In celebration of one year of Asymco.com, the Asymco store is now open.
Home – Asymco Store
I am extremely grateful to Michael Burgstahler of Two Tribes design for leadership in creating the first t-shirt design:
Based in the home town of Mercedes Benz and Porsche, Two Tribes has been in the creativity business for 18 years with clients like Ricoh, State Bank of Baden-Württemberg, Bosch and Siemens. They even built an app ”Favorelli” and opened a little shop for home decoration.
This masterpiece, along with a logo only version is available now.
“Jim and Mike brought the company to where it is … which is part of the biggest problem they’re facing,” said Charter Equity analyst Ed Snyder, who has covered RIM since its public listing in 1997, two years before the BlackBerry was launched.
“They’re stuck in the past. They know what worked and keep playing that card and it’s not working any more, and they don’t seem to have any ideas,” he said.
via BAY STREET-As RIM struggles, talk of a change at top surfaces | Reuters.
In the case of Apple, the departure of the founder is considered a grave threat to the continuing success of the company.
In the case of RIM and Microsoft, the continued tenure of the founders is considered a grave threat to the success of the company.
Clearly, the theory that founders of successful companies can assure continuing success is flawed. Coupled to that implied causality is that departure of founders is always a problem.
Both are reflections of the idea that companies are predominantly successful (or fail) because of the skill (or incompetence) of a small group of individuals.
What the idea fails to explain is why companies fail (or succeed) as a cohort. RIM’s troubles are similar to Microsoft and to Nokia’s. Did they conspire or collude to fail simultaneously? Historically, incumbents fail simultaneously, regardless of who’s in charge.
And what about the problem that a company goes from success to failure (and vice-versa) while the same management is in charge. The “smart manager” theory of company success is as pervasive as the “stupid manager” theory of company failure. The perplexing thing is that while both of these theories are applied within the lifetime of a company, the management does not change.
Microsoft gets $5 for every HTC phone running Android, according to Citi analyst Walter Pritchard, who released a big report on Microsoft this morning.
Microsoft is getting that money thanks to a patent settlement with HTC over intellectual property infringement.
Microsoft is suing other Android phone makers, and it’s looking for $7.50 to $12.50 per device, says Pritchard.
HTC Pays Microsoft $5 Per Android Phone, Says Citi.
A rough estimate of the number of HTC Android devices shipped is 30 million. If HTC paid $5 per unit to Microsoft, that adds up to $150 million Android revenues for Microsoft.
Microsoft has admitted selling 2 million Windows Phone licenses (though not devices.) Estimating that the license fee is $15/WP phone, that makes Windows Phone revenues to date $30 million.
So Microsoft has received five times more income from Android than from Windows Phone.
Looking forward and assuming that Microsoft can receive this type of settlement from about half of the Android license takers, then the prospects of a windfall from Android dwarf the expected income from Windows Phone.
Google’s Android seems the best thing that could have happened to Microsoft’s mobile efforts, ever.
I could also calculate how the Android license income could be further funneled to Nokia (via their current agreement with Microsoft) for promotion of its phones. Thus, an Android licensee could reduce his margins in order to promote a competitor’s products.
Measurements of “share” are abundant. There is journalistic value in summarizing performance in a single figure of “share” but it usually is a very limiting view. For example in the global mobile phone market there are at least the following measurements available:
- Share of all handset units sold
- Share of installed based of handsets (penetration)
- Share of smartphones
- Share of mobile computers
- Share of value (revenues) captured
- Share of profits
- Share of platforms
- Share within a given platform
- Share by regions/countries/geographies/demographics
One could go on. So performance in a market can only be measured if you know to what end is that measure applied. Are you trying to determine current performance or are you assuming that the future will be different and trying to figure out what that future will look like?
Last fall I introduced the “vector space” model of visualizing vendor performance. It shows performance along two dimensions: market share growth vs. profit share growth for a set of competitors.
When introduced, I chose a long time frame (15 quarters) to see the long-term pattern. This quarter I add two more time frames: year-on-year and sequential. This allows a view of how market change is itself changing. The three diagrams are shown below (note difference in scales)