Back in 2009, I placed both Office and Windows, the sources of Microsoft's revenues, on my Technology Deathwatch list. 

The rapid shift to the cloud, the mobile web and to smartphones, that I assumed at that time would occur over the next 5 or so years, would fundamentally shift the "personal computing" landscape.

Microsoft probably wouldn't be able to keep up. And even if it could, the massive revenue and profit-generating machines of Office and Windows would not survive. At least, not as we understand these services. After all, dinosaurs may evolve into birds, but in doing so become something completely different.

Last week, Forbes ran a devastating piece on the *future* of Microsoft. It's not a pretty picture:

When a company hits a growth stall, 93% of the time it will be unable to maintain even a 2% growth rate. 75% of the time we can expect it will fall into a no growth, or declining, revenue environment.  And 70% of the time it will lose at least half its market capitalization. That’s because the market has shifted, and the business is no longer selling what customers really want. No matter how hard management tries to recapture the past, customers have decided to move on.

At Microsoft, we see a company that has been completely unable to deal with the market shift toward smartphones and tablets:

• The overall PC market declined by 2% last quarter
• Consumer PC shipments dropped 8% last quarter
• Netbook sales plunged 40%

Stalled company management will tout earnings growth, even though revenues are flat or declining.  But smart investors know the ongoing effort to “manufacture earnings” does not create long-term value.  They want “real” earnings created by selling products customers desire -  creating incremental, new demand.  Success doesn’t come from wringing a few coins out of a declining market – but rather from being in markets where people prefer the new solutions.

Not all earnings are equal.  A dollar of earnings in a growth company is worth a multiple.  Earnings in a declining company are, well, often worthless.  Those who see this early get out while they can – before the company collapses.

In my Technology Rankings -- which are infallible! -- I gave TBD.com a very good '27' score. That meant it should survive, at minimum, and indeed, I expected it to do quite well on the heels of its launch:

I wanted to explore TBD.com before its official launch because it is well-funded, has 'old media' staffers and has amassed over 100 bloggers (nee journalists) already. Can this work? I will use my TECHNOLOGY RANKINGS algorithm to score it. I believe that hyperlocal news sites can work -- provided they seek to maximize their embrace of the meta trends I use to rank technologies and business models.

Wrong! TBD has done crashed and done burned and the future of new hyperlocal news sites, for the near future at least, is now in doubt. From Newsosaur:

The rapid implosion of the high-profile TBD news site is further evidence that hyperlocal journalism is more hype than hope for the news business. Launched with considerable fanfare and generous funding only six months ago by Allbritton Communications, TBD was the latest effort in the nation’s capital to create websites filled with intensely local coverage that, it was hoped, would attract large and loyal followings. Instead, they cost a bundle and withered for lack of interest.

TBD faltered for the same four reasons its esteemed predecessors could not get off the ground. For the record, these are the same reasons that most ill-conceived media start-ups fail.

• Small audiences
• Big expenses
• Small revenues
• Big losses

The setback at TBD will not spell the end of the hyperlocal experiment. AOL this year is spending $50 million to fund the roll-out Patch.Com in dozens of communities across the land.

In my defense, I listed TBD.com as...TBD.com (hyperlocal news). So, the jury is still out. When I look back at my rankings, I see two big issues. Under "ADAPTABILITY", it scored a 4 out of 5. This is probably correct -- in theory. Hyperlocal news ought to be able to be replicated just about anywhere. However, adapting to new (local) markets and tastes and demographics is not easy, nor cheap. That should have factored in my scoring.

Similarly, under FREE, it scores a full 5 out of 5. I clearly need to revise how I define "FREE". Yes, the service was free -- to users. But, it costs a great deal to create! A free hyperlocal service that relies almost entirely on non-paid local bloggers, say, might deserve a 5 out of 5. A big corporate entity paying 'journalists' to create content does not.

I think the model still works. And I think it still works for hyperlocal news, in fact. But, I did get this one wrong and will have to make some modifications to my methodology.

The smartphone and the "smart social mobile web" are remaking culture, power, opportunity, work, play and wealth. The smartphone is rapidly destroying old technologies and habits, reshaping economic power centers, exposing rifts between young and old and empowering the disconnected. We need a way of assessing these changes, and keeping score. This is why I rank:

• smartphones
• technologies (those that will succeed, those that will perish in the smartphone wars)
• cities
• leaders (all stars)

The ranking methodology is summarized below.

NOTE: Not every city or smartphone, for example, can be reviewed. Thus, while a higher score is good (e.g. smartphone score of 30 is better than 28, say), there may be a smartphone or city or technology that I have not yet reviewed that could theoretically garner a higher score. This is not like a 'Top 10' list, say. 

Smartphone Rankings

• Smartphone rankings are designed to help you quickly sort through numerous smartphone options and guide you to a great smartphone choice based on your unique needs and preferences. This matrix also serves as a repository for other smartphone reviews.

  Scores are based on the following highlighted factors, with each assigned a score of 0-5:
  

  • Design: the overall design of the smartphone
    
  • Network: the network(s) reach, reliability, service and cost
    
  • Usability: encapsulating the frequent daily usage of primary features and functions
    
  • Affordability: the total cost of ownership
    
  • Productivity: its potential to support your work, vocation, money-making efforts
    
  • Fun: games and fun
    
  • Content: the availability and depth of digital content, including web, books, videos, television programs and more
    
  • Third Party: the software and apps and their benificence
    
  • Desire: this is that quality that makes each of us covetous, stupid and totally alive

City Rankings

How well is your city positioned for the Smartphone Wars? Talent, money, jobs, wealth, power, training, learning, opportunity -- all these are now fully mobile. I rank cities according to their potential to thrive -- to grow their economy and global influence -- during the smartphone wars and beyond. Rankings are based on nine meta-factors, each with a possible score of 0-5 , with a total potential score of 45.

These nine traceable and global meta factors  are permanently transforming wealth creation, influence, connectivity, learning, jobs and power. These include:

• Smartphone-enabled services an abundance of hyperlocal meeting places supporting hyperglobal connectivity, and favoring the smart, the social and the young. That is the future of successful cities. Old markets, old industries, gatekeeper cities and regions will be irreversibly destroyed. Others will rise up, rapidly, better able to compete in this new world. 
  

Technology Rankings

A technology product/service/platform is assigned a score of 1-5 stars for each trend (see below) that is of critical importance for success in the age of the smartphone. Scores are totaled across all trends to determine a final score. The higher the score the better. A score of 27 or higher means assured success. A score of 18 or less means certain doom.

SMARTPHONE ALL STARS 100

I am compiling a list of the 100 most important and influential people in the global smartphone industry. This is expected to be complete by May 2011.

Methodology

For each factor, a score of 0-5 is awarded. The factors are:

• Rock Star: The name (and brief bio) of the smartphone "rock star".
• Popularity (Industry): The popularity and respect the individual commands in the smartphone industry.
• Popularity (Public): The popularity and respect the individual commands in the public.
• Leadership (Technology): The all-star's leadership in advancing smartphone and mobile web related technologies.
• Leadership (Usage): The all-star's leadership in advancing usage of smartphones and the mobile web.
• Commitment: Their commitment to the smartphone industry and mobile web.
• Accessibility: The increase in access and connectivity around the world the rock star has engendered.
• Innovation: How innovative have they been? What changes in the market and/or technology have they achieved?
• Wealth: Not the amount of wealth they have made. Rather, this represents how much wealth their products/services have generated for users and others.

Facebook leads my Technology Rankings and has for some time.

I do not expect this to change anytime soon. In fact, I recently wrote that if you want to know who will win the "smartphone wars" it will be Facebook. Facebook have recently announced an 'app' that allows a rich Facebook experience on low-end Java-based feature phones. This will likely increase usage in developing countries.

How time flies...

But a year ago, I placed email on my dinosuar watch list -- those technoloiges and services set to die, go extinct, be marginalized into irrelevance by no later than 2016. A year later, the New York Times is nice enough to give as a chart. This one showing the widening generation gap between those who use email (hint: older folk) and those who do not.

In the last year, time spent using e-mail sites like Yahoo and Hotmail has fallen 48 percent among 12- to 17-year-olds, according to comScore, a market research firm. The statistics only include time spent with e-mail on computers, so the decline may be somewhat offset by teenagers using e-mail on their phones. Still, the drop for that age group is far sharper than for others. ComScore found a decline of 10 percent in time spent on Web-based email among 18- to 24-year-olds, about the same as it found for people up to the age of 54.

But then things change sharply — and start climbing in the other direction. The research firm found that time spent on e-mail rose 15 percent for people 55 to 64, and was up 17 percent for people 65 and older. “This strongly suggests a generational shift in the way people communicate,” said Andrew Lipsman, an analyst with comScore. He said the fact that people over 54 are spending more time with e-mail likely reflects the fact that some in that age group are either getting online for the first time or becoming more familiar with computers and the Internet. For them, Mr. Lipsman said, e-mail is often a starting point.

A lot of people don't like nor agree with many of my technology predictions. Those tech products and services in the Technology Deathwatch list cause the most protests.

Not so with FLO TV.

I placed that on the deathwatch back in early June 2010.

It died a miserable death. Too bad for those who didn't listen to me. However, in one of those rare acts of corporate concern for a small minority of its customers, Qualcomm today announced a payback program for those who subscribed to the service.

My Technology: Dinosaur Watch has included email since the inception of the list. When run against my scoring, email just doesn't match up against the future. It's not social. Not real-time.

See for yourself:  http://brianshall.com/technology_deathwatch

Email scores a 23. Certain death is a score of 18 or less. Email occupies that world I liken to fax machines. It may be around, but it becomes more marginalized with each passing day.

Not all agree. From today's GigaOm on why email won't die:

• It’s universal. Just about everyone who’s online has an email account. Email works internationally and across cultures.
• It’s simple. You don’t need to explain to anyone how to send you a file using email.
• It’s asynchronous. Unlike IM, where both parties need to be online for it to work, emails are stored until the receiver is able to deal with them.
• It has few constraints. Unlike some other communication tools, email enables you to send very rich messages: you can simultaneously email a bunch of people, include as much information as you like, use HTML to add formatting, and easily attach supporting documentation or files.
• It’s controllable. Individuals and businesses can run their own email servers. You don’t need to rely on a third party to provide your messaging service.

I don't argue with those points. I just think they, like email, are becoming increasingly irrelevant or even more true for competing services. Time will tell which of us is correct.

Facebook has long held the top spot in my TECHNOLOGY RANKINGS. Social, hyperlocal, nearly real-time, and, though it makes no smartphone itself (yet), is optimized for mobile phones.

And even setting the bar high, it seems that each time new numbers are revealed, it's amazing all over again just how big Facebook continues to get.

The Next Web has a bunch of new numbers and charts up. Here's a couple, looking at country numbers and top apps:

Take note. Facebook is not English only. Looks like over half of Canada is on, nearly half the United States. There is representation in the top 10 across North America, Europe and Asia. Facebook is on fire. How long will it last? Possibly 'forever' in tech terms. Meaning, they'll have to stop cutting bait by 2012 and go public and play with the big boys.