iPod Touch: Optimized for Video and Web

The newly released iPod touch is for all intents and purposes an iPhone with reduced functionality. The iPod Touch skips Bluetooth, phone capabilities, a camera and has a lower quoted battery life.

It has more storage than the iPhone though, which tops out at 8 Gbytes. The Touch is available in 8 Gbyte and 16 GByte versions, whereas the iPhone is only available in 8GB capacities. Other than that, the iPhone and Touch are identical. 802.11b/g Wi-Fi is available on both devices.

The Touch uses the same interface as the iPhone as well, but the Touch is shorter and thinner. Brilliant people, those marketers at Apple. They are creating a family of products each optimized for a different use case. The iPhone is the most capable phone. The Nano is a cheaper video player. The iPod has the most memory if you a music player.
The iPod also has dedicated volume control buttons; Touch doesn't.

The Web browser on the Touch probably is a major positioning feature. Lots of users will focus on using Wi-Fi to download music. Personally, I see it more as a Web browsing platform. Email access is not something you'd really want to do on a Touch. That's a better experience on an iPhone but arguably not as good as an iPhone as on a BlackBerry.

To prevent people from confusing a Touch with an iPhone, Touch has no audio input jacks or Bluetooth, so you really can't use a microphone. It definitely is not a phone.

So the issue is what people will make of it. It's a better Web browser and video player than a music player. The iPod is a better music player. The video-capable Nano is a cheaper music and video player. The iPhone is the only phone. The Shuffle is a better device for running and exercising because of its non-existent footprint. Unless you need to keep stats on your training progress, in which case the Nano works with some Nike shoes to collect data for you.

The net result is that lots of users will wind up owning multiple Apple products, while Apple covers the whole range of price points for devices that all are mobile music players. Clever, those marketers at Apple.

All of this is interesting for other reasons as well. One wonders how long it will be until data-optimized, communicating mobile devices might develop as a distinct niche: optimized for Web applications primarily, though capable of handling email and voice. Would such a niche necessarily require full-time mobile access? Or is there room for use cases based on Wi-Fi connection as a primary access method? Perhaps dual mode capable, but without the recurring monthly post-paid fees? Perhaps prepaid mobile access as a supplement to Wi-Fi as the primary access? Using WiMAX perhaps?

The new use case would be based partly on the characteristics of the device, partly on the nature of the access, partly on the user payment model and partly on the provider business model.

Boomers Buy More than 1/3 of all Music

The trick is to get them to buy digital downloads or music subscriptions as well as CDs, which they buy in great quantities. More than 70 percent of the 76 million baby boomers in the U.S. report buying music in the past year, making it the most important buying segment for CDs and an increasingly important market for digital downloads, according to Russ Crupnick, entertainment industry analyst for The NPD Group.

Baby boomers born between 1941 and 1964 now account for a third of all music sales. About 68 percent buy CDs. About 26 percent purchase both digital music and CDs, while just six percent purchase only digital music downloads.

Nearly 40 percent of boomers report that they regularly visit the music retailers or the music section of retail stores.

NPD believes more attention to the boomer segment could yield $700 million to $1 billion in potential incremental sales of both CDs and digital downloads from baby boomers.

Nothing personal: Just don't put them on iPod billboards!! That would not, as they say, be a pretty picture

No Contract, No Locking, Nobody

Sprint CEO Gary Forsee says Sprint is thinking about expanding the test area for an unlimited calling plan that doesn’t require customers to sign a contract. That's something Leap Wireless and MetroPCS already offer. Nokia meanwhile appears poised to start selling unlocked N95 series really-smart phones imminently. So far, no carriers seem willing to do both.

Of course, there are good financial reasons why carriers like contracts and locked phones. The former provides a more predictable revenue stream and the latter ensures lower churn. Apple doesn't like unlocking either, as it now participates in the recurring revenue stream.

At least some users would benefit from unlocking and contractless service. Anybody buying a Nokia N95, for example, is spending enough on a device that the portable computer (it seems too limiting to call it a phone) clearly is more important than any network.

Of course, the carriers increasingly will find themselves in the position of angering power users who can figure out other ways to use unlocked devices, with or without contracts. To the extent that an N95 really is a mobile media and Web platform, outfitted both with Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, users can simply avoid any carrier "calling plan" if they are willing to put up with a little hassle and use Wi-Fi for connectivity.

That won't be very desirable for anybody who really needs mobile calling, but lots of people choose to carry two devices in any case. So maybe one of the new choices is one device for mobile email and voice, and the second for rich media and rich Web browsing.

It isn't so clear to me that a heavy email user is going to opt for an N95 in any case. The N95 excels as a rich media device (audio and video performance is spectacular) but won't satisfy a BlackBerry addict. The BlackBerry, though, isn't so great as a phone and really doesn't measure up as a media player.

Carriers might not like it, but devices are becoming the drivers of purchase and use behavior for a growing segment of the user base. Sure, the presence or non-presence of 3G capabilities is an issue. Operating system is getting to be more important. And then there's the blasted CDMA or GSM choice to be made. Pricing plans still are important, to be sure. But device coolness arguably is enough to outweigh the other considerations.

