Mobile Opportunity - News And Views from Google MO

It’s very difficult to say what’s the best mobile device in a given year, because different people have different needs and desires. The ideal device for me might be repulsive to you, and vice-versa. But most of the computer publications try to make a call anyway. If you read the end-of-year reviews online, you’ll probably conclude that the best mobile product of the year was the iPhone. It was cited by the Washington Post, Wired, Business Week, and Tech Republic (which strangely listed it as a business technology product, alongside Salesforce.com and LinkedIn).

Other mobile products getting mentions from major publications included the Nokia n95, iPod Touch, Razr 2, and Blackberry 8800. Amazon’s Kindle was the only one that showed up on both best-of and worst-of lists. The best-ofs generally liked the wireless features and screen, while the worst-ofs disliked the closed business model and “eye-poking” industrial design.

I don’t agree with any of those choices.

Since people have different needs, I think the best product of the year ought to be the one that best meets needs the needs of a particular group of users. It should be utterly compelling to its own audience. There are several questions to ask:

How efficient is it? Since people use mobile devices on the go, it should do just what the user needs, without any confusion or unneeded features. But there can’t be any critical features missing, either.

How well does it trade off size vs. power? Because it’s carried on your person, where size and weight are at a premium, it should balance tiny size with reasonable battery life.

How does it look? Because it’s effectively a part of your wardrobe, it must look great (or whatever the target customer thinks of as great).

By that standard, I think the best mobile device of 2007 — in fact, one of the best mobile products of all time — was the third generation iPod Nano.

Don’t get me wrong, iPhone fans. The iPhone is a very interesting and provocative device. There are some beautiful features in the user interface, and I love the turmoil it’s causing in the industry. Several years from now we may look back on it and call it the most influential mobile device of its time. But that doesn’t mean it’s the best product.

To me, the iPhone is more an intriguing statement of direction than a completed product at this point. The lack of 3G is a huge compromise, and Apple obviously didn’t think through the third party application thing. If you want a slow mobile browser that also plays music and videos and doubles as a somewhat awkward phone, then the iPhone is great. But for all of the cool highlights in the iPhone, I don’t think it’s enough to crush the phone industry in its current version. Future versions, maybe. We’ll shortlist the iPhone III for product of the year in 2010.

The n95 is also a remarkable product in its own way, and I know it inspires a lot of technolust, especially in Europe. But in my opinion, it’s just the latest Swiss Army Knife of the mobile world. Next year there will be another one from Nokia or Samsung or somebody else that has an even higher-resolution camera or maybe an electric toothpick or something, and people will be fawning all over that one. Like a lot of Japanese consumer electronics products, it’s not a marvelous product as much as it is a marvelously ingenious bag of features.

By contrast, in third generation Nano is not just the latest model from Apple, it’s an elegant culmination of the design work they’ve been doing for years.

The Nano doesn’t look all that great in photographs. It’s wider than its predecessor, which produced some criticism when it was announced (Engadget nicknamed it “fatty,” which is asinine when you see it in person). In real life, the Nano’s shape is compelling. It’s much thinner than you’d expect from the pictures — shockingly thin for something that has a color screen and plays videos. With its heavily rounded corners and brightly colored case, it feels a bit like a high tech chocolate wafer. You’re almost tempted to take a bite out of it.

Physically, the Nano is almost all user interface — the screen and thumbwheel take up the entire front of the device. Until we get flexible screens, the Nano is about as small as you can possibly make a device with its features. This is the endpoint, a form factor that’s going to be with us for a while.

The biggest surprise to me about the Nano is the usability of video on it. When it was announced, I thought video was a throwaway feature — who would ever want to watch video on a screen that small? But the reality is that when you’re sitting down, you’ll hold a Nano about 18 inches (45 cm) away from your face. At that distance, the screen is about the same apparent size as a 20-inch television (50 cm) at the other side of the living room. It’s not like watching a flat panel monster screen, but it’s very usable.

