Sony’s Bread and Butter? It’s Not Electronics
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
All Sony's great successes were in hardware. Mechanical hardware. The walkman, etc. were all mechanical devices, without any software. Sony was the king of beautiful mechanical electronics. Before the computer age took hold.
The iPod, etc. are software devices. Yes, they also have beautiful industrial design, but Sony is capable of that. But Sony is not capable of software.
By the way, Nokia is going down for the same reason.
Nokia is actually in a situation similar to Sony - it owns part of Nokia Siemens Networks, which is now a major cash cow. Selling handsets could become a sideshow for Nokia.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732350100457839...
The big networking vendors used to compete generationally like companies in other fields (think GE and Lockheed with Jet Engines). This is still the case and two of the dominant vendors, NSN and Ericsson, have great current generation products.
The question is: will the next be the same as the last one, or will the next network be different?
From my knowledge of the industry, I can tell you that the client demands are changing and now would be the best time to unload NSN, at the height of their value cycle.
If you're pessimistic about NSN's long-term network strategy, sell. If You believe they've got it figured out, why would you sell your cash cow?
Disclaimer: I work at 2600hz, the cloud telecom company. We work with a number of infrastructure companies to design cloud telecom applications and deploy them on things like aws.
The chinese companies such as Huawei and ZTE lowered the margins and really shook the market some years ago.
Personally, I don't imagine a bright future for those companies. So I'm with the selling strategy. I worked at a competitor of those companies based in Brazil. The scenario wasn't pretty when I left.
Given that Nokia was able to adapt enough to come up with Nokia Maps [1] (Decent mapping app with free offline maps), Nokia Music, Intuitive camera apps; I must disagree with that statement.
[1] http://here.com/
The offline maps is truly a blessing. Running low on battery but still en route? Switch off 4G and Wifi, the biggest battery suckers, and the navigation still works without any hiccup. The last time I was visiting a foreign country and had no data service, it came in handy too.
The old Sony had gone to the Supreme Court to fight for consumers right to record tv shows. The new Sony bet big on the profit maximizing MD platform while mp3 friendly CD-R's and later iPods ate their lunch. They even led the reactionary effort to save big content's profits with rootkits.
Sony's biggest bright spot in the 90's was the Playstation business but even here we see the same sorts of problems cropping up -- PS3 had to push Blue Ray, late to online gaming, the Hotz fiasco.
Interesting is that with all the rage of PS3 Sony haven't managed to move as much PS3 as the PS2. But PS2 was a hardware gem.
Sony just don't have the profit margins they need in stuff like TV, audio, etc. They also have really weak marketing in the phone space (their phones are on par with Samsung in hardware, and have a less-molested version of Android, but nobody knows they exist).
Their complete loss in the music player space though can be largely attributed to owning a music publishing arm. DRM killed all their (pretty decent) digital music players.
> By the way, Nokia is going down for the same reason.
true, but nokia seems to have realized this early-on and, in fact, has been adapting..
while heavily criticized, their decision to abandon in-house platform development in favour of windows phone for smart devices is increasingly looking to be a wise one. they clearly get that devices (no matter how great they are in terms of build quality and software features) aren’t being measured in the market in isolation. device-specific features are part of it, but how it plays with other devices and services plays a big (and increasingly important) role..
this is what sony doesn't seem to get.. they have their own systems powering playstation-branded products, windows pcs and tablets, android tablets and smartphones, and a bunch of other devices (cameras, tvs, ...) and none of them play well with one another. they like to tout their rebranded 'sony entertainment network' as unifying their devices and leveraging their media assets but i've yet to see it take shape in any meaningful way. i've long been a fan of sony products but this lack of integration among products (and an apparent lack of vision to do so in the future) pushed me away.
They integrate using standard protocols (HDMI CEC, DLNA, etc) and have to adhere to those limitations. I guess the alternative is going the proprietary way like Apple, but then everyone gets up in arms as well. It's lose-lose.
apple represents one extreme by locking-down everything to its ecosystem and connecting devices using proprietary technologies.
i’d say sony's integration, by these means, lies on the opposite end of the spectrum and isn't really integration (by my definition at least) - as it offers no real benefits in using their products together over mixing them with competing ones.
a middle-ground would be to support standard protocols while adding-in some tighter level of integration (more-so in terms of software and services than hardware connectivity) that make owning all sony products better than mixing them with others. if its compelling enough, i feel such integration can create a strong lock-in effect.
that being said, it seems very hard to do. the only companies that appear to have the scale and expertise to build-out compelling ecosystem’s (consisting of an underlying platform, applications, services, and integrated devices) are apple, microsoft, and google.. samsung seems to have realized this, and done quite well leveraging it to the max (nokia as well, though it’s a bit early to judge), but sony seems to have lost its way and is trying to both leverage existing platforms while competing with itself in building-out its own..
They lost sight of why ecosystem components are linked. Having gotten severely burned, they were shy to adapt and rebuild the necessary cross-platform infrastructure.
i think you hit the nail on the head there. connectivity for connectivity's sake doesn't produce much value. its having everything work together in a way that makes the experience better for the end-user that really matters.
Three Sony anecdotes I hope someone can learn from & act on:
1. Every DVD/Bluray player has a "Play" button. Press Eject, insert disc, push tray in, wait for menu to appear...why then does pressing Play not do anything? Why must I hunt down the remote to press the unmarked "Enter" button to play the movie when there's a Play button on the device I'm in arm's reach of because I just stuck the disc in? Yes, I know there's some technical explanation - I don't care, I just stuck the disc in and want to make it play the movie now without further fiddling.
2. My disc player has WiFi built in (that so many Sony products claim such support, then require purchase of a separate device-specific adapter costing nearly as much as the device is another rant). Nearly every time it does a network operation, it pops up a "Network Operation Complete [OK]" message, requiring me to acknowledge the fact it did what I told it to - rather than going on and doing the obvious next step. Get on with the action already.
3. The slew of "apps" built in are...ugly. Worst offender by far was the promotion for Salt (movie released just as the device was on the market): here I've got a flagship product from the company, trying to show itself off with clips from a big-budget blockbuster movie they own all rights to, hardware capable of pristine 1080p, and they're running the video at...scaled-up VGA super-grainy low-bandwidth streaming? Eeeeewwwww.
I rant because these are representative of so many other in-kind idiocies I keep running into on otherwise very satisfying products, belying a chronic lack of concern for actual use of the products. Indeed, they're still in the mindset of the Walkman: insert tape, push play, no further interaction; that world ended long ago.
There's a similar conclusion from this BBC report titled "What happened to Japan's electronic giants?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21992700
Interesting to read from the above link that Hitachi, also once known for it's consumer electronics products, is now focusing on heavy engineering as the core of its business (gas turbines, steam turbines, nuclear power plants, and high-speed trains).
I find this quite interesting. We have a business that is supplying goods and paying it's employees. Let's chop it into one part that will survive and make me money and another part which will most likely die meaning all the employees are fired.
I can understand the logic from one point of view but I'm not really sure the decision would benefit anyone other than a small number of investors (not all of them!) and ... I guess the lawyers and bankers always get their cut.
This is the american corporate/MBA logic. Japanese business culture is to keep it around and try to develop it. It springs from the same reasoning where Japanese business hire their engineers right out of college and people have their job/position in one company for life.
tl;dr: Keeping operations that can't live by themselves alive with external funding distorts the market, whether it is the government or the corporations that do it.
Reminds me of the Onion story: "Yamaha CEO Pleased With Current Production Of Jet Skis, Alto Saxophones, Snowmobiles, Power Generators, Scooters, Golf Carts"
Quote: "At the Yamaha Corporation we're focused on one thing and one thing alone—quality sound chips, ceiling brackets, editing software, race-kart engines, sport boats, flugelhorns, ATVs, sequencers, outboard motors, conference systems, golf clubs, projectors, MIDI controllers, lamp cartridges, portable recorders, subwoofers, component systems, and motorcycles."
http://www.theonion.com/articles/yamaha-ceo-pleased-with-cur...
It is just a case of extreme sinergy seeking.
For example: The same factory makes wheels and drums. Also, originally the motorcicle structure was made in the piano factory (this happened when they invented a model of a lightweight metal piano, and someone on the company realized they could use the same material to make motorcicles).
Yamaha focus is musical instruments, and then use their musical instrument tech to make other unrelated stuff... Yes, very weird model... but it works it seems....
I hope they do. I see a board focused on fixing a problem less concerning than a board in denial. I have a feeling that, as their electronics preeminence waned, they were probably in denial for a long time. They have decades of engineering experience, and now that they've hit bottom, it would be a shame to see them throw it all away.
Nokia, my first love, has already collapsed hopelessly. Not you too, Sony! If nothing else just keep making fucking phones!!
e: previous version of this comment said Sony's Imaging division was quite healthy, while they are losing money too. But as mirrorless is a new market, I guess it's worth to lose money to establish a good market position.
Latency on screens today is high enough, even in gaming mode, that even the slightest extra latency can kill some applications. I'm working on a karaoke game at the moment, and that latency is absolutely killing me.
I think us (techies) are still in the minority here. My parents love having YouTube on their TV. With all the junk I've bought them during christmas visits, they have a bunch of ways of watching YouTube on their TV: on the Sony Blu-ray/surround system, on the AppleTV, on their iPhones/iPads via AirPlay, or on their MacBooks with AirPlay or an HDMI cable. They've ended up gravitating toward the surround system menus, since it needs the least amount of "fiddling". If the TV had it built in I'm sure they'd love that.
Honest question, do you really think that your parents would prefer the TV youtube app? I mean youtube is all about typing in a search term to find a video, or following a link that someone sent you, and a TV remote control is just not a good interface experience for either of those tasks (typing sucks, and you don't have links, because it's a TV not a browser).
I should point out that I do set top boxes for a living, and I just can't see TVs having a future as anything other than a dumb screen with an AirPlay- / Miracast-type streaming solution bolted on to it. Maybe with some really heavy duty voice input work, or something along those lines, but none of the manufacturers seem to be heading in that direction.
And of course there is the fact that the panel is expensive, and tends to be a longterm purchase. The rest of the system is rapidly evolving, and I'd rather have to buy a new AppleTV for $100 every 3 years than have to buy a new LCD panel for $1000 every 3 years to have the latest hotness. Maybe things will settle down in 10 years or so, but until then I don't think I'm unusual in wanting my TV just to be the best panel possible and leaving the content management to other boxes.
Yes, because the TV is a couple years old and doesn't run today's apps, even though it has the right number of pixels which haven't changed in a decade.
> Stick a PC in my TV as soon as possible, please!
No. Because the pace of development in screens is notably less than the pace of development in devices, and the cost of building (a probably underpowered) PC into the TV would end up being a significant portion of the purchase price without much benefit.
AirPlay changes the equation. Use whatever latest personal device you have, tap a button to see it on the TV.
It's redundant to have multiple apps with multiple UIs and preferences scattered across multiple devices, when the tech exists today to have a primary personal device that you could look at anywhere.
TVs need to get out of the app business, just display HDMI + AirPlay (works from Android using Twonky Beam, iMedia Share, PlayTo, etc.), and focus back on visual quality.
AirPlay annoys me since for video it's still 100% proprietary. Meanwhile we have DLNA which Apple refuse to implement, just so they'll be able to make a mint on overpriced TVs one day when they want to leverage their installed base of iOS devices.
What are you talking about? What apps? All you need for the darned thing to do is stream media from some wireless storage device (or the internet)!
They're a company that has tried weird, new kinds of devices, like head-mounted 3D displays, tablets and ultra-portables. Sure, their attempts at these things didn't create high-volume markets, but at least it shows to me that the company is trying hard to innovate, with strong, more traditional products to back it up.
I find it a bit saddening how Sony fails to sell enough of its products.
There's absolutely no synergy between Sony's departments and that's also a massive problem.
In theory they could have a strong synergy, but as the article alludes to, they never really exploited the possibilities. Corporate infighting to maintain fiefdoms and current profits will quickly destroy any attempt to grow into new markets that require paradigm shifts.
They have a nasty habit of bringing things to market to fast and then not properly supporting it. Then when the consumers walk away they blame everything else but themselves.
On the other hand, as demonstrated through this thread, there is little tech that Sony hasn't seen capable of messing up.
They're starting to turn it around but it may be too late - much like Nokia and HTC.
Also some of us still have a bitter taste in our mouths from the various rootkits and hacker lawsuits, so wouldn't touch them with a bargepole. I'm under no illusion we're a serious market force though.
From the outside it sure seems like they keep making the wrong product decisions.
I never knew Sony even had an insurance arm. Profitable too. It sure seems like they ought to make a swift exit from electronics and focus on insurance.
Yes, Sony electronics give a loss, but it is NEEDED.
Why it is needed? Well, because this is how Sony pushes to their bread and butter clients buy the other stuff.
Sony is profitable making movies, music, and selling equipment for those, Sony Vegas is profitable, Sony 3D cameras are profitable, Sony Blu-Ray recorders are profitable.
Now, why Sony would need to sell Blu-Ray recorders, if they did not pushed for Blu-Ray with the PS3 sold at loss?
Sony eletronics business, was always about pushing technology that results in content producers needing to pay Sony through their nose to make the content that match Sony consumer tech.
If you split Sony, you will get a electronics division that gives loss, and a movie and music division that cannot push the market to where they want anymore, resulting in the failure of both.
I don't understand much of insurance business, so of course I won't comment on that.
If people don't drop a large TV on their feet, they have no need for insurance.
Sony's goals aren't the same as Apple or Microsoft and that seems to have confused the author: Sony sees diversification as a core competency and might be better off compared to say GE, rather than just a consumer electronics company:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732397500457849...
They did it to themselves.
Oh well, my xperia z tablet should be arriving this week.
Don't let me down.