Apple Desperately Needs Some New Fruit

I love my Apple iPhone, but this core product debuted in January 2007.

We’re going on almost 9 years!!!

Don’t get me wrong, the iPhone is enormously successful:

– It accounts for 92% of the smartphone industry’s profits (even though it only sells 20% of the smartphones). 

– The iPhone bring in almost 2/3 of Apple’s total revenue now going on almost $200 billion. 

But, the new growth that Apple seeks in not based on any real exciting innovation.

Take for example Apple’s announcements this week:

– A new larger 12.9 inch iPad with a stylus (the Apple Pencil).

– A revamped Apple TV set-top box. 

– Apple’s iPhone 3-D Touch that controls the smartphone based on how hard you press. 

Uh, ho-hum–this is all V-E-R-Y boring!

Google has a similar problem with their core business of advertising on Search and YouTube accounting for 89% of their revenue.

But at least Google continues working towards their next moonshot, and has reorganized their innovation labs into a separate entity called Alphabet–working on everything from:

– Self-driving cars

– Delivery drones

– Internet balloons

– Smart thermostats (Nest)

– Broadband services (Google Fiber)

– Longevity research (Calico)

– Smart contact lenses

– Robotics

Unfortunately for Apple, the death of Steve Jobs in 2011 has meant the loss of their driving force for innovation. 

Despite a workforce of about 100,000 and a gorgeous new flying saucer-looking headquarters, can you think of any major new products since Jobs?

Apple is a fruit in it’s prime–ripe and shiny and hugely smart and successful, but without any new fruits going forward, they are at risk of becoming a stale mealy apple, versus a bountiful and delicious fruit salad. 

Apple is very secretive, so maybe the fruit is coming. 

I hope for our sake and theirs that Apple is seriously planting for the future and not just harvesting on the past. 😉

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

They’re Not Playing Ketchup

I wouldn’t necessarily think of Heinz as a poster child for a company that is strategic and growing, and was therefore, somewhat surprised to read an impressive article in Harvard Business Review (October 2011) called “The CEO of Heinz on Powering Growth in Emerging Markets.”

Heinz, headquartered out of Pittsburgh PA, is ranked 232 in the Fortune 500 with $10.7B in sales, $864M in profits, and 35,000 employees. They have increased their revenue from emerging markets from 5% a few years ago to more than 20% today.

Bill Johnson, the CEO of Heinz, explains his 4 As for success–which I really like:

1) Applicability–Your products need to suit local culture.  For example, while Ketchup sells in China, soy sauce is the primary condiment there, so in 2010, Heinz acquired Foodstar in China, a leading brand in soy sauce.

2) Availability–You need to sell in channels that are relevant to the local populace. For example, while in the U.S., we food shop predominantly in grocery stores, in other places like Indonesia, China, India, and Russia, much food shopping is done in open-air markets or corner groceries.

3) Affordability–You have to price yourself in the market.  For example, in Indonesia, Heinz sells more affordable small packets of soy sauce for 3 cents a piece rather than large bottles, which would be mostly unaffordable and where people don’t necessarily have refrigerators to hold them.

4) Affinity–You want local customers and employees to feel close with your brand. For example, Heinz relies mainly on local managers and mores for doing business, rather than trying to impose a western way on them.

Heinz has a solid strategy for doing business overseas, which includes “buy and build“–so that they acquire “solid brands with good local management that will get us into the right channels…then we can start selling other brands.”

Heinz manages by being risk aware and not risk averse, diversifying across multiple markets, focusing on the long-term, and working hard to build relationships with the local officials and managers where they want to build businesses.

“Heinz is a 142-year old company that’s had only five chairmen“–that’s less than the number of CEO’s that H-P has had in the last 6 years alone.

I can’t help but wonder on the impact of Heinz’s stability and laser-focus to their being able to develop a solid strategy, something that a mega-technology company like H-P has been struggling with for some time now.

If H-P were to adopt a type of Heinz strategy, then perhaps, they would come off a little more strategic and less flighty in their decisions to acquire and spin off business after business (i.e. PCs, TouchPads, WebOS, etc.), and change leadership as often as they do with seemingly little due diligence.

What is fascinating about H-P today is how far they have strayed front their roots of their founders Bill and Dave who had built an incredibly strong organizational culture that bred success for many years.

So at least in this case, is it consumer products or technology playing catch-up (Ketchup) now?

