Disruptive Technologies: Mobiles Vs The Rest

Now, I just wrote about how mobiles could kill the watch brands. With Samsung Galaxy Gear, the battle for the wrist is official. If Apple gets in, it will be more interesting. If this was not enough, Adidas has launched a smart watch while Nike already has one.

Now the other day, I was watching TV and saw Priyanka Chopra, the former Miss World, movie star and a favorite for brands in India, promoting two different brands with conflicting interests. In one ad, she is promoting Nikon. In the other, she speaks of Nokia as a listening brand and how the camera in Lumia allows one to take pictures in the low light.

Strange isn't it? Or at least that is what I thought. I posted my opinion about this conflict on my Facebook status. Interestingly, few friends felt that Priyanka was not professional. But that was not the point. She is quite fine in pocketing the money offered by the brands. It should have been the brands' responsibility to ensure that there are no conflict of interest.

Conflict of interest?

On the Facebook status, some felt that there was no conflict of interest. They said one was a mobile phone that has a good camera and the other was a camera brand. Why am I seeing a conflict? Because I saw a sign of disruption. How? First Canon, then Olympus and Fuji exited the low-end camera business.

So, Nokia Lumia 1020 will come with a 41 mega pixel camera. How long before the mobile industry brings cameras that are more sophisticated and capable? Now that is disruption for you. Like classic example of computers replacing typewriters. Emails and electronic transfers have hit the humble neighborhood post office. Telegraph is already history.

As I had said, if Gear and similar devices make watches irrelevant, then there is every possibility that Cameras will also be eaten by mobiles. Going by the looks of it, in future, any device that doesn't multitask is likely to face a death. So, TV can no more be TV, it has to be smart. Gaming Console is not just gaming console, they have to help us watch movies, organize our pictures and listen to music. Watch is not a time observing device, it has to help us read messages, take calls, shoot pictures. Or as Nike and Adidas want it, be our health monitoring device.

While it seems easier for technology companies to diversify, would it be possible for traditional one-category brands to diversify into the technology sphere and stay relevant. Say, would Swatch and Titan start making watches that can be a smartphone? They currently rule the wrists but will it be easier to transform themselves into a technology brands? Will Canon start making phones with much better camera than Samsung or Nokia?

Let me take the risk of predicting the future, here. I think it will be the technology brands that will win the battle. Why? It is the world of Digital Natives who are exposed to technology brands from very early on. Once they grow and find their beloved brands offer more, they are more likely to continue patronizing them. On the other hand, Watch or Cameras come later. Think about it. Children start taking pictures using mobiles and pads much before they are handed over a camera.

The era of technology brands is ushering in, I suppose. Time for other brands to watch out and take steps to evolve and protect their territories.

Oh, by the way, did you read about Google's self-driving cars! 

Samsung Gear: Doomsday for Watch Brands?

Now I know how the Samsung Gear works.

Internet and Computing technology have brought many disruptive changes and transformed the way we live. Older technologies for which Digital Immigrants have nostalgic feelings are unknown to Digital Natives. Existing technologies are made obsolete while the new ones itself become irrelevant in a short period. So when Gear was launched, I wondered if we will witness any disruption?

Will Swatch, Rado, Rolex, Seiko, Citizen, Titan et al become obsolete? Or like how mobile phones have pushed Canon to exit the low end camera business, will watch brands be relevant only for a niche segment? Or will  it be the Gear and its likes become niche?

1. Watch is not a time machine: One thing that goes for the watch brand is that the device is not a functional piece that adorns our wrists. It is a symbol of status. Will mobile brands be able to crack that grip?

2. We have but one wrist: I know we have two wrists but watch goes to only one wrist. If the Gear and Watch have to co-exist, will we start wearing a device in each of our wrists? Will watch lose the race to Gear or will it maintain the hold on its citadel?

3. Gear is no replacement for a phone: If you have seen the video, you must have figured that the Gear doesn't do away with the actual phone. You still need the Note. If I can say, Gear is an extension of phone. Of course, Gear can exist on its own but it will be limited. So you will need to have two devices. I am already thinking of cost.

4. What does Gear offer?: Does Gear have anything substantial to offer? Does it solve any problem for us? Or does it make life easier for us? I believe that the Gear is largely for the Gatekeepers. Will it cross over to the main market, I am not sure.

