App Stores – from exciting to boring (in just one week)
When app stores first came out, I was very excited. Finally, I said, all the right pieces, all together, all correctly placed: the integrated catalog that allows for easy application discovery, the download over the air that works, integrated billing/payment, the ecosystem, the business model, and apps that work. The realization was that app stores were the new deck.
It took years for someone to break the ice. Why do I say break the ice? Because traditionally handset makers have been very careful (afraid?) about crossing the line into the network provider’s turf. Everyone knew that the old the deck stunk bad and that it didn’t work. Yet, no one was willing to cross that line.
But Apple did. And they proved the world how things should be done. Apple also proved that network operators are the reason why when it comes to innovation beyond the network, is why things have stalled for so long. It is nothing personal when I say this, it is just the way it is.
Then came Google, with a similar ideas. Then BlackBerry and Microsoft and Nokia finally. So far so good.
But now we have Comverse and Amdocs offering app stores. See More Apps Stores Unveiled. But why Comverse and Amdocs? Amdocs and Comverse are taking advantage of the new opportunity. They have realized that operators are in a tough position, as all these new app stores are all working around them. So why not put together a (white-labeled) app store infrastructure and offer it to the operators? And in addition to the online catalog, also offer to “review each application and conduct testing, certification and legal reviews before hosting an application in its store.” Again, all this very operator-centric. And with this, app stores will become the new walled-garden, as Andrew Gill writes.
All of this sounds *exactly* as the old deck, doesn’t it? And guess what? It won’t work.
One more thing. A big reason why app stores such as Apples and Google’s work is because the downloaded apps work. And that is possible because the target (number of) platforms were simplified. So 1) let’s start by simplifying the platforms, 2) don’t go back to the old operator-controlled deck.
Well, I should say that it is fine to have operator-controlled app stores, but don’t preclude other/better app stores.
The new deck is much more than trying to copy Apple…
Related to this:
- App stores abound at Mobile World Congress
- Are App Stores Just Another Type of Walled Garden?
- On Nokia’s App Store Strategy
- App Stores are the New Deck
ceo
This is a great post! It highlights one big obstacle that every developer of mobile services has to handle; how to distribute software across plattforms and operators.
Keep up the good work!
[...] be walled gardens, “another closed ecosystem that stifles development and creativity.” Enrique Ortiz writes on AboutMobility, “All of this sounds ‘exactly’ as the old deck, doesn’t it? And guess what? It [...]
I think any operator or platform/device controlled app store is, and has always been, the deck. In fact, all of the off-deck strategies for content monetization & distribution are just as valid for out-of-store as they are off-deck.
We’ve been defining “deck” as including app stores for a while. It’s working for us.
@Barbara. I agree and understand that you get it. My point is that the old-deck has failed for a decade, and the new deck has shown a lot of promise, and that the new deck shall remain and not be precluded, which I’m sure is something operators are tempted to do, as we have seen historically.
We have seen with iPhone App Store the “Golden Age” of App Stores:
- a single eco-system
- an integrated customer experience (from discovery to installation) because of the vertical integration of the approach: as you say “downloaded apps work”, without security warning neither during installation nor at run-time
- the marketing power of Apple (their brand and also their investment in the eco-system: it is the first time I see ads on TV to promote mobile applications)
We need more app stores to extend the concept to the vast majority of non-Apple handsets, but it will inevitably lead to fragmentation, and even when Apple introduce new models, they will start experiencing compatibility issues.
However, the most important with this “App Store” phenomenon is the fact that end-users are ready to pay for mobile applications and services. We need to go beyond the current “app store” concept where only the one-off purchase of an application is possible:
- allow micro-payment within applications
- allow subscription business model (on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis)
- extend the concept to “mobile web” services (without local application)
- …
In this context, today announcement of Zuora providing “Billing as a Service” for Facebook apps is very interesting:
http://blog.zuora.com/zblog/2009/03/monetize-facebook-apps-with-z-commerce-for-facebook-subscribe-dont-advertise.html
When it comes to billing, mobile operators have obviously a key role to play, but they need to cooperate to offer to developers a common billing gateway (developers can’t afford to integrate with billing gateways of each operator).
“From exciting to boring.” Based on my exchanges with VCs/operators and observations (MWC) in recent weeks I find there is a hype around the app store model among the startup community which has little economic justification. This is a tough year for mobile startups and there’s little on the app store front which can change that for them.
Mind you, I understand the enthusiasm of startups when they get into the Apple app store. At VentureBeat we get companies telling us every week that even though they’ve got 5% iPhone users they make up 30%-70% of the actual usage of their service. Getting into the app store is a powerful emotional moment of success for startup teams. VCs, however, have all seen this effect for months and it’s old news for them. To get more funding, startups rather need to answer the question “what’s next ?” VC funding into the consumer mobile segment has decreased in the last 9 months or so. Pitches based on the app store model rarely work, from my observations.
Based on my talks at MWC I don’t see how the app store model really changes the operator business in the next 12 months. Mind you, that may be my confusion, though, as I continue to be surprised how different views on issues like this are in this industry
I talked to 6 operators and they all see different things happening and all react to these things differently. Among others, there’s certainly a market for (white-labeled) app store infrastructure evolving like you say, Enrique. What I see, though, is that the business of device makers is changing. Their pitches to operators have become different, I’m told. “My device increases the sales of your data plan via apps/MSN” is becoming a winning formula for some device makers and their competition has to react. This segment of the industry will change a lot this year, imo.
Just my 2 cents.
I agree that multiple application stores would just be an additional deck to some degree. However, unlike the deck small developers would actually have a web UI to submit his/her application… This is a HUGE difference… I would rather there wouldn’t be an “app store per operator”, but I would take whatever I can get.
The main problem with targeting platforms is the certificates. Plain and simple.
Nokia’s solution of going with Java Verified is “problematic” for small time developers. The store vendor should sign applications itself for all the appropriate customers, this is technically doable and should be pretty easy to do if the application is already signed by Verisign/Thwarte etc. (meaning there is a verifyable legal entity representing said company).
Right now getting into the “deck” for companies is a process so painful it causes startups to go out of business just because of the lengthy and painful process. Even a bad/partial solution is better than that.
Look guys, your all wrong. Danger had an app store at least 6 years before apple/iphone. It provided a seamless experience, had only apps for the sidekick, allowed you to actually preview the app (which none of the others seem to support though the android return policy is pretty good). The only thing it lacked was user ratings/comments.
Go through every list you guys have written about how the apple app store was innovative and new, and compare that list to what Danger created 6 years before. Almost every item on your list of praises for apple become another “me too” praise for apple.
Disclaimer: I’m a former sidekick user; now a g1 user.
[...] App Stores – from exciting to boring (in just one week) [...]
[...] PS (Mar 15, 2009): the “walled garden” analogy comes to mind. [...]