Slashdot Mirror
Nokia's Cellphone Anthropologist
holy_calamity writes "New Scientist have an interview with a Nokia researcher who uses anthropological methods to study how people use their phones. His work currently focuses on watching how people in emerging markets like Africa use their devices to inform designs. For example, after finding that in Uganda many people use one handset, they shipped a version with multiple separate address books. There's also a slideshow of Chipchase's research images."
my phone is pretty ancient so perhaps it's a common feature now, but multiple address books sounds like something that would be useful everywhere, not just Uganda. being able to separate work contacts, from social contacts and from old school contacts would be great.
TIAEAE!
One feature I'd like to see on a phone (I don't have one, so I don't know if this exists or not), is a date of last contact field. I hate phoning someone that I haven't spoken to in a while only to find out that their number has changed. If I had a list of who I hadn't contacted in a while, I could either touch base, or wipe their name.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
This sounds like market research at a global company, not anthropology.
That's not the point ... the point is: rather than selling unnecessary or useless 'features' at high cost or dumping outdated technology at low cost, why not design something simple and robust and inexpensive but takes advantage of new technology?
This is the approach Renault took for the Dacia Logan car ... and it is proving very successful.
There is a simple reason for it. If they were to introduce a simple and robust phone, people in developed countries would cry out for it, and their overpriced complex phones with features that will never get used will not sell anymore.
I just added two lines to my plan and got $450 worth of phones for free. I'm trying to figure out why anyone would pay. Yes, certainly the contract time pays for the phone, but if I could use no contract, a simple robust phone would be fantastic. I'd not spend money on the things.
That, my friend, is why they don't do it.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Yes, damn them for forcing automobiles to not be death traps at a relatively small dollar cost.
Why not bitch that your seat belt restricts your movement while you're at it... we'll just pretend that paralysis isn't such a huge restriction on movement too.
The real reason that India has $3000 cars and we don't is that it simply costs more to manufacture and sell a car here than it does in India, no matter what features or devices are included or required. A single US dollar is simply worth more in India than it is the US.
As for motorcycles... I've known paramedics who just assume any motorcyclist who gets in a crash is likely to be an organ donor by the time they get to the scene. They probably should be illegal on safety grounds, but it's just such an unpopular proposition that it will never fly.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
That's untrue, at least in my experience.
The incumbent monopoly in the developing country where I live never showed any interest in selling glitzy phones. In fact, the phones they offered were cheaper, more robust and simpler than what you could get just down the road.
Just this year, the telecoms monopoly has been terminated and the latest entrant is even more intent on offering phones that are well-suited to this tropical environment. When they set up shop in nearby Papua New Guinea, they were offering two pre-paid phones for the equivalent of about USD 15.
Telcos in the developing world know which side their bread is buttered on. They provide a service, not a product. With the introduction of competition here, the two telcos are fighting for mindspace based on coverage, call quality and price. Selling reliable phones - even packaging them with solar charging kits - is the only way they can ensure a reliable revenue stream.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Design cost is enormous, frequently outweighing manufacturing cost even for large runs of units. It is, quite simply, cheaper to make one design and sell it everywhere than it is to make a new "cheap" design without these useless features. You'd end up paying more and getting less, and what would be the point?
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
The GP is not asking for a G3 iPhone. He is asking for phones actually designed for his market instead of hand me downs designed for usage patterns that don't match the way people use phones where he is. This is exactly what this guy at Nokia does btw. There is also money to be made in the high volume, low margin business.
The Toyota Innova that I drive now was designed in Indonesia for third world markets. Is it less sophisticated that the Renault Espace that I had in Germany? Yes. Is it suitable for the Autobahns like the renault was? No. Could the Renault handle the monsterous potholes that make Indian roads look like the Rubicon trail? Not in a thousand lifetimes.
Perhaps these conclusions would be obvious to a professional ethnographer, but you don't find many ethnographer is mobile phone design teams.
It is not unusual for devs to not really understand the actualy usage patterns of their products in the field. The people creating the products often lave limited or no actual contact with users. The contact is mediated through product managers or "product definition" people, with a loss of fidelity. This happens for a couple of reasons:
1 - As soon as someone has a contact number or email address in development, that dev becomes the go to person for everything, even if it is unrelated. So companies try to shield their developers from the end users to enable them to remain productive.
2 - Devs are not often well versed in the company line and might say things about roadmaps and whatnot that the company would rather not have said.
Incedentially, I agree with you, but that is the lay of the land.
Cheap phones make the money, smart phones make the news.
I'd love a phone that supports two sim cards. :(
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
1) In my case the phone I wanted (Nokia E70) was not sold through any carrier in the US. So my options were either get a different phone which suited my needs/wants less or buy the phone myself. I chose the later option.
2) Another reason is that you might want a different phone without a contract extension. Buy a subsidized phone from your carrier and usually you get an extra year or two on your contract for the privilege. Not always a problem but some folks might not want to extend their contract. I certainly never do unless I have to.
3) You want an unlocked phone. Most phones sold through US carriers are locked to their service. You can unlock them yourself usually but it's less aggravation and less risk to just buy it unlocked to begin with.
4) You are buying the phone for travel purposes and don't want a contract along with the phone since you won't use the phone regularly.
There are other reasons. I'm not against the practice of subsidizing phonesbut I haven't bought a subsidized phone for 7 or 8 years for various reasons. There are lots of good reasons to buy phones directly yourself.
Yes, certainly the contract time pays for the phone, but if I could use no contract, a simple robust phone would be fantastic. I'd not spend money on the things. That, my friend, is why they don't do it. Many services are pay-per-use, even in wealthy countries. Low income folks don't have $50-100/month to pay for a contract. Or they are like my grandmother who just wants a phone for emergencies but won't use it otherwise. You're right that the phone companies like the contracts (predictable revenues and all that) but that business model isn't feasible everywhere.