jim.shamlin.com

Mobile Users in the Wild

The author provides a few random facts about mobile users: they are primarily used by "adult women" (in contrast to the teen boy demographic of computers); the formula for success in mobile gaming is simplicity, games that require short attention rather than provide a fully absorbing experience (again, opposite of desktop); mobile users are doubtful that applications and Web sites they use on the desktop are at all useful on their phones (there is no carry-over of brand equity).

Much of this is contrary to common perceptions among companies that seek to leverage the mobile channel. Such companies would do well to approach mobile with an open mind and a fresh eye.

MOBILE USER CHARACTERISTICS

In the global environment, particularly in developing nations, mobile usage surpasses computer usage. The reasons for this are largely economic: mobile devices are more affordable than computers, and it is also cheaper and easier to erect wireless networks than lay land lines in countries that lack infrastructure. So it's reasonable to assert that mobile devices will surpass computers on a global scale.

(EN: The author does not assert that mobile is a "replacement" for desktop computing, which has been heard in other sources. To substantiate the notion of replacement, there would also have to be evidence of desktop abandonment in developed nations, which ahs yet to be presented. As such, mobile is to be regarded as an additional channel, and users in developed countries are still using desktops, and those in developing countries may also adopt them when it becomes economically and logistically feasible.)

A few other random facts: mobile devices are more likely to be "personal" - used by only one person - than computers are even televisions; and "fashion" is a consideration for mobile devices, an expression of personal taste in much the same way as a wristwatch.

Mobile

A defining character of the mobile channel is mobility itself: the user avails himself of the mobile channel when he is outside his usual environs (home or office). The user may be settled in an unusual environment (in a meeting, in class, on a bus, in a restaurant), or may be physically mobile (walking) when accessing the device.

In some instances, the interest of the user will be dependent on their location: in an airport, he may want to know what time a flight will arrive; stuck in rush-hour traffic, he may be seeing a less congested route from his present location to his destination. In other instances, the content has nothing to do with the environment: the user may want to check a stock price form a wide range of locations).

Generally, the user can be expected to have available only the artifacts most people carry around (their wallet and keys, though some are looking to use the device to replace both). What is not present is a pencil to take notes, paper files, reference books, or other accoutrements typically found on a desk. It's also generally true that the mobile device cannot remotely access data on the user's home or office computer.

Interruptible and Easily Distracted

Mobile computing can be a distraction: it's well known that people will bump into things if they attempt to use a mobile device while walking, or get into accidents while driving. (EN: This is evidence that people don't "do many things at once" but alternate their attention between tasks.) So it's a special consideration for some apps that are likely to be used while the person is motion to be as simple as possible to do, or the user will have to either stop what he's doing (pull over the car) or risk physical endangerment of himself and others (EN: "Texting while driving" has been made a misdemeanor offense in many locations, and some suggest that if the problem continues, it should be reclassified to "driving while impaired," which carries rather stiffer penalties.)

From the development perspective, the user is likely to be interrupted or distracted from using the application: he is not in quiet environs where he may focus on task, but in a "social" space where the actions of others may call his attention at any time. His mere presence in a social environment suggests that it is acceptable for others to do so.

(EN: A counterpoint is that mobile devices are often used for social avoidance - in an elevator or waiting room with other people, some types will whip out a mobile device merely to avoid interactions they find awkward. I have only personal observation, insufficient data to suggest it is a trend, but I suspect some people find this to be desirable, and there's no telling which side etiquette will favor: is it rude to use a mobile device in certain settings, or rude to interrupt someone who is engaged with a device?)

Another common limitation is that mobile devices can only display one application at a time (there cannot be separate windows, as there are in the desktop environment), and some applications are designed to be interruptive (if a call or message comes in, the user is interrupted). And while social interaction can disrupt the device, the device can also disrupt social interaction - the person who breaks off a conversation in mid-sentence to take an inbound call (EN: same note on etiquette applies.)

When applications "switch" it is generally expected that, when resumed, they will maintain the state (screen and data) they had when they were last seen. Aside of user experience, saving data and state is necessary because there are still technical difficulties - the user may lose signal or their battery may run low in mid-task - and the expectation is that "state" will be preserved.

(EN: I Would imagine the exception would be applications that depend on location - if the user is looking at an ATM locator and drives through a tunnel, the app should show the current location when it reconnects, not the position the user was at when they entered the tunnel. Perhaps it could be argued that the app should show their former location and a message, but that seems inelegant.)

Available

Another key feature of the mobile channel is its constant availability: the user carries their mobile device with them everywhere they go and expect it to be connected and available in any location. Socially, others expect this as well - that a cell phone gives them a method to reach a person at any time. (EN: as a person who referred even to a company-issued pager as a "leash," this is not an entirely welcome prospect, but it's becoming an expectation and, in some cases, a condition of employment.)

The author notes an observation on a college campus, where everyone seemed to be preoccupied with a mobile device. Students coming out of classrooms were not walking and conversing in groups, but each on his own path, connecting to others via his device. He reasons that, in a way, the technology has enabled us to remain connected with people regardless of location - though it has also made if more difficult for people to be connected to others who are in their immediate environment.

(EN: while the author generally presents observations objectively, I am catching a whiff of ageism -the implication that this is a conflict between "young" and "old." I beg to differ as to the cause. My sense is it is a matter of character, rather of age ... older adopters of technology can be just as discourteous as younger ones. My sense is that a person who is obnoxious will be so in any situation, with any device, as will a person who is generally courteous apply the same consideration to his use of technology, though there may be a learning curve. Granted, teenagers and young adults tend to be more self-centered than older people - but the same "older" people today were likely obnoxious kids in their own time. It has always been thus.)

He also notes the "choice" between mobile device and live interaction often reflects the status of the people with whom one is engaged. A superior speaking to a subordinate will likely break off conversation to take an incoming call (a display that the subordinate is of less importance than any random person who might be calling), whereas a subordinate will ignore a ringing phone while engaged with a superior - unless, perhaps, his wife or daughter is "nine months pregnant."

(EN: A colleague might check and inbound call and remark, apologetically, that "it's my son's school" before taking the call. Another person might explain as a meeting is assembling that his wife is at the doctor's office and he might have to take a call. This indicates that people are not entirely unconscious of these choices, or the antisocial implications, and that some attempt is being made to mitigate the intrusion of mobile into the social sphere.)

It's noted that turning off a device entirely is a "popular method" for dealing with such intrusions, but research has shown that people do not do so. In certain cultures (the author mentions Span, specifically), it is considered rude to let a call go unanswered, so it is accepted that a person will respond to an inbound call immediately. Even in cultures that are not as accepting, etiquette demands that a person who was unavailable respond immediately, with an apology, to the senders of any calls or messages he wasn't able immediately to take.

(EN: It's been suggested that the necessity to send a response/apology precipitates from the unreliability of the technology - that the person on the other end may expect that there is some temporary problem with connectivity that made you unable to respond, and may call repeatedly at short intervals. My sense is that this is merely aggressive or manipulative behavior - like the jilted suitor who leaves dozens of answering machine messages - and people would do well not to condone it by accommodation.)

Sociable

There is some argument as to whether mobile technology makes people more or less social. On one side is evidence that we communicate with other people through a device and, as a result, are more active socially than we would have been without it - including the use of cell phones to contact people to arrange real-world meetings. On the other side is evidence that people withdraw from social interaction in the "real" world to devote time to technology - the teenage loner who doesn't develop "real" friends and prefers to chat online, or the person who withdraws from a group at a dinner table to have an IM conversation with someone who isn't there.

The author's take is that it depends entirely on the use of the device. He presents three scenarios of a dinner party: a person answers a phone and has a loud personal conversation that stifles the conversation at the table; or he withdraws from conversation without interrupting it to respond to a text message; or the call is from someone who couldn't make the party, so he puts them "on speaker" so they can participate in the conversation. These are three different modes of interaction. (EN: it's also worth noting that the same behaviors may have been possible with a wired land-line in the dining room.)

The author returns to the notion of social acceptability, which differs by culture. In Spain, it is perfectly acceptable to answer a cell phone in a theater. In Japan, answering a phone call on a train would draw hostile glances from other passengers. This reflects cultural values that balance both what a person wants to keep private and what level of consideration one should expect of others in public spaces.

The author uses the term "microcontext" to describe the factors that a person generally considers when determining whether it is acceptable, in a public situation, to accept or defer a call, which include: your relationship with the people in the physical environment versus with the person who is calling, the nature of the interaction in the physical environment, the "greater" environment (the people in the restaurant rather than just your table), the kind of interruption (voice versus text); etc.

(EN: Again, this implies something "new" for the mobile media that is not significantly different than previous channels. The concepts and decisions are the same as one would encounter in a low-tech setting: at a table setting, you may prefer to whisper to your spouse rather than tell the entire table, or to speak just loudly enough for the table to hear rather than loud enough for other diners in the restaurant to hear. This, too, requires the speaker to assess both discretion and consideration in choosing the volume of his voice. Technology simply means that the other party isn't physically sitting beside you, but the rest is nothing new.)

Contextual

While the desktop computer is used in a fairly predictable location (an office environment, even in the home, the mobile device is used wherever the user happens to be.

The environment will have an impact on the way the user interacts with a device: if they are in bright light, it will be difficult to see the screen; if they are outdoors in the cold, their manual dexterity may be impaired.

Many mobile devices are equipped with GPS, so it's possible (though not presently in widespread use) for the mobile application to account for the user's physical location. Matched against location, a device could "know" that a person is in a restaurant, theater, or meeting room and respond to calls; present travel information pertinent to the physical location of the user; to automatically adjust the clock (and calendar) when travelling internationally, or communicate "offers" from nearby merchants.

Identifiable

One of the problems with the notion of "cookies" on the desktop platform was that there where many instances in which a personal computer isn't personal at all. Computers in offices, schools, libraries, and even in many homes are used by multiple people. But mobile devices are, with few exceptions, unique to a single person.

(EN: I understand that the practice of "phone sharing" is common outside of the developed world, so this is an instance in which the global perspective is contrary to the author's assertions: but if your audience is users in a developed economy, then the assertion that a phone is personal remains valid.)

It's also noted that many users prefer to keep he same telephone number and messaging address even when the change devices or service providers (in the US, regulators compel carriers to make numbers "portable"), so the mobile device is an effective way to reach a specific person.

GROUPS AND TRIBES

The author remarks that mobile devices have a "complex and evolving social role" - then launches into a few related topics:

Voice and Texting

In a basic sense, the mobile device facilitates communication between individuals over long distances, but in a more convenient and immediate manner than the traditional telephone and e-mail. You do not have to arrange a time to call another person, or wait until you get home to send a personal e-mail - you can do so at your own convenience from a device that is always available.

One study also found that cell phones "facilitate" small talk among loose groups. (EN: The author uses the term "gossip," but I don't think he means it it the usually way, of initiating rumors that are often false in order to harm the social reputation of others). Instant messaging, in particular, enables people in different locations to engage in light conversation.

It's also noted that the mobile channel doesn't always substitute for face-to-face gatherings, but may facilitate them. A single IM conversation thread can more quickly and conveniently enable a group to discuss plans for a meeting, enabling people to more easily organize informal gatherings.

Extending Online Communities

Many "Web 2.0" sites have some degree of integration with mobile devices. The author mentions MySpace, Flickr, and blogs - but those fell out of favor a while ago, Today, Facebook and Twitter (the latter is designed primarily as a mobile blogging site) both provide the ability to post and read the posts of others via mobile devices, and most sites that enable users to post content accommodate mobile devices.

It's noted that mobile applications are also enabling users to make more extensive use of rich content. While it's been possible to post video clips, photos, or audio recordings for years, it required purchasing special equipment and software - but now, mobile devices have AV capabilities and easy-to-use software to edit and post media..

(EN: It's worth mentioning that media is catching on, but not in a major way, and that most publishers are not using mobile devices. Many are using cameras attached to or built into the computer, or cheaply-available digital video cameras. My sense is that quality of image and editing capabilities are a factor, but for the most part, multimedia is still not what most people want or need, and an easy-to-use device won't change that.)

Physical and Mobile Hybrids

The author attempts to describe the notion of a "hybrid mobile-physical" service, but the meaning is unclear, and the examples a bit confounding.

Geo-tagging is mentioned, an activity in which people can enter comments about physical locations, identified by GPS coordinates, for others to reference. This is not necessarily mobile - online sites like Google Maps can be used to view and enter tags, and the mobile is an extension of this rather than a unique phenomenon.

Geocahcing is suggested, though not by name. But this is also an activity that can be done using a GPS device without communications capabilities and a list printed off of a Web site.

Some social networking services are also using GPS capabilities of mobile devices to help people to network with others who are nearby - to use a mobile "dating" application to meet someone who's hanging out in the same bar.

(EN: This last one is mobile, but quite ironic. It underscores the argument that people who interact online are not developing social skills that can be used in the real world. The very habit that prevented them from developing the poise and social grace to strike up a casual conversation now has a solution to help them "meet" someone who is already in the very same room.)

Mobiles as Status

When mobile phones first appeared, they were very expensive and, as such, became a sort of status symbol - a person would make a point of being seen using a mobile phone as a way of indicating that they were wealthy and important. As such, they briefly became a status symbol, desired by people who wanted to be regarded as wealthy and important, even if they were not. (EN: I even recall a few companies that manufactured "fake" mobiles for poseurs.)

While the cost of mobile devices has fallen drastically, some cache remains in certain devices: some people desire to have the latest gadget, or the most expensive one, and some stigma is attached to a person using a cheap or old device (EN: Though, ironically, the cheap disposable cell phone, called "burners", gained some gangster-chic because of their popularity with drug dealers.)

Ring tones also provide a form of social identity. Users can choose a sound that indicates their social identity (such as a snippet of music that is popular with their real or desired social group) or choose a tone for a specific caller that identifies their opinion of them. In some instances, members of a given group or clique use the same ring-tones as one another (or for one another).

It's suggested that there is a physical impact of cell phones - repeated and prolonged use of cell phones has caused some physical deformities, particularly in the thumb-joints - such that the thumbs of individuals who make heavy use of mobile devices are "more perpendicular to the body of the hand." As such, "text thumb" has become a physical trait, like the musculature of certain types of athletes, that identify mobile users to one another. (EN: No source is cited for this, and it seems a bit peculiar.)

It's also noted that the mobile device, itself, is a fashion accessory, like a designer wristwatch. In addition to having certain physical characteristics out-of-the-box, various skins, faceplates, and other accessories are used to personalize a phone. Given the trend in miniaturization, certain models can even be worn as jewelry, a practice the author claims to be popular in Japan and Korea.

INTERNATIONAL DIFFERENCES

The way in which mobile is used in different countries is not entirely homogeneous, and assuming it to be so can lead to costly mistakes. In addition to cultural differences, the infrastructure and telecommunications environment differs among countries, in ways that can be significant to mobile development and the kinds of services that will be accepted (or even function properly) in the different markets.

Europe

The European market, once thoroughly fractured, has lately been moving toward economic unification, the result of which is greater collaboration among industries that aim to define standards. The European standards, presumptuously named the "Global Standards for Mobile" (GSM) have been in development for decades and have borne little fruit:

Primarily, the GMS have mandated that subscriber identity modules (SIM), a chip or card inserted into a device that carries the account information, such that a person can purchase a device independent of a carrier (and manufacturers could build a universal device independent of carriers' separate requirements).

A second accomplishment was independence of coverage - in effect, making the cell towers and other network nodes "universal access" with the carriers to sort out the billing when one company's subscriber used another company's access point. In effect, there is a single network in Europe, rather than separate networks for different providers.

In terms of culture, Europe remains very fractured and the various states of the European Union retain very different cultures: Swedes, Greeks, French, and British still consider themselves to be members of different cultures, though the union has largely rendered moot the borders between former countries.

In terms of infrastructure, the wired networks and telecommunication systems remain an inefficient patchwork, such that telephone service is varied, unpredictable, and terribly expensive. As such, mobile phones far outnumber land lines.

A key difference is cost: Europeans place the cost of the call on the caller, and no charge to the receiver, which makes European consumers less resistant to telemarketing and "push" services in the mobile channel. The demand for SMS was also underestimated, and treated differently than other forms of data communication, so the cost of sending text messages is much cheaper, leading users to prefer texting to calling.

As a result, mobile penetration is over 100% in some countries (EN: no explanation of how one gets to that, unless they're dividing devices by people without considering that a person may own multiple devices that have network access).

As to usage: voice service is commonplace as is SMS (text messaging). MMS (multimedia messaging) and Web browsing have not been popular. The lack of data adoption is blamed on aggressive marketing when the devices and capabilities remained primitive, ceding to operator demand to restrict data access to provider-specific applications, and a lack of useful content.

Japan

The post-war (WWII) restructuring of Japan created significant synergies among industries, creating multi-industry corporations (keiretsu) that work more collaboratively than western corporations. From a consumer standpoint, the Japanese adopted cell phones readily, and were quick to create a formal culture regarding their use.

Especially in urban areas, Japanese living conditions are shared. Landline phones and computers are shared, which made the cell phone the first "personal" method of communication, a boon to the youth culture (shin jin rui) who sought to adopt certain western values, particularly individualism. The traditional culture of Japan, with its focus on family and group, remains strong, and the ability to communicate with other members of one's group via mobile devices is a good fit.

Another aspect of their culture is a fascination with gadgets: Japanese users more readily adopt any new feature, function, application, or accessory than users in other cultures. Statistically, 99.7% of users reported using additional features. However, this may be overstated, as actual usage patterns indicate that only 20% of customers used their phone for anything other than voice or text messaging, and less than 10% of customers use the "mobile wallet" functionality.

(EN: Mobile enthusiast are quick to point out Japan, either to suggest that features they adopt will soon be adopted elsewhere, or that other countries are "laggards" in technology adoption and should get with the program. Another source provided a more sober explanation: that the Japanese jump on new things very quickly, and abandon them very quickly So enthusiasts are quick to discuss the adoption rate, but often leave out how quickly certain applications are abandoned by the Japanese market.)

Because of close ties between industry and government, the Japanese mobile industry functions much like a cartel, and one that is protective of domestic industry by departing from international standards and being slow to release information to foreign companies. On the upside, this has enabled Japanese manufacturers to develop and launch applications with "deep integration" between commercial systems and mobile devices - hence they are better able to quickly develop technologies such as the "mobile wallet" that, in other countries, are confounded by competing standards and security.

United States

The United state is the largest single market for mobile computing, but is also considered to be a slow adopter as compared to Europe in Japan, not only in terms of the use of features, but also in terms of the channel itself. At the same time, the size and affluence of the market make it attractive to entrepreneurs.

(EN: The author doesn't say as much, but the juxtaposition of the two factors makes the implication clear that figures about foreign adoption are not to be trusted - it is likely they are bandwagon propaganda. That's not to dismiss the basic fact that US adoption of mobile is slower overall, but I sense that the adoption rate in other nations may be exaggerated to make the gap seem much more dramatic.)

The US has a reliable land-based network, such that even remote locations have access to telephone service and broadband internet via wired connections, and the traditional billing model was a relatively low flat fee ($25 for phone service, $20 for dial-up internet, $40 for broadband internet). Together, the low value and high price made the mobile channel a difficult sell to the American market.

However, the drive to adopt mobile has been largely a matter of conspicuous consumption. For a family to have a phone in their household, for a teen to have a private line in her bedroom, for a businessman to have a phone in his car, were all signs of social status, a sign of being affluent when they first came along, and eventually gained ubiquity among the upper-middle classes and continue to filter down to the lower classes.

As in other markets, voice and text messaging continue to be the primary use for the mobile platform, followed by frivolous features (custom ring tones and games), and a fairly small amount of "data" communication.

Other Regions / Factors

The other parts of the world are said to share characteristics with the "big three" markets listed above. Latin America is likened to Europe; China and India are likened to the USA; Korea is likened to Japan. (EN: I find this a bit dismissive, but it may be true, as cultures tend to be derivative, especially when adopting technology - a person attempts to use a French product in the same way that Frenchmen would.)

The author mentions another tendency: the cultural differences in the way in which users regard instructions. Americans and Italians tend to blunder about with the device to figure it out, and don't refer to the manual. Germans and Indians will study the manual and other documentation before using the device. This affects not only users, but also developers - an anecdote is provided about a problem created when Indian developers build an unintuitive UI for the American market, assuming Americans would read the manual.