Mobile wireless smartphones are just starting to kill Personal Computers, PCs. The box-shaped form-factor with separate display, keyboard and mouse has already been transformed into laptops, nettops, netbooks, iPads etc. Now disappearing of that transformed box called PC is closer than ever.
The alternate reality lies in your pocket, the mobile smartphone. You carry it everywhere, it wakes you up at morning and it is with you all the day. It has been used for the small and short tasks, like a replacement of a wristwatch, alarm clock, and of course as a messaging device.
PC is used for the "real work", like planning, writing, drawing, email etc. PCs are used for tasks that last longer, often hours per session. For those sessions, everyone wants a big screen, a proper keyboard, a comfortable mouse, a trackball, a drawing tablet, headphones and other accessory. It is just impossible to work longer without those things. How can a phone with tiny keyboard and small display replace these?
Well, it can't. But right now the connectivity and processing power of the mobile smartphones is gaining rapidly. Bluetooth has been there for ages for audio and keyboards. TV-OUT and HDMI connectors for displays are newcomers, but are there right now. Processor speeds are now at 1 GHz and GPUs are becoming a standard feature. And almost all the accessories that are used with PCs are available in wireless format. Keyboards, mice, headphones etc. If those accessories are not yet compatible with Bluetooth and phones, they will be very soon.
Most of us will soon have a smartphone carried with us, and at home we will have big screen, keyboard and mouse that will be connected to the phone. Our future PC, the mobile computer. The transformation will take years, no doubt. But knowing the replacement rates of mobile phones and PCs, it won't take too long.
This transformation is starting right now. This year, 2010, is the beginning of the end of the PC as we have known it. Watch out and move accordingly.
Näytetään tekstit, joissa on tunniste Strategy. Näytä kaikki tekstit
Näytetään tekstit, joissa on tunniste Strategy. Näytä kaikki tekstit
2010-05-02
2010-05-01
Hewlett Palmcard: a Negative Approach
Hewlett Packard acquires Palm, a troubled mobile phone maker for $1.2 Billion. Does this mean something for the fast-growing mobile industry? Not really.
Both companies have been strong in the era of PDAs. You remember, those smartphones without a phone. The market of PDAs peaked in 2005 and after that it has been vanished. Those companies have something in common in the past.
Hewlett Packard has been in the mobile handset business before, but not for too long. HP failed to note the move from PDAs to phones and put a calling capability into its devices only 2007. Since then it has been selling HP iPaq phones without remarkable success. Actually, the sales has been falling fairly fast during recent quarters. Why HP has not been using it strengths to gain sales of its own Windows-powered iPaq phones?
But HP is a huge company. It has vast resources and market presence everywhere, and PALM has a nice new operating system. Sales organizations are in shape, technical support has already been helping customers for ages. There is a huge opportunity to utilize the PALM technology and knowledge on mobile through these strengths. True.
But HP is a huge company. Annual sales is well above $100 Billion. PALM sales are below $1 Billion and falling. How much time HP management has to spent with their new acquisition? Just looking at those sales numbers, the answer is "Not too much really". HP may just use PALM as a source of technology. Pick the tech to its products and forget the PALM phones and brand.
Historically two thirds of the mergers and acquisitions fail. Hope you all the best and lots of luck HP and PALM, because odds are not on your side. Work hard, work really hard to understand where you are heading and what is the direction of the mobile businesses.
Sources:
Both companies have been strong in the era of PDAs. You remember, those smartphones without a phone. The market of PDAs peaked in 2005 and after that it has been vanished. Those companies have something in common in the past.
Hewlett Packard has been in the mobile handset business before, but not for too long. HP failed to note the move from PDAs to phones and put a calling capability into its devices only 2007. Since then it has been selling HP iPaq phones without remarkable success. Actually, the sales has been falling fairly fast during recent quarters. Why HP has not been using it strengths to gain sales of its own Windows-powered iPaq phones?
But HP is a huge company. It has vast resources and market presence everywhere, and PALM has a nice new operating system. Sales organizations are in shape, technical support has already been helping customers for ages. There is a huge opportunity to utilize the PALM technology and knowledge on mobile through these strengths. True.
But HP is a huge company. Annual sales is well above $100 Billion. PALM sales are below $1 Billion and falling. How much time HP management has to spent with their new acquisition? Just looking at those sales numbers, the answer is "Not too much really". HP may just use PALM as a source of technology. Pick the tech to its products and forget the PALM phones and brand.
Historically two thirds of the mergers and acquisitions fail. Hope you all the best and lots of luck HP and PALM, because odds are not on your side. Work hard, work really hard to understand where you are heading and what is the direction of the mobile businesses.
Sources:
H.P. and Palm – P.D.A. Powerhouses Unite
2010-04-20
Mobile social business future
Facebook, Twitter, Skype and similar services are popular. They report tens or even hundreds of millions of users. The companies running the services are funded by the investors expecting to get their money back some time, when these companies find out how to monetize the huge number of users engaged into their services. But you need to be careful, those services are certainly being watched.
The competition
Every mobile handset company has added social applications into their handset application store, or in most cases, preloaded the applications so those can be used out of the box. Mobile handset company works more or less with the mobile operator. Sometimes the operator says what software the phone has to have. And every company wants services that are popular and make people buy from them. This is very clear.
But who pays to bill here? Running the social service requires resources, ie. computer servers, software and maintenance engineers, managers, marketing staff and so on. This personnel and hardware is paid by the company which gets the money from investors. Running the service costs money. The little application in the phone is relatively simple piece of software that is not too difficult to make, ie. it is cheap. Handset makers may or may not pay for the right to use the name and logo of the social service in their marketing. But for the handset maker and mobile operators, the social services are almost free marketing. They get the money by selling hardware and data plans for the consumers.
And the winner is?
Now the tricky point. Do you think you would like to invest money into these cool and popular social services? What happens when your company finds the gold and gets profitable? There will be competition, of course. Everyone wants his or her share of the gold just found. And who has a pole position in that competition? I would say it is the handset maker and operator who puts operating system and preloaded software into your phone.
Why is that? Because those companies already control the market space. The biggest companies in the business, say Google, Vodafone, Nokia, Telefonica, RIM, just to name a few, have truckloads of money. They have thousands of software engineers that will copy the social service framework in a reasonable time to their benefit. Just look at the mobile devices right now. They have IM clients, Skype clients, Facebook clients etc. But the makers have also their own services in parallel. The own clients are probably not as finished, not so good, not so polished as the most popular services. It is because those social services are not profitable enough right now.
As long as your company is not profitable, you are probably "interesting" or "nice". When your last line in the financial statement turns black, you will be a competitor. Be careful, you have been warned. Competition will be fierce.
The competition
Every mobile handset company has added social applications into their handset application store, or in most cases, preloaded the applications so those can be used out of the box. Mobile handset company works more or less with the mobile operator. Sometimes the operator says what software the phone has to have. And every company wants services that are popular and make people buy from them. This is very clear.
But who pays to bill here? Running the social service requires resources, ie. computer servers, software and maintenance engineers, managers, marketing staff and so on. This personnel and hardware is paid by the company which gets the money from investors. Running the service costs money. The little application in the phone is relatively simple piece of software that is not too difficult to make, ie. it is cheap. Handset makers may or may not pay for the right to use the name and logo of the social service in their marketing. But for the handset maker and mobile operators, the social services are almost free marketing. They get the money by selling hardware and data plans for the consumers.
And the winner is?
Now the tricky point. Do you think you would like to invest money into these cool and popular social services? What happens when your company finds the gold and gets profitable? There will be competition, of course. Everyone wants his or her share of the gold just found. And who has a pole position in that competition? I would say it is the handset maker and operator who puts operating system and preloaded software into your phone.
Why is that? Because those companies already control the market space. The biggest companies in the business, say Google, Vodafone, Nokia, Telefonica, RIM, just to name a few, have truckloads of money. They have thousands of software engineers that will copy the social service framework in a reasonable time to their benefit. Just look at the mobile devices right now. They have IM clients, Skype clients, Facebook clients etc. But the makers have also their own services in parallel. The own clients are probably not as finished, not so good, not so polished as the most popular services. It is because those social services are not profitable enough right now.
As long as your company is not profitable, you are probably "interesting" or "nice". When your last line in the financial statement turns black, you will be a competitor. Be careful, you have been warned. Competition will be fierce.
Tilaa:
Blogitekstit (Atom)