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.

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!

The BlackBerry WebKit Browser isn’t available to us just yet, but check out this impressive preview of the browser on the Blackberry Slider 9800.  It is more than likely that it will be released with the upcoming OS 6 update. Stay tuned!

July 13, 2010 2:05 PM PDT
Facebook’s Open Graph Going Mobile [Original Source]
by Jessica Dolcourt

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.

[Source] Andreas Constantinou
http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2010/05/the-many-faces-of-android-fragmentation/

[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

Yesterday was the day we had all been waiting for, Apple’s latest industry stopper iPhone 4 was unveiled on the first day of the Mac developers conference in San Fransisco. Though some of the steam had been let out by the lost prototype gaffe, the announcement came with the usual fanfare and industry buzz that comes along with any big Apple announcement. The handset itself is has been completely re-engineered, with a new body, new screen and some amazing new features like ‘Face time’ which allow you to video conference with other iPhones. The device is set to be released on Jun 24th in the US, UK, and Germany, while a Canadian release date is slated for sometime in July.  Check out the promotional video below, and a side by side comparison with the latest ‘next-gen’ handsets.  Also check out Steve Job’s keynote address.

iphone 4G from GON on Vimeo.

iPhone 4

HTC EVO 4G

Nokia N8

Palm Pre Plus

HTC HD2

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.

We are pleased and honored to announce that Five Mobile has be named to Branham Groups Top 25 Canadian ICT Up and Coming companies! [Read more here]

Check out the piece on ScoreMobile FC, which we developed for ScoreMedia!

Susan Krashinsky Media Reporter

Globe and Mail Update Published on Monday, May. 31, 2010 7:29PM EDT Last updated on Monday, May. 31, 2010 9:01PM EDT

When the World Cup kicks off in South Africa next week, sports fans will be united in their passion for the beautiful game. There’s just one problem for the media companies that serve those fans: The world doesn’t agree on what the sport is called.

For those outside North America (and purists within), it’s football, period. But when Score Media Inc. set out a few months ago to create a mobile phone application for footy fans everywhere, it faced a marketing conundrum. A “soccer” app would leave the rest of the world confused; a “football” app would have Canadians and Americans thinking touchdowns and tackles.

“It’s incredibly difficult for North American media companies to break into Europe for that very reason,” said Dale Fallon, the director of Score Media’s mobile division. But that is nevertheless the goal of the small Toronto-based company, which owns specialty TV network The Score. Its vehicle for a European landing is called ScoreMobile FC, which is to be released for iPhone and BlackBerry by the end of this week.

The company achieved unusual international success with its first application, ScoreMobile, which is the most popular app in the sports and recreation category for the BlackBerry – more popular even than the apps created by Sports Illustrated, CBS Sports and Major League Baseball.

Among Canadian iPhone users, it’s the No. 5 free sports app, according to stats from iTunes; the most popular is TSN’s. (TSN is owned by CTVglobemedia Inc., which also owns The Globe and Mail.)

Almost two-thirds of ScoreMobile’s total downloads come from the U.S. But the application has not brought in as many users from Europe. Score executives judged that the World Cup would be the perfect time to try to change that. While it is far too early to know whether it will pay off for Score Media, the move illustrates the way in which some media outlets are turning to mobile viewers in a search new revenues and growth as the traditional television audience fragments.

The FC app will be translated into French, Spanish and German by this fall; other languages, including Portuguese, will follow. The financial motivation is there: The Score only has so much airtime to sell TV advertising. Mobile platforms can court more digital ad sales, and can use “geo-fencing” target ads according to users’ locations.

In 2009, just under 10 per cent of Score Media’s $24-million in advertising revenue came from digital sales, including the small banners stamped at the top of the phone screen in its apps. The company’s goal is to grow its mobile revenues.

The popularity of ScoreMobile builds on the TV channel’s roots. When it launched in 1997, before there were anchors and highlights, it was essentially a sports ticker with scores and game information for die-hard fans. The app satisfies the same need for instant information, with scores and stats for baseball, soccer, football, hockey, basketball, golf, and car racing.

But both the TV channel and the mobile app differentiate themselves from other sports media brands through their approach to another side of the athletic world: gambling.

“We have been more forthright [than other sports channels] about the fact that people wager on games, whether it’s you and me betting privately, or whether it’s a provincially-funded sports lottery, or whether it’s offshore or whatever,” said Score Media chairman and chief executive officer John Levy. The app includes not only scores but also betting odds and information about athlete injuries.

“We do it very carefully because we don’t want to go offside, and everything we do is entirely legal,” said Mr. Levy.

The perk of expanding into international markets, Mr. Levy said, is that many of them are not as legally restrictive. Once ScoreMobile FC builds an international presence, he said, Score Media could be exploring a move into the highly lucrative betting business itself.

“By us now being in those markets, we’ll be able to deal with it in a more direct fashion,” he said. “…Who knows what that might lead to down the road. If we have the best vehicle to promote it, and to advertise it, then we should seriously look at stuff like that.”

Further apps that target an individual sport are on the way. Score Media is drawing up plans for one that caters to cricket fans in India. The original ScoreMobile app had 1.5 million downloads in its first three months and now, one year after its launch, it has been downloaded 3.5 million times. Score Media has a partnership with CBC to broadcast World Cup highlights and beyond the tournament, will include 30 leagues in its FC app. The international reach of The Beautiful Game gives the company a shot at building out its mobile strategy even further.

“In two to five years from now, we fully expect to be generating more revenue from our non-TV platforms than from our TV platform, and at much higher multiples,” Mr. Levy said. “We’re looking to be recognized as a sports media company with a global reach.”

[Source]

Toronto has become a hotbed of app development for mobile phones, churning out everything from productivity apps for businesses to sports and entertainment apps. The iPad’s bigger screen opens up even greater possibilities and Toronto developers are eager to seize the opportunities. The city is well-placed to do so. Its bustling film, Internet, design and creative industries have merged around the city’s universities and institutions to create an ideal ecosystem for app development, says Krista Jones, who heads the information and communication technology division at the MaRS Discovery District, a small business incubator. “Toronto is an app hub because we have deep roots in both the creative and design industries, and the technical industries,” she says. “It’s the perfect mix for apps.”

Ameet Shah, Jeff Zakrzewski, Oliver Tabay and Troy Hubman of Five Mobile Inc., have developed apps for Sony, Disney and mapquest and are currently developing new apps for the iPad. They are seen outside their Toronto office on May 28, 2010. JENNIFER ROBERTS FOR THE GLOBE AND MAIL
Five Mobile Inc.

Founders: Troy Hubman, Ameet Shah, Oliver Tabay, Jeff Zakrzewski

No. of employees: 35

Most popular creation: The Score Mobile for BlackBerry

Shortly before Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy in September, 2008, the financial giant pulled the plug on one of its many investments: Tira Wireless, a mobile app developer with a large office in Toronto. Five of the employees started the aptly named Five Mobile and never looked back. “When we started the company we had our first four contracts waiting to be signed as we were waiting for our incorporation papers,” says Ameet Shah, a Silicon Valley veteran. The company has grown to become one of the city’s larger developers. From NHL games for simple cellphones, the firm went on to create a popular BlackBerry app that aggregates sports results for The Score television network, as well as apps for Walt Disney Co., Sony Pictures Entertainment and MapQuest.

[Read the full article here]