P.S. I sure hope H-P can get their tomatoes together. 😉

(Source Photos: Heinz here and H-P here)

>IT Portfolio Management and Enterprise Architecture

>

“IT portfolio management is the application of systematic management to large classes of items managed by enterprise information technology (IT) capabilities. Examples of IT portfolios would be planned initiatives, projects, and ongoing IT services (such as application support). The promise of IT portfolio management is the quantification of previously mysterious IT efforts, enabling measurement and objective evaluation of investment scenarios.” (Wikipedial)

IT portfolio management is a way of categorizing IT investments and analyzing them to ensure sound IT investment decisions. IT portfolios are frequently evaluated in terms of their return, risk, alignment to strategy, technical merit, and diversification.

Why do we need IT portfolio management—why not just assess each project/investment on its own merit?

The added value of developing and evaluating IT portfolios is that you can ensure the diversification of your investments across applications and infrastructure; new systems/major enhancement to existing systems and operations and maintenance; new R&D, proof of concepts, prototypes, and pilots; between strategic, tactical, and operational needs, and across business functions.

ComputerWorld Magazine, 7 April 2008, reports that Hess Corp., a leading global independent energy company, developed creative IT portfolios based on three types of initiatives:

1. Bs—“business applications or business process improvement effort that’s aimed at increasing revenue or generating cost savings.”
2. Es—“enablers” or projects to support business applications such as business intelligence, analytical systems, master data management, systems integration.
3. Ps—“process improvement within the IT organization itself” such as standardizing the approach to applications development (systems development life cycle), project management, performance management, IT governance, and so on.

From an enterprise architecture perspective, we develop the target architecture and transition plan and assess IT investments against that. Again, rather than develop targets and plans and conduct assessments based solely on individual investment alone, EA should look at the aggregate investments by IT portfolios to ensure that the EA plan and subsequent investments are properly diversified. An EA plan that is overweighted or underweighted in particular IT investment categories can have a negative to disastrous effect on the organization.

IT investments represent significant expenditures to organizations and IT is a strategic enabler to mission, so messing up the IT plan with poor investment targets and decisions is costly to the enterprise.

Microsoft, Yahoo, and Enterprise Architecture

Microsoft offers to buy Yahoo for $44 billion—brilliant play or stupid move?

Some say it’s a brilliant move:

According to techcrunch.com, a combined Microsoft/Yahoo would be a technology behemoth and have $65 billion in revenue, $17.6 billion in profit, 90,000 employees, and 32.7% of the U.S. search market share.

Yahoo owns semi-valuable assets like Flickr, a photo sharing site and del.icio.us, a social bookmark site.

Others say it’s a stupid move:

1. Microsoft/Yahoo would still seriously trail Google’s U.S. search market share of 58.4%!
2. Other corporate acquirers, like Oracle, generally profess acquisitions only if it enables a clear #1 market position like it is with data warehouse management, business analytics, human capital management, customer relationship management, and contract lifecycle management.
3. Fortune Magazine, 18 February, 2008, says “Microsoft is paying too dearly for Yahoo.” Fortune asks “What exactly is Microsoft buying here? Technology? Yahoo has been managing a declining asset since Google invented a better way to do search…Technologists? Talent has been fleeing Yahoo Central since Terry Semel got there…a let’s not even talk about the clash of cultures that such a merger will create.”
4. Yahoo has made serious management missteps, such as backing out of a deal to buy Facebook in 2006 at a $1 billion bargain (Facebook was recently valued at $15 billion) and botching the acquisition of YouTube and losing out to Google.

Fortune concludes:

1. “Microsoft is buying an empty bag.”
2. “Yahoo will be Microsoft’s AOL” (comparing a Microsoft/Yahoo acquisition to the failed AOL/Time Warner one).
3. Microsoft should abandon the acquisition, unbundle itself from search, Xbox, and Zune, and instead focus on improving its core competency, the operating system.

From a User-centric Enterprise Architecture perspective, it’s an interesting dilemma: should companies (like Microsoft) diversify their products and services, similar to the way an individual is supposed to responsibly manage their financial investments through broad diversification in order to manage risk and earn a better overall long-run return. Or should companies do what they do best and focus on improving their core offering and be #1 in that field.

Historically, I understand that most mergers and acquisitions fail miserably (like AOL/Time Warner) and only a few really succeed (like HP/Compaq). Yet, companies must diversify in order to mitigate risk and to seek new avenues to grow. As the old saying goes, “don’t put all your eggs in one basket.” The key to successfully diversify is to architect a #1 market share strategy, like Oracle, acquire truly strategic assets like Compaq, and not overpay like with Yahoo and AOL.