platform

Here is an exchange with Robert van Apeldoorn, Journalist with Trends Tendances Magazine in Belgium. (www.trends.be/fr). The exchange took place in early September via e-mail.

Robert: -Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is considered in Europe as a way to push growth, and is a target of national and EU policies (digital growth,etc), but the result seems to be a failure: the European computer industry (hardware) is almost dead (ICL, Siemens computers bought by Fujitsu, Olivetti almost out of computer business, Nixdorf dead) since the 90’, and the telco industry seems to be in crisis. All European companies are out of the handset business (big and fading exception is Nokia, but with  American software), and Alcatel is suffering with telco equipement manufacturing. It seems that at best, Europe can be a good niche player, with companies like ARM (chips). Technology seems to be reduced to localized services (computer services), some software businesses. What do you thing about that point of view? Is it correct or exaggerated ?
What will remain to the European companies ?

The main problem is perphaps the creation of European platform/ecosystems. Almost all are American today: Apple IOS-iTunes, Android, Amazon,…

Why Symbian didn’t succeed as a competitive platform ?

Is it possible to create European platforms? After all, IOS succeed after a short period of time.

What are the European tech companies that could play an important role in the near future ?

My answer: You are correct in this observation. Europe has failed to generate growth on the basis of ICT. The reasons are that the rate of change in ICT is rapid and getting more so. If European businesses require intervention, support or other forms of assistance in terms of policy, the time for that coordination to take effect is longer than the cycle time of disruption.

Almost all growth has come from companies that entered the space. Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook and even Microsoft came into positions of power from outside the industries they entered. Policy tends to offer means of sustaining incumbents or finding "logical" or defensible entrants. I should mention that the problem of industrial policy failing is not unique to Europe. Japan and to a lesser degree Korea are also facing crises of innovation due to policies designed to sustain rather than disrupt.

It's understandable given the need to justify spending other people's money. No policy maker wants to spend it recklessly. However, the process of unforeseen growth is, well, unforeseeable. It cannot be predicted and it's very likely to come from somewhere other than where you expect it.

This quickly becomes a lengthy discussion, but fundamentally the innovation process is chaotic. It's very similar to the process of artistic creation. The crisis in innovation comes from not having sufficient chaos. If Europe wants to preserve, sustain, nurture, and maintain it will do so at the expense of creative destruction. Nobody likes chaos but everybody wants innovation. Unfortunately they are concurrent things.

thank you very much for these interesting answer. Usually the answer is the lack of venture capital or the compartimented market.

So Nokia was an exception ?

If a lack of venture capital is the problem then what is the cause of a lack of venture capital? There is plenty of capital on the continent. Why should it not be allocated to ventures? Capital markets in Europe are quite free and liquid and capital will find the best opportunities. The problem is that there are few fundable opportunities.

I think Nokia was not an exception in the sense that it was not a "managed" success. The company (and Finland) emerged from a crisis in the early 90s. The crisis forced a re-evaluation of priorities and the success of Nokia could be attributed to a lack of emphasis in what was considered sustaining at the time (consumer electronics, TVs, natural resources, etc.) Entry into mobile phones was not what policy would have suggested was the biggest opportunity at the time. The market for mobile phones was projected to be insignificant in comparison to what was seen as success of the time (Sony, et. al.)

[Addendum: What are policy makers suggesting as the key investment themes? Which projects get funding today and which don't?]

comScore reports that US smartphone penetration has decisively crossed over 50% in August. This should not come as a surprise as the penetration rate has been very linear.

Now that we've crossed this milestone, the thing to watch is the conversion rate from smartphone non-consumption to smartphone consumption.

The reason is that we don't know what "saturation" means in smartphones. We can assume it's at least 80% as about 80% of new phones being purchased are smartphones. What we don't know is how much above 80% it can be. It could  be 100% if feature phones simply stop being made but we can't be sure if there will be latent demand and how long this will last (similar to the market for black-and-white TVs after Color became commonplace).

To help keep an eye on this measure, the following graph shows the rate at which non-smart to smart conversion is happening.

It measures the addition of new (to smart) subs each week in a particular measurement period (three months ending the month shown on the x-axis). There is also a 3 period moving average shown as a line. Keep in mind that this shows net new users and therefore excludes smartphone switchers. It's a good measure of how rapidly non-consumers are being converted to consumers.

