I wanted to get some feedback from those of you who have or are in the process of thinking about making your Flash Lite content available to others. Today there are a few options available for distributing other types of mobile content and was wondering what your preferences were and why:
Leave your comments here - thanks!
- Paid: end-users pay for your content via one of several mechanisms (direct billing, operator based). Content aggregators assist with distribution and billing. DRM may be required. Your revenue is a percentage of what the aggregator takes.
- Advertising subsidized: ads are inserted into your content and the content is distributed for free to end-users. Distribution is handled by aggregators or through other means (SMS campaigns for example). DRM may be required. Potential revenue is handled between developer and advertising company.
- Free: end-users can share and distribute your content. Distribution is handled by you or a third party. No DRM needed - viral awareness.
Leave your comments here - thanks!
Labels: developer resources, misc
10 comments
I think that it could be interesting create a Flex and AIR store, like iTunes store but for flash lite content.
Maybe in a future port it in AIR for mobile devices.
So a developer or a company could choose to deliver a free content or a paid content.
With some tutorial you can also teach to all user how to download and install the content.
Also, in this store, you could sell last releases of Flash Lite player, so devices like N73 that support Flash Lite 3 could easily update and technologies grow and grow...
my 2 cents
By
lucamezzalira
, at
Wed Jan 16, 04:07:00 PM PST
I would try to figure out a better ways to get my content out. Something which is good experience for end-users.
I personally prefer buying/getting flashlite content/game online. I would love to see if those sites/aggregators work fine on mobile devices. So I can do most of things without using my PC.
OTA push, not sure it works that well. I find most of the operators don't do well, at least not in India. And it's pain to get any good deal in time with operators, not sure individual developers can or would want to do... Operators take most of money...
Most of phones have data connectivity or most of people with smart phones have pc/laptop..
If something is cool, people would download it and use it. It's just matter of spreading the word through right channels (social networking or blogs etc).
Let user buy online either using computer or mobile device. I don't mind, if they share the content with their friends.. I guess, that's the best way to make more people use FlashLite content/runtime.
In coming years, we would see FlashLite being used for more serious applications, probably enterprise class applications. It is yet to reach that stage...
I assume, FlashLite tooling needs to follow the foot steps of Flash/Flex.. We need better tools which are for developers and also involve designers in workflow (Eclipse - CS3 etc)..
The reason I don't develop for FlashLite because it makes me use Flash Authoring, which I don't want to or can't because I don't have CS3 ;) There is no clear separation between developer and designer workflow.
Sorry for offtopic stuff, just felt like saying.
-abdul
By
Abdul
, at
Wed Jan 16, 08:46:00 PM PST
I believe that for developer/designer is important to make money out of their work and time. To increase awareness, content could be distributed free, but here should be Adobe's marketing footing the the bill not developers which paid already for the Adobe tools. Once an acceptable degree of awareness has been reached in the market then yes end-users would be well willing to pay for content.
Conclusion: in stage 2 content should be distributed for "free" (Adobe to cover costs); in stage 3 end-users to pay.
Developers/Designers always to get some money for their work, this is a minimum requirement to get a professional output.
The missing stage 1 refers to the previous/current attempts.
By
amelie
, at
Thu Jan 17, 02:31:00 AM PST
Hi Bill,
from my experience the only real option for global distribution is the ad supported way. There are a couple mobile ad companies out there (even though don't expect to become a millionaire) who can deliver text or banner ads for mobile web sites.
Placing ads dynamically inside the Flash content is a little bit trickier but still do-able if you pick one specific ad provider and then do a proper integration with them.
Best regards
David Mannl
By
Gamer
, at
Thu Jan 17, 08:00:00 AM PST
Hi Bill,
As CEO of Pixelthis, a Flash Lite development company with five staff, making money is a big priority - or my staff wouldn't get paid and that would be bad!
But it is always a constant trade-off between raising awareness, and keeping the shareholders and staff happy.
Our approach is mixed
- Free games (simpler games) to raise awareness of Pixelthis and Flash Lite. Also used for customers to see if their phone supports FL.
- Demo games to familiarise players with our titles.
- Online versions of our games (most free) to familiarise players with our titles, with ads such as 'like this game? get it for your mobile!'.
- Full commercial games (OTA and OTI through distributors globally).
