Establishing a common standard based on web devlopment for mobile apps, or widgets as they choose to call it, is simply a brilliant idea. If you can enable web developers to develop mobile apps the potential is huge.
The Vodafone 360 platform, launched in October 2009, had the right strategy but poor execution. Nokia had already tried it and failed, and when Vodafone launched they did it with two vastly different versions of the runtime and various other shortcomings. Not only that. In parallel Orange, LG, HTC and RIM also launched their variants of web runtimes all with different APIs and configurations.
Joint Innovation Lab (JIL), set up together with China Mobile, Softbank and Verizon Wireless, was an extension to Vodafone 360 and never got much credibility in the market since nobody really believed that the other parties were truly engaging. In parallel with starting up JIL, Vodafone failed with the integrated device and software strategy which was the basis for 360. However, the web runtime development platform was working quite well, despite the fragmentation into two versions.
All of this might have changed with the Wholesale Application Community (WAC) announced at the Mobile World Congress. With 60 members now signed up, C-Level executives on the board and the freedom to run WAC almost like a startup it is now a powerhouse with potential to succeed. The specifications for WAC 1.0 and WAC 2.0 have been agreed, at least 3 software companies have implemented web runtimes, more are following, and most of the handset manufacturers will embed the runtime on the handsets sold through the operators.
The advantages for developers are obvious. Develop an app once which will run across Android, Blackberry, Symbian/Megoo and Windows Mobile. The apps will not be as good as a well implemented native app but the skill level required is lower and the effort vastly reduced. The platform also offers access to considerably more APIs than other cross-platform methods such as Rhohub and Phonegap that lack the power to influence handset manufacturers.
So why could WAC fail?
There are a few major stumbling blocks to WAC becoming an established
standard for mobile app development:
* The specifications are not followed by the developers of the runtimes (e.g. Opera, Obigo, etc), leading to fragmentation, so developers still have to test, tweak and optimise for different devices.
* Handset manufacturers (influenced by the operators) might not all embed the WAC compatible runtime which means that there won't be critical mass for developers to invest in developing for WAC.
* WAC doesn't get traction among developers and content providers fast enough, and with time, the operators get impatient and don't follow through on the partnership.
Joint Innovation Lab (JIL), set up together with China Mobile, Softbank and Verizon Wireless, was an extension to Vodafone 360 and never got much credibility in the market since nobody really believed that the other parties were truly engaging. In parallel with starting up JIL, Vodafone failed with the integrated device and software strategy which was the basis for 360. However, the web runtime development platform was working quite well, despite the fragmentation into two versions.
All of this might have changed with the Wholesale Application Community (WAC) announced at the Mobile World Congress. With 60 members now signed up, C-Level executives on the board and the freedom to run WAC almost like a startup it is now a powerhouse with potential to succeed. The specifications for WAC 1.0 and WAC 2.0 have been agreed, at least 3 software companies have implemented web runtimes, more are following, and most of the handset manufacturers will embed the runtime on the handsets sold through the operators.
The advantages for developers are obvious. Develop an app once which will run across Android, Blackberry, Symbian/Megoo and Windows Mobile. The apps will not be as good as a well implemented native app but the skill level required is lower and the effort vastly reduced. The platform also offers access to considerably more APIs than other cross-platform methods such as Rhohub and Phonegap that lack the power to influence handset manufacturers.
So why could WAC fail?
There are a few major stumbling blocks to WAC becoming an established
standard for mobile app development:
* The specifications are not followed by the developers of the runtimes (e.g. Opera, Obigo, etc), leading to fragmentation, so developers still have to test, tweak and optimise for different devices.
* Handset manufacturers (influenced by the operators) might not all embed the WAC compatible runtime which means that there won't be critical mass for developers to invest in developing for WAC.
* WAC doesn't get traction among developers and content providers fast enough, and with time, the operators get impatient and don't follow through on the partnership.
* Developers choose to develop mobile websites using HTML5 instead of
developing apps.
So what is the conclusion? The mobile app industry is
moving so fast at the moment, and still accelerating, so there are many uncertainties about who will succeed or fail in the long term.
developing apps.
So what is the conclusion? The mobile app industry is
moving so fast at the moment, and still accelerating, so there are many uncertainties about who will succeed or fail in the long term.
Only time will tell...
Disclaimer: Golden Gekko has developed over 30 web runtime apps paid for by operators and other organizations and would therefore profit from the success of WAC.
Disclaimer: Golden Gekko has developed over 30 web runtime apps paid for by operators and other organizations and would therefore profit from the success of WAC.
