Research

In a recent answer on quora, I wrote that I did not believe developers are tempted primarily by economic incentives when choosing which platforms to work on. I suggested that they hire platforms because of their star-making potential and that star-making value is not a something that money can buy. Using Hollywood as an example I suggested that subsidies decrease the perceived value of a talent-oriented platform.

The notion that a platform signals meaning to developers led me to think about how mobile platforms signal meaning to consumers. I have a hypothesis that platforms can and should be treated as brands. This point of view allows platform orchestrators to develop a comprehensive market-driven strategy for platforms that transcends technical debate.

First a word about what a brand is.

Brands are vaguely defined. They are identities, names, symbols or attitudes or all of the above. Marketers struggle to define brand value because they are trying to encapsulate what they sell into a single symbolism. The problem is that there are vast varieties of things being sold. Every product or service has different meaning to buyers and it cannot be captured the same way. Because I cannot rely on a single definition I have to create a specific definition of brand to the context of mobile platforms.

I choose to define brand in this context of platforms as the "promise of the platform". A platform is a promise that the products will function in ways beyond what's "written on the box"; that the product is extensible and has value provided by an ecosystem bigger than the original vendor.

For example, although the iPhone is based on iOS platform, iOS is not the brand. "iPhone" encompasses the platform brand and it's a promise to users that they can expect apps and content and an extended flow of innovation to continue well beyond the initial purchase of the device. This brand value is attached to iPod touch and iPad even though it's not communicated as a unified platform. In other words, consumers don't look for "iOS inside" but the implicit value of "there's an app for that" covers all the products.

When looking at platforms as promises or brands, we can observe how some are more powerful than others.

Symbian or Series 60 was never marketed as a brand and Nokia users are generally unaware of what OS or platform their phone runs. Does Symbian make a promise of an "extended flow of innovation to the device" after the time of purchase? It's hard to make that promise when you can't communicate clearly anything but device specs.[1]

Conversely, Android has become a strong brand. The Android label (and mascot) is frequently used by device vendors to signal platform brand value.

How did Google achieve in a year this value with Android while Nokia continued to squander any brand goodwill around Symbian for a decade? The answer lies in marketing decisions. Nokia wanted to focus on the hardware as value (and the Nokia brand as the way that value is encapsulated). Google and Android OEMs wanted to lift their own device brands into becoming smartphone brands and attached the value of Android branding to them.

Which brings me to the question of how to design platforms as powerful brands. Creating awareness of extensible value is the way to signal to developers and all members of an ecosystem that a platform is valuable. Apple did this very well with their iPhone ads which focused on the app value of the product. They showed the product in use and did not rely on metaphors. Developers saw other specific apps being advertised by Apple and it engendered huge star value in the platform. Every developer wanted a shot at being featured in an iPhone ad. The iPhone could and did make stars.

But you can't make the great promise of the platform without the ensuring consistency, reliability and longevity. Fragmentation, malware, copyright infringement and arbitrary termination amount to the confiscation of platform value by the orchestrator. Poor custodianship results in the destruction of both ecosystem and end user value.

--

Notes:

1. The lack of platform promise for Symbian may also explain why Nokia believes they can sell 150 million Symbian devices which have a deprecated platform. Those devices could be sold as feature phones, not platform products. The challenge for them will be to get a smartphone price for a feature phone product.

The relationship between Google and Apple is an interesting one. It's enticing to declare them "at war" with one another, but that type of relationship does not account for the collaboration and partnerships they enjoy. To wit:

• Google pays Apple for default Search placement on Safari. This means that Google treats Apple as a distributor.
• We can presume that there is a deal between the two over Gmail and Maps on the iPhone as well.
• AdMob is available on iOS without hindrance.

The business relationships between the two companies are self-evident. However, I would suggest that there are more important strategic reasons why Google and Apple are in fact implicitly collaborating against a common goal.

The concept of "co-belligerence" may describe the relationship: The state of fighting against a common adversary without a formal alliance and without a guarantee of non-agression against each other.

The common adversary is the telecom industry. It's an industry being undermined by the technological change of mobile computing and its profits are up for grabs. Apple and Google have different approaches in implementing this change but in the end they dismantle and absorb profits from the same target.

They are also benefiting each other. Apple benefits Google by creating user experience innovations which Google can rapidly copy. Google benefits Apple by increasing smartphone consumption--educating markets to the value of mobile computing and crippling the profitability (and thus the ability to innovate) of Apple's direct competitors.

If I may belabor the point, it's like the concept of fast food. One company invents the fast food franchise process, another popularizes it and creates demand. Finally, the innovator comes in with a premium brand to split the market.

Apple innovates in product innovation with Google as a fast follower. Google then innovates on distribution and penetration enabling Apple to follow with a skimming strategy.

The end result is a more rapid and thorough profit evaporation from incumbents with corresponding condensation around the entrants.

To visualize it further, consider what the market would look like if one or the other of the co-belligerents was not participating. Could Google have developed their software without the iPhone as a reference design? At the same time, as Android eliminates the opportunity for alternative software investments by competitors[1] could Apple have remained the only integrated vendor with a uniquely high profit margin?

Of course, this is not a guarantee of success. New platforms may still take root and integration by HP may actually pan out. But the point I'm trying to make is that, for the time being, Google and Apple are not so much adversaries as comfortably busy winning against a rather weak common target.

---

Notes:

1. Consider how hard it is for OEMs to justify investing in their own OS post-Android. Consider the desperate status of Nokia who abandoned a broad ecosystem and the paucity of alternatives.

In the recent series of exposés on Nokia's new strategy I sought to paint a background for what caused such a dramatic decision:

• A history of previous Microsoft "strategic alliances" in mobile brought Microsoft to a level of desperation
• The question of how many horses are in the race coupled with operator feedback on what matters to them in terms of balance of supplier power
• The installed base of Symbian although great is fragile
• A confused tablet strategy from both partners.
• The impact of pricing on addressable market and share
• The "Osborne effect" on Symbian and how the transition could be impossible to navigate

This gives a backdrop to the decision, but it does not explain the most crucial part of the decision: why did Stephen Elop decide to maintain an exclusive platform for Nokia rather than a multi-platform approach as chosen by successful competitors such as HTC, Samsung and Sony Ericsson.

Going from backing one "burning" platform exclusively to backing another "ice cold" alternative without bothering with a hedging alternative is very risky. This may be the biggest puzzle and mystery for outside observers.

Here I put forward a few reasons why exclusivity attracted Nokia:

1. The lessons of product focus (see why focusing on a few products is hard).
2. The costs associated with Symbian and Meego were unreasonably high. (see Nokia employs as many people to develop its smartphone software as Apple does to develop all its products).
3. The psychology of change management.

This last one may be the most crucial of all.

What has to be appreciated is how bloated Nokia has become. It has 140 thousand employees. It's been organized and re-organized countless times and is completely intractable even to insiders. Cutting headcount can only accomplish so much. It deals with costs, but not with motivation. What management needs to do is also incentivize the survivors.

This is where exclusivity comes in as a motivational tool.

To explain we need to dip into a new metaphor. Conquistador Hernan Cortés landed in Mexico with the intention to conquer it. Legend has it that as soon as he landed, he burned his ships to prevent his men from retreating and motivating them that conquest their only option.[1]

Leaders motivating their followers by removing the means to surrender or retreat is not uncommon. It's harsh and brutal. It's not a natural thing do do: destroying perfectly useful options is value destructive and generates outrage, even mutiny.

In Nokia's case, institutional inertia with a vestigial Symbian effort would compel the organization to maintain the current platform while treating the new alternative as a pathogen.

Counter-distruption theory states that the response to a disruption requires a focused approach through an autonomous challenger protected from corporate antibodies by the CEO herself. In this case, the autonomous organization is outside the company (Microsoft). Protecting the new effort was not possible with a Chinese wall. The only alternative was to simply get rid of the old and start with a clean slate.

