or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Orange exec says developing markets can't sustain 'gas guzzlers' iOS, Android, Windows Phone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Orange exec says developing markets can't sustain 'gas guzzlers' iOS, Android, Windows Phone - Page 2

post #41 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I don't think Maitre knows the market he is talking about.  The latest greatest tech devices are seen as status symbols and the desire to own them is only partly to do with what they can do.  A lot of Asian cultures have quite a thing for 'face'.
 

I am not entirely sure Samsung doesn't have a strategy that involves replacing Android with Tizen at some point, so it might not necessarily be the cheapie he is looking for.

 

I  think Apple should wait for their cash reserves to grow a bit then buy Vodafone.

 

 

 

If you kill the telecoms, who will provide the data?  You can fix data prices, but someone needs to provide it.  Why don't you just suggest that legislation be passed to force Apple and all other companies to sell their products at cost + 5%?

 

A note on status symbols, US is not very different from Asia in this regard; I'd say Europe (and probably Canada and Australia) are on the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

As to telco's, allow me to paraphrase a great movie line, the greatest trick the telecoms ever pulled was convincing the world we need data to use our smartphones. Here are my arguments: 

 

First, we have WiFi, and for many applications it is still the only option (high-quality streaming, FaceTime); some of us have access to WiFi for >95% of our time and the other 5% are often spent either driving or commuting underground. The biggest use for data on the road is maps, and luckily we have OpenStreet so that we don't have to rely on Google's maps which, for well known reasons (spying), are only accessible online.

 

Second, a smartphone is so much more than a portable browser: it's a music player (most common use I believe), it's a camera (probably tied with music), it's a gaming device (!!!), it's a personal organizer, it's a book reader. All this works fine without constant data connection.

 

Third, a small amount of data from the carrier can go a long way if used judiciously (e-mail, dedicated apps for web access). As long as the phone doesn't update software over the air, doesn't spy on our usage habits (OEM spyware is long gone from my phone at the click of a button), and doesn't feed us with useless marketing (my hosts file remaps every ad server I've ever come across to 127.0.0.1).

 

So yeah, people will always want to buy nice hardware, but don't be surprised that they may refrain from guzzling mobile data...

post #42 of 63

You are preaching to the converted!  I have a smart phone and don't use data except when connected to WiFi, or in exceptional circumstances.
 

post #43 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Total rubbish analogy. Bandwidth is a renewable, and it's main costs are capital costs with some on going expenses, easily paid for by most data plan

But the article is explaining that "possible smartphone users in emerging markets like China and India" cannot afford a data plan so where would the money come from for these capital costs?

 

Quote:
Either orange offers this, or some one else wils

 

Orange operates in emerging markets like China and India? Or are they just going to pay for everything for others because they are nice?

Yves Maitre was talking about the mobile phone industry, not Orange specifically.

post #44 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What condescending cr4p. The carriers that don't/can't rise to the challenge will simply disappear. 

 

There's really little way to rise to the challenge since no matter how much they build it, the usage will build out with it

 

that said, yes I agree that it's condescending and clearly it's him trying to put it on the users that they have no choice but to drop unlimited plans, throttle etc. But he's trying not to put it in those terms and say that we are overusing and could 'break' their little networks. And while that is likely true in a sense he could have positioned it much better and with a positive spin on why users should use other connection methods for their own sake (wifi is more stable for large files like video for example)

 

One thing they could do that would be much much less taxing is to try to partner up with other companies and increase the wifi spread especially in major cities. Make it easier to get to usable wifi and you make it easier to say "you don't want to pay more for going over your data plan, use wifi more" and not get flack back. ATT through their internet service has partnered in the US with Starbucks, McDonalds and so on to have hotspots all over the place and as an ATT user I was able to get on those hot spots even if I wasn't buying anything. I could be sitting at Cheesecake factory having dinner on on the Starbucks hotspot from the B&N next door. TimeWarner Cable and some 4 other companies are allowing 'roaming' access between the companies to all their public hotspots. Especially companies that are already providing Internet services (like how ATT does) should look into this. With their corporate customers if nothing else. Imagine if they gave a discount to businesses willing to set up a guest network for the public to use. Even if they restricted it to their customers with a pin number that on the receipt for your cheese and tomato sandwich and cup of coffee that could push a little use over to wifi and those little bits add up. In London this summer that would be a very very useful notion since many of the folks there are probably used to getting free wifi at coffee shops and such. If they can't find they might hit their roaming data service and add to the muck from the residents. 

