InnoWiser

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s not even a Google Phone!

So Google has thrown its hat in the mobile phone business in a big way. Blogs and papers were rife with rumours and newsbytes about the new, new thing from Google. Yesterday Google announced its Open Handset Alliance of partners and the Android platform. Absent from the announcement is a true hardware, the GPhone. It is probably only a matter of time before a real GPhone appears.

To a large degree it matters little what structure of the new thing is. What matters more, perhaps, is how Google is taking on the key stakeholders - mobile carriers, handset makers, semiconductor manufacturers, etc. and crafting a new approach to developing and selling mobile phones. It is perhaps a smart strategy by Google to not compete directly with the bigger players by making its own phones, but instead focus on the guts, the Android software platform and its specifications. Let a dozen handset manufacturers battle it out amongst themselves; Google will provide them all with ammunition. (Not that Google wants them to kill each other off. No, that would rather defeat the purpose.)

By providing the specifications for a mobile platform (operating system) and collecting a cadre of mobile partners, Google is ensuring that it remains at the center of the mobile ecosystem. Operators and handset makers will have the ability to customize services on their new hardware; however, Google will retain the ability to add new services on the phones, ensure consistency of basic look and feel, and most importantly, revise and update the specifications as and when required. This is battle of the platforms, rather than a battle of phone makers per se. It’s a Google mobile operating system versus (Nokia led) Symbian, Windows Mobile and Palm OS. But mostly it is Google vs. Microsoft.

What does Google hope to gain from this initiative? In short, new channels for mobile advertising, expected to be the next, hot battlefield of Internet advertising. Everything else would probably be just gravy on the top. True, operators would like to be seen as innovative by supporting an “open” initiative, and the larger the number of partners, the more open the alliance looks.

Let’s look briefly at the current partners in the alliance.
Mobile Operators:
Asia - China Mobile, KDDI NTT DoCoMo
Americas - SprintNextel, T-Mobile
Europe - Telecom Italia, Telefonica

Handsets Makers:
HTC, LG, Motorola, Sansung

Semiconductor:
Audience, Broadcom, Intel, Marvell, Nvidia, Qualcomm, SiRF, Synaptics, Texas Instruments

Software:
Ascender, eBay, Emertec, Google, LivingImage, NMS Communications, Nuance, PacketVideo, SkyPop, SONiVOX

Commercialization:
Aplix, Noser, TAT (The Astonishing Tribe), Wind River

(Source: Open Handset Alliance)

Conspicuous by their absence are large existing players with their own offerings. Nokia, with its Symbian OS. AT&T, which exclusively released Apple’s iPhone. And other European or Asian operators like Vodafone, Bharti, etc. Perhaps they all are taking the wait-and-see approach. More likely, they see Google as a rising competition. More on this later.

There are several reasons why Google is likely to succeed, and a few where it will face tremendous hurdles.

Success
Partnerships. For any alliance to be accepted, the size of its partnership matters. It is a testament to Google’s leadership that it has indeed been able to sign up over 30 partners. Perhaps others will join as they see a benefit in reaching more consumers.

Abilty to “act” neutral. By defining an “open” alliance, by offering its Android platform free of charge and thus opening up the platform for various applications, Google indeed has shown that it is serious about neutrality. It also puts the platform squarely against Microsoft’s Mobile platform. Other platforms such as Symbian, J2ME, and Linux are indeed open so there is definite aspect of competition.

However, GigaOm is not impressed with this move. Om thinks it is at best a PR move for now, and perhaps a real GPhone hardware from Google will be out in 2008. It is a point worth pondering.

Hurdles

Google’s power in the Internet world makes carriers suspicious. Carriers like to think that they “own” the mobile customers, and that they should be make the largest chunk of money from their customers. Too bad that the carriers do not innovate as effectively as other, smaller startups do. (Think top twenty of the latest mobile innovations and count how many have the carriers developed themselves. Most mobile innovations today are coming from the fringes, such as Apple, Twitter, Dopplr, Jaiku [bought recently by Google] and so on.) So they are likely to thwart Google’s entry in the ecosystem, especially where Google is likely to monetize the trump card - mobile advertising. The only reason carriers might actually work with Google is where they get a good chunk of the advertising pie.