But if the Gear does win the battle for our wrists, God save the Watch brands!

Imagine after 20 years, when the then Digital Natives look at a piece of today's watch in a museum, they will chuckle and wonder how the Digital Immigrants (that is today's Digital Natives) ever lived without a Gear! Will this happen? Only time will tell. 

Why Apple Can Never Be No. 1?

Android has 1 bn activations!

1 bn! That's roughly about one-seventh of world's entire population! Almost the entire population of either India or China. Android is the biggest, no doubts. 

Interestingly, history seems to have repeated itself. The architecture of PCs first was closed with each player having their own design, and then IBM standardized it. This environment was and is dominated by Operating System (OS) and Chip combination of Wintel who actually grew the market. The brands productized and marketed.

Mobiles were also segmented with each brand defining its architecture till iOS and Android started scripting the road map. 

In many ways, Android ecosystem is similar to IBM PC whereas Apple has retained its philosophy of being closed. The benefit of an open architecture is that the market is grown by many of its constituents. Whereas Apple is solely responsible for growth of its devices. Imagine a cart driven by many horses versus the one with just one horse. Which one do you think will run faster? 

I wonder if the Late Steve Jobs underestimated the power of the multi-horse chariot steered by Google. Even if he had seen, which I assume he did, I am sure nothing could have changed the way Apple approached the market. Being the sole owner of its ecosystem is at the core of its strategy.  

But I think Apple should do two things, differently. 

1. Products at multiple price point: The problem with Apple is that we see only one product at a time. iPhone 3 has to be killed before iPhone 4 is launched. And iPhone 5 has to be over iPhone 4, itself. So at any point of time, a consumer has only one option from Apple, limiting the market size. Apple could do better by planning products at different price points. Why can’t 3 co-exist with 4, 4S and 5?
2. Look East: America without a doubt will remain a strong market for Apple. But then there is a mighty chunk of willing fans in this part of the world. Though little late, Apple has finally started to focus on East, especially the big emerging markets. If you noticed, India got a special mention during the last results for being a high growth market. I personally know many acquaintances who jumped at the opportunity to own iPhone 4 and 4S.

Apple already has a great brand equity and its technology leadership is unquestioned. But it always loses out due to its close architecture. What Apple needs in my opinion is smart product planning. Products at different price points. 

It may still not be enough to beat Android base, but it would certainly shore up its numbers.  

What is wrong with Nokia?

Nokia is still the world's largest mobile handset maker. That may change predicts a recent article in The Economist. Samsung is likely to take over as the new number one handset maker. Am not sure why Nokia is losing out so badly despite having a reputation for producing sturdy devices.

I don't care much about the lower end of the market, but Nokia's strategy in the higher end of the market is flawed. Simply flawed. Nokia has aligned itself with Windows for the smartphone segment. And I really don't understand the need for Nokia to be married to just one environment when it could have been in bed with Google, too. If I am not wrong, Windows phone has not made any cut, not even the Windows 7. In the technology market, it is more important to be aligned to the leader. Or be independent differentiated like Apple.

What stopped Nokia from following HTC strategy? The latter churns out phones both on Google and Windows platform.

What stops Nokia? If nothing does, what is wrong with Nokia?

Why Blackberry?

I have never understood why people may want to buy a Blackberry. People tell me it is the mail service, the others say messenger.

Does it really matter?

Now I have used a Blackberry in the past and use a handset even now. Blackberry service is more expensive than a normal GPRS service though it can be marginally be faster. Recently my employers provided me an HTC handset. I access my official and personal mails on that phone. Of course, both of them are Gmail service. It may be argued that the Blackberry service is the safest way to access emails using mobile service. But I am not sure if it sustainable advantage now. RIM started expanding its customer base and started targeting the youngsters and to me that segment may not be as worried as the corporate citizens about security. With iPhone and Android, RIM has also lost its the-email-phone status.

BBM is another app that is often cited for its success. But then with an app like Whatsapp, I am not sure if anyone needs a BBM like limited messenger.

Am I missing anything here? What is Blackberry's distinct competitive advantage? Someone please enlighten me.

Blackberry's Beachhead Strategy

Close your eyes. Take deep breaths. Let your mind relax.

