Category: Tools

Categories
Tools

Voice on the verge of break-through? Going beyond telephony with Voice Application Platforms

Voice communication is one of the core functionalities of every mobile phone. However, telephony is up for a big shake-up, as Internet telephony companies like Skype and voice application platforms like the ones below are challenging century-old assumptions about how people speak with each other remotely. (You can read all about this trend on the VisionMobile blog: here and here.)

Indeed, voice is no longer the domain of telecom operators alone. Voice Application Platforms allow you to make creative solutions that integrate voice communication deeply in your app: as voice messaging, click-to-call, person-to-multiperson, voice search and more.

Voice platforms cater to many use cases

Voice APIs allow developers to integrate voice functionality within their apps, bypassing the telco services that traditionally provided these capabilities. Developers use Voice services to enable a number of use cases such as voice calls, conference calls, video calls, voice transcription, IVR services etc. Telcos such as AT&T and Verizon are reacting to this trend (for over-the-top services) by opening up access to their services via APIs.

While Voice services cater to a number of different use cases, their use is relatively low among developers because, contrary to other tools in the Developer Economics 2013 survey, they are specialised tools that provide functionality within an app rather than support for the app or the business (as, for example, user analytics or ad services).

The different services surveyed cater to a different mix of use cases, and therefore do not always compete against each other. Developers integrating voice services in their apps tend to use them primarily for enabling voice call capabilities within their apps, including Conference calls (33% of developers utilising Voice services), Outbound calls (29%), and Inbound calls (24%). About a quarter of developers using voice services, are interested in Speech recognition while 20% use them to implement IVR applications. Callback function is also quite popular as indicated by 20% of developers utilising using voice services.

DE13-17-01

Skype (39%) is leading, with Twilio (31%) following

Skype leads in developer mindshare when it comes to voice services, used by 39% of developers that integrate Voice services within their apps. However, Skype does not provide services through an API but rather through URIs that redirect the user to the Skype client which must be installed on the user’s device. Developers using Skype use it primarily for conference calling (55% of developers utilising Skype), Video calls (43%) and Outbound calls (37%).

Twilio follows at a short distance, utilised by 31% of developers implementing Voice services. Twilio API allows developers direct access to voice services within their apps. Twilio users mostly use the service for Outbound and Inbound calls (43% and 41% of developers using Twilio respectively).

Microsoft Voice services, used by 27% of developers using Voice services, use it mainly for Speech recognition (44% of Microsoft voice services users) and Speech transcription (30%). Telco APIs such as those provided by AT&T and Verizon are less popular (17% and 10% of developers using Voice services), while OneAPI, a joint attempt by telcos to react to the OTT threat, seems to fall far behind at 4%. The AT&T API is mainly used for Conference calls and Callback (36% and 32% respectively). The latest AT&T Call management API, powered by Voxeo Labs Tropo Platform, allows users to link their cellphone number to OTT Voice services provided via AT&Ts API, negating the need for a new phone number. Tropo, by Voxeo Labs is used by 5% of developers using Voice services and is mainly used for Conference calls (50% of developers using Tropo), Speech recognition (41%) and IVR applications.

Quality is still key selection criterion

Most developers (39% of those using voice services) highlighted performance and quality as a top selection criterion for Voice services. Voice quality is not guaranteed on mobile data networks but is critical in most use cases where voice services are used, particularly in real-time voice such as conference calling. While network quality is often out of the direct control of voice services providers, there is still a lot that can be done on the service providers’ side such as optimising encoding algorithms and scaling the architecture of their voice infrastructure. Ease of integration and availability across platforms, the prevailing selection criteria among all third-party tools and services are also important when selecting a Voice services, as highlighted by 35% and 34% of developers using Voice services, followed by cost (27%).

[doritos_report location=’DE13 Article – Voice platforms’]

Which voice services are other developers using?


[toggle title=”Important things to know about this interactive graph”]

  • All the filters in the graph refer to survey questions in which respondents could select multiple answers. This means that there is no direct link between the filter and the use of the tool. For example, filtering on “Android” means that the respondents develop Android apps. It doesn’t imply that they use the tools for their Android apps specifically, or even that the tool supports the Android platform. Use filters as a guideline only.
  • Keep an eye on the sample size. If the sample size is low, the graph doesn’t offer strong conclusions about the popularity of different tools. Use your good judgment when making decisions.[/toggle]

    Find the best voice provider for you!

    [sectors slugs=’voice-platforms’]

Categories
Tools

TapJoy (53%) leads in cross-promotion networks, Flurry and Chartboost are chasing

Building a great app is not enough – to get lots of users, those users have to be aware that you exist. As app stores focus on top apps, which amount to less than 1% of all available apps, discovery has become a major problem for app makers. One solution is to band together in a cross-promotion network: “advertise” apps within other apps, making it easier for users to discover similar apps to the one they are already using.

Numerous models of cross-promotion exist

Cross-promotion networks (CPN) are used by developers both as a means for promoting their apps and monetising apps. When used for promotion purposes, there are numerous models out there, some being free, based on traffic exchange between apps, enabling developers to run low cost or free promotions. However, several CPNs operate on a cost-per-install basis, with developers paying for each user acquired. A special case of cross-promotion is incentivised installs, a practice that Apple has been trying to restrict on App Store.

Used by 7% of developers overall, usage of cross-promotion services is not very high and does not vary significantly by platform. Usage is higher among developers that develop games (13% of all games developers) and higher than average among developers working on comms & social networking apps (9%), entertainment apps (10%) and music & video apps (10%). These app categories are mainly addressing young consumers with limited purchasing power; using CPNs and incentivised downloads in particular, allows easy access to this target audience, which would otherwise not be able to acquire such apps. Developers who use CPNs tend to use one network (59%), but 18% use more than three networks. Overall, developers using CPNs will use 1.7 CPNs on average.

CPN usage increases with the number of apps developed, rising to 15% among developers who work on more than 16 apps per year. CPNs provide opportunities to cross-promote across one’s own apps, allowing developers to leverage the popularity of the most popular apps to drive usage of less popular or new apps. For developers working on several apps it usually makes sense to cross-promote across their app portfolio.

DE13-22-01

Tapjoy leads, with Flurry and Chartboost following behind

TapJoy is leading in the cross-promotion space, used by 53% of developers that use CPNs. Flurry AppCircle and Chartboost, follow at some distance and are competing for second spot (20% and 18%), while there are numerous other providers who have over 5% market share.

The most important selection criterion for cross-platform tools is the number of users reached (36% of developers using cross promotion networks) but it is only marginally higher than cross-platform availability (35%) and ease of integration (34%). Obviously, depending on how developers use these tools, the decision criteria may vary. For those developers who use CPN for promotion purposes, cost is important. We found that, on average, the typical CPI (cost-per-install) was $0.60 among iOS and Android developers, with no notable difference between these platforms. When used as a revenue source, the revenue potential becomes important, as indicated by 25% of developers using CPNs. About a fifth of developers rely on recommendations for selecting a CPN.

[doritos_report location=’DE13 Article – Cross-promo networks’]

Which cross-promotion networks are other developers using?


[toggle title=”Important things to know about this interactive graph”]

  • All the filters in the graph refer to survey questions in which respondents could select multiple answers. This means that there is no direct link between the filter and the use of the tool. For example, filtering on “Android” means that the respondents develop Android apps. It doesn’t imply that they use the tools for their Android apps specifically, or even that the tool supports the Android platform. Use filters as a guideline only.
  • Keep an eye on the sample size. If the sample size is low, the graph doesn’t offer strong conclusions about the popularity of different tools. Use your good judgment when making decisions.[/toggle]

    Find the best cross-promotion tool for you!

    [sectors ids=’45’]

Categories
Tools

Cross-Platform Tools – Does it pay to use them?

Cross-platform tools

In our January 2013 Developer Economics Report, we revealed that multi-platform developers are better off. Our survey data also reveals, rather unsurprisingly, that users of cross-platform tools (CPTs) target more platforms than those building separate apps for each platform. Of those interested in making money, users of CPTs target 4.33 platforms (3.1 mobile platforms) on average vs 3.46 platforms (2.57 mobile) for those building separate apps. We also know that the most popular class of CPTs (using web authoring languages) tradeoff app capability to get the increased portability. At the same time, popular opinion on the internet and amongst venture capitalists is that a cross-platform user experience can’t compete with using the platform native frameworks. So how do these tradeoffs translate into revenue for CPT users?

CPT users make more revenue

On average, CPT users make slightly more revenue per app per month than developers not using such tools. With the reduced cost of development provided by the CPT, this suggests that they’re significantly more profitable.

Averages can be deceiving where the distribution of results is far from normal, as with app revenues, so it’s worth examining the details. App revenue is heavily concentrated at the top end of the market, with a large fraction of the (mean) average coming from a small number of very high earners. If we exclude all developers earning more than $50k per app per month then the result holds – CPT users still generate more revenue.

