Mobile musings and wireless wanderings

Verizon Wireless is essentially pursuing a two-pronged strategy. They continue to pursue their existing retail wireless business that is likely to remain a somewhat walled-garden approach to content (e.g., akin to early AOL or akin to a Cable model). In parallel, they will pursue what they are calling their Open Development Initiative (ODI).

This post will focus on putting their ODI in context in terms of the long-standing discussion about openness in mobile.

Verizon’s ODI

The following summary is based on my notes from yesterday’s Open Development Conference in New York City. If you viewed the webcast or attended in person, feel free to skip to the next section.

Verizon has announced three models as part of their Open Development Initiative (ODI):

• Retail
• Wholesale
• Custom

In the retail model, a third-party can be responsible for creating, marketing, distributing and selling of new devices, but not the actual voice, data or content service. After the device is certified and is activated (e.g., by some retail outlet), Verizon handles the billing and customer service directly with the subscriber. The third-party is responsible for submitting and responding to the Verizon testing and certification procedure. In short, the retail model enables companies to create and sell new devices that run on the Verizon network.

In the wholesale model, a third-party is can be responsible for creating, marketing, distributing and selling of both devices and services. The certification process is similar to that described above. With regards to billing, content and customer service, Verizon provides the reporting and subscriber information to the third-party, who is then responsible for handling the billing and customer service with the subscriber directly. In short, the wholesale model enables companies to create and deploy devices and services that utilize Verizon’s network. We have seen aspects of their wholesle ODI strategy already via their wholesale network relationships (e.g., Amp’d).

The custom model is a bucket for anything that does not fit squarely into the retail or wholesale model. One example of a custom model would be a device that comes bundled with data capabilities and as would not require a Verizon service contract. Another example would be third-parties that not only wanted to create devices and use Verizon’s network on a wholesale basis but also want to access various Verizon platforms should as location, messaging and content (e.g., music catalog).

Verizon is positioning the value of its networks and platforms. They will provide a voice and data network and will ensure a stable core IP network that will operate consistently as they evolve from their 3G to 4G RF networks.

According to Verizon, the key things they want to accomplish with their device requirements is to (i) protect their network and their customers, (ii) make sure the specs were not more rigorous than their current retail specs, and (iii) want to base it on industry standards as much as possible. The certification process is likely to be two 4-week processes (depending on the readiness of the device). The device certification process is divided into three stages: pre-certification, certification and maintenance. The remaining four weeks is dedicated to network certification which will likely be handled by third-parties on behalf of Verizon.

Often when describing open networks such as the Internet, the OSI “stack” is used as a point of reference. In this case, 4 of the 7 layers are most relevant: the application layer (e.g., the Web), the transport layer (e.g., TCP), the Internet layer (e.g., IP) and the physical layer (e.g., Ethernet). Using a variant of the OSI stack, Verizon has articulated the four layers that they focus on in their current wireless retail model: applications, middleware, operating systems and radio hardware. They emphasize that the focus of the ODI specification will be in the hardware and network access.

Openness Revisited

In my earlier post on openness, Two by Six Degrees of Openness, I articulate six types of openness from which to distinguish various “open” mobile platforms and services. This has been further refined by Epiphany Vera and used as a basis for discussion at Sprint’s strategy session led by Russ McGuire, director of corporate strategy at Sprint.

Here are the updated types and metrics of openness:

• A. Types of Openness
  1. Open Device OS & Middleware
     Do 3rd party developers have access to all the operating system and middleware APIs?
  2. Open Development
     Can 3rd party developers develop applications without relying on the mobile operators and device manufactures for API unlocking, certification, verification and/or signing?
  3. Open Distribution
     Can content distributors and companies directly market and deliver applications and services to the consumer
     (i) without explicit approval from the network operator
     (ii) using any billing method of their choice
     (iii) with full access to network features
  4. Open Device Network Association
     Can a device be used with access accounts from different operators and on different types of networks?
• B. Key Metrics of Openness
  1. Open & Easy
     How easy is it to understand and use any APIs and processes associated with the different Factors of Openness?
  2. Open with Minimal Tariffs
     How significant are the costs associated with taking advantage of any of the different aspects of the Factors of Openness?

How open is Verizon’s ODI?

