webinos and Open Ecosystems Open Governance

Ecosystems & Openness

George Voulgaris, Ph.D.
VisionMobile Ltd

Agenda

HTML5: Web as the new walled garden
and why the web is waiting for a new leader

Ecosystems battle across 4-screens
Experience roaming drives user lock-in, cross sales and engagement

Open Governance
Driving innovation through openness and meritocracy

Sources
http://webinos.org

Downloads
•  Industry landscape, governance, licensing and IPR frameworks
•  Target Platforms, target Requirements and Platform IPRs
•  Landscape Analysis Update

http://visionmobile.com
Open Governance Index

© VisionMobile 2011 | www.visionmobile.com
1

HTML5: Web as the new walled garden
and why the web is waiting for a new leader

HTML5 is pitched as the future of mobile apps

…but what is HTML5, really?
•  A set of browser specs by 2 standard groups: W3C and
WHAT
–  WHAT WG - Web Hypertext Application Technologies
–  The WHAT working group specs merge into W3C specs

•  Brings capabilities of web apps closer to those of native apps
–  UI tools, off-line storage, 2D graphics, plugin-free video/audio
–  geo location, speed and communication

Many benefactors, but no clear leader
all pushing and hyping HTML5 for their own unrelated reasons

•  Apple looking to move the web away from Flash

•  Google searching for more ways to commoditize complements

•  Facebook aiming to break-down Apple/Google silos and distance
Adobe

•  Microsoft to onboard web developers onto Windows 8

•  Mobile operators hoping to regain control lost to native platforms

•  Qualcomm aiming to create a competitive advantage for its chips

•  Brands looking use web as a low-cost way to go cross-device and cross-
screen

•  Adobe aiming to sell tools that facilitate web-to-native hybrid apps

But HTML5 is just past the peak of
expectations

•  Fragmentation across platforms (iOS, Android, BlackBerry, Windows Phone)
•  Challenged to compete with native user experience
•  Lack of distribution channels and monetisation for web apps

HTML5 is fragmented across platforms

HTML5
Test
Score

iOS
5.1
324

BlackBerry
OS
7
273

Android
4.0
273

Bada
2.0
268

Android
3.2

235

Android
2.3
189

Amazon
Silk
1.0
174

Windows
Phone
7.5
(Mango)
138

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350

Source:
html5test.com,
April
2012.

Andrew Betts of Assanka on app.ft.com: It
took a full-time team of 3 developers at
Assanka 8 months to launch on iPad, and that
team a further 4 months to bug-fix the iPad
and ready for distribution to Android tables.

October 2011
hLp://www.tomhume.org/

HTML5 is a technology lacking key ingredients
unable to compete with iOS and Android platforms

Platform ingredients

Software Developer
Monetisation Distribution Retailing
foundations ecosystem

HTML5 ✔

= ✖

✖

✖

fragmented platform
always a step behind native will depend on app store
complex tool-chain waiting for a leader
islands of developers Facebook? Google? Other ?
using common language,
but different API sets

Google & FB are building complete
platforms 
Key adding missing ingredients on top of HTML5 enabling technology
Software Developer
ingredients Monetisation Distribution Retailing
foundations ecosystem

application Developers micropayments, app distribution app discovery,
runtime, developer building and ad networks to end users promotion,
tool-chain, & publishing apps and settlement through SaaS or placement, search
platform APIs around the devices &
software recommendations
foundation

HTML5 browsers Fragmented --- --- ---
(fragmentation)

HTML5 with web developers Google Checkout PC, Mac, Android, Chrome
Chrome API Chrome OS Web Store

HTML5 with Web and Flash FB Credits 900M Facebook FB app
Facebook APIs developers users recommendations

HTML5 may end up a yet another walled garden
despite the promise of openness

Ecosystems battle
Experience roaming drives user lock-in, cross sales and engagement

From converged networks to converged devices

Ecosystems of service & apps

Huge gap between telecoms & software worlds
Telecoms world Software world

Success factor Installed base Number of apps

Speed of innovation 1 OS version every 2 years 5 OS versions/year

Time to market 1-2 years 1-2 weeks

Type of services comms-centric catering to entire needs portfolio

Risk-taking predictability / de-risking entrepreneurship / uncertainty

Access to innovation 100s of close partners 100,000s of developers

Business model B2B licensing B2C sales/ads/in-app sales

Channel to market voice, text and web smartphones

Discovery On deck / on device App store

First step “we need to sign an NDA” “we need to download the SDK”

Process Waterfall: RFI, RFQ, deliver, Agile: add feature, build, test,
QA repeat
Attitude “developers will come to us” “we need to go to developers”
Page 28 Copyright VisionMobile 2007-10

Changing channels & speed of innovation

')))$ ')")$

Operators Operators
18-24 months to launch 12-18 months to launch

5-10 major content publishers 100s of content publishers
no innovation in voice, text and SIM

App stores
2 months to launch

100,000s of developers
5000,000+ apps in 2 years


Networks effects stronger than economies of scale
user value

Platform business
value grows
exponentially due to
increased number
of interconnections

Conventional business
value grows linearly due to
cost saving and decreasing price

scale

49 Copyright VisionMobile 2011

From converged devices to roaming experiences

Ecosystems of experiences

Evolving meaning of convergence
From converged networks to converged devices, what’s next?

2005
2010
2015

one
bill,
one
device,

triple
play
1,000s
of
apps

vision

?

focal

point
network

device

compete
price
of
number

based
on
service
of
apps

The new meaning of convergence is
experience roaming across multiple screens

experience roaming across screens

Social circle
Developer ecosystem
User data roaming
convergence = Service roaming x
User interaction design
Industrial design
Brand

Apple is the poster child of experience roaming
Apple leads by example, by delivering a consistent experience across divers screens

Experience roaming Across screens

Social circle Ping iPod
Apps ecosystem App Store iPhone
User data roaming MobileMe iPad
Service roaming iTunes, AirPlay Mac
User interaction design iOS Apple TV
Industrial design Apple ?
Brand Apple

It’s no longer about smartphones
Key ecosystems are expanding across 4 screens

PC
smartphone
tablet
smart
TV

Mac
computers
iPhone
iPad
Apple
TV

Chrome
browser
Android
Android
tablets
Google
TV

Windows,
Oﬃce
Windows
Phone
Windows
8
Xbox

Convergence in 2015 will be around ecosystems
and experience roaming across many types of devices

2005
2010
2015

one
bill,
one
device,

one
ecosystem,

triple
play
1,000s
of
apps
10s
of
screens

vision

focal

point
network

device

ecosystems

compete
price
of
number

experience

based
on
service
of
apps
roaming

Competition will move to experience roaming
competition will shift from number of apps to experience roaming

•  Mobile platform landscape will further consolidate around Apple
and Google
both ecosystems are propelled by strong network effects and protected by user lock-in

•  Microsoft will continue its push to become the 3rd ecosystem
faces long uphill battle as it needs to win users back from Apple and Google ecosystems

•  Facebook will rally behind mobile web to become 4th horse
driven by the need to weaken native platforms and disintermediate native app stores

•  Platform competition will shift from number of apps to
experience roaming
as all platforms will strive to reach users across all touch-points and devices


A new way of measuring openness,
from Android to WebKit

KEY INSIGHTS

A VisionMobile research report
part-funded by webinos, an EU funded project
www.DeveloperEconomics.com Published July 2011

So what on earth is open source?

Four different perspectives to open source:
- Legal: software under an OSI-approved license
60+ licenses are approved by the OSI. Including licenses submitted by Nokia, Microsoft, W3C, IBM

- Business: a collaborative software development methodology
For developing common building blocks

- Product: a mid-point between build and buy (‘share’)
You can build, buy, or share costs, risks and benefits

-  Marketing tool : a means of building a benevolent reputation
used by Google in Android to buy community credence and good will

- - Belief : a cultural movement for preserving developer rights.
Against the proprietary control or private ownership of software which is created by the community


Open source is not a strategy!
Open source is not: It’s about:
✗ about reducing costs.. ✔ about sharing costs & risks costs
there are costs in ad-ons, integration, support,..

✗ all or nothing.. ✔ a choice of 4 company roles:
use, modify, distribute or contribute.

✗  a community builder.. ✔ reducing barriers to contribution
attracting developers is about scratching an itch

✗ unlike 3rd party software..# ✔ the midpoint in build vs buy
you can now build, ‘share’ or buy

✗ a virus to IP# ✔ There are tools to manage risk
code scanning, license choice, technical/legal DD, ..

✗ a company strategy.. ✔ a product-level decision


Can operators manage the 6OSS of OSS?
The six facets of facets
- Software license
governs use of the source code

-  Governance model
governs use of the product (access, development, derivatives, community structure)

-  Community development
autonomous vs sponsored culture, balancing corporate vs community interests

- Upstream vs downstream development
balancing code branching and merging

-  Econometrics of effort and influence
metrics of influence and effort

-  Using open source within the organisation
Inbound vs outbound policies and processes


Copyleft vs copyright
The fundamentals behind open source licenses

Foundation

APL
GPL LGPL EPL Prop.
BSD

Copyleft Copycenter Copyright
Permission to reproduce, adapt Copy & use freely Prohibit from reproducing,
& distribute but must share alike adapting, distributing


Governance vs licenses

Governance goes beyond licenses. While licenses determine the rights to use, copy and modify,
governance determines the right to gain visibility, to influence and to create derivatives of a
project, whether in the form of spin-offs, applications or devices.

Licenses'vs.'Governance'models'

License' Governance'
Visibility,'inﬂuence'and'crea:on'of'
Rights' Use,'copy,'modify'
deriva:ves'
70%'of'projects'under'7'
Use' No'agreed'deﬁni:on'of'governance'
licenses'

Examples' GPL,'LGPL' No'formal'examples'

Legal' Binding' NonHbinding'

Source:'VisionMobile'

Open is the new closed

While:
- Licenses are standardised, converged and well understood
5 licenses used most often in mobile projects (GPL, LGPL, EPL, APL, BSD)

- Governance models are non-standard, diverging and poorly understood

And while:
- Licenses are about source control
source code access, modification, ability to copy/reuse, contribution and distribution

- Governance is about project control
Codelines and content, contributors and committers, roadmap strategy and visibility, trademarks..


Licenses vs Governance models
in mobile, licenses converge but governance models diverge
license type

dual license
(commercial + copyleft)
Qt

strong copyleft
(GPL)
Linux kernel

weak copyleft
Foundation (LGPL, MPL, EPL,..)
different governance

Foundation
WebKit
similar license

permissive
(APL, BSD, MIT, ...)
Android

open community managed community autocratic
community
governance model

Benefits of open source

- Allows sharing of development costs and risks
e.g. Linux Kernel worth over $600 million

- Allows open-doors software standardisation
allows standardisation through code which is more effective than API-level standardisation

- Taps into a library of mature software, particularly on PC/Internet
260,000 projects on SourceForge of which 30,000 are in production phase

-  Reduces barriers to contribution within
but only if designed within the governance model (like: Eclipse. unlike: Symbian)

-  Encourages innovation on top
if employed properly (like: Android. unlike: Symbian)


Benefits of open source (continued)

- Creates new value areas in software support and productisation
Integration, testing and productisation are much more crucial in OSS than in proprietary software

- Faster supplier negotiations and reduced supplier lock-in
However licenses are generally non-negotiable, unless you can find the copyright holder

- Better software quality through peer incentives
Peer recognition incentive drives quality. Less so ‘given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow’
It’s about open source methodologies, not open source itself.


6 + 2 business models for open source
TRADITIONAL

1. IP royalties for commercial-licensed branch or add-ons, e.g. Trolltech
2. Productisation usually NREs for customisation and integration e.g. Tieto
3. Maintenance & support e.g. Funambol
4. Certification fees e.g. Sun TCKs
5. Bundling offer software for free but bundle services, e.g. Google
6. Try before you buy e.g. Volantis

NEW!

7. Liability insurance e.g. WindRiver
8. Access to influencers e.g. Collabora


Open is the new closed

Android gameplan

“A customer can have any colour he likes
for his car so long as it’s black”
Henry Ford

Copyright VisionMobile 2011

“we are using compatibility as a club
to make them do things we want.”
Dan Morrill, Google
in an email dated 6 Aug 2010
released via the Skyhook filings


Economics of complements

Microeconomics: Every product has substitutes and complements.

Core Product Complement

A product consumed
with the main product

Product demand increases
as complement prices decrease


How Google uses complements

Google Core Product Google Complements

On-line advertising mobile networks handsets browsers

Commoditisation of mobile
increases demand
for Google products
Closed net open source Chrome,
ad network neutrality OS WebKit


The Android control points
How Google runs the show:

- Private codelines (6+ months ahead) available to 2 OEM partners per release

- Exceptionally fast pace of innovation 5 new versions (2 major, 3 minor) released in 1 year

- Gated developer community Android Market is the default channel for apps

- Closed-source apps Android Market, GMail, Google Maps, GTalk, etc under commercial agreement

- Android trademark use of Android trademark subject to commercial terms

- Controlled review process all reviewers work for Google, plus rampant NIH culture


Source: Google-internal presentation disclosed as a result of Oracle's patent and copyright infringement lawsuit against
Google


A new way to measure openness

Open governance index

•  OGI Report published in July 2011
•  To date it has been downloaded over 7,000+ times
•  Cited in over 20+online journals including:-
IT Writing, ZDNet, Wired News, BGR, MIT Technology Review, Slash Gear,
Phandroid, ARS Technica, Linux Today, Mobile Trends, Computer Hyper,
RPMfind, Fanatics Club Linux Life, Today-Google, Open Source This and PC Pro

•  Sparked numerous tweets from industry participants
–  Chris DiBona, Head of Open Source Programmes at Google; Open Source
Advocate Matt Asay and Mike Milinkovich, Director of Eclipse
–  Discussions centred around the importance of openness and the growing
importance of governance in open source projects as open source becomes more
‘main-stream’

•  OGI Report positioned the ‘open’ governance of projects
such as webinos as a strength versus the ‘closed’
governance of other projects

•  The OGI Report set out to quantify the ‘openness’
of open source projects in terms of
–  transparency, decision-making
–  reuse of code and community structure
•  OSS Projects analysed included:-
–  Android, Eclipse, Linux, MeeGo, Mozilla, Qt, Symbian and WebKit.
•  The Open Governance Index compared 13 metrics
across 4 areas of Governance comprising
–  Access, Development, Derivatives and Community to determine the
‘openness’ of these projects.
•  Report identified common ‘Best Practices’ with
regard to open source project management
–  Highlighted the importance of meritocracy in the long term success of
any open source project

Open governance criteria (1/2)
Access: how is code accessed and open to whom?
•  Is source code available to all without discrimination?
•  Is source code available under a permissive OSI-approved license?
•  Are project mailing lists, forums, bug-tracking databases and developer tools
available to all?
•  Is the project roadmap available publicly?

Development: how is code developed within the project?
•  Are decision-making mechanisms transparent and accessible?
•  Is the code contribution and acceptance Process clear and accessible?
•  Can you identify from whom contributions are received?
•  Are the requirements to become a committer clear and equitable?


Open governance criteria (2/2)
Development (cont’d)
•  Can you identify who committers to the project are?
•  Are the requirements to become a committer clear and equitable?
•  Can you identify who committers to the project are?
•  Does the contribution license require copyright assignment (vs. a license)

Derivatives: how is code used outside of the Project controlled?
•  Are Trademarks used to control compliance/use of the project?
•  Are go-to-market channels for Application Derivatives constrained?

Community
•  Do different community members have different rights?


Open governance: research findings
1.  All successful open source projects are supported by commercial
organisations
success does not exist in a vacuum from industry

2.  Successful projects are usually managed on the basis of meritocracy -
except Google who have retained control on all aspects of the Android Project

3.  Trademarks increasingly used to control platform compliance and
protect branding
4.  Open source projects use OSI approved open source licenses
use of proprietary licenses rare these days

5.  All Projects have very good Developer Support Mechanisms
minimum requirement for a successful project

6.  BUT Projects also differ greatly regarding culture
transparency of decision-making; code contributions processes; project roadmap information and
project metrics (details of contributors/committers etc)


Meritocracy, Open community, Open innovation, Open
standardization

webinos vision

Best practices of open governance

Our research identified certain attributes that successful open source
projects have. These attributes are:
-  timely access to source code,
-  strong developer tools,
-  process transparency,
-  accessibility to contributing code, and
-  accessibility to becoming a committer.

Equal and fair treatment of developers – “meritocracy” – has become the
norm, and is expected by developers with regard to their involvement in
open source projects.

Impact of OSS on the development
of the Internet
All of the following initiatives have an implicit bias – some stronger than others
– but all are biased to one or more actors in the market

Android: Google
Meego: Nokia-Intel
Limo: Samsung
Tizen: Samsung-Intel
Apache: IBM
Webkit: Apple

The problem is adoption:
•  successful collaboration in open source is measured not by how much is
developed, but by how much it is used.
•  Any initiative that is biased will cripple its growth of adoption
•  A company cannot put its strategic supply chain into the hands of its
competitor

webinos vision
•  Cultivate an open source community that precludes overt bias.
long term success, and ubiquitous adoption, is dependent upon:
•  day to day operations of the community to be as inclusive as possible

•  positively encourage new participants at all times

•  allow all to operate as peers.

•  move the innovation out from behind closed doors, and into a
communal public space.

•  speed up the standardisation process,
Minimise the commercial risk through collaborative innovation in a clean sandboxed
domain.

get in touch
Knowledge. Passion. Innovation.

george@visionmobile.com
@gevou
George Voulgaris | VisionMobile Ltd | Business Partner |
+44 2033 844 164

Updated: 12 November 2010


webinos and Open Ecosystems Open Governance

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to webinos and Open Ecosystems Open Governance

Similar to webinos and Open Ecosystems Open Governance (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

webinos and Open Ecosystems Open Governance