There seems to be a new round of Flock-bashing in the wake of the Performancing blog extension for Firefox. (Check out Mathew Ingram's post for a good round-up on who likes the extension.) Michael Arrington comes to Flock's defense, suggesting the fledgling browser probably has a "few massive tricks up its sleeve". Maybe, maybe not. I think Flock has become the favourite whipping boy for many people because there was so much hype and such high expectations before its release. Of course, the Flock 0.5 beta was disappointing, which caused most of its goodwill to evaporate. The launch of the Performancing extension (talk about creating a buzz and goodwill within the blogosphere) is seen as a Flock-killer because it addresses an application that supposed to be part of Flock's special sauce. If it's so easy to replicate what Flock promises with Firefox extensions, then how does Flock establish a foothold against IE, Firefox and Opera? I suspect Flock will try to break through by offering a multi-feature browser with tight integration between applications - be they blog publishers, bookmark tools, photo sharing, etc. That said, Flock has one good crack at the bat left. If developed properly, Flock has a chance of finding a niche. If not, then it's back to the drawing board for the next Web 2.0 browser. Update: Flocks's Chris Messina writes a lengthy response to all the Flock-bashing. He calls it "tiresome"
Rick Segal sent me a blog posting (License to Roma) about how BT was handing out free headsets in London's Waterloo station to promote its BT Communicator service. It got me thinking about telecom carriers are going to market VoIP in 2006 now the technology has really moved into the mainstream. Obviously, the big challenge facing carriers is selling a service that will cannibalize their high-margin local phone service. Some carriers such as BT (click here for a Red Herring story on the carrier's approach to VoIP) will accept the new technology landscape and aggressively move forward to embrance VoIP rather than letting rivals such as Vonage and cablecos steal the business. Others, meanwhile, will continue to bury their heads in the sand and hope VoIP's adoption slows down over concerns about quality and security. In Canada, it's hard not to get the feeling the carriers haven't quite decided how they want to move forward with VoIP. Telus, for example, hasn't even rolled out a VoIP service - probably because Shaw's $55-a-month cable telephony plan hasn't taken the market by storm. Telus promises, however, it will launch a residential service next year. Do not be surprised to see Telus take the same conservative approach as Bell by coming out with a service with prices that fall solidly between Vonage and Shaw. In other words, it will likely be expensive enough to prevent a wave of existing local customers by moving to VoIP, but not too dear to deter early adopters. That said, the carriers can be conservative because the cablecos - with the exception of Videotron - have also been pragmatic. Rogers, for example, is just starting to aggressively push its cable telephony service now that it's convinced most of the kinks have been worked out. Shaw hasn't come off its $55 price point, and hoping to discourage people from using VoIP by offering $10 QoS service to ensure rival VoIP services such as Vonage work well. Meanwhile, Videotron continues to charge ahead - 100K customers and counting - with its low-price cable telephony service. So what's in store for 2006? I think the carriers and the cablecos will become more aggressive in terms of marketing and pricing as they ramp up their battle for lucrative triple and quadruple-play customers. Someone, of course, has to blink first before things can really get exciting but there is lot at stake as VoIP gathers momentum. For a snapshot of Canada's VoIP pricing environment, here's a post I did earlier this year.
One of the intriguing aspects of RIM's patent dispute with NTP is how NTP - a corporate shell headed by a single lawyer - has somehow managed to hold its own in the communications game. For whatever reason, RIM has not counter-punched as effectively as it should have over the past four years when it comes to P.R. A huge exception was the editorial written by co-CEO Jim Balsillie in the Wall St. Journal earlier this week (the National Post reprinted it). As a result, it seems strange to see RIM's CFO, Dennis Kavelman, blamed media coverage for spooking potential customers. During a call with analysts to discuss the fourth-quarter forecast, Kavelman said reports "playing up" the dispute with NTP prompted a second downgrade in subscriber growth. Let's be clear here. It was not the media that promoted Gartner Group recently told large corporate clients to consider alternatives if a U.S. judge imposes an injunction next month that could stop Blackberry service and sales. Gartner saw an opportunity to attract some media attention - and sell some reports - and pushed it out to the media. At the same time, NTP's Don Stout has become increasingly media-friendly. It's hard to go a day without seeing Stout quoted by a reporter in Canada and the U.S. For the media, this is a juicy story with drama, cool technology, interesting personalities and lots of money in play. If RIM wants media coverage to stop affecting Blackberry sales, it should reach a settlement with NTP sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, RIM and NTP both seem to be willing to go as far as its take to pursue their positions. As Balsillie said in the Wall St. Journal, RIM has licensing deals with dozens of companies so you have to think RIM is confident it will eventually prevail. If RIM wants to deal with negative media coverage, it needs to use some of swagger to come up with an effective public relations strategy. The ball's in your court, RIM.
My blog has moved.
Check out the new Mark Evans. It's on Wordpress and part of my mini-blog empire that also includes All About Nortel You can subscribe to Mark Evans Tech by clicking on the RSS symbol above.
There seems to be a new round of Flock-bashing in the wake of the Performancing blog extension for Firefox. (Check out Mathew Ingram's post for a good round-up on who likes the extension.) Michael Arrington comes to Flock's defense, suggesting the fledgling browser probably has a "few massive tricks up its sleeve". Maybe, maybe not. I think Flock has become the favourite whipping boy for many people because there was so much hype and such high expectations before its release. Of course, the Flock 0.5 beta was disappointing, which caused most of its goodwill to evaporate. The launch of the Performancing extension (talk about creating a buzz and goodwill within the blogosphere) is seen as a Flock-killer because it addresses an application that supposed to be part of Flock's special sauce. If it's so easy to replicate what Flock promises with Firefox extensions, then how does Flock establish a foothold against IE, Firefox and Opera? I suspect Flock will try to break through by offering a multi-feature browser with tight integration between applications - be they blog publishers, bookmark tools, photo sharing, etc. That said, Flock has one good crack at the bat left. If developed properly, Flock has a chance of finding a niche. If not, then it's back to the drawing board for the next Web 2.0 browser.
Rick Segal