When "something for everyone" may be too much

On the cover of the current issue of "TWICE" (This Week in Consumer Electronics,) there's an ad for Nikon's cameras with the tagline "There's a Nikon for Everyone." It got me thinking about something I noticed at the Sony and Panasonic booths at last week's NAB conference. These companies have so many different camcorders and cinema cameras that even the people selling them can't keep track of all of them. For example, when I was in the Sony booth, I couldn't find the 35mm cinema cameras (NEX-FS100, FS700, F3, etc.) I asked one of Sony's salespeople where they were, and she said that all of the company's cameras were on display in the huge circular "camera pit" at the center of the booth. I'd walked around the entire pit and hadn't seen the 35mm cameras, so I went around again but didn't find them. It turned out that the 35mm cameras were in a completely separate section of the booth.

There are so many products that they overlap each other in price and functionality. The same is also true for still cameras from Canon, Nikon, Sony and others, and smartphones from Samsung, HTC, LG, Motorola, Nokia, etc. Makers of notebook and desktop computers have the same problem--just look at the proliferation of models at HP, Dell and Acer. Manufacturers make so many models in order to avoid losing a sale, but they wind up confusing potential customers. Each of these products costs a significant amount of money to develop, manufacture and support. Resources that could be used to develop entirely new products are instead used to create minor product variations to fit into every conceivable price point.

Apple is a great example of a better approach to the problem. At any one time, Apple has a single line of smartphones, tablets, and notebook, all-in-one, mini and full-sized desktop computers, each of which is refreshed once a year. Apple continues to sell a single version of the previous year's tablet and smartphone (two years in the case of phones) at lower prices. Each computer line has four or five models, which vary by display size and processor. When a new computer line is launched, the previous line is discontinued. It covers all the price points, yet it's simple for consumers to understand and for Apple to sell. It also works well with Apple's strategy of making product announcements into newsworthy events.

Sony lost $6.4 billion last year; Panasonic lost $10.2 billion. They no longer have the money to invest in endless product proliferation--which might explain the relatively paltry number of new products shown by Panasonic at NAB. They, and companies like Canon, Nikon, Samsung, etc., would be well advised to focus on fewer, better products that are clearly differentiated from competitors and from each other.

Apple: Don Quixote de Cupertino?

Update, April 11, 2012: Bloomberg is reporting that the U.S. Justice Department filed suit this morning against Apple, Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster for eBook price-fixing; Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster settled with the Government.

Bloomberg reported that Apple, Penguin and Macmillan are unlikely to agree to a settlement with the U.S. Justice Department over eBook price-fixing accusations, and are preparing to go to court. The three other publishers in the case, Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster, are said to be very close to agreeing to a settlement with the Justice Department.

Regular readers of my blog know my opinion on the subject: There's very strong evidence, even if circumstantial at this point, that the publishers imposed agency terms on all of their resellers at almost exactly the same time, including the exact same commission rate, and that all of them threatened to stop supplying eBooks to any reseller who refused to agree. Apple's precise role in the scheme isn't clear, but it's known from Steve Jobs' own words that Apple proposed the scheme to the publishers and knew that it included the part about refusing to sell eBooks to any reseller (including Amazon) that didn't agree.

Apple may believe that it didn't coordinate the actions of the publishers (or that it's covered its tracks well enough that the Justice Department can't prove that it did coordinate their actions.) It may also not want to agree to a settlement for fear of its impact on the civil price-fixing case underway in New York. However, in my opinion, Apple is taking a huge risk by not settling the case before it goes to court.

As it looks now, Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster are close to a settlement. If they settle, they'll enter into what's called a consent decree, which doesn't require them to assume guilt for the charges. They'll be required to change their business practices, possibly pay a fine, and agree to court supervision for a limited period of time. The pain and reputational damage will be over quickly. For Apple, Penguin and Macmillan, however, their senior executives are in for months of depositions, they'll be required to provide many thousands of documents as part of the discovery process, and the court trials and appeals will likely take years to play out.

In addition, the Justice Department will be able to compel Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster to testify against the other three companies. They'll have immunity as a result of their settlement, and they'll have no reason to protect their competitors or Apple. This is a standard part of most price-fixing cases: One or more defendants cut early deals with the Justice Department and gain immunity, and then they provide evidence against the other players in the price-fixing scheme.

The worst possible outcome for Apple would be for it to lose in court, even if it eventually wins on appeal. All they have to do is look at Microsoft to witness the damage that could be done. That case was eventually settled with a consent decree, but Microsoft was under court supervision for ten years. The company could no longer pursue the aggressive tactics that it had used in the past to suppress competition. Most importantly, it became a convicted monopolist, which changed both the public's perception of the company and the stakes for any future litigation. (When Bill Gates eventually passes away, stories about his philanthropy will have to share time with the videos of his depositions.) The press was no longer afraid of retaliation by Microsoft's public relations department for running negative stories, and Microsoft lost control of its messages.

Apple is unafraid of litigation, as witness its myriad lawsuits against Android licensees. In Walter Isaacson's biography, Steve Jobs clearly saw Android as not only a theft of Apple's intellectual property by Google, but a personal betrayal by Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, who served on Apple's board of directors for years. Jobs swore that he would spend Apple's entire cash horde, if necessary, waging "thermonuclear war" on Google and Android.

Unfortunately for Apple, its cases against Samsung, HTC and Motorola have been far from the "slam-dunks" that Jobs thought they would be. Apple has estranged perhaps the most important component supplier for its mobile products, Samsung, and it's being forced to bring alternative vendors up to its quality and deliverability standards. For example, Apple had planned to launch the new iPad with three LCD vendors, LG, Samsung and Sharp, but only Samsung was able to meet Apple's quality requirements and ship in the necessary quantities in time for the launch. In addition, some of Apple's own patents are being challenged and could be invalidated.

Apple, like Don Quixote in Cervantes' novel, enjoys its battles. Unlike Quixote, however, Apple's opponents fight back, and are likely to hurt Apple much more than Apple hurts them.

HP's WebOS opportunity

Update, August 18, 2011: HP just announced that it is discontinuing all its webOS-based hardware devices, including the TouchPad tablet and smartphones. According the The Wall Street Journal, it will hold on to the webOS operating system and will pursue licensing it to other companies.

Google's decision to acquire Motorola Mobility has thrown the Android ecosystem into chaos: Will Google really treat Motorola no differently than any other Android licensee, or will it give Motorola priority for new features and new versions of Android? Will Google be able to stay focused on releasing new versions of Android that are competitive with iOS while dealing with the Motorola acquisition?

Google's acquisition opens the door for Microsoft to become an alternative operating system vendor for some of Android's licensees, but Microsoft's partnership with Nokia has spawned its own concerns: Nokia clearly has "favored nation" status in the Windows Phone ecosystem. As a result, Microsoft may be less able to capitalize on Google's decision than it would first appear.

The company that might have the best opportunity to capitalize on Google's acquisition is HP, if it can execute quickly and decisively (always a big if when talking about HP). WebOS is an excellent operating system, but it's been crippled by HP's indecision in launching new products, and its inability to run an effective developer program. AllThingsD reported yesterday that Best Buy has taken delivery of 270,000 HP TouchPads but has only sold 25,000 of them. Best Buy is reportedly demanding that HP take back its inventory of tablets. Now, HP is launching a new line of webOS-based smartphones in Europe, but the company's chances of success aren't much better in the smartphone market than they are right now in tablets.

A number of observers have suggested that HP should license webOS, but for this plan to be successful, HP has to follow a more radical course. Here's the approach that I believe HP should take:

1. Set up a Mozilla-like organization to run future webOS development, and in particular, run the developer program. This organization would insure that all licensees have a common code base to work from, and that webOS apps work on the widest possible range of devices. One goal would be to avoid the proliferation of versions that frustrates Android developers.
2. Give licensees partial ownership of webOS and the development organization. That would give the licensees a say in the future direction of the operating system.
3. Licensees would invest in the development organization rather than pay royalties. (There could be two classes of licensees: One that owns a stake in the development organization, and another that pays royalties in lieu of investing in the development organization.)
4. Once the development organization is launched and licensees sign on, HP would drop its smartphone line. HP would remain in the tablet business, and could use webOS throughout its product line. The company would have the option to reenter the smartphone business after a number of years.

