AT&T to go all Symbian

An article tells us that AT&T Wireless intends to run all their phones on one platform as soon as 2014, namely on Symbian. Is this odd? I mean: the iPhone isn't Symbian, is it? 

It is of course not odd. The carrier wants to avoid platform fragmentation (see also here and here) which has made it hard to develop mobile applications (and one might well now think that they indeed had a very powerful showcase paraded past them over the last 5 months: see here), and their Director of Next Generation Services, Data Product Realization (can't they have shorter job titles?), Roger Smith called Symbian "a very credible and likely candidate" to be "the One".

AT&T intends to

 provide an own-branded smartphones and they reckon - rightly! - that it would be a "support nightmare" would they run this on various platforms.

Mr Smith also came up with some damning verdicts about J2ME: it failed to deliver a simplification for application developers and, moreover, doesn't allow developers to get deeply enough into a phone's OS to deliver the kind of experiences consumers want (what are these, I ask? Not having to put up with clunky and unintuitive restrictions? Ah, now I get it).

Symbian, Android (see here) or another one: the path is, I reckon, the right one. And it is a milestone for Symbian (and one probably only possible because of the decision to go open source with it) as it would wrap up one of the largest carriers in the world under its wings.

iPhone, iPhone, iPhone, iPhone, anything else?

Now, I wonder if this is damaging to the readership of this blog: this must be the 3rd time or so in the very young age of this that I have been drawn into the debate about the device that reinvents telecommunications, interaction on the go, human interaction and also orders you a coffee at Starbucks. Holy Jobs, what have you done? However: there have been a couple of interesting pieces written on this wonderous affair, so I'll have another crack:

The WSJ has a piece about the iPhone and its "answers", which are, alas, no answers. They compare the HTC Touch, the LG Prada (of which you could read here, too), the Samsung UpStage and the Nokia N95 (reported on here). It steers the debate to the probably most important aspect of the not so secret secret of Apple's success, namely the combination of smart technology with very smart marketing. It is not my words (or thoughts) but the ones of very, very smart Yankee analyst John Jackson who said "Any handset maker is more than capable of making clever devices. But it's really about business models. That's where Apple maintains its business advantage."

However, the hype has been less in Europe and Nokia's market position is stronger in Europe and because the N95 has everything the iPhone has (except for brand and the looks) and some more (namely 3G although that might well come in the iPhone's European iteration) AND because the N95 is out in the market and kicking some substantial rearsides, this might well work (remarks another smart analyst, namely Mr Greengart.

Anyway, Cellular News published some information on the average potential iPhone user (courtesy of Solutions Research Group), which is this:


If they can sell the 10m devices to this user base, then AT&T (I still prefer Cingular) and all other Apple partner will be happy chappies indeed.

And the beat goes on... but what would you say if the one, the only, the incredible Hummer phone would take all the glory? Doh!

Verizon strikes back (or does it?): Prada phone vs. iPhone

It does remain interesting, doesn’t it? Days after AT&T was confirmed to have the iPhone for a minimum of 5 years exclusively, Verizon comes back to announce the launch of the ultimate fashion device (in a rather literal sense), namely the Prada phone (or LG KE 850). Verizon was keen to stress that this will not be the only music phone they will offer but this seems to being the current main contender of the iPhone: it has similarly sleek looks, both have a touch screen and even the LG UI is somewhat Apple-esque (See review here).

One of the interesting things is to see how a phone that – in Europe – runs on the trusted MIDP 2.0 platform (and will, for Verizon, presumably run on the no less trusted BREW platform) will perform against the first one utilising Apple’s OS X. If Apple manages to have their OS run as smoothly and matter-of-factly as it does on their computers, we will all be up for a ride: whilst phones may not be as buggy as some of Microsoft’s earlier (or indeed current?) operating systems, Apple’s OS X is one hell of an elegant OS and supposedly superior to anything I have seen on the currently available systems. However, OS X requires quite a bit more in computing power than these, and this poses (at least) two challenges, namely a) battery life and b) speed.

LG’s Prada phone on the other hand has shown in the UK that it is a proper everyday device that works well (and looks good). It also comes with 3G (other than the iPhone) although of course it lacks WiFi. LG has recently shown that it has a nifty hand for great look-and-feel: the Chocolate, the Shine and the Prada phone all show a fantastically slick approach to handset design. Since LG phones run on a “usual” OS, all applications and games, etc that run on “normal” phones, also work for them. And Apple? Nothing I heard of. Even the iPod games have already been cracked (see here).

If one would assume that the iPhone performs well, it would however be sad if that was only for one operator/carrier. Will Apple make the same mistake it made on its superior Mac OS in the mid-80s, i.e. kill its market prospects by being to exclusive? One would hope that they have learned but perhaps their more recent success with a similar approach for the iPod has overshadowed the no doubt painful learnings they must have taken from being erased by Micrsosoft and the inferior DOS on the computer OS front. Let’s see…

Cingular or American Telephone & Telegraph Company? My 2p

It get's boring, I know. But after the flurry over AT&T's announcement that they will now step up their re-branding another notch in order to be eye-level to the uber-spin doctors from Apple for the launch of the iPhone, I cannot keep myself from making yet another comment on the branding debate: which one is better, AT&T or Cingular?

A lot has been argued and said about it (see e.g. here, here and here) but let's stick to one simple fact (OK, there'll be another one later): Millward Brown, the brand gurus who publish the annual "Brandz" ranking, something like the Forbes List (or the Times Rich List when you live in the UK) for brands showed that "Cingular" gained 39% year-on-year and slotted in at #70 with a brand value of $9.2bn. AT&T, well, didn't make the top 100. Even if it was on #101, it would mean that its value would be at least $4bn less than Cingular's.

What is REALLY concerning though is that the brand they abandon actually gained value to the tune the Cingular brand did (3rd biggest climber overall). The fact that the Cingular brand is younger, more dynamic, does not conjure up memories of the old wretched monopoly the old AT&T once was - well, I leave that to the real marketing freaks but you really cannot argue with that, huh?

To end it: here's what GigaOM's readers think: