The operating system forest may turn into a jungle

First when the mobile phone became a device for more that voice and sms we started to worry about the different operation systems. Ringing tones and games were down loaded and we started to surf the operator WAP portals. The non voice services were taking off and the enthusiasm was high. This was though shown to be rather difficult to manage for the content providers and operators due to different operating systems and even variations depending on phone model and brand. Many versions of each individual game had to be developed and we had to keep track of exactly what phone model the end user had and sometimes even the software version of the particular phone model.

The kind of obvious solution to the issue was to try to agree on open standards and platforms and harmonise the different operating systems. One solution after the other was announced to facilitate the further development, new operating systems such as Symbian, operator initiatives on common device specifications, and languages such as Java. But Symbian ended up being owned by Nokia, operator initiatives never materialised fully and a language such as Java ended up in many different versions. Why? The strategic agendas of the device manufacturers and the operators as well as others in the ecosystem were not aligned and most players thought they had more to lose than to gain through cooperation. All claimed to supports open standards but the drive to differentiate and keep competition out was evidently stronger. This has resulted in a forest of operating systems significantly increasing the barriers to innovation and decreasing the efficiency of the industry.

Then Apple iPhone added further to the complexity, having a very positive impact on the take up of new services but being a vertical it added yet another operating system. Next solution that we then hoped for was Android, being a free software and open source and we finally seemed to get closer to making it all more simple for the developer community. But is this really the case?

Now device manufactures, such as Motorola, start doing their own versions of Android. Where will an Android quickly mutating itself get us? If we to the present complexity and all verticals add a number of versions of Android, similar but not similar enough, this will not make it easier but rather turn the present operator system forest into a jungle. A decrease in number of operating systems that all know would make life easier and spur innovation is obviously a too scary thought for most and will most probably not happen within the coming five to ten years. The only short to mid term solution that seems available is to add a layer on top of all existing operating systems creating a virtual common operating system interface. This will make it much easier to reach the mobile users and minimise the hassle created by the jungle of operating systems. This needs to be made in a way so that the overall performance is not set by the weakest system and so that we achieve a good enough overall user experience.

Viral distribution of mobile services

Within the Internet world we see one example after the other of successful services that manage to utilise viral marketing and distribution, and many times in combination with a sophisticated PR strategy. We also see examples of services that seem to take off by themselves mainly due to accidentally good timing and due to that the service gives an exceptionally good user experience or something unique. Working in the mobile space I have long been quite envious of the speed by which new services can reach new users within the PC-environment. We have struggled so hard trying to get a decent take up of new mobile services, but to be honest with limited success.

Viral marketing is in essence quite simple in theory, but in reality not that easy to achieve. The key is that there has to be a value for the individual to give and for the receiving party to receive. It also has to be easy and possible to give and receive. Regarding distribution of services that are expected to be used frequently, then the efficiency in distribution becomes even stronger when there is a mutual value for both parties that the services are used. This leads to limited churn as individuals then encourage each other to continue using the services. One example of this is the area of communication services, such as the IP-telephony service Skype.

Looking at barriers to viral marketing and distribution, comparing the mobile environment with ordinary Internet services, huge differences can be seen. The value for giving and receiving services may not be so different, but when it comes if it’s easy or even possible to share digital content mobile to mobile is quite a different story. On the PC sharing a link, a program, a movie etc is more or less just a few clicks away. On the mobile you need to take many other considerations into account. Does the receiver have a device that can use the service, do I even know what device she has, does she have the same operator, does she have the correct settings etc. Even if the answers to all these questions are positive, which may happen in some rare cases, just needing to even being worried about them have most probably discouraged the giver enough not to even try.

But do not let the present situation stop us from further exploring the opportunities. To distribute content freely mobile to mobile does hold one of the most interesting potentials and new forces of the Internet. Once the barriers to sharing content freely mobile to mobile an even faster viral distribution can expected compared to the present PC experience, as: there are about four times as many mobile phones as PCs; the phones are always on and they are personal and the phone is always accompanying the user. The UMI concept holds the potential to overcome the barriers to mobile viral distribution and doing so before any standardised and universal mobile operating system is agreed upon. Some basic success factors for mobile viral distribution are:

• Creating value for the giver
• Creating value for the receiver
• Additional value for the giver if the services is used by the receiver
• Notification to giver that the service given is used
• Distribution independent of what device the receiver has
• Distribution independent of what operator the receiver has
• Services are easy to down load, install, find and use
• That content and services are free or initially for free