Tag: carriers

Blyk gets money

On 18/11/2008

I know I have been depriving you lately (the day-job demanding more of my nightly attention than I would like) but this is remarkable: Blyk, the ad-funded MVNO, which I have covered previously (here and here), raised – financial crisis or not – a rather substantial amount from its existing investors, namely €40m (which apparently translates into $50.4m). Now, do they not read my blog? Or do I not get it (as Blyk’s UK MD would probably suggest).

Blyk has by now collected 200,000 subscribers and wants to roll out internationally, namely in Germany (as if the cut-throat market there, including Aldi and Tschibo’s money-scraper MVNOs, wouldn’t be enough), Spain and Belgium, which would constitute decent growth. My concerns over the financial viability still stand though (cf. here): I cannot see them making money from this longer term (unless you mean the really, really long term; then it might work). And perhaps, just perhaps, the words of Blyk’s CEO, Ala-Pietala, who noted (which MoCoNews somewhat fittingly called “ominous”) that Blyk also felt the impact of the world’s financial situation, point that way, too. Is that to say that they might have got money but they don’t make any (or not enough)? Do I get it after all?

How many handsets does a game need to support?

By Volker

On 25/02/2008

GDC Mobile co-founder and, I am honoured to say, my good friend Robert Tercek, came out with all guns blazing against the carriers’ demand for maximum handset coverage for mobile games that they allow to publish through their deck. Tercek called it a “lie” that operators basically insinuate that a game will run equally well on every handset, and he called mobile games publishers hypocrites as they moaned and whined about it but still play ball… Well, what else are they to do? Stop publishing games?

Since I still work in this industry, I would not perhaps put it that harshly as Rob did but the question is indeed if the network operators’ rationale (“we need to provide for the best possible user experience for every one of our users”) stands true when it comes to this. After all: if you offer a full music track for download, your phone needs to be able to support MP3; an old battered brick that only plays monophonic ringtones won’t do. To put it into slightly starker contrast still: it would be like an ISP would prevent a web publisher from putting a site live only because there are a lot of PCs out there that do not have the right software support. Or if the Germans would not allow any car to be imported into Germany unless its engine software was geared to allowing a top speed of min 200 mph because otherwise the user could be disappointed with the driving experience on the Autobahn.

Is the assumption that someone who has an old T610 would actually expect to be able to play a modern-day 3D racing game on his battered old handset really correct? If I drive a 10-year-old little Twingo, I know that I will not go 200 mph, Autobahn or not. And I will certainly not blame it on the operator of those roads.

If I want Vista Premium or Leopard, I need the machine to support it. And that is an informed decision I need to make. The operators’ approach may have been understandable a few years ago: mobile was a very, very new platform and people had not actually got round to the idea that one could actually do more with one’s mobile phone than making phone calls when away from a fixed-line phone. However, this has changed very quickly very much: even my 80-year-old neighbours now communicate via SMS with their kin. I believe it is safe to assume that the consumers of the year 2008 can very well distinguish between a low-end and a high-end phone and will actually appreciate the difference in performance without blaming their operator for a sub-par one when their phone happens to be a sub-par one. Time for change then, folks!

The constraints of having to support hundreds of handsets impacts the mobile games sector manifold: it makes it prohibitively expensive to develop and publish games with porting costs often being equal or even higher than the actual development. The effect is less innovation (how can you dare trying something new if you have to expend so much money before you even get it in front of a consumer?) but also less usage: it is often more of the same as developers try to minimize their cost by re-using engines (Gameloft has used the same basic side-scrolling engine for at least 20 games to date; highly polished and constantly evolving though, to be perfectly fair to them) and running risk-averse design philosophies where they try to stay as close to a proven hit as possible. This will however not drive consumers to get back for more.

I am however doubtful if operators will come to terms with this in the near term, and, let’s face it, they are not the originators of this platform mess: isn’t it more often the handset manufacturers that fiddle around with screen sizes that differ for more or less every device, that take great pride in running a gazillion different operating systems only to be slightly different to the other guy, that allocate soft keys rather randomly and occasionally swap the green and red call/end call keys from one side of the keypad to the other? Just imagine this last bit on a computer keyboard: is now on your left… try get going with that… Add to that the – yes, they’re here still – operators and their specific demands for this, that and the other, and the fragmentation does indeed create an economic landscape that is very hard to navigate.

This is one to the OEMs and the operators alike: get down to business, compete on the strengths of your devices and services and not on some OS and other software tweaks where the upside to the consumer is, if distinguishable at all, minimal.

In the interim, it would indeed be upon the operators to start trusting the good judgment of their customers in the hardware they hold in their hands better and start dropping those old devices from their requirements that will manage to screw up even the best game.

The prosecution rests… 😉

The State of Play…

By Volker

On 22/02/2008

This week (nearly everyone) trecked out to San Francisco for the Game Developers Conference (no, not me), and we therefore could hear and read a lot about where gaming, specifically also mobile gaming, is these days. So what is the state of play? Varied, it seems:

On-deck/off-deck was addressed: Kristian Segerstrale, formerly of Macrospace/Glu, now fresh start-up entrepreneur with his Playfish offering described the current landscape rather neatly: “Competitive development, Ogopolistic publishers, but monopolistic retail.” (This was – unsurprisingly – seconded by Nokia‘s multimedia guru, Anssi Vanjoki). Segerstrale damned the economics of the space with carriers syphoning off 30-40% for billing when the same can be had for a few points from Google check-out, Paypal, etc. He went on to predict that it will be the carriers’ doom to stick to that model and painted a bright future. I quite agree with him on this, mainly for two reasons: 1) the move into flat-rate data plans for mobiles; these will take away the fear of people browsing outside the constraints of the carrier that they will face huge bills, and – to some extents connected to the first point – 2) the fall of the walled gardens. This will mean that a whole new playing field is opening: consumers will no longer be constrained to buy games (and, for that matter, any other content) on their carrier deck where choice has been limited and innovation not always prevailing but anywhere on the whole wide web.

Such a development would arguably also clean up with another of these quirky carrier specifics, namely content discovery. On one of GDC’s panel discussions it was noted that, “[w]hen shopping on the deck, it is easy to know what an application does based on its name. However games are much harder to sell based on a 17-character title. There is no description and no ability to preview a game (such as viewing a trailer) before downloading. In the discussion, the example of Amazon was used to describe the kind of preview and recommendation system that needs to develop for mobile games.” True enough…

On the market as a whole, others, namely some of the money-men, were less buoyant: Mitch Lasky, formerly of Jamdat, now a VC with Benchmark Capital, warned that finding an exit in the next 2 years would be tough as the industry was “in the midst of a multi-year transition”, whatever that is supposed to mean. He is of course right in that the sector is consolidating, and 2007 was a tough year for most in the mobile game space (more on that below).

And then came the mobile gaming heavyweights from Gameloft and claimed that there had not been a Christmas in 2007. How’s that for a bleak outlook? The mighty Frenchmen’ President & CEO, Michel Guillemot compared that to a transition (is this a theme?) between console platforms: before the new one is really in, no one will buy a game anymore. Now, with all due respect, I do not believe that the slump of the mobile games market that many seemed to have been experiencing is hardware-driven. I would rather blame it on the choking hold the severely flawed business model in the space (see above) and actually increasing scarcity of deck space due to carriers reducing the number of slots available.

This last bit specifically was stoically conceded by Glu’s Jill Braff: she said one had to understand the way carriers operate (and, yes, from their perspective I think I do) and then “work in the system”. That might all be fine and dandy for the few who manage to place it. It does not, however, grow the market, educate consumers (and retailers) or gets games to that next level. I mean, on 5-8% take-up on downloadable mobile games, you are talking about a niche. Shouldn’t Ms Brasff rather be pondering on how to break that mold and make mobile gaming a true mass market phenomenon? Getting your head down, sighing and “work in the system” might not actually be an approach that helps that.

The gordian knot will only be cut if the distribution funnel opens up: this does not necessarily mean that carriers will lose the war but they will have to change their approach — eventually. Just imagine an ISP trying to dictate what game you’d be allowed to access. There used to be one, you say? True enough: the old AOL model. And where are they now when it comes to access? The iron curtain fell, the walled gardens on the Internet fell, and they will fall on mobile, too.

Mobile Mesh Networks: now we're talking…

By Volker

On 12/09/2007

Swedish firm TerraNet is trialling a mobile mesh network, we read. In a mesh network, each handset works like a little base station, too. It is a peer-to-peer technology without the need for a base station and, hence without a network operator or carrier. TerraNet’s devices currently have 1km range, i.e. unless there is another device within a range of 1km, it will not work.

However, should this technology become robust and sufficiently scaled, the new Vodafones and Verizons would probably be Ericsson and Nokia Siemens Networks, i.e. the big network vendors. Incidentally, Ericsson is said to have invested $3m in TerraNet. At present, a maximum of 7 hops can be done, and this would be limiting the distance that can be covered. However, the company apparently also offers a network node via a USB dongle and this could then connect to a VoIP system to bridge long-distance and go into another mesh network closer to the recipient.

Would this technology be available on a larger scale (and perhaps ultimately without the constraints of so many hops), this would then result in lower cost for users because there would be one less mouth to be fed in the value chain, and it so happens that this is the hungriest mouth at present. Terranet is said to be recognizing that the telcos won’t be delighted about this (multi-media evangelists like Nokia’s Anssi Vanjoki will however be uber-excited as it will boost multimedia offerings and the opportunities over there). Oh, dreaming of the future…

At present, the offering is geared to scarcely populated areas (the company runs trials in Tanzania and Ecuador), and the above-described problems might not be an issue there. In the contrary, it could be that operators would embrace the technology to expand coverage. The company also targets urban areas where people make lots of local calls, which would then be virtually free.

In those more urban areas, there may be problems with having enough available frequencies, and the struggle with the regulators in the space might indeed slow the deployment down significantly. This would probably be made even harder due to the political concerns of many countries when it comes to weakening some of their economic powerhouses (because this is what carriers also are).

Other commentators are also concerned with battery life but also note that, if the phones are replacing landlines, they can be left plugged into a power source (which would be defeating the purpose of the notion of being mobile though, I guess). Surely this would be solvable though.

Very interesting indeed, I think!

Verizon strikes back (or does it?): Prada phone vs. iPhone

By Volker

On 30/05/2007

In Apple, OEM

It does remain interesting, doesn’t it? Days after AT&T was confirmed to have the iPhone for a minimum of 5 years exclusively, Verizon comes back to announce the launch of the ultimate fashion device (in a rather literal sense), namely the Prada phone (or LG KE 850). Verizon was keen to stress that this will not be the only music phone they will offer but this seems to being the current main contender of the iPhone: it has similarly sleek looks, both have a touch screen and even the LG UI is somewhat Apple-esque (See review here).

One of the interesting things is to see how a phone that – in Europe – runs on the trusted MIDP 2.0 platform (and will, for Verizon, presumably run on the no less trusted BREW platform) will perform against the first one utilising Apple’s OS X. If Apple manages to have their OS run as smoothly and matter-of-factly as it does on their computers, we will all be up for a ride: whilst phones may not be as buggy as some of Microsoft’s earlier (or indeed current?) operating systems, Apple’s OS X is one hell of an elegant OS and supposedly superior to anything I have seen on the currently available systems. However, OS X requires quite a bit more in computing power than these, and this poses (at least) two challenges, namely a) battery life and b) speed.

LG’s Prada phone on the other hand has shown in the UK that it is a proper everyday device that works well (and looks good). It also comes with 3G (other than the iPhone) although of course it lacks WiFi. LG has recently shown that it has a nifty hand for great look-and-feel: the Chocolate, the Shine and the Prada phone all show a fantastically slick approach to handset design. Since LG phones run on a “usual” OS, all applications and games, etc that run on “normal” phones, also work for them. And Apple? Nothing I heard of. Even the iPod games have already been cracked (see here).

If one would assume that the iPhone performs well, it would however be sad if that was only for one operator/carrier. Will Apple make the same mistake it made on its superior Mac OS in the mid-80s, i.e. kill its market prospects by being to exclusive? One would hope that they have learned but perhaps their more recent success with a similar approach for the iPod has overshadowed the no doubt painful learnings they must have taken from being erased by Micrsosoft and the inferior DOS on the computer OS front. Let’s see…

Vodafone loses brand value

By Volker

On 25/04/2007

Vodafone has lost 12% of its brand’s value, which is now “only” worth some $21 bn, says brand experts MillwardBrown. It’s brand value is dwarfed by China Mobile with a cool $41 bn, which makes it #1 amongst telecoms and #5 amongst all brands.

Who holds #1? Google (tempted to say “of course”) – the brand is valued at $66 bn and it recorded the highest value rise over the last year with 77%.

In telecoms, a notable mention must be Cingular, a brand that is being eliminated, which added 39% (the third highest climb overall) in value in 2006 and slots in as the 6th most valuable telecoms brand with AT&T, the brand that will replace it, nowhere in sight…