The move has been so well received by the public that growth shot up to 1269% according to Experian hitwise. The graph below:

Google+ open beta growth

According to Paul Allen (unofficial statistician for Google+), it took Google+ 88 days to reach the 50 million mark. Looking at the graph below from Leon Haland, we can see how this compares to other social networking websites.

Google+ 50 million users

What’s the potential for Google+?

Bearing in mind that Facebook, LinkedIn, twitter and MySpace managed to get their users via friends inviting people in their contact lists, etc. , it would be fair to say that Google+ didn’t have to resort to such measures to jump from 54th to 8th in the Experian Hitwise Social Networking and Forums category.

So what drove people’s interest to sign-up to Google+… the answer is simple, it’s search engine. Whether you’re signed-up or not, Google.com will always entice you to join from the +You in the top left menu on the search engine to the +1 button in each and every search result item. This without any doubt provides the Google+ platform massive exposure to the unregistered Google+ “virgin” unrivalled by any of the other social platforms.

Social media unique visitors

From the graph above, it can be seen that Facebook clearly dwarfs the likes of MySpace, twitter and LinkedIn. Google.com cannot be retrieved as I suspect it has been blocked. Much of the stats is derived from their search engine which is the number 1 ranked site representing 50%-60% of global internet users. So the measure are pretty much one of the most accurate around.

From Alexa, Google has a great reach of about 50% v/s 45% for Facebook. Interestingly 6.04% of google.com visitors went to plus.google.com.

Google and Facebook reach

Using compete.com, Google.com receives 165,067,996 unique visitors per month while Facebook receives 155,773,970. So 6.04% (from Alexa) would represent 9,970,107 unique visitors for Google+ but most of these are referrals and we are missing out on the direct traffics to plus.google.com.

The graph below from compete.com shows another approximation which equals to 13,443,888 Unique Visitors:

What I am trying to say here is that the Google.com search engine will prove to be a massive exposure for Google+ whereas Facebook does not have such a powerful referral service at its disposal.

Google is also looking to incorporate social recommendations based for e.g. on interests. Now who would not want this feature while searching on google. I know I would and believe  a lot of people will too.

I’ll try to wrap up this post pretty quickly as I am pretty sure by now, a lot of people have access to Google+ since they opened their doors to the public last week.

After we looked at circles last time, we will be looking at hangouts, sparks, huddle and instant uploads.

Hangouts

I have to say this is a pretty cool feature which allows to see and chat with you friends. It’s totally visual. Similar to Facebook video call. Google+ seems to be much better than Facebook in doing this as it shows “Dharmesh Suraj Bali is hanging out with 2 friends”. Join this hangout. Pretty cool huh.

Google 2 Facebook 0

Sparks

Sparks is a good way to pull information from the web based on your areas of interest.  My sparks seems to have disappeared though. I quite liked this feature. It’s like a news aggregator of your favourite topics. I would give Google+ 3-0 on with the sparks feature.

Messenger (ex-Huddle) and Instant upload

The Instant upload, as the name suggests, is a mobile feature which allows you to instanly upload pictures to a private album on Google+. Huddle is group chat just like you have on Facebook. So plus points there other than I have to say the instant upload is pretty good since taking pictures from the mobile is becoming a common feature nowadays.

A couple of notes

Seems to me that Google+ has removed sparks from its interface as I cannot access it or maybe it might be a bug affecting a few people since I have seen similar issues on forums. Huddle has been replaced by chat and messenger.

Full list of features are:

The first thing that I did was play around with circles.

Google’s video on circles:

The stream idea is cool and is the equivalent of status updates but the only difference with facebook is that you can stream videos is you have a web cam. (Google 1 – Facebook 0).  I always thought that the next evolution of facebook should be videos as described on my recent facebook post, even before the rumours of facebook buying Skype. Facebook wants to revolutionise the way people communicate by encouraging them to chat and message each other all in real time and Google have beaten them to the real-time video communication. Not that I think it will change a lot in terms of facebook users migrating to google+.

Now to the circles.
I was disappointed with circles as my original idea when I heard of it was it will auto-manage the privacy settings. Sure, it’s meant to make sure you stream specific messages to specific circles (e.g. girly messages to the close females friends) but I believe what most people want is auto-management of updates towards your circles, bearing in mind that most people do not have a clue about privacy settings.

From a facebook approach, it’s update your status and everybody gets it although in an ideal world it should have been filtered by the lists of friends which you create. In facebook you can’t even manage the privacy settings of the lists.The Google approach is put your friends in circles and send message, video streams to your circles. It’s plain, simple you will have circles of work friends, female friends, best friends, travel buddies, etc. Want to set up a new travel plan, stream it to your travel buddies without the whole world knowing about it. I like it, it’s a simple approach and I have to say thumbs up to Google for changing the whole approach. This seems to have been well thought and addressed so that there is no privacy settings to manage. Just put people in circles just like you would in your real life. As much as it pains me to say this, it’s Google 2 – Facebook 0.

I will post some more very soon on Google+ while I continue to play and dissect it.

In the meantime if you want a Google+ account, feel free to email me.

WAC launched at the Mobile World Congress 2010 in Barcelona, promised to make it easier for developers to sell and build apps irrespective of device or technology. One year on, WAC is open for business with the launch of its application store and the release of version 2.0 of its specifications.

On its website, WAC aims to:

• Accelerate and expand the market for applications by enabling developers to develop once and deploy to multiple platforms and devices
• Create more compelling applications by enabling developers to use both device and network capabilities
• Provide greater choice for users by simplifying the porting of apps

Comparing WAC to the competition

* figures from Mobile Developer Economics 2010 and Beyond by VisionMobile

** from the WAC press release

*** from Gartner report

Demand and supply

The word “apps” has been heavily tied to Apple from the day it entered the mobile industry and changed the whole dynamics of the ecosystem. Without any doubt, Apple’s iPhone has set the benchmark for mobile apps. Apple’s app user interface has been so successful that users demand more of their apps in terms of functionality, performance, graphics and level of interactivity when choosing the competition.

The device has provided users with an unprecedented level of interactivity to the point that it has become the defacto standard when choosing a platform for apps. The user interface on these devices provides complex functionality while at the same time allowing excellent performance tied up with rich graphics and a high level of interactivity. WAC, which uses widgets as the technology for getting apps to market, is still in its infancy when it comes to handling such complexity and performance.

If we are to compare WAC apps to Apple and Android apps, then at the moment it is really poor and cannot tackle the super apps distributed by Apple and Android. Widgets simply cannot live up to the expectations of demanding iPhone and Android users. The closest widgets can get to these super apps is simple 2D games and weather forecast apps.

The super app train

One of the success factors for Apple’s ecosystem has been the continuous evolution of its OS each providing access to a new set of features for apps. Every time a new OS version is launched, there is a gap in the market for new innovative apps using these features which provide users with new ways of interacting with their mobiles and the environment around them. Both developers and users are constantly being engaged with this continuous evolution of features.

Even if WAC was to catch up to the market leaders, it still faces playing a chasing game because Android and Apple are constantly evolving their OS and set of features while WAC is only trying to match them. The popular apps seen today in the leading app stores will eventually be displaced by new feature-rich apps when new OS versions and new phones are launched. This continuous evolution of features guarantees that apps keep getting more interactive, processor-intensive and graphics-intensive which inevitably creates a cycle of today’s super apps will be tomorrow’s average apps. Apps will keep getting better and better and WAC would need to catch up fast so as not to miss the super app train.

APIs

One major factor for the success of apps on the iPhone and Android has been the interactivity provided by hardware APIs. So far, WAC only provides access to network and device APIs. To create compelling apps, it would need to harness the power of the gyroscope and accelerometer in most devices. Operator and device APIs are just not enough for their compelling apps dream. Handset OEMs would need to join in as well and contribute to WAC with their hardware APIs. So far WAC has managed to convince very few handset OEMs.

Another shortoming of the WAC’s API offerings is in its APIs business model. They have to realise that they have mountains to move when it comes to encouraging developers to develop for them. The 3 billion device reach promise is not enough!  They would have to offer their APIs free of charge or even have a revenue share model for developers who use their APIs, like BlueVia for example. This would be a big encouragement for developers as they would get an extra revenue channel for use of its APIs, a definite plus point.

Devices, markets and developers

As devices get more powerful, start cramming more pixels, and keep improving their interactivity, it becomes practically impossible for WAC to keep up with this constant and fast paced evolution. It needs to target a particular segment of mobiles. Keeping up with the low-end to the high-end through the mid-end phones will create even more fragmentation. At the high-end level, is it worth competing with the native apps of the Android Market and at the low-end level, can the devices support HTML or do they only support WML? All these factors will have to be considered when targeting a particular device segment. The mid-end phones are most likely best suited to WAC.

In a similar fashion to devices, WAC needs to carefully choose its markets. Major markets such as UK and USA are tech-savvy and demanding in terms of apps quality. The market has already been sold on the virtues of Apple’s iPhone and are very likely able to afford an iPhone or Android phone through operator subsidy. Developing or emerging countries for e.g. in Africa could be a good market for WAC. The masses cannot afford an iPhone or Android phone there and WAC could easily sell them the offerings of an app store. This heavily ties up with the popular devices in these countries which are more likely low-end to mid-end range phones, for example Nokia is very popular in African countries.

Developers, just like devices and markets, also need to be targeted. WAC at the moment does not offer an attractive enough proposition to tempt the highly successful iPhone developers who are running a profitable business. Less successful iPhone and Android developers would be more interested in WAC as well as entrepeneurs who find iPhone development expensive might be also interested in WAC. Therefore, WAC would really need to define what it is aiming for, the high-end developers or lower-end ones.

Native apps v/s widgets

Most apps can’t be developed with widgets and more app versions are required to cover the same number of devices with widgets. You can’t win with both sides of an unbiased coin. WAC has to choose between native apps or widgets. It can choose to drop widgets altogether but that would be at the expense of its members, some of whom have already created app stores geared towards native apps. Widgets will continue to be the main technology used by WAC to deliver apps as going native on apps will have a conflict of interest with its members.

The road ahead

WAC without any doubts has a massive market to tap into but it lacks a clear strategy aimed towards a specific market, devices and developers. To be successful it needs to address the lower spectrum of the mobile ecosystem because it just cannot compete with Apple or Android who are riding on the higher end of the spectrum. WAC can ride the app store wave by replicating what the major app stores are doing but to a lower device market and audience.

Many speculators have suggested that Facebook’s new messaging system is the gmail killer while other says it’s just another version of Google Wave. Facebook, on the other hand, claims that it is the “next generation messaging system” compared to the slow and formal conventional messging systems like Gmail and Hotmail.

What does this mean in terms of communication and socialising?

This means that Facebook intends to be the number 1 platform for socialising and communicating

This has been amply demonstrated when Facebook launched the chat system, a popular online social activity. All your friends are on facebook, so there’s no need to get a messenger to communicate. A desktop application would be welcome though. Prior to the chat launch on Facebook, everybody was using somekind of messenger as in Yahoo and Hotmail, etc.

This means that Facebook does not intend to let other startups and new platforms enter the social space

This was demonstrated with the launch of “status updates” and “places” to counter act twitter and foursquare respectively. I sincerely believe that foursquare would have been a lot bigger if Facebook had not launched “places”. Facebook is playing the power game and it’s power is the database of users it possesses. All your friends are on Facebook so why migrate to another platform and invite your friends there when the service is available on Facebook. If however the service would not have been available, then there would have been a genuine case for migrating and inviting your friends to another platform.

