if connected

The iPhone 4S is a completely different phone from its predecessor. Really. Screen and exterior industrial design aside, there’s almost nothing that’s the same as the older iPhone 4. Mobile industry and media coverage sentiment hasn’t matched that analysis.

Nevertheless, the iPhone 4S has many improvements, including:

• A new chipset, baseband and radio that is dual mode. Previously, Apple used Intel-owned Infineon for earlier iPhone models. Now they are almost certainly using Qualcomm as they’re the leaders in dual mode CDMA/GMS (3GPP3 / 3GPP) handset technology. There’s some great analysis of quite the enormity of this shift to dual mode in this piece by Dean Bubley. In addition to his points, Apple also gains other benefits from now making a single phone that they are able to sell anywhere, rather than two separate phones for CDMA and GSM/3GPP: they boost their economies of scale still further with component purchasing, driving down costs. Also with only one SKU to manage in global manufacturing and distribution Apple has greater flexibility to re-direct iPhone 4S stock to where it’s most needed whatever network technology an operator uses.
  Ironically, given the reaction to the 4S, the new chipset and baseband may make the 4S the first iPhone that is actually a great phone for making phone calls. Assuming Apple has engineered the new platform right.
• A re-designed still and video camera. Not only does the 4S have 8 megapixels rather than the 5 of its predecessor it also has altered optics and a different sensor. Result: better low light performance, one of the big weaknesses of all mobile phone cameras. The 4S also records video in 1080P quality at 30 frames per second, up from 720P in 2010′s iPhone 4.
• More storage. This is the first time that an iPhone has shipped with a 64Gb option. The last time Apple raised the storage available on a iPhone was in 2009 when the iPhone 3GS launched.
• Faster processor and much faster graphics. The iPhone is now dual core like so many recent high end Android smartphones (e.g. Motorola Atrix, LG Optimus 2x, Samsung Galaxy S II, HTC Sensation). This should deliver snappier performance throughout and better games.
• New on-board software with improvements throughout. The most notable changes in iOS5 are the central notifications list, a reminders app, the week view in the Calendar, system-wide twitter integration and iCloud support. Almost all of these features are available to current iPhone 4 and 3GS owners but they’re still new. Apple reduced excitement around all of these major changes by pre-announcing iOS5 and iCloud features in June. As far as the media and industry, they’re four months old.
• Context-based intelligent voice assistant. The ‘Siri’ software is widely seen as an extension of Apple’s voice technology implementation. The background to Siri is more interesting. Originally it was a defence department project that focused on artificial intelligence learning. The clever part of Siri isn’t voice recognition, which Apple have almost certainly licensed (likely from Nuance). Instead, Siri’s differentiation from the mass of voice control services on Android and Windows Phone is from its contextual understanding of what a user means when they ask something, and to deliver improved results over time learning about context from a user’s past questions. The demos look impressive. Only real world usage over a prolonged period will indicate how well Siri delivers.

So why the widely expressed disappointment by the mobile industry, media, and savvy mobile enthusiasts?

Read the rest of this entry »

While the new Apple iOS5 beta lacks Facebook integration (it only has Twitter) everyone else is building Facebook into their mobile phones. So far, INQ’s Cloud Touch has the most impressive interface: Facebook replaces the main screen with a completely Facebook-centric experience.

But HTC is creating phones with more visible Facebook branding, that makes advertising easier, they’ve included  a ‘post to Facebook button’ on the front of the phone.

Here’s a launch advert in the UK, and, like so many other recent UK smartphone campaigns I saw this on the side of a phone box. I love this combination of smartphone advertising and last century’s pre-mobile phone boxes:

Read the rest of this entry »

The W3 argues in their new Mobile Web Best Practices that the mobile web should be integrated in with the full [PC] web. This is their “One Web” position. I agree. It’s quite unlike the .mobi approach. Ideally, the w3 believes all of the same content should be available to website visitors from a mobile phone as from a PC. The content simply needs to be delivered in a different design and layout.
Why build a mobile website? What’s the best way of targetting the mobile Internet audience? This is an area we’ve debated extensively at Jupiter over the last year.

• Should the mobile web be separate from [PC] web sites?
• Should companies build mobile applications/widgets or should they build mobile websites, or both?
• What determines what tactics organisations should follow? Type of content or service, geography, or whether they seek a mass audience or a carefully chosen niche target segment?

The w3 alludes to this, but the main web standards body doesn’t face the “why the web on mobile” issue head on.
Here’s my take on why marketers need to ensure their organisations build mobile websites, in addition to whatever applications they develop:

• Websites enable marketers and publishers to target the broadest share of the mobile audience. Every modern handset has some form of browser, every modern smartphone has a web browser. Building one application will limit its the audience to one of the many different operating systems in use (iPhone, Blackberry, Windows Mobile Pro, WM Standard, Symbian S60, Symbian UIQ, Google Android, Java, etc.).
• Building websites is relatively cheap. Existing web staff, web tools, expertise, and equipment can be deployed. Often a few site designs will deliver content to all smartphones. To reach such a wide audience an organisation would have to build multiple versions of the application, most likely from the ground up, similar to writing software for the Mac and Windows. Building those applications requires many completely separate full software development projects. Maintainenance costs are also much higher again due to the multiplicity of handset platforms.
• Leverages normal PC website traffic which can be easily diverted to a mobile version. iPhone, Symbian and Windows Mobile users are already visiting PC websites but finding an uneven experience. This is a ready source of traffic that organisations should embrace.
• Are more compatible with email newsletter links. If a publisher or marketer is maintaining user engagement through email newsletters with links to full articles, a mobile website ensures that these links are successfully delivered when a user clicks on them on their Blackberry or other phone. Linking from an email message to content within a specific phone application is hard to do, and to my knowledge impossible to do in a standards, universally-compatible with all handsets way.
• Provides universally-compatible landing pages for mobile advertising campaigns, which can then link to the rest of an advertisers’ mobile website. If a mobile advertiser wishes to solicit requests for follow-up information, they have two options: trigger a SMS-based interaction (as Blyk favour), or link to a mobile website. SMS is a completely universally compatible tool but is purely text-based. Mobile websites enable a richer experience suitable for branding.
• Enables marketers to get to market fast, test the water, learn, and then re-plan and build the case for a bigger budget. Mobile websites are quick to develop, as well as being cheap.

The “One Web” position is contained in the W3′s just published guidelines for building mobile web sites, Mobile Web Best Practices. It’s a good read and is full of common sense tips all collected into one neat place. While it’s aimed at actual website builders as it’s lucidly written most of the mandates are easy for marketers and strategists to understand, and should be appled to normal websites too to maximise usability. A few examples:

• Keep website addresses short.
• Do not use pop-ups / unders.
• Limit [page] content to what the user has requested [only].
• Avoid free text entry where possible.
• Provide pre-selected default values where possible.

Info on the ruling.

Unlimited broadband = 12 minutes – My take in April on the detail of this traffic management scheme.
As I’ve said before, it is in the broadband industry’s interests to be clearer and less ambiguous on the way they market broadband and broadband speeds.

Otherwise if the market is opaque and confusing, no ISP will be able to charge a premium for faster, quality, broadband as no consumer will be able to tell which service is better. Result: all ISPs will suffer declining revenues as consumers opt for the cheapest services.

I’ve been mulling over some new UK and European consumer data on attitudes to speed which makes for extremely scary reading for ISPs (clients please ask). It will be published in a forthcoming report.
In the meantime, have a browse of some of my earlier analysis of broadband marketing, the ASA and VirginMedia. As you will see, I’m not even slightly surprised about this ASA ruling!

VirginMedia is far from alone in stretching the truth, but this is the first major ruling that has gone against them. Most of the previous ASA rulings have focused on VM’s competitors.

VirginMedia’s traffic management, which is what the current ASA ruling that VM lost is about.
VirginMedia and a previous ASA ruling which VM won.
What Ofcom is doing from an industry perspective, as like me, Ofcom realise it’s in everyone’s interest to sort this out.

Ofcom is introducing a voluntary code of practice on how ISPs should market broadband speeds.
This is something I have been advocating for some time (see here on the ‘ISP prisoner dilemma’ where, back in 2006, I advocated regulator intervention to make speed marketing clearer, or here, or more recently here on the issues with VirginMedia’s broadband marketing).
There are clear benefits for ISPs as well as consumers with more transparent and comparable descriptions of different broadband services. Consumers will be able to compare services and make a rational decision about whether one ISP, or one package, is worth additional spend. This should help quality ISPs boost broadband revenue per customer, enable ISPs to pull out of the tailspin to the bottom that is current broadband pricing, and through higher revenue per customer support future business cases for fibre network investments.
Ofcom however, has only gone half way. The code is still too focused on communicating the peak, or best, broadband speed a consumer is able to receive on their line, rather than actual broadband speeds supplied by an ISP (depends on number of users and the capacity of the ISP’s network).
Already the difference between high theoretical speed and much much lower actual speeds is very marked. The worst examples are VirginMedia’s HFC network — which rates excellently on theoretical peak speed but has some of the most stringent speed throttling policies of any UK ISP — and the emerging mobile broadband services which offer peak speeds of 7.2Mbps (similar to DSL) but normal usable speeds under 2Mbps (much lower than most DSL ISPs).
The key paragraphs in the statement from Ofcom are these:

20. Different ISPs are likely to vary in their throughput speed performance as a result of a number of factors such as the level of investment in their network capacity. By having more information on ISPs’ respective performance, consumers would be able to make a more informed choice between ISPs and would also have a much clearer idea about what speed they should expect in practice.

21. Ofcom’s aim is to develop a methodology and process which is sufficiently robust to accurately assess ISPs’ average throughput speed performance. To this end, Ofcom is undertaking a research programme to look at this issue in more detail and to assess the role that each of actual and average throughput speed measurements can play. Ofcom will consider revisions to the Code in the light of this research.

So, this is still a work in progress, and in my opinion is unlikely to greatly alter the broadband market now.
However, Ofcom’s intervention is a welcome move. Once this additional piece on actual speeds is in place, it will help consumers choose the right broadband service for the right price, and will help the ISP industry to charge more for quality broadband products and increase revenues.

So, net neutrality is bollocks? Virgin Media’s CEO Neil Berkett sounds like he’s a little out of his depth here. In Europe, bus lanes help buses go faster, as the lanes are less congested with other traffic, and not slower as he implies.
Worse, there is a knotty communications conundrum for ISPs here: For consumers, boosting one company’s content delivery speeds, will look just the same as slowing or blocking others. Consumers will just see the difference in relative speeds. They will have no idea whether one content site is being degraded, or the other boosted, or whether both processes are taking place.
Also, taking payments from the content industry for higher quality and higher speed content delivery, damages ISPs’ goal of being seen as just a mere carrier that is not responsible for what passes over their networks. This is a pandora’s box of future problems for ISPs…
VirginMedia looks to have decided to go down this path: it’s talking to Phorm on behavioural targeting; open to payments from content companies; is traffic shaping users heavilly to control its bandwidth costs; and is the lead UK ISP advocate of three strikes bans for persistent file sharers.
The problem for VirginMedia, is that these actions are at complete odds with its strategy of differentiating from other ISPs on broadband speeds as well as sitting extremely ill at ease with the Virgin brand.
VirginMedia is rapidly gaining a reputation as the friend of large companies, rather than the consumer champion that other Virgin-branded businesses have successfully positioned around in the past. So much store was placed on the Virgin name when ntl and Telewest switched brands in February last year that it’s a travesty not to play to the brand’s strengths as the consumer’s friend.

If other mobile operators copy T-Mobile and trademark similar aspects of their brand, and worse then enforce them as T-Mobile appears to be with Engadget Mobile over the latter’s use of the colour magenta… I can see some nasty implications for anyone writing about the UK mobile industry.
Or, at least, this will overly restrict the options when creating a logo for a mobile-related site or service.
We’d all have to stop using the letter T, the number 3, we’d need to find something else to breathe, only talk about stale food, avoid using the colours orange (plus red, blue, green, and of course magenta).
Crazy.
Common sense needs to prevail here.