Mobile musings and wireless wanderings

My most recent post “App Wars” has been selected for inclusion in the Carnival of the Mobilists #212. Terence Eden has selected a nice range of posts coming out of Mobile World Congress.

The question of apps vs the mobile web is still often poised. This contraposition blurs much more important distinctions that will determine the future of mobile content, applications and the mobile web itself.

The ability to use web technologies to create mobile apps has led to a much broader base of developers, and as such, apps now available to end-users.  The use of web technologies also makes it easier to leverage and repackage existing data and content from the web.  Powered by better performing underlying mobile browsers, a thriving mobile app and mobile web ecosystem has emerged. However, it should not be a foregone conclusion that “apps” will necessarily simply become rich mobile web sites. To the developer, in the near future, apps will essentially be rich mobile web sites (thanks to HTML5) packaged for distribution in a vending environment such as the App Store. To the end-user, the concept of buying things from online stores and the simplicity of having “icons” associated with content and / or functionality – even if they end up merely being links – will remain meaningful for the foreseeable future.

In addition to the power of mobility (personal, localized, always-on and ever-present), the mobile ecosystem has brought a robust economic engine to complement the ad-supported Internet: micro-payments and premium apps & content. The “app store” (and its predecessors such as AT&T’s malls, Sprints vending machine, Verizon’s “software store in your hand”, aka Get It Now) provides a way to package and distribute content in a format in which users are willing to pay.

Five years ago, “native” apps clearly provided a better, more responsive interface and were able to provide more optimal performance (e.g., minimize network latencies, cache data, preload content) and UI capabilities that led to an overall better user experience. Now, only very niche apps require the type of access to on-phone capabilities not accessible by the browser.

For example, a great number of iPhone apps are actually browser-based “sites” that have been packaged as an app that can be distributed via the Apple App Store. Arguably, two important factors have contributed to the success of the App Store are the frictionless distribution and by providing ease of development.

Frictionless Distribution: Apple removed the friction of getting apps in front of end-users by accelerating and automating the submission process, offering favorable economic terms for developers and providing great on-phone and PC-based app discovery.

Ease of Development:  Initially there were some hurdles in developing iPhone apps including (i) the fact that most early developers for the iPhone were new to mobile, (ii) they had to contend with a new operating system, and (iii) had to learn an unfamiliar programming language (Objective-C), However, unlike mobile network operators (MNOs), Apple has a long history of knowing how to create a strong set of APIs, provide robust development environments and support developers in general. Further, by enabling access to the browser capabilities (e.g., Javascript, CSS, HTML) on the iPhone, Apple has made it easier to develop apps and significantly increase the number of possible  “app” developers, i.e., there are many more “web developers” than programmers (C/C++, Java).

Of course, if the iPhone didn’t provide a good overall experience and the Apple didn’t take full control of the total experience (i.e., vertically integrate the entire supply chain), the wide development ecosystem would not matter. Clearly, Apple also did a much better job educating consumers than MNOs had so far about the value of apps, e.g., what apps are, what users can do with them, the fact that most are free and how easy it is to get them.

Although Apple’s App Store has created the app store frenzy, it is not due to the fact that it is an open, off-deck distribution vehicle. As Jack Seid noted, “The most cynical in the industry may actually say the iPhone App Store is not truly “off-deck,” it’s just a different deck. As such, it is worth going through the current MNO responses to the App Store. The various approaches of providers are starting to become more apparent.

Sprint

Sprint’s approach consists of a two-pronged offering:

1. For feature phones, consumers will continue to get apps from the “carrier deck” albeit significantly augmented by the GetJar catalog. (accessible via search from the Sprint deck). GetJar is a large off-deck app store with over 50,000 apps. The deck itself will likely be run by a 3^rd party given the RFP that was announced at Sprint’s developer conference.
2. For smartphones, the user will have access to each respective smartphone app store, e.g., Android Market, Blackberry App World, Windows Marketplace, etc.  Sprint will be phasing out Windows and Blackberry apps from their catalog / deck.

Russ McGuire summarized Sprint’s approach in his blog by starting that Sprint’s goal is to enable innovation to happen more rapidly and, as such removing any bottlenecks between developers and customers. They basically want to get out of the way and will not try to dictate how innovation will happen.

What is apparent is that importance of the 1-click interface and phone top services (e.g., enabled by uiONE) are being diminished. As with the other MNOs, the category of messaging centric devices that have querty keyboards is a rapidly growing segment. The question is whether these consumers will (1) want apps, and (2) which OS will win for this category. If it is Android, then users will get apps from the Android Market. If it is BREW, then users will get Java apps (running on BREW as they do today on Sprint) via the Sprint deck.

AT&T

AT&T received a lot of press from their announcements during a developer event at CES in January. AT&T’s app strategy is being touted as an apps to all approach and consists of the following offerings:

1. For smartphones, you will be able to buy apps from the Android Market, Palm, Windows, and Nokia’s Ovi and have the billing go directly on your phone, i.e., off-deck content discovery with on-deck billing.
2. For their mid-range, integrated devices called “quick messaging devices” (messaging devices with at minimum a full querty keyboard and a web browser), they have announced that they will be support BREW.  This likely means that Qualcomm’s Plaza will be the app store for quick messaging devices (QMDs) and other BREW-based devices.
3. For feature phones, it remains a bit unclear what will ultimately happen. For the foreseeable future, the Media Mall will clearly continue to offer Java apps.  And, the AT&T SDK is reported to continue to support Java – whether this will ultimately be running on BREW or on other proprietary operating systems remains to be seen. And, whether Qualcomm will be serving both BREW and Java apps on AT&T will be an interesting development to watch.

AT&T clearly sees QMDs as an important, rapidly growing category. Chris Golvin from Forrester estimated that “nearly one in every three US adult mobile phone subscribers now has either a smartphone or a QMD, up from one in five less than a year earlier.” As noted above, it is yet to be seen whether quick-messaging device users will buy apps. In some sense, the pieces are in place: the devices are plenty capable and the users will be required to have data plans.

Verizon

Verizon seems to have been the first to announce their smartphone app strategy, with an initial focus on quality not quantity. 

1. For smartphones, Verizon will ship the Vcast app store starting with the Blackberry, likely followed by Windows Mobile. Originally, the goal was to have a store launched in Q4 2009.
2. For non-smartphones such as their 3G multimedia phones, the roadmap for the Vcast app store is less apparent. For years, Verizon via its Get It Now BREW-based store has been the dominant provider of games and apps in the U.S. How and when Verizon supports Java and whether it is a replacement or in addition to BREW has not been announced.

Verizon is also part of JIL (also includes Softbank, China Mobile and Vodafone – jointly representing one billion mobile consumers worldwide), whose aim is to provide standards for app and content development to make it easier for developers to create and distribute apps on their respective networks.

Final Notes

While the competition between Apple and Google in mobile has received a fair amount of press, there is an emerging battle between Qualcomm and Google to be the predominant operating system for messaging devices (e.g., QMD, 3G multimedia phones). Arguably, this could be a much larger market worldwide than the smartphone segment.

A likely factor in AT&T’s  adoption of BREW was that it is now available for free and ships on the Qualcomm chipsets. BREW has always been more than a middleware runtime environment and in fact can be thought of as a full operating system.

Clearly, both operating systems have rich development environments and are fully capable of supporting apps. The question is whether non-smartphone users will purchase and / or download and use apps on their phones in a meaningful way.

I would also be remiss in not acknowledging the announcement this week of the Wholesale Applications Community. Clearly MNOs got the message: it is hard and difficult to build and distribute apps that will run on a majority of the mobile phones. I view the announcement as more of an aspiration than a coherent ecosystem. If their vision is realized, there will essentially be a common set of methods for developing apps in which the operator will commit to supporting (likely to ultimately be based on web technologies like Javascript, CSS, etc.).  And, the result will likely be a big catalog that all the operators can draw upon and market within their own branded app stores, ala Sprints approach with GetJar.

Smartphone redux

This post serves to summarize the current state of the smartphone market.

Definitional vagueness

Most definitions of smartphones are ostensive and, as such, involve pointing out examples of this or that phone being a “smartphone.” 

However, there are some common themes used in defining the word smartphone: 

• Provides data access, namely Internet and email
• Contains PC-like functionality
• Based on a high-level OS, i.e., based on one of the six main operating systems  

From the consumer perspective, how is smartphone is defined makes no real difference. Consumers do not go out to look for smartphones - the go to buy an iPhone, a Blackberry, a good texting phone, the cheapest phone, a phone with turn-by-turn directions, a cool phone with music, etc. 

From the perspective of analysts, it is safe to assume that the definition will remain somewhat important since it represents a subsegment of the market that can be isolated. As such, analysts will likely settle on defining smartphones as handsets that use a high-level operating system (i.e., the big six noted above provided by RIM, Apple, Windows, Palm, Symbian and Google).

The “smartphone market” 

iSuppli’s forecasts show that global smart phone unit shipments will be close to 200 million world-wide, 193.3 million out of the 1.11 billion overall handsets shipments. 

According to IDC, the smartphone market grew by 68% in 2008 and is projected to grow by 20% in 2009 and 25% in 2010. Already, about 30% of the mobile phone shipments in the U.S. are smartphones that have e-mail and web surfing functionality. 

At the end of Q2, 2009 NDP’s device tracking revealed that despite smartphone growth, features phones still make up 72 percent of new handset sales. Smartphones represented the remaining 28 percent of device purchases, an increase of 47% in smartphone market share. functionality. 

By 2013, it is expected that almost 4 in every 10 handsets sold will be a smartphone.

U.S. Smartphone Shipments

Based on U.S. consumer sales of smartphone handsets in NPD’s report, Q1 2009 ranking of the top-five best-selling smartphones is as follows:  

1. RIM BlackBerry Curve (all 83XX models) 
2. Apple iPhone 3G (all models)
3. RIM BlackBerry Storm
4. RIM BlackBerry Pearl (all models, except flip)
5. T-Mobile G1 by HTC

According to FierceWireless, based on preliminary research results from IDC, IDC ranked the top-selling smartphone models in the U.S. for Q2 2009: 

1. RIM BlackBerry Curve (all 83XX models) - ranging from $39.99 and $149.99 on AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon and other
2. Apple iPhone 3GS (all models) - $199 to $299 on AT&T
3. RIM BlackBerry Pearl (all models, except flip) - ranging from free to $99.99 on AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon and others
4. Apple iPhone 3G (all models) - $99 on AT&T
5. RIM BlackBerry Bold - $199.99 on AT&T
6. RIM BlackBerry Storm - $149.99 on Verizon
7. T-Mobile G1 by HTC - $149.99 on T-Mobile USA
8. Palm Pre - $199.99 on Sprint
9. HTC Touch Pro - $79.99 to $349.99 on Sprint, Verizon and AT&T
10. HTC Touch Diamond - $79.99 to $299.99 on Sprint and Verizon

It seems evident that RIM is enjoying the benefits of broader availability. Together with the low price point of familiar devices like the Curve and Verizon’s aggressive promotion of RIM devices have created strong momentum for RIM in the U.S.

It is too early to tell the impact of the Verizon / Google partnership announced yesterday, Oct 6, leading up to CTIA. The announcement indicates that the two companies will develop a series of Android-based devices that include pre-loaded applications from both the companies and third-party developers. 

World-wide Smartphone Shipments

World-wide smartphone market share (based on Q4 sales):

1.  Symbian OS (41.7%)
2. RIM Blackberry OS (19.5%)
3. Windows Mobile OS (12.4%)
4. iPhone OS (10.7%)
5. Linux OS (8.4%)

Nokia has been the dominant supplier of handsets worldwide for the past 5 years, garnering close to 40% market share. According to Apple and Generator Research projections, Apple will surpass Nokia in the smartphone category in the coming years with Nokia’s market share dropping to 20%. 

Apple sold 13.7 million iPhones in 2008. It has been forecasted that Apple will sell more than 50 million phones in 2011 and 80 million in 2012, mainly driven by worldwide expansion and overall popularity. 

Nokia will still remain a dominant player due to the global strength of their brand and distribution as well as their ability to provide a full range of phones, beyond smartphones. 

Android will have the added benefit of similarly being used beyond smartphones but also being licensable by any phone manufacturer. As such, devices shipping with Android are expected to outpace iPhone sales in the coming years. According to Informa Telecoms & Media Analysts, Android will outpace the iPhone by 2012. Strategy Analytics estimate that 8 million Android devices will ship in 2009, ABI Research has put the number closer to 4 million given that up until recently there were only two devices in the market. 

Android momentum will likely be attributable due to: 

• Support by a wide range of device manufacturers
• Low BOM costs due to open source OS
• Ability to address both feature phones and smartphones

Apple, being locked to individual carriers will also limit growth during the period that Android is being brought to market. 

Smartphones & App Stores

Yesterday, leading up to CTIA, the Microsoft Windows Marketplace for Mobile became available via the new 6.5 phones. The Windows marketplace can be accessed via the Web or an on-phone storefront. CNET estimated that at the time of launch there were at least 100 apps altogether, including Facebook, Netflix Mobile, Windows Live, Zagat to Go and Midomi. 

At the spring CTIA, RIM launched BlackBerry App World. Recently, TechCrunch covered a Distimo report analyzing the Blackberry App World that showed that average price for apps is more than three times higher than those found in Apple’s App Store and the Android Market. 

In the fall of 2008, the Android Market was launched, concurrently with the HTC G1. The Android Market was recently updated in September 2009. 

Apple launched their App Store in July 2008. There have been wide-ranging estimates on the size of the Apple app store market. There is the now infamous Lightspeed analysis that claimed as of May, 2009 that Apple has made $20-45M from their App Store. A year ago August, Steve Jobs claimed that Apple stands to reap at least $360M / year from their App Store. Other estimates from VisionMobile Research put the revenue close to $500M / year. 

