4 ms·

Why AT&T and Verizon Are Rooting for Windows Phones

22 points by mitchie_luna 14y ago

amishforkfight 14y ago
> The more the iPhone succeeds, the less leverage the carriers have, Mr. Kuittinen explained. All they have is bandwidth. I look forward to the day when mobile carriers are nothing but dumb pipes. Maybe then they'll focus on providing the most bandwidth and best coverage, instead of crap apps that no one cares about.
- Splines 14y ago
  > The more the iPhone succeeds, the less leverage the carriers have, Mr. Kuittinen explained. All they have is bandwidth. So what's the concern here? Carriers aren't idiots - is carrier commoditization necessarily a bad thing?
  - masklinn 14y ago
    > is carrier commoditization necessarily a bad thing? Depends on the POV you're considering. From the POV of the carriers it's a very, very bad thing as it's going to eat into their money and their control. For some manufacturers it's not a good thing as they build handsets for carriers who may not want handsets built specifically for them once they're "nothing but dumb pipes". For pretty much everybody else, it'll be a great day.
    - recoiledsnake 14y ago
      >For some manufacturers it's not a good thing as they build handsets for carriers who may not want handsets built specifically for them once they're "nothing but dumb pipes". I think manufacturers are very pissed at having to make a different model for each carrier or make slight changes in the design and naming for each carrier. This is the reason that Nokia stopped dealing with carriers and went the unlocked route a few years before having to eat crow and get back into bed with the carriers this year. The manufacturers would be very happy to make one model and be able to sell it on multiple carriers with consistent naming.
      - masklinn 14y ago
        > I think manufacturers are very pissed at having to make a different model for each carrier or make slight changes in the design and naming for each carrier. I'm guessing that depends on the carrier, Nokia had power and brand name but HTC was founded as a strict ODM. The advantage is that you get money to build the phone (to specs, and usually shitty, but still build it) and are cushioned from device failure: currently, carriers want many devices in their portfolio (even if most barely sell).
- diminish 14y ago
  in addition, i look forward to the days when mobile phones are nothing but web/html5 browsers where apple/google.microsoft lost the control over the stores. they'll provide the best web rendering and convenience; rather than crap apps and monetization needs that no one cares about.
  - randomdata 14y ago
    I look forward to the day that the cellphone is just a generic computer, where you can install anything you want, including the operating system. I want more than a system locked down to only HTML/CSS/JS.
- pygorex 14y ago
  Yes, my thoughts exactly. If all you have to sell is a big dumb pipe you'll make it the best big dumb pipe you possibly can.
bshep 14y ago
tldr version: "The carriers are tired of Apple calling all the shots[...]" IMO, with Apple's momentum right now it will take A LOT to eat into their market, maybe that's why they are betting on Microsoft.
roc 14y ago
Simply: because the carriers want to be able to play phone manufacturers against each other like the good old days. Android alone hasn't given them as much ammo against Apple as they'd like and Android itself may be facing consolidation. There's a real chance that consumer acceptance of the incredible range of Android phones is predicated on their belief that the Android brand makes those phones largely comparable, if not compatible. So if manufacturers go a more Amazon-ish route with Android in retaliation for Google's buying Motorola, it's entirely possible that consumers may not be willing to follow the smaller outfits. And that would mean a further concentration of sales under the handful of manufacturers that do have some individual pull with consumers (say, HTC and Samsung). Which would only exacerbate the carriers' problem of not-enough-phone-manufacturers-at-each-others-throats.
- diminish 14y ago
  Rather: iphone financing is killing their cash flow, blackberry is lost as an alternative, android has a too big winner-samsung. Carriers need a third player, to push down financed device costs and microsoft is hopeless about mobile and has cash to throw in.
  - masklinn 14y ago
    > Rather: iphone financing is killing their cash flow Not sure why that would be, surely while Apple dictates their asking price they don't dictate financed price do they? So that's a self-inflicted wound, and one which carriers could fix by financing the phone less. On the other hand, the iPhone precludes almost all carrier control, they don't control the initial load, they don't control the updates, ... Carriers control some features Apple gives them hooks for (e.g. tethering), but that's about it. And customers become loyal to the device (and its manufacturer) rather than the carrier, not hesitating jumping ships to a carrier providing the device. > Carriers need a third player, to push down financed device costs It's not like Apple had much say in this back in 2007~2008, and BlackBerry was still there... I don't see sensible support for this narrative.
    - recoiledsnake 14y ago
saturdaysaint 14y ago
How much technological leadership do mobile carriers have to throw around, really? They're not exactly writing must-have apps or creating meaningful services. Their salespeople are Best Buy-style hucksters at best. The bottom line is they've fought the iPhone tooth and nail and it's still dominating U.S. sales.
- masklinn 14y ago
  > How much technological leadership do mobile carriers have to throw around, really? Little to none, what they have is control of the airwaves and lobbying power. Even the underlying tech generally isn't theirs, the network hardware is built by NEC, Nokia or other such manufacturers.
AdamFernandez 14y ago
Things will go a lot smoother once the carriers realize that all they are IS bandwidth. Unlike Cable, they didn't offer valuable content to begin with, and don't have the same leverage to delay the inevitable. Charge users an acceptable price for bandwidth based on infrastructure costs, and call it a day. It is a fantasy of theirs that they can generate revenue in other ways at this point. They don't know how, otherwise they would make their own phones and app markets. It seems corporate executives with dying business models often resort to delusional flailing strategies. I'm just not sure if they believe this is the correct route, or have to appear to be doing 'something' for the investor's sake.
- ajross 14y ago
  This is largely true, but I think it paints the telcos as more irrational than they are. They're using their "delusional flailing strategies" to "delay the inevitable" because those strategies are going to make them more money, at least in the short term. Long term, yes, running a network is not going to afford them the kind of lock-in revenue they are accustomed to. I"m sure they know this. But still, they have a duty to their shareholders to produce revenue now. They're only irrational if you see an obvious course to a future of greater profits. But you don't provide one, and frankly I don't see one either. The phone industry is going to need to shrink, revenue-wise.
  - com 14y ago
    The carriers have "delusional flailing strategies" because they really are delusional and flailing, at least in the parts of the organisations that are capable to driving structural change. The cost structures, swivel-chair automation, arthritic processes, lack of an ability to rationalise their portfolios (many decision-makers on the infrastructure side don't even know what a portfolio is, let alone what rationalisation means, and why this might just help) lead them to panic every time people start cutting their cords (first copper, but soon anything that can be replaced by OTT services) and that is visible to their investors. As someone (occasionally) on the inside, they are irrational, they are flailing, and yet they have no real sense of urgency as their escape paths from likely commoditisation are colonised by nimbler players. [edit: I read the phrase "delusional flailing" as "delusional failing", but the essence is similar enough]
vampirechicken 14y ago
Dear VZW and AT&T. Figure out a way to make your money providing a fast pipe at a decent price and we'll love you for it. Keep up the "Adversarial Value Extraction" (data caps, usurious text message pricing) and we'll abandon you like Blockbuster Video when a viable alternative arises. Prediction: Google and Apple spin off a new, jointly owned company that enters the wireless market by buying sprint and /or t-mobile, and they create the wireless internet we need, not the one we deserve.

22 points by mitchie_luna 14y ago

> The more the iPhone succeeds, the less leverage the carriers have, Mr. Kuittinen explained. All they have is bandwidth. I look forward to the day when mobile carriers are nothing but dumb pipes. Maybe then they'll focus on providing the most bandwidth and best coverage, instead of crap apps that no one cares about.

Splines 14y ago
> The more the iPhone succeeds, the less leverage the carriers have, Mr. Kuittinen explained. All they have is bandwidth. So what's the concern here? Carriers aren't idiots - is carrier commoditization necessarily a bad thing?
- masklinn 14y ago
  > is carrier commoditization necessarily a bad thing? Depends on the POV you're considering. From the POV of the carriers it's a very, very bad thing as it's going to eat into their money and their control. For some manufacturers it's not a good thing as they build handsets for carriers who may not want handsets built specifically for them once they're "nothing but dumb pipes". For pretty much everybody else, it'll be a great day.
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    >For some manufacturers it's not a good thing as they build handsets for carriers who may not want handsets built specifically for them once they're "nothing but dumb pipes". I think manufacturers are very pissed at having to make a different model for each carrier or make slight changes in the design and naming for each carrier. This is the reason that Nokia stopped dealing with carriers and went the unlocked route a few years before having to eat crow and get back into bed with the carriers this year. The manufacturers would be very happy to make one model and be able to sell it on multiple carriers with consistent naming.
    - masklinn 14y ago
      > I think manufacturers are very pissed at having to make a different model for each carrier or make slight changes in the design and naming for each carrier. I'm guessing that depends on the carrier, Nokia had power and brand name but HTC was founded as a strict ODM. The advantage is that you get money to build the phone (to specs, and usually shitty, but still build it) and are cushioned from device failure: currently, carriers want many devices in their portfolio (even if most barely sell).
diminish 14y ago
in addition, i look forward to the days when mobile phones are nothing but web/html5 browsers where apple/google.microsoft lost the control over the stores. they'll provide the best web rendering and convenience; rather than crap apps and monetization needs that no one cares about.
- randomdata 14y ago
  I look forward to the day that the cellphone is just a generic computer, where you can install anything you want, including the operating system. I want more than a system locked down to only HTML/CSS/JS.
pygorex 14y ago
Yes, my thoughts exactly. If all you have to sell is a big dumb pipe you'll make it the best big dumb pipe you possibly can.

bshep 14y ago

tldr version: "The carriers are tired of Apple calling all the shots[...]" IMO, with Apple's momentum right now it will take A LOT to eat into their market, maybe that's why they are betting on Microsoft.

roc 14y ago

Simply: because the carriers want to be able to play phone manufacturers against each other like the good old days. Android alone hasn't given them as much ammo against Apple as they'd like and Android itself may be facing consolidation. There's a real chance that consumer acceptance of the incredible range of Android phones is predicated on their belief that the Android brand makes those phones largely comparable, if not compatible. So if manufacturers go a more Amazon-ish route with Android in retaliation for Google's buying Motorola, it's entirely possible that consumers may not be willing to follow the smaller outfits. And that would mean a further concentration of sales under the handful of manufacturers that do have some individual pull with consumers (say, HTC and Samsung). Which would only exacerbate the carriers' problem of not-enough-phone-manufacturers-at-each-others-throats.

diminish 14y ago
Rather: iphone financing is killing their cash flow, blackberry is lost as an alternative, android has a too big winner-samsung. Carriers need a third player, to push down financed device costs and microsoft is hopeless about mobile and has cash to throw in.
- masklinn 14y ago
  > Rather: iphone financing is killing their cash flow Not sure why that would be, surely while Apple dictates their asking price they don't dictate financed price do they? So that's a self-inflicted wound, and one which carriers could fix by financing the phone less. On the other hand, the iPhone precludes almost all carrier control, they don't control the initial load, they don't control the updates, ... Carriers control some features Apple gives them hooks for (e.g. tethering), but that's about it. And customers become loyal to the device (and its manufacturer) rather than the carrier, not hesitating jumping ships to a carrier providing the device. > Carriers need a third player, to push down financed device costs It's not like Apple had much say in this back in 2007~2008, and BlackBerry was still there... I don't see sensible support for this narrative.
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago

saturdaysaint 14y ago

How much technological leadership do mobile carriers have to throw around, really? They're not exactly writing must-have apps or creating meaningful services. Their salespeople are Best Buy-style hucksters at best. The bottom line is they've fought the iPhone tooth and nail and it's still dominating U.S. sales.

masklinn 14y ago
> How much technological leadership do mobile carriers have to throw around, really? Little to none, what they have is control of the airwaves and lobbying power. Even the underlying tech generally isn't theirs, the network hardware is built by NEC, Nokia or other such manufacturers.

AdamFernandez 14y ago

Things will go a lot smoother once the carriers realize that all they are IS bandwidth. Unlike Cable, they didn't offer valuable content to begin with, and don't have the same leverage to delay the inevitable. Charge users an acceptable price for bandwidth based on infrastructure costs, and call it a day. It is a fantasy of theirs that they can generate revenue in other ways at this point. They don't know how, otherwise they would make their own phones and app markets. It seems corporate executives with dying business models often resort to delusional flailing strategies. I'm just not sure if they believe this is the correct route, or have to appear to be doing 'something' for the investor's sake.

ajross 14y ago
This is largely true, but I think it paints the telcos as more irrational than they are. They're using their "delusional flailing strategies" to "delay the inevitable" because those strategies are going to make them more money, at least in the short term. Long term, yes, running a network is not going to afford them the kind of lock-in revenue they are accustomed to. I"m sure they know this. But still, they have a duty to their shareholders to produce revenue now. They're only irrational if you see an obvious course to a future of greater profits. But you don't provide one, and frankly I don't see one either. The phone industry is going to need to shrink, revenue-wise.
- com 14y ago
  The carriers have "delusional flailing strategies" because they really are delusional and flailing, at least in the parts of the organisations that are capable to driving structural change. The cost structures, swivel-chair automation, arthritic processes, lack of an ability to rationalise their portfolios (many decision-makers on the infrastructure side don't even know what a portfolio is, let alone what rationalisation means, and why this might just help) lead them to panic every time people start cutting their cords (first copper, but soon anything that can be replaced by OTT services) and that is visible to their investors. As someone (occasionally) on the inside, they are irrational, they are flailing, and yet they have no real sense of urgency as their escape paths from likely commoditisation are colonised by nimbler players. [edit: I read the phrase "delusional flailing" as "delusional failing", but the essence is similar enough]

vampirechicken 14y ago

Dear VZW and AT&T. Figure out a way to make your money providing a fast pipe at a decent price and we'll love you for it. Keep up the "Adversarial Value Extraction" (data caps, usurious text message pricing) and we'll abandon you like Blockbuster Video when a viable alternative arises. Prediction: Google and Apple spin off a new, jointly owned company that enters the wireless market by buying sprint and /or t-mobile, and they create the wireless internet we need, not the one we deserve.