Search Results

Poor discovery and accessibility are two major obstables hindering the growth of data services. In simple English, the user often does not know that a service exists (it’s poorly communicated) or how to access it (it’s hidden under layers of menus). In the past vendors have suggested software methods for improving discoverability and accessibility: personalised WAP portals (see ChangingWorlds), on-device portals (see SurfKitchen, uiOne), on-SIM portals (see Celltick) and WAP toolbars (see Alatto), with results which are encouraging but not ground breaking. A new paradigm for service discovery An idea struck me while I was recently explaining the world of the mobile industry to a fellow passenger on the plane. Why not exploit the communication power of consumer brands and place them within the retail environment for service promotion ? Here’s the scenario. Imagine walking into a mobile operator retail store in London in 2007. You spend ten minutes choosing your new phone and another five minutes choosing the right tariff. Following that the shop assistant shows you to a set of shelves stacked with branded, colourful boxes that easily fit in the palm of your hand. It looks like a console games shop, only now the shelves are stacked with small shiny boxes, each carrying a high street brand like Disney, Robbie Williams, Nike, Kodak, BBC News, AtoZ, the AA, the Discovery Channel, and SKY Sports. Each box represents an information or entertainment service that you can get on your mobile phone. You ‘re already familiar with the 10s of brands already on the shelves, so you can pretty easily make out the stuff that of most interest. You pick the motorist news alert service from the AA and the London’s map & planner service from AtoZ. You pretty much know that the AA service is probably about traffic information, and you check the small print to find out that the service is about daily traffic alerts. Both services cost 2 pounds a month. You take the two boxes to the shop assistant who scans the barcode on each box. She tells you that you ‘ll be able to access the services by pressing the MyStuff hard key on the phone, and then you ‘ll see the icons of the services on your screen (Technical note: the hard key is a shortcut to the WAP portal and specifically to the user’s own page. For smartphones a more elegant, and visually appealing alternative is to use an on-device portal local software application). Behind the scenes: the point of discovery This scenario presents a new paradigm for service discovery and accessibility. The use of consumer brands as a tangible, visual communication medium for the service proposition exploits the brand recognition that these content providers enjoy. The operator exploits this brand recognition in the retail environment to effectively communicate the value proposition of the service and allow the user to quickly browse and select from 10s of content providers. The branded box contains service details, pricing, as well as terms and conditions. At the same time, the retail POS acts as an advertising medium: the operator can command a commission for the sale of a service and at the same time play the content provider/advertisers against each other for availability and pricing of shelf space. Naturally, independent retailers (see CarPhone Warehouse) can also implement this concept, aided by independent off-portal providers like Bango and RefreshMobile (minus the hard key shortcut). The setup of a point of service discovery is straightforward for today’s mobile operators with 100s of retail points of sale. What an operator needs is a framework agreement with existing content providers, a logistics operation for the promotional boxes, some shelf space, training for the shop assistants, a MyStuff page on the portal and a straightforward mechanism for provisioning the portal that is accessible from the point of sale. An important yet subtle element in this concept is the hard key: I fundamentally believe that operators should send hard key presses not to the portal front page but the user’s own page. Personalisation should take priority over Customisation. Reality check The beauty of this concept is that it’s easy to implement, and it can be easily demonstrated (ok, instinctive proof will have to do for now) to accelerate service adoption and hence data ARPU. The drawbacks of the approach I would consider to be minor: there is a cost to the shelf space occupied by the branded box shelves (and probably reduction of shelf space for selling phones). Then there is the concern of increased ‘product noise’ and ‘brand noise’ in the retail environment which may complicate the sale. Overall though, I do believe it is a promising solution to boost service accessibility and discoverability that with an optimised retail planning can do wonders to the traditional mechanisms of service promotion. Any operator listening ?

We all know that the radio spectrum is the electromagnetic spectrum which mobile operators use to offer wireless services. It’s interesting to look into the lesser-known economics of the radio spectrum, such as auctions, spectrum allocation and regulation. In most cases, governments assign the national radio spectrum licenses with one of the following methods: Beauty Contest: Companies interested in obtaining spectrum licenses submit proposals to regulators outlining what they would do if they got them. The regulators then determine which applicant would make best use of the available radio spectrum. Lottery: self-explanatory. Auction: Available radio spectrum is licensed to the company offering the most money. The philosophy behind the “beauty contest” was to ensure that spectrum would be passed on to the group that would best use it for the public interest. It’s still the system used in a number of countries, including France and Spain. Many governments rely on the “beauty contest” because they want to keep control on the spectrum usage while supporting the investment capabilities of the telecom industry. Lotteries have been abandoned because of large number of bidding companies and many times the wrong kind of winning companies (companies that do not utilise spectrum in the most appropriate way) Auctioning has gained popularity because of fairness, transparency, and high government revenues. Statistics from the ITU-R show that most governments favour the auctioning process when: the density of the country’s population in high enough, the government’s budget deficit is large, the number of licenses is high. Auction basics The auction method in assigning radio spectrum is considered economically efficient because it maximises the social welfare if it allocates items to bidders who value them the most. Types of Auction: Open or oral auctions – These often have several rounds while sealed-bid auctions have only a single round. Dutch or descending auctions are typically fast because the auctioneer alone drives the price down. First-price sealed-bid auction is when the bidders decide off-line their claim without revealing any information and the winner pays the highest bid. Second-price sealed-bid or Vickrey auction is when the bidders tend to bid their true valuations and the winner pays the second highest bid. Sequential is the auction when prices tend to decline in the later auctions due to fewer or poorer bidders (e.g. UMTS). Simultaneous ascending auction is the most common approach for auctioning a set of spectrum licenses (most European UMTS license auctions). Spectrum allocation – demand vs supply ITU-R create global recommendations on spectrum allocations but it is governments taking the decisions. Governments consider radio spectrum as a scarce resource requiring extremely strict regulation. High demand of mobile broadband wireless services together with the development of new wireless technologies like DVB-H, 4G and UWB maintain demand for new spectrum. The impact of new technologies New technologies can utilise the radio spectrum more efficiently. For example, radio spectrum can be shared efficiently using spread spectrum technologies like in WCDMA 3G. Digitalisation i.e. Digital TV (MPEG 2, 4) also saves spectrum. Smart antennas and MIMO techniques further increase the spectral efficiency (bits/second/Hertz) hence reducing the spectrum demand. However, we are in the era where everything tends to be wireless and spectrum availability for deploying new services is very limited. There are many technologies in devices sharing the same spectrum i.e. WiFi and Bluetooth share the 2.4GHz spectrum. Wireless technology coexistence in the same spectrum band will be very common in the future, and it will be interference dictating the performance of these systems. Interference, even though is not an inherent property of spectrum but a property of devices, limits the performance of most current radio systems. In this multi-radio world where a single device might have more than nine different radio technologies, it is heavily mandated to find techniques allocating spectrum in a smarter way. But how is that going to be achieved? The emergence of cognitive radio Future radio systems should be able to sense the radio spectrum and adapt their service to the spectrum which is least utilised. This requires the development of smart radios or radios that are defined by software. Spectrum sensing radios or “cognitive radios” that adapt their transmit/receive parameters and access spectrum dynamically will decrease interference and allow wireless coexistence. A step closer to the development of a commercial cognitive radio is Vanu which is pioneering in the area of software defined radios. Is there an expiry date for radio spectrum regulation? 4G radio systems that might be deployed in the 2015 – 2020 timeframe are probably going to use software cognitive radio technology in order to achieve wireless convergence and coexistence. But, if cognitive radios are going to be used in the future, is there a need for spectrum allocation and auctioning? Is there going to be a “peaceful” coexistence between the radio systems sharing the same spectrum or chaos will emerge in the radio world? Whatever the future holds, ITU should allow the usage of cognitive radios but apply rules on spectrum usage to avoid a chaotic wireless coexistence that might hinder the development and adoption of future ubiquitous wireless broadband services.

