Entries tagged as ‘apple’
I am going to be a lazy blogger today and cross-post a forum discussion topic that I posted in the Competitive Intelligence community on Ning that explores the concept of Apple’s strategic secrecy. My hypothesis is that Apple and other companies earn the privilege to be strategically secret (note: not completely opaque) by delivering customer value and excellent products or services. Some executives may begin to look at Apple’s secrecy and conclude post hoc ergo proctor hoc that strategic secrecy alone will bring them success. On the contrary, I argue, secrecy without excellence is a sign of either corporate egotism or incompetence.
Feel free to comment here or head over to the Ning discussion to share your thoughts.
I always look forward to Ken Sawka and company’s “Looking Out” newsletter in my e-mail in-box. The articles are usually very challenging and expand my own understanding of the relevance of curren business and political happenings to competitive intelligence. In this morning’s newsletter Ken poses a question about one of my favorite companies, Apple. Speaking of Apple’s track record for secrecy when the cultural trend is pulling in the direction of openness and transparency: Is Apple’s obsession with secrecy good business?
This article resonates with me because very recently I finished reading the Jeff Jarvis book What Would Google Do. This book touches on themes of openness and transparency and lays out a set of rules for how to be Googley and succeed in our modern business environment that favors “ecosystems” and “platforms” over stand-alone companies. A great video summary of the book is at readitfor.me.
In WWGD Jarvis puts Apple forward as the unGoogle and asks how it is Apple can break all of the rules of being a modern technology company and still be as successful as they are. It is clear that Apple are playing a clever game of chess about when to be transparent and when to be completely opaque. A few examples of Apple’s openness: adoption of the USB port for peripheral connectivity, support for the MP3 file format on the iPod (Sony chose to support only proprietary music formats and effectively ceded the portable music market they had owned for nearly two decades) and what I consider to be deliberate “mistakes” in updating the code of Apple web pages to pique interest in pending product releases.
Jarvis makes the case that Apple get away with this because their products and services are truly excellent. Early this week Jarvis posted an entry to his blog that named The Economist as the Apple of the news media industry. The Economist is able to break almost all of the rules of modern news business (charging for on-line content, no writer bylines) and is much better positioned than most other news media properties to innovate into the new age that is clearly upon us. Apple and The Economist can be rule breakers because, Jarvis posits, the products they deliver are so clearly excellent and in-line with what customers really want.
Part of the key to effective strategic secrecy and overall success in the marketplace is excellence in the eyes of your customers. While this seems self-evident, how many companies and governments have we seen that don’t deliver quality products or services yet remain opaque? How do we regard their secrecy? I tend to regard it as a sign of poor processes and a clear misunderstanding or disregard for the needs of their customers or constituents, indications of either laziness or self-interest.
Many executives, I am afraid, will take the wrong lesson away from Apple’s strategic secrecy and put the cart before the horse. “Now we’re going to be cagey about our widgets and then the cash will just come rolling in!” The freedom to be opaque must be earned.
As always, I am interested in the thoughts of the community here assembled. How do you perceive strategic secrecy and excellence as competitive differentiators? What criteria do you believe (if any) are required before a company gets to break the rules in its industry? What are other companies that are delivering excellence or applying strategic secrecy? Can you have the latter without the former?
Categories: CI · strategy
Tagged: apple, strategy, transparency
In the interest of a Cavuto-bashing hat trick, I had to comment on this little tidbit about Fox News altering the transcript of commentary that was aired on the network in which Neil Cavuto attempted to take Apple to task for disappointing iPhone sales. In the process of his commentary, Cavuto made several mis-statements. the Fox News web site says of the corrected transcript “This is the correct copy that was read on air.” The corrected transcript is not what I have heard was actually said on the air, and it STILL contains incorrect information.
From Daring Fireball:
- Where he was previously quoted as saying:
Lo and behold, we’re told 146,000 iPhones were activated in the day
and a half between the phone’s launch and the most recent quarter’s end.
He is now quoted as saying:
Lo and behold, we’re told 270,000 iPhones were sold
in the day and a half between the phone’s launch and the most recent
quarter’s end – trouble is only about 146,000 were actually activated.
The transcript still claims Apple had projected “half a million”
opening weekend sales (they didn’t), and still uses the adjective
“hotsy-totsy”.
I will admit upfront that I did not see the initial commentary made by Mr. Cavuto. I also have not been able to find a video of the commentary on-line. I’m taking Daring Fireball and the commentators of MacBreak Weekly at their word, and I have little reason not to do so. Cavuto initially ignored the fact that Apple actually sold 270,000 iPhones in the first few days of sales. Considering the issues many early adopters had activating their phones in those first days, this is not an unusual disparity between number of phones sold and the number activated. Also, no doubt many people bought multiple phones as gifts, to sell on eBay, etc. It’s important to keep in mind that there were only 30 hours of the second quarter in which the iPhone was actually available for sale.
The transcript still includes a claim that Apple had projected the sale of 500,000 iPhones in the first weekend of sales. This is utterly and totally false. Neither Apple nor AT&T, to the very best of my knowledge, projected any sales volumes before the phone was launched. The closest data to a unit sales projection I had seen for the iPhone in the weeks leading up to the launch was that each AT&T-owned retail outlet would have a total of 20 iPhones available for sale, and that no numbers were available on iPhones available at each Apple store. I can speak from my own experience of almost buying an iPhone at an AT&T store that the location at Potomac Yard in Alexandria, VA had way more than 20 iPhones for sale. If anything Apple and AT&T seemed to be setting expectations of iPhone shortages in the early days of the launch. So, wrong again, Mr. Cavuto.
Categories: Technology
Tagged: apple, cavuto, fox news, iphone
I can’t say that I’m surprised to have come accross this Reuters article indicating that Universal Music Group are indeed openly considering demanding a kickback from Apple for iPod sales.
Universal Music Group Chief Executive Doug Morris said on Tuesday he may try to fashion an iPod royalty fee with Apple Computer Inc. in the next round of negotiations in early 2007.
“It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don’t see why we wouldn’t do that… but maybe not in the same way,” he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft’s Zune.
It seems that one part of Microsoft’s strategic game play with the Zune is coming to fruition. It is going to be very interesting to see how Apple will respond.
If my hypothesis about Microsoft’s deliberate “mistakes” in their Zune strategy have the desired effect on Apple we will see significant growth in consumer awareness and concern about DRM (particularly among non-tech geeks) and increased pressure from record companies for variable pricing of songs in the iTunes store.
Technorati Tags: Zune, Competitive Intelligence.
Categories: CI
Tagged: apple, digital media, ipod, universal music
19 September 2005 · 1 Comment
For once I’m going to stop writing about eBay and Skype to resurrect an old chestnut: the iTunes phone.
So, Apple and Motorola released this thing a few weeks agothe ROKR. Considering how I was on each rumor of this phone’s development for some time one might be surprised that I didn’t jump all over the actual launch of the phone. Well, I was so underwhelmed when the phone was finally launched that I really didn’t feel like there was much to say. Commentators from Engadget, This Week in Tech and everywhere else rightly trounced the phone.
The phone itself just doesnt have the sexy form factor one would expect from an Apple product. OK, so it’s technically a Moto product, but even Motorola can be expected to offer some sexy products after the RAZR. Maybe what I was expecting from a form perspective was a RAZR-ish phone that could interface with iTunes. What we got was far from that, so my money will stay in my wallet for now.
One couldnt help contrast the ROKR with the iPod Nano, which was launched on the same day. That is a nice little item, there.
The good news is that the iTunes functionality is likely to be an element of future Motorola phones. Maybe the next generation of the RAZR (the black one!!) will have iTunes capability.
I do, however, like the song in the Cingular commercial for the phone. The song is “Jukebox” by Bent Fabric. Nice little ditty.
