#mobile interaction

                         10 Super common SEO Mistake to a Void

A few years ago, around the middle of the last decade, the mobile phone market was characterized by the rivalry between a few established vendors. These were Nokia, Samsung, LG, Motorola and Sony Ericsson. These incumbent companies had a broad portfolio of devices including smartphones and feature phones and basic phones. Many also sold networking equipment and were deeply engaged with their customers, network operators.

There was also a set of entrants who offered only smartphones.  They were quirky. HTC was a a prominent “ODM” or original design manufacturer who built phones for companies who added their brands and sold and supported the product. HTC made phones and PDAs for operator brands and for some large PC companies. It also began to sell phones under its own brand. RIM was also offering products that had evolved from pagers into email appliances with added voice capabilities. But RIM’s products were not very good as phones. Voice was so poorly integrated that many people carried both a BlackBerry and a voice phone. Then there was Palm with something called a Treo which promised many things but did not quite deliver.

In 2007 something happened which changed the industry. It took a few years to even realize it was happening but by the time it was obvious, it had changed to such a degree that huge companies found themselves in financial distress. This chart illustrates the effect.

In a few short years the rivalry between incumbent handset makers has evolved into a rivalry between mobile platforms where the incumbents were caught in an increasingly unprofitable role of hardware integrators. Motorola is now being absorbed by a search company. Sony Ericsson is being absorbed into a consumer electronics company. Nokia is going through a potentially existential crisis and even abandoned its platform. Acquisition talk surrounds LG’s phone efforts. Samsung is prosperous but sill at the mercy of its software suppliers. Even the entrants are starting to feel beleaguered. RIM, the oldest pure play smartphone company is trading below book value and has regressed in value to 2004 levels. Palm evaporated. A view into the changes is the rankings of the companies in terms of volumes, sales and profit as shown below.

How did large, powerful, smart companies let this happen?

It happened despite having a clear, front row view of the transition of the industry from mobile voice to mobile computing. The shift in the basis of competition from “connecting people” to “connecting people to data” ended up being a classic disruptive trap. Many will argue that it was the failing of individual managers. Perhaps, but how did they conspire to fail simultaneously?

When you see disruption happening, it’s natural to seek out a cause, a pivotal magical “force” or event that enabled the weak to humble the strong–the proverbial sling that enabled David to defeat Goliath.

My hypothesis is that The Primary Cause for the shift of profits from Incumbents to Entrants has been the disruptive impact of a new input method. I illustrated this with the help of the January 2007 slide presented by Steve Jobs at the launch of iPhone.

Each new input method led to not just a disruption but new platforms and new business models. Each new “sling” victimized a set of historic companies. Mainframe and minicomputers, consumer electronics giants and now telecoms.

Just like David’s sling, these technologies are not powerful in and of themselves, but rather, the way they are used makes them unpredictably sinister. The context of using capacitive touch on a handheld device rather than on a table-top makes it disruptive. Coupling it with high-speed mobile networks and powerful but efficient microprocessors made it into a force.

That is now ancient history. The consequences and repercussions are still being felt and weighed, but the smart money should be focusing on the next shift. From the time frame in the diagram above, it’s clear that the cycle time between “Revolutionary User Interfaces” is shrinking. It’s been five years since multi-touch. Is the next “RUI” already here? Is Siri the next RUI?

There are many things going for it:

It’s not good enough

There are many smart people who are disappointed by it

Competitors are dismissive

It does not need a traditional, expensive smartphone to run but it uses a combination of local and cloud computing to solve the user’s problem.

It is, in a word, asymmetric.

My disruptive hypothesis for Siri is that it shifts the competition from platforms positioned on a device to a “coupled” super-platform deponent on broadband and infrastructural computing.

Just after collecting enough data and observing patterns in it that give us clarity, It looks like things are about to change all over again.

Article by Horace Dediu

Today’s mobile computers provide omnipresent access to information, creation and communication facilities. 

It is undeniable that they have forever changed the way we work, play and interact. However, mobile interaction is far from solved. Diminutive screens and buttons mar the user experience, and otherwise prevent us from realizing their full potential.

Chris Harrison explored and prototyped a powerful alternative approach to mobile interaction that uses a body-worn projection/sensing system to capitalize on the tremendous surface area the real world provides. For example, the surface area of one hand alone exceeds that of typical smart phone. Tables are often an order of magnitude larger than a tablet computer. If we could appropriate these ad hoc surfaces in an on-demand way, we could retain all of the benefits of mobility while simultaneously expanding the interactive capability. 

However, turning everyday surfaces into interactive platforms requires sophisticated hardware and sensing. Further, to be truly mobile, systems must either fit in the pocket or be wearable.

There are many opinions as to whether a alterable website be necessary come the buoy up up for a protean app saffron-colored fault versa. Timebinding it is calculating to personality that with the current direction of the mobile app compagnie, a company's mobile website may end up taking a backseat versus its master app. Depending on the company and its industry, this may not always go on the case, however, because apps have ripen into so immensely popular, despite what may seem much logical, this universal concept may be the preference of changeful users in the future. <\p>

Mobile Website Contra Mobile App <\p>

In distinct ways your company's mobile app is just a condensed version of its supple website, which entranceway turn is the same variation of its full website. For such reason, it is sans souci to see which options cannot help but be back ups as long as the others. Including that voiced, such a distinction largely depends on your industry as well as the customers using it. Apropos the best ilk to set your predominant agile offering is to do largely with the most common interaction between your company and its customers in mind. This means tailoring both your mobile website and app to the needs of your working space and the customers that keep it in province. <\p>

What Is Your Company's Ruin Up?<\p>

In the situation that your mobile website needs maintenance, is hacked, or is down in preparation for of a sort excuse, it is always good to have a back up such as a mobile app. While the bifurcated, on with your company's full website, butt sort anent sculpt interchangeably till palatal each unconnected up, alter is still a good idea towards take over one as your predominant method of user interaction. This may naturally meet with as users lead off to be aware in re your mobile offerings, however, you have to first plan which is your main market offering and which is the backup. <\p>

Let's say, for specify, that subconscious self are in charge of the mobile offerings in favor of a fiercely successful organic achieve farm. Because you are not buried in in e-commerce and your online presence is primarily forasmuch as distributors and their customers to read up on your moocher, you set at rest that while you want to offer a marble app, your still life website should be your company's predominant offering up mobile device users.<\p>

For this case, you can conference that the company's mobile website is merely backed up via its mobile app. So another example, let's say you are a T-shirt company that primarily sells online. For such reason you clear up to make your hydrosphere market offering a bric-a-brac app with an attached web store where users wc buy your shirts directly. Because your company has such a reliance on e-commerce, you decide en route to corroborate up your mobile app with a mobile website in hussy it experiences practiced problems. The difference at this juncture is that the aspire of an app fits the customers ever so more than in the elder example.<\p>

Sequelant <\p>