Flash might be coming to the iPhone, Silverlight is coming to the mobile (and Java's already here).
Shantanu Narayen:
We have a version [of Flash] that's working on the emulation. This is still on the computer and you know, we have to continue to move it from a test environment onto the device and continue to make it work. So we are pleased with the internal progress that we've made to date.
read the article..



Well, Flash so far in emulation only. Implications? (note that there is nothing in that quote that implies it will be Flash or Flash Lite)
I don't know about you, but i'm loving the iPhone, as soon as ActiveSync is on there that's me done, no more phones.



Will flash *work* on the iPhone conceptually is the real question, flash (as it is) works on the web, but similar ui/ux/interface paradigms have to exist/be created as have to be for other iPhone/mobile apps and sites.

Just having flash on the iPhone (presumably in-browser) is not enough. Even though that will enable users to see the flash, does that mean that the flash will be usable on this platform in the same way it is in a desktop browser. I think that the very fact that there are iPhone specific web sites proves that it won't just *work* in terms of ui/ux in the way that current flash sites do in a desktop browser.

This will require developers and designers to do similar interface rethinks and detection as they're already doing for html sites.
Not to mention touch, multitouch, scaling, frame rates (timeline based actions and animation), performance, player version, webcam/microphone access, uploads/downloads, video codecs available.


So if we can assume that (mobile) bandwidth will increase, handsets will get more powerful, have more storage and screen real-estate, does this mean we can expect better experiences as a result?


Website owners (or designers/developers, whatever..) are very quick to consume a users bandwidth. By that i mean the thinking that if there is more bandwidth then it can can be used. Surely if there is more bandwidth then it means current things can be quicker! Downloaded faster! Download sizes of sites and their elements should still be efficient, video streamed should be realistic.

Why not enhance the experience through performance rather than what is effectively just more data transfer in the form of more graphics, higher quality video, or even just more code. The best mobile apps and sites are the ones that let you use them quickly for the function that you need right there and then. And are designed with the end medium (essentially the small screen form-factor) in mind. And not forgetting, right now, also at a good data cost. For most users there is still a cost per kb, let's not use data size as a barrier to use at all.
Brian sums a lot of this up very well earlier on this blog


Luckily the iPhone has inspired people do make websites that take advantage of the form factor, and so far to not just push the limits of every aspect of it, making it unusable. The experiences are mostly good, because they are fast, low-fat, and have familiar interfaces instantly taking cues from the basic native apps.


Let's go about this in the right way, help the users to take the leap to the mobile web by creating things that are genuinely useful and that work. Let's not go back to the frustrating early days of pretty much every new step forward of the web, mobile or otherwise. Don't make me compare this to WAP, please! We were young, ignorant, but excited and creative, and we learned a lot.

Posted by danjac

One of the many plaudits you hear about the iPhone is how great the browsing experience is. Mobile Safari is quick, looks slick and incorporates some innovative gesture features all of which make for a great web experience for a mobile phone.

But here's the rub- it's a Web experience- it's all about Web-on-Mobile and not Mobile Web. Apple have billed it as 'The Internet on your phone' letting you access all the sites you visit on your PC. Unlike sites and services built for the Mobile Web, Web-on-Mobile doesn't take the Mobile Context into account, it's just regular websites which have no idea that you're visiting while on the move. When it comes to the Mobile Web, Context really is King and is one of the core aspects of what Mobile Web 2.0 is all about.

However the iPhone isn't just a Web-on-Mobile device, there is also a Mobile Web side to it which I think is far more exciting. We're starting to see more and more Web companies build iPhone specific versions of their sites which cater to the strengths of the iPhone experience and take the Mobile Context into consideration. All the services I use on my iPhone every day are Mobile Web services: I use Hahlo to keep up to date with Twitter, the iPhone version of Greader to read my feeds and the mobile versions of Gmail and Facebook for email and social-networking. All of these service are built for mobile and while I could have used the regular Web interface for all of them, the Mobile Web versions give me a far more compelling user-experience.

Web-on-Mobile isn't just lacking in Context, it also can't take advantage of the technology that Mobile Devices have that PCs don't.. These days mobiles have cameras that can produce still images and video, can produce location information both through GPS and cell towers and pretty soon will have even more technology such as compasses which will allow the phone to know exactly what the user is facing. These features alone can potentially be used as the basis for a whole new generation of Mobile Web services and we're already starting to see this being implemented with LBS services like Brightkite.

Users also have a wealth of data on their phones like contacts in their phonebook, bank and credit card details in their mobile wallet and a whole collection of Music and Videos that identify their tastes. When you combine this data with device technology gives developers a great set of tools to build fantastic Mobile Web services.

Now I'm not trying to discount Web-on-Mobile completely, there is a huge market for it ,especially right now when the Mobile Web isn't producing enough services. Devices like the iPhone, browsers like Opera Mini and Transcoders are all catering to that market. However we as an industry shouldn't be satisfied with Web-on-Mobile being the future of the Mobile Web, it would really limit the potential of what we can do in the future. For me that is what Mobile Web 2.0 is all about, making the first steps towards that future. Feature rich Mobile Web services that know which device is being used, knows where the user is standing, knows what the user likes and gives them a kick-ass user experience. That's what I want from Mobile Web 2.0 and from what I can see, we're definitely on the right track.


Tarek Abu-Esber
Blog - tarekesber.com
Moblog - Tarek snaps crap

Posted by misteralfie

This article explores the implementation of Mobile Web 2.0. It is based on my keynote talk at the Mobile Web 2.0 summit http://www.mobilewebsummit.com/ next week. Starting from first principles, I discuss the practicalities of Mobile Web 2.0 and how it can be implemented at various points within the Mobile stack

The significance of Mobile Web 2.0

Why should you be concerned about Mobile Web 2.0?

Let us consider three key developments ..

1)When asked about the Web's biggest growth areas - Eric Schmidt said the answer was 'Mobile Mobile Mobile' http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/04/web_20_expo_eri.html

2)Apple iPhone shares 70% of its revenue with developers, a development that flies in the face of the many excuses that so many Operators have been putting forward for so many years.

3)Nokia chairman Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo says that Nokia is going to be an Internet company

All these factors point to a critical trend

The Internet companies are finally driving the mobile agenda (and the savvy Mobile Companies like Nokia are now embracing the Internet and dominating it). These companies are looking at the Web and the Mobile Web together and see a seamless vision of the Internet spanning both the fixed and the wireless domains

It is no longer possible to ignore the impact of Web/Internet on mobile applications. This means applications that span the Web and the Mobile Web are becoming increasingly important. Traditional mobile applications like Ringtones are becoming saturated. The younger demographic is increasingly also looking at Web based social networking like MySpace and not just the mobile devices.

(Note: Strictly the Internet denotes any device connected to an IP network. The Mobile Internet denotes connecting to the Internet via a mobile device. The Web denotes an application level framework based on HTTP and HTML. And the mobile web denotes the usage of the Web on mobile devices. We use these terms here interchangeably depending on the context)

Mobile Web 2.0 cannot ignore Web 2.0

So, what is Mobile Web 2.0?

We cannot discuss Mobile Web 2.0 in vacuum. In discussing Mobile Web 2.0, let us not forget the intellectual debt owed to Tim O Reilly in defining Web 2.0.

Whichever way you look at it, Web 2.0 (as postulated by Tim O Reilly) has the following characteristics

a)The use of the Web as a backbone

b)Harnessing collective intelligence and

c)Creating a database/body of data that becomes richer as more users contribute to the system .

Mobile Web 2.0

While the Mobile Web has made increasing strides over the last few years, especially in the launch of Web Widgets , offline browsing and the availability of the full web browser on the Mobile Web(i.e. JavaScript, CSS etc); we still have a way to go in the universal and ubiquitous availability of the mobile web on to mobile devices.

Hence, if we extend the above paradigm of Web 2.0 to Mobile devices (i.e. Mobile Web 2.0) there are two implications :

a) The Web does not necessarily extend to mobile devices

b)Even though the Web does not extend to mobile devices, intelligence can still be captured from mobile devices since the Mobile device is always available at the point of inspiration and many elements can be captured uniquely through mobile devices(for instance Location)

This can be depicted as seen in the above image

The iPod/iTunes service is a preliminary example of Mobile Web 2.0. The ipod uses the web as a back end and the PC as a local cache. In this sense, the service is 'driven by the web and configured at the PC' but it is not strictly a 'Web' application because it is not driven by web protocols end to end (iPod protocols are proprietary to Apple). However, it uses the Web as a backbone and this makes it a Mobile Web 2.0 service if we extend the definition of Web 2.0 to mobile devices.

Deep blue sea problem

The problem with the above diagram is: Once the content goes on the 'deep blue sea' of the Web (for instance on Flickr, YouTube etc) - the mobile industry lost its leverage i.e. unique advantage.

So, the fundamental question regarding the implementation of Mobile Web 2.0 is: How does the mobile industry adopt the ethos of the Web (openness, no walled gardens etc) and yet maintain some unique advantages? I.e. bridge the world of the Mobile and the Internet?

Implementing Mobile Web 2.0

There are at least eleven ways if we extend the idea of Mobile Web 2.0 across the stack

1)The Operator implementation: This will be likely based on IMS/SDP.

2)The handset implantation - This approach is best indicated by Nokia's Ovi strategy and the iPhone.

3)The Enterprise network strategy: Best epitomised by Cisco's foray into Web 2.0 based on recent acquisitions such as Tribes and Five Across

4)The Web players coming to mobile .. Best example of this approach is Android.

5) Mobile Web 2.0 and Devices: Amazon Kindle

6) SCWS(Smart card web server) - A relatively new approach with the SIM cards being increasingly powerful and with the deployment of a web server on SIM cards with companies like Gemalto deploying SCWS services.

7) Identity and Security: Identity and Security can complement almost any service and a telecoms network has an advantage there.

8) Browser APIs/DOM extensions: OMTP, OpenAjax alliance and others are doing some great work here

9) Voice Call detail records to create social graphs

10) Make it quicker / easier: users will always pay extra for the small improvements which make their life easier even when other(more cumbersome) ways exist which may be cheaper. 11) And finally, there is the concept of Umbrella social networks Beyond Web 2.0

11) Umbrella social networks: i.e. a social network that spans the Web and the Mobile Web. Twitter being one such example http://opengardensblog.futuretext.com/archives/2007/10/umbrella_social.html

Conclusions

As developments like the Android start becoming mainstream and the iPhone continues to make a big impact on the Mobile ecosystem: the full impact of Mobile Web 2.0 is only now starting to be felt. As more services span the Web and the Mobile Web, we will see greater uptake of Mobile Web 2.0

These ideas are explored in the forthcoming book Implementing Mobile Web 2.0 by Ajit Jaokar. Please contact me at ajit.jaokar at futuretext.com if you wish to know more.

Posted by misteralfie

The term "mobile web" has always bugged me. It is an attempt to segment the web into this kind of website for this device and that kind of website for other types - neither of which are compatible with each other. This is a false dichotomy.

In this day and age, more and more devices are web-enabled. Some have browsers, some don't. Mobile phones are probably the biggest category of devices that are web capable and have web browsers. These mobile devices range from older Nokia green-screen to fancy iPod Touch high dpi screen. These are both mobile devices, but can access and display the web in very different ways. The concept of a "mobile web" experience is completely different just between these two types of mobile devices.

The misconception is that the "mobile web" is about the device. A phone has mobility, but so does a laptop. "Mobile" actually describes the situation, the lifestyle, the context.

The iPhone and iPod Touch browser is WebKit, which is a complete full desktop type browser. When sitting at home on the couch watching TV, I am happy to use the iPhone to browse traditional websites and wade through templates designed for full-size monitors. I am in no hurry, usually looking for supplementary information about someone I just saw in a movie or checking weather for tomorrow. If browsing requires a few extra navigation clicks through multi-levels of navigation items, then so be it. On the flip-side, sometime I am at sitting at my desk looking at a website which is so poorly organized, the "mobile site" is actually more helpful. As well as, when I am running between airport terminals trying to catch a flight, I don't want to click through a site designed for people sitting in-front of a 19 inch monitor with a mouse and a keyboard. We all probably can put ourselves in similar situations and when we look back, it is not about the device we have in-front of us, it is everything but that, it is the environment around us we are really interested in.

I would argue that the term "mobile web" is the wrong description, something we should stop propagating. When we develop new "mobile" sites we should try to think of them as "sugar-free" websites. We cut all the corporate jargon, mission statements and consider the customers' needs and the situations in which they would be needing this information. They are probably in a rush, under pressure and/or doing three things at once.

These activities could be at a desk at work, while on the morning commute or sitting in a cafe in a foreign country. By cutting back all the un-needed navigation and fluff, the customer is left only with the bare minimum useful functionality. This new site concept is less mobile device centric and more about "sugar free" information. So whenever we start any new project, we keep that mantra at the forefront as we develop.

Continuing to talk about designing "mobile websites" continues to hamper adoption. As the number of mobile phones surpass that of traditional computers, and the variety of mobile devices continues to grow, the "mobile web" will become more popular than "The Web", at which point it just IS the web. Like when alternative music became mainstream - so what is the alternative then? By framing the conversation not as "mobile vs. traditional", but instead, "sugar-free vs. full-fat" (or more aptly - minimal, common functionality vs. every-edge-case and the kitchen sink) everyone benefits. This doesn't mean that your site is not allowed to detect and cater on a device-to-device basis, but instead, device targeting is in the details which make a site more useful - they don't make a site "mobile", they compliment your mobility no matter which type of site you visit, "sugar-free" or "full-fat".

-- brian suda
suda.co.uk

Posted by misteralfie

Daniel Appelquist has just taken the stage after an interesting panel session about sharing content between Web and Mobile. Here are some quotes that I came away with after the session:

"Mobile Delivery of content will define how a Web 2.0 service is implemented"
Bango

"Social Networking is driving data usage on mobile"
Hutch-3G

"Mobile can create more compelling user-generated content so gives users more reason to share it."
Bouyges

"If you send an MMS from you phone you'll get a warning message telling you the recipient might not be able to view the content correctly. How can we share content between Web and Mobile if we can't even share between Mobile and Mobile"

-t-

Posted by tarek

Some quotes from the mBlox presentation this morning:

"Credit Card payments on mobile are too complicated"

How can we simplify this? Are mobile wallets the way forward by keeping your credit card and bank details on your device? How do we get around the security issues connected with that?

"WAP billing has replaced Premium SMS in Mobile Web 2.0 - Consent trail has disappeared."

Premium SMS has had a bad reputation in the past both from a content provider and a consumer perspective. Also had time-consuming steps to ensure consumer consent which dented the user-experience. Paying by WAP has become easier (Bango et al) and improves the user-experience.

"Mobile ADs working, Mobile payments now work and are ethical. Problem is with data costs.Rich media can't even be given away today, data charges too high. Compelling Advertising, like Video, suffers from same issue."

mBlox feel that we'll never get to the point where flat-rate data plans are widespread in the Mobile user base. Personally I don't agree with this at all. Vodafone have already started to lead the way by giving their flat-rate data plan to all their contract customers for free. But I digress.

mBlox see a different way to get around the barrier of high data cost - Sender-Pays Data. This is where the content producer (be it an advertisement,music etc.) pays for the data charges incurred by the person downloading it. They envision that this would allow more compelling Ads, encourage users to buy content on the Mobile Web and generally solve all our ills related to getting customers to lose their fear of data charges.

While that's a nice idea, I just don't see this ever working. Consumers are confuse enough by Data charges as it is and throwing the Sender-Pays model into the mix will only add to that confusion. It will also be a huge pain for Content-providers as they'd potentially have to have deals with every operator in every geography to facilitate the reverse billing.

Their premise, that Mobile Data is a huge barrier to the Mobile Web, is true but their conclusion, that Sender-Pays, is very false. What do you think? Leave a comment below to let us know.

Posted by tarek