More importantly, large players like AT&T, Verizon Wireless have been sparring with Google on its bid to buy wireless spectrum and change the rules of the game. They see Google’s move as a precursor to an entry into the carrier business.

What does it mean for end consumers? In short, there’ll be more choice in handsets. A more open phone, with no “walled garden” from suspicious mobile carriers will indeed be a refreshing change. Indeed, the phones might offer a better surfing experience with familiar Google applications - Gmail, Maps, Search, Docs, etc. - all preloaded on the phones. On the other hand, there’s no concrete drool-worthy design such as the iPhone yet announced.

Ultimately, the battle will be won in the marketplace, as it almost always is.

MIT students hackers, in keeping with their long standing tradition of hacks, practical jokes and other humorous pranks, recently scored another one*. This time they pwned venerable John Harvard’s statue.

Olde John is seen sporting a Spartan helmet complete with a Beaver emblem, a la a Halo 3’s Master Chief warrior, an assault rifle, “in recognition of the release of Halo 3″ video game. Right on, I say!

As it happens, that statue is a statue of “three lies”. The university was not founded by John Harvard (it was named after him when he bequeathed his library); it was founded in 1636 (not 1638, as written on the statue’s pedestal); and the model is not John Harvard, but a friend of the sculptor’s. The old guard who sits somewhere near it never fails to inform tourists after they have taken their picture with it.

At MIT, we always enjoy(ed) a little friendly rivalry with the school down the river. It’s great to see the tradition continued. Apparently, the blogosphere has noticed.

Some of the previous hacks have included installing a police car on top of the great MIT dome, hauling a cow on it (which had to be offloaded by a helicopter), a Lord of the Rings inscription around the dome, among others.

For the curiously minded, a chronology of MIT hacks is documented in “Nightwork“, reportedly written by “Institute Historian T.F. Peterson“. An inside joke, if ever there was one.

(Sorry, I couldn’t resist this story, even if sort-of off-topic. After first dissing leetspeak, I can’t help noticing it everywhere.) It’s been a while since I saw these hacks. Interesting How Time Flies Past…

“Internet Addiction Disorder“. Sooner or later, this term had to enter the zeitgeist. It happened way back in ‘95, but now the trend-spotting ad agency JWT claims it affects “more than 1 in 3 Americans”. Americans are giving up socializing and other offline activities in favor of a WiFi signal and an Internet connection. Interestingly, the survey says many people think of their mobile phones as an extension of themselves. Maybe the surveyors forgot to include Japanese teenagers about how they feel about their mobiles?

John P., formerly of GMSV and now at All Things D, has a funny take on it.

I’m ambivalent about many of these (media-created/ publicized) “disorders”, like the “restless leg syndrome“, but if these are repeated often, do they become self-fulfilling prophecies?

On the other hand, the tribe of those CrackBerry Blackberry wielding people (you know who you are) is ever increasing. Lucy Kellaway, always the one to make fun of corporate trends and shenanigans, has her take on it. Even the WSJ dipped its toe in it talking about “Blackberry Orphans”. No doubt, to appeal to those same people.

(For the record, I am still haven’t joined the ranks… yet).

When it comes to innovation, no one does it quite like Apple. After all the buzz in the blogosphere about Apple’s intentions, Apple rewarded the faithful with the latest iPod lineup. In a word, the new iPods are simply amazing. Beautiful and totally drool-worthy, just like the previous models. This time the interface is the same, but new. A bummer for early adopters is that Apple has slashed the price of the iPhone by $200 in anticipation of the coming holiday season. However, more significant than the revamped user interface is a more subtle change - the evolving ecosystem. And no one is at a better advantage than Apple itself.

The most significant changes include the new nano, now with video; a new iPod touch; and a new iTunes WiFi store.

Nano
The new nano is now more round and has a bright video display. As if the earlier models weren’t stunning enough, the new one looks even more so. And it’s available in black, white/silver, red and pastel colors. The models come in 4Gb and 8Gb capacity. As far as the lower end of the MP3 segment is concerned, they’ve got it covered.

The regular iPods are now iPod Classic, with 80 Gb and 160 Gb capacities, priced at $250 and $350. Now these make my 2-year old video iPod look positively old.

iPod Touch = No PC Required?
The biggest introduction is the new iPod Touch, which has the multi-touch interface Apple introduced on the iPhone. Gone is the familiar scroll wheel, in favor of the multi-touch controls. It looks like the iPhone, operates like the iPhone, but is not an iPhone. Infact, it looks like it’s the iPhone minus the phone capabilities. But the biggest features present are the Safari web browser and WiFi capabilities, until now not available on any iPod (barring the iPhone).

This is an extremely smart move on Apple’s part, because it feeds into the third big piece: integration into the iTunes WiFi portal. In effect, users will be able to browse, listen to, buy and download songs from the iTunes website without being tethered to a PC/Mac. In one swoop, Apple has provided seamless mobility like no other device has. Sure, Microsoft’s Zune has WiFi and users can even share their music (with restrictions), but given that Zune is perceived as an also-ran, no self-respecting geek would wait several hours in line for the Zune. I am not certain if a PC/Mac is required at all, but this WiFi feature is certainly in the correct direction.

User input for the browser is through the virtual keyboard (as on the iPhone), meaning users will have to get used to the non-feedback-giving touch screen, which may be a hassle for some. (I’ve tested it a few times on some iPhones, and it takes a little getting used to). On the other hand, Apple is perhaps priming up its user base to go for the iPhone by providing an interface similar to it. The first rule of usability is providing users a consistent and familiar interface, and in this the iPod Touch succeeds in going two steps forward, but perhaps one step back (in removing the scroll wheel).

Partnering Across the Ecosystem
While the iTune WiFi store is a critical piece in the user experience of the iPod Touch, Apple has gone one step further. Apple has a partnership with Starbucks where the new iPod Touch devices will automatically detect the WiFi hotspots at Starbucks locations. Not only that, the songs currently playing at the location will be available for instant download and purchase. At the click of a (virtual) button on the screen, users can sample the tracks and purchase them. All the purchases will be automatically synced up with their iTunes on the PC.

At the same time, the iPod Touch is integrated with YouTube. YouTube’s featured videos are available at the touch of a button, as are other features. See Apple’s guided tour video here.

The Missing Mobile VoIP?
Considering that the iPod Touch is complete with WiFi (an Internet connection), browsing capabilities, and *almost* a phone, how much of a stretch is it to imagine using it as an actual phone? With the addition of microphone accesory and some neatly hacked software, perhaps somebody might just be able to convert it into a device with a mobile communicator, with voice over WiFi (mobile VoIP). I’m pretty sure that hackers somewhere are thinking along similar lines, if not already in the process of doing it.

Which begs the question whether the iPod’s closed system will really made open at any time for applications. A smarter move on Apple’s part would be to attract developers to both the iPod and iPhone. Not only will Apple earn even more devotion from users, it will also attract establish it as a platform of choice for mobile applications.

What Price Early Adoption?

The biggest surprise was a $200 price drop for the 8Gb iPhone, just months after it was introduced. That’s a 33% drop. The 4Gb iPhone will be phased out. Where does it leave the early adopters? Has Apple just alienated its most ardent followers? To be sure, Apple is giving the $200 back to users, but only if they’ve purchased it in the last 14 days. What about those who stood in the lines for days to buy it? Read Om Malik’s post on it here: how to get your $200 back.

What do you think? Would you go and buy the iPod Touch? Or or would you buy the iPhone? Or wait for the true 3G version of the iPhone?

