What defines a mobile message?

By most views the question is rooted in technology. After all, the nomenclature here is technologically driven, and the interests in such a discussion are filtered through the lense of how the technology enables and drives a service to users. By definition then, the message is the service, and the routing is “mobile.” The common filters are a) Network, (b) device, or (c) transport defined.

Given that most techies are linear thinking, a mobile message then is defined by how the message is delivered, e.g., via a communications network enabling “unteathered” communications whether voice or text. The question then is readily answered: A mobile message is a text based communication delivered via a macro wireless area network while the consumer is “mobile.” Pretty simple.

Not really.

If the first condition of mobile messaging is being unteathered, how then do you define a wireline originated text message as they have in Germany and the UK? There SMS can be originated and delivered via a desk top, wireline phone. No mobile network transiting in this scenario.

How about WiFi originated and delivered text messaging? You may be sitting in a Starbuck’s roaming on the T Mobile Hotspot with your UMA (unlicensed mobile access) enabled handset such as a Blackberry Curve or HTC Dash. Type a text, which is then transferred from the Starbuck’s router, then to an IP network, then to the wireline or even a Cable TV provider such as BSKYB, and displayed on the recipient’s flat screen tv, or sent to the desk top wireline phone. No transiting of mobile network there. Must not be a “mobile” message then since it isn’t running over a mobile network. But wasn’t the sender “unteathered?”

My point is equally pretty simple. There’s no “mobile” message. It’s just a message, specifically a text. With early stage technologies and services there’s often a need to define the service through some technical filter. Initially there’s value in that but overtime the syntax losses value with changing conditions. Initially in the “wireless” or “mobile” industry, a “mobile message” was differentiated from a “voice message.” But as texting has taken off, such filters really don’t provide much value any more. The definers are more basic: Voice and Text. Oral. Visual.

The “Network”
Nor can the “mobile network” no longer be viewed as the differentiating filter. Consider Swisscom, one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world. To them there is only “The Network.” Notwithstanding their offering of “Fixnet”, “Mobile” or IPTV services, there is only “one network” according to Thomas Jakob, VP of Innovation for Swisscom Outpost in Palo Alto. While meeting with Thomas yesterday I asked him to opine on the what defines a “mobile message.” “Irrespective of transport network, it is a text message. That should be the only definer.”

With the broader convergence, or blending, of “mobile” and internet access, the reality is that the message accessing is obviously going to change. As I’ve argued before, “Is Text Messaging Terminal” and “Future of Mobile Messaging“, SMS will remain the enabling platform but which “pipe” and which “access point” will vary. But the value proposition to the consumer remains the same: a short, targeted text is tough to be beat.

The value is in the text, not the delivery method, nor the status of the consumer’s locality or contextuality. No need to apply “mobile” to messaging any more. I agree with Thomas, there is no further need for “mobile” as a definer.

What do you think?