In a very interesting move, Apple announced that they would invest in returning some production to the US. At first blush, this seems like a bold tactic  which will certainly improve Apple’s brand reputation in the wake of long-standing criticism for moving skilled manufacturing jobs to China, where worker pay and conditions are bad enough to drive some to suicide. And as the number one technology company in the world it is also heartening to see some jobs come back home, but there are a few caveats:

The Apple MacBook is the top of the line notebook with a premium price point, out of reach for most small businesses unless there is strong justification, such as for professional designers and developers who need to pay double that of a similarly equipped Wintel device to do their work effectively. That share of the market has always been small relative to Wintel machines, both desktop and notebook. Apple manufactured Macs in the US until the mid-nineties, after most competitors had moved production offshore. The caveats include 1) whether this experiment will grow to the more strategic iPhone and iPad product lines, and obviously, 2) whether Apple can turn a profit that makes the decision stick after the first $100M is spent.

Apple cites the inability to find the level of skills and manufacturing equipment in the US to be able to turn out production rapidly and with high quality. No doubt Foxxconn, Apple’s Chinese production partner, who already operates some plants in the US, will be looking to expand operations here. They had issues ramping up production to meet demand for the new iPhone and there were hiccups, followed by reports of Foxxconn negotiating multi-billion dollar deals in Brazil, to manufacture there. Regardless of how that materializes, today’s announcement will dampen some criticism that would accompany the final press releases from Sao Paolo.

Enter the Dragon

Another reason this makes sense to us is that China’s technology vendors are on the rise – no surprise there. But consider that within 7 years of buying the ThinkPad brand and manufacturing rights, Lenovo has become the #1 PC vendor in the world in unit shipments, (#1 by Gartner, #2 by IDC) squeezing 10% out of the global share in a stagnant market in the last few years alone while jumping to 30% share in China, 3X the nearest competitor.  It was also announced today by Reuters that Apple fell to #6 in the Chinese smartphone market, which is growing in leaps and bounds to 60M units per quarter, with intense domestic competition and Samsung leading the pack. Lenovo is number 2 in the smartphone market as well as having the overwhelming first place position in PCs mentioned earlier, #5 smartphone seller Huawei, is gobbling up global market share in the telecom equipment market at an alarming rate.

We have written several times about the rising competition from China in the hardware manufacturing end of the IT market, and of its’ growing importance as the second largest PC, and largest Smartphone market in the world, with a billion users and 60 million units sold per quarter. As shared with our readers in a September article about Internet adoption and managed economies, China and Korea have many similarities that make for a reasonable scenario of things to come. Take it from someone who lived 15 years in Asia and has been watching Korea for 30 – the voracious appetite for material wealth, pragmatic style of government and East Asian capitalism will leave no stone unturned. Take Samsung for example: between 1990 and now they have become the number one maker of TVs in the world, starting from scratch and displacing the Japanese faster than they displaced American manufacturers, #1 in memory chips and some other semiconductors, #1 in Smartphone handsets (almost double Apple in unit shipments), a global leadership position in screen technology, squeezing Sharp, Toshiba and others for the keys to the future standard, and a global frontrunner in CE and white goods. These guys are US Steel in their heyday. And they are a major supplier to Apple for the most important products. And the legal battles are not over yet, according to this CNET News video. They have Foxxconn on the left and Samsung on the right. With friends like these who needs enemies?



CNET on Samsung Apple Lawsuit.

Strategically Apple’s move is understandable, at least from the outside looking in. Steve Jobs’ genius for aesthetic design, usability and commitment to quality helped create the PC revolution, arguably the single most important technological advance aside from the Internet since the Industrial Revolution. It also got him ousted from Apple as decisions about long term architecture were made. Although Apple always had (and still has) a very loyal following in the computing arena, they did not gain more than 10-12% market share from 1980 to 2000. This meant that Apple had to drive enough margin to support R&D for operating systems, a proprietary microprocessor, end user applications and non-standard chassis and other components.  By contrast, the rest of the PC market leveraged standards and Scale Economies as investments were diffused in the market. The Microsoft standard OS and a maturing suite of interoperable applications were the lynchpin of the ecosystem and resulted in hundreds of companies joining the competitive fray. White box and private label manufacturers sprang up everywhere, eventually producing branded competitors like Dell and Compaq who were selling practically as fast as they could produce. By 1996 Apple was being counted out by many analysts as an also-ran. Eventually in 1997, Jobs was brought back in to save the company, which was considered a very risky personal move at the time.

In his second stint as CEO, Jobs turned Apple around and helped solve a problem that almost put the recording industry into insolvency; how to make money in the music business when new technologies allowed free files to be distributed at will and pirated on a global scale. Apple introduced iTunes in conjunction with EMI, and solved the Digital Rights Management issue. Under Jobs they had to kowtow to Redmond and adopt compatible MS Office Application Suites, which were not interoperable to that point – no swapping files between Apple and Microsoft users, and move to an Intel architecture. Despite several earlier failures, such as the Newton, Apple achieved a breakout hit with the iPod, and iTunes began printing money. Next came the iPhone, which almost immediately become the third largest handset brand in the market, followed by iPad in 2010, and several versions of iPhones. The products have produced a ravenous worldwide customer base and made Apple the most valuable (tech) company in history with a half-trillion dollar war chest.

The point is that Apple’s meteoric rise is more a function of the transition to CE and Smartphones than its’ leadership in computing and now they are in a bind; they are stretching their existing supply chain, they rely on advanced manufacturing resources and skilled labor that have been developed offshore, their largest potential market (China) is controlled by arch-rival Samsung, with whom they are in a nasty legal battle and depend on for key components. Prepare to Repel Boarders.

Next Chapter in the Bits vs. Atoms Saga

Apple’s success with iTunes came as a result of a property of the Internet that is now at the root of their problem: value moves at the speed of light when it can be digitized, and even when that value is in the form of an optimized supply chain, there are physical limits imposed by materials and the movement of products that ultimately make manufacturing a challenging business. On one hand you have companies like Apple, who source, manufacture, sell and distribute 125 million smartphones, along with millions of other devices. On the other hand there are companies like Google, whose value can be delivered over a network, relying on increasingly large server farms and unfettered access to electricity, but with much less need for operational infrastructure. Cisco and Oracle are another example although not as stark. Huawei is exerting substantial pressure on US firms as a global competitor and causing Congressional sabre rattling, as we noted here.  Telecom equipment has been a hardware-oriented business but is less at risk because of innovation toward software and network integration – moving toward bits and away from atoms, demonstrated by Cisco's recent alliance with Citrix. Earlier we discussed Lenovo, which has overtaken first Dell and now HP and is the global leader in PC unit shipments.

As noted, we think moving some manufacturing back to the US will bring some benefits, not least of which is the PR value of bringing some jobs back home. It is slightly diluted by the fact that production of the most important product lines will not be possible for some time to come and does not decrease reliance on Foxxconn or really help with the Samsung conundrum. However if the experiment succeeds and a profitable advanced manufacturing sector can be developed and others follow suit it will be a very good thing for all of us in the technology industry.

Wall Street Journal Article

This is an interesting article from the WSJ concerning how we are slowly allowing decision-making processes to move away from people and be handled by algorithms instead. It caught our attention at a time when we are completing survey work for Business Intelligence report. As discussed in an earlier post, one of the key trends in BI is how deeply it is being embedded into all kinds of applications , and this article is a good example. Please let us know what you think: comment, like, tweet or forward.

Laying the Foundation

Analytic software has evolved through several generations over the last 70 years from around WWII, when a series of unprecedented number-crunching challenges gave rise to Decision Support Systems (DSS) designed to solve problems such as best equipment production mix given material constraints, how to logistically support the Allied invasion of Europe, split the atom, or break the Japanese code. These kinds of problems tended to be monolithic, using stochastic models to find the best answer – and were a major catalyst to development of the mainframe computer.

Business Intelligence (BI) followed this linear and iterative approach with one that supported solving business problems, mostly operational, within divisions and departments of large commercial organizations, using more distributed equipment within a wider audience, i.e., Finance, Operations and Distribution. In the late 1990s there was an explosion of data resulting from widespread adoption of CRM, the killer app of the Client/Server era, adding mountains of Sales and Marketing Data to the volumes of operational information. There was a growing need to get a top down view of how performance in one area of the organization was impacting the others, to begin taking a more structured approach at understanding cause and effect, setting objectives and consistently measuring performance to improve results. BI was evolving into Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) - which is where market leaders are today.

EPM is characterized by using Business Intelligence software to understand the best performance scenarios, measure actual performance indicators (KPIs) and determine how to close the gaps, using exception reporting for most front office functions (CRM/SFA) and rules-based processing for the back office (Process Manufacturing/Real Time Bidding, SCM/Advanced Web Analytics).

Optimization Nation

Equally important as the individual BI technology advances are some of the underlying rules that have accompanied the evolution: Moore’s Law, Metcalfe’s Law, the Law of Accelerating Returns all drove exponential growth in production, adoption and utility. Over a 20 year period, these have resulted in a slow-motion Black Swan event based on the cumulative effect of technology investments, and having huge impacts on our society, including but not limited to the following optimization activities:

Economy – development of consumer mortgage products designed to optimize sales volume regardless of risk, bundling them into bonds to optimize profit on the debt, creation of derivatives to optimize transactions and create demand for increasingly suspect debt, development of new financial instruments that have no underlying value such as  synthetic derivatives that truly have nothing but conceptual paper profits behind them, etc. By 2008 these financial instruments had optimized leverage to create risk greater than the combined GDP of industrialized world.

Employment – The WSJ article goes into depth about how algorithms have already replaced a hiring manager's decisions based on probabilities of how the employee might behave under certain circumstances. Employer choices have also been optimized by a flattening of the market caused by oceans of virtually unlimited supply from sites like Monster.com, 100K Jobs, Dice, etc. Middle management has been optimized out of the organizational chart and replaced with productivity tools, more efficient communications and a lower ratio of managers to workers. And the actual number of staff required to hit the bottom line has been optimized while CEO salaries have been optimized. If we look a little further down the line, Andrew McAfee's POV is deep on this subject, and more technical than mine.

Industry – We all know that manufacturing was moved offshore en masse over the past three decades to optimize production costs, but several other industry segments have been optimized as well, including Retail which has optimized through consolidation and healthcare which has optimized revenue per patient. Retail has been optimized at a structural level, to provide one-stop shopping for almost everything you need in a single location while volume has been optimized to produce the absolute lowest price and any cost, including optimizing the number of worker hours to keep an optimal ratio of full time to part time employees and save the resulting benefit costs. And it has also optimized the number and variety of retail outlets and small businesses required to service an optimized population in square miles. Healthcare prices have been optimized to take advantage of tax structure, potential law suits, healthcare insurance gaps, maximizing federal matching funds, Board and C-Suite compensation, pharma industry profits, and many more.

Government – Automation has also enabled a profitable business model that optimizes the use of Federal Government funds and ensures that every available dollar is spent, whether it is to make sure everybody gets a state-of-the-art mobile wheelchair, their 120 monthly catheters, a speaking glucose meter, maximum disability benefits, etc.  “Don’t worry - we’ll handle all the paperwork.”

Set it and Forget it

The imminent next generation of analytics involves truly “optimized” complex systems with human intervention largely removed from the process. Not to single out Wall Street, but they offer one of the best examples of unbridled application of technology in the singular pursuit of optimization, in their case, profit for themselves and their shareholders. The Financial Services industry has invested billions into technology and employed thousands of physicists and Ph.D.-level mathematicians to achieve a couple-millisecond transaction advantage, and programmed algorithms to use the advantage and change the rules (i.e., share price represents perfect information is no longer true). This has not proved to always produce predictable results, and the ghost in the machine has put us back on the precipice more than once, as seen in this TED video by Kevin Slavin. As we move into a brave new world that combines optimization software with networks that operate too fast for human intervention, more of our lives will be controlled by how rules are programmed into the system than what we do as individuals to impact the results. One of the best examples of where this is heading is the IBM’s Smarter Cities Initiative, which combines intelligent networks that manage Traffic, Water and Electric Utilities, Transportation, Healthcare, Public Safety, Education and others into an overall “Intelligent City”. Everyone hates traffic, so the video example from the IBM innovation site does more to explain this than I can by writing more on the subject.

Whether you agree with it or not, we are on a direct course to this future that is almost impossible to divert. This is a philosophical question and everyone will have their own opinion about the cost/benefit of chasing optimization. Comments and Opinions are welcome, please let us know what you think.

As of March of this year, half of all US mobile phone subscribers had a Smartphone. This in my opinion is more than just a number. It is a tipping point for applications. It is safe to say that we are now in an app economy as far as mobile phones are concerned. But the number has significance beyond just being a tipping point because it is a tipping point for thinking about applications.

What do I mean by that? Applications designed for the desktop or enterprise environments typically exist in a sandbox. That sandbox can be as small as a user’s desk or the entire enterprise but nonetheless a sandbox. Their function and focus is to provide the tools needed to complete a task within the confines of that sandbox. But these apps for the most part ignore user contexts. For example, a CRM application typically does not take into consideration a user’s location nor does an app like MS Office (other than language localization). But mobile apps need to be different because mobile is different. A mobile phone is not just another device. It is a beacon in your pocket that is constantly aware of where you are, what’s around you. It is also aware of your preferences and social network and what transactions you prefer. And one more thing – mobile identifies the user uniquely, not just from a device standpoint but as an aggregate of all the factors mentioned above. So it follows then that Context must define Content. But what are these contexts that app developers should consider? There are fundamentally three.

• Location

• Contacts/social network

• Calendar/time

Not all apps can take advantage of all three but should take advantage of at least one. It is hard to say that one of the above mentioned contexts is more powerful or more important than the others. Each can be powerful depending upon the app or the content. For example, ecommerce applications benefit significantly from taking advantage of location while for a CRM app, contacts and calendar are more critical than other contexts.

Context = Creative Destruction

The use of contexts in app development is not just about driving new user experience and value for users; it is about driving new business models as well. The use of contexts increases the app’s value to the point where in many instances a new revenue model can be implemented. For example, wireless phone companies that by design are able to capture user locations can monetize this “data” in a variety of ways, advertising being one of them. Similarly apps that used to be sold on a per license basis can shift their revenue models to leveraging contextual data as opposed to per user charges. In that respect, context is not only valuable, it is disruptive. The first wave of context aware apps we see have typically been those that would anyway have been free - Apps such as Instagram, Pinterest and Zoomingo (local shopping application).

Increasingly, I predict that we will see whole industries that shift their business models to take advantage of contexts. Newspapers and media are a prime example. While many newspapers are experimenting with paywalls, I believe that a larger opportunity exists for them to exploit user contexts. News publishing today uses what could be termed as an “in-out” model, that is publishers and editors decide what content should be created, publish it and hope that readers will find it interesting. It is the traditional content first driven approach. But what is relevant to me as a reader depends upon my current context. And what is relevant for me today may not be relevant tomorrow. It calls for a more dynamic approach to presenting content, where content to be presented is selected based on a combination of contexts. In other words, an “out-in” model. Doing so improves their ability to deliver advertising thereby potentially increasing revenue.

The same is true for retail. Most mobile retail websites are mere reproductions of online properties but should they be? Online retail websites suffer from the same contextual ignorance as other apps. For example, a mobile retail app would be much more powerful if it could detect a person’s physical proximity to a store. Imagine how small business retailers could benefit from such capabilities. Think about applications like Endomondo that track your physical fitness activities. Well over 5 million users have downloaded and use Endomondo. Consider how useful that data would be to an outfit like REI for targeting and creating customized offers. Here’s another example and a personal one. I am an avid photographer, but not a very good one. I try to learn about photography but that typically happens before or after I am out taking photographs. But the most appropriate context for me to quickly learn tips is when I am taking photographs. Cameras already track locations and embed them in pictures. They already sense light conditions. But this data is not used to educate the photographer! Could it be used to provide tips at the time the photo was being taken? Or could suggestions be given as to how to improve the photograph with examples of the best possible settings? Would it make amateurs like me to more likely to buy a particular camera brand? Would it facilitate brand loyalty? I believe the answers to all of the above are a resounding yes!

Context = Engagement

Indeed, most websites retail or not suffer from the same issue. Even corporate, customer facing websites are mere one-way information dispensing media rather than a context aware, interactive medium that facilitates two way engagements. In fact the very term “engagement” needs to be redefined in the mobile age.  Engagement was largely defined in terms of giving users the content they want/need. But in the mobile age, I believe that engagement should be about the interaction users want and need. It follows then that if context defines interaction then adding contexts fuels a more powerful engagement that can impact costs and revenue.

In Conclusion

Successful mobile applications need to score high on relevance. Relevance is a function that takes into consideration not just content but also all the factors that surround and influence the appeal of that content. This means that app developers have to re-think their applications for the mobile age. And not just re-think but they have to get mobile DNA into the entire organization.

 

Every decade or so, the tech industry experiences a tectonic shift. Over the last 40 years, we have seen changes in hardware, software, communications, networking, development tools, languages and platforms. Each has been significant in its own right. Some are incremental and though touted as game changers, they impact a narrow slice of technology users. It is arguable whether the shift to mobile is the most important of all but it has been as impactful as the arrival of the PC, if not more because of the pace at which the change has occurred.

Most readers of this blog are well aware that the most impactful changes in technology are those that ultimately change user behavior and disrupt how people interact with information that affects their daily personal and professional lives. A technology such as that changes the entire eco-system around it. When Apple introduced the world to GUIs and the mouse followed subsequently by Microsoft, it broadened the market for PCs and changed how people interacted with information. The combination of mobile and touch
technologies is having the same impact.

Take Instagram for instance. I must admit that I never gave Instagram a fighting chance of success. When I first heard of it I thought what possessed these guys to build a photo sharing app given the presence of huge success of Flickr and Picasa – both properties of
large companies. Similarly, Pinterest is but a feature of Facebook, right? Wrong! And I am glad to have been proven wrong. These and other apps prove a simple reality – Mobile IS different. What these and other success stories prove that it is possible to reinvent existing applications and indeed markets in an increasingly mobile centric world.

Emerging Mobile Interaction Formula
When one analyzes the characteristics of these apps a few things become evident.

1. Goal completion – Successful mobile apps must be responsive and allow users to complete the task quickly and with the least amount of friction. This seems elementary but is critical in mobile scenarios.

1. Context – Apps must be contextually aware and on the flip side make easily make evident to the user what the context is. Again, elementary but of heightened importance when thinking mobile apps.

1. Relevance – Limitation of screen size means that developers must be clever and super sensitive to how an app communicates relevance. There is no room to explain what an app does or is supposed to do, no room to guide the user in a systematic manner.

1. Entertainment – Even productivity apps must provide some form of entertainment even if it takes the form of simply taking engagement to a new level. Immersive games do this as a matter of necessity but so do apps like Path and Evernote.

1. Communication – Communication is central to all successful mobile apps. People don’t use mobile devices in a vacuum. While apps like Path present a simple elegant UI, its central value lies in being able to share one’s life with others. Regardless of the genre an app might fall into, communication has to be a central tenet of the app whether it is one-to-one or via social networks.

Touch technology is an important component of this and also presents some challenges. It has its advantages but also has limitations. It allows for a more natural interaction with information but for that to happen applications must be redesigned and rethought impacting even the most basic applications used every day.

• What does a spreadsheet optimized for mobile platforms look like?

• Does it (should it) even look like a spreadsheet?

• What about graphics applications?

• What is the best way to create a presentation on a touch optimized mobile platform?

Historically these apps have been designed and optimized for specific operating systems and devices. Compared to successful mobile apps they take on the status of silos, operated by individuals and content created within these apps is shared in the most rudimentary ways (think email). Touch interfaces aren’t just a way to replace mouse clicks and apps that do just that are foregoing the opportunity to drive new value for their users. For example, take a look at the following concept emerging out of MIT’s Fluid Interfaces lab.

This is Swÿp and this is how MIT describes it.



With Swÿp you can transfer any file from any app to any app on any device: simply with a swipe of a finger. Swÿp is a framework facilitating cross-app, cross-device data exchange using physical "swipe" gestures. The framework allows any number of touch-sensing and collocated devices to establish file-exchange and communications with no pairing other than a physical gesture. With this inherent physical paradigm, users can immediately grasp the concepts behind device-to-device communications. The prototype application “Postcards” explore touch-enabled mobile devices connected to the LuminAR augmented surface interface. Postcards allows users to collaborate and create a digital postcards using Swÿp interactions. Swÿp enabled interfaces can support new generation of interactive workspaces possible by allowing pair-free gesture-based communications to and from
collocated devices. (Source: http://fluid.media.mit.edu/people/natan/current/swyp.html)

Another interesting concept is “Sparsh” (means “to touch” in Sanskrit).



'SPARSH' lets one conceptually transfer media from a digital device to one’s body and pass it to another digital device by simple touch gestures. The digital world -- laptop, TV, smart phone, e-book reader and all are now relying upon the cloud, the cloud of information. SPARSH explores a novel interaction method to seamlessly transfer something between these devices in a real fun way using the underlying cloud. Here it goes. Touch whatever you want to copy. Now it is saved conceptually in you. Next, touch the device you want to paste/pass the saved content. SPARSH uses touch based interactions as just indication for what to copy, from where and where to pass it. Technically, the actual magic (transfer of media) happens on the cloud.
(Source: http://fluid.media.mit.edu/people/pranav/current/sparsh.html)

What this means for businesses – Embrace “Mobile First” Approach

Businesses Should Embrace "Mobile First" Approach
IT departments are already dealing with an onslaught of devices that their constituency is asking them to support. The so called BYOD (Bring Your Own devices) trend has stressed IT managers and many resist the trend citing security concerns. But any platform shift causes some pain for some amount of time. Progressive IT managers should look at this as an opportunity to add new and more value to employees. The shift to mobile and touch platforms will eventually force IT departments to embrace a “Mobile First” approach to IT strategy and the sooner IT managers do it the better because ultimately, the growth in mobile isn’t about devices or software or networks. Those will continue to evolve. It is about how we interact with information in a way that enriches our individual experiences and productivity.