Oh sorry, no, I wasn't trying to teach you yoga or meditation. Far from it. I am thinking Blackberry. A piece of device which keeps you strangled to your workplace. The Email Phone.

But yes, do close your eyes and think about Blackberry and tell me if you see what I see. A phone that comes only in Black color. Think about people who use it. You will visualize corporate executives fiddling with it, running their thumb quite stylishly on the side of the phone. Like Aladdin would do to the magic lamp. Voila, like the Genie, comes your official emails. Think about the ads. It was functional. No, I mean the ads were good but the message was focused on functionality. Oh I also see a slightly beautiful Curve. But yes, again in black. Oh, I can also see Lewis Hamilton. Was that iPHONE? No, that was Blackberry trying to do iPHONE. That was black, too.

If you have used it, you will notice that the UI is hardly any great. It is not bad, though. I am not sure how many owners use it to browse the internet. My guess is hardly anyone.

As my colleague, Deepak Chopra rightly puts it - Blackberry is an office phone! It is not a phone one buys. It is often pushed down your throat by your employer so that they can keep you tied to work even when you are not in office through the end of your thumb.

This Research In Motion's technology marvel was also in a true sense a real convergent device. It allowed Voice and Data to work seamlessly on one single piece. Though data here largely meant - official mails.

So the recent ad campaign of Blackberry took me by little surprise. Black wasn’t missing but there was Whiteberry, sorry white Blackberry. And it wasn't about email, the ad featured youngsters accessing social networking sites. Then I heard a radio jingle which mentioned many features that would entice the social networking addicted youth.

Yes, these are all signs that Blackberry now wants to go mainstream! And I must say that it was inevitable. There were only two options for RIM - be a chimp by becoming better email phone or aim to be a guerilla. And it chose wisely to be a guerilla. Or at least, attempt to be one. But before I try to predict whether it would be successful or not, it would be good to analyze this situation from theoretical point of view. And where else to turn, but to Geoffrey A Moore!

My obsession with Geoff Moore seems never ending. Someone who has followed his work will be able to see that RIM was intelligent in adopting a beachhead strategy in the mobile industry. For non-starters, this strategy evolved from the Allied Forces' attack on the Normandy Beach in the final attempt to over throw Hitler's regime during the Second World War. Allied Forces instead of spreading its attack thin chose Normandy in France as their entry point to Europe that was virtually controlled by the German Forces. And the rest is history.

RIM segmented its market pretty well; it chose a market whose requirements were unique and unmet. As its technology enabled access to emails much faster than the rest, it chose to serve the Corporate World. And not just anybody in the Corporate World. It became the preferred device of the top executives who traveled a lot and whose lifeline was emails.

Over a period of time, despite coming in one single color like Ford's T-model, Blackberry has built a reputation of its own and definitely become an object of desire. It has come to denote power and position one holds in an organization. However one may rant about Blackberry eating into one’s personal life, it definitely beats Nokia's Vertu in terms of being an aspirational product. This despite the fact that Vertu has precious stones and metals embedded.

But in the technology world things change at a much faster pace than one would imagine. Apple that was riding on its iPOD's success, decided to enter the mobile market through iPHONE. And through iPHONE, it gave jitters to Nokia, the largest mobile phone company in the world. While tumbling the pins in the mobile phone market, it has started eating into Blackberry's protected market. If you are a lowly mortal, like me, mailing to your boss from laptop or PC, you would have noticed that he promptly replies to you and there would be a small line after his signature stating that 'this mail has been sent from Blackberry'. But oft late, you must have seen some sprinkles of 'this mail has been sent using iPHONE'.

Apple is certainly giving jitters to everyone. And that is why I said that Blackberry had only two choices - protect its existing turf, which would have become more and more difficult, or fight a war and expand its territory.

So, Blackberry decides to follow its own bowling pin strategy. Blackberry's association with email is very strong. Email means internet. And internet is going strong. Adoption of mobile phone is happening much faster and it surely is going to displace the PC/laptop market. That is the technology trend. The other trend is consumers’ behavior. Today, Social Networking is a way of life. Twitter, Facebook and the likes are our communication tools. Mobile phones being the device of the generation, Blackberry naturally is positioning itself as the device for youngsters. Proof? Look at the ads and the message.

But in my opinion, mobile phones may also not be the future. To me the iPAD and Kindle seem more like it. But I wouldn't be surprised that the real convergence happens somewhere in the middle. Yes, and that will be the most convenient to users.

So, can we expect an iBERRY? My guess is a big YES!

Kindle In Interesting Times

Long time back, I had a very interesting conversation with a journalist about e-paper. Now, that was seven years back. It was the time when news portals were mushrooming. Internet and PC penetration, still at miniscule figures, was the buzz.

Sankarnarayanan, then with Express Computers, said, "While e-content is available, the consumers are not comfortable with the medium to read. Unless the medium is similar to newspaper or a book, the adoption of e-content will not be easy.”

True, I thought. And impossible! How can computer or even laptop be as comfortable as the thin and foldable paper?

I read newspaper and books on paper format. I didn’t want to read them on eye-irritating and neck-pain-inducing computer monitor. I can’t hold the computer, closely; can’t fold them; throw it away when done. Also, PC at that point of time was more for checking emails and chatting.

You must be thinking that I am a laggard. I was, then. The 'legacy' behavior of touch-feel-read of paper was all pervasive.

Over the years, the continuous innovation leading to thinner laptops coupled with the slow-yet-steady change in consumer behavior was certainly ensuring that more and more people consumed e-content. Mobile phones have further accentuated the process. Of course, one cannot deny that improvement in the quality and exclusivity of e-content also helped the cause.


So recently a blog by John Battelle on why he wouldn't like to use Kindle caught my attention. Consciously or otherwise, he has best articulated feedback to Amazon. For non-starters, Kindle is a gadget manufactured and marketed by Amazon. Kindle allows one to read e-books; I understand it has ecommerce capabilities.

Battelle has actually articulated the same points which Sankar had raised then, but in detail.

Fast Second by Constantinos Markides and Paul A. Geroski classifies technology innovations based on their ability to destroy the competencies and complementary assets of established players in the traditional publishing industry and its effect on consumer habits and behaviors. If I were to plot Kindle (substituting for e-content medium devices) on the quadrant, I will plot it in Radical Innovation square.

But on the other hand it may not be entirely true. Consumer habits and behavior has already changed a lot as far as reading e-content on such devices is concerned. The usage of PC and other medium to consume other e-content is quite prevalent.

Kindle, after all, may not be entirely radical.

If we analyze the adoption of e-content reading medium technology based on Geoff Moore's Crossing the Chasm, I can, with some confidence, say that Kindle is certainly in the Visionary market. But certainly, it hasn't crossed the chasm into the Main Market. Battelle, who probably can be classified as Visionary or Early Adopter, uses it but is not entirely satisfied. That is the character of a Visionary.

For Kindle to cross the chasm and reach the main market would mean that e-content would have displaced the traditional print content - newspapers, books, magazines, research reports. For that to happen, the penetration of internet and computing devices (even PDA/large screen mobiles) has to increase. This will catalyze the change in consumer behavior. The book – Crossing the Chasm – has enough strategies already spelt out for Amazon to kick Kindle hard enough that it doesn't have to peep below in the biggest crack in the Technology Adoption Lifecycle. With our lives being taken over by technology, Kindle would be in the eye of the Tornado.

While, I will not attempt to chalk out the strategies for Kindle, it would be important to note that for success, Kindle will have to become more affordable, get standardized and find partners for growth. But most importantly, it has to get close the consumer’s current behavior of reading. From this perspective, Battelle's blog on Kindle is significant.

Out of the couple of very useful insights, I liked the one on show off value. Battelle has highlighted that we like to show-off what we read in public which is very true. Kindle right now doesn't offer that capability. But I am sure technology will advance, if it already hasn't. In future, we might be able showcase the cover of the book on the other side while reading the content on one side of Kindle. For example, if I am reading Da Vinci Code, the other side should/could show a movie trailer of the same movie. Opportunities are infinite. Am sure e-content reading medium will see incremental innovations in the future.

Having said so much about Kindle, it would be interesting to watch Kindle’s growth and how the PC/laptop and mobile phone companies react. For all you know, Kindle can easily morph into one these devices.

Amazon's 'forward' integration, watch out!

Oh wait, somebody is already moving in the direction – Apple.

Apple Overtakes Nokia

Apple overtakes Nokia. Ok, Apple hasn't really overtaken Nokia in terms of units sold. But I guess that was never Apple’s intention.

