The Apple-Adobe Altercation Continues

The open-than-thou battle between Apple and Adobe continues in full swing. Steve Jobs has now come out with an essay on how Adobe's Flash is technically inferior for usage on the mobile platform and how Flash is yet to evolve beyond the PC-centric web that it was originally designed for.

No doubt, some of Jobs' complaints on Flash might indeed be on the dot, in terms of battery usage and/or bugs. The logic carries weight when Jobs says there's a sizable body of content through YouTube that can still be viewed through Apple's devices. However, the argument breaks down when Jobs tries to drive home the point that Adobe is as closed a platform as any other. The problem is, as Jobs himself acknowledges in a fleeting manner, Apple has taken onto itself the responsibility (as it sees) or control (as Adobe sees) of determining what is best for its consumer. And a huge factor going in its favor currently is that consumers don't appear to be giving a thought. For now, Apple's innovations in user interfaces and form factors are greater drivers for consumers. Is that likely to sustain?

Apple is no stranger to criticism and Steve Jobs no stranger to writing open letters. A few years back Jobs wrote an open letter on criticisms that it faced on DRM'd music content. A common theme across both these letters is the emphasis on how industry players are expected to work around to address the needs of Apple's consumers! In the case of music, Jobs exhorted labels to go DRM-free and in the case of flash, the focus is on telling Adobe to deliver a tight product.

Jobs' reference to Adobe's strategy of working as a cross-development platform and how that hinders rapid deployment of new features is a clear acknowledgement of how Adobe's multi-platform multi-screen strategy gets in the way of Apple's single-platform multi-screen strategy (which I had alluded to in my previous post on control issues on the iPhone). And that issue is clearly one revolving around business model and potential monetization than a real pressing technical challenge.

Computing platforms have historically evolved and will continue to evolve. Flash may indeed have been designed for a PC-centric world, but it is as much Apple's responsibility to its consumers as it is Adobe's that they develop a working version of Flash rather than create their own versions of walled gardens. The issue at hand is very little around whether consumers can view flash videos on Apple's growing stable of devices, but one that is fundamental to how the web evolves. A seamless experience for the end-user or a series of islands that constantly spar on how to and if they should build bridges !

Why platforms like iPhone and Twitter are becoming control freaks

This post first appeared in VentureBeat.

Small app developer shops have had a great couple of years. Facebook, Apple, Twitter, and a host of other platforms opened up and let these third-party developers build games and other apps to entertain their users, and in the process allowed developers to build multiple monetization channels as well.

It was a great move for the platforms — all those cool apps brought in more users and kept those users coming back. And it was great for the developers who would otherwise have found it hard to drum up an audience for their apps. But it looks like that trend is probably in danger.

In recent weeks we’ve seen both Twitter and Apple clamp down on developers, adding new restrictions to their developer agreements. It looks like the platforms are eager to take over what appear to be lucrative business opportunities those developers helped to build. Now the question on everyone’s mind is, exactly how much control are the platforms going to be exerting here? It may be that wresting back control from the stakeholders is imperative if a platform is to grow, but if so, how do the stakeholders that helped popularize a platform benefit?

Whether we’re talking about Twitter launching an ad network that could challenge other Twitter-based ad players, or Apple’s recent decision to ban Flash-to-iPhone conversion tools, or the fact that Apple’s new iPad device lacks external ports, it’s clear there’s a trend towards control here. Apple has never been considered an open system, but the actions of the past week indicate that it’s going even further down the road to a closed ecosystem. And then there’s Google’s Android platform. Android’s raison d’être was to enable openness and allow the partners in its ecosystem to decide how closed they want to go. Yet, Google, as the curator of the platform, decided to introduce a new distribution channel and differentiate between phones based on its own criteria. Meanwhile, social networking giant Facebook has been busy, too. The social network has long said that its users should be in charge of their own privacy settings. But a few months ago, it changed tack and took on the role itself.

Why is this happening? Well, there are many reasons, but they tend to fall into three broad categories:

Erect Entry Barriers: Facebook, Google, and Twitter have all grown and scaled on the back of the open web (where access to services has been unfettered by any gatekeeper and consumers were free to switch services with minimal switching costs). They have been able to attract users rapidly because the web has been an open playground, with users gravitating to services that best served their needs. This is very unlike the physical world, where competition is highly uneven in different geographies and location inherently serves as an entry barrier. Increasingly, these companies are recognizing that while the open nature of the web has been a great contributor to their growth, they need to erect entry barriers one way or the other to limit competition if they want to sustain growth at the same rate. By taking steps to control access, features, development tools, or buying out competition, successful companies are looking to raise their control over the markets that they operate in. Apple’s lack of USB ports (primarily aimed at discouraging sideloading) and Google’s “Superphone” requirements for its distribution channel are both indicators of such entry barriers. These barriers will usually not be obvious to the end-user, but they certainly limit the ability of third-party players to operate and interact at will.

