Microsoft Versus Apple Market Cap Is Not Everything
Mark Twain once said that there were lies, damn lies, and statistics. The more you know about math, the more you understand that what he meant was that one can lie with statistics, NOT that all statistics are lies.
The trouble with statistics is two-fold. Number one, far too many Americans are math illiterate. High Schools and Colleges let students graduate with progressively less math. Not that it would matter, considering the staggering number of Americans who can’t remember much of anything that they learned in school anyway. (This suggests a problem of motivation and lack of respect for one’s own mind, but I’m not going there with this post.)
Number two, the critical component of valid statistical analysis is analyzing the RIGHT data. The only way to know whether or not it is the right data being analyzed is to look at the raw data behind the statistics. Unfortunately, that requires a basic understanding of math at a level above addition and subtraction. (See #1)
That being said, numbers don’t lie, as the other saying goes, and neither do statistics. As long as one understands what numbers are being analyzed and what is being said about them, there is no need to understand any complex advanced statistical formulas or concepts.
Apple Versus Microsoft Dollars Sales Value
Recently, the media made a big deal out of the fact that Apple passed Microsoft in market capitalization, theoretically making Apple a more valuable company than Microsoft. Of course, market cap is just one of many ways to measure a company’s value. To actually buy Microsoft or Apple you would have to pay more than the current share price.
Microsoft put up a post on the official Microsoft blog recently regarding some of the other numbers out there. In some ways it is a defense against the accelerating notion that Microsoft is a dying dinosaur while Apple is the future. In another way, it is nothing more than a different way of looking at the numbers.
For example, no one is disputing that Microsoft continues to dominate the enterprise and the personal computer markets. Those markets are far from small and despite plenty of pronouncements that the future does not include the computer as we know it, there is still the pesky problem of input. While the iPad may be a fun new way to view and interact with data, it is a terrible way to do data entry. Not even Apple claims that you should be able to type 80 words per minute on an iPad once you get used to it. That means the iPad for writers and other data creating professionals is a non-starter as a primary device.
The real dig in the numbers actually is in the past projections of Microsoft’s demise, such as the explosive growth of Linux displacing Microsoft in the server world. While Linux has enjoyed remarkable growth and Microsoft should not take too much pride in the fact that it has managed to “hold off” what it should have been able to crush, the so-called experts did miss by a large margin. The implication is that they are doing it again with their projections of huge growth for devices like the iPad.
The best part is that almost all of the numbers cited include a “source” so that an interested reader can verify the data for themselves, saving us all for wondering whether or not this is a bunch of lies, damn lies, or statistics.
But, even with the source links there is still plenty of wiggle room in these numbers. Consider the two statistics showing that less than ten percent of US netbooks were running Windows in 2008 and that 96 percent of US netbooks were running Windows in 2009. Sounds pretty good for Microsoft, right?
What the numbers are hoping you forgot is that in order to get that number in 2009, Microsoft had to re-authorize manufacturers to sell Windows XP because its bloated Windows Vista operating system couldn’t even be used. Furthermore, those sales also included cut-rate, bargain basement pricing of XP which made using Microsoft Windows cost effective. Without those two capitulations, that percentage might be single digits.
And those iPhone sales numbers are for Q1 2010, before the new iPhone 4.0 version came out, but after pretty much everyone guessed it was coming. In other words, those sales numbers represent the calm before the storm. Considering Apple says it sold 1.7 million iPhones in just three days. We will have to wait until Q3 to see real numbers because the new iPhone was only available for a few weeks of Q2.
Projected Sales for Apple Devices and Microsoft Software
- Projected iPad Sales in 2010: 7.1 million
- Projected PC sales in 2010: 355 million
- iPhone Sales in first 3 days: 1.7 million
No matter how you slice, it Microsoft has a bigger market. More importantly, Microsoft continues to have no serious competitive threat. On the other hand, Android devices may soon equal or surpass the iPhone and will be offered on more than one wireless carrier. Likewise, touch screen computers are reportedly on the boards from many manufacturers who can use the iPad as a starting point.
In the end, projections and numbers are worthless. What matters is execution. Microsoft has a long history of sloppy, unloved products that barely pass muster, yet its execution in the sales arena is unparalleled. Apple has a long history of beloved, widely praised products that never manage to reach an audience bigger than its fan base. If the outcome of this decades old battle is to change, then one of these two technology companies has to get better at the part of the equation it is no good at.
Facebook Ad Revenue Growth Real?
Facebook is not a publicly traded company. Although there are many people speculating that Facebook will go public in the near future. As a privately held company, Facebook is not required to release any financial information to the public. Furthermore, the company does not have to have its finances audited either. That doesn’t keep financial writers from trying to guess how much money Facebook is making.
Recent stories, like this one from Reuters, continue to suggest that Facebook is growing fast and that it is raking in tons of advertising revenues. The source of all this incoming cash, of course, is paid advertising. Some investors expect Facebook to earn more money than Google from advertising in the near future. The idea is that, unlike Google, Facebook users can be shown ads that are relevant to users even when they are not searching.
“We can provide really good, relevant advertising to people because they tell us exactly what they are interested in, and who they know, and those people tell us what they’re interested in,” Facebook Chief Executive Zuckerberg said at the All Things Digital conference this month.
Relevant Ads Worth More Money On Facebook
The business strategy behind Facebook’s rising advertising revenue is sound enough.
A user fills out a profile in which they state that they have “Interests” in various things. For example, a user might say that they are interested in chess. Then, theoretically, that user would be more likely to have advertisements related to chess appear than a user who had indicated interest in other topics. But, does the reality of Facebook ads bear this out?
If you are a Facebook user you may have noticed the various ads that appear on the right side of the screen. These ads are the ones that are supposed to be relevant and “targeted” to users based upon their profiles and other preferences. However, to most users, these ads appear to be thinly targeted, if at all, to their interests.
Recently, some advertisements tried to make use of the personal information in Facebook profiles by using the person’s age in the advertisement. Ads like “If you are 24 years old, you can get car insurance for $20 a month” appeared. Is this what Facebook means when they say, relevant advertising?
Other ads seem to be vaguely geographically targeted. For example, users in Phoenix get advertisements that make use of the word Phoenix (even for national brands and ads) or, in some cases, ads for actual Phoenix businesses. This is indeed useful, but hardly revolutionary. Unless you take advanced measures to frequently wipe out your Google cookies and other information you’ll get plenty of local ads there too.
Ironically, ads that are actually irrelevant and uninteresting to users will frequently appear on the user’s Facebook screen. For example, users that block Facebook games like Farmville or Cafe World still often see ads for those games despite having indicated that they are not interested. Users who are members of a Ford fan club, have tons of posts by themselves and friends about Fords, and have hundreds of “likes” for Ford related sites and information still see ads for Chevrolet. In fact, members of groups like Chevy Sucks or I Hate GM will still see advertisements for those products on Facebook.
Facebook Ads Not Relevant To Users – Worthless?
It is often said that reality is perception. Facebook frequently states how they can target users based upon their personal preferences and information and that concept is often repeated by journalists and analysts. But, is anyone actually checking to see such targeting is being done?
Going beneath the surface and doing some actual business analysis takes more time than many pundits can commit. Savvy technology writers, however, may uncover some interesting nuggets about Facebook’s so-called relevant advertising. The question is, can Facebook establish its “reality” or get a Facebook IPO stock for investors strategy executed before the world starts asking the hard questions?
Time will tell.
Newsweek Drinks the Kool-Aid
Technology bloggers and their tech media compatriots are infamous for proclaiming things revolutionary at seemingly random intervals. It seems that every new product or startup company signals the end of computing or networking or technology as we know it. These proclamations are based on nothing more than hype or taking one possible outcome way out past its logical conclusion.
For the most part, this desire to anoint everything as the next big thing is harmless since most readers of such technology focused writers and websites are techies themselves who have their own very established beliefs about the future direction of various technologies.
This time, one of the writers over at Newsweek decided to get in on the action. He proclaims that the personal computer is dead and that the obvious, nay inevitable, future is mobile devices. Specifically, the future is a two-way battle over mobile technology with Google on one side and Apple on the other.
The author does generously offer that the personal computer will not disapear overnight, which is probably a good thing since the iPad can’t do anything for business yet, and iPhones require you to use an inferior wireless carrier in order to buy one.
This is all based on…well, that’s where everything falls apart.
In the article itself, the author cites a bizarre string of “evidence” that things are changing.
First, he points out that Apple sells way more iPhones and iPads and so on than it does computers. This is very true. However, that says more about Apple’s ability to sell computers than it says about the future of computing.
Second, he cites some very big sales numbers as further proof about how mobile computing is growing faster than traditional computing. Again, this is true. However, what people keep forgetting is that computers have been around for a very long time and are fully implemented in almost every business and household in the country. Put another way, 20% growth in personal computing is larger than 50% growth in mobile computing devices.
On the other hand, there are TONS of people who do not own smartphones or other mobile computing devices. That makes growth a lot easier. While a computer maker has to wait for a customer who already has a computer decide that they need to buy a new one, the mobile computing computing can count on both sales from current users who are upgrading as well as new consumers who have never owned that type of device before.
