It was a nondescript bar in the American Midwest, the sort of place where working men drop in at the end of the day to unwind before they head home. You wouldn't expect to find two senior business executives there, and as I sat in the empty bar at midday I wondered if maybe my contact had given me a bad lead. But then the door opened and a general manager from one of the leading web companies walked in, followed by a senior VP from one of the US's biggest mobile network operators. I hunched down in the shadows of a corner booth and typed notes quietly as they settled in at the bar.
Bartender: What'll you have?
Telecom executive: Michelob Light.
Web executive: I'll have a Sierra Nevada Kellerweis.
Bartender: Keller-what?
Web executive: Um, Michelob Light.
Telecom executive: Thanks for coming. Did you have any trouble finding the place?
Web executive: All I can say is thank God for GPS. I've never even been on the ground before between Denver and New York.
Telecom executive: I wanted to find someplace nondescript, so we wouldn't be seen together. The pressure from the FCC is bad enough already, without someone accusing us of colluding.
Web executive: No worries, my staff thinks I'm paragliding in Mexico this weekend. What's your cover story?
Telecom executive: Sailboat off Montauk.
Web executive: Sweet. So, you wanted to talk about this data capacity problem you have on your network...
Telecom executive: No, it's a data capacity problem we all have. Your websites are flooding our network with trivia. The world's wireless infrastructure is on the verge of collapse because your users have nothing better to do all day than watch videos of a drunk guy buying beer.
Web executive: Welcome to the Internet. The people rule. If you didn't want to play, you shouldn't have run the ads. Remember the promises you made? "Instantly download files. Browse the Web just like at home. Stream HD videos. Laugh at an online video or movie trailer while travelling in the family car."
Telecom executive: That was our marketing guys. They don't always talk to the capacity planners. Besides, who could have known that the marketing campaign would actually work?
Web executive: Don't look at me. I've never done a marketing campaign in my life. I think you should just blame it on A--
Telecom executive: You promised, no using the A-word.
Web executive: Sorry. But I still don't see why this is a problem. Just add some more towers and servers and stuff.
Telecom executive: It's not that simple. The network isn't designed to handle this sort of data, and especially not at these volumes. Right now our biggest problem is backhaul capacity -- the traffic coming from the cell towers to our central servers. But when we fix that, the cell towers themselves will get saturated. Fix the towers and the servers will fall over somewhere. It's like squeezing a balloon. We have to rebuild the whole network. It's incredibly expensive.
Web executive: So? That's what your users pay you for.
Telecom executive: But most of them are on fixed-rate data plans. So when we add capacity, we don't necessarily get additional revenue. It's all expense and no profit. At some point in the not-too-distant future, we'll end up losing money on mobile data.
Web executive: Bummer.
Telecom executive: More like mortal threat. Fortunately, we've figured out how to solve the problem. The top five percent of our users produce about 50% of the network's total traffic. So we're just going to cap their accounts and charge more when they go over.
Web executive: Woah! Hold on, those are our most important customers you're talking about. You can't just shut them down.
Telecom executive: The hell we can't. They're leeches using up the network capacity that everyone else needs.
Web executive: Consumers will never let you impose caps. You told them they had unlimited data plans, that's the expectation you set. You can't go back now and tell them that their plans are limited. They won't understand -- and they won't forgive you.
Telecom executive: First of all, the plans were never really unlimited in the first place. There's always been fine print.
Web executive: Which no one read.
Telecom executive: Off the record, you may have a point. On the record, the fact is that you can retrain users. Look, you grew up in California, right?
Web executive: What does that have to do with anything?
Telecom executive: Once upon a time, there weren't any water meters in California. Now most of the major cities have them, and they'll be required everywhere in a couple of years. Something that was once unlimited became limited, and people learned to conserve.
Web executive: The difference is, I can read my water meter. You make a ton of money when people exceed their minutes or message limits, and you don't warn them before they do it. If you play the same game with Internet traffic, it'll scare people away from using the mobile web -- or worse yet you'll invite in the government. Look what happened with roaming charges in Europe.
Telecom executive: Jeez, don't even think about that. Okay, so we'll need to add some sort of traffic meter so people will know how much data they're using when they load a page.
Web executive: Great, that'll discourage people from using Yahoo.
Telecom executive: Huh?
Web executive: Oops, did I say that out loud?
Telecom executive: Then there's the issue of dealing with websites and apps that misuse the network.
Web executive: Not this again.
Telecom executive: I'm not talking about completely blocking anything, just prioritizing the traffic a little. Surely you agree that 911 calls should get top priority on the network, right?
Web executive: Of course.
Telecom executive: And that voice calls should take priority over data?
Web executive: I don't know about that.
Telecom executive: Oh come on, what good is a telecom network if you can't make calls on it?
Web executive: (sighs) Yeah, okay.
Telecom executive: So then what's wrong with us prioritizing, say, e-mail delivery over video?
Web executive: Because when you start arbitrarily throttling traffic, I can't manage the user experience. My website will work great on Vodafone's network but not on yours, or my site will work fine on some days and not on others. How do you think the customers will feel about that?
Telecom executive: Not as angry as they will be if the entire network falls over. Listen, we're already installing the software to prioritize different sorts of data packets. We could be throttling traffic today and you wouldn't even know it.
Web executive: But people will eventually figure it out. They'll compare notes on which networks work best and they'll migrate to the ones that don't mess with their applications. Heck, we'll help them figure it out. And if that's not enough, there's always the regulatory option. The Republicans are out of office. They can't protect you on net neutrality any more.
Telecom executive: You think you're better at lobbying the government than we are? We've been doing it for 100 years, pal. Besides, we have a right to protect our network.
Web executive: You mean to protect your own services from competition!
Telecom executive: Parasite!
Web executive: Monopolist!
Telecom executive: That's it! It's go time!
They both stood. The telecom guy grabbed a beer bottle and broke it against the bar, while the web guy raised a bar stool over his head. Then the bartender pulled out a shotgun and pointed it at both of them.
Bartender: Enough! I'm sick of listening to you two. Telecom guy, you're crazy if you think people will put up with someone telling them what they can and can't do on the Internet. The Chinese government can't make that stick, and unlike them you have competitors.
Web executive: See? I told you!
Bartender: Shut up, web guy! You keep pretending that the wireless network is infinite when you know it isn't. If you really think user experience is important, you need to start taking the capabilities of the network into account when you design your apps.
Web executive: Hey, he started it.
Telecom executive: I did not!
Bartender: I don't care who started it! Telecom guy, you need to expose some APIs that will let a website know how much capacity is available at a particular moment, so they can adjust their products. And web guy, you need to participate in those standards and use them. Plus you both need to agree on ways to communicate to a user how much bandwidth they're using, so they can make their own decisions on which apps they want to use. That plus tiered pricing will solve your whole problem.
Telecom executive: Signaling capacity too. Don't forget signaling.
Bartender: That's exactly the sort of detail you shouldn't confuse users with. Work it out between yourselves and figure out a simple way to communicate it to users. Okay?
Web executive: I guess.
Telecom executive: Yeah, okay.
Bartender. Good. Now sit down and start over by talking about something you can cooperate on.
Telecom executive: All right. Hey, what's that guy doing in the corner? Is that a netbook?
Web executive: He's a blogger!
Bartender: There's no blogging allowed in here!
Telecom executive and web executive: Get him!
I ran. Fortunately, the bar had a back door. Even more fortunately, the web guy and the telecom guy got into an argument over who would go through the door first, and I was able to make my escape.
So I don't know how the conversation ended. But I do know that I wish that bartender was running the FCC.
Showing posts with label operators. Show all posts
Showing posts with label operators. Show all posts
Another example of why the tech industry and mobile operators don't get along
When you work in consumer electronics, one of the rules that gets drilled into you very early on is that you never do anything to disrupt the holiday selling season. In the US, the month between Thanksgiving and the end of the year can account for three months' worth of sales, if not more. During that time, you don't change prices, you don't alter your ad campaigns, and most of all you don't ever say anything about future products, because that might cause customers to hesitate before making a holiday purchase.
So the CEO of ATT, giving a speech this week in Silicon Valley of all places, says that a 3G version of the iPhone is in the works:
Not only does he spill the beans, but he acknowledges that Apple hasn't announced it and then talks about it anyway (link). The next day the story is carried by the AP, MSNBC, the Times of London, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the SJ Mercury News (which had the version of the quote above), and 318 other publications according to Google.
In the US, the assessment from a lot of commentators is that this won't have much impact because the iPhone is so popular anyway. Maybe, I guess, although the iPhone isn't sold out, so any loss in sales is still a loss. But in Europe, I think it could be a big problem. iPhone sales there are not going great to begin with, and folks in Europe are generally much more conscious of 3G vs. 2G issues. The acknowledgment that a 3G iPhone is coming could cause a lot of people to hesitate before buying.
If AT&T competed directly with Orange, O2, and T-Mobile Germany, I'd be tempted to speculate that they made the announcement on purpose to hurt the competition. But they don't, so I suspect this is just a case of a CEO who wanted to show that he's not controlled by Steve Jobs but instead demonstrated that he doesn't understand consumer electronics.
So the CEO of ATT, giving a speech this week in Silicon Valley of all places, says that a 3G version of the iPhone is in the works:
"Has Jobs announced that? I don't think he's announced that, but you'll have it next year."
Not only does he spill the beans, but he acknowledges that Apple hasn't announced it and then talks about it anyway (link). The next day the story is carried by the AP, MSNBC, the Times of London, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the SJ Mercury News (which had the version of the quote above), and 318 other publications according to Google.
In the US, the assessment from a lot of commentators is that this won't have much impact because the iPhone is so popular anyway. Maybe, I guess, although the iPhone isn't sold out, so any loss in sales is still a loss. But in Europe, I think it could be a big problem. iPhone sales there are not going great to begin with, and folks in Europe are generally much more conscious of 3G vs. 2G issues. The acknowledgment that a 3G iPhone is coming could cause a lot of people to hesitate before buying.
If AT&T competed directly with Orange, O2, and T-Mobile Germany, I'd be tempted to speculate that they made the announcement on purpose to hurt the competition. But they don't, so I suspect this is just a case of a CEO who wanted to show that he's not controlled by Steve Jobs but instead demonstrated that he doesn't understand consumer electronics.
Questions about Verizon's new "open" attitude
More than half of the traffic to this weblog comes from outside the US, so there are times when I feel obligated (and a little embarrassed) to explain how the mobile market works here. This is one of those moments.
Verizon, the largest US mobile carrier, made headlines in the US today by announcing that by the end of 2008 it's going to make its network available to any device and any application that the user chooses to install (link).
This will seem remarkable to people living in GSM countries where it's normal to choose any device you want. But in the US, it's an unusual idea. Here mobile usage is split between GSM and CDMA. GSM phones have SIM cards, which technically allow you to switch your account to any phone you want. But in practice, almost no users are willing to give up the several hundred dollar subsidy for buying a phone and service plan together, so they only choose phones that come through the operator.
Things are even more restrictive in the CDMA space, where there are no SIM cards. If you buy a Verizon phone, it can only be used with a Verizon account. Same thing for Sprint.
So Verizon's announcement is a nice change, on the face of it. It's also something of a pleasant shock, since Verizon has the reputation of being the most conservative and controlling US operator. But the announcement's actual impact on the market is going to depend on several questions that Verizon hasn't answered yet:
--How will open access be implemented? Verizon says it's going to define a process by which phones can be certified to work on its network. That could be routine or it could turn into a huge barrier to entry. We also don't know how a user's account will be switched between phones. Is Verizon planning to start installing SIM cards in its phones (something that has been done with CDMA in China)? If not, will you have to take the phone to a Verizon store to get it activated? How much will that cost?
Verizon apparently said something about doing activation through a toll-free number, which could be cool.
--How will the service be priced? Verizon's service plans include recovery of the several hundred dollar subsidy for hardware. You pay for the subsidy as part of your monthly bill. Since Verizon doesn't have to recover a subsidy cost on its open access phones, there's about $10 or more a month that it could pass along to consumers in the form of lower bills.
If Verizon doesn't price the open service lower, what happens to the extra money? Does Verizon pocket it? Or will they offer some sort of rebate on purchase of open access phones?
The answer to this one is critical. The US GSM carriers are technically open, but the subsidy prevents significant sales of alternate phones. If Verizon pockets the subsidy money, very few people will take advantage of the open service. The whole thing could turn out to be a PR gesture rather than a genuine change.
But in the hope that Verizon wants it to be more, here's what they ought to do:
--Make the monthly cost of the open plan lower than a traditional service plan, reflecting the absence of a subsidy.
--Make the handset certification process simple and low cost.
--Make it easy for users to switch their account to a new phone (preferably via a SIM card or website or that 800 number, so they don't have to come to a store).
That's an announcement I'd stand up and cheer for.
Impact on the industry
Until we hear the answers to the questions above, it's impossible to guess how impactful this announcement will be. The most important factor may be how the other US operators react. The best result would be if they start competing with each other to see who can make their network more open. If that dynamic takes hold, competitive forces might drive them to really open up even if they don't intend to.
Verizon, the largest US mobile carrier, made headlines in the US today by announcing that by the end of 2008 it's going to make its network available to any device and any application that the user chooses to install (link).
This will seem remarkable to people living in GSM countries where it's normal to choose any device you want. But in the US, it's an unusual idea. Here mobile usage is split between GSM and CDMA. GSM phones have SIM cards, which technically allow you to switch your account to any phone you want. But in practice, almost no users are willing to give up the several hundred dollar subsidy for buying a phone and service plan together, so they only choose phones that come through the operator.
Things are even more restrictive in the CDMA space, where there are no SIM cards. If you buy a Verizon phone, it can only be used with a Verizon account. Same thing for Sprint.
So Verizon's announcement is a nice change, on the face of it. It's also something of a pleasant shock, since Verizon has the reputation of being the most conservative and controlling US operator. But the announcement's actual impact on the market is going to depend on several questions that Verizon hasn't answered yet:
--How will open access be implemented? Verizon says it's going to define a process by which phones can be certified to work on its network. That could be routine or it could turn into a huge barrier to entry. We also don't know how a user's account will be switched between phones. Is Verizon planning to start installing SIM cards in its phones (something that has been done with CDMA in China)? If not, will you have to take the phone to a Verizon store to get it activated? How much will that cost?
Verizon apparently said something about doing activation through a toll-free number, which could be cool.
--How will the service be priced? Verizon's service plans include recovery of the several hundred dollar subsidy for hardware. You pay for the subsidy as part of your monthly bill. Since Verizon doesn't have to recover a subsidy cost on its open access phones, there's about $10 or more a month that it could pass along to consumers in the form of lower bills.
If Verizon doesn't price the open service lower, what happens to the extra money? Does Verizon pocket it? Or will they offer some sort of rebate on purchase of open access phones?
The answer to this one is critical. The US GSM carriers are technically open, but the subsidy prevents significant sales of alternate phones. If Verizon pockets the subsidy money, very few people will take advantage of the open service. The whole thing could turn out to be a PR gesture rather than a genuine change.
