European vs. American mobile phone use

Source : European vs. American mobile phone use

In last week's post about Palm's phone plans, I made a passing comment about the right way to display your mobile phone at dinner in Europe. It turned out to be the most popular part of the post, and produced a couple of requests that I say more comparing European and American attitudes toward mobile phones. I don't pretend to the world's expert on the subject, but I'll summarize what I've seen. Here goes:

In the US, a cellphone is a tool. In Europe, a mobile phone is a lifestyle.

I guess I ought to give a few details. Let me start with a disclaimer: It's very dangerous to talk about "Europeans" as if they're some sort of unified cultural group. Europe is a continent of many nationalities, and each one has a different culture and history. National regulations on phones also differ dramatically within Europe, which has an important impact on mobile use.

I saw a good example of this in the responses to my last post. I said all Europeans put their mobile phones on the table during a meal. I got replies from some countries agreeing with me, and others saying I was completely wrong. It turns out the table thing differs from country to country.

It's only slightly less hazardous to talk about a "typical" American mobile phone user. The culture in the US is more uniform than it is in Europe, but there are profound differences between various market segments. The average 16-year-old in the US views a mobile phone very differently than the average 40-year-old. (Come to think of it, I suspect average 40-year-old mobile users in Berlin and Chicago probably have more in common with each other than either of them have with the 16-year-old.)

Now that I've hedged thoroughly, here are those details:


Vocabulary

The differences start with the words we use to talk about the industry. In Europe, a mobile phone is usually called (in English-speaking countries) a "mobile." As in, "I'll ring your mobile." In the US, mobile phones are most often called "cellphones," and that's sometimes shortened: "I'll call your cell."

The term differs in other European countries, of course (for example, Hermann on Brighthand says the term in Germany is "handy.") I do know that if you say "cellphone" pretty much anywhere in Europe, people will look at you like you're a dork. Found that out the hard way.

Occasionally young people in the US use the term "mobile," but it's not very widespread. I try to use the term "mobile phone" in this website because it's understood on both continents.

There are also differences in the terms used to describe the companies that sell mobile phone services. In the US they are generally called "carriers." But the second easiest way to piss off a European mobile exec is to call his or her company a carrier. They are "operators." As the distinction was explained to me, an operator actively runs a network, while a carrier merely delivers something passively.

(In case you're wondering, the first easiest way to piss off a European mobile exec is to ask how his MMS revenues are doing.)

The operator vs. carrier thing is very confusing in the US, because to most Americans an "operator" is a person who runs a switchboard. The archetypal operator is Ernestine, a character created by actress Lily Tomlin. She snorted annoyingly, was rude, and reveled in her ability to manipulate customers:



"Here at the Phone Company we handle eighty-four billion calls a year. Serving everyone from presidents and kings to scum of the earth. (snort) We realize that every so often you can't get an operator, for no apparent reason your phone goes out of order [snatches plug out of switchboard], or perhaps you get charged for a call you didn't make. We don't care. Watch this [bangs on a switch panel like a cheap piano] just lost Peoria. (snort) You see, this phone system consists of a multibillion-dollar matrix of space-age technology that is so sophisticated, even we can't handle it. But that's your problem, isn't it? Next time you complain about your phone service, why don't you try using two Dixie cups with a string. We don't care. We don't have to. (snort) We're the Phone Company!"
–Ernestine

Some people might say that's a good metaphor for a mobile phone company, but it's hard for an American to understand why any company would want to apply the term to itself.


The mobile phone culture

To me, one of the most pronounced differences between mobile use in the US and Europe is that Europe has a more developed mobile phone culture. There are huge variations in attitude from person to person, but on average, people in Europe expect the mobile to play a more prominent, recognized role in the structure of society, and many people look to the mobile as a central source of new innovations. The belief is almost that the mobile phone has a manifest destiny to subsume everything else. This love affair with the mobile phone is far more common in Europe than it is in America.

You can find a good example of this attitude in an essay about the future, on the website of the Club of Amsterdam, a think tank based in the Netherlands:

"Every machine will be a mobile phone, talking to their owner but mainly to other machines.... In 2020 the world is one big video screen, one big video camera, one big mobile phone.... The mobile will act as a "trust machine". It will be our most important lifestyle instrument. It will probably be decomposed with its core elements scattered all over and inside our body."

People in the US can be just as enthusiastic about mobilizing technology, but they often think in terms of shrinking and mobilizing the PC and Internet, rather than growing the cellphone. In the US, the cellphone is often viewed as a necessary tool rather than something to love. For example, an MIT survey in 2004 found that Americans rated the cellphone number one in the list of inventions they hate but can't live without, edging out the dreaded alarm clock.

If you're still having trouble picturing the difference in attitudes, look at it this way – many people in Europe feel about their mobiles the way that Californians feel about their cars.

Okay? Got it now?

The European love of the mobile phone has several facets to it...

Fashion. To many people in Europe, their mobile phone seems to be a fashion statement. It says something about you, much like your clothing. Americans also care about the look of their phones (just take a look at my daughter's Razr, covered in stick-on jewels and shiny dangling beady things). But in general I don't think Americans identify with the phone as deeply.

It seems much more common for someone in Europe to change phones than it is for someone in the US. All phones in Europe are GSM, and people generally understand that you can pop out your SIM card and pop it into a new phone anytime you want. The mobile is just a skin that you wrap around your phone contract. Major retail chains, like Carphone Warehouse, sell large numbers of mobile phones independent of any operator.

Although you can do the same sort of phone swap in the US if you have a GSM phone, it seems like relatively few people do it, and very few phones are sold outside of the carriers' stores. I'm not sure why. I think awareness of the capability is lower (I'll bet a majority of American GSM users couldn't even find their SIM card). And of course many mobile phone users in the US are on CDMA, forcing them to go through the carrier if they want to switch phones. But also, I think there's just less desire to constantly update your phone in the US, because people don't pay as much attention to it.

Design. This is related to the fashion topic, but it deserves a separate discussion because it's so surprising, at least to me. In most consumer goods, there's an approximate consensus on design between the US and Europe. You can find exceptions, but in general clothing, pop music, cars, and furniture considered to be cool in one continent are admired in the other. In fact, a lot of Americans think of "European design" as automatically stylish. But mobile phone styling and features often polarize people in the US and Europe. In Europe, people generally hate external antennas on a phone. In the US, most people don't notice the antenna, and if they do notice it they may well like it because they assume it'll give better coverage.

Many people in Europe love candybar phones. Most Americans think they look cheap and dislike them. Instead, many Americans love flip phones. I think they feel the flip cover prevents accidental calls, and keeps the screen from getting scratched. Maybe they also feel a bit like Captain Kirk when they flip open the phone.

Many Europeans hate flip phones. I don't know why (although I'll speculate that the flip cover makes it inconvenient to send and receive a lot of SMS messages).

SMS vs. IM. Speaking of SMS, it's vastly more popular in Europe than it is in the US. Some of this difference is generational – young people in the US are much more likely to use SMS, whereas it's extremely rare among older Americans. Some of the difference is also training – most Americans don't have a clue how to enter text on a keypad. But even among young Americans, who do the most texting, I think PC-based instant messaging is still the king, now often tied to webcams.

History helps to explain the difference. The US started with a more PC-centric culture, and then IM was pushed aggressively by AOL in the United States, years before many mobile phones here were SMS-capable. There was no great champion for instant messaging in Europe, and besides PCs with Internet connections were less common there in the early days of IM. So SMS had a lot less competition.

