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.

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)

Carnival of the Mobilists 116 is now up at Situational Marketing
- a great collection of writing as usual.

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.