Jajah Launches Ad-Supported Calling

Jajah is launching an in-call advertising platform that turns the inventory of the world's telephone calls into an advertising market place. The idea is to insert messages into the "ringing" stream, which is user dead time, rather than into the conversation stream, which most people will find is intrusive, even if a user is interested in defraying the cost of a call.

"We spend more time on the phone than consuming all other types of media, TV, reading papers and radio included," says Roman Scharf, Jajah co-founder. "Phones haven't been considered as a viable channel yet. We are going to change that."

"In tests over the past months we have identified a method to overlay advertising content on phone calls in a way that users find acceptable," he says.

Whereas in-call advertising would normally interrupt a call and disturb the caller, Jajah simply overlays the messages above the ring tone right before the call starts. "Businesses get guaranteed caller attention, whilst at the same time not alienating the consumer with intrusive messages that break the rhythm of a telephone call," says Scharf.

Think of it as the phone inventory equivalent of Google AdWords, says Daniel Mattes, Jahah co-founder.

The opt-in solution, available soon, will give users who agree to hear ads monthly credit to their accounts.

"In a next step we will allow telecommunications partners to use our platform to monetize their inventory as well", says Trevor Healy, Jajah's CEO.

Small, local companies can target their messages to the local Jajah users.

Jajah also has partnered with Oridian Online Media Solutions, Ltd., the largest privately-owned advertising network, to gain access to a base of business advertisers.

HP Enables Web Services for Mobile Carriers

Illustrating the future direction of mobile and some wired services as well, Hewlett-Packard has unveiled a Service Delivery Platform (SDP) 2.0 to help wireless service providers take advantage of third party applications. SDP 2.0 allows multiple services to communicate with underlying wireless or wired networks, third-party applications, and Web 2.0-based mashups.

Operators can offer converged services that blend telecom, Web, and IT resources, such as music, video, and business services that personalize content delivery.

"The business problem for operators is that many of the services they deliver today come from third parties," says Peter Dragunas, HP Communications, Media and Entertainment group VP.

Basically, SDP 2.0 takes telecommunications assets and turns them into Web services.

If you think carriers won't be developing most of the revenue-generating new services that are coming, then it is imperative that carrier platforms easily integrate Web services. HP's platform helps them do that. What's important here is the signal about direction.

Symbian Disses Google

Google faces challenges in the mobile device business to be sure. Microsoft and Symbian have made abundantly clear their views on how tough it is to break into the market and how far Google is behind. But perhaps the dismissals are a sign of how great the concern is?

Google's attempt to create a widely-used Linux-based mobile phone operating system is "a bit like the common cold," says John Forsyth, Symbian VP, in an interview with the BBC. "It keeps coming round and then we go back to business."

"About every three months this year there has been a mobile Linux initiative of some sort launched," he says.

Symbian's recent financial results show it sold 20.4 million smartphone software licenses in the last quarter of 2007 and since the company was launched nine years ago more than 165 million phones have been shipped using its platform."Search and a mobile phone platform are completely different things," Forsyth argues.
"It's costly, arduous and at times a deeply unsexy job of supporting customers day by day in launching phones."

Forsyth also questioned whether developers would flock to the system. "You have to have a lot of zeroes in your sales figures before a developer gets out of bed," he argues. A phone that can't be sold until next year "is not one that is going to ignite developers," he says.

Nokia, a major driver of Symbian device sales, is more circumspect. "We are always open to discussion and debate on that. We were not ready to make any commitment to it or discuss it at the time," says Simon Ainslie, Nokia UK managing director. "We are having ongoing discussions with Google."

Android Creates Instant Developer Community

One of the big problems a communications service provider faces is how to leverage the creativity of the Web and apps community to drive service innovation which carriers frankly are ill equipped to undertake. Android basically solves that problem. Developers respond to big opportunities and that is what Android now represents: a chance to develop apps for mobile operators representing 40-some-odd percent of the U.S. mobile population, virtually all of China, one of the fastest-growing global markets, plus the two dominant providers in the trendy Japanese market plus Spain, Germany and Italy, just for starters.

That's an instant and massive developer community at a time when every major communications service provider needs such a developer community allied to it. Google may well disrupt. It also is going to help carriers move ahead on the innovation front in a way impossible on their own.

To the extent that most innovations and applications are going to come from the independent developer community--not from the carriers--this is a very big deal indeed.

That isn't to underplay the role played by developers working for Microsoft or Symbian, either. It's just that leveraging the Linux community adds even more intellectual capital, and capital that heretofore hadn't been deployed to enrich mobile Web apps.

Will Android Disrupt PCs?

Though most of the speculation about Android's impact concerns what might happen with mobile apps on mobile devices, mobile Web, mobile carriers and device manufacturers, there are other angles. Let's assume lots of apps start to get developed around Android. Then assume people really do start spending lots more time with Web apps of various types on their hand held devices, even if today that does not seem to be common.

Once those apps are written, will they start to port to PCs? After all, any app well-enough written to run on a mobile with severe display and input capabilities, compared to a PC, might be fun to use even on a PC that suffers from none of those limitations. Basically, anything Android runs can appear as a widget on a desktop or laptop. Widgets are fun. They are personal. They are customized. They are easy to add and delete. They don't require lots of thinking, processing or storage.

Of course, that might have really serious implications for PC operating systems. In a new way, we might see yet another iteration of the thin client approach to applications. In essence, that is what software as a service is all about. Android just might change the paradigm for PCs, since it essentially will assume services are in the cloud. It will take a while before we can determine whether this is realistic or not.

Google has argued Android and its ecosystem might lead to ad-supported devices. Might it also someday lead to a resurgence of interest in thin client PCs? Microsoft will hope not. But network-centric participants in the communications and entertainment industries might see new possibilities.

Photo by Andy Voss at the BroadSoft Connections conference. Can you figure out why I think thin client and mobile Web access seems promising, even when multiple mobile smart and feature phones are in the quiver? I have an office and a desk. I just don't use them, even when able to use the "office." A nice view of the animals and the vegetation is much better, so long as I have power and wireless access of one sort or another.

Google Issues: att and Verizon

Google hopes to do to the mobile market what it has helped do to the traditional Internet: bring people closer to content. At an important level, that means Web apps surfing on a mobile should have a consistent, if not identical experience, as the same operation on a notebook or desktop PC.

In that regard, Google is engaged in a genuine coopetition: it needs legacy carriers as partners even as it competes with them. And every potential partner knows that what is good for Google might not be good for anybody else.

Google already has jumpstarted its effort in a big way, picking up China Telecom, NTT and KDDI, plus Sprint and T-Mobile in the U.S. market, T-Mobile Deutschland, Telefonica in Spain and Telecom Italia right at the gate. That gives Google carrier agreements Apple and Microsoft never got that fast. And Google's operating system and platform now are global from the get-go.

That means the carrier blockade is broken. Verizon and at&t might or might not join up with the Android effort. But they no longer can stop it.

Of course, Google will proceed on multiple fronts. It won't get where it wants by forcing everybody to use Android. So it will work with carriers when it can, or work around them if it has to. From a stategic perspective, Google wants its apps and experiences on every device, if possible, with or without Android.

Which means some accommodation with at&t and Verizon is possible, indeed likely, at some point. If Android gets traction at Sprint and T-Mobile, not to mention elsewhere, neither of the two largest providers will want to be frozen out of the action.

And that will be true even if Google ultimately emerges as part of a bidding group, perhaps even a winning group, in the 700 MHz spectrum. There are lots of stakeholders who gain if a robust mobile Web experience can be created. Not the least of which are firmware, chip and software providers from the legacy PC space (Microsoft being the salient exception, as it already is a major and growing mobile OS and application provider.

We should preclude nothing at this point, in terms of Google becoming an owner, at least in part, of a major broadband network; producing its own branded devices; getting "top of the deck" exposure on other devices and operating systems or other as-yet-to-be-developed ways.

Google is determined to be a force in mobile and it has lots of ways to proceed, simultaneously. If its gets what it wants, it won't need its own network, devices or apps. Others will do those things. If Google doesn't get what it wants from others, then it will have to consider creating those capabilities itself. Either way, Google in the game for good.

The only unfolding issue is how a complex set of relationships unfolds. Those who want Google to disrupt less will find that their own actions can help tip Google one way or the other. The same holds true for those who might want Google to disrupt more. If they are willing to commit their own capital, they can nudge Google in that direction.

And keep in mind: major technological innovations tend to achieve less in the near term than most think, but far more in the long term than observers expect.

Good News for Sprint

It's a good thing for Sprint that it is working with Google on a Gphone probably available next year. It might not help with Nextel churn, but it will increase Sprint's attractiveness as a provider of CDMA-based Web devices, which is what I believe the new category will shake out to be. Sprint long has prided itself as a provider of advanced mobile data services so this was almost a "must."

It will be a very tough choice, but I still think Sprint has to proceed with the WiMAX rollout and think seriously about divesting Nextel if that is what it takes. Nextel used to lead the industry in ARPU by quite some measure, but the delta is pretty small, and declining. If that was the reason for the buy, I'm not sure it makes much sense anymore. WiMAX is a better strategic use of capital, and Sprint already is working with Google on that front, in terms of optimizing Web application performance. Well, Google apps at least. But those are some of the more important Web apps overall.

As someone who uses services and devices from at&t, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint, Sprint has for some time been on the "switch these two phones to somebody else" list. Right now, the issue is simply that the old plan we use is so cheap, relative to the others, that we put up with the service.

But Sprint's devices are the lightest-used of all the other services, so it is a reasonable trade-off. Also, my wife is such a light user that she doesn't care about features other than "calling." I won't buy phones that don't use SIMs. Data cards suffer from no such criteria, which explains Verizon. Still, I can't see using four providers in 12 months time.

But that's just me. Being part of the Google ecosystem is a good thing for Sprint.