Because of differences in mobile phone billing plans, I'm told that sending an SMS was often much cheaper than making a voice call in Europe. US mobile plans, with their large blocks of monthly minutes, supposedly create less of an incentive to use SMS. (In fact, many American mobile plans don't by default include any pre-paid text messages; you pay separately for each one. There's an amusing television commercial by one of the US mobile carriers showing a father relentlessly pursuing his teenage daughter around town – not to keep her out of trouble with her boyfriend, but to keep her from sending text messages on her phone.)

I did a quick spot check of Orange (UK) and Cingular (US) mobile plan charges, to look at the current price differential between voice and text. The main difference was actually that everything in the UK cost more than it does in the US, perhaps due to the horrific dollar-pound exchange rate. The difference between the US and UK in treatment of text messages was not as dramatic as I expected, but it was there. Today the US and UK both charge more for voice than text, but the plans I looked at in the UK almost all either bundled text messages in the base plan, or had options to get a lot of text messages for free if you spent a certain amount on your voice calls. In the US, text messages were always an option that you had to purchase separately, and there was no opportunity to get free text messages. Basically, you have to plan on spending extra if you want to do texting in the US.

(The details: Using a prepaid plan, Cingular in the US will sell you 900 minutes a month for $60, but you'll have to pay $5 extra per month to get 200 text messages. That same $60 spent with Orange in the UK will get you just 325 voice minutes, but 150 text messages are included in the base price. The UK plan creates a strong incentive to substitute text for a voice call when you can.

(If you look at pay as you go plans, Orange charges 38-76 cents a minute for voice calls [depending on whether the call is to a mobile or a land line], and 19 cents for each text message. So a text message is half to a quarter the price of a voice call. However, Orange also gives you 1,000 free text messages if you spend more than $19 a month. Most people would end up getting the free texting, so their effective price for text messaging drops to almost zero. Cingular charges you about 25 cents a minute for voice calls, and five cents per text message. Texting is one fifth the price of a voice call, actually a better ratio than Orange. However, there's no option to get free text messages, so you know you're paying for them no matter what.)


Differences in market structure

Operator power. In general, the US carriers have more power over their customers than the European operators do, for several reasons. The first is that pay as you go plans are much more popular in Europe than they are in the US. In some countries (Italy, for example), almost everyone was on pay as you go the last time I checked. In other places in Europe, users are split between pay as you go and contracts. But I don't know of any place in Europe where as many people are on contracts as they are in the US (please speak up if I've got that wrong – it's hard to find numbers on the percent of users on each type of payment program).

The second difference is mobile phone number portability (which lets you keep your number if you switch mobile operators). Many countries in Europe had it years before it came into the United States. For example, the UK got portability in 1998, Spain and Sweden in 2000, and Italy in 2001. Americans didn't get it until the end of 2003.

Another important difference is that in parts of Europe phone subsidies are illegal. I know about this one because at Palm I used to track the sales prices of mobile phones, and they varied wildly from country to country. I finally figured out that the subsidies were skewing the numbers. The subsidy laws are changing, and they may be allowed in most countries by now.

I think the relatively weaker customer control of European operators has driven faster innovation in Europe, because the operators have to do more to attract customers. They also can't lock a phone vendor out of the market completely, the way the US carriers have been strangling SonyEricsson.

Mobile versus fixed. Fixed-line phone companies in Europe are often monopolies, legendary for high costs and poor service. I have been told by many friends in Europe that it was faster and cheaper to get a mobile phone there than to wait for a land line, which drove very rapid movement toward mobiles. In the US, land line phone service is generally reliable, quick to install, and cheap, so there's much less incentive to get away from it. Some younger people in the US are starting to get rid of their land lines, but the movement is much slower than in Europe.

Reliability of coverage. In much of Europe, mobile phone coverage is more or less ubiquitous. There are always exceptions, of course, but generally you can make a voice call anytime you want to.

This really came home to me recently when I had the good fortune of taking a driving vacation in the fjords of western Norway. That's some of the most mountainous landscape in Europe, but I never noticed a spot where I was out of coverage (check out this coverage map). Contrast that to a driving vacation in the western US, where once you get out of the cities it is almost impossible to get a signal anywhere. For example, when I was in Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona a couple of years ago, I couldn't get a mobile phone signal anywhere in the park.

The usual American excuse for its poor coverage is that US population densities are low. That doesn't hold up to close examination – Norway has about 15 people per square kilometer, the same density as Arizona, which is not exactly crowded. The US overall has about 33, more than double Norway's density. I think Europe is just more dedicated to universal mobile coverage.

Brands. The prominence of mobile phone brands varies tremendously from continent to continent, and even from country to country in Europe. In general, Nokia is much better known and respected in Europe. Motorola is much better known and respected in the US (although it doesn't have the rock star status that Nokia has in Europe). And there are national champions like Siemens, which is heavily respected in Germany but nowhere else I know of. Samsung's brand awareness has been steadily rising in both the US and Europe, and LG is trying to tail along after it.

The differences over Nokia are the most surprising to my friends in Europe. Throughout Europe, and actually most of the world, Nokia is one of the top elite brands, like Nike in sports or Microsoft in computers. It produces an immediate aura of respectability. In the US, Nokia is lost in the crowd of semi-anonymous Euro-brands -- names like Saab or Peugeot that you've heard of but have never experienced personally.

I think Nokia recently compounded this problem with its "It's your life in there" television commercials in the US. The commercial that stuck in my mind was about "Jill," who praises the phone's ability to delete an ex-boyfriend from her phone's address book:

"It is so great because when you go to the phone and you delete and your phone asks 'Are you sure?' You look at your phone and you're like, 'oh yeah, I'm sure.'"

She then gives one of the most annoying, braying laughs I've heard on TV since...well. Ernestine.

I understand what Nokia was trying to do – it was making a sophisticated effort to tap into the mobile phone culture in the US. You can read a detailed ethnographic analysis of the ad campaign here. The problem for me was that, first, the mobile phone culture Nokia's trying to tap into is pretty weak in the US; and second, that Jill has just a whiff of trailer trash about her.

(Nokia has pulled the website for the campaign, which perhaps tells you how well it was received, but you can still find the commercial on the site of the agency that created it. Just follow this link and move your mouse around on the slider at the bottom of the page until you find Jill. You can also check out the other losers Nokia featured in the series.)

Americans tend to respond best to aspirational ads that make them feel good about themselves for buying a product. So buying a Mac will give you kinship with Einstein and Gandhi, which is outrageous but Steve Jobs can pull that off. Nokia's unintended message was that a Nokia phone will turn you into "a sniveling Sex in the City wannabe," as Gizmodo put it.

I think this is typical of Nokia's inability to connect with the American public.


What about the rest of the world?

There are even bigger variations in the mobile market in other parts of the world, but I didn't have the time (or the knowledge) to discuss all of them here. Mobile phone services and features in Japan and Korea make both Americans and Europeans look like techno-hicks. In Japan, the operators have so much power that phones are sold virtually unbranded, and Japanese phone manufacturers struggle to operate anywhere else in the world because the required reflexes are so different. It will be interesting to see what happens in Japan when number portability is implemented there, in late October. Surveys have said that large numbers of Japanese mobile phone users, especially those on Vodafone, would switch operators if the could.

The market worldwide is so complex that I think it's impossible for any one person to understand it all. So please help me out -- if I missed your country, or if you'd like to add to or correct something I said above, please post a comment.

Purpose Your Day: Most Important Task (MIT)

I’ve mentioned this briefly in my morning routine, but I thought I’d explain a little bit more about MITs - Most Important Tasks. It’s not an original concept, but one that I use on a daily basis and that has helped me out tremendously.

