I’ve been watching RIM’s BlackBerry revolution unfold over more than a decade, to the point where telecom regulators or governments airing their latest complaints in the public domain has become predictable and commonplace. Following the protracted complaints by a minister in the Indian government in 2008, RIM has most recently been in the firing line from the UAE's Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, which claimed that: "As a result of how BlackBerry data is managed and stored, in their current form, certain Blackberry applications allow people to misuse the service, causing serious social, judicial and national security repercussions…" Saudi Arabia may also suspend BlackBerry mobile email and instant messaging services because they are considering the services to operate “outside local laws” and raise “national security” concerns. The services are apparently under scrutiny because they are operated through secure network operations centres around the world, meaning that most governments can't access the data easily on their own, a requirement of local legal interception legislation. This is nothing new for RIM. In my opinion, it is difficult to take these objections at face value. Comments that UAE and Saudi are small markets and do not matter to RIM are also wide of the mark (they still represent around 1.2 million subscribers).

• • There is a broad difference between accessing information on reasonable grounds and unreasonable monitoring of users. Legal intercept is fundamentally complex concept, for which there must be reasonable grounds for investigation, but is not the same as spying on users without reason.
  • A negotiating tactic to drive greater investment in these local country markets, through location of data centres or NOCs in these regions.
  • Business customers, who make up the majority of RIM customers, especially in developing markets, are higher ARPU customers. For a telecom regulator to shut off a high ARPU service for mobile carriers is hardly beneficial to a developing country’s economy.
  • The governments and regulators  that publically object to RIM’s level of content encryption are the same who benefit from RIM’s content encryption.
  • RIM is only subject to this scrutiny, because it is the only company that can meet the rigorous security standards set by national governments.  It is also the only incumbent that has a presence in vertical markets that require tight GRC (Governance, Regulation and Compliance).

Ultimately, RIM will have to allow its carrier partners access to tools that allow them to comply with lawful intercept legislation. However, RIM holds the keys and will likely only offer the tools to carriers that allow access to information that is legally required on a case by case basis. This will allow for reasonable compliance with requests from regulators and governments, whilst avoiding the less than savoury possibility of broad population monitoring, that in itself have broad moral repercussions. What is clear is that the company will not decouple the solution that would create a fragemented entity and damage the company’s USP. What is clear, is that RIM is in a bizarre predicament whereby it’s tight security and GRC adherence, driven by its architecture, which has given it an apparently insurmountable installed base in government, is having a seemingly negative impact on its business. Nevertheless, I believe RIM can and will meet reasonable demands by providing tools to carriers, whilst avoiding the unsavoury business of wholesale privacy violation. The stark reality remains, that RIM is only open to this scrutiny is because it is the only company that can provide this level of security to users, companies and even government agencies!

The smartphone market just took another surprising turn in a year where the battleground around mobile operating systems has become more intense than it has ever been, as HP acquired Palm for $1.2 Billion.

It has been well documented that Palm’s innovative WebOS has struggled to gain a sufficient foothold in the market, and sell-through has lagged because carrier promotion has been limited. Recently Palm has essentially been shipping a 6 month old device  with limited differentiation along with suffering from mounting channel inventory issues at key carriers such as Verizon and Sprint. Outside North America, sales have also been significantly lower than expected.

While both companies had a proud history in the PDA market (including the iconic Palm V and iPaq), both companies have struggled to gain a serious foothold in the smartphone market.

 

 

Whilst $1.2B seems a high price on the face of it, there is clearly and  it makes sense as there are clear synergies, and almost as importantly, a cultural fit, with various ex-Palm employees such as Todd Bradley and Satjiv Chahil present in HP’s PSG team.