I have to believe that a joint venture development company, with talent contributed by companies such as Samsung and HTC, as well as HP, could do a much better job managing and promoting the webOS platform than HP alone. You may say, "Isn't this what Nokia tried to do with Symbian?". Yes, Nokia established the Symbian Foundation and open-sourced the operating system, then brought it back in-house and made the license proprietary. The problem was that Nokia wanted it both ways--the company wanted to control the development of Symbian but also wanted its competitors to license it. If HP is to succeed in licensing webOS, it has to truly cede control to a joint venture with its licensees, and it has to (at least temporarily) get out of the smartphone business.

In the long run, if HP establishes webOS as an industry standard for mobile devices, its acquisition of Palm will have been worth it, even if the company gives up a minor revenue stream from smartphones

Google buys Motorola Mobility: More questions than answers?

This morning opened with a bang, when Google announced that it had made a friendly offer to acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion. The offer caught a lot of people in the industry flat-footed (although not Ben Bajarin, who wrote an amazingly prescient post last week on why Google should buy Motorola Mobility.)

$12.5 billion is a 63% premium over the price that Motorola Mobility's stock closed at last Friday, so why would Google pay so much to purchase the company? The one thing that everyone agrees upon is that Google wanted Motorola's patents, a pool nearly four times larger than the one that the company bid on from Nortel. The question is how valuable those patents will be in protecting Google's Android licensees from patent challenges by Microsoft, Apple and others. Microsoft was suing Motorola Mobility for patent infringement before today's announcement, so the Motorola patent library might not provide all the protection that Google needs. In addition, acquiring Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion to get the patents prompts the question, in hindsight, whether Google would have been better off staying in the Nortel bidding and perhaps winning exclusive ownership of the patents for $5 or $6 billion. It also begs the question as to why Google didn't simply buy Motorola's patents, not the entire company; the consensus opinion is that Motorola's management refused to sell the patents by themselves.

Google got most of its top hardware partners to sign onto a press release endorsing the acquisition, but you have to wonder what the leaders of companies such as HTC, Samsung and LG Electronics are really thinking. In one move, Google went from being a supplier of perhaps their most critical smartphone technology to one of their biggest competitors. As Henry Blodget points out, hardware is a low-margin, semi-commodity business (for everyone except Apple). It's radically different from the software business, and the Motorola acquisition will increase Google's headcount by 60% overnight.

Google has declared that it will run Motorola Mobility as a separate business, and won't change the way that it runs its Android business. That's what Motorola's hardware partners (and possibly regulators) want to hear, but it creates a dilemma for Google. If the company wants to maximize the value of Motorola, it has to much more tightly integrate Android and Motorola, enabling Motorola to get new features and new versions of Android before other licensees. That, however, would violate its pledge to run the two businesses independently. The second option is to run Motorola so that it doesn't compete with other licensees, but that would cause the company to lose all its good developers, designers and hardware engineers. No one wants to work for a crippled company. The third option is that Google could sell off Motorola's hardware businesses, but to whom? The fate of Motorola's hardware businesses will be up in the air until the acquisition is completed, if not substantially after that.

In addition, despite some analysts' opinions that antitrust regulators won't stop the acquisition, there's substantial reason to doubt that the acquisition will occur without significant concessions by Google. There are so many antitrust investigations of Google underway, from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to U.S. State investigations, to European Union investigations, that this acquisition can't help but be looked at in the context of Google's overall behavior. At the very least, Google will have to make its "hands-off" approach to running Motorola Mobility a guarantee, and will have to agree to make Android and related products available to all licensees on an equal, non-discriminatory basis. Regulatory agencies may also use approval of this acquisition as a lever to get Google to agree to restrictions on how it runs its search engine, how it integrates its products, and how its services work on mobile platforms.

One final note: Most reports have noted only in passing that, in addition to mobile phones and patents, Google is also getting Motorola's set-top box business. In fact, depending on who's doing the measurement, Motorola is either the world's #1 or #2 vendor of set-top boxes. Historically, customers such as cable and IPTV operators have had enormous control over the design of the set-top boxes they buy, so Google can't arbitrarily add Google TV or the Google search engine to all of its devices. However, this acquisition gets Google's foot in the door with established multichannel video providers in a very big way. At the very least, we're likely to see the next generation of Motorola's set-top boxes and home gateways run Android, even if Google's customers hide the Android layer from end users.

Google's proposed acquisition of Motorola Mobility poses more questions than it answers. We may be waiting for the answers for quite some time.