Just as we’re finally getting MMS interconnect here in the US, O2 over in the UK has figured out yet another way to screw up MMS, says the indefatigable Alfie Dennen. The carrier used to send MMS to email addresses with the image simply attached, but has now reverted to the old “here’s a link to a Web page” message instead — a method I thought had been ditched some time ago (even here in the states). The result is that users of Alfie’s moblogUK UK service on O2 now can’t use MMS to send pictures to their blogs.

What’s the point? Just to make more money? To deliver the photo in such a way that there’s an opportunity for O2 to advertise? To try to encourage people to use its own photo-sharing service instead of an outside one? The answers to any of those really don’t seem sufficient. All users will see is a broken service, and a reason to switch carriers.

Every time it seems like some progress is being made to get operators to understand that throwing up obstacles for their users never works, we’re reminded that sadly, there are plenty of companies out there that just don’t get it.

Russell took a look a couple weeks back at the sales of smartphones broken down by operating system, and now a research firm has released its view of smartphone and PDA sales for the second quarter.

The firm in question is Canalys, and every quarter when they release these and other numbers I struggle to figure out what to take away from them because they frustratingly insist on lumping in sales of PDAs — whether or not they’ve got local-area, wide-area or no networking connection — with smartphones and other mobile phones. So you end up with a bunch of numbers that aren’t as valuable as they could be: comparing Symbian smartphones versus sales for Palm PDAs and phones, or Nokia phone sales versus HP PDAs. And then their terminology (which helpfully isn’t defined anywhere on their release) leads to more confusion. I realize this is a personal bugbear, and I apologize for sharing it. But the upshot of it is that while I’m sure there’s information of value in here, I don’t want to make assertions based on my misunderstanding or misinterpretation of their terms.

So, in any case, here’s what I can figure out:

- Nokia’s smartphone sales are booming. The report says it shipped nearly 6.7 million of them in the second quarter, a 240% increase over 2004 and 24% over the first quarter. Consequently, it’s the clear leader in this market, whether “this market” means smartphones or smartphones and PDAs. If it’s the former, it’s got a 55% share.

- Palm’s sales are fairly stagnant as sales of non-wireless PDAs fall. Its sales were off 1% from last year, and up just 5% from last quarter, when the entire market grew 13%.

- RIM keeps chugging away. It should pass the million-devices-in-a-quarter mark very soon.

- Motorola came out of nowhere to #4. While it’s only selling 8% as many smartphones as Nokia, it saw a torrid 637% growth over last year. My best guess is that this is from the growing number of Linux phones, rather than the strength of any of its few Windows Mobile products.

The overwhelming takeaway from this is that PDA sales are (still) dying, which is the same conclusion I’ve reached from any Canalys PR I’ve looked at, so no real news there. I’d also venture that sales of PDAs with just Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, rather than any cellular connectivity, are dropping pretty steadily too, but there’s no way to tell. The only other observation I’ve got is to look at the Palm and RIM numbers in comparison to other smartphone vendors, Nokia in particular, which sold 3 times as many devices. Then compare the amount of press, particularly in the US, devoted to Blackberrys and Treos versus smartphones from other vendors.

There was widespread circulation that Motorola would finally show off the iTunes phone at its press and analyst event in Chicago last night, but alas, it wasn’t to be. Again. They did show off the first ROKR music phone, but without iTunes capability, who cares? (And I still don’t like the STPD name.)

Evidently the company said it would announce and ship the first iTunes phone this quarter — but for many people, Motorola’s credibility is in tatters when it comes to this device. It’s been more than a year since the Moto-Apple partnership was announced, and there’s been nothing to show, publicly at least, for it. Keep in mind this phone was first thought to have been launched back at 3GSM in February, and six months later, still nothing.

There have been great expectations put on Motorola for the iTunes phone, but when you make big promises, that’s what happens. Every disappointment from an expected launch just raises those expectations, so the iTunes phone had really better be something special when — if — it arrives.

As far as the ROKR goes, I haven’t seen any specs. But, I imagine like most people, I wouldn’t really care anyway as long as it can’t play iTunes music.

