Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
E2A: Fuck it, can't be bothered...
Mobile internet phones: the most popular model is...
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Gromit
International Man of Misery
Lets eliminate the bold ones cause whats that got to do with phones? Music on phones has just been seen as a small added extra... until iPhone.
Vast resources, clout and a large user base. Garrenteed success to exploit a completely new market is it?
So why did Microsoft with even greater resources, just as much clout and immense computer user base make massive losses on the Original xBox?
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Seriously, the RAZR became so ubiquitous it's become a complete cliché. It was a good-looking phone at a time when most phones looked like crap, and it was consumer-based and priced rather than being aimed at geeks prepared to spend a load of money; it took off immensely. It also has net access, and in the US, Motorola is a serious manufacturer of phones offered by all the networks, as opposed to in the EU where they're a bit of a joke. So, I'd expect it to have high usage for mobile net even if the core constituency isn't gadget freaks - enough people will be interested that they show up a lot on statistics.
The iPhone plays music but _all_ phones play music these days, as anyone on a bus will testify.
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
I can't imagine why anyone would want to use the net on a RAZR. They're totally crap compared to a blackberry, or nokia smartphone even.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Well, you know, using the net on the phone you have is always better than using the net on a phone you don't have. If you've got a RAZR, you use that.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Yep, the thing I think that gets missed with it is the form factor. I know a few people that buy each one as they come out because they like them because they're slim. Shit phone though, really really shit phone.
editor
hiraethified
Yes, but if you already have a truly vast user base using your music download service - and iTunes absolutely dominates the market - then you're going to get more than bit of interest when you offer what is basically an upgraded iPod with a phone bolted on.
People are already using the service and they already own a big catalogue of iTunes content so that's going to make the iPhone a far more attractive option than a new Motorola.
Apart from the fact that the gaming market is an entirely different kettle of fish, it was precisely because Microsoft was such a big company that they could afford to enter the market and run at a loss for a year.
Smaller companies wouldn't have stood a chance.
Gromit
International Man of Misery
When there was also an upgrade iPod available that wasn't £270 + £35 a month in fees for 18 months?
People were buying a Phone that just happened to be an iPod not an iPod that just happened to be a phone.
As a little sidenote, thumbs down to Engadget's personal-blog-quality write up of the story, where they've misread the Nielson summary report, and quoted the handset rankings as internet usage, rather than ownership. Nielsen didn't measure %ge by use, nor - according to their statement in the report - do they plan to.
I think, perhaps, Engadget is a bit like watching Sky News, quick on breaking stories but factually haphazard.
I think, perhaps, Engadget is a bit like watching Sky News, quick on breaking stories but factually haphazard.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Engadget is famously rubbish 
You get announcements out of it because they are quick to pick up on the latest PR releases, but....
You get announcements out of it because they are quick to pick up on the latest PR releases, but....
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Hold on, if a "launch pad" is significant, how does that tie into people not having had previous experience of an Apple product? They can't be part of a "launch pad".
I mean that there are zillions of iPod owners out there, but not zillions of Mac users.
Gromit
International Man of Misery
Lol but an element of truth in that.
I'm afraid I bought a Razr because i thought it looked cool. It was a shit phone tbh. Obviously i couldn't admit that at the time cause i'd bought it, and it looked cool. But it was.
editor
hiraethified
If I was a satisfied iPod/iTunes user and was looking to upgrade to a smartphone, the iPhone would certainly catch my eye. People generally stick with what they like, and if Apple could add on to a phone to an iPod, I'd say that gives them a substantial leg up over many competitors.
And then there are the not-insubstantial amount of mustard-keen Mac fans who are going to look far more favourably at a a phone from their favourite computer maker than a WM/Symbian rival. Add to that Apple's colossal resources, phenomenal PR abilities and the fact that they produced a very nice looking phone, it's hardly a surprise it did well - even if the feature set was pretty seriously crippled.
a whole lot more attractive than switching to some
And then there are the not-insubstantial amount of mustard-keen Mac fans who are going to look far more favourably at a a phone from their favourite computer maker than a WM/Symbian rival. Add to that Apple's colossal resources, phenomenal PR abilities and the fact that they produced a very nice looking phone, it's hardly a surprise it did well - even if the feature set was pretty seriously crippled.
a whole lot more attractive than switching to some
editor
hiraethified
Go into a US cellphone store and you won't believe how shit most of their current ranges are.
I had a Motorola forced on me sometime back (work phone) and was very pleased the day I lost it, because I knew I'd be getting a Nokia instead.
But this brings about an interesting point - well I think it's interesting...
...In the old days, I think alot of people - consumer users at least - bought a phone on it's apparent merit. Either the looks, or the hardware feature list. With little regard to how well any of it actually worked. And, in tandem, most reviewers were just as simplistic. Many of these people (ime) are what I call 'switchers'. They had a relatively low buy-in to a particular manufacturer.
Now, with the iPhone (and it's followers, due any time soon), there may be a switch into the type of loyalty that RIM currently enjoys, and Palm did for quite awhile.
I'd like to think that - in a few years time - 'cool' (but otherwise crappy) phones will finally be history. I guess my personal beef here is that I'm a big believer in good software (I'm a developer), and that for too long there has been little sight of that from the mainstream manfucturers. Or worse, losing the very elegance they started with, viz. Nokia S40 vs S60.
All phones, whether they be a cheap as chips low end model, or a high end whizz bang thing, should have well designed software. Nokia still do it, with their basic phones, but alot of other phones, from most manufacturers, are irritating as hell.
Mac fan-boys make up a tiny, but highly vocal minority, of all Mac users. People buy iPods because they work well at doing the basic tasks, rather having a huge array of features. Which is something people want in a phone as well.
When I've seen iPhones in the wild they are only rarely brandished by geeks. The majority of iphone users are people who just want a phone that does its job well.
For a consumer orientated phone it does everything its sets out to do quite well and its easy to use. Its very unlikely to have succeeded (due to the vocal minority of Mac-fan-boys) if it had come out and not performed well... Not even Apple's PR/Marketing dept can make up for bad products...
Disclaimer: Not everyone in this world has the same needs. People vary...! Post may include generalisations. NB: stats not included since this is an informal discussion board, rather than my workplace. Data based on available, public events only...!
Oswaldtwistle
Banned
As I understand it, mobiles/cellphones in general have never quite caught on in the US as they have in Europe, and no-one quite knows why.
Private Storm
Smell The Glove
There are loads of reasons. Interoperability between operators was way behind how quickly this came about in Europe, mainly to do with the standard used - US was CDMA, Europe was/is GSM. This affected voice (you HAD to be on the same network as your friends to speak to them), then messaging (again, had to be on the same network as your friends or no messaging possible).
Pricing was crap - they still have a called party pays thing going on (although this is negated by the huge bucket of minutes you now get).
And (as shown by the stats in the OP), the handsets are generally crap; Motorola has a large customer base by virtue of being a US company and having home advantage. Nokia, Samsung, LG have traditionally struggled to get a foothold there.
IME mobile phones have caught on quite well there, though there are large chunks of the country that don't have any reception. You are probably thinking about texting, which never really caught on. (Mainly because you get charged for receiving texts, but making/receiving calls to/from your friends may be free...)
The main problem with phones in the US is that calling plans can be very complex, and its often hard to predict how much you'll get charged for making, or receiving, a call...
Up until recently there's been problems porting your number to a new service provided, so many Yanks stick with the same company for *ages*. Since SIM cards are relativly recent development, due to initial use of CDMA phones, the idea of buying unlocked phones has been slow to develop... All this has led to a fairly sluggish mobile phone market, and one reason the iPhone has been seen as the Second Coming...
Gromit
International Man of Misery
Is it maybe cause of the availability of unmetered calls at home?
Why phone someone on an expensive cell when I can call for free from home or the office.
They always seem to be in popular use in the movies though.
Oswaldtwistle
Banned
No I am thinking of mobiles.
CIA figures say there are 304 million folks in the USA, and 233 cellphones. That's 0.76 per head- sounds high until you look at Portugal ( a much poorer country) with 10.6 people and 12.3 million phones- i.e. more than one each.
I'm not trying to suggest mobiles are as rare as hen's teeth in the USA, but for such a wealthy, gadget obessed country, the figures are surprisngly low.
EDIT GRR just done all that bloody maths and then found it was on Wikipedia
editor
hiraethified
There were several barriers to US adoption, primarily because of the size of the country (there's still big areas without coverage and many suffer poor reception) and the fact that several competing companies were using different frequencies.
However, the US now has the greatest mobile internet usage penetration at 15.6%, with the UK second at 12.9%, while China has the most mobiles in use (by a massive factor!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_mobile_phones_in_use
Similar threads
