The following is an interesting blog post from the Harvard Business Review that challenges the notion that customers prefer live one on on service as opposed to automated services. As it relates to mobile, this may further explain the popularity of self service apps that banks, insurance companies, and medical organizations are gravitating towards.

[Source]

8:36 AM Wednesday July 28, 2010
by Matt Dixon and Lara Ponomareff

Have you ever walked into an airport, seen that there is nobody in line at the check-in counter, but still made a bee-line for the self-service kiosk? Better yet, have you ever waited in line for an ATM machine even though there is nobody in line for the teller inside the bank?

If you answered “yes” to either of these questions, you’re not alone. Most customers these days demonstrate a huge — and increasing — appetite for self-service, yet most companies run their operations as if customers prefer to interact with them live.

In our research on this topic (which we discuss in our recent HBR article “Stop Trying to Delight Your Customers“), we’ve found that corporate leaders dramatically overestimate the extent to which their customers actually want to talk to them. In fact, on average, companies tend to think their customers value live service more than twice as much as they value self service. But our data show that customers today are statistically indifferent about this — they value self-service just as much as using the phone. And guess what? By and large, this indifference holds regardless of their age, demographic, issue type, or urgency.

This attitude toward self-service has been a long time coming. Two-thirds of the customers we surveyed told us that three to five years ago, they primarily used the phone for service interactions. Today, less than a third do, and the number is shrinking fast.

What is it that makes self service so appealing? Maybe it’s the efficiency of the interaction — the airport kiosk is probably faster than interacting with a check-in agent — but that wouldn’t explain why we go out of our way to take care of our service needs ourselves. On a psychological level, it might have more to do with the unique element of control that self service affords. Or, maybe this self-service love affair is a product of our infatuation with gadgetry and electronic communication. All fairly benign explanations, to be sure.

But here’s a hypothesis that would be concerning if it’s right: maybe customers are shifting toward self service because they don’t want a relationship with companies. While this secular trend could be explained away as just a change in consumers’ channel preferences, skeptics might argue that customers never wanted the kind of relationship that companies have always hoped for, and that self service now allows customers the “out” they’ve been looking for all along.

For managers hell-bent on deepening relationships with their customers, that’s a sobering thought.

Consider this: Running your company as if customers want to talk to you isn’t just expensive, it’s potentially undermining your efforts to build longer-term loyalty. Our research shows that customers who attempt to self serve, fail, and are forced to pick up the phone are 10% more likely to be disloyal than those customers who were able to fully resolve their issues in their channel of choice. As one CFO remarked to us recently, “When you think about the relative cost of live service and the disloyalty effect of channel switching…it’s like paying your customers to be disloyal to you.”

How often does channel switching happen? All the time.

We found that a staggering 57% of inbound calls come from customers who first attempted to resolve their issue on the company’s website. And over 30% of callers are on the company’s website at the same time that they are talking to a rep on the phone. That’s a lot of frustrated customers.

What do you think? Are we simply seeing a change in customer preferences — or a relationship on the rocks?

Matthew Dixon is the managing director of the Corporate Executive Board’s Sales and Service Practice. Lara Ponomareff is a research consultant with the Customer Contact Council, a division of the Corporate Executive Board’s Sales and Service Practice.

[Source]

From Ciara Byrne, The Canadian Press, July 23, 2010 – 5:24 p.m.

TORONTO – Toronto-area entrepreneurs eager to feed a growing appetite for smartphone applications are turning the city into a Silicon Valley North of sorts.

Young entrepreneurs, many under 30, have opted to create their own start-up companies, rather than working for giants such as Google or Microsoft.

It’s estimated there are about 200-mobile apps companies in the Toronto area, and about 750 companies across the GTA that have mobile-content departments.

“There’s a draw because it’s very easy to build an app, and get the content out there and start generating revenue,” said Michele Perras, director of the Mobile Experience Innovation Centre, a non-profit research organization.

Perras said a huge amount of capital isn’t usually required to create these companies.

“You need a couple hundred thousand dollars as opposed to a couple million dollars,” said Perras, as she compared apps companies to other tech industries.

Smartphone apps include everything from tip calculators and maps to an application that turns a smartphone into a faux Star Wars lightsaber.

Perras said it’s not surprising Toronto has become home of the app considering it is the third largest art and design centre in North America.

