U.S. Mobile Market Disruption Will Not be Easy

Based on SoftBank's ability to shake up the Japanese mobile market, many observers expect a similar assault in the U.S. market, from a SoftBank-owned Sprint. SoftBank entered the market by buying Vodafone's Japan assets in 2006.

In just one year, Softbank managed to boost its subscriber base from 700,000 in fiscal 2006 to 2.7 million in fiscal 2007.

By the beginning of 2008, Softbank had grabbed 44 percent of Japan’s new mobile subscribers, well ahead of KDDI’s 35 percent and NTT-DoCoMo’s 11 percent.

Softbank’s “White Plan” was important, offering  offering free peak-time calls on SoftBank’s network.  

One key point was SoftBank’s willingness to sacrifice voice average revenue per user  to make market share gains. Back in 2006 to 2008, Softbank was willing to accept a stunning $13 overall ARPU decline.

SoftBank’s exclusive right to sell Apple’s iPhone, obtained in 2008, did not hurt, either.

It won't be as easy the second time, as voice prices are fairly reasonable in the U.S. market, on-network calling circles are common, and there will be no equivalent of the Apple iPhone exclusivity.

SoftBank strategists likely are hard at work trying to find some equivalent value, but the point is that it will not be easy to disrupt the U.S. market, especially when carriers are free to match key offers.

An example can be gleaned from the recent T-Mobile US effort to unbundle device purchases from recurring service charges. The “Jump” program--allowing faster device upgrades-- likewise was intended to differentiate T-Mobile US from its key competitors.

But the advantage is blunted when all the other carriers match the offer.  AT&T launched  its own program "Next," while Verizon launched  "Edge," substantially matching the T-Mobile US offer. Sprint now has followed with One Up, launching Sept. 20, 2013 and allowing Sprint customers to buy a new phone with no money down, paying for devices in installments over two years.

The move by Sprint means all four of the large national carriers offers such a program, and shows how hard it will be for T-Mobile US or  Sprint to truly disrupt the U.S. mobile market.

Some might argue the T-Mobile US campaign now will need to change yet again, allowing T-Mobile US to argue it is forcing the rest of the industry to change, and attempting further changes in retail packaging.

T-Mobile US might argue its competitors still have not truly matched its offers, given remaining price differences, especially between T-Mobile US and Sprint, on one hand, and AT&T and Verizon Wireless on the other hand, at least for single device accounts.

Just how much Sprint might be able to attack retail packaging or pricing levels, until the other carriers (or at least AT&T and Verizon Wireless) are unable to keep matching the offers, remains to be seen. But that is likely to be key to whether Sprint or T-Mobile US are able to significantly and permanently change market share in the U.S. mobile market.

Multi-Sided Markets are Complex, Therefore Slow to Emerge

Single-sided markets are relatively simple: there is just one type of buyer. Internet service providers, mobile service providers and fixed network service providers are examples.

There are other models, though, even in the network services business. Cable TV operators, for example, operate in two-sided markets, earning revenue both from end users and business partners.

Many of the newer markets service providers are entering, or have entered, are much more complicated. Those multi-sided markets require construction of more-complex value chains, and therefore take longer, and are tougher, to successfully create, according to Rajesh Kandaswamy, Gartner analyst.

Many of the hoped-for new businesses, such as any ways network services are exposed to third parties, are two-sided models, where revenue is earned from end users and business partners. That’s a more-complex business, creating multiple required ecosystem connections.

For a service provider hoping to earn revenue from advertising or content delivery network services, for example, service providers must maintain a critical mass of customers that advertisers want to reach, and then entice marketers to pay money to reach those prospects.

Some of the new revenue streams might be even more complicated. A connected car service, for example, could be a one-sided business (where a mobile service provider sells only to a automobile manufacturer), or a two-sided business, where a service provider sells direct to its existing customers, as well as to a partner auto manufacturer.

Mobile payments so far represent the most complicated, multi-sided ventures. The current system already has many participants. Card holders, card issuers (bank), card networks (Visa / MasterCard), merchants, and acquirers (banks and processors) are the primary stakeholders.

