Is Voice the Killer App for IMS?

You have seen this story before: a new service rolls out and providers look for the "killer app." Then it turns out the killer app is something people already do, but the innovation allows them to do it in a new way, or maybe a better way.

To some extent, voice is a bit of that sort of thing for broadband Internet access, as email was something approaching a killer app for dial-up Internet access. Though the initial "killer app" for broadband was fast Internet access, voice becomes a very important incremental value.

"We are seeing a pattern in Europe of VoIP being delivered by companies that control the broadband infrastructure," notes Stephan Beckert, TeleGeography analyst. "It's an add-on feature to broadband."

So what is the killer app for fixed-mobile services? It's voice again, allowing legacy providers to hang on to more of their fixed-line business than otherwise; allowing mobile providers to displace landline traffic with mobile; or new providers to displace business phone systems.

So what is the killer app for IP Multimedia Subsystems? Wouldn't it be surprising if it turned out to be voice?

So what's the logic? Assume wireline carriers might lose as much as $13 billion in annual revenues by 2011, in part because 34 percent of U.S. households might elect to go "mobile only." So enter IMS, allowing mobile users to take advantage of cheaper Wi-Fi-based calling over their broadband lines.

Assume the landline carriers then lose just $8 billion in revenue to cord cutters. That's a $5 billion annual revenue stream. So put that in perspective. All U.S. multichannel video providers put together earn about $4 billion a year from pay-per-view and video-on-demand services.

So if wireline carriers just prevent landline erosion, they make more money than the whole U.s. VOD and PPV providers put together.

Voice Mashups Disruptive or Not?

Iotum recently shifted gears and decided to take advantage of Facebook APIs to create a conference call app inside Facebook. Many of you know what Skype has been doing in the area of encouraging third party development around its client. And of course Microsoft has made clear its intention to place communications within the context of every expression of its desktop productivity suite.

Some people would argue this move to voice as an attribute of every application spells the death of traditional "communications as a service." So far, of course, there is no evidence of this, though there is plenty of movement within the service industry. Neither is there any evidence that people communicate less when they have the new tools; the reverse typically being the case.

So far, at any rate, one would have to say that the advent of voice as an application, as an inherent attribute of other experiences and activities, simply is creating incremental revenue opportunities and end user utility. To the extent that it negatively affects the "service" business, providers of services already are transitioning away from reliance on "voice" revenues in any case.

Enterprise phone system providers hope to do the same, and speak only of "unified communications" these days. It isn't the calling, they seem to say; it's the integration. Not an unwise choice given the fact that Microsoft Office Communication Server provides a complete alternative.

But maybe this time around we shouldn't worry so much about disruption. Choice will do nicely. Human beings are starting to have lots more choices, and that's a good thing. Companies will do well providing those choices. It will be enough.

Voice and communications increasingly are available to users as discrete services and integrated applications. This trend isn't going away. But the explosion of choices and richness do not inevitably spell doom, or automatic success, for any contestant. Calling entities "dinosaurs" doesn't hobble them. Nor does "disruption" always succeed. Quite the opposite seems to be true at this point.

iPhone Sales Hit One Million

So there's no question Apple will hit its target of one million sold by the end of September. Apple sold its millionth iPhone last Sunday, just 74 days after the combination cell phone-iPod went on sale and less than a week after its price was cut by a third. Some observers speculate that iPhone sales have sagged of late. We shall see.

Dylan is out of boot camp...

  Headed for South Carolina to do a year's intensive training in nuclear engineering, then up to Annapolis to finish up his aeronautical engineering degree. Then aviation training. Then he has to land his jet on a carrier deck and get it right the first time (one chance only). Anybody who doesn't washes out of the pilot corp immediately. About 40 percent fail to get the tailhook down on one of the three guy wires and it's all over.

Disruption? Maybe Not.

Lots of companies and lots of people have been at the "telecom disruption" game for quite some time, beginning way back with the Carterfone decision and MCI's assault on the long distance calling market. We have had Internet service providers, competitive local exchange carriers, hosted service providers, application providers, instant messaging providers, portals, VoIP providers, cable companies, satellite providers and others attacking one part or another of the global telecom value chain.

Through it all, global communications service revenue has kept climbing. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find any year when that didn't happen. Perhaps the issue is not disruption at all, but rather transformation. There will be new spaces created, and a rearrangement of older spaces. But nothing has stopped global revenue from climbing, year after year.

Of course, all the analysts could be wrong. Some cataclysm could yet await. But it sure doesn't appear to be something you would build your company on.

Another Outage for BlackBerry

U.S. Internet-based users of the Research in Motion BlackBerry service might have noticed, and might still be noticing odd behavior from their handhelds. Like, no mail parts of Friday, and then huge dumps of what you thought was archived mail thereafter. If so, it might be because RIM had another outage of some significance last Friday, Sept. 7. That's two significant outages this year.

All of us may someday lament the fact that no service we now enjoy and rely upon has the ruggedness and uptime of the old public switched network.

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.