Andy Abramson had an interesting concept in his blog this week about Intel and Nokia working more closely together. The basis of the concept starts with the battle in silicon right now. Its and interesting question to contemplate for a number of reasons.
1) The WiMAX, ATOM revolution has not produced the momentum that Intel would like. Google, Comcast, Sprint and all the other elves involved with Clear are not enough to get the billions of cellphone devices looking to include Intel in the their space. So forging a relationship with Nokia where they could have a stronger presence in the 3G world makes sense.
2) If the goal was not to be a device company but to turn Nokia into a platform strategy, that would have a lot of value to Nokia, which has been coping with a market that is heading towards less customizaton. Nokia has been stuck delivering lots of phones with nuances to carriers, why not make this more like the PC market. You could even bring the PC manufacturers into the mix and have them be the private label.
3) It allows Nokia to get reset on so much of its legacy Symbian flavoring. Bringing the Nokia Developer community to the web where it can stop the internal battling and take advantage of the tools coming of age as we head toward HTML 5.0. The IPhone has everyone scrambling and it maybe that the goal should be to keep the apps as close to web development as possible.
While it is fun to speculate, I am not sure this is the move, that Intel wants to do next. I can see more advangates to Nokia, but it maybe that I just see the flaws in Nokia’a armor right now. Intel can afford to have several missteps in this market and unless their PC manufacturing customers are ready to attack the ARMy of cellullar players it maybe that all these things can be done with Nokia without the merger.
Mark’s history mirrors the wireless industry closely and includes being the CTO of Leap and leading developments at Nextwave and Qualcomm. Today, he is doing some consulting and thinking about new opportunities in the market.
With all this history the discussion takes us to in-depth analysis. He blogs about various aspects of the industry and his life at http://spassmeister.com/ .
On this call, we discussed.
The History of GSM and CDMA and why we are at where we are.
The role of WiMAX in the market.
How it relates to wireless backhaul.
The issues of spectrum.
The smartphones impact on the carriers.
Demand and Costs are converging on the carriers roll out of wireless backhaul.
What business models are making sense right now?
What the opportunity for White Space in the market?
You can find Mark’s website at http://markkelleyonline.com/index.html
First of all, Colin is normally gives great insight into the happenings around the industry, and the criticism may feel valid to the web apps developers that Verizon is trying to entice. But the app store that Verizon is chasing is very different then any other in the market.
They are indeed on a quest for the Network API. An elusive creature that adds value to being a Verizon Application.
As our friend Scott Snyder has pointed out in The New World of Wireless, 3G applications were the reason the money was spent by the carriers, and so far web developers have been the only applications of value.
At the end of the day, it may be that this is the best a carrier can hope for us to provide a great Internet experience. But repeatedly people suggest to carriers that they can do more with their role as a trusted service.
At the Verizon developers conference the team from Verizon explained their network API. It was not a strategy for most web developers. Entreprenuers’ in the garage, dorm room, mom’s kitchen, do not want to sit and consider the value of Parlay – X as an API to work with in connecting to Verizon’s systems.
But to those of us who use to work in the legacy of the telco systems where the Work Authorizaion Request form was a declaration of W.A.R. with IT this is an amazing extraction.
I also want to point out, that it may in the end be a necessary path for carriers, as the Network Neutrality debate implicates an ability to show non discriminatory interfaces.
So while I appreciate the goal of apps folks who want to port from the iPhone to Verizon, this is not the goal that Verizon has in mind.
No Its not the superbowl. I expect the Steelers to win, but will root for the Cardinals! Its 4G Wireless Evolution I am talking about. And as we get ready for the next generation of wireless that will be part of the Internet, I am seeing the need. My small circle of non telecom friends discussed their phone options and frustration. Some hate the iPhone as a phone. Others have a variety of devices from Verizon, but no one was in that state of rapture that you get from iPhone enthusiasts. Device wise, I don’t think we are 1.2 yet never mind 2.0.
My Gphone has the battery life of the first analogs, My replacement blackberry is like a friend you had a blow out with and now are back together. An uneasy truce to cover the breached trust.
But at this stage we are not at the 4G device. The base stations are in deployment and the chips are being produced. We have a future to look forward to that may make old brands irrelevant and new brands our future. I am coming to Miami to be wooed with the hope of something better.
ATT and Verizon are rapidly becoming the last teams standing as the focus is continues on wireless opportunities. As I continue to hear that LTE is the clear winner. I can’t help but think this cant be about a single device and a single service. Is the iPhone all that we need? Lets get serious.
As I sit here on my MacBook and see the tools that are missing that were part of my world, I know that I will probably buy another PC in the future. Or at least reconfigure my bootcamp.
As i talk to people on my blackberry, I see the need for some better tools.
If innovation is fostered by discontent. I am an Innovation Evangelist.
I want more than I have with the devices I have. Is anyone else discontent?
As the FCC enabled whitespaces for the computing industry the wireless world continued to be advanced with the merger of Sprint WiMAX into Clearwire and the approval of the Alltel acquistion by Verizon. While I will miss the wizard commercials, I think the more important observation is the question of how wireless evolves.
