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).

Microsoft announced last week that it’s discontinuing its Spot data watch program.

The trouble with predicting the future is that it’s always easy to do in retrospect. Looking back, it’s obvious that Microsoft’s Spot products were a dumb idea. The concept was that Microsoft would send small bits of wireless data — weather forecasts, stock prices, etc — to specially-equipped watches and other small devices like refrigerator magnets, which would display the information. On the face of that, it sounds kind of appealing. There are definitely people who want information like that when they’re on the go, and Microsoft had a clever plan to use some unused FM radio bandwidth to deliver the information to the devices. You’d use your PC to pick which data feeds you wanted, and Microsoft would take care of blasting it onto your watch or other device.

The problem, of course, is mobile phones. Five years ago, when Spot was announced, the handset vendors and operators were already getting hot on delivering small bits of data to mobile phones. The market for Spot, rather than being everyone who wanted data on the go, turned out to be everyone who wanted data on the go who didn’t carry a mobile phone.

In other words, almost no one.

Like I said, it’s easy to point out that problem in retrospect. But Spot was probably in development for a couple of years before it was announced, meaning it was probably started in about 2001 — before the real rise of wireless data in the US. I think someone who was paying close attention to the mobile market could have predicted Spot’s troubles. But it was much less obvious then than it is now.

Once you as a manager put people on a project and spent some money on it, it’s very easy to talk yourself into ignoring emerging signs that the product might fail. You want the thing to succeed, so you have an incentive to rationalize away any concerns. Besides, business history is full of stories about products that succeeded despite adversity and critics. How can you tell the difference between a “normal” pothole in the road, and an impassable rift?

Lessons from Spot’s demise

In the early 1990s, a number of companies developed specialized wireless modems and private wireless services for delivering data to personal computers. Internet connectivity at the time meant slow dial-up connections for most people, which could not be left active at all times. The idea of blasting data to PCs in real time seemed very attractive, and indeed the products sold well for a few years — until Internet connections became faster and didn’t require dialing out on a phone. Spot ran into the same basic process in the mobile space.

So one lesson is that when you’re potentially competing with other sorts of networks is to look very carefully at where they’ll be in three or four years.

How to manage convergence. It’s very hard to predict how “convergence” will affect a product category. Fifteen years ago many people thought it was obvious that printers would soon be built into every PC, but it never happened. Convergence seems to happen only when there is absolutely no downside to it. So you can combine a printer and scanner — or a mobile phone and a Spot watch — because there is no loss of functionality in the resulting product. But put a printer in a PC and you have to sacrifice too many things (or the PC gets too darned big).

Because a mobile phone has a larger screen than a watch, it’s actually a better data device than a watch. That should have alerted Microsoft to the danger.

Solve real problems. I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s worth repeating: Products have a much better chance of succeeding when they solve major problems for customers. Spot was cool and convenient, not life-changing. That made it much easier to absorb into some other product.

Microsoft often gets criticized by people in the tech industry for failing to innovate. According to this perspective, all Microsoft does is copy things that others have already proven. But initiatives like Spot are an exception to that rule. I wish Microsoft had chosen its battle a bit more carefully, but I respect that fact that it tried. I wish it would take more chances like this, rather than just focusing on ways to imitate the iPod and copy Google’s advertising business.

Some other commentary on Spot:
An early discussion of the technology, from InfoWorld (link)
Engadget’s article (link)
Watches vs. mobile phones (link)
Enthusiastic review in 2004 of the Tissot $750(!) Spot watch (link)
An obituary in 2006 for the discontinued Tissot Spot watch (link)

=============

By the way, I apologize for being away from the blog for so long. Family and work issues have to be my top priority, and the blog is in line after that.

I think it’s safe to say that the iPhone is the most publicized new mobile product of the last several years, especially in the United States. But although there has been endless commentary on the iPhone, there hasn’t been much solid data on how it’s being used, and what impact it’s having on the industry.

At Rubicon, we set out to fix that by conducting a quantitative study of US iPhone users last month. We released the results today at CTIA. You can read the full results on the Rubicon website (link). Here are a few highlights:

–iPhone users we surveyed are very satisfied overall with the product, and report that they’re making heavy use of features like e-mail and browsing. This is driving higher mobile phone bills, producing about $2 billion a year in additional revenue for AT&T.

–Users are not universally satisfied with everything about the device — about 40% report that it can’t display all the websites they want to visit, and many also said they would like to see physical changes to the product, such as the addition of a bigger screen or a thumb keyboard.

–Users are young Apple veterans. Half of US iPhone users are under 30, and 75% are prior Apple customers.

–The iPhone is expanding the smartphone market. About 50% of iPhone users replaced conventional mobile phones, while 40% replaced other smartphones. The Motorola Razr was the conventional phone most often replaced, while Microsoft Windows Mobile devices and the RIM Blackberry were the smartphones most often replaced.

–Email is the #1 function. The most used data function on the iPhone is reading (but not writing) email, with about 70% of users doing that at least once a day. About 60% said they browse the web on the iPhone daily.

–The iPhone increases mobile browsing. Over 75% of iPhone users say they do a lot more mobile browsing on it than they did with their previous mobile phone.

–The iPhone drives carrier switching. About half of iPhone users switched carriers to AT&T when they obtained the iPhone.

Please note that although I usually post an April Fool’s message today, this ain’t it. The timing at CTIA made today the best day to release the study. It’s completely genuine.

I was very surprised by the volume of responses to last week’s post on the decline of the mobile applications business. Many of the comments were passionate and well reasoned, and if you haven’t seen them I recommend that you check them out here.