But in the hope that Verizon wants it to be more, here's what they ought to do:
--Make the monthly cost of the open plan lower than a traditional service plan, reflecting the absence of a subsidy.
--Make the handset certification process simple and low cost.
--Make it easy for users to switch their account to a new phone (preferably via a SIM card or website or that 800 number, so they don't have to come to a store).
That's an announcement I'd stand up and cheer for.
Impact on the industry
Until we hear the answers to the questions above, it's impossible to guess how impactful this announcement will be. The most important factor may be how the other US operators react. The best result would be if they start competing with each other to see who can make their network more open. If that dynamic takes hold, competitive forces might drive them to really open up even if they don't intend to.
What's more insecure, the iPhone or Apple?
It's been interesting to watch the reactions to Apple's crackdown on people who hack their iPhones.
If you've been living in a cave or otherwise off the net, I should explain that Apple's latest software update for the iPhone tends to disable phones that have been hacked to undo the SIM lock (enabling them to make calls on other networks) or to install third party applications. In some cases, Apple has refused to repair the software in these "bricked" phones, forcing the user to buy a new one.
I've read contradictory reports on what level of hacking causes the iPhone to be disabled. Some reports say the update disables the phone only if the SIM lock has been broken. In phones with an intact SIM lock but third party applications, word is that the update "merely" erases the apps without disabling the phone. But the fear among iPhone users is that doing anything unauthorized with the phone, even installing an app, can cause it to be disabled. Apple appears to be feeding this fear deliberately.
This has stopped (at least temporarily) the rapid growth of third party applications that developers and enthusiasts had started creating for the iPhone. Although Apple doesn't endorse or encourage the creation of native apps for the iPhone, developers had quickly found ways to access the modified version of Mac OS X inside the iPhone, and were busily producing a series of interesting and cute add-ons.
I was astounded by the speed at which iPhone applications were appearing. Usually it takes about six months to get developers cranked up on a new device, and that's when things are going well. Just three months after the first shipment of the iPhone, there were already a lot of interesting apps appearing, and David Pogue at the New York Times had even created a video celebrating them (link).
Most technology companies would kill to have that publicity and a bunch of third parties creating new software for their products. Web 2.0 companies are all adding application interfaces so they can get developers, companies like Adobe, Microsoft, and Google are competing aggressively to create APIs for web development, and even Apple invests heavily in encouraging developers to create software for the Mac.
The assault on hacked iPhones has provoked a nasty reaction online, starting among enthusiasts (check out the video here) and now spreading to the mainstream press. The latest example, pointed out to me by Chris Dunphy (an angry iPhone user), is from BusinessWeek (link):
I can't remember the last time someone at BusinessWeek actively campaigned against a product of any sort.
Why would Apple expose itself to so much criticism?
The weirdest thing about this whole saga is that it's not at all clear why Apple is putting itself through it. I've been asking myself that a lot, and want to share some thoughts.
The first thing I think we have to do is separate the SIM lock issue from the applications issue. They are two very different business and technical issues, and Apple may have completely different motivations for pursuing them.
Why defend the SIM lock? Many mobile phones, especially in the US, are locked for use on a particular network. All CDMA phones outside of China are like this (because there is no SIM card), and many GSM phones in the US are as well. The excuse for this is usually that the operator paid a subsidy for the phone hardware, and needs to recover the subsidy through service charges. But the operators also achieve this recovery through big cancellation fees if you switch operators before the contract is up, so the industry has not traditionally worked very hard to defend the SIM lock. Unlock codes for many phones are available online, and many operators will reportedly unlock your phone if you call them and say that you're traveling overseas.
Apple is the first phone hardware vendor that I've seen aggressively defend the SIM lock, and I'm not sure why. The most common explanation on the Web is that Apple's getting a revenue share on the monthly billings from iPhone users, so it actually loses a lot of money when any iPhone moves to another network. There is also speculation that if iPhones can be moved into countries where they are not available, Apple will have trouble extracting lots of money from local operators who sign up to carry the phone.
The latter explanation doesn't hold a lot of water for me -- most people want their phone to work in their native language, so an English-language version of the iPhone is not going to destroy the market for a legitimate iPhone in France. Also, iPhones moved onto unauthorized networks lose some of their cool features, such as the visual voicemail function. If Apple were selling iPhones in some countries for $99 and in others for $699, I would see more of a gray market threat, but the price gaps are not nearly that large. Combine the language issue, loss of features, and low opportunity for price arbitrage, and I don't think there is enough motivation for Apple to subject itself to the abuse it's taking.
But the revenue opportunity is a different thing. If Apple got, say, 20% of the mobile billings for an authorized iPhone, that would probably be about $120 a year from an average user -- in pure profit. That's going to be similar to the total margins Apple makes on the actual iPhone, and they get the billings every year. I have no idea if Apple's actually getting 20%, but that sort of number has been rumored for some of the European iPhone deals. Even if Apple's cut is only $10%, the revenue share would be a huge part of Apple's total profit on the iPhone, and something they would be willing to defend vigorously, even if it pisses people off.
Why kill third party applications? This one is harder to understand, because I don't understand what Apple gains from it. Having applications for the iPhone makes it more popular, and also sucks up developer activity that could go to competing products. My first reaction when I heard that Apple wouldn't allow applications on the iPhone was that it was a control issue for Steve Jobs - he watched the base of cool Mac developers get sucked away by Windows, and never wants to be vulnerable to a third party again (link).
There are a lot of commentators online who assume the control freak attitude is driving Apple's behavior on the iPhone. Others speculate that Apple is planning to offer a third party applications store, in which it will take a large revenue cut for third party applications that have been approved by Apple. I have no idea what the cut would be, so it's hard to say how much it's worth to Apple. But I think if it were a big part of their plans, they would have made that store available on the first version of the device. So although I believe they might create such a store (it's an obvious thing to do), I don't think that is the whole explanation. It's hard for me to see them bringing this level of criticism on themselves just to defend that hypothetical store.
Instead, I'm starting to suspect that they have a deeper motivation that they don't want to discuss in public because even acknowledging it could damage iPhone sales. It's better to take criticism from people who think you're evil than to admit that your device has a serious flaw, and I think maybe the security structure of the iPhone is a serious flaw.
When the iPhone was announced, Steve Jobs said it didn't allow third party apps because they could bring down the phone network. I thought that was stupid bluster at the time, because on most smartphones it's very difficult to do anything really nasty to the network. The applications and the phone run on separate processors, and given the limitations of the smartphone operating systems, it's very difficult to do anything really heinous to the network.
But the iPhone has a much more powerful OS in it, a derivative of Unix. The reports posted online by hackers who have played with the innards of the iPhone are very disturbing (link). Here's a great example:
So the hacker was looking to hack other phones via AT&T's Edge network, and was not able to do so. That's a good thing from the perspective of the average user. But you have to wonder what those "scattered routers, switches, and servers" are. I doubt AT&T deploys switches and servers on its network just for laughs, so who knows how important they are to the functioning of the network, or how secure they are. I'm sure they were not set up with the expectation that hackers would be tickling them from an iPhone.
If you know the technical details of Edge and have any thoughts on this, please post a comment. Maybe I'm overstating the risk here. My personal reaction was that if I worked at an operator and read the quote above, my hair would stand on end (if I still had any).
Here's another interesting quote:
Well, that's pretty straightforward. There are already third party applications that turn a smart phone into a spying device, but you need physical access to that particular device in order to install them. The difference with the iPhone, according to this report, is that once you find a security hole you could install that sort of spyware remotely, via the wireless connection.
That led to a Computerworld article which says basically that viruses and other malware could spread from one iPhone directly to another without the user ever being aware of it (link). I'm not too alarmed by that just yet, because there isn't a critical mass of iPhones in any one geographic location to infect each other. But it could be interesting the next time there's a big gathering of iPhone users. Macworld, anyone?
To me the more troubling part of the report was the root privileges thing. I'm not a Unix expert, so I talked to someone who is. He confirmed that applications with root privileges in Unix can do just about anything. Unix is designed to empower programmers, and the assumption is that someone with root access knows what they are doing and can be trusted. (You can read some similar commentary in a eWeek column here).
There are ways to prevent third party applications from having root access, but the disturbing possibility (and I'm speculating here) is that Apple may have stripped out those protections in order to reduce the memory requirements of the iPhone and make it run faster. If that's the case, my friend said, it may be a pretty involved project for Apple to add those protections back in. Not at all impossible, but requiring a lot of work and time.
Through my years in the industry, I've done a lot of research on technology users. One of the things I've learned is that security problems are a great way to scare people away from a new technology device. If it even sounds insecure, a lot of people will stay away from it. Based on what I'm seeing online, there is a lot of evidence that the iPhone as currently structured is a genuinely insecure device once any uncontrolled third party applications get onto it. What's more, keeping third party apps off your own iPhone does not necessarily protect you, because malicious software could propagate from device to device.
If I were working at Apple, and this were the situation, what would I do? Well, first I would not want to acknowledge the vulnerability, because that itself would scare away customers. Second, I would do everything in my power to shut down all third party native application development. Squash it, kill it completely. And I'd be willing to take a lot of criticism for doing so because the alternative, acknowledging the security problem, would produce even more bad PR.
Let me be very clear here: I'm not saying that I know this is what's going on at Apple; I don't. And I'm not trying to start any nasty rumors (they are already out there). I should also point out that some reports on iPhone security have been a lot less alarmist (for example, here is Symantec's take from early July). But that was before the latest reports surfaced.
I think we need to ask whether Apple botched the security of the iPhone in the belief that people wouldn't try to add apps to it. They could easily have made that assumption; there have been comparatively few efforts to add apps to the iPod, after all. But the publicity for the iPhone, and Apple's bragging that OS X was in it, made it an irresistible target for hacking.
If Apple really does have a security problem in the iPhone, I don't think they will be able to keep it quiet. Experience shows that the best approach in this sort of situation is to come clean about the problem, take your lumps, and fix it as soon as you can. That way you at least retain your reputation for honesty. If the iPhone really is vulnerable, Apple risks ending up with the worst of all possible worlds -- it'll damage its reputation for honesty, piss off a lot of technophiles, and people will still hear that the iPhone is insecure.
It will be interesting to see how Apple handles this issue in the weeks to come.
=====
Thanks to John Hering at Flexilis for pointing me to the Computerworld story.
If you've been living in a cave or otherwise off the net, I should explain that Apple's latest software update for the iPhone tends to disable phones that have been hacked to undo the SIM lock (enabling them to make calls on other networks) or to install third party applications. In some cases, Apple has refused to repair the software in these "bricked" phones, forcing the user to buy a new one.
I've read contradictory reports on what level of hacking causes the iPhone to be disabled. Some reports say the update disables the phone only if the SIM lock has been broken. In phones with an intact SIM lock but third party applications, word is that the update "merely" erases the apps without disabling the phone. But the fear among iPhone users is that doing anything unauthorized with the phone, even installing an app, can cause it to be disabled. Apple appears to be feeding this fear deliberately.
This has stopped (at least temporarily) the rapid growth of third party applications that developers and enthusiasts had started creating for the iPhone. Although Apple doesn't endorse or encourage the creation of native apps for the iPhone, developers had quickly found ways to access the modified version of Mac OS X inside the iPhone, and were busily producing a series of interesting and cute add-ons.
I was astounded by the speed at which iPhone applications were appearing. Usually it takes about six months to get developers cranked up on a new device, and that's when things are going well. Just three months after the first shipment of the iPhone, there were already a lot of interesting apps appearing, and David Pogue at the New York Times had even created a video celebrating them (link).
Most technology companies would kill to have that publicity and a bunch of third parties creating new software for their products. Web 2.0 companies are all adding application interfaces so they can get developers, companies like Adobe, Microsoft, and Google are competing aggressively to create APIs for web development, and even Apple invests heavily in encouraging developers to create software for the Mac.
The assault on hacked iPhones has provoked a nasty reaction online, starting among enthusiasts (check out the video here) and now spreading to the mainstream press. The latest example, pointed out to me by Chris Dunphy (an angry iPhone user), is from BusinessWeek (link):
"Wasn't Apple itself the creation of two guys in garage with a knack for making interesting ideas into real things? So why punish the people who try to create something interesting, threatening them with the prospect of an inoperative phone?....The company that styles itself as the technology supplier of choice for creative people with great ideas is insisting that to own its products is to accept a defined orthodoxy where there's only one acceptable way to do things. That doesn't sound like the Apple I know. So I'm not going to buy an iPhone. And until Apple commits to changing this ridiculous policy, I don't think you should either."
I can't remember the last time someone at BusinessWeek actively campaigned against a product of any sort.
Why would Apple expose itself to so much criticism?
The weirdest thing about this whole saga is that it's not at all clear why Apple is putting itself through it. I've been asking myself that a lot, and want to share some thoughts.
The first thing I think we have to do is separate the SIM lock issue from the applications issue. They are two very different business and technical issues, and Apple may have completely different motivations for pursuing them.
Why defend the SIM lock? Many mobile phones, especially in the US, are locked for use on a particular network. All CDMA phones outside of China are like this (because there is no SIM card), and many GSM phones in the US are as well. The excuse for this is usually that the operator paid a subsidy for the phone hardware, and needs to recover the subsidy through service charges. But the operators also achieve this recovery through big cancellation fees if you switch operators before the contract is up, so the industry has not traditionally worked very hard to defend the SIM lock. Unlock codes for many phones are available online, and many operators will reportedly unlock your phone if you call them and say that you're traveling overseas.
Apple is the first phone hardware vendor that I've seen aggressively defend the SIM lock, and I'm not sure why. The most common explanation on the Web is that Apple's getting a revenue share on the monthly billings from iPhone users, so it actually loses a lot of money when any iPhone moves to another network. There is also speculation that if iPhones can be moved into countries where they are not available, Apple will have trouble extracting lots of money from local operators who sign up to carry the phone.
The latter explanation doesn't hold a lot of water for me -- most people want their phone to work in their native language, so an English-language version of the iPhone is not going to destroy the market for a legitimate iPhone in France. Also, iPhones moved onto unauthorized networks lose some of their cool features, such as the visual voicemail function. If Apple were selling iPhones in some countries for $99 and in others for $699, I would see more of a gray market threat, but the price gaps are not nearly that large. Combine the language issue, loss of features, and low opportunity for price arbitrage, and I don't think there is enough motivation for Apple to subject itself to the abuse it's taking.
But the revenue opportunity is a different thing. If Apple got, say, 20% of the mobile billings for an authorized iPhone, that would probably be about $120 a year from an average user -- in pure profit. That's going to be similar to the total margins Apple makes on the actual iPhone, and they get the billings every year. I have no idea if Apple's actually getting 20%, but that sort of number has been rumored for some of the European iPhone deals. Even if Apple's cut is only $10%, the revenue share would be a huge part of Apple's total profit on the iPhone, and something they would be willing to defend vigorously, even if it pisses people off.
Why kill third party applications? This one is harder to understand, because I don't understand what Apple gains from it. Having applications for the iPhone makes it more popular, and also sucks up developer activity that could go to competing products. My first reaction when I heard that Apple wouldn't allow applications on the iPhone was that it was a control issue for Steve Jobs - he watched the base of cool Mac developers get sucked away by Windows, and never wants to be vulnerable to a third party again (link).
There are a lot of commentators online who assume the control freak attitude is driving Apple's behavior on the iPhone. Others speculate that Apple is planning to offer a third party applications store, in which it will take a large revenue cut for third party applications that have been approved by Apple. I have no idea what the cut would be, so it's hard to say how much it's worth to Apple. But I think if it were a big part of their plans, they would have made that store available on the first version of the device. So although I believe they might create such a store (it's an obvious thing to do), I don't think that is the whole explanation. It's hard for me to see them bringing this level of criticism on themselves just to defend that hypothetical store.
Instead, I'm starting to suspect that they have a deeper motivation that they don't want to discuss in public because even acknowledging it could damage iPhone sales. It's better to take criticism from people who think you're evil than to admit that your device has a serious flaw, and I think maybe the security structure of the iPhone is a serious flaw.
When the iPhone was announced, Steve Jobs said it didn't allow third party apps because they could bring down the phone network. I thought that was stupid bluster at the time, because on most smartphones it's very difficult to do anything really nasty to the network. The applications and the phone run on separate processors, and given the limitations of the smartphone operating systems, it's very difficult to do anything really heinous to the network.
But the iPhone has a much more powerful OS in it, a derivative of Unix. The reports posted online by hackers who have played with the innards of the iPhone are very disturbing (link). Here's a great example:
EDGE network access is horribly slow, but it works....I made a few attempts to discover other hosts in the private address space, in hopes of finding other EDGE devices, but instead only found a few scattered routers, switches, and servers.
So the hacker was looking to hack other phones via AT&T's Edge network, and was not able to do so. That's a good thing from the perspective of the average user. But you have to wonder what those "scattered routers, switches, and servers" are. I doubt AT&T deploys switches and servers on its network just for laughs, so who knows how important they are to the functioning of the network, or how secure they are. I'm sure they were not set up with the expectation that hackers would be tickling them from an iPhone.
If you know the technical details of Edge and have any thoughts on this, please post a comment. Maybe I'm overstating the risk here. My personal reaction was that if I worked at an operator and read the quote above, my hair would stand on end (if I still had any).
Here's another interesting quote:
Every process runs as root. MobileSafari, MobileMail, even the Calculator, all run with full root privileges. Any security flaw in any iPhone application can lead to a complete system compromise. A rootkit takes on a whole new meaning when the attacker has access to the camera, microphone, contact list, and phone hardware. Couple this with "always-on" internet access over EDGE and you have a perfect spying device.
Well, that's pretty straightforward. There are already third party applications that turn a smart phone into a spying device, but you need physical access to that particular device in order to install them. The difference with the iPhone, according to this report, is that once you find a security hole you could install that sort of spyware remotely, via the wireless connection.
That led to a Computerworld article which says basically that viruses and other malware could spread from one iPhone directly to another without the user ever being aware of it (link). I'm not too alarmed by that just yet, because there isn't a critical mass of iPhones in any one geographic location to infect each other. But it could be interesting the next time there's a big gathering of iPhone users. Macworld, anyone?
To me the more troubling part of the report was the root privileges thing. I'm not a Unix expert, so I talked to someone who is. He confirmed that applications with root privileges in Unix can do just about anything. Unix is designed to empower programmers, and the assumption is that someone with root access knows what they are doing and can be trusted. (You can read some similar commentary in a eWeek column here).
There are ways to prevent third party applications from having root access, but the disturbing possibility (and I'm speculating here) is that Apple may have stripped out those protections in order to reduce the memory requirements of the iPhone and make it run faster. If that's the case, my friend said, it may be a pretty involved project for Apple to add those protections back in. Not at all impossible, but requiring a lot of work and time.
Through my years in the industry, I've done a lot of research on technology users. One of the things I've learned is that security problems are a great way to scare people away from a new technology device. If it even sounds insecure, a lot of people will stay away from it. Based on what I'm seeing online, there is a lot of evidence that the iPhone as currently structured is a genuinely insecure device once any uncontrolled third party applications get onto it. What's more, keeping third party apps off your own iPhone does not necessarily protect you, because malicious software could propagate from device to device.
If I were working at Apple, and this were the situation, what would I do? Well, first I would not want to acknowledge the vulnerability, because that itself would scare away customers. Second, I would do everything in my power to shut down all third party native application development. Squash it, kill it completely. And I'd be willing to take a lot of criticism for doing so because the alternative, acknowledging the security problem, would produce even more bad PR.
Let me be very clear here: I'm not saying that I know this is what's going on at Apple; I don't. And I'm not trying to start any nasty rumors (they are already out there). I should also point out that some reports on iPhone security have been a lot less alarmist (for example, here is Symantec's take from early July). But that was before the latest reports surfaced.
I think we need to ask whether Apple botched the security of the iPhone in the belief that people wouldn't try to add apps to it. They could easily have made that assumption; there have been comparatively few efforts to add apps to the iPod, after all. But the publicity for the iPhone, and Apple's bragging that OS X was in it, made it an irresistible target for hacking.
If Apple really does have a security problem in the iPhone, I don't think they will be able to keep it quiet. Experience shows that the best approach in this sort of situation is to come clean about the problem, take your lumps, and fix it as soon as you can. That way you at least retain your reputation for honesty. If the iPhone really is vulnerable, Apple risks ending up with the worst of all possible worlds -- it'll damage its reputation for honesty, piss off a lot of technophiles, and people will still hear that the iPhone is insecure.
It will be interesting to see how Apple handles this issue in the weeks to come.
=====
Thanks to John Hering at Flexilis for pointing me to the Computerworld story.
The war between Nokia and Apple
"When two elephants fight, the loser is the jungle." --Ancient proverb
And so it begins.
The Apple-Nokia war finally got underway on August 29, when Nokia announced an array of new music-capable phones and an online music store. The two companies had been eyeing one-another like wrestlers outside the ring for more than a year. Apple entered the mobile phone market, but only in the US, where Nokia is a non-factor. Nokia openly declared that it's a computing company (link), but its non-phone products so far have been different flavors of lame.
But the August 29 announcements put Nokia and Apple on a path to direct confrontation. I haven't seen a lot written online about the importance of this conflict. I think that's probably because many of the people who follow Apple's business closely are based in the US and have trouble taking Nokia seriously because it's a secondary player here. Meanwhile, Nokia's most ardent followers are in Europe, and look at Nokia's actions in light of its regional conflicts with SonyEricsson and the European mobile operators.
But when you stand back and look at what's happening in the industry worldwide, it's clear that Apple and Nokia both want very badly to be the dominant mobile computing company for young adults. That makes a huge, relentless conflict between them inevitable. They're like two armies trying to take the same hill. One's coming from the west, the other from the east, so there's not a lot of fighting at the moment. But as soon as they reach the hill, there's going to be an explosion.
I don't know who will win, but I'm pretty sure that the main losers will be all of the other device companies and mobile operators who happen to be hanging around on the hill.
My advice to them: Run.
What Nokia announced, and why it matters
On the 29th, Nokia announced four phones, two new data services for its phones, and a new brand. Let's start with the services.
The Nokia Music Store is just what the name says, an online music store run by Nokia. It'll be accessible by both PC and selected Nokia phones. The N81 and N95 will be able to talk to the store directly, while for a number of other Nokia phones you'll be able to buy music on your PC and sync it to your phone (Nokia calls this process "sideloading").
Nokia will offer more purchase options than iTunes does. You can either buy and download individual titles (for one euro a song, a euro cent above iTunes), or you can subscribe to the store and stream all the music you want to your PC (but not save it) for ten euros a month.
Nokia positions the streaming service as a way to discover new tunes, after which you're supposed to buy and download the ones you want to keep. I can understand the practical reasons for not streaming from the store directly to phones -- there would be issues with data charges, network capacity, latency, and so on. But I don't know how users will feel about that. If I had a streaming account on my PC, I think I'd expect to have the same service on my Nokia phone. And why wouldn't you want to discover new music while you're on the go?
The bigger problem is that the 120 euros you pay a year for a streaming service is 120 songs you could have bought and kept forever. That's one new song every three days. For comparison, the average iTunes user buys three songs a month. A music subscription service is a great way to get access to a lot of music quickly, but unless you want a colossally large music collection, it's a huge financial drain in the long run (I wrote more on the economics of it here). No wonder the music industry loves the idea of subscriptions (link).
The re- rebirth of nGage. The other new service Nokia announced was a mobile game store. You'll be able to try games for free on your Nokia mobile or PC, and then after purchase you can use them on the PC or sync them to your phone (curiously, Nokia calls this process "installation.") Nokia also promises multiplayer and community features.
Price per game will be six to ten euros, and Nokia says you'll be able to pay by credit card or through your phone bill if the operator enables that. No word on what the revenue split is.
The service sounds pretty interesting to me. The most confusing thing about it is the name. The nGage service won't work with all of Nokia's N-series phones. I know there's no official tie between N-series and nGage (the names were apparently chosen separately), but try explaining that to a typical customer in a store. Nokia has struggled and failed for years to explain to customers the S60 platform that it uses in a lot of its phones; picture adding yet another layer of confusion on top of that (link).
I think the other important challenge to nGage is flash. There's a huge supply of free flash-based games on the web, and a lot of them are the sort of quick-reward, easy to use games that seem to do well on mobile devices. The biggest barrier to using them on mobiles is that Adobe charges for the mobile flash player, and so relatively few mobile phones have it installed. A small installed base of phones means that most developers don't target mobile flash. If Adobe ever drops the charge for the flash player, or if a free flash-equivalent comes along (perhaps a mobile version of Microsoft Silverlight), it might become very difficult to convince people to pay for nGage games.
I know nGage provides a higher-quality gaming experience than flash, but I'm not sure most mobile users will care enough to pay.
Ovi is a new brand that Nokia will use as a wrapper for all of its mobile services, including games, music, maps, photo sharing, and presumably more to come (link). I guess that makes sense from a convenience standpoint -- there will be one website (ovi.com) where you can go to discover all of the Nokia services (Nokia employees say that it will also be a gateway to the services of other companies as well ). Unfortunately, Ovi apparently won't work as a compatibility mark: the phones that can use one Ovi service can't necessarily use another. For example, many of the phones that can run nGage games can't directly connect to the music service. A brand is most effective when it represents a coherent idea or consistent product. I think Ovi creates an expectation of coherence but doesn't deliver it. It just says that Nokia's in the service business, which Nokia cares about but is not something that concerns users
If Nokia doesn't make all the Ovi services work on all its data-capable phones quickly, I think the varied incompatibilities between the Nokia services and devices are going to be a nightmare to explain at retail.
The four new phones
The N95 8GB adds more memory to Nokia's flagship Swiss army knife phone, which includes a 5 mp camera, improved 3G, WiFi, and GPS. This is the one that online reviewers always compare to the iPhone. It works with both nGage and the music store, and its base price is 580 euros before subsidy.
The N81 is a slider phone with WiFi and 3G, and has dedicated buttons to access both nGage and the music store. It'll sell for 430 euros pre-subsidy.
The 5310 is a slimline candybar phone that can play music synced from the Nokia music store. It cannot access the music store directly. It has dedicated music controls next to the screen, and its base price is 225 euros.
The 5610 is similar to the 5310, but adds a slider and built-in camera. Its base price is 300 euros. A lot of online reviewers have been comparing this and the 5310 to the SonyEricsson Walkman phones, and I think that was probably Nokia's thinking. But hold that thought because it's not necessarily how things will work out.
What's the impact? A huge amount depends on execution. How well will Nokia's new services integrate with the phones? How easy will it be to play songs and games? How many titles will be in the Nokia stores, and how good will they be? Services and mobile devices often live or die on the little details of usability, and we can't judge that for Nokia yet because we can't play with the new products and services.
But Nokia's direction is very clear. It wants to be in the mobile Internet services business, as both a developer and publisher of content and services. It's going to tie those services directly to its phones. And knowing Nokia, it'll keep iterating on both the phones and the services until it gets them right.
That's why Apple and Nokia are now at war. Even if Nokia's current products turn out to be lame, it's going straight into the territory that Apple has been pursuing ever since the first iPod shipped.
Apple's new products. I should add a little context on Apple's recent product announcements. In September, Apple made a lot of changes to the iTunes and iPod lineup. The move that got the most attention was the price cut of the iPhone from $599 to $399. I'll write more about that below. The other changes that stood out to me were:
--iTunes can now be accessed via WiFi on the iPhone and iPod Touch. This corrects a glaring weakness in the original iPhone. It's interesting that Apple apparently hasn't enabled the iPhone to talk to the store over a cellular connection. That may be because the network the iPhone uses in the US is too slow to easily download music, or it may be that AT&T doesn't want a lot of data traffic going over its network when the phone's data plan is flat-rate.
--The video version of the Nano, starting at $199, is a heck of a lot of technology in a very cute little package.
--The iPod Touch is basically an iPhone without the microphone and cellular radio. It makes a really interesting PDA for people who want to buy a basic voice phone and carry their entertainment separately. It's priced at $299.
(As an aside, I have a request: Once the iPod Touch starts selling like gangbusters, would someone please go find the person at Sony who decided the Clie handheld business was a dead end, and kick them in the shins?)
Relative strengths of the competitors
Or, how to piss off both Apple fans and Nokia fans in the same post.
Apple and Nokia are very different companies. Here are their relative strengths:
Resources. No contest. Although Apple is a very successful company, Nokia has vastly more financial resources.
Logistics. Nokia is one of the greatest logistics companies on the planet. It churns out hundreds of millions of phones, changes models frequently, and almost everything works properly. If Nokia were running the US Federal Emergency Management Agency, New Orleans would be 20 feet above sea level by now. Apple, by contrast, does a very competent job of managing contract manufacturers in Asia. Advantage Nokia.
Telephony experience. Another huge Nokia advantage. Designing phones and getting them qualified on networks is really tricky, and Nokia knows how to do it better than anyone else.
System design skill. This is Apple's core competence; it knows how to design hardware and software together to create a beautifully integrated system. Nokia's phones often appear as if their hardware and software were designed by completely different groups and slapped together at the last minute (because, in many cases, that's exactly what happened). This works great in commodity phones, but if the competition is for who can create the most elegant data experience, Nokia is at a huge disadvantage.
Brand power. Wow, this is a tough one. Apple has one of the coolest brands on the planet. Nokia's brand is beloved in Europe, and in most of the world it personifies upward mobility (except in the US and Japan). I call this one a tie.
User interface. Apple knows how to design these. The kindest thing you can say about Nokia's interface designs is that they're better than many other phone manufacturers. But that's like comparing a three-legged dog to a two-legged dog. Nokia's trying to get better -- at the announcement event, it showed video of a forthcoming device with an iPhone-style touchscreen (link). But for now, this one's clearly a strong Apple advantage.
Cleverness. Hey, it's Steve. Nokia's management is extremely smart, but you look to them for great operational execution, not brilliant strategy. After all, this is the company that brought us the original nGage.
Industrial design. I'm going to get flamed by the Nokia fans for this, but Apple has a clear advantage in design. The comparison: Nokia sometimes creates a great design. Apple rarely creates anything less than a great design.
Music solution. You'd think this would be an overwhelming advantage for Apple, but its arrogant handling of the music companies has made them even more desperate to tear Steve Jobs' throat out. They're anxious to work with someone like Nokia. Apple still has an advantage, but it has opened the door to competitors more than it had to.
Breadth. Nokia can fight on more fronts, and might be able to outflank Apple. For instance, Nokia's revived nGage game service gives it a second interesting offering for young people, whereas Apple is limited to just music and video. This is why I think Apple's decision not to open the iPhone to third party app developers is a huge mistake. If Apple had the help of third party developers, it could more easily fill out its software portfolio.
How they'll fight
Nokia wants a war of attrition. It will try to force Apple to compete on more fronts than it can afford to cover. I think we should expect to see a broad array of services added to Ovi quickly, aimed at enticing young adults in all sorts of different ways. Nokia will probably also launch a blizzard of media and entertainment phones with varied features, in the hope that a couple of them will hit sweet spots in the market.
Apple's game is to keep Nokia off balance and grab the most important opportunities. Think of a fencing expert: dodge, feint, and then stab the other guy in the heart. Apple currently has a product advantage -- its music service is already working. So it will try to capture as many customers as it can before Nokia gets its act together.
Apple can also use Nokia's size against it. Nokia has a huge product line and has to position each product carefully within it. Apple has only one phone, so it doesn't have much to protect. That's where the iPhone price cut comes in. The iPhone had been positioned against the n95, at the top of Nokia's product line. With the price cut, the iPhone is now looks much closer to the middle of Nokia's line, the phones that were supposed to be aimed at SonyEricsson.* Nokia can't slash the pricing of the n95 without screwing up the prices of its entire line, so with one price action Apple accomplished two things -- it can reach a lot more customers, and it forced Nokia to go back and rethink its competitiveness.
We should expect more surprise moves from Apple. It's more important for them to keep Nokia off balance than it is to please every customer. I think that's why Apple was willing to piss off the iPhone loyalists with a sudden, large price cut.
*Because of varying subsidies, it's hard to tell what the actual street price comparison between the new n95 and iPhone will be. The current n95 sometimes gets subsidized down by several hundred dollars if you buy a multiyear service contract. Maybe the new n95 will be subsidized down below iPhone prices. Maybe the iPhone will be subsidized too. Or maybe now that Nokia's offering its own services the operators will refuse to keep subsidizing the n95. We need to wait until the iPhone and Nokia's new services premiere in Europe this fall.
Impacts of the war: Alas, the innocent bystanders
The common denominator between Apple and Nokia is the imperative to move quickly. Nokia wants to broaden the competition fast, Apple wants to keep surprising Nokia with new features, products, and other changes. That's going to accelerate the pace of change in the mobile industry. And the accelerating pace of change, rather than anything in particular that Apple or Nokia have done today, is the biggest challenge to the rest of the industry. The other players have been struggling to keep up with the current rate of change; what will they do when Apple and Nokia step on the gas?
I've seen these situations before. You think you're just about keeping up with a competitor, and suddenly they disappear in a cloud of dust. I believe that's about to happen in mobile phones.
A shift from hardware design to systems design. Let's look at which companies have been most successful in smartphones: RIM creates e-mail phone systems that combine hardware, software, and services. DoCoMo and the other Japanese operators drive systems designs that combine hardware, software, and services. The iPhone does the same. Previously, those competitors were confined to particular countries or relatively small vertical markets, but now the world's biggest phone company is trying to do the same thing. That raises the competitive bar for everyone else in the industry.
What are companies like Samsung and Motorola supposed to do? They don't know how to create their own services, let alone integrate one well with a phone. In the music market, there are a lot of third party services out there, but none of them have been effective so far at challenging iTunes. I think they're not strong enough to change the competitive situation. Same thing for the operator services.
So the music phone market looks ugly. What's worse, if Nokia and the systems companies extend their new design approach to other data markets, the traditional mobile phone companies might be cut out of most of the big growth opportunities. They need to learn a new set of skills instantly, and they're far behind the curve.
The interesting potential exception to this situation is SonyEricsson, the leading vendor of music-enabled phones in Europe. Their hardware's nice, and they have a clean user interface that looks inspired by the iPod. Because I'm in the US, I don't have a good read on how smoothly the SonyEricsson phones integrate with operator and third party music stores. Is the experience as easy as using iTunes?
The Register says that Omnifone's Music Station is a promising possibility (link), but it's a subscription service costing 3 euros ($4.11) per week. For that same price you could buy 216 songs on iTunes per year, and at the end of the year you'd actually own something.
I really have trouble seeing the long-term economic benefit of a music subscription service for a user. If you subscribe to one, please post a comment and educate me.
SonyEricsson's management hinted to Time Magazine that it may create its own music service (link). If so, it had better hurry up. I have a lot of respect for SonyEricsson's hardware designs, but if it's limited to music stores with weird business models and ones that don't integrate seamlessly with its phones, it's going to have a very hard time outcompeting an accelerating Apple and a Nokia that's learning to integrate solutions.
Microsoft: Reverse course, again. This is the situation in which Microsoft could have stepped in to offer a music service to the phone companies challenged by Nokia. But in an exquisitely ironic move, Microsoft basically shot its licensed music store initiative last year in order to support the proprietary Zune. Now it can't step up to the opportunity.
Oops.
Microsoft is probably too late to recover in music, but as Nokia adds new services there should be a lot of opportunities to license equivalents of them to Nokia's competitors. Microsoft should focus less on selling its own OS, which scares the phone companies, and more on delivering services they can build into their phones.
And oh by the way, it's time to bury Zune. The iPod Touch just lapped it. If Microsoft wants to lose money on proprietary hardware, it should focus on Xbox. At least there it's buying market share for its money.
The operators lose control. They were struggling to establish their own services suites back when things were moving slowly. Now that Apple and Nokia are shifting into high gear, I don't see how the operators can keep up.
You can find very different scenarios online for where this will lead. Andrew at the Register predicts that the operators may strangle Ovi by refusing to sell any phones that support it (link). He has a good quote from someone who knows both Nokia and the operators:
On the other hand, Richard Windsor, the excellent telecom analyst working for Nomura Securities in London, said in an e-mail brief that the operators are doomed:
Who will be right? It depends on Nokia's ability to generate user demand for its services. If the users want the services, the operators will have to go along with it. I assume Nokia understands this and is prepared to do a big marketing push. Unlike Nokia's previous efforts to set up content portals, this time it has to succeed or it surrenders the future to Apple. So the conflict with Apple also locks Nokia into a war with the operators.
Isn't this fun?
If I were running a mobile operator, I'd stop trying to create my own services bundle, and focus on enabling as many Internet companies as possible to deliver services on my network, in exchange for a small cut of their revenue. An operator with the innovation of the open Internet behind it might be able to keep up with Nokia and Apple. But an operator working alone will be very lonely indeed.
What does it mean for users? You'd think that all this new competition would be good for users, and in many ways I'm sure it will be. But Apple and Nokia are both showing a disturbing tendency to keep everything proprietary. The iPhone is not open to third party developers, and at this point Ovi appears to be about marketing Nokia services, not opening up the richness of the Internet. (To be fair, Nokia employees say that will change, but I'm not sure if they mean that they'll offer access to any Internet service, or just to some selected ones that they cut a deal with. I suspect it'll be the latter.)
Welcome our new Apple and Nokia overlords. There's a disturbing possibility that we may end up exchanging one set of walled gardens for another. They'll be lavish, beautiful gardens, far better than the operators' truck farms for data. But we may not get the open data marketplaces that a lot of people have been hoping for.
If you want to read other perspectives on Nokia vs. Apple, check these out:
-A confident view from Finland (link)
-A cautious view from Jupiter Research (link)
-An outstanding article by Mark Halper at Time, with quotes from Nokia and SonyEricsson (link).
And so it begins.
The Apple-Nokia war finally got underway on August 29, when Nokia announced an array of new music-capable phones and an online music store. The two companies had been eyeing one-another like wrestlers outside the ring for more than a year. Apple entered the mobile phone market, but only in the US, where Nokia is a non-factor. Nokia openly declared that it's a computing company (link), but its non-phone products so far have been different flavors of lame.
But the August 29 announcements put Nokia and Apple on a path to direct confrontation. I haven't seen a lot written online about the importance of this conflict. I think that's probably because many of the people who follow Apple's business closely are based in the US and have trouble taking Nokia seriously because it's a secondary player here. Meanwhile, Nokia's most ardent followers are in Europe, and look at Nokia's actions in light of its regional conflicts with SonyEricsson and the European mobile operators.
But when you stand back and look at what's happening in the industry worldwide, it's clear that Apple and Nokia both want very badly to be the dominant mobile computing company for young adults. That makes a huge, relentless conflict between them inevitable. They're like two armies trying to take the same hill. One's coming from the west, the other from the east, so there's not a lot of fighting at the moment. But as soon as they reach the hill, there's going to be an explosion.
I don't know who will win, but I'm pretty sure that the main losers will be all of the other device companies and mobile operators who happen to be hanging around on the hill.
My advice to them: Run.
What Nokia announced, and why it matters
On the 29th, Nokia announced four phones, two new data services for its phones, and a new brand. Let's start with the services.
The Nokia Music Store is just what the name says, an online music store run by Nokia. It'll be accessible by both PC and selected Nokia phones. The N81 and N95 will be able to talk to the store directly, while for a number of other Nokia phones you'll be able to buy music on your PC and sync it to your phone (Nokia calls this process "sideloading").
Nokia will offer more purchase options than iTunes does. You can either buy and download individual titles (for one euro a song, a euro cent above iTunes), or you can subscribe to the store and stream all the music you want to your PC (but not save it) for ten euros a month.
Nokia positions the streaming service as a way to discover new tunes, after which you're supposed to buy and download the ones you want to keep. I can understand the practical reasons for not streaming from the store directly to phones -- there would be issues with data charges, network capacity, latency, and so on. But I don't know how users will feel about that. If I had a streaming account on my PC, I think I'd expect to have the same service on my Nokia phone. And why wouldn't you want to discover new music while you're on the go?
The bigger problem is that the 120 euros you pay a year for a streaming service is 120 songs you could have bought and kept forever. That's one new song every three days. For comparison, the average iTunes user buys three songs a month. A music subscription service is a great way to get access to a lot of music quickly, but unless you want a colossally large music collection, it's a huge financial drain in the long run (I wrote more on the economics of it here). No wonder the music industry loves the idea of subscriptions (link).
The re- rebirth of nGage. The other new service Nokia announced was a mobile game store. You'll be able to try games for free on your Nokia mobile or PC, and then after purchase you can use them on the PC or sync them to your phone (curiously, Nokia calls this process "installation.") Nokia also promises multiplayer and community features.
Price per game will be six to ten euros, and Nokia says you'll be able to pay by credit card or through your phone bill if the operator enables that. No word on what the revenue split is.
The service sounds pretty interesting to me. The most confusing thing about it is the name. The nGage service won't work with all of Nokia's N-series phones. I know there's no official tie between N-series and nGage (the names were apparently chosen separately), but try explaining that to a typical customer in a store. Nokia has struggled and failed for years to explain to customers the S60 platform that it uses in a lot of its phones; picture adding yet another layer of confusion on top of that (link).
I think the other important challenge to nGage is flash. There's a huge supply of free flash-based games on the web, and a lot of them are the sort of quick-reward, easy to use games that seem to do well on mobile devices. The biggest barrier to using them on mobiles is that Adobe charges for the mobile flash player, and so relatively few mobile phones have it installed. A small installed base of phones means that most developers don't target mobile flash. If Adobe ever drops the charge for the flash player, or if a free flash-equivalent comes along (perhaps a mobile version of Microsoft Silverlight), it might become very difficult to convince people to pay for nGage games.
I know nGage provides a higher-quality gaming experience than flash, but I'm not sure most mobile users will care enough to pay.
Ovi is a new brand that Nokia will use as a wrapper for all of its mobile services, including games, music, maps, photo sharing, and presumably more to come (link). I guess that makes sense from a convenience standpoint -- there will be one website (ovi.com) where you can go to discover all of the Nokia services (Nokia employees say that it will also be a gateway to the services of other companies as well ). Unfortunately, Ovi apparently won't work as a compatibility mark: the phones that can use one Ovi service can't necessarily use another. For example, many of the phones that can run nGage games can't directly connect to the music service. A brand is most effective when it represents a coherent idea or consistent product. I think Ovi creates an expectation of coherence but doesn't deliver it. It just says that Nokia's in the service business, which Nokia cares about but is not something that concerns users
If Nokia doesn't make all the Ovi services work on all its data-capable phones quickly, I think the varied incompatibilities between the Nokia services and devices are going to be a nightmare to explain at retail.
The four new phones
The N95 8GB adds more memory to Nokia's flagship Swiss army knife phone, which includes a 5 mp camera, improved 3G, WiFi, and GPS. This is the one that online reviewers always compare to the iPhone. It works with both nGage and the music store, and its base price is 580 euros before subsidy.
The N81 is a slider phone with WiFi and 3G, and has dedicated buttons to access both nGage and the music store. It'll sell for 430 euros pre-subsidy.
The 5310 is a slimline candybar phone that can play music synced from the Nokia music store. It cannot access the music store directly. It has dedicated music controls next to the screen, and its base price is 225 euros.
The 5610 is similar to the 5310, but adds a slider and built-in camera. Its base price is 300 euros. A lot of online reviewers have been comparing this and the 5310 to the SonyEricsson Walkman phones, and I think that was probably Nokia's thinking. But hold that thought because it's not necessarily how things will work out.
What's the impact? A huge amount depends on execution. How well will Nokia's new services integrate with the phones? How easy will it be to play songs and games? How many titles will be in the Nokia stores, and how good will they be? Services and mobile devices often live or die on the little details of usability, and we can't judge that for Nokia yet because we can't play with the new products and services.
But Nokia's direction is very clear. It wants to be in the mobile Internet services business, as both a developer and publisher of content and services. It's going to tie those services directly to its phones. And knowing Nokia, it'll keep iterating on both the phones and the services until it gets them right.
That's why Apple and Nokia are now at war. Even if Nokia's current products turn out to be lame, it's going straight into the territory that Apple has been pursuing ever since the first iPod shipped.
Apple's new products. I should add a little context on Apple's recent product announcements. In September, Apple made a lot of changes to the iTunes and iPod lineup. The move that got the most attention was the price cut of the iPhone from $599 to $399. I'll write more about that below. The other changes that stood out to me were:
--iTunes can now be accessed via WiFi on the iPhone and iPod Touch. This corrects a glaring weakness in the original iPhone. It's interesting that Apple apparently hasn't enabled the iPhone to talk to the store over a cellular connection. That may be because the network the iPhone uses in the US is too slow to easily download music, or it may be that AT&T doesn't want a lot of data traffic going over its network when the phone's data plan is flat-rate.
--The video version of the Nano, starting at $199, is a heck of a lot of technology in a very cute little package.
--The iPod Touch is basically an iPhone without the microphone and cellular radio. It makes a really interesting PDA for people who want to buy a basic voice phone and carry their entertainment separately. It's priced at $299.
(As an aside, I have a request: Once the iPod Touch starts selling like gangbusters, would someone please go find the person at Sony who decided the Clie handheld business was a dead end, and kick them in the shins?)
Relative strengths of the competitors
Or, how to piss off both Apple fans and Nokia fans in the same post.
Apple and Nokia are very different companies. Here are their relative strengths:
Resources. No contest. Although Apple is a very successful company, Nokia has vastly more financial resources.
Logistics. Nokia is one of the greatest logistics companies on the planet. It churns out hundreds of millions of phones, changes models frequently, and almost everything works properly. If Nokia were running the US Federal Emergency Management Agency, New Orleans would be 20 feet above sea level by now. Apple, by contrast, does a very competent job of managing contract manufacturers in Asia. Advantage Nokia.
Telephony experience. Another huge Nokia advantage. Designing phones and getting them qualified on networks is really tricky, and Nokia knows how to do it better than anyone else.
System design skill. This is Apple's core competence; it knows how to design hardware and software together to create a beautifully integrated system. Nokia's phones often appear as if their hardware and software were designed by completely different groups and slapped together at the last minute (because, in many cases, that's exactly what happened). This works great in commodity phones, but if the competition is for who can create the most elegant data experience, Nokia is at a huge disadvantage.
Brand power. Wow, this is a tough one. Apple has one of the coolest brands on the planet. Nokia's brand is beloved in Europe, and in most of the world it personifies upward mobility (except in the US and Japan). I call this one a tie.
User interface. Apple knows how to design these. The kindest thing you can say about Nokia's interface designs is that they're better than many other phone manufacturers. But that's like comparing a three-legged dog to a two-legged dog. Nokia's trying to get better -- at the announcement event, it showed video of a forthcoming device with an iPhone-style touchscreen (link). But for now, this one's clearly a strong Apple advantage.
Cleverness. Hey, it's Steve. Nokia's management is extremely smart, but you look to them for great operational execution, not brilliant strategy. After all, this is the company that brought us the original nGage.
Industrial design. I'm going to get flamed by the Nokia fans for this, but Apple has a clear advantage in design. The comparison: Nokia sometimes creates a great design. Apple rarely creates anything less than a great design.
Music solution. You'd think this would be an overwhelming advantage for Apple, but its arrogant handling of the music companies has made them even more desperate to tear Steve Jobs' throat out. They're anxious to work with someone like Nokia. Apple still has an advantage, but it has opened the door to competitors more than it had to.
Breadth. Nokia can fight on more fronts, and might be able to outflank Apple. For instance, Nokia's revived nGage game service gives it a second interesting offering for young people, whereas Apple is limited to just music and video. This is why I think Apple's decision not to open the iPhone to third party app developers is a huge mistake. If Apple had the help of third party developers, it could more easily fill out its software portfolio.
How they'll fight
Nokia wants a war of attrition. It will try to force Apple to compete on more fronts than it can afford to cover. I think we should expect to see a broad array of services added to Ovi quickly, aimed at enticing young adults in all sorts of different ways. Nokia will probably also launch a blizzard of media and entertainment phones with varied features, in the hope that a couple of them will hit sweet spots in the market.
Apple's game is to keep Nokia off balance and grab the most important opportunities. Think of a fencing expert: dodge, feint, and then stab the other guy in the heart. Apple currently has a product advantage -- its music service is already working. So it will try to capture as many customers as it can before Nokia gets its act together.
Apple can also use Nokia's size against it. Nokia has a huge product line and has to position each product carefully within it. Apple has only one phone, so it doesn't have much to protect. That's where the iPhone price cut comes in. The iPhone had been positioned against the n95, at the top of Nokia's product line. With the price cut, the iPhone is now looks much closer to the middle of Nokia's line, the phones that were supposed to be aimed at SonyEricsson.* Nokia can't slash the pricing of the n95 without screwing up the prices of its entire line, so with one price action Apple accomplished two things -- it can reach a lot more customers, and it forced Nokia to go back and rethink its competitiveness.
We should expect more surprise moves from Apple. It's more important for them to keep Nokia off balance than it is to please every customer. I think that's why Apple was willing to piss off the iPhone loyalists with a sudden, large price cut.
*Because of varying subsidies, it's hard to tell what the actual street price comparison between the new n95 and iPhone will be. The current n95 sometimes gets subsidized down by several hundred dollars if you buy a multiyear service contract. Maybe the new n95 will be subsidized down below iPhone prices. Maybe the iPhone will be subsidized too. Or maybe now that Nokia's offering its own services the operators will refuse to keep subsidizing the n95. We need to wait until the iPhone and Nokia's new services premiere in Europe this fall.
Impacts of the war: Alas, the innocent bystanders
The common denominator between Apple and Nokia is the imperative to move quickly. Nokia wants to broaden the competition fast, Apple wants to keep surprising Nokia with new features, products, and other changes. That's going to accelerate the pace of change in the mobile industry. And the accelerating pace of change, rather than anything in particular that Apple or Nokia have done today, is the biggest challenge to the rest of the industry. The other players have been struggling to keep up with the current rate of change; what will they do when Apple and Nokia step on the gas?
I've seen these situations before. You think you're just about keeping up with a competitor, and suddenly they disappear in a cloud of dust. I believe that's about to happen in mobile phones.
A shift from hardware design to systems design. Let's look at which companies have been most successful in smartphones: RIM creates e-mail phone systems that combine hardware, software, and services. DoCoMo and the other Japanese operators drive systems designs that combine hardware, software, and services. The iPhone does the same. Previously, those competitors were confined to particular countries or relatively small vertical markets, but now the world's biggest phone company is trying to do the same thing. That raises the competitive bar for everyone else in the industry.
What are companies like Samsung and Motorola supposed to do? They don't know how to create their own services, let alone integrate one well with a phone. In the music market, there are a lot of third party services out there, but none of them have been effective so far at challenging iTunes. I think they're not strong enough to change the competitive situation. Same thing for the operator services.
So the music phone market looks ugly. What's worse, if Nokia and the systems companies extend their new design approach to other data markets, the traditional mobile phone companies might be cut out of most of the big growth opportunities. They need to learn a new set of skills instantly, and they're far behind the curve.
The interesting potential exception to this situation is SonyEricsson, the leading vendor of music-enabled phones in Europe. Their hardware's nice, and they have a clean user interface that looks inspired by the iPod. Because I'm in the US, I don't have a good read on how smoothly the SonyEricsson phones integrate with operator and third party music stores. Is the experience as easy as using iTunes?
The Register says that Omnifone's Music Station is a promising possibility (link), but it's a subscription service costing 3 euros ($4.11) per week. For that same price you could buy 216 songs on iTunes per year, and at the end of the year you'd actually own something.
I really have trouble seeing the long-term economic benefit of a music subscription service for a user. If you subscribe to one, please post a comment and educate me.
SonyEricsson's management hinted to Time Magazine that it may create its own music service (link). If so, it had better hurry up. I have a lot of respect for SonyEricsson's hardware designs, but if it's limited to music stores with weird business models and ones that don't integrate seamlessly with its phones, it's going to have a very hard time outcompeting an accelerating Apple and a Nokia that's learning to integrate solutions.
Microsoft: Reverse course, again. This is the situation in which Microsoft could have stepped in to offer a music service to the phone companies challenged by Nokia. But in an exquisitely ironic move, Microsoft basically shot its licensed music store initiative last year in order to support the proprietary Zune. Now it can't step up to the opportunity.
Oops.
Microsoft is probably too late to recover in music, but as Nokia adds new services there should be a lot of opportunities to license equivalents of them to Nokia's competitors. Microsoft should focus less on selling its own OS, which scares the phone companies, and more on delivering services they can build into their phones.
And oh by the way, it's time to bury Zune. The iPod Touch just lapped it. If Microsoft wants to lose money on proprietary hardware, it should focus on Xbox. At least there it's buying market share for its money.
The operators lose control. They were struggling to establish their own services suites back when things were moving slowly. Now that Apple and Nokia are shifting into high gear, I don't see how the operators can keep up.
You can find very different scenarios online for where this will lead. Andrew at the Register predicts that the operators may strangle Ovi by refusing to sell any phones that support it (link). He has a good quote from someone who knows both Nokia and the operators:
The operators own the relationship with the customer. They're not going to allow Nokia to own it.
On the other hand, Richard Windsor, the excellent telecom analyst working for Nomura Securities in London, said in an e-mail brief that the operators are doomed:
Through their inaction, mobile operators have squandered the opportunity to be the service integrator for mobile and are left with the prospect of offering nothing to users except commodity data packets.
Who will be right? It depends on Nokia's ability to generate user demand for its services. If the users want the services, the operators will have to go along with it. I assume Nokia understands this and is prepared to do a big marketing push. Unlike Nokia's previous efforts to set up content portals, this time it has to succeed or it surrenders the future to Apple. So the conflict with Apple also locks Nokia into a war with the operators.
Isn't this fun?
If I were running a mobile operator, I'd stop trying to create my own services bundle, and focus on enabling as many Internet companies as possible to deliver services on my network, in exchange for a small cut of their revenue. An operator with the innovation of the open Internet behind it might be able to keep up with Nokia and Apple. But an operator working alone will be very lonely indeed.
What does it mean for users? You'd think that all this new competition would be good for users, and in many ways I'm sure it will be. But Apple and Nokia are both showing a disturbing tendency to keep everything proprietary. The iPhone is not open to third party developers, and at this point Ovi appears to be about marketing Nokia services, not opening up the richness of the Internet. (To be fair, Nokia employees say that will change, but I'm not sure if they mean that they'll offer access to any Internet service, or just to some selected ones that they cut a deal with. I suspect it'll be the latter.)
Welcome our new Apple and Nokia overlords. There's a disturbing possibility that we may end up exchanging one set of walled gardens for another. They'll be lavish, beautiful gardens, far better than the operators' truck farms for data. But we may not get the open data marketplaces that a lot of people have been hoping for.
If you want to read other perspectives on Nokia vs. Apple, check these out:
-A confident view from Finland (link)
-A cautious view from Jupiter Research (link)
-An outstanding article by Mark Halper at Time, with quotes from Nokia and SonyEricsson (link).
The (partial) state of the mobile data market
Despite all the hype and excitement about the mobile data market, it is very difficult to get reliable data on how it's actually developing. The mobile operators don't like to release full details of their sales, and surveys of users cost a lot of money to conduct and therefore are usually available only to people who pay.
We're left to chew on anecdotes, partial information released by companies that are trying to push a point of view, and unscientific "polls" of online enthusiasts.
So I'm always on the lookout for more rigorous information. Recently I came across several fairly good sources of data, and they give some interesting perspectives on what's happening with mobile data. It is by no means a complete view, and most of it is US only. But I think it's worth sharing.
Steady, unspectacular growth
The overall picture of mobile data is one of steady but unspectacular growth. It's a bit like watching a tree grow -- you can't see anything changing day to day, but if you walk away and come back in six months you'll notice the difference. SMS continues to be the dominant service, especially in Europe, and there's no sign of some other service surpassing it.
Is the growth rate good or bad? It all depends on how much growth you were expecting, and how fast you wanted it to happen. The one thing I think is very clear is that each country market is different, and you can't classify any of them as leaders and laggards. They're just unique.
Here are the details:
Capabilities of mobile phones in the US
The Pew Internet organization has been surveying Americans on their Internet usage for years. A couple of the questions in their survey ask about the data capabilities of their mobile phones. In the most recent results, from early 2006, 75% of mobile phone users in the US said their phones are capable of texting. 63% said they can play games, and 39% said they have cameraphones. Here's the full chart:
Nothing there stands out as shocking, although I expected the penetration of cameraphones to be higher. My guess is it has gone up in the last year.
(Note that some people could have capabilities in their phones and not realize it. So the question tells us as much about awareness of features as it does about the phones themselves.)
What people do with their phones: Nothing else rivals SMS
The chart below examines the percent of mobile phone users in the US and several European countries who have ever performed various tasks with their mobile phones. The source is M:Metrics, Q4 2006, and the numbers were quoted in a presentation by Orange / France Telecom.
The figures show that there's no other mobile data service with near the penetration of short messaging service (texting). That's not really news, but it's striking to see the hard numbers. About 80-85% of people in most of the big European countries have ever sent a text message, with France lagging slightly (at about 75%). In the US, almost 40% of mobile phone users report that they have sent a text message.
The next closest service is picture messaging, with 20-30% of mobile users in the big European countries saying they have received photo messages at least once. In the US, the figure is 15%. It's ironic that photo messaging is in second place, since it's generally considered a major disappointment. What does that say about the other services? Well, none of them generally crack 10% usage.
Is the US really a laggard? The other thing in the chart that really stood out to me was that the adoption "lag" of US mobile users varies depending on service. The US is far behind in SMS, MMS, and playing music on the phone (the last one is, I'm sure, due to the strength of the iPod in the US). But in the other categories, the US is in the middle of the pack, or even ahead (somebody explain the ringtone result to me, please).
It's always fun to stereotype the US market as primitive in all areas of wireless, but the adoption numbers don't support that. It just looks different.
What does it all mean? Orange's spin was that it means we're just getting started in mobile data, and everyone should wait patiently for the good services to take off. They showed the following growth projection from Ericsson as evidence:
No offense to Orange, but that is basically a statement of faith rather than analysis. If you're a cynic, you'll point out that the chart assumes compound growth will continue uninterrupted for a decade, something that is often true for technology specs but is rarely true for technology markets.
What we really need is time-series data, so we can see what's growing and what isn't. Unfortunately, Orange didn't present any numbers like that, but the research firm Telephia did, in a separate presentation. Unfortunately, their numbers were US only, and they didn't cut the usage categories in the same way as France Telecom. But they still show some interesting trends...
Mobile data growth in the US
Telephia measures mobile data usage by analyzing the monthly bills of mobile phone users. This should give very accurate information on revenue and number of users, but it doesn't track physical usage. Because some services are billed per-use and some have monthly subscription fees, it's hard to tell how heavily people are using the services listed below.
Telephia reports that billings are growing steadily for a wide range of mobile data services. The chart below shows total US operator revenue for mobile data from Q3 2006 to Q1 2007. (These figures include anything that passes through the user's phone bill. Applications and services paid for separately by the user are not included.)
The chart is in billions of dollars, so it shows that in Q1 2007, total on-deck US data revenue was about $4.6 billion. Is that a big number or a small one? Well, total service revenue for the US mobile operators is about $32.5 billion per quarter, according to the CTIA. So mobile data is about 14% of mobile billings.
