9 ms·

Sony’s Bread and Butter? It’s Not Electronics

68 points by mxfh 13y ago

varjag 13y ago
I think they lost it after the big successes, and got this megalomaniac mindset that they could establish market standards at will. Their consumer segment losses due to insistence on things like minidisc or memory sticks must have been tremendous.
- kalleboo 13y ago
  I think they had a lot of tunnel vision as well. In their local Japan market, they DID set the standards. You had MiniDisc players integrated in cars, etc. They just didn't have the international perspective required.
MarkTanamil 13y ago
Oh Sony. What happened? Oh well, my xperia z tablet should be arriving this week. Don't let me down.
sspiff 13y ago
I don't fully understand what brought Sony down. They have a strong synergy between their markets (content production and consumption, for instance), and their electronic products are still high quality, well designed pieces of consumer electronics, both on the engineering side as on the product design side. They're a company that has tried weird, new kinds of devices, like head-mounted 3D displays, tablets and ultra-portables. Sure, their attempts at these things didn't create high-volume markets, but at least it shows to me that the company is trying hard to innovate, with strong, more traditional products to back it up. I find it a bit saddening how Sony fails to sell enough of its products.
- jpswade 13y ago
  While Japanese companies were working on products that will sell more of their motors or components, American companies were working on a virtual ecosystem. There's absolutely no synergy between Sony's departments and that's also a massive problem.
- com2kid 13y ago
  > They have a strong synergy between their markets (content production and consumption, for instance), In theory they could have a strong synergy, but as the article alludes to, they never really exploited the possibilities. Corporate infighting to maintain fiefdoms and current profits will quickly destroy any attempt to grow into new markets that require paradigm shifts.
- yardie 13y ago
  You can innovate in the lab all you want but if no one is buying your product because it doesn't answer the right problems is it that innovative. I thought the AIBO robot was interesting but not thousands of dollars fabulous, you can get a proper, pedigreed dog for that price. They have a nasty habit of bringing things to market to fast and then not properly supporting it. Then when the consumers walk away they blame everything else but themselves.
  - gambiting 13y ago
    Or to give a slightly cheaper example: Sony Tablet S and P. Both were experiments,as in - tablets with a very unusual form factor, released to see if the market will accept them. And while the Tablet P was a failure, Tablet S sold quite well - and what Sony did? Abandoned it. The only available update to Android 4.0 leaves all users with slow system on an otherwise nice device, but worst of all - it has a locked bootloader,so you can't even put a custom rom of a newer version. A cool device released quickly, and just as quickly abandoned.
  - antimagic 13y ago
    AIBO was a big missed opportunity. The unit cost was too high, and the software not advanced enough. But those things can't have been having a huge effect on their R&D budget. They could have kept the same mechanical design, but increased CPU/memory each year, with corresponding work on the AI for minimal pain, reducing the price and improving the utility each year. If that work had continued constantly, we would have some truly remarkable AI pets available by now, which would make the ultimate toy for young children that live in apartments. That same technology could then have been applied to home automation robots. Instead we have Roomba.
    - yardie 13y ago
      Like you, I thought AIBO was far ahead of its time. So far that I assumed Sony was using it to improve their AI and would release better products based on the feedback. Except, they never did. They had a product that everyone saw wasn't going to sell well and just killed it when exactly that happened.
    - 13y ago
- technoslut 13y ago
  Sony had more than one problem. The biggest problem is their brand name has suffered for years with lackluster and not very well-thought out products. They're starting to turn it around but it may be too late - much like Nokia and HTC.
- Nursie 13y ago
  Their stuff generally looks good, but the likes of Samsung managed to make product every bit as good (or better) and at better prices, generally. Also some of us still have a bitter taste in our mouths from the various rootkits and hacker lawsuits, so wouldn't touch them with a bargepole. I'm under no illusion we're a serious market force though.
- kalleboo 13y ago
  They're mostly competing in commodity markets - TV, stereo, Android phones, etc. And in those markets right now, the only thing people care about is price, availability and marketing. "how many inches TV can I get for $X?" "what high-end smartphone will my operator give me for free?". Sony have failed at those things. I'm in Bangkok right now, and the city is PLASTERED with Samsung adverts. For phones, smartTVs, everything. I also see Samsung or Apple phones in every hand. Sony has also failed at marketing.
