Nvidia brings its cloud gaming to Android

2019 was already looking like a promising year for cloud gaming and now Nvidia is bringing its own service, GeForce NOW, to Android, the streaming scrap is heating up.

Specifics on timing have not been released just yet, neither have pricing details, though Nvidia has said its streaming service will be available on Android devices over the coming months. With the service already available on PC and Mac devices, entering the Android world adds the potential of another two billion devices.

“Already in beta to the delight of 1 billion underpowered PCs that aren’t game ready, GeForce NOW will soon extend to one of the most popular screens in the world, Android phones – including flagship devices from LG and Samsung,” the team said on its blog.

“Just like on PC, Mac and Shield TV, when the Android mobile app releases it’ll be in beta. We’ll continue improving and optimizing the experience.”

The move into Android will take Nvidia into direct competition with both Google’s Stadia and Microsoft’s xCloud. There are of course pros and cons for all the available services, though a couple of bonus’ for Nvidia will gauge the interest of some gamers. Firstly, second purchases on titles will not be needed for the cloud gaming service, while the GeForce RTX graphics performance will be introduced soon enough.

Google was the first to plug the potential of cloud gaming back in March, promising users they will be able to access their games at all times, and on virtually any screen. The initial launch will be for £8.99 a month, though the team does plan on launching a ‘freemium’ alternative soon after. As you can imagine, Google is always looking for ways the complex data machine can offer content to users for profit.

It didn’t take long for Microsoft to launch its own alternative following the press Google collected. Hyped as the ‘Netflix of video games’, Microsoft will charge $9.99 to access a range of Xbox One and Xbox 360 titles on any screen. Like Stadia and GeForce NOW, a controller would have to plugged into Android devices.

There are some ridiculous figures which are being banded around concerning the percentage of traffic cloud gaming will account for during the 5G era, it is a segment worth keeping an eye on.

Is Xiaomi filling a Huawei-shaped hole in the smartphone market?

Huawei might be suffering in today’s political climate, but every action gets a positive and negative reaction and could Xiaomi be benefitting from its rival’s misery?

The Chinese challenger brand might have missed on market expectations for revenue, but it is not the worst set of financial results you have ever seen. Looking at the most simplistic measure of a company, it made more money than last year, brought in more profits and sold more products; not too bad.

“Thanks to the Xiaomi relentless efforts, we have managed to achieve solid growth in our businesses, posting a consensus-beating profit and becoming the youngest Fortune Global 500 company in 2019, despite global economic challenges,” said Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun.

“Our performance is testament to the success of our ‘Smartphone + AIoT’ dual-engine strategy and the Xiaomi business model. Looking ahead, we will continue to strengthen our R&D capabilities and investments so as to capture the great opportunities brought by 5G and AIoT markets and strive towards ongoing achievements for the company.”

Financial analysts will be pouring over the spreadsheets to understand why Xiaomi seemingly missed market expectations, but let’s not forget, the smartphone market is in a notable slump right now. Sales are slowing and the 5G euphoria is yet to hit home to compensate. No-one is immune from overarching global trends.

However, there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon for the majority of smartphone manufacturers; there are gains to be made from the Huawei misery.

According to the latest smartphone shipment numbers from Canalys, Huawei’s smartphone shipments in Europe have declined year-on-year by 16%, while Samsung and Xiaomi have grown their numbers by 20% and 48% respectively. Other factors will contribute to the increase, though there will be former-Huawei customers who are seeking alternatives brands at the end of their replacement cycle.

Huawei is in a bit of a sticky situation right now. Firstly, its credibility has been called into question, thanks to President Trump’s trade war, while its supply chain is suffering due to the tariffs from the aforementioned trade war. The supply of critical components is under threat, as are security updates from Google’s Android operating system. Both of these concerns will impact consumer buying decisions.

Looking at Huawei’s financial figures, the consumer business unit is still on the rise, revenues were up 23%, though when you take into consideration the analyst estimates, it would seem these gains are from the domestic market. If Xiaomi can avoid collateral damage, it could benefit from Huawei’s alleged downturn in the international markets.

This does seem to be the case. For the first half of 2019, Xiaomi’s revenues increased 20.2% year-on-year to roughly $13.55 billion. The international markets, an area of significant potential for Xiaomi, accounted for 42.1% of the total, compared to a 36.3% proportion in the same period of 2018.

