Advertising-sponsored mobile applications will generate almost 25 per cent of mobile application store revenue by 2013, amounting to nearly $8 billion in revenue.
Consumers will spend $6.2 billion in 2010 in mobile application stores while advertising revenue is expected to generate $0.6 billion worldwide, according to Gartner analysts.
Mobile application stores will exceed 4.5 billion downloads in 2010, eight out of ten of which will be free to end users.
Gartner forecasts worldwide downloads in mobile application stores to surpass 21.6 billion by 2013. Free downloads will account for 82 per cent of all downloads in 2010, and will account for 87 per cent of downloads in 2013.
“Games remain the number one application," says Stephanie Baghdassarian, research director at Gartner.
"No incremental cost" applications will use other revenue models, she says. Developers will charge for additional functionality, sales of products and services or advertising.
Worldwide mobile application stores’ download revenue exceeded $4.2 billion in 2009 and will grow to $29.5 billion by the end of 2013.
Monday, January 18, 2010
App Store Software Sales $30 Billion in 2013, Advertising Nearly $8 Billion
Labels:
app store,
Apple,
iPhone,
mobile advertising
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Verizon Offers New Bundle Pricing and Features
Starting Jan 18, 2010, qualifying customers can order double- or triple-play bundles with up to 7.1 megabits per second high-speed Internet access for the same price as bundles with up to 3 Mbps, a $10 per month rate reduction.
Consumers in select Verizon regions can also order quad-play bundles at the new 7.1 Mbps bundle price.
In addition, new voice and high-speed Internet access customers ordering qualifying double-, triple- or quad-play bundles are eligible for their choice of a Compaq Mini netbook or $150 back in the form of aVerizon Visa Prepaid card.
Existing Verizon customers who add either new home voice or High Speed Internet service in a qualifying bundle are eligible to receive a $100 Verizon Visa Prepaid card along with the other incentives.
Bundles eligible for these offers include the triple play featuring "Verizon Freedom Essentials" unlimited local and long-distance calling, up to 3 or 7.1 Mbps HSI and DirectTV's "PLUS DVR" service, including a free DVR upgrade, and the double play with Verizon Freedom Essentials and up to 3 or 7.1 Mbps HSI.
Customers who sign up now can get all this value for just $94.99 per month for the triple play and $69.99 per month for the double play, with the prices guaranteed for 12 months. One-year Verizon agreements and two-year DirecTV agreements apply.
Triple-play bundles that feature up to 1 Mbps HSI, Verizon Freedom Value and the DirecTV "Choice" package are offered at $84.99 per month for 12 months.
Double-play bundles that feature Verizon Freedom voice options with either HSI or DirecTV programming are also available, many at carryover or lower pricing from 2009, and range from $54.99 to $89.99 per month for 12 months. One-year Verizon agreements and two-year DirecTV agreements apply.
New HSI customers with Verizon home voice service who do not opt for a bundle can order the broadband service for $19.99, $29.99 or $39.99 per month for up to 1, 3 or 7.1 Mbps service, respectively, and enjoy a lifetime price guarantee as long as they maintain the same tier of service and Verizon HSI is available at their service location.
Consumers in select Verizon regions can also order quad-play bundles at the new 7.1 Mbps bundle price.
In addition, new voice and high-speed Internet access customers ordering qualifying double-, triple- or quad-play bundles are eligible for their choice of a Compaq Mini netbook or $150 back in the form of aVerizon Visa Prepaid card.
Existing Verizon customers who add either new home voice or High Speed Internet service in a qualifying bundle are eligible to receive a $100 Verizon Visa Prepaid card along with the other incentives.
Bundles eligible for these offers include the triple play featuring "Verizon Freedom Essentials" unlimited local and long-distance calling, up to 3 or 7.1 Mbps HSI and DirectTV's "PLUS DVR" service, including a free DVR upgrade, and the double play with Verizon Freedom Essentials and up to 3 or 7.1 Mbps HSI.
Customers who sign up now can get all this value for just $94.99 per month for the triple play and $69.99 per month for the double play, with the prices guaranteed for 12 months. One-year Verizon agreements and two-year DirecTV agreements apply.
Triple-play bundles that feature up to 1 Mbps HSI, Verizon Freedom Value and the DirecTV "Choice" package are offered at $84.99 per month for 12 months.
Double-play bundles that feature Verizon Freedom voice options with either HSI or DirecTV programming are also available, many at carryover or lower pricing from 2009, and range from $54.99 to $89.99 per month for 12 months. One-year Verizon agreements and two-year DirecTV agreements apply.
New HSI customers with Verizon home voice service who do not opt for a bundle can order the broadband service for $19.99, $29.99 or $39.99 per month for up to 1, 3 or 7.1 Mbps service, respectively, and enjoy a lifetime price guarantee as long as they maintain the same tier of service and Verizon HSI is available at their service location.
Labels:
bundles,
quadruple play,
Triple Play,
Verizon
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Telecom Italia Sparkle, iBasis Activate First All-IP Bilateral Operational
iBasis and Telecom Italia Sparkle have migrated all their bilateral traffic between Italy and the Netherlands to IP, using i3 Forum specifications. "We are pretty sure this is the first all-IP bilateral agreement," Chris Ward, iBasis senior director says.
All traffic over the connection uses iBasis premium voice service, with quality of service guarantees.
"I already sense some real energy about what we are doing, where there is greater access to the full range of resources at KPN," says Ward, because of the recent acquisition of all of iBasis by KPN.
Right now iBasis represents about seven percent of KPN revenue, but KPN obviously expects that to grow significantly. In part, that optimism results from a change in iBasis strategy of late.
"We have been very focused on margin growth over the past couple of years," says Ward. "But revenue growth is now more important."
KPN's corporate resources will play a part, but also KPN's status as a "member" of the global carrier club. To the extent that financial stability and resources are an important requirement for carrier business partners, the new ownership structure should prove reassuring.
But the iBasis core strategy hasn't changed. It wants to be a leading provider of global voice operation outsourcing for carriers who frankly have many other priorities and might prefer to focus on customers and products with 30-percent profit margins rather than the four percent to seven percent margins international long distance now provides.
"You can't be Neiman Marcus and Wal-Mart all at the same time," says Ward. "You have to choose."
As carriers migrate traffic to IP, we are a natural partner for outsourced international voice operations, says Ward."It doesn't make sense to run international long distance, for most people, unless you are a specialist."
"It's sort of like email, in a way," he says. "Don't devote resources to it, if you can avoid it."
All traffic over the connection uses iBasis premium voice service, with quality of service guarantees.
"I already sense some real energy about what we are doing, where there is greater access to the full range of resources at KPN," says Ward, because of the recent acquisition of all of iBasis by KPN.
Right now iBasis represents about seven percent of KPN revenue, but KPN obviously expects that to grow significantly. In part, that optimism results from a change in iBasis strategy of late.
"We have been very focused on margin growth over the past couple of years," says Ward. "But revenue growth is now more important."
KPN's corporate resources will play a part, but also KPN's status as a "member" of the global carrier club. To the extent that financial stability and resources are an important requirement for carrier business partners, the new ownership structure should prove reassuring.
But the iBasis core strategy hasn't changed. It wants to be a leading provider of global voice operation outsourcing for carriers who frankly have many other priorities and might prefer to focus on customers and products with 30-percent profit margins rather than the four percent to seven percent margins international long distance now provides.
"You can't be Neiman Marcus and Wal-Mart all at the same time," says Ward. "You have to choose."
As carriers migrate traffic to IP, we are a natural partner for outsourced international voice operations, says Ward."It doesn't make sense to run international long distance, for most people, unless you are a specialist."
"It's sort of like email, in a way," he says. "Don't devote resources to it, if you can avoid it."
Labels:
ibasis,
international long distance,
VoIP
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
U.S. Mainland to St. Thomas Route Upgraded to 20 Gbps
The Americas I North Submarine Cable System between Vero Beach, Florida and St. Thomas, USVI; and the Columbus 2b Submarine Cable system between West Palm Beach, Florida and St. Thomas, USVI has been upgraded from a single 2.5 Gbpschannel to 20 Gbps using Xtera Communications gear.
This upgrade project significantly increases capacity between the United States and the Caribbean. The consortium parties participating in this upgrade are ANTELCOM, AT&T, SETAR, Tricom and Verizon Business.
This upgrade project significantly increases capacity between the United States and the Caribbean. The consortium parties participating in this upgrade are ANTELCOM, AT&T, SETAR, Tricom and Verizon Business.
Labels:
broadband,
long haul network,
undersea cable
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Are Apple and Google Reshaping Mobile Phone Competition?
At a deep level, the developing contests in the high-end smartphone business are less about the devices, and more about the applications and business ecosystems the devices will help to support.
Mobile app stores have become the surprise success of the smartphone business. Unfortunately, it isn't a business for most, as most of the apps available on popular app stores are offered free, and most sell for less than a dollar.
And that's where advertising might be important. If developers cannot profit at all, or not much, from direct app sales, perhaps advertising might develop as a key revenue model. Some skeptics will note, rightly, that "advertising" is the magical business model many free Internet app providers have claimed would be their ultimate revenue model.
Some will make it work, but most will not. On the other hand, who would want to bet against Apple and Google being at the very forefront of firms that could find a way to make it work?
So how could Apple or Google make advertising work much better? By vastly improving the relevance of every message, using location and existing profiles of user behavior, and by making "advertising" a more entertaining experience.
To do so, Apple needs a network of advertisers and the technology to target ads to customer behavior, which most observers would say Apple now has with its purchase of Quattro.
Nor might Apple necessarily be thinking of "out-Googling" Google in mobile search. That isn't the way Apple's executives think. Rather, they think about creating whole new businesses, not improving existing businesses.
That is the thinking many have in asserting that mobile apps might someday replace search in a mobile context. The reason is partly the chores of interacting with small screens and text input. Apple will be looking at that, and so will Google. The whole idea will be to automate the process of finding things, so it is a more natural, certainly more easy process.
The other angle is simply screen real estate. Some would argue display ads work better on small screens, as the ad might sometimes occupy the entire screen. Users are likely to see such approaches as intrusive.
Oddly enough, the new shift to app stores and mobile advertising might lessen the value of hardware ingenuity, because the new game is monetizing applications and creating commercial transaction potential using location. There is a sense in which the mobile device battler is shifting from hardware to software.
Right now, it would be hard to argue that Apple and Google are in the strongest positions where it comes to software and advertising.
Mobile app stores have become the surprise success of the smartphone business. Unfortunately, it isn't a business for most, as most of the apps available on popular app stores are offered free, and most sell for less than a dollar.
And that's where advertising might be important. If developers cannot profit at all, or not much, from direct app sales, perhaps advertising might develop as a key revenue model. Some skeptics will note, rightly, that "advertising" is the magical business model many free Internet app providers have claimed would be their ultimate revenue model.
Some will make it work, but most will not. On the other hand, who would want to bet against Apple and Google being at the very forefront of firms that could find a way to make it work?
So how could Apple or Google make advertising work much better? By vastly improving the relevance of every message, using location and existing profiles of user behavior, and by making "advertising" a more entertaining experience.
To do so, Apple needs a network of advertisers and the technology to target ads to customer behavior, which most observers would say Apple now has with its purchase of Quattro.
Nor might Apple necessarily be thinking of "out-Googling" Google in mobile search. That isn't the way Apple's executives think. Rather, they think about creating whole new businesses, not improving existing businesses.
That is the thinking many have in asserting that mobile apps might someday replace search in a mobile context. The reason is partly the chores of interacting with small screens and text input. Apple will be looking at that, and so will Google. The whole idea will be to automate the process of finding things, so it is a more natural, certainly more easy process.
The other angle is simply screen real estate. Some would argue display ads work better on small screens, as the ad might sometimes occupy the entire screen. Users are likely to see such approaches as intrusive.
Oddly enough, the new shift to app stores and mobile advertising might lessen the value of hardware ingenuity, because the new game is monetizing applications and creating commercial transaction potential using location. There is a sense in which the mobile device battler is shifting from hardware to software.
Right now, it would be hard to argue that Apple and Google are in the strongest positions where it comes to software and advertising.
Labels:
app store,
Apple,
business model,
Google
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Do People Expect Too Much from Nexus One?
The Nexus One launch has not gone flawlessly, that is clear enough. Users report their devices are randomly switching between the T-Mobile USA 3G and the EDGE network. Early Apple iPhone devices had the same problem, some niote.
Others are disappointed Google wasn't "more disruptive" of the retail pricing regime, or the lack of multi-touch support for the screen (an input capability using input from two fingers, used to enlarge a section of the screen image by pinching or sweeping the touch points apart or together.
Despite the "earned media buzz," Nexus One's first-week sales appear to fall far short of sales of the Apple iPhone, for example. Flurry estimates the iPhone sold more than a million units in three days when first introduced, and 1.6 million units in its first full week, while the Nexus One might have sold only 20,000 units.
The Verizon Droid sold 250,000 units the first week it was available, while the HTC "myTouch" sold 60,000 units in its first week of availability.
To be sure, Nexus One, myTouch and Droid all are available on just a single network in a single coutnry. The iPhone initially was available in eight countries and eight carriers.
That's no coincidence. After the iPhone hype, it is proving more difficult for each competing device to illustrate how it is similarly "revolutionary." There's just no way to get around the fact that the iPhone was revolutionary, and so far, the other devices, though unique in many wasy, simply are following in the general mode.
Apple might have seized such a mindshare lead that there simply is no way any other device can "challenge" iPhone. That isn't to say many other touchscreen smartphones will fail to be built and marketed, but simply that the "buzz" hasn't been matched by the same sort of enthusiastic consumer resposne as the iPhone received, simply because no subsequent device, so far, as proven to be such an advance over the earlier generation of devices.
So far, all the other models are "like the iPhone." So far, that hasn't been enough. That's one reason why at least a few of us might think the challenge for all the other devices is to create a unique identity in the market, not to "be the next iPhone." That probably cannot be done at this point.
What device promoters can do is what Research in Motion achieved with th BlackBerry. RIM created an email-optimized device that syncs seamlessly with key Microsoft applications such as "Outlook," in additiion to handling email, capturing a specific segment of the mobile device market and end user base (business users).
But there's more to it than just that. The mobile is a mass market retail business, where marketing, distribution and customer support all matter. As much earned media attention as Nexus One has gotten, it is nothing like what Verizon was apparently able to do with a huge marketing and advertising blitz for its "Droid," or what Apple was able to do, not just with its own earned media campaign, but with a follow-on marketing campaign and network of highly-trafficked retail locations.
The Nexus One is being sold through a Web site, with only earned media support. Verizon launched a $100 million on marketing blitz, including the key Christmas selling season. Suffice it to say many many millions more people know the name "Droid" than "Nexus One."
T-Mobile, whose currernt role in the Nexus One ecosysem is largely indirect, does not appear to have supported the Nexus One launch with its own marketing funds, though it did for the myTouch.
Also, with a few new Android devices now competing for attention, there may be some fragmentation of the message. There's just one iPhone; there are several Android smartphones.
Also, Google might not have priced the device at levels that would drive more volume, though it also is battling the known resistance most end users have to paying $500 or more for an "unlocked" smartphone that only works on one U.S. network (with full access to all the frequency bands) anyway. What does "unlocked" mean to most consumers when the device can only be used on one network?
Beyond that, there is the simple fact that device hype likely outstrips ability to deliver, at this point. Everybody is looking for the first true "iPhone competitor." That might be asking too much.
http://blog.flurry.com/bid/29658/Flurry-Special-Report-Google-Nexus-One-Launch-Week-Sales
Others are disappointed Google wasn't "more disruptive" of the retail pricing regime, or the lack of multi-touch support for the screen (an input capability using input from two fingers, used to enlarge a section of the screen image by pinching or sweeping the touch points apart or together.
Despite the "earned media buzz," Nexus One's first-week sales appear to fall far short of sales of the Apple iPhone, for example. Flurry estimates the iPhone sold more than a million units in three days when first introduced, and 1.6 million units in its first full week, while the Nexus One might have sold only 20,000 units.
The Verizon Droid sold 250,000 units the first week it was available, while the HTC "myTouch" sold 60,000 units in its first week of availability.
To be sure, Nexus One, myTouch and Droid all are available on just a single network in a single coutnry. The iPhone initially was available in eight countries and eight carriers.
