Musings on the meaning of life

XKCD: What if I want to spend my life restlessly producing?

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.

More from 4G World: WiFi bets and femtocell confessions

At 4G World here in Chicago, the debate is raging on about the potential value of femtocells.  One audience member asked yesterday, “If I already have a 20 Mbps broadband connection and a WiFi access point, then why do I need a femtocell?”  I think he was on to something, but it is interesting to go back in time a little and see how the relative business cases for WiFi and femtocells have changed as the market evolved.

This feels like a confession:  Three years ago, I was a proponent of femtocells as a solution for indoor coverage, particularly when compared to WiFi UMA.  Too few devices had WiFi, and it seemed unrealistic to expect many users to adopt a solution that required such a constrained selection.  Different family members or different personnel within an organization may have very different device preferences or be at different points within the replacement cycle.

By contrast, femtocells allow installation of customer premise equipment where it is needed, and the problem is solved.  Individual users don’t need to change their behavior, and if the costs were right, then it could be an attractive solution for many households and businesses.  But the costs were too high (I priced one at $300 at the time) and commercial availability was and still is limited.

Fast-forward three years and the market has changed dramatically:

1. Lead by the iPhone and RIM’s Blackberry, smartphones are rapidly gaining share – in developed markets, the majority of users will have one within two device replacement cycles


2. The challenge is no longer only about indoor coverage, but now also includes an immediate need for additional data capacity to support high bandwidth applications


3. Leading smartphones will nearly all be WiFi-enabled

The result is that homeowners and businesses no longer need to pay to install a femto cell, and users no longer need to be constrained to specialized, suboptimal devices.  For most people, WiFi coverage already exists in their home and office, and these same people are likely to carry a WiFi-enabled smartphone now or within two upgrade cycles.

These smartphones are also responsible for driving a massive increase in data traffic and clogging up 3G networks.  WiFi provides a mechanism for operators to offload 30% or more of this traffic without massive upgrades -- and in advance of LTE networks coming over the next 3 years.

Device makers are scrambling to offer smartphones that match Apple’s iPhone as the key competitive benchmark (including WiFi).  Mobile operators are responding to increasing smartphone usage with investments in WiFi assets and improvement of seamless switching between WiFi and wide-area cellular to offload some of the associated explosion of data traffic.  The way the iPhone restricts high-bandwidth applications so they can only be used over WiFi is a good example of a first step in this direction.

Meanwhile, the level of investment in femtocells is small by comparison, involves a tough value proposition to customers, and is focused on solving a problem that is largely taking care of itself.

My money is on WiFi.