Slashdot Mirror


'The Unwillingness To Foresee The Future' (stratechery.com)

An anonymous reader shares a few excerpts from Ben Thompson's analysis: Back in 2006, when the iPhone was a mere rumor, Palm CEO Ed Colligan was asked if he was worried: "We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone," he said. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in." What if Steve Jobs' company did bring an iPod phone to market? Well, it would probably use WiFi technology and could be distributed through the Apple stores and not the carriers like Verizon or Cingular, Colligan theorized." I was reminded of this quote after Amazon announced an agreement to buy Whole Foods for $13.7 billion; after all, it was only two years ago that Whole Foods founder and CEO John Mackey predicted that groceries would be Amazon's Waterloo. And while Colligan's prediction was far worse -- Apple simply left Palm in the dust, unable to compete -- it is Mackey who has to call Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, the Napoleon of this little morality play, boss. The similarities go deeper, though: both Colligan and Mackey made the same analytical mistakes: they mis-understood their opponents' goals, strategies, and tactics.

33 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. I've worked with man in ex-Palm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And the managers were total dipshits. A combination of arrogant and uninformed, and after Palm many of them continue to lay waste to start-ups in the valley. Idiots almost ruined the Kindle project at Amazon, until Seattle descended down upon them and started re-educating and cleaning house.

    1. Re:I've worked with man in ex-Palm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I had to exit at this quote:

      Apple’s goal was not to build a phone but to build an even more personal computer; their strategy was not to add on functionality to a phone but to reduce the phone to an app; and their tactics were not to duplicate the carriers but to leverage their connection with customers to gain concessions from them.

      I disagree here, this is hindsight and speculative, and the provided link is from 2013. The initial iPhone did not come with a market (the 'iTunes App Store') and AFAIK we don't know for sure if it had been planned from the beginning to pan out the way it did.

      I am not trying to play down the success of the iPhone and how it has changed the world. Yes, it was incredibly successful, yes it all panned out nicely. I am just questioning if it was all planned to come out exactly this way from the beginning, or maybe there were some decisions made after initial success and someone came up with even better ideas. Steve Jobs touched junk liberally.

    2. Re:I've worked with man in ex-Palm by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Big Success in the tech market is usually 75% luck. 20% Hard work, and 5% skill.

      Palm had a good product at the time, people seem to accept the risks it took using graffiti interface vs. full handwriting recognition (Like apple did on the Newton). It had the features and was priced and had a brand name that was recognizable. Nearly any of these things could had backfired, and Palm wouldn't never had gotten where it got.

        However these guys though the numbers were reversed, and they got Palm where it was because they thought they had all these skills. However when they had to go to other work, they really failed, because they were trying to get lucky again. While they were in a more standard market where if you are not lucky you better have more hard work and skill not to win big, but to keep things going.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:I've worked with man in ex-Palm by Altus · · Score: 2

      but apps were not the necessary component to the iPhone disrupting the industry, having a full featured web browser was sufficient.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    4. Re:I've worked with man in ex-Palm by Altus · · Score: 2

      Don't get me wrong, I agree that apps are key these days and provide a much better option than web pages on these phones, but back then feature phones were absolute garbage by comparison, technically you could connect to the internet but the reality was you couldn't get most of the data you wanted. With an iphone, you could. The internet is a hell of a killer app.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  2. He's right! by slashdice · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I didn't see the future when Amazon blew all that money on Living Social. I didn't see the future when Amazon blew all that money on the Fire Phone. I didn't see the future when Amazon blew all that money on Drugstore.com.

    I know some people like to suck Jeff Bezo's dick but there is plenty of failure too.

    --
    Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    1. Re:He's right! by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      Not to mention they just did the acquisition, there's no guarantee they'll fucking be successful at running a brand that caters to upper middle class yuppie/hipster types.. who maybe, just maybe will revolt against the new corporate overlords, since well.. whole foods has a bit more of a halo around it than amazon.

    2. Re:He's right! by vakuona · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with all of those examples is that they were "me too". Perhaps with the exception of Drugstore.com. Even then, that wasn't really taking advantage of what Amazon really is.

