By looking at their map of mobile data cost [0] across the world I understood something that I find annoying in many apps.
Whenever there's a big file to download/upload the app will not download it unless I'm connected to a WiFi network. There's often a hidden settings that can disable this but I never understood why WiFi was considered a better choice for big file downloads.
Very often my 4G network is faster than the WiFi I have access to and with 100Go of data (for 20€) each month it's basically unlimited.
You sound like you're very young and only joined mobile internet in the past year, but I'll bite: not long ago pretty much all mobile internet was metered, that is, you had for example a 1 GB / month rate limit, after which every 100MB would cost you additional money on your already expensive monthly subscription.
So people were careful with using mobile internet, there were stories about people who forgot to turn off mobile internet and had to pay hundreds extra, or people who used a lot of mobile internet by accident abroad, racking up bills in the thousands. Apps that had bigger downloads would often be on the arse end of complaints about high data rates, so it became a UX pattern to warn or disallow big downloads over mobile internet.
4G / higher bandwidth and government legislation (the latter notably in the EU) finally put a stop on that, only two odd years ago (if that). But, there's still plenty of countries without 4G, good internet backbones, and who still do metered connections. Even wired connections, notably in the US which seems years behind in terms of internet infrastructure in some areas.
It's still the case under some circumstances. When traveling on an international data plan in Europe, I've been burned a couple of times by a map download or a background sync operation that burned through my whole allowance--leading to another $60 or so charge. I try to remember to turn off cellular data when not actively using it when on such a plan but I sometimes forget.
It's gotten better. The plan I usually get for a couple weeks of travel gives me 1GB these days. But not that long ago it was 200MB or so.
You can argue that the user should be able to choose but any of those settings, per my example, can then be configured incorrectly by accident (or you just forget to change them).
I found it easier to just buy a prepaid SIM for travel to Europe. $25 for 12GB, 3000 minutes, 3000 texts, good for 30 days. You get a european number which is definitely handy when needing to call hotels/airlines. Sure, you are limited by the higher price of texting back home (like $0.25/text sometimes) but if you use iMessage/Whatsapp/Telegram/etc it's all included with the data you already paid for. Topping off the SIM is even cheaper with European plans or just buy a new one before next trip.
I should probably investigate it again. I don't really need that much data when I travel and the path of least resistance has always been to just get a 1 month international data plan from my usual carrier. I don't really need phone at all and text very little. But I'm sure there are cheaper alternatives out there.
Assuming you're on Android, you should be able to get the behavior you want by turning on data saver. That specifically disables background downloads, and also pauses app updates etc.
You can do similar things on iPhone--which I did after 1GB of music synced one night when in Europe. But I mostly want data to transfer over mobile when not on WiFi at home. It's just easy to forget to change the various setting when traveling.
I'm still afraid of falling asleep with a youtube video playing (autoplay) or some live stream and waking up to ~10gb of data usage. My plan is still metered after 1gb, I was under the assumption this was normal as well
> You sound like you're very young and only joined mobile internet in the past year
There's no reason to make this a personal comment.
Regarding your actual point, I've had a 100GB limit for the past 5 years (since I got an iPhone 6), with a 4G connection.
Meanwhile Google Amp has existed for less than 3 years and already has massively widespread adoption. Technological change happens so rapidly that it's rarely a technical issue when something like this exists.
GP's point that historically, people have had data cost issues, (and still do today, unfortunately) still stands, and it makes sense that they would have those switches somewhere.
Unfortunately, those switches aren't easily configured at times.
Practically I have always had all the mobile internet I could use from at least 2010 onwards. There have always been a cap but it have been way above even my somewhat heave mobile use (my current cap is 1 terabyte a month).
It would hit the cap if I was using it as my only internet but for use on my phone I dont reach it, even with occasional tethering.
I thought it still was metered on Verizon in the U.S.
A few years ago, I switched to T-Mobile partly motivated by their unlimited plan, which felt like some kind of luxury.
(And, of course, "unlimited" is a lie. Downloading my ~200 GB music library through a hotspot, and I got throttled and charged extra per GB over some cap.)
Windows 10 has some really nice built in features for managing your connections— you can flag a particular connection as being metred, and it will monitor it for you, offer to block apps from using it, avoid downloading through Windows Update over it, etc.
But you can't throttle your network adapter except in unworkably coarse-grained increments, which is ridiculous. It's trivial to set it to whatever speed you want in Linux. :c
Oh yes; in North America the data pricing is far inferior - and in Canada it's particularly atrocious.
It's partially the population distribution; we have a paltry 35mil people in the 2nd geographically largest land area in the world. Now, much of the population is clustered, but still - infrastructure is spread out, expensive, and the cost gets passed down. Plus the competition is sparse and companies like their profit if they can get it.
