Apple's success contributes to departure of Acer, Nokia, LG CEOs
The success of Apple's iPad has had a major impact on the netbook market, forcing the CEO of low-cost notebook maker Acer to resign. That follows the departures of top brass from two other Apple competitors, Nokia and LG.
Acer Corp. Chief Executive Gianfranco Lanci resigned Thursday, as his company looks to reorganize in an effort to take on the iPad and other tablets like it. The company hopes to find a permanent successor by the end of April.
Lanci's exist was put in context on Friday by DigiTimes, which noted that the impact from Apple products was a "key reason" for his departure. It was also said that Nokia's ex-CEO Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, who left in September 2010, and ex-CEO of LG Electronics Nam Young were both forced to leave "because of their inability to defend their companies from Apple's fierce competition."
Citing sources at Acer, the report noted that the iPad had a major impact on the netbook market in 2010. As a result, the company saw almost no growth in shipments for the year.
In addition, Acer is planning its own tablets to compete with the iPad and other devices in the market, but the report classified those products as "outmatched in terms of both hardware and software." It's the same story in the smartphone business, where Acer is said to be "incapable" of competing with brands like Apple.
"Since first-tier smartphone and PC brands are still unable to find an effective strategy to counter Apple's advance, with Lanci the most recent victim of Apple's assault, the sources believe executives of brand vendors such as Motorola, Sony, Toshiba, Asustek Computer and Lenovo are all in danger of being dragged off by the wave," the report said.
Just this week, Acer declared its intentions to "overhaul operations" in an effort to counter the success of the iPad. Stan Shih, founder of the Taiwanese PC giant, made the comments after his company reported two quarters with downward revisions of sales targets.
Acer's about-face is a change from last year, when the company's chairman predicted that Apple's "closed" iPad platform would drop to just 20 percent market share. Currently, Apple remains the dominant player in the touchscreen tablet market.
Acer Corp. Chief Executive Gianfranco Lanci resigned Thursday, as his company looks to reorganize in an effort to take on the iPad and other tablets like it. The company hopes to find a permanent successor by the end of April.
Lanci's exist was put in context on Friday by DigiTimes, which noted that the impact from Apple products was a "key reason" for his departure. It was also said that Nokia's ex-CEO Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, who left in September 2010, and ex-CEO of LG Electronics Nam Young were both forced to leave "because of their inability to defend their companies from Apple's fierce competition."
Citing sources at Acer, the report noted that the iPad had a major impact on the netbook market in 2010. As a result, the company saw almost no growth in shipments for the year.
In addition, Acer is planning its own tablets to compete with the iPad and other devices in the market, but the report classified those products as "outmatched in terms of both hardware and software." It's the same story in the smartphone business, where Acer is said to be "incapable" of competing with brands like Apple.
"Since first-tier smartphone and PC brands are still unable to find an effective strategy to counter Apple's advance, with Lanci the most recent victim of Apple's assault, the sources believe executives of brand vendors such as Motorola, Sony, Toshiba, Asustek Computer and Lenovo are all in danger of being dragged off by the wave," the report said.
Just this week, Acer declared its intentions to "overhaul operations" in an effort to counter the success of the iPad. Stan Shih, founder of the Taiwanese PC giant, made the comments after his company reported two quarters with downward revisions of sales targets.
Acer's about-face is a change from last year, when the company's chairman predicted that Apple's "closed" iPad platform would drop to just 20 percent market share. Currently, Apple remains the dominant player in the touchscreen tablet market.
Comments
I have to say I am very conflicted by all of this news about these executives making stupid comments. Now it seems, rightfully, that some of these guys are getting shown the door.
My conflict is this. I really enjoy reading what these guys have to say. It is so comical to me that I have really started looking forward to reading them (even more than my morning Dilbert). Further, every time one of them talks I feel even more pleased with my choice of Apple products for our office and home.
However, I really feel like some of these companies really should be producing really cool products. I would love to own an iPad, iPhone, MacBook Pro and some other really amazing or even "magical" product from HP that Apple has not even thought of yet. It is frustrating to me that there is only one (in my opinion) innovative tech company right now.
It seems to obvious to me what these tech companies need to be doing, that is spending money on coming up with the next big thing rather than trying to copy someone else's innovation. Does anyone have a good reason for how these giant tech companies can be stupid? Can we blame it on the corporate culture of getting through next quarter rather than the long term plan?
Been reading AI for a while now, and never felt the need to post a comment... until now.
I have to say I am very conflicted by all of this news about these executives making stupid comments. Now it seems, rightfully, that some of these guys are getting shown the door.
My conflict is this. I really enjoy reading what these guys have to say. It is so comical to me that I have really started looking forward to reading them (even more than my morning Dilbert). Further, every time one of them talks I feel even more pleased with my choice of Apple products for our office and home.
However, I really feel like some of these companies really should be producing really cool products. I would love to own an iPad, iPhone, MacBook Pro and some other really amazing or even "magical" product from HP that Apple has not even thought of yet. It is frustrating to me that there is only one (in my opinion) innovative tech company right now.
It seems to obvious to me what these tech companies need to be doing, that is spending money on coming up with the next big thing rather than trying to copy someone else's innovation. Does anyone have a good reason for how these giant tech companies can be stupid? Can we blame it on the corporate culture of getting through next quarter rather than the long term plan?
These companies do not suck, apple is a cult and once everyone takes a bite of the apple are under its control...
But really, the problem all these companies have they lack the single vision of how things should be, plus they do not control every part of their product. They all are relying on some other company to do things the right way.
I do not think a single person will say apple products are the perfect technology, however they do work well. Plus Apple does not do check list marketing. These other companies still think as long as their list of features are longer than the next guy they will see more sales.
Think about how many comments have been made over the years about the list of features apple products are missing, therefore, they will fail to win against the competitor who has the best list. Every time someone makes those kinds of comments, fail to understand and failed marketing 101. This is not apples game, apple provides the right amount of featurea that satisfy the majority of the people and make it works so people do not feel like they need all those other features.
Plus Apple is run by Jobs and he has a vision of how things should be and he is still executing again this, his vision is well beyond next year it is probably 10 to 20 yrs out.
Their corporate structures don't allow the company-wide shift in thinking that will be needed for one of these rivals to take on Apple. They want to make an 'iPhone killer' or some half-baked tablet with multiple variations. None of them seem capable of going back to the drawing board and designing a small, focussed family of products that make sense to each other and share an OS genealogy that they have control of themselves.
Apple only sell 3 Macs, 3 MbPs, 2 MbAs, 2 iPhones and 1 iPad as mainstream products. That's a core of just 11 pieces of hardware. All those devices run the same OS, albeit with iOS being OSXLite for the time being. It's focussed and keeps the brand identity clean and clear.
People know what a MacBook looks like, what does a Dell Laptop look like? What does an HTC phone look like?
I'm not saying it's easy to affect change, but knowing what you should be doing seems fairly straightforward and either these guys can't see it and don't deserve their salaries (to put it mildly), or they aren't allowed the freedom to make the changes they know they must. Either way, Apple is gaining a formidable position at the moment. I can't remember anything quite like it.
Does anyone have a good reason for how these giant tech companies can be stupid? Can we blame it on the corporate culture of getting through next quarter rather than the long term plan?
I believe you're right; it has to do with our love for money and the resulting greed. Companies must continuously show good numbers at Wall Street or else they're toast. They think that they can't look ten years ahead, because they're told that they need money for innovation. But perhaps the best innovation sits in somebody's head and doesn't cost a thing. The best example is without doubt Steve Jobs. I am sure that he is already preparing for what consumers want in 2020.
Every day Wall Street tells us that "we" are doing well is a sad day for the USA.
These companies do not suck, apple is a cult and once everyone takes a bite of the apple are under its control...
But really, the problem all these companies have they lack the single vision of how things should be, plus they do not control every part of their product. They all are relying some other company to do things the right way.
I do not think a single person will say apple product are the perfect technology, however they do work well. Plus Apple does not do check list marketing. These other companies still think that as long as their list of features are longer than the next guy they will see more.
Think about how many comments have been made over the years about the list of features apple products for not have therefore they will fail to win against the competitor who has the best list. Every time some makes those kinds of comment fail to understand and failed marketing 101. This is not apples game, apple provide the right amount of feature that satisfy the majority of the people and make it works so people do not feel like they need all those other features.
Plus Apple is run by Jobs and he has vision of how things should be and he is still executing again this, his vision is well beyond next year it probably 10 to 20 yrs out.
Very true. If you're driving a Ferrari Daytona through Monaco, you don't care if it doesn't have a radio!
These companies only create and put together the hardware side of the equation, and the only way to differentiate themselves is with a spec-list. They are slaves to the OS providers, whether MS and recently Google.
Which leads to the bigger question and discrepancy in all other products not Apple**:
Who designs all those crap interfaces? Including almost any website not Apple or Apple-product related. Is Apple really hiring the only designers with a modicum of taste and minimalist design sense? Then why am I not employed there
**... aside from that horrid new Address Book leather-look in Lion previews. That's just NASTY-CHEESE! Include the iBookstore as well. A small blip I guess in the "overall look". But a sad "shield-my-eyes" look it is.
It comes down to exactly one reason:
These companies only create and put together the hardware side of the equation, and the only way to differentiate themselves is with a spec-list. They are slaves to the OS providers, whether MS and recently Google.
Which leads to the bigger question and discrepancy in all other products not Apple**:
Who designs all those crap interfaces? Including almost any website not Apple or Apple-product related. Is Apple really hiring the only designers with a modicum of taste and minimalist design sense? Then why am I not employed there
**... aside from that horrid new Address Book leather-look in Lion previews. That's just NASTY-CHEESE! Include the iBookstore as well. A small blip I guess in the "overall look". But a sad "shield-my-eyes" look it is.
That's because making the hardware and software isn't a good business model, it had Apple at the brink of bankruptcy. Macs didn't save Apple, the iPod did, then the iPhone and now the iPad have made it hugely successful. If it weren't for those devices Apple would be a very different company, and it would've been SJ getting fired yet again.
The big thing that is happening is consumer electronics is going the way of cash registers and gas pumps, network aware without the need of a browser and bookmarks. This will have long ranging effects on all aspects of this industry. Will you even need a browser and search in the future? Can box builders full of cheap semiconductors build the things you will want? Does anyone really give a crap what the clock speed of a gas pump is?
As is always the case, if the world changes on you and your not ready or capable of change, you die (sorry dinosaurs, I'm sure you didn't see the meteor coming).
That's because making the hardware and software isn't a good business model, it had Apple at the brink of bankruptcy. Macs didn't save Apple, the iPod did, then the iPhone and now the iPad have made it hugely successful. If it weren't for those devices Apple would be a very different company, and it would've been SJ getting fired yet again.
That's far too simplistic. Macs are a very profitable part of Apple's business.
There seems to be only one way to describe the competition in the tablet/smartphone/content space at the moment: in total disarray.
...I thought it was flummoxed!
That's far too simplistic. Macs are a very profitable part of Apple's business.
They are the MOST profitable PC makers in the world. It might not be a good model if you want to dominate the world, but if you are a hardware maker, its the ONLY way to make money.
I think this article explains the rise of the Apple haters on the web. All those jobless ex-CEOs are probably just sitting on their keyboards, spitting vitriol towards Apple, who played a huge part in their dismissals.
That's far too simplistic. Macs are a very profitable part of Apple's business.
And you don't think that the popularity of the iPod and iPhone has helped it immensely?
Apple's strategy is long term -- I would like to believe that iTunes was created as the foundation for Apple's digital hub. Establish iTunes first running under OS9/X and then get devices with different form factors and purposes to sync with it;
Develop a scaleable OS to run on all Apple products and that no other company can compete with (Google just copied Apple's strategy);
Apple's designers are some of the best in the industry and given a lot of freedom to explore new technologies. Apple even has facilities to produce prototypes for testing purposes;
Apple takes existing technology and works out how to make it easier to implement -- people recognise that Apple's way is the best because everything just works;
Apple isn't too concerned with geeks and nerds or even the enterprise -- Apple is targeting the average Jane and Joe;
Apple engineers and designers produce stuff that they themselves would like to own and use, unlike say, Microsoft (where people were rebuked for and/or banned from using iPhones. Didn't Balmer ban Apple products in his own house -- I bet he secretly uses iPhone & iPad);
Companies like Foxxcon, LG, Samsung, Acer operated production facilities for companies like Apple, Dell, HP, etc. They then decided to jump into the pool and produce own brand products with a me-too attitude, but without the design nous that Apple possesses and little R&D;
I understand the whole why haven't you been able to lead our company to success against Apple - but I suspect perhaps at least part of these moves are hey lets cut the guy making $1,000,000 a year and replace him with a new CEO in the $250,000 range and either put the extra $750,000 back in the bottom line - or into R&D.
Or - why not offer your CEO and incentive - whereby he gets some huge bonus - or direct percentage of the profits for any product that he (or she) brings to market which beats Apple.
Or as another post mentioned - how about focusing on your own work and coming up with a killer product that will make huge profits regardless of what is offered by other companies - without resorting to South Park's Underpants Gnome Business Model.
And you don't think that the popularity of the iPod and iPhone has helped it immensely?
Apple makes the hardware and software for those devices, so I'm not sure what your point is. The pre-Jobs return Apple wasn't foundering because making the hardware and software is a bad business model, they were foundering because they were poorly run, had an unfocused and diffuse product lineup, and were competing in the environment of the Windows/Intel duopoly.
Surely their enormous success subsequent to that suggests that making the hardware and software is a great business model if you execute well.
The question I'd ask any board of directors is - is there room in the market for more than one Apple?
Maybe there's room for a handful but not everyone can jump into the same niche. Someone has got to be the Walmart of the PC industry.
And you don't think that the popularity of the iPod and iPhone has helped it immensely?
They have. But they aren't the only reason that macs are doing well. Apple was the most profitable PC maker even before the iPhone was introduced in 2007. It was selling the most >$1000 computers even in 2006.
There is a very clear event when Mac's popularity shot up. It was right after the transition to Intel. The ability to run Windows as a fallback made the switching process far less risky, enabling the Mac's rise.