By definition, a payment network is multi-sided. Adding mobile payments inserts the mobile service provider into the value chain as well, and may or may not pose a threat of competing with other participants.

Multi-Sided Payment Ecosystem

In the simplest possible implementation of mobile payments, the mobile phone replaces the plastic card.

In a more-disruptive scenario, mobile services actually displace one or more of the existing participants.

But any multi-sided market is more complex to create or modify since it requires agreement of other participants in the value chain, some of which might resist the change, precisely because entry of the mobile payments participant can cannibalize revenue or threaten displacement of an existing provider from a role in the value chain.

That is one reason why mobile payments will take some time to develop as a mass market.

66% of All Mobile Phone Users Use Internet on Their Mobiles

Google Wallet Can be Used by Any Android Running Version 2.3 or Higher

It is not directly a commentary on the value of near field communications, but Google’s introduction of a new version of the Google Wallet app, rolling out the week of Sept. 15, 2013, is part of Google’s overall approach to apps, which is to make them available on all platforms.

The latest addition makes Google Wallet usable by all Android phones (version 2.3 and higher), in the United States. That means there is no need for NFC capabilities on the devices.

The updated app allows users to easily send money on the go, store loyalty cards, save money through offers, and view all your Google Wallet activity, Google says.

Using the Google Wallet app, users can easily and securely send money on the go to any friend in the United States with an email address (ages 18+). It’s free to send money directly from your bank account or Google Wallet balance, and low fees apply when using a linked credit or debit card.

With the new Google Wallet app, users add cards by scanning barcodes or inputting the card number into the app. The next time you’re at the store, you can earn points for your loyalty program by scanning the app at checkout, said Peter Hazlehurst, Google Wallet director of product management.

In addition to loyalty cards, all offers from the Google Maps app, Google Search, Google+ or Google Offers are visible and redeemable in the Wallet app at checkout.

Google Wallet also can be used to to pay on Google Play, select mobile websites or a growing set of Android apps.

The new version is available on the Google Play Store.

Does Broadband "Cause" Economic Growth and Higher Household Income?

Correlation is not causation. In other words, even when there is a relationship between two events, trends or occurrences, that does not mean one causes the other in a direct sense. Still, a study sponsored by Ericsson claims higher speeds "cause" higher household income.

With all due respect for Arthur D. Little and Chalmers University of Technology, which conducted the study, that’s a logical fallacy. No doubt, household income and use of broadband access are correlated.

But it is just as likely that higher income “causes” purchases of faster-speed broadband access, than that broadband access “causes” higher income. In truth, there is clear correlation, not “causation.”

Correlations are different from the classic method of making predictions: trying to find out "why" or "what caused something." That's known as "causation." But while correlation is not causation, correlation still is useful.

A correlation does not mean that one thing caused the other, but “big data” can yield important insights. For instance, after analyzing billions of records, MasterCard learned that when someone buys gas at around 4 p.m., the person will likely then spend $35 to $50 on groceries or at a restaurant. The gas purchase didn't cause the food purchase, but the two events are correlated.

That doesn’t invalidate the importance of the insight. In this instance, correlation is as important as causation, one might argue.

But it arguably is incorrect to see a causal relationship when there is clear correlation, but no clear evidence of causation. In fact, one might plausibly argue the inverse case, that is is higher income that causes purchasing of faster and more expensive broadband, not broadband causing higher income.

The study argues that, in OECD countries, the greatest measured increase in income was for households that upgrade from 0.5 Mbps to 4 Mbps, at around US$322 per household per month.

On average, upgrading from 4 Mbps to 8 Mbps yielded US$122 per household, per month. For Brazil, India and China, upgrading from 0.5 Mbps to 4 Mbps is projected to yield US$46 per month, per household, the report claims.

The Ericsson-sponsored study does attempt to control for factors known to influence income (age, sex/gender, education, household size, skills and type of occupation).

That there is a correlation between gross domestic product and Internet access speed does not seem out of place. Whether there is causation is the questionable assumption.

"Results are in line with our previous study that quantified the impact of broadband speed increases on the gross domestic product of 33 countries, as well as a slew of other studies we reviewed,” said Sebastian Tolstoy, VP Radio Business development and Strategy, Ericsson.

Few might disagree that “broadband access has a positive effect on the economy.” What is contestable is that broadband causes economic growth. Some would argue it is more likely economic growth causes faster-speed broadband to be deployed and purchased.

One might argue that mobile services likewise cause economic development. Others would argue mobile services are most plentiful and most advanced in densely populated urban areas where there are high concentrations of customers because economic growth is robust in those regions, compared to rural regions, for example.

That is why new mobile networks are built first in urban areas, not rural areas, and why most mobile service revenue is generated in urbanized areas. That is where the economic activity, higher incomes and wealth tend to be located. In other words, it makes as much sense to argue that economic growth “causes” mobile adoption as to argue that mobile “causes” economic growth. They are correlated, clearly, but not causal in a clear way.

The evidence is building for broadband speed as a driver of economic growth,” said Martin Glaumann, Partner at Arthur D. Little.

The study can show that increased broadband speed increases income,” said Erik Bohlin, professor at Chalmers University of Technology.

In Different Ways, Microsoft and Apple Both Bank on Having the Right Strategy

The best strategy in mobile device or computing device markets tends to change over time, some would argue. In a brand new market, it often makes sense to bundle the experience elements (integrate vertically) to reduce adoption barriers. 

You might point to AOL's success, early in the consumer Internet access market, or Apple's historic focus on integrating experience elements for personal computing. 

Later, when customers and users are well acquainted with a product, that approach can backfire, and a horizontal, unbundled, or "open" approach often can work better. 

And that is the issue both Apple and Microsoft are grappling with, at some level. Some would argue Microsoft is about to pursue a vertical approach in mobile, where it historically has taken a horizontal approach in PCs. 

And Apple continues to act consistently with its vertical approach, though many argue it should at least deviate somewhat from its "premium pricing" approach, as it did with the iPod product line. 

But some might argue that a horizontal approach is better in a mobile device market that increasingly is well understood and mature. When consumers are comfortable with a technology product, the importance of a unified, consistent experience (provided by a vertical approach) arguably is less important. 

Google, by way of contrast, has some "vertical" experiements (Nexus smart phone), but mostly operates horizontally, trying to be relevant on every platform. 

Google wants to offer an integrated experience, but doesn't worry so much about "absolute best" experience on every device or platform, all the time. Google wants useful experience on every platform, all the time, and "best" experience on some devices, some of the time. 

If Microsoft and Apple are wrong, time will tell. Cross-platform performance, some would argue, now is becoming strategic. Microsoft will pursue that some of the time, Apple some of the time, but neither has a cross-platform strategy all of the time. 

For that matter, Google does not have a horizontal approach all of the time, either. But most of what Google offers intentionally is cross platform and horizontal. The vertical efforts are mostly demonstration projects intended to illustrate best of breed use of the platform. 

Revenue Role Reversal for Fixed, Mobile Networks?

In many ways, mobile service providers might hope Western Europe does not represent the future of the global business. In some ways, fixed network operators might hope Western Europe is a model for the future.

The reason is that fixed network revenue sources seem to be growing, as a percentage of total industry revenues, compared to mobile revenue sources, which seem to be shrinking, as a percentage of total industry revenues.

That doesn’t necessarily mean fixed network revenue is growing; it simply is shrinking more slowly than mobile revenues.

It appears mobile is poised for more serious revenue declines than fixed services. “A key factor is mobile's dependence on legacy non-data services compared with fixed-line or cable,” Analysys Mason says.

Already, about 67 percent of fixed operator revenue (excluding content) in Western Europe came from data in 2012.

In fact, though it will strike many as odd, the Great Recession and continuing economic sluggishness in Europe has produced evidence that European consumers consider their fixed service more essential than their mobile services, something many would assumed would operate in the reverse--with mobile services deemed more important than fixed.

Fixed service revenue seems to have been more stable than mobile revenues. In fact, fixed-line bundles have the best take-up in some of the more economically challenged countries, Analysys Mason notes.

Perhaps the primary reason for that fixed network preference is the value-price relationship, compared to the value-price relationship for mobile Internet access.

Also, with growing availability of Wi-Fi access in public and outside the home areas, it is easier to use “Wi-Fi only” or “Wi-Fi mostly” as the Internet access medium.

Oddly enough, after a long period where global growth was driven by mobile services, there now appears to be an opportunity for at least some new growth in the fixed network space based on providing services to mobile users.

Mobile data traffic increasingly is used at locations where fixed operators can supply most customer needs at lower cost and price. The reason is that most consumed data occurs when people are not “out and about,” but at stationary locations, most commonly the home or office.

Though a decade ago the notion that Wi-Fi hotspot networks could be a substitute for mobile access proved incorrect, some believer there could well be a different business terrain over the next several years.

Potentially, fixed broadband providers could cooperate with public Wi-Fi providers, or use owned assets, to create Wi-Fi access that is a reasonably useful primary Internet access method for some customers.

To counter that threat, mobile operators are adding their own public Wi-Fi networks, in part to offload traffic from the mobile network and in part to provide data services at lower cost.

The important potential new development is the reversal of “growth” prospects for mobile and fixed networks. Or, as some analysts suggest, which segment will decline less.

Mobile Service Provider Revenue Sources

Fixed Network Service Provider Revenues

Perhaps significantly, mobile spending is viewed as more discretionary than fixed network spending, by analysts at Analysys Mason.

Recent results from larger operators in Europe already show faster decline in mobile retail revenue than in fixed, and Analysys Mason forecasts that mobile will represent a declining share of total operator retail telecoms revenue during the next five years.

Spain might provide an example. Though overall service provider revenue is projected to decline over the next two years, fiber-based services on the fixed side and wholesale services or business-to-business mobile services are where revenue growth will be found, according to a new analysis by Pyramid Research.

The Spanish communications market generated €22.6bn ($29.0bn) in 2012, which represented an eight percent decline year-on-year.

Due to the prolonged economic recession, expected to last another two years in Spain, communications market service revenue will return to growth in 2015, up 2.3 percent a year.

Fiber to the home revenues will grow at a compound annual growth rate of 58 percent between 2013 and 2018, reaching $3.3bn in 2018,” says Pyramid Research Senior Analyst, Stela Bokun.   

Mobile revenue growth will come from the enterprise and wholesale segments.

The key takeaway is that revenue growth will be tough, and that growth might be stronger (or declines less sharp) in the fixed network segment of the business.

Over the Top Video Entertainment Suffers Because of Cost Shifting by Participants

Any business ecosystem contains potential for conflict between participants, and the over the top video entertainment ecosystem is not exempt from those issues. In a loosely-coupled ecosystem, there frequently are opportunities to shift costs to other participants, or add complexity to functions provided by other participants.

At the moment, “such cost shifting has temporarily threatened, but not permanently damaged, the ability of over-the-top services to function acceptably,” according to Sandvine.

The quality of experience of an end-user for a given Internet-delivered application or content is affected by numerous choices made by many players through the value chain, including consumers.

End user devices (screen resolution, CPU performance, memory, application and operating system), the network inside consumer homes (wireless or wired, coverage, interference), the connection from their home to the access provider (RF noise, oversubscription ratios), the backbone of the access provider (oversubscription, latency), the transit providers, hosting services providers and original content providers make choices that can affect perceived end user quality.

Since a network’s capital cost is driven heavily by peak capacity, there is significant incentive for all parties to optimize and find efficiencies.

But it also means there is significant incentive to move the cost to another party, and there is ample opportunity to do so, says Sandvine.

With limited exceptions (peak and off-peak pricing, as well as using time-zones to trade-off transport distance versus server load), moving traffic in time is not an option because, with real-time applications, consumers decide when they want to be entertained.

What can be done is to minimize the total number of links between a source and a consumer, moving traffic to lower-cost links, arbitrage on pricing models or use of better video compression, Sandvine suggests.

The larger point is that disputes about how to allocate cost and revenue within the video entertainment ecosystem involve legitimate attempts by participants to maximize their own revenue and minimize their own cost.

That is why access providers so often complain that some app providers are imposing costs on access providers while reaping all the revenue themselves.

Growing Mobile Internet Access Has Implications for ISPs, Device Suppliers

About 63 percent of mobile users appear to access the Internet from their phones. Of those, some 34 percent “mostly” use their phone to access the Internet, as opposed to other devices such as a desktop PC, notebook or tablet computer, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project.

There are at least two areas in which there are potential implications for the Internet ecosystem and its suppliers, generally positive for mobile app and mobile ISP providers, as well as mobile device suppliers, and at least modestly unhelpful for suppliers of fixed ISP providers and PC suppliers.

To be sure, using a mobile device for Internet access might well entail use of a fixed connection with Wi-Fi capabilities, as well as the Wi-Fi capabilities of a smart phone. In that case, a preference for mobile device Internet access does not directly and fully represent use of mobile access as opposed to fixed access.

But the growing trend to use mobile devices for Internet apps and services also suggests a significant user population prefers mobile access, and believes a mobile device is a suitable substitute for a PC or notebook computer.

Also, there are some policy implications. The first implication is that, as always, consumers might choose not to buy some products that are made available to them. In other words, differences in purchasing behavior are not always or necessarily caused by “defects” of supply.

People make rational choices about products and services, and they might prefer mobile access to fixed access. Policymakers have to avoid regulating or legislating as though differences in consumer buying are necessarily "problems." They might just be a reflection of consumer choices.

Such mobile-mostly Internet users account for 21 percent of the total mobile phone user population. Young adults, non-whites, and those with relatively low income and education levels are particularly likely to be mobile-mostly users.

That same trend is expected to emerge in many developing nations as well.

Some 53 percent of mobile Internet users say that they mostly go online from a device other than their mobile phone, while 11 percent say that they use both their phone and some other device or devices equally.

Since at least 2011, young adults, non-whites, the less educated, and the less affluent have said that they go online mostly using their cell phone at consistently high rates, Pew researchers say.

Among those who use their phone to go online, 60 percent of  Hispanics and 43 percent of African-Americans are mobilel-mostly Internet users, compared with 27 percent of whites, say Pew researchers.

About 50 percent of mobile Internet users ages 18 to 29 mostly use their phone to go online.

Some 45 percent of mobile Internet users with a high school diploma or less mostly use their phone to go online, compared with 21 percent of those with a college degree.

Similarly, 45 percent of mobile Internet users living in households with an annual income of less than $30,000 mostly use their phone to go online, compared with 27 percent  of those living in households with an annual income of $75,000 or more.

Sprint Launches "One Up" Device Upgrade Program

One Up is Sprint's new device upgrade program, launching Sept. 20, 2013 and allowing Sprint customers to buy a new phone with no money down, paying for devices in installments over two years.

If a customer terminates service before all the installment payments are made, the customer pays the balance of the device cost the following month.

After a year, a customer can upgrade to a new phone by trading in the device.

The move by Sprint means all four of the large national carriers offers such a program.

T-Mobile US calls its program "Jump."  AT&T calls its program "Next," while Verizon has "Edge."

Are Apple and Nokia Mirror Images?

The Apple strategy for emerging markets is in some ways the mirror image of what Nokia did. 

Where Nokia had enormous strength in the "affordable phone" segments of emerging markets, 
Apple seems to eschew that segment, sticking with its "premium, high margin" positioning even as it tries to expand to some demographic segments (wealthier customers) of the Chinese and other markets.

Some argue Apple is going the same way with smart phones that it chose to go with PCs, allowing Android to capture market share, with Apple eventually being relegated to a niche role. 

Others believe Apple will succeed. But that is the point, some might say. We are talking about a pricing strategy. 

Those arguments essentially avoid the question that is at the heart of all debates about whether Apple can keep its magic without Steve Jobs. Here we are, talking about pricing strategy. We aren't talking about reinvention of whole markets. 

That might come, some would say. Others might say it might not even come, but Apple will find its way forward, anyhow. Some of us cannot avoid the sense that Apple will revert to the mean. 

Most of us would agree with a general rule that nobody is "irreplaceable." But some of us might agree there are exceptions to every rule. Steve Jobs was that exception.