Why is a phone MMI so different from a PC application (part 1) ?
In this post, I discuss why a mobile phone set of applications is radically different from that of a PC, and why it matters.
In the early age of the PC, text-based applications were using many different paradigms. Consider the following constraints:
But as the PC was a multi-application platform, the user also had to re-learn everything each time he was switching from one application to the other.
Hence the repeated attempt by some vendors to create integrated programs. Remember the "integrated suites" like Ashton Tate's "Framework" ? They failed because by the time they were introduced, their drawback (a limited version of every function) became more important than their benefit (integration) as the platform became ever more powerful. One of the reasons why Microsoft became strong in applications is that, in the great debate over multitasking in the early 80s, they bet on the modularization against integration. On the PC, that made sense.
A mobile phone is very similar these early PCs regarding the hardware:
First of all, a mobile phone is NOT supposed to be a multi-application platform. I don't mean here that a mobile phone must have only one feature, but that the applications that it offers are not supposed to change. Of course, so-called "smart phones" are able to load new applications, but we also know that their usability is significantly lower than integrated phones. By definition, being able to add new applications means that the level of integration of individual features is much lower... What we get is a collection of inconsistent applications and reduced performance (look at the time it takes to launch a new application on a Series60) due to the modular approach chosen. In my view, the modular approach is not relevant to the mobile phone and it is a mistake to try to replicate the PC model on such a small device.
In other word, allowing the user to add new applications on his mobile phone means modularizing and opening the platform. But modularization is -by definition- always achieved by reducing the level of integration of core features...
Do you remember the first Palm devices ? The reason why they were so easy to use, and why they became so successful, was precisely the fact that the features (Diary, Phonebook,...) were all integrated in a single application !
And reducing the integration means reducing the usability for its basic functions, why very often become buried in some submenu. IMHO, this is enough to cut an estimated 80% from the mobile phones market.
From here, we can conclude that to improve ARPU, a telco needs to make the features it tries to sell easier to use. And the more it wishes to push a new feature, the deeper it needs to
integrate it in the device... and thus the less "versatile" the platform should get. For the time to come, performance and usability will remain the key to success, and that means integration, not modularization.
In a post to come, I will discuss how this integration impacts the ease of use of the applications, making them so different from their PC cousins.
In the early age of the PC, text-based applications were using many different paradigms. Consider the following constraints:
- As there was no pointing device, every action was managed by moving a focus on active elements
- As there was no window, complex actions were splitted over several screens
- As there was no concurrent applications, it was not possible to call an external application to "use a service"
- As the service layer of the underlying platform was not integrated to the Operating System, the developers of a new application had re-invent and re-code everyting each time it was needed.
But as the PC was a multi-application platform, the user also had to re-learn everything each time he was switching from one application to the other.
Hence the repeated attempt by some vendors to create integrated programs. Remember the "integrated suites" like Ashton Tate's "Framework" ? They failed because by the time they were introduced, their drawback (a limited version of every function) became more important than their benefit (integration) as the platform became ever more powerful. One of the reasons why Microsoft became strong in applications is that, in the great debate over multitasking in the early 80s, they bet on the modularization against integration. On the PC, that made sense.
A mobile phone is very similar these early PCs regarding the hardware:
- There is (usually) no pointing device
- Screen's size are reduced
- Computing power is limited
First of all, a mobile phone is NOT supposed to be a multi-application platform. I don't mean here that a mobile phone must have only one feature, but that the applications that it offers are not supposed to change. Of course, so-called "smart phones" are able to load new applications, but we also know that their usability is significantly lower than integrated phones. By definition, being able to add new applications means that the level of integration of individual features is much lower... What we get is a collection of inconsistent applications and reduced performance (look at the time it takes to launch a new application on a Series60) due to the modular approach chosen. In my view, the modular approach is not relevant to the mobile phone and it is a mistake to try to replicate the PC model on such a small device.
In other word, allowing the user to add new applications on his mobile phone means modularizing and opening the platform. But modularization is -by definition- always achieved by reducing the level of integration of core features...
Do you remember the first Palm devices ? The reason why they were so easy to use, and why they became so successful, was precisely the fact that the features (Diary, Phonebook,...) were all integrated in a single application !
And reducing the integration means reducing the usability for its basic functions, why very often become buried in some submenu. IMHO, this is enough to cut an estimated 80% from the mobile phones market.
From here, we can conclude that to improve ARPU, a telco needs to make the features it tries to sell easier to use. And the more it wishes to push a new feature, the deeper it needs to
integrate it in the device... and thus the less "versatile" the platform should get. For the time to come, performance and usability will remain the key to success, and that means integration, not modularization.
In a post to come, I will discuss how this integration impacts the ease of use of the applications, making them so different from their PC cousins.
posted by BB | Permanent link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home