There have been reports (referred to by this here) pondering if Motorola grabbed an “exclusive” deal with the Google-led Open Handset Alliance for Android 2.0 on its Droid (or, in Europe et al, Milestone) handset. There does not appear to being any formal confirmation of this but it was mentioned that, anecdotally, other vendors (and fellow members of the Open Handset Alliance) like HTC, LG, Kyocera and Samsung were still deploying version 1.5.
They quoted industry analyst Ross Rubin as to why Android 2.0 debuted on a Motorola device:
[...] There could be several reasons. Verizon’s subscriber strength and more direct competition with AT&T and the iPhone may have led it to push for Android 2.0 to be more competitive. Or it could be simple product development timetables. Moving forward, HTC will want to put its Sense user experience on top of Android 2.0, which requires development time. Google wants a healthy Android ecosystem and a competitive Motorola contributes to that.
The article went on to refer to the respective releases for 1.0 and 1.5 (both to HTC). However, one might argue that, for the first two releases, there was not much harm done in working more closely with HTC as they were the front-runners on deploying an Android phone, so that the concerted marketing buzz etc might have been justified. However, now that there is a large number of vendors deploying, one might query the compliance of the term “open source” with such exclusivity arrangements.
It also highlights the dominance Google has in the Open Handset Alliance which might, longer-term, lead to assertions that Google is in fact using the open source road as a cover to push what is effectively an OS largely driven by them. I am not implying that it is and a healthy ecosystem with multiple strong is important in particular for the launch of a new OS in a space so full of powerful multi-nationals but there is a fine line to walk in order to get it right.
There have been rumours galore about Apple’s exclusive deals for its iPhone all over the place (see e.g. here for Verizon). New reports have now surfaced that appear to confirm that Apple is looking at this option for both the US and the UK (and, if this works, presumably also for other territories):
In the UK, T-Mobile confirmed it was in talks with Apple over stocking the iPhone 3G (the 3GS remaining exclusive to O2, which also has its hands on the Palm Pre) and Orange is “believed”, to be as well.
In the US, the Verizon discussion has been around for a while. A new report now suggests that losing the exclusivity would spell doom for AT&T: the report estimates that as much as 30% of AT&T’s customer are with the carrier solely because of the iPhone exclusivity. This sounds a little high to me: after all, the iPhone penetration in the US is much lower than that (it held just under 11% market share globally in Q1/2009). Are they saying that all the other users (those with the less fancy handsets) just stay on AT&T to share into the iPhone limelight? No, I thought not…
Apple is in any event in a beautiful position at the moment: so far, most of its competitors’ “iPhone killers”(Palm Pre, Blackberry Storm and innumerable devices from Samsung, LG and Nokia) have failed to challenge its numbers and, quite literally, all of the app stores set up by competitors showed meagre results compared to the – now – 1.5 bn (!) downloads in a little over a year from the Apple App Store. The good folks from Cupertino are therefore now in a pretty good position: they proved (a couple of times now) that they shift 1m+ devices – on the opening weekend! They bring a lot of sex appeal in which the carriers, not generally known for coolness, can bask. They cracked the content dilemma and produced a thriving developer community, which made people actually use their phones for all these things that have been promised for so long (iPhones are connected, most others can connect). In short: in carriers eyes, they are – aside from the horrible fact that Apple takes a healthy cut – a really good thing for networks that see themselves locked into cut-throat pricing wars over voice and SMS (bringing in, anecdotally, up to 50% of European carrier profits over the past 5 years) and craving for a way to increase user ARPU (app revenue on the iPhone is, apparently, $27 per device). Happy days…
The most excellent German blog Mobile Zeitgeist alerted me (in German) to a little battle that illustrates the pitfalls of creating the seamless user experience: Nokia appears to being in a tussle with (at least) the German arms of Vodafone and T-Mobile over the pre-installation of Skype clients on some of its forthcoming handset models (including the long-awaited iPhone competitor, N97).
There’s new data out on the bestselling handsets, and this time it is not being derived from accessory sales (which may have its flaws as I pointed out here) but from a survey amongst service reps and store managers across the 4 big US mobile networks (Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile; these comprise 85% of the total subscriber base). Now, this would arguably reduce the recorded sales for the iPhone since this is also being sold via Apple’s own retail stores as well as Walmart, Best Buy, etc. So again not an entirely accurate yardstick, huh?
January is MIDEM time (even though, sadly, I cannot go this year), which means that music dominates the news. In an interview, the EVP of Universal’s eLabs, Rio Caraeff on the revenues of Universal Music Group that:
“about 40 to 45% of our overall digital business is coming from mobile channels like Verizon and AT&T. [...] On much of our frontline pop or R&B or urban releases [...] we’re seeing mobile comprising 20-45% of the [overall] revenue for those artists.”
“The consumer doesn’t want a mobile-only experience – they want an all-digital multi-platform experience. They want to consume their music on their mobile handset [and] on PC and other online platforms. Partners like Verizon and AT&T wanted to have multi-platform online experiences as well. [...] Now at Universal, we don’t have a mobile business. We don’t have an online business. We just have one multi-platform digital business.”
And the winner is… China Mobile. Hard to guess, huh? Some research shows that the Chinese carrier’s brand is worth $30.79bn. Vodafone and Verizon took the other spots on the podium. The top 10 is below (courtesy of the good folks at telecoms.com). And for some (by now a little outdated) comparison for how they rank amongst other industries, see here.
| China Mobile | China Mobile | China | Asia | 30,793 | |
| 2 | Vodafone | Vodafone | UK | Europe | 22,131 |
| 3 | Verizon | Verizon Communications | US | North America | 20,382 |
| 4 | AT&T | AT&T | US | North America | 18,886 |
| 5 | T-Mobile | Deutsche Telekom | Germany | Europe | 16,802 |
| 6 | Orange | France Telecom | France | Europe | 15,489 |
| 7 | NTT DoCoMo | NTT DoCoMo | Japan | Asia | 14,871 |
| 8 | KDDI | KDDI Corp. | Japan | Asia | 14,454 |
| 9 | Movistar | Telefonica | Spain | Europe | 10,799 |
| 10 | Sprint | Sprint Nextel | US | North America | 9,661 |
An article tells us that AT&T Wireless intends to run all their phones on one platform as soon as 2014, namely on Symbian. Is this odd? I mean: the iPhone isn’t Symbian, is it?
So, no GPhone — yet. Google, with quite a number of partners, today announced the already much-rumoured “Open Handset Alliance” under which a Linux-based OS, nicknamed Android has been launched (the SDK will allegedly be available in a week’s time). Here’s a video explaining the deep thoughts of the creators (be quick: YouTube has removed it already…).
The whole industry had been waiting for this, and Google seems to have come up with a black-white thing: it goes back to its roots in open source but overlays it with Java, which has caused the content community a lot of headaches (every mobile phone translates it slightly differently, so one needs a gazillion ports). However, Google has teamed up with no less than 34 partners for the launch alone, including such giants as China Mobile, KDDI, Sprint Nextel, TIM, T-Mobile, Motorola (who seem to be dancing on a lot of weddings recently: UIQ and Linux Mobile are also on their plates), Samsung, HTC, Intel and eBay.
So what does it all mean? According to the members of the alliance, it will be better, bigger, faster for everyone: open source means more applications, less bugs and less cost. According to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, it is “a fresh approach to fostering innovation in the mobile industry will help shape a new computing environment that will change the way people access and share information in the future.” Commentators note that there is apparently one caveat: you’ll have to use Google for navigation. Now: does that bother anyone? Give me Internet on my phone on broadband speed and I happily surf with whoever gives it to me, I’d say. To enact a platform, supported by a lot of sector muscle, that makes the developers’ life easier should be good for everyone indeed as it will undoubtedly bring more usage. Traditionally, carriers feared for the consistency of the user experience. Apparently, Verizon and AT&T have already voiced such concerns also here although the explanation sounds defensive at best: they fear too much advertising. Would it be safe to say they rather fear loss of control?
Quite a few companies have tried to take on mobile as the next frontier and quite a few fared rather miserably on the complexities of the environment presented by the sector (Disney’s MVNO attempts, Infospace and a few others spring to mind). With Google’s might this might be about to change though. A fresh breeze and a unified development platform would, in any event, be a good thing.
Interesting though that, as in recent releases on OS-driven initiatives, Nokia is again absent. This is not promising any good in terms of unifying the landscape, it seems. However, both Linux Mobile (on which Android is apparently based) and Symbian (in which Nokia holds a huge stake and which it intends to make its platform of choice) are C++-based. And that would be easing development pains after all: much easier to deal with than the Java layers, which until now were statutory but might only be optional going forth.
UPDATE 7 Nov 2007: Nokia has said its participation in Android is “not ruled out at all”. It would work with it if it would see sense. Now, a convincing statement sounds differently but it IS noteworthy that the Finnish giant felt the need to comment on it so quickly.
Now, this is a big deal: Motricity puts $135m in cash onto the table of the under-pressure Infospace people to acquire the remains of the Infospace mobile business, including search, storefronts, portals and messaging. The deal was financed by existing investors Carl Icahn and VC Advanced Equities (see reporting from MoCoNews here and here).
The acquisition marks the end of an odyssey into mobile by Inforspace, in which it first acquired and then effectively destroyed some of the brightest stars on the mobile content sky, including game developers Atlas (bought for $6m, sold for $1.5m), Elkware (bought for some $26m and then closed) and IOMO (bought for $15m, then closed in August 2007) as well as ringtone giants Moviso. They lost people, money and ultimately the businesses (e.g. IOMO’s founders have recently opened their new shop, Finblade). What a battlefield…
Motricity’s, so far predominantly a platform and storefront provider, entrant into the increasingly competitive content publishing space comes at a time where more and more players try to extend their reach on the value chain: one sees platform providers expanding into master content provider relationships, one sees publishers (e.g. Player X) seizing the same position, and all are in a quest to concentrate enough revenue and margin in order to be able to run a profitable business in an environment where still the majority of players are losing money.
The challenge for Motricity will be to grow its business outside the US, and this is arguably where the risks are hiddedn. In the US, the company claims to have now grown their distribution footprint to 11 of “top 13″ North American carriers (which leave another 10 that are apparently not top), which however seems OK since they add two of the biggies which they couldn’t reach before, namely mighty Verizon and AT&T (I still prefer the name Cingular!). The gamble is arguably being mitigated by the presumed synergies through the search, portal and messaging business, and this is where I suspect the balance of risk lies in respect of the financial considerations: because it harnesses Motricity’s existing business, the venture into the publishing side of things appears somewhat less risky. All in all, a deal that might just make sense; if the money is adequate? Who could say? What proportion of growth will come through which part of the business? Hmmm. There have been deals that, on the face of it, looked more reckless in the past (remember the seemingly atrocious $145m Jamdat paid for Blue Lava [incl. $8m non-breakup fee to Tetris, LLC])? It paid off for them as then EA bought them for a rather sweet $680m. I would not suggest that the same will happen to Motricity although, looking at the monies invested into them to date, it will just about have to be the exit its investors are looking to.
“US customer satisfaction is off the charts”. These were the words of Steve Jobs on the iPhone, adding he was keen to bring this to UK consumers as well. Now, he would say that, wouldn’t he? The lucky (!?) operator to grab it is O2 UK. Why? “We got to pick the carrier that felt most like home, and that’s O2″, says Mr Jobs.
