $150 each, that’s $60M in revenue — a real tribute to Eric’s long-standing belief in wearables (he’s been working at it for six years).

But even if you multiplied this number by 10, it would barely nudge the needle for a large companies such as Samsung, Motorola/Lenovo, or Apple, which means these devices will be confined to the role of smartphone companion. They’ll help make money by enhancing the main product; they’re not going to be a $10B business in themselves.

As Charles Arthur writes in The Guardian, there are fewer than half a million smartwatches in use in the UK: “Wearable computing faces an uphill battle breaking through to the mainstream…”. Similarly, the Register doesn’t see any good, large-scale answers to the question. It calls Google wearables “A solution looking for a rich nerd”.

These challenges might explain why Apple doesn’t seem to have caught this Spring’s Wearables Fever. Smartwatches are destined to be ecosystem extensions, not The Next Big Thing.

JLG@mondaynote.com

One last thought before we close: Not all Ecosystem Extensions are equal. The no-longer-a-hobby Apple TV now brings substantial revenue and growth:

“Sales of the Apple TV are estimated to have grown by 80 percent in 2013, reaching around 10 million units for the calendar year, or some $1 billion worth of set-top boxes sold to end users.”

Horace Dediu puts a “Fortune 130” label on iTunes. By itself, with yearly gross revenue of $23.5B and growing 34%, iTunes is large enough to rank #130 in the Fortune list of the 500 largest US companies:

On a yearly basis iTunes/Software/Services is nearly half of Google’s core business and growing slightly faster.”

While music sales are on the wane, apps and video (mostly Apple TV) show healthy growth. Compared to an Apple TV, how much would an iWatch add to the iTunes business? Apps? Content?

Apple seems wise to stay out of the game until it can make something more lasting than a novelty.

CarPlay Thoughts

 

Who wouldn’t want an iPhone- or Android-like experience in their car instead of today’s misbegotten navigation and entertainment systems? CarPlay’s answer looks nice – until one looks at the details.

Apple’s CarPlay has an air of inevitability. Previously dubbed “iOS in the Car”, CarPlay brings the iPhone’s aesthetics, ease of use, consistency, and universe of apps to the ugly and dumbfounding world of car navigation and entertainment systems.

Seven years after the iPhone launched the Smartphone 2.0 wave, Apple kickstarts another mobile revolution…

It’s an enticing, simple vision. Instead of today’s disjointed systems — which often cost in the $1,000 range, plus $249 for a DVD of updated maps — you get a screen the size of a small tablet running iOS apps with voice and touch control (on-screen and armrest), off-air map updates, open-ended flexibility… We have arrived.

I’ve struggled with dashboard electronics from German, Japanese, and French car makers (no electronics on the old family Chevrolets), and I’ve seen what happened to Ford when it tried to use Microsoft software for its Sync system. Replacing these hairballs with an iOS system only makes sense.

But sense and reality are still living apart.

carplay2

To start, the “iOS in the Car” phrase is misleading. The iOS device “in your car” is the iPhone or iPad that you’ve brought with you — Apple isn’t about to license iOS to automakers (which may be part of the reason why Apple changed the name to “CarPlay”).

And Apple isn’t going to try to take the place of suppliers such as Delphi, VDO, and Aisin by making subsystems for carmakers — it’s not in Apple’s DNA. Not that it would matter if they tried: Automakers have made an art of pinching fractions of cents from their suppliers’ prices; they’d never tolerate Apple’s margins.

CarPlay replicates your iDevice’s screen as H.264 video spewed through an intelligent Lightning cable connected to your car’s USB port. The video format is widely accepted, so the in-car device either understands it already, or can be updated to do so.

So far, so good. As many observers have pointed out, the idea is a wired echo of Apple’s AirPlay, the technology that connects your iDevices (and other compliant products) to your television via the Apple TV black puck. Complications may arise when you consider the various in-dash screen sizes, resolution, actual uses of USB connections (my car’s USB connector is useless for anything other than charging my smartphone), and other mysterious incompatibilities that are beyond Apple’s control. Still, in general, screen replication demands little from the car maker. As with Airplay and a dumb TV set, the intelligence stays inside the smartphone.

The CarPlay proposal is much more limited than the Open Automotive Alliance, a Google initiative that implants a customized version of Android into a car’s electronics. (“Audi connect” is available today; we can expect similar collaborations with Honda, GM and Hyundai.) But if the in-car system runs Android (or QNX, as is often the case today), so much the better, from the carmaker’s point of view: Let Google or one of its partner do all the work to create an Android-based all-in-one car system and let Apple hitch a ride after the work is done. Serving both Android and iOS users is a no-brainer.

It sounds good… but I can’t help but harbor uneasy feelings about this whole “scene”.

