Mobile Forward

Archives for July 2015

Sultans of Shrink Pack More Chips into Smart Wearables

Michael Gold, for Reuters:

The latest chapter in the miniaturisation of increasingly smart consumer electronics lies in the hands of chip packagers, an indispensable group of firms whose role in the supply chain alone is worth $27 billion. […]

To serve this market [chip packagers] have come up with an assembly process known as System-in-Package (SiP).

“SiP bundles a ton of components into one simple plug-n-play, almost like a Lego block,” said Taipei-based semiconductor analyst Randy Abrams at Credit Suisse. […]

“The SiP inside the Apple Watch was unprecedented,” Vice President Jim Morrison of analysis firm Chipworks told Reuters. Chipworks found as many as 40 chips in the hermetically sealed pod, more than double any other package it had seen before.

The article doesn’t quite say it, but Apple is heavily customizing, if not designing, much of its own SiP, the “S1”. Why? As I wrote back in March:

This degree of customization is the right call – because it affects everything that’s supposed to make a smartwatch appealing and valuable: size, functionality, performance, battery life, and upgradeability.

So, it’s the start of a new era of post-PC, post-smartphone devices. Most device makers opt to use, or have to use, the “Lego” they can procure. Except Apple.

Toyota Inks Deal for Telenav In-Car Navigation, Drives Away From Google and Apple

Mark Bergen, for Recode:

Earlier this year, Toyota spelled out what many car companies were thinking: It would rather have its own software inside its cars than software from Apple and Google. On Thursday, it took another step to box out the mobile giants.

The Japanese carmaker signed a deal with two auto tech companies, Telenav and UIEvolution, to equip some 2016 models with a dashboard navigation system linked to mobile phones. It works with both iOS and Android. But, according to the software partners, the system doesn’t wrest control from Toyota, a rising concern in the auto industry as Apple and Google promote their connected dashboards. […]

[ Part of the desire for software control comes from] the very real concern from carmakers that surrendering control of in-car experiences to mobile companies would render them useless. […]

Ford CEO Mark Fields articulated this concern in an interview with Re/code in April: “At the end of the day we don’t want to end up as the handset business.”

I sincerely hope auto makers’ ability to create high-quality software matches their desire for control. Soon.

The New Moto X

David Pierce, for Wired:

What’s most powerful about this phone is that it’s being sold unlocked, for $399, and will work on any carrier in the United States. It supports every band of LTE, so all you have to do is pop in whatever SIM card you want. This is how phones work in the rest of the world, and a much better system. […]

In most other ways, the X is the same phone as always. It uses a nearly untouched version of Android, save for a couple of genuinely great additions like the always-on Moto Display and the touch-free Moto Actions. […] You can customize it with Moto Maker, which offers options like bamboo and leather. Unless something catastrophic and strange has happened, the Style is going to be a very good phone.

If you’re looking to buy a new Android smartphone, I recommend the Moto X Pure Edition (known as the Moto X Style outside the US).

Microsoft, Capitulation and the End of Windows Everywhere

Good words by Benedict Evans, from Andreessen Horowitz, on his own blog, ben-evans.com:

Though a big part of Microsoft’s mobile strategy has been to push towards common code across Windows on the desktop and on mobile, so that it’s easy to write apps for both at the same time, in practice that’s largely irrelevant. The apps that people want on smartphones are not being written for desktop Windows anyway. Uber doesn’t have a desktop Windows app, and neither does Instacart, Pinterest or Instagram. […] You can’t tempt developers to support Windows Phone by saying ‘it’s easy to deploy your desktop app to mobile’ if there is no desktop app. So Windows is not a point of leverage for Microsoft in mobile. […]

So, Microsoft has missed mobile […]. […]

The smartphone is the sun and everything else orbits it […]. […]

Microsoft has two huge, profitable businesses in Windows and Office: they will slowly go away, so how do you use them to create something new? Instead of every new project having in some way to support Office and Windows, how do you use Office and Windows to support the future? […]

I don’t have a complete sense of what that looks like, but admitting defeat [as Microsoft has done by drastically scaling back its smartphone efforts] is the first step to working it out.

Qualcomm: Break-Up Would Be ‘Value Destructive,’ Says Morgan Stanley

Tiernan Ray, at Tech Trader Daily, provides us with excerpts from James Faucet’s (Morgan Stanley) analysis:

Following activist recommendations, Qualcomm announced that the board and management are launching a strategic review of the company’s corporate structure. One of the outcomes activists have encouraged is a separation of the QCT [chipsets] and QTL [licensing] businesses. We would not expect this outcome and believe it could be value destructive. […]

For our part, we have previously been wary of the cost cutting magnitude announced by Qualcomm given the highly competitive market. To wit, there has never been a company in the mobile handset or baseband market that has gone through massive cost reduction programs that has been able to sustain competitive positioning — in every case, those cost reductions were a precursor to lost market presence, and often being pushed fully out of the market.

Splitting the company would be foolish, though it’s a sobering possibility. To use a very, very exaggerated analogy, it’s like splitting a company into the R&D side (chipsets) and Sales and Marketing side (licensing). R&D doesn’t get the new revenue they need for future products. S&M doesn’t get the new products they need for future revenue. The scenario doesn’t end well. (Yes, in reality, the R&D/chipset business will have its own revenue stream (chipset sales), but the analogy illustrates how inter-related the divisions are.)

Samsung Unveils the First Monitor that can Wirelessly Charge Your Phone

Emil Protalinski, for VentureBeat:

Samsung today unveiled the SE370, claiming it’s the first monitor with an integrated wireless charging function for mobile devices. […]

Here’s Samsung’s pitch: The SE370 “declutters work areas by doing away with unnecessary cables and ports needed to charge mobile devices.” More specifically, the monitor works with all mobile devices that use the Qi wireless charging standard. […]

Unfortunately, Samsung didn’t provide timing or pricing for the SE370. Chances are it will be available before year end though, and hopefully won’t cost more than your actual desktop computer.

I like the idea.

Apple Reportedly Negotiating to Use BMW i3 as Basis for its Own Electric Car

Jordan Kahn, for 9to5Mac:

Apple and BMW have engaged in negotiations over Apple’s interest in using BMW’s i3 electric cars as a basis for its own electric car project, according to a new report from German publication. […]

Apple executives recently met with BMW in Leipzig, Germany to visit the carmaker’s i3 production line. Apple is allegedly interested in the carbon fiber body of the i3, according to the report.

If this is correct, let’s consider the possible extent of this relationship. The two relevant terms above are basis and carbon fiber body. For a moment, let’s consider what basis implies, rather than be limited by the mention of the carbon fiber body.

Basis could refer to one or more of the following:

  • Chassis / wheelbase
  • Carbon fiber frame
  • Carbon fiber body
  • Powertrain
  • Steering / braking
  • Suspension/stability elements
  • Technology or process related to the above*

So, basis covers a range of technology areas. The actual Apple-BMW relationship may be much more focused, because of the potential rivalry between an Apple Car(s) and BMW cars. The arrangement might indeed be limited to the carbon fiber body technology or process*. There’s really no way to tell at this point.

We can probably exclude, however, elements like the cabin interior, batteries, most electronics, sensors, computers, transmitters/receivers, user interfaces, and most software. These are areas for which Apple likely has a unique vision (e.g., the interior and related interfaces) or unique technology (e.g., the car operating system or its batteries, perhaps).

If BMW and Apple reach an agreement, the likely benefit to Apple would be:

  • Engineered and tested high performance components.
  • Indirect access to an automotive manufacturing base.
  • Indirect access to an automotive supply chain.

Even within the context of a specific area (e.g., carbon fiber technology or process*) it’s not clear if BMW would simply be a supplier/competitor (like Samsung), or if BMW and Apple will co-develop any future technologies in the area. It would be reasonable to assume that the competitor aspect precludes any co-development. That’s just playing the odds; reality may differ.

More interesting than scope and benefit of such an Apple-BMW deal is the question of “why”: Why would Apple work with BMW? If the rumor is correct, then Apple’s objectives may be to:

  1. Re-use parts or sub-systems in areas where it can’t add value today.
  2. Maximize the odds that the car will be ready by Apple’s target launch date, rumored to be 2020.
  3. Reduce development costs. (I’m including manufacturing set-up and supply-chain configuration in this.)
  4. Accomplish the above with a partner that delivers high quality components.

It’s likely that Apple would compensate BMW by licensing the process* or technologies it uses. And, potentially, Apple may provide capital for related tooling and manufacturing capacity, if BMW-related facilities are involved.

As we consider the mix of Apple’s own capabilities, along with capabilities it sources from current suppliers, and new capabilities that it will need to buy or license, it’s worth asking: what is the minimum viable product that Apple would consider launching? Meaning, what jobs or problems does Apple want to address with its car, and what level of performance does it want to reach in the first version? … If or when it launches a car.

At this point, we don’t know what we don’t know. It’s likely that other developments will surprise us in the future. But this is exciting to think about, quite honestly. If you have other thoughts, I’d love to hear them.

______

*Added this to clarify that Apple would not necessarily use “as-is” elements from BMW. Got the idea to clarify that after a spot-on Tweet by Horace Dediu, who runs and writes Asymco.com and works at the Clayton Christensen Institute.

Car Prototyping Moves from Workshop to Digital Simulation

Andy Sharman, for the Financial Times:

Digital prototyping could also help bring down the industry’s glacial development times as carmakers try to keep up with new rivals from Silicon Valley, such as Tesla, Google and, potentially, Apple. Rapid prototyping, used by tech companies, helps them bring products to market much faster than the four years it typically takes a car to get off the ground.

“The Apples and Googles […] have a completely different approach to how to develop a product,” says Daniel Hirsch, a manufacturing expert from PA Consulting.

The phrases “bring down […] glacial development times” and “completely different approach” caught my attention.

The Future of the Electric Car Depends on Battery Breakthroughs

Noah Smith, for BloombergView:

The one thing that might make a big difference is if electric cars get really long ranges and can be driven all day at highway speeds without stopping. In that case, electric cars won’t even need charging stations and can bypass the hurdle of creating the network effect. At that point, the network effect between gas-powered cars and filling stations would start to work against gasoline, just as Ralston predicts.

So as I see it, the near-term future of the electric car depends crucially on battery breakthroughs that allow very long ranges. As to how close we are to those breakthroughs […] you would have to ask a technologist.

Yes. So from a car-maker standpoint, a key requirement to electric car success will be battery know-how. And car know-how. Tesla has both. Google is working to get both.

Apple? Well, you might have heard people cite Apple as one of the biggest camera sellers in the world, and it’s true, of course. What they don’t often cite, though, is that Apple is also one of the biggest battery sellers in the world. As a device maker, it’s very interested in long battery life. And as a device maker that ships hundreds of millions of batteries, it’s very interested in cost savings. Both of those drive Apple’s investment in battery R&D. Additionally, Apple has hired engineers from at least one electric car battery maker. So, back to battery know-how and car know-how. Apple likely has the former, and signs of the latter appear day by day.

Of course, beyond car know-how and battery know-how, other capabilities will be important, too. More on that at another time.

The Importance of Security and Privacy in the Future of the Car

Nick Statt, for CNET:

“These [US Senate report] findings reveal that there is a clear lack of appropriate security measures to protect drivers against hackers who may be able to take control of a vehicle or against those who may wish to collect and use personal driver information,” the report reads. […]

Hackers no longer need a direct connection to the vehicle [because] malware from Bluetooth-connected smartphones and security holes in onboard software, like OnStar, provide numerous avenues to take control remotely. Because examples of hacks happening to everyday drivers remain largely undocumented […] automakers are not taking them seriously. […]

[Also], automakers are constantly gathering information about drivers, including locations traveled to and how long the car remains parked. Companies then store that data with little protection, sometimes even in third-party data centers whose own security may not have proper safeguards. The report said automakers rarely inform consumers about the information they’ve collected.

Sounds like an opportunity to think different.

Apple, Samsung in Talks with Telecom Groups to Launch e-SIM Card

Daniel Thomas and Tim Bradshaw, for the Financial Times:

Last year, Apple revealed its own Sim card for its latest iPads. However, it was supported by only a handful of operators such as T-Mobile and AT&T in the US, and just EE in the UK. Those familiar with its UK rollout said that it had not been widely adopted.

The electronic Sim is not expected to replace the Apple Sim, a piece of plastic that fits into a device and could be included in the next generation of iPhones.

e-SIMs in phones? Sure. So that you don’t have to swap SIMs? Okay. So that you can dynamically change between carriers? Maybe. But there’s a more interesting thing to think about.

What device is so space-constrained that, today, carrying a SIM card is prohibitive? Keep a watch out.

And if a device has a SIM card, what else does it need to make use of it? Please radio it in, when you find out. More (but not very much) on all this at a later date.

In 1995, a 1MP Pro Digital Camera Cost $20,000

Michael Zhang, for PetaPixel:

Want to see how far digital cameras have come over just the past 20 years? Check out this 4-minute clip that CNET released back in 1995, when digital cameras were only just starting to find their way into the hands of serious photographers.

One of the cameras featured in the video was referred to as the “B-2 Stealth Bomber” of digital cameras at the time. It was a Fujix Nikon camera that cost $20,000 ($31,000 in today’s money), could shoot 1.3 megapixel photos, and used a removable 131MB hard drive that could store 70 photos.

While this was a “pro” camera, the general idea is the same: hardware and software improve dramatically over time. So, then:

What is a $20,000 capability today that might be in your mobile device in 20 years? I would elaborate but, unfortunately, I’m out of ink and space, so I have to leave it there. … … Seriously, though, in terms that will seem extremely general to many, but also interesting to some, I’ll just say: some sort of sensor, processor, transmitter, material, or manufacturing method. Or the intersection of several of those. Would you put software in that category, or is it too dependent on the items there? In some ways, the questions, and your imagination, are the most important things right now.

______

PetaPixel found this story at CNET, via SLR Lounge.

Apple Watch Captured 75% of Global Smartwatch Unit Share in Q2 2015

From Strategy Analytics’ press release:

Mobile Forward 00363 2015-07-22

Source: Strategy Analytics. [1] Numbers are rounded.

Neil Mawston, Executive Director at Strategy Analytics:

We estimate Apple Watch shipped 4.0 million units and captured a dominant 75 percent smartwatch marketshare worldwide in Q2 2015. Apple Watch launched in sixteen major countries and saw decent take-up from iPhone loyalists in the United States and elsewhere. Apple Watch has clearly raised the bar for the global smartwatch industry. The ball is now in the court of rivals, like Samsung, to respond.

4M units. 75% unit share, globally. Without even really being global yet.

By the way, I usually shrug when I see unit market share. It’s of limited use. But for a new category like this, it’s interesting. What’s better than unit market share? Profit market share. What is Apple Watch’s profit market share? Probably above 95%.

One way to think about how Apple achieved this success is here, though it’s hardly comprehensive.

Apple Performance in Calendar 2Q 2015 – Highlights

Several excellent Tweets captured highlights from Apple’s earnings call. Some Tweets are metrics-focused, but all these analysts and writers have deep quantitative and qualitative insights. Below are screenshots, to make sure RSS and email readers can see them.

Horace Dediu, who runs and writes Asymco.com, and who also works at the Clayton Christensen Institute (Tweet link):

Mobile Forward 00361 2015-07-21

Eric Smith, at Strategy Analytics (Tweet link):

Mobile Forward 00357 2015-07-21

And about the iPad (Tweet link):

Mobile Forward 00353 2015-07-21

Daniel Eran Dilger, who writes for Apple Insider (Tweet link):

Mobile Forward 00350 2015-07-21

Neil Shah, at Counterpoint (Tweet link):

Mobile Forward 00362 2015-07-21

From Ryan Reith, at IDC (Tweet link):

Mobile Forward 00352 2015-07-21

Finally, nice charts by Dan Frommer, for Quartz. Nice transcript of Tim Cook’s comments by Jason Snell, for Six Colors.

New Platforms will Require New Metrics or Reference Points

Brian X. Chen and Vindu Goel, for the New York Times:

Yet only five of the 20 most popular free iPhone apps in the United States have versions for the Apple Watch, according to data from App Annie, an analytics firm. And the number of apps for the watch, which now stands at about 7,400, is growing at a slower rate than the explosive uptick of apps that were produced for iPhones and iPads in their early days.

Comparing figures across platforms is a very limiting perspective. It’s like comparing the number of Windows or Mac apps that were quick to create a smartphone version — and guessing the outlook for smartphones based on that. Or the number of television networks that initially made a Roku app, or the number that worked with Apple to create an Apple TV app.

New platforms support products that perform new jobs. Or perform existing jobs in a new way. So, the way customers approach these platforms and products, and the way that developers approach them, will be different than in the last platform.

As time passes, for instance, we might find that the use of native apps on smartwatches is much higher than on phones. Or that the app growth rate is simply different, even in a healthy market. Moreover, we might learn that the “top apps”, let alone the “top free apps”, on smartphones don’t evenly transfer over to smartwatches. And that the way to measure app activity, and to gauge app success or failure, is a bit different. At this point, it’s really too early to tell, and comparisons to smartphones won’t be very helpful.

In a nutshell, you can’t apply all the thinking from the last platform to the new one. That, in part, is why it’s new. And why it will create new uses, new winners, and new ways to thrive.

Mobile Forward

About
A
Contact

Categories

Recent Posts

Support MF

Subscribe

Follow MF

Twitter
A
RSS
A
By Email