Sony is bleeding money - business strategy discussion

[Scott_Arm]

I guess it depends on one's definitions, whether a 'hardware' company should be developing new hardware technologies or assembling hardware products. For the sake of this discussion though, Aplpe's hardware is nothing without their software, so I think that underlines that Sony need a strong software arm which is what they are lacking more than their hardware. Innovative hardware is now too hard to pull off, and any company could get lucky with the next big break.

I'm not sure Apple having lots of patents counts for much either. These days anyone can patent anything even if someone else invented it, and one can also patent obvious advancements of existing tech that everyone else would invent also.

If Apple is not a hardware company, then neither are any of the motherboard or videocard manufacturers, because they're just assembling available memories, chipsets and other components. There is a lot more to the broad term of "hardware" than custom ASICs, processors, memories.

You are sort of right, in that Apple's success is careful thought put into the entire package, including the software and hardware, but I wouldn't write off the design of their hardware. Apple was the first company that seemed to realize that people didn't want ugly computers in their beautiful offices. They pushed aesthetics, and at the same time made practical and functional improvements. To use the MagSafe connector again, it was a VERY popular addition for people that frequently used laptops.

Apple will eventually lose their step, and someone else will take the reigns, but there are obvious lessons to learn from how they build their products.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree. In retrospect I think what's needed is a third type. There are software companies who produce software to run on other people's hardware, like Google and MS. There are hardware companies who produce hardware often running other people's software although with some of their own as well, such as Sony and Samsung. I'd say Apple are more a systems company, developing the software to drive their hardware as a unified, in-house package. The choice of hardware features is theirs, as is the choice of software features. Just like the consoles (where SCE are a systems company subsidiary of Sony producing PlayStation) but for other CE devices. It's that all-encompassing design that's done them so well of late, and enabled them a robust niche prior to iPod which sustained them until then. For Apple it was the all-in-one experience that won it for them. For Sony, it was the hardware that won it for them in the past. As such I think they remain too focussed on the hardware and fail to offer appealing entire systems (or ecosystems as they have expanded into).

 

[tuna]

Apple make the best computer HW. I am writing this on a pretty new iMac running Fedora 15. I could not find a better computer to buy and I do not like Apple's SW.

 

[patsu]

But the software is a major part of what allows manufacturers to differentiate the entire package and by this I mean back end platform software in addition to on device software.
We'll see how the Dual screen android tablet does, but I suspect even with interesting industrial design it'll fall flat because it's just another android tablet and an expensive one at that.

That may be because you are trained to notice the software contribution more.

Also, hardware does not just mean industrial design. That's only skin deep. ^_^

 

[Scott_Arm]

That may be because you are trained to notice the software contribution more.

Also, hardware does not just mean industrial design. That's only skin deep. ^_^

Well, usability is a major part of industrial design, so it's much more than skin deep aesthetics. Many companies fail in the usability department.

 

[patsu]

Sure but usability may go beyond industrial design though.
It can affect how things work or are made at the fundamental level.

 

[dobwal]

Sure but usability may go beyond industrial design though.
It can affect how things work or are made at the fundamental level.

Industrial design is pretty comprehensive especially when you consider one of its simple definition of moving something from its existing state to its preferred state.

Look at Dieter Ram's ten principle of good design and you will see that ID is suppose to affect how things work or are made at the fundamental level.

Plus ID can be applied to software as well as hardware.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Industrial design is pretty comprehensive especially when you consider one of its simple definition of moving something from its existing state to its preferred state.

Look at Dieter Ram's ten principle of good design and you will see that ID is suppose to affect how things work or are made at the fundamental level.

Plus ID can be applied to hardware as well as software.

Exactly. There is nothing "skin deep" about good industrial design, which is why Apple is considered the consumer electronics king of industrial design, and other companies fail at it miserably.

 

[patsu]

Yes, but in a working environment, things like CPU/GPU specs, memory, and other core specs, are not under industrial design. In fact, if you read the "Steve Jobs" book, the iPhone antenna problem was a result of industrial design compromising hardware design.

Slapping a sexy dual screen on Android with or without software may not be sufficient.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Yes, but in a working environment, things like CPU/GPU specs, memory, and other core specs, are not under industrial design. In fact, if you read the "Steve Jobs" book, the iPhone antenna problem is a result of industrial design compromising hardware design.

Slapping a sexy dual screen on Android with or without software may not be sufficient.

What's your point?

 

[patsu]

Software is not the only thing that made Apple successful. It alone won't make Sony or any company successful automatically too. Hardware (beyond industrial design), business model, marketing (brand, strategic and tactical), passion, execution. etc. are also important.

We'll see how the Dual screen android tablet does, but I suspect even with interesting industrial design it'll fall flat because it's just another android tablet and an expensive one at that.

