Wireless carriers: You can't install apps on our phones, and it's for your own good
At about 18 and a half minutes into a panel I was co-hosting at the Under the Radar: Mobility conference on Wednesday, things began to get ugly. Our panelists on the "No filters: Ask the carriers anything" session were representatives from U.S. wireless carriers Verizon Wireless, Alltell, T-Mobile, and AT&T. We took an audience question from an entrepreneur who was trying to start up an SMS-based business. He was frustrated because he had to jump through hoops to get the carriers to look at his service before he could roll it out. He appeared to reflect a general dissatisfaction that entrepreneurs have with the carriers for all mobile apps: They're gatekeepers.
Rupert Young of AT&T started to answer his query by talking about the value of shielding customers from bad SMS services, and that was bad enough, but he got himself in real trouble when he started to justify the roadblocks the carriers put in front of apps developers who are trying to get their code put onto the wireless networks.
"The thing to remember...is support," he said. People don't get tons of SMS spam in the U.S., because the carriers restrict businesses from accessing consumers directly. "Some would say it's protecting the consumer, some would say it's stifling innovation. The same is true with applications. And the end of the day, today, we take the call. If the customer installs an app on their phone that doesn't work, we take the call, not the app developer."
You could put the support cost back on the developer, as Verizon is doing. He didn't seem ready to adopt that scheme for AT&T, though. As Young said, you can "change the model and be more open to letting more innovative apps on your phone. Other than the fact that you still have to be concerned about...does the app burn the power levels on my phone? Does the app use tons of network and hit my usage caps and I don't know it? We work very closely with developers to make sure the user has a very good experience. That may slow down innovation, but I think it produces a better experience for the customer who has a limited device."
But I found the answer unsatisfying, and I said so. "You're gating innovation," I said. The audience applauded--which I was not expecting. Young, in reaction, said Apple also gated innovation, which is true, but the audience wasn't having it. Young smiled uncomfortably and barely moved his body out of the insouciant slouch that he had adopted at the start of the panel. One got the impression he knew he could not win the argument with entrepreneurs and didn't want to make himself into a target any more than he had to.
Later on in the session, we discussed a potential alternative to the restrictions that the carriers like AT&T put on new mobile apps. We talked about Where.com, an platform masquerading as an application. Developers who want to put quick geo-based apps in front of users can write widgets for the Where.com app. Users then choose those widgets from the Where.com site and their mobile phone gets access to them.
It's a workaround, but it does let developers who want to get on the mobile platform deal with a middleman developer who has already done the hard work of getting carrier approval for installation on phones, instead of having to get approval directly, which is, as Young indicated, not so easy. Plus, you don't have to deal with Young.
For developers, of course, tying one's fortunes to the success of a middleman app is not a strategy for the long term. But it is a decent way to get some exposure and to experiment with features while you wait for the carriers to figure out how to open up their platforms.
And to be fair, Young admitted that as handheld devices become more like "real computers," the support model will change and customers will take to installing and removing their own apps, as they do on the iPhone.
In the meantime, some of the carriers just aren't going to budge. If you want to get your cool new app on all the mainstream phones, there's no easy way. There are, though, other opportunities to work with the mobile carriers, if you're looking for a business to start. Watch the video for some hints.
Rafe Needleman writes about start-ups, new technologies, and Web 2.0 products, as editor of CNET's Webware. E-mail Rafe. 
So, we tried to maintain standards, and even to limit user's access to those applications we had vet'd as having met those standards, how did new providers, new and innovative applications make it on to our platform?
Basically it is because, while we tried to get our customers to look at content that we felt good about, the stuff that was on our portal, we didn't close our handsets from being able to see other content. That didn't actually mean that much to consumers: Roughly 80% of their use was on-portal. But it meant alot to developers, who could develop applications without a lot of hassle. Once they had got it working, and perhaps had an audience for it, they would probably be interested in monetising their site, and that would generally require going on-portal.
This really worked well. We had the keys to the gate that mattered, the best portal for our customers, but didn't lock down experimentation and innovation. My current company is aiming in a similar direction with a community of developers website.
So, that is how we were able to balance quality of apps with freedom to innovate: Let our customers choose, and make our offerings the best ones for our customers, but still not trying to control innovation, which isn't going to happen.
He really thinks things could be worse?
I think it's pretty rare to find someone who honestly really likes their phone. It's more like the way we see voting: picking the least evil.
Ok, I could be wrong. Maybe the phones experience really is ok. Maybe just the head of customer service isn't worried about "a better experience for the customer," and that's where all the problems come from.
Instead of allowing apps to deliver better and *safer* services, industry still tries to cling to old and tried standards which do not fit the reality quite well. Take for example Jabber IM. Spam there is virtually impossible, since it is impossible to conceal identity of sender.
I would expect some independent 3rd party to come up with solution to spam much faster than industry. After all telecoms also profit from all the spam houses and cannot be viewed as impartial party in the dispute.
Now i work for a cell company in a rentention like department. You wouldn't believe how stupid people are when it comes to data use. They think browsing for ringtones, downloads games, IMing, Emailing, and such are not using the internet. *** do they think it comes from? Just because you may not be going to myspace or google doesn't mean your not using data.
I also get a bunch of complaints, this game doesn't work, it sucks, blah blah blah, complaints about the phone. The carriers do get all the calls, they do get the complaints and they have to deal with it. I hear it all day long, This phone sucks. Your the ******* you picked it out then, we didn't make it so why are they telling me?
If your ISP tells you that you can't install a piece of software on your PC, you'd probably be offended. It's not your ISPs business what you install and run on your PC.
It's not your mobile network's business to tell you what can install to your phone. Unless the phone belongs to the network. Then, get an unsibsidized phone that's yours and yuo can whatever you want with it.
Don't let service providers restrict your freedom. In the land of the free, after all.
should be
We talked about Where.com, a platform masquerading
I have an idea... how about carriers stop raping us on data/texting services and start being what they should be - carriers. Too long Verizon has been hobbling phones so they can sell their own services... GPS? Yeah, it's in the phone but VZW turned it off so they can charge you $5 a month for their own crap.
How about just sell me the dang phone (unalterted from the OEM) and a nice fast data connection. I'll be glad to pay my monthly bill and be cheery about it.
That said: for me it comes down to something Steve Jobs said when the iPhone was first launched: adding apps makes the devive less stable, and users will scream if they constantly have to REBOOT THEIR PHONES.
I agree.
No, he wasn't REALLY being a customer advocate; it was about reducing support costs dealing with the folks who do what they do. And it's incredibly naive to believe that hardware jailbreaks can be eliminated. But they sure did reduce it, and created enough FUD that many people just won't go there.
Wild idea: think about your phone AS a phone.
Hanging Up, Now . . .
Jeff Yablon
President & CEO
<a href="http://answerguy.com">Virtual VIP</a>
For those of us who know how to write and install apps and tools we want to use, we are not restricted, but you can bet that the carrier's will want to keep the gatekeys to their 'installation service' and marshall whatever it is that is available from it. Especially if they think they can do it themselves, and make money off of it. They do not want you to use free software and services, they want to charge you for them. That being said though, I agree that they should be allowed to control what they distribute over their service, as long as they do not prevent the individual user from choosing software and services that they do not provide, even if it does compete with something they do provide.
If I install an app on my own (not from the carrier) then I clearly understand that I am responsible for what that app does, not the carrier. If I find that the carrier somehow disables or prevents me from installing that app, I will then be screaming at them, because that is not right, it is my phone and I will do what I want with it!
Unfortunately I don't think anyone is going to be able to force the carriers hands on this, if you want a carrier to support and distribute your app/service, you are going to have to jump through their hoops, and probably line their pockets too.
- by RainCaster December 4, 2008 6:46 PM PST
- The carriers are notorious for giving us hobbled phones that provide the consumer with little value. I don't know how, but Apple convinced AT&T to sell the iPhone with disabling the GPS or installing their own bloated crapware or some stupid PTT feature.
- Reply to this comment
-
(15 Comments)So why have we all been stuck with hobbled Windows Mobile and Simbian phones? When will Samsung, HTC and Nokia refuse to allow such garbage on top of what they caerfully engineered? A perfectly useful phone gets reduced to a mediocre battery guzzling, poor connecting, sluggish UI gizmo that we consumers hate. No wonder the masses are all moving to the iPhone- AT&T didn't get to bugger it up!
The carriers as a "gatekeeper" to protect my interests is about as sincere as a Barbra Streisand Christmas album. Please- I'm smarter than that.