Mobile Forward

Archives for August 2015

Monday Assorted Links

1. Benedict Evans on How Both Apple and Google Are Winning the Smartphone Wars (Video) Worth watching. Video is embedded below, too.

2. Rumored Xiaomi Mi Edge offers a curved edge on both sides of the screen Xiaomi isn’t shy about integrating newly-available technology into its products, so this rumor in the realm of the possible. And Samsung Display would certainly love for other OEMs to buy its flexible OLED product.

3. LG’s new smart sensor will turn your old appliances into connected gadgets Interesting idea. Simple functions.

Apple, Stanford, Defense Dept. among Investors in Flexible Electronics Initiative

Troy Wolverton, for the San Jose Mercury News:

On Friday, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter will announce the creation of a new institute in San Jose to develop manufacturing techniques and new applications for flexible electronics. The Defense Department will invest $75 million over five years in the initiative. The institute will receive an additional $90 million from a coalition composed of Apple and other tech companies; the city of San Jose and other local governments; and academic institutions, including Stanford and San Jose State. […]

While prototypes of flexible electronics have been around for years, manufacturers are still trying to figure out how to mass produce them, said Malcolm Thompson, who will be the executive director of the new institute. That’s where the institute will step in.

Advances in flexible electronics are critical if we want to get past the tension between display size and pocket-ability. To-date, we have nice “segmented” electronics, like this LG keyboard, but we don’t have truly foldable electronics, where the display, circuit board (at least portions), and perhaps other components bend.

Is “Lane Keeping” the Next Key Driver-Assistance Technology?

Jim Henry, for Forbes:

Patton said in a recent interview that high-tech suppliers like Denso see “lane-keeping” technology as a next step for some automotive brands. A lot of cars already offer Lane Departure Warning. As the name suggests, it notifies the driver if they are straying out of their lane in what looks like an inattentive way. Lane-keeping actually directs the car back where it belongs.

“If you ask me what’s available tomorrow, the next thing is lane-keeping. And when I say tomorrow, I mean literally tomorrow. In the next year or so you’re going to start seeing a lot of those kinds of technologies,” he said.

Also:

Patton recalled driving through a thunderstorm. He decided to keep driving, even though visibility was terrible. In his opinion, when his car got to a railroad crossing in the poor visibility, a truly autonomous car might have stopped, and refused to cross the tracks.

Despite automakers’ (assumed) aim for a truly autonomous car, new and un-tested scenarios will likely test its abilities. In that case, the “rules of dis-engagment” – when and how the car transitions control back to the driver, will be key. I doubt cars will omit steering wheels for quite some time, even if/when they become autonomous. Both for reasons of safety and fun.

On the Apple Watch “Smart Bands” Rumor

Mark Gurman, for 9to5Mac:

Last week, Europe-based news website letemsvetemapplem.eu reported that Apple is preparing “Smart Bands” to add additional health tracking sensors to the current-generation Apple Watch. The article went on to say that Apple would release the bands starting next year instead of refreshing the Apple Watch’s core hardware, with speculation that Apple does not believe people will upgrade their Watches annually like iPhones. […]

The Apple Watch and its diagnostic port were actually designed with the possibility of bands with sensors launching in the future. These potential sensor bands could also integrate with the Apple Watch over Bluetooth, and Bluetooth-based health accessory connectivity is already an option in the Apple Watch’s Settings application […]. […] 

We are told that the potential presence of “Smart Bands” will not deter Apple from annually upgrading the Apple Watch’s hardware.

First, it’s fascinating to imagine Apple considering a range of peripheral devices, essentially, connecting to Apple Watch. Including some that it might make. And if the Apple Watch gains cellular connectivity someday, the combination of the two (connected watch + peripherals) is interesting.

But back to this article: If we think of Apple Watch as a tool, adding additional modules or extensions of sorts is a plausible development of the product. On a smartphone or tablet, it’s somewhat easier to absorb new hardware into the “base”, but smartwatches offer less flexibility in that regard. It’s reasonable to assume they would have to still be aesthetically appealing, otherwise that defeats the purpose. Those who really the value additional health sensors may care less about aesthetics, but the device still has to appear reasonably pleasing to observers.

At this early point, I’d guess (the obvious, which is) that only some will opt for such smart bands, for reasons of need, fashion, and price. And smart bands, as Mark reports, won’t reduce the need for an annual update to the Apple Watch. Why? As a hybrid fashion/utility device, its industrial design needs to stay current, whatever that actually entails. And new designs increase the odds that first-time customers buy the watch. So, as Mark indicates, any “smart bands” aren’t likely to change the annual launch cadence.

Wired, on Amazon’s Fire Phone

Brian Barrett, for Wired. And nice title, too.

Amazon’s Hardware Isn’t About You, and That’s the Problem

“They priced it like an iPhone,” says 451 Research VP Kevin Burden. “They priced it at a premium phone level, which makes people think it should perform like an iPhone, and people who buy it should expect it to be the same type of status symbol as an iPhone. That certainly wasn’t the case.” […]

A smartphone’s success or failure hinges on one central question, says [Gartner analyst Tuong Nguyen]: “What can this device do for me that my current device can’t do already? And does it do it so much better that I’m willing to drop the device I have now and get it immediately?”

Fire Phone inarguably let you buy things from Amazon faster than you current device can. Clearly, that wasn’t enough to get people to drop their devices. Which is telling, and unfortunate, because that’s also what drives the bulk of Amazon’s hardware lineup.

and later this:

Dedicated Amazon hardware doesn’t make buying from Amazon that much easier; it just makes the opportunities more obvious.

Saturday Assorted Links

1. On Amazon’s Plans for a Low Cost Smartphone

At one point, the company planned a stripped-down Fire phone, but Amazon has stretched out its timeline for smartphone development indefinitely, people familiar with the matter said.

2. You can download Cortana for your Android device right now – here’s how Just interesting to see Microsoft’s cross-platform strategy evolve.

3. Xiaomi Will Launch In Africa In Sept Through Distributor

4. Xiaomi to release two chipsets for in-house use next year Focus appears to be cost. See my prior related post.

5. Huawei brings online smartphone brand Honor to Europe “Handsets would be mainly promoted and sold on-line […].”

6. Revealed: the first hydrogen-powered battery that will charge your Apple iPhone for a week Note: most small companies use an iPhone to demonstrate their capability. Primarily because it makes the invention look ready for prime time. And — as you can see — it increases the odds of generating a click-bait headline. Plus, yes, they’re hoping someone at Apple notices and sees “how well it fits in”, so to speak. Or that another potential acquirer thinks “Oh – I wouldn’t want Apple to buy them”.

Motorola Mobility to Take Over Lenovo’s Mobile Business

Amina Elahi, for The Chicago Tribune:

Chicago-based Motorola Mobility will absorb the mobile unit of Lenovo, the Beijing-based technology giant, with Rick Osterloh,⇒ president and COO of Motorola Mobility, leading the global smartphone business.

I’m biased, but I think this is the right move.

Lenovo has many commendable attributes: decent market share in China, well-spec’d products, timely response to select component trends, and reasonable industrial design. Lenovo has proficiency.

But Motorola has a more clear, more cohesive portfolio. It has a better product in the high mid-tier (Moto X / Style). The Motorola brand is better known, more widely, when it comes to smartphones. And it has more experience in markets beyond China. Motorola has traces of its past success, and renewed product focus.

And Motorola also has Rick Osterloh. I’ve worked with Rick; he has an excellent mix of product, technology, and operations knowledge. He’s superb at articulating the strengths and challenges in a situation, and what action to take to move forward. Plus, he’s a super nice guy. Rare.

So, net-net, folding Lenovo’s smartphone operation under Motorola – and Rick – makes sense.

Now, does this help the combined entity overcome some of its disadvantages? – low installed base, little in-house technology development, small scale, limited distribution, and limited marketing spend. – No. Motorola/Lenovo, like most Android OEMs, will still need to dig itself out of this situation.

But this operational adjustment makes it easier to maneuver and to focus the global product line, R&D, and sales and marketing.

IDC: Apple Sold 3.6M Apple Watches in 2Q 2015; #2 in Wearable Shipments

IDC estimates for wearable shipments in 2Q 2015:

Mobile Forward 00377 2015-08-27

Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly Wearable Device Tracker, August 27, 2015

Note that this is analogous to showing Apple’s share of the overall handset market (i.e., not just smartphones); Apple doesn’t sell the most handsets, either. But what really matters is profit share. If IDC or any analyst firm estimated operating profit from wearables, Apple would be in first place. And it’s just getting started, in terms of distributing Apple Watch and, more importantly, in terms of capitalizing on Apple Watch’s hardware and software platforms (you may need to scroll down a bit).

Car Consumers are Primed to Value a Better Experience

I know, I know – you’ve seen this. (But if you haven’t, it’s an interesting read.) J.J. Martin, for WSJ, talks with designer Marc Newson. Specifically on cars:

My design pet-peeve is: the automotive industry. There were moments when cars somehow encapsulated everything that was good about progress. But right now we’re at the bottom of a trough.