Yahoo has bought Konfabulator, which makes software that lets users run widgets — generally single-task-focused mini-applications that do a wide variety of things like check the weather or stock quotes, control other applications like music players or check Web sites for updates. Whether for Konfabulator or Apple’s Dashboard (which pretty much stole the Mac market out from underneath Konfabulator), developing widgets is based on common, open technologies and — to these untrained eyes, anyway — looks relatively easy. This makes it all very long tail, as there are widgets available for a number of esoteric things since anybody can make one.

The thing is, though, widgets, or something like them, are pretty perfect for mobile, too.

People use the net in a fundamentally different way on their mobile devices than when they’re behind a computer. While browsing on the PC may typically be just that, browsing, use of the net on mobile devices is overwhelmingly task-based: I want to find the football score, or the movie time, the address of that shop, and so on. Yahoo’s mobile services already reflect this, to some extent, its top menu organized around tasks like checking email, instant messaging, or getting directions. And so it’s not so hard to see widgets jumping to mobile now, either.

One of the great things about widgets (in Dashboard for me) is that for common tasks, they’re easily and essentially instantly available. I move my mouse to the bottom left corner, and my widgets pop up. Some simply push information to me: the weather, for instance, is always updated, so I can see the current information and forecast without having to go to a bookmarked Web page, and a package tracker keeps tabs on my latest Amazon purchase winging its way towards me. Others pull information from the Web, like the dictionary, Wikipedia or Google Maps widgets. Either way, they’re all very task-specific, and tend to do that task pretty well.

That sounds pretty perfect to me for mobile devices. In addition to a standard browser, have widgets to handle common tasks, particularly pull ones: instead of loading up a browser, connecting, surfing to a page you might have bookmarked, then entering your query, you just pull up the relevant widget and run your search. But it would make pull better, too, just like RSS could, by letting users define information they want to always have updated and available on their devices.

This kind of stuff shouldn’t replace a browser, but it should be offered in addition to it. Leave the browser and its open access intact for the times when it’s right — but make everyday task-based surfing simpler, faster and easier.

I saw the highly speculative post on Engadget titled “Could Nokia dump Symbian?” last night before I went to bed, and knew I’d wake up to plenty more speculative FUD, and I was right. I also knew I’d already found something to write about…

I was going to go through and analyze why I’ve got a really hard time buying into this at all, but Rafe over at All About Symbian has done a pretty thorough and convincing job of it already. I don’t doubt that Nokia is taking a long, hard look at Linux and will use it in some devices, but I also don’t doubt the company’s not ready to throw away all the resources (cash, time and human) they’ve put into Symbian and related development.

I should reiterate Rafe’s refutations of two of the prime pieces of “evidence” the analyst report that started all this cited: Nokia’s licensing of Microsoft ActiveSync in addition to Symbian’s licensing it, and the claim that most Series 60 applications are written in Java. Like many of the licensing deals Symbian signs, its licensees must ink separate deals with the original companies (MS in this case) to include the relevant technology on their devices. The Java app claim is disingenuous — a fair comparison would be the number of Series 60-specific Java applications compared to native Symbian applications.

One interesting point to ponder, though — how much of Symbian’s dominance comes from the Nokia brand on the phones on which it’s sold? When somebody picks up a Windows Mobile device, there’s little doubt that it’s a Windows phone. Symbian/Series 60/UIQ doesn’t enjoy that same notoriety — which keeps the OS brand (admittedly less important) in the background, where it doesn’t compete with the device manufacturer’s imprint.

The fellas at ABI Research must have analysed the analysis market and come to the conclusion that there’s a gap in the market for hyperbole and overblown claims. A few months ago they pronounced the Mobile TV market "a goldmine", now they’re equally hyped about contactless payment systems, describing uptake as "Shocking and Welcome".

Now, bear in mind that ABI sell reports primarily to vendors of technology. These vendors use the reports to justify and rationalise selling the said technology to their customers. So a report that concludes "the market for contactless payments is likely to be very limited as retailers wait to see what their competitors are going to do about this new technology" ain’t going to sell reports.

