Greed and Prejudice, or Android / iPhone and Mobile Operators
Android OS has always been the hope of a cyber-libertarian - the platform is open, no one is attached to anything, dance as much as you want, choose someone you want - no shadow of Steve Jobs. Only it was not obvious that "both dancing and dining" of a green robot will be primarily operators. This is, in fact, the key to the success of Google OS with them and with manufacturers - modify what you want, semiconductors will endure everything.
For example, US Verizon announced its desire to create a separate “app store”, where programs will be sold, with billing through the user's mobile account, and possibly incompatible with the main android marketplace.
And this is done, of course, because it is necessary to close the cash flows on yourself and bind the user to your platform. What is sad, because it is very doubtful that the operator will be able to offer a large number of high-quality programs or attract many developers there.
It would seem that nothing criminal - everyone wants to eat, but how clumsily it is done. The second example is the installation of “crapware” software, which cannot be removed from the android phone in standard ways, and the set of this software is different for each operator. And, of course, accept the fact that you will receive firmware updates late in half a year or not at all.
The example of the “modification” android is not the only one. For years, Apple has denied users with streaming applications and connection tesering for the sake of AT & T.
')
My main question iswhen these operators will already die, why do they climb into the sugar bowl with their dirty fingers and how they could do it more delicately. Where does this disgust for mobile operators come from, you ask? Very simply, having a business of infinitely profitable infrastructure and huge revenues, these companies are not only not the driving force of progress, but inhibit it in most cases. Fortunately, not all.
Mobile operators are accustomed to super-profits, such as a percentage of all transactions, and the ability to milk users with each new service. Hence, the huge price of SMS, which in terms of channel bandwidth is not worth anything, hence the "favorable" tariffs for mobile Internet and much more.
So in the case of the market of applications for smartphones, the operators realized that the jackpot was leaving, and here’s the solution - let's tie up the purchase of all the applications on ourselves and our billing.
Does this make it a bit more informed? Not. Will you root such a phone immediately after purchase? Yes, and yes again. Should operators burn in hell? Yes, preferably in oil.
However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel - more progressive operators who moderate their appetite and are looking for other, more delicate ways to remove the latest shirt from subscribers. An example of this approach is, for example, the 3g operator Three. Three works in 9 countries of the world, and what's funny, initially positioned itself as a content provider.
While in Italy, you can download the official application from the operator, which will allow you to watch most of the live TV channels on the iPhone, without paying for traffic. It’s impossible to watch TV from a network of another operator or even from wifi - to their credit I must say that 3g network is very high quality. This application is sold in the AppStore along with everyone, and is not pre-installed on the new iPhone. Here it is, the grail of the cellular operator - using exclusive or free access to its network, to offer the user services that he cannot refuse. For this, any mobile platform is suitable.
Another example - a GSM gateway in Skype for free or at ridiculous prices - has already been implemented, an IM / SMS application with the ability to exchange instant messages with all jabber and social networks without traffic, and you never know what else. At the same time, you rarely hear that a mobile operator is interested in acquiring or creating an IM client - why, when you have SMS? If something like 0.facebook.com appears, it is clearly not at the initiative of the operator.
After all, it would seem that a major operator should create a microblogging service a la twitter or foursquare locations, from any phone, knowing the location of each subscriber, without having to register (number authorization), without charging traffic, and open “to the world” - and turn the page ?
Operators, our contacts in the profile;)
For example, US Verizon announced its desire to create a separate “app store”, where programs will be sold, with billing through the user's mobile account, and possibly incompatible with the main android marketplace.
And this is done, of course, because it is necessary to close the cash flows on yourself and bind the user to your platform. What is sad, because it is very doubtful that the operator will be able to offer a large number of high-quality programs or attract many developers there.
It would seem that nothing criminal - everyone wants to eat, but how clumsily it is done. The second example is the installation of “crapware” software, which cannot be removed from the android phone in standard ways, and the set of this software is different for each operator. And, of course, accept the fact that you will receive firmware updates late in half a year or not at all.
The example of the “modification” android is not the only one. For years, Apple has denied users with streaming applications and connection tesering for the sake of AT & T.
')
My main question is
Mobile operators are accustomed to super-profits, such as a percentage of all transactions, and the ability to milk users with each new service. Hence, the huge price of SMS, which in terms of channel bandwidth is not worth anything, hence the "favorable" tariffs for mobile Internet and much more.
So in the case of the market of applications for smartphones, the operators realized that the jackpot was leaving, and here’s the solution - let's tie up the purchase of all the applications on ourselves and our billing.
Does this make it a bit more informed? Not. Will you root such a phone immediately after purchase? Yes, and yes again. Should operators burn in hell? Yes, preferably in oil.
However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel - more progressive operators who moderate their appetite and are looking for other, more delicate ways to remove the latest shirt from subscribers. An example of this approach is, for example, the 3g operator Three. Three works in 9 countries of the world, and what's funny, initially positioned itself as a content provider.
While in Italy, you can download the official application from the operator, which will allow you to watch most of the live TV channels on the iPhone, without paying for traffic. It’s impossible to watch TV from a network of another operator or even from wifi - to their credit I must say that 3g network is very high quality. This application is sold in the AppStore along with everyone, and is not pre-installed on the new iPhone. Here it is, the grail of the cellular operator - using exclusive or free access to its network, to offer the user services that he cannot refuse. For this, any mobile platform is suitable.
Another example - a GSM gateway in Skype for free or at ridiculous prices - has already been implemented, an IM / SMS application with the ability to exchange instant messages with all jabber and social networks without traffic, and you never know what else. At the same time, you rarely hear that a mobile operator is interested in acquiring or creating an IM client - why, when you have SMS? If something like 0.facebook.com appears, it is clearly not at the initiative of the operator.
After all, it would seem that a major operator should create a microblogging service a la twitter or foursquare locations, from any phone, knowing the location of each subscriber, without having to register (number authorization), without charging traffic, and open “to the world” - and turn the page ?
Operators, our contacts in the profile;)
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/104878/
All Articles