This applies to Canadians only:
REMINDER .... All cell phone numbers are being released to telemarketing Companies and you will start to receive sale calls.
YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR THESE CALLS
To prevent this, call the following number from your cell phone: 1 866-580-3625 or [Edit: 1-888-382-1222 this number is not correct].
It is the National DO NOT CALL list. It will only take a minute of your time.
It blocks your number for five (5) years. You must call from the cell phone number you want to have blocked. You cannot call from a different phone number.
Or you can do it online at https://www.lnnte-dncl.gc.ca/index-eng
HELP OTHERS BY PASSING THIS ON TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS.. It takes about 20 seconds
Important information for consumers
Do not expect calls to stop immediately.
Telemarketers have up to 31 days to update their lists and to make sure they do not call you. You could still receive calls within those first 31 days.
Registering on the National Do Not Call List (DNCL) will not eliminate all telemarketing calls. There are exemptions within the Rules that may allow calls from organizations such as charities, those with whom you have existing business relationships, political parties and newspapers.
You can further reduce unwanted telemarketing calls by asking these organizations to place your number(s) on their own do not call list.
Showing posts with label Mobile. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mobile. Show all posts
26/10/2007
Blackberry Curve 8320 + WiFi + T-Mobile = Unlimited Phone Calls for $20
OK,
I want to be first to say this here. When this option is available on the iPhone the entire internet is going to be buzzing about it.
Over and Out
I want to be first to say this here. When this option is available on the iPhone the entire internet is going to be buzzing about it.
Make sure to read more here.
"The functionality that sets this BlackBerry Curve apart from any other BlackBerry device is the UMA T-Mobile HotSpot @Home support. Without this functionality I may never have tried the device and this support is actually what is driving me to a purchase of the Curve and activation of the service. HotSpot @Home now runs US$19.99 per month for a single phone and I believe US$29.99 per month for a family plan. It allows you to make and receive unlimited calls while you are connected to an authorized WiFi hotspot. This can be your home @Home or other router, T-Mobile HotSpot location, or other WiFi access point (even secure ones) where you do not have to enter information via a web page login (this may knock out a lot of hotels from being candidates). I may actually take along a WiFi router when I travel to setup a virtual HotSpot in the hotel room with an ethernet connection. I want to test this out when I travel outside the U.S. as I am very curious to see if I could make and receive calls internationally when connected to a compatible WiFi access point. That would be very cool to make and receive calls that appear to be from my mobile phone while traveling overseas."
Over and Out
23/10/2007
Apple and Big Picture Strategy
I was sitting there watching Steve Jobs help push one of the biggest Software evolutions in history: The Web Application.
I sat there distraught, thinking, SNAP DANG, my blackberry's browser sucks. My Nokia browser sucks. I quickly installed Opera Mini 4 beta and hit the net on my mobile device. I jumped onto the iPhone Facebook site, logged in on my Blackberry Pearl and started poking around.
Just about then this thought came racing through my mind so I logged onto the iPhone Facebook site on my desktop PC. I was stoked. It worked in both places. Stupid me, of course it worked in both places. So then I started thinking, I wonder if I could use this on a Mac? I don't have a Mac, but I'm sure I could.
Then, this random stream of thought flew through my head: What if Apple is only going to allow a web (Safari) SDK to develop for the iPhone? What if they never release a stand alone SDK for the iPhone?
Well, first, this would probably mean that every application you'd run on the iPhone would be web based... well ah dah. Then I thought, I wonder if they will allow web plugins to run - What if I could run Flash on the iPhone? Then I could create a real RIA with full graphics capability, and use the Safari API's to access the cell features. I loved it.
Then I started thinking, SNAP DARN (Actually, it was more like, I wonder how I could use this for business??). Then I stopped. It slammed me straight in the forehead with no less ferocity than a four by four being slammed into the scull. I could use this for business, infact, I could use this phone for more business features than my Blackberry or my Nokia. And, I could do this all from within the Safari browser. I could not only log into my Intranet, I could follow links from my intranet into my Web Based business applications. So there I was looking at a nice high color graph in Safari thinking: "I can't believe people don't think this will fly in the corporate world".
Then it dawned on me. Apple does not have a very strong foot hold in corporate - in mobile, or desktop. A major issue for Apple was that none of the stand alone software would run on the Mac platform. Well, then came Windows Virtualization on the Mac. That solved the problem nicely, but it still doesn't help Apple. Why should Apple require virtualization to run business applications on their platform? Sure they can still sell more licenses! But why should Apple have Windows virtualization? This has to be helping their single largest competitor maintain it's foothold - and further, allows developers to continue to build applications for the Windows Environment - something they were already skilled and trained to do.
For Apple to grow in corporate, and consumer markets they needed to be able to leverage all the existing hot technologies out there - especially web based applications which nominalize the desktop Operating System. Further, Apple is branching out with it's other devices and including web browsing over WiFi and everything is based on the Safari browser.
So my theory was that Apple could gain a stronger foothold in the corporate market by forcing developers of the iPhone to develop mobile web interfaces. The back ends for these mobile apps would be leveraged against the desktop app (most likely the other way around). So Apple can easily and quickly have people build services for their devices - and easily extend web based business applications to the iPhone.
Further, if Apple can contribute toward the perception that all software will be web based ASAP then they can expiditiously eliminate problems where software will not run on the Apple Desktop.
So yesterday Apple announced they will be opening the iPhone to third party developers. Does this undermine their support of web applications being the future now? Will this negatively affect Apple's ability to reach corporate markets? Is Apple limiting itself to the consumer market? You tell me!
I sat there distraught, thinking, SNAP DANG, my blackberry's browser sucks. My Nokia browser sucks. I quickly installed Opera Mini 4 beta and hit the net on my mobile device. I jumped onto the iPhone Facebook site, logged in on my Blackberry Pearl and started poking around.
Just about then this thought came racing through my mind so I logged onto the iPhone Facebook site on my desktop PC. I was stoked. It worked in both places. Stupid me, of course it worked in both places. So then I started thinking, I wonder if I could use this on a Mac? I don't have a Mac, but I'm sure I could.
Then, this random stream of thought flew through my head: What if Apple is only going to allow a web (Safari) SDK to develop for the iPhone? What if they never release a stand alone SDK for the iPhone?
Well, first, this would probably mean that every application you'd run on the iPhone would be web based... well ah dah. Then I thought, I wonder if they will allow web plugins to run - What if I could run Flash on the iPhone? Then I could create a real RIA with full graphics capability, and use the Safari API's to access the cell features. I loved it.
Then I started thinking, SNAP DARN (Actually, it was more like, I wonder how I could use this for business??). Then I stopped. It slammed me straight in the forehead with no less ferocity than a four by four being slammed into the scull. I could use this for business, infact, I could use this phone for more business features than my Blackberry or my Nokia. And, I could do this all from within the Safari browser. I could not only log into my Intranet, I could follow links from my intranet into my Web Based business applications. So there I was looking at a nice high color graph in Safari thinking: "I can't believe people don't think this will fly in the corporate world".
Then it dawned on me. Apple does not have a very strong foot hold in corporate - in mobile, or desktop. A major issue for Apple was that none of the stand alone software would run on the Mac platform. Well, then came Windows Virtualization on the Mac. That solved the problem nicely, but it still doesn't help Apple. Why should Apple require virtualization to run business applications on their platform? Sure they can still sell more licenses! But why should Apple have Windows virtualization? This has to be helping their single largest competitor maintain it's foothold - and further, allows developers to continue to build applications for the Windows Environment - something they were already skilled and trained to do.
For Apple to grow in corporate, and consumer markets they needed to be able to leverage all the existing hot technologies out there - especially web based applications which nominalize the desktop Operating System. Further, Apple is branching out with it's other devices and including web browsing over WiFi and everything is based on the Safari browser.
So my theory was that Apple could gain a stronger foothold in the corporate market by forcing developers of the iPhone to develop mobile web interfaces. The back ends for these mobile apps would be leveraged against the desktop app (most likely the other way around). So Apple can easily and quickly have people build services for their devices - and easily extend web based business applications to the iPhone.
Further, if Apple can contribute toward the perception that all software will be web based ASAP then they can expiditiously eliminate problems where software will not run on the Apple Desktop.
So yesterday Apple announced they will be opening the iPhone to third party developers. Does this undermine their support of web applications being the future now? Will this negatively affect Apple's ability to reach corporate markets? Is Apple limiting itself to the consumer market? You tell me!
05/09/2007
Microsoft's New Mobile Phone: The phonIE
Microsoft's entry into the Cell Phone market is called the: phonIE.
This is a phony post.
Over And Out
This is a phony post.
Over And Out
4 Reasons Internet Service Companies Will Beat Device Manufacturers In the Mobile Race
About 8 years ago, wasn't there some perception that Software companies shouldn't get into hardware? Didn't IBM and Apple fail with spectators citing their hardware businesses as being huge cash sinks? Wasn't it around that time that Microsoft really took off after building an OS that could run on pretty much any hardware?
In the past 5 years Apple has been riding the successful iPod all the way to the bank! Microsoft and Nintendo are destroying (sales) on everything coming out of the Sony arena and Dell and HP saw falling profits in 2006 only to be saved by Microsoft's Vista OS.
Is now the right time for software companies to once again pursue the hardware market? I'd say yes, and I'd cite the following 4 reasons for why Software companies will be very competitive against device manufacturers in the next five years.
1) Information Communication Device: A cell phone is primarily a communication tool. A cell phone is almost a perfect information consumption device. I can read my www.NetVibes.com feeds on my blackberry, I can text my friends, I can send and receive video's, images and pictures. I can email. I can MMS. I can Google Talk, MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger etc. all from within my device. It isn't a huge shock that this is what I use my phone for. The device serves to consolidate these services into one umbrella. And I don't much to distinguish between the services I use to communicate anymore. They all seem the same - and they work perfectly - my phone has replaced my PC / Laptop for all of these channels making it next to impossible for any single device manufacturer to offer me a more compelling communication option. It’s the Internet Service providers that have enhanced my communication options and device manufacturers would be stupid to compete with the above services - with the exception of Blackberry Messenger I've not seen much that is even decent manufacture provided software. Thus, Device manufacturers cannot do much to make my communication experience better. The big Internet players carry the most schwag: More people in their networks, more connections to other information sources / destinations (kind of like why I quit Wayn, and Beebo when I realized 95% of my friends were on Facebook). They can even take that communication experience back to the web or make it shared with my phone or a device of the future. Why should RIM / Nokia / Rogers be involved if I want to check my gmail? They shouldn't. The internet should.
2) No Manufacturer's Proprietary Software: Windows made the PC UI consistent and this lead to their OS being the OS of choice. Nothing like this exists in Mobile, and this is because first the Hardware manufactures use their own proprietary software avoiding a license fee for the OS, second carriers want to load their proprietary software and charge a usage fee - you get a dually branded device - "Blackberry Pearl by Rogers Wireless" with Rogers Blackberry TV. The Manufactures have tried to partner with the Internet Players: Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, but then the Carriers have the option to remove all the software before selling to customers – after all they are the resellers. Obviously this totally undermines the competitive landscape of mobile software. Further customers DO NOT seek out and INSTALL applications on their phones. Window's Mobile OS has not been a hit for MSFT. The Internet players are all pissed off at the device Manufacturers, the device manufacturers are frustrated with the Internet players and then came the iPhone. To AT&T the iPhone is a Data hog, to Apple where PC meets the phone, and to the consumer - a breath of fresh air and a severe disconnect from these ghetto manufacturers proprietary software applications. In fact, most of the iPhone sites work on my Blackberry Pearl (when the Opera Browser is installed). I've read other people can view the iPhone sites on their Nokia's (when the Opera Browser is installed). This all comes down to: When the Opera Browser is installed. And that folks, is why Device Manufacturers are doomed. I can install one single 3rd party application on my phone and it unlocks 100% of the internet functionality that I need to exist. The Blackberry browser pales in comparison to Opera Mini - it's not even close to as good. Using the built in Blackberry browser is like showing up to a Formula one race with a Toyota Prius and expecting to take the pole. In this high speed, consumer facing RIA world we call the web - we need specialized software built by companies with experience. Not junk ware built by Device Manufacturers and tossed on their platforms just because they can. We need standards – after all we did design them. We need cross platform. We need interoperability. But especially as a developer, if I can write one mobile web site and not care which device it’s running on. That just makes sense – and developers will not go back to writing stand alone mobile applications for one specific platform because of this. Device Manufacturers make nice devices, but their software sucks.
All of this information consumption leads to another problem still, bandwidth, how to charge and how to collect, how to keep the pipes open and flowing all the while keeping them full.
3) Advertising Revenue and Service Plans: We purchase Cable TV and basically pay to have people advertise to use. Genius, whomever thought up this scam is pure genius! We get a questionably better and wider range of shows, and they get a wider range of shows to advertise to us on. But seriously think about this: the more mobile bandwidth we consume, the more information we consume, the more information we consume the bigger the range of information there is to advertise to us on. When you perform a mobile search on Yahoo! on your cell phone your carrier doesn't get a cut of the advertising revenue. The carrier builds the sidewalk for you to walk to the store on and then charges you for walking? Isn't there a problem here? The store keeps getting richer and richer, and I pay to walk to the store? No wonder nobody's walking. If Google / Microsoft / Yahoo! end up developing in house Mobile Phone Hardware products then they can get people walking by providing mobile users 1/2 or 3/4 or 7/8 of their advertising revenue to the carriers to help support the bandwidth use. This provides incentive for consumers by making it cheaper to consume bandwidth on particular sites (the bigco sites) than it does on other sites (the littleco) and provides value through the entire “digital supply chain” - sustenance. With the privatization of the internet – or at least private channels – this concept will only continue to grow. The real money in mobile correlates location to advertisement relevancy in that the advertisement viewed is more applicable in one geographic location over another. The big internet players are in much better position to be able to leverage these trends. They already own geographic tools, they own advertising networks and they have far more total cash on hand – they are much more agile businesses and they are far more use to working with their customers than say Nokia, Motorola or RIM. Simply put, Internet companies are in position to subsidize your viewing experience through the advertisements you consume and view. Carriers must work with the Internet Companies but not the Device Manufacturers to spread this wealth – So doesn’t it make sense to have the Internet Companies be the Device Manufacturers? Or at least be borderless against them?
4) Hardware Innovation: The cell phone manufacturers are no longer technology innovators. Hardware is basically stuck waiting for other bottlenecks to work themselves out. Sure sure, there is innovation to be had - I mean come on, the most successful part of the iPod was the scroll wheel – big deal. The Carriers support the huge costly 3G networks. Hardware can far outperform 90% of the capabilities of the networks it runs on. In many cases software actually correct these hardware issues. It is technically possible to watch an HD movie on my wireless device – but if everyone did it the cell networks wouldn’t be able to support it. So, it appears as Marc Cuban said – the internet is dead (I say it with a grain of salt). At least, there is no next revolution on the immediate horizon, just time for the array of technologies that have been building up to actually mature together leading the next software standard or should I say consumer software standard or what becomes the norm. In this type of a business climate, how is it possible for a company that supplies hardware (and arguably a bunch of crappy proprietary applications) to continue to drive growth? They can attempt to start their own social network or sharing sites, they can try to hook these into their devices, they can try to leverage enterprise software like a BES to drive unit sales inside the enterprise. They can’t do it by innovating on hardware because it’s already done. They can make their iPhone red, say it’s for AIDs and sell it, or use whatever gimmick to drive unit sales –BUT They CANNOT innovate in the arena’s that make the internet the internet: Consumption of information, Search, and Communication. With Hardware Innovation more driven by other technologies, this really means they can’t innovate (Camera innovations from camera companies and sold on license to phone manufacturers etc…). Even if RIM purchased Ask.com, I’d still use Yahoo! Mobile for search! With the release of the iPhone manufactures face an obvious ultimatum: connect your devices to the internet or die a slow cold death. But connect them using robust SOFTWARE like Opera Mini – Hardware is done – we are connected. Firefox – Make a Mobile Browser!!! Look what the internet has done to the music industry, look what it’s doing to television. It’s about to do the same thing to the mobile phone – and it’s all about consolidation and consumption of information – not hardware innovation – that makes our lives more convenient and simple given this is the norm we have to deal with.
Conclusion
It seems the only way to get total and complete mobile platform dominance is to make a mobile hardware device and put interfaces into all your internet services on it then force it down the carriers throat. So what if it’s built by Nokia – it’s branded and supported by Google, or Microsoft, or Yahoo!. It’s a gPhone, yPhone, or phonIE.
This is no longer about the Telephone, it’s a realization that we can make laptops so small and powerful that they look like phones, act like phones, and perform the same functions as phones. I’d welcome Google providing me a device that I can actually do stuff on, as opposed to this technologically advanced Blackberry Pearl that still can’t read bloody HTML emails.
Over and Out
29/08/2007
Google / Yahoo Phone
Just a quick side note on this one:
I think this is a move for both companies to get into Internet Tablet devices. I'd be betting Google and Yahoo are using the term "Phone" to appeal to certain people while the intent is to develop their own Internet PC's.
I wonder if Web OS's will take of in parallel?
Over And Out
I think this is a move for both companies to get into Internet Tablet devices. I'd be betting Google and Yahoo are using the term "Phone" to appeal to certain people while the intent is to develop their own Internet PC's.
I wonder if Web OS's will take of in parallel?
Over And Out
28/08/2007
Two Mobile Devices / Accessories I'd like to see
1) Touch Screen LCD with Web Browser and Bluetooth
I don't really care if it's Bluetooth or some other equal technology, but I'd like to see a tiny touch screen that can pair with my mobile phone that merely includes a full web browser sort of like the iPhone. The idea would be the built in Web Browser would be able to display any content from the mobile phone or internet VIA some type of wireless connection. I could put it on my desk to run a slideshow or I could carry it in my pocket to browse the web.
2) Standalone Cellular Internet Router Device
A mobile device which connects to cellular networks (note device has no LCD Screen or Qwerty keyboard), and broadcasts that internet connection over a short range wireless connection. The purpose of this device would be merely to enable other types of wireless devices to use a shared internet connection. You could connect the above screen to this device thereby utilizing the web as an OS.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of these things so if anyone has any suggestions as to what devices I should be looking into please let me know. As of current, I do not believe these devices exist.
Over and Out
I don't really care if it's Bluetooth or some other equal technology, but I'd like to see a tiny touch screen that can pair with my mobile phone that merely includes a full web browser sort of like the iPhone. The idea would be the built in Web Browser would be able to display any content from the mobile phone or internet VIA some type of wireless connection. I could put it on my desk to run a slideshow or I could carry it in my pocket to browse the web.
2) Standalone Cellular Internet Router Device
A mobile device which connects to cellular networks (note device has no LCD Screen or Qwerty keyboard), and broadcasts that internet connection over a short range wireless connection. The purpose of this device would be merely to enable other types of wireless devices to use a shared internet connection. You could connect the above screen to this device thereby utilizing the web as an OS.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of these things so if anyone has any suggestions as to what devices I should be looking into please let me know. As of current, I do not believe these devices exist.
Over and Out
16/08/2007
iPhone Apps = Mobile RIA = Blackberry X with Opera Mini
Yes the iPhone is a cool product that runs OSX over UNIX on a mobile device. My bet is the touch screen will bother more people than it helps, and I’m sure it’ll be a warranty issue as screens get scratched and fail to function. I like my tiny QWERTY that I can feel.
I had a Compaq iPaq back in 2001. It had a touch screen you COULD use with your thumb. It played Audio and Video. It worked on the Cell Network and doubled as my cell phone. It could communicate wirelessly over 802.11a and 802.11b, and even had an external GPS device. Sure it ran Window’s Mobile, not UNIX and OSX. Why didn’t it last in the consumer spectrum? Possibly because there were no mobile services for the device.
So I ask, what is the benefit of running OSX over UNIX when application developers write code for the Safari Browser? With the recent flurry of Mobile RIA’s targeting the iPhone is there really any reason Apple would open the platform and provide a native SDK?
Regardless, I have a Blackberry Pearl. It plays music, video, mobile TV, and runs many popular mobile applications like Opera Mini 4.1. Sure the screen is about a quarter the size of an iPhone, but guess what? It has no problem running iPhone RIA’s!
Try it for yourself:
Navigate to http://www.operamini.com/beta/ (on your device), download and install the new Opera 4 mini beta browser (which as a first includes a little mouse you can control with your trackball!!).
Setup Opera Mini on your device by launching it in the Main Menu (you should see the red O icon).
Navigate to any of the following sites:
That adds Social Network, News and IM functionality to your Blackberry device. Everything should run fine. I'm not totally sure if these sites run in Opera 3, regardless, I've installed Opera 4 mini beta.
I think it’s time that the industry in general starts labeling these Mobile RIA’s rather than iPhone applications.
Side Note: I bet there are a lot more Blackberry's out there than iPhones so branding a Blackberry / iPhone site may actually make a lot of sense.
Free Advice to RIM: Drop the Blackberry Browser and replace it with Opera Mini 4 on the base device. If you have features in the Blackberry Browser that are not in Opera Mini than work with Opera to have the features included.
Over and Out
I had a Compaq iPaq back in 2001. It had a touch screen you COULD use with your thumb. It played Audio and Video. It worked on the Cell Network and doubled as my cell phone. It could communicate wirelessly over 802.11a and 802.11b, and even had an external GPS device. Sure it ran Window’s Mobile, not UNIX and OSX. Why didn’t it last in the consumer spectrum? Possibly because there were no mobile services for the device.
So I ask, what is the benefit of running OSX over UNIX when application developers write code for the Safari Browser? With the recent flurry of Mobile RIA’s targeting the iPhone is there really any reason Apple would open the platform and provide a native SDK?
Regardless, I have a Blackberry Pearl. It plays music, video, mobile TV, and runs many popular mobile applications like Opera Mini 4.1. Sure the screen is about a quarter the size of an iPhone, but guess what? It has no problem running iPhone RIA’s!
Try it for yourself:
Navigate to http://www.operamini.com/beta/ (on your device), download and install the new Opera 4 mini beta browser (which as a first includes a little mouse you can control with your trackball!!).
Setup Opera Mini on your device by launching it in the Main Menu (you should see the red O icon).
Navigate to any of the following sites:
That adds Social Network, News and IM functionality to your Blackberry device. Everything should run fine. I'm not totally sure if these sites run in Opera 3, regardless, I've installed Opera 4 mini beta.
I think it’s time that the industry in general starts labeling these Mobile RIA’s rather than iPhone applications.
Side Note: I bet there are a lot more Blackberry's out there than iPhones so branding a Blackberry / iPhone site may actually make a lot of sense.
Free Advice to RIM: Drop the Blackberry Browser and replace it with Opera Mini 4 on the base device. If you have features in the Blackberry Browser that are not in Opera Mini than work with Opera to have the features included.
Over and Out
13/06/2007
Amp'd Bankrupt - Carriers hold the key to mobile $$!
So Amp'd is bankrupt. They officially filed their papers on June 1st and according to their press release:
My ignorant opinion into their situation is that this is a technology problem. My bet is cost didn't scale to revenue as it applied to licensing carrier network bandwidth. This should send a ping of caution out to other "closed shop" long tail mobile entertainment vendors: Carriers hold the key to Unlimited Mobile Entertainment and companies like AMP'd cannot compete.
No matter how you look at this technology, AMP'd must effectively build their delivery platform on the back of carrier networks. They are hostage to regional discrepancies in wireless bandwidth costs, which again is in the hands of the carrier. Their product offerings are constrained to the carriers network capabilities. Further, they compete against a plethora of mobile application vendors who will put in the technical effort to build applications and provide carriers with a white labelable solution to split revenue on. These companies will automatically gain a customer with every carrier subscription and hence could very easily grow AMP'dish sized user bases in a relative time.
I don't want to jump back into advertising but the truth is entertainment content (EX// TV, Radio, Newspaper, Magazines) is largely subsidized by advertising which AMP'd doesn't do well. This has and probably always will be the key to distributing entertainment content and until AMP'd can balance ad revenue and subscription revenue against human and network costs - I seriously doubt they will ever be a big player.
Simply put, digital entertainment consumption is increasing so quickly that even the Carriers do not have the hardware to supply demand - so how is a company like AMP'd going to do it? And in mobile, 10 million users isn't much - plus mobile advertising just doesn't have the payout like on the web.
I think this is a sign of bigger problems with the AMP'd model. Another discrepancy of their press release stated:
The big question is: What Carrier will Buy Them?, or is it What Carrier would buy them!??
I'm just glad that I'm not their big investor.
Over and Out
P.S., I wonder how many Canadians didn't appreciate the way Amp'd directed users to it's Canadian site (see below). I personally don't appreciate the words they used. I'd like it if the Canadian site had a link to the American site using some stereotypical Americanism like Fat Capitalist Pig, War-Mongers etc. If you are a business and you are going regional with your web properties, at least respect the region you are doing business in - don't see pig meat to the Taliban. I'd say this is a fundamental, and the CEO should get fired for this oversight. It's such a simple business procedure: don't piss your customers off. Nice Work AMP'D, Nice Work
"As a result of our rapid growth, our back-end infrastructure was unable to keep up with customer demand. We are taking this step as a necessary and responsible action to sustain and strengthen our momentum in the market place."This has to be one of the first times I've seen a company file Chapter 11 for reasons including rapid growth and demand exceeding supply.
My ignorant opinion into their situation is that this is a technology problem. My bet is cost didn't scale to revenue as it applied to licensing carrier network bandwidth. This should send a ping of caution out to other "closed shop" long tail mobile entertainment vendors: Carriers hold the key to Unlimited Mobile Entertainment and companies like AMP'd cannot compete.
No matter how you look at this technology, AMP'd must effectively build their delivery platform on the back of carrier networks. They are hostage to regional discrepancies in wireless bandwidth costs, which again is in the hands of the carrier. Their product offerings are constrained to the carriers network capabilities. Further, they compete against a plethora of mobile application vendors who will put in the technical effort to build applications and provide carriers with a white labelable solution to split revenue on. These companies will automatically gain a customer with every carrier subscription and hence could very easily grow AMP'dish sized user bases in a relative time.
I don't want to jump back into advertising but the truth is entertainment content (EX// TV, Radio, Newspaper, Magazines) is largely subsidized by advertising which AMP'd doesn't do well. This has and probably always will be the key to distributing entertainment content and until AMP'd can balance ad revenue and subscription revenue against human and network costs - I seriously doubt they will ever be a big player.
Simply put, digital entertainment consumption is increasing so quickly that even the Carriers do not have the hardware to supply demand - so how is a company like AMP'd going to do it? And in mobile, 10 million users isn't much - plus mobile advertising just doesn't have the payout like on the web.
I think this is a sign of bigger problems with the AMP'd model. Another discrepancy of their press release stated:
"Amp'd Mobile's senior management team remains largely intact as we continue to focus on improving and scaling our backend infrastructure."Yet this statement was followed by the announcement that (by mocoNews.net):
"Peter Adderton, the embattled CEO of the now-in-Chapter-11 MVNO Amp’d Mobile, has left the firm as CEO. He is still on the board and is still the largest individual shareholder. The company is going through Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the management overhaul is to be expected."Somebody somewhere needs to get their story straight. In this case I have to think its AMP'd that isn't fully disclosing the truth.
The big question is: What Carrier will Buy Them?, or is it What Carrier would buy them!??
I'm just glad that I'm not their big investor.
Over and Out
P.S., I wonder how many Canadians didn't appreciate the way Amp'd directed users to it's Canadian site (see below). I personally don't appreciate the words they used. I'd like it if the Canadian site had a link to the American site using some stereotypical Americanism like Fat Capitalist Pig, War-Mongers etc. If you are a business and you are going regional with your web properties, at least respect the region you are doing business in - don't see pig meat to the Taliban. I'd say this is a fundamental, and the CEO should get fired for this oversight. It's such a simple business procedure: don't piss your customers off. Nice Work AMP'D, Nice Work
23/05/2007
Internet vs. Satellite Radio: Mobile Pandora.com + Sonos Zone Player + Sprint MP3 Purchase Solution.
Sometimes I feel like I’m on some sort of corporate marketing see saw that just keeps going up and down and down and up and up and down and … a couple years ago we started hearing about XM satellite radio, then Sirius (and we built their Canadian web site).
But seriously, who hasn’t heard of satellite radio yet? Who has heard satellite radio? Who listens to satellite radio as their primary audio consumption channel? I think I know one person who got a device for free at work and bought a subscription for a couple months. They genuinely enjoyed it, but they definitely were not into the wide variety of programming (hell I dated her for two years and she still couldn’t remember my 4 digit buzzer code, that has two unique numbers repeated once). How can you expect a person like this to remember the satellite radio channels without using the paper menu / radio programming guide – especially if they only use it in their car? Needless to say she listened to about two satellite radio channels and then probably forgot that she even had it or a subscription. She could however remember the artists she liked.
Nobody really blogs about the business behind internet radio, the silent player making big headway over digital delivery channels. I’m sure internet radio can be just as easily piped over a satellite connection, but I mean typically web based internet radio. Built for indiscriminate web based consumption. I’ve fallen in love with Pandora.com, an web based radio disc jockey. It’s possibly the best automatic DJ solution I’ve ever come by. It plays what I like, skips what I don’t (after one single thumbs down click), and keeps the music fresh by compiling lists of similar songs / artists / albums and grouping them into radio stations for playback. It makes it easy if I want to listen to Linkin Park, I click on the Linkin Park station. So on and so forth. Another site and community is Fine Tune (http://www.finetune.com/), I don’t like it as much because I have to do stuff. But if you’re a doer, and you like more control over your play-list, then it may be for you.
I’ve been fighting the iPod / MP3 player craze for a number of reasons. The biggest reason being that I think it’s silly and borderline crazy to store up to 80GB of music on a portable device that you carry around with you. It’s too easy to lose, too easy to smash up, drop in the water, and well, I already have a mobile phone to carry around and smash up so I don’t need more junk. Thus it’s not very shocking that we’re seeing MP3 players being pushed into mobile devices – and I cite the clunky iPhone as Apples’ last ditch effort to get in on that consolidating market.
I woke up last week to find out that Pandora was being shut down perminently in Canada. I said boo for a second, configured my proxy, and can still connect (note to US congress: we will always find way’s around your soft embrace with the RIAA).
OK so back to Satellite Radio, the thing that really sucks about the Satellite Radio we have up North is I have to purchase a device and another subscription to the Satellite Radio service. I once asked my uncle (CEO of a major multinational corporation) if he’d consume news information on his Blackberry. He looked at me, laughed, and asked: “why would I use my blackberry when I have a newspaper”. I didn’t retort to the many reasons why he could get better more global information delivered to his Blackberry in a more timely manner. I could tell in his eyes he thought I was crazy. He could tell I thought he was crazy. And we had a silent moment where I understood what a newspaper meant to him. To be frank, news isn’t that important to him, he got all the information he needed for his life for free – and didn’t have such urgency to consume information in real time.
Possibly this is what radio is to us? An audio media channel we consume in a manner of complete and utter convenience. I wouldn’t personally pay for both a device, and a subscription! That just seems crazy for someone like me that doesn’t commute above ground where the signal is available, nor even drive into work. And still, I’d have to carry another little annoying device around like the iPod that will break down and see me losing my music (please no stupid back-up your data comments here cause I’ll be frank and cite Murphy’s law in retort). But that technology can only get better (Note: most likely a hybrid approach with like an “underground cache”).
Sprint has announced a deal to bundle Pandora and Sonos with it’s next generation mobile devices. Not only is this my dream come true, but it’s my worst nightmare as I can’t subscribe to this service in Canada. Nonetheless, if I could, the cool part is, I can get a subscription to Pandora content for merely $2.99 per month on my cell phone – compared to $15-$30 per month on Sirius. I just think that’s a great price for a great service of convenience. I really want Pandora to succeed because I think Satellite radio is just too complicated – and I want internet based mobile CDN’s to take off and kick start the mobile network supply chain. The Sonos device allows users to stream media from their home PC to anywhere with a wireless connection – but at over $30 per month, I think I’ll continue to pass on that one!
This leaves me with one major question for satellite radio providers. I know the scale of the Sat CDN is huge. But the internet will deliver similar quality content in the very near future with equal reach but with many more devices. What is satellite radio going to do when bandwidth is inconsequential and digital music can just as easily be streamed over the mobile web in mass? Wouldn’t it be smart for XM and Sirius to partner with the Motorola, Nokia and RIM’s of the world to get their “radio bands” built into these consumer devices? I guess ultimately this is the Carriers decision.
Stay tuned for the big picture coming tomorrow …
But seriously, who hasn’t heard of satellite radio yet? Who has heard satellite radio? Who listens to satellite radio as their primary audio consumption channel? I think I know one person who got a device for free at work and bought a subscription for a couple months. They genuinely enjoyed it, but they definitely were not into the wide variety of programming (hell I dated her for two years and she still couldn’t remember my 4 digit buzzer code, that has two unique numbers repeated once). How can you expect a person like this to remember the satellite radio channels without using the paper menu / radio programming guide – especially if they only use it in their car? Needless to say she listened to about two satellite radio channels and then probably forgot that she even had it or a subscription. She could however remember the artists she liked.
Nobody really blogs about the business behind internet radio, the silent player making big headway over digital delivery channels. I’m sure internet radio can be just as easily piped over a satellite connection, but I mean typically web based internet radio. Built for indiscriminate web based consumption. I’ve fallen in love with Pandora.com, an web based radio disc jockey. It’s possibly the best automatic DJ solution I’ve ever come by. It plays what I like, skips what I don’t (after one single thumbs down click), and keeps the music fresh by compiling lists of similar songs / artists / albums and grouping them into radio stations for playback. It makes it easy if I want to listen to Linkin Park, I click on the Linkin Park station. So on and so forth. Another site and community is Fine Tune (http://www.finetune.com/), I don’t like it as much because I have to do stuff. But if you’re a doer, and you like more control over your play-list, then it may be for you.
I’ve been fighting the iPod / MP3 player craze for a number of reasons. The biggest reason being that I think it’s silly and borderline crazy to store up to 80GB of music on a portable device that you carry around with you. It’s too easy to lose, too easy to smash up, drop in the water, and well, I already have a mobile phone to carry around and smash up so I don’t need more junk. Thus it’s not very shocking that we’re seeing MP3 players being pushed into mobile devices – and I cite the clunky iPhone as Apples’ last ditch effort to get in on that consolidating market.
I woke up last week to find out that Pandora was being shut down perminently in Canada. I said boo for a second, configured my proxy, and can still connect (note to US congress: we will always find way’s around your soft embrace with the RIAA).
OK so back to Satellite Radio, the thing that really sucks about the Satellite Radio we have up North is I have to purchase a device and another subscription to the Satellite Radio service. I once asked my uncle (CEO of a major multinational corporation) if he’d consume news information on his Blackberry. He looked at me, laughed, and asked: “why would I use my blackberry when I have a newspaper”. I didn’t retort to the many reasons why he could get better more global information delivered to his Blackberry in a more timely manner. I could tell in his eyes he thought I was crazy. He could tell I thought he was crazy. And we had a silent moment where I understood what a newspaper meant to him. To be frank, news isn’t that important to him, he got all the information he needed for his life for free – and didn’t have such urgency to consume information in real time.
Possibly this is what radio is to us? An audio media channel we consume in a manner of complete and utter convenience. I wouldn’t personally pay for both a device, and a subscription! That just seems crazy for someone like me that doesn’t commute above ground where the signal is available, nor even drive into work. And still, I’d have to carry another little annoying device around like the iPod that will break down and see me losing my music (please no stupid back-up your data comments here cause I’ll be frank and cite Murphy’s law in retort). But that technology can only get better (Note: most likely a hybrid approach with like an “underground cache”).
Sprint has announced a deal to bundle Pandora and Sonos with it’s next generation mobile devices. Not only is this my dream come true, but it’s my worst nightmare as I can’t subscribe to this service in Canada. Nonetheless, if I could, the cool part is, I can get a subscription to Pandora content for merely $2.99 per month on my cell phone – compared to $15-$30 per month on Sirius. I just think that’s a great price for a great service of convenience. I really want Pandora to succeed because I think Satellite radio is just too complicated – and I want internet based mobile CDN’s to take off and kick start the mobile network supply chain. The Sonos device allows users to stream media from their home PC to anywhere with a wireless connection – but at over $30 per month, I think I’ll continue to pass on that one!
This leaves me with one major question for satellite radio providers. I know the scale of the Sat CDN is huge. But the internet will deliver similar quality content in the very near future with equal reach but with many more devices. What is satellite radio going to do when bandwidth is inconsequential and digital music can just as easily be streamed over the mobile web in mass? Wouldn’t it be smart for XM and Sirius to partner with the Motorola, Nokia and RIM’s of the world to get their “radio bands” built into these consumer devices? I guess ultimately this is the Carriers decision.
Stay tuned for the big picture coming tomorrow …
27/04/2007
Graeme Thickins' Takeaways
Great post over at ReadWriteWeb regarding Web 2.0 Technologies. I've copied pretty much the entire article and have made some comments below:
Web 2.0 Is Going Beyond the Consumer Market: There's no doubt these technologies will be increasingly applied within enterprises, and that's a good thing. The big vendors see this and were all over this venue - exhibiting, presenting, and otherwise.
The VC Investment Model for IT/Software Is Changing: Because new Web 2.0 ventures don't need much money to get going, the VC business is being somewhat disrupted. A new style of early-stage VC firm seems to be gaining. It's becoming obvious that the big funds don't fit in here. These days, a mere $250-750K is all that's needed to prove assumptions, one VC said. And angel investors are newly energized.
We Are Not a Market: One of the best quotes I heard at this event was by one of this new brand of VCs, Josh Kopelman of First Round Capital: "The TechCrunch audience and this group here is not a market (for a startup). Success in this group might be necessary, but it's not sufficient. The real world doesn't understand this stuff."
Marketing Is Rising: And one of the next best quotes I heard was in that same panel, from VC Jeff Clavier of SoftTech: "We need to start seeing real money spent on marketing." The signs are good. Everywhere at Web 2.0 Expo, I saw evidence that a large part of the conversation, and in fact the event's program, was about marketing. Kudos to the producers for that!
SEO Is Rising: A corollary to the above is that SEO, far from declining as one noted blogger/entrepreneur posited recently, is becoming a major focus in the marketing world - hand-in-hand with skills in social media. This is the new sandbox for marketers; and that is exciting. Widgets are emerging as well - another important and related marketing medium.
Another Reason Not to Get Cocky: Lest we think that we as Internet users are so much in control today, consider this: there are only one billion PC users, while two billion people worldwide use mobile phones. The Web is far from universal yet and certainly it will be some time before the advances that we call Web 2.0 become widely used worldwide - on desktops, $100 laptops, cell phones, or whatever. Maybe next year's Expo should be in China or India?
Offline Web Apps Are a Next Big Thing: The demo of Apollo, by Kevin Lynch of Adobe, was awesome - even though it is still in alpha. And Etelos, another event sponsor, had a great way to position their new offline offering: "Apps on a Plane." Who wouldn't like that?
Parts of this story were reposted from ReadWriteWeb!
Web 2.0 Is Going Beyond the Consumer Market: There's no doubt these technologies will be increasingly applied within enterprises, and that's a good thing. The big vendors see this and were all over this venue - exhibiting, presenting, and otherwise.
- It's about time. I've always wondered why companies had not internalized sites such as Dells outward facing idea site. I wonder what type of value could be derrived from internal Web 2.0 sites. Is it time a company like Facebook got into Enterprise group stuff?
The VC Investment Model for IT/Software Is Changing: Because new Web 2.0 ventures don't need much money to get going, the VC business is being somewhat disrupted. A new style of early-stage VC firm seems to be gaining. It's becoming obvious that the big funds don't fit in here. These days, a mere $250-750K is all that's needed to prove assumptions, one VC said. And angel investors are newly energized.
- Does this mean they can now invest 750K and sell for $1.65 Billion? Will this limit new startups that would otherwise require more cash (see anything over 750K as something MSFT or GOOG should do)? YCombinator!!!!!!
We Are Not a Market: One of the best quotes I heard at this event was by one of this new brand of VCs, Josh Kopelman of First Round Capital: "The TechCrunch audience and this group here is not a market (for a startup). Success in this group might be necessary, but it's not sufficient. The real world doesn't understand this stuff."
Marketing Is Rising: And one of the next best quotes I heard was in that same panel, from VC Jeff Clavier of SoftTech: "We need to start seeing real money spent on marketing." The signs are good. Everywhere at Web 2.0 Expo, I saw evidence that a large part of the conversation, and in fact the event's program, was about marketing. Kudos to the producers for that!
SEO Is Rising: A corollary to the above is that SEO, far from declining as one noted blogger/entrepreneur posited recently, is becoming a major focus in the marketing world - hand-in-hand with skills in social media. This is the new sandbox for marketers; and that is exciting. Widgets are emerging as well - another important and related marketing medium.
- Will be interesting to see how widgets affect the digital advertising market. Wonder if Ads will become generic placeholders where content is positioned after or on page load (EX// company purchases spot and can control their ad at runtime).
Another Reason Not to Get Cocky: Lest we think that we as Internet users are so much in control today, consider this: there are only one billion PC users, while two billion people worldwide use mobile phones. The Web is far from universal yet and certainly it will be some time before the advances that we call Web 2.0 become widely used worldwide - on desktops, $100 laptops, cell phones, or whatever. Maybe next year's Expo should be in China or India?
- This is not news to me. I don't understand how people can focus on the below when there are millions of mobile phones to tap. This is where my money is - the extension of social networks to mobile phones.
Offline Web Apps Are a Next Big Thing: The demo of Apollo, by Kevin Lynch of Adobe, was awesome - even though it is still in alpha. And Etelos, another event sponsor, had a great way to position their new offline offering: "Apps on a Plane." Who wouldn't like that?
- I really hate to say this to people: Microsoft was pushing RIA's back in 2000 and it is now news because of all these JavaScript sites. Anything that allows you to code an interface in HTML / Flash could be considered an offline web app. We built these types of things 6-7 years ago and people slept on the technology. Why will this be any different? How will this be any different?
Parts of this story were reposted from ReadWriteWeb!
11/04/2007
Google vs. Microsoft: Who’s Loco? Who’s Local?
A major point of concern for MSFT has to be the huge shadow being cast by it’s Mountain View competitor. Although Microsoft has nearly double the market cap and superior technology to it’s little competitor, it’s one step behind strategy, has proven a fruitless approach to delivering any type of value against the Google brand in most competitive markets. Further, their inability to create any type of hype around the release of their products, have left them watching from the bottom of the mountain as Google continues to grow.
Microsoft released Virtual Earth, a significantly more robust web based mapping site – in comparison to Google’s product(s). The only downsides were, being a web based plugin, it required the Internet Explorer browser to properly render the 3D graphics, and had a limited proprietary API. Virtual Earth takes the ball as the superior mapping product - http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com/2006/11/07/google-earth-vs-microsoft-virtual-earth-3d-revisited/ – However, Google with their broad vision (to be nice) built some very interesting and key differentiators: 3D warehouse, Google Maps API, and most recently My Maps. These differentiators – when leveraged against their Adsense platform - have proven more engaging to customers and to the spite of it’s competitors, has driven traffic / popularity against their mapping products, built on profitable Adsense revenues, and promoted their real entry into local markets.
While MSFT tossed millions into paying developers to build their entire 3D cities (the quality of the output shows they have the best product), GOOG turned to it’s community (which had already created thousands of mashups against the web based Google Maps product) and got them to volunteer to build their cities. According to Google, millions of users create 3D models and share them through the Google 3D Warehouse. Google has created something more than just a mapping product – they have created a community of map enthusiasts, developers and have reached audiences en-mass, encouraging everyone to input the data key to the future of their local initiatives.
Google Earth is the bread and butter of Google’s line of mapping products, Google Maps it’s web based “little big brother”. Bloggers have begun comparing the Earth platform to the Second Life platform suggesting Google is attempting to create a virtual world in which avators may interact and learn more about our world.
How can we lump Google’s line of mapping products and compare them to the singular Microsoft Virtual Earth platform? Very simply. Everything comes down to data, the ability of developers to integrate this data into their products (viral spread of the platform to new use), the accuracy of that data (trust), and the cash cow: the ability of users to actually make use of that data in a controlled fashion when they want it (access).
I would argue businesses require this Geographic Information for analysis, planning and etc’s as they apply it to solve process, supply chain, marketing or etc functions. In a very simple sense, business will pay tons of money to understand how they can make better use of geography – and ultimately – this cost will be passed on to the consumers who are actually making use of the goods or services these businesses produce (or other businesses etc). GOOG and MSFT, realizing the untapped digital value of geography, are attempting to drill into these geographic markets. They are largely doing this through their mapping and location platforms.
We’ve started to see a strategy shift in the Big Co’s of the digital economy. Globalization / Global market reach was a major driver behind the internet of the ninety’s – and is what built Microsoft and Google. But now, they are global – and they can’t get much more global without serious economic changes in the underdeveloped parts of the world. Hence, they see a huge growth drivers in local markets. But how much money can really be spent over the internet on Local markets? Well, for someone like me, almost 95% of my disposable income is spent on local goods – and I’m sure this is also the case with most people.
Again, and back to the Map product debate, in the area of providing local information to map users Microsoft is the clear winner. Simply put, the interface to deliver the information is clear, easy to access and generally looks great. I find Google Maps very difficult to find local information in. The map interface is clear but nothing jumps out at me.
However Google takes a much different approach to going local, and again, they have tapped the masses and infact, have allowed their users to create local content that matters by themselves – all the while using Google’s web based map technologies. As Alex Iskold points out in his read write web article (Google The Ultimate Money Making Machine: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_the_ultimate_money_making_machine.php)
“Google - through its text ads strategy - has managed to weave itself into the very fabric of the Web. In doing this, the company freed itself from even Internet geography and became ubiquitous. By empowering companies and individuals to publish Google ads on their sites, Google solved the unlimited supply and demand problem in one fell swoop.”
And here Google goes again, doing the exact same thing with it’s mapping products (not to mention talk). They released their API for free, told us to have fun with it and gave us a fully usable model of the world to do anything with. Then came cheapgas.com a Google Map based wiki style mash-up providing information on where to find the cheapest gas closest to where you were (has only recently diverged from a mash-up site).
Further, they have partnered with firms such as Apple and RIM to push their technologies to be the “defaults” in their mobile devices. They have done what they can to push their mapping infrastructure VIA the appropriate channels, and have left it up to the developers and users to build and use the local datasets.
I see a clear path for Microsoft to monetize their mapping products (tolls, recommendations, e-Flyer stuff, Windows Mobile …), but without true ownership of their data, the Google model is more difficult to monetize. However, the fact that end users can update the local data points goes a long way to providing more accurate data to users – and it still allows the Google to get rich off Adsense. A perfect example is the mywikimaps.com cheap gas mash-up where users are continually updating gas prices all over North America. This is something that Microsoft could do through some proprietary network, but it would be costly, and would only serve to copy something that exists, and works, at next to no additional cost to Google’s infrastructure. I think I’d rather the Microsoft route – but I do not see this being a strategic option for Microsoft in it’s quest to get local – it will cost too much, only satisfy one local market at a time and is too divergent from their strategy. This model cannot work in a scale against the almost uncountable local markets.
From a purely competitive standpoint, the winner is the company who can best monetize the local dollar – and no clear winner has been defined at this point. Ironically, the winner may be decided based on who can entice who to use their Ad product. However, I do prefer the way Google gathers information over the Microsoft methodology – but it will be interesting to see how the quality of the Google information holds up over time. For example, when I registered my firm with Google they sent me a confirmation letter in the mail and once I had completed a couple easy steps I could find my business on their maps and business directory. As long as I use Google for something, and that something continues to be better than the competition (Adsense), then I will keep my information up to date in their catalogs – and their Map product will continue to have accurate listings – but when the day comes where another firm can provide a more complete or all encompassing solution to me (Microsoft ??), I will stop updating their catalogs (or may do so less frequently or at a lower priority).
There are a lot of real dollars to be had in the Local space and I’d love see these firms earning these real dollars. The unfortunate truth may be that as we drill further into local, these Big Co’s continue to realize revenue against their more traditional revenue streams (Google Adsense, Microsoft Windows + Crossbow??). Innovation will probably continue to be built on top of these platforms to keep shareholders happy. The quest to provide all encompassing local information to users will probably continue to be a cash sink until the proper bolts are found to mount it to the good old “brick and mortor” business.
For example, I can see Google only entering local spaces where they can leverage their Adsense platform against their geo-coded datasets (which is an insanely massive dataset), when they can push froogle.com to the local street level (possibly via virtual earth), where it makes sense for an innovative marketing initiative (Google Security Search at Airports), and stumble into markets (cheap gas) where there is a tremendous demand for information created by their user base. I’m not to concerned about the divergence between their Maps site and the Earth Application. Again, it’s the information that makes these products useful, and there is no doubt in my mind they will be consolidated at some point in time. There is a lot of interesting stuff that can come out of their virtual world and it will be interesting to see what happens. I also wouldn’t leave cellular services out of the picture for Google – but I wouldn’t consider them a front runner – more of a partner – lets see what they can really do with mobile that Microsoft can’t.
Microsoft on the other hand, just have to keep pushing forward integrating maps into mobile, pushing their smart phone platform, and leveraging their already large business user base with a focus on what these users need to perform their local duties (especially traveling executives). One of the more interesting opportunities for Microsoft is in leveraging its existing channels (Expedia, Health, MSN …) against these local opportunities in a similar fashion to the froogle opportunity. I see RIM as Microsoft’s next target if they really do want to go local – in fact I see any company that refuses to make a Windows Mobile version of their device a target. They need to monopolize their operating system into the palms of users they way they did with Windows. They need to make their channels the defaults on these devices, they have to leverage their seemingly “normal” (bland) local service directory based on the location of the device on the earths surface, all the while keep their platform open enough as to not continue to be seen as an evil untrustworthy company.
The next 3-4 years are going to be huge for smart phones, and internet enabled devices. The bottom line is who ever gets there first, and can exert some sort of staying power will probably control our mobile channels. However, my prediction is local will be dependent on devices not on traditional desktop / laptop personal computers. The vast array of internet tablets for instance may allow a new level of integration between the kitchen, workshops, family members and friends that is unparalleled to anything we have today.
Finally, although Microsoft holds the superior technology and has a tight business user base yet Google holds the heart (and reflex finger movements) of most consumer users. It’s tough to call who will come out on top. Having said this, and as a techie MS pro, Microsoft will be tough to beat.
Let me know what you think.
Over and Out
Microsoft released Virtual Earth, a significantly more robust web based mapping site – in comparison to Google’s product(s). The only downsides were, being a web based plugin, it required the Internet Explorer browser to properly render the 3D graphics, and had a limited proprietary API. Virtual Earth takes the ball as the superior mapping product - http://www.spatiallyadjusted.com/2006/11/07/google-earth-vs-microsoft-virtual-earth-3d-revisited/ – However, Google with their broad vision (to be nice) built some very interesting and key differentiators: 3D warehouse, Google Maps API, and most recently My Maps. These differentiators – when leveraged against their Adsense platform - have proven more engaging to customers and to the spite of it’s competitors, has driven traffic / popularity against their mapping products, built on profitable Adsense revenues, and promoted their real entry into local markets.
While MSFT tossed millions into paying developers to build their entire 3D cities (the quality of the output shows they have the best product), GOOG turned to it’s community (which had already created thousands of mashups against the web based Google Maps product) and got them to volunteer to build their cities. According to Google, millions of users create 3D models and share them through the Google 3D Warehouse. Google has created something more than just a mapping product – they have created a community of map enthusiasts, developers and have reached audiences en-mass, encouraging everyone to input the data key to the future of their local initiatives.
Google Earth is the bread and butter of Google’s line of mapping products, Google Maps it’s web based “little big brother”. Bloggers have begun comparing the Earth platform to the Second Life platform suggesting Google is attempting to create a virtual world in which avators may interact and learn more about our world.
How can we lump Google’s line of mapping products and compare them to the singular Microsoft Virtual Earth platform? Very simply. Everything comes down to data, the ability of developers to integrate this data into their products (viral spread of the platform to new use), the accuracy of that data (trust), and the cash cow: the ability of users to actually make use of that data in a controlled fashion when they want it (access).
I would argue businesses require this Geographic Information for analysis, planning and etc’s as they apply it to solve process, supply chain, marketing or etc functions. In a very simple sense, business will pay tons of money to understand how they can make better use of geography – and ultimately – this cost will be passed on to the consumers who are actually making use of the goods or services these businesses produce (or other businesses etc). GOOG and MSFT, realizing the untapped digital value of geography, are attempting to drill into these geographic markets. They are largely doing this through their mapping and location platforms.
We’ve started to see a strategy shift in the Big Co’s of the digital economy. Globalization / Global market reach was a major driver behind the internet of the ninety’s – and is what built Microsoft and Google. But now, they are global – and they can’t get much more global without serious economic changes in the underdeveloped parts of the world. Hence, they see a huge growth drivers in local markets. But how much money can really be spent over the internet on Local markets? Well, for someone like me, almost 95% of my disposable income is spent on local goods – and I’m sure this is also the case with most people.
Again, and back to the Map product debate, in the area of providing local information to map users Microsoft is the clear winner. Simply put, the interface to deliver the information is clear, easy to access and generally looks great. I find Google Maps very difficult to find local information in. The map interface is clear but nothing jumps out at me.
However Google takes a much different approach to going local, and again, they have tapped the masses and infact, have allowed their users to create local content that matters by themselves – all the while using Google’s web based map technologies. As Alex Iskold points out in his read write web article (Google The Ultimate Money Making Machine: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_the_ultimate_money_making_machine.php)
“Google - through its text ads strategy - has managed to weave itself into the very fabric of the Web. In doing this, the company freed itself from even Internet geography and became ubiquitous. By empowering companies and individuals to publish Google ads on their sites, Google solved the unlimited supply and demand problem in one fell swoop.”
And here Google goes again, doing the exact same thing with it’s mapping products (not to mention talk). They released their API for free, told us to have fun with it and gave us a fully usable model of the world to do anything with. Then came cheapgas.com a Google Map based wiki style mash-up providing information on where to find the cheapest gas closest to where you were (has only recently diverged from a mash-up site).
Further, they have partnered with firms such as Apple and RIM to push their technologies to be the “defaults” in their mobile devices. They have done what they can to push their mapping infrastructure VIA the appropriate channels, and have left it up to the developers and users to build and use the local datasets.
I see a clear path for Microsoft to monetize their mapping products (tolls, recommendations, e-Flyer stuff, Windows Mobile …), but without true ownership of their data, the Google model is more difficult to monetize. However, the fact that end users can update the local data points goes a long way to providing more accurate data to users – and it still allows the Google to get rich off Adsense. A perfect example is the mywikimaps.com cheap gas mash-up where users are continually updating gas prices all over North America. This is something that Microsoft could do through some proprietary network, but it would be costly, and would only serve to copy something that exists, and works, at next to no additional cost to Google’s infrastructure. I think I’d rather the Microsoft route – but I do not see this being a strategic option for Microsoft in it’s quest to get local – it will cost too much, only satisfy one local market at a time and is too divergent from their strategy. This model cannot work in a scale against the almost uncountable local markets.
From a purely competitive standpoint, the winner is the company who can best monetize the local dollar – and no clear winner has been defined at this point. Ironically, the winner may be decided based on who can entice who to use their Ad product. However, I do prefer the way Google gathers information over the Microsoft methodology – but it will be interesting to see how the quality of the Google information holds up over time. For example, when I registered my firm with Google they sent me a confirmation letter in the mail and once I had completed a couple easy steps I could find my business on their maps and business directory. As long as I use Google for something, and that something continues to be better than the competition (Adsense), then I will keep my information up to date in their catalogs – and their Map product will continue to have accurate listings – but when the day comes where another firm can provide a more complete or all encompassing solution to me (Microsoft ??), I will stop updating their catalogs (or may do so less frequently or at a lower priority).
There are a lot of real dollars to be had in the Local space and I’d love see these firms earning these real dollars. The unfortunate truth may be that as we drill further into local, these Big Co’s continue to realize revenue against their more traditional revenue streams (Google Adsense, Microsoft Windows + Crossbow??). Innovation will probably continue to be built on top of these platforms to keep shareholders happy. The quest to provide all encompassing local information to users will probably continue to be a cash sink until the proper bolts are found to mount it to the good old “brick and mortor” business.
For example, I can see Google only entering local spaces where they can leverage their Adsense platform against their geo-coded datasets (which is an insanely massive dataset), when they can push froogle.com to the local street level (possibly via virtual earth), where it makes sense for an innovative marketing initiative (Google Security Search at Airports), and stumble into markets (cheap gas) where there is a tremendous demand for information created by their user base. I’m not to concerned about the divergence between their Maps site and the Earth Application. Again, it’s the information that makes these products useful, and there is no doubt in my mind they will be consolidated at some point in time. There is a lot of interesting stuff that can come out of their virtual world and it will be interesting to see what happens. I also wouldn’t leave cellular services out of the picture for Google – but I wouldn’t consider them a front runner – more of a partner – lets see what they can really do with mobile that Microsoft can’t.
Microsoft on the other hand, just have to keep pushing forward integrating maps into mobile, pushing their smart phone platform, and leveraging their already large business user base with a focus on what these users need to perform their local duties (especially traveling executives). One of the more interesting opportunities for Microsoft is in leveraging its existing channels (Expedia, Health, MSN …) against these local opportunities in a similar fashion to the froogle opportunity. I see RIM as Microsoft’s next target if they really do want to go local – in fact I see any company that refuses to make a Windows Mobile version of their device a target. They need to monopolize their operating system into the palms of users they way they did with Windows. They need to make their channels the defaults on these devices, they have to leverage their seemingly “normal” (bland) local service directory based on the location of the device on the earths surface, all the while keep their platform open enough as to not continue to be seen as an evil untrustworthy company.
The next 3-4 years are going to be huge for smart phones, and internet enabled devices. The bottom line is who ever gets there first, and can exert some sort of staying power will probably control our mobile channels. However, my prediction is local will be dependent on devices not on traditional desktop / laptop personal computers. The vast array of internet tablets for instance may allow a new level of integration between the kitchen, workshops, family members and friends that is unparalleled to anything we have today.
Finally, although Microsoft holds the superior technology and has a tight business user base yet Google holds the heart (and reflex finger movements) of most consumer users. It’s tough to call who will come out on top. Having said this, and as a techie MS pro, Microsoft will be tough to beat.
Let me know what you think.
Over and Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)