[Infographic] The Open Governance Index – A new way of measuring openness

We are proud to present our latest infographic – the Open Governance Index, measuring the relative openness of 8 major open source projects, from Android to WebKit. This infographic presents some highlights from our full report (free download here). The Open Governance Index is authored and researched by VisionMobile, and part-funded by webinos

Feel free to copy the infographic and embed it in your website (embed codes below the infographic).

Infographic- The Open Governance Index - A new way of measuring openness
150 pixels wide version

500 pixels wide version

800 pixels wide version

[sociable_code]

[Report] A new way of measuring Openness, from Android to WebKit: The Open Governance Index [Updated]

[Much has been said about open source projects – and open source platforms are now powering an ever-increasing share of the mobile market. But what is “open” and how can you measure openness? As part of our new research report (free download), VisionMobile Research Partner Liz Laffan introduces the Open Governance Index – a new approach to measuring the “openness” of software projects, from Android to WebKit]

Update: We have been amazed by the amount of interest to our Open Governance Index (OGI) report that we published just over two weeks ago. Our report was covered in mainstream media across Wired, ZDnet, PCPro, Gizmodo, ARS Technica, BGR, Zeit Online and ReadWrite Mobile. Our intention was to start a debate around ‘what’ openness is, ‘how’ it can be measured and ‘why’ it is important – and we certainly got the ball rolling!

Open Governance Index cover

Openness = governance

We at VisionMobile have been researching, investigating and helping to educate the industry about open source for the past five years.  In this time open source software has been transformed from geekware to business as usual. Much has been written and debated regarding open source licenses – from the early days of the GPL license to the modern days of the Android platform.

Despite the widespread use of open source, from Android to WebKit, there is one very important aspect that has been neglected: openness and how to measure it.

Openness goes far beyond the open source license terms and into what is termed Governance. 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. And while licenses apply to the source code, governance applies to the project or platform.  More importantly, the governance model describes the control points used in an open source project like Android, Qt or WebKit, and is a key determinant in the success or failure of a platform.

VisionMobile - Licensing vs. Governance Models

The governance model used by an open source project encapsulates all the hard questions. Who decides on the project roadmap? How transparent are the decision-making processes? Can anyone follow the discussions and meetings taking place in the community? Can anyone create derivatives based on the project? What compliance requirements are there for creating derivative spin-offs, applications or devices, and how are these requirements enforced?  It is governance that determines who has influence and control over the project or platform – beyond what is legally required in the open source license.

In today’s world of commercially-led mobile open source projects, it is not enough to understand the open source license used by a project. It is the governance model that makes the difference between an “open” and a “closed” project.

Measuring openness

Our research (free copy of full report here) showcases eight mobile open source projects: Android, MeeGo, Linux, Qt, WebKit, Mozilla, Eclipse and Symbian.  We selected these projects based on breadth of coverage; we picked both successful (Android) and unsuccessful projects (Symbian); both single-sponsor (Qt) and multi-sponsor projects (Eclipse); and both projects based on meritocracy (Linux) and membership status (Eclipse).

All of these are open source projects, whether platforms (Android, MeeGo, Qt, Symbian) or engines (Linux kernel, WebKit) or multi-project initiatives with a single, uniform governance. We appreciate that these projects are unique in many ways but they are all ultimately open source projects and to that extent our governance measures can be applied to them all equally. For example all of these projects have decision-making groups and processes that are directly comparable. In the Open Governance Index we attempted to document who these decision-makers are, how they operate, what processes are used to determine project decisions and how easily is to influence these project decisions.

Our research, carried out over a six-month period, included analysis of these popular open source projects, through discussions with community leaders, project representatives, academics and open source scholars. This research was partially funded by webinos, an EU-funded project under the EU FP7 programme, aiming to deliver a platform for web applications across mobile, PC, home media (TV) and in-car devices.

We quantified governance by introducing the Open Governance Index, a measure of open source project “openness”. The Index comprises thirteen metrics across the four areas of governance:

1. Access: availability of the latest source code, developer support mechanisms, public roadmap, and transparency of decision-making
2. Development: the ability of developers to influence the content and direction of the project
3. Derivatives: the ability for developers to create and distribute derivatives of the source code in the form of spin-off projects, handsets or applications.
4. Community: a community structure that does not discriminate between developers

The Open Governance Index quantifies a project’s openness, in terms of transparency, decision-making, reuse and community structure.

Does openness warrant success?

But what is it that makes an open source project successful? Why do some projects become an immediate success, while others barely get off the ground before crashing and burning? We know that just like commercial ventures, open source projects have different cultures and drivers – but we do believe that you should be able to measure the way that open source projects interact with the community of users and contributors that they build up around themselves.

Our research suggests that platforms that are most open will be most successful in the long-term. Eclipse, Linux, WebKit and Mozilla each testify to this.  In terms of openness, Eclipse is by far the most open platform across access, development, derivatives and community attributes of governance.  It is closely followed by Linux and WebKit, and then Mozilla, MeeGo, Symbian and Qt. Seven of the eight platforms reviewed fell within 30 percentage points of each other in the Open Governance Index.

Moreover, 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.

The Android Paradox

We found Android to be the most “closed” open source project. In the Open Governance Index, Android scores low with regard to timely access to source code in that the platform does not provide source code to all developers at the same time; it clearly prioritises access to specific developer groups or organisations and has acknowledged this with the delayed release of Honeycomb. Additionally Android scores low with regard to access to developer support mechanisms, publicly available roadmap, transparent decision-making processes, transparency of code contributions process, accessibility to become a committer (in that external parties cannot ‘commit’ code to the project) and constraints regarding go-to-market channels.

Android ranks as the most closed project, with an Open Governance Index of 23%, yet at the same time is one of the most successful projects in the history of open source. Is Android proof that open governance is not needed to warrant success in an open source project?

Android’s success may have little to do with the open source licensing of its public codebase. Android would not have risen to its current ubiquity were it not for Google’s financial muscle and famed engineering team. More importantly, Google has made Android available at zero cost, since Google’s core business is not software or search, but driving eyeballs to ads. As is now well understood, Google’s strategy has been to subsidise Android such that it can deliver cheap handsets and low-cost wireless Internet access in order to drive more eyeballs to Google’s ad inventory.

Equally importantly, Android would not have risen were it not for the billions of dollars that OEMs and network operators poured into Android in order to compete with Apple’s iconic devices. As Stephen Elop, Nokia’s CEO, said in June,2011, “Apple created the conditions necessary for Android”.

Moreover, our findings suggest that Android would be successful regardless of whether it is an open source project or not, to the extent that the vast majority of developers working on the project (the platform itself) are actually Google employees.

 Evolving the Open Governance Index

Having published the report, we aim to continue the discussion on governance, to refine our criteria even further and to make the OGI measure as meaningful as possible for the open source community. One of the first suggestions has been with regard to having a time dimension to the criteria i.e. does openness change over time. Mature open source projects such as Eclipse, Linux and WebKit that have stood the test of time, score quite highly with regard to openness of governance. But this has not always been the case. For example consider the following. Apple forked KHTML to create WebKit in the early 2000’s, releasing the first WebKit open source project in 2005 but with reviewer and commit rights restricted to Apple personnel only which effectively sidelined the KDE community. In 2007 however Apple reversed this decision allowing allow non-Apple developers to have full commit access to the WebKit source code version control system. This shows that openness can and does change over the project lifecycle.

Our vision for the Open Governance Index is to for it to be a robust, and as much as is possible, an objective measure of Governance for open source projects. We believe that this is necessary such that users and contributors to open source projects, including commercial entities, understand the means by which they can, or cannot, influence the direction and content of the project.

Download the full report for an in-depth analysis of the openness of Android, MeeGo, Linux, Qt, WebKit, Mozilla, Eclipse and Symbian. Drop us a line and tell us what you think.

– Liz

Addendum – Is copyleft more or less open?

We awarded a higher score to those licenses that are permissive and not copyleft licenses. Firstly it should be noted that all the licenses used by the eight mobile open source projects are Open Source Initiative (OSI) approved and meet the Open Source Initiative Definition, which provides for free redistribution of source code, access to source code and ability to create derived works amongst other requirements. We believe that the OSI is the appropriate arbiter of the appropriate Open Source License definition and all of the licenses used by the open source projects researched in this report meet this definition of being ‘open’.

