Google needs a new strategy for Android. As a brand, as a design direction and in deepening its corporate understanding of where mobile and search intersect. I started this post really wondering if Android has lost it’s way? I end it concluding that Android as a brand, or sub-brand isn’t helping Google with their long-term strategic direction and positioning. (I wrote this on Nov 17th and thought I see how I felt about it…. It’s long and you will have to get to the end to see the real value in it…. I think it’s worth sharing. Key point… Google has seconded its design language and values to Android. That needs a remedy.)

I can’t help considering the questions. Is Android is in a pile of trouble? This despite the seemingly ever increasing sales volumes, the launch of many many new high powered devices and the latest iteration of it’s operating system “IceCream Sandwich”. A year ago many were asking if Windows7/8 mobile had a chance. Even the Nokia deal with Windows seemed to be a complete disaster. In the meantime RIM and Nokia shares have collapsed. Samsung which along with HTC (make the nicest Android phones) are both embroiled in lawsuits with Apple, while we read patent war in the background. Then there is Oracle (via Sun and Java) that has issues with Android.

In the meantime my understanding is all current  available iOS phones continue to outsell any Android handset in the US. In other countries where Apple has broad scale distribution rather than limited to a specific carrier – Apple continues to grow share while Android through Samsung in particular continue to destroy Nokia. Through all of this… Apple makes the profits.

So why should we wonder if Android is so vulnerable? 

Patents - I suspect this is not going to go away. Both Apple and MicroKia have a vested interest in this. So does Oracle. HTC and others are already paying Microsoft on Android. Android isn’t really looking like free anymore. Separately, has Amazon with the Kindle Fire got around all the “copy cat” type patents by forking their own version? It’s a Kindle – not an Android.

Brand: We are soon going to find out if Kindle is a better brand than Android and what other Android Tablets can do about it. Kindle has smartly positioned itself as something new and different at a price point that is very competitive. It’s not an upsized Android phone, a complaint also leveled at the iPad when launched. Separately, the brand Android talks a technical positioning (it’s always been more geek) and is really a copycat of iOS. It’s easy enough to use, it’s not good enough if you can afford an iPhone. Then there are all the model variations. So end of day… the app and gaming experience on Android still lags iPhone. These are the functional attributes. The emotional ones are more complex. The phone in one’s pocket is always likely to be the best phone they ever had. Price and value matter in this equation. In many markets the iPhone is just too expensive. When there is money – kids want iPhones – for entertainment, for gaming, for social networks. I’m yet to see data where kids overall want an Android more.

MicroKia - The combination of Microsoft and Nokia remain underestimated. They are definitely down and almost out for the count. This combination needs two things to really hurt Android. First it needs XBOX gaming. There are enough exclusive XBOX titles that can make MicroKia phones more compelling – even with a very limited catalog when they actually launch. There’s a lot that could be brought in here.  The other – Office. Kids don’t buy business phones. Companies do. Adults do or might. Small businesses might. Beyond email managing Office matters. Apple has a huge head start at this point and I don’t think Office is a threat to it.  However, having a tool for business – one with serious intent, that perhaps isn’t so playful, or so technical – one that is for “connecting people” rather than socializing, one that is about power, and presentation is important.

Design: Microsoft/Nokia actually have an opportunity to design phones that are different. Ones that play to the strengths listed above. Google was never serious about business (look at Google Apps) and Motorola clearly lacks the industrial design skills that exist in Nokia. One thing that these two brands can bring together are things like durability, long-life battery, higher processing speed, more memory, PC/Mobile integration. I could list more. Where are technical breakthroughs possible? Around maps? Skype? NFC? And then there is price. These devices are going to be priced way lower than iPhones and over time easily compete price wise with Android . Otherwise…. they are out of business.

Evil: Google used to be “Do no evil”. I don’t actually believe that’s even understood anymore. Money appears to rule at Google (as in most companies – including their competitors) as others have noted. Google increasingly has an underlying trust problem. For most… convenience trumps trust. Ask Facebook. Or use Google search. Still Google is a little like the borg. They (employees) may not like it, it’s just reinforced by algorithms, and the idea of the brightest engineers toiling away. Google doesn’t have a soft face. By nature it is calculating. That’s a shame, for Google has done much good for the world. Search has leveled the field and opened up many opportunities. It’s in my view the core of Google’s business.

Siri: It’s also been written that Apple’s new Siri combined with Wolfram Alpha and it’s other smarts is a real risk to Google. It is… when I can’t ask Google anything. Or when or if I ask Google anything I’m further categorized in ways that may be used against me later. If Google is to be a bigger and more helpful brain for me.. then it has to help me and work harder for me. That means harder for my independence, it means giving me power to ask better questions, it means more statistics on things when they are going wrong. It means creating a better world. In my view Google has turned away from this. It asks not what I want to search for when in a location.. rather it asks increasingly what can I push at him. It wants my +plus votes. Is this for my common good or against me? The personality in Google is in asking it questions, in search.

So what should Google Do? 

I’m starting to question if there is a contrarian strategy in the Motorola purchase. Time to let go of Android, and the likely impact and financial implications that are likely to evolve from law suits. If Android was for sale? Who could buy it? Could it even be sold per se? Yet, I’m sure many would say selling Android is like selling the crown jewels. It’s currently the best selling mobile OS. We all know mobile is where it is at and mobile search is just in its infancy (perhaps not even that far – conception).

One of the issues with Android is… it doesn’t have the potential to have Google’s intestinal fortitude. It’s shaped by other manufacturers. These manufacturers add stuff. TouchWiz and more. One way to deal with this… is simply rename Android – Google mOS. When Android becomes Google mOS then “we” users, employees, android customers etc can actually begin to understand what it stands for… and how it relates to the deeper corporate values that exist in Google and Google search. In many ways this isn’t so farfetched. My Samsung Galaxy has clearly printed “with Google” on the back cover. Google inside was always a great idea. It’s the software that gives us power, through search and related tools. A Google stamp on the OS means that Gmail isn’t an app that rides on top. It’s part of what’s baked in.

Android is not iPhone. iPhone is simply an identifier like a Galaxy from Samsung. iOS and Android are similar and different. iOS is just part of the Apple experience. Android – is not necessarily part of the Google experience. In fact Google Apps appear to run on top of Android which is obviously some mobile operating system like Windows.

I wrote this post… and as often happens when you let your thoughts run… it turns out to be something different. What I’m convinced of.. is Google should rename Android to Google mOS. It should write a consumer charter for GmOS. That will define both mobile and the larger and more important search business going forward. It should do this as part of the Motorola purchase. There remain huge issues with respect to other handset manufacturers. So I’m fairly sure that Motorola will go on the block or remain free standing.

Android “design” follows what we expect of technical, robotics, futurist, etc. Perhaps that’s fine. I suspect however that a Google mOS would provide an opportunity to move the design elements for the operating system into new areas that will broaden its appeal. It can also rid itself of all these copy cat activities  from Music to App stores. It should be easier to just search… and quicker, while the “recommendations” should also be more active. Google is supposed to be smarter than me. I think it is time to make all this stuff… photos, music, movies, etc.. more invisible and more accessible at the same time. While that won’t eliminate an app store it will refocus how we learn and I hope put it in the context of location.

That’s the one screaming huge opportunity in the mobile search business. My data and where I am. Whether selling or sharing my attention, I have a vesting interest in it. Android was free for distribution – the prize was perceived to be that big. All us users have one big problem. We want more data…. and it keeps costing more and more. Google has apparently stopped advocating on users behalf’s and yet could relaunch those efforts very easily with a Google mOS approach. Most users are prepared to cut a bargain, make an exchange. I suspect they will do even more if they can “aggregate” effectively or are rewarded in the aggregate. The big opportunity for Google is to lower our costs, to make knowledge and even what we don’t know about ourselves even more leverage-able. Android / Google mOS is an opportunity to create a pact, a cooperative structure with users focused on creating more collective value.

In the end.. Google wants me to view and act on more ads. It wants to deliver more to me in a mobile context. That’s only going to happen if they create a more powerful relationship, that drives down to core values. Android has strayed from Google core values. It doesn’t have the same simplicity, the same interpretive responsiveness. Google is on top of Android, rather than baked in – this is perception. It’s time to do something about it.

One of the more stimulating intellectual challenges that exists today is how to compete tomorrow in mobile. It doesn’t matter whether you are Google, MicroKia, Apple or Samsung etc. Each have different opportunities to define the future. Google has a box seat and yet its Android, Motorola, Search strategy appears confused. Each of these competitors have potentially quite different design languages. Apples is best understood. Windows has traditionally been more of a copy, a follower. Google has seconded its design language to Android. That needs a remedy. Let’s hope the message gets through.

I’ve been a smart phone user since 2001. I’ve been an occasional Android user. I have a Samsung Galaxy. I’ve owned or used almost all Nokia Smartphones through the N8. I’ve never been a Blackberry fan mostly tracing to their browser. I currently use an iPhone4S daily. I’ve researched and done ethnography’s on  the “unconnected” in emerging markets and followed leading edge smartphone users around the world. Two years from now mobiles could be a real step forward from where we are today. The question perhaps is… who’s going to push who more?

The Apple world is full of fun speculation. Apple fans expect innovative new products. So let me introduce you to iChart! Apple’s upcoming killer Enterprise product.

iChart is a flip chart on steroids. It borrows the best from the past, building on the lowly paper flip chart and the easy sharing built into Electronic Whiteboards. It redefine the future of presentations. iChart breaks the monotony of the PowerPoint / Keynote presentations with live customized notations (by the presenter), audience participation, and simply pinch and zoom sorting. Finally, the flexibility of transparencies again. And yet so much more….. Airplay, video conferencing, and dual or multiscreen presentation possibilities. iChart is the future for any boardroom presentation, training room discussion; presenting the data in a format more adaptive and free flowing, enabling the presenter to work the displays in  a multi-modal fashion. Like brainstorming? Like post-its? Like enabling an audience? Let them scribble post-it notes on their iPhone or iPad and see them magically appear.

I’m not quite sure why I woke up with this idea, or if it has been suggested before. I know I’d read something about Airplay and multiplayer gaming coming to the next generation AppleTV (still speculation really out there). There’s also plenty of speculation written about whether or not Apple will enter the living room with large displays. For me…. iChart…. a huge flip chart sized display provides a perfect example of something that really uses the big screen in a new way and like the iPad which enable more personal and intimate “sales” exchanges (vs a laptop example in a doctors office) this enables a more creative conversational style around a large screen device. Perhaps a flip chart is too small. Yet I can see ad agency execs carrying it as part of a portfolio case. Importantly, iChart would take the iPad, iPhone further into the Enterprise environment. They would be great at conferences.

So would you want an iChart in your business? How would you use it?

Will iChart kill other telepresence / video conferencing products with it’s FaceTime built in? What might it mean for networked meetings? What special apps could it be loaded with? How might these be used in store? For promotions?

What would the real screen specs be? How much would it weigh? How low could the cost be? It appears the real cost will be in the screen?

What happens now at HP? It appears there’s many conversations that HP didn’t have before announcing they would purchase Autonomy and look to divest the Personal Services Group. We know the board was involved and we can presume outside advisors and deal makers. However, we also know that the head of the Personal Services Group wasn’t part of this trusted circle and was only told at the last minute what was going down. We also assume the purchase (approved by the board) was a foregone conclusion at this point.

So what strategic conversations should HP have had? How long should they have allowed for them? Who should have been involved? Where was the PR company in all of this? (Or internal PR?). Where was the market research? Where was the HP brand champion? What practice sessions were held before “winging-it” in an analyst’s question and answer session. Why didn’t the obvious conversations happen?

A company is only as good as the stories it is capable of telling and the consistency with which it tells them. That’s the art of the strategic conversation. One question that every scenarist asks always is “How could we be wrong?” And perhaps… looking down the cellar stairs.. “What’s our worst nightmare?”

Question… that really must be asked of HP. Who’s facilitating the conversation? How’s it made robust, safe, open? How is it used to create energy, advances, innovative solutions? What elements help with organizational agility? How does an organization ensure they don’t get bogged down in “talk”?

I don’t see every CEO / MD as necessarily as a great facilitator. However, an organization today must understand “facilitation” and think through how the convo will evolve and importantly how and where they want to take it. In HP’s case… they are now on the back foot with the press, customers and employees.

I’m bewildered and I’m not. I’m disappointed, and yet not somehow that surprised….  and that’s I presume much how the market will suck up the implosion of HP.

As a customer — individual customer of HP I don’t hold much water in the announcements today to buy Autonomy and then potentially spin off the Personal Services Business. However this announcement may not have quite the effect of the Elop announcement on Nokia and their products – still it will be something close. Dell which had little to cheer about yesterday can hope and now worry further. I’ll ask you later what will Microsoft do?

As a customer of the HP brand I’ve owned printers, computers, calculators and probably other things too. Although they’ve lost my household in the last four years… and perhaps that’s partly why the announcement today. Still I’m sad. Here was an inventive company who like Kodak failed time and time again to find a more agile footing. The personal services business may be worth nothing without the HP brand. So perhaps HP will find solitude and respect in its new hands off unstructured Autonomy.

I’m incredulous really! So, PC’s HP style are low margin. Well yes – but did they have to be? In all the shenanigans across the market, Apple share up, Google buying Motorola, Nokia being milked by Microsoft, etc. There’s a group of traditional tech companies, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Nokia, RIM, Motorola, Microsoft, that appear to be failing increasingly quickly. Most of this traces back to an idea of who they serve.

HP will now be a services company. They won’t serve me although their services may impact on me in some way. Yet I can’t help feeling that all these companies have the wrong strategy. Running to the laggards, the slow-pokes, the dinosaurs. Yes turning inwards to the enterprise is potentially dangerous. Whether the new service platform works or not the real genie is the mobile phone and device. HP just gave up. They aren’t going to be in my pocket. And there’s part of the rub. I decide what I want in my pocket. Increasingly the enterprise has to adapt and fast at an accelerating rate.

These companies have forgotten a deep and basic truth. “Empowerment works” The first IBM PC was empowering….. I then took many PC’s / laptops into the businesses I worked for. That ole HP calculator was empowering. MS Office was empowering. The iPhone is / was more empowering that the Nokia N95 that preceded it;  which was too complicated to push everywhere just like the first IBM PC was. Business is about people. When I hear about strategy that sinks to tracking, manipulating, capturing, servicing I get a sick feeling in my gut. Yes companies have made money off information assets. In fact that’s been the most successful “support” model for a long time. I say support for one must learn and adapt. P&G is awesome when it comes to basic consumer products. They have more data than many companies and they use it. They have also never forgotten that it is me and you that ultimately buys.

Rant sort of over….there are a collection of issues here that are emerging in and across the tech industry. The biggy remains “empowerment”. If you want to disrupt the market that’s what matters.

Right now I see copy-copy strategies or at least the analysis thereof. It’s time to stop looking at the market and products through Apple tinted lenses. The whole PC/Mobile/Carrier/Google/Bandwidth model is shaky. HP bails… Motorola gives up (did years ago), Nokia does Microsoft’s bidding. So what’s the mess here? Yep we are in a post PC world. Android remains inferior (doesn’t mean it always will be). Microsoft is about to be left out of it all…..

Fact is Steven Elop wrote a burning bridge platform that was as much Microsoft as Nokia back in February. Maybe Steve Balmer can now just produce a reprint. HP can sell the PC business for lack of returns. That lack of returns is across Microsoft customers. HP just announced the death of the PC as they see it. It’s also a vote of no-confidence in Microsoft. And now perhaps Microsoft has two potential purchases in its short term future. HP’s PC division and Nokia’s Smartphone handset division.

HP to Pay $10.3B for Autonomy, May Spin Off PCs – Bloomberg

Hewlett-Packard Co. (HPQ) is planning a sweeping overhaul of its businesses, agreeing to buy Autonomy Corp. for $10.3 billion and weighing a breakup that would unravel the much-debated Compaq Computer Corp. purchase.

Yesterday Netflix announced new pricing. A 60% increase in the cost of getting DVD’s. Many complained that Netflix failed to provide an adequate rationale for the move. More than 5000 comments on their blog post. All resoundingly negative.  And there’s a thread #dearnetflix on Twitter. However, as a Netflix user it’s obvious to me why things had to change. It traces directly back to changes in behavior and opportunities that streaming provides to the individual and the family. Streaming became bigger than anything and grew more rapidly and beyond expectations. In my case, as a Netflix user I’m fine with it. I quickly cut my monthly outgoing to streaming only and waiting now for Netflix’s next moves. In our case…. sending in DVD’s had become a hassle.

1. How streaming changed Netflix behavior.

Before streaming, Netflix by Mail users had some options. We used to have up to 3 DVD’s out at a time (there are other plans). It was the lowest cost plan. Like many, when streaming came out we amended the plan to one DVD out at a time and the payment became 9.99 (previously was 8.99 from memory) – a reduction in cost. So how did our behavior as a family change?

a. Not just multi-room but multi-location sharing. With both kids at college they began streaming Netflix content to their iPhone’s, Macs, and via their Playstation. Freed from the tyranny of the DVD, we could all watch what we wanted wherever we wanted. Whereas before we watched maybe 8 movies a month via DVD, now Netflix (like for so many families) started to replace primetime TV and had even more impact on college. With streaming Netflix use and number of movies accessed increased exponentially. The downside – we couldn’t stream the latest stuff! Another downside – my history, and what the account says about my watching habits is junk!

b. The Ripping Queue: With only one DVD coming in at a time we also changed our DVD watching behavior. Rip to watch later. That way we could keep up our selection and still access the newer stuff! A movie came in. It was inserted into the Mac, via Handbrake was ripped to a Universal Apple format and then watched at will. It was posted back often the next day. Of course this is a hassle and even though one tried to keep a queue going “we” often found that the new movie we wanted to watch wasn’t in our possession. So two things happened. We went back to renting more movies on iTunes, or simple using the older Netflix collection.

c. Tivo died during this period. With streaming you could always find a movie or some old TV show to watch. Netflix particularly via AppleTV2 was simple and easy. With Netflix there was little to no point in renewing the Tivo contract. Concurrently Hulu provides some entertainment from time to time – via the PC  – HDMI to TV.

d. Comcast took a recent hit: After Comcast refused to give me the promo rate for another year I cut our Comcast plan back to the basic digital service only. Saving over $40 per month. That’s a lot of Netflix, or Hulu or iTunes watching. I’m yet to hear a real complaint from anyone in the household about the reduced service. What’s important is TV / Movies on demand! Comcast borders on irrelevance. At this point I could get more channels via DirectTV, although I’ll end up paying Comcast more for an Internet only service. Hulu+ looks like a good option all of a sudden!

e. The DVD dedicated to the TV is long gone. We’ve not used a DVD player or had one connected now to our TV for a couple of years. When desperate we use a PC connection to play a DVD. However, I can’t remember the last time we felt we really needed the DVD player.

2. It’s Easy Accounting and what new options.

2a. For Streamers – They are different. Many more hours watched even of cheaper, older content with presumed lower licensing fees. Less and less interest in having DVD’s delivered. Netflix grew a new business and these users behave very differently to the traditional Netflix model. Its really true – some people really prefer to get DVD’s in the mail, and watch movies using a DVD player. It’s also easy to forget the fun of the DVD… ah lets watch it tonight, like the magazine… oh neat will read it now. Penalizing this group for Streaming use no longer makes business sense. They are much more profitable than the streamers.

2b. Evolving the Model for Streamers: The new pricing for continuing DVD delivery of relatively new content remains competitive. However, it doesn’t have the instant gratification of iTunes. So it comes down to your habits. Do you still enjoy getting things in the mail, managing your “orders list” or queue? My bet is simple. Netflix gets more attention hour for hour than any other streaming video service (other than perhaps Hulu with a few audiences although it’s TV integration isn’t there. Hulu works the college campus – free) Netflix’s problem is now three fold.

New Releases: It must provide Streamers Only with access to new release movies. Whether rental (not so good) or a plus subscription. It’s competing against iTunes primarily here. This comes down to how much watching is done. New Releases are important!

I want TV. While the main complaint is “recent movies” Netflix is of growing importance for TV shows. In this area they are competing against Hulu and Hulu+.

It needs to address the “Family Plan”. As more and more iPhones, and iPads hit the streets it will become more and more obvious that all these devices aren’t just one person. So what will the rules be/become? Watching Netflix on two devices at the same time may be almost common place. Eg via AppleTV and iPad concurrently – different devices. Will they address concurrent viewing? Who get’s priority?

2c. Accounting and Behavior: The accounting on hours watched and segmenting these two groups appears straigtforward. However, from here on out there are a lot more questions in play and Netflix’s traditional – who watches what – what we shipped and when returned research may not cover the rapid evolution of the user base and changing behaviors. Example 35% of people  in the US now have a Smartphone in hand (via PEW earlier this week). What penetration does Netflix have? (My bet is high on iPhones!) Yes they know when they are being watched and more.

Research and Strategy

Research! I’m sure Netflix is doing plenty of research on what’s watched and generally measuring the accounts. I’m less certain about the depth of behavioral research they are doing on changing aspirations and behaviors. From iPhone user at the airport to iPad user in the bedroom, to multi-family users on the same account. Whether we talk profiles or personas the streaming media market is made up of a number of different segments each with different behaviors and motivations.

The changes in price leave me with many open-ended questions.

Eg from the Investor POV – What’s the profit impact and how does this fit with licensing agreements? The non-streamers represent the demise of BlockbusterII (as in the old chain) over time. When will new “price” and thus licensing agreements be announced that give streamers a service that continues to have them locked in? Will users really leave? I’m sure they researched this….

What’s the mobile implications for content? Example. I might like zoning out with a movie at home or even on Bart on the way home. Yet should Netflix be just movies and a little TV? What about live TV? What about Radio streaming (TuneIn Radio is a good example on the iPhone)? Is there a cross-over with out media? Example I’d really like Netflix to provide me the news…. and BBC iPlayer.

What about new Release Notifications. Give me a bare bones DVD price / rental. Eg Notify me of new releases and I’ll pay for you to send me just those items to my home?EG your opportunity is to make sure I see the latest thing before anyone else is talking about it! Keep it cheap and my kids will stop downloading from other sources anyways.

How can you fix my recommendation engine? How can you fix my “family” problem? I presume you can already tell which devices are being used… so you know one is the thriller, another the action and adventure, another the drama, and yet another the romance movies or whatever. My account isn’t mine…. anymore and frankly I’m not the real buyer. I just pay the bill. How sure are you… that you have the billpayers loyalty?

Is there a conclusion? They aren’t going to lose many streamers. They will cut the cost and the inventory of DVD’s out there which given their growth has probably challenged their distribution centers – which now represent a diminishing investment.

Netflix must provide a solution for “early” or “new” release films. There’s an even bigger premium for first night viewing of brand new movies. Give me a time window! Charge $10 or $15, more? for the privilege. Many of us will watch them. Probably not going to happen. Still we want the “new releases” the ones that iTunes has – and the challenges is to provide them in a way that we understand. Eg it could be a subscription. X new releases a month. Or watch this.. and get two other new releases for x. There are many option and really the answer comes back to who’s the customer, and who’s paying.

There are other things that Netflix needs to do. My Netflix experience is either AppleTV or iPad for the most part. Sometimes iPhone. These UI’s are defining how I see Netflix. They are basic – they don’t provide the richness I used to find on Netflix.com. Fact is… finding stuff isn’t as fun on the iPad or as educated. Although it is easy to see what my kids have been watching! Just hit resume. Netflix… you better study Amazon. It’s far better when it comes to Kindle – and you could learn a lot. Where are the reviews on the iPad?

Then where’s your PR / Social Media nous? Your blog post really didn’t tell a very positive story… it didn’t thank users for helping to revolutionize your business. You failed to tell us why Streaming was so important or used US to get more leverage in all those licensing discussions you must be having. The biggest concern for investors and users may just be…. Is the accounting so out of whack that an immediate “brakes on” was called? I suspect it was the right decision, and perhaps accelerated, and yet you Netflix had done damage to your user base, and you haven’t sold us a better or new path forward.

That’s a Convo you ought to have had!

The keynote presentation to kick of the second day of eComm. Relevant Voice Platforms  -  Kelly Fitzsimmons, HarQen. Words generally paraphrased below. Presentation was much better than my notes! Clearly need her product!

“Text provides the IQ but misses the EQ”

Voice is really important. How many of you are on top of your communications? Are you in conference call hell? We have a situation with the network. The network is no longer trusted. A lot of send, and not a lot of acknowledgement. We insert more and more emoticons into our text.  And we are broadcasting more and more. Desperate for acknowledgement. Today, Unified Communications is really a euphemism for a DDOS attack. We are communicating more than we ever have and understanding less and less as the acknowledment isn’t there.

Today communications start out with a text… finally you end up on the phone. We talk when conversations get complex or confused. Yet today, our most efficient mode of communication fails us again and again. Voice is a connection device that has a richness to it that you can never replicated in text.

We expect our voice conversations to be memorized. By contrast we do lots with text…. but none of the richness. Voice as a modality has that emotional quotient embedded into it. What happens when we lose voice? Example… end of call we keep our notes and lose our memories of the call. Every day we ask people to memorize conversations and there is no way to go back to them. Had thirty thousand years to think about the iconography of text — the future demands that we get more efficient communications.

Example Call center. Today great job on collecting the data. Can even go into live calls and look at the analytics. Example Script X is failing. So we can see the percentage failing,  That tells you the what but not the why. So as soon as you can go in and check what people are saying you can soon find out that certain agents are off script. Should you through it out or not. What is the problem? Etc.

Why are their barriers to voice being adopted like text? The technology to make relevant voice platforms available exists. We can organize data in a way that you can easily find the data again. IT is not an AI problem rather a behavioral problem. What conversations could be if they were navigatable if they were prioritized and easily accessible?

Where are the economics and incentives in this? You need them both micro and macro.  Conference call hell references! Plenty of pain – we all want it different. We play angry birds and think bad thoughts. What is the incentive for change/ Macro. Telecom! It will emerge in a very different form. All the OTT players may well change the game. For the OTT’s it is just another data time. Voice is the Golden Goose for telecom. Minutes aren’t down although revenue ARPU is. Nothing is making up the difference. What will people pay for?

Voice is programmable media. (Definitely, not enough thought generally about this.) You can have programmable experiences even on a dumb phone. A voice platform can bring them as an audience back in. This also has to be multi-lingual. It is the future of commerce and the infrastructure is already there… (talking about wireline right now as it is stable, delivers voice and this can lead to a whole new way to communicate.

It’s not a new thought. The voice interface and gui dreams go way back to 1987 and examples like Apples Knowledge Navigator. See the video. You will see the use of voice related search and commands. It was a dream over twenty years ago.

It’s not simply Harqen we are one of many in this space that are going to be part of seeing it happen. I will leave you with the idea that VOICE REALLY MATTERS.

Lee is asking questions about how she will split the voice up. You can create and track and understand natural start and stop points. Example re job interview. Just the process of shifting the medium changes the reaction and how people react to it.

How do you reference the specific part of a call. Today what we are relying on is people We are getting used to SMS, texting and chat during meetings. That part that exists outside will no longer be siloed but notes become nested and then underneath…. you are editing the audio based on the behavior. See the Symposia launch later today.

Comment - Great presentation (best at eComm so far), nice introduction to thinking about voice and making voice more efficient and powerful as part of the communications vehicles we use. Will we continue to be more and more text dominated or can we harness voice to become a more powerful element in progressing and moving forward. Kelly says – Voice Matters! Yes it really does.

For years I’ve been interested in crowdsourcing complaints and how P2P systems can aggregate and shift power. Today @mrblog (David Beckemeyer) introduced me to Gripe a solution that’s using “word-of-mouth power to share public complaints or cheers that get heard!” The team at Gripe has done a great job! If you look at their resumes they aren’t exactly new to this space either. I sense they are going to get off to a good start.

There’s some learnings here.

• They’re using Facebook and Twitter – to back the profiles and will use/tie-in to other services later. Eg Yelp, LinkedIn etc.
• It’s focused at the mobile level. Eg GPS / location and thus Gripes on-the-spot. They also do a great job in bringing in local businesses via google (even while I’m sitting here in Mumbai!).
• They’ve created a simple to use template which retains the real value within Gripe.
• Companies are notified for each complaint. This is an important step – as is their ongoing ability to broker an answer and follow-up.

In all things, it is nice to see a simple focus. David and I explored this space while developing options for Phweet and Twitmart amongst others (now both closed down). In Phweet we’d seen a way to enable businesses to call a Tweeter and resolve their issue without ever exchanging a phone number. In Twitmart we enabled both long-form classified like space and the ability to thread comments. We also experimented with “real-time” notifications.

An important element is sometimes understanding the Gripes your competitors get. After all, if your competitors are learning from gripes why shouldn’t you? Even general Gripes in or close to your local if you are a local business champion / rotarian / chamber member!

I’ve also tracked Comcast and other large companies on Twitter. I’m cynical. They don’t want the complaints public. The first response is always send me your account details by DM so we can handle. Then the complaint goes underground and off the radar.  I’m yet to really learn how Gripe will organize complaints – complaints by location, by company etc. Also what the timeframe is. Resolved performances etc. Should they be there for all-time? How were they handled etc? It will be interesting to see how this transparency aspect evolves.

Location solves many of the problems of – when did this happen (on the mobile probably just now) and where (see where I’m standing). Add in the photo capability in the app and it makes for a powerful statement.

@mrblog we should get playing with the Gripe team, and consider:
1. A service to enable merchants to initiate a call request to gripers without further exchange of details.
2. Present the call request / response from a merchant with both gripe, merchant ID and details. (Not all merchants will want the cost of a call… but sometimes the insurance of going to a call is just priceless! And perhaps even more important with customers that have a real WOM factor.
3. This VoIP functionality could be built into the iPhone Android client without requiring any additional details from the user and could be routed to any callcenter worldwide.

Basically I believe when “complaints” are registered in public they become more powerful. Now years ago it was bloggers that had power to complain and it got action. On a lower level Twitter helped that process. While I might like to post my gripe to my blog too, the most important and empowering aspect of putting a complaint template on a mobile is making it simple.  Most complaints never make the post, or the call.. we crib to a few friends and tell the story a few times. Gripe potentially makes us each a little more powerful. So I can’t wait for….

• The companies with the most open complaints.
• The locations with the most unhappy customers
• The municipalities with the most needed repairs or where government isn’t working.
• The listings of complaints about bad business practices.
• etc….

Why? Because word of mouth is powerful only when we all learn faster from it. Today most of the complaints (gripes) appear to be location based (what happened). Yet equally product or model#complaints (gripes) are possible. Gripe still has a long way to go. What they need first is a lot more interested parties. Then who knows… in the future a few of us may want to opt in to local notifications – eg I’m in the are – are these gripes still gripes (the pothole in the street?) and to raise a “cheer”!

Yes I wish these guys well. I can’t help closing with… a link to a post I put up in 2002. Gripe seems to be a nice simplification and initial implementation of what I saw. A world in which consumers own the complaints and customer service is effectively controlled by them. See Antiport. That day is now coming some 10 years after I wrote the first little scenario. It’s not a recipe for today’s Gripe – just interesting in a comparative way.

Similarly it fits with the philosophy I wrote up in “The Consumer Manifesto“. Where we have a right to our data and the same transparency and brokerage that Gripe provide around complaints enables “all of us” to have a little more say.

I wrote this post on June 30. I’d been reflecting on whether or not I should post it and wasn’t prepared to while I still held some hope that my efforts may pay some dividends.  Since then I’ve concluded that the opportunities for developing around Twitter are for more established and wealthy players only. I also don’t see the developer efforts around Twitter as a playful – experimental playground anymore. While I read less about Twitter today I still don’t see them promoting an effective business model.

As I re-read my thoughts below I realized nothing has really changed. There’s still great strategy and learning in the efforts behind Phweet and Twitmart in particular for Twitter. So I’m sharing my thoughts. You never know it may lead to another conversation.

Chirp Aftermath Thoughts:

Now a number of weeks ago (April 15th!) I watched Day One of Chirp (the Twitter Developer Conference) and then attended their hackathon on DayTwo to mingle with developers.

I met people with different levels of enthusiasm. Many like Loic of Seesmic tried to put a brave face on announcements that day. Developers were key to building a new platform. The developers have done Twitter proud. See Twitter Apps for a listing.

Yet post Chirp the reality is different. They launched Blackberry, Apple, and now Android clients. Only Nokia’s still to come (Gravity anyone). The question is…. “Will Twitter continue to eat it’s young?  I think Twitter will, at least in broad terms.

Background:

I have some experience in this area. Some years ago I was the Skype evangelist. I helped Skype indirectly get that big payday from eBay (the first time round!). I wrote post after post of suggestions, including “Skypecasting” which really launched podcasting globally.  I helped many developers sort out issues. I worked with all the individuals that did early call recorders, and those that created a “Skype presence server” proving it could be done. I also wrote a post giving the Skype Developer Program a D- at the time. Working on the same criteria I’d give Twitter a much better grade today. Perhaps a  C+ or B- overall. The question is relative to where they are -is it going up or down? What will the performance in the next quarter or year be?

Let me share my problem through the context  of what we developed and pioneered around the TwitterAPI. I will state too, early advice given to me by Shel Israel before Phweet launched was “love Twitter to death”. I’ve tried to and as a user I still do. Yet as a developer I no longer have faith. At least limited or little faith in where the approaches we created will ever make a business case. That they will come to  light in different forms – in the end well I have little doubt about their opportunity.

I can see that a number of developers have created successful businesses. I talked to one of the Radian6 team at Chirp. He said they are now 80+ people and going from strength to strength. That makes sense. Still that doesn’t help those that helped Twitter pioneer a new form of communications.

Twitter Apps made Twitter useful. Whether Twitteriffic, TweetDeck, Seesmic, Echofon, TwitilatorPro, Tweetie etc. This proliferation of “chat” like clients revolutionized Twitter. So much so that they defined the Twitter experience. Unfortunately for these developers Twitter has decided that the “experience” is something they have to make easier, better, simpler. This includes examples like how to find a “twitter app” by name in the iPhone store. This was one of their examples.

What are the achievements for the TwitterAPI client communication community?  Without these clients #hashtags, groups, shortlinks, photo and video sharing links etc may not have ever evolved. This includes experiments with location on early iPhone apps pre-Apple appstore. All fodder for Twitter’s future.

I early on saw this proliferation of “chat clients” for twitter as something revolutionary. For the first time we had a new model. A follower model, it was just like the phone system. Even more “mentions” @messages didn’t need person a to friend person b. It was like the telephone. Yet now we had a text based signal that mimicked SMS rather than a ringer going off. The result was open multi-chats, ah-hoc exchanges and the easiest initial escalation with context ever.

Case 1: Phweet: Making Twitter Talk

We knew all this when we started Phweet. It made sense to us to leverage the TwitterAPI and enable Tweeters to talk. Eg escalation from an @message exchange to a voice conversation. We launched Phweet in July 2008. We were too early.  We found Twitter was really quite asynchronous and not the real-time medium it was meant to be. We knew with a few tricks (sms / DM’s) how to make it that way. Almost concurrently Twitter was at that time cutting SMS services in other parts of the world (many have since been restored under new rate agreements with mobile operators).

Phweet worked on a number of levels. It also demonstrated the power of the URL. We were one of the developers effectively keeping the value of our enhancement within the Twitter ecosystem. Meaning we used the TwitterID and only because we couldn’t add value to the Tweet used an external URL.  Thus we managed all site activities by using TwitterID’s. Photo sites are similar.

This URL element is actually the key Twitter problem (Which is how do they create value for their investors). When a user inserts a link the “value” is found off Twitter. Yes we can point to it… we can ReTweet it. Yet the info that most often matters is a link to a newspaper article or another blog. Or more negatively it is a link to another site that is selling something. Or a site where you have to log-in with another ID to transact anything. Twitter’s lost all control at that point. Thus the market continues to ask investors where the real money is.

Case 2: Twitmart: Social Classifieds Marketplace

That brings me to effort two. I’ve not talked about it much on these pages. Although I’ve blogged elements related to super tweets, and Twitmart in the past. For me from an early point in time Twitter’s real opportunity was in location based Tweets.

Let’s take a break for a moment. Hear me out. Twitter was first – smart and lucky. They stumbled into micro-blogging, and the early emergence of PC/Mac clients made it incredibly easy to broadcast short updates. It captured bloggers and introduced those who had never blogged to this form of publishing, engaging and communicating.  It spread at first the “check-in” type of tweet although that seems to have died down somewhat. The open API’s made it easy to feed in blog posts and bookmarks and so Twitter became the channel for aggregating one’s lifestream. That made it even more a part of what we do. While SMS stumbled after the early beginnings the iPhone generation totally changed Twitter. No question that the iPhone apps gave Twitter more personality no matter how easy SMS is. Concurrently, the iPhone/mobile world meant @messages were more likely to be received in a reasonable time. So TAKE BIG NOTE OF Twitter’s announcements re the API and “streaming” to clients. Twitter realizes that it’s future lies in “real-time” notifications that are important to you. That means they will be delivered to mobile. They may come via one of their clients, via SMS or be read on the web or over email. It doesn’t really matter.

So where does a real-time Twitter leave the communications developers? Eg the Tweetdecks and Seesmics etc of the world. Well they could very well go into Ping.fm type land. They have to be Meebo like. They can also stay one step ahead of Twitter. Eg what’s the difference between the latest Tweetie owned by Twitter client and a developer client in a real-time world? Broad examples would be “voice”, “video conferencing”, “desktop sharing”, “data capture and organization” etc. IOW – in other words Twitter and Twitter’s chat clients now potentially compete with Skype or gTalk or Facebook Chat or the older AIM, Yahoo & MSN etc. Developers who want to make some money quick may want to look at adding these types of capabilities. Eg a premium. Call me on my Twitter Handle. These are effectively collect calls – the receiver pays if they want to accept the call and the context.

Yet there is another aspect of the “communications / client realm. It is best known through the “various picture services” and the short URL services. This brings me to the second area that I’ve been part of exploring and developing. It started back in late 2008 based on learning from Phweet and consideration of how to monetize a phone call in a world of free. David Beckemeyer and I  began looking at “social classifieds”. Yet it wasn’t until early this year that we really put the effort in. We wanted to create a “trading place” for Tweeters. We recognized that 140 characters is not dissimilar from a classic newspaper classified ad. We also saw real benefits even in a relatively asynchronous world. Each ad would have the benefits of a “TwitterID” and thus the reputation associated with that ID. Yet for classifieds to really work on Twitter one needs an easy way to escalate the conversation without additional exchanges of ID. Eg no phone number no email or need to follow the other person so private info can be shared. Enter Twitmart as a proxy working just like Craigslist with email and instead using TwitterID’s.

So big developer initiative two. We built the basic platform to turn Twitter into a Social Classifieds Marketplace. We enabled easy exchanges between parties without following each other (even those that aren’t twitter members) enabled “long ads” and optimized the Tweet to get Googled. Yes I’ve sold stuff and made money on Twitter using Twitmart. But the part that really began to excite me is the mobile aspects of our strategy. You see once you oAuth with Twitmart this Tweet is enough to post a classified ad on Twitter.

d twitmart #forsale Subject descriptions of item

Case 3: Watchlists:

That’s it. Well not quite. Let me go to stage 3 of our developer activities. Stage 3 includes watchlists. Twitter has slowly been releasing access to the Twitter Firehose. That’s all the tweets in real-time or the selection of Tweets you want to process. So you define a slice Eg plug in to the firehose for all #forsale tweets. This is all part of Twitter’s real-time strategy. When conversations lapse or get replies days later from someone – twitter doesn’t work so well.

So think of using the watchlist in two ways. One when I create my twitterfied ad imagine that I get instant “leads” based on what others have tweeted in my neighborhood. Offered or ‘I have’ vs ‘I want’. Imagine your #service – plumber and your listing isn’t yellow pages but now Twitter. Now imagine each time someone thinks plumber in your neighborhood you get a message or perhaps you have an auto send. There are many variations that are possible. So what is it that we want. We want to “Tweet” I want a job and then want Job opportunities to come to us. We want to walk down the street and have “passive notifications” instantly available where ever we are. What’s a passive notification. It simply is your screen of “social classifieds” within an X radius of where you stand. These could be local businesses, (who will pay) or someone talking about a local food joint. It just depends on the “chatter” you want to see.

So where to Developers?

It’s complicated. To take these concepts further requires money. Money is not something investors are willing to bet on Twitter API developers. Why? Because it looks a lot like Twitter will usurp your space.  Twitter is going mobile. Twitter wants more value retained within its walls or garden. Twitter is doing this by taking over the experience, and focusing on mobile.

Twitter has tossed a bone to developers in this space. Suggesting that niches are still available. Perhaps true for some of the early companies into this space. Eg CoTweet or Radian6. There may also be some custom “Super Clients” that a small group will pay for that more than make enough money to keep a single developer going. I can imagine a TweetDeck pro. It may cost you $50 per year one day. As a product it still has a long way to go. Yet it is at least plausible and I presented some examples above where clients like it turn to “business” and become a power tools. By providing a “firehose” real-time option for these solutions Twitter continues to stimulate development into the market that will be slowest to move.

Then there was the new cherry. Annotations! I heard so much excitement and so little of use about this at Chirp. The fact is little was really being said. Yes it will contain this many characters. What can go in there? URL’s, Encryption keys? Prior event / post event? How will annotation be read? Is this just another BS word for what the “description” in Twitmart already is. It’s a Tweet annotation, determined by the user. So if I can annotate Tweets with my picture, my location, my details, some contact system etc… even payment then what’s the point of Twitmart. I could add comments too.

Fact is there still remains one last area. That’s “proxy messages” – eg where a messages should be private or allowed between two or more parties. For social classifieds to work we will want proxy messages. Proxy messages will come. They will be enabled via filters and watchlists. A proxy message can potentially be delivered in real-time even when a user isn’t following another. Why’s this attractive? Well look at dating sites – all personals, look at jobs etc. Twitter has mislead people if they believe that delivering coke ads to my mobile is important. However delivering options where I stand may be.

Lastly. The reason I really think I should quit developing around Twitter is it  isn’t an “understood” or “rational” playing field. Staying on board is about ‘trust’. I don’t even want to count the number of hours I’ve put into Twitter in various forms. Twitter still doesn’t have a release 1.0, 2.0 strategy type of roadmap. In fact they test with some ‘friends” and those that have the leg up on other developers are those that are most connected to Twitter pals or already have the most users. There was no SDK for iPad or SKD for iPhone4.0. No sign of it coming either. That means you need to know you get special treatment to continue to commit to twitter. Otherwise expect to be “beaten” on timing to release, or changing strategy as the fences are moved around you. Importantly, there are no dates. Eg when will Annotations be launched and what are the rules? Or even @anywhere or the firehose. That remains “experimental”. Experimental and “loose” benefits Twitter and a limited few developers.

It took a few years for the overall Skype Developer program to die. I doubt Twitter’s developer group is going to disappear quite so quickly. I do see it morphing. Twitter is a consumer / user play. It’s not going after businesses or the enterprise. That’s the niche that may keep developers going for awhile.

So my view is “social classifieds” will be off-limits effectively. This space is Twitter’s future. When the people create ads the whole insertion issue in the tweet stream goes away. Developers could integrate Twitmart social classifieds and phweet related services quickly into the “client ecosystem. There’s ultimately no reason that “social-trading” should be limited to one identity.

