Tablets are very nice devices, but still gadgets!

As of Q3 2010 (Q4 fiscal US), Apple sold 4.19 million iPads worldwide (Reuter) which was found a little deceiving, while others like eMarketers.com have a very optimistic view on the future of tablets predicting that by 2012, 12,8% of US population (including children, elders, etc) will own a tablet. Forrester even predicted back in June that tablets will outsell netbooks by 2012 and desktops by 2013.

And tablets are THE hype item nowadays, started by the iPad, followed by the Samsung Tab, Motorola, Dell, Toshiba, etc., Microsoft vs. Android vs. iOS, etc... there's plenty articles on those topics those days.

But bottom-line, did anyone ask himself those questions:

- Can a tablet replace a portable PC?

For quick presentations to the customer, yes it can do the job. To do quick emails, browse Internet, videos, images, etc, yes it can.

But can you write a book (or just a simple Word document) on an iPad; create and edit the presentation, store all your content (usually the hard drive is now around 500 Go), connect in a secure manner with VPN to your office, run Sage, edit that video in a professional manner, design a web site, etc. The answer is: NO

So yes, for the few who never really used their PC for something else than what the tabs do; it will replace it; but for most, it won't. You still need a PC (or Mac!).

- Can a tablet replace your phone?

Yes, you can call with some tablets; but are you going to get rid of your phone because you now have the iPad 3G or the Samsung Tab? Probably not.

Tablets are thus nice devices, but they come more as a "gadget" rather than an evolution of something existing. Seems like history is repeating itself; the MiniPC was surfing on the same trend: mobile access to web and multimedia; not as "attractive" as can be tablets, but same needs. And guess what, it didn't perform as expected.

So will tablet sales roar? 

Yes for sure, obviously. There's a huge market to grab overall, even if in each country only a fraction of the population will be able to afford their price of this additional device; because on the contrary of smartphones which replace their previous phone; a Tablet for most won't replace other devices.

In a similar manner, touch-screen TV or computer screens (all in one, etc) have been on the market for a while already, they are not performing as expected.

I'm personally very fond of tablets for having used quite a few different ones already. But on a personal level, I find the price still to steep to justify the purchase and it will certainly not replace my PC or my phone. I'm sure few articles will come out in coming month or two about their performances in Q4.

It's thus important for all of us to remember that and for all those prediction makers to keep their feet on the ground.

Will Android beat Symbian in Q4?

Gartner just published smartphone sales for Q3 2010 and as you can see below in the graphic below, Android is litterally exploding, while Nokia's market share is melting down.

If Android keeps this pace, and with the Christmas effect coming in, Android could very much overthrow Nokia at Q4 (or get to a very close tie), especially since Nokia is now the sole manufacturer of Symbian after recent news of Nokia taking control of the Symbian Foundation (but that, everybody expected it especially after SonyEricsson and Samsung abandonned Symbian)

Now we have to put things into prospective, market share is one thing, total sales is another. Total smartphone sales went from 41 million to 80.5 million on a year-on-year basis; so Nokia just didn't grow its smartphones sales as fast as Android: +61% for Nokia versus + 1326% (yes, that's correct) for Android.

So there are definitely two sides of the story:

- Nokia is still increasing its sales, especially of smartphones devices (+61% is a growth percentage many would love)

- But Nokia is definitely loosing ground to Android while iOS is stagnating (and Rim went from 21% to 15% market share)

Yes, Nokia has launched the N8, it's all over the country (France). I guess it will sell well, even if today we don't have any figures. But will it enable Nokia to resist the Android wave?? That's another story.

From a developper community stand point, this will surely do not help Nokia get more attention from developpers, read my previous post on why isn't OVI on top of mind for Zuckerberg.

Free or Paid apps?

Just read a very good article from Loïc Le Meur entitled "How much can you really make developing mobile apps?", written two months ago but just came accross it today, so that's why Loïc I can't post a comment anymore on your article.

You are making a very good point here I think, that is that in the "App World", the revenue stream is still for a happy few, and very far from representing the increase so much expected in mobile eCommerce.

Here are the different points I'd like to make on the subject you raised Loïc:

1. It's not a geek contest, but a business you know!!

I don't know why, but many people saw in those stores a chance to break the barriers that exist in the real world (by opposition to the virtual, eCommerce world); that is "hey, I'm going to make a great app, post it, and make revenues because anybody can make good apps", even if I could argue on what is a "good app".

Let's talk about games for example, 2nd category of content on the AppStore according to 148apps.biz, you are competing against large studios who invest few hundred thousand euros on each game, have dedicated studios to make trailers and other videos, dedicated sales and marketing teams in each major Apple markets. Guys, just like on PC, you need to realize that you're on a much different scale, not the same ball park! Would you launch a MMORPG like WoW tomorrow? They also had the early entrants advantage... Even Angry Birds is a one shot, the difficulty is in making it a sustainable business! Angry Birds made 3 million free downloads on Android, let's see how it does at £3 on OVI.