nakedrobot2 13y ago
The issue is a simple one. What brought Sony down is the thing that brings down all huge companies: they failed to adapt. All Sony's great successes were in hardware. Mechanical hardware. The walkman, etc. were all mechanical devices, without any software. Sony was the king of beautiful mechanical electronics. Before the computer age took hold. The iPod, etc. are software devices. Yes, they also have beautiful industrial design, but Sony is capable of that. But Sony is not capable of software. By the way, Nokia is going down for the same reason.
- Luc 13y ago
  > By the way, Nokia is going down for the same reason. Nokia is actually in a situation similar to Sony - it owns part of Nokia Siemens Networks, which is now a major cash cow. Selling handsets could become a sideshow for Nokia. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323501004578390430192117780.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732350100457839...
  - josh2600 13y ago
    I think Nokia would like to spin off NSN while their brand of IMS technology is still in fashion. The big networking vendors used to compete generationally like companies in other fields (think GE and Lockheed with Jet Engines). This is still the case and two of the dominant vendors, NSN and Ericsson, have great current generation products. The question is: will the next be the same as the last one, or will the next network be different? From my knowledge of the industry, I can tell you that the client demands are changing and now would be the best time to unload NSN, at the height of their value cycle. If you're pessimistic about NSN's long-term network strategy, sell. If You believe they've got it figured out, why would you sell your cash cow? Disclaimer: I work at 2600hz, the cloud telecom company. We work with a number of infrastructure companies to design cloud telecom applications and deploy them on things like aws.
    - thiagocmoraes 13y ago
      The thing is that the competition is fierce in this field. To see that, just look at the number of mergers: Nokia and Siemens, Alcatel and Lucent etc. The chinese companies such as Huawei and ZTE lowered the margins and really shook the market some years ago. Personally, I don't imagine a bright future for those companies. So I'm with the selling strategy. I worked at a competitor of those companies based in Brazil. The scenario wasn't pretty when I left.
dools 13y ago
Arrrrgh! Out of the miserable swamp of gigantic glowing touchscreen devices, the xperia mini pro came like a beacon of hope with it's ideally sized qwerty slider keyword and android upgradeable to ICS. Nokia, my first love, has already collapsed hopelessly. Not you too, Sony! If nothing else just keep making fucking phones!!
- fdr_cs 13y ago
  I have to agree. I did love nokia devices (and they are still great, except for the OS) . Now Sony... :(
nhebb 13y ago
> “The problem is that the board is still absolutely focused on fixing electronics” I hope they do. I see a board focused on fixing a problem less concerning than a board in denial. I have a feeling that, as their electronics preeminence waned, they were probably in denial for a long time. They have decades of engineering experience, and now that they've hit bottom, it would be a shame to see them throw it all away.
hansc 13y ago
Their previous CEO was a content guy from Hollywood; Maybe he focused mostly on the content and insurance stuff and forgot to lead the electronics division or just didn't have a compelling vision? I always wondered why they would take a Hollywood guy instead of more of a product guy.
Narretz 13y ago
Sony is losing a lot in the TV market, same as Panasonic. I am not sure you can "fix" the TV market, since the TV's role is still changing, and hardware innovations become less and less important, so there's no way to go back to the boom of early LCD. I personally would like to have a "dumb" instead of a "Smart" TV, basically just a huge display to which I can hook my PC or whatever box I want. But it'll take some years in which the big guys will desperately try to keep the old ways alive. e: previous version of this comment said Sony's Imaging division was quite healthy, while they are losing money too. But as mirrorless is a new market, I guess it's worth to lose money to establish a good market position.
- antimagic 13y ago
  Yes, exactly. I would be much happier if Sony, Samsung et al focused on making screens with low-latency, better sound, better image treatment etc instead of trying to hook me up to YouTube with a poorly designed widget that I would never touch in a million years. Latency on screens today is high enough, even in gaming mode, that even the slightest extra latency can kill some applications. I'm working on a karaoke game at the moment, and that latency is absolutely killing me.
  - kalleboo 13y ago
