Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Are Mobile Carriers Slowing Down The Mobile Games Market?

Posted by simoniker on from the sluggish-t-foxbeeste dept.

Thanks to Water Cooler Games for its discussion on whether the U.S. mobile carriers' business practices are slowing down the growth of phone gaming. The author discusses a myriad of problems with upgrading his phone through his current carrier within an existing service contract, agreeing: "I understand that the carriers subsidize handset purchases as loss-leaders for service revenue", but going on to argue: "So, why is this a problem for mobile gaming? Because mobile gaming is still undergoing significant growth at the technology base. I can't run Symbian apps on my 6610. I can't run Series 60 apps. I simply need a new phone if I want to get serious about mobile gaming." Are these types of problems the ones stopping mobile phone gaming from taking off in the States?

1 of 26 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Cry me a river by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    "Mobile gaming is stalled in the US where mobile infrastructure is fragmented and poor."

    Fragmented and poor?

    That fragmentation is *why* we have CDMA, the technology on which all current 3G technology is based.

    That fragmentation is *why* the US has *two* excellent CDMA2000 networks, both with 3G data.

    That fragmentation is *why* the US has two national GSM networks, one with EDGE capabilities, and one with *unlimited* GPRS for $20 a month.

    If the US cellular infastructure is so poor, then why can I get 1xRTT everywhere in my state (I live in Colorado and have *never* been without signal)?

    We have the same GSM that everyone else does.

    The European governments *mandated* GSM. That's why they have one technology. But GSM is *not* the right technology for the US. We have far too many locations where there are few people in a lot of space. GSM has a hard cell size limit that is pretty small (~32km). CDMA can handle much larger cells with far more users with fewer towers. That's why Verizon (CDMA2000) has the best coverage - the GSM carriers don't even come close (not that GSM is bad, but don't try going up in Wyoming with a GSM phone).

    If our infastructure is so "poor", then why does 50% of the nation have wireless service?