Love the data, hate the graphic

One of the key themes we're focused on at the moment is the multilateral asymmetric contest amongst major platform players (Apple, Google, Microsoft and Nokia in particular), device vendors (Apple, RIM, Nokia, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, LG, Motorola, HTC in particular), service providers (Google, Apple, Amazon in particular) and network operators (Verizon, Vodafone, FT Orange and so on). There's some interesting data from Silicon Alley Insider illustrating the size of the stakes...

The cash resources of some of the major players

While the numbers are interesting, I have to confess I hate the graphic... It looks like an area chart, but it's actually a line chart. Tufte's head would explode...

And I'd love to see the analysis extended to include Nokia, RIM, Samsung and so on. And in this context, who cares about Intel, other than ARM and Qualcomm?

Blackberry outage was like a crazy Stephen King novel

Yesterday's Blackberry outage was eye-opening.  There are mixed reports all over the web about the extent of this outage and what caused it, but I lost email, PIN messaging, Blackberry messenger, and had intermittent problems across all other apps on my device.

I was traveling with a Blackberry-wielding colleague.  Usually this would make us feel like business Samurai, ready for anything.  Yesterday, this overconfidence caught up with us.

Emails to my travel agent never made it through, and there was no rental car waiting for me in DC.  Even at Hertz, I had one of those "not exactly" moments, and it took an interminable half hour to get a car.  In transit from the airport to meet people for dinner, neither of us could get wireless data connectivity.  No ability to search for the hotel and restaurant by name.  No ability to use Google Maps to get directions.

Also, we kept dropping calls.  Even calling to get directions was not as smooth as usual, but eventually this is the "old fashioned" way we found our destination.

Me:  "I can see the mall on my left, and the XYZ company on my right.  No, I don't know what street I'm on."

Friend/colleague on other end:  "I think I know where you are; go 1 mile, then turn left."  (Not so long ago, this would have seemed miraculously cool - like in the Matrix:  "I need an exit!" - now it seems pretty pedestrian and painful.)

This sort of event brings home how much we depend on technology on a daily basis.  And how quickly we've become spoiled by technological capabilities that are relatively new.  It reminds me of a sort of post-apocalyptic Stephen King novel, where the protagonist needs to find their way through the world using their feet and their wits, but they are suddenly bereft of all modern technology and convenience.

Without Google Maps (and frequent United flights!) I'm not sure I'd make it to Denver in The Stand.  I'd probably jog right past.  Would you make it?

Perhaps more importantly, this has me seriously questioning my loyalty to Blackberry.  From a competitive analysis perspective, this is a disaster for RIM. Two major outages in a week.  A general degradation in service over the past year.  Meanwhile, my partner is having great fun with his iPhone, and my wife's Droid Eris seems pretty darn cool.

Android(s) are coming...

There's a great (albeit lengthy) post on Gizmodo about Android, although the title may be a little overstated:

[Android] 2.0 is more than that: it's proof that Android is finally going to take over the world

As a digression, it's fascinating to see how a technological innovation can re-shape language: the former meaning of android is now relegated off the first page of search results on Google, which led me to try 'androids' as an alternative:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biBHJvGx3s8&hl=en&fs=1&]

The article from Scientific American about this date with a robot can be downloaded here; I find it intriguing partly because I began my career as a roboticist and cyberneticist.

Although it may overstate the case, because we are just in the earliest stages of a fierce contest amongst at least five credible competing app phone platforms, the post from Gizmodo does summarize well much of what provides the impetus for Android and why Android 2.0 is so important:

it's "the first truly open and comprehensive platform for mobile devices."

Android 2.0 means the handsets aren't just interesting anymore; they're truly buyable

In addition to everything else Android has going on, timing is on its side. Windows Mobile is limping along with two broken legs...

...as far as most consumers are concerned, anything Windows Mobile can do, Android can do better

The Palm Pre, polished and beautiful as it is, can't keep up with Android's exploding app inventory, multiplying hardware partners and rock-star ability to draw talent

Android 2.0, along with Palm's WebOS and Apple's iPhone OS, are the main reasons the BlackBerry OS feels so clunky and old

Let's take a quick look at each of the other major contenders:

• the iPhone is the current leader, and critically works well across not just app phones, but through iTunes across other platforms such as personal computers and TV


• although RIM's BlackBerry has been the long-time leader in the enterprise, it is not doing as well in the consumer marketplace, particularly outside North America, and its software platform (RTE, APIs and SDK) looks increasingly clunky in comparison to iPhone and Android


• Nokia is investing heavily in the transition to Qt and Maemo - the big question is really can it get there fast enough


• Microsoft's most recent release of 6.5 was late and lacked usability, and despite some good things being said about it 7 is still some way off, eroding support for it


• while WebOS is technically elegant, the Pre's implementation is slow, Palm lacks distribution and was really late with its SDK - it will be extraordinarily difficult for Palm to overcome these handicaps and establish itself as a credible competitor in the face of the likes of Apple, Google, Nokia, Microsoft and RIM

Android's a strong contender, but it's by no means yet certain that it will rule the world. In fact, one of the real possibilities is that rather than reaching a tipping point, a few of these will co-exist over the medium- or even long-term.

À propos the 'app phone'

David Pogue has a review today of Motorola's Droid which includes some discussion à propos how to categorize and name devices of this type.

Motorola Droid

He promotes the noun 'app phone' for them, attributing it to @mentalworkout.

[Cool app, BTW, for those who have fear of flying. I took the Virgin Atlantic flight to London earlier this week; if you're lucky enough to fly in Upper Class, it's such an extraordinarily soothing experience that you probably don't need the app.]

I really like 'app phone' , and suggest that we all adopt it for this class of devices:

• Apple's iPhone


• all current Android 'phones


• most modern BlackBerrys - post Curve


• Palm's Pre


• Nokia's N97 and N97 Mini running the latest version of Symbian

This post re-surfaced for me, however, one of the key topics that we have found ourselves debating frequently over the last many months; what is a 'smart phone', and what should we call it?

This is a common challenge in high-tech; how do you think about new phenomena? How do you build robust mental models? We believe that having the specialist expertise to do this, and the relevant experience of having done this, is one of the key things that differentiates Endeavour Partners.

First, what are the key criteria:

• downloadable applications - in which case do BREW and Java devices qualify?


• user interface, such as (responsive) touch screen or QWERTY+touch pad/trackball interface to allow easy navigation for the web and similar applications


• running multiple applications - which disqualifies the iPhone?


• great at browsing - typically with a full WebKit browser


• third party applications have to be available, affordable and accessible


• what about size - is there some constraint here, because otherwise a laptop could qualify?

And what about the additional capabilities that are now part of the competitive benchmark:

• fast graphics - for video, browsing and gaming


• accelerometers


• GPS - for location services


• WiFi

There are several specific devices or types of devices that illustrate this challenge, and the grey areas involved:

• older BlackBerrys with thumbwheels but without trackballs - great at e-mail web but suck at browsing


• the Nokia E71, a great (particularly when it launched) device handicapped by its click-pad for navigation (which on one occasion proved enormously frustrating as the cursor moved in clicks that circumnavigated a small target without ever being able to actually click on it, on a site that should have been designed with mobile devices in mind - Handango)

Nokia E71

• many of Nokia's myriad Symbian S60 devices that have 12-key keypads, lacking either a touch screen or a viable navigation method for browsing


• and what of the forthcoming Nokia N900 - is this a smartphone, or not?


• and given how unresponsive the touch screen on the N97 and N97 mini can be, and some of the usability challenges that remain with Symbian, do the N97 and N97 Mini qualify?


• almost all Windows Mobile devices, that lack a touch pad, requiring a stylus or arrow keys for what is enormously painful navigation (Sony Ericsson's Experia X1 is one of the few devices that overcomes this challenge)

On purely pragmatic grounds, and notwithstanding flame wars from some purists and Verizon's new advertising campaign, clearly any definition that excludes the iPhone on the technically focused grounds that it does not run multiple applications at once, except for some built-in apps such as Mail and Phone, does not make much sense. Although this may be an important consideration, it clearly does not deter users, and the ease of switching amongst applications mitigates this significantly.

The related question was what to call these things? We tried the term 'smart device', to emphasize the that the capabilities went way beyond making a call. Unfortunately that promotes confusion as it embraces some very devices that do not have 'phone capability at all.

So, let's endorse the term 'app phone' for these high end devices, and use the term 'smart phone' for the broader group of which these are a subset.

The smartphone is a mass market product

We’ve been taking for granted what I think may be a central insight:

The smartphone is for the masses, not a high-end niche of techno-geeks and status seekers.


Within 5 years, smartphones will represent roughly 50% of mobile device shipments, 75% of device market revenues, and 90% of industry gross margin potential.  In developed economies, smartphones will represent 40-50% of the installed base of users.  In 7-10 years, virtually all mobile phone subscribers will carry a smartphone.  Different markets will develop at slightly different rates based on replacement cycles, how prepay vs. postpay plays out, etc.  But the end result will be the same:  People will own smartphones like they own toasters or microwaves or shoes.

Quick messaging devices (QMDs), feature phones, and basic mobiles are the niche devices:  A smaller segment of users willing to accept a constrained experience in exchange for…  In exchange for what, exactly?

In the US, the $99 value menu is already dominated by late model smartphones such as the iPhone 3G and earlier Blackberries.  In some other markets, the iPhone is already free with a subscription.  Costs and prices will only go down from here.

Displays, memory, processing power, battery life, wireless broadband connectivity – all are getting cheaper by the day.  The major barrier to smartphone adoption was the user experience.  The smartphones of three years ago (think Symbian or Windows Mobile) could do lots of things but none of them very well.  And the added capabilities would come at a steep price premium.  Under those conditions, people chose a device with limited capabilities – a targeted device that worked well for the activities that a particular customer or segment cared about.   A device that could be squeezed into a low enough price point to attract a wide enough audience to recover all the non-recurring engineering costs associated with the broad product line required in such a market.

But these conditions no longer apply.  The smartphones of today and tomorrow (think iPhone, Android, Blackberry, WebOS) are joyfully easy to use, and can meet all of these customer requirements in just a few form factors.  The functionality of a smartphone is as seemingly infinite as that of a PC – perhaps more so as many additional use cases are opened up by the anytime, anywhere availability of having a smartphone in your pocket.  Costs will come relentlessly down.  Performance and capabilities will improve.  Late model and “pre-owned” smartphones will find their way to the bottom of half of the market, either shipped to developing markets or sold on Ebay or Craigslist.

How will the market be different with billions of smartphone users?  How will the world be different?  These are the fundamental questions facing our clients.