There are three new mobile location data gatekeepers emerging; Social Location Aggregators, Network Location Aggregators, and others with their own hardware/software/services/content stack

Social Location Aggregators

Facebook and Twitter. ...These players are leveraging a rich ecosystem of smartphone publishing clients with capabilities to push location data up to their larger platforms where it's now made Web-available to other developers and their applications. There's a healthy ecosystem of publisher-contributors and developer-consumers, but power is emerging in the middle. I suspect these middle-men gatekeepers will stay open, but beware... they have the keys and can lock the front and back doors at anytime.

Network Location Aggregators

Alcatel-Lucent, LOC-AID, Neustar, Technocom, ULocate, Useful-Networks, Wavemarket.  ...Call these players the new gatekeepers of yesterdays wireless carrier gatekeepers. They use the wireless network to pull down mobile location data (by phone number) and then run their own privacy protection authorization and authentication management on web services they expose to developers. Many years ago, similar approaches made network based SMS available across silo carrier environments which subsequently spurred explosive growth for messaging. Network location aggregators hope the same happens for cross-carrier location data. All US carriers are finally aboard which should support a healthy ecosystem, but beware... these middle-men have the keys, have competing applications of their own, and they too can lock the front door at anytime.  

Others who have their own hardware/software/services/content stack

Apple and Google. They each have their own location-ready devices, positioning databases, mobile OSs, applications, services, and content (including the geo variety). It's their party; we're all just guests. Tread carefully. Doing something that threatens their core focus could get you expelled. ...They also have the keys and can lock the front door at anytime.

This little exercise is long overdue. We now have heaps of historical data for location technology acquisitions, and since I know understanding the past is critical to manage the present and plan for the future, I'll use this historical M&A data to claim the following top 10 location technology acquisition candidates.

1. Intermap. Tops in the top content category, 3D LIDAR long-timer Intermap is in the midst of major transitions from a contract services company to a product company. They need help. Anyone smart enough to snatch them up will have a complete North American and Western Europe 3D data set equal to Microsoft and Google.     
2. Xora/Gearworks. After merging in August 2009, these two together now command the US enterprise mobility space built around carrier partnerships and broad handset portfolio support. They're almost large enough to start annoying Trimble.  
3. UMapper. There aren't many smaller players left in the GIS/mapping category. Most are now too large for acquisition or have an acquisition incompatible mismatch between investments, revenues, and exit multipliers. UMapper is still small and on the cusp. They need someone else larger to help propel them across the chasm. 
4. Skyhook. Ted Morgan brought Skyhook from a NAVTEQ Challenge semi-finalist to one of the most prominent players in the positioning space. iPhone will award that status. Cupertino should just get on with it and branch out a location technology office in Boston. Or, Qualcomm could buy their way onto the iPhone and iPad. 
5. Loopt. Not because they are a social location player in a red-hot emerging social location category, but because they do it differently (and better) from others with the help of wireless carriers, and because they have broad reach beyond smartphones. Another mainstream social net with a diverse global subscriber base could benefit from Loopt's know-how to reach the masses publishing through a variety of mobile modes.   
6. U-blox. Probably one of the only remaining independent GPS semi providers, it just follows the historical pattern of semi acquisitions for a larger provider to take over U-Blox.  
7. TechnoCom. A Fast-50 in SoCal and like most other silent infrastructure players, most folks haven't heard of TechnoCom. They touch nearly every US wireless location transaction and manage nearly all carrier 911 QA systems. Intrado or TCS would make good parents.  
8. Appello. Like the GIS category, players in the Navigation category are either too large for acquisition or have an exit-incompatible mismatch between existing investments and revenues. That doesn't help in a market where free is becoming the new consumer expectation. Appello is still small enough for another handset provider or carrier to get in on the action and offer a solid feature to boot.  
9. Sarantel. The best GPS Antenna in the market, hands down. If Apple gets serious about owning the entire location tech hardware stack and strives for superior performance, they (or someone else in the hardware category) should consider adding Sarantel.  
10. Layar. Augmented Reality still needs to prove itself as a money-making mode to browse the world, but maybe it won't have to. It's likely most smartphone providers will offer AR features themselves. Those that need a head start and an existing content publisher community should consider Layar.   

Cellular Privacy

Six years ago, mobile location privacy issue discussions de jour focused predominantly on passive extractions common to cellular network capabilities. Two broad issues were: 

1. Corporate-liable location privacy: Companies, businesses, or corporations had legal rights to locate and track mobile devices or vehicles considered corporate property, similar to an insured asset. Locke might have agreed with this notion of property ownership, but some individuals representing labor unions did not!   
2. Individual-liable location privacy: Individuals, consumers, citizens must provide opt-in consent to a software or platform as a service locating or tracking them. The software or platform must authenticate and authorize individual opt-in provisions with requested server-initiated location queries. 

To protect themselves, partners, and users from invasive threats, most cellular providers crafted supporting legalese with technology deployments written to safeguard personally identifiable information with included location information. Boiler agreements I recall reviewing protected individuals and application & service providers from intentional abuse and/or accidental misuse of location information coupled to a phone number (wireless' personal identity primary key). Most agreements looked similar to the below click-thru, but were less efficient and typically required legal review and sign-off - particularly for group activations. 

While safeguards introduced then protected carriers, application providers, companies and individual constituents for transactions, little discussion revolved around location information histories and storage of location data for other post-transaction commercial uses. Some early movers had foresight to include protection clauses within terms of service agreements explicitly stating location data history with personally identifiable information shall not be stored for post-processing analytics, but it's commonly known crude cellular-identification positioning techniques accompany every wireless transaction detail record. It's also known some of these historical records were attained from wireless carriers on the receiving end of issued subpeonas covered by the Patriot Act, which raises concerns and questions... Is it acceptable to store and analyze personally identifiable location information histories for government and security uses, while unacceptable for commercial purposes? ...Questions I expect the hearing addresses not just in the context of cellular provider behavior, but in the larger and more general context of the privacy discussion.

Social Web Privacy

Beyond cellular network approaches to location information capture and storage, we're now entering a new era of availability, accessibility, and concern. Today, GPS and other positioning technologies are ubiquitous within mobile devices to a point where Mobility is now synonymous with Location. At the same time, the Web has evolved from a read-only Web to a writable Web where volunteered status updates from location-capable smartphone applications post personally identifiable location information to social nets interconnected across the Web. Boutique check-in, "I am here" location broadcasting services linked to larger social networking services like Twitter are leading the movement, while controversial services such as Google's Buzz have recently emerged. While these new mobile & Web services offer local protection safeguards for users to control and manage how location information is shared and published, it's anything but clear or publicized how back-end services will use location information in post-processed commercial contexts. It's widely speculated bits of private information will be used for local advertising, based on stored, analyzed, and synthesized personal location information histories.

As an example, I use Latitude on my smartphone which offers local privacy controls for publishing and sharing.

While I control privacy provisions for peer sharing, I don't yet know how Google (or any other Web property aggregator) uses my stored location histories. I assume they synthesize my mobility movements into predictability patterns for profit, where in the future businesses in business with them tap derived intelligence and insert ads into my mobile life, and while I might want to share my location with my social network, I might not want the former. At this time, it appears I must do both, without choice. Also, who else could they sell my historical data to? Could they themselves also use my data without my authorization for their own data-product improvements? Will they grant government entities access to my information? These are all unknowns not of my personal concern, but of public concern - additional items I hope the House committee addresses on Wednesday. 

Pseudonymity, Dishonesty, & the New Privacy

Scott McNealy's now infamous utterance "You have zero privacy, get over it" may be true (or become reality soon), but it doesn't have to. In order for location information histories to create value for commercial purposes, the data must be associated with individual, unique identity. In the cellular arena it's impossible to fake individual identity because monthly bills and validated billing information define accountable relationships between individuals and service providers. However, on the Web, where 'free' defines the loose relationship between individuals and services, individual pseudonymity and dishonesty may become the currency for identity privacy on the Web. Lying about identity is wrong, but perhaps it's the only way for individuals to protect themselves while benefiting from the good-side of services on the Web & Social Web. It's troubling to think we might become a society of liars killing trust, but Web & Social Web influences may inadvertently encourage social dishonesty as a means of personal privacy protection. Will the House address these digital dishonesty issues as well? They should.

 Of course, I can always spoof my location as part of a trap. Caution all around. 

Okay Spinney..., but what the hell does this have to do with Apple staying with AT&T to launch the iPad, particularly when users complain about network performance, dropped calls, and 3G coverage? The answer, I think, can be found by examining lowest common denominator effects. 

Everyone knows AT&T is one of two tier-I GSM carriers in the US along with T-Mobile - the smallest in the tier-I camp, and as such not a reasonable choice for Apple. Sprint and Verizon are CDMA carriers. Not everyone knows Qualcomm invented CDMA, owns most patents for it, and licenses these patents along with semiconductor sales for tons of dough to equipment vendors and handset manufacturers who supply Sprint and Verizon with their network gear and devices. If you're a mobile device supplier and want to launch a CDMA handset on a CDMA network, you're paying Qualcomm something - either for IP usage or for their chipsets. I can't imagine this sits well with Apple (it certainly doesn't with others like Nokia), but that's only perhaps one reason Apple launched iPad on AT&T instead of Verizon (Sprint, I suspect, was out of consideration since they too are CDMA plus connect the competitive Kindle e-reader).

The main reasons I suspect Apple continued a relationship of convenience with AT&T at this time was the A4 and Apple's vertical approach to product development, which is directly at competitive odds with Qualcomm's full system-on-a-chip Snapdragon offering currently being adopted by Android, Chrome OS, BREW, WinMo, and Linux. The situation may change when Verizon builds out a new 4G LTE network atop their 700 Mhz spectrum and when Apple will be free from Qualcomm IP licensing, but until then, AT&T looks like the long term winner of all wireless Apple products in the US because AT&T is a GSM network and at this time, that means freedom to control everything for Apple. 

Back to the A4... Remember that little thing his Steveness mentioned last week?

The A4 is Apple's 1Ghz processor (they acquired the technology), similar to Qualcomm's Snapdragon 1Ghz processor. However, unlike Qualcomm's Snapdragon, the A4 doesn't include a 3G modem, GPS, or other full system-on-a-chip capabilities that most wireless semiconductor providers have built into 3G offerings. 3G support inside iPad is a separate module from the A4 processor. I suspect it's Infineon's offering since they rule the iPhone (on a side note, Infineon's GPS also supports the iPhone).  Like Qualcomm did with their own BREW software, Jobs made it clear last week that Apple strives for super tight integration between their software and silicon to reach optimal performance, vertical scalability, and software development flexibility. Using Qualcomm-inside technology might have made it more difficult for Apple to achieve these goals while limiting their control. It's for this reason they chose to continue with AT&T!

Eventually, the same freedom-from-control that comes with vertical product development may be the reason Apple extends the A4 to build their own full system-on-a-chip that includes 3G and 4G modems, A-GPS, plus all the other features competing solutions have. I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Apple has proven controlling the whole stack and experience has competitive advantages while igniting explosive innovation with openness at the SDK and API level.

On a much lighter note, Foursquare must absolutely love user Joseph G of NYC. He has an average of 24 check-ins per evening and he's mayor of 177 NYC spots of interest.

Clearly, he's a cheater; exactly the kind Foursquare must want. After all, the more he fibs, the better Foursquare's POI database gets. I have no interest in helping Foursquare build a POI databases for their benefit, particularly when there's none reciprocated other than bragging rights shared amongst a user community all doing the same. 

