So we have that unfortunate situation where Google bought Motorola Mobility for the princely sum of $12.5 billion in 2011. It has essentially gone nowhere in terms of restoring a fading handset division to profitability. Besides, the most popular Android smartphones are built by Samsung, which, as the unkindest cut of all, barely mentions Android in the specs and ad materials for the flagship Galaxy S4.

But there have been a number of failed multibillion dollar acquisitions in the tech business over the years, and Microsoft’s own investments have rarely paid off. Take Skype, the telephone and messaging service, which Microsoft acquired in 2011 for $8.5 billion. Skype hadn’t been much of a money maker before the folks from Redmond took over, nor has it been since. So you wonder if it was all worth the investment, although Skype still has tens of millions of loyal users. As one of those loyal users, I don’t feel any more predisposed to do business with Microsoft, and the tiny sum I pay for monthly services hardly counts.

So we now have Microsoft struggling to make a go of the smartphone and tablet business in 2013. The Surface tablet has been a failure. Intended, according to outgoing CEO Steve Ballmer, as a “design point” for Microsoft’s OEMs, there’s been little interest. After all, it’s not as if the original has done so well, considering that Microsoft had to take  a $900 million write down on unsold and price-reduced inventory.

Now I would presume Microsoft’s board of directors is busy looking for a new CEO, so what does the company do next?

Well, Microsoft has made Nokia, which has seen better days, the first among equals when it comes to Windows Phone handsets. Since former Microsoft executive Stephen Elop became Nokia’s CEO in 2010, the company’s share of the handset market has plunged, with most sales concentrated on cheap feature phones. Those highly-advertised Lumia smartphones have single digit market shares.

So how do you reward a CEO who has failed at his mission? Well, Microsoft bought the company; more specifically, the handset division, along with licenses for tens of thousands of patents. The entire deal amounts to $7.2 billion, far lower than, as I noted, Google paid for Motorola Mobility, not to mention the Skype transaction.

The deal, which is expected to be consummated in 2014 barring any regulatory hurdles, will return Elop to Microsoft. Indeed, some are suggesting Elop’s next step will be to assume the CEO role at his former employer. Really?

So does it even make sense for Microsoft to buy Nokia’s fading smartphone division at any price? Sure, Nokia has over 80% of the Windows Phone segment all to itself; most of the remaining handsets for the platform are made by HTC and Samsung. But where’s the evidence that such a deal will miraculously cure what ails Nokia? Well, except for providing the company with a huge paycheck to invest in other businesses, of course.

Certainly Wall Street got the message. When Ballmer said he was leaving as CEO, Microsoft’s stock price had a not unexpected spurt. When the Nokia deal was announced, Nokia’s stock price went up 40%, while Microsoft’s went down slightly. Certainly, it’s hard to take Wall Street’s mercurial responses seriously, but it’s also pretty clear who gains from this transaction, and it’s not Microsoft.

In an interview on the Nokia deal, Ballmer claimed OEMs were happy with it. Is he serious? So the company who makes 80% of the Windows Phone handsets will be owned by Microsoft. So where’s the incentive for any other company to stay involved, particularly since the platform occupies a poor third place in the market?

Microsoft already worked closely with Nokia to attempt to boost the mobile platform. It hasn’t worked out so well, although Windows Phone’s share is growing. Just not fast enough. Besides, where is Microsoft’s expertise in building anything but input devices and gaming consoles? And don’t forget the $1 billion write down some years back to repair defective xBoxes. Evidently the media forgot.

Clearly, Nokia benefits by unloading an unprofitable handset division, so the company can focus on network infrastructure and collecting patent royalties. Google hasn’t done so well with Motorola Mobility, and Microsoft’s experience with acquired companies, as I said, is decidedly mixed.

Besides, where would anyone get the idea that Elop has the chops to lead Microsoft? How can someone who is heading an unsuccessful company take over Microsoft and succeed? Where’s his track record for success? What’s his vision? Does he have a vision?

Also, one would think that Microsoft’s board, knowing change was afoot, would have wanted Ballmer to hold off on any major decisions until a new executive was in place. What if the new executive decides the Nokia deal, which wasn’t unexpected, was a bad move? Does Microsoft pay millions to Nokia to undo the deal? Does the board say, well it’s just too late? Besides, if Nokia were forced to keep the handset division, would they feel warm and fuzzy about Microsoft and a decision to continue to build Windows Phone gear?

Now I suppose it is possible Windows Phone will become much more popular in the years to come, particularly as BlackBerry continues to fade. Other than giving OEMs yet another reason to suspect Microsoft’s motives, though, it’s hard to think this deal has any real advantages.

If I had any advice to offer, other than canceling this transaction forthwith, it would be to give Elop his walking papers, and that’s just a start. Of course, there’ a conspiracy theory that Elop was put into Nokia’s leadership position to kill the company’s sales so Microsoft could buy it for a song. Sure, right!

One things certain, and that is that Windows Phone will be in somewhat of a state of suspended animation until this mess is sorted out.

Apple doesn’t have to do a thing for the publicity engine to roll along about the possibilities of a wearable device and the Apple TV. All it takes is for the rumor mills to keep coming up with new information, regardless of whether that information has any basis or not.

These days, it’s fair to say that there is no actual support for anything other than the current state of the Apple TV set top box. Yes, we know Apple has a “grand vision” about where to take the product, but that doesn’t mean the company deems us ready to know what that vision is.

Of course, lacking solid information from Apple, it’s normal to turn to the media, including rumor sites that specialize in news about our favorite fruit company. But that doesn’t mean the information is necessarily accurate, although it sure seems that all the chatter about the next generation of iPhones may be right on. It’s just too consistent, and reliable information no doubt easily leaks from the supply chain, since it’s just too large to silence.

But reports about what Apple is doing with wearable gear or a real TV set are scarce. Apple supposedly added 100 engineers to an alleged iWatch project, and has been trademarking the name in various countries. These stories, if true, indicate that Apple plans to do something, but what that something might be remains guesswork. Right now, the Apple watchers are looking at an iWatch through the eyes of existing gear. This means it’ll work as an accessory to an iPhone, similar to the way the smartwatches from Samsung, Sony and other companies operate.

On the other hand, why view such a device in the image of what’s already gone before? Apple has had a knack to remake industries, and that doesn’t mean doing the same old things. It seems that a lot of members of the media who examine this subject aren’t considering a different approach. So what if Apple shipped an iWatch with a built-in phone, along with a Bluetooth headset, barely visible, which you’d use instead of putting the watch to your face, as Dick Tracy did in the comics? Why should an iWatch be tethered to another device, except, of course, optionally?

Now one commentator, who actually boasts about never having used an Apple product, though it seems he invests in the company, suggests that iWatch is actually the name of something else you’ll be watching — a TV set.

Why iWatch? Well, as the writer in question realizes, the name iTV isn’t suitable, since it’s the name of an existing TV network in the UK. Sure, Apple wasn’t bothered by the fact that the Beatles used the name Apple when setting up a company. Today Apple Inc. owns the entire trademark, although it’s still used by the surviving members of the Fab Four. But it’s not that the iTV network would necessarily be willing to license the name to Apple, or that an Apple TV set must have an “i” prefix. Don’t forget Macs, with only one model, the iMac, bearing that branding scheme.

But calling a TV an iWatch doesn’t make it for me. Most people would assume it was meant to be a connected watch of some sort, and I fail to see how Apple would get around that perception. It’s just not a sensible choice. So what about AppleVision?

Forget it! I’m not a marketing expert, nor do I play one on a TV, or whatever you choose to call it.

However, the jury is really still out on whether Apple can do something with the saturated TV market, or needs to in order to fix the way you interact with a TV set. If a revised Apple TV could take over the entire experience, wouldn’t that be sufficient? If the prospective 2013 Apple TV was available in a version that took over your TV and the peripherals, wouldn’t that greatly simplify the experience?

Sure, Apple would probably prefer to replace your Blu-ray and gaming console, though they would still have to interact with your existing soundbars or other audio systems. The real problem would be handling those pathetic IR sensors for remote controls. One solution would be for Apple to provide tiny paste-on Wi-Fi sensors for each of those gadgets, so you get wide-range, non-directional control.

When it comes to replacing all of your TV’s content, Apple is reportedly struggling to strike deals with the entertainment companies, possibly paving the way to serve as an alternative to your existing cable or satellite provider. Sure, we’ve heard about cord cutting, people who no longer use cable or satellite. But the numbers of real switchers are fairly low, mostly confined to younger people who are used to iTunes and Neflix and other streaming methods. There’s nothing wrong with getting your existing diet of TV channels, even if the existing interfaces suck.

So Apple is also reportedly trying to make a deal with Time Warner Cable, and you assume they’d try to do the same with other carriers. It’s not that most already have iOS apps. This would simply transfer control of the entire user experience to Apple. Your DVR could even use cloud-based content, rather than deal with a local box with a built in drive. Certainly it would be more reliable, but there’s that limitation of hitting your ISP’s bandwidth caps that might come into play. That is, unless Apple makes special deals with major ISPs to get around that limitation for customers who aren’t using their own TV services.

In any case, it’s clear to me that we know absolutely nothing about what Apple is planning for an iWatch or an AppleVision, or Apple connected TV. That they are possibly testing such products doesn’t tell us how they will be configured, or marketed. And don’t dismiss the possibility of Apple licensing technology to existing TV makers. That’s being done already with auto makers.

Among mainstream news outlets, PolitiFact has gained a reputation as a site that does fair and balanced reality checks of news stories, particularly when a politician makes an important and sometimes controversial claim. Call it a reality check on political spin, although it’s true that politicians aren’t believed very often anyway.

PolitiFact’s team of fact checkers will publish their results in a Truth-O-Meter, which rates a statement as True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, or, for the most blatant offenses of all, Pants on Fire. Having won a Pulitzer Prize, the site has a high level of credibility, though some will dispute specific ratings.

Regardless, it’s also true that even politicians who get large numbers of Pants on Fire ratings from PolitiFact rarely if ever own up to their deceptions. They usually hope that the audiences they intend to reach don’t pay attention to fact checkers.

Continue Reading…

There’s so much wacky talk about tablets, iOS, Android, Apple, Samsung and sometimes the Microsoft Surface that it’s hard to keep pace with it all. First, tablets were on the ascent, rapidly soaring past PC sales. After all, PC sales were yesterday’s news. But now we have yet another projection from industry analyst IDC that maybe tablets are going to be slightly less popular than expected.

Now understand that anyone who does long range forecasts is apt to have a spotty record, and IDC gets things wrong from time to time, sometimes badly wrong. But I suppose some of these predictions are based on the fact that Apple didn’t sell as many iPads in the last financial quarter as in the previous year.

Of course, it’s also true that Apple was riding on the introduction of a new iPad lineup in 2012, whereas the last iPad refresh dates back to last fall. So, given the usual industry and sales trends, you can expect iPad demand to have fallen ahead of expected new products some time this fall.

But not on September 10, since the people who seem to know about such matters say it won’t happen so early.

In any case, the new IDC forecast is slightly lower than the previous one, with projected 2013 sales of 227.4 million units as compared to 229.3 million in the previous estimate.

Key reasons are, they say, the encroachment of phablets — “tweener” tablets with built in phones that are larger than smartphones but smaller than regular tablets, such as the Samsung Galaxy Note series — and wearables. Did I say wearables?

Yes, it’s clear that Samsung is prepping a smartwatch for early September release, Sony will expand their smartwatch lineup, and others are entering the game. But it’s not at all clear Apple is among them. More to the point, there’s little or no evidence yet that, despite the growing number of wearables in this space, people even care. But we’re only talking about two million fewer sales here, so maybe it’s not so big a deal.

As to those  phablets, I suppose there is a decent demand for them, and for larger smartphones, although Apple has demonstrated no interest in either market, at least not yet.

When it comes to tablets, IDC is also speculating that the average selling price is going to decrease. All right, nothing surprising about that, since there are more and more so-called “white box” tablets that you can buy in developing countries real cheap. Of course, you also get a cheap experience, meaning they may not hold up so well over the long haul. It’s also clear that not very many people seem to be using non-Apple tablets to get online.

Take that recent number cited by Tim Cook and others, that some 84% of tablet-based Web traffic comes from iPad users. Since the iPad gets roughly a third of the market nowadays, this wouldn’t seem to make sense. Or maybe people buy those other tablets, finding they don’t work so well, decide to return them or stick them in a closet never to use them again.

Of course, getting subpar gear doesn’t just hurt the product’s maker. It may influence someone’s future purchase decision about such gear, assuming that lousy experiences are just par for the course. The reports about serious teething pains with the latest Google Nexus 7 tablet don’t help either, though it’s reported Google is trying to fix the “crazy” touchscreen and other issues that have confounded users.

It’s also a well known fact that many Android developers tend to cheap out when it comes to optimizing their apps for tablets. So you have a simple scaling of content rather than reorienting it, and adding stuff to make it look better on the larger display, not to mention working more efficiently. Certainly that adds to the inferior user experiences that might deter people from using tablets, and maybe eventually deciding not to buy them.

You see, in the real world, rather than our tiny closed corner of the universe, regular customers don’t really see the differences in tablets that we do. Android and iOS tablets kind of and sort of look pretty much the same externally. Sure, iOS and Android are different in look and feel, but not so different when examined casually.

So a poorly functioning tablet is simply a bad advertisement for the entire market. Yes, people might give up on Android and switch to an iPad. Or they might decide that, since they are already used to those clunky old PCs, might as well stick with something that continues to work pretty well. And that means the one they have. No sense upgrading.

I suppose a phablet might be a smaller, more convenient alternative for some, but it only seems to offer a larger screen over a regular smartphone as the only perceived advantage. But that might grab a few sales from the tablet space. As to wearables, the jury is still out on whether there’s any potential. But with many expecting an iWatch some time in the future, I suppose some makers are trying to head Apple off at the pass. But that doesn’t mean there’s a market for those things yet.