-
Website
http://www.mobileindustryreview.com/ -
Original page
http://www.mobileindustryreview.com/2008/11/spinvox_vs_hullomail_--_theyre_not_competitors_.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
PatrickatJPR
80 comments · 6 points
-
South77
119 comments · 1 points
-
MarkW
127 comments · 1 points
-
MartinSFP
86 comments · 7 points
-
David Carrington
75 comments · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Calling all Nokia & Symbian geniuses: Am I wrong?
2 weeks ago · 36 comments
-
Mobile Industry Review turns into a weekly newsletter next Friday
2 weeks ago · 29 comments
-
What’s the best backpack a geek can buy?
1 week ago · 16 comments
-
The future is dire for Nokia & Symbian applications: Dead by 2012?
2 weeks ago · 20 comments
-
Why the Nokia N900 is No Better Than an HTC Mogul
2 weeks ago · 20 comments
-
Calling all Nokia & Symbian geniuses: Am I wrong?
K
Personally, I'd like some public APIs. I think it would be great fun to have a tag-cloud of my voicemail.
T
*Owned by my corporate paymasters.
Dude. Come on.
...I'll let you know ;)
They compete for the attention of a user and given that 99.99999% (I suspect) of users will utilise only one service then compete they must.
They compete on very slightly differing services which ostensibly perform the same function - providing service based alternative voicemail. Sure once transcribes and one records, but that I would bet that Spinvox records already (needed for the transcription and fine tuning) and HulloMail are looking towards transcription as well.
All of that said competition in this space is a fantastic thing. For one it keeps Spinvox on their toes but more importantly it demonstrates to the network operators i) that alternative edge of network services work and are wanted and ii) that competition in that space is viable, healthy and productive.
All good and do feel free to leave me on the cutting room floor if time is short ;o)
That said, I think there's room for both.
I also see that Spinvox is moving into the enterprise space as well - I've posted about it here:
http://smsisthenewblack.co.uk/2008/11/11/avaya-...
From a user perspective the content of the VM is mine and indeed the senders. As such through the intermediary service we should be able to take the content, mark it up how we see fit and disseminate to services of our choosing.
For instance one scenario which I could foresee is with Spinvox and the posting to SocNets. Currently this is fairly clunky and fire & forget. In an ideal world I should be able to use Spinvox as my social quarterback, throwing content at them, logging into their service, choosing individual posts, marking them up with useful information (tags, routing rules etc...) and then letting Spinvox push them out the door to places of my choosing.
This is a very small but conceptually different usage of the toolset but I for one would actually pay for a more personalised and flexible service.
Essentially most social network sites are trying to play the role of a wide-receiver. They want as much of your attention as possible, dragging in your feeds and those of others and effectively acting as a personal portal (oh yeah Web 1 here we go again). Think FriendFeed, FB et al. They allow me to create content but only within their own walls.
Now the quarterback is far less attention grabbing but IMHO more important. It is the point of dissemination, the personal content router if you will. You may create content within it, or indeed suck in content created elsewhere, but it is at the quaterback you define rules, preferences and such to create routing for your stuff. It doesn't pretend to be a social network nor does it seek to be, it's more about giving the user control over what goes where and to whom.
So Ping.FM is an early example of a quarterback in the making, as is tarpipe (yahoo pipes for social media).
I hate voice stuff so I suppose hullomail is for me
Hope that thy hear this! I really appreciate what Spinvox does, but this seems almost trivial (appears to be!) and I'm sure someone else will take on the challenge if they don't.
Cx.