I ‘ve spent most of my time in the last three months researching and authoring a report on the future of handset customisation. I believe that in 2008, hundreds of consumer brands will be commercialising mobile handsets, in a trend started by Bang & Olufsen’s Serene, ELLE’s Glamphone, Elite Model Look’s EML1 and Dmobo’s Disney-themed handset. There are far too many boring grey- and black- coloured handsets out there with the same-old designs and form factors. At the same time, operator and manufacturer brands are too coarse and rarely communicate values which are relevant to the user. There is a clear demand for handsets branded and designed to appeal to different consumer groups, while at the same time manufacturers are desperately trying to produce handsets where the brand value can command a significant delta on the retail price. Overcoming challenges for unique handset designs In order for supply to meet the demand for branded or uniquely customised handsets, there are several economic challenges, most of which are being overcome. The cost and time-to-market of producing made-to-order handsets (with moderate modifications to software and plastics) is very reasonable thanks to customised design manufacturers like Modelabs. Hardware reference designs are shrinking in size (see NewGen’s square phones for example) which frees up the industrial designer’s imagination to go create. There is no shortage of creativity and concepts today from industrial design houses like Idem, Ocean Observations, Frog, Product Visionaires, No Picnic, Alloy and IDEO. Distributors are getting into the handset customisation game (see Dangaard’s business of customising Qtek-brand handsets), and customised design manufacturers are getting into the distribution game (see Modelabs’ and Emblaze Mobile‘s acquisitions of distributor businesses). However, there is still a significant barrier to the proliferation of handsets with unique industrial designs (that appeal to the heart and the wallet of the niche segments to whom they are targeted). The supply chain issue If we are going to see tens or hundreds of consumer brands like Nike, Gucci, MTV and Google release their own handsets to the market, someone will have to stock these handsets and have a brilliantly effective system for managing these stocks. In other words, we need to see the Zara equivalent of the mobile handset customiser and distributor – Zara’s success is in most part owning to their just-in-time clothes customisation business and lean supply chain management. In plain English, this means that the distributor should be able to take the unsold stock of 10,000 Barbie handsets, change the plastics/enclosure to a Gucci handset, repackage the contents and shift the boxes from Malaysia to the UK. Vertu’s circa $50 hardware BOM is a testament to the power of the plastics and enclosure and the commodity of the hardware. To accomplish this just-in-time customisation we need two things: One-size-fits-all hardware reference platforms. With the component size reducing and the form factor volume reducing to 3x3cm PCBs, I don’t see this as being an issue. Add a customisable software stacks from Purple Labs, a la Mobile, or the Digital Airways + SKY MobileMedia + Montavista partnership and you’re there. Add a firmware OTA platform from Red Bend, Innopath or Bitfone (or OMSI‘s firmware over-the-wire platform) and you can customise the software at any stage in the distribution channel. Industrial Design Platforms. This is the three-word answer to the problem of snapping off the Barbie enclosure and snapping on the Gucci enclosure (and it’s not as easy as it sounds). Calling for the Industrial Design Platform To date, ID houses have worked off assumptions of the volume metrics of the hardware reference design of the handsets (and in a several cases, the ID and the hardware reference design have been created through iterative revisions). I believe what we need is a new paradigm of the industrial design platform (IDP), i.e. a physical plastics arrangement that can act as the smallest-volume common denominator for a range of industrial designs, that wraps around given hardware reference platforms. IDPs should be designed for certain classes of form factors (for example a lipstick-type factor, a thin flip phone or a square single-body factor) and allow reliable and safe modding of the entire handset enclosure. On top of the IDP, enclosures can be as sophisticated from Voce’s leather RAZRs to a Replay-jeans-moulded handset (as e.g. made possible by Inclosia technology), to cheap plastic Barbie enclosures. UI Customisation platforms: the perfect partner UI customisation platforms such as TAT, MSX, Digital Airways, e-SIM (and in the future Flash) are the perfect partner for industrial design houses, as well as the IDP model. This is for three reasons: UI customisation platforms make money through handset royalties – the nicer a handset looks the more money they make (and ID houses sure know how to make a handset look nice) ID houses need flexible UIs to work with. Ocean Observations’ Sofia Svantesson calls this an elastic UI. UI customisation platforms can deliver this elasticity to mass-market handsets and across the entire breadth and depth of the user journey, from start-up to shut-down The ID needs to be coordinated with the UI of the handset. Bang & Olufsen’s Serene is the perfect example. An IDP should therefore be matched with a UI customisation platform; you snap on the enclosure, you update the software UI, and voila, you have a totally different handset in your hands. Wildseed’s Smartskin tried to execute this very concept in 2004, but they were too early to market. Lesson for industrial design houses: Invest in building IDPs. This offers a clear differentiation to your competitors, reduces time-to-market and cost for handset variants, and improves your attractiveness as a valued partner for your customers (both tier-1 and tier-2 OEMs, customised handsets manufacturers, and value-added distributors). Go forth and multiply.

