GILASTATE

I was told that on average your musical preference is centered around the music you most enjoy at the age of 24. While I am sure that there was a fair amount of variability in this estimate it is interesting to think about from a consumer perspective. If, for example, a consumer happens to most identify with music from this specific time period due to some emotional connection to that time, might they also have preferences for particular service models or technologies which are associated with this time period. I know there is a fair amount of research on technology adoption by age, but the really interesting part might be to consider how to connect people to that time either though music or other emotional links to that time.

This would sort of be the generational, service version of steampunk. For example, if people are more comfortable with dealing with a person than a graphical interface, might using an avatar in the style of that person’s “peak time” connect more to their preferences more than an avatar representing the current time?

Of course, I’m not sure if this peak time concept would really resonate in a service context. Could an avatar or even music from my peak time really make me feel more comfortable about a service experience. For example, would these guys really influence my perspective on some generic service experience?

Well, actually, now that I think about it- yes, it would be awesome if they were somehow associated with a service experience. Can you imagine if the dentist was playing Hope? Or how about NOFX’s The Decline? In either case (even though The Decline is from 1999 and Hope is from when I was in junior high), that would be so rad and I would give them a perfect service score regardless of what the service actually was.

WiMAX could change the Internet landscape. While mobile and fixed networks have largely been separate, WiMAX could offer both. When I say separate, I am thinking more on the offering side versus the technology. Sure, DSL is different than CDMA, for example, but perhaps more importantly, Verizon DSL is for the most part independent of Verizon’s Mobile Web (or whatever they call their EVDO access). The two services come from the same company, sure, but check out their web pages- not a mention of their sibling services. Of course, regulation has something to do with this in that the RBOCs can’t integrate all their operations and marketing efforts. Nevertheless, technology isn’t the the barrier to integrating your home Internet needs with your mobile ones at this point.

So, if Clearwire shows up and offers you home and mobile Internet access, what would change? Well, nothing unless they rethink the current archaic notions of bundling. If they are smart, however, they may make this whole business of getting Internet access much more seamless than it is today.

From an needs standpoint even in just the mobile space, things are not seamless. If I want to listen to my MP3s on my cellphone, Verizon wants to control that entire process. They have gone so far as to hobble the capabilities of my phone just so they can be the exclusive provider of V-Cast music. Not very open. Imagine if Verizon DSL service required you to use a computer with a Verizon modified operating system on it (spooky!). They may have gotten away with it thus far in the mobile space given people haven’t quite caught on to the mobile possibilities and there hasn’t been a competitor that has heavily pushed these possibilities.

With WiMAX, however, it seems like firms like Clearwire (I’m not sure what Sprint has planned) may have the potential to focus on giving your Internet where and how you want it without artificial limitations. If this happens, I can use my next gen N800 (and all my other Internet connected devices) at home as easily as I can anywhere in the WiMAX coverage area. Hopefully, I would be able to do this for less than the cost of separate home and mobile Internet access charges. Of course, I still have to have a cell phone, but being able to use Internet devices transparently at home and on the move may open up some very cool applications that we haven’t had the chance consider yet.

So, a new firm that breaks down the artificial and limited notions of bundling that exist today may be able to change a lot. If, however, these WiMAX firms don’t look to provide real solutions, WiMAX will be just another access technology which in the end will offer some marginally better attributes, but nothing to get too exciting about.

Clearwire- embrace the openness, free the Internet!!

So, I’ve had my N800 a couple days now, but rather than giving you the run down on its attributes (there are plenty of other “speeds and feeds” reviews on the webz, after all), I thought I would talk about it relative to my last post on needs-based convergence.

Overall, I would say the N800 has quite a bit of potential to be my third places Internet device. However, cross-product/service integration may end up causing it to not live up to its potential. For its part, the N800 is really trying its best to integrate and converge as much as it can. Connection to a WiFi network is quick and easy and the N800 offers to remember setting for any given network in case you would like to return. Even outside of WiFi range, it happily paired up to my Verizon KRZR via Bluetooth and tried its best to connect to the EVDO network. Unfortunately, this is where convergence starts to fall apart as such a connection is more difficult and expensive than you might suspect.

So, while the N800 tried to connect, ultimately it was unsuccessful. Turning to Verizon’s web site for help in trying to determine how to make this happen was not worth the time I spent. Part of their problem is that you can’t really tell what they are selling. Is V-Cast the EVDO network or some content service? What is the mobile web- does it let me connect my N800 to the Internet? Is America’s Choice e-mail what I need- I’m not sure I really need an e-mail service per se?