The data shows that there are as many first time smartphone adoptions in late 2012 as there were in late 2010. Or, the new-to-smart users are joining ecosystems just as quickly when penetration is 50% as when it was 20%. An encouraging situation when considering the opportunity space above 50%. The "S-curve" has not reached an inflection point.

If you're thinking about growth, so far so good. There is however one surprise in the data.

All the growth in the last 24 months (between 2010 and present) was due to Android and iOS. Android added 50 million and iOS added 26 million in the last 24 months. The net smartphone user additions were about 60 million (RIM lost about 12 million, Windows lost 1.5 million and others lost 2.6 million). Android therefore has gained twice as many users as iOS has in this two-year period. Put another way, Android captured 70% of the growth and iOS captured 30% of the growth.

However, if we look at the last 12 months, the split is 23.5 million for Android and 17.0 million for iOS. Android gained 58% of the growth and Apple captured 42%--a change in "spread" from 40 points to 16 in favor of Android.

The evidence also shows itself in the trajectory of platform market shares of installed base.

In the last six months, Android share growth is slowing while iOS is still gaining.

If this trend continues then the next 50% may not behave as one might expect (namely that late adopters would take the low-cost commodity offering accelerating Android adoption.) Late adopters may, in fact, be choosier than early adopters. And it's not at the cost of overall growth. Late adopters are still converting at the same rate of the early adopters.

Therefore, paradoxically, the late market shows that the prospect for iOS growth seems strong. Furthermore, as we do reach saturation, perhaps in another three years, the secular growth may end in the US but the loyalty of iOS usage may give iOS another advantage in a market where growth is determined by "platform churn"

The US is the crucible of the phone market in many ways so what happens in the US may be a harbinger for what happens world-wide.

The following article is published in Filmmaker Magazine. Fall 2012, Vol. 21 #1.

There is a saying I once heard: "Once you change the method of distribution, the product has to change."

This itself is a take on the idea that distribution defines the product. You see this around you every day in the products you buy. Cars are influenced by the dealership networks that sell them. Phones by the mobile network operators and the choice of computer you use at work by whatever the IT department or value added reseller prefers to work with. Mass market restaurants offer what can be sold by wholesalers--typically frozen, long shelf-life staples. Almost every product category is shaped more by what can be distributed than what can be produced. That's simply because in mature economies distribution is harder than production. In consumer products it requires access to wholesalers who then require access to shops who themselves have access to prime real estate which attracts foot traffic. Production only requires capital. Distribution requires relationships, often exclusive ones.

This pattern is even more pronounced when looking at media products. Production is arguably easier since it's constrained by talent, which is fungible. But distribution is even harder as it is addressing bigger audiences in shorter time frames. You see this lopsided balance of power in the abundance of books being written relative to those being published. There are thousands of films produced and hundreds get distributed.

But the saying suggests that if distribution were to change then the product itself would change. Indeed, if you can sell ebooks direct, then they tend to evolve into new genres (e.g. Fifty Shades of Grey). If you can sell cheap adult video online it tends to evolve into new genres as well (I'll leave examples to the imagination.) YouTube videos quickly cluster around "Fail" or "Win" compilations which evolved from America's Funniest Home Videos. They get millions of views. Even before the Internet, the availability of cable created the genre of music video, which created the first music broadcast alternative to radio. And of course, cinema itself redefined theater once it could get shown to millions rather than thousands. The new methods of distribution of media affected what gets produced rather than the other way around. Consider the converse: innovative filmmakers who try new storytelling methods are stymied by a lack of acceptance by existing distributors and find their material languishing in festivals or perpetual cult status.

So we can re-state the saying to a new "Law of new media": Once you change the method of distribution, the medium itself has to change.

I gave examples of how Internet distribution changed some media formats. However, the Internet itself has not had any effect on long-form cinema so far. In fact, you would be able to tell if Internet distribution did work by watching if the product would change. So far, it seems, at least to me, that the commercially successful product has not changed. One reason has been that film is still a very difficult product to distribute digitally as most of the world does not have the capacity to buy, consume and enjoy films digitally. Another is that the current distributors have had an allergic reaction to the option. As existing products have been crammed into the new distribution chain (e.g. Netflix) the established distributors are experiencing channel conflict and are raising the costs of digital distribution rights. Netflix has seen its costs triple as it ate into Cable market share. Fundamentally, the incumbent distributors are reluctant to open a channel of distribution which conflicts with or reduces margins of the existing channels.

