Five years after the iPhone, carriers are the biggest threat to innovation

[TorontoColin]

Five years ago, the iPhone revolutionized the mobile business and kicked off a seismic shift in the technology industry that continues today. But the massive success of Apple's phone has overshadowed the grim reality of an American wireless marketplace that has become increasingly hostile to innovation — a market tightly controlled by carriers who capriciously pick winners and losers while raising prices and insisting that their use of valuable public spectrum remain free of any oversight. While the iPhone is a raging success, the wireless market is headed towards total failure.

Source

The article is about the US market specifically, but the Canadian market is very similar. It's sad really; if Apple, Google, Microsoft, and their hardware partners could just agree to put down their knives and work together on this, I really believe they have the power to transform wireless carriers into dumb pipes, just like ISPs.

[majortom]

They have the right, in fact a duty, to tell manufacturers and vendors what to do and how to do it. After all it is their system the subscriber is going to blame when the device doesn't function as it's supposed to. And their customer support who is going to have to answer.

When your cable box acts up, do you call Scientific Atlanta? No, you call the local cable operator.
When your TV acts up on it's OTA antenna, do you blame your TV? No, you start questioning the broadcaster.

[audacity]

Originally Posted by majortom

They have the right, in fact a duty, to tell manufacturers and vendors what to do and how to do it. After all it is their system the subscriber is going to blame when the device doesn't function as it's supposed to. And their customer support who is going to have to answer.

In the future, carriers will just be providing IP connectivity for mobile computers. That's all a iPhone is, really. A mobile computer that has a phone app.

And it's not the carriers that get blamed today for all the issues/bugs with devices. Not at all. When the iPhone alarm clock fails to work when there is a DST change, does the public blame the carriers?

Saying the carriers have this responsibility would be like saying that ISPs should have the right/responsibility to determine what software and hardware you are allowed to run when connected to their networks. Every Windows Update needs to be vetted by your ISP before you're allowed to install it. Every software install needs to be digitally signed by your particular ISP.

The problem is that ISPs (and carriers) don't have the skill set to be able to make these sorts of determinations of whether software updates are "good" or "bad". When Rogers says "yup, that iOS or Android or Windows Phone update is solid, release it", it doesn't mean jack. They don't have the information to really determine whether iOS 6 is good or not, or if there is any possible way it would have a negative affect on their network - the software is too complex and carriers have too little knowledge to make these determinations ahead of time. All they can do is a simple set of unit tests, which will probably miss most of the real bugs that do get released.

Maybe this sort of system made sense before modern smartphones, but it certainly doesn't make sense now.

When your cable box acts up, do you call Scientific Atlanta? No, you call the local cable operator.
When your TV acts up on it's OTA antenna, do you blame your TV? No, you start questioning the broadcaster.

These are poor analogies. In the OTA example, the broadcaster has full control over their signal. Rogers does not have full control over iOS. Users know not to point fingers at Rogers for this, they point their fingers at Apple when there are problems.

In the cable STB example... well, look at Shaw's Gateway. It has lots of issues/bugs. When users complain to Shaw about it, there is nothing that Shaw can really do to fix those bugs - they didn't write the software, and they probably don't have the source code. They depend on the vendor who provided it. It would be better if the users did complain directly to Arris directly since that is the organization that can actually fix the bugs.

The thing is that these days carriers don't try to re-brand phones like Shaw re-brands the "Shaw Gateway". You don't buy a "Rogers iPhone" you buy a "Apple iPhone" or a "Samsung Galaxy", so users know where the responsibilities lie.

[Testo]

These are poor analogies. In the OTA example, the broadcaster has full control over their signal. Rogers does not have full control over iOS. Users know not to point fingers at Rogers for this, they point their fingers at Apple when there are problems.

I wish it was that simple but I have seen numerous posts on facebook/twitter where customers are blaming the carrier for things such as...

Expressview's menu burned an image into their TV screen and they call and want Bell to fix it.

Iphones not connecting to local ISP wireless, so ISP is the first one they call, even though everything else in the house has no issue.

People can't even tell the difference between Bell and Bell Aliant around here.

Personally, I would say the ISP/ carrier is the first # people call when they have an issue with any networked or wireless device.

[audacity]

Personally, I would say the ISP/ carrier is the first # people call when they have an issue with any networked or wireless device.

Well, I disagree, but even if I were to concede that point we don't see Shaw or Bell trying to control Windows updates, nor would the above claim being true be grounds for them to start trying to control Windows updates.

The same logic applies to mobile computers. Years ago when I got a laptop with a built-in 3G network adapter, Telus didn't start trying to control the software on that PC. Why should further miniaturization of computers change the argument?

[EnigmaZV]

When the iPhone 4 was having problems with dropping calls, Apple was correctly blamed.

[ScaryBob]

I would have to agree with the OP. I've seen a number pf phones from cell providers that were locked down with half the features disabled. One older phone here has Bluetooth disabled so that it costs $0.50 to retrieve each picture from it. In my opinion, cell phone providers should be reduced to common carriers, like ISPs, and just compete on data rates. The market could then be opened so that phone service could be obtained from third parties using wireless infrastructure. Since radio frequencies are public property, the government has no business selling them for exclusive use by private companies. They should be leased to the highest bidder for a set time to ensure competition as technologies and markets evolve.

[TorontoColin]

The government doesn't sell frequencies, it sells licenses to frequencies which can be revoked if the license holder doesn't meet their requirements. However, if you set a timeline until the carrier's network would stop working if they didn't upgrade their network suitably, nobody would ever invest in wireless communications in Canada.

[99semaj]

Originally Posted by majortom

They have the right, in fact a duty, to tell manufacturers and vendors what to do and how to do it. After all it is their system the subscriber is going to blame when the device doesn't function as it's supposed to. And their customer support who is going to have to answer.

When your cable box acts up, do you call Scientific Atlanta? No, you call the local cable operator.
When your TV acts up on it's OTA antenna, do you blame your TV? No, you start questioning the broadcaster.

Couldnt disagree more strongly. The carriers have more than proven their willingness to abuse customers when left to their own.

I shudder to think of the state of mobile prior to the iPhone era...no firmware upgrades with new features, forbidden to install apps, forbidden to txt outside of grossly overpriced SMS, even ringtones cost a fortune.