The myths in US Mobile Marketing
 

http://bit.ly/o8LDc

This is a really nice article talking about how the iPhone's global success is more marketing myth than reality. The article talks about some key points like

• How Carriers Operate
• How Consumers Behave
• Real Market Demand for Mobile devices
• Pricing
• Application Stores
• Emerging Markets
• Media Bias

I thought it was interesting to read, especially as a consumer who spends a lot of time in the US. I hope other people find this interesting AND that the Nokia folks adopt some ideas.

Re: The myths in US Mobile Marketing
 

Nice read. This is just what was explaining my collegues yesterday when i told them i want a N900..

Re: The myths in US Mobile Marketing
 

Wow, great find. :D

Re: The myths in US Mobile Marketing
 

When I read this I know that companies like Nokia KNOW this stuff, but, unfortunately there is a challenge messaging it.

I would like to see s60v5 numbers after 1 year of available devices. Nokia seems to keep this very close to their chest. I would also like to see the total number of downloads followed by the per ovi-account rate over 3 month periods over this time frame.

Re: The myths in US Mobile Marketing
 

I think you can find some statistics if you try about the Ovi Store. The question is how meaningful that data is? You can't directly compare it to many other application stores, because downloading software from all over the web has always been and still is the "normal" way of installing software into Nokia phones and Ovi Store is just one more option.

I would however like, if they could make it work well. It really would lower the barrier for people to "explore" the possibilities of their devices.

Re: The myths in US Mobile Marketing
 

And now that I've read the article, he's so very right and it's painfully obvious to anyone living outside the US. And trying to point out all these facts to people is frustratingly futile. They will always find a way to convince themselves that they're right, and they might even dig up some BS article like that hilarious "iPhone market share 40%" to prove it. If they can't, it's usually the mindshare argument or the number-of-apps argument. It's convenient when you can make up rules as you go. I mean, the iPhone is a success but it's not the only one.

The whole US tech blogosphere is funny in the regard that it only takes one story to turn anything into an absolute truth. Because when one blog publishes an interesting story or rumor all the blogs start manically referencing and cross-referencing each other. At some point in the chain someone misunderstands something or leaves something out of the story and the "broken phone"-effect is in full motion. The fact that suddenly all the blogs are reporting on something creates the impression that it has to be true and people seldom go through the trouble to find out where it started or think for a second if it is legit.

I have a couple of examples.. conveniently today it was reported that "Apple purchased Placebase in July to replace Google Maps?" In the article the author introduces introduces the company..

He discusses the API stuff(the interesting part imho) and possible implications of the deal. One of his suggestions is: "The reason for purchase might simply be for the maps." Now how could a small 5 year old company possibly have mapped the world? I mean mapped, not just put data on an existing map. I tried to find out more and found one commenter elsewhere saying they were using Navteq's maps.

All this didn't stop Gizmodo reporting

and
At least 47 blogs have referenced the same original story, some of them luckily used better judgment than Gizmodo. Many of them presented the reliance on Google as the reason but I don't think any blog mentioned they might in turn have to rely on Nokia(through Navteq map data), which is hilariously ironic.

Here's another recent one. Engadget: "Exclusive: Apple dictated Light Peak creation to Intel, could begin migration from other standards as early as 2010" referenced by at least 16 blogs.

Now does anyone else find it weird that Apple just "dictates" giants like Intel what to do? The media coverage bias also applies to the Macs, not just iPhones. In the end Macs have only ~5% market share globally, now is that a position to dictate stuff? I'm sure Apple wants something like LightPeak and probably has co-operated with Intel from early on, nothing wrong with that.

A day or so later came another blog post that no-one was interested in anymore: "Sources: 'Light Peak' technology not Apple idea".

Now that I'm at it, let's take another classic: "iPhone claims 32% of mobile industry profits"

It's been referenced so many times that I can't find the original anymore. Basically the analyst had whipped up some calculations. I don't know if it was ever revealed what they were based on, but the fact is that they were estimates. He(she?) had somehow come to the conclusion that iPhones brought Apple 5,094 billion dollars in revenue in the first half of 2009 and 2,038 billion dollars in pure profits with an op. margin of 40%. Apple's total combined profit for the first half of this year was 2,44 billion, which is a fact, not an estimation.

Now doesn't anyone find it strange that iPhone alone would account for 83,5%(!) of all Apple's profits. The rest 16,5% would be the "just" the Macbooks, Macbook Pros, Mac Pros, Mac Minis, accessories, the gazillion iPods etc. I'm no analyst but i smell something fishy here. Wouldn't it also be dangerous for Apple to be that dependent on a single product?

These are the kind of stories that make Apple seem so omnipotent. It doesn't matter if they are correct or incorrect, they will end up being the truth for 99% of the readers. Try googling "Apple industry profit", it's a fact now. :)

Apple also knows how to make use of this blogosphere hype. I bumped into a rumor reported by AppleInsider a while ago. The language caught my attention.. some gems:

It's still 1000$ and polycarbonate indeed sounds better than the more familiar plastic

This actually makes non-replaceable battery seem like the coolest idea ever..

ps. Does anybody know techblogs where I could hide every post about iPhone apps?

pss. Does anybody know nice tech sites with insightful in-depth articles with a truly global point of view? Especially interested in ones related to mobile.

Here's another perspective on the topic btw.

http://communities-dominate.blogs.co...t-1-scale.html

http://communities-dominate.blogs.co...t-success.html

Re: The myths in US Mobile Marketing
 

Apple iPhone has no keyboard, so no localisation, and that'd make distribution using same hardware easier. I don't know how good their OSK is for non-Latin fonts though. From what I understood, capacitive screen is a disadvantage to resistive in Asia where users like to use handwriting recognition with a stylus to draw their letters/symbols.

The Apple iPhone is also relatively very expensive for countries with lower GBP than Western Europe and United States. What you get then is that: 1) people don't know the thing 2) its a status symbol 3) its a target for stealing even e.g. beating someone up 4) hence it isn't popular, just like a Porsche isn't (statement without any judgement on quality whatsoever).

It is also a very American product, and some populations in developing countries don't like that, or they don't like the control an American corporation like Apple has over App Store including its killswitch. Personally, I'm disgusted by the fact there is a big business for violence in App Store, while none for erotic. They force their American moral value upon my throat, and this case I'm not particularly fond of it. It makes me feel Apple does not respect my culture, my nationality, my groundwork of being.

This brings me back to WWW. The web is completely open, and doesn't have such censorship. One can filter, but 1) not by default 2) by choice (or _local_ corporate policy). Much better than the over authoritarian way of the App Store. The applications get denied because they'd use too much data over 3G, while local telco is fine with said application. Again, left hand (American AT&T thinking Apple) doesn't know what right arm (Dutch T-Mobile thinking Apple) is doing. Besides, the application fully worked on e.g. Symbian for years! Btw, the cloud might cloud the completely open structure of web.

Apple doesn't stand competition on their products either, claiming it duplicates functions. No interpreters or emulators are allowed either. No Java, no flash. In an ideal world you'd be able to select an alternative for MobileMe. Forget that in Apple's iPhoneOS world. You'd be able to use something like a Gecko-based browser, extensions for browser like an AdBlock or NoScript, or Google Voice. You'd be able to add your own Bluetooth profiles like you can with Maemo 5. No, instead, iPod touch 2nd gen. had a Bluetooth chip all along, it was just disabled. Then they enabled it in iPhoneOS 3, but guess what, only AD2P profile is enabled! It is unnecessarily difficult to get Bluetooth DUN working on iPod touch while hardware-wise it'd be easily possible. Again, Apple's control.

That number also includes iPod touch. FWIW, I've installed more than 40 applications on my iPod touch. But you sometimes have to download an update to application. Plus your iTunes downloads them seperate even if your iTunes Mobile already has it (one way sync). Is that counted as a download from the App Store? In marketing statements they probably are.

I can confirm this.

Although Japan has, yet iPhone not popular there. But the camera on the iPhone 3G was crap, and supported not video. The iPhone 3GS is doing a bit better though.

Many developing countries also lack a nation-wide 3G network, whereas something like WiMAX might be an option instead. Or city-wide WiFi. There is no need for 24/7 connectivity, or it is too expensive.

Reason 1: the Apple iPhone does something right (some of these things competitors can learn from). Reason 2: classic top-down marketing. Reason 3: buyers regret cq. groupie (due to own purchase). Reason 4: American product (hate Finland ;) ). Reason 5: introduces mechanisms of control unheard of on PC, and Mac, which journalists being part of classic media might like to get accepted. Apple already pulled this on iTunes with audio and video, and I'm sure they'd love that control on Macs too. Some Mac users do _not_ like this aspect of iPhone, and will for this reason never get one.

One thing I dislike about iPhone hype is websites start to optimize for it while leaving other devices out in the cold. An iPhone user might say: "haha, buy an iPhone then!" That is not the point. The web is based on open standards and is there for everyone who supports these, and if your website checks for a client running iPhoneOS + MobileSafari then you break the web. Websites will, instead of public APIs, be parsed by proprietary applications, and applications are simply not portable to anything but iPhoneOS. Websites publish parsers for their website, 'for iPhone', while I don't have or want such yet its huge advertised. If they just made APIs public somewhere allowing anyone to develop such application, and allow me to ignore such ad, I'd be a happy fellow surfer.

Then you have the rumor machine, which catches fire the whole time, while nothing of substance is known or said.

Anyway, this article is not so much about telcos or their control over the market, its rather about putting the success of Apple iPhone in a more informative and less hyped_by_marketing_and_zealots context.

There are many reasons I am interested in iPhoneOS though. Some things are done very well.

Re: The myths in US Mobile Marketing
 

jsa, on Slashdot you can create an account and filter out the Apple category. Filtering that will also include news about Mac though.

Re: The myths in US Mobile Marketing
 

The funny thing about Apple blocking interpreters is I can instantiate a webview in iPhone OS and run Javascript from any text I send to that view. And if Apple hasn't crippled webkit, the app should also have read/write/execute access to the webview's DOM. If so, what's their point? The damage is done, yet everything is still sanboxed.

Re: The myths in US Mobile Marketing
 

Although I never heard of PlaceBase (what a name...), nor used their application, the compare with Google Maps might be more accurate than you put because Google Maps licenses the maps from Tele Atlas. (TomTom).

At least one blog made it seem as if its only today known Apple bought PlaceBase. Talking about duping news with rumors!

Fresh from the plate... Slashdot/Apple: Apple Wants Patents For Crippling Cellphones

Re: The myths in US Mobile Marketing
 

Yes, the comparison with Google Maps is valid, but the quote in my opinion implies that he is under the impression that both Google and Placebase "mapped out" the world themselves instead of licensing the map data from third parties like you said. My point is reinforced when he ponders if Apple might have bought the company just for the maps.

I wonder how that could be patentable? There's clearly prior art of "limitations to certain device resources which may otherwise be available to users of the device". Is it just the method they want to patent, not the restricting part?

Anyway, Apple won't be getting any sympathy for this. I wonder if the negative coverage like the draconian app rejections, google voice debacle and stuff like this patent application have any effect to their sales in the end? Are current users turning away in any meaningful numbers because of these? My gut feeling is no..

Re: The myths in US Mobile Marketing
 

No, most people don't know about this sort of stuff. It's to Apple's benefit that they don't haha.