Sorcinelli.net

Random Thoughts and Musings of Don Sorcinelli

About

Archives: October 2011

Alas, Poor Zune Hardware. I Knew Ye Well…

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: October 4, 2011
Comments: No Comments
Tags: Business, Zune
Categories:Business, Zune

In case you haven’t heard, Microsoft has rather quietly announced the end of the line for the Zune HD personal media player (see more at CNET). It’s a sad day for me personally, and a sad day for this segment of the market in general.

I have been a Zune user dating back to the First-Generation devices. While the color choices for the outer casing were a bit suspect (I owned the “PBZ” color, with “PBZ” affectionately meaning “Poopie Brown Zune”). I wife and kids were (and still are) regular users of the smaller 4 and 8 GB Zunes (Second-Generation with solid state drives). I still carry a Zune HD, which in my opinion was the hardware for a personal media player – period. Now, I’ve used other devices over the years, including even after the Zune came out, but I always returned to the Zune platform. Part of my reasoning for going back was around the software and ecosystem (the best device UI and Zune Pass are two examples), but another part of it was around the hardware itself.

I think the Zune serves as a great reminder of how Microsoft markets so many of their products and how unsuccessful the strategy ends up being. Microsoft often times tends to spend a lot of time, effort and money building up interest and “hype” for product. Many times, this does work. However, once a product launch occurs, the effort goes from “great” to “virtually non-existent”. The history of the Zune may may the greatest example of this strategy.

For each generation of Zune, Microsoft put forth a lot of effort in marketing “what’s coming”. While some can argue the effectiveness of this marketing (personally, some of the “hip and trendy” ads reminded me of an old stodgy person’s impression of “hip and trendy”, the amount of exposure given was not in question. Once each generation of Zune actually launched, however, Microsoft seemed to disappear from the scene when it came to marketing. I don’t claim to know or even understand Microsoft rationale behind this, but it almost always seemed to me that Microsoft assumed -

People got the message, and no further marketing was really necessary;
The ecosystem (retailers, in this case) would pick up the marketing slack and sell for them.
Enough money was spent in preparation for launch, and spending more just wasn’t prudent.
All of the above.

I tend to ascribe in some form to the “All of the above” theory, but again – I’m not that much in-the-know. Whatever the case may be, Zune always seemed to fall into the “what’s that” category from a consumer awareness perspective.

I have lost count of how many times over the years that I showed people my Zune hardware, mainly because the people wanting to see it had little to no idea such hardware and software existed. Usually (and especially when it came to the Zune HD), folks were really impressed with the Zune experience. In almost all cases, though, people would take the stance of “Nice, but it isn’t an iPod.” Drill down with people on this stance and almost always this really meant “I don’t know enough about this Zune thing, but I know LOTS about an iPod”. In essence, Microsoft’s assumption that pre-launch marketing was enough simply fell flat on it’s face. Zune constantly suffered from a lack of brand recognition.

The good news (if there is any here) is at least aspects of the Zune experience outside of the hardware itself are living on strongly in other Microsoft products. The Zune music services live on in Windows Phone, desktop and Xbox 360. Almost as importantly, the Zune user experience lives on and thrives throughout Microsoft products. Most people forget or are unaware that the roots of the “Metro” user interface now appearing in Windows Phone 7, Xbox and even the upcoming Windows 8 operating system were born from the Zune user interface (I distinctly recall so many people calling Windows Phone 7 the “Zune Phone” when the first images of the user interface went public). All of this good news, however, makes me wonder even more how a platform generally can gain so much acceptance and acclaim, yet the hardware that started it all could struggle for so long and eventually die out without so much as a bang but a whimper.

Hopefully, Microsoft will learn from the life and death of the Zune as a device. Sadly, many of the same issues around marketing strategy dogged the old Windows Mobile platform and (sadly) seem to be repeated to some extent with the newer Windows Phone 7 platform. Maybe, just maybe, Microsoft will eventually learn that the “if you build it, they will come” approach to product marketing isn’t always enough, and brand recognition is a 24/7/365 marketing effort.

Now, I will stop writing and go back to listening to some music on my Zune HD (suddenly a collector’s item)…

Solving a Problem When You Can’t Define The Problem Itself

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: October 3, 2011
Comments: No Comments
Tags: Business, Personal, technology
Categories:Business, Personal, Technology

Sometimes I think we all forget that while technology helps us to solve problems, we have to first identify and clearly define the problem we are trying to solve. As consumers we often tend to purchase technology because we want it, not necessarily because we need it. We buy because it’s the “latest and greatest” or because it can do more, but these reasons don’t match up to any problems we currently have with our existing technology.

This type of conspicuous consumption has fueled economies since, well, forever. Of course, in uncertain economic times (like the present) we as consumers usually take pause and finally do ask ourselves if technology purchases are really serving a direct benefit and addressing a real problem we currently have. Ironically, however, another form of consumer (not the individual one like you or I) exists that suffers from some of the same impulse-buying and lack of forethought that we do. Their purchases, on the other hand, often run into the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars. And the people making those purchases are often themselves paid well to behave in just the opposite fashion of their spending habits. The consumers I am referring to are businesses.

As someone who has spent nearly a quarter of a century working with businesses and their technologies, I still find myself amazed by the number of times organizations acquire technologies with little to no idea of how they are going to actually use them. They spend large amounts of money investing in technologies, only look at them post-purchase and collectively say “now what?” While the technologies have changed and evolved over time, the acquisition of technology still occurs and results in a solution struggling to find a problem. Here are two such technologies I see this occurring with quite regularly lately, with one hitting very close to home on a personal level.

Cloud-based solutions. Everything seems to be moving to “The Cloud” lately. Centralized, externally-hosted solutions are intended to generally solve very specific problems, such as:
- Reducing the cost of infrastructure. Less hardware and/or software to maintain, less network bandwidth and reduced licensing.
- Reduce the cost of operations. Less human resources needed to maintain infrastructure.
- Ease access to corporate data and applications.

However, I am amazed by how many people currently consider moving to cloud-based solutions that currently are not experiencing these problems or will not see these problems occurring any time in the future. In fact, in these cases the cost of migrating from in-house to the cloud will likely cost significantly more in both the short- and long-term.

Device Management solutions. This is the one I said hits close to home for me, working in the industry directly. Typically, device management platforms today can help to solve a number of issues around mobile devices and –
- Asset tracking and reporting;
- Security configuration and enforcement;
- Application management;
- Identification and control over both corporate-issued devices and personal devices accessing corporate resources.

Here again, however, I regularly meet with organizations “post-purchase” of device management solutions only to discover that they really don’t know what problem (if any) they are trying to solve. In many cases, there is really no strategic direction/planning around mobile devices. In all of these cases, questions directed at the customer regarding what they hope to leverage from device management are met with responses like “we have no idea; what do you think?”

Technology is an enabler; it helps us to do things more effectively, or at a lower cost. Technology is not an automatic solution, however. In order for it to solve a problem, there has to be a problem in place and the technology needs to be looked at to validate whether or not it is, in fact, the solution. Whether it is a new dryer or a device management platform, the same principles apply.

Platform Fragmentation: Yes, There IS a Good Kind

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: October 2, 2011
Comments: No Comments
Tags: Business, Mobile Technology, technology
Categories:Business, Mobile Technology, Technology

The other day, I was involved in what seems to be a regular occurrence for me; a discussion on platform fragmentation. For the non-mobile, non-techie folks out there, this concept refers to the idea that a given platform (say, Android) has aspects about it that open itself up to differentiation. In theory, the differentiation could be a good thing, but usually the term is only discussed when the results are negative (especially for consumer/users). BTW – while I used the phrase “non-mobile”, I don’t mean that the ideas around platform fragmentation are limited to mobile devices. The same thing can apply to any platform.

Well, a couple of interesting thoughts occurred to me during this particular platform fragmentation discussion. First, I found someone in the discussion tried to make an argument that just didn’t fit in defense of the particular platform in question (in this discussion, it was Windows Phone 7.5). The argument was, in essence, that “platform fragmentation” only occurs if the platform causes a given application to work on one device and not the other. I found this argument to be the equivalent of something like changing the dimensions of a soccer field in the middle of a game and then calling everything that was inbounds before suddenly out-of-bounds. It just doesn’t work that way.

From my perspective, I look at a platform from a very gestalt point of view. In other words, the whole of the platform is greater than the sum of its parts. This includes all aspects of the platform. In the mobile world, this includes any OEM relationships, mobile carrier relationships and the ability of the platform (in this discussion, it was the Windows Phone 7.5 OS as a major factor in the overall platform discussion) to allow for customization by the other players in the ecosystem. Remember – unlike Apple with iOS as a platform, there is literally no other “players in the game”; their manufacturing partners have specifications dictated to them, and mobile carriers have no ability to customize other than adding software (and only with Apple’s blessing). Now, with all this in mind, it occurred on me that there can be good aspects to platform fragmentation. The first example came out of the very discussion where someone was trying to change the parameters around what defines platform fragmentation.

A platform that allows for device manufacturers to differentiate through hardware capabilities opens the door for platform fragmentation. However, that type of fragmentation enables:

Differing screen qualities
Differing audio qualities
Integration with other technologies (take DLNA, for example, allowing for streaming from the phone to other devices)

Now, if this particular form of platform fragmentation is allowed without altering the fundamental user experience (something I will touch upon in a moment), then it becomes a “win-win” for both devices manufacturers and consumers. Device manufacturers can compete through hardware and feature capabilities, while consumers have more choice without fear of a differentiator altering expected functionality. The end result – a positive type of platform fragmentation.

From a “bad” point of view, there are in my opinion several major types of platform fragmentation. They include -

Allowing for functional changes that break consistent user experiences. The scenario that was positive above becomes negative if a device manufacturer adds or removes capabilities that make application no longer function or change the way users have to perform basic tasks (turning on WiFi, for example). When this happens, moving from device to device within the platform makes for a painful new learning curve and removes the expectation of basic functionality.
Allowing for a device manufacturer or carrier to alter the basic user interface experience. Think “skinning” or “theming” here. While there can be an argument (both for and against) allowing users to change the fundamental appearance of the user interface, allowing devices to be sold with this as a default leads to a number of issues, including:

Altering the fundamental expectation of user experience;
Creating confusion through a lack of recognition of a platform. This was often the case with the old Windows Mobile platform and now occurs quite often with Android devices. Users do not even recognize and cannot identify what platform the device is running, never mind easily perform common tasks. Again, user frustration and new learning curves result when moving from device to device within the platform;
Difficulty for the consumer in determining what device is best for them within a platform. The number of returns of devices because of issues like the ones listed above lead to dissatisfied consumers.

Creating splits within the platform to accommodate hardware and features. Anyone remember the confusion caused by Windows Mobile Standard (non-touchscreen) vs. Windows Mobile Professional (touchscreen)? How about Android Honeycomb/3.x (tablet-specific) vs. the Android 2.x variants (tablet and non-tablet)? These splits result in software compatibility issues and even greater confusion/frustration for the consumer.

I guess the points I am trying to make here are, quite simply:

Platform fragmentation almost always will occur to some level with technology, especially when the technology includes an ecosystem with more than one vested interest.
There can be good forms of platform fragmentation that allow for grater choice for consumers without confusing, frustrating or hurting them.

To argue the basic definition of platform fragmentation shouldn’t be the approach when it occurs. Instead, the argument should focus on the benefit or detriment of the fragmentation in question.

page 1 of 1