advertising

This is a transcript of a voice interview conducted April 19th 2012.

The interview is available as an audio file here.

--

Jim Zellmer: I thought we'd start by describing your education from the beginning, Horace.

Horace Dediu: OK, that's good, yeah. I like to say I'm the product of the public school systems. I went to public schools in three different countries, and probably maybe a dozen different schools altogether because we moved a lot, moved over 30 times.

My family emigrated, and we were what you might call political refugees for a while. We were stateless. We didn't have passports. We were officially not citizens of any country. So, for a period of about four or five years, that was the case. I started having regular schooling in Romania, and then moved to Italy and was enrolled in a school, actually, in the city of Verona, which is where "Romeo and Juliet" was originally set.

I was saying...my background. I spent a year in school in Italy, and I went to school in the north of Italy, in Torino. The thing was that I didn't know Italian, so I actually had to learn. But that's a lot easier for children. I was about nine, I think. And so, I learned Italian, was able to have a good school year. But then we moved.

In the summer, we moved again, and we emigrated to the United States. It took about a year to get the paperwork for that--because that was our ultimate goal was to be in the US. I was enrolled in the public schools. First, in Cleveland, where we found someone to help us. I actually went to, I guess, elementary school in the city of Cleveland, where we lived.

And then, later on, for middle school... What happened in Cleveland around that time was that busing started, desegregation. It would have meant, for me, more than one-hour journey across the whole city, from the west end to the east end of Cleveland, and my parents would have none of that. So, we moved to a suburb, immediately adjacent, which is called Lakewood. I went to middle school and high school in Lakewood, Ohio, for three years in high school.

And then, we actually moved yet again, to Boston. My father got a job in the booming tech sector at the time, which was in the early '80s. I ended up in a suburb of Boston called Medford. We didn't know much. Again, we were flying pretty blind here. We weren't familiar with neighborhoods or what were good schools or anything like that--"good schools." Mostly it was a question of, "Can we find affordable housing?"

Medford turned out to be a pretty lucky choice. In one hand, at the time, it was a blue-collar town. It was one of the near suburbs. So the closer to the city, it tends to be the older the immigrant generations are. It was settled mostly by Italian Americans. And so, a lot of the children I met in school were of some ethnic background.

Again, in the Midwest, that was a bit more rare. So East Coast, for me, was a little bit more vibrant in the sense that there were more interesting ethnic backgrounds and people from different histories and so on.

I enjoyed it, but I only had one year at Medford High School. It was actually more enjoyable, that year, I would say, than my years in Ohio. I have friends that I retained from that one year, and I don't have friends I stay in touch with from Ohio.

But it has changed. The city since has become much more, I would say, a lot of those families moved yet again, probably to a further suburb, and has changed character. I think it's more Hispanic now, the city overall. Nothing wrong with that, it just probably would feel different to anyone there now.

I was, again, in Medford. My choice, my next question, was where to go to college. I had been doing OK in school. And that was an interesting puzzle to solve as a kid, because you don't quite know how to fit in, the usual problems. Fortunately, having moved around so much, I had a pretty thick skin, and having had an accent or a strange background just made you a little bit tougher. And so, I was pretty immune to some of the high-school politics.

I focused on studies, and my parents are both educators. My father has a PhD in mathematics, and my mother had a Master's in mathematics and she taught. Actually, her job was as a teacher. They both got certified as teachers in the United States. My father had taught, also, university in Romania, but he ended up teaching high school and other two-year colleges in the US. It's very hard to go into academia from another country.

In any case, the fact that I had such devoted, academically inclined parents helped in focusing me on academics. That also, I think, was my nature. As far as college, my concern, we always had financial concerns, right?

Jim Zellmer: Right.

Horace: So, for me, I wasn't interested in the social aspect of college. For us, really, the decision was, "Can we keep expenses down?" I was accepted at Tufts University and also at Brandeis, which were local. That was important to me, that it would be near to my home and I could actually commute to these places.

Tufts was slightly better. It was a little bit closer. It was actually in Medford. So, I almost went to the college that was nearest to me. It had a very good program, also, in both engineering and computer science.

The odd thing is now, in college for me, was that - it's almost accidental - but, they had an option for you to take two degrees. The dual degree program was meant for people to study liberal arts and engineering. The idea would be you'd be a well-rounded individual.

The weird thing is that when I went there, which is 1985 to 1989, the School of Liberal Arts included the mathematics department and included the computer science department, which is a spinoff of the math department. So, computer science was a Liberal Arts degree; whereas, engineering was like electrical, mechanical, and so on, the traditional subjects.

I enrolled in the dual degree program with the intention of obtaining a computer science degree from the Liberal Arts School and a computer engineering degree from the School of Engineering. That meant that I would essentially take about 30 percent more courses. I think it was 50 credits versus the standard 30, or so. So, I was going for incrementally more material, but I would end up with two bachelor's degrees.

That's what I did. I actually also did it in an accelerated fashion. I ended up doing that in three and a half years, rather than what they expected it to take, five years.

Jim Zellmer: Wow.

Horace: That involved a lot of summer school. I was actually going through taking some of the requirement courses in the summer. So, I was basically a student 365 days a year and I managed to get the two degrees.

In the third year, there was one of these internship opportunities for research in a lab, GTE Laboratories.

Jim Zellmer: I'm sure.

Horace: GTE Labs was, again, local, which was important to me. They actually put us up in the dorms. So, the only time I spent living in a dorm was during the summer of my internship because it was paid for by the employer.

That was a great time. I loved it. I absolutely adored it. Those years right at... In my third year, which actually was my, I guess, my second year as I was a junior a bit early, I was going through this internship and I was studying, I was going working in the research lab. Then I ended up doing my senior year, my last year, I kept going back there. Somehow they kept me around as a part time employee because the project I had been on turned out to be useful.

It was in the library. I was actually working on indexing, which turned into search, which turned into Google later on, but we didn't know what it was then. We called it information retrieval. The algorithms, so we now do search intuitively when it actually became a commercial product, but it was something we did as research back then.

It was great because I was getting the experience I wanted desperately, loved it, and then I was still in school and I managed to get my degree. I was even earning money while I was doing this. It worked out very well, but it was a very tough period.

I graduated with not the highest scores, but I think I was magna cum laude, or something like that, which is not summa cum laude, but it's pretty good. It's like 3.8 GPA, or something like that. That's it. I don't know if that's what you wanted to hear. Then, of course, I did grad school.

Two years, while I was still employed. I took a full time job at the labs, then essentially I did two years. In '92, I got my Master's in computer engineering. Then I spent about a year or two figuring out what to do next. I went to New York to have a bit of experience. Oh yeah, I remember. I applied to Harvard because I wanted to go to business school. The reason I wanted to go to business school was I didn't understand business.

Jim Zellmer: [laughs] How did that play out? MBA's are often criticized.

Horace: Yeah, I'll tell you how it played out. Well, first thing is this. I'm sitting with my friends. We're all engineers, hackers, if you will. We're like, "We don't understand. We don't understand how we get funded."

Here we are sitting in these nice offices, but how does this company, who's basically a boring utility, how are they going to fund us to do cool stuff? We just compared notes and nobody knew. I realized none of us knew how business worked.

