US mobile carriers want more devices, fewer OSes Yes, the carriers want new business models and partners as their traditional wireless voice and data markets saturate, but these must work within the cellco assumptions, expanding the operators' total addressable markets while engaging in a clear profit share. In other words, not Skype. A huge range of devices But Verizon and …
Why would anyone pay $35/mo for VoIP when you can get it for $20 per year from places like MagicJack? Sure, the voice quality on MagicJack can suck (comparable to a poor cell call) depending on the PC it's running on, but why would anyone pay more than 20 times that to Verizon just for VoIP? VoIP costs the carriers nothing.
Seriously, free choice and an open platform are what drive innovation and endless possibilities. A bare-metal phone would let customers install whatever they pleased. Alas, the customer always comes last in the cell phone market, manufacturers aren't keen on selling hardware and software untethered, and the operators don't dare change their locked down business models.
"How about no OS what so ever?"
Indeed. I have at my elbow a late 1940s rotary dial Bell telephone. It was my father's first telephone. It still works. Dial the number, the party answers, have a conversation, hang up. In the other direction, RI goes high at my end, local telco generates the ring, I answer, have a conversation, hang up. Kind of what telephones are for, no?
That phone is my office telephone. It will be as long as telco allows it. No OS required.
All I want a phone to be is a phone. But I want that phone to do it well. As you might imagine, my personal portable phone is a Nokia 5185 ... Best cell ever :-)
I ruled the world, Windows Mobile and the iPhone would both be off the approved list. The former for generally being dire (I learned a lot of new words when colleagues acquired WM phones) and the latter because of the way Apple dictates how you can use your purchase. For the curious, I've settled on a Nokia E71.
However, before resorting to that, I'd just mandate that telcos should provide a transparent pipe, similar to ISPs, for data and let people run what they want. Data tariffs could be structured like voice tariffs, so that the user would pay more to have a higher 'free' monthly allowance. Then if I wanted to use IM or VoIP, or hook up my laptop, I'd be free to do so. Over the allowance and they make money, if I'm responsible with the usage, why should they care what I'm doing with it?
I never use my telco's mobile web portal anyway, I've deleted what I can from the pre-installed bookmarks and moved the rest to the bottom of the list. Their assumptions about my interests are so far wrong that it's not worth wading through the page on the offchance that there might be one item of interest.
Yeah, they try to nickel and dime the consumers to death. (These bastards in New Zealand are like that too). Also, they try to lock down everything so tight that one couldn't slip a grain of sand pass them without paying something. And, we can see this reflected in Apple with their iPhone strategy - main reason I didn't go for one.
I agree with others that said telcos should be like ISPs - just give us a transparent data pipe, let us pay a small flat rate for reasonable use of it, and, then, get the fuck out of the way.
I, too, don't use any of my telco's mobile web portals and very little of their mobile web service. If I want to browse the Web, I'll hook into my Wifi at home, or use some free service at a coffee house, before I let the telco gouge me for the privilege. I don't use their Music and App stores - I have other - less expensive - sources for that.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