While there are times it makes sense to burn ships to eliminate any ideas of retreat, there are other times when doing so is reckless. You can do the calculation on the basis of cost of being wrong and levels of uncertainty [2], but even when armed with all the data linked above, this decision can hardly become something that can be quantified.

It's a gut-level decision.

I would say that Nokia's new CEO did not just jump off a "burning platform" but that once he jumped he made sure it kept burning so that nobody thought of going back on board.

---

Notes:

1. There is a Microsoft precedent to this story. See Amazon.com: Burning the Ships: Transforming Your Company's Culture Through Intellectual Property Strategy (9780470432150): Marshall Phelps, David Kline: Books Burning the Ships recounts the decision that forced Microsoft to face its own 'succeed or die' moment. It's a lesson in strategy and survival that speaks about the courage required to embrace radical business transformation.
2. See also: Burning Ships

In the quarterly smartphone summary published here, I noted the significant acceleration of Android sales at the expense of "other" and Windows Mobile/Phone. Some share was also lost to Symbian. This might be seen as justification for the "platform jump" that Nokia undertook.

In a second discussion, I published the history and life cycles of the smartphone platforms, identifying 10 platforms (out of 16) still in the market. This challenged the view that it was a two horse race today and that it will become no more than a three horse race in the future.

Questions came up about the "quality" of these platforms. Clearly some are barely viable while some are thriving. To explain the value of a platform, one metric we can use is the cumulative sales which allows us to derive the installed base.

The following charts do just that.

This first chart shows the cumulative total of units sold since Q2 2007. This is the sum of all smartphones sold in the last 3.5 years. There are some interesting patterns here, but right now we want to focus on the installed base.

3.5 years of cumulative sales is an upper bound on the installed base. We can get a better estimate the phones in use by subtracting from the base phones older than 2.5 years. This is shown in the second chart below:

As of the last quarter, Nokia's Symbian is likely to have 200 million in use. Apple may have about 85 million iPhones in use (this excludes iPod touch and iPads) and Android about 75 million. RIM is around 95 million and Windows Mobile less than 40 million.

What's interesting is that of these installed bases, the largest is the one that's just been abandoned, and the smallest was chosen as its replacement. Even that's not quite fair since Windows Mobile is not a valid replacement. It's Windows Phone that was chosen and that probably has an installed base of about 1 million [Unlike the measurement of units shipped, Microsoft reported two million licenses were sold to OEMs who had to build those into phones which would be shipped to carriers and distributors. One million may be a generous estimate.]

The bottom line is that there are about 5 Windows Phone users for every 1000 Symbian users. In other words, Nokia jumped from the "burning" 200 million user Symbian platform to the "ice cold" 1 million user Windows Phone platform.

The disposal of such a large installed base must count among the largest divestitures in technology history and, when coupled with the adoption of the least-tested alternative as a replacement, elevates platform risk-taking to a new level. It may seem bold, but there is a fine line between courage and recklessness.

I'll do my own "dive" into the possible justification for this in a future posting.

When Stephen Elop said that Nokia and Microsoft sought to create a "three horse race" he implied that there were only two viable mobile ecosystems today. With that statement he sought to deprecate or declare "end of life" two platforms: Symbian and MeeGo, implying that Nokia's efforts at being the third way failed.

However, he also implicitly declared irrelevant a larger set of market participants. In fact, the market is awash with platforms. Far more than the three or five that Stephen considered.

To illustrate I built the following chart showing the history of all major mobile platforms. The are ranked by launch date (earliest at the bottom). A vertical line marks the present. End dates are approximate and based on declarations of end of life rather than end of usage.

There have been 16 total mobile platforms[1], 10 of which are still (or soon will be) on the market. Of the six that were terminated, three had replacements built by the same orchestrating company (Windows Mobile begat Windows Phone; Maemo begat MeeGo, and PalmOS eventually led to WebOS.) Only three reached end of life with no known descendant (iMode, MeeGo[2] and Symbian).

Operating systems that were launched in the 1990s or early 2000s have mostly been withdrawn/replaced with the exception of Java and BREW.  "Modern" operating systems all emerged after 2007 (following iOS). A total of eight such new OSs were introduced in four years[3].

What I find noteworthy is that there is an implied peculiar fatalism about the market when only two platforms are considered viable, neither of which are more than 3 years old. While visiting the Mobile World Congress, I sensed this jumping to conclusions about platforms was eerily similar to that of a few years ago when new entrants like Apple and Google were declared dead on arrival.

I can only conclude that there is a great deal of groupthink going on in the industry. A perfect setting for a disruptive entrant to change everything, all over again.

---

Notes:

1. I excluded some platforms like Motorola's Linux, SavaJe and perhaps some others (Openmoko, Qtopia) which did not gain significant traction. I also excluded any embedded OSs which did not have native APIs.
2. The end of MeeGo is speculative. Intel is still defending it and may continue developing it.
3. Android variants like Tapas could be considered new platforms, but I maintain them as part of one OS for the time being.

The Windows Phone platform currently has hardware specifications that imply a cellular phone device. What is interesting in light of the new WebOS TouchPad, the newly announced Android tablets, the RIM Playbook and the iPad is that this supposed "third horse" of Windows Phone has no hint of present or future presence in the tablet form factor.

That might have something to do with the plans to move Windows to the tablet form factor. Perhaps Microsoft thinks that pocket size devices deserve a separate operating system, platform and ecosystem than portable mobile computers. Perhaps Microsoft plans to have two separate interfaces for these tablets (slates vs. tablets?) Then again, Ballmer held up a Windows Phone and said "This is Windows too."

It gets confusing.

The bottom line is that without a tablet implementation, Windows Phone developers and content providers will find that the WP ecosystem will have a limited addressable market and will not be suitable for all forms of media or apps. Tablets are currently expected to grow even more rapidly than smartphones did and so there will be significant numerical advantages to those platforms that support multiple screen sizes and form factors.

Now that Nokia has anointed the Windows Phone platform as its exclusive conveyance to the device market, the question in the headline becomes: Where is the Nokia tablet?

In the last quarter Nokia sold 28.3 million Symbian phones. The average selling price was €156 or approximately $210. That price was down 17% year-on-year.

According to the company,

The 17% year-on-year decline in our converged mobile devices ASPs was mainly driven by general price erosion and an increase in the proportion of lower-priced converged mobile devices sales.

ASP erosion has been a fact of life across all of Nokia's products for quite some time, checked only by the increasing mix of smartphones. However the smartphones it sells have been consistently positioned for lower price points. This is consistent with Nokia's long-term goal of serving "billions" of users.

The trouble with the new strategy is that the Windows Phone product lines currently in the market are not likely to be priced in the $200 range. The reason is that the minimum specifications for Windows Phone 7 are:

• Capacitive, 4-point multi-touch screen with WVGA (480x800) resolution
• 1 GHz ARM v7 "Cortex/Scorpion" or better processor
• DirectX9 rendering-capable GPU
• 256 MB of RAM with at least 8 GB of Flash memory
• Accelerometer with compass, ambient light sensor, proximity sensor and Assisted GPS
• 5-megapixel camera with an LED flash

These don't add up to a product that can be sold profitably at $200. The bill of materials is likely to be in that range (and one has to add $15 for Microsoft).

So there are two possible implications for Nokia's new smartphone strategy.

1. Windows Phone will be ported to lower spec/cost hardware to allow the traditional Nokian market growth model to continue and perhaps combat Android proliferation
2. Nokia's smartphone portfolio will consist of high-priced products, and exclude mid-to-low price products.

Option 1 is difficult to imagine. The user experience that Microsoft is putting forward as its differentiation depends on significant hardware which is unlikely to become very cheap very soon. It is an interesting exercise to think through however. What would we have to believe for this option to become real?

Option 2 is more likely as Nokia conforms to this a new definition of smartphone as "high-end" only. This seems to be the default option given what is visible to observers today.

If Option 2 is in fact the outcome of the new strategy, then it leaves Nokia very vulnerable to a low-end disruption (after it's succumbed to a new market disruption.) The $50 smartphone will be reality this year.

Option 2 also most certainly guarantees that Nokia's current market share of 30% in smartphones is likely to be lost and never regained.

Some might argue that's no great loss. After all, Apple does very well with low share and high prices. However, Nokia is almost religious about market share. The reason being that scale offers significant purchasing power and logistical leverage. It sustains a cost structure, distribution network and a business model that is central to the company's core competency. It's also presumably the reason Microsoft partnered with Nokia in the first place: volumes and wide distribution.

So we're back to the old question: how does the new deal lead to a thriving ecosystem? Does it depend on vendors other than Nokia? If so how does Nokia benefit from the sale of Samsung phones?

While a low-end 3G Android smartphone could be sold currently at U$80 (wholesale price) and the adoption of ARM’s Cortex A5 should allow smartphone costs to fall to around US$50, they’ll still have some way to fall to catch up with the cost of 3G feature phones that are already reaching price points of below $30.

via » #MWC11 Day 3 – Same old song. (Informa)

The ubiquity of smartphones is inevitable.

• According to rumors, Huawei shipped 30 million phones last year. The target for this year is 60 million of which 15 will be smartphones.
• According to IDC ZTE is now the fourth largest mobile phone vendor with 51.8 million units in 2010. Assuming 70% for 2011, ZTE could ship 88 million units in 2011, 25 million of which would be smartphones.
• These data imply that ZTE and Huawei will ship nearly 150 million phones in 2011 of which 40 million would be smartphones.
• That would imply approximately 7% share of the global smartphone market for these two companies together.

What is remarkable about this is that the market share of these vendors was zero in the previous year.  It's hard to get comfortable with this market entry. The challenge for forecasters and analysts is that there is little history to draw upon. How will the entrants affect the rivalry between firms? Will the distribution be overlapping with incumbents or will the entrants be competing with non-consumption?

The only thing we can be certain of is that the adoption of smartphones is increasing at a faster rate than is foreseeable.

Stephen Elop stated that Nokia expects to sell approximately 150 million more Symbian devices before the transition to Windows Phone is complete. Assuming that figure is achievable (which is far from certain) I tried to understand how that figure will affect the volume and share numbers for Nokia in the coming years.

It's very likely that the first WP phones will not ship in large volumes until 2012. Product development cycles being what they are, unless there is an ODM rebranding (i.e. taking an HTC phone and gluing a Nokia sticker on it) the minimum development time is at least 12 months. Keep in mind that Nokia does not have engineers to build such a product today and hiring them alone can take months.

The following two charts show what a two year forecast that adds up to 150 million Symbian devices looks like. I assumed Windows Phones begin to ship in 2012 and, keeping in mind that WP7 is designed for a higher hardware specification than the current Symbian phones, I show a modest ramp for a total of 15 million units in the first year.

I also forecast the overall market assuming continuing growth levels and calculated the effect of Nokia's share.

The share at the end of 2012 would be approximately 6%.

Note however that the share above depends highly on Nokia selling 150 million Symbian units in the next two years. One could question why would anyone buy a product whose platform that's been declared end of life. Perhaps there is a built-in assumption that end users are inherently stupid. However even in that scenario the question is which distributors will make the same bet with Nokia? Or, even more perplexing, which operators are willing to stock EOL products for two years when that shelf space is getting strong bids from Nokia's rivals.

Microsoft's new "strategic partnership" with Nokia is not its first. For a decade the software company has courted and consummated relationships with a variety of companies in mobile and telecom. Here are the ones I can remember:

• LG. In February 2009 Microsoft Corp. signed a multiyear agreement for Windows Mobile to be included on devices from LG Electronics Inc. LG would use Windows Mobile as its "primary platform" for smartphones and produce about 50 models running the software.

What happened? LG made a few Windows Mobile devices but with WinMo uncompetitive, they abandoned the platform and moved to Android losing years of market presence and all their profits.

• Motorola. In September 2003, Motorola  and Microsoft announced an alliance. "Starting with the introduction of the new Motorola MPx200 mobile phone with Microsoft Windows Mobile software, the companies will collaborate on a series of Smartphone and Pocket PC wireless devices designed to create a virtual "remote control" for the Web-centric, work-centric, always-on-the-go mobile professional." In addition, the alliance includes cooperation on joint marketing and wireless developer programs.

What happened? Motorola launched a series of Windows Mobile phones culminating in the Motorola Q "Blackberry killer". As Motorola hit the rocks in profitability new management reached for the Android liferaft. The company now relies exclusively on the Droid franchise.

• Palm. In September 2005 Palm and Microsoft announced a strategic alliance to "accelerate the Smartphone market segment with a new device for mobile professionals and businesses. Palm has licensed the Microsoft Windows Mobile operating system for an expanded line of Treo Smartphones, the first of which will be available on Verizon Wireless’ national wireless broadband network."

What happened? Palm shipped a few Windows Mobile, famously dismissing Apple's potential entry as something "PC guys" could never achieve. A new CEO, a private placement and an acquisition later the company is a division of HP making its own operating system.

• Nortel. When Steve Ballmer was famously laughing at the iPhone and saying that he likes the Windows Mobile strategy "a lot" he was sitting next to the then-CEO of Nortel (Mike Zafirovski formerly of Motorola) with whom the company had just closed a strategic deal.  "an alliance between Microsoft and Nortel announced in July 2006 ...  includes three new joint solutions to dramatically improve business communications by breaking down the barriers between voice, e-mail, instant messaging, multimedia conferencing and other forms of communication".

What happened? Nortel declared bankruptcy two years later.

• Verizon. In January 2009 "Verizon Wireless has selected Microsoft Corp. to provide portal, local and Internet search as well as mobile advertising services to customers on its devices. The five-year agreement will go into effect in the first half of 2009 when Microsoft Live Search is targeted to be available on new Verizon Wireless feature phones and smartphones." The deal would ensure Bing distribution to all of Verizon's smartphone customers.

What happened? Bing did ship on some devices but in October 2009 Droid came to Verizon.

• Ericsson. In September 2000, "Ericsson and Microsoft Corp. today launched Ericsson Microsoft Mobile Venture AB. This previously announced joint company will drive the mobile Internet by developing and marketing mobile e-mail solutions for operators. The first solutions are expected to be on the market by the end of the year. The company is part of a broader strategic alliance between Ericsson and Microsoft"

What happened? Ericsson divested itself of the mobile division forming a joint venture which would go on and make more strategic alliances with Microsoft over Windows Mobile culminating in a loss of profits and eventual flight to Android.

• Sendo. In February 2001, Microsoft announced a partnership, in which Microsoft bought $12m of Sendo shares and a seat on the board. Sendo was to be Microsoft's "go to market partner" for the Stinger smartphone platform that would become Smartphone 2002.

What happened? Sendo after litigating IP issues with Microsoft went bankrupt in 2005.

And finally,

• Nokia. No, not this OS deal, but in August 2009 "The worldwide leader in software and the world’s largest smartphone manufacturer have entered into an alliance that is set to deliver a groundbreaking, enterprise-grade solution for mobile productivity. Today, Microsoft Business Division President Stephen Elop and Nokia’s Executive Vice President for Devices Kai Öistämö announced the agreement, outlining a shared vision for the future of mobile productivity. This is the first time that either company has embarked on an alliance of this scope and nature."

The plan was to bring "Microsoft Office Mobile and Microsoft business communications, collaboration and device management software to Nokia’s Symbian devices."

What happened? One and a half years later the same Stephen Elop announced that Symbian will be deprecated.