So whose problem is it?

The wonderful thing about Apple and Google moving into the mobile space (how sad that I do not mention Microsoft* in the same breath) is that they approach it without the usual constraints and filters of the existing players.

Example 1: App Stores. Nokia has had Download! for years but needed Apple's fresh take on how it should be done to wake up and realise that its own realisation was poor and out of touch.

Example 2: Apple's iPhone completely transformed the way that phones look and the touch screen with the "pinch" is the most significant innovation in hardware design for many years. Again, no established mobile player could think so out of the box.

Example 3: Nokia makes Symbian open source in response to Android's shake up of the mobile OS layer. Why didn't it do so before? Because it was embroiled in the space and could not think without these limits.

There is an interesting storm brewing at the moment about the roaming costs of the iPhone and Android devices. One thing is that people are using them to browse more than is usually the case but added to that the apps on them are regularly connecting to their servers to report back on usage and to facilitate email download. You are only partially notified that this will happen when you download them and it is easily forgotten. So, you go abroad, barely use your phone and not for data at all because you know it costs you dearly, and still receive bill shock when the next one arrives.

So, whose problem is this?

Well, at the moment it is the consumers but it is interesting to see who will blink first:

The operator view is this is a phone issue and the manufacturer should fix it by allowing complete data disablement.
The web view is that this exposes poor customer value created by the operators and they should fix it.


The web giants are clearly in the right in this case as regards customer value. I suspect that they saw this one coming and clearly strategised that the only way to solve these inefficiencies would be to dump the problem in the operator's lap.

Well, it is being dumped as we speak. Let's see what happens next.


(* The thing with Microsoft is a little ironic. When Microsoft began its move into the mobile space it was still 'the' company to fear from a carrier perspective and so it was dealt with very gingerly and with the utmost caution = slow progress. It also sought to sell to the operators which means that its OS was far more geared to operator requirements than either iPhone or Android. And yet, despite this it has not become a meaningful player. I think that had it started its sales run a few years later (when Google was becoming a perceived threat to the operators) or if it had the vision (requiring a complete philosophical transformation) to create its own Android equivalent it would have made for a different story).

UPDATE: A far more detailed and profound post on this data issue can be found at Disruptive Wireless - here)

Microsoft and Mobile

Russell Buckley posted this morning a well structured and insightful post on Microsoft and its diminishing influence as a player in the mobile OS space.

Dean Bubley - infamous in Forum Oxford circles for debunking mobile hype at every valid opportunity - weighed in with a good argument as to why Microsoft really doesn't care.

I tried to find the middle ground between them. I think Microsoft should care but needs to find a battlefield where it can fight on its own terms rather than that of others. I really do not know whether the eeePC market has a chance of being a major play in mobile but its best chance is if Microsoft tries to use it tactically. I think this is Microsoft's best chance too.

Read the comments stream to see the flow.

Ya-who?

Some of the recent coverage about increasingly desperate moves by Yahoo! not to be absorbed by Microsoft has been very good indeed.

I think TechCrunch has been on the money with their sceptical view of the tie up with Google and general lack of patience with the Yahoo! management team's increasingly bizarre turns to avoid Microsoft. In the link above, TechCrunch references a New York Times article which delivers a stinging attack on Jerry Yang and his dis-respect for his shareholders.

The main premise is that this stopped being Yang's company when it went public in 1996 and this is a fundamental truth which for over ten years has not mattered as, by and large, Yang's approach has chimed with the majority of his independent shareholders.

There is an interesting schism in Yahoo! between the Engineers who would rather cut their heart out with a rusty teaspoon than be bought by Microsoft and the rest, who could not wait for the payoff that the price represented. This latter group were also representative of the shareholding class for whom the Microsoft deal represented a pretty good out.

I was reflecting the other day on which companies that are household names would still be around in ten or fifteen years when my sons begin to think about the working place - I honestly believe that if I were to mention Yahoo! I would have been flipped a "Ya-who?". All Yang has done has opted for a slower death and a less reumunerative deal for his shareholders.

Being the top dog is a tough job but in this matter heart has ruled the head and he'll come to regret it I think.

I think Vodafone gets it

Below is an excerpt from a Press Release from Vodafone:

Vodafone Group Plc today announces the creation of Vodafone Internet Services which will lead the development and delivery of Vodafone’s current and future consumer propositions for the internet. Vodafone has appointed Pieter Knook, a senior vice president of Microsoft, to the newly formed role of Director of Internet Services.

I think this is a smart move from Vodafone which again demonstrates its strategic maturity compared to its peers. To be more than a bit pipe it needs to be a portal of choice for the end user. In fact, I would argue for its stock market valuation it needs to be a portal first and an operator second. I think this hire is an excellent statement of intent in this direction as well as bringing top tier resource again into its management structure.

Danger!

In the midst of the noisy flurry from this year's annual jaunt to Barcelona for the mobile industry was this announcement concerning the purchase of Danger by Microsoft. The terms of the deal have not been disclosed but I hope that the Danger guys are happy - some of the nicest, happiest and most genuine people I have met in the industry. At times I know it was a hard slog but this would appear to be a great outcome for their efforts. Well done to Hank, James, Jamie and the rest of the team.