Can We Predict The Future Together?

10

October

2016

No ratings yet.

Information Markets or Prediction Markets are an interesting phenomenon. They basically work the same as stock exchange markets, but instead of buying or selling shares in a company, you buy or sell a contract predicting a certain event. For example, the event could be: Hillary Clinton wins the 2016 presidential elections. If you believe the chance of this happening is higher than the current value of the contract, you would buy the contract and if you are correct you would make a profit. So basically, a chance of 100% would have a cost of €1, while 0% would be €0 in value. Anything in between then becomes the chance of this event happening as predicted by the market. This means that if the contract sells for €0.70, the market says there is a 70% chance of this happening. Research into prediction markets has found that these predictions are generally as accurate or more accurate than the predictions of individuals, even if they are experts.

This may sound like something incredibly useful and that we can now predict everything before it has happened and so prevent bad things from happening, or at least be prepared for them. However, it’s important to realize that prediction markets are not fortune-tellers: it is not true that you ask a big group of people at any point in time what they predict will happen and that this will be accurate. Instead, it just means that the wisdom of the crowd tends to be more accurate than individual wisdom, but it is still based on the information that is available at that time. So if that information suddenly changes, the predictions will also shift suddenly. Over time, the predictions will become more accurate, which makes sense since there is less chance of something really big happening, and more information is already available. This means that prediction markets are a really good information aggregation tool: we can generally accept that its prediction will be based on all the information available at that point in time.

I would be very interested in seeing how accurate predictions are for which not much information is available, or where people are not given the chance to gather more information. Would predictions still be very accurate? Either way, I’m fascinated by this concept, as I think there are still many valuable applications in which this idea could be used.

Please rate this

Five Games For A Dollar – How Humble Bundle Uses Price Discrimination

24

September

2016

No ratings yet.

Do you remember the time when you had to pay $50 for a game in the store? And the price did not change much even after a long time. How things have changed since then. Ever since games are available in fully digital form on platforms such as Steam, prices have gone down a lot (even though they often still start out as expensive as in the past). How is it possible that games have become so much cheaper? Does the gaming industry simply make less profit? This is possible, but not necessarily the case. The answer lies in the fact that games are an information good, which means that while it is very expensive to produce the first copy, creating more copies is relatively cheap. So the more copies you manage to sell, the smaller your total cost per copy is (because the production cost is spread out over more products). In other words: to maximize your profit as a game developer, you want to sell as many copies as possible, even if this means reducing your price. Now, keeping this in mind, let us consider the concept of price discrimination: each individual has a willingness to pay for a particular product. Some people might be willing to pay $50 to get a game as soon as it is released. However, other people may only want buy that same game for $1. Ideally, you’d offer the game to the one person for $50 and for $1 to the other. However, if the game is sold in a store, you cannot differentiate the price, which is why in the past the only way to discriminate prices for certain groups of individuals was by changing the price over time, so that those with a lower willingness to pay would wait until the price dropped. But even then, putting a game in a store is obviously more expensive than selling a digital, downloadable version online, such as what Steam offers.

 

This is all very interesting of course, and a very happy development for all gamers, but this is not the phenomenon that I wanted to talk about. I’d like instead to point out another website that sells games: Humble Bundle. They have a very interesting business model where they have extended this idea of willingness to pay and combined it with the idea of bundles. What Humble Bundle does is they create a bundle of games and offer it for about a week. Now what is special is that you can pay what you want! In fact, you could get many of the games they offer for free (although you must pay at least $1 to get Steam keys, allowing you to download the games in Steam). What’s more: you can choose where your money goes. By default, part of it goes to each game developer, part goes to Humble Bundle itself and part goes to charity. But you can customize this any way you want, choosing not to give anything to Humble Bundle, or giving everything to a charity. In this way, you have the possibility to support the developers of the games that you really like. So why does this concept even work? If you are giving away games for free, how can you possibly make a profit? Well, obviously most people choose to pay a little bit, either to get access to the games on Steam or to ease their consciousness. In addition, Humble Bundle smartly gives an incentive to pay more by allowing you to ‘upgrade’ your bundle by paying more, meaning that other (usually more recent or more popular) games are added. This works because, as mentioned earlier, the Humble Bundle system allows great personalization, thus making it possible to make maximum use of each individual’s willingness to pay (and some people do in fact pay over $50 for a bundle). In addition, the idea of making bundles is very smart. People will feel that the total value is more, even if they only end up playing one game in the bundle. After all, it is easier to motivate someone to buy that one game that they want for $15 even though their willingness to pay was $10, since they get that other game that they were kind of interested in as well. Not to mention that a great way to sell unpopular games is by combining them with more popular games. Even if people can choose where their money goes, they likely won’t often choose to give nothing at all to a particular company.