Build Platforms that Can Scale: As companies grow larger and more successful, a key decision they face is how much to invest in new products versus how much to continue investing in their existing assets. While there are pros and cons to both approaches, when companies decide to continue investing in existing assets by, for example, building new products/services on top of existing ones, they’re more inclined to protect that investment by exerting more control over their base products. Apple’s approach with its various product lines clearly exemplifies this approach. Starting off with the iPod ecosystem, Apple built the iPhone. On top of the iPhone OS, it has now built the iPad. Note that the iTunes way to interface with the product remains a constant, while the underlying core remains the same for apps (iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad). Having built a platform that Apple has now scaled to multiple products, the company has to ensure that it retains significant control. And that explains its latest move to keep companies such as Adobe at bay — companies that have a professed multi-platform multi-screen strategy that obviously gets in the path of Apple’s single-platform, multi-screen strategy. Similarly, consider Google’s new online-only distribution channel for Nexus One. A movement towards distribution is a first for Google, since the company had thus far allowed device vendors to forge their own distribution tie-ups. While these are still early days to gauge the success or failure of this channel, the intent is pretty clear. As Google continues seeing increased uptake of Android, it wants to involve itself not just in enhancing Android features and providing web services on Android phones but in expanding this presence to newer areas.

Grab the Early and Late Majority Crowd: A key feature of most web and PC-based services remains that most users tend not to tinker around with default settings. The implicit understanding is that if they are comfortable installing/using a service, then they are fine with the settings suggested by the provider. And this user behavior is exploited by service providers to further their goals. For instance, Facebook’s recent privacy settings changes are aimed at making as much profile info public for as many users as is possible. In a similar vein, Twitter’s move to acquire Tweetie or that of releasing a semi-official Blackberry app can be seen as an attempt by Twitter not only to control its platform but also to encourage users to access it through their own application. The underlying assumption here is that, while the innovators and early adopters ( read up here on the theory around diffusion of innovation) might care too hoots about using an “official app”, it is the next wave of people that are the low-hanging fruit. And to this large mainstream crowd, Twitter does not really want to project the impression that the service is significantly separate from the platform. While there are no obvious advantages to using one app over the other currently, that will likely change, as future versions of “official apps” are likely to be more tightly integrated with Twitter’s monetization model and will potentially offer more incentives for users to stick to them.

Given these advantages, it’s clear why platforms would feel the pull to take more control over their offerings. But does enhanced control really deliver in the long run? An answer to that question might come from a different set of players, the mobile operators.

Having started off with highly controlled and closed ecosystems, mobile operators have flourished offering their services in a lock-down fashion. However, of late, they have begun to realize that while closed systems are great for milking consumers, they are not sustainable in the long-run, since the more closed a system gets, the easier it becomes for a disruptive entrant to create havoc. You only need to take a look at the rapid collapse of operator walled gardens (where users were not allowed to browse any mobile site beyond the operator portal and a few select partner sites) and spread of flat-rate mobile data plans (that enable unfettered access to the mobile web) to gauge the pace of this change. Consequently, they are now attempting a painful transition to open ecosystems.

It is ironic that a key reason these mobile operators are beginning to change their business models is because they’re trying to emulate the very same Internet players who are now closing up their offerings. And as the two worlds — mobile telecom and the Internet — converge, expect players from both categories to switch business and operational models more often.

In the meantime, what does this mean for stakeholders in the Internet platform ecosystems — the app developers? Are they going to be left high and dry? I would reckon not. Going by past evidence, closed ecosystems, while being tremendously helpful to the platform owners, still allow for opportunities to be made at the edge of the ecosystem in areas the platform owner deems too small to bother with. The difference in this situation is that there are now a lot of edges — wide edges — where innovative developers can create products that can stand on their own whilst leveraging the larger platform. At the same time, services that offer limited value-addition will fall by the way as the platform owners decided to expand.

So it is really up to stakeholders to decide if they want to be offering me-too services or building out truly innovative offerings. But keep in mind that while platforms are going to continue to exert control over their ecosystems going forward, that strategy will only last until the next disruptive company springs.

Will Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 Series Bring Focus Back on End-User?

Software behemoth Microsoft is usually not the company that gets top-of-the-mind recall when someone mentions smartphones. Particularly, in the post-iPhone era, Microsoft's foray into building software platforms for smartphones has been turning into an eminently forgettable chapter. And it is not just mindshare, the numbers speak for themselves. Gartner has recently published its 2009 handset market share figures, and Microsoft's slide is evident. The company slipped from its third position in 2008 to fourth behind Symbian, RIM and Apple, accounting for only 8.7% of all smartphones shipped globally.

Microsoft appears to have recognized the precarious position that it is in, one bordering on irrelevancy in the market for a mobile operating system. And in a manner which is very un-typical of the company, Microsoft chose to tackle the problem head-on with its launch of the Windows Phone 7 Series, which despite being a mouthful, packs a punch. While Microsoft has take a completely different and bold approach to the design of the OS, it is more interesting to see the impact that Microsoft can have on the overall smartphone ecosystem, that increasingly appears to be to shaping up as a bubble that I had earlier alluded to, one dominated by an inordinate focus on mobile applications.

