Why Netbooks Will Soon Cost $99

CWmike sends along a ComputerWorld piece which predicts that "netbooks like the Asus Eee PC, the Dell Mini 9 and the HP 2133 Mini-Note will soon cost as little as $99. The catch? You'll need to commit to a two-year mobile broadband contract. The low cost will come courtesy of a subsidy identical to the one you already get with your cell phone. It's likely that HP is working with AT&T (they're reported to be talking), which announced a major strategic shift a couple of weeks ago that should result in AT&T stores selling nonphone gadgets that can take advantage of mobile broadband, including netbooks. What's more interesting is that low income and cheapskate buyers are starting to use iPhones as replacements or substitutes for netbook, notebook and even desktop PCs. The author's take: A very large number of people are increasingly looking to buy a single device — or, at least, subscribe to a single wireless account — for all their computing and communications needs, and at the lowest possible price."

Comments

"cheapskate buyers"?

[Laebshade]

I'd hardly call using an iPhone as a replacement or substitute for a net/note/lap/dog-book or desktop being a "cheapskate buyer".

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[Coeurderoy]

Actually calling them incompetent buyer would be more accurate, but the parent article is still quite right.
Most people are impulse buyer and will pay anything if the "first byte" is not too painful.
You will see things like:
59$ down payment 19.9 for the three first month (and in small 29.9 for the super premium student value subscription or 59.9 for the standard and 99.9 for the business (the only one that is actually of any use to you) subscription...

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[ciaohound]

Because the iPhone is expensive? For a cell phone, sure it is. But most cell phones aren't handheld computers (yet).

With telecom in many developing countries, buyers skipped having a land line and went right for cell phones. Buyers in developed economies often realize they don't need a land line. I'm not one of them, but, in today's economy, if someone buys a cell phone and it's also a usable web browser, why pony up for a desktop, laptop, or even a netbook?

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[AliasMarlowe]

From the OP: ... that low income and cheapskate buyers are starting to use iPhones as replacements or substitutes for netbook, ....

An iPhone costs more than some existing netbooks, so these must be affluent imbeciles or ardent fashionistas (both groups being significant subsets of the iPhone demographic), rather than "cheapskates" or "low income". Of course, these are exactly the right target market for selling a netbook with a locked-in WLAN communication contract, preferably at an eye-watering overall profit level.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[hairyfeet]

Ummm...considering that Asus has done announced they will have a EEE priced at $200 next year,why on earth would anyone get screwed with such a long term contract to save $100? Personally I'll wait and see what the $200 Asus looks like.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[Registered Coward v2]

Ummm...considering that Asus has done announced they will have a EEE priced at $200 next year,why on earth would anyone get screwed with such a long term contract to save $100? Personally I'll wait and see what the $200 Asus looks like.

At $200 retail it becomes free with contract - which will no doubt be a selling point.

If it is a decent device (for me, that's a 10" screen, plenty of memory, 16GB SSD or fast HDD, bluetooth) and data service is reasonably priced I'd get one as a laptop replacement.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[couchslug]

This is great news for the people who will grab these netbooks after the original buyers tire of them or quit their contracts. I'll be watching Craigslist and flea markets.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[AigariusDebian]

Talk about outdated thinking, LMT in Latvia is offering ASUS EEEPC 1000 with a built-in 3G reciever for $2 + 2 year data contract. That offer is there for at least half a year, could be close to a full year now.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[Rogerborg]

This is Slashdot. We only consider Asia in the context of giant robots. The idea that several billion people have bypassed the concept of the personal computer altogether and gone for the shared terminal + personal high end cellphone solution scares us. How do those craaaaazy foreigners even tar zip their lunix squid over ssh?

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[Hal_Porter]

Don't sell netbooks to consumers, sell the consumers to the carriers.

Muahaha.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[billcopc]

Why would they get screwed ? Because that's what they've been doing forever. People also have a very distorted perception of the value of electronics. They sincerely believe they're getting a $400 phone or gadget for $200, when in reality the phone company is simply eating their profit margin on the sale.

If Asus can sell you an EEE for $299 today, that means it cost $120 to make. If they make a $199 model, building it cost less than $80. That's just the nature of the global distribution model, where most of the sticker price goes to infrastructure, marketing and resale.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[mollymoo]

This kind of thing is old hat in the UK, it's been going on for a while with wired broadband and is now common with HSDPA networks. here is one list of offers. They're not all netbooks, you can get proper laptops with a 3G contract these days.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[Firehed]

What if Asus was able to sell factory-direct and avoid three or four points of profit markups?

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[Dr. Evil]

Ditto in Berlin, although it is 1 Euro or some similar novelty price. I've seen it so often that I've stopped paying attention. I'm not sticking around long enough for a 2 year contract.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[jonbryce]

Except that they aren't really free, as HSDPA broadband typically costs £15 per month on its own, and at least £35 per month for two years if you take a "free" laptop.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if it's still the case, but you used to hear about very poor people trying to be the latest sneakers every season. Those shoes were well over $100 and the style changed every year, so you could tell who had the old ones. It always seemed so wrong to me in so many ways. I've heard that cell phones are like that now. Before the iPhone there was another must have teen phone. I can't remember what it was, but it was far more expensive than the phones I buy and I'm a nerd with a very comfortable income.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[fractoid]

You mean you don't consider Asia in the context of cutesy catgirls swinging giant magic broadswords? This is madness!

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[rtb61]

A netbook is only really a laptop replacement, when the laptop is in the portable range and not spending most of it's life on a desk ala the 17" screen desknotes. What is happening is smart phones are being bound back to more portable size, the PDA sized phone and even the PDA itself are going to lose ground to the netbook. So compact smartphone, netbook and, desknote/desktop become the standard connected persons digital line up.

Likely the netbook will end up the most populus device in the western market, as it will end up on every school desktop and as the portable adjunct to the desktop device be it a notebook or a desktop. The netbook is going to end up being pretty abused, so durability (spills and drops), low cost (frequent replacement) and battery life are going to be the big drivers and, performance will take a back seat.

With hardware performance being limited to achieve the other goals that means the software must be really efficient, no bloat and fast, and lets forget silly stuff like it can run what ever bloated operating system, what counts is how well the applications on top of the operating system run, so the big comparisson will be Openoffice on Linux vs M$office2007 on Vista and which is more fit for purpose or even capable of running in an acceptable fashion.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[Registered Coward v2]

A netbook is only really a laptop replacement, when the laptop is in the portable range and not spending most of it's life on a desk ala the 17" screen desknotes. What is happening is smart phones are being bound back to more portable size, the PDA sized phone and even the PDA itself are going to lose ground to the netbook. So compact smartphone, netbook and, desknote/desktop become the standard connected persons digital line up.

While I am in general agreement with your statements, I see more tighter integration of the 3 compact smartphone, netbook and, desknote/desktop occuring. You'll be able to auto sync the netbook, via wifi or bluetooth with your desktop machine so your files stay up to date. A PDA phone provides email and contact/calendering information in an easy to use form factor much faster than firing up a netbook, so it becomes the primary device for maintaining your schedule away from the desktop, ad off course syncs as well. Much of this is doable today.

On a longer term, a PDA phone will function as a controller for a broader digital space - allowing you to manipulate your DVR, order items online, view videos taht would auto transfer to your netbook/desktop for later viewing as well, retrieve files for viewing on the phone, etc. Much of this also exists today but not yet in a truly easy, seamless fashion. With wireless providers spectrum and move into TV provider you may find the Apple store of the future is at ATT&T.

Likely the netbook will end up the most populus device in the western market, as it will end up on every school desktop and as the portable adjunct to the desktop device be it a notebook or a desktop. The netbook is going to end up being pretty abused, so durability (spills and drops), low cost (frequent replacement) and battery life are going to be the big drivers and, performance will take a back seat.

Again, while I agree with you I think performance will not take a back seat - you'll see faster machines as netbooks take off; what will be limiting is size. Great for on the road or basic uses, but a real screen will be needed for heavier work.

With hardware performance being limited to achieve the other goals that means the software must be really efficient, no bloat and fast, and lets forget silly stuff like it can run what ever bloated operating system, what counts is how well the applications on top of the operating system run, so the big comparisson will be Openoffice on Linux vs M$office2007 on Vista and which is more fit for purpose or even capable of running in an acceptable fashion.

Which is why I think MS will create a netbook version of Windows/Office.

Personally, I think Apple is best positioned currently for this market because they:

1) Have a unified vision of where they are going
2) They control the hardware and software so they can make it work unlike Linux/MS who have a large variety of setups to contend with
3) They already are in the convergence business with the iPhone, AppleTV, and Mac lineup

In this market, performance will take a back seat to cost, ease of use and marketing will drive adoption of specific technologies.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[arbitraryaardvark]

At $200 retail it becomes free with contract - which will no doubt be a selling point.
bla bla bla free bla bla bla

I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Stewart's law: It always costs more to get something "free" than to just buy it.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[Hognoxious]

If they currently only sell to the trade, they'd have to set up a retail division. That would eat up some of the savings right there.

Plus resellers are quite sensitive to being competed with by their own suppliers. It's walking a tightrope selling via both channels, and you might have to choose one or the other.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[Registered Coward v2]

At $200 retail it becomes free with contract - which will no doubt be a selling point.
bla bla bla free bla bla bla

I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Stewart's law: It always costs more to get something "free" than to just buy it.

In the mind of the buyer it's "free" - even though all they are do is financing it over time.

All that counts is the buyer's perception, not reality.

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[badkarmadayaccount]

lunix... thats a good OS name.Cheers!

Re:"cheapskate buyers"?

[Anonymous Coward]

that sounds abour right, just buy it outright I have seen them for cheap. MLN had a netbook laptop for $199 on sale, i dont know if they still have them.this should be on their netbooks page, the new netbooks might cost more now because of the global economic crysis. try www.mln.com.au or this below
should filter the netbooks
http://www.mln.com.au/search/?type=search&searchItem=Netbook&orderBy=_itemPrice_asc

Better to just buy it outright.

[CastrTroy]

It would be better just to buy it outright. With free wireless broadband being so easy to get, and the cost of these netbooks dropping, you are probably just better off buying it outright, and not being tied into a provider.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[mrchaotica]

With free wireless broadband being so easy to get...

Wha...? You do realize that "wireless broadband" isn't the same thing as wi-fi, right?

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[jawtheshark]

I wonder why they say "soon". In my country they already do this, at at least two mobile phone operators. It seems like a rather logical step to me.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we agree it's wireless so so you feel the bandwidth is insufficient to count as broadband? Or do you just mean it's limited by location and thus to you doesn't count as "wireless broadband" even if it is both wireless and broadband?

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[amorsen]

wifi doesn't count. Coverage is less than 0.1% of land area, no matter which provider you go with, and less than 1% of population.

Covering less than 50% of population is out of the question, and I'd avoid any service which didn't cover 50% of land area, perhaps even 75% of land area.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[Forge]

Since I work for a company which sells a Wireless broadband service I can confirm that WiFi is not "Wireless Broadband" just like Ethernet is not wired Broadband.

Wifi where it is available is a LAN. If you connect to Wifi at a coffee shop, travel 100 Meters then connect at a fast food joint, you are moving from one LAN to another. How those WiFi LANs connect to the internet is likely a Wireless or Wired Broadband service.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he means wifi is not what is referred to as "wireless broadband" in the article, or indeed in general usage. And in many places free wifi is not at all easy to find, it depends where you live.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[Registered Coward v2]

It would be better just to buy it outright. With free wireless broadband being so easy to get, and the cost of these netbooks dropping, you are probably just better off buying it outright, and not being tied into a provider.

"Free" and "easy to get" is relative - try traveling around the US on a frequent basis and it becomes neither free nor easy to get.

If ATT could come up with a cheap way to get email and do light surfing / downloading then it becomes a worthwhile gadget for traveling; especially if the device is good enough to do Word and PowerPoint on the road.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[Darkness404]

"Free" and "easy to get" is relative - try traveling around the US on a frequent basis and it becomes neither free nor easy to get.

Lets see... last time I checked there were about 5 unsecured wireless routers in range, and there were a lot more last time I went into a major city.... Its both free and easy to get.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[Registered Coward v2]

"Free" and "easy to get" is relative - try traveling around the US on a frequent basis and it becomes neither free nor easy to get.

Lets see... last time I checked there were about 5 unsecured wireless routers in range, and there were a lot more last time I went into a major city.... Its both free and easy to get.

Yes, and you have no idea whose router that is or what they are doing with your data stream; nor how long they will be up. Besides the security issue, if you are moving or inside a building may unsecured routers go away.

Not to mention "major city" leaves out a lot of the US.

Finally, leaching bandwidth is not free.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[Zarf]

Well, when I was living in the EU I thought you guys seemed to be a bit ahead of the US in some ways and behind in others when it came to telecom. It was hard to get what a USican would call good high speed wired service (no cable modems for example and I currently have FTTH/FiOS I couldn't get that in EU).

I think EU wireless services were more pervasive, better, and made a heck-of-a-lot more sense from a customer perspective.

So, yeah, mobile phone services in the US are pretty sad by comparison...

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[jawtheshark]

I think you would have gotten FTTH/FiOS, if you would have been willing to pay the (very high) price. Normally Cable or ADSL (pretty much to be had everywere) covers the needs of the customers well enough. I don't know a single person still on dial-up, but indeed no private person using fibre.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[MBGMorden]

Not all of use live in or around a "major city". My travel typically consists of the following:

Charleston, SC
Columbia, SC
Atlanta, GA

Occasionally I'll venture into Charlotte or Miami but not often.

My experience there is that unless you're in a hotel (where you're usually going to have to pay extra for it - unless it's a cheap hotel. seems the higher the price the more likely you are to have to pay for wifi), or in a coffee shop, then you're not getting a signal. Even then most of the hotels seem to have a single WAP in the main office so I've had to request to be moved to a room closer to the WAP several times just to get a usable signal.

Basically, for me wifi is tightly centered around several spaced out little hubs. Good when I bunker down for the night (I'm actually on hotel wireless typing this right now), but other than that, not really useful. Cell phone on the other hand, I get a signal just about anywhere I'd want to go. Getting my connection over that would be much more seamless and feasible. And honestly, at a reasonable rate (say, $20 per month), well worth avoiding the hassle of always finding a hotspot.

Heck a lot of the hotspots are going pay now anyways. I'm on one of the T-mobile ones right now (they partner through this hotel and several other places). $6 for 60 minutes, $10 for 1 day, $20 for 7 days, or $30 paid monthly. That's starting to rival a cell data plan itself.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[nametaken]

Yeah, we've seen this scam before. They used to do it at BestBuy, etc.

Hello grandmothers out there! Get this awful Acer desktop for just $100!

All you have to do is sign up for 18 years of AOL at $25/mo... and a $500 early cancellation fee.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[Zarf]

I pay the same price for FTTH as I would for ADSL. I pay less for FTTH than I would for a Cable TV + Internet account. The FTTH comes with the equivalent of basic cable TV for free.

But, my wireless plan is absolutely stupid. I pay for incoming calls! That means the telecom is getting paid by the caller and the recipient! I pay $0.25 per text message that I send and $0.25 for the message I receive... double payment again. It's nuts.

I don't honestly know why we tolerate it. The most popular hack to the iPhone is one that lets you use wifi+voip. I'm not surprised.

In the US it makes good financial sense to avoid mobile phone use as much as possible. It can save you hundreds of dollars a month. And with McDonalds and every cafe offering free wifi (linked to cheap fiber somewhere I presume) you may not miss not having a "real" mobile phone too much just use VoIP.

I use wifi hot spots for everything since there is a free one every few blocks even in the rural township that I live in. So I am always near a wifi hot spot and having a "plan" makes little sense to me.

I live 30 minutes outside a major telecommunications and biotechnology center so I might not be a typical USican. YMMV. I realize how different it seems to someone not in the US.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[Anonymous Coward]

Covering less than 50% of population is out of the question, and I'd avoid any service which didn't cover 50% of land area, perhaps even 75% of land area.

I would summon a guess that running water doesn't cover 50% of land area, depending on your definition of area of effect.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[noidentity]

Can you say "Linksys"? It's Wi-Fi and it's free in almost every city, depending on your location.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[lysergic.acid]

50% of what land area? the entire earth?

if you live in a more progressive area chances are you already have some form of public WiFi access. if you're a college student and are mainly going to be using your netbook on a campus with an open WiFi network, then you're already going to have free wireless internet access whenever you want. even if you don't live in a progressive area, chances are the places where you'll use a netbook: the library, coffee shop, home, work, school, etc. will probably have wireless internet access.

not to mention that public wireless access is gradually becoming a part of basic public infrastructure, and in the next few years more than more cities will start to roll out their own municipal WiFi/WiMax networks.

wireless data plans just aren't necessary for most people, especially with the extortionate rates most cellular carriers charge. unless you need mobile internet access for work, it just doesn't make sense to get a wireless data plan for your laptop or netbook when free wireless access is becoming more and more ubiquitous.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[TBoon]

Might I ask *which* EU-country you were living in, and when? EU is a big place, with significant differences when it comes to things like this...

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[davidphogan74]

That's exactly why I got a Motorola Q that allows tethering on its data plan. It's faster than most hotels' WiFi, and I don't need to pay any additional fees to use it. Plus it works waaaaay more places.

When I visit my parents across the country they don't have WiFi. If I want to eat lunch and get some work done, most restaurants don't have WiFi. Yeah, I could get it to go, but sometimes it's nice to get out of the office for 40 minutes, even if I'm still working. Then I'm not limited to restaurants with WiFi, which near my office is about 1.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like some free wireless broadband... In my area it starts at almost 100 a month for unlimited access.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[Hognoxious]

Thanks for pointing that out to use, we all thought it worked by semi-polarized subspace-tunelling pseudotrons.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[amorsen]

Well, obviously I only care about land area where I am likely to go. The country I live in is a good first approximation. They do let me out at times, if I behave nicely.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[amorsen]

50% of what land area? the entire earth?

Just of the country I live in. I'm an egoistical bastard like that. Not even the airports around here have free wifi. You need a plan, and then you might as well just go with wireless broadband.

The bus I happen to go to work on has free wifi, but that's simply a wireless broadband device rebroadcast as wifi. I'm better off grabbing the bandwidth directly from the wireless broadband.

As for necessary? A private cell phone isn't necessary for me. I'd give that up before I gave up my wireless broadband.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[Firehed]

Well yeah, but most people looking to save a hundred bucks won't figure that out. 99% of people will never do the math on the total cost of ownership involved in any sort of contractual agreement, and I'm sure plenty are actually incapable of it. I've seen several people sign up for a new AmEx card at Costco without even glancing at the terms and rates on the back just so they could get a free case of bottled water (a $4 value, maybe). So many people are thrilled by the idea of these zero-down mortgages and fail to realize that they'll end up paying 5x the cost of the house in interest and that they won't own ANY of the house for a decade because they've put 100% of their payments towards the interest alone.

And you seriously expect these same people to realize that even a free-with-contract laptop costs 3x as much once you add in the data rates as buying it outright? You've got to be kidding.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[jonbryce]

Personally I think public WiFi will go the same way as Hutchison Rabbit went when GSM phones became popular. We will use WiFi in the same way that we use cordless phones - good around the house, but you wouldn't consider using them on the move.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[g0at]

You do realize that "wireless broadband" isn't the same thing as wi-fi, right?

Both terms are pretty meaningless in and of themselves. In this world of buzzwords-for-everything, it's not surprising that there is confusion.

On the other hand, if we were to start describing things by what they actually are...

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[kayditty]

I wish people would stop abusing the word broadband. I don't even think anyone knows what it means anymore.

Wifi where it is available is a LAN. I

depending on your definition of local, I guess. it's a WLAN.

WiFi is not "Wireless Broadband" just like Ethernet is not wired Broadband.

nope. ethernet is wired baseband.

Re:Better to just buy it outright.

[Zarf]

Might I ask *which* EU-country you were living in, and when? EU is a big place, with significant differences when it comes to things like this...

well, JawTheShark knows... it was Germany and he's in Luxembourg IIRC... we knew what we were talking about...

Welcome to the future - UK

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK (which is generally, but not always prefixed with the words "rip off") netbooks/cheap laptops have been available for free as part of contract mobile deals for quite a few months now via major retailers such as the Carphone Warehouse..

Re:Welcome to the future - UK

[rlobue]

I second this. Carriers in the EU have been offering Free netbooks for quite some time. All is needed is the 18 month or 2 year contract. They're actually a really good deal and many fellow students at university have taken them up on the opportunity to basically pay for a laptop over 2 years.

Re:Welcome to the future - UK

[Hognoxious]

It's HP[1] in disguise, but if you're happy with that then fine. A lot of people don't realise that the cost of the "free" phone is hidden in their monthly bill.

[1] As in rent-to-own/buying on tick, not the company Carly screwed up.

Re:Welcome to the future - UK

[gertam]

And I thought you were talking about the brown sauce. :-)

Re:Welcome to the future - UK

[xaxa]

They've been available as part of ADSL deals too, although currently only with AOL

http://www.top10-broadband.co.uk/types/broadband_free_laptop/

Re:Welcome to the future - UK

[vagabond_gr]

In the netherlands you can get an Eee PC 901 for 49.95 euros plus 34.95 euros per month for 2 years. Or even for free with a 59.95 euros/month contract. translation of t-mobile page

Re:Welcome to the future - UK

[Catil]

Here in Germany you can get mobile contracts bundled with virtually anything you like. LCD-TVs, next-gen consoles, PC gaming rigs, laptops, motor-scooters and perhaps even cars... Off course, those contracts are more expensive than regular ones.
It's just a special form of leasing and in the end it will always cost you more than buying the bundled stuff separately.

Re:Welcome to the future - UK

[FrkyD]

It's not "Hidden" in the monthly bill. If it were possible to get wireless service WiTHOUT a contract for a better rate, then you might have a point, but for most of the providers in my area (Austria) up until a month or so ago, that wasn't an option. That was the same argument people were using against the iPhone, but I actually saved money and got a cheaper iPhone by switching to the iPhone data plans here. If I were to renew my seperate dataplan again, I would also pick up a cheaper monthly rate and a netbook to boot. Contract free data plans have only been on the market here for a very short time and they are only a value for low volume users. So just stop with the "hidden" already.

Re:Welcome to the future - UK

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really curious to know why the parent has been modded 'troll'. WTF.

Re:Welcome to the future - UK

[Hognoxious]

If it were possible to get wireless service WiTHOUT a contract for a better rate, then you might have a point, but for most of the providers in my area (Austria) up until a month or so ago, that wasn't an option.

That just means they're ripping off the contractless customers even more - pay as you go customers pay more almost everywhere.

But it's irrelevant - maybe you could look up "false dichotomy" some time. If the phone is for sale at a lower price when tied to a contract than it is when sold unlocked, where's the difference coming from? Santa Clause?

in my area (Austria) [...] So just stop with the "hidden" already.

Hmmm, an Austrian who thinks he can order everybody around. That's a novelty.

Re:Welcome to the future - UK

[jonbryce]

In the UK a typical deal is

Mobile broadband on its own - £15 per month
Mobile broadband with a "free" eeePC worth £200 - £35 per month for two years.

So you are paying £240 for the free laptop. That works out like a loan at 8.6% APR. Better than most store HP deals but still definitely not free.

Re:Welcome to the future - UK

[fractoid]

If the phone is for sale at a lower price when tied to a contract than it is when sold unlocked, where's the difference coming from? Santa Clause?

If the data costs the same whether you bring your own phone or take their 'free' one, how much more does it cost you to take the phone?

Hmmm, an Austrian who thinks he can order everybody around. That's a novelty.

Hmmm, ad hominem. That's a novelty.

Re:Welcome to the future - UK

[Hognoxious]

If the data costs the same whether you bring your own phone or take their 'free' one, how much more does it cost you to take the phone?

Well it doesn't, so just STFU.

Re:Welcome to the future - UK

[FrkyD]

If it were possible to get wireless service WiTHOUT a contract for a better rate, then you might have a point, but for most of the providers in my area (Austria) up until a month or so ago, that wasn't an option.

That just means they're ripping off the contractless customers even more - pay as you go customers pay more almost everywhere.

That's true

If the phone is for sale at a lower price when tied to a contract than it is when sold unlocked, where's the difference coming from? Santa Clause?

If I am paying the same monthly fee when I bring my own (more expensive) device to the contract, who's money am I wasting?

in my area (Austria) [...] So just stop with the "hidden" already.

Hmmm, an Austrian who thinks he can order everybody around. That's a novelty.

Actually, an American who thinks he can boss everybody else around. Not too novel I know, but the fact that I actually left the country would indeed make me a novelty I guess.

Old news in the UK at least

[mattbee]

In the UK, PC World, Carphone Warehouse etc. have all competing on mobile broadband deals for months, throwing in a netbook or laptop at the same time. Just like with mobile phones you're paying a high price for finance on a £150-400 device, plus a 12-24 months broadband / 3G contract.

Separately the phone networks are also competing much harder in the last year for broadband-only deals, and SIM-only deals for calls - those seem like better value if you know what you want.

Re:Old news in the UK at least

[wild_quinine]

1. Predict Something that has already happened.

2. ??????WTF?????

3. Look like an idiot.

where do i sign?

[CaptainNerdCave]

give me a big, stable network and a reasonably high bandwidth cap (at least 20GB/month) and you've got a deal!

Re:where do i sign?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a 20gb cap is over kill when your diskspace is in the 4-30gb ballpark.

Re:where do i sign?

[apathy maybe]

Yeah, but have you considered you can leave your work in the "cloud" and only downloaded it when you need it?

Sure you will fill a 30GB HD in a hurry if you keep everything you download, but you don't. You just download it again when you needed it again.

At least, that's what I would do.

Re:where do i sign?

[Hurricane78]

Not if you stream HD videos all day long, without storing them. Yeah, I know that it's stupid, but then again, so is YouTube. People will do it anyway. :(

Re:where do i sign?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but have you considered you can leave your work in the "cloud" and only downloaded it when you need it?

You just hit a point that I'm sure isn't lost on telecom providers... I never saw it this way before...

Living on the cloud means you download the same things over and over chewing up bandwidth like mad and paying higher and higher rates for your monthly service.

Now slowly put limits on bandwidth and overage fees and simultaneously hook people on "the cloud" and now you've got a road to huge profits.

If you use a lot of bandwidth you might rationalize that you are an exception and that "normal" people use less so you can almost be proud of paying high bandwidth fees. But the reality is that you aren't driving a Hummer and bandwidth isn't gas.

Re:where do i sign?

[Haeleth]

Yeah, but have you considered you can leave your work in the "cloud" and only downloaded it when you need it?

Yeah, if you trust the "cloud".

Personally I kind of like to have control over my work, instead of trusting total strangers to look after it and not lose it or accidentally give it to other people. But maybe I'm just old-fashioned?

That's already the case...

[Evan Meakyl]

... at least in France:

http://www.sfr.fr/mobile/internet-ultra-portable.jspe?sfrintid=HP_NA_MEA_2

You can have an EEEPC for 99 euros + a USB key which allows to connect to the Internet using a 3G+ connection, which for a 2 years subscription costs you 30 euros/per month. Do the maths :) !

Re:That's already the case...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen SFR with the deal to get them 'free' too.

Lots of companies in france are using netbooks as an incentive for purchases (carrefour, etc)

Re:That's already the case...

[Catil]

Meanwhile, in Germany...

Playstation 3 80 GB
+ Asus EeePC 4GB
+ 2x Motorola F3
for 0 Euro.
It's bundled with two Vodafon 2-year contracts, respectively for 15,39 Euro monthly.
http://www.sparhandy.de/bundle-details.html?bundle=616&tarifekategorie=20188&gruppe=113&subgruppe=150&zanpid=1169641662356392960

That was one of the first links searching for 'handy (mobile-phone) bundles.' I don't think something like this is very serious. It will perhaps come with a bunch of sleazy clauses in small print. Our consumer advice centre puts out warnings once in a while for this kind of stuff...

Re:That's already the case...

[jopsen]

There's similar offers in Denmark too... However, I think they are by law restricted to a maximum of 6 months subscription... At least that's all they take...

If you do the math, keep in mind that european prices are ALWAY a lot higher then the American... I'd say between 25% and 100% higher!

Re:That's already the case...

[Anonymous Coward]

Same in Japane. Last week I was there and was bombarded on the street with people offering an EEEPC for 999 yen which required a 2 year commitment to an ISP

Re:That's already the case...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm from America, we were only taught to do math :(

Ray Kurzweil

[suburbanmediocrity]

I believe predicted this many years ago.

Of course I think that he also predicted that we would eventually also be marrying them at some point. Now I think we're just living together.

The most worrying part of this is that...

[Coeurderoy]

Now instead of speaking to "real users" when we build something for netbooks, we need to convince a couple of "telecom marketoids"...

Watch this space for "ringtones windows skins from outerspace for netbooks" at a low 9.99.

And then when you'll go to you favority watering hole you'll find out who the nerds are because their computers do not go "" when they get a new mail.

Old news...

[sparky81]

...at least in the UK. Carphone Warehouse [carphonewarehouse.com] have been offering laptops for 'free' for several months if you take a £20-30 ($30-45) plan

Lock-In

[Rie Beam]

Step One: Integrate Card in a Specialized "Mobile Laptop"
Step Two: Offer Laptop for Free w/ Two Year Service Plan
Step Three: People might begin to choose a wireless broadband service over their home network.

Extra Step: Keep charging for "extra cards" if they want their home-based setups to use the service.

One device per contract is a deal-killer

[geophile]

BInding a single device to a 2-year contract is nuts. Especially a device as limited as a cell phone or netbook.

The iphone, for example, is very cool, but I'm just not interested at $70/month. Yet I pay more than that for my tv/phone/internet connection at home. I'm OK with that because at home I have flexibility -- I can attach as many phones and computers as I want.

I'm sticking with my pay-as-you-go, featureless cell phone until there's an expensive contract that gives me a lot more flexibility.

Re:One device per contract is a deal-killer

[arashi no garou]

Luddite!

Re:One device per contract is a deal-killer

[Registered Coward v2]

BInding a single device to a 2-year contract is nuts. Especially a device as limited as a cell phone or netbook.

The iphone, for example, is very cool, but I'm just not interested at $70/month. Yet I pay more than that for my tv/phone/internet connection at home. I'm OK with that because at home I have flexibility -- I can attach as many phones and computers as I want.

I'm sticking with my pay-as-you-go, featureless cell phone until there's an expensive contract that gives me a lot more flexibility.

Value depends on needs - my home phone is rarely used (and primarily a legacy line) Cell phones are the primary devices we use for personal and work calls; and pay as you go would be orders of magnitude more expensive and the monthly cost is very variable and unpredictable. Most don't offer data plans (well, ATT does but it's a bit convoluted to get it).

So, a contract is a good way to lock in a price and that's less expensive and more predictable. It's essentially a 2 year hedge on costs.

It all depends on usage patterns - pay as you go, month to month or contract all make sense for differing needs.

Re:One device per contract is a deal-killer

[maxume]

Contract plans only make sense because the majority of people sign them for a cheap phone. If less people signed contracts, there is a good chance phone companies would work harder on customer retention, rather than acquisition, and prices would drop for non contract and pay as you go (and they are getting better anyway, Virgin Mobile offers unlimited voice for $80 a month with no contract, which is somewhat competitive/comparable with the $100 unlimited plans from the big carriers, except for data/messaging, which aren't all that expensive).

Re:One device per contract is a deal-killer

[Registered Coward v2]

Contract plans only make sense because the majority of people sign them for a cheap phone. If less people signed contracts, there is a good chance phone companies would work harder on customer retention, rather than acquisition, and prices would drop for non contract and pay as you go (and they are getting better anyway, Virgin Mobile offers unlimited voice for $80 a month with no contract, which is somewhat competitive/comparable with the $100 unlimited plans from the big carriers, except for data/messaging, which aren't all that expensive).

Contract plans only make sense because the majority of people sign them for a cheap phone. If less people signed contracts, there is a good chance phone companies would work harder on customer retention, rather than acquisition, and prices would drop for non contract and pay as you go (and they are getting better anyway, Virgin Mobile offers unlimited voice for $80 a month with no contract, which is somewhat competitive/comparable with the $100 unlimited plans from the big carriers, except for data/messaging, which aren't all that expensive).

Except that by not being able to spread out the cost of the phone over 12 or 24 months many people would not buy a phone. If there truly was interest in pay as you go you'd see a lot more uptake on those plans.

However, consumers find contracts a better value and so chose them. There are plenty non-contract alternatives at a wide range of prices. Overall, however they are not as popular as contract plans because consumers find more value in a contract with a subsidized phone. While VM offers a good deal at $90/month (voice and text) there phone selection is a bit limited.

In addition, the ability to add on additional lines on contracts and share minutes is a selling point for many users as well. Four phones on a family plan is cheaper than four monthly non-contract pay as you go plans.

Re:One device per contract is a deal-killer

[maxume]

I sort of think people prefer contracts because they are bad at thinking. But that is just me.

Re:One device per contract is a deal-killer

[Registered Coward v2]

I sort of think people prefer contracts because they are bad at thinking. But that is just me.

I think you think wrong. Predictable costs have value.

Re:One device per contract is a deal-killer

[maxume]

Most of the contracts that people sign include wildly unpredictable costs in the event of an overage.

We don't need to agree, but I really don't think that the cell phone market in the U.S. contains particularly savvy buyers (i.e., they don't have any idea what the providers actual costs are, they don't know how much usage they actually need, they don't look at how much that usage costs under different pricing models, etc).

Re:One device per contract is a deal-killer

[Registered Coward v2]

Most of the contracts that people sign include wildly unpredictable costs in the event of an overage.

However, a little planing and watching minutes can pretty much alleviate overages.

We don't need to agree, but I really don't think that the cell phone market in the U.S. contains particularly savvy buyers (i.e., they don't have any idea what the providers actual costs are, they don't know how much usage they actually need, they don't look at how much that usage costs under different pricing models, etc).

On that we agree - most people buy shiny when it comes to phones.

Re:One device per contract is a deal-killer

[mollymoo]

BInding a single device to a 2-year contract is nuts. Especially a device as limited as a cell phone or netbook.

Who says they tie it to a single device? In the UK, many of the free laptops come with a USB dongle, there's no reason you couldn't use that in another machine. Even if a netbook came with a built-in HSDPA card I wouldn't be surprised if you could just put the SIM in a different device. Why would the network care if you use a Thinkpad instead of the Eee they supplied, or a phone you bought on eBay instead of the one they supplied?

Re:One device per contract is a deal-killer

[the_womble]

Except that by not being able to spread out the cost of the phone over 12 or 24 months many people would not buy a phone.

They could just buy a cheap phone. The last phone I bought cost the equivalent of about $45. I have seen cheaper pay as you go phones (about half the price) advertised, but they may be locked to a network.

You need to be pretty badly off to need to spread that over two years.

Re:One device per contract is a deal-killer

[Registered Coward v2]

Except that by not being able to spread out the cost of the phone over 12 or 24 months many people would not buy a phone.

They could just buy a cheap phone. The last phone I bought cost the equivalent of about $45. I have seen cheaper pay as you go phones (about half the price) advertised, but they may be locked to a network.

It's not so much the cost but the initial outlay. People want fancy phones but balk at paying for them; as a result the providers roll the cost in the plan in order to make a sale.

It's no so much a financial as psychological ploy to increase sales. If they had to pay upfront for the phone you'd not see the take-up rate that we have and prices would not have dropped on service like they have.

You need to be pretty badly off to need to spread that over two years.

It's not so much that they can't afford the phone as they can't see the value on a $300 device; but make it "free" and they do. After all, most phones probably only add $5 - 10 to a plan anyway; so it's unlikely phone companies would drop rates if phones were paid up front; given they don't cut your rate if you already have a phone of after the 24 months are up.

It's simply a sales gimmick rather than a financial one since someone who can't afford a $200 phone probably can't swing $30+ a month anyway.

Ahh convergence

[LaughingCoder]

I am always fascinated by the twists and turns of the "convergence" of all electronic devices into "the one device that rules them all". For awhile it was looking like the video game console might be the winner. And TIVO was hot for awhile, as were set-top boxes. The PC made a run, but collapsed under their own complexity - the difficulty of trying to be all things. Those all of course both suffered from a lack of portability (notebooks were an attempt to address this) ... enter the PSP. Then smartphones popped on the scene and are probably the current best bet. But now netbooks appear, and there are some compelling reasons why they could displace cell phones as the one device everyone owns and carries. I suppose their two big problems are battery life and size. The smartphones' problems are screen size and interface (keyboard) size. Perhaps when (if) voice recognition finally works and the display-in-glasses becomes viable cell phones could overcome their limitations?

As a self-professed gadget guy I can say that I carry 3 devices with me always: cell phone, pocket PC and thumbdrive. Sometimes I also carry a Nano if I will be listening to music for a prolonged period (battery issues with the Pocket PC and the cell phone). Here in the states, the smartphones with touchscreens and web browsers and available 3rd party applications require you to sign up for a data contract, the cost of which I cannot justify. The pocket PC has a decent camera, a good music player, a host of games and applications, WiFi, a good size screen ... but it lacks a decent input device, battery life and cell phone functionality.

Re:Ahh convergence

[Serious Callers Only]

cell phone, pocket PC and thumbdrive. Sometimes I also carry a Nano

I carry an iPhone, with a few jailbroken apps, and Air Sharing (as a thumbdrive replacement), which seems to cover all the bases. Haven't found the screen size to be a limitation, save perhaps for reading books. The only area that it's really lacking in is the camera, which is pretty rubbish, but I think I'll always prefer a real camera for that.

My bet would be on phones (not necessarily the iPhone) as the next convergence device - when we have slightly more power, and ubiquitous wireless keyboards/screens (I hear they're coming just after flying cars), all you'd need would be to plug your phone in and you'd have the equivalent of a desktop system of yesteryear.

Re:Ahh convergence

[mollymoo]

But now netbooks appear, and there are some compelling reasons why they could displace cell phones as the one device everyone owns and carries. I suppose their two big problems are battery life and size.

A lot of people are saying that netbooks with become the portable convergence device of the future. I can only assume they have never actually seen a netbook in the flesh. They are small compared to a laptop, but they are huge compared to a PDA or cellphone. You wouldn't want to lug one around all day just to read the odd email, browse some news while you waiting for a bus or update your Facebook status. The reason netbooks won't become the one device everybody carries is simple: you cannot fit a screen and keyboard large enough to be used like a laptop in your pocket. Until we have folding screens and keyboards a fraction of their current size it just will not happen. Pocket size is the limiting factor in what people are willing to carry. If it doesn't fit in a pocket sometimes you're going to have to leave it at home, which for your mobile communications device is unacceptable. For women who always carry handbags the size limitations are similar - it has to fit in the tiny going-out bag.

Re:Ahh convergence

[Clueless Moron]

I just carry a Nokia E90, often with the SU-8W bluetooth keyboard. You can see it in action here.

I'm posting using that right now. Really it's like a little laptop, with a camera, FM radio and GPSadded. Oh, and it makes phonecalls :-). The only bad part is that it's fairly expensive.

Re:Ahh convergence

[ssstraub]

AirSharing doesn't even come close to being a thumbdrive replacement as the only way to connect to it from another device is through WiFi. Most desktop computers don't have WiFi, so basically the only computers you could interface with are laptops.

Re:Ahh convergence

[Serious Callers Only]

AirSharing doesn't even come close to being a thumbdrive replacement as the only way to connect to it from another device is through WiFi. Most desktop computers don't have WiFi, so basically the only computers you could interface with are laptops.

That's incorrect, I don't know where you got that idea; I suppose from the fact that you need a wifi network for the iPod/iPhone.

The only thing you need is a local network that the iPhone can join via wifi (desktops can connect however they like, via ethernet usually). It just starts up a lighttpd server on port 8080, and lets clients connect via webdav.

Thus it comes very close to being a thumbdrive replacement - if you have a wifi network available (That's not the same as having a wifi enabled desktop). If not, then it's of no use, but personally I haven't been to any clients who have wired only networks in a few years, and all home users I know have one. YMMV.

Re:Ahh convergence

[ssstraub]

Ah, good point.

The rise of real mobile computing and tech support

[Vandil X]

I'm all about having a real web browser, email, maps, and such on the road with you. It's what made me get an iPhone after so many years of watching Windows Mobile devices do everything so crappy.

The only thing missing with the iPhone is a nice external keyboard to use when occasions arise on-the-go, where I might be at a table and have the ease of use of a keyboard for rapid typing.

Perhaps Netbooks will fill in this niche. Hell, throw in a few remote access clients and it could be a sysadmin's dream.

From a support perspective, I'd rather have a cell plan for data for a device of this type than just a cell phone that gets the somethings-on-fire call to you while you're in a restaurant or camping where there is a signal.

News?

[Zedrick]

How is this news? You get a... (checking local carriers) HP 550 or Toshiba S300 at *no* extra cost when you sign up for a normal 24 month mobile broadband subscription here (Sweden), and this has been common for years.

Or is this some US-specific backwardness, like paying for recieving calls? (no offense intended, but the US market really does seem to be 10 years behind the rest of the developed world, at least judging from slashdot-articles :-))

Re:News?

[amorsen]

Paying for receiving calls is forwardness, not backwardness. As it is in Europe, providers can extort pretty much any rate they want on incoming calls, and the market doesn't punish them -- because it's the customers of other providers who pay. In Denmark it is typical that the inter-carrier rate is around 0.15EUR per minute, whereas in the US it's less than $0.01 per minute plus perhaps $0.10 for the customer on a really expensive plan. It also makes number portability between mobile and fixed networks possible.

The US mobile market is screwed up for a million reasons, but that is one thing they do right.

Re:News?

[jawtheshark]

Or is this some US-specific backwardness

Judging from the other comments, it seems to be.

like paying for recieving calls?

While I laugh at that too, one has to see that in a historical context. This stems from the days where local calls were free in the US which was a result of competition. We never had such luxury in Europe. Best I remember was that one local call would cost "one unit" (which was about 0.13€ back then) for 60 minutes of calling. After 60 minutes you'd be cut off and you had to call again. (I was a child back then, so it may not be accurate)

Now the mistake the carriers made was to consider cell-phones (okay, back then the analog "carry" beasts) as normal phones and hence give them normal phone numbers indistinguishable from real fixed-phone lines. However the costs for operating wireless communications had to be paid by someone. That couldn't be the originating caller because a) he couldn't know it was a mobile phone and b) expected to pay nothing when calling a local number. The logical solution was: the mobile phone user pays for the luxury of getting calls while being on the move.

While I find it weird to pay nothing for local phone calls and weird to pay for incoming calls, within the historical context it isn't all that crazy. The US should fix this and it is fixable by using predefined prefixes for mobile phones. They can even keep free local calls that way.

Re:News?

[jawtheshark]

As it is in Europe, providers can extort pretty much any rate they want on incoming calls, and the market doesn't punish them -- because

*blink*

My wife and I used to be on different carriers. If she called me from cell to cell, yes, she had to pay more for that call (which is outgoing for her). Incoming, I paid exactly nothing at all. Inter-carrier rates for incoming calls are non-existent where I live and I know they don't exist in Belgium, France, Germany and The Netherlands. Maybe Danmark is special in this case?

Technically, I can have a cellphone and it will cost me nothing if I never ever call with it. Incoming calls are always free (roaming being an exception, of course). I have a "pay-as-you-call" plan. I effectively pay only when I call. No monthly fees, no recharge cards. Only a slightly higher rate for my outgoing calls. Still only 0.09€/min My bills are pretty much 15€ per month, and that's with my wife and my phone tied to that bill.

Now if you're talking about *roaming* you open another can of worms, but roaming is a special case.

Finally, what you say makes no economic sense. If you had to pay for incoming calls at one carrier, and the next carrier asks less or even nothing, who are people going to flock to? Indeed...

Re:News?

[Registered Coward v2]

Or is this some US-specific backwardness, like paying for recieving calls? (no offense intended, but the US market really does seem to be 10 years behind the rest of the developed world, at least judging from slashdot-articles :-))

The problem with /. 's discussions of cell phone markets is they fail to look at the market in an objective fashion. The conclusion is often "X is bad / behind the times / worse than mine because it is different.

Yes we "pay" for receiving calls; but given we don't if they are from the same carrier (I would wager a lot of calls are within a household who probably has only 1 carrier) of occur in the evening or on weekends most people never see any impact on their bill. If you do a lot of peak calling you can get an unlimited plan for around $100 and need not worry about minutes at all. For most practical purposes we really don't pay for incoming calls.

OTOH, we probably have one off the largest no-cost roaming and long distance setups around. I can call anywhere from within the US I can get a signal for no additional cost. My experiences in the EU is that phones don't let you roam for free across most borders; i.e. my UK phone in Portugal no longer considers incoming calls free and I do not pay UK rates for calls. If I go from say ATL to NYC as an example I incur no additional charges for a call.

We don't get as many cool phones, however.

Our markets evolved differently and our user needs are different. I's not uncommon for many users to make calls to and or from multiple states on a monthly basis; so our plans evolved into favoring wide areas of coverage for one base price; different, not better or worse.

We are backward in a number of other ways; I am hopeful 4NOV08 will start that to change as well.

Re:News?

[jawtheshark]

I understood what you mean by now. By "paying for incoming" calls you mean "paying more for an outgoing call because you call a different carrier". It's not "paying for incoming" calls at all. Your logic is extremely twisted.

The market will take care of that: if one carrier wants to attract customers is will market the fact that it doesn't ask much more for outgoing calls to other carriers. Exactly this is happening right now. I checked with my carrier and outgoing calls to any carrier (fixed and mobile) in my country are exactly the same price an outgoing to a cellphone on the same network. They Advertise this fact and use it as a competitive advantage.

Frankly, this must be something backward in Danmark ;-)

Re:News?

[amorsen]

Inter-carrier rates for incoming calls are non-existent where I live and I know they don't exist in Belgium, France, Germany and The Netherlands. Maybe Danmark is special in this case?

Nope. You're just uninformed. The carrier loses money when you call a different carrier. (Unless you're on a really crappy plan.)

Re:News?

[jawtheshark]

My experiences in the EU is that phones don't let you roam for free across most borders

True. Yet, the logic behind this is equal to the logic that originated the "pay-for-reception" in the US. (Read my other comment) A caller, calling a cellphone has no way to know where the other person is. If I call my brother right now, he might be in Germany for all I know. Who gets to pay? Not me, since I didn't know and it would be unfair to me. So he gets to pay. That's the basic idea behind roaming.

/If/ your carriers would be state-based instead of country-based you would have exactly the same problem that we have in Europe.

If you do a lot of peak calling you can get an unlimited plan for around $100 and need not worry about minutes at all.

This brings us back to "backwards".... In my country an unlimited plan like that is 30€/month. Sure, roaming isn't included in that, which limits it to my country but the same is true for the US... After all it still is one country and the networks in different states are owned by one and the same company.

Re:News?

[jawtheshark]

That doesn't matter to me as a customer.... You do realise that?

Re:News?

[amorsen]

By "paying for incoming" calls you mean "paying more for an outgoing call because you call a different carrier".

The cost ends up at the consumer, no matter which way around you twist it. In the US, the person who has a choice in using a mobile or not pays for that choice.

I checked with my carrier and outgoing calls to any carrier (fixed and mobile) in my country are exactly the same price an outgoing to a cellphone on the same network.

Yes. You are paying the same price for something that costs vastly different amounts for the service provider. This leads to complete distortion of the market.

The best customer for a cell phone provider in Europe is the one who spends all day receiving calls from other carriers. The worst customer is the one who spends all day actually making calls. It leads to all sorts of funny behaviour on the ISP side, like being unable to turn off voice mail. Voice mail is free money, twice: First you earn a bunch from some other carrier when someone leaves a voice mail (and you don't even have to use your expensive bandwidth for it), and second you make money when the customer calls voice mail to listen to the message. At least in the second case the provider has to spend a little bit on bandwidth.

The only reason why this hasn't spun completely out of control is that the antitrust authorities are limiting inter-carrier rates.

Anyway, the price of a cell phone minute, just the airtime, in the actually competitive market in Denmark, is less than 0.03EUR. The same minute when sold inter-carrier is 0.15EUR. If either the market or the antitrust authorities were doing the job properly, those rates would be approximately the same. (Basic economic theory, in a competitive market, the price of a good approaches the cost of its production).

Re:News?

[Anonymous Coward]

I refuse to allow a citizen of a nation with military conscription to call any other "backward". And no, just because you're able to choose a branch where you're not actually holding a weapon in your hand, it doesn't mean it's not military.

A Spanish citizen, I reached majority during their slow phasing out of compulsory service. I made it clear with a letter responding to each request (which included, by this time, "civilian" service) that they were welcome to take me to court if they wanted to enforce the law. Had I been born 5 years earlier, I'd have probably been made a criminal for refusing this slavery, but I was lucky, and my case was ignored. Are Swedes who conscientiously object to any form of servitude similarly lucky?

To this day I remain annoyed when Sweden talks of how forward and free it is compared to the US and UK, given this slavery.

Re:News?

[Anonymous Coward]

To each their own then. I move between states on a daily basis. I don't work in the same state that I live in and travel at least 2x a week.

If I didn't have roaming, my bill would be huge.

Re:News?

[jawtheshark]

The cost ends up at the consumer, no matter which way around you twist it.

Yes, but there is consumer and consumer. There is the person who chose to make the call, he's the one that should pay. Simple. He knows I'm on a cellphone since the number indicates it. He used to know that I was on a different carrier because the number indicated it (This is not true anymore considering number-portability)

What you say is that I pay for the croissants other people eat even though I only eat bread because both are made of grain.

You are paying the same price for something that costs vastly different amounts for the service provider.

From a customer point of view: So what? It's the service my provider chose to offer me. Besides, you're completely missing the point of this. My provider offers this not because of kindness of heart, but because he wants to attract customers (in a saturated market). The more customers he gets, the more likely it is that one customer will call another customer on the internal network which are the high-margin calls for them.

Other providers will follow because their offer (from the customer point of view) is inferior and they want to keep competing. So, they also reduce prices. Now the next step is wonderful: to cut costs, they'll review inter-operator costs and negotiate better terms between each other because it is in their own interest to lower such costs.

This all works according to free market.

The only reason why this hasn't spun completely out of control is that the antitrust authorities are limiting inter-carrier rates.

Actually, because there aren't much players the anti-trust measures are to ensure that no oligopolies formed, cutting out the customer. That means, only the last phase happens: companies getting together to negotiate better terms, but only for them.

If either the market or the antitrust authorities were doing the job properly, those rates would be approximately the same.

And yet, I have been telling you that in my country exactly this is happening! Are you obtuse or what?

Re:News?

[tompaulco]

Being from the U.S. myself I don't see any reason to defend charging for incoming calls. My landline doesn't get charge for incoming calls. Neither should my cell phone. I don't mind if they charge enough for outgoing to make up the cost (I would guess they already do this anyway). The worst offender of all is having to pay for incoming texts. I have never sent a text in my life, and I only receive a few a month, and those that I receive are generally accidents, or are from someone at work who doesn't realize that dialing my number and calling is cheaper, easier and less time-intensive than dialing my number and typing in a text message.
Unlike you I am not hopeful for the election to change anything. I have not heard anything from either candidate about this issue, nor would I want the government to get involved. I simply want consumers to stop laying down and taking it, which is probably a shallow hope since they are so addicted to text messaging.

Re:News?

[Registered Coward v2]

My experiences in the EU is that phones don't let you roam for free across most borders

True. Yet, the logic behind this is equal to the logic that originated the "pay-for-reception" in the US. (Read my other comment) A caller, calling a cellphone has no way to know where the other person is. If I call my brother right now, he might be in Germany for all I know. Who gets to pay? Not me, since I didn't know and it would be unfair to me. So he gets to pay. That's the basic idea behind roaming.

/If/ your carriers would be state-based instead of country-based you would have exactly the same problem that we have in Europe.

If you do a lot of peak calling you can get an unlimited plan for around $100 and need not worry about minutes at all.

This brings us back to "backwards".... In my country an unlimited plan like that is 30€/month. Sure, roaming isn't included in that, which limits it to my country but the same is true for the US... After all it still is one country and the networks in different states are owned by one and the same company.

While the US is one country in size and scope it matches the EU - we essentially get unlimited roaming across the same area and no extra cost for long distance.

Since our market is different our cell phone plans are different. That's the crux - our plans better fit our needs than yours would, so we have a large calling area for one price.

From another perspective - isn't the EU one Europe (I say somewhat TIC) so why can't there be one cell plan?

Re:News?

[Registered Coward v2]

Being from the U.S. myself I don't see any reason to defend charging for incoming calls. My landline doesn't get charge for incoming calls. Neither should my cell phone. I don't mind if they charge enough for outgoing to make up the cost (I would guess they already do this anyway).

Unless you have a very limited plan incoming calls have little to no effect on your charges - unless for some reason you receive a lot of prime time calls from people not with your provider.

As for the cost, the marginal cost for the call is essentially zero ; so other than truncation fees (if they still exist) it really doesn't cost anything for the provider to connect you.

The worst offender of all is having to pay for incoming texts. I have never sent a text in my life, and I only receive a few a month, and those that I receive are generally accidents, or are from someone at work who doesn't realize that dialing my number and calling is cheaper, easier and less time-intensive than dialing my number and typing in a text message.

Block all text. Issue fixed.

Unlike you I am not hopeful for the election to change anything. I have not heard anything from either candidate about this issue, nor would I want the government to get involved. I simply want consumers to stop laying down and taking it, which is probably a shallow hope since they are so addicted to text messaging.

You missed the tag

Re:News?

[J Isaksson]

What operator/subscription is that? Sounds pretty good and I've only found "payment plan" deals on computers with the mobile broadband subscriptions in Sweden :-/

Re:News?

[jawtheshark]

As I said, it all makes sense within the historical context. One thing I want to add: the EU is nothing like the US. If anything in Europe is comparable to the US, it is... Germany! The Bunderländer are equivalent to your States. So, while indeed geographically, Europe is similar to the US, politically it is not. As such, in practice every country has its own operators. Sure, they are owned by one multi-national company, but the subsidiaries have to observe local laws (taxes, etc...) This simply is not true in the US, making things way simpler.

I don't think it's because the markets. I'm pretty sure that the US could function perfectly fine with the caller pays structure. To me this is entirely historical, so I don't buy your arguments.

Oh, and just that you know... The fact that it is politically very different does bring us to the EU which is going to regulate roaming charges. That's the nice part about living in a customer-protected environment ;-) That said, they overdid it a bit. I live in a tiny country and over 30% of the revenue of providers comes from roaming. They are very pissed at these political decisions. However, from a consumer point of view, I say: bring it on baby! ;-))

Re:News?

[Registered Coward v2]

As I said, it all makes sense within the historical context. One thing I want to add: the EU is nothing like the US. If anything in Europe is comparable to the US, it is... Germany! The Bunderländer are equivalent to your States. So, while indeed geographically, Europe is similar to the US, politically it is not. As such, in practice every country has its own operators. Sure, they are owned by one multi-national company, but the subsidiaries have to observe local laws (taxes, etc...) This simply is not true in the US, making things way simpler.

Well, given the wide array of local taxes and regulations the US market has many local issues as well.

As for similarities; I doubt each Bundeslander has it's own army or air force.

I don't think it's because the markets. I'm pretty sure that the US could function perfectly fine with the caller pays structure. To me this is entirely historical, so I don't buy your arguments.

But there is no reason to do so - the current system works fine and changing the billing structure would simply confuse people. As I said, with our minute structures incoming calls are really not an issue for most users.

After all, the EU could function perfectly fine with no roaming charges, flat rate pricing and caller / receiver pays as well.

Oh, and just that you know... The fact that it is politically very different does bring us to the EU which is going to regulate roaming charges. That's the nice part about living in a customer-protected environment ;-) That said, they overdid it a bit. I live in a tiny country and over 30% of the revenue of providers comes from roaming. They are very pissed at these political decisions. However, from a consumer point of view, I say: bring it on baby! ;-))

I'm not sure the EU is as consumer friendly as some would believe, given it's pricing structures and rules. But that's a different issue.

You've hit on the real reason for roaming - providers make a ton of money off of it.

Re:News?

[amorsen]

And yet, I have been telling you that in my country exactly this is happening! Are you obtuse or what?

No, you're simply fact-resistant. Go read the actual documents. If you live in a decent country, the inter-carrier rates are public, and so are the rates that virtual carriers pay to the main carriers. Compare.

Re:News?

[amorsen]

That doesn't matter to me as a customer.... You do realise that?

It should matter to you that a call can be produced for 0.03EUR/min and you're paying at least 0.10EUR/min for it. Twice that if you're calling from a land line. That's the cost of not having a competitive market.

do your math - iPhone not cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in Finland, where the iPhone is available with or without a contract, it"s actually cheaper to buy the phone and get a separate unlimited data plan for two years.

Unfortunately, you can get a reasonable laptop for the same price as an unlocked iPhone (599 euro)

If I Could...

[whisper_jeff]

If I could buy an iPhone and get a data plan and only a data plan with Rogers (I'm Canadian), I would. Their phone plans SUCK so I refuse to get an iPhone and am sticking with Koodo instead but, if Rogers ever pulls their heads out of their @ss or starts offering data-only plans for iPhone owners, I'll snatch one up in a second. Of course, one would surely ask why I'd want an i_Phone_ if I don't want to use the phone part but, first, the ability to have the internet in your pocket is VERY appealing and the my iPod Touch has made me realize that Apple "got it right" with their internet access. Second, even without a phone plan, one can still use the iPhone as a phone with voip programs (over wi-fi, of course). But, it's all a non-issue because I can't imagine Rogers _ever_ offering a data-only plan...

Full laptops in the UK

[Ash-Fox]

In the UK you can get a free full-sized laptop with a 12 or 18 month contract for broadband Internet.

Re:Full laptops in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Beat me to the punch there.
The drawback is you need to subscribe to AOL, with all its limitations. Here in the UK I feel we get exceptional value in the communication market.
I have 8Gb broadband with BT cost #24 is a month with no download cap, free wireless router, free voip phone, free digiTV box etc.

Re:Full laptops in the UK

[Ash-Fox]

The drawback is you need to subscribe to AOL

I was actually referring to the 3G (mobile phone network) broadband deals.

Frankly

[Colin Smith]

I don't understand why I can't simply "dock" my 300MHz 64Mb RAM, 2Gb storage mobile phone into a cradle and use a normal keyboard, mouse and screen to edit documents, write emails, browse web etc.

Psion had fully featured word processors, spreadsheets and cardfile databases running on 16bit hardware a decade ago, the problem isn't the OS or hardware... All the current crop of smartphones are up to the job.
 

Re:Frankly

[Tryfen]

You can.

Nokia's N95 8GB comes with a TV-out cable in the box. Hook it up to a 42 inch plasma screen, pair a bluetooth keyboard with the phone and you're all set.

You can even play Quake on it.

Use the built in Webkit browser or install Opera.

It has full desktop-style office apps available. Out of the box it can read .doc and .ppt and a few others.

It has a media streamer (realplayer) so you can watch TV, listen to Internet radio, podcasts etc.

There's a mobile version of DivX which will play your "backups".

Want to go insane with yourbandwidth? Try the Bit Torrent client that's available - SymTorrent. Mind you, you're better off using the built in WiFi for that.

Better keep a charger nearby!

Re:Frankly

[LaughingCoder]

I agree with one enhancement ... it should connect wirelessly to those devices. I would love to sit down at my desk with my smartphone in my pocket (with gobs of storage inside it) and have it automatically associate (over bluetooth?) with the screen, keyboard, wired or wifi interface, speakers, etc. Basically every workstation/PC would simply be IO devices ... the computation power and data would travel with me in my pocket. I guess for the time being it could physically dock, but that's so 90s -- wireless is the way to go.

Re:Frankly

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but does it run linux?

Re:Frankly

[The 13th Duke]

I was with you until you mentioned realplayer.

Re:Frankly

[asadodetira]

Absolutely. I would go further and say that there's a need to revert to more power efficient devices similar to the PSION's. I submitted an idea for such at the WePC website, feel free to vote it: http://www.wepc.com/vote/view/idea/2558/Eternal_battery_PC

Re:Frankly

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nokia's N95 8GB comes with a TV-out cable in the box. Hook it up to a 42 inch plasma screen, pair a bluetooth keyboard with the phone and you're all set."

Enjoy an interface designed for a few inches, square, of 320x480! Enjoy the S60 OS which is an abomination. Enjoy not being able to use Flash, or a lot of what most people think of as the web.

My iPhone is barely OK. I had a Nokia E61i. I know what sort of S60 software is out there. Enjoy using a full qwerty keyboard on a device whose software is all written expecting a number-pad (vs. say a touchscreen).

No Nokia product is acceptable at present.

The retail perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in computers at Best Buy(I know, i know we suck) and we have been pushing the mobile broadband with the eeePCs for a while. They have been a big hit with those who want full computing capabilities(ex. truck drivers) as oppose to something just like an iPhone. This will be a great partnership if it works out. I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner.

Re:The retail perspective

[Registered Coward v2]

I work in computers at Best Buy(I know, i know we suck) and we have been pushing the mobile broadband with the eeePCs for a while. They have been a big hit with those who want full computing capabilities(ex. truck drivers) as oppose to something just like an iPhone. This will be a great partnership if it works out. I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner.

First of all, BB fits a nice niche - I don't find you suck even if some sales people are somewhat clueless (like the ones that keep insisting a less than full frame dSLR somehow magically turns a 200mm lens into the equivalent reach of a 320mm)at least most are helpful.

That convergence is the next area of growth - once screens become decent enough to do word processing, spreadsheets and presentations for an extended period I think they will become mobile devices of choice for may road warriors. By usability, I mean the ability to create presentations and spreadsheets without having to squint or zoom in / scroll around the page; couple dwith a reasonably high res display..

PowerPoint, with a 10" page view and small small menubar or some sort of contextual right click pop up menu (or both) could fit the bill. The current variants, while tempting, waste too much screen space and would be frustrating for extended use.

My guess is MS will come out with slimmed down (in terms of screen space use) versions of Office apps to target that market.

It's also an opportunity for OSS to find a sweet spot - usable versions of Office replacements with full MS Office file compatibility; along with MS Exchange support in an Outlook clone at a low enough price point would have an opportunity to establish market share before MS exerts its market force. Most road warriors do not need games but need rock solid Office support and usability and probably would welcome a lighter, smaller device with built in internet access.

Re:The retail perspective

[mollymoo]

I don't find you suck even if some sales people are somewhat clueless (like the ones that keep insisting a less than full frame dSLR somehow magically turns a 200mm lens into the equivalent reach of a 320mm)at least most are helpful.

Erm, that thing about the lenses is true. If you have a 1.6x sensor (like Canon consumer DSLRs) a 200mm lens will give you the same FOV ("zoom") as a 320mm lens does in a full-frame DSLR. It's not magic, it's basic geometry.

Re:The retail perspective

[Registered Coward v2]

I don't find you suck even if some sales people are somewhat clueless (like the ones that keep insisting a less than full frame dSLR somehow magically turns a 200mm lens into the equivalent reach of a 320mm)at least most are helpful.

Erm, that thing about the lenses is true. If you have a 1.6x sensor (like Canon consumer DSLRs) a 200mm lens will give you the same FOV ("zoom") as a 320mm lens does in a full-frame DSLR. It's not magic, it's basic geometry.

FOV, yes. But salesclerks present it as magnification, not FOV.

Re:The retail perspective

[mollymoo]

I don't really see the distinction you're trying to make. A thing which would appear 1" high in a 5x7 print from a 35mm camera with a 320mm lens will appear 1" high in a 5x7 print from a 1.6x crop DSLR with a 200m lens. That's the definition of magnification which matters when you're taking photos, isn't it? It's about how far away something can be and still fill the frame.

Re:The retail perspective

[Registered Coward v2]

I don't really see the distinction you're trying to make. A thing which would appear 1" high in a 5x7 print from a 35mm camera with a 320mm lens will appear 1" high in a 5x7 print from a 1.6x crop DSLR with a 200m lens. That's the definition of magnification which matters when you're taking photos, isn't it? It's about how far away something can be and still fill the frame.

That is because you've enlarged the image - it's no different than cropping and enlarging a FF image; assuming both sensors have the same pixel density. To use your analogy a finer grain film would turn the 200 into say a 300 as well; yet no one use the term "film factor" since it FOV that is what lens measurement refers to.

Consider a frosted glass plate at the focal point of the lens - while the FOV changes depending on what portion of the image you select the resolution of the image is the same. All that you change is how much you enlarge it to get the same final print size. You have not changed the optic properties of the lens; and it does not suddenly get the ability to distinguish (resolve) features at a distance that a 320 lens would (i.e. the 320 might reveal that the 1" object is two sticks where there 200 would only resolve 1 wide object).

Or, too look at it from another perspective, if you shrink the sensor to 100th of a FF you do not get a 20000mm lens.

The problem, of course, is that many people do not properly think of FOV but rather "reach" and hence the confusion on their part; and the assume the 320mm equivalent means they'll be able to take better pictures of distant objects.

Re:The retail perspective

[mollymoo]

Ah, I see what you're getting at now. But I think you are completely wrong about what 99% of people expect from a lens. Normal people don't give a toss about resolution as long as their photos are sharp enough. Unless you're in the habit of making poster-sized prints the image from a 1.6x crop camera with a 200mm lens is indistinguishable from the image from a full-frame camera with a 320mm lens. Resolving power matters to me when I'm doing astrophotography, but when I'm not lens selection is all about how big I can make stuff in the frame. I studied optics at university and could bore you to death about the PSF of my telescopes, so I do understand what a smaller sensor really means, but when I'm in photographer mode I still think my ef-s 55-250mm on my 20d is equivalent to an 88-400mm. Because in every way it matters for taking nice photos, it is. Picking a photographic lens is about the composition it allows you to achieve, not how well it can split double stars. I suspect even normal people think bigger is better, rather than sharper is better.

Re:The retail perspective

[Registered Coward v2]

Ah, I see what you're getting at now. But I think you are completely wrong about what 99% of people expect from a lens. Normal people don't give a toss about resolution as long as their photos are sharp enough. Unless you're in the habit of making poster-sized prints the image from a 1.6x crop camera with a 200mm lens is indistinguishable from the image from a full-frame camera with a 320mm lens. Resolving power matters to me when I'm doing astrophotography, but when I'm not lens selection is all about how big I can make stuff in the frame. I studied optics at university and could bore you to death about the PSF of my telescopes, so I do understand what a smaller sensor really means, but when I'm in photographer mode I still think my ef-s 55-250mm on my 20d is equivalent to an 88-400mm. Because in every way it matters for taking nice photos, it is.

I think we are in agreement - in the end what matters is will it take the picture you want.

Today's sensor technology is to the point where you can crop and enlarge and still get good results; for me digital means I've rediscovered photography; although I do miss being able to swap out the sensor whenever I want.

What has happened, IMHO, is the reference point has changed for what is a wide or tele; however, with 35mm lens fitting FF and APS-C bodies people have a hard time changing their frame of reference. This is unlike going from medium format to 35mm where the two systems are separate in people's minds; since you generally do not use gear from one format in the other.

The lack of a clean break between the two sensor sizes has resulted in confusion, made worse by P&S cameras being labeled in "equivalent" focal lengths.

Picking a photographic lens is about the composition it allows you to achieve, not how well it can split double stars. I suspect even normal people think bigger is better, rather than sharper is better.

I agree 100% - you match the tool to the need. As you rightly point out, a give FL results in a standard FOV (based on 35mm sensor size), the quality of the image depends on the len's optical quality. That's why I love my 70-200 2.8L. Right range, great optics for my use.

My issue is with sales people who use "crop factor" to try to convince people the camera has the same resolving power with a shorter lens as a full frame does with a longer lens; rather than actually explain composition and the effects of a smaller sensor.

They use the "bigger is better" fallacy to sell a camera to someone who really doesn't understand the effects on image; though in fairness to many salespeople they probably don't either.

If only

[kurtis25]

If mobile broadband were fast enough to watch TV online, if the bandwidth caps were high enough to connect to my firm's remote server 8 hours a day and watch 5 hours of TV shows online a week and it was less than the $30 a month I pay for internet now I would sign up in a heartbeat.

Re:If only

[amorsen]

If mobile broadband were fast enough to watch TV online,

It is.

if the bandwidth caps were high enough to connect to my firm's remote server 8 hours a day

They are.

and watch 5 hours of TV shows online a week

That can be iffy, can you stay within 10GB?

and it was less than the $30 a month I pay for internet now

It's more than $30. Mobile broadband isn't going to win over very much of the fixed broadband market in the near term. There are lots of downsides to it, including cost and (often) latency. Still, it's wonderful to have in addition to fixed broadband.

Re:If only

[mollymoo]

The future is here. I can already watch TV on my Nokia 6120 with 3 here in the UK. I pay £10 for 3GB per month. For £2 I could add unlimited TV. For a few quid extra I could have unlimited streaming from a Slingbox.

Already happening in Asia

[Anonymous Coward]

Several networks are already offering this kind of deal here in Taiwan. Some of them even giving them away for free if you take the unlimited 3G network plan combined with a 2 year contract. The unlimited 3G plan costs about 22USD at the current exchange rate which is pretty decent since you get a netbook worth close to 400 bucks retail price (they give away Asus EEE PC 901 and 1000H and such and not the cheap surf model)

Personally I think that it is a good deal.

AT&T is killing unlimited MediaNet

[Anonymous Coward]

After Nov 11th you will no longer be able to purchase the best deal on 3G access, AT&T $20/mo unlimited MediaNet which you could use in a USB/PCMCIA data card and get mobile broadband anywhere with no contract.

Single Device, Multiple Uses

[Anonymous Coward]

The author's take: A very large number of people are increasingly looking to buy a single device â" or, at least, subscribe to a single wireless account â" for all their computing and communications needs, and at the lowest possible price.

If only the gaming industry could work that out, so I wouldn't need to buy all these bloody consoles and I could just use my PC.

Predictions

[markdavis]

1) MS-Windows only
2) Overpriced monthly service
3) Hardware hard-wired for only a single carrier

How wonderful, I can hardly wait.

Why don't we do this with cars next- "Get this wonderful car for only $8,000; just sign this $800 per month, 3 year contract for Exxon gas- and oh, by the way, it will only run on Exxon gas, and you are only allowed 20 gallons per month".

Re:Predictions

[jawtheshark]

Get this wonderful car for only $8,000; just sign this $800 per month

Are you familiar with the concept of Leasing?

Re:Predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for making a car analogy!
I can finally understand what y'all are talking about.

Re:Predictions

[jisatsusha]

Ever bought a car which would only run on the manufacturer's road, and with the manufacturer's fuel? No? It doesn't count then.

Re:Predictions

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realise that what you describe is EXACTLY the model that electric cars are going to be in Australia. The only difference is you pay per km (Who knows if you'll be able to get a discount if you use your OWN power to charge). You won't own the battery - So your kind of paying for battery charge cycles - in km.
OzFalcon (Anon because lazy)

Re:Predictions

[LittleBigScript]

This car analogy has solved our energy crisis!

Re:Predictions

[Corporate Troll]

Many leasings come with a gas-card tied to one gas station brand.

Many Real factors.

[jellomizer]

This seems a lot like the 1990s to me. Remember People PC. They in general did the same thing but with PC's and Dialup Internet. If you are going to sell people a laptop you realize that you will need to support the laptop not just your Internet connection. The reason why this works with cell phones is the fact that for the most part most of them are fairly locked down. While a PC is wide open and uncontrollable. Unless you get a $99 laptop and you cannot add or remove program except threw a safe channel any attempt to upgrade or change any of the setting voids all warentees and any upgrade to the network may "Brick" your laptop. Right now ISP have the liberty of saying it is a Dell/Microsoft problem. But if they sell them the preinstalled PC even at a discount, people will go to YOU for support. I remember at my Old Job a person calling for Free Tech Support for their computer just because they happened to get our promotional Mouse Pads (they didn't even buy anything from us nor did we make his computer, install or do anything with it)

People with low to intermediate computing needs...

[walter_f]

... will indeed be able to get things done with a well-chosen netbook. The more intelligent among them (be their income low or relatively high) will prefer to buy their netbooks the traditional way, not as a part of a two-year service contract.

On the other hand, whoever expects to satisfy their computing needs with an iPhone or a similar device will end up dissatisfied, and doubly so when on a service contract that has to be paid for monthly from a low income.

Old News everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

This is old news everywhere. Schemes like this were tried in the United States several times in the late nineties/early 00's. They were all failures. Initially the companies offered free machines with ads on the desk top and in the browser. But that didn't make them any money.

Then they started demanding signed contracts from users stating that the machines wouldn't be modified, since a large portion of their userbase turned out to be techies that were wiping the machines and installing their OS of choice. That didn't make them any money.

Then they started offering free or cheap ($100 or less) machines if you signed a contract for cheap-ish ad-riddled internet. That didn't make them any money.

Then they went out of business.

Re:Old News everywhere

[Dogtanian]

This is old news everywhere. Schemes like this were tried in the United States several times in the late nineties/early 00's. They were all failures.

No, this obviously isn't the same at all. The schemes you described were to give people free or very cheap PCs in exchange for agreeing to be bombarded by advertising, using a variant of the "get the eyeballs first and then profit will somehow follow" dotcom-era mantra.

The one here is where you get a "free" PC if you agree to commit to a (paid) two year mobile broadband contract; very similar to existing deals with mobile phones and contracts. The phone isn't really free, it's effectively covered by the cost of the contract which you've agreed to pay and the company knows in advance. Nothing new and not the same thing.

why would i want two contracts?

[Carrot007]

I cannot understand why anyone would want to pay the mobile companies twice.

I currently can use my mobile when appropriate but when I need something more I use bletooth to connect my eee to my phone to use it's connection. Yes this does mean paying more on my phone contract but not as much as 2 contracts would be from what I have seen on these plans already. (I'm in the UK they have been selling like this for quite while now)

Only thing that probably sucks is when it comes time to renew my contract and get a nice shiny new phone there will be no bolt on options and I will be forced to have two contracts to make the mobile companies more money.

This is not a good thing, the only people who would needa mobile broadband only option are people without a mobile. For the rest it should just be bluetooth or whatever to the mobile phone. Yes I realise the operators in the US try to discourage you from this or ban it on most plans, but that is just bollocks, if i can use the interent on my phone whats the difference if I can connect another device? NOTHING, that's what, it just does not help them rip you off.

Please replace the headline.

[drolli]

I think it should be "why we will get netbooks after paying 100Euro immediatly". Please avoid the word "cost". It implies somehow that you do not pay something later. At the current subsidiation rates for mobile devices by cross financing, for many devices the original "price" is not more than a token of goodwill.

If could make a single law regarding that it would be that the contract financing the mobile device should be something which is made separately from the contract for the mobile sata transfer. Somehting like: when you make the mobile phone contract, a clause is included which states that a certain fraction of the montly rate goes to an bank, which borrows you money for the purpose of buying a mobile device, which you may buy where you want and how you want. In that way everybody would *realize* that "getting a mobile phone for free" may exceed his financial capabilities.

Verizon

[Alex Belits]

Celphone: $60/mo -- but you can only use its data functionality with crippled browser.

Data plan that allows you to attach a computer: $60/mo more on top of that.

Worse yet, Verizon until recently didn't keep theit users from using their "1x" data service, only asking for $60/mo to get access to faster EV-DO network. Now "1x" is blocked unless, of course, the user bypasses their retarded configuration that allows them to distinguish calls from the phone itself from calls made through the phone using USB or Bluetooth connection.

If someone expects me, or any significant fraction of users, to pay $120/mo for ANY kind of celphone service, he is deluding himself.

(This response was written on XO laptop, and sent through T-Mobile wifi connection.)

Re:Verizon

[Svartalf]

I wouldn't be doing Verizon with this one.

Sprint. They offer their data plans separate and for a relatively reasonable rate with or without a phone contract attached. Moreover, it seems that while they don't have as much penetration of total voice coverage that Verizon has arranged, they have more high-speed coverage than Verizon seems to have (For example... While my EVDO phone has full-on coverage, GPS, etc. here in the DFW area, on a trip to OKC to acquire some new horses at auction for the horse farm venture I'm partners in, the GPS plain flat didn't work. Excuse? It only works in the high-speed data areas (EVDO) and they're working on rolling it out in other areas. Sprint's works. AT&T works (We ended up using my partner's iPhone to navigate into the hotel on the way up there...so much for GPS from Verizon...).

Don't bother with Verizon Wireless on that one. Sprint seems to be the only player in that space worth messing with (AT&T seems to want an silly amount of money for the 3G services in comparison...)

AT&T?!?!

[TheWGP]

The single most positive thing about this might be that, if it gets sufficient press play and such, it could showcase how AsinineThieves&Tyrants screws their customres over.

No, really, pretty please, I'm BEGGING to be allowed to use a tiny netbook on a problematic network and pour whatever AsinineThieves&Tyrants demands out of my wallet! Just please use lube - oh, wait, that costs $20 a month extra, doesn't it?

The Failed Business Models of the 1990s

[tyme]

There is a big difference between the subscription plan you buy with your mobile phone and subscription plans like this: with the mobile phone, the thing the customer is actually interested in isn't the physical phone, but the ability to make phone calls on the network, so paying the subscription fee makes sense for the consumer; the cost of the phone, which is usually indexed to the customer's desire for features/prestige/etc. is incidental to the actual thing being sold: access to the wireless network. With all these plans to sell full-fledged computers by tacking their price onto some other service, the problem is that the other service is usually incidental to customer's actual interest: the computer. If the customer doesn't really want the thing you are trying to sell, then you will have a tough time keeping them in the subscription plan.

This was tried by a number of companies in the late nineties, and all failed miserably. Apparently there are a bunch of young MBAs out there who didn't learn the lesson of the iOpener.

Re:The Failed Business Models of the 1990s

[fredmosby]

But in 2008 most people use a computer mainly for web browsing and email, so for most people a computer is useless without an internet connection.

Policy of no naked DSL

[tepples]

Buyers in developed economies often realize they don't need a land line.

Unless the phone company threatens to cut off the DSL once the customer cuts off the phone line.

Old news

[yacc143]

"Free" netbooks (with mobile broadband contracts) have been around for months herearound (Austria to be specific, in Germany I've seen notebooks with lowered prices if combined with mobile contracts).

This might be news in the US, but probably only there.

yacc

Chobits?

[PontifexPrimus]

So persocoms aren't far off? Sweet!

You can have one for 1â already

[BESTouff]

You can already buy them for 1€ in France: http://www.rueducommerce.fr/home/index.cfm/les1euros/page_home_1euro.html?utm_source=banniere&utm_medium=bloc&utm_campaign=les1euros-2008-10-29-blocHG

They aren't $99.. they're free

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Ireland and in the UK, you get laptops in this range, and sometimes even slightly better ones, for free when you sign up for mobile broadband (and sometimes even for home broadband like DSL.)

The key that will make this work...

[AMSRay]

With the new "GOBI" global high-speed wireless chipset from Qualcomm, you can use any HSPA or EV-Do carrier world-wide. HP has already announced they will start using it. I can't imagine that Asus and others will not soon follow. If the netbooks are offered free with contract as seems probable, you will be able to change carriers as soon as the contract is up, or buy your way out if you don't like the carrier you signed up for initially. You will still have a usable device that you can take to a different carrier. Netbooks or smart phones with GOBI and 802.11n could be a market changer with as much impact as the first handheld cell phones.

Shouldn't netbooks cost $99 Anyway?

[TeamMCS]

I'm sorry, maybe a mixture of demand and my ignorance has confused me but wern't these netbooks (i'm looking at you 701) should have cost $99? Now we've got netbooks creeping past £400($600-700USD). I love these devices but my XPS 2.5Ghz Penryn, 4gig ram (yadyada)cost barely a few hundred dollars more. The size difference isn't that amazing on the new 10" models. Speaking of which, why the seriously crap resolutions? 1024*600, 800*480. My Sony U3 [that was subsiquently stolen :@], which is knocking on 5-6 years old had an 4:3 XGA resolution. Christ, my 15" laptop has a 1920x1200 screen so the technology is avalible and cheap enough to have high density screens - why not include a nice 1280*1024?

Re:Shouldn't netbooks cost $99 Anyway?

[Jorophose]

Speaking of which, why the seriously crap resolutions?

It's because of people who want XP on these machines. Microsoft does not want XP on machines with resolutions bigger than 1024x768, with more than a single core 1.6GHz CPU, and 1GB of RAM.

So unless the OEMs are going to grow some balls and sell machines with dual-core atoms and 1280x768 equipped with Linux, you're going to have a technically inferior machine with XP or the better one with choice of Linux or Vista. (see: HP Mininote. 1280x768, runs Vista and SUSE.)

These are also LED-backlit; I don't know if that makes it instantly more pricey than traditional methods (I know the 2133 uses CCFL).

Re:Shouldn't netbooks cost $99 Anyway?

[CAIMLAS]

Simple answer: they are making a massive killing on these devices, and there is no need

Think about it: shit resolutions means lower battery use. This is important, not only because the Atom isn't all that efficient, but also because batteries cost more than (most of) the electronics. They just market it as a 7", 9" or what have you LCD, and most people don't give a damn (largely because they don't know a damn). This ultimately saves a little battery economy, allowing them to stretch the minuscule 2hr runtime a little further.

That "$100 price point!" nonsense was just that: nonsense, of the marketing type. Not much different than MS saying "the next version will have feature X!" and then not releasing with feature X, and people buying it anyway (due to the hype).

A while ago there were some 400MHz MIPS-based computers floating around the internet, being advertised as costing $98. Not all that powerful (1Gb SSD, wifi, 128M RAM), but reasonable enough for 'netbook' functionality with the right software. Oh, you can get them for $98 each - you just have to buy 100 at a time. Buy one retail (afaik there's only one retailer in the US, can't recall which) and it's $250.

The reasoning is simple, really: get someone emotionally committed at $100, and they've already budgeted/made the purchase in their heads. When it comes out for $225, they don't conceive it as $125 more than what was promised; they see it as a $125 cost and, while inconvenient, still something they're willing to do - even though it's well over twice as much.

Videocard Netbooks

[Doc Ruby]

The really exciting market niche for netbooks is ones with really fast videocards. People surfing the Web and emailing frequently get videos to watch. And with a fast GPU plus gigabit ethernet, these terminals could do full HDTV from a "home server". With an HDMI/DVI adapter onboard, they could drive bigscreen HDTVs, and the platform for fully interactive TV would be affordable in every room in the home or office. And they could be grabbed on the go, while running at home with the best power savings.

Give us $350 netbooks with $250 super-duper GPUs. We're ready for it.

Re:Videocard Netbooks

[Jorophose]

That seems like a job for nVidia's Tegra, if they'll just allow Linux developpement already.

I'd love to see it sold as a cell phone. I'd buy it up on the spot. If it was like the demo kit, but with a slide-out keyboard (or a slide-down keypad like the LG Shine). Bluetooth and Wifi, and maybe DisplayPort out (I would prefer DVI-I or analog, without silly restrictions, but whatever) so you could hook it up to your monitor/TV and have a bluetooth keyboard/mouse so that you could use it as a full computer when necessary (maybe just for diagnostics). (oh, and SDHC is a must nvidia!)

It would also make a good ebook reader, and of course PMP. I wonder if those demo kits were equipped with touchscreens, though?

here in Finland ...

[Skal Tura]

This has been the happening for a year now or something, longer time anyways.

Nothing upfront, laptop + wireless broadband (GPRS i think) 15-29euros a month, 2 year contract.

So, $59/month x 24 plus $100 = $1500

[gelfling]

Seems like not so much a bargain. But that's just me.

Re:So, $59/month x 24 plus $100 = $1500

[Svartalf]

Depends on if you were going to get data access or not. If you're getting both, then $59/mo for what you'd have gotten ANYHOW means that you got a laptop with access for $100. If you're not doing that, then it's not a good deal, no.

Re:So, $59/month x 24 plus $100 = $1500

[overcaffein8d]

how much will you have to pay for the plan without the contract, though? and add the cost of the laptop... it all boils down to why you want the netbook in the first place: to use wireless (cellular) internet, or for word processing, etc...

Re:So, $59/month x 24 plus $100 = $1500

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

So, $59/month x 24 plus $100 = $1500

Seems like not so much a bargain. But that's just me.

You're getting wireless internet the whole time. For some, it's worth it.

Re:So, $59/month x 24 plus $100 = $1500

[gelfling]

I would consider this a second laptop not a primary one. So for me it's extra. I seriously have to wonder just how portable people will find a 9" screen PC once they have a reason to carry it around. For instance, the HTC Shift's spec sheet says it's 800g with the battery. That's more than 28oz which seems like an awful lot for a device that's supposed to replace your computer and your phone with a device that has the portability of a phone. Now if you're getting a 9 or even 7" laptop instead, AND you're lugging a phone, assuming you're not leaving your PC on all the time and running Skype to a BT headset, that's an awful lot of gear to lug.

This makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'd probably fall in to the low income area atleast when it comes to consumers of technology. With that being said I would never try to replace my desktop with my laptop or my laptop with my PPC. All of which I have but I buy used and set them all up myself(including my HTC phone which has been highly educational but frustrating too). The only people who would try to substitute one for the other obviously doesn't need the other. I make use of all my electronics for what they are made for. I will never go without a desktop because of the power and the ability to upgrade. I use a laptop for work mainly as a portable ghosting machine(it's a tool not a PC to me). My phone allows me to keep in touch, check my email, review documents and some portable entertainment. If you are in the lower income range and you have any intelligence you wont run out and buy the latest product with a hiked up price. You will realize that the iphone only has 128mb ram it may have 8 or 16gb built in but SD cards are cheap enough now. It has an accelerometer and a multi touch touch screen. You can get all of these features minus the multi touch in a lot of used PPC/smartphones for a lot cheaper.

$289

[rlp]

Today's Woot has a new Acer net book for $289 with no subsidy. The downside - smallish three cell battery.

Re:$289

[cashman73]

It has Linux, too! =) But if you look at some of the comments, wooters are complaining and wanting to know how to put Windows XP on it?!?!

Laptops will cost $99 for a much simpler reason.

[Phizzle]

Its called Deflation, and its here.

Bah! Why commit to a mobile broadband contract?

[Orion Blastar]

$100 Linux based MIPS laptops are much better but don't have the CPU power of the others. That is the $100 laptop I might buy.

Re:Bah! Why commit to a mobile broadband contract?

[CAIMLAS]

Yeah, you and me too! Let me know when you find somewhere you can actually buy them from, short of paying importation fees!

Some can use their cell phone

[overcaffein8d]

I have Alltel. I didn't realize this (and they won't tell you this unless you ask), but you can tether some cell phones to laptops with USB cords (ebay) and use their software (makes you enter your number) to connect to Alltel's EVDO or 1xRTT (map)... Best of all, you can get an unlimited contract for $30 a month (way cheaper than buying one of those standalone things). Also (and I don't know how well this will work for others), I connected anyway and it takes time out of your anytime minutes (or night/wknd if it's those times).

lolmerica

[Anonymous Coward]

I got my EeePC 901 (Atom/SSD/WiFi card with monitor mode) for free with a 15$/month phone contract. Welcome to "Yawwwwn".

Every European country has had this, or an EeePC for 1$ with a 2-year 20$/month unlimited 3kbps mobile broadband connection for at least 6 months now?

Linux version $99,Windows version $99+2 year contr

[GodWasAnAlien]

Linux version $99, Windows version $99 plus 2 year contract.

I'm ok if they add the 2 year lease on the Window version.

Windows users like leasing software, paying every year, hoping that this version fixes some of the annoyances of the last one.

Why exactly does binary only software cost money, when software that comes with source code is free?

Austria: â0/25â p.m. for the Asus eeePC

[ammoQ]

http://shop.t-mobile.at/2151810010/1_1_3_5/10011/index.html&intTab=1

Okay, but won't they suck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone always talks about how great it is that laptops are cheaper than ever, you can get them $500, $400, $200, or $100 + phone contract, but the basic problem is always the same: those super-cheap laptops suck.

I recently paid $450 for a new Dell laptop for school. I wanted to get one of the Macbooks because they're cool and it's what my teacher dad has at home, but instead I listened to one of the many internet douchebags who told me that Macs were too expensive and I should get a Dell for less than half the price. What a mistake.

The thing takes about 10 minutes to boot up, about a minute and a half to recover from hibernate, and a good two or three minutes to load up any application. Word is so slow I've taken to writing papers in the computer lab to save time and frustration.

I realize some of the faults there are due to it being Windows shittiness, so I'm planning on installing Linux once I can be sure the hardware will work, but the basic fact of buying a laptop computer is that you don't get what you don't pay for. I can see why a super-cheap sub $200 notebook might appeal to some people, if you already have a desktop and plan on accessing that remotely, but for the majority of people who get a laptop as their sole computer platform, it's just stupid.

Then again, I guess if you're going to fall for the old low-upfront-payment-plus-two-year-contract bit, you're probably pretty dumb anyway.

Or....

[zogger]

..as an alternative to those folks like me who can't get anything but dialup, and are looking forward to more competition in the wireless broadband market so it becomes more available and more affordable. Not everyone can get wired broadband in the US yet, nor is that likely to ever change, just some areas because of local geographics and population density are SOL when it comes to that, and currently, whatever the telco wireless guys have is "it" for an option, outside of satellite, which is expensive and quite limited as well.

Pointing out the obvious...

[jshackney]

So, the total cost over two years is 888.75 euros (1,132.80 USD). Then of course, you continue paying 34.95/mo until you decide to go with another contract. Or, outright, the 901 less contract could be had for about 364.98 euros, a little more than a straight conversion from USD at 344.38 euros (438.95 USD). I hope they aren't hard to find in the coming months. I have no need for some ridiculous contract.

depends on what you want it for

[Trepidity]

I personally don't spend most of my time roaming the entire earth, so the relevant figure is what proportion of my local urban area is covered by wifi. Now even that could use a lot of work, but I'd estimate offhand that I'm able to get into a free network in about 40% of locations I've tried it at.

Re:depends on what you want it for

[amorsen]

I'd estimate offhand that I'm able to get into a free network in about 40% of locations I've tried it at.

You're lucky. But even then 40% is way low, and it doesn't work if you're on the move.

Re:depends on what you want it for

[jonbryce]

Can you get WiFi in hotel bedrooms? Without paying something silly like £15 per day for it?

Re:depends on what you want it for

[Timothy Brownawell]

Seems fairly common at the ones I've been to. I think it used to be an advertising point, before it got to where they pretty much all had it. Occasionally you'll have to get a card at the front desk with the password, but more often its wide open with just a click-thru "don't sue us" page that shows up once a day.

data access doesn't cost that much, though

[Trepidity]

Adding an unlimited-internet data plan for a Treo costs $15/mo with Sprint.

It's already being done

[jonathancarter]

In South Africa, you can already buy an Eee PC + 3G modem and get both for free if you take out a 3G data bundle contract.

Low income.

[Simple-Simmian]

You are so right.

Where I live 50,000 a year plus benefits is not low income it's middle class.

I barely use my current cellphone and I would be getting a cut in Internet speed and bandwidth cap if I switched to a wireless account.

Re:Low income.

[MaskedSlacker]

Even in Los Angeles, its middle class. Median household income in City of Los Angeles is about $51k.

this has been done for some time

[Anonymous Coward]

-in Japan. The prices here are still quite high for netbooks, but several have reduced prices. I thought it was too good to be true, so I asked- it's because you have to buy a mobile broadband contract, and here it is indeed 2 years.

I wonder why always 2 years, why is that the magic number?

Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news: a manhattan flat will soon cost 2 dollars. If you take a 2 million mortgage with it.

These kinds of speculations are just stupid. I have seen the same "news" about iPhones. Soon apple will pay you for getting one. As long as you agree on paying $100/month for three years.

Of course things will be cheaper initially if you agree to pay for them over a period of two years.

true, but doesn't bug me much

[Trepidity]

I guess I don't see a huge benefit to having internet connectivity at every possible moment. I do see a benefit to being able to get online when I'm out easily, but this is solved by living in a city with free-wifi coffeeshops on every other street corner. I guess I don't see the huge advantage to being able to stand on the sidewalk on the internet a block away from the coffee shop instead of just going and sitting down.

As for on the move, depends on how you're moving. =] One of the buses I take most frequently has free wifi on the bus now. Main culprits still missing are commuter rail it seems.

Re:true, but doesn't bug me much

[Kadin2048]

Persistent internet connectivity is definitely one of those things I never thought I'd find useful, but now that I have it in the form of a smartphone, I'm never going back. Like from-my-cold-dead-hands never.

First, being able to send and receive email anywhere is neat. This may not be quite as impressive to people who've been on unlimited-SMS plans for a while, but I never got into text messaging. Push email on the other hand has definitely changed how I work. (And does seem like a potential source of work/life imbalance; I keep the push feature turned off after hours.)

Services like Google Maps are suddenly a lot more useful when used from a GPS-enabled smartphone than I'd ever realized they were before (and I'd been a big fan of them on my computer, too). It's done to walking around what having a navigation unit did to driving; I can basically go out and not really be terribly worried about getting somewhere, or looking up a store's hours, or finding the nearest [whatever] near [someplace]. It is worth getting a smartphone with GPS for this purpose alone, IMO.

Being able to do a quick Google search anywhere, pretty much at the drop of a hat, is also nice. I think it's one of those things that will pretty quickly become second-nature to a lot of people; even the people who don't actually have phones that can do it themselves, quickly learn that other people do and expect the ability to be there. Wikipedia is a little ugly on my phone at least, but it's handy to have access to as well.

My bank, Amtrak, and Delta Airlines all have mobile sites up and running now, and it seems to becoming more common daily. It is really nice to be able to look and see, as soon as you hit the tarmac, whether your connecting flight is still on-time or been delayed (meaning: do you need to haul ass off the plane, or can you wait and let everyone else get off first?).

There's also software that lets you use a 802.11-capable handset (at least Symbian ones) as an access point, which is great if you want an alternative to finicky Bluetooth or USB tethering, or you want to share your cell data connection with a group of people in a remote location. That's saved me a lot of headaches. (Software is JoikuSpot, I'm a big fan.)

I can see how nothing that a smartphone does is really impossible to do with a small laptop and free wireless connections -- and that was the route I took, for several years -- but there's really very little comparison. I don't carry my laptop around nearly as much since getting the smartphone, and I haven't felt like the money for the data service was anything but a great deal since getting it, either.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

They already do exactly this in Japan.
I dunno how good the quality of the mobile broadband is though.

the computing dark ages

[wikinerd]

There is a problem here, in that the mobile phone network operators have a very different philosophy than computer manufacturers.

Network operators are used to sell a service, and they see the device just as a necesary evil in order to sell the service. The effect of this is that most devices they sell tend to be locked-down, not transparent to the user, and stripped off of unwanted functionality (my PDA clamshell came with lots of software, for web browsing, for email, for many things, even many things I didn't really need, except the one thing I really needed most which I had to install myself and was one of the reasons for wanting a PDA in the first place: a python interpreter that I could use to hack around while waiting in the queue in the bank).

Yet computers in the epic 1980s era always included at least a programming language as a standard offering. Literally, even users who didn't know how to program had a programming language sitting in their ROM, floppies, or hard disk, because computer manufacturers (in that era, at least) were used to sell a kind of machine which is not very useful without a programming language built-in: the general programmable computer. Many machines from that era even booted up directly into a programming environment which was inseparable from the operating system.

After the heroic epoch of 1980s, PC clones dominated the market and Microsoft (but Apple also has to bear responsibility here) popularised a different philosophy: that the user is not supposed to know how to program and that they should be made to learn how to program in order to use a computer. Computer manufacturers started packaging computers with the idea that what they sell is not a computer per se but rather just a platform to run applications.

But even in the applications era it was easy to get into programming because, after all, the programming language could be installed as an application and used like any ordinary program. Therefore, the amateur tinkering (hacking, and I mean nothing bad by this word, it is the crackers who do bad things) spirit did not die, because those who felt the urge were able to find and set up a programming environment quickly.

At some point a great threat to the applications era appeared while the media and entertainment industry started moving into computing with technologies like the DVD: it was the combination of digital restrictions management (DRM) and treacherous computing (some people say "trusted", but one has to wonder how you can trust a computer that refuses to obey you). The philosophy of selling computers was threatened to turn from "selling application platforms" (after it was already shifted from the 1980s "selling general programmable computers") to the evil "selling platforms for specific/allowed applications only". This threat is still alive, but unfortunately now a second threat is appearing.

The second threat to the "selling platforms for applications" is, again, twofold: part of the threat comes from the rise of cloud computing, and another part from the entry of mobile telephony network operators into computing with such arrangements as bundling a netbook with a service plan. These developments threaten to change the philosophy of selling computers to "selling platforms for services". Computers will not be seen as application platforms anymore, not even as platforms for "trusted" applications. If this threat materialises, computers will be seen simply as devices needed to access a service, whether this service is mobile telephony, weather reports, stock market news, cloud-based word processing, video delivery, or email. Users in the future will forget the notion of application, just as most of them have forgot the notion of general programmable computer now. They will only know computers as windows (pun intented) that give them access to a service.

There is really no reason to believe that netbooks sold bundled with service plans by mobile phone network companies will resemble the netbooks we now know. Now they

Not impressed

[Lennie]

Not impressed, I already had a 'free' 400 Euro HP-laptop with a two year plan, why would I want a netbook ?

"will soon" try now

[Anonymous Coward]

eMobile has had this deal in Japan for a while now. You can get a free Asus or $100 for the somewhat nicer Acer model with a 2 year 7.2mbps data plan, including "Free" modem. The cheapest plans are somewhat more than the cheapest plans available if you just skipped the PC and paid for the modem (which I did). And the rates are anyway cheaper than those for slower speed in the US, but that's not the point I suppose.

In the Netherlands

[RAMMS EIN]

In the Netherlands, some mobile phone network operators have been offering free PCs and laptops with their subscriptions for years.

Not $99, but $0

[var-tec]

Not $99, but $0. In Europe that is. Mobile phone companies sell (or rather give away for free) netbooks and regular notebooks equipped with HSDPA (either internal, or on a dongle). The catch -- 2 year data plan.
For example with Vodafone you can get Dell Mini 9.

Re:Frankly: yes u can: http://www.celiocorp.com/

[ami.one]

Yes you can. here: http://www.celiocorp.com/

It is already there

[lsatenstein]

Royal Bank of Canada is giving away the Eee PC if you open an account and remain for two years. Of course, the service fees over that time will cover the wholesale cost of the unit.