David Wood from Symbian Responds to Ovi Store Post

Overnight I received a very welcome surprise by way of David Wood, EVP and Head of Research at Symbian not only reading but responding to my thoughts of yesterday of the potential pitfall Nokia faces with its OVI Store.

There’s a reason why David’s where he is and I’m not – he managed to sum up what I was trying to say in just two short paragraphs;

The challenge identified here is an important one: will the Symbian apps which can run in background and which can access powerful APIs end up delivering a poor experience to normal phone users (especially when more than one of these apps is running at the same time).

I suspect that some apps will behave well and others will behave less well. The community as a whole will find out which apps belong in which category, and will publicise their findings. So the apps that behave well will have a good success in the marketplace.

Providing some form of developer  and application reputation metric based on community responses will certainly go some to not only helping users decide which  but also in encouraging developers in continuing to make apps safe / work / useful.

You can read more of David’s thoughts on stuff (and it’s an ecclectic a mix of bits as I look at) over on his blog as well as on the official Symbian blog.

Is Nokia Setting Itself Up for Failure with OVI Store?

 

Today (Monday 30th March) has been an interesting one with the release of Gravity by Jan Ole Suhr, sparking a lot of conversation on Twitter about pricing, distribution channels and adoption.

What has interested me about the conversations today was the thinking that as the S60 platform is so widespread that scale should allow the cost of apps to be less and that it was really only the lack of an Apple appstore type model for the S60 platform that prevented such adoption and therefore lower pricing.

Of course Nokia have had a directory of apps available on many of the S60 phones and are ramping up OVI to provide a full scale application store more akin to Apple’s offering but I think there may be something nasty lurking.  Something that may just derail Nokia’s efforts to build a centralised store from within.

The Groundworks

For many years Nokia users have grown accustomed to finding applications from developers on the web or via a number of well known stores such as Handango.  Those users were used to buying through a range of ecommerce providers, downloading and installing them themselves.  Those users were also, importantly, used taking responsibility for two key things;

1. ensuring that they only ran as many apps as their phone was capable of supporting at any one time or accepting the crashing from memory issues, and
2. not running applications concurrently that conflicted with resource requirements. 

In other words Nokia Smartphone users were anything but Normobs.  Nokia offered up devices that were designed to be pushed, to be played  with to be tweaked.  The Nokians responded by taking full advantage of this and the Normobs, well they used the phone pretty well out of the box as it did a lot very well indeed.

Another Paradigm Arises

Along came Apple with the iPhone which challenged and changed so many things in the mobile industry, not least of which was the attitude of Normobs to augment and extend their phone with a range of easily discoverable and affordable applications.

The app store was/is superbly simple to use. You find, you click, you play.  And because Apple had taken the decision early on not to allow such potential pitfalls as background tasks to occur, users could be fairly well assured that nothing they installed was likely to interfere with the core functionality of the phone itself.

Setting Up for a Fall

The landscape of users now pretty well falls into those who just use the device as intended (Normobs), those who will install and use apps in a managed environment (iPhoners) and those users who take on a whole pile of effort and responsibility to play with their devices (Nokians).  One could argue that G1 users are most alike to the Nokians in this model.

What Nokia’s OVI application store will do for users is afford Normobs the ability to discover, purchase and install applications in a more iPhoner way.

There is a problem I foresee.  S60 applications are far more complicated in nature that iPhone apps.  It’s C++ to HTML.  S60 apps are allowed and encouraged to utilise phone resources whilst in the background whereas iPhone apps are still awaiting the long promised polling from Apple.

I’m not arguing over which approach is the right one here.

But when OVI allows for applications to be easily installed onto S60 devices where those applications can compete for resource the stability of the device and in turn the user experience are in for a bashing.

How so?

Well if you install AppA & AppB on the iPhone, use and switch between them each closes down neatly leaving the path clear for the other.  The theory is the user never has to worry about the phone  not working as a phone or applications stalling core functionality.  The experience is always simple, easy and clean.

