And another repost from February 2005 – fits the current mood in the market perfectly:
We all know bluetooth and we all love it-when it works perfectly. While this wireless transmission system is a standard in almost every Palm powered PDA that doesnt have WLAN, many smartphones have neither of the two. Users always make a fuzz about the omission, but nothing changes in the end-the Qool QDA700 came without bluetooth, and the TREO 650 had its wireless profiles crippled! But why? Bluetooth allows you to attach different peripherals as needed, and allows you to share files with your desktop computer..
Bump, reality check! Many users use bluetooth to access the internet at home. They have a bluetooth dongle/router and surf the internet wirelessly using their home internet access-especialy handy while using a home trainer. Bluetoth peripherals are still uncommon.
Now, its all about internet access. The most expensive service at my carrier is just that-1Meg of GPRS data costs about a €. If I would have done all my surfing via their networks, the company would be rich by now-my T3 creates like 2Meg of traffic a day. A smart phone already has the GPRS access integrated(the T3 would need bluetoth to connect to a mobile phone), and users want to get their email, etc-thats why they did not get a dumbphone in the first place!
So, now we understand the way providers think-full bluetooth is bad for business. But, why do licencees support this system? Well, every carrier has his own selection of handsets that he subsides and thus sells cheaply. When opening/elongating their contract, most users simply take one of the phones on offer and don’t even consider the other alternatives available on the market. Thus, a smartphone without carrier subsidiation is a sitting duck with little mass-market potencial. Carriers know the power that they have over device sales-and have little scruples to use it for maximizing income-even if they have to remove “useless” features from their machines!
What do you think?