From the enthusiast web sites (yes there are people enthusiastic enough about mobile devices and the N800 to have websites dedicated to them ), I have gathered that I need one of the data plans- minimum price $79.99 AND I need to pay Verizon a “tethering” fee in order to connect my N800 to the Verizon network. A tethering fee smacks to me of nothing less than good old bellhead monopoly thinking. Does anyone remember when the RBOCs used to charge separately for such things as “touchtone”? While it seems like Verizon has done a decent job with customer service these days, they DO NOT GET IT when it comes to being a component of what could be an integrated solution. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t make money for their services, but rather I think they would make more if they embraced their position as a single part of things like “mobility needs”. Verizon sees themselves in isolation, not as a part of the bigger solution.

Although Nokia appears to be more savvy in this area, they still have room for improvement on the N800. As one example, why is it so difficult to move your bookmarks and RSS feeds from one device to another. It seems like products like Foxmarks should have developed in to some sort of standard by now. The same is true of music. While I have some fairly strong opinions about DRM, suffice it say it is a bummer that I can’t use my iTunes songs on my N800. Further, it is disappointing that I can’t even use Bluetooth to transfer files from my PC to my N800. Finally, what about video? It turns out the current Internet video capabilities of the N800 are limited to a Nokia specific application that a PC endpoint must download. I assume it would be fairly easy to add video into the N800 Skype application, but for now it is sort of an awkward solution.

Well, I may post some further thoughts on my new Nokia, but that is it for now.

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.

I was interested to see that T-Mobile seems to be talking quite a bit about their new femtocell technology/service. My interest stems from when I worked for a wireless provider in the UK in 1998. While I was there, we deployed both home versions of fixed-mobile convergence with home base stations and business versions with in-building picosites. In both cases, the idea was to use a different backhaul method for calls in the home or business. In theory, this was better (less expensive) for us in that it freed up the wireless backhaul network and/or allowed us to win more minutes from our competitors in situations where fixed service was an option.

While I find T-Mobile’s technology interesting, it is somewhat surprising that the transition from a technology to a truly customer focused service seems as awkward as it was in 1998. Then, as now, the only real non-technology benefit to the customer was a lower price. With T-Mobile, all your calls within their home gateway are free. This is more less exactly what we did in 1998- although the calls weren’t free, just discounted from the fixed provider’s price per minute.

So, while network operators talk about convergence, software vendors talk about mashups, and hardware manufacturers speak of applications, when will we actually start to see all of these come together in something that starts with the needs of the customer?

Certainly, there are some real structural issues that might inhibit this- for example, software companies don’t own networks. But, even with these issues, it seems that someone would look to customer needs first. With an understanding of these needs, an integrated view of how customers might interact to co-create value in entirely new areas might emerge. Such a view would cut across the traditional boundaries of technologies and services to offer solutions that change how people go about their personal or work lives.

In some respects, I think the iPhone is an example of true needs-based convergence. When you start to think of what is possible, however, I hope this it is just one example of many good things to come.

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.

I attended a conference this past weekend in Orlando that presented a cross-functional perspective of service. Interestingly, there is still some disagreement about just what service is. Some view it as the intangible version of a product. Some equate it with customer service that is typically delivered by front line employees. Others view it as the nature of the economy as it shifts away (at least in some parts of the world) from manufacturing. Still another group view services as a very specific implementation of software. And finally, some academics view it as the new service dominant logic with which we market both products and services. So apparently, services are everything and nothing.

Still, regardless of definitions, I found the conference to be interesting. I particularly found IBM’s ideas of service science management and engineering intriguing. IBM is seeking to create an entirely new field for academics and researchers interested in services. They believe a new scientific discipline is necessary to effectively drive the new service economy. They compare this new discipline to the formation of the field of computer science.

Clearly, new businesses have to be adept in both the technology and business of services. Unlike in the past, however, the functional distinctions between engineering, marketing, and other traditional roles are not clear cut. It seems the new businesses that will drive economic growth in the future will require employees who do not fall into such simple classifications. So, while interesting, I wonder if traditional academia is up for the challenge of breaking down the long existing functional silos that have so far made such an endeavor unlikely to succeed.