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