The smartphone market has been in a phase of hyper-attention (and strong growth too, I must add) for the last couple of years. More so with the significant attention that is being paid to applications and their ever-increasing download numbers, particularly from the Apple Store. This overwhelming focus on applications has meant that every player in the telecoms and handset space, and their neighbor, has an app store. However, increasingly, the discussion appeared to be veering so much towards applications, that the overall user experience and a primary focus on the end-user was probably lost along the way. While Apple offered a highly engaged audience for mobile developers, Android with its open approach promised to unshackle developers from the restrictive rules of Apple's vertically integrated ecosystem. Phone launches were accompanied by significant noise on how many applications that users can download. More worryingly, the primary target market for smartphone vendors appeared to be developers and how to bring them aboard. The implicit assumption has been that users will flock to the platform that has more applications. Take the recent announcement of the Wholesale Applications Community from the grand alliance of 27 mobile operators and device vendors which was clearly aimed at attracting developers onto a platform that they control. And this thinking is increasingly becoming more prominent. Indeed, a Wall Street Journal story suggests that the recent purge of risque apps on the Apple store might get developers to abandon ship and move to Android. Like most of the focus in recent times, the end-user is completely missing from the picture. The singular focus on developers is too hard to miss.

I am in no way denying the important role that developers get to play in the smartphone ecosystem. Indeed, I'd attribute the strong success of smartphones as a category to a potent combo of killer apps + high carrier subsidies. However, that should not be reason for any one stakeholder in the ecosystem to upend the consumer's position.

It is in this context that I find the Microsoft approach to a mobile platform refreshing. The UI in itself has eliminated the need for users to jump between applications. While it might be a tiny change in the overall context, however, I view that as indicative of the consumer returning to the forefront. It represents a design where the end-user takes precedence over all other stakeholders. Microsoft's presentation at the MWC has been remarkably bereft of a focus on applications. In fact, the company has gone on to the extent of not disclosing much info for the developer community, reserving it for a separate developer-focussed event.

Microsoft's focus on the consumer, and this time the enterprise category, with exchange, sharepoint and office functionality in-built is likely to work in favor of a significant proportion of enterprise users. In the smartphone space, players including Apple and Android vendors have targeted this segment as an after-thought. Driven by the idea that enterprise consumers can be a profitable proposition, multiple vendors and carriers have tried to push through smartphones into the enterprise, but haven't seen real great successes against the likes of RIM. However, Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 arguably holds the strongest potential for enterprise adoption, thanks to its native feature-set.

Microsoft has, over the years, shown that it has vision when it comes to desktop computing, user interfaces and the like; and this launch certainly proves that they have the potential and capability to boldly think out of the box when it comes to mobile platforms. However, it remains to be seen if this vision can be translated to execution. But as far as I am concerned, I believe Microsoft has already made its contribution in changing the course of the smartphone industry. By bringing the focus back on the end-user, it is forcing its current competitors to acknowledge and act. And in the long-run, despite the success or failure of Windows Phone 7, this development is likely to have a positive impact on the overall industry. Indeed, there are very few, if any, examples of industries that have thrived by focusing on any element of the value-chain that reads other than end-users.

Is Apple falling behind itself in the innovation game?

A  version of this post, including early reactions from Asia, appeared first in VentureBeat

I agree, having a title like that on a day Steve Jobs introduced what is arguably “Apple’s greatest” device is debatable. But nevertheless, today’s unveiling of the iPad begs that question. While the iPad undoubtedly has top-of-the-line hardware, and a ready content/application ecosystem to feed on, however, does that mean Apple has genuinely innovated in creating a device category that can potentially rescue the legions of traditional media players? Or does it mean that Apple has created a device that can move an entire content stream from other devices/screens on to the iPad? I don’t believe so.

Innovation begins where conventional thinking ends. With the iphone, Apple had done just that. They questioned the fundamental thinking of handset vendors on why keypads should be there, on why compelling third-party applications can’t be built easily, and many more. However, with the iPad, Apple appears to have fallen for the trap of sticking to conventions and building products that do more of the same. True, the iPad indeed boasts a variety of features, targeted at e-book readers, regular content-viewing consumers, and ‘business’ consumers (although I am highly skeptical if we are going to see too many people suited up and using iWork on the iPad).  Apple has also thrown in a 3G radio and sewn-up a flat-rate data plan with its long-time partner, AT&T. But somewhere, all of these bells and whistles fall short.

