Apple is Going to be Bigger than Microsoft

Based largely on the strength of its position in the mobility space, Apple seems close to closing what once was an impossibly-large gap in equity value, compared to Microsoft. In 2000, Microsoft was about 600-percent larger than Apple, in terms of market capitalization.

One can argue it is the strength of the iPhone product line, or Apple's better positioning in the mobile business overall, that accounts for the change in market value. Long gone is the time when Apple was a PC supplier and Microsoft dominated the PC operating system market.

The difference between 2000 and 2010 was that where the 1990s might still have been an era of PC-based computing, the 2000 period saw the emergence of the Internet as the key factor in the computer-mediated experience business. Between 2010 and 2020 we are likely to witness yet another evolution based on mobility.

Unless Apple stumbles, or Microsoft somehow can discover a new and heightend role n mobile experience computing, Apple is going to be a bigger company than Microsoft. Market capitalization is not the only important measure of a company's stature, of course.

But Apple quitely has amassed a patent portfolio larger than Google's. Based largely on the strength of its position in the mobility space, Apple seems close to closing what once was an impossibly-large gap in equity value, compared to Microsoft. In 2000, Microsoft was about 600-percent larger than Apple, in terms of market capitalization.

One can argue it is the strength of the iPhone product line, or Apple's better positioning in the mobile business overall, that accounts for the change in market value. Long gone is the time when Apple was a PC supplier and Microsoft dominated the PC operating system market.

The difference between 2000 and 2010 was that where the 1990s might still have been an era of PC-based computing, the 2000 period saw the emergence of the Internet as the key factor in the computer-mediated experience business. Between 2010 and 2020 we are likely to witness yet another evolution based on mobility.

Unless Apple stumbles, or Microsoft somehow can discover a new and heightend role n mobile experience computing, Apple is going to be a bigger company than Microsoft.

Of course, market capitalization is not the only measure of a company's stature and influence. In that regard, Apple has been especially active in the patent filing arena. Between 2004 and 2007, when Apple was preparing the iPhone, it filed 507 patents, while Google filed just 67, for example.

Very few--in fact virtually none--of the leader's in one era of computing also were leaders in the next era of computing. Apple might be the first firm in computing technology ever to manage leadership in more than one era. Or, one can argue that Apple did not lead in the PC era, and is emerging now as a leader in the coming mobile Internet era because it has become a mobility company.

Right now, I can only think of three possible contenders for such history-making: Apple, Google and Cisco.

Google to Leave China?

Google has drawn up detailed plans for the closure of its Chinese search engine and is now “99.9 per cent” certain to go ahead as talks over censorship with the Chinese authorities have reached an apparent impasse, according to the Financial Times.

Google's search results are censored in China, as are results provided by all other search engines as well.

Google is also seeking ways to keep its other operations in China going, although some executives fear that a backlash from the Chinese authorities could make it almost impossible to keep a presence in the country, the Financial Times says.

But Google’s executives have made it clear that they still hope to stay in the country, whatever the fate of Google.cn. “It’s very important to know we are not pulling out of China,” Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, told the Financial Times at the time. “We have a good business in China. This is about the censorship rules, not anything else.”

The company’s other operations, which pre-date the launch of Google.cn four years ago, include its research centre in Beijing and a sales force that sells advertising on the Chinese-language Google.com search service, based outside China, to advertisers inside the country.

This sort of issue has been tough for any companies doing business in China, in the past. Software and hardware sold by companies into China can, and are, used in ways that violate sensibilities in the West. Suppression of dissent, spying on citizens and so forth do happen in China, and technology supplied by Western firms is used to do so.

Google might have to take steps that many would agree are principled and just, but will harm its business interests. Similar thorny decisions have been made by other software and hardware suppliers to the Chinese market, with different outcomes. It's an area of moral tension executives cannot escape, though most seem to prefer not to talk about it.

Beyond all that, the dilemma shows that the old Internet, where any user could communicate freely with any other user, is gone. When the any government shuts down applications people use to communicate with each other, the old Internet is gone.

Financial Times article

The Creative Age is Different, Way Different

General Motors isn't Facebook. Heck, it isn't even Cisco or Microsoft. But neither are any of those companies like Facebook. I don't mean "like Facebook" in financial, social or cultural terms. Facebook is unlike other companies in the way that it creates a product. Most companies create products using some combination of internal resources ("employees") and business partners ("suppliers").

