At the time of ints conception, toll-free phone lines made a world of sense. Many businesses wanted to encourage phone sales, but hefty long distance charges created friction for the consumer. These businesses could ease that friction by purchasing an 800 number that would essentially transfer the long distance charge from the consumer to the business. That is to say, Ma Bell didn’t care how she got paid so long as she got paid.

Toll-free numbers still exist today, though they really only serve the function of creating an easier-to-remember phone number (i.e., it’s easier to remember the seven digits after 800 or 888 or 877 than it is to remember an entire 10-digit phone number). Cell phones, with free long distance as a standard feature, started killing the usefulness of 800 numbers, and the switch from traditional copper wire landlines to VOIP services really put the nail in the coffin. New technology made the idea of toll-free obsolete.

That is, at least as it pertains to voice calls. In general voice calls are a nonfactor for modern telecoms. You can look right to Verizon’s Share Everything plans as evidence. Every plan, even for feature phones, comes with unlimited voice. They’re not just handing that out, without an alternative tier, if voice is a valuable asset. Instead telecoms today focus on the one feature that can earn them billions: data. And as we’ve seen, the quest to squeeze more money out of us for the same data usage is in full effect.

While Verizon’s and AT&T’s ploys to charge more for less data have prompted some users to simply fork over more money, many have chosen the alternative, which is to curb their data usage. So, as in the days when Ma Bell turned to big business to fund people’s increased use of long distance, so will Verizon target big businesses — namely big content businesses — to fund consumers’ rising data consumption habits. CFO Fran Shammo yesterday talked about the idea of businesses paying Verizon for data usage, allowing consumers to view that business’s content without depleting their data plans.

“The content providers will be willing to pay for the content, if we don’t charge the consumer,” Shammo said.

The topic of net neutrality, a fight that Verizon fights alone, came up, but Shammo rightly brushed it aside. “This is who pays for the delivery of the content,” he said, as opposed to carrier-driven content prioritization. Yes, allowing users to consume certain content without depleting their data plans can be considered prioritization. But to me it seems to be a minor point. What I’m wondering is…

Where is this money coming from?

Content companies doesn’t exactly have Scrooge McDuck money. While some content providers have found ways to be profitable even as advertising dollars have dwindled, others have gone through massive restructuring, including layoffs. Then again, the prior statements refer primarily to text-based content providers. No text-heavy publication would have to pay Verizon; that kind of content requires very little data. It’s streaming video where we see the opportunity.

At the same time, a content provider has to be very sure that mobile video can truly rake in the dollars. They have all the same overhead costs as they do now, plus the money they’ll pay Verizon for the toll-free service. All in all they have to think that the revenues from more easily reaching Verizon’s customers will far outstrip the money they pay to Verizon. Otherwise such an arrangement doesn’t provide enough value to the content provider.

(To be even more clear, the content provider has to find that the profits from serving video to Verizon customers who wouldn’t have viewed the content if charged for the data would outstrip the costs paid to Verizon for the toll-free service.)

At a distance, it seems far-fetched. Then again, basically every media company has placed an enormous emphasis on making money from mobile content. If they think they have a model that works, and think that they can encourage people to view more of their content, and thereby make them more money, by offering their content toll free, then this could work. This is definitely one of those instances where I’d love to see some field tests before coming to a solid judgement.

Via FierceWireless.

The post Toll-Free Data Would Benefit Consumers, but Where’s the Money? appeared first on MobileMoo.

A little bit of serendipity hit my inbox yesterday. On Saturday, while looking for something to do, my wife suggested we play video games. Fine by me. She rummaged through our drawer of PS3 games and nonchalantly said, “We have You Don’t Know Jack, but I’d just wipe the floor with you anyway.” Game on. We played, and she beat me — she always does. It reminded me of just how much I love that kooky little quiz game.

Much to my joy, a press release showed up in my inbox this morning touting the availability of You Don’t Know Jack for Android. You might remember a YDNJ announcement from last year, when developer Jellyvision launched a Facebook version. That took home some awards, and is now also available on iOS. The Android version plugs into these networks, creating an even larger online community.

If you’ve never played YDNJ, there’s not much I can do for you at this point. The game is definitely a little wacky, which helps it stand out from your run of the mill quiz games. There are many different types of questions, so you’re not just answering multiple choice queries all day. And yes, you’ll get insulted if you answer incorrectly.

(Or you’ll get the Wrong Answer of the Day and turn a $2,000 loss into an $8,000 gain.)

Back in the day, YDNJ worked great on PC, because in those days you would gather your friends all in one place to play video games. Ah yes, the days when we played four-player Goldeneye on a 25-inch TV. Alas, these days video games are played online, which means you can play your friends no matter where your locale. It will certainly be nice to play YDNJ again with my old high school buddies.

As with most things Android, YDNJ is free. You can download it from Google Play.

The post You Don’t Know Jack Now Available for Android appeared first on MobileMoo.

In yesterday’s piece on the Google Galaxy S4, commenter TurboFool asked me an interesting question: “Are you completely unaware if [sic] the huge market of prepaid SIM-only carriers so many of us are switching to now?” As the guy who also runs Prepaid Reviews, I’m certainly aware that these services exist. At the same time, I’m not sure I’d spend $650 on a device like the S4 and bring it to one of these carriers.

(His point about stock Android stands, though. I know plenty of people who rooted their Galaxy S3 models just to get rid of the TouchWiz UI.)

The problem with the SIM-only deals is that they typically do not offer LTE speeds. A few T-Mobile MVNOs have said they will offer LTE when T-Mobile makes it available to them, but there’s no guarantee on that. There are, to be sure, a few MVNOs that offer HSPA speeds of 21 or 42 MBPS, and those can provide speeds that can at least compete in LTE’s ballpark (and depending on your region might be your best bet). So yes, there are options beyond the Big Four. I’m just not sure if I consider them ideal.

Yet SIM-only deals aren’y the only prepaid ones to be had these days. In recent years Straight Talk, a Tracfone brand, has taken off in a major way. That’ll happen when you offer unlimited everything for $45, and a reasonable plan for $30 per month. Make no mistake: unlimited data is absolutely not unlimited on Straight Talk. They throttle speeds for excessive users. But it’s still tough to ignore the price tag for monthly service.

Right now Straight Talk is running a promotion for free ground shipping on any phone order over $29.99. If you’re going for the $45 plan, you won’t find much worth buying under $30, so there’s your free shipping. They have an array of models, from the Galaxy S3 on down. They also have deals with the Big Four networks, so you might get a Verizon-network phone, rather than a T-Mobile one.

The post Deal: Free Shipping on any Straight Talk Phone appeared first on MobileMoo.

Anyone paying attention to the internet knows that Google announced a while bunch of goodies yesterday. On the mobile front, Google Play Music All Access looks stupendous. It’s like Spotify integrated into your Google Play Music library, rendering Spotify and other music apps redundant for Android users. While that announcement garnered plenty of attention, Google did announce another mobile development. They will sell the Galaxy S4, unlocked, for $649.

Reportedly the announcement drew boos from the Google I/O crowd due to the price tag. It defies our expectations for what a phone costs, by a significant sum, so the reaction isn’t surprising. Yet expectations aren’t the only issue at play here. The way the system works in the US, consumers have little incentive to use unlocked, unsubsidized phones.

(And another reason why we shouldn’t be restricted in unlocking our phones in the first place.)

A customer with an upgrade can walk into an AT&T store and purchase a Galaxy S4 for $199.99, and then pay $90 per month for cellular service. To bring an unlocked Google Galaxy S4 to AT&T would incur the same $90 per month charge, but would cost the consumer an additional $450. Therefore, it only really benefits consumers who want the S4 but do not have an upgrade — although they could simply pay the full price at AT&T. At $640, a consumer would save $10 that way.

The only advantage of owning a locked phone in the US is the ability to eventually take the phone to T-Mobile. Previously you’d have encountered the same issue there, paying the same price as someone who is repaying a subsidy. The way T-Mobile works now you can pay $70 per month for unlimited everything. If you were to buy a Google unlocked Galaxy S4, it could work if you activated it with T-Mobile.

Of course, T-Mobile itself sells the Galaxy S4. You can walk out of a store with it for $150, and then $20 per month for 24 months. That brings the total device cost to $630, not only $20 cheaper than Google but also spread over two years. Since the value of money diminishes with time, you make out much better paying the $150 up front and the $20 per month. If you just want it outright, you can pay the $630 up front if you wish and still save that $20.

There might be some cases where buying the unlocked version does make sense. But for the average consumer, purchasing the phone through AT&T or T-Mobile still makes sense. Maybe if you could bring a phone to more than one other carrier, and if you weren’t paying a monthly fee that takes into account a subsidy, an unlocked Galaxy S4 would make sense. But the way the carriers currently run the business it doesn’t add much value.

The post Google’s Unlocked Galaxy S4 Shows Lacking Value in Unlocked Phones appeared first on MobileMoo.

If your target market is everyone, then you’ll target no one. I’m not sure who said that originally, but it might be the simplest, most helpful advice for any marketer. Apparently BlackBerry continues to feel it is the exception to the rule, despite past failures trying to be everything to everyone.

Let’s run down what BlackBerry announced yesterday at BlackBerry Live:

• The BlackBerry Q5, a QWERTY BlackBerry 10 handset that is slated for emerging markets.
• The BlackBerry 10.1 upgrade that will allow, among other things, BlackBerry Z10 users to run Skype.
• BBM Channels, which amounts to a BBM social network.
• Availability of BBM on iOS and Android, coming this summer.

The BlackBerry 10.1 upgrade is obviously all positive, if a little late. We’ve heard about this for a month or so now, so it’s good to hear BlackBerry finally planning to roll it out.

The Q5 continues BlackBerry’s strategy of creating mid- and low-tier devices for international markets. It’s not an awful one, to be sure. There are plenty of people around the globe who can’t afford top-tier smartphones, even including the best BlackBerry models (zing). At the same time, creating products for these markets takes away focus from the high-end US and EMEA markets.

Then we get to the BBM announcement. The new BBM Channels feature essentially turns BBM into a social network. You can now create, follow, and subscribe to channels, taking actions such as commenting and liking posts. The first examples BlackBerry touted were Merceds AMG Petronas Formula One Team. It’s pretty clear that they’re trying to work with brands here. As if we don’t get enough of that from Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and basically every other social network.

We’ve been hearing about the possibility of BBM on iOS and Android for a while now, maybe two years. They could have attempted this in the past, when BBM was still popular despite BlackBerry’s decline. But they held off on that until they had the Channels tie-in. At this point, though, iOS and Android users have fewer reasons than ever to use BBM. With so many high-quality instant messaging products on the market, BBM has become just another.

I feel that Nathaniel Mott of PandoDaily best sums up BlackBerry’s position:

BlackBerry is playing catch-up with Apple, Samsung, and Google, and seems to be struggling to reconcile that fact with its former glory. The company’s products no longer have a monopoly on the business elite’s pockets, are no longer representative of true innovations, and are, for all their advances, rooted in the smartphone market of the past.

The company needs to get better at communicating — or even figuring out — what its products are and who they are for before it can cast the perception that it’s left its prime aside.

In other words, they’re trying to be everything to everyone. In the process they’re doing little but standing still. Loyal BlackBerry users will always stand by the brand and even defend them — you learn this after writing about BlackBerry, for BlackBerry fans, for five years. If BlackBerry had decided, six years ago, to continue focusing on that core of users, we might not be having this discussion now. But starting in 2008 they tried to become everything to everyone.

It didn’t work then. Chances are it won’t work now.

The post BlackBerry Continues Trying To Be Everything To Everyone appeared first on MobileMoo.

If you bought a locked cell phone after January 26th, you cannot unlock it by your own means. While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act didn’t change, the Library of Congress clarified a provision in it. The effect: only your carrier can unlock your phone. The LoC rule essentially says that since alternatives to carrier-locked phones exist on the marketplace, consumers shouldn’t have the ability to unlock carrier-locked phones. It really sounds like hogwash.

If you think it seems odd that phone unlocking falls under a copyright act, you’re not alone. For the most part, users don’t unlock their phones with the intent to infringe on copyright. They’re unlocking them for the purpose of using the phones on other networks. It appears at least one member of Congress has taken up that point.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) yesterday proposed the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013. While there are a few provisions in it, the main one involves amending the first paragraph of the DCMA to say:

“It shall not be a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in connection with a work protected under this title if the purpose of such circumvention is to engage in a use that is not an infringement of copyright under this title.”

It seems reasonable, but that means little when big telecom has such a powerful lobbying force in DC. Big carriers prefer that users purchase phones from them, not because the carriers make much money from new phone purchases (they don’t), but because new phone purchases lock customers into two-year contracts. Additionally, customers will tend to unlock phones from major carriers and bring them to smaller carriers, usually on a prepaid basis.

There is no timeline on when the House will vote on this bill, but I honestly wouldn’t expect much. It’s a noble effort that could crumble under pressure from DC insiders.

Via Phone Scoop.

The post Unlocking Phones Could Be Re-Legalized appeared first on MobileMoo.

The above chart should not surprise you. It’s the IDC’s quarterly report on tablet shipments — shipments, not sales, to be clear. As you can plainly see, in the first quarter of 2013 Apple continued its market dominance, shipping nearly 20 million units. No other manufacturer shipped more than 10 million units. All combined, non-Apple tablet manufacturers managed to top Apple by just 10 million units. That might sound a lot, but it’s really not when it’s an entire industry against a single company.

While Samsung holds the top individual spot for Android tablet manufacturers, it clearly doesn’t hold the same name value as it does with smartphones. Maybe people value Samsung over ASUS; they apparently value it more than the Kindle Fire series. But when it comes down to Samsung or some random tablet manufacturer, they’re apparently going with the no-name manufacturer.

You see these kinds of tablets all around Walmart and Costco and Best Buy, from manufacturers like Vizio and Colby. The real attractive point on these tablets is the $100 price tag. Unfortunately, too many of them still run Anddroid 2.3 and are therefore basically unusable. There’s a good reason that Android tablets didn’t catch on at all until 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich.

The “Others” category also took the biggest market share leap year-over-year. While Samsung realized impressive growth, shipping 8.8 million units over 2.3 million in Q1 2012, going from 11.3 percent to 17.9 percent market share, those smaller tablet companies shipped far more. Last year it was 4.9 million units for 24.1 percent market share. This year it was 15.5 million units for 31.5 percent market share.

When it comes to Android tablets, it appears that consumers buy along price lines. Samsung does carry some brand value, but no-name tablet manufacturers have a huge edge. No, they’re not a single entity, but on their own they have little or no brand recognition. That suggests that overall, people are looking for a cheap tablet. If they’re going expensive, they’re going with the iPad. I can’t blame them; to this day I still prefer the iPad 2 over any Android tablet on the market.

We’ll check in with this as the year progresses, but it shouldn’t change too much. When Apple releases updates to the Mini and the standard iPad, I expect these numbers will skew even further towards them.

Via PandoDaily.

The post For Tablets, it’s the iPad and Then Everyone Else appeared first on MobileMoo.

How many inactive smartphones do you have sitting around? Chances are the number continues to grow with each new phone you buy. At first having the extra smartphone makes sense. It acts as an insurance plan in case your new one breaks. But when you have three, four, five old smartphones lying around? You should probably start getting rid of them.

Consumers won’t find many easy options for recycling their old phones, which exacerbates the problem. You could find a gadget bin, where you can dump old electronics, but that old smartphone has to hold some value, right? And so we hold onto them, hoping, but not searching, for a solution.

Even more problematically, semi-well-known gadget trade-in companies, such as Gazelle.com, are taking in a smaller and smaller array of products. Have a Samsung Galaxy S II on Verizon? It’s the second best-selling Android smartphone of all time, and it’s on the nation’s most popular carrier. Yet you won’t get a dime for it from Gazelle. And so it’s even more likely to sit in a drawer.

Clearly, the best way to handle gadget recycling is for carriers themselves to offer trade-in programs. You walk into the store with your old phone, you pick out a new one, and you get a trade-in credit applied to the sale. Sounds simple, but few carriers do this. Verizon has in the past, but the values have been absolutely horrible. I tried to trade in a 2010 model BlackBerry when I bought an iPhone in 2011, and they offered me $20 for it.

In another consumer-friendly move, AT&T has started a smartphone trade-in program that offers customers a real incentive: $100 towards the purchase of a new smartphone, service, or accessories. So not only do customers realize actual value for their old phones, but they can apply it right away to the purchase of something new.

Trading in a newer smartphone that might be of greater value than $100? AT&T will take that into account. So if you want to trade in your Galaxy S3 for something new, you’ll get more than that $100 credit. (Gazelle offered me $165 for my S3, so I imagine AT&T would be willing to offer more as a trade-in.)

There are conditions to this offer, of course — the press release contains more asterisks than perhaps any other I’ve ever read. It does cover phones up to three years old, so you can certainly trade in a phone from your last contract. That’s actually huge; with Verizon’s trade-in program you rarely get even close to $100 for a two-year-old phone, never mind a three-year-old one. Other than that, you’re pretty much free to trade in what’s eligible and get that credit towards your new phone.

Current AT&T customers can go to the trade-in website to see if their devices are worth more than $100. AT&T will accept non-AT&T phones, but you’ll have to go to a company owned retailer to make the trade.

Via Phone Scoop.

The post Trade In Your Old Smartphone for $100 in AT&T Credit appeared first on MobileMoo.

Verizon has learned that it can’t compete in some verticals. Years ago it tried to be a full-service carrier, providing games, music, and even apps for its subscribers. They tried to push these services to the point where they pre-loaded them onto every new handset. That all ended recently. Not only do they not pre-load those services onto new smartphones, but they’ve removed them from existing smartphones. With Google and Apple, among other specialty companies, handling apps, games, and music well enough, there’s not much room for a carrier like Verizon.

There is perhaps one vertical that could make sense for a carrier: cloud backup. While there are services like Dropbox and Google Drive that can handle cloud storage needs, and while those services do have smartphone and tablet apps, they’re not as directly connected to these devices as a carrier. Even Google Drive doesn’t fully support Android backups, at least natively and easily for the non-hardcore user. Apparently Verizon has realized this.

Today they announced a cloud storage app of their own, titled simply Verizon Cloud. It combines a basic type of backup with a service more akin to Dropbox, making a great, and free, solution for Verizon customers. Every Verizon smartphone account gets 500MB of storage for free. This allows you to backup contacts, call logs, text messages, call logs, and all basic information.

This can be greatly useful when switching phones. When I switched from an iPhone to an Android last fall, I was told that the in-store contact moving process could take hours. No way I was waiting that long. That meant manually moving over my contacts — at least those not already stored in my Google Contacts list. Using Verizon Cloud would make that process just a little easier to manage, without having to wait a few hours for a swap.

Verizon takes cloud storage a step further by offering storage service for a monthly fee. With it you can upload photos, video, music, and other files, just as you would to other cloud backup services. While the free tier isn’t competitive — 500MB hardly gets you anything — the paid tiers are actually competitive with Dropbox:

• $2.99 for 25GB
• $5.99 for 75GB
• $9.99 for 125GB

In addition to backing up your smartphone, Verizon Cloud makes your files available across various platforms, such as your tablet and laptop. You can access your files there and even stream music and video from them.

You can get started by downloading Verizon Cloud from Google Play (and you’ll see that it used to be VCast Media Manager). It is also available as a desktop and web app (in the link below). An iOS app is apparently coming soon.

Via Verizon Cloud via Phone Scoop.

The post Backup Your Smartphone or Tablet with Verizon Cloud appeared first on MobileMoo.

Have you freed your phone? By free I don’t mean unlocked. I mean free as in free from the confines of a case. Yes, smartphones are quite expensive, so protecting them is pretty important. You might have insurance, but if you break your phone and have to file a claim you still have to pay, as one of my friends calls it, the dumbass tax (i.e., your deductible). By keeping a decent case on your phone you can save yourself the inconvenience and cost of an insurance replacement.

At the same time, removing the case makes a phone seem so much freer. A few weekends ago I removed the case from my Galaxy S3, and it was like a whole new phone. Best of all, it didn’t even feel like a 4.8-inch behemoth. It felt just as small as my old iPhone 4. Why did I ever use a case in the first place?

Alas, the reason became clear soon enough. All it took was a juggling act. After that near-miss, I slapped the case right back on the phone, resigned to keeping it there so I wouldn’t be out the $150 deductible. Much as I enjoy every aesthetic aspect of a case-less phone, I just can’t recommend it. There’s too much at stake.

Need a case for your smartphone? CellPhoneShop is running quite a sale on customized skins and case: 40 percent off.

So what are you waiting for? Get 40% off customized skins and cases. Use promo code CSKIN13 at checkout. Also check out the other deals they have running on the site, such as free shipping for orders over $20.

The post Save on Skins and Cases from CellPhoneShop appeared first on MobileMoo.