Mobile Open Source

Warning: Company Advertising

2010-03-13T15:17:00.001-08:00

A freemium model for mobile

2010-03-11T09:01:00.000-08:00

It is interesting to watch buzzwords appear and disappear. Many live just for a few months. Usually, when they are gone, they never come back. Sometimes, however, it happens.

Freemium is one of those buzzwords. It is the model of giving away something for free, get people to use your service (hence, making the free version quite interesting) and then upsell a minority of people on additional features. A combo of the words free and premium.

It is the model used by Flickr, for example. You can use the service for free, but they will start hiding your old pictures if you do not pay, once you have a lot of pictures. Similar for LinkedIn and others.

Users like it. If the value you deliver for free is good, they use it happily. And there is nothing better than free. If at a certain point the value you deliver can be even better and is worth paying, people are happy to pay. They do not feel like you are robbing them, or nickle-and-diming. They are genuinely happy to pay (at least, that works for myself, I like free but I do not mind to pay for a good service, like Flickr for example).

The other model, of course, is advertising. But it is intrusive, in most cases. And you need to give up your personal info to an advertiser, which many do not like (I do not, sorry, I will keep using Adblock, I do not care if it hurts the content provider, it is my life you are playing with...).

Now, freemium was very hot a few years ago. Then it became very cold ("you cannot create a large company with freemium models"). Now it is back. LinkedIn is making a lot of money, and it will IPO soon (my prediction). Some interesting variations include having people pay for virtual goods (nobody beats Zynga in it, Farmville and Fishville are delivering hundreds of millions to them).

Guess what? You can build a large company based on a freemium model.

One place where freemium could work very well is mobile, in my opinion. I do not believe the pay-per-app model can create many large companies (or even one). What the AppStore is delivering are $0.99 apps, and nobody can make money with it, excluding a guy in a basement who is fine with making a decent salary. However, if your apps are free and you can charge along the way (freemium), that is a different story. Your adoption rate will be 1,000 times higher, and you just have to find a minority willing to pay a premium (note that only Apple supports this model, Android does not - yet).

Many believe the people who pay for Farmville are just dumb. I don't. If you buy a Wii game, you pay $50. And nobody thinks your are dumb. If you spend a lot of time in Farmville getting entertained (ok, that might be dumb, I get it), it seems very reasonable to me that you spend $50 for it, even if it is one dollar a week. And if you have 400 million people that could play, then it is easy to see how your revenues can be in the hundreds of millions.

Mobile is just an extension of your desktop life, with the slight difference that you have your mobile device with you every single moment of your day. Forcing people to pay, maybe on a per-month fee, it is a good dream. You can definitely do it in the enterprise, with SMBs and prosumers. But when you go to the large crowd, it is going to be harder and harder. Still, the market is enormous...

In my space, Apple charges $99 per year for MobileMe. There is a lot of room to cut that price (and it works only for the iPhone, so good luck if someone in the family has a different device). At the other end of the spectrum, Google charges zero for Google Sync (albeit it is quite a bad product, sometimes free can be of a depressing quality...). How do you move between these two extremes if you are a carrier? Per-month, per-year, free, advertising or freemium?

I say, for now, stick to per-user per-month on the high end of the market, and check freemium for the masses (they are coming).

Long post just to market Hal's last paper for mobile operators "Using Free-nomics to Avoid Pipe-ification". It is free as in freemium, since he expects you to pay one day, I guess. Check it out, it is worth it.

What if the carriers want the network to be crap?

2010-03-04T14:19:00.000-08:00

I do not know when and where, but a few days ago I read a note that said "what if Google starts allowing phone calls among Android devices?". Yep, phone calls over IP, completely around the carriers. No voice dollars to the operators. Same as Skype on your PC, but your PC is actually mobile and you can move it close to your ear (try that with an iPad).

What if?

Well, no voice revenues anymore. That might hurt an operator, in particular in the US where the data plans are unlimited. And hurt a lot.

What prevents this scenario to become real?

The network. The bandwidth is not there yet. The network is overloaded. If you try a VOIP call on a mobile device, even with 3G, the quality is horrible. It is like trying Skype on a modem (I did, do not try, it is not good).

Now a thought: what can the carrier do to prevent this scenario? Simple, they can just keep the network as it is today: not-good-enough. They can make it better but still not good enough, because the amount of data load will increase naturally.

Think about it: they have to invest gazillions to improve the network and the only benefit of it might be having Google wipe them out. Does it make sense to you? Would they do it just because the users are asking for it? Can the market push it?

I really hope so. I would hate to see the networks crippled just for carriers to prevent the inevitable.

However, I actually see a good reason for the carriers to prefer the network to be crap.

And that is not a good thing.

Better lucky than smart

2010-02-23T08:52:00.000-08:00

I have always considered myself a lucky individual. I have a great family, good health, real friends, a fantastic job and every physical item I actually need. I could always get more, but I do not care about it. I do not see the point of wanting more when I have all I need. I just feel, almost every day, that I am a lucky lucky bastard. And that I did very little to deserve it.

Last week in Barcelona at the Mobile World Congress, I felt exactly the same way. I felt I got even too lucky. This time, in my work life.

I have been talking for years about a few items: open source in mobile (easy to guess from the title of my blog) and server-based mobile computing (now known as mobile cloud services), with a focus on mobile cloud sync.

For years, I have seen the disbelief in the eye of every carrier I talked to. No, mobile and open source won't work together. Where is the IP? And why would we ever want to open our networks? It is all closed and it works so well for us. For years. Years!

There were days I told my wife this mobile open source thingy might take ages to really happen. That I might have started a company too soon and I will be remembered as the one who originally believed in mobile open source, only to get the timing wrong. When I was fundraising for Series A at Funambol in 2005, I was repeating to VCs a word I heard from Andrew Aitken, one of my advisors: "open source in mobile is inevitable". Inevitable. I believed it then, I always believed it. However, it could have taken 20 years to happen…

Instead, it took way less.

At the Mobile World Congress, the talk of the show was Android. There were Android phones everywhere. It is mobile open source. The big announcement on Monday? Intel and Nokia, two of the largest players in mobile (who is bigger than Intel on chips or Nokia on devices?), announced MeeGo. A mobile open source initiative (and you can tell by the weird name, right amigo?). Then Symbian rushed out Symbian^3… Guess what? Mobile open source.

Stop for a second. The talk of the show was mobile open source?? The talk of the #1 mobile show of the year?????

Guess what, I got lucky. Mobile open source just happened. And I did very little to deserve it.

The second theme was the cloud. The mobile cloud. Devices connected to the network, syncing data among themselves and the cloud. Check Eric Schmidt talk at the show below. It is a turning point for the industry. It is a must-watch for anyone in mobile. He is preaching the convergence of computing + connectivity + cloud. It all happens thanks to the cloud. Replication, he says. Mobile applications are sharing intensive, sharing replication, he adds. I call it syncing, but it is exactly the same thing.

Who else talked about mobile cloud syncing? RIM, the maker of Blackberry. An entire presentation devoted to explain their new mobile cloud syncing product for SMBs (Blackberry Enterprise Server Express). And what about that spectacular presentation of Windows 7 Phone OS (really? That is all you could come up to beat the Zune brand? How do you call a Windows Phone phone? Windows Phone Squared? C'mon…). Look at the video below. It is all about cloud interaction, your friends, messaging. They do not even mention you can call people!!! This is how you sell a phone now. The cloud sells it.

Guess what, I got lucky. Mobile cloud services just happened. And I did very little to deserve it.

Anything else? Well, only some talks about how to make the network faster and more efficient, without killing it because of all the above. But this is just a technicality in the big scheme of things. Networks will be faster and will support the load. There is no other way. Engineers will make it happen. Cash will be there to support it.

I have to say the first two days of the show I was speechless. Andrew joked with me on Facebook that there is no way I was not talking… He knows me well, apparently. However, I was actually without voice. Mostly due to a cold, but also because I could not believe what was happening around me.

Everything I said and preached for years just happened. And I did very little to deserve it.

Unbelievable.

As they say: better lucky than smart.

Tethering and the iPad

2010-02-12T11:20:00.000-08:00

Ok, I admit it. The iPad is often in my thoughts. Despite not being a mass market product, which usually is what interests me. What can I do? Anyway… I received an email from an Italian friend today, asking about tethering the iPad (see, it is not just me ;-)

My feeling is that people will simply not buy the 3G model, because the iPad is best used inside (try walking with it in your hands on the street, and watch out for that pole). Therefore, I expect most people to buy the wi-fi model. However, there are moments where 3G would be really useful. Still, adding $20 per month on a data-only plan is insane, if you already have a smartphone and you are paying a monthly data plan for it. Few will do it (and the 3G model is also more expensive…).

What are the other options?

One is that the carrier bundles your smartphone and iPad plan together. If the iPad plan is just $5 per month on top of your smartphone plan, many could go for it. At $10, I doubt it (I am cheap but I am not the only one out there).

The other option is tethering. The device has wi-fi, your smartphone has wi-fi and 3G: you just need to put your smartphone in tethering mode, creating a 3G connection to the carrier network and a wi-fi connection to your iPad. I do it all the time with my iPhone and my Mac. It is very fast, very convenient, in particular when there is no wi-fi around and I have to give a demo at a customer site (where there is often no open wi-fi available).

The problem? AT&T does not allow me to do it. I have to go around it, jailbreak the iPhone, add PDANet and hope not to be caught (if you are AT&T and you are reading this, I am obviously joking. I would never do such a thing).

In Europe, tethering is ok. It is quite expensive, but the carriers allow you to do it. It makes sense. If you are paying for a data plan, and it is metered, why limit you? More data means more revenues, so just go for it. I am told 3 in Italy charges 30 euros per month for 4GB (with voice and SMS included). It is a reasonable deal (although I would keep live video off-limits).

What's the difference between US and Europe? Metered plans.

In the US, we only have all-you-can-eat plans. They are good for users, who do not have to think about data consumption. Data size is not a natural measure. Time is (I know how long 15 minutes are). How big is a MB? Ask common users if they believe their graduation thesis (which took 6 months to write) is larger in size than a 5 minutes video on YouTube of a dog on a skateboard: the dog is not going to win, trust me. Nobody gets that video is so much larger than text. Why would they? All-you-can eat is so much easier to understand, and users do not worry when they click. Unfortunately, they get on drugs and it is hard to quit when you are addicted...

The problem is that the network gets overloaded fast. Ask people in San Francisco and New York with an iPhone. My friends are turning 3G off because it rarely works and sucks way more battery. That is bad bad bad.

So, what about time-based plans? I connect for 15 minutes, I pay for 15 minutes. Sounds easy to understand… Well, they might work for laptops and dongles, but when you have a smartphone always connected (e.g. to receive a stream of Facebook or email), you are screwed. It is always on. It would cost you a fortune.

Any other option? Well, in the desktop world, you pay for DSL based on speed, rather than time or bandwidth consumption. Can this be applied to mobile? I believe so. And I feel it would be the best option. However, for now, nobody is considering it. In my opinion, they should. What you have at home is unlimited connection, always on, you just pay more for convenience. Give me 2G for a very low price, 2.5 for a bit more, 3G quite expensive, 3.5G even more and so on. Maybe it is a bit early and the carriers have no way to bill this, but why not?

That said, tethering is still the best option for the iPad. One device has 3G (your smartphone, which needs it more and it is always on), all your other devices talk to it when they have to (when a high-speed wi-fi hotspot is around, you would always go for it, for speed reasons at least). One bill.

Personally, I believe Steve Jobs knows all this and he is forcing the carriers to adapt. The 3G plan for the iPad is just a joke. He is going to laugh at those that buy the 3G iPad, then laugh at the carriers trying to stop the wi-fi iPads owners to tether. Eventually, the users will win and Steve Jobs will add another nail in the carrier's coffin.

For now, if I have to suck up and get a metered access to have tethering capabilities in the US, I am ready to do it. If I can bet (and I like doing that...), I bet for this to happen in the US fairly soon. The networks are overloaded, the iPad runs on AT&T. AT&T has a crappy network. They have to stop it. They have to add metered plans. It is going to happen soon. In the meantime, they will try to catch the few that overload their network (AT&T, as I wrote before, it is not me ;-)

At the end, though, speed-based tariffs will win. But it will be a choppy road to get there.

iPad and a new life for synchronization

2010-02-09T10:04:00.000-08:00

This morning I was reading the Seybold's take on Applications for the iPad. It is an interesting article.

Seybold's take is that developers will have to build specific applications for the iPad, rather than having their iPhone apps run on it, or just modify them for a bigger screen.

I tend to agree.

He added:

For starters, many iPad users will not opt for a full wide-area wireless broadband subscription. Instead, they will use it for communications when near a Wi-Fi hotspot or subscribe to an occasional-use wide-area broadband plan. Applications that assume full wireless connectivity anytime the iPad is on will not be as well received as applications that are developed for occasional use. Many iPhone apps are constantly updating the information they provide, but iPad applications that require a constant or almost-constant connection will not be as functional.

Hard to disagree. As I wrote before, I am betting that non-3G iPad will beat 3G iPad, 80% to 20%.

And finally he concluded:

Because the iPad will not be an always-on, always-connected device, applications will have to recognize that fact and compensate for this difference between the two platforms.

Pop. A light bulb on my head.

With the cost of network and the need for carriers to limit heavy usage by people, in the near timeframe (before 4G is here but who knows for how long) tablet will not be welcomed in the cellular network. I mean, you could have them connect to 3G, but it would cost you a fortune. Therefore, you won't do it.

You could tether them to your always connected smartphone, but the carriers won't allow you. How difficult is to think about an iPhone sharing wifi with an iPad? Not difficult, it is just not good for the carriers on the dollar side, so they will make it really not attractive for you (or just prevent it, as Apple and AT&T are doing today).

The result, Seybold says, is that tablet will be on-line with wi-fi, then off-line, then again on-line: like a Kindle (I am still betting on Apple providing some free 3G access only to download content from iTunes, in the future). And like a Kindle, they will store data on the device, to be accessed off-line.

Like a Kindle, the key for the tablet market will be synchronization. Data to be synced will go from books to videos, from address book to calendar, from pictures to music. And a lot more.

Just when you thought the world was going all network computing, synchronization is still king :-)

My Nexus One almost became an iPhone today

2010-02-06T06:51:00.000-08:00

I woke up this morning and my Nexus One told me "I am ready for an upgrade". One click, a reboot, and I had a new phone.

Google (or T-Mobile, who knows and who cares) pushed down an OS upgrade. All of a sudden, the phone is capable of pinch and zoom, the feature that made the iPhone famous. It is a new phone.

I know we are used to this market moving fast, but let me stop for a second and reflect on what is happening. Three years ago, I was used to phones that would live with a bug for their entire life. No bug fixing. Never. You had a problem, too bad. Buy another phone.

Then came the iPhone. Apple introduced a new concept for mobile. OS upgrades via the Internet (and a cable). It started with bug fixing and then they began pushing features.

Desktop OS had bug fixing for years, and they still do. However, you do not get features. In mobile, you do (for free).

Palm improved the process with over-the-air OS upgrades, similar to Android. No cable. It is like magic. Your phone transform itself. No need to click, download, plug. A few seconds later, the phone is new.

It will spread to desktop, simply because the OS are converging and the speed of the mobile market will take desktop with it. The iPad is the new desktop and it will have OS upgrades. So will Chrome.

Tomorrow, if Google and Apple get together, my Nexus One could really transform in an iPhone. A question will pop up, a click, and boom.

For now, the Nexus One is still far from the iPhone. Amazing technology, too many buttons. A geek phone built by geeks for geeks. Fantastic integration with Google stuff, in particular Google Voice, great camera, spectacular navigation. Still, too complicated to use, not intuitive, very hard to type on.

Pinch and zoom made it closer to the iPhone. One more software upgrade and it could pass it. It is not a dream, it is a possibility.

The mobile and desktop devices are becoming plain tablets, looking the same. What matters is the inside. And the inside changes while you are sleeping.

Get ready for a world of interchangeable devices.

iPad scorecard and some thoughts

2010-01-30T10:55:00.000-08:00

The iPad is finally out. If I look at my predictions of six months ago, I think I scored pretty high. I should start investing in the stock market or play the lotto ;-)

Things I got right:

the name iPad. I had some doubts, but they actually picked the name I suspected in August. Too bad for the jokes, they might just add some color to its success (or lack thereof)
built on the iPhone OS vs. Mac OS
one button device
price point "around $599, maybe even less". It starts at $499, which surprised many
wi-fi and 3G, but with wi-fi more prevalent and 3G as an afterthought. Let's check back in a year and see how many bought the 3G models: I bet wi-fi will beat 3G by 80% vs. 20%

Things that surprised me:

lack of webcamera. I can't believe it. It prevents me to give it to my mom, who is the perfect buyer for the device (but she can't live without videochat). I am so shocked that I think they will add it shortly (check the image on the right from the actual iPad, the address book app supports taking pictures...). Maybe even in the first release in March. A "one more thing" delayed joke
the holder on the portrait side. If this is a video device, I just do not understand why I can't watch videos when the device is charging. I don't get it. May I repeat it: I don't get it. Still, it would not be a good reason not to buy the device

That said, the most interesting element of the entire iPad story is its positioning.

