Not unlike the rest of the blogosphere and media of all types, the topics dominating conversation in the CoM this week are Twitter and the iPhone. Just last night CNN anchor, Rick Sanchez, asked his Sunday TV broadcast audience for patience, because his head was down as he updated his Twitter account. Sanchez went on to explain that he updates Twitter at various times during the program.

There is no doubt among us that the iPhone, or as some call it, the Jesus Phone, has had a significant impact on the mobile phone industry. Many have credited Nokia’s acquisition of the Symbian OS from their partners to a competitive response to the iPhone and its software stack. The mobile phone narrative before iPhone was dominated by the overwhelming global market share figures for Nokia and the focus was on the dance for #2 between Motorola and Samsung. No more.

Today’s narrative is all about loving or hating the iPhone and various iPhone killers, who often don’t even rise to the level of manslaughter much less killer. Every iPhone rumor is critiqued, anticipated and speculated. Apple has become a happening and all else in the mobile industry is somehow compared to it.

Likewise, every announcement that Twitter makes is reported, dissected and examined for it’s current and future impact on the communication network that has replaced blogging for many. Twitter has replaced Facebook as the social phenomenon crossing the chasm into the consciousness of mainstream media organizations, and through them, to the public.

This week’s Carnival of the Mobilists reflects the passion and obsession with these two mobile developments. And in addition, this week from the mobilejones.com point of view I’m adding microblogging from Twitter to the roster of writing about mobility. Let me know if you love it, hate it or don’t care below by leaving your comments. Now, on with the show.

This week’s Carnival leads off with the most recent and excellent quarterly report from Chetan Sharma on the performance of the US data market in his US Wireless Data Market Update. An always excellent resource, Sharma’s report keys in on how the iPhone is impacting non-texting data usage in the US. There’s plenty here to be excited about as the growth of data usage in the US means opportunity for developers and others in the value chain.

All Hail iPhone

From Igor Faletski at Mobscure we learn that Admob’s reliance on the separate “Mobile Web” and the iPhone’s “One Web” approaches may spell a threat to Admob’s survival. Faletski’s “The Uncertain Future of Admob” posits,

iPhone users are less likely to go to sites that use AdMob advertising, because they are unaware of existence of a separate “mobile web”.

In a counterpoint article, James Cooper of mjelly, presents his case in “Why better mobile browsers do not mean the end of mobile-specific websites.” Cooper provides plenty of screenshots to illustrate his point. And his basis of comparison? You guessed….the iPhone.

Kiran Bellubbi laments the possible hazards for Android in, “Google Android and the Perils of Software by Committee.” Bellubbi points to both Symbian and the iPhone and its software stack to make a case against Google’s OS strategy of partnerships. Interesting reading.

Twitter and more Twitter

Next Howard Rheingold from Smartmobs recounts the experience of a Twittering protester who was expelled from the anti-social media country, China, during the Olympics. In “Twitterer/streaming video broadcaster evicted from Olympics” Rheingold shares the post deportation report captured via Qik.

From the IMS company, Radvision, Tsahi Levent-Levi, delivers a communication transport death match featuring “SMS v. Mobile IM. ” Levent-Levi has a prespective on the winner, but I can’t but ask….what about Twitter?

From master mobile blogger and developer, C. Enrique Ortiz, “SMS is King, Heaven and Hell all at the Same Time.” Ortiz breaks down the cost of providing an SMS service from the developer’s point of view as he ponders the recent decision by the Twitter team to eliminate the service in the UK. Ortiz offers an alternative suggested approach and given the UK is the texting King of the world, Enrique is on target, as usual.

My offering for this week, also, highlights the use of Twitter in the yet to be produced GOP Unconventional site. “Conventions 2008 and GOP Unconventional” from mobilejones.com demonstrates how some are using Twitter to bypass Mainstream Media and how MSM is tapping into the Twitter enabled “news wire” for enriching their coverage of this year’s national political conventions, the DNC and RNC.

Sachendra Yadav writes more generally about mobile social networks and the communication they enable in “Understanding ‘User Needs’ a Mobile Social Network Can Satisfy.” Yadav advocates integration of the device’s phonebook application into the social network application, and outlines a list of requirements for the application.

Mobile Life Hacking
Handi Mobility provides a detailed tutorial in “Python S60: Syncing Contacts with a Webserver.” This very detailed tutorial provides all the code to create your own syncing application for S60 devices.

Also from the S60 platform, Dameon D. Welch-Abernathy in”JoikuSpot Now on Windows Mobile” announces the use of JoikuSpot for turning Wi-Fi transceiver in a Win Mobile device into a personal hotspot.

