22
Oct

Comments on ReCode Interview Rick Osterloh SVP Hardware Google

In the October 13, 2017 “Too Embarrassed To Ask” show from VOX Media/ReCode, Kara Swisher and Lauren Goode interview Rick Osterloh, SVP of Google Hardware. A few points stand out for me:

1) Mr. Osterloh claims he was actually hired by Google to run the Motorola unit (post acquisition), but Mr. Osterloh’s LinkedIn public profile page says he ran the Android division of Motorola Mobility back in 2007. Is Mr. Osterloh not completely pleased with Motorola’s performance?
2) When asked whether the Google Assistant feature of Google Home products is leveraging the same, familiar, web Google search service, he added “yes, but we’ve tweaked it a bit”. But he did not offer any clear assurances this leveraging is not the case.
3) Ms. Swisher started the interview by noting Google’s new call “we do hardware better than anybody else”. Unfortunately neither Ms. Swisher, nor Ms. Goode pick up on this statement during the interview. Obviously this statement voices the core of “competition to be the best”. Investors bullish on Alphabet should think about whether a strategy built around this “king of the unprofitable hill” of duplicating features, trashing prices, is a smart one promising more profitability, or not.
4) When asked about what, if any, impact concerns about consumer privacy had on the design of the Google Home product, Mr. Osterloh merely answers “if you don’t use the attention phrase, we don’t listen in”. Once again, neither Ms. Swisher, nor Ms. Goode probed any deeper on this point.
5) When asked what the key differentiator is, from his point of view, between Google’s hardware, and “everybody else”, he replied “our AI. Which doesn’t answer your question (chuckles)”.
6) When asked what drove the HTC acquisition, he answers “we hired 2K new engineers”. Once again, investors bullish on Alphabet may want to ask just why the 2K + engineers acquired from Motorola Mobility didn’t cut it, but the 2K engineers from HTC will cut it. Analysts should also take a look at the expense of moving all these people in and out of employment status at Google impacts on the bottom line.
7) Mr. Osterloh pointed to the camera features of the new Pixel phones as an example of big improvements in their hardware devices. (In a recent review of Apple’s new iPhone 8 Plus, we heard very much the same story – “the camera is terrific, 4K video, etc”) Neither Ms. Swisher, nor Ms. Goode probed further on Mr. Osterloh’s comments on this point. Too bad. Pixels & iPhones are smartphones — not cameras with phones included as accessories. Or are they? Anyone interested in what “innovation” means, should take a look at how leading manufacturers of smartphones are producing their latest models. In our opinion, “innovation” has been long gone from any of these devices. Contact us to learn more.
8) Mr. Osterloh disclosed Google Assistant is using the same prescriptive, rote, learning method as other “personal assistants” (Cortana, Siri, Alexa, etc). The lexicon is simply massively larger (he mentioned 100 million possible query strings). So the “intelligence” still isn’t their in any of these devices to “naturally” answer posed questions.

28
Jan

Competitors exhibit a strong desire for some of the recent success of Microsoft’s Office 365

2-Color-Design-Hi-Res-100px-widthOn Wednesday, January 28, 2015, Amazon announced the launch of a new product: Amazon WorkMail. This new offer is targeted to enterprise businesses in need of email and calendar management offered on a subscription basis via a cloud service.

The announced features of Amazon WorkMail position the product as an alternative to Exchange, Microsoft’s backend for Outlook Web App (OWA), one of the core components of the Office 365 application suite. A lot of the editorial comment already published on this product makes additional mention of Google Apps for Business as a target. But Amazon WorkMail operates just fine with Microsoft Outlook as the client interface, something Google Apps for Business does not do.

With Amazon challenging Microsoft on the email and calendar front, and Facebook challenging Microsoft’s Yammer and, arguably, the rest of the collaboration features built into Office 365, it looks safe to say enterprise business consumers have increased their appetite for cloud SaaS productivity suites. Microsoft reported strong growth in the number of subscribers to Office 365 during its Q2 FY 2015 earnings conference call. Three big competitors are now on the playing field looking for some of the same action.

With consumers trending in this direction, the likelihood of competitors addressing product development from the perspective of “competition to be the best” certainly increases. As I have written on numerous occasions in this blog, Dr. Michael Porter argues this strategy is a mistake. I like Dr. Porter’s position. Readers interested in learning more about what he has to say on the topic may want to read a piece written by Joan Magretta back in 2011 for the Harvard Business Review titled Stop Competing to be the Best.

The cost of product development, together with a substantially narrower prospect horizon for multiple players marketing to, in theory, the same prospects (in actuality I would argue no two enterprise organizations are really the same, nor do they often exhibit the same needs), are two warning signs ISVs should take very seriously as they consider jumping into direct, brand to brand competition.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2015 All Rights Reserved

18
Aug

Do Better Informed Consumers Deliver More Sales Than Their Less Informed Peers?

Implementing a strategy to better inform customers about specific differences between one’s product and a product manufactured by a competitor includes a tacit agreement to compete to be the best. ISVs should carefully consider the ramifications before implementing this strategy. With the exception of clones and direct copies, no two products are the same, nor are they ever targeted at the same consumer. So this strategy may not pay off as expected.

Anyone visiting Microsoft.com recently will notice a number of direct comparisons between the Surface Pro 3 and Apple’s MacBook Air, and the soon-to-be-released (this writer, who owns a Windows Phone 8.0 Nokia Lumia 925, would hope) Cortana personal assistant and Apple’s Siri. The underlying premise supporting this type of marketing communications is product equivalence. The Surface Pro 3 and the MacBook Air are two versions of the same solution, as are Cortana and Siri.

But, we argue, this underlying premise is a fallacy. Dr. Michael Porter has written about this competitive approach, and unfavorably. Dr. Porter’s ideas on the topic have received commentary in this blog before, so there is no need to revisit them. It may suffice to simply equate this approach with a “zero sum game”. One competitor wins everything, while rivals receive nothing at all. When the results are combined, the total is a zero — no one really wins.

One may argue this effort has a highly successful ancestor — the television ad campaign Apple undertook in the first year or two of the new century. This campaign purported to be a competitive comparison between Mac and PC, albeit in the form of two personae — one guy representing the Mac, and another, stiffer, bespectacled, stouter, more formal guy representing the PC. Regrettably, this argument doesn’t work.

The ad is actually a caricature of the “head to head” product comparison communications method. The subtle suggestion, of course, points back to the presumed male viewing the ad, to whom a question will likely appear (seemingly out of the blue), “do I want to be the Mac, or do I want to be the PC?”.

Unfortunately, the comparisons on Microsoft.com do not possess this same subtly and can only be construed as direct product to product comparisons. In the opinion of this writer, they are not likely to be persuasive and, even if they are, they will not likely lead to a lot more profitable sales.

Ira Michael Blonder

© IMB Enterprises, Inc. & Ira Michael Blonder, 2014 All Rights Reserved