By Kevin Fitchard, Telephony Online
(http://www.telephonyonline.com/wireless/news/mobile-advertising-carriers-0228/index.html)
As mobile advertising gears up, one of the basic components of the ad network is still missing: the carrier. Though mobile operators hold a wealth of information on their customers, it’s still sitting dormant in the customer relations management and back office systems. The first mobile ad platforms have begun to launch without access to those databases, potentially leaving operators out to dry in what may be one of the most lucrative opportunities in wireless.
At the Mobile World Congress, Nokia launched its mobile ad network, based on the assets it acquired with its purchase of Enpocket in October. The network comprised 70 different publishers, including Nokia’s own mobile portal properties as well as worldwide publishers such as Hearst, Reuters and the Discovery Network. It included advertisers like Paramount and BMW, and even included a service provider, Sprint. But one thing the network does not do is incorporate the user data of the carriers whose networks these ads will run over, said Mike Baker, former CEO of Enpocket and current head of Nokia Interactive’s new ad business.
The interfaces between carrier customer data and ad networks haven’t yet been developed, and it could take years before an open link between their arcane back office systems and ad platforms emerges, Baker said. In the interim, mobile adverting networks are going forward without them, compiling their own user databases, Baker said. Publishers and advertisers can’t afford to wait. Even in its infancy mobile ads are a $1 billion a year business, Baker said.
“We’re taking a pragmatic approach,” Baker said. “It will take three years for that subscriber data to filter back to our network, so on our own network we’re surveying the end customers and building our own databases.”
The irony of the situation, though, is that the more customer information that the ad networks collect, the less need they’ll have the carrier data when it is finally available. Through surveys and tracking customer behavior on mobile portals and sites, the ad networks can compile much of that information. When the carriers are ready to contribute, ad networks could already have the necessary data to target ads most effectively.
Still, operators' stores of information are vast and are constantly updated. That information can also be applied across the spectrum of the mobile Internet, not just on a site where a user has a history. But it’s still a matter of debate how valuable that information is, no matter how granular, Baker said.
“Even if I had all of these data fields on Mike Baker, how do I use that data for mobile advertising?” Baker said. “Maybe it’s more relevant to know what I click on than the fact I’m 44 years old.”
IBM telecom group general manager Michael Hill doesn’t agree with Baker that carrier customer data is overrated, but he does agree that operators need to be much faster at integrating it with ad networks. IBM along with several other software companies is trying to find ways of aggregating that data presenting it in a useful way to advertising platforms.
“They have fabulous data,” Hill said of the operators. “The problem is it’s so scattered. The first thing we need to do is put that data in a usable format.” Data the carrier can track and centralize will have enormous relevance to advertisers, going far beyond just basic demographic info. The customer’s pinpointed location, via GPS or cellular triangulation, can be used to tailor ads. Presence data such as whether a user is at home, at work, available to chat or offline would also help networks target ads.
Content providers and ad networks are already compiling some of that data, though. Google applications such as Maps already access location data natively from their onboard applications. It’s not too far a stretch to imagine Google using that data to target text ads. IM applications on the device could similarly leverage presence data for on-board display ads. The problem with those scenarios is information exists in a vacuum. Only the operator can aggregate the data, combine it with information from other applications and its own customer databases and then mine it to produce a comprehensive profile used for the highly accurate targeting mobile advertising promises, Hill said. For carriers there’s a definite urgency in installing the systems that can aggregate that data, Hill said, but it’s no simple task.
“An operator could take in a continuous stream of X and Y coordinates from millions users, but what the hell do they do with that data?” Hill said. “You need to be able to put that data to some use, and you need to be able to sort through it to determine what’s relevant.”
How carriers use that location and presence information is still a matter of some debate. While serving up an ad when a user requests specific information from a Web or maps search may not raise any red flags, using such personal information as whom a customer calls and his or her exact location could raise privacy hackles. Many companies that now use location-based data are restricting what information they collect and store from customers, and plans to use aggregated data are being launched entirely under opt-in situations.
Ultimately, it could be those opt-in scenarios that tie the operator and ad networks closely together. Though ad platforms may not be dependent on carrier data, they are dependent on the carrier networks to deliver services and ads, and the cost of wireless data connections is one of single biggest barriers to bringing more people to mobile Internet services. A relationship between the advertiser and operator would not only supply the advertiser with more granular information about the customer but also a means for the carrier to subsidize mobile data services to the customer. The better the information, the higher the cost per thousand of any given ad, meaning more revenue to be split between the publisher and the operator. The more revenue the operator receives the more it can discount the price of its data connections, which in turn would bring more users to the network and more eyeballs to the ads.
The goal is to bring that symbiotic relationship to the point where all wireless data services are free to the end user, funded entirely by ad revenues, said Hal Steger, vice president of marketing for Funambol. Funambol is in the e-mail business, which it offers as a white-label service to carriers subsidized by ad revenue.
“Our customers have found they can make almost as much money for free as they can offering it for a few dollars a month,” Steger said.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
TRAI: SMSs losing their flavour
By Joji Thomas Philip, TNN (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/TRAI_SMSs_losing_their_flavour/articleshow/2437987.cms)
Are text messages slowly losing their flavor with India’s growing cellular base?
Even as operators say it’s too early to take a call and make such a ‘sweeping statement’, the figures, however, suggest so. Data compiled by telecom regulator TRAI reveal that SMS use has steadily fallen from September 2006.
Consider this: GSM operators have witnessed close to 9% drop in the outgoing SMSs during the April – June quarter, as per the latest performance indicator report by TRAI. This implies, an average GSM user now sends about 35 SMSs per month as compared to 39 during the previous quarter.
Little wonder that GSM operators’ total revenue from SMS has now fallen below the 5% mark. Ditto on the CDMA front — the number of outgoing SMSs by customers using this technology platform has declined to 20 during the quarter-ended June against 24 SMSs during the January – March, 2007 quarter.
If one were to consider the earlier quarter (January – March, 2007), the fall in SMS usage is more dramatic – GSM operators saw a 19% decline in outgoing text messages during this period. Outgoing SMS per subscriber (for GSM) had declined by 18.75% from 48 in December 2006 to 39 in March 2007.
“This decline in usage could perhaps be linked to revision in SMS tariffs by several GSM service providers. During the quarter, there have been tariff reports indicating reduction in the number of free and discounted SMS under various packs and plans, increase in the rate for SMS, restriction on the usage of free/discounted SMS on festival/customary days. Thus, this could be a case of higher prices pushing down the usage,” TRAI had said. In this same period (Jan-March), the revenue from SMS for CDMA operators declined to 2% from 3% in December 2006.
Disputing TRAI’s figure of higher SMS tariffs, an executive with a leading GSM operator pointed that a possible explanation for the fall in text messages could be due to the steady increase in the minutes of cellular usage. “For GSM players, the average increase in outgoing minutes of usage (MOU) was 2.2% during the last quarter.
The actual figure can be much higher if one were to consider the fact that most of the new users are coming from semi-urban and rural India – a factor that can drag the MOU downwards,” the executive said. The executive also added that the average SMS usage was bound to fall as operators went rural as customers in non-urban areas were comparably less text savvy.
Another service provider pointed out that rationalization of tariff plans, where many players discontinued non-profitable SMS packages could have led to the small decline. The executive also said that despite the fractional dip in SMS usage, the overall revenues of all operators from value added services was increasing every quarter. “There is a substantial increase in revenues from VAS. SMS is no longer the single driving force behind VAS revenues — music, gaming and other applications contribute significantly,” he added.
Are text messages slowly losing their flavor with India’s growing cellular base?
Even as operators say it’s too early to take a call and make such a ‘sweeping statement’, the figures, however, suggest so. Data compiled by telecom regulator TRAI reveal that SMS use has steadily fallen from September 2006.
Consider this: GSM operators have witnessed close to 9% drop in the outgoing SMSs during the April – June quarter, as per the latest performance indicator report by TRAI. This implies, an average GSM user now sends about 35 SMSs per month as compared to 39 during the previous quarter.
Little wonder that GSM operators’ total revenue from SMS has now fallen below the 5% mark. Ditto on the CDMA front — the number of outgoing SMSs by customers using this technology platform has declined to 20 during the quarter-ended June against 24 SMSs during the January – March, 2007 quarter.
If one were to consider the earlier quarter (January – March, 2007), the fall in SMS usage is more dramatic – GSM operators saw a 19% decline in outgoing text messages during this period. Outgoing SMS per subscriber (for GSM) had declined by 18.75% from 48 in December 2006 to 39 in March 2007.
“This decline in usage could perhaps be linked to revision in SMS tariffs by several GSM service providers. During the quarter, there have been tariff reports indicating reduction in the number of free and discounted SMS under various packs and plans, increase in the rate for SMS, restriction on the usage of free/discounted SMS on festival/customary days. Thus, this could be a case of higher prices pushing down the usage,” TRAI had said. In this same period (Jan-March), the revenue from SMS for CDMA operators declined to 2% from 3% in December 2006.
Disputing TRAI’s figure of higher SMS tariffs, an executive with a leading GSM operator pointed that a possible explanation for the fall in text messages could be due to the steady increase in the minutes of cellular usage. “For GSM players, the average increase in outgoing minutes of usage (MOU) was 2.2% during the last quarter.
The actual figure can be much higher if one were to consider the fact that most of the new users are coming from semi-urban and rural India – a factor that can drag the MOU downwards,” the executive said. The executive also added that the average SMS usage was bound to fall as operators went rural as customers in non-urban areas were comparably less text savvy.
Another service provider pointed out that rationalization of tariff plans, where many players discontinued non-profitable SMS packages could have led to the small decline. The executive also said that despite the fractional dip in SMS usage, the overall revenues of all operators from value added services was increasing every quarter. “There is a substantial increase in revenues from VAS. SMS is no longer the single driving force behind VAS revenues — music, gaming and other applications contribute significantly,” he added.
Friday, September 28, 2007
IPOs, M&A in mobile value-added services
By Namitha Jagadeesh at LiveMint.com (in association with WSJ)
http://www.livemint.com/2007/08/28235859/IPOs-MampA-in-mobile-value.html
The entry of investors such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers in a relatively nascent space, such as mobile VAS, is also evidence of the sector maturing.
Two mobile value-added services (VAS) start-ups—New Delhi-based Cellebrum.Com Pvt. Ltd and Bangalore-based OnMobile Global Ltd—are slated to go public this fiscal. The proposed initial public offerings (IPOs) signal the maturing of the mobile VAS industry, the highest funded start-up segment in the past two years, with more than $150 million in funding.
OnMobile and Cellebrum, along with peers such as One97 Communications (P) Ltd and Bharti Telesoft Ltd, have also lined up acquisitions during the year, which will lead to what could be dubbed the first phase of consolidation in a barely seven-year-old industry.
As this consolidation plays out over the next 12-18 months, the industry is expected to align along two clear lines—large, multi-services players and the next generation of niche start-ups.
The industry’s fast-track evolution is riding on the back of the country’s exploding mobile subscriber base—up from 108 million in July 2006 to 193 million now. Revenues from mobile VAS were Rs2,850 crore in 2006 and are projected to touch Rs4,650 crore this year-end. This includes revenues earned by VAS companies and telecom services operators, who share the revenue.
“At this stage, large players are looking to grow larger. Part of the capital raised through the IPO will fund acquisitions in the data space,” said Arvind Rao, CEO, OnMobile. Until three years ago, the Infosys Technologies Ltd-incubated start-up was chiefly focused on voice-based service offerings, such as interactive voice customer care and ringtones for telecom operators. Since then, it has diversified into data and is keen on next-generation applications, such as advertising and social networking. It has already pushed through one acquisition—ITFinity Solutions Pvt. Ltd last December—after it received $27.8 million in third-round funding from Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and Polygon Investment Partners.
Peer Cellebrum, backed by New Delhi-based MCorpGlobal, got $15 million as first- round funding from Lehman Brothers around the same time. “We are looking at acquisitions both in India and overseas,” said Saket Agarwal, COO, Cellebrum. It set up an incubation cell last year in which it seeded mobile social networking company MobiSoc.
A multi-services offering would imply a combination of managed platform services across voice, WAP (wireless access protocol, a way to access the Internet through mobile phones) and SMS (short messaging services), content development and syndication, mobile data and voice applications, and enterprise mobile solutions. Not all companies in this space currently offer all services. Even early movers such as OnMobile have chosen to stay out of content. Other players in the space include IMI Mobile Ltd, Mobile2win India Pvt. Ltd and People Infocom Pvt. Ltd (which operates under the brand name Mauj).
As the country’s mobile subscriber base continues to explode, telecom operators have begun to prefer a few mobile VAS players who can offer the full gamut of services. “Players are encroaching into each other’s areas to expand their offerings,” said Vijay Shekar Sharma, founder and CEO, One97 Communications. The company has mandated an investment banker to keep an eye on firms in mobile advertising, utilities, content and mobile commerce.
Revenue models are also changing. Earlier, players would charge a one-time fee to build a WAP or voice platform for the operator (telco), and charge a regular maintenance fee. However, that is changing into a revenue-share model, where the mobile VAS player collects a portion of the user-generated fee per download or transaction. Revenue share remains a bone of contention between the operator and the VAS player, as the former keeps the majority share, often 60% to 80%. VAS firms, though, hope this will change as the industry matures, as it has in other evolved mobile markets.
The entry of investors such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers in a relatively nascent space, such as mobile VAS, is also evidence of the sector maturing. Both are later stage, private equity investors and, significantly, have been marked for their pre-IPO deals in this market. “It is good for the industry to have exits through IPOs, as it sets a benchmark for those to follow,” said Sandeep Singhal, director, Nexus India Capital, which has invested in two mobile VAS start-ups—Mobile2win and Kirusa Inc. Most venture capitalists (VCs) active in the space seem to think that the funding cycle for multi-services players has ended. “We are now seeing companies in the next generation of applications,” said Kanwaljit Singh, managing director, Helion Venture Partners.
Niches that have now become attractive to venture capital firms include m-commerce, local search, mobile advertising, social networking and location-based services. Start-ups in these niches, most less than two years old, have begun to get funded, both by early-stage VCs and angels.
And acquisitions planned by the larger players could also target such start-ups down the line.
http://www.livemint.com/2007/08/28235859/IPOs-MampA-in-mobile-value.html
The entry of investors such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers in a relatively nascent space, such as mobile VAS, is also evidence of the sector maturing.
Two mobile value-added services (VAS) start-ups—New Delhi-based Cellebrum.Com Pvt. Ltd and Bangalore-based OnMobile Global Ltd—are slated to go public this fiscal. The proposed initial public offerings (IPOs) signal the maturing of the mobile VAS industry, the highest funded start-up segment in the past two years, with more than $150 million in funding.
OnMobile and Cellebrum, along with peers such as One97 Communications (P) Ltd and Bharti Telesoft Ltd, have also lined up acquisitions during the year, which will lead to what could be dubbed the first phase of consolidation in a barely seven-year-old industry.
As this consolidation plays out over the next 12-18 months, the industry is expected to align along two clear lines—large, multi-services players and the next generation of niche start-ups.
The industry’s fast-track evolution is riding on the back of the country’s exploding mobile subscriber base—up from 108 million in July 2006 to 193 million now. Revenues from mobile VAS were Rs2,850 crore in 2006 and are projected to touch Rs4,650 crore this year-end. This includes revenues earned by VAS companies and telecom services operators, who share the revenue.
“At this stage, large players are looking to grow larger. Part of the capital raised through the IPO will fund acquisitions in the data space,” said Arvind Rao, CEO, OnMobile. Until three years ago, the Infosys Technologies Ltd-incubated start-up was chiefly focused on voice-based service offerings, such as interactive voice customer care and ringtones for telecom operators. Since then, it has diversified into data and is keen on next-generation applications, such as advertising and social networking. It has already pushed through one acquisition—ITFinity Solutions Pvt. Ltd last December—after it received $27.8 million in third-round funding from Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and Polygon Investment Partners.
Peer Cellebrum, backed by New Delhi-based MCorpGlobal, got $15 million as first- round funding from Lehman Brothers around the same time. “We are looking at acquisitions both in India and overseas,” said Saket Agarwal, COO, Cellebrum. It set up an incubation cell last year in which it seeded mobile social networking company MobiSoc.
A multi-services offering would imply a combination of managed platform services across voice, WAP (wireless access protocol, a way to access the Internet through mobile phones) and SMS (short messaging services), content development and syndication, mobile data and voice applications, and enterprise mobile solutions. Not all companies in this space currently offer all services. Even early movers such as OnMobile have chosen to stay out of content. Other players in the space include IMI Mobile Ltd, Mobile2win India Pvt. Ltd and People Infocom Pvt. Ltd (which operates under the brand name Mauj).
As the country’s mobile subscriber base continues to explode, telecom operators have begun to prefer a few mobile VAS players who can offer the full gamut of services. “Players are encroaching into each other’s areas to expand their offerings,” said Vijay Shekar Sharma, founder and CEO, One97 Communications. The company has mandated an investment banker to keep an eye on firms in mobile advertising, utilities, content and mobile commerce.
Revenue models are also changing. Earlier, players would charge a one-time fee to build a WAP or voice platform for the operator (telco), and charge a regular maintenance fee. However, that is changing into a revenue-share model, where the mobile VAS player collects a portion of the user-generated fee per download or transaction. Revenue share remains a bone of contention between the operator and the VAS player, as the former keeps the majority share, often 60% to 80%. VAS firms, though, hope this will change as the industry matures, as it has in other evolved mobile markets.
The entry of investors such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers in a relatively nascent space, such as mobile VAS, is also evidence of the sector maturing. Both are later stage, private equity investors and, significantly, have been marked for their pre-IPO deals in this market. “It is good for the industry to have exits through IPOs, as it sets a benchmark for those to follow,” said Sandeep Singhal, director, Nexus India Capital, which has invested in two mobile VAS start-ups—Mobile2win and Kirusa Inc. Most venture capitalists (VCs) active in the space seem to think that the funding cycle for multi-services players has ended. “We are now seeing companies in the next generation of applications,” said Kanwaljit Singh, managing director, Helion Venture Partners.
Niches that have now become attractive to venture capital firms include m-commerce, local search, mobile advertising, social networking and location-based services. Start-ups in these niches, most less than two years old, have begun to get funded, both by early-stage VCs and angels.
And acquisitions planned by the larger players could also target such start-ups down the line.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Mobile Email will eventually kill SMS
Indeed, a bold statement there. Had it not been an announcement from Gartner, I would have pretty much ignored it. Here is what they have to say...
Gartner predicts a fifth of all email will be wireless by 2010
There will be 350 million business and consumer users with access to wireless email by 2010, according to analyst firm Gartner, equating to 20 per cent of all email accounts.
Although there are currently fewer than 20 million business users of wireless email worldwide, representing just two per cent of all email accounts, with the increasing availability of wireless email support both in devices and from service providers as well as by improved usability Gartner expects wireless email to reach commodity status by 2012.
This rise will see email take over from other messaging services like text messages and MMS as they lack many of the restrictions these tools suffer from. It is estimated that around 114 million text messages are currently sent every day, so it may be quite some time until mobile email completely overtakes SMS.
"Over the next three years wireless email will become increasingly popular with both businesses and consumers," said Monica Basso, research vice president at Gartner.
"By 2012, wireless email products will be fully interoperable, commoditised and have standard features. They will be shipping in larger volumes at greatly reduced prices."
A longer term trend that will accompany wireless email adoption is convergence, as users choose a single tool to help simplify communication.
