My Birthday Gift: The Kindle Fire, and Why It’s The First Credible Android Tablet

Over the past 6 months, I’ve been watching perplexed as vendor after vendor launched Android Tablets into the market with no success. Perplexed for a simple reason – I could not understand how they expected consumers to buy their $559, $499 or even $399 tablets when they could get an iPad 2 for $499 and get the real deal – the TRUE status symbol, the best content & app eco-system. What were Samsung, Motorola, Dell and Asus thinking, I was wondering. Was it a shortage / price of components that pushed them to that price bracket? Was it protecting the brand at all costs, even failure?

A couple months ago, I asked a question on Quora and the results were staggering – over 20:1 for iPad.

So what has changed?  The $199 Kindle Fire. You can get two of those, and still have money for another holiday gift.

Amazon’s Kindle is an ecosystem, not a device. Amazon sees it as a way to make sure you buy all your content – books, music, TV – from Amazon. Just yesterday they announced the streaming deal with FOX TV - more free content for Amazon Prime subscribers. Guess which devices will feature it? Remember Sony’s Howard Stringer’s announcement a few weeks ago – “Apple makes an iPad, but does it make a movie?“. Amazon doesn’t make them, but it sure-as-hell moves them around. In a move right out of Steve Jobs’ books, Amazon is tying it all together – device, app store, content store, streaming rights (with free content for Prime members), e-commerce for physical goods, payment options (from one-click to credit cards), cloud storage, even a loyalty program!

Kindle now touches everything Amazon does, and so many other companies. It threatens Netflix streaming – Amazon is securing more content for Prime members, and has a sound pay-TV model with a complete eco-system around it and it obliterates all other Android tablet manufacturers volume forecasts for the holiday season (a $200 rival with a strong brand behind it).

And it’s a credible contender for Apple’s eco-system. It is as broad, as far reaching, and goes even further with physical e-commerce embedded.

Probably the only risk is execution. If the software / hardware is good enough (defined as – better than most Android implementations), this will make a huge dent in the market. iPad will become the high-end product, but Android, through Kindle, could be the mass-market. Not so different from iPhones and Androids, actually.

My pre-order is in.

How I Got It All Ass-Backwards, or How Android Got Free Again

Free!

Last week I wrote a piece about the huge cultural gap between Google and Motorola, and how Motorola is such an bad fit for the Google organization, and what it will do for it’s relationship with Android licensees. I also stated that if Google acquired Motorola for the patent portfolio alone – that’s not such a big deal in the marketplace.

Well boy was I wrong. A person who’s very close the story saw fit to fill me in.

Google’s acquisition of Motorola was indeed all about the patents. But not necessarily Google’s lack thereof, but really its licensees’. What Google is trying to do to the handset market is what Microsoft did to PCs – give the hardware market to cheap Chinese / Taiwanese / Korean manufacturers, and thereby own the software platform. The catch? The incumbents – Nokia, Apple, Microsoft (and Motorola) own restrictive patents. And they sue / charge these manufacturers to a point where they are agnostic between Google’s “free” OS and Microsoft’s “pricey” one. The only player in the Android camp who was relatively safe was Motorola, who owns a nice portfolio developed over many years.

Solution – Google buys Motorola and promises Android licensees a defensive umbrella – it will fight their patent wars for them with its newly acquired arsenal.

Right there and then, Android is free again.

So what is Google to do with the Motorola organization one might ask?

This is where it gets pretty interesting. You see Motorola is in Illinois. The state a certain president (and his associated mayor) come from. And 2012 is an election year. Who wants to see 10,000 layoffs in Illinois on an election year? Certainly not someone who wants to Do No Evil…
2012 Election

Google acquires Motorola. Say again?!

With so many so-called experts (read: people who use Google and used to have a Motorola RAZR phone) providing different angles on this acquisition, I figured it’s time to chime in. I have a pretty good handle on Motorola (you can Google that!) and think I know something about Google too.