Most companies can tell you who "works for the company" and who does not. What is different about Facebook, and Wikipedia, Google and YouTube is that the "product" is produced by all sorts of people, both inside a "company," inside its "partner suppliers," and from "outside the company." What makes Facebook's product different is that "users" must participate to create a better and more useful product.

That might be true for any sizable organization, to some extent. Consumers help shape products when they decide to buy some more than others, and some not at all. Consumers help products evolve when they start to use products in new and unexpected ways.

But Facebook and others with a "social" product cannot develop with passive or secondary input. They require active creation of content, links and networks by participants. Not every product can be produced in this way. But it is a so-far distinctive attribute of products produced in a "post-information age" era.

Some might call the upcoming era the "creative" era, to differentiate it from the information age. Collaboration is a key cultural attribute of firms that create social products. Facebook depends on users, developers to create its product, which is an experience.

fuller discussion

More Evidence of How Hard it Is to Replicate Google's Success

It's an impressionistic, but useful take on Google's uniqueness among companies, that so few ex-Googlers have been able to replicate Google's success. Googlers are smart, there is no question about that. But Microsoft and many other firms go out of their way to hire "smart people." That fact alone does not seem to automatically produce out-sized results.

Think you can be the next Google?

Google's Culture Flat Out Rocks

Nilofer Merchant, Rubicon CEO and founder, has penned a fabulous post about Google's corporate culture, that is worth reading, especially because you and I will rarely, if ever, encounter a company with a culture this unusually oriented towards innovation; so fearless its atmosphere towards new ideas; so intellectually egalitarian.

Few companies you encounter will ever approach this level of cultural openness. You will run into lots of companies that claim they are this way. They are not. If you speak with enough people, at enough companies, you will discover that most of them think they are "above average," "very good" or even "excellent" at  customer service, or quality, for example.

By definition, this is incorrect. No normal distribution can have a majority, or the vast majority of the population ranked in the top five percent, 10 percent or 20 percent of anything. And yet that is what you'd tend to find, if you asked.

Google, whatever else one thinks about the company, should be applauded, studied and emulated, as should Apple, in some key ways, when it is possible. Most companies cannot meaningfully emulate the core cultural traits of either company, of course. But that's why Apple and Google will remain such important companies.

Most will not try to emulate them, and most cannot, even if they want to. Sometimes the problem is simply that the culture of an organization matches the core tasks it must tackle to be successful. You wouldn't expect a "Google" style culture at a nuclear power plant, a telco or larger military organizations.

You would hope and expect to find it on any small software team, smaller consulting organizations and think tanks, smaller research or policy institutes, smaller marketing firms or architectural firms. Note the emphasis on small; that normally has something to do with it. Still, smallness is a necessary but insufficient prerequisite.

Lots of small organizations are not "collaborative" in the robust sense. People matter.

Merchant's full post

Motorola Backflip Offers New Navigation Interface

Motorola's New "Backflip" offers a new way of navigating Web pages. The Backflip allows you to navigate its screen by touching a panel behind it, thus keeping fingers off of the screen. The Backflip, which runs on AT&T's 3G network, costs $100 after a $100 mail-in rebate and a two-year agreement.

Its name comes from its design: The Backflip's screen seems to flip backward when the QWERTY keyboard flips down for use. In the device's "closed" position, the keyboard flips back up and is automatically turned off.

No Inevitable Need for Usage-Based Pricing, AT&T CEO Says

Usage-based wireless broadband pricing does not necessarily mean an end to unlimited-use plans, says AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson. But it might mean plans that tie usage in some broad way to retail cost of service.

Consider the way mobile plans are sold today. There are some true "unlimited plans" for voice, data and text messaging. But there also are plans with buckets of usage that sell for various lower prices. That same content might well work for future broadband access plans as well.

PC-based wireless broadband users, for example, consume more bandwidth than smartphone users. It might therefore continue to be the case that unlimited use is more practical for smartphones than for PC dongle service.

At the same time, there also are existing precedents for fully unlimited use even for PC devices. Business-grade services such as T1 connections, for example, are unlimited-use services, but also sell for higher prices than typical consumer services.

Anthony Melone, chief technology officer at Verizon Wireless also suggested the U.S. wireless industry might not be able to wait 10 years for additional spectrum of the sort the Federal Communications Commission now hopes to entice TV broadcasters to part with. "They need to have something in the five-year time line."

Perhaps the most interesting comment is Stephenson's take on the continued role for fixed broadband capacity. Stephenson says wireless capacity issues would maintain a role for fixed-line connections "at least in his lifetime."

That suggests even Stephenson can envision a time when fixed connections are not nearly as relevant as they are today.

link to source