Tag: app store Page 6 of 10

Fishlabs Slides to Advergaming Fame

On 24/07/2009

In 1

Fishlabs, the German high-end 3D studio have long been one of my favourite developers (see here for a previous post). And with the ascent of the iPhone also appears to come the rapid rise to fame for them. Today, they have released numbers on one of their latest advergames, which they did for Barclaycard. For those not familiar: Barclaycard runs a large advertising campaign where a guy slides on a water slide through the city buying stuff whilst passing through markets, shops, etc. It took me a while to understand it (even though I am one of their customers) but it is to promote their new RFID-enabled credit cards.

Fishlabs produced an iPhone game for this (aptly called “Waterslide Extreme”). Interestingly, other than a Barclaycard logo on the main menu screen, I could not (yet) find any mention of the brand. Anyhow, Barclaycard seems to be super-happy as Fishlabs now has reported a whopping 2m downloads in one (!) week, which have generated 16m “engagement minutes”, presumably meaning that players engaged with the brand.

The – free – game is said to top the iPhone download charts in no less than 57 countries, including all the biggies like the US (where, reportedly, 54% of iPhone and iPod Touch users reside), the UK and Germany.

I just wonder if this is such good marketing (and I am not an advocate for unwanted in-your-face advertising at all): one mention of the brand (and very subtly, too) would surely make for only the most discrete of “engagements” with the brand.

So good on Fishlabs! But advertisers might want to consider giving these things a little more thought. Imagine the potential result for the image of the Barclaycard brand if, through a somewhat more thoughtful and smarter brand treatment, all of those 2m users would actually perceive it as a fun goodie brought to them by Barclaycard. Just to think of it… 😉

So, Google: App Store or Web? Or Both?

By Volker

On 21/07/2009

In 1

Last week, there was the Mobilebeat conference on, and – amongst many other things – a lot of guys felt they had to air their opinions on the future of mobile apps or, errh, no apps. They spoke so elaborately about it that even the revered FT (albeit in its blog section) and the BBC felt compelled to run stories. Amongst others, the CEO of “indie” app store Get Jar and Google’s wonderful Vic Gundotra, VP Engineering and also equipped with this most valleyed of all Silicon Valley job titles, i.e. “Evangelist” (I would really like one like this, too!), in his case for developers spoke about where they saw information and entertainment on mobile phones going in the future and how the ecosystem would look like.

Now, let’s get serious.

What was Said?

First, GetJar‘s CEO sees the market for mobile applications becoming – get this – as big as the Internet (woah!). He then said also that it would peak at about 10m apps (in total?) by 2020. Hmm. GetJar then went on to warn that the number of developers would drop “drastically” and that only about 10% would be able to survive. The others would take their skills elsewhere. So where then? To the web? (This is of course interesting also because GetJar will deliver Sony Ericsson’s App Store…).

It is here where Google comes in. Gundotra said that, according to Google (and who would question them), the web had won. Even (!) Google was struggling with the device fragmentation in mobile and many, many applications could be delivered through “incredibly powerful” browsers as well. He even borrowed Steve Jobs for his argument, pointing out that the Apple CEO had announced that the iPhone was “Built for the Web” upon its launch.

There were others who contributed: Nokia’s Head of Services reminded everyone that Nokia was there to help with its Qt (Cutie, geddit?) cross-platform application network . The Symbian Foundation’s Executive Director, Lee Williams queried the need for more app stores and called, instead, for more than “just a bucket of apps”, which should look like an aisle with the very stuff that specific consumer is interested in and which (s)he could wander down at leisure.

They all however concluded that it [scil. the mobile web] was not there yet. Hm again… Let’s try to disentangle this all:

The Needle in the Haystack

Upon the launch of the app store and the wondrous stories of the iShoot developer Ethan Nicholas who coded in his bedroom after work only to resign from his day job weeks later because he made more money than he had ever thought. A lot of developers read that and, since it is the wet dream of every games developer (earn cash with an honest game without the “suits” fiddling with your game in between; anyone remember Copeland’s skateboarding turtle?), embarked on the journey themselves. And then they found, oops, it does not work that way? Why not? Well, because there are more than 400 applications going live every day. And with the sheer number of them, it could well be that the best app ever written is already out there but buried deep a couple of categories down in the app store.

