Haakon's blog

EU has published a consultation on the open internet net neutrality. I have to say that their questions is clearly focused on net neutrality – “open Internet” in general. I can recommend Chris Marsden’s draft answers (and also both his blog and his book (Amazon/PDF))

It is not easy to change how people buy stuff. In a previous post, I described two reasons for why Google launched a Google Phone:

1. Secure overall user experience quality (solve a coordination problem by vertical integration)
2. Change how mobile phones are sold in the US (first choose phone, then choose carrier and subscription)

It seems like they didn’t succeed with reason #2. Google is now changing the distribution model for Nexus One, and will use traditional channels.  Mobile operator’s can do more than providing wireless access to the Internet. Google’s blog post emphasize that many customers like a hands-on experience before buying a phone.  I have to say that I’m more likely to get a Nexus One after trying it.

John Paczkowski in Digital Daily commented:

So was Google’s strategy for the Nexus One doomed from the beginning? Probably. Customer behavior is a tough enough thing to change. Disincentives like Google’s questionable customer support and a pair of early termination fees on a device Google was asking us to buy without even touching it certainly didn’t help.

I think that Google also has considered their strategic signals towards manufacturers of Android devices. Google’s vertical integration to create a Google phone is not unproblematic in this strategic interaction. They are changing the soon to be closed Nexus One store into a showcase for Android devices.

From retail to viewing. Once we have increased the availability of Nexus One devices in stores, we’ll stop selling handsets via the web store, and will instead use it as an online store window to showcase a variety of Android phones available globally.

This seems like a sound decision.

I came across this on The 2010 O’Reilly Where 2.0 Conference archive of keynote presentation. Jonathan Stark makes a strong argument for the Web.

His points on beta testing were new to me, and I really like his slide deck.

The iPad has stirred a massive response of comments, analysis and almost religious outcries. I guess just about anything has been said; Is it a blow against the generative Internet? Can you trust your mechanic?

1. Cory Doctorow: Why I won’t buy an iPad (and think you shouldn’t, either)
2. John Gruber: The Kids Are All Right. In short: He disagrees with Doctorow
3. Jim Stogdill: The iPad isn’t a computer, it’s a distribution channel
4. Umair Haque: Apple’s Strategic iParadox
5. Mark Sigal: Grumpy old men, the “Inmates” and margins – iPad, iPhone and the future of computing
6. Tim Wu: The Apple Two

It’s been a while since my last blog post, and there have been several news stories related to net neutrality, mobile Internet and what mobile operators do:

• Wireless call quality has dropped in the US according to Business Week. Why? Smartpones are putting strains on the networks.
• Erik Schmidt spoke at MWC and stated “”I feel very, very strongly that we depend on successful businesses for the operators globally and I disagree that we are trying to turn the operators into dumb pipes” (via Guardian.co.uk)
• YouTube Will Kill Flat-rate Mobile Broadband Pricing Forever according to GigaOm
• Associated Press reported that Spain’s Telefonica considers charging Google
• etc, etc.

So what is the issue here. Google develops more and more services for mobile phones. Apple has succeeded with their iPhone and basically control all what used to be called value added services. Mobile operators compete on data plans – probably as a loss leader to secure revenue from voice. If we add wireless net neutrality and regulated low termination rates for mobile voice (or even bill and keep), the situation does not look to bright. They have to start real charging for  or at least versioning their data plans (within any present net neutrality regulation)