N95 might be among the first devices that test the theory that a powerful enough rich media device can get traction using Wi-Fi connectivity as an alternative to "mobile network" connectivity. Broad traction still will require 3G GSM. But N95 is the first device I've experienced that gets one to thinking about using it in a way similar to a laptop, rather than a phone. A Wi-Fi-equipped iPod is sort of in the same category.

T-Mobile Sells iPhone in German Market

T-Mobile will sell Apple's iPhone in Germany for 399 euros ($558) each. Service plans weren't immediately announced. As in the United States, where Apple picked at&t as its exclusive network services provider, customers in Germany will have to sign up for two years to buy and use the 8-gigabyte version of the phone-iPod-Web appliance.

In the U.K. market, where O2 has a five-year exclusive on service for the iPhone. And a pattern seems to be developing in terms of the business model.

Estimates of how much revenue O2 is going to share with Apple vary between 10 percent to 40 per cent and it is likely both figures are correct. The delta is what Apple gets paid based on the degree of churn the device can induce.

Apple might get 10 percent of revenue when an existing O2 customer gets an iPhone, but Apple might get the heftier percentage when a customer switches service providers and becomes an O2 customer.

at&t pays Apple $3 a month when one of its existing customers buys an iPhone plan, but $11 a month when a customer switches carries and becomes an at&t customer.

O2's ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) is around £23, so 10 per cent of that would be £2.30 while 40 per cent comes to £9.20.

Apple iPhone Price Cut is, Oddly, About the Buzz

Equity analysts and presumably some investors are said to be quite unhappy about the $200 price reduction on the eight gigabyte vesion of the iPhone, which now sell for $399, $200 less than the price consumers paid just three months ago when the iPhone launched on June 29. "Leaving margin on the table" is the problem.

Apple announced a credit of $100 for early buyers after the price reduction. The credit is a bit unusual. The timing of the price cut is quite unusual. Apple has in the past waited as much as a year to drop prices on a device.

Some say the move is a significant strategic and tactical misstep. Maybe. But Apple once again gets huge buzz, refocusing attention a couple months after the splashy launch. Lower than anticipated sales is unlikely to be a drive, as the company stands by its initial projection of one million sales by the end of the quarter.

It might sell twice as many. Nobody knows yet. Undoubtedly some thought was given beforehand to the customer irritation factor. The credit could have been part of the plan, not an afterthought when a hue and cry arose about the unfairness of the price cut for early buyers.

Yes, there is some margin hit. But Apple now stands ready to move past the "gotta have it" early adopter crowd and occupy other niches in the market. Just what niches is the issue. Everybody intuitively understands that a BlackBerry is "email in your pocket."

I'm still having trouble coming up with a simple description of what precise niche the iPhone occupies. It might be the "heavy iPod user who doesn't want to carry a mobile phone." The iPhone might simply be a communicating iPod. It doesn't seem quite right to say it occupies the "whole Internet in your pocket" position.

It might more plausibly be something like an "easy to use mobile phone" positioning, analogous to the way the early Apple PCs held that niche in a world of command line interfaces. Graphical user interface is then the idea; "mouse"-based instead of "C: prompt"; finger rather than scroll wheel or button.

With the price cuts, Apple gets a chance to establish something more like its ultimate market position, as enough users are aggregated to figure out how end users view the device. Right now it still seems to be a device whose niche is evolving.

GooglePhone? GPhone?

Since late 2006, there has been speculation that Google is prototyping a Google mobile phone, optimized to run Google apps, enable communications between Gtalk users and operate as a standard mobile phone as well. The speculation then was that a launch could occur in 2008.

The rumors are out again, suggesting a device that could sell in the $100 range, not to compete with the iPhone but rather low-cost PCs and other Web-capable devices. The device supposedly is powered by Linux, includes global positioning satellite capabilities, and of course will be optimzied to run Google Maps and other Google software.

Google is said to be showing the prototype to cell phone manufacturers and network operators as it continues to hone the technical specifications that will allow the phone to offer a better mobile Web browsing experience than current products, even the Wall Street Journal has reported.

Perhaps more surprisingly is the apparently-serious talk that Google might try an ad-support model. Maybe someday. That strikes me as requiring too great a change in end user behavior. People don't mind paying something for calling. A more logical approach is a simple flat fee plan for data network usage, including IP-to-IP calls using the data plan, and some for-fee charge for calls that have to terminate on existing mobile and wired networks.

There is a rumor about T-Mobile being a network partner, but that is curious since T-Mobile's data network would provide a horrible end user experience. Perhaps T-Mobile is thinking about a dual-mode approach with connectivity at T-Mobile Hotspots. Despite that, T-Mobile has the most to gain, as it needs to do something to break out of its fourth-place spot in the U.S. mobile market.

Such a GPhone or Google Phone would aim for the "Internet in your pocket" segment of the market, with a heavy emphasis on how it can be a platform for contextual advertising based on user location, not just past behavior. There's always some risk when a supplier tries to create a new segment in the device category. But Apple has done it with the iPod and now with the iPhone.

The Google Phone would have to pioneer another new segment in the handset category as well. That's always challenging. But mobile search is a big deal for Google, providing huge incentives to prime the market.

This image, by the way, is just one conception of what such a device might look like.