Nokia makes the headlines today with the introduction of its services and software strategy. The company recently announced a major reorganisation, splitting its devices group from services and software. While the company is introducing new phones today, the key development relates to its new approach to the web. This is epitomised by the introduction of Ovi, a portal that will encompass its music, navigation, games, communities and other internet services. Also newly announced is the Nokia Music Store, which besides offering millions of songs, will integrate music buying and playback across both PC and mobile devices. It may be surprising that Nokia, the world's most successful mobile phone manufacturer, has set itself the challenge of transforming itself at a time when it is once again dominating the industry. The strategy of the last few years, built on different groups of phones carefully targeted at different user segments, appears to have served the company well as it approaches a 40% share of the 1 billion global market. But Nokia appears to be humble enough to recognise that this approach may not be appropriate for the demands of the next era in mobile devices. In particular, the company believes that software and related services will be just as important as the devices themselves as they evolve from standalone phones to what Nokia likes to call "multimedia computers". It sees the advanced internet, media and navigation capabilities of today's N series devices migrating steadily to all handsets over the coming years, putting web functionality into the hands of billions of users around the world. Many at yesterday's press event will have been comparing Nokia's approach to Apple's dominant iPod and much-hyped iPhone devices. The fundamental difference between the two is that Apple's success has been built on a closely controlled, vertical platform, whereas Nokia believes it can create an open solution that invites unrestricted competition to create the best consumer experiences. Nokia would appear to stand a reasonable chance of leveraging its dominance of the handset business into a leading position in internet services, but this is a long-term play, and devices will remain the core of the company's business for some years to come. Over The Top or Round The Back? Exploring The Emerging Multi-Billion Web Video Landscape, Revenue Outlook and Adoption Scenarios Attend Strategy Analytics' Analyst Forum at IBC. Registration is Free.

Blu-ray has suffered a blow in losing titles from Paramount and Dreamworks but it is unlikely to make much difference to the final outcome. If rumours suggesting these studios received a combined $150m in order to commit exclusively to HD-DVD are right, they illustrate the lengths to which each camp will go to ensure victory, and how much they stand to lose if they fail. The Paramount/Dreamworks decision certainly seems strange given that Blu-ray titles are now outselling HD-DVD by 2 to 1 in the US. And the suggestion that lower HD-DVD player prices are the main reason is very short-sighted - as I pointed out previously Blu-ray player prices are set to plummet, minimising today's HD-DVD advantage. It's still early days in the high definition disc market. Disc sales are still tiny relative to DVD, so there's a long way to go. And the fact that Shrek 3 is not available on Blu-ray may make a few potential buyers hesitate a little longer. But the weight of exclusivity behind Blu-ray, not to say Blockbuster's support and the PS3 effect, will surely tell in the end. This could be HD-DVD's last throw of the dice, and Paramount and Dreamworks are simply helping to postpone the inevitable Blu-ray triumph. Over The Top or Round The Back? Exploring The Emerging Multi-Billion Web Video Landscape, Revenue Outlook and Adoption Scenarios Attend Strategy Analytics' Analyst Forum at IBC. Registration is Free.

OK, it was never on; nor was it ever likely. But with Ballmer and Chambers on the same platform it's understandable the rumour mills might be turning. The message from the joint CEO presentation is simply that both companies are cooperating in looking after their customers, which shouldn't be a surprise. And that their products will "interoperate", which will also be helpful. To be fair, they also share the same vision, of a world of connected devices interconnecting seamlessly, etc. etc., but then they are also hardly unique in that respect either. It would be strange if Microsoft and Cisco were not partners. One does software, one does pipes. The companies' core activities are naturally complementary, a point that seemed to be lost on interviewer Charlie Rose. His persistent questions on business overlap missed the central point of conflict in the companies' strategic visions, which has to do with openness and standards. As we identified in our February report: "Cisco's plans to become the consumer technology brand of the 2010s are only the beginning; the company’s proposed transformation of technology industry business models has the potential to threaten every established player, from Sony and Panasonic to Apple and Microsoft, while offering unprecedented opportunities to any new entrant that is prepared to invest in the connected consumer vision." Cisco's particular vision hinges on impartiality with respect to technology standards, hardly something that Microsoft is likely to agree on. At CES, Chambers suggested that the days of technology standards battles such as Blu-ray/HD-DVD (read Java/Microsoft) will be consigned to history with the emergence of horizontal IP open standards-based networked devices. Cisco and Microsoft may x-operate (cooperate, interoperate) because their common customers (notably service providers) need them to, but that doesn't make them any closer partners than other pairings of technology vendors and network builders. Ballmer and Chambers could only tie the merger knot if one or both of them are prepared to make a radical shift in strategic direction.

Rajar contacted me to clarify the unaccounted for 21% of radio share. Rajar goes to great length to explain to its interviewees how to fill in their diaries, but in spite of this 21% of respondents are unable to confirm what platform they are using when listening to radio. Sometimes this may be attributed to unfamiliar locations, for example listening at a friend's house. But most of the time it is genuine uncertainty about what technology is being used. Rajar suggests that it is a positive achievement to identify nearly 80%, and indeed they should be commended for introducing this valuable research. We will examine the next quarter's results with interest for first signs of trends between platforms. But the fact that more than a fifth of listening hours are unidentified, even after extensive research and interviewee coaching, demonstrates how fragmented and complex the radio industry has become in the space of only a few years. Programme producers and broadcasters will be concerned to obtain even better clarity in order that investment decisions can be justified.

Following my recent discussion on online radio, Rajar, the UK's radio research body, has confirmed just how minor a role online plays in the overall radio industry. Their platform share data indicates that only 1.5% of all radio listening is online, and that's after nearly 10 years of availability. The digital share overall continues to grow impressively, but although DAB - Digital Audio Broadcasting - accounts for most of this, it is still only at 7% of total listening. Digital TV accounts for another 2.6%. Analogue (AM/FM) is still at 66%, although a mysterious 21% is unaccounted for. We also know 8.9% of mobile phone users have listened to radio on their phones, although most of that is likely to be FM, not data streaming. These figures show how tough it's been to get listeners to change their habits with a ninety-year old technology, and indicate the scale of the challenge facing those who would like to switch off analogue radio broadcasting. That is looking like an extremely remote prospect at this point in time.

Social networking is not just about the teenagers on Myspace and Facebook. Younger children are spending hours in online worlds like Club Penguin, as I can testify from personal experience. Club Penguin was set up by Canadian company New Horizon Interactive in 2005, and has just been acquired by Disney for $350m. It has 12 million activated users, 700,000 of which pay nearly $60 a year for the premium service (my daughter, or rather her parents, being one of them) - that's $50m in revenues from a measly kids' game site. Club Penguin is terrific. If I was nine years old again I don't see how Lego or Subbuteo would get a look-in. It can be nerve-wracking for adults to imagine that younger children are interacting in real time with other real people, but, inevitably, they think nothing of it, and happily explore the cartoon landscape making "friends" at the drop of a hat. One can only wonder at how the social skills of tomorrow's adults are changing relative to those of previous generations. Disney recognises Club Penguin as a safe-kid zone, and I've seen nothing in the game to dispute that. It's something many concerned parents are prepared to pay for, dreading the time when penguins become babyish and Facebook, or whatever next year's hot site is, takes over their children's lives.

James Cridland, the BBC's new Head of Future Media and Technology, Audio and Music, points out that Strategy Analytics' analyst forum at IBC , "Broadcast Under Threat" (complimentary registration...) should be titled "Television Under Threat", implying presumably that Radio is "broadcast" and has already been "under threat" for many years, and in fact has successfully evolved to meet that threat. You can read James' blog here. To be fair, he's also questioning why such events always concentrate on television and video, apparently ignoring the fact radio is in many ways ahead of the pack in adapting to the digital world. From a personal point of view, I have been a regular user of the BBC's podcasting service for a couple of years, transferring the shows to my MP3 player. I can't say if it's actually increased my overall listening to radio, but subjectively it has certainly improved my ability to hear what I want to hear rather than whatever the BBC happens to be broadcasting at any given time. I only wish the BBC had moved its podcasts from trial to a full-blown service - the selection of programmes is still very limited. As a side issue, there has to be some concern that the BBC is unable to move quickly enough in new media now that the new BBC Trust management set-up is in place. Or perhaps it's the thorny issue of copyright that's the hold-up. One of the best BBC podcasts, The Now Show, is currently unavailable "as some aspects of our new podcasting service are still being negotiated". When it was available, The Now Show was a good demonstration of the copyright challenges faced by downloaded radio - every programme included one or two "blank spaces" (filled by amusing presenter asides) where the broadcaster did not have the rights to make the original broadcast material available for download. It was usually, and inevitably, a music track that was the culprit. Apart from podcasts, which are a more recent innovation, radio streaming has been expanding for many years. The limitation for most users is that online radio typically requires access to a PC, but this has not stopped online streaming becoming an important platform. Again on a personal level, this has become an invaluable service when I'm travelling overseas, as an alternative to whatever local TV or radio is available, and I know this applies to many other "air warriors". Radio has always been seen as the poor relation to TV and video, even though, as James points out, it is still massively popular. In spite of its audience reach, however, radio is not underpinned by the same service provider/user relationship that characterises the pay TV industry, which has driven so much innovation in television. Indeed, "pay radio" has never caught on in Europe, in spite of several attempts, although it has started to become an important factor in the US (see Sirius and XM). Back in the analogue era, I lost count of the number of times people complained that there was no simple way to record radio programmes onto tape cassette (like a radio VCR). It's not as though the technologies were not there - the addition of a basic timer to most home hi-fi systems would have allowed this, but manufacturers felt there was no need, and the radio industry didn't seem to want to encourage it. The significance of the online platform to the radio industry has to be not only in wider programme distribution and availability, but also in a more effective and timely response to listeners' expectations. In this case, radio will surely continue to flourish.