So like in any other business environment, you need to create good products but also market it, and market it as a professional just like the rest of the gaming industry!

There are just two differences:

#1 - You are competing against the rest of the world in one market place... over 40,6K games on the AppStore, that's tough!

# 2 - Viral marketing can be at your advantage: many of those tools are reachable (not expensive) and with a good viral marketing you can overcome part of the difficulties in making your games known to the public, and hence affect Apple's rankings eventually. Especially if you can target local consumers with an app that speak to them more particularly (I don't know, an ap with the best happy hours in pubs for the UK market?)

The only chance an independant, small dev has is to play on the viral part.... I think. And remember, the objective for most people is not just to break-even, but to make it a good business. Of course some hope to be purchased as those days it seems some VC are willing to pay big bucks....!

2. Building apps for others, not a jackpot but an expertise to built a sustainable business around.

The second way of making money with Apps is by creating apps for others; for a company who'd like an app (most of the time free). You want to have your banking done on your mobile, your social stuff, your subway map, find a McDonald store, etc... Consumers are looking for things they know, brands they know, or experience they want to have on their mobile.

More and more obviously chose this path as a business model. True native apps vs. web apps, honestly I don't know but for sure there's a huge room to grow here.

3. Other stores than Apple's AppStore

Loïc, you only mentioned Apple's AppStore and you are right. As of today, it's the only mobile app store which generates direct, published, revenue streams for developpers.

Neither the Android Market Place nor Nokia's OVI store have been able to do that, despite the fact that they have been online for almost a year, with millions of downloads a day, etc.!

So to make direct revenues from Apps, well there's just the AppStore, live with it. Why? Because they are the only who have created an efficient environment where they can take money out of consumers's pockets in a easy way! It took them several years to do so as it started with the iPod back in 2003. So they have years ahead of the whole pack in building's consumers's trust!

Direct consequence for developers focused on paid apps: well, it's iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch and eventually Android...

Related posts:

- "Google Android, Ovi, and the billing issue - why it's still an issue!!"

- "Mobile game publisher Digital Chocolate criticize the "droidful" Android Market"

- "Ovi isn't top of mind for Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg"

4. The "freemium"

The last alternative left is the "freemium" model; which is to distribute a game for free but make revenues indirectly, through advertisement mostly.

I've always been surprised by the optimism in the industry, predicting huge increases in mobile advertisement. To some extent, it's probably true because it's not very developed and there are loads of new smartphones hitting the market.

However I think there are big limitations, especially with all those stores where you need to be really motivated to buy something:

A. Advertisement aiming at making you buy something on your mobile.

That is advertisement for other apps on iPhone or on other platforms. Well, we come back to point #1 above because what else could you buy on your mobile right now, effciently and in a trackable manner? Well, not much. As long as eCommerce on mobile will be limited to apps and contents, the whole business will be restricted somehow (will still big room to grow from current situation of course).

B. Traditional advertisement, by people like Nike, American Airlines, etc...

This will grow for sure; but how easy will it be to get those large advertisers on your app ? Good idea (if not done already): create an agency to do this link between the myriad of small dev who alltogether can do great results, and the few large advertisers willing to pay for mobile ads!

Any other thoughts are welcome!

Data Crunch: the big threat for mobile eCommerce

Credit: foodshare.net

While every body is getting excited over the new mobile devices that shall make our life so much easier (and fun); with great applications and great true web browsing, sharing experience on social medias, etc... there are recent news that didn't attract so much attention, but have a HUGE potential impact on all this.

Whether you're using an iPhone, a Samsung Galaxy S, a Tablet (Apple, Samsung, Dell, etc) or even a laptop with 3G USB dongle; all those mobile devices consume data!! And they consume a lot of data!

There's also wi-fi, but except when you use them at home, those devices are by definition mobile, and chances of finding a free wi-fi connection you can connect on in few seconds wherever you are, well, they are pretty slim unless you spend your time in your favorite coffee-shop that happens to have free wi-fi (and where you're not sharing the connection with the other 20 guys around you).

The issue: data consumption is exploding!

With declining ARPU on voice declining fast, all operators (or almost) went into the data segment to get back on the growth curve. It took off with 3G as well as with USB dongles. And it's working great for them. It's actually working too well! The smartphones and the tablets are totally exploding data consumption as shown by several reports, to a point where data consumption has surpassed voice consumption already!

• Validas showing an "overall growth in average monthly wireless data consumption at a rate of 464 percent  from Q1 2009 through Q2 2010"
• Nielsen sees a 230% YoY growth for the same period
• Coda Research Consultancy quoted in TechCrunch, predicts data traffic to rise 40-fold by the next 5 years, or a  117 percent compound annual growth rate; most of the traffic (68.5%) coming from video
• Abiresearch finds an annual compound rate (from 2009 to 2015) of 42% and 55% in Western Europe and North America respectively;
• A nice study from Finnish firm Zokem showing that 50% of data usage on smartphones are comign from apps, the other 50% from the web browser.

When you understand that smartphones roughly represent 30% (at best) of mobile phones in most advanced markets, and when you see their sales roaring, you understand why those firms make such predictions (even if they vary quite a bit).

But  also surprising, what many analysis do not highlight, is Cisco's findings that majority of data traffic (70%) will come from laptops and other mobile-ready devices (tablets?)

Source: Cisco

Now any normal person would think: wow, this is great!!! Well, not everyone...

A question of capacity and investment

While all operators see in this trend a great news for their data revenues, which have soared along with its usage; they also see a threat, very short terms, in a sense that, well... they don't have the network infrastructures to withstand such high data demands!!

What mobile operators face, and thus consumers as well, is saturated networks, dropped calls, long connexion time. To cope with this, operators have to invest huge amounts in servers and infrastructures; but it won't be enough and it's most of all impacting their profit margins.

The short to mid term solution is the 4G or "LTE".  Apparently Verizon will announce today at the CTIA its launch of the first American LTE network in the 30 NFL cities (read more here). AT&T has announced mid September launching commercial LTE by mid 2011. I won't argue on the technical aspect of the evolution of the network, but it seems that LTE is the direction most operators are taking.

Now you would say, why hasn't 4G been implemented before or why isn't it implemented at larger scale. I haven't honestly investigated deep in into this, but putting the following 2 information together, you have an aswer, about AT&T (from their press releases):

• "The company is spending $700 million in capital expenditures on LTE this year and "will go far beyond that" in 2011, Stankey said.
• "During the first quarter of 2010, AT&T’s mobile data revenue was up nearly $1 billion, surging $947 million to $4.1 billion, up 29.8 percent over last year’s Q1. AT&T says its wireless data revenues have nearly doubled over the past two years."

So on one side they are investing $700 to upgrade the networks, and $4.1 billion in revenues on data just in Q1 (still growing); which will also probably increase again with tiered pricing.

So  the short terms solution is implementing tiered pricing. This means that "true unlimited data plans" are over, and now mobile operators will implement various data plans for different data usage; with main goal to limit the data usage and to keep their profit margins while still investing in necessary infrastructure.

Many operators have already done it:

• Orange France; most of their "unlimited" data plans are in fact capped (need to read the small print)
•  AT&T - Read article of FierceCIO, June 2010
• Verizon - Read article of intomobile.com, September 2010
• O2 UK - Read article of mobilegetspersonal.com, June 2010
• etc.

Now it's true that most consumers, yet, only consume small amounts (below 2 GB per month) and that the data plans are more meant to limit heavy users. For example, in Cnet's article (July), they wrote:

"Those most affected by the change are the 3 percent of customers who AT&T says are using 40 percent of the network assets. These are heavy data users. It will also likely affect iPad users and customers who want to use their iPhone or smartphone as a modem to connect to the Internet wirelessly."

Basically, early adopters of new technologies will be penalized; at least that's what they say, and this represents only a small portion of consumers.

Bottom line: a constrained mobile eCommerce environment!

On one side, operators are giving up the "all you can eat", but on the other side they are all going to launch soon the LTE which will solve many capacity issues (apparently)...

But what worries me most is that the depth of usage of true mobile Internet, in an unrestricted way, is not yet for tomorrow. It's no secret that eCommerce really exploded when Internet connection got cheaper, unlimited and fast (ADSL, fixed monthly plan where you can consume without any limitations).

With all new devices, new usage, new applications, all Internet (and thus data) dependant, if mobile operators are to curb Internet usage, well, it will necessarily slow down its true adoption as a full eCommerce / information space. If usage is increasing, it's because there's simply more people with a decent device being to connect; not because most consumers (will) consider their mobile devices as a their prime Internet device; which is the direction it's taking.

To me, it thus sounds like there's a dichotomy between what the industry is pushing us to use (devices, content, etc), and data consumption limitations.... 

Let's hope that this is just a temporary situation.

An opportunity though...

As in any environment, when constraints are set, there are always smart people developing situations to go around this.

So short term, I would really monitor companies offering services allowing to decrease data needed to send/receive data. We're talking data encryption, video standards, etc.

It makes sense! When gaz consumption is increasing and you want to limit it, either you increase  taxes to limit its consumption; either you build cars more fuel efficient. All manufacturers have chosen the latter solution; so why isn't the mobile industry doing the same?

Interesting articles

• "The Wireless Data Crunch" Torronto's Globe and Mail; June 2nd 2010 
• " Mobile video traffic: Alleviating the capacity crunch" FierceWireless, July 6th, 2010
• "The Mobile Bandwidth Crunch: Strategies for the Next Decade", Wireless Week, August 20th, 2010
• " Is 4G Better Than 3G?", Discovery News, March 30th, 2010

Mobile OS war; Nokia's symbian losing 2 major supporters

In past few days, 2 major phone manufacturers, i.e. SonyEricsson (Sept 24th) and Samsung (Oct 1st); have announced that they will not longer support Symbian.

