GILASTATE

Here is recent article talking about a new DoCoMo service “mash up” that integrates an exercise application with mobile phones. The phone uses various sensors to track activity, heart rate, body fat, and a host of other data points in order to provide for fitness tracking and recommendations. The phone also provides inspirational advice depending on the data collected.

This is another interesting application that departs from traditional notions of service delivery over mobile devices. While in this case, the application may be developed by DoCoMo and Mitsubishi, the opportunities for open source developments are even more intriguing. If the platform were open, there would be developers around the world developing amazing new uses for such devices. As an example of what’s possible, check out the Carman application for the N800. The developers of this application took advantage of the standard data port on my late model cars to develop a really slick application that can report on many different sensors that already exist in these cars. While it is not health related, it isn’t too hard to make the leap to body diagnostics.

Imagine the applications that could be developed with both general fitness and medical uses if such a device were available. 1984 fears not withstanding, a usable device in this market space could be quite a breakthrough.

UPDATE: Here is a new article talking about Google’s desire to develop the OS and not the hardware.  I think many of my thoughts are still valid as the OS is obviously a critical part of any phone. 

While it is impossible at this point to determine whether Google is actually developing their own phone or not, such a development would certainly have much to offer consumers and, in turn, Google. Ive spoken about the significant restrictions that most wireless providers have placed on their phones previously. These providers want to create a monopoly over the applications that use their network. From a simplistic business point of view, you can see the logic. For example, why let people use the music they currently own for ring tones when you can charge them $2.50 for virtually the same thing by enacting strict controls over the hardware functions.

The rumors on the GPhone are that it will be Linux based and be an open platform unlike the iPhone. For consumers, the benefits are obvious. An open platform would create a new outlet for open source developers. Such a platform would also allow firms with proprietary software to offer owners of such a phone. This is exactly the approach that Nokia is taking with the N800. Google may stand to benefit even more than Nokia, however.

Google’s core competencies center around information indexing and advertisement delivery. Nokia obviously is not even close in this regard. If Google created a phone that was optimized for their competencies, it would only serve to dramatically increase their advertising reach in the mobile market. Many in the start-up crowd are already taking about the yet to arrive mobile web as Web 3.0. And while I hate this moniker, I think there is far more potential for mobile applications that is being realized today.

But, what about all the open source developers that would be competing with Google on their own phone? Certainly, Google would want their search and mapping applications to be in an obvious, fixed location on the phone UI, but I think the rest of the platform being open would only benefit them. The open source community would add value to the GPhone by offering all of the “long tail” applications that appeal to a large number of consumers. The phone would actually become a platform for services versus a container exclusively for the applciations that Google develops or supports. Such a platform would allow users to address their specific needs which might result in the GPhone attracting a significant customer audience. And, assuming Google continues to offer robust information products, the GPhone would effectively allow Google to break out of the locked down cell phone market they are confined to today. Of course, this is not a simplistic business model and is not without risks. Only time will tell whether Google want to change the wireless game or continue supporting the providers’ application monopolies.

Osaifu-Keitai is a service from NTT’s DoCoMo which is yet another example of how the U.S. carriers are missing the boat in terms of mobile convergence. With the small form factor of a standard mobile phone, Japanese carriers like DoCoMo are providing needs based convergence in ways that only exist in VC’s dreams here in the States. While there is some noise about m-commerce here, it is a long way off- especially if it relies on the marketing prowess of the U.S. wireless carriers.

While I can’t read all of the DoCoMo site, it seems that they are providing a much more open platform for content and applications than firms like Verizon. On the commerce side, they seem to allow many firms to use the Osaifu-Keitai prepaid platform. DCMX is apparently the credit version of the same platform. While one could debate that the platform is only open in respect to DoCoMo’s service, it is still more open than Verizon and therefore seems to indicate some openness is better than none. What if Google is really able to offer a popular and truly open application platform as the rumors seem to suggest they may? Might openness take the day?

Interestingly, in terms of technology convergence, Osaifu-Keitai is a combination of RFID and Internet based mobile phone services. The term for these devices is wallet phones which is appropriate given it offers needs based convergence by incorporating the need to be able to pay for things on the go (traditionally met by the wallet).

It is definitely going to be interesting to see how this market evolves in the U.S.

The question of what convergence truly is drove me to make my most recent technology purchase. Or maybe I purchased it because I wanted to better understand open source software in the mobile environment. Of course, it could just be that I really wanted to buy this new device regardless of how it may help me to better understand mobile convergence or open source software’s role in the mobile world.

In any case, I purchased a Nokia N800. If you haven’t seen one yet, it is basically a Wi-Fi enabled tablet which runs the Linux-based Maemo 3.2 operating system. Unlike the iPhone, which I have previously mentioned as a possible candidate for offering true, needs based convergence, this device is quite a bit different. For example, it doesn’t have a phone built in- only Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. It also probably isn’t a complete substitute for a laptop- it has Opera and several other applications, but no Microsoft Office or OpenOffice as of yet. It is (at least what I hope it is given I haven’t received it yet) a great device for accessing internet applications while mobile.

My communication-based mobility needs are as follows:

1. being able to communicate as easily and conveniently as possible in a wide variety of situations
2. being able to have access to information and Internet communication apps (IM and Skype, for example) when I am traveling or spending a fair amount of time in-between home and the office (those third places) without lugging around a heavy device or case
3. being able to have access to entertainment in these in-between situations
4. being able to quickly access new content and applications as they become available

So, the solution to my first need is a small cell phone. I know this because I already have one (a Verizon KRZR). It is both small enough and durable enough to easily fit and survive in my pocket. This also includes riding and/or crashing in the pockets of my cycling jersey while mountain biking- the iPhone and traditional smart phones don’t meet this criteria.

I’m hoping that the N800 is the answer to the second need. A laptop definitely doesn’t solve this need. I suppose an iPhone or other smart phone might fit the bill, but I don’t want to have two phones with two service plans. One solution might be to have a GSM service provider where I could switch the SIM card between phones, but the hassle factor on that seemed fairly high and applications like Skype are definitely not available on these devices.

In terms of the third need, the best standalone solution is a portable game player- a Nintendo DS, perhaps.

The forth need seems to be largely a function of the development environment for the device(s) that I choose for the first three needs.

While these four groups of needs are fairly straightforward, there are other, perhaps equally important, unstated needs that must also be addressed. These revolve around integration and interoperability. In the case of the iPhone, Apple handles this seamlessly. In my case, where I don’t want a single integrated device, integration is not so straightforward. For example, while researching my N800 purchase, I tried to determine from the Verizon website how I might tether my phone to the N800 when I am out of Wi-Fi coverage. While their website had great information on the basic voice and data plans, tethering a N800 to a KRZR seems to be in the category of black magic. The only references to this activity were some vague technical descriptions of bluetooth pairing with not a hint of what the commercial terms of such an activity might be.

So, for me anyways, the iPhone isn’t the answer to my needs. The appeal of the iPhone for many is precisely the integration it offers. But this integration comes at a cost. This cost is not only having to endure a one size fits all strategy, but also being confined to the applications Apple chooses to make available.

Taking a step back from the specific context of mobility, there may be some interesting insights to be gained from my adventure to date. First, I think the vision of many in the business to business space might have some potential in the consumer market. Business customers want solutions that work, but they also want the freedom to choose the individual components that make up these solutions. The days of monolithic, one vendor systems are over. Today’s business customer wants all hardware, software, and services to work together in ways that complement each other. This is why they are embracing approaches like SOA and web services. They are also increasingly looking to open source- certainly not all of them, but enough to matter.

The consumer electronics space would look entirely different if consumers were demanding the same level of integration and openness as their business counterparts. Perhaps the lack of such a focus to date stems from the limited power individual consumers have. The only vote that a single consumer has is the action of purchasing or not purchasing the products and services they are offered. And, while purchasing an iPhone is relatively easy way to vote for integration, trying to purchase an integrated solution across different devices and service providers is much less efficient method for letting marketers know how we would like our needs to be fulfilled.

For me, I have chosen to buy the Nokia N800. Time will tell whether it truly meets my needs- integration and otherwise.

One of the big challenges in using open source as a process of innovation is that it is fundamentally different from what has been considered product development up to this point. While traditional product development is usually concerned with identifying and managing the resources to some given end, open source processes are completely incompatible with such techniques.

I think an interesting analogy can be made by comparing simple and complex systems. Simple systems include the following charactericstics:

• they are composed of individual parts where the relationships between the parts are completely deterministic
• the effect of part “a” on part “b” is always the same, thus they are linear
• the number of parts is also the same, so the boundaries of such a system are well defined
• the parts of the system do not exhibit memory

Whereas, complex systems have these characteristics:

• the parts of the system are not readily identifiable
• the relationships between the parts are non-linear
• they contain feedback loops (co-evolution)
• there is recombination and evolution of the parts/system
• they are open (can import or dissipate energy)
• they have memory

So, open source is more of a complex system whereas traditional product development is more like a simple one. The benefits of a complex system like open source are that it rapidly adapts and can provide access to many difference resources. The downsides are that it is difficult to tell what the outcome of the system will be or when that outcome will occur. However, with sufficient energy, such a systems can indeed be much faster than simple systems such as the traditional product development process.

What does this mean for managing open source innovations? Well, part of the problem with that question is that “managing” probably isn’t the right term in the open source context. A more appropriate term might be “facilitating”. In many ways, if you want to be successful with such a system, the focus should be on creating the right environment for innovation to occur and then having trust that the outcome will be beneficial even if it is impossible to tell what that outcome will be.