- Posts tagged Carriers
- Explore Carriers on posterous
Sprint's first shot at derailing the AT&T and T-Mobile deal misses the mark
Sprint has already fired a shot in an attempt to sway regulators to kill the proposed AT&T and T-Mobile merger. There are a number of things regulators can look at to squash this deal, but I don't find Sprint's current points convincing.
AT&T and Verizon are already by far the largest wireless providers.
Correct, and that wouldn't change (though they'd swap places).
A combined AT&T and T-Mobile would be almost three times the size of Sprint, the third largest wireless competitor.
Verizon is almost three times the size of T-Mobile right now, did Sprint complain about this?
If approved, the merger would result in a wireless industry dominated overwhelmingly by two vertically-integrated companies that control almost 80% of the US wireless post-paid market.
The wireless industry is currently dominated by two vertically integrated companies that control over 70% of the US market. Again, where were Sprint's complaints?
From a US market standpoint, #2 buying a distant #4 does not alter things as radically as Sprint implies.
Sprint's concern seems mostly driven by their own desire for T-Mobile, and knowing this deal can spell trouble for them. Going to the feds so quickly after they got outplayed and outbid may be the only action they think they can take right now, but it doesn't make these particular arguments valid.
Smartphone OS Upgrades: iPhone's "can" vs. Android's "can't"
TechCrunch's post shows a huge discrepancy of smartphones running the latest versions of Android vs. iOS. The numbers will surprise no one that follows mobile tech, but I believe there's a larger point that doesn't even need a chart to make. What should be discussed is how many phones it's even possible to upgrade. That's the real story.
It's well known (if not well reported) that upgrading an Android device is hit or miss. It could be because of the carrier, or the manufacturer, or a combination of both. One thing's certain: Google has no control over the process for any phones other than their own Nexus-branded models, and there's only two of those.
Recently, Computerworld examined carrier and manufacturer "trust" in terms of upgrading Android phones, and the conclusions are dismal. For manufacturers, HTC took top honors:
50 percent of its Android phones having been bumped to Froyo within 2010. Its average upgrade time is also relatively impressive, at 56 days.
Only half their phones were upgraded, but other manufacturers were worse.
Meanwhile, for carriers Verizon took the crown:
A third of the carrier's qualifying Android phones received Froyo within the software's first six months on the market. On average, it took Big Red 58 days to get those updates delivered.
Only a third of the eligible phones are upgraded, yet it's King among carriers.
If you had an HTC phone on Verizon, you had about a 17% chance (one-third of 50%) of upgrading to Froyo last year. And that was your best shot since other manufacturer/carrier combinations were worse.
For the iPhone things are easier. Put simply, 100% of current and -1 generation phones are eligible for upgrades. Apple has even made upgrades available for -2 generation phones, though some features are not available.
It's not just that these iPhones are eligible, but that the carriers have no involvement in the actual upgrade. Just connect the iPhone to iTunes and let it upgrade. That's it. Further, the upgrades are available on the day a new OS is released, not two months later, which is the best Android's manufacturers/carriers can manage.
The mobile market tends to treat their devices as semi-disposable, so it may be unrealistic to discuss models over two years old, but in Android's case "old" models aren't needed to skew the numbers. There are models only five or six months old seemingly "abandoned". This makes Apple's major upgrade to each generation of iPhone, twice, all the more impressive.
Wonder why Verizon is working with Apple despite Android's supposed success? Now you know.
[Verizon] added a modest 997,000 cellphone customers during the summer compared to AT&T's 2.6 million and was enough to put the two carriers' total bases nearly even
Verizon (and others) can trumpet Android's popularity all they want, but internally Verizon obviously knew they were losing the war to AT&T. Now everyone else does.
No wonder Verizon partnered with Apple for iPad and MiFi combinations with especially nice pricing for the hardware and data plans. Also, no wonder we're hearing more credible rumors about a Verizon iPhone. Without these things, it's entirely possible AT&T will be the #1 US carrier in a quarter or two.
Verizon's Android app store is about choice? Yes, Verizon's choice.
It’s not about preventing other app stores, or preventing apps to be downloaded through the browser or other means; this is about choice for our customers.
It's difficult to believe this is the real reason for Verizon's app store. Verizon chose their words carefully; those who buy into the Android "open" saga love the word "choice". Maybe it'll fool some of them, but with 80,000 apps on Android's market place there seems to be quite a bit of choice already.
So what's a more realistic explanation?
