The Future May Be In Jeopardy For The MPx And MPx100

[Mike Temporale]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.slashphone.com/33/631.html' target='_blank'>http://www.slashphone.com/33/631.html</a><br /><br /></div>SlashPhone is reporting that they have learned T-Mobile is not going to carry the MPx or the MPx100 as they had previously planned. I have my doubts that this is real. Motorola and Microsoft are not going to stand up and make a huge announcement at MDC in March that rocked the Smartphone world without making sure they had carriers lined up to carry these phones. These 2 phones are flag-ship next generation phones. T-Mobile isn't going to up and change their mind. For this to be real, there would have to be some serious problems with those devices, and I can't see that being the case with phones from Motorola. HTC, maybe. Motorola, no way.

[NYC567user]

I've heard that rumor as well. They decided to opt for the DMA III that you see in their Germany T-Mobile site. I guess they got a better deal last minute.....that would be the only reason....

[jkovacs]

If this is true T-Mobile will be making a critical strategic mistake. They are already seen as having the worst phone selection and an opportunity to carry two long-awaited and sought-after devices would cement that view. And think of all the people just itching to jump to whomever carries the MPx!

...Joe K.

[cortez]

i've been on a month-to-month contract for 6 months hoping/waiting that T-Mobile would carry one of these phones... if this rumor is true, i would like to know what the deciding factors are: cost vs. support vs. legally binding contract vs. ????. guess i'll have to get an MPx220 unlock it and use it on T-Mo...(just like i am with my MPx200).

[Kris Kumar]

Last year, T-Mobile Germany had decided against Smartphones because of higher customer support costs and also stated that 2002 version is not stable.

I dont think stability would be a major concern with 2003. Support calls, yes.

But what surprises me is that when they can have Pocket PC Phone Edition devices, why can't they have have Smartphones. The support calls for the Pocket PC Phone Editions and Smartphones would I guess be about the same. Yes they do have to train the support staff. That will be a cost. Or maybe someone in the marketing or product positioning feels that Smartphones arent as good as Pocket PC Phone Editions. Or that why do they need to add Smartphones when they have its bigger cousin.

I hope this is just a rumor, nothing else.

[Ben]

Last year, T-Mobile Germany had decided against Smartphones because of higher customer support costs . . . .

I think carriers ought to just refuse to support the additional features of the phone. People that buy Smartphones should be a little more savvy and willing to read manuals, search online forums, and turn to other places for their answers, anyway. If T-Mobile would just say, "Yes, we can tell you about your bill, contract cancellation fees, calling area coverage, and that sort of thing, but not how to convert an mp3 to a wma and back or why your video game won't install on the storage card" they would have minimal additional customer service costs.

Just tell everyone to call Motorola or read their manuals for a change. :)

[Don Sorcinelli]

I think carriers ought to just refuse to support the additional features of the phone. People that buy Smartphones should be a little more savvy and willing to read manuals, search online forums, and turn to other places for their answers, anyway. If T-Mobile would just say, "Yes, we can tell you about your bill, contract cancellation fees, calling area coverage, and that sort of thing, but not how to convert an mp3 to a wma and back or why your video game won't install on the storage card" they would have minimal additional customer service costs.

Just tell everyone to call Motorola or read their manuals for a change. :)
Time to remember a key aspect of the carrier business model (especially in the US):

We offer you the unit to buy into the service.

This is the reason why phones are (for the most part) so cheap or free. It's also the reason for the talk regarding "subsidies" to the carriers by phone manufacturers and Microsoft. Finally, it is the reason that the carrier industry is completely focused on Average Revenue Per Unit ("APRU").

With the handset considered secondary to the service, the idea of not standing behind the handset and providing service is never really considered. For the average consumer, buying a device from a carrier that does not include support would be risky (to say the least). The carrier then runs the risk of looking elsewhere.

While the thought of not offering support on one phone has potential, it is doubtful that a carrier would choose this route, if only for fear of negative publicity for the decision. Its important to remember that the "tech savvy" audience constitutes a small fraction of the cellphone user base. Negative publicity, however, impacts the entire potential market.

I often wonder if there is not at least some little "school of thought" in the GSM carrier community that likes people buying devices outside of the carriers, still purchasing services and being able to say "sorry, we don't support this phone." As far as I know, T-Mobile thinks they're generating a ton of ARPU off of my old SE T68m (two phones ago) :wink:

DonS

[cortez]

...regarding "the lack of smartphone" support as a [possible] deciding factor, all you have to do is look at ATT's cluster****** support for the MPx200. or shall I say, the complete and absolute LACK of support. if one were to read the ATT MPx200 specific forums, it's evident [at least to me] that ATT was ill-prepared to support the device.

my 2cents...

[Kris Kumar]

...regarding "the lack of smartphone" support as a [possible] deciding factor, all you have to do is look at ATT's cluster****** support for the MPx200. or shall I say, the complete and absolute LACK of support. if one were to read the ATT MPx200 specific forums, it's evident [at least to me] that ATT was ill-prepared to support the device.

my 2cents...

I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that T-Mobile was closely observing the MPx200 issues in the US and SPV issues in the Europe for making its decision.

[Ben]

I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that T-Mobile was closely observing the MPx200 issues in the US and SPV issues in the Europe for making its decision.

