วันพฤหัสบดีที่ 16 ตุลาคม พ.ศ. 2557

โน๊ตครั้งที่ 1 จาก Computerless computer company

บทความนี้ตีพิมพ์ใน Harvard Business Review ในปี 1991 ทำนายว่าภายในปี 2000 บริษัทคอมพิวเตอร์ที่ประสบความสำเร็จที่สุดจะไม่ใช่ผู้ผลิตคอมพิวเตอร์ แต่เป็นผู้ซื้อที่รู้จักการนำคอมพิวเตอร์ที่ราคาถูกลงมากๆ และ มีความสามารถสูงๆ มาสร้างเป็น application ที่บุกเบิกและเป็นหัวใจของ new computing paradigm และ ทำให้เกิดประโยชน์ต่อผู้ใช้อย่างต่อเนื่อง (enduring influence with customers)  ตราบเท่าที่ยังมีผู้ผลิตฮาร์ดแวร์ให้อย่างเพียงพอ การก้าวเข้าไปเป็นผู้ผลิตเสียเอง จะมีผลเสียมากกว่าผลดี  อนาคตเป็นของ computerless computer company


  • The erosion of US market share in computer production is a good news, provided that they redirect their strategies to create persistent value in computing instead. 
  • Defining how computers are used, not manufactured.
  • Strategic inversion driven by the technological advance and the bottleneck is no longer the computing power.
  • US companies lead the world in technologies to bridge the gap between computing power and applications (microprocessor architectures, OS, UI, DB, application software)
  • Customers insist on MS-DOS or Windows computing while indifferent to microprocessors (other than the price and compatibility).
  • The computer company is the company that defines the computing environment and influence customer. 
  • Microsoft does not build computer but dictates how computers are designed, built and applied through its operating systems. 
  • Microsoft both maintains its proprietary position and leverages (rather than replicates) the massive investment by HW companies.
  • It is more rewarding to tax the path between HW production and consumption than to build HW. 
  • Apple beat Microsoft by six years in developing a graphics-oriented OS, but Microsoft is the more powerful because Apple defined its business as building HW instead of leveraging the HW industry. 
  • Earlier Apple had profited from building Macintosh when price was less an issue than functionality was. Later, PC compatible price dropped and performance increased, and Microsoft OS could imitate features of Apples OS. 
  • Microsoft benefits directly from global R&D spending on HW, which is quite useless without Microsoft OS.
  • Windows covers the whole spectrum, while Apple OS is limited to its HW.
  • Apple should have 1) let other companies build Macintosh clone with a royalty fee, 2) sell IBM compatible Apple OS, and, 3) stop making low end HW, to become the driver of utility and define global computing environment. 
  • Adding more revenue (about US$400M, while Apple revenue was US$500M.) with almost no cost and moving to higher margin HW 
  • The earning could fuel more development of Apple application software. Instead, Microsoft was providing application software for Macintosh. 
On semiconductor industry
  • US semiconductor industry lost money in the last 5-6 years
  • Changing technology and economics made traditional manufacturing (high volume production and vertical integration) obsolete. 
  • Manufacturing capability (feature size and cost) was the key competitiveness.
  • Marketing group search for highest volume business to drive the learning cost down.
  • What could be designed was what could be built quickly and economically.
  • Now, fab is no longer the primary source of advantage. Better fab capability does not proportionally translate to market advantage.
  • Shift toward large chip, more integration and complexity. Large volume is not crucial.
  • Specialization is more important. (Responsive design) Wasteful is OK. 
  • Projection of production capacity shows clearly over capacity (only 4% of capacity is expected to be needed.)
  • Fabless chip producer leverage the excess production capacity.
  • Close relationship with customers and excellent design methodology and tools are important for fabless chip producer.
  • Profits without production companies position themselves to benefit from worldwide improvement in manufacturing technologies. So they focus on highly differentiated chips for niche markets.
  • Invest in real sources of competitive advantages
  • Maximizing outsourcing options by not designing chips that require state-of-the-art production but provide state-of-the-art value.
Laptop computer
  • Highly integrated  chip is almost a complete computer in itself, so the barrier to computer industry is low.
  • Japan gained 43% market share and hold key components of laptop industry.
  • Replace PC rather than expand computer HW market.
  • Toshiba is a laptop manufacturer and its market position has been challenged.
  • Grid produces laptops but position itself as a computing solution provider for mobile professions.
  • There are no real Toshiba customers.
New rules
  • Compete on utility, not power. 
    • Adherence to "open systems" is a prescription for corporate suicide. Companies that live by low entry barriers also die by them.
    • Identify high-value areas that are not yet standardized and create proprietary concepts and technologies that become candidates for the next wave of standards.
  • Monopolize the true source of value
    • Open enabling technologies to stimulate competition to drive the costs of enabling components down, to disrupt the strategies of imitative competitors that focus on these components, and, to focus on the true sources of market power.
    • Sun chose not to build Sparc chip itself but licensed the design to many manufacturers and also encouraged others to design Sparc clones.
  • Maximize the sophitication of the value you deliver; minimize the sophistication of the technology you consume.
    • Favor second-tier technologies: more equally satisfactory sources and easily controllable costs and risks
Reversal of fortunes
  • New technological and economic forces demand fundamental business model transformation. 
  • Inventing new markets rather than building new products.
  • Companies and countries that control markets hold power, profit, and, employment advantages over those that merely control technology.


ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:

แสดงความคิดเห็น