WebRTC & carrier WiFi: a similar story of "desirable fragmentation" for telcos

I cover two main areas of technology at the moment, accounting for about about 80-90% of my work:

•  Personal communications (voice, messaging, video, WebRTC, VoLTE, RCS etc)
•  Wireless networks (LTE, WiFi, policy management, regulation, Net neutrality, EPC, spectrum etc)

In particular, I've recently done a lot of work on WebRTC including various conferences and my research report/updates.  Quite a lot of emphasis goes on the role that WebRTC may have within telecom operators, and the supporting tools such as SIP gateways needed to enable it. I also spend a lot of time thinking and writing about carrier WiFi, and the implausibility of many of the integrated WiFi/cellular models and standards, that many vendors have been pitching.

I've realised an important similarity between WebRTC and WiFi from the viewpoint of telcos:

Operators should pursue multiple strategies, in different parts of the organisation, for exploiting both WebRTC & WiFi - with the "official" 3GPP/GSMA view of the world being only one of those approaches.

So, WebRTC should not just be confined to the domain of telcos' Labs or IMS/core-network groups. It should independently be addressed within the enterprise team, telco-OTT initiatives, product/portfolio management, consumer digital services, IPTV, customer support, developer programme, incubator and other units as well. They should make pragmatic, rapid decisions based on whatever architecture, partner and vendor choices make sense in the near-to-medium term. 

They should not wait for an "official" strategy based around extending an IMS core to WebRTC, as this will likely take upwards of a year to get properly tested and launched, and any further extensions/new services will get mired in the usual telco bureaucracy. By all means, if the core IMS/WebRTC platform works (eventually) then consider porting all the new stuff across to it.

But it is critical for, say, the enterprise UC or conferencing propositions to start jumping onto WebRTC immediately, and not wait. They should look at partnering with existing WebRTC leaders that can offer hosted or white-label services, for example. Consumer-grade bundles should start integrating WebRTC features or applications as soon as they are available. Larger operators might want to follow Telefonica's lead with Tokbox, and acquire specialists that are offering developer platforms for WebRTC.

The key thing is speed - and avoidance of early lock-in to technical architectures like IMS. For some use cases, IMS/WebRTC might be the right approach in the medium term, or maybe longer (for example, when NFV/virtualisation brings down costs). But each application will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis when it comes to WebRTC - it's far too early for one (as-yet-unproven) approach to be considered a default across the whole telco universe.

But the interesting thing is that this fragmented technical/commercial approach is also true of WiFi in telcos. There is an "official" line (in fact, two or three variants) about using technologies like ANDSF, Hotspot 2.0, IFOM etc, and creating some form of "seamless" integration with the cellular network. But there are also many, many other approaches to WiFi for network operators as well.

By all means, let the networks group within the operator "get on with it", putting WiFi into small-cells, trying to integrate with the EPC and policy infrastructure. But that shouldn't mean that other parts of the telco - enterprise, consumer marketing, M2M, digital services, roaming, government services, a standalone WiFi unit and so on - should be forced into the same technological decisions and timelines. They should make case-by-case decisions about their desired segments - and more importantly, the behaviour and characteristics of the customer base.

For example, while the 3G/4G network group might desire "offload" as the main use-case for WiFi, reducing the need for cell-splitting, backhaul upgrades or even spectrum purchase - the enterprise group or public WiFi group may have other thoughts. They may wish to deploy "carrier neutral" WiFi in a shopping mall or airport or office, where the client (the venue-owner) wants to provide equal services to all visitors and employees, irrespective of their underlying cellular provider. In many such cases, WiFi will be used in non-cellular devices such as PCs and tablets anyway, so having full network integration is pointless.

It may well also be that some teams within operators want to design new products around WiFi that are totally orthogonal to the 3GPP's views on policy-management and "seamless" access. They may be offering advertising services on a log-on splash screen, for example - actually monetising the "seam" rather than pretending it's an impediment. They may be finding value in analytics (eg where someone walked inside a store), ancillary functions like indoor location APIs, or a hundred other models.

Operators may well also want to partner in innovative ways around WiFi that are outside of the standards-based myopia - especially if they are pursuing wholesale or neutral-host models. Or they might just want to tactically resell (or bundle for free) a particular WiFi provider's services, without complex integration or roaming features. 

We may see application-driven WiFi - perhaps an operator's Telco-OTT VoIP service (based on WebRTC, obviously), which uses free non-carrier WiFi wherever possible, or offers easy/discounted payment along the same lines as Skype/Boingo. We may even see carriers partnering with companies like Google, which are developing their own WiFi footprint.

In other words, for both WebRTC and WiFi, carriers should not employ a one-size-fits-all mentality. There are multiple technology approaches, which fit better with specific commercial requirements for different use-cases. 

Operators should avoid the traditional mistake of assuming that the "official" architecture and standards are somehow special or better than more pragmatic alternatives. Those standards have to prove themselves in the market, not just be assumed as being a desirable end-point. They might well turn out to be in the end - but that needs to be earned and not assumed. In the meantime, operators should experiment with everything available - allowing diversity across their different business units.

This goes beyond WebRTC and WiFi as well. The rise in virtualisation, NFV and cloud platforms will further reduce the role of some technology standards in other domains in future. Telcos will reduce their reliance on across-the-board platforms in many cases, building/reselling services based on individual use-cases, rather than constraining them to specific technical architectures. I'll write more about this another time, but in general it maps on to my  view that "ubiquity is dead" in telecoms.
 

Read More

WebRTC: we're starting to see the "big guns" emerge into the real world. First up, Zendesk, Vonage & Siemens

While the internal WebRTC world has seen a lot of famous company names attending conferences, participating in standards bodies, issuing press releases, or selling tools, SDKs or enablers to each other, relatively few have actually put out "powered by WebRTC" products into the real world for users.

Obviously, Google and Mozilla have both launched browsers, but that doesn't really count as that's still an "enabler" rather than an end-user product or service. There's also a ton of plucky startups like Bistri, Solaborate, Uberconference, Twelephone and others that have entered niches like conferencing and social networks, but none have yet hit maturity or been seen as major disruptions to the status quo in their sectors.

Buy the Disruptive Analysis WebRTC strategy report & market forecasts - now including the Q2 June 2013 update

To my mind, there are now three "traditional" big players that have walked the walk, and put WebRTC into their mainstream products:

• Zendesk is a major player in SaaS-based customer support, enabling helplines or mail/IM interaction for big web companies and others. It has 30,000 customer companies and has facilitated support for over 200 million "customers' customers". It started to defaulting to WebRTC for voice calls a couple of months ago, on relevant browsers, while others still use Flash or other options. (It's worth noting that other startups such as Zingaya also have WebRTC-based B2C click-to-call buttons deployed for some large companies for support & CRM)
• Vonage created quite a stir at the WebRTC Expo in Atlanta last month. As one of the best-known VoIP players spanning home phonelines to mobile apps, it is the first of the big consumer communications brands to adopt the technology openly. It is also the first massmarket company to commercialise a non-browser, app-integrated variant of WebRTC, optimised for working on mobile devices. (Good interview with the CTO here). It's also pitching to provide white-label/partnered plaftorms for telcos. Outside the main scope of this blog post, but Vonage is apparently using the WebRTC Native Stack - the code mostly intended for browser suppliers - to build WebRTC into a non-browser app instead. It also claims several million users already, on both iOS and Android.
• Siemens Enterprise Communications is the first major enterprise UC player to throw its hat into the WebRTC ring with a (beta, pre-commercial) offering, called Project Ansible . At first sight, Ansible looks remarkably well-thought through, with social integration, fixed and mobile implementations, Hypervoice-type features ("Thought Trails") and, importantly, as much emphasis placed on design (courtesy of specialists frog) as engineering. The website discusses things like "joy of use" and "freemium models" - unusual for business comms tools from major vendors. Siemens has stolen a march on its big UC peers (albeit it with a beta) - despite Cisco being involved in WebRTC since Day 1, and an Avaya employee quite literally "writing the book". As yet, they haven't announced actual WebRTC products, though. Others like Microsoft are pursuing other strategies for now (Skype/Lync integration etc).

So what can we learn from this?

First, the "big guns" are now coming out of hiding (or at least, out of their labs). One is an outlier, two is a coincidence, but three is a trend. I'd expect many of the others in each of these categories' peer groups to start using WebRTC over the next 6-9 months.

Second, there are no telcos in this list. The closest we've seen to market-ready WebRTC offers from SPs are AT&T's API work, and Telefonica's OpenTok and Mantis tools/platforms for developers. However, we haven't yet seen an end-user telco WebRTC proposition, although Telefonica is "eating its own dogfood" with its use of the TokBox-powered Oscar videoconferencing application internally.

Third, a lot of real-world WebRTC use is going to be hidden. There may well be a bunch of companies - banks, healthcare providers and so forth - using WebRTC "under the hood" in their websites, perhaps using call-me buttons, or gateways from Thrupoint or Oracle or Genband or others, without trumpeting it to the wider market.

Fourth, although enterprise deployments are still in the vanguard for WebRTC, the emergence of Vonage's solution raises the possibility that consumer mobile apps will rapidly deliver millions of active users. It's not just Chrome and Firefox browsers that update easily or automatically - most mobile apps do as well. It only takes one major social network to adopt WebRTC - not even for "calling" but maybe something data-related or other video use-cases - and I'm going to be reworking my forecast model again. To my mind, Vonage has been the big light-switch for a lot of people - mobile WebRTC isn't necessarily going to be browser based, but embedded into apps.

Fifth, startups are going to have to either act fast or differentiate solidly. Incumbents in most WebRTC-centric applications aren't going to be taking years to procrastinate and respond to disruptors. This puts a premium on marketing, distribution and sales, especially where newcomers are pitching directly against established players - videoconferencing, I'm looking at you! (I'll reserve judgement on some of the telecom use-cases' ability to accelerate though: let's see what happens).

Overall, it's good to see well-known players like Zendesk, Vonage & Siemens adopting WebRTC. It gives gravitas to the market and gives something for a couple of naysayers to chew on. 

Let's see who's next: my money would be on the other UC vendors looking to spike Siemens' guns with brought-forward announcements, although we could conceivably see a VoIP/IM brand like Viber or Whatsapp surprise us as well.

If you're reading this and want more details about Disruptive Analysis' predictions for WebRTC, you should definitely buy the report - now available including the Q2 June 2013 update.

Read More

Broadband, Internet, Voice, Telephony, Messaging etc: Words & semantic matter

I had two conversations about fax machines and security-alarms yesterday.

Very 1980s, you might think. Yet both cropped up in conversations about FTTH, IP networks and the future of communications. My two discussions were with colleagues and peers Benoit Felten and Martin Geddes.

The conversations highlighted the importance of a few words that we use in the telecoms industry without really thinking what they mean properly. "Phone lines", for example, are not just used to make phone calls. Obviously they are used for DSL too (more on broadband below), but also fax machines, alarm systems, point-of-sale terminals, elevator emergency phones and all sorts of other things.

Historically yes, phone calls have been the main use of narrowband phone lines. But as telephony revenues fall ever lower, and we start to look at IP replacements via fibre or perhaps wireless, a bunch of other issues start to become disproportionately important.

"Oh, we can run fax over IP if it's really needed". Yes, true - but what about fire alarms & the elevators? Even if those systems can be reworked over IP, what is the cost of switchover? How much does a "truck roll" for the safety certification guy from Otis cost?

So it's worth being careful about talking about switching off the "phone" network, as it's not just about phones.

Similarly, I've often drawn a distinction between "voice" and "telephony". Apart from a little bit of push-to-talk, and maybe conferencing, telcos only do the latter. They don't have "voice" revenues, they have "telephony" revenues. There's a broad and growing set of voice communications models and applications that are nothing to do with phone calls. However, few executives - or regulators or investors - have quite woken up to this yet. Given the likely downward trajectory of telephone revenues (including mobile calls) over the next few years, this is going to become suddenly important.

The ways we manage, record, bill, present, regulate, intercept non-telephony voice is currently off of most peoples' radar screens. Do we need 911 and lawful-interception for baby monitors, business "hoot'n'holler" intercoms, networked karaoke or in-game chat? Do we count baby gurgles and songs in minutes and report the stats? Will PRISM have to listen to the snores of someone under remote-diagnosis for sleep apnea?

Broadband vs Internet is another critical semantic distinction. Internet access is just a very specific - albeit special - application of broadband access networks. For consumers, broadband today often also has carrier VoIP and IPTV delivered alongside Internet access, and in future we may get various digital lifestyle services, remote metering and so forth delivered, which do not transit the public Internet. This has implications for both how we quantify economic costs and benefits, but also how rules such as Network Neutrality get applied. Sloppy use of the wrong terminology can lead to poor investment and regulatory decisions.

The Internet/Web distinction is well known but also widely overlooked.

"Messaging" is a fairly nebulous concept too, as I've discussed before.

Lastly, we have "mobile" which can refer to mobile networks (3G/4G cellular vs. WiFi), mobile devices (smartphones yes... but are tablets "mobile"?) or mobile users (moving about vs. nomadic vs. stationary). Whenever you see stats claiming "X% of web use / data traffic / Internet users is mobile", you can guarantee that there's no clear definition. Frequently, people will pick whichever definition gives them the largest number to try to make their point stronger. The argument that a WiFi-only tablet that never leaves the sofa - never mind leaving the house - contributes to "mobile web advertising" is somehow "mobile" is ridiculous.

Mobile vs. Wireless is another troublesome one, especially as the telecom industry has historically designed complex and expensive networks specifically to meet the needs of people "moving about", but then happily sold most of their services - and gained most of their revenues - from people who are wirelessly-connected but stationary. That was fine in the past, but is starting to be a questionable assumption as perfectly-good wireless networks start to become available for free as an "amenity" rather than a "service".

We've also got "application" which can means 100 different things depending on who you're speaking to. User vs. subscriber is good one too.

Overall, I think it is incumbent on all of us to become much less sloppy with our telecom semantics. In the past, the world was simpler and we could get away with saying "voice" when we meant "telephony". Lobbyists could conflate Internet and Broadband, twisting words to hide flawed arguments against Neutrality.

But now, the industry is facing laser-like challenges, as well as narrow and well-defined opportunities. Picking the wrong words, making flawed generalisations and comparisons, confusing subsets and supersets - all these will lead to poor decision-making and flawed analysis.

Think twice before you open your mouth....and correct other peoples' sloppiness and push them for definitions of what they mean.

Read More

What I'm looking for at this week's WebRTC Conference & Expo in Atlanta

I'm now in Atlanta, catching up from jetlag and preparing for what I expect is going to be a landmark event for WebRTC - probably the year's largest conference and exhibition on the technology, with rumours of 600+ attendees and a sold-out roster of sponsors.

I'm speaking this afternoon at the Business workshop along with organiser Phil Edholm, and fellow analysts Chris Vitek and Brent Kelly. I'm also moderating four panels over the next few days, on topics like SIP/WebRTC coexistence, WebRTC "game-changers" & the impact on telco business models. I'll also be on the wrap-up panel on Thursday, "beyond the call". Add to that being a judge for 50 or so 10-minute demos, numerous client meetings, briefings and dinners, and I think by the end of the week I'll be saturated in the current status of the WebRTC marketplace.

I've got a number of questions to answer, that I'll be looking for input for both directly and indirectly. It's often telling to see what people don't say, who is/isn't present, and meta-themes emerging when comparing multiple presetations or panel responses that gives a real clue.

Some of the topics to watch:

• EDIT (forgot the obvious!) is WebRTC going to be driven more by adding Web-based access to existing types of RTC, or by adding RTC to the Web? eg Web-enabling RTC = browser front end to UC, IMS, contact centre; RTC-enabling Web = click-to-speak on a B2C site, or a million niche things like streaming sensor data, or adding karaoke to a music-download site
• At the moment, I think enterprise use-cases have a narrow real-world lead over both consumer web & telco applications of WebRTC. Will that be sustained?
• How far are we from seeing real, innovative applications of WebRTC actually in the world and being used? I don't mean just using it instead of a SIP softphone or as a cheaper call-centre agent desktop, but something really unexpected or headscratching
• Is the datachannel aspect of WebRTC really the hidden gem?
• How can I categorise and segment the WebRTC Gateway vendor space? Who's real and who's just playing Powerpoint-and-press-release? It's getting really competitive, and I suspect it'll end up as a few big players, plus niche focused specialists, plus a lot of "WebRTC-as-tickbox-feature". And some dead me-toos.
• How can I categorise the API/SDK/cloud bit of WebRTC vendor-land? I've lost count of the number I've encountered here - between 10-15 I think. Is it all about mobile? Is anyone doing anything *real* with WebRTC cloud platforms yet, or will it take developers a few more months to churn out the good stuff?
• Any news on the "missing"? Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Samsung, Amazon - please stand up! Bonus points for anyone doing a WebRTC mashup with face-recognition camera & LinkedIn profiles to spot any stealthy undercover representatives.
• Which telcos are lurking around? Who's willing to actually pipe up  and say something beyond the usual culprits like AT&T & Telefonica/Tokbox?
• Who's here from Asia? All the signs are that WebRTC is under lots of scrutiny in China, Japan, Korea & Singapore. But little news on exactly what's being done....
• Where is Google taking all this? What can be inferred from what's left unsaid?
• Ditto for Cisco, Ericsson, Oracle - do they have big strategic games afoot? Or are they following the NSN & ALU view that WebRTC is just another front-end for IMS/VoLTE/(RCS)
• How much of the WebRTC vendor market will Open Source eat?
• What are the appropriate WebRTC market metrics for me to forecast in the future?
• Are my forecasts for devices support & user base growth too aggressive, or will I need to upgrade them again as I'm actually conservative?
• Will there be any seriously big unexpected announcements?

Plus also a couple of other topics I'm keeping under wraps, either for clients or my own research into WebRTC.

Overall, it's going to be a gruelling week, but by the end of it I expect to have got a much better "world view" of where WebRTC is, and where it's likely to be be by the end of 2013 and beyond. Feel free to come and say hello and/or chat over coffee or beer - and apologies if I'm dashing around like a lunatic for my next session.

On that topic: if you buy a licence for my WebRTC report before July 1st, I'll throw in the Q2 update I published a couple of weeks ago. And if you stump for an enterprise licence or a subscription to the updates (contact me for details), and I'll also add a 1-hour conference call to update on my thoughts from this week's show.

Details / payment here or else contact me via information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com

Read More

WiFi - the coming indoor vs. outdoor divide

I've been speaking to assorted vendors recently about their plans for carrier WiFi, linked to the usual rhetoric about Hotspot 2.0, ANDSF, so-called "seamless" authentication and so forth.

I still contend that a lot of this is nonsense - the mobile operators are only one group in an increasingly complex ecosystem of stakeholders interested in WiFi. The end-users, venue-owners, tenants, fixed/cable ISPs, device vendors, OS suppliers, content players, app providers, employers, advertisers and local government all have "skin in the game" with helping users connect to WiFi. Mobile operators are not "special flowers" among that group - and certainly have no likelihood of enforcing their will about when and where users will connect; much less charge them or subject them to onerous policy controls.

But I'm starting to spot a subtle distinction: indoor vs. outdoor use.

In an indoor environment,  users are used to WiFi being provided by their hotel, cafe, airport, home, office or other sponsor. Increasingly it is free, but perhaps with a small "hoop" to jump through such as watching an advert, or asking a barista for a code. Usually, the access point and backhaul are controlled by the venue or tenant, although a 3rd-party like a wireless ISP might be contracted to provide these. There will be an expectation that any person in that venue - irrespective of which cellular operator(s) they might use - will have access to WiFi, especially as many devices like PCs and tablets are WiFi-only anyway.

This is very different from outdoors.

Outdoors, people are properly "mobile", ie moving-about. They get access from only one provider - their cellular operator. Any other stakeholders like MVNO hosts, network-sharing consortia, site owners and so forth are hidden behind the "Operator X" logo displayed on the phone's screen. People accept and except that different operators will have different coverage, and that they do indeed expect "seamless" handoff from cell to cell.