Switching between those same to apps on S60 no such rules are enforced and should there be a conflict, a memory leak or crash the user sees a fail. 

The issue for Nokia will be, I suspect, that users will blame OVI for the issue in much the same way Apple copped flak for such clashes.

Can the Fall be averted?

With so many people embedded into the iPod/iPhone mentallity of click and play sadly I suspect Nokia has left it far too late in the day to avert a PR disaster without spending truly huge sums of money on re-educating the public that apps bought through OVI just can’t be guaranteed to not create havoc in the same way that Apple can. 

Sure they could undertake an application testing/verification process but that would stiffle development and actually make things more expensive.

I have high hopes for OVI but after recent OVI experiences they are tempered with only moderate expectations.

Ewan MacLeod from MIR Responds

Overnight Ewan has responded to my thoughts yesterday on the Mobile Industry Review move to subscriptions only.  I must say this was a welcome comment, considered, concise and it does answer the points I voiced yesterday.   For that I thank Ewan.

My further thoughts are below.

Here we go Barney, here’s some answers to your questions.

"What is bugging me (or at least has been until today) is who on earth would have bought the rights? What content was it they were actually interested in and at what price?"
EWAN: I can’t disclose the name of the company. The content they’re interested in is as I set out on the post above – news, analysis, perspective, bit of video, with a bent toward their particular operating industry.

"In other words the only major value I can see in the MIR content is that of the video which is after all the most costly thing to produce."
EWAN: No. They value written content with a focus on reports discussing specific areas.

"I was kind of under the impression that like so many others James, Ben & Dan had given their time and efforts freely (or at least without being paid) to help create the MIR shows. If James is moving on does this mean the others will follow? Is this the end of the MIR show?"
EWAN: In most cases, James Ben and Dan gave their time for free and I paid for all expenses. e.g. They didn’t pay anything when we went to Rome etc. This is indeed the end of the MIR Show as you know it, but James, Ben and Dan are free to do as they wish.

"Ewan talks about the new subscription model in “we” and “our” terms but will there even be a team to back him up?"
EWAN: Yes. I’m hiring some report writers and researchers. I can’t afford to hire any of the contributors on their market rates — and I don’t think they’d be into this sort of thing even if I could.

"Did they get a pay day, should they have stood to gain financially from the changes, they were of course the creatives behind the content?"
EWAN: Did Ben Dan and James get a pay day? I think you’ve entirely mis-read the reality. They were giving their time for free and I was paying their expenses. I was paying for absolutely everything and I couldn’t find a model that would allow me to continue to do so without stressing. To be clear I spent 33k in January alone on MIR. Me. We had the occasional supporter/advertiser, but it was me who funded it all. So we’re not talking in terms of gaining financially. The financial gain I get from this ‘transaction’ is that I stop spending so much per month.

"Personally I can understand a move to a subscription model in part but seriously doubt that in its current form and without the support and goodwill of the community (who if they are like me feel a little deflated) I can’t see the “phenomenal reach” that is promised to would be subscribers."
EWAN: The current form of MIR ends next week. The client doesn’t want the community. They want reports, they want a bit of news and analysis, they want some sit down video interviews. They don’t want MIR in it’s current form.

"There are a number of other questions running around my head mostly to do with the viability of the subscription strategy and Ewan’s ability to deliver but that can wait for another post methinks."
EWAN: My ability to deliver? Alas, the failure point was mine for assuming (and quite possibly delving in to that horrible, horrible no man’s land of ‘hoping’) that the industry — or the readers, working for huge, huge budget-rich companies — would value our output enough to help out now and again. That’s where I got it wrong, so I accept any criticism you’d care to level at me in this regard.

Just in case you’re not quite there with the reality — can I draw your attention to the post asking for assistance to help take the team to CTIA in Las Vegas. The first time I’ve really ever asked for support. Having spent upwards of, I don’t know, 60k this year inc. Mobile World Congress, I thought, ‘surely, surely someone or a few companies will help out.’

