Wednesday, 16 April 2008

One day without computers and digital stuff, is it possible? (Part 3)

Written by Johannes Hauser on Wednesday, 16 April 2008, 22:36 GMT.
Filed under: business, electronic devices, power-off day, techie notes, user experience.

Lunchtime! Vegetables au gratin, not bad after all. In our factory canteen you can only pay cash. We’re nearly the last one. I know of a couple of lunchrooms who do accept only chip cards which you can charge on an automat. This may have some advancements (you don’t have to mess with loose change), but after all, it’s just one step more between me and my food, isn’t it?

Spending the afternoon might become a challenge. My boss cares for the first hour with an unexpected meeting. Meeting is just another word for the collective comparison of PDAs and laptops among my troglodyte colleagues (Me have bigger club. Me leader!). I earn some disbelieving looks and return them with a Yes-I-am-using-paper-and-a-pencil-because-I-have-everything-under-control-anyway expression. — Surprisingly, this works. Even that good that my boss assigns a task to me which was scheduled to someone else in the beginning. I would never have believed that one day ragged paper and an IKEA pencil could become insignia of superiority. Question is: What do they think I want to show that way? That I care for the really important things? That I have everything in mind?

I spend the rest of the day setting up an experiment which is mainly manual work and taking notes. My colleagues are wondering why I’m always coming around instead of using the telephone. This makes me wonder which one is more disturbing: The phone ringing or someone knocking on the door? As for me, the phone causes more stress because it gives you the impression of total urgency: If you don’t pick up the receiver immediately, it will stop ringing and you will miss something important. But once you have picked up, you must start the conversation. If someone comes around, I can tell him to wait for some thirty seconds without him running away again. What do you think?

Wednesday, 9 April 2008

The Tour de France metaphor for entrepreneurship

Written by Martin Kleppmann on Wednesday, 9 April 2008, 16:41 GMT.
Filed under: business.

In case you didn’t know: In Cambridge, bicycles rule the roads. In the the more studenty parts of the city at least. Ok, it’s nothing like what you get in many Asian cities, but by European standards it’s not bad, as demonstrated by this video (embedded below, or follow this link to YouTube):

Of course, I do virtually all my travelling around town by bike — the traffic is congested, the bus service isn’t particularly good, everything is fairly flat and close together, so it’s by far the most sensible option. And during all this cycling to work or visiting customers, it was just a matter of time before I came to think of cycling as a general metaphor for my approach to work. So here goes. Highly tenuous, but maybe mildly amusing.

I must start with a confession: I sense a kind of simple-minded delight when I can overtake cars while on my bike. Which happens fairly regularly in some spots. The cars are all stuck in a queue, but I can put my weight on the pedals, wiggle my way past them, take short cuts via pavements and back alleys. Not only do I get to my destination in a shorter time, and don’t have to pay for parking, I also have more fun in the process.

Then there are the days where it’s cold and rainy. You get out the high-visibility jacket (praying that it’ll save you from getting run over by a lorry), waterproofs, wrap up warm, and get out there on the road nonetheless. Those are the times which put many people off cycling, and they require the greatest level of determination. But, at the risk of sounding clichéd, it’s also invigorating.

The essence of cycling is that you try to get somewhere quickly and efficiently, but completely out of your own strength. This means it’s more satisfying, more flexible and more cool than any other means of transport. Start-up business is just like that. You try to beat the big guys by being quick and agile, by knowing the short-cuts, by avoiding the traffic jams. It’s a sociable experience if you can convince a few friends to get on their bikes and come along too. And who knows, if you take it seriously enough, you might get to cycle in the Tour de France one day.

Working in a corporate, in contrast, is much more like taking the bus. It’s comfortable, but not much quicker than cycling, and it’s always the same route. If you climb the corporate ranks and get into a more senior managerial position, the experience is more like driving a car. Now you have control over some pretty strong forces, but you have to play very carefully by the rules, otherwise you cause accidents.

Driving the car of corporate careers may take you further in terms of distance, but I don’t think it holds the same level of satisfaction as cycling. Think of the Tour de France. You can still be part of it if you’re a car driver — unfortunately you will not be part of the race itself, but your job will be simply to carry the TV cameras. A sideshow, not a main actor.

I think this metaphor is working surprisingly well. Let’s see how far we can push the comparison between different career paths and different means of transport.

  • Academic research is like walking. It’s definitely the best way of getting around a new and unknown place, or one with difficult terrain. You get to enjoy lots of nice flowers and other details along the way, but it’s slow — you can’t expect to travel very far.
  • Corporate careers are like taking the bus when you start out, and like driving a car when you are more senior. For many people that’s the best way, it’s pretty safe, and maybe a bit unexciting.
  • Start-up business is like cycling. It’s hard work, but you get to discover new and exciting places, you get there pretty quickly if it’s not too far, and you get the satisfaction of doing it out of your own strength. Also, when you’re cycling and you have a bit of spare time, it only takes an instant to become a pedestrian, so you have some of the benefits of academic research too.
  • When a VC (venture capitalist) invests in a start-up business, I see it as being a bit like attaching a rocket booster to your bicycle, putting on a helmet, lighting the fuse and holding on tight. The kind of thing you might expect to see on Top Gear. With a bit of luck you will leave all the cars behind, find yourself at a garage which will transform your bike into a heavy-duty motorbike, and you can go driving around the nicest places in the world for years to come. With less luck, you will fall off and get a few bruises, but probably you will laugh at the kick you got out of it, and you’ll immediately start searching for another bike and another rocket booster to give it another try.

To conclude, I’d say that these are all good ways of getting from one place to another, and clearly some people will prefer one type over another. But you should know what the options are, and make a conscious decision. The same thing applies with work.

Sunday, 30 March 2008

On the importance of ambition

Written by Martin Kleppmann on Sunday, 30 March 2008, 13:58 GMT.
Filed under: business.

The Sagrada Familia cathedral in Barcelona is an astonishing experience. And that has not so much to do with its size, its architecture, its intricate artwork or any such outward aspects, although they aren’t bad either. The astonishing thing is that the construction of the building started about 130 years ago, and they’ve still not even started building the main central towers. It isn’t scheduled to be completed for at least another 20 years, and to me as outsider it looks more like it’s going to be another 100 years. That is not because the builders are lazy — people were right there, working on the masonry as I was visiting — but because it is such a massively ambitious project.

Now in history it has not been unusual for the construction of cathedrals to take 600 years or longer, but most of those buildings are now completed (except for eternally ongoing maintenance work). When we are told that it took so many years to build a cathedral, that information usually just washes past us without us ever really contemplating what that means. It means that for about 30 generations, all people saw was a huge unfinished work in their town, a monument from their distant ancestors lost in history, and a heirloom to their distant descendants in a future time which would be very different from their own.

In each of those generations, many stonemasons, woodworkers, architects and others would spend their whole life assembling tiny pieces of a huge work. They would grow up, live, eat, drink, love, grow old and die, and during that time they would still only see a small incremental bit of progress towards achieving the vision of their ancestors. It is impossible to even imagine the amount of human soul which so many people have poured into the endeavour over such a long period of time.

It seems to me that we don’t think about many things on that sort of scale today. In fact, I think that if somebody was to propose to start such a massive undertaking today, like Antoni Gaudí and his colleagues did towards the end of the 19th century, they would only get laughed at. Hell, we can’t even sort out things like climate change and fossil fuels running out, and these are things which happen on a much shorter timescale than the construction of a cathedral like this. Is it possible that the 20th and 21st century, with their ever increasing pace of life, have caused us to lose sight of this big picture — this understanding of the world which includes not just ourselves, but our distant ancestors and our distant descendants also?

Gaudí is given a lot of credit for the Sagrada Familia. That is not because he did a record amount of stone-lifting, but because he had a vision, a vision of a massively ambitious project which would span far beyond his own lifetime, a vision which would inspire the ambition of many other people wanting to be part of the project. I wouldn’t say that Gaudí created the Sagrada Familia — of course it is being created by the large number of workers in the past, present and future. But these workers all have a common ambition, a desire to be part of something much greater than their own lives, and this ambition draws from Gaudí’s initial vision.

The important thing to realise here is that although Gaudí is famously associated with the project, it is not “his” project in any useful sense. The ambition of the many generations working towards its completion are not doing it because of Gaudí, so therefore he arguably has fairly little importance today. The workers are not doing it for their own sake either — if they wanted to show off, they would be better off choosing to work on something which they might see completed within their lifetime. They are not doing it because of competition, or because of any sort of necessity, and they are certainly not doing it because somebody is forcing them to. They might be doing it for the glory of God, I don’t know.

My understanding is that they are working on this cathedral because it is something they think is worthwhile, something bigger than any single human being. This ambition is going to be successful because it is the collective goal of so many people. Ambition, viewed in this way, is a very selfless thing.

The word ambition has picked up negative connotations. It has become associated with ruthlessness, with striving for success at the expense of others, with egocentricity and self-importance. I found the Sagrada Familia a refreshing reminder that such a self-centered understanding of ambition is short-sighted, because it limits whatever you want to do to a single person’s lifetime, which isn’t very much in the grand scheme of things.

Instead, I see the Sagrada Familia as an example for a general pattern for doing amazing things. If you want to do something amazing, you first need somebody with a vision to inspire other people. Once that is done, the best thing that person can do is to step back, to surrender a lot of the ownership and control over the project to the people who will actually get it done, and of course let them take their reward.

The way Gaudí did this is by setting the scope of the project so large that it was way beyond his lifetime, and hence also way beyond his control. He is said to have commented on the expected duration of the construction: “My client is not in a hurry.”

Thursday, 21 February 2008

How to learn to stop hating the cellular telephone industry

Written by Martin Kleppmann on Thursday, 21 February 2008, 15:29 GMT.
Filed under: business, mobile, mobile web.

John Crowcroft (a leading authority on communication systems, and a former lecturer of mine in Cambridge) has written a short informal paper on new directions in mobile communications. It is sub-titled “How to Learn to Stop Hating the Cellular Telephone Industry”, and more informally sub-titled “Rant about the cellphone industry’s failure of imagination”.

The paper draws analogies between the history of the internet (which has been absolutely astonishing over the last 30 years) and what the mobile phone industry could have done in the same time, had it taken the same sort of approach to innovation. Instead, the mobile telephone operators chose to lock down their systems, tightly control everything which goes in and out of them, and as a result have hardly experienced any innovation at all.

The key problem appears to be the fact that the telecoms companies have made a LOT of money from massively restricted services in the past, and they are continuing to do so today. If they open their systems and make it easy for third parties to provide services on top of them, they are probably going to lose some of that revenue in the short term. What they don’t realise (or do realise, but don’t want to face, for business or organisational reasons) is that they could make MUCH MORE money in the longer term by having an open system and providing great innovative services on top which people will happily pay for! The internet has proved that there are thousands of business models which are not only viable but actually extremely lucrative. You just need to be bold enough to take the risk of opening your systems to the competition.

Fortunately, there is a bit of movement — European mobile networks have at least made a few attempts at being reasonably open, and the US is gradually catching up too. But still it’s two steps forward and one back. Plenty of new devices (notably the iPhone) are still locked to one operator and don’t allow third-party software to be installed (unless you jailbreak it, of course). Eventually, we will probably get the same sort of innovation on mobile as we are getting on the internet, but it’s not going to be that quick.

Check Jon’s paper for a few business ideas, and then form a start-up. The more people try to make it happen, the more pressure there will be on the operators to open up, on the handset manufacturers to become compatible, etc.

Thursday, 10 January 2008

The economic case for open source (for Google, Nokia etc.)

Written by Martin Kleppmann on Thursday, 10 January 2008, 22:19 GMT.
Filed under: book review, business, mobile web, software.

“Joel on Software” book cover (Image source: amazon.com)Over the Christmas holidays I was reading Joel on Software, the book summarising some of the most interesting material from Joel Spolsky’s blog. (The book is worth reading, although I did find it quite a shame that it was pretty much verbatim the blog contents pressed on paper for easier reading. It would have been nicer if the writing style had been changed from the slightly rambling, disconnected style of blogs to a more coherent style expected from a book. But the stuff Joel talks about is definitely worth reading for software engineers, in whatever form.)

The article which I found most interesting is his “Strategy Letter V” (page 281), which is also available on the web. It explains why, in his opinion, so many large companies are investing in open source software.

On the surface, open source seems a strange model for a business — why should a company spend a lot of time and money developing software, and then simply give it away? The claim that they have suddenly given up on capitalism isn’t exactly convincing. The claim that it’s cheaper from them to get free code contributions from teenagers than to write it themselves… not so sure about that one either.

Joel gives the first answer which I actually find convincing. He explains open source investment in economic terms, through so-called complements. For example, flights to Venice and accomodation in Venice are complements of each other: customers need both in order to get a holiday in Venice, but they are sold by completely different companies. And if flights to Venice get cheaper, more people want to go there, so there is higher demand on accomodation, so prices of hotel rooms in Venice go up. And vice versa. This economic effect of complements has been observed in many different markets.

So, if A and B are complements of each other, and the price of A goes down, then the price of B will go up. So, if you are a company selling B, and you are clever, you will try to push the price of A down as far as possible, even commodify it. That way, you can sell B for a higher price and you’ll be better off.

And now if you look around who is investing in open source software, you’ll notice that often the software released in this free manner is actually a complement of what that company is trying to sell. For instance:

  • Google want to sell advertising on mobile web sites. Mobile web browsers and mobile operating systems are complements of mobile web sites, so Google make Android and release it freely in order to drive down the price of these complements.
  • Our friends at Collabora are paid by Nokia to work on an open source platform for Nokia’s internet tablets. Nokia sell phone hardware, and the operating system is a complement of the hardware, so it makes sense for Nokia to commoditise it. Moreover, third-party applications are a complement of the hardware, so by opening the platform to the wide variety of freely available Linux software, Nokia increases the value of its hardware even more.

Once you think about it this way, it’s amazing how the economics begin to make sense!

Saturday, 5 January 2008

iPhone specific web sites — do they make sense?

Written by Martin Kleppmann on Saturday, 5 January 2008, 10:45 GMT.
Filed under: business, mobile, mobile web, software, user experience.

Looking back at 2007, I can’t help but think that the iPhone was probably the most important and influential technology phenomenon of the year. It’s been talked about so much that I’m actually starting to get sick of it. But that doesn’t change the fact that it has had a significant impact, particularly on the way the mobile web works.

One of the most striking developments that ensued are the moves by several popular web sites to provide versions of their offering which are specifically tailored to people visiting their site from an iPhone. Amongst others, I found:

(Most of these sites show their iPhone look only to web browsers which identify themselves as Safari Mobile. To test them in a desktop web browser, see this article.)

iPhone specific development is fashionable, it seems. Some of those sites actually borrow and incorporate iPhone design elements (such as the style of lists and tabs, animation and icons), further blurring the distinction between web sites and applications. A List Apart, a widely respected resource for web developers, has even published a long article on how to develop iPhone-specific web sites (Part I, Part II). Apple themselves also offer in-depth information. iPhoneApplicationList.com maintains an extensive list of iPhone-optimised web applications.

Christopher Schmitt argues that making websites accessible for people with disabilities would expand a website’s reach far more than making an iPhone-specific site does. And Scott Gilbertson of WIRED thinks that the current situation is very similar to the old days when people were designing web sites specifically for Internet Explorer 4 (which was ahead of Netscape at the time). Jeff Croft suggests the opposite, saying that device-specific application development is going to happen anyway, and it doesn’t really matter whether it uses web technologies or not.

iPhone market share

What is the market share of iPhone internet browsing actually like? Hard to say, because it depends so much on what you measure. In terms of sold devices, the iPhone is performing strongly, but it is still a small proportion of the overall handset market. There are at least 100 million mobile devices with modern browsers (Opera Mobile, Nokia’s S60 browser, both of which are capable of displaying standard desktop web pages) compared to an estimated 2 million iPhones. Phones with WAP/XHTML browsers or adaptation browsers (such as Opera Mini) are a lot more numerous still. So in terms of the number of devices, writing iPhone-specific sites (as opposed to Opera-specific sites, for instance) really doesn’t make much sense.

Hitslink/Net Applications’ operating system statistics show that in December 2007, iPhone and iPod Touch users accounted for 0.14% of web page views, more than all other mobile platforms put together (Windows Mobile: 0.06%, S60: 0.02%). The Register reported this too. However, Ray Anderson, CEO of Bango, points out that these figures are misleading:

Hitslink produced this report by using data from their analytics customers. These people operate HTML/PC websites. They say: “You simply paste a small piece of HTML code on each page you wish to track statistics on”.

The 300 million or so mobile phone browser users (say 50 million S60) can’t or don’t browse HTML sites. They browse mobile friendly sites (WAP or XHTML or iMode) which will not have this HTML code in.

Considering that organizations like Bango, Admob, Peperonity, Vodafone report mobile browser traffic in the billions of pages per day, most of thse being S40 or S60 its clear that by ignoring non-HTML sites these stats are misleading and mistaken.

– Ray Anderson, in an email to Mobile Monday London mailing list, 5 Dec 2007

In other words, all that Hitslink’s statistics say is that iPhone users are more likely to visit more desktop web sites, but it doesn’t say anything at all about usage of sites which are specifically designed for mobile use. The conclusion I draw from this is that an iPhone user is much more likely to visit desktop sites than Windows Mobile or S60 users, and therefore non-iPhone users either mostly use sites designed for mobile, or don’t use the web much at all. This may have a variety of reasons — due to its large screen, desktop web sites are more usable on the iPhone than they are on devices with smaller screens; Safari Mobile has pretty neat zooming capabilities; and maybe iPhone users simply approach the device with a more web-oriented attitude, because after all it is more of an internet tablet than a phone.

If iPhone users actually prefer desktop-style websites, because they work quite nicely on the large screen, it really doesn’t make much sense to design a specific iPhone version of a site. On the other hand, if it’s that increased usability of the iPhone web experience which drives web usage per person to be many times higher than on S60 and Windows Mobile devices… then there’s a very strong case in favour of designing device-specific sites.

Is iPhone-specific design just a case of companies wanting to look cool by having an iPhone-optimised site and jumping on the bandwagon? Is this just a fashion which will go away again as quickly as it came? Or do such companies actually derive significant benefits from iPhone users? I’d be interested to hear your comments.

Sunday, 16 December 2007

The Camden Food Co.: Inspired customer service

Written by Martin Kleppmann on Sunday, 16 December 2007, 19:10 GMT.
Filed under: business.

Yesterday I was travelling through St. Pancras station, and walked into a branch of the Camden Food Company in need of some supper. When I went to pay I offered my card, because I was low on cash — only to be told that they didn’t accept cards. I was just working out which of the items I would have to return in order to have sufficient cash to pay, when the cashier offered to write off the £2.60 of the bill which I was lacking.

