November 12, 2010 § Leave a comment
While Microsoft has a long history of dabbling in mobile, and tons of infrastructure for creating mobile developer ecosystems, it never really had a mobile strategy. I’d argue that it doesn’t really have a mobile strategy now. Apple’s strategy is to make the prettiest consumer-focused phones on the market, Google’s strategy is to make mobile ad revenue (of which they’re already pulling in $1 billion a year), RIM’s is to appeal to the e-mail heavy business user. But is Microsoft just trying to look relevant?
MS was early to the mobile game – they had an entire mobile-app developer experience while Apple was charging $500 for iPods. But Microsoft saw a smartphone as a tiny PC – a large clunky form factor with a shrunken Windows XP user experience. Going after the same business market RIM and Palm owned, Microsoft lead the mobile smartphone charge by clumsily adapting the Office suite to mobile. They focused on the unsexy information worker –that’s where the market was – and despite their expertise in this area (and heavy investment), couldn’t really get it right.
Apple then swooped in and proved a viable consumer smartphone market, and the sexiness of the consumer device seeped into the business world. Google came in, and sorta copied Apple but with a different business plan. Microsoft quickly learned a valuable lesson about the consumerization of business technology.
And they went in a radical new direction. They’re first attempt at a smartphone in the new world was the Kin. Instead of the business-focus, it was tween-hipster-social-networking focused. Despite the massive failures in marketing, and device sales (Microsoft doesn’t have a lot of experience selling things to “the kids”), the Kin showed some promise as a device: it was the first to seamlessly connect mobile with the cloud – obviously the near-future of all mobile devices.
So, now we’re at Windows 7 Phone, and I think we missed a huge opportunity. Kin had technological benefits, but not near enough cool factor to tackle Apple in the consumer space. Windows 7 has a few user experience improvements over the competition, but in general a pretty run-of-the-mill device. There’s a lot of noise about how Win7Phone will get market share via Xbox, or whatever (certainly not Zune), but I don’t buy it.
Instead of tackling the Apple/Google model head on, why didn’t we go after RIM? Our original Windows Mobile devices failed because they were the phone equivalent of a beige-tower PC, but with Microsoft’s hegemony in the IW worker, e-mail, productivity area why couldn’t we make a perfect e-mail, productivity device if we really tried? It could be just as pretty as an iPhone, but serious about being a business device – a keypad for typing on the go, awesome mobile-y tailored Office apps, seamless Exchange and SharePoint integration that backs up to the cloud. Basically, a better, more directed, sexier version of what we’ve been doing all along.
Then, after making a business phone we could sell to enterprise (the way we sell everything else), and creating some real market share (taking RIM down in the process). Then we could sit down and intelligently decide if Microsoft has a reasonable possibility of a future manufacturing consumer phones. Right now, it doesn’t.
November 5, 2010 § Leave a comment
I attended Dow Jones’ FASTech conference this week to accept a runner up 2010 Technology Innovation Award. I’ve been to a few tech conferences, but this was unique – a small amalgamation of technical innovators, venture capitalists, and WSJ tech-section journalists. There was so much interesting discourse throughout the conference, and I found it incredibly inspiring to be among such a distinguished set of people.
But there was one problem, and while I didn’t intend to write about it (in fact I have a notepad next to me filled with great ideas for blog posts that I scribbled while attending sessions about doing business in Asia, liquidity, and executive Q&As). But it struck me at the conference before anything else, and I left the conference without feeling terribly comfortable about it.
There were so few women in attendance. It sounds trite – I mean, I’ve been in tech long enough to know what to expect. But this conference wasn’t terribly technical. There was a smaller percentage of women attendees and speakers than the more technical conferences I’ve attended. So, what gives? Are women even more scarce in high end innovation and the business side of technology than they are in technology development?
The conference organizers tried. The keynote speaker was Judy Estrin – who built networking technology in the 70’s, and used to be the CTO of Cisco. Impressive credentials, though her speech about innovation was more confusing than inspiring. The only other woman speaker was a WSJ journalist focused on internet privacy. I was even mistaken for a journalist more than once (right, because I couldn’t possibly be a technical innovator). The other women I met were PR, or BizDev, working the conference to create good press and form connections. These women weren’t the radical innovators, or the people funding and cultivating innovation. Of all the CEOs that demo’ed at the VC showcase, not one was a woman. None of the VCs were women. It was unfortunate, and depressing. So while I found the conference material fascinating, this disparity stuck with me. And I can’t seem to shake it.
You can read about the 2010 Technology Innovation Award and the winners here. I highly recommend checking it out. The big winners – a Taiwanese research lab created a super thin flexible display that is sooo cool.