Slashdot Mirror
What's Keeping US Phones In the Stone Age?
knapper_tech writes "After seeing the iPhone introduction, I was totally confused by how much excitement it generated in the US. It offered no features I could see beyond my Casio W41CA's capabilities. I had a lot of apprehension towards the idea of a virtual keypad and the bare screen looked like a scratch magnet. Looks aren't enough. Finally, the price is ridiculous. The device is an order of magnitude more expensive than my now year-old Keitai even with a two-year contract. After returning to the US from Japan, I've come to realize the horrible truth behind iPhone's buzz. Over the year I was gone, US phones haven't really done anything. Providers push a minuscule lineup of uninspiring designs and then charge unbelievable prices for even basic things like text messages. I was greeted at every kiosk by more tired clamshells built to last until obsolescence, and money can't buy a replacement for my W41CA." Read on as this reader proposes and dismissed a number of possible explanations for the difference in cell-phone markets between the US and Japan. He concludes with, "It seems to me more like competition is non-existent and US providers are ramming yesteryear's designs down our throats while charging us an arm and a leg! Someone please give me some insight."
I finally broke down and got a $20 Virgin phone to at least get me connected until I get over my initial shock. In short, American phones suck, and iPhone is hopefully a wakeup call to US providers and customers. Why is the American phone situation so depressing?
Before I left for Japan about a year ago, I was using a Nokia 3160. It cost me $40 US and I had to sign a one year contract that Cingular later decided was a two-year contract. I was paying about $40 a month for service and had extra fees for SMS messages.
After I got to Kyoto, I quickly ended up at an AU shop and landed a Casio W41CA. It does email, music, pc web browsing, gps, fm radio, tv, phone-wallet, pictures (2megapixel), videos, calculator etc. I walked out of the store for less than ¥5000 (about $41) including activation fees, and I was only paying slightly over ¥4000 (about $33) per month. That included ¥3000 for a voice plan I rarely used and ¥1000 for effectively unlimited data (emails and internet).
Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the costs facing American mobile providers can explain the huge technology and cost gap between the US and Japan. Why are we paying so much for such basic features?
At first, I thought maybe it was something to do with network infrastructure. The US is a huge land area and Japan is very tiny. However, Japan would have lots of towers because of the terrain. Imagine something like Colorado covered in metropolitan area. Also, even though places like rural New Mexico exist, nobody has an obligation to cover them, and from the look of coverage maps, no providers do. Operating a US network that reaches 40% of the nation's population requires nowhere near reaching 40% of the land area. The coverage explanation alone isn't enough.
Another possibility was the notion that because Americans keep their phones until they break, phone companies don't focus much on selling cutting edge phones and won't dare ship a spin-chassis to Oklahoma. However, with the contract life longer, the cost of the phone could be spread out over a longer period. If Americans like phones that are built to last and then let them last, the phones should be really cheap. From my perspective, they are ridiculously priced, so this argument also fails.
The next explanation I turned to is that people in the US tend to want winners. We like one ring to rule them all and one phone to establish all of what is good in phone fashion for the next three years. However, Motorola's sales are sagging as the population got tired of dime-a-dozen RAZR's and subsequent knockoffs. Apparently, we have more fashion sense or at least desire for individuality than to keep buying hundreds of millions of the same design. Arguing that the US market tends to gravitate to one phone and then champion it is not making Motorola money.
At last I started to wonder if it was because Americans buy less phones as a whole, making the cost of marketing as many different models as the Japanese prohibitive. However, with something like three times the population, the US should be more than enough market for all the glittery treasures of Akiba. What is the problem?
I'm out of leads at this point. It's not like the FCC is charging Cingular and Verizon billions of dollars per year and the costs are getting passed on to the consumer. Japanese don't have genetically superior cellphone taste. I remember that there was talk of how fierce mobile competition was and how it was hurting mobile providers' earnings. However, if Japanese companies can make money at those prices while selling those phones, what's the problem in the US? It seems to me more like competition is non-existent and US providers are ramming yesteryear's designs down our throats while charging us an arm and a leg! Someone please give me some insight.
I finally broke down and got a $20 Virgin phone to at least get me connected until I get over my initial shock. In short, American phones suck, and iPhone is hopefully a wakeup call to US providers and customers. Why is the American phone situation so depressing?
Before I left for Japan about a year ago, I was using a Nokia 3160. It cost me $40 US and I had to sign a one year contract that Cingular later decided was a two-year contract. I was paying about $40 a month for service and had extra fees for SMS messages.
