Kicking off this panel discussion between some of the leading lights in mobile gaming, chairman Kristian Segerstrale asked if Gameloft’s statement that Apple was now their biggest distribution channel was true. Gonzague de Vallois replied that this was indeed the case.

“We can adapt to the competition very quickly,” he said, owing to the flexibility and immediacy of the App store. He also found the user rating system very interesting, as gaming success wasn’t dependent on typical editorial views.

Anne-Carole Nourisson, VP Licensing for Vivendi Mobile Entertainment, highlighted the problem of piracy, referring to the problems faced in the past by the music and film industries. She believes it’s time the mobile games industry starts to face the problem in a serious manner.

Nourisson also highlighted the fact that 90 per cent of mobile users do not play games, prompting the chairmen to ask what her company was doing to rectify this state of affairs.

Her answer was a European subscription service Vivendi Mobile Entertainment had introduced - Zaoza - where €3 per month grants users access to a social music, video and games sharing social network.

Dan Keegan of Orange professed his love for the App store, which prompted the chairman to cheekily ask when the operator was going to release its own take on the Apple service.

According to Keegan, it already had some 12 months ago, and said that it had turned into an unexpected source of alternative media applications.

Jani Karlsson, former Director Strategic Planning for AMD - and now working at Qualcomm - bemoaned the comparative lack of transparency on the part of operators as to when games were going to launch.

Keegan responded that Apple’s superiority in this regard was to be expected as a fresh product which had the benefit of years of feedback from the mobile industry.

Tim Harrison, formerly of EA Mobile, believes that the mobile industry has much to learn from Apple: “I certainly think Apple has mixed things up in a positive way,” he said, adding that there were far fewer problems getting games live than on mobile.

However, Harrison disagreed with the Pocket Gamer news item carrying the comment from Apple that the cream will rise to the top, pointing to the success of heavily branded games over non-branded titles as evidence to the contrary.

Overall, he feels that “Apple wins it. But it can learn lessons from the traditional mobile model.” Particularly in terms of the balance between user and editorial feedback

Camilla Crabbe of ad-funded mobile network Blyk agreed with the common consensus that the mobile industry should learn from Apple, or “ride on the back of Apple’s success” as she rather colourfully put it.

The question was raised of where off-portal gaming was going. Tim Harrison called it “sort of a hopeful time,” pointing to the re-emergence of the “garage developer.” And guess who he felt we could thank for that?

Yes, good old Apple.

Anne-Carole Nourisson reined in the Apple love a little, urging that we “don’t forget, there’s still life after Apple.” She pointed out that not everyone could afford an iPhone or the premium tariff that accompanies it. The market, she said, is wider than one high-end device.

Jani Karisson joined in with the cautionary tone, claiming that “the perceived value of games is going down with iPhone, in my opinion” due to the raft of cheap and sub-standard games filling out the App Store.

Suresh from Vodafone chipped back in with question from the floor: “How should we best manage pricing?” warning that “we don’t want to drive content to Zero.”

Gonzague de Vallois of Gameloft responded that “we need to interact more with consumers,” before calling for greater price elasticity - which would become a recurring theme throughout the day.

Dan Keegan of Orange defended the operators' position, stating that it was hard to keep track of the publisher’s wishes. He suggested a maximum and minimum charge to work within. He accepted that Orange simply didn’t have the resources to keep a close eye on consumer reactions to pricing.

A pertinent point tying together the themes so far came from the floor - Apple has a customer base already used to browsing for and downloading content, thanks to the initial success of iTunes. Mobile does not have that luxury.

Next came a question regarding in game advertising - were the great and good of the mobile gaming industry making money from it? Dan Keegan seemed reluctant to answer this one but, after taking staff costs into account, it appears there isn’t much left in the pot from this particular avenue.

Both Gonzague de Vallois and Anne-Carole Nourisson said that while they had no issues with in-game advertising it wasn’t part of their respective companies’ strategies.

A ‘wait and see what happens’ attitude seems to be the order of the day here.

Chairman Kristian Segerstrale next asked about those companies who had decided to forego the whole operator system, such as the much publicised spat concerning German developer Fishlabs.

Gonzague de Vallois said that the barrier for entry was very high on mobile, which was why Apple had seen such success with the smaller developers. The higher revenue percentages involved were making it a far more inviting platform to cater for.

Camilla Crabbe of Blyk countered that publishers were wanting more control and power over pricing, but seemed to be forgetting the extra responsibility that would entail in terms of customer care and quality assurance processes.

At this point, Michael Schade, MD of Fishlabs, was pulled into the conversation (the first of many times, as it turned out) - albeit reluctantly. The question put to him was a rather blunt one: why can’t you make money from Java games (which they have withdrawn from) when Gameloft does?

Schade responded that they catered for high end handsets, a focus which operators weren’t prepared to push. He argued that Fishlabs's top-level focus was viable with the proper spread of awareness.

Speaking again of Apple’s service, he mentioned that the direct feedback system allowed them to tweak and correct issues with their games within seven days.

The conversation next turned to economics, and Schade was again involved. He said that with the operators taking 50 per cent of revenues, they made more from 99 cent iPhone games than they did from £5 Java games.

When asked how the cost base differed, it was another plus for Apple - developing for a single platform was understandably simpler than having to port to each Java handset, which took Fishlabs one week per handset.

Schade’s final point, and one of the major causes of their change in focus, concerned piracy. He claimed that the vast majority of people playing Fishlabs’s Java games hadn’t paid for the privilege

The next question concerned the old notion of mobile games being disposable. Was this still a problem?

Gonzague de Vallois felt that the mobile industry was merging with the rest of the gaming industry in terms of experience, making the games far less disposable as a result.

Camilla Crabbe made the interesting point that the uniquely high turnover of handsets and sim cards meant that disposable needn’t necessarily be a dirty word for the industry.

Jani Karlsson agreed, stating that a mix of ‘disposable’ and in-depth experiences is best for the industry.

A representative from I-play then piped up with the claim that he hadn’t seen an iPhone handset without a gaming app on it, which poses the question: how do you narrow the gap between the platform and mobile, which can only boast a 5 per cent attach rate for games.

It’s suggested that 30 per cent might be achievable with a simple refined and, yes, Apple-esque front end.

Gonzague de Vallois chipped in with his view that it’s the total iPhone package that contributes to the high pick-up rate, incluing the attractiveness of the new(ish) touch screen technology. He asked if the others felt that getting 20 per cent of mobile users gaming was realistic.

Dan Keegan felt that it was, pointing to the success of the Orange Games initiative and one nameless publisher in particular who had achieved “massive numbers.”

Chairman Kristian Segerstrale chipped in by predicting “this is the year of the iPhone clones, if they like the term or not.”

In conclusion, the panel was asked for their predictions as to the most exciting feature of 2009.

Tim Harrison said that it would be “a year when there would truly be space for innovation,” but that such innovation may only exist on a limited range of platforms.

Gonzague de Vallois agreed, and looked forward to new experiences with more advanced handsets.