Smart phone uses are starting to self sort themselves by lead application, it now appears. Though much could change as adoption becomes more mainstream, it now appears that Apple iPhone users value Web access while RIM BlackBerry users value email. To a lesser extent, Palm users favor calendar apps.
Patterns for users or Microsoft and Android operating system devices are less distinct. But that might be one reason new sales of Microsoft-OS devices are declining, relative to others. To the extent there is any distinction, Google G1 users put heavier emphasis on maps.
The clearest example that users are segmenting themselves by applications is that "the best-selling smartphones are the ones that most strongly associate with one or two particular features," says Michael Mace, Rubicon Consulting principal.
BlackBerry and iPhone each have one or two standout features that more than half their users rank as extremely important, he says. As you would expect, email access is unusually important for BlackBerry users.
BlackBerry users are also much more interested than average phone users in web browsing and calendar. Blackberry users are substantially less interested in price, size of the phone, and address book management.
The priorities of iPhone users are dramatically different from either typical mobile phone users or RIM users, says Mace. Browsing was the iPhone users’ top feature, followed closely by email.
But iPhone users were much more interested than RIM users in music, maps, 3G, and the ability to add new software.
The Windows Mobile user profile is similar to that of the BlackBerry, but less distinctive, says Mace.
The priorities of Windows Mobile users are similar to Blackberry users, with the exception that Windows Mobile users are a bit less focused on email and more interested in adding new software and using maps. But no single feature was noted by more than 40 percent of Windows Mobile users, indicating that it doesn’t have a very distinct feature identity in the market.
Palm users were also somewhat similar to RIM users, with the exception that they were quite a bit more focused on calendar functions, which was cited as the number one feature. But compared to Microsoft users, email and browsing were ranked less hihgly.
"It appears that RIM and Apple are siphoning off most of the people who care the most strongly about browsing and mail," says Mace.
"Calendar scored higher among Palm users than among any other platform, which probably fits with Palm’s roots as a PDA company," he notes.
But Palm application patterns do not have as distinct an identity as Blackberry and iPhone do.
Compared to all the other smartphones, the Google G1 “GPhone” has the least distinctive feature profile. It is cited for maps more than any other phone, but only 30 percentof users call that a top four feature. Relatively few G1 users said browsing is a high priority. Instead, browsing ranked far below iPhone, and on a par with RIM.
That may indicate that the marketplace has not yet decided what an Android device "is." BlackBerry is email, iPhone is Web browsing. Neither Palm, Microsoft nor Android seem yet to have grabbed a clear and distinct niche within the smart phone market.
These findings are important for very broad reasons. I have long argued that voice is, in fact, not a "commodity." The latest Rubicon findings suggest that mobile phones and smart phones likely are not true commodities either. At least in the case of the BlackBerry and iPhone, users have self selected themselves based on behavioral differences.
If that is true, it also should be true that service plans, application optimization and other ways of appealing to a distinct market niche are possible. The Rubicon findings also suggest it is important for Microsoft, Palm and Android to find and cultivate a distinct market niche. So far, none of them seems to have succeeded to the degree Apple and RIM have.
In other words, there is no such thing as the "best smart phone" for every user. That decision depends on what one wants to do most. Smart phones are becoming more like automobiles, in that sense, then has been the case in the past. Roadsters, vans, trucks, subcompacts, SUVs and full-size passenger vehicles have different "lead" applications. So, increasingly, do smart phones.
The key insight here is that communications products and services are less commoditized than most of us typically assume. It might be hard work to differentiate, but it can be done.
Perhaps the worst case scenario would be for most smart phones to ultimately be seen as general purpose mobile PCs. That would destroy the ability to differentiate.