From 9 November 2007 onwards, the iPhone will be available at a cost of 269 pounds which, converted to c. $540, is substantially more than the comparable price in the US (but then, the UK price includes 17.5% VAT, whilst the US price apparently did not include sales tax). From 35 pounds per month (but tied into an 18-month contract), you get an all-you-can-eat data service that also gives you free access to 7,500 Wi-Fi “the Cloud” hotspots in the UK. This is small consolation for the fact that – rather disappointingly – Apple does not offer a 3G version of the iPhone for the European release but is still running on EDGE; O2 is reported to have been working on upgrading its EDGE network in the UK, which is another addition of cost to what already seems to being a costly deal (since you wouldn’t normally have to add this to a 3G-capable network). Also, it looks as if it was not unlimited after all: O2 said that “1,400 internet pages per day would break the deal as part of fair usage agreement.” Over Wi-Fi, too? Why?
The remarkable spin abilities of Mr Jobs were again on show when he explained the reason for not adding 3G Here‘s what he said: “The chipsets work well apart from power. They’re real power hogs. Most phones now have battery lives of 2-3 hours and that’s due to these very power-hungry 3G chipsets. Our phone has 8 hours of talktime life. That’s really important when you start to use the internet and want to use the phone to listen to music. We’ve got to see the battery lives for 3G get back up into the 5+ hour range. Hopefully we’ll see that late next year. Rather than cut the battery life, we’ve included Wi-Fi and sandwiched 3G between Edge and a more efficient Wi-Fi.” So in effect it is better to have 8 hours of battery life because your browsing takes longer than on 3G? Hmmmm…
The one thing everyone is really curious about is whether those recent speculation that O2 offered a whopping 40% revenue share on airtime (AT&T offered 10% USA). Sadly though, nothing has been confirmed to that end although the 10% seem more likely (and it is in itself a continuation of the small revolution Apple triggered with that deal in the US).
And, yes, I want one…
Now, I wonder if this is damaging to the readership of this blog: this must be the 3rd time or so in the very young age of this that I have been drawn into the debate about the device that reinvents telecommunications, interaction on the go, human interaction and also orders you a coffee at Starbucks. Holy Jobs, what have you done? However: there have been a couple of interesting pieces written on this wonderous affair, so I’ll have another crack:
The WSJ has a piece about the iPhone and its “answers”, which are, alas, no answers. They compare the HTC Touch, the LG Prada (of which you could read here, too), the Samsung UpStage and the Nokia N95 (reported on here). It steers the debate to the probably most important aspect of the not so secret secret of Apple’s success, namely the combination of smart technology with very smart marketing. It is not my words (or thoughts) but the ones of very, very smart Yankee analyst John Jackson who said “Any handset maker is more than capable of making clever devices. But it’s really about business models. That’s where Apple maintains its business advantage.”
However, the hype has been less in Europe and Nokia’s market position is stronger in Europe and because the N95 has everything the iPhone has (except for brand and the looks) and some more (namely 3G although that might well come in the iPhone’s European iteration) AND because the N95 is out in the market and kicking some substantial rearsides, this might well work (remarks another smart analyst, namely Mr Greengart.
Anyway, Cellular News published some information on the average potential iPhone user (courtesy of Solutions Research Group), which is this:
If they can sell the 10m devices to this user base, then AT&T (I still prefer Cingular) and all other Apple partner will be happy chappies indeed.
And the beat goes on… but what would you say if the one, the only, the incredible Hummer phone would take all the glory? Doh!
It does remain interesting, doesn’t it? Days after AT&T was confirmed to have the iPhone for a minimum of 5 years exclusively, Verizon comes back to announce the launch of the ultimate fashion device (in a rather literal sense), namely the Prada phone (or LG KE 850). Verizon was keen to stress that this will not be the only music phone they will offer but this seems to being the current main contender of the iPhone: it has similarly sleek looks, both have a touch screen and even the LG UI is somewhat Apple-esque (See review here).
One of the interesting things is to see how a phone that – in Europe – runs on the trusted MIDP 2.0 platform (and will, for Verizon, presumably run on the no less trusted BREW platform) will perform against the first one utilising Apple’s OS X. If Apple manages to have their OS run as smoothly and matter-of-factly as it does on their computers, we will all be up for a ride: whilst phones may not be as buggy as some of Microsoft’s earlier (or indeed current?) operating systems, Apple’s OS X is one hell of an elegant OS and supposedly superior to anything I have seen on the currently available systems. However, OS X requires quite a bit more in computing power than these, and this poses (at least) two challenges, namely a) battery life and b) speed.
LG’s Prada phone on the other hand has shown in the UK that it is a proper everyday device that works well (and looks good). It also comes with 3G (other than the iPhone) although of course it lacks WiFi. LG has recently shown that it has a nifty hand for great look-and-feel: the Chocolate, the Shine and the Prada phone all show a fantastically slick approach to handset design. Since LG phones run on a “usual” OS, all applications and games, etc that run on “normal” phones, also work for them. And Apple? Nothing I heard of. Even the iPod games have already been cracked (see here).
If one would assume that the iPhone performs well, it would however be sad if that was only for one operator/carrier. Will Apple make the same mistake it made on its superior Mac OS in the mid-80s, i.e. kill its market prospects by being to exclusive? One would hope that they have learned but perhaps their more recent success with a similar approach for the iPod has overshadowed the no doubt painful learnings they must have taken from being erased by Micrsosoft and the inferior DOS on the computer OS front. Let’s see…
It get’s boring, I know. But after the flurry over AT&T’s announcement that they will now step up their re-branding another notch in order to be eye-level to the uber-spin doctors from Apple for the launch of the iPhone, I cannot keep myself from making yet another comment on the branding debate: which one is better, AT&T or Cingular?
A lot has been argued and said about it (see e.g. here, here and here) but let’s stick to one simple fact (OK, there’ll be another one later): Millward Brown, the brand gurus who publish the annual “Brandz” ranking, something like the Forbes List (or the Times Rich List when you live in the UK) for brands showed that “Cingular” gained 39% year-on-year and slotted in at #70 with a brand value of $9.2bn. AT&T, well, didn’t make the top 100. Even if it was on #101, it would mean that its value would be at least $4bn less than Cingular’s.
What is REALLY concerning though is that the brand they abandon actually gained value to the tune the Cingular brand did (3rd biggest climber overall). The fact that the Cingular brand is younger, more dynamic, does not conjure up memories of the old wretched monopoly the old AT&T once was – well, I leave that to the real marketing freaks but you really cannot argue with that, huh?
To end it: here’s what GigaOM‘s readers think:
Another survey with interesting numbers: according to this one, 9% of all US consumers are “very” or “somewhat” likely to buy Apple’s iPhone. Funny that: The iPhone is initially only available on Cingular/AT+T (cf here), which has a market share of 28%, so just about 1/3 of all Cingular subscribers (or c. 19 million) would have to be interested in buying an iPhone.
Folks, buy Apple stock now. But then (screeech): Apple said they were only targeting 1% of the market, which makes it 1m devices, and AT+T’s COO says they have already 1m inquiries … this would lead 18 million willing Cingular subs + everyone outside the US without the sleek and coveted thing. Not so good…
Isn’t all this somewhat weird? The phone costs $499 and $599 respectively (at least according to this), and 1/3 of a carrier’s subscribers going for one of the top-priced options would be contrary to everything we’ve seen so far. Rather unlikely, I’d say. So: if the price was dropped to below $300, an additional 10% would buy the 4GB model and a staggering 20% the 8GB model. Make that 30% market share then – with one device. Woah.
The blurb concludes that Apple should exceed its sales goals for, wait a minute, 2008 (sic!) and then closes with the beautiful caveat “provided the device lives up to consumer expectations”. Amen!
If Apple gets it right (which I hope as I like them), then 1m devices in 2007 would not be a bad start (considering it is one carrier and one country), in particular as high-priced as they are. Assuming that they could in fact open the pipeline for higher demand, we could well be seeing one of the top handsets in the market place (so-called blockbuster handsets regularly are between 2-3.5% share of all handsets on a carrier). That would be impressive enough.
Then they would only have to add 3G, I suppose…