However we also believe that from a commercial viewpoint there is still some concern about using code that is under a copyleft license – our experience of working with mobile software development organisations confirms this. Our findings suggest that organisations will be more comfortable using permissive licenses which do not mandate copyleft requirements and we reflect this in our criteria and scoring. We are happy to continue debating these findings further with the community. For example it has been suggested that the problem here is not with copyleft licenses but with the business model used by those organisations. Be that as it may, our experience is that this concern is still a valid one being expressed by many organisations, especially in the mobile device domain.

Finally we had a methodology typo which unfortunately survived the proof reading: assigning a bonus to “copyright assignment”. We fully acknowledge that copyright assignment is unnecessary – indeed we state this in our analysis of Qt whereby we acknowledge copyright assignment as inappropriate and a heavy-handed requirement.

[Liz Laffan is a Research Partner at VisionMobile. Liz has been working in the telecoms and mobile industry for over 20 years, with large telco organisations, start-up technology ventures, software development and licensing firms.  Liz’s interests lie in open source software governance and licensing and in particular how best can commercial organisations interact with open source projects.  She can be reached at liz [at] visionmobile.com]

Platform X: How cross-platform tools can end the OS wars

[Are cross-platform tools a better solution than HTML5 to the challenges of platform fragmentation? Guest author Jonas Lind reviews the landscape of cross-platform tools and argues that such tools may become as important as the native platforms themselves.]

VisionMobile blog: How cross-platform tools can end the platform wars

The Android vs. iOS vs. Windows Phone platform battle has been the talk of the industry for the last year. But the market share battle between handset platforms might not be as critical for the industry as many believe.

A popular view in the industry is that the market is inevitably moving towards an Apple-Google duopoly. Apple’s app store has more than 400,000 apps. Android is growing quickly from a base of more than 250,000 apps and is predicted to catch up with Apple later this year. Nearly 80 percent of all apps in app stores are controlled by these two market giants according to Distimo. Figures for Q1 2011 from Gartner show that the market share in the smartphone market for iOS and Android combined is 53 percent and rising.

But the duopoly may be challenged by the mobile web and cross-platform tools. HTML5 empowers all other platforms to offer apps through the browser. VisionMobile’s recent Developer Economics report shows that the mobile web (of which HTML5 is a subset) is already the third most popular platform in terms of developer mindshare after Android and iOS.

At the same time, HTML5 is overhyped and the belief that HTML5 will replace almost all native apps is in need of a reality check. Native apps will still offer richer functionality, better performance, and higher security compared to HTML5-based apps. A study by quirksmode.org has shown that every mobile WebKit implementation is slightly different, which could cause a problem for HTML5-based apps. In a recent whitepaper, Netbiscuits measured smartphone support for 18 features in HTML5 and showed that leading smartphones only offer partial (or no) support for a significant number of these features. Implementation is also fragmented. What works on iPhone will probably not work on RIM or Samsung handsets and vice versa. Or to quote Forrester’s take on the HTML5 vs. native debate: “The ‘Apps vs. Internet’ Debate Will Continue…to be irrelevant.”, “it’s not a question of ‘either/or’ when it comes to a choice between apps vs. the mobile Web, but both.”

The Landscape Of Cross-Platform Development Tools

The new types of cross-platform tools are more interesting than plain HTML5 because they can deliver higher performance and functionality than browser based HTML5. These tools produce apps as output and fall roughly into two categories:

1) Web apps/hybrid apps. These apps exploit the web engine (“web browser”) and are typically written in HTML/CSS/JavaScript.

2) Native apps. These apps are compiled into machine code and often written in C++ or similar languages.

Cross-platform tools are a nascent market with a flurry of startup activity over the last few years. The following diagram illustrates different trade-offs between complexity and performance in the cross-platform tools market.

VisionMobile - Cross-platform tools

Traditional websites: In the lower left corner is the traditional website, limited in performance but providing access to all platforms with no added complexity. Plain HTML5 could be included here once all browsers support the standard.

Web apps/hybrid apps: Adjacent in the diagram are HTML5 web apps that can be downloaded to the browser’s cache and run offline. They will offer better performance and only slightly higher complexity. One step up in the diagram is a market segment of cross-platform tools running simulated native. These tools deliver better performance but the complexity is also higher if the tool has to support multiple platforms. Here we find tools that produce web apps built on HTML5/CCS3 and JavaScript, with some added native elements, typically inside a native wrapper. These cross-platform tools often add native extensions that provide access to some low level native functionality. An example of a player in this market segment is PhoneGap, which is often used in tandem with the Sencha Touch framework. Other tools that run on top of PhoneGap are WorkLight and appMobi.

A closely related market segment is hybrid tools, where the HTML5/JavaScript input is translated into actual native source code. An example of a hybrid tool vendor is Appcelerator‘sTitanium.

Other types of solutions which fall under the main heading of web/hybrid apps are based on Java, Lua, ActionScript or less common languages. The diagram shows how the heavily-fragmented Java ME offers inferior performance in spite of high complexity. The cross-platform tools Corona SDK and DragonRAD are based on Lua. Rhodes is based on HTML/Ruby while OpenPlug uses ActionScript (Flash) as source language. Kony uses drag-n-drop for building enterprise web apps. There is no reliable information about the performance/complexity trade-off for most of these solutions, so their exact position in the diagram above should be viewed as illustrative. In general, tools in which the resulting code is compiled or recompiled to native ARM machine code will have a higher performance.

Native apps: The second main category is native apps. In cross-platform tools for native apps, developers often work with a codebase in C/C++ or C# which is then semi-automatically ported to the target platform and device. Performance is significantly higher with native code, but so is the complexity. Players in this sector include Airplay, Qt and MoSync. The Airplay SDK (now Marmalade) originates in 3D gaming but can also be used as a general C++ cross-platform tool. Qt is a cross-platform UI framework that also can be used for native C++ porting. Qt primarily supports Nokia’s legacy platforms. MoSync is a cross-platform tool for general purpose C++ development, integrated with the Eclipse IDE and also available under an open source (GPL) license.

Cross-Platform Beyond Java – Native Extensions

The traditional approach to cross-platform development has been a lowest common denominator one – much like that taken by Java, Flash Lite and mobile HTML. This approach sacrifices performance, UI pizzazz and access to specific device features.

A workaround is to add native extensions. These can provide additional SDK/NDK libraries for the IDE and also give access to low level hardware functionality. Access to low-level hardware functionality can be managed by a device database that controls which conditional code will be executed on a given device.

Several of the cross-platform vendors have built such device databases with various levels of detail. A device database contains information on screen size, input modality and exact OS version, extending to detailed hardware configurations and known bugs with workarounds.

Using native extensions, it is possible to overcome the inherent limitations that plagued Java. Instead of “write once, run everywhere”, developers can spend 90 percent of their time developing a common codebase and 10 percent adding native tweaks and extensions for each platform and device. For software purists, the 90/10 solution might not seem very elegant, but it is a way forward that can handle the incredible complexity with thousands of devices running more than five OS platforms. In this way, app developers can manage one codebase and port it to target devices without losing functionality. In principle, using a (C++) cross-platform engine with extensions should be able to offer similar functionality with minimal performance penalty as compared to direct development for the target device. There will be significant economies of scale when the common codebase is tweaked for 100s of devices.

The Disruptive Potential Of Cross-Platform

There are few signs that platform fragmentation will disappear. It’s not just Android, iOS and Windows Phone 7, which are backed by corporate giants with deep pockets, but also smaller players like QNX (RIM), WebOS (HP), MeeGo (Intel, China Mobile) and Bada (Samsung). Add to that legacy platforms, which will be around for at least a few years: Windows Mobile, Blackberry OS, Symbian, BREW, Java ME and Flash. If we also include the main desktop platforms (Windows, Mac OS, Ubuntu), gaming consoles, set-top boxes, cars, and other gadgets, the number of platforms becomes unmanageable.

App developers whose clients need to reach the entire market, face the formidable task of supporting all platforms and devices. If they can use a cross-platform engine the productivity gains will be dramatic compared to paying for separate in-house dev teams for each platform.

Early adopters of cross-platform will most likely be large consumer businesses who need to target the mass market such as media companies, games houses, entertainment companies, banks, and any brand developing B2C apps. Similarly, government agencies are often required to provide non-discriminatory access to their services and cross-platform tools will enable them to do just that. Another group of early adopters of cross-platform tools is CIOs of larger corporations. They face increasing demand from senior staff who want to use their favorite smartphone for secure access of internal company data. Once these early adopters have driven down the prices and sorted out stability issues we should expect to see a fast uptake of cross-platform tools in the mainstream app development market.

