Mobile Forward

Archives for June 2015

Xiaomi Enters Brazil Smartphone Market

Loretta Chao, for the Wall Street Journal:

Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi Inc. announced its first foray outside Asia on Tuesday with the launch of its latest device, the Redmi 2, in Brazil. […]

In Brazil, the company’s low price is crucial, as it currently only has plans to sell its phones directly online, and doesn’t yet have plans to distribute through retail stores where most Brazilians buy smartphones, said Reinaldo Sakis, analyst for IDC in Sao Paulo. […]

The company’s entry into Brazil will also be a test of its ability to draw users with little exposure to Chinese culture, and who can barely pronounce its name (sh-YEOW-mee), which means “little grain of rice” in Chinese.

And from Brad Haynes, for Reuters:

Xiaomi’s global vice-president, Hugo Barra, said in an interview on Tuesday that Brazil was “stage one of our Latin America launch,” pointing to Mexico and Colombia as logical next steps in the region, although he declined to say when.

One of the most-telegraphed and anticipated moves in the smartphone industry.

Share:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Uber Acquires Part of Bing’s Mapping Assets, Seeks Deeper Technology Advantage

Alex Wilhelm, reporting for TechCrunch:

Uber will acquire assets from Microsoft Bing, including roughly 100 employees focused on the product’s image collection activities. In short, Uber is absorbing data-collection engineers from Microsoft to bolster its own mapping work. […]

The technology transfer is far more interesting.

Uber’s app is essentially a map with add-ons, so that it would want to pick up engineers — currently the hottest Silicon Valley commodity — isn’t surprising. And that Microsoft might want to shed some talent that isn’t precisely core to its larger platforms and productivity efforts doesn’t shock. […]

The move also underscores Uber’s ambition. A firm doesn’t hire 100 specific-focus engineers in a single move if it doesn’t have large product aspirations. The new Uber kids are the folks who worked to get image data into Bing, meaning that the search engine’s 3D, aerial and street footage is in large part their doing. You can therefore start to presume what Uber has in mind.

When you truly want to perform at a high level in a core function, it’s difficult to keep using off the shelf solutions. Off the shelf solutions (can) help during an initial growth phase, but to protect a lead, or to extend it when others start to dabble in the same market, it often helps to control the technology that drives you forward. If Uber executes well, to create a mapping solution specific to its needs, Uber customers should get faster response time and more accurate routing (saves time). That’s also good for Uber drivers. Drivers, in fact, might find that using other maps (including any from other transportation companies), is harder and adds more friction.

But, to be clear, acquisitions are the easy part. Executing on this potential depends on Uber’s ability to manage and develop new technology.

It will also be interesting to see how Uber competitors respond: symmetrically or asymmetrically.

Share:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someone

The Sad Truth About Developing Executives

In March, Ben Horowitz published “The Sad Truth About Developing Executives“, at Re/Code.

For me, it’s been a browser tab that I didn’t want to close. It’s because leadership – successes and failures by the senior leadership team – are really interesting. They shape products, which in turn shape people’s lives, and shape companies. Or, alternatively, they fail to do so.

In reading Ben’s piece, it’s important to distinguish between times when the CEO shares his/her detailed reasoning and the values driving a decision, vs. taking the time for one-on-one development. The former happens all the time and, in one sense, it’s a type of “development”. The one-on-one kind – what Ben is addressing – isn’t something the CEO can afford to spend time on, directly. Instead, on the issue of executive skills, the CEO’s time is better spent upstream — in hiring. (A good use of any leader’s time, to say the least.) Bold emphasis below is Ben’s.

My greatest disappointment as CEO was the day I realized that helping my executives develop their skill sets was a bad idea. Up to that point in my career, I prided myself on my ability to develop people and get the most out of them. In my jobs running product management, product marketing and engineering, developing young talent was the most rewarding part of the job. Helping them learn to manage, improve their judgment and be more effective in their domains made my organizations better, and people genuinely appreciated the effort. […]

Executives are compensated for their existing ability, and therefore should not be evaluated on their potential. While it’s common practice and a good idea to take potential into account with regular employees, this methodology does not work well for executives. When you hire an executive, he will demand around 1 percent of the company. How do you explain to a great engineer with less than one-fifth that amount of stock that you are waiting for the executive’s potential to kick in?

Share:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Why Apple, Snapchat and Twitter are Betting on Human Editors, but Facebook and Google Aren’t

Mathew Ingram, for Fortune, quoting Ben Thompson, who runs and writes Stratechery:

Google is seeking the single best answer to a direct query from an effectively infinite number of data points… For most queries there is one right answer that Google will return to anyone who searches for the term in question. In short, the data set is infinite (which means no human is capable of doing the job), but the target is finite. Facebook, on the other hand, creates a unique news feed for all of its 1.44 billion users… what is infinite are the number of targets.

When the data set is big (Google’s challenge) or the user set is big (Facebook’s challenge), you need an algorithm. Good article, in large part due to good insights from Ben.

Share:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someone

The Single Domino

Ash Maurya, writing on his blog, The Space Between:

At any given point in time,
there is usually a single constraint or bottleneck holding you back.
Identify it correctly, and you can move mountains.
Miss it, and you’ll be endlessly scaling small hills.

Spend 5 mins at the start and end of every day to identify your single domino.

Sometimes, in work, we assume there’s “just no way” through our biggest constraint. So we accept it, sometimes without even realizing it, and address other constraints. But the odds are high that someone else has solved the same problem that’s blocking us the most. It’s worth the research time and/or price (e.g., if you need to buy the app/service/tool you need).

Depending on the scale you’re working on, sometimes the “tool” you need is expertise. Who’s *the* person — even if you don’t know them — who could solve your problem? What’s the downside of contacting them? Embarrassment doesn’t count.

Share:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Google Reveals Health-Tracking Wristband

Caroline Chen and Brian Womack, for Bloomberg:

Google Inc.’s life sciences group has created a health-tracking wristband that could be used in clinical trials and drug tests, giving researchers or physicians minute-by-minute data on how patients are faring.

The experimental device, developed within the company’s Google X research division, can measure pulse, heart rhythm and skin temperature, and also environmental information like light exposure and noise levels. It won’t be marketed as a consumer device, said Andy Conrad, head of the life sciences team at Google.

My take on this is that Google intends to:

1. Start by creating a device that tracks health and environment data *very* accurately (by having to meet clinical trial requirements). Then improve the size, design, power, and other attributes. The next version will be even better for clinical trials. The iteration after that? – suitable for consumers (size, power, etc.).

2. Use insights to improve Android Wear (the OS, or a related reference architecture), even if its aim isn’t to achieve clinical-trial performance on those devices. Very notably, Nest devices could also benefit.

3. In the meantime, Google will learn a lot about biometric and environmental sensors, related data, and related applications for that data.

Share:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Google Aims to Bring Free Wi-Fi to Every City Street, New York First

Issie Lapowsky, for Wired:

Earlier this month, when Larry Page announced that Google was launching a new startup called Sidewalk Labs to develop and incubate technology for cities, many wondered what the company [intended to do].

Now, that fuzzy logic is coming into focus. Today, Sidewalk Labs announced it would be leading the acquisition of two companies behind New York City’s LinkNYC initiative, an ongoing plan to convert old pay phones into free public Wi-Fi hubs. Through the acquisition, Sidewalk Labs is merging the two companies—Control Group, which provides the interface for the new hubs, and Titan, which is overseeing the advertising that will pay for the project. The new venture, aptly named Intersection, will seek to bring free public Wi-Fi to cities around the world using different pieces of urban infrastructure, from pay phones to bus stops.

If you look at the underlying need, combined with Google’s interest in being a catalyst for faster, lower-priced internet access (e.g., Google Fiber, Project Fi, Project Loon), this was almost inevitable. Also inevitable: inquiry and debate about privacy issues (whether warranted or not).

Share:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Google Announces 17 New Android Wear Watch Faces

Stephen Hall, for 9to5Google:

Google has today announced the introduction of 17 brand new watch faces for Android Wear, spanning brands such as Rubiks, Hello Kitty, Angry Birds, and more. Google says that there are already more than 1,500 watch faces available to customize your device, and now — lucky you! — there are 17 more options to choose from…

Why not? This isn’t nerdy complexity. It’s user choice for the watch face they look at 5x – 30x per day. It may take a while, but I believe Apple Watch will get custom faces too.

Share:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Why Samsung Would Struggle to Make its Own Operating System

Sharp article by Jean-Louis Gassée, writing on Monday Note, the blog he runs with Frédéric Filloux:

When we look at what it would take for Samsung to come up with its own mobile OS, the first thing to note is that “operating system” is a misnomer. Surely, iOS and Android are operating systems in the old-school “kernel” sense: They manage drivers, memory, input and output streams, user tasks, and the like. But today, an “operating system” is much more than just a kernel, it includes rich frameworks that support a wide range of applications, games, maps, social networking, productivity, drawing… Building these frameworks is a much harder task than adapting a Linux kernel.

