Has Nokia lost its way?

It never used to be this way. They were unassailable. The undisputed grand fromage of mobile handsets.

So news today that Nokia has had to pull its new flagship device, the Nokia 5800 with touchscreen that was touted as the response to the iPhone, really is a sign that the times are a changing. The problem, it seems, is with connection to US 3G networks. While Nokia has never really had quite the same penetration in the US as in Europe, this is clearly a blow to a company suddenly playing catch-up in a market it had always led.

As if that isn't enough, operators are also losing faith in Nokia. Orange and O2 are, apparently, both "furious" at Nokia's plans to preload Skype on the upcoming N97. While some commentators venture that this may just be posturing by O2 which is obviously an iPhone house, just the fact that the operators are publicly lambasting Nokia is a sign of the times. Personally, I still struggle to see Skype on the handset as being a major threat to operator revenues, but it is definitely a sign of the wolves at the door for the operators.

So where now for Nokia? Well, the move into the music services play (again looking to play Apple at its own game) seems to be where they're heading. It has always been a battle of the brands between Nokia and the operators, but the battle for the subscribers' cash is also hotting up.

It's more than just a matter of grammar

As we enter the death-throws of the final run-in into this year's Mobile World Congress, it's almost innevitable that we see the obligatory speculation about Microsoft and their great play to seize the mobile market. Afterall, they monopolised the desktop, so why not extend that dominance to the mobile device?

Rumours now seem to be focused on what is more than just a grammatical battle between the iPhone (Apple) and MyPhone (Microsoft). If VNUnet is right, we'll see the launch of an online app store. Well hoo-bloody-rah. Just what the world needs, another app store. Or not.

M$ has had what can best be described as a mixed track record in the mobile world. They've lost the mobile email battle to Blackberry; the mobile OS war is no nearer conclusion with Android and Linux all now weighing in; and some of the smartphones have been, well, of mixed quality, shall we say.

Where Microsoft seems to struggle is in the belief that they can simply replicate what they did on the desktop in other markets. But with mobile operators already forcing handset vendors to play by their rules and use their User Interface etc., it's not really a Microsoft-style market. It's not a market they can define and monopolise. OK, so they're picking up some mobile search deals, but you've got to imagine there are some hefty backroom deals being done on the commercial side.

And I guess that's the difference ... Apple comes in with the iPhone and it's the operators bending over backwards, surrendering the margins, to win the exclusive rights for their market. Microsoft, meanwhile, is still stuck playing catch-up.

So, MyPhone or iPhone? Well, one may be better grammar, but sadly for Microsoft they don't teach grammar at schools anymore.

The Wireless Internet - a way of life, not a technology!

I moderated a great roundtable yesterday put on by our Consumer Tech practice on ""WiFi rejuvination in 2009", run on behalf of Devicescape and in partnership with The Cloud and Trustive.

One of the main conclusions to come out the debate between the panelists and the journalists, bloggers and analysts that attended was that when it comes to 'Wireless Internet', definitions come down not to technology, but to user expectation, demographic, usage scenarios and applications. It's not, as the adage (kind of) goes, how fast it is, but what you do with it that matters.

Devicescape had commissioned some research of its global user base to try and find out some end user perceptions of WiFi and 3G. What was apparent from it is that the Smartphone - and in particular the iPhone - has been a complete game changer in how WiFi is seen and used. As The Cloud observed, free WiFi in retail locations such as McDonalds is not only driving footfall for the retailer, but also indicative of the way consumers are using Wireless Internet. Social networking, Internet browsing and instant messaging are the applications that the 18-24 demographic is using ... and they're not opening up their laptops in McDonalds so they can type away with their ketchup-covered fingers, but rather using their Nokia or iPhone/iPod Touch to update their Facebook status.