Categories: Consumerism · Technology
Tagged: apple, motorola, rockr
Here is a great piece of Forbes about Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs), including some discussions about the possibility for Apple to become an MVNO themselves to bolster their iPod market dominance by offering music on mobiles. Overall this is a pretty good piece anticipating the positioning other potential MVNOs could pursue, such as a Wal-Mart MVNO targeting frugal and credit-challenged customers with cheap prepaid offerings.
Theres one little bit in here that still just bugs me about the objections wireless carriers seem to be having to Apple (and others) plans for music on mobiles. This comment is based on the fact that an Apple music phone is likely to support synchronization between a users music collection on a PC to the phone using a USB, Firewire or Bluetooth connection. Of this possibility a quoted analyst had this to say:
But Apple might have a problem getting the devices into consumers’ hands. Carriers will probably be loath to sell and support it, since they want to sell their own music downloads–not have customers upload tunes from home. “The carriers don’t like it,” says analyst Rob Enderle, head of The Enderle Group. “They want Apple to change the design so the phone has to sync through their networks, not with a PC.”
This insistence on the part of carriers that the music should come over their networks, and no doubt at high cost, is very annoying. Wireless carriers need to get over their bad selves. Its all fine and good to offer music over their networks as functionality to customers when customers are on the go but want audio content right away. The carriers’ wide area networks can provide some value add in the form of immediate gratification. However, theres no reason to cripple customers’ hardware like this and charge them a fortune for something they would be able to do relatively easy and with no additional expense or utility when they’re at their PCs. If Im at my PC, using a wide area network provides me no additional value over just using a cable or Bluetooth, so why would I be willing to pay a premium to have that content on my phone?
As a customer, I can tell you for certain I wouldnt buy this in a phone if downloading over the providers network were the only way to get audio content onto the phone. Id probably just stick with my trusty dedicated audio device (my iPod) which doesnt charge me a premium just to move my music on to it from my computer.
Categories: Technology
Tagged: apple, telecom, wireless
It’s been a very long week for me this past week, complete with not one but two late night concerts. It was Erasure at the 9:30 Club on Monday. The show was a big wave of nostalgia for those of us who grew up with the synth pop sound of Vince Clark and the vocals of Andy Bell. Tuesday night was my Chinese class, in which we had a quiz (I did alright) and then a farewell dinner for my friend Michael who was headed back to his job with USAID in Indonesia. Wednesday was a client support day followed by The Killers at Merriweather Post Pavilion. Since then and including today Ive been mired in preparing for a presentation I have next week and preparing for my Chinese final. All this prep work will be joined by a big development project due to a client next week. Fun, fun, fun!!
One big piece of news I wanted to touch base on from this past week is, of course, the news that Apple will transition to Intel CPUs. I, honestly, did not buy the rumors when I first read them. I was certain that what we would hear would be Apples use of Intel chips in a certain subset of products, but not that they would replace the CPUs for the whole line. Ill be honest that I was blown away.
To this day I still cannot tell whether or not this is a good thing for Apple or Macintosh loyalists such as myself. Clearly the OS will make the transition with flying colors, which is obviously a good thing. Walt Mossberg says as much in his column from this past week. The big questions seem to be whether or not speed improvements and developers will follow?
For my own part, I know that Im not going to buy a new machine until the transition has been made for the model I want to buy. I am looking for a new PowerBook in about a years time, which should probably coincide with the introduction of an Intel chip into that line of Macs. One good thing Im hopping to see is that Intel will enable faster PowerBooks. One thing Intel seems to have done a very good job in the past few years is with the power consumption, heat dissipation and speed of their chips designed specifically for laptops. Considering weve seen sales of laptops outpace desktops, I think the move to Intel might be overall a good one for Apple because it will enable them to offer faster laptops. The continued delay in introducing a G5 laptop has been a real frustration.
A good number of the people in the tech press are saying that this transition is no reason to hold off on buying a new Mac. Theyre probably right, but for the obsessed types like me this is plenty reason.
One very cool issue was brought up on the Make magazine podcast This was the idea that Intel-based Macs would enable people (with perhaps some tweaking) to install Windows on their Macs to create dual-boot machines. As much as I dislike Windows, there are a number of work applications that do not have Macintosh versions (or dont have versions I want to pay for out of my own pocket). This has some potential. I would throw Linux on there, too, and just be able to boot any operating system I want. It would be a tough marketing message for Apple to make, but they could potentially market their machines as being the universal computer.
I need to caveat this last point by reminding everyone that I actually did not believe the Intel rumor when it first came out. So maybe I’m just oblivious. I dont buy for a minute Robert Cringelys theory that Apple and Intel will merge in an effort to bring down Microsoft. That particularly column gave me a serious flashback to a Macworld article from the early 1990s insisting that Sony and Apple would merge.
Categories: Technology
Tagged: apple, intel, macintosh
There’s been a good amount written on the web about how Apple and Sirius are going to work to include Podcast feeds of some Sirius programming as Podcasts for incorporation into the iTunes Music Store and iTunes’ forthcoming ability to support podcasts. I won’t both to link to any of the specific articles, but here’s a somewhat related article from Forbes about why radio must change.
I’m glad to see the satellite radio companies doing those things they need to do to go beyond a hardware-based distribution message to a content-based distribution method. In hindsite my entry on how XM and Sirius needed to change seems almost kind of like a “duh” statement. The fact that it does says good things, I think, about their strategic management. How many times has the MPAA or RIAA flows right past a “duh” opportunity to legislate and litigate to maintain the status quo?
Categories: Technology
Tagged: apple, podcasting, satellite radio
Categories: Technology
Tagged: apple, iphone
There’s this bit on the Chicago Tribune today about how Motorola have delayed the launch of the iTunes phone because of objections from a wireless carrier (registration required, bless Bugmenot).
The gist of the Trib article is that the delay resulted when one of the wireless carriers objected to the inclusion of iTunes functionality on a wireless phone that would not include them in the revenue mix for sales. I have to admit that I’m somewhat taken aback by this, because I could only suspect most users would simply be transferring songs already purchased via their computers to the phone. If users are downloading the songs via wireless data networks, carriers should be satisfied and ga-ga with revenue from the downloading of those bits (data tariffs are pretty lucrative). In other words, the carrier is included in the mix on the basis of the cost of the download itself.
At Fierce Wireless there is speculation that wireless companies are focused on launching their own music services, and this is the basis of their reluctance to let Motorola fly with this phone. I can give this a degree of validity, because weve been seeing more and more wireless carriers looking to control and brand the entire wireless experience as they see fit.
The Trib rightly observes that this scenario (if indeed it is the result of carrier objections) speaks volumes about the balance of power between carriers and equipment manufacturers. Shadows of PalmOne’s decision to disable Bluetooth on the Treo 650 at the behest of Sprint, anyone? This balance of power, combined with the rise of lowest-cost manufacturers like LG spells some serious trouble for the premium brands in the mobile industry. As carriers take issue with new features and functionality, it could easily follow that the innovation that the likes of Moto, Nokia and Sony Ericsson have shown could come to matter less and less.
The competitive intelligence guy in me is hopping that the executives at these companies took the time to war game these potential scenarios and are ready with some means to respond. One idea that jumps to my mind is to push the notion of the unlocked phone harder here in the US just like its been in Europe. With number portability a reality now, phone manufacturers can really make a push on the notion of being able to take your phone with you wherever you go. An obvious obstacle that comes to mind is the diverse wireless standards in the US, such that a customer would not be able to take their phone from, say T-Mobile (who use GSM) to Verizon Wireless (who use CDMA). New chipsets, however, might alleviate this limitation.
Regardless, Motorolas lot reflects broader changes for wireless phone manufacturers. I hope they are prepared to respond, because I want my iTunes phone.
Categories: Consumerism · Technology
Tagged: apple, iphone, itunes
There’s a discussion on Slashdot about an article detailing Apple’s 10 greatest failures. The article itself is suffering mightily from the /. affect, so here’s a link to a mirror on MacCreate. This is a fun read and a walk down memory lane. Yes, I remember it well, where I was, when I saw my first MacTV….
Categories: Technology
Tagged: apple
