Mobile device planet is definitely shaken these days.
While Android OS market penetration rockets, 4 millions iPhone 4S has been sold in 3 days.
Behind these 2 leaders, other manufacturers are making a lot of announcements and/or promises but the time for long lasting illusions will be soon over :
- Samsung announces a new version of Bada while previous version did not outperform - apparently trying to master its own future after Motorola acquisition by Android's masters,
- Samsung and Apple engage in a patent war rarely seen at this level in Consumer Electronics, arguing about 2001- a space Odyssey,
- Sony wants to buy back Sony-Ericsson - currently loosing ground - to better leverage its strong brand and skills in high end consumer electronics,
- Blackberry faces a 3 day outage while shareholders set pressure for a split of the company,
- Microsoft sold 1.5M phones of Windows Mobile during a quarter (yes, 90 days).
Decisions will come soon but impacts of decisions taken earlier this year could be measured even sooner.
Within 2 weeks, we will get a very good indicator of the chances of Windows Mobile to survive. Nokia will then announce its new series of smartphones based on Windows Mobile. If these new phones are not striking, either through features or through prices, Microsoft can probably bury very deep any ambition on mobile and ... Nokia in the same grave. That would leave Android possibly playing the same role on mobile as the one played by Windows on PC.
During this war between each others, device manufacturers also try expand and eat a part of the cake of network operators.
On one hand, many device manufacturers have engaged in acquisition of companies active in content ecosystem playground, for example to strengthen their content and app stores.
On the other hand, Apple managed to "commoditize" the network more than ever. One of the major breakthroughs of the iPhone 4S is the simultaneous support of CDMA and GSM for the same device. If advantages are not perceived here in Europe, it means that iPhone 4S will be working on both AT&T and Verizon networks. Moreover, after a costly deal (for Sprint obviously !), Apple gives full freedom of network to consumers.
On this page, Apple now present network as a pure commodity - just comparing telco prices and packages - the price of the phone being the same on all networks. They just miss a coverage map to allow better comparison. Any concept of service - provided by network operators - is completely hidden. In US, dumb pipe is not a telco threat any more. It became a fact.
This period is definitely critical within the poker game between all these mobile smartphone vendors.
It's written as a thriller. The name of the killers are quite clear. The uncertainty resides in the name of the victims and especially the order for them to die or give up the market.
Future will say ...
Benoit Quirynen
About ICT evolutions shaping a new world.
Showing posts with label telecom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label telecom. Show all posts
Monday, October 17, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
A hype revival of vintage mobile video communication in MWC 2011
Let's get back to 2004, the hype in Mobile World Congress for the first time in Barcelona is about video communication. Thanks to 3G and embedded cameras in the mobile phones, people can proceed to a mobile video call from their device. It's huge. Telecom operators imagine gateways to enable subscribers to proceed with video call between a mobile and a PC to compensate the low numbers of nascent 3G phones. Two years after, this turns to be a failure. Damned, consumers are not using it.
Several reasons have been given at that time : cameras not powerful enough, screen definition too low, requirement of "high quality real time bandwidth", low willingness to use due to high intrusiveness and, finally, too difficult to take a continuous movie of its own image in good condition for the other party (sun, image stability, etc...).
2011, Mobile World Congress, perhaps one of the last time in Barcelona. The hype is back on ... mobile video communication. What can explain the revival ?
Some progress have been done on the technology side, especially on the devices now much more powerful in terms of CPU, screen and camera. Moreover, Skype, which has largely contributed to popular usage PC-2-PC of video, is everyday increasing its penetration on mobile phones.
However, the major factor could be the support of the magician Steve Jobs through Facetime, the video communication service from Apple. US investors suddenly start to poor money in these technologies. Of course, these "dollar cow-boys" did not necessarily participated to the hype 8 years ago since US was still at that time an underdeveloped country in terms of mobile usage, fighting to make CDMA EVDO operational.
Despite device technology evolutions and financial support, some challenge remain on the way to a large penetration of this service on mobile phone. Video communication still is intrusive and image stability did not significantly improve when you have your mobile in your hand.
Another main hurdle - requirement for a high quality network - will still exist for several years. Watching Youtube, users can benefit from buffering in the device, which is not possible with real time communication. This thus requires a continuous quality and bandwidth, which is challenging for a good quality. Just have a look on your device how many times you switch from GPRS (G) to Edge (E) to 3G (3G) to HSDPA (H) and you will see the stability of the data network, especially when you move one meter in your office or when your neighbor starts watching Youtube (because you share the cell data capacity with your neighbors, you like it or not ;-).
Moreover, in terms usage, some analysts state that consumers would use the service to show what is around. Capability to record a video and send it by MMS or email (on smartphones) exists for years. MMS video traffic is very low due to high price for upload of large volume. Imagine the price range when telecom operators want to guarantee a higher quality all along the call.
Finally, since telecom operators face problems with huge data traffic generated by smartphones and USB dongles, they will normally price the video call higher than voice call. Who is willing to pay more for a good quality video call ? It's true that Skype video calls are used on fixed Internet but using video or not is always the same zero price. Willingness to pay is probably the final killer of mobile video communication.
And if some operators would offer video call service at the price of voice calls in order to maintain price of a voice/video call revenues, they would significantly increase their cost without increasing the revenues. Better use this bandwidth to offer more low consumption services.
I had the chance to live the complete previous cycle of mobile video communication. We thought at the beginning that we were very successful since we signed a lot of contracts with major telecom operators but consumers brought us back on earth a bit later.
So, if you are in this business, have fun but do not expect your venture to be funded for a long time. Dollar cow-boys will probably stop soon pooring money in bottomless pit when they will discover the lack of fruits and remaining hurdles of previous experiences.
There are probably much better ideas for new telecom services, focused on low bandwidth for higher profitability of the whole value chain.
Future will say.
Benoit Quirynen
Several reasons have been given at that time : cameras not powerful enough, screen definition too low, requirement of "high quality real time bandwidth", low willingness to use due to high intrusiveness and, finally, too difficult to take a continuous movie of its own image in good condition for the other party (sun, image stability, etc...).
2011, Mobile World Congress, perhaps one of the last time in Barcelona. The hype is back on ... mobile video communication. What can explain the revival ?
Some progress have been done on the technology side, especially on the devices now much more powerful in terms of CPU, screen and camera. Moreover, Skype, which has largely contributed to popular usage PC-2-PC of video, is everyday increasing its penetration on mobile phones.
However, the major factor could be the support of the magician Steve Jobs through Facetime, the video communication service from Apple. US investors suddenly start to poor money in these technologies. Of course, these "dollar cow-boys" did not necessarily participated to the hype 8 years ago since US was still at that time an underdeveloped country in terms of mobile usage, fighting to make CDMA EVDO operational.
Despite device technology evolutions and financial support, some challenge remain on the way to a large penetration of this service on mobile phone. Video communication still is intrusive and image stability did not significantly improve when you have your mobile in your hand.
Another main hurdle - requirement for a high quality network - will still exist for several years. Watching Youtube, users can benefit from buffering in the device, which is not possible with real time communication. This thus requires a continuous quality and bandwidth, which is challenging for a good quality. Just have a look on your device how many times you switch from GPRS (G) to Edge (E) to 3G (3G) to HSDPA (H) and you will see the stability of the data network, especially when you move one meter in your office or when your neighbor starts watching Youtube (because you share the cell data capacity with your neighbors, you like it or not ;-).
Moreover, in terms usage, some analysts state that consumers would use the service to show what is around. Capability to record a video and send it by MMS or email (on smartphones) exists for years. MMS video traffic is very low due to high price for upload of large volume. Imagine the price range when telecom operators want to guarantee a higher quality all along the call.
Finally, since telecom operators face problems with huge data traffic generated by smartphones and USB dongles, they will normally price the video call higher than voice call. Who is willing to pay more for a good quality video call ? It's true that Skype video calls are used on fixed Internet but using video or not is always the same zero price. Willingness to pay is probably the final killer of mobile video communication.
And if some operators would offer video call service at the price of voice calls in order to maintain price of a voice/video call revenues, they would significantly increase their cost without increasing the revenues. Better use this bandwidth to offer more low consumption services.
I had the chance to live the complete previous cycle of mobile video communication. We thought at the beginning that we were very successful since we signed a lot of contracts with major telecom operators but consumers brought us back on earth a bit later.
So, if you are in this business, have fun but do not expect your venture to be funded for a long time. Dollar cow-boys will probably stop soon pooring money in bottomless pit when they will discover the lack of fruits and remaining hurdles of previous experiences.
There are probably much better ideas for new telecom services, focused on low bandwidth for higher profitability of the whole value chain.
Future will say.
Benoit Quirynen
Sunday, January 16, 2011
IPad2 - will definition be twice higher ?
Some rumours about IPad2 state that the screen definition would be twice higher, becoming 2048x1536 instead of 1024x768.
Today, the Wired magazine on IPad already consumes more than 500MB in terms of bandwidth and disk size. Since Wired is often leveraging the full capacity, this could lead to a severe increase (media assets - image and video - take the larger part) in bandwith consumption (for consumers and/or for telcos) as well as on-device disk space (up to 2GB).
All this would only opertae if Apple manages to keep convincing publishers using its tablet after having sucked the customer relationship - as announced on Friday.
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
Today, the Wired magazine on IPad already consumes more than 500MB in terms of bandwidth and disk size. Since Wired is often leveraging the full capacity, this could lead to a severe increase (media assets - image and video - take the larger part) in bandwith consumption (for consumers and/or for telcos) as well as on-device disk space (up to 2GB).
All this would only opertae if Apple manages to keep convincing publishers using its tablet after having sucked the customer relationship - as announced on Friday.
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Telecom - automated tariff optimization as the next improvement in customer relationship
Yesterday, I received two messages from my telecom provider.
The first message was an SMS notification that I reached 50% of volume granted by my data plan. I like this kind of positive message when it's not pushed to often.
The second message was a bill. It's usually not a pleasure to receive a bill but this one was a bit special. In the header, the provider announces that tariff optimization process has been run based on my consumption and the tariff plan that I have selected is still the best one for me.
It is also mentioned that they will automatically run this tariff optimization process every 6 months. The optimization facility was already available before but it was up to the subscriber to run it and to switch tariff. Now, at least the simulation is executed automatically.
Telecom operator considers that it's better to keep an existing subscriber than artificially increase the Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) based on poor customer relationship. Customer loyalty improvement could make a sound difference for the value of the share at the end. I consider it as a good anti-churn tool and a very good move of telecom industry inline with respect of the subscriber. A win-win deal obviously.
What is still missing is a simulation of tariff with offers from competitors. It would have been very nice to add a sentence : "and if you would have selected provider B, you would have paid x € more every month" ... if it's true.
Is "automated cross-provider tariff comparison" the next step in customer relationship improvement ?
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
The first message was an SMS notification that I reached 50% of volume granted by my data plan. I like this kind of positive message when it's not pushed to often.
The second message was a bill. It's usually not a pleasure to receive a bill but this one was a bit special. In the header, the provider announces that tariff optimization process has been run based on my consumption and the tariff plan that I have selected is still the best one for me.
It is also mentioned that they will automatically run this tariff optimization process every 6 months. The optimization facility was already available before but it was up to the subscriber to run it and to switch tariff. Now, at least the simulation is executed automatically.
Telecom operator considers that it's better to keep an existing subscriber than artificially increase the Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) based on poor customer relationship. Customer loyalty improvement could make a sound difference for the value of the share at the end. I consider it as a good anti-churn tool and a very good move of telecom industry inline with respect of the subscriber. A win-win deal obviously.
What is still missing is a simulation of tariff with offers from competitors. It would have been very nice to add a sentence : "and if you would have selected provider B, you would have paid x € more every month" ... if it's true.
Is "automated cross-provider tariff comparison" the next step in customer relationship improvement ?
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
Sunday, January 2, 2011
France : VAT increase can turn to a free IPhone for consumers
In France, government has increased VAT rate on Internet access from 5.5% to 19.6%. Based on this increase, most of telecom operators (Orange, SFR, Bouygues) increase their price to more or less reflect the VAT increase.
However, according to this site (http://eco.rue89.com/2010/12/30/mobiles-internet-et-si-on-resiliait-tous-nos-abonnements-182755), this price increase is considered as a possible breach on contract. Consumers who contracted a package including a mobile phone with a subscription are now allowed to keep the phone, stop the contract and ... re-initiate a new contract possibly including a new phone. So the expensive I-Phone acquired a few weeks ago within the scope of a contract can become yours ... and you can get a new one, restarting a new contract.
That's where sponsoring (or bundling subscription and phones) of mobile phone for recruiting new subscribers of expensive subscriptions or membership can turn to become very expensive for operators.
In a world of expected continuous inflation during next years, telecom operators would be well inspired to better study their pricing, contracts and bundling strategy instead of applying linear changes. As consumers, we should probably be even more careful reading terms and conditions in the future.
All this clearly benefits to mobile phone manufacturers. Apple, Samsung, Nokia and the likes but also Google through Android could accelerate their sales in France beginning of this year if this trick turns to be applied by a lot of consumers.
However, according to this site (http://eco.rue89.com/2010/12/30/mobiles-internet-et-si-on-resiliait-tous-nos-abonnements-182755), this price increase is considered as a possible breach on contract. Consumers who contracted a package including a mobile phone with a subscription are now allowed to keep the phone, stop the contract and ... re-initiate a new contract possibly including a new phone. So the expensive I-Phone acquired a few weeks ago within the scope of a contract can become yours ... and you can get a new one, restarting a new contract.
That's where sponsoring (or bundling subscription and phones) of mobile phone for recruiting new subscribers of expensive subscriptions or membership can turn to become very expensive for operators.
In a world of expected continuous inflation during next years, telecom operators would be well inspired to better study their pricing, contracts and bundling strategy instead of applying linear changes. As consumers, we should probably be even more careful reading terms and conditions in the future.
All this clearly benefits to mobile phone manufacturers. Apple, Samsung, Nokia and the likes but also Google through Android could accelerate their sales in France beginning of this year if this trick turns to be applied by a lot of consumers.
Price increases are also announced in Belgium. Will the same apply ?
To be continued.
Benoit Quirynen
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Digital dialog - definitely engaging
This week, I once again had to invoke my preferred customer care - the one of my telecom service provider - in order to activate a data roaming pack.
After a few hours, I received an SMS asking if I wanted to freely participate to a survey about the quality of the interaction with customer care agent. I positively answered and received 2 questions with possibility to reply by sending an SMS including 1 for yes or 2 for no. The last question was asking for open comment. My last personal comment was a proposal for service activation through SMS or web self-care, which would be much more efficient for me than dialing my well-known call center.
Funny to personally experience a format I tried to convince this industry to adopt a few months ago for different usage.
Answers were explicitly mentioned to be free. Since I answered the survey while in roaming, I'm curious to see if these messages will be charged or not on my next bill. A next test about the consistency about customer communication.
