Head of Consumer Electronics & Digital Entertainment Practice
"In 2015, more than 70% of video software revenues were generated by digital sales and distribution, compared with 22% in 2008."
Dematerialisation, a driver for disintermediation and growth in the video games sector
The global video game software market rose in value from 35.3 billion EUR in 2008 to 47.7 billion EUR in 2014, driven by dematerialisation, the emergence of new segments and the continued success of relatively new segments. Dematerialisation has meant an increasing number of consumers can be reached, on any platform equipped with a screen, fixed or mobile, and with increasingly varied content. In 2014, 69% of video game software revenues were generated by digital sales and distribution, compared with 22% in 2008. Revenues from dematerialisation have experienced an average annual growth of 26.8% over the period, compared with 9.7% for revenues from physical sales.
The video games sector, which is digital by nature, has a long history of dematerialising distribution and in-game content. Use of dematerialisation now seems to be accelerating and expanding into all segments of the sector. The success of browser games, massively multiplayer games, online gaming on consoles and personal computers, and smartphone gaming (since the end of the 2000s), has meant that 2012 was a defining year when the majority of revenues were generated from the digital side of this economy, switching over from the physical.
Breakdown of the video game software market by type of revenue, 2008 and 2014
Source: IDATE, Video Games in the Cloud, June 2015
Role redistribution along the value chain
Dematerialisation affects all segments of the video game industry. It has led to disintermediation in the value chain and raises questions over the role of certain stakeholders downstream. It has afforded new power to developers, who now have the opportunity to speak directly to their gaming customers. 'Online' has ultimately eroded a silo-based industry structure and allowed practices and cross-platform services to emerge that both benefit gamers and boost creativity within the sector.
Industry repositioning and revaluation up the chain
On an industry-wide scale, dematerialisation of video game market segments has moved value along the value chain. Value creation is now closer to players with a direct link to their customers. Disintermediation of the sector is moving in this direction.
In the PC gaming segment, value creation seems to centre around digital retailers (Steam, GOG), aggregators (Big Fish Games) and publishers (EA Origin, NCSoft). In the mobile gaming segment, value creation seems to have moved towards app store owners (Apple, Android, Amazon), and to the console manufacturers themselves in the case of console games.
On Smart TVs, anything is still possible between TV channels, the Internet giants and the proponents of a cross-platform ecosystem (e.g. Apple, Samsung, LG, Sony). Gaming platform operators, the major beneficiaries of these developments, have also had to rethink their revenue sharing models to the benefit of game development studios.
Dematerialisation has also allowed the sector to continue generating additional revenue, converting new customers to new types of game, especially ubiquitous games, which are playable simultaneously on multiple platforms, both fixed and mobile.
In this context where dematerialisation is continuing to gain ground on the physical market, the sector will continue its dynamic growth in the coming years. However, not all links in the chain will fully benefit from this growth, such as distributors, who are seeing their share captured by others.
Revenues earned by the various links in the video game market value chain (million EUR)
Source: IDATE, Video Games in the Cloud, June 2015
The impact of dematerialisation
The impact of dematerialisation varies depending on the market segment, but disintermediation is a common theme.
The PC gaming segment, which is easily accessible for independent (indie) developers, has diversified and opened up to casual and social games while retaining a special place for massively multiplayer (World of Worldcraft) or multiplayer (League of Legends) games.
The mobile gaming segment (on smartphones and tablets) has built itself around app stores, and the viral and rapid nature of these stores. With these devices now almost permanently connected, games are also being viewed as a potentially continuous entertainment experience. This implies a new approach is needed, based more on encouraging users to buy, rather than selling a product.
The console gaming segment has evolved and now allows all users to download indie and casual games, but also AAA titles. In addition, many features that use the cloud have emerged. These features may relate to the game, other content, consumption, user account management or access to broadcasting services. In this context, console manufacturers remain the cornerstone of this segment's economy with their e-stores.
Finally, on Smart or connected TVs, video games take the form of streamed content, known as cloud gaming or Games on Demand. This young segment, which first emerged around 2010, is strengthening and seems to be garnering interest within the industry.
