- HomePod illustrates very clearly how Apple thinks differently from the rest of Silicon Valley. Here, Apple is going after a market that exists and a need that has been explicitly sought after by consumers. Apple is simply providing a significantly better solution to this market. This is similar to how the iPod entered a market already built and served by the Sony Walkman, and is similar to how the iPhone entered one already built by Nokia and Blackberry. This is in contrast to Amazon and Google who are trying to create a new market. The market adoption dynamics will be very different.
- Safari’s tracker blocking solution is interesting and will protect users privacy. Importantly, customers have noticed and have been worried about the spooky retargeting ads, and by providing a remedy for this, Apple will position itself well. Equally important however is that this will not significantly change the dynamics of the advertising market. My position is that targeting itself has not significantly contributed to the shift to digital marketing, and only to the relative market share among the digital advertising networks and Google/Facebook. The real driver of ad spend is still eyeballs and has been this way for decades. Neither ad blocking nor tracker blocking will change this. My prediction remains unchanged that Google will continue strong growth for the next few years, but will drop to single digit growth around 2020 due to saturation of the digital advertising market as a whole and competition from Facebook.
- The iOS 11 improvements for the iPad are hugely significant, especially in combination with the work that Apple has been doing with IBM and other corporate IT vendors/consultants. Although there still likely remain obstacles that will not make the iPad a true replacement for laptops, the improvements are large enough to encourage many people to give the iPad a second look as a work machine. We can safely predict an uptick of iPad revenue going into the later half of 2017.
In a previous post I discussed how Google’s growth was upper bound by total ad spending budget which has remained almost constant for a century, and that this suggested that double digit revenue growth at Google would probably end before 2020.
In simple terms, there is no longer room in the advertising industry for both Google and Facebook. Since Facebook has more momentum, it is likely that we will see Google being increasingly squeezed. Although the total digital ad spending will likely still see mid double digit growth, Facebook will take the majority of this growth and Google will probably drop to single digit growth before 2020.
The graph below is from a Morgan Stanley report and provides a forecast of the internet advertising landscape.
We can see that the combined revenue of YouTube and Google Search is projected to decline from 42% market share to 41%. This is a bit more optimistic than my prediction that Googles revenues will be squeezed, but nonetheless, it forecasts that Google will only be able to grow at the digital advertising average. (This year, this was mid double digits but according to eMarketer, this will drop to about 3% + total ad industry growth in 2020.)
Benedict Evans wrote, as always, an excellent and thought provoking piece on the state of smartphone innovation. In this piece he mentions the following;
slowing innovation in the iPhone and in Android doesn’t mean weakness (“Apple doomed!” “Android falling behind!”) but strength: it reflects the fact that we are in a phase in which they’re unassailable. The fact that almost all of the white space has been filled in – the big problems solved – also means that we have left the part of the S Curve in which a new idea or execution could overturn the incumbent. They’re too feature-rich and, of course, have too much scale in units and ecosystem.
The main point here is that slowing innovation does not signal a weakness. Benedict attributes this to being at a phase where the incumbents are too entrenched that nothing could overturn them. I agree that this is certainly one aspect, but I wish to add one more thing. That is a portfolio management perspective. The growth-share matrix tells us that new companies will tend to enter businesses from the “Question mark” quadrant, high-growth markets with the potential to become lucrative. Conversely, companies will not invest in slow-growth markets but instead try to milk them. Therefore, from both a business incentive perspective (the growth-share matrix) and from a capability perspective (Benedict’s point), innovation will slow down in maturing markets and the threat of new entrants will also decrease.
Of course, that is only true until the next S curve comes along and resets the score, just as the iPhone did to both Microsoft and Nokia.
I also agree to this point, and would like to provide a different perspective. Assume you are a company like Microsoft or Samsung, a company that valiantly tried to create a mobile operating system that would challenge iOS and Android. Now what should your strategy be? Being held hostage to Google’s Android is obviously no fun, and your hope is that you will somehow control the ecosystem. We have seen how developing a smartphone OS did not work, most likely due to the reasons above. Instead, your strategy should be doing your best to capture the next S curve.
The work Samsung has been doing for its Tizen OS-based wearables is therefore a very sensible strategy. They have positioned themselves well in preparation for growth in this market. This is a war that Samsung has been wise to fight.
One final point that I would like to note is that although we are seeing slower innovation in smartphone features, this is not necessarily the case for the business models around low-cost hardware. We are seeing many low-end entrants in the handset market, and this is proof that there are many companies seeing growth opportunities. There will continue to be significant business model and manufacturing innovations in the low-end, and smartphones will continue to be exciting, especially in developing markets.
Amazon recently announced Amazon Go located in Seattle, which is currently in beta phase and which is planned to open to the public in early 2017. It is chock-full of image recognition and AI, suggesting that only the US tech giants investing tons of money in software can implement similar solutions.
Well guess what. Similar stuff is already being worked on in Japan. Announced yesterday, Panasonic and Lawson have announced an automated checkout system that puts the barcode scanners into the shopping baskets so that customers can scan while shopping, instead of waiting to scan at self-checkout registers. They have also announced that they will attach RFID electronic tags to each piece of merchandise starting February 2017, thereby eliminating the need for even the barcode scanning (you just put the items in the basket).
Although the current system still requires you to checkout at a register (which puts your groceries into plastic bags for you while you pay), the time required will be significantly reduced and hence the queues will be shorter.
More significantly, this system does not need large numbers of cameras scanning your every movement and is not creepy. You don’t need a smartphone and you don’t even need to give the shop your identity.
Going forward, it is clear that RFIDs are better suited than barcodes and could provide similar experiences to Amazon Go by having an RFID scanner located at the shop exit. RFIDs are still a bit expensive (I hear they cost about 10 cents), but if their usage scales, then we can expect this to come down significantly.
I hope this clearly demonstrates that AI is not the only solution to the issues we have in life, and there are often other less creepy but equally effective ideas out there. Notice that RFID is not new and that it is already a 10 billion USD market.
Note that for example, the convenience store retail chain 7-Eleven is reported to have beaten Google and Amazon to the first regular commercial drone delivery service. Although I am sure that Google and Amazon are working on a more technically complex and advanced solution, this clearly illustrates that you do not have to be a tech giant to make these things work.
In a previous post, I described how the public confidence in services that collect your private information is getting closer to crossing the creepy line, and that any security breaches that actually harm customers would likely be the final straw that break the camel’s back. I also mentioned that instead of Google, Facebook and others, I predict that the final straw will actually come from hackers intruding into our devices and accounts.
Here, I want to elaborate on the example that I have in mind. Before this however, I want to update the reader on a relatively new form of malware called Ransomware. Ransomware is holds your data hostage and importantly, instead of just causing you trouble, it blackmails you to send money. Also of great significance is that Ransomware creation can now be outsourced.
Ransomware works because victims are willing to pay money to get back their files. However, now that we often have more valuable data on our smartphones or in the Cloud than on our PCs, it is reasonable to assume that hackers are right now thinking of new ways to hold your private photos, your location data, or messages that you might want to keep secret as hostages.
For example, a recent Apple Ransom scam asked for a $30-$50 ransom or otherwise they would do a factory reset. The author advises that you simply ignore this because you can easily recover with a backup. However, what if the scammer had threatened to publish all your photos, your emails, your location data, etc. on the web for all to see. Would you still ignore the scammer? Unlike the iCloud celebrity photo leak, this is something that could happen to any normal person, and this is what makes it so scary.
This is not about Apple vs. Google/Facebook or about any single company’s approach to privacy. If such attacks became widespread, it could cause people to be scared of storing anything in the cloud, despite whatever security measures each individual company took. Of course two-factor authentication will help, but not enough people use it yet.
Advanced two-factor authentication systems may mitigate the worries in the future. However, if such attacks strike now, I fear that the companies that depend on the cloud will have a hard time getting people to trust them once again. Given the potentially widespread consequences, I think this is definitely something to give due thought to.
MMRI released their report for mobile phone sales in Japan for he first half of 2016, and the results were not good.
- Total handset sales decreased by 10.9% YoY.
- Smartphones decreased 8.4% YoY.
- However, looking at iPhone sales, this decreased only 3.1%, resulting in an increased market share of 40.7% (including feature phones).
- Importantly, Sony which is 2nd in market share saw a 28.5% drop in sales, while Sharp which is 3rd in smartphone share fell off a cliff with a 46.4% drop.
- The sharp decline has been attributed to the government decision to restrict what they consider excessive discounting of devices. The government thinks that by restricting discounting (some smartphones are sold for free by carriers if the purchaser agrees to a 24 month contract), carriers will eventually reduce the prices of their data plans. However, data plan prices have yet to come down, and are actually increasing depending on your usage pattern.
What this suggests is that when customers are more exposed to the real price of smartphones, it is the Android users who either decide to buy cheaper devices, or hold on to their devices longer. The iPhone users seem to be less sensitive to price increases.
In a nutshell, the Android market has a high level of price elasticity whereas the iPhone market does not.
I believe that the iPhone markets and the Android markets are actually different despite both being smartphones. Customers buy each for different needs, and they are not interchangeable. This is similar to how Mercedes and BMWs do not share the same market as cheap cars; the role of luxury cars is not just transportation.
Twitter Japan announced on the 2nd November that user growth had been 13% (+5 million) for the past 9 months, bringing the Japanese monthly active user count (MAU) to 40 million in September. This compares to Twitters MAU growth in the rest of the world, which is essentially flat.
In December 2015, Twitter Japan announced that 10% of MAUs were from Japan.
I have written on this topic several times on this blog. What I think is most important is that the features and characteristics of social media platforms are not dictated by what features they have and do not have, but instead are determined by the users themselves. Therefore, all the pundits that say Twitter should do this or Twitter should do that are essentially clueless because they only know how they or their close circles use Twitter, but are mostly blind to how other are using it. Analysing what features are available does not capture what people use a social service for, nor does it give you any idea of how people would use a new feature when available.
Social media needs social analysis. Furthermore, you need to analyse many societies and not one society.
Although I was very relieved to find Windows Store Apps (previously Metro Apps and soon to be Universal apps) to be much nicer on Windows 10 compared to Windows 8, simply because they opened up in a separate windows instead of taking up the whole screen, there is one, very common GUI paradigm that I missed. That was, the concept of multiple windows per application.
Looking at the Store Apps that Microsoft itself has provided, multiple windows have been very much deemphasised. For example, in the Mail application, I have been unable to find a way to open up individual messages in a separate window. In Word Mobile, the application even explicitly saves and closes the current document when you choose a new one from the “open” menu.
Microsoft actually has developer guidelines regarding applications with multiple windows. Although they clearly mention that it is possible to create an application with multiple windows, and give you directions on how you should implement it, they also make it clear that you should be careful and deliberate about it.
- Design new windows that allow users to accomplish tasks entirely within the window.
- Don’t automatically open a new window when a user navigates to a different part of the app. The user should always initiate the opening of a new window.
- Don’t require the user to open a new window to complete the main purpose of the app.
You can see an example of multiple windows in the Windows 10 calendar app when you view the details of an appointment. Note that opening an appointment in a separate window is a two-step process. You first have to view the details in the same window, and from there, you click the button on the upper right to open a new window.
Because multiple windows has become such a common GUI concept on PCs, I expect many users to be confused or at the least irritated at this change. On the other hand, from a developer point of view, it is totally understandable that this makes it easier to create a single application spanning mobile and PCs.
Hopefully, Microsoft will think up new ways to bring the benefits of multiple windows to Windows Store apps, because simply, I think this UI policy is too restricting and unfamiliar except for anything but the simplest of apps. The hope is that Microsoft is seriously contemplating converting the current MS-Office apps to Windows Store apps, instead of providing separate versions (currently Word, Excel, PowerPoint Mobile for Windows Store, and Word, Excel, PowerPoint 2013 for traditional desktops). That would be something.
With Google announcing Google Now on Tap at Google I/O 2015 and Apple announcing Proactive at WWDC 2015, there is now a lot of discussion on how useful these predictive personal assistants will be. In particular, there is a lot of discussion on how much data these personal assistants will need to collect about you, and whether these assistants need to send this data to be analysed in the cloud.
The problem I have with these arguments is that they do not go into specifics. Instead of say “everything is going to be cool”, we should be having a detailed discussion of how each predictive recommendation is actually made, and whether each recommendation could be performed easily on your local device, or whether it needs to be done in the cloud.
Here, I would like to dig into a pretty good article comparing Apple’s approach and Google’s approach, and look at the examples given there.
For instance, if it were possible for Google Photos to figure out that I have a Tesla, and Tesla wanted to alert me to a recall, that would be a service that we would consider offering, with appropriate controls and disclosure to the user.
It’s hard for me to think that Tesla would not have your email address or that they wouldn’t be able to contact you through their dealer network. In fact, in many cases, I imagine that instead of contacting you directly, the recall information would preferably be sent through dealerships due to the complex relationships that they may have. In this case, the benefit gained in exchange for giving up your privacy is extremely trivial.
If you’re texting a friend about dinner, Google will give you restaurant reviews and directions automatically. In the future, it might make a reservation and call a driverless car.
The first step here is for the AI to understand that you are texting about dinner. The algorithm could look at keywords (like “dinner” or “eat”), the time, and maybe some other things. It should be pretty simple for the AI to understand that you are thinking about dinner. Next, it needs to give you some reviews which can easily be done through an anonymous connection to Yelp’s services. Reserving a car can also be done through an Uber app installed on your local device, without telling anything on the cloud that you are going to have dinner with a certain person. What I’m saying here is that in this example, there is no need to give each service any more information than is absolutely necessary. Nobody except your device needs to have a comprehensive understanding of who you are texting, when you are going to have dinner and where you are. Each cloud service just needs to know a small portion of this information.
The only place in this article where they detail what Apple can and cannot do is here.
Apple is giving you recommendations based on the phone in your pocket; Google is giving you recommendations based on everything you’ve done that it has recorded.
The assumption is that your phone will no know what you did on your Mac and that will degrade the service that Apple can provide. Well first, there is Bluetooth and WiFi. Apple could use Bluetooth/WiFi to sync your personal information on your Mac with your iPhone. It is easy for Apple to have your devices in sync without ever storing information in the cloud. Also Apple could even sync your information to the cloud in a encrypted format that would be very difficult to decipher. Therefore, the fact that Apple respects privacy does not mean that your information cannot be shared between your devices. This can easily be done.
Second, there is the question of whether any information that stays only on your PC is important at all. Your email, your calendar, your reminders are already synced between your Mac and your iPhone. There is very little relevant information that only stays on your PC.
Although I certainly need to dig into this in a bit more detail, I am skeptical that invading your privacy is essential for providing a better personal assistant service. I would welcome any examples where the personal assistant must absolutely send all knowledge of everything about you to servers in the cloud to be analysed.