 

City level wifi in parks, along major streets etc is another thing these companies should be encouraging and helping to create. Again to make it cheaper and easier to get to wifi. It won't stop that top 2% because they are douche bags and will use their unlimited 100% of the time because they feel they have a right to it. But the rest will be more flexible and many don't use wifi because it's not there. So they will be easy to get to switch

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #45 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

Bandwidth might wind up being a constrained resource. 

 

It already is. Servers etc can only take so much traffic at a time. Now you can create more bandwidth way easier than you can create more coal etc but it is still a limited item. Especially under the current methods. Increase wifi coverage and kill all existing unlimited plans (yeah they do have the right to do that like it or not) and you can get a better spread from the user point of view but there are still limits. Just like cell towers can only take so many calls at once. We could increase the towers but that's not as easy as saying do it since that means construction etc. 

 

Perhaps what we need other than kicking the data douche bags to the curb for hogging the system is a new system. Phones that can self toggle in call to VOIP for example. Or just as we have mifi boxes that can take a wifi signal from our computer and convert to to 3g/4g perhaps we need wifi boxes that can somehow convert 3g to wifi for data use. Perhaps even the same thing for calls in troublesome areas. These kinds of systems could even perhaps be used in those developing countries where they don't have the build out of towers etc. They might have one mini tower for the town that gives them a mile or two of coverage but it converts over signals and then truck lines them through a buried cable system of some kind from town to town. Keeping things like satellite phones etc reversed for emergency services

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #46 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Then there's the whole XML thing -- XML is terribly verbose... XML packets can easily be reduced by 90%... and should be as there is no need for "human readability" when delivering content to mobile devices.

 

You think XML is bad, have you looked at those Flash based web sites. Geesh. 

 

but yes you are correct that many websites are not efficiently done, use smoke and mirrors over content etc. And that makes them way verbose and 'heavy' when they don't need to be. And many companies don't do mobile sites that are even just readable. 

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #47 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by balsy2001 View Post


I wish I actually got a cheaper rate on the service if I paid full price.  

 

Amen brother/sister. 

 

We need a class action suit against the telecoms for that move. If you listen to their talk then about $15-20 very month is to pay back their generous 'co-pay' for our expensive phone. Find, no issue there. But it's lumped into our voice and data plans so when we have paid it back we are still paying it. if we buy a full price phone, we are still paying it. It should be a separate line item and our ETF should be the remainder of that line. 

 

So our bill now looks something like (amounts will vary according to your actual service plan)

 

$39.99 Voice

$30.00 3GB Data plan

$20.00 Unlimited Texts

 (450/24=$18.75 hidden in the contract)

 

ETF $450, reduced by $10 each month on a 24 month contract so at month 20 the balance due on your ETF is $250

 

What it should be is 

 

$30.00 for Voice

$20.00 3GB Data Plan

$20.00 Unlimited Texts

$19.00 Subsidy repayment, Balance due ????? 

ETF $450 reduced by that repayment each month so that at month 20 the balance due is $70. 

 

If you are done paying off your contract or you buy/bring it a full price phone it's just 

$30.00 for Voice

$20.00 for Data

$20 for Texts

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #48 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

Bandwidth might wind up being a constrained resource. But the problem is that it's not like iOS is downloading 10x the bytes shown by a given web page. There's a certain amount of data on that page. So if you go into a market and say "This device is great because people use 1/10th the data", it seems to me, it will have to be because it doesn't actually let you access proper web pages. How is that gonna work? We're going to have to take a huge step backwards in mobile browsers. I don't think developing countries will accept that.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


Are "proper web pages" the main usage of bandwidth. I don't know but, I suspect media is the major user.
If web pages are the culprit then some things can be done to reduce the "non-data" markup content of web pages... Like "ampersand-character nbsp;"
Then there's the whole XML thing -- XML is terribly verbose... XML packets can easily be reduced by 90%... and should be as there is no need for "human readability" when delivering content to mobile devices.

