Over at Silicon Alley Insider (SAI), there is an interesting discussion going on about who should run Motorola's soon to be spun out mobile phone division.
The current discussion threads are focused on whether Ron Garriques, who lead the division before he decamped to Dell, should be brought back as CEO. Ron is a smart guy. He knew enough to get out just before the giant FAIL signs appeared over Motorola. Unfortunately this is where the smarts ends. The SAI commenters, presumably many insiders, are rightly laughing at the suggestion that Garriques is the guy.
First of all, Garriques benefitted from the timing of the RAZR. He didn't think of it (it was being developed before he got the division head job), and he didn't like it (according to SAI commenters).
But most importantly, the RAZR was a bad idea.
Ok, I don't literally mean that. Lets say it this way. The RAZR was an *insignificant* idea. Make a thin phone. Lets do a good industrial design. Duh! Who cares!!!
Motorola's task was then and is now to make phones that are more *useful*. This is a software problem. Moto's software sucks. They will adopt Android, and this is good. But it will commoditize Motorola unless they integrate really well and ad value on top of Android.
The problem is that Motorola's organizational DNA is not about software, particularly consumer facing software. Garriques doesn't know diddly about that.
Other bone headed suggestions from over at SAI:
Todd Bradley: One of the many executives responsible for PALMS inability to *ever* ship a modern operating system.
Peter Skarzynski: An unemployed sales guy from Samsung. Yes, that's right, a sales guy can fix Motorola's problems.
Robbie Bach: Entertainment & Devices prez at Microsoft. Well we are at least a little warm here. The right kind of DNA. But its MICROSOFT!!!!
Miles Flint: Former head of Sony Erricson. According to SAI they make some of the coolest phones you've never heard of. Right. I am sure Apple is quaking in its boots.
The problem with all of these suggestions and I am sure with all the sorts of people that Motorola will consider, is that they are all suits. They are all guys that will do little more than hire McKinsey again to develop their strategy. They will never hire anyone that has real strategy or technical cojones. This is the reason these kinds of companies fail and continue to fail.
Ok, so who do *I* suggest?
Well first of all, I am unavailable.
That said, The suggestion I am about to make, I make fearfully. I am fearful because someone might just follow up, and I really like this guy and I would hate to see him leave his current job. But here its goes.
Kevin Lynch, CTO Adobe.
Now first of all, I have never personally met Kevin. But I think he is awesome. I have been observing him for years. He is the guy that was primarily responsible for Macromedia's and now Adobe's Internet strategy. He created the entire platform concept which Adobe is building Adobe 2.0 around. He's a killer.
Now would a guy like this ever be considered? No. Because the suit types generally don't even know enough to know what they don't know and what they do need. It is only by accidents of history or founder-hood when people like this end up running the show. But this is exactly what Motorola needs. Not someone to develop pretty new org charts. They need someone who can develop a real plan *themselves*. Someone who can understand all the issues and get down in the dirt. They do not need an armchair quarterback. They need a real quarterback. They need a player/coach. Without this type of person. The motorola phone division will be 1/10th its size in 5 years. If it even exists.
Kevin Lynch is a brilliant software guy. I would presume he is a great team leader since he has built a great team. Kevin, or a Kevin equivalent (there are very few) is exactly what Motorola needs and is exactly what they will never get.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Maybe you have heard that India's Videocon has put an unsolicited bid on Motorola's cell phone biz..what do you think about it?
Here's what I wrote about it...
Videocon's Masterstoke
"The RAZR was an *insignificant* idea. Make a thin phone. Lets [sic] do a good industrial design. Duh! Who cares!!!
Motorola's task was then and is now to make phones that are more *useful*. This is a software problem."
You don't understand; the RAZR was a great idea, as the cell phone industry was constituted at the time. Making a thin phone with a good industrial design absolutely was Motorola's task at the time. No one was going to waste time making a useful phone only to watch the providers totally emasculate it before bringing it to market. Making a useful phone wasn't anyone's task until the iPhone and the Apple – AT&T relationship changed the entire manufacturer – provider – customer dynamic. Since then, utility has become an imperative, but it was not before.
"No one was going to waste time making a useful phone only to watch the providers totally emasculate it before bringing it to market."
You must have worked at a cell phone company because that certainly was the thinking of the manufacturers. But its bull. Palm made a *much* more useful phone. The fact that moto and none of the other guys realized that usefulness was the most important job at hand just shows why they had absolutely **NO** leadership.
I totally agree with you that Moto's leadership was weak. All I'm saying is that they were not alone in focusing on fashion over utility. I think that very few in the industry (perhaps one or two Palm models may have been exceptions) actually believed that there was any money in fighting to change the industry or introduce new business models. As you yourself have said, one of Apple's primary advantages was that they were outsiders with no vested interests.
I am not an apologist for Motorola. However, most folks would have characterized the RAZR as a hit at the time it was introduced. I think that it is unrealistic to expect that an entrenched company like Motorola would expend much energy thinking outside the box when the box was such a comfortable place for them and the box had just provided them with a sales success.
"I think that it is unrealistic to expect that an entrenched company like Motorola would expend much energy thinking outside the box when the box was such a comfortable place for them and the box had just provided them with a sales success."
indeed. I agree that most executives wouldn't do it. Which is an indictment of executive leadership in general. My point is someone like Kevin Lynch (or me for that matter) or anyone who really understands products in the modern world could see the problem. The business world is often totally focused on short term gain and has no real respect or even understanding of product.
Agreed. For quite some time now, executive leadership in general has been focused on short term goals like stock price and not on the long term health of their companies or industries. This is reflected in the fact that very few are willing to engage in the kind of risk-taking that has made Apple a success.
"Increasing shareholder value" has become a buzzphrase/excuse which has lead to everything from extremely short-sighted product decisions to abuses of SEC regulations. So, yes, it would be refreshing to see some fresh blood with different priorities in the CEO ranks.
Post a Comment