Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Wireless Rules
At the end of last year there were 233 million wireless accounts in service in the U.S. market. Access lines in service at the largest eight U.S. wireline carriers amounted to 139.2 million (at&T, Verizon, Qwest, Embarq, Windstream, Century Telephone, Citizens and Cincinnati Bell). Not to mention the directional change: wireless is still climbing, wireline still dropping. Of course, one has to add back in three million cable industry voice customers. But you get the point. Wireless increasingly is the way the mass market does voice.
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.
Communications as Consumer Electronics
As more and more mass market communications gear becomes an extension of the consumer electronics business, more of the rules of that business start to apply. Among the key rules are: keep the price low, make it simple to use, address a real need, design attractively, build retailer relationships and adhere to standards because one requires volume. Every January, hundreds of new products are shown at the Consumer Electronics Show, and most of them fail.
So consider MobiGater, a USB device that transfers Skype calls to a mobile phone without using SkypeOut credits. The €270 ($370) box works like any other plug-and-play USB device. Once connected to your desktop computer, all Skype calls are redirected to a mobile. Heavy mobile users in markets with high costs might find the gizmo worth buying and using. But there will be issues. It always is tough to sell a peripheral that costs as much as the processor the peripheral is supposed to be used with.
The user requires an additional SIM card for the MobiGator, so while the Skype call might be free, there's the cost of the mobile SIM cards to deal with. The historic tipping point number for a popular consumer electronics device used to be $300, so MobiGater remains just a bit on the high side. On the other hand, recent sales of high definition flat panel TV displays have broken clear of the $300 mark.
The longer term problem is simply that the cost of calling, and the effort one has to put into reducing those charges using Skype and MobiGater, simply don't solve a big enough problem to drive mass adoption in many markets and customer segments. VoSky has a similar product aimeda the home and small office user. VoSky's Internet Phone Wizard allows users to make Skype calls from anywhere with a cordless or regular phone instead of the computer speakers.
The Internet Phone Wizard also supports outbound Skype calling from the regular handset. PSTN is the default. A couple of key taps switches the phone to Skype mode. The device also can be used to create a virtual second line.
Still, the consumer electronics market is brutal. Most products fail, or succeed only quite modestly, in some niches. To really change end user behavior requires a huge carrot in terms of advantage. There's no question the MobiGater and VoSky devices are useful to some people with high calling costs and heavy mobile use. It just isn't so clear there's a mass market for either.
Labels:
consumer VoIP,
unified communications
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.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Time Warner Cable to Work with Fon
Sometimes a service provider simply has to cooperate with what might be seen as a direct competitor. So it is that Time Warner Cable is going to allow its users to create publicly accessible hotspots in cooperation with Fon, the company building a network of private Wi-Fi connections. Time Warner will allow its home broadband customers to turn their connections into public wireless hotspots, a practice U.S. ISPs generally have said is outside "fair use" policies. Verizon Communications Inc., for example, can terminate contracts if it finds an ad-hoc hotspot.
Fon and Time Warner will split the proceeds from use of Fon hotspots by non-members. That is expected to be $2 to $3 a day. Fon network users can offer free access to all other Foneros in exchange for reciprocal privileges, or can offer for-fee access.
The Fon wireless router splits a Wi-Fi connection in two: an encrypted channel for the Fonero and a public one for neighbors or other casual users. Foneros can decide how much of their bandwidth to share with the public and can log on to any Fon router without charge, in return. "Aliens," as Fon calls nonmembers, can register on a Web page and pay a modest $2 or $3 for 24 hours of access.
Fon has about 60,000 Foneros in the U.S.
Time Warner may be looking ahead to the not-so-distant future when some of the 300 or so municipal wireless projects featuring free or inexpensive broadband are available, as it operates systems in large cities where such muni Wi-Fi efforts are most pronounced.
Labels:
broadband
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.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
So Maybe It's the Lead Offer...
...not the only offer. Most Western European consumers still buy Internet access separately from other services like fixed voice, VoIP, TV, or mobile, says Lars Godell, Forrester Research analyst. "Very few Europeans get either triple or quadruple play delivered in one integrated package," he says. U.S. bundle buyers might be more commonly found, but even in the U.S. market it is far more common to find dual play buyers than triple play.
Researchersa at The Yankee Group recently found that 41 percent of buyers chose a dual play package, compared with 23 percent for a triple play bundle.
Of course, it always takes some time before mass market buyers warm up to some new services and packaging techniques. Digital cable and satellite didn't reach their current penetration levels in a year or two. Also, promotions for triple play packages seem to alternate with "add voice" or "add video" or "add high speed Internet access" offers from either cable or telco providers. The thought, of course, is that there is less resistance to making a single change rather than changing two or three things at once.
Triple and Quad Play bundles may not be the most heavily purchased packages yet. But they are destined to remain the lead offers. Carrier need to drive higher average revenue per user and cement customers in place will take care of that.
Researchersa at The Yankee Group recently found that 41 percent of buyers chose a dual play package, compared with 23 percent for a triple play bundle.
Of course, it always takes some time before mass market buyers warm up to some new services and packaging techniques. Digital cable and satellite didn't reach their current penetration levels in a year or two. Also, promotions for triple play packages seem to alternate with "add voice" or "add video" or "add high speed Internet access" offers from either cable or telco providers. The thought, of course, is that there is less resistance to making a single change rather than changing two or three things at once.
Triple and Quad Play bundles may not be the most heavily purchased packages yet. But they are destined to remain the lead offers. Carrier need to drive higher average revenue per user and cement customers in place will take care of that.
Labels:
marketing
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.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Business Broadband is a Big Deal
If we read these forecasts correctly, wired broadband access sold to business customers, not including voice, represents almost the same amount of revenue as all wireless services do in 2011. This forecast doesn't include voice revenues. Of course, we'd also note that the relative importance of wireless is growing.
Labels:
business broadband
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.
Words to Live By
Asked about Google's revenue per employee, Google CEO Eric Schmidt says the company doesn't focus on it. "It is more important to focus on end user happiness," says Schmidt. If that sounds ethereal, it isn't. The media business always is based on some equivalent of "aggregating eyeballs." So Google's business depends on attracting engaged users. "If we could bring out a product that will cause people to use Google and its various applications that much more and they spend more and more of their day using Google services, that allows us to eventually monetize that," Schmidt says.
Labels:
marketing
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.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Will Users Pay for Features?
Alec Saunders and David Beckemeyer are consistently worth listening to. This from David, who asks really good questions:
Fring is technically impressive, but I'm still wondering about its utility
I have mentioned Fring a few times before. The most recent post left it that I had not been able to complete the setup because I never received the SMS from Fring on my phone.
I sat down with Boaz Zilberman of Fring at VON and he was able to solve whatever glitch was happening at Fring that was preventing the SMS and I was able to get Fring 2.0 installed on my phone.
Luca Filigheddu calls Fring "the most complete multi-protocol IM VOIP client for mobile phones" and I would have to agree. That said, I still find myself asking, is it useful?
Like many other cell phone users in the US, I have GPRS data service rather than a true 3G data service with my carrier. My first experiences with Fring over GPRS were not very good. More recently, I have had much more acceptable call quality on Fring GPRS-based calls. It probably depends a great deal on signal strength - while one may be able to make a standard GSM call on a weak signal, it doesn't look like one has any chance of doing a GPRS Fring call unless the GPRS signal is very strong.
This is understandable, at least to anybody that knows the technology. I am amazed that Fring works at all over GPRS and the fact that it's possible to have a decent quality call using it is an amazing technical achievement by the Fring folks.
The entire Fring application is really well done, clean, and slick, also a nifty technical achievement.
At the same time, most customers don't care about technical achievements. They want to solve problems.
Fring is cool and the SIP support works with PhoneGnome so I will use it sometimes, but now that I have it, including SIP support (thanks Fring!), I'm still left wondering, does it really have value, not just to me, but to casual phone users?
For US calls, I already stay within my minutes so there is no cost savings opportunity to place the call via VoIP and, therefore, dialing the old-fashioned way is both more convenient and more reliable for those calls. That reliability factor is a big one, as echoed by many comments to an earlier post on the subject. Perhaps consistent is a better word. Unless I'm calling another VoIP freak, the risk of the call not working isn't worth the benefit (what benefit again?) in most cases. The situation may be different for others, say those outside the US without such a minute bundle model, or if I were making a lot of international calls. Even if that were the case, however, it would still depend on the cost of my data plan. If I'm on a data plan that charges by the Kilobyte, a VoIP call could well cost more than a GSM call. I can already make single-stage international calls using national minutes with a free phone application and my PhoneGnome (or two-stage calls with something like AllFreeCalls.net if it comes back on-line).
If I'm roaming, this is even worse (I think). Roaming fees are so complicated I'm in constant fear of accidentilly using the data channel when traveling. I always shut down any apps that use the data channel (including Fring) due to this concern. So if I'm outside my service, say in Europe, there's no way I'm going to gamble with the mobile data roaming fees and use Fring (again, the VoIP call over the data channel costs more than the same call over the voice channel). The exception would be Wi-fi, assuming I can find a cheap enough hotspot and I have a dual-mode phone (and can figure out how to work it, see this post on theN80i.
That brings up an interesting question. If a VoIP call does cost more than a plain GSM call, are some people actually willing to pay MORE to place a Skype or Fring call because of an added benefit, in particular, presence? I'm not a big Skype user myself (I'm one of those that just never had a good experience using it) and I seldom find my Fring buddies online, so I have not yet seen this to be a big advantage fo rme. However, I can see it being something to look into. That would be an interesting case. So how about it? We've always thought of VoIP as a way to save money, but might you get so much value out of knowing the party is there to take your call that you would actually PAY MORE to place a Skype or Fring call (because of the mobile data rates) because of that added value?
I know in my case, I'm more likely to place a call on my cell using VoIP to access an added capability (say like the call recording feature of PhoneGnome) than I am to use VoIP on the mobile just to save money.
Fring is technically impressive, but I'm still wondering about its utility
I have mentioned Fring a few times before. The most recent post left it that I had not been able to complete the setup because I never received the SMS from Fring on my phone.
I sat down with Boaz Zilberman of Fring at VON and he was able to solve whatever glitch was happening at Fring that was preventing the SMS and I was able to get Fring 2.0 installed on my phone.
Luca Filigheddu calls Fring "the most complete multi-protocol IM VOIP client for mobile phones" and I would have to agree. That said, I still find myself asking, is it useful?
Like many other cell phone users in the US, I have GPRS data service rather than a true 3G data service with my carrier. My first experiences with Fring over GPRS were not very good. More recently, I have had much more acceptable call quality on Fring GPRS-based calls. It probably depends a great deal on signal strength - while one may be able to make a standard GSM call on a weak signal, it doesn't look like one has any chance of doing a GPRS Fring call unless the GPRS signal is very strong.
This is understandable, at least to anybody that knows the technology. I am amazed that Fring works at all over GPRS and the fact that it's possible to have a decent quality call using it is an amazing technical achievement by the Fring folks.
The entire Fring application is really well done, clean, and slick, also a nifty technical achievement.
At the same time, most customers don't care about technical achievements. They want to solve problems.
Fring is cool and the SIP support works with PhoneGnome so I will use it sometimes, but now that I have it, including SIP support (thanks Fring!), I'm still left wondering, does it really have value, not just to me, but to casual phone users?
For US calls, I already stay within my minutes so there is no cost savings opportunity to place the call via VoIP and, therefore, dialing the old-fashioned way is both more convenient and more reliable for those calls. That reliability factor is a big one, as echoed by many comments to an earlier post on the subject. Perhaps consistent is a better word. Unless I'm calling another VoIP freak, the risk of the call not working isn't worth the benefit (what benefit again?) in most cases. The situation may be different for others, say those outside the US without such a minute bundle model, or if I were making a lot of international calls. Even if that were the case, however, it would still depend on the cost of my data plan. If I'm on a data plan that charges by the Kilobyte, a VoIP call could well cost more than a GSM call. I can already make single-stage international calls using national minutes with a free phone application and my PhoneGnome (or two-stage calls with something like AllFreeCalls.net if it comes back on-line).
If I'm roaming, this is even worse (I think). Roaming fees are so complicated I'm in constant fear of accidentilly using the data channel when traveling. I always shut down any apps that use the data channel (including Fring) due to this concern. So if I'm outside my service, say in Europe, there's no way I'm going to gamble with the mobile data roaming fees and use Fring (again, the VoIP call over the data channel costs more than the same call over the voice channel). The exception would be Wi-fi, assuming I can find a cheap enough hotspot and I have a dual-mode phone (and can figure out how to work it, see this post on theN80i.
That brings up an interesting question. If a VoIP call does cost more than a plain GSM call, are some people actually willing to pay MORE to place a Skype or Fring call because of an added benefit, in particular, presence? I'm not a big Skype user myself (I'm one of those that just never had a good experience using it) and I seldom find my Fring buddies online, so I have not yet seen this to be a big advantage fo rme. However, I can see it being something to look into. That would be an interesting case. So how about it? We've always thought of VoIP as a way to save money, but might you get so much value out of knowing the party is there to take your call that you would actually PAY MORE to place a Skype or Fring call (because of the mobile data rates) because of that added value?
I know in my case, I'm more likely to place a call on my cell using VoIP to access an added capability (say like the call recording feature of PhoneGnome) than I am to use VoIP on the mobile just to save money.
Labels:
apps
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:
Posts (Atom)
Will Generative AI Follow Development Path of the Internet?
In many ways, the development of the internet provides a model for understanding how artificial intelligence will develop and create value. ...
-
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...