Hold that thought. Now combine it with Alexandria Sage’s piece for Reuters, titled Many U.S. drivers ignoring new tech features in cars: survey

Carmakers are adding everything from remote car unlocking to self-parking systems in their newest models as they try to make vehicles more connected to the Internet and more automated.

But the 2015 Drive Report from market research company JD Power found that 20 percent of new car owners had still not used approximately half of the technology features available in their vehicles after three months of purchase – the period after which drivers are less likely to adopt new features, researchers say. […]

“Customers say, ‘I have a competing technology that’s easier to use, or I’ve already paid for it – so why do I need it again?'” said Kristin Kolodge, executive director of driver interaction at JD Power.

Here you have a situation where:

  • Many mobile devices (cars) are poorly-designed, and
  • Overloaded by technology (that is poorly communicated), and
  • A context where people use smartphones and find them helpful.

… if only there was a company well-positioned and willing to think different about what consumers really value out of the entire car experience.

I highly recommend reading both pieces.

Digital Assistants: Perspective on Google and Microsoft

Good perspective from Richard Windsor, writing on his site, Radio Free Mobile:

  • Unfortunately, Google is struggling with a number of issues that will limit its ability to keep Google Now far ahead of its competitors unless it moves fast.
    • First. Its latest innovation Now on Tap (see here) which has the potential to meaningfully improve Google’s data collection, requires Android M to work.
    • Google’s inability to update the software on its devices means that it could be 2017 or 2018 before Android M will be mainstream (see here).
    • Second. Many of the core team who developed Google Now have left the company after their creation was folded into the core search business against their wishes.

and

  • Cortana on Android is another move by Microsoft to make its ecosystem operating system agnostic, aiming instead to encourage users to like and spend time with its services.
  • This is exactly the right strategy for Microsoft to become an ecosystem company but […] there is still an awful lot of work ahead.

Intel: Yes, They’ll Sell Modems to Apple, Says Raymond James

Tiernan Ray, helping us get the latest analyst perspective at Tech Trader Daily (both highly recommended):

Writes Mosesmann, Intel’s comments mean the company will probably get some “low-end” business from Apple starting next year:

We got multiple Valley datapoints that support Intel’s success at Apple with the new 7360 LTE mobile chip for 2016. At IDF, the Street got the opportunity to meet newly promoted GM of the Communications and Devices Group, Aicha Evans, who refreshingly and bluntly told the audience of analysts and investors that if Intel couldn’t get to scale in modems, it would basically be done. Our sense is that she knows it will have scale and Apple is that avenue. Tavis McCourt, who covers Apple and Qualcomm for Raymond James, views any Qualcomm competitor incursions into Apple as coming at the low end of the iPhone portfolio in 2016, and calls for flagship penetrations in 2017, at the earliest.

Why flag rumors, speculation, or developments like this? Anything related to processors (baseband processors in this case) and Apple is interesting.

Processors, in the abstract, are dense bundles of capability. They drive a large range of performance, efficiency, and design decisions in mobile devices.

Apple competes on many levels, and a primary one is hardware. In the context of processors, Apple advances the practical leading edge, in CPU, GPU, sensor hub and, potentially, baseband performance (think Apple Watch modem).

Any bit of information therefore, about what Apple may be ruling in / ruling out is interesting. Sometimes because it’s accurate. Other times because it simply gets you thinking or keeps you aware.

Most Electric Car Makers Use Others’ Batteries. What Might Apple Do?

Mike Ramsey, for the WSJ, in an article titled Auto Industry’s Ranks of Electric-Car Battery Suppliers Narrow:

Few companies so far have shown they can meet the challenge of building advanced batteries with the quality, weight and cost expectations that auto makers demand. And the technology is moving so fast that few auto makers have tried to master the exotic chemistry required.

Few companies indeed. I anticipate, though, that if Apple builds a car, it will seek to control the battery chemistry. In a car, this would give Apple the ability to control these types of factors*:

  • Design: Size, shape, construction of the battery compartment. This, in turn, can affect the weight, size, and handling of the car.
  • Performance: Range, battery longevity, power available for supporting systems, etc. These directly affect user experience, enjoyment, anxiety, and even safety.
  • Cost: Ability to reduce chemistry, manufacturing, recycling, and other costs.

To a limited degree, Apple customizes its battery chemistry today, in its laptops and other mobile devices. I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if Apple pursues more intense customization (i.e., in-house technology) in the case of auto batteries. 

With regard to smartphones, it’s frequently said that users won’t notice a battery improvement unless it’s 2X – 10X better than existing technology. With electric cars (and presumably Apple’s would be), even a 1.25X improvement (e.g., from 400 miles to 500) is very meaningful, especially if recharging infrastructure rollout lags car production.

Simply put, in entering a new industry where even modest differences in battery performance could matter, Apple has more incentive to innovate. That said, even if Apple does design or very heavily customize its own batteries, it might not do so with the first version of the Apple car. That will depend Apple’s overall priorities for the car.

For more, see these related posts: on batteries and on Apple trailing Google in cars.

The Nature of Google’s Lead in Autonomous Cars

Chunka Mui, at Forbes:

It would tell us that Apple is millions of miles behind Google, and falling further behind every day.

As one of the few companies in the world richer than Google, Apple can match the cars, sensors, processors, navigational systems and other pieces of hardware that Google might deploy. It can replicate the sophisticated maps that Google has compiled. It will have a very hard time, however, catching up with Google’s on-the-road learning.

Google’s lead in autonomous cars is certainly very meaningful and very impressive. Very. It’s based on great talent, foresight, timing, and hard work. It’s one of the many reasons I respect and really like Google (/Alphabet). And, even if there’s a much more gradual, prolonged shift to autonomous cars — i.e., via semi-autonomous cars – Google is in a strong position to capitalize on that.

And Chunka Mui is right to say that Apple will have a “very hard time” catching up. By definition, the nature of the problem that Google, Apple and others aim to solve is “very hard”. And, more to Mui’s point, it’s true that reaching Google’s level of proficiency will be, again in his words, “very hard”.

But, so what? It would be a mistake to equate “very hard” with unlikely.

First, it’s very, extremely, immensely early in the shift to autonomous cars. And, as an aside, it’s so early that even if Apple’s first car isn’t a fully autonomous car, it might be *exactly* the right product for that moment in time.

Second, to generalize, the one thing Apple (like Google and Tesla) is good at is solving “very hard” problems. And, unlike Google, Apple has, for years, solved ones that combine computing and physical interaction; bits and atoms, integrated.

Third, there are many dimensions of competition. (The contrast between Google’s approach to mobile devices and Apple’s illustrates this perfectly.) In the context of cars, Google has amassed a lead in one major one: autonomy. In smartphone terms, that’s like mastering the very essential aspect of — pick your analogy – connectivity, sensing, imaging. Each one is an essential-but-not-sufficient condition for success. (I’ll highlight other conditions or dimensions in upcoming posts.)

So, Mui’s article is well worth reading. But, to beat the smartphone analogy to death, it’s the year 1995, in smartphone terms. And yes, some will say “Time moves ‘faster’ now; competitors learn at an accelerated pace. ‘1995-to-now’ will happen rapidly”. In some ways, that’s true. But there are also key differences: regulation, consumer psyche, and a very high-stakes environment, where quality, privacy, and security matter at — to use a Google term — a 10X level. It’s too early to discount Apple.

Google Brings Interactive Watch Faces to Android Wear

Frederic Lardinois, for TechCrunch:

Android Wear’s watch faces are getting a bit more interesting today. Developers were always able to display a lot of information on their watch faces, but users couldn’t interact with it. Starting today, however, you’ll be able to install interactive watch faces that allow you to pull up more information and launch apps with a tap right from the watch face (and developers will be able to build them).

Nice move. I think many consumers will value this, whether for fashion, fun, or utility. I’ve said before that I view the smartwatch as a tool. It delivers, in a phrase, fast utility. Allowing users to select or configure the specific watch face they want – even if the OS provider doesn’t make it – could be very valuable to many consumers. Apple doesn’t offer custom watch faces today, but I’m convinced it will. Until then, there’s this … It’s more on the “fun” side…

The Challenges of Building a Modular Smartphone

Richard Windsor, (you may have enjoyed his analysis at Nomura) on his site Radio Free Mobile:

  • [There are] some fundamental limitations inherent to the design that have yet to be overcome.
  • These are:

1. Each module requires an individual case and a connector. These take up space, making the resulting device bulkier and less sleek-looking than a normal device.

2. Each swappable component has to remain distinct from all the others. Integrating components together is a tried and tested method of cost and size reduction meaning that a modular device has always been more expensive to make.

3. Every swappable component has to be tested with every other in every possible configuration to ensure that they all work together properly. This means that testing and certification is much more onerous meaningfully increasing development costs.

  • In every instance to date, this has resulted in a bulky, ugly device that has a lower specification and higher price than its competition.

The entire post is worth a read. Tip of the hat to Charles Arthur for pointing it out in a Tweet. Charles’ columns appear in The Guardian, and he runs The Overspill. (Both recommended.)

Mobile Forward

About
A
Contact

Categories

Recent Posts

Support MF

Subscribe

Follow MF

Twitter
A
RSS
A
By Email