Engage-Digital

Microsoft’s purchase of Skype and Google ’s [proposed] purchase of Motorola Mobility might make sense for their respective businesses but together they could be less good for the consumer.

As Hoover was to carpet cleaning, Skype is a universal brand that has practically entered the vernacular to describe any kind of unpaid for instant message communication, voice only or video call over the internet. Beyond its domestic market increasingly Skype is also being used in other areas such as business and media where it can be used to keep costs down. It has been able to do this because of its ubiquity.

Google wants to buy Motorola Mobile ostensibly to help in its multitude of ongoing patent battles involving its Android mobile operating system and while Google says it will run Motorola Mobility as a completely separate business it seems logical that Google will use its closer relationship with the handset maker to speed up development of Andoid. What this means for partner handset makers such as HTC, Samsung and LG has yet to be firmly established but whilst they have all made positive noises about the proposed aquisition, they can’t be too excited behind closed doors.

Microsoft has of course already forged a close partnership with Nokia in the hope that it will have a more pervasive platform on which to roll out Windows 7 Mobile with Nokia hoping that the the OS will reverse its declining fortunes.

Skype is currently available as an application on most mobile platforms and it has recently been upgraded to deliver video calling on both the Apple and Android platforms. It also has more than 600 million registered users.

With computing’s seemly inexorable shift towards mobile and Microsfot’s new ownership of Skype it seems likely that MS will do as much as it can to integrate Skype into Windows 7 Mobile with Nokia as its preferred platform and showcase development partner. Then there is the questions of Aps Vs HTML 5 and what if anything the rise of HTML 5 will mean for the app market. If apps start to wane as more app like service are offered via the web then it might seem that a VoIP telecoms platform like Skype would either have the option of closer integration with the mobile operating system or… not.

Back to Google and they already have their own under-sung chat service in Google Chat. As Android development ties in more with Motorola and computing shifts more towards mobile (witness the early start of this with the Motorola Atrix) it seems likely that Google would want to make more of its own offering in the VoIP area. Add to that the fact that Android is hands down the fastest growing mobile OS at the moment with over 50% of new handsets sold in the U.S. being powered by Android and the potential is too big to ignore.

Perhaps an interesting area to look at for possible answers is the experience of Apple’s Face Time Vs Skype. Apple launched Face Time last year as an open standard video calling VoIP service but it was only available on iPhone 4 thereby restricting usage to people with that handset. According to Appleinsider.com Face Time appeared to receive a luke-warm reception from all the other leading players in the market. Since then Skype has become available on iPhone 4 with video chat capability.

The questions then are will Skype’s 600+ million users be too much of a temptation for the likes of Google’s Android? Will Microsoft drive Skype down a more integrated development path based on its own Windows operating system both on Mobile and PC? The latter seems less likely but MS must surely want to do all it can to use Skype as a means to shift users to its own mobile OS.

With Google pulling in one direction in the confidence that it has critical mass with its Android OS and MS pulling in the opposite direction with Skype and its massive user base and given the general high level of acrimony in the mobile industry as is evident from the endless patent law suites that appear to crop up at an almost weekly rate one wonders if the consumer might end up being caught in the middle.

If so many of Google +’s new users are ready to desert Facebook and the friends they have on that social network then what does that say about the the fidelity of those people.

For brands looking to use Facebook as a marcoms and sales channel they will be investing in people who seem to be prepared to jump ship at a moment’s notice the minute they see some shiny new thing come along. What an irony then that part of the point of advertising on Facebook is to open a dialogue and deepen the relationship with your customers and potential new customers.

About six or seven years ago I was walking down Kensington High street in London and marvelling at how brilliant the Opera Mini web browser was having just installed it on my tiny Nokia. If I squinted hard I could just about read a web page. I briefly considered at the time that if only there were apps available for other things that would be the way forward. It would add new layers of utility to what was already a pretty useful device. I thought that the ability to add and remove software according to need would mean that phones could start as stripped down devices which owners could then customise by layering on additional software apps like Opera Mini.