I thought "Kindle-killer" was the easiest one. Look at the New York Times demo they gave. Astonishing. The newspaper is so good looking, you want to throw away the paper for good. When they show the picture in the middle of the page becoming a video, you realize the Harry Potter newspaper is not far. This is the future of newspapers. The best of both worlds: a full page with articles, with the articles being alive.

Instead, they positioned it as "the best way to experience the web, email and photos". Books and newspapers are not mentioned in the tag line, not even video. Email is. Email??? Email???????? Email is dead, it is a relic in the enterprise. Social networks are the future of messaging. That is what kids do. Email is not a consumer feature anymore. The iPad is for consumers, right?

More: they talked about iWorks. Who do you think would work on a spreadsheet sitting on the couch? Anyone in the enterprise? Holding the device with one hand? Why? Why???

There is always a why. Steve Jobs knows the market better than anyone. Definitely better than me.

However, there have been times when I was right and he was wrong. When he positioned the web as the ultimate SDK for the iPhone, for example. I said "no way, developers won't go for it, not now, it is too early". He announced an SDK a few months later... A super U-turn. And the SDK is what made the iPhone the success it is. The App Store is what makes the difference today with other OSs. The super U-turn made the difference.

Or maybe he was not wrong. He knew it, but they were not ready with an SDK. He was just pretending there was no need because they could not deliver it.

What is clear is that he did not position the iPad against the Kindle. Probably because he believes that is just a niche. He positioned it against the netbooks. At the top of the netbooks price range, as Apple usually does.

Netbooks are not bought by you and me (unless you are a geek who needs two laptops). They are bought by people that have a desktop and need something to move around their data. Or that do not even have a desktop.

In that category:

my daughter (7 years old). She loves my iPhone. She will prefer an iPad over a netbook a million times. She is the perfect user for it. It does everything she likes (browsing, watching pictures, gaming). And she does not have to sit on a chair to use it, which kids rarely like
my mom (more than 60 years old). She loves my iPhone. Same as above, only that she cares about browsing, watching pictures, email and video Skype. The lack of the camera kills it, but as I wrote above, it is going away in no-time.
my wife (less than 40 years old). She has a laptop and she would not give it up (it is a Mac, btw). However, what she does on that device is browsing, email, social networks, pictures and music, plus video Skype. She also reads books and the New Yorker. She has only one spreadsheet, which would be easily managed by the iPad. She won't buy one, until her laptop breaks. But when it does, she will be ready. She even bought a thing recently to be able to use her laptop on the couch. If you have that thing around in the house, it means you are also ready for the iPad

Look at the list above. It is a very large chunk of the population. The non-geek, non-enterprise crowd. It is not us (sorry, if you read this blog and you are an unemployed non-geek, you have some problems). It is them. The other 90%.

The iPad is a new paradigm of human-computer interaction. The desktop is gone. The folders are gone. The documents live inside the app. The device transforms itself in the object it becomes. It is a non-object. It is what you want it to be. One touch on an icon, it is a calculator. No folders, no files, just numbers as if you were holding a calculator. One touch and it is a notepad. One touch and it is a picture frame. It is the future of computing.

The iPad is the replacement of the home desktop computer.

Look at your parents staring at a computer. They can't do double-click. They will never master it. They do not like the mouse. Look at how they never really understood the folder metaphor. They are scared in front of the machine. Clicking with panic. Always at a distance. No love. Just need.

Now give them an iPad. No panic. No fears. They will touch everything. It is so easy. So fast. With my fingers! And when I am wrong, just one click at the one button and it is back home. Safely. A pleasure to use.

The rest is left for us geeks. The concept of operating systems, folders, Unix, everything we learned. Forget IT Managers for the home, it is going away (now we'll need network managers :-)

Bottom line: whatever pundits say, the iPad is going to be the start of a revolution. I have a feeling it won't sell in large quantities, but it is going to fill a niche after another. Those that want interactive books in color, then gadget freaks, then kids, then moms, then grandparents. Year after year, Apple will improve the device and make sure all the niches will be served.

The iPad is the future of computing for the masses, as the iPhone has pushed the mobile computing model to what it is today. Thanks to the iPhone, 66% of phones sold by Verizon last quarter were smartphones (not even one iPhone). The iPhone showed the world what people could do with a small tablet with one button, connected to the mobile network outside the home. The iPad is going to do the same, inside your house.

Trust me, I am good at playing the lotto.

My final prediction on the Apple slate

2010-01-25T18:45:00.000-08:00

In August, I wrote a post with some predictions on the Apple slate or tablet. Now that it is finally about to be unveiled (on Wednesday), I wanted to add a few final thoughts.

First of all, I still believe what I wrote on that post:

I still think it will mainly be an e-book reader, doubling as a video player, gaming machine, browsing tool and more. But the reason to buy it will be to read books, newspapers and magazines
I still think it will have a camera for videochats (therefore, it will be on the front, not on the back)
I still believe it will be built on the iPhone OS, vs. a full Mac OS X. Actually, I now believe it is going to be built on the iPhone OS 4, and they will unveil the new OS version on Wednesday for developers. While you port your iPhone app to OS 4, just make sure to take into consideration a bigger screen. That's it.

I believe the UI is going to be easy and simple, with one button. You do not realize how important is the "Go Home" button until you watch one of your older relatives use an iPhone: it is the safety net, what you click when you are lost. Something that relieves you from any anxiety in using an electronic device. For non-skilled users, you just wish they had one in any PC (hint: your older relatives might not need a PC anymore, this might suffice).

I feel they will position it as an add-on device, not as a laptop replacement. I am expecting 10" and a price point around $599, maybe even less. I just do not see how they can go to market with something at a $1,000 price, honestly. But I have been wrong before.

I think it will have a holder/charger as the iPhone, but on the wide side (because you want to watch something when it is on the charger: try to do it on an iPhone turning your head...).

I believe it will have both wi-fi and 3G. However, 3G will be available only to access iTunes. Therefore, you won't need a data plan. It will be free and the carriers will take a cut of the downloads (books, music, video, apps) and, therefore, they might even subsidize it. You will be able to sync video and stuff on the device when you have wi-fi coverage, so you will be able to watch it on the go. I just do not see how they can ask people to buy another data plan, even if it is added on an existing smartphone plan. I do not believe they will.

I am convinced they will announce Verizon as a partner, probably also selling the iPhone. The AT&T dumb-pipe-in-the-making process will be completed.

Lastly, I am not sure they will call it iPad as I originally thought. The idea of the retired Conan O'Brien joking about the max version of it (maxi-pad) has made me totally change perspective. iSlate sounds like a good name at this point...

Whatever they show, it is going to be the start of a new revolution. Yet another must-have device, one I will be in line to buy in March when it will be available.

And with all these predictions, I have a good probability to get one right :-)

Chumby and the Internet of Things

2010-01-20T09:35:00.000-08:00

While everyone is talking about cloud computing (including me, because mobile cloud services is going to be one of the main topic of 2010), another phenomenon is becoming more visible, every day. We are about to enter the Internet of Things era.

Every device out there will get an IP address. And it will be able to dialog with the rest of the world.

When I say device, I mean everything. From a refrigerator, to a camera, to an alarm clock, to a light bulb, to a car, to a garage door and so on.

I have heard about this concept from my friends at WideTag, a company I have been advising for a while (they have only one problem: they are too smart). They have built an open protocol (OpenSpime) to allow devices to communicate among themselves. You need something specialized to scale to trillions of devices...

It appears simple at the first look (why is it different from having a bunch of computer connected to the net?). However, it is going to change our life dramatically.

Having everything connected is a bliss. I bought a Chumby last week. It is an alarm clock. With a touchscreen and wi-fi connectivity. Built on open source (you can easily get root access in the Linux box), with a thriving community of developers building widgets for it. Therefore, it doubles as an Internet radio, an online picture frame, a weather station, it plays your Google Voice messages and a lot more.

I started developing a widget to show pictures from our Funambol server. So that you can take a picture on your phone and it shows up on your Chumby (or your mom's Chumby), without pressing a button. I wrote it in ActionScript 2, because the widget are based on Flash. With FlashDevelop and some example code, it took me no more than an hour...

Boom, I have pictures rolling on my Chumby. Data synchronized across the world. I take a picture on my phone in Europe, it gets automatically synced on the cloud, and it shows up on the other side of the world in my kitchen.

I brought the device home to do some more development (I want to put my Funambol calendar on it, so I can wake up and see what I have to do that day, just to ruin it right away ;-) and I left it on the counter in the kitchen.

