Well, the race is on.  Finally a product that can challenge the iPad’s # 1 spot: The Kindle Fire.  But is it really?  Analyst predict the Kindle Fire to be the #2 selling tablet in the market.  But it is not a tablet – said Bezos – it is a portal to the cloud.  The main difference between the iPad and the Kindle Fire is the business model.  Yes, my loyal reader (singular) let me explain:

Apple’s business is simple.  Make a kick ass product for $x and sell it for $x+y.  They make money by making cheap things (yes, I said cheap things referring to Apple) and selling them for more.  iTunes is only a way to keep you from buying something else.  Amazon’s business model is making a good product (sorry Jeff, the iPad has you beat) for $x and selling it for $x or even a little less.  They will make money selling you content, you know, books, apps, movies, music, etc. I know what you’re thinking: “so does Apple, have you heard of iTunes?”  hmmm, let’s see.

Apple reported Fiscal 2011 revenue of roughly $108B and a net income of $26B.  This was made of $21B in Mac sales, $7B in iPod sales, a mind boggling $47B in iPhones, $20B in Ipads, $2.3B in peripherals, and a meager (for Apple standards) $6B in iTunes.  On the other hand, Amazon who reported its third quarter a week later has sold $30B in the first 9 months, almost $12 of them in what they call “media”.  In percentage, 6% of Apple’s revenue is iTunes, whereas 40% of Amazon’s is media.  Although the numbers are not directly comparable and Amazon doesn’t distinguish digital from physical media (CDs, DVDs, Books), it is clear that Amazon’s business is heavily weighted in media, whereas Apple’s is mainly hardware, at least for now.

Another way to look at it is that Amazon’s “store front” is the Kindle in all its forms, more comparable to Apple’s stores that to the iPad itself.  Charging $200 for the Kindle Fire is like charging cover to enter an Apple store (kind of what Costco does).  So it is logical to expect that Amazon will not make money on the store front alone since it is really designed to attract customers to by its media products.

Now this is just the beginning of a new Tech rivalry, kind of when Android launched caused Apple to unfriend Google.  iCloud is a direct competitor to Amazon’s media store and Kindle Fire is kind of a competitor to the iPad.  The movie gets more intriguing with all the rumors of Amazon launching free smartphones, again as portals and Apple doubling down on iCloud in iOS5 and beyond.  How will it unfold? don’t miss 2012 – 2015, where 2 of the most revered tech companies go at it cloud to cloud.

But, my dear reader, if you accidentally stumbled upon this blog for investment advice, be forewarned that you’re not getting it.  Apple (AAPL) has$82B in cash and is trading at 14 times earnings. Amazon (AMZN) has $6.5B in cash and trades at around 103 times earnings.  You tell me where would you rather put your money?  Of course, don’t forget one of tech’s fave companies: Google (GOOG) with $42B in cash trading @ roughly 21 times earnings who is about to close the acquisition of Motorola Mobility (MMI) with one of the most impressive IP portfolios in the industry and the capability to develop state of the art hardware and kind of the “inventors” of the cloud.  In other words I’ll wait it out.   I would sell a share and a half of Apple to buy an iPad and a share of Amazon to buy a Kindle Fire and use my free Google account to access both.

The media battle, in this blogger’s humble opinion will be won outside the cloud; on a desk negotiating with media companies that are old fashion and do not understand or particularly care about technology. Better content will win and getting the right terms for the producers is what will be the key.  All 3 have done it and have done it well.  It might just come down to who executes best …

Enjoy.

When there are winners, there have to be losers, even in a rapidly expanding market such as this.  Nokia, the once titan of the category, that robbed market share from the inventors of cellular telephony (Motorola), although still #1 are now falling like a rock.  Palm, who arguably  added the “smart” aspect of smart phones by creating the PIM (personal information manager) elements now ubiquitous, recently bought by HP are now defunct and their legacy, sadly, may follow.  Research in Motion, RIM, makers of the ubiquitous executive gadget of Christmas Past are down to a meager 3% and declining.  While Google and Apple, who dominate the mobile Operating System market share see no end in sight.

Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility (MMI) brings to the table the largest patent dowry available:  17000 granted patents plus more than 7000 in process, including some unimaginable radio and communication intellectual property.  This not only gives Google the ability to counter the myriad of lawsuits that make analysts weary of the future of Android, but can actually put them in the driver seat if they weren’t there already.  Unfortunately there are always downsides to every upside.  In this case its in the form of a Taiwanese and 2 Korean companies.  Yes, you guessed it: HTC, Samsung, and LG.  These 3 plus Motorola Mobility are the main adopters of Android and responsible for Google’s rise to the top OS in this category.  Together they represent roughly 25% of the market or about the size of Apple’s iOS.

