The times they are a-changing. Everyone has realized this by now (or so we should think). The question therefore is not so much will there be change but how will it look like.
Some of the weakest links in the mobile games value chain would be, it appears, the aggregators. Why is that? Because they do have the least defensible position: they do not own IP, they do not hold unique positions, they do not produce anything, they seem to be at the mercy of both of the groups they are partnering with: game developers to continue granting them distribution rights to their games, network operators and other distribution outlets to continue allowing them to use their channels to get to the end users. As if this would not be enough, now has arisen a creature that seemingly does away with all these middle-men anyway. It is called app store. So is it all doom then for games aggregators? There is a report out (too expensive for me to buy) that would seem to suggest as much, or so we are told.
The argument, in short, is that, with an OEM app store the number of distribution channels that any one developer/publisher needs to reach is drastically reduced (there are maybe 10 meaningful handset manufacturers in the market vs 300+ carriers and other distributors). Even the littlest companies have (or should have) the resource to deal with 10 partners; chapter closed.
Really?
The above works with a number of simple but crucial assumptions, and the boldest is this: carriers will happily let OEM take over the content real estate. Will they now? There are ample signs to doubt this. The giants of the space do not appear to be giving up, in the contrary: Vodafone has already announced its own app store – across handset brands (!) – and it is about to tighten its links with both China Mobile and Verizon Wireless (in the latter of which it holds a large stake). So what will all the OEMs (all with their own app store of course) do when carriers accounting for nearly half of the world’s subscribers wave them off? Cave in? You bet!
Anyway, does this change the game for aggregators? I believe it does and here’s why:
Carriers have traditionally struggled (with exceptions) to run an efficient, customer-friendly content offering. We have therefore seen an increasing trend to outsource the “decks” to third parties, which are – what? -, yes, aggregators.
Carriers are unlikely to concede defeat over the content side, not necessarily because they fear losing out on a lot of revenue (given their fairly average performance, SMS, voice, data, etc will outsell content as a source of revenue very, very significantly) but because of the strategic value of content as well as the unpredictability of its future impact: bear in mind that the emotional attachment to beloved brands, i.e. affinity (Transformers, Ice Age, Playboy, Tiger Woods, …), will remain higher than that to a network operator, and please do not take offense if you are working for one. Do not be mistaken: carriers are being trusted but they are not being loved. There is just not as much emotional attachment to a cellular network as there is to a rodent in love with an acorn…
Carriers do not have to give this piece up either (they call the shots on what goes onto a handset: see an example), they are not even losing money (they even gain: every cent earned through content sales is a cent more than carriers get from the iPhone app store sales…).
However, what carriers do have to do is catch up with the state of the art in selling, and that means an app store. However, it can also be a carrier-operated/driven app store.
An app store, too, does not however solve the dilemma of having to manage a huge amount of content in a way to allow the consumer a choice. One must not throw everything onto a big pile and let them pick out what they believe they like; this type of sales does not register too well: it is time-consuming, intransparent, messy, not good. So one needs someone to manage it. In comes the aggregator.
Or does it?
Aggregators that went around collecting content in a bucket only to throw it against the next wall to see what sticks are likely to struggle (or have died already: RIP Telcogames et al). However, aggregators that actually provide content management as a service to operators thrive (not exclusively on games, mind you). All the big guns in the space, Fox Mobile (f/k/a Jamba), Arvato Mobile, Buongiorno and recently Zed (through its acquisition of Player X) run riot in the space and bid hard for every deal that comes up (and lots of them do!) and gobble up the market. More on the classic D2C side, Thumbplay grew tremendously in the US, SendMe Mobile seems to go from strength to strength, and a lot of smaller ones, such as Rayfusion, etc. seem to more just hang in there, too. Why do they? Because the features that make an aggregator excellent – managing a wealth of content well – are the exact features carriers would look for when outsourcing their struggling content units. And because it is an aggregator’s core business model, they are really good at this, which is crucial in a low-margin business: be efficient or die.
Marketing and promotion is another point. We already see aggregation-type businesses become forces on Apple’s app store, such as Chillingo (from my very own town!). They publish well over 100 games and thrive on iPhone developers capitulating before the challenge to get noticed amongst the more than 50,000 apps currently available. Chillingo can provide marketing and promotion and make sure that a developer’s product gets not only live but noticed, too. It is very likely that there will be others in this space very, very soon.
So what seems to change is not the viability of being an aggregator but the aggregator’s service to their customers (the carriers!): whereas it may previously have been sufficient to use the “bucket against the wall” tactic, they now have to become better in providing a subtle selection without too much restriction. People will normally welcome a structured environment with pre-selected choices. Just make it a) easy and b) don’t limit randomly or indeed too much. And now get going! 
Disclaimer: I hold an indirect interest in Rayfusion.
And the winner is… China Mobile. Hard to guess, huh? Some research shows that the Chinese carrier’s brand is worth $30.79bn. Vodafone and Verizon took the other spots on the podium. The top 10 is below (courtesy of the good folks at telecoms.com). And for some (by now a little outdated) comparison for how they rank amongst other industries, see here.
| China Mobile | China Mobile | China | Asia | 30,793 | |
| 2 | Vodafone | Vodafone | UK | Europe | 22,131 |
| 3 | Verizon | Verizon Communications | US | North America | 20,382 |
| 4 | AT&T | AT&T | US | North America | 18,886 |
| 5 | T-Mobile | Deutsche Telekom | Germany | Europe | 16,802 |
| 6 | Orange | France Telecom | France | Europe | 15,489 |
| 7 | NTT DoCoMo | NTT DoCoMo | Japan | Asia | 14,871 |
| 8 | KDDI | KDDI Corp. | Japan | Asia | 14,454 |
| 9 | Movistar | Telefonica | Spain | Europe | 10,799 |
| 10 | Sprint | Sprint Nextel | US | North America | 9,661 |
We can depend on the researchers from Juniper after all (or maybe they simply felt bad after reading my post on their last report). Whichever the reason, apparently the mobile content industry could be worth a hefty $167bn (!) if – yes, if – the operators would resolve to allowing a workable commercial environment, namely by limiting themselves to lower revenue shares. Whatever the caveats (which are, as usual, hidden in the expensive main report) this number is topping even the loftiest predictions to date; right on in times of the doom and gloom. The key apparently lies in whether operators would act as dumb pipes (no richness for anyone) or a smart pipe (lots of play money for all players on the value chain). In their own words:
“If MNOs are to benefit financially, they need to move away from their Dumb Pipe roots to the Smart Pipe model, though they will clash with the content providers which already dominate the Smart Pipe. A compromise needs to be found.”
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…
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…
