Mobile 2.0 and Emerging Mobile Media Services

Verizon Wireless is essentially pursuing a two-pronged strategy. They continue to pursue their existing retail wireless business that is likely to remain a somewhat walled-garden approach to content (e.g., akin to early AOL or akin to a Cable model). In parallel, they will pursue what they are calling their Open Development Initiative (ODI).

This post will focus on putting their ODI in context in terms of the long-standing discussion about openness in mobile.

Verizon’s ODI

The following summary is based on my notes from yesterday’s Open Development Conference in New York City. If you viewed the webcast or attended in person, feel free to skip to the next section.

Verizon has announced three models as part of their Open Development Initiative (ODI):

In the retail model, a third-party can be responsible for creating, marketing, distributing and selling of new devices, but not the actual voice, data or content service. After the device is certified and is activated (e.g., by some retail outlet), Verizon handles the billing and customer service directly with the subscriber. The third-party is responsible for submitting and responding to the Verizon testing and certification procedure. In short, the retail model enables companies to create and sell new devices that run on the Verizon network.

In the wholesale model, a third-party is can be responsible for creating, marketing, distributing and selling of both devices and services. The certification process is similar to that described above. With regards to billing, content and customer service, Verizon provides the reporting and subscriber information to the third-party, who is then responsible for handling the billing and customer service with the subscriber directly. In short, the wholesale model enables companies to create and deploy devices and services that utilize Verizon’s network. We have seen aspects of their wholesle ODI strategy already via their wholesale network relationships (e.g., Amp’d).

The custom model is a bucket for anything that does not fit squarely into the retail or wholesale model. One example of a custom model would be a device that comes bundled with data capabilities and as would not require a Verizon service contract. Another example would be third-parties that not only wanted to create devices and use Verizon’s network on a wholesale basis but also want to access various Verizon platforms should as location, messaging and content (e.g., music catalog).

Verizon is positioning the value of its networks and platforms. They will provide a voice and data network and will ensure a stable core IP network that will operate consistently as they evolve from their 3G to 4G RF networks.

According to Verizon, the key things they want to accomplish with their device requirements is to (i) protect their network and their customers, (ii) make sure the specs were not more rigorous than their current retail specs, and (iii) want to base it on industry standards as much as possible. The certification process is likely to be two 4-week processes (depending on the readiness of the device). The device certification process is divided into three stages: pre-certification, certification and maintenance. The remaining four weeks is dedicated to network certification which will likely be handled by third-parties on behalf of Verizon.

Often when describing open networks such as the Internet, the OSI “stack” is used as a point of reference. In this case, 4 of the 7 layers are most relevant: the application layer (e.g., the Web), the transport layer (e.g., TCP), the Internet layer (e.g., IP) and the physical layer (e.g., Ethernet). Using a variant of the OSI stack, Verizon has articulated the four layers that they focus on in their current wireless retail model: applications, middleware, operating systems and radio hardware. They emphasize that the focus of the ODI specification will be in the hardware and network access.

Openness Revisited

In my earlier post on openness, Two by Six Degrees of Openness, I articulate six types of openness from which to distinguish various “open” mobile platforms and services. This has been further refined by Epiphany Vera and used as a basis for discussion at Sprint’s strategy session led by Russ McGuire, director of corporate strategy at Sprint.

Here are the updated types and metrics of openness:

How open is Verizon’s ODI?

With regards to the simple taxonomy suggest above, here is how Verizon’s ODI can be described in terms of the types of openness:

In terms of metrics, we can expect the following:

Some Final Thoughts - Open / Closed vs. Control

I’ve been digging into Galloway and Thacker’s The Exploit: A Theory of Networks over the past couple of days. I’ve been dissatisfied with the ability to use an open / closed distinction as a vehicle for elucidating various emerging mobile services and platforms.

Some key points that Galloway and Thacker make that relate to openness include:

What I draw from this is that the logics of control must be articulated together with the degree of openness. In the case of Verizon wireless, there are two key areas of control that Verizon maintains in their ODI: (i) the certification process and, (ii) the use of their network (i.e. controlled by their wholesale pricing and use of proprietary technologies and standards that they select). The amount of control and types of control an operator wields over their network is far more indicative of how it will evolve, the rate of growth, and the types of services and innovation that will emerge. Clearly, openness alone will not yield transparency and freedom.

Verizon’s ODI is a welcome step forward and will certainly drive more innovation than the mere Carterphone style openness that gave us the FAX, PBX and the modem. Yet, it falls short of a fully open devices / networks coupled with open platforms / services. The goal of ODI is to drive innovation by enabling devices and services at the edge of the network. The rate of innovation being driven on the Internet via both networked devices and “open runtime” platforms is staggering. Galloway and Thacker describe an “open runtime” as an “open articulation, open interoperability, open practice, open becoming.” Marc Andreessen, in his post on The Three kinds of Platforms You Meet on the Internet, would call this type of a “runtime environment” a “Level 3″ platform.

We have clearly seen the power of the “web as platform,” will mobility come to represent mere access to this platform or will we see something more powerful emerging at the intersection of these “open runtime” platforms / services together with open devices and networks.

I had the opportunity to hear Anssi Vanjoki (Nokia Executive VP) speak recently at GDC Mobile. In the past, I’ve written about rich Internet application platforms and mobile device middleware. I thought I would take this opportunity to begin to address the various managed service offerings emerging in mobile, starting with Nokia.

I will focus most of this post summarizing my understanding of Nokia’s strategy and then attempt to put “context” in context.

As a matter of convention for this post, when I use italics I am quoting Anssi verbatim (at least according to what I wrote down while taking notes during his talk).

Some terminology and some data

Throughout Nokia’s recent history as a device manufacturer they have endeavored to emphasize that they are no longer merely selling phones. This makes sense since the term “phone” connotes voice and talking. As such, they have gone to great lengths to assert that they are the largest provider of portable music players, the largest multimedia computer manufacturer, consumer durable product distributor, etc. Mobile devices have become powerful multimedia computers.

The emphasis of late for Nokia is “screens”. I am not going to talk to you about phones but about screens. The mobile phone is the 4th screen. Welcome to the 4th screen. By using the term “screen,” Nokia is able to unite the “screens,” i.e., the multiple communication and media platforms.

Nokia’s Vision

Nokia is a world leader in mobility driving transformation and growth of the converging Internet and communications industries. There are 1B consumers with a Nokia device in their pocket.

Nokia’s vision is a world where everyone can be connected. I’d add that this connectivity will happen via a small number of screens that mediate our experiences. And, of course Nokia plans on playing a central role in providing services to these screens. Nokia provides 1B of the roughly 3B phones worldwide. They estimate that there will be 4B phones by 2009 out of a total of 6.5B people.

The opportunity for Nokia is to capitalize on their 1B consumers. They want to make 1B consumers upgradeable and into a new environment. This new environment resides on the web and is called “Ovi” - which means “door” in Finnish. This ambitious plan includes using Ovi as an umbrella brand and destination for Nokia’s services - games, music, videos & tv, contacts, maps, photos, Internet, etc. Ovi will be accessible on the web via a PC and also be tailored to be accessed from the small multimedia computer. Ovi will be accessible through non-Nokia devices.

The Internet and the Web NG

To state the obvious, Nokia has observed that mobile device will become our primary interface to Internet and social networks. Mobile devices are mobilizing social networking and Web 2.0. Nokia uses the term “Web NG” to denote the emerging online experiences in which we mix up reality with virtual reality.

The concept of Web NG (or Web-NG) has been around since 2006. More recently, GTF “coined” the concept to designate the point “when web consumers can directly access the source data they need, manipulate it in the application of their choice, on the device they have to hand.

Context and Maps

According to Nokia, the mobile phone is a 24/7-presence machine through which I can reflect my context (awareness) to other people. I am aware that I am in San Francisco at a developer conference. I am aware that I my heart rate is about 150 cause I am excited. (NOTE: recall that the italics are quotes from Vanjoki, not that I wasn’t excited listening to the speech. In fact I found it quite exciting, just not to the point where my heart rate ran to 150).

It is about context. Bringing context to Web 2.0.

One core tenant surrounding Nokia’s concept of “context” is the map. The highest and lowest level of abstraction is a map.

We should probably take a moment to briefly digress into maps and simulacra. Baudrillard, in his essay “The Precession of Simulacra”, recounts the Borges fable in which a cartographer draws a map in such detail that it ends up exactly covering the real territory of the empire (i.e., 1’ = 1’).

In this fable, neither the representation (the map) nor the reality remains. For Baudrillard, a simulacra is a copy that has no original. Much like the concept of Web NG, Baudrillard uses this fable to illustrate that there is a blurring between the map and the territory, reality & virtual reality. As such, he coined the term “hyperreal” to convey the idea when we cannot distinguish reality from fantasy, e.g., in which the map “precedes the territory.” While this sounds quite academic, it does not take much to imagine that media can radically alter (shape and filter) events and experiences.

Back to context … there seems to be an interesting “give and take” between mobile phones providing a context (i.e., a grounding in reality) and them aiding in the blurring of reality / hyperreality. The use of contextual information should simplify the process of content discovery, i.e., discovering content in context. Furthermore, mobile phones will enable us to annotate media (e.g., photos, recordings) with contextual information. We can annotate, stop and recall based on time, place and other contextual information. When it comes to gaming, “context†becomes a method for controlling and enhancing an experience in a multi-player online world / game.

Mobile NG / Mobile 2.0

I have written other posts about Mobile 2.0 and the social web. The social web allows consumers to freely consume, create and combine content. Mobile 2.0 services integrate the social web with the core foundations of mobility – personal, localized, always-on and every-present.

I think Nokia is spot on by asserting that mobility itself is just an element of context.

I remain optimistic that Mobile 2.0 services, if done right, will integrate the full range of mobile consumer touch points (talking, texting, capturing, sending, listening, viewing) in context.

As a final thought, there seems to be some inconsitencies that arise when you combine context and Web NG. For example, if we conceptually mash-up Nokia’s idea of context and their belief that devices (formerly known as mobile phones) will drive Web NG (i.e., the concomitance of reality / virtual reality), you end up with a pardox in which it is essentially impossible to ever be out of context.

In short, there weren’t any “earth shattering” announcements at this year’s 2008 Mobile World Congress (formerly 3GSM). This is consistent with what I had suggested when talking with Jason Ankeny at Fierce Mobile Content prior to the event.

However, we are seeing steady progress and pieces falling into place that will continue to sustain a thriving ecosystem centered around the mobile device. Mobile advertising, music, and TV are all making steady progress and are clearly “real” (i.e., showing early signs of growth and not simply existing in the existential sense of the word).

Of course, there was plenty of “buzz”…

Consolidation: beginning of the end OR being of the beginning

Corporate consolidation
It goes without saying that the Microsoft-Yahoo mating / stalking process was widely discussed. A notable announcement that also related to Microsoft was their $500M acquisition of Danger - the company started by Andy Rubin, who together with Rich Miner, co-founded Android.

We saw the coming-out of Movius (IP Unity meets Glenayre) which was akin to when we saw the successful launch of Motricity some years back at CTIA. Another content industry related announcement was the Mandalay acquisition of Twistbox.

Consolidation of operating systems
It appears that this is the beginning of the end of the highly-fragmented mobile operating system (OS) ecosystem. With Linux taking center stage at this year’s show, it is clear that Linux has a seat at the table going forward. The presence of both Google’s Android and the LiMo foundation was felt throughout the Congress. While Google wasn’t there front and center (e.g., big-booth or big signage), early demonstrations of Android could be found at a number of chip providers’ and handset providers’ booths. LiMo had more of an explicit presence and the demonstrations of LiMo systems were shown, arguably in a more mature form than the Android demos.

Although, it will take over 5 years for this OS consolidation to start to simplify, we will see rapid movement from over 30 operating systems down to a small group. Linux, Symbian and Windows will be around for the foreseeable future. I’d also add that Apple has clearly made a seat for themselves at the Smartphone table, but it is uncertain whether they can make an entry into the feature-phone world of operating systems.

Convergence and context

We are seeing a return of convergence. According to Steve Andrews, BT Group Chief of Mobility and Convergence, “2008 will officially be the year that convergence comes of age”. Whether or not it is co-incidental, this return of convergence (e.g., converged messaging) is happening at the same time the original convergence hype-sters are getting rebooted. Last year, I would have written off companies like Comverse and Openwave, but there is some interesting activity afoot. For example, the original team (Andre Dahan and John Bunyan) behind AT&T’s mMode and the original American Idol voting success is now at the helm of Comverse.

For Nokia, it is all about context. The president and CEO of Nokia, Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, said that Nokia will “reshape the Internet” by enabling a context-aware Internet. In the same EE Times article, they suggest that Nokia believes they, and not Google, will deliver “operator-independent, cross-platform phones through new software and services.” My recent blog entry entitled “Of Trolls and Droids: on cross-species development and the evolution of mobile tools and platforms” dealt with this topic in more detail.

Content, content, content…

Although we didn’t explicitly hear people asserting that content is king, the positioning statements (e.g., Nokia’s emphasis on context being central) and the sponsored articles in the Mobile World Congress Dailies had a number of related declarations: context is king (Colibria), customer is king (Telecordia), conversation is king (Southwing), etc.

Music
The key areas of content that were discussed last year, music and video, are still center stage. In fact, Billboard noted this leading up to their Backstage event. In Billboard Magazine’s Feb 16 article “Global Mobile: GSMA Mobile World Congress Will Explore International Growth of New Technologies”, Juliana Koranteng noted that music is making solid progress with handset manufacturers releasing more and more music-capable handsets. She also commented on the steady number of wireless music initiatives announced throughout the year that keep music as a key area to watch, e.g., Apple’s iPhone, Omnifone’s Musicstation, Nokia’s investment in the space, Motorola’s purchase of Soundbuzz, , Microsoft acquisition of Musiwave from Openwave.

I can confirm this music trend from my vantage point at Nellymoser as we are powering AT&T’s VIP Access mobile music service and Virgin Mobile’s Headliner mobile music service.

Mobile TV
The content hall (Hall 7) was dominated by Mobile TV providers. We saw the appearance of film celebrities “stumping” for mobile TV and mobile media. Robert Redford spoke at the Billboard Backstage event and Isabella Rossellini was taping a live interview on one of the booths during the event.

While technology fragmentation has stinted growth in a number of the mobile content areas, it is particularly noticeable in Mobile TV. There are very few handsets that have access to overlay networks (e.g., DVB-H, MediaFLO, T-DMB) and furthermore, the content providers have to deal with different deployments of these technologies across different operators and devices.

Advertising
It is clear that many are looking towards mobile advertising to be the saving grace of flattening on-deck operator sales. As with music and TV, advertising is making progress.

Of particular interest at the show was Nokia’s announcement of their own global ad network. Nokia launched their “carrier grade media” which aspires to provide a single marketplace to simplify the buying process within mobile advertising. Also see the Nokia article in the show daily. There was also news that the largest GSMA’s operator members (Vodafone Group, Telefonica, O2 Europe, T-Mobile International, FT-Orange and 3) have formed a mobile advertising measurement working group.

Consumer experience

Even though the iPhone has not seen the take-up internationally that we’ve seen in the U.S. (e.g., the higher-priced Nokia N95 far outsells the iPhone in the U.K.), Apple has left their indelible mark on user experience. To be fair, this lack of traction is likely tied to the iPhone being an EDGE device - all bets are off when the 3G versions hit the market internationally. Regardless, there was a lot of discussion related to how much Internet usage the iPhone was driving in both the states and Europe.

To date, the move from 2.5G to 3G has been underwhelming but it is clear from the show that we are making strong progress towards faster networks (e.g., HSDPA, LTE, WiMax). Certainly faster networks and more capable devices will make better consumer experiences possible.

The concept of personalization and customization as related to consumer experience received steady buzz. For example, Ad Infuse discussed how the user experience gets customized and Openwave argued for distinguishing between ‘participatory’ and ‘anticipatory’ types of personalization. From what I can tell, this is just another way of talking about preference and recommendation.

Widgets could been seen on a number of booths throughout the show. They seem to be used as a proxy for user experience, e.g., rather than directly tackling core user experience and design issues, widgets are offered-up as a short-term solution to the problem. They are clearly becoming a necessary feature for both devices and content offerings and as of the show, Yahoo!, AOL and Microsoft have announced their commitment to open platforms for mobile widget development.

Conclusion

On a personal note, I’d say that moving from Cannes to Barcelona has changed the nature of the show. While I do not miss the taxi lines, I do miss having the social events and congress proximate to one another. Compared with CTIA, both operators and device manufacturers have a fairly strong presence and people come to the Mobile World Congress to do business.

In Part 1, I endeavored to (i) define the various approaches towards the “write once, run everywhere” dilemma, (ii) defined a “stack” as a vehicle for understanding the evolving landscape, and (iii) provided some comments on the recent developments related to Google, Nokia, Microsoft, Adobe and Sun. It can be found here: Of Trolls and Droids: on cross-species development and the evolution of mobile tools and platforms.

In this post (part 2) I will address the evolution and who (i.e., which categories) will likely survive as this plays out.

Setting the stage …

In the last post in this series, I referenced Darcy Wentworth Thompson’s On Growth and Form as a “framing” for the current approach towards the “write once, run everywhere” dilemma (i.e., structural evolution). For consistency, I thought I’d offer another framework for this post. George-Spencer Brown in his book Laws of Form developed a notation of two-element Boolean algebra. I have a proclivity for “sign engineering” (i.e., cognitive ergonomics) and notational systems and maintain a website - logic-alphabet.net - that is dedicated to such pursuits.

Nevertheless, the primary symbol from which Spencer-Brown built his system in “Laws of Form” is the “mark”. The mark denotes the act of making a distinction, i.e., between this and everything that is not this. Making distinctions (i.e., drawing boundaries) are a cornerstone of meaning and understanding.

So as not to further digress, the following post is a set of “distinctions” and taxonomies that I have made and found useful in understanding the evolution of mobile platforms. In full disclosure, since Nellymoser provides a mobile services platform, I have included us in the taxonomies.

A historical proxy - platform evolution

The following is a brief history of the Internet viewed through the evolution of application platforms. I have had the pleasure of spending time with Pete Brumme (co-founder of Silverstream amongst many other credentials). Together, we put together one way to look at the evolution of the Internet:

1993 to 1994 – Put a face out to the market … get a website launched

1995 to 1996 – The Dynamic Web; service different constituents differently; personalization

1997 to 1998 – Transaction Content; do business via the web

1998 to 2000: Not much happened

2000 to 2001 – Multi-device; any device, any time; N-Tier applications running on multiple devices

2001 to 2002 – Web services

Reflecting upon this in hindsight, it is apparent that application platforms have become a necessary staple when deploying any type of rich, interactive web application. Early on, the companies providing the application servers created the applications themselves. Now, any company can create applications based on the application platforms using standard web tools and technologies.

Lens #1

For digital media services, it is useful to make a distinction between publishing and delivery infrastructure.

Companies such as Brightcove and thePlatform provide both publishing and delivery infrastructure.

Companies such as Qualcomm, Nellymoser and Adobe provide both the service infrastructure and application platforms. Similarly, companies such as Orb Networks, MobiTV and Verisign provide both mobile service infrastructure and digital delivery infrastructure.

Thesis:

Operators and content providers (e.g., media companies and publishers) will and should run their business like they run their online businesses. They will continue to have a direct relationship (dialog) with their networked audience and utilize enabling platforms and services. We have seen this move start to take hold in mobile. There is a shift from relying upon indirect relationships with the customers (e.g., via publishers, aggregators and channel enablers) towards utilizing mobile service and application infrastructure and platforms.

Lens #2

Another way to look at this in terms of more specialized “platform” distinctions would be:

Thesis:

There will, and already has been, a general consolidation of platforms. For example, the Web / WAP content management, messaging / SMS platforms and even the rich media platforms will become part of a mobile services platform which itself is part of a larger service delivery platform. The network-aware applications and aspects of content delivery platforms will evolve and will likely become part of application platforms. There will continue to be tools and middleware but the paradigm will be driven by the common, standard web tools and technologies and not the current array of proprietary mobile tools used in ODPs, applications and WAP deployments.

Lens #3

A closer set of distinctions made within the mobile content enablement and delivery space looks something like the following (+/- a bunch of names):

Thesis:

The mobile phone shares some key attributes with both PCs and cable / set-top boxes. For a certain class of phones (i.e., that have suitable screen realestate), the browser will be a core feature set along with things like text messaging and voice. We have seen the power of this with the iPhone. This evolution will be disruptive to a number of mobile companies that are currently taking advantage of temporary disparities that exist (and are rapidly disappearing), e.g., mobile advertising companies and browsers / mobile Internet enablement companies. With set-top boxes the user interface (remote control) is much closer to the mobile phone than a mobile phone is to a mouse and keyboard. As such, the uniqueness of the interface and hence the user experience. This will make the mobile phone, along with other core aspects of mobility (localized, personalized, always-on, every-present) more than just a channel.

This will be the first part of several posts. In this first part, I will attempt to: (i) define the various approaches towards the “write once, run everywhere” dilemma that has been exacerbated in mobile due to the fragmentation of devices, networks and formats, (ii) categorize the various approaches (e.g., operating systems, application user interface frameworks, runtime environments, extensible applications), and (iii) attempt to articulate some of the end-goals for each of the approaches being undertaken.

In future posts, I will address the evolution and who will likely survive as this plays out. Time permitting, I would like to put this in context of the larger multi-platform picture that includes iTV and PC.

Setting the stage …

Darcy Wentworth Thompson in On Growth and Form developed an explanatory theory of evolution based on geometrical, affine transformations. Using basic geometric operations (e.g., translation, scaling, rotation), Thompson endeavored to show that various forms of animals could be explained by applying transformations to an original “source” form. He was offering a structuralist view of evolution, in contrast to survival of the fittest.

As we’ve seen in mobile over the past five years, extensive efforts have been undertaken by game publishers and content providers to create and then transform a piece of content so that it can flourish on a diverse set of mobile devices. The company that delivers platforms, tools and / or technologies that eliminate the problems surrounding fragmentation and compatibility (hence lowering the cost and friction to create and deploy mobile content) will reap great rewards.

The veritable stack

Content providers and application developers have a wide range of choices when deploying applications and content. Furthermore, when creating and deploying content they must select a particular layer within this stack on which to focus their development. For the purposes of this discussion, I will distinguish five layers:

It is still unclear within mobile, which layers in this stack will become dominant and who will control what aspects of it.

As it stands today, with respect to the PC and the broadband Internet:

With regards to Application UI Frameworks and Applications, the dominant application UI framework is clearly Windows itself (e.g., .NET, Winforms) and after that it would arguably be KDE and Motif / X11. And, there have not been dominant “applications” that have functioned as portals from which content providers can deploy widgets and other types of plug-in content as we’ve seen in mobile with on-device portals such as Yahoo! Go. On the desktop, the extensible applications often relate to content authoring and design, e.g., Photoshop and Pro Tools.

Scenarios and open seats yet to be filled

Beyond having “winners” at each layer in the stack within mobile, the question will be whether history will repeat itself within mobile. For example, two areas are of particular interest:

Winner take all – OS and key application stack
Will there be a “winner take all” scenario akin to Microsoft’s dominance in the PC era. I alluded to this in a recent interview with Peggy Anne Salz for msearchgroove. On the PC, Microsoft became the de facto standard and essentially the sole provider of the operating system and core applications. Given that the PC paradigm was the “desktop”, Microsoft owned the key tools used in desk jobs: word processor and spreadsheets. The question is, will someone - Microsoft again or perhaps Google - assume this role within mobile? Google is headed in this direction but unlike Microsoft, rather than starting from the platform and working upwards, they have started with “killer” apps and moved downwards. For mobile, these applications relate to communications and location: Gmail, Google Maps, Search.

Rich Internet Applications
Will there be a dominant rich Internet Application (RIA) platform in mobile. On the PC, it can be argued that Flash surpassed the UI frameworks (e.g., Qt) and other runtime environments (e.g., Java applets) as a vehicle for deploying cross-platform RIAs. In mobile, while Flash has gained some traction in Japan, it has not had traction in the U.S. that content providers have come to expect on the PC. This is mainly due to the mobile operators but also due to technical limitations of the handsets and software in mobile. Java and BREW have dominated the runtime environments and have been the primary vehicles for delivering RIAs. I have discussed the state of RIAs in the context of mobile here. Interestingly, there has not been a dominant browser to emerge and / or a consistent environment for utilizing JavaScript / AJAX. It is also not clear whether our access to networked media and the social web will need to be dominated by the browser as we saw with the PC. As the phone itself provides interfaces that can connect and enable multi-platform services (e.g., IM, multimedia messaging, image / video capture, search, mapping), it is not clear that a browser is needed to mediate and provide a layer of translation.

Fault lines and foundational shifts

Nokia recently announced they are buying Trolltech. It has been noted by Adam Leach from Ovum that “this is bad news for Symbian and even worse news for Motorola.” This conclusion is based on a number of possible scenarios. With regards to Symbian, Nokia could use Trolltech’s technology to replace the UI layer provided by S60 which would result in them having a common application UI environment running across Symbian and Linux. This, amongst other things could result in lessening Nokia’s dependence on Symbian. Motorola, however relies upon Trolltech technology for their UI framework on their Linux phones, which means that Motorola would be relying upon Nokia for a key aspect of their mobile Linux platform. Trolltech is also part of the LiMo Foundation, which aims to collectively develop a Linux-based platform for mobile phones. Whether this is meaningful (i.e., Nokia’s answer to Google’s Android) or not will likely not be clear until next year.

The emergence of Google’s Android has “upped the ante” on openness, while significantly adding to the viability of Linux becoming a key operating system in mobile. At the same time, in the process of making their solution open source, it has led to the balkanization of Java since Java bytecode will not run on Android, which Richard Monson-Haefel has speculated may be advantageous to Microsoft. To be fair, developers will be able to use the Java language when developing for Android, and it is really not such a big deal that the compiled executable and runtime environment are slightly different. And, this balkanization discussion does not take into account the fact that Android will support standard JVMs (e.g., Applix) that will run J2ME games and applications. Or of course, that various JVMs and JSR implementations themselves are partially responsible for the fragmentation and incompatibility within mobile.

In recognizing the problems with J2ME, Sun has begun their process of standardizing on J2SE. The various Java FX initiatives result from this effort and are providing a vehicle to tie together a number of packages and technologies that are used to create RIAs. The question is whether Java FX is more of a threat to Adobe’s Flash and Microsoft’s Silverlight in mobile or whether JavaFX Mobile is more of a threat to Google’s Android.

My brain hurts trying to grok the various activities going on in the industry, yet alone trying to take into account the impact of Yahoo! / Microsoft in mobile. I will continue this post over the next couple of weeks, with possible interruptions from Mobile World Congress and GDC Mobile. I want to thank Jason DeGeorge for bouncing ideas back and forth during this post. You can check out his band, “The Modifiers” here.

Head over to Mobile Point View by Paul Ruppert for the first Carnival of 2008. A great collection of writing as usual.

Mobile 2.0 has been widely discussed and written about for the last few years. To add insult to injury, I herein propose another definition of Mobile 2.0. In addition to spending time defining some concepts that underpin the Mobile 2.0 definition, I will summarize and reiterate some of the key drivers & enablers of Mobile 2.0. This is a work in progress and I welcome discussion on this topic.

Mobile 2.0 Services - A Definition

Mobile 2.0 Services integrate the social web with the core foundations of mobility - personal, localized, always-on and ever-present. Furthermore, these services are based on a new generation of wireless devices that enable rich, interactive services and integrate the full range of mobile consumer touch points including talking, texting, capturing, sending, listening and viewing.

Mobile 2.0 Services provide more than simply another way of watching TV and video, listening to radio, sending emails or even accessing Web 2.0 sites via a Mobile Internet Browser. The next evolution of mobile applications and services will contextualize and personalize such rich media access by marrying the social web and the unique aspects of mobility.

Ajit Jaokar and Tony Fish, in their book Mobile Web 2.0, describe Web 2.0 as “the intelligent web or harnessing collective intelligence.” They also add that, “The rise of ‘User Generated Content’ online, where users are given control of the content creation process, is creating a second wave in the digital media field.” Larry Weber, in his book Marketing to the Social Web: How Digital Communities Build Your Business uses the term “social web” to denote how the Internet has evolved into a “social digital space.” The social web takes place in “a world of transparent content, mostly user-generated, broadband, rich media, and available on multiple devices.” Weber notes, “The social web will become the primary center of activity for whatever you do when you shop, plan, learn, or communicate. It may not take over your entire life (one hopes), but it will be the first place you turn to for news, information, entertainment, diversion - all of the things that the older media supplied.” As such, the social web allows consumers to freely consume, create, and combine media.

Before focusing on mobility, I think it would be useful to more clearly define the social web in the context of what I have termed “actant networks”. I propose that the social web is a social digital space embodied in an actant network. One type of actant that is critical to the social web are humanodes. I will take some time to carefully define actants, networks and humanodes.

Actants are entities that do things; they are anything endowed with the ability to act. Examples of actants are people, material objects, inscriptions and organizations. This concept was inspired by Bruno Latour and Michel Callon who were the primary developers of actor-network theory. Callon describes an actor network as “simultaneously an actor whose activity is networking heterogeneous elements and a network that is able to redefine and transform what it is made of.

Networks (systems, assemblages, graph) in general, consists of actants (nodes, hubs, stations, entities, vertices, switches) that act (exchange, translate, transform, mediate, transduce, connect, circulate) via connections (channel, link, line, arc, circuit, conduit) using media (computers, books, radios, tvs, mobile phones, nerve cells, money, law, consumers). Note that the use of “media” in this context is meant to convey the origin of the word “medium” — being in the middle as a means of carriage or distribution – and not the Media, both the source and carrier of the content. The inputs to networks are transmitters (mobile phones, personal computers, video cameras) and the outputs are receivers (mobile phones, televisions, radios, video monitors).

Humanodes are a concept introduced by Jim Bannister, in “Word of Mouse: The New Age of Networked Media.”. A network contains a collection of nodes. And nodes, as connection points, can function not only as redistribution points or endpoints but also have various capabilities to create, recognize, process or forward transmissions. Bannister suggests that “Humanodes have the choice to consume media in a traditional passive fashion, or become wholly involved in the process of creation or commerce.” Bannister describes other types of nodes. In the context of a social network, nodes can be friends. In business networks, they are contacts. In television networks they are stations. I consider “humanodes” as one type of actant that can take on many combinations of behavior: producer, distributor, marketer, vendor, consumer.

Mobile 1.0 Services basically utilize wireless networks as linear networks or interactive networks. The predominant mass media of the 20th century has been based primarily on linear networks: newspapers, radio and television. Bannister notes that linear networks “tend to isolate people into experiences that are shared, but disconnected.” In a linear network, the content is typically bundled and people cannot manipulate the media or the message. In an interactive network (e.g., on-demand cable, Web 1.0 sites), people can manipulate what media is delivered when, but they cannot create new media, new methods of distribution of the media, or the actual configuration and topology of the network itself.

Mobile 1.0 services have been primarily based on traditional media. As such, the media was created and distributed by what Bannister calls “autocratic supernodes” (i.e., the Media). An actant network can be thought of as a democratized network that redistributes the production / distribution relationships between autocratic supernodes (e.g., the Media and other agencies) and humanodes. Actant networks are fundamental to Mobile 2.0 Services. In an actant network, people manipulate the media, the message and the network itself. Actant networks connect people (social networks), products (commerce networks) and agencies (organizations, the Media, companies) in bidirectional producer / distributor relationships.

In Mobile 2.0 Services, as the social web (i.e., social digital spaces embodied in actant networks) intersects with mobile touch points, new forms of content and human behavior will emerge. This will be further shaped by the manner in which mobile devices enable and constrain the creation, consumption, combination and communication of content in the context of communities. (We’re running low on “c”s.)

Originally designed for talking, mobile devices were extended to facilitate texting, taking pictures or videos, sharing and viewing them, via a single device. While devices will evolve over time, there are core differences that will remain constant and thus define how consumers interact with media and other services using them. I will cover these in a later post. For now, I will briefly address the unique aspects of mobility and reiterate the key enablers for Mobile 2.0 Services.

Mobile 2.0 - The Enablers

There are three primary enablers or drivers that will push both consumers and developers into the next evolution of mobile services. They parallel the enablers for Web 2.0, yet the barriers are somewhat different and structural in nature.

The marriage of improved consumer access with easier development and distribution will push the mobile data industry over the chasm and into the tornado.

The new generation of mobile phones provides:

It is these unique attributes of mobility combined with what we have learned through the social web phenomenon that will define Mobile 2.0 services. Mobile 2.0 services will provide consumers with mobile entertainment, mobile connections to their social network and their digital world, and mobile tools to help them manage their ever increasing mobile life.

Mobile 2.0 Starts to Emerge

Although we’ve seen some early attempts at Mobile 2.0 in 2007, Mobile 2.0 will emerge in 2008. To date, the so-called 2.0 services are either basic, partial access to a Web 2.0 service via a Mobile Internet Browser (i.e., Mobile Web 2.0) or applications that represent one aspect or feature of Web 2.0 such as user-generated content, community, collective intelligence, or rich media. Mobile 2.0 services will emerge in 2008 that finally integrate the social web with the core foundations of mobility – personal, local, always-on and ever-present. Furthermore, these services are based on a new generation of wireless devices that enable rich, interactive services that integrate the full range of mobile consumer touch points including talking, texting, capturing, sending, listening, viewing.

Integrated, Multi-Platform Services

It is the beginning of the end for mobile being treated as a stand-alone channel. Mobile media must and will be integrated into an overall digital experience. Services will be reconceived, manifested and integrated across multiple platforms, instantiated via different forms of access and engagement. Mobile devices will become (i) a vehicle for the discovery of content and services, (ii) a remote-control for all things digital, and (iii) a personalized point of access and distribution for all things digital.

Mobile In-App Advertising

In 2008, we will see a rapid increase of digital advertising techniques derived from the Internet (e.g., search, display-based and video), we will also see the beginning of advertising and sponsorship that is made for mobile. In-application advertising, in which brands, ads and promotions are contextualized and integrated into applications and services are just the beginning. Although in 2007, we saw new types of inventory emerge that integrated commerce (e.g. via recommendations, theming and bundling), we expect to see in 2008 the coupling of relevancy-based engagement with contextual commerce. While search and display-based methods will be the primary revenue sources from mobile advertising in 2008, look for personalized, branded media and unique inventory coming from in-application advertising.

Mobile Content Retailing

Mobile operators will continue to cull the amount of content they offer via their portals and storefronts. Furthermore, operators will adopt digital retailing strategies we’ve seen on the Internet that includes better overall user experience, smarter use of placement and “shelf-space”, and more efficient, personalized commerce engines. They will also look to off-deck content partners to be a significant participant in the growth of mobile content sales.

Golden Age Of Mobile Apps

With the success of Google’s mobile applications (e.g., Gmail, Google Maps, YouTube) and Yahoo! Go, content providers and mobile operators, following the consumers’ lead, are warming up to dedicated applications again for mobile. The verdict is still out whether a browser is the best vehicle for presenting and mediating the 2-inch mobile experience. On higher-end phones, such as the iPhone it is clear that the browser will have a seat at the table. By moving from “closed†operating systems to operating systems with published APIs (e.g, Symbian, Google, Microsoft), applications will be able to provide a much better and deeper integration with the key aspects of the mobile phone (PIM, calendar, camera, location, video), which will enable developers to set a new bar for rich, interactive mobile applications and services that will surpass the experience provided by the mobile browser. There will also be a much richer range of application types, moving well beyond on-device portals and widgets.

New Media Companies will Interact Directly with their Audience

To date, the mobile operators and content providers have dominated the sale of mobile content. The mobile operators provide the dominant vehicles (i.e., portals and storefronts) for enabling consumers to find, access and buy content. The content providers have benefited from both from these operator portals and storefronts as well as 3rd party, off-deck D2C services. In 2008, we will see new media companies (e.g. web companies) move to mobile en masse which will not only create off-deck as the dominant vehicle for discovering mobile content but also radically change the nature of the content and services. The nature of the services will transition from Mobile 1.0 services (i.e., broad-cast services that include ringtones, wallpaper, games, video) to Mobile 2.0 – rich, interactive services that integrate the social web with core aspects of mobility.

Being Open: Growth, Friction or Fragmentation

Although openness will lead to consumers having greater choice - better products and services offered at better price points - open devices and networks will create more fragmentation. And, it is not clear that open access can function as a primary growth driver until other enablers are in place. If you think about the rapid growth of Web 2.0, and think about what will drive “Mobile 2.0″, it will be: (i) ubiquitous mobile broadband access - this will be driven by things like flat-rate pricing, mobile advertising solutions that provide alternatives to premium billing and other compelling consumer propositions of content / service bundles that make services beyond voice and ringtones a “must have”; (ii) frictionless distribution – the ability to easily deploy and distribute services directly to the end-user, off-deck; (iii) affordable, unrestricted access to enabling software platforms ( i.e. tools & technology - the picks and shovels). Web 2.0 services rapidly emerged and thrived because of the ability for any web developer to create and deploy services. Unlike the mobile tools on the market today, creating web applications & services doesn’t necessarily require an advanced degree in engineering.

This is Not Your Father’s Smartphone

In some sense, 2008 will be the liberation (or death depending on your outlook) of the Smartphone as a category. The devices formerly known as Smartphones continue to be a key driver for mobile data usage in general and content / service consumption in particular. We will see continued growth from Windows, RIM and the iPhone in the U.S. and continued strong growth of Symbian internationally. Meanwhile, the distinction between Smartphones and feature phones may be a less important distinction in the coming years. The appearance of the iPhone not only put an end to the Smartphone as we knew it and ushered in a new generation of devices. Nokia, Apple and HTC have raised the bar in terms of user experience and relevant feature-sets.

In November of 2006, I made the following predictions about mobile content and services for 2007. I thought reviewing them would keep me honest while making my 2008 predictions.

Will the Real Aggregator Please Standup?

As media and entertainment companies are taking their content both directly to carriers or directly (off-deck) to consumers, pure play content aggregators will be pushed out of the market. InfoSpace and Motricity were just the start of that trend, which will become stronger in 2007. The “real” aggregators (aka broadcast networks and publishers) will take up this position. For example, TV networks such as CBS, NBC, FOX, HBO and ABC have always functioned as content aggregators as well as both programmers and branded destinations. They will increasingly take center stage in 2007 on par with carriers.
We have certainly seen a number of examples this year of many publishers doing direct deals with carriers and not going through aggregators (e.g., directly licensing video content and branded services). Furthermore, publishers are aggressively launching WAP / Mobile Internet destinations for a number of their brands. A symbolic indicator of this is that Zingy – one of the early mobile content aggregators – announced they were getting out of the content aggregation business. While Motricity purchased InfoSpace’s content business, they also have taken a number of steps towards diversifying their ability to be more of a content enabler than solely an aggregator (e.g., buying Gold Pocket, M7 and focusing more on aspects to optimize commerce such as merchandising and personalization).

When it comes to media, search is a feature not an application

When you turn on your television or open iTunes, you do not want an empty screen with a search box. Media & content are much more conducive to discovery - navigation driven, browsing environment. Search will certainly be a utility feature for rapidly finding content, but consumers want to have a personalized “directed navigation” discovery experience that shows them what is popular, what is new, as well as recommendations on what else they would like. Look for new media, music and TV discovery applications and services in 2007 that are rich, interactive environments which make it easy for consumers to find, try, buy, share and enjoy content on mobile phones.
Discovery remains to be a key area of focus. Alltel’s launch of Celltop has demonstrated the importance of a rich discovery, navigation environment that is easy to use in driving commerce. Search has primarily been driven in mobile by being tied to recommendation and personalization engines. It is a must-have feature in mobile portals and storefronts but it has not become the primary “start screen†that we saw on the PC.

Look out for the 21st century media network

The 20th century has been dominated by mass linear broadcast networks (radio, television). Towards the end of the century we saw the emergence of “on-demand” networks (cable, broadband). Now we are seeing media production and distribution of content move from “supernodes” (broadcasters) to the edge of the networks where both carriers and media companies will enable consumers to create and enjoy content directly from the edge of the network - the mobile phone. Traditional mobile platform and infrastructure providers that deliver “static” content are not equipped to handle the requirements of the next-generation of digital lifestyles that expect on-demand, interactive, community-based experiences. There is no option but to engage the networked consumer. Next-generation platforms are required that enable rich, interactive experiences that are two-way and not simply non-interactive linear broadcasts. Next-generation platforms will engage end-users with user-generated content, community (message boards, blogs), interactivity (voting, rating, polling), viral (send to friend) and rich media (video, audio, dynamic text / image feeds). Look for the emergence of “actant networks” - next-generation democratized media networks.
We have certainly seen indicators of the importance of mobile phones in enabling consumers to be the producers and distributors of mobile content. Companies like InterCasting Corporation and mywaves. Although we are seeing a number of the pieces emerge, it will take a number of years for the wireless industry to shift from a communication network to an actant network.

Mobile Advertising: Interruption vs. Engagement

This next year will actually see more advertising on mobile, but with a conscious effort not to turn away consumers. There will be an increased focus on delivering advertising outside the traditional banner model with a focus on adding value to the consumer; interruption vs. engagement. This is still the Wild West so no one is quite sure as to the model. Look for more play, but with a drive to keep the Average Joe tuned in and not off. Mobile advertising is certainly more a matter of when than if. Keep in mind that mobile is really a hybrid between both Cable and Internet business models. Multiple revenue models will thrive including ad-based / sponsored, premium subscription services and micro-payments / commerce. Look for new types of inventory to emerge underpinned by contextual commerce coupled with relevancy-based engaging mobile media experiences.
We are just seeing new types of inventory and engagement methods emerging. This prediction did not really come about in 2007 although 2007 will likely be seen as a key tipping point in the acceleration of mobile advertising. Third Screen sold to AOL, Enpocket to Nokia, and over 25 companies received venture funding around mobile advertising business models. As such, we are seeing companies deploying search and screen-based (i.e., WAP banners) advertising solutions. A majority of the revenue is still being generated from mobile marketing (e.g., SMS direct marketing campaigns). The Screen-based advertising market will likely end up being less than $50M in 2007. Accordingly, other forms of engagement are still in much earlier stages to make an impact in the overall mobile advertising market, e.g., video, rich media, in-app advertising.

Consumer Proposition: What do they want?

The user experience is still the defining driver in the success of mobile initiatives. User interface, navigation design and time to content are important, but to maximize revenue the consumer value proposition needs to fit. The existing consumer brand expectations and values need to be reinforced and differentiated via mobile. You can expect the appearance of rich, interactive, network-based, on-demand mobile applications that enable consumers to find, try, buy, share and enjoy more content.
There are two examples that make this case. The Apple iPhone and the Yahoo! Go on-device portal. Apple’s iPhone demonstrated that user experience is paramount in mobile and we have yet to see the full ripple-effect of Apple having raised the bar in this regard. Yahoo! Go is an early indicator of the importance of offering consumers “rich, interactive, network-based, on-demand mobile applicationsâ€. And, finally, I believe that the Google Android initiative arguably goes back to user experience. After surveying the mobile landscape, Google realized that the user experience was poor overall. Before they can leverage their search and ad platforms in mobile, they needed to first set up the conditions so that a compelling user experience was possible.

Conquering the Fragmentation Barrier

Mobile media distribution and delivery is many times more fragmented than the Internet and cable (e.g., various head-in formats). There are 1,000s of phones, 100s of network configurations and dozens of media formats. Standing between the media companies and consumers is a fragmented wall of content formats, mobile phone types and wireless networks. Currently due to these constraints and the device / network complexity, media companies are simply licensing bits of their content to carriers who are only able to make it available to a fraction of the population. Media companies and carriers do not have a solution to this complex problem. They recognize that in order for mobile content to evolve from an emerging opportunity / potential into a business; new distribution platforms and their ability to reach a majority of consumers with great user experiences are required. Who can truly provide the richest experience to the most number of consumers? This coming year will unmask the fakers in this category.
Fragmentation still remains a key problem. Unfortunately, opening up networks and devices is going to compound this problem. For the consumer this will represent more choice in terms of devices and service offerings. At the same time, it may cause more frustration since there will be very few service and content offerings that are available widely on all devices.

Mobile DIY / UGC: Who is watching out for the Teens and Tweens?

As user-generated content increases in mobile, YouTube etc, age verification and content vetting will become a hot topic in the US wireless arena as more teens and pre-teens access content on mobile phones. Who is monitoring the content and how confident will parents feel about the safeguards? Wireless service providers will be much more stringent in acting as a gateway to the type of content that they will permit their customers to interact with on their networks.
This remains an issue. Mobile operators have a trusted relationship with their subscribers and remain cautious in what content is offered to who and under what conditions. Despite the bad press coming out about the demise of MVNO’s such as ESPN and Amp’d, there are some examples of MVNO’s that are addressing the needs of specific constituents rather than assuming that content offerings alone will solve the problem. We are seeing innovation and great solutions to this problem coming from Virgin Mobile and Kajeet For exmple, Kajeet provides a solution that is compelling to tweens with the safeguards parents would expect.

It is clear that recent initiatives by Apple and Google are an effort to create an untethered version of the Internet. Under the guise of “openness”, often a euphemism for a change of control, speculation about their intent and various iniatives has captured everyone’s imagination. For Apple, openness will enable them to reproduce their vertically integrated, end-to-end hardware and service offerings within mobile. For Google, openness will enable them to reproduce their position as the core search and advertising platform. This will certainly have positive ramifications for Internet companies vying to gain a foothold in the mobile ecosystem and extend their reach to consumers while they are on the go. It is yet to be determined if this is a win for the consumer in particular, and the telecommunications industry in general. Either way, it is an important step forward.

The impact of these changes can only be measured once we have an understanding of how many consumers and networks this will reach, i.e., the impact will be substantial if you have a large number of subscribers that have access to low cost, open devices enabled by open networks. Worse case, we end up with two new Smartphone platforms to compete with Microsoft, Palm, Symbian, RIM and UIQ. Best case, we see rapid convergence of networked media and services over a common IP network across a wide range of devices, mobile, PC and others.

These recent wave of announcements around openness raise a key question about the impact of open source as well open devices & operating systems will have on the mobile ecosystem.

Open networks, gardens and locked devices

While open gardens have been widely discussed on the Open Gardens blog , there are several key distinctions that are often confused by the media when discussing open networks and their impact. I mentioned two examples of type of control mobile operators maintain in a previous post Mobile 2.0 – when and how . The main points were that (1) mobile operators have relied upon decks (i.e. “portalsâ€) as their primary vehicle for marketing and distributing their premium mobile content, and (2) given that their data networks are considered a scarce, limited and costly resource, they are quite protective when enabling off-deck rich media content such as full video streaming and downloads. The confusion stems from the fact that developers sometimes believe that if they are not in the carriers “deck” (i.e., listing / portal) then they are “blocked†from distributing a mobile application or service. The confusion also stems from the fact that each mobile operator restricts and blocks different types of content. At this point in time, in the U.S. you can get personalization content (i.e., ringtones, wallpapers, games, SMS infotainment) from off-deck providers with support for all the major carriers. The “muddy†areas surround rich media such as mobile TV, radio, video on-demand, music streaming and downloads. The restrictions also are dependent upon the nature of the device (e.g., you are able to do RTSP streaming on certain Smartphones on certain carriers but not on feature phones), the type of delivery mechanism (e.g., you are able to have videos clips delivered off-deck via MMS but not via applications or media players), and by the particular network (e.g., Verizon’s dependency on BREW prohibits their ability to do off-deck applications).

In order to gauge the extent of the openness, we need to consider the varying ways that devices and networks can be restricted. These restrictions limit the extent to which “openness†can truly have an impact on the ecosystem. The nature and type of restrictions include technical, economic, legal and social.

Open source

The open source stack is well known in the Internet community: operating systems (Linux), databases (MySQL), app servers & middleware (JBOSS), PHP (Ruby on Rails), development tools (Eclipse), web servers (Apache), and security (OpenSSL). It is clear that this has led to a rich and robust collection of software that is openly available for developers to create and deploy applications and services. If the conditions are right, open source initiatives can be a highly participatory creation and production process that leads to innovative, high-quality software and services.

As Krishna Rangarajan at AllianceBernstein has noted some key features of open source projects (OSS) projects. First, “the highly distributed nature of development of an OSS project typically necessitates a highly modular architecture, meaning that the software is composed of a number of smaller, self contained components that are designed to work together, each of which is simpler to develop and test. Second, he notes that it is also easier to detect and fix bugs within an OSS project due to the sheer number of programmers and users looking at and testing the code. Third, “OSS is subject to a very transparent peer review process, in a meritocratic communityâ€, a process that is common in scientific communities and engineering environments, but doesn’t really exist in software development due to the penchant to protect trade secrets, intellectual property and the know how, show how.

Two questions come to mind when we consider the impact that a significant open source project would on the mobile operating systems: First, it begs the question of what would an open source operating system look like? Consider that due to the lack of a standard operating system in mobile – of ~240 million subs in the U.S. less than 10 million of their phones use Microsoft, RIM, Symbian or Palm – there is thriving middleware. Runtime environments like Sun’s J2ME and Qualcomm’s BREW have enabled developers to create and deploy applications and third-parties across a wide range of proprietary operating systems. One could imagine that there are real opportunities to integrate such middleware more tightly with the operating system and have better access to core phone capabilities that are often not accessible in a common way through J2ME across devices. Second, what impact would this have on the current operating system providers? It would seem that in 3-5 years, you would end up with Microsoft, Google and Apple as the dominant providers with RIM, UIQ, Symbian and Palm waning. More importantly, would an open source mobile operating system create an opportunity to have an OS that is available on phones that are not Smartphones, e.g., phones that are considered feature-phones like that RAZR.

Google and [insert carrier here]

Assuming that Google launches on [insert carrier here], what impact would this have on accelerating the openness of the mobile ecosystem?

A final note that is worth mentioning is that a number of open platforms and open source initiatives in mobile have not led to thriving marketplaces. As industry veteran and Nellymoser co-founder Roy Joseph has noted “I have yet to see, in the highly competitive mobile consumer marketplace, open systems that make money. Building blocks maybe, but never a finished palaceâ€. I expect this to be the case with these recent industry announcements. Both Apple and Google will push the mobile industry towards more open platforms and devices and even networks if things go well, but it will be up to the developers to innovate and create viable new services that take into account (1) the forthcoming open devices and networks and (2) the unique capabilities offered by the mobile phone – personalized, localized and interactive experiences underpinned by content, connectivity and communication.