By now, Apple's success has been well recorded and written about by media, marketing gurus/analysts, bloggers and authors.

So, I may not have anything new to say. But am recording my thoughts anyway.

When Apple announced the launch of iPhone, one of my colleagues wondered if the company would ever succeed and be able to beat the existing players. Mobile phone market is extremely crowded. We could very well say that mobile technology is definitely in the Tornado phase. There are Gorillas, Chimps and Monkeys. Oh, wait a minute. Mobile industry is actually commoditized market, meaning the switching costs are lower. So, we have King (Nokia), Prince(s) (Sony Ericsson, LG, Samsung...) and Serf(s) (anybody other than those previously mentioned).

It was a valid question. Apple, which has roots in computing, could be classified as Chimp in that industry. A specialist who could never win the battle against the IBM clones. But if there was one advantage that Apple had was its brand image. Apple was supposed to be cool. It was supposed to be a favorite brand of the famous. It was always aspirational. But because it defied the rules prescribed in Geoffrey Moore's Crossing the Chasm, it became a niche Chimp, trying hard to knock the pins in the alley.

But things were taking a different shape in the technology and consumer behavior. With the rapid innovations in the mobile handset and telecom industry, mobile phones were fast emerging, if not replacing PCs, as the mode for communication, computing and entertainment. Probably, it is the first true Convergence device. Today, there are more mobile-phones vis-à-vis the PCs and laptops.

Apple would have diminished and been wiped out if it had continued to stay in the PC industry. Despite bringing in newer technologies and being aspirational, lack of partners would have killed any chances of gaining dominance. And as it is said and shown in Pirates of Silicon Valley, Bill Gates and his Microsoft would have done a Fast Second.

I guess it was but natural for Apple to move into this space.

Oh btw, I very recently watched Pirates of the Silicon Valley. Do watch it, if you like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or the PC industry.

Then something happened after the mercurial Jobs was back at the helm of affairs at Apple. He changed the fortunes for the company and waged a battle that has become a legend. And his weapon in this war – Apple’s brand equity.

This brand image not only bailed it out but also catapulted Apple to a leader in the new areas. Like a phoenix, it rose. While, everything that Jobs touched turned gold.

But we cannot say that brand image was the only reason for Apple to succeed. Philips is the best example which despite being associated with electronics industry could not cut ice in the handset industry, but it is not the only one example.

I think Apple made a strategic (conscious or unconscious) decision of first releasing iPod. Or maybe iPod happened and it was extended to iPhone.

Or I could say iPod set first the rules of the game and received an overwhelming response to its initiative to transition from desk and laps to the palm. While, the software and the iTunes did its magic, it was the show value of iPod which won the hearts and thus the desire amongst targeted users. As Naru would say the value is captured by what is visible and iPod, a sleek device, did a fantastic job. Apple with a slew of variants from Nano to Shuffle not only demonstrated dominance but also expanded market share.

Until Apple’s iPod arrived, the ubiquitous MP3 songs were heard mostly on computer. And, maybe on mobile phones. iPod revolutionized listening to music, the same way as Sony’s Walkman did, ages ago. Ah yes, Sony took the cue around the same time and launched Walkman series of mobile phones which also became popular. Later, the same series was rechristened W Series.

iPod had its own challenges. Microsoft launched Zune but failed miserably. Poor Microsoft, it has become so big and has to fight battles on so very many fronts.

Of course, other formidable challengers were Mobile handset companies themselves. Almost all built strong music features within them. Then, of course, other electronic players like Transcend, Creative, Samsung, Sony, and Philips…who brought their own music players. And not to forget, the unorganized/unbranded products, which were shells sold for peanuts.

There is a rule in technology marketing which says that the market leader has to continuously challenge itself. Which Apple did, pretty well.

Finally, an Apple product which retained its desirability quotient but transitioned Apple from a niche PC maker to a mass-market premium music player.



And it was this success and acceptability, which laid the foundation for the launch of iPhone. Now who could have imagined that Apple’s reincarnation? The biggest achievement for iPod was that it made Apple’s software be used by a much larger audience, something which weighed heavily against it in the PC market. What is important, it became the leader and rewrote the rules.

Persistence pays! Investing in brand repays more!