 

All in all, I believe Humble Bundle’s business model is very smart, and while it may at first seem counter-intuitive, it likely leads to quite a bit of profit for game developers. In addition, they have executed this idea, that can be brought back to various economic theories, in a really good way. I hope they will continue to experiment and find new ways to make both consumers and developers happy. Now go celebrate this great development by treating yourself to a bundle of games – for whatever you’re willing to pay!

Please rate this

Technology Of The Week – Disruption of the Telecom Industry

15

September

2016

No ratings yet.

The telecom industry has changed substantially in the last decades. This was in large part due to external messaging and calling apps, also called ‘Over-The-Top’ (OTT) services, that use the Internet to make calls and send messages. These services have made messaging and calling much cheaper for the user. The average user sends about 1.200 WhatsApp messages every month. Imagine sending these back in the days, when a text cost €0,20. It would have cost you €240 a month! And this while the cost of a text to the company is less than a cent. In other words, the traditional calling and messaging services were a great source of revenue. The telecom industry claims to have lost 386 billion USD in revenue to OTT services.

For our analysis, we looked at WhatsApp versus Facetime and iMessage. WhatsApp is a smarphone application that allows you to send messages, audio and video through the Internet. It identifies people through phone numbers rather than having to register for a fully separate account. FaceTime and iMessage is an Apple application that enables users to make video and audio calls over the Internet. If you know another Apple user’s phone number or registered email address you can make unlimited calls. These new services were advantageous in many ways. They are of course much cheaper, since you only pay for data. Also, they include more functions, such as group chats or calls and location sharing. Finally, OTT services are great for travelers who can now make international calls for free using Wi-Fi.

Let us now compare the two services to each other. WhatsApp is owned by Facebook, while iMessage and FaceTime are owned by Apple, which have very different business models. WhatsApp has the most users, with one billion users since this year. iMessage and FaceTime are pre-installed on all Apple devices, which also means that their use is restricted. However, this might be an extra incentive for people to buy an iPhone, thus a positive point from Apple’s perspective.

Finally, what do we think will happen in the future? It is clear that OTT services such as WhatsApp and FaceTime and iMessage are taking over the market. Even though telecom companies would like to keep their system of bundling calling and messaging with Internet service, this will likely change. At some point, we expect everything to be Internet-based, and all services will be merged so that you no longer have a separate phone bill and Internet bill. However, telecom companies might respond in different ways: they might be reduced to just the pipeline for Internet, or they might develop competing apps of their own that will form one integrated service. Either way, data access will keep improving, and it will likely become possible to have Internet anywhere in the world without needing to switch SIM cards. Also, the pricing model will probably be based on more, smaller transactions rather than long-term subscriptions. Either way, telecom companies will need to adapt in order to survive. The only certain winner is the consumer.

 

By Eva Siccama (381230),

Gaston van de Weijer (374902),

Ge Jiang (386449),

and Beibei Wu (457617).

 

References:
Apple kicks off iPad mini event. (2012). bgr.com. Retrieved 15 September 2016, from
Apple kicks off iPad mini event: 3 million new iPods sold, iOS 6 now on 200 million devices

Petronzio, M. (2014). Average WhatsApp User Sends More Than 1,200 Messages Each Month. Mashable. Retrieved 15 September 2016, from http://mashable.com/2014/02/21/WhatsApp-user-chart/#Z2sPTkzc_Eq8

The Future of Telecom Operators in Europe. (2015). Atkearney.com. Retrieved 15 September 2016, from https://www.atkearney.com/communications-media-technology/ideas-insights/the-future-of-telecom-operators-in-europe

The New daily record. (2014). Twitter.com. Retrieved 15 September 2016, from
https://twitter.com/WhatsApp

What is the future of the telecom industry?. (2015). quora.com. Retrieved 15 September 2016, from https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-future-of-the-telecom-industry

WhatsApp has grown to 1 billion users . (2016). theverge.com. Retrieved 15 September 2016, from
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/1/10889534/whats-app-1-billion-users-facebook-mark-zuckerberg

WhatsApp. (2016). Wikipedia. Retrieved 15 September 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp#cite_note-Statt-2016-02-01-13

Please rate this