To begin with, we have a clash of cultures. To be sure, Eddy Cue, Apple’s Senior VP of Internet Software and Services, is a dealmaking expert and, as a member of the Board of Ferrari, he has serious automotive industry connections. But the spirit that drives Apple is far from that which motivates automakers.

The automotive industry expects to be in control of everything that gets into their cars. The coup that Apple pulled off with the iPhone and AT&T — taking full control of the content, no crapware, iTunes only for media — isn’t going to happen with Mercedes-Benz, or BMW, or even Hyundai. Cars aren’t phones. We’re not going to see aftermarket Toyota CarPlay kits (let alone entire cars) in Apple Stores. Apple won’t get what it always strives for: Controlled Distribution.

Then there’s the F-word: Fragmentation. In-car electronics are a mess, a new culture grafted onto an old one, Silicon Valley and Detroit in a loveless marriage. Actually, that’s  unfair: Under the hood, embedded electronics do wonders to improve the reliability, safety, and economy of our cars. But where the union breaks down is in the User Experience domain. Competent combustion management engineers and the accountants watching over their shoulders have no empathy for smartphone-loving drivers.

The meanderings get more twisted when we consider a key difference between Google and Apple. Google could tell Audi that they’ll pay, in some form, for the user data collected by Audi connect— but Audi already makes a lot of money, they don’t want to open that can of worms. As they say in their privacy agreement:

“We will not share information about you or your Audi vehicle that is connected with your use of Audi connect’s in-car features with third parties for their own purposes without your consent.”

But what would a legally-troubled, profit-starved automaker such as GM say in response to Google’s offer to subsidize the in-car system?

Apple hasn’t played that game.

An all-in-one navigation/communications/entertainment system is a pleasant dream, it feels “right”. But the technical, business model, and cultural obstacles could make for a long, arduous march.

CarPlay could be a very smart way to hitch a ride on many in-car systems without having to struggle with their design and cost challenges, yet another ecosystem extension play.

JLG@mondaynote.com

 

On Marc Andreessen’s optimistic view of news

 

A strongly-worded column by venture capitalist Marc Andreessen triggered an intense debate on the future of news. Andreessen might be right places, but his views can also be dangerously simplistic. 

For starters, it is always great to have an outsider’s view. Marc Andreessen’s witty, and fast-paced dithyramb on the future of news is undoubtedly welcome. But, as always, regardless of the depth and breath of the big picture he paints, the devil lies in the details. In no particular order, here are my thoughts on his manifesto.

As a European, I found his piece extraordinary US-centric or, slightly more broadly, Anglophone-centric.

Andreessen wrote :

[T]he market size is dramatically expanding—many more people consume news now vs. 10 or 20 years ago. Many more still will consume news in the next 10 to 20 years. Volume is being driven up, and that is a big, big deal.
Right now everyone is obsessed with slumping prices, but ultimately, the most important dynamic is No. 3 – increasing volume. Here’s why: Market size equals destiny. The big opportunity for the news industry in the next five to 10 years is to increase its market size 100x AND drop prices 10X. Become larger and much more important in the process.

By saying this, Andreessen makes two good faith mistakes.

First, he mixes up global reach and monetizable audience. Evidently, a growing number of people will enjoy access to news (maybe not all the 5 billion cellphone users he mentions), but the proportion of those able to generate a measurable ARPU is likely to be very small.

The Scalability that works for Google Maps or WhatsApp doesn’t work as well for the notion of relevant information, one that is more tightly connected to language, proximity and culture.

Second, he overestimates the addressable news market’s fragmentation. I live in France, a 66 million people country with a high standard of living and good fixed and mobile internet access. In spite of these factors, it remains a small market for the super-low-yield digital news business that brings few euros per year and per user (except for a minuscule subscriber base.) I remained stunned by the inability of good journalistic products, created by smart people, to find a sustainable business models after years of trying.

And the huge, globalized English speaking market does not warrant financial success. The Guardian is one such example. It operates one of the finest digital news system in the world but keeps bleeding money. The Guardian brings a mere $60m in digital ad revenue per year — to be compared to a kitten-rigged, listicles-saturated aggregator generating a multiple of this amount. Journalism has become almost impossible to monetize by itself (I’ll come back to that topic).

Andreessen also vastly underestimates the cost of good journalism when he writes:

[T]he total global expense budget of all investigative journalism is tiny —  in the neighborhood of tens of millions of dollars annually.”

Fact is, journalism is inherently expensive because it is by laborious and unpredictable: An investigation can take months, and yield nothing; or the journalistic outcome can be great, lifting the reputation of the media, but with zero impact on the revenue side (no identifiable growth in subscriptions or advertising). The same goes for ambitious coverage of people or events. No one has ever translated a Pulitzer Prize in hard dollars.

