What Caused Tech Giants to Fail为何科技巨擎一夕倒下?以诺基亚与黑莓为例

赖彩云 Jessy Lai Chai Yun-who_killed_nokia
[vc_row type=”in_container” scene_position=”center” text_color=”dark” text_align=”left” overlay_strength=”0.3″][vc_column column_padding=”no-extra-padding” column_padding_position=”all” background_color_opacity=”1″ background_hover_color_opacity=”1″ width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]What Caused Tech Giants to Fail

Less than a decade ago, Nokia and Blackberry were the giants that monopolised the mobile market. In 2009, about 70 per cent of smartphones sold globally had operating systems offered by BlackBerry and Nokia.

But even tech leaders can, at times, fail to gauge when a particular phenomenon can go extinct.

In 2013, Nokia was acquired by Microsoft. At this point, Nokia’s share of the global smartphone market had already been halved since peaking in 2007. During the press conference to announce the acquisition, Nokia CEO ended his speech saying: “we didn’t do anything wrong, but somehow, we lost”. Upon saying that, all his management team, himself included, teared sadly.

In April this year, Intel announced that it was laying off 12,000 employees, 11 percent of its workforce, the latest sign of the company’s struggle to adapt to the post-PC world.

The common problem with the above tech giants, is that they underestimated the power of competing innovations. In the business world, we call this disruptive innovation.

The term was coined by Clayton M. Christensen in 1995. In his book The Innovator’s Dilemma, he explained that disruptive innovation usually refers to new products that are simpler, of lower quality, and cheaper than existing products on the market. These features make them only popular in emerging markets, and thus often not perceived as a threat by established giants.

An article on vox.com posited that Intel is suffering from its decision in 2005 to turn down the opportunity to provide processors for iPhones. Back then, Intel’s X86 chips were making huge profit margins, and developing ARM, the chip for mobiles, seemed like a risky move. It meant Intel had to divert resources and possibly even customers away from their main product, the X86.

They are suffering from that decision today. While Intel still provide chips for the PC, the market trend has generally moved away from PC to mobile devices. iPhones, iPads, and Android-based phones and tablets mostly use chips based on ARM, the system that Intel thought was not worth investing in. Like a bitter ex-lover, ARM is now disrupting Intel’s survivability.

It is important to recognise that there were perfectly legitimate reasons for Intel to not take on the ARM in 2005. In fact, Christensen himself said that successful, well managed companies are often the most vulnerable to threats by disruptive innovation. The business environment of market leaders does not encourage the pursuit of disruption when they first arise, because they are not profitable enough at first and because their development can take resources away from existing profit-making products (such as the X86).

Nevertheless there are enough examples to show that if these new rudimentary products are able to improve, they start to steal customers, and often end up reshaping entire industries: Wikipedia replaced traditional encyclopaedias, digital photography replaced chemical photography, and Uber is replacing taxis.

In Malaysia, a potential disruptive innovation is online learning, which threatens to replace traditional universities. In the UK, The Open University plans to close seven of nine regional centres in England amid competition from free online courses such as Moocs.

All of the above point to one thing: businesses need to reset their intuitions, a topic I talked about extensively in a previous article. We are living in an era of unprecedented technological advancement and globalisation. Things are changing so fast that if we do not stay wary, we might end up suffering the fate of Nokia, Blackberry, Intel and many other corporations.

References:
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/20/11463818/intel-iphone-mobile-revolution
https://hbr.org/2015/12/what-is-disruptive-innovation
http://www.businessinsider.my/microsoft-nokia-deal-came-way-too-late-2015-7/?r=US&IR=T#xlIAMUyUCwBc7Si1.97[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column column_padding=”no-extra-padding” column_padding_position=”all” background_color_opacity=”1″ background_hover_color_opacity=”1″ width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]为何科技巨擎一夕倒下? ——以诺基亚与黑莓为例

过去有超过10年的时间,诺基亚(Nokia)以及黑莓(Blackberry)称霸手机市场,至少在2009年时,黑莓以及诺基亚就70%全球销售的辉煌纪录。

因为当时苹果iPhone才刚推出iPhone 4,Android手机也还停留在早期的2.3版本,没人知道智慧手机的未来的景观是什么——恐怕在那时,更多人对于智慧手机的定义还是黑莓的BB OS和诺基亚的塞班。

就是在这样一片大好的市场条件下,诺基亚从微软挖脚史蒂芬‧埃洛普(Stephen Elop)担任CEO。

埃洛普一上任就裁员5000人,成为了诺基亚近10年历史上最大规模的一次裁员;他还犯了了一个业界普遍认为极为严重的错误——终止诺基亚和Google的研发合作计划,让诺基亚这艘大船在通向Android的急流上强行掉头,转而采用自己老东家微软的Windows Phone操作系统。

埃洛普的设想完全错误,因为诺基亚的市占率从2010年的29%降低到了2013年的13%。 2013年9月3日,多人阶震惊的消息流出,诺基亚宣布将手机业务全部售给微软,同时微软重新聘用埃洛普,负责微软的行动装置业务。

而当天的记者会上,埃洛普说了一句名言:“我们并没有做错什么,但不知何故,我们输了( we didn’t do anything wrong, but somehow, we lost )。”

而吃下了诺基亚手机业务的微软,也并不是很顺利。 2015年7月初,微软第四季财报显示微软获利只有76亿美元,并与行动装置部门有关——乎等于微软收购诺基亚手机业务的50亿美元和收购诺基亚移动专利组合的22亿美元加起来的总价格。而且,微软还决定在2015年裁员7800人,并且主要从行动装置部门动刀。

诺基亚面临的困境,正是1995年Clayton M. Christensen的著书《The Innovator’s Dilemma》中所强调的“颠覆性创新”(disruptive innovation)。 “颠覆性创新”通常指的是那些低质量、比市场上现有的产品更便宜的新产品。这些新产品的特性使它们只能在新兴市场上流行,因此往往不被巨头视为威胁。

美国杂志vox.com指出,英特尔曾为其在2005年拒绝为iPhone提供了处理器的决定感到后悔。当年,英特尔的开发的电脑处理器X86为其带来巨大的利润,而不考虑倾力开发市场上最流行的手机芯片ARM,因为英特尔认为ARM为其公司带来一定的风险,因为英特尔必须将X86的主要客户转移至ARM,对英特尔而言此举会破坏其公司的利益。

英特尔至今都为这个决定感到无限的后悔,因为当英特尔还在研发电脑的处理器时,市场的焦点已从电脑处理器转移至手机芯片。 iPhones、iPads或是以安卓(Android)为主的电话以及平板电脑都采用手机芯片而非电脑处理器了,英特尔当初认为没有前景的市场,如今却是科技趋势,足以证明英特尔错估了情势。

Christensen直言,越大的企业,越容易犯下英特尔的错误,也就是错估了情势,认为眼前这股趋势不足以构成威胁,甚至短视的认为“颠覆性”的创新没有市场,盈利不大,若采纳了新的市场,将会破坏企业现有的市场以及盈利。

随着市场变化日益加速,产业界线日益模糊,科技演进日益跃进,企业不能再继续依赖持久优势,耽溺在安稳的舒适圈,只会让自己最终陷入困境,甚至导致灭亡的危机。

诺基亚和柯达,正是曾经长期呼风唤雨的产业龙头,但最后却惨遭破产或被并购命运的典型案例。

企业必须根据市场变化,持续不断改造组织,进行创新,打造一波接一波的瞬时优势。

企业千万别小看这些颠覆性的创新市场,因为这些市场往往能取代旧有的市场,转瞬间掌控了市场的走势.

各位领导人必须认清这个事实,因为维基百科都能取代百科全书、数码相机取代了冲洗相机技术、Uber也取代了传统德士行业,在这个年代,没有什么事情是不可能的。

在大马,最不能被忽视的趋势就是网络教学,这股趋势假以时日必定能取代一般传统的大学。在英国,因为免费的网络教学大热,导致公开大学(Open University)已经计划关闭其7所中心。

正如我在之前的一篇文章《时代迎向颠覆》 ,这是一个颠覆的年代,所有的东西正以你意想不到的方向前行,甚至会完全出乎你的意料之外,改变你的既定的认知,英特尔、诺基亚以及黑莓的例子,就是企业最佳的参考。[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *