Slashdot Mirror
Mobile Phone Users Struggle With Hardware Adoption
Ian Lamont writes "A Google executive speaking at the Emerging Technology conference has described a problem that mobile phone carriers and manufacturers have been struggling with over the last few years: Users aren't taking advantage of many phones' hardware-based features. Rich Miner, Google's group manager of mobile platforms, stated that 80% of mobile phones being sold today have cameras on them, yet the number of people who actually know how to use them or get the images off the phones ranges between 10% and 50%, depending on the model. Miner listed several reasons for this state of affairs, including bad UIs and small screens, but added that the participation of companies with software expertise — including Google — would help increase usage of such features."
Or perhaps it might also involve the locking down of phones by carriers?
If you can't use bluetooth for file transfer because the carrier locked it out, it makes it harder to get pics off. If you can't use the phone as a usb mass storage device because the carrier is worried about you copying ringtones yourself, obviously getting the pics off will be hard.
That said, this "article" contains almost no useful information, so maybe Righ Miner had some better examples than the pictures...
Actually, I just want a phone. Not a friggin' handheld multimedia device.
I could get the pictures off of it without having to chew up my data plan limits! Damn rip-off!
"Google's Rich Miner has identified one of the biggest problems facing mobile phone carriers, manufacturers, and developers: The hardware on the current generation of phones is not being used by many customers."
Why is this a problem? Isn't this like fretting that 60% of Dodge Caravan owners don't use the rear-seat cup holders? Maybe people just don't want to take pictures with their phones.
The phone should be able to store the photos and transfer them directly (for example a USB port plugging into a home computer just like a regular camera does). Transferring them immediately should be an option, of course. But wise people would do that only when they need to (urgency of sending the photo, or they have filled up their flash memory and need more space back).
FYI, I've yet to take even one photo with my phone. I use a digital SLR for photos.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I am probably one of the majority.
If I want to look at the internet, I like a big screen.
If I want to take pictures, I want 10 megapixels.
If I want to send someone some words, I want a keyboard.
My phone is really good for me speaking to someone. That is what I use it for. I could use skype on my laptop but the phone has a better form factor.
At work I find multifunction devices a bad thing. Scanners scan good, faxes fax, printers print and so on. Those clever boxes that do all three, never seem to do any of them as well.
If my phone plays music as well as an mp3 player, that's good but there are few other things I have seen mobile phones do as well as the original devices.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
I admit that my situation is worse than many(el-cheapo-with-contract verizon phone); but I hardly get the impression that the carrier or the manufacturer are struggling to get me to use the phone's hardware features.
Verizon cripples bluetooth on all non smartphones they sell(headset only, no obex etc) in order to force you to buy media from their overpriced store and encourage you to use the phone camera to send MMSes. They don't package cables or software for connecting to computers with their basic phones(or even attempt to upsell you on such accessories). Going directly through the manufacturer and/or with third party utilities, it is possible to connect the phone to a computer, and with a bit of hacking I've heard tethering is even possible.
I don't mean to underestimate the stupidity and willful ignorance of users; but this is mostly the carriers problem. Their obsession with all-data-must-be-transferred-through-our-network-and-paid-for is particularly troublesome. If cell companies sold computers, you'd need a family plan and a SIM card for each of your peripherals. 10 bucks a month would cover your mouse's connection. Depending on how much you used it, you could pay for right clicks at 5 cents a piece, or 5.99 for unlimited right clicks.
The average consumer is not interested in learning how to user another device. They don't have the time or interest. I use my phone for all sorts of things: creating maps, navigation, photos, music player. A lot of the things I do with my phone are seen almost as science fiction by people like my parents.
The thing is though - if my parents were to spend the time to learn how to use all of their phone's features - it probably wouldn't improve their quality of life at all.
I can't see how more than 50% of the population would ever be bothered enough to learn how to use all of their phone's features even if they were dirt simple to use. It's just one of the facts of life that us geeks need to be willing to accept.
I thought that the point of the article is that they aren't? Anyway, I'm 21, and I really wish I could just get a plain old phone with cheap service. If I want to listen to MP3's I'd rather use something with without mediocre sound quality that's not tied irrevocably to some dubious music service. If I want to take a picture, I'd rather use a real camera than those useless toys they put on cellphones.
They don't care whether these are free and open source or not - all they care about is getting what they want, at a reasonable price.
Taking the camera example, many people don't want to use a crappy (as many phone cameras are) phone camera to take a picture and then download it via a USB cable into their computer, or screw around with SD cards etc. Give them an end-to-end solution where they snap their pic and it automagically ends up in Picassa/whatever. That would make them happy so long as the cost of doing so is a few cents per picture.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Let's look at the problem with camera phones. I'm on my third, an iPhone 3G.
Lets face it, things like cameras are crammed on the phone as a bullet point and no thought is given to how it operates or how easy it is for someone to use.
My mom has never used the photo function on either of here two camera capable phones (the previous one she owned, and the current). She can't get the photos off (would need a special cable and software) except by sending them for $0.25 each (or whatever insane price Sprint charges).
Heck, that's what my parents (and most "normal" people I've run across) have learned about their phones. They do neat things, and each one comes with a horrendously expensive charge. Phone calls are one thing, but text messages are $0.10 each unless you pay monthly. Web browsing is useful, except you pay $0.25 per KB unless you pay monthly. Games are fun, but they cost at least $5 to buy and most must be bought on a subscription basis (every 30 days or 3 months it's another $5).
Lesson they learned? Don't use the phone for anything but as a phone, it's too expensive.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
The International market has superior,interchangeable-carrier phones, open plans, and phones that aren't locked down or restricted in any non-fair use way. And they have case law to keep things fair.
For some US customers, pressing a button can result in opening an Internet application that charges a terrible data rate or something else that's both costly and unintentional. So some US users opt to just not try to poke around much beyond phone functionality and camera use.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
All the megapixels in the world won't help taking clear pictures when all you have is a fingernail-sized lens with only digital zoom.
90% of the people never have a NEED to take a picture with a cell phone. If all you had to do was point it and say 'Fido, take picture, send to Jane' it still wouldn't interest 50% of the population, they just plain don't need or want to take pictures. If they really DO want a picture, they want a good picture.
So basically there are 2 issues here, one being people aren't all that interested, and secondly the extra gewgaw features on phones really aren't all that great. The cameras are mostly marginal to almost useless, etc.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
It's just Americans man. They go out to the store buying whatever the salesman says is good for them. So they all have overfeatured phones with expensive subscriptions.
It's important to them also. If their phone wouldnt have a camera their friends go like "maaan that phone is sooo 20th century! That's not even American!"
You see it's a patriotic deed to support the nation's economy, and Americans do like other people to tell them what's patriotic and American, as if it's a great shame if you dont exactly do for your country as expected by the corrupted souls leading it. Especially in times of great danger and fear like now (booooooo!)
Well, I've tended to have that feeling for quite a while too, but I'll say this. . .
I can see why some people might want a camera, PDA, and web browser built into their phone. It's 1 small gadget to haul around instead of 2 or 3. Nobody is looking to do professional level photographic work with such a picture, but sometimes those grainy, low-res, slight motion blurred pics from a phone are enough. Sometimes they are better than nothing.
My big gripe with camera phones, one that's already been stated by numerous other posters but it irks me too. . . the stupid phone companies won't sell you a phone where you can easily download the images straight to your computer, unless you buy a $500 top-of-the-line model, maybe. They want to nickel and dime you for every damn thing. They want to control what you do with your own camera/phone/mp3 player. Well SCREW THEM. My phone, I dictate what I do with it. So, last time I renewed my phone contract, I got a phone that *really* truly is *just a phone*. You can get them, believe it or not. It also happened to be the only phone from Verizon, at the time, where I didn't have to pay a dime for the phone - almost all the other models you at least had to pay $20 or $50 even with the two year contract.
Although, I suppose they are honestly laughing all the way to the bank, because even though I got locked into the two year contract, all they had to do was give me a phone which probably cost them $10. Still, I've not payed for any MMS, or $3 ringtones, or any of that nonsense that people with more dollars than sense buy, so I figure I come out ahead of what I would have been spending, anyhow.
Typical users don't care if Google or MS or ATT have monopolies, so long as they get what they want at a reasonable cost. Nor do they care if their phones or sneakers are made in a sweat shop or whether the workers have the vote and have medical benefit, so long as they get them at a reasonable cost. Nor do they care whether Starbucks or Budweiser open sources their recipes so long as they get a drink at a reasonable price. Same deal with cars, etc etc.
Very few people really value freedom unless they are being personally hampered by it. Heck only around 50% of eligible Americans vote and they supposedly value democracy!
Still, even these Open Source phones are still closed at some level. Try to get the design files for the chips and GSM module.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I'll spell it out.
I have a N95, I live in Canada. it costs 50$ a month for 8MB of data. The N95 takes 5Mpixel photos that can range from 250KB to 20MB. All it takes is ONE photo to blow the data limit. at 5 cents a kilobyte, screw that.
So no sending photos to anyone, no even thinking of using 'video phone' feature. Hell Rogers does offer an 'unlimited' data to use the video feature, but you need to buy the locked down version, which does't have the microSD card, and probably has crippled other features typical of other Robbers(Rogers) phones.
I have never bought a phone from Rogers after the first one in 2001. I bought an Unlocked Nokia 35something after the POS motorola gave the worst reception ever (1900Mhz only) and kept the low end Nokia till someone at work ruined it. I bought the next Nokia 6200 in 2005 after ATT Wireless stopped selling them and got it off eBay and used that up until a few months ago. I didn't use the data feature on the 6200 either because it was 5 cents a KB.
Rogers can goto hell with it's useless data plans.
Now WiFi does get used. At home. Try using it in an airport, it just doesn't bloody work, since all the interception pages for the hotspots want to open a frame that tells you how much time you have left or something like that which you can't do with the phone. I tried it with the Nintendo Opera browser as well, same problem. You simply can't use any non-free hotspot. You are stuck with borrowing any open hotspot or peoples unsecured wireless routers when you are away.
So that leaves the bluetooth and usb features for transfering. I use the phone as a mp3 player more than I use it for anything else. For the price I paid I could have bought an actual iPod.
Not really. Generally when you go to get a phone it falls in one of three categories. The first category is the free ones that come with your plan and have god knows what tacked on to them, 90% you neither want nor care about. The second group is the ones that have exactly what you want, none of the extra garbage, but aren't covered by your plan and thus are going to cost you $150.00 (as opposed to the $350.00 retail they're asking for the latest feature infested phone that they'll give to you for free with a signed contract for your soul for the next two years), even though they rightly should retail for something closer to $60.00. Then lastly you've got the group of "budget" phones that don't really have any features to speak of, cost next to nothing, but are assembled by the lowest bidder, guaranteed to fall apart within the first 6 months, and which you won't be able to sign up for any of the normal extras (like caller ID, voicemail, SMS [god help us]) even though the phone is more than capable of it. I honestly can't figure out the point of it all, clearly someone has an interest in pushing garbage features on the public, but I'm at a loss to figure out who.
Then there's the other end of this carrot/stick combo which is the gotchas they attach to everything, like having to shell out $75 for a fucking cable just so you can download/upload photos/contacts/whatever to your phone without having to pay $1.25 (per item) to transfer the data across their damn network.
Honestly, I've found occasion from time to time to use the camera on my phone, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $75 for a cable, or pay $1.25 a photo just to get the photos off my phone. I know my phone has a web browser, and all kinds of other features, but I also know the minute I use the damn things I'm going to be charged an arm in a leg somewhere along the line.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
no they are not useles toys. it just depends what you want them for. for me the camera is very useful as it allows me to take a photo of an a4 sheet of paper and read the text later if necessary. handy if you're give a sheet of paper on site with the configuration information and there is no photocopier handy to bring a copy back to the office. also screenshots with errors are handy to keep so instead of writing down a screen of gobbledegook i just take a picture knowing that i can reference back to it in the future.
i currently have a nokia e71 and use the 3mp camera for this purpose. the e61i and n70 i had before that with a 2mp camera did this as well. the 1mp camera in the palm zire 72 also achieved this aim. it just took a bit more care with lower resolution devices.
as for taking pictures outside work the devices mentioned above do fine for my needs. hell the vga res palm pix i used on my palm iiix took some good pictures but that seemed to have a pretty good lens.
it is better to have a simple camera always to hand than drag along another device and charger in my book. the e71 lives in a holster on my belt and is always ready to go. having to fetch or unpack a camera from my bag would have lost me some great photos of stuff that was happening around me. ymmv.
as for cheap service i'm in europe and use a prepay system. i average 10 a month for my phone. sometimes less some times more. when in hospital recently i used the e71 for web (99c for 50mb a day on prepay was sufficient for my needs using rss and lo bandwidth sites, cheaper than the newspapers others on my ward were buying to stave off boredom), email and etext reader as well as fm radio. i used an ipod for music and movies as the 160gb gave me a huge library to keep me amused with while the e71 was limited to 8gb. wow to think that i now see 8gb as a limitation. :-)