This is no big surprise. It is how it works in any sector: one smart kid is not enough, you also need the environment and a lot of other building blocks to have a winner (as reigning F1 World Champion Lewis Hamilton is painfully realizing this year).

In the app store’s (and a gazillion other) case, this means that you have to make sure that you gain some attention. From Apple (or any other app store operator), from the press, from the users out there. And this is not news. There have been very well written pieces about this galore (see here for just one of them).

So will this mean the fall of a lot of the developers that went about their business thinking the app store magic would do away with centuries of business logic (there is a reason why companies have sales & marketing departments, you know…)? Yes, very probably. But does that mean the app model is flawed? No.

The Hit Dilemma

One of the Mobilebeat participants, namely Playfish, creators of some of the most successful Facebook games who released on the iPhone, too, complained about the hit-driven nature of games on the App Store. Whilst I am painfully aware of this dilemma, one has – again – to point out that this is pretty much how most of the economy works, too, unless, that is, one builds a superior and dominant brand (Tetris would be the example for the games world).

Other industries know this, too. Everyone knows IBM is a leading computer maker. Hardly anyone remembers that the Dutch electronics giant Philips used to be one of the biggest players in that market (not even Wikipedia mentions this); their CeBIT booth was bigger than IBM’s throughout the 70’s and early 80’s (my dad worked for Philips then; I need to dig out some pictures). What happened? Hey, they missed some crucial disruptive innovations and they were history…

What I want to say is that no one is immune to the demand for constant innovation and improvement (otherwise some Firefox will sneak around the corner and steal market share). The reason why this hit dilemma is more painful in mobile games than elsewhere is the relatively small size of the market to date: it is more difficult to build reserves than in other, more established sectors.

How Many App Stores? Mee too, me three, me four, …

With Apple’s roaring success with the app store, the whole industry stampeded to put out their own, and they have been moderately successful or failed. But it is early days! Why did they fail? Because they equally had hoped that one thing and one thing only (just name your bucket of apps an “app store”) would heal the painful failure of the sector in converting otherwise gladly paying users to also using, consuming, contributing to entertainment and information on their mobiles. Now, this overlooked that Apple’s model did not only consist of a storefront. It also consisted of a fairly simple developer programme (with a click-through agreement), a fair(er) revenue share to the developers and unprecedented ease of use in getting to the app of one’s choice. Try and apply this to, say, the launch of Nokia’s Ovi Store…

So do users need more than one store? No, not in general. If you can get all you ever need, want or desire from one destination, you don’t need another one. This however becomes a little precarious with a view to monopolizing channels. You would never know if there are not some that are a little more equal than you… So, having Firefox, Chrome, Opera, etc. next to Internet Explorer did the world a ton of good. And having Nokia, Sony Ericsson, the carriers working on alternatives to Apple’s app store is arguably of equal value. Will the user care? It depends on the execution: Google’s superior search algorithms made the old-style catalogue model previously found in search engines superfluous; why do I need to sort something if I have a little fairy that races to get me what I want in no time? So: if I have a bucket that comes with a little fairy, I don’t need long, long supermarket aisles. I’d rather get it home-delivered by the search fairies.

It’s the Usability, stupid!

Now to the key question: separate apps or web? Now in Google’s case, their pleading is somewhat obvious: well, they would, wouldn’t they?

Google, on the other hand, has apps out on most platforms for most of their web services: Be it Gmail (great Blackberry app!), Maps, or – all in one – their iPhone Google app, it comes as an app. And why?

Because it would otherwise be unusable! OK, let me rephrase that: the delivery of browser-based applications through mobile phones suffers some very severe setbacks today, amongst which usability on a small screen, constant connectivity and bandwidth. Whilst the latter two are arguably solvable some time soon, the former is a little trickier: when delivering to a mobile device, you not only have to download all underlying data (graphical assets, etc) but also an interface that works on that device. And because of the small form factor of mobile phones (even in the case of large-screen touchscreen phones like the iPhone), this is likely that your user experience will be significantly worse than on a large screen equipped with mouse, touchpad, etc. Apps can bridge this usability gap, and I would argue that this is precisely why Google is producing them. The underlying content can often (not always) well be delivered from the cloud but the UI of small devices is crucial to their sensibility.

With both (mobile) browser technology and handsets improving, the space available for services that can sensibly (and with superior costs) be delivered from the cloud (i.e. through the web) will increase, and steeply. However, there will always be applications that will either be impossible to deliver via the web (name a high-end 3D racing game on the web) or where a specific mobile UI would greatly improve the usability of any service.

It is another question if these will be delivered via flexible widgets or larger, more comprehensive apps (functionally, a lot of apps effectively are covert widgets); this will simply be (and remain) a question on the complexity of any given task and the ease and superior (or not) delivery an app would provide over a browser-based service. There will be an equilibrium between the two but I posit that there will remain large areas where browser-based delivery will not be able to compete with specific applications (that will draw on data from the cloud as well). Incidentally, 58% of Wired readers agree with me (and another 17% don’t care; check the bottom of the article) 😉

This can be seen on the (“normal”) web, too: Google Docs (Google’s online suite of office applications) is, despite a lot of effort and being free to use, an utter underdog to MS Office or Open Office (the only numbers I could find give Google Docs a market share of between 1% and 5%). It is, I think, because downloadable office “apps” are so much more usable (and react instantaneously irrespective of my ISP’s moods) than online services. The complexity of the computing (and – more importantly – the bandwidth necessary to deliver it) is just too overwhelming (see here for a previous post on this).

More evolved mobile apps often are (and/or will be) a hybrid: they offer a front-end that optimizes the data drawn from an online environment for use on a specific mobile device. It will not be an “either/or” but an “and”. Anything else would anyway be so last century!

In Conclusio:

Whenever possible, services will move online because it is cheaper to produce. Whenever necessary, they will be delivered through dedicated apps because it is required to use them!

Is Apple to break iPhone exclusivity?

By Volker

On 18/07/2009

In 1, Apple, OEM

There have been rumours galore about Apple’s exclusive deals for its iPhone all over the place (see e.g. here for Verizon). New reports have now surfaced that appear to confirm that Apple is looking at this option for both the US and the UK (and, if this works, presumably also for other territories):

In the UK, T-Mobile confirmed it was in talks with Apple over stocking the iPhone 3G (the 3GS remaining exclusive to O2, which also has its hands on the Palm Pre) and Orange is “believed”, to be as well.

In the US, the Verizon discussion has been around for a while. A new report now suggests that losing the exclusivity would spell doom for AT&T: the report estimates that as much as 30% of AT&T’s customer are with the carrier solely because of the iPhone exclusivity. This sounds a little high to me: after all, the iPhone penetration in the US is much lower than that (it held just under 11% market share globally in Q1/2009). Are they saying that all the other users (those with the less fancy handsets) just stay on AT&T to share into the iPhone limelight? No, I thought not…

Apple is in any event in a beautiful position at the moment: so far, most of its competitors’ “iPhone killers”(Palm Pre, Blackberry Storm and innumerable devices from Samsung, LG and Nokia) have failed to challenge its numbers and, quite literally, all of the app stores set up by competitors showed meagre results compared to the – now – 1.5 bn (!) downloads in a little over a year from the Apple App Store. The good folks from Cupertino are therefore now in a pretty good position: they proved (a couple of times now) that they shift 1m+ devices – on the opening weekend! They bring a lot of sex appeal in which the carriers, not generally known for coolness, can bask. They cracked the content dilemma and produced a thriving developer community, which made people actually use their phones for all these things that have been promised for so long (iPhones are connected, most others can connect). In short: in carriers eyes, they are – aside from the horrible fact that Apple takes a healthy cut – a really good thing for networks that see themselves locked into cut-throat pricing wars over voice and SMS (bringing in, anecdotally, up to 50% of European carrier profits over the past 5 years) and craving for a way to increase user ARPU (app revenue on the iPhone is, apparently, $27 per device). Happy days…

iPhone App Store once again: how much?