With regards to the simple taxonomy suggest above, here is how Verizon’s ODI can be described in terms of the types of openness:

• Open Device OS & Middleware - Verizon Wireless will not directly be specifying or providing an “open OS or middleware environment.” In this case, the degree of “device openness” will be entirely dependent on the third-party device provider.
• Open Development - Verizon Wireless will not have any control over the application and content development (with the exception of their existing retail wireless business and possibly some scenarios under the “custom model” described above), so the degree of “open development” will be entirely dependent on the third-party device provider.
• Open Distribution - Verizon Wireless will not have any control over what degree of openness the third-party device and service providers will have on the ability for content providers to market and deliver applications and services to the consumer. With regards to Verizon’s current wireless retail business, it is essentially business as usual with the exception of probably a wider range of devices coming to market faster and being available through a wider range of retail outlets. For the most part, they will still be limited by their existing content and application platforms (e.g., Qualcomm’s BREW and MediaFlo). In terms of wholesale offerings. We can use previous MVNOs somewhat as a proxy for what we can expect. For example, we can get a sense of what types of content and services can be provided and at what price when a third-party is paying wholesale prices for voice and data network. Given the premium that third-party service providers are likely to pay for data access from Verizon, it would be highly unlikely for any of them to truly “open” up access to content and services as we see from the various Wi-Fi and wired Internet access.
• Open Device Network Association - Verizon Wireless will not have any control over whether devices can be used on other networks. This aspect of openness will take longer to unfold and will depend on whether other networks agree on the specs that Verizon has selected and how industry-standard they are.

In terms of metrics, we can expect the following:

• Open & Easy - it is too early to tell how “open and easy” it is to create and deploy new devices. My sense is that current manufacturers will find it business as usual in terms of device specs and certification. It will, however, enable them to push more product out to the market without being directly controlled by the group within Verizon that determines handset roadmaps.
• Open with Minimal Tariffs - in terms of “open with minimal tariffs”, we will have to wait and see how the wholesale pricing is received. Again, we should look at MVNOs as a proxy for this. It is likely that the key early innovation will be in the range of enterprise devices and services that come to market and not consumer and entertainment offerings.

Some Final Thoughts - Open / Closed vs. Control

I’ve been digging into Galloway and Thacker’s The Exploit: A Theory of Networks over the past couple of days. I’ve been dissatisfied with the ability to use an open / closed distinction as a vehicle for elucidating various emerging mobile services and platforms.

Some key points that Galloway and Thacker make that relate to openness include:

• Open versus Closed
  • Open systems are associated with freedom and political transparency.
  • Closed systems are generally created by commercial and state interests. Companies control their proprietary technologies in the marketplace. They profit on control and scarcity
  • Trying to look at the opposite of closed and open is flawed. Instead of open / closed opposites; we suggest an examination of the alternative logics of control
• Logics of Control
  • Open control logics – those associated with non-proprietary computer code or with Internet protocols. They operate using an informatic (material) model of control.
  • Closed logics – operate primarily using a social model of control. For example, DRM licenses establish relationships between producers and consumers (i.e., a social relationship) by specific legal realities.

What I draw from this is that the logics of control must be articulated together with the degree of openness. In the case of Verizon wireless, there are two key areas of control that Verizon maintains in their ODI: (i) the certification process and, (ii) the use of their network (i.e. controlled by their wholesale pricing and use of proprietary technologies and standards that they select). The amount of control and types of control an operator wields over their network is far more indicative of how it will evolve, the rate of growth, and the types of services and innovation that will emerge. Clearly, openness alone will not yield transparency and freedom.

Verizon’s ODI is a welcome step forward and will certainly drive more innovation than the mere Carterphone style openness that gave us the FAX, PBX and the modem. Yet, it falls short of a fully open devices / networks coupled with open platforms / services. The goal of ODI is to drive innovation by enabling devices and services at the edge of the network. The rate of innovation being driven on the Internet via both networked devices and “open runtime” platforms is staggering. Galloway and Thacker describe an “open runtime” as an “open articulation, open interoperability, open practice, open becoming.” Marc Andreessen, in his post on The Three kinds of Platforms You Meet on the Internet, would call this type of a “runtime environment” a “Level 3″ platform.

We have clearly seen the power of the “web as platform,” will mobility come to represent mere access to this platform or will we see something more powerful emerging at the intersection of these “open runtime” platforms / services together with open devices and networks.