Yap, ID may not help there because price point, demand, etc. are unclear. But that doesn't mean hardware is not important.

Remember, the Mac cube didn't take the world by storm too. However it doesn't mean Apple's hardware is sh*t, or hardware is not important.

The original Mac had revolutionary software. It still lost to IBM PC.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Sony is just "old." They are like the company who keeps making what they know and only adapt when it's absolutely necessary. The innovation and excitement (outside of diehards) just isn't there and continues to decrease. I'm only talking about the US since that's my experince.

What I find interesting is that some of Apple's current products remind me of the products that Sony used to design back in the 80's. Take the iPhone 4 for example. It shares some design queues with some of the Sony Walkmans of the 80's. I only thought of that because I recently watched an old 80's horrow/thriller show (guilty pleasure those horror movies ) called Blind Date where this guy uses a modified Sony Walkman to see a digitized world.

Sony just doesn't seem as "in tune" with consumers as it did back in the 70's and 80's.

I disagree. I'm not sure Apple has ever been a hardware company. They buy components from other parties, not inventing any hardware tech themselves, and assemble them with considerable design and a software layer that grants their non-unique hardware with unique appeal. Their origins are PC components and other people's inventions with their own software layer. The Mac exists not because the hardware was special, but the software was (for artistic types who were confused by a mouse with more than one button ). Contrast the Mac with the Amiga, which was all about the hardware. The iPhone is only a runaway success because Apple combined other people's components with their own very slick interface and software layer. Okay, they brought out the right combination of parts very well executed, which counts towards being a hardware company, but they are very different to the big CE players who develop new technologies.

That's certainly true today, but certainly not true in the past. Up through the 90's they still designed their own circuit boards.

They designed their own circuit boards, casing, monitors, etc. Had a hand in designing storage technologies, interface technologies, and even CPUs. Just like a company like Kenwood or Pioneer uses other companies ICs in their stereo equipment, Apple obviously also had to use ICs from other companies in their computers. That doesn't make them any less of a hardware company.

It's only since the switch to x86 CPUs that Apple has started the transition to a more software oriented company. In order to cut costs they are using more and more off the shelf parts. It's harder to distinguish yourself with hardware when you're using the same basic components as everyone else. So software is the new focus to differentiate themselves.

Their hardware used to be great but the focus on Software was seriously lacking. MacOS towards the last decade of its life was absolutely horrible compared to the competition. But their hardware was fantastic. Now, their software (OSX for example) is competitive again due to focusing more on the software than hardware, but they no longer have an edge in hardware or hardware design (IMO).

Then again Apple didn't really have a choice. As it got later and later into the 90's and early 2k's alternative CPUs to the x86 arch just fell farther and farther behind.

Regards,
SB

 

[patsu]

According to Steve Jobs in his book, the Bauhaus design philosophy that he embraces is different from Sony's design. It can be seen from PS3 vs iWhatever. Wii is more similar to Apple product design.

Also, it is inaccurate to say Apple only assembles components, and only focuses on software recently. They design custom chips that goes into their products. They are leaner than Sony because they only focus on a few products.

They wrote software since the Apple, Lisa and Mac 128K days. They also wrote the first UI guide when none existed. I still remember the thick volumes of Inside Macintosh APIs.

Way before the transition to Intel, they already have the software expertise from NeXT and the remaining Apple System 7 and app teams. How else would they transit from Motorola to Intel seamlessly without a strong software focus ? They also made waves with the Aqua UI before the first iMac.

During Apple's ten year slack, they stagnated on both software and hardware front. Newton was different but too clunky. It had new software and hardware concepts though.

Apple has been an integrated software and hardware house from the beginning. There is a short period where they sign up Mac clones, but it was killing Apple before Jobs stopped it. Today, they are still very much an integrated software and hardware company. They are extremely good at logistics, supply chain, as well as developing software/virtual thingamajig.

 

[boommoob1]

I disagree. I'm not sure Apple has ever been a hardware company. They buy components from other parties, not inventing any hardware tech themselves, and assemble them with considerable design and a software layer that grants their non-unique hardware with unique appeal. Their origins are PC components and other people's inventions with their own software layer. The Mac exists not because the hardware was special, but the software was (for artistic types who were confused by a mouse with more than one button ). Contrast the Mac with the Amiga, which was all about the hardware. The iPhone is only a runaway success because Apple combined other people's components with their own very slick interface and software layer. Okay, they brought out the right combination of parts very well executed, which counts towards being a hardware company, but they are very different to the big CE players who develop new technologies.