The previous test about communication consistency failed. When in roaming, I received as usual 3 messages indicating rules and caveat about usage abroad. A 4 digits phone number is mentioned in the message. I tried it and ... the answer is that I am invited to dial another 9 digits number. I actually wonder why a telecom operator can not automatically ensure the re-routing of the call to the right support center.
So, still a long way to run for full customer communication consistency but, at least, some telecom operators start to use compelling formats to communicate with their subscribers.
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
After a few hours, I received an SMS asking if I wanted to freely participate to a survey about the quality of the interaction with customer care agent. I positively answered and received 2 questions with possibility to reply by sending an SMS including 1 for yes or 2 for no. The last question was asking for open comment. My last personal comment was a proposal for service activation through SMS or web self-care, which would be much more efficient for me than dialing my well-known call center.
Funny to personally experience a format I tried to convince this industry to adopt a few months ago for different usage.
As a subscriber, I honestly found the format more interesting than audio survey usually proposed at the end of the call. It gave me some time to digest if I was happy or not and I felt it much less intrusive.
The previous test about communication consistency failed. When in roaming, I received as usual 3 messages indicating rules and caveat about usage abroad. A 4 digits phone number is mentioned in the message. I tried it and ... the answer is that I am invited to dial another 9 digits number. I actually wonder why a telecom operator can not automatically ensure the re-routing of the call to the right support center.
So, still a long way to run for full customer communication consistency but, at least, some telecom operators start to use compelling formats to communicate with their subscribers.
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Telecom - why not simply deliver a better service ?
Blogs, articles, books, everywhere in the world strategists are discussing about the battle between internet boys and telecom elderly. Why are Internet boys so successful, in a kind of continuous hype curve, while telecom elderly are perceived as old-fashioned even if the second ones provide the necessary pipes for the first ones to operate ?
This interesting discussion was reenforced this week due to the Broadband forum.
There is certainly nothing wrong to raise the question and, even better, it's important for the whole society to find the right balance between the two sets of dinosaurs in order to support further evolutions.
But, before engaging in some hazardous strategies, telecom operators could perhaps simply deliver a better service. It's not about inventing yet another stuff. It's all about services around voice, messaging, data access and 3rd party premium services - all the services used by large panel of subscribers.
We can distinguish two aspects : provide a better user experience and solve all the numerous small inconsistencies which are very annoying for subscribers, eventually leading to a complete loss of trust.
Why the hell is the Skype user experience better than my phone experience ? I don't ask for a free service. It would nice but I understand it would not be sustainable. I just ask a mobile user experience as convenient as Skype.
The second improvement concerns the loss of trust that I still have in my telecom provider. Why the hell do I face a problem each time I activate a service ? It's true that I receive more alert messages than before, assumed to explain unusual situations. Receiving alerts when call center tells you that there is no problem creates frustration. Not receiving an alert when there is a problem is even more frustrating. And finally, each time spending 20+ minutes waiting in call center queue is certainly not my favorite activity.
Telecom systems have been built as mushrooms growing, on a yearly basis, a few month after annual Mobile World Congress. In order to face the other category of dinosaurs, it's time for telecom to debug all these minor frustrating error cases or even better, time to streamline the architectures.
Let's remove dangerous mushrooms and structure the telecom landscape for an open field based on latest technologies and concepts - supporting a new wave of innovation.
Fighting or partnering with the other side ? Future will say.
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
This interesting discussion was reenforced this week due to the Broadband forum.
There is certainly nothing wrong to raise the question and, even better, it's important for the whole society to find the right balance between the two sets of dinosaurs in order to support further evolutions.
But, before engaging in some hazardous strategies, telecom operators could perhaps simply deliver a better service. It's not about inventing yet another stuff. It's all about services around voice, messaging, data access and 3rd party premium services - all the services used by large panel of subscribers.
We can distinguish two aspects : provide a better user experience and solve all the numerous small inconsistencies which are very annoying for subscribers, eventually leading to a complete loss of trust.
Why the hell is the Skype user experience better than my phone experience ? I don't ask for a free service. It would nice but I understand it would not be sustainable. I just ask a mobile user experience as convenient as Skype.
The second improvement concerns the loss of trust that I still have in my telecom provider. Why the hell do I face a problem each time I activate a service ? It's true that I receive more alert messages than before, assumed to explain unusual situations. Receiving alerts when call center tells you that there is no problem creates frustration. Not receiving an alert when there is a problem is even more frustrating. And finally, each time spending 20+ minutes waiting in call center queue is certainly not my favorite activity.
Telecom systems have been built as mushrooms growing, on a yearly basis, a few month after annual Mobile World Congress. In order to face the other category of dinosaurs, it's time for telecom to debug all these minor frustrating error cases or even better, time to streamline the architectures.
Let's remove dangerous mushrooms and structure the telecom landscape for an open field based on latest technologies and concepts - supporting a new wave of innovation.
Fighting or partnering with the other side ? Future will say.
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Microsoft Surface - which use case ?
This week-end, I had the opportunity to test Microsoft Surface during "salon de l'éducation" (education fair) in Namur - Belgium. Microsoft Surface is a kind of large horizontal touch screen (30 inches) that you can lay on a table.
Touch events are detected through infrared, with the capability to capture a lot of simultaneous events and gestures. It's also possible to lay objects, leading to interactions through NFC or SRW.
The screen size yields quite high definition for pictures but the processor is strong enough to smoothly handle this (far better than IPad Mobile Safari for very large images ;-).
Touch detection and gestures were sometimes hazardous but this can probably be sorted out through more frequent usage (as it is for any new device, especially the touchscreen ones).
Demo applications were quite diverse:
- an interactive map,
- picture gallery,
- quite basic educative application,
- mind-mapping brainstorming application,
- weather forecast (as on all devices),- ...
At this early stage, the price is obviously irrelevant (>10000€). This depends on volume.
Some questions still resist to this demo:
- would people actually use this ?
- in which environment (home, office, hotel, school, restaurants, hospital, industry, war rooms, senior residence, etc...) will it be best applied ?
- for which kind of usage (learning, gaming, collaborative working, leisure, etc...) ?
Since demonstrated in a education fair, I guess some people imagine that small groups of children will interact around this table to learn together. A similar product - but far less powerful- was demonstrated by another vendor, apparently restricted for drawing usage.
Collaborative learning will certainly evolve and is a very nice topic to study. However, I'm not sure Microsoft Surface (and its competitors) will play a massive role in this market.
As human beings, we naturally prefer to watch screens with at least 30° angle. Moreover, the size of the screen naturally limits number of persons who can interact. So I only see this as applicable for some restricted usages, preventing rapid significant price decrease.
Just feel free to contradict with good use cases !
Let's be fair. Even if this device would perhaps not have a bright future, let's recognize that Microsoft invested and contributed to explore this track, helping the world to progress on a very positive and promising topic.
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
Touch events are detected through infrared, with the capability to capture a lot of simultaneous events and gestures. It's also possible to lay objects, leading to interactions through NFC or SRW.
The screen size yields quite high definition for pictures but the processor is strong enough to smoothly handle this (far better than IPad Mobile Safari for very large images ;-).
Touch detection and gestures were sometimes hazardous but this can probably be sorted out through more frequent usage (as it is for any new device, especially the touchscreen ones).
Demo applications were quite diverse:
- an interactive map,
- picture gallery,
- quite basic educative application,
- mind-mapping brainstorming application,
- weather forecast (as on all devices),- ...
At this early stage, the price is obviously irrelevant (>10000€). This depends on volume.
Some questions still resist to this demo:
- would people actually use this ?
- in which environment (home, office, hotel, school, restaurants, hospital, industry, war rooms, senior residence, etc...) will it be best applied ?
- for which kind of usage (learning, gaming, collaborative working, leisure, etc...) ?
Since demonstrated in a education fair, I guess some people imagine that small groups of children will interact around this table to learn together. A similar product - but far less powerful- was demonstrated by another vendor, apparently restricted for drawing usage.
Collaborative learning will certainly evolve and is a very nice topic to study. However, I'm not sure Microsoft Surface (and its competitors) will play a massive role in this market.
As human beings, we naturally prefer to watch screens with at least 30° angle. Moreover, the size of the screen naturally limits number of persons who can interact. So I only see this as applicable for some restricted usages, preventing rapid significant price decrease.
Just feel free to contradict with good use cases !
Let's be fair. Even if this device would perhaps not have a bright future, let's recognize that Microsoft invested and contributed to explore this track, helping the world to progress on a very positive and promising topic.
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Racer mobile phone - the name of the winners not written in the press release
Racer, the new Android phone sold below symbolic threshold of 100 UK Pounds, produced by ZTE and distributed by 3-UK, has been announced this week. This is probably an important milestone in the mobile phone history. Funny enough, the name of the true winners is not written in the press releases.
The announcement indicates an important smart complementary offer; 3UK granting a volume data bucket of 150MB for top-up on a prepaid account.
3UK and ZTE are obviously mentioned in the press release.
Through this launch, 3UK, desperately tries to attack its strong competitors with an appealing offer for youngsters. Vodafone, T-Mobile/Orange and O2 are able to follow when they decide. If the phone is a success, it's just a question of months to come back to a similar balance between telco players on the island.
On the other hand, ZTE makes a step towards a position in the top-5 mobile phone manufacturers but there is still a long long way to run.
Funny enough, the name of the big winners of this important milestone is not written.
Android is mentioned but Google is not. Through its "free licensing model", Google will win the scale battle with Apple. Google copies the Windows model used by Microsoft against Apple during last century. Google does not directly produce cash through this kind of offer. But advertising inventory (display and search) will indirectly grow at an higher pace and this growth is directly linked to G revenues.
The name of the other winner is Facebook, with the same logic of increased inventory, since target of this phone is most probably youngsters, heavy Facebook users. This can be extended to myriad of mobile phone application providers.
Names of losers are rarely written in press releases.
We can not say that Apple will loose with this kind of move but it defines the borders of a profitable corner.
Apple, luxuriantly trapped by the very high value of his brand and its vertical approach - mandatory to change the game at the beginning but limiting the scale during next phases of growth -, will loose against Android in terms of mobile OS market share. As a consequence, iAds, advertising initiative from Apple, will then probably be restricted to high-end brands while Google presents a universal inventory for any brand, any shop.
