Category: Personal Computers and Mobile

Network Usage Between Devices and Carrier Networks

An article by Stephen Shankland summarized data from Actix that examined communications between mobile devices and carrier’ mobile networks.

Compare to web-usage statistics based on analytics data from a subset of websites (StatCounter and NetMarketShare), this analysis is likely to be more representative of usage. This is because it counts activity from apps (not just browsers) and because websites that install StatCounter and NetMarketShare analytics software are not necessarily representative of the web as a whole.

NewImage

Several things that caught my eye;

  1. iPhones are really, really strong. People love using their iPhones.
  2. Old iPhones (which happen to even run iOS 7, the most recent iOS) are still going strong.
  3. Non-Samsung Android smartphones are really, really, really scarce.

On the Future of MS-Office, or Actually How MS-Office Affects the Future

There’s was this interesting conversation on the future of MS-Office on Twitter, and Umang Jaipuria collected the tweets to make a very interesting read.

Matt Rosoff also wrote an informative article inspired by this discussion “Why Microsoft Office can’t be uprooted so easily”.

This is also something that I have been thinking about and I just want to add a few comments to clarify my thoughts.

Bendict Evans:

The future & importance of MS Office is a key to understanding a lot of the next few years. Often seems like a blind spot in the Valley

Bendict Evans:

Hence my original tweet: the way Office evolves or its use cases get reimagined is a big trend, which also affects tablets & PCs

This is a very important point which unfortunately seems to have been lost as the discussion turned into an MS-Office vs. Google Docs argument. What I think Ben Evans meant to say is that if MS-Office remains as important and relevant as it currently is, then the platforms that work well with it will be at a strong advantage.

I understand this to mean that what Microsoft chooses to do, and actually manages to implement with MS-Office, will strongly affect which platforms will win in the tablet market, and the extent to which laptops will be replaced by tablets.

Marc Andreessen

Plus Google Docs and its peers way better for online collaboration–automatic, seamless, all devices/OSs — new requirement.

Benedict Evans

Shared doc editing is a feature and not a universal core case. And isn’t a collaboration platform a better approach?

Here Marc Andreessen argues that the collaboration features of Google Docs are the core appeal. Benedict Evans on the other hand disagrees.

If I understand correctly, Benedict Evans views Google Docs as an inferior replacement for MS-Office whereas Marc Andreessen thinks that Google Docs is a collaboration platform more akin to a Wiki.

My opinion leans towards Benedict Evans. For one thing, the design of Google Docs simply resembles a folder with some Word, Excel or Powerpoint documents. Even the icon colors try to associate themselves with the color-coding for MS-Office; blue for a word processor, green for a spreadsheet, and orange for presentations. Inside the app, the user-interface strongly resembles pre-ribbon MS-Office interfaces. There are a couple of buttons for collaboration features, but that’s it. The design suggests that sharing is an addition to the core case (low-cost imitation of MS-Office) and not the other way around.

What this means is that Google Docs is probably targeted towards users who primarily want to edit a document.

Benedict Evans:

Excel is a platform. And an IDE

Benedict Evans:

Office is very feature rich but task-agnostic (Lawyers & admen use same apps). SAAS tends to be the other way around?

Chris Dixon:

yes, SaaS tends to be focused on jobs to be done. Part of is it “bottoms up” (division level) sales model.

Marc Andreessen

And it seems that because of that SAAS will end up being much bigger/diverse than we all thought 5-10 yrs ago.

There is good agreement here in what MS-Office is, and what the new SaaS products that Marc Andreessen and others foresee will replace it are.

Marc Andreessen appears to think that SaaS will diversify and evolve to the point where, for most custom solutions that can be imagined in Excel, there will be a SaaS solution for it. I find this hard to believe.

Whenever we adopt a SaaS solution, we are forced to adjust to it. There is very rarely a pre-configured product that fits what we need to do exactly. In addition to a learning curve, there is an adoption curve where we change our workflow to fit better with the fixed SaaS solution. What’s more troublesome is that we don’t really know before we embark on our learning, whether or not the fit will be good. Unless the application requires a lot of collaboration and simultaneous access, forgoing a SaaS and instead creating a simple solution in Excel is often by far the quickest and the most effective.

