|
thedeadhaji
39485 Posts
Last year, Sony introduced an uninspiring piece of hardware to the world: The Sony Tablet. Understandably, consumers were not impressed. The hardware was expensive, it was late to the show, and its vanilla offerings were undifferentiated from the competition. Consumers were not impressed, and they showed it with their wallets. But it didn't have to be this way. Sony, perhaps more than any other company in the world, was equipped to take on Apple in this space had they striven for greatness. Sony was uniquely positioned to face the new era of consumer electronics: the fusion of media and devices. While we rightfully see Sony as a hardware company first and foremost, it is also a company whose profits are now primarily derived from their media units: games, movies, music, and the like. Sony Pictures, Sony Music, and Sony Computer Entertainment are the reasons why the company as a whole is able to survive. The only other company with the combination of hardware and media needed to stand up to Apple was of course Amazon, who had engaged in the media arms race head-on and acquired Lab 126 in order to create its hardware. Take a step back and consider this: a tablet that is able to purchase and play Playstation games, Sony Pictures' movies, and Sony Music's songs. In addition, had it worked with the Japanese publishing houses that were fearing the threat of Amazon's kindle for their lives, the hypothetical Sony Tablet could have been the first legitimate ebook platform for Japan, a country mired in an unending love affair with books [1]. It could have set up global translation and digital distribution of Japan's notoriously slow-moving media that are pirated all over the world: manga, anime, and the like. It would have been a product unlike any other; one that would stand had above shoulders amongst its peers, looking up only at Apple. Though I claim that had Sony acted with great gusto, they could have stood up to the threat from the West, it would have taken a strategic decision of mammoth proportions. It would cannibalize multiple business units and would have required inter-industry negotiations of almost unprecedented levels. Heads of these divisions would have certainly fought to the death to prevent the erosion of their businesses, to the detriment of perhaps the company as a whole [2]. Japanese publishers, famous for their tortoise-like speed, are shackled by players up and down the supply chain who would balk at such radical changes [3]. Who knows? maybe this conversation did happen inside Sony, only to be quashed by the never-ending squabbling and resistance from its media chiefs. Amazon themselves made the decision to cannibalize their cushy physical goods sales model in order to better prepare for the future. But in this age of hyper-competition, if you don't iterate upon your own market, then someone else will. Recall that even Apple cannibalized its own original iPod with a succession of new models, then drove its own market sector into extinction with the iPhone. Sony is the company that famously could not seize upon the opportunity of the MP3 player, afraid that it would hurt its MD and CD Player businesses. To destroy your own core business in favor of the future is to think long term. Long term is a theme we're all familiar with, particularly in the wake of the Financial Crisis of 2008-2010. But how many companies are actually able to think long term? It wouldn't be a stretch to say that in order to stand up to the pressure of institutional share holders, a company needs its founder(s) to be leading the company. When we think of companies that are making sacrifices today to plan for ten, twenty years down the road, which names come to mind? For me, the names coincide with the most prominent names in tech today: Google (Page and Brin), Apple (Jobs), and Amazon (Bezos) [4]. They are companies that are lead, if not in body then by a domineering and ever-present spirit, of its founder(s) [5]. As they say, once a ___, always a ___. Once a hardware company, perhaps Sony is destined to stay a hardware company, without the guiding light of its legendary founder. In the distant past, Sony was a company that was held in awe by the world for its outlandish risk taking. Its successes and failures are legendary. But as with so many innovative companies, the loss of its founders was also the loss of its inspiration. Will Sony ever rise from the ashes, born again like the rising sun? Unlikely.
[1] The price of inaction for these publishers, knowing for years that the earth-shattering moment of ebooks would eventually arrive in their isolated land, is Amazon's take no prisoners pricing scheme that will suck their bones try. They could have negotiated a much sweeter deal with Sony, if they could have decided to sacrifice a leg in order to save their bodies. Alas, it did not happen. [2] Sales figures at SCE, Sony Music, and Sony Pictures would have certainly fallen had they combined forces to create such a media tablet solution. But if they resist change that consumers demand, then someone else will surely offer what the customers desire. [3] Only in 2012 has Kindle finally made inroads in said country. [4] Facebook is so new that they haven't had to make such critical choices yet (though the exception might be mobile), and Microsoft has so far been slow to adapt. [5] Investors have criticized Amazon for its razor thin margins and its heavy spending on products such as the Kindle Fire, which for now, are creating losses for the company. Investors similarly fired at Apple for not rewarding shareholders (i.e. themselves) by using its cash horde for share buybacks or dividends -- a practice that was resisted until this year, until after Jobs' death. Google was criticized for its large investment in research with seemingly no practical business application, and eventually shut down its Google Labs operations. While the results are not in, perhaps we are seeing the first signs of Apple and Google looking at now rather than the future.
Crossposted from my main blog
![2.50 stars based on 8 ratings *](/images/blogs/blackstar.gif) ![2.50 stars based on 8 ratings *](/images/blogs/blackstar.gif) ![2.50 stars based on 8 ratings](/images/blogs/halfstar.gif) ![2.50 stars based on 8 ratings](/images/blogs/graystarSmall.gif)
|
In my opinion, Sony may not even exist in 5 years (or maybe a shell of itself). Who buys Sony products these days? There is a much better alternative in everything they do, with the exception of gaming, but the pure gaming industry itself is shrinking due to competition from smartphones. It's a shame that such an innovative company is going down this road, but I suppose it's no different from other great giants.
|
Everywhere I hear that people like Steve Jobs are critical to their companies. But I just can't believe that a global multimedia company would depend on the creativity and the genius of one man. Is this actually the case?
|
On April 25 2012 02:15 surfinbird1 wrote: Everywhere I hear that people like Steve Jobs are critical to their companies. But I just can't believe that a global multimedia company would depend on the creativity and the genius of one man. Is this actually the case?
He pretty much single-handedly created/made popular some of the most important markets today: digital media stores, smartphones, tablets, 3d animation, app stores, cloud computing. No one else really comes close.
|
konadora
Singapore66060 Posts
I, for one, am really sad that Sony's turning out like this :/ its annual losses mount to billions, and it's just a shadow of its former glorious self. I actually considered working in Sony as an intern, but lately I've been rethinking that :/
|
On April 25 2012 01:53 kakaman wrote: In my opinion, Sony may not even exist in 5 years (or maybe a shell of itself). Who buys Sony products these days? There is a much better alternative in everything they do, with the exception of gaming, but the pure gaming industry itself is shrinking due to competition from smartphones. It's a shame that such an innovative company is going down this road, but I suppose it's no different from other great giants. I wont bet any money on that. Sony may still comeback, just look at Apple, can you look at Apple in the mid and late 90' of the last century and imagine what they are today?
Sony was stubbon in the early 2000', and they are now paying heavily for it. In fact the whole Japanese electronics companies are stubbon, for example, while mp3 player was the new kid on the block. Japanese companies still stick their face to MD up until 2006 or so.
I've read the "Made in Japan" book, and I admire Sony and its founder so much that I want them to comeback and be innovative one again.
|
|
On April 25 2012 02:49 Caphe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 01:53 kakaman wrote: In my opinion, Sony may not even exist in 5 years (or maybe a shell of itself). Who buys Sony products these days? There is a much better alternative in everything they do, with the exception of gaming, but the pure gaming industry itself is shrinking due to competition from smartphones. It's a shame that such an innovative company is going down this road, but I suppose it's no different from other great giants. I wont bet any money on that. Sony may still comeback, just look at Apple, can you look at Apple in the mid and late 90' of the last century and imagine what they are today? Sony was stubbon in the early 2000', and they are now paying heavily for it. In fact the whole Japanese electronics companies are stubbon, for example, while mp3 player was the new kid on the block. Japanese companies still stick their face to MD up until 2006 or so. I've read the "Made in Japan" book, and I admire Sony and its founder so much that I want them to comeback and be innovative one again.
Difference is, Apple had the catalyst (Steve Jobs) that could change the culture of the company overnight because, hey, he built it. Sony is a large conglomerate with no individual having true ownership of the company. Also, Japanese companies are notorious of slow acting, needing to build consensus. I honestly can't see Sony bouncing back, but I surely hope so.
|
is awesome32256 Posts
On April 25 2012 02:21 kakaman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 02:15 surfinbird1 wrote: Everywhere I hear that people like Steve Jobs are critical to their companies. But I just can't believe that a global multimedia company would depend on the creativity and the genius of one man. Is this actually the case? He pretty much single-handedly created/made popular some of the most important markets today: digital media stores, smartphones, tablets, 3d animation, app stores, cloud computing. No one else really comes close.
single-handedly? lol, I think that's stretching it a big too much.
|
From what I gather from your post it seems sony's organizational structure, which I am sure was effective on being efficient a few years/decades ago is backfiring. What they need is to exploit the core capabilities of the corporation and from there you make product divisions, allocate resources and build up. It seems as of now Sony operates as a bunch of divisions that clog up all resources and without proper conection between them.
Are they aware of that? You bet. Can they change that in time?
PD: I'm speculating here and assuming everything you posted is true.
|
On April 25 2012 03:02 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 02:21 kakaman wrote:On April 25 2012 02:15 surfinbird1 wrote: Everywhere I hear that people like Steve Jobs are critical to their companies. But I just can't believe that a global multimedia company would depend on the creativity and the genius of one man. Is this actually the case? He pretty much single-handedly created/made popular some of the most important markets today: digital media stores, smartphones, tablets, 3d animation, app stores, cloud computing. No one else really comes close. single-handedly? lol, I think that's stretching it a big too much.
Not really, none of those segments were important in anyone's lives until Apple got into the mix. Jobs was able to monetize industries where others tried and failed.
|
Microsoft doesn't have Gates anymore. And yes, many of these founders are essential to their companies. They are the people with the vision, the people willing to take risks to create or move into new markets. Once a company stops making new products and just keeps milking their cash cows, it becomes a dying company, even if it takes years or even decades before it actually dies.
Even in gaming, Sony is struggling. Japanese developers in general are struggling because they were very late in developing the necessary expertise to create games utilizing this generation's graphics. Outside of Nintendo, many aren't even good at the quirky, indie-like games that are able to succeed without having cutting edge graphics.
The rest of the Japanese electronics industry are struggling as well. Apple and other Western companies are kicking their ass in the high end, Chinese and Taiwanese companies are kicking their ass in the low end and Samsung and LG are doing so everywhere.
|
On April 25 2012 02:15 surfinbird1 wrote: Everywhere I hear that people like Steve Jobs are critical to their companies. But I just can't believe that a global multimedia company would depend on the creativity and the genius of one man. Is this actually the case? Yes. You need a visionary for any company to be successful.
Steve Jobs specifically is an exception to the typical visionary. He is our modern genius, our times Einstein. Some people think really, what did he do. But he created tools to advance and push forward our race. And he designed these tools so you could use them intuitively.
But a visionary is still crucial 100%. And this is why Sony has failed since the PS2. Their management is very poor and dinosaur. Their products are still medieval and bulky. They are black and shiny, where as today people want white and pure. The industrial age is over, and Sony's designers remain there.
If you look at a successful company like Facebook or Apple or Google, you can see the management style is up to date, and leading edge. Employees mingle in open areas, free to do as they please, and work in a less stressful environment. These companies also bring A players together with A players. B players are fired, or moved to less important projects. It's also extremely important that your teams are able to communicate efficiently between one another, or else you lose money fast, because you aren't following the golden rule; always ship.
Lastly, and most importantly, great companies aren't afraid to cannibalize themselves. The most obvious example would be Apple: iPod, then designing iPhone which would consume most of the iPod market, then designing the iPad which consumes a large part of the iPhone market. So why is it important? Because if you don't eat yourself, someone else will.
Which brings me back to my initial point, that the success of these companies, does usually rely on one, or very few great people. To take leadership and to be able to risk everything, pretty much daily. Had Steve Jobs not risked consuming his iPod sales and placed a bet on the people buying the iPhone instead, perhaps the Android would be a lot bigger than it is now and Apple would have died off, which is what almost happened in the 90s when Apple didn't have a visionary running the company. In fact, even to further set my point in stone, when Steve left Apple in the 80s, even as a young little wisdom kid, from then on Apple started tanking.
The fact that certain individuals have such great influence on the world is so interesting to me. The idea tells you that pretty much anyone can run the world, just have ambition and believe in what you're doing.
|
This blog post was really interesting to me, keep em coming! It's funny how growing up people used to talk about sony having the best stuff and everything. But I noticed what you have noticed, as of late, who really buys sony anything?
|
is awesome32256 Posts
On April 25 2012 03:21 kakaman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 03:02 IntoTheWow wrote:On April 25 2012 02:21 kakaman wrote:On April 25 2012 02:15 surfinbird1 wrote: Everywhere I hear that people like Steve Jobs are critical to their companies. But I just can't believe that a global multimedia company would depend on the creativity and the genius of one man. Is this actually the case? He pretty much single-handedly created/made popular some of the most important markets today: digital media stores, smartphones, tablets, 3d animation, app stores, cloud computing. No one else really comes close. single-handedly? lol, I think that's stretching it a big too much. Not really, none of those segments were important in anyone's lives until Apple got into the mix. Jobs was able to monetize industries where others tried and failed.
That's for another debate. All I'm saying the term single-handedly is a bit ridiculous when you have other people in the picture, such a Wozniak, Atkinson, Catmull, etc etc arounds jobs, not counting pioneers in each industry, such as the Xerox Graphical Team, the MP3 players pioneers.
And smartphones didn't came to be with jobs. Also Jobs was against Apps developed by others than Apple at the start, so I wouldn't list the App Stores as one of his achievements, nor 3D animation.
|
United States4991 Posts
Steve Jobs was a really smart man, but he had a lot of other smart people working for him at Apple (and Pixar). Part of his (and any other such genius) skill was not only in his own personal work, but in identifying and cultivating others who can do well.
As the head of the company too, he also ends up with a lot of credit for things that were in large parts the work of subordinates. It's how the relationship with bosses work - the boss ends up with a lot of the credit for the work, and in turn he rewards the subordinate for helping him look good. Jony Ive for example did a ton of the design work at Apple, but how much do you see his name in the news?
Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs is a really good read for those interested in him and his life. It's a pretty balanced picture of him, showing him to be a deeply flawed man who was nonetheless very intelligent and capable.
|
dont die sony, i love playstations D:
I've owned ps1, 2 and 3 :/
|
On April 25 2012 03:02 IntoTheWow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 02:21 kakaman wrote:On April 25 2012 02:15 surfinbird1 wrote: Everywhere I hear that people like Steve Jobs are critical to their companies. But I just can't believe that a global multimedia company would depend on the creativity and the genius of one man. Is this actually the case? He pretty much single-handedly created/made popular some of the most important markets today: digital media stores, smartphones, tablets, 3d animation, app stores, cloud computing. No one else really comes close. single-handedly? lol, I think that's stretching it a big too much. uhh certainly not single handedly, plus people make him out to be some saint genius or some bullshit..
|
One of my design professor used to always repeat the mantra, "Innovate or die," and it's especially true given how much product life cycles have sped up in the technology sphere. Rather than yearly releases, we have one-to-two-week sprints or even daily builds. Disruptions to the industry can come out of nowhere, and companies have to always be thinking, "Where do we go next?"
I really think much of the success of Sony and other Japanese companies has been overly attributed to the quality of their designs. What really brought Japanese companies such great success in the 1980s were huge improvements in operational efficiency (which I think I touched upon in a previous post). Six Sigma, Lean manufacturing, the Toyota Production System -- these advances made it possible to simultaneously improve quality and cost savings, giving Japanese companies a dual competitive advantage over rivals. However, once other companies began to adopt lean manufacturing practices, the Japanese edge shrank -- that's because operational effectiveness, while now necessary, is not sufficient for success. While they had gained a temporary edge, they were not able to leverage strategic positioning to create sustained competitive advantage.
Part of this is because of the generally risk-averse corporate culture. However, once a ____, always a ____ doesn't always hold. In South Korea, government and businesses realized the importance of strategic differentiation, and made large investments in technology infrastructure and design education in Korea. As a result, Korean companies like LG, Samsung, and Hyundai have been able to shape consumer perceptions, growing past the "low-cost competitor" to start offering value-added, differentiated products.
Often, it seems that this sort of culture change doesn't happen until a crisis occurs (e.g. Apple -- probably the most famous turnaround of a company -- and Microsoft, with the reemergence of Apple). When changing corporate culture, the plan needs to have buy-in from all levels of the company or it will likely fail. That's the role of leadership -- to establish the company's vision and align all its members with the vision. It's hard to say if Sony's leadership will be able to react in time to prevent its demise -- but then again, that's what differentiates the good leaders from the great.
|
After their rootkit scandal, DRM scandal, and PS3 scandals - first removing a promised feature after user purchase (OtherOS), and then letting their network get hacked and leaking millions of accounts - I can only hope that Sony dies a horrible, dreadful, death. They have shown nothing but contempt for their users; hopefully "lol capitalism" will work and they will pay for their mistakes.
|
|
|
|