Verizon LTE Test Runs at 8.5 Mbps

In recent tests, Verizon Wireless has found that its new Long Term Evolution network runs at about 8.5 Mbps in the downstream direction in the real world.

Web Apps Will Catch Mobile Apps, Study Suggests

Count Global Intelligence Alliance as among the analysts who believe Web applications will be a viable competitor to app store programs over time, and that content distribution is likely to be a direct beneficiary of the trend towards using Web browsers to serve up mobile apps.

The same might be said for subscription-based mobile services such as news and weather as well.

Despite conventional wisdom, by 2013 HTML5 will enable Web-based apps to provide user experinces that rival that of mobile apps, GIA argues. But there are other reasons to believe Web-based apps will prove attractive. Web apps offer an architectural advantage, namely cross-device launches.  Mobile apps have to be adapted for each operating system, and often for discrete devices as well.

The Web also arguably is a better platform for subscription-basedservices such as communications, news, weather, financial services, retail and shopping, where user analytics are important. But GIA notes that smaller providers and pay-per-download services might well find the mobile apps route profitable, as such an approach can be directly tied to a clear revenue model.

But Web-based mobile apps will take a couple of years to develop. Right now, respondents surveyed by GIA say user adoption is about twice as high when using a mobile app approach. Some 47 percent of respondents reported that user adoption was higher when using a mobile app approach, compared to about 23 percent of respondents who said a Web approach produced higher end user adoption.

Web apps, on the other hand, are a bit more "sticky" than native apps, respondents report. About 27 percent of survey respondents said user activity peaked at initial download and then steadily declined. Only 15 percent of Web app developers said that was the case.

Likewise, about 23 percent of respondents indicated that user activity kept growing after download, compared to about 33 percent of Web apps users. Of course, that might be a statistical artifact produced by the different use cases.

To the extent that a mobile app provides access to "static" content, usage would decline over time, in much the same way that any user's viewing of a new movie will be highest at download and then drop off. Compare that to a cable TV subscription or news feed, that might be used on a continuing basis because the actual content is dynamic, rather than static.

The survey also found that end user session lengths tended to be longer for native apps, compared to Web apps. About half the respondents say native apps produce longer sessions. Only 20 percent of developers say Web apps produce long sessions. Of course, much depends on the type of application.

Many interactive or transactional apps will tend to last longer than many content delivery apps, if only because the transactional app will require time-consuming search and research. A user investigating air travel or lodging in a distant city might need to spend quite a bit of time conducting research, compared to a user playing a game or downloading a specific bit of content.

About 53 percent of native app developers reported that this approach cost more than creating a Web app, compared to 17 percent of respondents who said the Web app cost more than a native app to create.

About 43 percent of developers reported that maintenance and update of native apps cost more than a Web app approach.  About 24 percent of respondents indicated that a Web app approach was more costly to maintain and update.

About 60 percent of developers reported that a Web app approach was faster than a native app development approach.

Apple's iAd Shooting for the High End in More Ways than One

The conventional wisdom likely is that the new Apple iAd network is going to be positive for mobile advertising, showcasing what can be done with rich media on an easy-to-use device with a large screen.

But iAd might have another effect: driving up ad pricing double to triple current rates. That might be welcome for ad sellers, but not for buyers.

Since Apple never likes anything but the "premium" position in any market where it competes, that might not be too surprising.

According contentSutra, iAd cost per thousand impressions will be highly variable in terms of cost, but in some cases could wind up being triple what marketers are used to paying for banners, and double the price of a video ad on mobile (click on the image for a larger view).

In other cases, a very successful campaign that generates an unusual number of clicks could wind up being more than seven times what an advertiser had anticipated.

Keep in mind that Apple is setting the minimum annual spend at $1 million for brands to use its iAd platform. To put that in perspective, consider that Jaguar and Land Rover in 2009 spent about  $1.6 million in aggregate for mobile marketing.

Some advertisers might decide they like the iAd formats, and start shifting lots more money into mobile advertising. Others will push back against the price and take a wait-and-see attitude. Either way, iAd is going to have complex impact. It likely will spur larger mobile advertising commitments from some buyers more concerned with cutting edge than return on investment. Most will watch and see what happens, at least in terms of the high-end, showcase content Apple wants to show it can produce.

Clearwire Says It Has 3 Customer Segments

Clearwire says three customer segments already have emerged for the firm's fourth-generation wireless network. "A Clear customer is often a cord-cutter," says Clearwire CEO Bill Morrow. "This customer has a mobile phone, but no fixed line phone in the house." That customer fits the profile of an on-the-go user that wants broadband available outside the house.

"They also probably don't have cable TV service," he says, and tend to substitute Hulu, YouTube or other video sites for TV. It probably goes without saying that this sort of customer is single and younger, without children.

The "cable customer," on the other hand, "can't cut his Internet connection at home," says Morrow. That is because this second sort of customer has a family sharing a single at-home video entertainment connection, as well as a broadband Internet access connection.

In this segment, the 4G wireless service is part of a triple play package.

The third segment consists of mobile customers served by Sprint that wants to add a broadband access service for PCs and other devices, and for whom the convenience of having both mobile phone and broadband access services on the same bill, provided by one carrier, is valuable.

"When you go into the market you see all these different customer segments and it's easy to see that you can get more subscribers in total by marketing to different groups instead of just having one brand," says Morrow.

Clear customers do use much more bandwidth than the typical 3G user, though. "We're finding that customers are using on average 7 GBytes of data per month on our service," says Morrow. "The average amount of data a 3G subscriber uses a month is about 1 GByte to 2.5 GBytes a month.

It is not certain why this is the case. It could be that heavy users are attracted to the unlimited access, with no monthly caps. It could be that knowing there is no cap motivates usage, as broadband leads users to consumer more data than they do when on a dial-up service.

Why Wireless Might be the Best Way to Serve the "Unserved"

A new study produced by the Federal Communications Commission might be interpreted as arguing for a wireless approach to bringing broadband to many unserved locations, said by the FCC to number seven million homes, adequate for service at 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream.

The most rural 250,000 housing units account for $13.4 billion of the total $23.5 billion investment required. In fact, as cost varies inversely with density and distance from a central office or cable headend, the cost curve is a reverse Pareto distribution (a reverse "long tail").

The FCC says wireless, such as a fourth-generation wireless network, is the lowest-cost technology in 90 percent of cases. The point is that population density generally is inversely related to access cost.

Apps or Mobile Web? It is Going to be a Toss Up

Today most mobile applications for smartphones are downloaded from “app stores.” According to ABI Research data, in 2009 consumers downloaded some 2.4 billion applications from such stores, and the download rate will accelerate over the next few years until in 2013 smartphone downloads are expected to peak at just below seven billion.

So you might be wondering whether this implies a decline of interest in mobile apps. Not really. What the forecast implies is that there will be other ways to get and use applications, namely using a mobile Web browser.

After 2013, smartphone download rates from app stores will start a slow decline, although total downloads from all sources will probably continue to grow, ABI Research believes.

ABI argues that more and more people will start visiting mobile websites authored using HTML5, which will mean applications can be run natively from inside Web pages where today external apps might be required.

Moreover, handset makers and service providers will pre-install apps on their products, such as social networking apps and some mobile office suites, removing the need for downloading those kinds of applications.

“App stores aren’t going away," says ABI Research Senior Analyst Mark Beccue."Following the 2013 peak in demand, the number of downloads in 2015 will have decreased only seven or eight percent."

But users will be able to gain the value of apps using their browsers.

Also, it is conceivable that mobile network operators will host their own app stores. Many observers think such efforts will enjoy only modest success, but there is one notable area where huge success could be possible.

If operators concentrate on providing downloadable apps to feature phones, that could be a big factor in newer and developing markets where smartphone penetration is lower.

80% U.S. Smartphone Penetration by End of 2012?

Is it possible 80 percent of U.S. mobile phones in use by the end of 2012 could be smartphones? The answer is "yes."

To get there, one would only have to assume that current use rates of mobile browsers are a solid indication of current smartphone use, that current rates of usage will grow at current rates of nine percent every quarter through 2011, and then will increase one percentage point faster during each quarter of 2012.


U.S. mobile users increased their use of browsers, downloaded applications and social networking at about a nine percent rate each during the first quarter of 2010, according to comScore. At that rate, by the end of 2010, 39 percent of mobile subscribers will use browsers, 38 percent will be using downloaded applications and 25 percent will be using social media.

If that rate continues throughout 2011, by the end of that year 55 percent of mobile subscribers will be using browsers, 53 percent will be using downloaded applications and 35 percent will be using social networking.

In an average month during the January through March 2010 time period, 64 percent of U.S. mobile subscribers used text messaging on their mobile device, up 0.6 percentage points compared to the fourth quarter of 2009.

Browsers were used by 30 percent of U.S. mobile subscribers, up three percentage points over the fourth quarter of 2009. About 29 percent of mobile users downloaded applications, up three percent from the fourth quarter of 2009.

Some 19 percent of mobile users used social networking sites and blogs in the first quarter of 2010, up three percent over the fourth quarter of 2009.

So the issue is what would be different about your life or your business if 80 percent of mobile users are on smartphones by the end of 2012, and those smartphones can download at speeds between 3 Mbps and perhaps 12 Mbps, and can upload at speeds from 1 Mbps to perhaps 5 Mbps.

Click on the image for a larger view.

See more detail here

Algorithmic Trading Broke, Then Fixed, the Market

Yesterday the stock market dropped almost 1,000 points intraday before rebounding almost as quickly. Algorithmic (computer-to-computer) trading is blamed, but it might be worth pointing out that algo trading also fixed the market, just about as fast as it "broke" the market in an anamoly.

Right now, securities exchanges are looking at particular equities that might have been affected by the abrupt drop and are going to cancel the trades. The other thing is that few actual human traders actually were able to react quickly enough, one way or ther other. It appears execution platforms became overloaded and wouldn't place buy or sell orders in any case.

There also were liquidity issues. For every seller, there must be a buyer. It appears that in many cases there were no buyers to be had, so abrupt was the plunge. Liquidity, in other words, evaporated.

But algo traders apparently were able both to execute "sell" and then "buy" orders fast enough to clear about 600 points of movement within about five minutes. The conventional wisdom was that a misplaced large order triggered the abrupt declines, which triggered the other trading algorithms.

It might also be fair to note that those same automated trade programs also erased the anamoly within 30 minutes, which shell-shocked humand mostly gaped in awe at something most likely had never seen.

The sheer snapback of the price in such a short amount of time was not driven by fundamental traders (humans) who all of a sudden found “value” in the market with a trailing P/E. The only sort of quick analysis that provides that kind of price action are done by non-humans at quantitative firms, and they saved the market from something much, much worse.

link

Sprint HTC Evo on June 6?

The latest rumor about availability of the Sprint HTC Evo is "around June 6, 2010." Reportedly the device will reail for about $200 on a two-year contract, and as much as $600 if you want to buy it without a contract.

Some policy advocates think such contracts impair consumer welfare because they make it hard for consumers to switch whenever they feel like it. One simply should note that any consumer can buy a device at full retail price if that is what they prefer.

Most consumers keep demonstrating, though, that they prefer $200 devices and contracts, compared to $600 devices without contracts. If you don't want a contract, don't buy one. Most consumers can figure out that a $200 subsidized phone provides real value.

link

What Gets Cannibalized by iPad and Other Tablets?

As you might have expected, though lots of people think the Apple iPad is a gorgeous device, lots of people also think it is a bit pricey.

So far, iPad buyers are heavily skewed to 30-somethings and 40-somethings who presumably are well along in their careers and have both the appetite and the means to splurge on one.


Some technology observers have been predicting the demise of the netbook for some months, and with the launch of the Apple iPad, we get our first chance to see whether cannibalization is happening.

The basic line of thinking is that netbooks get squeezed between more powerful smartphones and tablet devices such as the iPad.

A new study from Morgan Stanley concludes that tablets in general will be a big threat to netbooks, as some have suggested.

Netbook sales growth has been significantly flatter lately. Sales still are increasing, just not at the rate they were before. Last July, growth was at 641 percent. In December, growth was 179 percent, and in January it dropped to 68 percent.

According to Morgan Stanley/Alphawise, the biggest product category likely to be cannibalized by potential iPad customers is netbooks and laptops. About 44 percent of potential iPad customers say they'll get it instead of a notebook or, presumably, netbook.

About 27 percent said they'd buy an iPad over a desktop.

To be sure, netbook sales were slowing before the iPad launch, so the slowing netbook growth rate can't be blamed completely on the iPad.

Still, it seems inevitable that netbooks and other cheap ultraportables will face competition from the iPad.

Product cannibalization potential

In Case You Missed the Market Craziness Today

It was a crazy day today, with a violent, sudden drop in U.S. equities, a swift 700-point retrace, and worries that what is happening in Greece will be happening in the United States in the future.

Consumers Spent More on Consumer Electronics Over the Last Year

The average U.S. household spent $1,380 on consumer electronics products in the past 12 months, an increase of $151 from last year, according to a new study released by the Consumer Electronics Association.

The average household spent 12 percent more on consumer electronics devices in the past year, which might be especially surprising considering a dip in most other consumer spending over that same period. Of course, sales took a dip in 2008 as well.

Individual consumer spending, as opposed to household spending, also was up 10 percent from the previous 12 month period, CEA says. The average adult spent $794 on consumer electronics in the past 12 months, up from $725 in 2009.

Women spent more on consumer electronics products than they did the year before but still trail men in overall spending. Women spent, on average, $631 on consumer electronics, up $73 from 2009. Men report personally spending $969 in the past 12 months, up $67 from the year before. The average household reports owning 25 consumer electronics products, up from 23 products last year.

CEA’s study also shows that video products continue to be the top devices consumers own, with HDTV ownership continuing to increase. About 65 percent of U.S. homes now own at least one HDTV, an increase of 13 percentage points from last year, making it the top industry growth driver of the past 12 months.

Consumers also are buying HDTVs as secondary sets. The average household now owns 1.8 HDTVs, up from 1.5 in 2009. HDTVs also are also the top product consumers say they want to purchase. About 23 percent of households say they plan to buy a new high-definition set in the coming 12 months.

Ownership of computers also continues to increase. Currently, 86 percent of U.S. households own at least one computer, making it the third most owned CE product category behind televisions and DVD players.

The popularity of netbooks, owned by 12 percent of U.S. households, and laptops, now owned by most households (58 percent), is helping drive the computer category.

"Third Way?" Between Title I and Title II? Are you "Sorta Pregnant?"

One might argue that there's nothing wrong with the Federal Communications Commission trying to find some "middle way" or "third way" between common carrier and data services regulation. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, for example, notes that "heavy-handed prescriptive regulation can chill investment and innovation, and a do-nothing approach can leave consumers unprotected and competition unpromoted, which itself would ultimately lead to reduced investment and innovation."

Nor are many likely to disagree completely with the notion that "consumers do need basic protection against anticompetitive or otherwise unreasonable conduct by companies providing the broadband access service."

Likewise, most probably would agree that "FCC policies should not include regulating Internet content, constraining reasonable network management practices of broadband providers, or stifling new business models or managed services that are pro-consumer and foster innovation and competition."

But there is likely to be fierce disagreement about the proposal to regulate broadband access service as a common carrier offering governed by Title II regulations, even though the chairman says the FCC would "forebear" (not impose) all of the obligations and rules that cover Title II services.

The difference is that right now, the government "may not" regulate terms and conditions of service. Under the proposed rules, the government only says it "has the right to do so, but voluntarily agrees not to" impose such rules. There is a vast difference between those two approaches.

The first is a clear "thout shalt not" injunction; the new framework is only a "we promise not to" framework. The chairman argues that this new approach "would not give the FCC greater authority than
the Commission was understood to have" before the "Comcast v. FCC" case.

A reasonable person would find that hard to believe. Moving any service or application from Title I to Title II has unambiguous meaning. One can agree or disagree with the change. One can hardly call this a "reassertion of the status quo." Between Title I and Title II there is a gulf that would have to be crossed. Never before have any Internet services been considered "common carrier."

A mere promise not to act, after the change has been made, will hardly satisfy those who believe Title I is the better framework. Those who believe Title II is the better way to regulate likely will find the proposal satisfying. That would be reason enough to suggest it is not a "third way." There is in fact no third way, except for the Congress to direct the FCC to regulate broadband access as a Title II service.

The problem is that what the "service" is changes over time, making difficult the task of clearly separating what "access" is from what an enhanced feature is. Nor is it easy to differentiate between a "business" access and a "consumer" access. If business access is covered, is packet shaping still permissible? Are quality of service measures still permissible? Are virtual private networks still allowed?

Should consumer services acquire the richness of business services, or should business services be dumbed down to consumer grade? And who gets to decide? Even if one is willing to accept that an ISP cannot, on its own, provide any quality of service measures, can a customer request them? Can a customer demand them?

These are tough questions and there must be scores more people could ask. The problem is that the Title I and Title II frameworks are binary. We do have alternate models in Titles III and VI, as I recall, though I suppose both of those titles would provide more freedom, not less, and Title II is a move in the direction of less freedom.

read it here

Clearwire Emerging as a Wholesaler

Perhaps Clearwire did not initially think its business model would be anchored by wholesale wireless, but that seems to be shaping up as key to its future. Of the 283,000 net new subscribers added in the first quarter of 2010, 111,000 of them, or 39 percent, were gained by wholesale partners.

Most of the other major national wireless providers also have some wholesale operations, but none likely approach Clearwire's percentage. Clearwire’s network is behind Sprint’s 4G services as well as Comcast and Time Warner Cable wireless services. Then there is T-Mobile USA, which seems to need wholesale 4G capacity as well.

It might not be unreasonable to speculate that one reason Clearwire is preparing for a transition to Long Term Evolution, instead of sticking with its WiMAX air interface, is that T-Mobile USA might well require LTE capability in order to sign up.

"There was an agreement before that was really a commercial deal between Intel and Clearwire that would restrict us from using anything other than WiMAX up to, I think it’s February of 2012," said Bill Morrow, Clearwire CEO. "That deal is no longer in effect."

Now, either Intel or Clearwire can give 30 days notice and the deal is over. "So it does give us the flexibility that if we wanted to do a commercial launch of LTE or some other technology, that Intel would not be holding us back," said Morrow.

With less than a million total subscribers, it is too early to say how the retail versus wholesale customer mix holds up over time. Should Clearwire pick up T-Mobile USA as a wholesale partner, and as Comcast and Time Warner Cable gear up their wireless operations, it is not hard to envision wholesale growing to be a majority of customers.

FCC Goes for "Tactical" Nukes in Net Neutrality Fight; ISPs Will React as Though "Strategic" Weapons will Ultimately be Used

Federal Communications Commission officials seem well enough aware that proposed new "network neutrality" rules could lead to a reduction of investment in broadband facilities, which is why, reports the the Wall Street Journal, FCC officials are briefing market analysts who cover cable and telco equities before the market opens on Thursday, May 6.

The fear is that even before the rules have been announced, financial analysts will issue downgrades of cable and telco stocks as future revenue streams are jeopardized. Those analyst briefings will happen even before other FCC officials or congressional members are told how the FCC plans to proceed.

Chairman Julius Genachowski apparently plans to circulate a notice of inquiry to other FCC board members next week on his plans to reclassify broadband Internet access, provided by cable or telco providers, as common carrier services under Title II of the Communications Act.

That would put cable companies under common carrier regulation for the first time, something cable industry executives always have opposed, and will fight. Telco executives are hardly any more likely to support the changes.

The problem with the FCC's approach, which is to apply "some" Title II rules, but not all, is that there are no protections from future action that would simply apply all common carrier rules. The FCC wants to believe it can leave ISPs "sort of pregnant." They either are, or aren't, and can be expected to fight as though the outcomes were binary.

As often is the case, a natural desire for a "third way" is not possible. Title I or Title II is the issue. Forbearance rules or not, one or the other is going to apply. Get ready for war.