When it came to the age-old WiFi v 3G debate, Trustive made an interesting argument that 3G is a back-up for WiFi coverage, not vice versa. Indeed, when you consider the still extortionate 3G data roaming costs, you can see the user case. It's also clear that transparency in charging is critical to the user. Where paid-for WiFi hotspots have gone wrong is that it's a fixed charge for a use-it-or-lose-it period of time ... £5 for an hour's usage, for example. However, in no way will a user pay that if all they want to do is a quick bit of browsing or just download their emails (unless they can expense it back, of course!). Trustive's take on it is charge by the second, and apply your pool of credit to their international coverage. So that's 30 seconds in McD's to update my Facebook; 8 minutes at the train station checking directions to my next destination; and 32 minutes at the hotel looking up detox diets online to recover from the burger! And the user still has credit left. By charging by the second, it is all that much more transparent ... I'm sorry, call me stupid but I don't really know how big a MB of data is, so don't charge me by the MB. I can tell the time, but I can't look at an online app and know that the poorly designed UI will eat up 1MB of data.

So, what did we learn? Well, the debate finished where it started ... the Wireless Internet is about the user experience. And while WiFi goes along way towards addressing it and providing a real alternative to 3G (both in terms of speed and cost), the user really doesn't care - and nor should they - what technology they are using. They just want it to work. To this end, Devicescape seems to be on to a winner by providing the automatic WiFi connection that means that the Wireless Internet just happens.

The roundtable was held at The Hospital near Covent Garden, and one couldn't help but think that with a title ' WiFi rejuvination' the choice of location wasn't all that auspicious. But in fact, coming out of the event, there was a sense of optimism coupled with an acute awareness that there is still alot of work to be done. With the GSMA confusing matters with their 'mobile broadband' branding campaign, explaining to the consumer what the wireless Internet experience should be will remain a constant challenge.

Better late than never?

Finally. Nokia has come out with what is purported to be its response to the iPhone. Oh, and its response to the Android-based G1 from T-Mobile/Google. Oh, and to the Samsung touch screen phones. Oh, and to the ...

Can you see what it is yet, as Rolf Harris would say?

For a company that is the market leader, Nokia's complacency has been stunning in many respects. It seems to have been either blindsided by Apple and Google, or just been unable to demonstrate the rapid innovation that propelled it to its current position. While Nokia has nailed the business market with the E and N series, in the consumer market the threat from the new guys has been a sharp one.

There are clearly some constants emerging across all these devices that point towards where the mobile industry sees (hopes) mobile data will come from. No longer is video the great hope. Social networking and widget-based applications are now the big thing.

If you look at the sort of data usage being reported back from operators who are supporting (and that also means bankrolling giving the slice of cash they have to hand over to Apple), it's clear that these devices are the catalyst for a dramatically increased data usage by subscribers.

Of course, Nokia is making a much bigger play that just shipping shiny phones. Just looking at the other announcements it made at its Barcelona event where it unveiled the N97, and there is news around Nokia Maps, Nokia Messaging and its acquisition of Symbian.

Google v Nokia. It's an OS war. It's a handset war. It's a content war. And looking at the pace of innovation in both companies and their ability to really understand the consumer and where they are heading ... you'd be crazy not to have at least an each way bet on Google to win.

It was only a matter of time ... the great branding machine that is Apple has been pulled up by the regulator. Only its the advertisting regulator (the ASA) not the telecoms one (OFCOM) that's done the deed.

Apple may be redefining the mobile user experience with the iPhone but it's also had to finally accept that it can't control the whole experience. It's dependent on the mobile operator and their network.

So what does this all mean? Well, Apple is taking a risk with its brand. Suddenly, the Apple experience (or is that the "i-xperience"?) isn't controlled end-to-end by Stevie J. There's a crucial link - the mobile network - which has a massive impact on the user experience and is beyond their control.

Not only that, but if you look at the stats being reported back by the likes of ATandT about the impact the iPhone is having on their network, and you realise that the mobile network is creaking under the strain. The mobile operator's getting hammered. The iPhone experience is getting hammered. And now, finally, the regulator has stepped in and pointed out to Apple that there is a real world out there, inhabited by real people who are using the iPhone to do real things.

So let's applaud Apple for doing what they do best ... creating and sharing a dream. But let's also remember that dreams can be interpreted in multiple ways. And how the subscriber interprets it will depend on the quality of service on the mobile network to which they are subscribed.