I'm sure they are analyzing everything, I just hope they don't weigh the problems there too heavily against the platform. Smatphone 2002 was buggy in several ways, and many of those problems have been resolved in this latest iteration. Also, ATT Wireless has had a huge number of problems (many of which have still not been resolved), so hopefully T-Mobile is weighing all of that carefully and making an informed decision. I would love to have T-mobile's affordable data rates on a great 2003 OS phone, and hope that T-mobile does not overestimate the significance of the aggregate effect of a first generation OS with a less than stellar carrier. Hopefully they can discern the benefit of getting on board with the second wave of phones, knowing that there will be less problems this time around just due to the nature of Motorola and Microsoft learning from the first go.

[Kris Kumar]

We offer you the unit to buy into the service.

.....

While the thought of not offering support on one phone has potential, it is doubtful that a carrier would choose this route, if only for fear of negative publicity for the decision. Its important to remember that the "tech savvy" audience constitutes a small fraction of the cellphone user base. Negative publicity, however, impacts the entire potential market.

....


Good point. I agree that carrier's have no option but to stand behind the phone that they offer under We offer you the unit to buy into the service scheme.

Even with the subsidy, most of these Smartphones cost $250 or more, plus annual contract, and when it fails to perform as described in the feature list (or worse, not being able to make a phone call), the carrier gets a bad name.

The carriers would love to lock down the phones, so that no external apps can be installed and restrict config changes. Like for Symbian phones, users cannot get to the patches, updates or even know that a newer firmware is available. You only come to know of it when you have a problem and have to send the phone in. Smartphones makes it convenient for the tech user to upgrade, but as DonS wrote, techies are a very small fraction.

Similarly for most other phones, apps can be installed only from the carrier website, but not in the case of Smartphones. I guess being a powerful-flexible device is not neccessarily always a good thing!

And Smartphones are marketed as powerful and flexible phones, and since they belong to the Windows Mobile (Pocket PC) family, people have a tough time buying into the concept of locked down Smartphone. And without the application restrictions, carriers will have a tough time.

I am not suggesting locked down phones. But there has to be a model where tech savvy customer can be separated from a non-tech savvy customer, and the support be tailored accordingly. I mean something like, by signing on a certain statement or form, I am not entitled to any software support. But that will be tough to implement. Also the granularity of what exactly is or is not software support?

[Kris Kumar]

I often wonder if there is not at least some little "school of thought" in the GSM carrier community that likes people buying devices outside of the carriers, still purchasing services and being able to say "sorry, we don't support this phone." As far as I know, T-Mobile thinks they're generating a ton of ARPU off of my old SE T68m (two phones ago) :wink:

Wow, another good point. It makes perfect sense for T-Mobile, to apply that logic to its marketing strategy.
1. As you said number of techies (and others users) who really want Smartphones is not significant.
2. As long as T-Mobile offers good rates and decent coverage, techies will find a way to buy, beg, borrow or steal Smartphones from somewhere and port it over to T-Mobile.
3. And the best part, they dont have to worry about subsidies. But still manage to get new subscribers on board or keep the old ones.
4. And best, no need to support the phone.

BTW: T-Mobile thinks I am using SE T68i for the last two years, and I very rarely (once per year) call in for tech support.

[Don Sorcinelli]

BTW: T-Mobile thinks I am using SE T68i for the last two years, and I very rarely (once per year) call in for tech support.
T68i? When I was a boy, we didn't have the T68i. We had the "m", then they took the letter away... :wink:

DonS

[possmann]

Sigh - Here I go again....

We need a business model where carriers are just that - carriers and not hardware vendors. You don;t call the cable company when you have problems with your TV set - you call them when you have problems with the reception...

If I had probelms with my moto phone, I should be contacting Moto and not T-Mo. I'd like that model and think it would put more back on the phone developer to build a better phone and free-up the carrier to concentrate on building wider, faster and higher quality networks...

The only reason (me thinks) that T-Mo would NOT support rolling these out is financial. They view this as not producing enough revenue for them - bully on the "it didn't pass theier initial tests..." crap. That, IMHO, is just a cover up as the same phone seems to pass other GSM carrier tests - :?

I think that the contract is too heavy for T-Mo to sign, they want to leverage their largest GSM user community in the world status to get Moto (and even perhaps Microsoft) to go lower on contract deals with T-Mo and those guys just aren't going to play.

No sir - I think this has everything to do with money and nothing to do with technology or compatibility.

Which still sucks as many of us will buy the unlocked version and still use T-Mo as a carrier because frankly they ahve the widest GSM coverage and the cheapest overall rates - sigh.

[aristoBrat]

They view this as not producing enough revenue for them - bully on the "it didn't pass theier initial tests..." crap. That, IMHO, is just a cover up as the same phone seems to pass other GSM carrier tests - :?
I wonder if AT&T made enough revenue on their branded Moto V600 to make up for the amount of money that they lost having their CSRs tied up on the phone supporting the buggy firmware and the cost of replacing many of the initially shipped devices?

Just because a device "passes" on one carrier doesn't mean that it's necessarily really ready. And unfortunately, from having read many posts over on the Moto forums at HoFo, Moto has a very bad rep for initially putting out firmware with issues. :(

[possmann]

Here is what really irks me... and perhaps it's my niave way at looking at things...

I assume that when we are talking about "firmware" we are talking about the "bios" level software - underneath the OS. I would have hoped that by providing an OS (smartphone) that the only developers needed would be at the hardware manufactorer to provide the firmware. But no...

Seems like each carrier has got to get their hands into the mix so they can develop their "value add" unique to each carrier - which BTW seems to increase cost, risks and frustration (at all levels) moreso than adding any real value.

What if carriers just provided the bandwidth - they could even "lock" the phone into their carrier program if they so desired... I wonder how much they really make off the "t-zones" and other similar programs to actually make up for customizing each phone that they get from the hardware vendor.