article page |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7
groups will need different tactical plans. ISVs, cloud vendors, and service providers will need to pick which of these kinds to invest in. Service providers must decide on (a) to which app types they are transparent and (b) with which app types they seek some form of revenue share.
I suggest a sort of Maslow’s hierarchy for app classification. This grouping is an inverted hierarchy that increases the need for cloud support as you move down this list:
- The "fad" app, aka Pop software [note some pop software is very sophisticated]
- The entertainment (media/game) app. Media is now delivered in packaged units, apps, or as portal gateways directly linking to media streams, also apps. [the Netflix portal on my Blu-ray player]
- The informational app providing advertising, news, or search of/access to information archives.
|
|
I wanted to name this article “strategy in a sh*t-storm of apps”. |
|
His is a functional approach, but with similar results to our classification. But most important, he advocated different behavior based on different types of apps. With new regulatory scrutiny developing over behaviors where service providers seek to differentiate on different types of network protocols; special strategic attention is needed on different policies for these different app types. Will access to civic response apps on a network appliance be a required open service just like 911/999 (and similar international services)? It may be that one market approach for OSS/BSS companies is, not to so much use the cloud as a platform, but instead to manage the cloud components, here apps, from the service provider’s perspective. If so, ISVs should develop services that differentiate the type of app and network cloud service that is using the network and then apply different management policies and traffic policies to the apps (rather than the current technology of doing this for protocols). This is way more difficult than deep packet inspection.
|
|
|
|
|
- The personal productivity app, as in Office web apps or Google docs
- The social networking app [Here a Facebook, there a Facebook, everywhere a Facebook app.]
- The business support or civic support app [Yes, your whole police service now runs off Apple iPhone apps.]
- Apps that support collaborative decisions and processes [apps as agents or cloud-based Groove-like structures]
This is a pretty straightforward classification. Lowenstein [in the current Lens: Additional Thoughts on AT&T Pricing] advocates special and different pricing considerations for these following different groups of services on mobile phones:
- Embedded content
- Apps requiring persistent connectivity
- Over the air synchronization
- Advertising
|
|
App Value?
It is important to note that the position in this hierarchy is not related to ‘cost to develop’ or ‘sophistication of the app’ but to the use made by the person holding the network appliance and its relevance to our cloud ecosystem. Reading Guy English’s blog, it seems that app price and app return are inversely related to business utility. In this universe humor is more valuable than productivity? Can this be sustained or will it lead to a market collapse? It does seem that typical market price dynamics do not yet apply to apps. Some with the most business value (classical utility), such as Microsoft’s Office Web Apps and Google Docs, are free. Meanwhile, animated cartoons cost a buck and a movie on your phone is cheaper than a visit to the cinema.
Pending further analysis, it leaps out that as you move down this classification list, each type of app stays in service longer. Yet, the aggregate amount of return per app decreases, the volume sold decreases, and the rate of return per app type varies indiscriminately. Further, there is no immediately apparent correlation with price.
article page |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7
|
|
