True SMS coming to SprintPCS

[email protected] (Joel Horner) wrote in
> Vassil <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> better approach will be to offer these optional services (like true
>> SMS, bluetooth phones, mp3 phones, etc) for a fee and then see if we,
>> the users, are willing to pay for them.
>
> That's pretty bad business advice. So, Sprint pays a large sum of
> money to R&D new services...and then roll it out to see if the
> customer will use it. The customer doesn't. Sunk cost.
>
> So Sprint pays a lot of money to work with manufacturer X on phone Y.
> They roll out the handset. It bombs. Sunk cost.
>
> You have enough of these sunk costs, you end up with a sunk company.
>
> Joel

You obviously have a very simplistic view of business. For SPCS to make
money they need to attract customers with the best mix of features (phones,
data services, SMS, price, reiability, customer service and so on) in this
hyper competitive market segment.

Because of the nature of the CDMA market at present, SPCS can and does
control all features of the phone unlike in the GSM world. If SPCS does
not take calculated risks to attract customers and grow its customer base
it will FOR SURE sink. If they fail on a couple of phones, then it is not
a big deal, they can live with it. The issue for SPCS is that they are at
the bottom of the market and compete mainly on cost (they are the
cheapest in NYC where I live). They do not have the network reliability of
Verizon or the brand name and phone selection of AT&T.

This, my suggestion to SPCS was: do not give up yet. Competing on price
sucks unless you are the lowest cost service provider and they are not. One
way out is to offer cheap and plentiful data services, so we have Vision.
However, do not underestimate the phone. It is the interface to the
customer and you need a lot of variety here. Verizon can get away with
less variety in its phone line because it is mostly corporate phones -- you
use what you get. AT&T has the huge selection of GSM phones. All SPCS
phones look cheap, some really cheap. So give us some variety.

Does this help or do I need to go to bed?

Vassil

---

› See More: True SMS coming to SprintPCS

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, Vassil <[email protected]>
wrote:

>All SPCS
>phones look cheap, some really cheap. So give us some variety.

Value judgement. None of my Sprint PCS phones have looked "cheap".
(The Nokia line, provided to all wireless carriers, to me, looks
really cheap.)

Zashto pishes tova??

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:37:11 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 07:07:02 GMT, Vassil <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>All SPCS
>>phones look cheap, some really cheap. So give us some variety.
>
>Value judgement. None of my Sprint PCS phones have looked "cheap".
>(The Nokia line, provided to all wireless carriers, to me, looks
>really cheap.)
>
>Zashto pishes tova??



I just got Sanyo SCP-8100 from Sprint, and I can't find anything cheap about it.

????????

PHil_Real <[email protected]> wrote:

> The question remains: Does Sprint fund any cell phone hardware
> development?

Sure they do.

Sprint has people who _test_ the phone with Sprint the Sprint system to
ascertain correct functionality. They, in turn, provide information back
to the manufacturer to tweak the phone to Sprint's specifications.

This takes people. People cost money. The more phones to which this is
done requires more people.

Joel

Vassil <[email protected]> wrote:


> You obviously have a very simplistic view of business. For SPCS to make
> money they need to attract customers with the best mix of features (phones,
> data services, SMS, price, reiability, customer service and so on) in this
> hyper competitive market segment.

You've changed your position, oddly, since your original post to which I
replied. You said they should roll out services and phones and then see
if people would pay for them. Your statement above has a lot more sanity
in that it does not suggest that they should just roll out services with
little thought to who will actually use the services.

Your assertion was that they should just roll out a bunch of phones and
untested services and see if people should buy them? I have a pragmatic
view of business. You, on the other hand, have a 'field of dreams' view
of business. Perhaps if you rewind the clock a few years, you can see
all of the companies that went under because of the very thinking you're
expressing: "If we build this cool website to sell [fill in blank],
people will use it." I guess you may have been sleeping during that
time. That said, I'd say you need not go to bed...it's time to wake up.

>
> The issue for SPCS is that they are at
> the bottom of the market and compete mainly on cost (they are the
> cheapest in NYC where I live).

Uh, no, the issue for SPCS is a heavy debt load. They, like most
carriers, spent so much money building out their network, their debt
eats up their revenues. Look at their financials, then draw the
conclusion of what Sprint's real issue is. (A debt/equity ratio of ~63
is nothing to crow about.) This is why they must shave all costs they
can, and retire their debt. Recklessly rolling out new handsets and
services without any thought of whether or not people will buy them
certainly doesn't help them lower their operating costs.

>
> This, my suggestion to SPCS was: do not give up yet.

That was not in your original post. There's a difference between keep
trying, and implement every cool thing and see if people will buy.

> Competing on price
> sucks unless you are the lowest cost service provider and they are not.

But you claim they are in your market. Perhaps you meant the have the
lowest costs for operations. Many companies are quite happy competing on
price. Wal-Mart, Southwest Airlines, JetBlue, etc.

> One
> way out is to offer cheap and plentiful data services, so we have Vision.

Competing on price. Didn't you say they shouldn't do that?

> However, do not underestimate the phone. It is the interface to the
> customer and you need a lot of variety here. Verizon can get away with
> less variety in its phone line because it is mostly corporate phones -- you
> use what you get.

Verizon's subscriber mix has a greater percentage of consumers,
actually. Verizon's value proposition is the strength of their network.

> AT&T has the huge selection of GSM phones.

Really? Not in my area...which is GSM. Cingular, in fact, has them beat
in this area.

> All SPCS
> phones look cheap, some really cheap.

I have an 8300. I also have a few GSM phones. I find that my 8300 feels
much more sturdy than the GSM phones. In fact, looking at the "huge
selection" of AT&T GSM phones (and having tried a few), I can say that
the Sprint phones I've used feel far less cheap.

> Does this help or do I need to go to bed?

Answered above.

Joel Horner wrote:
> PHil_Real <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>The question remains: Does Sprint fund any cell phone hardware
>>development?
>
>
> Sure they do.
>
> Sprint has people who _test_ the phone with Sprint the Sprint system to
> ascertain correct functionality. They, in turn, provide information back
> to the manufacturer to tweak the phone to Sprint's specifications.
>
> This takes people. People cost money. The more phones to which this is
> done requires more people.
>
> Joel
But that is not a description of development- that is the definition of
User Acceptance Testing, which is done after the product is developed.

no sprint has no part in the manufacturing, sprint simplies tells the
manufacturers what they want and chooses the one that is cheapest. once
the phone is made sprint comes back in to test it. they reject every
phone hundreds of times before you even hear about it, some take years
to make it through.

-brandt



Scott Stephenson <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> Joel Horner wrote:
> > PHil_Real <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The question remains: Does Sprint fund any cell phone hardware
> >>development?
> >
> >
> > Sure they do.
> >
> > Sprint has people who _test_ the phone with Sprint the Sprint system to
> > ascertain correct functionality. They, in turn, provide information back
> > to the manufacturer to tweak the phone to Sprint's specifications.
> >
> > This takes people. People cost money. The more phones to which this is
> > done requires more people.
> >
> > Joel
> But that is not a description of development- that is the definition of
> User Acceptance Testing, which is done after the product is developed.
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Brandt Elster) wrote:

> no sprint has no part in the manufacturing, sprint simplies tells the
> manufacturers what they want and chooses the one that is cheapest. once
> the phone is made sprint comes back in to test it. they reject every
> phone hundreds of times before you even hear about it, some take years
> to make it through.

Yesterday another Sprintster was telling us how much Sprint was
investing in the manufacture of phones, now you tell us
"Sprint has no part in the manufactureing"

[email protected] (Joel Horner) wrote in message

> Your assertion was that they should just roll out a bunch of phones and
> untested services and see if people should buy them? I have a pragmatic
> view of business. You, on the other hand, have a 'field of dreams' view

You are obviously irked by my comment so you are making things up. I
did not say "a bunch", I said they could revisit issues like mp3 (the
market has matured since their last try) or infrared which exists on a
lot more phones in the GSM world. Further, I said "consider it"
meaning, try to make your phones less dull. Of course some ideas will
be rejected. No one said anything about every cool idea being
implemented.

> Uh, no, the issue for SPCS is a heavy debt load. They, like most
> carriers, spent so much money building out their network, their debt
> eats up their revenues. Look at their financials, then draw the

It is true that SPCS has a heavy debt burden and that does not leave
them with too much room for error. Note that debt is not necessarily
bad, actually it is better for the shareholders who get much higher
return on equity as long as it does run out of cash in the process.
But overall it is tricky to operate with as much debt, I agree.

> > The issue for SPCS is that they are at
> > the bottom of the market and compete mainly on cost (they are the

> > Competing on price
> > sucks unless you are the lowest cost service provider and they are not.

> But you claim they are in your market. Perhaps you meant the have the
> lowest costs for operations. Many companies are quite happy competing on
> price. Wal-Mart, Southwest Airlines, JetBlue, etc.

Obviously you are not paying attention. In the first case, it is the
lowest price (cost to consumer), in the second it is the lowest cost
of providing the serice. Since SPCS has a lot more debt cf. to the
other carriers it cannot be the lowest cost provider... remember
"their debt is eating the revenues." SPCS is, however, selling its
services for the lowest price so their margins suck. Thus, SPCS is
not like the companies you mention. Try to connect the dots before
your write things that make no sense.

> Competing on price. Didn't you say they shouldn't do that?

I said it is not a position you want to be in. But if you have a bad
network and people do not like your phones and a so so brand name,
what option do you have?

> > AT&T has the huge selection of GSM phones.
>
> Really? Not in my area...which is GSM. Cingular, in fact, has them beat
> in this area.

Any GSM carrier by default has a huge selection of phones that you can
purchase yourself and insert the provider's SIM card. What is so
difficult to understand?

> much more sturdy than the GSM phones. In fact, looking at the "huge
> selection" of AT&T GSM phones (and having tried a few), I can say that
> the Sprint phones I've used feel far less cheap.

Beauty is the eye of the beholder as they say.

Anyway, not much use to discuss these things for so long. SPCS needs
some cool phones and I hope they are coming soon.

-vs

sprint makes phones that come off the line as made by sprint pcs. The
Samsung and Sanyo phones are strictly made by the manufacturer and sold
to sprint in bulk after approval.

-Brandt



"Phill." <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Brandt Elster) wrote:
>
> > no sprint has no part in the manufacturing, sprint simplies tells the
> > manufacturers what they want and chooses the one that is cheapest. once
> > the phone is made sprint comes back in to test it. they reject every
> > phone hundreds of times before you even hear about it, some take years
> > to make it through.
>
> Yesterday another Sprintster was telling us how much Sprint was
> investing in the manufacture of phones, now you tell us
> "Sprint has no part in the manufactureing"

[posted via phonescoop.com]

Vassil <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Joel Horner) wrote in message
>
> > Your assertion was that they should just roll out a bunch of phones and
> > untested services and see if people should buy them? I have a pragmatic
> > view of business. You, on the other hand, have a 'field of dreams' view
>
> You are obviously irked by my comment so you are making things up. I
> did not say "a bunch", I said they could revisit issues like mp3 (the
> market has matured since their last try) or infrared which exists on a
> lot more phones in the GSM world. Further, I said "consider it"
> meaning, try to make your phones less dull. Of course some ideas will
> be rejected. No one said anything about every cool idea being
> implemented.

Irked? Not really. Had I quoted "a bunch," then I would be making
something up. I paraphrased your original statement, which was "A better
approach will be to offer these optional services (like true SMS,
bluetooth phones, mp3 phones, etc) for a fee and then see if we, the
users, are willing to pay for them." They key here is "etc," which
essentialy means other services not explicitly stated. Without a
specific number, the words "couple," or "few" are not available. Hence
the word "bunch."

>
> > Uh, no, the issue for SPCS is a heavy debt load. They, like most
> > carriers, spent so much money building out their network, their debt
> > eats up their revenues. Look at their financials, then draw the
>
> It is true that SPCS has a heavy debt burden and that does not leave
> them with too much room for error. Note that debt is not necessarily
> bad, actually it is better for the shareholders who get much higher
> return on equity as long as it does run out of cash in the process.
> But overall it is tricky to operate with as much debt, I agree.
>

There's heavy debt, and then there's unreasonable. Sprint's is
unreasonable when compared with its peers.

> > > The issue for SPCS is that they are at
> > > the bottom of the market and compete mainly on cost (they are the
>
> > > Competing on price
> > > sucks unless you are the lowest cost service provider and they are not.
>
> > But you claim they are in your market. Perhaps you meant the have the
> > lowest costs for operations. Many companies are quite happy competing on
> > price. Wal-Mart, Southwest Airlines, JetBlue, etc.
>
> Obviously you are not paying attention. In the first case, it is the
> lowest price (cost to consumer), in the second it is the lowest cost
> of providing the serice. Since SPCS has a lot more debt cf. to the
> other carriers it cannot be the lowest cost provider... remember
> "their debt is eating the revenues." SPCS is, however, selling its
> services for the lowest price so their margins suck. Thus, SPCS is
> not like the companies you mention. Try to connect the dots before
> your write things that make no sense.
>

You mentioned nothing about operational costs in any of your posts until
I brought it up. (I do find it amusing that you are essentially stating
what I told you...and then telling me that I should connect the dots.)
Furthermore, you probably were clueless about their financials until I
pointed out that your assertion in a prior post was flawed---just as
your original post was flawed. I don't know what market you're in, but
Sprint is not the lowest cost in my market. I'm betting they're not in
yours either.

Perhaps you should complete research on other providers before making a
statement of who has the lowest cost. Consider the _facts_ below:

Sprint (Regular plan plus "50% roaming") 500 minutes: $55.00
T-Mobile (Regular plan & nationwide roaming) 600 minutes: 39.99
Verizon (America's Choice) 500 minutes: 49.99
AT&T (Nationwide plan) 550 minutes: 39.99

So, genius, perhaps you can explain how you belive Sprint is the lowest
in cost? Is math not a skill you have? Also, consider fees into the
equation. Sprint has higher fees than other carriers.

> > Competing on price. Didn't you say they shouldn't do that?
>
> I said it is not a position you want to be in. But if you have a bad
> network and people do not like your phones and a so so brand name,
> what option do you have?
>

Nextel's network is far more restrictive than Sprint's. Nextel has the
highest ARPU among carriers. Their phone selection is quite limited as
well. They are also cash-flow positive. They do not compete on price.

> > > AT&T has the huge selection of GSM phones.
> >
> > Really? Not in my area...which is GSM. Cingular, in fact, has them beat
> > in this area.
>
> Any GSM carrier by default has a huge selection of phones that you can
> purchase yourself and insert the provider's SIM card. What is so
> difficult to understand?
>

Right. I'll just run right over to Europe and buy a 900/1800 phone and
use it here. Gosh...there is the frequency issue now isn't there. When
looking at a 900/1800/1900 phone, the options are more limited.
Furthermore, many of those are offered by domestic GSM carriers anyway.

Using AT&T as the provider, your hypothesis becomes even more
ridiculous. In order to get the best use of AT&T's network in the
future, 800MHz will be necessary in the phones. (In my area, 800MHz is
operational on GSM in various areas.) Oooppps, there goes that ability
to buy one of the "huge selection of phones" you think solves the
limited handset selection. Of course there are quad band phones...but
wait, there is one on the market right now?

> > much more sturdy than the GSM phones. In fact, looking at the "huge
> > selection" of AT&T GSM phones (and having tried a few), I can say that
> > the Sprint phones I've used feel far less cheap.
>
> Beauty is the eye of the beholder as they say.
>
> Anyway, not much use to discuss these things for so long. SPCS needs
> some cool phones and I hope they are coming soon.
>

Yes, it's critical. Otherwise, they'll lose all of their customers
because their phones weren't as cool as Carrier X's phones. Right. And
you claimed my view on business was simplistic?

> -vs