This is also the case for what Andreessen calls the “Baghdad Bureau problem”. It was said to cost $3m/year for the New York Times. In fact, on an annual basis, the Times spends about $200m for its news operations, including $70m for foreign coverage alone. The NYT is likely to stay afloat when it goes entirely digital (which might happen before the end of the decade), but one of the nastiest features of digital news is the unforgiving Winner Takes All mechanism.

As far as philanthropy is considered, I won’t spend too much time on the issue except to say this: Relying on philanthropy to cure malaria or to support ill-understood artists bears witness to an absence of sustainable economic system. (Until, perhaps, the artist dies; as for malaria, there is indeed a very long term benefit for society, but not for those who supply the treatment, hence the mandatory call to generosity.) Saying investigative or public-interest journalism could/should rely on philanthropy is the same as admitting it’s economically unsustainable. Luckily, American society has produced scores of philanthropists free from any agenda (political, ideological, religious) — such as the Sandler Foundation with ProPublica. That’s not the case in France — not to mention Russia and many other countries.

There are plenty of areas in which I completely support Marc Andreessen’s view. For example: A media company “should be run like a business“, i.e. seek the profitability that will warrant its independence (from every economic agent: shareholders, advertisers, political pressure, etc.) This brings us to the size and shape of a modern news factory (I use the term on purpose). We have to deal with an unpleasant reality: Good journalism is no longer sustainable as a standalone activity. But — and that’s the good news — it remains the best and indispensable core around which to develop multiple activities (see my recent column about The News Media Revenue Matrix).You can’t develop services, conferences, publishing, etc. around a depreciated journalistic asset. On the other hand, this asset has to be drastically streamlined: In many cases, less people, better-paid (simply for the ability to retain talent) and with sufficient means to do their job (don’t go for the press junkets because the travel budget has been slashed, you’ll lose on three counts: credibility of your brand, self-esteem of your team, quality of the reporting.)

Unfortunately, as Andreessen noted, there are plenty of hurdles to overcome. In fact, most existing news companies do not fathom the depth of the transformation required to survive and thrive. Nor do they understand the urgency to set this massive overhaul in motion. Such moves require strength, strong leadership, creativity, a fresh approach, unabated confidence, and a systemic vision — all of the above in short supply at legacy media. Note that when Marc Andreessen prides himself to be an investor in media ventures (for instance Business Insider– no conflict of interest), all are digital natives and bear none of the burdens of traditional media. His bullishness on news is selective, personal.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

The Apple Game: New Categories vs. Ecosystem Development

 

Putting hopes for Apple’s future on a magical New Category misunderstands the company’s real direction. Instead, Apple stays the course and continues to play its Ecosystem Game. Many interpret this as a company in death throes.

The iPhone is 7 years old. The iPad was introduced 4 years ago. Since then… nothing.
Apple’s growth is gone: a mere 9% revenue uptick in 2013; only 6% for the last quarter.

It’s time to acknowledge the painfully obvious truth: Innovation has deserted Apple. Something must have gone seriously wrong if the company can no longer break into new categories.

This is the refrain that echoes through the Web… and this is the toxic waste of success.

It started back in the early 80’s when all we wanted was a better Apple ][ (or a working Apple ///)… and we were stunned by the Macintosh. We were unable to imagine a mouse + a bit-mapped display + moveable windows + pull-down menus, all the things that came to define the next iteration of personal computers. We couldn’t imagine it because we didn’t have the right words to think with.

The Mac created a template for what we’ve come to expect from Apple: A breakthrough. Now we’ve had two epochal hits in rapid succession — the iPhone and iPad — and, once again, we’re hooked. We need another fix, another burst of excitement, something New and Different. We’re no longer satisfied with the boring New and Improved.

The desire for Something New is understandable, but breakthroughs don’t happen on demand… and a “breakthrough” isn’t always necessary.

Consider the PC. In rough numbers, the PC is 40 years old. In that time, it has matured into what we now enjoy through gradual improvements to hardware and software: Better graphics, sound, displays, user interface, network connectivity.

Why don’t we take as much pleasure in the continuous flow of improvements to our smartphones and tablets?

When we regard the new categories that Apple has “failed” to create (or join) we face a number of problems.

We’ll make short work of the fantasized Apple TV set. We all know what we want: à la carte content served to us as apps through an Apple-grade device. We’ve had enough of the Soviet-era set-top boxes and tiered pricing foisted on us by cable companies.

Even if Apple wanted to head in that direction — and step into the quagmire of exploitative relationships between content creators, distributors, and de facto carrier monopolies — the impact on the company’s top and bottom lines, revenue and profit, would be moderate. Ten million set-top boxes at (say) $299 makes “only” $3B — that’s less than 2% of last year’s revenue.