I’m not sure yet how much video will be used on the device, or what sorts of video, but that’s a general question about mobile video rather than anything specific about the Nano. What I’ve observed so far is teenage girls using the Nano to watch music videos together, commenting on how cute the drummer is.

And that’s just another sign that Apple made a great design for its target audience.

The new Nano doesn’t have Bluetooth built into it, or Wi-Fi, or a camera, or a phone, or a hard drive. That probably accounts for why the technophiles online have been so dismissive of it (link). But to me, it’s an almost perfect balance of functionality and art. Come back in ten or twenty years and I think you’ll find it in design museums, when most of today’s mobile devices will be long-forgotten and mildly embarrassing.

What do you think? Do you agree with my choice? If not, what do you think was the best mobile device of 2007?

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.

Welcome to the 70th weekly Carnival of the Mobilists. If you’re not familiar with the Carnival, it’s a collection of mobile-related commentary from the last week, nominated by the weblog authors themselves. The hosting duties rotate from week to week.

This week’s articles cover a huge range of subjects, from game-playing cameras to RIM’s service outage. I tried to come up with some clever theme to link them all together, but I think the main message is that the mobile market is so diverse that there are no common themes.

And away we go…

RIM’s service outage: Are they liars, or just incompetent? Wow. The Mobile Enterprise Weblog gives a scathing analysis of RIM’s recent service failure, and concludes:

“Either RIM’s NOC is managed by idiots OR RIM’s PR department is incompetent OR none of the above.”

(With ‘none of the above’ meaning the company had a more serious failure and is trying to cover it up.) I have no idea what really happened, but this commentary is what occurs online when you try to play down a story. It’s far better to be completely open about a problem. Then at least people may trust you in the future rather than assuming you’re lying.

MVNOs: Victory of the bottom-feeders? Jason Devitt at Skydeck, a mysterious new mobile startup, contributes a very interesting post on the fate of MVNOs. He argues that the high-profile MVNOs targeting lucrative customers are doomed, and that the ones to watch are those targeting low-end customers.

How to improve feature phones. Little Springs Design reviews some of the flaws of today’s feature phones, and makes suggestions on what needs to be changed.

American business executives should all use SMS instead of e-mail. That’s the message from Tomi Ahonen’s fervent (and very detailed) essay on the benefits of SMS messaging, and its ubiquity outside the US.

The dumbest convergence product of all time (in my opinion). Pocket Gamer brings us news of a new digital camera that comes with twenty video games built in. They treated the product with very polite respect, but I can’t restrain myself: I thought I had seen dumb convergence products before, but this one’s the new champion.

Using SMS to communicate to students. Mopocket editorializes that universities should use text messaging to communicate with students in emergencies.

The rebirth of Web Clipping? Well, sort of. Web clipping was a technique Palm used several years ago in an effort to overcome the latency problem with accessing web content on mobile devices. David Beers predicts that Palm’s going to use something similar in the future.

Anger over mobile data charges. Helen Keegan editorializes on the charges for mobile data in the UK, and she’s not happy.

Enthusiasm for Nokia’s web tablet. b-trends brings us a very enthusiastic review of the Nokia n800 Internet tablet device. They tested a nice range of websites, and there are good screen shots.

Checking out a new operator in Spain. WAP Review gives a hands-on review of the Spanish operator Yoigo.

The future of mobile advertising. Always-on Real Time Access summarizes a recent panel on mobile advertising.

Future barcodes. The Pondering Primate speculates about possible future competition between Microsoft and Google in barcodes.

Mobile phone myths corrected. Shackkdiesel tackles some interesting myths about mobile phones.

Which devices to target in enterprise? Mobbu talks about the process for choosing which devices to target when creating an enterprise mobile application. It’s not always best to pick the most advanced device.

Bloggus interruptus. My submission for this week is a short commentary on trying to use the mobile Internet while riding on a train.

A robot to load the dishwasher. SharpBrains contributes a summary of the recent Stanford Media X conference, a technology conference featuring Stanford researchers and others. Most of the content wasn’t mobile-related, but it makes interesting reading anyway. Check out the robot that can load a dishwasher.

Post of the week. Each week’s host traditionally picks a favorite post, and mine this week is Mobile Enterprise’s rant on RIM’s service outage. It’s not the longest post of the week, but the analysis made sense to me, and I always enjoy a weblog post with a bit of passion to it.

So it goes. Next week’s Carnival will be at the Silicon Valley Himalayan Expedition. Anyone with a weblog can submit a post to the Carnival. You can use the new online submission form here.

About a year ago, I wrote an article on “why Web 2.0 doesn’t cut it for mobile devices.” My basic argument was that because wireless web connections are intermittent and unreliable, a completely thin client architecture for applications won’t work. (A thin client application is one in which the code for the app stays on a server, and all you have on your PC or mobile device is a little user interface widget. Every time you do something with the web app, your device has to talk to the server. Almost all web 2.0 apps are thin client apps.)

So here I am riding the BART train out of San Francisco, after spending the day at the Web 2 Expo. I’m using a Pantech/Sprint EVDO card in my computer, which gives the rough equivalent of low-speed DSL connectivity all over the city. Even though it cuts my notebook’s battery life in half, I still think it’s cool as ice cream in July.

Anyway, I’m having a good time working on a couple of blog posts, using the thin client Blogger interface, when the train goes through a tunnel. Guess what, no connection. Then we come out of the tunnel at a station, and my connection comes back for 30 seconds. Quick! Load that page! Then we go back into the tunnel again. And on, and on, and on.

Think of it as Bloggus Interruptus.

I guess I could ding Sprint for failing to extend its network to the subway tunnels, but this sort of problem is ubiquitous around the world for high-speed data networks. They have much less coverage than the voice networks, and that’s changing only gradually. Even as we get more coverage, it won’t be possible to depend on always having the connection when you need it.

The way mobile web apps need to work is that they download the full app and a copy of your data to your device, so you can work independently. Then in the background, they should sync the data whenever you’re connected. That’s how RIM’s e-mail works, and it’s still the state of the art for giving you the illusion of always-on wireless connectivity even though there’s no such thing in the real world.

With all the new mobile devices coming out, I thought it would be useful to give an overview of the market for mobile data. I covered some of this information in a post written about a year ago, but this one has a lot of new information, plus diagrams.

I believe the market for mobile data devices (smartphones, PDAs, mobile game machines, iPods, etc) is not structured the way most people think it is. A lot of new mobile products fail because they’re not designed for the real market, or because they target imagined customers who don’t really exist in large numbers.

There are two big erroneous assumptions that I think many people make about mobile data:

First incorrect assumption: Mobile data is for everyone. Most people assume that mobile data devices like smartphones will eventually be used by everyone. The idea is that they’re being bought by early adopters now, but as prices drop they’ll soon be adopted by the whole population. The market is supposed to look like this:

Higher prices are to the right. Smartphone sales start with the early adopters at the right, and then as prices drop everyone switches to smartphones and starts using all their features.

The only problem with this idea is that there’s no evidence to indicate that it’s true, at least not in the US and Europe (where I’ve done research). In fact, almost all of the evidence I’ve seen to date shows that the market is deeply divided into two groups. When surveyed, most people in the US and Europe say they will not pay anything extra for mobile device features other than voice and SMS. They’ll use those features if you give them away for free, but as soon as you ask them to pay, about 65% of the population drops out. This makes them very unpromising targets for device companies that want to sell value-added devices, operators who want to sell advanced services, and software companies that want to sell mobile data apps.

Fortunately, the other 35% of the US and European population is willing to pay extra for mobile data features.

So the real market looks like this:

The people I labeled “value-added users” are the mobile data market. But that’s only the beginning…

Second incorrect assumption: There is one smartphone market. Most people assume that there’s just one market for smartphones, and that eventually we’ll see the emergence of a single ultimate smartphone that everyone uses. I can’t tell you how many times I got that question from press people and analysts when I worked at Palm: “Which is the device that everyone’s going to use?”

The answer is, that device doesn’t exist, because the people who are willing to pay extra for mobile data features don’t all want the same features. They want conflicting things, and are very unwilling to pay extra for the features they don’t want. The ideal hobile device for me might be completely repulsive to you, and vice-versa.

This misconception has fueled an uncounted number of online debates in which people argue why the device they like ought to be adopted by everyone. What they’re really arguing is that everyone else should think and feel like them, which is why these online debates never reach a conclusion.

Rather than looking for the mobile market to “converge” the way that most PCs converged to Windows, I think we should expect mobile devices to diverge into different segments. The right analogy for the mobile market isn’t PCs, it’s cars. As the car market grew in the 1900s, it stratified into trucks and minivans and SUVs and sports cars and so on.

The same divergence is already underway in mobile data.

There are at least three segments in mobile data

If mobile data isn’t for everyone on the planet, and if the market is divided into segments, the most important question to ask is what those segments are. What are the equivalent of the sports car, SUV, and minivan for mobile?

We researched that extensively at PalmSource, in a series of surveys that eventually talked to more than 12,000 people in the US, France, Germany, and the UK. In that research, we found at least three big groups of mobile data customers, each with different needs and tastes: people who focus on communication (e-mail, messaging, conferencing), people who focus on entertainment (games, video, music), and people who focus on managing information (databases, documents, note-taking). Each was about 12% of the population.

The results were very consistent across countries, so I’m comfortable that the same segments probably exist in most European countries. The only significant difference was Germany, where the percent of the population who said they were willing to pay for entertainment features was smaller. I don’t know if that’s a real difference in usage, or if folks in Germany are just less willing to admit that they might use a computing device to play games.

The results probably can’t be projected to other places like Japan and China; somebody else needs to do that research (or I’ll do it if you want to fund it .

Here’s a little detail on each of the three mobile data segments:

The entertainment-focused users are generally younger than average; many are in college or their 20s. They see a mobile device as a lifestyle choice, and they’re willing to pay extra for a device that’ll help keep them entertained. Different people want different forms of entertainment, so there are sub-segments in the entertainment mobile market. The biggest division is game-playing vs. media (music and video). But entertainment can also include things like social messaging with your friends. It’s anything you do for fun rather than a paycheck.

The communication-focused users are extroverts who live to communicate with others. They’re often in people-facing jobs like sales. They’re willing to pay extra for a mobile device that lets them keep up with others in multiple ways. E-mail, SMS, voice, conferencing, video calling — basically, anything communication-related is compelling to them, and they will pay extra for a device that does it well.

The information-centric users are more introverted. Rather than focusing on their dialog with others, they tend to do a lot of thinking on their own, and want their mobile device to be a memory supplement and a means to capture new information. They’re not by any means recluses, but ideas rather than social interaction are what really gets them energized, and so they’re willing to pay extra for features that help them capture and remember ideas and information. What they really want is a brain extender. They often work in information-heavy jobs like medicine, law, science, and academia.

Of course, there’s always some overlap between markets — for instance, you might have a doctor who also wants to stay entertained when off work. So if you draw the three mobile data markets, they overlap a bit, like one of those Venn diagrams you drew in primary school:

Understanding the products

Now that we’ve mapped the customer landscape, we can start plotting various products on the chart. This is where we’ll start to get some interesting insights. But first, we have to add one technology overlay: in the mobile world, some mobile devices have phones built in and some don’t. So add a gray circle in the center:

Now let’s chart some products.

The communicators:

This is the most crowded market (in fact, I left off a number of products because I ran out of space on the chart). Although there used to be communicators without phones built in (RIM’s early products were an example), putting all communication in one place is a huge benefit to a communication-centric user, so merging the phone and communicator was an obvious move in this market.

I classify the Danger Hiptop as a borderline product between the entertainment and communication markets because it’s focused on social communication for young people. Sony Mylo is another borderline product, this one without a phone.