“You don’t have to be necessarily in Silicon Valley to have a mobile apps company, as long as you have the resources to be able to do it,” said Perras.

Ameet Shah is a an example of homegrown success in the apps world. He traded his Silicon Valley tech-related job to start a company with several other people in Toronto.

Five Mobile was launched in July 2008. The company offers smartphone applications and web development.

“The mobile phone is clearly the most pervasive computing device that exists. You leave the house, you take your wallet, your keys, your phone,” said Shah, as he explained why apps have become so popular.

And these apps are not a techie trend. Shah said he believes there is such a hunger for app technology that within five years every company will need to have a mobile application.

Government programs are also helping some apps companies.

Angelo Del Duca, director for the Ontario region for the Industrial Research Assistance Program, a federal program that offers financial assistance to small and medium-sized companies, said there has been an increase of requests related to mobile application.

Del Duca said the demand exists within the marketplace.

“The companies don’t embark on technology development just for the sake of it. They’re embarking on it because there’s a direct feedback from the market,” said Del Duca.

Amar Varma, managing partner and co-founder of Extreme Venture Partners, has helped pioneer the apps environment in the city, investing in 14 apps companies in and around the Toronto area.

“This app ecosystem has uncovered a couple of really smart ways to make money,” said Varma.

Facebook opened the door for creating applications, followed by smartphones, he said. The revenue is generated not only from people buying the apps, but also from advertising.

“I think there’s a massive opportunity and this is the next wave,” said Varma, who stressed many of the Toronto companies are “world leaders” in the apps field.

“We’ve got that kind of talent,” said Varma, adding a community of like-minded, mobile tech experts is flourishing in the area.

Shah agrees. He said many Ontario universities have well-known, “top notch” technology and design programs churning out talent.

JACKSONVILLE, Fla., June 29 /PRNewswire/ — Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. (BCBSF) puts health care in the palm of Floridians’ hands with the launch of its new mobile website. The company’s latest innovation is designed to help consumers save time and money, and can be accessed from any Smartphone including the latest Blackberry, iPhone, Droid and even the iPad. By simply typing www.bcbsfl.com into their mobile browser, members and non-members can easily get important health information and tools, as well as details about their plan and coverage benefits.

“BCBSF leads the industry in the creation of tools and services to help Floridians become more engaged in their health care,” said Craig Thomas, chief marketing and strategy officer for BCBSF. “The mobile website is just one of many ways we’re connecting with consumers. We want them to be able to reach us anytime of the day at their convenience – in person at our Florida Blue centers, by phone – calling a Care Consultant, online, and now, from their mobile phone. We want to have an active partnership role with our consumers in their health care decisions–helping them to access services, manage health conditions and stay healthy.”

Now with just one click members can view their ID card and get instant snapshots of their plan benefits, Health Savings Account (HSA) balance and more.  Members can also utilize the mobile website to find a doctor based on their current GPS location, review details for that provider such as office hours, language spoken and map directions to their office. If a member leaves the doctor’s office with a prescription in hand, they can save money by comparing drug costs at local pharmacies.

Non members can use the mobile website to shop for insurance, get a quote and select a plan.

Both members and non members can utilize the mobile website to get weather forecasts combined with weather-related health alerts such as pollen, air quality and UV levels along with tips for managing their asthma and allergy symptoms. The site also offers all users real-time information on Florida Blue center health events based on GPS location, “did you know” health facts that users can share with family and friends via their personal Facebook and Twitter™ accounts, free ringtone downloads and monthly sweepstakes.

With a goal of giving Floridians fingertip access to health care information and tools wherever they go, BCBSF focused on simplicity and value when designing the mobile website. The company leveraged unique mobile features such as GPS location and timely delivery, and created an advanced and classic view to ensure the ultimate user experience across most devices and platforms.

“We’re the only health insurer to make health information via a mobile website available to everyone –members and non members,” said Adriana Murillo, director of strategic development for BCBSF. “This is the first of many mobile solutions to be brought to Floridians by BCBSF. Later this year we’ll launch our first iPhone application, as well as a text messaging program designed to help members improve their health.”

To find out more information, view the online demo from a desktop computer at www.bcbsfl.com/mobile.

