The 7 centres of gravity in mobile

Andreas Constantinou 9,643 views
Vote This Post DownVote This Post Up +6 rating
 
Loading ... Loading ...

[The first half of 2008 took the mobile industry by storm.. Nokia+Trolltech+Symbian, Android, BREW+Flash, Adobe Open Screen, LiMo devices.. As the dust settles, Research Director Andreas Constantinou looks at how the mobile landscape is shaping around 7 centres of gravity].

VortexThe first 6+ months of 2008 were the most turbulent in the entire history of the mobile industry. In November 2007 Google unveiled Android, in January 2008 Nokia announced the acquisition of Trolltech, in February 2008 LiMo announced the first compliant devices, in May 2008 Adobe announced the Open Screen Project, in May 2008 Qualcomm announced that BREW would be embedding Flash, in June 2008 Nokia announced the Symbian acquisition and in July 2008 Apple unveiled iPhone 3G and the AppStore.

As the dust is clearing after the storm, a new landscape is unveiling in the mobile industry; one where the balance of power is concentrating around 7 centres of gravity: Adobe, Apple, Google, LiMo, Microsoft, Nokia and Qualcomm. In other words, the industry is transitioning from a horizontal structure of operating system offerings circa 2002 to a vertical structure of complete offerings circa 2008 (as all industries do, based on the double-helix management theory).

The seven heavyweights share a common vision: to become the dominant way of building phone software and thus control how services are delivered onto mobile devices in the future. Their gravity pull means that they also influence a large part of the value chain making software vendors, handset OEMs and network operators dependent on them. There are two more common elements in these 7 forces: the move to use open source licensing so as to share software development costs and the formation of industry consortia to accelerate commercialisation efforts and reduce time-to-market.

The next diagram analyses the fundamentals, components and commercials of the 7 centres of gravity, and comes from our forthcoming research report on Android vs S60 (click to enlarge).

Seven centres of gravity

Google’s Android is in essence an application environment for opening 3rd party Java developers to access 100% of the operating system capabilities (see earlier analysis on the significance of Android). It is backed by the Open Handset Alliance, a closed consortium of  technology and commercialisation partners. The UI customisation capabilities are also notable, offering system-wide customisation and extensibility of built-in controls. The open source license (as of version 1.0) and the zero royalty fees have been largely responsible for the cascade of announcements in 1H08. However, the real test of Android’s openness will be the security policy implementation that will be chosen by the handset OEMs as they balance developer openness with their liability exposure (imagine the irony.. open Android, closed handsets).

LiMo is a consortium led by mighty operators Vodafone and Orange who are seeking to commoditise the OS and facilitate deployment of their own services via rich clients and container programmes. However, LiMo has yet to prove its credibility; the 18 devices announced to be LiMo compliant should in effect have little in common. LiMo’s practical impact is in having lead integrators WindRiver, Azingo and Purple Labs provide a common-ish Linux-based stack to lead operator requirements and accelerate mobile Linux shipments.

Nokia’s Symbian acquisition (see earlier analysis) marks the resurgence of the S60 licensing strategy, providing a means for Nokia to more easily deploy its Ovi umbrella of services to non-Nokia devices (and non-S60 devices thanks to Trolltech’s Qt). Nokia’s plan to use the open source EPL license for Symbian+S60 cements the impending commoditisation of the operating system.

BREW has been a complete vertical ecosystem since its foundation, thanks to Qualcomm’s foresight. The BREW application environment  ships on about 1 in 10 of today’s mobile devices, making that more ubiquitous than S60 (see our 100m club analysis of shipments). However BREW is facing persistent challenges in expanding beyond its US and Japan strongholds and has been in the last year competing with Windows Mobile on its home turf (given that QCT chipsets also ship with Windows Mobile). Clearly BREW needs to continue out-innovating the other centres of gravity if it wants to stay ahead of the game – and the recent announcement of embedding Flash onto BREW should prove a step in this direction.

Apple is an industry wonder, and the only player to succesfully, single-handedly  create a vertically integrated offering spanning from hardware to industrial design and services. The AppStore is the developer-go-to-market program that is the latest addition to its vertical offering.

Microsoft has been achieving a near-doubling of Windows Mobile shipments between 2007 and 2008. More importantly, it has loosened its restrictions on the UI customisation, enabling OEMs like HTC, Philips, nVidia and Sony Ericsson to replace the quintessential Start button with trully innovative UIs that matter to consumers. Microsoft’s Danger acquisition should also help the Redmond giant to spearhead its consumer push with innovative industrial designs from the designers of the innovative SideKick.

Last but not least, Adobe has been extremely succesful at penetrating the mobile industry, and will soon be claiming the position of the de facto application environment as Java has failed to achieve consistency of implementations. Adobe’s thinness of its offering (compared to the other centres of gravity – see chart) is balanced by the comprehensiveness and penetration of its developer tools.

As to the second half of 2008, I expect Microsoft to follow with a more open policy towards code sharing and contribution (in the footsteps of Symbian Foundation).  And lots more announcements that the crystal ball is too hazy to reveal at this moment..

- Andreas

21Jul2008
Vishy Gopalakrishnan

Andreas – good framework to think of all that has transpired in the past 6+months.

Just curious as to how RIM fits into this framework as they are a contender too given their niche. think that would have made your framework complete. Was there a specific reason for leaving them out ?

Vishy

 
22Jul
Andreas Constantinou

Hi Vishy,

Good point about RIM. I would consider RIM partially a vertical play (devices, enterprise sync) and partially a horizontal (via licensing agreements with OEMs). It is also a credible platform provider with 16+ million subs for its enterprise sync.

However, I would still not compare it side-by-side with the other 7 centres, in terms of magnitude, i.e. gravity pull. The 7 centres are playing in mostly consumer phones and therefore mass-market volumes, not just enterprise.

One noteworty absentee from the list is DoCoMo – and for a good reason. Since dropping market share to below 50%, and realising the high cost and long time-to-market of its customisation efforts, DoCoMo has taken a back-seat approach with OEMs and is now letting them make the decisions – in that context DoCoMo is now less of a gravity centre and market maker.

Andreas

 
22Jul
Martin

Hi Andreas,

Great article!

When I recently returned to the US I was surprised at how many definitely non ‘enterprise’ people used a blackberry. That’s probably because if you walk into an ATT etc. store, you can either find low end phones (by European standards) or Blackberries. To me that looks like they are expanding to the consumer market as well, at least in the U.S.

All the best,
Martin

 
29Jul
Mark Doherty

Andreas,

Great post, with the Open Screen Project partners we will definitely move towards a single platform. At MAX 2008 we demonstrated the work under way showing desktop Flash 10 running on Windows Mobile, Symbian and Android platforms.

What’s interesting in your gravity slide is that Adobe are the only company not offering an Operating System. Not only that but Flash is available on five of the other centres of gravity.

There’s a glaring exception with Apple but Flash does run on the iPhone.. it just has to be approved :-)

Mark Doherty
Adobe – Mobile and Devices
http://www.flashmobileblog.com

 
13Dec
Andreas Constantinou

Martin – (belated response) I would say RIM is on the verge of becoming a centre of gravity, esp. now that it is launching it’s own appstore.

Mark – yes, Adobe have taken the route of an application execution environment rather than an OS – probably a smarter strategy, with its pros and cons; the pros is the impressive installed base, the cons is the inconsistent integration with the underlying OS and device API.

Andreas

 
14Dec
Claudius Coenen

I wonder, where plain old regular Java ME is.

I think it’s still a way to get an application out to the user. Even though it’s less hip than Flash or iPhone-apps.

 
03Jan
Andreas Constantinou

Claudius,

Java ME (much like Flash Lite) is a horizontal approach to deploying applications across different mobile ‘technology islands’ – and Sun’s JCP approach failed to achieve consistency of implementation. So it’s not directly comparable to the likes of Google+Android, Qualcomm+BREW, Apple+OSX, etc – only to Adobe+Flash Lite.

Now you might ask why is Adobe on the list.. well, it’s because it has achieved unprecedented penetration with the same runtime (rather than a runtime spec like Java ME) to the tune of over 500M devices shipped per year. As such it qualifies as one of the major forces influencing how services and applications will be delivered on mobile phones.

Andreas

 
06Jan