• Vodafone 360: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

    After much huffing and puffing, Vodafone unveiled yesterday what everyone had been waiting for for months and months: its new Vodafone 360 concept, which will replace Vodafone Live! It launches on – drumroll – LiMo-OS Linux phones from Samsung with touchscreen and GPS and, for the H1, AMOLED display (yum!), WiFi, HSDPA, etc, etc, etc. and also supports a fairly big range of Nokia (not on the N97 though!) and Sony Ericsson devices (although, judging by the screenshots, it doesn’t look as sexy on those).

    The 360 thing is, according to the press release

    a brand new set of internet services for the mobile and PC which gathers all of a customer’s friends, communities, entertainment and personal favourites (like music, games, photos and video) in one place.

    It has an address book with nodes into Facebook, IM (Windows and Google) and will “soon” also cover Twitter, Hyves and StudiVZ (the German Facebook clone). Two tailor-made (!) handsets that use a proprietary (!) interface based on LiMo’s release 2 mobile Linux OS. Users can create groups across different networks (which is very neat!), an app store with 1,000 apps at launch (no word so far what this comprises) and syncing with your computer.

    So is this the big thing then? Here’s the good, the bad and the ugly:

    The Good

    • The service reaches out. It acknowledges (this is a big step for most carriers!) that users have a life outside their carrier. Facebook, Live Messenger and Google Talk are a bit thin, I’d say, but let’s cut them some slack; the others will follow.
    • It has a couple of neat twists built-in: I mentioned a few above but there is also a feature that uses some spooky thing called the “Vodafone’s proximity algorythm” and which basically automatically favourites your most-loved people: the most frequently contacted people (like your mom?) come closer to the front.
    • At least on the custom-built devices, it looks much better than previous attempts by carriers to make something look and feel a little more user-friendly.
    • I hear that the whole widget-thing should be really neat. Now, I haven’t seen any of it as yet but the concept sounds good.
    • It works across different operating systems (at least LiMo and Symbian).

    As a funny side remark, the PR blurb points out that

    The beauty of Vodafone 360 is that all the services work together and they are easy to use.

    So they weren’t before, huh? ;-) — sorry, couldn’t resist…

    The Bad

    Some commentators mentioned that the cloud-hosted address book and generally aggregation of contacts, networks etc through a provider rather than through the handset would tie people to the provider more closely (which might not actually be anything Vodafone would object to). I am not sure how tough it would really be (as you have your computer back-up), so easy on that.

    It is still very much a closed-circuit affair: It is Vodafone and no one else. It is proprietary, tailor-made and not open. This is not good (and, yes, I know that the oft-cited iPhone is proprietary and tailor-made, too). Alas, its applications are not – unless your name is Spotify; then it takes a little longer;-)

    The Ugly

    The underlying proprietary thinking is nothing I can see working longer term. In a world that is (Vodafone press speak)

    a substantiator of Vodafone’s new brand expression – ‘power to you’ – which is focused on putting the customer in control and enabling simple and easy to manage communications, both mobile and fixed

    this is also a little bit of a contradiction.

    But I will say that it seems to be the nicest operator-built environment I have seen so far. And for this to come from the world’s largest operator is no mean feat and might actually yield some results. Go on, guys, tweak it, improve it, show us!

     
  • App-sharing coming to iPhone and Android?

    iphone-3-0The breath of fresh air that Apple has been bringing to the mobile content industry does not seem to end. However, this time, it is not so much fresh air by Apple but rather a borrowed deodorant from Microsoft (more specifically the iPod killer called Zune) and that is app-sharing. Whilst this might be largely superfluous for the Zune (how often will you find a group where more than one person has one? – as the good folks from the Apple Blog mention), it would be upping the usability game again and, for iPhone and iPod users as well as for the quickly growing Android device-base, it would arguably impact the market a little more. This also since the iPhone has become so much of the benchmark every OEM tries to emulate.

