I’ve just spent the last couple of days at CTIA (see yesterday’s post). I wanted to present some thoughts I’ve had during that time.

Firstly, it’s been interesting to see the shadow the iPhone casts over everything even though Apple isn’t visibly present at the show. Sprint’s big announcement was around the Samsung Instinct, which is a clear iPhone competitor. But the devices on display were running beta software which was glitchy and slow, and it was clear that – though they have some nifty features – these devices are not a match for the iPhone. AT&T itself had another device which mimics certain aspects of the iPhone – the LG Vu – but it is another poor match for the device on everyone’s minds. Of all the things that people love about the iPhone – the design, the UI, the browser, the ease of use – none of them are matched by most of the devices on display here, even though the manufacturers of those devices have been making phones for far longer than Apple. The Sony Ericsson Xperia X1 showed the most promise of any device I saw at CTIA, but won’t be launched for several months.

And AT&T appears to be keen to cement the thought leadership the iPhone deal has given it. Its announcement that it will deploy Microsoft Surface tabletop computers in some of its stores will further up the cool factor for AT&T and put more pressure on its competitors to find ways to compete. I haven’t seen much from AT&T’s competitors that can match it in terms of providing differentiated experiences on devices or in stores. (I have to admit that throughout the Surface presentation I was thinking about this YouTube video which I first saw a few months back – “take that, Apple”).

I discussed managed mobility services with several players at CTIA, and found broad consensus in several areas. It seems clear that the next several months will see launches from major players including both AT&T and Verizon around managed mobility services, and that a range of factors are coming together to create a fertile environment for uptake of these services. The complexity I have referred to previously in the enterprise mobile arena is creating demand for these services. And technology is now available to enable the supply side, both from specialists like Mformation, Sybase and Nokia/Intellisync and from RIM and Microsoft. Launches in the next few months from those two big carriers and increasing uptake over the next year or two should follow.

“Openness” appears to be becoming the new “convergence” in that it is a term everyone seems to feel compelled to insert into every pitch and keynote despite the fact that it means different things to different people. AT&T still appears frustrated that Verizon has got so much attention for playing catch-up with the GSM world: as Ralph De La Vega (head of AT&T Mobility) put it today, “we were open before open was cool”. But he also suggested AT&T now views Android much more favorably than it did at first, ironically because Android will be “open” to AT&T’s branding and applications in the device UI, rather than being restricted to just Google and open source software. I’m hoping the open thing will soon blow over at least in the form of hype, and that we’ll start to see some significant real moves towards openness. Android will be important to watch when it launches – Texas Instruments is demoing two Android devices here – but it can’t be the only game in town.

Carriers need to get better at explaining that they already offer openness on the RIM, Windows Mobile and Palm platforms, where users get unfettered access to the Internet and the ability to install their own applications. But they also need to find ways to extend that openness all the way down the portfolio for those customers who want that. And they need to stop pretending that “choices” and openness are synonyms. Just because you give your customers a choice between two hand-picked applications does not mean your approach is open. Allowing them to pick the application they want regardless of whether you have endorsed it is. And carriers still have some learning to do in this department.

Overall, the show is as always a nice snapshot of a point in time for the wireless industry. But I hope that by the time the Fall show rolls around we’ll have moved forward in all these areas – compelling devices, managed mobility and openness in particular.

Bookmark with:

Just got back from dinner with Dan Hesse, Sprint CEO, at CTIA here in Vegas.

While these conversations are generally informal and more or less off the record, there were some insights he shared which I think I can safely pass on without breaching the spirit of the evening. My first question was what he had learned about what had gone wrong at Sprint which had led it to the predicament it’s in today.

His main answer was that it ultimately all comes down to the merger with Nextel. He made a reference here to the invasion of Iraq, which is worth thinking about more as an analogy, since he implied that the merger was both poorly planned and poorly executed. The main issues stemmed from the fact that the merger was ultimately billed as, and contracted as, a “merger of equals” because the market valuations of the two companies were similar. This created huge problems, both in terms of the price paid and in terms of the structures and policies which flowed from that decision.

Firstly, in terms of the price paid, this led to massive synergy requirements to provide a return on investment. These synergy targets (which I would characterise as negative, meaning they revolved around cutting costs, rather than positive, which would be true synergies, resulting in a whole that was greater than the sum of the parts) were overly ambitious and became the driving force for all the other targets at the company. The focus was therefore on massive cost-cutting, was very internal, and ignored external considerations, and especially considerations of customer care, churn and customer service, all of which suffered as a direct result.

The second problem was that the “merger of equals” narrative required an equitable distribution of various goodies after the merger concluded. This included seats on the board and in the senior management roles at the company, which were distributed equally between Sprint and Nextel. The split headquarters between Reston and Overland Park also resulted from this mentality. And it meant that no single unifying strategy led the company during that time, but rather it was constantly torn between the competing visions and philosophies of the people who had brought the two companies together.

From all this flowed the lack of focus on the important things, the over-focus on secondary considerations, and the mess Sprint is in today. Hesse is quickly changing all of this – one of his first moves was instituting greater accountability throughout the business (Gary Forsee had been the only person in the company with P&L responsibility before he left). And he has also made customer care, churn and other external metrics key to incentive structures and reporting throughout the business.

There is still a massive mountain to climb at Sprint, but Hesse certainly seems to have grasped the essential issues and made quick changes which should lead to the kind of turnaround that’s required. It remains to be seen whether the rest of the company can execute on his vision, but it certainly appears to be the right vision in many respects.

Bookmark with: