What Price Wireless Apps?

[Jason Dunn]

<a href="http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,91604,tk,dn032702X,00.asp">http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,91604,tk,dn032702X,00.asp</a><br /><br />Just when you think wireless data charges are too high to swallow, the carriers are talking about how to charge you for using applications on your phone while disconnected! This is a very bold move by the carriers, one that will be met with almost universal loathing. Who wants to pay 25 cents every time they play a simple game or read news offline? If you buy an application, you should be able to use that application whenever you want - not keep paying for it. What if it cost us 25 cents every time we opened Microsoft Word? Microsoft might like it, but most people would stop using Word - the TCO would skyrocket. This attempt by the carriers to extort more money from their victims will flop in a huge way. People are willing to pay a small amount to communicate with others (SMS), but not to play a game on their phone. Comparing a tiny, low-res B&W screen on a phone with awkward controls to an arcade game is silly - the two simply don't compare.<br /><br />"The prime example of value-based pricing is in Europe, where carriers charge 10 cents per SMS message. With the rise of J2ME applications that are small enough to reside on the cell phone, however, the problem has become how to charge users who are not connected to the network and who access an application only locally on the handset.<br /><br />Sprint and others seem to have overcome the problem of charging for offline use. Sprint calls its solution BOBO (billing on behalf of others) and is currently testing this and various other pricing schemes, said Nancy Sherrer, a Sprint spokesperson based in Overland Park, Kansas. Sprint will offer value-based pricing schemes with its applications in the second half of this year when it launches its third-generation network, Sherrer said. By placing a counter in each application--even if a user is playing a game on the handset while flying coast to coast, or if a salesperson is checking an SFA application for an address offline--Sprint can charge for usage.<br /><br />"Think of it as gong to an arcade and paying 25 cents for a game. It's the same experience," Sherrer said."

[Scott R]

BOBO seems like an apt name for this.

Scott

[mar2k]

Pure extortion. The quarter/video game comment is absurd. Look at the current full-size arcade games and the graphics/user experience (Daytona USA and that skiing game comes to mind) and compare these to a game on a mobile phone.

I was really looking forward to Smartphone 2002, but not if this is what they have in mind for the "experience". I want to be able to buy my apps and use them whenever I like. Small monthly fee for SMS, I can handle, but this?

The ridiculous part is that they would be so hot to charge for apps in this way that they will scare off potential customers by the thousands, before these things ever get off the ground. I mean, any business since at all says that you should get everyone hooked on the service and then try to gouge them later on. :wink:

[mememe]

BOBO seems like an apt name for this.

Scott


For there to be true justification for billing, there must be some interactivity with the network and an enhanced level of game play (eg. multiplayer) besides what is resident on one handset (even when your not in a service area).

Either billing for the app upfront or on a per use basis, but not both, but there must be a greater user experience.

[Jason Dunn]

I was really looking forward to Smartphone 2002, but not if this is what they have in mind for the "experience". I want to be able to buy my apps and use them whenever I like. Small monthly fee for SMS, I can handle, but this?


There's no mention of Smartphone 2002 in the article - if anything, it seems to be a J2ME initiative. Bad Java, bad! ;-)

[JMountford]

I tell you what, I am getting so damn sick and tired of this carp. Sprint was supposed to be one of the first in the states to get their 3G network up and running, but turns out they will be last. They do not even have it running and allready want to find ways to screw their customers out of money. I have had Sprint for over two years.. My wife and I keep talking ourselves out of leaving them because of the costs involved in switching carriers. But this is really starting to tweak me off. What is really funny is that I have to go pay my bill today.

I think I am going to talk to their store manager.

I am starting to wonder if 3G is really worth all of the carp envolved.

[mar2k]

There's no mention of Smartphone 2002 in the article - if anything, it seems to be a J2ME initiative. Bad Java, bad! ;-)


Oops, I can see how you would interpret my comment in that way. I wasn't picking on Smartphone 2002, it just hit me that if this is what ultimately the CARRIERS have in mind I wouldn't be so interested anymore. Hopefully, Smartphone 2002 will be a lot more like Pocket PC and a lot less like J2ME...

[Jeff Kirvin]

This is one more reason (along with the perpetual 3G tease) to ditch the carriers altogether and adopt new devices combining 802.11 and Voice Over IP. You can walk from one end of downtown Seattle to the other without losing 802.11 coverage (thanks to Starbucks) and here in Denver, it's getting close to that already. Why carry a cellphone and a Pocket PC if the Pocket PC can do the job by itself?

I know this is tantamount to treason here in the USA, but this is why greed sucks. Didn't anyone read "The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs" when they were kids? If the carriers persist in trying to suck every dime possible out of their customers, they'll drive their customers elsewhere. Not unlike the RIAA charging $20 for a CD with maybe two good songs on it drove people to Napster.

[RobertCF]

That just adds more fuel to my argument against cell phones. I've never owned one, and at this rate never will. It's absolutely stupid to pay the money they ask for a service that is inconsistent in it's coverage (my friends are "out of range" more often than in), that you have to count this kind of minute and that kind of minute, and now this stupidity of charging for messages AND for using the piece of junk when not in an actual call!? I guess this also shows how lame the combined units will be--what's to stop the carriers from charging you for games you play on your PocketPC Phone Edition, huh?

The VOIP is the most promising way at this point for battling these moronic carriers, as far as I can see. Somebody needs to spank those carriers....

[Brad Adrian]

So, it sounds like we're undecided about the value of BOBO, huh? :wink:

The good news is that this type of pricing plan will never fly and it will rapidly yield to those based on reality.

[tonyv]

I said this in an earlier thread on Brighthand, and I'll say it here -- Microsoft's (and others) ultimate aim with its Web Services is to make you pay every time to use your software (or at minimum, through a monthly or yearly subscription).

PDA's (and SmartPhones) are the natural choice to start changing people's expectations of how software should be licensed....

Microsoft will be doing you a great favor by off-loading all that processing to a mainframe somewhere, and allowing you to access the data from any device -- yeah, right. I wouldn't be surprised to see functionality already present in our PocketPCs migrate out to external servers, once wireless access is cheap and universal.

Ever since PCs were born, businesses have been trying to lure users back to a thin client universe. Having tasted freedom, computer users have rejected all attempts. Wireless PDAs and SmartPhones may change the equation, but I think that ultimately, users will demand that their devices have the horsepower and software to operate independently from central servers.

Then again, most people are willing to pay to watch TV! Which is something I will never do. Even worse is paying for TiVo, which gathers data about what you watch!

[PPCRules]

... What if it cost us 25 cents every time we opened Microsoft Word? Microsoft might like it, but most people would stop using Word - the TCO would skyrocket. This attempt by the carriers to extort more money from their victims will flop in a huge way. ...

I think you are only saying this because you are comparing to the way we are accustomed to doing things. I actually think I could like paying 25 cents a use for Word, the few times I would need its features, rather than paying $300-$400 up front for Office. The main difference I see is in a closed-architecture cell phone, you can't install alternate applications (a good reason to stick with the Palm or PPC based phones).

It comes down to what the market will bear. If the user, even if they didn't realize it up front, gets billed more than they perceive the value to be, you will stop using the service. If they feel it is worth it, the service will succeed. (Then, of course, you have the rest that have no idea where their money goes.) Who would have ever guessed that people would be paying for new ringtones? That's big business these days. Actually, I don't see myself playing games on my phone, on line or off, so if recreational/entertainment users subsidize the network so I can get a cheaper base rate, I think that's good.

[Chubbergott]

This absolutely sucks and I don't care who implements it! If it gets used on a Microsoft Smartphone, Symbian, Palm or whatever..... it sucks and stinks and will be sure to drop customers. I don't even care if the price is 'reasonable', I pay for software so that I can use that software, not have another DD payment around my neck.

Talk about big brother watching as well. Not only will the data sent by a phone tell the vendor how much to charge, but it will tell the vendor what I've been doing (not that I do do anything to hide - you understand :) ).

I really can't see it working though. I mean, apart from people with more cents than sense, who would fall for this?

On a lighter note, I saw this 'advert' on a website and you guys may appreciate it;

http://www.quadriga.pt/images/every_body_s.gif

[Scott R]

Even worse is paying for TiVo, which gathers data about what you watch!

This really isn't accurate. While TiVo may gather data about what I watch, their privacy statement ensures that they do not disclose this data at a person-specific-level to anyone (e.g. - they may tell whoever is willing to pay for this data that xx number of viewers in Connecticut watch X-Files, but they can't tell them that Scott at xx address watches it. TiVo is one of those things that you can't really appreciate the value in until you have it. That said, I do feel that their monthly subscription rate was overpriced before the recent price increase (it's now going to be $13 or so - it was $10).

Scott

[Jason Dunn]

Even worse is paying for TiVo, which gathers data about what you watch!


This is off topic, but I WISH my TV set gathered information about what I watch. It sucks that shows get cancelled because a few 1000 houses with Neilson boxes decide what shows live or die. Bah! I want my voice to count, so I would WELCOME tracking of my TV habits as long as it respected my privacy.

[Scott R]

This is off topic, but I WISH my TV set gathered information about what I watch. It sucks that shows get cancelled because a few 1000 houses with Neilson boxes decide what shows live or die. Bah! I want my voice to count, so I would WELCOME tracking of my TV habits as long as it respected my privacy.

Keeping things off-topic...I completely agree with you. I, personally, don't get the huge concern for complete privacy on the internet or, in this case, TiVo. Yeah, I'd rather they didn't give out my name, address, and phone number to junk mail lists. But even then, I doubt it would make much difference to me. I already get tons of junk mail and tons of sales calls. I look at my caller ID and know that it's a sales call and then just don't answer it. There's actually somewhere where I can sign up for a no-call list (may be Connecticut-specific), but I've been too lazy to hunt it down. Back to your point...I don't trust the Nielsen stuff. As you said, we have to rely on them really getting an accurate microcosm of the entire population. Plus, I believe the Nielsen users have to log their data, which they may not get around to, or may log incorrectly. I once read that those annoying (and growing increasingly larger) network logos that have become a permanent fixture in the lower right portion of our TVs are there for the purpose of reminding the Nielsen folks which channel they're watching. Wouldn't TV be much better if everyone had TiVo (or at least the channel monitoring portion) so that the networks could really find out which shows and commercials we watch and which we don't?

Scott

[Jason Dunn]

Keeping things off-topic...I completely agree with you.


I think I need some brain surgery then - something must be wrong if we're agreeing. ;-) ;-)

[Kre]

These pricing schemes show just how greed makes people stupid.

These carriers are so deep in their own little worlds, theyve completely lost track of this little thing called reality. How many times are these goons going to have to fall on their butts to realize that stupid overpriced schemes like this wont work?

She compares it to an arcade. So? So what? How is this supposed to be a good thing? Just because you can compare it to something, doesnt make it good. Is plunking down a quarter for every little move you make supposed to be a good thing just because we do this with arcade machines? Imagine if this pricing joke were used on our desktops and laptops everytime we opened up Word or Excel! God help us.

The idiots that come up with these ideas need to go work in the mailroom. They dont seem to understand ANYTHING about how human beings work and operate in the real world. They act as if their greed gives them license to try to milk people for a dime everytime they breathe.

Carriers: WAKE UP!

[JMountford]

One, Off topic. I agree that telivision veiwing in all homes should have a way to be sent to someone. It would maske for better rating systems, better statistics, and better scheduling of shows. Neilson families are few and far between and incredibly easy to buy off.

Two, Everyone with Sprint PCS will love this. If you want to see things the way you want it Email Sprint Execs. I have done this before and I can Gaurantee that it has an effect, (mostly because they hate it).

Go to the following link to see the list of Directors.
http://www.sprintpcs.com/aboutsprintpcs/mediacenter/bios.html
Now there are no EMail addresses listed for these people so let me tell you how it works. Sprint has a simple Email name code. It is the First Letter of the First Name and the First Five Letters of the second Name follow by 01, 02 and so on @sprintspectrum.com So say you want to Email Tom Murphy
Vice President Public Relations
Sprint's PCS Division
His Email Addy should be mailto:[email protected].
Seeing as how he is a Customer Relations guy he is a good bet to contact but all look at William R. Blessing
Vice President, Strategic Planning
Sprint PCS Division and Antonio (Tony) Castañon
Senior Vice President, Customer Solutions . Maybe it is evil to write these guys but I firmly beleive if you speak you can make a difference. The more people let them know how much this bites the more it will not happen.