    So what is it? According to Business Week who have been speaking to someone “familiar with the technology”, the iPhone 3.0 software kit provides for a functionality that could “if activated by Apple” allow users to share apps between them (note to self: ask my contacts familiar with the technology if they came across this, too).

    Technically, it’s compelling and simple, well, the latter at least in Apple’s case: It was a nightmare for an engineer (as much as a dream for every “guerilla” marketeer) in the face of a gazillion different handsets with a gazillion different screen sizes, heap sizes, soft key allocations, etc, etc. In Apple’s case: 1 device, 1 screen size… off to the races…

    Now, the same thing is supposed to happen with Android devices, too. And there, this might actually be a little harder to achieve; different devices, etc – well you get the gist.

    From a user perspective it is of course fantastic: you can try things out before you have to commit to buy (rather than relying on the voluntary “lite” versions). So rather than buying an app that a friend likes (which increases the likelihood you might to but does not necessarily give you certainty to part with your precious cash). So: try it out. You like it, you buy it… It also (as mentioned above) is a big one on the marketing side: the strongest sales people will be happy users. So if a happy user recommends it to their peers, it is so much more likely that they will give it a go. All good stuff.

    Would someone from Apple please confirm this? ;-)

     
  • Apple's Gaming Platform

    I wrote about this topic a couple of times already (here and here) but here’s an interesting update/summary. The gist of the argument remains, only the numbers got better: Microsoft’s XBox has sold 29 million units, and that is fairly respectable (in particular when you consider that people regularly fork out $30 and more per game). Apple however (Mr Gates, I hate to say it) outsold its dear competitor by selling more than 30 million iPhones (and, well, iPod Touch).

    The hardware install base is fairly similar then. There are two differentiators (besides the price point as per above and the fact that an XBox is not so portable nor meant to be): 1) Apple took a lot less time to get there, and 2) there are more than 25,000 applications for the iPhone, of which about 1/4 are games. That’s a lot!
    And with its fairly awe-inspiring iPhone 3.0 update (more here or watch the entire keynote), one can now also add in-game micro-payments to the mix, which enhances the flexibility of billing models beyond anything its console or handheld rivals have on offer. Add to this the points raised in my earlier posts and the neat additions to the new iPhone SDK (use music stored on the device in the game, in-game voice chat, push notification waking up an app, stereo Bluetooth, etc, etc) and we are hopefully to see yet another wave of innovative, intelligent implementations of this. It is pretty cool indeed!
     
  • Games Pulsating Through One Platform?

    Here’s one that nearly slipped through the (well, at least my) net: according to a recent press release, the Eclipse Foundation is set to unveil a unified development platform. It is said that some major players, including Nokia, RIM, Sony Ericsson, IBM and Motorola have joined this initiative already though Android and – predictably – Microsoft and Apple are notable in their absence.

    The concept is oh so simple: a developer goes to the site, downloads the platform and is ready to rumble. The platform (called Pulsar) would pull together vendor-specific SDKs and off you go. It is clearly geared to tackle the fragmentation of the many, many handsets to be addressed when publishing to “mainstream” mobile phones.
    At present, it’s an initiative (as there have been so many) and the presence of industry heavyweights does not always guarantee their success. I am (cynicism coming with age…) cautious over black box approaches (remember Tira Wireless?). I would love to see this succeed but let’s see what it comes to…
    Image credit: digitalvish.com
     
  • Microsoft App Store Better than Apple!?

    Microsoft has a central market place for Windows Mobile applications in the making. It is the latest (and maybe the last) of the big smartphone platform makers to come forth with such a model. And – with a probably already somewhat reflexive jab to its Cupertino nemesis (yes, Mr Gates’ children are not allowed iPods), it vowed to be more open to outside software developers.