By Volker

On 06/07/2009

In 1, Apple, OEM

It is early July and we have not been reading analysts’ estimates on how much Apple may or may not make from application downloads through its app store for at least, what, 2 weeks (here’s a piece from a while ago). High time for another round then… This time, the number is “a few hundred million at best”, per quarter that is. And to be perfectly fair, the number was tagged as a guestimate. With another guestimate putting Apple’s iPhone revenue to $1.5 bn, the revenue per iPhone to Apple is thought to be around $600. Compare this to c. $27 in apps revenue per device (total number of apps divided by total number of devices). It’s 5%.

It is, I think rightly, pointed out that Apple uses applications as a lever for its hardware sales (“there’s an app for that”), and it is undeniable that a device gains more value the more you can do with it. So if you have a device that cannot only make phone calls, take photos (and now video), moonlight as a music player and a sat nav, etc but also finds restaurants, taxis, flight times and undertakers (yes, it does!), allows you to play all sorts of games and do other silly or enlightening things, the perceived value of the device increases and – relative to that – the perceived fair price for it decreases, which means that every little app increases the value of the iPhone a tiny bit, which in turn contributes to another little piece of profit to Apple in addition to its revenue share from the app itself (lowered price sensitivity due to higher perceived value arguably should result in higher sales).

Now this is largely known and acknowledged that Apple is – at least to an extent – replicating the iPod/iTunes model (though Apple also happened to provide the first commercially successful “cure” to free music downloads; hence a slightly different proposition here). But is this all bad?

Let’s have a look at the thing from an app provider’s perspective: if we take the above numbers (“a few hundred million” per quarter), the annual total would be, say $1 bn for Apple, which in return means that the app store “ecosystem” would generate c. $3.3 bn p.a. across the value chain (Apple takes 30% revenue share). That’s not too shabby for a device with such a small market share.

Also: iTunes (which is the world’s largest music retailer) took longer than the app store to generate the downloads it does today, and it is still early days, is it not?

Game Aggregators: New World Order

By Volker

On 02/07/2009

In 1, Deals

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.

Carnival of the Mobilists # 178

By Volker

On 14/06/2009

In 1, Carnival of the Mobilists

Welcome to the Carnival of the Mobilists, which has finally arrived on this blog, and how timely, too!

Last week marked not only the launch of the long-awaited Palm Pre but also featured Apple’s Worldwide Developer Conference (without Steve Jobs threatening to quit this time), so the theme would appear to being set: it is all about smarter phones, is it not?

And, lo and behold, this is exactly what this week’s worthy posts focused on, and from a variety of angles. It apparently energized some of the best and brightest to set pen to paper (or thumb to keyboard; can somewhat come up with an updated simile, please?). So off we go:

We are first and foremost being treated (!) to another of Tomi Ahonen’s epic posts, this time a journey through the times of the smartphone, from Nokia’s first Communicator (oh, how I loved my “brick”) to the iPhone, N97. Specifically, he looks at how differently the concept developed in the US vs the rest of the world. He also tells us where he thinks the real future lies (hint: not in apps apparently…). It is an absolute must-read even if a) you’ll need a good cup of coffee and a bit of time to read it and b) Tomi’s Finnish heritage does shine through on more than one occasion… 😉

Ajit Jaokar’s Open Gardens Blog follows on this theme: he argues that the Web just moved and that this will impact the balance of power with the web winning (hint: this is coming closer to where Tomi thinks we’re going, too).