After I got to Kyoto, I quickly ended up at an AU shop and landed a Casio W41CA. It does email, music, pc web browsing, gps, fm radio, tv, phone-wallet, pictures (2megapixel), videos, calculator etc. I walked out of the store for less than ¥5000 (about $41) including activation fees, and I was only paying slightly over ¥4000 (about $33) per month. That included ¥3000 for a voice plan I rarely used and ¥1000 for effectively unlimited data (emails and internet).
Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the costs facing American mobile providers can explain the huge technology and cost gap between the US and Japan. Why are we paying so much for such basic features?
At first, I thought maybe it was something to do with network infrastructure. The US is a huge land area and Japan is very tiny. However, Japan would have lots of towers because of the terrain. Imagine something like Colorado covered in metropolitan area. Also, even though places like rural New Mexico exist, nobody has an obligation to cover them, and from the look of coverage maps, no providers do. Operating a US network that reaches 40% of the nation's population requires nowhere near reaching 40% of the land area. The coverage explanation alone isn't enough.
Another possibility was the notion that because Americans keep their phones until they break, phone companies don't focus much on selling cutting edge phones and won't dare ship a spin-chassis to Oklahoma. However, with the contract life longer, the cost of the phone could be spread out over a longer period. If Americans like phones that are built to last and then let them last, the phones should be really cheap. From my perspective, they are ridiculously priced, so this argument also fails.
The next explanation I turned to is that people in the US tend to want winners. We like one ring to rule them all and one phone to establish all of what is good in phone fashion for the next three years. However, Motorola's sales are sagging as the population got tired of dime-a-dozen RAZR's and subsequent knockoffs. Apparently, we have more fashion sense or at least desire for individuality than to keep buying hundreds of millions of the same design. Arguing that the US market tends to gravitate to one phone and then champion it is not making Motorola money.
At last I started to wonder if it was because Americans buy less phones as a whole, making the cost of marketing as many different models as the Japanese prohibitive. However, with something like three times the population, the US should be more than enough market for all the glittery treasures of Akiba. What is the problem?
I'm out of leads at this point. It's not like the FCC is charging Cingular and Verizon billions of dollars per year and the costs are getting passed on to the consumer. Japanese don't have genetically superior cellphone taste. I remember that there was talk of how fierce mobile competition was and how it was hurting mobile providers' earnings. However, if Japanese companies can make money at those prices while selling those phones, what's the problem in the US? It seems to me more like competition is non-existent and US providers are ramming yesteryear's designs down our throats while charging us an arm and a leg! Someone please give me some insight.
I buy all my phones from Australia or Hong Kong -- unlocked and ready to roll. I currently run the HTC Trinity with a cooked WM6 rom, and I love it. $600 from Hong Kong.
My friends can't believe I shelled out $600 for a phone I'll use for a year. But the phone saves me between 10 and 15 hours a week (additional productivity) and I do a vast majority of my web browsing, blogging, and e-mailing from it. Why did I pick it? All the features I want, with nothing locked out.
Why do manufacturers lock phones and reduce features? Because consumers in America want free or cheap phones with long contracts. It's ridiculous. I haven't had a T-Mobile contract for years -- but we have 12 phones on my corporate account (maybe more, not sure). All our phones are imports with the features that are important to us.
All my friends are locked into contracts and have NO negotiating ability. If they're co-op together (cheap LLC, let's say) they could get a better corporate rate, and even negotiate it (T-Mobile Corporate Customer Care/Retention is really fantastic) based on their needs. Instead, they want a "free" $250 phone, and they pay 10c for text messages over a specific number. Idiotic.
People have to realize that "free" is not free, and it is usually wiser to just pay for a great phone -- and save on your monthly bill -- than it is to do what they're currently doing.
The market is providing exactly the crappy service, and pricing, and hardware, that people want.
No doubt.
Not in the US, but being a Canuck, we get the same treatment really.
I have a Sony-Ericsson w810i (Which I do really like a ton, but that's beside the point), through Rogers. The phone supports custom ring tones and the like, but Rogers locks this out and tries to force their users to buy every little darned thing through Rogers. I had to wipe Rogers proprietary installation and 'update' the phone with the original installation software to 'unlock' features that the phone inherently supports!!!
The providers are blood sucking leaches, nothing more, and certainly nothing less. And see how well you fare if you decide to try a different approach...the big boys eat your lunch.
What's the solution? I'd love to know...any ideas anyone?
No Comment.
Are you suggesting that if a carrier came out with a lower price, people wouldn't flock to it because people are okay with the prices they pay to Cingular and Sprint? The problem isn't that people are buying what is currently offered, the problem is that there is no disruptive provider coming in to challenge the established market.
Industries won't change until they are challenged by a disruptive competitor. That has been true with automobiles, computers, agriculture -- all across the board. The same is true of mobile voice and data services. Nothing will change until disruptive technologies are allowed to enter the market.
I think people do believe they are overpriced, but there's just absolutely no companies that offer reasonable phones and rates. I'm actually in Canada, with Bell and I just bought a new phone a few days ago, because my last phone got watered. I really wanted a moto Q, because it's small and I like the qwerty keypad, and I have a lot of the moto stuff set up already from my last phone. The real sticking point though, is the data plan. Bell offers an unlimited "mobile browser" plan for $5 a month. It is what I'm using right now, and it's working well. It is essentially a filtered version of their data plan. If you change the server you're using, you can get essentially an unlimited, unfiltered data plan for $5 a month. Clearly this is do-able for them. BUT...they have a policy that says that they will not activate a "device" (what they call the PDA style phone) unless you buy a real data plan. Nevermind that they are the same thing and going through the same network, they won't sell it to you. I would be OK with this, but the data plan is $25 for 4 megs, and $12 a meg thereafter. WHAT? ARE THEY SERIOUS? I'm pulling 10 times that off the network right now for $5. I'd rather not pay $25 to have a look at one screen of the local paper, thanks. They (no joke) have better data rates in Rwanda. It is ridiculus.
Anyway, the point of my rant is that without a decent plan, no one is going to be able to use these phones anyway. I was looking for a fairly full-featured phone, and ended up with a piece of crap because basically all they sell. It's not so much the phone prices that are the problem - personally, I'm ok with spending a few hundred on a phone if its good. It's the fact that they so BLATANTLY rip you off with everything else that changed my mind.
...no two people are not on fire.
I have visited the states several times now. And seriously the gap isn't so big (for Europe at least). You can find most (if not all) European models in the states.
I'm sure if you look around you, you will find most of the IPhone features. The trick
- A genius launched this product. A true marketing masterpiece.
There are several factors to explain the current "relative" gap IMHO
- Mobile phone users aren't as "mobile" as their European counterparts. For example I can leave in 48 hours a network for another and I keep my mobile phone number. All I have to do is sign a new contract with my new telco. It does mean that competition is higher. Nobody can protect itself behind outrageous contracts.
- It is illegal in a lot of European countries to sell locked device. A lot of European consumers buy their mobile phone by their own.
All in all It means that there is a vibrant economy (independant phone sellers, etc.) keeping costs down and services high.
So i'd say, with the proper legal framework, it would take one year or two to reach Europe. The problem is not technologic, you've got everything you need. for Japan I don't know, never been there.
Olivier
Seriously, take a trip to Japan sometime, and use a cellphone there (ketai means CELLPHONE). US phones can't even begin to compete with Japan's offerings. I'm in the country right now with a POS rental, but I'd seriously love to use it back in the states over my Nokia N95 (too bad it doesn't support GSM, or US 3G signals). I highly doubt you can hold your cellphone up to dedicated pad to pay for things in the US. Hell most phones in Japan now have awesome built in OCR capabilties (getting Kanji readings seriously is AWESOME for someone learning the language). Theres a whole laundry list the OP doesn't go into that I'd kill for in the US market. Would go on about it, but it's almost 1:30am, and I needs sleep (Hokaido to Saporo in a few hours, 15 hours FTL!!!).
The sad thing is that none of this has to do with competition. Japan actually has next to zero competition between companies (they are all owned by the same people for the most part). Now if you wanna see competition between cellular companies goto Hong Kong. $13 a month for what I pay in the US at $70 a month without the ability to call international most places you wanna call without extra crazy fees. No contracts required to boot (5 cellular companies).
While I understand that people love black and white/good and evil stories, this isn't that simple.
CDMA is often deployed in the United States because the technology has been developed for larger cell sizes than the GSM/GPRS/EDGE systems deployed in Europe. This is highly beneficial in areas where population density is low (think suburbs). Deploying GSM across the United States would be significantly more expensive than deploying CDMA.
GSM systems using SIM cards were highly advantageous in allowing users to keep a single (expensive) phone and to purchase multiple SIM cards in different countries if they were moving around Europe. The political boundaries and separate companies operating the networks almost demanded the GSM design. The lack of a contiguous network (back when GSM was developed - universal Europe roaming is now relatively common) drove the separation of the phone from the connection identifier (part of the SIM card). This situation doesn't exist in the United States, because the FCC auctions off frequencies in extremely large geographic blocks, and the wireless providers were very quick to provide nationwide coverage (even if it did have large roaming fees 5+ years ago)
There are also other subtleties. CDMA is a US-developed technology, while GSM/GPRS/EDGE was developed in Europe. If you don't think that makes a difference to other countries deploying the systems, then you're wrong. These volume differences at the manufacturing level then impact price of the basestation systems... and the advantages of GSM drove countries with large population densities (think most of Asia) to deploy it. It is areas with larger rural populations (Brazil and parts of India, where CDMA is successful)
The net effect of using CDMA makes it much more difficult to separate the phone from the network. The system wasn't designed for it. Yes, there are identifiers in the phone that would allow it, but having separate SIM devices (the GSM model) is much more flexible and much of the basis for the difference in corporate behavior on the network (it's easy to not activate a phone due to a certain policy, but very hard not to allow use of a device where the only authentication is from a SIM card, so the service provider doesn't know what the hardware is)
The median income in the US is way lower than other Western countries.
No.
also the capitalist system's propensity for ending up with very few and very large companies with near-monopolies or oligopolies in their areas
That may be a necessary condition for poor options, but it's not sufficient. Intel and AMD are essentially a duopoly, but they compete fiercely and we benefit from better products and lower prices as a result. For some reason that doesn't happen with telecoms.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Q.
The author's story and stories like it are only half true.
We always hear about how much better the devices in Asia are, and generally it's true.
However what's certainly not true is that service plans in Japan are anywhere as good a value as in the USA or Canada.
Having lived several years in Japan, I can tell you that although the author has a 3000 yen "voice" plan, it probably includes something like 20 to 40 minutes. Japanese rate plans are not measured by minutes however, rather time is priced according to a draconian function of time of day, location, day of the week, and destination network, and deducted from your voice pool. Once the author exhausts his base 3000 yen (about 30 minutes say), another formula kicks in charging upwards of 70 cents per minute if used on a weekday during the daytime to a cell on another network. 30 minutes use for a $40 plan? Would that work in the USA or Canada?
By the author's own admission, he never uses voice so he may not have noticed. However, attempting to use a phone for professional purposes, where the majority of work is done via voice, you can see how the Japanese carriers' ARPU is astronomical compared to the USA, where competition may not improve devices but it certainly drives down price.
Surely it's this increased ARPU that allows Japanese carriers to monstrously subsidize flashy, impressive handsets for both business and personal users.
"If more people were thinking like you, we would still be living in the stoneage and thinking that god created everything because you say that there is no reason for advancement..."
Incorrect. I am a big fan advancement. But I cannot stand by idly while some nit-wit berates a population for not all being alike in the writer's opinion on the features of our phones. Should everyone drive a BMW? They are nice cars. They contain a lot of features. But not everyone an afford them. Maybe a Hyundai Accent offers exactly what you need. Should the Hyundai buyer be shamed for not wanting car with wiper blades on the view mirrors? "It's a feature, you luddite, buy it! You know you want it!"
And so it is with phones. Personally, I just want a phone to be a phone. I want it to be very good at sending and receiving my phone calls. Some other features make for logical company, like, storing the numbers of your friends, showing the current time and date. Other features are just fluff that waste battery life and add needless complexity.
Let the consumers of the market determine what they want. Let the market be filled with products that fill every niche.
Bearded Dragon
First, we'll check out your carefully-selected feature comparison.
iPhone - Treo
128MB - 64MB
4-8 GB Hard Drive - 2GB SD Slot
Visual Voicemail - No, thank god.*
Auto-Landscape Mode - Unnecessary (square aspect ratio)
Phone Numbers from Webpages - Yep
Integration with Movie/Music Service (iTunes) - No, thank god.*
Easy "Pinch" and "Spin" Navigation - Actual keyboard and a touchscreen
Auto-Threading of SMS Conversations - Yep
On-Screen Conferencing options - Yep
Safari Browser with "Zoom on Element" Features - So many browsers I can't be bothered to list them here.
Rich email client - Yep. Dozens.
Smooth Integration with Google Maps, Youtube, and Mac Widgets - Yes, no (thank god), and no (thank god).
Next, I'll point out the price of this phone.
Price of the Treo 650 (which stacks up to the iphone except for itunes and youtube): $150 on eBay. Unlocked.
So, youtube and itunes. Worth a couple hundred bucks to you?
* Items with asterisks require proprietary service agreements to be useful. Try getting "visual voicemail" on any carrier but at&t. Also, AKAImBatman refers to "Integration with Movie/Music Service" as though it can be other than iTunes, which isn't the case. It's iTunes or gtfo, and I consider it disingenuous not to specify that.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
By now i've lived in 3 countries, had 4 mobiles phones and 5 different providers.
Except for my first mobile phone, i always bought the phones unlocked, free of any contract and at full price.
Never had any problem changing countries/providers and take my phone with me. All i have to do is get a SIM from my new provider (tipically costs about $10 with quite a lot of free minutes) pop it in the phone and it just works.
Even beter, ever since the number portability laws came on, i can even keep my number when i change providers (in the same country, though).
To top it all up, the best deals out there are SIM-only offers, aimed at people like me that bring their own phones.
So what's the big difference to the US/Canada: