The Road to Success is Long for the Mobile Internet

November 21, 2007

by Carl Weinschenk,

The mobile Internet is in trouble. It’s hard to escape that conclusion when a well known analyst — Yankee Group president and CEO Emily Green — says that it “pretty much sucks.”

Actually, the prime topic of this InternetNews story from the first Mobile Internet World conference last week in Boston was a speech by Tim Berners-Lee. Lee is the director of the World Wide Web Consortium and is called the father of the Web so often that it seems like part of his official title. Lee expanded on Green’s eloquence by saying that people are reluctant to move from proprietary formats and protocols to explore new vistas. He said, according to the story, that new standards, “contextual” content, location-based platforms and “user awareness” — which probably refers to presence — will improve the mobile Internet.

Green’s eloquence also is expanded upon in a Yankee Group study, “Mobile Internet Utopia: Imagine if Supply Could Satisfy Demand,” that was released at the conference. The release on the study said that the mobile Internet “should already be” worth $66 billion per year, but has only reached $9.5 billion. Indeed, the firm says that even the $66 billion figure is conservative because it only refers to access revenues.

Whether the mobile Internet closes that gap or not is by no means certain. Clearly, there are many attractive applications and platforms available. A post at BizznTech, for instance, describes five: Gmail Java applications for mobile phones;Google Maps for Mobile; Opera Mini; Fring and ShoZu. During his remarks, Berners-Lee demonstrated a GPS-enabled watch that also monitors heart rates.

A commentary at TelecomTV looks optimistically at recent announcements in the mobile Internet arena. The biggest news, he says, isAndroid from Google. The piece outlines what the company is doing, but says that a couple of issues — changes in the landscape likely before it is ready and the questions about the strength of Linux-based system — could limit its impact.

Our sense is that we are at a crossroads. There is no doubt that the Mobile Internet will generate a lot of money — indeed, even the paltry $9.5 billion noted by Yankee is a lot. The InternetNews piece refers to “the long tail,” the idea that applications from many little providers will add up to great bundles of revenue. One question is whether this model will work — we worry about technologists’ mastery of economic theory — or whether a “killer app” is needed. The more basic question, however, is if these and other applications will appeal to non-geeks.

Source:IT Business Edge

Peer Networks Like Sermo Point Ways to Profit from Knowledge

October 25, 2007

We can categorize social networks into two extremes: monoliths like Facebook that seek to be everything to everybody, contrasted with networks built by companies like Dow Chemical Co. and KPMG that interest mostly their current (and possibly former) employees.

Even as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg continues to imply that Facebook is worth every bit of its $15 billion valuation, he offers few guideposts for its long-term business plans, reports the Times Online from the recent Web 2.o Conference in San Francisco. After Facebook creates a model of what he calls “the social graph,” Zuckerberg says, “… then we can expose those people to a set of applications which will enable them to share their information more effectively.”

Fair enough. We have little doubt that Facebook will do some very interesting things in the future. But we were intrigued by the emergence of a network for physicians called Sermo.

Some 30,000 doctors use the network to discuss diagnoses and treatments with their peers. Sermo and similar networks such as, which serves executives of wireless companies, appear to stake out a patch of middle ground between Facebook and specialized corporate networks. They are broader than company networks yet far narrower in scope than Facebook (or even LinkedIn), with their ready-made “social graphs” for folks who share professional interests.

Not only that, but they offer more readily apparent business models than Facebook and MySpace. As detailed in a Wall Street Journal article, while membership in is free, members must pay to list their promotions and ads in a “marketplace” section.

Sermo is even more interesting. While its members don’t pay, outsiders like hedge funds — which are interested in tracking doctors’ feedback on topics like new drugs or other treatments — do. It just announced a partnership with pharmaceutical giant Pfizer which is designed to facilitate online collaboration between Pfizer and its members. (While financial details aren’t discussed in a press release, we assume Pfizer pays something for this access.)

While this puts Sermo in the somewhat uneasy position of protecting the interests of both its members and of corporate partners like Pfizer, it is creating a new model in which, says Carr, a network operator can sell “not the eyeballs of its members but their ideas, observations, and conversations.”

Obviously key to this model is avoiding the kind of incidents that have dogged Wikipedia, whose contributors sometimes lie about their credentials. But this is the beauty of a not entirely “open” network, especially one in which members can wreck their careers by not being truthful.

Assuming professional networks can find a reliable and unobtrusive way of vetting their members, we expect to see more of them. If nothing else, we’ll expect many trade associations to beef up their online collaborative capabilities.