Per se it's not so surprising since SE is really struggling and Samsung has developped its Bada; and both are fully supporting Android!

But it's a serious drawback to Nokia who bought all remaining shares of Symbian in 2008 for €264 million; and looking at the competition coming, even opened the sources of Symbian back in February; hoping for more OEM and developers to use it.

While all the other manufacturers are leveraging the shared experience of Android and also developing their own OS for some markets; this leaves Nokia pertty much alone here. Can Symbian compete against Android in terms of speed of innovation and implementation; for the mass market? The worlds "speed" and "mass market" are critical here; especially since Android phones are starting to compete against Nokia's stronghold: the cheap phones in developing countries.

About the MeeGo, which is the continuation of the Maemo (remember the N900, one of Nokia's biggest failures); are consumers going to wait for it for long (nothing about this at recent Nokia World 2010)? Time is, as always, a critical factor.

But what is truly behind the OS war?

- Ability to innovate and bring those innovations to market, fast.

- Ability to attract developers; as we know that content is a key element of the smartphone business.

Something to follow very close!

Ovi isn't top of mind for Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg

Nokia World 2010 just ended. We have all read a bunch of news about this even, their new devices, etc.; and eventually watched the keynote speach video. One of their key points was around "developers", they had also their Nokia Developer Summit 2010.

Why is it so important? Well, because Nokia wants to become a service company and thus places OVI at the center of it strategy, along with their hardware. It's also because Apps are becoming a intricated part of the smartphone story, and you can't sell a smartphone without selling good apps. Apple understood this, even if they make only 1,2% of their income from the AppStore.

But to have good apps, you need good developers, and to get good developers in, well, they need to make a good living out of it! And this is THE tricky part!

Here's a very interesting quote that sums it all up:

"And then, we invest differently in different platforms depending on how big they are, and how many users are there. So, iPhone is the one we’re investing in the most now, and Android increasingly. If Windows Phone 7 takes off, then I’m sure we’ll put resources on that." Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, in an article from TechCrunch (22/09/2010)

Basically, one of the most (if not THE most) used application on a mobile summarizes the interest from developers in different platforms: 1) iOS, 2) Android and eventually WIndows Phone 7. No mention of Nokia!!! We know that the US is not particularly strong market for Nokia, but still, Marc is also super aware of the importance of Facebook outside the US... But Facebook is available on OVI. So why such an ommission?

This is quite significative of the interest from developers into OVI. I have attented quite a few meetings from startups, followed a lot of new aps, and usually companies start their development in the same order.

Same reaction during Mobile Monday Silicon Valley - August 2010 event "So Many App Stores…Now what? ", check the number of developpers who will develop in Symbian versus iOS or Android...

The reason is simple: revenues!

I have already written an article about the billing issue (read Google, Android, OVI and the billing issue, why it's still an issue! ), but I wanted to take a closer look at OVI, especially since they are frequently announcing more daily downloads, the latest being 2 million downloads per day!

Graph below shows the progression of daily downloads as announced by Nokia (using only press articles). As you can see, there's quite a nice progression (scale is in million downloads)

Nokia also announced a very good news for developers, starting October 2010, Nokia will give 60% of the net end-user price as revenue share to developers on purchases made through operator billing (read article here).

So to make my mind up, I did try Ovi on my "old" Nokia N95, and here it is below.

 

Ovi Home Page

Game Home Page

By default, you arrive on "Recommanded", and it's 100% free Apps. If you select "Games" ("Jeux" here), by default you land on the Free Games page ("Afficher: Gratuit", gratuit = free); with just one paid game featured.

 

Paid Games Section

Paying for a game

Only when selecting paid games that you can find a selection of games for purchase. When selecting "payment mode", well, for the largest operator in France (Orange) as of yesterday (22/09/2010), you still only had credit card payment. Yes, of course they just announced an agreement with Orange (read article), probably was a long negotiation over the revenue-share issue!

But bottom-line is that Nokia's strategy is #1 to drive traffic to OVI by increasing number of unique users! Then, and only then will we worry about payment. But what better than free stuff to drive traffic? After all, delivering the free Nokia Maps was a pretty smart move to help sell its devices; so why not with Apps.

Well, the difference is that Nokia Maps was a pretty hefty purchase from Nokia for $8.1 billion back in October 2007! But apps; well, they depend on app developpers. Many are happy in distributing free apps (for numerous reasons); but in the end, you must sell to make a living!

So no wonder why most developers think about OVI last...

Interview With Mark Zuckerberg On The “Facebook Phone”

I am sure you have all heard the rumour about Facebook planning on buidling a mobile phone.

