Death of SMS - 2

It was early 2000s when fresh from college and couple of months into working that I, for the first time, had a cellphone of my own. Of course, the mobile services in Chennai was introduced sometime in the later half of 1995. It were the days when the outgoing calls were charged at Rs. 16 and incoming at Rs. 8!

In fact, SMS was not even part of the initial mobile service. When it was introduced, it was free!

Then as all fairy tales come to an end, I received an SMS from a friend stating that the messaging service was going to be charged and that if we forward that particular message to ten more people it will create a momentum and authorities will continue to keep the messaging service free. Alas, it was not to be true.

The world has changed much, since.

Now very recently, I received a message on Whatsapp that reminded me of the SMS I had received then. It also urged the receiver to forward that message to all those in the address book and when everyone does it hoped Whatsapp will be forced to keep the service free. As you know Whatsapp becomes paid app after a year's free use.

But that is not the interesting part. I wrote about death of SMS almost a year back. Recently, I met my good friend and ex-colleague Karthik DS. Karthik is Vice President at Akamai. While discussing about messaging apps, he told me that he had asked his team members if they used SMS. Out of the 100 odd people that he manages only one answered affirmatively!

Think about it. How many of us actively use the SMS facility? Even if there are many, I am sure the numbers are constantly coming down.

Today in my opinion SMS is largely used for two things.

1. Signed in updates: For getting important messages from institutions whose service we avail. Banks, airlines, online sites, insurance...Technically, these are one-way communications. Either you send or receive. 
2. Unsigned spams: Companies that want us to buy plots, computers, phone or Internet connections. 

Even if we receive an SMS from a friend, we are quick to ask or check ourselves if they are available on Whatsapp. We then would most probably shift our conversations there. 

What is changing? Aren't Mobile Operators worried about losing income? Why have we changed the way we message? 

1. Zero sum game for mobile operators?: Are mobile operators losing revenues, here? First of all, they have already made their money by selling bulk SMS packages to marketers. Even if they are losing revenues from the end user segment, they will make it up in Internet revenues. There was a time when we used to diligently choose an SMS plan. Today, I am not even sure what SMS plan I am in. Probably, I am paying for a service I don't use!
2. No more Plain Jane messaging: The only interactive feature or the erstwhile SMS was the delivery report option. The new messaging apps have added a lot more zing to messaging. To start with profile pictures, ability to see who is online, group chats, emoticons, ability to send files. It is certainly more fun. 
3. Opportunity for Skype and Gtalk: Unlike the traditional messaging, Skype and Gtalk have great opportunity to use their existing strengths to leverage this new consumer behavior. Skype, especially. I am not sure why these companies have not been able to leverage this space. Gtalk at least did something by trying to combine SMS and Gtalk into one. I hated it so much that I decided to keep them separate. Skype on the hand is the company that I bet on. They already provide great calling service. What would it take Skype to emulate Whatsapp? It could do wonders to Microsoft. 
4. Where is the money?: The messaging services like Line, WeChat and Kakao Talk seem to have cracked the code. But Whatsapp which has over 400 million customers has so far not unveiled any plans to commercialize except for the subscription fees. Will customers relent is to be seen. But on the other hand, Facebook after buying the messaging service is now promoting Facebook Messenger, heavily. After resisting the attempts to download a separate Facebook Messenger, I finally caved in last week. But shouldn't it worry Facebook that its users have to move out of its primary social media app and return if required? 

Messaging apps have already made SMS irrelevant. I may be thinking about this a bit too much, but can these messaging apps next kill the voice calls as we know it? Imagine if all of us had Skype, then we will probably Skype and not call. It will be true VoIP, then. We may not need numbers, just account. A bit too much, do you say? 

Disruptive Technologies: Mobiles Vs The Rest

Now, I just wrote about how mobiles could kill the watch brands. With Samsung Galaxy Gear, the battle for the wrist is official. If Apple gets in, it will be more interesting. If this was not enough, Adidas has launched a smart watch while Nike already has one.

Now the other day, I was watching TV and saw Priyanka Chopra, the former Miss World, movie star and a favorite for brands in India, promoting two different brands with conflicting interests. In one ad, she is promoting Nikon. In the other, she speaks of Nokia as a listening brand and how the camera in Lumia allows one to take pictures in the low light.

Strange isn't it? Or at least that is what I thought. I posted my opinion about this conflict on my Facebook status. Interestingly, few friends felt that Priyanka was not professional. But that was not the point. She is quite fine in pocketing the money offered by the brands. It should have been the brands' responsibility to ensure that there are no conflict of interest.

Conflict of interest?

On the Facebook status, some felt that there was no conflict of interest. They said one was a mobile phone that has a good camera and the other was a camera brand. Why am I seeing a conflict? Because I saw a sign of disruption. How? First Canon, then Olympus and Fuji exited the low-end camera business.

So, Nokia Lumia 1020 will come with a 41 mega pixel camera. How long before the mobile industry brings cameras that are more sophisticated and capable? Now that is disruption for you. Like classic example of computers replacing typewriters. Emails and electronic transfers have hit the humble neighborhood post office. Telegraph is already history.

As I had said, if Gear and similar devices make watches irrelevant, then there is every possibility that Cameras will also be eaten by mobiles. Going by the looks of it, in future, any device that doesn't multitask is likely to face a death. So, TV can no more be TV, it has to be smart. Gaming Console is not just gaming console, they have to help us watch movies, organize our pictures and listen to music. Watch is not a time observing device, it has to help us read messages, take calls, shoot pictures. Or as Nike and Adidas want it, be our health monitoring device.

While it seems easier for technology companies to diversify, would it be possible for traditional one-category brands to diversify into the technology sphere and stay relevant. Say, would Swatch and Titan start making watches that can be a smartphone? They currently rule the wrists but will it be easier to transform themselves into a technology brands? Will Canon start making phones with much better camera than Samsung or Nokia?

Let me take the risk of predicting the future, here. I think it will be the technology brands that will win the battle. Why? It is the world of Digital Natives who are exposed to technology brands from very early on. Once they grow and find their beloved brands offer more, they are more likely to continue patronizing them. On the other hand, Watch or Cameras come later. Think about it. Children start taking pictures using mobiles and pads much before they are handed over a camera.

The era of technology brands is ushering in, I suppose. Time for other brands to watch out and take steps to evolve and protect their territories.

Oh, by the way, did you read about Google's self-driving cars! 

Nokia Android Phones! Why Not?

I am not sure who wants whom more desperately. But now I feel Microsoft wanted Nokia than the other way. And I am not sure why Nokia decided to marry one partner rather than bed with many at the same time?

As I wrote in my previous blog about the closed architecture and open architecture, I am not sure what Microsoft wants to achieve going forward. Did it want to go the close architecture way like Apple? Or did it want its own handset like Blackberry? Or it was just about the patents and technology of Nokia that they went after.

Whatever be the reason, I cannot understand why Nokia gave itself away so meekly.

Google's Android is a thriving platform. It has given fillip to many brands and a great chance to gather market shares. India's Micromax is a great case study. I certainly will write about the great Indian brand soon.

Nokia like its competitors in the market, Samsung, LG, HTC..., could have had a stronger play if it had kept an open mind to work with any environment. Its brand equity, reputation for making sturdy phones and great network would have definitely worked in its favor. HTC for example is quite agnostic. It produces models in both Android and Windows platform.

Somehow I think the Finnish owners took a rather easy way out. 

Why Apple Can Never Be No. 1?

Android has 1 bn activations!

1 bn! That's roughly about one-seventh of world's entire population! Almost the entire population of either India or China. Android is the biggest, no doubts. 

Interestingly, history seems to have repeated itself. The architecture of PCs first was closed with each player having their own design, and then IBM standardized it. This environment was and is dominated by Operating System (OS) and Chip combination of Wintel who actually grew the market. The brands productized and marketed.

Mobiles were also segmented with each brand defining its architecture till iOS and Android started scripting the road map. 

In many ways, Android ecosystem is similar to IBM PC whereas Apple has retained its philosophy of being closed. The benefit of an open architecture is that the market is grown by many of its constituents. Whereas Apple is solely responsible for growth of its devices. Imagine a cart driven by many horses versus the one with just one horse. Which one do you think will run faster? 

I wonder if the Late Steve Jobs underestimated the power of the multi-horse chariot steered by Google. Even if he had seen, which I assume he did, I am sure nothing could have changed the way Apple approached the market. Being the sole owner of its ecosystem is at the core of its strategy.  

But I think Apple should do two things, differently. 

1. Products at multiple price point: The problem with Apple is that we see only one product at a time. iPhone 3 has to be killed before iPhone 4 is launched. And iPhone 5 has to be over iPhone 4, itself. So at any point of time, a consumer has only one option from Apple, limiting the market size. Apple could do better by planning products at different price points. Why can’t 3 co-exist with 4, 4S and 5?
2. Look East: America without a doubt will remain a strong market for Apple. But then there is a mighty chunk of willing fans in this part of the world. Though little late, Apple has finally started to focus on East, especially the big emerging markets. If you noticed, India got a special mention during the last results for being a high growth market. I personally know many acquaintances who jumped at the opportunity to own iPhone 4 and 4S.

Apple already has a great brand equity and its technology leadership is unquestioned. But it always loses out due to its close architecture. What Apple needs in my opinion is smart product planning. Products at different price points. 

It may still not be enough to beat Android base, but it would certainly shore up its numbers.