Mobile Working Experiences

Most of the discussion around mobile working has focused on the technology and how it enables us to work remotely.

The fact is that the technology exists but many companies are hesistant about providing this to employees. Why is this? and why is public policy not providing more support to flexible working?

According to research from Citrix, just 43% of UK SMBs (excl, plumbers, decorators and other SOHOs) have the right facilities in place to enable flexible working, compared to 75% of corporates. Admittedly Citrix have an agenda / product to sell (this type of vendor research is never done purely for the greater good...) but nonetheless it does beg the question why are more SMBs not doing more to encourage flexible working? It is perk for employees and a potential cost saving in office space for employers. Is the stereotype of bosses as control freaks true? or are they just sensitive to undermining company culture? do they lack the expertise to manage the technology?

Taking a wider view, it suprises me that the government is not doing more. If more people worked from home then it could reduce the number of commuter journeys and have environmental benefits in terms of cars on the road and carbon emission levels. Yet anyone wanting to use their home for work risks certain drawbacks:
- insurers will often view the property as commercial premises and refuse to cover work related equipment or charger higher premiums
- utlities providers may seek to charge commercial rates for anyone working from home resulting in higher bills
- an employer may not reimburse the employee for the costs they incur for working from home or may have to pay business rates for home premises

What more could employers and the government do to support flexible working? Why not apply similar tax breaks to those for car sharing or cycling to work?

Instinct and share price reaction suggests that O2 has landed a great coup in sealing the exclusive iPhone UK deal.

On further reading and reflection I am not so sure....
It is clear that O2 will have paid a significant premium to secure these rights, at a level where VF clearly felt it did not make sound business sense to follow.

Analyst comment from Cazenove highlighted the TCO issue that seems to have been missed in the press. It appears that Apple AND the operators have expressed a desire to make money upfront from the sale of iPhones. However UK consumers are unusual in the EU in that they are used to receiving heavily subsidised top of the range handsets that they pay a nominal fee for. Will a premium price that reflects more of the handset's actual value deter them?

Traditionally consumers have ignored price and value and bought Apple on the basis of brand alone - will this stretch to the phone market? I have been amazed in the past at how Apple has apparently shrugged off product problems to outsell its rivals in other markets.

Other vendors are already talking about 'iPhone killers' coming to market. Again history suggests that competitors will struggle to take a significant share of consumer purchasing outside the real experts who heavily research what they are buying (examples being portable music players..). But arguably the competitors in the phone market are a lot tougher and consumers are unlikely to be buying their first phone, so they will be better informed.

I can understand O2's unique desire to dominate the music space and hence why the tie-up with Apple makes so much sense, but overall, I do feel that Vodafone made the right call in deciding to withdraw from the race for the exclusive license.

Any agree? disagree?