Outdoors, the HetNet vision makes more sense - macrocell, picocell, femtocell - and, yes, maybe WiFi - owned and operated by the telco, may be used to provide decent data connectivity, as well as telephony and SMS.

While a few cities now have outdoor WiFi provided by a local council or company, that remains rare. People don't have expectations about outdoor WiFi behaviour the same way they do inside a building. A smartphone's WiFi essentially becomes a single-stakeholder environment (or two including the user) in the street, or perhaps a few special locations like aircraft.

In summary;

Indoor WiFi = multi-stakeholder, too complex for the 3GPP/WBA/OMA/GSMA model of operator control and network integration. Limited relevance of ANDSF, carrier-driven Hotspot 2.0, SIM authentication. Largely a UX problem.

Outdoor WiFi = fewer stakeholders, more chance for direct integration & seamlessness. Although complexities where the user could access WiFi as well as 3G/4G metrocells & macrocells. Largely a RAN/policy problem.

The other meta-problem comes from how to know when to switch from carrier-WiFi mode to multi-stakeholder WiFi mode as you enter or exit a venue. Linked to all this is a rather thorny issue of pricing and perceived value.

For many years, the mobile industry has assumed that "nomadic" use of its network was a core part of its proposition, as well as when users are "truly mobile". While that might have been the case for telephony - an indoor mobile call is "worth" as much as an outdoor one - that no longer holds true for data. The assumption (increasingly, although varying by country) is that indoor data is free - provided as an amenity, equivalent to air-conditioning or lavatories. Carrier-provided indoor WiFi will be accepted by end-users as long as it is not charged against data plans, or subject too stricter policy controls than "native" WiFi. This is going to be as much a challenge for billing & charging systems as it is for the network.

Read More

WebRTC partnerships and ecosystems

One of the things I'm expecting to hear a lot about at the upcoming Atlanta WebRTC conference & expo is partnering and the formation of vendor ecosystems.

Most enterprises and telcos putting together WebRTC solutions – even simple ones such as extensions of VoIP or messaging, or basic customer-service apps – will be reliant on multiple vendors. To this end, we are starting to see the emergence of several “ecosystems” or groups of partnerships. Disruptive Analysis views this as a critical factor for vendor success in the near term.

Some examples include:

·        Oracle/Acme works with Quobis & others

·        Ericsson partners with Mozilla

·        Crocodile is working with Telestax (Mobicents)

Over the next 3-6 months, expect to see many more similar alignments between complementary players, as well as further tactical acquisitions. Specialists such as Zingaya and Thrupoint are likely to carve important roles here, as well as a number of the API providers such as Twilio and AddLive.

I actually wrote the paragraph above in the quarterly WebRTC update I published last week for Disruptive Analysis research report subscribers. Looks like I scored a direct hit - Today I've just seen this announcement and demo from one of the companies mentioned - Zingaya - working with Cisco and another specialist firm, for a clever retail-banking WebRTC demo. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRbLnj4r71M&feature=youtu.be and more info at http://www.thrupoint.com/2013/06/thrupoint-cisco-syngrafii-light-up-mobile-banking-app/

I think this will be especially important for the growing number of vendors providing WebRTC gateways to telco or enterprise infrastructure. On its own, a gateway is going to be rather useless. It will need to be blended into particular solutions, with specific feature-sets optimised for particular use cases. It will also need to be deployed with the end-user experience in mind, and the realities of mobile apps as well. This will mean design and client-side expertise, as well as testing, security and assorted other realms of software and consulting. 

Few vendors - if any - will be able to do all of this on their own. And as yet, we haven't really seen big system integrators wake up to WebRTC, although surely that is just a matter of time. What will be important in the very short term is the establishment of concrete partnerships and developer ecosystems - I think that will be a key determinant of which vendors emerge as actual commercial winners, versus those with standalone me-too products.

