Chief Executive Philipp Humm said many of his smartphones will eventually be made up of Google-powered phones costing less than $100, half as much as the smartphones typically available at U.S. carriers. In October, to lower the cost of monthly bills, Mr. Humm introduced a limited data plan that costs $10.
With Verizon and AT&T staking out the high-end device segment, and T-Mobile USA the lower end, Sprint has to figure out where it wants to play.
T-Mobile Smartphones to Head Down Market - WSJ.com (subscription required)
Dave Michels responds:
Gary,
This doesn't make any sense to me. Networks are like roads (not cars) and staking our "high" or "low" end doesn't work. Even expensive toll roads have junkers.
T-mobile is clearly accommodating the low end with some of their devices (Optimus T) and new data plan, but they also have their "4G" with a large footprint and some very highend phones from HTC and Samsung.
A good carrier will have good solutions for the high-end, low-end, and business sectors - not one target.
To truly embrace the low-end, there is much more work to be done. Tmo is still requiring a 2 year contract with data (albeit $10 data) on their entry level smartphones. Two years on a sub $100 device is robbery and the run away success of the Apple Touch shows these smartphones can be very useful (games and other apps that don't require a connection) without a data plan (wifi only).
I was thinking recently that the carriers are really over complicating things - so this headline caught my attention.'
--Dave Michels
Good insight, as always. I think the point has to do with customer segmentation, not the actual networks or devices. Most observers would say Verizon Wireless always has tried to occupy the "high end" of the mobile market, while Cricket has tried to dominate the "local voice line substitution" market, for example. Virgin Mobile has targeted the "younger, hipper user." T-Mobile USA in recent years has targeted a younger demographic.
It is true that the networks, per se, are not highly differentiated. But the customer segments can be.
Dave Michels responds:
Gary,
This doesn't make any sense to me. Networks are like roads (not cars) and staking our "high" or "low" end doesn't work. Even expensive toll roads have junkers.
T-mobile is clearly accommodating the low end with some of their devices (Optimus T) and new data plan, but they also have their "4G" with a large footprint and some very highend phones from HTC and Samsung.
A good carrier will have good solutions for the high-end, low-end, and business sectors - not one target.
To truly embrace the low-end, there is much more work to be done. Tmo is still requiring a 2 year contract with data (albeit $10 data) on their entry level smartphones. Two years on a sub $100 device is robbery and the run away success of the Apple Touch shows these smartphones can be very useful (games and other apps that don't require a connection) without a data plan (wifi only).
I was thinking recently that the carriers are really over complicating things - so this headline caught my attention.'
--Dave Michels
Good insight, as always. I think the point has to do with customer segmentation, not the actual networks or devices. Most observers would say Verizon Wireless always has tried to occupy the "high end" of the mobile market, while Cricket has tried to dominate the "local voice line substitution" market, for example. Virgin Mobile has targeted the "younger, hipper user." T-Mobile USA in recent years has targeted a younger demographic.
It is true that the networks, per se, are not highly differentiated. But the customer segments can be.