Not all CPTs are created equal

There are also several different types of CPT. Games have been responsible for close to half of all app revenues (at least those generated directly through app stores) and since they typically don’t require many platform-specific APIs or UI elements, they’re a good candidate for building with cross-platform. This suggests that users of primarily games-centric CPTs like Corona, Unity 3D & Marmalade might be responsible for the out-performance of CPTs, while users of the low development cost tools taking advantage of web authoring languages, such as PhoneGap, Appcelerator, Brightcove & Sencha, generate slightly lower revenues. However the data shows that the opposite is in fact the case.  Users of the games-centric CPTs are generating below average revenue, whilst the web-centric CPT users are significantly better off. These results also hold whether or not we include those earning over $50k per app per month.

A plausible explanation for this is that most of the larger and more successful game developers are managing their own cross-platform compatibility or code re-use whilst many smaller independent game developers relying on 3rd party tooling are struggling with the fierce competition in the games market. At the same time it seems that, when it comes to revenue, a fully native user experience and native performance are not as important as their proponents suggest. The very high earners using web-centric tools are most likely to be existing publishers selling their content through mobile app subscriptions and our revenue estimates are probably too low, since the top income band in our survey is everything over $100k per app per month.

Both ends of the revenue spectrum

For several CPTs in our survey we didn’t have enough respondents to be sure differences in revenues for individual tools are statistically significant, however, there are a couple of individual ones worth highlighting. At the low end, revenues for Qt developers were significantly below average – this probably reflects the fact that Qt does not yet have official support for iOS or Android (planned for this year). At the high end, although we only had a relatively small sample, revenues for Brightcove App Cloud users were more than 3 times the average making the difference statistically significant, whether or not we include those generating over $50k per app per month. Brightcove appear to be focussing their solution on a particularly profitable market segment.

Tool selection – do it for the right reasons

Finally, if you’re looking to select a CPT, make sure you do it for the right reasons. Main selection criteria including access to native APIs and the ability to create a native UI look and feel are correlated with above average revenue, whilst the availability of third party extensions and choice of authoring languages are correlated with below average revenue. The former criteria look to minimise some weaknesses of the cross-platform approach whereas the latter criteria focus on reducing one-off costs. The latter are not necessarily bad reasons for choosing a tool but if they are amongst the most important reasons for your selection then it’s worth re-evaluating priorities. Work out what will enable the creation of the best product at acceptable cost rather than simply minimising cost. If the lowest possible development cost is critical to make the app concept viable then it’s probably time to come up with a higher value concept.

Categories
Platforms Tools

Mobile Platform Wars: Winners & Losers in 2012

Mobile Platform wards

[This post first appeared on the VisionMobile blog on 9 July 2012.] The game of ecosystems is in full bloom, with each player attempting to draw as many developers as possible around their platform. As we finally see some signs of consolidation, VisionMobile Senior Analyst Andreas Pappas, talks about mobile platform wars, the rules of engagement and identifies the winners and losers in this game of ecosystems in 2012.

Moreover, we’re proud to introduce VisionMobile Visualisations – live. These are interactive graphs with tons of data from the Developer Economics 2012 research!

Continue reading “Mobile Platform Wars: Winners & Losers in 2012”
Categories
Platforms Tools

Cross-Platform Tools – Functionality and Trade-offs

CPTs components

Cross-platform tools (CPTs) are a class of developer tool that aim to enable a single implementation of application functionality to run across multiple platforms. If that definition seems very broad it’s because the category covers a wide range of use cases, technology approaches and forms of app deployment. In our analysis of this sector from February 2012 we identified over 100 tools across three forms of app deployment (native vs. web vs. hybrid) and five different technology approaches.

Fundamentally the various platforms are not compatible and the use of a third party tool to solve this issue comes at a cost. The effort saved through a CPT often has a financial cost but more often the largest trade-off is against a loss of flexibility, control or performance. Different tools produce different compromises. In many cases what is lost is not required to deliver the desired experience, so it’s worth understanding the different approaches and choosing the right tool for each project.

Continue reading “Cross-Platform Tools – Functionality and Trade-offs”
Categories
Tips Tools

Mapping Cross-Platform Development Tools: Technology Approaches

cross-platform development tools

In our 2012 analysis of the cross-platform development tools (CPT) sector, we have identified five distinct technology approaches being used:

  • JavaScript frameworks
  • App factories
  • Web-to-native wrappers
  • Runtimes
  • Source code translators

Each technology targets a slightly different developer audience – from non-developers to seasoned programmers – and addresses different application use cases. These technology approaches are not mutually exclusive; many tools use a combination of technologies. For example some runtime-based CPT solutions are adding a webview component, which enables them to create hybrid web app wrappers.

Continue reading “Mapping Cross-Platform Development Tools: Technology Approaches”
Categories
Business Platforms Tools

Is the Era of Microtransactions in Free Mobile Games Over?

Mobile Games

W3i, the in-app offer exchange provider, released a report on December 6th showcasing recent trends in mobile app monetization. The W3iNSIDER Report breaks down data from its hundreds of game developer partners and 66 million monthly active users across iOS and Android.The data shows that smaller microtransactions ($0.99-$1.99), long thought to be the backbone of the freemium model, actually contribute significantly less revenue to mobile games than more expensive in-app purchases that range from $9.99 to $19.99.

When surveying the in-app purchase price points and how they contribute to the overall revenue of a sample of games, W3i found that, on average, 47 percent of total revenue comes from purchases costing $9.99 to $19.99. Smaller purchases from $0.99 to $1.99 only contribute an average of six percent to total game revenue.

The freemium model emerged as the foremost business model in mobile gaming with premium and subscription business models declining. The freemium model is built on the back of microtransactions with gamers spending a dollar or two to unlock virtual goods.

W3i is also reporting in-app purchasing trends from around the world:

  • The highest-spending region in the world is the United Arab Emirates- with 77 percent of revenue of revenue coming from $19.99 (55 percent) and $9.99 (22 percent) IAPs (as of Oct 2012)
  • The UK has the highest number of whale spenders- with eight percent of revenue coming from $49.99 IAPs sizes as of Oct 2012
  • $.99 IAPs sell the largest volume in China and Canada where they each make up about three percent of purchases

“Although the U.S. learned about freemium gaming from Asia, it’s apparent that Americans are taking their own approach to it,” says Robert Weber, co-founder of W3i. “Where mobile games in Asia still depend on microtransactions, U.S. gamers play more like whales- spending larger amounts of money in mobile games.”

Categories
Tools

Mobile App Testing – advanced tips and tricks

App Testing

An issue on mobile app testing has published on”Testing Experience”, one of the world’s leading magazines for software testers and test managers. The magazine is full of in-depth insights on app testing, from context-dependent techniques to mobile network variability testing. A great resource for anyone who’s serious about how to test their apps!

Continue reading “Mobile App Testing – advanced tips and tricks”
Categories
Business Tools

Tradable vs Non-tradable Apps

Tradable apps

We’ve previously discussed the major opportunities that are emerging for developers globally, fueled by rising demand from BRIC countries and other emerging app economies, representing at least half of the world’s mobile subscribers. In order to capture these opportunities, developers can focus on two broad strategies: to “reach-out” or to “search within”. Developers that “reach-out” will address international app-demand by supplying apps that appeal to users across borders and continents (tradable apps). These apps can reach far and wide but in order to do so requires a moderate level of localisation. Those developers that “search within” will look at gaps and opportunities in local markets. These apps have local reach and require a high level of localisation.

Continue reading “Tradable vs Non-tradable Apps”

Categories
Business Community Tools

Will you rise above the app poverty line? (Or: what everyone else is earning)

app monetisation, developer salary

Most app makers are not primarily in the game to make money. The primary reason for developer platform selection is not app monetisation, but reach; irrespective of platform, 54% of developers adopt a platform because of reach, while 43% cite low cost and 30% cite revenue potential. Moreover, out of the eight types of app developers we identified, only three segments (Explorers, Hunters and Guns for Hire) are directly motivated by money when committing resources to a new platform.

Among those of you that are in it for the bling, developer profitability is a hotly debated topic. Apple’s iOS is generally thought to support greater revenues per application, compared to Android, but the evidence is mostly anecdotal. Many stories of overnight successes circulate the internet, but it’s not clear if they are replicable.

[newsletter message=’Want more content like this? Subscribe now!’ button_text=’Jump In’]

To stay above the app poverty line you need to make a sensible budget plan for your app.  This requires that you have realistic expectations about the costs and revenues that you can expect. Based on VisionMobile’s Developer Economics 2012 survey, we can now offer you an informed opinion.

Continue reading “Will you rise above the app poverty line? (Or: what everyone else is earning)”