The Three Ring Circus

[thorfinn]

There seems to be quite a lot of confusion around the place about the Apple vs Google vs Microsoft ding dong three ring circus "battle" that's developing.

Here's why I don't think it's a real battle, even though they all appear to be playing in the same spaces (Mobile/Search/OS/Apps). They don't have the same customers.

Apple's customers are people.

Google's customers are advertisers.

Microsoft's customers are corporations.

Bear this in mind at all times when you are analysing their products and activities. It explains a lot.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/raven_/]

You know... this makes a LOT of sense.

And thank you for weighing in on mine today. I was hoping you would, and I appreciate it. I've ordered, and I should have the shiny next week.

[thorfinn]

:-) Cool. You'll be happy with the features and ease of use. And for the price conscious, there's a lot of free apps on the store. You should be able to keep yourself well entertained without spending a cent on apps.

[http://users.livejournal.com/raven_/]

*nodnod*

The only thing I'll have to watch is 'net downloads...but with the wifi, I can hook that in at home so I won't has to pay - which is awesome. Just need to gauge how much I will use checking emails, etc, especially when I do travel.

Squee.

[elissande.livejournal.com]

The phone allows you to track both up and down traffic in the usage section. I've never even come near my limit which is pretty low.

[http://users.livejournal.com/raven_/]

Mmm nifty.

That's the big thing, and I'll just keep an eye on it. I like that I can d/l at home using my wifi. I like that a LOT.

[thorfinn]

The Cellular Network Data counter in Settings -> General -> Usage on the phone is pretty accurate. Just gotta remember to reset it come billing time (which I keep forgetting to do).

[anthologie.livejournal.com]

And, just to clarify, "customers" does not equal "users." Sometimes it does, but not always. :)

[thorfinn]

Most definitely. :-) Customers is "who is paying."

[thorfinn]

To clarify clarify, that's exactly the confusion that causes so many problems in analysis of the three corporate behaviours. Customers is *not* users. It's only for Apple that the two groups (customers and users) happen to mostly be the same.

[anthologie.livejournal.com]

Since Devin helps maintain the billing system for Google, it's easy for me to remember that its paying customers have nothing to do with its users. He makes sure the money flows in. :)

[thorfinn]

Good thing too! :-)

I wouldn't pay for Google's products (except for search) if they weren't free to use, because they aren't sufficiently It Just Works for my liking. :-) Google's products are all reliable and clever, but usability comes second, IME. It's a close second (unlike M$'s products where it's not even a close second), but it's still second.

[e-dan.livejournal.com]

Ooh, very useful distinction, thanks. Yeah, I sometimes forget in my rush to have Microsoft that they're using dif criteria because they have a dif market

[elissande.livejournal.com]

I agree, very useful and succinctly put.

[pir.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Various people have been talking about Google "selling their phone in direct competition with Apple" when they don't have a phone and neither are they selling the OS...

[etfb.livejournal.com]

Extend that. Apple's customers are specifically people who don't like computers. Or at least, people who don't like computers so much that they prefer their company over other people.

Google's customers are advertisers who wish to reach people despite, not because of, their interaction with computers. The advertisers sell real-world stuff, for real-world money; the fact that it's happening on a computerised network is of secondary importance at best.

Microsoft, however, is all about corporations using computers as computers. They do word processing, not writing; spreadsheets, not accountancy; email, not conversations. There's a big gap around all the niches they supposedly rule, wherein humans can interact with other humans in spite of the computer.

So, in short: Apple = people (computers are irrelevant). Google = people (computers are incidental). Microsoft = computers (people are users).

Good insight, btw!

[thorfinn]

The interesting bit is that they are fighting over the same users, but in different contexts. And it's only Apple where the customers are mostly the same set as the users. This explains a lot about the brand loyalty and value perception that they have over the other two.

I pay Apple to do what I want - make a computer that Just Does What I Need, and doesn't require me to understand it. I personally do understand it, but I am happy that I really don't need to most of the time.

[lokicarbis.livejournal.com]

Google always strikes me as more variable than that - half the time, the audience for a new Google feature seems to be Google's R&D dept, at least as first. The big G does seem to base quite a lot of its marketing strategy on letting the street find its own uses for things...

[thorfinn]

It's a lot like the early days of free to air TV, only I guarantee you that G has much much much better metrics to prove connectible profitability. If a service isn't profitable, G will kill it. Google Answers, anyone?

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, absolutely they have better metrics.

Which is yet another of their salable products. That's some business model.

[lokicarbis.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that was me.

[thorfinn]

Aha. :-)

[thorfinn]

Yep. Latitude, Calendar and Geo IP all add up to some very accurate customer profile data. Even anonymised, that stuff is absolute gold to advertisers, who will pay through the nose for it.

[iki-maska.livejournal.com]

I think MS want to be more than that, they want to remain at the centre. Look at the recent efforts like the Zune and efforts to court iPhone app developers. MS realise that desktop PCs are just a niche and they need a variety of evolutionary pathways no matter where the market goes. They've sunk huge amounts into XBox, and as a result put a Windows device into far more homes than if they'd stuck with PCs.

Apple is smart and nimble enough to spot and colonise niches. Jobs has my ethic in terms of PCs, a percentage of people are willing to pay for properly engineered, neat solutions. I'm not sure how viable Apple will be post Jobs, but they have some reasonable succession planning. In retrospect, their contribution will be an interesting sideshow but not pivotal. Nokia, MS et al. under-estimated Apple but I'm sure they won't do that again.

Google's customers will increasingly be corporations. They do utility computing on a scale that MS can barely dream about. A dream ticket tp outsource major headaches. However MS have always been quick to follow/copy and are building their own data centres. Advertising revenue was a good start, but (for example) we just picked up their mapping API because it's top-notch and a fraction of what any competing option would cost us. MS have to see them as a threat in that they control possible evolutionary directions that MS don't control. It's what Netscape was supposed to be.

My read is that Google will continue to have young, hungry leadership with absolute authority. This will make it harder for post Gates MS and post Jobs Apple to out-maneuvre as "generic" corporations seem to always take the low risk, status quo options rather than trying to change the world.

[thorfinn]

There's no denying that they all want more. The question is - who pays? I don't see G moving off the ad incomestream any time soon. Biggest money flow talks the loudest...

Same problem with MS. Is xbox even profitable yet? I know v1 was a complete loss leader... And they'll never get ordinary people to ever pay them direct. They'll get reseller corporation money.

As for Apple? They aren't in the same market. Their profits continue to climb, in the midst of the worst global recession since the great depression... That's no sideshow. They'll never be a player in the server space, where you and I work, but they don't care...

[nigelw.livejournal.com]

XServe and XServe RAID ?

They're actually not bad machines, and OSX Server would actually be useful if you have an office full of macs.

[thorfinn]

Oh, they aren't bad at all, yes. Unless you stick them in a rack and forget about them entirely for 5 years, then wonder why the RAID suddenly goes read only... :-) (Which problem isn't their fault, obviously.)

For the price point, you're almost certainly better buying NetApp for the RAID side though. And yes, OS X Server is useful if you have an office full of macs - but that's quite a specific environment.

[kowari.livejournal.com]

Description = win
Comment about customers vs users = win

Hope this post gets some traction out there in the world... I will be passing it around.