Opinionated comments on mobile phone industry news
|
All entries are written by Anders Borg, CEO and Consultant of Abiro, that has a long experience in strategic planning, developing embedded and Java software, usability aspects, and the mobile phone industry in general. You can also read the latest Mobile News entries on your phone via wap.abiro.com, and we provide many News Feeds from popular news services. For advertising and contribution queries, please use the feedback form. News feed (local) FeedBurner Feed
|
|
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Do enterprises need to involve operators?
My conclusion is no (except for getting standard mobile subscriptions, and at least for Europe), but Daniel Taylor thinks otherwise in Can Enterprises Bypass The Carrier?.
In my opinion it shouldn't (and doesn't) matter what operator is being used for the user-to-enterprise communication, as the only thing the operator supplies in this case is a wireless link to the Internet. It doesn't even matter if different users have signed up to different operators, as long as phone/service compatibility is achieved, either via browser-based services or via a client application interfacing with the enterprise service (typically developed in Java, Symbian OS or Windows Mobile).
Daniel points out that if operators don't provide the mobility (again beyond pure communication links) then enterprises need this competence inhouse, but in my opinion operators don't understand enterprise mobility at all. Rather I see a big opportunity for third-party service providers to step in and provide both the phone compatibility and service "mobilization".
Of course involving operators is still necessary, but in the role as communication providers (similar to how enterprises subscribe to broadband ISPs).
In my opinion it shouldn't (and doesn't) matter what operator is being used for the user-to-enterprise communication, as the only thing the operator supplies in this case is a wireless link to the Internet. It doesn't even matter if different users have signed up to different operators, as long as phone/service compatibility is achieved, either via browser-based services or via a client application interfacing with the enterprise service (typically developed in Java, Symbian OS or Windows Mobile).
Daniel points out that if operators don't provide the mobility (again beyond pure communication links) then enterprises need this competence inhouse, but in my opinion operators don't understand enterprise mobility at all. Rather I see a big opportunity for third-party service providers to step in and provide both the phone compatibility and service "mobilization".
Of course involving operators is still necessary, but in the role as communication providers (similar to how enterprises subscribe to broadband ISPs).
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
Anders - I should make a distinction between what I want and what I think will happen.
There is no doubt about what we could do at the enterprise level if we could simply treat the wireless carriers as connectivity providers. We could build far more interesting mobile applications that would have user roaming, IP telephony, messaging and presence at their core.
And it would be awesome!
Unlike the broadband IP services that you mention, there are barriers to entry in wide area wireless networks. The regulation of wireless spectrum has codified the mobile operator oligopoly. This -- in turn -- has translated to a lack of openness in service interfaces, user authentication, device management, etc.
So I agree with you that there are numerous IT departments willing to get rid of the carriers altogether. I also agree that we could do things very differently were the carriers simply providing a "dumb pipe."
What I don't see is a mechanism to make that happen. Skype was promising, but security issues keep turning off IT departments. Perhaps WiMAX will put some pressure on the oligopoly, but in some markets those services will be regulated as well. So much for disruption.
There is no doubt about what we could do at the enterprise level if we could simply treat the wireless carriers as connectivity providers. We could build far more interesting mobile applications that would have user roaming, IP telephony, messaging and presence at their core.
And it would be awesome!
Unlike the broadband IP services that you mention, there are barriers to entry in wide area wireless networks. The regulation of wireless spectrum has codified the mobile operator oligopoly. This -- in turn -- has translated to a lack of openness in service interfaces, user authentication, device management, etc.
So I agree with you that there are numerous IT departments willing to get rid of the carriers altogether. I also agree that we could do things very differently were the carriers simply providing a "dumb pipe."
What I don't see is a mechanism to make that happen. Skype was promising, but security issues keep turning off IT departments. Perhaps WiMAX will put some pressure on the oligopoly, but in some markets those services will be regulated as well. So much for disruption.
Agreed. My note was also partly "this is the way it should be", but maybe I see less show-stoppers. Could be market dependent, as in Sweden I couldn't care less what operator I'm using. They all fight for the lowest price and the same services (voice and bit pipes).
To sum it all up: I rather see a lot of opportunities for third party, provided we get service-independent flatrate. Right now operators tie flatrate to specific services they've approved and that they get revenue from. If they made it completely open, then VoIP would knock on the door two seconds afterwards.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
