Will Microsoft Let Mobile Eat the Desktop?

One of the safest bets anybody in the technology business can make is that the leaders of the past wave of computing architecture will not be the leaders of the next wave.

And since there is relatively universal agreement that the next wave, whether you want to call it the "mobile computing" or "cloud computing" wave, is coming.

And though executives at each company will strongly contest the notion, that means slim odds Apple, Google, Microsoft or Cisco will be among the top-five biggest names in computing infrastructure as the next wave is established.

As shocking as that sounds, that is precisely what has happened in all of the earlier computing eras.

Some point to Microsoft as the company most endangered by mobility. In this view, the company has no answer for a market in which the operating system is free, and the dominant application isn’t Office, as that is where Microsoft makes most of its money.

The argument is that Apple and Google have managed to create a market where operating systems are subsidized by revenues from hardware, advertising or third-party applications, while social applications like Twitter, Facebook and blogs are the way users increasingly communicate ideas, rather than through Word documents or PowerPoint presentations.

Those are apt observations, but even those developments do not capture the full weight of the challenge. Any company that today is a top player in the computing ecosystem, history suggests, will fall in the next wave.

History will have to made if the pattern is not to repeat, and it isn't simply Microsoft that is at risk. Every leading company today has to worry.

Will Microsoft Let Mobile Eat the Desktop?

Google Denies Reports It Has a Deal for Packet Prioritization

Despite reports to the contrary, Google says it doesn't have a deal with Verizon on "network neutrality" that includes packet prioritization, much less paid-for prioritization, Multichannel News reports.


"We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google or YouTube traffic," said Google spokesperson Mistique Cano. "The New York Times piece is quite simply wrong."

"The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken," said Verizon spokesman David Fish. "To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect."

The original reporting from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg had suggested agreement on a framework that would have included both "best effort" and "prioritized" services.

All we can say at this point is that the extensive talks between Google and Verizon Wireless will bear fruit. Each company has too much to gain, and much to lose, if the two parties cannot compromise on packet prioritization in ways that allow both firms to move forward.

Each has investors to persuade, at the very least, and both face a more-uncertain framework as the Federal Communications Commission proceeds with its network neutrality proceeding, as that process seems largely deadlocked on the important issues.

Google's Failures are a Good Thing

Many management consultants would say that the typical company learns faster when it tries new things faster, accelerating the rate at which it can sort the good ideas from the bad.

Few firms actually practice what the consultants preach very well. Failure still gets punished, and the bigger the failure the bigger the punishment. Google is among the firms that fail fast and frequently, and that is a good thing. The faster it sorts through initiatives that don't work, the faster it will stumble upon the good ideas.

Though people tend to remember the successes and forget the failures, given a sufficient passage of time, both Apple and Google have failed at some initiatives, in Google's case many initiatives.

That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Google is set up so that failure is not dangerous to the company's core business. That isn't always the case at other firms.

Some will defend a slower pace of trial and error precisely for that reason: some firms cannot handle a major failure as they experiment. That is one reason why it is good to have a platform that allows frequent innovations to be tested, at low or reasonable cost.

In a business where good ideas have to be discovered, there is almost no way around experimentation and failure. Companies simply need to improve their prototyping and testing processes, with the caveat that some companies (software firms, especially) have inherent advantages in that regard, and always will. That's why much, perhaps most, meaningful innovation now comes in businesses that are driven by software.

Google doesn't so much fail as experiment faster, and more frequently, than most companies can.

200,000 Android Activations a Day; 1.4 Million a Week; 5.6 Million a Month

You bet Android devices in use are growing fast. Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, says 200,000 Android devices are activated every day. Do the math: that's 5.6 million a month. If you are a platform supplier, or building a business on a platform, those are big numbers.

Are Mobile App Store Efforts Damaging Handset Makers?

The conventional widsom, which is not to say the conventional wisdom is wrong, is that application richness is a key driver of value for handset brands. But are handset vendors, in general, making a mistake pouring resources into mobile app stores? Some think so.

Acoording to the "MEX Handset Industry Insight" service, since 2007, the combined average annual profit margin of the five major handset manunfacturers (Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola and Sony Ericsson) has fallen from 12.5 percent to 6.3 percent in 2009.

In the second quarter of 2010, margin dipped yet again, reaching 5.3 percent. In real terms, this means the total combined profit made by these five companies has fallen from about $15.1 billion in 2007 to $5.8 billion in 2009.

In other words, as important as the mobile app stores might be, the handset vendors largely cannot afford to support them.

The other part of conventional wisdom is that service providers cannot create or maintain such mobile app store initiatives as well as handset suppliers. In the long term, that might not prove correct.

If margin pressures force the app stores to be divested, among the logical buyers are the service providers, or at least some third-party entities owned collectively by service providers. People might say it is hard to do so, as rivalries between service providers are too fierce. That is true, at least in principle.

But a recent agreement by AT&T, Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile USA to collaborate on a new mobile payment business is evidence that given a big enough carrot, or a big enough stick, cooperation is possible.

MEX - the strategy forum for mobile user experience

1/3 of Top-Trending Search Topics Return Malicious Results, Norton Finds

More than one in three of the top-trending search terms returned at least 10 percent malicious results, a new Norton study finds. Those results obviously point out the dangers of cybercrime.

Between February and May, “tropical dreams sweepstakes” and “red hot laugh riot” searches could have returned 99 malicious links out of the first 100 results, Norton says.

One in Three Top-Trending Search Topics Return Malicious Results, Finds Norton Study

Google and Verizon Net Neutrality Agreement Might Allow Application Priorities?

To add yet another nuance to the reported network neutrality agreement Google and Verizon are said to be near, the New York Times reports that the deal will allow Verizon to to offer paid application prioritization.

The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation’s leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers, the New York Times reports.

Presumably that would be possible only if all application providers were allowed to pay for the assured quality of service, and presumably Google would want to ensure that no application provider got a price advantage. In other words, Verizon would be allowed to offer video prioritization services, so long as all video application providers were able to get the same priority treatment.

The deal apparently is still in the works, so the confusion about the general outlines is understandable. So far, one version of the story is that there will be no prioritization allowed, at least on Verizon's fixed network. Another version is that prioritization is allowable, so long as all application providers within an application class get the same expedited treatment.

The New York Times version seems to suggest application-related priorities are permissible, and that providers could pay to get such treatment, but not that every video, voice, gaming, conferencing or other latency-sensitive app automatically will get such treatment.

Google and Verizon in Talks on Selling Internet Priority - NYTimes.com

Verizon, Google Net Neutrality Agreement?

A slightly different take on what Google and Verizon might have agreed on, as far as network neutrality rules, is offered by Washington Post writer Cecelia Kang.

As Kang describes the reported agreement, Verizon would refrain from offering paid prioritization to the biggest bidders for capacity on its DSL and fiber networks, essentially preserving a "best effort" access regime.

But Google and Verizon apparently also agreed that both could live with assured access tiers of service designed to optimize the performance of voice, video, conferencing, gaming or other services that are latency sensitive, at least on wireline networks.

Kang says the agreement does not cover wired networks.

Post Tech - Verizon, Google make net neutrality pact

What the Google, Verizon Deal Tells You

Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. reportedly have reached their own deal on how to handle Internet traffic management, Bloomberg reports.

The compromise, according to Bloomberg, would restrict Verizon from selectively slowing Internet content that travels over its wires.


That typically implies"no packet prioritization." Verizon, with its FiOS network nearly completely in place, seems to have been willing to concede that it has enough headroom, in terms of bandwidth, not to have to resort to packet prioritization at all when it needs to manage its broadband access business, at least if I am reading the report correctly, and if the report is correct.

What is not clear from this report is whether "best effort" services can be supplemented by application-optimized features. The compromise, as reported by Bloomberg, seems to suggest such quality measures would not be allowed on the Verizon fixed network.

The apparent compromise, though, is that Google seems to have agreed Verizon Wireless can do so to preserve network quality of experience at times of peak load.

There are some clear technology issues here, namely the fact that no mobile network ever has as much bandwidth as a fiber-to-home network. Network management typically is a more-urgent issue for a wireless network.

But the agreement likely also reflects the "fact" that Verizon's wireless network is viewed as the more strategic of the two networks as well. If something has to be compromised, Verizon seems to have concluded that bargaining away some freedom on its FiOS network is wise if it preserves ability to shape traffic on the wireless network.

It isn't so clear other service providers will be able to so "easily" strike this deal, since Verizon is among the few firms to embrace FTTH so universally. It simply has more bandwidth available to deal with congestion issues.

Still, the key issue here appears to have been Verizon's clear understanding that it could not yield on mobile network managment. Trading away a bargaining chip--no packet prioritizaton on the landline network--seems to have been part of the strategic thinking, at least if the Bloomberg report is correct. 

There could be some downstream impact on packet prioritzation suppliers, though. Verizon will still want to know what is going on. But it will not need tools to shape traffic, since it seems to have agreed it will not do so.

It isn't immediately clear how all the ramifications will work out. But Verizon seems to have set itself firmly on a path that preserves "best effort" as the only service level consumers can buy.

Google, Verizon Said to Strike Deal on Web Traffic Rules - Bloomberg

Froyo (Android 2.2) Update: You Won't Notice Much, At First

Chances are you won't really notice that much when you reboot with Froyo for the first time. This isn't a major overhaul to the look and feel of Android.