"Convergence will happen on the client side, hiding technology complexity from users and allowing them to focus on messaging content. By 2017, wireless email will be fully integrated with other messaging tools into personal, converged communications," added Basso.
This move towards convergence will have its consequences as growth in the consumer market will also rise as enterprises come under increased pressure to provide real-time communications for their expanding mobile workforce.
Another problem is that the increasing convergence of corporate and consumer technologies will also leave many user organisations exposed to increased security risks.
"Today wireless email is spreading across the enterprise and if not supported by the IT organisation, individuals will find their own ways to access work email on personal devices with significant security implications," warned Basso.
Rather than fighting the inevitable, Basso concludes with the advice that companies should accept the commoditisation of mobility products and rather focus on the full impact of wireless email on the IT organisation when planning a wireless email strategy.
By: Ian Williams, vnunet.com 30 Jul 2007
From : http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2195250/mobile-email-eventually-kill-SMS
Gartner predicts a fifth of all email will be wireless by 2010
There will be 350 million business and consumer users with access to wireless email by 2010, according to analyst firm Gartner, equating to 20 per cent of all email accounts.
Although there are currently fewer than 20 million business users of wireless email worldwide, representing just two per cent of all email accounts, with the increasing availability of wireless email support both in devices and from service providers as well as by improved usability Gartner expects wireless email to reach commodity status by 2012.
This rise will see email take over from other messaging services like text messages and MMS as they lack many of the restrictions these tools suffer from. It is estimated that around 114 million text messages are currently sent every day, so it may be quite some time until mobile email completely overtakes SMS.
"Over the next three years wireless email will become increasingly popular with both businesses and consumers," said Monica Basso, research vice president at Gartner.
"By 2012, wireless email products will be fully interoperable, commoditised and have standard features. They will be shipping in larger volumes at greatly reduced prices."
A longer term trend that will accompany wireless email adoption is convergence, as users choose a single tool to help simplify communication.
"Convergence will happen on the client side, hiding technology complexity from users and allowing them to focus on messaging content. By 2017, wireless email will be fully integrated with other messaging tools into personal, converged communications," added Basso.
This move towards convergence will have its consequences as growth in the consumer market will also rise as enterprises come under increased pressure to provide real-time communications for their expanding mobile workforce.
Another problem is that the increasing convergence of corporate and consumer technologies will also leave many user organisations exposed to increased security risks.
"Today wireless email is spreading across the enterprise and if not supported by the IT organisation, individuals will find their own ways to access work email on personal devices with significant security implications," warned Basso.
Rather than fighting the inevitable, Basso concludes with the advice that companies should accept the commoditisation of mobility products and rather focus on the full impact of wireless email on the IT organisation when planning a wireless email strategy.
By: Ian Williams, vnunet.com 30 Jul 2007
From : http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2195250/mobile-email-eventually-kill-SMS
Friday, June 29, 2007
iPhone - Worthy of the Hype, and Much More
Here's an interesting perspective on the iPhone - no, its not yet another review of the iPhone. Rather, this one talks about the overall impact of the iPhone on the telecom industry and more so on the MVAS game. Read on...
The iPhone – Worthy Of The Hype, And Much More
by Derek Kerton, Principal Analyst, The Kerton Group
The iPhone comes out tomorrow, and the hype bandwagon is running at full steam. Usually, I'm the one to write an opinion counter to the hype, but for once, sign me up. I'll run shotgun on this hype bandwagon. Why do I think the iPhone is worthy of all the hype? I'll explain it, section by section in the following article.
You will benefit from the iPhone.
You are going to be better of because of the iPhone, whether you own one or not. It's like the advent of Local Number Portability - for those customers who changed providers, they were able to access a different phone, feature, or pricing plan that they wanted. But even for customers who did NOT switch carriers, they still benefited greatly from the fact that the carriers needed to compete for existing customers. Prior to that, carriers only really competed for new customers. Customer benefits such as free in-network calling, Cingular's "rollover minutes", Sprint's Fair and Flexible plans, T-Mobile's "Five", and VZW's pro-rated early-exit fees are all competitive responses to WLNP.
In a similar vein, the iPhone is forcing all other phone vendors and carriers to raise their game. Responses have been numerous such as Sony Ericsson W580, W200, or the older K790a (all much cheaper), the Helio Ocean (a great multimedia 3G phone), the HTC Touch. And with AT&T set to have a much more compelling music (and video) service through iTunes, Sprint and Verizon have to completely re-think their mobile music stores. Do you really think their recent drops in prices were made in a vacuum?
So, my point is that even before it's release, other competitors have doubled their efforts, lowered prices, and improved devices in anticipation of the Apple device. That's already done - in the bag. Imagine what happens to the market if the iPhone actually IS successful and other vendors copy the best practices from it.
Shaking the balance of power.
Talk about important. The carriers have had an iron grip on device design, features, and a furiously tenacious grip on the content and services that are available to subscribers. This has been to the great detriment of the wireless Value Added Services (VAS) industry (just ask any developer, off the record, when there isn't a carrier within earshot). By being autocratic and trying to control everything, they have stifled creativity. By taking 50% cuts of all VAS, they have snuffed incentives.
You would think that in a competitive market (which I believe US wireless is), you would have one or more carriers compete by...giving customers what they want! (duh) Hutch 3UK did it in Britain because they were desperately competitive. Yet what we have, in most markets including the US, is an oligopolists Prisoner's Dilemma: all carriers are choking the market in a similar way, and none have defected from this de facto pact. Driven by fear, they think the chokehold is best for them. Yet, when one of them defects, the game is over and they will all end up worse off for having played. And AT&T just flinched.
The Apple-driven iTunes model present on iPhone will work around the carriers (somewhat) and we can expect to see more music, video, and content get on the phones through a batch-sync over USB or Wi-Fi. Because of this, AT&T has relinquished significant power to Apple. When customers (including non-iPhone) learn of how easy it can be to get more into and out of their device, they will flock to this model. Other carriers will not be able to compete with AT&T on a VAS basis until they also tear down their walled gardens.
Content providers, SaaS providers, application vendors, all of these will finally get a little bit of power for once. And certainly a new power player, Apple, will have entered the game.
A new channel for content and services.
Content companies will be dancing in the streets on June 29. Finally they've got a channel into the mobile device that isn't bottlenecked by the gatekeeper carriers. They have an easy route to distribute and monetize their content via the iTunes store. Developers are, from their perspective, sick and tired of carriers getting in their way, and then taking a 50% cut. Wow, 50%! Apple makes basically nothing on the iTunes content, charging instead for the hardware. Does that sound appealing for a content company, or what?!
The competitive response.