My biggest insight from the comments was that I had generalized too broadly about the mobile software world. Several mobile developers wrote in to say that they’re doing just fine, thank you. Most of them seem to be either in enterprise mobile software, or doing contract development for major companies that have decided they want a mobile presence. In both cases, they have ways to get around the distribution logjam that I see as the biggest barrier to success in mobile software. I wasn’t thinking about either of those developer categories when I wrote the post.

Anyway, I really appreciate all the comments. I learn a lot from the folks who post feedback, and I hope the comments are useful for you as well.

Summary: The business of making native apps for mobile devices is dying, crushed by a fragmented market and restrictive business practices. The problems are so bad that the mobile web, despite its many technical drawbacks, is now a better way to deliver new functionality to mobiles. I think this will drive a rapid rise in mobile web development, largely replacing the mobile app business. This has huge implications for mobile operators, handset companies, developers, and users.

The decline of the mobile software industry

Mobile computing is different from PC computing.

For the last decade, that has been the fundamental rule of the mobile data industry. It was the central insight of Palm Computing’s “Zen of Palm” philosophy. Psion came up with similar ideas, and you can hear echoes of them from every other successful mobile computing firm: Mobile computers are used differently from PCs, and therefore must be designed differently.

We all assumed this also meant mobile devices needed a whole mobile-specific software stack, including an operating system and APIs designed specifically for mobility, and native third-party applications created from the ground up for mobile usage.

That’s what we all believe, but I’m starting to think we got it wrong.

Back in 1999 when I joined Palm, it seemed we had the whole mobile ecosystem nailed. The market was literally exploding, with the installed base of devices doubling every year, and an incredible range of creative and useful software popping up all over. In a 22-month period, the number of registered Palm developers increased from 3,000 to over 130,000. The PalmSource conference was swamped, with people spilling out into the halls, and David Pogue took center stage at the close of the conference to tell us how brilliant we all were.

It felt like we were at the leading edge of a revolution, but in hindsight it was more like the high water mark of a flash flood. In the years that followed, the energy and momentum gradually drained out of the mobile applications market.

The problem wasn’t just limited to Palm; the level of developer activity and creativity that we saw in the glory days of Palm OS hasn’t reappeared on any mobile platform since. In fact, as the market shifted from handhelds to smartphones, the situation for mobile app developers has become substantially worse.

That came home to me very forcefully a few days ago, when I got a call from Elia Freedman. Elia is CEO of Infinity Softworks, which makes vertical market software for mobile devices (tasks like real estate valuation and financial services). He was one of the leaders of the Palm software market, with a ten year history in mobile applications.

I eventually moved on from Palm, and Elia branched out into other platforms such as Blackberry. But we’ve kept in touch, and so he called recently to tell me that he had given up on his mobile applications business.

Elia gave me a long explanation of why. I can’t reproduce it word for word (I couldn’t write that fast), but I’ve summarized it with his permission here:

Two problems have caused a decline the mobile apps business over the last few years. First, the business has become tougher technologically. Second, marketing and sales have also become harder.

From the technical perspective, there are a couple of big issues. One is the proliferation of operating systems. Back in the late 1990s there were two platforms we had to worry about, Pocket PC and Palm OS. Symbian was there too, but it was in Europe and few people here were paying attention. Now there are at least ten platforms. Microsoft alone has several — two versions of Windows Mobile, Tablet PC, and so on. [Elia didn’t mention it, but the fragmentation of Java makes this situation even worse.]

I call it three million platforms with a hundred users each (link).

The second technical issue is certification. The walls are being formed around devices in ways they never were before. Now I have to certify with both the OS and with each carrier, and it costs me thousands of dollars. So my costs are through the roof. On top of that, the adoption rate of mobile applications has gone down. So I have to pay more to sell less.

Then there’s marketing. Here too there are two issues. The first is vertical marketing. Few mobile devices align with verticals, which makes it hard for a vertical application developer like us to partner with any particular device. For example, Palm even at its height had no more than 20% of real estate agents. To cover our development costs on 20% of target customer base, I had to charge more than the customers could pay. So I was forced to make my application work on more platforms, which pushed me back into the million platforms problem.

The other marketing problem is the disappearance of horizontal distribution. You used to have some resellers and free software sites on the web that promoted mobile shareware and commercial products at low or no charge. You could also work through the hardware vendors to get to customers. We were masters of this; at one point we were bundled on 85% of mobile computing devices. We had retail distribution too.

None of those avenues are available any more. Retail has gone away. The online resellers have gone from taking 20% of our revenue to taking 50-70%. The other day I went looking for the freeware sites where we used to promote, and they have disappeared. Hardware bundling has ended because carriers took that over and made it impossible for us to get on the device. Palm used to have a bonus CD and a flyer that they put in the box, where we could get promoted. The carriers shut down both of those. They do not care about vertical apps. It feels like they don’t want any apps at all.

You can read more of Elia’s commentary on his weblog (link).

Add it all up, and Elia can’t make money in mobile applications any more. As he told me, “Mike, it’s time for you to write the obituary for mobile apps.” More on that later.

Although it’s a very sad situation, if Elia’s experience were an isolated story I’d probably just chalk it up to bad luck on the part of a single developer. But it mirrors what I’ve been hearing from a lot of mobile app developers on a lot of different operating systems for some time now. The combination of splintering platforms, shrinking distribution channels, and rising costs is making it harder and harder for a mobile application developer to succeed. Rather than getting better, the situation is getting worse.

I’ve always had faith that eventually we would solve these problems. We’d get the right OS vendor paired with a handset maker who understood the situation and an operator who was willing to give up some control, and a mobile platform would take off again. Maybe not Palm OS, but on somebody’s platform we’d get it all right.

I don’t believe that any more. I think it’s too late.

The mistake we made

We told ourselves that the fundamental rule of our business was: Mobile is different. But we lost sight of an even more fundamental law that applies to any computing platform:

A platform that is technically flawed but has a good business model will always beat a platform that is elegant but has a poor business model.

Windows is the best example of inelegant tech paired with the right business model, but it has happened over and over again in the history of the tech world.

In the mobile world, what have we done? We created a series of elegant technology platforms optimized just for mobile computing. We figured out how to extend battery life, start up the system instantly, conserve precious wireless bandwidth, synchronize to computers all over the planet, and optimize the display of data on a tiny screen.

But we never figured out how to help developers make money. In fact, we paired our elegant platforms with a developer business model so deeply broken that it would take many years, and enormous political battles throughout the industry, to fix it — if it can ever be fixed at all.

Meanwhile, there is now an alternative platform for mobile developers. It’s horribly flawed technically, not at all optimized for mobile usage, and in fact was designed for a completely different form of computing. It would be hard to create a computing architecture more inappropriate for use over a cellular data network. But it has a business model that sweeps away all of the barriers in the mobile market. Mobile developers are starting to switch to it, a trickle that is soon going to grow. And this time I think the flash flood will last.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m talking about the Web. I think Web applications are going to destroy most native app development for mobiles. Not because the Web is a better technology for mobile, but because it has a better business model.

Think about it: If you’re creating a website, you don’t have to get permission from a carrier. You don’t have to get anything certified by anyone. You don’t have to beg for placement on the deck, and you don’t have to pay half your revenue to a reseller. In fact, the operator, handset vendor, and OS vendor probably won’t even be aware that you exist. It’ll just be you and the user, communicating directly.

Until recently, a couple of barriers prevented this from working. The first was the absence of flat-rate data plans. They have been around for a while in the US, but in Europe they are only now appearing. Before flat-rate, users were very fearful of exploring the mobile web because they risked ending up with a thousand-Euro mobile bill. That fear is now receding. The second barrier was the extremely bad quality of mobile browsers. Many of them still stink, but the high quality of Apple’s iPhone browser, coupled with Nokia’s licensing of WebKit, points to a future in which most mobile browsers will be reasonably feature-complete. The market will force this — mobile companies how have to ship a full browser in order to keep up with Apple, and operators have to give full access to it.

There are still huge problems with web apps on mobile, of course. Mobile web apps don’t work when you’re out of coverage, they’re slow due to network latency, and they do not make efficient use of the wireless network. But I believe it will be easier to resolve or live with these technical drawbacks in the next few years than it will be to fix the fundamental structural and business problems in the native mobile app market.

In other words, app development on the mobile web sucks less than the alternative.

Here’s a chart to help explain the situation. Imagine that we’re giving a numerical score to a platform, rating its attractiveness to developers. Attractiveness is defined as the technical elegance of the platform multiplied by how easy it is for developers to make money from it. The attractiveness score for native mobile app development looks like this over time:

This is why mobile app developers are in trouble. Even though the base of smartphones has been growing, and the platforms themselves have become more powerful, the market barriers have been growing even faster. So attractiveness has been dropping.

Now add in mobile web development:

Based on what I’m hearing from mobile developers, the lines just crossed. The business advantages of mobile web development outweigh its technical limitations. More importantly, if you look at where the lines are going, the advantage of mobile web is going to grow rapidly in the future.

I’m not saying all native mobile development is dead. In fact, we’re about to see the release of Apple’s native development tools for the iPhone, and as Chris Dunphy just pointed out to me, they are sure to result in a surge of native development for that platform. But I think even a rapidly-growing base of iPhones can’t compare to the weight of the whole mobile phone market getting onto a consistent base of browsers.

What it all means

If you’re a mobile developer, you should consider stopping native app development and shifting to a mobile-optimized website. That’s what Elia did, and he said it’s amazing how much easier it is to get things done. Even mobile game developers, who you’d think would be the last to abandon native development, are looking at web distribution (link; thanks to Mike Rowehl for pointing it out).

See if you can create a dumbed-down version of your application that will run over the mobile web. If the answer is yes, do it. If the answer is no, try to figure out what technology changes would let you move to the web, and watch for those changes to happen.

There are exceptions to any rule, and I think it makes sense to keep doing native development if your app can’t work effectively over the web, and it’s a vertical application so popular that you can get about $50 or more in revenue per copy. In that situation, you probably have enough resources to stay native for the time being. But even you should be monitoring the situation to see when you can switch to the web, because it will cut your expenses.

If you’re a mobile customer, make sure your next smartphone has a fully functional browser that can display standard web pages. And get the best deal you can on a flat-rate data plan; you’ll need it.

If you’re an operator or a handset vendor, get used to life as a dumb pipe. By trying to control your customers and make sure you extract most of the revenue from mobile data, all you’ve done is drive developers to the Web, which is even harder to control. You could have had a middle ground in which you and mobile developers worked together to share the profits, but instead you’ve handed the game to the Google crowd.

Congratulations.

Oh, about that obituary…

In loving memory of the mobile applications business. Adoring child of Java, Psion, Palm OS and Windows Mobile; doting parent of Symbian, Access Linux Platform, and S60; constant companion of Handango and Motricity. Scared the crap out of Microsoft in 2000. Passed away from strangulation at the hands of the mobile industry in 2008. Awaiting resurrection as a web service in 2009. In lieu of flowers, the family asks that you make a donation to the Yahoo takeover defense fund.

More than half of the traffic to this weblog comes from outside the US, so there are times when I feel obligated (and a little embarrassed) to explain how the mobile market works here. This is one of those moments.

Verizon, the largest US mobile carrier, made headlines in the US today by announcing that by the end of 2008 it’s going to make its network available to any device and any application that the user chooses to install (link).