My view

Google Docs is an attempt to commoditize MS-Office. It imitated the design and functionality of MS-Office and is offered free-of-charge to maximize adoption. However, MS-Office is still very much the standard in corporate and professional environments.

Importantly, MS-Office is not just content-creation software. It is often used as viewing software. It is the equivalent of Adobe Illustrator, Adobe InDesign and Adobe Acrobat for the creator, but also the equivalent of Adobe Acrobat Viewer for the reader. The availability of MS-Office does not only affect the content-creation side, but is essential for the consumption side as well.

As Benedict Evans states, the evolution of MS-Office and how corporations use software will greatly affect tablets & PCs. This is a very strong card that Microsoft still holds, and which can sway the game to its favor. Its strength is very often underestimated.

There are a lot of unknowns and also technical obstacles.

Apple recently introduced new versions of its programs in the iWorks suite. The reviews were not pretty. In order to bring file-format and user-interface parity between the iOS versions and the Mac versions, many features of the Mac version were at least temporarily removed. Given that the PC versions of MS-Office have much more features than iWorks ever did, achieving file-format and feature parity between mobile and PC versions of MS-Office is likely to remain a huge challenge for many more years. However, Atom-based Windows tablets running regular Windows 8 will have no problem running the PC version of MS-Office, although the UI may be awkward.

It will be interesting to see how Microsoft plays its cards.

Why the Chromebook is not a Low-End Disruption

Do Chromebooks fill the criteria for a low-end disruption? Can we expect the Chromebooks to eventually move upmarket and disrupt the PC industry? Since we have seen Chromebooks make some success in some markets, these are valid questions to ask.

First of all, there is no denying that Chromebooks are low-end. They are typically priced lower than Windows laptops (although the price difference is not very large), and the cheaper Chromebooks have lower specs. However, low-price alone does not qualify a product as a low-end disruption.

Let’s look at a few more attributes that we should find in a product that causes low-end disruption.

Is the current market overshooting?

In terms of performance, Chromebooks and low-end Wintel laptops both use Intel Celeron processors. There are some exceptions that use an ARM, but these are mostly coming from Samsung which makes their own ARM-based CPUs. They also have 2GB of RAM which is the same as a low-end Windows laptop. The main difference seems to be whether they use a HD with hundreds of Gigabytes of storage, or whether they use a fast SSD with only tens of Gigabytes of storage. Storage seems to be the only area where Chromebooks can skimp on hardware relative to Wintel machines.

Given that the hardware specifications of a Chromebook and a low-end Wintel laptop are almost identical, it is hard to argue that the Chromebooks are targeting a market that is over-served by Wintel. You could argue that Chromebooks are faster than Wintel due to the use of SSD, and that probably is very true. This would however suggest that Chromebooks are “sustaining innovations” relative to Wintel that are playing in the low-end market segment.

Is the price differential large enough to attract new customers?

Although the cost for an OEM to install Windows on a computer is confidential, it is probably not large enough to make a free operating system like Chrome OS a game changer. For example, the cheapest Chromebook on Amazon.com is the Acer C720 for $199 with a Intel Celeron 2955U 1.4 GHz CPU and 2GB of RAM. On the Windows side, you can get an ASUS 1015E laptop with an Intel Celeron 847 1.1 GHz CPU and 2GB of RAM for $299 or a ASUS VivoBook X200CA with an Intel Celeron 1007U 1.5GHz CPU and 2GB of RAM for $300.

The price difference of $100 is substantial at this low price, but it is not large enough to expand the market. I doubt that people willing to pay $200 will find $300 abominable. Hence people looking at Chromebooks will also be interested in Windows. Chromebooks are not creating a new market for consumers who couldn’t previously afford a laptop. They are simply marketed to the same customers as a cheaper alternative.

Therefore Chromebooks are not competing with non-consumption. Instead they are competing head-on with the incumbent, and that is always difficult.

Is the simplicity enough to attract new customers?

Some people argue that Chromebooks are much simpler than Wintel computers or Macs. That may or may not be the case, depending on the tasks that you need to get done. This is not however the question that should be asked.

What needs to be addressed is whether or not the increased simplicity is enough to target non-consumption. In other words, will those people who previously did not buy laptops due to the complexity, buy Chromebooks by virtue of the improved simplicity. Will the increased simplicity create a new market which Chromebooks can uniquely target?

That was certainly the case for the iPad. Small children and seniors are very comfortable with the iPad. Significant numbers of people who didn’t use personal computers before can now use iPads because of the much improved simplicity.

Now, is this the case with Chromebooks? I strongly doubt it.

What are the jobs-to-be-done?

When you compare the jobs-to-be-done of Chromebooks and Wintel laptops, Chromebooks are simply a subset.

Both require you to be sitting at your desk or at least have your computer on your lap. This is very different from iPads and smartphones which can be used comfortably even when you are standing up, lying down or reclining on the sofa. Hence Chromebooks will be used when you are at work or studying. Not when you are relaxing or only have a couple of minutes of free time. They won’t be used much for reading e-books, watching videos, etc. You can easily see that the usage scenarios for Chromebooks completely overlap with Wintel laptops.

Hence Chromebooks are competing directly with Wintel for the same jobs-to-be-done. Here again, they are fighting the incumbent head on.

Summary

In summary, Chromebooks are unlikely to succeed as a low-end disruption because they are competing head on against the incumbent in almost every way. Although the incumbent (Wintel) is weakened compared to its heyday, they successfully deflected the Netbook-Linux threat and are still formidable competitors. Wintel has also always addressed the low-end, and has never fled up-market. Chromebooks are not significantly more low-end than the market Wintel is already competing in so we can expect Wintel to quickly address any threats. I find it unlikely that Chromebooks are enough to disrupt.

What the Tablet Market isn’t

The common narrative on tablets is that they are replacing PCs. Tablets indeed look like a typical “low-end disruption” as discussed in “The Innovator’s Dilemma” by Clayton Christensen. “Low-end disruption” frequently involves products that are less powerful then the mainstream but simpler to use. Price is often cheaper as well.

Tablets fit this description almost perfectly. They are not as powerful as PCs and are difficult to use for many of the complicated tasks that power users regularly perform. On the other hand, they are inexpensive and easy to use. Even kindergarten children can use them quite effectively.

Looking at shipment data from places like Garner and IDC, it seems clear that tablets are replacing PCs as the former sales rise and the later sales are tanking.

The story however, is not so simple. If you take a look under the hood, as Ben Bajarin has been doing in his excellent Techpinions website, there is data that does not fit a “low-end disruption” trajectory.

Here, I would like to take a look at his article “The State of Tablets in 2013” ( It is behind a paywall, but if you frequently search the web for tech information, then the price is well worth it. A lot of the information that you get cannot be found on the “free” web. )

In this article, Ben Bajarin give us some interesting data points;

  1. The vast majority of tablet sales are to existing PC owners.
  2. People who bought “cheap” tablets have buyers’ remorse and intend to spend more on their next purchase.
  3. The majority of “branded” Android tablets are being sold by Samsung. Nexus 7 (Asus) sales are weak. Amazon Kindles are only selling well during the holidays. Samsung tablet sales may be mainly due to these being offered cheaply or as a gift together with a purchase of a Samsung smartphone.
  4. A lot of the cheap tablets aren’t being used. Even usage statistics for the “branded” tablets from Samsung are disproportionately low.

Compare the situation with what we would normally expect from a “low-end disruption”;

  1. “Low-end disruption” succeeds when the pre-existing product is too powerful, and a less powerful product would satisfy most customers’ needs. The “low-end” product enables those who would otherwise have been non-consumers to make a purchase, thereby increasing the addressable market. These non-consumers would be satisfied with their purchase because the alternative would be no purchase at all. Since tablets are selling to existing PC owners, and they seem to regret their purchase, this does not seem to be the case. (iPad users seem to be satisfied with their purchase, so iPads actually qualify in this aspect.)
  2. “Low-end disruption” products should be cheaper than pre-existing products. However, low prices should be attained by virtue of the product being simpler to produce and support. They should not be cheap because the vendor is willing to reduce margins, or to lose money. That is not a “low-end disruption” but instead it simply is a price war; a vain attempt to gain market-share in a strategic market. (iPads have a reasonable margin, so they uniquely qualify here again.)
  3. “Low-end disruption” products subsequently improve in quality, performance and features so that they can more fully replace the pre-existing product. If innovation is simply being used to lower prices rather than improve capabilities, then the disruption will not work its way up the ladder.

I see the current situation more resembling a “new market disruption”. In a “new market disruption”, the new product fits a market that is not being served by pre-existing products. Ben Bajarin’s report in combination with other reports I have seen, seem to indicate the following market.

  1. The market for kids’ computers.
  2. The market for portable video players, which importantly are capable of playing pirated content.
  3. The market for computers that you want to use on the sofa or in bed or standing up.

You may well ask, “well what’s the difference between a low-end disruption and a new-market disruption”. My answer is that if tablets are a “low-end disruption” of PCs, then we can predict that the market (counted in units) will be larger than that of current PCs. On the other hand, if it is a “new-market disruption”, then we can’t accurately predict the size of the market. It may be much smaller.

Let’s take a look at the adoption curve of tablets to see if it the growth trajectory can give us a clue about the potential market size. We’ll first look at web usage statistics from StatCounter.

StatCounter comparison US quarterly 20121 20141

In my eyes, the growth trajectory of tablet Internet usage is extremely gradual. This is also mirrored in other statistics. Horace Dediu of Asymco attributes the slowing tablet growth to the lack of new iPad introductions. I am however unconvinced. I think there is a strong possibility that the addressable market of the current tablets is actually quite small.

Just to clarify, when we are talking about tablet sales, we have to be careful to exclude the tablets that are being sold and used as portable video players. Most of the unbranded Android tablets that are unactivated are likely to be in this category. It is also likely that a significant portion of branded Android tablets are included, although it is difficult to determine how many. For example, Panasonic, a huge Japanese consumer electronics company is selling a “Home Smartphone VS-HSP200S” which is actually a 7-inch tablet-ish device running Android 2.3 and which is WiFi only but connects to Google Play. It is mainly marketed as a Skype and electronic Fax machine as is evident from the product name. Also Toshiba in Japan is selling their tablets under the REGZA brand (their TV brand), not their Dynabook (laptop) brand.

So what I sense is the possibility that tablets (as computing devices) may have hit a roadblock in adoption, and this is due to the potential market being actually much smaller than envisioned. Much smaller than the PC market.

If this is the case, then what should be done about it? Or even, is it worth trying? Are we trying to artificially enlarge a market that is actually rather small?

These are questions that may be answered in the next iteration of iPads from Apple. Remember that “low-end disruptions” are at first not very capable, but they eventually move up-market through innovations that enable them to compete with high-end products but retain their simplicity. I strongly doubt that huge tablets or 2-in-1s qualify as this kind of innovation. Apple (and most likely only Apple) may have the answer in one of its labs.

Good is the enemy of Great for the iPad

While probably not the first person to say it, Jonathan Ive has been quoted as saying “Good is the enemy of great”, and this is likely one of the mantras at Apple. Apple has often resisted the urge to create “good” products, and waited until they could release a “great” product.

In my view, this is probably how Apple is tackling issues with the iPad right now.

Some examples of Apple not releasing “good” products;

  1. Apple did not release a two-button mouse. They waited until they came up with the idea to use sensors on the surface of the mouse, which would ultimately result in multi-touch mice. Hence the transition from a one-button mouse to the “mighty mouse” and then the “magic mouse”. What Apple did was to forgo the “good” solution (two-button) and wait for the “great” one.
  2. From the original Mac Pro (2006) to the newly released cylindrical 2nd generation Mac Pro (2013), Apple waited a full 7 years. No doubt they could have made “good” minor changes in the design somewhere in the middle. However, they focused on the “great”.
  3. Apple did not include copy-and-paste on the original iPhone. Apple waited until iPhone OS 3.0 for that. They were waiting to make their implementation “great”. Android rushed, as always, and their implementation was only “good”.
  4. Apple did not allow multi-tasking on the original iPhone. In fact, multitasking was only allowed starting on iOS 4.0. The reasons are straightforward; Apple was waiting until iOS could multitask without draining battery-life. They were forgoing the “good” solution until they had a “great” one.

Given Apple’s history of resisting “good” solutions, it is unlikely we will be seeing the suggested evolutionary changes that are being discussed on the web. In that article, they mention a slotted clipboard among other suggestions.

In the link above, former Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée states his view why Apple won’t create a “Hybrid” tablet. His reason is simply because the iPad and the MacBook have high customer satisfaction, so there is no reason to ruin it. He also relies on the hindsight that Microsoft’s Surface was a flop.

That kind of reasoning is what makes me happy that Jean-Louis Gassée is not at Apple anymore. There is very little logic to his statements and no underlying understanding of what is making Apple successful.

If you consider that Apple is not about making “good” products but making “great” products, then the logic flows naturally.

Jean-Louis Gassée makes the statement;

Still, preparing a mixed media document, even a moderately complex one, irresistibly throws most users back to a conventional PC or laptop. With multiple windows and folders, the Mac lets us accumulate text, web pages, spreadsheets and graphics to be distilled, cut and pasted into the intended document.

and suggests the slotted clipboard as a possible solution.

This is the wrong approach. What he is discussing is how can we make it possible to do on iPads what we were doing on PCs. He is trying to find a way to bring iPads closer to PCs. This is the “good” approach.

The “great” approach would be to find a way to make creating mixed media documents easier on an iPad than it is on a Mac. Maybe not easier for people who have been downloading and storing files in folders for 20 years, but for those who have found that overwhelming and complicated.

In fact, Apple has been doing just this for photos and videos. Consider how you would attach a photo to a Twitter post on a Mac. You would drag-and-drop the file. Compare that to how you do it on iOS. In iOS, you click a “photo” button inside the Twitter app, and you are presented with your photo library. Simply chose the photo you want, and it will be inserted in your tweet. No need for a clipboard of any kind.

Apple hasn’t done anything similar yet for other kinds of content like text snippets. It is more likely however, that they will pursue this path rather than a slotted clipboard approach. Why? Because it is simpler.

In summary, trying to get iPad to do what Macs are currently capable of is only the “good” approach. Given Apple’s track record, this is not the path they will take. Apple is most likely taking its time to come up with a “great” solution. A “great” solution that will make the same task much easier on an iPad than on a Mac.

Androidがローエンドマシンに向かない話の振り返り

今日、久々に第4世代iPod Touchを触りながら、9ヶ月前に書いた「Androidがあまりにも高いスペックが必要で、ローエンドマシンに向かないという話
」 を振り返って見ました。

第4世代iPod TouchはCPUが800MHzシングルコアのA4で、RAMは256MB、ディスプレイは3.5インチのretinaです。2010年9月発売ですが、これでiOS 6を動かすと結構快適なのです。

ドコモ P-01D CPU Snapdragon シングルコア1GHz、512MB RAM、Android2.3と同程度の快適さでした。ただしAndroidは使っているうちにどんどん遅くなってしまうので、テスト前にハードリセットをした場合との比較です。

何よりも、retinaディスプレイがRAM 256MBで快適に動いているのが凄いと思います。

第4世代iPod TouchはiPhone4と同世代でRAMが半分だという以外は同じですが、そのiPhone4で最新のiOS7が快適に動くとも言われています。

ハードが低スペックでもソフトウェア次第でまだまだ使えると改めて感じました。

ところで9ヶ月前に書いたブログではTizenもしくはFirefox OSが途上国で売れるようになることを想像していました。時期としては2014年を想定していました。しかしどうやらすでに2013年の間に、Windows Phone 8のNokia Lumia 520がそのシナリオに従って成功し始めているようです。

そのLumia 520はスペックがiPhone 4レベルでAndroid 4.0に必要なRAMすらありません(512 MBのみ)。Firefox OSが狙っているのと同程度のローエンドです。

予想したよりも時期が早かったので役者の予想も外しましたが、Androidがローエンドから食われるという予想自体は当たっていたかもしれません。

Chromebookが登場した背景を振り返る

Chromebookの話題を続けたので（1, 2, 3, 4)、いったんChromebookの歴史を振り返ってみたいと思います。情報のソースはWikipediaの記事。これに当時の状況を追加して考えてみたいと思います。

Chrome OSが開発されたのは、まだiPadが登場していなかった頃

Chrome OSが発表されたのは2009年の7月です。このときはまだNetbookが全盛でした。iPadが発表されたのは2010年の1月27日ですから、世の中はまだtabletが世界を席巻するとは全く想像していませんでした。

GoogleのSundar Pichia氏はこう書いています。

Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks.

つまりChrome OSは「もっと良いNetbook」を作るのが目的でした。発表文を見る限り将来的にはデスクトップPCにも広げていこうという意図はあったようですが、当面はNetbookにチャンスがあると考えたようです。

さらにSundar氏は

Google Chrome OS is being created for people who spend most of their time on the web…

と続けます。

しかしすべてはiPadの登場で変わります。

iPadの登場を景気にNetbookカテゴリーが一気に衰退したばかりではなく、フォーカスはウェブからアプリにシフトします。Chrome OSが前提としていたNetbook、そしてウェブを中心としたパソコン利用が同時に崩れたのです。

Chromebookの登場

Chromebookが最初に登場したのは2011年の6月15日です。AcerとSamsungが発売しました。SamsungのモデルはSamsung Series 5 (WiFiのみのモデルで$350USD)、AcerのモデルはAC700 (WiFiのみのモデルで$300USD)でした。なお当初の価格はもうちょっと高く、この価格は半年ぐらいして値下げした後のものです。

登場からすでに1年半が経っています。もう少し売れていたり、ウェブで使用されたり、話題になっていたりしても良さそうです。

個人的には、Chromebookはかなり不幸なタイミングで登場したように感じます。ちょうど前提にしていた市場環境が崩れてしまったときに登場しているのですから。

特定用途のパーソナルコンピュータ

このブログでも取り上げていますが、先日NPDが“U.S. commercial channels”の売り上げデータを発表しました。ネット上で話題になったのは、このデータで見る限りChromebookがよく売れているというデータでした。それに対して、私は「Chromebookが売れているという記事があるので、それを検証する」というポストの中でNPDのデータの問題点を取り上げ、以下のようにまとめました；

“U.S. commercial channels”でChromebookが売れるようになったといっても、全体としてChromebookが売れているわけではなさそうだし、どうして“U.S. commercial channels”だけが強いのかがまだわかりません。

Twitterで業界アナリストのBen Bajarin氏に尋ねてみると、以下のように教えてくれました。

スクリーンショット 2013 12 30 12 13 50

さらに有料購読しないと読めないのですが、Ben Bajarin氏は“Understanding the Market for Chromebooks”という記事も書いてくれ、解説してくれました。この記事のポイントをまとめます。

  1. Chromebookの大半は教育市場に向けて販売されています。
  2. 教育市場ではそれなりに多くのChromebookが導入されています。
  3. U.S.の教育市場ではウェブベースのプログラムが多く使用されています。
  4. 使い方としてはChromebookはオンライン教育ソフトウェア専用ポータルになっています。
  5. 「教科書」と同じような使い方になっています。
  6. Chromebookは“specific purpose device”（特定用途デバイス）として使われています。

Ben Bajarin氏のこの情報を考慮すると、NPDデータの謎が解けます。

  1. “U.S. commercial channels”というのはおそらくは日本でいう大塚商会などのように、ハードウェアとソフトウェアとセットアップと管理などをすべてまとめて納入するValue Added Reseller（付加価値再販業者）を指します。教育市場に製品を納入する業者もおそらくこれが多いのでしょう。またNPDはAmazonやDELL直販、Apple直販などのデータは収集していません。したがって今回のNPDのデータがパソコン市場全体を反映しないのは当然のことです。
  2. Chrome OSがウェブ使用統計に出てこないという謎は私もブログで取り上げています。2013年11月現在のデータを見ても、Chrome OSの使用は極めて少ないものにとどまっています。そこで「いったいChromebookは何に使われているんだ？」という疑問が湧きます。Ben Bajarin氏の情報から考えると、Chromebookは学校専用ですので、学校で使うサイト以外を閲覧するのには使われていないと考えられます。ウェブ使用統計を集計しているStatCounterは、学校で使うサイトの統計は収集できていないのかもしれません。もしそうであれば、Chrome OSがウェブ使用統計で極めて少ない謎が解けます。
  3. まだ解けていない謎は残っています。AmazonのランキングでChromebookが上位に出ている点です。教育市場に大量に納入されるChromebookがAmazonから購入されているとは考えにくいです。またAmazon購入者は一般的な用途にChromebookを使うでしょうから、もっとウェブ使用統計に反映されると期待されますが、実際にはそうなっていません。この謎はまだ解けていませんが、予想としてはAmazonのランキングが市場全体を反映していないのだろうと思います。

特定用途のパーソナルコンピュータ

Ben Bajarin氏の情報の中で凄く面白いと思ったのは「特定用途のパーソナルコンピュータ」です。

家で使用するパソコン、あるいは仕事で使うパソコンを想像するとき、パソコンというのは多用途のデバイスです。メールを書いたり、インターネットをしたり、エクセルファイルで集計をしたり、ワードで文章を書いたり、パワーポイントでプレゼンテーションを書いたり、ゲームをしたりと、パソコンは非常に多様とのデバイスです。

しかし近所の薬局やレストランに行くと、タイムカード専用や売り上げ集計専用のパソコンがレジの横に置いてあったりします。このパソコンはもちろんゲームに使われませんし、プレゼンを書くのにも使用されません。インターネットに接続するにしても、イントラネットや仕事で使うSaaSに接続するだけでしょう。単一用途ではないにせよ、極めて限定的な用途で使われているパソコンです。ただしこれらのパソコンは今までは店舗に1, 2台あるだけで、数はそれほど多くありませんでした。

米国の教育現場では、生徒全員に1台のパソコンを支給するという流れがあります。これは非常に高価なプロジェクトですので、近年パソコンの値段が下がったことで初めて現実的になったものです。これも限定的な用途で使われるパソコンです。

近年Androidのタブレットの躍進が著しいのですが、大半のAndroidタブレットはビデオ専用に使われているという話があります。これもまた限定的な用途で使われているパソコンと言えます。

我が家にはiPadが2台あります。ほぼ子供専用です。ウェブサイトを見たり、メールを書いたりするのにはほとんど使用しません。これも特定用途のパソコンです。

どうやら「特定用途のパーソナルコンピュータ」が急速に増えている感じです。理由は価格が下がったこと、それから場所を取らないからでしょう。そしてパソコンの売り上げ統計だとかマーケットシェア分析の時には「特定用途」のものと「多用途」のものがすべてまとめて集計されてしまいますので、訳がわからなくなります。業界のトレンドが正確に読めなくなってるのです。

Androidのウィジェットの役割について考えてみる

ずっと知らなかったのですが、HTCがHTC Senseをデザインする際に行った調査の概要がHTC Blogに掲載されています。

  • Most people don’t differentiate between apps and widgets.
  • Widgets aren’t widely used – weather, clock and music are the most used and after that, fewer than 10% of customers use any other widgets.
  • Most of you don’t modify your home screens much. In fact, after the first month of use, approximately 80% of you don’t change your home screens any more.

要するにAndroidユーザのほとんどはWidgetを使わないそうです。使うとしても天気と時計と音楽で使うだけだそうです。

さて、それで手元のGoogle Nexus 7 (Android 4.4.2 KitKat)を初期化してホーム画面を確認すると、以下のようになっていました。

Screenshot 2013 12 24 09 49 45

ホーム画面は5枚あるのですが、上記の画面の右隣だけが何か入っていて、入っていたのは以下の写真です。

Screenshot 2013 12 24 09 49 54

どれもGoogle Play （アプリや書籍、音楽、ビデオを購入するためのGoogleのサービス）のWidgetです。

AndroidのWidgetはだれのため？

顧客サイドからいえばWidgetはほとんど必要ありません。でもAndroidのホーム画面はWidgetを表示するのが役割です。それでどうするか？

  1. HTCはBlinkFeedをトップ画面にして、Widgetの設定をしていなくても強制的にニュースやSNSアップデートの情報をトップ画面に表示しています。顧客サイドでは必要を感じていないものをトップに持ってきているので、Widgetの押し売りと言っても良いでしょう。
  2. Googleが押し売りしているのはGoogle Playに関するWidgetです。何だろうと思ってクリックするとGoogle Playに誘導されて、ビデオや書籍を薦められます。
  3. 手持ちのAU Galaxy SII WiMAX (Android 4.0.4)の場合は時間と天気のWidgetがトップページに表示されます。それ以外にはAUサービスのWidgetやSamsung関連のWidgetが並びます。

こうしてみるとAndroidのWidgetは結果的にユーザのための機能ではなく、メーカー（OEM）、そしてキャリアのための機能であったことが悲しいほどに鮮明に見えます。Google自身でさえ、ユーザのためにトップ画面を使っているのではなく、Google Playのプロモーションに使っているわけですから。

Chromebookは何台売れているのか？

Chromebookが何台売れているのかについて、Googleは一切公開していません。

そんな中で、結構売れているのではないかという憶測があります。例えばGoogleの副社長のCaesar Senguptaは米国の教育地区の22%がChromebookを使っていると語っていますし、Amazonのランキングで上位に入っている)という話もあります。

一方でChromebookの販売台数に関する情報はごくわずかなのですが、芳しくありません。

例えばNPDの調査 (2013年6月30日 – 9月7日)によると

Chromebooks, which didn’t exist in 2012, added almost 175,000 units to the market this year and provided all the growth in the challenged notebook market; entry-level Windows notebooks (under $300) increased 14 percent, and Windows touch notebooks accounted for 25 percent of Windows notebook sales.

NPDはさらに表を使って、Chromebookのインパクトを示しています。

スクリーンショット 2013 12 18 5 57 17

また以下の数字と比較することもできます。

  1. Appleは2012年1年間で18,158,000台のMacを売り上げました。(Macworldより)
  2. 2012年の第4四半期で、世界のPCの出荷台数は 90,300,000台。米国だけで 17,505,607台。(Gartnerより)

このことから言えるのは

  1. Chromebookは一定の数は売れているようですが、Windowsを脅かすレベルではありません。
  2. Amazonのランキングから想像するとChromebookはもっと売れているように思ってしまいますが、そうではなさそうです。全く売れていないというわけではないのですが、それほどは売れていません。

もう一つ面白い統計は、Chromebook 11がリコールされたことで明るみに出た数字です。HPとGoogleはChromebook 11を2013年の10月から販売し、11月には製品不良のために出荷停止しました。そしてリコール対象の台数は145,000台だそうです。単純に比較はできませんが、NPDのデータの同程度の台数であり、それを裏付けるものと考えても良いと思います。