Where is e-mail? I can't find e-mail anywhere on the chart. I'm very surprised they didn't break it out separately.
Strangely consistent growth rates. The weirdest thing about the chart is that everything's growing at the same rate. In the real world, that sort of thing doesn't often happen. I wonder if a lot of the growth might be driven by people buying service bundles, where they pay a flat extra rate per month to activate a bunch of different services, and then the revenue gets allocated across the services by the operator. That would cause everything to grow in lockstep.
If that's what's going on, then these numbers really might not say much about usage -- what they'd be tracking is the ability of the operators to sell services bundles.
Anyway, the numbers show that the US operators are making pretty good revenue from mobile data. I didn't make a chart of this, but in general, the growth in mobile data billings is large enough to make up for the ongoing decline in mobile voice revenue. So the operators aren't getting rich, but data is helping to keep them from getting poor.
More details. Telephia lumps a lot of different things in the "Downloads" category. For Q1 2007, they gave more details on that category. So I can't give you a time series, but here's a more fine-cut look at how mobile data revenue looked in the US at the start of 2007:
Premium SMS is mostly ringtones paid for via SMS, plus voting for things like American Idol. Audio is downloading and streaming of songs. The other categories are self-explanatory. I feel bad about the tiny size of the applications category, but keep in mind that most smartphone apps are sold through the web and then synced onto the device, and so don't show up in operator billings.
Number of users per service. Telephia also reported the total number of users for each service. As we saw in the Orange chart, SMS has the most users in the US (although the gap between it and the other services isn't as large as in Europe).
Revenue per user. Combining the user and revenue data, we can estimate monthly billings per user for each service:
You can see why the operators like premium SMS. And look at WAP! It never lived up to the original hype that it would become the mobile version of the Web, but as a tool for getting things like sports scores and weather reports, it's not doing too bad. (Whether it's paying for all the money that was invested in it is another story.) Video's generating the most revenue per user, but with a very tiny user base. Audio revenue (which is revenue from listening to songs, not ringtones) is fairly close to what Apple gets from iTunes users (the average iTunes user downloads about 3.3 songs per month, or about $3.30) (link).
Usage doesn't follow capability. And now for the "big" mashup. We can combine Pew Internet's figures on phone capabilities with Telephia's numbers on service usage to figure out roughly what percent of US mobile customers who know they have a given feature on the phone ever actually use it. The results are interesting:
For communication-related services, the percentage of users is quite high (although remember that we don't know how heavily the features are being used). But most mobile users are not adopting the entertainment features in their phones. That's exactly what you'd expect if only a limited percentage of the population were interested in using their phones for entertainment, which is what a lot of user studies have shown (link).
The lesson: If you're an operator or handset vendor, be careful about pushing phones that are a kitchen-sink collection of expensive features. The odds are very good that you'll spend a lot of subsidy money on people who won't ever adopt the underlying services that were supposed to justify the subsidy. It's much better to offer a variety of phones specialized for different types of user, and let them pick the ones they want.
=====
As I said at the start, it's an interesting collection of tidbits, but far too US-centric. If you live outside the US and have information to add on your market, please post a comment.
Sources:
Total revenue of the operators: link
Orange's presentation at the Global Mobility Roundtable: link
Telephia's presentation at the GMR: link
Pew Internet: link
We're left to chew on anecdotes, partial information released by companies that are trying to push a point of view, and unscientific "polls" of online enthusiasts.
So I'm always on the lookout for more rigorous information. Recently I came across several fairly good sources of data, and they give some interesting perspectives on what's happening with mobile data. It is by no means a complete view, and most of it is US only. But I think it's worth sharing.
Steady, unspectacular growth
The overall picture of mobile data is one of steady but unspectacular growth. It's a bit like watching a tree grow -- you can't see anything changing day to day, but if you walk away and come back in six months you'll notice the difference. SMS continues to be the dominant service, especially in Europe, and there's no sign of some other service surpassing it.
Is the growth rate good or bad? It all depends on how much growth you were expecting, and how fast you wanted it to happen. The one thing I think is very clear is that each country market is different, and you can't classify any of them as leaders and laggards. They're just unique.
Here are the details:
Capabilities of mobile phones in the US
The Pew Internet organization has been surveying Americans on their Internet usage for years. A couple of the questions in their survey ask about the data capabilities of their mobile phones. In the most recent results, from early 2006, 75% of mobile phone users in the US said their phones are capable of texting. 63% said they can play games, and 39% said they have cameraphones. Here's the full chart:
Nothing there stands out as shocking, although I expected the penetration of cameraphones to be higher. My guess is it has gone up in the last year.
(Note that some people could have capabilities in their phones and not realize it. So the question tells us as much about awareness of features as it does about the phones themselves.)
What people do with their phones: Nothing else rivals SMS
The chart below examines the percent of mobile phone users in the US and several European countries who have ever performed various tasks with their mobile phones. The source is M:Metrics, Q4 2006, and the numbers were quoted in a presentation by Orange / France Telecom.
The figures show that there's no other mobile data service with near the penetration of short messaging service (texting). That's not really news, but it's striking to see the hard numbers. About 80-85% of people in most of the big European countries have ever sent a text message, with France lagging slightly (at about 75%). In the US, almost 40% of mobile phone users report that they have sent a text message.
The next closest service is picture messaging, with 20-30% of mobile users in the big European countries saying they have received photo messages at least once. In the US, the figure is 15%. It's ironic that photo messaging is in second place, since it's generally considered a major disappointment. What does that say about the other services? Well, none of them generally crack 10% usage.
Is the US really a laggard? The other thing in the chart that really stood out to me was that the adoption "lag" of US mobile users varies depending on service. The US is far behind in SMS, MMS, and playing music on the phone (the last one is, I'm sure, due to the strength of the iPod in the US). But in the other categories, the US is in the middle of the pack, or even ahead (somebody explain the ringtone result to me, please).
It's always fun to stereotype the US market as primitive in all areas of wireless, but the adoption numbers don't support that. It just looks different.
What does it all mean? Orange's spin was that it means we're just getting started in mobile data, and everyone should wait patiently for the good services to take off. They showed the following growth projection from Ericsson as evidence:
No offense to Orange, but that is basically a statement of faith rather than analysis. If you're a cynic, you'll point out that the chart assumes compound growth will continue uninterrupted for a decade, something that is often true for technology specs but is rarely true for technology markets.
What we really need is time-series data, so we can see what's growing and what isn't. Unfortunately, Orange didn't present any numbers like that, but the research firm Telephia did, in a separate presentation. Unfortunately, their numbers were US only, and they didn't cut the usage categories in the same way as France Telecom. But they still show some interesting trends...
Mobile data growth in the US
Telephia measures mobile data usage by analyzing the monthly bills of mobile phone users. This should give very accurate information on revenue and number of users, but it doesn't track physical usage. Because some services are billed per-use and some have monthly subscription fees, it's hard to tell how heavily people are using the services listed below.
Telephia reports that billings are growing steadily for a wide range of mobile data services. The chart below shows total US operator revenue for mobile data from Q3 2006 to Q1 2007. (These figures include anything that passes through the user's phone bill. Applications and services paid for separately by the user are not included.)
The chart is in billions of dollars, so it shows that in Q1 2007, total on-deck US data revenue was about $4.6 billion. Is that a big number or a small one? Well, total service revenue for the US mobile operators is about $32.5 billion per quarter, according to the CTIA. So mobile data is about 14% of mobile billings.
Where is e-mail? I can't find e-mail anywhere on the chart. I'm very surprised they didn't break it out separately.
Strangely consistent growth rates. The weirdest thing about the chart is that everything's growing at the same rate. In the real world, that sort of thing doesn't often happen. I wonder if a lot of the growth might be driven by people buying service bundles, where they pay a flat extra rate per month to activate a bunch of different services, and then the revenue gets allocated across the services by the operator. That would cause everything to grow in lockstep.
If that's what's going on, then these numbers really might not say much about usage -- what they'd be tracking is the ability of the operators to sell services bundles.
Anyway, the numbers show that the US operators are making pretty good revenue from mobile data. I didn't make a chart of this, but in general, the growth in mobile data billings is large enough to make up for the ongoing decline in mobile voice revenue. So the operators aren't getting rich, but data is helping to keep them from getting poor.
More details. Telephia lumps a lot of different things in the "Downloads" category. For Q1 2007, they gave more details on that category. So I can't give you a time series, but here's a more fine-cut look at how mobile data revenue looked in the US at the start of 2007:
Premium SMS is mostly ringtones paid for via SMS, plus voting for things like American Idol. Audio is downloading and streaming of songs. The other categories are self-explanatory. I feel bad about the tiny size of the applications category, but keep in mind that most smartphone apps are sold through the web and then synced onto the device, and so don't show up in operator billings.
Number of users per service. Telephia also reported the total number of users for each service. As we saw in the Orange chart, SMS has the most users in the US (although the gap between it and the other services isn't as large as in Europe).
Revenue per user. Combining the user and revenue data, we can estimate monthly billings per user for each service:
You can see why the operators like premium SMS. And look at WAP! It never lived up to the original hype that it would become the mobile version of the Web, but as a tool for getting things like sports scores and weather reports, it's not doing too bad. (Whether it's paying for all the money that was invested in it is another story.) Video's generating the most revenue per user, but with a very tiny user base. Audio revenue (which is revenue from listening to songs, not ringtones) is fairly close to what Apple gets from iTunes users (the average iTunes user downloads about 3.3 songs per month, or about $3.30) (link).
Usage doesn't follow capability. And now for the "big" mashup. We can combine Pew Internet's figures on phone capabilities with Telephia's numbers on service usage to figure out roughly what percent of US mobile customers who know they have a given feature on the phone ever actually use it. The results are interesting:
For communication-related services, the percentage of users is quite high (although remember that we don't know how heavily the features are being used). But most mobile users are not adopting the entertainment features in their phones. That's exactly what you'd expect if only a limited percentage of the population were interested in using their phones for entertainment, which is what a lot of user studies have shown (link).
The lesson: If you're an operator or handset vendor, be careful about pushing phones that are a kitchen-sink collection of expensive features. The odds are very good that you'll spend a lot of subsidy money on people who won't ever adopt the underlying services that were supposed to justify the subsidy. It's much better to offer a variety of phones specialized for different types of user, and let them pick the ones they want.
=====
As I said at the start, it's an interesting collection of tidbits, but far too US-centric. If you live outside the US and have information to add on your market, please post a comment.
Sources:
Total revenue of the operators: link
Orange's presentation at the Global Mobility Roundtable: link
Telephia's presentation at the GMR: link
Pew Internet: link
Impact of Amazon Flexible Payments Service: Computing as a utility
The announcement of Amazon FPS made my whole week, on a lot of different levels. I'm excited about the service itself, I'm excited about what it means for the development of web applications, and I'm excited about what it'll eventually do for the mobile data world.
Okay, I'm just excited.
About FPS. Before I talk about what it means, I should give a quick overview of what it is. FPS is a web service, meaning it's a set of online APIs that the creator of a website or web application can use to perform tasks. What FPS does for you is billing -- you can use it to accept payments for something you sell online. Basically, you transmit the customer's info to Amazon, and they take care of the credit check, credit card processing, billing, and so on. They send you the money, less a percentage cut that they take.
That's not at all revolutionary. PayPal and Google Checkout offer the same thing already. Amazon's cut is about the same as PayPal -- about 2% to 3% of your revenue, depending on the amount of business you do, plus 30 cents per transaction. Google is a tad cheaper, plus you get AdSense credits for using it.
(For more information on FPS, there are good articles here and here).
What impressed me about FPS is its flexibility. Amazon says you can set different payment terms for every customer, set up subscriptions and multiple payment schedules, manage a store in which you pass payments from a customer to your suppliers, set up either pre- or post-payment systems, and most importantly you can manage micropayments down to a couple of pennies per transactions (link).
The competing systems either don't offer this at all, or do it badly. I think FPS is a really important change to the competitive situation in payment services. And, because the payment services are all available to any website, that means it's an important change to the whole web platform.
New forms of online business. So far, e-commerce online has been limited mostly to selling things that we could already get through regular stores -- books, clothing, software, etc. One of the main culprits for this was payments. The current credit card system, with its strong discouragement of small transactions, makes it very hard to sell anything priced below a few dollars online. I think the most interesting use of online commerce will be the creation of markets for things that we can't buy through stores today. Most of those things are intellectual property of various sorts, and the natural market for them is a buck or less a copy. So the payment system is a big barrier.
I won't recap my whole argument for minipayments; I wrote about it recently, and you can read it here. Minipayments have already changed the world in music, where Apple's proprietary minipayment system in iTunes has revived the market for music singles, something that was virtually dead in stores. Another example: iStockPhoto has created a market for low-cost stock photography. By creating an easy system of practical minipayments, Amazon FPS will help to enable the creation of lots of iTunes and iStockPhoto equivalents for other products and forms of intellectual property. Think short stories, art, games, and probably a lot of other things we haven't even thought of yet.
I know FPS isn't perfect -- for example, small payments have to be aggregated and then billed in a single larger transaction. But it advances the state of the art dramatically, and more importantly it challenges Google and PayPal to improve their own minipayment handling. That competitive dynamic should eventually result in a truly great minipayment mechanism online, no matter who makes it.
Amazon vs. Google: A contrast in strategies. I think Amazon's approach to web services makes Google look bad. Both companies are taking on PayPal, but Google's approach so far has been pure blunt force -- duplicate PayPal's features, underprice them a bit, and tie it to another Google product (you get AdSense credits for using Google Checkout). Let's see...you compete by duplicating someone else's features, underpricing, and tying back to your dominant product. Does that remind you of a certain company in Redmond?
In contrast, Amazon has been trying to find holes in the infrastructure that nobody has filled yet. Its storage and compute services provided very important infrastructure that helped accelerate the growth of Web 2.0 companies. Although its payment system is not as unique, the emphasis on minipayments is, and I think it too will play an important part in the online ecosystem.
Bottom line: Google is often copying, Amazon innovating. I'd say that I'm disappointed in Google, but actually given their size they would crush everyone else if they were also innovative. So maybe we should be grateful.
What will Amazon do next? Their pattern is clear -- they're picking out things that they know how to do well (because of their retail operation) and turning them into services for other developers. A logical next step would be if they offered developers the infrastructure needed to set up an online store -- order tracking, support request tracking, inventory, displaying merchandise, etc. That would work with their other services, and would put them in a position to start draining business from eBay.
I'd also love to see them offer some sort of unified product and content discovery system. One of the things missing from the online ecosystem is an easy way to find goods and services that are for sale online, and comparison shop between them. You can use search for it, but it's not very well organized, and comparisons are difficult. eBay kind of does that, but you have to be registered as one of their sellers, and eBay does the billing. I'd love to see a looser directory than eBay that doesn't take the payments directly, but just points you to things you can buy.
That's what I thought Google Base would evolve into, but Google hasn't made the move yet, so there's still time for Amazon to seize that territory.