Apple's iPad adopts a position that is confusing, both to the industry observer and the consumer. While the Kindle and the iPod tried to push consumers to adopt different screens/devices for different needs, the iPad, by attempting to do bits of everything, runs the risk of falling into a no-man's land! For instance, consider its suggested role as a netbook replacement. You cannot run regular Mac OS X apps! And lack of multitasking means users cannot perform basic netbook-style activities such as having a twitter client open whilst streaming music from an online radio. The lack of a camera is also likely to flummox consumers who would expect a $600+ mobile browsing device to allow video-conferencing. And finally, despite the high-end 1 GHz processor that the iPad boasts of, Flash is still off-limits for iPad users, stunting the overall browsing experience. Similarly, take its comparison to a portable high-res media player. The device lacks widescreen display, and you can't connect it to your large-screen TV. 

For more, consider its role as an evolved music player. You're stuck with the amount of memory you opt for, no expandable memory slots for you. Its positioning as a gaming device is probably the only thing that makes sense. Social gaming apps are likely to get a shot in the arm with this category. However, serious gaming remains a big if. Such hazy positioning makes for a potent combo when one takes the pricing of the device into consideration. Although it might start at $499, once you add 3G capability, a 3G data plan (the $15 plan for 250MB from AT&T is a joke for this kind of a device) and the keyboard, and suddenly even the entry-level iPad looks much pricier. Beyond the consumer, Apple also runs the risk of cannibalizing sales of its profitable Mac lines. 

Apple has historically shown that it has been ahead of the innovation curve, atleast in the decade gone by. Starting with the iPod, the iPhone, and the Macs, and the ever-neglected Apple TV, Apple products have always been known for going the extra mile in building innovative solutions for consumer challenges and in the process, profitable business lines for themselves. However, with the iPad, all I see is a product that does a little of many things, a product that tries to build on past glory (not necessarily a bad thing) and most importantly, a product that is representative of other technology companies and not Apple.

Make no mistake, the iPad will likely sell in strong numbers. It might strike it rich in some of the Western Europe markets as well, but as for as I am concerned, this is a step back for the innovative company that I have admired for long.

Google's risky attempt to rewrite the carrier-customer relation

Google has finally decided to put its weight behind phones that ostensibly represent their vision of a smartphone, making for a, er, Superphone. The Nexus One in many ways, has been viewed by many as a response from Google to take on Apple in its (now) own backyard, the high-end smartphone. While Google has indeed made a strong effort to meet the expectations of its own fanboys, by coming up with what many claim to be the best implementation of Android, however, in the process, Google is also attempting rewrite the traditional rules of the mobile industry in the US. In a market where carriers have historically held an iron grip over the consumers, and any other stakeholder in the value chain, (including device vendors, content creators, app developers) was kept on a tight leash, by opening up its own distribution channel, and encouraging people to buy directly, the company is attempting to break the nexus between carriers and device vendors.

For long, the US mobile market has grown on a diet prescribed by the carriers, that had made it extremely difficult for handset vendors to directly take a device to the market. With rampant handset subsidies, device vendors were left with little chance of trying to engage directly with consumers who were happy paying a fraction of the device cost upfront. While multiple others have also attempted to go direct to the consumer, however, few had the weight of a large player such as Google. Lacking the presence of an iTunes-like ecosystem, and a handset-presence, Google is now trying to create alternate channels to carriers and in the process displace them from their 'hallowed' position. By making it clear that it is going to only showcase a limited number of handsets on its channel, Google is making it amply clear that they now want to take the position occupied by the carrier in terms of driving device specifications, and now, tightly integrated applications.

The initial uptake might have been low, but this move is not really about one handset or of the resultant margins. Combine the Android marketplace, with Google Voice and Gizmo5, and a direct distribution channel to customer that's free of carrier-interference, and you are increasingly looking at the prospect of Google creating AND monetizing several over-the-top services and in the process bypassing the carriers completely.

All these moves are however, not without their more than adequate share of risk. Google's pseudo-entry into the handset space will prove quite uncomfortable with its handset partners that decided to latch on to the Android bandwagon. The fact that the Nexus One used the latest Android version before it was made available as an SDK will definitely not be lost on its partners. And by declaring that only select 'superphones' will be retailed through Google's online channel, the company runs the risk of negatively impacting sales of Android 'smart' phones that it has deemed not worthy of the 'super' tag!

Google sure has embarked on a pothole ridden path to controlling the customer relation on the mobile platform. It has its task cut out if it is to emerge unscathed, without antagonizing its partners, whilst hoping to significantly change consumer behavior.

Mobile Internet, the Morgan Stanley Version

Mary Meeker & Co at Morgan Stanley are back at it again....Trying to replicate what they achieved nearly 14 years ago with The Internet Report, the analysts at Morgan Stanley are back at doing what they do best. Sticking their neck out and trying to identify trends that could mark the advent of the next big business in the tech industry. And what better time could they pick than end-2009, when the tech community is drinking Apple's Kool-aid like there's no tomorrow, when Google has apparently decided to go high-street retail with their self-branded phone, when a mobile social network raises more money in under 12 weeks of existence than what a 90 year-old magazine is sold for! Indeed, just when the contours of a bubble around mobile are beginning to emerge, such reports sure will help increase awareness of a space that continues to show strong growth. Neverthless, signs of a bubble not withstanding, the mobile Internet sure is likely to spawn a whole parallel industry to the PC based Internet. As networks grow in capacity, and devices grow in capabilities, and developers in creativity, we are likely to find that the mobile Internet is probably making to make a significantly more impact on our day-to-day lives than the PC based Internet, and in the process, also create new leaders and winners. The mobile Internet sure is big, but will it also necessarily go thro' a bubble before settling down?

The report is definitely worth a good read. You can find the executive summary embedded below and the two reports after the break. Be advised though, they are bulky.

Morgan Stanley-Mobile Internet Report-Exec Summary-Dec 2009

View more documents from Subrahmanyam KVJ.

Is a Smartphone Bubble Building Up?

The signs are getting clear by the day. What started off as a category created by a blockbuster product, is today being heralded as the savior of the mobile handset industry. Correction, the mobile industry in itself. Smartphones, and I am referring to the genre that has unleashed itself post the advent of the iPhone, have seen a smart uptick in sales in recent years. Driven by significant carrier subsidies in the US and elsewhere, and a renewed focus on mobile applications, this category has rapidly gained, both in user acceptance, and in industry attention.

Indeed, for the first time in years, smartphones, coupled with an open mobile ecosystem where customers are not bound by walled gardens, are helping in creating an industry of their own with stakeholders as varied as advertisers, ad networks, mobile developers, and others. Of course, the carriers and the handset vendors still figure in the equation, however, they appear to be increasingly dis-intermediated by either large Internet players such as Google or by innovative device entrants such as Apple, who have successfully recreated walled gardens of a different type. While all of this portends great for the consumer, however, the manner in which the hype is building up in the smartphone space, dominated by discussions over mobile applications, makes one wonder if there is indeed a bubble that's building up, across two of the important elements of this value chain, applications and devices.

The mobile applications space refuses to show signs of any letdown in activity. First it was the spate of announcements over mobile application store launches, and now the focus appears to be on other enablers of the value chain such as ad networks. Apple's App Store sure has seen a couple of billion downloads and a catalog of over 100,000 applications, however, the marginal utility of an ever-increasing number of apps is highly debatable. And not to be outdone, Google's Android marketplace has over 10,000 applications already. Which begs the question, how much is enough? For the consumers, discoverability becomes a huge hurdle, while for the developers, the ecosystem is beginning to act as a strong black hole. Sure there are AAA app developers who've struck it rich, but then, like in the case of any other content businesses, it is only a few apps that hit the jackpot. However, the mobile apps business sure is showing no signs of acknowledging this fact. To add to the overall confusion, multiple versions (Android 1, 1.5 and now 2.0!) of OS platforms are currently out in the market simultaneously, which has significant potential to alientate customers that can't figure out why a specific app is working on their friend's Android phone and not theirs. Yet, device vendors continue to create platforms to attract developers, Samsung's Bada being the latest to join the bandwagon. And with increasing apps, comes the realization of the need for monetization. And this is where ad networks like Admob hit paydirt. Their acquisition for $750 Mn is indeed seen as a validation of the potential of the mobile advertising space, and of course, without underplaying any of the value that in-app usage data that Google gets along.

On the device side, Apple continues to see rising sales. Forecasts are now coming in on how smartphones will likely make up for the bulk of handset sales 18 months from now! Players like Sony Ericsson and Motorola have kind of decided to go away from their low-cost handset focus and invest more on high-end smartphones. And we have even more new entrants in to the smartphone space. Dell, which has been on the fence for quite a while, has finally decided to take the plunge and is launching its smartphone in two of the world's largest emerging markets of Brazil and China. Android is now in to V2, with the Motorola Droid appearing to get early traction.

Rapid growth in any industry segment is always welcome. It indicates that there is significant previously unmet customer demand that newer products are meeting. However, the risk of such rapid growth lies in the possibility of over-the-top exuberance when it comes to estimating future growth. As a wise man once said, most forecasts are over-estimated in the short-term and under-estimated in the long term. Smartphones and mobile applications appear to fit this bill. One can only hope that the current hyper-growth phase is also likely to act as a natural shakeup with the result being fewer smartphone platforms, more open standards for mobile application development, an ecosystem that offers genuine revenue prospects for developers, ad networks, and advertisers, and most importantly, a top-notch customer experience, rather than morph itself in to an uncontrollable bubble.

Update 1: It didn't take long for the next major announcement in smartphones. Techcrunch's quoting unnamed sources that claim Google is close to launching its own smartphone ! Highly doubtful why they want to do that, given manufacturers are already making a beeline to adopt Android. Would Google want to compete with its partners? And more importantly, can Google ensure rapid adoption of its services through its own phone, as opposed to collaborating through the Android ecosystem. Nevertheless, up goes the hype curve !

This Apple Defies Newton's Laws

The title sure seems apposite when viewed in light of Apple's latest quarterly results. Despite the all-round depressed economic environment, and declining consumer spend on TME products and services, Apple has managed to drive both top-line and bottom-line growth significantly. That such stellar results have come in what is usually considered a soft quarter of the year is testament to the twin growth engines of Macs and iPhones. With the iPhone having established itself as the benchmark in the smartphone space, and Macs increasingly finding mainstream acceptance, Apple now appears to be setting sights on creating future revenue streams.

In this backdrop, it is interesting to see how Apple is increasingly using content to create and sustain its future growth. While the iPhone with its staggering 100 K+ apps (leaving aside the quality/quantity debate) forms a key part of Apple's long-term competitive edge in the smartphone space, its attempts to use the iTunes platform as the gateway for digital content into the home merits a deeper look.

Recent reports indicate that Apple is now negotiating with TV networks on introducing a monthly subscription product. The idea being that for an amount of ~$30, consumers could get access to TV content through iTunes. Internet TV is steadily raising its profile, with the rising success of Hulu. However, treating it at par with traditional TV platforms is some time away. Broadcasters and cablecos have begun to feel threatened over such over the top services. However, Apple's entry has the potential to raise the stakes and enhance the reach of Internet TV services. Unlike a Hulu, which is largely viewed on PC (forgetting the Rokus of the world), the prospect of using iTunes as the enabling platform, as opposed to a device, poses a tricky situation for the TV networks. In putting iTunes as its front. Apple's leaving the door open for a device-agnostic future, where content can be viewed/purchased on PC/mobile/E-book/Netbook/what-have-you. With a rising interest from both device vendors and software players in embedding applications directly into next-generation large-screen TVs, the prospect of Apple embedding iTunes in to a TV doesn't sound that much more preposterous. Now compare this offering from Apple with that of a traditional operator like Comcast. And suddenly, Comcast's digital TV offerings sound obscene with monthly rentals of over $60! And yes, out goes the "TV Everywhere" initiative as well, given the fact that it requires customers to have a regular cable subscription in order to view the content on PC.

iTunes has had a more than significant role in hastening the demise of the traditional music labels, with its a la carte pricing model. If Apple is able to bring a similar proposition to the TV space, that could significantly impact cablecos who thrive on creating bundles and where a host of also-rans piggyback on one or two premium channels. Of course, there is the key issue of one of the large networks actually signing up with Apple, but it is more likely a question of when and not if anymore. Internet TV of course has still to better its overall user experience, given the significant bandwidth requirements, and the renewed debate in US and other developed economies on metering usage. And there's also the issue of shifting consumers to a different screen other than the TV. However, Apple does have a dark horse in there in the form of its relatively-neglected Apple TV line of products. A la carte pricing of TV channels, and a more robust Apple TV can precisely replicate Apple's success in the music business in TV content. And Apple's success is defined not by the margins that it is making in its music sales, but by the strong vertical control that it has over the customer experience, including billing and provisioning. Music labels who initially treated iTunes as just another distribution platform are now realizing that the middleman (Apple) today exerts more influence over the consumer, than them. Video could be the next market.

Functional Ecosystems: The Need of the Hour?

In recent times there has been a lot of noise around ecosystems, and how open ecosystems, given Google's flashy entry, are now here to stay. In the mobile space, the transition to open mobile ecosystems appears to be happening rapidly, with traditionally open Symbian, having had to re-position itself, and older consortiums such as LiMo trying hard to tell people that they've been around for a while. Android in particular is increasingly being touted as the platform of the future. With reports coming in of Android deployment not just on smartphones, but on netbooks/set-top-boxes and what not, the clamour around the potential of these open ecosystems appears all set to rise further.

However, amidst this cacophony, it will be pertinent to take a step back and see what lessons existing systems have for us. Arguably, one of the most successful ecosystems in recent years has been the iPod-iPhone-iTunes combo. Apple has successfully created a completely vertically integrated system that made the user-experience a stroll in the park. Consumers were offered a simple way of downloading content/apps with billing tightly integrated. On the supply side, Apple maintained a stranglehold on pricing, availability and distribution. It stood up to content majors in deciding the pricing of single tracks, and it made the app store proposition attractive to mobile developers by keeping only a flat 30% retainer. The results are out for everyone to see. The iPod has become one of the best selling portable devices of all time, while the iPhone has set the cat amongst the device manufacturers aflutter.

The other successful ecosystem example in recent times has been the Amazon Kindle. The Kindle, in both its iterations, has consistently been sold-out, with varying sales estimates. Again, the Kindle too offers a vertically integrated ecosystem with mobile connectivity built into the cost of the device, and content availability driven by Amazon. Despite the high price tag, the simplicity of the offering, is attracting customers in droves. And like the Apple ecosystem, Amazon too exercises tight control over what can and cannot be viewed. And it is to Amazon's credit that by limiting, rather inconveniencing, usage of the Kindle, they can even charge for pulling RSS feeds !

