Slashdot Mirror
How Great Cheap Phones Never Get to the U.S.
prostoalex writes "Gary Krakow from MSNBC is impressed with Motorola's C116 phone only to find out that that the phone is not available in the US. The reason? 'A very, very basic GSM handset that handles incoming and outgoing calls as well as SMS messages, the C116 is sold all over the world -- except for the United States. It's not sold here because it's too cheap!' The phone is targeted for emerging markets, where people don't like to tie themselves into monthly contracts, and with little value proposition presents little interest to US wireless operators."
Aside from this, he makes a great point about how the U.S. phone market is too controlled by a tiny handful of providers. I would like to see phones unlinked from the service providers, much as personal computers are separate from the DSL and cable broadband providers. Imagine if you had to buy a Verizon PC or a Comcast Macintosh and if you switched from Comcast Cable to Verizon DSL you'd need to buy a new PC!
It seems as though GSM is a step in the right direction because T-Mobile, Cingular, and ATT branded phones are basically interchangeable. Even so, the Europeans and Japanese always seem to have much cooler phones, and the options in the U.S. are just so limited.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
“IMAGINE a magical device that could boost entrepreneurship and economic activity, provide an alternative to bad roads and unreliable postal services, widen farmers’ access to markets, and allow swift and secure transfers of money. Now stop imagining: the device in question is the mobile phone.”
“It is increasingly clear that, when it comes to bridging the ‘digital divide’ between rich and poor, the mobile phone, not the personal computer, has the most potential.”
--
Mobile phones and development
Calling an end to poverty
Jul 7th 2005
From The Economist print edition
Mobile-phone firms have found a profitable way to help the poor help themselves
[Image] (Still Pictures)
ALL eyes are on what governments can do to end poverty, with aid, debt relief and trade top of the agenda at this week’s G8 summit. But what about the role that business can play--and, in particular, technology firms? It is increasingly clear that, when it comes to bridging the “digital divide” between rich and poor, the mobile phone, not the personal computer, has the most potential. “Emerging markets will be wireless-centric, not PC-centric,” says C. K. Prahalad, a management scholar and author of “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid”, a book that highlights the collective purchasing power of the world’s 4 billion poorest people and urges firms to try to profit from it.
Mobile phones have become indispensable in the rich world. But they are even more useful in the developing world, where the availability of other forms of communication--roads, postal systems or fixed-line phones--is often limited. Phones let fishermen and farmers check prices in different markets before selling produce, make it easier for people to find work, allow quick and easy transfers of funds and boost entrepreneurship. Phones can be shared by a village. Pre-paid calling plans reduce the need for a bank account or credit check. A recent study by London Business School found that, in a typical developing country, a rise of ten mobile phones per 100 people boosts GDP growth by 0.6 percentage points. Mobile phones are, in short, a classic example of technology that helps people help themselves.
But despite rapid subscriber growth in much of the developing world, only a small proportion of people--around 5% in both India and sub-Saharan Africa--have their own mobile phones. Why? The price of handsets is the “biggest obstacle” to broader adoption, says Alan Knott-Craig, boss of Vodacom, which runs networks in five African countries. Azmi Mikati of Investcom, which runs networks in Africa and the Middle East, estimates that the number of users would double in those markets if the cheapest handset cost $30 instead of $60.
Ringing the changes
Handset-makers earn most of their profits from fancy phones sold to consumers in rich countries, where on average a handset costs around $200 (before operator subsidies). But as markets have become saturated in the rich world, manufacturers have started to realise that their future growth depends on catering to the needs of developing nations. As a result, they have been working with operators to develop new extremely cheap handsets and to boost adoption in the poor world.
Several operators from developing countries teamed up earlier this year under the auspices of the GSM Association, which promotes the use of GSM, the world’s dominant mobile-phone standard. They invited the handset-makers to bid for a contract to supply up to 6m handsets for less than $40 each. The contract was won by Motorola. Delivery of handsets began in April. The low cost is not due to cross-subsidy from high-margin handsets or “corporate social responsibility” funding, insists David Taylor of Motorol
I moved back to India last year after spending 10 years in the US. I found that the cab drivers here have better mobile phones than most people in the US. I guess it has to do with monopolies and regulations..
I'm one of the people mentioned that don't like to tie myself into monthly contracts. The fact that a phone will make less profit for the phone companies should not make a difference as to whether it is sold here. I'm sure there are many people who just want a phone to be a phone.
/., the Register, and a few more online news sources before the mainstream media realizes they can't ignore it much longer and starts to cover the story (being careful of course to not step on the toes of any of their advertisers), getting the (usually watered-down) message out to the unwashed.
Crappy (for us, the 'consumers') corporate decisions like this happen every day, and we're going to need to speak up sooner or later if we want anything to change.
Right now, it takes a story on
These situations seem to require getting to that point before the companies will 'take a look at' their actions, Sony's DRM CD being the latest example. Your customers don't know what a rootkit is? They have a better idea now.
Making noise about these things is making a difference, however small it may be.
from the end... "The color model, the C155, is available in the United States, sold by the prepaid wireless company TracFone online and through retail outlets such as Wal-Mart. For $29.98, you get the phone and the right to buy pay-as-you-go phone services. Telefonica MoviStar sells the C116 phone in Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries."
me jumping with kites I make...
Some people shouldn't be given complicated phones, like my parents as an example.
It's complete and utter feature overkill for them. They don't play the games, don't change the ringtones & don't know how to use anything besides the address book.