Read More

Disruptive Analysis WebRTC Q2 Update: Forecasts upgraded & New Companies/Use-Cases

I've just published the Q2 Update for the Disruptive Analysis WebRTC report, the first edition of which came out in February. That report was the first comprehensive study of the market for WebRTC, spanning telco, enterprise and consumer domains. Having covered WebRTC since Day 1 almost two years ago, my intention is to keep Disruptive Analysis in the position of leading analyst & consulting house in this sector.

The new 29-page update document is available to clients who buy the full report with the optional ongoing subscription, but some highlights are provided here. (Those who bought the standalone report can upgrade to get the updates as well - please contact me for details)

Firstly, I've upgraded most of my forecasts for both device support and expected active usage, as the original numbers looked a bit conservative in the light of recent developments. The speed of emergence of WebRTC in Firefox and Chrome-for-Android has been impressive, in particular. Also, overall smartphone growth is accelerating, while WebRTC support is being enabled by a growing range of API/cloud players as well, which aim to simplify the technology for mobile developers.

I'm now expecting:
• 875m devices with WebRTC vs. original forecasts of 810m for end-2013

• 1 billion device threshold crossed in Q1'2014 rather than Q2'2014

• 3.9bn devices supporting WebRTC, upgraded from 3.4bn, for end-2016
• Active user base (individuals) for WebRTC to exceed 1.5bn people by end-2016

Note that Disruptive Analysis' forecasts differ from some others in that estimation of primary browsers is a core step. Many users have multiple browsers installed on PCs or devices, but only use one regularly - a gating factor on realistic addressable WebRTC users for developers.

The report update also includes discussion of the fast-evolving, already-crowded market for WebRTC gateways, and the need for vendors to look for differentiation based on specific use-cases or partnerships/ecosystems to stand out. In the last 3 months numerous vendors have announced products and strategies, some aimed at carriers, some at enterprises and others with general platforms. The market is already crowded, and the addition of various open-source alternatives as well as "WebRTC as a service" cloud platforms will make it even harder for generic me-too gateways to gain traction.

In terms of strategic issues, there's an update on what Microsoft's intentions might be, as well as a viewpoint on the VP8 vs. H.264 impasse. My view is that MS is focused mainly on Lync/Skype/XBox integration as a strategic corporate opportunity, but will also start progressively adding support for WebRTC as it gets standardised - perhaps as well as its own CU-RTC-Web proposed alternate version. The video codec situation is messy and has no obvious near-term resolution. It's worth noting that two major H.264 advocates (Apple & Microsoft) are losing both credibility and moral authority with late provision of WebRTC-enabled browsers compared to Chrome and Firefox, which are helping define VP8 as the de facto video codec for web developers irrespective of the "official" standards work.

This highlights the difference between "adding RTC to the Web" vs. "adding Web to RTC" - the former use cases and players move at web-speed, while the latter group tends to be constrained by the pace of traditional comms-business proceses (telco or enterprise).

The document also looks at the current real-world use-cases (eg contact centre agents) and predicts the trends over the next 6-12 months. The proliferation of a startups in broad class of cloud/API-enablement players points to a coming rush of consumer-web applications for video-chat or integrated comms in H2'2013. Datachannels support in new browsers suggest innovation in domains like content-sharing and collaboration (including coding for developers). In addition, I'm expecting WebRTC-enabled adverts to be a major part of the future landscape.

Telco use of WebRTC is bubbling under the surface - there's clearly a lot of interest, but I expect it to emerge relatively slowly because of the need for new "furniture" like BSS/OSS and testing solutions. Over-focus on standards will also cost telcos the lead, as I disussed in this recent post. And while IMS-integrated WebRTC is interesting, it is only one of 5 or 10 possible telco use-cases - operators' executives should ensure that numerous departments consider the opportunities for the technology, not just the core/voice network and labs teams which may be too slow and conservative. If necessary, telcos' innovation arms should be prepared to disintermediate their own voice/messaging teams and "BYOWebRTC" instead.

The update also gives quick commentary on about 50 vendor/service players in the WebRTC marketplace, including the addition of 20-30 companies not mentioned in the original report.

If you are interested in purchasing the original main WebRTC report, details are here  

For more details on the quarterly update subscription or other WebRTC advisory services, please email/message information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com

Read More