A true picture of mobile messaging?

Yesterday Telecom NZ released some very interesting statistics showing which third-party instant messaging services are being used by their mobile subscribers.  For the month of May 2013...

• 150,000 used Apple's iMessage service
• 140,000 used Facebook messenger
• 78,000 used Viber
• 35,000 used Microsoft live messenger
• 32,000 used Skype
• 25,000 used Google Talk
• 23,000 used WhatsApp messenger

From the perspective of which services pose the biggest threat to carriers' SMS revenue streams, the numbers are quite surprising to me, particularly the dominance of iMessage & Facebook and the poor showing by WhatsApp (particularly given WhatsApp now has over 250m monthly users worldwide).  This got me thinking about why this might be, and I believe there are several contributing factors...  

1. App penetration will have a large influence on which services are used. iMessage is pre-installed on ALL Apple devices, while Facebook's ubiquity means users are likely to install FB Messenger even if they don't intend using it often.  
2. Telecom state that it is based on 'network data' from mobile subscribers.  From this, I am guessing they mean mobile data subscribers only, and exclude wifi data sent from mobile devices.  This would include however data-only plans for 3G-capable tablets and USB dongle-connected laptops.  You cannot run mobile-phone number dependent services (in this list Viber and WhatsApp) from these devices.
3. Apple iPads and Macbook Airs are likely to dominate the aforementioned 3G-capable tablet and dongle-connected laptop market, adding to the popularity of iMessage 
4. There are several services in the list that originated on the desktop - namely Facebook, MS Messenger, Skype, Google Talk.  I suggest that a decent proportion of mobile usage of these services is people just responding to messages sent by people from a desktop.
5. The majority of Telecom's smartphone users (which you must have to use the above services) are likely to be on post-paid plans.  Most of these plans include unlimited (or near enough to) SMS messages.  This means that texting is essentially free, making the use of WhatsApp and Viber redundant for in-country mobile to mobile messaging.

It would be interesting to know how many users are deliberately choosing to use these messaging services to contact other mobile users as a replacement for SMS.  The list might look quite different.  It is clear however that smartphone users are taking to a multitude of messaging services, and these are cutting into SMS's dominance of mobile messaging.  Who the ultimate winners will be is anybody's guess, but it is clear that the services that already have a large hooked-in audience and can translate across both mobile and desktop are in the front seat. 

Getting to the bottom of smart-phone interaction

Yesterday two smartphone related things happened in my life... first, Apple unveiled the latest version of their iPhone/iPad operating system iOS7 at their annual developers conference WWDC.  Secondly, my wife's brand new phone, a Nokia 520 running the WindowsPhone 8 OS arrived.

A revelation came to me last night after having watched the WWDC keynote and also spending a couple hours playing around with the Nokia.  And it reinforced why I'm happy I chose to stick with Android when I upgraded my phone a couple months ago.

To my way of thinking, the object of a smartphone is to allow you to do things as quickly and easily as possible.  From that perspective, the phone itself should as much as possible get out of the way of the task at hand.  Part of this is the hardware - the phone needs to be fast and responsive, and some of it the software - does it make the task easy?

Current smartphone OSes all take fundamentally the same approach: tasks are completed through apps which are opened via a touch-screen interface*.  While this approach was revolutionary and much superior to what came before it when Apple introduced it with the original iPhone, there is still room to improve.  The big issue with the current paradigm is this... in order to perform a task, whether it be making a call, checking the weather, or posting a status update, first you need to open the relevant app - action needs to taken before you can even start. 

This was brought home to me as I tried to set up the Windows Phone home screen for my wife.  I was frustrated on two fronts:

1. I wanted to provide quick access to controls such as WiFi and Airplane Mode on the Nokia. While I could put shortcuts to the toggles on the home-screen, I couldn't find any way to directly put toggles there.
2. I wanted to take advantage of Windows' Live Tiles to provide some at-a-glance information such as the content of texts.  The problem I found is that Live Tiles typically only show a single piece of info at a time, meaning a lot of real-estate is taken up if you want to present lots of different stuff.

This brings me to what I believe is the major differentiator among the major mobile OSes... Android's Widgets.  Widgets allow users to complete tasks with a minimum of interaction with your device by either providing comprehensive information at-a-glance, or allowing you to do a task without having to open an app first.  For some reason, Android is still the only OS that provides its users these options.

This is why I was underwhelmed by iOS7 and I believe they missed a trick.  Many commentators are calling it a radical redesign (one even called it "a completely rethought mobile OS") but to me, its mainly just a (admittedly comprehensive) refresh of the look and feel.  While minor improvements were made with some real-time information on the lock-screen and easier access to some controls with Control Center, the core interaction model of iOS remains the same - a grid of static icons that require a user to tap before a user can achieve anything.  For the most part, there is still that additional tap required before a task can be performed.

The future of mobile device interaction may be voice, gesture, eye movement or even thought; but for now the present is dominated by touch-screens.  In my opinion Widgets provide the best way to perform tasks on your touch screen device.  This is the killer feature that makes me a very happy Android owner.



*Apple and Google are both taking steps towards voice control, but for now the touch interface is it.

The confusing case of Facebook Home

Much has been written in the last few weeks about the apparent failure of Facebook Home, the launcher Facebook created to essentially turn any Android phone into a 'Facebook Phone'.  

The latest news is that Facebook are halting the UK release of the HTC First (the first phone to have Home baked into its OS rather than as a Google Play download) pending a major re-think of the software.  The reasons that Home is failing are varied, from it leaving out basic Android features such as widgets, to the possibility that consumers just aren't fanatical about FB enough to want it to be at the centre of their phones.  For me, both of the above are certainly true.

The Home concept is solid and FB is to be commended with coming up with an elegant solution that is much cheaper and has broader reach than producing the oft-rumoured 'Facebook phone'.  However, their launch strategy is confusing.

It is obvious that they launched with a minimum viable product (MVP), rather than a fully-formed product.  There is no problem with this strategy, and many successful tech products have begun this way.The rationale behind it is get something launched as quickly as possible, and then use user feedback to help continuously improve it. Evidence of this strategy can be seen in their promise at launch that updates would come EVERY month.  The limiting of availability to only certain phones such as the Samsung Galaxy SIII and HTC One only strengthens this argument - only allow a small proportion of potential users access until you are completely happy with the product.

So far, so good.  The problem arises when you factor in the launch of the HTC First and the phones they chose to make it available for...  

• Why go to the expense and effort to launch a dedicated phone when the product it is showcasing is effectively still in beta?  Wouldn't it be better to wait til your product has been proven before taking this step?  It also serves to push the profile and expectations of Home beyond what could reasonably be expected from an MVP.
• The phones it was available on at launch were all high-end phones such as the HTC One, Samsung Galaxy Note 2 and Samsung Galaxy SIII.  FB's target market are unlikely to own one of these phones.  They are more the domain of high income business-people who won't have a use for Home, and Android power-users who are going to be much more critical and opinionated than the general public.

Facebook erred not in its strategy, but its execution.  They had a minimum viable product, but launched it with as much fanfare as you'd expect from a fully-fledged product.  As a result, they generated expectations that were much too high and could not be met.  They should have launched it much more quietly, on a set of mid-range phones likely to be owned by their most ardent fans and slowly gone about building the product.  At that point, they could then release the dedicated phone (although I am not convinced about the need for this).

I have no doubt that Facebook will not give up on Home, and predict that in twelve months time, it will be a very impressive product.  But given the botched launch, will there be enough people willing to give it a go by then? 

Google+ is not a social network

I've noticed a couple of posts in tech blogs recently that talk about Google+ not being a social network but rather, an overlay over all of Google's services, tying them all together and giving the big G a 360 degree view of our behaviour both online and potentially offline (via use of Android and Google Maps/Navigation).

My surprise here is not this insight, but why it's taken so long for people (read: tech bloggers) to understand this.  Everything Google does is designed to improve their cashcow - their search engine.  The introduction of the +1 button PRIOR to the launch of Google+ was the first clue.  With FB and Twitter refusing the share their data, social cues (what is being shared and with whom) were a big missing piece.  Google+ solves this by being the explicit identity, sharing and relationship management layer to add on top of what is happening below the scenes.  

It was initially built as a stand-alone product, and this is where the comparisons with Facebook and misunderstanding of its purpose inevitably grew from.  However, Google was playing the long game.  It obviously takes even a company with as many devs as Google has to overhaul its existing products.  Over the past two years since its launch, we have steadily seen its integration with virtually all of Google's other services appear.  Your Google profile is now your Google+ profile, Circle relationships influence your search results, Picasa is morphing into Google+ Photos, Google Local is now Google+ Local, Google+ Hangouts have replaced Messenger... you get the idea.

All this means is that overt use of Google+ itself is not as important to Google as most would think it is.  Google itself states that they are happy with its progress - although there is also likely to be some level of rhetoric in that.  I believe that they still need it to continue growing, for one reason.  It is still the best source of data they have to understand people's relationships.  They learned via the ill-fated Google Buzz product that Gmail contacts are not the best indicator of relationships as they lack context.  Hence Google+ Circles.  The better Google understands who we interact with and why, the better they can personlise their services.

And the endgame?  By knowing us perhaps even better than we know ourselves, they hope to make themselves indispensable by not only providing answers to our questions, but by doing so before we realise we want to know.  Version 1 of this vision is already available... it's called Google Now.

A New Experiment

Well, I'm now unemployed.

I've spent the last six years specialising in Digital Insights - a relatively new field which basically covers traditional marketing insights but for online properties.  In addition to standard insights skills such as campaign, customer and market analysis, it also includes digitally native skills such as web analytics and web conversion optimisation.  Along the way I've also gained experience with SEO, SEM, online display advertising, email marketing and social media.  

But due to the rapid growth needs at my previous company, my Jack-of-all-trades role was disestablished and split into three new more junior specialist roles.  So now I find myself on the hunt for a new job... and this has led to a little bit of soul-searching.  

I realise that I don't want to spend the rest of my career focussing only on insights - measuring what others have initiated and making recommendations for others to act upon.  I want to be the one coming up with and guiding those ideas and strategies, and I believe I've gained the skills to follow through on that.  I've also found that I have a real interest in the technology field, keenly following the latest developments at Google, Apple, Facebook et al.  So that means I now know what I want to do - Digital Strategy.

But I need to keep learning and honing my skills - hence the decision to set up this blog.  If I am able to build it into more than just a stream of consciousness, but actually use my knowledge to build an audience, then I know I'm on the right track.

I have no idea how committed I'll be to this project... I may get a job that takes all my energy, I may get bored, or I might just run out of things to say.  But it's a start in my quest to 'pivot' (to use a typical piece of Silicon Valley jargon) my career.

Let the experiment begin...