    Apple is indeed not known for the most proactive approach to external partners but it does have a bit of a name for being a “good company”. Microsoft on the other hand is, rightly or wrongly, not really known for this. It would be a nice move. Other than that – also somewhat familiar – Microsoft’s store is said to be closely following Apple’s lead, even the revenue share (70% to developers) is apparently the same. The only difference would then be the openness. This is presumably being highlighted following a couple of incidents where developers complained that Apple had not accepted their applications without giving them a good reason. If Microsoft were to make this bit better, it would constitute a significant improvement as it would save developers from spending money on application development only to see them canned.
    The rationale for Microsoft’s move is utterly simple: a) there are more Windows Mobile apps out than iPhone ones (20,000 they say). It is just a wee bit more difficult to find them, b) everyone else (RIM, Nokia, Android, hell, even Palm) does it, and c) Apple is insanely successful with it.

    The big question that remains is if the integration of the store will be as seamless as Apple’s. The key differentiator is that Apple has managed (which no other OEM has so far) to impose a strictly regulated environment from end to end: its program has an easy entry (a few paragraphs with a click-through agreement), a fairly well-controlled development environment and a unified output (the store), which is the same anywhere in the world. Even the biggest OEMs have struggled to impose anything even resembling this kind of control. Windows Mobile runs on a number of the tier-2 players (HTC) that have done the opposite to Apple: HTC willingly gives away its branding in favour of a carrier brand and is content to provide the hardware. Since it can be expected that at least the larger carriers will be keen to run app stores of their own, Microsoft will struggle more than Apple (which was a highly anticipated new market entrant with a tremendous brand message) to assert this type of dominance over carrier specs. The recent rumours of lower Windows Mobile output won’t necessarily help either.
    I would welcome a success from Microsoft; let Apple not grow overly content…
     
  • Windows Mobile: we didn't mean it like that…

    So following the conflicting news about what the strategy for Windows Mobile would be, some learned folks followed up and quizzed Microsoft. So here’s what they said:

    Microsoft will be focusing on building out the quality of the Windows Mobile experience, investing more in working with its partners to ensure the best hardware-software integration. While this may result in fewer phone models, Microsoft will continue working with our partners to innovate on the Windows Mobile platform.

    Microsoft is committed to continued innovation of the Windows Mobile platform. Our goal continues to be working together with you to deliver exciting experiences to end users. The implication in The New York Times that Microsoft will limit the number of Windows Mobile devices is not accurate. In an interview with the paper, Todd Peters stated that Microsoft would be focusing on building out the quality of the Windows Mobile experience, investing more in working with its partners to ensure the best hardware-software integration.

    So, there you have it. Despite it still being awkward that Todd Peters and Steve Ballmer would make such contradicting on the same day, the above would suggest that Microsoft has a couple of iPhone test devices running and now tries to catch up with the smooth overall end-to-end user experience (see also here) (or how would you read the first paragraph of the above?). With Windows 7 supposedly pushing into a tighter/more intuitive desktop-web integration, this would appear to being in line with an overall push to improve performance on this end.
     
  • Win ME: Bigger, Better, Stronger, Less?

    Last week during the frenzy that was CES, Microsoft put out two statements that I find slightly confusing. Statement no. 1 was the announcement from Steve Ballmer that more than 20 million Windows Mobile devices had been shipped in 2008. He went on to marvel 


    “about the momentum we have…We have delivered 11 different mobile phones that have each sold a million units each, and in the past year, we’ve brought to market over 30 new Windows Mobile phones, or more than any other mobile platform in the market”

    Statement no. 2 was made by Todd Peters (the VP Marketing for Windows Mobile) who said that we s
    hould expect fewer devices with Windows Mobile on them. In his words: 
    “I’d rather have fewer devices and be more focused [as] we get better integration [between phone and operating system].”

    Microsoft apparently fears they would be diluting their efforts when they would support the 140 or so WinME devices that are out there today. Hmmm.

    Both gentlemen obviously glanced at Apple and the iPhone (can you imagine the sting this must have given Mr Ballmer?). There, hardware and software come out of one hand and there is one device only. The result: great UI, happy users, more use of content, data, etc than ever before. Apple is famously paranoid about controlling all bits of the user experience, and they are masters of it. However, when there is success in the mobile handset space, there is also e.g. Nokia: many, many handset models, now all running Symbian (i.e. another smartphone OS), selling lots and lots of devices all over the world (OK, outside the US). Nokia has fallen behind on the ease of use that used to be a pillar of their rise to fame (and riches) but they serve the lower-end emerging markets as well as the top end of it (something like the N96 etc boast features like few others). 
    So is the “1 OEM, 1 handset model” philosophy the only winning one? I doubt. Is MSFT maybe mistaken in believing that fewer handsets will mean better overall user experience? I for one do think so. Apple’s success came through a winning formula that combines GUI design, user experience and superb marketing for an overall sexy product. Microsoft has always been lacking Apple’s flair as well as the genial simplicity with which Apple manages to provide solutions that are often a lot less elegant and more complicated than Microsoft’s. But, guys, you don’t solve this by getting your OS out less. You have got to put some work into the OS and its APIs, and – as some commentators to Mr Peters’ comment that they would “extract more from this license” noted – it helps to look at a product from a consumer perspective rather than from the corporate boardroom’s product P&L, at least when you speak in public!
    Update: There has been a bit of a media tussle over this. I posted an update over here.

     
  • Flash or Silverlight or both?

    Microsoft scored an important success with a recently announced a deal that will see its Flash competitor Silverlight (with the most Apple-esque logo ever issued in Redmond) installed on the mighty Nokia’s s60 and – low-end – s40 devices (or multimedia terminals as the good folks from Finland like their posher phones to be called). Interestingly of course, Nokia also embeds Adobe’s Flash Lite… Tasty!

    Now, is Silverlight really this good? Or is it only another product the people from Microsoft thought they should have on their shelves (arguably not being too happy that Adobe carved out for itself a nice niche for some)? I don’t know and I won’t be able to answer that without embarrassing myself. So: the news tonight is simply that Nokia is a good catch for Microsoft. And, now, the weather…

    One small piece of advice to MS though: choose your showcase sites carefully. The Yugoslav maker of one of them (I don’t really know what they’re doing) does not really offer the latest and greatest in web design and functionality…

     
  • Microsoft buys Musiwave

    It did not take too long to bring down the value of mobile music spearheads Musiwave from $130m to $50m. The former was the price Openwave paid for the French company in 2005, the latter is what Microsoft now splashed out to buy it from Openwave ($46m in cash and $4m in assumption of debt). And at this price, it looks like a rather good buy for the world’s largest software maker.

    Microsoft has acquired what was an early leader in mobile music. Musiwave is a giant in mobile distribution of music content – everything from ringtones, ringbacks and full-track downloads to music recognition, etc. Whilst Microsoft will have seized access to a trusted carrier-grade database and provisioning environment as well as Musiwave’s extensive relationships with all players on the mobile music circuit – labels, carriers and device manufacturers. Now it will have to show that it can marry it to its own music-centered services, in particular around its Zunes device and service.

    All in all, Microsoft seems to be a much more natural home to Musiwave than Openwave would seem to have been. Good luck to the tall guys in Musiwave!

     
  • Does RIM move from Hardware to Software Model?

    BlackBerry maker Research in Motion (RIM) pushes into Windows Mobile reports Telephony Online. As it sets out to create a BlackBerry Virtual Machine, this would imply a move from a hardware-driven to a software-driven business model but RIM is playing this down: they say they will continue to build their Blackberry devices and merely react to market demand.

    Analysts seem sceptical as loading the BlackBerry software onto a Windows-powered phone is apparently tougher than it sounds. They also claim that vendors may be reluctant to include it in their phone’s basic software stack, and carriers may be reluctant to support it.

    And that seems logical: a few years ago there had not been any alternative, so everyone might have played along. However, now alternatives, most prominently from mighty MSFT itself (Microsoft ActiveSync), are here, and one wonders if it will be just as easy. Given Blackberry’s cult following and the wariness towards Microsoft’s dominance, one cannot help but wish for a powerful competitor. However, it might very well be that RIM fell for the old Apple mistake, i.e. trying to marry hardware and software for too long: once the real world has moved on and worked around proprietary systems (even if they are superior), there is no winning anymore.