The question is, my loyal reader (singular), will they pick up their marbles and go home (with a layover in Redmond, Wa)? or will they trust Google to keep MMI running independently?  Yeah right!  Just like other things in life, some win, and some lose.  The ones that win by just waiting it out, Microsoft have a  real chance to become the third horse in the race.  Mainly because they will be the only remaining independent.  But with $53B burning their balance sheet, how long can they afford to stay that way?

Enjoy.

Let’s recap.  Originally netbooks were small, light and only browser based.  They were the productization of Intel’s shinny new Atom processor, touted as a low power x86 that would allow powerful enough computers in these form factors with unmatched battery life.  They ran some kind of Linux (Ubuntu mostly), had a 7″ screen little memory, no hard drive to speak of, and a WiFi connection.  They would set you back $300 – $400.  Few bought them.  Microsoft, in a desperate territorial move, launched “Windows Starter Edition” at a significantly reduced licensing cost for OEMs.  The Windows netbooks were born.  Few bought them.  Then, OEMs in a smart move added up to 250GB of hard drive larger screens, more memory and a better keyboard.  Now they were selling them.  Unfortunately people bought them instead of laptops.  Wait … they were laptops … only cheaper.  Congratulations!  Microsoft and Intel had found a way to make less money with essentially the same product from essentially the same customers.  Not good.

Then the iPad was born.  Most techies entertaining to buy a low octane netbook either to substitute their aging laptop or as a lighter traveling device opted for Job’s money printing overgrown iPod Touch instead.  Why not?  a lot sexier, lighter, cooler, and just a little more money (there, among other things, relies the brilliance of Mr. Jobs).  So netbooks went into life support.  All OEMs are now jumping into the confused Tablet marketplace.  Apple, at the top, just laughs it out.

Where has Google been?  Well, Chrome is not new.  You may recognizer it from the fastest growing browser in the PC world.  Even as an OS it has been talked about for years.  But the world decided to focus more on Android since it is selling millions of smartphones and is sexier than a boring light OS.

But now  Google would launch the ChromeBook, a netbook with a twist.

Starting at a mere $379 with a $20 – $28 monthly fee on a 3 year contract for a WiFi cloud service. hmmm  again.  In this blogger’s humble opinion, my loyal reader (singular), what the … ?  Unless those cloud services are a real cloud or send you to the clouds using legal ways, I predict a disaster only rivaled by the NEXT computer.   I’m not ready to dump my iPad, at least for one of these.  And I don’t have a bag big enough for a fourth device.

The question is?  Is it a business model problem or a product problem?  Will you get one if you could get it for free and only pay the monthly fee?  Or better yet, what if Google can subsidize it 100% even the monthly fees to make money on advertisement alone?

And there, my fellow reader, among other things, rely the geniuses of Page and Brin.

Enjoy.

I rushed to Costco to get mine (well not really, I went there after lunch).  They had those fake cardboard packages typical of warehouse clubs and I picked one up, went to the register and paid $780 big ones plus tax and ran to the little cage where they store these things. I was told I had to go to the Verizon counter to activate it.  ”OK” I said, even though I’m convinced that WiFi is the only way these devices really make sense. So I don’t need a contract. I just don’t want to wait until the WiFi only comes out.  The guy there tells me he will open a contract for me that I could cancel after a month.  The activation had a rebate and I’ll have to pay $20 bucks for the first month of service.  Irritating, but OK, OK, I really want the device. So they proceeded to open a contract and they ask for my SSN.  ”What, for 20 bucks? No way!”  to what the guy responded: “Yes, otherwise we can’t sell it to you.”  Weird.  So I said I wanted it without the contract. and he said “no can do”.  ”I’d like my money back, please.”  Costco, without hesitation proceeded to a full refund.

Now what kind of a ridiculous go to market strategy is that?  When your main competitor is not only $300 cheaper than you, and one year ahead of you but has a brand so powerful that can sell millions of phones that don’t work if you grip them the wrong way!  What in you mind will possess you to tie your product to a carrier?  Subsidies? I’m sorry, $800 cannot have a subsidy.  Unless Verizon is paying for the 4G-LTE upgrade which will be not only useless but painful.  We all know how that’s going to go:  Erase everything, make sure you back it up, ship and wait a couple of weeks for your devoice to come back.  And, oh, by the way, the 4G-LTE contract that works in 3 cities in the world is $50 more a month. You know what?  Keep your upgrade and your device!  I’ll keep my money.

Jobs and every employee in Apple must be laughing so loud that you can hear them across the US.  Let’s hope Motorola Mobility will back pedal quickly and get it off contract.   Otherwise I anticipate dismal volumes for the 2 weeks Xoom is ahead of iPad2.  Such a shame for such a good looking piece of technology.  The good news is that everybody else that will have an Android Tablet in the next few months will know not to do that.  I guess I’ll have to wait until someone makes one that has no ties.

Or please, exhume the Xoom soon from Verizon’s death grip.

Enjoy.

This is the deal:  Microsoft has not been able to do anything good in the mobile world even after pouring millions (if not billions) of dollars.  And Nokia, once the giant to follow in the cellphone industry did not see the modern smartphones come.  Together, well, in this blogger’s humble opinion, is no better.  Nokia’s hardware, as good as it is, is just that: hardware.  They have never been able to stand out as a software supplier, areas where both Google, and Apple, the 2 leading forces in the smartphone world, excel at.

On the other hand, Microsoft has not been able to cut the cord.  Still the number one player, by far, in fixed applications, has just been a disaster in the mobile world.  Windows Mobile, arguably one of the first “smartphone” OS’s out there, did not evolve.  And Windows Phone 7, a great approach, is a classic case of “too little, too late”.  While Balmer, Microsoft’s CEO, brags about the eight thousand apps in WP7′s marketplace it remains at least an order of magnitude below iOS or Android.  Carrier’s have dozens of smartphones in their lineup already with access to these apps and users preference, either by cult or anti-cult.  NokiaSoft (or MicroNokia) will have to do the equivalent of pushing a herd of elephants up Mount Everest, one by one, without a sherpa, oxygen, and very little food.

In a letter to Nokia’s associates, Stephen Elop, Nokia’s CEO explained the transition his company will make to dump all activities on Symbian OS in order to adopt WP7 as its main smartphone OS.  I find interesting he used the analogy of a “burning platform” and how people do desperate things in desperate moments.  Kudos for admitting the desperate times and comparing a partnership with Microsoft to “jumping into the icy Atlantic”.  Although it may seem a bit too much, it is more like jumping into the icy Atlantic, naked, in the middle of the night, and picking up drowning friends, with luggage, on the way down.

Granted, these are both outstanding companies with a history of innovation and impressive comebacks (remember Netscape?).  But to pull this one off will require oodles of money, several miracles, outstanding negotiating with the carriers, and great, great products.  They’ve both done it in the past, but will they do it again?  But, given where they both are in this multibillion dollar market, do they really have a choice?  Maybe not.

So good luck in your marriage, hope you both keep your maiden names.  And please do not argue about naming the kids, hire professionals  instead.  Neither of you have a good track record there …

Enjoy.

The question is how many will survive in 2012 and how will they all differentiate among each other?  There are really 2 camps:  Consumer tablets (iPad and Android based), and everyone else.  I know, I know, RIM has one (the Playbook), Cisco (Cius), and Avaya (Flare) have one too, and maybe HP’s WebOS will be like these too.  But, I’m sorry, they fall in the “everyone else” camp.  Let me explain:

iPad and most Android tablets (Dell Streak, Motorola Xoom, Asus Slate, Samsung Galaxy, etc.) are designed primarily  for media consumption.  In other words to watch videos, read books and blogs, listen to music, etc.  The difference between iPad and all Android tablets is the obvious, but the uses are pretty much the same.  The “other three” are for communications.  All three companies have a great history of selling product to the enterprise and want to capitalize on the Tablet buzz. So they are tailoring them to be best for video communications, email, and those kinds of apps for people that are on the go.  BTW, where is Microsoft in all this?

Now, there is also a sub categorization of the consumer devices in iPads, “good” Androids, and 100′s of cheapo devices.  During CES, Motorola Mobility (one of the 2 siblings that came out of the mother ship Motorola, Inc.) introduced the Xoom, whose main allure was the introduction of Google’s new version of Android, Honeycomb.  Reviews were amazing, Honeycomb looks fabulous.  But every non Apple manufacturer in the consumer space will have access to it, so there will be competing head to head, the same way Android Smartphones do today.  But there will be 100′s of cheap ones too, based on Android, but not necessarily good.  When you take away the complexity of the phone, almost every manufacturer can build one, but few will be worthy of the Android seal of approval.  Those are the ones to look for.

By any measure, this is great since it will drive lots of product innovation, lots of choices, in a market with iDevices has been the only true alternative, but it will also drive commoditization.  Good for consumers, bad for the companies that will be competing.  Particularly great for Google who will see it’s new OS proliferate like the corn subproducts.  And more and more users will access the internet using a mobile via either Google’s Android or Apple’s iOS with infinite income potential for both.  And the competition between them will only get more fascinating.

How will everyone differentiate remains to be seen, but with the clever ideas on this post there will be room for plenty.  One more thought: Will this be totally incremental to the 600M smartphones supposed to be sold in 2012 or will it cannibalize it?  Quite frankly who cares?  There is plenty of pie for both.

So, my faithful reader (singular) wait for Honeycomb and run for your tablet or go buy an iPad now.  You will be glad you did.

Enjoy.

I can’t say either action is a real surprise, given the success – or lack thereof – of both products, but it begs the question of what the hell is so unique about Apple that makes them so successful?  Both products were reasonably good and both came out with some marketing strength and high hopes, albeit none had Jobs sticking his turtleneck out for.  In fact one can almost say they are truly cleverphones.  Nexus One sold directly by Google lasted a few months but managed to sell more through the carriers than direct.  Kin, on the other hand, didn’t even last enough to hear comments about it.  Microsoft has decided to protect their channel by pulling it out of the market and allowing HTC, Dell, Samsung, and LG who will release Windows 7 Phone Series (gotta love Microsoft’s marketing) devices this year for the “holidays”.

What I think is really happening is that even strong players like these tend to underestimate the power of the wireless carriers.  They own the customer since people buy phones in order to get a service, not the other way around.  Smartphone OEMs have learned the game and have succumbed to the carriers’ will, quite successfully I might add.  The market has turned into a selection of services where you pick a desirable phone for.  In other words, I know I want AT&T, Verizon, Telus, Vodafone, etc.  for whatever reason and then I select my phone.  Nexus One tried to separate it out unsuccessfully, even given the fact that Google didn’t need to make money on the phone!  People still bought the subsidized phone through the carrier in spite of a long term commitment.

Microsoft on the other hand didn’t try to sell direct, but attempted to bypass OEMs, where carriers buy more devices from.  So it is easier for them to add a Windows 7 Phone from HTC to the portfolio they already buy from them.  Besides, Kin was a succession of project “Pink” in which Microsoft had an agreement with Verizon to supply a device.  This contractual agreement forced Microsoft to release Kin with an OS that was not quite Windows 7 Phone.  In addition to that Verizon changed data plans and made the Kin less than attractive cost wise.  Again, a wireless carrier took control of the market.

One can also blame Palm’s near demise (and HP’s gain) on carriers’ acceptance or choice.

Whatever the reasons are, wireless carriers will continue to dominate and control the market.  Granted, both Google and Microsoft have a potentially great future with their mobile OS without their own branded phones as long as they follow the desire of the carriers they sell through.

The only exception so far is Apple.   AT&T has gained millions upon millions of customers that wanted one and were willing to compromise their carrier selection for the privilege of carrying an iPhone.  When Apple opens up to Verizon we’ll most likely see them run back and abandon AT&T.  Apple will churn the base, Verizon will add users, and AT&T will lose them.  Very few new iPhone users, but Apple will continue to sell them new ones.  Will Jobs be open to have an unsubsidized dual system (AT&T and Verizon) iPhone to sell direct so users can declare him his loyalty?  I can see it if AT&T and Verizon decide to create cheaper iPhone plans since they will not subsidize the phone anymore and create a price war.  We’ll see.

But for the time being iPhone remains the only device requested by name and the carriers maintain control over everything else.  For how long?

Enjoy.

Assume you have $500 to invest and you are trying to decide which one is a better bet.  Let’s see.  On June 10th, Microsoft opened near $25 and Apple near $250.  So you could buy 20 MSFT or 2 AAPL.  So what are you really buying with your hard earned bucks?  Based on the prior 12 months and latest financial statements these are the numbers (rounded):

AAPL:  revenue $51B, Net Income $10.7B, Cash and Short term investments $23B, and a market cap of $227B (908 M outstanding shares).

MSFT: revenue $59B, Net Income $17.2B, Cash and ST investments $39B with a market cap of $218B (8720 M outstanding shares).

So if you buy 2 shares of Apple your $500 buy you $112 in revenue, $23.50 in NI, and $50.70 in cash.  Microsoft’s 20 shares are $135.3 in revenue, $39.4 in NI, and $89.4 in cash.  In other words, picking one metric, let’s say cash,  Microsoft is trading at 5.6 times cash, Apple at 9.8 times cash.  That is 1.76 times more expensive!

Now, let me throw Google (GOOG) into the mix, just for kicks:  Google was trading at around $480 with a market cap of $115B (240M shares).  Revenues of $25B, Net Income of $7.1B, Cash $26B.  You can buy 1.04 GOOG, meaning $108 in revenue, $30.8 NI, and an impressive $113 in cash (4.44 times cash).

So you tell me which one is more expensive?  I know, I know, this is based on past results and does not factor in growth potential, investor’s sentiment, cult followers, and other factors.  But for the same reason it clearly paints a picture of which company is more favored by investors and which one is less.

Consider one last point:  Microsoft hit an all time high of $58.37 on December 31, 1999, Google $724.80 on December 14, 2007, and Apple hit $272.40 on April 26, 2010.  Investor’s favoritism has been shifting over time.  What’s next for all these three?  If I knew, I wouldn’t be blogging about it but it is definitely interesting behavior of 3 of the most traded stocks.

Quoting Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, “I remind you to ignore me”.  By no means this is an endorsment to invest in any of these companies.  You, my fellow reader (singular) make your own judgment.

Enjoy.

The hotspot feature that essentially turns your phone into a Starbucks without the coffee – WiFi hotspot using 3G as back-haul.  3G may not have enough capacity, but remember 4G is coming to a city near you.  The point is, my phone becomes my only truly connected device via the wireless wide area network, with a single data plan that allows any other device that I might carry to connect to the Internet through it, without extra payments.  As lame as the unconnected iPad is, it is the cheapest out there (before the gPad comes out).  My Android2.2 smartphone  will make it connected and I do not have to pay extra data.  With my laptop I can browse the web, download a book, send email, you name it, even if I don’t have a broadband adapter.  My phone is the broadband adapter.

Enhanced bluetooth means that I can now have an ergonomically perfect set of devices to manage my mobile life.  I can carry my phone in my pocket or briefcase and use my headset or car kit to dial, answer an make all phone calls.  I can even play music through my car’s fancy audio without plugging it in.  You can envision new devices that use these capabilities to get connected.  A camera, for example can upload to Picassa or YouTube directly without having to connect directly.  In-car GPS or portable can also connect and get faster first fixes, maps from your phone or PC, etc.

Again, this is hardly new, but the combination of all this features in Android 2.2 brings true mobility to the mainstream, and will definitely put a dent to iPhone’s reign, that is until Apple decides to add these features too.  The question that remains open is how will wireless service providers embrace a single data plan?  Today they all charge for “tethered mode” which is really what we all use in substitution of a broadband card; we don’t buy a card, but we still have to pay for the extra data plan.  If carriers do away with this extra charge, they will create an explosion of data traffic that they are most likely not ready for.  Sprint in the US has created a plan that allows all this for a fixed rate.  Sprint also has the only 4G phone available today and with its partnership with Clearwire they have a shot to regain market share even if it’s only to geeks like us.  Soon others will follow, though.

Soon 4G, better back-haul from your wireless service provider, and an Android 2.2 (or equivalent feature set) can make every device a connected device.  The ubiquitously connected world is getting a push.

Enjoy.

Let me tell you why I think that’s the case:  As lame as the whole category is in this blogger’s humble opinion, an unconnected (i.e. no cellular support) tablet is the lame of the lame.  It brings me back to the 90′s when you had to go home or to your office to get internet access.  Sure, the 3G iPad is about to debut, but @ $600+ i really think the market will be limited.  Now, if our friends in Verizon Wireless agree to pardon the Nexus One debacle and decide to subsidize the gPad, imagine what will that do to the price.  Neither Verizon, nor Google have to make money with the hardware, which really does a job to Jobs (sorry, couldn’t help it).  Estimates of the iPad cost put it at $250 – $300 US, add a 3G (or maybe a 4G – ooooh – radio), we could be seeing a street price in the $400′s.  Still hefty for a useless device, but less than $600+ for the emperor’s Pad (ePad?  now I’m pushing it).

But wait, there’s more!  Chrome Os is the word on the street, not Android.  What that may mean is a real processor capable of Flash (not Flash lite) and real browsing.  Yes, my friend, I believe it will be x86 based which means that every website you can go to on Chrome today – which is virtually any website known to mankind and robotkind – is accessible to your gPad.  Not even Palm’s (future HP’s MaxiPad) running WebOs can do that!  Apps anybody?  Yeah, sure, real apps with Java or the like, not fake widgets that look pixelated.  Content?  Did I mention it is Google?

So there it is.  As much as I hate the category, a subsidized x86 based tablet may be the ticket to ride.  BTW, Adsense must be having a ball with this post!  I’m sure the ads are funny albeit unrelated. Do comment.

Enjoy.