(A short digression on the curse of large numbers: At Apple’s size, which is approaching $200B in yearly revenue, a “breakthrough” product would need to generate at least 5%  — $10B — in order to move the needle. That’s approximately one Facebook.)

What about wearables? It’s a lively category and will get livelier as sensors get more sophisticated, consume less energy, and benefit from software refinements. Microsoft had one years ago; Pebble, Samsung, and many others offer “smartwatches”; Fitbit and Jawbone Up manufacture “fitness bracelets”.

My take on smartwatches and bracelets (The Next Apple TV: iWatch, More iWatch Fun and Apple’s Wearable Future) is that Apple is already in that category – with the “Always With Us” iPhone and motion sensing, and with apps such as Azumio’s Instant Heart Rate app.

We now turn to cars. The CarPlay announcement at the Geneva Motor Show follows the iOS in the Car presentation at last year’s WWDC (Apple’s Developers Conference).

We have to ask: How does the CarPlay money pump work, and in which direction? Does Mercedes Pay Apple, or the other way around? On the technical and User Interface levels, how does the tightly controlled and consistent Apple experience survive the wide range of UI cultures and cost constraints so painfully obvious in today’s cars? On its CarPlay webpage, Apple makes broad promises:

“To activate Siri voice control, just press and hold the voice control button on the steering wheel.”
“If your CarPlay-equipped vehicle has a touchscreen, you can use it to control CarPlay.”

and..

“CarPlay also works with the knobs, dials, or buttons in the car. If it controls your screen, it controls CarPlay.”

We’ll have to wait and see how “the apps you want to use in the car have been reimagined” and how automakers play one smartphone ecosystem against another.

In any case, CarPlay isn’t a product that’s meant to stand on its own. In Apple’s own words, it’s part of the iPhone ecosystem:

“CarPlay is a smarter, safer way to use your iPhone in the car. CarPlay takes the things you want to do with your iPhone while driving and puts them right on your car’s built-in display.”

A not-so-surprising  pattern emerges: Rather than play the New Category game, Apple stays the Ecosystem Development course it’s been on since the advent of the truly epoch-making iTunes. Tim Cook may claim that the $99 Apple TV black puck Tim Cook is no longer a hobby”, but its yearly revenue is in the $1B range, less than 1% of the company’s overall number. Apple may make a wearable someday, but will everyone want an iWatch the way they want an iPhone? And let’s not expect direct revenue upticks from CarPlay, just a more pleasant iPhone experience in “selected” vehicles.

This gets us to Apple’s deeply rooted fixation: From its April 1st, 1976 founding to this day, Apple has been in one and only one business: personal computers. Today, they come in three sizes: Macs, iPads, and iPhones. Everything else Apple creates — iTunes, the App Store, the physical Apple Stores, Apple TV pucks, CarPlay, the mythical iWatch — these are all part of the supporting cast, and they have a single mission: Prop up the volume and margins of the star products.

This isn’t to diminish the importance of the supporting cast. iTunes begat the iPod, a product once so successful it generated more revenue than the Mac in 2006. iTunes also introduced the distribution mechanism and micro-payment system that unleashed the iPhone’s full power, that made it an “app-phone”. As our friend Horace Dediu points out, iTunes by itself would rank #130 in the Fortune 500 list (yearly gross revenue of $23.5B, + 34% growth in 2103).

Nonetheless, iTunes doesn’t have a separate P&L (Profit & Loss) statement in Apple’s financials because there’s only one P&L for the entire company. There are no “line of business” numbers because there’s only one business.

As the Macalope explains, ecosystems are put to very different uses by Amazon and Google, on the one hand, and Apple:

“Amazon and Google sell tablets at cut rates in order to get people to use their ecosystems. It’s less crucial for them that people buy tablets; they just want people to use tablets to buy stuff and look at ads. Apple makes money off its ecosystem, too, but unlike Amazon and Google that’s not where it makes most of its money.”

Still, there is another possibility. Apple could get into an entirely new business, as opposed to one or more of the ecosystem-supporting products/services mentioned above. One such example is Amazon Web Services (AWS). Instead of opening another line of product sales, fresh produce or wine, Amazon got into the business of renting servers to companies large and small. It’s not Amazon’s biggest line, it weighs less than 3% of total revenue, it’s thought to be very profitable (unlike the main lines) and grows very fast. Gartner thinks AWS is now larger than its next five competitors combined. An amazing success.

Amazon did it because it developed a superior computer services infrastructure  for its core business and decided to offer similar services to any and all.

Back to Apple, could one imagine the company using some of its hard-earned expertise to branch in a different, non personal computers business? For a not-too-serious example, Porsche makes cars and there is a Porsche Design business. But I don’t see Tim Cook telling Sir Jony to open a design studio business. And Porsche Design weighs nothing compared to the Porsche car maker. Such branching out sounds very remote.