So let’s read between the lines and see if we can get at another version of the truth here.

Firstly, contactless payment via the mobile phone is where you wave your mobile (or smartcard for that matter) in the direction of a terminal, which then authorizes payment to the retailer. The technology is usually based on RFID (Radio Frequency IDentification), or the more recent Phillips’ NFC (Near Field Communication).

What happens then is down to the individual system, but essentially the money can be debited from your bank, prepay payment account or mobile phone bill.

The great advantage with this system is that it’s quick and easy to use, thereby passing the first test of any mobile payment method that might stand a chance of taking off. In other words, it’s as quick and easy to use, for both user and retailer, as cash or credit card. That is, provided there aren’t some convoluted secondary security tests, over and above possession of the mobile phone itself.

As an example, if you have to wave your phone AND input a PIN, it’ll slow things up. If you have to wave your phone, press "confirm" that you authorise the transaction and then input a PIN, it’ll slow things even more. So a balance between security and usability needs to be established. What’s the betting that security wins, by the way?

The great disadvantage with this system is that it requires a significant investment in systems and hardware to get this up and running. Imagine replacing all the terminals that currently process MasterCard transactions and you can see that it’s a billion dollar investment. No wonder ABI are so effusive about all the reports they’re going to sell the size of the market.

I can’t help wondering however if the contactless payment system isn’t a little like what Clay Shirky calls the Nearlynet in his seminal essay; Permanet, Nearlynet and Wireless Data. It’s a must-read if you haven’t already.

Clay suggests that the instinct with new technology is to go for a purpose built, expensive and perfect solution to the problem (permanet). The subsequent issue is that it is frequently too expensive for users to actually afford. The solution that therefore takes off is the nearlynet one - something that kind of does the job (with some quality glitches) but is cheap and cheerful. Skype could be a newer example of a nearlynet solution.

This clearly leaves the companies investing in the permanet ideas with huge white elephants they must continue to subsidise or quietly and humanely put out of their misery.

So if the contactless payment systems might be the permanet in this instance, what could be the nearlynet? I’d say in many cases, it could be plain old sms authorisation, especially if the sales process is automated (at vending machines, for example). Sending an sms "to" the vending machine with a code representing the product you wish to purchase, is a perfect nearlynet transaction process.

So, I see the mobile payments system polarising into two different markets:

1. Automated and low transaction/micro payments = nearlynet.
2. Face-to-face and higher value transactions = permanet.

Of the two, the biggest opportunities for new entrants, are in the first area, in my opinion. The permanet area is likely to be dominated by existing big companies, like the banks or mobile operators. This may leave a sizable and highly lucrative market for the fleet of foot to quietly exploit in the nearlynet.

Story spotted on iMode Strategy

The New Yorker had a recent and rather wonderfully whimsical article on Raold Dahl, best known for his brilliant, if curmudgeonly, kids’ books. A couple of sentences have a lesson for video camera use - or lack of it.

Dahl shared with George Orwell an acute sense of why small children often see
adults as unsightly or intimidating. “Part of the reason for the ugliness of
adults, in a child’s eyes, is that the child is usually looking upward, and few
faces are at their best when seen from below,” Orwell wrote.

I’ve observed many times that one of the problems with video phones is that if
you hold them where it feels comfortable and natural, you’re going to
hold them somewhere around your stomach level. Which means that the video
captures you from below, resulting in even Kate Moss waifs looking more like Jabba the Hut.

This is especially bad news if you’re looking to use video for dating
applications, which seems to be the one last bastion of hope for this
white elephant right now. Who wants to look awful when looking for a date?

Maybe Dahl has the solution too:

Dahl once said that adults should get down on their knees for a week, in order
to remember what it’s like to live in a world in which the people with all the
power literally loom over you.

Maybe that’s what video phone designers should be doing……

Link via Kottke via BoingBoing.

The blogosphere is sorta like six degrees of Kevin Bacon. Everybody’s got the sites they read (you can see Russell and I’s suggestions), and like Kevin Bacon movies, there’s some overlap, and it’s always sort of interesting to see when two seemingly unrelated sites you follow touch on the same topic at the same time.

