Later

Three months on, and where am I at?

We continue to consolidate changes where I work. That translates into multiple openings in my group and at the segment level. A couple of them I even have a shot at.

I've been networking as well. As people leave and come in, hopefully I get some new opportunities.

Meantime, the recent Market "correction" (really? seems a bit more) has been fascinating to watch in the wake of S&P's downgrade of the US credit rating. What's maddening is to watch the market's movements as a direct response to the downgrade, when in fact most of it is being driven by the Eurozone's inability to adequately restructure Greece and other distressed sovereign debts. Furthermore, the downgrade isn't based on Congress having increased the debt ceiling; far from it, the downgrade is based on the fact that an influential group of congressional leaders openly stated that default on our debts was an option they were willing to accede to rather than come to an agreement over spending.

When you tell people upfront that you're willing to not pay your debts, they will lower your credit rating. it's that simple.

The News Market

Something I've been meaning to comment on for a while is the news market. Fox News gets a lot of criticism for catering to a specific population; MSNBC is criticized for catering to the opposite population. I've often wondered why that is; each side accuses the other of being propagandists, but they are, in the end, businesses. They have to make money.

I think that deregulation, as is the case with many industries, led to this kind of very specific, niche identification within the news industry. When news programs were no longer required to give 'equal time', they were free to program however they wanted, and thus discover their markets.

To be clear, news events are fairly non-partisan. Events occur, and the story must be told. However, how a story is told, and what questions are asked, can vary in tone. Some people prefer stories with one tone or another, or with political views that support their own.

Wo what happens when the news media becomes a market? How does one compete? Timeliness? Done. Quality of coverage? Subjective, but no matter what, something your competitors can do. Find an audience? What do they like to be told? What kinds of stories get the most coverage?

And so, news outlets begin catering to their audiences, telling them the same news stories, but in very different ways.

One might argue that this is how things should work - the marketplace of ideas. However, from a public service perspective, this is a dismal failure. Audiences self-select into their markets and do not pay attention to opposing views. Some people prefer chunky peanut butter over creamy peanut butter, and it's hard to get them to even bother trying what they don't like. The same holds true in a news market.

Of course the most sensible people realize this and sample from multiple outlets. However, most people are not so sensible.

The Road Ahead

I acknowledge that I am copying the title of Bill Gates' book from about ten years ago. I'm halfway through my degree, and considering my own road ahead. Since it's the start of a new calendar year, I'm going to make some wild guesses about the future of two firms I work with quite a bit, Apple and Microsoft.

Both are hardware companies. Microsoft may not manufacture computers, but they do make the Xbox and Zune, as well as a handful of peripherals. Both companies make operating systems, and both companies make application software.

Apple is run like a startup. Steve Jobs is entrepreneurial; after he was ousted from Apple in the 80s, he went on to start NeXT and run Pixar. Microsoft is turning into a growth company; they have their hands in many pies, and have a stable of goods and services that, for the forseeable future, provide steady revenue and growth.

Apple has a reputation as a warm and fuzzy company, while Microsoft has a reputation as an 'evil' company, based largely on their business practices in the 90s. Apple is not your friend; I say this having interacted with the company over many years in my career. They do not share information, they provide limited options to the enterprise space (and education, as well, educators just don't realize that). The company has had its share of failures, and they take their time to acknowledge and resolve them. This doesn't make them worse than Microsoft, or any other company, for that matter.It just means that they are a large corporation, and the notion that they are somehow nicer or cooler or better than other firms is laughable. They are very good at what they do; that is as far as it goes.

Microsoft has made some missteps. They had a huge manufacturing error with the Xbox, resulting in a $1BN charge to pay for defective units. That alone should knock out any profit they might have obtained from the Xbox, yet it is worthwhile to them to stay in the game console space - a space Apple has avoided. Their ties to Netflix, Facebook, LastFM, and licensed products sold via Xbox Live represent a multi-threaded approach to generating revenue from services. The Xbox is the razor; Xbox Live and various games are the blades. I would argue that the Xbox and Xbox Live are Microsoft's iPod and iTunes Store.

So where are these two firms headed in the near future? Everyone is certain Apple will be coming out with a tablet or netbook soon. Apple is known as a media company, and with the iTunes Store, they are establishing a strong presence as an e-tailer. Microsoft seems to be repairing its image and trying to stay warm and fuzzy in the consumer space; this is a departure from their previous attempts to become integrated with new services, ala operating systems for cable boxes. I'm not sure this is the best bet, unless they really have got all of the market they are going to get in their original markets, or are willing to cede it to other operating systems.

Unrelated: Lego, Boeing

Two articles in the NYT caught my eye today. Oddly both mention business news about two companies I liked when I was a kid.

I loved Legos, and spent all kinds of time building moon bases, spaceships, houses, submarines, and much more. I would be one of those adults slightly disappointed that all Legos seem to be based on licensed settings now. That said, it seems to be a strategy that works.

I built spaceships because I was into aerospace, and my granddad would take me out to the airport to look at planes; we greeted the Concord when it came to Tulsa. Boeing was one of those Big American Companies I saw mentioned all the time, and it's been interesting to read about them in some of my classes - in particular, my microeconomics class featured a case about the Airbus SuperJumbo vs the Boeing Dreamliner.

I have to admit I was partial to the Dreamliner, partly because so much of the case history told the story of what Airbus was doing wrong and Boeing was doing right. Either way, they both pursued different markets. The case history stopped around 2005, when Airbus was first encountering production delays - and now, apparently, Boeing is as well, in large part due to their outsourcing model.

(Tangent - this is the kind of problem outsourcing always brings about. I don't believe outsourcing is particularly good or bad, but it certainly requires more orchestration on the part of the outsourcer, something most are not prepared for. In my current position, it's clear that we can't just turn over functions to our outsource partners, though I doubt that, as Boeing has, we'll end up buying one of those partners).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/business/global/06lego.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/business/06boeing.html