I could hardly believe my ears. In this age of Ryanair and similar mega-low-cost consumer brands (where you get what you pay for, and companies nevertheless hide additional charges behind every corner just to catch you out), being offered such an immediate and unquestioning discount was almost beyond my imagination. I was, of course, very happy (being spared dragging my luggage to another shop where I could get the rest of my meal, via a cash machine) and thought I should voice this appreciation publicly.

Actually I’m not sure I’m doing the Camden Food Company a service by apparently saying that you can get free food there by trying to pay with card and not having enough cash. That’s not what I’m trying to say, and please don’t go there trying to exploit them deliberately. What I’m saying is that I am impressed with the ability of a consumer brand to be so flexible and accommodating.

In a highly competitive industry like fast food, where customers are brand-promiscuous, any measure which will make customers more loyal to a particular brand is likely to be very valuable. Now that I am literally indebted to the Camden Food Company, I am a lot more likely to go there again. It makes perfect economic sense too.

Needless to say, the meal tasted very good. Part of that was probably the subjective effect of just having experienced some unexpected, inspired customer service. But I’m sure that by any objective standard it would have been very good too.

Tuesday, 11 December 2007

Increasing user satisfaction on the mobile web: Technical considerations

Written by Martin Kleppmann on Tuesday, 11 December 2007, 19:09 GMT.
Filed under: business, mobile web, usability, user experience.

As part of the re-launch of Ept Computing’s website I’ve also published a white paper on user satisfaction on the mobile web. Some of it consists of observations which I’ve previously blogged about, now pulled together and presented in a more coherent and structured manner. I’ve structured it according to some interesting findings from the Online Publishers’ Association. They surveyed mobile web users and found that their main sources of dissatisfaction with the mobile web were:

  1. site load time
  2. site navigation
  3. user friendliness

While I’m not quite sure what they mean with “user friendliness” — it’s a kind of compound term for all sorts of factors which contribute towards the user experience — the other two, load time and navigation, are very clear areas which need to be addressed if the mobile web wants to move forward.

Site load time is a tricky problem to address, because slowness is mainly due to packet round-trip times on mobile data services. I see Ajax and Flash to be the most promising approaches to beat the network latency — i.e. transferring more data up front in order to make the site more responsive once it’s loaded. Site navigation is mainly a question of information architects figuring out how to present information most effectively on a mobile, and there are already some very good examples of good mobile navigation design on the net.

If you’re interested, you can download the white paper (PDF, 124 kB). Here’s the abstract:

The use of internet and web services on mobile devices is expected to revolutionise our attitude to information and communication in the near future. However, in order to attract mainstream adoption, the mobile web must overcome some fundamental user experience problems. In this white paper we approach the user experience from a technical point of view, explaining reasons for deficiencies of the current approaches, and introduce some technical means for improving the user experience.

Ept Computing’s website re-launched

Written by Martin Kleppmann on Tuesday, 11 December 2007, 09:12 GMT.
Filed under: business.

Hurrah, the new website of Ept Computing is now online! It’s taken us two months to get there but I’m very pleased with the result. Thanks to Adam for doing the design.

We’ve not only thoroughly re-designed the look and feel of the site to make it a lot more alive and stylish. We have also completely re-written the entire content to bring it more in line with our goals as a company. Previously we just had a rather handwavy blurb about what we do, but this is now a lot more concrete. We do:

  • mobile web development/design (in particular, bringing e-commerce to the mobile web)
  • usability and user experience consulting
  • web application development.

I’m hoping this clear differentiation will help us to give people a better idea of what we do, what we’re passionate about and what we believe in. We previously made the mistake of effectively saying something like “we can do anything, just let us do it” — a proposition which is impossible to sell. Now with this clearer view we should be better off.

Want to be part of the excitement? We have a jobs page.

Friday, 7 December 2007

Trends 2008: Web access everywhere; e-commerce

Written by Martin Kleppmann on Friday, 7 December 2007, 20:22 GMT.
Filed under: business, mobile web, software, user experience.

The mobile web is talked about a lot by people who have a vested interest in the mobile web becoming popular. The frequently-cited arguments in favour of web usage on mobile phones sound pretty convincing until you realise that most of those people talking so passionately about it have invested in the mobile web, and therefore may be stating their wishful thinking rather than an observed reality. (I am, unfortunately, no exception, being a mobile web developer myself.)

Mobile internet use has been hyped a lot — WAP has been around since the late nineties, and many people originally speculated on it being a huge success. Well, it never was in most parts of the world. It’s quite understandable that observers are now rather more cautious when it is announced that the mobile web is finally here, and that it is about to engulf the mainstream consumer.

In such an environment it is refreshing to hear the opinion of a neutral organisation who simply observes what is going on in the minds of consumers worldwide. Trendwatching.com produces well researched monthly briefings on the latest consumer trends worldwide. I have been following them for a while, wondering when the time would come that they would announce the mobile web as a major consumer trend. And now, in December 2007, the time has arrived. They announce in their predictions for 8 important consumer trends in 2008 (PDF):

“Five years ago, we introduced ONLINE OXYGEN as the engine behind all this excitement: control-craving consumers needing online access as much as they need oxygen. [...] If there’s one device that’s going to introduce another few hundred million people to the online world, it’s the phone. And yes, initiatives like Google’s Android and ‘their bidding on the 700MHz band’ and WiMax and so on are definitely going to speed things up. [...] don’t count on consumers’ insatiable demand to be online 24/7 to remain unmet forever.”

– Trendwatching.com, “Online Oxygen”

Although still a bit cautious in their wording, and emphasising that it won’t happen overnight, the trendwatchers have confirmed that the mobile web is not just a bubble. The signs are set for internet access anywhere, at any time, on almost any device, and it’s looking as though we won’t be able to imagine a world without it in a reasonably small number of years’ time.

But what is all that online access to be used for? E-commerce and social networking, say the trendwatchers. Social networking is a bit difficult to grasp, I think; it’s another one of those areas with a lot of hype and not necessarily much substance. E-commerce is a very important reality though, as yesterday’s article from Computing points out (UK online sales have risen by 29% since last year, reaching £130bn). And Trendwatching.com are convinced that this trend is going to continue:

“Sometimes, the Next Big Thing can be right under your nose. Consider the online riches to be reaped in 2008 from… ecommerce! Sure, it’s been around for years and years, but prepare for a forceful ’sequel’. After all, never before have so many consumers been willing to overcome security threats, still shockingly bad (or boring) design, and delivery screwups. In other words, 2008 could be a goldmine for smart e-tailers, who, if they get their act together, could make billions and billions of dollars, euros, pounds, yen, kroner, lira and rand that are impatiently waiting to be spent by web-savvy consumers around the world.

So in 2008, spend blood, sweat and tears on improving your ecommerce presence; the pay-off will be immediate, and far more substantial than investing in Web 2.0 me-toos!”

– Trendwatching.com, “Online Oxygen”

Consider that this market research organisation spends most of their time talking about brand psychology, status symbols, and the purchasing habits of particular sections of society. They are not technology-oriented in the least. And nevertheless they are announcing the coming of the ubiquitous internet, and its huge value for commerce. For me, this announcement marks the transition of the mobile web from hype to reality.

Of course, there are still a lot of problems to overcome — the top three are probably user experience, data traffic pricing, and handset market fragmentation. But if the consumer demand is there, these problems can all be sorted out. People are figuring out how to design engaging and usable mobile web sites and applications; flat rate data plans are becoming more common (in the UK at least); and fragmentation will mean that developing for the mobile web is a bit more expensive than it could be if everybody stuck to a standard, but it’s still an entirely surmountable issue.

With the economic force of e-commerce retailers pushing technology ahead, I am rather optimistic towards the mobile web.

Next Page »