Metaverse Ethics (To Be Or Not To Meta-Be)

Last Monday, Korea's Ministry of Science and ICT updated the 'Expanded Virtual World Ethics Principles' it released last Summer. Now 3 core values and 8 principles are listed under a more buzzword-friendly title 'Metaverse Ethical Principles'.

As far as core values go, 'safe experience' and 'sustainable prosperity' were much more predictable than a 'sincere identity' you usually don't associate with virtual, avatar-filled meta-worlds. But remember that this is Korea, a netizen nation were you're never totally anonymous, and where most of your online experiences require a digital ID or a digital signature (often through public-private partnerships involving such platforms as Kakao or Naver) that keeps getting smarter and smarter, and wrapping around you with tighter and tighter technologies (biometrics and blockchain on the government's menu).

Likewise, if 7 of the 8 principles follow a classic playbook...

- 4 usual suspects: 'respect for privacy', 'protection of personal data', 'autonomy' (as in lack of coercion), 'reciprocity' / mutual respect

- 3 feel-good mantras: 'fairness' / equal access, 'inclusiveness', 'responsibility for the future' / sustainability

... one oddball looks disconnected from the metaverse's inherent... disconnection: 'authenticity' means that your virtual self should behave like your actual self, since the former will impact the latter.

Forget about role playing: that's you up there. The real you, even with those fangs and wings, this embarrassing cosplay, or this spectacular virtual gender correction. After all, this is Korea, where you can't escape plastic surgery, and where you can change your name on a whim. 

The metaverse is not an out of body experience: the economics of attention go 3D, and it's not only your clicks of browsing patterns that will be captured, but also the very way you move and breathe. The more you submerge yourself into it, the better you'll be decyphered, the faster your intentions and your decisions will be detected and shaped for you. 

The guidelines for users are one thing, and service providers have their own duties in that list, but it's mostly about not overdoing it, a very vague self moderation. And of course nothing about interoperability or portability, each one can lay its traps without many consequences. 

In short, the government tells users 'be responsible', but falls short of telling service providers a decent 'don't be evil'.

This is 2022, and the 2020 metaverse bubble has already kind of deflated, a bit like in the crypto / blockchain world, where the collapse of Do Kwon's Terraform predated that of FTX. Yet both remain strategic axes of competitiveness for Korea, so this wasn't the moment to clip the wings of players who were actually involved in these guidelines.

Ready, Player Won...

mot-bile 2022

(video: Naver Z / Zepeto Studio's world building teaser)

Korea's fourth license reload

According to The Korea Herald (May 29), the Korean government is considering reviving the project of a fourth MNO license as part of a plan to stimulate the market.

Is there a need for another 4G network? Korea is well covered with LTE to LTE-A, beefed-up locally through pervasive femtocells and WiFi. And the three incumbents don't want to sit on their laurels: Korea Telecom promised 5G trials for the 2018 Pyeongchang Olympics, and SK Telecom announced a partnership with Google on augmented reality ("T-AR for Project Tango").

Is there a need for more competition? It depends on the profile of the new player, and the impacts on a M-VNO ecosystem that, at long last, is biting into a pie still dominated by SK Telecom, Korea Telecom, and LG U+.

According to the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (MSIP), M-VNOs were claiming a 8.8% market share as of April 21 (up from 2.9% in June 2012), thanks to prices on average 57% cheaper than the MNOs.

But it's not as if you had one fourth player with a 8.8% market share, big enough to contest the leaders on more profitable segments. Today, Korea has 27 M-VNOs, most struggling to make their first profit, and likely to never see it. Significantly, their number of subscribers started to explode when they targeted more discount-seeking audiences (the youth, Chinese migrant workers...).

A perennial candidate for the 4th spot is actually a consortium of M-VNOs: KMI (Korea Mobile Internet) revived their candidacy in October 2013, and defending the existing M-VNO ecosystem could be a stronger argument today. In December 2011, the Korea Communications Commission not only rejected KMI's bid, but also that of IST (Internet Space Time lost the backing of Hyundai Group at a critical moment). Note that the KCC also canceled the auction for the WiBro spectrum. I explained a few months earlier ("A Kbiz MNO ? SMEs vs Korea Inc") how the attempt by the Korea Federation of Small and Medium Businesses (Kbiz) to enter the market looked more like a lobbying stunt to push WiBro.