Martin Sauter helps international travelers stay connected to the Internet and celebrates the anniversary of his crowdsourced effort in “1st Anniversary of the Pre-paid Wireless Internet Wiki.” Now that’s cool.

Twitterlicious: Mobile in 140 chars

iPhone 2.0.2 Firmware Update

http://twitter.com/Forian/statuses/891530171

http://twitter.com/jrkac4/statuses/891532579

http://twitter.com/FearCake/statuses/891529125

http://twitter.com/RSS_Techmeme/statuses/891528524

Mobile Video

http://twitter.com/Android_News/statuses/891527530

http://twitter.com/BruceGAO/statuses/889872696

http://twitter.com/therefore/statuses/888730516

That’s it for this first test of adding Twitter (microblogging) to the Carnival of Mobilists. I’m sure there’s a better way to display these and hope to put more time into that in the future. There’s an amazing roundup this week.

Be sure to check back next week when the Carnival heads home to Mobhappy.

Check out the CoM this week for the best resource on media about mobile in the blogosphere. Also, check with the schedule to find the lastest host locations of the carnival. Great job, Xen! And see you at next week’s show.

From China, Anina of 360fashion.net and 360fashion.tv, delivers a video recorded with a Nokia 7900 which features a discussion with a Chinese fashion booker on the usefulness and utility of Anina’s own mobile game for girls called, Dress Up Anina. Some will be aware of Anina’s efforts through her 360fashion network to mashup the fashion and mobile industries. And if you’re not, you should be.

From the UK, Rafe Blandford of All About Symbian, creates his media mashup of a visual commentary of CTIA Wireless 2008 in Las Vegas.

Andrew Gill of blog.andrewgill.com introduces us to a mashup of Facebook and LBS which allows tracking of friends and family including wayward spouses. Channeling Dr. Suess: Oh! The Places We Will Go! The service is made available by UK mobile operator O2.

Vero Pepperrell of Taptology brings more news of O2 which reveals that 3G isn’t necessarily about speed for this operator. Read this one as “trust but verify” might be the best advice for those who think the iPhone’s Edge radio doesn’t meet their demands for 3G speed, especially those in the UK.

Ajit Jaokar of Open Gardens talks about his mashup of Gmail with Blackberry. This article asks a very simple direct question, but it’s hinting something bigger.

Kiran Bellubbi of Small Doses reflects on last week’s attendance at OvertheAir mobile development camp and champions the browser as platform for mobile devices. Let’s repeat together….iPhone, iPhone, iPhone.

Matt Radford of AllAboutiPhone discusses the iPhone’s Over-the-air (OTA) syncing opportunities and possible roadmap through an analysis of recent announcements from Apple along with it’s other properties. Interesting assessment of what syncing could mean for enterprises and for Apple.

James Cooper of mjelly delivers a comprehensive recap of this month’s Mobile Monday, London discussion on mobile user experience. The enthusiasm James has for the topic is palpable and contagious.

Dean Bubley of Distruptive Analysis takes on the disruptive possibilities of m-commerce for brick and mortal retail. Leading with the impact of Amazon on traditional retail, Bubley extrapolates the potential for m-commerce and how traditional retail can deliver unique value in the face of additional price and convenience competition.

James Whatley, aka Whatleydude of SMSTextNews,  advocates replacement of standard device OS user interface with the Facebook interface.  During the Mobile Messaging 2.0 led Roundtable at CTIA 2008, the group I led took on the topic of user experience.  After a discussion of consumer research results on user desire for integrated social networks from Jonathon Steuer, vp, consumer strategist at iconoculture, Facebook, and Helio’s MySpace interface, then the natural next step was expanding the concept to User-defined UI.  Or more correctly expressed….use case defined UI.  Some examples discussed included media creators, sports enthusiasts, and social network addicts.  Take a look as James recounts the discussion.

From the cyber bridge between the UK and US, Chetan Sharma of AORTA delivers the Mobile Data State of the Union for 2008 and the US market. Sharma continues his on target analysis of the mobile industry combining quantitative measures with enlightened commentary which extends beyond the common narrative into the reality of the US mobile market.

From the cyber bridge between Germany and the US, Peggy Anne Salz of MSearchGroove (MSG) connects the dots of Qualcomm’s seemingly disjointed services strategy and roadmap. The article features an extensive discussion with Qualcomm’s Herbert Vanhove, Vice President & General Manager, Qualcomm Internet Services, Europe, with Salz’s own analysis of the meaning and opportunity for Qualcomm’s service M&A activity.

From the US, C. Enrique Ortiz of About Mobility defines the drivers of the wireless/mobile usage boom. Ortiz draws out the factors that are converging to move mobile usage to a critical mass.

Jamie Wells of Mobilestance zeros in on the glut of mobile advertising inventory and mobile publishers engage in experimentation with multiple sales partners. Wells offers some advice for big brands and publishers.

Barbara Ballard of Little Springs Design uses her love of basketball national champions, Kansas University, as a metaphor for success in mobile application design. Ballard answers the question of where the challenge is won.

Judy Breck of Smartmobs features to an article from the New York Time Magazine on the travels and intelligence gathering of Nokia’s Jan Chipchase. With the ubiquity of the cell phone comes opportunities beyond sales of games and dating applications. Breck’s headline says it best, “Can the Cell Phone Help End Global Poverty?”

And finally we come to my pick discussion this week on the mobile industry via audio: Vizard and Gillmor on the Mobile Shakeout from Mike Vizard and Steve Gillmor. Featuring an in depth discussion of Intel’s new Atom chip, these technology industry veterans lead us down the twists and turns of the path to what’s happening next in mobile development. Of course, it wouldn’t be Gillmor without discussion of the iPhone. What do the recent product shortages mean?

From a photo essay to video, to audio and even the written word the Carnvial of Mobilists continues to feature the best thinking on and from the mobile industry. There’s a feast of information available as the CoM continues to grow and incorporate new voices along side long-time contributors. It is a reflection of the industry as a whole. I’m confident that all audiences will find value in the variety of perspectives and commentary featured this week, and would encourage everyone to follow the CoM next week at its new host location, Skydeck’s blog.

If you have articles, videos, audio or photo commentary on any and all things mobile, visit the official Carnival of Mobilists site and join to have your voice featured in a future CoM. And better yet, if you would like to host the best source for thinking on mobility anywhere on the web check out the instructions to volunteer as a host.

Enjoy Carnival of the Mobilists #119. I certainly have.

Enjoy the reading and watch for the CoM here on February 4th, 2008.

Happy New Year!

Media is the dominant delivery mechanism of advertising and by necessity locked in fierce competition to capture and hold your attention primarily for the purposes of securing ad revenue for the profitable development of their creative products and services. Whether one watches Lost on ABC, listens to All Things Considered on NPR, or reads Robert Scoble’s blog, advertisers or sponsors are funding that experience to gain access to the media consumer’s attention. In the realm of media, the producer acts as the owner of your attention. You pay attention to their media properties. Producers collect information on what and when you pay attention, and in turn, sell your attention to advertisers who wish to deliver their marketing messages.

Who owns your attention

When you use Google or Yahoo! for web search or visit blogs that partner with Adsense or Yahoo! Publisher, it is the search engine that acts as owner of your attention. Stored on Google and Yahoo! servers are the clickstreams of millions. Whether you click through the results of a web search or on an ad placed on a blog, the search engines sell your attention and gestures to advertisers who pay for the increased likelihood that they will get your attention long enough or at the right time to convert you into a customer for themselves or their client companies.

Social networks like MySpace, Facebook, Beebo, Flickr etc. act as the owners of your attention. As you participate in building your profile, interacting with objects in the network (e.g., applications, media, other users) and/or publish your own original content an overwhelming amount of information is available on where and to what you are paying attention. This treasure trove of data is combed on both the front-end and back-end of these networks by advertisers eager to get their message into your view and attention.

John Stratton, CMO of Verizon Wireless (VZW), dramatically declared to big media and advertisers that they own the attention of their subscribers. The following audio excerpt is from John Stratton’s speech at AdAge’s 2006 Madison & Vine Conference bringing together Hollywood and Madison Avenue. In his speech, Stratton explains the value of Verizon’s subscriber attention by describing how his company sold 10,000 concert tickets in one hour.

Download audio file (JS_Verizon_CMO.mp3)

Stratton sees Verizon Wireless as the owner of your attention to be sold to both Hollywood and Madison Avenue and likely anyone willing to pay Verizon Wireless for ad delivery. Did you download a hip hop ringtone last month? Are you a mobile gamer? Do you live in Los Angeles? Is your name Stacy? VZW’s view into your clickstream is even more powerful than the view of Google, or Yahoo! Web companies have mastered the collection of to what and when you’re paying attention, but VZW can add the layers of where and who you are (identity).

The US government mandated E911 regulation requires carriers to build the infrastructure to accurately determine your location and provide that information to public safety organizations for emergency services. As a result, GPS equipped devices are widely deployed and in use (e.g., personal navigation is one of the breakthrough applications on the carriers’ data networks). Further, your mobile phone number identifies you just as surely as your driver’s license or your passport. Credit checks and state issued identification are requirements for the process of purchasing a mobile phone.

Attention Trust & Root Vault

Your attention has value. It is scarce. Businesses are using technology and services to act as owners of your attention. In 2005, the Attention Trust was formed by Steve Gillmor and Seth Goldstein in an attempt to conceptually create property rights around attention and ensure the ownership of that property resided with it’s originator, you.

Beyond providing consumer protection and the creation of property rights, Attention Trust seeks to enable individuals to capture their own clickstreams and bring them to market just as your many service providers do. The Attention Recorder is a browser plugin that enables an individual to collect their own clickstream and store it. Individuals may choose to store their clickstream on a local hard drive or on one the services authorized by Attention Trust.

Attention data stored on a service can be bought, sold or traded. Third party investors may purchase attention data and act as arbiters. Advertisers might bid on clickstreams or purchase them outright. The originator of the clickstream owns their data and can chose who is allowed to purchase the data and who is not. It remains to be seem if these initial efforts and services can sustain themselves until the market can be educated.

Attention Economy Leverage

Some companies are getting wise to the fact that the byproducts of Attention Economy also have value. A blogger swarm on any given topic can generate millions of page views; a rapid worldwide spread of a technology, story, event or concept (i.e., a network effect); and the energy drink of all web site owners - google juice. Google juice and related mechanisms for driving an Idea Virus into mainstream consciousness, generally occurring through the leap from the blogosphere into the mainstream media, results in economic value not only in the context of attention, but also, monetarily.

An early example of leverage applied to the attention economy is the phrase Web 2.0. The phrase was coined in 2003, by O’Reilly Media to name a conference held in October, 2004, and instantly popularized by the technology blogosphere. O’Reilly had partnered with CMP to produce the series of Web 2.0 conferences. A blog swarm formed across technology bloggers around the first conference and it’s central theme of “the web as a platform.” In November, 2004, CMP applied for a service mark on the phrase Web 2.0. A service mark is a type of trademark that is used to mark services instead of products.

It is notable that the Web 2.0 service mark application was filed not when the term was coined in 2003 or even over the next year during conference preparation. It was applied for after the conference in November once the term had been popularized among technology bloggers. The existence of the service mark was largely unknown until a small not-for-profit conference in Ireland chose to use the phrase Web 2.0 in the title of it’s conference in 2006. CMP sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding that IT@Cork discontinue the use of it’s service mark. However, according to trademark law a mark loses protection when it becomes a generic term. According to the Harvard School of Law’s documentation on trademark law, Web 2.0 not only “lost” it’s protection via genericity,

A word will be considered generic when, in the minds of a substantial majority of the public, the word denotes a broad genus or type of product and not a specific source or manufacturer. So, for example, the term “thermos” has become a generic term and is no longer entitled to trademark protection. Although it once denoted a specific manufacturer, the term now stands for the general type of product. Similarly, both “aspirin” and “cellophane” have been held to be generic. In deciding whether a term is generic, courts will often look to dictionary definitions, the use of the term in newspapers and magazines, and any evidence of attempts by the trademark owner to police its mark.

but the clearly generic nature of “web” should have prevented the mark from becoming registered at all.

Finally, a generic mark is a mark that describes the general category to which the underlying product belongs. For example, the term “Computer” is a generic term for computer equipment. Generic marks are entitled to no protection under trademark law. Thus, a manufacturer selling “Computer” brand computers (or “Apple” brand apples, etc.) would have no exclusive right to use that term with respect to that product. Generic terms are not protected by trademark law because they are simply too useful for identifying a particular product. Giving a single manufacturer control over use of the term would give that manufacturer too great a competitive advantage.

CMP leveraged the attention network effect created by the swarm of technology bloggers writing and commenting on the Web 2.0 concept. They captured the term’s accrued value by securing a service mark. Whether these events have a direct relationship to the next case is unknown, but a precedent for business and leveraging the Attention Economy was set.

Verzion Wireless announces Mobile Web 2.0(SM)

Verizon Wireless authored and distributed a press release that no doubt many have read as it was reported across the blogosphere, trade press and the mainstream press earlier this week. The press release was titled: Now It Is Even Easier to Get the Info You Want With Mobile Web 2.0 From Verizon Wireless. On seeing the document I immediately took note of the (SM) following mentions of Verizon Wireless’ Mobile Web 2.0 product, as in the following example.

In addition, VZW’s press kit (pdf) dated 08/17/07, also, carries the service mark on it’s new product name, Mobile Web 2.0. I phoned Jim Gerace at VZW for comment to verify the service mark application and the date of application, but my call was not returned in time for this article.

VZW is capitalizing on the existing high attention valuation for the phrase Mobile Web 2.0 and it’s forerunner Web 2.0 which has clearly reached mainstream awareness and has become part of the technology vernacular globally. Applying the concepts of Web 2.0 to mobile data applications began at least 2 years ago as evidenced by a book titled Mobile Web 2.0 published in 2006, 272 mil search results at Google, and 3,164 blog posts as indicated by Google Blogsearch. The company can leverage this attention valuation to save on marketing spend, and equally prevent competitors from sharing in that value by using a service mark to proclaim ownership.

Does Verizon Wireless plan to defend this mark? If not, why apply for a mark at all?

Mobile is a generic term. Web is a generic term. The practice of versioning originally used in software parlance has produced gems such, “Al Qaeda 2.0″ from CNN, and “Al Gore 2.0″ from Fox News. Further, the application of Mobile Web 2.0 to VZW’s mobile web service is the very definition of a generic mark in trademark law.

Generic Mark Defense by Payola

One of the more sensational instances of a company defending a generic mark was the case of Microsoft v. Lindows, Inc. Microsoft claimed that the name Lindows infringed it’s trademark on Windows. In this case, Michael Robertson founder of Lindows, Inc. and previously MP3.com, was well armed to demonstrate that Windows was a generic mark. The term “windows” was used extensively in a generic sense by the Unix community and in early documents from research at Xerox Parc to describe UI design elements.

Lindows, Inc. had Microsoft in an awkward position and the company’s choices became increasingly limited. They could bring Lindows, Inc. to court for infringement and risk invalidation of their Windows trademark, or allow Lindows to dillute the trademark and lose it that way. The only way that Microsoft could save its Windows trademark in the end was to pay Lindows, Inc. $10 mil to change their name. So, Lindows, Inc. became Linspire, Inc.

Paying Attention to Verizon Wireless

Shouldn’t VZW’s move to Mobile Web 2.0 be celebrated? Afterall, the carrier is willing to embrace the principles of Mobile Web 2.0, like open APIs, open standards, the full web browser interface, the internet as platform, and the power of indy content. This is great news for subscribers and developers. Finally, carriers will lift their heavy boot from the stream of innovation that open APIs represent for developers and restore that direct relationship loop between user and developer that has propelled WWW innovation.

Similarly, Vodafone’s move to open up the full web experience to their customers this summer was met with praise across the blogosphere, mainstream press, analysts and from their subscribers in the UK. Carriers and operators are at long last understanding the value of taking down their walled gardens of content. Acceptance of Mobile Web 2.0 from VZW means the subscriber is in control and true choice is at long last possible.

Recall that the Stratton speech focused on VZW as a media company. The full embrace of Mobile Web 2.0 means that VZW would compete for ad revenue against the Internet media giants like Yahoo!, Google, MSN, YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, etc. What a huge change this new openness represents over the carrier’s attempt of being an application company and the “Mobile Internet” (which became known to users as WAP is Crap) initiatives of the past.

VZW’s Mobile Web 2.0 is…

an updated version of their portal with space for advertising. To VZW Mobile Web 2.0 is a walled garden. Access to the walled garden costs $5.00 per month plus air time (VZW charges it’s subs for the minutes an application is open on a handset along with the monthly subscription for application access) AND comes with advertising on every page. There are, also, featured links which is code for paid placement. So then, Mobile Web 2.0 is a maximized revenue instance of a walled garden. Who knew?

So the joke is on everyone. Not only does VZW trademark a term popularized by indy media, and countless conferences where hands are held across the divide between web development and mobile development, but in a kind of one finger salute, VZW applies the term for ultimate mobile openness to their walled garden.

It’s time to pay attention to Verizon Wireless. Those who write, speak and evangelize independently may not have legal standing or individually the legal resources to follow the USPTO’s trademark application objection process, but this is the Attention Economy. We can create a negative incentive on VZW’s misappropriation of our attention. A different precedent is needed.

Perhaps a mobile startup will want to play the role of Lindows, Inc. A $10 mil settlement would be a nice round of funding with no term sheet attached.

The podcast is available for download or streaming at Mobile Messaging 2.0.  I hope you enjoy the listen.

This might help with translation:  Riptionary.com

Gravy!

The CoM is up and splendid this week at about mobility. Enrique does an excellent roundup of the best blogging on mobile. Check it out.