Study suggests 100% mobile phone penetration in the US by 2013
By Darren Murph 
posted August 26th 2007 9:59AM
posted August 26th 2007 9:59AM
[Via mocoNews, image courtesy of JevaTech]
posted August 26th 2007 9:59AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you want people to really jump on the mobile bandwagon -> lower the prices and the data costs.
Not to mention, kill the old people :)
And infants.
And some puppies just for fun.
Zach-
Hmmm... funny thing about that name. I have am one of those "still-alive and kicking old farts" and I just bought my teenage son (named Zach) a BlackBerry at www.wirelessbyeAccess.com and part of our deal is that he pays for the data package. It isn't active yet, as soon as he decides to get off his lazy young butt and earn some money he can activate it:-)
I enjoyed your post and you have valid points :-)
Dawn
That title sounds dirty!
lmfaoooooo "penetration"
I think "saturation" would be a more suitable and less suggestive word.
lmfaoooooo "saturation"
....you guys giggle at "penetration"....I can only imagine what you guys thought about the two mimes holding that big ball (I'm guessin' someone's gigglin' now) a couple of posts ago.
Sorry to entertain this any longer, but what could mobile penetration possibly entail without a major electrical hazard?
------
Back to the good stuff, cell phone stuff. Now, if by the end of this year there will be 84 percent pen---saturation of the US market, why the hell to big cell phone manufacturers keep leaving of that nifty little 850 band still and American 3G all together considering that the larger carrier in the US uses both primarily. I hope major companies notorious for this *coughs*all but Motorola (surprisingly) and HTC*coughs* read this statistic.
Well, it's simple really. Where do most of those customers of that large carrier purchase their phones? From the carrier. And who is most responsible for not releasing the phones? That same carrier. Frankly, if I were a phone manufacturer I'd hate dealing with AT&T too.
I agree with you to a point. Yes, AT&T has a big part not releasing phones however, I know many people who buy unbranded phones. These people aren't the Engadget-reading type of people, either. Also, the article says that there will be 100% saturation of the market meaning that many people will have multiple lines. I think this, above all, shows the changed view people now have about cell phones. Years ago, people only had cell phones as devices for those just-in-case moments. If many people will have multiple lines, it shows it has evolved to become something greater than what is was before. Cell phones have more practical usage nowadays, people are beginning to want phones that do more. Also, as many people have said before, the launch of the iPhone shows that people are willing to pay big bucks for phones nowaday. These same people are AT&T customers now, however, many people switched from other carriers, like the CDMA ones (I know a VZW convert personally). This isn't just a sign that the GSM customers are hungry for more phones, it shows that American, en masse--GSM, CDMA, iDen--share the same hunger.
I'm just saying, with this new mindset towards cell phones, these manufacturers should really think twice before forgetting about the good ol' US of A.
I think that it will get there eventually. But right now the VAST majority of Americans get virtually all of their knowledge about phones from their carriers. I know some of people with unbranded phones but all of them are to some extent tech geeks. Maybe not Engadget readers but they know technology and are willing to pay for it. But most people that I know don't even realize that buying a phone from anywhere other than the carrier is even an option.
The iPhone really has a chance to usher in a paradigm shift in the mobile world. And it isn't just because it shows that people are willing to pay for a high end convergence device. People actually refer to it as the APPLE iPhone. When was the last time the general public thought of a phone as being from the manufacturer and not the carrier? Maybe the RAZR and Chocolate to some extent, but for the most part for the past several years if you ask someone what kind of phone they had, they would name the carrier.
But back to the main point of discussion: it also doesn't help that the US has to use different frequencies from the majority of the world. It might just come down to simple economic math: "Hmm, make phones that have a maximum potential of 60 million customers or that have a max of a couple billion." I mean, what would anyone choose?
@Omagus
They can have the US bands AND other bands in the same phone! Almost all HTC and Motorola phones are like this already!
Yeah, PeterF, that was my main point. My general point is, the trend shows that more Americans are realizing the true value of cell phones. And we are big consumers, hell, this *is* the country of fads (remember the pet rock?). When we see something we like, we buy it. And America is seeing and liking cell phones.
Your friends might be tech people, but mine aren't. They really are your run-of-the-mill type people (how they knew about unbranded phones is beyond me, eBay, perhaps?). They are examples of your average American looking beyond the carrier. But this also raises a bigger issue: carriers are beginning to see that people want more and are giving it. I mean, AT&T is soon to launch the Kaisier, T-Mobile has the Dash ( a cell phone that many cell phone enthusiasts berated as being "fugly," embraced by consumers), Sprint has the UpStage, a multimedia cell phone that is truly innovative in form, and VZW is getting the Prada. You're telling me that the average American consumer is still the I-just-need-to-send-and-receive-calls type of people, but the carriers and I see differently.
And it doesn't matter if a person knows he is sportin' the LG vx9800 or VZW's V, what matters is he is sportin' it. Also, when that phone was first released, it wasn't that cheap, but still a ubiquity and that was about a year ago, if not more. As tastes are changing, wallets and horizons are opening.
And, seriously, why would a manufacturer hurt itself. Even if, let's say, Samsung chooses not to include American UMTS/HSPA 3G, why can't it, at least, have quad-band GSM? Their Ultra line is Euro tribanded, but why? The RAZR was able to be impeccably thin--even thinner, the iPhone--while still having quad-band coverage: the lack of inclusion of those extra bands are causing manufacturers to loose money. People still pick up the RAZR over the SYNC, per se, not because they feel the RAZR is better, per se, but because it looks better.
Whatever drives the trend is immaterial, what matter is Americans are caring about cell phones and manufacturers and carriers should realize this and act accordingly.
Of course, in Europe, most countries have *over* 100% penetration, as strange as that might sound...
Of course, in Europe, most countries have *over* 100% penetration, as strange as that might sound...
The Asian countries are also saturated as well. Just yesterday I was driving down the road and I marvelled at the number of times I saw someone with a cellphone. Hmph. I bet all the early investors have laughed themselves to the bank because the skeptics didn't think they would take off. Look who is laughing now?