I got 11 responses to the post within 48 hours. Every single one said words to the effect of, ‘sorry, no budget to help out, but could the team interview us on camera?’

So when you allude to the support, goodwill and such of the MIR community, we have to be very, very clear — British Airways won’t accept that in return for flights. That’s the reality and I had to operate within it.

To your points on the subscription strategy, Barney, the transaction works fully with one subscriber, no further subscribers are required. So in that context I’m pleased that it’s a done deal, I can relax, I can stop spending so much money and so much unpaid time on MIR. If in 3 years time, the client is unwilling to renew, then I’ll stop providing a service.

Your comments relating to James and/or Jonathan heading off to the Cayman Islands with their proceeds — well, that would be just phenomenal if I’d done a deal to sell MIR to News Corporation for $500m and hired the entire team on $10m 3-year talent contracts. I’d have loved to have been able to do so. Alas that isn’t anywhere near the case.

Somebody has to pay. It was me — and I reached the end of ‘reasonable’ and found an exit. Don’t forget the MIR team who also helped produce the site — don’t forget that they were gracious enough to accept expenses and/or contribute their time for no direct recompense. I think your efforts on-going would be better served in thanking them for their efforts and supporting their next projects.

I’ll be posting a note to this effect, in more detail, later on.

I’m actually really pleased for Ewan that a single company values his (and what ever team he can put together) editorial efforts enough to make it pay – this is of course why some of us are Daily Mail readers and others The Times or The Guardian – we value the collation and editorial capabilities.

I can’t question Ewan’s client’s thinking behind the value but I still just don’t get how or why anyone else would want to pay £12k a year – maybe Ewan has just priced it so far beyond the point of sensible as a method of killing of the market – that way he has no need to maintain the site other than for this single client.   I hope this isn’t the case as I reckon there would have been a number of parties willing to take up the mantle and run/manage the site as a hobby.

For now really all I can add are my best wishes for Ewan and a heart felt thanks to the community who helped make MIR what it was.

The MIR Fallout

Okay so a week or so on and everyone seems to have gathered that Ewan has “sold” the entire content of Mobile Industry Review to some anonymous third party and that from the end of March 2009 they are taking the content into the subscription only space.  You did see this news right?

Now that the dust has settled and my mind is free enough of normal and important things to offer up some attention to this I think I can see what’s been bugging me about this whole affair.

It’s not the move to subscriptions or the absurd £12k a year Ewan wants for it, after all isn’t every site looking to find a revenue stream aside from advertising.

It’s not that taking all the content out of the public eye is bucking the opening up trend.

It’s not even the curious decision to isolate the community of industry geeks (and just plain old interested geeks) who have through their collective efforts voiced opinions, written articles and posts, fed news and offered up comments in order to bolster the content of MIR.

What is bugging me (or at least has been until today) is who on earth would have bought the rights?  What content was it they were actually interested in and at what price?

So I got to thinking who might be an interested party for either a takeover or exclusive syndication of the content.  To be honest I could well imagine many industry news sites wanting the video content but that’s about it.  Most of the useful mobile industry sites have their own hacks and are all on the receiving end of the same press releases.  In other words the only major value I can see in the MIR content is that of the video which is after all the most costly thing to produce.

Given the “deal” was therefore most likely done for the video content (sorry James, Jonathan et al for not overly valuing your written efforts) to whom was this of most value, and again at what price?

But news from Whatleydude on his blog intimates that he is moving on and this changes the questioning substantially for me.

I was kind of under the impression that like so many others James, Ben & Dan had given their time and efforts freely (or at least without being paid) to help create the MIR shows.  If James is moving on does this mean the others will follow?  Is this the end of the MIR show?

Ewan talks about the new subscription model in “we” and “our” terms but will there even be a team to back him up?  Also on the subject of the team – where do they stand on this move? It’s been ominously quiet.  Did they get a pay day, should they have stood to gain financially from the changes, they were of course the creatives behind the content?

Maybe we’ll get a final public swansong from James tomorrow or Jonathan on Thursday thanking the community for the attention and announcing their move to the Caymans on the proceeds.

Personally I can understand a move to a subscription model in part but seriously doubt that in its current form and without the support and goodwill of the community (who if they are like me feel a little deflated) I can’t see the “phenomenal reach” that is promised to would be subscribers.

There are a number of other questions running around my head mostly to do with the viability of the subscription strategy and Ewan’s ability to deliver but that can wait for another post methinks.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Mobile Industry Review: The End of an Era (whatleydude.com)
• Blog plans £12k subscription fee (Brandrepublic.com)

Facebook, Data Ownership and the Like

Okay so after a few days of various bashings by the press, bloggers and assorted “informed” people Facebook have rolled back their T&C’s to the point of not seemingly claiming ownership over users data for ever and a day.

Whilst a great deal of noise was made about the whole issue it is interesting that very few commented on the probable thinking behind the change despite a post from Mark Zuckerberg doing a fairly decent job of trying to allay fears.

From what I have read the change to the FB T&C’s was in order to try to retain some of the integrity inherent in the relationship formed by creating data rather than claiming “all shiny things as theirs.”

Let me use a simile to try to explain…

If I shop at an online supermarket they necessarily collect data about me as well as the purchase in order to fulfil my order; meta-data about the relationship formed by the purchase.  It is jointly owned for the purposes of maintaining the relationship.

VRM/ESOOU thinking dictates (please do correct me if I am off track) that actually the information is solely the property of the user and therefore under my control.  However if I unilaterally remove all the information within my ownership (even the jointly owned content) then the relationship falls apart – you can’t have a single node relationship.

BUT my purchase, or more specifically the data surrounding what I bought, when and price is NOT my sole property.  They are  stock related information owned by the store vital to it’s operation – what is mine are the personal details identifying the purchaser as me.

So what I am trying to get to is that ownership of data isn’t as straight forward as “it’s mine” and more often than not it is “part is mine, part is yours and another bit is ours.”

Now from what I understand FB were trying to achieve a point where once information was placed into the system (the relationship was created – normally between two users) that if the originating owner wanted out of the relationship the T&C’s gave FB (and therefore the second party) a degree of integrity for that relationship.  In other words, whilst the relationship could be anonymised it could not be completely removed.

To my thinking this isn’t a bad place to be, the problem was that FB took a rather parental approach to the issue dictating through the T&C’s that they would in effect own the data taking the issue away from the user.

So in this case community pressure has “won” their cause having the terms revert to the old script but I can’t help but think there was indeed nothing malevolent about the move in the first place, just maybe poorly worded and poorly sold to the user base – so nothing new for Mr Z there then.

Twitter – Is Charging for Commercial Accounts THE Right Model?

So everyone has seen the news Marketing (in an interview with Biz Stone, co-founder of Twitter) broke about Twitter possibly having decided upon a route to revenues.

This is what Stone reportedly said:

“We are noticing more companies using Twitter and individuals following them. We can identify ways to make this experience even more valuable and charge for commercial accounts.”

There has been a lot of talk recently on where Twitter’s revenues could/should come from, everything from the lacklustre advertising models done to death to premium accounts offering SMS notifications (please please bring SMS back for the UK).

Conversations I was having with Robert O’Brien, a friend of mine, back at the end of 2007 early 2008 revolved around our thinking that Twitter had really missed an opportunity in monetising their namespace (not a revolutionary idea as we are in the digital identity space).  After all it’s a well understood model and one with which most digital life-stylers are quite comfortable to a level.  Even if Twitter had offered up leases for names say for US$5 a year with the first 2-3 years free just think how many of the 5 million plus active users today with more than a few months of interaction would be more than happy to pay up to maintain their account.

So it really comes as no surprise that Twitter are now considering paid for accounts, in this case for commercial use.  But there are a couple of obvious speedbumps:

• The proverbial gate of free accounts has been left open so long that perhaps the monetising namespace horse has already bolted.  Will commercial entities even now be able to realise and evaluate value in maintaining a presence on Twitter?  When Marketing contacted Bob Pearson, VP of communities and conversations at Dell, with that exact question and got a telling response: “If it becomes complicated and costly, our instinct would be to move elsewhere.”  Sadly I suspect that Dell and a raft of other commercial entities will be quicker to jump ship than they were to board in the first place.
• Personal accounts will be exempt (at the moment) from this charge.  Obvious really but for businesses to be enticed into using Twitter as a marketplace it is vital that Twitter continues to grow it’s user numbers.   But when does a personal account become a commercial account?

Is Barack Obama a personal account or (now) a government account?  What about Stephen Fry – sure it’s a “personal” account but the business of Stephen Fry is, well selling Stephen Fry.  How about one man bands, the Whatleydude’s and Jonathan MacDonald’s of the world just when (and who decides) do these personal accounts become something more?

I’m not suggesting for a second that there needs to be a process for deciding, just that this is an area dotted with mines.

And of course there has as yet been no mention of cost.

An alternative approach

In October 2008 I had about an hours chat with Jon Bishop at a meeting of the Tuttle Club in London where we talked about where Twitter could derive income.  An idea forming in my head at the time (and it probably was based on those prior conversations with Robert) was around the usefulness of Twitter as a B2B & B2C platform, a messaging platform if you will for applications using the simple form of source based routing we all know and love on Twitter.  The ideas weren’t fully formed at the time (an old school mate Nick Halstead recently discussed the API route to revenue over on his blog) until just before Christmas when during one particularly busy afternoon I stopped receiving updates periodically.

For any serious Twitterer the bane of one’s tweeting existence is the current API limit.  I’m not a developer and will not claim to fully understand REST of any of the other goodness that has gone into the creation of the Twitter API, but I do get API’s what they do and why.   The volume of messages going across the Twitter API daily must be huge (anyone got stats?) and growing weekly.

Of course scaling this is easy is the system was designed to do so from the ground up, but I suspect that like most organically created systems the  Twitter API groans and strains like a 14 year old boy.  Remember 2008 – the year of the fail whale?

Twitter’s current limit of 20,000 calls per hour for whitelisted apps and 100 calls (?) for individual accounts places some control on this growth but seriously hampers active users.

For commercial operations this restriction needs to be either lifted or better still paid for by volume.

Rather than having say Dell pay for an account username, have them pay for messages.  A bit like how we all used to pay for SMS before all-you-can-eat packages were available.  In fact why not have an all-you-can-eat service level for the seriously verbose users?

As long as the cost is proportional to traffic and the business provided can easily access, buy, maintain and analyse their costs/benefits and that the money is driven back into helping to create the infrastructure needed then everyone wins.

To my thinking this user-pays approach if applied makes the system fairer, placing cost on those who i) place the most strain on the system and ii) derive the most direct/indirect monetary benefit from their Twitter presence.  Not at all dissimilar to web hosting, it’s easy enough to get a free account but if you generate a lot of traffic you’ll have to pay at some point.

Of course I may have assumed too much.  Maybe the smarts at Twitter have realised some of this and are already heading down the API  route – until they announce more I guess we must but speculate.  I welcome thoughts and feedback.

Related articles by Zemanta

An Unspoken Code of Trust Amongst Mobile Workers

Who says there is no goodwill, no decent human beings in the world, that trust is dead?

As I sit here in the ICA Bar I could have highlighted a good dozen or so occasions today where people have demonstrated plenty of decency towards others.

Right now I am sat at the table next to – well who knows.  I don’t.  He’s just a guy sat down sharing a power socket getting on with work/play again who knows, who cares.

