That’s some food for thought – what will the mobile handset market look like in the future? What do you think?

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.

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.

Anyway, now you know why I have been silent for a few days. The thing on my mind fora  good while now has been the AppStore craze. I think it is fabulous that Apple has sold 1 billion apps. But I think it’s madness for each and every one to give up their day-job in order to become an iPhone App developer (or any other platform with a newly opened appstore for that matter). Apple has been quick to use a few lucky ones as showcases of one-man shows that have had success. It is great and they really deserve it. What I am saying is that they are not the majority.

The underlying problem is still there and the appstores are just a new pain killer, possibly doing the job better than other things before them. The problem is the fragmentation in platforms. The lowest common denominator in mobile today is SMS. But it has its limitations in creating exciting experiences other than flirt SMS from that gorgeous girl on campus or delivering sports scores live.

After that we have browser based services, or mobile internet services formerly known as WAP services. It’s getting messy, but it is still manageable.

When we come to apps the fragmentations really sets in. And the entry cost to the game starts to be prohibitive. Some developers I talk to claim that they see costs as high as 50 000 USD to launch one new game app on a major US carrier. This is of course driven by demands to cover every handset ever sold by the carrier (well, almost).

The costs are dropping with the AppStores. Seems like Ovi store is the cheapest entry ticket at the moment, but it is also the most recent player with an unproven distribution power, and they are currently cutting down on resources in this area, even though they claim Ovi is becoming the platform for all their new service business to consumers. Read more about that in this Washington Post article.

So if you’re going the appstore route, think twice an make sure you do your homework. We are after all in a business with low value purchases and thin margins, so volume will always be key. And the appstores are getting crowded fast. You need to have a pretty strong marketing budget bhind you to get your app in front of real prospective buyers.

Good luck and see you next week!

Then you pick up the Economist and find the opposite view. In the article Boom in the Bust a rosier picture is painted. Slightly simplified; the wireless industry is thriving thanks to it changing structure. 

This is a painfully strong reminder that we should not listen blindly to projections from gurs and analysts. Do your own homework, ask your colleagues, partners and competitors and weigh it all up. Then make sure you run a tight ship so you can pay salaries and bills. Can you chip away a bit on the debt side as well maybe? Well this is not a post on how to manage a business in a recession. It is, as always, my five cents on the mobile web and content industry.

To me much of the data and facts at hand support the view that mobile communications has become a must-have commodity in most markets. In many cases mobile content is a low value purchase. Pricing and total cost of use is becoming more and more transparent. This all works to our favour. Consumers are not that inclined to stop using the mobile services they are used to and like.

On the handset side it is different of course. This is the higher cost item. Prior years race to upgrade phones technically and market it hard to get consumers to upgrade, has made the installed base of handsets pretty high end overall. You do not really need the newest phone to be able to get the most of your mobile life. What you have in your pocket today will do just fine in most cases. Here the handset manufacturer’s success has become their own enemy.

Upgrading your phone today is seen as a pure luxury purchase. Staying in touch, participating in communities, tweeting away as usual, is part of what many consumers are today – a “homo mobilis”. That behaviour will take longer to change. 

Ending note to self: Keep offering great services and invent the next services to delight existing and new users.

Anyway, if a consumer has to make the choice between keeping up their mobile phone service usage and a new handset I would say in 10 cases out of 10 that they would go for the service and wait till they have come out of the recession to get a new handset. If that assumption is true, wouldn’t you have to stretch the definition of a (usually high end price) smartphone seriously all the way to include pure budget price phones?

And where is the profit for the handset manufacturers? Are they able to subsidize their own market shares through this crisis?

What’s your take? Will consumers postpone handset upgrade in order to be able to afford paying for their mobile services habits to keep them unchanged?

Why? How?

My thinking is that mobile calls, sms and mobile internet is a “must have”. A new cool handset is still “nice to have” items. If you accept that analysis it is hard to see how handsets in the expensive end will sell well in a receission when people tend to look at what they spend. Even the sales numbers from some of the big operators give some indication on the willingness to spend on these items in the current climate.

Good news for mobile services is that there is still a market. There will be a consolidation which will give the survivors a stronger position in many dimensions. Better negotiating power, more users and finding good acquisition candidates. So again, I repeat my bullish outlook for inventive mobile companies with a sound balance sheet. Preferrably with additional distribution channels to mobile operators’ portals.

I do not place a penny on high end smartphones as the way out of this recession for the mobile operators. Better to build on existing defendable positions and features. One thing to not forget in that is pure hardcore customer service. T-Mobile UK and Netherlands loosing customers now, as reported here. Anyone seen their customer service winning any awards lately?