Life blog

Blindspot: Mobile browsing

Yesterday, I had a great, if rushed, conversation with Nokia's Browser Master, Franklin Davis (nice bio on this page). Franklin has been deep into mobile browser and Web technologies for a very long time and I like to go to him for insight into where things are going. His big thing now is the Nokia Open Source S60 Browser that is based on the same code as Safari from Apple. I've been using the browser on my N93, but it's also available on a bunch of other more recent S60 phones, if are lucky enough to get one. It's really the fullest browser on a mobile, allowing you to do a lot more than most PC-based browsers only a few years ago.

But, here comes my blindspot*: As you may have noticed from reading my site, I am not too fond of passive mobile browsing or content consumption. And, talking to Franklin, I was wondering how to put my thoughts in a positive light, since he's a 'browser' guy. After talking with him and then doing some more thinking today, I have better positioned the S60 OSS Browser in my model of the mobile world.

We are not consumers. We are active participants in our life.
The mobile has taken communication and sharing to a new level for humanity. The two most used features of a mobile phone are voice and text messaging - communication. Unfortunately, most mobile service providers think all we want to do is sit and watch TV, download ring tones and wall papers, and, yes, browse information. Eh, that doesn't fit my idea of the Mobile Lifestyle.

If the survivors of Web 1.0 and the poster children of Web 2.0 are any indication, even on the PC-based Web, people aren't just passively consuming. Ebay and Amazon are not about consuming, but connecting via an enabling platform. Google is not about browsing, but about seeking and finding answers to our questions. Flickr is not about browsing, but about sharing images of our life. On-line journals and logs are not about browsing, but about communicating intimately.

Then what is the fascination with mobile browsing? I want mobile cognecting, sharing, finding, interacting.

I admitted to Franklin that I really don't think it's about full access to Web content, but full access to Web services. I think a full browser on a mobile phone that enables browsing of full Web sites is nice. It's part of a continuum from simple sites that are mobile-savvy, to mobile-friendly (they don't break on a mobile browser), to all the millions of old and current sites that ignore the mobile. And, it's surely a better option than .mobi (which Franklin and I didn't discuss) and maybe transcoders (which we did discuss and Franklin is aware of the legal issues brought up by Scott Rafer and Dave Harper).

Furthermore, my head lately has been in low-end, mass-market phones with simpler browsers, so full browsing is not part of my daily thoughts. On my mind, when it comes to the mobile browser, are the kind of services, like Winksite, that create a helping intermediary between the capabilities of my phone and the services I want to reach. On my mind, is not the 10s of million S60 phones, but the 100s of millions basic phones with no access to Web services.

Words of wisdom
Franklin and I have had many discussions of this sort over the past years and I can sometimes see his influence in my thoughts. Nonetheless, it pleased me when, once again, it turned out we were of the same mind - his vision is to have the best mobile browser out there so that mobiles no longer have to be second-class citizens on the Web, so that mobile users can interact with all the services out there, so that, as more mobiles actively and interactively use the Web, the Web will have to become mobile-savvy.

He envisions a two-prong approach of 1) evangelizing this versatile browser and what it can do - convincing folks to become mobile-savvy, and 2) increase the numbers of mobile phones accessing the Web in general - to wake people up to the rapidly growing numbers of phones accessing their sites and hence convince folks to become mobile-savvy.

And, in response to some of my desires as to how I would like to interact with the Web from my mobile (and not just browse), he let me in on some current and future developments. I'm not sure what is public of not, so just a tease right now - sorry. Suffice it to say, Franklin is part of a cool team that has a long-term vision of how mobile phones will interact with Web services in the future.

Model holding steady
I can still say that I am not so keen on mobile browsing. Nonetheless, my idea of the mobile Web is well within the plans Franklin and the browser team have. Indeed, the browser team is not really building a browser, but a tool to interact with the Web, with the same freedom and flexibility I have from my PC.