Find out more about dematerialisation in video game industry, new strategies and organisation as well as forecasts and shifts in the value chain in our dedicated market report
CEO, IDATE DigiWorld
After 14 months of study by FTC and FCC authorities, AT&T just received the green light this 24 July for an operation to take over DirecTV (the number 2 satellite TV operator with 20 million subscribers in the US and 18 million customers in Latin America) for $49 billion ($67.1 billion in debts).
Before approving an operation which will lead to hooking up 26 million subscribers in the US with the largest TV distributor (ahead of Comcast; see figure below), the FCC negotiated several conditions: (a) to make guarantees for the completion of a plan to extend its fiber infrastructure (Fiber to the Premises) to at least 12.5 million households, (b) to equip areas of concern such as schools and libraries, (c) to offer low-income households a discounted basic Internet access service, (d) to apply Net Neutrality by not using caps on Internet access to discriminate against video services in favor of DirecTV offerings, (e) to present the FCC with interconnection agreements made with the major suppliers of applications and programs (such as Netflix).
What reasons could there be for such a large operation, oriented towards Pay TV market that is saturated and under attack from new video streaming offers? (especially as after having paid some $14.4 billion in cash, AT&T will most likely need to invest tens of billions more in auctions for frequencies released in the 600MHz band).
• The power to attract consumers with bundles? AT&T has not lost any time on this. Several days after receiving approval from the authorities, the operator made a new offer public combining DirecTV channel packages (or programs offered on the FTTx "U-VerseTV" network from the telecom) with its cellular services (over 120 million subscribers): for a basic offer of $200/month, a household will have TV services with 4 receivers and 4 mobile telephone lines with 10GB to share. This is a promotional offer. In other words, it is a guarantee for a year in return for a commitment from the customer for two years (DirecTV) or one year (U-Verse) - which would represent a discount of $600. With this offer, AT&T Wireless hopes to win subscribers away from Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint. While DirecTV is in competition with Comcast, the other cable companies, Verizon-FiOS and Dish hope that its subscribers can benefit from an offer that its competitors can't reproduce.
• Possible Synergies? In its communications with investors, AT&T has focused on the synergies of the operation. The new combination could reduce the cost of acquiring TV programs 15% (/subscriber) due to the importance of size in this market. This is not insignificant as we know that programming represents some 10% of the cable market leader's expenses (Comcast) and that expense is growing faster than its revenues. In fact, AT&T became the leading Pay TV business with not only the ability to negotiate with channels, studios, and sporting leagues, but also the means to compete with Netflix and Amazon to invest in series by reserving exclusivity or priority. In the short-medium term, it is likely that DirecTV, whose linear TV model could lose its edge, will find that AT&T is an effective partner for developing video streaming offers.
• Other synergies lie in distribution, marketing, and back-office expenses. DirecTV and AT&T Wireless are national brands with storefront expenses (2000 points-of-sale and 5000 employees for AT&T Wireless), sales campaigns, marketing tools, and manufacturing who can be combined to generate substantial savings.
• A vector for expansion in Latin America? AT&T had prioritized on consolidating the mobile phone market in the US. This strategy reached its limitations when authorities blocked its plan to buy T-Mobile US. The telecom had, no doubt, envisaged this moment when Verizon Wireless spun off Vodafone to invest in Europe. In the end, AT&T prioritized its international investments in Latin America. This was illustrated recently by back-to-back investments in mobile phones in Mexico with the acquisition of lusacell, then Nextel. Beyond Mexico, DirecTV, which has 18 million subscribers in Latin America, can help promote AT&T's South American expansion strategy.
Will this operation mobilize others in the US market? We need to start from the principle that the FCC and anti-trust regulations will not authorize Mobile-Mobile operations (for example T-Mobile/Spring), nor any operations that would enable Comcast to increase its size significantly by absorbing another major cable operator (see the rejection of the Comcast-Time Warner Cable merger). Deutsche Telekom just moved to the 3rd tier of mobile operators (outstripping Sprint in the number of subscribers at the end of the second quarter) and we know that their management would be willing to sell T-Mobile US as soon as they can get the right price. They have defined the characteristics of an attractive offer as offering a relationship between the potential subscribers and the frequencies. This composite portrait has led to betting on an operation with Dish (14 million TV subscribers and rich with an enormous number of completely unused frequencies). However, this seems difficult. We could then consider Comcast which does not have quite as many frequencies (they have been sold to Verizon), but they have 22 million TV and Internet subscribers. Comcast has denied it is involved in discussions. There are still many other combinations without T-Mobile, such as Comcast-Sprint or Sprint-Dish.
Second question: should we look at the AT&T-DirecTV merger as a sign of future acquisition deals for TV groups and programs by telecoms? The answer is complicated. We feel that with the Internet offering faster and faster speeds and the application of Net Neutrality rules that favor OTT strategies, the main trend is towards "disintermediation" of video distribution (by DBS, cable companies, and telecoms) and it will be more and more difficult for national operators to maintain their independence (and margins) to offer TV distribution when faced with global players that self-distribute (Netflix). On one hand, it is a relatively long-term trend. On the other hand, this situation can also be seen as a factor for consolidation of cable companies and telecoms so they can be large enough to compete and retain their margins for video distribution and support the growth of their portion of the Broadband market (as with BT Sport).
More informations about IDATE's expertise and events :
 It is the leading US telecom with $133 billion in sales revenue in 2014 (of which over $73 billion was from mobile phones) and net earnings surpassing $14 billion.
 In 2014, DirecTV's net earnings were $3 billion for around $33 billion in turnover.
 This commitment moves closer to the direction recently taken by AT&T to participate in the competition among Google Fiber, cable companies, and telecoms, announcing the deployment of Gigabit networks nearly everywhere in the country.
 Representing some 11.5 million households.
 AT&T already had a sales agreement with DirecTV for a TV offer for its ADSL (and therefore outside U-Verse) subscribers. It then becomes possible to imagine that if this bundle announced in the past few days mostly centered on the Mobile/TV pairing, some AT&T subscribers would have access to a quadruple play contract. We should however note that the number of households without a landline telephone has gone from 10 to 40% in the United States in 10 years.
 Remember that Verizon had signed a cross-promotional agreement with Comcast (Mobile-TV) which had been a flop, even if the agreement had not been formally revoked recently.
 DirecTV is known for its agreement with the NFL and its Sunday Ticket offer.
 65 MHZ in the AWS-3 band (1700MHz and 2100MHz bands), 40MHz in the AWS-4 band (2000MHz and 2100MHz), 5MHz in the 700MHz and 10MHz bands of the H-block band contiguous with its AWS-4 frequencies. .
 It might be that negotiations up till now have stumbled over issues tied to valuation of the spectrum as well as its terms (cash/exchange of shares/whether or not to maintain Telekom in the future entity).
 It should noted that Dish and Sprint started offering package deals in 2013; Dish with TV and Sprint with mobile phones.
Head of Media & Digital Content Business unit
The development of cloud TV solutions is part of the massive wave of change in today’s video market, and fuelled by users taking increasing control over their video viewing (on-demand, personal, multi-device, etc.). These changes require all service providers to adapt to the new paradigm and tailor their products to new viewer behaviours, and this inside an increasingly fragmented and competitive marketplace. The transition will also require them to find new ways to monetise content. The inherent uncertainties and complexity of this new state of affairs derive from the need to flexible, both from an operational standpoint and in the ability to roll out new services.
The cloud TV market can be broken down into three components. Cloud TV is said to be private when the service is being supplied over the vendor company’s own infrastructure, and public when the infrastructure is located in a data centre outside the company’s premises, while hybrid solutions employ a combination of the two. These elements are combined with the various levels of service integration, ranging from infrastructure (IaaS) to PaaS (platform) and SaaS (software).
The business model for cloud TV solutions is very similar to the one used by classic cloud computing products, i.e. payment based on consumption, or a monthly or annual subscription. It is the vendor of the cloud solution that invoices the TV provider. From a more general standpoint, adopting cloud solutions allows companies to convert their Capex into Opex by switching from a system of purchasing and amortising infrastructure to one of infrastructure rental.
A number of players are involved in providing cloud TV solutions: the Internet giants and software specialists, telecom equipment suppliers and TV solution specialists who have beefed up the cloud dimension of their services. The television and home equipment sector has also expanded its product line to adapt to this new paradigm.
Taking a broader perspective, the changes being forced on solution providers require them to acquire new skillsets, especially in the arena of software, but also in digital marketing, analytics, security, etc. These new skills can be acquired either through partnerships to create an ecosystem of solutions, or by taking over a specialised company.
Cloud TV solutions are tailored to the customer’s needs, and typically rely on an ecosystem of partnerships, which can in fact cover the entire video content technical chain, from production to viewing, by way of post-production.
Cloud TV products can occupy one or several niches, all aimed at satisfying customers’ new requirements. The market has been heavily influenced by video on-demand systems (incorporating nPVR), multi-device and unified interfaces, and systems for managing traffic surges on the network, notably thanks to hybrid cloud solutions.
But there are still a number of lingering questions and obstacles in the cloud TV market. The infrastructures’ ability to manage a growing number of unicast streams raises concerns over quality of service further down the road. Regulatory uncertainties, notably over the use of private data and content copyright, continue to impede monetisation and product development. We expect that finding the optimal way to monetise video products will be the next big challenge the market will tackle. Because it lowers barriers to entry, the development of cloud TV will also increase competition in the video distribution market.
It is also true that these solutions have helped make it easier to launch new video services – and especially more personalised and multi-device ones – by reducing the financial risks involved. This positive trend is on the supply side, where a great many vendors are positioned – including those from a TV industry is in the throes of a profound transition. But fully outsourcing content management does not seem to line up with market realities. What we are seeing instead is the development of hybrid cloud formats.
How cloud TV products are positionedClients’ needs
Cloud TV products
Development of time-shifted viewing
· nPVR: video recording in the cloud
· catch-up TV services
· Time shifted TV
· Management of consumption growth(server and unicast traffic peaks)
Multiple screens to address
· Multiscreen delivery platform
· Unified interface adapted to all screens, centrally managed
· Encoding & adaptation of the video format to the consumption screen thanks to adaptive streaming
Indoor – Multiroom/outdoor
· Multiscreen, network agnostic delivery platforms
· Encoding, adaptation of the video bitrate according to available bandwidth and network used
Mid- to long-tail content – Personalized viewing – Live viewing
· "Unlimited" storage
· Consumption monitoring and recommendations for TV/VOD/Catch-up services
· Live OTT for events and simulcasts
· Virtualized playout centre (not ready for prime time)
Content rights management
· Digital Rights Lockers (DRL)
· Centralised production, postproduction
Monetisation: Creation or improvement of advertising and pay-TV based business models
· Dynamic ad insertion
· Targeted ads inserted in the video stream or in the interface
· Centralised billing
Source: IDATE, "Cloud TV", March 2015
Find out more about Cloud TV in our dedicated market report
Over the past few decades, TV service providers’ market power guaranteed them a certain leadership in production.
Thanks to a steady relaxation of competition rules in the United States, the resulting vertical integration trend has seen production studios merge with TV networks and cable companies. In other markets, such as France, public authorities have continued to oppose such a trend, underscoring how vital production independent of the top networks is to sustaining diversity and creativity.
A new way of consumption
Here too the Internet is changing the status quo. We watch more and more videos. We watch them more on our own, and from increasingly global sources. Content providers and pay-TV distributors are being penalised both by their costs and their only national footprint, and are having to contend with two major threats: being cut out of the service equation and being cut off from customers. Market heavyweights like the ones found in the United States are having to weigh the pros and cons of working with a platform such as Netflix that is expanding worldwide, versus setting up their own over-the-top solution… and protecting what is still their main source of income, i.e. selling programmes to TV channels (including affiliate stations). But their dilemma is still less dire than the one facing Europe’s independent providers, who have a primarily national footprint and which are often restricted in the extent to which they can exploit the rights to the programmes they help finance.
Ecosystem and legislation
The European Commission likes the idea of having TV rights negotiated for the EU as a whole. It would provide an opportunity to introduce the idea of economies of scale in a lucrative sector, and one that has a tremendous cultural influence. Unfortunately, in its revised version, this plan, which is one of the pillars of the Digital Single Market proposal unveiled in early May, is coming up against Europe’s very disparate set of national TV ecosystems. As national laws – and especially the state of the industry – currently stand, very few companies in the EU can hope to come out winners in any negotiations for rights to all 28 European markets. Bluntly put, a very cut and dried application of such a scheme would more likely be a boon for outsiders such as Netflix, Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, etc.
Despite which, our desire to be optimistic leads us to hope that the steady and inexorable development of the OTT video model will drive a change in legislation across Europe, and lead to cross-border and possibly continental deals between Europe’s TV sector players.
For the publication of the last study about "OTT Regulation" and the 15th edition of the DigiWorld Yearbook, IDATE is organizing a conference on the perspectives and key trends that will structure the digital economy for the next decade, DigiWorld Future
More informations about IDATE's expertise and events :
Year after year, the economic and financial power of the GAFA quartet of Internet platforms continues to increase. Which brings two questions back to the fore, again and again: what trends might emerge to counter this seemingly inexorable rise? And do we need regulations that apply specifically to platforms?
A quick reminder of what economists mean by platform economics (digital or not): multi-sided markets (i.e. involving interactions between two or more parties) with reciprocal “network effects”. So the more iPhones that Apple sells, for instance, the more attractive its app store becomes to developers (and so to users), and vice-versa. In digital sectors, this characteristic is typically combined with a reduction in fixed costs (software), generating increasing returns as the platform becomes more successful.
Network effects usually go hand in hand with another property: asymmetrical prices. If Apple is starting to earn substantial income from the App Store, its business model and profits are rooted chiefly in the high price of its iPhones. With ad-funded models, one side of the market operates as a free service. As we have seen with Apple, digital platforms are a very efficient means of fostering open innovation, and capitalising on innovations from third parties. All of these aspects, which go some way to explaining why “winner takes all” when it comes to platforms, naturally need to rely on the ability to maintain the role of intermediary, and continue to become more proficient at it. Otherwise, the platform’s customers and suppliers will begin to adopt multiple homes, before eventually moving on to another, better platform. The efficiency of the leading platforms is the very reason for the current ambivalence over how much they are serving the greater good. On the one hand are concerns that a dominant OS will abuse its position while, on the other, this popularity can also mean an opportunity for developers, and can have positive repercussions for consumers.
The dichotomy needs to be resolved by taking account of the Internet’s dynamics as a whole. Windows has been through a number of anti-trust investigations but, today, this is the mobile Internet which has moved down the priority.
Worth reading on this topic is the recent IDATE report on "The future of the Internet: 2025". It takes a detailed look at the key technologies for the coming years, and especially at how development scenarios will be shaped by key variables, such as the openness of the Internet ecosystems, or the impact of restrictive privacy or security-related public policies. Here, we will add two other events that take us beyond a GAFA-centric environment. First, 2014 saw a number of Internet powerhouses emerge from the shadows of the GAFA quartet: in China (Alibaba, Weibo…) and in Asia’s leading markets in general (Rakuten, Line…).
We cannot entirely discount the possibility of these players gradually coming to compete head on with their Western peers. Second, we need to consider the position held by new players moving into vertical markets, many of which have carved out a place of sector-specific intermediary – Uber and Airbnb being two prime examples – and which have no intention of being taken over by Google or Apple or the like.
Nevertheless, faced with the realisation that GAFA continue to become increasingly powerful, the inefficiency of antitrust laws and the regulatory asymmetries compared to those imposed on other players along the chain, the idea of regulation that applies specifically to platforms is gradually coming to the fore. It may not be a good idea. Competition law, even ex post, is not necessarily ineffectual.
Plus it will be no simple matter to define the contours of the platform sector. And extending existing sector-specific laws, such as those that apply to electronic communications, to make OTT companies and telcos subject to the same principles, would take us down a path where, as businesses become more and more digitised, every economic sector would be more or less governed by electronic communications laws. Keeping in mind that the upcoming review of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications is expected to focus on network access conditions and interconnection – and probably put more emphasis on symmetrical regulation. Should voice and SMS products not be removed from the scope of the telecom sector’s ex ante regulation, rather than adding in competing OTT products such as Skype, Viber, WhatsApp, etc.?
It nonetheless remains that in sensitive areas for digital industry players, such as those governing contract law, taxation, public safety and privacy, we can very easily identify laws that should apply across the board, such as what we find in consumer products and the retail industry. Without having to produce laws that are specific to platforms, the current juncture could provide an opportunity to merge national legal provisions with regional (EU) and global ones, and to ensure that they apply equally to all players along the value chain
For the publication of the last study about "the future Internet in 2025" and the 15th edition of the DigiWorld Yearbook, IDATE is organizing a conference on the perspectives and key trends that will structure the digital economy for the next decade, DigiWorld Future
More informations about IDATE's expertise and events :
Published in COMMUNICATIONS & STRATEGIES No. 97
Chief Economist at Google;
Emeritus professor at the University
of California, Berkeley
C&S: What are the biggest challenges for governance/regulation created by growth of the big data market? Are there big differences between the US/Chinese and European approaches to big data opportunities?
Hal VARIAN: There are policy issues relating to data access and control that arise constantly. This generates a lively debate, to say the least. As an economist, I would like to see serious benefit-cost analysis guide regulatory policy.
What are the most important skills sets for those who need to make sense of results of big data analytics?
Statistics and machine learning are most obvious. But in order to put analysis to work, communication skills are critically important. To be effective, a data analyst needs to turn data into information, information into knowledge, and knowledge into action. You can't do this without communication.
What are the biggest opportunities for business and are businesses able to make effective use of big data to improve their margins?
As in every business, it is imperative to understand your customer. When you can draw on computer mediated transactional data, it is possible to gain a deeper understanding of the customers' needs than was previously the case.
What has big data analytics to learn from mainstream econometrics and what can big data analytics contribute to mainstream econometrics?
Econometrics can draw on some of the powerful techniques of predictive analytics that have been developed by the machine learning community. These tools are particularly helpful when dealing with data involving nonlinearities, interactions, and thresholds.
Econometrics, on the other hand, has focused on causal inference from its very early days. Techniques such as instrumental variables, regression discontinuity, and difference-in-differences have been widely used in econometrics but, to date, have not been used in the machine learning community.
Finally, the statistical field of experimental design will be valuable to both communities, as computer mediated transactions enable true randomized treatment-control experiments, which are the gold standard for causal inference.
What should be added to standard US Ph.D. programs in economics to make the students big data literate?
There are now very good textbooks, online tutorials, and tools that make it relatively easy to put together a course on machine learning. In addition virtually all computer science departments and many statistics departments offer such courses.
Hal R. VARIAN is the Chief Economist at Google. He started in May 2002 as a consultant and has been involved in many aspects of the company, including auction design, econometric, finance, corporate strategy and public policy. He is also an emeritus professor at the University of California, Berkeley in three departments: business, economics, and information management. He received his S.B. degree from MIT in 1969 and his MA and Ph.D. from UC Berkeley in 1973. Professor Varian has published numerous papers in economic theory, econometrics, industrial organization, public finance, and the economics of information technology.
The Communications & Strategies No. 97 "Big Data : Economic, business & policy challenges" is now available !
More informations about IDATE's expertise and events :
Il décolle ! Le marché du Serious Gaming en forte progression pour atteindre les 12 milliards d’Euros d’ici 2018.
L’innovation est au coeur des préoccupations des entreprises qui développent des Serious Games. Elle porte sur des aspects technologiques (accessoires, terminaux, interfaces, réseaux, logiciel et cloud), sur les contenus (gameplay, graphisme, stratégie éditoriale), et également sur les services d’accès aux SG (conditions d’accès, add-on, modularité de la plateforme, fonctionnalité sociales).
Cette progression du marché offre donc des perspectives très prometteuses aux développeurs de Serious Gaming (SG) sur le territoire français, comme le confirment les cinq sociétés que l'IDATE a invitées à collaborer à ce rapport : Daesign ; KTM Advance ; Groupe Interaction ; Manzalab et Dassault Systèmes.