The Palm Treo, SonyEricsson p900 line, and touchscreen Windows Mobile products are on the border between communication and information management. They all have touch screens and a lot of information management features, but also attempt to deliver robust e-mail. At this point, they are being outsold by the much more communication-specialized RIM Blackberry line.

In the entertainer market, you can see the strong role of sub-segments. The game-player market has been dominated by Nintendo’s GameBoy, with the recent addition of Sony’s PSP. The media market is ruled by the Apple iPod.

The iPhone is an attempt to create a phone + media entertainment device. It’ll be interesting to see how the iPhone does in the market — it was an obvious move to combine a communicator with a phone, but it’s not as obvious that the entertainer is a natural match with a phone. The danger to Apple will be if users see iPhone as the worst of both worlds: a phone that lacks a good keypad and an iPod with very small memory.

Information managers are an underserved market. Early PDAs targeted these users, but the device features were too limited to build a lasting franchise. The main champions of the PDA market, Palm and Microsoft, have now both focused most of their effort toward communicators. As a result, information manager innovation has basically ground to a halt, and the users in this space are very frustrated.

What it means: Opportunities and dangers

Some types of convergence are better than others. Combining phone technology with a mobile data device can be very successful when you stay within a single usage market. You tailor both the phone features and the data features to the needs of that particular type of customer. But trying to converge two markets is an extremely risky idea, something mobile companies should avoid. The needs of the markets conflict, so there is an extremely high risk that you’ll end up being cannibalized on either side by products designed specifically for the needs of single markets.

The communicator market is over-crowded and therefore risky. When you realize that the communicator market is only about 12% of the population, there are probably more communicator products shipping now than the market can support. Communicators are likely to face price pressure, and some of the products will probably sink like a stone. The RIM and Palm OS products are probably a little safer here because they have more unique features and loyal customer bases, and Nokia may do okay if it can add some differentiation. But Windows Mobile communicators are likely to be a happy market only for mobile companies that can live on commodity margins.

This is not a place where I’d be looking to build new devices, but many companies are introducing new communicators because they’d rather pursue an established market than build a new one.

The iPhone is not a Blackberry killer. One of the things I like about this chart is that it shows immediately why the iPhone is not a major threat to Blackberry sales. They’re in very different markets. If RIM is hoping to move into the entertainment market with devices like the Pearl, iPhone definitely interferes with that. But the immediate impact of the iPhone is on the products closest to it, meaning Microsoft Zune and the SonyEricsson music phones.

If you don’t fit in one of the segments, it’s very hard to sell. One of the messages of the market segmentation is that people will pay extra for great solutions to the needs they have in a particular segment. If your product doesn’t solve any of those problems, there’s not a market for it. Many failures in the mobile data market have been products that focused on features rather than solving specific problems. They may be beloved by technophiles, but there aren’t enough of those people to drive a lot of sales. See Nokia’s 770 Internet tablet for a good example.

The biggest opportunity is in information management. This market is about the same size as the communicator market, but no major player is investing in it today. This segment is out of favor because of the decline in PDA sales, but remember that people thought the MP3 market was a backwater until Apple introduced the iPod. I can tell you from personal conversations, and the market research, that there’s a substantial market here, and the people in it are very frustrated. I think the ideal product for this market would be a minitablet note-taker, which I refer to as an “info pad.” You can read more about it here.

What about the middle of the chart?

The other segment we haven’t discussed is the center of the chart, the place where information management, communication, and entertainment all come together. Some people like to think of this as the home of the ultimate converged device, and every now and then you’ll see a hardware company try to tackle it.

They all fail.

In reality, the center of the chart is a market dead zone. To use the car analogy, designing a mobile data device for all three markets simultaneously is like trying to build a sports car that doubles as a minivan and a tractor. The result is not pretty, and won’t be bought by anyone except gadget enthusiasts like me. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough of us to make a significant market.

That’s my view of the mobile data market. I’m sure other people have different perspectives; please post a comment and share yours.