Lol, Ian. I feel for you. The situation here in Denmark is the same as in the States when it comes to carriers and cancelling subscriptions. It's a bloody jungle for consumers.

The problem here is that the manufacturers are highly dependent on the carriers, who sell the majority of phones here. Just recently many of them decided to give Nokia the cold shoulder, and sales of Nokia phones have dropped 10%, irrc. So they are slaves on both sides of the pond it seems.

The affordability issue for handsets when it comes to women is not that far fetched actually. At Digra 2003 Lucy Joyner talked about how the PS-One was being bought by a larger percentage of women in Japan after a redesign - they made the controller a bit smaller - and a significant drop in price. The Xbox on the other hand had a huge controller - not good for small hands - and was still fairly expensive at the time.

So basically the author is complaining that the carriers won't subsidise every phone that he purchases? They don't agree that his customer loyalty is worth spending $100s that they will probably never recoup? Damn them and their penny pinching ways!

(Quite apart from the fact that if he's so 'serious' about mobile games he'd know that the Nokia Series 40 phones are the most popular and widely supported platform for mobile games... ;)

R -- No, I'm not suggesting that the carrier subsidize every phone I purchase. I think I made it pretty clear that I'm willing to pay for the handset. I was trying to use myself as an example of how weirdly backwards the carriers make the logic of new handset purchases.

I already have a Series 40 phone. I need a Series 60 phone too. But, thanks for reminding our readers that Series 60 is still new and needs more adoption.

The problem is that the handset manufacturers pursue no relationship with their customers, while they have the strongest claim on them (much stronger than the carriers). The point I want to make is precisely that the manufacturers need to break their reliance on the carriers as their only sales channel (which is true, as Tore indicates. I'm not even suggesting a separation of retail, but rather a better attempt -- any attempt -- on the part of the manufacturers to build loyalty with their customers.

My understanding is that things are different in Asia: there, handsets aren't subsidised at all. This means that handset manufacturers actually have to COMPETE.

Unless all the carriers in the country decide to go this route (in this case the US but it applies elsewhere), you're going to continue to see what you're seein'.

What really matters though is that the carriers deliver games that play well on the handsets they carry. Sure, it's cool that you want to always have the top-of-the-line model, but your case is the exception rather than the rule.

What really matters though is that the carriers deliver games that play well on the handsets they carry.

I agree with this statement. Someone else above reminded our readers that Series 40 is still more popular than Series 60. I was using my own (admittedly skewed) situation as an illustration; there are many more less geeky mobile users out there on older handsets who would be upgrading to a Series 40 device. But the carriers provide no incentive to upgrade (as I'm arguing here, they effectively discourage it), and the handset manufacturers aren't talking to their customers at all, because the carriers are in the way.

They need to realize that mobile customers are loyal to the hardware, not to the provider. We couldn't care less who carries the voice and data to our devices -- just that we get the best service in the right locations.

Just wanted to note it is totallt different where I live, in Israel. Over here the device is only secondary to the operator. You choose from what the operator offers and that's it. Very uncommon to see people buyig devices not through a deal from thier carrier.

civax -- that's pretty much how it works here in the US too. I just thiink it shouldn't work that way. As came out of a conversation I had the other day, maybe there was a time when the electric co. told you what toaster to buy, but surely we are over that by now?

Carriers are utilities, plain and simple. Everything else is delusions of grandeur.

You realise that your operator would lose a lot of money if it were to offer all it's clients $99 upgrades to a 6600. Phones cost a lot of money, and operators make them easier to buy, if you don't like the deal your operator is giving you, you always have the option of ordering a new sim free one off the internet.

Harp -- the carriers subsidize handsets mostly for subscriber adoption. I was using the $99 upgrade not as an example of what should be done for everyone, but as an example of how the carriers choose not to support their existing customers. Instead, they're focused on new subs. And the handset manufacturers don't have direct access to the customers they and the carriers share. Which makes it very hard to incent people to do much of anything. The $99 upgrade is a pretty extreme example, so of course it couldn't be extended across the board. However, one could argue that the value proposition for a $430 phone is dramatically undermined simply by the existence of a $99 version. Many people don't understand the subsidy process... and should they have to?

Handset turnover is much higher in Asia-Pacific mobile markets then it is here. I agree that getting the newer phones in the consumers hands would be good for mobile gaming. Some operators do understand this and have handset trade-in programs. For example, CSL in Hong Kong posts this trade-in price list:

http://www.hkcsl.com/download/handset_trade-in.pdf

It makes sense that operators can continue to lure new subscribers with handset subsidies and then keep them happy with trade-in programs.

It makes sense that operators can continue to lure new subscribers with handset subsidies and then keep them happy with trade-in programs.

I agree with this. However, I'd point out that the carriers also haven't gotten service plan trade-ups working well. Unless you call your provider frequently to find out what new programs you can get into in exchange for a contract renewal, you'd probably never know. And then the programs expire in a matter of days.

I still think the best medicine for mobile apps in general and mobile games in particular would come from handset manufacturers marketing directly to their consumers.

I always find that the operators are a complete rip-off. So much so that I set up a business with my mates for mobile games and we can bring them to everyone at a much smaller price and have the content on there much more quickly.

We have now got the largest selection of mobile games anywhere - so if we can do it why do the networks with their billions take so long!!!

Cheers.

Best site for Poker