And the OS is just the beginning. What Samsung really wants is its own ecosystem, a set of services that will ensure its autonomy, growth, and lasting importance. It wants its own app store, maps, music/video, cloud storage…

How long would it take for Samsung to build all of this? Three years, four years? Add to this the difficulty of “skating to where the puck will be”, to divine where the industry will land four years from now.

The simple question: what is the track record of software or services from Samsung’s mobile division? It’s poor. And most of the services have been single-purpose efforts: Music Hub, WatchOn, ChatOn. All of them, easier than an operating system. All of them, shut down.

______

Tip of the hat to Charles Arthur, who runs The Overspill (recommended). He found Gassée’s post and this richest excerpt (but the entire post is good).

Share:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Thoughts on Mark Gurman’s 9to5Mac Article About Apple Watch Rumors

Last Thursday, Mark Gurman reported on potential features for the next Apple Watch. Here’s the story at 9to5Mac. He has excellent sources and an excellent record in reporting upcoming Apple devices or features.

For this particular rumor, however, I suspect the source likely isn’t from Apple, and that the information may mostly reflect development exploration. For these reasons, I don’t think this specific story is that meaningful. (That’s not a knock against Mark.)

On the Source

1. It’s probably not an Apple employee. From my eight years at Motorola, I can tell you that the product managers, engineers, and supply chain staff working on new products are some of the hardest working people you’ll ever meet. Products are the lifeblood of the company, and they’re the livelihood of its people. Everyone with a stake in the company’s success knows this. So, the odds that someone at Apple leaked this information, right when Apple Watch is reaching Apple Stores (i.e., the “big launch”), are low.

2. It’s probably someone helping Apple with consumer research. I’m saying that because the leaked information concerns:

  • “Considerations” (as far from a shipping product as a PowerPoint slide)
  • Visible features, but no granular attributes (spec-level knowledge or software features)
  • Price point variants
  • Granular information from consumer research

Let’s combine these: a likely-external person, discussing feature “considerations”, without spec or software detail, about price point variants, and quoting granular information from consumer research. Based on that, I think it’s probably a low level employee (or attention-seeker) from a research firm that Apple trusted. The “considerations” may be features that appeared in a research aid.

And yes, I do realize that, generally, Apple does less product-design-related consumer research than most companies.

On the Content

  • FaceTime Video Camera: I’m surprised it was mentioned. I don’t mean in terms of any sort of personal preference, but in terms of the odds that Apple Watch consumers would value its utility. But, that’s one reason companies do consumer research – because one’s own sense of something may be completely incorrect. It’s almost like this feature was part of the “considerations” appearing on a survey or simulation. It might have even scored high. That can happen to both good and bad features.
  • iPhone Independence: Sure. Okay. This is something someone could just guess at. What’s confusing is:

Any other features that could normally function solely under a Wi-Fi connection do not function completely, including text messaging, emailing, and receiving updated weather data.

Isn’t this on watchOS 2, due in the fall? Confusing.

  • Battery Life: Sounds right. Battery life appears to be okay for most people. Including me. Note: If you look at the smartphone market as (only one) source of input, you’ll see that battery life has roughly stayed at around one day (some exceptions, Droid Maxx, Nexus 6, iPhone 6 Plus). Basically, that’s because the more capacity we get, the more we tune our use to i) take advantage of that extra power and ii) still have a little left at the end of the day.
  • Interesting that this source didn’t discuss less visible components or software in any sort of detail. Things like GPS, processors, or software features at a specific level… I think that supports my guess about the source.
Share:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Taylor Swift Improves Apple Music

From Taylor Swift’s open letter to Apple, titled “To Apple, Love Taylor“:

I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company. […]

Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done. […]

But I say to Apple with all due respect, it’s not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.

Good on Taylor Swift. This is a classy act of leadership and a powerful letter. It’s outstanding that she’s doing something that not only helps her, but helps thousands of other creators in the music industry. And by simultaneously praising Apple and the Apple Music service, she maximized her odds of communicating her point and securing Apple’s cooperation.

Let’s recap:

  • The biggest music distributor in the world (Apple)
  • one of most experienced music deal makers (Eddy Cue)
  • one of the most experienced music producers (Jimmy Iovine), and
  • the company with $200M in cash reserves* (Apple)
  • negotiated a deal
  • where they wouldn’t pay
  • writers, producers, or artists
  • if a consumer listened to their work
  • during a three-month trial period.

