These days are filled with rumors that Nokia is going to adopt Windows Phone 7 or Android operating system for their phones. Here is what I think Nokia Mobile phone business unit should do. Focus on a few important products and send a strong message to the market that Nokia intends to take the challenges head on with some fundamental changes in directions and philosophies.
Operating System
Adopt both Windows Phone 7 and Android if you can get deals with both Microsoft and Google. Why choose now? You have the resource to make phones for both OS if you phase out Symbian and Meego. Samsung, LG and HTC have made phones for both OS and sure Nokia can do the same. You don't have to pick a OS winner now. Leave the market and consumers to decide what they want. Apple has beaten Nokia in its own game (controlling both phone hardware and OS). Now it's time to rethink and partner with a decent OS. Symbian is old and clunky and Meego is late in the game. Anyway, if you do have to choose one, pick Android.
Streamline Product Line
At the high end of the mobile phone market, phones are really customized via user experience, by the way of applications users choose to download to their phones to make them unique to their needs. There is no need to have many smartphone models each having slightly different hardware and cannibalizing sales among your own product line. I would suggest to keep 3 main models, one touch screen with full QWERTY keyboard (similar to E7), a large touchscreen only version (similar to N9) and one business focus with QWERTY (E-series).
Make some feature phones, i.e., basic phones for making phone calls and short messages. These phones are for the developing markets and for people who don't want or need a smartphone. With these feature phones, Nokia continues to operate in markets that it is still pretty good at. It also helps build brand loyalty and hope one day these feature phone users graduate to a Nokia smartphone.
Aggressively Market Free Ovi Maps Navigation
Nokia has made Ovi maps and navigation free for some phones. Now it's time to make them free for all smartphones and aggressively market this feature. The iPhone does not have free navigation built-in and to do so Apple will need to buy a company like Garmin or TomTom. To have free turn-by-turn voice navigation on the iPhone, users need to spend roughly $30-50 per region. Nokia has already spent the money to acquired Navteq and can offer free navigation for the world. To do the same on the iPhone today will cost the end users hundreds of dollars. Not that everyone needs navigation for the whole world but this is a feature you market. Free navigation comes with the phone, no need to spend extra on 3rd party apps.
The above are my views. Let's see what Nokia is going to announce tomorrow.
Showing posts with label iPhone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iPhone. Show all posts
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
iPhone antenna saga continues
The most recent Consumer Reports review of the iPhone 4 antenna issue has fueled the war of words in many online sites, with one camp calling Apple to recall the iPhone 4 and another camp saying the iPhone 4 has better reception than the previous iPhones and there is no antenna problems. Based on what reports have shown, I believe there is a design issue with the iPhone 4 antenna system. However, I do not think this justifies a recall because there is no health or safety concerns associated with the issue. Also, fixing the problem with hardware changes is not as simple as what some online experts think. Any change in the antenna design requires the iPhone 4 to go through new FCC regulatory approval on top of the logistics and costs associated with retrofitting the iPhone. Apple has offered iPhone 4 owners to return the iPhone for full refund - the only correct thing Apple had done in this saga.
Apple has handled this issue very badly by deflecting the issue by first claiming there is no issue and then said it is a software problem where the signal strength is displayed incorrectly. If Apple had offered a free bumper with the iPhone 4 (Yes, it is a band-aid type solution but it shows goodwill from Apple), the problem may not turn out to be such a PR nightmare. I think we can expect the next generation iPhone will have a new antenna design.
What will Steve do to diffuse this issue?
Apple has handled this issue very badly by deflecting the issue by first claiming there is no issue and then said it is a software problem where the signal strength is displayed incorrectly. If Apple had offered a free bumper with the iPhone 4 (Yes, it is a band-aid type solution but it shows goodwill from Apple), the problem may not turn out to be such a PR nightmare. I think we can expect the next generation iPhone will have a new antenna design.
What will Steve do to diffuse this issue?
Friday, July 2, 2010
Apple iPhone software fixes hardware or network problem?
Today Apple issued a letter on their web site explaining the iPhone 4 reception issue. I am afraid Apple's explanation is not convincing at all. Apple said "Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong." I am a wireless engineer by training. That explanation from Apple is just bizzare. Not to bore everyone with the technical details I will explain in a note at the end of this blog for those who are interested.