This is precisely what Facebook are counteracting. I doubt that any future ventures in the social space would be fruitful as Facebook would create something similar to literally kill you off and prevent its users from migrating. It’s the big fish eating the smaller fish so that it remains the big one.

This means that Facebook will be adopted by a much older age group

By launching email, Facebook will add a much older age group to its userbase. Email is a conventional means of communication and very often we tend to forget the email addresses of friends but with Facebook, you don’t need to remember addresses if the person is on Facebook.

What next?

Facebook has already built itself as the number one social platform. It has got the best user information and behaviour (activities and interests) than any other platform in the world.

If Facebook plans to be the number one communication and messaging platform, I would not be surprised if in the future they launch something similar to Skype. If they do so, then without doubt they are looking to be a social communications platform.

When it comes to successful app, we all can’t help but think about Angry Birds which took the mobile gaming/app world by storm when it first launched in December 2009 on iOS. Since then Angry Birds have expanded to Android Market, Ovi Store, etc. with over 100 million downloads across all platforms. Priced at a modest $0.99 (£0.59), it was indeed the greatest sucess story the world had seen so far by using a long-tail business model (small prices/huge sales) as discussed in one of our previous posts on maximising revennue on the App Stores.

Capitalising on its success, it started selling its own plush toys for avid fans. Here’s the link if you fancy cuddling some Angry Birds. It even came out with a sequel Angry birds seasons. With the launch of the animated feature film Rio, Rovio partnered with 20th Century Fox to launch Angry Birds Rio. Without any doubt, this firmly sets Angry Birds as a business.

Leaving the games area, there are also other examples of apps who creating businesses out of apps. One such example is hipstamatic. The app is a great example of how you should monetise your app and make a business out of it. In a couple of previous versions, I remember that hipstamatic was selling Levi’s camera cases. Maybe it was a limited time offer as it is not in the current version anymore. Hipstamatic is gaining popularity with the analog photography enthusiasts and to improve their business offerings, they could sell Jessops flashes for the camera as an example. This would be a good way for Jessops to advertise their products and for hipstamatic to get additional income.

Brands gain as this is an advertisement opportunity for them while app makers get additional revenue. On a partnership level, when no money is involved, both brand and app gain since they are maximising their exposure, even more so for the app since their image increases when they are associated with brands.

When partnerships are forged with other big companies, that’s when you become a business. So I am expecting more apps to start following a similar approach in the future in app stores.

The persona referred to a woman with low income in her 40s who is separated from her husband, has two kids, scared to use the internet but is always keeping in touch with family and friends via her mobile phone.  We found out that the app was not ideal for her since she trusted her friends more than reviews.

By using LBS, the persona would be able to identify where the nanny lives (which could always be on the road just next to hers) and also find out from her friends more about the nanny. While brainstorming we found out what she needed was a network or somebody in her community to reassure her that using this nanny would be a good idea. At that particular moment is just clicked, you can use LBS to create communities. LBS does not only provide you details of shops, bars, etc in your vicinity but it can also help you build a close circle of people in the neighbourhood. We figured out that by using such a location feature, she would be able to identify other potential mothers who would be able to look after her child when she goes away without having to pay for a babysitter or nanny, which is the whole idea of communities.

Who would you trust between someone with a couple of stars next to their name or someone who lives just around the corner?

Lots of good and interesting discussions around a panel which was led by Leila Makki of Telecom TV and consisted of:

• David Gibbs, Director of Mobile Applications and Services, BSkyB,
• Matt Pollitt, Account Director at UsTwo,
• Rimma Perelmuter, Executive Director, Mobile Entertainment Forum,
• David Roth-Ey, Group Digital Director, Harper Collins and
• Mark Payton, Editorial Director, Haymarket Consumer Media.

Here are my takings on the event before I tackle one of my favourite question for the night:

• David Roth-Ey states that discovery mechanism is missing from digital book stores and urges developers to look into discovery methods.
• UsTwo reported that their first app did not go well and second app fetched them £120000. I certainly like these numbers, I can see ££££££.
• UsTwo says that Android is more open but 50% of downloads are pirated. 35% of their Android base are pirated copies.
• David Gibbs states that Sky had 10.2 million app downloads on the iPhone.
• David Roth-Ey says that they sold over 100,000 copies of the SAS survival guide for £3.99. Personally I think that’s a brilliant sale for an app for 3.99
• Sky says go where the audience is which is apps not the mobile web. Check my earlier article on this topic Apps… the new way to access the web.
• Rimma says that Facebook and twitter influence customer behaviour. I totally agree with this since only I had a conversation about this with colleagues; if an app store does not have facebook and twitter, you might as well bin the app store since they are the two most accessed brands via mobile.
• In reply to a question, Sky says they are not on android because of security and because they can’t protect streams and those who own their rights.
• UsTwo replies to the issue of HTML5 v/s native apps saying that with HTML5, there is a connectivity issue on mobiles and iOS is more advanced than HTML5.

Now back to the issue of why I wanted to write this blog post. During the event, someone raised a question “Apple iOS is only  a drop in the ocean. Why are we always talking about apple?”.

One person from the audience responded with “the reason why we keep talking about apple is 17m iPads and 100m payment enabled iTunes accounts.”, while some people on twitter replied is was trust.

Sorry but I totally disagree. People do not buy items for £329 just to add themselves to statistics.

Apple has created a revolution… touchphones with stylus have been around for a while before the iPhone, yet Apple revolutionised the phone market with its finger touch sensitive iPhone; I held my first tablet 4-5 years ago and it had windows running on it operated with a stylus, yet again Apple revolutionised the industry by making the tablet mainstream and redefining the wheel. Redefining the wheel is in Apple’s DNA, remember the RISC processor which was running on the PowerPC as compared to most CISC processors used on the market for PCs. Apple took high-tech finger touchscreen technology, redefined it for consumer market and bingo, you have a massive hit.

I agree that Apple is only a drop in the ocean but the reason why we always talk about Apple is because they are setting the standards, they are pioneers and everyone is playing catchup to them. When I say enerrgy drink, what comes to mind… I’d be surprised if you did not even think about Red Bull, since they were the pioneers in this sector. Same goes for when I say tablets and apps. I don’t have to say it… you know what comes to mind. I don’t even have to say it.

Me: “So why do you want to use a smartphone, you only use your phone to call your wife anyway?”

Friend: “I want be able to access internet because at work I can’t deal with my shares since they blocked the sites. I want something fast or even better an app.”

Me: “Cool so get an iPhone then.”

Friend: “I don’t know as iPhone is very expensive and I want to use the phone for internet and phone calls to my wife. iPhone seems too expensive when I can get the same thing done in the HTC Desire but the android phone does not have an app for IGindex; iPhone does.” At this point, he forwarded me to the this link http://www.igindex.co.uk/spread-betting/mobile-dealing-landing.html (screenshot below):

Me: “Why do you need an app to do your transactions on IG index?”

Friend: “It is so much easier and nicer to do it via an app. On the internet, it takes ages to do it while on the app it’s straighforward.”

At this point of the conversation, I realised that for ages user interface experts and gurus have been saying minimise the number clicks to get to a destination; the lesser the clicks to get an action done, the better. Apps are doing exactly that, it’s straightforward and allows the user to do exactly what he wants without having to search through a massive 800×600 or 1024×768 pixels page. In our attempt to streamline the small mobile interface, we have actually created a whole new way for people (even average users) to access the core tasks they require from a website.

This example of IG index app is a very good one of how an average user uses apps to access the core functionalities of a website. Given the choice of using the web or an app on his mobile, he will choose the app since it is much more straighforward and it gives the person the feeling that all the action is taking place on his mobile when in fact the app is just behaving like a browser but with the added bonus of having all core functions as native app buttons, as seen in the screenshot below:

Without any doubt, apps will continue to shape the way we access the internet. No wonder some analysts refer to apps as Web 3.0.