That's no coincidence. After the iPhone hype, it is proving more difficult for each competing device to illustrate how it is similarly "revolutionary." There's just no way to get around the fact that the iPhone was revolutionary, and so far, the other devices, though unique in many wasy, simply are following in the general mode.
Apple might have seized such a mindshare lead that there simply is no way any other device can "challenge" iPhone. That isn't to say many other touchscreen smartphones will fail to be built and marketed, but simply that the "buzz" hasn't been matched by the same sort of enthusiastic consumer resposne as the iPhone received, simply because no subsequent device, so far, as proven to be such an advance over the earlier generation of devices.
So far, all the other models are "like the iPhone." So far, that hasn't been enough. That's one reason why at least a few of us might think the challenge for all the other devices is to create a unique identity in the market, not to "be the next iPhone." That probably cannot be done at this point.
What device promoters can do is what Research in Motion achieved with th BlackBerry. RIM created an email-optimized device that syncs seamlessly with key Microsoft applications such as "Outlook," in additiion to handling email, capturing a specific segment of the mobile device market and end user base (business users).
But there's more to it than just that. The mobile is a mass market retail business, where marketing, distribution and customer support all matter. As much earned media attention as Nexus One has gotten, it is nothing like what Verizon was apparently able to do with a huge marketing and advertising blitz for its "Droid," or what Apple was able to do, not just with its own earned media campaign, but with a follow-on marketing campaign and network of highly-trafficked retail locations.
The Nexus One is being sold through a Web site, with only earned media support. Verizon launched a $100 million on marketing blitz, including the key Christmas selling season. Suffice it to say many many millions more people know the name "Droid" than "Nexus One."
T-Mobile, whose currernt role in the Nexus One ecosysem is largely indirect, does not appear to have supported the Nexus One launch with its own marketing funds, though it did for the myTouch.
Also, with a few new Android devices now competing for attention, there may be some fragmentation of the message. There's just one iPhone; there are several Android smartphones.
Also, Google might not have priced the device at levels that would drive more volume, though it also is battling the known resistance most end users have to paying $500 or more for an "unlocked" smartphone that only works on one U.S. network (with full access to all the frequency bands) anyway. What does "unlocked" mean to most consumers when the device can only be used on one network?
Beyond that, there is the simple fact that device hype likely outstrips ability to deliver, at this point. Everybody is looking for the first true "iPhone competitor." That might be asking too much.
http://blog.flurry.com/bid/29658/Flurry-Special-Report-Google-Nexus-One-Launch-Week-Sales
Labels:
Android,
BlackBerry,
consumer behavior,
iPhone,
marketing,
Nexus One
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Next Broadband Round Will Be Heavy on Middle Mile Projects
The National Telecommunications & Information Association and the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service have announced the second round of bidding, as well as a specialized third round specifically for satellite projects. These rounds will dispense about $4.8 billion in grants and loans to expand broadband access and adoption.
NTIA’s program allocates $2.6 billion in this funding round of which approximately $2.35 billion will be made available for infrastructure projects. In this round, NTIA is adopting a “comprehensive communities” approach as its top priority in awarding infrastructure grants, focusing on middle mile broadband projects that connect key community anchor institutions – such as libraries, hospitals, community colleges, universities, and public safety institutions.
That is a significant development. NTIA projects, which have been seen as aimed more at metro areas than the Rural Utilities Service program, which exclusively aims to support rural projects, seems to have concluded that actual upgraded access projects are less valuable than middle-mile trunking services.
In other words, much of the spending in both the first and second rounds will go not to any new broadband access facilities, but to intermediate trunking networks that later can be used to provide actual broadband access.
The other interesting change is the new emphasis on a "third round" that specifically will accept satellite projects for the most-isolated locations.
In addition, NTIA plans to award at least $150 million of the funding for Public Computer Center projects, which will expand access to broadband service and enhance broadband capacity at public libraries, community colleges, and other institutions that service the general public.
NTIA also plans to award at least $100 million for Sustainable Broadband Adoption projects, which include projects to provide broadband education, training, and equipment, particularly to vulnerable population groups where broadband technology has traditionally been underutilized.
The separate Rural Utilities Service program will allocate $2.2 billion in this funding round. A second funding window will open later which will provide grants for satellite service for premises that remain unserved after all other Recovery Act broadband funding is awarded.
That round also will award grants for regional economic development projects using broadband, as well as make grants to rural libraries.
RUS will focus its round on last mile projects, which are anticipated to receive the vast majority of funding.
RUS will also fund middle mile projects involving current RUS program participants. RUS has decided to use a 75 percent grant, /25 percent loan model for all projects.
The application window opens Feb. 16 and closes March 15, 2010.
NTIA’s program allocates $2.6 billion in this funding round of which approximately $2.35 billion will be made available for infrastructure projects. In this round, NTIA is adopting a “comprehensive communities” approach as its top priority in awarding infrastructure grants, focusing on middle mile broadband projects that connect key community anchor institutions – such as libraries, hospitals, community colleges, universities, and public safety institutions.
That is a significant development. NTIA projects, which have been seen as aimed more at metro areas than the Rural Utilities Service program, which exclusively aims to support rural projects, seems to have concluded that actual upgraded access projects are less valuable than middle-mile trunking services.
In other words, much of the spending in both the first and second rounds will go not to any new broadband access facilities, but to intermediate trunking networks that later can be used to provide actual broadband access.
The other interesting change is the new emphasis on a "third round" that specifically will accept satellite projects for the most-isolated locations.
In addition, NTIA plans to award at least $150 million of the funding for Public Computer Center projects, which will expand access to broadband service and enhance broadband capacity at public libraries, community colleges, and other institutions that service the general public.
NTIA also plans to award at least $100 million for Sustainable Broadband Adoption projects, which include projects to provide broadband education, training, and equipment, particularly to vulnerable population groups where broadband technology has traditionally been underutilized.
The separate Rural Utilities Service program will allocate $2.2 billion in this funding round. A second funding window will open later which will provide grants for satellite service for premises that remain unserved after all other Recovery Act broadband funding is awarded.
That round also will award grants for regional economic development projects using broadband, as well as make grants to rural libraries.
RUS will focus its round on last mile projects, which are anticipated to receive the vast majority of funding.
RUS will also fund middle mile projects involving current RUS program participants. RUS has decided to use a 75 percent grant, /25 percent loan model for all projects.
The application window opens Feb. 16 and closes March 15, 2010.
Labels:
broadband stimulus
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
AT&T Announces New Pricing for Unlimited Mobile Plans
AT&T has announced new unlimited plans across all of its devices. The new plans, available beginning Jan. 18, 2010, feature an unlimited voice plan for $70 a month. "Family Talk" customers (two lines) will be available for $120 a month.
Texting plans remain unchanged at $20 for unlimited plans for individuals and $30 for Family Talk plans.
"Quick Messaging Device" (feature phone) customers can buy unlimited talk plans for $70 a month and Family Talk customers can buy unlimited talk plans for $120 per month (two lines).
These plans also require a minimum of $20 per month for individual plans and $30 per month for Family Talk plans for texting or Web browsing packages for new and upgrading customers.
All smartphone customers, including iPhone customers, may now buy unlimited voice and data for $100 a month.
For smartphone customers on Family Talk plans (first two smartphones), unlimited voice and data is now available for $180 a month. Texting plans remain unchanged at $20 for unlimited plans for individuals, $30 for Family Talk Plans.
Beginning Jan. 18, 2010, existing AT&T customers can change to any of the new plans without penalty or contract extension
Texting plans remain unchanged at $20 for unlimited plans for individuals and $30 for Family Talk plans.
"Quick Messaging Device" (feature phone) customers can buy unlimited talk plans for $70 a month and Family Talk customers can buy unlimited talk plans for $120 per month (two lines).
These plans also require a minimum of $20 per month for individual plans and $30 per month for Family Talk plans for texting or Web browsing packages for new and upgrading customers.
All smartphone customers, including iPhone customers, may now buy unlimited voice and data for $100 a month.
For smartphone customers on Family Talk plans (first two smartphones), unlimited voice and data is now available for $180 a month. Texting plans remain unchanged at $20 for unlimited plans for individuals, $30 for Family Talk Plans.
Beginning Jan. 18, 2010, existing AT&T customers can change to any of the new plans without penalty or contract extension
Labels:
att,
marketing,
smartphone
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Is Nexus One A Particular Threat to Service Providers?
Does Google's Nexus One launch mean anything in particular for mobile service providers? That might be a matter of some debate at the moment. Some observers were expecting something "more disruptive." Perhaps an ad-supported voice service; maybe a completely unlocked device able to work on any carrier's network; maybe a business model that clearly delineates a new role for the handset provider.
That didn't happen. Some observers think the bigger innovation is the way Google is selling from a
Web site. Some might see too much difference there, either. Selling from a Web site isn't too unusual these days, and Apple's retail stores and existing carrier Web sites.already provide models for handset distribution aside from the branded mobile carrier stores.
To be sure, an "unlocked handset" strategy always will be tough in the U.S. market until such time as most carriers are using one single air interface and handsets are equipped with enough frequency agility to adapt to whatever network si providing access. An unlocked handset today means a choice of no more than one or two major carriers (one WiMAX, two CDMA and two GSM).
The other angle is that U.S. consumers have not yet shown any desire to pay full retail price for a handset, when they can get a subsidized device at the price of a two-year contract. People might gripe about the existence of contracts, but they have choices. They can pay full retail for their devices and avoid the contracts. Not many make that choice.
The more interesting observation is about what various Android devices really are. A BlackBerry is an email device; an iPhone is a Web surfing device. Many feature phones are texting devices. Some models are social networking devices, or at least highly optimized for that purpose. Some devices are optimized for navigation.
Could a new niche be developing for a "search" device? Is "finding stuff" a sufficiently robust need that at least one of the Android devices becomes recognized as the single best device for finding things? That seems to me the most interesting question about what the Nexus One or broader family of Android devices might raise.
Matters always can change, but at least for the moment, it does not appear the Nexus One is especially disruptive of the existing mobile business model or standard practices, either.
http://connectedplanetonline.com/mobile-apps/news/googles-nexus-effects-0115/?imw=Y
That didn't happen. Some observers think the bigger innovation is the way Google is selling from a
Web site. Some might see too much difference there, either. Selling from a Web site isn't too unusual these days, and Apple's retail stores and existing carrier Web sites.already provide models for handset distribution aside from the branded mobile carrier stores.
To be sure, an "unlocked handset" strategy always will be tough in the U.S. market until such time as most carriers are using one single air interface and handsets are equipped with enough frequency agility to adapt to whatever network si providing access. An unlocked handset today means a choice of no more than one or two major carriers (one WiMAX, two CDMA and two GSM).
The other angle is that U.S. consumers have not yet shown any desire to pay full retail price for a handset, when they can get a subsidized device at the price of a two-year contract. People might gripe about the existence of contracts, but they have choices. They can pay full retail for their devices and avoid the contracts. Not many make that choice.
The more interesting observation is about what various Android devices really are. A BlackBerry is an email device; an iPhone is a Web surfing device. Many feature phones are texting devices. Some models are social networking devices, or at least highly optimized for that purpose. Some devices are optimized for navigation.
Could a new niche be developing for a "search" device? Is "finding stuff" a sufficiently robust need that at least one of the Android devices becomes recognized as the single best device for finding things? That seems to me the most interesting question about what the Nexus One or broader family of Android devices might raise.
Matters always can change, but at least for the moment, it does not appear the Nexus One is especially disruptive of the existing mobile business model or standard practices, either.
http://connectedplanetonline.com/mobile-apps/news/googles-nexus-effects-0115/?imw=Y
Labels:
Android,
BlackBerry,
business model,
consumer behavior,
iPhone,
marketing,
Nexus One,
Palm,
smartphone
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Real Estate Advertising Trends: Newspapers Will Gain, Online Will Not
It might be true, at a strategic level, that newspapers are a declining medium while the Web is a growing medium. At a tactical level, that does not automatically mean ad spending always, inexorably is shifting from print to online.
The newspaper business, for example, might see a 16 percent increase in real estate advertising in 2010 while online real estate advertising actuall drops about four percent, more than it declined in 2009.
Ironically, media segments that have generally been perceived as weak, including newspapers and broadcasting, are set to do better. Conversely, those that have been otherwise least affected by the economic downturn, cable and online, are poised to do worse.
Real estate spending on broadcast TV will surge 39 percent in 2010 after declining 44 percent last year. Cable TV will drop 16 percent this year. In 2009, cable TV real estate ad revenue fell just two percent.
Part of the reason for the disparity among the major media segments is that local real estate advertisers have been increasing their spending, while national, out-of-market realtors are decreasing their spend.
The other angle is that so much money has shifted to online formats that there isn't a much room to grow, when other alternatives are more affordable.
About three of every five online ad dollars are currently spent by real estate agents and brokers. Not 60 percent of real estate advertising; 60 percent of all online advertising.
Another reason for the decline in online spending by realtors and brokers also is the result of a tactical shift. More money is being spent on less-costly paid search programs, less on display ads.
Sometimes the conventional wisdom can be wrong. It appears it certainly will be wrong about real estate ad spending in 2010. Newspapers and broadcasting will get more growth; cable and online less.
The newspaper business, for example, might see a 16 percent increase in real estate advertising in 2010 while online real estate advertising actuall drops about four percent, more than it declined in 2009.
Ironically, media segments that have generally been perceived as weak, including newspapers and broadcasting, are set to do better. Conversely, those that have been otherwise least affected by the economic downturn, cable and online, are poised to do worse.
Real estate spending on broadcast TV will surge 39 percent in 2010 after declining 44 percent last year. Cable TV will drop 16 percent this year. In 2009, cable TV real estate ad revenue fell just two percent.
Part of the reason for the disparity among the major media segments is that local real estate advertisers have been increasing their spending, while national, out-of-market realtors are decreasing their spend.
The other angle is that so much money has shifted to online formats that there isn't a much room to grow, when other alternatives are more affordable.
About three of every five online ad dollars are currently spent by real estate agents and brokers. Not 60 percent of real estate advertising; 60 percent of all online advertising.
Another reason for the decline in online spending by realtors and brokers also is the result of a tactical shift. More money is being spent on less-costly paid search programs, less on display ads.
Sometimes the conventional wisdom can be wrong. It appears it certainly will be wrong about real estate ad spending in 2010. Newspapers and broadcasting will get more growth; cable and online less.
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
New Verizon Wireless Pricing Shows Growth Strategy
Verizon Wireless today announced that it is introducing new data, prepaid, and voice plans on January 18, 2010. The single biggest change is a new mandatory data plan requirement for all 3G multimedia devices. For "feature" phones, that will mean a $10 a month charge for use of up to 15 Mbytes.
Smartphone packages remain at $30 a month.
But Verizon also introduced new unlimited postpaid plans for voice ($70 a month) and unlimited talk and text for $90 a month. Prepaid unlimited plans sell for $75 a month for voice, and $95 a month for unlimited voice and texting.
"Nationwide Unlimited Talk Family SharePlans" will be $120 a month while "Nationwide Unlimited Talk & Text Family SharePlans" will cost $150 a month.
All Family SharePlan pricing includes the first two lines of service. The new plans do not apply to existing customers, though any current customer can change to any of the new plans without a penalty or contract extension.
So heree's the strategy background. Verizon wants to build the biggest-possible data customer base before it launches its new fourth-generation Long Term Evolution network. That's an essential part of getting a financial return on the 4G investment, and also reflects the growing importance of smartphones as a percentage of total devices sold and the importance of data service revenues.
Verizon also wants to protect its base of "high-value" customers by simplifying pricing plans, providing more value and encouraging uptake of higher-end plans. Verizon expects to see higher data penetration, higher average revenue per user and less churn, with lower-end customers moving up to unlimited plans in greater numbers.
Verizon believes the moves to unlimited plans also will reduce operatinal costs. Since a large percentage of customer service costs are driven by consumers concerned about their usage and overages, unlimited plans will blunt the volume and cost of handling such requests.
Strategically, the data plan moves also are a reflection of the vanishing voice revenues business, and the absolute centrality of data revenues as the mainstay of Verizon Wireless revenue.
Labels:
consumer behavior,
marketing,
mobile data,
Verizon
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Are Emerging Market Consumers Different?
A new study by Accenture suggests that, in a globalized world, consumer demand for a wide range of technology products is remarkably similar, at least among those emerging market buyers with disposable income.
In fact, consumers in emerging markets are twice as likely as those in developed markets to purchase and use consumer technology in the next year and are more willing to pay a premium for “environmentally friendly” consumer electronics products, says Accenture.
The Accenture survey of 16,000 consumers in four “mature” countries (the United States, Germany, France and Japan) and four “emerging” countries (China, India, Malaysia, and Singapore) suggests current and future spending and usage patterns for 19 different consumer technologies, including smartphones, high-definition TVs and computers, is remarkably similar in developed and emerging markets, with one exception: developing market consumers are more likely to buy smartphones, PCs and other devices over the next year.
Compared with consumers in mature countries, consumers in emerging countries are more than two and a half times as likely to buy a smartphone during the next year (52 percent compared to 20 percent).
Emerging market consumers also are more than twice as likely to have bought a smartphone in the past year (67 percent compared to 32 percent).
Twice as many emerging market consumers are likely to have bought a computer in the past year (40 percent vs. 20 percent). They also are more than twice as likely to have at least occasionally played video games on handheld devices (58 percent compared to 28 percent).
Do they use social networking? Yes, at about a 69 percent rate, compared to 38 percent in the developed markets.
Emerging market consumers also are significantly more likely to pay a premium for consumer products marketed as being environmentally friendly (84 percent compared to 50 percent).
“One of the reasons for this emerging-country growth is the rapid expansion of the middle class with its substantial disposable income,” says Jean-Laurent Poitou, managing director of Accenture’s Electronics & High Tech industry group.
“Furthermore, our research shows that the increased demand for smart connected wireless devices such as smartphones is being driven by social-networking applications.
“Emerging-country consumers use mobile devices more than they do computers to access Internet-enabled applications and services, and consumers in mature countries are also headed in that direction.”
In fact, consumers in emerging markets are twice as likely as those in developed markets to purchase and use consumer technology in the next year and are more willing to pay a premium for “environmentally friendly” consumer electronics products, says Accenture.
The Accenture survey of 16,000 consumers in four “mature” countries (the United States, Germany, France and Japan) and four “emerging” countries (China, India, Malaysia, and Singapore) suggests current and future spending and usage patterns for 19 different consumer technologies, including smartphones, high-definition TVs and computers, is remarkably similar in developed and emerging markets, with one exception: developing market consumers are more likely to buy smartphones, PCs and other devices over the next year.
Compared with consumers in mature countries, consumers in emerging countries are more than two and a half times as likely to buy a smartphone during the next year (52 percent compared to 20 percent).
Emerging market consumers also are more than twice as likely to have bought a smartphone in the past year (67 percent compared to 32 percent).
Twice as many emerging market consumers are likely to have bought a computer in the past year (40 percent vs. 20 percent). They also are more than twice as likely to have at least occasionally played video games on handheld devices (58 percent compared to 28 percent).
Do they use social networking? Yes, at about a 69 percent rate, compared to 38 percent in the developed markets.
Emerging market consumers also are significantly more likely to pay a premium for consumer products marketed as being environmentally friendly (84 percent compared to 50 percent).
“One of the reasons for this emerging-country growth is the rapid expansion of the middle class with its substantial disposable income,” says Jean-Laurent Poitou, managing director of Accenture’s Electronics & High Tech industry group.
“Furthermore, our research shows that the increased demand for smart connected wireless devices such as smartphones is being driven by social-networking applications.
“Emerging-country consumers use mobile devices more than they do computers to access Internet-enabled applications and services, and consumers in mature countries are also headed in that direction.”
Labels:
consumer behavior,
PC,
smartphone,
social networking
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Are Social Networks More Like Email or Google?
Social networks already have become a lead application for mobile devices. A new study by Accenture finds that “increased demand for smart connected wireless devices such as smartphones is being driven by social-networking applications," in both developed and developing economies.
But you likely still can get a good argument about whether social networking is a "feature" or a business model. Email for the most part remains a "feature." Early in the development of the dial-up business, email was so important it actually drove adoption of Internet access. These days, with the advent of Web mail and business and organization email, it simply is a feature, but not a direct revenue model (except for providers of email hardware and software).
Google and other Web mail providers have started building an advertising revenue stream, but it largely is ancillary.
The same sort of argument can be made about social networking applications. Skeptics point to Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Bebo and Geocities, which either are struggling to create a business model, or have been shut down.
Optimists might say that although many attempts will fail, a normal situation for the Internet applications business, one or two of the players will discover a sustainable business model and possibly even achieve "Google" style success.
Most believe advertising will be significant, and skeptics say social networks are not conducive to most types of display advertising, for example.
That would explain why no social networking company has yet emerged as a public company: there is not yet a viable business model.
It is possible that some new model will be discovered in time. Twitter, for example, is nearly at breakeven as a result of a search results deals with Google and Bing. That's not a complete answer, but it helps.
It is not yet possible to determine the final outcome. It is conceivable that some social networks will drive so much engagement and value that some will be acquired by larger firms able to leverage the networks to deepen and extend their other existing business models. In that scenario social networking winds up more like email than Google.
Right now, it likely is a coin toss which model is most believed.
But you likely still can get a good argument about whether social networking is a "feature" or a business model. Email for the most part remains a "feature." Early in the development of the dial-up business, email was so important it actually drove adoption of Internet access. These days, with the advent of Web mail and business and organization email, it simply is a feature, but not a direct revenue model (except for providers of email hardware and software).
Google and other Web mail providers have started building an advertising revenue stream, but it largely is ancillary.
The same sort of argument can be made about social networking applications. Skeptics point to Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Bebo and Geocities, which either are struggling to create a business model, or have been shut down.
Optimists might say that although many attempts will fail, a normal situation for the Internet applications business, one or two of the players will discover a sustainable business model and possibly even achieve "Google" style success.
Most believe advertising will be significant, and skeptics say social networks are not conducive to most types of display advertising, for example.
That would explain why no social networking company has yet emerged as a public company: there is not yet a viable business model.
It is possible that some new model will be discovered in time. Twitter, for example, is nearly at breakeven as a result of a search results deals with Google and Bing. That's not a complete answer, but it helps.
It is not yet possible to determine the final outcome. It is conceivable that some social networks will drive so much engagement and value that some will be acquired by larger firms able to leverage the networks to deepen and extend their other existing business models. In that scenario social networking winds up more like email than Google.
Right now, it likely is a coin toss which model is most believed.
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Brands ARE Media These Days
Brands are media companies these days, many marketers would argue. That's a huge shift in thinking from an older world where third parties did "media," and then brands simply advertised in those media.
These days, more and more companies are becoming publishers or content providers in their own right, bypassing "media" outlets.
"The fundamentals of media business are toppling as their 20th century foundations crumble," says Mark Mulligan, Forrester Research VP. "Consumers are falling out of love with paying for media and striking up illicit affairs with free content, not just because it is free, but also because it is on their terms."
This is great news for consumers but terrible news for media businesses that have spent years building revenues upon near-monopolistic control of supply of content, says Mulligan.
"Why all this matters to brands is because the tectonic shifts in media value chains are creating exciting new opportunities for non-media companies to become media companies themselves," Mulligan says.
Just as Apple transformed from hardware company to media services company with the launch of the iTunes Store, so too are brands such as Procter and Gamble with BeingGirl.com, Tommy Hilfiger with Tommy TV and Audi with its UK TV channel.
Why are brands such as these choosing to become media companies? Because they can. Blogs, Web publishing, smartphones, tablets, e-book readers, netbooks and other tools providing access to the Internet allow firms to create media sites as easily as old-line publishers can.
It takes a Web site, but every firm has one these days. It takes an ability to create or aggregate content, but that's easier these days as well, with real simple syndication and other news feeds. But brands also are simply creating their own writing staffs as well.
And the logic of doing so likely makes more sense as well, as audiences fragment. If specialized audiences are what you want to reach, Web publishing makes lots of sense. Instead of creating and placing advertisements that might or might not hit the target audience, brands can create their own content sites, producing their own "media" and then placing messages and interacting in other ways with their intended audiences.
In the new world, the dividing line between "media" and "brand" is more fuzzy.
These days, more and more companies are becoming publishers or content providers in their own right, bypassing "media" outlets.
"The fundamentals of media business are toppling as their 20th century foundations crumble," says Mark Mulligan, Forrester Research VP. "Consumers are falling out of love with paying for media and striking up illicit affairs with free content, not just because it is free, but also because it is on their terms."
This is great news for consumers but terrible news for media businesses that have spent years building revenues upon near-monopolistic control of supply of content, says Mulligan.
"Why all this matters to brands is because the tectonic shifts in media value chains are creating exciting new opportunities for non-media companies to become media companies themselves," Mulligan says.
Just as Apple transformed from hardware company to media services company with the launch of the iTunes Store, so too are brands such as Procter and Gamble with BeingGirl.com, Tommy Hilfiger with Tommy TV and Audi with its UK TV channel.
Why are brands such as these choosing to become media companies? Because they can. Blogs, Web publishing, smartphones, tablets, e-book readers, netbooks and other tools providing access to the Internet allow firms to create media sites as easily as old-line publishers can.
It takes a Web site, but every firm has one these days. It takes an ability to create or aggregate content, but that's easier these days as well, with real simple syndication and other news feeds. But brands also are simply creating their own writing staffs as well.
And the logic of doing so likely makes more sense as well, as audiences fragment. If specialized audiences are what you want to reach, Web publishing makes lots of sense. Instead of creating and placing advertisements that might or might not hit the target audience, brands can create their own content sites, producing their own "media" and then placing messages and interacting in other ways with their intended audiences.
In the new world, the dividing line between "media" and "brand" is more fuzzy.
Labels:
blog,
social media
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Skype "Dial Tone" No Threat to Mobiles, Fixed Lines
About 21.5 million Skype users were logged in simultaneously on January 11, 2010, which likely is a record.
Some refer to this as "Skype dial tone."
To give you some idea of how far Skype would have to go to be a credible alternative to other forms of consumer voice, consider that in March 2009 there were 4.1 billion mobile subscriptions in service, according to the International Telecommunications Uniion. The ITU also estimates there are about 1.3 trillion fixed lines in service globally.
So make that 5.4 billion devices that have "dial tone," compared to a third of a percent of Skype accounts, at peak. To the extent communications really does depend on network effects, Skype has quite some ways to go.
Some refer to this as "Skype dial tone."
To give you some idea of how far Skype would have to go to be a credible alternative to other forms of consumer voice, consider that in March 2009 there were 4.1 billion mobile subscriptions in service, according to the International Telecommunications Uniion. The ITU also estimates there are about 1.3 trillion fixed lines in service globally.
So make that 5.4 billion devices that have "dial tone," compared to a third of a percent of Skype accounts, at peak. To the extent communications really does depend on network effects, Skype has quite some ways to go.
Gary Kim was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes, ranked second in the world for coverage of the mobile business, and as a "top 10" telecom analyst. He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top two percent.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Yes, Follow the Data. Even if it Does Not Fit Your Agenda
When people argue we need to “follow the science” that should be true in all cases, not only in cases where the data fits one’s political pr...
-
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...