That happened to me yesterday, when Paul Whitaker and Charlie Schick separately posted some of their thoughts on things to consider when building mobile apps and services. Paul succinctly highlights three areas he says developers or providers must get right to be successful in the mobile space: consumer education, simplified user experience and cost. I’d agree that without having all three of these down pat, you’re not going to have much luck.

Charlie’s list is a little bit longer, and features what he sees as the attributes of a compelling mobile app: while he says they’re in no real order, I don’t think it’s coincidental that simplicity is the first thing he lists!

While neither of these lists offers a roadmap to create the perfect mobile app (you should be so lucky), both of these posts can serve as valuable checklists and guidelines for anybody deploying an application or service.

We’ve started a new FeedBurner feed for Mobhappy, mainly so we can keep track of how many people are subscribed. While the old feeds will still work and you’re free to use them, we’d appreciate it if you changed the feed URL you’re using to http://feeds.feedburner.com/Mobhappy, if it’s not too much trouble

Thanks!

Vodafone have announced that they’re going to block all VoIP calls over their network from 2007.

Actually, look at the fine print and you see they’ve already done it according to Hartmut Leuschner, MD of Off the Record GmbH, writing at W2F (subscription needed):

For its new datacard tariffs, Vodafone has doubled the available data
volume for the same price. Great! But when you look into the small
print it says that VoIP usage within these tariffs will be "technically
disabled" from July 8th.

While this was entirely predictable (actually I wrote that it was going to happen in February), it’s also entirely the wrong thing to do, representing more of a a knee-jerk reaction, than a mature business strategy. Rather than a panic response, operators must face the fact that VoIP is inevitable and trying to ban it is simply pointless.

If it’s inevitable, banning it from your network is an invitation to all your customers to switch to a network which does allow cheap VoIP calls. Because someone will offer VoIP - someone with less to loose and everything to gain. Probably someone like a nasty MVNO will do the dirty deed and make a hell of a lot of money from the process.

When a sector is faced with fundamental change (and VoIP is such a shift), the right course is the counter-intuitive one - you MUST embrace it or you will end up far worse off.

In this case, Vodafone should be promoting VoIP like crazy. This will be good for the customer and there will be no reason to switch to another carrier. This move will cannibalize revenues to an extent, but the carrier gets to keep the customer and benefit from a continuing, if reduced, revenue stream over the longer term.

So what’s next? More carriers will certainly follow suit - if Vodafone are doing it, it must be right! We’ll probably see some attempts at rubbishing the quality of VoIP or the security, which are the two apparent vulnerabilities, in technical terms.

I don’t see security as a real issue for most users, most of the time, though paranoid corporates might see it as important. The kind that ban camera phones, for instance.

Quality of VoIP is variable, but many people will accept reduced quality for those magic words "cheap" or "free".

Despite this, I would anticipate some marketing campaigns along the lines of "Isn’t she worth a real call?" with a bloke calling his dear old Mum, just so she can hear his dulcet tones clearly (and expensively).

That approach won’t hold back the tide though and carriers will realize that their customers are voting with their wallets, forcing them to back down and offer VoIP grudgingly and too late for many of the lost customers.

That’s also assuming that they’re not forced to back down by some legislative move before hand.

Sometimes you have to wonder who is in charge of thinking at operators. Or am I wrong? Leave a comment and tell me what you think about this. Short-sighted, muddled thinking or unappreciated business genius? You decide.

On the subject of Skype, Om Malik has a story about CNET Net News estimating that Skype’s (undisclosed) revenues are $6 - $10 billion or about 3 times Google’s. How’s that for stupendously, atrocious reporting? Maybe $6 - $10 million, but even that seems on the high side to me, given that most of their products has zero income.

Original article TMC Net. Incidentally, they have my vote for possibly the most annoying interruptive advertising message I’ve ever seen. The screen sort of peels off to reveal an ad, totally obscuring the content. Come on fellas, don’t insult your readers with this kind of cheap trick.