Smartphones vs Stupid Operators

Up until May 2007, I was a very basic mobile user. I had an old Sony Ericsson that I used mostly for texting. I didn't ring on it much because after a few minutes, the phone hurt my head. I didn't use the built-in camera as my digital camera was much better.

I didn't invest money in a new phone because I never really knew what a phone could do for me. I knew what my needs were, but the ads and shops were just plain confusing. And even though mobile operators only had to provide text and talk packages that made them loads of money, the packages were always so convoluted that I only ever felt like I was signing up to be ripped off. So I just stuck to my old O2 pay as you go, 200 free texts a month sim.

Buying a new phone always seemed to be about how it looked. How pretty it was. The ringtone. And for some people, the camera. I'm not big into brands or the latest gizmo, and couldn’t care less about what my phone looks like.

But then my boyfriend introduced me to the world of smartphones. He explained what the different phones and operating systems could do. And with his advice, I quickly bought a nokia n73 and changed from O2 to T-mobile to get a decent data plan, although I got ripped off on T-mobile's roaming charges (not cost effective if you live between Derry and Donegal).

But with the dataplan, I could access the web all day for the flat rate of £1. So suddenly I was able to check gmail through the gmail app, check google maps, browse the web etc.

Of course, checking mail meant needing to reply to mail...needing to reply to mail meant a data input problem, so I bought a bluetooth igo Stowaway fold-out keyboard for £40.

Having solved my data input problem, I installed quickoffice - so now I can view and edit word docs, excel sheets and powerpoint presentations. I've got the 85,000 words of my unfinished novel on my phone. That's where I edit it these days.

When I wake with great blog or game ideas in the middle of the night, I input them into my phone. It's where I do my shopping list. My expenses. I use the calcium calculator app.

I've stored music and podcasts on my phone. I've used the camera instead of my usual camera. I've taken pictures and videos of the neices and nephews. And pictures of the wine labels I've enjoyed so next time I'm in the offie, I can browse my wine label collection for one I liked.

And for learning French, I use my slovoed French dictionary - with thousands of text and audio entries, I can translate and learn on the go.

When the iphone arrived, I couldn't understand the fuss to be honest. Yes it is soooooo pretty. And touchscreens are where it's at (no more figuring out what buttons to put where – just produce one really nicely designed device and let the software do the work. When you've figured out how to do something better, you just upgrade the software).

But I'd been using my phone to do pretty much anything the iPhone can do, and maybe a bit more. So when I read in this Guardian article yesterday that 'The launch last year of Apple's iPhone proved that people will use the internet on a mobile phone' I got a bit annoyed.

The iPhone did not prove that people will use the Internet on a mobile phone. However, the iPhone ad campaign was the first mobile campaign that took time to teach people how they could use their phone.

The iPhone, ironically, is the first phone that I can think of that wasn't sold on its looks. No sexy models caressing the casing. No hot young dudes connecting with their equally hot friends on the latest must-have phone.

Apple didn’t have to sell the phone on how sexy it looked. It was an Apple product. Looking sexy was a given.

What they did instead was use their 30 second ad to give the consumer a brief tutorial in how to use your mobile. They showed us how to send an email. How to browse the web. How to check the weather on your phone.

Irritatingly, this does mean that proud new iphone owners spend their time giving me tutorials in how to send an email or browse the web. I have to say, Apple do it better. And quicker - check out their ads here.

The same Guardian article has quoted Scott Horn, general manager of Microsoft's mobile communications business group as saying "Our goal is to put a smartphone in every person's pocket."

First things first, for advertising, communications and learning, mobile technology's where it's at. More people have mobiles than have PCS. Smartphones are a stepping stone. Google and Microsoft are both throwing lots of time and money at the mobile market.

But the big problem I find here is not the phone or the software. It's the data plans. Scott Horn can put a smartphone in everyone's pocket, but what's he going to do about the rip-off data plans?

The mobile phone operators have realised that consumers want more than just text and talk. And that if we want to talk, we might want to use VoiP. Instead of texting, we want IM. And they don't want that.

I’ve got an O2 web bolt-on on my phone. O2 describe this as being ‘Unlimited Internet Access’.

What it really means is that I can browse the web and get email. I can use no more than 200MB of data per month. I can’t use internet radio, audio streaming, video streaming, skype, msn or any other instant messaging, no VoIP, no P2P, no FTP, no remote desktop, no remote access of any sort, no modem use.

And this wonderful deal only applies to UK usage…if I go abroad (which for a Northern Irish consumer means if I visit sunny sunny Cavan) I’ll be charged £8/MB.

Mobile operators used to only have to figure out ways of selling incredibly lucrative talk and text packages to consumers. Now they have to deal with all the different types of demands that mobile web brings with it.

And I get the feeling that until the mobile operators can figure out a way to truly fleece me on each individual mobile need I have (which might take them years), or until Google become a network provider, I’ll have the endure the joys of ‘Unlimited Internet Access’.