Assuming more developers move to cross-platform tools, the power distribution in the mobile sector will be challenged. The difference in the number of available apps between dominant and up-n-coming platforms will be reduced. This will allow smaller platforms to compete on a level playing field.

Web apps and HTML5 should make the largest dent in the market power of traditional platforms. But the final nail in the coffin will come when C++ cross-platform engines can offer almost the same performance and functionality as coding directly on the target platform. This is possible if the cross-platform engines can fully integrate native platform and device extensions. In that case, developers of native apps might reconsider Android, iOS and WP7 and choose to code to a cross-platform IDE, not to the platform. In this scenario, the cross-platform IDEs would become players of equal or even greater importance than the native platforms. At the very least, today’s OS platform wars will move to a totally different level.

Jonas Lind

[Jonas Lind has been working in the TMT sector since the late 1990s. Among other things, he has worked as an industry analyst for TeliaSonera HQ, with trend forecasting and scenarios in a project commissioned by Ericsson Research, as a strategy consultant during the dot com bubble and with femtocell concept development. He runs the blog Mobileforsight and is currently a strategy analyst at the seed stage VC fund STING Capital.]

[Report] HTML5 and what it means for the mobile industry

[HTML5 has been tipped to be a game-changer, with some predictiving it will take over most mobile platforms. But what is its real impact to the mobile industry? VisionMobile Research Director Andreas Constantinou evaluates HTML5 vs apps and what it means for the mobile industry as part of our newly released report – free copy here]

VisionMobile- HTML5 and what it means for the mobile industry

Background: Web vs. apps

In today’s world of apps, the web seems to have taken a seat in the back row. But many industry observers are predicting a comeback with HTML5 advancements, the proliferation of smartphones and ubiquitous backing by both telcos and Internet players. Is the web as we know it about to change?

First things first: what is the web?

Firstly, the web is a language for creating interactive, navigable content, which consists of three main parts: HTML (the language used to define the static text and images), CSS (the language defining styling and presentational elements) and JavaScript (the language describing the interactions and animations).

Secondly, the web is a paradigm for open, unfettered access to content that is not controlled by any single entity. In the era where apps distribution is controlled by single vendors like Apple and Google, the web seems to challenge the status quo.

There are many ways in which web pages differ from mobile apps today, as shown in the next table.

Differences between apps and web

From web 1.0 to the mobile web

The web has gone through two major phases: Web 1.0 and Web 2.0.

Web 1.0 was the era of the dumb terminals and static web pages. The first generation of the web assumed all intelligence was in the network; the device had to issue a simple request to fetch a page and then present it on the screen.

Web 2.0 was is the era of smarter terminals and interactive pages. This second generation was designed around the ‘read-write web’ where the user is not just a consumer but also an editor, curator and producer of content. Web 2.0 helped create today’s phenomena of Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, blogs and nano-publishing.

Despite starting off as an outsider to the web, the mobile industry has been rapidly catching up since the early WAP days. WebKit, the Apple-born browser engine is now the common ‘circuitry’ behind more than 500 million devices shipped to Q1 2011, by all major smartphone vendors. Opera, the mobile browser vendor, counts over 100 million monthly active users on its Mobile and Mini browsers.

In the manufacturer camp, smartphones are expected to reach well into sub-$100 retail price points in 2011. In the operator camp, content delivery optimization solutions from the likes of ByteMobile, Openwave, and Ortiva Wireless are being deployed across tier-1 operators, facilitating efficient use of the network while browsing the web.

Mobile industry initiatives such as the Wholesale Applications Community (WAC) are pushing the envelope for web applications (also known as widgets) while EU-funded initiatives like webinos aim to use the web as a medium for deploying applications across mobile, PC, TV and automotive screens.

HTML5 as a technology change

The hype surrounding HTML5 has peaked in 2011. HTML5 promises to push the capabilities of web applications to the point of making web apps as engaging as Flash applications and as integrated with the device as mobile applications. HTML5 introduces several technology improvements in these domains by adding off-line storage, 2D graphics capabilities, video/audio streaming, geo-location, access to the phone’s camera and sensors, as well as user interface tools.

This next generation of web languages in the form of HTML5 is being standardized by the W3C and the WHAT working group who are driving forward web apps as equal citizens to mobile applications. The W3C consists of 51 member organizations, over 440 participants with strong backing from Google, Apple, Opera, IBM, Microsoft, and Mozilla. In parallel the WHAT working group is working closely with Mozilla, Opera and WebKit who are implementing and testing the latest browser features.

Yet HTML5 is still work in progress and even standards bodies show fragmented approaches to HTML5 completion. The W3C expects official completion of the HTML5 set of standards in 2014. In parallel, WHAT has taken a different approach to completion and is now working on ‘HTML’ as a continually evolving set of specifications.

Despite the adoption of the WebKit engine as a de-facto standard, HTML5 implementation on mobile devices is both fragmented and incomplete.

Independent studies by quirksmode.org and NetBiscuits have shown that every mobile WebKit implementation is slightly different. In addition, the leading smartphone platforms show inadequate HTML5 support; iOS, BlackBerry OS and Android devices show partial HTML5 support (at best 2 our of 3 HTML5 features supported), while Symbian and Windows Phone devices are lagging further behind.

Much like history has shown with the PC browser wars of the 1990’s and the Java ME fragmentation of the 2000’s, mobile browser fragmentation in 2010’s will be driven by the need to differentiate (’embrace and extend’), and the varying speeds among vendors in implementing the latest WebKit engine.

What about HTML5 app stores? Already a number of start-ups such as OpenAppMkt, Openspace and Zeewe have proposed app stores focused on web apps. The key advantages of HTML5 app stores are cross-device portability and a buy-once-use- everywhere application model.

Unfortunately, supply does not always imply demand; HTML5 app stores can’t deliver a business model change if demand is not there, for three reasons. Firstly, users care about availability of popular content (see Angry Birds, Skype and Facebook) most of which are not available as web apps often due to HTML technology limitations. Secondly, users care about choosing among hundreds of thousands of apps, which is currently a 2-horse race (Apple and Google) with the web lagging far behind in terms of number of apps. Thirdly, users are becoming loyal to their smartphone platform (Android, iOS or BlackBerry) where the native app store dominates.

How to compete in a software world

HTML5 introduces several technology innovations. However HTML5 remains a technology change that is not designed to solve discovery, distribution or monetisation problems – in other words it is not designed to change the business model.

What *will* be changing the business model of the web are the innovations introduced in the apps economy – where content is created with semantic tagging (description, category, user ratings, etc), discovered via web stores (much like app stores), distributed within walled gardens (much like Facebook), and monetised through micro-payments (much like apps). We call this web 3.0 – and we expand on its implications in the full research paper.

The question is: how can the mobile industry leverage on the web, and the native platforms that dominate the apps world?  The trick here is not to compete, but to leverage on the network effects of the Apple, Google and Microsoft platforms where handset OEMs or network operators can position themselves as a new generation of over-the-top players.

For example, operators can act as the matchmakers between developers and end-users by helping developers get the right apps in front of the right users through techniques such as featured placements, social- graph-based recommendations and segment targeting. Similarly, handset OEMs can act as on-device retailers, connecting the developers to the right audience, in the right region, through white space across the handset real-estate.

This is also where we believe WAC has the best chances of success but helping operators reposition as over-the-top players on top of the Android and Apple app stores – that is by helping developers reach out to users with ubiquitous billing, quality assurance, content curation, local content deals, privacy and security assurance, and help extend app stores away from the virtual and into the physical retail space.

In parallel, network operators and handset OEMs can help push the web into a viable alternative for native platforms in many ways. They can push the development of WebKit towards better bandwidth management, and closer integration with hardware multimedia acceleration. Moreover, the mobile industry can sponsor the development of better cross-platform developer tools that allow HTML and JavaScript developers to target multiple native platforms and mass-market browsers.

No matter how telecoms players decide to compete in the software world, they need to adopt ‘agile’ development methods and move at software speeds to catch-up the platform players in controlling the last mile to the consumer.

One thing is certain; the future of connected web and devices is going to surprise us – much like how applications turned telecoms economics upside down. Like Bill Gates once famously said “we always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten”.

Web is going to be a game changer, but not in the way we expect it.

Read our full report for more.

– Andreas
you should follow me on Twitter: @andreascon