Comments on: How OTT players are trying to charge for their services

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:51:05 +0000

Hi Tsahil
I thought at first it meant gaming within these apps/platforms (so to extend them), but I agree it actually fits indeed to what I was referring to with gaming as good example. Thanks for following up.
Sebastian

By: Tsahi Levent-Levi

Tsahi Levent-Levi — Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:22:48 +0000

In reply to Sebastian.

Sebastian,

All of your points are indeed valid. I tried focusing on ways they want to make money out of running their business and decided to leave aside the acquisition angle of it, but you are correct that some (most?) of these companies are probably praying to get acquired instead of building a viable business.

I think the white labeling part that you suggest is more inline with what they are doing with gaming – where what they effectively sell is access to their internal “social graph”, with easy tools around it.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:05:28 +0000

Nice summary Tsahi. It may be worth noting those that have no clear/obvious charging model may be aiming at a high valuation and buy-out later on, in some cases that may be their strategic monetization plan rather than coincidence, maybe worth noting.

Moreover, an extension to brand pages could be “white label” offerings that allow developers to use the platform (save development efforts and pay for using ready-made features). This may however somehow be connected to the other points as well (e.g. use ready-made features for free and create more users = revenue on interconnect minutes), not sure it is a separate point.

Best regards
Sebastian