Apple said "To fix this, we are adopting AT&T’s recently recommended formula for calculating how many bars to display for a given signal strength. The real signal strength remains the same, but the iPhone’s bars will report it far more accurately, providing users a much better indication of the reception they will get in a given area." Translation - Now we 'fix' the software to 'accurately' show you how bad the signal really is. It means the phone will show fewer bars with the new software. So, we now blame the AT&T network coverage instead of the iPhone 4 reception or antenna problem?
Now it begs the question whether Apple's iPhone design team knew this antenna problem all along. Apple had never sold any decorative accessories for the iPhone. It leaves the accessories to after-market vendors. Why is Apple selling a plastic bumper for the iPhone 4 and it costs $30! Turning a crisis into an opportunity?
Note:
The phone software can fudge the number of bars displayed to anything. Let's consider a hypothetical example. Let's assume in Phone#1 a signal level of -100dBm shows 1 bar and every 2dBm shows another bar. The signal indicator on Phone#1 will show the following, -100dBm = 1 bar, -98dBm = 2 bars, -96dBm = 3 bars, -94dBm = 4 bars and anything higher than -92dBm = 5 bars. Now, let's change two variables so that on Phone#2 the bar starts showing at -95dBm and every 5dBm shows another bar. The signal indicator on Phone#2 will show -95dBm = 1 bar, -90dBm = 2 bars, -85dBm = 3 bars, -80dBm = 4 bars and anything higher than -75dBm = 5 bars. Now a user starts at a location receiving -90dBm and move to a area where the signal drops to -100dBm. Phone#1 shows 5 bars at the first location and then drops to 1 bar at the second location. Phone#2 displays 2 bars and then drops to no bars. Same phone, same signal, different software show different number of bars. That doesn't solve any coverage or reception problem but just faking the number of signal bars. The real proof is to look at the RxLev in absolute numeric value in dBm in a field test mode, not some artifically fudged signal bars displayed on the phone.
Apple said "To fix this, we are adopting AT&T’s recently recommended formula for calculating how many bars to display for a given signal strength. The real signal strength remains the same, but the iPhone’s bars will report it far more accurately, providing users a much better indication of the reception they will get in a given area." Translation - Now we 'fix' the software to 'accurately' show you how bad the signal really is. It means the phone will show fewer bars with the new software. So, we now blame the AT&T network coverage instead of the iPhone 4 reception or antenna problem?
Now it begs the question whether Apple's iPhone design team knew this antenna problem all along. Apple had never sold any decorative accessories for the iPhone. It leaves the accessories to after-market vendors. Why is Apple selling a plastic bumper for the iPhone 4 and it costs $30! Turning a crisis into an opportunity?
Note:
The phone software can fudge the number of bars displayed to anything. Let's consider a hypothetical example. Let's assume in Phone#1 a signal level of -100dBm shows 1 bar and every 2dBm shows another bar. The signal indicator on Phone#1 will show the following, -100dBm = 1 bar, -98dBm = 2 bars, -96dBm = 3 bars, -94dBm = 4 bars and anything higher than -92dBm = 5 bars. Now, let's change two variables so that on Phone#2 the bar starts showing at -95dBm and every 5dBm shows another bar. The signal indicator on Phone#2 will show -95dBm = 1 bar, -90dBm = 2 bars, -85dBm = 3 bars, -80dBm = 4 bars and anything higher than -75dBm = 5 bars. Now a user starts at a location receiving -90dBm and move to a area where the signal drops to -100dBm. Phone#1 shows 5 bars at the first location and then drops to 1 bar at the second location. Phone#2 displays 2 bars and then drops to no bars. Same phone, same signal, different software show different number of bars. That doesn't solve any coverage or reception problem but just faking the number of signal bars. The real proof is to look at the RxLev in absolute numeric value in dBm in a field test mode, not some artifically fudged signal bars displayed on the phone.
Monday, June 28, 2010
iPhone 4 is out
The new iPhone 4 was out on Thursday last week. The Apple Store in San Francisco has a line outside that wrapped around the block and I wasn't going to wait in line. It's amazing that people will line up to buy a phone. Well, today I finally walk into an Apple Store (no wait anymore) to check out the iPhone 4. The screen is absolutely beautiful but other than that, there is nothing really appeals to me to make me upgrade from my iPhone 3GS. I know many people will disagree with my verdict but to me it is more a cosmetic upgrade of the iPhone 3GS. It is true that there are new features like multitasking, Facetime video call, 5M pixel camera, but still these are not new in cell phones. I think Nokia has all those over a year ago.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Apple vs. Nokia
Since Apple introduced the iPhone, Nokia continue to lose share of the smartphone market. So, how are they different in making and marketing cell phones?
Apple create public anticipation and excitment on their product launch because they keep their product secret very well (until the iPhone 4 shows up in a bar in the Bay area). That creates public interest and people do line up to get an iPhone because it is cool. Nokia on the other hand announced the N8 in April and said it would be available in the third quarter of 2010. The N8 is supposed to be Nokia's answer to the iPhone but what good is it if you cannot buy it and let Apple take the market with the iPhone 4?
Cell phone has become a commodity where hardware becomes less of a differentiating factor. Apple understand this and created the App Store. With the App Store, there is a platform on which third party developers can create applications and let the marketplace decide which applications are good. Consumers can 'customize' their phones however they like by loading different applications. Apple shift the software application development cost to others while taking a cut in every application sold at the AppStore, like collecting tax!
While Apple have basically one phone model, Nokia segment the market by selling different models, the N-series high end multimedia phone, the E-series business optimized phones, other series for music focused and other low end phones - and they don't run the same operating system. Apple again have the advantage here because they can focus on one platform development and the application developers can make one application that runs on the iPhone (and iPod Touch too). On the other hand, Nokia have to spend multiple R&D budgets on developing and marketing many more phone platforms. In addition, software developers have to port their applications to different platforms.
I think the N8 has better hardware than the iPhone but the software and user interface may let them down. However, I am still interested to see how the N8 performs in the smartphone market, especially outside North America where people are generally more savvy with cell phones selection.
Apple create public anticipation and excitment on their product launch because they keep their product secret very well (until the iPhone 4 shows up in a bar in the Bay area). That creates public interest and people do line up to get an iPhone because it is cool. Nokia on the other hand announced the N8 in April and said it would be available in the third quarter of 2010. The N8 is supposed to be Nokia's answer to the iPhone but what good is it if you cannot buy it and let Apple take the market with the iPhone 4?
Cell phone has become a commodity where hardware becomes less of a differentiating factor. Apple understand this and created the App Store. With the App Store, there is a platform on which third party developers can create applications and let the marketplace decide which applications are good. Consumers can 'customize' their phones however they like by loading different applications. Apple shift the software application development cost to others while taking a cut in every application sold at the AppStore, like collecting tax!
While Apple have basically one phone model, Nokia segment the market by selling different models, the N-series high end multimedia phone, the E-series business optimized phones, other series for music focused and other low end phones - and they don't run the same operating system. Apple again have the advantage here because they can focus on one platform development and the application developers can make one application that runs on the iPhone (and iPod Touch too). On the other hand, Nokia have to spend multiple R&D budgets on developing and marketing many more phone platforms. In addition, software developers have to port their applications to different platforms.
I think the N8 has better hardware than the iPhone but the software and user interface may let them down. However, I am still interested to see how the N8 performs in the smartphone market, especially outside North America where people are generally more savvy with cell phones selection.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
iPhone 4
I have just finished watching Steve Job's keynote speech where he introduced the iPhone 4. Even though we have seen the iPhone 4 because of the Gizmodo leak, it is still interesting because of Jobs charisma and how he presented the most important features of the new iPhone. Comparing the technical specifications of the new iPhone 4 with the latest smartphones on the market, it is roughly on par with the likes of HTC's Android and even Nokia phones. However, Apple still make it relevant because they focus on the 'why' you need this but not that, instead of focusing on 'what' is in the phone. I am not going to do a full review here as you can find many of them by Googling. Let's look at two features to illustrate my point.
Camera
- 5M pixel with LED flash. This is nothing exciting because the new Android phones come with 8M pixel camera and the upcoming Nokia N8 comes with a 12M pixel camera. 5M pixel on a small sensor is plenty in a phone form factor. If you are just viewing your photos on your phone or your computer, both of them have resolution far less than 5M pixel anyway. The front camera is not a new idea either but using it for FaceTime video calling, that's a good use of a front camera.
Display
- 'Retina display'. What a cool name! Basically Apple says that's all the resolution you will need because your eyes won't be tell the difference even if the resolution is higher. Another sensible decision with a good explanation rather than just cramming more pixels and dots per inch on the specifications.
Overall, I would say the iPhone 4 is a attractive incremental upgrade. Apple just do things a little better than everyone else and now others have to play catch up again.
Camera
- 5M pixel with LED flash. This is nothing exciting because the new Android phones come with 8M pixel camera and the upcoming Nokia N8 comes with a 12M pixel camera. 5M pixel on a small sensor is plenty in a phone form factor. If you are just viewing your photos on your phone or your computer, both of them have resolution far less than 5M pixel anyway. The front camera is not a new idea either but using it for FaceTime video calling, that's a good use of a front camera.
Display
- 'Retina display'. What a cool name! Basically Apple says that's all the resolution you will need because your eyes won't be tell the difference even if the resolution is higher. Another sensible decision with a good explanation rather than just cramming more pixels and dots per inch on the specifications.
Overall, I would say the iPhone 4 is a attractive incremental upgrade. Apple just do things a little better than everyone else and now others have to play catch up again.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Too many buttons
Have we made technologies more complicated than they should be and do regular end-users care? I just picked 3 devices that have control buttons on them I used last night - a remote control for a television, a remote control for the Roku media streaming device and my iPhone. I counted how many buttons are on each of them and how many I used. The TV remote control has 46 buttons and I use 3 (on/off, channel up/down and volume up/down). Typically, I turn on the TV, channel surf with the up and down button, may be adjust the volume, and turn it off because there is nothing really worth watching. Now comes the Roku remote control, it has 9 buttons and I use 7 of them. Finally, the iPhone it has 4 buttons on them - volume up/down, an on/off switch, the silent switch and the prominant home button on the face of the iPhone. How many of them do I use? All of them.
My point is do we really need all those control buttons if the majority of time we only use a few? Aren't we making things too complicated. I am sure all the buttons have functions on my TV remote control but do I really need them given the TV also has on screen menu? It probably makes sense to the engineers who design them but not for the general public. (Disclosure: I am trained as an engineer but to be honest some of the things engineers design do not make a whole lot of sense to average consumers.)
I was pleasantly surprised when I receive the Roku and in particular the Roku remote control. It was so small, with only the essential buttons and I can figure out how to use it without referring to the user manual. That's user-friendly and how consumer products should be done. A good engineering design should hide the complexity, unclutter the user interface and create a better user experience.
Needless to say, I was thrilled when I first saw the iPhone. Its clean design makes it so easy to use. It's the sort of marketing genius you get from Apple making you believe their product is so simple. And the marketing message works! The one button I use most is the home button. When you press the home button, it actually reveals screens full of other buttons/icons. Hmm, haven't I seen this idea before..... thinking.... thinking.... thinking.... Ah.... the Microsoft Windows "Start button".
My point is do we really need all those control buttons if the majority of time we only use a few? Aren't we making things too complicated. I am sure all the buttons have functions on my TV remote control but do I really need them given the TV also has on screen menu? It probably makes sense to the engineers who design them but not for the general public. (Disclosure: I am trained as an engineer but to be honest some of the things engineers design do not make a whole lot of sense to average consumers.)
I was pleasantly surprised when I receive the Roku and in particular the Roku remote control. It was so small, with only the essential buttons and I can figure out how to use it without referring to the user manual. That's user-friendly and how consumer products should be done. A good engineering design should hide the complexity, unclutter the user interface and create a better user experience.
Needless to say, I was thrilled when I first saw the iPhone. Its clean design makes it so easy to use. It's the sort of marketing genius you get from Apple making you believe their product is so simple. And the marketing message works! The one button I use most is the home button. When you press the home button, it actually reveals screens full of other buttons/icons. Hmm, haven't I seen this idea before..... thinking.... thinking.... thinking.... Ah.... the Microsoft Windows "Start button".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)