Other device vendors will need to scramble to catch up with the iPhone's features and slick UI. But Apple will continue to innovate, so they will remain one step behind for a while. They will lose some market share in the consumer and prosumer sectors. But the upside for the other handset makers, and seldom mentioned, is that Apple has broken the grip the Telco had on the device supply chain. Apple has shown that, if you make a compelling enough device that creates demand, you can call some shots.
Some handset vendors are making fun of the iPhone's battery life. I heard a Motorola exec poke fun at it last week on stage, but I think that's a red herring. Battery life is on par with other devices. The only real problem is that it is not user-replaceable. This will manifest itself in a year or so when the cells wear down - as happened with the iPod. Apple should know better on this one.
One of the few advantages competitors have over the iPhone is cost. Price is probably the iPhone's greatest weakness. Despite the fact that consumers have indicated a willingness to pay for great Consumer Electronics products, $500-600 will definitely reduce the market for the iPhone, and leave ample opportunity for the other vendors. If they produce a competitive product at 2-3 hundred dollars less, there will be ample market for them. Creative, SanDisk, and others have already proven this in the media player category.
Time to re-write your mobile video business plan.
If you have a business plan in motion that relies on collecting $15 a month from subscribers to your mobile video service of broadcast content, time to go back to the spreadsheet. The acceptable market price for mobile music and mobile video is about to be lowered to the iTunes standard.
Don't think that your broadcast service can sell at a premium. Think of two users side by side, one with Verizon's V-Cast using MediaFLO and one with an iPhone. The V-Cast user has up to 30 channels of broadcast content to choose from, and the other has PVR-style movies and TV shows they got for free, bought on iTunes, or got from YouTube.com. Both have good quality images, but the iPhone user has pause-play-skip control, and the V-Cast user has little control. The broadcast model, though great technology, still reminds me of a Bruce Springsteen song, "57 Channels And Nothin On", which you can watch on YouTube via V-Cast or iPhone.
My take is that the user with the V-Cast phone is going to feel sorry that he hasn't got the iPhone. He'll want his video cheaper, with more choice, and more control, and in and out of coverage areas (think 36,000 ft. high). Music…much the same, if not more so because of the important iPod head-start.
It actually steals other carrier's customers.
Carriers often launch apps and content on an exclusive basis. Think Shakira videos and ringtones with VZW, or SMS that was not inter-carrier, or VZW PTT. Each one was launched in the hope of differentiating from competitors, and stealing subscribers from those competitors. Yet we've seen these apps come and go - and NONE have been important enough to churn customers from one carrier to another, and any good apps are quickly matched. The only thing, so far, that actually has driven churn was bad service from a current provider (negative differentiators). Hyped up phone features were supposed to rock our worlds, but in reality, only two non-voice apps have been remotely "killer". That's SMS and email, and no carrier really has any differentiation in these.
But this is different. The iPhone is probably the first positive differentiator that will churn customers. We know this from research, analogical evidence, and the fact that a million people have requested the device from AT&T. Four days before the launch, people are camping in front of AT&T and Apple stores. Has that ever happened before in the telecom space? eBay and Craigslist have "professional waiters" offering to hold a place in line for a fee. Subscribers of other carriers have not renewed their contracts for months so that they can be free to switch carriers for the iPhone. And if you want an iPhone, you'll need to be on AT&T. That's powerful.
And the AT&T benefit goes beyond those who churn to AT&T for an iPhone. The brand cachet gained will be significant. AT&T will be cool again for the first time in an era without horseless carriages. People will enter AT&T stores just to have a look, might even buy something else. Make a sale: minus one subscriber for VZW and plus one sub for AT&T - each churner is a double victory in Wall Street's eyes. I clearly think that the exclusive Apple deal is great for AT&T because of the reasons listed above, and I think it is actually a painless move because of the below...
And there will be ancillary benefits accrued to AT&T. I believe that the carriers historic desire for control has been self-destructive. They have shrunk the pie, and claimed a big piece. Apple is forcing AT&T to open up, and they will be the first carrier to do so, and have a leadership advantage in the new, larger pie. More content, more data services, more activity, more revenue. Hey, I warned you I was on the bandwagon in paragraph 1.
Of course, this is theirs to lose. The phone is unlikely to flop, but if the network flops (as AT&T Wireless did when their new subscriber provisioning system failed just as WLNP was implemented), they will have a lot of egg on their faces.
BTW, I also think the exclusive deal was good for Apple, because they could never have negotiated for as tough terms from carrier without offering exclusivity. Yet without the terms Apple extracted, this whole event would be 'just another device' like the ROKR was.
iPhone actually tries to give the people what they want.
Foreign concept, but that's what Apple does. Well, OK, Apple isn't 100% committed either, as we know they benefit from locking music with DRM that also locks it to iPods, but hey, they are a radical step in the right direction vis-à-vis the telecom industry. The iPhone does, and will continue to innovate in ways the customer wants, with fewer restrictions put in by what the telco wants. The end result is better overall for society - even if it is not better for every individual stakeholder.
The UI was "job one".
Finally - a phone made by a company for whom UI is the leading feature. Motorola, Nokia, et al can say what they want about how important they think UI is. It just isn't to them. Not compared to Apple. And the reality is that UI is the most important thing in any device. Every other feature lurks within the UI. Modern mobile phones start with hardware, features, and functions, and then build a UI wrapper around them. The iPhone is different: eschewing any legacy processes, this device was built from the UI down. This avoids the silos that plague conventional devices.
Now, I have some issues with the iPhone UI, don't get me wrong. I prefer devices that have more hardware buttons. There are some functions that I want one click away, with tactile feedback. I want to be able to move a few switches with the device in my pocket. But that's a relatively small gripe, especially given the UI improvements that overcome the limitation.
The right sacrifices were made.
A lot has been made of the fact that this phone only has an EDGE modem. But space/power/cost trade-offs always must be made. And those complaining about this have just bought-in too much of the 3G hype. Don't get me wrong, 3G is delightful when needed, like a laptop modem. But Blackberry, for example, works perfectly well on the 19,800kbps Mobitex network. The key is to managing the need for fast data, and deploying a slick UI that hides the latency. RIM figured it out, and got a 7-year head-start in the mobile email space.
So why doesn't the iPhone NEED 3G? Well, the notion is not that users will be actively using data-traffic-intensive applications while mobile. The notion is that they will sideload a variety of content and apps from their desktop into the device. How stupid is that? Let me see...using a 480Mbps connection that is free for data traffic (a.k.a. USB) vs. using a 600Kbps 3G connection that uses battery, increases hardware costs, and is billed by the carrier. If that's stupid, then call me Gump. Not to mention the Wi-Fi radio that can get access at home, office, or some Hotspots. 3G will come in later devices, as the market determines, but I think we will find the lack of 3G a small peccadillo.