Layering adds flexibility in all areas of life. I often think about this in the context of mountain climbing or hiking. The main requirement in the mountains is to stay warm and dry whilst keeping weight to a minimum. Down jackets are ideal because they are both feather light and they are exceptionally warm but in spite of those two key qualities nobody would venture into the mountains thinking that their down jacket will suffice. What if they get too hot, or if it tears or if it gets wet. Once the down jackets has gone you’re in trouble. In order to accommodate all possible situations that you might find yourself in when hiking in the mountains a layered approach to clothing and equipment is better.  That way items can be added or removed at will to meet the situation.

Move forward to the current day and emerging smartphone technology and it seems as though the smartphone is in the process of going full circle in terms of practical utility. NFC or Near Field Communication is now being built into many new handsets meaning that these devices can in theory be used as digital wallets to pay for goods at retail outlets where NFC technology is accepted. Banks are making apps for mobile devices so that owners can manage their finances while having a drink with friends. It probably won’t be long either before somebody decides that NFC could also be used to gain access to flats, houses and cars by simply fitting a new NFC enabled lock and configuring a code which can be synchronised with an app on a smart phone. As soon as the owner+ phone comes within 3 feet of the lock it is automatically opened.

Although we have a way to go before the likes of NFC is adopted by retailers it seems plausible as long as the cost of implementation can be kept to an acceptable level. If that happens handset owners will have the option to leave one more item at home having substituted it for their smart phone…. the wallet.

To travel light is good but not if you lose the one item you depend most heavily on. What happens if your phone runs out of power? Currently most smart phones can manage only 18 hours on a single charge and that’s considered good. NFC will reduce that no doubt. What happens if your smart phone is stolen? The irony is that as smart phone become ever more capable they also become like a down jacket. The temptation to forsake all else in favour of a single little electronic device is tempting but mad.

As the onward shift to mobile gathers pace so too do the efforts of those seeking to defraud using mobile technologies. The game then becomes to add on new layers of complexity to smart phones to ward against the fraudsters and criminals. Where this battle has already been fought on the desktop and laptop it has yet to come of age on the mobile device, the difference for the private individual being that the stakes are potentially much higher. Not just your bank account but maybe one day even your home security as well.

With version 5 of its ubiquitous Analytics product Google has introduced a new look and some biggish upgrades, most notably to Custom Reporting which is now greatly improved, but sadly it seems that in the process of doing so the bright young things at Mountain View have dropped a few balls in the process.

Although version 5 is still in ‘beta’, as everybody knows Google’s idea of Beta often means a near finished product that is pushed out to users but may officially be unfinished for years. Hopefully this is an exception.

Having used the new version for two days a few issues cropped up:

1. It doesn’t always run properly with error messages frequently popping up in my version. This is less of a worry and more of a niggle because it should be fixed in time.
2. The trend lines in reports such as Top Content, Landing Pages and All Traffic don’t change to reflect report filtering as they did in the previous version! In my opinion a huge mistake that now makes quick analysis and insight a laborious process. The exact opposite of what they were trying to achieve.
3. The headline reporting data (now shown above the trend lines… before it was below) doesn’t change to reflect report filtering as it did in the previous version; this means that you can’t run a quick filter to see what percentage of the site total you are looking at, if you want to do this you need to create an advanced segment or you might as well just get your calculator out – another significant inconvenience adding more time to gathering insight.
4. I have witnessed at least one report showing differing data when compared to it’s identical twin in the previous version. This is inexplicable.
5. Finally, like for like data based on selected time periods no longer shows % change! This one is truly criminal! There must be very few businesses that don’t, at the very least, like to compare year on year performance data

Its possible that having only spent two days using the new version I have yet to discover how to get the data and functionality I’m looking for from V5. Its true that the new version does introduce some great new functionality but I’ll be hanging on for a while before I port my custom reports across to version 5.

This was originally intended as a response to Michael Feiner’s econsultancy post on the same topic but it seems too long to post as a response.

The thoughts expressed in this article are my own and do not represent advice of any kind. People should consider seeking their own separate legal consultation in dealing with this matter.

*************

It seems to me that the issue revolves around two areas:

1.      Interpretation, by individual member states, of the word “consent” in Recital paragraph 66 of the main document http://bit.ly/gdFQhD

2.      Type of cookie, its usage and what is and isn’t deemed “strictly necessary” for the delivery of an “explicitly requested” service by the user as outlined in the amended paragraph 5.3.

The directive as it stands must yet be implemented in law but this is done at a member state level not at the union level. That means it is down to individual member states to interpret the directive in their own way, and then transpose into law; the issues relating to that appear to be twofold.

1.      The new wording in article 5.3 of the amendment is ambiguous – nobody seems to be in any disagreement about that. So that makes it harder to interpret.

2.      If a member state interprets the amendment poorly and transposes into law then the EU can begin infraction proceedings for failing to properly transpose the directive into law. See this helpful article on out-law.com http://bit.ly/goAHEL

Interpretation

The interpretation of the use of the word “consent” without any context seems to have been intentional according to Alexander Alvaro http://bit.ly/hpMQpJ . “Explicit” and/or “prior” was intentionally left out and he states that browser settings can be deemed prior consent. The counter argument by privacy wonks is that most people don’t actually know how to adjust the cookie settings in their browsers, having said that many internet users do find pop-up ads intrusive and irritating. Ultimately it is still down to the individual member states on how they interpret this in the context of their existing law.

Bearing this in mind the UK seems to be slightly at odds with itself. On the one hand you have the BIS (Dept. for Business Innovation and Skils) in its consultation document saying that “The internet as we know it today would be impossible without the use of …cookies …so it is important that this provision is not implemented in a way which would damage the experience of UK web users or place a burden on UK or EU companies that use the web” http://bit.ly/fMybp4 – para 229 page 57.  On the other hand you have Information Commissioner Christopher Graham saying that although the UK position has yet to be clarified UK firms must think hard about it and develop a way forward because it will be law http://bbc.in/hSpcB3 ; that sort of suggests he means business.

The ICO’s (Information Commissioner’s Office) ability to reprimand will be clearer once the UK govt. has made its position clearer but until then it seems unfair to expect UK firms to spend time and money making preparations on how to deal with it until the national guidelines have been laid out although to not have thought about it at all would seem to be asking for a least a bit of trouble.

Cookies: what is and isn’t “strictly necessary”

The type of cookie used is, I think, relevant although Recital 66 fudges this when it refers to “certain types of cookies”.

Ad networks use 3^rd party cookies to deliver ads across “publisher” sites. Those site are rarely primarily in the business of simply serving advertising even though their business models might depend entirely on its revenue stream. They usually deliver some form of specific content that users have come to the site to consume. On this basis it could be argued that 3^rd party advertiser cookies are not deemed necessary for the delivery of content and in the most extreme extension of this argument a business should consider finding other ways to fund its operations such as charging for its content instead of relying exclusively on advertising. This seems harsh and of course just the kind of thing that would damage business interests but it is a legitimate interpretation.

By extension 1^st party cookies which are used for a variety of different functions could also come under the same level of scrutiny. For example, a 1^st party cookie that helps with the immediate navigational and onsite experience could easily be considered “strictly necessary” for the provision of the service, but a 1^st party cookie used by a web analytics service to track clickstream data may not be deemed “strictly necessary” for the provision of that service; if push came to shove the service could still be provided without the insight from an analytics package, albeit arguably not so well.

Implementation

In terms of solutions it seems unlikely that pop-ups would be used because of the pop-up blocker issue but splash pages could be used, as they are with international sites that redirect visitors to country specific versions. That of course would be a nightmare to implement site-wide.

Another solution (for multinationals at least) would presumably be to simply offshore their sites to countries in which they have operations but that sit outside EU boarders. I get the impression that this directive / legislation applies to business and not to visitors that come to those sites.

So it seems at least for now as though by and large the UK govt. is going to do the bare minimum to comply with the EU directive (by giving the responsibility of enforcement to the ICO) whilst trying not to harm UK business, but at the same time issuing a kind of “you have been warned” missive.