 

Now that you mention it, I'll bet you're right about media usage being a lot bigger cause of bandwidth use (I load all my stuff on my iPad already, but I'll bet most people do what you're saying). And I know that  XML is verbose... but that's not the fault of iOS is what I'm sort of getting at. So how is a new device going to solve the problem, other than by being so limited it can't connect to the regular sites. (Or not allowing people to stream media).

post #49 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post
If you are done paying off your contract or you buy/bring it a full price phone it's just 

$30.00 for Voice

$20.00 for Data

$20 for Texts

 

A la carte, right?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #50 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I'd rather spend $600 up front instead of waste $2,000 over two years.

 

Kill the telecoms. Fix data prices. Do it without hesitation.


Solution: make it a free public service. Ideally, paid from taxes.

 

Of course, while that solution is an excellent one, it's incompatible with liberalist dogma, so let's keep paying too much :D

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #51 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post
Solution: make it a free public service. Ideally, paid from taxes.

 

Of course, while that solution is an excellent one, it's incompatible with liberalist dogma, so let's keep paying too much :D

 

I'd rather not be forced to pay for something I'll never need nor use. It's the same situation, except worse as it's being legally enforced.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #52 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

There's really little way to rise to the challenge since no matter how much they build it, the usage will build out with it

 

that said, yes I agree that it's condescending and clearly it's him trying to put it on the users that they have no choice but to drop unlimited plans, throttle etc. But he's trying not to put it in those terms and say that we are overusing and could 'break' their little networks. And while that is likely true in a sense he could have positioned it much better and with a positive spin on why users should use other connection methods for their own sake (wifi is more stable for large files like video for example)

 


That's the same company that told its engineers not working in the capital city, but in the provincial coastal city of Lannion, that it "was high time they stopped hunting for clams and got to work". The same company, also, that has had a steady stream of suicides due to "questionnable" management practices.

No amount of contempt, neocolonialism or condescendance surprises me from them...

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #53 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I home there is some context missing, because it really doesn't tell us anything that can not be easily deduced before. Rolling out transcievers and backhaul might not be viable for large areas of the developing markets, fiber isn't cheap, transceivers aren't cheap and a fat pipe to the rest of the world isn't cheap. I don't think it takes that much discipline to work with limited amount of data, but you do miss a lot. The data hogs are video and streaming media. Without those two, it's easy to live on 200MB/mo. With those two, and no WiFi access points, you can easily get into gigabytes, depending on how much you use.

200 MB/Month? What century is this?

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply
post #54 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

200 MB/Month? What century is this?

 A large percentage (most likely greater than 50%) of people don't use this much.

post #55 of 63

(1) North America and EU are benefit from the dark fibers layout in the Internet bubble days.  No such a luck in other parts of the world.

(2) The user profile is different: play virtue pats in the world full of real one may not have that much appeal.

(3) $.  Willingness to pay (fork over $) as % of income is rather different on  the otherside.  Not sure how many rich daddy would pay for the kids' data plan.  (a kidney story rings a bell). 

(4) compression is key.  Hot spot might be next.  With majority in dail up.  Upgrade would take more money and labour.  

(5) Telecom is an infrastructure.   need some centralized power to put up.   Not easy in a fragmented political field.  Instability kills infrastructure.  

(6) reading some of the post, just feel the "why not let them eat cake?" all over again.  Sad.  

post #56 of 63

This doesn't make sense.  He says emerging markets can't support Android, so carriers will look toward other options including Chinese variants of Android?

 

Isn't every "guzzling" HTC phone loaded with an Chinese variant of Android?

post #57 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1st View Post

 

(5) Telecom is an infrastructure.   need some centralized power to put up.   Not easy in a fragmented political field.  Instability kills infrastructure.  

You make it sound like installing the network in the U.S. is like working on 50 COUNTRIES rather than one, with local regulations and state laws all that.

post #58 of 63

I think he has a point.

 

All these smart phones are designed around high accessibility and bandwidth. 

 

But then again - if emerging markets don't have any good bandwidth - why bother with a smart phone? It's like driving a moped on the Autobahn.

 

They should probably have a new "low bandwidth mode" where Siri and location services and third party apps are much less chatty. WE could probably all benefit from something inbetween "airplane mode" and "always updating."

post #59 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

A note on status symbols, US is not very different from Asia in this regard; I'd say Europe (and probably Canada and Australia) are on the opposite end of the spectrum.

As to telco's, allow me to paraphrase a great movie line, the greatest trick the telecoms ever pulled was convincing the world we need data to use our smartphones. Here are my arguments: 

First, we have WiFi, and for many applications it is still the only option (high-quality streaming, FaceTime); some of us have access to WiFi for >95% of our time and the other 5% are often spent either driving or commuting underground. The biggest use for data on the road is maps, and luckily we have OpenStreet so that we don't have to rely on Google's maps which, for well known reasons (spying), are only accessible online.

Second, a smartphone is so much more than a portable browser: it's a music player (most common use I believe), it's a camera (probably tied with music), it's a gaming device (!!!), it's a personal organizer, it's a book reader. All this works fine without constant data connection.

Third, a small amount of data from the carrier can go a long way if used judiciously (e-mail, dedicated apps for web access). As long as the phone doesn't update software over the air, doesn't spy on our usage habits (OEM spyware is long gone from my phone at the click of a button), and doesn't feed us with useless marketing (my hosts file remaps every ad server I've ever come across to 127.0.0.1).

So yeah, people will always want to buy nice hardware, but don't be surprised that they may refrain from guzzling mobile data...


In the US, it sounds like you can't use a smart phone without a data plan, due to carrier policy. At any rate, I agree, I do very well with about 100MB/mo actual data plan use, so I only take the smallest data plan.
Edited by JeffDM - 5/27/12 at 1:44pm
post #60 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

I think he has a point.

All these smart phones are designed around high accessibility and bandwidth. 

But then again - if emerging markets don't have any good bandwidth - why bother with a smart phone? It's like driving a moped on the Autobahn.
...

I disagree, see my post above for details. In brief, smartphones aren't designed so, and do not need any mobile data. A smart phone has most of its use cases covered without any mobile bandwidth at all -- it still works as a phone, music player, game console, camera, and PIM, without any data. It is delusional to believe that mobile data is anything but a luxury.
post #61 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

200 MB/Month? What century is this?

I don't see why that's so troubling. I get most of my data needs over WiFi. There's a little bit of spill-over to 3G data, but my actual 3G data needs, based on my billing, is 100MB/mo.
Edited by JeffDM - 5/27/12 at 1:46pm
post #62 of 63

without facing guns, no thieves at night to steal copper, 50 states are piece of cake...

http://www.lightreading.com/blog.asp?blog_sectionid=419&doc_id=221379&site=lr_cable

post #63 of 63

Reading between the lines, I think he's annoyed that the carriers can't rape customers in emerging markets like they do in the west. Because the subsidy scam doesn't fly there. 

 

Other than that I am in an emerging market, and my 3G unlimited data plan works very well and costs $20/month (with voice, messages, thrown in as well).

 

For one reason or another, I don't really know why, the customers here in Asia don't do subsidized phones and plans. They're buying phones at cost - financing is available for those who can't afford it outright, but from finance companies, it's like a car loan - and they're happy to shop around and get prepaid plans and very happy to switch carriers if one carrier should suck. Tough life the carriers, they actually have to compete!

 

Thankyouverymuch, Sir. You're not needed here.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Orange exec says developing markets can't sustain 'gas guzzlers' iOS, Android, Windows Phone