The site, My Starbucks Idea, is nothing profound or new. It’s a blog engine where users post their ideas and Starbucks respond to them. These ideas can be commented and voted on, and a raft of social media links help spread the word.

This has been done many times to varying degrees of success, but what struck me most about My Starbucks Idea was the obvious engagement of the users and their receptiveness to the responses from Starbucks. They were being listened to. They were being interacted with. A simple thing, really, but something that big companies are traditionally bad at doing for their customers, paralyzed by the fear of negative comments.

Of course it helps that the design is clean and simple, making it easy to follow and become immersed in. The website’s purpose is obvious and it’s easy to see both what people are suggesting and how Starbucks respond to those suggestions. The list of ideas put into action was prominent and larger than I expected. I was also pleasantly surprised to see that Starbucks responded in a frank, honest and human tone, as opposed to the corporate tone of many companies.

Ok, so there are some problems too. One idea I ran across, a free shot for card holders on Monday mornings, was noted as being vetted two years after originally being posted. Another took around six months, and a raft of user comments, before responding to a request for a larger non-smoking area outside of the stores.

Categories are not easily accessible (the navigation has a couple of types, but search results have links to a number of others) and it took a while to figure out that the website did indeed touch upon the world outside the USA. And why oh why is the dropdown list of categories only available in the semi-hidden categories themselves and not in either the main categories or within any of the posts?

However all things considered, I thought that this was a fantastic website, playing a great role in providing a positive customer experience. Having seen so many of these kinds of ideas fall flat due to lack of investment or through a myriad of corporate issues, I was really happy to see one that appears to be successful. Well done Starbucks!

For what it’s worth, there are things about Buzz I’d like to change. Conversations shouldn’t be treated so much like emails, for example, with “read” and “unread” states – this brings “inbox anxiety” into the equation, something Twitter was wise to discard. And users could benefit from more fine-grained control over privacy settings.

Inbox anxiety with Google Buzz - I'm not looking forward to having hundreds of unread "Buzzes"

But I’m happy to put these thoughts to one side: at the moment I’m more interested in the response it’s provoked among my own contacts, many of whom are tech-savvy but not really social web junkies. So far, it’s making me think that Buzz has an appeal for people who are active online but always disliked Twitter and had never heard of Friendfeed.

Buzz has definitely been a conversation-starter in a way that Wave wasn’t. In the first few hours, many posts were as you’d expect – “what is this for?”, “can anyone see this post?”, that sort of thing. Today is day two for Buzz, however, and the conversations have started to move away from these meta topics. In fact they’re slowly starting to resemble the sorts of conversations these people have in real life.

This is very different from Wave, which prompted a few discussions of the “what’s this all about?” variety before being largely abandoned even by early adopter types like myself. Obviously this might happen with Buzz as well – as I said above, today is only day two – but the acceptance trajectory so far seems very different. For example, the risk of being flooded with too much Buzz data seems much greater than that of Buzz falling into disuse.

In many ways I’m tempted to think that Wave has been a kind of public beta for Buzz. MG Seigler at TechCrunch is thinking along similar lines in this post, If Google Wave Is The Future, Google Buzz Is The Present. Buzz certainly explains why Wave had no Gmail integration, something I wondered about at the time.

Once again, it’s early days with Buzz. But my own anecdotal experiences so far make me suspect that – despite the contrary opinions of various mavens and competitors – it’s going to be a fixture in the social media landscape for some time to come.

Traditional economic reports, on the other hand, look at events that have taken place. Unemployment figures tell us how many people are claiming benefits rather than how many people have been put at risk of redundancy. Average house prices are based on completed transactions, not how many people are currently looking to buy. So while we can be fairly confident of these reports, they don’t provide us with particularly current insights.

This trade-off between confidence and currency was, in the past, largely academic as analysing current data was almost impossible. But in the age of the real-time web, this might be about to change: maybe patterns in search behaviour can give us a glimpse of future patterns in the economy.

We first became interested in this topic back in spring 2009, so we analysed search patterns for two sets of keywords as the UK economy went into recession. We looked for relationships between these search patterns and related economic indicators, and listed some tentative predictions based on what we observed.

House prices

In April 2009, we looked at volumes for 23 keywords that homebuyers might use, including buying a home, cheap mortgage and mortgage providers. UK search volumes for these keywords were then compared to house prices.

House prices charted against search volumes for 23 related keywords, from January 2004 to April 2009. Sources: Nationwide, Google Insights

Searches typically decline as autumn ends before rebounding in January. But in 2008, the January rebound was lacklustre and the decline came in spring – much earlier than usual. This was in line with house prices, which peaked in late 2007 and dropped severely from spring 2008.

In the first few months of 2009, however, search volumes enjoyed a far stronger January rebound than in the previous year – so we hypothesised that house prices would bottom out or even start to rise again in the middle of 2009. Let’s look at how accurate that hypothesis turned out to be.

House prices charted against search volumes for 23 related keywords, from January 2004 to December 2009 Sources: Nationwide, Google Insights

Sure enough, the search volume resurgence was accompanied by house price growth throughout 2009. But you’ll notice that search volumes soon tapered off, with a particularly steep fall after August. Our revised hypothesis, then, is that house prices will initially plateau and then drop again. We’ll revisit the statistics in spring 2010 to see how things turn out.

Financial difficulties

The second set of keywords we analysed was related to impending financial difficulties such as joblessness, debt and insolvency. They included signing on, mortgage arrears and debt problems, and were compared to the UK jobless rate.

UK unemployment rate charted against search volumes for 24 related keywords, from January 2004 to April 2009 Sources: Office for National Statistics, Google Insights

These search volumes dip at the end of each year before rising in January – and the rise in early 2008 was more pronounced than in previous years. The jobless rate started climbing three months later, suggesting that in this case search patterns might anticipate economic statistics. We observed that search volumes had dropped significantly in the first few months of 2009, so our hypothesis was that the jobless rate would stabilise but not drop between April and July. The chart below shows what actually happened.

UK unemployment rate charted against search volumes for 24 related keywords, from January 2004 to April 2009 Sources: Office for National Statistics, Google Insights

The unemployment rate has indeed stabilised, wavering between 7.7% and 7.8% since early June, suggesting that our original hypothesis was valid. And search volumes have kept on dropping throughout 2009. If search trends do anticipate economic reports in this case, we should see the unemployment rate drop steadily between now and spring 2010. Again, we’ll revisit these figures in April to see if this happens.

Conclusion

Our hypotheses from April 2009 were largely borne out as the year progressed: the drop in house prices was reversed and unemployment rates stabilised. So maybe there is some truth to the notion that search patterns can shed some light on forthcoming economic change.

But these hypotheses were in tune with the economic mood of the time. Many commentators were talking about green shoots and a V-shaped recession – there was a feeling that recovery was just around the corner. Today, we remain in what has become the longest-running recession in recorded history and there is considerable uncertainty about what 2010 will bring.

Our new hypotheses are less likely to be tainted by current economic consensus, precisely because no real consensus seems to exist right now. For this reason, the idea of search predicting the future will be seriously tested as the year unfolds. Don’t forget to come back in April 2010 to see the results for yourself.

This is why their marketing focuses so much on music, culture and lifestyle. It’s why O2 customers get priority tickets to concerts at the arenas bearing their name. It’s why Orange customers get half-price cinema tickets on Wednesdays. And it’s why T-Mobile runs that insufferable campaign about Josh and his ever-growing band.

Join the b(r)and: T-Mobile want to be associated with music and lifestyle

Customers are being encouraged to associate the brands of mobile operators with a certain type of lifestyle experience instead of just voice and data. This experience extends from the marketing to exclusive content services and even the interfaces and feature sets of the handsets themselves.

In this sense, mobile telcos are offering their customers a walled garden, in which the mobile internet is presented as part of a convenient package branded Orange, AT&T, T-Mobile or O2. If your internet memory goes back as far as the mid-1990s this might sound slightly familiar. But in the next ten years this walled garden is due to come under direct assault.

Charlie Stross has posted an excellent, thought-provoking piece looking at how the next ten years might pan out for the mobile industry – and making it sound in some ways like a technology rehash of the Great Game, with Apple and Google as the chief protagonists.

As Stross sees it, Apple and Google both want to destroy the walled garden built by telcos but for different reasons and in different ways. As a premium marque, Apple wants to work with telcos while preventing their brands from adulterating the Apple experience:

Apple don’t want to destroy the telcos; they just want to use them as a conduit to sell their user experience… [they] want to maintain the high quality Apple-centric user experience and sell stuff to their users through the walled garden of the App Store and the iTunes music/video store

Google, on the other hand, wants people to view more of its ads. To make this happen, Google wants to fundamentally reshape the mobile industry:

I think Google are pursuing a grand strategic vision of destroying the cellco’s entire business model… turning 3G data service into a commodity… getting consumers to buy unlocked SIM-free handsets [like the Nexus One]… and ultimately do the Google thing to all your voice messages [through Google Voice] as well as your email and web access.

These distinct strategies both threaten the mobile telcos, who stand to lose any emotional connection they have with their customers either way. But this doesn’t mean that Apple and Google are going to be bedfellows:

Apple’s iPhone has been good for Google: iPhone users do far more web surfing — and Google ad-eyeballing — than regular phone users. But Apple want to maintain…  the walled garden of the App Store and iTunes… [and] Google can’t slap their ads all over those media. So it’s going to end in handbags at dawn … eventually.

The piece (here’s the link again by the way) has me thinking that the coming decade in mobile networks will be much like the previous decade was in land-line internet service provision.

If Charlie Stross is right, the idea of the telco as provider of an experience will not last the decade, meaning that flash mobs, Orange Rock Corps and Josh Ward will become nothing but a dim and distant memory. And customers will hopefully have greater choice over how they use mobile networks, which would be nothing but a good thing in my opinion.

But an exchange during the following Q&A session stuck in my mind later. One of our directors asked a question: is the mobile app destined to be a transitory phenomenon, something that will fade away as mobile browsers become capable of delivering the same functionality?

The speaker was adamant that this was not the case and that mobile apps were here to stay. He felt that Google’s increasing preference for mobile browser apps over native apps was misguided and that Google were wrong on this one. Mobile browsers were so far from rivalling the functionality of native apps that it wasn’t even worth thinking about.

I was tempted to counter this point by bringing up the iPhone’s support for HTML 5 and starting a detailed discussion about in-browser capabilities. But this wasn’t the main subject of the talk and I’m in no way an expert on HTML 5, so I decided to keep my mouth shut instead.

In the weeks since the talk, however, I’ve often found myself turning this question over and over again in my head. And the more I think about it, the more I feel that mobile apps are basically doomed – or at least I hope they are.

Don’t get me wrong – they play an important role. It’s good that so many people today see phones as devices for more than just calling or texting, and the iPhone and its suite of native apps is largely to thank for this. But in the longer run, the publication and distribution model they are based on has to go.

The idea of tying software to a single hardware platform is anachronistic, uncompetitive and limits user choice. This is bad enough when you’re dealing with computers, but it’s even worse when the devices are as personal as mobile phones. People should be free to choose a different phone without needing to buy new versions of the software tools that have become integral to their lives.

Aside from user choice, there’s a more practical reason why the native app model is unsustainable. Developers won’t want to keep maintaining multiple codebases for the apps they produce, especially when there’s the option of building an equally functional in-browser app which any standards-based client can run. And although Apple might hope to render this point irrelevant by establishing monopolistic domination of the smartphone market, relieving developers of the need to consider other platforms, current research indicates that they won’t succeed.

The smartphone OS market will be more fragmented in 2012 than in 2009

A more fragmented smartphone OS market will increasingly compel developers to support separate codebases for Windows Mobile, RIM, Android, Symbian and the iPhone. But as mobile browsers become capable of delivering similar interactivity, serious developers will become inclined to start using the browser as the platform instead. This will be a good thing for users and the industry alike.

If I’m correct and native apps do fade away over time, we may look back on the era of pointless mobile apps as just one among many strange blips in the history of technology. But despite some early rumblings from notable developers, native mobile apps will be with us for some time yet – and, in the medium term at least, they still have an important role to play in encouraging mainstream adoption of the mobile internet.

Edit: This article was later reposted on Android and Me and attracted numerous comments. Click here to see the conversation on Android and Me

Edit 2: Stephen Fulljames shared a couple of links related to this post. PhoneGap is a toolkit for developing mobile apps in HTML & JavaScript. And this post from front-end consultant Peter-Paul Koch provides some background to his work with Vodafone on mobile browser compatibility and W3C widgets.