Haakon's blog

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.

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

The openness of the Internet has been a recurring theme during the last months.

• FCC rulemaking process on network neutrality [PDF]

• Apple´s AppStore policy on applications such as Google Voice and political satire

• How Facebook for a short period unlinked Twitter links

• Murdoch’s threat to take the Wall Street Journal out of the Google search index

• The openness and standardization of mobile platforms

Most of these issues are raised in Tim O’Reilly readable blog entry on “The War for the Web”. (and the title of this blog post is found somewhere in his post).

The future of the Internet – or its ability to sustain the generative aspects – is dependent upon interplay between technological, business and policy development. Personally, I like Abramson (2005) short description of how these domains interact:

Technology constrains what we can do, legal rules change the alternatives’ relative cost, and economic incentives indicate which alternatives we are likely to choose (Abramson, 2005, Digital Phoenix, MIT Press)

So, what will 2010 bring? I expect that the “openness” of the Internet will still be a recurring theme. My predictions are that

• Net neutrality will not become a major issue. Proposed regulations are aligned with access providers’ incentives
• Compatibility and interworking between different Web 2.0/Internet companies will be the major issue

Maybe I should just reread Information Rules and Finding of the Facts in the U.S. Microsoft case  to prepare 2010?

TechCrunch reports that Facebook developer Joe Hewitt, the man behind the immensely popular Facebook application for iPhone, has just tweeted that he’s done with the project.   He told TechCrunch.

The web is still unrestricted and free, and so I am returning to my roots as a web developer. In the long term, I would like to be able to say that I helped to make the web the best mobile platform available, rather than being part of the transition to a world where every developer must go through a middleman to get their software in the hands of users.”

The story is picked up by The Future of the Internet blog.

JZ [Jonathan Zittrain] argues that the PC and the internet have been the perfect combination for generativity. The internet itself could itself be a solution to the control of mobile platforms. But these pieces point out, yet again, how even that combination isn’t untouchable unless we’re constantly, actively working at it.

I agree with Zittrain that the combination of devices anyone can make applications for, and the Internet at least as we are used to, has enabled rich innovation. This is something valuable we must continue working at.

PaidContent.org reports that “Yahoo Shuts Down Yahoo Go; Will Continue Building Smartphone Apps“. It seems that the focus will be on (mobile) web services and applications for high end smartphones (= Android and iPhone?).

Yahoo Go is probably the victim of both poor strategy and execution. The application itself never impressed me.

I haven’t used Yahoo web portal in ages, but took a brief look at their new web site recently. The site used to be the Internet equivalent to TV channel packages as brought to you by your cable or satellite TV provider. Now it looks more like your own mash-up of web sites.

The web will continue to be the platform, but I do not know what a portal look like. It won’t be like Yahoo Go, but is the new Yahoo web site the way to go?