Mobile Opportunity - News And Views from Google MO

A strangely cryptic article in the New York Times today announced that several companies had banded together “to build the first of a new generation of nationwide wireless data networks” in the US (link). I read it and thought to myself: what, another new vaporware wireless technology? I couldn’t make sense of the article, so I went to the websites of some of the companies involved. It turns out the announcement isn’t a new vaporware wireless technology, it’s my favorite old vaporware wireless technology, WiMax (link). Sprint finally figured out what to do with it.

The announcement was both interesting and supremely frustrating. The interesting part was that Sprint has brought several promising investors into WiMax, including Google. That’s right, Google is launching a wireless network, if only as a minority investor. (And it got a sweet deal, which I’ll explain below.) The unbelievably frustrating part is that Sprint has pretty much slipped the deployment plan for WiMax by another two years. It’s hard to get excited about a new technology, no matter how great the investors, when I have zero confidence in the companies’ ability to deliver.

Here’s what was announced:

Sprint and several companies have banded together to buy Clearwire, the other wireless company that had been building a WiMax network in the US. Clearwire will be merged with Sprint’s WiMax division, the company will be managed by a mix of Clearwire and Sprint executives, and will be headquartered at Clearwire’s site in Washington state.

Investors in the merged company, to be called Clearwire, include Google, Comcast, Intel, TimeWarner Cable, Bright House Networks, and Trilogy Equity Partners. Intel and Comcast are investing about $1 billion each, TimeWarner and Google about $500 million, Bright House $100 million, and Trilogy $10 million.

Google gets to be the preferred search provider for both Sprint and Clearwire, will provide apps (including Gmail, YouTube, and Maps) for bundling with devices, and Clearwire will sell devices running Google Android. Google and Clearwire will also partner to develop advertising, applications, and create the operating principles for the network (link). Google said it will work with Clearwire to create:

An open Internet protocol to work with mobile broadband devices…and implementing other open network practices and policies….The network will: (1) expand advanced high speed wireless Internet access in the U.S., (2) allow consumers to utilize any lawful applications, content and devices without blocking, degrading or impairing Internet traffic and (3) engage in reasonable and competitively-neutral network management.

Intel will provide WiMax chips (which it was doing anyway), and Sprint, TimeWarner, Comcast, and Bright House will all become Clearwire resellers.

The new company will be 51% owned by Sprint, and its governance structure is so nuanced that I won’t even try to explain it here.

As part of the announcement, Sprint slipped in an estimate that the new Clearwire network will reach 120 million to 140 million people by the end of 2010 (link).

What it means

Death to the Xohm. On a personal basis, the most exciting part of the announcement is that Sprint is apparently dropping the brand name Xohm, which it was using for its WiMax services. I am very sympathetic to the troubles that companies have finding brand names that aren’t already trademarked. But even by my lowered standards, I thought Xohm was a bizarre name. To me, it sounded like something you’d read in a bad science fiction novel. The Xohm would be a race of homicidal crustaceans bent on destroying humanity.

“Captain, the Xohm have deployed a quantum weak force destabilizer!”

“Good God! That could rupture the very fabric of space-time!”

Google gets a wireless network. The company that made out like The Xohm in this deal is Google. For just $500 million (little more than gas money for the corporate jet in Google terms), the company gets preferred placement for its services on both Clearwire and Sprint; a showcase for its apps, advertising, and OS; and the opportunity to design the business model for a national wireless network. No wonder Google didn’t bother to bid seriously in the recent US wireless spectrum auction — why build a network when you can play with one for a tenth the price?

Comcast, Time Warner, and Bright House all get quadruple play options. They can pair Clearwire services with their current cable businesses to deliver advanced bundles of wireless services, Internet access, telephony, and television.

Will it succeed?

The reaction to the deal on some prominent tech blogs seems to range from lukewarm (link) to intensely negative (link). But I think there’s a lot to like about it. The involvement of Google means we’re very likely to get a pretty much open ecosystem on a major wireless network, which Silicon Valley has been collectively screaming about for years. The size of the investments mean there is a lot of money available to build out the network. People ought to be dancing in the streets here, but instead most of them appear to be either yawning or throwing spitwads.

I’d be out there dancing myself if it weren’t for the slip in the schedule. A year and a half ago Sprint announced that its WiMax network would reach 100 million people by the end of 2008 (link). Now Sprint says that by the end of 2010 the network will reach 120-140 million people. So in the last 18 months, the schedule has basically slipped by 24 months. It’s going backwards. At this rate we’ll have passenger rockets to Pluto before we have WiMax service.

Hopefully the management of the new Clearwire will be dominated by people from outside Sprint. I want to believe that they can build out this network; we need it both for the service itself and as an example of how to grow an open mobile ecosystem. But it’s very hard to trust people who have missed their targets as badly as these guys have.

Some other interesting commentary on the deal:

Muni Wireless on the cable companies’ motives for investing (link).
Fierce Wireless explains the ownership structure (link).
Sprint’s amazingly complex press release (link).

==========

Thanks to Xellular Identity for including last week’s post on Adobe in the latest Carnival of the Mobilists (link).

Today Adobe announced a series of changes to its emerging web applications platform. The changes include:

–The next version of the mobile Flash runtime will be free of license fees. Adobe also confirmed that the mobile version of the Air runtime will be free.

–Adobe changed its licensing terms and released additional technical information that will make it easier for companies to create their own Flash-compatible products.

–The company announced a new consortium called Open Screen supporting the more open versions of Flash and Air. Members of the new group include the five leading handset companies, three mobile operators (including NTT DoCoMo and Verizon), technology vendors (including Intel, Cisco, and Qualcomm), and content companies (BBC, MTV, and NBC Universal). Google, Apple, and Microsoft are not members. It’s not clear to me what the consortium members have actually agreed to do. My guess is it’s mostly a political group.

Adobe said that the idea behind the announcements is to create a single consistent platform that lets developers create an application or piece of content once and run it across various types of devices and operating systems. That idea is very appealing to developers and content companies today. It was equally appealing two years ago, when then-CEO of Adobe Bruce Chizen made the exact same promise (link):

If we execute appropriately we will be the engagement platform, or the layer, on top of anything that has an LCD display, any computing device — everything from a refrigerator to an automobile to a video game to a computer to a mobile phone.

If Adobe had made the Open Screen announcement two years ago, I think it could have caught Microsoft completely flat-footed, and Adobe might have been in a very powerful position by now. But by waiting two years, Adobe gave Microsoft advance warning and plenty of runway room to react — so much so that ArsTechnica today called Adobe’s announcement a reaction to Microsoft Silverlight (link).

Also, the most important changes appear to apply to the next version of mobile Flash and the upcoming mobile version of Air — meaning this was in part a vaporware announcement. Even when the new runtime software ships, it will take a long time to get it integrated into mobile phones. So once again, Microsoft has a long runway to maneuver on.

Still, the changes Adobe made are very useful. There’s no way Flash could have become ubiquitous in the mobile world while Adobe was still charging fees for it. The changes to the Flash license terms remove one of the biggest objections I’ve seen to Flash from open source advocates (link). The Flash community seems excited (link, link). And the list of supporters is impressive. Looking through the obligatory quotes attached to the Adobe release, two things stand out:

–Adobe got direct mentions of Air from ARM, Intel, SonyEricsson, Verizon, and Nokia (although Nokia promised only to explore Air, while it’s on the record promising to bundle Silverlight mobile).

–The inclusion of NBC Universal in the announcement will have Adobe people chuckling because Microsoft signed up NBC to stream the Olympics online using Silverlight. So NBC is warning Microsoft not to take it for granted, and Adobe gets to stick its tongue out.

What does it all mean?

Nothing much in the short term. As I mentioned earlier, this is mostly a vaporware announcement (other than the license changes). Some people are speculating that this will put pressure on Apple to make Flash available on the iPhone (link). That’s possible, if Apple’s real concern was that they didn’t like Flash Lite. Now they can port full Flash, or someone else can do it. But if Apple is in reality unwilling to let anyone else’s platform run on the iPhone then we’ll see other objections to Flash emerge.

The marketing competition to control the future of web apps is continuing to heat up. Microsoft is trying to take the whole thing proprietary by creating a comprehensive architecture, Adobe is trying to drive its own platform, Sun is trying to re-energize Java, Google is making its own moves, and so on (link). Plus, of course, most web app developers today are happy with what they’re using now and have little interest in switching to any of the new architectures (check out the dandy commentary by Joel Spolsky here).

It’s an enormously complex situation, and it’s going to take months, if not years, before we can start to see who’s winning and who is losing. Rubicon is working on a white paper that will try to clarify the situation a bit. I’ll let you know when it’s published.

In the meantime, enjoy the marketing fireworks. The intense competition is forcing companies to innovate faster and open up their products, as Adobe did today. I think that process is good for just about everyone in the industry.

Could Yahoo be fixed and thrive as an independent company? I think it could, but now we’ll probably never know, because Microsoft wants to buy it. There are reports that private equity firms, and possibly News Corp, also want to bid (link). Even Google has supposedly offered to help (link). But by declaring its desire for Yahoo, Microsoft has basically acknowledged that its own Internet business is failing. Now that Microsoft has said that in public, it has no choice but to outbid everyone else.

Which is a shame, because I think the combined companies are likely to fail. To explain why, I have to talk about the right and wrong ways to compete with an industry leader…

How to fight a leader

In my opinion, the best way to fight a dominant company at the top of their game is not to go head to head with them. You don’t launch a competing line of mainframes against IBM in the 1960s, and you don’t launch a consumer operating system against Microsoft in the mid-1990s. What you want to do is challenge them in a business they don’t understand, or better yet an area where their own strengths make them weak. That’s what Google did — while Microsoft was focused on beating Netscape, AOL and the other first-generation Internet companies, Google quietly established a franchise in search advertising. It’s now using this secure base to subsidize free online applications (and a mobile operating system) that compete with Microsoft.

Although Google’s direct impact on Microsoft’s applications business to date has been miniscule, Google’s tactics will eventually present Microsoft with a Catch-22 situation: If it tries to hold the line on prices, its customers will gradually migrate away. If it matches Google on price, it destroys its own revenues.

Microsoft’s response has been to try to get a piece of Google’s advertising revenue. First it tried to build its own search and advertising business. Now that’s failing, so it wants to buy Yahoo’s to get critical mass.

The problem is that even with Yahoo, Microsoft will still be far behind Google in search advertising. Google has a huge lead, and is willing and able to spend lavishly to defend it if it has to. I think what Microsoft is doing is equivalent to leading an infantry charge uphill against an infinite number of machine guns.

If Microsoft really wants to spend $45 billion, I think it would be far better served by investing it to attack someplace where Google is weak.

Google’s weaknesses

A dominant company’s strengths are also usually its weaknesses. (For example, IBM was so deeply embedded in corporate big iron that it couldn’t understand the PC business. Microsoft was so caught up in monetizing a computer platform that it couldn’t picture someone giving away the whole thing.) Google’s weakness is its beautifully managed and consistent corporate culture. Google hires only the best and brightest software engineers. It hires them young, so they can be molded, and it brags about screening them all for “Googliness.” That consistent culture means it acts far more predictably than many technology companies, and it has very consistent blind spots.

One of Google’s blind spots it that it can’t tell the difference between usability and utility. Usability is the process of making software easy to learn without a manual or extensive training. Google is extremely good at designing for usability. Its interfaces are clear, uncluttered, and generally self-explanatory. Utility is the ability of a product to solve a major problem for a user. That requires the designer to get inside the head of the target customer, understanding not only his or her rational needs but also the emotional landscape. Google is terrible at designing for utility. It tends to attack problems that engineers care about, rather than normal people; and it often produces elegant technologies that don’t engage people emotionally and fail to deliver the full solution they need. (If you want a great example of the difference between usability and utility, compare the old Google Video to YouTube. Google Video was cleaner and easier to use, but it was launched without sufficient content, and was about as emotionally engaging as a slab of concrete.)

One of the best ways to compete with Google, then, is to focus on utility — to create online products and services that solve real problems for customers, and address both emotional and rational needs. That’s what Amazon is doing with Amazon Web Services (although in this case the customers are developers rather than consumers.)

There are many, many more opportunities to create high-utility Internet applications. What you need is a critical mass of bright engineers, a product management culture that understands how to design for utility, and senior management that focuses the company on its best opportunities. Designing for utility takes more resources than just tossing a product out there, so management must restrict the number of projects the company undertakes.

Yahoo has plenty of bright engineers, and I think it understands utility better than Google. Ironically, Yahoo’s attempt to make itself into a media company probably helped here, because it forced the company to learn about engaging people emotionally.

What Yahoo has lacked, in my opinion, is the awareness that it’s actually a products company, not a media company; and the management discipline to focus on a small number of initiatives.

Will a buyout by Microsoft fix those problems? I don’t think so. Microsoft itself isn’t great at designing for utility. Mostly, it focuses on copying and adapting things that have been developed by others. One of the most depressing documents I’ve seen on the Web recently was the alleged plan for Windows Mobile 7 (link). Assuming that the plan is genuine, it shows that rather than trying to do something new in mobiles, Microsoft is slavishly trying to copy and “improve” on the interface of the iPhone (so, for example, rather than just using finger touches you can also shake the phone to make it do things). This comes after Microsoft spent the last couple of years trying to copy RIM, and before that Palm.

Even the bid for Yahoo is driven by Microsoft’s desperate desire to copy and co-opt another company’s business model. That’s exactly what Yahoo doesn’t need. Rather than focused management that can pick out the most disruptive embers in Yahoo’s portfolio and fan them into bonfires, Yahoo is likely to get layers of well-meaning ROI analysis, a distracting flood of resources, political integration hassles, cultural conflicts, and a mandate to “concentrate on the core.”

The process will probably strangle Yahoo and distract Microsoft. I really hope I’m wrong, but I think there’s a very good chance that the merger will be the beginning of the end for both companies.

Nokia bought Trolltech for about $150 million, and there’s all sorts of speculation online about what it means. Before I get to that, let me quickly summarize what Trolltech does:

Trolltech is a Norwegian company that makes development tools and Linux software. Its best-known products are Qt (a software layer and development tools for writing applications that run across multiple operating systems, including Windows, Mac, and Linux), Qtopia (a user interface and applications layer for Linux), and Qtopia Phone Edition (a Linux software environment for mobile phones).

In the mobile world, Qtopia Phone Edition has been the company’s best-known product, although it hasn’t exactly been a commercial success. Motorola uses a version of Qt in its Linux mobile phones, but not all of Qtopia. The Sony Mylo mobile device uses Qtopia, as did the Sharp Zaurus PDAs. But Trolltech had so much trouble getting a mainstream phone licensee for Qtopia that it created its own hardware prototype, the Greenphone. (Out of fairness, I should add that Trolltech has a lot of other tiny licensees you’ve never heard of; you can see the full list here.)

The obvious assumption would be that Nokia bought Trolltech for its phone technology, but that’s not what Nokia says. The company’s press release says Trolltech will help advance its “cross-platform software strategy for mobile devices and desktop applications, and…Internet services business. With Trolltech, Nokia and third party developers will be able to develop applications that work in the Internet, across Nokia’s device portfolio and on PCs.”

All About Symbian reinforced that message, reproducing a slide from the Nokia press briefing that showed Qt layered on top of Nokia Series 40, S60, and a variety of desktop PC operating systems (link). The Guardian quoted a Nokia spokesperson as saying the emphasis of the deal is development tools: “This is about Trolltech’s fantastic tools. You can much faster develop programmes which can work on multiple platforms.” (link).

Vnunet quoted an analyst saying that Nokia will use Qtopia to help deploy its Ovi Internet services cross-platform (link). I don’t really see the Internet connection; Qtopia has not been a contender in the net applications world the way that Flash and Silverlight are. But maybe Nokia wants to build it into a contender.

Other analysts suggested other motivations for the purchase. Some of the commentary on Slashdot suggested that Nokia is investing in Linux to counter Google Android (link). ArsTechnica suggested that Nokia might be planning to replace S60 with Qt (link), while others suggested that Nokia plans to use Linux instead of Symbian. Richard Windsor of Nomura pointed out in an e-mail analysis that the purchase of Qt rips the guts out of Motorola’s Linux plans, although he guesses that’s more of a happy side effect for Nokia than the primary motivation.

But an unsigned article on ZDNet UK had the most sweeping interpretation, basically saying that this spells certain death for all proprietary operating systems (link):

Nokia’s bet is that the sheer size of the Qt 4-based market will be a decisive inducement for everyone else, handset makers, operators, and pure applications players alike, and that the explosion in compatibility will amplify the market for everyone much as happened on the desktop when MS-DOS anointed the PC architecture. But unlike then, Qt 4 will break forever the idea that one part of the market can seal itself off as a profitable mini-universe, an idea as archaic in the 21st century as the feudalism it so closely resembles.

As we say here in California, I want some of what he’s been smoking.

What does it really mean?

We’re all assuming that Nokia actually has a coherent master plan here. Although $150m is a lot of money to me personally, it’s mouse nuts to Nokia. Maybe Nokia bought Trolltech just as an experiment, or to keep it from falling into some other company’s hands. The fact that Nokia’s going to continue to develop its Maemo version of Linux, which is not based on the Trolltech technology, suggests a certain amount of incoherence.

If you want to be really Machiavellian, you could speculate that this purchase is the Nokia mobile phone organization’s answer to Maemo — “you tablet guys keep your version of Linux, now we have our own.”

But let’s assume there really is a plan, and it’s aimed at competitors. About six months ago, I wrote about Nokia’s ambitions to be a computer company (link). Now we see them dealing themselves into the operating system competition as well. No matter what you think Nokia’s motives are, the fact is that it’s now the owner of a respectable cross-platform software layer that runs on PCs and mobile devices. Nokia is now a software layer company, in very direct competition with other layer companies like Microsoft and Adobe and Sun. The deal also makes Nokia a much more important player in the open source community. And it puts Nokia in more direct opposition to the companies with their own operating systems — Apple and Google and (once again) Microsoft.

That’s a huge potential change. I say “potential” because Nokia has a lot more to do if it really wants to compete. The Trolltech team will need more investment (they have been losing money) and Nokia has a lot of work to do in developer evangelism and support to make the challenge real. But the potential is there.

I think that as the implications of the deal become clear, Nokia may have trouble continuing to partner with some of its new competitors. For example, it has spent a lot of time positioning itself as a partner to Adobe Air, but it’s hard to see the evolved Qt as anything other than a competitor. Same thing for Google.

As for how this fits with all of Nokia’s other products, I’m having a lot of trouble understanding how Qt will cohabit with S60 and Series 40. What exactly are developers supposed to develop for, and which user interface will the phones feature? If Nokia tries to keep all of them going, its phone software is going to look like a petit four, with layers stacked on layers stacked on layers. That makes for a nice pastry, but in a mobile phone it’s a recipe for bad performance and short battery life. It’s also a certain way to confuse developers.

So a lot depends on Nokia’s next steps. Does Qt replace Series 40 and S60? I don’t know which group within Nokia made the Trolltech deal, but I wonder if the biggest competitive battle might end up being the one inside the company, between its competing software standards.

Google today released a lot more details on its Android mobile operating system, including the software development kit. It looks like it would be fun to write apps for Android. The most interesting news is that Android puts a heavy emphasis on component software, encouraging developers to create software modules that can be shared with other developers and reused across applications. It’s similar in spirit to what happened with mashups in the web apps world, although the technology involved is quite different.

If the developers follow through, this could make Android a very attractive and flexible development environment.

Google is offering $10 million in prizes to the best Android applications. That’s an astonishing amount of money for the mobile apps space, where developers are used to living on stale bread with an occasional beef jerky chaser. For comparison, $10 million is probably more than the total marketing program budget in my last year at PalmSource.

It must be nice to work at a company that has limitless financial resources.

The price also says something about Google’s business strategy for Android: Collect a lot of compelling applications that will generate user demand for Android phones. I think they can get the apps, but whether those will generate user demand remains to be seen. Having a big apps base didn’t help us as much as you’d expect at PalmSource.

The other interesting news is that this is an entirely Java-based development environment, with a lot of extensions provided by Google for things like multimedia and font management. Although Android is based on Linux, as far as I can tell it’s being used strictly as plumbing; the applications can’t access it directly (at least not in this version). Data exchange between apps, and application access to phone features, can be locked out by the operator or handset manufacturer.

This should make Android a pretty secure operating system, although it won’t be much fun for developers who like to mess around with the low levels of an OS.

Can Android become a standalone runtime? The reliance on Java raises the possibility that the Android applications layer could be ported to other operating systems. I think this would be a pretty cool strategy for Google, as it would enable it to drive the applications experience on a lot of different phones. But it wouldn’t be a lightweight layer — Google has built a huge amount of middleware on top of Linux that would probably have to be ported as well. Unless Google designed the Android apps layer to be portable, something they haven’t mentioned, I think the port would be pretty difficult.

Some other tidbits about the OS:

–Features supported in the OS include a built-in browser, 2D and 3D graphics, SQLite database, video and audio playback, GSM, Bluetooth, WiFi, 3G wireless, camera, compass, GPS, and accelerometer (if the appropriate hardware is included in the phone). That’s a pretty standard feature list.

–There’s also a set of optional APIs that can be excluded by an operator or handset manufacturer. They include mapping APIs and peer to peer messaging between phones. Google positioned the peer messaging as a way to let two users play checkers, but you could also use it to create an instant messaging application that bypasses SMS. I’ll be interested to see if any operators allow it on their networks.

–The development environment is a plug-in to Eclipse, another standard approach. The SDK includes an emulator so you can test your apps before the hardware ships. That’s essential, since Android phones are about a year away.

–Core apps included with the OS include mail, SMS, calendar, browser, contacts, and maps. The mapping app is the only unusual one.

–There is support for multitasking threads, and an application can run in the background (this should enable things like MP3 playback while you’re browsing).

–Each application runs in a separate Linux process. This helps with security. Apps remain running until they’re no longer needed and the system decides that it wants their memory. This feature seemed slightly weird. Windows Mobile also tends to leave code running until the space is needed, and that has resulted in performance and stability problems. Presumably Android will handle things better.

The other thing Google warns you about is that if your application doesn’t use the proper calls to explain what it’s doing, the OS may assume it’s not important and shut it off arbitrarily. That can also happen to a properly-written application if the system runs low on memory. This is kind of spooky, and could result in lost user data, especially if the user loads up a lot of applications.

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer applications that quit only when I push the quit button.

–The security model is heavily sandboxed (meaning applications are isolated from each other). To reach outside the sandbox (to exchange data with another app, read the address book, or access the phone’s features), applications have to ask permission at the time they are installed. Permissions are based on “trusted authorities and interaction with the user.” In other words, an operator or handset vendor can lock them down, and if not then the user will be asked to grant permission. Users will not be asked again when the application is run; if permission was not granted at install, the app will just fail. I believe this is going to be a serious support problem — it means the same application may work on a phone when it’s on one network, but may not work on that same phone on another network. Good luck explaining that to the user.

Google may be counting on user complaints to force the operators to turn on permissions.

–The user interface needs work. Google says it’s still working on the final user interface for Android, and that’s a good thing. Engadget nicely posted a bunch of screen shots from the current interface today, and they have problems (link).

The first thing that bothers me is the icon carousel at the bottom of the screen.

I think it’s a great design, but it’s awfully reminiscent of the interface in Yahoo Go. Maybe that’s just a coincidence, but Google lately has shown a disturbingly Microsoftian tendency to borrow ideas from others.

The overall interface design is relatively clean, at least compared to the overdesigned clutter that you see on a lot of smartphones. But it’s optimized to look pretty on a computer screen rather than be usable on a real-world phone.

The giveaway is contrast. Most computers are used indoors, in a room with moderate lighting. By comparison, mobile phones are used in all sorts of settings, including outdoors in bright sunlight. In those conditions, subtle differences in contrast between text and background can easily be lost. For a good example, check out the screen shot below:

Looks nice on your computer, huh? But let’s reduce that screen image to about what it would be on a real phone:

Already the text gets hard to read. Now take your computer outside into the direct sunlight. Go ahead, I’ll wait for you to get back…

Done already? What you saw is that the words “Call Back,” “Done,” and so on pretty much disappeared because they’re written in dark gray on a black background. You can find a lot of other examples like this in the Google screen shots.

A recommendation to everyone who creates phone interfaces: White on black. Black on white. Large fonts. It may not be the most beautiful design, but at least people will be able to use it.

What it means to the industry. I continue to think that the ultimate success of Android will depend on the creativity of the devices built on it, and we can’t judge that until those devices ship. But in the meantime, I’ll be very interested to see what sort of applications appear. Google can definitely excite developers, especially when it shovels money at them. This is an immediate challenge to Microsoft and especially Symbian, which has struggled to get developers to work with its very complex native APIs. The more that Android sucks up developer activity, the harder it will be for other platforms to get developer support. Android is a much cleaner design than older platforms like Symbian, and the component development model might drive the rapid creation of a lot of interesting applications.