• HP lacks presence and a clear direction in its smartphone business. The acquisition of Palm offers great mobile operating system IP as well as product development. It builds out the missing mobile part of the HP jigsaw.
• Palm lacks the channel distribution, efficient supply chain and reach. It lacked the funds to accelerate its product launches and refresh cycles. HP offers Palm the ability to resolve these issues and extend its reach in carrier channels, as well as opening up new channel opportunities.
• HP has spent years optimizing its supply chain capabilities, something that Palm has found a constant challenge.
• HP could potentially be acquiring Palm as a proactive move to prevent competitors getting hold of valuable IP in WebOS. It also warns competitors away from attacking Palm with patent infringements.
• The move would allow HP will offer the valuable WebOS to licensees, potentially creating a rival to Android? Palm’s perceived value is more closely linked to its software and platform development than specifically to its devices. Under one parent, platform fragmentation could be kept to a minimum. It is unclear if there is an intention to take this path at the moment.
• HP could potentially be acquiring Palm as a proactive move to prevent competitors getting hold of valuable IP in WebOS. It also warns competitors away from attacking Palm with patent infringements.
• The acquisition offers HP the ability to scale, WebOS for an emerging tablet and larger device business, where it is a leader and where Microsoft’s Windows Operating System is not the answer.
• The forthcoming Windows Phone 7 Series looks likely to offer little in the way of customisation for mobile operators. Clearly the acquisition of Palm allows HP to put something differentiated into the market.
• HP now has a mobile piece with which to integrate its enterprise software offerings and target the mobile worker, supported by its global services business.

More details of the deal will obviously emerge in the coming days, but what is certain is that HP will increase investment in WebOS, which it perceives to be the leading mobile platform which will offer a serious and credible mobile string to the bow of a formidable, global, tech giant. Interesting (and competitive) times for the mobile devices market indeed!

Andrew Brown

Hype surrounding mHealth is at an all time high. Mobile eHealth or mHealth encompasses the use of mobile telecommunications as they are integrated within the health care delivery systems and is part of a movement towards citizen-centered health service delivery. Major trade bodies such as the GSMA are firmly committed to mHealth through a partnership with the Continua Health Alliance, while mobile operators such as Orange are also involved in mHealth initiatives

Every analysis of mHealth I have ever seen begins with the same argument: that there are 6.75B people in the world and 4.6B mobile subscriptions, and that developing markets are showing the fastest growth (obviously as penetration is so low!).

Establishing mobile penetration does not in itself validate the mHealth concept! Moreover, many of the commitments are lukewarm, promising to invest in scalable solutions etc. However, mHealth has been around since 2001, and is clearly a valuable in the fight against illness and disease, but has failed to gain serious traction in that time, so what is next?

Significant sums are being invested in supply chain optimization for suppliers, enterprise IT software (CRM systems), asset tracking, monitoring and proactive maintenance (tissue chambers etc). Moreover, regulation in developed markets such as HIPAA play a key role in the choice of solution. Cellular has a key part to play in these areas, but is only part of something broader. We are only now getting towards the stage where we can talk about monitoring devices or mobile phones in a user’s hand.

To extract the true value from mHealth, mobile applications will need to be part of a broader set of business processes. What is clear is that the concept of mHealth is related to mBusiness as well as to eHealth and eBusiness:

• eHealth refers to healthcare practice which is supported by electronic processes and communication.
• mHealth is the mobile extension of healthcare applications into the mobile domain and is a subset of eHealth.
• eBusiness represents all the technological applications and business processes that enable a healthcare provider to offer a service, including front and back-office systems, essentially the utilization of information and communication technologies (ICT) in support of all the activities of business.
• mBusiness includes the tools required to enable eBusiness applications, such as a mobile application platform (MAP).

mHealth will be extremely viable, and valuable, but it will need to be more than an application that displays a users symptoms on a handset (I will be doing a future post on applications in mHealth, but there are already reports on M2M in healthcare here and a report on mobile healthcare applications here). Indeed,  it will need to be part of a broader mBusiness and eBusiness strategy. Given that these rollouts require significantly more investment, it is clear that the mHealth that can bring real change will need to be part of a broader ecosystem.

Andrew Brown