I don’t think this is right, from any perspective. The Loop’s headline “Why don’t the top executives at Apple give up their salaries for three months, and pay musicians” basically frames the foolish notion of asking people to forego pay.

Ironically, Apple’s ultimate aim is to *ensure* artists get paid, by leading the industry in putting artists’ content behind a paywall. (That’s a borrowed point from John Gruber, here.) But I think that, in any free trial situation, the party that decides to offer the free trial should be the one paying for it. That’s fair and clear.

And I realize Apple has reversed its decision. What I find disappointing, though, is the habits or conventions that led them to the poor decision in the first place. Basically, if Taylor Swift had remained quite, Apple would have likely continued as it planned. Which brings me to the next topic: PR.

Seeing, now, the type of calculation that Apple made in this deal structure, it’s not hard to attribute a meaningful amount of PR calculation to Apple’s reversal: if Apple hadn’t acted, a number of artists would have likely echoed Taylor Swift’s sentiment. And soon, there could have been comparisons between Tim Cook’s words on respect for privacy and Apple’s less-than-respectful action toward content creators (with this particular arrangement). The fact that Apple has usually acted to maintain or bolster content creators’ prices would have been lost in the noise.

______

*Update: To clarify, this simply gives Apple the freedom of action to break with past convention and pay for work that’s used during a trial period. It’s not a suggestion that Apple “subsidize” anything other than what it chooses to give away during a free trial.

Share:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Google Acquired Agawi, Whose Technology Enables “App Streaming”

Ingrid Lunden, for TechCrunch:

Native apps have overtaken the web as the main place where smartphone users go for entertainment, information and more. So it should come as no surprise that one of the companies that profits the most from our use of the web is looking for ways to get us to use the it more again. According to [Amir Efrati at] The Information, Google last year secretly acquired a startup called Agawi, which had developed technology to use and stream mobile apps over the web without downloading them first, used in applications like in-app adds to preview and promote gaming apps.

Cool. The ability to try an app without downloading it is great. There’s speculation, too, that Google might want to apply Agawi technology to make better web apps. Or, in hyperbolic terms, that Google is trying to “kill native apps”. The key question to answer will be: how will web apps deliver a better user experience than native apps? I’m biased toward native apps, for all the known and obvious reasons to-date, but open to the benefit of another approach, too.

Share:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Nokia’s Approach to the Have-Product-But-Can’t-Scale Dilemma

Georgina Prodhan, for Reuters:

Nokia, once the world’s biggest maker of mobile phones, plans to start designing and licensing handsets again once an agreement with partner Microsoft allows it to in 2016, its chief executive told Germany’s Manager Magazin.

“We will look for suitable partners,” Rajeev Suri said in an interview published on Thursday. “Microsoft makes mobile phones. We would simply design them and then make the brand name available to license.”

So Nokia will design the handsets, and an interested party would pay for the manufacturing and the brand name. Basically, it’s tight risk management by Nokia. Why? – remember the Product Factors / Business System Factors from yesterday (here)? Even if you have a great product, if you don’t have (most of) the Business System Factors — consumer installed base, developer base, brand, distribution channels, marketing budget — you know it’ll be an uphill (nearly impossible) slog.

Here’s the dilemma, as I laid it out yesterday:

If you’re a smaller smartphone maker, and you stumble upon a killer feature […] what do you do? Meaning, you could launch it, get some modest uplift in sales, and then watch your (larger) competitors copy its best elements. And then what? Or you could sit on it. And then what? (Assume licensing is not an option […].

For Nokia, licensing is a decent option. It’s the way to have unique hardware (in performance, or in ability to reach a low-price cost-effectively) and to still profit from the innovation, even if Nokia itself can’t reach consumers. It also allows Nokia to act with a fairly small staff (see question #2 (Talent) in the earlier post I wrote on Nokia’s potential return.) But, it’s not a path to self-determination, even if that’s a hope for one or two steps from now. As I mentioned in yesterday’s post, there’s really no good answer.

It’ll be very interesting to see who Nokia works with. It’ll either be a low-cost competitor, or one that’s made the tough choice to go dual-brand (whether split by region or by tier). It will be equally interesting to see if Nokia adjusts its strategy in the coming years.

Share:Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Mobile Forward

About
A
Contact

Categories

Recent Posts

Support MF

Subscribe

Follow MF

Twitter
A
RSS
A
By Email