Aussi, sur la période, on observe une croissance à deux chiffres à partir de 2015 et un pic de croissance sur 2016-2017. Ce pic correspond à un phénomène d’accélération de l’adoption du SG comme outil de formation et d’information par des PME. Aujourd’hui, ces dernières commencent à vouloir adopter ces outils vendus sur étagère.
La formation initiale et continue représentera plus de deux tiers du marché en 2018
Le segment de marché de la formation initiale et professionnelle représente le premier segment de marché du SG. Ce segment offre l’avantage d’avoir des modèles économiques compris et acceptés des commanditaires, de la production à façon à l’acquisition de licences utilisateurs.
Pour rappel, en 2014, ce segment représentait plus de 60% du marché global. Il gagnera 10 point jusqu’en 2018.
À l’image du marché mondial, le pic de croissance concernera davantage les années 2016-2017.
Ainsi, Dans les trois années à venir, le défi des acteurs offrant leurs services dans le SG sera de convaincre les entreprises de plus de 500 salariés, soit près de 2 700 en France. Les experts de l’IDATE s’accordent à dire que ce défi pourra être relevé tant les preuves du concept ont été faites auprès des grands comptes nationaux. Il s’appuiera donc sur différents facteurs clés de succès :
Pour retrouver toutes les informations concernant l’étude Serious Gaming et les études associées, cliquez-ici
Plus d’informations sur l’expertises et les événements de l’IDATE sur :
IoT : The Internet of Things
Connected objects were everywhere and IoT is now becoming the Internet of everything.
Connected cars attracted a lot of attention with connected vehicles on most of equipment manufacturers’ and MNOs’ booths.
Renault’s CEO made a keynote where he presented the timetable for assisted driving. According to Mr. Carlos Ghosn, despite their numerous initiatives and some acquisition rumours, Internet giants are not rivals to car manufacturers but allies, as they consider electric cars and they help car makers to promote electric cars.
Ford had even its own booth presenting the electric vehicles (both passenger and entreprise cars) with dedicated solutions. In the meantime, Vodafone presented a Porsche Panamera model equipped with its new Telematics solution since the Cobra acquisition.
Smart is also getting traction in the IoT space. In the “innovation city” hall (space dedicated to the connected objects), through the AT&T offering (Digital life) where the home could control through the smartphone and even through the connected car (equipped with an AT&T SIM card). When approaching the home, the car can trigger the opening of gate by itself for instance (pre-programmed distance).
While 5G is already in the tracks, very low throughput network technologies are also under the spotlights. After the recent release of its 100 MEUR fundraising campaign among telecom operators, Sigfox was also on everyone’s lips at the MWC. Among the main new shareholders, Telefonica confirmed its strategic investment and its willingness to integrate the technology into its portfolio to address additional verticals and applications.
The GMA (Global M2M Association) also announced a strategic collaboration with Gemalto and Ericsson to provide a Multi-Domestic Service based on a single SIM (using the eUICC technology) helping global enterprises (chiefly from the automotive and consumer electronics segments) capitalize on the growth of connected devices.
Growing market but still key challenges though
During his keynote, if AT&T Wireless CEO predicted that the smart phone will be the remote control of everything in the next few years, he also pointed out the key challenges to address in order to make the IoT market grow significantly:
• Privacy concerns
• Effortless (ease of use)
Data about devices and their users is generated in real-time, often by default and without the user being aware or having choice (especially for free apps). There is a need for a different approach to giving users transparency, choice and control over their data and privacy.
Generally user has a single choice : accept or not using the service, there should be gradual approach (like sharing some id attributes but not all of them).
Privacy could be a competitive stick for service providers, as users are becoming more aware of privacy.
Facebook in emerging countries
• Airtel: “Operators and Facebook are like the beauty and the beast, but the beast (facebook) is becoming more human nowadays”. Airtel was reluctant to introduce Facebook because of VoIP threat. Is looking at it like the “boiling milk”.
• Millicom, Telenor: have seen ARPU rise thanks to facebook launching, very promising for them.
• Wikipedia has the same approach of “Wikipedia zero”, dealing with operator to provide data access for free.
More informations about IDATE's expertise and events :