Happy Thanksgiving! I've been enjoying a very relaxing four day weekend with friends and family and haven't really had a chance to write a full blog item lately (mostly due to the food coma I've been in). But that doesn't mean I haven't been working on stuff lately. If you check my Twitter feed to the right you'll see that I have been busy following trending stories on Twitter and using Foursquare all this week. I've also pulled together a list of topics I'd like to write about in future blog entries, full of items new and (somewhat) old that interest me. Here's a quick look at my blog backlog:
-Foursquare and Facebook - Who will win the social geolocation war?
-Mapmania - Mobile, maps, social networking
-Augmented Reality - Experiment with this technology on the iPhone
-Twitrratr, ScoutsLab - Keeping track of feedback on your brand or product
-4mapper - Mapping your Foursquare entries for visible representation
-Newspaper business model - News. Corp, Journalism Online
-Social network platforms - How to build on top of them, web IDs, micro payments, friend connects, skins
-Social games - Foursquare, Farmville, Stack Overflow
-Google Wave - Still waiting for my invite, doing research on the tech specs
-Google Phone - Android fragmentation problem solver?
-Speedily - Link shortener classifier, impact of Bit.ly and others
-Sony Online Service - Can it even begin to rival the App Store?
-Corporate uses of Social Media, story telling - AARP LifeTuner, Mayo Clinic Stories, Ford Story
-Top 5 Social Media Books - Read and review top 5 Social Media books
-Verizon and the iPhone - Analysis on the impact of the iPhone on the Verizon network
-Google Music Search - Implications of service
-iPhone App Economy - Analysis on the iPhone Apps ecosystem
Whew, that's a petty long list. I better get a jump on these topics soon before my backlog gets too out of control.
Rupert Murdoch's Plan
Rupert Murdoch, founder and CEO of News Corp., has a big problem on his hands. His media company has reported massive losses in the past year as both its print ad revenue and online ad revenue have dropped hard in the current recession. The rise of new media has changed the landscape of business today, and old media companies with old media business models, such as News Corp., have struggled to generate revenue in the world of free flowing information. Rupert Murdoch isn't going out without a fight though, and over the past couple of months we've seen him slowly roll out his plan for turning around News Corp.'s fortunes.
First, News Corp. started out by announcing that Hulu (a joint venture between ABC, NBC and Fox) would soon start operating with a subscription model. Then News Corp. announced that MySpace Music would also begin charging for access to its content. And now the next big shake-up comes from News Corp.'s Wall Street Journal, which has announced intentions to remove its content from Google's search engine and forge an exclusive deal with Microsoft's Bing search engine.
Rupert Murdoch is essentially calling for an end to the internet free-for-all. He wants consumers to start paying for access to his online content. Murdoch's plan is to place his major online properties behind a paywall and restrict free access to premium content. If successful, he expects other major content providers will follow suit. It's a bold plan to say the least, but it does make you wonder about the risks News Corp. faces in implementing such a plan. Can Murdoch reverse the tide of free flowing information and create a successful revenue stream from his online content?
It can be done, but not with Murdoch's current approach. It's understood that News Corp. needs to change its business model in order to generate revenue in the online world, but Murdoch's current plan of attack is flawed and short-sighted. Aside from Hulu, which has a valid shot with a freemium business model, Murdoch's other web properties won't fare so well if he decides to put them up behind a paywall. MySpace Music isn't as hot as it used to be and has been leapfrogged by other music sites. The Wall Street Journal may be a prestigious news source, but there are many other reliable news sources on the web that would be more than willing to step up and fill the void. Murdoch will lose major online traffic volume and could see his precious web properties relegated to the archives of internet history. The news will continue to flow freely on the internet even without the presence of the Wall Street Journal.
My suggestion to Rupert Murdoch: instead of trying to remove value from the system, why not add more value into the system? I like the idea of working on an exclusive deal with Microsoft; why not try to work on an exclusive integration of WSJ material (and other News Corp. content) into Bing? Other search engines can still access the basic content, but only your exclusive partners would have access to your enhanced coverage. Use innovation and creativity to devise new ways to deliver material and enrich your reader's experience.
Information is meant to be free, and will remain so on the internet. How you package and deliver that information is where you'll find opportunities to capture market share and create profit for your business.
First, News Corp. started out by announcing that Hulu (a joint venture between ABC, NBC and Fox) would soon start operating with a subscription model. Then News Corp. announced that MySpace Music would also begin charging for access to its content. And now the next big shake-up comes from News Corp.'s Wall Street Journal, which has announced intentions to remove its content from Google's search engine and forge an exclusive deal with Microsoft's Bing search engine.
Rupert Murdoch is essentially calling for an end to the internet free-for-all. He wants consumers to start paying for access to his online content. Murdoch's plan is to place his major online properties behind a paywall and restrict free access to premium content. If successful, he expects other major content providers will follow suit. It's a bold plan to say the least, but it does make you wonder about the risks News Corp. faces in implementing such a plan. Can Murdoch reverse the tide of free flowing information and create a successful revenue stream from his online content?
It can be done, but not with Murdoch's current approach. It's understood that News Corp. needs to change its business model in order to generate revenue in the online world, but Murdoch's current plan of attack is flawed and short-sighted. Aside from Hulu, which has a valid shot with a freemium business model, Murdoch's other web properties won't fare so well if he decides to put them up behind a paywall. MySpace Music isn't as hot as it used to be and has been leapfrogged by other music sites. The Wall Street Journal may be a prestigious news source, but there are many other reliable news sources on the web that would be more than willing to step up and fill the void. Murdoch will lose major online traffic volume and could see his precious web properties relegated to the archives of internet history. The news will continue to flow freely on the internet even without the presence of the Wall Street Journal.
My suggestion to Rupert Murdoch: instead of trying to remove value from the system, why not add more value into the system? I like the idea of working on an exclusive deal with Microsoft; why not try to work on an exclusive integration of WSJ material (and other News Corp. content) into Bing? Other search engines can still access the basic content, but only your exclusive partners would have access to your enhanced coverage. Use innovation and creativity to devise new ways to deliver material and enrich your reader's experience.
Information is meant to be free, and will remain so on the internet. How you package and deliver that information is where you'll find opportunities to capture market share and create profit for your business.
Hulu Freemium
A month ago we were asked "Would you pay for Hulu?", and this week we're being asked "Would you pay for MySpace Music?" It seems like the business model for premium web videos and music is changing, and the new name of the game is "freemium":
Give your service away for free, possibly ad supported but maybe not, acquire a lot of customers very efficiently through word of mouth, referral networks, organic search marketing, etc., then offer premium priced value added services or an enhanced version of your service to your customer base. - Fred Wilson
The freemium business model can be seen in play at many successful web 2.0 companies such as Flickr, LinkedIn, Skype and Box.net. Offer basic services for free, then offer advanced services for a premium cost. Pretty simple.
For MySpace, the answer to the question "Would you pay for MySpace Music?" seems to be an overwhelming "NO". MySpace Music has fallen behind its rivals and doesn't really have anything advanced or enhanced to offer that consumers would be willing to pay for.
Hulu, on the other hand, has more options available to it. As the leader of streaming web video, Hulu is in a great position to turn its captive audience into a source of income. Meghan Kean at eConsultancy lists several of the approaches available to Hulu: ad-free access, offline viewing access, additional extensive programming, on demand video, pay-per-view video and early access to shows.
What would you pay for a Hulu subscription? eMusic charges from $11.99 a month for its service. Netflix subscriptions start at $8.99. Would Hulu start at $9.99 a month and tier up depending on the amount of premium videos you watched?
Or, would you prefer a pay-per-view video option for premium content? iTunes charges $0.99 a track and $9.99 an album. Would you pay $0.99 to view a premium video? $9.99 to access a whole back season of a certain show?
Mobile App vs. Mobile Web
First off, let me start by saying: I work for a Fortune 100 company and this is my personal opinion.
I work in the consumer division at my company doing software consulting. Right now we're prototyping a mobile app for some of our web users. It's actually more of an experimental proof-of-concept item right now, falling under a pseudo-budget we have for "innovations". This past year one of the big initiatives I've been trying to champion at work is this concept of innovations and creativity within our team and this mobile app project is the latest figurehead of those efforts. Our development team has taken it upon themselves to create a mobile solution that we believe will add business value and create sales opportunities for our company.
So far we've only been able to work on this mobile app project in bits and pieces. Since we don't have a proper budget for innovations yet, we've had to work on it during our down time and off-hours. That's set to change soon, as our stakeholders have finally recognized the benefits of innovation within IT and are planning on adding an official Innovations budget in 2010. I'm excited to see what our team will be able to produce next year as we expand on our efforts to create business innovations through the use of technology.
Our team is excited to play around with mobile technology right now, especially since we're hoping to launch a version of our mobile app on the iPhone, Blackberry and Android platforms. We're trying to develop a successful prototype by the end of the year, but we haven't really been able to allocate that much time to development lately and we've been hampered with some mobile platform issues (especially on the iPhone). I've had to scale back the expectations of the prototype to our business partners and I'm generally worried about what we'll be able to deliver by the end of the year. This weekend I was thinking about the larger approach to our project and kept asking myself over and over: Should we be building a mobile app or focusing on a mobile web solution?
Is our team pushing this technology just for the sake of technology? At our company this is one of the business owners' biggest concerns with our IT department... and the reason why I think our team has had such a hard time earning credibility in our innovation efforts. Too often our team gets caught up in trying to use the latest technology or software release without really thinking about the actual benefits of that technology. We're all about trying to use the latest and greatest, even though we can't quantify what we'll gain through the adoption of the latest and greatest. It's something I'm keenly aware of and I always stress to my team that we *have* to show the business value behind our technology if we hope to gain real traction with our business partners.
So, should our team build a mobile app or focus on a mobile web solution? How can we best serve the mobile needs of our consumers? Our devs are excited to work on mobile apps because it's something that personally interests them, but is that the best way to go? Here's a quick rundown of a (native) mobile app vs. a mobile web solution on the iPhone (courtesy of O'Reilly):
What is a Web App? [Mobile Web]
....A web app is basically a web site that is specifically optimized for the iPhone. The site content could be anything from a standard small business brochure site to a mortgage calculator to a daily calorie tracker–the content is irrelevant. The defining characteristics of a web app are that the user interface is built with web standard technologies, it is available at a URL (public, private, or perhaps behind a login), and it is optimized for the specifics of the iPhone. A web app is not installed on the phone, it is not available in the iTunes App Store, and it is not written with Objective-C.
What is a Native App? [Mobile App]
In contrast, native apps are installed on the iPhone, they have access to the hardware (speakers, accelerometer, camera, etc.), and they are written with Objective-C. The defining characteristic of a native app, however, is that it’s available in the iTunes App store.
The O'Reilly website lists out the pros and cons to each approach, from functional hardware access to ease of deployment. For us, the pros of going with a mobile app are essentially just access to all the cool hardware features of the device. The cons list is much longer though: develop using Objective-C, develop on a Mac, lengthy Apple approval process, cumbersome bug fix process and slow development cycles. For a mobile web solution, the pros for us are: develop using current tools, develop on current platform, bug fixes in real-time and a fast development cycle. The cons are lack of access to all the cool hardware features and loss of sophisticated UI effects.
After reviewing all the pros and cons and the business requirements I honestly don't think we need to go with a native mobile app. Sure, we'll be able to deliver a cooler application if we go with a mobile app, but I don't think it's worth the hassles of going native. We're already dealing with native platform issues and there are major concerns over deployment and maintenance in the future. So far our team has turned a blind eye to these items and we've taken a "we'll figure it out later" attitude, but I think it's time we take a serious look at our approach and reconsider our solution. We can't just force a mobile app solution because we're all super excited to work on the iPhone and Android. You have to use the right tool for the job, and right now mobile app technology is not the right tool for our job.
After reviewing all the pros and cons and the business requirements I honestly don't think we need to go with a native mobile app. Sure, we'll be able to deliver a cooler application if we go with a mobile app, but I don't think it's worth the hassles of going native. We're already dealing with native platform issues and there are major concerns over deployment and maintenance in the future. So far our team has turned a blind eye to these items and we've taken a "we'll figure it out later" attitude, but I think it's time we take a serious look at our approach and reconsider our solution. We can't just force a mobile app solution because we're all super excited to work on the iPhone and Android. You have to use the right tool for the job, and right now mobile app technology is not the right tool for our job.
Sigh, I guess I'll have to be the bad guy at work this week. Hopefully our team won't be too crushed when I tell them we'll have to scale back the "cool" factor for our mobile solution.
Google's Revenue Equation
I've been talking a lot about Google products lately, including Android, Gmail, YouTube and Google GPS. There are other Google products I haven't touched on yet, like Google Wave, Google Chrome browser, Google Chrome OS, GTalk, Blogger, Google Friend Connect, Orkut.
With Android and Google GPS, I've talked about Google's strategy of giving away its products for free in order to acquire mobile search market share. It's worth taking a look at this tactic from a higher perspective and analyzing Google's larger strategy. What is Google's core product? Search, of course. Search drives ad revenue through the AdSense program, and a quick look at Google's income statement from last year shows a $21 billion in advertising revenue. So, Google's main strategy appears to be: Drive people to search, which in turn leads to higher ad revenue.
Ben Parr argues that Google's strategy is actually much simpler than that. Google's strategy isn't to gain market share with its products, it's simply to get you to use the web more often and for longer amounts of time. AdSense is the core of Google's revenue engine, but you have to think about AdSense outside of Google's products. Google's places ads all over the internet, not just in its own products. Go to any website, big and small, and you're likely to see Google ads. From YouTube, MySpace, New York Times and blogs worldwide, you're going to see Google ads delivered to you. The entire web is a platform for Google's AdSense product. So, Google's main strategy now appears to be: Drive people to use the web, which in turn leads to higher ad revenue. Parr has a nice little equation to sum this all up.
Android fits this equation, as does YouTube, Gmail and Google GPS. In fact, if you take a look at most of Google's products you'll see they're all designed to get you on the web. This is why Google chooses to give away some of its more innovative products for free, like Chrome or Android. They're designed to make it easier for us to connect online and to increasingly keep our lives wired. As long as you're on the web, Google is happy.
With Android and Google GPS, I've talked about Google's strategy of giving away its products for free in order to acquire mobile search market share. It's worth taking a look at this tactic from a higher perspective and analyzing Google's larger strategy. What is Google's core product? Search, of course. Search drives ad revenue through the AdSense program, and a quick look at Google's income statement from last year shows a $21 billion in advertising revenue. So, Google's main strategy appears to be: Drive people to search, which in turn leads to higher ad revenue.
Ben Parr argues that Google's strategy is actually much simpler than that. Google's strategy isn't to gain market share with its products, it's simply to get you to use the web more often and for longer amounts of time. AdSense is the core of Google's revenue engine, but you have to think about AdSense outside of Google's products. Google's places ads all over the internet, not just in its own products. Go to any website, big and small, and you're likely to see Google ads. From YouTube, MySpace, New York Times and blogs worldwide, you're going to see Google ads delivered to you. The entire web is a platform for Google's AdSense product. So, Google's main strategy now appears to be: Drive people to use the web, which in turn leads to higher ad revenue. Parr has a nice little equation to sum this all up.
Google's Revenue Equation: Revenue = Amount of Time on the Web
Android fits this equation, as does YouTube, Gmail and Google GPS. In fact, if you take a look at most of Google's products you'll see they're all designed to get you on the web. This is why Google chooses to give away some of its more innovative products for free, like Chrome or Android. They're designed to make it easier for us to connect online and to increasingly keep our lives wired. As long as you're on the web, Google is happy.
Android's Problems: Brand appeal, simplicity and applications
There's a lot of anti-Android chatter right now all over the web, stemming from the Android fragmentation problem I've mentioned a couple of times. Mike Elgan, from Datamation, is the latest analyst to call for Android's failure. Elgan writes "In today's [smartphone] market ... only three things count: brand appeal, simplicity and applications." In all three of these the iPhone leads the market. It has the "top brand, easiest-to-use phone and the most and best applications" available. It's not hard to see why the iPhone is dominating the smartphone industry. Any real challenger would have to tackle the iPhone on all three fronts:
If we take a look at the barriers that Google faces on all three fronts, they each boil down to one thing: Google's decentralized strategy with the Android platform.
Google has a Brand problem because it allows for any phone manufacturer to rebrand the Android platform. You have the Motorola Droid, the HTC Magic and the Samsung Galaxy, to name a few. By next year there will be many more phone with many different names all using Android in different ways.
Google's Simplicity problem stems from the same source as its Brand problem. Google provides the Android platform for any phone manufacturer to use. Again, you have the Motorola Droid, the HTC Magic and the Samsung Galaxy, to name a few. If you walk into a store you may get overwhelmed with all of the different options and complex features available. Apple doesn't have this problem. Apple has the iPhone. You walk into a store, you see the latest iPhone, and you get it. Quick and simple.
Finally, Google's App problem is one I've talked about in my "Fragmentation of the Android market" posts. With all of the different versions of Android platforms out there, applications built for the Android may not be guaranteed to work across all Android phones. This is problematic for both consumers and developers.
Overall it sounds like the tech market is bearish on Android right now, which is too bad because it's a solid open platform that could bring real innovation to the smartphone market and provide an alternative to Apple's iPhone. Google's current Android strategy is working well in gaining market share right now, but at some point it will need to evolve if it hopes to be sustainable in the industry. I'll repost my recommendation from my 11/17 post: My recommendation: standardize the Android platform and enforce that standard. Once Google has gained a large enough foothold in the mobile market, it can command better control over the usage of Android with phone manufacturers. It can limit the number of OS versions, force software upgrades, set hardware standards, and standardize the user interface. All this will help to enhance the app experience for both users and developers on the Android platform.
This is the problem competitors face with creating the elusive "iPhone killer." In order to beat the iPhone, a cell phone would have to at minimum equal the iPhone in two of these measures, and surpass it in the third. In other words, an iPhone Killer would have to, say, be associated with as good a brand as the Apple and iPhone brands, be every bit as simple to use as the iPhone, and have more applications.
If we take a look at the barriers that Google faces on all three fronts, they each boil down to one thing: Google's decentralized strategy with the Android platform.
Google has a Brand problem because it allows for any phone manufacturer to rebrand the Android platform. You have the Motorola Droid, the HTC Magic and the Samsung Galaxy, to name a few. By next year there will be many more phone with many different names all using Android in different ways.
Google's Simplicity problem stems from the same source as its Brand problem. Google provides the Android platform for any phone manufacturer to use. Again, you have the Motorola Droid, the HTC Magic and the Samsung Galaxy, to name a few. If you walk into a store you may get overwhelmed with all of the different options and complex features available. Apple doesn't have this problem. Apple has the iPhone. You walk into a store, you see the latest iPhone, and you get it. Quick and simple.
Finally, Google's App problem is one I've talked about in my "Fragmentation of the Android market" posts. With all of the different versions of Android platforms out there, applications built for the Android may not be guaranteed to work across all Android phones. This is problematic for both consumers and developers.
It's already difficult, expensive and time consuming to develop on the Android platform. As a result, we can expect three bad outcomes: First, consumers will face uncertainty and confusion about which apps can successfully run on what devices. Second, the complexity, time and hassle of coping with multiple OS versions and many hardware variations provide a disincentive for many would-be developers to stick with it. And finally, providing real compatibility requires extra code, which could affect app performance.
Overall it sounds like the tech market is bearish on Android right now, which is too bad because it's a solid open platform that could bring real innovation to the smartphone market and provide an alternative to Apple's iPhone. Google's current Android strategy is working well in gaining market share right now, but at some point it will need to evolve if it hopes to be sustainable in the industry. I'll repost my recommendation from my 11/17 post: My recommendation: standardize the Android platform and enforce that standard. Once Google has gained a large enough foothold in the mobile market, it can command better control over the usage of Android with phone manufacturers. It can limit the number of OS versions, force software upgrades, set hardware standards, and standardize the user interface. All this will help to enhance the app experience for both users and developers on the Android platform.
Gartner's Top 10 consumer mobile applications for 2012
Gartner released a report today with the Top 10 Consumer Mobile Applications for 2012. Topping the list? Money Transfer.
There has been a push worldwide to use mobile technology for money transfers, but I haven't seen too much adoption here in the U.S. market. Security is a top concern for consumers, so if we want to see a wide scale adoption we'll need a large increase in security and fraud protection. There has to be an assurance that our money will be safe once we hit the 'Send' key on our mobile devices.
Aside from that top pick, Gartner's list reads like a "hot" topics list today in mobile technology. Location-based services, mobile search, and mobile browsing come in the next three spots. Rounding out the top 5 is an interesting pick... mobile health monitoring.
I think we'll definitely see a rise of activity in this market as the health care industry seeks reform. Technology will play a critical role in increasing doctor/patient communication, transferring patient information across different providers, and lowering overall care costs. I tweeted the other day about an article in the WSJ with Bruce Goodman, CIO of Humana Inc. In the article, Goodman talks about the role of technology in health care and reform. He hints at some aspects of mobile health monitoring, so it sounds like the industry is taking some steps in that general direction. I guess we'll have to wait and see if this truly becomes a top 5 mobile application in 2012.
There has been a push worldwide to use mobile technology for money transfers, but I haven't seen too much adoption here in the U.S. market. Security is a top concern for consumers, so if we want to see a wide scale adoption we'll need a large increase in security and fraud protection. There has to be an assurance that our money will be safe once we hit the 'Send' key on our mobile devices.
Aside from that top pick, Gartner's list reads like a "hot" topics list today in mobile technology. Location-based services, mobile search, and mobile browsing come in the next three spots. Rounding out the top 5 is an interesting pick... mobile health monitoring.
"Mobile health monitoring is the use of IT and mobile telecommunications to monitor patients remotely, and could help governments, care delivery organizations (CDOs) and healthcare payers reduce costs related to chronic diseases and improve the quality of life of their patients."
I think we'll definitely see a rise of activity in this market as the health care industry seeks reform. Technology will play a critical role in increasing doctor/patient communication, transferring patient information across different providers, and lowering overall care costs. I tweeted the other day about an article in the WSJ with Bruce Goodman, CIO of Humana Inc. In the article, Goodman talks about the role of technology in health care and reform. He hints at some aspects of mobile health monitoring, so it sounds like the industry is taking some steps in that general direction. I guess we'll have to wait and see if this truly becomes a top 5 mobile application in 2012.
Fragmentation of the Android market: Part 2
Yesterday I talked about the fragmentation of the Android market from a consumer's perspective. All the different Android versions on the market could potentially confuse consumers and stop them from making an Android phone purchase. Today I wanted to take a look at the fragmentation issue from an app developer's perspective.
Wired magazine has an article this week about Android's rapid growth and rising developer concerns. Android is now available on at least 12 phones and is scheduled to be released on many more over the next year. But this isn't necessarily good news for Android developers.
It looks like the flexibility that Google has given to phone manufacturers with Android has created many different variations of its mobile platform. These variations may be small enough to go unnoticed by an average consumer, but they're large enough that they can cause a developer major headaches. Instead of working on new features and apps, developers find themselves busy debugging their existing apps across different Android phones.
This problem will only get worse as more and more different Android phones are released into the marketplace. iPhone developers don't have this problem since Apple tightly controls the iPhone platform and the operating system version. “Apple maintains an iron grip on what they do and there’s an advantage to that,” says Kelly Schrock, app developer. “IPhone developers don’t have to worry about fragmentation and creating apps for the iPhone is much easier.”
App developers are critical to the complementary network around a mobile platform. Where would the iPhone be without the developers that created the 100,000+ apps in the App Store? No matter how small or trivial, apps play a major role in the mobile world. If a slowdown in developer productivity leads to less new app releases on the Android platform, Google could very well see user share slip away as consumers switch to a platform with a better 'eco-system'.
At some point in the near term future, Google must address this problem. My recommendation: standardize the Android platform and enforce that standard. Once Google has gained a large enough foothold in the mobile market, it can command better control over the usage of Android with phone manufacturers. It can limit the number of OS versions, force software upgrades, set hardware standards, and standardize the user interface. All this will help to enhance the app experience for both users and developers on the Android platform.
Wired magazine has an article this week about Android's rapid growth and rising developer concerns. Android is now available on at least 12 phones and is scheduled to be released on many more over the next year. But this isn't necessarily good news for Android developers.
A slew of problems have made managing Android apps a “nightmare,” [developers] say, including three versions of the OS (Android 1.5, 1.6 and 2.0), custom firmware on many phones, and hardware differences between different models.
For users, it means apps in the store could be buggy, might not work well depending on their handsets, and could deliver a frustrating experience. Unaware of the increasing back-end complexity, they would then be more likely to leave bad reviews for those apps — a potentially lethal blow for small businesses, say developers.
It looks like the flexibility that Google has given to phone manufacturers with Android has created many different variations of its mobile platform. These variations may be small enough to go unnoticed by an average consumer, but they're large enough that they can cause a developer major headaches. Instead of working on new features and apps, developers find themselves busy debugging their existing apps across different Android phones.
This problem will only get worse as more and more different Android phones are released into the marketplace. iPhone developers don't have this problem since Apple tightly controls the iPhone platform and the operating system version. “Apple maintains an iron grip on what they do and there’s an advantage to that,” says Kelly Schrock, app developer. “IPhone developers don’t have to worry about fragmentation and creating apps for the iPhone is much easier.”
App developers are critical to the complementary network around a mobile platform. Where would the iPhone be without the developers that created the 100,000+ apps in the App Store? No matter how small or trivial, apps play a major role in the mobile world. If a slowdown in developer productivity leads to less new app releases on the Android platform, Google could very well see user share slip away as consumers switch to a platform with a better 'eco-system'.
At some point in the near term future, Google must address this problem. My recommendation: standardize the Android platform and enforce that standard. Once Google has gained a large enough foothold in the mobile market, it can command better control over the usage of Android with phone manufacturers. It can limit the number of OS versions, force software upgrades, set hardware standards, and standardize the user interface. All this will help to enhance the app experience for both users and developers on the Android platform.
Fragmentation of the Android market
Great article from Peter Burrows about the real hurdle Motorola's Droid faces: fragmentation of the Android market. Peter writes:
Ed Zander, former CEO of Motorola, raises another good point. Zander "wonders if consumers will be put off by the complexity of the Android model. It’s bad enough with the iPhone, where Apple is responsible for the device and AT&T for the network. With Android, 'are you buying from Verizon, or Google or Motorola?'"
Google's distributed approach in the mobile market is giving it an early jump in market share, but it will have to be careful to keep a cohesive and unified "platform" as the different number of Android versions in the marketplace multiply.
If I have a Motorola Droid, my friend has an HTC myTouch (Magic), and our mutual friend has a Samsung Galaxy, our phones should all be able to talk to each other. And if not, who should we turn to for support?
But Droid’s main competition isn’t really the iPhone: it’s fragmentation of the Android market. Clearly, Apple will have no problem keeping consumers focused on its device. The iPhone is the only smart phone Apple sells ... now consider Motorola’s challenge. Within weeks, consumers who go into a Verizon store will have many of different phones to choose from ... all these different interfaces is bound to confuse consumers.
Ed Zander, former CEO of Motorola, raises another good point. Zander "wonders if consumers will be put off by the complexity of the Android model. It’s bad enough with the iPhone, where Apple is responsible for the device and AT&T for the network. With Android, 'are you buying from Verizon, or Google or Motorola?'"
Google's distributed approach in the mobile market is giving it an early jump in market share, but it will have to be careful to keep a cohesive and unified "platform" as the different number of Android versions in the marketplace multiply.
If I have a Motorola Droid, my friend has an HTC myTouch (Magic), and our mutual friend has a Samsung Galaxy, our phones should all be able to talk to each other. And if not, who should we turn to for support?
Twitter's Business Model
A lot of people have talked about whether or not Twitter has an actual business model, and if so what it actually entails. Recently Twitter has made deals with Bing and Google to integrate Twitter data into "real-time" search results, which sounds like a pretty good fit for all parties involved. But aside from search, what other outlets does Twitter have to monetize its user content?
David L. Smith, from Harvard Business Publishing, outlines a couple ways he sees that Twitter can generate revenue from its massive user base in his post "Twitter's Business Model: Brilliant or Non-Existent?" On top of search, David mentions other potential revenue streams such as Ecommerce, network marketing, and Twitter applications.
According to recent network data, Twitter's growth has been slowing down a bit lately. A tweak to Twitter's business model may help resolve both its monetization issues and growth issues. Maybe Twitter can kill two birds with one stone?
David L. Smith, from Harvard Business Publishing, outlines a couple ways he sees that Twitter can generate revenue from its massive user base in his post "Twitter's Business Model: Brilliant or Non-Existent?" On top of search, David mentions other potential revenue streams such as Ecommerce, network marketing, and Twitter applications.
According to recent network data, Twitter's growth has been slowing down a bit lately. A tweak to Twitter's business model may help resolve both its monetization issues and growth issues. Maybe Twitter can kill two birds with one stone?
Samsung throws its hat into the ring
It seems like all I talk about these days is mobile platforms. Android this, iPhone that, Windows Mobile here, Blackberry there, etc... But if you thought there were enough players in this market already, think again. Just this week Samsung announced the launch of its own 'open' mobile platform, Bada.
The whole plan by Samsung is to move away from using the Windows Mobile platform on its phones and instead shifting to open (free) platforms. Samsung will shift to using Android and Bada over the next couple of years as it looks to retain control over its phones.
I think moving to Android is a smart move for Samsung, but trying to launch a new platform probably won't work. Samsung may be the number 2 phone handset maker, but they have less than 5% of the smartphone market. That's simply not enough phones to gain any real traction among app developers. Their best bet would be to focus on handsets and leverage an existing open platform like Android to retain control over its phones and cut down on OS licensing costs.
The mobile platform market is already pretty fragmented right now, so I don't think adding more players at this point is going to do us any good. I'm not against competition, but in a game where market share is king, if you're not already in this space today you're probably too late.
The whole plan by Samsung is to move away from using the Windows Mobile platform on its phones and instead shifting to open (free) platforms. Samsung will shift to using Android and Bada over the next couple of years as it looks to retain control over its phones.
I think moving to Android is a smart move for Samsung, but trying to launch a new platform probably won't work. Samsung may be the number 2 phone handset maker, but they have less than 5% of the smartphone market. That's simply not enough phones to gain any real traction among app developers. Their best bet would be to focus on handsets and leverage an existing open platform like Android to retain control over its phones and cut down on OS licensing costs.
The mobile platform market is already pretty fragmented right now, so I don't think adding more players at this point is going to do us any good. I'm not against competition, but in a game where market share is king, if you're not already in this space today you're probably too late.
Business of Healthcare Conference
Today I was up in Evanston for the 2009 Kellogg Business of Healthcare Conference. They had an outstanding set of speakers and panelists at the event, and there was a lot of great dialogue on healthcare, reform and technology. For me the standout session was the "Leveraging Interactive Marketing Tools in Healthcare" panel, which featured speakers from many different segments of healthcare and social media. Panelists included:
Michael Millenson, President, Health Quality Advisors, LLC
Lee Aase, Manager, Syndication and Social Media, Mayo Clinic
Sarah Campbell, Partner, Assoc. Director of Content Strategy, Ogilvy Interactive
Beatrice Ellerin, Managing Director, InterbrandHealth
Marker Wiegand, Director of Consumer Marketing, Amgen
The big message at this panel was that technology (specifically social media and mobile technology) is changing the face of healthcare. It's enabling the delivery of a more personal and customizable product to consumers. The panelists gave several examples of successful applications of this new trend in the industry. From doctors using social media to connect with their patients, to the Mayo Clinic sharing stories to build awareness of medical conditions and to empower their patients, there's a definite lean in the industry to forming a more personal and direct relationship with consumers (just as it is in any other industry). One thing to keep in mind is that this 'connection' process needs to be simple, easy to use, and transparent. This is where social media really comes into play, since it has already established itself as all those things. Other industries are already leveraging social media to connect with their consumers, and it's time for the healthcare industry to realize this and get on board with the movement.
My favorite panelist was Lee Aase, Manager of Syndication and Social Media at the Mayo Clinic. He shared with us the social media tools the Mayo Clinic is using to connect with their patients. It was surprising to see such a conservative organization using tools like YouTube and Twitter, but I guess Lee has convinced the Mayo execs of the power of social media and the net positive returns they can receive through these tools. What's pretty funny is that he was tweeting during the event, using the hashtag #KelloggHC to tag his posts for others to follow. Of course I pulled out my phone and followed his tweets, which made the whole event feel very meta-esque.
Here's Lee's Twitter feed: http://twitter.com/LeeAase
Michael Millenson, President, Health Quality Advisors, LLC
Lee Aase, Manager, Syndication and Social Media, Mayo Clinic
Sarah Campbell, Partner, Assoc. Director of Content Strategy, Ogilvy Interactive
Beatrice Ellerin, Managing Director, InterbrandHealth
Marker Wiegand, Director of Consumer Marketing, Amgen
The big message at this panel was that technology (specifically social media and mobile technology) is changing the face of healthcare. It's enabling the delivery of a more personal and customizable product to consumers. The panelists gave several examples of successful applications of this new trend in the industry. From doctors using social media to connect with their patients, to the Mayo Clinic sharing stories to build awareness of medical conditions and to empower their patients, there's a definite lean in the industry to forming a more personal and direct relationship with consumers (just as it is in any other industry). One thing to keep in mind is that this 'connection' process needs to be simple, easy to use, and transparent. This is where social media really comes into play, since it has already established itself as all those things. Other industries are already leveraging social media to connect with their consumers, and it's time for the healthcare industry to realize this and get on board with the movement.
My favorite panelist was Lee Aase, Manager of Syndication and Social Media at the Mayo Clinic. He shared with us the social media tools the Mayo Clinic is using to connect with their patients. It was surprising to see such a conservative organization using tools like YouTube and Twitter, but I guess Lee has convinced the Mayo execs of the power of social media and the net positive returns they can receive through these tools. What's pretty funny is that he was tweeting during the event, using the hashtag #KelloggHC to tag his posts for others to follow. Of course I pulled out my phone and followed his tweets, which made the whole event feel very meta-esque.
Here's Lee's Twitter feed: http://twitter.com/LeeAase
Buzz Killer?
Hmmm, haven't heard too much about the Droid today. The "killer" phone was launched last Friday and was supposed to really shake up the mobile phone industry, but so far not too much noise being generated on the internet about it. Maybe it's being overshadowed by bigger news... such as the rumored Verizon-iPhone deal for 2010...
The Droid has arrived
Verizon's Droid is released to the public today! We haven't seen this much hype and buzz around a phone since the Palm Pre or the Blackberry Storm, and we all know how those worked out. Many have hailed the Droid as the next iPhone killer, but I prefer the term Windows Mobile killer. We'll see how much of the hype actually lives up to the real thing this week.
Gizmodo sums it up quite nicely:
Gizmodo sums it up quite nicely:
It's this simple: If you don't buy an iPhone, buy a Droid.
It's the best phone on Verizon, and with Android 2.0, the second best smartphone you can buy, period. It's flawed, deeply in some ways. But it's the second best phone around, on the best network around.
Google GPS
Google just keeps dropping bombs all over the web, and its latest product offering is already making huge waves. Last week, Google announced that it would provide free turn-by-turn GPS maps to mobile devices. Reaction was sharp and immediate: GPS-makers saw their share prices plummet.
It's hard to compete against a giant like Google when it gives away its products for free. Just like with the Android mobile platform, Google is giving away its GPS maps product for free in order to build up its mobile search market. So it's hard for the other mapmakers to compete against Google when all of their profits come directly from the map technology and Google's profit comes from the search revenue delivered indirectly by the map technology. Google's complementary search product is so strong that it has a huge competitive advantage in almost any field X it enters since it can afford to off-set any direct losses on product X with indirect search revenue, so long as that product can add to Google's search market share.
What's even more interesting is that sometimes Google even pays for others to use its product. For example, with the Android platform, Google will actually pay you ad splits to use certain licensed versions of its software. This "less than free" model is even more bad news for anyone competing against the search giant.
Who will be next to fall under the mighty axe of Google?
It's hard to compete against a giant like Google when it gives away its products for free. Just like with the Android mobile platform, Google is giving away its GPS maps product for free in order to build up its mobile search market. So it's hard for the other mapmakers to compete against Google when all of their profits come directly from the map technology and Google's profit comes from the search revenue delivered indirectly by the map technology. Google's complementary search product is so strong that it has a huge competitive advantage in almost any field X it enters since it can afford to off-set any direct losses on product X with indirect search revenue, so long as that product can add to Google's search market share.
What's even more interesting is that sometimes Google even pays for others to use its product. For example, with the Android platform, Google will actually pay you ad splits to use certain licensed versions of its software. This "less than free" model is even more bad news for anyone competing against the search giant.
Who will be next to fall under the mighty axe of Google?
Scott Monty
I've been reading Scott Monty's blog a lot lately and have been really trying to soak in all of the great information that he's been sharing on it. Scott's specialty is social media and marketing, and just recently he became head of Ford's Social Media department. Scott is more or less doing what I want to do with my career. I want to be in that cross section of technology and marketing; helping drive and develop consumer technology, and shaping consumer use through technology. It's still a broad concept in my head, but I'm hoping that I can define it a bit better over the next couple of years.
In a happy coincidence of personal and academic work (did I mention I'm going to business school right now?), I have a group assignment due soon on the electric car industry, and my group is thinking of picking Ford for our write-up. Well, guess what, I just happened to have read a ton of great material on Ford and their social media initiatives. Score! So now I think we're going to leverage Scott's social media efforts for our assignment and I may even reach out directly to Scott. This could be a great opportunity to learn more from Scott on utilizing social media in the business world and to develop a great contact in that industry.
Somewhat related to that, I'm attending a Business of Healthcare conference on November 11th. One of their panels is on "Leveraging Interactive Marketing Tools in Healthcare". This event will be a triple score for me, since 1) It's about using social media in the business world, 2) It's hosted by my school, 3) It's about using social media in the healthcare industry (did I mention I work in the healthcare industry?). So, it should be a nice mesh of personal, professional and academic development. Here are the details on the panel:
Leveraging Interactive Marketing Tools in Healthcare
Moderator: Michael Millenson, President, Health Quality Advisors, LLC; Author, Demanding Medical Excellence: Doctors and Accountability in the Information Age
Healthcare companies are just now beginning to leverage interactive marketing tactics that have been so common in many other industries. Discussion boards, blogs, social networking and any other medium that has engaged customers have been highly successful in driving growth, all in a cost-effective manner. Now it’s is time to harness this trend in healthcare. The platforms have already been developed; now the industry needs to successfully leverage them. Panelists will share both successful and failed interactive marketing examples from their companies and the results that came out of these unique initiatives. We will explore challenges and the common pitfalls encountered when implementing such a campaign. Finally, the group will discuss the trends and strategies to become successful in levering interactive marketing tactics.
Panelists include:
Lee Aase, Manager, Syndication and Social Media, Mayo Clinic
Sarah Campbell, Partner, Associate Director of Content Strategy, Ogilvy Interactive
Marker Wiegand, Director of Consumer Marketing, Amgen
In a happy coincidence of personal and academic work (did I mention I'm going to business school right now?), I have a group assignment due soon on the electric car industry, and my group is thinking of picking Ford for our write-up. Well, guess what, I just happened to have read a ton of great material on Ford and their social media initiatives. Score! So now I think we're going to leverage Scott's social media efforts for our assignment and I may even reach out directly to Scott. This could be a great opportunity to learn more from Scott on utilizing social media in the business world and to develop a great contact in that industry.
Somewhat related to that, I'm attending a Business of Healthcare conference on November 11th. One of their panels is on "Leveraging Interactive Marketing Tools in Healthcare". This event will be a triple score for me, since 1) It's about using social media in the business world, 2) It's hosted by my school, 3) It's about using social media in the healthcare industry (did I mention I work in the healthcare industry?). So, it should be a nice mesh of personal, professional and academic development. Here are the details on the panel:
Leveraging Interactive Marketing Tools in Healthcare
Moderator: Michael Millenson, President, Health Quality Advisors, LLC; Author, Demanding Medical Excellence: Doctors and Accountability in the Information Age
Healthcare companies are just now beginning to leverage interactive marketing tactics that have been so common in many other industries. Discussion boards, blogs, social networking and any other medium that has engaged customers have been highly successful in driving growth, all in a cost-effective manner. Now it’s is time to harness this trend in healthcare. The platforms have already been developed; now the industry needs to successfully leverage them. Panelists will share both successful and failed interactive marketing examples from their companies and the results that came out of these unique initiatives. We will explore challenges and the common pitfalls encountered when implementing such a campaign. Finally, the group will discuss the trends and strategies to become successful in levering interactive marketing tactics.
Panelists include:
Lee Aase, Manager, Syndication and Social Media, Mayo Clinic
Sarah Campbell, Partner, Associate Director of Content Strategy, Ogilvy Interactive
Marker Wiegand, Director of Consumer Marketing, Amgen