This phone would be perfect for my parents
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
There are a large number of factors that go into the selection of handset models for both the U.S. post-paid and pre-paid markets: features, cost, size, manufacturer support, durability, radio quality, and audio quality among them.
/. users may already know exactly what data services they need/want because they have fearlessly tried them, explored every menu of their phones, and come to a good conclusion as to what is worth paying for. Many people haven't. They only discover a new feature because they see some geeky person use it in a cool way that they'd never imagined, and say "I wish my phone could do that." To which the TruGeek replies. "That's a Nokia 6682. It can take even better pictures than this and send them right to your Inbox. Let me show you how." It may sound like paternalism to sell people phones with more features than they currently think they need, but it's not. It's just good marketing.
Major carriers have an allotted sum that they can contribute to a person's first handset based on their one-year contract commitment. People in the handset selection teams for these companies choose the phones with the best feature set for that amount of money. There is no bonus for selecting a phone that is cheaper than this amount.
Less expensive phones sometimes get that way by choosing inferior components, and antenna designs. But not always. The only way to know whether a phone was cheaper due to clever engineering or cheap components is to completely reverse engineer the design with a every competent team of engineers, or deploy thousands of them and carefully watch the complaints.
The drive for Zoolanderesque micro phone sizes is over. There is such a thing as too small and consumers have figured this out.
Though there is certainly some deviation from the post-paid phone standards for the pre-paid phones each new model has a cost in customer care training time and handset replacement programs.
There is a push to make more data services available and some favoritism is shown to those handsets that can offer that content.
When you combine these factors you have a recipe for "I told you so's" The article's author didn't find the buttons too small on this phone (though many would), and where he was, the radio was adequate (though in tiny phones, penetrating the human hand is a definite problem). This phone will never let him "discover" the joys of sending cool pictures at the zoo to his grandkids e-mail boxes (which he may already do with with Coolpix 8800).
In summary. Geeksight is 20/20. We can mathematically determine that there is a slot for this in the American market, but marketing is stranger than chaos theory. And I would like to suggest that the article's author, go bid on the one for sale on ebay (right now AU $20) put his SIM in it. It doesn't get much cheaper than that, and then he could leave the article writing on handset marketing to people with a statistical sample > 1.
[disclaimer: I am a Treo650 fanboy who still has his T68 on the charger]
Personally, I want to tell Ma'Bell to take her phone and shove it where the sone don't shine. Give me something that I can hack and create my own programs on instead of this bubblegum mainstream crap anyday!
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
The phone is targeted for emerging markets, where people don't like to tie themselves into monthly contracts, and with little value proposition presents little interest to US wireless operators.
The wireless operators won't tell you this - for obvious reasons - but you're absolutely NOT required to purchase your phone from them. The bottom line is that you can aquire an unlocked, factory-direct phone from places like eXpansys. After that, simply call the carrier to do an ESN swap or in the case of GSM place the SIM in the new phone.
The trick, of course, is knowing the technology your carrier supports. I don't expect that to be an issue for this crowd.
What's annoying is that it is getting impossible to find a decent PHONE. I don't want a camera, I don't want a web access device, I don't want an MP3 player. What I do want is a SMALL PHONE. It seems like any basic phone without gimmicks is three times the size of a RAZR, which makes no sense whatsoever.
All it does is cause headaches for those of us who work in secure environments and have to choose between carrying a walkie-talkie in our pocket looking like we have a tumor, or else we have to leave our compact phone at the security desk. Does ANYONE make a tiny clamshell phone that just, you know, makes phone calls and receives them?
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
"I couldn't wait to slip my SIM card inside and see what it could do. "
;-)
Filth! Nothing but poisonous fuel for a twisted mind.
+del.icio.us ++dugg
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Right now I use a Kyocera SE44 slider. Tiny phone, tiny screen. Works great, though. The buttons are too small for my fat fingers and the screen is getting a little hard for my presbyopic eyes to see, but it works until the current contract's up.
;-)
;-)
But - I'm closer to 50 than 40 (or even 45) and have been a professional geek most of my adult life. At this point in my life I want *simple* technology that works.
Last May I kicked my cable TV provider to the curb and got a satellite dish. Got two TVs and two computers wired up for the price I was paying coughcomcastcough for a a two-tv digital cable setup (had analog-only to the computers). Plus, I got this really cool DVR
That same month I told the local phone company to take a hike, ported our home number to the spousal unit's cell and got a cell phone for myself. Since only about ten people have the number to my phone, interruptions have decreased significantly.
Last fall when my mother-in-law's laptop died (second HD failure) I took her down to the Apple store and she bought an iMac. She's almost 80 years old and can surf the web, do email and whatever alse she needs to do with a minimum of fuss. Once I got the iMac connected to her wireless network she *never* called me again for technical support. I'm so impressed I'm getting ready to buy an iMac for me. Bye Bye, Microsoft
But I digress.
As I continue to try to simplify my life (which is what technology's supposed to do, ain't it?) all I want is a phone that *makes phone calls*, has an address book that I can synchronize with my computer and doesn't play games, MP3s, support polyphonic ringtones, have a camera (and especially not a flash - I own a digital camera, honest) and so on.
Of course, if you looked up 'curmudgeon' in the dictionary you'd see my picture, but the older I get the *less* impressed I am with devices that can do everything.
But can't do any of them well. Can I have just a phone, please?
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin