Eric Schmidt posts a cheeky 'Christmas present' to Apple iPhone customers

Summary: In his personal blog, Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt writes up an exacting step-by-step method to switch from an iPhone to Android. He writes that one of the latest Android phones would make "a great Christmas present to an iPhone user!" Am I the only one to wonder how strange this post is?

Certainly, most everyone might agree that Eric Schmidt isn't just anyone, whether they are at Google headquarters, working in the technology world, or even as my grandmother of blessed memory might have said, "walking on the street." He's a "big" guy in by any measure of status in our society.

So, it feels a bit odd to read a how-to blog post for iPhone switchers from him.

Many of my iPhone friends are converting to Android. The latest high-end phones from Samsung (Galaxy S4), Motorola (Verizon Droid Ultra) and the Nexus 5 (for AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile) have better screens, are faster, and have a much more intuitive interface. They are a great Christmas present to an iPhone user!

Here are the steps I recommend to make this switch. Like the people who moved from PCs to Macs and never switched back, you will switch from iPhone to Android and never switch back as everything will be in the cloud, backed up, and there are so many choices for you. 80 percent of the world, in the latest surveys, agrees on Android.

What is up with this post? Is there some concern by Schmidt that Apple users might not trust an ordinary Google marketing manager or engineer to write up this procedure? Or perhaps this task was too much for the Google marketing communications department, which could have "placed" a piece of "advertorial" on some blog that potential customers might find with a search engine such as, say, Google?

But those sources might not generate enough trust for Apple users. Hey, if you can trust anything in the Android world, you've gotta be able to trust Eric Schmidt, right? Not the ordinary Chairman but the Executive Chairman. (Could this is one of his new duties?)

What has always pushed my buttons (and according to reports that of Steve Jobs) was that Schmidt was a member of Apple’s board from 2006 to 2009. And during that very same time, Google began to compete with Apple. And obviously, Schmidt knew about the potential and actual conflicts of interest. And he didn't remove himself from the board, which would have signaled the company's intentions to the market.

I've have seen this history written along the lines that the "two companies began to compete with each other," which is true but nonsense. The more honest reading is that it was Google that moved into Apple's mobile, OS, system, and application space.

Back in 2009, I wrote a post about Schmidt's leaving the Apple Board. In my estimation, Apple was very generous to him.

“Eric has been an excellent Board member for Apple, investing his valuable time, talent, passion and wisdom to help make Apple successful,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS, Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s Board.”

Come on! Maybe he's going to spend some more time with his family too. How many announcements of competing products does it take for the Apple board to figure out that a board member isn't pulling his or her weight?

The writing for this ejection has been on the wall for years. Was it the Chrome OS? Was it a competing browser? Was it Google's cloud applications that compete against Apple's host-based and online sync services?

Where is the "passion" to make Apple successful here? (Note that I'm not talking here about the responsibilities of the board for governance here and their possible dropping the dime on Steve Jobs' absence and the lack of transparent planning for succession. Board members are also supposed to bring something of an industry perspective.)

According to reports, Schmidt says he never did anything wrong, that Steve Jobs and Apple understood his conflicts of interest when he joined the Apple Board, and that Jobs was never mad at him.

Right.

Or instead, we may see a pattern? This iPhone-2-Android switchers' guide from Schmidt is just the latest bit of chutzpah from the Google Executive Chair. His latest laugh on Apple and perhaps Steve Jobs.

Topics: Apple, Android, Apps, Google, Operating Systems, Google Apps

David Morgenstern has covered the Mac market and other technology segments for 20 years.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

This white paper will help you evaluate each mobile device platform's security features, allowing you to choose the right platform for your business.

Retailer GameStop has always consistently been at the cutting edge of customer-centric strategy. To learn how your organization can improve its dedication to consumers, download this case study today!

Is support for your OS or mail server being terminated? Then this is one Hangout you won’t want to miss. Watch now as Google experts outline strategies for coping with impending product retirements. Learn more now.

Verizon Q3: 1.1 m new customers, income of $30. 3B

(Image: CNET)

Verizon on Thursday reported fiscal third quarter earnings exceeding Wall Street expectations, adding more than 1.1 million new customers.

The United States largest by subscribers cellular network reported earnings for the second quarter of $7.1 billion. Excluding a unique advantage over pensions, earnings per share stood at 77 cents per share, on revenues of $30.28 billion, more than 20 percent in the quarter from last year.

For the third quarter, Wall Street expects Verizon to earnings of 74 cents report part and revenues of $30.16.

(Image: Verizon)

The cellular giant saw 7.6 million smartphones activated during the period of three months, with 88 per cent of all device activations being telephones. In total, 6.8 million LTE devices were activated in the network, with 64 percent of the network traffic currently in LTE.

United States wireless industry has become increasingly competitive over the last quarters, in particular with the remarkable impulse of T-Mobile to shake the industry with non-traditional plans and services. Meanwhile, Sprint wants to expand in the country for the sale of a major stake to the Japanese firm Softbank.

While these movements are not expected to Verizon in the short term, it is another concern of the company to consider in a not-too-distant future.

In September, Verizon said it will pay $130 billion for Vodafone in Verizon Wireless play, giving US full giant cellular carrier of the joint property.

In prepared statements in advance, Verizon President and Director Ejecutivo Lowell McAdam, said "coherent strategic investments" in wireless fiber, and global networks led strong financial performance of the company.

And he added:

"Having posted the earnings growth of two digits in five of the last six quarters, are focused on continuing to offer the best product portfolio in the most reliable networks;" capture of incremental growth in broadband, video and cloud services; and sustain our earnings and boost cash flow. "

BlackBerry tries to hold enterprise software, services fort; Customers wary

ORLANDO — Stephen Bates, chief of BlackBerry's enterprise software and services unit, had one tough job this week: Convince corporate customers that the company will be around and can be a leading mobile device management player.

You know the BlackBerry tale by now. The device division is a wreck after a new operating system and smartphones failed to become hits. The company announced a horrible quarter. BlackBerry looked like it was in a death spiral, but then Fairfax Financial stepped in with an offer to take it private. Fairfax set a floor in BlackBerry's market value and now rumors abound that enterprise giants are poking around at parts of the company.

 "We're going to focus on what we’re good at." —BlackBerry's Stephen Bates

This story could be about BlackBerry's last gasp. It could also be about how BlackBerry's infrastructure will live on and play a big role in the mobile ecosystem. No one quite knows at the moment how this saga will play out, but BlackBerry's enterprise rivals appear to be benefiting.

Good Technology CEO Christy Wyatt said inquiries from BlackBerry customers have surged in recent weeks. "We've seen a massive change in calls in the last two weeks about BlackBerry migrations," said Wyatt. AirWatch CEO John Marshall said his small Canadian sales team has seen leads spike since the BlackBerry woes surfaced. "Companies were willing to kick the can down the road on BlackBerry migrations, but that last earnings report scared a lot of people," said Marshall. Multiple mobile device management players such as MobileIron and dozens of others are seeing similar inquiries.The BlackBerry booth at Gartner's Symposium ITxpo.

Bates' countermove was simple: Talk to as many customers as possible. "We're going to focus on what we’re good at," said Bates. "If we get past this phase we can connect any mobile endpoint and I'm trying to organize the company to make that vision a reality."

"In the meantime, I'm getting fit for the next round," said Bates.

BlackBerry at the moment is talking mobile device management, BlackBerry Enterprise Server 10 and network infrastructure that has security in its DNA. That infrastructure has a still strong installed base and carrier partners on the enterprise side of the mobile equation. "All I can do now is talk to customers that have been using us for years," said Bates.

Also: BlackBerry execs pitch enterprise customers: 'BlackBerry is here to stay' | Consortium offers to buy BlackBerry for $4.7 billion | BlackBerry previews new cloud-based mobile enterprise solution | Gartner: BlackBerry's dead. 'Not yet,' says phone maker | BlackBerry reports $965m loss, thanks to Z10 flop

Customers are rooting for BlackBerry in many ways because they've had a long relationship with the company. However, the upgrade from BES 9 to BES 10 is substantial and inspires tech leaders to look at other options. BlackBerry's corporate woes could not have come at a worse time. BlackBerry launched a cloud version of its device management applications that Bates is optimistic about.

BlackBerry is "just waiting to put the date on the tombstone."

Our informal checks with CIOs indicate that they want to give BlackBerry a chance and some are planning to stick around to see what develops. However, these tech leaders have to plot exit strategies too. Few wanted to go on record.

TechPro Research on this topic: Mobile Device Policy | BYOD Business Strategies - Adoption Plans, Deployment Options, IT Concerns, and Cost Savings | Analyst briefing: Managing the complexity of BYOD with attribute-based access control

There are a few pessimistic customers. A vice president of IT architecture at a financial services company said BlackBerry is "just waiting to put the date on the tombstone."

BlackBerry also has to convince defectors to come back to its mobility software at some point. A CTO at a financial institution said he transitioned away from BlackBerry two years ago. At first it was difficult to convince some heavy BlackBerry users (mainly executives) who loved their physical keyboards to switch, but that reluctance didn't last long, said the CTO. In the end, the move away from BlackBerry made IT look proactive by embracing popular iOS and Android devices.

Others executives were more constructive, but actively evaluating options. "BlackBerry is too late. They had the opportunity two years ago to do this," said one exec, referring to BlackBerry's gambit to manage devices. Another exec said he's staying with BlackBerry for now and added that the company's corporate woes will be resolved.

That latter course may make some sense for a few months. BlackBerry's enterprise software business could wind up with an established vendor and do fine. Also note that we're not talking a long waiting period for BlackBerry — the financial outcome of the Fairfax deal or some other option will emerge soon. It has to. And given that CIOs are working out budgets for 2014 it's unlikely they were going to make a major mobile infrastructure bet this minute anyway.

Rumors abound that major enterprise players may be interested in BlackBerry's software and services division. Bates' pitch about BlackBerry managing all sorts of smart devices would be way better if his unit was part of Cisco or IBM.

Bates acknowledges that customers are a bit mixed. "Some are holding and going to wait and see and others are moving," said Bates. "BlackBerry will still be here and could be stronger on the way out."

One nagging question for BlackBerry is whether its move to manage devices on multiple mobile operating systems is simply a case of too little too late.

Bates noted that the mobile device management market is still in its early stages. "There are billions of enterprise devices," said Bates. He's right and the rows of mobile device management vendors at the Gartner Symposium ITXpo in Orlando show how early it is. Do we really need 100 or so MDM vendors? No way.

Gartner's MDM Magic Quadrant is a bit crowded.

Nearly every mobile device management vendor executive interviewed by ZDNet thinks consolidation will occur. Wyatt also noted that it's very early in the mobility management game.

Airwatch's Marshall said the biggest question mark with the MDM space, and a potential knock on BlackBerry, is ongoing support. "When there are layoffs, support worries follow. The support people left are also looking for jobs," said Marshall.

BYOD and the consumerization of IT

Special report: The Bring Your Own Device phenomenon is reshaping the way IT is purchased, managed, delivered, and secured. We look at what it means, how to handle it, and where it's going in the future.

Bates argued that support will continue and BlackBerry is well established.

Meanwhile, mobile device management is last year's news in many respects. At the Gartner conference, the big word was container. Roughly speaking, a container is software that can keep corporate data segmented and secure from personal items.

Samsung's Knox software is a container that segments personal and work. Samsung's Jae Shin, vice president of the company's Knox business unit, which focuses on the enterprise and securing Android, said the consumer giant's B2B division has 29 pilots underway in corporations and actively targets key verticals — financial services and government — that also happen to be BlackBerry strongholds.

Airwatch's take on container revolves around content and collaboration. Marshall's said MDM is a commodity and content is what matters. In that respect, Airwatch is starting to look more like Box.

Citrix is on everyone's radar as a mobile device management and mobility player. Citrix's focus is on data and applications. The approach from Citrix is to bring virtualization approaches to mobility via its Receiver software. Citrix has also layered in collaboration tools.

Sunil Potti, vice president and general manager of Citrix's cloud networking group, said the company's mobility tools are becoming more of an architecture consideration. Potti said MDM is table stakes and the mobility win is apps, productivity tools and protecting data. "Our focus is on the apps and data," said Potti.

When asked about the competition, Citrix said VMware, Airwatch and even Box are today or could be mobility rivals.

The catch is that Citrix's approach will require constant connections over mobile networks to work well. The approach from Citrix is strong assuming networks cooperate.

As for Good, the pitch is that the company has been around for a long time and right now looks very stable relative to struggling BlackBerry. Good also manages multiple devices and platforms.

Bates acknowledges the competition, but argues BlackBerry's security DNA makes it different. BlackBerry's response to the container buzzword is its Balance software. Bates said Citrix is an interesting mobile device management player and Microsoft can always matter given its resources.

BlackBerry's biggest MDM issue will be if the mobility market moves closer to the collaboration approaches eyed by Citrix and Airwatch.

Perhaps the biggest challenge for BlackBerry's enterprise mobility management efforts is distancing itself away from a device unit that's nearly worthless.

As Bates spoke at the Gartner powwow to ZDNet, a BlackBerry device was on the table along with an iPhone. BlackBerry's software executives make a point to say they have iPhones and carry around other devices. After all, BlackBerry is hoping to see as the go-to manager of all mobile platforms.

The problem: BlackBerry is associated with its devices business, which has imploded. Would those BlackBerry Enterprise Server deployments be in corporations if BlackBerry devices weren't handed out like Chiclets from companies' years ago? Probably not. "Crackberries" enabled the company to build a healthy back-end software and services business.

It's also unclear whether BlackBerry infrastructure can stick around if there are no devices on the other end. The MDM market is crowded to say the least and BlackBerry's real ambition — manage new device categories connected to the Internet of things---will take years to unfold.

CIOs deciding to keep BlackBerry infrastructure will also have a tough sell ahead even if they want to help Bates' cause. CEOs and CFOs read the headlines. These executives also used to carry BlackBerry devices and now tote iPhone and iPads around. Years ago, a CIO would never be fired for buying BlackBerry. Today, a CIO would have to convince the higher ups that BlackBerry has staying power no matter what form it ultimately takes.

Bottom line: BlackBerry's stability — even though it has no debt — is an open question largely due to its device business. The challenge will be to make sure the enterprise software and services unit doesn't get tarred by those Z10s that never sold.

TechPro Research's Bill Detwiler contributed to this report.

Enterprise software: 'Do our customers love us?'

A recent conversation with analyst Ray Wang, who appeared on CxOTalk (see video embedded below), makes clear that a significant business model shift is taking place in many companies. This shift marks a turning point away from feature-based selling to a broader focus on the ultimate outcomes that reflect customers' business goals. The discussion got me thinking about how enterprise software companies design, develop, market, and sell their products.

Focusing on outcomes stands in stark contrast to feature-based selling, which historically has been the approach used by technology and enterprise software companies. For example, we are all aware of "feature wars," in which software companies publish endless lists of product attributes in an effort to demonstrate greater value and benefit than the competition.

A blog post by product manager, Gopal Shenoy, eloquently explains why feature wars don't work:

Engaging in a “feature war” is death knell for two reasons:

1) You are losing focus on the fact that the customer is looking for a solution to their problems and not for a product with features. They want to know how your product (as a whole, not individual features) benefits them, solves their problem(s) and achieve their goals.

2) If you get caught up in the features (weeds), your driving force is going to be add more features and create a very complex product – a “Frankenstein”.

Although feature lists create an easy way for buyers to compare products, especially in competitive bidding situations, they position the vendor as a homogenous follower rather than an innovative leader. Feature comparisons rest on the assumption that competing products are interchangeable except for differences in attributes. These comparisons often do not reflect the fact that some products are particularly easy to use, offer a better experience, come with responsive service and support, or constitute a better business fit for the buyer.

In enterprise software, creating successful outcomes for customers means driving innovation (and efficiency) in business processes such as HR, finance, marketing, manufacturing, and other corporate functions. However, the achieving a positive customer experience demands involves a complete life cycle that starts when the customer evaluates its own needs then selects software, goes through implementation, and finally uses the product over time. The high rate of IT failure forces us to conclude that many enterprise software products deliver lousy outcomes and poor customer experience.

The most successful software vendors create a continuum of positive experience in which product features and attributes are only one dimension among many considerations and customer touch points. Adopting an outcomes-based perspective in enterprise software requires the vendor to develop a detailed understanding of customer aspirations and pain points across the entire buying and usage cycle.

More importantly, the vendor must also take greater responsibility to ensure that customers buy the right product and implement it properly. An entire set of economic relationships in enterprise software, that I have (only half-jokingly) called the IT Devil’s Triangle, militates against this alignment of goals between vendor and customer.

The cloud can definitely help this situation by simplifying products, enabling agile approaches to implementation, and removing infrastructure from the equation. Nonetheless, one can find plenty of dissatisfied cloud customers, so software delivery mechanism alone is not a fundamental driver of customer satisfaction

Creating an outcomes-focused software business requires rethinking a broad mix of corporate functions including product design, software development, quality assurance, partnership, and customer service. When shifting the reference point from revenue-however-we-can-get-it to outcomes-and-experience, a business must rethink many of its priorities and strategies. This transformation is especially challenging for engineering-driven technology companies, because features are the lifeblood of how engineers design products.

In my experience, working with many enterprise software companies and startups, making this shift requires the company to recognize that competition on features alone will drive the business towards being a commodity. While features are relatively easy for competitors to replicate, creating a positive customer experience requires shaping the entire relationship with customers, including all the touch points and interactions, throughout the entire customer lifecycle. Although making this transition is a big shift, it can create clear competitive differentiation and advantage.

Defining your business in terms of customer experience and outcomes demands a new way of thinking. Stand in the cold, harsh light of a metaphorical mirror and ask yourself this question: "Do our customers love us?" Then figure out how to make it happen.

=====

Here is a brief excerpt from the conversation with Ray Wang that got me thinking about this topic:

=====

CXOTalk brings together senior executives and prominent thought leaders to explore the impact of technology on innovation and disruption in the enterprise. Join me, and co-host Vala Afshar, to participate in these exciting and interesting discussions every Friday.