In contrast, according to Nielsen, U.S. on-deck revenue from apps and games was around $1.5B in 2008. This includes, not only smartphones but all feature phones. For example, Verizon, together with Qualcomm has had the longest running carrier-based app store (BREW) in the U.S. As of 2008, Qualcomm’s BREW (i.e. on-device middleware and storefront) shipped on over 500 million handsets worldwide. In 2007 an average of 80 million downloads per month and generated over $1B in revenue.

As of this summer, over 40 million devices (includes the iTouch) have shipped that support the App Store and there; close to 6.5 million active iphone users in the U.S. alone; and over 1.5B downloads with 65,000 available apps created by a community of 100K developers. 

I provided a more in depth discussion of app stores and marketplaces as they were emerging in 2008 in this post. 

Smartphones & Data Use

Eric Puterbaugh (brother, Nellymoser co-founder) recently gave an address at the MEF Mobile Leadership Summit entitled “State of the Union in Mobile.” Nielsen’s numbers clearly show that smartphone are driving data usage. Smartphone users show much heavier usage in all categories, including Internet, messaging, email, app downloads, location services and game downloads. 

For example, close to 70% of smartphones owners use email in contrast to only 12% of feature phone owners. Similarly, 71% smartphone owners use the Internet and only 15% feature phone owners use the Internet. 

Within the smartphone category, the iPhone still outpaces data activities such as Internet usage, apps downloads, full track music and video viewing. 

Smartphones in context: Communications, Entertainment, Computing

Michael Mace has a more nuanced approach towards looking at smartphones, putting them in context with handsets, portable entertainment devices and computing devices. 

He analyzes mobile devices by putting them into three categories: entertainment, communications and computing. In its current manifestation, the iPhone is squarely playing in all three categories. Blackberry, in contrast, is squarely in communications and computing. Cellphones / feature phones are squarely in the communications category, whereas the iPod and e-book devices are in the entertainment categories. MIDs and ultra-mobile PCs are in the computing category. 

In “The shape of the smartphone and mobile data markets,” Michael concludes the following: 

There are three big groups of mobile data customers, each with different needs and tastes, each was about 12% of the population:

• • people who focus on communication (e-mail, messaging, conferencing)
  • people who focus on entertainment (games, video, music)
  • people who focus on managing information (databases, documents, note taking)

The RIM appeals to communicators. The Palm Treo and touchscreen Windows Mobile are on the border between communication and information management. The iPhone is not a Blackberry killer. The biggest opportunity currently not being addressed is in information management. 

 Since smartphones are somewhat of a novelty, phones such as the iPhone were able to own all three categories. In the coming years, it is difficult to imagine all the major smartphones will compete to be best in all three  categories. While, Blackberry and Palm have started making inroads towards the entertainment aspect of the spectrum, it is hard to imagine winners that do not focus on their core constituents and address their specific device needs. We’ve seen some signs of this in that some smartphones do not have very decent voice communication capability. 

Recent trends and emerging smartphone landscape

There are a number of recurring trends throughout 2009: 

• Wireless broadband - LTE / 4G
• Network capacity strained due to smartphones
• Intersection of home & mobile
• Continued fragmentation in devices, formats, networks
• Netbooks & other connected consumer & enterprise electronics (Kindle)
• Apps versus browsers

In addition to these general trends, there have been major advancements in mobile phone hardware / software, including touch user interfaces, location services and video & camera capabilities. 

It is hard not to imagine that the 3 major operating systems will be Android, Windows, Apple. Nokia seems to be keeping their options open in terms of Symbian, Windows, Linux. Surprisingly, Nokia dropped the Linux OS (Maemo) in favor of Windows on their upcoming netbook.

Yearly, rumors emerge that Microsoft will buy RIM. I believe that Microsoft will likely need to buy RIM to own the enterprise space and gain better traction outside of the U.S. , unless NokiaWith regards to Palm, perhaps Nokia may believe that they need to buy them to get a foothold in the U.S. market. 

Unfortunately, the future of smartphones will be the result in two major forces: mobile operators and the device providers. 

First, mobile operators will continue to drive to retain subscribers and drive the value of their network. This will result in a number of consequences ranging from aggressively driving the cost of smartphones down (e.g., working directly with manufacturers to create alternatives to the iPhone and Blackberry) or perhaps even providing the network as a service, i.e., a value-added set of services beyond the classic “dumb pipe” mode. What will emerge will be a reinforcement of the current trend in which the operators provide targeted devices related to types of data usage, e.g., texting, camera, gaming, etc. And, although the operators have had app stores in market well before Apple, they are making a strong second go at it to improve upon

Second, device providers will continue to strive to maintain and substantiate their device margins. As we’ve seen over the past year, a number of providers will also attempt to vertically integrate ala Apple. The drive to sustain value will continue a “feature battle” in which phones will rapidly become faster, more flexible and more connected. Those that can sustain over-the-top services (e.g., Apple, Blackberry - perhaps Nokia), will increasingly come in conflict with the goals of the operators. 

In December of 2007, I made the following predictions about mobile content and services for 2008. I thought reviewing them would keep me honest while finalizing my 2009 predictions.
Golden Age Of Mobile Apps
With the success of Google’s mobile applications (e.g., Gmail, Google Maps, YouTube) and Yahoo! Go, content providers and mobile operators, following the consumers’ lead, are warming up to dedicated applications again for mobile. The verdict is still out whether a browser is the best vehicle for presenting and mediating the 2-inch mobile experience. On higher-end phones, such as the iPhone it is clear that the browser will have a seat at the table. By moving from “closed” operating systems to operating systems with published APIs (e.g, Symbian, Google, Microsoft), applications will be able to provide a much better and deeper integration with the key aspects of the mobile phone (PIM, calendar, camera, location, video), which will enable developers to set a new bar for rich, interactive mobile applications and services that will surpass the experience provided by the mobile browser. There will also be a much richer range of application types, moving well beyond on-device portals and widgets.

The Apple App Store has not only ushered in a golden age of apps in 2008, having recently announced 300 million apps sold. Following suit, Microsoft, Nokia, RIM and the mobile operators have rushed to get comparable offerings to market. We have seen greater evidence of the deeper and better integration coming from the Google’s marketplace, but the marketplace itself has been slow to garner consumer attention. In a recent post, I focused in more depth on App Stores.

This is Not Your Father’s Smartphone
In some sense, 2008 will be the liberation (or death depending on your outlook) of the Smartphone as a category. The devices formerly known as Smartphones continue to be a key driver for mobile data usage in general and content / service consumption in particular. We will see continued growth from Windows, RIM and the iPhone in the U.S. and continued strong growth of Symbian internationally. Meanwhile, the distinction between Smartphones and feature phones may be a less important distinction in the coming years. The appearance of the iPhone not only put an end to the Smartphone as we knew it and ushered in a new generation of devices. Nokia, Apple and HTC have raised the bar in terms of user experience and relevant feature-sets.

iPhone and RIM have 70% of the Smartphone market in the U.S., with Apple and Rim at 25% and 45%, respectively.  The Smartphone category has grown by XX in 2008. Economy aside, we are seeing growth with RIM, Windows and iPhone in the U.S. Worldwide, Nokia has 42%, RIM 16%, Apple 13% and HTC 4.5% of the Smartphone market. The HTC G1 in retrospect was not quite the compelling user experience that we had imagined, but the HTC Touch has gotten good reviews.

In the U.S., Smartphones account for 34% of requests on AdMob’s network in December 2008: iPhone had 48%, RIM and Windows were 19% and 15%, respectively. Palm OS had 9% of total requests.

Being Open: Growth, Friction or Fragmentation
Although openness will lead to consumers having greater choice - better products and services offered at better price points - open devices and networks will create more fragmentation. And, it is not clear that open access can function as a primary growth driver until other enablers are in place. If you think about the rapid growth of Web 2.0, and think about what will drive “Mobile 2.0″, it will be: (i) ubiquitous mobile broadband access - this will be driven by things like flat-rate pricing, mobile advertising solutions that provide alternatives to premium billing and other compelling consumer propositions of content / service bundles that make services beyond voice and ringtones a “must have”; (ii) frictionless distribution – the ability to easily deploy and distribute services directly to the end-user, off-deck; (iii) affordable, unrestricted access to enabling software platforms ( i.e. tools & technology - the picks and shovels). Web 2.0 services rapidly emerged and thrived because of the ability for any web developer to create and deploy services. Unlike the mobile tools on the market today, creating web applications & services doesn’t necessarily require an advanced degree in engineering.

We continue to see further fragmentation: fragmentation in the types of devices, fragmentation in the number of operating systems, fragmentation in media formats, etc. A solution has yet to emerge that makes it as easy to create mobile applications and services as it is to deploy rich applications and services on the web.

To add to the already increasing fragmentation, it looks like Palm is getting some good press about their WebOS.

New Media Companies will Interact Directly with their Audience
To date, the mobile operators and content providers have dominated the sale of mobile content. The mobile operators provide the dominant vehicles (i.e., portals and storefronts) for enabling consumers to find, access and buy content. The content providers have benefited from both from these operator portals and storefronts as well as 3rd party, off-deck D2C services. In 2008, we will see new media companies (e.g. web companies) move to mobile en masse which will not only create off-deck as the dominant vehicle for discovering mobile content but also radically change the nature of the content and services. The nature of the services will transition from Mobile 1.0 services (i.e., broad-cast services that include ringtones, wallpaper, games, video) to Mobile 2.0 – rich, interactive services that integrate the social web with core aspects of mobility.

AOL released their top mobile searches for 2008 which included My Space, AIM, iPhone, MocoSpace.. We are seeing growth in off-deck coming from a variety of areas: Apple’s Store, mobile upstarts (e.g., Thumbplay, mywaves, mocospace) and other over-the-top (i.e., not relying upon the carrier “deck”) initiatives by Nokia, RIM and Google.

Mobile In-App Advertising
In 2008, we will see a rapid increase of digital advertising techniques derived from the Internet (e.g., search, display-based and video), we will also see the beginning of advertising and sponsorship that is made for mobile. In-application advertising, in which brands, ads and promotions are contextualized and integrated into applications and services are just the beginning. Although in 2007, we saw new types of inventory emerge that integrated commerce (e.g. via recommendations, theming and bundling), we expect to see in 2008 the coupling of relevancy-based engagement with contextual commerce. While search and display-based methods will be the primary revenue sources from mobile advertising in 2008, look for personalized, branded media and unique inventory coming from in-application advertising.

Mobile web display ads and overall revenue associated with mobile ad networks have underperformed with respect to expectations. In-App ads have garnered a fair amount of attention given the success of Apple’s App Store. A number of company’s have announced in-app advertising initiatives including Quattro / uLocate, Ad Infuse / Smaato, JumpTap, Millenial / Bango.

Mobile Content Retailing
Mobile operators will continue to cull the amount of content they offer via their portals and storefronts. Furthermore, operators will adopt digital retailing strategies we’ve seen on the Internet that includes better overall user experience, smarter use of placement and “shelf-space”, and more efficient, personalized commerce engines. They will also look to off-deck content partners to be a significant participant in the growth of mobile content sales.

AT&T announced a new Media Mall 2.0, T-Mobile announced that they would open up their app store, and Nokia’s Ovi are examples of such initiatives. This will continue to evolve in 2009 as App Stores are integrated with the traditional storefronts for ringtones, games and other mobile content.

Mobile 2.0 Starts to Emerge
Although we’ve seen some early attempts at Mobile 2.0 in 2007, Mobile 2.0 will emerge in 2008. To date, the so-called 2.0 services are either basic, partial access to a Web 2.0 service via a Mobile Internet Browser (i.e., Mobile Web 2.0) or applications that represent one aspect or feature of Web 2.0 such as user-generated content, community, collective intelligence, or rich media. Mobile 2.0 services will emerge in 2008 that finally integrate the social web with the core foundations of mobility – personal, local, always-on and ever-present. Furthermore, these services are based on a new generation of wireless devices that enable rich, interactive services that integrate the full range of mobile consumer touch points including talking, texting, capturing, sending, listening, viewing.

The early leaders in Mobile 2.0 are the social networks. We are starting to see rich, integrated access to Web 2.0 services via mobile-specific applications and services. Leading the way is the Facebook for Mobile application.

Integrated, Multi-Platform Services
It is the beginning of the end for mobile being treated as a stand-alone channel. Mobile media must and will be integrated into an overall digital experience. Services will be reconceived, manifested and integrated across multiple platforms, instantiated via different forms of access and engagement. Mobile devices will become (i) a vehicle for the discovery of content and services, (ii) a remote-control for all things digital, and (iii) a personalized point of access and distribution for all things digital.

This is still a work in progress. To date, there are many indicators that make me still believe that this is still a priority to companies and end-users alike. Certainly, a majority of companies are still treating mobile as a “silo” but that are plenty of initiatives from agencies, media companies and device manufacturers to bring about the long talked-about convergence of content and services in an integrated, multi-platform environment, e.g., Slingbox and Roku, Yahoo’s TV widgets, Comcast’s Fancast initiatives, Apple geotagging, Nokia Maps 2.0 and of course Twitter.

The original post for the 2008 mobile predictions is here.

Ofir Leitner, this weeks Carnival host, has selected a nice mixture of content: App Stores, Mobile Applications (Web 2.0, Browsers-Based ), Application Environments and User Experience and Design.

Check out Carnival of Mobilists #142 at Next Generation of Mobile Content.

Given recent announcements such as T-Mobile’s abandoning of their deck as well as T-Mobile’s much anticipated launch of the HTC Dream running Google’s Android (i.e., the elusive gPhone now called T-Mobile G1), the idea of open devices, networks and markets continues to capture the media’s imagination.Yet, it is the closed application vending environments that have a proven track record to date, most notably Apple’s iPhone / App Store followed by Verizon’s Get It Now built on Qualcomm’s BREW Distribution System (BDS) and then Sprint’s Vending Machine, AT&T’s Media Mall, and the various Smartphone stores (e.g., Handango, Handmark).

I thought it would be useful to look at the types of “app stores”, review the economics, revisit the concept of openness and consider the likely impact on driving application sales, and draw some conclusions.

Pre Apple: Application Storefronts

Starting with NTT DoCoMo’s i-Mode in Japan, the discovery and acquisition of mobile content was conceptualized as virtual convenient stores and vending machines. Similar to purchases made at a convenient store, mobile content was considered to be digital snacks given both the price point and amount of content (duration, size and packaging). In the U.S., the use of virtual vending machines and storefronts have been the dominant paradigm for enabling consumers to find and buy mobile downloadable content and applications.

Carrier-based Vending Machines, Stores & Malls

In 2002, Sprint released the Java Vending Machine with the ability for users to download games, ringtones, screen savers or applications for the Vision-enabled PCS phones. The goal of the vending machine was to make it easy for both the consumer to download rich digital content but also reduce of barrier of entry for developers by being able to easily registering content with Sprint.

In 2002, Verizon announced that there were launching Qualcomm’s Binary Runtime Environment for Wireless (BREW), which enabled consumers to download a “variety of entertainment and productivity applications over the air.” Paul Jacobs claimed, “It’s like having a software store in your hand.” To be clear, Verizon’s Get It Now was the consumer-facing commerce experience but the underlying application environment and content delivery system was and is BREW. Similarly, Cingular’s MEdia Mall was based on underlying platforms provided by Mforma (now Hands-On) and later Motricity.

Although on-deck storefronts have been responsible for driving a majority of the content and applications purchases for mobile phones in the U.S., they have been heavily criticized:

• Poor user experience – arising from a combination of the WAP-based and poor design
• Slow discovery process – too many clicks to find what you want
• Arduous purchasing process – non-uniform and cumbersome billing interfaces.
• Success tied to the whims and wills of operator - as with buyers in retail outlets, the success of a partner application is dependent on the “quality of the shelf space”, applications listed first garner a majority of the downloads
• Lengthy time to market – long and complicated process for getting applications certified and “on the shelf”
• Requires significant investment - To get above the fold (in an operator deck), developers typically have to address 80% of the platforms supported by the operator.
• Lacks off-deck support for applications – Current handsets such as BREW prohibit loading apps that were not directly downloaded from Verizon or Alltel. And, for off-portal applications, most operators don’t support carrier-based billing for applications.

Smartphone Storefronts

There have been a number of smartphone storefronts prior to the launch of the Apple App Store that handled the marketing and distribution and applications for Palm Devices, Microsoft Devices, Symbian and Blackberry’s. These storefronts are powered by companies such as Handango and PocketGear. PocketGear was recently spun out of Motricity and includes PocketGear.com, SymbianGear.com, PalmGear.com and other smartphone-based destinations.

The Apple Effect

To state the obvious, Apple’s App Store for the iPhone has caused a resurgence of interest in Smartphones, applications and application storefronts. Regardless of recent frustrations voiced by application developers towards Apple’s policy for approving applications, the end-to-end experience from discovery to purchase has driven significant demand for applications and creating a significant gap between both the existing Smartphone storefronts as well as the carrier-based storefronts.

Apple managed to solve a number of the problems associated with carrier decks. Early reviews have been glowing:

“Arguably more amazing is how easy it is to install the apps from the iPhone / iPod Touch itself. Assuming you’re connected to a Wi-Fi connection, simply load up the App Store, find the app you want, click on its price, click install, enter your password and in seconds it downloads and install and you’re done.” Full review here.

From an economic perspective, the numbers seem to speak for themselves. On July 11, Apple announced 100 million applications have been downloaded by iPhone and iPod touch users. Apple is arguably on track to generate nearly as much revenue in 2009 as all the carrier-based storefronts combined! This year, according to Nielsen’s Q2 2008 Mobile Media Executive Overview, the size of the on-deck application and game download market was just under $1.6 billion. According to Piper Jaffray, the Apple App Store could become a $1.2 billion market by 2009. Granted that this is world-wide, but even if it hits a third of that number for the U.S., the impact is quite stunning as evident by the stir this has caused in the industry:

• iPhone app fever – more than 3,000 applications available in the store which launched a little over 2 month ago.
• The onslaught of new application distribution outlets - Google’s Android Market, T-Mobile’s abandonment of their traditional deck, Microsoft’s Skymarket, Nokia’s revamping of their mobile store Mosh and the entire Ovi initiative
• The flow of money into apps and app contests - the iFund back by. This was later followed by Android’s developer challenge [$750K just announced to winner], Sprint’s Instinct developer contest [$25K]
• The increased importance on the killer device – Sprint’s $100M marketing the Samsung Instinct, Verizon’s anticipated push for the upcoming Blackberry Storm, the T-Mobile HTC Dream with Android

Google: From Stores to Marketplaces

In the next couple of weeks, Google’s Android will make its first appearance presumably along with the Android Marketplace. In contrast to the closed storefront model adopted by Apple and the majority of the operators, Google chose a more open approach and used the term “market” rather than “store” to distinguish this less restrictive approach towards distributing applications. According to Techdirt, they have adopted a model along the lines of YouTube.

Google will let developers post applications to the store in a matter of minutes, without going through an approval process. But that will make it hard to vet bad, glitchy, or inappropriate applications. To weed out bad apples, the Marketplace “features a feedback and rating system similar to YouTube”

Apple’s Store (closed) versus Android’s Marketplace (open)

In the world of “brick and mortar”, a consumer has the choice of purchasing goods and services from vending machines and retail establishments ranging from the local 7-11 to Walmart. These retail establishments are “closed” in the sense that they control what goods are services are distributed and promoted by a given retail location. In contrast, consumers can go to a flea market or bazaar or buy something via an auction. These exchanges tend to be more open. For the producer of goods, the barrier to entry for a flea market or exchange is much lower than a retail store. But, those producers that get carriage and placement from Walmart will likely generate greater revenue and exposure.

Along these lines, Ted Wugofski has conjectured that “For people building high cost high value applications and services, the Apple model with ‘one click’ purchasing will be very attractive. For people building lower cost lower value applications and services, the Google model with transparent advertising will be very attractive.” Indications from T-Mobile are that free applications will not be able to use advertising. It will be interesting to watch this development and whether it will apply to the upcoming Android phone.

Another distinction is whether Google will be able to control the end-to-end service in the manner that Apple has come to perfect. In his post ‘Do Androids Dream of Killer Apps’, Paul Golding has argued that “it is ‘iPhone ecosystem’ that is the killer. The device, the early adopters (and now hoards of smart followers), the flat-rate tariff, the apps store, the Apple marketing machine, the SDK.”

As noted above, this very iPhone ecosystem, being closed, has created a ground swell of criticism.

Techdirt: “The list of removed App Store downloads include Tetris clones, harmless but expensive novelties, movie listings and useful wireless applications. Although many have sung the praises of the new system, this trend of contingent generativity – Jonathan Zittrain’s term for intermediaries exerting control over new creativity – has some worrying implications. An ecosystem with perfect enforceability of rules will come to preempt the creativity, which comes from the edge (and even piracy).

Open / Closed – The operator’s vantage point

It is quite evident from a recent CTIA panel discussion that the major U.S. mobile operators are focused on different types of openness to make the case that they, as a network, are in fact truly open.

CEO of Sprint Nextel Corp Dan Hesse “The Internet is one of those great things that are still unregulated and people are looking for ways to regulate it … but openness can be defined in three contexts:” open for the end user, open for the developer and open for the device. “Consumers want the whole internet not a walled garden one .. Quite frankly, what the industry did from a brand point of view was ensure that the user experience was a good one [by using walled gardens].” Excerpt from CTIA: Carriers attempt to define “openness.”

CEO of T-Mobile USA Robert Dotson “Being open means unleasing innovation for users” Dotson “T-Mobile USA will advocate an open source operating system through its relationship with Google’s Android OS. Excerpt from Carriers talk “open” network but no clear definition.

Dotson “if you look at just unfettered access in an open world, all of us would probably agree that you probably poor experience at the end of the day.” Excerpt from U.S. carriers hedge open network claims.

CEO of Verizon Lowell McAdam “Openness should go hand in hand with quality experience and security and privacy of the consumer.” McAdam wireless carriers need to “open the doors but protect the network.” Excerpt from Carriers talk “open” network but no clear definition.

Open / Closed – Some further distinctions

Per Hesse’s comments above from CTIA, it is more useful to think of openness in terms of the developer, the end user and the device. I’d argue that “network” is conspicuously missing from his remarks. I find it useful to make further distinctions in the types of openness between devices, networks and developers.

1. Open Devices

• Open Operating System – transparent OS with APIs accessible to developers. Two further distinctions can be made
  • Open Access to Core Features
    • Open operating systems are those in which provide documented with APIs that are accessible by developers. Examples include Symbian, Mac OSX and Windows. ON contrast, closed proprietary operating systems are those utilized by the OEMs on the various feature phones.
  • Open Source
    • Open source operating systems are those in which the entire source code for the operating system is open source. The Linux operating systems (e.g., Motorola MOTOMAGX, LiMo) and Android are examples.

• Open Application Environments – developers have unfettered access to building and running applications of their choosing.
  • Operating Systems and Mobile Platforms
    • Symbian, RIM, Windows Mobile, Palm and the upcoming Palm Linux, Java FX Mobile, Binary Runtime Environment for Wireless (BREW), Android
    • MontaVista, WindRiver, PurpleLabs, Azingo, Access ALP
    • Mentor Graphics’ Nucleus, ENEA’s OSE, OpenPlug’s ELIPS
  • Runtime and Application Environments
    • Java, Javascript, JavaFX Script, Flash, WebKit core and Nokia’s Web Runtime, ActionMonkey (Adobe / Mozilla), Lua / uiONE, SVG (Ikivo, Bitflash)

Andreas Constantinou from VisionMobile has described in detail a wide range of application environments.

2. Open Networks

• Open Distribution – marketers have the ability to engage, market, distribute and monetize mobile content and services in a direct relationship with the end-user with the ability to utilize billing and delivery systems of their choosing.
• Open Device-Network Association – any device can be attached to the network.

3. Openness from the developer viewpoint

• Level 0 – no third-party apps; all apps provided by OEM
• Level 1 – third-party apps; distribution controlled by operator
• Level 2 – third-party apps anywhere; controlled APIs via certificate, e.g., Symbian 3rd Edition, T-Mobile Deck and device (no network if not signed), Blackberry
• Level 3 – all API access to device with no restriction; let user judge and approve, e.g., Android

This elaboration on types of openness is a continuation from my previous blog posts on Verizon’s Open Development Initiative and Two by Six Degrees of Openness – Apple and Goolge’s impact on the mobile ecosystem.

Some conclusions

Open devices, networks and markets will likely, at a minimum, have the following impact over the next 2-3 years:

• Increasing fragmentation adding more friction to the creation and distribution of mobile content and service.
• An increase in the amount of mobile content and services available to the end-user coupled with a wider variance in quality.
• A shift in value creation from the device and network to value-added service.

However, it is still not clear whether in this time frame, that the various open initiatives and marketplaces will drive the number of purchases for applications, and corresponding revenue for developers, that we will likely continue to see from Apple.

I wanted to thank Wendong Li, a Principal Software Engineer at Nellymoser, for his comments and suggestions for the types of openness from the point of view of the developer.

Carnival of the Mobilists #120 is now up at Skydeck.
- a great collection of writing as usual.

Mobile Widgets

On the web, widgets have helped transform the way people create and distribute applications and services. Not only have widgets helped democratize the creation of web applications (i.e., accelerated the ability for end-users as well as software developers and engineers to create web applications), they have been instrumental in reinforcing a more distributed web strategy that has increasingly shifted the power of impressions from the portal to the network. Granted, not only have widgets introduced problems related to fragmentation, lack of inoperability between various engines and distribution outlets, they also lack effective and reliable methods of measurement and monetization. As with other nascent technologies and markets we can presume these are temporary setbacks.

In mobile, however, widgets not only face issues of fragmentation and monetization but they themselves have been targeted to solve another problem endemic to small screens with constrained interfaces: user experience. While there are certainly dreams that widgets will one day bring frictionless distribution to mobile, they are primarily being used to address the relatively poor user experience associated with having to navigate the world of networked content via URLs.

I would suggest that looking for widgets to solve the user experience problem is akin to treating a symptom and not the core problem related to user experience. Mobile widgets, I would contend, have other traits and characteristics – other than temporarily solving the usability problem related to mobile user interfaces – that will make them worth watching as they evolve.

Widget 101

Widgets can be defined in general as self-contained, portable, mini applications that often provide a narrow range of functionality (e.g., temperature) within single context (e.g., weather) in a format that can be installed and utilized across many distribution points (e.g., home pages, blogs) by end-users (i.e., without additional software development, compilation or integration).

The following types of widgets are often distinguished:

• Desktop widgets (e.g., Dashboard widgets from Apple)
• Web widgets (e.g., Yahoo! widgets)
• Mobile widgets (e.g., Nokia’s widsets).

It is worth noting that in mobile both phone-top widgets and mobile web widgets already exist.

The origins of widgets can be tied to a number of preceding capabilities, e.g., (i) early web page add-ons such as link counters and later banners, (ii) Apple’s accessories on the 1980’s Mac that included small apps like calculators and notepads, and (iii) the personalized “my homepage” capability enabled by Netscape Navigator and popularized by Yahoo!. Niall Kennedy has more details on the history of widgets as well as a nifty timeline here.

Widgets are part of what Lawrence Coburn calls “The Four Pillars of a Distributed Web Strategy” which, in addition to widgets includes (i) toolbars / extensions (e.g., Google, StumbleUpon), (ii) Facebook Apps (e.g., iLike, RockYou), and (iii) APIs (e.g., Yahoo! Maps).

Scott Weiss contrasts widgets with applications in the following manner:

Not a lot has been written on the size of the web widget market - let alone the mobile widget market - other than suggestions by Will Price (CEO of Widgetbox) that roughly $20 to $30 million is spent on services to build widgets. This obviously doesn’t take into account any ad revenue or traffic generated, or transactions that they drive to various networks and sites.

Widget Creation

There are primarily three main vehicles used to author widgets:

• Client-side scripting (e.g., Javascript)
• Markup (e.g., framed HTML)
• Plugins (e.g., Flash, Silverlight)

Of course these techniques can be combined in numerous ways, e.g., a widget can include both markup and scripting or scripting and Flash. Niall Kennedy has more details on the basic widget formats.

Mobile Widget Enablement

Regardless of how a widget is designed, created and implemented, there are primarily three main vehicles on mobile devices for presenting and “housing” the widget for end-users to find and use. They are:

• Browsers
  • WAP
  • Mobile Internet
• Players
  • Media Players
  • RIA Players
• On-Device Portals (ODPs)
  • Homescreen Replacements
  • Portal / Portlet Applications

Browsers

Browsers, in general, are used to navigate and view various types of content that is typically resident at remote locations and accessible via a network. Most common are browsers that enable users to navigate content available on the World Wide Web. These browsers were based on a content model that assumes a collection of linked pages (i.e., collections of images and text). With the addition of scripting capabilities (e.g., Javascript), browsers have moved beyond the page-based paradigm.

In mobile, there are essentially two types of browsers: WAP and mobile Internet browsers. Primarily mobile players like Access and Openwave have provided WAP browsers whereas Mobile Internet browsers are and will be provided by both mobile-specific companies as well as more traditional players like Opera, Apple, Nokia, Mozilla and Microsoft.

Players

Players, in general, are most often used to play back and render media or serialized scripts. In mobile, there are essentially two main types: Media Players and RIA Players. RIA Players originated as embedded plug-in objects for browsers. Media Players (e.g., most notably Real, Quicktime, Windows) have been primarily used to playback music and videos.

In mobile, Media Players are provided by both operators and others. Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T all have players that can be utilized stand-alone or launched via video links in WAP / xHTML sites. Companies like Real Networks, Microsoft and Apple also provide Media Players in mobile.

On-Device Portals

On-device portals (ODPs) are mobile applications that have been optimized for accessing and interacting with content and information without necessarily using the Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) or other markup languages (e.g., HTML) and associated protocols (e.g., HTTP). The two primary types of ODPs are Homescreen Replacements and Portal / Portlet Applications. They can best be distinguished by their method of distribution and core functionality.

Homescreen Replacements are ODPs that primarily pre-ship with the device and provide the primary user-interface from which the user accesses content and information directly from the phone-top. Portal / Portlet Applications are ODPs that are typically acquired over-the-air (OTA) and provide a self-contained application for content and information discovery and viewing. ODPs came about in response to problems associated with WAP browsers such as compounded network latency issues, poor user experience, and the high number of clicks required to access relevant data and content.

It is worth noting that the Portal / Portlet Applications are sometimes called “browser-less” solutions, which really means a network-based application that lets you interact with content but is not a full-fledged browser.

We are seeing both browser-based solutions and ODP-based solutions used as widget frameworks in the market. There has been less traction with the “players” in enabling widget discovery and usage.

It is still much too early to predict whether browsers or ODPs or some other, yet-to-emerge solution, will become the dominant vehicle for navigating and viewing content from the Mobile Internet. The enthusiasm accompanying mobile advertising and the growth in Mobile Internet traffic has led many to side with a browser-based view of the world. Yet, alternative approaches that do not utilize a browser are gaining traction (e.g., Yahoo! Go, Alltel’s Celltop) which could indicate a future in which the browser is present but not necessarily the dominant form of access to rich, interactive content. ODPs, which were declared dead several years ago, are still getting press and are getting design wins from operators and customer deployments. Other evidence of operators looking beyond the browser to provide a better user experience is the recent announcement that AT&T’s Media Mall 2.0 is to be delivered as an application rather than a WAP browsing experience.

User Experience

Widgets, and the collection of various enabling applications and frameworks (e.g., browsers, players, ODPS – defined below), provide an alternative approach towards addressing the user experience for networked, content-based services in mobile.

Both users and service providers have become attracted to the grid-based (i.e., tile-based, box-based) UI method for navigating applications and content packages. This type of intuitive UI has been utilized in a wide range of interfaces ranging from Zumobi’s to Apple’s iPhone. I’ll have to take my hat off to Harry Kargman (www.kargo.com) who not only has a patent on what he calls the 9-grid but has been a strong proponent of this method of navigation for over 8 years. This method of UI has also become the de facto standard for presenting and enabling the discovery of various mobile widgets.

While the user experience is primarily determined by the design and implementation of given application or service, it is also driven by the underlying technology, which in return is driven by the “paradigm” of the approach (i.e., browser, player, ODP). Beyond the core elements of design, which is not my direct area of expertise, I find it useful to distinguish between the core elements of user experience and the underlying technology critical to enabling the user experience.

Core elements of user experience related to rendering and presenting widgets and widget frameworks / containers:

• Usability (i.e., ease of use, navigation, intuitiveness)
• Configurability (i.e., personalization, customization)
• Responsiveness (i.e., perceived speed, degree of interaction)
• Accessibility (i.e., findability, discoverability)
• Richness (i.e., compelling, high-quality)

Underlying technology critical to enabling user experience via widget enabling engines:

• Protocol (e.g., RTSP, HTTP, TCP)
• Caching (e.g., adaptive, predictive)
• Transfer modes (e.g., synchronous, asynchronous)
• Data Encoding (e.g., XML, binary / serialized)
• Media Encoding (MPEG-4, H-264, AAC, AMR-WB)

Creating and Finding Mobile Widgets

Methods for creating widgets are relatively straightforward and the leading mobile widget providers have essentially based this on what has worked on the web (e.g., Yahoo! / Pixoria’s Konfabulator).

The methods for distributing and enabling end-users to find mobile widgets, however is messy and extremely fragmented. Not only does the problem of distribution and findability relate to the other general problems of finding content via mobile devices, but also contains additional complexity. I have written about the findability problem in mobile.

Part of the complexity surrounding mobile widgets is due to the fact that widgets often require a “container” application for their discovery and utilization. I find it useful to distinguish between empty containers and full containers when it comes to distributing widgets within mobile. In a full container model, you have an existing portal that has a variety of content (e.g., Yahoo! Go). Presumably, given that it has content, the application has been downloaded and has achieved relatively wide distribution. Then, widgets become an add-on to this “full container”. In this model, the widget provider benefits from the fact that the container is widely distributed and already exists on a number of handsets. In an empty container model (e.g., Nokia Widsets), the widget itself must be so compelling that the user is enticed to download the entire widget engine in order to utilize it.

