Mobile Opportunity - News And Views from Google MO

Today Adobe announced a series of changes to its emerging web applications platform. The changes include:

–The next version of the mobile Flash runtime will be free of license fees. Adobe also confirmed that the mobile version of the Air runtime will be free.

–Adobe changed its licensing terms and released additional technical information that will make it easier for companies to create their own Flash-compatible products.

–The company announced a new consortium called Open Screen supporting the more open versions of Flash and Air. Members of the new group include the five leading handset companies, three mobile operators (including NTT DoCoMo and Verizon), technology vendors (including Intel, Cisco, and Qualcomm), and content companies (BBC, MTV, and NBC Universal). Google, Apple, and Microsoft are not members. It’s not clear to me what the consortium members have actually agreed to do. My guess is it’s mostly a political group.

Adobe said that the idea behind the announcements is to create a single consistent platform that lets developers create an application or piece of content once and run it across various types of devices and operating systems. That idea is very appealing to developers and content companies today. It was equally appealing two years ago, when then-CEO of Adobe Bruce Chizen made the exact same promise (link):

If we execute appropriately we will be the engagement platform, or the layer, on top of anything that has an LCD display, any computing device — everything from a refrigerator to an automobile to a video game to a computer to a mobile phone.

If Adobe had made the Open Screen announcement two years ago, I think it could have caught Microsoft completely flat-footed, and Adobe might have been in a very powerful position by now. But by waiting two years, Adobe gave Microsoft advance warning and plenty of runway room to react — so much so that ArsTechnica today called Adobe’s announcement a reaction to Microsoft Silverlight (link).

Also, the most important changes appear to apply to the next version of mobile Flash and the upcoming mobile version of Air — meaning this was in part a vaporware announcement. Even when the new runtime software ships, it will take a long time to get it integrated into mobile phones. So once again, Microsoft has a long runway to maneuver on.

Still, the changes Adobe made are very useful. There’s no way Flash could have become ubiquitous in the mobile world while Adobe was still charging fees for it. The changes to the Flash license terms remove one of the biggest objections I’ve seen to Flash from open source advocates (link). The Flash community seems excited (link, link). And the list of supporters is impressive. Looking through the obligatory quotes attached to the Adobe release, two things stand out:

–Adobe got direct mentions of Air from ARM, Intel, SonyEricsson, Verizon, and Nokia (although Nokia promised only to explore Air, while it’s on the record promising to bundle Silverlight mobile).

–The inclusion of NBC Universal in the announcement will have Adobe people chuckling because Microsoft signed up NBC to stream the Olympics online using Silverlight. So NBC is warning Microsoft not to take it for granted, and Adobe gets to stick its tongue out.

What does it all mean?

Nothing much in the short term. As I mentioned earlier, this is mostly a vaporware announcement (other than the license changes). Some people are speculating that this will put pressure on Apple to make Flash available on the iPhone (link). That’s possible, if Apple’s real concern was that they didn’t like Flash Lite. Now they can port full Flash, or someone else can do it. But if Apple is in reality unwilling to let anyone else’s platform run on the iPhone then we’ll see other objections to Flash emerge.

The marketing competition to control the future of web apps is continuing to heat up. Microsoft is trying to take the whole thing proprietary by creating a comprehensive architecture, Adobe is trying to drive its own platform, Sun is trying to re-energize Java, Google is making its own moves, and so on (link). Plus, of course, most web app developers today are happy with what they’re using now and have little interest in switching to any of the new architectures (check out the dandy commentary by Joel Spolsky here).

It’s an enormously complex situation, and it’s going to take months, if not years, before we can start to see who’s winning and who is losing. Rubicon is working on a white paper that will try to clarify the situation a bit. I’ll let you know when it’s published.

In the meantime, enjoy the marketing fireworks. The intense competition is forcing companies to innovate faster and open up their products, as Adobe did today. I think that process is good for just about everyone in the industry.

Microsoft announced last week that it’s discontinuing its Spot data watch program.

The trouble with predicting the future is that it’s always easy to do in retrospect. Looking back, it’s obvious that Microsoft’s Spot products were a dumb idea. The concept was that Microsoft would send small bits of wireless data — weather forecasts, stock prices, etc — to specially-equipped watches and other small devices like refrigerator magnets, which would display the information. On the face of that, it sounds kind of appealing. There are definitely people who want information like that when they’re on the go, and Microsoft had a clever plan to use some unused FM radio bandwidth to deliver the information to the devices. You’d use your PC to pick which data feeds you wanted, and Microsoft would take care of blasting it onto your watch or other device.

The problem, of course, is mobile phones. Five years ago, when Spot was announced, the handset vendors and operators were already getting hot on delivering small bits of data to mobile phones. The market for Spot, rather than being everyone who wanted data on the go, turned out to be everyone who wanted data on the go who didn’t carry a mobile phone.

In other words, almost no one.

Like I said, it’s easy to point out that problem in retrospect. But Spot was probably in development for a couple of years before it was announced, meaning it was probably started in about 2001 — before the real rise of wireless data in the US. I think someone who was paying close attention to the mobile market could have predicted Spot’s troubles. But it was much less obvious then than it is now.

Once you as a manager put people on a project and spent some money on it, it’s very easy to talk yourself into ignoring emerging signs that the product might fail. You want the thing to succeed, so you have an incentive to rationalize away any concerns. Besides, business history is full of stories about products that succeeded despite adversity and critics. How can you tell the difference between a “normal” pothole in the road, and an impassable rift?

Lessons from Spot’s demise

In the early 1990s, a number of companies developed specialized wireless modems and private wireless services for delivering data to personal computers. Internet connectivity at the time meant slow dial-up connections for most people, which could not be left active at all times. The idea of blasting data to PCs in real time seemed very attractive, and indeed the products sold well for a few years — until Internet connections became faster and didn’t require dialing out on a phone. Spot ran into the same basic process in the mobile space.

So one lesson is that when you’re potentially competing with other sorts of networks is to look very carefully at where they’ll be in three or four years.

How to manage convergence. It’s very hard to predict how “convergence” will affect a product category. Fifteen years ago many people thought it was obvious that printers would soon be built into every PC, but it never happened. Convergence seems to happen only when there is absolutely no downside to it. So you can combine a printer and scanner — or a mobile phone and a Spot watch — because there is no loss of functionality in the resulting product. But put a printer in a PC and you have to sacrifice too many things (or the PC gets too darned big).

Because a mobile phone has a larger screen than a watch, it’s actually a better data device than a watch. That should have alerted Microsoft to the danger.

Solve real problems. I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s worth repeating: Products have a much better chance of succeeding when they solve major problems for customers. Spot was cool and convenient, not life-changing. That made it much easier to absorb into some other product.

Microsoft often gets criticized by people in the tech industry for failing to innovate. According to this perspective, all Microsoft does is copy things that others have already proven. But initiatives like Spot are an exception to that rule. I wish Microsoft had chosen its battle a bit more carefully, but I respect that fact that it tried. I wish it would take more chances like this, rather than just focusing on ways to imitate the iPod and copy Google’s advertising business.

Some other commentary on Spot:
An early discussion of the technology, from InfoWorld (link)
Engadget’s article (link)
Watches vs. mobile phones (link)
Enthusiastic review in 2004 of the Tissot $750(!) Spot watch (link)
An obituary in 2006 for the discontinued Tissot Spot watch (link)

=============

By the way, I apologize for being away from the blog for so long. Family and work issues have to be my top priority, and the blog is in line after that.

I have time tonight for only a quick note on Apple’s iPhone software developer kit announcement. Overall, it is deeply impressive how many things Apple got right. We still need to see more details on terms and conditions, and a lot will depend on Apple’s execution, but here are the problems they appear to have solved:

–Mobile applications are hard for users to find and install, so Apple is building the applications store into every device. Apps are installed automatically when you buy them, and you can also be notified of upgrades when they’re available.

–Third party applications stores take far too much of a developer’s revenue — 60% or more. So the Apple store takes 30%. That’s a bit high (20% would be better), but everyone else has been so greedy that Apple looks like a charity.

–Getting applications certified for use on mobiles is expensive and time-consuming, so Apple has streamlined the process dramatically. Developers pay $99 a year, and apparently get automatic certification of all their apps. We need to learn more about how the app approval process will work, but if it’s not burdensome this service alone justifies Apple’s 30% cut of revenue. Apple takes responsibility for ensuring that iPhones remain secure and do not abuse the network, something that no one else has been willing to do.

–Developers want to get access to the features of the phone, so Apple has exposed a very rich API set including access to the accelerometer and other special features of the iPhone. This is not a sandbox; it looks like it’s access to pretty much the whole OS.

–And oh by the way, Kleiner Perkins is creating a $100 venture million fund for iPhone developers. Makes Google’s $10m contest for Android developers look like a popgun.

It has been obvious for at least six years that all of these changes were needed in the mobile market, but until now no one in the US and Europe has had the courage / political muscle / intelligence to carry them all out. The other mobile platforms now look pretty pathetic by comparison — not so much because their technologies are bad, but because their business infrastructure is so primitive.

At the announcement today, John Doerr called this Apple’s third platform, which has a very specific meaning in Silicon Valley. It means they’re planning to drive rapid growth in apps, which will make the iPhone more attractive to customers, which will in turn attract more developers, bringing in even more users, and so on in a virtuous circle.

I don’t know how far Apple can drive that, just because their sales are so small compared to the total number of phones out there. I still think it’s likely that web apps will eventually displace most native mobile apps, because the addressable market will be so much larger. But eventually can take a long time, and if anyone can buck the trend it’ll be Apple. They have created by far the best overall proposition for mobile developers on any platform in the US or Europe, and I hope they’ll do very well for a long time.

Apple is challenging the rest of the mobile industry to compete on its terms. It will be very interesting to see how the other mobile vendors react, Nokia and Microsoft in particular. Nokia seems to be focused on a strategic positioning activity around seeing who can collect the most runtimes, while Apple is solving real developer and user problems. It’s a striking contrast.

The rest of the industry is still trying to figure out how to respond to the system design of the iPhone, and now they need to also figure out how to run an ecosystem as well. Right now Apple is changing the terms of the competition faster than the other guys can react, which is exactly the right way to beat a group of larger competitors.

There’s so much hype in the mobile industry that I’m always reluctant to use a word like “shocking,” but nothing else fits Nokia’s announcement today that it will support Microsoft Silverlight.

If you missed the press release (link), Nokia said that it’s going to make Microsoft Silverlight available for all of its mobile platforms — Series 40 (the low-end phone OS), S60 (the high-end OS), and its Maemo Internet tablet. (It’s not clear if Silverlight will be bundled or just offered as a download.) Silverlight is a web app graphics and interface layer, intended to displace Adobe Flash.

The announcement was shocking for several reasons:

–Up until now, Nokia and Adobe had worked together closely. Nokia is one of the few companies paying to bundle Flash on its phones, and Nokia had featured Adobe prominently at some of its developer events in Silicon Valley. So the announcement I was expecting was that Nokia would bundle Air, the next evolution of Flash, rather than its competitor.

–Nokia has generally treated Microsoft as the spawn of the devil. The whole Symbian OS consortium was designed primarily as a way to prevent Microsoft from getting a controlling role in mobile software. Now Nokia gives Microsoft’s software layer a huge boost?

–Although Microsoft had hinted vaguely about taking Silverlight mobile, it had given no definite plans at all. So this is a huge step forward for Silverlight.

–Just a few weeks ago, Nokia bought TrollTech and announced that its software was going to unify development across Series 40 and S60. Now Nokia endorses Silverlight, which will also run across Series 40 and S60. Which one are developers supposed to focus on?

What in the world is going on?

I don’t know. Nobody from Nokia has explained it to me, so I have to read between the lines. Nokia says in the press release: “Nokia aims to support market leading and content rich internet application environments and to embrace and encourage open innovation. By working with Microsoft, we are creating terrific opportunities and additional choices for the development community.” Okay, so I guess what they’re saying is that they want to support every platform and development option out there. Presumably the benefit to them is that they can claim their phones support more software than anyone else.

I doubt that’s the only motivation, though. By supporting numerous platforms, Nokia reduces the possibility that any one of them can dominate the market and push around Nokia. It also lets Nokia play the sides off against one another. I’m sure the threat of embracing Air made Microsoft give Nokia a very good deal on Silverlight, and no doubt Nokia will now use its Microsoft relationship to get business concessions from Adobe (assuming that Nokia still plans to work with Adobe at all; that’s not entirely clear).

Anyway, I can sort of see how this all works for Nokia strategically, although it feels like Nokia is trying too hard to be clever. I’m not as clear on the benefits of all this for mobile developers and users. As was covered in last week’s post on mobile apps (link), many developers view the proliferation of platforms as a problem, not a benefit. Microsoft itself said in the Nokia press release:

“We want to make sure developers and designers don’t have to constantly recreate the wheel and build different versions of applications and services for multiple operating systems, browsers and platforms.”

That’s a pretty danged funny quote coming from a company that now offers at least four mobile platforms (two versions of Windows Mobile, Silverlight, Tablet PC, and does .Net CF count as a fifth?), in a press release from a company that apparently wants to support every platform available. If you really think platform confusion is a problem, guys, look in a mirror.

For users, the benefit of all this deal-making is unclear. We’re stumbling into a world where you’ll need to know details of which platforms are loaded on a particular phone in order to know which apps it can run. I can’t think of a better way to discourage use of mobile applications.

Could Yahoo be fixed and thrive as an independent company? I think it could, but now we’ll probably never know, because Microsoft wants to buy it. There are reports that private equity firms, and possibly News Corp, also want to bid (link). Even Google has supposedly offered to help (link). But by declaring its desire for Yahoo, Microsoft has basically acknowledged that its own Internet business is failing. Now that Microsoft has said that in public, it has no choice but to outbid everyone else.