In ten minutes, my daughter was playing with it. She found the widget for the Artillery game and she took over... Once she was done, my wife looked at it. She briefly mentioned it was an ugly device but she got over it quickly. The EDIS feed (Emergency Digital Information Services) shows alerts for bad weather in California. Since it is raining outside, she got hooked. Couple it with the weather forecast, her email, some classical music in the background and I got a "can you make it a gift for me for last Christmas?". Yep, she really liked her Christmas gift, so much that she wants to exchange it for a Chumby...

I was at CES in Vegas a few weeks back. They were showing microwaves with Android, refrigerators with Android, weight scale with Android. All devices interconnected, talking one to another. All syncing data among themselves (yep, I have a feeling Funambol will play a role in the Internet of Things era ;-)

It is going to be an amazing world. The only issue will be dodging so much information and unplug, just to read a book. Oopss, wait, we'll do it on an e-book reader... Get ready, if this was a world of billion of mobile phones, in ten years we will have a trillion. Now you just need a community of people to join together to make it actually work.

No, Google will not subsidize the Nexus One (for now)

2010-01-07T07:18:00.000-08:00

I have read lots of different comments on the Nexus One. As you might expect, I have my opinions on it...

I saw the phone for the first time around mid November, by mistake. I was at Google, meeting an executive, when he dropped the phone on the table. His eyes panicked while he tried to hide it. It was pretty clear to me of what I saw. However, I am not a journalist, I am bound to confidentiality and I definitely do not write about certain things on blogs (sorry).

Also, I had written a post a few days before about why "Google would not make a smartphone"... My reasoning was that it made no business sense, having Google made Android the mobile OS of choice for device manufacturers. It made (makes) no sense for Google to undercut them, right when Android is about to win the game.

Seeing the phone, at first I was a shocked, thinking they were actually making the gPhone. Then I thought about it and I concluded: "nope, it is not going to be a Google-manufactured phone, it will be a device manufacturer phone, sold by Google". Exactly like they were selling the G1 an G2 for developers before (we bought a couple, online, same thing as today only limited to developers).

Now that it is out, I have the exact same feeling. They are selling online a developer phone to stimulate the market. The phone is built by HTC and they clearly spell it out in the Terms of Sale. It is sold subsidized, yes, but by T-Mobile (yep, an old-style mobile operator, there are still around). If you want to buy it at full price, it costs as any other phone. The difference is that you can buy it online (although I think you can buy unlocked Symbian, iPhones and Windows Mobile online too…). Honestly, the only difference is the URL, which is Google, instead of Amazon (a significant change, mind you, I am not downplaying the move of Google to act as a retailer).

They did not go against the device manufacturers. They built it with one device manufacturer they know very well (HTC built the first Google phone, ooops, Android phone). They pushed the market forward once again. Device manufacturers that were sitting on Android 1.5 cannot relax. The market is moving. If a device manufacturer thinks it can sit on a release, Google makes sure it has a new Android version out with a reference phone. It is a stimulus to device manufacturers. It is not against them. Google needs device manufacturers (for now) and vice versa.

What about the mobile operators? The Nexus One is not against them either. You need a data plan at least, from T-Mobile or any other carrier that will sell it and subsidize it. They provide it to you. Google is not a carrier. It helps carriers make money. Google needs them (for now) and vice versa.

Now, the big looming questions is: will Google subsidize the phone? Not this one, apparently. And not any phone soon, in my opinion (some disagree ;-) However, Google could: the mobile phone today is a glorified web browser (their tagline is "Web meets phone"…), bringing advertising dollars to Google. It is easy to assume they should do it, changing the game forever. Give a phone away for free, destroy the device manufacturers and force the carriers to offer pure data plans to survive.

I might be dense, but I stand by my first comment months ago: it does not make business sense. It won't happen soon.

Android can only succeed if device manufacturers are pushing it hard. And they are. Google won't screw that. Did you wonder why they did not launch the phone before Christmas? Not to screw the Motorola Droid launch. One day, when Android will be the clear winner in the mobile OS space, they might (and they probably should). Now, nope.

And do not forget the carriers. They are here, alive, doing well. They are fighting not to become a pipe. If you think the world market can go around them, you are foolish. They still control the network, and they are not going to give it up that fast (and if someone wants it, they have to pony up a lot of billions to buy it, not even Google probably can…). Google needs to work with mobile operators. One day, that might change. Now, nope.

Bottom line: Google is doing this for developers, not consumers. They get this. This market is going to be won by the OS that can attract developers. Giving everyone in the world easy access to a reference phone is a very smart move. We started building stuff for Android 2.0 in Europe, on the emulator. It just does not work. You need the real phone. Now we can easily buy it. The rest is free marketing. They did not piss device manufacturers or carriers off. They are working with them. They got an enormous amount of ink, which will convince developers even more that Android is going to win. As a by-product, they will sell some phones online. I am ready to bet their margin on the phone is ridiculous (if not zero): all money to HTC and the carriers.

Developers developers developers. Steve Ballmer knew it and maybe has forgotten it. Someone else is doing it way better. Trust me, I know developers. Mobile developers in particular. We have tens of thousand working on Funambol. What works with them is open, and open source in particular. Nothing else works and will ever work (sorry, Microsoft, it is time you get it). You nail the competition, if you can convince developers. Google is pulling a Funambol (ok, this sounds a bit too strong, but it feels good to write it :-) We just started a few years before them. They are doing what we do, but at a grand scale. And they are going to be immensely successful (while we would settle for that $1B elusive open source company :-)

Sorry consumers, you'll have to wait a bit for your free phone with $20/month data plan with no commitment. It will happen, eventually. But it is going to take a while.

Laughing with European carriers

2010-01-05T01:38:00.000-08:00

I spent some time in Europe around Christmas, joining our team in Pavia and visiting family.

With the need of being always connected (my BlackBerry not being enough, apparently), I decided to buy a USB Modem Stick for 3G Mobile Broadband. They are very popular in Europe (in Italy, in particular, I have to say). You plug it in the USB port of your laptop and you have Internet access up to 7.2Mb (which is way more than my DSL at home...).

I did some comparative shopping online and, as usual, I ended up choosing a Wind one. They have the best pricing for someone which lives abroad. The box said "39 euros with 40 euros of traffic". Nice, they are giving me one euro!! Plus, they have a data plan for 12.5 euro cents every 15 minutes, unlimited traffic, on a prepaid card. What not to like?

I spent the 39 euros happily to get the box. The price was tax included: I am so used to paying 9.25% more than the listed price, that I look like an idiot when I buy stuff in Europe. Plus, I can't recognize Euro coins because I left Italy when we had Lira, so I look like a total idiot when I am carefully looking the coins. They do not get it I am a foreigner because my Italian is still pretty current ;-) They just think I am dumb, which fits with what came later.

I got to my hotel, opened up the box, followed the instructions to put the SIM card in the stick (not easy, a bit of geekness needed) and plugged it in my Mac. The installation program came up on screen (very nice, no CD needed, read directly from the stick: optimal because I do not have a CD reader...), two clicks and a "Connect" button showed up. I got excited and clicked. A few seconds and booom, I was on, HSDPA: everything superfast. My Mac started downloading emails, I opened a few web site, then everything stopped.

Oopss, what happened?

I decided to read the fine print (I told you, I am an idiot, that is what you are supposed to do first). It said I had 10 euros of traffic on the card, plus they were going to give me 5 euros every month for six months (for a total of 40 euros). Got it. Then I started wondering what kind of data plan was I using a few seconds before, while connected... I read a bit more and it said the standard plan was 0.3 euro cent per KB. And that I needed to send an SMS to activate the 12.5 euro cent per 15 minutes plan.

Ouch, I thought. A quick look at the log and it said I downloaded 3MB in 85 seconds. Quick math: at 0.3 cent per KB, 3MB... 10 euros gone. I was out of luck, not even money to send the SMS and request the activation of the time-based billing.

What???? You sell me a stick for ultra-fast download with a laptop and it comes with a per-kilobyte billing?? And I have to send an SMS with a card inside a stick (how do I do it?), with text "EASY SI" and wait 24 hours? Easy what? You took 10 euros out of my pocket in 85 seconds!!

What does a raged customer do in the US? S/he calls customer service. So did I, using my cellphone. American ingenuity.

A nice lady answered, Aurelia. I asked a few questions about my balance being zero euros. She checked and told me she had no idea where my 10 euros went, but she confirmed my balance was 0. I told her I was connected for a moment and she told me she had no idea, because they do not get traffic data until the next day (ooops, so much for real-time traffic inspection and billing). I mentioned my theory, that in 85 seconds I went through 10 euros.

She started laughing. I mean, not smiling. She could not stop. While she was laughing, she tried to apologize about it. But she could not stop.

I asked her if I was the first one. She said, the first one to do it in 85 seconds.

She was cracking up. I broke the Italian record for blowing 10 euros on a stick. I guess most of other users do it in a few minutes. I was quicker. The Usain Bolt of USB modem sticks.

I asked Aurelia if I won anything for breaking the record, like getting my 10 euros back. She became serious all of a sudden. "Nope, there is nothing I can do about it". She did not add "you idiot" because she was really nice. I told her "in the US, the customer service representative would apologize to me, give me back the 10 euros, then add another 10 euros as an apology". She was puzzled and did not know what to say. I thanked her for being nice and told her goodbye.

I was 10 euros lighter but it was worth it. I would pay 10 euros for a good laugh any day. Going to the movies is more expensive.

I have my card in my laptop right now. I have 27 euros on it because I had to top it with 25 euros to be able to use it (at zero euros, you can't do anything. Nice trick, with the 10 euros I would have gone by forever), plus they gave me the first 5 euros free for the first month (after sending another SMS). I spent 3 euros using it every single day for two weeks to check email, browse and Skype with people around the world (in Italy as well, since it is cheaper than calling from my Wind cell phone ;-) I am a truly happy user. No monthly bill, and I will be back in Italy a few times this year. The money will last me the full year for sure, probably even a couple of years...

Still, I have that nagging feeling that someone in marketing at Wind tried to rob me of 10 euros. And managed to do it. With a smile. Demonstrating I am an idiot.

Call me stupid, but I feel customer service comes first. If you are in a competitive market, with everyone around you trying to make you a pipe, you have to be extra-careful in managing your customers. You have to make them happy (not laugh). You have to convince them you are the best, that they really care about you. You have to make them love your brand, your logo, your customer service people.

If you don't, people will leave you for someone else as soon as there is a better offer. It is business 101. Carriers must learn it fast. There is no walled garden anymore.

In the new world of wireless, customers have the last laugh...

Always blame the dumb pipe

2009-12-13T18:06:00.000-08:00

I have written many times about the risk for mobile carriers to become dumb pipes. The device manufacturers are all out trying to steal the relationship the carriers built year after year with their customers.

It started with RIM and the Blackberry, then came Apple the iPhone. Nokia with Ovi, Palm with Synergy, Motorola with MOTOBLUR, Sony Ericsson with Rachel and more to come.

The carriers are all fighting back: Vodafone with 360, built on technology they acquired (Zyb), and many others licensing code from third party vendors (many, many carriers, I know for a fact ;-)

I always knew that being a pipe is painful. Your revenues become flat, then they start going down. The brand of the device manufacturer becomes all of a sudden more important than yours. Your users become their users.

However, one thing I did not expect: the carrier being blamed for everything...

This is what is happening these days with at&t and the iPhone. Anything cool about the iPhone is Apple's making. Anything bad with the iPhone is because of the network. It is because of AT&T. They get blamed over and over, with crowds dreaming of a Verizon iPhone (ready to blame Verizon as soon as they take on the device).

This article on the New York Times talks about the AT&T network versus the Verizon one, claiming AT&T is not worst than Verizon. Actually, some of the issues iPhone users are experiencing are just due to the iPhone bad usage of the network.

That does not surprise me. A few weeks back, I put the SIM card linked to my AT&T Blackberry account into my iPhone: a few moments later, I received a call from my AT&T representative asking me not to do that. I asked why, since I believe I am paying the same amount for the iPhone plan and the Blackberry plan. They said the iPhone use of the network is way different and my Blackberry plan does not cover that. No surprise the AT&T network is collapsing...

Who did I blame for the call? AT&T, of course.

Always blame the dumb pipe. After all, they must be dumb because they let the device manufacturers take their users and blame them for anything. Dumb and dumber.

Bada starts with bad

2009-12-08T10:30:00.000-08:00

Picking a name for a product or a company is not an easy task. When I chose Funambol, I looked for a Latin word starting with Fun, and the concept of tight-rope walking fit perfectly a commercial open source company. I found out later the word can't be pronounced in English or spelled on the phone. Too late, I got stuck with it :-)

Still, I like that Funambol starts with Fun. It brings a good vibe to everything we do.

Today Samsung announced Bada. The name means ocean in Korean. Which is nice. And you can always yell Bada Bing Bada Boom. Which might cheer you up.

But Bada starts with Bad. And there is more to the name.

First of all, it is yet another platform. How many do we need?? Enough already... There is a reason why Funambol decided to acquire an Ajax framework. The future of mobile development is web apps, locally installed with sync and push... We are fed up with any language which is not Javascript+HTML+CSS.

Bada is C++. Developers have had enough of C++, they need something cool to feel their time spent in front of a computer is worth it. I know it is geeky to talk about languages, but Windows Mobile is not going anywhere, also because people like to use Java. And Objective-C is kinda cool.

Then the SDK and IDE are only on Windows. I know, I know. I am an open source guy who does not get that Windows has 92% of the market. It is an obvious choice if you are developing a consumer application (!!!). If you are targeting developers, Linux is much better. Mac OS is much better. Windows is just one choice and most likely not the good one. If you want people to work on your C++ platform, better make an SDK on Linux or Mac fast.

Moreover, they call it "open" but it is not open source. I think we are past SDKs that are not open source. We are past platforms that are not open source. If you are targeting developers, please get yourself in line. We (I have been writing some code lately ;-) do not want to touch proprietary SDKs anymore. Period.

I know users do not understand what open source is and they can't appreciate the benefit of it. But developers do. They see the code. That is what they use to develop. If the code is not open, they go somewhere else.

Lastly, with all written above, there are no phones supporting bada today... Do you really want me to buy a Windows machine to write C++ code on a proprietary platform for a phone that does not exist?

Why?

Why???

Some days I wonder why Google is the only company in the world getting it right. As evil as they are (and they are, the Google DNS service is the incarnation of evil) they just get it. They get developers. They built a platform around a mobile operating system out of nowhere. They got developer to write Android code before there was a phone. They open source everything (although I do not like the way they keep the development process closed, the code is open and they get by with it). They let you use your tools. Maybe it is just that they are a company built by developers. But they got every device manufacture to adopt it (they sold it to the OEM developers, you know? Not their users...) and they are going to dominate the market next year. Every carriers I talk to is about to deploy Android phones, not one or two, five or ten in 2010...

I am sorry but I feel Samsung does not get it. If they want to lure developers, they better call someone who knows how to do it, or they have a guaranteed failure in front of them. Bada is going to also end with bad.

Somebody better build a sexy Android phone for Europe soon

2009-12-07T14:31:00.000-08:00

I was reading an IDC statement the other day about Android in Europe:

Android OS continued to grow its market share from 4.2% in 2Q09 to 5.4% in 3Q09. Several operators listed Android devices in 3Q09 for the first time, which helped Android shipments to grow, though consumers steer clear of Google's OS and sell-out is below everyone's expectations. Consumers recognize the Google brand, but still do not understand what Android is.

Once again, I do not think anyone in Europe buys a phone for what is inside. The fact there is Android in a phone does not matter. Not that much inside the phone matters.

What matters is the outside. It is the look.

Yes, you can claim that with Android you can now take a picture of a book and have the book name show up in a search. And you can do the same with business cards and touristic spots. Or search by voice. Or show your friends augmented reality. That is super cool.

If you are a geek.

Sorry, if you are not a geek looking for a geeky companion, you are not going to score showing off your Android phone. Actually, you better keep it in your pocket.

I am not saying this is true only in Europe. But we Europeans do look at what you wear and at what you carry. You get judged based on the color of your socks (if you are Italian, you know what I am talking about...). Your image is important to you and it is reflected on what you wear and carry (purse or phone, same thing). We Americans (cool to be able to talk about both without taking sides ;-) are not looking at people that way. Not in Silicon Valley, not around the part of the country I have been to. What you do matters a lot more. And if you can find a product by its barcode and save a buck or two, you might even be considered cool. Actually, geek is kinda cool, at least in the Valley (now you know why I moved here 10 years ago :-)

For Android to sell hard in Europe, we need a sexy device. Something that sends out the right message to the people around you (your message). Something that matches your purse, shoes or belt.

I haven't seen one in the market yet. Until there is one, I fear Android will not take off in Europe. However, I guess it is just a matter of time. There are so many device manufacturers on it that we'll probably see one or two in 2010.

My impressions on Chrome OS

2009-11-25T18:58:00.001-08:00

I have been curious to check Chrome OS since I first heard of it. It is mobile open source, after all, so it fits well with my blog. But my curiosity really stems from the confusion in my brain about the Google OS strategy between Android and Chrome OS.

Android is a full OS for a mobile device. It is getting better by the day (bringing supercool apps with it: I drove with the new Google Maps Navigation tool to work yesterday and it is WOW). Android is going upstream. I am betting we will see a in-car navigation device on it very soon. We are seeing eBook readers already and netbooks. If you look at it, you would assume Google strategy is to kill Microsoft from the bottom: kill Windows Mobile and move up, slowly killing Windows. There are already way more mobile devices than desktops...

Chrome OS is an OS in a browser. A purest form of business model for Google, since it forces everything on the cloud, where they make money. I followed the easy instructions and I quickly built an image on a USB key. I booted my laptop and boom, in 10 seconds I had the OS up and running.

Excluding Wi-fi and audio not working, everything else pretty much worked as expected. Not very fast, I have to say. But I was not looking for that. I was looking for a use case.

I could not find it...

If the OS selling point is that it boots fast, then who cares? My laptop (Mac) boots a little slower but I close the lid and it goes on standby. I open it and it is there. Not in 10 seconds, in 2. Unless the OS crashes or I have to reboot for an upgrade (no more than once a week), I could not care less about the booting time.

Then what? Maybe an uncluttered UI. Yes, that is nice. But the compromise is big. The little windows (e.g. the calculator) open up in the bottom right and they stay there iconized. That is a menu bar, like in every other OS. However it is confusing, because they are trying to stretch a browser to resemble a desktop environment. Chrome OS is something you need to get used to, unlike Android that is immediate.

Aside from some very specialized devices, where you might need just a browser (kiosks?) I do not get it. Maybe I am dense, but I see two paradigm that fits usability patterns:

A full desktop interface, with multiple windows and spaces. A menu bar. Multiple apps running at the same time in different areas of the screen (not tabs). Mouse and maybe touchscreen as a nice to have for presentations. Keyboard. The full enchilada. Power to the user. Not a cramped UI.
A home screen with icons to launch single apps. You click one, it opens, you do something, you close it (or leave it open if it really makes sense). One-click to the task you have in mind.

The desktop interface can scale down to netbooks and maybe tablets. But it is an overkill for mobile devices with small screens, or even eBook readers. Actually, it is probably an overkill for anything that is not meant to be heavily multi-purpose.

The home screen interface can scale up, maybe even to desktops. I do not see a reason for Android not to make it up there. Maybe it won't happen because we are all so used to what we have, but there is a chance. At the end of the day, it is a Linux distro and it is proving useful, with lots of apps. I see a future where it could eat in the Windows and Mac OS plate.

However, I can't see it with Chrome OS. On a desktop, it is too limiting. On a mobile device, it is not usable (it is clearly designed for interaction with a mouse). Unless there is a category in the middle where it will fit, I do not get it.

And products in search of a problem are not usually best-sellers. You need a problem to solve first. I understand why a world in the cloud helps Google business, but they are better off going the Android route. There, they solved a problem - and a broken business model.

Yahoo Go(ne)

2009-11-18T09:02:00.000-08:00

Today, I found out that Yahoo Go is gone. It is an interesting development for the Yahoo mobile platform, definitely linked to the departure of Marco Boerries in February (just after presenting the new application at the Mobile World Congress, where I was on the panel... weird).

I have followed the Yahoo Go platform since the beginning. Some days, I felt they were totally on the right path. Some days, I felt the complete opposite. The difference? In the details, as usual.

The idea was intriguing: bringing the entire Yahoo experience on any phone. A rich experience. It made sense.

The problem? Too rich. Too heavy. They tried to implement the app download in chunks (it would not download a feature until you actually wanted to use it), but it was still too slow and too heavy. You might think they were simply ahead of their time. The network were not fast enough. The devices were not powerful enough.

It all came down on usability. The thing was not usable. Period.

On the other side, Google chose a different path: simple one-purpose apps, rather than one gigantic app. The entire Google experience a-la-carte. You can download Maps, if you want. Or Voice. Or Gmail. All individually.

The Google strategy worked. The single-purpose app delivers what you need. It is fast to download and fast to start. It is usable. It also fit well with the iPhone and device manufacturers in general. You give some room to Google but not too much. It is not the full Yahoo experience, it is the Apple experience with some Google flavor (BTW, I think the strategy will backfire, Google will slowly but surely penetrate the entire phone, starting with building their own OS ;-)

I still remember a billboard on 101, where Yahoo was advertising that Yahoo Mobile was years ahead of Google. It was... But it did not last long. It seems ages ago, but I guess it was just before the iPhone (I said it before and I repeat myself: we will always talk about the wireless market before the iPhone and after the iPhone. It changed everything).

Later, Yahoo tried a different strategy to catch up. It focused the app more towards bringing an entire content experience on any phone, including Yahoo. That is, taking your Facebook, Twitter and such and putting it on your device. Something that made sense, but not for Yahoo - in my opinion. They are a content provider, not an aggregator. Those that can aggregate are device manufacturers (think Palm Synergy or MOTOBLUR) and mobile carriers (first out of the gate is Vodafone with 360, many are following in panic, I know because they are calling us...).

What is left for Yahoo? I am not sure. It is a company that has so much content that a mobile extension sounds like a no-brainer. The issue is that the brand is damaged, people are moving away from it every day. I used My Yahoo, Yahoo Mail, Yahoo IM, Yahoo Finance for years and I moved away ever so slowly, one app at a time. I still have my Yahoo email, but that is it. And anything they can do in mobile will probably not matter to me.

However, I have great opinion of David Ko (he is a super-smart guy), so I am sure they will come out with something good. But they need to do it fast.

Mobile cloud does not mean network computing

2009-11-13T17:56:00.000-08:00

I found an interesting comment the other day in an article:

Nokia has batted back the concept by stating that mobile devices will not become ‘dumb clients' relying on the Cloud for the majority of intelligence.
The company's chief development officer, Mary McDowell, has stepped forward by accepting that the Cloud will grow, "we don't think the cloud is the total answer. Mobile devices are becoming more personalised and increasingly part of an individual's life. We think it will not be either/or," she said. "There will be a lot of intelligence in the Cloud and in the device, and the ability to exchange data with the Cloud will not pave the way for thinner devices, but increasingly powerful ones."

I could not agree more. I do not see a future where mobile devices are dumb, and source everything from the network. I see a future where mobile devices have local data, where the data is updated when the device is idle (from the cloud), where the applications are installed on the device. A network where the data is dispersed on every device and aggregated in the cloud.

Would it make more sense to just have all the data in the cloud, and have dumb terminals access it?

Yes, if you do not consider the following:

COST. That for me nails the argument. The cost of network is going down ever so slowly, if it ever does. And the network are ever more saturated (think about it, they said we had enough capacity with 3G, now even 4G sounds limiting). On the other side, the cost of storage is going down dramatically. I can store on my cell phone what I could store on my PC a few years ago, for a fraction of the cost. Who can point to one single projection where network bandwidth will be sufficient and cheap, while storage on devices will cost a ton? Exactly...
USABILITY. It starts with bandwidth, but it does not end there. Data on the device and apps on the device mean immediate access to what you are looking for. I wrote about it many times in the past: the scenario to keep in mind is the user with an open umbrella in pouring rain.
OFF-LINE usage. It is a scenario that might become less frequent with wireless reception getting on planes, trains, tunnels, rural areas and so on. But it is not going to disappear completely. And, believe me, in that particular situation you will need that information on your device badly...
OWNERSHIP of data. This is a silly need, because you still "own" the data even if it is not on your device, but it is stored in the cloud. However, the perception of it being far away, even if it is yours, will come in play. One article of a cloud player who lost all of the users data, and people will appreciate having their own data on their own device as well. It is mine, I want to keep it with me. All the time.

I just do not see how we could make network computing work in the mobile space, when we could not make it work in the desktop space, where bandwidth is not an issue, connectivity is constant and immediate access to data is less of a problem. It might happen there one day, but the day it will happen in mobile is 10 years or more away. If it will ever happen.

Why did you acquire Zapatec?

2009-11-04T09:34:00.000-08:00

This morning we announced the acquisition of Zapatec. I believe Dana at ZDNET summarized it best: "With Zapatec Funambol has one stack to rule mobile open source". I believe this is a big part of the reason why we made the move. However, there is more and I thought it would be nice for me to answer some of the questions you might have here.

So: why?

Well, I wrote here before many times that I believe the future of mobile apps is native, with sync and push, built on Web 2.0 technologies (Ajax, CSS, HTML).

To clarify: I am not talking about remote apps on a web site, I am talking about local apps, installed on your mobile device. I do not believe in a future where everything is streamed from the cloud. Usability is key. You want your app on your device, you want the data synced on your device, pushed to you when you are not looking at it. It is the reason why mobile email has been that popular on Blackberries. Your app is there, your emails are there, pushed to you while you drive. One click, fraction of a second, and you are productive.

Remember, speed is everything. We started using Google as a search engine years ago, not only because it delivered the best results but because it was fast. On the desktop, waiting one second was too much. On a mobile phone, when you have your umbrella open and it is pouring, a fraction of a second is too much. Usability is key. Speed to access what you need is key.

App Stores solved the issue of the delivery of apps to the device. It is that easy now to install one: it takes seconds. The problem is with developers. There are too many platforms out there. You have to be an expert on Objective C, C++, Java, cross-compilation, testing on a gazillion of devices and so on. And it is not going to get any better in the future. This is not the PC industry. We have lived through it. We learned. No vendor will own 95% of the market. In this market, as soon as Apple becomes successful, carriers jump on Android to prevent them to be too successful. This is a market for five operating systems - at least - with 15% of market share each...

If you are a developer, what are you dreaming of today? A way to develop apps with web technologies. Same as in the desktop world: Ajax, CSS, HTML. A platform that allows you to develop apps that move across devices. Where your only issue is to deal with screen sizes (which is already a challenge).

Now, if you need local apps, you need sync and push across a billion phones. Which is what Funambol does, since the beginning of time (Sync4j goes back to 2001). If you believe the world is moving towards mobile apps built on an Ajax framework, you need Zapatec. They have the best Ajax framework out there. I speak from personal experience. We have been working with the Zapatec guys for a year. We built our portal on it. We have been amazed by how good it is, how flexible it is, how open it is (they chose AGPL v3, smart guys)... And how good the people behind it are. Acquiring them was a no-brainer, since our business is booming, we have signed so many big customers in the last months, doubling our numbers Q2 over Q1, Q3 over Q2. This is the time for us to be aggressive. To change the world, to be the first billion dollar company in open source (ok, I got a bit carried away :-))

To me, Funambol+Zapatec is the future of mobile apps. Native applications, installed on your mobile device, that sync and push. But that are built on Web 2.0 technologies. A dream for users and developers.

Stay tuned. The future starts now.

Capacity, capacity, capacity

2009-10-28T16:31:00.001-07:00

Funny how the wireless world changes fast. I spent a few days at Rutberg's Wireless Influencer this week in San Diego (awesome event, if you get an invitation do not miss it) and I kept hearing the same word over and over: capacity. The network capacity. We do not have enough bandwidth. The iPhone is sucking our network dry. The networks are at risk of collapsing. Screw network neutrality, we need bandwidth management and app profiling. We have to deploy 4G quickly, but someone has to pay for it.

Ok, I get it. The AT&T network in San Francisco (and New York, I am told) are collapsing under the iPhone influence. You get in the city and your phone says "resource not available", when you are trying to make a call. The data portion of the network is saturated (I am told, because of the backhaul, whatever that is :-) and all of a sudden I can't even call 911. Weird and scary at the same time.

If you go back one year or maybe two, the message you would hear from carriers was: we have too much capacity. We built this 3G network for data and there is no data. We spent all this money for what?

Now, it is the opposite. It is all ooooops, data growth is exponential. With conservative prediction, we are all screwed ;-)

One of the solution carriers are talking about: wi-fi. I mean, wi-fi!! Their enemy… They now want to push as much traffic to wi-if to offload their networks. An Asian carrier summed it up: "A year ago, wi-fi was our worst enemy. Today, it is our best ally". See, the world changes fast in wireless.

Will the network collapse taking the mobile internet with it, leaving us all out naked in the cold? I do not think so. I am an optimist. I can't help but think about the third World Wide Web conference I attended in Boston in 1995 (good memory, even more because I am in Boston today). A pundit stood on stage and said: "With this rate of growth in traffic, I predict the Internet will collapse. If it has not happened in a year, I promise I will be back on this stage and eat this piece of paper". I did not go to the fourth WWW - if there was one - so I do not know if he swallowed his paper, but I can tell you the Internet did not collapse.

The mobile Internet will not collapse either. There is way too much money at stake. Way too many business plans built on it. Clearwire pushing for 4G, which forces everyone else to upgrade to LTE quickly. Better devices, better experiences for users, better monetization for everyone, from device manufacturers, to carriers, to portals, to application developers. Capacity is going to be there to sustain all this.

Capacity is always there, when there is money to be made. And the mobile Internet is the greatest money-making opportunity in our lifetime (yes, more than the wired Internet). No chance a bunch of iPhones will take that away from this industry. It might be painful for a bit, but it is going to go quickly. Capacity will be there.

Believe me, the world changes quickly in wireless. Next year at Wireless Influencers people will talk about something else.

No, Google won't make a smartphone

2009-10-20T10:14:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of rumors today about Google making its own smartphone.

I do not buy it. It does not make any business sense.

I have been a big supporter of Android from day 1. Heck, it is probably the thing that transformed me in the market, from an idiot to a visionary :-) I kept talking about mobile and open source for years. Everybody told me "you are an idiot, it will never happen, mobile and open do not go together". I begged to differ. Then Google came around with its marketing machine. Ooops, mobile open source became hot. The future of mobility is open source. Open is the new closed...

Well, unfortunately most of the people that thought I was an idiot have not changed their mind. But I have my inner confidence and I am not going to stop acting like one :-)

Back to Android. It was a big splash at the beginning. Then there was some disappointment around Mobile World Congress in February (no devices to show). And now it is an explosion. If you were at CTIA in San Diego, you know it: at least 50% of the phones on display were Android. From every device manufacturer. Amazing.

The Android phone are here and they are looking good (the Droid in particular).

Operators are pushing for Android like crazy. Yesterday I met a European carrier and he told me "We are launching one Android phone this year and ten (10!) next year". He said "We were terrified with the iPhone, we needed something open we can build on".

Booom, open source in mobile :-)

You have an operating system that is open. You can take it and ship it as it is, with Google inside (many have done it). That is an option, works with marketing, but includes the risk of moving from evil #1 (Apple) to evil #2 (Google). But you also have a second option: just take the open core, add your apps and move Google in second place (e.g. what Motorola has done with MOTOBLUR). Take the best of open source, keep the source and innovate on it. The best of both worlds.

On the side, developers are creating Android apps like crazy. It is the Google effect, combined with the open source effect. Nobody is going to take down my app. Apple is not controlling my business model. Think about it: if you have to write a social networking messaging app that will take a year to develop, would you go with iPhone? Would you risk to spend a year and then get rejected on iTunes because Apple is - obviously - building a similar application? I would not. I go Android. And so are doing all the other developers.

Android is the #1 mobile developer choice today, as long as there are enough phones out there. And the phones are out now. It is not the iPhone, because it is closed. And it is definitely not Windows Mobile (I second the comment from Laura Fitton to Steve Ballmer: "have you noticed very few people are developing Twitter apps for Windows Mobile?").

Ok, let me go back to the subject. You are Google. You have an ecosystem that works so well it is a miracle, you have displaced Microsoft for developers creating the dominant OS of the future (remember, everything is going mobile), you have phones coming out every day, almost all device manufacturers using your OS, carriers that bring you in even if eventually you are going to make them a pipe.

You have made it in mobile, coming from nowhere.

Now you screw everything up? You create a smartphone? A competitor to every new friend you made?? And you are a company that has never built hardware???

I do not think so.

Google won't make a smartphone (Microsoft will, because their Windows business model is broken forever, not being open source). Google won't do it now. Maybe in a few years if things change. Now it does not make any sense.

Proving that open source can be beautiful

2009-10-02T10:36:00.000-07:00

It is out. We have Funambol V8 on our demo site, myFUNAMBOL. It is for everyone to play with, look at and experience (yes, it is free, and unlimited for our community members).

Why am I excited? Because I am a usability guy, and I love things that are both usable and look good. I am an admirer of Apple, because of it. And I feel I can say this (ok, I am biased, I know): our portal looks better than anything Apple has out in the market.

There is one thing that people say about open source: it works, it works, but it is ugly. Think about it: few products out there are open source and actually look great (there are some exceptions, although I think Firefox is uglier than Chrome or even IE8). Open source products just work great. They are super-well tested. They function well, they are designed by engineers for engineers... Usually, they are ugly.

It was about time to turn this around. We are a company with Italian roots after all. If made-in-Italy can't build beautiful things, who can?

Here you have it. Funambol V8 is made-in-Italy software, works great because it is open source and tested by millions, can be tailor-made, and it looks fashionable.

Living proof that open source can be beautiful. It does not have to be ugly.

Microsoft will build a smartphone

2009-09-28T17:19:00.001-07:00

I have been thinking about Microsoft in mobile for a few days, trying to guess what I would do, if I were Ballmer.

Quick look at the state of Microsoft in mobile: first, they have the Zune, an mp3 player of dubious success (because I am in a good mood); second, they have Windows Mobile, an operating system of lagging success (see, I am in a good mood!).

Now, any news on Windows Mobile lately? Lots. First of all, Palm dropped support for it in favor of WebOS (not a surprise). Then Motorola did the same in favor of Android (well, not a surprise to me, but it must be sad for Microsoft). HTC, LG, Samsung, Sony Ericsson all said they will have Android devices. It does not mean they are gone, but they are close.

To put it in a different way: everyone is abandoning the ship.

Any good news? The Nokia new netbook runs Windows 7 (which is still not Windows Mobile...). That took me by surprise. It is good news, but not in the smartphone business, where the growth is. And I am ready to bet that Nokia is doing just a test, ready to jump to a different platform (Maemo) as soon as it is ready for prime time on the netbooks as well (it is ready for smartphones today).

Ok, you can bet your house on Windows 7 (the "good one"), but would it be sufficient to turn the boat around? Will all the device manufacturers change their mind and rush back to Microsoft. And why?

No, I mean, why? The open source OSs out there are free. Microsoft charges $$ for it. The other OSs support the Office docs and have ActiveSync for Exchange. Why does a device manufacturer need to go back to Windows? Why?

Exactly: they won't.

So, what are the options, if you are Ballmer:

open source Windows 7 (yeah, right)
build your own smartphone

I just do not see #1 happening soon, although it might one day (I am an optimist). Even if they do it today, they are late. Therefore, I am left with #2.

Microsoft will build a smartphone. A Zune smartphone. Definitely with a different brand, because Zune does not score too high with consumers... They are a HW company, whatever you think. They have been successful - at least - with the XBox. And they must have bought Danger for something... Once again, the device(s) will be designed in Silicon Valley, which is now the center of mobile (as odd as it seems for those that have lived here for a few years).

Will they succeed? Windows 7 better be really good, because they are way behind. Honestly, looking at their history in mobile and the market development, I would not bet on them. But what do I know? I am an open source guy and Ballmer once said Linux was a cancer ;-)

The world keeps diverging

2009-09-08T18:24:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow is the day Apple will not introduce the iPad (or so I believe). They will reshuffle the iPod lineup adding a bunch of cameras here and there, and probably killing the iPod Classic forever, in exchange for an additional focus on the iPod Touch (which sold well, and it was a surprise for many). Apple has an advantage on pushing the Touch because it uses the App Store, which attracts developers: I even heard one say "we have to keep our app on version 2 of the iPhone OS because many Touch users do not upgrade the OS"...

So... tomorrow won't be the day of even more divergence. We'll have to wait a few more months. But it will happen. Apple will come out with an ebook reader one day, adding one more device in my pocket.

If you read this blog, you know I am not a fan of convergence. I never believed in the überdevice that does everything for me. I believe in many specialized devices that do one thing and one thing well. Not one that does many things and all badly.

For me, it goes down to usability. It is a science of no compromises. If you have to compromise, your user experience will suck.

If you force me to watch a movie on a small screen, I will do it in an emergency. At the end of the emergency, I will sit on my couch and watch something else happily on a big screen (ever noticed the TV screen size is getting bigger and bigger and the quality higher and higher? How do you match it on a small screen??).

If you force me to type a long document on a touch screen without a keyboard, I will try to do it in an emergency. However, I will probably give up before the emergency is over, put the ideas on a piece of paper and type them back later on a keyboard...

Input and output are key. If the screen is small, many things do not make sense. If there is no keyboard or I need a pen, many things do not make sense.

I want a special device in my car for navigation. My phone won't do it (sorry Nüvifone). Yes, it might work, but the screen is small (I just came back from South Korea, where they have huge car navigator screens). And it is multipurpose. And the GPS is not that good. And ... and ... and.

Bottom line: give me one good device for what I need. Make it cheap. Make it interact with the others: this is key, few have made it happen. I want my data to be unique and be synced on all devices freely. Do not lock me, make me shake my iPhone when I get in the office to pass the call to my landline phone. Or to the TV when I am close and watching a movie on the device, so I can sit on the couch and watch it on a big screen. Make all this transparent and you got me.

There is one joke I always tell about convergence. I carry two devices in my pocket every day: my wallet and my keys. They haven't converged yet. There is a reason.

Hey, that does not mean they won't converge. A world without cash is nice, and maybe with NFC (near field communication) my mobile phone will eventually substitute my credit card. And my door will open just waving my phone. So I will be down to one device. It makes sense, because the input and output will change, and there is no need for a big screen or a big keyboard. See, I am all for convergence, when it makes sense.

Another complaint I hear all the time: "I do not want ANOTHER device. I cannot carry one more. I already have my phone and my laptop with me, there is no room for an eBook reader!". I say BS (pardon my French). Look in my bag when I leave for a flight. You find my mobile phone, my laptop, two books and a newspaper. The two books weigh way more than one eBook. And the newspaper takes a lot of room and spreads its dirty ink around. If you can carry a book in your bag, you have room for an eBook reader. And if you want to read your book on your phone, be my guest ;-)

I love divergence. One device for all (things I do).

The Apple iPad will be an ebook reader

2009-08-17T15:28:00.001-07:00

I have been quite decent at predicting Apple's moves recently. With all this talk about the new tablet/netbook by Apple, I thought it was time for me to jump in and make my predictions.

First of all, I do not think it will be a netbook. I just do not see a reason for it. Steve Jobs has said he does not see how they can build a laptop for $500 that is not a piece of junk. Although I disagree with him (they can build one for sure ;-) I totally understand why Apple won't do it: they are the king of the high-end market in laptops, why would they eat into their own market? It is nonsense.

And it will be boring... The MacBook Air on which I am typing now is a beautiful machine, with a large screen and all I need from a laptop. You shrink it a bit and it loses a good keyboard and the large screen. To save money?? Not a chance.

Ok, so now we know it will be a tablet, a sort of an oversized iPhone Touch, with no keyboard.

When you start thinking about the usage for it, you start discounting anything that has to do with typing. No keyboard, no typing. Or, at least, just minimal typing. It is going to be mostly a read-oriented device.

Ok, what do you do with a read-oriented device?

not much email, word processing, spreadsheet and so on
reading something with a browser or an ebook reader
watching something
listening to something
playing games with minimum input

Well, that is an iPod Touch...

What is wrong with the iPod Touch? It is small enough to put in your pocket, but it is too small for reading a book (although it is doable) or watching a movie with a good screen (although it is doable). It is just too small for those things. And it is not even a phone.

Do I need another DVD player? Hardly. As most people out there, I do own one for my daughter, and I just bought her a second one (region free, of course) because the first one broke. It cost me $79 on Amazon... Yes, I might like having a DVD player with me when I fly alone (I don't have one, I watch movies on my laptop or on my iPhone or on the plane TV) but there is not a good reason for me to jump and buy a new one for $500, even if it can download movies on-the-fly...

Do I own an ebook reader? No.

Do you own an ebook reader? Probably not, it is still a niche.

A niche that is going to explode.

I am not saying the iPad will be just an ebook reader. I am saying it will be sold as an ebook reader, that its main feature will be allowing you to read a book. A good-looking Kindle. But one that doubles as a video player, that you can use to browse the web, play games, listen to music and download apps from the App Store. And do some email when you have to.

This is the mp3 player market all over again. Where there mp3 players before Apple came in? Yes. Any really good? No. Any good sync between them and your PC? Nope. Apple changed everything and that market exploded, with Apple owning 90% of it.

The tip that this was going to be Apple's direction came from a very quiet announcement a few months ago: Amazon licensed its book reader technology for the iPhone. Few people read it, but it was huge news to me. It was the trigger for Apple to access the entire library of Amazon. Expect a book store by Apple, with Amazon being a big supplier (but maybe not the only one).

Now, would I buy an ebook reader? Maybe. I have been thinking about it for a while. I just do not like the Kindle aesthetically and maybe an ebook reader would not be enough for me to do it. But if I can also watch movies on a plane, and I can play a little game with it, and I can use it to read email on the couch, and I can leave it on the kitchen table (must have a holder of some sort) for my wife... maybe I will actually buy one. I do believe it has market potential. A sort of mass market Kindle. Exactly as Apple did in the mp3 world, which was a niche until they moved into it.

A book reader. Think about schools and students and kids. It is not a niche.

I do think it will have a camera for videochats. I believe it will be built on the iPhone OS, vs. a full Mac OS X, because developers have built apps for no-mouse interaction on the iPhone. It will be easy to port them to a bigger screen. Apps built for Mac OS require a mouse: you would have to rewrite them from scratch to be used only with fingers or voice. And the App Store is already there (BTW, I am expecting an App Store for Mac OS software soon as well).

Ok, here you have it. I do believe Steve Jobs will be on stage and deliver a great performance, as usual. The press will go wild. Developers will go wild. A new market will be started.

I have seen it before ;-)