And what I don’t get is the culture clash. Truly. Motorola, like it or not, is an 83-year old Chicago (well Schaumburg) company, and no, the split to MMI and MMS did not change that. It is a slow mover 18,000-employee corporation, with an organization that takes years to design products, and even under Sanjay Jah that could not change much.
You see, when a company is hit as bad as Motorola Mobility was hit in 2008-2009 (and by the way – that happened through their complacence over the success of the RAZR), the good, dynamic, innovative people tend to leave. Especially in a market where Google, Facebook and Groupon are snatching all the good people who’d still like to work for a “safe” company. The culture has not changed all of the sudden, nor was there a good reason for great people to join lately.

Google is, or aspires to be, a fast-mover Silicon Valley company with a flat hierarchy, a market-driven (really numbers-driven) no-nonsense approach, with little respect for old-world processes. And it wants to retain this culture while growing to 25,000 employees.

See the issue?

So if, as some people have suggested, Google is only after the patents and will spin out Motorola again as a stand-alone device manufacturer, not so much has happened in the market (but congratulations to all the lawyers, accountants, bankers and management consultants who’re going to get the fat checks).

But if Google is truly looking to become the anti-Apple and the Motorola team is its weapon-of-choice… well, good luck with that.

P.S.: I especially like the theory that Microsoft was going to buy Motorola which forced Google to buy them first. It’s just lovely.

Post MWC: Android’s Tour-de-force. Is that the shape of things to come?

Over the last week I’ve had several discussions with colleagues about MWC 2011. The general gist of things was “wow, how far Android has gone”. And indeed, Android’s presence at the conference was impressive, to say the least. The usual Android suspects were there, of course – HTC, Motorola, Samsung and others. But what was even more impressive was the vast number of unknown Android manufacturers, mainly Chinese, who’ve flocked to the free platform en-masse. Known names like ZTE and Huawei were to be expected, but upstarts like Malata (who seems to make impressive Android tablets, incidentally) were there by the dozen. And of course – given Nokia’s and Apple’s absence, and RIM’s limited presence, it sometimes seemed like Android is the only game in town.

Malata Android Tablet

The Nokia / Microsoft news just fanned the fire. Essentially while it is a feather in Windows Phone’s cap (not necessarily a beautiful peacock feather, incidentally), it means that Nokia will be out of the smartphone game for a long time. And to judge by the employees’ reaction – could be long indeed.

The general conclusion I heard drawn, then is simple – Android is taking over the market, Android will define the shape of things to come, Android is where to take your mobile start-up / corporate mobile app first cause that’s where all the users will be. Right?

Sorry, it’s not that simple. Contrary to what some people think, Android to phones is not going to be Windows to PCs. At least not in the next 2-3 years. There are many reasons, but I think the most important one lies in the personal relationship between consumers and their phones. Unlike PCs (at the time), phones are a means for personal expression both explicitly (as in what you put on them / use them for) and implicitly (as in making sure your peers know what you have – just like cars). Most smartphone users associate their phone selection and habits with their identity. And with identity, a “one size fit all” strategy doesn’t work, fortunately. So as long as there are technologically credible alternatives with a well differentiated product (e.g iPhone, BlackBerry), they will draw significant audiences.

Furthermore, the wider Android spreads as a mid-market solution, the less appealing will it be to some of these people who seek to distance themselves from “the middle”. Think the Mac cult of the ’90s and early ’00s but at a wholly different level. After all – these devices are used in the open. People see what you use, so better pick the “right” one.

So clearly – the fragmentation in the smartphone space is going to continue. Each platform’s market segment will be different demographically and psycho-graphically,  and these compositions will continue evolving. I expect we’ll keep seeing Android pandering mostly to the mid-market (with of course a meaningful number of power-users and high-end customers too). iPhone will generally remain a high-end phenomenon. BlackBerry may well lose its hold on the enterprise, but acquire new audiences amongst the young and price-conscious (free messaging). And when Nokia eventually rolls out Windows Phone handsets, it is quite possible that their considerable distribution clout in European and Emerging markets will make this a meaningful platform for those audiences.

I believe a very similar phenomenon will be seen in tablets. While Android tablets are improving, the good ones are still not meaningfully cheaper than the iPad. Apple only needs some minor improvements with the anticipated iPad 2 in order to stay in the lead. Only when significantly cheaper tablets (probably running Android 3.0) will come to the market can the balance be upset. And what will we have then? A similar market structure with iPad as the premium product and Android tablets as cheaper, “good enough” devices for mid-market consumers.

Where does this leave the Android makers? With the proliferation of Chinese manufacturers with great pricing power, we will see the PC-wars re-enacted. Margins will drop to low single digits for most manufacturers, probably leading to consolidation and elimination of key brands.

So essentially – nothing earth-shattering really came out of MWC. We will see even more Androids, Symbian and MeeGo are dead (duh!) but little change to the fabric of the market as we’ve known it in 2010.

In Smartphones: Google is King but Apple is Rich

A couple of weeks ago, the inevitable was announced. According to Canalys, a leading mobile market research firm, in Q4 2010 Android has overtaken Symbian as the world’s most-pervasive smartphone platform. According to Canalys, 33.4 Million Android phones were shipped by Google licensees in the quarter – more than double the iPhones or BlackBerries.

While this has been touted with much fanfare, some seemingly contradictory information is “common knowledge” to mobile application developers. It is still much easier to get traction and especially monetize iPhone apps than Android apps. How come? With such momentum for Android, you’d expect it to be at least as successful as iPhone.

The answer, which I’ve been proclaiming for awhile now, can be summed up this way – “Android is the new Symbian”. Now I’m sure some Googlers will resent this, so maybe a different way to put it is – “Android is the new MS-DOS”.

What I mean by this are really two things. First, that Google’s strategy with Android is to reach as far and as wide as it can. That’s one of the reasons it is free to licensees, open-source etc. Google intends to eventually leverage Android by tying it to its other assets and ultimately use advertising to monetize it. This means you can build cheap Android phones and target the mid-market, not just the high-end as other smartphones have (in truth, Android hardware requirements are still relatively high, but Moore’s law is taking care of that cost). Furthermore the abundance of licensees means that a price war is evident – and indeed we now see free (subsidized) Android phones on many operators portfolios. So – Android is becoming the dominant player in the mid-market, with high-end presence too, and ultimately low-cost aspirations. This is exactly the path Symbian took in 2004 – 2008, becoming the world’s leading smartphone platform by volume – but dwindling in consumers’ eyes to a point where it drives low-margin devices, with BlackBerries (initially) and iPhones (later) commanding the high-end, high-margin sector. In 2008, a Nokia executive told me personally that Nokia learned the hard way that the top 10% of the handset market commands 50% of the margin. Think about it – if one company takes over the top 10%, it can be worth as much of all the other companies combined (who sell in aggregate 9 times as much as it does). Right? So this is the second point – a smartphone platform that is focused on mass is doomed to become a low-margin platform. Google doesn’t mind. But it’s licensees are doomed to fighting over scraps.

Now this is a tall order claim, that I couldn’t really publish before, until I ran into this analysis by Asymco’s Horace Dediu:

Which brought to mind Noam Wasserman’s “Founder’s Dilemma” metaphor about Rich vs. King. Apple’s startegy with the iOS devices, just like with the Mac before, is to aim for the top 10-30% of the market. The people who can spend, the people who care deeply about the product they are buying and using. Google’s strategy is more like carpet-bombing. If we can get to 80% of the people, we’ll surely find a way to monetize that.

So is this just an interesting business case? Or Valley gossip?.

If you’re involved in this business in any way – you might be an app developer, a marketer wanting to reach mobile device users through mobile ads or a mobile app / website etc., or a service provider who is pushed to provide a service to his customers through their phones, this is critical info. Cause it means that you are going to reach a different demographic and psychographic when you target the different platform. In the Apple case, your demographic will be skewed towards high-income, users may be more engaged with the product, and there may be more willingness to pay. On the Android platform you will eventually reach more people, but engagement and purchasing intent will be different. And your adoption ratio (compared to the total available Android market) will be different, as many of these users are much less enthusiastic about their phones. Yes – they bought a smartphone, but maybe because “everyone else is getting one” or because “it was free, so why not”. So choose your audience wisely, and plan your marketing moves with consideration for its composition.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 701 other followers