05.28.10
Consumer Cool or Enterprise Efficiency
It seems that Apple are catching up to Microsoft in terms of being the worlds most valuable technology company. The reasons are manifold but I think that there are a couple of key areas which have been critical.
Apple do niche and consumer devices very, very well. the ‘i’ series have become the ubiquitous brand – you don’t buy an mp3 player, you buy an iPod, even if it’s actually not an Apple device. They all work together well and have a certain appeal.
It’s certainly been said that “Apple fans will simply buy everything Apple” and although this is somewhat of a slur, the facts are that an appreciation of quality will promote further adoption. The point here is that the very fact such a slur exists shows that something has promoted a loyalty in the brand.
If we move away from the consumer space and into Enterprise then the story obviously changes. Microsoft are king here and for many of the same reasons. Microsoft’s business systems and applications work well together and there’s not really a significant alternative to the Office suite of servers and applications which it comes to interoperability. Apple have a presence in the Enterprise but it’s very small and provides an interesting challenge to IT/IS teams in terms of support, management and integration.
So why does the Cupertino firm seem to be vying for the top spot? I see it as a combination of things, there’s been a growth in the use of Mac machines across the board, for education, in-home and in the enterprise. Adoption has been through the “It just works” experience and the availability of effective applications to provide the services these groups want. The second element is Microsoft’s effort to move into the consumer devices space.
Media players (they do so much more than MP3 now) belong to Apple. The Zune, although a nice device in itself, simply hasn’t had enough of a differential to be a decision point for most folks. If anything they’ve been the protest vote of those who, for their own reason, simply don’t like Apple. Windows Mobile was a great idea let down in execution by Microsoft’s historical position as as software vendor, “We build the OS, you use it in your devices”, this caused performance issues, inconsistencies in functionality and a general frustration with the devices. Oh, for sure they hooked up to the Enterprise environment well for Exchange support, but with the licensing of Active-sync out to the other Phone OS vendors, even that has become diluted. The new portable OS – Metro – is very slick, very pretty and certainly provides a different experience to anything else on the market, and it’s use as the base for Windows Phone 7 makes perfect sense or at least it would if it existed in a vacuum. The problem is that the model for WP7 is so radically different than that for the older Mobile OS and that change is actually going to be a barrier to adoption rather than encourage it.
“The third screen”, as Steve Ballmer coined the mobile device space, is certainly important as more and more services become remote and the delivery mechanism becomes more portable. Phones are no longer phone, they’re terminal devices but does this mean that Microsoft has to compete there? I would say not, they don’t. Microsoft needs to do what it does best and that’s to make solid reliable Enterprise systems and solutions which can be accessed by devices in such a way that promotes their adoption rather than inhibits.
Already I can here the shouts… “They already do that!!”. Yes they do, and that’s where they are successful. The news that the Exchange 2010 web application will now provide the will user experience on Firefox, Safari and Chrome as well as IE shows that some thought is now going into the process. Organisations are more likely to adopt a central system if it’s able to be accessed from anything, than if there are limits on the client side.
Consumer cool is great for press releases and “Oooo – Ahhhh” product launches, but Enterprise efficiency is where Microsoft made it’s big bucks and that’s where it’s strengths now remain. The current leadership is one of corporate stewardship, the previous was one of technical innovation. The products should reflect that position and in some areas do – but that’s the problem, it’s only in some areas. Microsoft’s internal structure sometimes provides some real differentiation in their products – look at the success of the XBox – but sometimes it shows a real disconnect in strategies. The business units have to do their job and that job is to make their products sell as well as possible, you can’t fault them for that. Bu sometimes they seem to be acting at odds with other business units and it’s this disconnect which confuses people.
Apple have a singular vision with which EVERY product aligns but this can lead to accusations of ‘closed systems’ and the associated negative aspects.
Which is right, which is wrong?
It would be great to have Microsoft delivering systems – either in-house or on-line – which could be accessed by the BEST remote / mobile devices available. That’s what will happen eventually, but Microsoft need to stop tying to be cool and remember what they do best and that’s Enterprise Efficiency