Most laughable of all is the way the author proclaims that one day we will all use very powerful mobile computing devices instead of paying big bucks for a computer with tons of storage space.
Just what existing device is he referring to?
Certainly not the iPad which costs as much as a mid-tier computer. He can’t seriously mean the new iPhone which only costs less than a computer if the purchase is subsidized by AT&T in exchange for locking into a contract.
Where is this low-priced powerful computing device, then?
It doesn’t exist! Of course, mobile computing devices will get cheaper and more powerful in the future, which could be a pretty good argument if the same thing were not true about more traditional computers as well.
Not that it really matters, because even if one concedes that these cheap mobile devices will let everyone, “…manage photos and videos and music that will be stored online, somewhere out on the Internet cloud,” how can that possibily spell a revolutionary transformation?
Is that really all the author thinks that computers do?
While I agree that it is super neat-o that you can update your Twitter status and send cat videos to your friends on your iPad, out here in the real world, people use computers for other things like processing data, contact management, product design, engineering, and so on. Will those functions be taken over by inexpensive mobile appliances?
Devices like the iPad and iPhone are not radical departures from how computers are used. What they really represent is the next step in the world of personal entertainment electronics.
Let’s see if I can make this clear enough for the article writer to follow.
Start with the Sony Walkman which makes personal entertainment (music) portable.
Now, implement the standard improvements that eventually come to virtually all technology:
- Make it smaller or bigger (depending upon device).
- Make it more powerful.
- Make it cheaper.
- Add new feature.
- Improve that feature.
- Make it cheaper.
- Add new feature.
- Make it cheaper.
- Repeat
In this case:
The Sony Walkman made smaller and more powerful (digital with bigger storage) = iPod.
iPods get cheaper.
Add color screen.
Cheaper.
Add video to iPods (and more storage) = 5th generation iPods.
Add networking connectivity = iPod Touch.
Add phone functionality = iPhone.
Add bigger screen = iPad.
Where is the revolution again?
Too Clever for Business?
Yesterday, I was handed a business card. This isn’t unusual. In fact, I get them all the time, which may be what made this one stand out so much. It was laminated. At first, I thought, “What a great idea!” After all, getting your business card to stand out is a major goal of any entrepreneur. But, as always, it is important to look at all the angles.
What Do Your Clients Want
Again, standing out is your goal, but what do your clients or prospective clients want? Just because you are an Internet savvy technology hound who keeps all your contact information in a high-tech contact management system, doesn’t mean everyone is. Believe it or not, there are still a lot of businessmen and businesswomen out there who are old school. They keep their business cards in something you may of heard of called a Rolodex. The standard Rolodex punch probably has enough umpph to get through a laminated card, but I’m not certain everyone would try, and unlike you, they don’t want your card sticking out like a sore thumb when they go flipping through. A different color, or a bright graphic is fine, but a plastic card is like those stupid ads in magazines that keep you from flipping through. If it’s irritating enough, they’ll yank it and toss it.
One person I talked to said they didn’t care about these kind of people. After all, if they weren’t more savvy than that, he didn’t want their business. Um…Hello? If you were going to bet your house against the age of a random senior manager at a Fortune 1000 company, would you bet over 45 or under? Me, too. Young and hip is cool, but older still has more of the power.
What about your tech savvy clients? Does your thick laminated card fit through the business card scanner they use? Does it feed properly? Does it scan, or does the light get reflected?
Then, there are those who are power users of business cards, like to keep them in business card holders. First, in a small one in their pocket, and then in some sort of binder. Your laminated card might be just big enough not to fit, or to make the premium leather holder they spend a pretty penny on not close properly. So, they throw it in a bag or briefcase where it gets lost forever.
Finally, you have people like me. I like to jot a note down on a business card sometimes. It might just be a reminder of who they are, or where I met them. Sometimes, it’s even more important, maybe the name of the product I should be looking at, or a price, or a local supplier. Either way, if I can’t quickly write it on the business card, then, I’ll probably just try and remember. I don’t want to take those odds.
How To Stand Out Good
Having the business card stand out is most definitely a good goal, but there are better ways to do it. Color is a great way. You can write, scan, file, on cards of most any color. Slightly nicer paper or embossing are good ideas too. Also, take advantage of all that space on the back. A quick tip, or link to a web site, or something else your clients will find useful can all improve the common business card.
For Mr. Laminated, I remember the card, so good job. The only problem is, I don’t think I have it around here anymore…
