How stupid. The phone doesn't determine the "fuel efficiency," the data being transmitted does. There is no reason why Apple's iOS can't be successful in emerging markets. My wife is using my old iPhone 3 and it works just fine. My guess is Apple can hit the price points needed to make money in foreign markets with the iPhone 3S.
I think you all may be missing the point. Everything we use today needs to be plugged in to and electrical outlet full time or for charging. When the 3rd world comes looking for all the junk we just can't live without they demand for bandwidth which the last time I checked is powered by electricity with explode. I really hate car analogies so I won't go there. The truth is the west has always consumed much more resources than the rest of the world developing technologies, products and services that are not resources hogs is something to think about and act upon.
<div id="user_myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;"> </div>
When people like you start to give up yours -- thereby also disarming your ability to post drivel like this -- we'll know that we're on the right path.
While I'm not entirely disagreeing with him, it's important to note that even in emerging markets, it will be consumers who decide what they can or can't afford, not some dude in a bad suit.
He can kiss my( insert color) a**!! What he said is a well timed primer for what the carriers have in store. Last week homey said that wifi only tablets on carriers have numbered days and now this mofo talking about about phones being gas guzzlers.
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.
Are you aware of any studies or breakdowns that show how much smartphone cell bandwidth is used by images, video, streaming media, turn-by-turn navigation, etc?
I believe that the bandwidth used by these data hogs could be exponentially reduced by more efficient compression. The compression and decompression would take place on the servers and the remote devices and be invisible to the rest of the network.
And efficient codec and the hardware to handle it could well be the breakthrough needed.
What a ridiculous, inapt statement. That's like someone from Philco complaining in 1960 that those new-fangled color TVs with both UHF and VHF dials were too complicated and expensive; they'll never catch on, and the future lies with simpler TVs with just 3 channels!
Ha! I haven't heard anything about "Filco-Phord" since the late 1960s...
They held a convention for all their dealers in Las Vegas and had suitcases full of money that they handed out as prizes and incentives.
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.
Data plans are, what, $30 a month on average? That's $720 over 24 months...
In Canada, 36 months.
Also with taxes and assorted rip-off add-ons and fees, it's just over $70.00 a month up here.
So ... $2,520.00 over the life of the basic iPhone contract.
(based on the actual data used it should be more like $360.00)
All three cell carriers collude on prices, (It's called an Oligopoly and is technically illegal in Canada and the US but apparently this doesn't matter anymore), other than various "pay as you go" or fourth party "pretend it's not an iPhone" contracts, from the also-rans, (bad coverage, wrong frequencies etc.), there isn't any real alternative either.
I actually have the top end, off-contract 64GB iPhone that I paid full price for (roughly $900.00 up here), if you buy that on contract it's about $400.00 so adding another $800.00 to $1,000.00 for the contract and the price difference still leaves you being ripped off for about a thousand dollars over the life of the contract, maybe more.
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.
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.
Putting aside the "they're too poor to pay any attention to" mentality...
What poorer consumers lack in money, they tend to make up more in volume.
Seriously, if the iPhone was sold in America at it's retail price of $499-$899... would you guys REALLY want to own one?
It's only because of the $199-$399 price that we have bought the phone using our own perception of value/utility versus cost.
It's for the reason of price that the iPhone/Smart phones have done so well.
I think there's still room for a simplified version of Android in the Sub $50 range for developing countries.
A story/recent trip by our CEO to Vietnam tells of a lady who was his guide using an Android Smart phone. She didn't make a lot of money, but here connection to the world outside of her village (think grass huts) was Facebook, twitter, and browser.
That type of group, mobile internet users, are the next wave of internet users - using the internet where it normally is not accessible.
I paid full price for the original iPhone (500 for 16GB). My family is still using it as a phone (we also have other iPhones now). I think it has been a tremendous value for the cost. What other cell phone has a life of 5 years +. We have 2 64GB iPad 2s (with the smart covers and 3G they cost 879 each). We use them every day for a few hours. I think the value is very high. My wife doesn't even touch the macbook or imac now that she has the iPad. I think the iPad is also a good value for the cost. Even at those prices I still REALLY want them.
However, I do agree that not nearly as many people would own iPhones without the subsidy. I think it is due more to the initial outlay of cash, not the value/utility of the product. Lots of people just don't have $500-1000 sitting around.
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.
I wish I actually got a cheaper rate on the service if I paid full price. The plans cost the same (at least in the US) for someone that pays full price. There is just no contract or termination fee.
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.
You are right, the genie is out of the bottle. There's some merit to his comments though, because smart phones enable more data use. Smart phones make it easier to access media, more enjoyable, making it worth the effort. Compare this with feature phones that have 2" or smaller screen, bad browsers or could only access from a small sandbox of micro web pages without the fluff and even cut out content - there was a disincentive to browse the web, watch videos, etc. compared to a larger screen. Any videos you did get might have been lower resolution, higher res screens drive demand for higher bit rate video and encourage more use.
Are you aware of any studies or breakdowns that show how much smartphone cell bandwidth is used by images, video, streaming media, turn-by-turn navigation, etc?
I believe that the bandwidth used by these data hogs could be exponentially reduced by more efficient compression. The compression and decompression would take place on the servers and the remote devices and be invisible to the rest of the network.
And efficient codec and the hardware to handle it could well be the breakthrough needed.
I've heard the next video codec might cut bandwidth needed in half, but it's not out yet, and I don't know how it affects computational power to play it, and it takes a while after the base codec is released for the researchers to tune the compression well.
Having been a mobile Internet junkie in 2005 in rural Thailand with just GPRS on a Blackberry,I can attest to the fact that iOS doesn't use bandwidth as effectively as the old BB's. Everything was stripped and compressed to give you the meat of what you needed. In the western world, we hav gotten "greedy," wanting more than that today.
Fortunately, GPRS isn't really the baseline anymore though. Edge might be, but with 56k, you are fine for basic use. 3G base stations make better use of spectrum though, so no carrier in their right mind wouldn't deploy it.
...and that is where the analogy breaks down. He wants cheap devices, not data-efficient. From what I have seen, that is the wrong approach. The problem is it marginalized the carriers. If Apple were to sell data on commission for the carriers using integrated sim cards, they could directly subsidize the phone. That is where the market should go...
These phone company jerks are just too greedy to create the infrastructure that people want. Since we can't build our own telephone network we are at the mercy of the telecommunication companies. Thus we must use what they offer, which is crappy service and high prices. There just isn't enough competition in this industry. There also isn't enough regulation regarding claims of service. When these companies are allowed to offer "Unlimited" plans that are nowhere near unlimited and not be called on it by government or even courts, it is a sign that they are too powerful.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
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%?
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...
Comments
How stupid. The phone doesn't determine the "fuel efficiency," the data being transmitted does. There is no reason why Apple's iOS can't be successful in emerging markets. My wife is using my old iPhone 3 and it works just fine. My guess is Apple can hit the price points needed to make money in foreign markets with the iPhone 3S.
When people like you start to give up yours -- thereby also disarming your ability to post drivel like this -- we'll know that we're on the right path.
While I'm not entirely disagreeing with him, it's important to note that even in emerging markets, it will be consumers who decide what they can or can't afford, not some dude in a bad suit.
What he said is a well timed primer for what the carriers have in store.
Last week homey said that wifi only tablets on carriers have numbered days and now this mofo talking about about phones being gas guzzlers.
Are you aware of any studies or breakdowns that show how much smartphone cell bandwidth is used by images, video, streaming media, turn-by-turn navigation, etc?
I believe that the bandwidth used by these data hogs could be exponentially reduced by more efficient compression. The compression and decompression would take place on the servers and the remote devices and be invisible to the rest of the network.
And efficient codec and the hardware to handle it could well be the breakthrough needed.
Ha! I haven't heard anything about "Filco-Phord" since the late 1960s...
They held a convention for all their dealers in Las Vegas and had suitcases full of money that they handed out as prizes and incentives.
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 Freshmaker
Data plans are, what, $30 a month on average? That's $720 over 24 months...
In Canada, 36 months.
Also with taxes and assorted rip-off add-ons and fees, it's just over $70.00 a month up here.
So ... $2,520.00 over the life of the basic iPhone contract.
(based on the actual data used it should be more like $360.00)
All three cell carriers collude on prices, (It's called an Oligopoly and is technically illegal in Canada and the US but apparently this doesn't matter anymore), other than various "pay as you go" or fourth party "pretend it's not an iPhone" contracts, from the also-rans, (bad coverage, wrong frequencies etc.), there isn't any real alternative either.
I actually have the top end, off-contract 64GB iPhone that I paid full price for (roughly $900.00 up here), if you buy that on contract it's about $400.00 so adding another $800.00 to $1,000.00 for the contract and the price difference still leaves you being ripped off for about a thousand dollars over the life of the contract, maybe more.
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.
His solution is to build smaller cars rather than new or larger highways.
What he is really saying is that we don't think poor people will be willing to pay enough to recoup data infrastructure costs.
Typical of CEOs of oligopolies, short sighted thinking and waiting till Orange's competition starts investing in infrastructure.
What an arrogant jerk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuxoM3
Putting aside the "they're too poor to pay any attention to" mentality...
What poorer consumers lack in money, they tend to make up more in volume.
Seriously, if the iPhone was sold in America at it's retail price of $499-$899... would you guys REALLY want to own one?
It's only because of the $199-$399 price that we have bought the phone using our own perception of value/utility versus cost.
It's for the reason of price that the iPhone/Smart phones have done so well.
I think there's still room for a simplified version of Android in the Sub $50 range for developing countries.
A story/recent trip by our CEO to Vietnam tells of a lady who was his guide using an Android Smart phone. She didn't make a lot of money, but here connection to the world outside of her village (think grass huts) was Facebook, twitter, and browser.
That type of group, mobile internet users, are the next wave of internet users - using the internet where it normally is not accessible.
I paid full price for the original iPhone (500 for 16GB). My family is still using it as a phone (we also have other iPhones now). I think it has been a tremendous value for the cost. What other cell phone has a life of 5 years +. We have 2 64GB iPad 2s (with the smart covers and 3G they cost 879 each). We use them every day for a few hours. I think the value is very high. My wife doesn't even touch the macbook or imac now that she has the iPad. I think the iPad is also a good value for the cost. Even at those prices I still REALLY want them.
However, I do agree that not nearly as many people would own iPhones without the subsidy. I think it is due more to the initial outlay of cash, not the value/utility of the product. Lots of people just don't have $500-1000 sitting around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
I wish I actually got a cheaper rate on the service if I paid full price. The plans cost the same (at least in the US) for someone that pays full price. There is just no contract or termination fee.
You are right, the genie is out of the bottle. There's some merit to his comments though, because smart phones enable more data use. Smart phones make it easier to access media, more enjoyable, making it worth the effort. Compare this with feature phones that have 2" or smaller screen, bad browsers or could only access from a small sandbox of micro web pages without the fluff and even cut out content - there was a disincentive to browse the web, watch videos, etc. compared to a larger screen. Any videos you did get might have been lower resolution, higher res screens drive demand for higher bit rate video and encourage more use.
I am not well-versed in that, but take a look at this:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/05/netflix-winning-internet/37821/
I've heard the next video codec might cut bandwidth needed in half, but it's not out yet, and I don't know how it affects computational power to play it, and it takes a while after the base codec is released for the researchers to tune the compression well.
Fortunately, GPRS isn't really the baseline anymore though. Edge might be, but with 56k, you are fine for basic use. 3G base stations make better use of spectrum though, so no carrier in their right mind wouldn't deploy it.
...and that is where the analogy breaks down. He wants cheap devices, not data-efficient. From what I have seen, that is the wrong approach. The problem is it marginalized the carriers. If Apple were to sell data on commission for the carriers using integrated sim cards, they could directly subsidize the phone. That is where the market should go...
These phone company jerks are just too greedy to create the infrastructure that people want. Since we can't build our own telephone network we are at the mercy of the telecommunication companies. Thus we must use what they offer, which is crappy service and high prices. There just isn't enough competition in this industry. There also isn't enough regulation regarding claims of service. When these companies are allowed to offer "Unlimited" plans that are nowhere near unlimited and not be called on it by government or even courts, it is a sign that they are too powerful.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
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%?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
If you kill the telecoms, who will provide the data? You can fix data prices, but someone needs to provide it.
Us, hence the 802.22 bit.
Quote:
Why don't you just suggest that legislation be passed to force Apple and all other companies to sell their products at cost + 5%?
Because that's absolute nonsense and a grand exaggeration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
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...