Free Newsletter
Wireless: it's complicated
It appears Google is learning a hard lesson about wireless--the cell phone industry is very complex and difficult to negotiate. Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal reported that the firm's Android software suite will likely not show up on handsets until late 2008, as opposed to its original plans to debut Android in the second half of the year. T-Mobile USA reportedly won't deliver its Android-powered phone until fourth quarter, Sprint and China Mobile will likely be delayed with their Android-powered phones until late 2008 or early 2009.
While some argue that this isn't really a delay, Android never expected to make its debut earlier than year-end, the gist of the story--that Google underestimated the complexity of the wireless industry--is interesting to me. Why? Because I've heard it so many times before.
When mobile TV was first getting its legs, hundreds of content firms contacted me to tell me about how they were going to deliver their video content to cell phones. Many of those companies are no longer around because they underestimated the complexity of the wireless industry. Getting their technology to work across the many different networks and devices proved more costly and cumbersome than any had anticipated.
The same can be said for the big brand names that launched wireless services as mobile virtual network operators. Even though they had the foresight to realize that building a wireless network was too expensive and too complex, Mobile ESPN, Disney Mobile, Amp'd and now Helio (see related story below) vastly under-estimated how expensive and difficult it is to market and distribute wireless services to consumers, in a market that is already saturated with well-known incumbents.
As the mobile Internet begins to take flight, I suspect that many of Internet heavyweights will begin to realize what Google is learning--the mobile Internet is not the traditional Internet and yes, wireless is complicated. Newcomers to the industry need to have deep pockets and patience if they want to succeed in wireless. --Sue
More stories about Wireless Carriers T-Mobile Google China Mobile ESPN Mobile Virtual Network Operators
Comments
Posted by Willie Lu | June 28, 2008 - 12:02am
I already said in my blog (4gmobile.blogspot.com) one year ago that Google will not be successful in Android because he was not the first one to open the mobile OS. ten years ago, the WAP forum, OMA, MWIF and others all tried to do that, but these people were all from Computer science rather than wireless radio engineerings. Google's key people in mobile wireless are all from Sun/Java, Apple, etc which are actually not the wireless guys. Do they know the key issues in wireless? Absolutely not!
What's the big problem in wireless? The Architecture! The mobile device system architecture has been extremely closed architecture, so how come the upper-layer OS and applications can be open?
The only way to solve this problem is to open the wireless architecture first before openning the OS and applications.
Cheers!
Willie LU
willielu.com
Posted by Tim Ocock @ Symsource | June 29, 2008 - 4:26am
Well Willie, Nokia and Symbian are opening the wireless architecture - with a mature, mobile specific and carrier approved operating system, so perhaps we'll see, if not Google, some other internet company take advantage of that to overcome the barriers to entry in wireless?
Posted by Tim | June 30, 2008 - 4:45pm
Willie is bang on the money and maybe he knows more than he lets on, but a closed architecture is deliberate. Baseband manufacturers do not want to be easily displaced once entrenched (bear in mind how much they invest to be selected in the first place in a market with maybe 6 horses with the volume to succeed). These guys burn $200 million a year to stay in that race! Open your architecture to the point where it does not matter what is under the hood and your open yourself to your competitor walking in and saying thank-you for that market share you worked so hard to build.
Secondly, modems have very strict real time requirements and letting your average code monkey in applications land loose on the microporcessors these baseband manufactureres provide would bring almost any platform to its knees. They may call themseleves software engineers, but the majority are not engineers. Total applications isolation is the only solution that will gaurantee these code monkeys won't destroy your user experience. Few platforms have this level of isolation. Well, there is also the obvious other alternative of educating these code monkeys to the level of your average wireless engineer's standard. I believe this is where Google and the rest continue to underestimate. It looks easy because the wireless folk are truly exceptional at what they manage to achieve (not to take anything away from Google's very different and equally impressive abilities here). They have to be exceptional otherwise several billion mobiles would have been returned by now. And even the wireless folk underestimate! All the time!! It 'aint easy at all! Its like writing an essay on a postage stamp.
Posted by Don | June 30, 2008 - 7:29pm
Good posts all.
I recall another mighty technology company with huge resources that was going to rule the handset space ... some guy named Bill used to work there. Not only has Microsoft failed on the WinMo platform -- the division still loses a ton of money and is really just trying to keep up with RIM. Not only are their handset initiatives a drag, but they have failed to make any significant inroads with operators on the service platform side despite huge demand.
Wireless is more than just the "essay on a postage stamp" technical complexities -- it's also a mind- numbing set of inter-related ecosystems where everyone has an agenda that isn't yours. Operators own the subscriber so they still rule -- $700B of revenue worth of rule. Just because Google wants into that kingdom doesn't mean the gates open. Just ask Bill.
Posted by Daniel | July 1, 2008 - 8:17am
One of the Android team was a VP at a top mobile operator before moving to Google. Microsoft offered nothing new in WinMo just a poor interface which was hard to use. The Google phone is a step forward into a new world of handsets which is picking up momentum. Look at the iPhone. It will take time. After all you can't rush technology.
Posted by Tim | July 2, 2008 - 1:24pm
"Operators own the subscriber so they still rule -- $700B of revenue worth of rule."
You would have thought this was the case. I certainly did. But it seems the handset makers dictate what the operators get, not the other way around. Weird no? Well, maybe not when you realise how late the chipset makers really are in getting to market and that chipset vendors own the architecture and therefore dictate most things.
A VP of a handset or chipset vendor would impress me more.
Posted by Julio | July 24, 2008 - 1:56pm
I've worked in Mobile wireless communication for the past 10 years, specifically in RF Hardware Development, and I can tell you from experience Nobody will open up thier architecture for someone else to have, it just doesn't happen that way. Much less competitors, using the same chipset from the same manufacturer don't even have access to some regions in the architecture of that same chipset, so if you are thinking the arquitecture would be open to all, you need to wake up to the reality of things, it won't happen.
Click here to get the FierceWireless email newsletter for FREE!
Comments (7) | Post a comment