The gains in Europe have been highlighted above, though the Indian market is looking like a very profitable one. IDC estimates suggest Xiaomi is still leading smartphone shipments in India and has done for the last eight consecutive quarters. Estimates from eMarketer state smartphone penetration will grow to 29% of the Indian population in 2019, year-on-year growth of 12.5%. There is still a massive amount of growth potential in this market which is undergoing its own digital revolution.

Another area which has been highlighted for gains by the Xiaomi management team is the increasing diversity of the product portfolio.

Aside from the Mi 9 series and Redmi Note 7 series, the team launched the new K20 flagship during the second quarter, with shipments exceeding one million in the first month. The CC Series has also seemingly gained traction with female audiences, while the Mi MIX 3 5G was one of the first 5G compatible devices to hit the market. Numerous telcos have partnered with Xiaomi for this device, suggested the team is taking the shotgun approach as opposed to signing exclusive partnerships.

What is clear, Xiaomi is a smartphone manufacturer which is heading in the right direction. However, the gains could be increased should the misery continue for Huawei.

EE grasses on Three UK for its 5G advertising

Three UK has run an ad campaign claiming its 5G network is the only ‘real’ one. Unsurprisingly other 5G providers are unhappy about this and at least one had complained.

The UK Advertising Standards Authority has been forced to take precious resource away from enforcing gender politics dogma to look into Three’s 5G ad campaign. The ASA confirmed to Telecoms.com that it has received six complaints about an ad by Three claiming to provide the only ‘real’ 5G, with one of them coming from BT.

We contacted EE, which provided the following statement: “Three’s claim to be the only real 5G network is entirely false, and deliberately aimed at misleading consumers. Our customers have been using real 5G since we launched the UK’s first 5G network, back in May.”

And, of course, we also spoke to Three UK, which gave us this statement: “Our advert is to inform consumers that we will offer the fastest 5G network, based on Three having three times as much 5G spectrum as any other operator. We are also the only operator to have 100 MHz of contiguous spectrum. ITU considers this the gold standard for 5G, enabling consumers to take full advantage of what 5G has to offer.”

It all seems to come down this 100 MHz contiguous block of spectrum and the value the ITU places on it in the context of 5G. Here’s a slide from a Nokia presentation titled Minimum Technical Performance Requirements for IMT-2020 radio interface(s) [i.e. 5G] that clearly state “The requirement for bandwidth is at least 100 MHz.” However it also states “The bandwidth may be supported by single or multiple RF carriers.”

Nokia IMT 2020 requirements slide

That caveat would appear to undermine Three’s claim that only its contiguous 100 MHz chunk meets the ITU’s minimum requirements. But when we put that to Three their spokesperson countered that, since carrier aggregation isn’t currently supported by 5G chipsets, that stipulation is irrelevant.

Three reckons this complaint is evidence that its competitors are worried about Three’s strong position in 5G spectrum, which is wonderfully ironic when you consider Three has spent a decade moaning about the opposite imbalance in 4G spectrum. Three is presumably OK with the situation now that things have apparently swung in its favour, so much so it was happy to provide us with a few slides.

The first offers a look at the current UK 5G spectrum situation, following the 3.4 GHz spectrum auction last year. Most of Three’s 5G spectrum is in the 3.6-3.8 GHz band, however, and we’re not sure what the ‘future’ bar signifies, but Three does seem to be at a distinct advantage. So much so that its competitors have apparent been moaning to Ofcom too, as quoted in the second Three slide. The last one represents the results of some Three testing, which is designed to show the unique download speed benefits of having 100 MHz of contiguous 5G spectrum.

Thee 5G slide 1

Thee 5G slide 2

Thee 5G slide 3

To be honest we find it hard enough to keep track of who has what spectrum, and why we should care, so we’re certainly not in a position to critique Three’s claims on a technical level. However they do seem to serve as a plausible defense of any claim it might make to have at least the potential to provide greater 5G download speeds than its competitors.

Where we still have some sympathy with the ASA complaint, however, is with the use of the term ‘real’. If Three had simply gone with ‘fastest’, as it did in the above statement, then EE probably wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. But by instead using the term ‘real’ Three seems to inferring rival 5G services are somehow illegitimate.

It will be down to the ASA to sift through the 5G standard, including the above ITU parameters, to determine whether or not only a 5G service that is able to call upon at least 100 MHz of contiguous qualifies. Since the ASA seems more concerned with thought policing these days we have to question whether it has retained the expertise needed to perform its supposedly core function.

