What has “open” done for me lately?

So I tuned in on the web yesterday to watch the session titled “The Open Mobile Competition Begins” at the AlwaysOn Stanford Summit. It was an interesting panel with a rep from Verizon, Google, Kleiner, Frog Design, and Nokia (Full Disclosure: David Rivas from Nokia and I go back years to our days doing J2ME at Sun).

Let me see if I can summarize and still do the panel members justice: Verizon now seems to talk about “open” as a means to differentiate its corporate marketing (their actions to date stand in stark contrast to “open”). Google talks about “open” from the more traditional geek perspective as an almost religious dogma, while simultaneously running Android in a very non-open fashion and requiring early partners to agree to not change it too much. Kleiner is a frustrated VC, angry at the whole mobile space (and rightly so) and hopes that “open” may finally break the logjam. Frog is the content developer who doesn’t care so much about “open” but would love to deliver great designs to real users. Nokia has an actual business to support and talks about “open” more as a means to address specific business issues, like aggregating fractured developer communities.

I thought the constitution of the panel was perfect - as each member fervently addressed “open” from their own unique perspective. The one perspective that was curiously absent however, was that of the Customer. So let me try to add that here…

Verizon talks about “open” as attaching any device to the network and running any application I want on that device. Great. It seems to me they are asking to become a dumb pipe but that is their perogative. As the customer though, what’s my experience in discovering new content? How is the content tied into my existing billing relationship? What’s the experience when I switch from one device to another? Ralph de la Vega from AT&T said some time ago that AT&T is already “open” - as you can pop your SIM into any GSM phone and it will work on AT&T’s network. While this is technically true, and I do this all the time, go try to sort out a data plan. AT&T’s service reps will inform you that certain data plans are “required” for certain phones, and even better than that, you can only get certain data plans if you have a certain phone! I was in Europe as I often am, running up a large roaming data bill and had to lie to the AT&T rep that I was carrying an E61 just to qualify for the international data roaming plan to reduce my $700 roaming charges down to $90.

My point is that from the customer’s perspective, “open” doesn’t mean nearly as much, if anything at all. There is no better example than the iPhone. The iPhone is proprietary hardware, running a proprietary OS, with a proprietary application environment, with a proprietary discovery/provisioning process - and it is probably the best experience of any mobile device currently on the market. People’s only gripe is that they cannot necessarily get it on the network of their choice.

All of the panel members have points - but all too often we get into these debates about being “open” and what I’d really like us to focus on is the experience of the average customer. Having everything “open” does not necessarily address the customer experience, and if we’re not careful, we could all end up putting a lot of effort into “open” and still have the same unhappy customers.

And please don’t anyone tell AT&T I’m not actually carrying an E61 - my bill will go up substantially

Posted by Mark Posted in: Mobility No Comments » July 2008

Consolidation and the Future of the Mobile OS

So I’ve found that running a startup and blogging is a difficult mix, but Nokia’s aquisition of the rest of Symbian and its new plans to go open source have brought me out of hibernation for a little commentary.

First off, this is great news, not because of the open source statement but because all of the Symbian variants are being melted down and re-cast under S60. The other variants weren’t really that interesting anyway. UIQ was semi-interesting, but there is so little interest in it by developers they had to cancel this year’s (U.S.) UIQ Developer Conference for lack of attendance. UIQ’s interface is also a love-it-or-hate-it thing, and it 3 softbutton design is one that I think can safely be tossed in the bin. Motorola nixed its 3 softbutton design a year or more ago in favor of the more traditional 2 button model due to the simple fact that if you want customers who currently carry other brands to pick up your shiny new ringer, its better if it at least feels familiar. UIQ of course had touch support as well, making it initially a bit ahead of its time but the new Nokia Tube will bring touch support to S60 anyway. The fact that DoCoMo is tossing in MOAP as well is also noteworthy, though that was a Japan-only variant.

As a developer trying to put content on all these variants, consolidation is a welcome occurrence. But what about SonyEricsson and Motorola and their roadmaps? Well, we should still see UIQ devices over the next 18 months as the device pipeline empties, but this consolidation I’m sure is welcome by those two companies as well. Why? Because clearly they’ve learned by now that the expense of building both the toolkit as well as trying to innovate on top of that toolkit (as well as support developers and their innovation) is extremely painful. Development on any of these Symbian variants is far from easy. Its low-level, tricky C code with a host of release variants and development is slow and expensive.

So that means we are now effectively down to RIM, iPhone, Windows Mobile, and S60 in terms of development platforms. I’ll get to Android in a second.  Some of you may note the lack of J2ME in that list given my background. Well its sad to say but I believe J2ME as a platform is dead - it is basically a gaming engine and will continue to amount to as much, but no host of new JSRs can fix the fundamental problems it has.

So what about Android? Ironically, the platform which is doing the most to push Google to prominence on mobile is the iPhone. Remember, Google is first and foremost, an advertising company. At this point they only do search and the rest of the things they do to make more money selling ads. Google needs the “mobile web” to be realized in order to grow their billboard space - go from 800 million PCs to 3 billion mobiles and Google has the runway it needs to continue growing revenues for a while to come. Google does not need Android to do this however. A few more quarters of touchy earnings and they will certainly be questioning the ROI on Android if they are not already doing so (as I understand it, this is already the case).

So what happens then? My hunch is that Dalvik, the application platform of Android will get contributed to LiMo and Google will wash its hands of the whole debacle altogether. LiMo is a Linux platform designed by mobile folks for mobile folks - but its major issue right now is the lack of a good application layer. Google should parlay the work they kickstarted with developers and simply turn them and Dalvik over to LiMo.

If that were to happen, we’d have Windows Mobile, S60, LiMo (Linux) , and of course RIM and iPhone. And what about all the legacy RTOS phones? Well, what we’re going to see there is the accelerated demise of the RTOS handset - even faster than any of the predictions I’ve seen so far. The obvious reason for this is the new price point for so-called “smartphones”. These phones are now free with a contract just like feature phones always have been. The thing that will seal the deal is the new experience that is going to be available on these smartphones versus the old RTOS phones - it will be an easy choice for the consumer and one which Retailers are incented to help them make.

The underlying driver for all of this is actually the content (not the operators or OEMs).  Go talk to any major brand or content owner and you’ll know exactly how completely broken mobile is. The pressure that is building up behind this is tremendous, and that pressure will eventually seek out a solution that will bypass any artificial blocks that stand in the way today (either from OEMs, or Operators, or what not). So-called “smart phones” go a long way to accomplish this, because they are open enough to develop and deploy applications on without Operator or OEM obstacles. Combine the low price point with a huge surge in availability of content and applications and I think the RTOS phones go the way of the dodo pretty quickly (alhtough I expect may enjoy a final gasp in the emerging markets).

So we’ll see, but as always, interesting times in the mobile space and this consolidation is fantastic.

Posted by Mark Posted in: Mobility No Comments » July 2008

Why Google’s Android makes me gag

I really enjoy the commentary from the guys over at the Register and this post from last week deserves some attention:

Google claims ‘non-existent’ Android beats everything but the Jesus Phone

It basically covers some comments made by Rich Miner, of Google’s Android, about how Android’s “openness” is so awesome that developers everywhere will build wonderful things with it and how evil Apple is for keeping the iPhone under such tight wraps. This kind of talk has shown up a lot lately from the Android camp and I have to say every time I see it - it makes me gag- and here’s why…

I’m no Apple fan-boy but let me throw out a few of the incredibly difficult issues to deal with, how Apple is addressing them with the iPhone and how Google seems to be addressing them with Android (I say seems because in reality, there are almost no real details about Android)…

#1 : Fragmentation
I’ll define fragmentation up front as the variance between two different model handsets. Fragmentation is bad for developers because it forces us to modify our application in order to account for the differences between handsets. This is good when it means we get access to new features - this is bad when it means we have to write 10 versions for 10 handsets all with the same features.

Apple solves fragmentation by being the single-source distributor, for both its hardware and software, and even provides a firmware upgrade path for devices in the field to keep them up-to-date with devices just shipping. This has historically been a monumental problem in mobile and Apple has stepped in and addressed it right at the start with their very first handset. I’m confident that even when Apple introduces an additional iPhone model, applications will run on it as well without the write-once-test-everywhere burden we’ve all come to know.

Android, by contrast, isn’t a product per-se at all, but rather an open stack (if we are to believe Google) which OEMs can take and modify to their hearts’ content and produce Android handsets. But therein lies the contradiction - if the stack is truly open and OEMs can do whatever they want, then there will be different processor architectures, memory configurations, form factors, input methods, etc. That means fragmentation folks, and now as a developer I’m back to testing my application on every “Android” handset that ships, right?

Well, not so fast. While Google pontificates the “uber openness” of Android, what it really means is that OEMs will get the code base under some sort of open-source license. For us developers, the only access to the platform is by writing a looks-like-Java-but-isn’t Dalvik application, using the APIs which Google gives us. As much as they tout the Linux underpinnings, there’s no way your or I will ever write a line of C code. So maybe the fragmentation problem won’t be so bad (as long as OEMs don’t go adding their own API libraries to Dalvik to open access to device features which aren’t present in the Google APIs), but if its not then they should not tout its openness, because you can’t have both.

#2 : Distribution
A huge problem for us developers, with BREW being the large exception to the rule, is distribution of our applications once we’ve developed the 18 versions we need. Apple’s move here is masterful in that not only are they the distribution point via iTunes, but Apple is creating the discovery experience for content themselves - and they’re building it right into the iPhone’s interface. They solve two enormous issues in one stroke - ensuring that consumers will have a consistent and quality discovery, download, and installation experience while simultaneously giving developers a one-stop distribution stop.

Android on the other hand is fuzzy at best on both of these points. If anyone has any further details please share, but I haven’t heard much but the sound of crickets from the Android camp. A lot of it depends on the reality of #1 up above, but all I have is more questions…

• Is Google also signing up to distribute apps out to all the Android handsets that pop up?
• If Google is distributing them, does that mean they’re certifying them? How could they manage that for an “open” platform, when each one would potentially be unique?
• If they are certifying and distributing apps, why would an operator even want Android devices if they are once again cut out of the value chain?
• How are Android consumers going to discover new applications? Will it be different on each device? The platform is “open” so why wouldn’t it be an area where Operators/OEMs would differentiate?

If the platform really is so “open” and ripe for innovation then how are these issues going to be resolved?

#3 Revenue
Again, Apple allows us to name our price, even Free!, and they’ll handle hosting, distribution, and billing duties, giving us a turn-key approach to seeing an actual return for all our long hours and Jolt colas. Now granted, this isn’t new, BREW developers know just how nice this arrangement can be (despite the rediculous toolkit and certification fees), but how will Android handle this? Once again, this issue depends upon the realities of #1 and #2 above. If Google isn’t the distribution point, then we as developers face the same two options we largely have today, some sort of “on-deck” for whatever that means on an Android device and “off-deck”. I think we all know the issues with both of these approaches by now so I won’t go repeating them - but if you’re like me - the hair on the back of your neck just stood up.

—

I can say from experience there are even more, somewhat subtler issues Android will have to address. Of course there are certainly enough PhDs over at Google to address these things, but the combination of Operator needs, OEM desires, developer needs, and of course, consumer needs, is a tall order. I for one would just like to hear less talk about how being “open” solves everything - as it solves nearly nothing - and would rather hear answers to the real problems we all face.

Posted by Mark Posted in: Mobility No Comments » March 2008

2008 - The Year of the Mobile User

So today is an exciting day - my company is formally announcing its Series-A investment round by Benchmark Capital. We were somehow lucky enough to get in front of Mitch Lasky, and the rest, as they say, is history. We’re all very excited to have Benchmark behind us and especially to have Mitch in our corner.

And as such, today seems like the perfect time to finally start filling up the pages of this blog. There will not be any official company banter, but rather my own personal views on the mobile industry and the issues we all face. So to get things started, I’m kicking it off with a look ahead at 2008.

The Year of the iPhone

2008 will see the shipment of millions more iPhones, and we should see the arrival of the iPhone SDK any day now. However, 2008 is not about the iPhone. The iPhone is certainly one of the most critical catalysts of change to date in the mobile industry - but it is not the final answer. Of course the iPhone is a well choreographed experience - but it is the same experience for everyone. Later this year you should be able to load some Apple-blessed apps through iTunes, but how willing will Apple be to let you really customize your iPhone? I think the iPhone may well be to Apple what the RAZR was to Motorola - an incredible catalyst for change but a difficult trick to repeat. So I’m not proclaiming 2008 the year of the iPhone - but I am thankful for its arrival and its disruptive force on an industry that has been lacking any real innovation for some time.

The Year of Android

2008 should see the shipment of the first Android device, if we are to believe the early bally-hoo coming from certain manufacturers. But Android is going to have a lot of growing pains I think before it gets to where a lot of people already think it is. What people don’t seem to understand is just what it takes to get an operator to certify a handset and allow it on the network (Yes, I realize you can pop in your sim and turn it on - but I’m referring to an operator actually carrying the handset specifically for use on its network). For every handset, there must be a manufacturer who is willing to stake its reputation and its pocketbook and stand behind that handset for a deployment. What a lot of people don’t know is what happens to a manufacturer if it releases a device which has problems in the field. The operator will hold the manufacturer accountable - operationally and financially. That is fine for the way things work today - each manufacturer stands behind its product and accepts any ramifications from any particular device - such as bugs, customer service issues, and yes, even recalls. But how will this work with Android? And what about support for the operators’ existing J2ME catalog? And what about the basic apps like phonebook, calendar, etc.? And… And… Without too much more detail - you get my point. I have every faith these issues will get worked through - but they are not all simple issues and it will take time. Its not easy releasing a complete mobile software stack, but ultimately if Google is able to unify the Linux phone stack it will be a good thing for all of us (except probably the Linux phone stack vendors

The Year of the Mobile User

And so I say that 2008 will be the Year of the Mobile User - and I say that partly because of what the iPhone has done, partly from what Android may begin to do, and certainly from what my own company intends to do - and that is shake up this industry to the point where we once again put the mobile user at the forefront of what is most important. Its not about how thin the handset is, or how many G’s of bandwidth you have, or even WiFI or WiMAX or anything else. This space is about making use of the most personal computing device there is - our mobile phone - and creating an experience that is as unique and personal as the individual user. That is where we need to get to, and 2008 will be all about getting there.

Posted by Mark Posted in: Mobility 1 Comment » February 2008