Celebrating 65 years as Florida’s leader in the health industry, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida is mission-driven to improve affordable access to health care. BCBSF is a not-for-profit, policyholder-owned, tax-paying mutual company. Headquartered in Jacksonville, Fla., BCBSF is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, an association of independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies. For more information concerning BCBSF, please see its Web site at www.bcbsfl.com or to listen to Floridians speak out on health care issues visit www.thepowerofthehumanvoice.com

SOURCE Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida

Back to top RELATED LINKS
http://www.bcbsfl.com

Put safety first! Don’t forget to download ZoomSafer, the app that eliminates the temptation to text while driving and keeps you connected via hands-free services!

SAN FRANCISCO–Facebook’s Open Graph is the reason there are Facebook “Like” buttons strewn across the Web on sites that Facebook doesn’t operate. Eric Tseng, Facebook’s head of mobile products and a former product manager of the Google Nexus One phone, told the room at MobileBeat 2010 that Open Graph is going mobile.

What does this mean? Simply that as Facebook rolls out its Open Graph plug-ins to partners in the mobile space, many more of Facebook’s social tools (such as that “Like” button, for instance) will show up in unrelated mobile apps that don’t have their own social-networking tools.

The more interesting use case that Tseng outlined during his talk focuses on mobile marketing, a familiar theme at any mobile tech summit. Tseng painted a scenario in which friend recommendations aggregated from your existing network of Facebook friends are knit together with location-aware advertising. The idea is that geo-fenced apps that might push out coupons or other promotions to lure customers into a store could also incorporate friends’ thoughts, and even location–thus adding context and personalization to what may otherwise come across as a spammy, intrusive hard sell.

Facebook’s Tseng wasn’t specific about the time frame, but did mention that the rollout will be ongoing, predominantly as updates to Facebook’s kits for iPhone and Android developers. “Please, please start building that functionality into your apps today,” he told the crowd.

If Tseng’s appeal to developers is any indication, Facebook is banking on Open Graph to bring it greater domination than its current 150 million mobile users.

Jessica Dolcourt reviews the latest and greatest smartphone apps, in addition to a healthy dose of Windows software. Email Jessica or follow her on Twitter.

[Android fragmentation is only getting started. Research Director Andreas Constantinou breaks down the 3 dimensions of Android fragmentation and argues how Android will become a victim of its own success]

There’s been plenty of talk of Android fragmentation, but little analysis of its meaning and impacts.

As far as definitions go, the best way to look at fragmentation is not from an API viewpoint, but from an application viewpoint; if you take the top-10,000  (free and paid) apps on Android, how many of these run on all the Android-powered phones?

For Google’s Android team, fragmentation is what keeps them up at night. Fragmentation reduces the addressable market of applications, increases the cost of development and could ultimately break the developer story around Android as we ‘ll see.

Google’s CTS (compatibility test spec) is predicated on ensuring that Market apps run on every Android phone. Android handsets have to pass CTS in order to get access to private codelines, the Market or the Android trademark as we covered in our earlier analysis of Google’s 8 control points – and yes, Google controls what partners do with Android, contrary to the Engadget story.

The 3 dimensions of Android fragmentation
Many observers would point to fragmentation arising as a result of the open source (APL2) license attached to the Android public source code. Reality however is much more complex. There are 3 dimensions of Android fragmentation:

1. Codebase fragmentation. Very few companies have taken the approach of forking the public Android codebase, as permitted under the APL2 license; Google innovates so fast (5 major versions in 12 months) that once you fork, the costs of keeping up-to-date with Google’s tip-of-tree are increasing prohibitively over time (Nokia found out the hard way by forking WebKit and then regretting it).

The main fork of the Android codebase is by China Mobile (the world’s biggest operator with over 500M subscribers) who has outsourced Android development to software company Borqs. China Mobile cares less about keeping up-to-date with the latest Android features as the China market operates as an island where cheap, fake (Shanzai) handsets are predominant. Mediatek, a leading vendor of chipsets shipping in 200-300 million handsets per year plans to make Android available, which could mean another major fork. Cyanogen and GeeksPhone also fork the Android public codeline, but they are designed for a niche of tech-savvy Android fans.

2. Release fragmentation. Google has released 5 major updates to Android in 12 months (1.5, 1.6, 2.0, 2.1 and recently 2.2), all of which introduce major features and often API breaks. You may notice how accessing the Android Market from a 1.6 versus a 2.1 handset gives you a different set of apps. So much for forward compatibility. AndroidFragmentation.com (a community project) has documented several cases of release fragmentation arising from releases which break APIs (e.g. 2.0 SDK breaks older contact apps) or from inconsistent OEM implementations (e.g. receiving multicast messages over WiFi is disabled for most HTC devices).

Release fragmentation is the victim of Google’s own speed of innovation – and Andy Rubin has hinted there’s more major releases coming out in the next 6 months. It’s clearly a sign of how young, agile Internet companies know how to develop software much better that companies with a mobile legacy; major Symbian versions take 12-18 months to release.

Release fragmentation is particularly acute due to the lack limited availability of an automatic update mechanism much like that found on the iPhone. We call the phenomenon ‘runtime aging’ and it is directly responsible for increasing the cost of developing applications. Tier-1 network operators see handsets in their installed base with browsers which are 1-6 years old – that’s how hairy it can get for mobile content (and software) development companies. [update: we understand that certain Android handsets come with a firmware update (FOTA) solution available from Google and other FOTA vendors, but it is installed reactively (i.e. to avoid handset recalls) rather than proactively (i.e. to update all handsets to the latest OS flavour)].

Google itself reports that the Android installed base is split between devices running 1.5, 1.6 and 2.1 versions (or at least for those devices accessing the Android Market). The detailed breakdown as of mid May 2010 is as follows:

Release fragmentation is also arises out of Google’s elitist treatment of its OEM partners. Google will pick and choose which private codeline is available to which OEM based on commercial criteria (contrary to Michael Gartenberg’s story). Take for example how Sony Ericsson’s X10 (running on Android 1.6) came to market after the Nexus One (running on Android 2.1). Ironically, both handsets were made by HTC. [correction: the X10 was developed by Sony Ericsson Japan]

3. Profile fragmentation. Android was designed for volume smartphones. But it arrived at an opportune time – just after the iPhone launch and just as consumer electronics manufacturers were looking at how to develop connected devices. This resulted in two effects that Google hadn’t planned for:

- Android was taken up by all tier-1 (and many tier-2) operators/carriers hoping to develop iPhone-like devices at cheaper prices (i.e. lower subsidies) and greater differentiation. That meant that while operators funded Android’s adolescent years (2008-2010), they niched Android handsets to high-end features and smartphone price points.

- Android is now being taken up by 10s of consumer electronics manufacturers, from car displays and set-top boxes to tablets, DECT phones and picture frames. The Archos internet tablet was just the beginning. Each of these devices has very different requirements and therefore results in different platform profiles.

The timing of Android’s entry into the market has therefore resulted in two implications related to fragmentation.

Firstly, Android’s official codebase isn’t suited for mass-market handsets (think ARM9 or ARM11, 200-500MHz). To get to really large volumes (100M+ annually), Google will need to sanction a second Android profile for mass-market devices. This is a Catch-22, as a second profile is needed to hit large volumes, but it would also break the Android developer story.

Secondly, every new platform profile designed for different form factors (in-car, set-top box, tablet, etc) will create API variations that will be hard to manage. That’s one of the key reasons behind the Google TV initiative and the Open Embedded Software Foundation. However even Google can’t move fast enough to coordinate (manage?) the 10s of use cases and form factors emerging for Android.

All in all, Android fragmentation is going to get far worse, as Android becomes a victim of its own success.But hey, would you expect to have a single app (and a single codebase) that runs on your TV, phone and car?

And there the opportunity lies for tools vendors to provide app porting tools, compatibility test tools and SDKs to help bridge the gap across the eventual jungle of Android fragmentation. And for those looking to better understand the Android commercials we offer a half-day training course on the commercial dynamics behind Android.

What do readers think? Do you have any fragmentation stories to share?

- Andreas
you should follow me on twitter: @andreascon

iphone 4G from GON on Vimeo.

iPhone 4

HTC EVO 4G

Nokia N8

Palm Pre Plus

HTC HD2

]]> http://fivemobile.com/uncategorized/apples-iphone-4/feed/ 0 http://fivemobile.com/uncategorized/htc-evo-4g-commercial/ http://fivemobile.com/uncategorized/htc-evo-4g-commercial/#comments Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:13:34 +0000 Nafis http://fivemobile.com/?p=677 We have covered the Sprint / HTC EVO already in a previous post, the highly anticipated smartphone is set to be released June 4th and is only available on the Sprint Network.