    > I would be much happier I think us (techies) are still in the minority here. My parents love having YouTube on their TV. With all the junk I've bought them during christmas visits, they have a bunch of ways of watching YouTube on their TV: on the Sony Blu-ray/surround system, on the AppleTV, on their iPhones/iPads via AirPlay, or on their MacBooks with AirPlay or an HDMI cable. They've ended up gravitating toward the surround system menus, since it needs the least amount of "fiddling". If the TV had it built in I'm sure they'd love that.
    - antimagic 13y ago
      I buy toys for my parents too - but they are completely hooked on the iPad / AppleTV combination. It appears to be the simplicity / flexibility sweet spot for them. They just needed to get used to switching the source of the TV. Honest question, do you really think that your parents would prefer the TV youtube app? I mean youtube is all about typing in a search term to find a video, or following a link that someone sent you, and a TV remote control is just not a good interface experience for either of those tasks (typing sucks, and you don't have links, because it's a TV not a browser). I should point out that I do set top boxes for a living, and I just can't see TVs having a future as anything other than a dumb screen with an AirPlay- / Miracast-type streaming solution bolted on to it. Maybe with some really heavy duty voice input work, or something along those lines, but none of the manufacturers seem to be heading in that direction. And of course there is the fact that the panel is expensive, and tends to be a longterm purchase. The rest of the system is rapidly evolving, and I'd rather have to buy a new AppleTV for $100 every 3 years than have to buy a new LCD panel for $1000 every 3 years to have the latest hotness. Maybe things will settle down in 10 years or so, but until then I don't think I'm unusual in wanting my TV just to be the best panel possible and leaving the content management to other boxes.
adaml_623 13y ago
"That profitable part of the business is what Daniel S. Loeb, an American investor and manager of the hedge fund Third Point, wants Sony to spin off to raise cash to resuscitate its electronics business." I find this quite interesting. We have a business that is supplying goods and paying it's employees. Let's chop it into one part that will survive and make me money and another part which will most likely die meaning all the employees are fired. I can understand the logic from one point of view but I'm not really sure the decision would benefit anyone other than a small number of investors (not all of them!) and ... I guess the lawyers and bankers always get their cut.
- kalleboo 13y ago
  > I find this quite interesting. We have a business that is supplying goods and paying it's employees. Let's chop it into one part that will survive and make me money and another part which will most likely die meaning all the employees are fired. This is the american corporate/MBA logic. Japanese business culture is to keep it around and try to develop it. It springs from the same reasoning where Japanese business hire their engineers right out of college and people have their job/position in one company for life.
- Ma8ee 13y ago
  On the other hand, keeping the bleeding part alive with money from another part of the company means that the prices in the electronics market will be artificially low, which makes it harder for all other makers of electronics. Maybe it's better that some electronics makers disappear from the market and let the remaining ones make a little bit more money, freeing some more resources for developing new innovative gadgets (or, admittedly, just making the owners wallets fatter), and maybe hire back some good engineers. tl;dr: Keeping operations that can't live by themselves alive with external funding distorts the market, whether it is the government or the corporations that do it.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  It's exactly what happened to General Electric: anything it wasn't #1 or #2 in its industry got cut. Now it's name is officially GE, and focuses on financial "products".
wavefunction 13y ago
Sony's electronics division has always been hampered by custom media formats, restrictive DRM (a side-effect of their media empire), and expensive licensing schemes. They're an ecology of one, which doesn't make for much of a market. They did it to themselves.
nathan_long 13y ago
Sony is into electronics, movie/music production, and insurance? Reminds me of the Onion story: "Yamaha CEO Pleased With Current Production Of Jet Skis, Alto Saxophones, Snowmobiles, Power Generators, Scooters, Golf Carts" Quote: "At the Yamaha Corporation we're focused on one thing and one thing alone—quality sound chips, ceiling brackets, editing software, race-kart engines, sport boats, flugelhorns, ATVs, sequencers, outboard motors, conference systems, golf clubs, projectors, MIDI controllers, lamp cartridges, portable recorders, subwoofers, component systems, and motorcycles." http://www.theonion.com/articles/yamaha-ceo-pleased-with-current-production-of-jet,6871/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/yamaha-ceo-pleased-with-cur...
- kalleboo 13y ago
  Samsung does the same (they even make cars, and run a chain of gas stations) and they're doing great in many fields.
  - speeder 13y ago
    You forgot Samsung engineering (make buildings), Samsung military engineering (make military warships), Samsung... I think Samsung manufactures everything you can imagine.
    - kalleboo 13y ago
      Yep. In Korea it's called Chaebol - LG, Daewoo are other examples. In Japan it's called Keiretsu - for instance Mitsubishi produce almost anything under the sun (they make everything from beer to the Japanese defense force's version of the F-16)
    - w1ntermute 13y ago
      They have hospitals too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Medical_Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Medical_Center
- speeder 13y ago
  Yamaha got to that, because they decided to manufacture stuff that use their music instrument factories idle time. It is just a case of extreme sinergy seeking. For example: The same factory makes wheels and drums. Also, originally the motorcicle structure was made in the piano factory (this happened when they invented a model of a lightweight metal piano, and someone on the company realized they could use the same material to make motorcicles). Yamaha focus is musical instruments, and then use their musical instrument tech to make other unrelated stuff... Yes, very weird model... but it works it seems....
lnanek2 13y ago
IBM did this a long time ago. They analyzed the company, saw services were where they made all the money, and went all out after that. They sold their printer division, their laptop division, their storage division. The laptops, the ThinkPad line, actually had a really good name for themselves and some businesses and consumers that only bought them. It took some serious balls to get rid of it. I guess that's the position Sony is in now. It would be good for the company to drop the unprofitable electronics division, but it's probably more than they are capable of doing.
speeder 13y ago
I see this as very depressing, when not even Sony executives understand where their money came from... Yes, Sony electronics give a loss, but it is NEEDED. Why it is needed? Well, because this is how Sony pushes to their bread and butter clients buy the other stuff. Sony is profitable making movies, music, and selling equipment for those, Sony Vegas is profitable, Sony 3D cameras are profitable, Sony Blu-Ray recorders are profitable. Now, why Sony would need to sell Blu-Ray recorders, if they did not pushed for Blu-Ray with the PS3 sold at loss? Sony eletronics business, was always about pushing technology that results in content producers needing to pay Sony through their nose to make the content that match Sony consumer tech. If you split Sony, you will get a electronics division that gives loss, and a movie and music division that cannot push the market to where they want anymore, resulting in the failure of both. I don't understand much of insurance business, so of course I won't comment on that.
- kalleboo 13y ago
  > I don't understand much of insurance business, so of course I won't comment on that. If people don't drop a large TV on their feet, they have no need for insurance.
robomartin 13y ago
Contrary to popular belief Sony's electronics products while perceived as being "superior" or "top of the line", rarely are. Sure, they have a few SKU's here and there that might be notable. However, the rest of the lineup is filled yawn-inspiring cookie-cutter products. From the outside it sure seems like they keep making the wrong product decisions. I never knew Sony even had an insurance arm. Profitable too. It sure seems like they ought to make a swift exit from electronics and focus on insurance.
- kalleboo 13y ago
  Their competitors are also yawn-inspiring, but still profitable.
  - robomartin 13y ago
    Perhaps the message is that hyper-commoditized products isn't the best place to be. The brand means just about nothing to those who understand the marketplace. I am sure there are folks who still buy Sony TV's and amplifiers thinking they are the best. That just proves branding can go a long way. I quit buying Sony a very long time ago. I can't even remember the last time I thought Sony when shopping for a consumer-electronics product.
    - kalleboo 13y ago
      It CAN be a good place to be - clearly Samsung are doing well. But it seems like competing in a commoditized market isn't what Sony do well.
fieldforceapp 13y ago
Living in Japan for 10 years, Sony was always perceived as closer to the Virgin Group -- Sony offered a series of consumer friendly services all wrapped within a unique marketing spin of 'fun, hip, young.' Only some of those services were electronics related. Their insurance product was marketed at young women, IIRC, and had good differentiation. Not unlike Virgin Bank I guess, something UK readers might know something about but which hasn't hit the States, and likely won't. Sony's goals aren't the same as Apple or Microsoft and that seems to have confused the author: Sony sees diversification as a core competency and might be better off compared to say GE, rather than just a consumer electronics company: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323975004578499333200342540.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732397500457849...

68 points by mxfh 13y ago

I think they lost it after the big successes, and got this megalomaniac mindset that they could establish market standards at will. Their consumer segment losses due to insistence on things like minidisc or memory sticks must have been tremendous.

kalleboo 13y ago
I think they had a lot of tunnel vision as well. In their local Japan market, they DID set the standards. You had MiniDisc players integrated in cars, etc. They just didn't have the international perspective required.

MarkTanamil 13y ago

Oh Sony. What happened? Oh well, my xperia z tablet should be arriving this week. Don't let me down.

sspiff 13y ago

I don't fully understand what brought Sony down. They have a strong synergy between their markets (content production and consumption, for instance), and their electronic products are still high quality, well designed pieces of consumer electronics, both on the engineering side as on the product design side. They're a company that has tried weird, new kinds of devices, like head-mounted 3D displays, tablets and ultra-portables. Sure, their attempts at these things didn't create high-volume markets, but at least it shows to me that the company is trying hard to innovate, with strong, more traditional products to back it up. I find it a bit saddening how Sony fails to sell enough of its products.

jpswade 13y ago
While Japanese companies were working on products that will sell more of their motors or components, American companies were working on a virtual ecosystem. There's absolutely no synergy between Sony's departments and that's also a massive problem.
com2kid 13y ago
> They have a strong synergy between their markets (content production and consumption, for instance), In theory they could have a strong synergy, but as the article alludes to, they never really exploited the possibilities. Corporate infighting to maintain fiefdoms and current profits will quickly destroy any attempt to grow into new markets that require paradigm shifts.
yardie 13y ago
You can innovate in the lab all you want but if no one is buying your product because it doesn't answer the right problems is it that innovative. I thought the AIBO robot was interesting but not thousands of dollars fabulous, you can get a proper, pedigreed dog for that price. They have a nasty habit of bringing things to market to fast and then not properly supporting it. Then when the consumers walk away they blame everything else but themselves.
- gambiting 13y ago
  Or to give a slightly cheaper example: Sony Tablet S and P. Both were experiments,as in - tablets with a very unusual form factor, released to see if the market will accept them. And while the Tablet P was a failure, Tablet S sold quite well - and what Sony did? Abandoned it. The only available update to Android 4.0 leaves all users with slow system on an otherwise nice device, but worst of all - it has a locked bootloader,so you can't even put a custom rom of a newer version. A cool device released quickly, and just as quickly abandoned.
- antimagic 13y ago
  AIBO was a big missed opportunity. The unit cost was too high, and the software not advanced enough. But those things can't have been having a huge effect on their R&D budget. They could have kept the same mechanical design, but increased CPU/memory each year, with corresponding work on the AI for minimal pain, reducing the price and improving the utility each year. If that work had continued constantly, we would have some truly remarkable AI pets available by now, which would make the ultimate toy for young children that live in apartments. That same technology could then have been applied to home automation robots. Instead we have Roomba.
  - yardie 13y ago
    Like you, I thought AIBO was far ahead of its time. So far that I assumed Sony was using it to improve their AI and would release better products based on the feedback. Except, they never did. They had a product that everyone saw wasn't going to sell well and just killed it when exactly that happened.
  - 13y ago
technoslut 13y ago
Sony had more than one problem. The biggest problem is their brand name has suffered for years with lackluster and not very well-thought out products. They're starting to turn it around but it may be too late - much like Nokia and HTC.
Nursie 13y ago
Their stuff generally looks good, but the likes of Samsung managed to make product every bit as good (or better) and at better prices, generally. Also some of us still have a bitter taste in our mouths from the various rootkits and hacker lawsuits, so wouldn't touch them with a bargepole. I'm under no illusion we're a serious market force though.
kalleboo 13y ago
They're mostly competing in commodity markets - TV, stereo, Android phones, etc. And in those markets right now, the only thing people care about is price, availability and marketing. "how many inches TV can I get for $X?" "what high-end smartphone will my operator give me for free?". Sony have failed at those things. I'm in Bangkok right now, and the city is PLASTERED with Samsung adverts. For phones, smartTVs, everything. I also see Samsung or Apple phones in every hand. Sony has also failed at marketing.

nakedrobot2 13y ago

The issue is a simple one. What brought Sony down is the thing that brings down all huge companies: they failed to adapt. All Sony's great successes were in hardware. Mechanical hardware. The walkman, etc. were all mechanical devices, without any software. Sony was the king of beautiful mechanical electronics. Before the computer age took hold. The iPod, etc. are software devices. Yes, they also have beautiful industrial design, but Sony is capable of that. But Sony is not capable of software. By the way, Nokia is going down for the same reason.

