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.  

Death of SMS Messaging

One, two, three, four, five, six...

No, wait! This is not blog for kindergarten kids. I was just counting the number of messaging apps on my phone. 

1. The native messaging app that comes along in the phone 
2. WhatsApp 
3. Google Hangout (earlier Gtalk) 
4. Facebook Messenger 
5. Skpe 
6. WeChat (till sometime back) 

Previously, I also had Viber. Like WeChat I removed it. How many do you have? 

Couple of days back, BSNL, India's telecom behemoth, announced the winding up of probably the original SMS in India.   

The news made me wonder if SMS as a native app will also meet the same fate. The short life of Short Messaging Service? 

Do I need six apps for messaging? What differentiation does SMS anyway bring to the table? 

Cost did you say? Probably, there was a time when the number of free SMS used to be a differentiating factor while choosing a plan. For years now, I haven't kept track of SMS usage. 

Does it work cheaper then say an IP based Messenger such as WhatsApp? I seriously don't know. Actually, I don't care. 

In one of my previous jobs, my colleague and I had a discussion about the low cost PR agencies which spoilt the market for a large, high-fee charging national agencies. I told her that such low cost agencies are good for national agencies because without them the value that a national agency with its reach and good trained manpower is never realized by clients. Similarly, even if SMS is cheaper, I presume, users will prefer messaging tool that provides them greater user experience. 

I always had trouble sending an image though MMS, the superior cousin of SMS. But with WhatsApp, it is a breeze! 

It is also much more cooler to use the messaging apps then a plain vanilla SMS app. Yes, I know SMS Pro type apps spruce up the native app but then why bother? 

I can't think of any reason as to why I would want to use SMS. Internet on mobile is a reality and will certainly become ubiquitous. Other certainty is that every phone will be "smart" in some ways or other supporting such messaging apps.  

What happens to my alerts regarding bank, credit card or any other utilities? Tough one. Isn't there a way that that can be accommodated in CRM for customer contact? See, there's a business opportunity for some! 

Somehow I am not able to convince myself that SMS, in its current form, will last. Would it? 

Why Android Will Win?

Till about a couple of years back no one bothered about a mobile operating system. Mobiles were about talking and messaging. Then came camera, music players, gaming on phone. It was all going fine till the world slowly but surely started using phones not only for voice but also for data (Or should I say more data, messaging is also a form of data). And phones remained no more just phones, but transformed into smart phones. It may, in fact, be wrong to call them phones. They have become the device for communication, work and entertainment. But for now, let's call them smart phones.

Apple tasted blood through iPhone while still making great looking laptops/computers. Nokia was serving the masses. Blackberry was delivering emails to corporate executives. Microsoft was eager to repeat its desktop success through Windows Mobile. There were also iPAQs and Palm, guess they still do exist.  

Interestingly, the last two have been there for ages, but it's  Apple iPhone that brought freshness and zest. Google, while failing with Wave , created the buzz with Android. Of course, since then Blackberry wants boys. Nokia is desperately trying to lure people to Ovi. And, of course, Windows Mobile is fumbling. But the daggers are out! But, at this point, it looks like it's a straight fight between Apple and Google.

It was probably not an accident that Steve Jobs attended the Q3 FY 10 earnings call, as this report says. There are clear signs of war and while the market for such smart phones is still quite small, the players certainly are ascertaining themselves.

So, who could be the winner in the long run?

If I have to make a prediction, I would say Google is in the best position to be the winner or say garner larger market share.

And here is why I think so.

1. History repeats itself: Have you watched Pirates of the Silicon Valley? For those who have tracked the history of computers know the pioneering efforts of IBM in standardizing the architecture of PC. The standardization and ripping a PC led to the creation of opportunity for different players who together grew the market. As Mr. Geoff Moore would agree, Google isn't trying to dominate the entire value chain. It prefers to become the Microsoft of mobile industry by giving a platform and letting device players and app makers to contribute their bit.
2. It's all about App: Having conquered the PC market by ensuring that it was installed in all IBM and IBM clones, Microsoft ensured that it held the dominance over the applications built. And, of course, applications are the reasons we purchase computers, don't we! It's no different in the smartphone market. Every player has an application store. Apple as usual seems to have very high standards for app developers. That can go against it. Human beings have been rather lenient on not-perfect applications, it's the variety of choices that matters.
3. Open or Closed, does it matter: I am quite skeptical like Apple about Open in the mobile world as much as Microsoft is or was in the PC world. Linux still hasn't broken Windows' back. Google's claim for Android being open actually doesn't make sense. As long as users get the apps they want, it shouldn't matter. But then openness could also mean faster go-to-market and choice.  

One of the biggest challenge that companies face when the market reaches the tornado phase is to ensure delivery. To me, Android seems in the best position today. It is developing a larger ecosystem than anyone else.

But then I am assuming a lot of things:

• I am assuming that smart phone market will go through the same cycle as PCs. It may be entirely different. PC was lot about technology for a long time before it became mainstream and brand oriented. Mobile market is moving the other way around. 
• The life of a mobile phone is rather short. In my own experience, 3 years is a good time for a phone. Except for contacts, I don't remember taking anything else to a new phone. Hence, stickiness factor maybe far less for mobile phones. 
• Like I said in my earlier post on Apple, the company has never wanted to be the largest player in any market. It has always been at the forefront of bringing technology that empower users. It has also preferred to stay a chimp rather than a gorilla. Also, nothing to stop Apple from doing a Shuffle with iPhone.
• I have completely discounted the role played by Telecom Services Provider as distributors. Not sure why this mode of distribution still hasn't caught up in India. If things were to go in that direction, a lot might change. 

It certainly would be interesting to see if there would be a real convergence of the mobile instrument with PC based equipments. The iPads/Tabs seem to be a natural, but not sure if that will be so. But if it is, then a larger market share would mean dominance. But again, if we are also moving to cloud,  the platform may not be important.

We certainly have interesting times in the air!

But I am curious, why don't have any excitement in the mobile chips space?

Facebook eMail: Evolution or Revolution

It was in 1998 during my post-graduation that I opened my first email account with Hotmail.com. That was also the first time I had ever experienced Internet. My excitement soon turned into great depression.What was the point in having an email id when I didn't have anyone to mail to!

People who had an email id were all my classmates whom I met everyday. I was communicating with them daily. Even if I wanted to write an email what would I write?

Slowly, things changed. I found people whom I could mail. But the real use of email started only when I got into a job. Then, I opened a new account. Again it was a Hotmail id. Little later, I moved to Yahoo! Now, those days Yahoo! was very popular because one could also chat. Yahoo! Chat Room was a great place if you wanted to find a date. I tell you, they were a craze! 

Interestingly, now I had two ids each with Hotmail and Yahoo!.

See how beautifully the economic principles work. During the early 2000, there were far too many email service providers. And when there is too much of supply, the customer always has an advantage. There was this benevolent email service provider called - chequemail. No not check-mail, it's cheque-mail. Now, this service provider wanted to share the money made in advertising with its subscriber base. Wow! Yes, I did jump. Voila, I did receive a cheque for Rs. 50, once. Then? Then the service provider closed down, much to my disappointment. Good things don't last too long, pretty much like the romance in marriage!

Then, I changed to USA.Net. I liked it. But as luck would have it, that too closed. Actually, the free service closed. That was the indication of the dot com burst, maybe. Reluctantly, I reverted to Hotmail and Yahoo! Of course, I should mention that intermittently I also tried various other service providers, too. I can't figure out the rational but that's what it was. 

And then Gmail happened. Google as a brand had become very desirable. With a tactic of invite-only launch, Google further heightened the desire value. I remember begging for an invite from couple of gatekeepers. Actually, Gmail from usage and aesthetics perspective is nowhere close to the others. But then the charm and desire was high. In fact, Gmail didn't even have a chat software at the time of launch. Now, that is the brand pull.

Today, an email id is not only your key to mails and chat, it also gives you access to other services that service provider may have. One id with Google is good for you to access Blog, Orkut, Calendar, Reader, Finance...

Now, here comes Facebook with email service. Except for the fact that it talks of a concept of getting all communication that we do confluence at one point, I didn't understand much. It is proclaimed that it would change the way we communicate. I guess usage may change my opinion, but for now it looks hazy. But then when I was reading about Facebook's move, I somehow was reminded about Google Wave! Not sure why, but that is how it felt. While Wave itself failed, I do think if marketed and packaged well, Wave could be the next Official Communication tool. In fact, it could be the future of Social Networks!

One of the reasons why Wave probably failed was because it was duplicating what Gmail was already offering. Wave was chat and email mixed at the very core. It, in fact, could have been the true Gmail-killer. But then it was a separate offering requiring a separate id and log-in. It certainly was a pain using it. But can you imagine if your current Gmail behaved like Wave! I certainly would have loved it.

That leads me to important email behavior. We have and probably will continue to have two sets of email communications - personal and professional. I am already panicking. Most offices block Facebook, in which case I may find it more difficult to access personal mails. But that leads me to wonder whether convergence of email with social network is necessary? Conceptually, it feels as if it would make life easy. No need to log in into more than one window. But then, in the technology world there are two distinct factors to be considered:

1. Technologies that enable change
2. Consumers move or remain inert (Wave being a classic example of consumer inertia) 

Going by my own behavior, while I do use the messaging tool in Facebook, it is not my primary or for that matter preferred email service. But as Master Oogway in Kung Fu Panda says future is a mystery. Honestly, I don't think Ray Tomlinson would not have fathomed how email would grow and become an integral part of our lives. Then, who am I to risk a guess? But I do think Google had or still has a chance to revolutionize email while Facebook is evolutionizing Social Networks.

4 Must Read Books In Technology

When I shifted from a generalist PR agency to Twenty Twenty MEDIA, a specialist IT PR firm, I was unsure what to expect. After all, PR is PR. Whether it is IT or Automobile, does it matter I thought. But realized IT DOES MATTER ! :)

The one thing that I loved and dreaded was the need to do book summary as part of the Friday training program. Since 2000, when I finished MBA, I haven't had picked up a book. But now, R Narayanan (Naru), instilled the practice of reading books. It was like going back to school.

In the next few years, I managed to read some really nice books on the technology industry. Here are my recommendations on books that one should certainly read, if in the dynamic tech industry. 

Crossing the Chasm: Though my second recommendation is the one that I read first, this Geoff Moore's brilliant book is what I would call a foundation course. The book makes you understand why some technologies fail whereas other cross the chasm into the main market. The book revolves around Technology Adoption Life-cycle and explains how a technology moves though various markets which comprises of un-reference-able set of customers. It also enlists strategies that technology companies can make use of.

Selling the Wheel: If any book other than Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code that came closer to being racy is this masterpiece. Surprisingly, it is a wonderful fusion of fiction and technology market, though it may not be that obvious, thanks to the novel-type narration. No, it is not a sci-fi. The story is about a couple who invent the WHEEL and are at a loss as to how to take it to the market! I would recommend that one should read this soon after they have savored Crossing the Chasm. This book helps understand changes in consumers' requirements at different stage of technology penetration, how companies need to respond to those challenges and what sort of a sales person is required at each of these stages. I have always hoped someone will adapt it to make a play or movie.

Tipping Point: I was quite amazed when I started re-reading this interesting book by Malcolm Gladwell. I was connecting with the book much more than I did the first time. It has a wonderful model to create a successful communications model. While the Law of Few helps identify carriers, Stickiness Factor helps define the messages and the Power of Context provides insight on factors that influence the success. The book is packed with interesting case studies which is typical of Gladwell. Interestingly, this book mentions Geoff Moore and Crossing the Chasm. Delighted!

Fast Second: This book is meant for large organizations on how to deal with a potentially disruptive technology that can threaten their base. It addresses the question of whether large organization should create or colonize. For me the book is interesting for the model on different types innovation based on the change in consumers' behavior and its affects the established firm's competencies and complementary assets.

Now, I am sure there are many books that can help you cross the knowledge chasm, but these worked pretty good for me. Am sure, they would be helpful to you, too. If you have any technology book recommendations that make a great read, drop a comment.

Charger, Charger, Everywhere! Not A Phone To Charge!

Considering that the life of a mobile phone is about two years, the one thing that outlasts its purpose is the humble mobile phone charger. Most of the others, like the head phone, batteries, data cable...either meet their ends before or rather not kept as memorabilia. That distinction somehow goes, quite naturally, to the charger. It is one accessory that is the most essential for a mobile life. Yes, battery is. But battery is an 'integral' part of the handset, whereas the charger has high visibility in our daily lives.

Over the last couple of years, at home, we have manged to build a museum. While the defunct handsets themselves get tucked deep into some drawer, the chargers have managed to be on the 'surface'. They usually get bundled at one single place with the chargers currently in use. Now, when you have to retrieve one, you are faced with a situation reminiscence of the programs on sexual habits of snakes in Discovery and Animal Planet! Yes, you could also imagine noodles or spaghetti.

It could be also a behavior peculiar to myself. But then, it led me to wonder as to why can't there be standards in phone chargers! I am sure you would have gone through this experience at some point or another when your phone will be low on charge and you will go searching for a charger. But as life would have it, that particular day, no one would have the charger for your phone. Alas, it leads to mobile comatose.

I wonder if this would come under the purview of International Telecommunication Union? Or would Mobile Manufacturers Forum be responsible for such initiatives?

While, I will have to admit that am not technically qualified, but have enough grey matter to deduce that standardization is not an impossible mission. But why would there be different types of chargers in the first place? Manufacturers might claim that they use a different type battery hence a different type of charger. I doubt it. I strongly believe that in the technology world anything and everything can be standardized. Now, the mobile brands might just be doing this in the name of differentiation and customer lock-in. I am not sure if both make sense. 

But thankfully, looks like the world is already moving in that direction. Imagine a world where you do not have to worry about carrying a charger along when you travel because you will certainly find a pin, pretty much like you find a pen to fill those slips when visiting a bank. The Total Cost of Ownership of mobile phones will come down. And most importantly, the e-waste might reduce considerably.

Most importantly, I would not have to see different breeds of charges rolled up in compromising positions at home!

Latest TV Technologies: Plasma Vs. LED Vs. LCD

Ok, here is a quick guide to buying these latest technology TVs. This is based on limited interaction with different TV sales guys and watching the performance of TVs from a close angle.

1. Clarity: Plasma is the most natural. LCD sucks. LED is very bright.While the material in plasma only absorbs and reflects rays, LED, I believe, not only absorbs the rays and reflects, but also has its own reflection. This is why LED is very bright. This was explained to me by an engineer.

2. Viewing experience: Plasma is good from both long and short distances viewing. LED makes better for longer distances. A close comparison on plasma and LCD revealed that the latter has grains.

3. Life: This I cannot say with authority but was told that plasma have a longer life. LEDs have a relatively shorter life as the emission is more.

4. Energy consumption: LEDs are supposed to consume far less energy than plasma. But a newer plasma technology from Panasonic is supposed to do better.

Time for my own opinion. First of all, let me be honest in admitting that I ordered a Panasonic Plasma TV and I am still to see how it pans out over a longer period of time. I was told that plasma is outdated technology and LED is the latest. But when I spent time looking at the performance of plasma and LCD, I felt plasma wasn't that bad. Though it may not match the brightness of LED. Also, plasma seems to be a lot cheaper than LED. So, if you are fine with a very good quality image for a decent price plasma may be better for you. But if you want to show off the TV performance, for LED. I was certainly not impressed with LCD.

For more technology reading: Plasma, LED, LCD

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!

Piracy Is Good (Part Trois)

Now this topic doesn’t seem to be coming to an end. Chinmayi, a very popular singer, radio RJ and multi-faceted personality (whom I am not stalking on Twitter), and I had a tweetersation (Twitter Conversation) about the piracy affecting the film industry.

While, I have happily suggested that the movies should be released in various formats – theatre, CD/DVD, internet, DTH…- I seem to have made it look so simple.

It never is that simple, is it!

Before we look at the issues plaguing the industry, it might be worthwhile to look at the value chain. Broadly, on the basis of the players in the market and when they receive the compensation, the cinema industry can be divided into:

1. Pre-release beneficiaries: Actors, Directors, Technicians…
2. Post-release beneficiaries: Producer (Financier) and Distributors

Now, I wouldn’t claim that I am an expert. This is at best my logical thinking. Even if this classification is wrong, it is quite clear that the biggest investors in the whole game are Producer and Distributors.

I have heard that in the initial days, movie goers were given money to watch the productions! Of course, even today there are movies for which you hope the producers compensate.

Things have changed and have changed drastically. The intervention of technology in every aspect of film making has drastically changed the way cinema is made and served. Right from capturing and recording to editing and distribution, technology has had a telling effect.

But the basic rule of profit making has remained unchanged. The director, actors/artists and technicians have to whip up a fare that a producer finances, serve it to customers through the distribution channel (theaters). Producers and distributors being the biggest risk taker are likely to reap extraordinary profits, at least theoretically.

Picture perfect!

But as it would be, it was an ever changing picture. Not many may realize but JL Baird can be blamed for this change in fortune. Yes, the inventor of Television/Telly/TV. The importance of television is that it produced the first real viable display mechanism. The continuous innovations have ensured that the quality of sound and picture produced over the idiot box matches, if not surpasses, the experience of a theatre. There has been constant improvements in the software for TV, too, making things more difficult for movie industry. In fact, there are plethoras of delivery channels – tertiary, cable, DTH, internet…TV itself has emerged as an entertainer and far more inexpensive.

If this weaning was not enough, the arrival of VCRs and VCPs sounded the death bell for cinema theatre. The only respite being that the reproduction was a barrier. But things changed, yet again. Computing, Internet and digital reproduction now accessible to masses struck final nail on the coffin.

Theater industry is highly dependent on real estate. The success of a theatre depends on the location and patronage of customer. In its golden days, these theatre owners through monopoly made a killing from new releases. But today, the real estate dedicated for screens has become a liability. Many theatres that were popular, today, don’t exist. Theatre complexes have either become captives in malls or have reinvented themselves, as Satyam in Chennai, or transformed into small screens screening multiple movies to reduce their dependence on single hits. The box office has turned empty coffer! Unless theatre industry reinvents itself and realizes the reality of the new age, its fortunes are likely to sag like that of the fallen star.

In my opinion, the fortune for producers isn’t that bad. They, in fact, can gain from this paradigm shift. Earlier the distribution chain was the king because of the limited supply. Movie theaters are capital intensive; hence, the supply could not be built at will.



Today, the producers have multiple options. Monies can be made on rights for:

1. Theatre
2. DVD/VCD
3. Internet
4. DTH/Cable

At reduced risk and greater number of buyers, the producer can actually mint money. Of course, the consumers also get to make choices on how they would watch a movie.

While collective bargaining can put off the imminent death of theatres, it may never present an answer to the problem of piracy which is fast eroding the current rusted structure of the movie industry.

Till then, it is happy piracy watching. Sorry, privacy watching!

An Apple Search Engine?

An Apple Search Engine?: "
....driven by the need to kick Google off the iPhone? An interesting idea. Worth thinking about....

From a Businessweek article:

Some analysts believe the Apple-Google battle is likely to get much rougher in the months ahead. Ovum's Yarmis thinks Apple may soon decide to dump Google as the default search engine on its devices, primarily to cut Google off from mobile data that could be used to improve its advertising and Android technology. Jobs might cut a deal with—gasp!—Microsoft to make Bing Apple's engine of choice, or even launch its own search engine, Yarmis says. 'I fully expect [Apple] to do something in search,' he adds. 'If there's all these advertising dollars to be won, why would it want Google on its iPhones?'

"