I'm not an Apple buff so I may be missing lots, but I cannot recall any hardware invented and used by Apple to great effect. In contrast, Sony's inventions were invented at Sony and produced. They owned the TV space for two decades because they invented the Trinitron technology, patented it, and had a technological advantage that no-one else could match. Now the hardware landscape has changed that the chances of anyone having a similar runaway tech is next to nil. Sony can't make a better GPU to drive their TVs then the existing companies, or a better display than the other display manufacturers will be able to. They can only piece together the same sorts of components, and the differentiation between buying a Sony TV or BRD player or mobile phone will be the software layer and services, which have the added advantage of being updateable, cheap to maintain, and can be used across devices so that a service can have a lifespan of 10 years while consumers are buying through 4 or 5 different devices that access that same service. The likes of boommoob1 who want to see amazing leading devices from Sony aren't seeing how things have changed IMO. Yes, Sony shoud have had their own pioneering tablets and digital Walkmen and whatnot, and they failed there (not really under Stringer's helm). Going forwards it looks too late for me. There's nowhere left to go, save incremental improvements in things like displays that Sony cannot dominate because there are just as capable rivals to them now.

Cant you see that Sony are a shambles?. I think it's only Sony bank/insurance profits that has saved them from collapse. Sony's tech is still cutting edge stuff such as image sensors, proffesional equipment. Theirs just a huge void where strategic, visionary thinking should be.

 

[-tkf-]

MY mindshare goes something like this:

TVs: Samsung and Vizio
Phones: Apple and Samsung
Game console: Microsoft
Handheld: Nintendo
PC: Apple or whoever is cheapest on the PC side
Cameras: Cannon, Nikon and Sony trailing

Just needed to fix that list.

Vizio, i have never ever heard of that name, Phones, it´s the first year Samsung has even been worth mentioning. Game consoles, hahahaha that is just to much. PC: no one considers a Apple computer a PC, yes i know what you mean but it tells alot about how useless your list is.

Handhelds, correct except PSP is actually in the mindset as well. Cameras could just as well be Nikon before Canon.

All imho of course.

 

[boommoob1]

Just needed to fix that list.

Vizio, i have never ever heard of that name, Phones, it´s the first year Samsung has even been worth mentioning. Game consoles, hahahaha that is just to much. PC: no one considers a Apple computer a PC, yes i know what you mean but it tells alot about how useless your list is.

Handhelds, correct except PSP is actually in the mindset as well. Cameras could just as well be Nikon before Canon.

All imho of course.

Samsung have overtaken Apple as the biggest smartphone company.

 

[-tkf-]

Samsung have overtaken Apple as the biggest smartphone company.

I am very well aware of that, guess what phone i use . But the original poster talked about "mindshare" which imho is pretty hard to measure except to tell what your mindshare is, and the mindshare of the original poster would put anything before Sony in any case.

Of course, it´s all in the US so it might be just on the money and again useless unless we only base this discussion on USA. And it doesn´t even add up to sale numbers. XBOX = Console when the WII is the number one console in the US

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Cant you see that Sony are a shambles?. I think it's only Sony bank/insurance profits that has saved them from collapse. Sony's tech is still cutting edge stuff such as image sensors, proffesional equipment. Theirs just a huge void where strategic, visionary thinking should be.

Yes, I can agree with that. I've said as much complaining all over the shop about Sony's lack of direction and ability to execute. That visionary thinking needs to be thinking whole systems though, not just hardware. Something like PSS is a Good Move if part of an all-round strategy to create valuable products. You are constantly talking about Sony pulling out of any and every content and software avenue to just make technological stuff, which is completely wrong given the way the world is changing. You also don't discuss - only rant against management. The amount of emotional energy you invest suggests to me you are a personal victim of Sony's recent struggles.

 

[RobertR1]

Just needed to fix that list.

Vizio, i have never ever heard of that name, Phones, it´s the first year Samsung has even been worth mentioning. Game consoles, hahahaha that is just to much. PC: no one considers a Apple computer a PC, yes i know what you mean but it tells alot about how useless your list is.

Handhelds, correct except PSP is actually in the mindset as well. Cameras could just as well be Nikon before Canon.

All imho of course.

I stated the list is for US only. Something you completely managed to overlook in your haste for defense.

If you have no idea who Vizio is, it's probably best to not comment on the US market. Maybe you can make a UK list or wherever you are and provide some meaningful data in relation to consumer mindshare for different regions.

 

[-tkf-]

I stated the list is for US only. Something you completely managed to overlook in your haste for defense.

If you have no idea who Vizio is, it's probably best to not comment on the US market. Maybe you can make a UK list or wherever you are and provide some meaningful data in relation to consumer mindshare for different regions.

Talking about over looking..

Of course, it´s all in the US so it might be just on the money and again useless unless we only base this discussion on USA.