In short, none of us would historically dream of downloading large stuff through mobile data. My data roaming is permanently off, and I only download through wifi. Some people even have phones with no data plans, or a paltry 50MB. 1GB was considered extra large data plan until recently.
(As a tangent, it's also been a historically painful process just to get started here too; in Europe, I'd land, go to the nearest shop, get a SIM card for $20, and I'm off to the races. In Canada, you need to sign a long term contract with 3 years of obligations, go through a credit check, give ethem all sorts of personal info, and pretty much blood and DNA samples... ;-( )
It's a discrepancy people have been waking up to last couple of years and starting to exert pressure, so it's getting better - but very very very slowly.
I spent 3 hours of our 3 week trip around Canada trying to work out why the data, and even phone, plans where so bloody expensive. I was sure I was missing something until about the 4th phone shop where someone understood the background of why I thought I should be able to pick up a couple of gigs of data and some phone calls for about £20.
Turns out it would have been a waste of money anyway. Turns out 90% we went with the motorhome you couldn't even get an FM radio signal :)
As an American traveling abroad for the first time was eye-opening. Even in the developing world (heck especially in the developing world) it is easy and inexpensive to get a sim card plus data. North Americans should be in the streets demanding regulation of telecoms.
What are you talking about? The United States is one of the only countries in the world where it's possible to walk into a store and walk out with an unlimited prepaid sim, and the only others have a much higher population density.
And you get 4g nearly everywhere! It blew my American mind to pieces. I would intentionally check my phone on random gravel roads in the mountains and there was almost always 4g. We even had a hiking guide take a phone call on a mountain pass.
What? If you were to take the standpoint of an American that desired emulating other first world countries, how would that standpoint not be in favor of further healthcare regulation and government involvement? Considering the majority of other first world countries have heavily socialized healthcare systems or universal healthcare?
> infrastructure is spread, expensive, and the cost gets passed down.
The overwhelming profitability of Canadian télécoms suggests some other factors are at play.
The initial infrastructure build may be expensive, but it is in other countries too. Canada at least allows telcos to throw up a big ugly tower wherever they please. Try finding one in Paris. The marginal costs of bandwidth are practically zero. Yet we still see vast portions of the population on 1 or 2gb plans.
There’s massive amounts of excess OTA capacity, but enabling it may cause grandma to cancel their home internet, and we can’t be having that.
My beef is how app developers just assume I have massive amounts of data to spare.
The NPR app decided to pre-fetch 500mb over data when I turned it on for a 30 minute car ride while trying to preserve data.
The economist apps just plain fail to background download over wifi.
Easy with the grandma comments. [BTW, for anyone objecting to this comment, I don't really think generational warfare contributes to the quality of discussion.]
Part of testing really needs to be over bandwidth constrained networks. Just because it seems great on some dev's gigabit connection doesn't mean it actually is great.
It's not generational warfare, it's recognising that there are a lot of people paying a lot of money for home Internet service when a cellular data plan would be good enough if it was priced fairly. Most of those people are older.
It's stereotyping. How would you and others feel if I were to rephrase that to something along the lines of "Almost no one really needs wired Internet except for all those teens and twenty-somethings who do nothing but watch video on their phones 20 hours a day"?
A lot of older people have a heck of a lot more hands-on experience with using computers than those whose experience is mostly limited to smartphones and tablets.
My overall point is that broad brush generalizations about age groups are often not useful.
> How would you and others feel if I were to rephrase that to something along the lines of "Almost no one really needs wired Internet except for all those teens and twenty-somethings who do nothing but watch video on their phones 20 hours a day"?
Entirely neutral emotionally and in agreement.
Demographics who grew up with the internet use it more and for higher bandwidth things. Seems pretty intuitive and non offensive to me.
My grandfather in particular has had home computers since the 70s. There are exceptions. But that doesn't invalidate the point being made. My mother for instance, is slightly ahead of the average for her age technologically. (In some ways at least.). But she's literally done exactly what the post that started this describes. When I moved out and stopped paying the internet bill a few months later, she had no interest in starting her own. Hasn't had anything but mobile since.
I don't actually disagree with the general premise. I'm fairly certain that older people do not, as a whole, use as much Internet bandwidth as younger people--if only because they don't have the habit of watching YouTube a lot, may very well still have cable TV, etc.
I would just prefer that discussions here avoided casual stereotypes about "grandmas" or, for that matter, Millennials. A comment along the lines of "Many casual Internet users--which includes quite a few older people--don't need wired Internet if they have or could get good mobile service" would be totally unobjectionable.
Lack of competition and excessive lobbying by cellular companies is major reason behind the high mobile data cost in US. Lobbying by corporations have screwed up people of US in many areas and is no where near being challenged or controlled.
My coworker was just telling me about some of his Canadian relatives. Their is a very fast fiber optic cable that was installed along the road in front of their driveway. Unfortunately their driveway is many miles long (which is apparently very common in the rural part of Canada they live in) and they would have to pay to run a line from the street to their house. So, they make do without.
I would’ve just had them install it at the road and then run my own wireless link. Or if unable, run a line on the poles (probably owned by the landowner). Or even SDSL if they can access a spare telephone line loop.
It's possible to easily get a sim card and make calls - you just need to get a pay as you go one. I have a tablet with apps, and then my phone is a 'dumb phone' which I bought at a 7-11. I didn't have to sign anything, I just bought the phone, the sim card and then some time. And you top up the money every so often.
It's nuts, isn't it? But while many of us have "unlimited" data as a practical matter after the first single digit GB in the month the data are heavily throttled.
It'll take video-capable unmetered cellular data to the NA market to reign in the out-of-control pay TV/CATV industry. Can't happen fast enough.
My first mobile data plan (which was over a decade ago) had a monthly allotment of 1GB. One big file could wipe out a quarter of my mobile data usage for the month. So it's polite not to download large files over mobile data without asking.
Data costs in the US tend to vary quite a lot from place to place - it's a big country with pretty bad infrastructure across most of its area, especially the less-populated places - but yes, that's the reason.
> Smartphones and social media are, for many in the second half, arenas with a semblance of privacy. While Western internet users fret about the privacy implications of big tech companies hoarding their data, young internet users in the towns and villages of the developing world are delighted to have, for the first time, a way to communicate and express themselves away from the prying eyes of family, neighbours and other busybodies. In Asia and the Middle East smartphones open up a world of romance, enabling people to flirt and date despite social constraints.
Couldn't agree more. Privacy is defined by each person based on what they'd like to do but can't.
You could argue that the pursuit of leisure created Silicon Valley as we know it. Atari was a gaming company. Apple's founders cut their teeth there. And the Apple II was largely bought because it supported games. I think this is one sense of Paul Graham's saying that toy problems are at the origins of great companies. Creativity driven by the sense of fun.
I think about the technical feat accomplished by Blizzard when they created World Of Warcraft. So much time, effort, money, and great minds working so that you could walk around in a virtual world with your friends.
You could argue that the pursuit of leisure created pretty much every business that ever existed. We create businesses to either deliver leisure, or automate things that aren't leisure.
Leisure is one thing but mindless consumption is another. I worry about the future of the world's societies as they venture further and further into a state where consumption of media becomes the ultimate goal of life.
I can definitely recognize in friends and family, the "deep end" of consumption. Hours upon hours on Facebook or YouTube, consumed entirely in the most mind-numbing scroll fests until they snap out of it and do something else. Hours are lost. But I also notice that they have all, on their own account, decided that it's an issue and then worked to stop it once they figured it out.
It's not clear to a new user that something as simple as a website could become addictive and begin to take huge amounts of time, concentration and patience away from you. Or even that it could be a bad thing. It seems to catch even disciplined people off guard. But I have noticed that they often self-regulate eventually anyway.
There does seem to be a certain desire to be productive in many people, and so I'm not particularly worried about an entire society totally consumed by social media/entertainment.
> The other, crucial aspect of understanding the second half is that seemingly unlikely things can have value. When you call an Indian mobile phone, it is not uncommon to hear a song instead of the traditional ringing tone. That song, a “caller ring back tone” in the jargon, is chosen by the user you are calling, who pays for the privilege. Until the rise of smartphones and social networks, caller tunes were a big money-spinner for Indian mobile operators, contributing 82bn rupees in revenue in the three years to March 2012. All this for music only others would hear.
> The urge driving people to pay a monthly fee for something they do not themselves consume is self-expression, which may be a key to coming up with new sustainable business models for the low-income internet.
So interesting how seemingly the same technology evolves or gets used differently around the world.
Also anyone else find this article annoying to read?
The poor do not see it that way. Years of fieldwork across the globe have led Ms Arora to conclude that when it comes to getting online, “play dominates work, and leisure overtakes labour.” Where people planning development strategies imagined, metaphorically at least, Blackberries providing new efficiencies and productivity, consumers wanted the chat, apps and games of the iPhone. Worthier uses tend to follow. But they are the cart not the horse.
Surely that hasn't surprised these planners all that much? My first thought when I got a bicycle as a teenager wasn't "Gosh, I'm going to get to school so efficiently!" it was "Weee!"
Whenever there's a big file to download/upload the app will not download it unless I'm connected to a WiFi network. There's often a hidden settings that can disable this but I never understood why WiFi was considered a better choice for big file downloads.
Very often my 4G network is faster than the WiFi I have access to and with 100Go of data (for 20€) each month it's basically unlimited.
But from the map 100Go would be $1237 in the US ?
[0]: https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640...