What you can't see is the "Just-in-Time compiler," which can double the processing power, and the ability to run Adobe Flash 10.1.

Q&A: All about the Froyo updates

Dish Network to Stream Their Subs Satellite TV on Mobiles

Dish Network subscribers will soon be able to watch live satellite TV on their mobile devices at no extra cost, Dish Network says.

Dish Network Corp. is planning to offer the feature on the iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch and BlackBerry devices in September and on phones using Google Inc.'s Android system in October.

Subscribers will need Sling Media Inc.'s SlingBox, which retails for $180 to $300.

Dish subscribers can also pay $200 to $400 to upgrade to Dish's high-definition digital video recorder with SlingBox features. They'll need to pay $10 a month for multiple DVR service.

The new plan is a piece of the broader move by existing multichannel video providers to add mobile access to their existing customers.

The Associated Press: Dish to stream live TV on iPad, other devices

Clearwire Announces LTE Tests

The other shoe has not yet formally dropped, but Clearwire now says it will conduct Long Term Evolution tests across its network, including both tests of frequency division and time division versions of LTE, plus the ability of LTE air interface technologies to coexist harmoniously with the existing WiMAX air interface already in use.

The tests do not definitively confirm a partial switch to LTE, but are a concrete bit of evidence that LTE will be part of Clearwire's future.

Clearwire intends to conduct FDD LTE (Frequency Division Duplex) tests using 40 MHz of spectrum, paired in 20 MHz contiguous channels, of its 2.5 GHz spectrum. Clearwire expects to confirm the capability to produce real-world download speeds that range from 20 Mbps to 70 Mbps. This is expected to be significantly faster than the 5 Mbps to 12 Mbps speeds currently envisioned by other LTE deployments in the U.S., which will rely on smaller pairs of 10 Mhz channels or less.

Clearwire will concurrently test TDD LTE (Time Division Duplex), in a 20 MHz configuration, which is twice the channel size currently used in its 4G WiMAX deployments.

Clearwire will also test WiMAX co-existence with both FDD LTE and TDD LTE to confirm the flexibility of its network and spectrum strength to simultaneously support a wide-range of devices across its all-IP network.

My own anecdotal experience with Clearwire's network is that, as you would expect, 4G is faster than 3G. But I have to say my experience also points out how much end user application latency is to be found elsewhere in the delivery ecosystem, such as the far-end servers. I also would observe that the 4G network signal seems more fragile than the 3G signal. Even in areas with both 4G and 3G available, the 4G often loses enough signal strength that my smartphone defaults back to 3G.

I'm not complaining, just noting that, as with many earlier increases in access bandwidth, faster is better, up to a point. If nothing else, having more access bandwidth simply points out latency elsewhere in the ecosystem.

Clearwire

Hosted Conferencing to Exceed Traditional Conferencing by 2014

At least in Europe, every conferencing service provider of any size and almost all of the network service providers are offering unified communications services in one form or another. says Wainhouse Research. Hosted services are expected to grow faster than traditional conferencing services by 2014.

Combined, conferencing services and hosted or managed unified communications services will achieve over $4 billion in revenue by the end of 2014.

Wainhouse Research

Mobile Changes Restaurant Reservations Process

According to OpenTable, of the total 17 million seated diners during the second quarter, nearly 1.3 million came from mobile apps.

In the first quarter of 2010, of the total 15.6 million, the company seated about a million diners who came from mobile apps. Since it first started offering the mobile apps in 2009, OpenTable has in total seated around four million diners, with 2.3 million of those signing up in 2010.

For OpenTable, Mobile Means Mo Money

New Motorola Tablet PC Might Support Verizon Multichannel Video

Motorola reportedly is developing a tablet device in conjunction with Verizon Wireless that will allow users to watch television on it, including the sort of multichannel video fare Verizon fixed network customers can watch, the Financial Times reports.

The device, which will have a 10-inch screen and operate on Google’s Android software, could launch as early as this autumn in the U.S. market. The Financial Times report suggests the video features will "tie closely to Verizon’s FiOS digital pay-television service."

As typically is the case for such innovations in the video business, content rights discussions will be key. Perhaps the most-logical offering is a "TV Everywhere" service similar to what U.S. cable operators are developing, where a Verizon FiOS TV service subscriber could watch the same content on devices powered by the Verizon Wireless network, either within the Verizon wired network geographical footprint or perhaps within the Verizon Wireles footprint, which exceeds the fixed network footprint substantially.

What remains unclear is whether Verizon Wireless can rework rights agreements enough to be able to offer the equivalent of its FiOS services over the Verizon Wireless network to customers who do not live within the fixed network footprint. That of course would tend to conflict with other distribution agreements programmers have with satellite and other terrestrial providers.

Technology really isn't the issue here: content rights arrangements and compensation are the key issues.

more here