For once, LG may beat Samsung

Samsung has been touting the latest strategy for Tizen — this time as an integrated OS for its smart TVs. It’s earned dozens of news stories this month, all tied to its promotional efforts for this week’s CES show in Las Vegas.

Samsung has always been better at announcing and publicizing Tizen strategies than it has been at executing on them. It did not skimp on the grandiloquent predictions when its original incarnation (then called Bada) was announced in November 2009:

Samsung Launches Open Mobile Platform: Samsung bada – The Next Wave Of The Mobile Industry
November 10, 2009
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., a leading mobile phone provider, today announced the launch of its own open mobile platform, Samsung bada [bada] in December. This new addition to Samsung's mobile ecosystem enables developers to create applications for millions of new Samsung mobile phones, and consumers to enjoy a fun and diverse mobile experience.

In order to build a rich smartphone experience accessible to a wider range of consumers across the world, Samsung brings bada, a new platform with a variety of mobile applications and content.
…
Based on Samsung's experience in developing previous proprietary platforms on Samsung mobile phones, Samsung can create the new platform and provide opportunities for developers. Samsung bada is also simple for developers to use, meaning it's one of the most developer-friendly environments available, particularly in the area of applications using Web services. Lastly, bada's ground-breaking User Interface (UI) can be transferred into a sophisticated and attractive UI design for developers.

Samsung will be able to expand the range of choices for mobile phone users to enjoy the smartphone experiences. By adopting Samsung bada, users will be able to easily enjoy various applications on their mobile.

Encouraged by Samsung, one analyst predicted that Tizen would make up “half of its portfolio by 2012.”

Instead, (according GSM Arena) only 11 bada models ever shipped — out of more than 3200 models during the past 5 years — before bada was discontinued in favor of Tizen — a merger of bada and the Intel- and Nokia-flavored mobile Linuxes (among others).

Samsung announced its first Tizen phone — the Samsung Z  — June of 2014. A defeatured version of the Galaxy S5, it debuted not in Korea — or North America or Europe — but in Russia, suggesting the company did not think it could compete head to head with the latest Android and iOS phones. In fact, it was even ready for a third world BRIC country: the release was cancelled due to a lack of applications.

At CES this week, Samsung announced that Tizen would jump species — from its viral reservoir in rare smartphones and smartwatches — and become the only OS it uses for its smart TVs. I had three reactions.

First, so what? Yes, as the leading TV vendor Samsung can push out lots of copies of Tizen. But does anyone care what OS is in their VCR, DVR, Blu-ray, TV or home stereo? (I care about the OS in my car stereo — due to cellphone compatibility — but that’s a story for another time.)

Second, Samsung is saying: “let’s ship a platform in a product category where no one cares about app availability.” In other words, it may never win developer support for Tizen — and thus a large assortment of apps — but on TVs, who cares?

Finally, while Tizen frees Samsung from dependence on the evil Google, is shipping Tizen an asset for Samsung — or a liability?

Under the hood, Tizen has a very robust Linux, reflecting bada’s 2011 merger with MeeGo, which in turn built upon years of work by Nokia (with Maemo) and Intel (with its Maemo fork called Moblin). (It also included the failed Linux Mobile standard, LiMo).

However, a robust OS under the hood means nothing if it has a clunky UI. Exhibit A is the Symbian OS with Nokia’s aged S60 UI; Exhibits B-Z are every incarnation of desktop Linux known to mankind.

Which brings me to the dark horse: LG. I hadn’t noticed, but two years ago LG bought webOS, the failed Palm smartphone OS that HP owned for three years before dumping it. This week LG announced it’s using webOS for its own TVs.

Almost six years ago, webOS was a really good smartphone OS. But despite Palm’s efforts to double-down on its modern OS, it wasn’t enough to save the company. Now, webOS has a $100+ billion/year company behind it — and unlike with OS — a large volume of shipping products where it can run.

With a product strategy that usually consists of copying Samsung — much like Panasonic copied all its Japanese rivals — LG is rarely thought of as an innovative company. But here, instead of copying Samsung by developing its own lousy embedded OS, it bought a good one.

Again, will it matter? Will the TV OS matter more than screen size, brightness or — most importantly for a commodity product — price? As a former software guy, I want software to matter in providing differentiation. But I’m not going to bet even one dollar of our youngest’s college fund on it.

Smartphone vendors learn: commoditization is hell

As previously noted, the major goal of Android was to commoditize smartphones, to make them widely available from a wide range of sources. Consumers like open standards because they bring, entry, competition and lower prices — a point I made in a 2007 book chapter.

As any first year strategy student can tell you, low entry barriers that bring high rivalry and high buyer destroy industry profit margins. Assuming the major cellphone makers each employed one MBA graduate, this should have been utterly predictable.

But apparently this is news, at least according to a report by John Paczkowski in All Things D that quotes analyst Trip Chowdhry:

He says that Sony [i.e. Sony Ericsson], Motorola and Samsung are growing disillusioned with Google’s Android OS. They feel there’s too much fragmentation and too little differentiation among Android devices and that companies producing low-end handsets are collapsing the premium market they’d most like to play in.

“They’re starting to realize that their Android devices [are no different] in the eyes of the customer [than a] $20 Android Phone from Huawei,” Chowdhry says. “They’re worried that Android may dilute their global brand as customers put them in the same bucket with Acer, Asus, ZTE, Huawei, and MediaTek.”

Uh, yeah, we’ve seen this story before: it was called the Wintel PC (or for oldtimers, the IBM PC compatible.) Cellphones are worse, since the carriers control distribution and have an interest in selling the cheapest phone they can.

To prevent this lack of control and divergence of interests, these three branded vendors were co-founders and shareholders of Symbian. In the end, only Sony Ericsson took Symbian seriously.

Today, Chowdhry suggests that the big three should license webOS from HP. Two aspects of the report makes sense. One is that webOS is a modern, high quality smartphone OS. The other is that HP has negligible share and isn’t competing with them.

Still, the major handset makers are no more interested in sharing a standard with webOS than they were with Symbian. And the high royalties ($50-75/device) that Chowdhry proposes are not going to fly with companies that pride themselves on hardware designs.

WebOS and its (former) owner Palm are really a US brand. I think HP’s best shot would be to approach either Motorola (which is still US-centric) or Sony Ericsson (which is even more seriously in trouble) to see if they’re interested. HP could continue to use webOS for tablets and other devices.

Samsung is a lost cause. They put small bets on every open platform (Symbian, Windows Mobile, Android) while still hoping their proprietary bada platform will catch on outside Korea.

After two years of negligible sales, whatever window webOS has as a smartphone platform has just about closed. It takes more than a better mousetrap to get traction in a platform market: it also requires developers, hardware vendors, distribution and end users.

HP's curious acquisition

I’m still not sure why HP spent $1.2 billion to buy Palm, other than it can. Yes, it has a minimal presence in mobile phones and other mobile devices, leading MarketWatch’s Therese Poletti on March 2 to predict an HP purchase of Palm:

Surely numbers-driven Chief Executive Mark Hurd is looking for ways for H-P to take advantage of the boom in smartphones. Buying Palm could be a way for H-P to get into the market for lower cost devices. It might have to abandon Windows, or offer two families of devices. H-P has often juggled competing product lines, diverse chip architectures and operating systems.

With its cash and global reach, HP can certainly do more with Palm’s technology that Palm has been able to do. And yes, Palm was available cheap, losing 73% of its market cap since its recent peak stock price of $17.07 last October.

It was a great victory for Palm and its investors, which despite good technology has been given up for dead for nearly two years. Elevation Partners, which took 25% sake in Palm three years ago, cashed in its (now) $460 million investment for an estimated $485 million — suggesting that it was worried about further deterioration rather than optimistic about a future upside. (Wednesday, Palm revealed Q2 revenues were expected to be 40% below analyst expectations, which would have punished the stock further.)

Obviously HP has been looking forward to the day when smartphones and other devices start to eat away at the Windows-based PCs that account for a nearly a third of the company’s revenues.

HP claimed the acquisition is even about the post-smartphone world:

"Smartphones are a part of this, but this is really about the Web operating system," Shane Robison, HP's chief strategy and technology officer, told Forbes. "It's a change in our business model to a connected device model." HP, he said, is assuming a world in which almost everything needs at least the potential to connect to the Internet.

But by taking on Palm and its webOS, HP is going down path it’s almost completely avoided during its 40+ years as a computer maker — as a sponsor of a proprietary computing platform.

Yes, it sold proprietary 16-bit mini computers in the 1970s, and it also bought two leading proprietary minicomputer companies: Tandem and Digital Equipment (when it bought Compaq).

However, its PCs have been DOS and Windows, and its servers Windows, Unix and Linux. The Unix (HP-UX) had its own development group, but the recent trend by HP and its customers has been away from HP-UX to Linux.

Of the world’s top five PC makers — HP, Dell, Acer, Lenovo and Toshiba — all have made mobile devices based on Windows Mobile (now Windows Phone) and Android. HP now seems to be abandoning this model and casting its lot with the leading proprietary vendors: Apple, Nokia and Research in Motion. (Yes, the operating system Nokia controls is open source, but its competitors are largely ignoring it.)

This also means that HP hopes to use webOS to differentiate its mobile products, rather than merely shave pennies off of operating costs as CEO Mark Hurd loves to do. Perhaps the thought of competing against commodity Taiwanese and Chinese firms in the mobile segment prompted him to do something different.

It’s really too soon to say whether HP will have any luck here. However, in the short-term, I think the biggest negative is for Google. A lot of people have been assuming that Android will take over the world, coalescing all the various carriers, vendors and users into a single platform. Instead, fragmentation of mobile phone platforms — as well as tablets — will continue.

It‘s also bad for Microsoft and Dell. Perhaps this will be the nudge that gets Microsoft out of the handset OS business, or it may cause it to more aggressively ally with Dell (which previously aligned with Android.)

But in a perverse way, I think in the short-term it will be good for the other proprietary platform vendors. Together, Nokia, RIM, Apple and HP will be able to hold off Android, and may cause the other phone makers to reconsider whether they want to hand control of their future to Google.

The one sure thing is that the number of webOS applications is going to explode. The iPhone (nearly 200,000) and Android (around 40,000) application stores are already crowded, while webOS only has a few thousand. Developers looking to get noticed will flock to webOS, hoping to get in on the ground floor now that its survival is no longer an issue.

Because of this demand — and because the webOS tools are very friendly — I predict that HP/Palm will have more than 5,000 apps by the end of the year, and perhaps closer to 10,000 apps.

Palm undiversifies platform strategy

While multiple mobile platforms allow a firm to serve different target groups and also to hedge their bets, they are also expensive to support and defocus a company, particularly one that’s struggling.

Eleven months ago, in the face of a $400m quarterly loss, Motorola announced it was cutting from six (or seven) platforms down to three: Android, Windows Mobile, and its own proprietary platform.

Now it’s Palm’s turn to slash its platforms, from three down to one. In the earnings call that confirmed its widening loss ($161m on sales of $68m), on Thursday CEO Jon Rubinstein made clear that both Windows Mobile and (as expected) Palm OS are history:

Due to importance of webOS to our overall strategy, we've made the decision to dedicate all future develoment resources to the evolution of webOS. Which means that going forward, our roadmap will include only Palm webOS-based devices

(Moconews has the quote slightly differently: “So while there are still Centros and Treo Pros, our future engineering efforts are based on webOS.”)

