UK: Deloitte Technology Predictions 2011 - Part 1

Last Updated: 19 January 2011
Article by Deloitte Technology, Media & Telecommunications Industry Group

Most Read Contributor in UK, August 2017

FOREWORD

Welcome to the 10th edition of Deloitte's Predictions for the technology, media & telecommunications (TMT) sector.

This annual publication presents Deloitte's view of the major trends over the next 12-18 months that are likely to have significant medium to long-term impacts for companies in TMT and other industries. For example, two of this year's trends are the evolution of battery technology, and the continuing popularity of television, both of which are likely to be relevant for companies in many sectors.

What makes Deloitte's Predictions different from others?

  • Rigorous Research: We use both primary and secondary sources, looking at both quantitative and qualitative data, including hundreds of discussions, thousands of articles and tens of thousands of survey responses.
  • Innovation: We publish only perspectives that we think are new or counter to existing consensus. This includes calling a market where most commentators expect there to be none, or identifying markets where the hype is ahead of reality.
  • Accountability: We try to provide clear Predictions endpoints, so that our accuracy can be evaluated annually.

The goal of Predictions is to catalyze discussions around important topics that may require companies or government to respond. We provide a view on what we think will happen, what will occur as a consequence, and what the implications are for various types of companies. We never presume that ours is the last word on any given topic.

Over the last 10 years, the TMT sector – and its impact on how we work, live, and are entertained – has changed markedly. In fact, there have been too many important developments to list here. But it is worth remembering that the World Wide Web is just 21 years young in 2011, that in 2001 many countries had not yet rolled out national broadband services, and that only three years ago analog cellular networks were still functioning in some of the largest mobile markets.

Another key trend over the last 10 years has been convergence: the technology, media and telecommunications sectors are now more interconnected and interdependent than ever before. With that in mind, this year's Predictions report is for the first time being published as a single report, rather than three separate ones. Deloitte's view is that developments in each sector are now so inextricably linked that TMT executives need easy access to the key trends in all three sectors.

Also for the first time, each of this year's Predictions is available as a video, a podcast and an app as well as written text.

We hope you and your colleagues find this year's Predictions for the TMT sector useful; as always, we welcome your feedback.

Whether you are new to this publication, or have been following our Predictions for years, we thank you for your interest. And to the many executives who have offered their candid input for these reports, we thank you for your time and valuable insights.

We look forward to exploring the next 10 years of TMT developments with you.

Jolyon Barker
Managing Director
Global Technology, Media & Telecommunications
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

TECHNOLOGY

Smartphones and Tablets: More Than Half of all Computers Aren't Computers Anymore

Deloitte predicts that in 2011 more than 50 percent of computing devices sold globally will not be PCs1. While PC sales are likely to reach almost 400 million units2, Deloitte's estimate for combined sales of smartphones, tablets and non-PC netbooks is well over 400 million. Unlike the 2009 netbook phenomenon, where buyers chose machines that were essentially less powerful versions of traditional PCs, the 2011 computing market will be dominated by devices that use different processing chips and operating systems than those used for PCs over the past 30 years (see Figure 1).

This shift has prompted some analysts to proclaim that "The era of the PC is over"3. Deloitte's view is that this is not the case: traditional PCs will still be the workhorse computing platform for most of the globe in 2011. PC unit sales are expected to rise by more than 15 percent year-over-year, and the global installed base of PCs stands at over 1.5 billion units4. At the end of 2011, non-PC computers will still represent only about 25 percent of all computing devices.

However, when looking at the future of computing devices, 2011 may well mark the tipping point as we move from a world of mostly standardized PC-like devices, containing standardized chips and software, to a far more heterogeneous environment.

How varied will this new environment be? Deloitte predicts there will be at least two substantially different chip architectures5 and at least 5 different operating systems that each have more than five percent market share.

This more diverse computing world is expected to change some of the basic assumptions about the business model for computing devices.

In the PC environment, the average profitability of consumer software companies has generally been lower than for other software companies in recent years: an average net profit margin of less than 10 percent, compared with an average of 21 percent for all application software companies6. Also, consumer software companies have been growing more slowly than the overall application industry.