So is it true that Apple has given up on developing its business? In 2013, Apple increased its R&D spending by 32% (you can download Apple’s entire 10-K report here); 2012 was + 39%. In the previous two fiscal years ending last September — and without entering any new category — Apple increased its R&D spending by 83% to $4.5B, 3% of revenue. And then it increased it by another 33% in the December, 2013 quarter.

Accelerated R&D spending can only mean one thing: Apple is widening the range of products under development. Let’s just hope company execs continue to be as good as they’ve been in the past at saying No, at not shipping everything they engineer.

JLG@mondaynote.com

 

The Apple Tesla Connection: Fun and Reason With Numbers

 

Apple acquiring Tesla would make for juicy headlines but would also be very dangerous. There are more sensible ways for the two companies to make money together.

Apple has never suffered from a lack of advice. As long as I can remember — 33 years in my case — words of wisdom have rained down upon the company, and yet the company stubbornly insists on following its own compass instead of treading a suggested path.

(Actually, that’s not entirely true. A rudderless, mid-nineties Apple yielded to the pressure of pundit opinion and licensed its Mac OS to Power Computing and Motorola… and promptly lost its profits to Mac clones. When Steve Jobs returned in 1997, he immediately canceled the licenses. This “harsh” decision was met with a howl of protest, but it stanched the bleeding and made room for the other life-saving maneuvers that saved the company.)

Now that Jobs is no longer with us and Apple’s growth has slowed, the advice rain is more intense than ever… and the pageviews netwalkers are begging for traffic. Suggestions range from the deranged (Tim Cook needs to buy a blazer), to – having forgotten what happened to netbooks – joining the race to the bottom (Apple needs a low-cost iPhone!), to the catchall “New Categories” such as Wearables, TV, Payment Systems, and on to free-floating hysteria: “For Apple’s sake, DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING!”

The visionary sheep point to the titanic deals that other tech giants can’t seem to resist: Google buys Nest for $3.3B; Facebook acquires WhatsApp for $16B (or $19B, depending on what and how you count). Why doesn’t Apple use its $160B of cash and make a big acquisition that will solidify its position and rekindle growth?

Lately, we’ve been hearing suggestions that Apple ought to buy Tesla. The company is eminently affordable: Even after TSLA’s recent run-up to $30B, the company is well within Apple’s means. (That Wall Street seems to be telling us that Tesla is worth about half of GM and Ford is another story entirely.)

Indeed, Adrian Perica, Apple’s head of acquisitions, met Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk last Spring. Musk, who later confirmed the meeting, called a deal “very unlikely”, but fans of both companies think it’s an ideal match: Tesla is the first Silicon Valley car company, great at design, robotics, and software. Like Apple, Tesla isn’t afraid to break with traditional distribution models. And, to top it off, Musk is a Steve Jobs-grade leader, innovator, and industry contrarian. I can see the headline: “Tesla, the Apple of the auto industry…”

But we can also picture the clash of cultures…to say nothing of egos.

I have vivid recollections of the clash of cultures after Exxon’s acquisition of high-tech companies to form Exxon Office Systems in the 1970s.

Still reeling from the OPEC oil crisis, Exxon’s management was hypnotized by the BCG (Boston Consulting Group) who insisted that “Information Is the Oil of the 21st Century.” The BCG was right, Tech has its Robber Barons: Apple, Oracle, Google, Facebook, Intel, and Microsoft all weigh more than Shell, Exxon, or BP.

But the BCG was also wrong: Exxon’s culture had no ability to understand what made the computer industry tick, and the tech folks thoroughly despised the Exxon people. The deal went nowhere and cost Exxon about $4B – a lot of money more than 30 years ago.

This history lesson isn’t lost on Apple. So: If Apple isn’t “interested” in Tesla, why are they interested in Tesla?

Could it be batteries?

A look at battery numbers for the two companies brings up an interesting parallel. Tesla plans to make 35,000 Tesla S cars this year. According to Car and Driver magazine, the battery weighs 1323 pounds (600 kilograms — we’ll stick to metric weights moving forward):

Tesla S Battery 1323lbs edited

That’s 21,000 (metric) tons of batteries.

For Apple devices the computation is more complicated — and more speculative — because the company publicizes battery capacity (in watt-hours) rather than weight. But after some digging around, I found the weight information for an iPhone 4S on the iFixit site: 26 grams. From there, I estimated that the weight of the larger iPhone 5S battery is 30 grams.

I reasoned that the weight/capacity ratio is probably the same for all Apple batteries, so if a 26g iPhone battery provides 5.25 watt-hrs, the iPad Air battery that yields 32.4 watt-hrs must weigh approximately 160g. Sparing you the details of the mix of iPad minis and the approximations for the various Macs, we end up with these numbers for 2014 (I’m deliberately omitting the iPod):

100M iPads @ 130g = 13,000 tons
200M iPhones @ 30g = 6,000 tons
20M Macs @ 250g = 5,000 tons
Total Apple batteries = 24,000 metric tons

It’s a rough estimate, but close enough for today’s purpose: Apple and Tesla need about the same tonnage of batteries this year.

Now consider that Tesla just announced it will build a battery mill it calls the Gigafactory:

gigafactory process

According to Tesla, the plant’s capacity in 2020 will be higher than what the entire world produced in 2013.

A more likely explanation for Apple’s conversation with Tesla might be something Apple does all the time: Sit with a potential supplier and discuss payment in advance as a way to secure supply of a critical component.

Of course, neither Tesla nor Apple will comment. Why should they? But a partnership born of their comparable needs for battery volumes makes a lot more sense than for the two companies to become one.

–JLG@mondaynote.com

follow gassee

Postscript: Certainly, Apple is no stranger to acquisitions — the company recently disclosed that it purchased 23 small companies in the last 16 months — but the operative word, here, is “small”. Apple has made two large purchases in twenty years: The late-1996 acquisition of NeXT for $429M (and 1.5M Apple shares), and the $356M purchase of Authentec in July 2012. Other other than that, Apple’s acquisitions have focused on talent and technologies rather than sheer size.

This seems wise. In small acquisitions, everyone knows who’s in charge, it’s the acquirer’s way or the highway, and failure rarely makes headlines. Bigger deals always involve explicit or implicit power sharing and, more important, a melding of cultures, of habits of the heart and mind, of “the ways we do things here”.

——–

News Media Revenue Matrix: The Bird’s Eye View

 

Publishers struggle with newer and more complex business models. Some appear stronger than others but, above all, a broad palette is a must. It is a means to capture emerging opportunities and to compensate for the drying up of older revenue sources.

Today, I submit the following revenue matrix for a modern, content-rich news outlet. As I see it, in the news business “modernity” mean this:

A proven ability to produce original content in abundance and under multiple forms: news reporting, investigation, analysis, data journalism, long form (for ebook publishing), enterprise-like journalism, live feeds; all of the above in the form of text, images, graphics and videos.

A cultural mindset to produce contents for the platform with the best fit: a news story for a newspaper, an interactive piece on the web, live coverage for mobile. The collective publishing mindset should no longer allow first- and second-class news products. Every piece of newsroom output must be designed as a contribution to a cascading revenue system in which each element empowers every other one.

– A newsroom equipped with the best tools money can buy or — even better — build. These include a powerful Content Management System (CMS) aimed at dispatching production to every platform. The CMS must be connected to a semantic analysis system that makes all pieces of information — from a feature story to the transcript of a video — compatible with the semantic web’s standardized grammar. In order to extract more value from a piece of content, the CMS must also connect to multiple databases. For example, the name of an obscure city must be able to generate a map – through the Geonames base; a Board Director must be tied to a high value database of business leaders such as The Official Board; the name of a company must lead to open-source corporations listings.

Mastering the semantic web is indissociable from acquiring information gathering capabilities such as aggregation and filtering (see a previous Monday Note: Building a business news aggrefilter ). Such feature is a prerequisite to building high-margin products as well as exploiting the social media echo chamber. After collecting contents through RSS feeds, the combination of semantic news analysis matched against the taxonomy of, say, Twitter, will yield a trove of information on what audiences like or dislike — not only for a news media but also for its competitors. It is a complex and expensive endeavor but, in the long run, it will be worth every penny.

– And more importantly, a global editorial thinking. Too often, newsroom management suffers form what l’ll call “mono-product bias”, focusing on what is seen as noble — namely print. At a very minimum, modern editorship must embrace a widespread digital strategy. But it also must envision a sustainable game plan for a complete lineup of ancillary products that also deserve editorial coherence and strength.

Having said that, let’s have a look at the following matrix. No rocket science here, I simply made a list of 14 products that many news outlets already operate. I then tried to assess the outlook for each revenue stream. (My original idea was to assign a estimated ARPU for each cell, but there are too many parameters to be taken into account).
Click to enlarge the table:

310 table revenue

Now, let’s focus on specific products and revenue streams.

Daily Print Edition. I’m very bearish on print. Granted, it still brings the most substantial chunk of revenue – but also most of the losses. And prospects are bleak: copy sales, subscriptions, even ad sales deteriorate fast. Some light can come from ads – when they are components of customized campaigns. Daily newspapers need to be vastly simplified in order to free up resources for the wide array of other revenue streams — especially digital. I’m a big supporter of Financial Times’ Lionel Barber “Memo on reshaping the newspaper for digital age“.

Weekend editions will do better than dailies for several reasons. First, their function — long formats, portfolios, reading habits — makes them better armed against the digital tsunami that devoured news. Second, they remain a great vector for pricey advertising: on some anglo-saxon markets, weekend editions accounts for half of the print ad revenue. The New York Times understood that well as its full digital access + weekend edition bundle is a hit among customers.

Advertising revenue stream. Let’s face it, traditional ads ormats, print or digital, are dying. The conjunction of programmatic buying and ad saturation/tracking/targeting will seal their fate for good. The best outlook seems to be for customized operations and brand contents (or combinations of the two). They can spread on every platforms, including on mobile where, so far, users massively reject ads. In addition, these customized operations carry high value (huge CPMs or hefty flat fees.)

Event & Conferences. The segment is crowded and success depends on a subtile combination of attendance fees vs sponsorship, but also of editorial content. A conference is indeed a full editorial vector that needs to be treated with the same care as any other publication, i.e, with a precise angle, great casting and first class moderation that favors intellectual density over speakers flogging cheap sales pitches. News media are well positioned to deploy an efficient promotion for a content-rich, sustainable, conference system.

Intelligence & Surveys. Attractive as they might sound, these products require a great deal of expertise to make a difference. Very few media can fulfill the promise and justify the high price that goes along with such offerings.

Training and MOOCs represent an interesting potential diversification for some business publications. They carry several advantages: by addressing a young readership, MOOCs can create an early attachment to the brand; the level of risk is low as long as the media company limits itself to being a distributor (quality MOOCs production is very expensive). For a business publication, such activities represent a great way to increase its penetration in the corporate world where the need for training is limitless.

Premium Subscriptions. Some large, diversified media companies are already considering complex subscription packages for a small number of high-yield clients. In addition to print and full digital access, such packages could include access to conferences & events, MOOCs, market intelligence, and other publications. Testing the concept is a low-risk proposition.

The Business to Business segment remains the province of specialized publications. But the potential is there for general-audience media: corporations are hungry for information. The era of the bulky corporate intranet that no one watches is gone; today, for their staff, companies want apps for mobile and tablets that will save time while being precisely targeted and well-designed. Not an easy market – but  a very solvent one.

Sketchy and questionable as it is, the above matrix also illustrates the complexity of designing and selling such a wide range of products to individuals or corporations. Only a small number of news organizations will have the staff, skills and resolve to address such a broad range of opportunities.

frederic.filloux@mondaynote.com

@filloux

Nokia Goes Android – Part II

 

Next week, we might see Nokia’s entry-level feature phones replaced by a low-end device running Android Open Source Project software. The phone may just be a fantasy, but the dilemma facing Nokia’s feature phone business is quite real: Embrace Android or be killed by it. 

Nokia will announce an Android phone! So says the persistent rumor, started about three months ago by an @evleaks tweet, and followed by more details as weeks went by. Initially code-named Normandy, the hypothetical feature phone is now called Nokia X, and it already has its own Wikipedia page and pictures:

Nokia X

Nokia is on the path to being acquired by Microsoft. Why introduce an Android-based phone now? The accepted reasoning is simple…

  • Even though it doesn’t generate much revenue per handset (only $42), Nokia’s feature phone business is huge and must be protected. Nokia’s Form 20-F for 2012 (the 2013 report hasn’t been published, yet) shows its phone numbers compared to the previous year:
    • 35M smartphones (-55%) at an average price (ASP) of $210 (+ 11%)
    • 300M feature phones (-12%) with an ASP of $42 (- 11%)
  • These 300 million feature phones — or “dumbphones” — keep the Nokia flag waving, particularly in developing economies, and they act as an up-ramp towards more profitable smartphones.
  • Lately, dumbphones have become smarter. With the help of Moore’s Law, vigorous competition, and Android Open Source Project (AOSP) software, yesterday’s underfed, spartan feature phones are being displaced by entry-level smartphones. Asha, Nokia’s offering in this category, has been mowed down by low-end Android devices from China.
  • Nokia can’t help but notice that these AOSP-based feature phones act as a gateway drug to the full-blown Android smartphone experience (and much larger profits) offered by competitors such as Samsung, Huawei, and Motorola’s new owner Lenovo.
  • So Nokia drops its over-the-hill Symbian software core, adopts Android, adds its own (and Microsoft’s) services, design expertise, and carrier relationships, and the result is Nokia X, a cleaner, smarter feature phone.

That’s it. Very tactical. Business as usual, only better. Move along, nothing to see.

It’s not that simple.

There’s an important difference between the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), and the full Android environment that’s offered by Samsung, LG, HTC and the like.

The Android Open Source Project is really Open Source, you can download the source code here, modify it as you see fit for your application, add layers of services, substitute parts…anything you like.

Well, almost anything. The one thing you can’t do is slap a figurative “Android Inside” sticker on your device. To do that, you must comply with Google’s strict compatibility requirements that force licensees to bundle Google Mobile (Maps, Gmail, YouTube, etc.) and Google Play (the store for apps and other content). The result isn’t open or free, but smartphone makers who want the Android imprimatur must accept the entire stack.

As an added incentive to stay clean, a “Full Android” licensee cannot also market devices that use a different, incompatible version (or “fork”) of the Android code published by Google. A well-know example of forking is Amazon’s use of Android source code to create the software engine that runs its high-end Kindle Fire tablets. You won’t find a single instance of the word “Android” on these devices: Google won’t license the name for such uses.

(For more on the murky world of Android licensing, bundling, and marketing agreements, see Ben Edelman’s research paper: Secret Ties in Google’s “Open” Android.)

The hypothetical, entry-level Nokia X can’t offer an entire Android stack — it can’t be allowed to compete with the higher-end Lumias powered by Microsoft’s Windows Phone — so it would have to run an “unmentionable” Android fork.

Even without the “Android Inside” label, everyone would soon know the truth about the Android code inside the new device. This could give pause to software developers, carriers, and, the more curious users. “Where is Microsoft going with this? Won’t the Android beast inside soon work its way up the product line and displace the Windows Phone OS?”

Microsoft will make soothing sounds: “Trust us, nothing of the sort will ever happen.  Nokia X is a purely tactical ploy, a placeholder that will give Windows Phone enough time to reveal its full potential.” We know how well attempts to create a Reality Distortion Field have worked for Microsoft’s Post-PC denials.

The Redmond not-so-mobile giant faces a dilemma: Lose the Asha feature phone business to aggressive forked-Android makers, or risk poisoning its Windows Phone business by introducing potentially expansionist Android seeds at the bottom of its handset line.

Several observers (see Charles Arthur’s penetrating Guardian column as an example) have concluded that Microsoft should follow Amazon’s lead and accept the “Come To Android” moment. It should drop Windows Phone and run a familiar Embrace and Extend play: Embrace Android and Extend it with Bing, Nokia’s Here Maps, Office, and other Microsoft properties.

Critics, such as Peter Bright, an energetic Microsoft commenter, contend that forking Android isn’t feasible:

“Android isn’t designed to be forked. With GMS, Google has deliberately designed Android to resist forking. Suggestions that Microsoft scrap its own operating system in favor of such a fork simply betray a lack of understanding of the way Google has built the Android platform.”

Dianne Hackborn, a senior Android engineer (and a former comrade of mine during a previous OS war) contradicts Bright in great point-by-point detail and concludes:

“Actually, I don’t think you have an understanding of how Google has built Android. I have been actively involved in designing and implementing Android since early on, and it was very much designed to be an open-source platform… Android creates a much more equal playing field for others to compete with Google’s services than is provided by the proprietary platforms it is competing with. I also think a good argument can be made that Android’s strategy for addressing today’s need to integrate cloud services into the base platform is an entirely appropriate model for a ‘real’ open-source platform to take.”

In the end, Microsoft probably doesn’t trust Google to refrain from the same games that Microsoft itself knows (too well) how to play. Microsoft used its control of Windows to favor its Office applications. Now it’s Google’s turn. The Mountain View company appears set to kill Microsoft Office, slowly but surely, and using all means available: OS platforms and Cloud services.

None of this draws a pretty picture for Microsoft’s mobile future. Damned if it introduces Android bits at the low end, damned if it lets that same software kill its Asha feature phone business.

JLG@mondaynote.com
@gassee
———————-
PS: Almost four years ago, I wrote a light-hearted piece titled Science Fiction: Nokia goes Android. It was actually less fictional than I let on at the time. In June 2010, I was asked to give a talk at Nokia’s US HQ in White Plains, NY. I was supposed to discuss Apple but I declined to spend too much time on that topic arguing that the Cupertino company was too “foreign” to Nokia’s culture. Instead, I made two suggestions: Fire your CEO and drop your four or five software platforms — Symbian and Linux variants — and adopt Android. Nokia’s combination of industrial design expertise, manufacturing might, and long-standing, globe-spanning carrier relationships could make it a formidable Android smartphone maker.

The first recommendation was warmly received — there was no love for Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, the accountant cum attorney CEO.

The second was met with indignation: “We can’t lose control of our destiny”. I tried to explain that the loss had already taken place, that too many software platforms were a sure way to get killed at the hands of monomaniacal adversaries.

Three months later Kallasvuo was replaced…by a Microsoft alum who immediately osborned Nokia’s smartphone business by pre-announcing the move to Windows Phone almost a year before the new devices became available.

—–