Luc 13y ago
> By the way, Nokia is going down for the same reason. Nokia is actually in a situation similar to Sony - it owns part of Nokia Siemens Networks, which is now a major cash cow. Selling handsets could become a sideshow for Nokia. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323501004578390430192117780.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732350100457839...
- josh2600 13y ago
  I think Nokia would like to spin off NSN while their brand of IMS technology is still in fashion. The big networking vendors used to compete generationally like companies in other fields (think GE and Lockheed with Jet Engines). This is still the case and two of the dominant vendors, NSN and Ericsson, have great current generation products. The question is: will the next be the same as the last one, or will the next network be different? From my knowledge of the industry, I can tell you that the client demands are changing and now would be the best time to unload NSN, at the height of their value cycle. If you're pessimistic about NSN's long-term network strategy, sell. If You believe they've got it figured out, why would you sell your cash cow? Disclaimer: I work at 2600hz, the cloud telecom company. We work with a number of infrastructure companies to design cloud telecom applications and deploy them on things like aws.
  - thiagocmoraes 13y ago
    The thing is that the competition is fierce in this field. To see that, just look at the number of mergers: Nokia and Siemens, Alcatel and Lucent etc. The chinese companies such as Huawei and ZTE lowered the margins and really shook the market some years ago. Personally, I don't imagine a bright future for those companies. So I'm with the selling strategy. I worked at a competitor of those companies based in Brazil. The scenario wasn't pretty when I left.

dools 13y ago

Arrrrgh! Out of the miserable swamp of gigantic glowing touchscreen devices, the xperia mini pro came like a beacon of hope with it's ideally sized qwerty slider keyword and android upgradeable to ICS. Nokia, my first love, has already collapsed hopelessly. Not you too, Sony! If nothing else just keep making fucking phones!!

fdr_cs 13y ago
I have to agree. I did love nokia devices (and they are still great, except for the OS) . Now Sony... :(

nhebb 13y ago

> “The problem is that the board is still absolutely focused on fixing electronics” I hope they do. I see a board focused on fixing a problem less concerning than a board in denial. I have a feeling that, as their electronics preeminence waned, they were probably in denial for a long time. They have decades of engineering experience, and now that they've hit bottom, it would be a shame to see them throw it all away.

hansc 13y ago

Their previous CEO was a content guy from Hollywood; Maybe he focused mostly on the content and insurance stuff and forgot to lead the electronics division or just didn't have a compelling vision? I always wondered why they would take a Hollywood guy instead of more of a product guy.

Narretz 13y ago

Sony is losing a lot in the TV market, same as Panasonic. I am not sure you can "fix" the TV market, since the TV's role is still changing, and hardware innovations become less and less important, so there's no way to go back to the boom of early LCD. I personally would like to have a "dumb" instead of a "Smart" TV, basically just a huge display to which I can hook my PC or whatever box I want. But it'll take some years in which the big guys will desperately try to keep the old ways alive. e: previous version of this comment said Sony's Imaging division was quite healthy, while they are losing money too. But as mirrorless is a new market, I guess it's worth to lose money to establish a good market position.