In the non-PC world, although app adoption is still in its infancy, the industry is forecast to enjoy 60 percent growth in 2011 to over $10 billion7. Most of this revenue is expected to come from paid-for apps, with only about 10 percent from in-app advertising8. The app industry in aggregate does not seem to be very profitable: one estimate suggests that it takes the average app developer 51 years to break even9. However, leading apps companies appear to be significantly more profitable than average. Although many are private and do not publicly disclose their net profits, M&A valuations suggest expected profitability levels much higher than the single digits of PC software companies.

Manufacturing non-PC computing devices should also be substantially more profitable than making PCs. PC Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) have averaged 10 percent gross profits in recent years, with 2 percent net margins. By contrast, the leading smartphone and tablet makers generate gross profits of 40-60 percent and operating margins of 25-40 percent10.

Distribution is expected to become more profitable as well. Traditional PC distribution gross margins average about 5 percent11. Although separate figures for the entire tablet and smartphone distribution industry are not public, some distributors are reporting operating margins of 15 percent, which imply gross margins over 30 percent12.

There will also likely be expanded service opportunities. Although many of these non-PC alternatives are marketed as "easy to use", the bewildering array of hardware and app choices makes it more likely buyers will be willing to pay for help selecting the best or most industry-appropriate devices and apps – along with subsequent integration, maintenance, and support13.

Bottom Line

In 2011, buyers of computing functionality, whether in the enterprise or consumer sector, will face some interesting choices. In the past, most computer buyers purchased similarly configured machines at similar prices on similar replacement cycles. Although not quite as limited as the infamous paint options on Henry Ford's Model T – "any color so long as it's black" – the range of variation for PCs was quite narrow. But in this new era where more than half of all new computing devices sold are non-PCs, the ranges of price, performance, form factor and other variables will be at least an order of magnitude wider. Choosing will take longer, and will need to be done more carefully.

For IT departments, the cost of managing a mixed network of both PCs and non-PCs is likely to be much higher than standardizing on one or the other. Yet employees are increasingly being allowed to pick their own devices, and tens of millions have already done so – especially smartphones14. If given a choice, some employees will pick PCs, some will pick non-PCs, and some will pick both! Reconciling these two trends and determining the true total cost of ownership will present a significant learning curve.

There will also be major challenges for software and peripheral developers. In the traditional PC world, software that ran on one machine generally ran on billions of others. The same was true for peripherals, as long as they complied with standard APIs. But in the more fragmented world of 2011 and beyond, software and hardware will likely require more customization, and developers may need to pick and choose which platforms they develop for, knowing that they cannot afford to address all markets simultaneously.

Operating System Diversity: No Standard Emerges on the Smartphone or Tablet

Smartphones and the new generation of tablets have three things in common: (1) they use similar, low-powered 1GHz processors; (2) they are being used like personal computers, although they are not personal computers; and (3) Deloitte predicts that by the end of 2011 no operating system on these devices will have a dominant market share. Some will have more than a 5 percent share, but no single player will have yet become the de facto standard, as has been seen in other computing ecosystems in the past.

The emergence of a de facto standard is very important to everyone involved in the smartphone and tablet markets (i.e., "non-PC computing devices"). Technology industries with a single dominant provider of hardware or software tend to have economics very different from those with multiple providers.

Moreover, the non-PC computing market is becoming increasingly important: Deloitte predicts that in 2011 more than half of all computers sold – over 400 million units – will be devices that are not PCs15. In 2012 and beyond, non-PCs' will likely extend this lead. Being the dominant operating system (OS) provider for non-PCs would be a tremendous prize; however, a clearly dominant OS seems unlikely to emerge in 2011.

The obvious value of being the standard OS for non-PCs is one reason why a single player is unlikely to dominate. The company that popularized the PC was very adept at making both operating systems and central processing unit (CPU) chips. But when it decided to launch its new computing device, it did not source its OS or CPU internally; neither did it select other large OS or CPU manufacturers. Instead it turned to companies that were relatively small at the time16. No one expected that PCs would sell in their billions generating trillions of dollars over the next three decades17. In contrast, the potential value of the non-PC market is already obvious.

In the history of computing devices, no company has ever become the standard OS after it was clear that the value of the technology involved was likely to be tens of billions or more. The smartphone and tablet markets are already generating hundreds of billions in revenues, and are expected to keep growing rapidly: everyone knows there is "gold in them thar hills."

Equally important, existing competition in the non-PC market seems unlikely to fade any time soon. In both the smartphone and tablet markets, the top five OS companies based on market share each enjoy annual revenues in the tens of billions: have billions in cash: are growing their top and bottom lines: and are gaining ground with consumers. Even companies that are losing market share are still growing in absolute terms. None appears ready or willing to abandon the market, there is no shareholder pressure to exit, and all should have more than enough resources to develop new products and market them to mass audiences.

