Now, to get this out of the way: I am a Rovio fan, and I have been for much, much, much longer than most. I have published their very first game – Darkest Fear – and I have published a few of their pre-Angry Birds titles after that. So do not accuse me of Rovio-phobia; there is none…
So, I hope you will understand that I was pretty excited when they announced their first post-Angry Birds title, Amazing Alex. Alas, am I excited? No, not really. Now, don’t get me wrong: it is a beautifully balanced, nicely polished game. Nothing wrong with that. But is it really something über-special? As in Angry-birds-we-will-show-them-special? Erm, I think not.
You say though that they are on #1 in 30+ countries and on #2 in 30+ more (or so the Mighty Eagle tells me over Facebook and Twitter). You say that this amounts to an astonishing success, an impeccable launch. And, yes, I agree. But, aside of the impressive launch power and impeccable marketing and all, is it great? I think not. And, yes, I am disappointed. Rovio has been one of my favourite studios, long before Angry Birds. It is why I have been behind them with previous games, why I tried to push them when their talent had not been amplified by their awesome and unprecedented success of Angry Birds. But… Someone who wants to replicate Walt Disney needs to do better. Folks, you have to follow Mickey with Donald. Is Alex Donald? I think not…
I do hope – sincerely – that they will pull it of. Not because my day job at RIM requires me to stay in their good books, but because I believe that the birth of a new creative powerhouse outside of old-school Hollywood is a seriously good sign for the world, and last but not least because Michael, Peter, Andrew et al are really good people! But I do not think Alex is nearly as amazing as Donald Duck is (or Bugs Bunny for that matter) and I am hoping they will bring it with future iterations!
Come on, my Mighty Eagle and other birds: we really could do with a new Disney; it’s been way too long…
This is not strictly speaking a mobile topic but, as we all deal more and more in digital goods, I reckon it has its place (and, then, I cannot deny my legalease origins, I suppose), so here we go:
In case you haven’t heard, the European Court of Justice recently ruled against Oracle with respect to the question if a licensee was allowed to sell this license to someone else. The case at hand was against Usedsoft, a company that has made exactly that its business. Now, often software licenses prohibit the onward sale to third parties (the vendors would rather like to sell a new license to a new customer). And, of course, if there was a market opening up for second-hand licenses (mobile games anyone?), this could impact the commercial opportunities of the originators of the software quite significantly. And lots of people came out quickly complaining.
However, what would you say if you could not sell your car once you would want to buy a new one? Or that Ikea table that looked so radically modern only 3 years ago? Unthinkable, huh? That would be a world without car-boot sales, flea markets or eBay or GameStop (who make tons of money with pre-owned games). And, no, no one would understand why that should be prohibited: you bought that car/table/whatever after all, so it’s clearly yours, right?
And, yes, it is. And this principle (well, following the rough outlines here at least) was also applied by the European Court of Justice. And I, for one, would agree with that. What the court also said (and this is where the nitty gritty might come in) is that the seller of a used piece of software would – of course – be prevented from continuing to use it after the sale. I mean: you cannot use your car anymore after you sold it either… However, this is of course not just as trivial for digital goods that can much more easily duplicated than physical ones.
When it comes to the commercial implications, I would posit that this is “merely” a question of business models: if you are “selling” (and Oracle’s lawyers will of course say it wasn’t a sale but a mere license) something, that would be it. However, if you provide an ongoing service (“SaaS”), your continued benefit is in the service, not the piece of software that carries or facilitates that service. So hard to do? No.
So, can we all get back to earth and crack on with it then? Thank you!
Oh, and happy July, 4th to my US friends! 
This week, I had the privilege to attend and speak at the truly fabulous Game Horizon conference in Newcastle (which is rather pretty as you will see in the picture). There was a plethora of inspiring and insightful talent that taught me a lot, including Torsten Reil (CEO, Natural Motion), Ian Livingstone (Life President Eidos and Founder of Games Workshop), David Helgason (CEO Unity), Mark Rein (Co-Founder Epic Games), Oscar Clark (Evangelist Papaya Mobile), Michael Pachter (Analyst Wedbush), Gareth Edmonson (CEO Thumbstar) and too many more to mention, all chaired by the formidable Charles Cecil (he of Broken Sword fame).
I gave a talk looking out on what we are trying to achieve for BlackBerry 10 on the gaming front, and here are the slides to it (some of which may only make sense if you actually attended…).
Greetings, friends. Due to the English inability to have bank holidays on days other than a Monday, this week’s Carnival of the Mobilists is a day late but it is here nonetheless, and with verve! I have spent reading through a plethora of good stuff from the trenches of mobile:
Our friends from All About Symbian (yes, that name is still around!) have a bit of a prolific blogging streak and brings us two contributions this week looking at aspects of device and OS design respectively. Since both are intriguing, they get a double mention.
First, the function of home screens (note the plural) is queried and the question is as simple as it is compelling: if you have seven (or nine or eleven) “home” screens, do you then actually still have a home screen? Do you also have nine homes? Steve posits that simplicity should arguably win it, which of course is the opposite of what the iPhone’s all-app grid or Andoid’s army of home screens do today. Interesting!
Secondly, Steve looks at the burgeoning size of smartphones. He points out that the Nokia N95 screen size of a whopping 2.6” was huge by the standards then. It is dwarfed by the Samsung Galaxy S III’s 4.8” screen though. And the question is raised when is big too big. The answer is suggested to be at the end of people’s arms: Steve points out that hands are not growing as quickly as the screensizes (if indeed at all) and that therefore there should indeed be a perfect size for a phone – which 4.7” or bigger is, alas, not.
Moving on to even bigger things, and it doesn’t get any bigger than the Chinese market. Andy from Mobithinking has looked at recently released figures from some of the bigger analysists in the space and compacted this in a post that gives us numbers that make the mind of even the hardened mobilista boggle. China has now more smartphones than the US (22% vs 16% of the overall market). China has 3x more mobile subscribers than the US (1bn vs 330m). The country’s largest operator, China Mobile, alone has more than 2x as many mobile subscribers than the population of the US (which is itself the 3rd-largest mobile market in the world – India is a long way ahead of it on #2 though). China has more than 430m mobile Internet users, which is more than the population of either Europe or North America. For more, make sure to read thoroughly!
MobileGroove has a post from guest author Jeff Hasen on something that piqued my interest significantly when I heard about it, namely the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) attempt to regulate the disemination of content via social media (and mobile). Jeff’s background as a reporter and marketer of previous Olympic Games adds further insight. The long and short is that the IOC has set up a “hub” that will post content for more than 1,000 current and former athletes directly from their Facebook and Twitter accounts (which I would suggest is the antithesis of social media). Restrictions as to what you can share apply, however, also to ticket holders (so don’t you dare tweeting that photo of Usain Bolt using a Mac; Acer is a sponsor!). The predictable result? Uproar, mayhem and another big old body having to bow to the anarchic power of social (and mobile) media!
Lastly, something more (seemingly) mundane but (evidently) more practical: MobyAffiliates has a post on AppStore optimization, namely a guide what you need to do in order to make sure that your app doesn’t sink in between those other apps upon launch. This takes everything from app title, keywords, description, icons, imagery, etc, etc. An eminently useful post if I may say so!
As is good tradition on this blog, I will not choose a winner – I think all of them are good and important reads! So go ahead, get a coffee (or glass of wine) and do yourself some good!
Next week, the Carnival will be hosted by MobiThinking. If you want to submit something worthy, please e-mail us at mobilists [at] gmail [dot] com by the end of the week. And if you need more information on the Carnival (or to catch up on a wealth of information from all the previous Carnivals), make sure to visit the Carnival’s own site.
UPDATE: we have had a late bloomer to this week’s edition but I wouldn’t want to omit this, so here we go: The Mobile Payments Today blog brings a report on the jungle that mobile payments still are (using the example of Google Wallet) and highlighting the apparent complexities in connecting the various ecosystems (different POS systems, card providers, loyalty programs etc).
So we have all heard, read, mused, spoken about network effects. What makes them strong, what makes them vulnerable, where they work and where they don’t (MyGuidie is an example where they didn’t). I am regularly speaking about the importance of context and am frequently borrowing the concept of object-centered sociality (never without attributing the amazing Jyri Engestrom who first made me aware of this all the way back in 2005) and the concept is so clear (or at least can be presented in a way that it makes it so clear) that most people “get it” immediately. However, there are (too) many real-life examples showing a horrific misunderstanding of it.
Now (drumroll), today, I came across a real-life example that shows you how can work. Here’s the backdrop: My rather wonderful son managed to get his hands on a work-placement at CERN (no, I don’t know how he managed either). As CERN is in Geneva and we live quite a way away from there, we needed to find him somewhere to stay (CERN’s own hostel only accommodates people over the age of 18 and he will be a shade under 17 by then, so doesn’t qualify).
What does one do? Ask a few friends who live and/or work in Geneva or have in the past. Look at Air B’n'B. Check cheap hotels. Etc. All done. Result? I now know that a) in Geneva, apartments are scarce goods, b) people I know don’t have flights of spare bedrooms available, c) hotels (and Air B’n'B places) are relatively expensive (a variation of a), I suppose).
But then one friend recommended I check out glocals.com. This is a site specifically for expats in some Swiss cities, amongst which Geneva. You have to subscribe and they will vet you before they accept you. So I did. With photo and all. Then I posted in their forum for newbies: “hey guys, here’s the thing. I am looking for a room for my son…”
12 minutes in, the first reply. Check this, check that. Hope you’re lucky. 23 minutes in: a lady (and never has the term been put to better use) offers a room. Free (I asked. Twice). She has two sons around the age of my son, thinks what he’s doing is cool and would love to support. And, oh, it would be great if he could speak a little German to her boys, that’ll be great, because they’re only bi-lingual French/English (yeah, right)… Bam!
I am still gobsmacked!
Besides that though, what made this happen, or shall we say more probable? Is it because there are angels living in Geneva (possible although it would shake my atheist convictions)? Is it because I am such a trustworthy soul (I’d rather not comment)? Or is it because this is a forum that is particularly tightly-knit, comprised of people who have a common need (they’re all expats in town) and have hence a common object? Me Ferrari (yes, she even has a cool name!) certainly is an angel but she would almost certainly never have dreamed of offering something like this on a site that didn’t have that type of context or towards people that were unvetted; she would probably not have been on such a site in the first place.
A site like glocals offers a social object (the city) to people who have similar contexts (expats). Because it vets its members, people tend to trust more. Also, the combination of context and trust makes it more likely for people to engage and help where there’s a need. Why? Well, because it could also happen to you, couldn’t it? And in a situation where you feel or have felt vulnerable (everyone who has ever moved to a foreign country knows how vulnerable you can feel there), you are more likely to offer advice, help, solutions.
And so we will go see the angels of Geneva in a couple of weeks time. How’s that for network effects in context working, huh?
OK, this suffering a little from the usual simplification inherent to this seemingly favourite pastime of many, namely of creating infographics, but I thought there were a few interesting bits in there nonetheless, so enjoy…
