Does anyone really want to converge mobile social networks?

I'm losing count of the times I've heard people come out with a variation on the theme of:

"Here's a single piece of software that aggregates all your social networks into one convenient application or screen".

However, I most certainly have not lost count of the number of times I've heard people tell me:

"I wish I had a single piece of software that aggregates all my social networks"....

....because the total number of people who've told me that is a big round zero.

Am I missing something, or does this Emperor really have no clothes? This problem just doesn't seem to exist - and indeed potentially it introduces massive risks to the average end user, who is probably not as stupid as many of the proponents of the concept seem to think.

Why would I want my operator / device vendor / OS provider / application shop to act as a front end and filter for my other services? I specifically don't want my contacts or addressbook converged - I keep separate lists for very good reasons. I don't want any one organisation to be able to aggregate all the info about my multiple online personae - I'm very happy having my LinkedIn and FaceBook profiles as separate as possible, and neither linked into my Yahoo contacts or Skype friends, nor my handset's contact list. The aggregation point is in my head, which is pretty good at multi-tasking.

All the people I know who are active on multiple networks do so for very good reasons, usually that they want to segregate separate groups of individuals. I do the same with IM services, using Yahoo, Skype and Facebook messaging for different sets of work / personal / family contacts. I don't want a multi-headed IM client.

Plus, most of the "converged networks" businesses seem to be predicated about adding another layer of lock-in or advertising, often with some spurious marketing verbiage and trust and security. Surely one of the nicest things about widgets and mobile web applications is that they can *diverge* easily and simply? It just strikes me that attempting to shoe-horn all these disparate networks and communications methods together risks destroying the unique "social value" of each one, not adding to it.

Read More

Tethering and mobile connection-sharing. Microsoft's thinking about it too

I wrote a few weeks ago about Joiku's new connection-sharing application Boost, which connects smartphones into local groups via WiFi, allowing them to combine and load-balance across multiple mobile data connections. I talked about the potential for "operator diversity", where you might have a number of people sharing multiple connections on different networks, and perhaps using different frequency bands and technologies.

Basically, it's software-defined-radio at the application layer. Not easy, but not impossible either - and with huge disruptive potential.

What's really interesting is that it's not just Joiku that's been playing with this concept. After seeing an article in New Scientis, I've found this really interesting paper from Microsoft on what it cools the "Cool-Tether" concept, which has lots of detail about the power management implications of this as well.

Some of the possibilities around this area are so interesting, I'm hesitant to write about them. In fact, if anyone wants to discuss commercial opportunities for collaboration around applications or IPR, let me know.....

Read More

SMS spam advertising - completely unacceptable

I have an almost irrational hatred of SMS-based advertising, which is shared by quite a number of other people I know. It's deeply intrusive, interruptive and time-consuming - and the idea that I should take even more of my time to send STOP messages to something unsolicited in the first place makes me shudder with disgust at the perpetrator.

Case in point: I got a random, unsolicited SMS from Virgin Atlantic today. I've been a member of their frequent flyer scheme for some time, and unfortunately they do not have a method to allow you to discriminate about how you receive information. The "communications preferences" page just says "Communications will be either by email, post, telephone or SMS. By opting in you will be agreeing to receive communications from us." No way to specify which you are willing to accept. It may well have changed since I first signed up, I'm normally pretty careful about this.

I don't mind emails as I don't have to take time to read them - I can see the headers. But on my personal phone, I absolutely, never, ever want spam. Yes I know I could get some fancy client for filtering SMS on an iPhone or whatever, but I do not care. SMS adverts = spam = unacceptable, as far as my personal life is concerned.

Too late for Virgin anyway - I won't be using the airline again, and I've told customer service to delete me from the frequent flyer database. No second chances.

Edit - I'm dismayed that the UK's Telephone Preference Service which acts as a central "do not call" database for telemarketing, does not extend to preventing SMS spam as well. There ought to be a centralised mechanism for opting out of all marketing-related text messages, enforced in law so that all bulk-SMS providers need to validate against it. Alternatively, I'm wondering if there are any applications for Android, iPhone or other platforms that use the same sort of Bayesian approach that PC email antispam software exploits.

Read More

A quick way of deciding if you're being ripped off for data roaming fees

A lighthearted thought experiment:

.... visit a city in a new country. Plan a journey from your hotel to a typical "point of interest" perhaps a mile (1.6km) distant.

Is it cheaper to:

(a) Walk, using Google Maps or a similar mapping product on your phone, consuming roaming data to show you the city's layout and plot a route as you stroll across town.
(b) Jump in a taxi. the driver worry about the route instead, and pay based on the meter

If the cost of the data roaming > cost of a local taxi, I think you can be fairly confident that you're paying your operator too much. Or else you're somewhere with really cheap taxis.

Read More

Is it worth going to MWC next February?

I'm currently trying to decide whether or not to take my normal week's trip to Barcelona in 2010.

At one level, it's "obvious" - it's what everyone does, isn't it? And certainly I usually have an intense week of briefings, conference-style sessions, client meetings, dinners and (of course) late nights. Bits of it are fun, and bits of it are simply a hard slog.

I think last year I ended up having about 50-60 engagements of one form or another, plus extra ones at another conference (NetEvents) that started 2 days' earlier. I managed to find some quite cheap accommodation and flights, and I had at least one "paid gig" while I was there, so that made it worth my time financially. On the other hand, I spent a good % of the preceding month playing email and phone hockey, to set everything up - and probably turning down another 100+ invitations, having pre-MWC briefings and so forth. It's hard to work out the fully-loaded ROI.

This time, I'm debating whether it's worth it at all. I meet lots of companies and individuals at smaller conferences year-round, usually without their PR minders and carefully-messaged analyst-facing slides. Maybe a couple more of those - I get no shortage of invites to speak. And I don't usually go to CTIA Wireless or one of the Asian events, so maybe I should take a week out for one of those instead?

I'm not the only one thinking this - quite a few other firms and individuals either pass entirely (Apple?) or have scaled back their presence. This isn't because of travel budget either - it's just a hard-nosed view on what & where is the most effective use of *time* rather than cash. (The answer isn't in "virtual conferences" either in my view - they're uniformly dreadful and I usually switch off after the first hour, if that). And for all those traditionalists out there - sorry, if MWC went back to being 3GSM Cannes, it'd be a *definite* no from me.

I think I'm going to give it another couple of weeks. If by then I've got a few things lined up that are direct revenue-earners (moderating panel sessions, giving customer presentations, using it as a basis for a specific research effort) then it's a no-brainer. Otherwise, maybe I'll try an experiment and skip it for once and just set up an auto-responder on my email saying "sorry, not going".

(Oh and if anyone *does* need a thought-provoking speaker or lively moderator, please email information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com)

Read More

The quadplay myth

One of the perpetual themes I encounter at the moment is the notion that the world is moving towards a "converged" situation in which individuals or families purchase all their communications services from a single operator.

In particular, there is a fervent belief that people will choose the same cellular providers and fixed broadband providers, tempted by bundling deals and wondrous "three screen" content and entertainment services.

Not only that, but these ultra-loyal users will happily spend more in aggregate, persuade their entire families to follow their lead, churn less and will be happy to have femtocells or WiFi to offload "mobile broadband" onto their own paid-for fixed connections.

For the larger hybrid operators, that is a Utopian ideal. And to be fair, in some circumstances it will actually happen.

But realistically, it strikes me as a 10-20% thing whichever way you slice it.

- Maybe 10-20% of households will have a single family plan for all mobile devices coupled to the same provider's DSL or cable or fibre
- Maybe 10-20% of fixed broadband subscriptions will incorporate a bundled "for free" mobile extension (perhaps with a detachable dongle in the gateway)
- Maybe 10-20% of triple-play (voice/Internet/TV) subscriptions will expand to quad-play with mobile as well

There are too many factors driving *divergence* here, not convergence. A partial list:

- Operator-exclusive devices like the iPhone and Motorola Droid will often drive operator choice, not the other way around.
- Some mobile operators have no fixed arms (eg 3, or some T-Mobile properties)
- Some mobile operators only have fixed coverage in certain places (eg AT&T)
- Some mobile operators have lousy coverage in certain places (or certain buildings) where their fixed arms are strong
- Devices like the Amazon Kindle and laptop/dongle combinations will proliferate with an unknown "Brand X" mobile operator behind the scenes, thus non-connectable into an existing household plan
- Prepay-centric markets tend to have many people with multiple devices, specifically chosen to be on different operators to enable tariff arbitrage
- Many users have company-issued devices on a different network to their personal devices and broadband
- Few users are ever willing to churn fixed broadband provider for a variety of reasons (unique content / IPTV, difficulties in switching phone numbers or email address, perception of disruption etc)
- Unusual households (flat-sharers, students in accommodation blocks etc)
- Preference of children to buy own devices / services with pocket money rather than as part of a family plan

You get the picture.

Now, the 10-20% of quadplay-receptive households are definitely a target worth pursuing. But let's not kid ourselves that they represent the *typical* future household rather than the ideal telco-dream segment. Yes, the picture will vary substantially by country and specific operator, but overall it's worth betting on divergence and not convergence (as per usual in the telecoms industry).

Read More

Some thoughts on Android

I'm slowly starting to become a bit more positive about Android. I've been in the US for most of the last week, and it was interesting to see how many "normal" people had Android devices, compared with the UK where it's still viewed as geektastic. Google's introduction of free turn-by-turn navigation is a bit of a smart move too: this article makes a fascinating read about the Google business model evolving.

It seems to me that the OS is maturing faster than anticipated, and certainly more quickly than Symbian and Windows Mobile. It looks as though Google will take a leaf out of Microsoft's book and jump all over its rivals if they make a mis-step (which certainly seems to be true of recent S60 and WM6.5 devices). It will be interesting to see if Maemo steps up to the plate, given Nokia's announcement this week.

I had a quick play with a Motorola Droid and was fairly impressed. Fast, comes with a QWERTY, decent-seeming camera etc. I could see myself possibly using one as a work device, if it's possible to buy one unlocked for a sensible price, although I wouldn't want to use it as a personal voice/SMS device.

Read More