Posts Tagged ‘mobile’

What’s free today may not be free tomorrow.

Not to rehash the debate over “free”, but the economics behind free underlies nearly every conversation and business decision today. Let’s focus on one small part of the debate.

The economics behind “freeconomics” blurs the distinction between “customer” and “user”; even though the user may not bear the cost, someone does. Companies that provide services to users for free still bear the marginal costs of the free services, therefore their business models are based on finding people and companies to subsidize the free services.

If the people subsidizing “free” go away (and that includes cash cow product lines, investors, venture capital, advertisers, paying users, buyers of aggregated and structured data, etc.), then what’s free right now may not be free in the future.

While the debate around “free” tends to center on the web, the web is merely one of many networks in use today. Take the examples of telecommunications (fixed and wireless), transportation (automobile, train et. al.) and energy networks: each network contains an embedded technological and economic structure that dictates the rules and incentives behind each interaction over the network.

But these networks aren’t static, and as each network becomes structurally more like the web their fundamental economics will change.

An example? Let’s start with the “mobile web”; Aaron Chua starts the discussion with Can Amazon be the default payment API for the Web? and I add in my comment:

Touching back to the piracy issue, is the [different economics behind the "regular" web and the mobile web] a failure of pricing mechanisms or is it a failure of distribution networks and transaction costs (including non-priced transaction costs)?

The digital economy isn’t forcing prices to zero; it’s forcing prices to their marginal costs. Marginal costs are higher in mobile (and virtual) at the moment because they have different pipes, different gatekeepers, different marketmakers, creators have substantially different access to the tools of production and distribution, low standardization of interfaces, etc. All of those create higher marginal costs, and combined with the “controlled” nature of mobile and virtual, there simply isn’t the same level of competition as in the non-mobile Internet… for now.

A day will come when the difference between the “mobile web” and the “real web” are framed less by the pipes and more by the access devices and their interfaces. Viewed more broadly, as innovation changes the structure of our networks, new technological possibilities and constraints will re-frame our economic structures, behavioral incentives, business opportunities and usage behavior.

Viewed simply, tomorrow will not be like today, tomorrow’s strategies will not be today’s, and what’s free today may not be free in the future.

And what’s expensive today may be free tomorrow: literally.

Skype and Twitter should merge (even if they won’t).

Skype and Twitter should merge; we should have one single platform to communicate with people using text and voice publicly and privately using any device. I know it won’t happen, but it’s still a good idea.

Twitter and Skype should merge. Why?

  • 1. A combination would simplify the mess of communication use cases and create one single platform for people and companies to exchange information using voice and text, publicly and privately, using any device.

    Each new communication tool, network and platform launches by focusing on one use case (between people, public, private, over mobile network, etc.) and then quickly tries to figure out how to integrate with other communication methods, devices and platforms.

    This splintering and re-aggregation is noisy and wasteful; not only are we are forced to use and participate in a range of tools and networks (i.e. social network fatigue), but as we choose our preferred method of contact (email, phone, SMS, private Twitter, public Twitter, comment, etc.) and our preferred provider (i.e. Twitter, any IM provider, Facebook, Bebo, et. al.) we create enormous inefficiencies and missed communications (i.e. “oh, I don’t check Twitter often.”, “I can’t direct message you through Friendfeed because you don’t use Friendfeed? what gives?”).

    Both Twitter and Skype are really just platforms that transmit information over dumb pipes; the key differences are how information is delivered (voice v. text) and displayed (private v. public); but there is no need for these use cases to be split into separate companies.

  • 2. Skype is already pursuing the strategy of powering private communications using any mix of client devices over any communications pipe. Voice and SMS; fixed-line, mobile and VOIP; iPhone, computer, WIFI phone; Skype is reducing the need for use cases to align for communication to happen; people don’t need to think about how the other person is using Skype in order to make a connection (granted, differences in voice quality across devices and networks dictate best options, so that’s still kind of a pipe dream, but it’s not far off).

    Skype has a bright post-eBay future and now has the potential to take on the mobile and fixed-line telecom operators in a way previously impossible; adding a public communication service to their private communication service would allow Skype to take advantage of the broader trend of public communication via micro-messaging.

    Perhaps instead of merging with Twitter they should just create their own public micro-messaging service…

  • 3. Each could (Twitter) and do (Skype) earn revenue from facilitating the exchange of information and from providing value-added features. * Combining the two companies would create very interesting opportunities, to say the least.
  • 4. Looking at this slightly differently: what do you think Google’s end-game is with Google Voice?

I’m probably wrong, so now it’s your turn; let’s talk about the obvious and non-obvious reasons why they won’t, can’t and shouldn’t merge.

* Please don’t turn this into a discussion about Twitter’s lack of / future / non-existent / yet-to-be-turned-on revenue model. Thinking about Twitter as a stand-alone business just isn’t that much fun anymore.

MORE: Financial Models for Entrepreneurs