Competing Products

Over the years we’ve been pitched many thousands of times by startups. Sometimes those pitches are in person. Sometimes it’s over the phone, which works if you have a live website to play with. But all too often we get requests for meetings via WebEx or one of the dozens of competing products. Over the years those products have improved, but the percentage of failures is way too high. It’s always awkward when people are talking about what you would see if the meeting software worked.

The problems with these products are particularly frustrating when we put on a big launch event like TechCrunch Disrupt later this month. We schedule hundreds of live demos in a two week period, stacking them every 20 minutes for days on end. Companies can choose how they want to live screencast their software and demos, and we’ve informally tracked what software they choose and the failure rates.

Skype video, which now has screen sharing, now accounts for about 30% of all demos for us.

The failure rate is near zero and the lag is acceptable even for calls originating from thousands of miles away. It is hands down the easiest way to connect by screen and voice. And it’s completely free.

There are few bells and whistles. It’s only good for one computer to one computer communication, for example, and you can’t view the presenter and the demo at the same time. But the benefits are more than worth it. Just about everyone in the tech community already uses skype for calls and chat anyway. You click to initiate a call and share your entire screen or just a part of it, and you’re off and running. I wish everything on the Internet worked this well.

We are probably going to make Skype mandatory for our future events. The time and efficiency savings are substantial.

What amazes me most is that screen sharing is just a side feature for Skype. But that side feature is way better than the products released by companies that focus on virtual meetings and nothing more.

I like straightforward, reliable and easy to use products. Skype is doing all of that for us right now.

Also, I’ve been using Skype video nearly constantly since my move to Seattle for meetings with people in Silicon Valley that I used to do in person. When you go to full screen view it’s the closest thing to them sitting right in front of you that I’ve seen. Well, other than if they were actually sitting right in front of you. That would definitely be more real than Skype Video, I guess.

Palm was king of the handheld screen when it launched its popular Palm Pilot handheld device back in the 1990s. But it’s since been almost forgotten in a flurry of competitors vying for a slice of the smartphone market. And when it recently tried to launch a phone and underlying operating system that rivaled Apple’s iPhone in elegance and ambition, the phones failed to sell. Given its recent earnings and desperate cash position, it’s clear the company is heading for a spectacular failure.

Can Palm turn itself around by raising more cash and tweaking its strategy? I say no. The only promise for Palm’s future is a buyout. And the only buyer that makes sense is BlackBerry maker Research In Motion (I’ll tell you why in a minute).

Many attribute Palm’s failure to bad decisions. There was the WebOS operating system that was open to only a limited number of developers initially. There was the wrong choice of first carrier in Sprint. And there was the bad launch timing of the Palm Pre Plus with Verizon Wireless right after the launch of the Google-powered Droid as well as some manufacturing and design issues.

Whatever the reasons for its failure, it’s chances of catching up again without an acquisition are slim.

First off, despite its slick design and a promising operating system, Palm does not stand out in any single category. BlackBerry is known as an email and enterprise device, Android is liked for its openness and innovation, and iPhone excels in user experience and abundance of apps. That leaves Palm more closed than Android, not as cool as iPhone, and not nearly as enterprise-focused as BlackBerry.

Second, developers already have their hands full with Android, iPhone OS, BlackBerry, and the upcoming Windows Phone: They don’t want yet another operating system! Without many apps developed for Palm, users are less likely to buy it over competing products, and without a significant user base, developers are less likely to develop for WebOS.

Why is RIM the only logical buyer for Palm? Let’s walk through the others often named by Wall Street as potential acquirers and see why they’re not a fit.

Who will not buy Palm?

Not Apple — at least not at a price investors will stomach. Apple obviously does not need Palm, though it might buy it at a knockdown price to reclaim some of the talent Palm has poached from Apple in recent years, and to scoop up some patents.

One might think that Google could buy Palm to make up for its much-noted lack of hardware expertise, and perhaps then make a phone in-house instead of relying on designer-manufacturers like HTC. That strategy is fraught with flaws: Google, even if it buys Palm, has more reasons to kill WebOS than not; it would alienate its myriad partners, whether mobile operators or device manufacturers, and in the process would hamper the ecosystem it has succeeded in building around Android.

Microsoft could have been a good potential buyer before it invested significantly in its new operating system, Windows Phone, due for release later this year. Even then, Microsoft would have struggled to reconcile Palm’s integrated strategy with its long-standing preference for licensing software to hardware partners.

How about PC manufacturers such as Dell and HP? Supercharged smartphones are becoming replacements for netbooks. And it’s clear PC makers are finding it hard to transition to mobile manufacturing given their lack of expertise and the tremendous competition from newcomers like Google and Apple as well as existing mobile manufacturers. They’d clearly benefit from buying Palm.

Two problems: First, Dell and HP are hardware players who risk alienating partners like Google and Microsoft. Second, even if this strategy makes sense for Dell or HP, it will spell a disaster for Palm as an entity. Palm is meticulous about style and design, neither of which is a forte of Dell or HP. When a larger tech player swallows a smaller one, all too commonly the acquisition becomes a declining asset, with the distinctiveness that made it an attractive purchase swiftly disappearing.

Similar arguments hold true for cell phone manufacturers such as Motorola, HTC, and Samsung: They have invested heavily in other mobile operating systems, especially Android, and would risk angering their partners and spreading their R&D resources thin if they do buy Palm. Nokia and Sony could benefit from acquiring Palm, but I don’t think they’re good strategic complements for Palm: Nokia has recently invested in Meego, a new OS developed in partnership with Intel. And Sony is simply too big and fragmented, with its mobile assets stuck in a joint venture with Ericsson.

Why RIM and Palm would be a powerful combination

RIM was the undisputed leader in the smartphone market a couple of years ago. It now faces significant threats from iPhone and Android. Its touchscreen models like the Storm paled in comparison to Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Nexus One. Despite being an integrated solution, RIM has allowed its devices and OS to become fragmented. Developers not only have to account for several different versions of hardware (keyboard, touchscreen, different sizes etc.), but they also face the challenge of making sure their apps run on most or all different OS versions. As a result, BlackBerry’s applications marketplace is struggling to compete with Apple’s App Store or Google’s Android Market. And RIM’s hopes of modernizing its OS are weakening day by day.

Despite its weaknesses, RIM is still in a strong position, and it’s not too late to stop the downward trend. It still leads market share in the smartphone market (see table below). Its push email system is still unrivaled in the marketplace, and it is the phone of choice for many working executives and companies. Crucially, it has a strong revenue stream from software and services installed in tandem with the deployment of its phones in businesses.

Integrating Palm with RIM does not come without risks. The variety of RIM’s devices means its platform is fragmented, and it’s not clear how WebOS can fix that. In the short term, there will be two disparate operating systems, and therefore different app stores. It will be critical for RIM to phase out the BlackBerry OS quickly while integrating Palm’s WebOS with its push-email servers and services.

In the long run, when WebOS and BlackBerry devices converge, RIM will come across as a formidable competitor to iPhone, Windows Phone, and Android. Last but not least, the new company formed from the merger would still be an integrated mobile vendor — the preferred position of both RIM and Palm. They already share a vision. Separately, they lack the means to achieve it. That’s the best possible scenario for making a technology acquisition work.

Tags: Blackberry, webOS

Companies: Palm, Research In Motion, RIM

A bunch of readers have emailed regarding yesterday’s piece on the Apple-HTC patent suit to ask why I didn’t compare it to Apple’s ill-fated “Look and Feel” lawsuit against Microsoft. I don’t think the comparison is all that interesting or apt, basically.

For one thing, that suit was a copyright case, not a patent case. I think it’s fair to say that’s an entirely different ballgame legally. For another, the personnel are completely different. The entirety of that dispute with Microsoft took place during Steve Jobs’s exile from Apple.

But that actually led me to an interesting thought this morning. Leave aside the legal differences between copyright violations and patent disputes, and the two cases more or less boil down to the same fundamental situation: Apple brings to market a revolutionary next step in personal computers; competitors then use those same ideas in competing products. Microsoft and Windows then; Google and Android now.

I can see that what some people — people who are far more sympathetic to the idea of Apple attacking Android via the courts than I am — are thinking is more or less that Apple got screwed the last time when a competitor was able to shamelessly use the ideas that Apple first created, and so Apple should do whatever it can to keep that from happening again.

Apple’s argument in the Microsoft case was that Windows was a copy of the Mac’s copyrighted “look and feel”: mouse pointer, menu bar with pull-down menus, overlapping rectangular windows with a title bar at the top containing buttons for zooming and closing, scrollbars, icons representing applications and documents, click-and-drag text selection, drag-and-drop, a trash can, undo, a “desktop”, cross-application copy-and-paste — all these aspects from the Mac were also in Windows.

But what if Apple had patented these things in 1984, and had successfully protected these patents from being used by other U.S. companies? (Or at least the features and designs which weren’t derived from earlier work at Xerox.) It’s not just Microsoft that would’ve been blocked from creating Windows as we know it. A company called NeXT would have been blocked from creating NeXTStep. Every single Mac feature I described above was part of the NeXT UI as well.

Good ideas are meant to spread.

Google has spoken out against rumours that it has recently fallen out with long-time partner Apple, calling the Cupertino company “A valuable partner”.

In recent weeks whispers have emerged that Apple may be about to remove the Google default search status from its iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad and replace them with Microsoft’s Bing.

Meanwhile, a rumoured “Gentlemen’s agreement” between the two companies – whereby Android phones sold in the USA would omit the pinch-to-zoom multitouch present in iPhones to keep Apple happy – appeared to be overturned recently when Google pushed out a multitouch update to its Nexus One.

Google’s Vic Gundotra has today dismissed rumours of a spat between the two companies. Reported by Reuters, Gundotra said “Apple is a very close and valuable partner and we’re very excited about the relationship we have with them today. We have no reason to believe that’s going to change.”

This jars with what Steve Jobs reportedly said at a recent Apple staff meeting. Jobs supposedly accused Google’s ‘Don’t be evil’ ethos as being “Bulls**t” in front of his assembled employees.

The gossip-fueled soap opera between Google and Apple is likely to continue as they chase after the same mobile market with competing products and services – a situation that contributed to Google CEO Eric Schmidt stepping down from the Apple board last year.

Speaking at the Mobile World Congress event in Barcelona, Gundotra also refused to comment on rumours that a business-focused “Nexus Two” was on the way.