Get them a phone and iPad instead of a Kin and save money

Survey says: most teens don’t have a data plan, almost all send texts
[Via Engadget]

Microsoft and Verizon might think all the kids want to do with their new Kin phones is pay absurd data rates for a half-baked Twitter experience, but it turns out Generation Upload is still actually just Generation Text Message. That’s at least the word according to a Pew Internet Research survey published on April 20th and neatly summed up by a new Flowlogic infographic published today — only 23 percent of American teenagers with cellphones use social networks with their phones, while 72 percent of all teens use text messaging. You might argue that Kin seeks to flip that balance, but Pew found that 63 percent of teens with cell phones don’t have data plans and the vast majority of teen cellphone plans are part of a larger family plan, so the Kin’s $30 / month data rate might be a hard sell to Mom and Dad. We also thought voice calling on the Kin seemed like an afterthought to texting and social networking, but it turns out more and more older kids simply turn to the phone: 77 percent of 17 year olds text each other, but 60 percent of them call each other’s cell phones — and only 33 percent of them connect over social networking sites. The report is actually full of other interesting tidbits like this and the infographic is quite nice, so hit the read links to check ‘em out — perhaps Microsoft and Verizon should do the same.

[More]

I mentioned earlier that teens would probably prefer a cell phone and an iPod touch than a Microsoft Kin. One of the things I said is that they probably do not need a data plan as much as others, since they probably have greater access to WiFi.

Well, this poll indicates that they not only do not need the data plan, they do not use it. They use a cell phone to text not to use data. 63% of the teens do not have data plans at all.

If a child started crying for a Kin, could they be mollified by getting them a new phone plus an iPad? I think so and it would be much cheaper for the parent.

How does MS expect the Kin to be so compelling that it will change the habits of teens all while costing more than what they have now?

Now couple in the fact that the Kin is not very easy to use, as early reviews are discussing, and it seems to me that the Kin phones are trying to tap into a market that can already be filled by the iPod or iPad. Without anything special to accomplish that and while having a cost of ownership over $1000 more.

Who makes these sorts of marketing decisions?

How many people will be waiting in line for these MS phones?

by abulhussain

Kin available tomorrow, but pricing may hamper adoption
[Via Ars Technica]

Microsoft’s Kin One and Two will be available to prospective buyers within days, though the pricing and data plans seem to fall in an awkward spot for a device the companies are targeting at teens. Microsoft announced Wednesday that the two devices would be available on Verizon Wireless’ website as of May 6 and show up in stores on May 13. After a $100 mail-in rebate and a new two-year contract with Verizon, the Kin One will cost $49.99 and the Two will cost $99.99.

Microsoft unveiled its latest foray into the mobile market last month: a successor to the Danger Sidekick running Microsoft’s own software based on Windows Phone 7. The Kin One is a small touchscreen QWERTY slider phone with 4GB of flash memory for storage and a 5 megapixel camera optimized for low-light use. The Kin Two, on the other hand, is a larger, more traditional-looking QWERTY slider, with a larger, wider touchscreen. It has 8GB of storage and an 8 megapixel camera that can shoot 720p HD video.

The idea is to go after the lucrative and impressionable teen market with these almost-but-not-quite-smartphone devices—after all, this is where the Sidekick excelled during its heyday. However, the pricing (and more importantly, the service plans) could put a damper on widespread adoption among teenagers. As noted by mocoNews, the $100 mail-in rebate comes back in the form of a debit card, not a check, so those $50 and $100 price tags truly are more like $150 and $200. On top of that, Verizon’s voice and data plans for the Kin cost a minimum of $60 per month. And that’s not taking into account the extras, like a Zune music subscription and whatever else may be tacked on.

[More]

Microsoft’s foray into cell phones begins. So you pay about as much as an iPhone and have a data plan that costs as much all for a cell phone that does a lot less. Verizon even sells other smart phones that are the same price and do a lot more. Is this going to console teens that really want an iPhone?

What seems to be happening now is that kids are getting a simple phone and using the iPod touch. The touch gives them just about everything they would want in social networking (WiFi hotspots are pretty ubiquitous as I am finding with my iPad). The phone lets them call or text. I am not convinced that with their much easier access to WiFi, especially for those in college, that an unlimited data plan is a requirement.

Just checking Verizon, you can get a nice Samsung Intensity for free. The money savings over getting a $99 Kin with a $30 monthly data plan would pay for a 8GB iPod touch in about 3 months! The top of the line 64 GB Ipod Touch would be paid for in 10 months.

Heck you could get them a 64 GB Wifi iPad and still save money. They could get all the data they wanted from WiFI as well as thousands of apps to run.

How many would be willing to forgo an unlimited data plan for the phone-iPad combination?The data plans are really a big cost that many teens may not need. Would a teen give up a little on an unlimited data plan if they could also have the best iPad?

So, which do you think a teen might go for – a new cell phone from MS or a new cell phone from Samsung plus a 64GB iPod touch?

I certainly know which of these choices my teenager would take. Maybe not all would go for the iPod touch combination it certainly is an interesting choice.

The Kin might compete with that but it does not appear to be compelling enough to drive business to it.

Otherwise there would be people waiting in line for it.

[Listening to: Tell Me from the album "Texas Flood" by Stevie Ray Vaughan]

Abusing scientists

by shizhao

Deniers abuse power to attack climate scientists
[Via Bad Astronomy]

If you attend a scientific talk on a controversial subject, you may be entertained or discomfited by the sometimes spirited discussion it can engender. Scientists love to pick apart new ideas, try to find their strengths and weaknesses. That’s because they know that for an idea to survive scientifically, it must be attacked by scientifically experienced minds; any faults must be aired out. That which survives is stronger for the effort, and more likely to closely model reality.

The key phrase there is “scientifically experienced”. When this happens with people inexperienced with the methodologies of science — or worse, those who actively oppose them — then the situation is very different. It changes from a way to strengthen our ideas on the Universe into a witch hunt. Instead of warming up people to discovery, it produces a chilling effect.

We’re seeing this play out in spades in the field of climate science.

To be clear: the climate is changing. There is zero doubt about that. None. Anyone telling you differently has an agenda to ram, and it’s one that is decidedly not realistic.

And some of those people ramming through this agenda are using — I would say abusing — their power to do so. For example, über-conservative Virginia State Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli — the same guy who was so offended by the artwork of a naked breast he had it covered up on lapel pins — is investigating climate scientist Michael Mann. Cuccinelli is claiming that Mann may have defrauded taxpayers while trying to get grants to fund his research. Mind you, Mann has survived such attacks before as fallout from the nonsensical climategate “scandal” (which was a completely manufactured controversy with no substance at all).

[More]

Denialists going after people because they do not like the science. When have we seen this before? With the cigarette lobby. They dragged so many researchers through the mud that many people chose not to go into the field. They did not want to have to deal with the harassment.

Now the same thing with climate scientists. Often done by the same people, taking their blood money in exchange for using political attacks on scientific figures.

Let’s see, where have we seen scientists and their work become trophies due to the political will of charlatans? Scientists were executed or sent to prison because they up for the truth when it went against the political thought of the time.

Seems to me that some politicians are starting to slide down that slope.

[Listening to: Buddy Won't You Roll Down The Line from the album "The Gateway Singers]