Microsoft Brands

Something is jarring about this clause from today's NYT:  "[Microsoft] is marshaling some of its most powerful brands as never before: Windows and the Xbox."


Windows is undoubtedly well-known.  But "powerful"?  I think of a powerful brand as one that has such strong and favorable connotations that, by simply lending its name to another product, it can also bestow some of its good will.  Windows does not strike me as such a brand. Moreover, extending a brand is risky - better to share the name with equally good products rather than hope consumers will never notice that the new thing is not quite like the old.

Amazon and Google

Amazon is getting into the loans business.  Google has self-driving cars.  What do these two things have in common?  My pet theory is that both of these companies were built to help fund the true enthusiasms of their founders and that their genius allowed them to build enormous businesses as tools to get there.  Their success in retail and search has obscured what I hope are their underlying motivations.

Amazon moved from books (among the easiest of goods to sell on-line because of almost zero concerns of customers of fraud, mishandling, etc.), to general retail, to cloud computing, and now to loans.  I've come to think that its real goal is to dominate what was quaintly called B2B.  By developing a deep understanding of retail, customer service, and branding, Amazon has built up the expertise to begin providing services to business.  Taking a few pennies here and there but across the entire value chain.  And it started with general retail because you need a big arena if your business exists to make money on the margins.  And, with the enormous scale of Amazon, it can enter into markets that seem impenetrable or daunting because of the capital demands.  And (another and), become the largest company on earth.

Google is doing something slightly different but similar in tone.  Here, the founders built a search engine, now advertising company, not because they love marketing or search but because the gold mine of google affords the freedom to try capital intensive projects.  Again, similar to the way Amazon grew based on the value created through retail.

All complete speculation but a way to explain why some very smart people seem to be so unfocused - I think the presumed focus is merely a means to reach the true goal.

USB-Lightning Cables

The apparently imminent launch of the iPad Mini (or whatever it will be called) could help to explain why USB-Lightning cables continue to be in short supply.  Given the choice between selling them in retail and as a constraint on sales of a new iPad form factor, I guess it makes sense to make sure they are allocated first to the iPad Mini (although margins must approach 100% on the cable, cash margin of the iPad Mini sale is still higher at about $60-75).  There were plenty of cables available before the launch of iPhone 5 (I got mine in two days) and now it's on backorder.  That doesn't usually happen with Apple's supply chain.

Amazon Phone and Instant Video

The longer Amazon goes without releasing an instant video app for iPhone, the more likely it seems that an Amazon phone is imminent.  If it were far away, it wouldn't make sense to hold off issuing.  And there is no technical reason not to release (as there is an app for the iPad).  So, my only explanation (I'm sure there are others) for no iPhone version is that Amazon wants to have as complete a differentiated feature list as possible.

I think (I could check but am too lazy) that Kindle books also followed the same pattern (Amazon proprietary device first, app version later).

UPDATE: I was clearly wrong.

HP problem

As a sharp illustration of the problems with HP, I discovered that Amazon does not carry any photosmart printers.  There are plenty for sale through third-parties on the site but none that are eligible for amazon prime.  That is disturbing and odd.

"We got a great deal on sandpaper"

Some have suggested that a 7.85" iPad is difficult to introduce because of Jobs's memorable quip regarding sandpaper and smaller tablets.  I don't think this would really stop Apple from releasing a 7.85" version if they think the market will embrace it.  But, as a nice break from the Jobs era and as a memorable line, they could simply start off the intro by saying "we got a great deal on some sandpaper...".  I think including a square in every box would be going a little too far but would be awesome.

More seriously, I had been wondering why Apple didn't promote the improved specs of the iPad 2 with the 32nm process.  It occurs to me that, by keeping the improved battery life as a silent feature, they would be able to use the new chip in an iPad mini (which will likely have a disproportionately smaller battery than iPad) and so maintain their 10 hour use standard for iPad easily.  If they had promoted the 12+ hours life, it would make the battery life of the mini seem like a letdown (and, of course, would have highlighted the lower life of the iPad 3rd gen).

touch and hover

Hover was a great innovation on the computer - to provide contextual information with a short lag (to avoid mental overload or distraction) nicely matches normal human interaction of hesitation indicating uncertainty (and thus suggesting more information is needed).  Adding hover to touch would be a great innovation for touch screens and make screens more information rich without requiring more real estate.  I'm not sure if it would work best as a literal hover (where a fingertip that is close but not touching is registered as a hover) or  something more prosaic (a three finger touch or similar).  But hover really is missing from iOS and would be valuable. And easier to use than iPhoto's help button (which has the information overload problem).  I wonder how Office will handle this.