What it means for mobile. You can probably guess what I'm going to say here. The operators consistently charge up to about 50% of revenue for any songs, games, or other content sold through their networks. The mobile software stores like Motricity and Handango charge about the same. Amazon, Google, and PayPal each take about 2-3% of revenue, and that cost is likely to decline due to competition. As the wireless Internet takes hold, how many users will be willing to pay 50% extra just for the pleasure of having a game appear on their Sprint or Verizon bill rather than their Amazon bill?
If an operator bit the bullet now and priced competitively, they might be able to hold onto about 10% of revenue in exchange for the greater convenience of running content purchases through the mobile bill. But a 50% cut is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. There's no way Amazon and friends will be able to resist the temptation to target the mobile web. The question is not if, it's when.
The name of the game is infrastructure. In an open, decentralized computing environment like the Web, the best way for a software company to succeed is to create a control point -- to offer a piece of critical infrastructure that others need, and build a franchise around it.
Google understood that concept with search + advertising, and did well with maps, but has been remarkably inept at creating other strong points. I think that's because, to be blunt, engineering PhDs don't necessarily make the best business strategists. Google, if you want to go to the next level, ya got to hire business people who are as smart as your technical people. And you have to give them some authority.
Microsoft seems to get it, but is still trying to retrofit its applications into services rather than really thinking through what's needed in an online ecosystem. Apple seems to understand, but so far hasn't been interested in opening up its services to others (it could easily have turned iTunes into a content discovery and billing service, long before either Google or Amazon hit the market). Some other big Internet companies, like Yahoo, don't seem to really understand yet that this is the competitive battleground of their future.
Amazon is the one major web company that seems to both understand the situation, and be able to consistently come up with good new services. They already have two strong points (computing services and storage), and payments looks to be the third. If some of the other players don't wake up soon, Amazon's going to end up in an extremely powerful position online.
Okay, I'm just excited.
About FPS. Before I talk about what it means, I should give a quick overview of what it is. FPS is a web service, meaning it's a set of online APIs that the creator of a website or web application can use to perform tasks. What FPS does for you is billing -- you can use it to accept payments for something you sell online. Basically, you transmit the customer's info to Amazon, and they take care of the credit check, credit card processing, billing, and so on. They send you the money, less a percentage cut that they take.
That's not at all revolutionary. PayPal and Google Checkout offer the same thing already. Amazon's cut is about the same as PayPal -- about 2% to 3% of your revenue, depending on the amount of business you do, plus 30 cents per transaction. Google is a tad cheaper, plus you get AdSense credits for using it.
(For more information on FPS, there are good articles here and here).
What impressed me about FPS is its flexibility. Amazon says you can set different payment terms for every customer, set up subscriptions and multiple payment schedules, manage a store in which you pass payments from a customer to your suppliers, set up either pre- or post-payment systems, and most importantly you can manage micropayments down to a couple of pennies per transactions (link).
The competing systems either don't offer this at all, or do it badly. I think FPS is a really important change to the competitive situation in payment services. And, because the payment services are all available to any website, that means it's an important change to the whole web platform.
New forms of online business. So far, e-commerce online has been limited mostly to selling things that we could already get through regular stores -- books, clothing, software, etc. One of the main culprits for this was payments. The current credit card system, with its strong discouragement of small transactions, makes it very hard to sell anything priced below a few dollars online. I think the most interesting use of online commerce will be the creation of markets for things that we can't buy through stores today. Most of those things are intellectual property of various sorts, and the natural market for them is a buck or less a copy. So the payment system is a big barrier.
I won't recap my whole argument for minipayments; I wrote about it recently, and you can read it here. Minipayments have already changed the world in music, where Apple's proprietary minipayment system in iTunes has revived the market for music singles, something that was virtually dead in stores. Another example: iStockPhoto has created a market for low-cost stock photography. By creating an easy system of practical minipayments, Amazon FPS will help to enable the creation of lots of iTunes and iStockPhoto equivalents for other products and forms of intellectual property. Think short stories, art, games, and probably a lot of other things we haven't even thought of yet.
I know FPS isn't perfect -- for example, small payments have to be aggregated and then billed in a single larger transaction. But it advances the state of the art dramatically, and more importantly it challenges Google and PayPal to improve their own minipayment handling. That competitive dynamic should eventually result in a truly great minipayment mechanism online, no matter who makes it.
Amazon vs. Google: A contrast in strategies. I think Amazon's approach to web services makes Google look bad. Both companies are taking on PayPal, but Google's approach so far has been pure blunt force -- duplicate PayPal's features, underprice them a bit, and tie it to another Google product (you get AdSense credits for using Google Checkout). Let's see...you compete by duplicating someone else's features, underpricing, and tying back to your dominant product. Does that remind you of a certain company in Redmond?
In contrast, Amazon has been trying to find holes in the infrastructure that nobody has filled yet. Its storage and compute services provided very important infrastructure that helped accelerate the growth of Web 2.0 companies. Although its payment system is not as unique, the emphasis on minipayments is, and I think it too will play an important part in the online ecosystem.
Bottom line: Google is often copying, Amazon innovating. I'd say that I'm disappointed in Google, but actually given their size they would crush everyone else if they were also innovative. So maybe we should be grateful.
What will Amazon do next? Their pattern is clear -- they're picking out things that they know how to do well (because of their retail operation) and turning them into services for other developers. A logical next step would be if they offered developers the infrastructure needed to set up an online store -- order tracking, support request tracking, inventory, displaying merchandise, etc. That would work with their other services, and would put them in a position to start draining business from eBay.
I'd also love to see them offer some sort of unified product and content discovery system. One of the things missing from the online ecosystem is an easy way to find goods and services that are for sale online, and comparison shop between them. You can use search for it, but it's not very well organized, and comparisons are difficult. eBay kind of does that, but you have to be registered as one of their sellers, and eBay does the billing. I'd love to see a looser directory than eBay that doesn't take the payments directly, but just points you to things you can buy.
That's what I thought Google Base would evolve into, but Google hasn't made the move yet, so there's still time for Amazon to seize that territory.
What it means for mobile. You can probably guess what I'm going to say here. The operators consistently charge up to about 50% of revenue for any songs, games, or other content sold through their networks. The mobile software stores like Motricity and Handango charge about the same. Amazon, Google, and PayPal each take about 2-3% of revenue, and that cost is likely to decline due to competition. As the wireless Internet takes hold, how many users will be willing to pay 50% extra just for the pleasure of having a game appear on their Sprint or Verizon bill rather than their Amazon bill?
If an operator bit the bullet now and priced competitively, they might be able to hold onto about 10% of revenue in exchange for the greater convenience of running content purchases through the mobile bill. But a 50% cut is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. There's no way Amazon and friends will be able to resist the temptation to target the mobile web. The question is not if, it's when.
The name of the game is infrastructure. In an open, decentralized computing environment like the Web, the best way for a software company to succeed is to create a control point -- to offer a piece of critical infrastructure that others need, and build a franchise around it.
Google understood that concept with search + advertising, and did well with maps, but has been remarkably inept at creating other strong points. I think that's because, to be blunt, engineering PhDs don't necessarily make the best business strategists. Google, if you want to go to the next level, ya got to hire business people who are as smart as your technical people. And you have to give them some authority.
Microsoft seems to get it, but is still trying to retrofit its applications into services rather than really thinking through what's needed in an online ecosystem. Apple seems to understand, but so far hasn't been interested in opening up its services to others (it could easily have turned iTunes into a content discovery and billing service, long before either Google or Amazon hit the market). Some other big Internet companies, like Yahoo, don't seem to really understand yet that this is the competitive battleground of their future.
Amazon is the one major web company that seems to both understand the situation, and be able to consistently come up with good new services. They already have two strong points (computing services and storage), and payments looks to be the third. If some of the other players don't wake up soon, Amazon's going to end up in an extremely powerful position online.
Mobile video: Is there a there there?
[Reposted due to a correction. Sorry if you get this twice on your feed.]
I recently I spent a couple of days at the Global Mobility Roundtable, an annual conference that brings together mobile-related academics and a selection of people from the mobile industry. This year's conference was in Los Angeles, so it also drew a number of attendees and speakers from the major entertainment firms. It turned into a kind of a mobile meets entertainment event, and the results were interesting. Mostly, they underlined how far we still need to go in bridging the gaps between the tech industry, mobile, and entertainment.
There's a lot of information to cover, so I'm breaking this post into two parts: mobile video in this part, and in part two the status of mobile data in general and the relationship between Hollywood and the operators.
Is there a pony in the stable? If so, it's a very small pony.*
There was a lot of disagreement about whether mobile video will take off, which may be just as well because the economics of it are seriously dodgy. It's not certain that users really want it, no one knows whether the revenue will come from sponsors or from user fees, and even if video does take off, it's not at all clear that the mobile operators can deliver it without bankrupting themselves.
Other than that, the prospects look great.
One panelist compared the situation in mobile video to a company running a health club: they want to sell a lot of memberships, but they don't want anyone to actually use the facility.
The information below is drawn from a series of different sessions I attended. I've mashed them together so I could organize the information by topic. All quotes are as accurate as I could make them. They are definitely correct as to message, but I probably missed a few words here and there.
Who wants mobile video? A segment of the market.
There are plenty of people in the industry who are enthusiastic about mobile video. One presenter quoted Rob Hyatt, executive director of mobile content at Cingular, as saying, "Watching video on cell phones could eventually easily surpass [demand for games, ringtones, and wallpapers], to reach 100% of the population." That's pretty remarkable, since even SMS doesn't reach 100% of the mobile population yet. (You can find the original quote from BusinessWeek here).
Telephia, a mobile industry research firm, reported that revenue from mobile video is growing rapidly, from $35m in Q3 2006 to $146m in Q1 2007. In that same period, the number of mobile subscribers in the US using video services grew from 5.7 million to 8.4 million (for comparison, there are 77 million MMS users and 148 million SMS users). The Telephia numbers imply that revenue per video user has grown from $2 per month to $5.80. Unfortunately, they didn't give any details on which particular services are growing.
The base is still very small, so it's dangerous to extrapolate from those numbers. But they're definitely hopeful. A number of other speakers were much less optimistic, though.
At the conference, USC presented the results of the sixth annual Worldwide Mobile Data Services study. It showed that about 30% of 18-24 year olds and 20% of 25-34 year olds in the US felt that video downloads to mobiles were an important feature, about the same percentage as wanted games on their mobiles. That's nice, but not the universal usage that Cingular talked about.
Sanjay Pothen, CEO of Pliq (a mobile video production company), claimed that 44% of mobile users are interested in mobile video -- but only 4% are willing to pay for it. That's the typical pattern for mobile data features -- most people don't want them if they have to pay anything for them.
Frank Chindamo, CEO of Fun Little Movies, which produces short video for Sprint, asked the audience how many people in the audience had Sprint phones. About five people raised their hands. "If you all subscribe, that will double our revenue for next month," he joked. [For the record, Frank asked me to make clear that he was only joking; he says he's actually quite happy with the Sprint relationship.]
Is the glass half full or half empty? As I've said before, I think there's abundant evidence that the market for all mobile data products is highly segmented, and we need to learn to make money from products that appeal to ten or fifteen percent of the users. I heard nothing at the conference to change that view.
But overall demand for mobile video is just the beginning of the story...
What sort of video will people watch on mobiles?
This one is still very much undecided. The usual assumption is that because short video is popular on the Web, it'll also be popular on mobiles. For example, Funny Little Movies is creating original short animated films for mobiles. (The place is run by a USC film professor who has his students create a lot of the content.)
Pothen of Pliq said the ideal sort of video for mobile is neither short individual clips (like YouTube) or long-form video (like a TV show), but chunked content -- an engaging story told in two-minute segments. He said excerpts from reality shows can work well -- highlights from America Idol, for instance. But original content seems to be his main target: soap operas, telenovelas, and cooking for young women, comedies and dramas for young men. The goal is to get people hooked by an ongoing story so they'll keep coming back to watch every segment.
Derek Brose, SVP of business development for Paramount Digital, was also excited about short video. He said the company is cutting all its movies into clips of different lengths, for various mobile usages. Two second clips -- something like Harrison Ford saying, "trust me" -- are for embedding in an MMS message. Twenty second clips are for use in ringtones. Two minute clips are for streaming your favorite scene from a movie. Paramount's goal is to teach consumers a variety of different things that they can do with mobile video.
But some people were skeptical about the prospects for short video on mobiles. Bill Sanders, VP of mobile programming at Sony Pictures, said that in Japan people are watching broadcast TV shows on their mobiles rather than short video streamed over 3G. He said 3G in Japan is great for certain kinds of applications, such as e-wallet. But he said data is priced so high that streaming video barely exists on 3G at all.
USC's mobile survey also strongly implied that the biggest demand is for broadcast TV. More than 40% of users said they thought that was the most interesting type of video for a mobile, compared to about 20% for short video.
David Tilson of Case Western University supported that view. He said that in a UK test of DVB-H (a broadcast video standard for mobiles), users watched three hours a week of television on their mobiles, with viewing concentrated in the lunch break and commute hours. That's very intriguing, because it implies that mobile video might add new television viewers at times when people don't usually watch TV. Unfortunately, the users were not charged anything in the test, so it's very hard to tell how much usage mobile TV would get if operators started charging for it.
I have no clue what the answer is on this question. People may say they prefer broadcast television just because that's what they're used to. Their actual purchase behavior might be very different. I think price will make a huge difference in adoption, which brings us to the next subject...
Who will pay for mobile video?
You've got two choices -- users pay, or advertisers pay. There are good arguments on both sides.
Sanjay Pothen of Pliq made an interesting case for having the advertisers pay. Since his company is involved in that business, his argument was not a surprise, but it was still interesting.
Pothen claims that neither paid nor ad-supported video are taking off today in the mobile world. As I noted above, he said few users are willing to pay for video, which stops the user-funded scenario right there. But ad-supported video is also problematic on both PCs and mobiles because users are not very tolerant of watching even a short commercial in order to see a two minute video. So what Pliq does is build the sponsor into the video itself, through placement and other promotion within the video.
Pothen said advertisers are willing to pay significant sponsorship fees for these videos. He wouldn't go into details on his financials, but someone I talked to privately said the revenue can be dollars per viewer for a three-minute video. That's impressive, and far more than you could charge a viewer for a few minutes of video.
Unfortunately, Pothen said, the operators want to take 50% of the revenue from these videos. He said that's not acceptable, that the revenue split should be more like 20% of revenue to the operator. "If we work in collaboration and the walled garden is down, we're willing to create original content (for mobiles)....We can drive mass adoption." But he said that won't happen in the current revenue situation.
My take: I don't think it has to be one or the other. Apple's selling a lot of video downloads to iPods, and that won't just dry up. But I think it's going to be very hard to make paid downloads the leading mobile video product, because they'll be competing with free video from places like YouTube, and because ad-supported TV teaches people to expect their television for free. Besides, if advertisers really are willing to pay dollars per viewer, there's no need to make people pay.
The revenue split is an ongoing problem in every mobile data category. There's no immediate solution, at least in the US. I think we're stuck in a chicken and egg situation in which the revenue split discourages the kind of programming investment that might drive a lot of usage, thereby justifying a more generous split.
That may be just as well, though, because video might break the mobile networks if it did take off.
Can mobile video be delivered?
This was the most disturbing topic of all. Even if we can find the right users, the right product, and the right pricing scheme, most of today's 3G networks are not well suited to delivering video.
Tilson of Case Western quoted some very sobering statistics on the economics of mobile video. He said one megabyte of data delivered as SMS messages yields £268 of revenue to an operator in the UK. That same megabyte delivered as video yields 20 pence of revenue, roughly 1/1000 the revenue. Of course, a single user of video is much more likely to consume a meg of data than is an SMS user, so the billing per user might still be fairly good. But video quickly exceeds the capacity of a typical 3G data network. He said no more than six viewers per cell can watch video at one time, and if 40% of users on a typical 3G system watched six minutes of video a day, they would saturate the entire network.
Hardly the basis for achieving Cingular's dream of 100% viewership.
Some of the operators at the conference confirmed this perspective. Francois Thenoz, Director of Strategic Marketing at Orange, said it takes seven minutes to download a 60-90 second video clip on a standard 3G network. 3G "evolved" takes 90 seconds (so you can just about stream in real time). The CDMA 1X network I use to connect my notebook PC is a lot faster, but GSM is the standard for most of the world, so his point was that in most places the wireless network simply isn't ready for video.
Higher-capacity networks are in development, of course. But Tilson said that in the UK, spectrum for a DVB-H wireless video system won't be available until 2102 at the earliest. That implies that for the next five years, mobile video in the UK is more of a science experiment than a serious commercial project.
In the US, the functional equivalent of DVB-H is MediaFlo, which is already deployed in Verizon's VCast system. MediaFlo transmits video one way, using a separate wireless signal, so it gets around the network saturation problems you get in 3G. Similar systems are already being used in Japan and Korea, and reportedly account for most of the mobile video usage there.
A drawback of the broadcast technologies is that they're not streamed on demand. You watch whatever's been programmed at that time. It's like a cable television system, but with far fewer channels. Tilson said one driver of mobile video usage is the availability of a lot of different programming, so limits on the number of channels might eventually restrict usage.
The other challenge for broadcast systems like MediaFlo is that they compete with people using SlingBox or similar products to retransmit their home cable television signals to their mobile devices. "Why get HBO Mobile when you can already get HBO home slinged to your phone?" asked Sanders of Sony. He pointed out that the Three network in the UK is bundling Sling services with its flat-rate 3G service offering.
"Three is like an airline that just bought a bunch of 777s and now they're flying with a bunch of empty seats," replied Brose of Paramount. He claimed that Three has to be betting that video usage will grow slowly enough that faster data networks will be available before the usage of video saturates the network.
The "encoding nightmare"
Then there's the question of standards. Unlike the PC, there aren't one or two video standards for mobiles. Because of the huge array of different screen sizes and software environments, a company that wants to stream video to mobiles supposedly needs to encode it in up to 150 different formats (seriously, that's the figure I was given by a couple of people). An executive I talked to called this the "encoding nightmare." Some companies are starting to offer server appliances that encode the video in real-time from one or a few base formats. But this adds expense to the business model, and real-time encoding is not as high-quality as pre-encoded video, especially if you're trying to compress the video heavily -- which is exactly what operators need to do in order to conserve bandwidth.
What does it all mean?
I think there's a role for mobile video, but considering the limits on user interest, and the huge technical and business challenges, it's not going to be the great horizontal application that drives the mobile data market. At best, it'll be a nice add-on for entertainment-focused users who want video in addition to their MP3s and games.
_______________
*This is a reference to an old joke about a boy who desperately wanted a pony. One day he saw a stable stall full of manure, and began furiously shoveling it out. "What are you doing?" his parents asked. "Well," the boy replied, "with all this manure, I figure there has to be a pony in here somewhere."
I recently I spent a couple of days at the Global Mobility Roundtable, an annual conference that brings together mobile-related academics and a selection of people from the mobile industry. This year's conference was in Los Angeles, so it also drew a number of attendees and speakers from the major entertainment firms. It turned into a kind of a mobile meets entertainment event, and the results were interesting. Mostly, they underlined how far we still need to go in bridging the gaps between the tech industry, mobile, and entertainment.
There's a lot of information to cover, so I'm breaking this post into two parts: mobile video in this part, and in part two the status of mobile data in general and the relationship between Hollywood and the operators.
Is there a pony in the stable? If so, it's a very small pony.*
There was a lot of disagreement about whether mobile video will take off, which may be just as well because the economics of it are seriously dodgy. It's not certain that users really want it, no one knows whether the revenue will come from sponsors or from user fees, and even if video does take off, it's not at all clear that the mobile operators can deliver it without bankrupting themselves.
Other than that, the prospects look great.
One panelist compared the situation in mobile video to a company running a health club: they want to sell a lot of memberships, but they don't want anyone to actually use the facility.
The information below is drawn from a series of different sessions I attended. I've mashed them together so I could organize the information by topic. All quotes are as accurate as I could make them. They are definitely correct as to message, but I probably missed a few words here and there.
Who wants mobile video? A segment of the market.
There are plenty of people in the industry who are enthusiastic about mobile video. One presenter quoted Rob Hyatt, executive director of mobile content at Cingular, as saying, "Watching video on cell phones could eventually easily surpass [demand for games, ringtones, and wallpapers], to reach 100% of the population." That's pretty remarkable, since even SMS doesn't reach 100% of the mobile population yet. (You can find the original quote from BusinessWeek here).
Telephia, a mobile industry research firm, reported that revenue from mobile video is growing rapidly, from $35m in Q3 2006 to $146m in Q1 2007. In that same period, the number of mobile subscribers in the US using video services grew from 5.7 million to 8.4 million (for comparison, there are 77 million MMS users and 148 million SMS users). The Telephia numbers imply that revenue per video user has grown from $2 per month to $5.80. Unfortunately, they didn't give any details on which particular services are growing.
The base is still very small, so it's dangerous to extrapolate from those numbers. But they're definitely hopeful. A number of other speakers were much less optimistic, though.
At the conference, USC presented the results of the sixth annual Worldwide Mobile Data Services study. It showed that about 30% of 18-24 year olds and 20% of 25-34 year olds in the US felt that video downloads to mobiles were an important feature, about the same percentage as wanted games on their mobiles. That's nice, but not the universal usage that Cingular talked about.
Sanjay Pothen, CEO of Pliq (a mobile video production company), claimed that 44% of mobile users are interested in mobile video -- but only 4% are willing to pay for it. That's the typical pattern for mobile data features -- most people don't want them if they have to pay anything for them.
Frank Chindamo, CEO of Fun Little Movies, which produces short video for Sprint, asked the audience how many people in the audience had Sprint phones. About five people raised their hands. "If you all subscribe, that will double our revenue for next month," he joked. [For the record, Frank asked me to make clear that he was only joking; he says he's actually quite happy with the Sprint relationship.]
Is the glass half full or half empty? As I've said before, I think there's abundant evidence that the market for all mobile data products is highly segmented, and we need to learn to make money from products that appeal to ten or fifteen percent of the users. I heard nothing at the conference to change that view.
But overall demand for mobile video is just the beginning of the story...
What sort of video will people watch on mobiles?
This one is still very much undecided. The usual assumption is that because short video is popular on the Web, it'll also be popular on mobiles. For example, Funny Little Movies is creating original short animated films for mobiles. (The place is run by a USC film professor who has his students create a lot of the content.)
Pothen of Pliq said the ideal sort of video for mobile is neither short individual clips (like YouTube) or long-form video (like a TV show), but chunked content -- an engaging story told in two-minute segments. He said excerpts from reality shows can work well -- highlights from America Idol, for instance. But original content seems to be his main target: soap operas, telenovelas, and cooking for young women, comedies and dramas for young men. The goal is to get people hooked by an ongoing story so they'll keep coming back to watch every segment.
Derek Brose, SVP of business development for Paramount Digital, was also excited about short video. He said the company is cutting all its movies into clips of different lengths, for various mobile usages. Two second clips -- something like Harrison Ford saying, "trust me" -- are for embedding in an MMS message. Twenty second clips are for use in ringtones. Two minute clips are for streaming your favorite scene from a movie. Paramount's goal is to teach consumers a variety of different things that they can do with mobile video.
But some people were skeptical about the prospects for short video on mobiles. Bill Sanders, VP of mobile programming at Sony Pictures, said that in Japan people are watching broadcast TV shows on their mobiles rather than short video streamed over 3G. He said 3G in Japan is great for certain kinds of applications, such as e-wallet. But he said data is priced so high that streaming video barely exists on 3G at all.
"The only thing you find in 3G is porn, because it's the only form of video where people will pay $10 for three minutes of content." --Bill Sanders, Sony
USC's mobile survey also strongly implied that the biggest demand is for broadcast TV. More than 40% of users said they thought that was the most interesting type of video for a mobile, compared to about 20% for short video.
David Tilson of Case Western University supported that view. He said that in a UK test of DVB-H (a broadcast video standard for mobiles), users watched three hours a week of television on their mobiles, with viewing concentrated in the lunch break and commute hours. That's very intriguing, because it implies that mobile video might add new television viewers at times when people don't usually watch TV. Unfortunately, the users were not charged anything in the test, so it's very hard to tell how much usage mobile TV would get if operators started charging for it.
I have no clue what the answer is on this question. People may say they prefer broadcast television just because that's what they're used to. Their actual purchase behavior might be very different. I think price will make a huge difference in adoption, which brings us to the next subject...
Who will pay for mobile video?
You've got two choices -- users pay, or advertisers pay. There are good arguments on both sides.
Sanjay Pothen of Pliq made an interesting case for having the advertisers pay. Since his company is involved in that business, his argument was not a surprise, but it was still interesting.
Pothen claims that neither paid nor ad-supported video are taking off today in the mobile world. As I noted above, he said few users are willing to pay for video, which stops the user-funded scenario right there. But ad-supported video is also problematic on both PCs and mobiles because users are not very tolerant of watching even a short commercial in order to see a two minute video. So what Pliq does is build the sponsor into the video itself, through placement and other promotion within the video.
Pothen said advertisers are willing to pay significant sponsorship fees for these videos. He wouldn't go into details on his financials, but someone I talked to privately said the revenue can be dollars per viewer for a three-minute video. That's impressive, and far more than you could charge a viewer for a few minutes of video.
Unfortunately, Pothen said, the operators want to take 50% of the revenue from these videos. He said that's not acceptable, that the revenue split should be more like 20% of revenue to the operator. "If we work in collaboration and the walled garden is down, we're willing to create original content (for mobiles)....We can drive mass adoption." But he said that won't happen in the current revenue situation.
My take: I don't think it has to be one or the other. Apple's selling a lot of video downloads to iPods, and that won't just dry up. But I think it's going to be very hard to make paid downloads the leading mobile video product, because they'll be competing with free video from places like YouTube, and because ad-supported TV teaches people to expect their television for free. Besides, if advertisers really are willing to pay dollars per viewer, there's no need to make people pay.
The revenue split is an ongoing problem in every mobile data category. There's no immediate solution, at least in the US. I think we're stuck in a chicken and egg situation in which the revenue split discourages the kind of programming investment that might drive a lot of usage, thereby justifying a more generous split.
That may be just as well, though, because video might break the mobile networks if it did take off.
Can mobile video be delivered?
This was the most disturbing topic of all. Even if we can find the right users, the right product, and the right pricing scheme, most of today's 3G networks are not well suited to delivering video.
Tilson of Case Western quoted some very sobering statistics on the economics of mobile video. He said one megabyte of data delivered as SMS messages yields £268 of revenue to an operator in the UK. That same megabyte delivered as video yields 20 pence of revenue, roughly 1/1000 the revenue. Of course, a single user of video is much more likely to consume a meg of data than is an SMS user, so the billing per user might still be fairly good. But video quickly exceeds the capacity of a typical 3G data network. He said no more than six viewers per cell can watch video at one time, and if 40% of users on a typical 3G system watched six minutes of video a day, they would saturate the entire network.
Hardly the basis for achieving Cingular's dream of 100% viewership.
Some of the operators at the conference confirmed this perspective. Francois Thenoz, Director of Strategic Marketing at Orange, said it takes seven minutes to download a 60-90 second video clip on a standard 3G network. 3G "evolved" takes 90 seconds (so you can just about stream in real time). The CDMA 1X network I use to connect my notebook PC is a lot faster, but GSM is the standard for most of the world, so his point was that in most places the wireless network simply isn't ready for video.
Higher-capacity networks are in development, of course. But Tilson said that in the UK, spectrum for a DVB-H wireless video system won't be available until 2102 at the earliest. That implies that for the next five years, mobile video in the UK is more of a science experiment than a serious commercial project.
In the US, the functional equivalent of DVB-H is MediaFlo, which is already deployed in Verizon's VCast system. MediaFlo transmits video one way, using a separate wireless signal, so it gets around the network saturation problems you get in 3G. Similar systems are already being used in Japan and Korea, and reportedly account for most of the mobile video usage there.
A drawback of the broadcast technologies is that they're not streamed on demand. You watch whatever's been programmed at that time. It's like a cable television system, but with far fewer channels. Tilson said one driver of mobile video usage is the availability of a lot of different programming, so limits on the number of channels might eventually restrict usage.
The other challenge for broadcast systems like MediaFlo is that they compete with people using SlingBox or similar products to retransmit their home cable television signals to their mobile devices. "Why get HBO Mobile when you can already get HBO home slinged to your phone?" asked Sanders of Sony. He pointed out that the Three network in the UK is bundling Sling services with its flat-rate 3G service offering.
"Three is like an airline that just bought a bunch of 777s and now they're flying with a bunch of empty seats," replied Brose of Paramount. He claimed that Three has to be betting that video usage will grow slowly enough that faster data networks will be available before the usage of video saturates the network.
The "encoding nightmare"
Then there's the question of standards. Unlike the PC, there aren't one or two video standards for mobiles. Because of the huge array of different screen sizes and software environments, a company that wants to stream video to mobiles supposedly needs to encode it in up to 150 different formats (seriously, that's the figure I was given by a couple of people). An executive I talked to called this the "encoding nightmare." Some companies are starting to offer server appliances that encode the video in real-time from one or a few base formats. But this adds expense to the business model, and real-time encoding is not as high-quality as pre-encoded video, especially if you're trying to compress the video heavily -- which is exactly what operators need to do in order to conserve bandwidth.
What does it all mean?
I think there's a role for mobile video, but considering the limits on user interest, and the huge technical and business challenges, it's not going to be the great horizontal application that drives the mobile data market. At best, it'll be a nice add-on for entertainment-focused users who want video in addition to their MP3s and games.
_______________
*This is a reference to an old joke about a boy who desperately wanted a pony. One day he saw a stable stall full of manure, and began furiously shoveling it out. "What are you doing?" his parents asked. "Well," the boy replied, "with all this manure, I figure there has to be a pony in here somewhere."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)