In their white paper on mobile widgets, little springs design articulated areas that are impeding traction with widgets: (i) lack of common terminology – users need to know what exactly they are getting, (ii) lack of perceived value – what the user is getting of why is it relevant to them, and (iii) lack of immediate access by the user, i.e., remove their dependence on a separate free-standing application and therefore ability to use them directly from the phone top.

Mobile Widgets – the Net Net

It would be short sighted to believe that the main purpose of widgets is to solve the user experience problem in mobile. Providing a better user experience comes down to people that truly understand the combination of design and mobility. I would contend that the value widgets could bring to mobile comes down to the following:

• Mobile service extensibility
• The democratization of mobile content and service creation
• Better distribution and syndication of mobile content and services

Mobile service extensibility includes a wide range of vehicles for being able to add value to a service or application after it has been deployed. This includes not only widgets but other forms of micro-sites and integrated add-on environments.

With regards to the democratization of mobile application creation, I believe it is imperative that people are able to create mobile applications and services using their own tools and that they are based on standard web technologies. Furthermore, similar to the power that Frontpage brought to web site creation; widget-authoring environments (e.g., the web-based tools for creating and distributing widgets) and aggregation sites will increasingly enable end-users to more easily create, personalize and distribute applications and content.

When contrasted to the desktop or laptop experience, (i) the user interaction model is fundamentally different on mobile (i.e., without a keyboard and a mouse), (ii) the consumer touch points have the ability to be more tightly integrated (e.g., talking, texting, sending, receiving, listening, viewing), and (iii) mobility itself is an entirely different experience than being portable and / or always-on.

It seems self-evident that the mobile experience will certainly lead to more medium-conducive forms of content and service syndication. The question is whether widgets will round out this trifecta – I am still coming down after being in Vegas for CTIA – by providing better mobile service distribution and syndication.

Carnival of the Mobilists 118 is now up at Mobile Point View by Paul Ruppert.
- a great collection of writing as usual.

I propose using the distinction between “place” and “location” as a useful framework for making comparisons between Web 2.0 and Mobile 2.0 in general, and location and locale, in particular. During a roundtable (”Web 2.0 Hits the Handset”) this week hosted by Airwide and Mobile Messaging 2.0, Tim Solt (from go2 media) introduced the distinction between location and locale to highlight the difference between a geo-location and where you are at a given point in time (e.g., Caesars in Vegas).

This clearly relates to the importance of “context” in mobile, which I recently wrote about in Context Is King. It also relates to the difference between the general and the particular, the objective and subjective, etc.

Post-modern geography highlights the difference between a place (my house) and a location (Princeton, NJ is located in the Western Hemisphere at 40.5 degrees latitude and 74.3 degrees longitude). Location is essentially a set of functional relationships whereas place captures the specificity and subjectivity of location. My house is much more than a location; it is a place that is infused with meaning and context.

Location is one element of place. Similarly, listening to music is not merely sound waves within some three-dimensional environment - a Cartesian space where everything can be located on a uniform grid. For me, listening to Scott Joplin’s Heliotropes, John Zorn’s Naked City or Bill Evan’s A Simple Matter of Conviction all connote distinct spaces of listening infused with past experiences of listening, performing and experiencing this music in particular places and contexts.

I contend that Mobile 2.0, when compared to Web 2.0, has more to do with providing users a personalized, localized and ever-present experience to the social web. On the phone you are able to create and consume content in a much wider array of places and contexts. Connecting wirelessly via a laptop is certainly liberating because it is portable but remains an entirely different experience; being mobile is more than simply being un-tethered.

Internet vs. Mobile

Prior to the roundtable on Web 2.0 on the Handset, Steve Bratt (CEO fo W3C) presented the following comparison between the Internet in 1994 and Mobile Data Services as of 2005.

Web 1.0, 2.0 vs. Mobile 2.0

To continue with this style of comparison, I suggest the following distinctions between Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Mobile 2.0.

W3C and the semantic web

According to Steve Bratt and the W3C, we are moving from a Web of linked documents to “one web” of “creators and consumers” (i.e., Web 2.0) with linked data and services from everyone to everyone (Web 3.0 – the semantic web).

With regards to mobile, I contend that concept of “one web” does not presuppose a browser-based solution on the phone. Steve reinforces this concept by suggesting that the “one web” may involve different user interfaces and experiences but what is common across platforms is that people are accessing the same data with some type of “thematic consistency.”

Widespread adoption of Mobile 2.0

The overarching question that was posed during the Airwide Solutions and Mobile Messaging 2.0 roundtable (“Web 2.0 Hits the Handset” video coverage here), was what does the mobile industry still have to overcome in order to achieve widespread adoption of Web 2.0 from the consumer market?

My answer to this question was consistent with other posts I’ve done on Mobile 2.0. The enablers and drivers for Mobile 2.0 are:

• ubiquitous wireless broadband
• frictionless distribution
• reasonable access fees (e.g., flat-rate pricing)
• open, enabling platforms for service creation

The industry also needs to continue to push for standards and interoperability, i.e., consistent interfaces to ad platforms, social networks, messaging infrastructure and content across mobile and PC).

The Web 2.0 Round Table Final Comments

I had the good fortune to sit next to Rudy De Waele and was at a table hosted by Paul Ruppert.

Steve Bratt provided a succinct summary of the observations raised during the roundtable:

• One web becomes more possible as wireless bandwidth gets more plentiful and devices get more capable
• Users are spoiled due to bandwidth and capabilities they currently get from the Web
• We must make the experience seamless
• Ads need to be better targeted and relevant in mobile
• Personalization is important
• The are many concerns about privacy
• Search and discovery needs to be done efficiently
• Carrier interoperability is critical and carriers don’t need to be dumb pipes

These comments are consistent with Arun Sarin’s (CEO of Vodafone) CTIA keynote. Although he made a similar speech at the Mobile World Congress in February, his points are worth reiterating.

Sarin’s main point is that “the Internet on mobile is the new, new thing.” The increase in data revenues across the Vodafone properties certainly reinforces this contention. Furthermore, “the mobile phone will be the primary touchpoint for continuous use of web services.” He outlined the following challenges to the industry:

• We must move from dozens to 3-5 operating systems
• We need to invest in wireless broadband networks. Furthermore, WiMax should be folded into the TDD section of the LTE standard
• We have to continue to build out better customer information systems and customer relationship management systems.

Finally, Sarin succinctly summarized the key drivers for mobile data services, whether they are communication, entertainment, or mobile Internet services

• Speed (i.e., wireless broadband at speeds moving updwards to 14.4 and 28.8 mbits)
• Simplicity (simple plans and easy to user products and services)
• Value (bundled services)