*contains graphic material

this is where I speak my brains about content / media / research / data

Month: April, 2010

3 Mobile: give up the iPhones!

Well. I am plum tuckered out. I’ve just spent a gruelling couple of days successfully convincing 3 Mobile in Australia to let me have an iPhone contract. As a basic negotiation between two parties I find getting a home loan or attaining UK citizenship to be easier.

As I have just moved back to Australia from the UK with my partner and baby daughter, don’t yet have a job, and am staying with my parents, I fail 3 Mobile’s hilariously stringent credit policy. (although my partner, strangely, doesn’t, by virtue of the fact that as a woman she can claim the legitimate occupation of ‘housewife’). In a protracted series of conversations, I was forced to prove I had enough cash to pay a 2 year contract outright approximately 40 times over. The credit department said ‘meh’ and offered me a Nokia 2730 instead, claiming I couldn’t necessarily be trusted with a ‘high end’ iPhone. Eventually they relented after I pointed out the stupidity of approving my partner for the same phone, despite us sharing bank accounts.

I get that there are genuine credit risks out there. People who will likely default and cost 3 money, and I don’t blame them for trying to weed such people out. But by spending a couple of minutes looking at my particulars, any bank manager could see I’m not a huge credit risk. If I can’t get approval with 3, there must be many more people in the same boat – I imagine younger people with casual/part-time jobs would struggle, and would also be very likely to want one. What do 3 Mobile get out of denying them contracts?

For starters, iPhone users are valuable customers for a carrier. They spend more on voice and data, are willing to be tied to long/expensive contracts, and also spend more on content (this is potentially good for 3 Mobile Australia which has invested a lot in some great content).

I get that for carriers, selling iPhones probably runs a thinner margin. Some reports have suggested that iPhones aren’t profitable for carriers, although I and others find that hard to believe. While I’m sure carriers make an initial loss (and Apple make a bomb), over the life of the contract I’m sure they can turn that into handsome profit.

But even so, if the iPhone makes a loss it’s a very strong loss leader. Everyone wants an iPhone – it is by far the most desirable mobile phone on the market. If you don’t scoop those people up, they’ll go somewhere else. If your credit policies are making it difficult to turn customers into more valuable iPhone users, I wouldn’t exactly throw contracts at people, but I would think seriously about refining my policies. Find a way to put iPhones into the hands of part-time workers and 19 year olds. Pre-paid, contract, something else entirely, maybe something – golly – innovative (a first for the Australian consumer telecoms industry). Just find a way to make it work, because if you don’t, you’ll lose in the end.

Jeff Jarvis (and Cory Doctorow): completely wrong about the iPad

While we in Australia await the local iPad release, it’s been pretty irritating to see US commentators like Jarvis and Doctorow decry a device we haven’t even been able to touch yet.

The whole issue is about Apple creating a device that’s clearly designed more for consumption than creation. Jarvis:

The iPad is retrograde. It tries to turn us back into an audience again. That is why media companies and advertisers are embracing it so fervently, because they think it returns us all to their good old days when we just consumed, we didn’t create, when they controlled our media experience and business models and we came to them.

There’s lots more of this fruity stuff about ‘control’ in the full piece, and in a follow-up a few days later.

My problem with this is that it takes a progressive/well-off/tech-savvy/media-advertising-academic professional idea of what a device should be and superimposes it across everyone else. As Jarvis says:

We are, indeed, moving past a page-, site-, and search-based web to one also built on streams and flows. This shift to apps is a move in precisely the opposite direction. Apps are more closed, contained, controlling.

Although I recognise what he’s saying of my own experience, I still think it’s fair to ask Who, exactly, is moving to this new web? My Dad, who uses the internet exclusively to watch live horse racing? Or my mum, who opened a Facebook account on my insistence, friended only 6 of her wide circle of friends then completely lost interest? I think my dad, for instance, would enjoy a device that would make watching horse races more pleasing … or is he just doing it wrong? Is there something wrong with people who Just. Don’t. Want to blog / edit video / attend a fricking tweetup?

According to Forrester, my old man’s not in the minority either. Social technographics stats shows that ‘spectators’ and ‘joiners’ (like my mum who join things but are inactive) far outnumber the ‘creatives’, who actually write blogs, comment etc. Another quote from Jarvis:

We in media have a bad habit of viewing the world in our image. We think the internet is a medium (I say instead it’s a place…)

The internet is not a place. It is a bunch of wires and machines and cables. It just seems like a place because that’s how Jarvis and his cohorts use it. For my dad, it is a medium – specifically, a kind of TV – because that’s how he uses it. And I don’t think that’s bad. And the iPad will improve his experience of it, and I don’t think that’s bad either (even if he is spectacularly unlikely to get one). And he will never in his life liveblog a conference on social media, and I for one will be delighted, because there are plainly enough dingbats doing that already.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.