The explosion in social networks of all flavors on the web may have increased one’s online social presence; however, it has also created several problem of its own, both technical and social. Multiple identities with its attendant password problem is just the tip of the iceberg. Far more grave is the information overload from blogs, newsfeeds, updates, emails, tweets requests for responses and all manner of attention-seeking sites. How many users consider these are real problems? How serious are these? And how are users coping with them? Solving these problems is not very easy; if it were, they would have been resolved to some extent. Whoever seeks to surmount these challenges will require deep insight into users’ behavior and needs, and will have tremendous opportunities.

[This is a rather long post. I appreciate your patience here. It was important for me to jot down all the thoughts together, rather than present them piecemeal.]

Today, most users are on multiple social networks. You might have your own page on MySpace, Facebook, Bebo if you are college student, or perhaps somebody persuaded by the recent slew of articles in mainstream media (BusinessWeek, Newsweek, Time, WSJ, etc). You might be on LinkedIn or Ryze if you are a professional. If you are a travel fan, you might be on TravelPod, BootsnAll or have atleast surfed some of those blogs. You might have your own blog on Blogger, Wordpress, Vox, LiveJournal or on your own domain, and interact with your users using MyBlogLog. You might surf the web using recommendations from your virtual ‘friends’ using Digg, Del.icio.us, StumbleUpon or other recommendation sites. If you are a music fan, you might be on last.fm, imeem or MySpace. If you are particularly well known or an early adopter, you might have your own set of followers on Twitter, or any of the mobile social networks. If you are into photography, you might have your pictures (and friends/fans) on Flickr, Photobucket, or Slide. You may already have multiple email accounts on Gmail, Yahoo!, Hotmail or all three. You may also be chatting with your friends and family on Yahoo!, Gmail, Skype, MSN, etc. This is by no means an exhaustive list. If you are like most people I know, you might have several accounts, either known to each other or not.

I know I’m not the first one to think about it. Jon Udell writes :
“How many networks can one person join? How many different identities can one person sanely manage? How many different tagging or photo-uploading or friending protocols can one person deal with?” He also notes whether and how each new social network will reach a critical mass. (More on this later). Echoing him, Tim O’Reilly writes: “What really needs to be done is not just to connect the various social networks that do exist in internet network-of-networks style, but also to social-network enable our real social network apps: our IM, our email, our phone. Where, I keep asking vendors, is the Web 2.0 address book?”
ZDNet Blogger Steve O’Hear Read/Write Web’s 2007 Web predictions and writes: “Another driving force for social networks in 07, will be the increasing number of niche networks which are highly targeted to particular interest groups or social activities. The question that still remains however, is how many social networks any one user is likely to join and remain active in? This is where Read/WriteWeb’s prediction of fatigue has more weight.” In another post, he goes on to talk about data rights issues.
Sure, the problems have been discussed before, but I can’t help feeling that there’s more to these problems - more social than technical, perhaps - and we need more insight before we “solve” them.

The Problems

The way I see it, there are atleast five problems (in no particular order). I will list the solutions or attempts at resolution later, but first I want to focus on the problems themselves.

1. Multiple accounts. Everybody has them: accounts for various social networks, accounts for banks and other financial institutions, accounts for email,… The problems are not unknown or new - lost or forgotten passwords (been there), lost or forgotten user names (I’ve been there), etc. Over time, the passwords get more predictable, perhaps leading to easily hackable accounts. Of course, there are ways to solve some of these problems. Password managers on browsers come to mind. But more on solutions later.
2. Multiple identities. An issue close to, but not the same as, the multiple accounts. This is a more deep seated issue and has more social implications than the previous one, which had mainly technical issues. How do users reconcile multiple identities on multiple networks? *Do* they reconcile, and do they care? Do YOU want all your identities/avatars known to every person in your network? Think anonymity, think differing interests, think professional network versus the casual, social network, and think the differences between off-line networks and online ones. This is the reason why most ‘kids’ on Facebook don’t want to ‘friend’ their parents, who seem to be joining the network in droves, perhaps out of curiosity to see who among *their* age-group is on it, if not to snoop on their kids’ online activities.
I believe users lie along the entire spectrum here, from wanting only one identity across all networks to having completely separate identities on each different network. I am somewhere in between, and I suspect most users will stand somewhere in between as well. Technologies like Open ID exist to solve this problem. However, this is an evolving issue, and it cannot be resolved completely without first understanding the needs, behavior and issues of different user segments.
3. Privacy. Is privacy on the Internet dead, as Scott McNealy once proclaimed? And shall we get over it? This issue is moot when you consider the issue of multiple identities. The more online presence one has, the it is easier to stalk, hack, and disrepute someone. This is especially worrisome when more and more younger kids are getting online, joining various networks, and exposing their entire life online. The net-gen is cool with discussing their angst for all to see, perhaps leaving embarrassing imprints for posterity. And if not for posterity, then surely for future employers. Besides these, the question remains: who owns your personal data, your click streams, your interactions, your preferences? Some social network du jour? Or you? And how would you control it, if at all? Of course, this problem is not unique to social networks, except that networks only compound it. I do not have any great answers… just some obvious questions here.
4. Information overload. With dozens of social networking sites, thousands of blogs, news sites, shopping sites, entertainment destinations, portals, 24/7 crackberry with push email all constantly vying for a piece of our attention, no wonder many people feel overwhelmed. Again, this concept is not new. It’s been discussed before: Read/Write Web has an excellent overview. The book Attention Economy discusses the causes and effects. The Web is only increasing in size, so there’s ever more demand for our attention. Online social networks are only adding to the noise on the signal. No wonder then, that there’s a surge in recommendation sites like Digg, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Technorati, and others where users “recommend” stories to other users, each designed to provide a better user experience based on taste and preference. Technologies like RSS and information filters like news readers (Google Reader Newsreader, and so on), do allow users to be selective, but too many subscriptions create their own problems.

As expected, there are users who will cope — indeed flourish — within this information glut. And then there are those who will find it overwhelming and seek out a quiet time. It is not surprising, then, to see sites like NoSo Project - a ’social’ network that is a “real world platform for temporary disengagement from social networking events. The NoSo experience offers an opportunity to create NO connections by scheduling NO events with NO friends”. Hmm… an *unsocial* social network?
5. Utility. Social networks obviously provide a benefit. Networks are formed around people with certain affinities. So long as the perceived value of the network is more than the perceived transaction cost of connecting with others, the network will grow. Its members will derive some benefits. But it’s a different matter whether *each* new social network will grow beyond a certain *critical mass*.
Let’s say you are a new user, until now not connected to any network. You are faced with the choice of joining a dozen (or 20, or 40) networks. How would you decide which network to join? You might say: Gee, Metcalfe’s law says that a network’s value increases (quadratically, or exponentially) with every node. So would you join all the dozen networks? Would your utility increase proportionately after joining all the networks? Umm… I am not so sure. You’d probably join the one (or few networks) with perceived maximum utility based on your tastes. After a certain point, joining a new network does not increase the utility. In fact, it may diminish the utility within your existing networks. And the reason for that is simple: the demand on our time divide our attention, to the extent that the quality of connection (or value) diminishes. In the real, off-line world we limit our physical interactions to the most important.
While the above analogy may seem theoretical, here’s a practical example. On networks such as LinkedIn, Facebook, or MySpace where adding number of “connections” or “friends” is often a competitive sport, do you balk at connecting with users who have 500 “friends”? How about 1000? Or 10,000? or 1 million? If so, then that might be your threshold of diminishing return. If you’ve never balked at any such number, then perhaps you and I are viewing quality of interactions with a different lens.
The trouble, of course, is that we do not know the quality of these connections. That’s a whole ‘nother topic of discussion, but it points to the perceived value or utility of the network.

The Solutions
None of the above problems are meant to be seen in isolation, nor does it mean that these are not resolvable. There are technical solutions and social solutions. There is, of course, one technical solution to the problem of disparate networks. Join them together. And Facebook is doing just that, with its social networking platform.

