Does iPhone Hurt BlackBerry?

If Changewave Alliance members are an accurate reflection of broader market trends, sales of Apple iPhones do not hurt sales of Research in Motion BlackBerries, Curves and Pearls. Since January 2007, it appears the percentages of new phone buyers who plan to buy either an iPhone or RIM device have increased fairly steadily, with Apple retaining a slight edge in buying intention.

Of course, things could change once poll respondents actually go to the retail outlet to buy. But the poll suggests that the iPhone is not hurting RIM's handset sales. Instead, sales of smart phones seem to get a boost. Among brands, it most likely it is Motorola devices that are taking a hit.

FLAG Telecom Loses Undersea Cable

As a reminder of how important undersea cable redundancy is, FLAG Telecom has lost a cable of its own in Persian Gulf. FLAG, a wholly-owned subsidiary of India's number two mobile operator Reliance Communications, says its Falcon cable was reported cut at 0559 GMT, 56 kms (35 miles) from Dubai on a segment between the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

Tata Restores Service

Tata Communications (VSNL) has restored a majority of its IP connectivity into the Middle East and North Africa region within 24 hours of the Egypt cable breakdown on Jan. 30, when the SEA-ME-WE 4 and other undersea cables were severed off the coast of Alexandria, Egypt.

These cables serve as the principal Internet connections between the Middle East and westward on to Europe and North America. They also connect the Indian subcontinent and South East Asia.

"VSNL is proud of the team effort that united the company’s network and operations teams across three continents to execute an ambitious recovery plan in 24 hours," says Radwan Mousalli, Tata managing director. "Our cable layout and design allowed us to survive a double cable failure as well as develop enough capacity eastward across the Pacific for the internet to reach North America and Europe."

Indian Company Slashes Voice Rates

India's State-run communications company MTNL has slashed international call rates to one Rupee per minute (about three cents) for its Voice Over Internet Protocol customers to about 100 countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Japan, Malaysia and Kuwait.

The call rates to the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong are already stand at one Rupee (3 cents) a minute. For countries to which the calling rates were at Rs 6 (18 cents), 8 (24 cents) and 12 (36 cents) have now been reduced to Rs 4 (12 cents), 6 (18 cents) and Rs 8 (24 cents) per minute respectively.

For countries where call rates were Rs 2 (6 cents) and Rs 3 (9 cents) per minute, the rates have been reduced to one Re (3 cents) per minute.

The issue now is how market forces will work to lower mobile-initiated or terminated calls, as that's where the future lies in India, China and other markets.

Search, Social Networking Both Slow

Retailers are fond of blaming sales slowness on "the weather." It might have been too warm when they were trying to sell coats, or too cold when they were trying to sell swim suits.

Sometimes the sluggishness is more protracted and worrisome, as some suspect might be behind Google's fourth-quarter revenue growth figures.

To be sure, growth has been decelerating for some time, as the law of large numbers kicks in: it just is mathematically harder to sustain high percentage growth off a large base, compared to a small base.

But some observers also detect a slowing of use by established social networkers as well as a slowing of new adherents. In part, that might be the law of large numbers starting to kick in as well. The other issue is how soon saturation is reached for the current generation of social networking sites.

Users with high interest joined early. Later users presumably have less intense interest. Something else might be happening as well. People discover over time which tools are really useful and which are less useful. As users experiment with the various sites, they probably are settling in to more established patterns of use. Instead of meandering among a number of sites, users will discover over time that one or two sites make the most sense, and will gradually cease using the others.

Saturation is an issue in every market.

How Microsoft-Yahoo Stacks Up with Google

Erick Schonfeld, TechCrunch do-editor, lays out the revamped Microsoft this way, back of the envelope: Google stacks up at $15.6 billion in annual revenue, compared to $65 billion annual for Microsoft combined with Yahoo. Microsoft winds up earning a $38.3 billion annual gross profit, compared to Google's $9.9 billion. Still, ask yourself who you'd rather be: Google or Microsoft-Yahoo?

Why Microsoft Wants to Buy Yahoo

Putting the assets together boosts combined search market share to 36 percent, compared to Google's 53 percent, giving Microsoft-Yahoo a fighting chance to compete in a market that will not support any other serious contenders for leadership.
,
Roughly the same logic holds for other Internet applications where the three companies compete, or might like to. Microsoft is a contestant in the MP3 music player business and never has been able to challenge Apple. Maybe the Yahoo assets somehow can help Microsoft do better in the music or video download markets.

As you would expect, Microsoft argues there are significant benefits of scale in advertising platform economics, capital costs for search index build-out and in research and development that it will benefit from.

True, though part of the broader problem is the sheer range of competencies the companies require, the markets they participate in, the media types they support and the ecosystems each has to find a way to fit into. The problem is that the places Microsoft might potentially have to compete are so diverse.

There's ad placement, blogging platforms, collaboration, software development, mapping, location services, mobility, peer-to-peer distribution, photo sharing, social networking, communications, video, enterprise applications and analytics, for example.

Search is the obvious place Microsoft gains mass. One cannot yet forecast how well the Yahoo assets will help in all the other areas.

There's danger of another sort here for Microsoft as well. Never before as Microsoft made such a large organization. And there's a cultural issue as well. Though it never is easy to integrate two or more companies, there's an additional problem here. Yahoo has become a lehargic company that can't seem to innovate, and can't seem to move fast even when it knows where it wants to go.

Microsoft, on the other hand, no longer is a fast-moving company, either. In the Web services area, it has shown no ability to seize market share and momentum sufficient to wrest leadership from Apple or Google or Amazon, for example. In fact, it is precisely frustration with Microsoft's inability to seize leadership that prompts the "buy share" strategy.

Putting two slow moving or arguably ineffective companies together does not seem a recipe for reinvigorating innovation within either of the two former companies. Sure, it buys Microsoft market share in the search market. Whether Microsoft will be able to do anything with its new assets is the question.

Microsoft's desktop and office productivity software businesses remain formidable. It simply isn't clear whether those assets help Microsoft so much in the ad-driven search business.