      If you read the article, Amazon is about scale. Whole Foods gives Amazon scale that is doesn't have in the grocery business and allows it to build out a delivery infrastructure (surely its end game) to support that scale and beyond.

      Amazon presents itself as the world's shopping site, but Amazon is really a logistics company. And logistics companies need scale.

    3. Re:He's right! by sinij · · Score: 2

      My local Whole Foods has excellent bakery, butcher, and yogurt sections. I like my fresh bread, good steak, and niche yogurt types. According to you, this makes me almost anti-vaxer. /rolleyes

    4. Re:He's right! by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most of these people take risks. The nature of risks is they can fail. the iPhone could had failed. Enough people may not have liked the onscreen keyboard. Initially not using G3 for data may had been too slow for their usage. The original iPhone, didn't have 3rd party apps, or the response lag on the touch interface was a bit too laggy for them. A number of design tradeoffs could had just as easily caused the iPhone to fail like the Newton.

      The thing is we can't predict the future, or judge the reaction of something new before hand.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:He's right! by sinij · · Score: 2

      To add to the above. For me, locally sourced food is about taste. I live far away from California, so when peaches, lettuce, tomatoes make it here they taste like shit. They have to harvest them green then ship them in refrigerated and controlled-atmosphere storage. When I buy local, obviously in season when it is available, I do so due to taste.

    6. Re:He's right! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      That's a real thing. Transporting fruits long distances generally involves methods which do bad things to the quality.

      Mostly, the localism pitch is about economics; the problem is "buy local" has the same implications as a protectionist strategy, albeit a much smaller poverty-inducing effect.

    7. Re:He's right! by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 2

      I can get all of the above at the local Farmer's Market for a tenth of the cost that Whole Foods sells for fresh off the tree peaches (yay Georgia), local farm grown lettuce, swiss chard, turnip greens, tomatoes, onions that don't tear my intestines apart and a slew of other fruits & vegetables. There's also a butcher and a bakery there so fresh meat and bread. Lastly, at the butcher during deer season, provided there's a hunter willing to sell his excess deer (usually quite a few), I can also easily get something that the local Whole Foods won't sell: a whole butchered deer to stick in my freezer (1 deer lasts about a year for us).

    8. Re:He's right! by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      btw fruit quality isn't so much about "local" vs "non-local" although that does have an effect. When you pick fruits commercially, you pick them all at once. So you have to pick them at the moment the average fruit is ripe. But you don't want a bunch of overripe fruit, so in fact you pick them before the average fruit is ripe.

      Farmers markets can pick them in smaller quantities and thus can focus on only picking the ripe ones at a particular time.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:He's right! by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Local represents cheap and in season with a shorter supply chain. The shorter supply chain is very important for things that don't have a shelf life.

      Resources don't have to be wasted for storage and shipping.

      I can even inspect the production facility myself.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  3. Anyone who tells you they can see the future by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...can't even see the tip of their own nose.

    The only meaningful prediction you can make about the future is that it will be strange and unexpected.
     

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Anyone who tells you they can see the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      And to quote Steve Jobs, "You can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards."
      You just need to do your best and hope that it turns out well in the future.

  4. Not a fair comparison by RobinH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not really fair to compare anything to a Steve Jobs product. He had the ability to create products with fewer compromises. He started from the idea, "this is what a customer would like to buy," rather than, "this is what our company makes." Even Apple can't make a Steve Jobs product anymore.

    In that sense, Bezos did a similar thing when he sent his team back to the drawing board to make one-click purchasing actually work, and Amazon does really well in reducing barriers to purchasing because that's what gets customers to buy. The question is, can Amazon be the place where a sizeable chunk of people buy groceries? Sure, if it's more convenient for a large enough number of people, like scan a UPC off the back of a cereal box, and it shows up at the end of the day today at my house, ready for breakfast tomorrow. People say that's impossible. A Steve Jobs *knows* if it's possible, and if it is then won't stop pushing until his company makes it happen.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Not a fair comparison by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not a fair comparison and it's not even a real comparison. Especially this quote from the article:

      Appleâ(TM)s goal was not to build a phone but to build an even more personal computer; their strategy was not to add on functionality to a phone but to reduce the phone to an app

      Apple's goal was not to build a phone or a more personal computer. Apple's goal was literally to protect their ipod business from being inevitably cannibalized by Palm, BlackBerry, Windows Mobile and whoever else came along.

      That's not a theory, that's literally what the team leaders from the iphone project say. 'we were like oh shit, nobody will buy an ipod if their phone is just as good'.

      People also forget that the iphone launched without any third party apps. In fact Steve Jobs didn't want there to be apps on the iphone. So Palm was already ahead of them with third party app support.

      Palm was ultimately doomed but that's because they weren't innovating fast enough. Not because they fundamentally saw the business wrong. They had a touchscreen dialer just like the iphone. Their touchscreen dialer was just worse. They had a mobile browser just like the iphone, their mobile browser was just worse. Etc...

    2. Re:Not a fair comparison by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I also think it's not fair to single out Palm in the example of the iPhone. I was working in the mobile industry at the time, and the iPhone caught everyone off guard. One day, the Motorola Q and Razr phones were hot shit. Blackberry owned the business smartphone market, but Palm was still in the game. The next day, everyone wanted an iPhone.

      One of the big miscalculations was that people hadn't realized how long Apple had been working on the iPhone. They were thinking, "Apple thinks they can just start working on a phone now, and have a working product in the next year?!" Few people had been paying enough attention to realize that the iPhone had been in development for about 10 years.

      There was another big miscalculation, but I don't know exactly how to characterize it. Basically, the incumbent vendors thought they were doing a great job. They'd make a new version of the same old device, but it was slightly thinner. They put out the same phone with a slightly higher resolution screen, or a screen that could display more colors. Palm made the glyphs that you had to learn to write with their stylus just a little easier to write. They were tinkering around the edges because it was easy and cheap, and didn't require anyone to be particularly innovative. They thought they were the smartest people around, and because these products were the best they could do, they were the best anyone could do. It's just a thing that happens in entrenched markets, when people get comfortable.

  5. They just weren't agile enough to survive. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative

    I consulted briefly for Palm, doing an Open Source training that literally nobody who was invited was interested in hearing. I think they mostly invited the wrong folks. People were really angry that I did things like use examples, rather than just stating the point so that they could get out of there. I usually get good feedback on trainings.

    One of their largest problems was that they were unwilling to abandon the 250,000 applications that they stated were built for their original Motorola 68000 architecture. So, when they came out with an ARM-based Palm, that ARM ran a 68000 emulator, and their entire operating system ran in the emulator along with all apps. So, it was obvious this company wasn't agile enough to keep up with new technology.

    Of course, I suggested that they base on Linux and build their APIs on top of it. But then, I suggested this to Symbian, too, and they listened just as well - which was not at all. All of those folks thought they had some sort of magic in their kernel and invested unspeakable amounts of money in it. In Palm's case, they had a shared memory architecture that they felt would be difficult to implement on Linux.

    Eventually, one of their business successors took on Linux, but way to late to salvage the business.

    1. Re:They just weren't agile enough to survive. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's the point. It's not about the kernel. User's don't see kernels at all, don't care about them. Blackberry certainly learned that lesson. All they spent on QNX and the customers yawned.

      The point of having them build on Linux was that rather than investing in kernel development, they could move all of that money to things that mattered to the user experience.

      I think around the time I got to HP they had just done a Billion dollar investment in new development of HP/UX. IBM in contrast de-emphasized AIX in favor of Linux, understanding the economics better than HP did. Not that this was HP's only problem.

  6. Re:Whole Foods by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

    GMO and Organic are not a dichotomy.

    Solving the problem of adequate nutrition for an ever-rising population will still result in Malthusian catastrophe. At some point, no amount of science will be able to feed the number of mouths with the available resources, and of course nature will step in to make the demise sudden with some natural disaster or global-warming-induced disaster.

    Evangelize ZPG, it's really our only hope.

  7. Re:Mail-order catalogs by CWCheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First sentence is very insightful. Amazon has essentially refreshed the Sears Catalog business to a level that Sears itself eschewed when it's clueless managers shutdown catalog operations just at the dawn of the web commerce age. Had their management been a little foreseeing, they might have leveraged the web to combine with their, at that time, peerless consumer distribution network around the country. Instead they blundered along while Jeff Bezos went from being a cheapest books seller to seller of everything imaginable. By the way, Sears Holdings is closing several hundred stores a quarter and likely will not be a corporation by end of 2018, if not sooner.

    --
    Have a Day!
  8. Alexa's mistake is being spun for the media. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Funny

    Jeff Bezos got up in the morning, was feeling lousy and wanted to make his mom's best comfort food, chicken soup. So he mumbled "Alexa! buy Whole Foods Chicken Stock". That damned machine bought Whole Foods instead. Not willing to concede Alexa is horribly broken he is trying to act as if he always meant to buy the company.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Alexa's mistake is being spun for the media. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 3, Funny

      It was, "Alexa, buy olives from Whole Foods."

      Alexa, "Buying all of the Whole Foods."

  9. Re:Whole Foods by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 2

    Monsanto and others like them have "poisoned the well" of GMO/science based foods. Monsanto based GMO corn has contaminated nearly all corn DNA with an inherent pesticide that 10% of people have violent allergies to, and maybe 40% have GI upset with... The practice of hozing down wheat with Roundup (a Monsanto product) that started in 2000 is likely the root cause of the massive spike in Celiac and Celiac like symptoms (maybe also IBS). The problem is that the FDA needs to start treating GMO like it treats drugs, with long periods of clinical trials and testing to ensure that any changes in the DNA of our food, or the chemicals in it when it arrives at the table are a net positive for humans.

    The problem with GMO is it can have dire repercussions for the consumer and since it's inception has been targeted exclusively at improving profit margins instead of quality and nutrition. We may very well see the end of Wheat and Corn as large scale commercial food products thanks to GMO/Monsanto. People don't like getting stomach cramps, and if they can go gluten free and avoid them, they don't know or care that it is actually the Roundup residual in the wheat, rather than the Gluten, they just know they feel better.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  10. Re:Mod parent DOWN by Altus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, nobody I know has any idea what Amazon is because they don't drive past brick and mortar stores.

    I knew what a sears catalog was before I had been to a sears

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  11. Nothing new here by NEDHead · · Score: 2

    For those of us old enough to remember, Ken Olsen laughed at IBM, and the PC makers laughed at him (and don't forget Wang).

  12. Re:Mod parent DOWN by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    Going online would have killed the brick and mortar stores.

    Indeed. If anyone was positioned to stop Amazon, it was Barnes&Noble, not Sears. B&N could have stopped them while Amazon was still books-only. But there was too much internal resistance from store owners afraid of cannibalizing brick-and-mortar sales, so B&N's website sucked and they never had a coherent strategy until it was too late.

  13. Way to ruin a joke by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I liked that joke much better in the briefer Orginal Twitterese.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  14. A market was always planned by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Informative

    The initial iPhone did not come with a market (the 'iTunes App Store') and AFAIK we don't know for sure if it had been planned from the beginning

    I had an app in the initial App Store. To me it was obvious this was always planned, because the app store opened almost one year to the day after the iPhone launched, and the thing to remember is that meant you had to be able to let developers build app for that store beforehand... if I remember right it was about 5-6 months before the app store opened that we got the first official SDK from Apple.

    So that means if Apple did not plan to have an App Store to begin with, in just around six months they had to prepare all of the documentation and toking for external use, and in around a year had to build the infrastructure and UI for an entire app store...

    Come on. Do you honestly think any of that could be done in such a short timeframe? No. The truth is they couldn't launch with an App Store because it was not quite ready, but it had always been planned to have one far in advance or none the significant app signing infrastructure to make that all possible would have been in place at launch.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  15. Re:Mod parent DOWN by painandgreed · · Score: 2

    Going online would have killed the brick and mortar stores. Without brick and mortar stores everyone forgets who Seers is. So its a catch22. They were doomed from the beginning.

    As Kodak learned, you cannibalize your own market if you can, otherwise somebody else will do it for you.