This brings up another corollary: fundamentally, you can’t move an existing media to a new network. You have to think of it as a deeply rooted-in system, and it's just not going to like moving to another environment. You have to uproot this huge tree, and it just won’t come out and if it did it will not take root in a new place.

The only way to create this new value network around new distribution is to plant a new tree.

This is the problem for the technology industry today. The only way technology companies can solve the “content is king” dilemma (which, by the way, is an euphemism for "Hollywood is king and Silicon Valley isn't"), is by allowing new content to flourish on top of new platforms. It’s not about moving the old content to the new platform. It’s about allowing new content to be created exclusively on the new platforms. This new content will therefore, by our law, be a new medium.

For me, apps are that new medium. Apps offered a new way to package entertainment for “niche time”. The early fart apps evolved into a whole new genre of games which are now challenging the established game studios. The result is that a generation of developers has moved from building PC or web software to apps with cloud back-ends. The first to switch to this new medium were those with the least to lose and with the most modest of goals. Apps have now a more valuable industry than digital music with over 55 billion installs between the iPhone and Android ecosystems. Consumers are increasingly spending their spare time in front of apps. In the US “app consumption” increased from 43 min/day in 2010 to 94 min/day at the end of 2011. This number already exceeds the time spent in web consumption. I find it difficult to doubt that app time will exceed TV time, especially as TV time is increasingly a dual screen experience.

(Feels like it needs one sentence explaining why. Is it because of their accessibility to small developers, or their ability to reach mobile handsets natively, or because of consumer trend?) If it’s absolutely impossible to move long-form video or long-form cinema to this new medium in such a way that everyone in the world can consume it on every device, then the app ecosystems will take up that challenge and say, “There’s a job to be done, and that’s to enertain people for an hour-and-a-half with characters, plots and wonderful stories, and we will make that happen, and we’ll call this thing an app.”

And that app will solve that job for that person. It's what's happening to the game console business. The new game apps are distributed differently, priced differently and produced differently. As a result they are used differently and make a different set of developers thrive.

The new app media will mean that we’ll just have to live in app universes, and go eat popcorn somewhere else. Microsoft and Google and Apple and Amazon and anybody else whose belly is at the bar has been scratching their heads wondering "How do we move that content over to us?" They've been barking up the wrong tree. The fundamental question isn't how to cram old media into a new shiny screen. It is how do you let developers and artists and creative people create stuff that is new and compatible with this new way of living.

Think also about the history of media -- movies haven't been around forever; music hasn't existed as a recorded medium forever. Not even books. What did people do before these forms of expression? We think of the use cases of going to the movies, or the use cases of sitting in front of a TV on Sunday night, or playing a console game. These things didn’t get done at some point in time. Nor will they be done at some future point in time.

In a few years we’ll move on and we won’t do those things. Each person will probably have his own screen in front of them--many already do--and whatever we do together we’ll do through a shared screen. We won’t have communal experiences that we associate with the old media. Certainly not in a theater. Maybe not even in a living room. And that is how we will move into a new value network.

It is inevitable. As a technology provider, you shouldn’t try to squeeze a 19th-century model into a 21st-century model. Just let it go. Create a platform and give people the freedom to create on it. As a media creator, you should try to learn what the new model demands. New forms of interaction, new story telling opportunities, new ways to communicate with audiences. Create experiments and learn. It's the only way.

Days after Nokia announced the end of life for the Symbian platform I wrote a post titled Who will buy the next 150 million Symbian smartphones? The reference was to claim by management that before there would be a complete transition to Windows Phone, 150 million legacy Symbian phones would be sold, keeping the company financially stable before the new ecosystem took root.

I reproduce the original forecast I made below with the addition of what actually happened.

[Note that the Actual stack area chart is independent of the forecast area chart as indicated by shading.]

My forecast in early 2011 was based on the 150 million Symbian phones being sold over a two year transition period. The implication with the forecast for Windows Phone was that this would still lead to a difficult contraction of volumes.

As it turns out, only 96 million Symbian devices have been sold in the 7 quarters since the platform was deprecated. It's unlikely that there will be ever by 150 million units sold as last quarter only 3.4 million shipped. In any case, management has already retracted that claim.

What about the Windows Phone forecast? It turns out that by this point in time (Q3 2012) I had expected Lumia shipments to total 9 million. Actual shipments reached about 9.5 million, so not bad. However, the market grew faster than I had expected and overall Nokia smartphone market share turned out to be slightly lower (6.3% in Q2 vs. 10% estimated.)

The just ended quarter shares are not yet available but it's quite possible that overall Nokia smartphones could be well below 5%, and may slip to 3% during the transition period.

My warning in February 2012 was that 150 million Symbian units would not ship since I expected there would be a stigma associated with the products among distributors, even if consumers were fine with them (which they weren't).

The public execution of Symbian (and any other alternative being developed inside Nokia) will probably be a classic case study in disruption management. To wit: even if a platform needs to be led out to pasture, there are ways of managing decline other than suicide. Nokia's failure is not so much having chosen the wrong alternative to Symbian, but having chosen exclusively.

However, there's a twist. The company did not accept exclusivity of one supplier without a concession: In exchange for exclusivity, Nokia negotiated $250 million every quarter in the form of "platform support payments" from Microsoft. Nokia has to date received over $1 billion in such payments. (For the last quarter that amounts to $86 for each Lumia phone shipped.)

The tragedy comes from this $1 billion/yr not being enough. The foregone revenues from Symbian (assuming they had been able to maintain the decline to the level of 150 million units that they had originally forecast) would be about $9 billion. This means that had Nokia not knifed Symbian and had sold the shortfall units at an average price of $200 they would have received an additional $9 billion in sales. Furthermore, assuming a margin of 33% for those units, Nokia received from Microsoft one third from of what she gave up for exclusivity.

In other words, the net cost of the Microsoft exclusive relationship is at least $2 billion in operating profit.

This turns out to be the difference between being profitable and being distressed.

We will never know if this scenario would have ever happened, but the forecast management made 21 months ago suggests that at least they thought this was what they were going to get out of the bargain.

This reminds me of another article posted around the same time.

Marc Andreessen famously coined the phrase "software is eating the world." It's an apt observation. If you look back on the history of computing you're likely to measure computers sold or devices sold or users harvested or productivity gained. These things are measured because they can be measured. But the greatest cause of value created and captured has been the development of software. An ephemeral product whose value is often ignored in analytical discourse.

Software is not easily measured and it's not easily valued due to its intractable nature. Firstly, because businesses that make software tend to have weird cost structures--absurdly high fixed costs and operating margins: They operate without income for years and then suddenly are massively profitable with a minimal set of resources. They have a non-linear, "big bang" trajectory.

Secondly, software companies tend to capture revenues from something other than the direct sale of the good. Software is rarely sold. Services sometimes are sold on the basis of software but more likely audiences for services are sold to a set of bidders, or revenue is obtained in even more circuitous ways.

Thirdly, because there are curious multi-sided markets for software platforms. Charlie Kindel hints strongly at how difficult it is to understand the dynamics of software platforms. There is the prospect of lock-in of users and data. There are relationships to nurture with developers and there's the principle of an ecosystem that creates network effects. The virtuous/vicious cycles are non-linear and unpredictable even for the experts who have been at it for decades (e.g. Microsoft).

Given these difficulties, software is seldom seen as the core value proposition for a particular business. But make no mistake about it, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon are all software companies. They "monetize" or integrate software differently but software is causal to their profits. Their use of software has also made them all disruptive. Software enabled the disruption of consumer electronics, retail, computers, advertising and broadcast media.

But we have not seen anything yet. There is another class of software that is poised to lay waste to a new set of industries. The lowly app coupled with cloud-based services[1] is the termite that is set to eat the foundations of the largest of the industries still standing.

Consider the following:

• Games. A software industry in itself, the app versions are attracting non-consumers and eventually will get good enough to absorb all  usage and profits. Games merged with "entertainment" concepts will lead to new models of user recreation leading to new global brands that could challenge even Disney.
• TV. As apps come to the big screen TV will never be the same. Not only will show creators build directly for an audience but advertisers that currently sponsor shows will produce them instead and package the result as an app.
• Shopping/dining/entertainment/hospitality are changing with location services and with novel "bits to bricks" purchase options (e.g. PassBook). Increasingly services will exploit handheld devices to enable product discovery--the main job retailers are tasked with.
• Communications. The observation that "phone" is just an app and that messaging can be done in dozens of ways depending on message, relationship, context or even custom is possible because apps conform to the user's needs rather than the user conforming to the tools they get from the network service provider.

Although these are enormous opportunities in themselves, this is in addition to several industries that are already crumbling (photography, book publishing, to name two).

I don't need to rely on prose alone to make the point. A graph can also lend a hand.

Consider that Apple's App Store and Google Play together have had over 50 billion installs in less than four years and that the number of users of apps is at least 750 million. Furthermore, consider that apps have moved from a smartphone phenomenon to tablets and even PCs using OS X or Windows. Within one year these software capsules are going to be in use by one fourth of the global population.

Nothing has this kind of reach or engagement, not even browsers. What makes the app disruptive, even ahead of a browser-based service, is that it includes incentives for developers (or, more precisely, app producers) to get paid and to have a relationship with the buyer. These two value propositions, in isolation or in combination, are available to millions and consumable by billions. The most democratized market that can be imagined. An unbounded set of producers and an unbounded set of consumers and a persistent connection after the purchase with nothing in between them except a payment mechanism

The world has never seen such an opportunity.

The consequences are unforeseeable. Apps are a form of software that goes beyond its ancestral "application" as a product and as a business model. It's the software that will take in and assimilate everything in sight.

---

Notes:

1. I have a simple rule to distinguish between an app and a service. If you have to supply a username and password to an app, it's a service.

The iPad launched in April (i.e. Q2) 2010. Since then the PC industry (excluding Macs) has seen a decline in growth. The following graph illustrates global shipments as reported by Gartner:

Note that the growth rate has been negative for 4 out of the eight quarters since. The latest data shows a decline in shipments of over 9% bringing yearly growth to negative territory for the first time since the recession of 11 years ago.

There's not much I can say that hasn't been said every quarter since 2010. The industry analysis as provided by Gartner suggests a different cause for the decline, becoming more creative each quarter. This time it's "challenging economic environment" and "lack of appeal and innovation", "delays due to tax incentives", "lack of new models", "conservatism", "clearing out inventory" and "softness".

The primary challenge to these ascribed causes has to be that all these factors also affect the tablet industry and yet it's growing at phenomenal rates. The rate of new product introductions is not faster for the iPad than for PC vendors. The public and private sector buying conditions are the same. The "conservatism" on the part of institutional buyers should affect the newcomer more than the established.

The notion that an outside challenger with a new platform, an unproven set of features and missing "security" should grow in the face of difficult macro conditions that are slowing the established platform makes no sense.

My hypothesis is that the new products are solving new jobs for the users and those new solutions are trumping any "softness" in demand. In other words, an upgrade to an over-serving product will be deferred at the slightest excuse while an installation of an under-serving product that attacks an unsolved problem will be rationalized no matter the circumstances.

One product will be met with "Why should we buy it?" and the other by "Why shouldn't we buy it?"

These are the decisions made by millions every day and yet it seems that some analysts don't see any pattern forming. Such is the dilemma of disruption.

[The following was originally published on LinkedIn.]

The US is in the forefront of smartphone usage. This has not always been the case. Five years ago only 3 percent of US phone users were using a smartphone, lower than the global average. At the time Palm and BlackBerry were the prominent devices in the US while in Europe Nokia's push with Symbian and Microsoft's licensing of Windows Mobile led to a smartphone adoption rate of about 7%.

All that changed with the iPhone. After 2007 the US began to rapidly catch up and eventually overtook all other regions in terms of smartphone adoption. The latest data from comScore Mobilens shows that the US is now effectively 50% penetrated. The following chart shows just how quickly this happened.

Image (media01.linkedin.com)

In December 2009 only 17% of Americans used a smartphone as their primary phone. As of August the total reached 49.8%. By today the US is effectively a majority smartphone usage country and it looks like there is no slowing. We might very well see the US reach saturation with 80% smartphone usage in another two years.

Of course, the US is not the first country to reach this threshold. Some northern European countries were there earlier, but North America is the first major region to get there. That means over 115 million smartphone users in one market. As a result, the US has become the crucible of the whole smartphone market. It's where platforms are most concentrated in use and therefore the most sensitive to the effects of that usage. That leads to more innovation, more discovery of new use cases and more ecosystem growth. Quite simply, it's where competition is most heated.

This prominent position implies that the US could now be seen as a leading indicator of global trends. It might allow a keen observer to predict what will happen from US data. So what does the mobile platform rivalry look like in the US?  We are fortunate because the data is finely grained in the US. We have montly updates from comScore and we get specific platform penetration data. The following graph shows the shares of the major platforms since late 2009.

Image (media01.linkedin.com)

It becomes immediately evident that BlackBerry has lost a huge part of its user base to Android and iOS. In 2.5 years share when from about 42% to 8%. In raw numbers that's 11 million users that switched to another smartphone.

Looking closer you can also see a consistent growth in share for the iPhone since mid 2010 with a slightly higher rate of increase of share than Android in the last few months. The problem is that this pattern of rapid decline in RIM and moderating growth in Android is not necessarily mirrored globally.

RIM just reported an increase in total users during the last quarter (from 78 to 80 million subscribers.) Google also recently reported 500 million Android activations globally with no apparently letup in growth.

So there seems to once again be a disparity between the US and global platforms. Do we take the US market to be anomalous or is it a pre-cursor to global trends?

Certainly the US market is in many ways unique with a very low rate of pre-paid usage and a relatively high ARPU and average device pricing due to subsidies. However, the global trend has been to increasingly mirror the US not vice-versa. The iPhone has radiated out of the US in terms of usage and so has Android. Attempts by other platforms to make inroads in the US have been unsuccessful. Symbian failed to gain a foothold and it seems Windows Phone is stumbling as well. Both of these platforms have had more success outside the US. The US operator subsidy model has also been "exported" more than pre-paid has been "imported". By 2007 Europe was moving away from subsidies as prices of feature phones were coming down and 3G was still in its infancy. That was reversed as the large screen smartphones became the device of choice. In addition to device and operator trends, most apps originate in the US and the major social media platforms are all American-based. In other words, the modes of usage are being conceived in the US.

On the other hand, the US is still a tiny percent of total consumption. It represents only about 6% of all phone users. Chances are that prices for devices in the US (especially the iPhone) can't be sustained for 5 billion consumers. Then there are "cultural" considerations where regions cling to their own usage habits and perceptions of value.

So it's still an open question of whether the US is the leading indicator for how platforms might change globally but I would watch this data very carefully. When it comes to mobile platforms, it might be that if it plays in the US it will play globally.

Quarterly financial data is often a lagging indicator of strategic success. RIM's vital signs were exceptionally strong up until early 2011. Consider the following graph showing RIM's device growth.

Using language commonly heard among analysts, one would say that the company was "reverting to the mean" and growing nearly in-line with the market. In other words, exceptional growth was over but continuing growth was likely. The company was returning to something "normal."

However, keen observers of the market would have been hard pressed to find any reason for justifying that performance. Seen through a disruptive lens, it was evident as early as 2008 that RIM's strategy was not sustainable. The company had a very weak smartphone product relative to emergent iOS and Android ecosystems. And yet, the company continued to prosper for nearly three years, through 2008, 2009 and 2010. Those shorting the stock during this period would have been unrewarded.

But then in early 2011 it fell off a cliff.

There was no reversion to the mean but an acceleration toward oblivion. The share price dropped to book value or below liquidation.

This pattern was very similar for Nokia. It too looked fairly strong on paper until early 2011 when it found it necessary to fling itself off a platform.

This pattern of disproportionate decline is a mirror image of the disproportionate ascent of Apple.

It might sound like a spectacular story; an anomaly, a once-in-a-lifetime reversal of fortunes. However, the moral of this story is that this is not an exceptional phenomenon. Disruption happens. It happens quickly and perhaps most quickly in this industry, and looking at trailing indicators like revenues and profits is of no help. I've only witnessed sharp expansions and sharp declines. I've never witnessed steady state, quiescent markets in technology. The history of platforms is always virtuous cycles followed by vicious declines. Whatever amplifies success seems to also amplify failure.

Rather than assuming that businesses are in a state of average growth or in some anomalous state above or below that average (from which they'll recover) we need to think of them being either growing or failing. Going straight up or straight down.

If this is the case, how can anyone expect to manage this? Orthodox management theory assumes continuity but the world seems discontinuous.

In a discontinuous framework it's important to look for unfair, unsustainable advantages that can be capitalized. Once exploited the advantage often disappears. The victim assumes it becomes sustainable. The survivor looks for another advantage. Resting is not an option and the mean is only an illusion.

Matteo Fumagalli is a student of economics at University of Insubria, Italy. He is writing a thesis for a bachelor's degree analyzing the smartphone industry.

He asked me to answer the following questions:

-First question is about you. Why did you found Asymco?

I founded the company to develop software, mainly apps. I began writing the blog as a way to drive traffic to the site. I would have preferred to build a blog only but did not think it was possible to earn any money doing that so I treated it as a hobby. Even after the site became more visible I changed from development to consulting and did not expect that writing in itself could be self-sustaining. It took about two years before I felt comfortable with the idea that I could do writing and speaking exclusively. I am still exploring additional business models however.

-You worked 8 years as analyst and business development manager at Nokia and you anticipated their current crisis with your first post on Asymco. Do you think Nokia will have the chance to recuperate, and eventually what will be the role of Windows Phone?

Nokia may recover or remain independent, at least. But it will be far smaller. The idea of a return to dominance or 40% share seems very unlikely. As I pointed out in the first post, the organization cannot cope with the new marketplace. Large organizations require extreme stress and damage to change. It's a phenomenon at all levels of society that success results in rigidity. From the individual to the nation to the civilization, success makes change very, very difficult.

Windows Phone is an attempt to create a third ecosystem. I am concerned that the logic of having a third alternative is not solving a consumer need but an operator need. In other words, consumers are not asking for a third option and when they are presented with a third option they are not excited by it. The consumer does not think in terms of increasing their options. They decide once every two years which phone to buy and that is the end of their thinking on the subject. By focusing on the operator's needs the platform is fundamentally mis-positioned.

What Windows Phone needs to be positioned as is either as fundamentally different, solving a different job for the consumer. Or fundamentally better along a new dimension like price or convenience. These are some of the claims it makes but they are very weak claims right now.

-What about RIM, other company which is going through difficult times? What do you think about their decision not to move to Android and stake everything on their closed OS?

The decision to remain with their own platform may sound risky but it's a simple decision about retaining their business model. RIM is not a general-purpose manufacturer. They have always made an incremental margin on services, messaging and email. For them to use a third party OS would force them to build within the constraints of that OS or platform. That would result in a difficult competitive environment and not one where the company could sustain margins vs. larger competitors. In other words, the company faced two risky alternatives. They chose the risk they were more familiar with or the one that they already had an operating company organized for.

-Recently Apple lost market share in Europe and China favoring Android. What will be the impact of iPhone5 on this situation? As expert of Apple strategy, do you think Apple has done something wrong in these last months?

Apple lost market share when considering the smartphone market. I agree with management (and I've argued this before they did) that the market for the iPhone is all phones, not just smartphones. In that context, Apple is increasing its share consistently. Since Apple has only one product in the market (with some residual older versions as well), it's very seasonal. It would be natural to see variance in share through the year. What should be watched is a four period average performance. Overall, Apple is growing its iPhone business faster than the overall phone market so it follows that its share is increasing. I see a long-term potential for the iPhone having 20% share of all phones. That would give it an installed base of over 1 billion users.

-Smartphone penetration is reaching 60% and we probably talk about saturation in next 2 years. What will be for you the future role of tablets and phablets, they will be threaths of substitution for smartphone or maybe an opportunity to offer complementary products?

The evidence so far is that buyers don't mind having more than one device. It makes sense if each device is hired for a different job and it cannot be general purpose enough. We've seen this phenomenon with mobile phones where penetration in many markets is above 100%. That implies that even a basic feature like a phone number cannot serve all the needs on one person. To me it seems likely that one person will have more than one device and more than one form factor.

-What do you think about legal battle between Apple and Samsung? There will be consequences also for Google and Android?

I defer to my blog post Deus Ex Machina. Legal battles are not strategy.

-What will be the role of the possible entry of Amazon in the smartphone industry? It's too late for them?

Amazon is a retailer. I find it hard seeing a retailer becoming a platform provider. Not only is retail a difficult to expand business model internationally, but it's hard to imagine partners being comfortable building an ecosystem on top of retail. Retail is not sufficiently flexible as a business model.

A recorded interview Peter Wells at Swipe Conference. We discuss the rise and fall of the PC, and some of the parallels that can be drawn from the rise of mobile platforms today. Which mobile platforms are destined to succeed, and who will fade away? And why can't some analysts count the iPad as a PC replacement? Horace also discusses the amazing iPad app he used today in his presentation.

via MacTalk - MacTalk Podcast Special | Horace Dediu.

The US has reached 50% smartphone penetration.

comScore data shows July penetration at 48.8% and a monthly growth in penetration of nearly 2 percentage points. Given the rate of growth, it's nearly certain that we've crossed 50% in August.

The historic growth is shown below:

The platforms making up the smartphone market in the US have seen unequal shares of this new population of users. The following diagrams show how the install bases have changed in absolute and share terms.

 

To round out the analysis, here is the net user gains for the platforms showing the net addition or loss of users since early 2010.

What I look for in this data are signs of slowing adoption (so far there aren't many), subtle shifts in platform performance (as seen in RIM's move from consistent net gains to consistent net losses) and signs of churn or the transfer of users from one platform to another (rather than from non-consumers to consumers.)

The story in the latest data seems to be that Windows Phone has turned in a first significant gain in users (378k new users). Its share seems to have stabilized at around 4%. This is in contrast to BlackBerry whose hemorrhage continues (a net of 7 million users defected from the platform in the last 12 months.)

On this occasion of reaching what I've called the tipping point, it's worth reflecting on just how far we've come. In December 2009 the total number of smartphone users in the US was 39 million whereas now it's about 115 million. That's a total of 75 million new users in a bit more than two and a half years, quite a story there.

And yet, half of the phone users still remain to be converted. It's possible that the growth in adoption will remain steady but it's also possible that it might slow down and follow the "S-curve" adoption rate that new consumer products typically follow, perhaps reaching saturation at some point below 100%.

If growth slows immediately then there will be more churn between platforms. If rapid growth can be maintained then there will be more competition with non-consumption rather than between rivals for some time still.

The changing character of competition will need to be reflected in product strategies. Non-consumption is typically an easier competitor to beat with features. Switching users from a comparable product is harder and may require pricing pressure. To solve this in a time of transition, new products will have to split into a set offered to new users and another set offered to switch users.

You can see the pressure of this on the Windows Phone platform most of all. As a late comer, does the Lumia range from Nokia fit the bill as targeting non-consumers or switchers?

In other words, has the brand been positioned as a "better" smartphone or as a "good enough" smartphone? It matters because the "good enough" position has been held by Android overall while the "better" position has been held by iPhone. However, not exclusively. We've seen "better" positioning from Samsung's Galaxy S and Verizon's Droid brand and "good enough" positioning from the older variants of iPhones.

So it's quite difficult to see where Lumia fits in the US. There is no obvious opening. The next 75 million first time US smartphone users may be attractive to Microsoft and Nokia but it's not clear why, having waited so long, those buyers will be persuaded by the new brand. Perhaps subsidies will help. As indicated with the first US Lumia launch, the product was priced at a discount to the prevailing price point for a premium smartphone. Perhaps that's the "good enough at a good price" strategy.

If so, it has not been a home run. Perhaps there is still time for this strategy to play out in 2013 but what if Lumia is not actually being marketed this way?

At launch Nokia has tried to promote the brand as something "better". Better camera, better charging, better maps, better screen, etc. They have promoted on Twitter with the #switchtolumia hashtag. Microsoft has had the "Smoked by Windows Phone" campaign targeting specifically existing smartphones.

I don't want to suggest that one positioning is more appropriate or more likely to succeed than another. That's a tough call. Either could be the right choice. What I would suggest however is that there needs to be clarity of thought and communication on the matter.

Perhaps the launch of the new Lumias (920, 820) is part of a clear positioning toward the high end. But the absence of pricing and distribution and how the operators will be engaged leaves the question open. The strongest criticism of the effort so far is this lack of clarity about how the product is intended to be perceived by the buyer.

A lack of clarity in positioning is symptomatic of a lack of clarity, or maturity in strategy.