Will Android be limited to the mobile space? That’s the other key question. There’s nothing in the Android development model that limits it to mobile phones, and in fact Google says openly that it’s appropriate for use on all sorts of devices. Let’s wait a few years for the Android applications base to mature. If it does well, we might eventually see Android devices that seek to directly challenge PCs.

=====

PS: Thanks to Ubiquitous Thoughts for featuring last week’s post on the Android announcement in the latest Carnival of the Mobilists.

The bottom line: Google is now an OS company.

The fact that Google’s recently-announced OS products are aimed at mobile devices and social networking sites is interesting, and I’ll talk about the impact of that below. But it’s secondary. I think the big, really important change is that Google has now jumped with both feet into the middle of the operating system world. That potentially has huge implications for the industry.

The impact will depend a lot on how Google follows up. If it pours substantial energy and resources into its OS offerings, it will be extremely bad news for Microsoft and other companies trying to charge money for their own platforms. On the other hand, if Google doesn’t make a serious long-term commitment, it will embarrass itself deeply. This isn’t like launching a new web application — an OS has to be complete, and it has to work properly in version 1, or there won’t be a version 2.

What they announced

It’s kind of ironic. For years after Google became a prominent web company, people speculated about whether or when it would create its own OS. The logic was that Microsoft has its own OS, and Google was challenging Microsoft, so Google would create its own OS too. But then as the years went by and it didn’t happen, people moved on to other subjects. The speculation died out. But one of my rules about the tech industry is that “obvious” things happen only after everyone in the industry has written them off. So I guess Google was due.

The company has been creeping toward the OS space for a while. Google Gadgets is an API to create small applications that run in web pages, and Google Gears is code that lets web apps run offline, making it easier for them to challenge desktop applications. But they were both relatively low-profile (or as low profile as anything Google ever does). But in the last couple of weeks, Google made two much more assertive announcements:

–OpenSocial is an effort to create a shared platform for applications that can be embedded within social websites (link).

–The Open Handset Alliance is an effort to create a shared platform powering mobile devices (link).

Although they’re aimed at very different parts of the industry, they’re both efforts to create a standard platform where there was fragmentation; and they’re both alliances of numerous companies, with Google providing most of the code and the marketing glue. I think there’s a recurring theme here.

Details on the Open Handset Alliance

Open Social was covered very heavily when it was announced a couple of weeks ago, so I won’t recap it all here. If you want more details, Marc Andreessen did an enthusiastic commentary about it on his weblog (link).

The OHA announcement was today, and I want to call out some highlights:

–It’s built around a Linux implementation called Android. Android will be free of charge and open source, licensed under terms that allow companies to use it in products without contributing back any of their own code to the public. This will probably annoy a lot of open source fans, but it’s important for adoption of the OS, as many companies thinking about working with Linux worry that they will accidentally obligate themselves to give away their own source code.

–Google is creating a suite of applications that will be bundled with Android, but they can be replaced freely by companies that want to bundle other apps, according to Michael Gartenberg (link). There is a lot of speculation, though, that if you bundle the Google apps you’ll get a subsidy from Google. The folks over at Skydeck estimate the subsidy could be about $50 per device (link). That might not sound like huge money to you and me, but keep in mind that mobile phone companies routinely turn backflips to squeeze 25 cents out of the cost of a phone. When you sell millions of phones a year, it adds up.

–A huge list of companies participated in the announcement. That’s not as impressive as it sounds; when you have a well-known brand, a lot of companies will do a joint press release with you just for the publicity value. But a few stood out:

Hardware vendors. Samsung, Motorola, LG, and HTC all endorsed the OS. HTC and LG gave particularly enthusiastic quotes. The first three companies have all been playing with Linux for some time, so I wasn’t surprised. But HTC is another matter — it is the most innovative Windows Mobile licensee, and Microsoft must be very disturbed to see it blowing kisses at Google.

(A side comment on Motorola: For a company that said it wanted to consolidate down on a small number of platforms, Motorola is behaving strangely — it jumped all over Symbian a couple of weeks ago, and now is supporting Android as well. I think it has now endorsed more mobile operating systems than any other handset vendor.)

Operators. Participants in the announcement included NTT DoCoMo (a long-time Linux lover), KDDI, China Mobile, T-Mobile, Telecom Italia, Telefonica, and Sprint. That’s a very nice geographic spread, and ensures enough operator interest to make the handset vendors invest.

–Google claims all Android applications will have the same level of access to data on the phone. That’s pretty interesting — most smartphone platforms have been moving toward a multiple-level approach in which you need more rigorous security certification in order to access some features of the phone. I’ll be interested to see how the security model on Android works.

–We’ll get technical information on the OS November 12, and the first phones based on Android should ship in the second half of 2008.

–Although Android’s first focus is mobile phones, the New York Times reports that it can be used in other consumer devices as well (link).

What it means to the mobile industry

It all depends on the quality of Google’s work and the depth of its commitment. If Android has technical or performance problems, it could sink like a stone. If it doesn’t have enough drivers or has poor technical support, the handset vendors will avoid it. If the developers can’t create good applications, users won’t want it. This is a very different business for Google — handset vendors and operators will not tolerate the sloppy, indifferent technical support that Google provides for its consumer web apps.

If, on the other hand, Google’s platform really works and the company invests in it, I think it could have some very important impacts.

Impact on Windows Mobile: Ugliness. The handset companies endorsing Android are also Microsoft’s most prominent mobile licensees. I doubt any of them are planning to completely abandon Microsoft (they don’t want to be captive to any single OS vendor), but any effort they put into Android is effort that doesn’t go into Windows Mobile. So this is ominous.

The whole mobile thing just hasn’t worked out the way Microsoft planned. First it couldn’t get the big handset brands to license its software, so it focused on signing phone clone vendors in Asia, thinking it could use them to pull down the big guys. But Nokia and the other big brands used their volume and manufacturing skill to beat the daylights out of the small cloners.

Now Google is coming after the market with an OS that’s completely free, and may even be subsidized. This will put huge financial pressure on not just Windows Mobile, but all of Windows CE. Even if Microsoft can hold share, its prospects of ever making good money in the sub-PC space look increasingly remote.

Impact on Access: Ugly ugliness. How do you sell your own version of Linux when the world’s biggest Internet company is giving one away? I don’t know.

Impact on Symbian: Hard to judge. Symbian is the preferred OS of Nokia. As long as Nokia continues to use Symbian, it stays in business. The question is how much it’ll grow. After years of painful effort, Symbian just managed to get increased endorsements from Motorola and Samsung. Now Google is messing with both of them. Japan has been a very important growth market for Symbian, now Android is endorsed by both DoCoMo and KDDI. All of that must feel very uncomfortable. If nothing else, it’s likely to produce pressure on Symbian to lower its prices. And Symbian should be asking what happens if Android turns out to be everything Google promises — a free OS that lets handset vendors create great phones easily. It’s not fun competing against a free product that’s been subsidized by one of the richest companies in the world (just ask Netscape).

Maybe if Symbian agrees to enable Google services on its platform it can get the same subsidies as Android does. It’s worth asking. If not, maybe Symbian should be looking for other places where it can add value in the mobile ecosystem.

Impact on mobile developers: Potentially great. Mobile developers have suffered terribly from two things: They have to work through operators to get their applications to market, and they have to rewrite their applications dozens of times for different phones. If Android produces a single consistent Java environment for mobile applications, that would be a big win. And if it can open up the distribution channels for mobile apps, that would be great as well. We don’t have enough details to judge either outcome yet, and the app distribution one depends on business arrangements that may be outside Google’s control.

Impact on Apple, RIM, and Palm: Probably none at all. A lot of the coverage of Android is positioning it as some sort of challenger to iPhone and RIM.

I don’t buy it.

Apple, RIM, and Palm all make integrated systems in which the software and hardware are coordinated together to solve a user problem. Android, by contrast, is only an operating system. It’s plumbing, not the whole house. Unless Google’s handset licensees magically develop the ability to design for users — a feat equivalent to a giraffe sprouting wings — their products won’t be any better as systems solutions than they are today. The OS hasn’t been the thing holding them back, and changing OS won’t alter the situation.

Android puts interesting financial pressure on Microsoft, but it doesn’t directly solve any compelling user problems. If it eventually drives a great base of mobile applications, that might eventually be attractive to some users. But in that case the systems vendors could just add a copy of Google’s application runtime (it’s open source, they can grab it anytime they want). Or they could host their devices on Google’s plumbing. Palm and RIM might both benefit if they could transfer engineers away from core OS and toward adding value that’s visible to users.