After working increasingly with social networks and telecoms over the last seven years I can continue to observe that emerging businesses delight in using API’s and hoping to get developer uptake while successful incumbents have almost zero interest in opening up their API’s. I’d found Twitter’s ability to enable “value-adds” via URL’s compelling. While Twitter itself was very much the dumb pipe – just like SMS the opportunity to create a smart signaling / notification channel that negotiated rules for the exchange between individuals was compelling. Twitter was a perfect example of communications wanting to be free, open, and controlled by the endpoints.

Unfortunately, I’m concluding they will be like all that came before. Skype has yet to deliver on a naked Skype (Skypekit is coming?). Twitter is about to get clothed and developers are paying the price. You won’t hear much beyond whispers from the big developers. They actually have large audiences and thus still have options.

I’m all chirped out for now.

Tomi Ahonen outlines his strategic reasons why Apple should launch an iPhoneNano. It’s a rather loNg post I point you to, a little too much history and some stories you may or may not agree with. Still it is a thoughtful piece and after sharing his definition for the iPhoneNano I’ll share a few of my questions.

Communities Dominate Brands: Why iPhone Strategy is Wrong and Has to Change Soon

MY IDEA OF WHAT THE NANO iPHONE SHOULD BE

My suggestion is at roughly half the current price of the iPhone 4. Do a new iPhone Nano at a street price of about 300 dollars without contract, or about 99 dollars for the US market on AT&T with 2 year contract. That kind of price. And not to repeat the iPhone 3GS. Make this genuinely “a new iPhone”. Give it a couple of ‘new’ abilities that the 3GS did not have. This is easy to take from the iPhone 4. Add LED flash to the 3 megapixel camera of the 3GS. Add the iOS version 4 that has multitasking etc. Add a faster CPU and memory than 3GS, so the iOS version 4 will run well. And give it the ‘revised look’ of the new iPhone 4 (obviously also fix the Death Grip haha). The rest of the guts would be essentially the 3GS.

Then VERY importantly, make this a nano model, ie make it physically smaller. Most of all, give it a modestly smaller screen than the iPhone 4, ie 3.2 inches. This gives Apple the chance to make the Nano ‘noticeably’ smaller physically than the traditional iPhone Classic size phones – something like 10% physically smaller in length and width (while retaining about the same thickness). There is the ‘intuitive’ reason why the Nano is cheaper and the full price iPhone 4 more expensive, because the Nano itself is smaller with the 3.2 inch screen, and the iPhone 4 bigger with its 3.5 inch screen. Like in cars, compare the BMW 3 series vs 5 Series etc. The Nano needs to be carefully designed to not significantly cannibalize iPhone 4 sales.

By using the same screen resolution as the current 3GS, there is no significant market fragmentation with a new screen resolution to manage. And by using Moore’s Law, if Apple was able to make the 3GS profitably in June of 2009 with a street price of 600 dollars, it can do a Nano iPhone with almost the same specs but smaller screen, at half the cost it was for the 3GS in 2009. So the Nano in late 2010 will have the identically excellent profit margin.

For me the most important element in his argument today is… it’s now wrong to leave the iPhone3GS in the market. Where I’d like to see data is from an Apple perspective. Eg iPhone sales US vs ROW. The issue with the strategy is the 3GS sort of works in the US underselling the iPhone4 $99 vs $199 but it’s a poor trade-off today. Both require a data plan. It’s a $100 saving in the US that only a few might make. I’d suggest it is more there to help those “trade-up” discussions. Thus he’s right – Apple is missing an opportunity and likely plugging a price gap to get parent to first agree to the iPhone.

Where the iPhone Nano strategy really begins to work is in foreign markets where the iPhone is not subsidized or available unlocked. Here Tomi’s argument for a half price iPhone make a lot more sense. It’s the same as the MacBookPro vs the MacBook. Directionally, I think it’s most likely to hit the day we see the end of the HATED AT&T contractual relationship. My guess is early in the new year.

The second element that Tomi’s analysis overlooks is the impact of iPod Touch and what might happen with the next generation. We almost know for certain that the next generation of iPods will get FaceTime at the top end. We also know cameras are likely coming to the iPad update and we now have rumors of a 7 inch iPad. I think it highly unlikely that a 3G iPod Touch will be launched. However… what’s the difference with that and an iPad3G? There’s a $130 price premium on the iPad3g. Could an iPod Touch3G be launched in time for Christmas at $299? With FaceTime in place Skype in the background it’s a potential phone too. The issue is the “data plan costs”. Yet that’s been set… A 3G iPod Touch would really make things interesting…. particularly with apple’s notification server / facebook etc. It’s also in the US… $25 per month and no plan for 2gb vs adding approx at least $45 dollars for another line on a family plan. Many kids might go with the FaceTime iPod on 3G.

There’s useful discussion in his post about shares and markets. Apple obviously must go beyond GSM and embrace other standards in the US (Verizon), China, Japan etc. This is engineering time… however it’s holding back growth. In the US AT&T is the biggest barrier to growth. The market might look differently at Apple’s stock price in a year if it hasn’t inked an Verizon deal.. or even a TMobile Deal.

I’m not sure I agree with Tomi on product cycles either. PC cycles have lengthened. Mobile cycles have been short. Apple’s cycle hasn’t run out of juice. Eg only the iPhone4 was going to get me off the iPhone 3G. Although I was becoming aware of the Android opps. A longer cycle has some value. And again in the US… these things are sold with 2 year contracts. The contract affects the update cycle. So the impact of a shorter cycle may be less than predicted in this part of the world. Separately, AT&T is enabling some early upgrades.. but I suspect that is more to do with locking us all in for the end of their contract and more open competition – I certainly hope so. A shorter cycle may have more value overseas particularly where secondary markets thrive. However, Apple’s strategy remains too US centric and driven.

Biggest issue I have with Tomi is Apple’s strategy analysis is omission. It should be about a full range of devices… eg phones, portable devices, music players, macs, etc… Most of the other phone makers are  now looking at iPads… I continue to find the Dell Streak interesting although when will it arrive here??? There are an increasing set of trade-off here. Much is increasingly up in the air…. Eg today a Granddad can have an Android sprint phone with hotspot and a wifi iPad and needs no internet connection at home. I wrote about this type of scenario the other day.

As Tomi notes.. there’s been plenty of suggestions about a Nano in the past. I grabbed an image from 2008 speculation. It has no internet and a smaller screen. Tomi’s closer on the screen projection. This nano example may actually work at the youngest end where parents may want to limit internet.. or in markets where there isn’t a good data option. A $200 price point could be charged for this. It’s a phone only… good for the $9.99 family plan.. on contract with AT&T.. probably about $49.  Works with SMS etc. First iPhone…. for the 13 year old.

Will it happen… not so sure. Apple is almost certainly stretched to the limits, technically and supply chains are too. Yet if Tomi were to have his wish tomorrow I’d suggest:

• Apple launch a phone only iPhoneNano – no wifi-no internet – although with the notification server  or some BBM type element built in as a sell-up service option. Apps supported. $200. This eliminates a whole group of apps from being useful… although some like ibooks sync over itunes while obviously the daily newspaper becomes useless in this format.. as does online gaming. However Bluetooth could be used to enable peer to peer gaming in some way.
• Apple Launch a 3GiPodTouch at $300 up from the $200 WiFi touch with micro sim. An iPhone without the phone… data centric. A mini iPad3g. The risk is.. it cuts into iPhone4 sales…. where an iPad doesn’t. Still this product is potentially the future.

All of these are feasible and the price points are unlikely to really hit / reduce their margins.

I started writing about Facetime quietly a month ago. Now I’m sharing some of those thoughts. Beyond the handset manufacturers and the mobile operators I think the enterprise, and suppliers to the Enterprise like Cisco for example should consider FaceTime and how it works carefully. Even companies like BT that have failed to fire on Ribbit might want to look at how they could help HP or Nokia. While ultimately I’m much more interested in the experience and user stories technology is again impacting on how we communicate and it’s important to corporate strategy.

Previous Posts in the FaceTime series:

1. FaceTime – Has Apple Suckered the Operators Again?

2. FaceTime – Call it SIP 2.0?

In previous posts I’ve outlined how FaceTime works setting up a SIP/VoIP/Video session based on well known communications standards. These are also prevalent in the Enterprise. This is a future looking post. It will highlight why FaceTime is poised to have a real impact in the enterprise and as a consequence further challenge RIM’s position with CTO’s and challenge the enterprise communication hardware suppliers like Cisco and Avaya.

Imagine an enterprise world where every employee carries an iPhone4 with FaceTime built in. Visualize little docks on every desktop, WiFI running throughout the campus. Look around and you see no handsets on any desk. Watch employees touching screens and making brief FaceTime calls to each other without even dialing a number. Now think about when they go home.

While that phone is on the desk in the HotSpot it is a SIP phone equivalent. That’s how large enterprises run their communications. They also have large PBX’s and route calls over these networks which exist purely as data and are never handled by your traditional telecom.

Now here’s a list for the Apple Rep’s story going into the enterprise. We want to help you upgrade your network to video calling, save you money on hardware and give your employees the worlds most desirable handset. We can because:

1. Every handset comes with SiP/VoIP?Video pre installed. It is compatible with all your standards / PBX’s etc. In fact we simplify things for you. There’s nothing to register. When you add a phone to your enterprise account you only have to run one number for each employee. iTunes creates a Business Account and we will automatically add all these new iPhones to your SIP registry. By default our Notification Server will try and set up all calls using FaceTime (Free) before resorting to a GSM connection.

2. You can eliminate further upgrades and in fact remove old desktop hardware. We’ll give you a simple dock so employees can have FaceTime available on their desks. This is both symbolic and will enable more efficient use of communications. Eg with FaceTime requests the enterprise service enables “context” before the call, saving valuable setup minutes while linking FaceTime into calendar requests makes conference calls more efficient. The net result… end of telephone tag, and unwanted voice mail.

3. More importantly, we’ll save you GSM minutes. All your iPhone’s will default to SIP and use your network, the employees home network etc. Importantly you can manage security and encryption on all calls within your network or with your employees. These calls will be marked secure.

4. Naturally corporate contacts will be managed with their own set of rules. This means you can customize your employees FaceTime callerID when making calls with other suppliers or even when dealing with customers who are on FaceTime.

5. Even branches or small offices which till now haven’t had the benefits of a local PBX can add service and reduce costs.

6. Toggle employee “numbers” for business on and off. Manage their access or route and transfer calls depending on time of day. Even the employees can manage this based on their context. Why? Because for the first time the mobile number and your internal SIP number for VoIP is the same. There isn’t a separate handset or application for VoIP which must be running. Our solution runs in the background working every day for you.

7. Now you are a member of the iTunes Business Accounts we will let you promote within your SIP contact network as many apps as you want to sell or share with a reduced corporate fee of 10% on paid apps for administration and collection services. You will benefit by offering new services, and enabling custom software on your customers phones.

8. For employees that don’t get a mobile we have a simple solution. It’s iPod Touch 4. FaceTime is built in.

Will they buy it? You tell me!

Does RIM have anything that can compete with a FaceTime numbering in parallel strategy today? Is eliminating the provisioning hassle going to build VoIP? Consider what happens when FaceTime is embedded in Safari browsers
in fact any browser? (That’s SkypeKit effectively).

Nokia tried for years to provide mobile handsets that were ready to go with SIP on board. While they worked the provisioning was horrendous, and I doubt they ever really got them working in large numbers. Nokia was
effectively running two phones in one. A SIP phone and a GSM phone. One could be given priority over the other. Fact is battery life, WiFi availability and the #multiple numbers choice (which number do I give you) made these solutions
impossible. It was PhoneGnome that showed how to turn a dumb PSTN line into a SmartVoip Number. FaceTime does the same. Nokia also failed to simplify the set up and registry management. By contrast Apple has a unique number and can enable more than one profile as the CallerID depending on the users relationship with the corporate database or perhaps even another database.

How can Apple get there?

• There’s certainly a role for iTunes Business Accounts. Apple can also add in a service that enables the enterprise customer an easy number migration path. Eg A registry mapping service.

• FaceTime needs some tweaks. It’s missing many features. It must in a short time become more than  GoogleVoice, Ribbit, and Skype. Yet this need not be years and years away. The technology has been done. The devil now is in the details. The most important advance relative to the enterprise has been made. iPhone4 is the first handset that can integrate out of the box with the corporate VoIP/SIP network.

• There a program currently in Telephony standards that seeks to do what Apple is setting up. Eg A method for building a registry between companies that will enable a transition from PSTN to VoIP. It seems Apple already gets it.

There is plenty of opportunity for Apple here. Similarly, I can see Asterisk PBX solutions routing calls to iPod Touch’s.

What strategy should RIM follow? What about Cisco? Others with interest in the enterprise? Does FaceTime even matter? Isn’t the point really that the iPhone brings the new VoIP and next generation iPod Touch’s will work for those where GSM isn’t required.

If proof was required then you only have to look at the New York Times a few weeks ago. Cisco is busy preparing a CIUS tablet using Android for the enterprise. I’m not sure that it will have a role.

This is one of three posts I wrote on FaceTime just after purchasing my iPhone4 and mentioned  here.

There is a hidden trojan horse story behind FaceTime – Apple’s new video calling solution. This post highlights why it is more than just video and suggests reasons other handset manufacturers should take a closer look. Then consider if Apple suckered the mobile operators yet again.

• What is FaceTime? What’s the initial experience?
• Why FaceTime beats Skype.
• What standards is it based on?
• Signaling Call Setup. Does Facetime infringe on other patents and intellectual property?
• Is it really iPhone4 only or could other handset vendors connect to Facetime users? PC users?
• What are the shortcomings that will be fixed in the next year? Where next for Facetime?
• What are the implications in the enterprise?

As I took home three iPhone4′s last Thursday (iphone launch day) it was FaceTime that had the biggest impact on me. Turns out it is elegant and easy to use. It’s also a typically disruptive innovation. It’s hobbled, and not yet the best video solution. It also requires WiFi and an iPhone4. Apple, like they did with the original iPhone (no apps web apps William Volk on Apple’s Boca Raton moment), has effectively chosen to hide their real intentions. Out of the box, its usability makes it instantly the best mobile video solution.

What is Facetime?

This post is not designed to debate the merits of the iPhone. They can be found elsewhere. So lets focus first on my initial FaceTime reaction.

• Simply… WOW” Skype like video on my iPhone. It looked like Skype (and I do use Skype Video with a limited number of people almost daily) and it had this magic second view – let me show you what I’m seeing. It took me a minute to stop sharing my neck and about the same time to realize that this works better than I may have first thought.
• In Face to Face mode it’s less disconcerting than expected. You find yourself talking to a screen with no headset (speaker phone) and holding it relatively close 12 to 18 inches – face to face- so as a head shot it still felt private. In fact this point re putting the phone in a very personal space may be critical. I can see people having short video calls in a Starbucks. It’s possible and less invasive than I imagined. Add a headset and even better.
• A little later, sort of a joke, I used it like an intercom to call my daughter for dinner. Hey, it’s sick I know, still I’ve even texted her with dinners ready when she is in the next room.
• I got back to my desk later and thought. Hmm if I bought a dock for my iPhone it would stand on my desk next to the computer and it would work perfectly for video calls. In fact all calls. No need to even hold it and FaceTime calls are free!

So is it a WOW gimmick? Video calling has been available in parts of the world for years and yet it has never really taken off. I’ve seen it demoed but never had the power of video in my hand for constant use (so that frames some of my perspective). What makes it better? Or not?

My impression is the screen size. This is face cam and ‘see where I am’ cam. Will these calls be long? Perhaps not and the quality isn’t at Skype levels. Still there is something similar to the iPad moment or the iPhone where you are watching TV and reading etc at the same time. Now mobile in hand you are in the right place  more often to have a video call. No need to go to that PC. And get ready. This is video in your pocket anywhere in the house or wherever you have wifi. And the set up is even easier than Skype (see comments below).

There is one big limitation on FaceTime. You must currently be in a WiFi zone and have an Apple product for now. The public story is the carriers aren’t ready for video over the network. The implied suggestion is that carriers may be able to charge for video calling later. Fact is that’s what killed it in the past in Europe. Cost per minute. By contrast FaceTime is free when you can make it work.

So how and why does Facetime beat Skype?

Well that traces to the part I was most curious about. The signaling and video call setup. It’s also going to quickly trace to numbers of users and the installed base. The screen below shows an additional button. I can escalate this call to video by pressing the FaceTime button. The first time I used this I just called my daughter and she answered. I didn’t think about how it knew FaceTime should be an option. The normal phone call started and then I just pressed the button. We were both on WiFi and so she instantly got an accept/decline a FaceTime session request. We escalated to Video and the AT&T call was dropped. Not quite a seamless transfer as video came on… but almost.

So unlike your first experience with Skype there is nothing to download, no account to setup and no buddies to add before a call can be made. I only have to know the number to start a video call request. That’s key. If I know your number and you have FaceTime then we can escalate to a video call. This call is Free.

Yet at this point I was still a little baffled. It appeared I had a call setup cost.  Ok I can call you and then if you have Facetime and are on WiFi I can escalate the call and we can get off AT&T. But I was concerned. In the US it doesn’t matter. All calls within the AT&T network are unlimited. What I was worried about was the setup cost for an international FaceTime call. Still I found the answer quickly.

The FaceTime call dropped. You just press reconnect. No dialing AT&T. FaceTime knows the other person’s “account” and where you are directing the reconnect request. So it was obvious that you should be able to set up a FaceTime call without a voice call via your carrier. Turns out you can – it’s just not quite so obvious. I’ll provide the method and save the discussion for signaling and standards.

The solution for making direct FaceTime calls currently is to either: Look at your recent calls. If one is marked FaceTime you can simple “redial” and you will send a FaceTime request. No reason you can’t save these in your Favorites too. Second. Look up the contact and then scroll down. There’s a FaceTime button. Press that button and you can associate a mobile number (needs FaceTime at the other end to not fail) click it and try and connect.

Skype’s problem?

We now have a mobile Skype Video equivalent in our pocket without chat. By sales Apple will create an automatic installed base in the 10′s of  millions.  There’s likely to be three times more FaceTime users in a year than Skype has concurrent users online. Of course these FaceTime users may not all be in a hotspot just like Skype users aren’t always at a PC. Despite Skype’s success on the iPhone they can’t beat the utility of everyone having it. Importantly… no need for a new buddylist. For now, Skype does have an advantage going across different mobile platforms – Android, Symbian, Apple, Linux etc.

What Standards is FaceTime based on?

Apple has built FaceTime using all the VoIP telephony standards. For now it is closed or at least semi-closed. Yet there is no need for it to stay that way. Here’s a link that explains the standards.

Apple announcement of FaceTime, their new video telephony solution, included various standards: H.264, AAC, SIP, STUN, TURN, ICE, RTP, and SRTP. If this is the case, it would offer great start for interoperability, as the very same standards are widely used by the modern video communications solutions by majority of the vendors.

So in simple language it is generic VoIP/Video with a great UI. There’s no reason it won’t connect to all sorts of other systems in the future. The desktop client is almost certainly coming or perhaps in iChat it is already here. Although frankly let people build the client they want (like Twitter did). There will be more innovation.

Signaling Call Setup. Does FaceTime infringe on other Patents?

With all these standards and the ability to set up FaceTime calls directly using them it’s obvious that Apple is creating the appropriate SIP etc accounts to make it all work. So how’s that done.

Simple, I presume although I’m not the one to look under the hood. Let someone else comment on that. I’m assuming the moment you register your iPhone4 with iTunes that Apple is waiting. They create at least one SIP account on your behalf. Let’s call this example “yourphonenumber@me.com” or +1925xxxyyyy@me.com. They may also create another based on your iTunes handle and profile although there’s no need to do that now.

What’s really cool about this is it automatically turns your current mobile phone number into a SIP and thus VoIP line. This is huge and something I’ve discussed with others in the past.

Example. Take a look at PhoneGnome.  Apple could be infringing on a number of patents in this case. Phonegnome turned your PSTN line into a voip line. It made a SIP address out of your landline number. It then tired to connect all calls via VoIP first before resorting to using the PSTN. VoIP to VoIP or PhoneGnome to PhoneGnome was free.

Apple’s being a little more crafty with the launch. They haven’t told you they’ve registered a SIP address on your behalf. They are just suggesting that the Carriers may have an option to work out something re 3G video calling. At least that is what it looks like. In the meantime it’s magical.

However, if I try to connect a FaceTime call and you are not online there’s no automatic roll-over to the mobile carrier today — but there could be. In FaceTime we have a 100% VoIP/Video solution that can set up calls outside of the Carrier. In fact Apple has the signaling process built in. It’s the Apple notification server. A simple little programming and the signal is sent and rather than presenting a notification it presents as a FaceTime call request. Craftily Apple has not yet exposed a chat option. That makes it look like a video solution rather than the multifaceted communication service it is going to be.

So what models does this set up for carriers? In other posts observers have alluded to the App store as Steve Job’s moment where he wrestled control of ringtones to music from them. I think there’s another one hidden in FaceTime.

Apple effectively has control of all signaling between iPhones for call setup and acceptance. They have a migration path to an iTunesID which will soon become a gaming identity (and social network). The Apple notification server and thus the signaling API is open. Anyone can set up a notification service to iPhones. So potentially others could signal that they want to use the “Facetime” video setup as well.

Is it really iPhone4 only or could other handset vendors connect to Facetime users?

In the Apple universe I don’t opt-in I automatically get FaceTime with iPhone4. Apple has set up my account for me. Yet the standards are fairly generic. So as a thought experiment if Nokia or Android built an App that used the Apple notification server for FaceTime setup with iPhones and created an App for me to download that I ran in the background…. then I can opt in as a user to accept FaceTime Video call equivalents from an Android friend or Nokia pal.

That would be pretty neat. That app would have its own notification server for Android or the same for Nokia. There’s some benefits in creating these and it’s what differed from all the other previous mobile video systems. Call setup was managed by the carriers. Now the handset vendors could all get in on call-setup solutions.

You may ask?  Why would Nokia or Android do this? It makes their handsets more valuable. It also makes me happier as an iPhone user. The downside is… it remains opt-in until Apple really opens up this service.   This will only come where everyone is using the same approach. I’d think it will help Apple to be very open about the standards they are using.

What are the shortcomings that will be fixed in the next year

At the moment there are many features missing from Facetime.

• There is no way to dial a number and rather than press call simple press a Facetime button on the dialer(plenty of VoIP/Sip apps have enabled this with their own dialers).
• It’s easier to make that FaceTime call again from the recent calls list. It’s a hassle to use the “contacts” workaround. Yet in the US these calls aren’t being sold yet as “free” – but they are!
• I can’t get status of who’s online for facetime. That’s almost certain to come with the gaming network in the fall.
• If I try and initiate a Facetime call with you and you aren’t there there’s no notification message sent. This could be sent by the Apple notification server.
• Similarly there is no request mechanism for Facetime where acceptance on behalf of the receiver would raise the video call.
• FaceTime is also the future of CallerID. In time it could present any profile you want as a request for Facetime. It also can be modified over time to provide context with the FaceTime request. That’s simply huge. I worked on this by creating Phweet. Apple has applied my model. It’s just not all visible yet.

What are the implications in the enterprise?

Above I wrote that the dock on the desk may now have new value – and not just as a charging dock. It makes sense to bring video into the enterprise. In FaceTime makes it super easy to bring VoIP into the small enterprise.

Now we know Facetime is SIP / VoIP based. Now consider the traditional problems for provisioning a SIP network for a small business. Think about the duplication of numbers (mobile and desktop). Now every iPhone comes with SIP in a box. Nothing to install, no accounts to manage, no new numbers. Every extension is now both SIP and mobile. It is just one SUPER BUSINESS number. It may also be associated with other profiles.

That may actually be the biggest trojan horse in FaceTime. If you are an enterprise then Apple just simplified the whole SIP/VoIP/Video equation. If you are Blackberry/RIM then you are now dead. Why would I bring in Blackberries when they can’t match this utility?

I can see a business world where “FaceTime” is the dock on the desk and the desktop phone is gone. It’s worked for the laptop and works with the docking stations in so many enterprises. This is along the same lines.

So let’s wrap up.

A Trojan horse appears to perform a desirable function for the user but instead contains some surprises inside. In this case FaceTime facilitates a way for Apple to take over the mobile numbers from the carriers and then uses them to build their VoIP network and replace the traditional numbers.

This solution is Skype reinvented – an invisible VoIP solution with zero setup costs. It also looks more like Twitter and traditional telephony and doesn’t have the hangups of “will you be my buddy?”. It provides future opportunities to manage the inbound stream of call requests (ie filter access).

It steals your “number” and makes it more valuable and thus eliminates the need to be in the GoogleVoice world with yet another number using traditional signaling methods. Apple can build in many more smarts into the notification system.

Apple is creating a legitimate new market for video. It will remain closed at least for now. The iPhone4 population will ensure it grows in popularity. There may well become real benefits for having FaceTime. I expect some businesses will prosper immediately. Charging for FaceTime is coming guaranteed.

Apple is also creating a mobile video solution before the Skype’s can really make it happen. It has the advantage as it comes preinstalled. It also automatically runs in the background and is likely to drive sales. Particularly in families where there is a family plan already.

A month ago I circulated some blog post ideas to friends on Apple Facetime. I got some feedback that they were interesting. In the meantime I’ve continued to trace Apple’s FaceTime video solution for iPhone and contemplate the implications. Ultimately, I’m interested in the opportunities FaceTime is likely to create and present. Then what it could mean for users.

I wrote three different pieces just one week after I took home 3 iPhone4′s on launch day. I titled them (below) and sent them out. My interest tracking against how technology changes are likely to impact on the office, the home, and in the types of conversations we ultimately have. For me FaceTime is a Skype-like launch moment. It’s a point in time where everything effectively just changed. It’s as important (as an event rather than in technology) to the future of communication as touch was to redefining mobile handsets in 2007 or Skype’s original launch. I’ll publish these next week.

1. FaceTime – Has Apple Suckered the Operators Again?
2. FaceTime – Call it SIP 2.0?
3. FaceTime and the Enterprise – Apple’s New Threat to RIM

Since then I’ve been watching for other snippets of information around FaceTime. I’d add to these updates on the iPod Touch that must be coming. Example. More iPod TOuch FaceTime Details Appear which includes details about your apple ID and the ability to use multiple profiles and multiple email addresses. FaceTime and Music Perfect together. While I doubt this given the way audio codecs work it’s an angle I’ve experimented with before using Skype and gaming makes this interesting. Then there are other posts on the URL approach and how 3GS phones recognize them. iPhone 3GS recognizes FaceTime URL’s in IOS 4

Some additional signals that don’t related directly to FaceTime and yet demonstrate an emerging understanding of mobile voip implications. AT&T started charging for data. Skype gave up on the idea of charging a fee.

FaceTime interests me as a user, observer, researcher and strategist. FaceTime is really nothing new. All the pieces, and the inevitability of it have been in play for years. Just like “dumb pipes” and “stupid networks”. Yet FaceTime redefines what’s under the hood in a way that other handset and OS manufacturers and developers must take notice of. What should Nokia or Android do? Samsung? How’s Facetime changed the relationship of handset manufacturers with Carriers etc? What are the implications for Cisco? Avaya? etc? in the enterprise?

My guess is many of these companies still can’t answer a FaceTime strategy question – with a straight or simple answer. From my perspective it remains an upstream signal… and and one from which a number of different scenarios could test alternate views of how things could play out.

This post is the result of a collaborative conversation. Jon Husband and I were catching up on Skype discussing where KM / HR /  enterprise learning / web2.o themes are going. I captured some of our thoughts in rough notes and  then tried to grow them. I passed back my draft to Jon who edited and added some clarity. Today blogging this my first question is too soft. It is not just looking for new conversations, what I care about is whether or not you will embrace change and have a real conversation around it. That’s something we are both effective at helping people with.

The New Conversation – Exponential Flows

Are you looking for the new conversation? The conversation you are supposed to be having or perhaps aiming to turn into gold?

How we enter into conversations is fundamentally changing. So is our role in holding them and using them. You sort of know it and yet you want the proof points too, because as often as not the “conversations” you and others may be having on the Web (the Web2.0 conversation) are too ad-hoc.

We might say it’s broken. It’s too focused on collaboration as the new work while organizations are just bogged down in meetings. Is your organization truly agile? Flexible? Connected? How are you addressing the change in processes required to succeed?

Consider these general trends:

• more information is available “in the flow”
• it can be easily searched and retention may not be the key
• change when networked effectively is not linear rather exponential
• we talk about “learning faster”, and “failing faster” in order to learn better and more quickly
• developer communities are much more agile than the enterprises they support
• we live in the flow in an activity stream and control or have access to more data personally

Enterprise conversations are at an inflection point – or closing in on one. Whereas previously “info was power” increasingly the outsourcing, the API’s, “standards” mean reduced leverage from internal information silos. Competitive advantage now comes from harnessing the value of community info. IE how connected is the organization. More importantly … how connected is each employee both internally and externally.

Each day we own … and are associated with … more of the information around us. As our lives become more digital that “search” about us (Example Specify) demonstrates the augmented power of the individual to be both part of and apart from a conversation. Today it is harder and harder to push things at me; I pull all the good stuff and some of the best stuff I may share or pass on. And while those “things” may seem without context the emerging people aggregators can make sense out of it.

Many employees are sharing stuff outside of the workplace all the time. For the most part the organization has no way to judge if this learning is relevant or even how it can use it. Why ? Because our lives are not really part of the organizations and we separate our behavior for our jobs. Do you have a life that is outside your job? In a more transparent work world we must increasingly be prepared to connect our personal world and our work world. I think we’ll benefit and so will the communities in which we work.

This boundary and managing the “what we do”  is the key reason the enterprise is stuck in thinking about information assets, and silos rather than how does the organization learn and help people prosper. For example, people such as those in developer communities are adapting more rapidly to change and are more agile in their actions. We can only expect this trend to accelerate. Another example is the way traffic monitoring systems are changing, or being changed. Today we have proof that a few mobile phones can actually process the location of traffic jams more accurately than the traditional helicopter in the sky, or more recently the webcam on the pole. Yet few organizations go would let go to this extent.

The answer is to let go and embrace the employees, and the community and encourage them to bring more in.

There’s plenty of good example of organizations that really get the purpose of the “suggestions” box. Yet if the box has a definition around it… eg boxed then how many suggestions are being missed. That’s the downside of restricting the flow of information into the organization. That’s the downside for not turning the organization outwards. Organizations are so focused on “push” that they fail to work the “pull” effectively.

Concurrently organizations must think less about “flow” and more about “acceleration”. Being in the flow isn’t enough. An organization’s effectiveness and ability to survive will be embedded in exponential escalation and network effects.  Knowledge has always flowed between individuals and within groups. However, for the most part individuals have no interest in hoarding that information. Neither do small businesses. They were never able to spend the money or capture the information to leverage “information and data” to make money. However, they built relationships better than their large compatriots. They thought about the conversations they had, and they listened. That’s something that most major enterprises don’t know how to do.

The Microsoft Kin debacle is a great example of how not to listen. If you ask me the research must have sucked, the business model re pricing didn’t hold up etc. The biggest failure was not listening, and a culture that seemingly was incapable of asking sensible questions. Microsoft had ever chance in the world not to miss this opportunity and blew it. Microsoft is also structured around old principles.

Conversation brings questions. Plenty of organizations know how to talk or is that strut their mumbo jumbo. They have PR and marketing experts now falling over themselves to provide that “social” connection and leverage. If it happens at a personal level it may work.

The crux is the information is increasingly moving to being outside the organization. Many organizations are going to be hollowed out by this effect. Just think about an organization that has no information assets, but still makes or provides something. What does it need? It certainly needs suppliers. It needs a way to estimate demand or make to order. It also needs to pay the employees. Does it need a huge marketing department in a world which can aggregate profile and demand with a simple / complex search? What will sales look like? Will it be a developer community? Or is that a user community?

In a restaurant where people go to dine (for example) the Chef has recipes. Most recipes, and how to execute them, are contained in their head. Yet perhaps tomorrow the menu should be based on who’s coming to dinner. So if you are a restaurant competing for business perhaps Yelp is going to help you with your menu?

So if you are the “new” organization looking to start a “new” conversation that will take you forward – where to start?

Don’t start with systems, and processes. Reject the idea that you are going to roll in new collaborative software. Start instead with a message. Start by listening… listening harder. In fact, that may be the first social step to getting beyond the structural impediments that lie in your way. When you listen really hard you open yourself up to new conversations. Those tend to be the ones that create real value. They are also the equivalent to learning on the job, and increasingly learning in real-time becomes the core of the work.

Think exponential. We tend to think straight line. In fact the accounting and budget departments don’t like the hockey stick estimates. Marketers always want to go viral too. That’s the same sort of exponential thinking. Yet that’s what we need. Good ideas, like a great story, are infectious, shareable, and seeded with a passion.

Empower people. Think about values and principles. It’s better to run on those than to run an organization on rules. Strengthen core values and look to build the conversation around them. Build conversations that revolve around flow, acceleration, agility, and change.

Only then will you be on the way to a new conversation. For Enterprise2.0 is stuck today in “social business”, web2.0, and resorting to outside suppliers and vendors with solutions for yesterdays problem.

When work moves beyond the boundary it becomes more social. When the organizational values are more broadly adopted by a community then engaging becomes more compelling. We’ve seen this in traditional brands and no matter how hard they try we will never see it effectively done by companies that are protected by regulation (example AT&T, Verizon, Comcast).

Companies like FedEx and UPS have harnessed information that helps delivery and tracking. They facilitate relationships between buyers and sellers. I’d suggest that more companies should think like that.


I’m still making notes and keeping observations about my iPad.  This is Part 4 of the Series where I share how I find I’m using my iPad in my kitchen. The series so far:

Part 1: What the iPad means to your next iPhone purchase! Observation #1 Speed
Part 2: iPad Observation #2 Content and Reading – Reinventing the Paper
Part 3: iPad Observation #3 Motorcycling with the iPad – Better than a laptop or notebook
Part 4: iPad Observation #4 Kitchen iPad – Epicurious – Food Revolution – ABC Player and where’s Safeway and Tesco?

For years I’ve seen the odd TV in kitchens. At one time they were small and portable. Then there were LCD’s etc. For me there was always that segment that watched TV in the kitchen. There’s another part of the kitchen I like too. It’s the bookcase part with a collection of recipe books and perhaps the “book stand” so they are easy to read. Yet the iPhone came along and I found it was easy to find a new recipe there and then there was Jamie Oliver’s 20 Minute Meals which taught me the fine art of making Risotto. Although the screen was too small, the length of time it stayed bright (settings) was always a nuisance.

Does the iPad have a place in the kitchen?  Then the iPad came along. Its place in the kitchen as part of modern everyday life is apparent. At first I even had the dock and charger located there. Whether on the table or on the bar it is at home there. Where and how’s it being used?

1. Reading: Yep its a supplement or replacement for the newspaper and that ‘take a break’ ritual. iPad and coffee and cereal? Kids reading to you?

2. TV: When you are left with nowhere else to go in the house and are pushed back into the kitchen. Stand up the iPad in the iPad Case and start watching Netflix or ABC Player. Need to understand what’s wrong with the American diet… start watching Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution (was an entertaining series).

3. Cooking: Inspired to cook and eat better the iPad becomes that recipe book. While the iPhone could do with a good “camp food” recipe book Epicurious offers a visual experience that just starts to demonstrate why Recipe books are now obsolete. Add in ratings and room for comments and notes. Create your favorites. The change for me – earlier, the computer recipe was printed out somewhere else in the house. It wasn’t spontaneous while you are looking in the fridge etc.

4. Notes, email etc. Yes and no. I’d still put the shopping list directly on the iphone. Although the kitchen office is obvious. Notes, the odd family email yes very doable.

5. Sharing Occasions: Others have noted the iPad’s capability as a sharing device. It’s a great “bring it here” or “show me” device – thinking more about with children.

For me, the biggest downside of the iPad as a shared device is the lack of “log-ins”. In a house it is not about the password it is simply examples like everyone has a Facebook account. Logging in and out is just an unnecessary pain point.

This leaves me wondering how many households would benefit more from the addition of an iPad rather than an iPhone. There are many things the iPhone does from camera to the shopping list that the iPad cannot do. Yet in a family environment where there’s a stay-at-home partner and perhaps a desktop and general shared computing, this device takes the household experimentation into a new realm.

If the trend continues and people see it they are already saving for Xmas! In all the cases above it provides ready access to information in an environment that wasn’t starved of it but was usually adjacent. I haven’t solved the sticky fingers on the screen although I’m in the right place to clean it. As our living spaces have changed and so many homes live around the Kitchen it should be no surprise to find the iPad is at home there too.

We have plenty of “home & kitchen” stores. Great displays, lots of gadget. The iPod produced a generation of “Sound Docks”  and while BlendTec decided the best thing to do was blend an iPad, perhaps the best approach is to create an app for that. I’m always a little skeptical of multi-engined tools. Eg the drill, saw, sander, jigsaw type of thing. Yet there’s a range of Kitchen apps and gadgets coming that will make the iPad more relevant to this place in the home. Things I’d add to this idea space. Security, FirstAid, MedicalPlanning, Dietary Assistance, Food Scanner, energy meter (PG&E tie-in). If I was Safeway or Tesco I’d have it ready soon for the Shop from home program. Test a free scanner too!

So where’s your iPad go?, get used?, by?, and what’s it doing? What if your iPad kept a diary?

Most importantly. Has your playing around and usage of an iPad yet led you to rethink some aspects about future products, or how you should do business. I’d be surprised if it hasn’t and if you are the CEO of a Fortune 500 and don’t have one yet. I suggest you buy one and later ask your people about it. It’s worth the risk.

Finally I’m getting to my eComm posts and notes. On the third day, AR or Augmented Reality came to eComm America2010 in the form of ARConf.  I know many of the telecom crowd didn’t stick around for day three and I feel they missed out big time. Almost 12 hours long, Lee Dryburgh and team pulled together a line up of talks that kept your attention, stretched your perspective and most importantly helped you personally reframe a little of your world view. Few left the room at any time.

I admit I was somewhat skeptical going in. I think AR is like VR was. Overhyped and overstated. Example I can’t get excited by Layar in it’s current rendition although appreciate why it has investor dollars. Yet as with any new technology experience we require the prototypes and users to learn. My purpose with this post is to cover:

1. What the telco geeks that left, missed out on and perhaps a little of what I needed more of in the first two days of eComm
2. What AR challenges are there
3. The next step for AR experiences
4. A future conference thought

1. Telecom, VoIP and AR – What’s the relationship? On one level the answer is seemingly very little. On another at the infrastructure level it’s huge. Yet it took me most of the day to understand this. The thrust in AR is from the desktop to the mobile. The rah rah end of AR today is in companies like Layar – an augmented browsing experience where the information is overlaid over views of the environment. For this to work on the mobile, the cloud has to be very effective. While there was some talk of voice into the cloud embracing the full spectrum of opportunity represented by AR will require important developments in location, sensors, and access. While the AR examples shown were not about voice it stands to reason that voice ultimately is part of this reality.

2. AR Challenges. I heard, over and over, the history on AR and the challenges of the current crop of mobile AR implementations. Biggest problem. AR solutions that look through the camera resulted in a restricted or smaller field of vision. This reduces the impact of the experience, however probably counteracts for the other professed problem… how accurate is the location. Typically off by 27 feet (from memory). By contrast one of the most compelling demos I saw was of a dancer playing virtual instruments she couldn’t see. Albert Hwang the dancer, who calls himself an Information Artist was amazing. Check out his video on Spatial Computing:

I could quickly translate that Smule’s magic piano at some future time would stay in my pocket while enabling a performance. Amber Case, a Cyborg Anthropologist further reinforced this thought with the practical symplicity of GeoNotes and using a belt unit and buzzer for getting you to your destination.

3. The next AR experiences. I don’t believe we will have too many experiences that really change everything through the camera or mobile phone. The gesture of walking along with a camera and looking though the limited lens doesn’t work. I left believing the short term challenge is to enable the AR overlay while your phone continues to reside in your pocket. The obvious example is when walking there’s no need to look at a map and the voice directions don’t have to be delivered in time to make a screeching turn.

Another element of this observation is “speed”. This is one of my new mantra’s when talking mobile and inserting apps into the flow. Unless they run in the background they won’t work at all. Eg Even now waiting for a map to load or a twitter client to switch to a camera to then upload it is all too slow. Waiting for the Yelp app if you can find it (oh search) to identify that restaurant. For those with a 3GS iPhone with a compass I hear Yelp Monocle is quite popular (although I don’t know what that really means). Speed or response to environment remains a key issue.

So there’s a big opportunity for “voice” in the background when or as appropriate. The smart assistant. There’s also the opportunity for considering the “gestures” that the mobile can enable. These could relate to movements, sensors etc. What’s exciting to me is the AR world leads in a direction that makes the mobile ultimately less visible and more practical and personal at the same time. I’ll be writing another post on what AR may mean to iPhone 5.0.

Conclusion:
Ecomm America 2010 was a powerful event. #ashcloud impacted on the curation. I really felt for Lee Dryburgh the organizer, curator, and moderator who had to watch his conference from half a world away. I see opportunities for the next eComm to broaden the “mobile” discussion, broaden insights into global markets and balance the edginess of some apps with the needs in the emerging markets.

eComm is ultimately about people and creating a better global communications environment. While it grew out of eTel and VoIP, the future is beyond Asterisk, and numbers. Communications tomorrow is more likely to be effected by Facebook and Twitter, than Skype or GoogleVoice. The handset is morphing into a computer and yet the future couldn’t be any more unevenly distributed.

A quick dive into AR proved to me that the mobile as a “tool” remains the most exciting device on the planet. As a mobile computer it becomes even more compelling. The stretch remains in infrastructure, whether frequency, or sensor networks and standards and regulatory agreements or in simple UI solutions. Mobile continues to teach us a lot about why websites aren’t engaging. Soon it will teach us how to replace money, educate our children and more.

Right now I don’t know of one conference that thinks very very deeply about the future of mobile. It’s fragmented and piecemeal while overall it is an industry with an increasing set of unknowns. My attendance at the first eTel and then later eComms was driven by my desire to see cost and friction driven out of communications. I’ve watched the shift to communications that are always on with presence, that have moved from simple status updates to ongoing contextual messaging and the acceleration and in many cases the usurping of chat by SMS. I’ve also watched mobile move to a gesture and touch based direction while maps and various mashups around them became more pervasive. In ten years (maybe less time) the website as we know it today will be dead. It will be completely dominated and led by the mobile experience.

There’s real challenges on the horizon for setting the agenda for the next eComm. There’s plenty of issues. Example the gap between organizations and where us users are rapidly finding ourselves. The real-time web, notifications, patents on gestures, more on UI design, more statistics on APP stores, better coverage of the emerging world, and more. The conversation is changing. TV is now part of eComm. Books perhaps. Communications and connectivity is trending to how the tool in our pocket is radically reframing the world.

Bonus Link: check out young Pranav Mistry’s Sixth Sense – “a wearable gestural interface that augments the physical world around us with digital information and lets us use natural hand gestures to interact with that information.”. Here’s a talk he gave at TEDIndia: