Besides these features there are other compelling reasons for mobile cloud computing. We know it is a stated fact from Google that they are betting on the mobile web. Example of that here. Read Write Web also recently had a good summary of a research paper made by ABI Research on this subject. The authors even dare to saymobile cloud computing will soon be a disruptive force. This is based on a factor that you know your humble blogger supports, the mass market for mobile is not in the smartphone segment. There are 4bn mobile subscriptions in the world. Smartphones have a very small market share of that. So for the masses there is huge potential in a browser based service in the cloud where processing power and data storage is handed over to the server side. The mobile phone takes the role of a thin client. Most most phones today can fill the shoes of that role.

Another interesting point made in the report is that there are far more web developers who are capable of churning out great services than there are experts in mobile apps. With browserbased services, access is also better. You just need a mobile internet connection, not a specific carrier reltionship to reach the specific app store for a specific smartphone. With HTML5 around the corner the prerequisites for mobile cloud computing becoming a distuptive force are improving as well with the caching features covering for glitches in the network service quality.

The coming 24 months will be interesting times for mobile cloud computing. Will we see companies like Netbiscuits compete with Amazon Web Services in this area soon? Will Nokia, a company that looks sadly lost today, regain its stronghold through leadership in mobile cloud computing? Was it all just hype?

Time will tell. I am looking forward to the ride!

IPhone accounted for 66% of hte mobile internet impressions, but has the lowest CTR at 0.3%. So yes, the iPhone users surf a lot. If they are bettter targest for advertisers waits to be seen. This study was based on the US and 92 million impressions in total. I am sure there are various ways to cut this data. However, it supports the hypothesis that a blind focus on smartphones and iPhone in particular might not provide the best ROI for an advertiser.

Advertisers in most markets probably still get the best result by maximising reach to all handsets with a mix of banners and text ads using as much targeting as possible on a user level. Any service where the user has a profile of some sort offers the potential to provide gender and age which only that is a strong start for targeting. This could potentially also increase the value of the inventory at various social networks. Today they are typically not perceived as high value inventory. Strong media sites with editorial content only still seems to be what the big brand advertisers are comfortable with. Problem is the CTR expectations there are in most cases set too high.

The only advice I can give is to test, measure, test again, measure, test yet again to find your best mix as a mobile advertiser. Another thing to do is to negotiate CPO deals. If you and your adnetwork partner(s) are serious that is the way to go. Early days but I am convinced it will spill over to the mobile advertsing world as well.

I can’t help drawing parallels to the financial crisis. People saw the dangers in what was going on but as long as there was no crash nobody dared to blow the whistle. Is it the same with mobile phones and radiation? There has been no glaring cases yet so we keep on going. The extreme width of the outcomes from various studies is scary. It should not be that hard to determine.

Does a phone to your ear for 1 hour a day emit enough radiation to trigger tumours in the brain? Pretty straight use case to investigate and phones have been around long enough now to have some kind of track record.

The potential value destruction to come if mobile phones were unanimously deemed dangeruous is of course not good. But ignoring it would be worse. Being part of the industry it is hard to disucss the possible demise of your own livelyhood. But I rather do that than mourn human lives lost to a “Phone Cancer”.

Please help me dig up reports, studies and names of researchers in this field. This will be a long term mission of mine to get a straight answer.

Wireless Intelligence has done a study trying to estimate the real ARPU. It shows the following:

- Revenue per real user is increasing in North America. Up from 60 to 64 USD since 2006. This is based on a real penetration around 71% compared to the reported 92% in Q309

- Revenue per real users is declining in Western Europe. It is down to 33 EUR from 34.2 EUR. This is based on a real penetration of 87% as opposed to reported 128%

Interesting to see an increase in the US during the recession. Seems like we are near saturation in Europe. Carriers will have to fast-track introduction of new services to charge for, maybe look over the mobile broandband offering and up the quality in the networks to stay competitive. What do you think?

So how do you set good pricepoints? Mike Speiser at Sutter Hill Ventures has an interesting post about pricing here. So would the expensive outlier help charging for our content? In most markets mobile content is very narrowly priced. Why have we made it that way? If you believe in studies about human behaviour and decisions it seems a poor pricing strategy to price all services/content in one category at the same price point.

Then again, many go free ad-funded hoping to sell a bit of virtual goods or messages on top. But in the current mobile advertising market that is dangerous. Or at least not the optimal pricing strategy for the industry as a whole.

Then again we have the problem with the multiple layers of costs for consumers to buy mobile content and services. The carrier charge for the delivery – the data traffic. Even if it is in a flat fee package the cost is there.

So will the 10 bucks premium ringtone help sell ringtones at higher prices than the average today? I guess you could work with scarcity as a way to push up price. Only sell limited numbers of pieces of content. Then again the content market has gone 9.99 per month for a bundle of content. We finally have the consumer’s attention, we have to handle that with care in this world of fickle consumers.

Communities and other mobile sites are increasingly going free or freemium. That might be the way forward to get the volumes. Still there should be room for some premium pricing in this setting as well. I am curious to hear of any examples of good pricing in our industry that you might have.

Spotify mobile requires a premium subscription and is not launched in the US yet. But plans are far advanced for that.

Apple used to be the User’s White Knight. Always putting the user first offering unprecedented ease of use and beauty. This seems to have come to a grinding halt in the recent move to reject the launch of Google Voice in the AppStore. It woudl not be too much of a wild guess to assume that At&t has a part in this decision. In an open competitive market this should not really be possible. So how did they think? Why was Skype for iPhone approved?

An other question I find worth mulling over is; what is it At&t and Apple are so afraid of? Do they feel they have a weak position in the mobile ecosystem? Do they not believe in the strengths of what they deliver jointly and independently? If it was At&t pushing this decision, what is it Apple is afraid of? They cannot possibly be depending on At&t to sell and distribute the iPhone. With the current success I am sure any of the other US carriers would sign a deal with Apple and let Google Voice up on the AppStore as well. After all Google Voice is not the only player creating a disruptive change in telecommunications. Players like Rebtel and Skydeck are well at it togethere with scores more.

To me carriers risk ending up in the same reactice panic struck place where the record labels are today. They build walls (and dig their own graves) by protecting their old revenue streams by legal fights instead of deliver stuff in a way that consumers actually want it.

As if the Google Voice decision is not enough. Apple also wants to more or less criminalise “jailbreaking” your iPhone so you can install other apps than the ones on the AppStore. Threat to the national security is the reason in a letter to the Copyright Office. Supposedly base stations can be knocked out by cyber terrorists. Why not do as we have done with the internet so far? Protect what needs protecting instead of shutting down the internet?

It will be interesting to follow the story as it unwinds. Next case will be the very much anticipated Spotify client for the iPhone. It is ready to go, just waiting for that rubber stamp from Apple.

It has to be said that Vodafone Live! has also been great for all content providers in Europe since it has helped awareness and was one fo the drivers of standard content provider agreements outside Norway. The 60/40 split became standard and agreements as well. Five years ago one of the bigger breaking points was the contractual burden and heavy work just to get a deal signed that actually worked and did not cost too much in legal fees. That changed rapidly partly thanks to Vodafone introducing their standard agreements for Live!

Vodafone are taking many steps in the direction to become a really smart pipe. I just doubt if the brand investment in Vodafone Live! should be thrown away. Why not do all the new cool things under this brand still? Awareness and discovery are the two big stumbling blocks next to total cost of useage for a consumer. Vodafone had it going well with the Live! brand. Keeping up the good job with widgets and other things would fit under that brand.

We have to remember that we are not in high-tech, but in a highly commoditised content/entertainment world. Branding and marketing is very important in that setting. Especially since we are still suffering from the negative press and sentiments that some scoundrels have given with their rip-off never ending subscription models. So it is with sadness I see one of the better known and trusted European brands for mobile entertainment bide farwell.