The Verizon story will be mostly around LTE, Clearwire around WiMAX. But who owns White Space? Who do you associate with this alternative? Google and Microsoft have been big advocates, but I am not sure they intend to be a service provider for this space. On the other hand, Cloud Computing is probably going to benefit tremendously from the access the White Space provides. Should I insert Ebay/Skype and Amazon into this discussion? Motorola and Phillips for their devices?
Imho the future of wireless is going to be very dynamic. And as we have seen from the iPhone’s success its going to be more about what you can do than what technology is used.
Alistair Campbell the CTO of Truphone and Hank Hultquist of ATT were my guests on Squawkbox and I wanted to remind people about the discussion in light of the Intercarrier Compensation discussion.
Alistair does a nice job talking about the new era of communication over wireless Internet devices and Hank helps us see that regulatory reform is required.
The vote on Intercarrier Compensation has been delayed with the following two announcements.
STATEMENT OF FCC CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN ON INTERCARRIER COMPENSATION AND UNIVERSAL SERVICE REFORM
November 3, 2008
The issues of Intercarrier Compensation and Universal Service reform have been in front of the Commission for years. Last summer I publicly indicated my intention to put forward concrete and comprehensive proposals to reform the inefficient and outmoded Intercarrier compensation and Universal Service programs. Those proposals have been with my colleagues for several weeks now. I am disappointed that we will miss the opportunity for comprehensive reform. Instead my colleagues have requested that we once again seek public comment on several proposals. As a result such a notice would make little progress and ask for comment again on the most basic and broad questions about reforming the two programs. For example, the Commission would again ask should broadband be supported by the Universal Service Fund and should we move to one uniform rate for all traffic or should that rate vary by the type of company?
I would like to be encouraged by my colleagues’ commitment that they will truly be ready to complete this much needed reform on December 18. The nature of the questions they would like to include makes me doubt they will have found their answers with an additional seven weeks. I believe the far more likely outcome is that, in December, the other Commissioners will merely want another Further Notice and another round of comment on the most difficult questions. I do not believe they will be prepared to address the most challenging issues and that the Commission will be negotiating over what further questions to ask in December.
Additionally, I have instructed the Bureau to draft a narrow order to address the Court’s remand. However, I remain skeptical that such an order which retains artificial and unsupported distinctions between types of Internet traffic will be seen any more favorably by the Court than the Commission’s two previous attempts.
I recognize that few other issues before the Commission are as technically complex and involved, with as many competing interests, as are reforming the Intercarrier Compensation and Universal Service programs. But neither of those two realities are an excuse for inaction. They will be true in one month, in one year or as we have now seen at the Commission, in ten years. I too remain committed to tackling the most difficult issues, providing answers to the toughest questions, fixing broken and outdated government programs and providing broadband to all Americans including those living in rural areas. I look forward to completing these long overdue and much needed reforms as soon as possible.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 3, 2008
JOINT STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONERS MICHAEL J. COPPS, JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN, DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE AND ROBERT M. MCDOWELL
Below is a Joint Statement from the above-reference commissioners in response to the decision to remove the intercarrier compensation and universal service proposals from tomorrow’s agenda:
“Three weeks ago, Chairman Martin first shared with the Commission his proposals to fundamentally reform the intercarrier compensation and universal service systems. Four Commissioners provided the Chairman bi-partisan, constructive and substantive suggestions, and stated that notice and comment should be sought on the proposals, with an understanding that we would all be prepared to vote on December 18. We also have asked the Chairman to narrowly address the ISP-bound traffic remand and the Joint Board’s Recommendation. We therefore are disappointed that the Chairman has withdrawn the fundamental reform item from tomorrow’s agenda.
“We approached this proceeding with the common goal of modernizing our universal service and intercarrier compensation policies, and commend the desire to tackle some of the most important issues facing this Commission. It is equally important to ensure that any reform proposal receive the full benefit of public notice and comment – especially in light of the difficult economic circumstances currently facing our nation.
“We remain committed to fulfilling our obligation to tackle these difficult issues, and have set forth a reasonable path for completing comprehensive reform. We remain hopeful that the consensus process we have pursued regarding this issue will ultimately lead to a thoughtful, well-reasoned item that will inure to the benefit all Americans.”
I have my gphone and I am playing with it, but so far its not a wow. The iPhone has the benefit of a billing system behind it and I am not sure what Android has done to win over market place. I watched the Android message board and it was clear that lots of what my friend David Jodoin,calls technocrud was about to be launched upon us. So far on the phone, I find very fews apps even of that stuff.
But this is a very strange experience. When I google for the videos to watch it asks me do I want to do it in the browser or via YouTube. From what I can tell there is no difference in the experience.
I am not sure if I have restrictions on this phone or not, but based on the lack of a VoIP client, I am assuming I do.
So here I am wanting to sing the praises of the G1 and at the sametime, not sure how.
What I know is this. The phone is an improvement from my sidekick for browsing. It does have better connectivity to the Internet via WiFi and the browswer is more interactive.
Its also the first of several Gphones coming out in the market, so I expect, I am going to suffer from Gealousy at some point.