I ‘ve written before about on-device portals (ODPs) – it’s essentially device software that delivers offline browsing, storefront and homescreen replacement functionality. Whereas before it was a space to watch, ODP is now an adopted industry term and a vibrant market that’s here to stay. Quick round up of the market The ODP market was first analysed in a January 2006 ARCchart research paper which also coined the term – as the lead author of that report, I have since been watching the space closely. There are now 25 or more vendors of ODP products: Abaxia, Action Engine, Airmedia, Cibenix, Communology, Comverse, Crisp Wireless, Everypoint, Geniem, Macromedia (FlashCast), Handmark (Pocket Express), InFusio (nMap), mPortal, MSX, Nellymoser, Nokia, OnSkreen, Opera Platform & Mini, Picsel, Qualcomm (uiOne), RefreshMobile, Silk, Streamezzo, SurfKitchen, U-Turn and Volantis. The term ODP has now been adopted by Nokia, SurfKitchen and Cibenix. It’s good to see a term that you ‘ve coined become adopted (although it can become abused for self-promotion, too). Nokia, Airmedia, mPortal, Everypoint, Volantis and Picsel are vendors that have popped onto the ODP radar in the recent months. Nokia Content Discoverer In June 2006, Nokia announced the Content Discoverer (NCD) on-device portal solution, as the evolution of, and successor to, Nokia’s Preminet. Content Discoverer is currently embedded in millions of Nokia devices based on S60 and Series 40, including the Nseries multimedia devices, Eseries devices for enterprise users, Nokia 3250 and 6131 devices, and to-be-embedded on six more handsets by end 2006. Nokia dropped the Preminet back-end and instead integrated NCD with several service delivery solution providers, incl. Handango, Jamster, End2End, Plus Four Six and Qpass. Nokia has also established content aggregation agreements with eight local content aggregators. It’s worth noting that NCD features a portal-based view of content catalogues, rather than search-based views, to avoid disintermediation of content retailer portals. Vendor update: Airmedia, mPortal, Everypoint, Volantis, Picsel, InFusio Airmedia channels content to BREW, Java and FlashLite-capable devices using on-device portal products. Troy Evans, Macromedia’s FlashLite guru stopped briefly at Airmedia before going to Nokia as a Sr Manager, Branded Content. mPortal is an MVNO-focused ODP vendor that is targeting the US market and counts Disney and ESPN among its customers – another unique positioning among ODP vendors. Interestingly, according to an investor report, mPortal is looking towards MVNEs, chipset manufacturers, and device manufacturers as potential acquirers. Everypoint is an ODP vendor that specialises in the delivery of real-time sports content onto mobile devices. Everypoint developed Yahoo’s Mobile Matchcast application, an ODP application with sports content for the World Cup in Germany. MatchCast is a MIDP2 application available as a free download in 12 countries and 7 languages. Check out the screenshots here. Everypoint claims several selling points such as a home-grown vector-graphics engine, incremental, fast data updates and rapid application development. The Boston-based company has so far received $14M in VC investment from Venrock Associates, Prism Venture Partners and TD Capital Ventures. Everypoint’s closest competitor is Streamezzo, with the difference being that Everypoint focuses on real-time data delivery, while Streamezzo focuses on real-time video delivery. Volantis is a vendor of mobile content delivery platforms that recently launched two ODP products (Content Storefront and Content Player). Picsel is a Glasgow-based company that is planning to spin off its office document viewer into an ODP product for magazine publishers. Essentially, this is another uniquely positioning ODP product, targetting magazine publishers and addressing ease of use for publishers. Picsel claims they ‘ll have the solution live by the end of summer 2006. Finally, InFusio’s nMap is a repackaged Geniem Superstore ODP product which will feature on the ELLE Glamphone uniquely customised handsets in 4Q06. Deals and partnerships Quick update on the deals that I have come across in the last few months in the ODP market: In February Vodafone K.K. announced that its Live! Cast product will launch in Japan (following its launch in Germany last year). The service will be pre-installed on NEC and Toshiba handsets and will feature three content magazines targeted at 25-35 old males. Adobe announced that more than two million mobile phone subscribers have signed up for DoCoMo’s i-channel news and information delivery service since it was launched in Japan last September (i-channel is powered by FlashCast). Refresh Mobile customer base has expanded to ITV, BBC, Conde Nast, Shiny Media, AFP (Mumbai) OnSkreen’s Fusion feature set now mobile search for movie times, stocks and sports scores and the web. UIEvolution developed the application environment and ODP application that powers Mobile ESPN’s MVP and ACE’s handsets Comverse announced that it will resell SurfKitchen products Cibenix announced a combined solution with Sybase mFolio July Systems announced it is partnering with SurfKitchen to extend its content retailing channels with on-device storefronts. Yahoo’s big bet: beyond the browser The market of on-device portals is certain to grow aggressively. This is not only forecasted by ARCchart and indicated by Nokia’s Content Discovery deployment plans, but also hinted by Yahoo at their presentation at their Analyst Day in May. One of Yahoo’s big bets for the next 5 years is titled ‘beyond the browser’ – they see their Yahoo! Go product providing a range of features including integrated mail, integrated contacts, calendar, messenger, photos, search, news and information. This is ODP on steroids. Some Yahoo! facts: Yahoo! has over 50 mobile partnerships worldwide Yahoo! Go Mobile will support over 50% of Java handsets launched in the next 18 months RIM partnership enables Y! distribution across 160 carriers worldwide Partnered with Nokia, the largest handset manufacturer in the world Partnership to bring Y! services to millions of Motorola Linux-based mobile devices Trends in the ODP market So where is the ODP market heading? There are several clear trends. Firstly,ODP products will morph into on-device search portals, as ordinary content portals are disintermediated by search engines. Secondl ODPs will extend into an Electronic Service Guide for all mobile media, incl. TV, irrespective of format. This is where Streamezzo is taking their client and O2 UK certainly seems to agree, based on their presentation at the World Handset Forum in May. I have little doubt that ODPs will be featuring on every high-end handset (and several mid-end handsets) by the end of 2007.

3.5G or HSDPA was developed as an evolution of initial UMTS network to enhance the data throughput and provide a better data usage experience to users. 3GPP is considering another evolution step after HSxPA so-called 3GPP long-term evolution ‘3G LTE’ or as more commonly called 3.9G or ‘Super 3G’. Super 3G is expected to be an evolved radio access technology that can provide equivalent or better service performance compared to current fixed line access technologies, and at much lower cost compared to current radio access technologies (e.g. HSDPA and HSUPA). Deployment timeframe The main focus of this evolution will be on enhancements for packet-based services over an all-IP core network. 3GPP aims to finalise the development of the standard in July 2007, with subsequent initial operator deployments in the 2009 – 2010 timeframe. Super 3G will be based on 3GPP Release 8 and will be built on already existing investment. Super 3G aims The main targets of Super 3G are: Higher data rates than HSxPA: 100 Mbps for downlink, and 50 Mbps for uplink Increased ‘cell edge’ bit rate whilst maintaining same site locations as deployed today Improved spectral efficiency – three times more compared to current systems Reduced network delay – below 10 ms Spectrum flexibility – enabling deployment in different spectrum allocations Reduced CAPEX and OPEX To meet this challenge, a change in 3G radio technology is envisaged that integrates OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing) and MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) technology within the current 3G investment. This is called HSOPA or High Speed OFDM Packet Access and was proposed initially by Nortel. HSOPA is considered necessary in order to achieve higher download data rates than 50 Mbps. Impact on existing infrastructure Super 3G will provide a smooth technological upgrade, using the existing WCDMA / HSxPA infrastructure, such that operators will not need to build a new network from scratch. However, how is it going to impact the HSxPA network? Is Super 3G a Mobile WiMAX killer? The only thing that’s certain is that Super 3G will further increase the capacity and hence the throughput of current 3G networks. The transmission network will require serious upgrades to accommodate the increased capacity. Mobile WiMAX and Super 3G Mobile WIMAX (IEEE 802.16e) will compete head to head with Super 3G and the comparison between the two will be more fair since both of them share the same technologies e.g. OFDM, Hybrid ARQ, All-IP Architecture, Adaptive Modulation and coding. The wireless leader will be the one not having necessarily the best radio technology but the best capacity and range of user devices. NTT DoCoMo is so far keeping a distance from Mobile WiMAX. Is that a strategy to protect their FOMA investment? It probably is. DoCoMo is pushing hard Super 3G as the main 3GPP standard for mobile broadband before the advent of 4G systems. On the other hand, Intel is aggressively promoting Mobile WiMAX and is starting integrating their Rosedale 2 chipset in some OEM laptops. Time will show which technology will dominate at the end and how “Super” Super 3G is going to pan out.

Vodafone’s Simply handset range has been a pioneering approach at unique handset customisation from a mobile operator. Not only does Simply effectively target a niche segment which craves easy-to-use handsets, but it does so by redefining the entire user interface and hardware ergonomics. Since May 2005, three Simply handsets have been launched; the Sagem VS1, a silver, stylish handset, the Sagem VS2, a simple black candy bar design and the Sagem VS3, a silver flip-phone design. Here’s some not-so-simple facts about Vodafone Simply that I uncovered recently: 1. Coming soon: the fourth Simply handset For those that were wondering if the line of Simply handsets had been a long-term strategy for Vodafone, the wait is over. The GCF (Global Certification Forum) lists the ‘Vodafone Simply Sagem VS4’ handset as having been certified on 24 May 2006. [updated] According to this post, the VS4 will have a slim form factor. 2. It wasn’t just a Sagem job Some little known facts about Sagem’s Simply handsets: The UI and information architecture were designed by Vodafone’s in-house User Experience team, which collaborated with US-based market research firm UsableProducts for usability design and testing, while the hardware design was by IDEO, the US-based industrial design house also credited with designing Apple’s mouse in 1980. As for the software, it was designed by a Paris-based UI technogy company. 3. Simply is targeted at the 34-54 year-old segment If you were like me, you ‘d have thought that the Simply handsets were targeted at the elderly segment. A Vodafone presentation from June 2005 states otherwise. Apparently, the Vodafone Simply proposition, comprising of handsets, customer service and dedicated calling plan, has been designed for a consumer segment the operator calls ?adult personal users?. This segment is the largest in Vodafone?s market segmentation, made up of 35-54 year olds, married with children, mostly female, with a low comfort or interest in technology. Makes sense. 4. The simple handset paradigm is becoming popular Apart from DoCoMo’s Raku Raku and TuKa’s S phone, there have been attempts at creating simple handsets in US and Japan. US-based Jitterbug for example is planning to launch their Samsung-designed handsets with a three-button interface, while Austrian-based Emporia is soon to launch their EmporiaLife handsets with completely redesigned hardware and software, including a big red emergency button on the back. If handsets weren’t so much about fashion and personality, I bet most people would opt for a simple handset that does voice and text really well and does away with the 80% of the functionality that only 20% (or rather 2%) of people use. One thing is for sure. The market for uniquely customised handsets is rapidly emerging aided by Customised Design Manufacturers such as Modelabs and tier-2 OEMs such as Alcatel, of ELLE GlamPhone fame. The ‘simple’ handsets are but one segment that uniquely customised handsets will cater to. As Apple says, one has to think different! Andreas

I was listening to an audio interview with John Markus Lervik, the CEO of FAST, the mobile search company, by Peggy Anne Salz, the author of Informa’s report on mobile search and content discovery. The interview is thought provoking. For one, it made me realise that disintermediation is already happening to mobile content providers as search is bypassing the WAP and web portals that they have invested in. Eventually, mobile search will practically replace mobile portals. This is the story of Internet search and portals not only repeated, but exacerbated as handset screen real estate is limited. Trends in mobile search Major operators including Vodafone are already partnering with the likes of Google to provide rudimentary search functionality to their users. However, we are only at the nascent stages of mobile search. There are several trends emerging. Firstly, the Internet search giants are moving their game onto mobile. This is epitomised by Steve Ballmer’s prediction: The “leading edge battleground between us and Google in local search really will come on the phone”. This will clearly threaten mobile search start-ups who are positioning themselves on the side of the operator. In the interview, Lervik plays down the importance of Google et al by saying ‘we are confident that operators will see little benefit in partnering with Google beyond the immediate PR effect and that in the long term it will threaten their business’. Mobile manufacturers are also willing to partner with Internet search giants to upsell the value of their devices, as indicated by the announcements of Motorola + Google and Nokia + Yahoo earlier this year. Furthermore, mobile portals are moving to sit on top of the search engine, offering a dynamic content structure based on content relevance to the user and collaborative filtering. Most importantly, handset user interfaces will play the role of the gateway to mobile search. Here’s where On-Device Portal products like Opera Mini, SurfKitchen, Cibenix and Zi’s Qix will come under the limelight. According to Lervik, “Operators need to understand that the future of their business is in controlling the user interface of their users’ handsets” So where is mobile search functionality going ? Current mobile search business models are limited in that they only focus in monetizing content (ringtones, games, logos) and inject advertising. Mobile search functionality itself has a very promising road ahead: On-Device Portals will offer a front-end interface to mobile search, combining search with home-screen replacement, offline content caching, store-front functionality, one-click buy and predictive keyword matching (ala Qix). Search will merge with personalisation, recommendation forming what Peggy Anne calls the mobile content triple-play Search will be combined with location (esp. in countries like Japan and Australia where location services are more advanced) With the increase of user-generated content, collaborative filtering will improve pure algorithmic search to provide recommendations based on what similar users have seen or written. Mobile Search: Beyond WAP and ODPs In a previous post I was arguing that the next step in the evolution of WAP is On-Device Portals. It is now clear that the next step beyond portals, both online portals and ODPs is mobile search. Stay tuned.