The point is he just got up and went outside to receive a phone call leaving his laptop unattended and unlocked.

Earlier on I left mine sitting on the table at #tuttle with little regard for it’s safety (mind you the disk is double encrypted so good luck to would be thieves).

There seems to be an unspoken code of “we’re sharing a space, we’re doing similar activities so look out for me and I’ll look out for you” going on here.

Something I was quite used to in New Zealand but never really expected to find in London.

In fact thinking on it the number of times people on the train just get up to put stuff in bins or pop to the WC leaving a coat or bag in situ astounds me.

Maybe there are more decent people out there than we all give credit to.

HP’s Printer Ink “DRM”

Everyone’s familiar with how the recording industry back in the day decided that DVD’s should be locked to a particular part of the globe to enforce, well who knows what.

Then the games industry had a crack at it and Sony, Nintendo & Microsoft locked down their games consoles to only allow games bought in the same region as the console to work.

Needless to say these barriers have long since been destroyed by a community of free minded individuals determined to rid the world of Digital Rights Management.  Whilst DRM still exists in music (although Apple have finally gotten the message and moved away), DVD/BluRay and games it is obvious that the industry is wising up to the rising tide of unaccepting users.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the printer industry – or at least Hewlett Packard.

Our recent move from NZ to the UK meant we brought our all in one printer with us, and on advice rather sensibly removing the installed cartridges as they would clog over the months in shipping/storage.

Last week I stuck in the four brand new inks (HP 02′s) shipped with the printer, and a couple of new inks (HP 363′s) bought from/through Amazon.

No joy,  the printer bitched and moaned about being configured only to accept “02 cartridges.”  Some digging around revealed that HP region locks printers to stop one buying ink in other regions (where it may be cheaper) and using it!!!

DRM for ink!

An email from HP support states that in the Autumn of 2004 they implemented a programme “to enable customization of printers and supplies products to better meet specific local customer needs.”

Now the printer didn’t come with a note saying one couldn’t do this, the new 363 cartridges are clearly marked as being for the printer in question.  Quite how enforcing regionalisation of ink cartridges enables HP to better meet needs I am unsure.

Once I finally found a way around the 60p a minute “out of warranty” call centre and spoke to a technician it sounded like some progress was being made.  First an offer of a new printer swapout sounded great until it was established  the machine was out of warranty.

Next they offered to re-programme the printer to UK settings.  But to do so I needed to have i) a full set of NZ 02 cartridges AND ii) a full set of UK 363 cartridges.

I pointed out that I had neither, and couldn’t buy 02′s in the UK due to HP’s embargos on retailers.

So for now I am sitting here with a printer filled with new but incompatible cartridges waiting on a call back from HP to say they will either supply both sets or find another workaround.

For a company that makes it’s money on selling ink not the hardware I wonder just how much they value my continued purchasing of genuine HP ink?

UPDATE:

Another 3 calls with HP tech support and they have agreed to send out new UK 363 cartridges to replace those HP02′s I purchased in NZ.  Just for good measure I visited Cartridge World and their refill process includes a new chip on the actual ink cartridge which fools the printer into thinking the refill is a 363 – so double score.

Taking GMail Offline

Google Gears finally got really useful for me. With flaky 3G coverage and to be honest a dodgy BT Homehub connection to boot being able to get at my email in an offline fashion has always been handy. But being a Google Mail convert for many years has meant the only real option to date was to use an imap or pop client.

But today my Google Labs page had the recently launched Offline GMail option front and centre.

Right now it’s up to about 2,300 emails downloaded and setup is about as easy as it gets.

Another nicety with Gears (well Gmail and Docs) are the quick and easy desktop icons. Now getting GMail up is even easier.

I suspect I’ll probably still pull everything down into say Outlook to archive stuff off locally (just in case) but for day to day operations Gears should keep me very happy indeed.

Is Battery Life the New Cost of a Call?