A much bigger fish could also seek the fourth license, with more brand power. Typically, CJ Group is already a major player in telecom, IPTV, or multimedia contents. It has the money to invest on new networks (Daum Kakao or Naver would need serious backing), the customer bases to leverage, and the contents to fill the pipes..., but don't bet on price wars with fellow chaebol on the juiciest segments. 
 
A true new entrant from overseas? Global MNOs know how difficult it would be in a country where foreign majors are seldom allowed to take or maintain leading positions (see retail for example: Carrefour and Wal-Mart already gone, Tesco on the back seat). But joining a consortium, or creating one remains a rare opportunity for international platforms to push their solutions in an otherwise locked Korean market. And nowadays, the dominant platforms do not necessarily belong to telecom operators...

Anyway, expect more lobbying ahead of the government's guidelines, expected by the end of June.

• See also "Daum Kakao, Google Campus... Korean platforms on steroids", other posts related to innovation in Korea.

mot-bile 2015

* "Consortium to bid for 4th mobile carrier in S. Korea" (Yonhap News - 2013/10/08)

Daum Kakao, Google Campus... Korean platforms on steroids

Yesterday, Daum and Kakao Corp announced that they would merge on October 1st, and Google that its first Google Campus in Asia would be located in Seoul.

The Daum Kakao merger looks rather defensive: before everything, it creates a stronger competitor to NHN, the leader operating among others the main rivals to Daum and Kakao Talk: Naver and LINE.

NHN and Daum are rare exceptions as successful newcomers in a country where start-ups struggle to survive in an ecosystem dominated by chaebols: as soon as a new gem shows some potential, the big fishes try to eat it, or to destroy it with me-toos leveraging on in-house countless entry points, or to control it by becoming its sole 'partner'. 

NHN and Daum could storm the web at the turn of the millennium, when mobile operators where busy building proprietary environments, and other chaebol focusing as usual on hardware. They built competitive platforms that even resisted Google, who only managed to gain strongholds in Korea thanks to Android. Typically, even if Naver maintains its leadership in web searches, Google could 'crowd-boost' Google Maps or Google Translate, with the help of smartphone manufacturers who were too happy to have a platform rivaling Apple to care about the hidden costs.

As we've said before, Samsung and LG helped Google BtoB (OEM) succeed where Google BtoC (portal) failed, and all they can do now is send a Tizen to nibble at the heavyweight champion's ears. 

There's a finite space for major value aggregators in Korea, and as Samsung's latest attempt to build a sustainable platform beyond hardware, Tizen probably accelerated the need for rivals to stretch their reach.

Big G needed to beef up its Asian ecosystem and Korea seems the perfect choice: Android rules, start-ups need competitive platforms to survive chaebol bullies, and Mountain View has the opportunity to weaken some of its most serious competitors on their own turf. Bonus: by supporting Korea's SME and creative ecosystem, you gain the favors of local authorities and regulators.

Anyway, good news for Korea's attractiveness... but yet higher entry barriers for potential major newcomers.




ADDENDUM 20140828: let's guess which 'independent' whistleblower suggested Korean watchdog to investigate Kakao Corp in the wake of the merger ("Kakao under probe for allegedly abusing market power: sources")




mot-bile 2014

Kakao Talk of the day

Kakao recently claimed its 10 millionth KakaoTalk user - or is it app download ? -, including 10% overseas (mostly in the US, thanks to the Korean diaspora, but the service is also available in English and Japanese). Now the Bundang based venture wants to go global.

Good luck : VoIP is a highly competitive field where "incumbent" Skype almost looks like the obsolete PTT running on grand dad PCs. In Korea, Kakao faces giant netco Daum's MyPeople, a more comprehensive social networking tool, or pure players like NeoMecca (OlivePhone app)... not to mention Google Talk, present on all Android smartphones.

Note that rivals Daum and Naver are considering suing Google for its dominant position as Android's favored search engine.

Indeed, the Google brand is indeed reigning on every Android smartphone's main screen, and more discreetely but pervasively present across the app menu : "Talk" for Google Talk, "Maps" for Google Map, "Places" for Google Places, "Latitude" for Google Latitude, "Finance" for Google Finance. Also there : Gmail, YouTube...

What puzzles me most is the way local MNOs deserted the battlefield : where a Vodafone would have branded the UI, KT / Show remains in the background. You know you have an iPhone or an Android device, but the operator appears simply as the hardware salesperson, and a not so proud carrier.

As we saw earlier, Korean MNOs have very poorly prepared for the smartphone revolution, but even now, it almost looks as if they want to dump their own app stores.

mot-bile 2011