Active Topics
-
The N900 is now 15 years old! (9)
to Nokia N900 by Arno_11 - 12 hrs, 7 mins ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 6 days ago - more...
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ARJWright For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2009-09-04
, 19:43
|
|
Posts: 271 |
Thanked: 220 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#2
|
Personally, I'm offering my business to them. I'm switching to T-mobile for the express purpose of running the N900 with 3G. I think that's plenty 
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to texaslabrat For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-09-04
, 19:51
|
|
Posts: 1,540 |
Thanked: 1,045 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
|
#3
|
Originally Posted by ARJWright
It is absolutely 100% possible, it's already happened in countries where regulators force networks to allow use of unlocked devices or even ban the locking of devices. When you stop locking you get an environment that's a lot more like the PC industry and the ISP industry: Does your ISP care what operating system is on your PC?
[*]Is it possible for carriers to not only embrace the kind of open-network development and use that this commnity aspires to, while guarantering a compariable level of quality of service, while keeping some scheme of making a profit (even if the profit doesn't look like current numbers)?[/LIST]
The reason they wouldn't want to admit that it's possible is because it involves competition, i.e. it involves hard work to win customers instead of just lazy milking of customers. The network operators in the USA seem to be the laziest of all.
No large company ever allows competition to increase if they can stop it. They have to be forced into competitive environments, and that's why we need strong government regulators to do the forcing.
 |
|
2009-09-04
, 20:09
|
|
Posts: 294 |
Thanked: 174 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#4
|
Perhaps we need to pay for an "open-source" premium, similar to organic produce. 
This way they get our business plus a premuim for whatever risk they are afraid of. Then when the marketplace is mature the premium is dropped since open is the commonplace not the exception.
This way they get our business plus a premuim for whatever risk they are afraid of. Then when the marketplace is mature the premium is dropped since open is the commonplace not the exception.
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jandmdickerson For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-09-04
, 20:14
|
|
Posts: 4,672 |
Thanked: 5,455 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
@ Springfield, MA, USA
|
#5
|
Originally Posted by jandmdickerson
So you want to PROMOTE non-open source, effectively.
Perhaps we need to pay for an "open-source" premium, similar to organic produce.
This way they get our business plus a premuim for whatever risk they are afraid of. Then when the marketplace is mature the premium is dropped since open is the commonplace not the exception.
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to danramos For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-09-04
, 20:17
|
|
Posts: 459 |
Thanked: 669 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ The DMV
|
#6
|
Originally Posted by jandmdickerson
This is possibly Nokia's business model for their high end smartphones in the US, almost all released unlocked: you pay a lot for them, but you get a highly-spec'd phone that shows some of what is possible when carriers are not involved in producing the device.
Perhaps we need to pay for an "open-source" premium, similar to organic produce.
This way they get our business plus a premuim for whatever risk they are afraid of. Then when the marketplace is mature the premium is dropped since open is the commonplace not the exception.
Last edited by klinglerware; 2009-09-04 at 20:20.
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to klinglerware For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-09-04
, 20:18
|
|
Posts: 861 |
Thanked: 734 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
@ Nomadic
|
#7
|
Originally Posted by krisse
Maemo would add on top of unlocked devices, the idea of open-access IP stacks, firmware, and network codecs.
It is absolutely 100% possible, it's already happened in countries where regulators force networks to allow use of unlocked devices or even ban the locking of devices. When you stop locking you get an environment that's a lot more like the PC industry and the ISP industry: Does your ISP care what operating system is on your PC?
The reason they wouldn't want to admit that it's possible is because it involves competition, i.e. it involves hard work to win customers instead of just lazy milking of customers. The network operators in the USA seem to be the laziest of all.
No large company ever allows competition to increase if they can stop it. They have to be forced into competitive environments, and that's why we need strong government regulators to do the forcing.
Are carriers ready for that much openness? TI wasn't (as much) when a group here asked Nokia to ask them about opening the framworks that drive Wi-Fi modules.
At some point though, it does work for TI's benefit to do so. How does this community convince carriers the same?
|
|
2009-09-04
, 20:21
|
|
Posts: 1,540 |
Thanked: 1,045 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
|
#8
|
Originally Posted by jandmdickerson
That would be protection money, they'd be being paid for not interfering with something that isn't their business anyway.
Perhaps we need to pay for an "open-source" premium, similar to organic produce.
This way they get our business plus a premuim for whatever risk they are afraid of. Then when the marketplace is mature the premium is dropped since open is the commonplace not the exception.
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to krisse For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-09-04
, 20:23
|
|
Posts: 1,540 |
Thanked: 1,045 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
|
#9
|
Originally Posted by ARJWright
You don't. It would be as pointless as appeasing some tinpot dictator, his interests do not overlap with yours.
How does this community convince carriers the same?
The only way is to convince regulators to force carriers to accept whatever their customers use. Fuel stations don't lock, neither do water suppliers, electricity suppliers etc so why should phone connection suppliers be any different?
Connections are a commodity, they should be as cheap as they could possibly be, there shouldn't be any value added stuff forced on people.
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to krisse For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-09-04
, 20:25
|
|
Posts: 294 |
Thanked: 174 times |
Joined on Apr 2007
|
#10
|
Originally Posted by krisse
That would be protection money, they'd be being paid for not interfering with something that isn't their business anyway.
Yea I know. But you would think you could eat vegatables and fruits without harmful chemicals on them. However, if you dont like such poisons you need to buy organic.
I guess that would also be protection money....
Like many of you, I'm in favor of getting carriers out of my wireless life. And at the same time, I appreciate the kinds of pipes they maintain so that I can have a wireless life that's financially and ethically attainable.
What I don't hear in most of our discussion is how Maemo could be of value to carriers. Clearly, they've shown enough of a value to Nokia by being included as part of the Maemo 5 experience (the addition of a SIM card and WCDMA technolgies). What do we offer them?
EDIT: yes, this is based on this post, and just some general observations of everything here from perceptions, to politics, to app suggestions, to use-case conversations.
antoinerjwright.com | Mobile Ministry Magazine
Last edited by ARJWright; 2009-09-04 at 20:23.