FTC Chair kicks off race to tackle big tech before it’s too late

A race seems to be heating up in the US. On one side, government officials are looking to tackle the influence of big tech, and on the other, Silicon Valley is trying to make it as difficult as possible.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Chairman of the FTC Joseph Simons has stated he believes efforts from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to more intrinsically integrate the different platforms could seriously complicate his own investigation. Back in July, it was unveiled the FTC was conducting a probe to understand whether competition has been negatively impacted by the social media giant.

However, Facebook has gone on the offensive and Simons is clearly not thrilled about it.

“If they’re maintaining separate business structures and infrastructure, it’s much easier to have a divestiture in that circumstance than in where they’re completely enmeshed, and all the eggs are scrambled,” said Simons.

This is the issue which the FTC is facing; Facebook is more closely integrating the separate brands. From a commercial perspective, this will allow the social media giant to cross-pollinate the platforms, potentially increasing revenues and enhancing the data-analytics machine, though it will also make divestments much more difficult to enforce.

Looking across the big names in Silicon Valley, this is a common business practice. The commercial benefits are of course very obvious, but it could be viewed as a defensive strategy in preparation for any snooping from government agencies.

At Google, with the benefit of hindsight, some regulators and politicians might have wanted to have block the acquisitions of Android, YouTube or artificial intelligence firm DeepMind. These acquisitions have led Google to become one of the most influential companies on the planet, though it does appear regulators at the time did not have the vision to understand the long-term impact. Now the services are so deeply embedded and inter-twined it is perhaps unfeasible to consider divestments.

Amazon is another company some of these politicians would love to tackle, but how do you go about breaking-up such a complex business, where the moving parts are becoming increasingly reliant on each-other?

Going back almost two decades, this is not the first-time regulators have attempted to tackle an overly influential player. Thanks to dominance in the PC arena, Microsoft was deemed to be negatively influencing competition when it came to software and applications. Despite Microsoft being forced to settle the case with the Department of Justice in 2001, the concessions stopped far short of a company break-up.

As part of the settlement, Microsoft agreed to make it easier competitors to get their software more closely integrated with the Windows OS, by breaking the company into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components. This was a tough pill for Microsoft to swallow, but it was a favourable outcome for the internet giant.

One view on this outcome is that Microsoft managed to structure its business in such a way it became almost impossible to split-up. If the technology giants of today can learn some lessons from Microsoft, they might well be able to circumnavigate any aggression from the US government.

Although the FTC is stealing the headlines here, it is not the only party looking to tackle the influence of Silicon Valley.

The House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee that deals with antitrust has already summoned Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google to testify. This investigation is also looking at the potential negative impact these monstrously large companies are having on competition. A couple of weeks later, the Department of Justice also opened its own probe.

Of course, there are also posturing politicians who are aiming to plug for PR points by slamming Silicon Valley. This is a very popular strategy, with the likes of Virginia Senator Mark Warner and Presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren taking a firm stance. President Trump has rarely been a friend of Silicon Valley either.

Another interest element to consider are the lawyers. Reports have emerged this morning to suggest as many as 20 State Attorney Generals will also be launching their own investigation. The threat of legal action could be very worrying for Silicon Valley, with a number of the lawyers already suggesting they do not like the way the digital economy is evolving, with the concentration of power one of the biggest problems.

The US has generally tolerated monopolies or an unreasonable concentration of power in economic verticals to a point, generally until infrastructure has been sorted, though the pain threshold might be getting to close. This has been seen with a break-up of Standard Oil’s monopoly, as well as splitting the Bell System, a corporation which was a monopoly in some regions for more than a century, into the Baby Bells across North America in the 1980s.

The internet giants will never publicly state they are participating in strategies which in-effect act as a hindrance to government agencies, but it must be a pleasant by-product. First and foremost, the internet giants will want to integrate different products and services for commercial reasons, operational efficiencies or increased revenues for example, however one eye will be cast on these investigations.

It does appear there is an arms race emerging. Government agencies and ambitious politicians are collecting ammunition for an assault on Silicon Valley, and the internet giants are shoring up defences to ensure a continuation of the status quo. This is a battle for power, and its one the US Government could very feasibly lose.

EE issues a formal complaint about Three’s advertising of ‘real 5G’

UK mobile operator EE has issued a formal complaint to the advertising watchdog about rival Three over its ‘real 5G’ marketing.

Three has been advertising that it’s the only UK mobile operator to offer “real” 5G in newspapers and social media posts.

National advertising rules in the UK require claims of superiority over a competitor to be backed with clear evidence. However, Three’s claim of being the only UK mobile operator to offer true 5G isn’t entirely unsubstantiated.

Three has scooped up 140MHz of 5G-friendly spectrum, including a single 100MHz contiguous block, which it claims will offer peak speeds up to twice as fast as any rival network at launch. With 50MHz of spectrum, Vodafone is Three’s closest rival.

Global 5G standards body the ITU states ‘true’ 5G requires 100MHz of 5G spectrum; which is why Three has been making the claim of superiority over its rivals in its marketing.

“5G is a game-changer for Three, and of course I am excited that we will be the only operator in the UK who can offer true 5G,” said Three CEO Dave Dyson in June.

Where EE could have grounds for its watchdog complaint is that Three’s 5G network is relatively untested due to a limited rollout. While Three’s 5G network looks good on paper, real-world conditions may prove different.

Earlier this week, Three launched its first 5G service as a home broadband solution in London. Initial tests indicate fast speeds, but it’s worth keeping in mind the limited rollout means there will be little network congestion at this point:

gadgetsboy-5g-three-home-broadband-test-download-speeds

A test by The Verge of EE’s smartphone 5G service in London averaged around 200Mbps download. EE likely has more 5G smartphone users on its network than Three has 5G home broadband customers – and the speed tests were conducted in different places – so it’s certainly not a like-for-like comparison, but it gives a general idea.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it has received five complaints about Three’s campaign, one of which came from EE’s parent company BT.

“Three’s claim to be the only real 5G network is entirely false, and deliberately aimed at misleading consumers,” EE said in a statement. “Our customers have been using real 5G since we launched the UK’s first 5G network, back in May.”

EE and Vodafone have revealed under 20 places for their 5G launches this year, but already have networks live in around seven cities each. O2 will only launch in six cities this year before expanding to 50 by summer 2020. Three plans to launch 5G in 25 cities before the end of 2019.

  Interested in hearing industry leaders discuss subjects like this and sharing their use-cases? Attend the co-located 5G ExpoIoT Tech Expo, Blockchain Expo, AI & Big Data Expo, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo World Series with upcoming events in Silicon Valley, London, and Amsterdam.

Twitter and Facebook move to block Chinese state-backed disinformation campaign

US social media sites have announced coordinated action designed to counter a propaganda campaign apparently designed to undermine the Hong Kong democracy protests.

Twitter was the first site alerted to this activity, with some users flagging up sponsored posts from state-run media that seemed biased against the mass gatherings in Hong Kong that are protesting moves to give the Chinese state greater power over the semi-autonomous region.

Twitter also published a blog post titled Information operations directed at Hong Kong, in which it said “We are disclosing a significant state-backed information operation focused on the situation in Hong Kong, specifically the protest movement and their calls for political change.” This took the form of almost a thousand phoney accounts apparently designed to amplify messaging undermining the legitimacy of the Hong Kong protests, which have now been suspended.

Removing any doubt about censorship activity being coordinated between internet giants, Facebook then announced it is acting on a tip from Twitter to remove a few accounts suspected of ‘inauthentic behaviour’ from China. “Although the people behind this activity attempted to conceal their identities, our investigation found links to individuals associated with the Chinese government,” said the Facebook announcement.

Lastly, while not explicitly referring to China, this propaganda campaign has clearly prompted Twitter to announce it will no longer accept advertising from state-controlled news media entities. Somewhat belatedly is has dawned on Twitter that state-controlled media is sometimes a tiny bit biased towards the state that controls it, which can have direct political consequences. Who knew?

Meanwhile US President Donald Trump is persisting with his claims that Google exerted some deliberate influence against him in the 2016 US general election. He cites an unspecified report that claims up to 16 million votes were manipulated in favour of his opponent Hilary Clinton in the election and called for Google to be sued.


Clinton herself has unsurprisingly queried the validity of the claim by attacking the, still unspecified, source. A number of other media have also criticised the presumed source of the claim, most of which make no secret of their antipathy towards Trump. As ever Trump’s tweet will have an underlying tactical purpose, in this case to threaten Google and any other internet company that maybe tempted to use its platform to favour his 2020 opponent.

Disney+ to launch in November as streaming segment starts to look crowded

Disney has announced it will launch its video streaming service in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the Netherlands alongside the US in November, but how much appetite is there in the market?

This is the big question which the streaming world is facing; how many streaming services can be introduced before saturation point is reached in the profitable segment?

Alongside the likes of Netflix, Prime Video, Hulu, Now TV, YouTube, Fubo, Sling TV and several other niche services such as Nickelodeon and Fox News, Disney+, HBO Max and Apple TV will be fighting for the consumers attention. With so much fragmentation, you have to wonder whether the first-golden age for the streaming segment is coming to a close.

Today, Disney+ has given concrete plans for its launch, while Apple has been the subject of rumours. At Disney, the streaming service will debut in the US at the beginning of November, in Canada and the Netherlands on 12th November and in Australia and New Zealand on the 19th November.

Looking at the launch, Disney does seem to be ticking the right boxes in terms of content, it already owns an impressive library and has got some promising commitments to original titles, but you have to wonder about everything else.

Let start with experience. The likes of Hulu, Netflix and Prime Video have been honing their platforms for some time, and this could be one of the defining feature when it comes to winning the scrap for long-term subscribers. One of the attractive elements of OTT streaming services are the month-by-month commitment; customers can up and leave very quickly should they find issue with the service and getting them back will be tough.

Disney does not have any experience when it comes to creating or managing these platforms, whereas rivals have got years behind them. This could be a very important factor, especially when it comes to mobile.

Another challenge Disney will face, and we are surprised it hasn’t done more to address it on launch, is the brand awareness of the service. Fighting for eyeballs is a very expensive and tricky game to play, and while Disney has one of the most prominent brands on the planet, it has zero credibility when it comes to the delivery of digital content. Some might also question the breadth and depth of content which the library will contain.

This is why we are surprised Disney isn’t launching the service through local partnerships. Netflix and Amazon have already shown how powerful partnerships can be, embedding services in existing content aggregator platforms is an excellent way to win eyeballs and tempt subscriptions. This would have been an obvious route to take, leaning on the credibility and billing experience of a local partner, a telco for example.

That said, it is not too late. The service will be expanded to every major market by the end of the year, Disney claims, and there certainly are some multi-national telcos who could help generate exposure and credibility in some major markets. Vodafone or Deutsche Telekom could offer excellent exposure across Europe, as would Telefonica, as well as the LATAM markets. These partnerships could offer a direct, trusted and validated link to local consumers.

Another element to consider for the telco partnerships is the delivery of content over mobile. This is a different dynamic than the traditional means of viewing content, and few can offer the same expertise as the telcos. Mobile could be a significant tool for the armoury moving forward, and it will be interesting to see how the experience is received by consumers.

However, this does not address the wider issue which is lurking on the horizon; customer fragmentation.

When there were only two or three major services available, consumer wallets might have been able to tolerate numerous subscriptions. However, it is quickly getting to a point where choices will have to be made, as these services are not priced that cheaply anymore.

£6.99 or £10.99 isn’t realistically that much, however the quality of the services might decline. In years gone, these services were aggregators, but with the content owners clawing back titles off rival platforms, the libraries will get smaller. With Disney for example, all the Marvel content will be taken back, and with HBO’s service, titles like Friends will be removing from wider distribution.

What is worth noting is that original content could replace some of these titles, however, the pursuit of the next Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones is a perilous pursuit; not everything will be a winner, or appeal to a wide enough audience. There is a risk the quality of content could degrade as the streaming segment becomes more fragmented.

This is of course a negative view on the quality of content, the increased competition might welcome in a new era of quality programming. However, there are a lot of duds which are launched onto the unsuspecting world.

It is also worth noting that there is plenty of room for growth across the world. Markets like the US, UK or Germany might not present much greenfield growth for new subscribers, but there are still a few more hundred million in developed and developing markets to capture profits from.

Since Netflix changed the entertainment world with its streaming offering, hoovering up revenues, many have tried to replicate the success. You have to wonder how many services the segment can tolerate and remain the bountiful bonanza which many investors have been promised.

US suspends Huawei export ban for another 90 days

President Trump’s Huawei export ban is increasingly looking like a hollow bluff as it gets yet another suspension.

When the US Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) put Huawei on its ‘entity list’, thus prohibiting US companies and any others that want to stay in the US’s good books from doing business with it, there were a number of stated reasons for doing so. Among them was the allegation that Huawei has been doing business with Iran, which is on another US shit-list, as well as unspecified ‘activities that are contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interest.’

Soon after, however, the new restrictions were suspended out of apparent concern over the disruption to US companies. At the time it seemed implausible that the various US agencies involved hadn’t anticipated such disruption, but given Trump’s impulsive brand of leadership most people were happy to accept that explanation.

Now, on the day that suspension was due to expire, BIS has decided to extend it for another 90 days, this time “…to afford consumers across America the necessary time to transition away from Huawei equipment…” Once more this begs the question that, if it’s reasonable to expect US consumers to take at least six months to wean themselves off what little Huawei gear they had been able to get hold of, why this wasn’t taken into account when the announcement was first made.

And what about all these national security and foreign policy concerns, let alone the punishment for working with Iran, which elicited such swift and merciless retribution for ZTE? It’s increasingly looking like the US isn’t half as bothered about this stuff as it makes out and is merely using the entity list as a negotiating chip in its broader geo-political spat with China.

“As we continue to urge consumers to transition away from Huawei’s products, we recognize that more time is necessary to prevent any disruption,” said Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. “Simultaneously, we are constantly working at the Department to ensure that any exports to Huawei and its affiliates do not violate the terms of the Entity Listing or Temporary General License.”

This latest concession comes soon after President Trump had dinner with Apple CEO Tim Cook, which just happens to be a massive US consumer electronics company. Cook apparently moaned about the effects of bilateral tariffs and Trump tweeted about it as if it had only just occurred to him that they might harm US companies as well as Chinese ones. All of this is coming over as increasingly disingenuous and with every new concession the threat of the entity list becomes a less effective negotiating tool.

Google ditches subscription model for YouTube Original content

Google tried to make the transition over to a subscription-led business and now it seems it has had enough, announcing all YouTube Original content will be free after September 24.

Although the subscription business model is very attractive to the money-men, it was always going to be a tough sell for Google and YouTube. Not only have users become accustomed to free content through the platform, it is also far removed from the core competency of the Google money-making machine.

It now appears the experiment has not worked, with Google announcing all YouTube original content, movies and live events released on September 24th and beyond will be free to view.

There will of course be a subscription model still available for users. For $12 a month, ads will be removed, content can be downloaded for offline viewing, all episodes of a series will available from the beginning and users can expect bonus material also.

It doesn’t seem to be completely giving up on the idea of subscriptions, but this represents a more back the traditional from Google.

Google is very good at a number of different things, but top of the list is hyper-targeted advertising. Like Facebook, Google specialises in collecting and analysing information on a user before presenting the right type of content. Some might question the appropriateness and relevance of some of the ads, but you only have to look at how good the Google search engine actually is to realise it does know what it’s doing.

This is why the transition to subscription-based revenues on YouTube was a slightly unusual move. Firstly, Google is really good at making money through serving relevant ads at the right time, so why change this. And secondly, YouTube users are accustomed to getting content for free, why would they want to pay?

Perhaps this is why it has been a struggle to collect subscriptions to date. YouTube users are used to a certain experience, and maybe do not feel YouTube Original content warranted a price tag. Google was asking users to pay for content, without really owning a track record of creating price tag worth content.

This is not necessarily the end of the subscription ambitions for Google and YouTube, but it does impose a different mentality on the business. It takes the platform back into the realms of targeted advertising, a practice which has made Google billions upon billions, and also allows the team to broaden the audience.

Without a paywall to hide content behind, the YouTube Originals will be viewed by more people. More opinions can be nurtured and more of a reputation can be created. As it stands, Google or YouTube does not have a positive or negative reputation for making content. Eyeballs are important when going up against the likes of Netflix, HBO, Disney and Sky, and now Google can ensure people can form an opinion on its content.

If Google wants to transition YouTube across to a subscription-based business model, it will have to demonstrate why people should pay to access content. Perhaps it forgot to do that in the first place.

5G pricing: the best is yet to come

Telecoms.com periodically invites third parties to share their views on the industry’s most pressing issues. In this piece, Jennifer Kyriakakis, Founder and VP of Marketing at Matrixx, explores best practice in the pricing of telecoms services in the 5G era.

The advent of 5G technology will bring a monumental shift in how traditional telcos operate their business. In the run up to full scale 5G deployments, many forward thinking telcos have launched digital brands. These are essentially 100% digital versions of their businesses packaged as a different brand. Many of them are using their digital brands to experiment with customer experience, service offerings, and business models that will become mainstream with 5G. The theorem: If we don’t have the pricing models and business infrastructure in place to properly extract value from a 5G offering, we’ll end up losing out to the next wave of OTT players. So let’s figure it out now, before the networks are in place.

As operators debate how best to price 5G, some early examples, such as Three in the UK are offering 5G at no additional cost to current 4G plans. The idea seems sound as a starting point, particularly as there is little 5G network availability and devices haven’t yet caught up. But does it make sense in the medium to long term, or do these tactics risk further devaluing the very asset that differentiates them? Are these early pricing models really strategies for 5G, or merely placeholders as telcos continue with transformation efforts that will set them up to compete with OTTs and digital players?

Operators have a powerful opportunity to create a competitive advantage with their 5G offering. Getting the pricing model right is a strong place to start. With the industry already throwing different pricing models at the wall, which one will stick?

The Pay-for-Speed approach

This approach started in some markets with 4G and while it’s simple and straightforward for the consumer, it also sets the precedence that speed is the only value lever telcos have to offer. For example, Vodafone became the first UK network to offer unlimited 5G data plans. Ditching the monthly data allocations, Vodafone offers three speeds; 2Mpbs, 10Mpbs and then the fastest speed possible. People have the choice on how fast they want to download or stream content.

If you are a super user or have a family of six who are always on their phones, it makes sense to pay for those faster speeds. If you are in retirement, don’t necessarily have a job in tech or could care less about YouTube, then having the choice for lower speeds may be a good option.

But is this model sustainable? When in the future, the amount of data – everything from gaming to connected home, health apps, IoT, streaming video and more -could outweigh the speed? Would an operator lose a revenue opportunity on super users who take advantage of accessing large amounts of data at the fastest speeds?

The Rewards approach

Others are taking an ecosystem approach banking on potential new revenue streams by creating value-added services, which often come to life through rewards-based programs. These programs offer incentives such as discounts, coupons and first-access to concerts and movies, to entice users and make the app experience more sticky. By building loyalty around an ecosystem now, as 5G services arrive they have established channel relationships with partners who will be leveraging 5G in the future for AR/VR services and are actively participating in the revenue chain.

Verizon’s Up Program is a great example of this, as they offer discounts and rewards on technology, dining, sports experiences and stage-side concerts. They tout deals monthly and even daily, driving people to check in on the app frequently. Once there, they encourage users to manage their services, often upselling them on new benefits.

By creating these rewards-based programs they are not only appealing to the next generation of users, but they are also creating a more valued relationship between consumers and their brand. This brand strategy is one that few operators have navigated successfully, but it is crying out for change in a new 5G era if operators expect to compete with OTT players.

The Marketplace & Bundled approach

Operators that create marketplaces are offering users opportunities to connect with friends, form inner social groups, gift data to friends, and also manage their plans in real-time. These marketplaces are highly sticky, driving customers to spend lots of time within the marketplace, which breeds more opportunities to sell products and boost revenue.

Another approach are operators who are choosing to bundle the price of data with a specific service. For example, if you want Netflix delivered in high-definition to your smartphone, you’ll pay a flat monthly fee for that service and the data will be included. These bundled-service options work well for a variety of value-adds, including VR gaming, augmented reality services, IoT of the home and more.

This sets the market up nicely for two-sided business models which will emerge with full scale 5G. Getting consumers used to paying carriers for services vs. network access is phase one to future multi-faceted models in which the carriage is monetized through different partners and models.

So have any 5G pricing models arrived yet?

While these offerings are all based on 4G today, they set the foundation for turning customers into high-engagement fans, in turn increasing their revenue streams.

5G introduces hundreds and even thousands of possibilities to utilize the network efficiently and generate additional revenue. Operators that are moving now to innovate and distinguish themselves from their competitors are setting themselves up to reimagine pricing for 5G and drive new revenue vs. defend against price wars and the resulting churn.

 

Pod 15 jul Jennifer croppedMATRIXX Founder and Vice President of Marketing, Jennifer Kyriakakis, brings deep expertise in both telecoms and software with roles ranging from complex systems delivery to technical sales to strategic marketing. Her 20 plus years of experience helping Telcos reinvent themselves has propelled the growth of MATRIXX into markets all over the globe.