What we really need Adobe to focus on are distribution solutions, such as JAVA wrappers for installing FL content. Once it becomes as easy to install a FL game as it is to install a JAVA game, I think FL will really take off. Currently this is quite difficult for the end user (compared to JAVA).
Regards,
Peter
By
Peter Vullings
, at
Thu Jan 17, 11:33:00 AM PST
Just a footnote on my comment: We will consider ad-supported content once there is a reasonable awareness of FL and download numbers are up. Only then will advertisers take us seriously and make it worth their while.
By
Peter Vullings
, at
Thu Jan 17, 11:35:00 AM PST
Bill,
The question of distribution is a very good one as it's all to easy to get fixated on the technical capabilities of the system without working out how to sell stuff! The response we've had from operators has been uniformly good, problem is that until there is a robust installer for Flash Lite that can hit the main mass market handsets (over here that's s40 and Sony Ericsson) the operators can't sell the games. The swf format doesn't fulfill their submission criteria - simple as that. This is vital to address if we're going to get FL games content in the market in any sorts of numbers.
Another interesting point is that many operators know Flash from the web ads or games and so label it as very cheap or free and see it as being quite inconsequential, very casual stuff. It's going to take some time for them to regard a Flash Lite game as deserving the same level of attention as a basic Java game, but this is an education issue for Adobe and developers to work together on.
See you in Barcelona!
Chris
By
Chris Bluesky
, at
Fri Jan 18, 08:45:00 AM PST
Great question Bill. From my perspective, developers should be able to distribute the Flash Lite player with their content for free. If that is too lofty, we should at least be able to pay Adobe a royalty per distributed player. Another idea would be to give away the player to anyone who wants it, but sell the Flash Lite authoring tool separate from Flash CS3. Perhaps Adobe could market Flash Basic, Flash Pro, and Flash Mobile.
My company is not trying to make money on the B2C side. Rather, we are trying to sell Flash Lite design services B2B.
Our primary target market is medium-size advertising agencies. 100% of our clients want to distribute content for free that contains their client's branding.
Without distribution capabilities for the Flash Lite player, this becomes a very tough sell. So far, nearly all of our clients (except the most tech-forward) have moved away from Flash Lite solely because of adoption rates. Note that all of our customers have ignored Verizon because either they don't want to gamble with getting on the deck, or they don't want to charge for content. More often the latter.
By
Ryan Unger
, at
Tue Jan 22, 01:06:00 AM PST
Bill already knows my thoughts, but just foe the public record, my view is pretty much what Chris @ Bluesky said. The mechanisms for distirbution are already there (PSMS, mobile internet, on-deck solutions), it's coming down to a matter of the content being delivered in a format that fits into the carriers existing solutions. They don't want to build or extend solutions just for Flash Lite - they have invested heavily in the infrastructure and processes for Java, ringtones, wallpapers, etc. As long as Flash is delivered as, and is seen as being a format unto itself, there won'tbe much love from the carriers who ultimately make the revenue happen.
Java wrappers / installers for S40, SE, etc is critical to the growth in any kind of installable FL product (apps, games). FL player distribution to assist in handset support and penetration would be nice,but then you also start contributing to the already fragmented market. This is soemting that has far larger consequences and implications than just "getting FL onto more phones".
Difficult questions, but not un-solvable.
Dale.
By
Dale Rankine
, at
Tue Jan 22, 10:29:00 PM PST
Well, I'm maybe the most dummy-begginer "learner" in the FlashLite world, I consider my self as a good graphic designer and also I have some knowledge on basic ActionScrip programing, not enough to design a crazy interactive game or secure bank application (i accept my limits :( ), but enough maybe to design a single shooter basic spaceship game, or maybe a nice intro-commercial animation video for advertisings or maybe a weekly poetry FlashLite RSS reader for old lady's :) ...
My question is: where in this "advanced" world of FlashLite development can a very enthusiastic flash designer fits? is there room for "normal" designers or really I have to start thinking on buying some kind of advanced ActionScript tutorials?,
Sounds a little sad from me, but as a designer, sometimes programming gets me crazy!
And of course, what I want is a nice-funny self-proudly way to get money! and pay my bills!
Best regards
By
alejonorway
, at
Thu Feb 07, 02:12:00 PM PST
Post a Comment