antimagic 13y ago
Yes, exactly. I would be much happier if Sony, Samsung et al focused on making screens with low-latency, better sound, better image treatment etc instead of trying to hook me up to YouTube with a poorly designed widget that I would never touch in a million years. Latency on screens today is high enough, even in gaming mode, that even the slightest extra latency can kill some applications. I'm working on a karaoke game at the moment, and that latency is absolutely killing me.
- kalleboo 13y ago
  > I would be much happier I think us (techies) are still in the minority here. My parents love having YouTube on their TV. With all the junk I've bought them during christmas visits, they have a bunch of ways of watching YouTube on their TV: on the Sony Blu-ray/surround system, on the AppleTV, on their iPhones/iPads via AirPlay, or on their MacBooks with AirPlay or an HDMI cable. They've ended up gravitating toward the surround system menus, since it needs the least amount of "fiddling". If the TV had it built in I'm sure they'd love that.
  - antimagic 13y ago
    I buy toys for my parents too - but they are completely hooked on the iPad / AppleTV combination. It appears to be the simplicity / flexibility sweet spot for them. They just needed to get used to switching the source of the TV. Honest question, do you really think that your parents would prefer the TV youtube app? I mean youtube is all about typing in a search term to find a video, or following a link that someone sent you, and a TV remote control is just not a good interface experience for either of those tasks (typing sucks, and you don't have links, because it's a TV not a browser). I should point out that I do set top boxes for a living, and I just can't see TVs having a future as anything other than a dumb screen with an AirPlay- / Miracast-type streaming solution bolted on to it. Maybe with some really heavy duty voice input work, or something along those lines, but none of the manufacturers seem to be heading in that direction. And of course there is the fact that the panel is expensive, and tends to be a longterm purchase. The rest of the system is rapidly evolving, and I'd rather have to buy a new AppleTV for $100 every 3 years than have to buy a new LCD panel for $1000 every 3 years to have the latest hotness. Maybe things will settle down in 10 years or so, but until then I don't think I'm unusual in wanting my TV just to be the best panel possible and leaving the content management to other boxes.

adaml_623 13y ago

"That profitable part of the business is what Daniel S. Loeb, an American investor and manager of the hedge fund Third Point, wants Sony to spin off to raise cash to resuscitate its electronics business." I find this quite interesting. We have a business that is supplying goods and paying it's employees. Let's chop it into one part that will survive and make me money and another part which will most likely die meaning all the employees are fired. I can understand the logic from one point of view but I'm not really sure the decision would benefit anyone other than a small number of investors (not all of them!) and ... I guess the lawyers and bankers always get their cut.

kalleboo 13y ago
> I find this quite interesting. We have a business that is supplying goods and paying it's employees. Let's chop it into one part that will survive and make me money and another part which will most likely die meaning all the employees are fired. This is the american corporate/MBA logic. Japanese business culture is to keep it around and try to develop it. It springs from the same reasoning where Japanese business hire their engineers right out of college and people have their job/position in one company for life.
Ma8ee 13y ago
On the other hand, keeping the bleeding part alive with money from another part of the company means that the prices in the electronics market will be artificially low, which makes it harder for all other makers of electronics. Maybe it's better that some electronics makers disappear from the market and let the remaining ones make a little bit more money, freeing some more resources for developing new innovative gadgets (or, admittedly, just making the owners wallets fatter), and maybe hire back some good engineers. tl;dr: Keeping operations that can't live by themselves alive with external funding distorts the market, whether it is the government or the corporations that do it.
ctdonath 13y ago
It's exactly what happened to General Electric: anything it wasn't #1 or #2 in its industry got cut. Now it's name is officially GE, and focuses on financial "products".

wavefunction 13y ago

Sony's electronics division has always been hampered by custom media formats, restrictive DRM (a side-effect of their media empire), and expensive licensing schemes. They're an ecology of one, which doesn't make for much of a market. They did it to themselves.

nathan_long 13y ago

Sony is into electronics, movie/music production, and insurance? Reminds me of the Onion story: "Yamaha CEO Pleased With Current Production Of Jet Skis, Alto Saxophones, Snowmobiles, Power Generators, Scooters, Golf Carts" Quote: "At the Yamaha Corporation we're focused on one thing and one thing alone—quality sound chips, ceiling brackets, editing software, race-kart engines, sport boats, flugelhorns, ATVs, sequencers, outboard motors, conference systems, golf clubs, projectors, MIDI controllers, lamp cartridges, portable recorders, subwoofers, component systems, and motorcycles." http://www.theonion.com/articles/yamaha-ceo-pleased-with-current-production-of-jet,6871/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/yamaha-ceo-pleased-with-cur...

kalleboo 13y ago
Samsung does the same (they even make cars, and run a chain of gas stations) and they're doing great in many fields.
- speeder 13y ago
  You forgot Samsung engineering (make buildings), Samsung military engineering (make military warships), Samsung... I think Samsung manufactures everything you can imagine.
  - kalleboo 13y ago
    Yep. In Korea it's called Chaebol - LG, Daewoo are other examples. In Japan it's called Keiretsu - for instance Mitsubishi produce almost anything under the sun (they make everything from beer to the Japanese defense force's version of the F-16)
  - w1ntermute 13y ago
    They have hospitals too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Medical_Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Medical_Center
speeder 13y ago
Yamaha got to that, because they decided to manufacture stuff that use their music instrument factories idle time. It is just a case of extreme sinergy seeking. For example: The same factory makes wheels and drums. Also, originally the motorcicle structure was made in the piano factory (this happened when they invented a model of a lightweight metal piano, and someone on the company realized they could use the same material to make motorcicles). Yamaha focus is musical instruments, and then use their musical instrument tech to make other unrelated stuff... Yes, very weird model... but it works it seems....

lnanek2 13y ago

IBM did this a long time ago. They analyzed the company, saw services were where they made all the money, and went all out after that. They sold their printer division, their laptop division, their storage division. The laptops, the ThinkPad line, actually had a really good name for themselves and some businesses and consumers that only bought them. It took some serious balls to get rid of it. I guess that's the position Sony is in now. It would be good for the company to drop the unprofitable electronics division, but it's probably more than they are capable of doing.

speeder 13y ago

I see this as very depressing, when not even Sony executives understand where their money came from... Yes, Sony electronics give a loss, but it is NEEDED. Why it is needed? Well, because this is how Sony pushes to their bread and butter clients buy the other stuff. Sony is profitable making movies, music, and selling equipment for those, Sony Vegas is profitable, Sony 3D cameras are profitable, Sony Blu-Ray recorders are profitable. Now, why Sony would need to sell Blu-Ray recorders, if they did not pushed for Blu-Ray with the PS3 sold at loss? Sony eletronics business, was always about pushing technology that results in content producers needing to pay Sony through their nose to make the content that match Sony consumer tech. If you split Sony, you will get a electronics division that gives loss, and a movie and music division that cannot push the market to where they want anymore, resulting in the failure of both. I don't understand much of insurance business, so of course I won't comment on that.

kalleboo 13y ago
> I don't understand much of insurance business, so of course I won't comment on that. If people don't drop a large TV on their feet, they have no need for insurance.

robomartin 13y ago

Contrary to popular belief Sony's electronics products while perceived as being "superior" or "top of the line", rarely are. Sure, they have a few SKU's here and there that might be notable. However, the rest of the lineup is filled yawn-inspiring cookie-cutter products. From the outside it sure seems like they keep making the wrong product decisions. I never knew Sony even had an insurance arm. Profitable too. It sure seems like they ought to make a swift exit from electronics and focus on insurance.

kalleboo 13y ago
Their competitors are also yawn-inspiring, but still profitable.
- robomartin 13y ago
  Perhaps the message is that hyper-commoditized products isn't the best place to be. The brand means just about nothing to those who understand the marketplace. I am sure there are folks who still buy Sony TV's and amplifiers thinking they are the best. That just proves branding can go a long way. I quit buying Sony a very long time ago. I can't even remember the last time I thought Sony when shopping for a consumer-electronics product.
  - kalleboo 13y ago
    It CAN be a good place to be - clearly Samsung are doing well. But it seems like competing in a commoditized market isn't what Sony do well.

fieldforceapp 13y ago

Living in Japan for 10 years, Sony was always perceived as closer to the Virgin Group -- Sony offered a series of consumer friendly services all wrapped within a unique marketing spin of 'fun, hip, young.' Only some of those services were electronics related. Their insurance product was marketed at young women, IIRC, and had good differentiation. Not unlike Virgin Bank I guess, something UK readers might know something about but which hasn't hit the States, and likely won't. Sony's goals aren't the same as Apple or Microsoft and that seems to have confused the author: Sony sees diversification as a core competency and might be better off compared to say GE, rather than just a consumer electronics company: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323975004578499333200342540.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732397500457849...