All Fear The Mobile Phone Botnets... That Don't Actually Exist

from the this-again? dept

For many years, we saw stories, usually pushed by security software companies, about how mobile phone viruses were some huge threat that had to be dealt with quickly before they spread around the world. Of course, that hasn't actually happened -- and there are some good reasons why it's unlikely. In fact, it seemed like such stories had been decreasing lately, perhaps in part due to some security firms scolding competitors for mobile virus FUD.

So, we were a bit surprised to see yet another story on the subject, this time suggesting that we're on the verge of (I'm not making this up) a "Cell Phone Zombie Uprising." Some researchers are predicting that mobile phones would be perfect for botnets, though, again it's not clear how that would actually happen, given the limitations of phones. While it is true that phones have become more powerful (and open) over the past few years, there still hasn't been much evidence that viruses and such are a real threat. Most phones are designed well enough to not make it easy for apps to just install themselves -- so consider us skeptical until there's real evidence of a mobile botnet rising.

Filed Under: botnet, fud, mobile, virus

Will The Android Market Be More Appealing To Developers Than The App Store?

from the let-freedom-ring dept

In the past month, it has become clear that Apple, through their App Store, is going to exercise a lot of control over the programs that iPhone users download. The list of removed App Store downloads include Tetris clones, harmless but expensive novelties, movie listings and useful wireless applications. Although many have sung the praises of the new system, this trend of contingent generativity - Jonathan Zittrain's term for intermediaries exerting control over new creativity - has some worrying implications. An ecosystem with perfect enforceability of rules will come to preempt the creativity which comes from the edge (and even piracy). If developers worry that their applications will be shut down by an overzealous enforcement organization (there is no evidence Apple is pulling applications after anything more than a third-party complaint), then innovation will stagnate.

Google seems to understand this. In announcing their competing service, the Android Market, the Android team notes "We chose the term "market" rather than "store" because we feel that developers should have an open and unobstructed environment to make their content available." Application creators will be as free to post information as videographers are to post to YouTube. Although the lack of review before posting doesn't mean Google will not remove applications if complaints are made, their ethic of freedom suggests they see mobile applications in the same light as the Internet: creators will build unanticipated, useful applications if given the chance to experiment freely.

Filed Under: android, app store, mobile, mobile platforms, openness
Companies: apple, google

Nokia's Open Sourcing Of Symbian Shows How Closed Markets Become Open

from the fear-not dept

Originally I wasn't going to write about Nokia's decision to purchase the rest of Symbian and then open source the code, but a few people have written in to ask about our take, and the more I think about it, the more interesting it becomes. There's certainly been a palpable fear lately among some that things like the locked-down iPhone represent a dangerous "future" to be avoided.

But that doesn't seem to have much historical support. New markets often are driven initially by locked down and proprietary solutions, but openness tends to prevail in the long run. The reason many markets start out with closed and proprietary solutions is that you need a comprehensive enough solution to address the market, and it's often difficult to do that in an ad hoc manner. A proprietary solution gives control to one person or a small group of people who can easily drive the project to where it needs to be to drive adoption. However, in the long run, more open solutions then win out, because competitors realize that the real game is being a platform, which is more important than being the comprehensive supplier. And the way to become a platform is to sign up as many developers as possible, and free them to make your platform much more valuable. That's much easier to do in an open or open source environment.

This is why we're seeing this particular decision to open up Symbian, and also explains Google's open approach with its Android offering. It also explains why Apple's iPhone, which was totally closed at the beginning, has been slowly opening up to try to combat the rise of more open competitors.

Finally, this move by Nokia is a recognition of the economics of infinite goods. Just as IBM helped massively boost its services business by betting big on Linux, Nokia recognizes that freeing up Symbian helps turn it into a services company as well. Freeing up that infinite good (the software) helps generate more demand for the scarce "services" provided by the company. There may be some stumbles along the way, but on the whole this is exactly the type of bet the company needs to be making. And, at the same time, it shows that there's little to fear concerning a future world of "closed" systems a la the iPhone. Every such closed system is merely an opportunity and an invitation for competitors to become more open.

Filed Under: mobile, open, open markets, open source, operating systems, symbian
Companies: nokia, symbian

Nokia Exec To Developers: Embrace DRM & Digital Locks Because I Say So

from the very-convincing dept

In recent years, we've seen the entertainment industry suddenly embrace mobile as a platform, incorrectly believing that its more locked-down nature would mean that it wouldn't face the same "threats" (which they should see as opportunities) of file sharing and open networks and services. However, as is always the way, more open systems are catching on and getting more usage, and more closed systems are having trouble getting traction. Rather than embracing that, however, it appears Nokia is pushing to hold back the tide.

Ben S writes in to highlight a rather unconvincing talk given by a Nokia VP trying to explain to open source developers why they need to embrace DRM, intellectual property, digital locks and subsidies in the mobile world. However, his reasoning basically amounts to "because I say so."

"Why do we need closed vehicles? We do. Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]."

In other words, there's no actual reason to use these things, other than that Nokia says you must -- even though it knows such things harm the industry. Way to show leadership in the mobile industry. No wonder it seems like most innovation in the mobile space is coming from folks other than Nokia.

Filed Under: digital locks, drm, intellectual property, mobile, open source
Companies: nokia

Exaggerating The Mobile Threat To Google

from the sorry,-don't-see-it dept

There's a Business Week article making the rounds saying that it's not Microsoft or Yahoo that's a real threat to Google, but the rise of the mobile web, which will somehow shrink ad inventory and cause headaches for Google. It's a nice theory, but it's hard to square with reality. Increasing use of the mobile screen is hardly likely to decrease usage of a full computer screen. If anything, it will likely make desktop computing more useful in some cases. The article also makes a few other questionable statements. First, it points out that the mobile screen is smaller, so there's less ad inventory, and then it points out that the growing acceptance of the mobile web is due to the web browser on the iPhone. That sounds good, but the points contradict each other. The success of the iPhone's browser is due to the fact that it presents a full (not limited) web browsing experience -- so it doesn't really limit the inventory available to Google. Furthermore, even if the inventory was limited (which seems unlikely) that's not necessarily a bad thing for Google. Google's success has been based on making ads more relevant -- not just more available. This was what resulted in so much confusion during Google's recent earnings announcement. Google had made some changes to drive more relevant clickthroughs -- and while that may lower actual clickthroughs, it increases revenue. So, even if inventory is limited, if Google is still the best at making ads relevant, it will do just fine.

Filed Under: ads, mobile, real estate, search
Companies: apple, google

Are We Becoming Too Dependent On Mobile Phones?

from the lose-a-phone,-lose-a-friend? dept

Three years ago, we wrote about the fact that very few people back up the address book in their mobile phones -- and when they lose those phones, it can be like losing access to certain people. It appears not much has changed. In a more recent article, a bunch of people relate similar stories, suggesting that losing a mobile phone is like being "disconnected from life." Of course, with social networks and email and other forms of communication, it's not necessarily as dramatic, but it does make you wonder why more mobile operators don't offer services to automatically back up mobile phone address books.

Filed Under: dependency, mobile, phonebook

Dangerous Reasons To IPO

from the desperation,-not-growth dept

There's been some indication that the IPO market is beginning to open up again, what with profitless firms like NetSuite having successful offerings. At about the same time that was happening, Danger filed to go public as well, but perhaps for all the wrong reasons. Like NetSuite, Danger is losing money. However, the story of Danger is an instructive one, and it's surprising that the firm is trying to go public. Reading between the lines, it feels like Danger is trying to go public more as a desperation play to stay in business, rather than as part of a plan for strategic growth.

Danger, of course, launched its HipTop/Sidekick device way back in 2002 to much fanfare. I bought one the first day it was available, and used it for more than three years. It really was one of the first useful mobile devices for being able to do things like web surfing. However, while the company did an amazing job in designing the device, it made a series of strategic mistakes that have since limited the company's business chances. First, it took an early investment from T-Mobile. Initially, this might sound like a good idea for a device maker looking to have its device offered by a mobile operator -- and, indeed, T-Mobile offers the Sidekick. The problem was that almost no one else wanted to go near it, as they didn't want to help out a rival operator's investment. Danger picked up a few smaller operators, but never could get the device out to a large enough audience.

The second big mistake was in closing off the device. Early on, it didn't even have a developer kit for developers. Once it did, many developers had already moved on to other things. On top of that, Danger/T-Mobile still controlled which apps were available. You couldn't go around Danger/T-Mobile to load whatever app you wanted. That also turned off developers who knew they couldn't just write an app and push for viral adoption. They had to go through the gatekeeper. It certainly made the device a lot less useful. Whereas for other popular platforms there were tons of apps available, Danger had a very limited supply.

While the company built up a modest following, in part by getting famous young celebrities to carry the device (which backfired a bit when Paris Hilton's got hacked), many other devices eclipsed Danger's devices and the company has done little to push its way back into the discussion. It basically just bet on having a really cool design and continually making minor updates to that design. That was strong enough to keep the company afloat, but it's still losing money, not growing very fast, and still incredibly reliant on T-Mobile for a huge chunk of its business. It's certainly not a particularly compelling IPO story -- and it feels like an IPO out of desperation for new capital, rather than an IPO of a company that is growing and has strategic plans in place for the use of a capital influx. Perhaps the folks at Danger saw an opening in a market that's warming up to IPOs, but it wouldn't be surprising at all to later hear that the company ends up pulling the IPO.

Filed Under: ipos, mobile
Companies: danger, t-mobile

Why Would Any Company Trust Microsoft Over DRM Ever Again?

from the fool-me-once dept

It really was just last week, right, that Microsoft was last seen totally screwing over all those partners who had signed up to use its misnamed "PlaysForSure" DRM? Apparently, bygones are bygones and other companies have no problem stepping right up into Microsoft's embrace on a new DRM solution -- this time in the mobile space. Nokia is apparently agreeing to use Microsoft's mobile DRM offering dubbed "PlayReady" on a variety of Nokia devices. You would have thought that after the PlaysForSure debacle, Microsoft would avoid dubbing its DRM anything similar. Give it a few years and perhaps Microsoft will support some totally different DRM on its own phones (like it did with the Zune) and then we can ask again what Nokia was thinking.

Filed Under: drm, mobile, playready
Companies: microsoft, nokia

Huge Phone Bills And Unsuspecting Customers; When Will Mobile Operators Communicate Clearly?

from the and-they-wonder-why-they're-so-hated dept

Just last week Consumer Reports was noting that mobile phone operators remained among the most disliked companies out there. There are any number of theories as to why this is, but here's a simple one: mobile operators are absolutely terrible at communicating with their customers. They make their customers feel stupid. They hide details in the fine print and make plans as confusing as possible. They add unnecessary fees. It appears that there's an inability or unwillingness for these firms to communicate clearly and honestly with their customers. It's so common throughout the industry, you have to wonder if the firms actually believe that this unwillingness to be straightforward with customers is strategically sensible.

However, all it really does is cause more bad blood. Two recent stories highlight this. Up in Canada, Bell Mobility is getting some awful press coverage for sending an $85,000 phone bill to a guy who signed up for a $10/month "unlimited" mobile browser plan. Like many mobile operators who offer similar plans, this plan only covered browsing if it occurred on the phone itself. If you used the phone as a modem, hooked up to a computer, then a different data plan kicks in. However, it's quite easy to be confused, as from a customer's standpoint, it's hard to see how this is a different situation and the plan did say it was "unlimited." In cases like these, it makes sense for the operator to admit its error, ignore the bill and move on. Actually, it would make the most sense to change its policies or marketing materials to make this stuff clearer -- but that's unlikely to happen. So far, Bell Mobility has only offered to lower the bill to $3,243, rather than get rid of it completely. In a similar (but less extreme) situation, Chris Anderson had his iPhone shut off by AT&T after he accidentally rang up a $2,100 bill simply by traveling to China. As many others have noted (including in a NY Times article), if you take your iPhone overseas, it will keep trying to check email every few minutes. And, it will do so by getting on a foreign GSM network, which will have exorbitant roaming fees... all of which will happen without the user even realizing it. In Anderson's case, AT&T sent him a text message warning him of problems, but without providing many details or a convenient way to get those details.

The thing is, these sorts of stories have gone on for years, generating plenty of press attention each time. At some point, you would think that the mobile operators would recognize that they're not communicating the details of the plans very clearly to consumers and start to do something different. But that doesn't seem to be the way mobile operators work. Maybe they've just come to the conclusion that these news stories serve that educational purpose instead -- though, the fact that the same thing keeps happening again and again suggests that kind of education isn't working very well.

Filed Under: excessive bills, mobile, phone bills
Companies: bell mobility

Turning Phones Into Computers Means They'll Have Computer-Like Security Issues

from the hack-me dept

A security expert claims that he's managed to remotely crack the iPhone. All that's required to pull off the crack is to get the user to visit a specially-crafted website that exploits vulnerabilities in the iPhone's Webkit-based web browser. Once the iPhone has been cracked, the attacker has complete control over it, including the ability to download the user's email and voicemail, and even to surreptitiously activate the iPhone's microphone and transform the iPhone into an eavesdropping tool. It's scary stuff, and it illustrates an important point about the iPhone and other smart phones: as our phones get more and more computer-like capabilities, they're going to face more and more computer-like security problems. And that means that phone manufacturers and users will need to be more aware of the risks of security breaches and take appropriate precautions. In this case, it appears that Apple's choice to lock out third-party applications has actually backfired. Because all of the apps on the iPhone are written by Apple, they apparently all run as the "root" administrative user. That means that there's no attempt to protect the phone from a misbehaving application. As soon as you compromise one application, such as its browser, you've cracked the whole phone and can do anything you want with it. That's in contrast to Mac OS X, which typically runs applications as a non-privileged user, giving the OS an added layer of protection in case an application gets compromised. Had Apple designed the iPhone as an open platform from the ground up, it's likely they would have paid more attention to the iPhone's security model, limiting the damage that one rogue application could do. Presumably, with the announcment of a third-party development platform for the iPhone, Apple is hard at work implementing those kinds of security precautions. But this isn't a threat that's amenable to a quick fix. Apple and other smartphone developers are going to have their work cut out for them trying to add new functionality to their products without exposing their customers to new security threats.

Filed Under: iphone, mobile, security
Companies: apple