The announcement indicates an important smart complementary offer; 3UK granting a volume data bucket of 150MB for top-up on a prepaid account.
3UK and ZTE are obviously mentioned in the press release.
Through this launch, 3UK, desperately tries to attack its strong competitors with an appealing offer for youngsters. Vodafone, T-Mobile/Orange and O2 are able to follow when they decide. If the phone is a success, it's just a question of months to come back to a similar balance between telco players on the island.
On the other hand, ZTE makes a step towards a position in the top-5 mobile phone manufacturers but there is still a long long way to run.
Funny enough, the name of the big winners of this important milestone is not written.
Android is mentioned but Google is not. Through its "free licensing model", Google will win the scale battle with Apple. Google copies the Windows model used by Microsoft against Apple during last century. Google does not directly produce cash through this kind of offer. But advertising inventory (display and search) will indirectly grow at an higher pace and this growth is directly linked to G revenues.
The name of the other winner is Facebook, with the same logic of increased inventory, since target of this phone is most probably youngsters, heavy Facebook users. This can be extended to myriad of mobile phone application providers.
Names of losers are rarely written in press releases.
We can not say that Apple will loose with this kind of move but it defines the borders of a profitable corner.
Apple, luxuriantly trapped by the very high value of his brand and its vertical approach - mandatory to change the game at the beginning but limiting the scale during next phases of growth -, will loose against Android in terms of mobile OS market share. As a consequence, iAds, advertising initiative from Apple, will then probably be restricted to high-end brands while Google presents a universal inventory for any brand, any shop.
This announcement now materializes another level of danger for Nokia. Lost in Symbian, Meego, Linux mobile OS announcements, Nokia is still the number one but does not manage to tease interest of developers for applications - the next criterion for people to buy a phone.
Moreover, the whole telco market could start to see ARPU (average revenue per user) declining faster at this stage. Through this offer with such a pricing for device and data, number of data users could reach a tipping point where messaging traffic could start to significantly migrate from charged SMS to free instant messaging.
This only if the Racer phone is good and is a commercial success.
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
Friday, July 9, 2010
Identity Portability : a small mobile portability issue in UK reminds a global email portability issue nearly everywhere
For more than a decade, regulators in Europe have forced telcos, in a sense of teasing competition, to ease transfer of mobile phone number from an operator to another one. Today, nothing exist for email portability.
In UK, new rules applied from 2011 onwards still include a statement indicating that the consumer must first ask authorization to donor operator. UK is the single country in Europe where this preliminary authorization is required.
In the scope of identity portability, mobile number certainly is a key identification mean. But email is probably today as important for residential consumers.
Some petitions about email portability in order to restrict the power of AOL have been proposed to FCC in US. Email portability has been approved by Knesset in Israel. Where does European Commission stand for email address portability ?
There are several ways to bring technical solutions to this problem with different levels of facilities. There could be a progressive approach after a transition period.
Such a regulation would not necessarily hurt ISPs and/or telecom operators. On one hand, operator email addresses (e.g. x.y@belgacom.net) are the best anti-churn weapons for ISPs when they fight with their direct competitors. On the other hand, this pushes more and more residential consumers to migrate their digital identity to an over-the-top email service provider (hotmail, gmail, yahoo, facebook will follow - all in US).
Fighting against each other, European ISPs are collectively loosing an important service in their global communication offering, thus leaving the floor for (mostly US) players eager to grab more and more ground space in the service plane territory.
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
In UK, new rules applied from 2011 onwards still include a statement indicating that the consumer must first ask authorization to donor operator. UK is the single country in Europe where this preliminary authorization is required.
In the scope of identity portability, mobile number certainly is a key identification mean. But email is probably today as important for residential consumers.
Some petitions about email portability in order to restrict the power of AOL have been proposed to FCC in US. Email portability has been approved by Knesset in Israel. Where does European Commission stand for email address portability ?
Perhaps European Union should also define rules in this email portability area, some persons being locked with their ISP only due to their email address. And this regulation should not be restricted to ISPs. It should also be applied for email service providers in general.
Differentiation should then be done based on the service (user experience, availability, multi-screen, easy configuration, etc...). In my humble opinion, Gmail is today far ahead in this area.
Some will argue that anyone is free to buy a domain name. But complexity of configuration severely restricts adoption by the mass. So there is still a sense to have email service provider domain names.
There are several ways to bring technical solutions to this problem with different levels of facilities. There could be a progressive approach after a transition period.
Such a regulation would not necessarily hurt ISPs and/or telecom operators. On one hand, operator email addresses (e.g. x.y@belgacom.net) are the best anti-churn weapons for ISPs when they fight with their direct competitors. On the other hand, this pushes more and more residential consumers to migrate their digital identity to an over-the-top email service provider (hotmail, gmail, yahoo, facebook will follow - all in US).
Fighting against each other, European ISPs are collectively loosing an important service in their global communication offering, thus leaving the floor for (mostly US) players eager to grab more and more ground space in the service plane territory.
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Mobile advertising : slow growth rate or normal growth ?
Today, ABI research publishes new figures about mobile advertising. Worldwide market would reach 1.2 B$ in 2015. In 2006, analysts were announcing 12B$ for mobile advertising in ... 2011.
According to the same "ABI research" study, yearly market would reach today 313 M$, a bit more than 40 times less than expectations of 2006, 4 years ago. Last year, other analysts were predicting 5B$ for 2014.
Should we burn all analysis and even do the same with analysts ? What will be the actual figure in 2015 ?
Nobody actually knows. Figures published today sound much more accurate and realistic. On one hand, online has become much more mature, draining budgets from other media. On the other hand, mobile advertising starts to represent something, not necessarily the formats thought in 2006 but new formats, focusing more on respect of consumer. Moreover, start-ups and some big players started to grasp some requirements to build a scalable market.
Why is this so slow - reaching 10% of initial forecasts 5 years after initial target ?
But the main reason probably concerns the complexity to move an ecosystem and to understand the consumer expectations, complexity certainly underestimated by analysts. It took nearly a decade before Google generated decent revenues with significant volumes from search.
Some will argue that Facebook appeared on the market in 2006, now federating a bit less than 10% of "planet earth inhabitants". But Facebook had the chance to grow organically with no regulatory constraint (until now !), no need to make agreements with thousands of telcos worldwide (each with a different strategy), no need to align with local partners. And Facebook generated around 800M$ in 2009, mainly from advertising.
Will Facebook revenues continue to grow significantly ? At the end, it's a question of impact and volume. Does a "social ad" on Facebook prove the same impact as a permission-based targeted mobile ad ? Can Facebook compensate a possible lower impact by higher volume of "automated optin" ?
Will telco seriously engage in the race or will they passively wait for over-the-top players and device manufacturers to take the whole cake ? Will another Facebook or I-Phone phenomenon emerge in the mean time, keeping mobile marketing as a "second life" or "MySpace" ?
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
According to the same "ABI research" study, yearly market would reach today 313 M$, a bit more than 40 times less than expectations of 2006, 4 years ago. Last year, other analysts were predicting 5B$ for 2014.
Should we burn all analysis and even do the same with analysts ? What will be the actual figure in 2015 ?
Nobody actually knows. Figures published today sound much more accurate and realistic. On one hand, online has become much more mature, draining budgets from other media. On the other hand, mobile advertising starts to represent something, not necessarily the formats thought in 2006 but new formats, focusing more on respect of consumer. Moreover, start-ups and some big players started to grasp some requirements to build a scalable market.
Why is this so slow - reaching 10% of initial forecasts 5 years after initial target ?
The crisis probably did not help, directly hurting the amount put in the advertising envelopes. Moreover, analysts are sometimes paid by people expecting hockey stick shapes and thus tented to grow the figures.
But the main reason probably concerns the complexity to move an ecosystem and to understand the consumer expectations, complexity certainly underestimated by analysts. It took nearly a decade before Google generated decent revenues with significant volumes from search.
Some will argue that Facebook appeared on the market in 2006, now federating a bit less than 10% of "planet earth inhabitants". But Facebook had the chance to grow organically with no regulatory constraint (until now !), no need to make agreements with thousands of telcos worldwide (each with a different strategy), no need to align with local partners. And Facebook generated around 800M$ in 2009, mainly from advertising.
Will Facebook revenues continue to grow significantly ? At the end, it's a question of impact and volume. Does a "social ad" on Facebook prove the same impact as a permission-based targeted mobile ad ? Can Facebook compensate a possible lower impact by higher volume of "automated optin" ?
Will telco seriously engage in the race or will they passively wait for over-the-top players and device manufacturers to take the whole cake ? Will another Facebook or I-Phone phenomenon emerge in the mean time, keeping mobile marketing as a "second life" or "MySpace" ?
Considering all these constraints and resistance, if mobile advertising market reaches this 2015 figure, it's perhaps not so bad. But it could turn to be much more. It all depends on all of us - consumers.
Benoit Quirynen
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 - a business split still under discussion for telecom
1494, Spanish and Portuguese kingdoms ruled a dispute about ownership of the new world. Today, Portuguese prime minister wants to make use of its golden share to prevent Telefonica to control Vivo Brazil, the largest telco in the huge - fast emerging - country.
In 1494, "Treaty of Tordesillas" drew a meridian line (Tordesillas meridian) to determine ownership of the new world : Western part to Spain (all known America), Eastern part to Portugal (islands on the way to America). At this time, it was unknown that South-American territory was extending eastern this meridian line. In 1500, only 6 years later, Cabral, Portuguese navigator, discovered eastern part of Brazil, de facto becoming part of Portugal according to the famous treaty. From this presence in Eastern Brazil, Portugal extended his territory to take more than 50% of South-America.
In 2010, Vivo is the largest telco in Brazil. Through a JV, Telefonica and Portugal Telecom control major part of Vivo. Both Iberian telcos struggle with declining revenues in their home country and consider Brazil as the way for growth. Last week, Telefonica made an offer to buy shares of Portugal Telecom in this JV. Portuguese government now wants to make use of its golden share to protect interests of Portugal.
Spain still has to pay today for an error of about 12° longitude, 500 years ago. When drawing a line to share territories in a fast evolving business, you never know how, where and when it will end ... In ICT, business agreements and M&A operations are often handled much too fast, under immediate market pressure, without clear understanding of the consequences, especially since a lot of new territories are still to be discovered in this domain. What will happen in ICT world 2016 ?
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
In 1494, "Treaty of Tordesillas" drew a meridian line (Tordesillas meridian) to determine ownership of the new world : Western part to Spain (all known America), Eastern part to Portugal (islands on the way to America). At this time, it was unknown that South-American territory was extending eastern this meridian line. In 1500, only 6 years later, Cabral, Portuguese navigator, discovered eastern part of Brazil, de facto becoming part of Portugal according to the famous treaty. From this presence in Eastern Brazil, Portugal extended his territory to take more than 50% of South-America.
In 2010, Vivo is the largest telco in Brazil. Through a JV, Telefonica and Portugal Telecom control major part of Vivo. Both Iberian telcos struggle with declining revenues in their home country and consider Brazil as the way for growth. Last week, Telefonica made an offer to buy shares of Portugal Telecom in this JV. Portuguese government now wants to make use of its golden share to protect interests of Portugal.
Spain still has to pay today for an error of about 12° longitude, 500 years ago. When drawing a line to share territories in a fast evolving business, you never know how, where and when it will end ... In ICT, business agreements and M&A operations are often handled much too fast, under immediate market pressure, without clear understanding of the consequences, especially since a lot of new territories are still to be discovered in this domain. What will happen in ICT world 2016 ?
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
Sunday, June 27, 2010
HD voice as a start for better communication ?
This week, Orange has announced arrival of HD voice. Telecom world starts to remember that "telecommunication" naturally includes the word "communication".
During last 20 years, focus has been set on connections: direct voice or data connection , differed through messaging. Nokia was the king with its "connecting people". Nokia currently suffers because Apple, Google and the likes now offer much more than a "connected device". Alcatel-Lucent was shooting for "always-on". We'll come back on these tag lines in another article.
Of course, connection is the foundation. Telecom world now has the opportunity to embrace a larger scope around communication, building on top of this foundation.
Many dimensions of communication still need to be improved. It's the beginning of a new decade where we'll see evolutions from a "connected world" to "communicating world".
HD voice from Orange is perhaps just a "meeto" to counter attack position of "Skype like services" actually offering better voice quality. As a consultant, I often use Skype for long meetings with partners, not only because it's cheap but certainly also because it provides unequaled voice quality. When competition is "cheaper and better", a tough reaction is expected. With LTE, Skype could definitely take over "voice service" from traditional telecom players.
HD voice could also be a first step of a "provide better communication" strategy, voice quality being a prerequisite.
Telecom players have the choice between two mainstreams : Telecom operator or Telecom service provider. Either they continue to be a "connection provider" and they will be rapidly joining other utilities as power, water, and gas or they become a "communication provider". That's a decision to be expected soon before next round of consolidation.
In this last case, this will involve drastic changes, moving from a global approach towards a "multi-local" approach with:
Telecom vendors must also take a position, make a choice. Either they structure their offering to serve utilities or they jump in the world of communication. If telecom vendors are willing to engage inside communication, this will require drastic changes. Are they ready for it ?
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
During last 20 years, focus has been set on connections: direct voice or data connection , differed through messaging. Nokia was the king with its "connecting people". Nokia currently suffers because Apple, Google and the likes now offer much more than a "connected device". Alcatel-Lucent was shooting for "always-on". We'll come back on these tag lines in another article.
Of course, connection is the foundation. Telecom world now has the opportunity to embrace a larger scope around communication, building on top of this foundation.
Many dimensions of communication still need to be improved. It's the beginning of a new decade where we'll see evolutions from a "connected world" to "communicating world".
HD voice from Orange is perhaps just a "meeto" to counter attack position of "Skype like services" actually offering better voice quality. As a consultant, I often use Skype for long meetings with partners, not only because it's cheap but certainly also because it provides unequaled voice quality. When competition is "cheaper and better", a tough reaction is expected. With LTE, Skype could definitely take over "voice service" from traditional telecom players.
HD voice could also be a first step of a "provide better communication" strategy, voice quality being a prerequisite.
Telecom players have the choice between two mainstreams : Telecom operator or Telecom service provider. Either they continue to be a "connection provider" and they will be rapidly joining other utilities as power, water, and gas or they become a "communication provider". That's a decision to be expected soon before next round of consolidation.
In this last case, this will involve drastic changes, moving from a global approach towards a "multi-local" approach with:
- more openess,
- broader scope, much beyond technical aspects,
- and much more "localisation" of the services because communication is naturally linked to culture
Telecom vendors must also take a position, make a choice. Either they structure their offering to serve utilities or they jump in the world of communication. If telecom vendors are willing to engage inside communication, this will require drastic changes. Are they ready for it ?
To be continued ...
Benoit Quirynen
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)