In both these cases, consumers have shown a clear preference towards a simplified usage-experience, and one that is devoid of roundabouts. Consumers do not want to be bothered about confusing options around content discovery or billing. And this is something that device vendors, telcos and content players alike need to imbibe in future offerings. While early adopters will always be willing to go through a couple of hoops, however, hitting the mainstream will require players to bring elegant integrated and transparent solutions. Players along the value chain will increasingly need to collaborate in driving uptake. Traditional models that have worked in the past will not work in the future. For instance, while telcos have been able to get away with high revenue share for any third-party service in the past, increasingly, they will have to come to terms with the changed reality and accordingly price their role in a ecosystem. A delay in doing so will hurt everyone involved in the process. Amazon's attempts at launching Kindle in Europe have apparently been stalled due to breakdown of talks with telcos on revenue-share and pricing of connectivity. Likewise, Nokia's attempts at easing consumer hassles by having integrated carrier billing are slowing up their rollout of Ovi Store, giving its competitors strong headway.

It is indeed true that advent of digital media has had a strong impact on existing business models, however, the true benefits of digital media can only be achieved if and when competency-based collaboration kicks in the industry. End of day, as the Kindle and iPod/iPhone examples have shown, consumers are least bothered with the question of an open or closed ecosystem, all they crave for is a functional ecosystem which meets their needs!

Is Apple Making its Biggest Push for Enterprises Ever?

Is Apple getting ready to finally change gears and look beyond the consumer market? That is what appears on the surface given some of the recent moves coming out of 1, Infinite Loop.

In the rapidly evolving smartphone space, Apple's version 3.0 of its iPhone software marks Apple's biggest move to challenge RIM's domination in the enterprise space. With support for push email, Exchange, voice memos, and (finally!) copy/paste support, the iPhone now appears an option that enterprises can consider. Add to that, support for remote data wipe, hardware encryption, and tethering, and you now have a compelling smartphone, that can finally do all that has been done by a lot of other phones, but in a much more smarter and user-friendly manner. 

The App store that Apple has built also brings a key differentiating point to the table in its favor. While RIM and Microsoft are now making moves into the app store arena, Apple's app store already offers a straight-forward and tightly integrated solution for downloading apps. While enterprises will continue to have security issues around making available their internal apps on a public list, however, it is quite possible that Apple can create customized app stores that allow enteprises the security and privacy that they so desire in creating and pushing applications to their employees. 

Sure, there are a host of challenges that Apple still needs to surmount if its devices/software can even be considered for an enterprise-deployment scenario. However, Apple has its best shot at gaining a foothold in enterprises with its iPhone. With mobile workers requiring increasingly 'smart' devices, and the growing appreciation of vertically integrated solutions, such as the iTunes-iPhone combo, it is only but natural that enterprises consider the iPhone as a compelling alternate to the Blackberrys. It also helps that the iPhone has been seeing what can probably be described as the best growth ever for any smartphone. Apple, though, will have to ensure that it does away with its current adhoc approach and bring more transparency, and a sense of stability to its software release process if it hopes to convince enterprises to sign up.

The Monetization Conundrum

The music industry has been, for quite a while, exhibiting the head-stuck-in-sand syndrome. Despite the continuous fall in CD sales [pdf] music labels still love to go around suing individuals and trying to sign up more and more artists in their restrictive agreements. Labels refuse to recognize the fact that physical music is in a state of irreversible decline. Advent of platforms such as iTunes that encouraged uptake of snacking appear to have done little to wake up the labels out of their stupor. On the contrary, the recent price rise, to put it properly-the introduction of variable pricing, in the iTunes store reflects the desperation of the labels to try and make up for "lost" revenue. The spate of announcements that major labels have been doing on collaborating with all and the sundry reflect their attempts at trying to milk the last penny out of all their content repertoire. However, the sad part is that most labels are still trying to outrun the pace of evolution of digital music. In doing so, they have been focussed on monetizing new media in a classic old media format, only difference being they now tend to do it with more partners and in more geographies. This is the easy way out that they are taking due to their reticence to adopt to digital media in its truest form and create innovative business models that ensure they gain a fair value for what is undeniably their copyright. 

This problem of monetizing content in the digital media space is something that is coming to haunt content owners of all hues and types. However, there do appear to be early signs of content owners working with partners to create innovative business models. The Amazon Kindle, of course, represents an emerging and successful way of monetizing and creating newer markets for content that was increasingly being seen as dying. Similarly, Vodafone Spain, along with Real Networks has come up with a reasonably priced flat-rate data plan which allows consumers to download unlimited tracks, from all the major labels limited by DRM though. Rising penetration of mobile devices, coupled with high speed mobile networks, offer a compelling proposition for bundled offerings such as these. With mobile operators as well looking for newer revenue streams, given their declining voice revenues, partnerships are waiting to be frozen. 

Content owners will have to look beyond existing ways of monetizing their assets if they are to truly participate and profit from the digital wave. However, in their short-sightedness in looking only at the next quarter's result, they are increasingly getting further and further away from their core consumer. And this is a void that is now up for grabs from players across the spectrum !

The App Store Gold Rush

Describing the current flurry of announcements around app stores as anything but a gold rush would be an understatement. Driven by the wild (?) success that the Apple app store has seen, operators, online players, and device manufacturers are making a beeline to courting developers with promises of riches unseen ! With majors such as Nokia, Microsoft, RIM, Vodafone, Verizon, France Telecom, and China Mobile committing to either launch app stores and/or greater co-operation with developers, competition for the consumer's discretionary spending on mobile apps/content is only set to increase. And not to forget, the ubiquitous Google, with its Android Market, which appears to be seeing strong traction with the first wave of customers. However, lost in all this cacophony is the increasing fragmentation that is likely to set in once all these app stores are launched. While Apple has had a strong success with its version, however, a large portion of that success can be easily traced to the limited portfolio of its devices (all of two-iphone and ipod touch), however, the same cannot be said for other app store operators. Numbers are being bandied about on how Apple's store crossed, in two years, the number of apps that Microsoft took over 9 years to build. What is clearly overlooked in this apples and oranges comparison is how apps built for a windows Mobile platform are meant to work on a much wider range of handset portfolio. Ensuring mass customization by using a narrow range of devices, as in the case of Apple, significantly reduces development, porting, and testing costs for a developer.

While development costs are one aspect of the complexity that having multiple platforms entails, a larger problem would be to encourage adoption beyond the early adopters and uber geeks, for creating an efficient billing platform is certainly no stroll in the park. Most of these app stores have exhibited an intention of cutting off the mobile operator from the picture, thereby complicating the billing mechanisms, and consequently risk alienating significant portion of the user base that would prefer the convenience of tying all mobile-based purchases to the carrier bill. And this is where mobile operators believe they can drive home their advantage. The announcements from China Mobile and Verizon need to be seen in this light. AT&T as well appears to be taking early steps with its App Beta program. In Europe, Orange too appears to be hitching the app store bandwagon.

The success that Apple has seen can be clearly traced to the virtually complete control that it has of the value chain; right from the device to the software, to the iTunes interface, to the payment mechanism, and in some cases, down to the operator (thro' exclusive agreements) ! However, the same is not really viable/practicable for any of the other new entrants. Fragmentation is a reality that they have to adapt to. And consequently, they might never be in the same league of the Apple app store. And more importantly, whether they like it or not, it will indeed be very challenging for either content companies or device vendors to create alternate mobile payment gateways bypassing the carrier billing.

The app store phenomenon will likely act as the final nail in the coffin for operator walled gardens. It remains to be seen how operators ensure they can find their collective bearings and work towards creating an ecosystem that offers value to the customer and monies to their pockets !

Handsets: The GoogApp effect

The handset industry has seen better times; it has seen worse times. These are changing times indeed for handset manufacturers around the world. The entry of iconic industrial design-driven companies such as Apple, and the (omni-present) Google into the mobile platform arena, have sure shaken many a top 5 player out of their growth slumber. Nokia's decision to buy out the remaining portion of Symbian that it did not own, and SE's decision to stop development of UIQ, ain't the result of a sudden change of heart towards open source. Rather, they reflect a measured response to Google's launching of Android and how Apple appears to be attracting an increasing number of developers, in spite of all its opaqueness on app selection. And with Google having created enough noise about open ecosystems, and the like, and mainstream and digital media eating out of Google's-PR laced hands, carriers and handset vendors could do little other than play to the gallery.

While most players are now coming to terms with the importance of UI and industrial design, however, what they have not factored in is the current economic slowdown, and how companies like Apple can impact their sales of high-end devices. Gartner's numbers for Q3'08 show the rapid rise of Apple even in a deteriorating economic environment. With close to 13% market share, to say that Apple has disproved many a traditional theory about handset sales is an understatement. Handset manufacturers, and carriers alike, have consistently espoused the need to have a wide portfolio; a portfolio that offers something for everyone. What they haven't realized over the years, and what Apple has, is the market opportunity for a device that offers a little bit of everything, but in a far more evolved manner than anyone else. Consequently, vendors have spent billions in building portfolios of devices at various price/feature points. Apple came in and disproved the portfolio theory with just one model (two, if you consider the 8GB and 16GB as separate models). Similar is the story when it comes to applications for the smart phone. Traditionally, carriers have exercised a strangle-hold on application availability for the smart phone. And they have ensured that developers are frustrated with the slow pace of approval (justified in part by the large portfolio that carriers need to test). And in this juncture comes Apple's App Store, offering a clear 70% revenue to the app owner, and a device that's currently selling like hot cakes. No wonder, App store has already seen over 300 M downloads in just over five months !

While handset sales across the world are slowing down inevitably in the face of retreating consumer demand, companies like Apple are proving that a compelling product can work against the macroeconomic forces. The iPhone may still flounder, after the initial fascination for the device worn out, however, what is here to stay are some of the lessons that they have brought out in the open...