Mobile network providers seem as unlikely to allow a dominant OS as the OS competitors themselves. Providers appear to actively encourage OS diversity, even if they seldom state this explicitly. Whenever any operating system or device maker, in any geography or segment, approaches 50 percent market share, the carriers seem to deploy their marketing muscle, retail presence, and subsidies to push one device or OS over another. There is even a name for this strategy: carriers pick "hero" devices and push them hard. This approach can cause major swings in market share within a single quarter18.

Device manufacturers also seem to believe that a diverse OS ecosystem is in their best interest. Perhaps seeing the commoditization of some technology industries where de facto standards do exist has shown them that having different operating systems to choose from allows them to differentiate their products more effectively, strike better deals with network providers, and generally achieve higher margins.

With all of these major players fighting to prevent an industry-wide standard OS from emerging, it seems that only a nearly irresistible force could make it happen.

One possibility for such a force is the "network effect."19 As an emerging standard becomes more and more prevalent, it can rapidly reach a tipping point where the number of users on its platform relative to others gives it overwhelming momentum. Software developers embrace the platform because it has the most users, which leads to new apps that attract even more users, and so on – creating a virtuous circle that eventually locks the platform in as the de facto standard.

However, unlike other markets where network effects have created industry-wide standards, both smartphone and tablet devices are highly fragmented at the hardware level, and are likely to remain so. The variety of screen sizes, CPUs, text inputs, form factors, and other configurations means that no single OS version addresses a sufficiently large percentage of devices to create a powerful network effect.

A market that revolves around a standard OS offers the advantage of simplicity: if an application works on one device, it can be counted on to work almost everywhere and with nearly all devices. The current non-PC market is more complex and fragmented, but looks like it may be the new reality. With fewer than half of all new computing devices being PCs, and if no non-PC OS becomes dominant, it is mathematically impossible for any OS to have more than a 75 percent share of all new computing devices.

Bottom Line

Many stakeholders would be affected if a standard tablet or smartphone OS does not emerge in the near term. As noted earlier, mobile network providers, device makers, and software companies are all intimately involved and all have a keen interest in the battle. However, there are three other groups with a significant stake as well.

Application developers might need to get comfortable in a world where they must pick and choose their platforms. If a clear standard emerges, then their choice is made for them. But in the more fragmented OS world that seems likely, no app developed for a single platform can address the entire market. Developing customized apps or versions for each OS requires significant time and money (typically $5,000-500,000, depending on complexity20), so it is likely that many smaller developers will not be able to address all markets.

Media companies face a similar challenge. In general, ad-supported media are looking for the largest possible audience. In the PC market, the platform with the largest audience was clear. However, in a diverse, non-PC computing market, publishers will probably need to prioritize some audiences over others, or even exclude some entirely.

Finally, IT departments are likely to face significantly higher costs to support this new, more diverse technology environment. Administering a traditional PC computing ecosystem centered on a single OS can cost thousands of dollars per employee per year21. Supporting five times as many operating systems is unlikely to require fewer people and less money. Yet telling employees to go back to the days when they had to standardize on one OS or device seems impossible: that particular genie left the bottle long ago. Given these trends, the cost of IT support seems set to rise.

Tablets in the Enterprise: More Than Just a Toy

Deloitte predicts that in 2011 more than 25 percent of all tablet computers will be bought by enterprises, and that figure is likely to rise in 2012 and beyond. Although some commentators view tablets as underpowered media-consumption toys suitable only for consumers22, more than 10 million of the devices will likely be purchased by enterprises in 2011. Consumer demand for tablets is forecast to remain strong; however, enterprise demand is likely to grow even faster, albeit from a lower base.

Four main factors are driving tablet adoption in the enterprise market.

First, and already the most apparent, many consumers initially buy tablet computers as personal media devices, but quickly discover they are also useful for work. Employees are asking their firms to support tablets for various work tasks, including accessing the enterprise network. And some people who end up using their tablets predominantly for work are asking their employers to cover the cost of their data plans, or even the cost of the device itself.

It appears that by the end of 2011 a significant number of firms may be willing to pay for their employees' tablets and data plans. By some estimates, 70-80 percent of Fortune 500 companies will support at least one tablet variant for some portion of their workforce23; millions of prosumers will have their tablet data plans at least partially subsidized by their employer; and millions more tablets will be purchased by companies as PC alternatives24.

Second, certain industry verticals seem poised to start using tablets in fairly large numbers over the course of the year; in fact, trials are already underway. The retail, manufacturing, and healthcare industries are considered the most likely early adopters, primarily owing to the tablet's ease of use, long battery life, lack of moving parts, minimal need for training and rapid app development environment. Deloitte predicts that during 2011 up to 5 million tablets could be deployed in retail and healthcare alone.

In retail, a tablet can serve as both an easy-to-use, constantly updated catalog, as well as a point-of-sale terminal (when equipped with an optional card reader). These compelling applications make it likely that retail will be the largest enterprise tablet market in 201125. Healthcare will probably see a number of trials, but the traditional conservatism of healthcare authorities, administrators, and practitioners will likely mean that fewer than one million devices will be deployed in healthcare environments by the end of the year26.

Third, enterprise software providers are rapidly responding to Fortune 500 customer requests for tablet-specific software. Large players in ERP, ECM, CRM, and other enterprise applications are combining with desktop virtualization providers to create secure enterprise-grade apps that can seamlessly and rapidly be deployed into even the largest company's existing IT environment27. Enterprise software providers are also embracing the new technology themselves, with one company rolling out tablets to 35 percent of its employees in 201128.

Fourth, the tablet form factor itself is driving adoption in the boardroom. Unlike laptops and smartphones, both of which create an obvious physical barrier between the user and others in the room, a tablet can be placed flat on a conference table and accessed unobtrusively29.

These four growth drivers are likely to foster significant tablet diversity. Although certain form factors and operating systems dominated the market initially, the different requirements of various enterprises mean that one size will probably not fit all. Fortunately, tablets will be offered in multiple sizes in 2011. For use as catalogs in retail, a 10 inch diagonal display might be optimal; but for processes requiring portability, such as accident inspection, a smaller 7 inch device would be lighter and probably less expensive.

Some enterprises and their IT departments have strong preferences for certain operating systems (OS), and strong aversions to others. Assuming that tablets will be connected to the rest of the enterprise IT environment, it is reasonable to expect that OS market shares in enterprise tablets might closely mirror OS market shares in smartphones and PCs.

Bottom Line

For an enterprise, a key challenge will be deciding whether to support multiple types of tablets or standardize on a single type. Employees often prefer to choose their own devices; however, IT support costs rise with device diversity. Balancing the IT department's desire for a single, cost-effective solution against employees' desire for freedom of choice will likely be just as challenging with tablets as it is with smartphones.

Price is a very important issue for enterprises, especially in the current economy. Enterprises (and tablet manufacturers) will need to carefully weigh the various trade-offs. Do enterprise tablets need cameras? Do they need to have the largest possible screen? Is Wi-Fi good enough, or do they need a more expensive 3G radio – and the data plan that goes with it?

The new breed of tablets is not designed to be particularly rugged. In the past, a variety of ruggedized tablets30 were available; however they tended to be 2-3x heavier than the new tablets and 3-5x more expensive31. Although they continue to have their devoted fans, they were not mass market devices. For those who worry that the new tablets might not be tough enough for constant use in the field, it is worth remembering that workers sometimes treat ruggedized devices less carefully, which can make such devices even more prone to damage. Ultimately, the most effective "ruggedization" is to produce a machine that the workforce values and takes care not to break.

Security is already being discussed as a potentially big issue for enterprise tablets. In some ways tablets are more secure than PCs – at time of writing no tablet-specific virus has been reported, and most don't even have USB ports, eliminating a common security weak point. On the other hand, tablets are small, portable and a popular target for thieves. As a new device, tablets should probably be presumed insecure until proven otherwise.

App development will need to be monitored closely. Cost per app can range from $5,000-$500,000 (depending on complexity), so not all enterprises will be able to develop an app for every type of tablet; nor will they be able to fund a large number of custom apps for employees. Although some firms are proposing the deployment of web apps that run through a browser and therefore work on any tablet, the likely reality in 2011 is that only native apps will provide the full tablet experience and be capable of interacting with the devices' built-in cameras, radios, calendars and push capabilities32.

eGov: From Option to Obligation

In 2011 Deloitte predicts e-government (eGov) usage will reach an inflection point. Across developed countries, the proportion of businesses that use eGov services for at least one process is expected to average over 90 percent, up from 75 percent in 2010. Similarly, the proportion of citizens that use eGov in industrialized countries should rise by at least 10 percentage points. In some countries, the importance of eGov as a way to boost public sector productivity and efficiency may even prompt the appointment of a national Chief Information Officer (CIO) where one did not exist previously33.

Rising demands for government efficiency and productivity will likely provide a major push for greater adoption of existing eGov platforms and, in some countries, increasing e-government roll-out34. Use of online channels may increasingly be mandatory;35 this should boost the return on investment for e-government infrastructures. For example, according to one estimate, mandating electronic invoicing could save the equivalent of 0.8 percent of GDP annually36.

Over the last decade, governments around the world have collectively invested billions of dollars to deploy an array of e-government infrastructure, from tax returns to building permits37. However, use of these portals varies considerably. In most cases, eGov has been positioned as an additional channel for citizens and businesses to interact with the government38. Only rarely has it been mandated39.

In the past, one of the main problems with mandating eGov was the risk of excluding certain segments of society, such as those without Internet access or those who might find online self-service portals too difficult to use. However, now that most consumers and almost all businesses are active online, in some countries eGov use needs to catch up with the times, and start being positioned as the primary channel, not an optional one. For example, Figure 2 shows household Internet use compared with the use of eGov in Europe. In all countries there is a significant gap, with Internet use outpacing eGov use by an average of more than 20 percent. And in some countries, the gap is as large as 50 percent.

Use of e-government by businesses has also been limited – albeit not necessarily due to business' reluctance: in some cases online channels were simply not available. For example, in some territories it has only been possible to submit an electronic invoice since February 201041.

In other cases, the ability for agents to submit returns on behalf of their clients has been complicated by the assignment of a single sign-on and password per company, making it impossible for agents to submit accounts online for multiple clients. In many cases, the ability for government agencies to correspond by email with companies and their agents was still either "scarce" or "unavailable" at the end of 201042.

For central and local governments, eGov has tended to create additional costs, as it was often layered on top of existing communication channels. In addition, potential eGov savings were sometimes reduced through flawed internal processes that required data to be transcribed manually by one department's staff and then re-keyed manually by another department's staff just to get information flowing43.

For citizens, eGov is most likely to gain traction for services used predominantly by younger age groups, such as student loan applications and temporary driver's licenses44. But over time, use of traditional channels such as walk-in centers and call centers may be restricted to exceptional cases only: there will always be citizens who cannot afford to go online, or else are unable to use online channels. Also, governments will likely insist that digital data be usable across departments. This will require standardized processes for electronic data gathering, as well as consistent formatting standards, such as extensible business reporting language (iXBRL)45.

As for emerging countries, deployment of eGov is typically limited by two key constraints: technology rollout and literacy. For example, only 15 African countries have an Internet penetration higher than 10 percent. However, in emerging countries that have limited fixed broadband infrastructure, mobile communications could play a key role, as the latter tends to enjoy greater penetration. For example, in India in H1 2011 the mobile subscriber base is expected to be in the region of 800 million46. This compares with 11 million broadband subscribers47. In such contexts, focusing on eGov via mobile is likely to be a key way forward, particularly in the medium-term.

One Indian state, Rajasthan, has launched an eGov service that relays essential information to the public, including rural pensioners, the elderly, and disabled via mobile phone. Updates on everything from approval of pensions to information alerts are provided via this channel48.

The system also includes text to speech conversion to address the needs of those with low literacy.

Emerging countries that already have eGov portals in place are likely to expand the range of citizen online services to include ancillary services such as healthcare49. In 2011, foreign aid and investment in developing countries may also help drive eGov projects50.

Bottom Line

While mandating use of eGov is mostly about improving productivity of existing technology assets, administrations should not overlook technology's capability to improve a country's attractiveness to foreign investors and key talent. Efficient digital communication and transaction channels can position a country positively, much in the same way that leading physical infrastructure can. While many governments, particularly those in industrialized countries are likely to remain focused on cost, the medium-term strategic benefits of digital government should remain on the agenda.

In emerging countries where pressures on local and central government budgets may be less severe, administrations should use eGov solutions to enable rapid economic growth without having to create an equal or greater expansion of government infrastructure and bureaucracy51.

The fact that some segments of society are not computer-literate or lack online access should be viewed as an important but not insurmountable barrier to eGov. In fact, a principal enabler of any new process or application is accessibility, which itself is a function of good design52. If eGov applications are available in versions designed to maximize accessibility, they could actually serve as an entry point to get more people to use computers and the Internet. In some cases the entry point is likely to come via Internet connected mobile phones – each country needs to assess which technological platform is most pervasive and fit for use.

Governments should also consider whether social networks could provide one channel for communicating with citizens.

Migration to electronic filing of company reports, based on the iXBRL standards, will likely require tax collection agencies to develop new skill sets. For example, there might be less need to review documentation and make basic calculations, but greater need to analyze complex patterns of data and identify situations requiring investigation across companies.

Leaders in emerging markets should consider treating eGov and e-commerce infrastructure projects as prerequisites for economic growth, on par with roads and ports/border security. This may provide their countries with real opportunities to accelerate the pace at which they close the gap with developed economies.

To read Part 2 of Deloitte Technology Predictions - 2011 please click here

Footnotes

1. So what is a PC? Almost all laptop, desktop and netbook computers sold in 2009 and before were based on a common architecture. There were some variations in operating system, but almost all of them ran on chips that still were compatible with the original x86 architecture specified by the developer of the PC in 1981. In contrast, almost all of the non-PC devices (smartphones and tablets) that are expected to ship in 2011 will NOT use that architecture, those chips or any of the various PC operating systems. There are exceptions: in some markets some devices that look like PCs use different chips (mainly netbooks) and some tablets are expected to ship with chips and OS that are from the PC ecosystem. But the exceptions are just that, and are expected to be less than 5 percent of either market.

2. PC Sales Forecast Cut Further as Tablet Market Grows, Gartner estimates cited in an article from Channelinsider, 30 November 2010: http://www.channelinsider.com/c/a/Spotlight/PC-Sales-Forecast-Cut-Further-as-Tablet-Market-Grows-Gartner-711349/

3. IDC Predicts Cloud Services, Mobile Computing, and Social Networking to Mature and Coalesce in 2011, Creating a New Mainstream for the IT Industry, IDC, 2. December 2010: http://www.idc.com/about/viewpressrelease.jsp?containerId=prUS22593310§ionId=null&elementId=null&pageType=SYNOPSIS

4. Installed base of PCs to hit 2B units by 2014, Gartner, 5 May 2010, cited in EE Times Asia, 2 July 2008: http://www.eetasia.com/ART_8800532355_1034362_NT_0f60f95b.HTM and http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=1364917

5. In the PC world, although there is more than one chip supplier, the two major manufacturers produce chips that are substantially similar to each other at the architectural level: x86 compatible Complex Instruction Set Computer (CISC) able to be used virtually interchangeably in most PCs with only minor modifications.

6. Yahoo! Finance, Application Software Companies: http://biz.yahoo.com/p/821conameu.html used as a screen, and excluding OS providers.

7. Mobile App Marketplace: $17.5 Billion by 2012, GetJar report dated 17 March 2010 cited in TechCrunch, 17 March 2010: http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/17/getjar-mobile-app-sales-will-overtake-cd-sales-by-2012-video/ and http://blog.getjar.com/developer/sizing-up-the-global-apps-market/

8. Gartner Says Consumers Will Spend $6.2 Billion in Mobile Application Stores in 2010, Gartner Press Release, 18 January 2010: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1282413

9. Full Analysis of iPhone Economics – it is bad news. And then it gets worse, Tomi T Ahonen Blog posted on 'Communities Dominate Brands' Website, 22 June 2010: http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2010/06/full-analysis-of-iphone-economics-its-bad-news-and-then-it-gets-worse.html

10. Phone incumbents' average operating margin: 4.5%. RIM and Apple: 34%, Asymco, 13 August 2010: http://www.asymco.com/2010/08/13/phone-incumbentsaverage-operating-margin-4-5-rim-and-apple-34/

11. Tech Data Corporation Reports Fiscal 2011 Third-Quarter Results, 22 November 2010: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=115264&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1499128&highlight

12. Glentel Q3 2010 Quarterly Report, Glentel website: http://www.glentel.com/images/financials/123/Glentel-Q3-Report-WEB-Nov-10.pdf pages 18 and 27 for retail distribution operating income.

13. Deloitte Predictions interviews conducted in November 2010 with wireless carriers in Europe and North America suggest that they see significant service revenue opportunities in the small and medium business segments for mobile and tablet app selection and maintenance.

14. The End Of The BlackBerry Elite, Forbes, 20 April 2010: http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/20/smartphone-mobile-iphone-technology-cio-network-blackberry.html

15. For more discussion on this theme, please see the prediction "End of an era: more than half of all computers aren't computers anymore", Technology, Media and Telecommunications Predictions, Deloitte Global Services Limited, January 2011

16. How the PC Really Got Started, Fast Company, 19 December 2007: http://www.fastcompany.com/articles/archive/pc_bday.html

17. "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." – Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977 to the World Future Society

18. Smartphones shifting power from carriers to OEMs: Yankee Group report dated 8 June 2009 http://www.yankeegroup.com/ResearchDocument.do?id=51584

19. Network effect definition from PC Magazine Encyclopedia: http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=network+effect&i=47879,00.asp

20. How much does it cost to develop a mobile app on iPhone, Android and other platforms? Mobile Marketing Universe website, 7 September 2010: http://goldengekko.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-are-costs-of-developing-mobile-app.html

21. Gartner Says Effective Management Can Cut Total Cost of Ownership for Desktop PCs by 42 Per cent, Gartner Press release, 10 March, 2008: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=636308

22. Tablets are Toys (Not Mainstream Machines), ReadWrite Enterprise, 4 August 2009: http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2009/08/tablets-are-toys-notmainstream-machines.php

23. Sprint Says 4G Tablet Coming In 2011, 80% Of CIOs Want To Buy Tablets, Forbes, 9 December 2010: http://blogs.forbes.com/elizabethwoyke/2010/12/09/sprintsays-4g-tablet-coming-in-2011-80-of-cios-want-to-buy-tablets/

24. AT&T to sell the iPad to Businesses, Mashable, 15 October 2010: http://mashable.com/2010/10/15/att-ipad-businesses/

25. iPad Poised to Revolutionize Retail Industry, Advertising Age, 21 April 2010: http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=143416

26. With the iPad, Apple may just revolutionize medicine, The Washington Post, 11 April 2010: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/09/AR2010040906341.html

27. SAP NetWeaver on iPad, SAP website, 5 July 2010: http://en.sap.info/apps-ipad-citrix-office/35854/print

28. SAP To Deploy Up To 17,000 iPads In 12 Months, ZDNet, 7 September 2010: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/sybase/sap-to-deploy-up-to-17000-ipads-in-12-months/414?tag=mantle_skin;content

29. Gartner to CEOs: Seize the iPad Opportunity Now, Gartner, 4 November 2010: http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1462813

30. Rugged Tablet PC by MobileDemand: http://www.ruggedtabletpc.com/ as one example.

31. The 2010 Group Mobile Best Sellers Guide, GroupMobile Website; http://www.groupmobile.com/bestof.asp

32. Web Apps vs. Native Apps, GigaOm, 30 September 2010: http://gigaom.com/2010/09/30/mobilize-2010-native-mobile-apps-will-be-with-us-for-some-time/

33. New Zealand's newly appointed Government CIO starts his role on 2 February 2011. Source: Push for e-government creates CIO position, Computerworld, 23 November 2010: http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/push-for-e-government-creates-cio-position In some countries, e.g. the U.S., this role already exists.

34. XBRL submission of company accounts and other business reporting should drive significant cost savings for governments and businesses. See: XBRL FOR TAX, BANKING, CORPORATE ACTIONS AND CAPITAL MARKETS EXPANDING GLOBALLY, http://www.xbrl.org/LatestNews/; For a view on drivers for e-government adoption in Pakistan, see: PM for adoption of modern ICT applications to improve efficiency of public sector organizations, Associated Press for Pakistan, 26 December 2009: http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92666&Itemid=2

35. For details of the UK's "digital by default" strategy, announced 22 November 2010, see: Digital by default proposed for government services, CabinetOffice UK, 25 November 2010: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/digital-default-proposed-government-services

36. E-Invoicing Could Help Save European Economy Millions And Support Growth – Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell, European Central Bank, eGov Monitor, 28 April 2010: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/36005

37. E-government is not a financial cure-all, Guardian, 6 April 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/06/smarter-government-costs-services

38. In the EU, where electronic invoice submission is an option, and one which was first effected in February 2010. Source: European Commission Receives Its First Electronic Invoice From Supplier in Feb 2010, eGov Monitor, 26 February 2010: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/34057

39. For example in Denmark, electronic submission of invoices for jobs done for the government has been mandatory since 2005. Source: e-Invoicing in Denmark, eGov Monitor, 10 July 2006: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/6669; Finland will mandate electronic submission of invoices to the public sector by end 2010. Source: E-Invoicing Could Help Save European Economy Millions And Support Growth – Gertrude Tumpel-Gugerell, European Central Bank, eGov Monitor, 28 April 2010: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/36005; also see: Mandatory Requirements (E-government in New Zealand), http://www.e.govt.nz/programme/agency-checklist/mandatory-requirements

40. For further information, please see: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/eurostat/home

41. European Commission Receives Its First Electronic Invoice From Supplier in Feb 2010, eGov Monitor, 26 February 2010: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/34057

42. ICAEW survey on HMRC service standards, ICAEW, 19 November 2010: http://www.ion.icaew.com/TaxFaculty/21018

43. For a discussion on the need for data to be exchangeable between departments, see: E-government is not a financial cure-all, Guardian, 6 April 2010: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/06/smarter-government-costs-services

44. For a view on the UK's plans for deeper use of e-government channels, see: Government plans to put services online 'could widen the digital divide', The Telegraph, 21 November 2010: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/broadband/8149609/Government-plans-to-put-services-online-could-widen-the-digital-divide.html

45. For more information on XBRL, see: http://www.xbrl.org/Home/ and www.deloitte.com/iXBRL

46. iSuppli report, 22 September 2010, cited in an article in TechWorld, 23 September 2010: http://www.techworld.com.au/article/361947/rural_markets_hold_key_india_mobile_growth/ and http://www.isuppli.com/Mobile-and-Wireless-Communications/News/Pages/India-Cell-Phone-Penetration-to-Reach-97-Percent-in-2014.aspx

47. Broadband Subscriptions in India, eMarketer, March 2010.

48. Rajasthan Government reaches Underprivileged via Mobile Phone, eGov News, 11 May 2010: http://www.egovonline.net/news-list/34-news/8227-rajasthangovernment-reaches-underprivileged-via-mobile-phone-.html

49. For example Kenya's AfriAfya, a network of Kenya's largest health NGOs, is using technology to improve community health in rural areas. In Algeria, an H1N1 flu information portal has been set up for citizens and healthcare providers. eGovernment innovations are likely to include: new means of communications, e.g. in Benin eGovernment portals now include podcasts and online forums; Ghana's government portal uses social media tools such as YouTube; Facebook contacts of key ministerial staff are available. Cape Verde has started implementing e-government by allowing e-voting, which has helped the country tally votes within minutes of poll closings and avoid conflicts about results. Gujarat introduced e-voting in 2010. Source: Gujarat introduces e-voting in civic elections, Gujarat Global News Network, 28 July 2010: http://www.gujaratglobal.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2159&Itemid=38

50. Uganda's national data backbone and eGovernment implementation, which is in its first phase of implementation, is financed by a US$110 million loan from the Chinese government and infrastructure from China's Huawei Technologies. Source: Huawei Technologies: China's Go-To Company for African ICT Infrastructure Investments, ICTworks, 7 April 2010: http://www.ictworks.org/network/ictworks-network/359; Korea's Ministry of Knowledge Economy and the Korean Trade-investment Promotion Agency, KOTRA recently pledged to help the governments of Kenya and Tanzania by sharing its technological knowledge. Source: Africa e-government study to get underway, DatacenterDynamics, 15 November 2010: http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=news&mod=News&mid=9A02E3B96F2A415ABC72CB5F516B4C10&tier=3&nid=2F41921D4E424A67A58EA3E77C6D7DDF

51. For example in Dubai, AED 1.1 billion was collected via its ePay payment gateway during the first half of 2010, a 60 percent year-on-year increase. Source: Popularity of ePay growing, says Dubai eGovernment, ITP.net, 11 August 2010: http://www.itp.net/581404-popularity-of-epay-growing-says-dubai-egovernment

52. For an example of how a new computer form facto made technology accessible to a 99 year old, see: iPad has 'changed' 99-year-old woman's life, CNET News, 22 April 2010: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20003192-17.html and a video on 'Virginia's new iPad': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndkIP7ec3O8

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

This article is part of a series: Click Deloitte Technology Predictions 2011 - Part 2 for the next article.
Authors
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.