Have you noticed how many brands engulf our everyday lives ? There is a brand for every walk of life, every aspiration, every type of physical good, every action and almost every notion. From Wagner to Madonna, from Habitat to Marks & Spensers, from El Greco to Picasso, from Casio to Tag Heuer, from Athlete’s Foot to Gucci, from Ryanair to Singapore Airlines, from Accessorize to Shiseido, from Skoda to Porsche, from EasyMobile to Vodafone, from BenQ to Vertu, from Manchester United to Tiger Woods, from the Simpsons to Sarah Jessica Parker, from Socrates to Harry Potter, from Cirrus to Visa, from JVC to Bang & Olufsen, from Seven Eleven to Waitrose, from the Sun to the Financial Times. Brands convey a personality, a style, a predisposition, a mood. Brand marketing and positioning has become so sophisticated that there is literally hardly anything that we wear, do, think or dream that we cannot associate with a brand. The reverse is also true. The brand vector Each one of us owns, loves, aspires or hates certain brands. One might conjecture that our possessions, actions, aspirations and counter-aspirations can be described sufficiently fully as a set of brands. For example I may like to fly Lufthansa, wear Boss, drive an Alpha Romeo, watch the Discovery Channel, shop from Sainsbury’s, read the Harvard Business Review, drink Tropicana and eat at TGI Fridays. Taking this notion to the extreme, the personality of each citizen of the industrialised, globalised, marketed-to-death western world can be described as a set of brands. And given that each type of activity or aspiration in our lives is catered for by a spectrum of brands (see list of brand ranges above as an example), then each personality can be described as a brand vector. This is a powerful notion both for marketers and for consumers. As a marketer, being able to accurately measure the brand vector of consumers is the ticket to the nirvana of 1-1 marketing. For consumers, it’s a scary notion. I ‘m not a number, and even if I subscribe to Archimede’s school of thought (where everyone and everything in the universe is associated a unique number), then I don’t want anyone to know this number. That would utterly devalue my very own sense of uniqueness and privacy. It is unfortunately an inescapable consequence of our over-marketed consumerist societies that brand vectors will be eventually used to measure, describe and sell to consumers. So what does this have to do with mobile ? The mobile handset: the new frontier of personalisation Mobile handsets are as personal, indispensable and inseparable to us as our clothes and our wallet. Yet have you noticed how handsets are the least personalised items that we carry on us day by day?. How many endless combinations of clothes and accessories can one choose from ? Probably in the seven, eight, nine, or even ten digit number range. Yet how many handset models are there in circulation ? Roughly 3000. And they all look the same (ok, almost the same if you exclude the Razr, the SonyEricsson Walkmans and a few other bright exceptions). There are accessories and faceplates, especially popular in ultra-developed markets like Japan, but still, the handset branding or personalisation is often superficial, i.e. it does not permeate into the handset materials or user interface. However this is changing. We are entering the new era of handset personalisation. The handset as the expression of brand Once upon a time there were the mobile operators who provided the voice and data network. And then there was rebranding, and Orange showed that the future’s bright. And then there were walled gardens. And then there were independent retailers and off-deck portals. And then there were brands who discovered that the mobile handset was the third screen. And then brands discovered that the operators could not attract consumers with their one-size-fits-all brand. And then brands conquered the mobile handset and the mobile services and reduced operators to voice and brand pipes. This is probably how history books will describe the first 25 years of mobile history. The important point here is that we are now at the point in time where the evolution of brand ambitions and marketing plans is intersecting with the evolution of mobile services and mobile handsets. From Crazy Frog ringtones, and Madonna video clips, to complete new experiences such as the Firefly handset for 6-12 year old kids and the ESPN handset for sports enthusiasts. Mobile is becoming the medium through which every brand can reach the consumer, here and now. Looking at the Vertu, Xelibri, Firefly and Vodafone Simply handsets, we are witnessing the emergence of the truly customised handset. Not just your ordinary, vanilla grey clamshell with a couple of downloaded ringtones, but a true and full expression of brand personality through tailored plastics, materials and user interface. Think of the sleek shiny metal, elongated surface of a would-be Jaguar handset or the furry, huggable rounded surface of a Furby handset. Companies like e-SIM, Digital Airways and MSX are making possible completely branded user experiences for mass-market handsets. Companies like SkinIT are also moving aggressively to brand your handset cover with every different brand out there, from University clubs to Pop Stars, even design-your-own-cover-and-have-it-delivered-at-your-doorstep-in-ten-days handset cover. In 10 years every handset will be totally personalised, from the splash screen to the materials and the battery. Back to the brand vector theory. As the mobile handset becomes the receptacle of multiple brand expressions, and is always within the possession of the consumer, so it becomes the perfect tool to measure the brand vector of its user. Again a scary thought from a consumer perspective, but the aggregator or service provider who will be able to channel or measure the consumption of these brand expressions across users, handsets and regions will hold enviable value and power. It’s all about the brand In summary, the brand is slowly becoming the A to Z of the mobile user experience. From handset covers, to specialised materials, to a complete branded user interface. In parallel, the handset will eventually become the vehicle for measuring brand vectors, for understanding consumer behaviour, marketing and cross-marketing of every and any good. History is being written.

A year ago I wrote an article reasoning that Symbian’s outlook is no longer promising. In the article I argued that Symbian’s strategic value is deteriorating, as Nokia (both an ally and competitor) stifles Symbian’s efforts towards developing an independent, self-sustaining and competitive operating system for mobile handsets. My thesis was that Symbian’s only strategic option was to seek political and financial support from a network operator forum, as it is only the operators whose interests are aligned with those of Symbian. Fast forward a year later and so much has changed in the handset OS chess game: Palm and DoCoMo are using Windows Mobile, open operating systems are heading towards mass-market and the OMTP operator-centric forum looks set to achieve very little. However, Symbian’s future is looking worryingly same, destined to be reduced to a software house serving the needs of Nokia. Other manufacturers are becoming increasingly disillusioned with Symbian and Nokia’s S60 licensing strategy appears a costly but doomed experiment. Why invest in an independent software house, with the most complex software development and integration process in the industry when Nokia could have developed its core OS in house, faster, better and cheaper ? I would argue that what Nokia needs to do is revise its strategy to form an ally of Symbian instead of a co-opetitor, to help the ailing OS to become an autonomous, turnkey but flexible operating system. But first, it’s worth reflecting on why Nokia’s strategy towards Symbian has failed so far. Behind Symbian’s glossy numbers Nokia has been the main force behind Symbian, and its over 100% year-on-year rise in sales for four consecutive years. At the same time it has been depriving Symbian of platform value, by supplying its own middleware components (PIM applications and their engines, security, browser, messaging components, sync engines, Java VM, DRM engine and UI customisation engine). This has broken Symbian platform story, which coupled with Symbian’s idiosynchratic C++ language and lack of a reliable IDE has made for the most complex, arduous development of applications on mobile handsets. Furthermore, as several essential software components have to be provided by parties outside Symbian and integrated closely with the hardware reference platforms the OS integration and testing process is the most complex and time-consuming in the handset industry. Essentially, the operating system has not been as easy to customised and integrate on different handsets as other manufacturers had wished. Siemens’, Samsung’s and Panasonic’s delayed (and often failed) attempts at producing Symbian-based handsets is a testament to this. At the same time, DoCoMo’s investment of several tens of millions to co-develop a UI and middleware layer that sits on top of Symbian is an indication of how inadequate the Symbian OS is on its own. The complexity of OS integration has impacted not only time-to-market, but also commercial viability (how many Symbian OS-based projects have been abandoned?) and scalability (how much longer can Symbian keep doubling its handset projects year on year ?). One may argue that Symbian has become the least desirable open operating system out there. OK, so there’s Windows Mobile which comes with the negative reputation Microsoft carries, but which has been garnering commercial support by the likes of Samsung, Siemens, Palm, Motorola and the endless array of Chinese ODMs. But it’s not just Symbian that’s suffering because of Nokia’s strategy. It’s Nokia itself. Why Nokia shot itself in the foot Manufacturers (perhaps with exception of SonyEricsson) have been disillusioned with Symbian’s value and potential as an operating system for their handsets and have been slowly pulling out in different directions. Even Palm’s Ed Colligan noted that ‘Nokia owns Symbian’, suggesting that Palm would not support the operating owned by a competitor in the smartphone space. Nokia has indeed developed the organisational structure, expertise and processes to keep up with its smartphone expansion strategy. However, Nokia’s S60 licensing operations haven’t fared well. Here’s why. One might reason that Nokia’s S60 licensing strategy has been based on two pillars: firstly, extending the S60 platform to handsets beyond Nokia’s own and secondly, influencing the roadmap of competing manufacturers. Therefore, as manufacturers lose faith in Symbian, the S60 strategy suffers. As a result, Nokia’s restrain on Symbian has restricted the potential for S60 beyond Nokia handsets. In addition, Nokia has had to pay dearly for the Symbian OS through shares and licensee fees (over $100M a year in license fees alone according to ARCchart). In this sense is Nokia’s investment in Symbian sound, when it could have spent less resources and time to develop an OS internally? No one wants to play with Symbian So where does Symbian look for a helping hand ? SonyEricsson seems to be a persistent supporter, most clearly displayed by its announcements for the next generation Walkman and M600 handsets. However, I expect Nokia to continue keeping SonyEricsson at a safe distance from having a greater say on Symbian strategy. How about Fujitsu and DoCoMo ? DoCoMo simply wants to have a healthy choice of OS suppliers (Symbian, Linux and recently Microsoft), rather than taking an influential stake at Symbian. In parallel, DoCoMo doesn’t want to upset Nokia, as it needs the Finnish giant to supply handsets for its ailing i-mode operations in Europe (where poor handset selection is a key reason for poor i-mode penetration). European operators such as France Telecom/Orange and Vodafone have joined forces in the OMTP, but which is bound to fail amidst the cacophony of self-centred and divergent opinions echoed by its members. And where does an innovative operator like Vodafone go when it decides to invest in a software platform? To Nokia for a S60-based UI customisation layer and next-generation Java APIs in the form of the MSA initiative. Who’s there to help Symbian? No one. Except Nokia. Nokia has taken some steps to restore the shine on Symbian’s platform story. It has revamped its Codewarrior code development suite (purchased in 2004 from Metrowerks) to provide a unified set of tools for developing across the whole range of Symbian variants, from S60 to UIQ and for entry level to professional programmers. But this doesn’t address the ailing integration process that harms Symbian’s time-to-market, its scalability, the commercial viability of its projects and has ultimately hurt Nokia’s S60 expansion strategy. Nokia should u-turn on its strategy Clearly Nokia has to rethink its strategy of depriving Symbian of platform value. For the benefit of its financial investment and S60 expansion strategies, it needs to support Symbian in becoming an autonomous, turnkey, flexible operating system. Here’s my thesis. In terms of technology, Nokia should allow Symbian to have ownership and control of key middleware components such as platform security, messaging apps, synchronisation engine, Java VM, DRM engine and UI customisation engine. Nokia can retain control of high-value components such as the browser and S60 UI, but ensure that they are clearly abstracted and componentised, so that they can be developed, validated and integrated with as much independence from the core OS as possible. Manufacturers should be able to drop the UI, core OS and customised components, and integrate with the easiness touted by Open Plug’s FlexibleWare architecture. If Open Plug can accomplish this for Linux that has only lately been optimised for mobile handsets, then why can’t Symbian develop a similar componentised architecture for itself ? Furthermore, in terms of process, Symbian needs to be able to take in direct requirements from operators (not wishlists that may or may not make it to the final handset) and take sole ownership of the integration process for hardware reference design vendors like TI and Intel. In other words, Nokia should realise that it’s only option is to help Symbian grow its own market and build on it, rather than grabbing as much share of the pie as it can. And what about Symbian’s shareholder equity ? As Michael Mace, formed Chief Competitive Officer for Palm, put it, “how long will Benq and Panasonic want to remain part owners in an OS they longer use and that damaged their phone businesses? That means 18.9% of Symbian is likely to be for sale in the near future (if it isn’t already)”. Buying this 18.9% would put Nokia above the psychological barrier of the 50% of ownership, but below 70% needed to approve major initiatives, under Symbian governance rules. But again, if Nokia wants to own Symbian, then it’s much cheaper building an in-house OS development team rather than maintaining investment in an independent entity like Symbian. And following the previous thesis, if Symbian is to become an autonomous, turnkey OS then it needs to have a balance of shareholder power across its board. I only hope Nokia is listening.

How far can the WAP technology heritage go in surpassing its criticisms, i.e. the click-n-wait performance, the long click-distance and sub-par graphics ? The next step beyond WAP is already here. Over 20 vendors have launched On-Device Portal products, using device software to deliver content to the device with reduced latency, immediate content discoverability and the wow-factor user experience. On-Device Portals (ODPs) deliver functionality such as offline portals for no-wait access to content, store-fronts with ringtones and home-screen replacement for no-fuss service promotion. Already a number of ODP operator deployments are happening worldwide: Orange Downloads, Vodafone Live Cast, DoCoMo i-Channel, Sprint Nextel On-Demand and O2’s planned deployment of Qualcomm uiOne, are just some examples. The future is just starting, too. ARCchart, the London-based analyst and consulting firm which coined the ODP term forecasts that the ODP market will reach a value of $1.4 billion by 2009. ARCchart’s exhaustive report, titled ‘On-Device Portals: Beyond WAP’ includes in-depth reviews of 25 vendors, operator case studies, and the top-10 market trends that will influence the ODP market [disclosure: Andreas Constantinou, Director at VisionMobile is the lead author of this report]. 3G Profits: What Profits ? Operators have spent billions of dollars on 3G networks and on sourcing content from media brands, but data profits have failed to materialised. Of great concern is the fact that messaging (predominantly SMS) accounts for the vast majority of data revenue: for a successful operator like Vodafone UK, the increase in pure data (non-messaging) revenue generated between 2004 and 2005 is estimated at just $88 million, based on Vodafone UK’s own data revenue breakdown. Clearly, a zero added to the end of this figure would be nice. One can conclude that the answer is not in bigger pipes or more content – content may be King, but the user experience is Queen. While operators have made substantial investments in their content strategies, the user experience has been neglected, leading to the ‘abandoned shopping cart’ syndrome that was prevalent in the early days of the web. On-Device Portals deliver where WAP failed: in driving data ARPU by delivering content to the device in an easily discoverable, instantly accessible manner and through a ‘wow’ graphics experience. For example, figures released from O2 clearly indicate considerable data usage increase through the use of its O2 Active ODP deployment. On-Device Portals: Bigger than you thought There are now more than 20 vendors in the ODP space, including Abaxia, Action Engine, Celltick, Cibenix, Communology, Crisp Wireless, Handmark (Pocket Express), Geniem, Macromedia (FlashCast), MSX, Nellymoser, Onskreen, Openwave, Opera Platform, Qualcomm (uiOne), RefreshMobile, Silk, Streamezzo, SurfKitchen, U-Turn and Volantis. All vendors are offering a mix of offline portal functionality, store-fronts with no-wait content previews and click-n-buy access, as well as home-screen replacement for instant service discovery and access. ARCchart estimates that the on-device portal market in 2005 stood at $30 million, but will grow aggressively over time to reach $1.4 billion by 2009, corresponding to 1.1 billion ODP licenses sold for that period. While Tier-1 and Tier-2 mobile operators will initially lead the way in ODP client deployments, by 2009, media companies will be responsible for the lion’s share of client deployments. A promising but maturing market However, operators acknowledge that the market is still immature. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, deployment of the client-side software and device penetration are key obstacles. Whereas all ODP vendors have Symbian OS and Windows Mobile versions of their product, only recently have some taken the plunge to mass-market handsets via Java or native code development. Secondly, the need for a server-side component to augment the handset client functionality is becoming apparent. For an on-device portal to prove a success with tier-1 operators, it has to integrate with the operator’s billing, messaging, content management and CRM infrastructure, plus it has to scale across millions of users. Few companies have the local operator relationships, the network integration know-how and the scale to deliver this. Content refresh and personalisation is another underestimated factor. It is easy to launch a visually polished on-device portal product, only to see usage die off due to lack of interesting, relevant, visible and frequently renewed content. Moving fast Regardless, the ODP market is now well past the hype period. To date, there has been more than 20 operator and 20 content provider deployments of on-device portals, across the US, Europe and APAC. There are now more than one RFP for ODP products being announced each month globally and there are efforts by device manufacturers to incorporate ODP features into their handsets, such as Motorola’s Screen3 and Nokia’s Active Idle and Preminet client. In 2006, a second wave of heavyweight vendors are expected to enter the market, while in 2007, there is likely to be wide acceptance of On-Device Services by the key industry players. Ultimately, however, the core technology of current ODP solutions will commoditise and ODP producers will have to innovate their way into new technology areas in order to continue delivering value. Clearly a space to watch.

This week I ‘ll be at 3GSM, like (almost) everyone else in the industry. Over 50,000 attendees, nearly 1000 exhibitors at Fira de Barcelona. This must be the busiest week of the year. My calendar is already jam packed, with 20+ meetings scheduled..

The recent announcement from DoCoMo intending to sell Windows Mobile handsets from HTC in 2H06 came as a surprise to many industry insiders, including myself. DoCoMo, much like Nokia has been a avid Microsoft adversary in the mobile device platform wars (see DoCoMo’s long-term agenda of developing its own handset middleware platform, first with DoJa, then with Symbian and Linux). However, in retrospect, DoCoMo’s move reaffirms not the Japanese operator’s change of strategy, but the fact that Microsoft-powered devices are succesful in the enterprise. At the same time it reminds us that Windows devices are indeed succesful only in the enterprise. DoCoMo’s announcement is an indication of Microsoft’s long-term strategy connecting Windows Mobile OS sales to its other flagship products, i.e. a) its enterprise software and b) the Windows desktop product. On the first front, Microsoft has designed the handset OS for seemless synchronisation with Microsoft’s enterprise products, forging a kind of strategic product dependence that, has been successful in yielding sales dependencies. Windows Mobile has since its first iteration in 2001 been designed for the enterprise environment, boasting features such as runtime security, remote device management and PIM synchronisation, features which took competing smartphone OSes at least two years to achieve (see SymbianOS). On the second front, Microsoft has tried to forge a strategic dependency between its mobile device OS and its Windows desktop platform. This has been rather superficially focused on the user interface and the all-too-familiar ‘Start menu’. On this front, Microsoft has not done that well, opting with Windows Mobile 5 to switch to a S60-style grid menu, rather than insisting to shrink the Start Menu hierarchy into a 178×220 screen. Naturally there have been more subtle design weaknesses; Windows Mobile has never been a standalone device platform (thus far) – try for example setting the alarm clock without getting frustrated at the number of clicks required. In addition, in terms of commercial route to market, Microsoft has made very few concessions – it is insisting on controlling not only the OS, but also the hardware makeup and – more importantly – the middleware. The middleware layer (the enabling software for UI, multimedia and communications functions) is now becoming key to device customisation by industry power players such as mobile operators and content providers (more this on a future post). By retaining control of the hardware and middleware make-up Microsoft continues to turn away business opportunities which mat propel Windows Mobile into the consumer market. The end-result ? Windows Mobile has been generating demand from enterprise customers, but much less so in the consumer market. So far, Windows-powered mobile devices have not become exactly mass-market, other than morphing into tens of operator variants, each selling typically in the order of tens of thousands of units. Like Michael Gartenberg at Jupiter says “Microsoft knows how to sell to business who buy a thousand PCs at a time. They don’t yet know how to sell to a consumer who buys one at a time.” Will Microsoft learn from its mistakes and redesign the handset OS and the associated business model for mass-market consumers ? I wouldn’t bet on it. This would require a fundamental shift in the design mentality of the Redmond giant, one which has been happening every five years for Microsoft since 1995.

The mobile device market is being filled with more and more styles, shapes and designs of handsets, with both mobile phone supply and demand aligning in the direction of increasing handset diversity. Firstly, on the demand side, Western consumers are getting more personal with their handsets and individuals have an increasing desire to distinguish themselves from the crowd. As a result, consumers are looking for fashion and style on a handset more so than the brand name. In terms of supply, there is plenty of push for a diversity of handset styles, shapes and designs. In the last year, manufacturers have released devices with emphasis on sleek plastics (e.g. Moto’s RAZR), fashionable styling (e.g. Nokia’s fashion range) and appliance-specific functionality (e.g. the Sony Ericsson Walkman range). The motivation is to distinguish their handsets from the crowd and target more specific customer segments. Operators such as Vodafone and Orange are keen to customise handsets, and everyone (including Nokia) is willing to co-brand. Fashion and lifestyle brands have, for some time, been trying to enter in the mobile device space (just look at Escada, Elle and Ferrari). MVNOs are also keen to serve an integrated package comprising of not just voice and services, but also a customised handset to match their brand and target segment – just take a look at ESPN’s Sanyo MVP handset. With supply and demand in perfect alignment, a new type of company is coming to provide the missing link: the Customised Design Manufacturer. CDMs buy from manufacturers, customise the handsets, and resell to operators and retailers. Their unique selling point is their supply chain efficiency, in being able to buy large volumes and provide smaller handset volumes to tailored needs. CDMs combine sales and marketing, logistics, customisation (branding, localisation and configuration), support and warranty. Today’s notable CDMs are i-mate, Qtek (both sourcing from the Taiwanese manufacturer HTC) and Emblaze Mobile (sourcing from Innostream). O2 is also functioning as a CDM in Asian markets. So how’re the revenues looking like? Well, I’ve seen the same HTC models ranging widely in pricing: for example, Qtek’s 8010 sold for EUR399 + VAT in Greece, while the same phone branded Orange (the C500) sold for as low as GBP120 in the UK. Most of the difference makes up the profit margin for Qtek. CDMs began life as an interface to small, white-label manufacturers, but I believe they will move to serve Tier 2, perhaps even Tier 1 manufacturers in the next two years (my insight tells me Motorola is a good candidate here). The reason is simple: all major manufacturers have been organisationally structured on the principle of selling a few, mass-market phones. Moving into many, low-volume variants require a complete re-organisation, which, due to corporate friction is unlikely to happen soon. In addition, there are Far East contract manufacturers and ODMs, who are already responsible for a third of worldwide handset production according to Informa figures, yet have lacked the direct channels and brand awareness to make it directly into Western markets. CDMs are just the ticket: they are the gearbox that allows the engine to move the car at many different speeds. They are the system integrator that takes a software bundle and tailors it to the customer. As CDM and operator customisation becomes more sophisticated, device customisation houses are going to become their right arm. Companies like K-Lab, Gemini and Mobile Innovation (now part of Adobe) can provide sophisticated integration and software tailoring services, for both proprietary and Open OS handsets. This is a perfect synergy, with the customisation houses providing the service and the CDM providing the sales and support. Design houses like Ocean Observations, IDEO, Purple labs, Frog design, Fuseproject and Leading Edge Design are going to be involved at tailoring the device plastics to refreshing and differentiating designs. Naturally, device software will play a key role here. It has been Microsoft’s business model from the outset to use white-label ODMs and contract manufacturers to produce the goods, while operators provide the channel and brand. In a sense, it was Microsoft that opened the world to the possibilities of handset customisation. It hasn’t been so much the built-in software flexibility (Windows Mobile is a poor cousin to Windows CE in this respect) – it’s been the business model from the outset. So, what’s the road ahead looking like? My prediction is that the CDM business is going to be booming in 2 years time. All we need now is cheap, white-label Symbian phones and more innovative Windows-powered phone designs. (also published on ARCchart.com)

The Open Mobile Terminal Platform (OMTP) is an operator-led forum that aims to define a set of functional requirements for mid-end, mass-market handsets, which can be tailored to operator requirements. The forum, which was formed in June 2004, has broad support from European operators and currently comprises of more than 50 members (although non-European operators are not well represented). In reality, OMTP’s target is to define firstly an application environment and, secondly, a device customization environment. [tweet_this]The forum’s governance structure (roles and responsibilities) was agreed in February 2005, and its first terminal requirements are due this month. However, the forum has been rightly criticized for being too slow and ineffective so far. At the Mobile Applications and OS conference in March, Gartner’s Ben Wood noted after the presentation from the OMTP that their slides had not changed since last summer. Another attendee commented that the OMTP will be an academic exercise unless it achieves handset manufacturer commitment. It is true that, nine months following the launch of OMTP, their presentation slides had nothing but project plans and governance diagrams.[/tweet_this] It is worth asking when was the last time that mobile operators agreed on a single thing? Yes, there are alliances like Freemove, aimed to facilitate service roaming agreements between operators, but surely that is not too difficult to accomplish (plus it’s a win-win situation). The problem with the OMTP is that mobile operators have always had their own self-centred agendas, and quite a lot of ego. Since Vodafone Live! in 2002, operators have been used to getting their way with handset manufacturers. Nokia used to dictate what devices operators would be distributing in the next six months, but this is no longer the case. There’s another problem. OMTP aims to be technology-agnostic. Before OMTP was formed in the first half of 2004, when Vodafone, Orange and SavaJe were in discussions on an operator-defined Java platform, the initiative had a much greater chance of success. A year later, European operators are now unlikely to agree on a single set of requirements for a software platform, that is implemented consistently and in an interoperable fashion across all mass-market handsets. It is even doubtful whether operators will manage to converge their 5,000 lines of requirement specifications each (which they deliver to handset vendors) into a lowest-common-denominator set of requirements. Operators already have trouble managing a common set of consolidated requirements across all their various country operations. With such a mass of requirements, it is often the case that requirements from different product managers inside the organisation are overlapping or conflicting. It’s no easy task trying to manage everyone’s agendas within a single organisation, let alone across ten different operators. A safe prediction is that OMTP will achieve a broad set of guidelines that will be implemented inconsistently by manufacturers. Even assuming that operators manage to agree on defining a framework for UI customisation, then how are they going to test manufacturer compliance? Don’t forget that operator organisations don’t have that many device engineers, and have even fewer software engineers. A safer bet is on the competition. Shortly after the OMTP was launched, Vodafone and Nokia announced their Mobile Service Architecture (MSA). As an initiative within the JCP, MSA aims to define a Java-based framework for software management on mass-market devices. In practice, the goals of OMTP and MSA are very similar. It’s about defining the specification of the graphical UI and middleware that goes on mobile devices. Let’s look at the MSA. Firstly, it is backed both by operators and manufacturers. Secondly, it is trying to achieve device conformance to its specifications, through the JCP (JSRs 248, 249 and 232, to be exact). This is a route that has been tried and tested with most success in the last five years. Plus, Nokia counts for a third of device shipments, a very respectable base. Vodafone backing two very different initiatives suggests that it’s not very serious about the one of them. And Vodafone understands device software – the first two iterations of Vodafone Live! handsets had customised Java APIs (VSCL). As for Korea, the WIPI forum has already accomplished what OMTP could only dream of. It is a specification for an operator-customisable application platform. The secret of success there was government intervention. WIPI is already being exported to US, with the Earthlink MVNO handsets featuring the WIPI-specified software stack, according to LG’s Jinsung Choi, SVP of Technology Labs. Plus, LG and Samsung, the Korean manufacturers are topping US CDMA device sales, second only to the incumbent Motorola. How long till we see WIPI expanding within the US? (also published on ARCchart.com)