3 - INQ phone

TechCrunch did publish an Interview of Facebook CEO's Mark Zuckerberg about the subject. His interviews are pretty rare, but given the increasing importance of social networks, especially on mobile (which is to overcome desktop internet very soon according to Morgan Stanley), this one is a "must read" I think.

Couple interesting extracts:

"But the basic thing that we’ve found from building social apps and this platform ourselves is that almost any experience or app can be better if it’s social and it has your friends with you. And we just expect there to be really tremendous disruption over the next five years."


"The web is only at one and a half billion people whereas everyone is going to have a phone and all the phones are going to be smartphones. So our strategy is that we want to go wherever people are building apps so we can make all of those apps social if they want that."

" Just make it so that you log into your phone once, and then everything that you do on your phone is social."


Read TechCrunch article!!

What I totally agree on, is whatever is to be done on Mobile, it has to be social: apps, marketing, e-Commerce. A mobile phone has always been a personal thing: a direct access to each individual, then with personal pictures, and now personal information / experience sharing.

Have you ever seen a smartphone promo not mentioning Facebook? I surely didn't. So this is to be watched very closely because Facebook is bringing to the mobile world the same (if not bigger) disruption Apple did couple years ago with the iPhone.

Contenus mobiles: pourquoi beaucoup d'opérateurs abandonnent la partie!

De nos jours, toute l'industrie, tous les médias, ne font parler que des "applications", les nouveaux développement, les nouvelles plateformes et leur essor incroyable, avec un business très juteux!




AppStore oui, mais Vodafone live?

Néanmoins, on parle beaucoup plus de l'App Store d'Apple, de l'Android Market de Google et eventuellement des portails de téléchargements des autres fabriquants tels RIM (Blackberry), Samsung (avec son Samsung Apps) voir Microsoft (Windows Marketplace) et SonyEricsson. Mais on parle beaucoup moins de l'Orange Store, d'Orange World, de Vodafone Live!, de t-zones ou même de Litmus, la tentative d'O2 de faire dans les apps (ça a été lancé??).


Oui, je vois des pubs SFR, ou Bouygues, ou Orange sur l'iPhone et toutes les applis que l'on peut trouver. Mais ils ne communiquent pas sur leurs propres stratégies "contenus"; il n'y a aucune différentiation sur le produit tel quel. La différentiation se fait sur la tarification du téléphone ainsi que du "pack" data. Et encore, en France on ne peut pas dire que la concurrence fasse rage! L'entrée de Free va-t-elle tout chambouler?


Il y a bien cette dernière nouvelle d'Orange qui verrait bien un OS commun à Orange, Vodafone et Deutsche Telekom, mais bon, le temps qu'ils se mettent à table, on sera en 2015 et d'ici là...!!!


Désinvestissement sur les contenus téléchargeables / applis payantes.


L'absence grandissante (voir totale dans certains cas) des opérateurs sur les contenus mobiles (applications, jeux, etc.) au niveau communication reflète la situation sur le terrain pour une grande majorité des opérateurs de petite et moyenne taille, et une proportion non négligeable des "majors", en Europe mais aussi sur les autres continents! A savoir qu'autant ces opérateurs jouent à fond la carte des smartphones: subventions téléphones, pack internet, etc; avec des offres pertinentes et ciblées pour les jeux (M6 mobiles, NRJ mobile pour la France.); mais peu sont encore ceux qui tablent sur leur propre offre, la majorité "abandonnent" la partie.


En clair, ces opérateurs ne croient plus en la pertinence d'une offre contenus propre, et se positionnent uniquement sur les téléphones et la data; ils n'apportent plus aucun support à leur propre plateforme et même pire, ils externalisent le service à un prestataire de service qui va leur fournir l'hébergement du portail, l'hébergement des contenus, voir même les contenus eux-même en leur donnant mandat de signer les contrats de distribution (en général, de "re-négocier") avec les principaux fournisseurs de contenus. Le message est clair, il faut maintenir un service minimum pour assurer la transition car on a toujours quelques millions d'utilisateurs mobiles "traditionnels" (par opposition aux smartphones); mais au plus faible coût possible.


Rappel: je ne parle pas des "gros" opérateurs qui eux, y croient toujours plus ou moins, selon les cas!


Capitalisation sur les revenus data


Les revenus tirés des contenus mobiles ont toujours été relativement marginaux pour un opérateur; mais assez profitables et surtout leur permettant de communiquer sur des offres pour générer du traffic sur leur portail; et portail = data, seule source d'augmentation de revenus chez les opérateurs depuis quelques années. Donc un contenu d'une relative importance stratégique, musique et jeux mobiles pour la plupart.


Exemple: T-Mobile et Robbie Williams, ou Orange et King Kong pour le lancement de la 3G.


L'avènement de l'iPhone a d'une certaine manière affranchi les opérateurs de leur besoin d'avoir leurs propres contenus pour augmenter les revenus de la data. On comprends donc aisément pourquoi TOUS les opérateurs ont accepté sans broncher le business modèle d'Apple sur les contenus: 70% pour les éditeurs, 30% pour Apple, 0% pour les opérateurs!
L'iPhone, l'arme absolue pour les opérateurs leur a ainsi permis de capter de nouveaux clients (et des clietns "premium") quand ils avaient l'exclusivité (AT&T, Orange France, etc) et de voir une croissance sans précédent des revenus. Certains ont même accepté de reverser à Apple une partie des revenus d'abonnement, du jamais vu (ces clauses sont à présent éteintes)!


Les Echos écrivaient en février 2009 "L'iPhone est une véritable machine à cash pour Orange. Au terme de 18 mois, les 450.000 clients ayant acquis un iPhone 3G ont permis à l'entreprise de dégager un chiffre d'affaires de près de 700 millions d'euros". Ca se passe de commentaires.


L'arrivée sur le marché de concurrents de l'iPhone, et notamment des téléphones Android qui devraient bientôt supplanter l'iPhone en termes de ventes totales (on fera l'opposition App Store / Android Market) va permettre d'alimenter cette croissance du traffic data (et donc des revenus).


Arik Benayoun (Degroupnews.com) écrivait en mars 2010: "Le trafic 3G a dépassé celui de la 2G, et augmenté de 280% ces deux dernières années. Cette progression ne devrait pas s'arrêter en si bon chemin, puisqu'il est prévu que ce trafic double chaque année pendant cinq ans."


Jusque là, tout va bien! Les revenus sont au rendez-vous et prennent le relai sur une concurrence accrue sur la voix / SMS (un ARPU en baisse pour la plupart des opérateurs).


"Dumb pipes" ou "no dumb pipes"

C'est un classique, qui ne l'a pas entendu. L'article de Mobile Entertainment "Voda Chief: we're no dumb pipe" (nous ne sommes pas des tuyaux débiles", pour faire du littéral), daté du 19 novembre 2007. Vodafone avait claqué à la porte à Apple pour l'iPhone et croyait encore et toujours à sa bonne étoile.


Pourquoi est-ce toujours si important aujourd'hui?


C'est simple: la fourniture de contenus, c'est le clients qui l'obtient directement via les Apps que lui fournissent Nokia, Apple, Android, en laissant à l'opérateur le seul soin de leur fournir le téléphone et surtout les plans data. Il n'y a qu'à voir les pub iPhone (toujours aujourd'hui), aucune différence entre une pub SFR, une pub Orange et une pub Bouygues...  Le seul objectif est de rappeler aux clients que, "oui nous aussi on a l'iPhone".


Un téléphone exclusif, ça devient rare. Reste pour la différentiation les plans tarifaires (hormis bien sûr s'il y a entente illégale sur les tarifs, cf en France). Même Vodafone a abandonné ses téléphones Android vendus sous sa marque (le fameux H2), cf mon article sur Vodafone "Mobile operators and the content World. Episode 1: Vodafone 360".


Que resterait-il donc à l'opérateur: vendre des plans tarifaires, vendre des MB? D'où le commentaire du CEO de Vodafone. Mais aujourd'hui, c'est bel et bien là qu'ils en sont revenus, mais à présent cela n'a pas l'air de leur causer un problème, la croissance est au rendez-vous!


Mais où est le problème alors?


Autant sur l'iPhone, les opérateurs ont été mis à l'écart dès de début sur les revenus des applications (hors data); autant sur les autres téléphones, là n'est pas le cas. Que ce soit Ovi ou Android (pour prendre les plus grands), la facturation des contenus repose principalement sur la carte de crédit, informations déposées sur le mobile lui-même par un processus complexe auquel très peu de clients on adhéré, surtout quand on pense aux millions de téléchargements (Nokia mentionne "plus de 1,7 million de téléchargements par jour sur l’Ovi Store" en 2009; mais quid des revenus?)  - La facturation via l'opérateur n'est que très peu utilisée (Nokia mentionne 75 opérateurs dans 22 pays, franchement pas folichon pour un leader du marché), et in fine, à contrario d'Apple qui communique clairement sur son chiffre d'affaires sur l'AppStore (relativement faible, ~ $500 millions / an); Nokia ne communique absolument pas sur le CA généré, pour une simple et bonne raison: c'est anecdotique. Ce qui est sûr c'est que ça aide Nokia a rester "relativement" compétitif pour leur smartphones sur la bataille de com "oui on a xx milliers d'applications sur notre store"... c'est un must pour exister sur la planète smartphones.




Lire mon article "Google Android, Ovi, and the billing issue - why it's still an issue!!"


Quand on laisse le business à Android Market et Ovi qui font la part belles aux applis gratuites, et bien les développeurs boudent ces plateformes car ne font aucun revenus, et in fine on se trouve avec un portail rempli d'app de qualité très très discutable, d'autres très bien, mais gratuites!


Le fond du problème vient donc de deux choses:
1. Smartphones,  oui, mais il ne faut pas oublier sa base de clients. 


Pour la majorité des opérateurs de petite taille ou de taille moyenne en Europe et de part le monde (hors pays du G8 disons), la grande majorité des consommateurs ont toujours un téléphone "classique", devant accéder au wap pour obtenir des contenus!


Oui les smart phones arrivent, et vite; mais il y aura minimum 2-3 ans avant qu'ils ne représentent une majorités des clients. Si entre temps les opérateurs les délaissent, cela donne une très mauvaise image pour les consommateurs, et un manque à gagner sur les revenus de contenus et de data!


Certains opérateurs majeurs européens sont aussi dans cette configuration, malheureusement.






2. Il y a un avenir dans les applis smartphones!


Cela fait plus de deux ans que nous communiquons à nos clients "attention, les smartphones vont arriver en force pour concurrencer l'iPhone qui a tout révolutionné, il faut vous préparer"; résultat: ils sont tous aujourd'hui en mode de "préparation" de leur stratégie, avec donc un an de retard actuel plus au moins un an avant qu'ils n'arrivent à mettre en place quoi que ce soit (s'ils le font). A priori, ils laissent tous HTC, Nokia, Samsung, SonyEricsson, etc faire leur propre store (Android ou Autre). L'arrivée des Android low cost de Huawei risque aussi de bousculer les marchés porteurs pour les contenus mobiles!


D'un côté donc vous avez un son de cloche qui vous dit "oui, on va faire quelque chose, mais de l'autre, on voit bien que le focus n'est vraiment pas là!


La force des opérateurs: Certains opérateurs néanmoins croient toujours en leur pouvoir d'apporter un plus aux consommateurs! Ce plus, c'est a) un environnement eCommerce bien huilé (facturation, traffic), b) une relation cliente privilégiée, de confiance et c) l'image d'innovateur dans les médias mobiles.


Les opérateurs peuvent donc largement combler les lacunes des autres "AppStores", il
 y a donc un avenir réel pour les opérateurs dans les applis / contenus sur smartphones, d'autant plus qu'il s'agit d'un marché à très, très forte croissance (et à valeur ajoutée), et surtout sur les terminaux Android!




La solution: un environnement "maitrisé", outsourcé aux spécialistes!


De même qu'Apple a fait la part belle aux développeurs pour le partage des revenus, opérateurs devraient en faire de même, et même aller plus loin.


Contrairement à Apple qui a construit son propre environnement lui-même, les opérateurs n'ont ni le temps, ni l'expertise d'en faire de même (cf article sur vodafone 360).


La stratégie grandissante de nos jours, c'est donc l'externalisation des services à un prestataire. En soit, il s'agit d'une bonne stratégie, reconnaître que cela n'est pas leur cœur de métier ni expertise.


Les aggrégateurs: plus un problème qu'une véritable solution


Là où le bas blesse, c'est dans le choix des partenaires. Beaucoup prennent des aggrégateurs, c'est à dire des prestataires qui arrivent avec une solution globale, pour tous les contenus. Ce sont soit disant des spécialistes de la distribution, avec un libellé "plateforme eCommerce, etc."  mais en fait, ce sont des généralistes, intermédiaires entre les vrais spécialistes, et les opérateurs. Sur le marché Européen et au Moyen-Orient - Afrique du Nord, ce sont des sociétés souvent composées de petites équipes qui ont concocté une plateforme (avec un certain degré d'expertise, il est vrai), mais qui vivent sur de très, très faibles marges par téléchargements sur le portail; cette marge ne leur permet pas d'être profitable et surtout de pouvoir innover pour suivre l'évolution technologique. De plus, quand ils ont aussi le chapeau de "Master Content Provider", c'est à eux qui revient de sourcer les contenus et signer des accords de distributions avec les éditeurs, le prix des contenus vendus aux consommateurs étant relativement fixé d'avance, leur marge se constitue surtout sur les contenus obtenus à faible prix (et très souvent, de très faible qualité); ceci portant préjudice à l'industrie entière in fine!


Rappel: je ne parle que des contenus téléchargeables et notamment les jeux mobiles (qui représentent la catégorie #1 de contenus payants téléchargés sur les AppStore):


Voici quelques éléments concrets ettayant mes affirmations. Les "majors" de l'aggregation de contenus téléchargeables quittent le business et ré-orientent leur business modèle


Buongiorno: Société italienne, CA 2009 €259 millions, se positionnant comme, je cite, "world's No. 1 company in mobile entertainment", se focalise à présent plus sur le business B2C et le monde des applis, qualifiant leur business B2B de "volatile" et précisant que cette partie de leur busines "saw a significant slowdown in revenue in the first six months of the year compared to the same period of last year [...] this was accompanied by a further downturn in the interactive TV business, which gave high earnings with a modest profitability level - source: Buongiorno 2010 H1 report

End2End, a annoncé fin décembre 2009 mettre fin à ses contrats d'hébergement de portails pour les opérateurs pour se focaliser sur la monaitisations des applications, voyant que les opérateurs délaissent ce marché (source: Mobile entertainment), bien qu'un an avant ils aient gagné le prix de "Best Managed Service Platform" par Mobile Entertainement, comme quoi les choses évoluent très vite!!

Aspiro, aggregateur autrefois incontournable des opérateurs nordiques, Aspiro a annoncé en juillet 2010 la vente de sa division "mobile entertainment", cad aggrégation de contenus pour se focaliser sur les solutions streaming (musique, etc).


Ces exemples illustrent parfaitement le changement d'un business modèle de distributeur / intermédiaires "tout en un" à celui de spécialistes dont je parle!

Fox Mobile: Surtout connue pour sa marque "Jamba", société vendant surtout des contenus en B2C, mais aussi des deals d'aggregation de contenus notamment pour le groupe Orange (deal signé en février 2009). Fox Mobile appartient au Groupe Newscorp. Hors celui-ci a confirmé récemment (Août) vendre sa branche Fox Mobile qui lui a fait perdre $217 millions au 4ème trimestre de son année fiscale!! Eux aussi se focalisent depuis sur la vidéo et les applications (tiens!)




Les "petites" sociétés ont donc pris le relais, s'engouffrant dans la brèche, fonctionnant sur les capitaux levés encore fraichement, mais ça ne durera pas et déjà bon nombre sont sur la scelette! Le problème c'est que pour changer de prestataire quand celui ci gère toute votre offre avec un contrat pluri-annuel, bonne chance!!




Un environnement "maitrisé donc!


Il convient donc aux opérateurs de créer un écosystème favorable, innovant et réactif pour pouvoir capter toute la croissance générée dans le marché. Et qui donc que les spécialistes peuvent fournir le service aux opérateurs?


L'opérateur se doit donc de créer sa stratégie contenus en partenariat avec ces sociétés leaders sur leur marché; construire les fondements d'un écosystème cohérent, c'est à dire une ergonomie commune, une connectivité aux moyens de paiement et une politique éditoriale pour les points les plus importants, laissant aux partenaires le soin de fournir leur propre solution technique qui, si les partenaires sont bien choisis, sont à la pointe de l'innovation. Chacun tire donc profit des avantages des autres.


Effectivement, cela demande de mettre en place quelques partenariats, et plus de travail que de signer avec un seul partenaire; mais chaque spécialiste apportera beaucoup plus à l'opérateur qu'un généraliste. D'autre part, en terme de business modèle, l'opérateur devra se caller sur le business modèle d'Apple et de Google, comme le font Vodafone et timidement Nokia d'ailleurs. Ceci permettra de favoriser l'innovation chez les partenaires.


Pour la partie jeux par exemple, prendre le 1 voire 2 sociétés innovantes sur le marché pour mener à bien l'innovation et faire en sorte que l'offre soit au "top niveau", et ensuite un "agrégateur" technique standard pour laisser une chance aux petits développeurs, sachant que sur l'innovation il est très rare de voir des petits développeur construire une offre fournie et soutenue. Ce système a pour avantage sa réactivité, son faible cout (les couts d'hébergement, création, etc sont soutenus par le partenaire), tout en montrant une grande innovation aux consommateurs.


Mais cela implique des changements radicaux chez les opérateurs: ils doivent faire plus confiance à leur partenaire et lâcher du lest, au lieu d'être des "control freaks" voir des radins! L'embêtant c'est que pour beaucoup de ces opérateurs, ils ne s'en rendront compte qu'une fois trop tard; ça a déjà commencé!

L'effet Whuffie...

Toujours hier pendant l'évènement Quatorzaine des réseaux sociaux, j'ai entendu le terme "effet Whuffie". Parcourant le net, aujourd'hui je découvre donc ce qu'il en est de ce fameux effet; et je m'apperçois que mon intervention d'hier aurait pu être nommée: "L'effet Whuffie appliqué aux jeux vidéos".

(c) Tara Hunt

En effet, lisant ce paragraphe issue d'une interview de l'auteur du livre du même nom, Tara Hunt, sur Bnet, je m'apperçois que oui, c'est ce que l'on fait aujourd'hui, du Whuffie Factor sans le savoir!

Extrait de l'article:
"the one-way communication of mass media started to lose it’s power. There have been a few good studies lately that show that word-of-mouth recommendations between friends and ‘people like me’ are only getting stronger. Therefore, the marketing that uses pure bullhorn type techniques are missing out on a huge opportunity."

Domage que j'ai raté son intervention à l'Institut G9+ en décembre dernier....  Son blog http://www.horsepigcow.com/