That seems to suggest a US-only, consumer-only focus — and it’s a lot of eggs in the webOS basket. So far, Palm won’t say how many of the 810,000 phones sold last quarter were the Pre, but speculation puts it at the 400,000-500,000 range — a good weekend’s sales for the iPhone. The predictions of a Palm Pre blowout by investor Roger McNamee appear to have been overly optimistic.

Is Palm’s problem the product? (Not if you believe the reviews). The immature ecosystem? Its limited marketing clout to launch a new platform? The fact that it’s only on a weak carrier?

Only the latter is easily fixed, but rumor has it that the webOS phone for Verizon is not until 2010. Lord knows, Verizon desperately needs better phones, as this Wired story makes clear:

"They lack the star products that their competitors have," says Avi Greengart, research director, consumer devices for Current Analysis. "They recognize they don't have compelling devices right now but feel they can make up for it with network quality."
…
"Verizon doesn't have too many options," says Michael Mace, a former executive with Palm and Apple and currently a principal at strategy and marketing consulting firm called Rubicon Consulting.

"They can't get the iPhone right now and they can't take Nokia devices and start promoting them. All they can do all they can do is push the BlackBerry as hard as they can and hope for a new Motorola phone."

The Wired story (also available on CNN) notes that Verizon is promoting a HTC Windows Mobile phone at $200, less than the $350 that Sprint and T-Mobile charge.

I realize Palm is resource constrained, but clearly beating Motorola to Verizon would make a huge difference to the bottom line. Is it that Palm can’t ship another phone in time? Or is it that the 2009 exclusive that it gave to Sprint was for the entire webOS and not just the Palm Pre?

Either way, this is not a lot of runway to turn things around.

Pre is better -- so what?

Palm’s last chance for survival is going on sale Saturday. Operator Sprint has almost as as much at stake. It claims an exclusive on the Palm Pre through the end of the year, despite Verizon’s hope to offer it real soon now.

A number of sites (ZDNet, PC World, Barron’s) are summarizing the Pre reviews, which range between glowing and fawning. Take for example this AP review

Move over, iPhone. You've had two years on top of the smart phone world. Now there's a touch-screen phone with better software: the Palm Pre.

In a remarkable achievement, Palm Inc., a company that was something of a has-been, has come up with a phone operating system that is more powerful, elegant and user-friendly. …

So webOS makes the iPhone look clunky, which is stunning in itself. It also thoroughly shows up Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Mobile. That operating system has had multitasking for years, but few users have appreciated that. Rather, Windows Mobile has been blamed for making phones clumsy and slow. Now, webOS comes along and does multitasking right.

I am more that a little skeptical. Reporters like the underdog, both for personal biases and also because it makes for a more interesting “horse race.” So just because they say the Pre is better doesn’t mean that it is. (In fact, the only claim is that the software is better, not that the hardware is better.)

However, suppose the Pre is better: so what? We figured out decades ago that the aphorism “build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door” is an engineer’s self-dillusion.

The reality is that better is not the only reason people buy phones. There’s also carrier switching costs, status, price, form factor/convenience, and now the availability of third-party complements.

Palm is trying to leverage its hacked iTunes download capabilities
to equalize one difference — the iTunes store. (Apparently Apple is trying to break that effort via the iTunes 8.2 update).

Even with iTunes songs, Palm still needs an app store. Or rather, even with an app store, it needs applications — which means it needs to seed developers with tools. And then developers need to be convinced they should develop (unless they decide there’s an inherent advantage in coming early to a tiny but hopefully growing market).

So the odds are long. The Treo, once dominant in the US, has been a stagnant niche product over the past 3-4 years.

The most optimistic thought would be that no one thought Apple could enter the market late and challenge Nokia and Research in Motion. Clearly Apple succeeded and continues to have momentum. It’s possible that Palm could succeed too, but my hunch is that Apple, RIM and Palm are splitting the same market — which means that Palm will be competing against two very entrenched competitors.

Sprint is the low cost provider among the US Big Four operators. Perhaps Sprint and Palm can bring smartphone and 3G services to the masses. One can only hope.