By "proprietary" we basically mean "here's a cool new metric (ps we invented it)" not "here's a cool new metric (ps we're not gonna tell you how it works)". That said the link to the methodology is a little buried, but you can find the details here: http://opensignal.com/methodology/time_coverage/
One thing to note is that it's possible that if you only launched LTE in urban areas and the LET users stay within those urban areas, then the time-coverage can be great, even if if the geographic coverage is poor and a low percentage of the population has access to LTE overall. Nonetheless, it is a measurement of the experience that those users that have LTE are getting.
Given this, we do have to be wary about markets where LTE is not mature yet.
Good point re. unlimited vs limited data plans and how the latter can make it easier for an operator to provide good throughput (but overall you might get less volume). This is illustrative of a bigger challenge - there's no single metric that can tell you: "this is the best operator in the world". We're never going to claim that. But our crowdsourced data can offer a global, impartial view that I think has been missing.
I agree time coverage needs to be carefully interpreted - particularly when an deployment is focussed just in a city, a high time coverage percentage shouldn't be taken as meaning there is a strong nationwide deployment. But it does show the experience of the users who do have LTE.
For markets that have had LTE for longer, and with high LTE penetration (i.e. large percentage of subscribers using LTE), time coverage does show how effective the rollout as been.
Two more notes on why we've chosen to do this:
- Firstly geographical coverage is a little shaky - there are questions over how to factor in indoors/outdoors/under a bridge, cell breathing and other temporal fluctuations should be taken into account. The time coverage we use is unambiguous: we look at the proportion of time users have access to the LTE metric.
- Secondly: our crowdsourced methodology is focussed on measurement, not modelling. There are often very sparsely readings where we simply don't have LTE readings, we can't conclude unequivocally that there is no LTE there, or just no users. There are some ways we can get round this we can look into on (extrapolating from our cell maps), but for the moment we're much more confident in the time coverage (though caveats are required!)
Conflicting information, I just talked with someone from Sensirion who was quite central to the the SHTC1 project, he confirmed it was NOT the waterproofing that was the issue and pointed out there are Japanese devices with the same chip that are waterproof, even to IP68 (2m depth).
WeatherSignal is a slightly different project to OpenSignal (but it's by the same people) - we're sharing data with several academic institutions and independent researchers, and will make the feed fully open. Also NB, PressureNet is a great project, WeatherSignal also collects pressure data but I think other sensors are relevant.
We have an algorithm in WeatherSignal that tries to determine whether users are indoors or outdoors - there's a roof icon that appears or disappears, try it, it's pretty accurate during the day time.
WeatherSignal project is basically funded by OpenSignal sales, we sell to carriers and regulators -- who can act on the data to improve service.
(I'm James Robinson, a co-founder of OpenSignal/WeatherSignal)
"if 20% time has been abandoned at Google, are other companies, which reportedly include Apple, LinkedIn, 3M and a host of others, wise to continue trying to copy it?"
That's incorrect, AFAIK 3M were the first company to pioneer this approach (with 15% of time spent on self-directed projects).
Talking to a friend at 3M (who has been there 20+ years, an engineer with dozens of patents) I am told that while 15% officially still exists, for a long time it's effectively meant working 115% of hours.
Nonetheless the tradition allowing self-directed research continues at 3M - and this might mean using lab resources, or creating prototypes without getting approval.
The author needs to google 3M an find out actual facts. It's like Google came up with it and Everybody was in a mad rush to copy it. God forbid, innovative ideas come from anywhere else but the companies we perceive to be the most innovative. Google was keen to adopt the practice that's worked well elsewhere and they seem to be focusing on other methodologies now, maybe they're figured out something that works well for Google NOW. It doesn't make 20% time more or less effective. It's just how companies evolve.
Agreed, it's a silly question even if it were true that Google invented the idea. I do not get the impression that Apple is a company that mindlessly copies R&D strategies from Google.
> Nonetheless the tradition allowing self-directed research continues at 3M - and this might mean using lab resources, or creating prototypes without getting approval.
And get hours paid for it, even it being extra hours you wouldn't do other way.
That strikes me as very reasonable. 20% (15%, whatever) time is largely self indulgent plus self education. I have no problems with being expected to supply that initiative. I've done it before, and invented products that the company ended up selling (until I realized the only payoff in this case was a "we'll compensate you for this later, trust us" - I'm not talking about any company discussed here, btw).
This way it is not goof-off time as it will not attract anyone except self-starters and thinkers, but the company is providing intellectual and material resources. You get to have fun, rejuvenate yourself on the job, the company contributes some, and maybe, just maybe, you hit the jackpot at some point. If not, well, you learned some stuff and had fun.
I offered 20% time to my team and only about 5% of them ever wanted to take advantage of it. I wanted a higher percentage of time spent thinking outside the box so I ended up creating a formal "innovation" group, through which individuals are cycled based on ideas, needs, and desires.
Nice example of someone adding a leap motion controller to their site, GoSquared:
https://www.gosquared.com/blog/playing-around-with-the-new-l...
I'm not going to argue this demonstrates utility, but it does show some good recognition of smaller gestures.
By "proprietary" we basically mean "here's a cool new metric (ps we invented it)" not "here's a cool new metric (ps we're not gonna tell you how it works)". That said the link to the methodology is a little buried, but you can find the details here: http://opensignal.com/methodology/time_coverage/
One thing to note is that it's possible that if you only launched LTE in urban areas and the LET users stay within those urban areas, then the time-coverage can be great, even if if the geographic coverage is poor and a low percentage of the population has access to LTE overall. Nonetheless, it is a measurement of the experience that those users that have LTE are getting.
Given this, we do have to be wary about markets where LTE is not mature yet.
Good point re. unlimited vs limited data plans and how the latter can make it easier for an operator to provide good throughput (but overall you might get less volume). This is illustrative of a bigger challenge - there's no single metric that can tell you: "this is the best operator in the world". We're never going to claim that. But our crowdsourced data can offer a global, impartial view that I think has been missing.