I remember a few years ago when I got a press release about a neat miniature camcorder, the Flip, from a company known as Pure Digital. I quickly asked for a review sample. Sure enough, it was easy to use, took reasonably decent videos, and the software worked quite well with either a Mac or a PC. How could it miss?

Well, clearly Cisco felt the same, since they bought the company back in 2009, clearly feeling the investment was worth it, that Flip had assumed leadership in a fledgling market. Well, that is until smartphones took over.

Today’s iPhone delivers 720p high-definition video, same as the Flip. The iPad 2 incorporates a similar capability, at least for the rear camera. The recent iMovie upgrade from Apple means that you can easily take your raw footage and make it more professional, adding titles, transitions, and even mix audio into the package. If you don’t have a suitable set of background music, you can record your own in the iPad version of GarageBand. As usual, Apple’s superb software/hardware integration makes the entire process seamless.

Certainly most people who buy iPhones, and other smartphones with HD video camcorder capabilities, didn’t buy them for that purpose alone. Nor do they buy smartphones to take snapshots. But the features come along for the ride, so suddenly the need of a tiny camcorder (and a low-end digital camera for that matter) is seriously threatened. Why buy something that duplicates a function your present gadget collection can already handle?

Sure, I suppose the folks at Cisco’s Flip division would argue that their camcorder captures better videos, that their bundled software is superior to what you is being offered on your iPhone or iPad 2. But it still requires that you visit your Mac or PC to edit your videos. They couldn’t win.

Now just a few days ago, the folks at Cisco sent me one of the very latest Flips to review. Yes it has HD and represents the pinnacle of their product development cycle. Alas, it wasn’t good enough. This week Cisco announced that the division will be shuttered, leaving 550 employees searching for new jobs.

I suppose the failure of the Flip is understandable. Cheap camcorders are a niche of a niche as far as tech gear goes, and all-in-one mobile gadgets are supplanting their functions. Besides, even if the Flip does some things better than, say, an iPhone, being forced to lug along a second device on your travels is just plain inconvenient. It became a superfluous device. I expect cheap digital camera sales must be suffering too, at least to some extent, for similar reasons, particularly as smartphone cameras gain more megapixels and deliver higher picture quality. But understand, I do believe that quality cameras and camcorders will continue to exist and sell in decent qualitities for quite a while.

The Flip’s departure may also signal a trend, though one that certain consumer electronics makers aren’t going to like. You see, I’m reminded of the days when you had to buy separate audio components to get good quality sound. Sure, lots of folks bought those early integrated systems, in which a radio, amplifier, and in those days, a record changer, were embedded in a large piece of furniture, compete with a set of speakers. They didn’t sound great, but they got the job done, and they fit neatly into your living room decor.

Real audiophiles bought separate components, such as an amplifier, tuner, control center (preamplifier), etc. Some do today also, but most of you have receivers and even integrated home theater systems that sport separate speaker modules along with a control center of some sort that does all the rest. The better models sound quite good, and though I grant that separates may deliver more realistic audio, most are quite expensive. And, as one of the legendary audio magazine product reviewers asked long ago: “Does the difference make a difference?”

Today, convenience has supplanted the quest for perfection. More and more of you are willing to accept somewhat lower quality, in exchange for having a single gadget perform multiple functions. So you buy an all-in-one printer that also scans, copies, and faxes, rather than fill your desk with loads of extra machines. Sure, maybe a standalone scanner and copier will deliver higher quality results. A separate printer might deliver superior output.

When it comes to music, CDs are rapidly being replaced by the online digital equivalent; DVDs are gradually suffering from the same fate. When it comes to CDs, the iTunes download is not quite the equivalent, since the golden ears out there will rightly explain that there is an audible deterioration, unless you can get a “lossless” file. And don’t get me started about the digital versus vinyl argument. You like what you like, but the point of this argument is one of preferring convenience to quality.

Certainly the arrival of the iPad is leading the drive to simplify your PC-based digital lifestyle. You have a gadget weighing less than a pound and a half (with the iPad 2) that performs many of the functions that were formerly the province of the traditional PC. Even a smartphone can do much the same work, although limited by the size of the screen.

Besides, if you think that even the iPad’s display is just too tiny, take a look at the original compact Macs, or the first few generations of PowerBooks, along with the Windows-based equivalents. Yes, there will be a need for larger displays, physical keyboards and traditional input devices, such as a mouse or trackpad. But more and more of you will focus on that inevitable convenience and portability factor.

And that’s why the Flip became an endangered species.

From time to time, I’ve written commentaries stating my belief that you shouldn’t expect Apple to be number one in every product category. Further, they do not have to be number one to be hugely successful, and there’s loads of evidence for that statement.

My remarks came ahead of a fascinating article appeared in Fortune, entitled “Why Apple investors shouldn’t sweat Android.” The major point is to deliver a reality check to fanciful claims that the industry expects to standardize on a single smartphone platform. This seems to be a replay of the old PC myth, where many suggested that Apple was toast, simply because most of the world had embraced Microsoft Windows.

That, however, didn’t stop Apple Inc. from surviving and prospering for the most part, except for that terrible era in the mid-1990s when the company appeared to lose its way, and appeared about to die. Of course, that’s before Steve Jobs returned.

The argument from Fortune’s commentator echoes what I wrote, which is that, so long as Apple continues to grow ahead of a market, and earn stellar profits, they are successful. It doesn’t matter if Google, largely because there are more manufacturers building more and more Android OS products, appears to be growing faster. That impresses industry analysts (and you know how I feel about some of them) who believe there must be a single winner and a single loser. And don’t forget that those surveys you read about iPhone market share fail to include those other iOS products, such as the iPad and iPod touch. You might even include the new Apple TV in there, since it also incorporates the iOS, even if you can’t access the App Store just yet.

Imagine if you had one choice of motor vehicle. Imagine if Dell built all the PCs on the planet, which would, no doubt, bore everyone to death. Consider going to Best Buy to find a single line of flat panel TVs from, say, Samsung. Is that what you want? So why should an industry analyst tell us that’s the way it has to be for smartphones and PCs?

Also consider how much money Google earns from Android licensing. The answer is, of course, not a penny, at least directly. They give it away to handset makers who agree to their terms, but hope to make a return on their investment from the targeted ads you see in Google’s apps. Of course, buyers of certain products from Verizon Wireless will find that Microsoft’s Bing is the default search engine. So some of the money Google might have expected to receive will be going to Microsoft, to add insult to injury.

Understand that I have nothing against Google making great profits, and providing lucrative employment opportunities for their workers. If the recent executive reorganization makes for a more efficient company, capable of greater feats of innovation, the entire tech industry benefits. The goal posts are raised, and Google’s competitors need to work harder to keep up, or move ahead.

At the same time, having Android OS gear with great features and performance is also a good thing. It will mean that Android handset makers will also be able to prosper and deliver benefits to stockholders and employees. There’s nothing wrong with that. And if Google or their licensees just happen to find genuine ways to innovate that deliver real — rather than meaningless — benefits to customers, they deserve to succeed. It would also raise the bar that Apple has to reach or exceed.

Now when it comes to Apple’s original business, the PC, it appears that few, if any, of the other manufacturers in that business are trying to actually innovate. They seem to be adding a few mostly trivial features that Apple doesn’t have, or some extra connection ports, but they aren’t changing the dynamics.

As to Microsoft, they continue to operate years behind the Mac OS. Just the other day, I read a story that Windows 8 would attempt to provide seamless deployment across mobile devices. This seems to be a recognition of what Apple has done by building the iOS from the core of Mac OS X, and then incorporating some of those concepts in the forthcoming Mac OS X Lion.

Unfortunately, far too many members of the media and the industry analyst community will gorge Microsoft’s PR, and attempt to convince you that the company is being innovative, rather than imitative. That’s a meme that’s played out for years, ever since Microsoft’s Bill Gates licensed portions of the original Mac OS in the 1980s, due to the stupidity of then-CEO John Sculley. That misguided move created a monster, one that has, ever since, dominated the PC industry and, in large part, helped to stifle true innovation. And, yes, I do not believe that Windows would have gone as far as it did if Microsoft had to build it from scratch.

Meantime, I hope that the investors in our audience will not pay heed to columnists and analysts who cannot overcome their poor grasp of the way things are.

A number of companies are in the business of trying to predict future sales of tech gear, but you wonder whether they actually use computers to crunch the numbers and come up projections, or they are taking out their crystal balls and ouija boards to divine the truth about future events. Or just talking through their hats.

If you recall, one analyst last year projected some five million tablet computers would be sold in 2010, even after initial iPad sales had already come surprisingly close to that overall number. I’d think that if I delivered such a pathetic outlook to my employers, I’d be severely chastised, or be left looking for a new job. Then again, I suppose you could say the very same thing about product managers who continue to launch gear that fails. Where’s the accountability?

For example, there’s a report quoting the Gartner Group suggesting that Google Android OS handsets will claim 49 percent of the market by 2015, and, somehow, and I don’t know how, the Windows Phone platform from Microsoft will attain second place, way ahead of the iPhone.

Now I presume that there are some clear assumptions in making this proclamation, the major one of which is the expected impact of that recent deal with Nokia and Microsoft. By the end of this year or early in 2012, Windows Phone 7 will take over the default spot on Nokia smartphones. I suppose the theory goes that, since Nokia is the largest handset maker on the planet, Microsoft’s mobile OS is assured of success. Well, at least that’s how the theory goes.

Continue Reading…

There’s a meme that’s been played out in the media for years. Unless Apple is number one in every market they serve, they cannot possibly succeed. If a competitor has a bigger market share, Apple has to be chastened, retreat into obscurity, and stop building “insanely great” products.

A lot of this started years ago, when Windows first grew into the dominant PC OS by a huge margin. Nobody could come close. Apple’s Mac OS was strictly a niche player, and they might as well give it all up and close shop. In an infamous quote that came back to bite him, Dell Founder and CEO Michael Dell once suggested that Apple shut down, and return the remaining funds to stockholders. When Dell ran into their own difficulties a few years back, both in support and sales, you had to wonder whether they should have heeded the advice originally served to Apple.

When the iPod became number one with a huge bullet, conquering the nascent digital music player market, I suppose financial and media analysts expected that trend to apply to every market Apple decided to enter; well, instead of traditional PCs of course, where the OS wars ended long ago. Then again, don’t you remember all those supposed iPad killers that ended up committing suicide instead?

So when Apple decided to build a smartphone, they were pretty much told it was the wrong thing to do. Steve Jobs raised modest expectations, suggesting that Apple would do well to have one percent of the mobile handset market by the end of 2008. Apple did far better, despite entering a well-established industry with several highly profitable players.

The iPhone became an iconic product almost overnight, while other smartphones were mostly disposable or dispensable, with little to often distinguish one model from the next in a given price category. Yes, the Android OS, comprising loads of handsets from different makers, is exceeding the iPhone’s market share, and, by dint of the larger number of products for sale, is likely to continue to grow faster than Apple.

That, however, means nothing. So long as the iPhone sales continue to grow at a fast clip, and Apple makes huge profits from those sales, it isn’t important if other products or operating systems have bigger numbers to boast. There’s plenty of room in the smartphone market for several large players to succeed, without forcing any of them out of business. Anytime someone tries to waste your time telling you how bad the iPhone is doing because Apple’s single model lineup can’t compete with dozens and dozens of Android OS handsets, the best thing is to ignore them. Fewer hits means they will look for another subject to write lurid headlines about.

This doesn’t mean Apple can’t or won’t fail. Certainly if iPhone sales were flagging, that’s a fact that needs to be reported. If Apple builds buggy, defective gear, that should also be reported without prejudice. My pitch is for balanced coverage, not lame attempts to find out negatives about Apple that may not actually exist.

And don’t forget that, whatever the iPhone’s true market share is, Apple continues to have problems meeting demand. I suppose you’ll hear an update on the inventory situation at the next quarterly conference with financial analysts set for later this month, not to mention how the earthquake in Japan has impacted component supplies.

As to the iPad, I realize that Apple has overwhelmed every contender. In some respects, the tablet market is similar to digital music players. There were a number of existing contenders, but sales weren’t terribly high, despite years and years of boasts that the “year of the tablet” had arrived.

Indeed, as you recall, the iPad was originally dismissed as little more a bloated iPod touch. Sales took off like wildfire, but its potential wasn’t fully realized until users began to download and use loads of apps specifically designed for the platform. Contrast this to all the other consumer tablet contenders, where there are very few apps, and sales don’t seem to be going anywhere. Despite recent statements about satisfactory sales of the Motorola Xoom, surveys of potential sales don’t bear this out. They talk of 100,000 units sold in the U.S. during the Xoom’s first few weeks on sale, compared to millions of iPads being moved in the same timeframe. Consider also how much money is being spent advertising the Xoom.

The problem, of course, is that the people who built the Xoom devised a meaningless campaign, and set price points that were ridiculously high. You don’t compete with a market leader with an inferior product at a higher price point. I realize that there is now a Xoom priced closer to an iPad, but it’s too little and too late. Of course, Consumer Reports somehow mistakenly believes the Xoom to be comparable to iPad 1, but that’s their problem to confront.

Besides, shouldn’t a successful Apple inspire other companies to build on their success with better products, at a cheaper price? Seems sensible to me, even if far too many consumer electronics makers can’t grasp that simple fact.