Maybe Franklin and team should no longer call it a 'browser', that's too passive and misleading, considering their vision. What could it be called? Hmm. :-)

*I call a 'blindspot' anything I don't get or think others don't get, basically trying understand why I don't agree with the general consensus. Click here for other blindspots I have written about. Sadly, I have a long list of other blindspots of mine that I still want to write about.

GigaOM on: Doppelganger, A New Online Ad Model?

Thank you, Om, for bringing this up. But, you know this is not a new ad model. It just seems that way when all we are services hopelessly based on Yahoo and Google ads.

I've been telling people until I'm blue in the face that there are more ways to milk ad money from marketing budgets than to just rely on AdSense. Heck, examples of successful models similar to Doppelganger are all arond us.

Sheesh, folks. Read this article and get a clue. :-P

Link: GigaOM : Doppelganger, A New Online Ad Model?.

But there are other forms of advertising besides search, and for its virtual world, The Lounge, Doppelganger has settled on a product-placement model popularized by Hollywood, where advertisers pay up to have their products featured in movies and TV shows. Music label Interscope Records has already signed up for a trial to have Doppelganger build a virtual club for its Pussycat Dolls band within The Lounge.

Observation for the weekend - the real effect of phone subsidies

I think most of us who complain about the operators and their subsidies might really have a blindspot. We are looking from the vantage point of power users who know what phone they want, how open they want it, what services and plans, and how to hack it.

What about everyone else?

Everyone else wants something cheap or free, that makes decent calls, and looks pretty. Quite different than the average (though significantly less numerous) power user.

I mentioned recently that this past 01 April, the Finnish operators were allowed to bundle phone plans with phones. I wondered if it was a step backwards or if we were the ones actually wrong.

Eh, maybe we are wrong.

Why do I say this?

Well, in the past month I have seen a ton more 3G smartphones (the main ones that are being bundled). Even a friend who does not get excited about advanced phones was quizzing me.

So, let's think about this:

- Is it better to make folks pay full price up front for an advanced 3G smartphone that might go for over 500€, or,

- Is it better to help them upgrade from their four-year old Nokia 3330s and bring them to the modern world?

I'm sorry, I'm starting to side with the operators on this one.

But wait - this strategy is only working because it's the advanced phones only, as far as I know, that can be bundled. In other countries, all phones are subsidized. So, maybe we can find the middle ground and subsidize the advanced phones to effect a roll-over to more functional phones.

What do you think?

BTW, this weekend is the annual bacchanalia here - Vappu - Finland's May Day. Another wonderful three-day weekend. See ya all Tuesday!

Another blindspot: advertising-based services

Being a FOG (Follower of Guy) for many years now, I now get daily doses of his wisdom on a regular basis. A recent post on his website stats has a few great gems in it, but one comment on click-thru advertising was enough for me to launch on another Blindspot rant.

Advertising is not the panacea for free services that everyone makes it out to be.

First of all, people act like Google invented the tools for advertising supported websites. Uh, anyone remember ad banners, pop-ups, and other regular advertising channels on websites?

Second (see Guy's quote below), click-thru metrics only pay significantly if you have enough traffic, say Google's or Yahoo's. Sure, some sites are making some chump change with AdSense, no problems there, but don't try to build a company on it (or a company of more than one person). I've been saying that for some time now, and folks have been looking at me as if I was spouting heresy.

Here's what Guy says, spot on with what I've been saying:

I spend about two hours per day on the blog, so I'm making about $5/hour. :-) Also, if any company comes to Garage and says that their business model is to generate a lot of page views and monetize it with Google AdSense, I'm going to be figuring that each page impression is worth $.001. For example, 10 million page impressions would yield $10,000/month. It's not that hard to get 10 million page views in a month, right? :-) “We'll generate a lot of traffic and monetize it with Google AdSense” is hereby labeled the 11th lie of entrepreneurs.

Third, if you want to run an advertising-supported service, study how the pros do it. No, don't go looking on the Internet. Go to your nearest news kiosk. Print publications have been heavily advertising-supported for a very long time (heck, there is no front page news on the main Helsinki rag, it's always an ad). Practically all subscription magazines and newspapers are advertising-based. And they have whole departments working to get advertising that brings in money, that is relevant is relevant to the publication, that is relevant to the reader. Not only is AdSense an automated system that is second best to targeted ads, but you have little control as to what it shows.

Fourth, who makes the money? Google AdSense users aggregate a huge number clicks that bring most of the money to Google, not to the users. Look at Guy's stats again.

Mobile?

It wasn't just Guy's comment on AdSense that got me going, but MoMo Mike pointing out a comment on mobile advertising from the W3C's Mobile Web Best Practices:

Developers of commercial web sites should note that different commercial models are often at work when the Web is accessed from Mobile devices as compared with desktop devices.

You betcha. When you open up a Web page on your PC, you have enough space not to care about those pesky links somewhere else on your screen. Also, your browsing experience really doesn't take a hit, nor do you have to really pay for that advertising to be served to you.

Not so on the mobile, where space is precious, the environment is personal, time is critical, and cost is a sensitive subject.

Enough of the rant. Here are some positive suggestions.

Don't think of advertising-supported services, as that will make you think of traditional advertising. Think 'marketing-supported' services and then you will start to think of other ways to have someone pay for your users' free service. I think if you make clear the 'cost' to the user for using a free service is you channeling brands and such to them.

For example, a company could sponsor a Java game that would have the sponsor's branding displayed in an integrated and unintrusive fashion.

Or, if you have a really cool local map client (uh, maybe Google Local Mobile). When you get the info on the venue in that nifty pop-up, there could be an ad or two. Maybe even a local ad.

Or, think of how your service could be a door to other better paying business, such as consulting or upgrades to paid service. Using a free service or content to drive sales at a store is quite common, that I won't even list the sites that do this.*

So there

As you can tell, this is not just a blindspot I don't understand, but something that I think really others have a blindspot to. I am like guy and shudder whenever anyone says they want to start a business based on AdSense. Heck, that's NonSense.

 

*Well, this one, Treonauts, I think is nifty. It's a blog that grew into much more. That's how you give free stuff away to bring in folks long enough to have they leave some money behind. :-)

Blindspot: Mobile TV

I have a list of items that I call 'Blindspots' - things that others seems to be excited about but I just don't get (either I'm not excited, or I need to learn more). My fear is that I am missing something in the discussion or alternately, I get something that others do not. Either way, my eyes glaze over when folks start lathering at the mouth over one of my well developed blindspots.

The MobHappy guys took a hatchet to Mobile TV recently. And I totally concur with their sentiments. My take is also that TV, as in regular streaming broadcast TV, doesn't make sense anymore on any platform, so it's dead already when it hits the mobile device (disclaimer - my company makes DVBH devices, but I don't, so this is my opinion*). And video itself is not really mobile. Portable, yes. Mobile, as in walking and using the mobile device, no.

On the other hand, something is up in the apparent success with the video iPod and I think that points to where portable video is going. Specific videos. Good size and format. Easy discovery and management.

So, my suggestion is to watch the iPod for where portable video is going, not these ridiculous mobile TV pilots.

Link: Please, Make The Mobile TV Hype Stop at MobHappy.

The results of two mobile TV trials in the UK have been released, with plenty of stories painting the service as The! Next! Big! Thing! But both of these trials raise as many questions as they answer. Russell mentioned yesterday how the results of the first trial showed people were more interested in — and spent more time — listening to the radio than watching TV on their handsets, but the spin is clearly turned on over at BT Movio, talking about “consumer thirst” for mobile TV.

More blindspots coming (eh, I'm not perfect). What's your blindspot?

*My company also makes Series 60 devices and the 770 Internet Tablet, all of which could easily adopt a iPod like model in finding, packaging, and viewing videos in a portable way (kinda like the PSP, too).