I said, "Well, I better learn about this." To me, I had been so focused in engineering that all this business stuff, the only thing I knew was because I would read the "Wall Street Journal." I didn't have either friends, acquaintances, families. All my friends were nerds. All my family were educators. I knew nobody, literally not one person, who could tell me how the stock market worked.

I would pick up the Wall Street Journal, read it cover to cover, and I wouldn't understand what the heck they were talking about. It sounded very abstract to me. It sounded like I need to learn something that there was something missing in my education.

I felt that the only way to get that training was to go to business school. And so, I applied. I was rejected, and the assumption was, in my mind, that I was too technical, too focused in a very, very narrow niche. Back then, there were headhunters that were trying to headhunt people. So, one headhunter got a hold of me and they said they had an opportunity in New York. I said, "Oh, New York. I know they do business in New York. So I better learn more from going to New York."

And so, I took a job with Chase Manhattan, at the time. It's called something else now, but it was Chase Manhattan. The job was also in IT, but at least it was IT, more pragmatic--corporate technology they call it. But I was there trying to understand more about business. I would still read the "Wall Street Journal" every day, still wouldn't understand it.

I reapplied to business school. I told them what I did. I said, "Look, I took this job because I wanted to learn business." I think I somehow convinced them the second time because I was so mad to do these things.

Jim Zellmer: Persistent.

Horace: Persistent. Somehow, I got accepted. I'll never know how they made that mistake.

Jim Zellmer: [laughs] Yes, of course.

Horace: But, anyway, once I went there, I was like, "OK, teach me." Now, the problem was that you start to learn with the case method, and you realize pretty quickly that there is no real curriculum. This is actually a lot of examples you're being given. It's not even empirical. It's like, "Let's throw a lot of examples and see if something makes sense in a pattern somewhere."

Jim Zellmer: This was Harvard?

Horace: Yeah. So, Harvard Business School. It was the only school I applied to, because I felt I didn't know how to qualify quality in terms of business. It was just a brand name. If you know nothing about phones, you just buy the iPhone because you know it's the best, right? So that was me, very naive. And throughout the school, it wasn't as rigorous.

In many ways, it was easy, because in engineering, engineering is very hard. You have to take test and you have to get answers right. And then in business school, it seemed like you just had to talk and you had to be articulate and you had to somehow be sufficiently smart-sounding to succeed.

Jim Zellmer: The theater, aesthetics.

Horace: Yeah. They drilled that into you. They said, "This is what we're teaching you is how to basically be a leader," and that leadership meant being proactive, not being passive. It meant getting in, if you will, on the discussion. I got that. I got it. It made sense to me because, yeah, in the meeting, if you sit there and say nothing, probably no one pays attention to you. You won't go anywhere in life.

So that was one of lessons. The other ones were about vocabulary. What we're not learning here, however, is that there's axioms. There's no specific rules of business. In fact, if you were to put rules down, there'd be many which would contradict each other. One of the classics is that money now is better than money later. But you need spend money now in order to have money later.

Jim Zellmer: [laughs]

Horace: So these two things are contradictory. There were no rules in business that made any sense as if you were proving a theorem or something like that. I decided all right, let's just go with the flow. I met nice people. I learned more from a lot of people.

The best thing that happened to me is that I had Clay Christensen as a professor. He was the nicest guy. The way he taught, it just resonated with me. He hadn't yet published "The Innovator's Dilemma." He was only teaching us operations, which is a first year course.

It's the only technical course in the sense that you do some process diagrams and you do some analysis. Finance is another analytical course, but the math is pretty straightforward. It's not very conceptual, in a way. Accounting is not either. It's interpretation.

But the professor, Christensen, he had a way of speaking to me that made sense as an engineer. It wasn't just me, there were a lot of people in the class who just felt that this guy was getting to the heart of a lot of the questions that we had. I took him as much as I could. I also had the option to take him in the second year. But, unfortunately, there was change in the dean and I think he had to change courses that he was teaching in the second year.

In any case, we had a good two years there. My question was, what do I do after I graduate? This was 1996. The Internet, at the time, was just emerging. Netscape existed as of 1994 or 1995. There were no Internet business models per se. Certainly, there was a technology industry. But it was pretty much boring and either IBM or commodity PCs and you had a bunch of software companies like Microsoft and Adobe.

It was already getting a little bit tired as an industry. As an MBA, it wasn't really that exciting. Everybody was doing either consulting or investment banking. Those were the typical ways of getting out of school. I had, of course, done something different. I did a startup. And nobody...

In fact when I told people I wanted to do a startup everybody said "You came to the wrong school. No one goes to Harvard to learn how to do a startup. There are specific schools that  train you for entrepreneurship." Like for example, Simmons or something. I forgot the names now. Maybe that's a women's college. I don't remember the names.

But the point is guys were saying "No, when you come out of here, you are either going to become a CEO of a Fortune 500 company or you're going to be a consultant for life or you're going to be in finance, managing other people's money or in private equity." I was like "Oh man. All right, well, whatever."

Jim Zellmer: [laughs]

Horace: I went and did this startup. I did a startup with no VC money. It was done with a partner in California who had raised money from the government using SBIR grants.

We're talking the Department of Defense, and we were doing algorithms research. I went back to my university and recruited an engineer who I worked with in a basement office right off of Massachusetts Avenue. That was in '96. We built a system. We ended up licensing it to Adobe. It was a plugin to Acrobat. We didn't benefit much from it financially. Other people made a lot of money but not us.

But we did learn a lot. So I'm thinking: In business school, I didn't really learn how business works, but I have this degree which gives me credibility. Now, I'm going to do my own business...

Jim Zellmer: It's a ticket horse, yes.

Horace: Yeah, but I did my own business. I threw away the ticket.  It didn't help me at all. What I was realizing, for example ... I didn't know how to do sales. I thought when you're doing your own business, you actually need to know how to do sales, and they don't teach you that at business school. I actually went and took a sales course, like they do in a daylong seminar.

I'm saying there are so many pieces that are missing. I didn't know how VCs, how to handle VCs and how to do pitches and do all these things. And none of that was taught, so I thought, OK, what I'm going to do? I'm going to do on-the-job training. I'm going to figure this out. And [learn from] networking with people in technology.

Eventually, I decided from the learning we had in the first startup to do another one, to do e-books! That was 1999. I'm trying to do an e-book startup in 1999. [So] I get on a standards body. I'm doing something with folks and I'm actually in a standards group that includes people from Microsoft, from Adobe, from a bunch of other startups, and from Nokia.

Actually that's where I met someone from Nokia, who...

At the time--it was 1999--I realized at that moment, with or without Nokia, I said, all computers are going to be handheld devices. This is so obvious. I can't express how obvious it is. I was interested, because Nokia had pretty much at the time the best mobile devices.

Jim Zellmer: Yeah, they were the player, no doubt.

Horace: I was asking myself, look, everybody in the U.S. doesn't get mobile. It's obvious that either it's Japan or Europe. And so, the question in my mind was, do I stay with the technology industry and try to figure out how this mobile computing will play out, or do I go to somebody who really knows mobile and expect that they will actually figure out how to become a computing company?