It’s very simple: your MIT is the task you most want or need to get done today. In my case, I’ve tweaked it a bit so that I have three MITs — the three things I must accomplish today. Do I get a lot more done than three things? Of course. But the idea is that no matter what else I do today, these are the things I want to be sure of doing. So, the MIT is the first thing I do each day, right after I have a glass of water to wake me up.

And here’s the key to the MITs for me: at least one of the MITs should be related to one of my goals. While the other two can be work stuff (and usually are), one must be a goal next-action. This ensures that I am doing something to move my goals forward that day.

And that makes all the difference in the world. Each day, I’ve done something to make my dreams come true. It’s built into my morning routine: set a next-action to accomplish for one of my goals. And so it happens each day, automatically.

Another key: do your MITs first thing in the morning, either at home or when you first get to work. If you put them off to later, you will get busy and run out of time to do them. Get them out of the way, and the rest of the day is gravy!

It’s such a small thing to implement, and yet I’m raving about it like it’s a huge revelation. But it is. Sometimes small things can make big differences. I highly recommend you give it a go.

The rise of the information ecosystem: How mobile devices, personal computing, media, and the Internet all fit together

The rise of the information ecosystem: How mobile devices, personal computing, media, and the Internet all fit together

Source : http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2007/02/rise-of-information-ecosystem-how.html

Fair warning: This is going to be one of those philosophical posts on strategy. If you're looking for quick gratification, I recommend browsing the archives here.

Anyone still reading?

Okay. The other day I got a bit of flak for posting a note about Hollywood's view of the Web. "Your weblog's about mobility," the comments said. "Stay on topic."

I sincerely appreciate the feedback, but it was a surprise. As far as I was concerned, I was staying on topic. But then I realized that I've never actually explained what I'm trying to accomplish in this weblog, and so of course people might confused. I'd like to fix that right now.

I started this weblog to comment on the mobile industry, but as time went on and my work at Rubicon exposed me to a wider range of tech companies, I found that the boundaries of mobile were getting harder and harder to define. I'm now convinced that you can't understand the mobile world as a separate industry, because it's deeply interconnected with three other industries that deal with information: the Internet, personal computing, and the media (including video, print publications, games, and so on).

All four industries like to think of themselves as separate. But in reality, they depend on each other heavily, and the connections are deepening all the time. In each industry, it's commonplace for people to be blind-sided by unexpected changes, or for major initiatives to fail dismally. I think that's a symptom of the growing connections. Because we can't yet see all the connections, success and failure become more a matter of luck than skill.

The idea that those industries are merging has been around for years -- I remember a colleague making that argument at Apple back in the early 1990s. But I think "merging" or "convergence" isn't the right metaphor. What's emerging is more like a tropical jungle where a rare tree is the favorite roost of a bat that's fed on by a mosquito whose larvae are eaten by a fish that secretes the cure to cancer in its skin. Everything's connected in subtle ways that we don't understand.

Call it the information ecosystem.

Some very bright people have used the term "information ecosystem" in the past to refer to the Internet or Web 2.0, but I think it encompasses all four industries.

That ecosystem is what I'm trying to map in this weblog, because that's where the opportunity is. I don't pretend to have all the connections mapped yet; nobody does. But what we can see so far suggests that we're still in the early stages of the new ecosystem. I think the big changes are still to come.


The new information ecosystem

Back in ancient times (around 1975), the old information ecosystem looked like the diagram below. Most information (and I'm using that word very broadly to include everything from written words to movies to photographs) was passed through a distribution hierarchy that filtered and distilled it down to the most marketable items. Delivery of information was generally through mass media -- bookstores, magazines, newspapers, television stations, etc. The prevailing metaphor was one-to-many, with information flowing from a relatively small elite of creators to the population as a whole. People also communicated directly between one-another, of course, but most of that communication was one-to-one or one-to-few via letters, meetings, and phone calls.



Even before the Internet, this old ecosystem had already started to erode. For example, computer-based desktop publishing in the 1980s made it much easier for small groups and individuals to create newsletters and magazines, giving them some of the power of mass media (although their creations still had to be printed and distributed through traditional mechanisms).

"Freedom of the Press is guaranteed only to those who own one." --AJ Liebling
"Let's give everybody a press." --Simultaneous thought of several million Internet users, sometime in the 1990s

The new information ecosystem. It was the rise of the Web that really challenged the old structure. Although we're still in a transitional period, I think it's clear that the new information ecosystem will look something like the diagram below. In the new system, the filtering role of the publishers and commentators is radically eroded. Any information that anyone wants to share can be fed directly into the Internet. Tools like the personal computer make it much easier for people to create information, and mobile devices are also starting to play a minor but important role in info creation as well (for example, at the end of 2006 a cellphone video of the execution of Saddam Hussein created worldwide news and intense political debate). The net effect should be that information flows faster, and between more sources, than ever before (by the way, that's an assumption I want to test in future posts; I'm not sure it's correct).



The diagram shows why mobile devices can no longer stand alone as a separate industry. As soon as they get any data capabilities, they're embedded in the larger ecosystem. Want to add apps to a mobile device? You need to understand the trends driving PC and Internet app development. Want to tie your customers to you more closely? Make sure you know how online communities form (and why most of them fail). Want to play content on a mobile? Don't link yourself too closely to a content company that was part of the old ecosystem -- you might be pulled down by the suction when it sinks.


What's the most important part of the ecosystem?

A lot of people would tell you that the center of the ecosystem is the Internet; that the other industries are just appendages. On the other hand, many mobile enthusiasts would tell you the dominant part will soon be the mobile phone, and I'm sure Microsoft and Apple would tell you that it's the personal computer. But I think they're all wrong. The most important part of the ecosystem isn't any technology, it's the ideas themselves: the articles and music and essays and videos and memes that we use to make decisions and entertain ourselves. The Internet and the servers that hang on it like Christmas ornaments are the storage and transport mechanism for those ideas. PCs and mobile devices are capture and playback systems, and the software programs we run on those devices are the tools that we use to create and work with the ideas.

Meanwhile, the publishers, producers, editors, and critics who used to control the idea factory are struggling to find relevant roles in the new world. I think some will succeed, and many will fail.


The real mobile opportunity

So I know it'll feel irrelevant to some people, but I'm going to be writing more about subjects like web apps and communities and Hollywood, because they're all part of the same system. I'll try to label the posts that focus on the broader ecosystem, so you can skip them if you want to. But if you're working in the mobile world I think you should tune in. You need to understand the whole ecosystem or chances are you'll be left twisting slowly in the breeze by a competitor who does get it.

The real mobile opportunity of the 21st century isn't mobilizing technology, it's mobilizing ideas.

That's what this weblog is all about.

The three laws of technology strategy

A very nice article by a experienced veteran !

The three laws of technology strategy

The other day when I was writing about the fate of mobile apps (link), I mentioned one of the laws of technology strategy. It made me realize that although we in the industry talk about those laws all the time, I've never seen them all written down in one place. There are probably more than three laws, but these are my favorites. Please post a comment if you want to add some more.

Here we go, twenty years of industry experience boiled down to three lines:


1. An elegant business model paired with mediocre technology beats an elegant technology paired with a mediocre business model.

To put it another way, if you create a marvelous tech product that has no way of making money, you get a long and passionate entry on Wikipedia. If you create a lousy tech product that prints money, you get to be Bill Gates.

Windows is the best case study here, but this one has been proven over and over again in the history of the tech industry. But companies keep tripping over it because they're often run by engineers who have been trained to value technical elegance as an end in itself.

Don't get me wrong, elegance is great. The most wonderful tech companies are those that combine elegant products and great business models. But you must pay the bills or you don't get to keep playing. And wads of money can buy a lot of patches and kludges.


2. Design for a need, not a desire.

A serial entrepreneur once expressed this to me nicely: "I focus on aspirin issues." In other words, if someone has a serious enough problem that they feel pain, they'll be much more likely to pay money for an answer. (I wish I could remember who told me that -- I'd like to credit him by name.)

Very often tech companies will fall in love with a concept that is compelling to people in the company, but not to non-technologists. They'll convince themselves that people will want it because, well, they ought to want it.

A related problem: A company will come up with a product that's nice, but doesn't really address an aspirin problem. You know you have this problem when someone in the company says that need a marketing campaign to explain to people why they should want the product. The really good products need marketing for visibility, not persuasion.

I think this is the underlying problem behind most failed web applications. They do something interesting, as opposed to something compelling.

What makes this whole problem especially tough is that you can't just ask customers what they need. They aren't engineers, they don't understand what you could build. All they'll ask you for is improvements on the products they already have today. What you have to do is get inside the customers' heads, understand how they live, and figure out what you could do to improve their lives. That's what the best product managers do.


3. Software designed for one platform usually fails on another.

We teach this one to ourselves every time the industry goes through a platform transition, and then we promptly forget it again:

A computing platform isn't just a technology, it's a mindset, with a huge set of unstated assumptions about customers and business practices attached to it. When you port software from one platform to another, you take those assumptions along with you, and usually they don't fit.

This is why the software leaders in one generation of computing usually fail in the next generation. Check it out -- which software products led in the DOS world? Lotus, WordPerfect, Ashton-Tate. Did any of them thrive in the Windows/Mac world? Nope.

Then did the software leaders in Windows/Mac -- Adobe, Microsoft, Symantec, Intuit -- dominate in the Internet? Nope, the new startups without the mental baggage dominated.

Which leads to an interesting question: Do you think the leaders of mobile Internet will be the same companies that led the PC Internet? Or is the next Adobe/Lotus/Google a little startup out there, rethinking what it means to be connected in a mobile setting?

Think about it.

Was Windows XP Microsoft's last good OS?

Windows Vista is a disaster. Windows Mobile is unusable. Is there hope for Microsoft?

http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9065938

March 1, 2008 (Computerworld) Everybody's talking today about "Drivergate" — internal Microsoft e-mails that show senior Microsoft executives personally struggling to use hardware products sporting the "Windows Vista Capable" sticker. The e-mails also show that Microsoft lowered its standard for some hardware compatibility, apparently to help Intel impress Wall Street.

This revelation is simply the latest in a long series that add up to one inescapable conclusion: Windows Vista sucks. (And making it cheaper won't help, either.)

Compatibility of drivers is just one issue. Another is a convoluted user interface that prevents ordinary users from gaining a sense of control over the OS.

Windows Mobile, Microsoft's operating system for cell phones, suffers from a similar problem. The Windows Mobile OS isn't horrible per se, it's just that it's completely wrong for cell phones and other small screen devices.

Windows Mobile clearly compromises usability to mimic the WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointing device) focus of Microsoft's desktop operating systems. To quote Dr. Phil: How's that workin' for ya? It hasn't helped eroding desktop Windows market share, and it hasn't helped Windows Mobile, either.

The biggest problem isn't that the company's newest products are unusable, but that Microsoft may have actually lost the "ability" to make good operating systems. It may not be able to let go of its dogmatic insistence on the flawed vision of the same Windows "experience" from wristwatches to supercomputers.

And there is evidence that delusion or, at least, wishful thinking, prevails at Microsoft. The company's founder and chairman, Bill Gates, said last week that "Microsoft expects more Internet searches to be done through speech than through typing on a keyboard." Hey, Bill: Do you want to bet $10 billion on that? I doubt even that Microsoft will fix its Vista driver problem within five years. This is the same guy, by the way, who bragged that Microsoft would "solve" spam by 2006.

It's imperative for Microsoft to get the next major OS right. The secret lies in the company's Surface initiative.

Microsoft has never understood the importance of "simplicity," a fundamental design concept it has always swept aside to make room for "feature rich" (i.e., bloated and complex).

Right now, the Windows Vista type user interfaces are in their final days. The future belongs to what I call the 3G user interface, which replaces flat icons and folders with multitouch, gestures, physics and 3-D.

It's imperative for Microsoft to get the next major OS right. But how?

The secret lies in the company's Surface initiative. Sure, Surface is at present a little more than a semishipping demo usable for product marketing.

The Surface demo dazzles with its 3G goodness. But what's impressive and surprising is that somehow someone at Microsoft was allowed to create a user interface unburdened by "compatibility" with two decades of spaghetti code. What a concept! And no "Start" button!

Another hopeful sign is that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer appears to agree that Surface is important — or, at least, urgent. He announced earlier this month that Microsoft is accelerating the development of a consumer version.

Here's what I believe Microsoft needs to do to save its vitally important operating systems business:

1. Never compromise on driver compatibility, not even for Intel.
2. Insist on the highest standards for compatibility stickers, then use your marketing millions to drive customers to partners that have earned those stickers. Drive the laggards, the cheaters and the inadequate vendors out of business. They're poisoning your swimming pool.
3. Make an operating system for each computer type — cell phone, UMPC, consumer desktop, enterprise desktop, enterprise server, supercomputer — optimized for that type, not as a dogmatic slave to the limitations of the generic desktop Windows vision.
4. Emphasize usability and simplicity over "feature rich" complexity. We don't need more options, features, capabilities, applications, peripherals and hardware vendors. We need better ones.
5. Emphasize usability and simplicity over backward compatibility for the consumer version of Windows. The 1990s are over. Don't sacrifice the future for customers and partner companies that are living in the past.
6. Throw everything they've got at getting the consumer version of Surface right. Surface is the future of the company. And Apple won't wait around. That company is aggressively patenting elements of the user interface of the future, and you know they'll build and market it successfully.
7. Be afraid of Apple, Google and Asus. Apple is eating your desktop marketshare because they succeed with simplicity and UI elegance. Google might do so with its cell phone UI. And Asus, a two-bit Taiwanese motherboard maker, was able to cobble together a quick-and-dirty UI for Linux that's way better than Windows Vista for UMPCs.

Microsoft: I'm rooting for you. I really am. But you've got to get your act together with your core business and ship an operating system that works, or this could be the beginning of the end of the company's leadership role in the industry.

Mike Elgan writes about technology and global tech culture. He blogs about the technology needs, desires and successes of mobile warriors in his Computerworld blog, The World Is My Office. Contact Mike at mike.elgan@elgan.com or his blog, The Raw Feed.

Who Will Control the Heart of Handsets?

Symbian has a strong position among mobile operating systems, but announcements from Microsoft, LiMo, and others show the competition's heating up

by Jennifer L. Schenker

Google's new software platform for mobile phones entitled 'Android' in its prototype form on demonstration at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona Getty

In years past, when the mobile-phone industry gathered for its biggest annual convention, the talk was mostly about bells and whistles—who had the sexiest, thinnest, or most feature-packed handsets. Not this year. At the 2008 Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain, the center of attention has shifted to the software inside phones that most consumers don't ever think about.

From flashy newcomer Apple (AAPL) with its hit iPhone, to gate-crashing Google (GOOG), to stalwart Nokia (NOK), the titans of tech are locked in a high-stakes battle for the heart and soul of mobile phones. At stake is nothing less than the future of mobile communication—and, by extension, of the Internet, as a growing number of consumers around the world access the Web from handheld devices.

It's no wonder operating systems have become the industry's new focus. The majority of today's handsets are still based on proprietary operating systems developed by makers such as Nokia and Motorola (MOT) for use in their own phones. These closed software environments are costly for makers to maintain and upgrade, limiting the opportunity for economies of scale that would be possible if phones from many makers shared common software.

What's more, by fragmenting the market, closed systems make life more difficult for operators and suppliers of mobile software and services. Paris-based Gameloft (GLFT.PA), for instance, the leading seller of mobile games, has to separately develop, test, and support hundreds of versions of every game it makes thanks to the lack of software standards in mobile phones and differences in operator network configurations.

Industry leaders are fed up. "Today there are 30 to 40 different operating systems for mobile, and that is too many," said Arun Sarin, the chief executive of Vodafone (VOD) during a Feb. 12 speech in Barcelona. "We need to narrow that range to three, four, or even five." To get there, Sarin urged his rivals to join forces in defining the handful of operating systems that could power mobile phones in the future.

Fight for Midrange Phones

Undoubtedly, one of the strongest contenders is London-based Symbian, a software maker owned by a consortium of phone makers including Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Samsung Electronics, and Panasonic. Symbian is already used in nearly half of the smartphones—high-end devices with computing capability—sold today. But to stay in the game, the company is scrambling to move its software onto less expensive midrange devices of the sort now powered mostly by proprietary homegrown operating systems.

It will face far stiffer competition there. Microsoft (MSFT) and BlackBerry maker Research in Motion (RIMM) are eyeing the same opportunity as they try to move beyond business-oriented devices into the consumer market. And the elephant in the room is search giant Google, which is spearheading an initiative called Android that seeks to create a Web-friendly software platform, based on open-source software, for midrange phones.

Nokia unwraps bendy nanotech phone

Nokia unwraps bendy nanotech phone

12 comments

By James Sherwood [More by this author]

25th February 2008 11:17 GMT

Nokia and the University of Cambridge jointly designed a concept mobile phone that allows users to mould the handset into different shapes.

Nokia's Morph: formed from shape-altering substances

Dubbed Morph, the handset has been designed to demonstrate the possible future benefits of nanotechnology for mobile devices. Morph is both stretchable and flexible, but a Nokia spokesman claimed that nanotechnology could also allow future mobile phones to incorporate self-cleaning surfaces and see-through electronics.

On-the-fly interface adaptation

Although very little has been said about the Morph’s technical capabilities, pictures show how, in theory, the handset’s able to alter its state between a watch-like mode, a credit-card shape and a traditional mobile phone. No dimensions are given, but the Morph appears to be extremely thin no-matter what state it’s in.

The project, which has been roughly one year in the making, doesn’t mean the Morph will be on shelves anytime soon though. Nokia admitted that it could be seven years before elements of the Morph will be available for integration into other off-the-shelf phones.

However, the Finnish mobile phone giant claimed that, eventually, nanotechnology could help reduce manufacturing costs and introduce complex features at lower prices.

One day, all mobile phones will be made this way. Apparently.

"GiFi" — Short-Range, 5-Gbps Wireless For $10/Chip

Source: http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=

"The Age reports that Melbourne scientists have built and demonstrated tiny CMOS chips, 5 mm per side, that can transmit 5 Gbps over short distances — about 10 m. The chip features a tiny 1-mm antenna, a power amp that is only a few microns wide, and power consumption of only 2 W. 'GiFi' appears set to revolutionize short-distance data transmission, and transmits in the relatively uncrowded 60GHz range. Best of all, the chip is only about a year away from public release, and will only cost around US $9.20 to produce."

Bright Ideas from Mobile Startups

Bright Ideas from Mobile Startups

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/02/0214_mwc_startups/index_01.htm?technology+slideshows

At the annual Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, BusinessWeek picks a dozen newcomers with promising products

Hot Concepts

GestureTek was the winner of this year's Mobile Innovation Award at the Mobile World Congress. Hardly a newcomer-the company has been around for 20 years-it won hands down for bringing a fresh new application to the mobile sector. GestureTek's EyeMobile Engine software lets mobile-phone users play games, scroll menus, navigate maps, and browse Web pages by shaking, rocking, or rolling their cell phones. So far, its software has been embedded in more than 50 million mobile devices worldwide.
// ');

Social Phone Book
Zyb (www.zyb.com)Category: Contact managementCopenhagenZyb turns your dull mobile-phone address book into a live interactive experience. The company's technology lets you sync your address book with your Web profile on sites like LinkedIn and Bebo. And starting in May-provided the people in your address book opt in-when you click on their names you'll see a lot more than just a phone number. Using location-based technology, Zyb will tell you where your friends or family members are located (using Google Maps) and whether they're currently available to talk or text. It'll also let you sync up social calendars and exchange your most recent postings from sites such as Facebook, Flikr, and Twitter

Can You Hear Me Now?
Audience (www.audience.com)Category: Noise suppressionMountain View, Calif.Ever tried to make a mobile-phone call in a packed conference center or on a busy city sidewalk and struggle to hear above the din of the crowd and honking horns? Audience, the winner of this year's "Most Innovative True Mobile Startup" award at the Mobile World Congress, is a voice processor company that has developed noise-suppression technology based on the intelligence of human hearing. The technology is applicable across a broad range of voice-centered consumer products.


Hot Concepts
Pay-Buy-Mobile

French chip designer Inside Contactless specializes in chips for so-called near field communications, or NFC, which allows short-range wireless communication between electronic devices. NFC is helping cell phones morph into wallets around the world by letting users "swipe" their phones over a reader to make small payments. Inside's technology is playing a big role in NFC and the company won an award at this year's Mobile World Congress for "most innovative device-centric technology." Its MicroRead chip has been adopted by several major handset manufacturers and is a key component in the GSM Assn.'s Pay-Buy-Mobile initiative, a program for standardizing contactless payments using mobile phones.

Spinning Your Messages
SpinVox (www.spinvox.com)Category: Voice-to-text conversionLondonSpinVox captures voicemail messages, feeds them into a speech recognition system, and then spits them out as text delivered per the user's choice-via e-mail, SMS, instant messaging, or even written on a Facebook wall. The service works on any handset or network, including mobile, fixed line, and VoIP. SpinVox is rolling out its service with operators, who like it because voicemail-to-text helps push up user revenues. After all, texting is often more immediate than voicemail, and users tend to respond faster to text messages by texting back.

Would a US Recession Hammer the Indians?

Would a US Recession Hammer the Indians?
Posted by: Steve Hamm on February 11
The threat of a US recession looms large globally. There’s no question that as America’s huge and hungry consumption machine starts to sputter, other economies around the world will suffer. My colleague, Nandina Lakshman, writes in a BusinessWeek Online story published today that some of the Indian outsourcing companies are preparing for a recession by cutting salary incentives and otherwise tightening up on expenses. I actually don’t expect a US recession to do much harm to the top Indian software services outfits. It’s true that they got hit hard by the US recession of 2001/2002. But I think that was a very different situation. For starters, TCS, Infosys, Wipro, and the others were not that well known or credible five years ago. But that has changed now. They’re trusted by US and Northern European clients—depended on, in fact. Another factor: There was a lot of uncertainty in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Business spending stalled. This time, it’s consumer spending that is faltering. Businesses will want to cut costs to deal with the effects of the consumer slowdown. I believe they’re likely to increase their use of low-cost Indian services, rather than cutting back on them.

US IT Jobs: Which Way is the Wind Blowing?
Posted by: Steve Hamm on February 13
US software programming jobs took a real wacking at the end of the last recession, but bounced back since—in spite of the offshoring trend and the rise of the Indian tech services industry. Now we’re heading into another recession, it seems. Will US software programmers lose out again? I’m betting no. The reason: The impending retirement of the babyboomers. Already, a lot of federal government programmers are retiring, since they’re reached the retirement age of 55. This factor—combined with low graduating rates for computer science majors—is already causing a shortfall in US programming talent. I believe that whatever cost cutting that’s done by companies during a recession will be more than offset by the software talent shortfall. Five years from now, US programmers will be in even greater demand.
New data supporting these conclusions came in this week from the IT Governance Institute. In its IT governance Global Status Report-2008, the ITGI reported the results of its survey of global IT leaders. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents said "insufficient number of staff" was a big problem--putting it at the top of problems they listed. That's a substantial increase from 2005, when 35% said they face staffing shortages. Remember, this is a global survey, so the shortage isn't just in the U.S. John Lainhart, the principle advisor on IT governance to the ITGI, told me that the baby boomers retiring is the big culprit. With newly trained programmers in short supply, he said, "We'll have to retrain people coming out of professions that aren't doing so well."
I noticed that President Bush's budget proposal slashes the labor department budget, so there isn't much hope for federal retraining programs stepping into the breach.
Lainhart mentioned an innovative program at Penn State that seems like it's on the right track. They're teaching computer science students to be consultants rather than coding grunts. People in the program have to study a foreign language in addition to the major programming languages. In their course work they operate as teams and work on creating technology solutions for customers. Their exams are team-based, too.
This type of program seems sure to appeal to students, and also will give people the skills they need for sustainable, high-pay careers. But, to fill the staffing gap, we'll need a lot more of this kind of thing.

Why the future is in your hands

Why the future is in your hands http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7250465.stm

By Darren Waters Technology editor, BBC News website

GPS is starting to appear on more handsets

Sales of smartphones are expected to overtake those of laptops in the next 12 to 18 months as the mobile phone completes its transition from voice communications device to multimedia computer.

Convergence has been the Holy Grail for mobile phone makers, software and hardware partners, as well as consumers, for more than a decade.

And for the first time the rhetoric of companies like Nokia, Samsung and Motorola, who have boasted of putting a multimedia computer in your pocket, no longer seems far fetched.

"Converged devices are always with you and always connected," said Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, Nokia chief executive at last week's Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.

Last year Nokia sold almost 200m camera phones and about 146m music phones, making it the world's biggest seller of digital cameras and MP3 players.

In the coming year the firm predicts it will sell 35 million GPS-enabled phones as personal navigation becomes the latest feature to be assimilated into the mobile phone.

Form and function

Nigel Clifford, chief executive of Symbian, said: "All of those single use devices - MP3 players, digital camera, GPS - are collapsing onto the phone."

"We are going past the point where this was a phone with a few other things," he said.

Symbian's operating system shipped on 188 million phones last year and a third of those came with GPS.

"We see mobile phones evolving into multi-functional devices that now support consumer electronics, multimedia entertainment and mobile professional enterprise applications; all converging," said Luis Pineda, from mobile phone chip firm Qualcomm.

More and more people are snapping shots with a handset

Convergence is being driven by a combination of software, services and hardware.

The first phones powered by a chip running at 1Ghz will hit the market later this year, seven years after the first desktop chip broke the gigahertz barrier.

Qualcomm's 1Ghz Snapdragon chipset will debut inside a number of handsets, including some from Samsung and HTC

"It's a first in the industry for a wireless chipset," said Mr Pineda.

As well as raw horsepower Snapdragon also features a dedicated application processor, as well as the ability to handle 12 megapixel digital photos and up to 720p high definition video imaging.

Mr Clifford from Symbian said the mobile industry had to deliver multi-function devices which did not compromise.

He said: "When we look at what is collapsing on to these devices and people's expectations with their experiences on single-use specialized devices there is going to be rising expectations."

Chip shop

More than 90% of the world's mobile phones are powered by technology created by British firm Arm. It designs chip architectures that it licenses to semiconductors makers such as Qualcomm and Broadcom.

Ian Drew from Arm said future mobile phones demanded ever more processing power.

But building chips with greater processing was not a straightforward, he said.

The future of the internet and computing applications is not going to be in the home or at the office; it's going to be mobile Nigel Clifford, Symbian

"If you look at a typical phone the first thing you have got to do is get within the half a watt envelope.

"It needs to get into your pocket. And there's no fan. It needs to work for days rather than hours."

He added: "When you start adding multi media experiences - such as 3D graphics, video, and games - there are two ways to do that: you can get bigger and bigger processors or you have multi core where you can switch off a processor when you don't need it."

Arm is demonstrating a chip architecture, called Coretex A9, that will offer four cores, or processors, on a single chip.

Symbian has been working with Arm on future uses for multi-core mobile phones.

"You can use massive amounts of processing if you need it. But if you don't you can power down the cores that aren't required," said Mr Clifford.

Symmetrical Multi Processing will drive the next generation of applications on a phone, he added.

"Silicon vendors are looking very seriously at how they integrate SMP."

Mr Clifford added: "The future of the internet and computing applications is not going to be in the home or at the office; it's going to be mobile."

The gaming abilities of handsets are rapidly improving

He said gaming would be the next feature to collapse into phones.

"That is one of the next single usage devices that will start feeling the pressure from the mobile device," he said.

3D graphics acceleration is becoming standard on many of today's mobile phones and specialists like Nvidia have joined the market.

Mr Clifford said today's most powerful mobile phones, such as Nokia's N96 and NTTDoCoMo's 905 series have the same power as a laptop from 2000.

Nvidia's APX 2500 chip has enough 3D graphics acceleration to handle Quake 3, a PC game from 1999, on a mobile phone.

Handset owners were also beginning to expect the same online experience they have on their desktop PCs on their mobile phones.

"Web 2.0, social networking and video sharing; that's a real driver of horsepower," said Mr Drew from Arm.

He added: "But you need to be able to get data in. The next generation of mobile phones need high performance radios - they will have high data rates that will enable this content to be streamed to you."

Symbian is working on technology called Freeway to give phones the ability to move seamlessly between wireless networks, like wi-fi and cell networks like 3G and 4G.

"We don't want people to feel the mobile web is a second class experience."

Give up apple microsoft: 77.3m Symbian phones shipped in 2007’

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/12/give-up-77-3m-symbian-phones-shipped-in-2007/

Give up: 77.3m Symbian phones shipped in 2007
Posted Feb 12th 2008 9:06AM by Paul MillerFiled under: Cellphones
Sorry Microsoft and Apple, you may have had some fancy smartphone sales this year in your cute little American way, but globally there's no question who's the real leader in this segment: the Symbian OS shipped on 77.3 million units in 2007. That's a 50% growth over 2006 sales, with over 141 different phone models from eight licensees. If the new hotness from Nokia this year at MWC is any indication, those numbers aren't going to go away very soon, but Sony Ericsson's adoption of Windows Mobile for its flagship XPERIA X1 certainly spells a modicum of trouble for Symbian land. Of course, there are many more low-end Symbian smartphones than there are cheap Windows Mobile phones, and Apple's iPhone is still a premium product , but the line is becoming increasingly blurred.

It's the User Experience, Stupid: Users' love affair with iPhone stumps Mobile World panel

Users' love affair with iPhone stumps Mobile World panel
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206504012

BARCELONA, Spain — A blue-ribbon panel of human behavior and technology experts at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain agreed that the best recent advance in the mobile telecommunications user space came not from a mobile telecom company but from Apple Inc. — the iPhone.

Anup Murarka, director of technical marketing for Adobe, cited a study showing that 77 percent of iPhone purchasers described themselves as "very satisfied" with their user experience.

In an ominous note for mobile operators, the iPhone respondents credited their happy experience not to AT&T, the channel through which iPhone services were delivered in the U.S, but to Apple, the device maker.

The panel, whose title was It's the User Experience, Stupid agreed that iPhone represents a model for mobile operators to follow, but they reached little agreement on how to follow.

One direction, advocated by Lucia Predolin, international marketing and communications director for Buongirono S.p.A. of Milan, Italy, is to manipulate users by identifying their "need states" — including such compulsions as "killing time," and "making the most of it" — and fulfilling them subliminally.

Adobe's Murarka proposed a more technological approach to improving the user experience, satisfying the mobile phone subscriber through better interface design. Sarah Lipman, co-founder and R&D director for Power2B, suggested an almost mystical solution, somehow tapping into users' "neural networks" to navigate a mobile phone interface "using touch and pre-touch input."

Panelists cautiously agreed that the current user experience — at least compared to the iPhone — is not very good. Predolin said that one problem is that many people are reluctant to tap the vast potential of mobile communications — especially the mobile Internet — because they fear the eventual cost. With so many telecom companies advertising heavily the cost of their services per minute, users hesitate to explore possibilities that might devour their precious minutes.

Predolin said that this deadline consciousness is so strong among mobile users that they even constrained their consumption of minutes in a Buongiorno-sponsored trial in which participants were given mobile phones free for a week. "Operators are putting together cost plans that people can't understand," said Predolin. "It is not just cost but the way you market your cost."

Panelist Mike Yonker, general manager of worldwide strategy and operations for Texas Instruments' wireless terminals business unit, said that the way for the user to get the rich content now available on a mobile handset is through the "search" function. But this isn't so easy. He compared the limitations of a mobile handset to a full personal computer screen.

Searching on a computer, he said, is like going to a store, where the customers sees every product displayed, and can make comparisons, touch the products, even try things on for size. Doing the same search on a mobile, he said, but like trying to shop in the same store but "through a drive-up window." No matter how much stuff is in the store, you can only find out through the cashier at the drive-up window.

The dilemma, left unsolved by the panelists, was how to squeeze the user through that window, past the cashier, to sample all the things in the store, without guilt, while still feeling grateful to the cashier who seemed, all along, to be standing in the way.

Everyone agreed that, so far, only Apple has been able to turn this trick. For users, "the content is the core," said Lipman of Power2B somewhat ruefully, "and we have to get out of their way."

Yahoo launches OneConnect

Yahoo launches OneConnect

Posted by Marguerite Reardon Post a comment
BARCELONA, Spain--Yahoo has upped the ante in its campaign to rule the mobile Web.
On Tuesday, the company announced at the GSMA Mobile World Congress here OneConnect, a new tool that allows mobile phone users to aggregate their social-networking updates and messaging in one spot on their phones. The service integrates directly with a phone user's address book and allows people to share status updates and messages from a variety of messaging and social-networking platforms. This means it can provide status updates from Facebook or MySpace.com as well as provide access to e-mail and archived instant-messaging chats.

Yahoo demonstrated OneConnect at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.(Credit: Marguerite Reardon/CNET Networks)
Using GPS tracking, cell tower triangulation and/or near field communications like Bluetooth to get a fix on the cell phone user's exact location, the service can be set up to let people know if their friends are in the same area.
The service sounds similar to one that is offered by a small company called Loopt. This service also allows people to track their friends using GPS and last year the company announced it had integrated the service with cell phone users' address books. But the Loopt service is only available through two carriers in the U.S., Boost and Sprint Nextel. It also costs an additional $3 a month and can only be used on certain handsets.
By contrast OneConnect should be able to run on most mass-market phones that have a browser, said Marco Boerries, executive vice president of Connected Life at Yahoo. Boerries also said the company is working on versions of the service for Apple's iPhone and Research in Motion's BlackBerry. The service can also be accessed from any Internet browser through Yahoo Go 3.0.
Yahoo's OneConnect is yet another example of how the company is pouring resources and efforts into building up its mobile capabilities. Within the past year the company has gotten more aggressive about rolling out new mobile services and striking deals with carriers. Today, Yahoo has partnerships with 29 operators, who combined have more than 600 million subscribers, according to its press release.
Yahoo's hope is that it will become the default access point for mobile phone users accessing the Web. OneConnect fits nicely with Yahoo OneSearch, which aggregates news, weather, financial data, photos, and Web links based on search queries, Boerries said during a demonstration of the service at Mobile World Congress.
But Yahoo isn't the only company going after this market. Rival Google is also making a play in mobile. But many experts say that even though Google dominates on the desktop, the company seems to be lagging Yahoo in capabilities on mobile devices.
The two companies have taken different strategies in addressing the mobile market. Google is building its own mobile phone software in an effort to integrate its services into devices. By contrast, Yahoo is attempting to address the current phone market and is even integrating its competitors' services on this new OneConnect platform. For example, Google Talk and MSN Messenger will be aggregated as a part of the OneConnect product.
The competition between the two companies is heating up. Also on Tuesday at Mobile World Congress, Yahoo announced that its OneSearch service will be the exclusive search tool for T-Mobile's European customers starting in March. Google said Tuesday that its search tool will be embedded on the four phones Nokia introduced on Monday. Google search has previously been available on Nokia Internet tablets, and last year Nokia announced that the N95 8GB supported YouTube, the video-sharing platform owned by Google.

great news : Sony-Ericsson introduces XPERIA X1 'iPhone killer'

Sony-Ericsson intros XPERIA X1 'iPhone killer'

Sony-Ericsson opened the Mobile World Congress today by unveiling the XPERIA X1, its first true touchscreen-focused cellphone. Following a deal with Microsoft, the handset is Sony-Ericsson's first device to use Windows Mobile for its OS but also uses a custom interface of "XPERIA panels" rather than the default Microsoft front-end: users simply tap panels with their fingers to access calling, media, and other functions, according to the phone designer. Though dominated by its 3-inch, 800x480 touchscreen, the device also includes both optical and physical navigation pads at the bottom as well as a unique arc-slider QWERTY keyboard that tilts outward for more comfortable typing.
The X1 is also the most Internet-connected Sony-Ericsson device in history, the company boasts: unlike even most advanced 3G phones, it offers HSUPA (High Speed Upload Packet Access) that sends video and other media almost as quickly as it comes downstream. Wi-Fi is onboard for short-range networking and is backed by assisted GPS for route finding. A 3.2-megapixel camera with autofocus and a microSD slot (versus Sony-Ericsson's favorite Memory Stick Micro format) round out its key features.The first XPERIA phone is expected sometime in the second half of 2008; with quad-band GSM and an unprecedented five-band HSPA/UMTS connection, the device should be available both in North America as well as Europe and includes

The Top 5 Reasons Nokia Should Bid On Yahoo

We all know that Nokia is moving towards, becoming an internet company.
Here is an insight into how Nokia can achieve this and establish itself as an internet giant and maybe down the line outperfom Google.

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/02/the_top_5_reaso.html

The entire tech universe is obsessed with Microsoft's attempt to takeover Yahoo. The market has been waiting for this move for the last year, so most of the "analysis" coming from bloggers and industry pundits is well-rehearsed and polished, but hardly thought-provoking. Instead of rehashing this debate, I want to start another one: Why isn'tNokia (NYSE: NOK) bidding for Yahoo (NSDQ: YHOO)?

I have to admit that most of the bloggers have taken a very US-centric focus in this discussion. As my colleague, Eric Zeman, pointed out in a recent post:

The likelihood of another company stepping in and beating Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT)'s bid is not high. Rupert Murdoch, owner of News Corp., said his company is not interested in bidding. Rumors suggested that Apple might buy Yahoo, but that seems an unlikely scenario given Apple's strong relationship with Google.

Not many other companies have $50 billion sitting around burning a hole in their pockets.

He's right; there aren't that many tech companies (or any other kinds of companies) with access to the amount of cash it would take to challenge the gang in Redmond for Yahoo.

Well, one company, Nokia, could challenge Microsoft. Nokia has the cash, the resources, and a killer global handset business with which to fuel the deal.

Here are five reasons why I think Nokia needs to jump into the ring and fight Microsoft for the rights to buy Yahoo:

1. If Nokia wants to be a Web company it needs a stronger desktop presence to compliment its push into mobile applications.

Nokia is now a Web company, not just a handset maker. But, the company acts as if the Web is just mobile and has no desktop component. This isn't a very smart strategy.

The mobile Web needs to be seamless -- with easy connections between the desktop and the mobile phone. Nokia's rivals in mobile -- Microsoft, Google, and, yes, even Yahoo -- all have desktop products. These Web giants are leveraging their vast desktop Web audiences to grow their mobile initiatives. While Nokia has tons of mobile phone customers, it doesn't have as many Web application users.

With the exception of Navteq (a company Nokia is about to close on), Nokia really doesn't have much of a presence on the desktop. If it expects its new initiatives, like Widsets, to thrive this has to change. Nokia could integrate Yahoo's applications with its cell phones, as well as leverage Yahoo's massive desktop and mobile user bases to grow its own initiatives.

2. Navteq + Yahoo = Nokia's dominance of mobile location.

While Google Maps and My Location continues to gain users and accolades, Nokia could leverage its pending acquisition of Navteq to dominate the fast-growing mobile location market. Sure, My Location has all the hype now, but Nokia owns the global distribution platform for mobile applications, the handsets. By improving the user interface on Yahoo apps, like Yahoo's Go platform, and bundling location-based applications on the devices, Nokia could beat Google Maps before it becomes the dominant platform for LBS.

3. Nokia needs to grow its U.S. market share and Yahoo is a brand that could help it.

While Nokia claims nearly 40% of the global cell phone market, it's a niche player in North America, and its reach into the mobile application market is equally small. Yahoo, after Google, is arguably the second dominant U.S. Web brand. Nokia could leverage not only Yahoo's online market share in North America, but also its brand equity for new applications and even devices.

4. Nokia is a mobile ad company that needs to grow its share of online advertising.

Thanks to its acquisition of Enpocket, Nokia is a mobile advertising company, but it doesn't have an online desktop advertising business. I think Nokia could build all kinds of synergies between Yahoo's desktop and mobile platforms and its own mobile advertising business.

5. Nokia cannot afford to let Microsoft or Google gain any more online market share.

If Microsoft merges with Yahoo, the company will gain online market share. And while Google seems to be the most obvious loser here, Nokia would lose too. Microsoft would gain more mobile users -- and more potential mobile advertising real estate -- if it gets its hands on Yahoo.

If Google (NSDQ: GOOG) can successfully circumvent the Microsoft deal with some kind of partnership with Yahoo, Nokia would likely lose too. The most talked about scenario in this situation is that Yahoo would sell its online ad business to Google and partner with Google for ad revenue. This would cede more mobile ad real estate to Google, another Nokia rival. From Nokia's perspective, this is hardly a better alternative. If Google could then combine Yahoo's mobile ad real estate with its own Android platform, things could get even worse for Nokia.

What do you think? Should Nokia bid for Yahoo? And is your answer is yes, do you think they will?

Android "complete mis-understanding of the handset market"

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/momolondon/message/3874

[ From a posting by David Hearn on the Mobile Monday London mailing list ]

What I saw from the Android developer event was, certainly from the UK market point of view, a complete mis-understanding of the handset market. In the UK, the vast majority of handsets are supplied and subsidised by the network, customised (and often mangled) to suit their requirements - particularly with security and features. Anyone remember Vodafone stopping MP3s being used as ringtones (so only the DRM'd expensive ringtones could be used) on handsets which, if bought sim-free, could do it out the box.

Orange with their smart phones, at the start, locked everything down so almost no applications could be installed. They've now gone down the model of opening it up a bit, but you still cannot install a non-trusted/self-issued CA key without Orange having to authorise and signing the key for you and sending you an executable to install it. They also don't trust the Microsoft certified global Mobile2Market certificate (issued by Geotrust and Verisign) for privileged execution (this is required for sending SMS, making calls or making a GPRS connection) - you must be an Orange partner to get that access.

Also the much publicised removal of VoIP clients by certain networks, which if bought sim-free would include it.

So, for Android to not have *any* trusted 3rd party security included seems great for the user, but completely ignoring the networks. The only signing they have, is self-signing, which Google admit, is not there for security, but to only allow application providers to group their software together and run under a single user.

It's almost as if they're aiming at the SIM-free, non-operator supplied market.

Too many of the questions asked on the day appeared to be answered with "trust us" and "that's not yet defined yet". Everything seems a bit vague considering handsets are meant to be coming out later this year. My question about malware applications which could claim to be and look like Google apps (or any other software provider out there) was responded with, I think, admittance that nothing stops that, and a dismissal that it isn't a problem. Signing applications with trusted 3rd party keys would at least allow people to be certain that an application does come from who you think. But Google have said that
they will not support this.

I cannot imagine that the networks will be comfortable with being unable to lock down the handsets. I understand that Open Handset Alliance members aren't allowed to do this, but I guess others can modify the code to do this, but a network operator isn't going to want to have to extend the OS to that degree. They'll probably go with handsets which support such things out the box.

I think that having open handsets is great for the consumer - you can decide what to put on the device (and what to remove!) - but for businesses using these devices, corporate police may mandate lock down - and networks love to restrict things.

Good luck to them - and as people have said - they've got everything to prove, and if anyone could do it, it would be Google - but I suspect it'll not end up as open as it set out to be.

Mobile Advertisement to unleash "huge revolution", says Google CEO [with predictions of mobile adverstising revenues]

Source : http://www.telecomtiger.com/fullstory.aspx?passfrom=vasstory&storyid=530
Technologies:
Google chief is bullish on mobile advertisement. He told a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos that the a new generation of location-based advertising is set to unleash a "huge revolution".

"It'''s the recreation of the Internet, it's the recreation of the PC (personal computer) story and it is before us -- and it is very likely it will happen in the next year," said Google Inc CEO Eric Schmidt.

Forrester, a consultancy firm, has predicted revenues of under $1 billion for mobile advertisements by 2012. Schmidt, however, said this figure was too low and failed to take into account the fact the mobile Web was reaching a tipping point.

Google is one of the bidders for 700 MHz Spectrum auction in the USA.

Analysts have different opinion on the future of mobile advertising. Sterling Market Intelligence forecast mobile advertising revenues will reach $5.08 billion in North America and Western Europe by 2012. Thomson Financial predict Google's 2009 mobile ad revenue alone will reach $21.31 billion. Gartner predict that the worldwide mobile advertising market will grow from $895 million in 2007 to $14.6 billion in 2011, while the Kelsey Group forecast that the US mobile ad market will grow from $33.2 million to $1.4 billion in 2012. Forrester are the most conservative, predicting less than $1 billion in mobile ad revenue by 2012.

In a recent survey by Advertiser Perceptions in the USA, about 55 percent of marketers said that they plan to increase their budgets on mobile spending in the next 6 months, indicating that there is a healthy level of enthusiasm in the market.

However, less than half the participants in the survey, consider 'interactivity', which is a strength of mobile advertising, to be an important criterion when deciding their budgets for advertising. On the other hand, these advertisers consider 'reach', which is a weak point of mobile advertising, to be the number one criteria.

Mobile Internet usage needs to increase and attain levels comparable to other forms of media before platforms and publishers can expect advertisers to invest substantial sums in this medium