This will seem remarkable to people living in GSM countries where it’s normal to choose any device you want. But in the US, it’s an unusual idea. Here mobile usage is split between GSM and CDMA. GSM phones have SIM cards, which technically allow you to switch your account to any phone you want. But in practice, almost no users are willing to give up the several hundred dollar subsidy for buying a phone and service plan together, so they only choose phones that come through the operator.

Things are even more restrictive in the CDMA space, where there are no SIM cards. If you buy a Verizon phone, it can only be used with a Verizon account. Same thing for Sprint.

So Verizon’s announcement is a nice change, on the face of it. It’s also something of a pleasant shock, since Verizon has the reputation of being the most conservative and controlling US operator. But the announcement’s actual impact on the market is going to depend on several questions that Verizon hasn’t answered yet:

–How will open access be implemented? Verizon says it’s going to define a process by which phones can be certified to work on its network. That could be routine or it could turn into a huge barrier to entry. We also don’t know how a user’s account will be switched between phones. Is Verizon planning to start installing SIM cards in its phones (something that has been done with CDMA in China)? If not, will you have to take the phone to a Verizon store to get it activated? How much will that cost?

Verizon apparently said something about doing activation through a toll-free number, which could be cool.

–How will the service be priced? Verizon’s service plans include recovery of the several hundred dollar subsidy for hardware. You pay for the subsidy as part of your monthly bill. Since Verizon doesn’t have to recover a subsidy cost on its open access phones, there’s about $10 or more a month that it could pass along to consumers in the form of lower bills.

If Verizon doesn’t price the open service lower, what happens to the extra money? Does Verizon pocket it? Or will they offer some sort of rebate on purchase of open access phones?

The answer to this one is critical. The US GSM carriers are technically open, but the subsidy prevents significant sales of alternate phones. If Verizon pockets the subsidy money, very few people will take advantage of the open service. The whole thing could turn out to be a PR gesture rather than a genuine change.

But in the hope that Verizon wants it to be more, here’s what they ought to do:

–Make the monthly cost of the open plan lower than a traditional service plan, reflecting the absence of a subsidy.
–Make the handset certification process simple and low cost.
–Make it easy for users to switch their account to a new phone (preferably via a SIM card or website or that 800 number, so they don’t have to come to a store).

That’s an announcement I’d stand up and cheer for.

Impact on the industry

Until we hear the answers to the questions above, it’s impossible to guess how impactful this announcement will be. The most important factor may be how the other US operators react. The best result would be if they start competing with each other to see who can make their network more open. If that dynamic takes hold, competitive forces might drive them to really open up even if they don’t intend to.

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.

“When two elephants fight, the loser is the jungle.” –Ancient proverb

And so it begins.

The Apple-Nokia war finally got underway on August 29, when Nokia announced an array of new music-capable phones and an online music store. The two companies had been eyeing one-another like wrestlers outside the ring for more than a year. Apple entered the mobile phone market, but only in the US, where Nokia is a non-factor. Nokia openly declared that it’s a computing company (link), but its non-phone products so far have been different flavors of lame.

But the August 29 announcements put Nokia and Apple on a path to direct confrontation. I haven’t seen a lot written online about the importance of this conflict. I think that’s probably because many of the people who follow Apple’s business closely are based in the US and have trouble taking Nokia seriously because it’s a secondary player here. Meanwhile, Nokia’s most ardent followers are in Europe, and look at Nokia’s actions in light of its regional conflicts with SonyEricsson and the European mobile operators.

But when you stand back and look at what’s happening in the industry worldwide, it’s clear that Apple and Nokia both want very badly to be the dominant mobile computing company for young adults. That makes a huge, relentless conflict between them inevitable. They’re like two armies trying to take the same hill. One’s coming from the west, the other from the east, so there’s not a lot of fighting at the moment. But as soon as they reach the hill, there’s going to be an explosion.

I don’t know who will win, but I’m pretty sure that the main losers will be all of the other device companies and mobile operators who happen to be hanging around on the hill.

My advice to them: Run.

What Nokia announced, and why it matters

On the 29th, Nokia announced four phones, two new data services for its phones, and a new brand. Let’s start with the services.

The Nokia Music Store is just what the name says, an online music store run by Nokia. It’ll be accessible by both PC and selected Nokia phones. The N81 and N95 will be able to talk to the store directly, while for a number of other Nokia phones you’ll be able to buy music on your PC and sync it to your phone (Nokia calls this process “sideloading”).

Nokia will offer more purchase options than iTunes does. You can either buy and download individual titles (for one euro a song, a euro cent above iTunes), or you can subscribe to the store and stream all the music you want to your PC (but not save it) for ten euros a month.

Nokia positions the streaming service as a way to discover new tunes, after which you’re supposed to buy and download the ones you want to keep. I can understand the practical reasons for not streaming from the store directly to phones — there would be issues with data charges, network capacity, latency, and so on. But I don’t know how users will feel about that. If I had a streaming account on my PC, I think I’d expect to have the same service on my Nokia phone. And why wouldn’t you want to discover new music while you’re on the go?

The bigger problem is that the 120 euros you pay a year for a streaming service is 120 songs you could have bought and kept forever. That’s one new song every three days. For comparison, the average iTunes user buys three songs a month. A music subscription service is a great way to get access to a lot of music quickly, but unless you want a colossally large music collection, it’s a huge financial drain in the long run (I wrote more on the economics of it here). No wonder the music industry loves the idea of subscriptions (link).

The re- rebirth of nGage. The other new service Nokia announced was a mobile game store. You’ll be able to try games for free on your Nokia mobile or PC, and then after purchase you can use them on the PC or sync them to your phone (curiously, Nokia calls this process “installation.”) Nokia also promises multiplayer and community features.

Price per game will be six to ten euros, and Nokia says you’ll be able to pay by credit card or through your phone bill if the operator enables that. No word on what the revenue split is.

The service sounds pretty interesting to me. The most confusing thing about it is the name. The nGage service won’t work with all of Nokia’s N-series phones. I know there’s no official tie between N-series and nGage (the names were apparently chosen separately), but try explaining that to a typical customer in a store. Nokia has struggled and failed for years to explain to customers the S60 platform that it uses in a lot of its phones; picture adding yet another layer of confusion on top of that (link).

I think the other important challenge to nGage is flash. There’s a huge supply of free flash-based games on the web, and a lot of them are the sort of quick-reward, easy to use games that seem to do well on mobile devices. The biggest barrier to using them on mobiles is that Adobe charges for the mobile flash player, and so relatively few mobile phones have it installed. A small installed base of phones means that most developers don’t target mobile flash. If Adobe ever drops the charge for the flash player, or if a free flash-equivalent comes along (perhaps a mobile version of Microsoft Silverlight), it might become very difficult to convince people to pay for nGage games.

I know nGage provides a higher-quality gaming experience than flash, but I’m not sure most mobile users will care enough to pay.

Ovi is a new brand that Nokia will use as a wrapper for all of its mobile services, including games, music, maps, photo sharing, and presumably more to come (link). I guess that makes sense from a convenience standpoint — there will be one website (ovi.com) where you can go to discover all of the Nokia services (Nokia employees say that it will also be a gateway to the services of other companies as well ). Unfortunately, Ovi apparently won’t work as a compatibility mark: the phones that can use one Ovi service can’t necessarily use another. For example, many of the phones that can run nGage games can’t directly connect to the music service. A brand is most effective when it represents a coherent idea or consistent product. I think Ovi creates an expectation of coherence but doesn’t deliver it. It just says that Nokia’s in the service business, which Nokia cares about but is not something that concerns users

If Nokia doesn’t make all the Ovi services work on all its data-capable phones quickly, I think the varied incompatibilities between the Nokia services and devices are going to be a nightmare to explain at retail.

The four new phones
The N95 8GB adds more memory to Nokia’s flagship Swiss army knife phone, which includes a 5 mp camera, improved 3G, WiFi, and GPS. This is the one that online reviewers always compare to the iPhone. It works with both nGage and the music store, and its base price is 580 euros before subsidy.
The N81 is a slider phone with WiFi and 3G, and has dedicated buttons to access both nGage and the music store. It’ll sell for 430 euros pre-subsidy.
The 5310 is a slimline candybar phone that can play music synced from the Nokia music store. It cannot access the music store directly. It has dedicated music controls next to the screen, and its base price is 225 euros.
The 5610 is similar to the 5310, but adds a slider and built-in camera. Its base price is 300 euros. A lot of online reviewers have been comparing this and the 5310 to the SonyEricsson Walkman phones, and I think that was probably Nokia’s thinking. But hold that thought because it’s not necessarily how things will work out.

What’s the impact? A huge amount depends on execution. How well will Nokia’s new services integrate with the phones? How easy will it be to play songs and games? How many titles will be in the Nokia stores, and how good will they be? Services and mobile devices often live or die on the little details of usability, and we can’t judge that for Nokia yet because we can’t play with the new products and services.

But Nokia’s direction is very clear. It wants to be in the mobile Internet services business, as both a developer and publisher of content and services. It’s going to tie those services directly to its phones. And knowing Nokia, it’ll keep iterating on both the phones and the services until it gets them right.

That’s why Apple and Nokia are now at war. Even if Nokia’s current products turn out to be lame, it’s going straight into the territory that Apple has been pursuing ever since the first iPod shipped.

Apple’s new products. I should add a little context on Apple’s recent product announcements. In September, Apple made a lot of changes to the iTunes and iPod lineup. The move that got the most attention was the price cut of the iPhone from $599 to $399. I’ll write more about that below. The other changes that stood out to me were:
–iTunes can now be accessed via WiFi on the iPhone and iPod Touch. This corrects a glaring weakness in the original iPhone. It’s interesting that Apple apparently hasn’t enabled the iPhone to talk to the store over a cellular connection. That may be because the network the iPhone uses in the US is too slow to easily download music, or it may be that AT&T doesn’t want a lot of data traffic going over its network when the phone’s data plan is flat-rate.
–The video version of the Nano, starting at $199, is a heck of a lot of technology in a very cute little package.
–The iPod Touch is basically an iPhone without the microphone and cellular radio. It makes a really interesting PDA for people who want to buy a basic voice phone and carry their entertainment separately. It’s priced at $299.

(As an aside, I have a request: Once the iPod Touch starts selling like gangbusters, would someone please go find the person at Sony who decided the Clie handheld business was a dead end, and kick them in the shins?)

Relative strengths of the competitors

Or, how to piss off both Apple fans and Nokia fans in the same post.

Apple and Nokia are very different companies. Here are their relative strengths:

Resources. No contest. Although Apple is a very successful company, Nokia has vastly more financial resources.

Logistics. Nokia is one of the greatest logistics companies on the planet. It churns out hundreds of millions of phones, changes models frequently, and almost everything works properly. If Nokia were running the US Federal Emergency Management Agency, New Orleans would be 20 feet above sea level by now. Apple, by contrast, does a very competent job of managing contract manufacturers in Asia. Advantage Nokia.

Telephony experience. Another huge Nokia advantage. Designing phones and getting them qualified on networks is really tricky, and Nokia knows how to do it better than anyone else.

System design skill. This is Apple’s core competence; it knows how to design hardware and software together to create a beautifully integrated system. Nokia’s phones often appear as if their hardware and software were designed by completely different groups and slapped together at the last minute (because, in many cases, that’s exactly what happened). This works great in commodity phones, but if the competition is for who can create the most elegant data experience, Nokia is at a huge disadvantage.

Brand power. Wow, this is a tough one. Apple has one of the coolest brands on the planet. Nokia’s brand is beloved in Europe, and in most of the world it personifies upward mobility (except in the US and Japan). I call this one a tie.

User interface. Apple knows how to design these. The kindest thing you can say about Nokia’s interface designs is that they’re better than many other phone manufacturers. But that’s like comparing a three-legged dog to a two-legged dog. Nokia’s trying to get better — at the announcement event, it showed video of a forthcoming device with an iPhone-style touchscreen (link). But for now, this one’s clearly a strong Apple advantage.

Cleverness. Hey, it’s Steve. Nokia’s management is extremely smart, but you look to them for great operational execution, not brilliant strategy. After all, this is the company that brought us the original nGage.

Industrial design. I’m going to get flamed by the Nokia fans for this, but Apple has a clear advantage in design. The comparison: Nokia sometimes creates a great design. Apple rarely creates anything less than a great design.

Music solution. You’d think this would be an overwhelming advantage for Apple, but its arrogant handling of the music companies has made them even more desperate to tear Steve Jobs’ throat out. They’re anxious to work with someone like Nokia. Apple still has an advantage, but it has opened the door to competitors more than it had to.

Breadth. Nokia can fight on more fronts, and might be able to outflank Apple. For instance, Nokia’s revived nGage game service gives it a second interesting offering for young people, whereas Apple is limited to just music and video. This is why I think Apple’s decision not to open the iPhone to third party app developers is a huge mistake. If Apple had the help of third party developers, it could more easily fill out its software portfolio.

How they’ll fight

Nokia wants a war of attrition. It will try to force Apple to compete on more fronts than it can afford to cover. I think we should expect to see a broad array of services added to Ovi quickly, aimed at enticing young adults in all sorts of different ways. Nokia will probably also launch a blizzard of media and entertainment phones with varied features, in the hope that a couple of them will hit sweet spots in the market.

Apple’s game is to keep Nokia off balance and grab the most important opportunities. Think of a fencing expert: dodge, feint, and then stab the other guy in the heart. Apple currently has a product advantage — its music service is already working. So it will try to capture as many customers as it can before Nokia gets its act together.

Apple can also use Nokia’s size against it. Nokia has a huge product line and has to position each product carefully within it. Apple has only one phone, so it doesn’t have much to protect. That’s where the iPhone price cut comes in. The iPhone had been positioned against the n95, at the top of Nokia’s product line. With the price cut, the iPhone is now looks much closer to the middle of Nokia’s line, the phones that were supposed to be aimed at SonyEricsson.* Nokia can’t slash the pricing of the n95 without screwing up the prices of its entire line, so with one price action Apple accomplished two things — it can reach a lot more customers, and it forced Nokia to go back and rethink its competitiveness.

We should expect more surprise moves from Apple. It’s more important for them to keep Nokia off balance than it is to please every customer. I think that’s why Apple was willing to piss off the iPhone loyalists with a sudden, large price cut.

*Because of varying subsidies, it’s hard to tell what the actual street price comparison between the new n95 and iPhone will be. The current n95 sometimes gets subsidized down by several hundred dollars if you buy a multiyear service contract. Maybe the new n95 will be subsidized down below iPhone prices. Maybe the iPhone will be subsidized too. Or maybe now that Nokia’s offering its own services the operators will refuse to keep subsidizing the n95. We need to wait until the iPhone and Nokia’s new services premiere in Europe this fall.

Impacts of the war: Alas, the innocent bystanders

The common denominator between Apple and Nokia is the imperative to move quickly. Nokia wants to broaden the competition fast, Apple wants to keep surprising Nokia with new features, products, and other changes. That’s going to accelerate the pace of change in the mobile industry. And the accelerating pace of change, rather than anything in particular that Apple or Nokia have done today, is the biggest challenge to the rest of the industry. The other players have been struggling to keep up with the current rate of change; what will they do when Apple and Nokia step on the gas?

I’ve seen these situations before. You think you’re just about keeping up with a competitor, and suddenly they disappear in a cloud of dust. I believe that’s about to happen in mobile phones.

A shift from hardware design to systems design. Let’s look at which companies have been most successful in smartphones: RIM creates e-mail phone systems that combine hardware, software, and services. DoCoMo and the other Japanese operators drive systems designs that combine hardware, software, and services. The iPhone does the same. Previously, those competitors were confined to particular countries or relatively small vertical markets, but now the world’s biggest phone company is trying to do the same thing. That raises the competitive bar for everyone else in the industry.

What are companies like Samsung and Motorola supposed to do? They don’t know how to create their own services, let alone integrate one well with a phone. In the music market, there are a lot of third party services out there, but none of them have been effective so far at challenging iTunes. I think they’re not strong enough to change the competitive situation. Same thing for the operator services.

So the music phone market looks ugly. What’s worse, if Nokia and the systems companies extend their new design approach to other data markets, the traditional mobile phone companies might be cut out of most of the big growth opportunities. They need to learn a new set of skills instantly, and they’re far behind the curve.

The interesting potential exception to this situation is SonyEricsson, the leading vendor of music-enabled phones in Europe. Their hardware’s nice, and they have a clean user interface that looks inspired by the iPod. Because I’m in the US, I don’t have a good read on how smoothly the SonyEricsson phones integrate with operator and third party music stores. Is the experience as easy as using iTunes?

The Register says that Omnifone’s Music Station is a promising possibility (link), but it’s a subscription service costing 3 euros ($4.11) per week. For that same price you could buy 216 songs on iTunes per year, and at the end of the year you’d actually own something.

I really have trouble seeing the long-term economic benefit of a music subscription service for a user. If you subscribe to one, please post a comment and educate me.

SonyEricsson’s management hinted to Time Magazine that it may create its own music service (link). If so, it had better hurry up. I have a lot of respect for SonyEricsson’s hardware designs, but if it’s limited to music stores with weird business models and ones that don’t integrate seamlessly with its phones, it’s going to have a very hard time outcompeting an accelerating Apple and a Nokia that’s learning to integrate solutions.

Microsoft: Reverse course, again. This is the situation in which Microsoft could have stepped in to offer a music service to the phone companies challenged by Nokia. But in an exquisitely ironic move, Microsoft basically shot its licensed music store initiative last year in order to support the proprietary Zune. Now it can’t step up to the opportunity.

Oops.

Microsoft is probably too late to recover in music, but as Nokia adds new services there should be a lot of opportunities to license equivalents of them to Nokia’s competitors. Microsoft should focus less on selling its own OS, which scares the phone companies, and more on delivering services they can build into their phones.

And oh by the way, it’s time to bury Zune. The iPod Touch just lapped it. If Microsoft wants to lose money on proprietary hardware, it should focus on Xbox. At least there it’s buying market share for its money.

The operators lose control. They were struggling to establish their own services suites back when things were moving slowly. Now that Apple and Nokia are shifting into high gear, I don’t see how the operators can keep up.

You can find very different scenarios online for where this will lead. Andrew at the Register predicts that the operators may strangle Ovi by refusing to sell any phones that support it (link). He has a good quote from someone who knows both Nokia and the operators:

The operators own the relationship with the customer. They’re not going to allow Nokia to own it.

On the other hand, Richard Windsor, the excellent telecom analyst working for Nomura Securities in London, said in an e-mail brief that the operators are doomed:

Through their inaction, mobile operators have squandered the opportunity to be the service integrator for mobile and are left with the prospect of offering nothing to users except commodity data packets.

Who will be right? It depends on Nokia’s ability to generate user demand for its services. If the users want the services, the operators will have to go along with it. I assume Nokia understands this and is prepared to do a big marketing push. Unlike Nokia’s previous efforts to set up content portals, this time it has to succeed or it surrenders the future to Apple. So the conflict with Apple also locks Nokia into a war with the operators.

Isn’t this fun?

If I were running a mobile operator, I’d stop trying to create my own services bundle, and focus on enabling as many Internet companies as possible to deliver services on my network, in exchange for a small cut of their revenue. An operator with the innovation of the open Internet behind it might be able to keep up with Nokia and Apple. But an operator working alone will be very lonely indeed.

What does it mean for users? You’d think that all this new competition would be good for users, and in many ways I’m sure it will be. But Apple and Nokia are both showing a disturbing tendency to keep everything proprietary. The iPhone is not open to third party developers, and at this point Ovi appears to be about marketing Nokia services, not opening up the richness of the Internet. (To be fair, Nokia employees say that will change, but I’m not sure if they mean that they’ll offer access to any Internet service, or just to some selected ones that they cut a deal with. I suspect it’ll be the latter.)

Welcome our new Apple and Nokia overlords. There’s a disturbing possibility that we may end up exchanging one set of walled gardens for another. They’ll be lavish, beautiful gardens, far better than the operators’ truck farms for data. But we may not get the open data marketplaces that a lot of people have been hoping for.

If you want to read other perspectives on Nokia vs. Apple, check these out:
-A confident view from Finland (link)
-A cautious view from Jupiter Research (link)
-An outstanding article by Mark Halper at Time, with quotes from Nokia and SonyEricsson (link).

Despite all the hype and excitement about the mobile data market, it is very difficult to get reliable data on how it’s actually developing. The mobile operators don’t like to release full details of their sales, and surveys of users cost a lot of money to conduct and therefore are usually available only to people who pay.

We’re left to chew on anecdotes, partial information released by companies that are trying to push a point of view, and unscientific “polls” of online enthusiasts.

So I’m always on the lookout for more rigorous information. Recently I came across several fairly good sources of data, and they give some interesting perspectives on what’s happening with mobile data. It is by no means a complete view, and most of it is US only. But I think it’s worth sharing.

Steady, unspectacular growth

The overall picture of mobile data is one of steady but unspectacular growth. It’s a bit like watching a tree grow — you can’t see anything changing day to day, but if you walk away and come back in six months you’ll notice the difference. SMS continues to be the dominant service, especially in Europe, and there’s no sign of some other service surpassing it.

Is the growth rate good or bad? It all depends on how much growth you were expecting, and how fast you wanted it to happen. The one thing I think is very clear is that each country market is different, and you can’t classify any of them as leaders and laggards. They’re just unique.

Here are the details:

Capabilities of mobile phones in the US

The Pew Internet organization has been surveying Americans on their Internet usage for years. A couple of the questions in their survey ask about the data capabilities of their mobile phones. In the most recent results, from early 2006, 75% of mobile phone users in the US said their phones are capable of texting. 63% said they can play games, and 39% said they have cameraphones. Here’s the full chart:

Nothing there stands out as shocking, although I expected the penetration of cameraphones to be higher. My guess is it has gone up in the last year.

(Note that some people could have capabilities in their phones and not realize it. So the question tells us as much about awareness of features as it does about the phones themselves.)

What people do with their phones: Nothing else rivals SMS

The chart below examines the percent of mobile phone users in the US and several European countries who have ever performed various tasks with their mobile phones. The source is M:Metrics, Q4 2006, and the numbers were quoted in a presentation by Orange / France Telecom.

The figures show that there’s no other mobile data service with near the penetration of short messaging service (texting). That’s not really news, but it’s striking to see the hard numbers. About 80-85% of people in most of the big European countries have ever sent a text message, with France lagging slightly (at about 75%). In the US, almost 40% of mobile phone users report that they have sent a text message.

The next closest service is picture messaging, with 20-30% of mobile users in the big European countries saying they have received photo messages at least once. In the US, the figure is 15%. It’s ironic that photo messaging is in second place, since it’s generally considered a major disappointment. What does that say about the other services? Well, none of them generally crack 10% usage.

Is the US really a laggard? The other thing in the chart that really stood out to me was that the adoption “lag” of US mobile users varies depending on service. The US is far behind in SMS, MMS, and playing music on the phone (the last one is, I’m sure, due to the strength of the iPod in the US). But in the other categories, the US is in the middle of the pack, or even ahead (somebody explain the ringtone result to me, please).

It’s always fun to stereotype the US market as primitive in all areas of wireless, but the adoption numbers don’t support that. It just looks different.

What does it all mean? Orange’s spin was that it means we’re just getting started in mobile data, and everyone should wait patiently for the good services to take off. They showed the following growth projection from Ericsson as evidence:

No offense to Orange, but that is basically a statement of faith rather than analysis. If you’re a cynic, you’ll point out that the chart assumes compound growth will continue uninterrupted for a decade, something that is often true for technology specs but is rarely true for technology markets.

What we really need is time-series data, so we can see what’s growing and what isn’t. Unfortunately, Orange didn’t present any numbers like that, but the research firm Telephia did, in a separate presentation. Unfortunately, their numbers were US only, and they didn’t cut the usage categories in the same way as France Telecom. But they still show some interesting trends…

Mobile data growth in the US

Telephia measures mobile data usage by analyzing the monthly bills of mobile phone users. This should give very accurate information on revenue and number of users, but it doesn’t track physical usage. Because some services are billed per-use and some have monthly subscription fees, it’s hard to tell how heavily people are using the services listed below.

Telephia reports that billings are growing steadily for a wide range of mobile data services. The chart below shows total US operator revenue for mobile data from Q3 2006 to Q1 2007. (These figures include anything that passes through the user’s phone bill. Applications and services paid for separately by the user are not included.)

The chart is in billions of dollars, so it shows that in Q1 2007, total on-deck US data revenue was about $4.6 billion. Is that a big number or a small one? Well, total service revenue for the US mobile operators is about $32.5 billion per quarter, according to the CTIA. So mobile data is about 14% of mobile billings.

Where is e-mail? I can’t find e-mail anywhere on the chart. I’m very surprised they didn’t break it out separately.

Strangely consistent growth rates. The weirdest thing about the chart is that everything’s growing at the same rate. In the real world, that sort of thing doesn’t often happen. I wonder if a lot of the growth might be driven by people buying service bundles, where they pay a flat extra rate per month to activate a bunch of different services, and then the revenue gets allocated across the services by the operator. That would cause everything to grow in lockstep.

If that’s what’s going on, then these numbers really might not say much about usage — what they’d be tracking is the ability of the operators to sell services bundles.

Anyway, the numbers show that the US operators are making pretty good revenue from mobile data. I didn’t make a chart of this, but in general, the growth in mobile data billings is large enough to make up for the ongoing decline in mobile voice revenue. So the operators aren’t getting rich, but data is helping to keep them from getting poor.

More details. Telephia lumps a lot of different things in the “Downloads” category. For Q1 2007, they gave more details on that category. So I can’t give you a time series, but here’s a more fine-cut look at how mobile data revenue looked in the US at the start of 2007:

Premium SMS is mostly ringtones paid for via SMS, plus voting for things like American Idol. Audio is downloading and streaming of songs. The other categories are self-explanatory. I feel bad about the tiny size of the applications category, but keep in mind that most smartphone apps are sold through the web and then synced onto the device, and so don’t show up in operator billings.

Number of users per service. Telephia also reported the total number of users for each service. As we saw in the Orange chart, SMS has the most users in the US (although the gap between it and the other services isn’t as large as in Europe).

Revenue per user. Combining the user and revenue data, we can estimate monthly billings per user for each service:

You can see why the operators like premium SMS. And look at WAP! It never lived up to the original hype that it would become the mobile version of the Web, but as a tool for getting things like sports scores and weather reports, it’s not doing too bad. (Whether it’s paying for all the money that was invested in it is another story.) Video’s generating the most revenue per user, but with a very tiny user base. Audio revenue (which is revenue from listening to songs, not ringtones) is fairly close to what Apple gets from iTunes users (the average iTunes user downloads about 3.3 songs per month, or about $3.30) (link).

Usage doesn’t follow capability. And now for the “big” mashup. We can combine Pew Internet’s figures on phone capabilities with Telephia’s numbers on service usage to figure out roughly what percent of US mobile customers who know they have a given feature on the phone ever actually use it. The results are interesting:

For communication-related services, the percentage of users is quite high (although remember that we don’t know how heavily the features are being used). But most mobile users are not adopting the entertainment features in their phones. That’s exactly what you’d expect if only a limited percentage of the population were interested in using their phones for entertainment, which is what a lot of user studies have shown (link).

The lesson: If you’re an operator or handset vendor, be careful about pushing phones that are a kitchen-sink collection of expensive features. The odds are very good that you’ll spend a lot of subsidy money on people who won’t ever adopt the underlying services that were supposed to justify the subsidy. It’s much better to offer a variety of phones specialized for different types of user, and let them pick the ones they want.

=====

As I said at the start, it’s an interesting collection of tidbits, but far too US-centric. If you live outside the US and have information to add on your market, please post a comment.

Sources:
Total revenue of the operators: link
Orange’s presentation at the Global Mobility Roundtable: link
Telephia’s presentation at the GMR: link
Pew Internet: link

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.