I chose the latter, partly because they also offered me a job and the dot-com bubble burst, and I wasn't ever going to get funding for my e-book business, which was called Handheld Media by the way. It was a great idea, great business idea, that we would actually help publishers convert books. Because at the time, the publishing workflow didn't include exporting tools. You either went to print or PDF, and we had this tool that would reformat a PDF book into a publishable format, like what e-pub is now.

Jim Zellmer: E-pub, right.

Horace: At the time, it was called OEBF, Open E-Book Format. It was using HTML, a variant. I actually had a workflow I could execute on my own and I could basically produce e-books. I did a couple of dozen, mostly as trials. I remember them even now, actually going through and manually extracting hundreds of pages, fairly quickly though.

But, anyway, that all came crashing down because although e-books were still interesting, there was no more funding in the docket. I had the opportunity to work with Nokia because they were actually very interested in launching something, not necessarily in e-books, but in media distribution. They wanted to sell music. They wanted to sell video. They wanted all those things in 2000. I came to them. Now, I'm playing my ticket, my bus ticket.

[The job] was something about how to do business strategy. They hired me. I had this technical background as well. One year I spent based in Boston. But then I was fairly quickly moved to Finland because that's really where you need to be to have any career opportunities. I was young. I was not married. Finland has its charms.

[I met] another American ex-pat who had moved there before I did and he extolled its virtues. I was pretty sold on that. Even though you pay more taxes, you get less wages, everything I did was economically the wrong thing to do.

Jim Zellmer: [laughs] That's a learning, though, too. You've learned a lot. Looking back on all that, Horace, what might have been better or more effective? When you think about your kids today...?

Horace: I don't know. I'm probably having too long of a chat on this, I mean fooling around this. But yeah, I'm very conscious of education, as I said. I realized pretty much after a year after leaving ... When I started Asymco, it's very weird. Again, you never know when you start down a journey where you're going to end up.

It was purely going to be app development because apps were just starting out. Apps were really almost invisible or there was no development going on in Europe. So my idea was why don't I bring iPhone apps into the land of Nokia, because here it's a green field site.

Jim Zellmer: Yes.

Horace: But it was a tough sell. I got one customer, but it was very, very tough. I wanted to bring apps to small and medium companies. I was going to essentially do apps as marketing material, like apps that are essentially a branding thing.

I was naïve also about the Finnish business culture because I think Finnish businesses are extremely conservative and that wasn't playing out. But the fortunate thing was that I began to blog because I had blogged while I was inside Nokia. I told that story about how I started doing it because I realized I wanted a bigger audience.

Then when I left, people kept saying "Why don't you do that while you're on the outside, just for fun?" I took that year to figure things out. I  went back to writing my blog. Then, literally, everything was happening in 20 minutes. It was like a fire hose. I had to learn everything. I kept asking: OK, how do I do this?

So, I am learning every single thing, because I had done it inside Nokia where it was movable type. It was a completely different system. I didn't have to set up anything. It was very simple. It was done for me.

But on the outside, I am having to do it all myself. I started using actually iWeb, which at that time had a blogging tool. So, I opened an account on MobileMe. I was just putting everything through the desktop tools. They were right under my nose. Then I realized the limitations of that, and I moved to the next thing. I was like, "Oh! Seems like WordPress is something people use. Let's go to that." So, I went to WordPress.

Then I realized, "Oh! Hang on! If they are hosting me, they are going to put ads in my stuff, and I don't know what they put there. So, I better host myself...how do you do that? " I need to find a hosting provider. How do you do that?"

So, every technology, every bit of knowledge I had to have, I obtained strictly on my own. I say that every single character written in Asymco and every single mouse click that made it possible was performed by me.

I had no technical support at all. It helps maybe to have a computer science background, but years had passed. So, I was able to... Here the key to the whole thing is that, every step, I am learning, and it keeps me motivated. I am like, "Oh! I understand how this works."

I had some friends, who were more technical, and I would ask them, and they would say, "Oh! You are wasting your time. You can't get any traffic. This won't work." I would ask: "Tell me about Twitter", and they would say, "Oh! You're better off on Facebook." I was like, "Oh! Man!" Every single thing that I was given as advice turned out to be...

Jim Zellmer: Wrong?

Horace: Yes, doing the opposite would actually be the right thing. And so, I started learn about stats, the numbers game of blogging. So, how does that work? What does it mean to have good traffic?

I didn't expect to get advertising revenue, but I was thinking: what does it mean to be successful? So, I would go to John Gruber's site. John puts up his own rates, and I am like, "Oh wow! Look at the numbers." He actually tells you how much he charges per week, and then he says he is fully booked. So, you know what his income is. And so, from that, I was like wow! That's my goal I said to myself.

If I can get the traffic that Gruber gets, then I can charge these rates. I was trying to figure out how much traffic he was getting. He was getting like four million page views a month. I said, "I don't know if that's a lot or not." It certainly is a lot to get money, but you know, how do I get from zero to four million? So, what happened is that also when I was starting out, I reached out to John by email, directly by email.

Some time before I mailed him and said, "I used to work at Nokia and there's a couple of things you're writing about that I wanted to amplify or I wanted to give you some background." He has great stuff, and he actually used my material in one or two blog posts. I wasn't blogging at that moment.

But once I started blogging I mentioned to him, I said "Remember me? I sent you that info, and now I have my own blog." He didn't say anything. But then I wrote, I think the first piece that I wrote that was provocative. It was why someone at Microsoft had been fired or something like that. He linked to me. Then I saw. Then my eyes were open, because then my traffic... from zero to 12,000 a day.

Jim Zellmer: Yeah.

Horace: 12,000 views, for me, was like infinity. My server crashed and all that. I went back [to him] and I said "Thanks for the traffic. Now what do I do because I need money to be able to get this traffic managed." He said "No, you don't need money." You need to turn on caching." I was like "Oh."

Jim Zellmer: [laughs]

Horace: That solved the problem. But then I was asking him "So where do I go from here? Should I think about putting ads on my site? Is that the right thing," because I was so naïve. And he said "No, no, no."

He gave me one piece of advice. This is the only piece of advice I ever got from and from anybody that was useful. He said "Don't put ads. Just do what you do. Your value is in the future. Just keep doing what you're doing." That's all he said, one line.

I said "OK. If he says that, I believe it. That makes sense. Let's do it." I kept getting better at what I was doing, basically writing as well as I could, getting the feedback from comments and learning every step of the way.

This is still going on. One year on, I learned what Twitter really meant. I didn't know Twitter. The first thing I learned at Asymconf was what a hash tag is good for. [I mean] I knew what they were. But I did not use them. I never used a hash tag before Asymconf because I don't use Twitter that way. I don't use it to look up stuff. I mostly use it as a way to get my word out and get feedback, just like a mini micro blog.

But then I didn't understand the potential of a hash tag. It dawned on me when people were writing about Asymco and using a hash tag and if I searched on that I could find out everything that everybody said about it, a great idea.

But that I learned again just a few days ago. So many things I learned, thousands and thousands of details. So many things that the tables are now turned. Now people expect me to teach them about blogging.

Jim Zellmer: Yeah. [laughs]

Horace: For example, how to get traffic. A lot of people are sending me emails with paragraphs and paragraphs of effusive, "Oh you are so great. Thank you so much. Can you help me with this?" I'm like "Well, you don't need to say any of those thank you things, just tell me what you need."

A 15 year old sent me a request for an online interview. He made it easy. Five questions. So sure, I'll answer five questions. I treat everybody equally. Whether it's the Wall Street Journal or a 15 year old. I give them equal attention. I learn as much from both. The kids will teach you more, actually.

Jim Zellmer: Given all of that, if you were entering college today, what would you study?

Horace: I would still study engineering, absolutely. I am at heart an engineer. My son, I hope he does the same things I do. When I was a kid  I loved building things.

I loved building Lego, although I didn't have money for a lot of them. I loved building model kits, the little plastic model kits, planes, and so on. That's not fashionable anymore, and mostly, it's old men who do it nowadays.

Jim Zellmer: [laughs]

Horace: [But] I'm trying to teach my kid. I actually bought a whole bunch of kits and began to model again so he could see me do it so he would get a passion for it.

I think building things with your hands, learning how things work, being passionate about numbers and about technology and things that are tangible is the only way to really create if your mind works that way. I'm not saying it's for everyone. To me, that's the heart and soul of progress.

By the way, I didn't mention this, but my parents also infused in me a love for the arts, and not "modern music". Being Romanians and of a certain age, they weren't ever part of the Rock and Roll, if you will, generation, although they knew of the Beatles.

So, they listened to classical music. Throughout my life I was exposed. I was taken to the theatre, opera, ballet. I used to sit in these performances since I was five years old. I maybe didn't get it. I wasn't talented. I tried to play the violin. I wasn't good at it, but I understood, after repetition, I understood the value of that.

When I went to that liberal arts college and got my degree, even though it was in computer science, I had a lot of requirements. I had to take English poetry. I had to take Japanese art. I had to take a lot of courses that were basic requirements. At the time, they were a burden, but in retrospect, they actually taught me a great deal. I'm very proud of having that background.

I'm not saying to not have an arts education, but absolutely, if you have the skills and can execute or can perform as an engineering student, do that and do the other things. Do the other things which develop the other half of your brain.

Jim Zellmer: Where did you learn to write, Horace? You write very well. Especially given that English is not your first language, you're able to be succinct and you have a wide ranging command of the language. So, where did you learn that?

Horace: Reading, partly. OK, so I have to give a lot of credit, and I did once on Twitter, give a credit to my English high school teacher. I said if you like the writing I have on Asymco, you should thank her.

Actually I wrote to her. She had seen my work in "The Boston Globe." It had been syndicated from that or something.

Jim Zellmer: [laughs] Wow.

Horace: She wrote me an email saying me an email saying, "I'm so proud to see your work and I sent it to your calculus teacher, as well."

They were both retired. The calculus teacher had seen my work in the financial section, actually. He sent her a note saying, "Check out the. . ." They read the paper. These are from that generation, right?

Jim Zellmer: Yes.

Horace: I've never seen my work in print. I've seen it online, but there it was. I thanked her. What I said is this: What she taught me was to write plainly and write clearly. This was Medford High School, a working class neighborhood, nothing special about it.

The teachers I had in English in Ohio didn't instill in me the same passion. The same books were read. Right? The same classics.

Jim Zellmer: Classics, yeah.

Horace: Twain and Conrad and all those classics, but the teacher in Medford, when I would write an essay, and also, I think, there was positive feedback because I was perhaps a little bit better than average in her class. Better than I was in Ohio. There I was about average, maybe.

I had good grades, but I didn't feel like I was great at it. I was nervous because a lot of the tests were vocabulary, or a lot of the tests were not essays.

This teacher instilled in me the passion for writing good essays. She kept telling me how great my essays were.  I was writing somehow, and I loved reading the books. That's the other thing, the other kids would cheat. They would read the Cliff Notes.

Jim Zellmer: Yes.

Horace: They would copy from each other or do all these things. I was like, "No, no. I want to go home and I really want to read this book. These are really nice books." So, a lot of reading, a lot of passion for reading and I think practicing with essays. Practicing, also, in the writing of work online.

Now, again, when I look back at my early stuff, I cringe. It took me a while to find my voice. I didn't know what a voice was. I figured that out quickly. Then I had this challenge of working in the rigor of data. I realized the way to make my stuff stand out is to avoid opinion, to avoid hyperbole, to avoid all these things which bloggers seem to do.

So, anyway, it took some time. I think there's both a lot of ability, like, Einstein said, "It's 20 percent ability, 80 percent perseverance or perspiration." It's just practice. The other thing is it's like an athlete, right? An athlete gets good because they practice every day.

When I set out I said, "This is so much fun. I want to keep to it. I want to write a story every day. I want to write a blog post every day. I pretty much stuck to that. I was even writing on weekends, but I stopped because time, family. But, I write every day. I think of it as mental athleticism. You've got to go running every day if you want to be an athlete. You've got to write every day if you want to be a writer.

I heard, later on, that Jerry Seinfeld said he wrote every day. That was his key to success. He always tried to write jokes every day. That, to me, is what I learned. You bite your tongue sometimes, you learn how to deal with comments. Through comments, you see exactly how people make mistakes. They make mistakes by getting ahead of their thoughts, or they are too impulsive.

You get this great sense of what makes it good and I thought myself being able to write things. I write email in a good way, crisp in the email. You get a sense for it. For example, if somebody sends me ad copy, like a sponsor, and they send me a copy, I sometimes cringe when I look at it.

Jim Zellmer: I noticed that!

Horace: I can't help myself, I edit their copy, and even though they probably don't want me to, there is no time to go back and do feedback. But it's something you learn as a skill.

Some other people have asked me, "How can I teach my son to write well?" To me, it's not about being able to do more, it's actually being able to cut stuff out, and just go straight to thought. Maybe it takes practice.

Jim Zellmer: Now that you are a parent in Finland, your children are in Finland, so what choices do you have for your kids'?

Horace: We are very conscious of that. So, I like [Finland]. Well, I came for one reason, because, it was a wonderful place to play. But I stayed because it's a wonderful place for families.

What Finland's known for, among other things, is that it has the best scoring students on tests ...So, their educational system is considered absolutely in the top, literally top of the world.

There's a lot of mystery about why that is, and you can't really put your finger on it. A lot of educators from Finland have been on world tours trying to explain what they do, and everybody comes away scratching their heads.

I think this actually goes back to Christiansen theory, because when you study it people want to see a formula or an algorithm, but in fact, what is happening is, is something about whether the system is integrated or modular.

Whether the system is centralized or decentralized. So, it's not a question of process. It's like when he approaches health care, he comes  at it from these two different angles. He says, "It's not about being public or private. It's being modular or integrated."

The assumption in other countries is always that everything is modular, and it cannot be anything else. So, in a sense, you need to question down at the deeper roots of causality.

So, my son, just to give you some perspective. He is now in pre-school.

He is six now or he is in grade zero, as they call it here, and he is going to a French school, meaning that they speak French in class.

Jim Zellmer: An immersion school. Yes.

Horace: There are several language schools like this. We're going to the French one partly because his mother went to a French school, his uncle went to a French school and they have loyalty to it, but also because I'd personally like for him to learn a romance language because I knew one. I still know Romanian. I had learned Italian, and I took French in school myself.

The thing is that it doesn't cost any more to go to that school than any other school. All education is free. Not everybody can get into any school, but it isn't about money. The other thing is that it's a small nation.

There's only about five million people, so all the decision-making can be centralized. There is no local school boards. There's no organization down to the smaller units that you might imagine. It's very simple and it's top down.

If you were to try to do a top down approach for a country as big as the United States it wouldn't work. You can't really transplant this system. People are very wary of centralization and control and the decision-making at the top that is incompetent. I completely understand that.

However, this being a small nation, it works and it's central. There's a question of optimum size. I mean, in some sense five million might be the right, maybe 8, even 10 million maybe works. I don't know  beyond that.

There's also the question of how different the people are in terms of homogeneity. Although Finns are fairly homogeneous, there are minority groups as well and there's been plenty of immigrants. I'm not an expert on any of this, but I'm just pointing out some minor details.

I really like the school system. We actually had a parent teacher meeting this morning. They're very relaxed. Children seem to be much more relaxed. This is one thing that came across from the educators meeting and discussing around the world.

There's no pressure. Even though they're performing exceptionally well, there doesn't seem to be that pressure on testing, on measurement, on all these things that supposedly correlate with performance. In many ways, it's asymmetric, or doesn't make sense to people who are steeped in education theory.

I don't know if that's advisable, though. The problem, again, is that it may only work in this context. It may only work in the Nordic country, but we're very happy with the way it works. It's the same thing, by the way, with healthcare. Healthcare here is also centralized. It is a public resource.

Jim Zellmer: Yeah. What's your sense of the teachers you've encountered? One of the things "The Economist" reported a couple years ago was that Finland requires master's degrees from teachers. Contrasting that with what you experienced in America and Verona and Romania, do you have a sense of differences in the teacher capabilities, or no?

Horace: Because here mostly all degrees are considered Master's, it's essentially, I think, five years of school, of education. There's so many differences I can't even begin.

My wife, for example, she has a master's degree. A bachelor's degree would be more equivalent to like a two year college in perception.

Jim Zellmer: OK.

Horace: So, if you have a technical degree...a lot of people drop out. They get out because it is somewhat  long and tedious and it is also not conducted in the American's style of valuing... It's so hard to explain. I actually would like him to go to university in the U.S., but I'd like him to go to every other school in Europe, or in Finland, more specifically.

I think the U.S. higher education system is better. It's better because it actually doesn't teach you according to a cookbook. It's actually much more open. In a way, that's the opposite in the lower grades.

Jim Zellmer: Yes.

Horace: The lower grades are open and the students are given a lot more freedom, and the teachers are given a lot more freedom. So, it's the opposite.

You'll see this, also, in Japan. Japan's educational system is a bit of a joke because they drill so hard in order to get good scores and get into a good university, but once they get into the university, they do nothing.

The entry is your ticket. After that there's hardly any effort. I've heard from others that the way university programs here are, many students will stay in for 6, even 10 years. It takes a long time because they'll drop in and out. They'll take a couple of courses. They'll do something else.

It isn't rigorous in the sense of, "Hey, the clock is running. This burns a lot of money. You've got to get a job to pay off loans." Because you've got that pressure on you in American universities, I think people actually are faster. It's more efficient. It tends to also draw more talent into it. The professors are more ambitious.

So, there's something I like about the U.S. higher education system, although if you listen to Clay, he'll say that it's also being disrupted, and he's probably right, especially the bigger names are going to be pressured from online education.

Jim Zellmer: Given your steep experience in technology and engineering, what is the role or is there a role for technology in education? Certainly in America and other countries we have all these people who say "Gee, our kids don't have iPads, they're just falling behind," among other things. So what is your perspective on that, Horace?

Horace: Well, technology is useless without the software. Hardware is useless without software. Computers are useless without a job to be done.

Jim Zellmer: Yes.

Horace:  I believe technology will help, but we have to make sure that we solve the job problem with technology, rather than saying that technology itself is this answer. I think the iPad has potential because it enables the content to come through again. What you might learn by using it is focused on the content itself.

In other words, a computer was always hard to use. Most of the time you spent using it was actually learning how to use it. So you have to fight through it to get to the actual content and material was supposed to teach you something. Even the way that it used to be, that there was a computer room or a computer lab and you would go and sit in front of these computers and there were all these things considered.

In other words, it got in the way. I think that what the content needs to do is be more pervasive. You need to give the platform to someone who can build something on top of it, someone who can actually create new content, new material, new ways of teaching.

The real innovations that I've seen have been the Khan Academy or even Ted Talks or something along the lines of video content that is packaged in small pieces that people can take and learn at the rate that they're comfortable with. That makes a lot of sense to me. I don't know how that can be worked to the K-12 system because that is so regimented. But I think kids having iPads seems to be potentially a breakthrough opportunity there for how to really teach.

It's all going to come down to the materials. Is this a platform that teachers can build stuff on? The only thing I have to criticize the system for is that it's still not possible for laymen to create material for it. We need more and better tools that sit on top of the tools we have. So abstract from the hardware so you can create great e-books, you can create... experiments and so on.

Jim Zellmer: Right. Well, that's great. I appreciate your time today, Horace. Perhaps we can continue this again one day on education, which certainly continues to change. Again, good luck with the French school, with your son.

The following charts show Google and Microsoft revenues and operating income:

Both companies showed healthy growth. Revenues: Microsoft 6%, Google 24%. Operating Income: Microsoft 12%, Google 48%. Google had a particularly weak margin Q1 2011 so its income growth appears very strong.

The surprise in Microsoft's performance was the 4.8% increase in Windows revenue at a time when PC sales were expected to be declining or flat. Final PC numbers are not yet out so we'll have to check back on this figure to see whether Microsoft has been able to get higher pricing for Windows or whether the market did expand. (Average revenues per PC sold have been quite steady for years). Overall, Microsoft's business shows consistency. Of course, that should not be cause for comfort. Nokia had remarkable consistency until it jumped from a burning platform and RIM grew more rapidly until its platform imploded.

As Google still obtains 96% of its income from advertising, it's quite remarkable that it is now at 61% of Microsoft's revenues. Google is also growing more rapidly than Microsoft so the possibility exists that the top ad service will overtake the top software company in revenue, establishing a new benchmark for how software can be monetized.

The curious thing about both of these companies' financial performance is that mobility does not appear to have had any impact on either top or bottom lines[1].  There is no business division or income statement line that can be attached to mobile revenues. Microsoft placed Windows Phone under Entertainment and Devices but that division is dominated by Xbox and accessories. Google bundles everything under Advertising and has never broken out mobile, much less Android-derived income.

The surge in valuation for mobile-focused startups seems to leave investors in both these companies unaffected. The damnation for both companies lies in mobility being non-core businesses whose strategies center on reaction and defense.

---

Notes:

1. Google does not answer specific questions about the impact of mobile on their business but they do acknowledge that there are traffic acquisition costs (TAC) associated with OEMs and Carriers who deploy Android. This means that there are costs of mobile sales (i.e. Search) but not to any measure of specific value.

Charles Arthur, writing for The Guardian, has noted that court filings seem to be revealing Google's Android revenues. If this is the case, we have a significant breakthrough in understanding the economics of Android and the overall mobile platform strategy of Google.

The new data is a reference to a settlement offer Google made to Oracle of $2.8 million and 0.515% of Android revenues on an ongoing basis. The key assumption to make this data useful is that the $2.8 million offer represents 0.515% of revenues to date.

In other words, that revenues from 2008 to end of 2011 multiplied by 0.00515 results in $2.8 million. That implies that revenues from 2008 to 2011 were $544 million.

I think that's a fair assumption. I don't see why Google would offer a higher or lower royalty rate for years 2008 through 2011 than for years after 2011. The offer would seem to be 0.0515% in the future as well as retroactively in the past.

If we work with this assumption then the next question is how to distribute this $544 million over the four years 2008 through 2011? The installed base of Android has grown exponentially and it would seem logical to assume that revenues have followed in a similar pattern. Here is a chart of installed base given activation data supplied by Google.

If we assume revenues were distributed the same way we would get something like this:

The sum of the bars in this chart equals $544 million and the ramp is approximately the same as the installed base. The relationship between the first graph and the second is a multiple equivalent to the revenue per device.

Therefore a second assumption is that revenue per device remained fairly constant. In this model the revenue comes out to be about $1.70 per device per year. It's possible that rev/dev/yr. is increasing as Google services are discovered by users. It's also possible that the rev/dev/yr. is decreasing as later adopters are less likely to engage as early users. I just don't know how to adjust this value so by leaving it at the average, I can avoid introducing more assumptions.

Now we can stop and look at this figure and do a test. Does $1.70 make sense as a device revenue for Android? Google had spoken about targeting $10/device/yr. but we have no indication that they are nearly at that level. If they did achieve that level, with an installed base of 300 million, Google could be collecting $3 billion a year in Android income. Are they getting it?

As of October, Google mentioned that it had a $2.5 billion "mobile run rate". But we know that this figure is not only from Android. Mobile includes all mobile devices and services including those running inside iOS, Symbian, BlackBerry, Windows Phone, etc.  They could be counting ads on all mobile browsers as well as ads running inside all apps on all platforms. Furthermore, Google also testified that iOS accounts for two thirds of their mobile search revenues[1].

Adding run rate to the Android revenue chart results in the following:

So the step is to take the "run rate" figure of $2.5 billion and assume, as Charles Arthur did, that iOS income is what is left after taking out the Android part[2]. I also noted that Google previously mentioned a run rate of $1 billion and I will assign that run rate to 2010 and $2.5b to all of 2011. Since we know the number of iOS devices in use for years 2010 and 2011 we can calculate Google's revenues per iOS device in use.

If we thus combine all the data we know (revenues derived from settlement offer, units in use, run rate and iOS installed base) we get the following revenue profile:

This shows a positive trend for Google: revenues per smartphone per year is increasing. However, the growth is coming from non-Android devices which means mostly iOS. Revenues per device for Android is probably declining.

The story for iOS revenues however is not all rosy for Google. Google has to pay for that revenue. The mechanism is a payment that Google makes to Apple for the prominent and default placement of Google search on Safari.

We don't know the terms of the arrangement but if we assume $2/device Google needs to shave $2 from the top of the chart above with that money going to Apple (attached as iPhone/iPad service revenues.)[3]

That still leaves a healthy $8.33 in 2011 as operating income from mobile with $1.70 or so coming from Android.

However, to make this operating income into bottom line profit, we have to extract the R&D and SG&A associated with mobile at Google. This would be, therefore, Andy Rubin's yearly budget.

Andy Rubin has stated in the past that Android is profitable. That is certainly believable. The budget would have to be about $400 million/year in 2011.

Charles Arthur concluded that Google obtains four times more revenue from iOS than from Android. My estimates indicate that in 2011 the revenue ratio was closer to 5 but if we subtract the cost of those sales in the form of payments to Apple then the ratio could well be four to one.

Many of these figures begin to "hang together" as we balance assumptions about costs, revenues and statements made in public. There is a consistency within a comfortable margin of error. If that is the case, then the economics of Android begins to take shape.

My take is that it's not a bad business. But it's also not a great one. As long as there is exponential growth in units, Android will improve its position inside Google relative to iOS. But from Google's perspective, iOS is today a bigger business. And iOS is not standing still. It's growing not only in terms of units but in revenue per unit.

Strategically, and historically Android was never one thing. P&L considerations were not the only (or even at all) factors in investment for Google. Having a hedge against hegemony of potential rivals, having a means to learn and develop new business and having a role in defining the post-PC computing paradigm are all probably bigger considerations than profitability.

So in terms of returns, Android is sustainable. However, in relative terms the value created leaves much to be desired. Whereas Android generates $1.70/device/year and thus an Android device with a two year life generates about $3.5 to Google over its life, Apple obtained $576.3 for each iOS device it sold in 2011[4]. The economics of Android are nothing like the economics of iOS.

---

Notes:

1. This figure is also not conclusive as search is not the only form of revenue on a mobile device but it does imply that Android is not the majority of Google's mobile revenues.
2. Clearly this is overstating iOS as the non-Android income is broken up between several platforms. We can only say that iOS is the vast majority of non-Android income.
3. Assuming a $2/device payment model means Google paid $312 million to Apple in 2011 and $171 million in 2010. This would go toward boosting Apple's revenue per iOS device. Naturally, if this distribution cost is higher or would be subject to re-negotiation then it could vary widely.
4. The iOS figure includes accessories and licensing of trademarks but excludes income from App Store, iTunes music, movies, TV shows, iBooks, greeting cards or textbooks.

Last year we began offering revenue and operating income comparisons between Apple and Microsoft. It was becoming evident that the iOS franchise was beginning to overtake both in revenue and profitability the Windows franchise. To offer more dimensions of comparison this time I am adding Google's top and bottom lines for comparison (click image for detail):

Note that the graphs have the same scales when read horizontally. I've broken out the sub-divisions of revenues as the companies report them. Here are some observations:

1. The time spanned is 4.5 years (September 2007 to December 2011)
2. If we compare the fourth quarter 2007 to fourth quarter 2011 the ratio of Google : Microsoft : Apple went from 1: 3.39:2:16 to 1:1.97: 4.38. In other words, Microsoft was 3.4 times bigger than Google but today it's only about twice. Apple was twice and is now about 4.4 times bigger.
3. In terms of operating income (i.e. before R&D, SG&A and OI&E) the ratios were 1:4.48:1.53 and are now 1:2.28:4.82. Microsoft's income gap to Google halved while Apple's more than tripled.
4. Google and Microsoft have grown but not by adding new sources of revenue. Apple grew its base but, more importantly, added new businesses for spectacularly more growth.
5. Compared to Microsoft and Apple, Google's revenue is distinctly single-source: advertising. Though divided between own sites and those of affiliates, advertising is today 96.1% of revenue and was 98.6% four years earlier.

If we compare the individual product/business operating incomes individually we see some interesting patterns:

1. Google's advertising profits have overtaken Windows as has the iPhone and the iPad may do so quite soon.
2. Microsoft's Business (Office) and Server businesses are growing more quickly than Windows
3. The hardware oriented Apple' operating margin is now 37% and exceeds Google's 33% while being nearly equal to Microsoft's 38% (see chart below)

I presented a subset of this material January 30th at a TechMeetups event titled "Apple - world's biggest startup." A presentation by Adam Lashinsky focused on the cultural and procedural aspects which highlight Apple's "startup" nature. My presentation showed, using these graphs, Apple's growth characterizes it as a "startup". The growth did not come from a broadening of its core products markets. It came from the creation of new product categories. Google, a much younger company does not exhibit this non-secular growth any more than Microsoft which is about as old as Apple is.

The lesson is perhaps that rapid growth is not the right of small companies alone. Apple has used disruptive innovation to transform itself and offers a stunning contrast to two other companies which are also seen as innovative leaders.

[Updated with new charts including data from StatCounter and not NetMarketshare]

Generally speaking there is an equivalence drawn between iOS and Android as technologies and even as user experiences. However, as I've pointed out on several occasions there is a very clear nonequivalence in business models and thus the "fuel" which keeps each platform running. But does this difference in models lead to some difference in the way the products are "hired" to do what they do. Does it imply anything about how the products are likely to evolve?

I collected into one place all the data I could find about utilization (how much of a service and how often it's used) and possession (both in terms of current ownership and new acquisitions) of iOS and Android.

Possession data comes from comScore survey data of share of US installed base of smartphones by platform at the end of June 2011 (first chart) and share of Global Smartphone Purchases as of Q2 2011 sourced from company reports and IDC (second chart).

Utilization data (vertical axes) comes from August  2011 shares of mobile browsers (from StatCounter June 2011), in-airport WiFi associations from Boingo in June 2011 (iPhone vs. Android), in-flight Wifi associations from Gogo in June 2011,  and In-app Ad impressions from Millenial Media also in June.

The charts are divided into nine sections corresponding roughly to "low", "medium" and "high" utilization vs. possession.

The first chart compares a US-only population for possession vs. a mixture of global and US-only populations for utilization. The second chart compares a global population to the mix of US and global metrics.

What I found interesting is that if we take ad impressions (red X) and browsing (blue +) data out, the two platforms are indeed quite distinct. iPhone has a medium level of possession with a high level of utilization of data services while Android has a high level of possession with a low level of utilization. The data is also nicely clustered.

If we take just the ad impression or browser data then the platforms are quite similar: medium utilization for medium possession and high utilization for high possession. If the two platforms were to swap places in possession (i.e. market share) then they would probably also swap places in utilization (i.e. impressions).

What the data seems to suggest therefore is that for data services the iPhone is a far more popular tool than Android. But for in-app ad impressions and browsing the products are used in a similar manner.

The big difference is however that the services where iPhone utilization is high are those where users have to pay something. Most (if not all) of the ad impressions in apps are for free apps. So ad consumption scales with possession. But non-free services don't. This data seems to support the hypothesis that Android users are disproportionately less willing to spend money (note that the data does not say that users don't have money, but simply that they are not spending it). The other data which backs this hypothesis is that paid app sales on Android trail quite far behind the rate of purchase on iPhone. That could be due to payment problems in the Android marketplace but this data shows that there is some other effect as well.

Why is this important?

We can argue that Android is a low end product and that it disrupts and that this is consistent with that positioning. However it also indicates that the value is not in that ecosystem. And ecosystems are what sustain a platform in the long term. This debate will continue but I am reminded of other platforms which had similar patterns.

Both the Blackberry and Symbian had high possession (in terms of share) with very low utilization. There were lots of surveys which showed that browsing, app downloads and "monetization" of services after the sale of the handset were low. Much was written about it being due to poor experiences. But learned observers today insist that the experience on Android is as good as on the iPhone.

So why is there less economic participation from Android users? It's not just about these proxy services, but all manner of activities which enrich an ecosystem. Possession without utilization implies a product that does not do its job. Its features are not being absorbed. Why would that be?

 

In a new ad for the iPad Apple once again makes the case that the tablet is a good substitute for a PC in a number of use cases (and permits some new ones.)

We'll never stop sharing our memories. Or getting lost in a good book. We'll always cook dinner and cheer for our favorite team. We'll still go to meetings, make home movies, and learn new things. But how we do all this will never be the same.

This belief that the iPad "cannibalizes" the PC is a powerful concept. The growth of the PC has certainly been affected. But has the Mac's growth also been affected?

Tim Cook seems to think so. In the earnings call he said:

In terms of cannibalization, we do believe that some customers chose to purchase an iPad instead of the new Mac during the quarter, but we also believe that even more customers chose to purchase an iPad over Windows PC. And as I've said before, there's a lot more of the Windows PC business to cannibalize than the Mac.

If we look at the behavior of Mac vs. iPad, the following chart may be useful:

First off, we can observe that since introduction, iPad has always sold more units than the Mac. Now it's selling more than twice as many units and the revenue from those units is higher than those of the Mac. The other line to look at is the growth (y/y). During the time that the iPad has been shipping, the Mac growth has been declining.

Yes, it's still growing at five times the rate of the PC market (and 7.5 times the rate of Windows only PCs), but the iPad phenomenon is indeed affecting the Mac.

With the launch of Lion, Apple is clearly showing that there is dramatic improvement potential in traditional personal computing. But increasingly the improvements are "borrowed" from touch interfaces. Clearly, as the ad implies, computing will never be the same again.

About 10 years ago I met an advertising executive in New York who explained the difficulty of advertising a new brand of deodorant to consumers. “Most people never change their deodorant,” I remember him saying. “They pick one brand when they are young, and stick with it for a long, long time. If it works, why switch?”

The same theory can be applied to customers who are making the switch to smartphones today. Once they have picked a type of phone, whether it’s Apple iOS, Google Android or something else, it’s difficult, and often expensive, to switch. Consumers become comfortable with the interface and design of the phone and the apps they have purchased on that platform. If it works, why switch?

Many Smartphone Customers Are Still Up for Grabs - NYTimes.com

This quote says a lot. The notion that customers remain captive to a platform is well understood. After all, it seems impossible to get people to switch out of Windows (or Mac or iPod). Platform vendors are aware of this as the land grab for users seems to be running at full pitch.

However, there is a critical condition described in the quote above: "If it works, why switch?"  The condition which keeps users loyal is that the product they chose is good enough--i.e. "it works." That's a symptom of over-service and commoditization. If a product, like deodorant, is good enough you won't be tempted to move to another brand even if it's marginally better since the new brand has switching costs in the form of uncertainties ("Will it be as good? What if I don't like the smell? etc.) People are inherently conservative and you can't compete with comfort and familiarity by launching a marginally better product.

So with that in mind, why is it that millions are switching mobile platforms?In this blog I've cataloged the massive shifts occurring away from mobile platforms that have been around for years with deeply entrenched user bases. Microsoft's Windows Mobile, Nokia's Symbian, Palm's PalmOS and RIM's Blackberry have collectively lost tens of millions of users. A net of half a million Blackberries are being abandoned in the US every month.

So we would need to say that the condition of "it works" or being good enough was not met with those platforms. The attraction of something better is clearly greater than the switching cost.

So this highlights a good test for how to tell if smartphones are good enough: If users are fiercely loyal with a given platform then it's probably good enough but if they are willing to switch (i.e. disloyal) then it's probably not good enough. It seems like a trivial observation but it's a very important clue to the bigger question of whether we can "call the end" of the market. Just like it would have been premature to call the end in 2006 when Symbian and RIM seemed unbeatable, it will seem premature to call the end now in the event that a significant innovation is yet to appear.

The correct calling of the end has profound investment implications. Do you (like Microsoft) invest billions in a new platform if you know that there is no more room for entrants? Should Samsung bother with Bada or HP with WebOS if the game is already over? Even more, should Apple even bother to improve iOS if they have no shot at switching a billion likely Android adopters. Why not just nurture the current installed base and work on building walls and moats around them?

So with this hypothesis in mind, it makes sense to analyze whether Android or iOS, the current presumed champions, are "good enough" on the basis of how often users switch out of them. My bet is that neither is good enough and that there will be increasing churn between platforms. I imagine that Android is less sticky (and hence less than good enough) based on app consumption but there is little evidence of churn because most phones in use have been bought less than one device generation ago. More importantly, there have been few opportunities yet for switching as many Android buyers don't even have the choice of other platforms either due to where they live or how much income they have available.

To really tell where we stand, we would need to collect stats on switchers to know just how satisfactory the platforms may be. Remember that a choice of a new deodorant on the same shelf at nearly the same price is the test for loyalty. For an adequacy test we need to see better distribution and more choices for consumers. It's still very early even in the US for any conclusions to be drawn about the adequacy of Android.

By one estimate (Gartner), about 81% of apps downloaded today are free. The way free apps are able to generate revenue is through advertising. 16 percent of application store markets' $5.2 billion revenue was generated from advertising.

But advertising what?

It seems that most of the ad dollars spent on in-app ads are spent by developers to promote other apps. I'd like to get hard data to prove this, but assuming it's true, we have to ask if the apps being promoted through ads in apps are free apps seeking more revenue from ads...from other apps.

To put it bluntly, the $816 million that "comes from advertising" is not coming from consumers but churning around the ecosystem like a hot potato. This figure is said to triple this year.

It's arguable that this is only logical. App users are pre-qualified as app downloaders so it makes sense to target them through apps for more apps. But where does value actually flow into the ecosystem from consumers? This problem of commerce through apps being nothing but virtual app goods implies that there is a bubble forming. This is more likely to be a problem for Android as the ratio of advertising to purchase of Android apps is higher than on iOS, but it's a problem for all app advertising.

It's even more ironic that the developer looking to create revenues through their app is promoting competing apps seeking the same user.

I don't see how this can end well.

The only way ads really work is for users to transfer cash for underlying value. Aside from paid apps which have entertainment or functional value, how much spending from traditional ad buyers (brands) is targeting apps? Perhaps transitioning ad buyers is what Apple had in mind a year ago with iAd. Signs so far are not encouraging that their approach is working. That may be bad news for Apple, but it's worse news for AdMob.

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.

When I wrote my opinion on the future of publishing (Citizen Publisher), I focused my lens on books and magazines. Published works that have relatively low time-sensitivity and hence relatively long shelf life are quite different from newspapers which package material with very brief temporal relevance.

The print-based news industry has suffered much more than print-based books and magazines. The primary cause is that "print" plays a far larger role in newsprint-based newspapers than in books.

To give you an idea of how important the printing plant is, consider that a huge proportion of a newspaper's assets are tied up in its printing plant. That plant is so large and so demanding that it ends up causing the whole business to revolve around it: Print runs are done at night to make sure the product is delivered in the morning. That puts a hard deadline on the writers to submit stories before the product is "frozen" into a final edition. Writers and editors and advertisers need to march in lock-step to the cycle time of a big manufacturing operation.

There are 19 presses and 17 printing plants that print the two million copies of the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal. To make changes to the plant require large amounts of capital investment and that capital's depreciation is an integral part of the financial balance of the company. So much so that one wit remarked that a newspaper is nothing more than an instrument that permits the depreciation of a printing plant.

Costs of manufacturing have been slightly offset by better technology and distributed printing but newsprint itself has soared in price so the dependence on physical product has made the economics worse over time.

That's the cost side. But if you keep following the money from the revenue side, you realize that the situation is critical. In the US, a large part of the local paper's revenue base was wiped out by Craig's list. Classifieds are a fading memory. With respect to regular ads, the story is almost as bad. 26% of ad spend in 2009 was allocated to print, while only 12% of time spent consuming media was spent on it. In contrast, Internet use is at 28% of time where only 13% of ad dollars are allocated.

Source: Morgan Stanley Internet Trends Presentation.pdf

It's inevitable that advertisers will shift their budgets to follow where the attention is going. Potentially that's a $50 billion shift into Internet advertising. The number nearly matches the $47 billion loss from print.

This future is not far off. In fact, it's already happening. in recent years the number of newspapers slated for closure, bankruptcy or severe cutbacks has risen—especially in the United States, where the industry has shed a fifth of its journalists since 2001.

Once the printing plant is taken out of the equation, the raison d'être of the package itself ends. For this reason, the newspaper product cannot survive on-line. Reading news is still very popular, but newspapers aren't.

So will the iPad save this medium?

As in Citizen Publisher, I argue that for that to happen, the medium needs its Orson Welles. Furthermore, to have him emerge, the business must be architected as an integrated approach to solve a new job to be done.

The latest story from The Guardian suggests that Rupert Murdoch is working on just such an approach. In another interview Murdoch explained the project in more detail:

What is the biggest thing on your mind now?

...There are so many disruptive technologies coming all the time! [This in almost a whoop of excitement.] Pretty. Damn. Interesting! Just trying to stay ahead of the technology. I'm starting a paper in six weeks. A brand new paper. It will be a bit like the New York Post . But it will be national. Have that sort of humour and attitude like the Post . It will only be seen on tablets. It will only employ journalists - and maybe eight to 10 technicians.

What sort of circulation will you need?

At the price we are talking about, that's $1 a week - not a day, a week - we need 800,000. By the end of next year there will be 30 to 40 million iPads. I believe every single person will eventually have one, even children.

Via: afr.com

What's more, it's suggested that an unreformed disruptor is mysteriously involved.  One can only speculate, but the hints of autonomy, dedicated (and incentivized) creative professionals involved in a new (not re-purposed) publication with a low-cost structure bodes well.

The medium may get its Orson Welles after all.

I've received many supportive comments following the Fortune piece. Many also worried that the site is fragile due to a lack of income.  I'd like to put those worries to rest.

First, I want to state one goal for the site which defines my attitude toward how to monetize it: I intend this site to be a useful resource to the reader.

From utility comes value. I want readers to obtain value with a high signal/noise ratio. Unless well targeted, advertising drives up the noise factor and lowers usefulness. I would only accept advertising if it improved the value to the reader. Since ad networks will push ads over which I have no control I cannot be sure that they are adding value and not contradicting my content. But as you see in the right-most column, I do accept advertisements (sponsors) whose message I can evaluate and curate. You can be a sponsor (see the sponsorship page for a measure of what value you can gain from exposure through Asymco).

Second, there is also another way to support Asymco: if you use iTunes, do your music, movies, app or TV show shopping through the affiliate link in my site. It's the App Store logo in the upper right corner. Or bookmark this link: Support Asymco by buying content. I receive a commission of up to 5% from any purchase made through that link. It has already been enough to pay for my hosting.

Third, there are also indirect ways in which I derive value from Asymco. I offer consulting, data and services to clients directly. If you are interested in any of these feel free to contact me directly by email.

Thanks to all who read and contribute comments to this site. The biggest value to me is the learning I get from interacting with the readers.