Verizon once aspired to be a player in the mobile app game, making money—and maybe keeping people on Verizon phones—via BREW apps. I bought a few myself back in the day. But it didn't work out for Verizon because BREW apps mostly sucked and were too expensive. There simply weren't that many good enough to care about, let alone worry about leaving behind.
I believe with Android as the base OS, Verizon thinks it'll be a lot different now. Hence the new store.
ZDNet: The dirty little secret about Google Android
After all the work Apple did to get AT&T to relinquish device control for the iPhone and all the great efforts Google made to get the FCC and the U.S. telecoms to agree to open access rules as part of the 700 MHz auction, Android is taking all of those gains and handing the power back to the telecoms.
The article nails it, but I'd like to point out the only reason Android's problems are "secret" is because there should be more articles like this in the tech press, but there aren't. Android has many issues.
Even in this article, in the comments, you've got Google supporters defending the fragmented state of Android, going so far as to deny it's fragmentation, choosing instead the euphemism "choice", and of course blasting Apple. Don't like crapware? Vote with your wallet. Great, except the top Android phones come with crapware. Well, then use root authority to delete hem. Right, because that's what I want do with my "smart" phone.
Android supporters talk like Windows users do about anti-virus. It's not bad, it's just the way it is, so quit complaining and do it. Besides, any platform that doesn't work this way must be "wrong." Or "a toy." Or "closed."
Android Weakness On Display: Motorola's 2.1 and 2.2 Froyo updates
Let’s start off with Android updates for Moto’s smartphones available in the US. Here’s the list of devices, and the expected updates…
As the fragmentation of Android phones continues, I wonder about those who bought Android because they thought it was a good phone that would get better with updates.
Oops.
Let's see what U.S. Motorola Android users can expect in terms of updates (international users fare no better):
Motorola Droid X – Android 2.2 Froyo update to start in “late summer” (as previously rumored)
The X is only a month old but shipped with the old 2.1 version of Android. It could get 2.2 in a month, and if so will finally be on the current version.
Motorola Droid – Android 2.2 update “currently rolling out in phases”
The original Droid gets 2.2 before the X, though it's still rolling out now. Like the X, the phone will then be current.
Is it that it takes so long to test devices for the current version, or that so little emphasis is placed on updating? That the latter is likely is shown by the updates below, which will not even make the phones current.
Motorola Cliq and Cliq XT – Android 2.1 updates “planned for late Q3/early Q4” (no Froyo, huh?)
No current version for these, but they can update to the old 2.1 version in another month. Or two. These phones are only nine and six months old, respectively. There's at least 15 months left on a 24-month contract but they're already outdated.
Motorola Backflip – Android 2.1 should be available in Q3
Just like the Cliqs. Released only five months ago but won't get the current Android version.
Motorola Devour – no plans for an Android 2.1 update, sadly
The Devour is only six months old, yet "devour" is exactly what Motorola did to the phone's chance of getting even the old 2.1 version. Maybe Devour users should've bought a Backflip or Cliq instead—they wouldn't be as badly outdated—but how were they to know?
Let's summarize:
- By "late summer" two recent phones should finally be current.
- By "early Q4" three recent phones should get an old version.
- One recent phone will get diddly-squat.
That's bad news any way you look at it. And don't think it's just Motorola, others are being just as stingy with Android updates.
This major weakness of the Android platform is usually glossed over (not by me). Rather than articles that critique Android's partners for weak update support—or for not pushing the platform forward—it's mentioned in passing, if at all, before discussing how nice 2.2 is. They don't mention that running the current version of Android is the equivalent of a private club to which the vast majority of its users will never be invited.
Google and Verizon: "Cable Operators Can Suck It. We Rule."
Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless
They buried it at number six of seven points, but there it is. Wired should do as we suggest, but wireless doesn't have to because we haven't built our empire yet. Wow.
This takes balls, but Google and Verizon probably figure tech blogs will simply publish the spoon-fed press releases, then shrug it off and write another Apple or AT&T horror story. The sad part is, they may be right.
Perhaps the most important stat from Validas's wireless smartphone bill analysis
But, more than 4 percent of VZW Smartphones consume more than 2 gigabytes per month, as opposed to just 1.6 percent of iPhones.
That's it right there.
Remember when AT&T introduced their data caps? The highest cap was set at 2GB, and there was outrage. AT&T said only 2% of their customers use more than that each month, but few believed them. Well, it's just 1.6%.
I dropped two iPhones on our family plan to the $15 200MB cap, and mine to the $25 2GB cap. That's $35 a month saved with no decrease in activity on our part.
The caps work, and they save you money. Lots to complain about AT&T for, but not everything they do is evil. This one's putting money in my pocket, and would do the same for 98.4% of you.