More on this and other solutions in another post.

Meanwhile, what do YOU think are the problems with social networks? Have you experienced any? What would make you join or leave another social network? Let me know in the comments below!

At its core, what purpose does any innovation serve? Whom does it benefit? And at what cost? Answers to these questions is: “It depends.” And of course, it does. Depends on what the innovation is, what it is designed to solve, how users of innovation respond to it, what it takes to propagate it, etc.

I love innovation in most forms. I enjoy dissecting them, finding uses, abuses, utility and such. But there are some that make me go: OMGWTF?! [If you knew instantly what it meant, you may not empathize with me unless you are a purist.]

Wall St. Journal had a story yesterday on LeetSpeak. Or L33t5p34K, so to say. It goes on to say:

THOu9H g@iL k3Rn P4$T3r, +H3 D1REC+OR 0PH +H3 fOl9Er
$H4Ke5P3@Re LiBR4Ry 1n w4$H1n9t0N, h@$ 50mE M1591v1N95 48oU+ Th3 ri53 Of 1ntErN3+ 5L4n9 $UcH @$ Le3T5Pe4k, 5HE +h1nk5
5H4K3$p3@RE wOulD 4ppl@UD I+.

…5He tHiNk5 $h4k3Sp34r3 WOuLD APpr0VE of lE3t5P3@K. “H3 WOUlD 54Y, ‘BRIn9 i+ ON, 4b50luT3LY,’” she Say$.

+h3 R34s0n I$ Th4t $H4Ke$pe4r3 INTRODuC3D CoUN+LES5 nEW
WOrd5 4nD exPre$$iON$ iN+O +H3 3Ngl15H l4n9U49e +hr0u9h h1s
pL4YS, $he $4Y5. “+He i$5Ue 0F coRreCtne55 d1dn’+ 8oth3r HIm,” Sh3 54y$. “HE lOVed +0 pl@Y wi+h L@n9u49e.”

For those who have trouble reading it, here it is, in plain-speak English.

Though Gail Kern Paster, the director of the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, has some misgivings about the rise of Internet slang such as leetspeak, she thinks Shakespeare would applaud it.

…she thinks Shakespeare would approve of leetspeak. “He would say, ‘Bring it on, absolutely,’” she says.

The reason is that Shakespeare introduced countless new words and expressions into the English language through his plays, she says. “The issue of correctness didn’t bother him,” she says. “He loved to play with language.”

Now I don’t know about you, but I found it exceedingly difficult to decode the leetspeak beyond the first line. I suspect Shakespeare himself wouldn’t have been able to read it. And that just may be the point. Wikipedia, the source of all online knowledge, calls leetspeak a slang, primarily used on the Internet having evolved from online video games. The term “leet” is a derivative of “elite”, the status of some accomplished game players from whom this coded language has evolved, perhaps to distinguish from other, non-elite, non-leetspeakers, perhaps the l00zrz.

Is this a linguistic innovation? I certainly think so. There is certainly a novelty aspect to it although it has been evolving for the last 20 odd years. It is a cultural change from the norm of standard written English, and for what it is worth, it does seem to serve the purpose of vaguely encoding standard English and distinguishing the leetspeakers from non-leetspeakers, or newbs. (I confess to being a newb in this matter, though not a n00b, I hasten to add. See Wikipedia for the difference.)

You may or may not agree with the innovation aspect, but consider what Anthony Mitchell, in an opinion piece, says: “Leet has outgrown its roots as an obscure communication system for bulletin board users and has become a broad cultural phenomenon….. New forms of leet are encouraged. Leet users often disregard standards and reward innovation. Leet is adding new vocabulary and transpositions that are harder to decipher…”. A-ha.

Now, I understand that most languages are living entities. They evolve over time. Some, like English, have an ever expanding vocabulary, adapting to changing times and are the better for it. Consider the difficulties of translating words like blog in French or Swedish. Others, like Latin and Sanskrit, are not spoken, and are dying. For any language to stand the test of time, its users must be willing to adopt the changes that it goes through, often accepting and sometimes rejecting, the new words and ideas that are coined. How acceptable are these linguistic evolutions?

Most people who have txt’d will easily recognize the semblance with txting slang and will understand how the txting slang has developed. Txting evolved out of a need to communicate in a 160-character limitation on mobile phones. It has, since then, become a common teen and young adult phenomenon who use it in mails, on their blogs, and even in classroom assignments, much to the consternation of teachers. Perhaps the consternation of adults and teachers is what it’s all about, after all. To which, I say: LOL. There’s fun in that.

Language blog, one that I read from time to time, has an interesting cartoon here (reproduced below). It’s not pure leetspeak, but it does get the point across. Or not. (Maybe that is the point.) [Image: PixelComic]

Perhaps I’m showing my age by quoting Wall St. Journal, my sensitivities in being a language purist, or just plainly the ignorance of evolving cultural norms (or perhaps all three). But I do not understand the utility of this, umm, leet innovation. Is it mainly a generational thing? (I am a Gen-Xer, though sometimes I do feel my parent’s age.) Perhaps I am just not enough of a g4m3r and just don’t get it. But I am genuinely curious and would love to be enlightened.

So what do people think? Is this style of writing helpful? If so, for whom? Is it communicative? Do you speak leet? How do you react when you see a leet mail? Is it the future of our written language?

Wh4+ d0 y0U tH1nK? J01N teh (0nV3r54+10N b3l0w!

I shall be writing posts on the mobile industry. This is a first one in the series.

Forecasting a nascent market is difficult, risky and sometimes embarrassing in hindsight. Market uptake depends on multiple factors: clear business propositions, deployment of infrastructure, marketing of services, customer experience, availability of compelling value proposition (for the customer/user, the complementary service providers/partners), network effects, and the like. Nevertheless, forecasting is itself a big business. Forecasting requires constructing a model that includes making assumptions about these and other factors, applying some sort of complicated formulae, and making relevant predictions. Often forecasters come up with best-case, worst-case and most-likely scenarios to cover the entire range.

As such, most forecasts should be taken with a pinch of salt.

When it comes to new, emerging services like Mobile TV, there are various ranges I have seen. Three years ago when I first started researching this area, most people were very skeptical about mobile TV. The most common responses I heard were: Who would want to watch TV on their mobile phone? Why would they watch it? What would they watch? There’s nothing on it! Who provides these services? I don’t even get a good voice signal. Video on mobile sucks, and variations of it.

Now it seems like almost every mobile-related firm is, or wants to be, in the mobile TV/video business. There’s money to be made in mobile content, mobile advertising, mobile broadcasting, mobile gaming. Understandably, many companies have jumped in hoping to get a share of pie.

Moconews reports, citing an ABI Research report, that mobile video services (service revenues for video messaging, video calling and video sharing) will grow from $1 billion in 2007 to $17 billion in 2012. Most of these (~90%) will come from N. America, Europe and industrialized regions of Asia/Pacific. ABI Research, in a June 2006 report (I know, it’s old) mentions that Mobile TV users (broadcast and unicast) will reach over 500 million in 2011. Now, both the scenarios are possible… but main question is exactly how probable are they?

I don’t have any point answers: it’s pointless to forecast to the second decimal anyway. What I do know is that there are compelling drivers for this emerging market of broadcast mobile video, and there’s significantly higher interest in the past year or two from many players in the value chain.

Roughly, the Mobile TV value chain looks like this:

Network operators <-> Infrastructure Vendors <-> Content Developers/Aggregators <-> Mobile Device Manufacturers <-> Consumers

This is a huge and complicated market, with multiple players, competitors, complementors and stakeholders. I shall cover the players, the technologies, and some of the issues in later posts.

When elephants fight, it’s the grass that suffers. Just when you thought that marketers had learnt their lessons from previous format wars, in comes the news that Paramount and DreamWorks would exclusively back the HD DVD format.

For those who are keeping track, both HD DVD and Blu-Ray standards allow storing immense amounts of data (the actual number is not exactly relevant to the story) on optical disks. These are the next-generation of optical storage devices. Blu-Ray, from Sony’s camp, claims storing from up to 200 GB (theoretical), while HD DVD, from Toshiba’s camp, claims up to 60 GB. As far as I am concerned, that counts as  ‘what-will-I-do-with-all-this space’, but I digress. For the curious surfer, Engadget has an excellent overview of the history of these standards, along with a list of organizations in each camp.

What has me worried sick is whether I should spend my hard-earned – and now depreciating — dollars buying a Blu-Ray player or an HD DVD player? I will happily shell out for either of these players, as long I am reasonably confident that there will be plenty of movies available in the said format at a reasonable price; I can borrow or trade-in the disks from friends; backup my data on these disks or exchange the disks without fear of having an obsolete format. And therein lies the crux of the dilemma for marketers of any innovation.

How should innovations that exhibit strong network externalities be marketed? Where should the battle of the formats be played? At the technology standards level? At the political level? In the marketplace?

Many technical products exhibit network externalities or network effects. A user’s utility of the technology (or a product, such as a Blu-Ray player) depends not just on that technology, but also on external factors such as the number of people using the technology, complementary products, etc. (e.g. libraries of movies, backup disks, etc.). More importantly, the utility increases as other people use those products. [Think the early adopter of a fax machine, and his utility versus the late adopter and his utility.]

Traditionally, most technologies that exhibit strong network externalities also exhibit a chicken-and-egg Catch-22 situation. Should firms lay out a network first at huge costs, or should they wait until a large number of users buy a device? Should you, the user, be the first one to buy a new fangled device, or wait until others are already on the bandwagon? Most users fall across the broad spectrum of segments from early adopters to laggards (but I won’t cover that specifically in this post).

The traditional way marketers have resolved this dilemma is to try to create a critical mass of users or customers. Creating a critical mass often requires being (among the) first to bring a product to market. Or at least introducing the product before the major competitors do. Blu-Ray camp introduced its players last year at a price of around $1,000. I understand HD DVD camp also introduce its players and drives soon after. Toshiba now has a new player that retails for less than $500.

For those who cannot create an actual, critical mass, there’s always the illusion of a critical mass. Hence the chest-thumping announcements from each camp in the format wars about their products selling like hot cakes, and bloggers are claiming that the wars are over. The belief being that those who create the most noise must obviously be winning. (I’m not entirely convinced, but I’ll leave that aside for now.)

But there is one critical factor that drives adoption like nothing else: price. Early adopters and innovators often adopt products without (much) regard to the price; for them the utility is often in being the first to purchase, and the bragging rights that go with it. But for the majority of pragmatic users who value practical utility of the product and weigh in on the cost, a certain psychological mark is often required to take the plunge. This psychological mark is sometimes $0 (meaning free), but often it is the value of replacing whatever it is that they are replacing.

When prices start falling below the range of $200-300, and offer movie titles for less than 50% premium over current DVD retail prices, I believe the adoption will increase dramatically. I could, of course, be incorrect, and I’ll be happy to see more adoption - that will only increase my utility when I finally decide to take a plunge.

Obviously, as the battle of the formats moves towards the marketplace where the customers will actually pay for product, the more expensive it gets to sustain the battle. On solution to prevent this expensive battle was to try and stop the battle while it was still being fought in the technical stages. This would have meant creating compatible Blu-Ray / HD DVD players, or merging the standards, or some such technical solution. But apparently, both the camps thought they had power to win and subdue the other. And now we are in this mess again, much like Sony with its BetaMax and JVC with its VHS were, years ago.

For me, the most fascinating aspect of such a business war is how neither of the sides learnt its lesson. For now, I’m just sticking with the plain old DVD and watching the battle from my position atop the fence.