John Roese’s Blog CTO, Nortel

iPhone: The REAL Impact

Location: Toronto

I recently had a great discussion with Om Malik of GigaOM blog fame. Our dialog was on a broader discussion around Mark Cuban’s recent statements that the Internet is Dead, but in the course of the dialog we had a brief detour to talk about what is innovative and exciting in the communications industry. During that dialog the subject of the iPhone came up.

I was quoted early on (just before the launch) as saying that the iPhone, while exciting, was not that interesting in terms of its networking and infrastructure capability. Clearly, a GSM/GPRS phone is nothing new and even one with Wi-Fi isn’t that interesting from a transport discussion. Now, if we were talking about it having 4G capability, that would be a different story …

However, the iPhone is exciting from the perspective that it simplifies complex communications tasks via a more unified communications interface.

At Nortel, we have been telling the world that the three big inflections occurring in the telecom sector are: 4G in the wireless world (which mobilizes Internet services); the shift to Ethernet in the carrier wireline world (which drives cost down and capacity up dramatically in backhaul and core transport); and Unified Communications (which brings together the applications and communications worlds). All three are important and critical to the future of telecom. In many cases, though, the industry looks at an innovation or product and assumes its impact is in one area (e.g., wireless), when in reality the real change is in one of the other spaces.

The iPhone is such a device. Although originally viewed as a wireless innovation, it’s real value is in unifying communications. It is a mass market manifestation of a communications technology (a cell phone) that seamlessly integrates with the applications around it (music, contacts, web, video, mapping…) and it does this extremely well.

If you have not used an iPhone, let me give you a brief view of the experience. The interface is extremely simple and almost all actions are accomplished with 1 or 2 taps to the screen. Complex tasks such as seeing who has called you, retrieving the specific call of interest, and responding to that person are simpler than on any other interface I have seen (see for yourself here). While many of the tools are Internet-based, such as YouTube and Google Maps, the main interface is clean and offers the ability to link into them via a single tap. The usability is of a level similar to an iPod, which most agree is the simplest and cleanest MP3 player to date.

We have a phrase at Nortel that says “simplicity trumps complexity”. This is in line with our strategy and direction behind the premise of unified communications, which is to close the gap between the tools we use to communicate and the information we want to communicate. Today, that gap is large and in most cases the tools we use for information and productivity (spreadsheets, web pages, ERP, CRM, …) are completely separate from the tools we use for communications (phones, video conferencing, email, IM…). In the U/C space, consider the power of having communications functions embedded within applications. For example, a cell in a spreadsheet might have not just a formula and data but also have an indicator of who created the formula, if that person was available to communicate and even have a single-click capability to directly call, conference or message that person with context. That kind of experience is true U/C because it moves the communications and applications functions into the same experience.

If you believe that this gap between data and communications tools is a source of lost productivity and that moving these two areas closer together would drive a better business experience and greater productivity, then we are in sync on the promise of unified communications. The Innovative Communications Alliance between Microsoft and Nortel is focused on making that promise real. Our activities with other applications providers, such as IBM, are also directed at this vision.

In the meantime, if you want to see what happens when a very good unified interface is created in a device that is both a source of information and a tool of communication, look no further than the iPhone as an early example of what is possible when this linkage happens.

Now, imagine if not only the interface was as good as it is , but if that innovation was combined with the best network experience possible at a dramatically different performance and cost level – which is where 4G and Carrier Ethernet come in. This idea of a broadband connectivity experience everywhere creates a truly transformed end user experience.

Trackbacks/Pings

  1. […] Older: iPhone: The REAL Impact […]

Comments

  1. my props to the iphone…but, I still think the BlackBerry trumps it… I’d go into details myself, but techcrunch does a good job, so I’ll link to it here.

  2. Hey John - great post. Definitely agree the iPhone sets a new standard as far as the interface goes. Aside from obvious battery life challenges that will be faced in an early 4G world, devices will get a whole lot better and offer up even more “convergence” in the next few years.

    When I saw the title of your blog entry I thought you were going to be talking about how the introduction of the new iPod Touch (with Wi-Fi) would put an Internet connection in the hands of tens of millions of iPod users over the next couple of years. Talk about a big step in the direction of hyperconnectivity! (even if it is only Wi-Fi)

    Best regards,
    Chris

  3. As we talk more and more about hyperconnectivity I find myself thinking how we have to rethink network security from a user perspective. We can’t rely on the firewall anymore because it will hinder communications. We can’t rely on a VPN anymore because it is an additional step the user has to take each time they want to communicate. The reason the Blackberry is so successful in the corporate world is that they created a way to encrypt communications back to the corporation, and make it transparent to the user.

    If we want hyperconnectivity to succeed we will have to make it that simple on a grand scale so that any device or system that I’m at… even if for 5 minutes… will allow me to securely communicate with all the other devices in my life whether they are a car, fridge, home entertainment center, home computer, home phone or even that LCD picture frame on a desk… I shouldn’t have to be a network engineer that understands security to a deep level to get all these devices connected.

    -jonmck

  4. John, all this 4G technology is great and has great potential. I am in sales, (technical lead generation), and find in speaking with all the IT and Telcomm Directors and managers is that they have a tough time proving ROI and TCO. What I hear from them is they need a way to measure the EFFECTIVENESS of 4G technology to upper management. Upper management needs that measure against their company goals to go forward. I feel that if salespeople help the IT and Telecom types accomplish those measurements then 4G will begin to move in strides. I am not confident technology sales people have been able to assist the influencers in that area. This is just an observation…..

  5. A Hyper Connected Mobile Phone Network……….
    Since there are experts reading this blog including John Roese, I would like everyones opinion on this kind of hyperconnected wireless network that I am going to discuss.
    Todays cell phones that we carry are “dumb” phones with no routing capability built in. It can solve the last inch connectivity problem by maybe finding and connecting itself to a bluetooth signal. Also, it can find some available signal and connect to the internet using Wi-Fi. And ofcourse it can detect radio signals and connect to your service provider for a voice connection.
    A Hyperconnected world ..
    Hyperconnectivity, in itself presents many challenges very similar to sensor networks…routing hole problem, energy conservation etc etc. This can be a separate topic for discussion. . Now imagine a mobile phone with a protocol stack built in. An embedded router (which can be had for around $30 apiece) running the OpenWRT Linux embedded operating system is a cheap example. Each mobile phone now has a routing capability built-into it. This means now my mobile phone can setup an ad-hoc wireless network with similar mobile phone devices all around me. My phone can now setup a hop-by-hop connection to another mobile phone. All this is now done using a protocol like 802.11. Assuming that we have overcome the challenges faced by sensor networks and ad-hoc wireless networks now with a VoIP application running on my mobile phone I can now make free calls !!
    Ofcourse there are security issues which I think will always be there even in the most secure system . But now I have a device which enables voice communications for FREE. I do not have to use any of the big service providers for making phone calls !!
    In a densely populated city for e.g Tokyo ..mumbai etc this could easily form a hyperconnected network.
    Now is this a fantasy of my mind or am I missing something :P

  6. John, Do you think that VG-ANYLAN still has a shot? Or that 4 Meg Token Ring is on it’s way back in? On a more serious note… I think ricpra (above) has stumbled upon something. Maybe this is why Phone manufacturers are tying themselves so tightly to large carriers and vice-versa. Example: get a new KRZR for $48 bucks with activation. When the phones become routers, and I think this is inevitable, then the carriers won’t be needed nearly as much. Meld the Phone producers and carriers, pay one price, forget land lines, forget fiberoptics, and even ATM (God forbid!). Mobile to Mobile to Mobile, no Motorola on Cingular, no Motorola on AT&T… no, wait, they’re already the same thing. You get my drift. Write me, you have my EMAIL. Gene

  7. The iPhone is a good demo of the kind of capabilities that could be enabled by wide-area wireless data. However in some respects it is rather backwards looking and can be seen as the ultimate manifestation of the “walled garden” view of cellular operators.

    The iPhone business model is based on network subscription sales and as Sprint rightly point out in their publicity for Wimax the connection between device sales and subscription sales is a barrier to a hyperconnected world because it discourages the introduction of new networked devices.

    The iPhone is designed to limit the ability of third-party developers to create new applications. Instead the intention appears to be to sell a limited range of approved applications from the mobile carrier.

    Of course both these limitations have been noticed by the hacker and independent developer community who have worked vigorously to try and unlock both aspects of the iPhone. Apple’s recent software update has managed to tighten the locks again. It will be interesting to see in how long Apple and their partners can sustain their “walled garden” model. Not until the mobile industry recognises that trying to lock users in to walled gardens will we really see the hyperconnected world.

    I note that even Nokia is starting to exploit the unpopularity of the iPhone’s walled garden by positioning their N-series as the open alternative.

    I suspect that one unintended side-effect of the iPhone will be to breath a bit of life in to the walled garden concept (as others scramble to copy the success) just at the time that it is starting to crumble in the face of user demands for a more open environment. Historically the iPhone is just as likely to look like the end of one era as the beginning of another.

    As a footnote I would say that I have on my desk a model of a Nortel Orbiter phone from about 1999. Key features: large touch screen, visual voice mail integration, integrated contact lists. It all looks awfully familiar. Sadly it only ever got to the prototype stage before being cancelled.

  8. I couldn’t understand some parts of this article iPhone: The REAL Impact, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.

  9. I am glad you have described the iPhone as a good example of U/C. I cannot agree more.

    But the iPhone is much more than that. The iPhone is a good example of how U/C can be edge-driven as opposed to the traditional telecom model. Yes, the debate is not over. In fact, the edge-driven model is so strong, I think we should re-think whether technologies such as IMS and investment into centralized services for Carriers are the way to go. I know my statement is bold, but it had to be said.

    Consider the following, an iPhone, WiMax-based ISP, and Skype. Here we have the content access (CA) device, content carrier (CC) which is the ISP, and an internet-based content provider (CP). All we need is a business model that glues all three.

    Die-hard Internet supporters are pushing for Net Equality. Although the absence of Net Equality could generate negative consequences, an extreme example is censorship, but on the plus side it does create a business opportunity to bring all these three players together under a business relationship. In fact, the CC ISP can have business relationships with multiple CP. Some can be hosted directly off of their network, while others off of the Internet. All of this content will be merged in a cost-effective manner via edge-device intelligence.

    Such a business model enables fast content deployment, flexible business relationships, and open source and 3rd party CA capabilities. Eventually, we will be able to buy any CA device and hook it up to our preferred CC/CP combo. In fact, taking it a step further, with our CA device we can have a relationship with a 3rd party billing entity which facilitates our CC/CP access and transactions.

    Therefore, within this context, we may want to consider what will it take to make this business relationship successful and get the jump-start on everyone. CC and CP need SLA enforcement and tracking. What can we do to collect QoS, billing, and user access information from our data switches and share them with the CP to facilitate SLA tracking? The model of inter-carrier tariffs and settlements will transform to the CC-CP model, and possibly with the 3rd party biller.

    Nortel may have to have a position on Net Equality. It maybe good for the purists, but not necessarily good for business. Where does Nortel want to put its bets?

Leave a Reply