Dr. G. Venkatesh,
|
Next generation handsets” is in itself an
oxymoron. When the word “handset” was originally coined,
it stood for “ the part of a
telephone, containing both
receiver and transmitter (and
sometimes dial) that is held in
the hand”, which brings to
mind the image of a heavy
(black) instrument connected
through a coiled cable to a
cradle. Today, this humble
instrument is being transformed
into a light, sleek and attractive
personal information and
entertainment device that bears
little resemblance to its original
form. The next generation could
see this transformation
completed, hence prompting the
question – will we continue to
refer to such a device as a
handset? |
Not only is the word handset
inappropriate, the phrase “next
generation” is confusing when
applied to mobile handsets. We
use “generation” to denote a step
in the evolutionary sequence,
and “next” means these steps are
well spaced in time. For
example, the evolution of the PC
is clocked by the introduction of
new processors from Intel;
likewise LCD TVs by new
generation LCD panels and
video players by new video encoding standards. In each of
these systems, we see the
introduction of a small number
of fresh device models each year,
and major platform variations
are directed by the step evolution
in the performance of one or
more component technologies.
Mobile phones on the other
hand seem to change in a
continuous blur,with hundreds
of new models being introduced
each year. These models seem to
be derived more from the
innovative integration of
component technologies than
from the step evolution of these
component echnologies into the
next generation.
Nevertheless, there are some
defining market trends that seem
to have a strong bearing on the
shape of future mobile devices.
Let us look at some of these.
To start with, the mobile
phone is increasingly becoming
a powerful computing device. If
we open up a basic mobile
phone, we find inside it a
processor running at over 100
MHz clock frequency and
memory of about 16 MB. It can
connect to the internet using
GPRS giving a data transfer rate
of about 30 Kbps. Some of these
devices also carry a SD card that
can store up to 1GB of data.
Thus, even a basic mobile
phone today compares
favourably with a Pentium-I PC
sold in the early 1990s – which
had a 133 MHz processor, 16
MB of RAM, 1-2 GB of disk
and connected to the internet
through a 33.6 Kbps dial up
modem. Remember that it was
this configuration that kicked
off the PC revolution spawning
thousands of applications over a
decade. Are we going to witness
a similar revolution with the
mobile phone over the next
decade? If so what are these
thousands of new mobile
applications going to look like?
One is tempted to think
about mobile-Internet
applications along the same lines
as PC-Internet applications.
There is one notable difference
though. The PC came before
the Internet, whereas the mobile
phone arrived much after the
Internet. Since the PC was the
main device to access the
Internet, most of the Internet
content is developed with the
PC I/O in mind. From the
point of view of the developed
world which has extensive PCInternet
experience, the mobile
phone becomes a constrained device with clumsy I/O and
poor display. For example, the
iPhone is considered a more
exciting device because it
provides a more genuine browser experience comparing
favourably with the PC
experience. But this is an
inverted world view.
To see this, we should note
that the mobile phone has
several facets that go way
beyond the PC. For instance, a mobile phone can connect and
relate to physical objects more
readily by assimilating imaging
and projection, location (GPS),
navigation and near field communications (NFC),
accelerometers and other
sensors, and haptic feedback
technologies. This suggests that
we could attempt more natural I/O schemes with mobile
phones, and then it would be
the PC’s keypad, mouse and
display system that would look
artificial and clumsy! As an
example, we can contrast
Nintendo’s Wii which uses
accelerometer devices to
combine physical activity with
games with Sony’s PS3 that persists with conventional I/O
but pushes the limits of
performance. The Wii comes
out better from the perspective
of providing a holistic user experience.
In an encouraging reversal of
fortunes, it is entirely possible
that such radical innovation in
mobile applications may actually
appear from the emerging
markets like India precisely
because they have not yet been damaged by the influence of the
Internet experience. Witness for example the rapid spread in
India of SMS based applications
that substitute Internet online
transactions.
If such SMS
systems become widely available, it could pre-empt the need for
customers to purchase and use
PCs, further driving the need
for such mobile applications! Then the mobile phone would
not only be the first interactive
digital personal device that an
Indian could possess, but it
could well be the only one. An
entire new mobile application
ecosystem could thus take root
in India.
Another major trend to watch
is the democratisation of
content. Anyone who has seen
the videos on YouTube will
readily agree that the amateur
content available there is at least
as interesting as the numerous video programs developed by
the media companies for the
masses. In fact a lot of the
content on YouTube is generated
using mobile phone video
cameras, simply because that is
the only device available at hand
when the (unexpected) event
being video-graphed is taking
place.
The mobile phone combined with video archival
and search has thus unshackled
the creation of content from the
media houses. The
democratisation of content is
complete when people start to
share, talk about and rate such
content. It is only a matter of
time before mobile phones
become the primary tool that facilitate creating, uploading,
communicating, sharing,
displaying and rating of
amateur content.
Along with democratisation of
content, we are also seeing the
personalisation of content. At
one time, the television in the
living room brought the family
together every evening to watch
the popular family serials
broadcast over the few channels.
Today, with the rapid
proliferation of new content and
repacked content from the
archives, it is not unusual to
find each member of the family
watching their own programs on
their personal TVs.
Tomorrow,
with the availability of content
anytime anywhere, it is entirely
possible that the viewing of
content migrates entirely to
personal devices that are mobile.
In order to facilitate such
personalisation, the device will
have to provide good tools for
interactive content search.
Personal media on the PCInternet
works well because the
PC Internet browser is well
suited for pulling the content we
need.
The mobile phone seems
much better suited for pushing
information rather than pulling – as examples consider
originating a voice call, sending
a SMS, email, etc. Push email
systems like Blackberry work
well because all the email from
the enterprise server is pushed to
the phone client (though only in
digest form). Personalisation
through mobile phones could
spawn interesting new
applications that use Internet
agents or Avatars that learn enough about a person’s
preferences to be able to act on
her behalf to mediate between
pull on one side (Internet) and
push on the other (mobile phone).
All this brings us to the
conclusion that the mobile
phone of the future is unlikely
to be seen as a device in
isolation. The personal devices
in the hands of each person will
come alive when combined with
innovative applications running
on the Internet platform. It is
only through the seamless and
intuitive combination of device
and application that we can savour the next generation
experience. |