I'll keep using Latitude. It's incapable of lying, mostly importantly, to myself :-)

Here's what Elliott had to say... 

"The NIM acquisition is about servicing our operator customers as best as possible, with our infrastructure, services, with applications. We obviously did our due diligence with Verizon and other operator customers, and we feel there's lots of room for growth. While today, the operators offer point solutions, I can definitely envision them having very powerful integrated location-based experiences that include navigation, locators, and search, all with parental controls and social phonebooks built-in. We'll continue to offer them whatever they want, if that's advertising or pay-for apps and experiences."

When asked about challenges faced by free alternatives...

"We don't see Google taking over the world, because operators don't want Google to take over the world. Google may get 20% market share, but not all of it, and we see the total market growing 3X over the next five years. No one is going to let Google dominate because they understand Google is not looking out for their interests. If an app is still making money, operators will continue to market it as a premium service while watching free Android apps and emerging ad revenues carefully. It will also be interesting to see how other handset manufacturers now using Android react to Google's own device launch."

1. More consolidation in the LBS space. Check. Not only did we see Google do everything themselves, simplifying the once-overly complex supply and value chain considerably, but we also saw LBS M&A deals nearly level with the explosive growth of 2007.
2. Carrier Network-As-A-Service irrelevance. I didn't nail this one, but got it partially correct. SDPs are still around and more modern APIs are now available, but when I talk to developers about these, they aren't aware they exist and are instead focused on handset only development where Location is now a measly feature everyone uses. Also, Mobile Browser support for device resource access isn't quite there yet, but W3C's GeoLocation API is prime time, endorsed and supported by all the new webkit entrants. It's coming, soon.  
3. App Store proliferation and carrier billing disintermediation. There are now over 100K Apps in the iTunes App store. Need I say more?
4. Smartphones will receive first-class subsidy care and marketing. When was the last time you saw a carrier ad promoting a feature phone? 'Nuff said. 
5. A resurgence in mobile enterprise applications coverage. I didn't get this one right, but look for it to happen in 2010.    

I give myself a mark of 75% for the above - a pass- and as such, here we go... My 5 predictions for 2010.  

1. Still more consolidation, in three main areas. First, expect one or two vertically-integrated mobile behemoths to buyout other ailing and aging yesteryear map service and mobile hardware behemoths. Second, smaller social location start-ups will get consumed by larger more established social players. We've already seen some initial movement. Third, content-related acquisitions will continue and include buyouts of 3D digital elevation model data providers and place-based POI providers who leverage social feedback loops for ratings and rankings.
2. The tectonic shift from voice to data economics will finally start to gain real momentum and circuit-switched networks will begin to be phased out of existence. With this, location-contextual voice will emerge as a new killer enabler and with it a whole new slew of integrated communications and networking applications. Wireless 911 as we know it will change. 
3. Mobility (connectivity + location) beyond-the-phone trends will continue and become common in M2M infrastructure processes and services managed in the utilities, local government, transportation, healthcare, and energy sectors. GIS has an opportunity to shine again in a new connected mobile era. 
4. Desktop operating systems & software environments will get further pushed into the specialty back-office, as thinner, lighting-fast operating systems with the Browser, and hybrid clouds start to handle repetitive 'desktop' activities; activities increasingly more mobile-accessible, via WAN connected, location-smart tablets & netbooks.  Contextual cloud-sync services will define how users interact with email, calendars, contacts, media files, and map data. More niche social sharing tools will emerge for professional collaboration. 
5. Location will be included in *every* new mobile application that is introduced. I realize this is nearly impossible to track, but I'll try to keep an eye on it and report back next year.   

That's all. I'll keep score again, and a year from now, let you know how I faired. Good luck this year!

Anyway... like last year, a Google topic this year again wins the most visited and popular post on this blog for 2009 - "How The Nexus One Could Destroy Conventional Mobile Industry Supply Chain Economics". However, unlike last year, I won't further speculate about the Nexus One. I'm done speculating about Google (week-after-week innovations speak for themselves). Plus, we should all know more about the Nexus One in a couple weeks upon release.

At this point, I'm thrilled to see mobile industry US-company wins for Qualcomm's Snapdragon offering (they've earned it) and for a cloud-sync mobile era that Google is leading in lieu of other mobile leaders seemingly caring less about either. I'm also expecting exciting things for 2010. This year looks like the breakout year for contextual voice, mobile VoIP, and over-the-top data-driven smart voice offerings. Maybe we'll even see Apple do a connected mobiletop for widgets and connect that iPhone mobile computer to network mobility. Novel! ;-)

Seems far fetched right? Perhaps not. Hear me out on this one... Three years ago, Schmidt made it clear and in no uncertain terms he believes phones should become free as ad impressions per user out-earn two-year carrier contract subsidies plus mobile device hardware costs. Widely considered industry blasphemy back then, I'll admit I didn't fully understand how an ad subsidized free device might be possible. I've come to learn it's feasible through experience... A year after Schmidt made his thoughts public, I started working for a handset manufacturer where I was responsible for inking deals with vendors in the supply chain. 

While building phones, I learned there are many components that go into a production and distribution, and each have costs in a complex array of supply chain economics. Our total bill of materials was about $60. Beyond the core BOM, we also budgeted for ancillary packaging, shipping, distribution, logistics, and GSM patent licensing costs, plus one-off FCC certification, tooling and assembly line costs - the later two of which were charged-for by our Chinese OEM, Nollec. Nearly all of our silicon and component costs were available at discounted prices, primarily because Nollec had previously used our selected piece parts in designs for other manufacturers and preexisting supply chain contracts were in place - we simply inherited what was already available in the market and used two-year old technology that was less expensive.  After all costs, our unlocked street price generated a 45% gross margin for the business, which made it profitable.  

Anyway, the mobile industry supply chain I worked in (the one that still exists today) is complex - as is its money flow. If Google were to pull-off offering a free phone (or an easily obtainable inexpensive one), I suspect they would have to front at least some of the initial supply chain and manufacturing costs themselves - initial up-front costs run too much red for HTC and their technology suppliers to bear in suspended after market return. That said, I do not doubt that ad revenues generated per user over time could indeed cover all embedded and production costs needed to maintain existing profit margins for supply chain vendors and OEMs.

Pretend for a moment that the Nexus One costs $300 to produce. This cost may seem high, but with all the cutting edge tech inside it, this may be a fair estimate. HTC, Qualcomm, and everyone else needs to earn what they earn now from a $300 BOM. Could Google generate the $300 over the life of the device from businesses advertising through them? I think so, but in order for it to be profitable for Google, they would need an additional margin beyond the BOM costs. Is that possible?  Sure. I can see a device like the Nexus One generating a couple thousand dollars per user from businesses seeking third screen reach through highly contextual and personalized mediums.  So, free could be possible. 

Others speculate if a free or even inexpensive Nexus One is launched, it will leave little reason for other handset OEMs to follow or care about Android if hardware profits are eliminated. 

I'm not so sure. Profits aren't eliminated with this model, they just have a different point of origin and the money flows differently. Assuming the existing supply chain earns what they've grown comfortable with, why should anyone care if payment originates from businesses who pay Google to advertise versus payment originating from consumers, through the carrier, onto handset manufacturer's and subsequently onto the technology supply chains. From this perspective, a free Nexus One seems possible, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it happens. It's disruptive as hell, and "as long as you're on the side of the consumer, you'll be fine", right? :-)

My Influence, Popularity, and Engagement levels on Twitter are about at where I'd expect them (meaning they are all about equal), but apparently and according to this little algorithm, I need to work better to earn your trust (on twitter anyway). Influence is based on the numbers of RT's I get, Popularity is based on the number followers I have, Engagement is a measure of how I engage, respond, and converse with tweeps, and Trust is also a measure of the number of RT's I get from my followers and the public timeline. Here's how I stack up in comparison to people I follow:

I rank a little higher than Katie at GigaOM, but lower than John at All Things Digital, and a whole grade point lower than Walt Mossberg. ...Good company as far as I'm concerned, despite my apparent inability to win trust. None of these folks know me directly (though Walt knows my Dad, and I know Walt would say he trusts him).

I would estimate 10% of all my Twitter followers, or 50 people, know me personally and professionally - folks who have met me in person, have worked with me, have had face-to-face conversations with me, etc. Here's a question for these folks... How trustworthy am I? I'd really like to know what you think. Anath's piece makes me curious - curious how trustworthy metricocracy is. ;-)

Revisiting Moore's now age-old business theory-turned-strategy helped me realize all over again how new-tech innovations and products need an insider tech community of promoters early in a launch lifecycle to help propel it across the gap. However, when Moore released his work in 2002, the world of the Web (and media to a larger extent) was a very different place. Social interwebs didn't exist, blogs weren't pervasive, press releases were the path to attention, and viral, word-of-mouth promotion and subsequent adoption required complicated, expensive, and time-consuming grass-roots efforts. The communications and media landscape has changed quite a bit since then - a gross understatement! 

Today, everyone from fundraiser to developer to consumer can be heard, and because they can, they are talking and talking and talking; and some of the talk may be part of a product launch strategy voiced by a circle of influential high-tech insiders working strategically in a clan of kinship. Since January this year I've been tracking new mobile product launches by following influential individuals who tweet and blog regularly about new products coming out of stealth mode or incubation protection. I've mapped their social connections and have discovered promotional circles of support - gaming from various communities - some built around common kin geographies, and others built around a common social graph of connectivity with apparent mutual economic or popularity gain interests. It's revealing to watch tech enthusiasts in a common smaller community garner support from a larger tech enthusiast populous to help propel a new product into an elite class. 

Yesterday, I was asked by a coming-out-of-stealth start-up if I would consider writing a piece about their launch. While I really wanted to help out at a personal level, I passed. I passed on the request because a) I made a decision not to support these kinds of launch promotions in my writings, because b) I'm now interested in behaviors in group self-promotion and gain and any effort to help would compromise this. That said, these gaming methods are intriguing and enticing, yet disturbing at the same time. I hope I'm wrong about them, because being right and exposing it might isolate me from tech enthusiast circles that do it, which I don't want - for various personal reasons. I also wonder what Moore would say, and how he would adapt his own theory to this newer, subversive, more calculated, smarter, yet socially 'transparent' approach to influence. Or, has he already said something I'm not aware of? Is his own influence still relevant? Is he on twitter? ;-)

When, Where, and Who have always been simple mobility questions to answer. Combine identity with mobile location & time and viola, done. Latitude History now captures these mobility primitives. What data are more difficult to harvest - fragmented as they are across hundreds of thousands of mobile apps. With their mobile apps, Google knows What well via a suite of free services that are joy to use as a consumer. Now with Droid and others that follow, an integrated suite of mobile services also produce usage & behavioral What data. Layer on AdMob, and the What of iPhone user behavior adds to the data bank, not to mention additional What data that comes along with AdMob's massive publisher and developer community. There's a ton of aggregate What data there. The last piece of missing mobility data is Why. I think Twitter is emerging as a leader in this area, and there's a Google hook there now as well. I'm amazed, simply amazed. Google is extending the mobile frontier in unprecedented ways. It's awesome to watch - as in, I'm in awe kind of awesome.

Again, some opportunities are far too important to rely on others or to spare expense. I've always believed mobile LBS is one of these opportunities. Google obviously does as well. Sorry GIS. This has nothing to do with you.