Market research firm Harris Interactive announced that it is partnering with Google’s recently Google Consumer Surveys to develop and bring to market a new product that allows businesses, both large and small, to compare themselves to industry benchmarks at a fraction of the cost of traditional market research.”
It appears to offer an expensive new way for smaller businesses to benchmark their business performance against broader norms.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Harris Interactive to Use Google Consumer Surveys
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.
Is Cloud Computing Market Bigger Than We Thought?
It typically is difficult to estimate the size of a big a new market when that new market essentially cannibalizes existing businesses in the process. Unified communications has been that sort of market, since it logically includes or replaces many other ways of handling communications functions, ranging from fixed or mobile voice to email to messaging, voice mail, “presence” and call handling.
Something like that probably is going to happen with cloud computing. In a sense, cloud computing is part of the next generation of computing architecture. We don’t yet know what this next era will be called, but few question the assumption that cloud computing and mobility will be key foundations of the architecture.
Consider the notion of “business process as a service.” What’s a business process? Business process management is said by IBM to include such functions as:
Others might see other building blocks such as email management, communications management or shopping cart services or catalog processes as similar inputs to create whole business processes.
As those processes all move to cloud delivery mechanisms, the logical question is whether such “outsourced” processes, supported by cloud delivery architectures, are part of the cloud computing business or not.
At some level, the answer has to be “yes.” Think of cloud-supported advertising systems, or retail operations outsourced to Amazon, both key business processes already often supplied to business partners that use cloud computing.
Still, you can see the problem. What counts as a business process “as a service?” Is it only the value of the contract to use a retail checkout system, a catalog or a fulfillment process? Is it partly the value of the transactions, or the value of the products traded?
For any cloud-supported mobile or Internet advertising system, what should be counted? Is it the value of the advertising, or only the commissions an exchange might earn? The same question can be asked for any cloud-based payment system.
The point is that it is possible cloud services markets might be bigger than currently envisioned, only partly depending on “what” gets counted.
The reason is that more and more business processes using software, processing and storage are shifting to cloud mechanisms, even though we traditionally have viewed software delivery, computing resources, storage and development environments are the primary cloud markets
Business process services (also known as business process as a service, or BPaaS, represents the largest segment of what analysts at Gartner now tabulate, accounting for about 77 percent of the total market, Gartner now argues.
BPaaS is the largest segment primarily because of the inclusion of cloud advertising as a subsegment. But you might also argue that BPaaS is so big because it basically represents a redefinition of the traditional outsourcing business. And that is a larger business than simple computing, storage and applications delivery.
“Businesses that leverage traditional outsourcing deals are looking to move off of inflexible contract and delivery structures,” says Robert McNeill, Saugatuck Technology VP. “Businesses are looking for more flexibility, innovation, and responsiveness from their outsourcers. BPaaS is providing that alternative.”
Something like that probably is going to happen with cloud computing. In a sense, cloud computing is part of the next generation of computing architecture. We don’t yet know what this next era will be called, but few question the assumption that cloud computing and mobility will be key foundations of the architecture.
Consider the notion of “business process as a service.” What’s a business process? Business process management is said by IBM to include such functions as:
- Web analytics
- Enterprise marketing management
- Business-to-business integration
- Supply-chain management
- Security governance, risk management and compliance
- Business service management
Others might see other building blocks such as email management, communications management or shopping cart services or catalog processes as similar inputs to create whole business processes.
As those processes all move to cloud delivery mechanisms, the logical question is whether such “outsourced” processes, supported by cloud delivery architectures, are part of the cloud computing business or not.
At some level, the answer has to be “yes.” Think of cloud-supported advertising systems, or retail operations outsourced to Amazon, both key business processes already often supplied to business partners that use cloud computing.
Still, you can see the problem. What counts as a business process “as a service?” Is it only the value of the contract to use a retail checkout system, a catalog or a fulfillment process? Is it partly the value of the transactions, or the value of the products traded?
For any cloud-supported mobile or Internet advertising system, what should be counted? Is it the value of the advertising, or only the commissions an exchange might earn? The same question can be asked for any cloud-based payment system.
The point is that it is possible cloud services markets might be bigger than currently envisioned, only partly depending on “what” gets counted.
The reason is that more and more business processes using software, processing and storage are shifting to cloud mechanisms, even though we traditionally have viewed software delivery, computing resources, storage and development environments are the primary cloud markets
Business process services (also known as business process as a service, or BPaaS, represents the largest segment of what analysts at Gartner now tabulate, accounting for about 77 percent of the total market, Gartner now argues.
BPaaS is the largest segment primarily because of the inclusion of cloud advertising as a subsegment. But you might also argue that BPaaS is so big because it basically represents a redefinition of the traditional outsourcing business. And that is a larger business than simple computing, storage and applications delivery.
“Businesses that leverage traditional outsourcing deals are looking to move off of inflexible contract and delivery structures,” says Robert McNeill, Saugatuck Technology VP. “Businesses are looking for more flexibility, innovation, and responsiveness from their outsourcers. BPaaS is providing that alternative.”
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.
63% of Australian Samsung Phone Owners Mulling Switch to iPhone 5
A new survey from MobilePhoneFinder.com.au suggests that 62.9 percent of current Samsung phone owners are planning to buy Apple’s latest handset.
Among the close to 1,400 Australians surveyed, 80.6 percent of them said they were planning to purchase the iPhone 5, the study suggests.
The report noted that 64 percent of respondents said they would buy the iPhone 5 on a plan and 59.4 percent indicated they would switch carriers.
Among the close to 1,400 Australians surveyed, 80.6 percent of them said they were planning to purchase the iPhone 5, the study suggests.
The report noted that 64 percent of respondents said they would buy the iPhone 5 on a plan and 59.4 percent indicated they would switch carriers.
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.
U.S. CLEC Business Hasn't Turned Out as Expected
The U.S. competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) business has not worked out as many had expected. Initially, the stand-alone long distance carriers thought the way had been cleared for a re-emergence in the local access business from which they had been barred in 1984, with the divestiture by AT&T of its local facilities, leading to the creation of the Baby Bells.
For a time, that seemed to be happening. At one time, the two contestants with a majority of market share were AT&T and MCI Communications.
A 2004 report by Frost and Sullivan noted that a "majority of ILECs' retail access line loss is attributable to two consumer-focused CLECs, AT&T and MCI." You might argue that a subsequent change in wholesale pricing rules then destroyed that business strategy.
Neither firm exists in its former form, as MCI assets now are part of Verizon and AT&T was bought by the former SBC.
Hundreds of billions of investment capital then flowed to lots of independent competitive firms run by telecom industry executives were seen as the logical beneficiaries. Nearly all of that capital ultimately was lost.
Cable companies were not widely thought to be the logical winners in the business.
These days, one might reasonably note that most consumer "CLEC" customers are served by U.S. cable companies, while a number of entities in a fragmented market serve most of the CLEC small business customers, with cable now turning its attention to the small business segment.
Similar sorts of trends have developed in the broadband access area, where 23 percent of all broadband connections were supplied by cable operators. DSL supplied about 15 percent of total connections. Fiber to the home represented about three percent of lines, while mobile wireless supplied 58 percent of connections, according to the Federal Communications Commission.
Basically, that means cable operators supply about a quarter of broadband connections and mobile service providers almost 60 percent. In other words, broadband access competition comes largely from wireless and cable.
Of the 146 million U.S. wireline retail local telephone service connections in service in June 2011, about 38 percent were provided by incumbent local exchange carriers, about 26 percent were ILEC business customers, while 20 percent of lines were supplied by non-ILEC residential service providers, while 16 percent were supplied by non-ILEC business service providers.
In addition to the cable companies, local telcos also have emerged as significant suppliers in the CLEC business, especially in business customer segments.
Revenues for U.S. CLECs were forecast to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 26.9 percent to reach $61.1 billion by 2006, Atlantic-ACM forecast in 2001.
In 2003, The Brattle Group estimated that U.S. CLECs held more than seven percent of the U.S. business market, and nearly 10 percent of the U.S. consumer market.
Neither of those figures has proven incorrect. A substantial amount of market share and revenue has indeed shifted to new providers. The Federal Communications Commission reported there were more than 206 million broadband access connections in service in mid-2011.
Assume an average revenue for each of those connections of $40 each (a blended rate assuming $35 for a mobile connection and $50 for a fixed connection, and including both higher-priced business connections and consumer connections). About 81 percent of those connections were supplied by cable or wireless providers. For the sake of argument, assume that every wireless line is functionally a competitor to an incumbent broadband line.
So 81 percent of 206 million connections would be 166.86 million accounts. At $40 a month, each of those lines might represent $480 a year worth of revenue. That would represent about $80 billion in annual revenue.
To be more strict, assume only cable modem and a quarter of "ILEC" broadband accounts are counted as "CLEC" revenue, for purposes of estimating CLEC broadband access revenue, eliminating all wireless lines.
That implies 27 percent of all fixed network broadband lines were supplied by "CLECs."
Of the 206 million broadband connections, 23 percent are supplied by cable operators and 18 percent are supplied using DSL or fiber to home technologies. That implies 37 million CLEC lines using telco platforms and 47.4 million cable high speed lines.
Assume 100 percent of the cable modem lines properly are counted as "CLEC" revenue, at an average of $50 a month. Assume that 20 percent of the DSL or FTTH lines are sold by CLECs at $80 a month.
That in turn suggests cable CLEC revenue of $28.4 billion and telco platform CLEC revenues of about $35.5 billion annually, for a total of about $35.5 billion in "CLEC" broadband access revenues.
Assume that the 36 percent of fixed voice lines represent $45 a month in revenue (a conservative estimate including both consumer and business lines). That implies $540 a year in revenue for each line in service.
The FCC says there were 146 million fixed voice lines in service in mid-2011. That would imply 52.6 million "CLEC" lines in service, or $28.4 billion in end user revenues, not including access or other carrier revenues.
So the "CLEC" revenue stream might be as little as $64 billion a year, or as much as $108.4 billion a year.
The point is that the overall "CLEC" business is reasonably estimated as being as large as it was earlier seen as becoming. The big difference is the role played by cable operators.
For a time, that seemed to be happening. At one time, the two contestants with a majority of market share were AT&T and MCI Communications.
A 2004 report by Frost and Sullivan noted that a "majority of ILECs' retail access line loss is attributable to two consumer-focused CLECs, AT&T and MCI." You might argue that a subsequent change in wholesale pricing rules then destroyed that business strategy.
Neither firm exists in its former form, as MCI assets now are part of Verizon and AT&T was bought by the former SBC.
Hundreds of billions of investment capital then flowed to lots of independent competitive firms run by telecom industry executives were seen as the logical beneficiaries. Nearly all of that capital ultimately was lost.
Cable companies were not widely thought to be the logical winners in the business.
These days, one might reasonably note that most consumer "CLEC" customers are served by U.S. cable companies, while a number of entities in a fragmented market serve most of the CLEC small business customers, with cable now turning its attention to the small business segment.
Similar sorts of trends have developed in the broadband access area, where 23 percent of all broadband connections were supplied by cable operators. DSL supplied about 15 percent of total connections. Fiber to the home represented about three percent of lines, while mobile wireless supplied 58 percent of connections, according to the Federal Communications Commission.
Basically, that means cable operators supply about a quarter of broadband connections and mobile service providers almost 60 percent. In other words, broadband access competition comes largely from wireless and cable.
Of the 146 million U.S. wireline retail local telephone service connections in service in June 2011, about 38 percent were provided by incumbent local exchange carriers, about 26 percent were ILEC business customers, while 20 percent of lines were supplied by non-ILEC residential service providers, while 16 percent were supplied by non-ILEC business service providers.
In addition to the cable companies, local telcos also have emerged as significant suppliers in the CLEC business, especially in business customer segments.
Revenues for U.S. CLECs were forecast to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 26.9 percent to reach $61.1 billion by 2006, Atlantic-ACM forecast in 2001.
In 2003, The Brattle Group estimated that U.S. CLECs held more than seven percent of the U.S. business market, and nearly 10 percent of the U.S. consumer market.
Neither of those figures has proven incorrect. A substantial amount of market share and revenue has indeed shifted to new providers. The Federal Communications Commission reported there were more than 206 million broadband access connections in service in mid-2011.
Assume an average revenue for each of those connections of $40 each (a blended rate assuming $35 for a mobile connection and $50 for a fixed connection, and including both higher-priced business connections and consumer connections). About 81 percent of those connections were supplied by cable or wireless providers. For the sake of argument, assume that every wireless line is functionally a competitor to an incumbent broadband line.
So 81 percent of 206 million connections would be 166.86 million accounts. At $40 a month, each of those lines might represent $480 a year worth of revenue. That would represent about $80 billion in annual revenue.
To be more strict, assume only cable modem and a quarter of "ILEC" broadband accounts are counted as "CLEC" revenue, for purposes of estimating CLEC broadband access revenue, eliminating all wireless lines.
That implies 27 percent of all fixed network broadband lines were supplied by "CLECs."
Of the 206 million broadband connections, 23 percent are supplied by cable operators and 18 percent are supplied using DSL or fiber to home technologies. That implies 37 million CLEC lines using telco platforms and 47.4 million cable high speed lines.
Assume 100 percent of the cable modem lines properly are counted as "CLEC" revenue, at an average of $50 a month. Assume that 20 percent of the DSL or FTTH lines are sold by CLECs at $80 a month.
That in turn suggests cable CLEC revenue of $28.4 billion and telco platform CLEC revenues of about $35.5 billion annually, for a total of about $35.5 billion in "CLEC" broadband access revenues.
Assume that the 36 percent of fixed voice lines represent $45 a month in revenue (a conservative estimate including both consumer and business lines). That implies $540 a year in revenue for each line in service.
The FCC says there were 146 million fixed voice lines in service in mid-2011. That would imply 52.6 million "CLEC" lines in service, or $28.4 billion in end user revenues, not including access or other carrier revenues.
So the "CLEC" revenue stream might be as little as $64 billion a year, or as much as $108.4 billion a year.
The point is that the overall "CLEC" business is reasonably estimated as being as large as it was earlier seen as becoming. The big difference is the role played by cable operators.
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.
Smart Phones Influence 6% of Retail Sales?
Almost half of U.K. smart phone owners have used their device to research product information before or during a shopping trip, according to new research from Deloitte Digital.
Those results might suggest that six percent of in-store retail sales are being influenced by smart phone use. That would be almost double the value of direct purchases made through mobiles, which are estimated at about £8 billion in 2012.
By 2016, more than 80 percent of consumers are expected to own a smart phone and Deloitte estimates that between 15 percent and 18 percent of in-store sales will be smart phone-influenced, equivalent to £35 billion to £ 43 billion.
Smart phone usage also appears to increase the conversion rates for retailers. Some 74 percent of shoppers that visited a retailer’s mobile website or app during their most recent shopping trip made a purchase.
Some might suggest that the results are "soft," since any number of shopping influences contribute to any retail purchase, and it always is wrong to attribute 100 percent of the influence to just the final input, or most visible input, or most easily measured possible input to any decision.
Mobile is particularly popular in the electronics sector, influencing 10 percent of U.K. store sales and is predicted to increase to 30 percent of sales by 2016.
Convenience stores and supermarkets are less affected, with only 2.9 percent and 3.8 percent of sales influenced, respectively.
There is a dramatic difference between use of mobile for bill payments, though, compared to retail, in-store payments, as you might suspect would be the case at an early stage of mobile payments development in retail settings.
Some 64 percent of smart phone owners have used their device to make a bank payment or pay a bill, but just one percent have used their phone to make an in-store payment, Deloitte Digital says.
These figures are mirrored by similar conducted by Deloitte’s retail practice in the United States. The Deloitte U.S. data suggests that mobiles influence about five percent of retail sales. Deloitte forecasts that by 2016, smart phones are likely to influence between 17 percent and 21 percent of U.S. retail purchases, equating to $628 billion to $782 billion in sales.
Those results might suggest that six percent of in-store retail sales are being influenced by smart phone use. That would be almost double the value of direct purchases made through mobiles, which are estimated at about £8 billion in 2012.
By 2016, more than 80 percent of consumers are expected to own a smart phone and Deloitte estimates that between 15 percent and 18 percent of in-store sales will be smart phone-influenced, equivalent to £35 billion to £ 43 billion.
Smart phone usage also appears to increase the conversion rates for retailers. Some 74 percent of shoppers that visited a retailer’s mobile website or app during their most recent shopping trip made a purchase.
Some might suggest that the results are "soft," since any number of shopping influences contribute to any retail purchase, and it always is wrong to attribute 100 percent of the influence to just the final input, or most visible input, or most easily measured possible input to any decision.
Mobile is particularly popular in the electronics sector, influencing 10 percent of U.K. store sales and is predicted to increase to 30 percent of sales by 2016.
Convenience stores and supermarkets are less affected, with only 2.9 percent and 3.8 percent of sales influenced, respectively.
There is a dramatic difference between use of mobile for bill payments, though, compared to retail, in-store payments, as you might suspect would be the case at an early stage of mobile payments development in retail settings.
Some 64 percent of smart phone owners have used their device to make a bank payment or pay a bill, but just one percent have used their phone to make an in-store payment, Deloitte Digital says.
These figures are mirrored by similar conducted by Deloitte’s retail practice in the United States. The Deloitte U.S. data suggests that mobiles influence about five percent of retail sales. Deloitte forecasts that by 2016, smart phones are likely to influence between 17 percent and 21 percent of U.S. retail purchases, equating to $628 billion to $782 billion in sales.
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.
Europe Cloud Adoption Not Following Classic Pattern
Technology diffusion often follows a pattern. In the past, innovations were born in university computer labs, then commercialized for large enterprises, before migrating into the mid-market, and finally small business.
At some point innovations would move into the consumer market.
That pattern has been upended. These days, innovations still tend to be born in universities, but then tend to be commercialized first in the consumer market, before being adopted by business users.
There also are geography patterns in technology diffusion, as well. In the past, early tech adopters in Europe tended to cluster in the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries, with innovations then moving to other countries.
But cloud computing seems not to be following that pattern. “Normally the path leads from the UK to the Nordic countries and then goes south to the Mediterranean countries,” said IDC Research Director Mette Ahorlu. “That’s not clear in cloud."
Southern Europe is struggling economically but we see some indication that they see cloud as a way to catch up,” she said.
In other cases, the lower investment hurdles might be driving the interest. Given the financial and economic troubles in Spain, Greece and Italy, for example, users might prefer the lower cost profile for cloud solutions that obviate the need for capital investments. Geographically, the United States will remain the largest public cloud services market, followed by Western Europe and Asia/Pacific (excluding Japan),IDCsays.
But the fastest growth in public IT services spending will be in the emerging markets, which will see its collective share nearly double by 2016 when it will account for almost 30 percent of net new public IT cloud services spending growth.
Perhaps something of the same trend is at work in those regions, where access to high-end computing services, without the need to invest capital, is proving attractive.
At some point innovations would move into the consumer market.
That pattern has been upended. These days, innovations still tend to be born in universities, but then tend to be commercialized first in the consumer market, before being adopted by business users.
There also are geography patterns in technology diffusion, as well. In the past, early tech adopters in Europe tended to cluster in the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries, with innovations then moving to other countries.
But cloud computing seems not to be following that pattern. “Normally the path leads from the UK to the Nordic countries and then goes south to the Mediterranean countries,” said IDC Research Director Mette Ahorlu. “That’s not clear in cloud."
Southern Europe is struggling economically but we see some indication that they see cloud as a way to catch up,” she said.
In other cases, the lower investment hurdles might be driving the interest. Given the financial and economic troubles in Spain, Greece and Italy, for example, users might prefer the lower cost profile for cloud solutions that obviate the need for capital investments. Geographically, the United States will remain the largest public cloud services market, followed by Western Europe and Asia/Pacific (excluding Japan),IDCsays.
But the fastest growth in public IT services spending will be in the emerging markets, which will see its collective share nearly double by 2016 when it will account for almost 30 percent of net new public IT cloud services spending growth.
Perhaps something of the same trend is at work in those regions, where access to high-end computing services, without the need to invest capital, is proving attractive.
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, September 17, 2012
Tablet Shipments Up 56% by End of 2012
Booming tablet shipments of devices in several form factors will drive a robust 56 percent annual increase in shipments for the tablet display market in 2012, according to IHS iSuppli.
Shipments of tablet displays in 2012 are projected to reach 126.6 million units, up from 82.1 million units in 2011.
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)
-
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...
