Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Google/Motorola Mobility/Synergy?

Another view of the south side of the Googlepl...
The first thing that jumped to mind when I heard about Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility was the thought that I talked a lot about Apple and Intel in my last column but if you read between the lines I was also talking about Google and more specifically Android.

Apple has been waging what looks like an increasingly aggressive litigation/patent campaign against Android  as has Microsoft. I talked a lot in that column about how legal scuffles can become an unproductive distraction for technology companies but I neglected to mention the fact that your competition is eventually going to have to react if they want to stay in the game. Google has already claimed in the press that this purchase was motivated by what they view as anti-competitive practices by Microsoft and Apple.

There has been some cynicism expressed in the press over positive press releases by  Google's partners and soon to be competitors in regards to the Motorola purchase. What those cynics fail to take into account is that given recent trends Android was in danger of being taxed out of existence via licensing fee demands that partners and Google were ill prepared to defend against. Having Google as a competitor probably isn't something their happy about but Google now has even more skin in the game and an arsenal of their own patents to use in defense and negotiations. It's legitimate for Google's current channel partners to fear that preferential treatment will be given to Motorola which will create an advantage that allows them to grab the bulk of the highest margin Android sales but that is a remote and manageable scenario. Android's steadily increasing litigation and licensing "tax" burden was already eating their margins. Google may become a frenemy but that is still an improvement on the current situation.

I've also read claims that this is a precursor to Google making Android a closed platform and going it alone. That is a really absurd claim for the following reasons. First, Motorola and Android wouldn't stand a chance if they took on Apple mono a mono. Android's excellent market penetration is a result of being available on a wide range of platforms that no single company could possibly create or support by themselves. Second, that model is already in place at companies like Nokia and RIM and how well are they doing right now? Why would Google want to replicate a clearly failing business model when they already have a winner?

It is possible however that this purchase will cause companies to take another look at Microsoft's current and future mobile offerings so they can hedge their bets. Microsoft's close relationship with Nokia is however very similar to how Google is proposing to operate with Motorola so it's difficult for me to understand why this would be an improvement, particularly given the minimal market penetration of Microsoft's Windows phone 7.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Microsoft will buy Nokia within a year. Consolidation and increased vertical integration are clear trends in the mobile space and Microsoft/Nokia are already on their way down this path.

RIM is going to need a major turn around in the next six months if they want to continue to go it alone and be anything but a niche player.

I'm trying to think of a polite word to use as an adjective to describe Standard & Poor's downgrade of Google but failing. Seriously, their logic is absurd. Will this deal guarantee that litigation against Android stops? Of course not but patent litigation is much easier to defend against when you are armed as well.  Prior to this acquisition Google was poorly situated to deal with legal challenges and had been losing ground steadily. Now they will be operating from a much stronger position.

There are no guarantees in business or life, but standing around and doing nothing in the face of challenges to a rapidly growing portion of your business is almost never a good idea. Another complaint S&P have is that this will impact Google's short term growth. Well yeah, when you spend $12 billion on something that does have a short term hit on your ability to take advantage of other opportunities. Particularly when you're going to have to wait around for the better part of a year for the deal to be completely consummated. It's not like Google is cash poor though and CEO Larry Page has made it clear that they play for the long term. That pisses off analysts who only care about a very finite horizon.

S&P's analysis in this matter is flawed at best. Every purchase is a risk and this one is no exception but Google is taking credible action to defend against a risk to both an emerging and established portion of their business as well as reacting to trends within the mobile computing/phone space.

Getting shut out of the mobile space would have meant getting shut out of the search engine space. The social networking paradigm shift is reducing but not eliminating the importance of search and Google couldn't afford to risk having that revenue stream cut off. S&P's Google downgrade feels more like an attempt to garner press than an honest and well informed assessment.

There is a risk that Microsoft or some other company will make a larger offer for Motorola Mobility. Apple is unlikely to do so since they probably couldn't get governmental approval for such a deal. Microsoft would be pissing off their channel partners but might view it as a worthwhile risk. I don't think they'll go this route but it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Image via Wikipedia
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Patentageddon/Apple/Intel/Etc.

Apple:  Keep Your Lawyers Off My Computer
I'll admit it, I'm a bit idealistic. I have a strong pragmatic/practical side as well though so I'm not the type to talk about "peace and love" without putting up some kind of framework to explain/justify why I think a particular approach makes sense.

I'm also not totally anti patent. Patents were a noble experiment that made a lot of sense when they were first instituted and spurred innovation and progress. The reality today is all together different, particularly in the case of software patents which almost never make sense and do not encourage innovation or progress.

Some might argue that patents encourage a meritocracy. At this stage I think it's more accurate to say that they encourage a moneytocracy and Lawyertocracy which isn't good for anyone but the Lawyers in the long term.

It's one thing to acquire patents to protect yourself, that's just the cost of doing business these days. It's another to use those patents in an attempt to bludgeon your competition outside of the market place.
Apple seems to be the latest company to fall victim to the lure of litigation as a means to secure market positioning. They are hardly the first and they won't be the last. Still it's disappointing to see a company that is so strong in their core competencies of marketing and innovation go down this path.

Litigation can be a core competency if you want it to be but particularly for a technology company this seems like a mistake to me. Intel was known for their prowess in litigation for many years. Eventually they were also known for their mediocre technology and marketing which is why AMD was able to sneak up on them and usurp the architecture of the X86 processor family for several years. Which is in turn why we use AMD's 64 bit extensions in "Intel Compatible" processors including those made by Intel itself. As an aside, the Intel Itanium processor may have been a nice piece of technology but it was a lousy choice for Intel's customers which is why it never gained wide scale acceptance. From Intel's perspective it was great since it was going to finally kill off the clone processors that had bedeviled them for a decade plus at the time but outside of Intel that was viewed with ambivalence at best and outright hostility in many cases. Consumers like competition and choice. Short sighted companies don't and that works to their detriment.
Intel has pretty much always had around eight to ten times the financial resources of AMD yet time and again they've been trumped by the smaller company. Intel has done better in recent years but I contend they never would have gotten themselves into the messes they did if they hadn't spent so much time, energy and focus trying to eliminate their competition through the courts while failing to create as many innovate products as they should have. For example, Intel's inability to create a credible high end GPU is hurting them to this day.
This isn't the first time Apple has gone the lawsuit route in a big way. If you've been around for awhile you may recall their battle with Microsoft back in the late 80's and early 90's. When Jobs eventually returned to the fold Apple was weeks away from liquidating their remaining assets and going out of business. It would be unfair to assert that suing Microsoft was the sole reason for their near demise but I do think it was a pretty clear indicator that Apple was getting distracted and focusing energy in the wrong direction.

You have to keep an eye on your competition, that's common sense; but if you're not keeping the majority of your attention on your customers  you're making it easier for someone else to capture their hearts and minds. Apple's increased litigation against their competitors could be a sign that they are starting to lose their way again. Given their current very robust financial situation that isn't a big deal in the short term but I don't see how it can end well.

Image by mary hodder via Flickr

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Technology & The UK Riots (Short Take)

U.K. (album)
I haven't been to the UK since I came to the US when I was eight months old. When I was younger it was in a sense close by though since my Mom is British. Thankfully she's still only a phone call away today.

Given that it's been depressing hearing about the recent goings on in London and other locations. Being a technology junkie I've tended to focus on that aspect a bit more than the stories of burning buildings and other such chaos. Two things have primarily caught my eye. First, the fact that the riots were in many cases organized and coordinated using Blackberry messenger service and similar technologies. This isn't a surprise. Any tool can be used for bad or good. Texting, Google, messenger services, etc are all just tools and thus no exception.

The second thing is that the thing the people organizing these "events" apparently failed to realize that those messages leave trails. Really big trails that can easily be followed back to them if the government desires and with this scale of mayhem it was clear the government of the UK was going to. You don't poke anyone in the eye that hard and not expect a response.

Another thing many apparently failed to realize is that London has cameras all over the place and that facial recognition software is amazingly accurate these days.

So a lot of people are getting arrested and will be prosecuted.

Speaking philosophically, violence is never a good place to start when you have a beef. It escalates things to a place where there is essentially no chance of a positive outcome.

The anonymity of the mob has been a pretty good shield in the past but as technology advances it's becoming increasingly difficult to hide. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not nearly as simple as some might think. So, while technology may have played a part in aiding the riots it's also playing a part in catching those who lead and participated in them. Increased communication efficiency is a knife that cuts both ways.

Interestingly there was a case here in the San Francisco Bay area recently where BART, one of our local public transit companies shut off cell service in some of the tunnels and stations their trains use to discourage a planned protest over the killing of a rider by the BART police last month. That decision is prompting a lot of debate right now over what is an isn't appropriate. Personally I feel the bar needs to be set VERY high when it comes to justifying something like that.

Image via Wikipedia

Related Articles:
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Change/Twitter/PeerIndex/Klout/FourSquare/Empire Avenue

Twitter HQ is on the 4th floor of this not ver...
Twitter is apparently in the midst of a big new platform revision. I still see the previous version no matter how many times I push the refresh button on my browser. Reviews seem to be mixed to negative so far. We humans do not like change though so I always try to wait a few days for things to settle down before assessing how popular a particular change is going to be. From my perspective the current Twitter web client is so mediocre that anything is unlikely to be worse.

My PeerIndex profile continues to be broken. I've had a ticket in for awhile now and I have seen some changes over the past several weeks but the parts that weren't updating still aren't updating and the parts that are updating still seem broken. Meanwhile Klout has been reliable and consistent and continue to role out new features on a regular basis. The most recent that I'm aware of being the addition of FourSquare to the list of sites they monitor in creating their social networking influence score.

FourSquare is one of a number of different sites that incentivize/gamify the act of self tracking our movements. You get points and virtual badges for using the FourSquare app to check into businesses, parks, etc. Some people even add their own homes or the homes of friends. That last bit seems kind of weird/creepy to me but I'm probably a bit old to fully appreciate/understand why this would be appealing. My wife and I have been using the FourSquare App for a couple of weeks now. She's consistently out scored me in part because she was on an extended trip and got to check into a bunch of new places which is how you score best. It's been fun so far but I'm not convinced it will be sustainable. Yelp and Google have similar apps and there are probably others I haven't heard of as well.

Twitter wasn't the only social networking site to roll out a UI update yesterday. EmpireAvenue also made some refinements. The general consensus seems to be positive with most of the changes being evolutionary improvements and refinements. I don't tend to notice a UI unless it gets in my way. There are still areas where EmpireAvenue needs work such as their notification system but they seem to be evolving in a reasonable direction.

Image via Wikipedia
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Google Circles, Another Take

Circles - 52 Weeks Pix
Technically Facebook has the same functionality but it's much harder to find and use the Facebook equivalent. Circles allow you to assign all your contacts in G+ to one or more groups. You can classify people by geography, by hair color, by gender, first initial or anything your heart desires. In short you can create your own etymology and arrange things any way you want. There is one other important bit of information to keep in mind here, circles are one way so only you know who is in a particular circle.

Facebook and their fans claimed early on that Circles discouraged sharing. There were two fallacies at work in that claim. One, that unfiltered sharing is inherently good and two that having the ability to filter wouldn't encourage additional sharing over and above what people typically do on Facebook since with circles you can be selective about who you share with and are thus more likely to post things you wouldn't otherwise. I know that my posts on Facebook tend to be very bland and generic because I have such a diverse group of friends.

There is an aspect of Google's Circles that I haven't seen get a lot of press. Google claims to make their living by organizing the worlds information. It's true enough in a sense but at the end of the day the reality is they make their money by selling lots of highly targeted ads. To date they've left G+ ad free but that doesn't mean they aren't already making money. My thinking is as follows;  the reason Google is so good at providing highly targeted ad placement to their customers is that they can infer a lot about us based on how we interact with their services. Over time they are able to build up a detailed picture of who we are and what our likes and dislikes are. It's kind of creepy in a way but we got ourselves in this mess because we're suckers for the proverbial free lunch. There is no free lunch and this lack of privacy is the way we pay for our place at the table.

With Circles Google has created an incentive for us to classify all our contacts in a way that provides information about ourselves, and others. Google's data gathering has always worked best when we are given an incentive to participate such as search.Only you know who is in a particular circle and what you've named that circle. While Google doesn't make this information public, they are privy to it internally and can infer many things that would be useful in helping them do an even better job of targeting ads. Better targeting means better click through rates and better click through rates mean higher revenues for Google and happier advertisers.

Google needed to make a credible entry into the social networking arena but that was just a means to an end. Search provides them not only with a billboard but also with a way to get to know us better. It's unlikely that the need for search will ever go away but there is a good chance it will be less important in the future and it's also possible that Google will not be able to maintain their current dominance. The G+ service provides them with an additional opportunity to gather information about us and generate ad impressions.

Image by kiwinz via Flickr
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 8, 2011

The Stinky Stuff Rolls Every Which Way

rolls
One of the commonly repeated phrases if you're operating on the front lines in any business is "the **it rolls down hill". It's a comforting thing to say and true enough in many ways. To be blunt, it also represents a  short sighted and overly simplistic world view.

Now that I've said that I better explain myself.

I've spent time both in the trenches and as a manager so I've been on both sides of the fence and based on those experiences I know that the grass isn't greener on either side. Some combination of personal preference, aptitude and random chance are going to decide which role a person ends up in. If' you're an individual contributor by choice or chance know this, the stinky stuff rolls in pretty much every direction.

To get to the individual contributor level it often has to flow past front line management and it probably went through one or more levels of management before it got to them but that's not the only direction it comes from.

When an individual contributor fails to complete a task in a timely manner it rolls every which way since at the very least their coworkers and immediate manager will have to deal with the consequences of that failure. Dysfunction at ANY level leads to some amount of dysfunction at EVERY level.

I could belabor this point for a few hundred more words but suffice it to say that there are people who primarily produce it and people who primarily deal with it. Being located higher in the food chain means a larger multiplier for either case but being on the front lines does not magically exempt one from appearing on either side of this equation.

Image by Darrow Slade Godeski Merton via Flickr
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Twitter Follow/Unfollow Game

Follow me on Twitter logo
Awhile back I wrote about how I disliked the fact that some people would follow me on Twitter and then unfollow when I didn't follow back. Sometimes that's because they are looking for people who are willing to interact and not following back makes two way communication more difficult. I can understand that motivation but I think it's only true in a minority of cases.

I've discovered something worse though. Apparently some people have been told that to be true Twitter superstars you have a positive ratio of followers to follows. So what do superficial people who just want to look good without actually earning it do? They follow a bunch of people, wait a couple of days for the inevitable follow backs and then unfollow all of those people. Then they repeat the process.

Yes, this does annoy me. 

Here's a bit of philosophy. When you game a system you destroy that system. I'm not stupid, I know that human beings do this kind of thing and that is  not going to change even if there is a good chance they'll have reason to regret going down this road later.

Lets expand on that last point, social network influence sites are increasingly popular and powerful. I've talked about Klout and PeerIndex before and they'll continue to come up in the future. The value of these sites is in assigning some sort of number to a particular individuals influence. People who try to game the system to inflate their score undermine the credibility of the score. If that happens it undermines the credibility of the companies assigning those scores as well and you can be sure they'll take that personally and come up with ways to detect and account for the shenanigans. It's not even that hard to do in this case. For example, Klout seems to have no problem scanning all of Twitter every day. All they have to do is look at who you're following today, who you've followed in the past and how long you follow others on average. If I ran a company like Klout and I were feeling nice I'd just lower a persons score if I detected this kind of thing. I'd also flag them as somebody worthy of extra scrutiny in the future. If I were feeling less nice I'd make available an additional score that showed the ethics of the person based how they built their network. A scarlet letter so to speak.

It's very easy on Twitter to create a new identity and start over but it isn't nearly as easy to do so on other sites and there is a big push by both Google and Facebook to force people to use real identities.

I don't expect anyone to stop doing this kind of thing because I say so but I do suspect that currently emerging trends and technologies will at the very least blunt the effectiveness of this approach. There is also a very real chance that public exposure and shaming may be in the cards.

For better or worse, anonymity is increasingly scarce both in real life and on the web.  It's very important to keep that in mind when developing an approach for your social networking interactions.

Speaking of social networking interactions, you can find me on Twitter as #emkey1tweets.

Image via Wikipedia
Enhanced by Zemanta