May 12 2011

What Google *should* have announced at Google IO 2011

The Google IO keynotes were boring. I cant believe I wasted ten minutes watching before I turned off. In-app payments in Chrome Web Store? Yawn…

What Google should have announced to make things exciting:
- That they are launching their own mobile operator. All android devices with their SIM gets unlimited data at a low cost.

- Google Search adds semantic analysis. When I search for Abba it should ask me if Im looking for the music group or the Swedish brand of tuna fish sold at IKEA.

- Their self-driving cars have been proven to cause *less* accidents than cars driven by humans and will start being sold to consumers in a cooperation with Toyota in 2012. nuff said!


May 5 2011

Using an iPad instead of a computer

Today I decided to bring my iPad instead of MacBook Pro for a one day business trip as a test of the iPad as a true post-PC device.

My conclusion: the iPad is 70% there.

Now admittedly my work on the road is basically mail and PowerPoint. Obviously, if you have applications on OS X not available on the iPad this is not going to work for you.

Overall, I was satisfied with the experiment. The extreme light weight and excellent battery time is something you appreciate quickly. Not only can I leave my computer at home – I also can leave the charger!

There were four things that bothered me though:
1) Inadequate coy and paste. The copy paste does not work in all apps and especially not on all websites. For some reason I was unable to select text in the Gmail iPad optimized interface and in one internal web application we use.

2) Dropbox is a must to access files. But the iOS app does unfortunately not auto-sync all files like it does on the Mac. Instead, only starred files and recently viewed files are available. Dropbox needs a Sync all button that I can use when I am home on my Wi-Fi to be useful to me on the road.

3) No ability go edit PowerPoint files. Admittedly, Keynote for iOS might do what I need. But from what Ive seen on YouTube it only seems to support light editing. This is my biggest problem as it is scary not to be able to make last minute changes in a presentation before a meeting. Any PPT editor also needs DropBox integration.

4) Not possible to mail files from DropBox or import files from mail to DropBox. Dropbox needs a Send as attachment feature and the Mail app needs to be able to save files into DropBox.


Jan 3 2011

WordLens – the world’s first true augmented reality app

I tested the iPhone app “WordLens” briefly the other day. A pretty nitfy app that promises to do on-the-fly translations using the iPhone´s built in camera. If you haven´t seen it already, check this video out:

To be honest, the app is pretty much worthless. Using Google Translate is free and more accurate. Half of the time the app won’t recognize text and unless you hold the phone completely still it doesn´t work. It´s still impressive though and will probably get better over time. I wonder if it was even possible to do this on a desktop computer with a webcam ten years ago? Someone needs to compare the iPhone specs with a $599 desktop from 2001 and also factor in that we have much better algorithms for image processing now than back in 2001.

WordLens is the first app that earns the name “augmented reality app”. Why? Because it actually uses the camera for it´s data input instead of displaying it as a background. Layar and similar apps are just a fancy way of displaying map data on top of a background composed of the input from the phone´s camera.

If I´m gonna make one prediction for 2011 then I would predict that we will see more apps like WordLens that are true augmented reality apps. For the first time we have image processing algorithms and mobile processors that are powerful enough to do realtime  processing of the camera input and recognize salient features in it. The app stores of the world are just waiting for developers to take advantage of that!


Oct 15 2010

Bert Nordberg: developers, developers, developers

This short video with Bert Nordberg (CEO of Sony Ericsson) contains everything that is wrong with the race for developers in mobile platforms.

First of all, saying that you are trying to attract developers makes it sound like you are trying to attract lone developers sitting in their basement coding for fun. In practice you need three types of companies: the  hundreds (thousands?) of small indie companies that might make the next Angry Birds,  the large established companies (EA Mobile, Gameloft, Glu) and the internet companies whose services you need to work on your device (Facebook, Twitter, Spotify).

All of these companies have one thing in common: they want a business case to invest in a particular platform. That business case contains two components: the cost to develop for a platform and the potential revenue. The iPhone business case is sound: it’s an easy platform to develop for and there is a large potential revenue. Tada, case closed!

The second mistake Bert makes is saying that you don’t need hundreds of thousands of applications because most people only use ten applications. The problem is that not everyone uses the same ten applications. Of those ten applications that people use it might be one of them that made them choose one particular platform. If you are an amateur pilot in your spare time a flight planning application only available for Android might be your most important app. The other nine games and fart apps does not decide what platform you choose.


Sep 28 2010

A mobile camera on LSD

There are more and more mobile apps coming out that use the phone’s camera in new clever ways. Apps that do everything from reading bar-codes to recognizing faces to recognizing text.

Here’s something I would like to see in Android 4.0 or iOS 5.0: hooks that allow image processing apps to directly hook into the live feed from the camera whenever the camera app is loaded.

Imagine this: You fire up the camera and point it at someone. Immediately the face-recognizing image hook feeds the person’s face  into Facebook which overlays data about the person. A click on the person’s face takes you to their facebook page. Move the camera the other way, over a bar code on a wine bottle and the Wine app you have recognizes the bar code and overlays information about this particular bottle of wine.

I could go on, but you get the picture.


Sep 27 2010

Why iOS is different

I have had a hard time defining iOS. Is there something that is fundamentally different in iOS from OS X or Windows 7, and if so, what? Is it the lack of a file system? Is it that it is built for touch-based devices? Is it that it runs on mobile devices?

Maybe all of them. Or maybe none of them. iOS certainly is different.

Yes, I just compared the iOS to a Spork. I totally went there.

Looking back a few years it is easy to see the design considerations that Apple faced:

  1. Touch-based mobile device with all that implies (limited battery, screen size)
  2. Restrictions from AT&T on what applications are allowed on the device

Over time the second restriction has become less important. As iOS now runs on non-mobile phone devices limiting apps to what AT&T approves is not as important. I think it is just a matter of time before Apple will make it possible to install apps outside of App Store. Ofcourse, App Store will still remain the prime sales channel for anyone selling apps or trying to advertise free apps for a long time since it is well known and available by default on all iOS devices.

Since launch iOS has “graduated” and now powers the iPad which more resembles a Netbook then a mobile phone. Suddenly, a lot of the requirements that were specific to iOS running on a small mobile device became less important. The only requirement that did remain important was maintaining a long battery life.  If you look at a tear down of the iPad you can see that it is basically just a big battery with a screen and a processor. And when it comes to battery life, the iPad always wins against similarily priced netbooks or laptops.

But a new requirement has emerged: using your iPhone or iPad as a replacement for a laptop. So suddenly you have a touch based device that needs to maintain long battery life but still be usable for all the tasks that we do on a Netbook. This is where it gets interesting.

The most obvious and most discussed issue is the App Store – only applications approved by Apple can run on the device. But it runs deeper than that. Even if apps were set free on iOS there would stil be restrictions on what types of apps you can build (without resorting to undocumented API:s or circumventing the system). For example, on OS X you could easily create an application that allows you to run widgets or have a process that does number crunching in the background.

And I think this is the key area where iOS differs from other desktop operating systems. All apps fit in a certain niche predefined by iOS. Making a music playing app? There is a specific way to integrate that into iOS. Making a location aware app? Get cell-id updates when in background and GPS when in foreground. Making a game? Use Game Center.

It’s like the iOS developers are trying to foresee all available types of apps and then figure out how to make those fit into the OS. I think it’s good. It has a clear value proposition towards consumers: make similar apps work the same way. On the other hand, some will argue that it hinders innovation on the platform. And that certainly is true. But if a new type of app surfaces on Android handsets you can be sure that support for that will be integrated into iOS.


Sep 13 2010

Why mobile marketing marketing sucks

Yes, you read the title right: it does say mobile marketing marketing.

If you ever worked with mobile applications or services you will know that there are two services that dominate: games and mobile marketing.  Mobile marketing is an area ripe for growth. Does anyone actually believe kids of today will sit down with paper and scissors and cut out coupons from a newspaper? Ofcourse not! They want them delivered to their mobile.

Then, noone has really figured out how to do that yet but I am sure we will start seeing some traction soon. Sweden is already well ahead of the game with ice cream coupons and newspaper coupons being delivered to your mobile since 2007.

So what is there not to like about mobile marketing?

Three things actually, contrived use cases, inability to understand consumer behaviour and mixing of content and delivery method.

Send out SMS messages to people close to a venue. I.e. a concert has tickets left before the show start – send out SMS messages to everyone nearby. Who on earth comes up with these things? Few would just run into a concert just because they happen to be nearby.

Receive offers from shops close to you. This one is maybe even more interesting. Most shops don’t want to advertise to people that are already close to their shop. But still I see this coming up as an idea for mobile marketing. Again – proximity is not the same as interest. And besides, why would you advertise to those that are already close to your shop? Most business owners want to get customer to their business in the first place.

Fantastic deals. But, what bothers me even more is that when you hear stories of actual mobile marketing campaigns they almost always involve amazing offers. A typical story will include a company sending out an SMS campaign with a coupon that gives 20% discount. Then there is always some statistic about 10% of the people that received the coupon used it.

Part of the success is probably due to the coupon being delivered in a timely and accessible manner (SMS). But maybe more important is the fact that these people got a great offer (20% discount!). It would be much more interesting to see a campaign that actually compared the ROI of a mobile campaign and a print campaign with the same offer.

That being said,  there is a lot to like about mobile marketing. But be vary when you hear claims of successful mobile marketing campaigns.


Aug 17 2010

How Apple sold 3 million iPads in 80 days

I have a hard time believing in the stereotypical fan boy. How many tech geeks purchase a product only because of the brand? My guess is very few. When a self-proclaimed Android smartphone fanboy purchases the latest HTC Incredible it is because he/she believe that it is the best possible phone for him/her.

The reasoning is simple to follow. If you already own an HTC smartphone, purchasing the latest one is probably a good investment (if you consider purchasing shiny gadgets an investment). You know that all your current apps will keep working. You know that all your Google services will continue working. You know about all of the design flaws and you have learned to live with them.

Switching brands is a leap of faith for consumers. This is why Apple spends so much explaining how to make the move from PC to a Mac and reassuring consumers that everything they do today can be done on a Mac. Apple knows that even if people don’t like their PC, they would rather stick with something they know than taking the leap of faith.

Apple has spent the last ten years building trust with consumers. When Steve Jobs launched the iPhone and called it revolutionary, he was right. When Apple presented the new unibody Macbook Pro:s and called them the most beatuiful laptops ever, he was arguably correct. Just bring a Macbook Pro to someone who has never seen a Mac before and see their reaction. And not only that, they have a track record of adding features and fixing bugs in both iOS and OS X several times a year.

When Steve Jobs goes on stage and says that the iPad is the best way to access the internet consumers believed him.

If Dell, HP or Asus came on stage and said that they had built the best tablet computer, which scenario would you think is most likely?

a) They release the tablet, continuously support it for several years with free software updates

..or ..

b) They release the tablet, forget about it and six months later release a completely new tablet

How many other consumer electronics companies do you know that has the same level of trust as Apple?


Jun 22 2010

Why Apple should buy a mobile network operator

Disclaimer

Note: I work for Ericsson, a manufacturer of mobile systems, so I wish to make the following abundantly clear:

1) this post does not express the beliefs of my company and

2) i do not have any inside information. All facts presented here are based on publicly available information.

Introduction

In this post I will make the argument for why Apple should buy a US-based mobile operator. To get there I will need to explain how Apple has worked with their mobile devices so far and why it makes sense for them to buy an operator.

Source: This was sent to me from the future.

Apple has made it clear that there is no place in the value-chain where they do not operate as long as it gives them a competitive advantage. They started by providing their own OS bundled with services from other service providers (Google and Yahoo). Since the iPhone launch Apple has bought Placecast, (rumored to be replacing Google Maps), Siri, a mobile search assistant  and Quattro Wireless to let Apple in on the quickly growing mobile advertising pie.

But Apple has not only grown upwards by owning more of the services bundled with the iPhone, they have also grown downwards in the value chain by creating their own chipsets. They have bought PA Semi Conductor and Intrinsity, both ARM processor specialists.

This gives them the possibility to have chipsets perfectly adapted to their own devices, and services not available on any other devices.

Apple are relying on third party baseband processors and various other commodity components only when it gives them no competitive advantage, for example chipsets for GPS, Wi-Fi and 3G baseband.

Connectivity through a mobile operator on the other hand is not a commodity. It is expensive and everytime Apple wants to include mobile connectivity they must start negotiating with the mobile operators. In the end, how well AT&T are doing at managing their network affects what price tag Apple can put on the iPhone or iPad.

But above all, Steve Jobs is keen on selling the “Apple experience (TM)”. Ever noticed how Macbooks don’t have any Intel Inside logo or other stickers that comes on other PC machines?

Now imagine Steve Jobs creating the iPhone. There is exactly one part of the iPhone experience that Apple can’t control: the connectivity – the most important part of any mobile device.

I have no inside info on the relationship between Apple and AT&T but I would assume that there is plenty of frustration on both parts. Apple, on one hand is getting a bad reputation when AT&T’s network lack coverage and AT&T is getting a bad reputation when the iPhone is having more dropped calls than other phones. Everything that comes with the iPhone is controlled by Apple up to the point where you select an AT&T subscription.

Being in control of a mobile operator would not only put an end to these issues – it would put Apple in a unique position. Imagine this: being able to come into any Apple store and buy any device bundled with 3G connectivity. You pay an upfront fee to Apple and then a monthly fee to Apple for the connectivity.

Apple can set up the data plan just as they like. How about the iPhone 32 GB coming with 32 GB of data every month? And while they’re at it they could make their own services like maps, App Store, iTunes and MobileMe not count towards your monthly quota.

But Apple can’t manage a mobile network!

I already hear the critisim: But Apple doesn’t know how to run a mobile network! Well, most operators don’t know that either. Last year Sprint as one of many operators outsourced the whole operations of their network.  Key quotes from the press release:

Sprint retains full ownership and control of its network assets, and solely owns network strategy and investment decisions.

[Outsourcing parnter] assumes responsibility for the day-to-day services, provisioning and maintenance for the Sprint-owned CDMA, iDEN and wireline networks.

(To give you full disclosure I should also mention that the outsourcing partner is Ericsson)

And Apple doesn’t even have to care about the messy parts about being a phone operator either. They could remove the voice and SMS services from the device and only sell a device with data connectivity*. Anyone that wants to make phone calls from an Apple device can install Skype or Truphone. The user experience from Skype on iPhone is considerably worse than the user experience from the built-in messaging and voice applications, but remember that OS4.0 is set to give Skype access to the same APIs as the native voice application is using.

With an outsourced network and a phone app managed by someone else, all Apple would have to worry about would be to tell their operations partner where next to expand the mobile data coverage for their devices.

* Except using the cellular network for E112 calls

And there’s more..

As an american you can’t really use your iPhone in Europe in good concusioness. It just costs too much without a local SIM-card. Apple could solve this problem by requiring that all operators that wants to sell Apple devices to sign a roaming agreement that dictates free roaming between the Apple US networks and the other operators network.

The economy

So the only question left to answer now is – which operator should they buy?

If I were Apple I would have the following list of requirements:

  • GSM/UMTS/LTE based operator. So far Apple has not created any CDMA devices. Even Verizon is now betting on LTE instead of CDMA. If Apple wants to sign roaming agreements with operators in Europe and Asia they would need to have GSM/UMTS technology as this is what all operators in those regions use.
  • Struggling operator. Apple only needs the actual spectrum and mobile phone license. To Apple it doesn’t matter if the operator already have tens of millions of subscribers, it just adds more weight.
  • Nationwide coverage. Pretty self explanatory.

If we skip rural operators that leaves us with the following choices: MetroPCS, AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile.

MetroPCS with a market cap of $3 bn looks like a strong candidate on paper but with no GSM network and an LTE network only in the planning stages they are only semi-interesting.

T-Mobile is wholly owned by T-Mobile Germany and unless Apple can convince the germans to exit the US market they seem like an unlikely candidate.

AT&T has a market capitalization of $143 bn and just seems to big to be broken up (market capitalization is the total value of all the company as judged by the stock market – buying a company would require paying a premium on the market cap).

Verizon then seems more likely but are still only planning to roll out an LTE network. That their stock has not been going all too well lately plays in Apple’s favor, but still, at a market cap of $77 bn you are looking a pretty hefty transaction.

Verizon wireless is roughly 50% of Verizon business and could be worth somewhere around $40 bn so that brings down the figure somewhat. But still, that would assume that Verizon wanted to be split up. Vodafone owns half of Verizon wireless which complicates things as Vodafone just as T-Mobile probably does not want to lose their stake in the US market. But still, Verizon owns 55% of the wireless business so that may not be a problem after all. Who knows, maybe Apple could use Vodafone to their advantage and buy Verizon Wireless together with Vodafone. They could then let Vodafone have all the existing subscribers under the Vodafone brand as Apple would only be looking to get access to the mobile data network.

Apple as a comparsion has a market cap of $200 bn and more than $40 bn in cash. Buying ANY mobile operator would be a huge transaction for Apple, given that their biggest transaction ever was buying NeXT for $0.4 bn. But then again, Steve Jobs was quoted saying “doing something big [with their cash] is not out of the question” and with some venture capital it would be doable. A bit crazy and game changing – yes. But then, isn’t that what Apple is all about?