No Keyboard. Well, this one hurts the device in the eye of the most active email users. But there is a clever text input touch-screen keypad, so for SMS messages and short emails, it works fine. And even though email push functionality and security are not enterprise-grade, this device isn't targeting the Blackberry set anyway. RIM can relax and sit this one out, for now. This is clearly a consumer device, and hardware thumb-boards are mostly an enterprise feature.
Phones are officially CE.
The other cool thing about this is that phones have historically been a utilitarian part of the network. The industry name we use for them is "terminals". We see them as the end point on the network, linked to the network provider and provisioned by them. But with the iPhone, the mobile phone is becoming Consumer Electronics for real. Phones will start to be devices bought by consumers, and simply connected to a network. Call the network a pipe, if you must…Steve Jobs does. From there, what's next? Gameboys connected to the network, cameras? What other CE will follow this leader? In this new world, many devices will connect to a neutral-host carrier that provides the simple service of connectivity.
The deciding factor.
That said, iPhone is not for me. I find that phone choice is made mostly by the Second Feature Rule. You haven't heard of that rule because I just made it up. But basically almost everyone's first priority for a mobile phone is voice connectivity. But every phone delivers that commoditized feature. So people end up choosing the kind of phone they carry by their second feature priority. These range from (followed by an example):
The iPhone – Worthy Of The Hype, And Much More
by Derek Kerton, Principal Analyst, The Kerton Group
The iPhone comes out tomorrow, and the hype bandwagon is running at full steam. Usually, I'm the one to write an opinion counter to the hype, but for once, sign me up. I'll run shotgun on this hype bandwagon. Why do I think the iPhone is worthy of all the hype? I'll explain it, section by section in the following article.
You will benefit from the iPhone.
You are going to be better of because of the iPhone, whether you own one or not. It's like the advent of Local Number Portability - for those customers who changed providers, they were able to access a different phone, feature, or pricing plan that they wanted. But even for customers who did NOT switch carriers, they still benefited greatly from the fact that the carriers needed to compete for existing customers. Prior to that, carriers only really competed for new customers. Customer benefits such as free in-network calling, Cingular's "rollover minutes", Sprint's Fair and Flexible plans, T-Mobile's "Five", and VZW's pro-rated early-exit fees are all competitive responses to WLNP.
In a similar vein, the iPhone is forcing all other phone vendors and carriers to raise their game. Responses have been numerous such as Sony Ericsson W580, W200, or the older K790a (all much cheaper), the Helio Ocean (a great multimedia 3G phone), the HTC Touch. And with AT&T set to have a much more compelling music (and video) service through iTunes, Sprint and Verizon have to completely re-think their mobile music stores. Do you really think their recent drops in prices were made in a vacuum?
So, my point is that even before it's release, other competitors have doubled their efforts, lowered prices, and improved devices in anticipation of the Apple device. That's already done - in the bag. Imagine what happens to the market if the iPhone actually IS successful and other vendors copy the best practices from it.
Shaking the balance of power.
Talk about important. The carriers have had an iron grip on device design, features, and a furiously tenacious grip on the content and services that are available to subscribers. This has been to the great detriment of the wireless Value Added Services (VAS) industry (just ask any developer, off the record, when there isn't a carrier within earshot). By being autocratic and trying to control everything, they have stifled creativity. By taking 50% cuts of all VAS, they have snuffed incentives.
You would think that in a competitive market (which I believe US wireless is), you would have one or more carriers compete by...giving customers what they want! (duh) Hutch 3UK did it in Britain because they were desperately competitive. Yet what we have, in most markets including the US, is an oligopolists Prisoner's Dilemma: all carriers are choking the market in a similar way, and none have defected from this de facto pact. Driven by fear, they think the chokehold is best for them. Yet, when one of them defects, the game is over and they will all end up worse off for having played. And AT&T just flinched.
The Apple-driven iTunes model present on iPhone will work around the carriers (somewhat) and we can expect to see more music, video, and content get on the phones through a batch-sync over USB or Wi-Fi. Because of this, AT&T has relinquished significant power to Apple. When customers (including non-iPhone) learn of how easy it can be to get more into and out of their device, they will flock to this model. Other carriers will not be able to compete with AT&T on a VAS basis until they also tear down their walled gardens.
Content providers, SaaS providers, application vendors, all of these will finally get a little bit of power for once. And certainly a new power player, Apple, will have entered the game.
A new channel for content and services.
Content companies will be dancing in the streets on June 29. Finally they've got a channel into the mobile device that isn't bottlenecked by the gatekeeper carriers. They have an easy route to distribute and monetize their content via the iTunes store. Developers are, from their perspective, sick and tired of carriers getting in their way, and then taking a 50% cut. Wow, 50%! Apple makes basically nothing on the iTunes content, charging instead for the hardware. Does that sound appealing for a content company, or what?!
The competitive response.
Other device vendors will need to scramble to catch up with the iPhone's features and slick UI. But Apple will continue to innovate, so they will remain one step behind for a while. They will lose some market share in the consumer and prosumer sectors. But the upside for the other handset makers, and seldom mentioned, is that Apple has broken the grip the Telco had on the device supply chain. Apple has shown that, if you make a compelling enough device that creates demand, you can call some shots.
Some handset vendors are making fun of the iPhone's battery life. I heard a Motorola exec poke fun at it last week on stage, but I think that's a red herring. Battery life is on par with other devices. The only real problem is that it is not user-replaceable. This will manifest itself in a year or so when the cells wear down - as happened with the iPod. Apple should know better on this one.
One of the few advantages competitors have over the iPhone is cost. Price is probably the iPhone's greatest weakness. Despite the fact that consumers have indicated a willingness to pay for great Consumer Electronics products, $500-600 will definitely reduce the market for the iPhone, and leave ample opportunity for the other vendors. If they produce a competitive product at 2-3 hundred dollars less, there will be ample market for them. Creative, SanDisk, and others have already proven this in the media player category.
Time to re-write your mobile video business plan.
If you have a business plan in motion that relies on collecting $15 a month from subscribers to your mobile video service of broadcast content, time to go back to the spreadsheet. The acceptable market price for mobile music and mobile video is about to be lowered to the iTunes standard.
Don't think that your broadcast service can sell at a premium. Think of two users side by side, one with Verizon's V-Cast using MediaFLO and one with an iPhone. The V-Cast user has up to 30 channels of broadcast content to choose from, and the other has PVR-style movies and TV shows they got for free, bought on iTunes, or got from YouTube.com. Both have good quality images, but the iPhone user has pause-play-skip control, and the V-Cast user has little control. The broadcast model, though great technology, still reminds me of a Bruce Springsteen song, "57 Channels And Nothin On", which you can watch on YouTube via V-Cast or iPhone.
My take is that the user with the V-Cast phone is going to feel sorry that he hasn't got the iPhone. He'll want his video cheaper, with more choice, and more control, and in and out of coverage areas (think 36,000 ft. high). Music…much the same, if not more so because of the important iPod head-start.
It actually steals other carrier's customers.
Carriers often launch apps and content on an exclusive basis. Think Shakira videos and ringtones with VZW, or SMS that was not inter-carrier, or VZW PTT. Each one was launched in the hope of differentiating from competitors, and stealing subscribers from those competitors. Yet we've seen these apps come and go - and NONE have been important enough to churn customers from one carrier to another, and any good apps are quickly matched. The only thing, so far, that actually has driven churn was bad service from a current provider (negative differentiators). Hyped up phone features were supposed to rock our worlds, but in reality, only two non-voice apps have been remotely "killer". That's SMS and email, and no carrier really has any differentiation in these.
But this is different. The iPhone is probably the first positive differentiator that will churn customers. We know this from research, analogical evidence, and the fact that a million people have requested the device from AT&T. Four days before the launch, people are camping in front of AT&T and Apple stores. Has that ever happened before in the telecom space? eBay and Craigslist have "professional waiters" offering to hold a place in line for a fee. Subscribers of other carriers have not renewed their contracts for months so that they can be free to switch carriers for the iPhone. And if you want an iPhone, you'll need to be on AT&T. That's powerful.
And the AT&T benefit goes beyond those who churn to AT&T for an iPhone. The brand cachet gained will be significant. AT&T will be cool again for the first time in an era without horseless carriages. People will enter AT&T stores just to have a look, might even buy something else. Make a sale: minus one subscriber for VZW and plus one sub for AT&T - each churner is a double victory in Wall Street's eyes. I clearly think that the exclusive Apple deal is great for AT&T because of the reasons listed above, and I think it is actually a painless move because of the below...
And there will be ancillary benefits accrued to AT&T. I believe that the carriers historic desire for control has been self-destructive. They have shrunk the pie, and claimed a big piece. Apple is forcing AT&T to open up, and they will be the first carrier to do so, and have a leadership advantage in the new, larger pie. More content, more data services, more activity, more revenue. Hey, I warned you I was on the bandwagon in paragraph 1.
Of course, this is theirs to lose. The phone is unlikely to flop, but if the network flops (as AT&T Wireless did when their new subscriber provisioning system failed just as WLNP was implemented), they will have a lot of egg on their faces.
BTW, I also think the exclusive deal was good for Apple, because they could never have negotiated for as tough terms from carrier without offering exclusivity. Yet without the terms Apple extracted, this whole event would be 'just another device' like the ROKR was.
iPhone actually tries to give the people what they want.
Foreign concept, but that's what Apple does. Well, OK, Apple isn't 100% committed either, as we know they benefit from locking music with DRM that also locks it to iPods, but hey, they are a radical step in the right direction vis-à-vis the telecom industry. The iPhone does, and will continue to innovate in ways the customer wants, with fewer restrictions put in by what the telco wants. The end result is better overall for society - even if it is not better for every individual stakeholder.
The UI was "job one".
Finally - a phone made by a company for whom UI is the leading feature. Motorola, Nokia, et al can say what they want about how important they think UI is. It just isn't to them. Not compared to Apple. And the reality is that UI is the most important thing in any device. Every other feature lurks within the UI. Modern mobile phones start with hardware, features, and functions, and then build a UI wrapper around them. The iPhone is different: eschewing any legacy processes, this device was built from the UI down. This avoids the silos that plague conventional devices.
Now, I have some issues with the iPhone UI, don't get me wrong. I prefer devices that have more hardware buttons. There are some functions that I want one click away, with tactile feedback. I want to be able to move a few switches with the device in my pocket. But that's a relatively small gripe, especially given the UI improvements that overcome the limitation.
The right sacrifices were made.
A lot has been made of the fact that this phone only has an EDGE modem. But space/power/cost trade-offs always must be made. And those complaining about this have just bought-in too much of the 3G hype. Don't get me wrong, 3G is delightful when needed, like a laptop modem. But Blackberry, for example, works perfectly well on the 19,800kbps Mobitex network. The key is to managing the need for fast data, and deploying a slick UI that hides the latency. RIM figured it out, and got a 7-year head-start in the mobile email space.
So why doesn't the iPhone NEED 3G? Well, the notion is not that users will be actively using data-traffic-intensive applications while mobile. The notion is that they will sideload a variety of content and apps from their desktop into the device. How stupid is that? Let me see...using a 480Mbps connection that is free for data traffic (a.k.a. USB) vs. using a 600Kbps 3G connection that uses battery, increases hardware costs, and is billed by the carrier. If that's stupid, then call me Gump. Not to mention the Wi-Fi radio that can get access at home, office, or some Hotspots. 3G will come in later devices, as the market determines, but I think we will find the lack of 3G a small peccadillo.
No Keyboard. Well, this one hurts the device in the eye of the most active email users. But there is a clever text input touch-screen keypad, so for SMS messages and short emails, it works fine. And even though email push functionality and security are not enterprise-grade, this device isn't targeting the Blackberry set anyway. RIM can relax and sit this one out, for now. This is clearly a consumer device, and hardware thumb-boards are mostly an enterprise feature.
Phones are officially CE.
The other cool thing about this is that phones have historically been a utilitarian part of the network. The industry name we use for them is "terminals". We see them as the end point on the network, linked to the network provider and provisioned by them. But with the iPhone, the mobile phone is becoming Consumer Electronics for real. Phones will start to be devices bought by consumers, and simply connected to a network. Call the network a pipe, if you must…Steve Jobs does. From there, what's next? Gameboys connected to the network, cameras? What other CE will follow this leader? In this new world, many devices will connect to a neutral-host carrier that provides the simple service of connectivity.
The deciding factor.
That said, iPhone is not for me. I find that phone choice is made mostly by the Second Feature Rule. You haven't heard of that rule because I just made it up. But basically almost everyone's first priority for a mobile phone is voice connectivity. But every phone delivers that commoditized feature. So people end up choosing the kind of phone they carry by their second feature priority. These range from (followed by an example):
- gaming (BREW phones)
- size
- design (the RAZR, Vertu)
- price (developing world)
- email (um..Blackberry)
- enterprise apps (Windows mobile or RIM)
- camera (Nokia N95)
- SMS text (Danger Hiptop)
- music (Sony Ericsson, iPhone)
- UI (the iPhone, Helio Ocean)
- WiFi
- Data speed
- video (MediaFlo phones, DVB-H in the EU)
But a phone today, being the size it is, cannot be great at ALL these things. Even if money is no object, compromises have to be made. So some devices are better at one thing, and others at another thing. For me, my second priority is email, and I don't consider the iPhone a strong contender. But if your second priority is media…you just might be an iPhone customer.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
RIM (Blackberry) - What to expect next ?
RIM headed for the scrapheap?
BlackBerry faces increased pressure
By Cath Everett of Silicon.com
(http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0,39024665,39167655,00.htm?r=1)
Industry observers are raising the question of whether current push-email leader RIM, with its BlackBerry offering, will be able to maintain its position or whether it is destined simply to become an also-ran - or acquisition target - as the sector continues to mature, expand and consolidate.
According to Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group, less than 10 per cent of the 100 million potential subscribers worldwide are currently using push email services, with businesses currently making up the majority of purchasers.
The market, he believes, has to date been held back because "it is still too hard to set these things up and smartphones that use push are still too large and difficult to use for most".
While the BlackBerry "remains one of the most attractive devices in the segment" and is "comparatively easy to use", the advantage of going with a Microsoft Mobile 6 and Exchange 2007 combination, for example, is that there is no need to set up a separate back-end push email server, "although the settings on the phone can be daunting".
Using RIM, on the other hand, does require the installation of a separate BlackBerry Enterprise Server, which means that there is "yet one more device to set up and administer, though the phone is still harder to set up than it should be".
Another issue is the cost of such services, which Enderle also reckons has to come down for the market to reach its full potential, particularly in the consumer space.
But the big test for RIM over the next two years or so will be the rising levels of competition in a market that it has more or less owned since the BlackBerry was first launched in 1999. Beyond the most dangerous of rivals in the shape of Microsoft, device manufacturers such as Motorola and Palm also have RIM solidly in their sights, as do mobile network operators such as Vodafone.
Charmaine Eggberry, EMEA vice president for RIM, is sanguine. She pointed out that the company now has eight million subscribers worldwide, some 70 per cent of whom are no longer using their BlackBerry simply for push email. Instead they are also employing it to access corporate applications, such as SAP and Oracle, as well as lifestyle packages, such as gaming and health, while on the move.
BlackBerry faces increased pressure
By Cath Everett of Silicon.com
(http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0,39024665,39167655,00.htm?r=1)
Industry observers are raising the question of whether current push-email leader RIM, with its BlackBerry offering, will be able to maintain its position or whether it is destined simply to become an also-ran - or acquisition target - as the sector continues to mature, expand and consolidate.
According to Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group, less than 10 per cent of the 100 million potential subscribers worldwide are currently using push email services, with businesses currently making up the majority of purchasers.
The market, he believes, has to date been held back because "it is still too hard to set these things up and smartphones that use push are still too large and difficult to use for most".
While the BlackBerry "remains one of the most attractive devices in the segment" and is "comparatively easy to use", the advantage of going with a Microsoft Mobile 6 and Exchange 2007 combination, for example, is that there is no need to set up a separate back-end push email server, "although the settings on the phone can be daunting".
Using RIM, on the other hand, does require the installation of a separate BlackBerry Enterprise Server, which means that there is "yet one more device to set up and administer, though the phone is still harder to set up than it should be".
Another issue is the cost of such services, which Enderle also reckons has to come down for the market to reach its full potential, particularly in the consumer space.
But the big test for RIM over the next two years or so will be the rising levels of competition in a market that it has more or less owned since the BlackBerry was first launched in 1999. Beyond the most dangerous of rivals in the shape of Microsoft, device manufacturers such as Motorola and Palm also have RIM solidly in their sights, as do mobile network operators such as Vodafone.
Charmaine Eggberry, EMEA vice president for RIM, is sanguine. She pointed out that the company now has eight million subscribers worldwide, some 70 per cent of whom are no longer using their BlackBerry simply for push email. Instead they are also employing it to access corporate applications, such as SAP and Oracle, as well as lifestyle packages, such as gaming and health, while on the move.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Advantage Google, On the Mobile Web Too
Basis a recent report released by M:Metrics Google enjoys a significant lead in the list of Top-10 Web companies visited by smart-phone users in US & UK. Here is a snap-shot of their ranking...
United States
Google Inc. 62.48%
Yahoo! Inc. 33.54%
Microsoft Corporation 33.36%
AT&T Inc. 21.22%
Time Warner Inc. 19.06%
The Walt Disney Company 17.00%
News Corporation 15.54%
Sprint Nextel 15.29%
The Weather Channel 15.28%
eBay Inc. 14.19%
United Kingdom
Google Inc. 30.94%
Orange Personal Communications 21.68%
British Broadcasting Corporation 20.90%
Microsoft Corporation 17.75%
Vodafone Group PLC 16.79%
eBay Inc. 13.08%
O2 (UK) Ltd, Service Operations 12.77%
Hutchison Whampoa Limited 12.67%
Yahoo! Inc. 10.97%
Deutsche Telekom AG 10.71%
While Yahoo! ranks 2nd in the US, it is surprisingly ranked 9th in the US - my guess is that it is because of the popularity (aided by the walled garden approach) of operator portals.
Strangely, Walt Disney figures at 6th place in the US !!
You can access the PR release from M:Metrics at http://mmetrics.com/press/PressRelease.aspx?article=20070625-april-meter
United States
Google Inc. 62.48%
Yahoo! Inc. 33.54%
Microsoft Corporation 33.36%
AT&T Inc. 21.22%
Time Warner Inc. 19.06%
The Walt Disney Company 17.00%
News Corporation 15.54%
Sprint Nextel 15.29%
The Weather Channel 15.28%
eBay Inc. 14.19%
United Kingdom
Google Inc. 30.94%
Orange Personal Communications 21.68%
British Broadcasting Corporation 20.90%
Microsoft Corporation 17.75%
Vodafone Group PLC 16.79%
eBay Inc. 13.08%
O2 (UK) Ltd, Service Operations 12.77%
Hutchison Whampoa Limited 12.67%
Yahoo! Inc. 10.97%
Deutsche Telekom AG 10.71%
While Yahoo! ranks 2nd in the US, it is surprisingly ranked 9th in the US - my guess is that it is because of the popularity (aided by the walled garden approach) of operator portals.
Strangely, Walt Disney figures at 6th place in the US !!
You can access the PR release from M:Metrics at http://mmetrics.com/press/PressRelease.aspx?article=20070625-april-meter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Other Links