Which is a shame, because I think the combined companies are likely to fail. To explain why, I have to talk about the right and wrong ways to compete with an industry leader…

How to fight a leader

In my opinion, the best way to fight a dominant company at the top of their game is not to go head to head with them. You don’t launch a competing line of mainframes against IBM in the 1960s, and you don’t launch a consumer operating system against Microsoft in the mid-1990s. What you want to do is challenge them in a business they don’t understand, or better yet an area where their own strengths make them weak. That’s what Google did — while Microsoft was focused on beating Netscape, AOL and the other first-generation Internet companies, Google quietly established a franchise in search advertising. It’s now using this secure base to subsidize free online applications (and a mobile operating system) that compete with Microsoft.

Although Google’s direct impact on Microsoft’s applications business to date has been miniscule, Google’s tactics will eventually present Microsoft with a Catch-22 situation: If it tries to hold the line on prices, its customers will gradually migrate away. If it matches Google on price, it destroys its own revenues.

Microsoft’s response has been to try to get a piece of Google’s advertising revenue. First it tried to build its own search and advertising business. Now that’s failing, so it wants to buy Yahoo’s to get critical mass.

The problem is that even with Yahoo, Microsoft will still be far behind Google in search advertising. Google has a huge lead, and is willing and able to spend lavishly to defend it if it has to. I think what Microsoft is doing is equivalent to leading an infantry charge uphill against an infinite number of machine guns.

If Microsoft really wants to spend $45 billion, I think it would be far better served by investing it to attack someplace where Google is weak.

Google’s weaknesses

A dominant company’s strengths are also usually its weaknesses. (For example, IBM was so deeply embedded in corporate big iron that it couldn’t understand the PC business. Microsoft was so caught up in monetizing a computer platform that it couldn’t picture someone giving away the whole thing.) Google’s weakness is its beautifully managed and consistent corporate culture. Google hires only the best and brightest software engineers. It hires them young, so they can be molded, and it brags about screening them all for “Googliness.” That consistent culture means it acts far more predictably than many technology companies, and it has very consistent blind spots.

One of Google’s blind spots it that it can’t tell the difference between usability and utility. Usability is the process of making software easy to learn without a manual or extensive training. Google is extremely good at designing for usability. Its interfaces are clear, uncluttered, and generally self-explanatory. Utility is the ability of a product to solve a major problem for a user. That requires the designer to get inside the head of the target customer, understanding not only his or her rational needs but also the emotional landscape. Google is terrible at designing for utility. It tends to attack problems that engineers care about, rather than normal people; and it often produces elegant technologies that don’t engage people emotionally and fail to deliver the full solution they need. (If you want a great example of the difference between usability and utility, compare the old Google Video to YouTube. Google Video was cleaner and easier to use, but it was launched without sufficient content, and was about as emotionally engaging as a slab of concrete.)

One of the best ways to compete with Google, then, is to focus on utility — to create online products and services that solve real problems for customers, and address both emotional and rational needs. That’s what Amazon is doing with Amazon Web Services (although in this case the customers are developers rather than consumers.)

There are many, many more opportunities to create high-utility Internet applications. What you need is a critical mass of bright engineers, a product management culture that understands how to design for utility, and senior management that focuses the company on its best opportunities. Designing for utility takes more resources than just tossing a product out there, so management must restrict the number of projects the company undertakes.

Yahoo has plenty of bright engineers, and I think it understands utility better than Google. Ironically, Yahoo’s attempt to make itself into a media company probably helped here, because it forced the company to learn about engaging people emotionally.

What Yahoo has lacked, in my opinion, is the awareness that it’s actually a products company, not a media company; and the management discipline to focus on a small number of initiatives.

Will a buyout by Microsoft fix those problems? I don’t think so. Microsoft itself isn’t great at designing for utility. Mostly, it focuses on copying and adapting things that have been developed by others. One of the most depressing documents I’ve seen on the Web recently was the alleged plan for Windows Mobile 7 (link). Assuming that the plan is genuine, it shows that rather than trying to do something new in mobiles, Microsoft is slavishly trying to copy and “improve” on the interface of the iPhone (so, for example, rather than just using finger touches you can also shake the phone to make it do things). This comes after Microsoft spent the last couple of years trying to copy RIM, and before that Palm.

Even the bid for Yahoo is driven by Microsoft’s desperate desire to copy and co-opt another company’s business model. That’s exactly what Yahoo doesn’t need. Rather than focused management that can pick out the most disruptive embers in Yahoo’s portfolio and fan them into bonfires, Yahoo is likely to get layers of well-meaning ROI analysis, a distracting flood of resources, political integration hassles, cultural conflicts, and a mandate to “concentrate on the core.”

The process will probably strangle Yahoo and distract Microsoft. I really hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s a very good chance that the merger will be the beginning of the end for both companies.