Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.8
Monday, April 25, 2011
Suppliment Your Current Antivirus With Microsoft Safety Scanner
Supplement Your Current Anti-Virus Software with the Microsoft Safety Scanner
Why your wireless should be encrypted
Seattle police say 'wardrivers' are hitting small businesses
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.8
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
How Carrier Exclusives Help and Hinder Mobile Devices
How Carrier Exclusives Help and Hinder Mobile Devices: "We’ve all been there. A hot new piece of hardware is announced, and we wait with bated breath only to learn it's coming to a carrier other than our own. Device exclusivity can be a real bummer for users, but that doesn't mean it's always a bad thing for the product itself. There are reasons for manufacturers and carriers to enter into these arrangements, even if it frustrates us in the short term.
We're going to go over the ways these arrangements can both help, and hinder a product.
The mobile carriers we all love to loath have to make a significant financial investment to sell a phone. We, the consumers, are not the direct customer of HTC or Motorola. Rather, it's the carriers that are buying all the phones. Usually in great great quantities before the product is even finished.
A carrier may guarantee a manufacturer that they will buy "X" phones. But in return for that guarantee, a period of exclusivity is usually granted. In doing this, a carrier knows that they will be able to talk up a handset as much as they like. They can also offer reasonable subsidies on the device to bring the cost more in-line with the consumer's pocketbook. They are buying the phones to get people into contracts after all.
You may be wondering why this matters. If they have the phone, they could still spend the marketing cash even if the competition does as well. Well, yes. But if they make a phone or tablet sound like the best thing ever out of the gate, consumers might just buy it from their own carrier. These companies want to lure new users in by pointing to the new hot piece of kit and reminding us that we can only get it from them.
Even in instances when there is not technically exclusivity, carriers like to pretend there is. Take the Galaxy S phones in the US for instance. Each one of them was redesigned and renamed for each carrier. T-Mobile could promote the Vibrant hard, and be the only place to get it. AT&T could talk about how great the Captivate was, and be the exclusive home of the phone. To most consumers, these were totally different devices, despite the fact that they were almost identical beneath a thin veneer of sameness.
It's about having the exclusive phone or tablet. That's what a carrier needs before they are willing to really sell a product. In the long run, that can be good for the product because it may end up selling a boat load.
Another hidden benefit of carrier exclusivity is that the development cycle of a phone is going to be accelerated. Manufacturers often approach their carrier partners with a sort of menu of possible devices. A carrier may choose to order one and work with the maker on development.
If there is just the one exclusive carrier for launch, the process of making the device could be much easier. Consider the additional time it would take to source, test, and build-in cellular modems for multiple carriers. When you're looking at GSM and CDMA carriers competing in the same market, the requirements are going to be vastly different. Focusing on one design and one hardware build is more efficient.
The software is also likely to be developed at an accelerated rate when there is just one version of a phone on one carrier. On Android, the updates are put together by the device maker (except for Nexus devices). These companies only have so many resources directed to these ends. We can complain about that all we want, but that's the fact of the matter.
If they are working on updates for four slightly different versions of a phone, instead of one phone, things are going to take longer. This is the reason Samsung states for taking so long with the US Galaxy S updates. Sure, if they just dropped the carrier modifications and custom UIs, it might not be an issue, but they're not doing that any time soon.
It's not all rainbows an puppy dogs in the land of carrier exclusivity. One of the factors that really affects a product's perception in the market is price. Many normal people (read: not most of our awesome readers) look at the price tag first before anything else even enters their mind. For a product like the Xoom, price is a barrier to entry and carrier exclusivity is blocking the whole street.
Verizon got an exclusive on the Xoom Android tablet. Good for them, but bad for the Xoom. Why? The Verizon version was expensive with its 3G modem, data contract, and single size option. By getting their exclusivity deal, and pricing the device naively, they hurt the product as a whole.
There should have been a Wi-Fi Xoom at launch. Instead, it took months for the cheaper version of the tablet, the one that more people would actually buy, to become available. For Android tablets to take off, carrier exclusive deals can't be the norm. When a new tablet drops, it's going to be marketed like mad (see above). If consumers decide that Android tablets are too expensive because of these carrier deals, it's going to hurt not only those products, but the Android platform.
This one almost goes without saying. If the new device everyone wants is only going to be on one carrier, that might hurt it in the long run. The majority of wireless subscribers are content (though probably not happy) with their carrier. We know the coverage, pricing, and plans. There is little impetus to change.
If the unicorn device (say the HTC Sensation) were to launch on a small carrier that's about to be bought out (say T-Mobile USA), things might not go so well. By putting a device on only one network, you effectively limit the number of users that are going to buy it. Often, the marketing might of a network that's bought thousands of units can overcome that. But not always.
Remember the Palm Pre? It was a hotly anticipated phone, but one of its major failings was that it was exclusive to Sprint for 6 months. A great number of users that might have bought it on their current carrier decided to pass because of this.
The final drawback comes from the deep, visceral core of human kind. We get honked off sometimes. When a manufacturer gets to putting all their best devices on one carrier, there is the potential for user dissatisfaction.
When you just can't get the device you might want because of an exclusivity deal, you'll buy something else. If the snub really hurts, you might even harbor ill will toward the handset maker that decided to keep you from getting the phone of your dreams.
So you get the other phone, and you end up in another manufacturer's ecosystem. Maybe that's just a different Android UI and set of services. But maybe it's a completely different platform. The original manufacturer can lose a potential customer forever if an exclusivity agreement goes awry. That is, as you'd expect, bad for a product.
To be clear, we don't much care for exclusivity agreements. That's based on the fact that it's a pain for us as users. It might still be advantageous for the device makers, and the carriers. If it wasn't, they wouldn't do it. That still doesn't mean consumers will like it. If the companies involved can work closely to deliver a better software and hardware rollout experience, they can avoid some of that ill will.
A poorly executed exclusivity arrangement is fraught with danger, a la the Palm Pre. There will always be alienated users and a reduced pool of potential buyers. The product just needs to make up for that. An overpriced, over-hyped device that might have done moderate sales with a wide release might become a cautionary tale because of a lengthy exclusivity arrangement. "
We're going to go over the ways these arrangements can both help, and hinder a product.
Carriers drop the marketing cash
The mobile carriers we all love to loath have to make a significant financial investment to sell a phone. We, the consumers, are not the direct customer of HTC or Motorola. Rather, it's the carriers that are buying all the phones. Usually in great great quantities before the product is even finished.
A carrier may guarantee a manufacturer that they will buy "X" phones. But in return for that guarantee, a period of exclusivity is usually granted. In doing this, a carrier knows that they will be able to talk up a handset as much as they like. They can also offer reasonable subsidies on the device to bring the cost more in-line with the consumer's pocketbook. They are buying the phones to get people into contracts after all.
You may be wondering why this matters. If they have the phone, they could still spend the marketing cash even if the competition does as well. Well, yes. But if they make a phone or tablet sound like the best thing ever out of the gate, consumers might just buy it from their own carrier. These companies want to lure new users in by pointing to the new hot piece of kit and reminding us that we can only get it from them.
Even in instances when there is not technically exclusivity, carriers like to pretend there is. Take the Galaxy S phones in the US for instance. Each one of them was redesigned and renamed for each carrier. T-Mobile could promote the Vibrant hard, and be the only place to get it. AT&T could talk about how great the Captivate was, and be the exclusive home of the phone. To most consumers, these were totally different devices, despite the fact that they were almost identical beneath a thin veneer of sameness.
It's about having the exclusive phone or tablet. That's what a carrier needs before they are willing to really sell a product. In the long run, that can be good for the product because it may end up selling a boat load.
Accelerated development cycle for hardware and software
Another hidden benefit of carrier exclusivity is that the development cycle of a phone is going to be accelerated. Manufacturers often approach their carrier partners with a sort of menu of possible devices. A carrier may choose to order one and work with the maker on development.
If there is just the one exclusive carrier for launch, the process of making the device could be much easier. Consider the additional time it would take to source, test, and build-in cellular modems for multiple carriers. When you're looking at GSM and CDMA carriers competing in the same market, the requirements are going to be vastly different. Focusing on one design and one hardware build is more efficient.
The software is also likely to be developed at an accelerated rate when there is just one version of a phone on one carrier. On Android, the updates are put together by the device maker (except for Nexus devices). These companies only have so many resources directed to these ends. We can complain about that all we want, but that's the fact of the matter.
If they are working on updates for four slightly different versions of a phone, instead of one phone, things are going to take longer. This is the reason Samsung states for taking so long with the US Galaxy S updates. Sure, if they just dropped the carrier modifications and custom UIs, it might not be an issue, but they're not doing that any time soon.
Cheaper Wi-Fi only tablets get delayed
It's not all rainbows an puppy dogs in the land of carrier exclusivity. One of the factors that really affects a product's perception in the market is price. Many normal people (read: not most of our awesome readers) look at the price tag first before anything else even enters their mind. For a product like the Xoom, price is a barrier to entry and carrier exclusivity is blocking the whole street.
Verizon got an exclusive on the Xoom Android tablet. Good for them, but bad for the Xoom. Why? The Verizon version was expensive with its 3G modem, data contract, and single size option. By getting their exclusivity deal, and pricing the device naively, they hurt the product as a whole.
There should have been a Wi-Fi Xoom at launch. Instead, it took months for the cheaper version of the tablet, the one that more people would actually buy, to become available. For Android tablets to take off, carrier exclusive deals can't be the norm. When a new tablet drops, it's going to be marketed like mad (see above). If consumers decide that Android tablets are too expensive because of these carrier deals, it's going to hurt not only those products, but the Android platform.
Smaller user base
This one almost goes without saying. If the new device everyone wants is only going to be on one carrier, that might hurt it in the long run. The majority of wireless subscribers are content (though probably not happy) with their carrier. We know the coverage, pricing, and plans. There is little impetus to change.
If the unicorn device (say the HTC Sensation) were to launch on a small carrier that's about to be bought out (say T-Mobile USA), things might not go so well. By putting a device on only one network, you effectively limit the number of users that are going to buy it. Often, the marketing might of a network that's bought thousands of units can overcome that. But not always.
Remember the Palm Pre? It was a hotly anticipated phone, but one of its major failings was that it was exclusive to Sprint for 6 months. A great number of users that might have bought it on their current carrier decided to pass because of this.
User Dissatisfaction
The final drawback comes from the deep, visceral core of human kind. We get honked off sometimes. When a manufacturer gets to putting all their best devices on one carrier, there is the potential for user dissatisfaction.
When you just can't get the device you might want because of an exclusivity deal, you'll buy something else. If the snub really hurts, you might even harbor ill will toward the handset maker that decided to keep you from getting the phone of your dreams.
So you get the other phone, and you end up in another manufacturer's ecosystem. Maybe that's just a different Android UI and set of services. But maybe it's a completely different platform. The original manufacturer can lose a potential customer forever if an exclusivity agreement goes awry. That is, as you'd expect, bad for a product.
To be clear, we don't much care for exclusivity agreements. That's based on the fact that it's a pain for us as users. It might still be advantageous for the device makers, and the carriers. If it wasn't, they wouldn't do it. That still doesn't mean consumers will like it. If the companies involved can work closely to deliver a better software and hardware rollout experience, they can avoid some of that ill will.
A poorly executed exclusivity arrangement is fraught with danger, a la the Palm Pre. There will always be alienated users and a reduced pool of potential buyers. The product just needs to make up for that. An overpriced, over-hyped device that might have done moderate sales with a wide release might become a cautionary tale because of a lengthy exclusivity arrangement. "