Tuesday, June 26, 2012

The iPhone Turns Five



SOURCE WSJ : Click here.


Thomas Hazlett: The iPhone Turns Five

Forget the shouting about 'open' or 'closed' systems. The magic is in the dynamics of platform competition.

On June 29, 2007, thousands of fan-boys and -girls camped in long lines to inhale a wisp of sweet techno fairy dust. The new iPhone rocked the world. Revolutionary in design, function and ecosystem, it set off the mobile data tsunami. In three days, Apple sold a million of them. The Economist asked: "Where would Jesus queue?"

The iconic innovation of the Information Age, however, inspired a fierce counterattack. Columbia University Law Prof. Tim Wu condemned the iPhone business model as "iPhony." The handset was cool, he said, but the business model tied the customer to AT&T's wireless network (where Apple struck a four-year exclusive deal) and to iTunes (Apple's content store). Soon the Apple App Store would deepen the master-slave relationship.

This supposedly condemned users. "The closed iPhone," wrote Prof. Wu, "stands in contrast to the open-platform design that has been the bedrock of both the personal computer and Internet revolutions. . . . Once Big Brother's foe, [Apple is] now more like Little Brother, happy to sell cute little devices that are easy to use, make money, and spread false consciousness."

"False consciousness" is an excellent way to characterize this view, too—a perspective that arbitrarily divides markets into "open" and "closed." Gold stars are pinned to the former; the latter are dubbed anti-innovation and referred to regulators for investigation.

Are you kidding me? The iPhone—the "defining consumer item of its age," as the Atlantic recently dubbed it—is craved by consumers who have shelled out (at hefty premiums) for some 200 million of them. These happy campers presumably include Prof. Wu, who announced that he was unable to resist the 3G iPhone in 2008.

Getty Images

Steve Jobs introduces the iPhone in 2007.

The novelty has not worn thin. In the first quarter of 2012, iPhone global sales doubled, according to industry data, accounting for more than 400,000 activations per day. These "locked" models bolted to a "closed" platform are opening fantastic opportunities for others. Downloads from the proprietary Apple App Store reached 30 billion this year, with 650,000 applications available. Independent software developers who create those apps are feasting in the Apple ecosystem. They receive 70% of store revenues, so their share is more than $5 billion thus far.

Apple's genius—maniacally detailing and bundling the "user experience"—is not the only inspirational theme music heard in the market. While Apple smashed RIM BlackBerry with its disruptive entry, it inspired another competitor. In 2008, Google launched the open-source Android operating system, licensing mobile software to any and all device makers (at no cost), allowing others to tweak their code and innovate without permission. The foray has been hugely successful, crushing Nokia and its Symbian platform. The Google approach—give away the software, let others make the devices, and make your own money in mobile ad revenues—positioned the search giant as the "anti-Apple."

The late Steve Jobs, pledging to go "thermonuclear" over this "stolen product" (Android), touted Apple's distinctiveness: competitive superiority in building an ecosystem. Leaving product design to others who may not share the Apple dream would be crazy. Yet the Jobsian vision was anticompetitive, argued policy experts, and a business error, thought Google. Former Google CEO (now chairman) Eric Schmidt, citing the advantages of open business models, flatly declared: "Android will beat the iPhone."

Not today. The iPhone is not only the world's single most popular smartphone, it is insanely lucrative. Apple sells just 9% of the cellphones out there (smart or otherwise) but accounts for 73% of industry profits. Meanwhile, the tablet—a new industry invented by Apple in 2010—features a 68% share for the iPad. Since June 2007, Apple has increased an astounding $422 billion in market cap; Google shares, by about $13 billion.

As of now, the Android universe is fragmenting. The hands-off "openness" of Google lets device makers put out whatever products might generate sales for them without giving thought to what makes the whole ecosystem better. This has some distinct advantages (ask Bill Gates), but also some drawbacks, as when the platform splinters, confusing consumers and making app developers work harder for the same returns.

Now top developers, according to numerous reports in the tech press, are ditching Android for Apple—for a company that maintains dictatorial control over its content. That very coordination is yielding unmatched benefits, particularly in customer ease-of-use that drives iPhone and iPad owners to be truly massive consumers of apps and online media.

Call the company's latest quest "business model search." Google has purchased the major cellphone maker, Motorola Mobility, and will be supplying devices directly to mass-market consumers. It has redesigned its app store, Android Market, branding it "Google Play" and tying it to other company products. It is bringing Google TV more tightly into the Android mix, engineering complementary components of in-home networks to improve ease-of-use for online content.

There is no guarantee that this enhanced vertical integration will improve products, or that Apple's rival platform will continue to print money. All business structures are a mix; there are no pure strategies. "Closed" Apple relies on thousands of suppliers; iTunes sells the artistic works of a diverse marketplace. The App Store thrives on software written by developers who couldn't find Cupertino even if they logged onto Google Maps or Apple 3-D.

The magic is not in a particular model but in the dynamics of platform competition. Shouting out "open" or "closed" as a prescription for categorical success is at best a mirage and at worst a predicate for anticonsumer public policy, like the government's long antitrust crusade against Microsoft.

The late Joseph A. Schumpeter put it well: Capitalism "never can be stationary. . . . The fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumers, goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates."

That relentless innovation process delivers the goods.

Mr. Hazlett is a professor of law and economics at George Mason University, where he directs the Information Economy Project. He was chief economist at the Federal Communications Commission from 1991 to 1992.





Monday, June 25, 2012

WSJ.com - Rocket Science? No, but Rocket Science Never Produced a Chipotle Corn Chip

 
WSJ.com  
 * Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified.
   
 
You have received the following link from jares:  
   
   
  Click the following to access the sent link:
   
 
WSJ.com - Rocket Science? No, but Rocket Science Never Produced a Chipotle Corn Chip* This article will be available to non-subscribers of the Online Journal for up to seven days after it is e-mailed.
     
 
 
  SAVE THIS link FORWARD THIS link
 
 
   
Get your EMAIL THIS Browser Button and use it to email content from any Web site. Click here for more information.
   
   
  *This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702303822204577466742058958790-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwNTEyNDUyWj.html?mod=wsj_valettop_email

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Boston Beer Finds Route Into Whiskeys

FYI


Boston Beer Finds Route Into Whiskeys

Boston Beer Co. SAM +2.33% is diving into a multi-year pact to supply two of its craft beers to a Massachusetts-based distiller, which will turn them into whiskeys.

The plan underscores the growing popularity of the craft distillery movement, which has grown exponentially the past five years, following in the footsteps of craft beer 25 years ago.

Berkshire Mountain Distillers Inc., which was founded in 2007, is buying thousands of gallons of Samuel Adams Boston Lager and Cinder Bock to be distilled in wooden oak barrels and eventually hit shelves by 2015.

Berkshire will receive all profits from the sale of the whiskeys produced in this venture, and the initial products will be branded by Berkshire, though the Samuel Adams name will be indicated on the label.

All whiskeys begin as a beer but the beer used to make whiskeys usually isn't meant for initial consumption.

Boston Beer founder and Chairman Jim Koch said the craft distilling movement comes as consumers seek niche products that aren't made by huge companies. The whiskeys will likely command premium prices as the distillation process is more expensive when using a craft brew. Retail prices haven't yet been set Berkshire, which already produces six different spirits sold in 19 states.

Berkshire founder Chris Weld said when he began as a craft distiller in 2007, there were roughly 30 individuals working in the niche industry domestically. That figure has since jumped to around 300, Mr. Weld said.

The Samuel Adams whiskeys batch will initially be small—producing 1,000 to 1,500 nine-liter cases, though more batches can be developed along the way. Mr. Weld said the Samuel Adams whiskeys will taste different from each other, as Boston Lager is a lighter beer and should highlight sweet, fruity aromas during the distillation process, while Cinder Bock is heartier and smoky.

Boston Beer mostly operates in the craft-beer industry, which makes up a small percentage of the U.S. beer business though demand in the higher-priced segment is growing rapidly as seasonal blends and other new flavors appeal to more consumers. Boston Beer also sells Angry Orchard ciders and Twisted Tea, broadening the company's slate of alcoholic beverages.

Industry observers and distillers say consumers in recent years have shown a greater interest in moving on from vodka, considered by some to be relatively tasteless, to richer-flavored spirits like whiskey and rum. That trend can help broaden the appeal of Samuel Adams whiskeys and other new brown spirits hitting shelves.

Analysts have lauded the resurgence of brown spirits as alcohol companies like Brown-Forman Corp. BFB +0.62% launch new flavors such as Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey that have become a hit with consumers. Total domestic whiskey volume grew 1.8% last year, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of America, besting the performance of rum, gin, and brandy and cognac.

Other craft beer makers have moved into distilling. Oregon-based Rogue Ales began distilling spirits in 2003. "For us, it was quite logical," said Rogue President Brett Joyce. "We thought there is no reason why craft brewing is any different than craft distilling."

Mr. Joyce and other craft distillers say consumers are responding to the artisan nature of the products they are cultivating, often from locally sourced products that result in more varied spirits than what the mainstream players sell.

Write to John Kell at john.kell@dowjones.com