Cable and satellite providers of video entertainment have different financial interests from content providers, even though both are essential parts of the multi-channel video entertainment ecosystem.
Likewise, handets manufacturers, mobile application providers and access providers have distinct financial interests, though all are part of the single mobile ecosystem.
That being the case, conflicts between ecosystem partners are an ever-present reality. The issue is how much cooperation and conflict is possible, and whether enough benefit occurs, despite some conflict.
Google's release of the Nexus One, and its apparent plans to release a Nexus Two and other devices are prime examples. Some observers, including Google's competitors, will note that it is risky for a partner to compete with its other partners in a single ecosystem.
Microsoft of course questions the wisdom of Google's mobile strategy, insisting Google will have trouble attracting and keeping handset partners for its Android operating system now that the company is selling its very own branded devices.
That certainly is the conventional wisdom. But even a valid conventional wisdom can have exceptions. What "most" partners cannot envision, attempt or succeed at is not to say that "all" partners are so limited. Nor are relationships immutable; they can change over time.
Google might be one of the salient exceptions, as is Apple. Several years ago, most telecom executives were more afraid of Google than of cable operators. These days, executives are looking for ways to leverage and work with Google.
Apple has significantly reinvented business frameworks in the music and phone businesses, for example.
The other issue is that Google's relationship with some ecosystem partners can be qutie distinct. At least initially, HTC and Motorola have add a different relationship than other manufacturers, and T-Mobile as a service provider likewise was early to support Android.
Google's other partnerships are a bit more complicated and one has to think Verizon and Motorola are less than thrilled, even though both are key Android partners.
Still, the point is that ecosystem relationships periodically get tested. Content providers and cable and satellite operators are used to the possibility of significant conflict over carriage agreements. Also, at the margin, some distributors also are content owners, while some content owners have been distributors.
Some distributors are part of the equipment supplier segment, as well as distributors. Some equipment suppliers are becoming application providers.
Yes, Google risks some ire by distributing its own branded handset. But ecosystem "messiness" is growing throughout the communications and entertainment ecosystems. And some players can attempt strategies that would be considered suicidal if attempted by less powerful contestants.
There are rules, and exceptions to those rules. Apple and Google might prove to be right or wrong. What is indisputable is that they are different; they can attempt things most other players cannot think about.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Is Google Crazy, or Simply Unusual?
Labels:
Apple,
business model,
cable,
Google,
satellite,
telco strategy
Gary Kim has been a digital infra analyst and journalist for more than 30 years, covering the business impact of technology, pre- and post-internet. He sees a similar evolution coming with AI. General-purpose technologies do not come along very often, but when they do, they change life, economies and industries.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Directv-Dish Merger Fails
Directv’’s termination of its deal to merge with EchoStar, apparently because EchoStar bondholders did not approve, means EchoStar continue...
-
We have all repeatedly seen comparisons of equity value of hyperscale app providers compared to the value of connectivity providers, which s...
-
It really is surprising how often a Pareto distribution--the “80/20 rule--appears in business life, or in life, generally. Basically, the...
-
One recurring issue with forecasts of multi-access edge computing is that it is easier to make predictions about cost than revenue and infra...
No comments:
Post a Comment