Peggy Anne Salz’s MSearchGroove blog lends its space to Ben Jacobsen, the former Director of Global Marketing for Opera, who has some numbers to put against predictions that apps won’t really matter by looking at the real value of the app industry (it’s apparently $3.2bn in 2009 growing to $7bn in 2013) and the opportunities for app stores (hint: it is not Apple that rules). He also – rightly – points out however that the fact that Opera’s Mini browser is the top downloaded Java application of all time provides a good outlook on where the real opportunity lies.

Judy Breck suggests that smartphones have become a defining tool to ensure social equality in education: she urges to give smartphones to Washington DC school kids to make sure access to information is the same irrespective of class and income.

If you want more proof on how the web enhances your mobile experience, here you go: Aaron Chua shows us some intriguing examples of mobile applications that combine mobile device functionality with the information available online. Geoff Ballinger throws in his comparison of the price plans competing in the UK with the new iPhone 3GS’s tethering option (just in case you were wondering if it made sense).

And then, here is a voice reminding us that there is not only the web to connect to but the real world, too: Andrew Grill gives us a heads-up on Unilever’s thoughts on mobile coupons. They realized that they might be able to reach youngsters who might not be so keen on cutting out paper coupons anymore…

Before I go, here are two very noteworthy posts on events you should try not to miss:

Caroline Lewko’s WIP Jam Sessions stage events on various mobile open source topics in Amsterdam, Berlin and Marseille.

And then of course Rudy de Waele opens Mobile 2.0 on 18/19 June 2009 in beautiful Barcelona.

And Rudy has a special goodie for Carnival readers: he is giving away 2 FREE TICKETS to both the developer day (otherwise sold out!) AND the conference. Here’s how to win the ticket: send your definition of what is Mobile 2.0 in a tweet tagged #cotm to @mobile20 before this coming Tuesday 14h (CET). Rudy will choose the best and announce the winners on the day.

Post of the week goes to Tomi Ahonen’s tour de force of the smartphone world (but he also receives a caution for being maybe a little too rose-tinted over Nokia – I am referring to their recent innovative forces rather than their early revolutions…).

Now go, click those links and dive into what will hopefully bring you (even more) insight and inspiration. Have a great week!

Image credit: http://tinyurl.com/mg2lto

iPhone Usage

By Volker

On 06/06/2009

In 1, Apple, OEM

Here’s a report about an interesting piece of research into the elusive animal that is the iPhone and Android user, or more precisely that animal’s usage of apps (“… there’s an app for that…”).

The researchers from Gravity Tank chose Android (well, the G1) next to the iPhone because Android Market and Apple’s App Store both allow “unlike older smartphones [sic!] easy access to a range of free or low-cost applications”. Now this is what the (mobile) world has become in the last 12 months…

Anyway, the survey finds that the average (!) user has 23.6 applications on his/her phone and uses 6.8 of them every day. 48 percent report shopping for apps more than once a week. About the same number (49 percent) report using apps on their phone for more than 30 minutes a day. Woah, nice!

But it goes on: 32% said they used portable gaming devices less because of their app-enabled phones. This reminds me of one of my predictions on how the iPhone would eat into the handheld gaming market (see here, here, here and here).

And it shows, more importantly maybe, that these owners of the “newer” smartphones use them as true multimedia devices rather than only phones: 31% read newspapers less, 28% use GPS devices less, 28% use MP3 players less (well, they have one of the better ones if they use an iPhone), and 24% are watching less TV. Media going mobile then, finally…

And then – another indication on how far we have gone – the NY Times starts to whine: it notes that “despite Apple’s relentless advertising of its App Store, it seems that the availability of applications is not the primary driver of phone-buying behavior.” Doh. Now, here’s a finding. 74% of the respondents said the device “allowed” them to check their e-mail and calendar, and it allowed them to consolidate multiple devices into a single device whereas “only” 67% cited the availability of new games and applications. Only 67%, huh? Brave new world!