"Mobile users diss premium content"

<http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>:

We'll have it - as long as it's free

Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their
phones, but they won't pay a premium for it.

Operators should view mobile content as a way to reduce churn rather
than as a new revenue stream, according to a worldwide survey from
accountants KPMG. Forty per cent of those questioned said they would
not pay a premium for mobile content.

[MORE]

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

KUDOs to John for keeping his ear to the ground for wireless
communications trends and articles.

A trade magazine discussed "mobile TV" last summer and presented two
very opposite views.

One side observed that watching TV is a "sit down experience" not very
adaptable to walking down the sidewalk, much less while driving. And
could you really enjoy watching a 1"x1½" screen?

The other side touted it as the next killer app for cellular and as the
article mentioned, with the same fevor that you heard in the time before
the intenet bubble burst. It was obvious the guy pitching this new
concept was using "talking points" and "power terms" similar to a snake
oil salesman.

I noticed in the article that John referenced, it was European trials.
In Europe, as well as many Pacific rim countries, text messaging is far
less expensive than voice calls compared to the current pricing
structure of cellular calls in the U.S. that average well under 10 cents
a minute. That along with the European use of "called party pays"
illustrates the Europeans have a different mindset to cellular usage.

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:

> I noticed in the article that John referenced, it was European trials.
> In Europe, as well as many Pacific rim countries, text messaging is far
> less expensive than voice calls compared to the current pricing
> structure of cellular calls in the U.S. that average well under 10 cents
> a minute. That along with the European use of "called party pays"
> illustrates the Europeans have a different mindset to cellular usage.

The per minute rates in Europe, with CPP, are far higher than what we
pay in the U.S..

It is counter-intuitive that SMS is so expensive in the U.S..

It's kind of amusing that a survey had to be done to find out that
mobile users are not willing to pay for premium content. You'd think
that the carriers could figure this out based on their falling ARPUs.
The premium content gets old really fast, especially when the bill comes
the first time.

"SMS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:44205ee8$0$95951$(E-Mail Removed)...
> DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>
>> I noticed in the article that John referenced, it was European trials. In
>> Europe, as well as many Pacific rim countries, text messaging is far less
>> expensive than voice calls compared to the current pricing structure of
>> cellular calls in the U.S. that average well under 10 cents a minute.
>> That along with the European use of "called party pays" illustrates the
>> Europeans have a different mindset to cellular usage.
>
> The per minute rates in Europe, with CPP, are far higher than what we pay
> in the U.S..
>
> It is counter-intuitive that SMS is so expensive in the U.S..
>
> It's kind of amusing that a survey had to be done to find out that mobile
> users are not willing to pay for premium content. You'd think that the
> carriers could figure this out based on their falling ARPUs. The premium
> content gets old really fast, especially when the bill comes the first
> time.

IMO, in this country, people always want "something for nothing". We have
"free" long distance, "free" nights and weekends, "free" roaming, "free"
mobile to mobile and "free" phones. Now we tell the customer that he needs
to pay as much for the extras as he's already paying for his voice
plan..."It costs what!?"

Cingular's mantra these days (with their dealers) is "sell features." Does
anybody want to watch a 10 minute trailer of their favorite television show
on a 2" diagonal screen? I know the technology works, but does the mass
market want it, or more to the point, are they willing to pay for it?

Mark

Mark W. Oots wrote:

> Cingular's mantra these days (with their dealers) is "sell features." Does
> anybody want to watch a 10 minute trailer of their favorite television show
> on a 2" diagonal screen? I know the technology works, but does the mass
> market want it, or more to the point, are they willing to pay for it?

All the carriers do that. I was in a Verizon store last week, and the
manager was training the sales people on selling Mobile Web. It was
amusing to listen to.

Funny thing is, if they priced the services more reasonably, I think a
lot of people would use them on occasion, rather than never using them
at all.

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:15:43 UTC, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>
> > I noticed in the article that John referenced, it was European trials.
> > In Europe, as well as many Pacific rim countries, text messaging is far
> > less expensive than voice calls compared to the current pricing
> > structure of cellular calls in the U.S. that average well under 10 cents
> > a minute. That along with the European use of "called party pays"
> > illustrates the Europeans have a different mindset to cellular usage.
>
> The per minute rates in Europe, with CPP, are far higher than what we
> pay in the U.S..
>
> It is counter-intuitive that SMS is so expensive in the U.S..
>
> It's kind of amusing that a survey had to be done to find out that
> mobile users are not willing to pay for premium content. You'd think
> that the carriers could figure this out based on their falling ARPUs.
> The premium content gets old really fast, especially when the bill comes
> the first time.

The only premium I pay for is for Mediaworks, and that is for PDA
tethering, and very occasionally laptop usage when Wi-Fi is not
available. But never over 40MB/month so far.

--

In article <DlXTf.600333$(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) (known to some as John Navas) scribed...

> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>:
>
> We'll have it - as long as it's free
>
> Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their
> phones, but they won't pay a premium for it.

<snippety>

Heh... Personally, I just want my phone to do a really good job at
being a phone. I'll stick to my laptop and a wireless connection if I
want mobile "content."

Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.

Outside of that, I couldn't care less about what else might be
offered.

Keep the peace(es).


--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm
"Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <MPG.1e8a76c2dfdabacf9896ca@192.168.42.131> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:47:32
-0800, Dr. Anton T. Squeegee <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <DlXTf.600333$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>(E-Mail Removed) (known to some as John Navas) scribed...
>
>> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>:
>>
>> We'll have it - as long as it's free
>>
>> Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their
>> phones, but they won't pay a premium for it.
>
> <snippety>
>
> Heh... Personally, I just want my phone to do a really good job at
>being a phone. I'll stick to my laptop and a wireless connection if I
>want mobile "content."
>
> Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
>point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
>I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.
>
> Outside of that, I couldn't care less about what else might be
>offered.

While I likewise prefer my laptop (notebook) computer for many things, my
phone is better for other things, particularly since I don't always have my
computer with me. Things which work well on my phone include:
* Google Mobile personalized (email, weather, news, movies)
* Google Local for Mobile (maps, businesses, and directions)
* Froogle Mobile (shopping)
* Weather
* Movies (reviews and showtimes)
* Phone directories
* Flight schedules
* eBay
* FedEx tracking

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:

> In article <DlXTf.600333$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) (known to some as John Navas) scribed...
>
>> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>:
>>
>> We'll have it - as long as it's free
>>
>> Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their
>> phones, but they won't pay a premium for it.
>
> <snippety>
>
> Heh... Personally, I just want my phone to do a really good job at
> being a phone. I'll stick to my laptop and a wireless connection if I
> want mobile "content."

Well, I'd really like my phone to replace my Palm. I don't want "content"
but I really want to keep my calendar and address book on it - and be able
to sync with a PC (which some phones will do, but not mine). I certainly
don't want any media content from the phone company, though.
--
derek

Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
[...]
> Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
> point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
> I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.

You are asking for what amounts to an insecure connection.

[...]