Impact on the tech industry: This isn’t just about mobile phones

I have no access to Google’s internal thinking, but even if it sincerely believes it’s only doing a mobile phone OS, I don’t think it can or will stop there. Technology products often develop a momentum of their own, no matter what was intended at the start. The lines between the computing and mobile worlds are breaking down already, and if Google creates an attractive software platform that’s free of charge, that platform will inevitably get sucked into other types of devices. I’m not saying that Android is going to end up in PCs, but if it’s functional and well supported I think it could end up running on just about everything else that has a screen.

Besides, if you look across all of the recent Google announcements, I think it’s clear that Google has a larger agenda: It wants to break down walled gardens, because they interfere with Google’s ability to deliver its services. It has even developed a standard methodology for attacking them: Create a consortium so you don’t look like a bully, and fund an “open” alternative to whatever is in the way. They are doing it to Facebook, and they’re doing it to Windows Mobile. Google doesn’t even have to make money from the consortium, as long as it clears the ground for its services to grow.

Take a lesson from evolutionary history. The most successful animals are not those that adapt to the environment; they are the ones that reshape the environment to match their needs. I think that’s what Google is doing. It’s going to use open source and alliances to suck the profitability out of anybody who creates a proprietary island that it can’t target.

It’ll be interesting to see if and how Google applies this principle to the upcoming frequency auction in the US.

Or to anyone else who gets in its way.

Photo by Toby Ord. License information here.

[Edited to fix a typo; I apologize if you get a second copy in your feed.]

This week’s Carnival of the Mobilists comes just after Halloween, a holiday when (at least in the US) people are disguised in costumes and kids fantasize about all the great candy they’re going to get.

In the spirit of the holiday, Google has been keeping its mobile plans in disguise, and many of the Mobilist authors are speculating about the candy we’ll get from them:

Skydeck makes some very interesting predictions about what the Google phone OS will do, and how much Google will subsidize it. I especially like the financial analysis.

In the second part of a three-part post, Abshishek Tiwari speculates about the services that might be included in a Google phone.

John at Nellymoser gives a long discussion of Apple and Google’s efforts to open up the mobile ecosystem.

Other goodies in the bag…

Taptology does a nice job of comparing the buzz-building skills of Nokia and Apple to the buzz-killing behavior of Motorola and SonyEricsson.

Barry at StayGoLinks argues that the mobile web will take off when voice can be used as an interface to it, and gives a nice roundup of some recent voice-related technology announcements. Barry, I hope you’re right. But speaking as a frustrated (non)user of Dragon Naturally Speaking, I’m not holding my breath.

Tarek Speaks Mobile enthusiastically reviews the new update to the Nokia N95, and says Motorola could learn something from it.

C Enrique Ortiz discusses the US mobile industry and the power of the operators.

Mob Happy rolls out a mobile version of its site, and discusses the traffic that resulted.

Xellular Identity reviews the various pricing and service plan options for ringback tones around the world. I had no idea there was so much diversity.

Vision Mobile gives a very detailed discussion of efforts to make mobile phone software customizable and flexible. It’s an excellent overview.

Should schoolchildren in New York who perform well in class be given free cellphones and prepaid minutes as a reward? Yes, says Judy at Golden Swamp. She reviews the controversial proposal in New York and gives some interesting thoughts on the potential use of mobile phones in education, based on her own experiences.

Post of the Week. It was a hard choice. Although Vision Mobile’s post is very detailed and worthy of consideration, I chose Golden Swamp as the Post of the Week because it gave me an interesting new perspective.

Next week the Carnival will be at Ubiquitous Thoughts.

The announcement of Amazon FPS made my whole week, on a lot of different levels. I’m excited about the service itself, I’m excited about what it means for the development of web applications, and I’m excited about what it’ll eventually do for the mobile data world.

Okay, I’m just excited.

About FPS. Before I talk about what it means, I should give a quick overview of what it is. FPS is a web service, meaning it’s a set of online APIs that the creator of a website or web application can use to perform tasks. What FPS does for you is billing — you can use it to accept payments for something you sell online. Basically, you transmit the customer’s info to Amazon, and they take care of the credit check, credit card processing, billing, and so on. They send you the money, less a percentage cut that they take.

That’s not at all revolutionary. PayPal and Google Checkout offer the same thing already. Amazon’s cut is about the same as PayPal — about 2% to 3% of your revenue, depending on the amount of business you do, plus 30 cents per transaction. Google is a tad cheaper, plus you get AdSense credits for using it.

(For more information on FPS, there are good articles here and here).

What impressed me about FPS is its flexibility. Amazon says you can set different payment terms for every customer, set up subscriptions and multiple payment schedules, manage a store in which you pass payments from a customer to your suppliers, set up either pre- or post-payment systems, and most importantly you can manage micropayments down to a couple of pennies per transactions (link).

The competing systems either don’t offer this at all, or do it badly. I think FPS is a really important change to the competitive situation in payment services. And, because the payment services are all available to any website, that means it’s an important change to the whole web platform.

New forms of online business. So far, e-commerce online has been limited mostly to selling things that we could already get through regular stores — books, clothing, software, etc. One of the main culprits for this was payments. The current credit card system, with its strong discouragement of small transactions, makes it very hard to sell anything priced below a few dollars online. I think the most interesting use of online commerce will be the creation of markets for things that we can’t buy through stores today. Most of those things are intellectual property of various sorts, and the natural market for them is a buck or less a copy. So the payment system is a big barrier.

I won’t recap my whole argument for minipayments; I wrote about it recently, and you can read it here. Minipayments have already changed the world in music, where Apple’s proprietary minipayment system in iTunes has revived the market for music singles, something that was virtually dead in stores. Another example: iStockPhoto has created a market for low-cost stock photography. By creating an easy system of practical minipayments, Amazon FPS will help to enable the creation of lots of iTunes and iStockPhoto equivalents for other products and forms of intellectual property. Think short stories, art, games, and probably a lot of other things we haven’t even thought of yet.

I know FPS isn’t perfect — for example, small payments have to be aggregated and then billed in a single larger transaction. But it advances the state of the art dramatically, and more importantly it challenges Google and PayPal to improve their own minipayment handling. That competitive dynamic should eventually result in a truly great minipayment mechanism online, no matter who makes it.

Amazon vs. Google: A contrast in strategies. I think Amazon’s approach to web services makes Google look bad. Both companies are taking on PayPal, but Google’s approach so far has been pure blunt force — duplicate PayPal’s features, underprice them a bit, and tie it to another Google product (you get AdSense credits for using Google Checkout). Let’s see…you compete by duplicating someone else’s features, underpricing, and tying back to your dominant product. Does that remind you of a certain company in Redmond?

In contrast, Amazon has been trying to find holes in the infrastructure that nobody has filled yet. Its storage and compute services provided very important infrastructure that helped accelerate the growth of Web 2.0 companies. Although its payment system is not as unique, the emphasis on minipayments is, and I think it too will play an important part in the online ecosystem.

Bottom line: Google is often copying, Amazon innovating. I’d say that I’m disappointed in Google, but actually given their size they would crush everyone else if they were also innovative. So maybe we should be grateful.

What will Amazon do next? Their pattern is clear — they’re picking out things that they know how to do well (because of their retail operation) and turning them into services for other developers. A logical next step would be if they offered developers the infrastructure needed to set up an online store — order tracking, support request tracking, inventory, displaying merchandise, etc. That would work with their other services, and would put them in a position to start draining business from eBay.

I’d also love to see them offer some sort of unified product and content discovery system. One of the things missing from the online ecosystem is an easy way to find goods and services that are for sale online, and comparison shop between them. You can use search for it, but it’s not very well organized, and comparisons are difficult. eBay kind of does that, but you have to be registered as one of their sellers, and eBay does the billing. I’d love to see a looser directory than eBay that doesn’t take the payments directly, but just points you to things you can buy.

That’s what I thought Google Base would evolve into, but Google hasn’t made the move yet, so there’s still time for Amazon to seize that territory.

What it means for mobile. You can probably guess what I’m going to say here. The operators consistently charge up to about 50% of revenue for any songs, games, or other content sold through their networks. The mobile software stores like Motricity and Handango charge about the same. Amazon, Google, and PayPal each take about 2-3% of revenue, and that cost is likely to decline due to competition. As the wireless Internet takes hold, how many users will be willing to pay 50% extra just for the pleasure of having a game appear on their Sprint or Verizon bill rather than their Amazon bill?

If an operator bit the bullet now and priced competitively, they might be able to hold onto about 10% of revenue in exchange for the greater convenience of running content purchases through the mobile bill. But a 50% cut is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. There’s no way Amazon and friends will be able to resist the temptation to target the mobile web. The question is not if, it’s when.

The name of the game is infrastructure. In an open, decentralized computing environment like the Web, the best way for a software company to succeed is to create a control point — to offer a piece of critical infrastructure that others need, and build a franchise around it.

Google understood that concept with search + advertising, and did well with maps, but has been remarkably inept at creating other strong points. I think that’s because, to be blunt, engineering PhDs don’t necessarily make the best business strategists. Google, if you want to go to the next level, ya got to hire business people who are as smart as your technical people. And you have to give them some authority.

Microsoft seems to get it, but is still trying to retrofit its applications into services rather than really thinking through what’s needed in an online ecosystem. Apple seems to understand, but so far hasn’t been interested in opening up its services to others (it could easily have turned iTunes into a content discovery and billing service, long before either Google or Amazon hit the market). Some other big Internet companies, like Yahoo, don’t seem to really understand yet that this is the competitive battleground of their future.

Amazon is the one major web company that seems to both understand the situation, and be able to consistently come up with good new services. They already have two strong points (computing services and storage), and payments looks to be the third. If some of the other players don’t wake up soon, Amazon’s going to end up in an extremely powerful position online.

The argument over the viability of Web 2.0 applications misses the point — most of the applications on any new computing platform die. What matters are the innovations and new business models that we learn from them (link).

Last time in this series I discussed what we’re learning from Web 2 about managing a community online (link). This time I want to talk about the role the Internet is playing in the creation of new forms of media.

Is the internet a new medium?

I should start with a definition of what a medium is. Webster calls it, “a channel or system of communication, information, or entertainment” (link). I want to build on that a little. To me, a medium is something that moves information and/or entertainment between people. Movies are a medium, newspapers are a medium, oil painting is a medium. So is the telephone call, when you think about it. Each medium has its own distinct usages, economic model, and audience.

A lot of people have written about the Internet and/or the Web as a new “medium.” A quick online search will give you thousands of articles and weblog posts on the subject. But there’s something funny about the articles — although they all call the Internet a medium, they define that medium in many different ways. For example…

–The Internet is a medium for mixed-media communication.
–It’s a medium for online music broadcasting.
–It’s a medium for making politically-motivated attacks. (And an unregulated medium at that. Heaven forbid we should practice unregulated politics.)
–It’s “a perfect medium for the sale of software and other digital products.”
–It’s a medium for interactive, moving content.
–It’s a “new medium for business communication.”
–It’s “a medium of news dissemination.”
–It’s “a new medium for design.”
–It’s a new medium for video.
–It’s a new medium for communication by individuals.
–It’s a new medium for socializing.

I think that in reality the Internet is not a new medium for anything. It’s a transport mechanism. It is to data what a road is to eighteen-wheel trucks. And the Web isn’t a medium either; it’s a set of protocols for accessing and delivering data. To abuse the road analogy, it’s the warehouses and truck stops that load, unload, and service the trucks.

The Internet is a meta-medium

When we talk about the Internet as a medium, we’re confusing the delivery mechanism with the goods being delivered. This is a crucial distinction, because if you think of the Internet as a medium you won’t understand its real power. The Internet is a meta-medium. It’s a medium for creating new types of media; a general-purpose mechanism that spews new media as quickly as people can think them up.

And spew it does. As I hope you know if you’ve been reading this weblog for a while, I am not a fan of hype and overblown predictions. But I think the evidence shows that the Internet is enabling an explosion of new forms of media at a faster rate than ever before in human history. I believe this is one of the most revolutionary effects of the Internet, but we’re so close to it that we don’t think about it much.

Freeing media from the distribution mechanism

In the past, each new form of media was generally tied to a unique distribution infrastructure, technology base, and economic model. For a new medium to arise, you generally had to create a whole new production and distribution mechanism for it. For example:

Novels required the development of the printing press, a distribution infrastructure consisting of publishers and bookstores, and an economic model in which the reader pays and revenue is shared with the publisher and distribution chain.

Radio serial drama required the invention and sale of millions of radios, the construction of studios and transmitters, the creation of production companies and networks, and an economic model in which advertisers paid for the programs.

Movies required not just the creation of motion picture cameras, but also studios to produce the films, modified theaters to show them, a distribution system to deliver the reels of film, and an economic model in which ticket revenue and in-theater food sales combined to pay for the whole thing.

The huge effort and investment involved in creating these distribution chains severely limited the growth of new forms of media. For example, it took about 20 years from the invention of television and movies until either of them reached broad commercial distribution.

In contrast, new media proliferate on the Internet as fast as people can visit new websites and install plug-ins. (Obviously, this applies only to media that can be distributed electronically. But that still covers a lot.)

This chart gives you an idea of how the pace of change has accelerated.

This chart was based in part on a fantastic media history here.

Some people would say that most of the Internet media types I listed on the right edge of the chart aren’t actually new media; that they’re just a tweak on existing media. For example, Henry Jenkins argued in a great article for MIT Technology Review that you have to differentiate between media, genres, and delivery technologies (link):

Recorded sound is a medium. Radio drama is a genre. CDs, MP3 files and eight-track cassettes are delivery technologies. Genres and delivery technologies come and go, but media persist as layers within an ever more complicated information and entertainment system.

I think he’s right from the perspective of classifying things analytically, but if you follow that thinking religiously then it’s almost impossible to create a new medium any more, unless smell-o-vision or machine telepathy comes along. I think in practical terms, you have a new medium as soon as you create a substantially different set of audience and business dynamics, because those are the changes that create meaningful new economic opportunities for creative people and businesses.

Here’s the test: if you can’t take material created for some other medium and replay it unchanged, then I think you’ve invented a new medium. CDs were not a new medium because they were created and sold in the same way, to the same people, as vinyl LPs. But radio drama was a new medium, because it had its own distinct audience and rules. You couldn’t just take a stage play and turn it into a radio drama unmodified.

By this standard, the Internet is spawning new media forms faster than bunnies breed in Australia.

Of course, not all of these new types of media will be successful long-term. But it’s exciting to see so much experimentation happening so quickly, and I believe it will have a profound effect on the ways we communicate and entertain ourselves in the years to come.

The revolution in front of you

Okay, so that’s the theoretical foundation on what’s happening. Let’s discuss some examples — three new forms of media we’re creating, the rules and opportunities they create, and what comes next.

Online video

Oh, man. This one’s so complex that you could write a book on it. The term “video” includes a huge variety of different things — music videos, TV shows, animation, movies, video clips from amateurs, even commercials. Each one appears to have a different online audience and different financials.

Some of them have already run through a cycle of excitement and disappointment. For example, some people speak of an “internet animation era” that came and went at the start of the decade (you can read more about the expectations here). Usually the culprit for the disappointment is the failure to find a sustainable business model.

The hottest area in online video today is obviously short clips like the ones you see on YouTube. The ironic thing is that this form of video had virtually no traction prior to the Internet. Meanwhile, movies and TV shows — which everyone predicted would move onto the Internet quickly — don’t have nearly as much momentum online.

Why YouTube is successful. Using YouTube is like eating potato chips (”crisps” if you live in the UK). When you’re bored, it’s great to browse short video clips looking for things that are funny or amazing or just plain weird. The brilliant aspects of YouTube (in my opinion) are that the video loads fast (can you imagine eating potato chips if you had to unwrap every chip individually?), and that the YouTube site links you to lots of other related videos, so it’s easy to wander. If one video is boring, you’re only moments away from something else.

This instant gratification factor turns the rules of traditional video on its head. In traditional video, quality and an immersive experience are king. To suck people into a television program or a movie, you use incredibly high quality images, editing, and sound. (If you want to know how important this is, look at all the enormous amounts of money the industry is spending to move to high-definition broadcasting and higher-capacity DVDs.)

That’s why short online video is a different medium. Rather than immersion, the goal is instant gratification.

But how do you make money? The problem with short online video is that no one’s sure how to make money from it. You pay to see a movie. You watch ads on television (well, you’re supposed to, unless you use TiVo). Many companies are trying to attach commercials to online videos, but the result is often extraordinarily annoying to viewers.

That’s not intuitive to the broadcast folks. Depending on what country you’re in, to watch free TV you’ll typically watch nine to 20 minutes of commercials in order to see an hour of programming (link). That’s a ratio of between 15% and 30% commercials.

Apply that same ratio to a short online video, and you’re watching a 30 second commercial to see a two minute video clip. Sounds reasonable, right? It’s actually borderline intolerable to viewers because it breaks the instant gratification cycle. The whole idea is to beat boredom, not generate it.

Remember, this is a new medium. It has its own rules.

Maybe the answer will be very short ads, but no one knows what’s short enough, and if those short ads will even work. Or maybe the answer is putting print ads on the website alongside the video. But unlike search, you don’t know what topics a video viewer will be interested in, so it’s much harder to target the ads. How will you individually track the demographics of people viewing more than six million separate YouTube clips? You’d basically have to build a database on the individual thoughts and behavior of every Internet user. That, I presume, is why YouTube was a good strategic investment for Google. It’s also why I’m deeply skeptical about the high-profile efforts by entertainment companies to create sites competing with YouTube. Without Google’s demographic and ad-targeting infrastructure, it will be hard for a competitor to monetize its videos.

And oh by the way, it’s not clear that even Google can make this whole video thing work financially.

So let’s classify short online video as an emerging medium: Proven audience, unproven economics.

Video in the mobile world. This is the current Flavor of the Month in the mobile data world. (Or maybe it was last month’s flavor, and this month is GPS.) Anyway, there are a lot of people predicting that video is going to be very hot in the mobile space.

As was the case with PCs, you have to ask what sort of video you’re talking about. The most intuitive use is short video. We know people use mobiles as boredom-busters, and short video is almost custom-made for that. But we run into the same economic problems as we have on PCs, only more so. It’s not clear how many commercials people will tolerate in their mobile video.

Broadcast video, viewed on mobiles, is becoming popular in Asia. But by my standard that’s not a new medium — it’s just building a television into your phone. And it bypasses the Internet, so it’s not relevant to this discussion. (I recently wrote a long article on mobile video; if you missed it you can read it here.)

Virtual Reality as a Medium: Second Life

Most people think of Second Life as a game, or maybe a cult. But my Rubicon colleague Bruce La Fetra recently wrote an article (link) making the case that it’s a new medium, and I believe he’s right. Think about it. Here’s the test of a new medium:

–Facilitates interaction between people. Second Life certainly does that.
–Has its own distinct audience. Double check. That’s why some people look at Second Life as a cult.
–Has its own economic model. Triple check. This one even has its own currency.

A virtual meeting place. Second Life is so flexible that it’s very hard to say what it’ll turn into ultimately. It’s already a meeting space for some people, and the upcoming addition of voice should improve that dramatically. Supposedly Cisco is providing pre-built avatars for employees, and a number of tech companies are using it for meetings (check out the slightly breathless but eye-opening article here).

Second Life is a tool for holding three-dimensional visual conversations…I know some people can’t hold a serious business conversation without a pen and paper to draw with; Second Life is made for those people….One day, you’ll be able to import sales data from an Oracle database, create a three-dimensional diagram of that data that changes in near-realtime, and hold a meeting of top corporate executives all over the world in Second Life to discuss the results. –Mitch Wagner

Prototyping the physical world. Another clear use for VR is allowing individuals and corporations to create interactive experiences for others. For example, as Bruce points out, hotels are starting to test lobby layouts using Second Life. Brands like GeekSquad are using Second Life to reach out to customers, giving them another way to engage (read more about it here).

Some of this commentary is so enthusiastic that it reminds me of the commentary we saw in the bubble period. Second Life is definitely a geek playground, but I’m not sure how many “normal” people will want to mess around in virtual reality. We won’t know until we try.

Is it a business or a standard? The ultimate business model for Second Life is still up in the air. Land owners pay real dollars for virtual real estate and corporate avatars, giving Linden Lab a revenue stream. However, the company is in the process of open-sourcing its server code. This will make it possible for anyone to create their own “land” without paying Linden Lab, and dramatically increases the likelihood that Second Life’s technology will become a generalized standard for virtual reality. That’s very healthy for the medium, but leaves Linden Lab without an obvious business model. There’s an interesting discussion here.

The process of moving from a captive platform to the base of an open ecosystem is incredibly tricky. I think Linden is right to do it, because otherwise an open standard for virtual reality would have eventually emerged, pushing Second Life completely out of the picture (think of what happened when AOL went up against the Internet). But now Linden will need to find some parts of that open ecosystem where it can provide valued services. I think managing the virtual currency is a good start, but I haven’t been able to find any clear statement of what the company’s long-term financial model will be; please post a comment if you find one.

So the status of Second Life is similar to that of online video: Definite audience, unclear financials.

Virtual reality and mobile. Virtual reality thrives on large screens and fast processors. I think it’s probably safe to say that it’ll be limited to PC-sized devices for a long time (at least until we get flexible screens and fuel cells powerful enough to drive high-end graphics processors in a mobile). Until that day, I wouldn’t be investing heavily in creating a SecondLife client for Nokia S60.

Feeds

Actually, these are several new media that I have grouped together for convenience: Text feeds, audio feeds, and video feeds. Plus more types of feeds to come.

Different feed types have different audiences. Steve Olechowski of Feedburner gives a great speech summarizing the feed world and what’s happening in it. One of the interesting tidbits he gives out is that different types of feeds tend to be dominated by different subjects. Text feeds most commonly focus on technology, while audio feeds are most often about music, social issues, and religion (”Godcasts”). So different forms of communication — text vs. recorded speech — attract different types of creators and audiences. I suspect that video feeds are going to be different yet again, although it’s probably too early to judge today. You can hear one of Steve’s speeches here.

The thing I like about feeds is that they’re efficient. Rather than going to a website to read or listen, you can bring the content to you and access it on your terms. A lot of people use online feed readers like Feed Burner, but my favorite is Feed Blitz, which consolidates all your feeds into a single daily e-mail. That lets me scan about a hundred articles a day in a matter of minutes.

Text feed vs. weblogs. One problem with text feeds is that they take readers away from your weblog, meaning they won’t see the ads. That creates a lot of concern for weblog authors who rely on advertising. So they do things like putting only article summaries in their feeds, or embedding ads in the feeds, neither of which are popular with feed users.

Olechowski argues that authors shouldn’t worry — that the people who read feeds are different from the people who read websites, so there’s little cannibalism. He says that providing a full-text feed from your weblog actually increases visitors to the site, rather than reducing them.

He has an incentive to say that, since his business is distributing feeds. But I think he may also have a point. Let’s use Mobile Opportunity as an example: About 80% of the readers coming directly here are referrals from other websites and web searches, not returning readers. I think the general pattern for readers is that they come here from a web search or other link, and if they like the content then they subscribe to the feed. That’s why I put extensive introductory information and links to previous articles in the sidebar on the right side of the page. If a web search visitor is interested in the sort of things I write about, I want to make sure they can determine that quickly so they’ll either bookmark the page or subscribe to the feed.

The feed readers never see the sidebar, but they don’t need it because they know what I’ve written about before. People who read via feeds have a different set of special needs. Chances are they use a feed reader that consolidates a lot of different feeds, which they then skim quickly. That makes it very important to use self-explanatory headlines for articles, and clear sub-heads within each article so people can skim easily. Web links are a special problem — because they’re colored and underlined, they stand out from the text. But they’re not usually the things you want people to skim, because they don’t summarize the content. That’s why I’ve started putting links at the ends of sentences, rather than embedding them in the flow of the sentence.

I’m not trying to make money from this site, but if I were, I’d have to think very hard about what sort of ads go on the web page vs. in the feed, and where they get placed.

The bottom line: you write a little differently for a feed than you do for a weblog, and the financial model is subtly different as well. So it’s a slightly different medium.

Status of feeds: Text feeds are quite well established, and audio feeds took off rapidly once they were enabled on the iPod. The financial model (to the extent that there is one) appears to be advertising, but I haven’t seen a good discussion of the economics of advertising within feeds (please post a comment if you know of one). Presumably Google’s recent purchase of FeedBurner is intended to allow them to stream ads into feeds, so we’ll probably see more activity there. The dynamics of other types of feeds (video, etc) are still to be determined.

Feeds and the mobile world. Feeds are a spectacular fit for the mobile world; actually a much better fit than browsing. In general browsing is something you do live, while feeds can be fetched in the background, cached on the device, and then read or listened to whenever the user wishes.

A text feed is also much easier to reformat for a small screen. In a lot of ways, it’s designed to be reformatted.

If I were working on a mobile data device today, I’d push this feature very hard — figure out who my target customers are and what feeds they’d be most likely to enjoy, cache the top ten our so automatically, and give a great discovery mechanism so people can easily find more. Feeds are a commodity in that you can get them for free, but easy navigation and discovery of feeds is potentially a very attractive area for innovation.

I know third party developers are already doing this; if I were at a mobile hardware company I’d be making it a standard feature in every device.

What comes next?

What other media are emerging? Many more new forms of media emerging than I’ve listed here. I’m very interested in your ideas — what do you think are some others to watch, and what’s special about them? One I’d love to investigate more is the rise of casual games — quickie games, usually based on Flash. Games like this were very popular in the early days of personal computing, and they seem to be making a comeback on the web. You can find some nifty ones on sites like Kongregate (link; check out Fancy Pants).

The transcendent need for a billing mechanism. When I said that the Web is a tool for creating new media, I left out an important detail. It’s three-quarters of the tool. We have a great delivery system, and Google is well on its way to dominating the advertising part of the financial model. What’s missing is a standard mechanism for people to pay for content that’s not supported by advertising. Some types of content work fine with ads, but I think some other types are better when paid for. Novels, short stories, music, and research reports all qualify. Creators and readers would both benefit from a system in which people could easily pay a few dimes or a few dollars directly to the author, but today we generally have to fumble with credit cards and awkward systems like PayPal. And credit card vendors strongly discourage small payments.

Minipayments vs. micropayments. The Web community chewed over this issue and spat it out several years ago. They believe that micropayments are dead, and the subject is closed. You can find examples here and here and here and here. Wikipedia has a nicely balanced discussion of the debate here.

This is one of those cases where the groupthink tendency of the tech industry is a liability. It reminds me of MP3 players before the iPod — a lot of people have tried something, nobody’s gotten it right yet, and therefore it must be impossible. It’ll continue to be impossible up until someone does it right, at which time everyone will suddenly agree that it was inevitable.

(Quick aside: Whenever everyone in the tech industry agrees on something, bet against them. A perfect consensus is a sign that healthy questioning has ceased, and there’s bound to be a blind spot.)

In this case, I think the blind spot was that people predicted the wrong role and features for micropayments. Some people made it a payment vs. advertising debate (link). It’s not — some types of media are good for advertising, some good for payment. We need both, with a creative tension between them.

Another problem is that some of the advocates of micropayments envisioned a very fine-grained payment system, in which people would pay hundredths of cents for all sorts of content, like the way natural gas or water is metered. That sounded logical, but it didn’t work in practice because gas and water are predictable commodities; you don’t mind metering because you know exactly what you’ll get. You don’t know how good a website will be until you’ve visited it, by which point you have already paid if you’re metering. We need larger payments for content that people can preview and read reviews about before they pay. Apple has proved decisively that on the wired Internet a payment system that charges about a buck for discrete chunks of content can indeed succeed.

Call it minipayments.

We desperately need a generalized minipayment system for content on the web. Because people have to trust it, it needs to come from a major vendor, and it should be exposed to developers as a web service so it can grow rapidly. Ideally, it should be tied to a lot of existing content with an easy discovery mechanism (again, like iTunes). Yahoo would be the perfect company to provide this service. Microsoft could do it too. Unfortunately, a lot of companies are focusing a huge amount of their energy on the almost hopeless task of beating Google in search advertising, when the better opportunity is owning a different piece of the infrastructure, one that doesn’t have a dominant vendor yet.

Other companies that could do it include Amazon, Apple, eBay, and even Linden Lab. Google could do it too, of course, but it appears to be more interested in stealing PayPal’s customers than in building something new.

I’d put this service on the list of computing products I want desperately, right after the info pad. Somebody’s going to do it eventually. When they do they’ll get a great business franchise, and the explosion of new media on the Web will accelerate even further.

I can’t wait.

Next time: The Web as a software development platform.

There are so many interesting things going on in the industry that it’s frustrating, because I don’t have time to write about them all.

Jerry Yang is now in charge at Yahoo, which in my opinion means a lot because a founder is often much more willing to revisit old assumptions and make radical changes than is someone who came in after the fact. (I know the stereotype is that founders resist change, but I’ve found that the exact opposite is often true, especially if the founder is moving up after spending time lower in the management chain.)

Google bought Grand Central, which underlines their interest in providing client software for mobile phones. It’s a significant change for Google because up to now they have focused mostly on providing mobile versions of their existing web apps, like Maps. Grand Central is different; it’s a call management system that embeds Google deeply in the life of a mobile user. It implies a much tighter relationship between Google and the user than most other Google products, and it’s not something that you can easily monetize through advertising — which makes me wonder whether Google is planning to run it standalone or integrate it into something bigger.

But the strangest recent development was Apple’s decision to port its Safari web browser to Windows.

It is not easy to port a browser to a new platform. There’s a huge amount of programming involved — to do the actual port, to debug it, and to maintain and upgrade the code as people identify small incompatibilities and ask for new features. I lived through PalmSource’s effort to get a good browser for Palm OS, and talked with the Be veterans about their browser work. The quick summary: it’s a huge pain in the butt.

What’s Apple hoping to get? The engineers at Apple who are spending their time on Safari for Windows could be creating new features for the iPhone, or helping to finish the next version of Mac OS X. Although Apple is rich enough to hire a lot of engineers, the supply of really good ones is limited, so Apple’s definitely paying a price to do the port. And for what? To get people to use an alternate browser, you have to give it away for free. So there’s no immediate benefit to doing the port.

A lot of Apple enthusiast sites have asked what’s going on, but I’m not persuaded by most of the answers they came up with. For example, a site called Apple Matters gave four possible motivations: for bragging rights, to show Windows users what it’s like to use a Mac, to give iPhone website developers a tool to test their sites, and to get revenue from search referrals to Yahoo and Google (link).

Apple Matters seems like a very good site, and to give them credit, even they were skeptical about some of the possible explanations. None of them work for me. Apple doesn’t need more bragging rights, a browser is a very awkward way to show off the Mac UI, iPhone developers can buy an iPhone to test their sites, and the search referral fees from Yahoo and Google can’t be all that big or everyone would be writing browsers.

I think the motivation runs deeper. It turns out that Apple didn’t just port the browser to Windows; it ported the browser, the underlying Web rendering engine, and the Mac OS X programming frameworks that the browser relies on. In other words, Apple ported an entire OS layer onto Windows, and the browser is riding on top of that (link).

Now that’s interesting. Apple is backing into the cross-platform OS layer business. Maybe the OS layer is just a convenient way to do the browser port. Or maybe the browser is just a trojan horse to get the OS layer on a lot more systems.

Add to this situation Apple’s other recent strange announcement — that it’s “enabling” iPhone applications development by supporting Ajax web software on the iPhone. The problem with Ajax/Web2 applications is that they rely on a constant network connection in order to work. They’re just thin clients to a server on the Web. Considering the iPhone’s lack of true 3G connection speed, and AT&T/Cingular’s well-documented data coverage limitations, Ajax-style development is about the worst thing you could do on the iPhone. What the developers wanted was the ability to create native Mac OS X applications, and Apple blew them off.

Why piss off the developers, and why put such a huge handicap on people supporting your critical new product?

Maybe the iPhone is so screwed up internally that it can’t support third party apps. Sure, and maybe Apple wants to port Safari to Windows just for ego.

If you want a single idea that explains both actions, it’s this: Apple realizes that in the long term, the development platform that matters is not the OS on the hardware, but the software layer that the web apps run on (I believe that; you can read more here). Apple realizes that this layer will eventually become good enough to displace native personal computer apps. Web apps then become both an opportunity and a challenge for Apple. The opportunity is that they’re a way to take down Microsoft. The challenge is that the same process that obsoletes Windows obsoletes other PC operating systems, including Mac OS.

This makes it vital for Apple to create its own Web apps layer, so it can control its own destiny and increase its power. That goal would be so important that Apple would be willing to handicap iPhone apps development in the short term in order to make developers focus on the web apps platform in the long term.

If that’s Apple’s thinking, then the next thing to watch for will be Apple gradually adding more features to its OS layer, in the guise of browser APIs and feature enhancements. Those features will be deployed at the same time on the Mac, the iPhone, and Windows Safari. And Apple will start evangelizing web app developers to use them.

The war to come. This could set up a brutal competition in software layers, between Adobe Apollo, Microsoft Silverlight, Sun’s revised Java, Firefox’s platform, and Apple. Google fits in there somewhere as well, but it’s not clear if they’ll try to create their own platform or work with several other players.

I think this is where the most interesting action’s going to be in applications development in the next few years. Stay tuned.