11–20 of 39 posts
Bruce Sterling "Poor folk love their cellphones." "Poor folk" don't have cellphones. They can't afford them.
And as is often the case, providing convenient retail solutions for small purchasers can be more profitable than demanding long term contracts.
As with many things, when it comes to mobile services the poor pay more and get less.
Bruce Sterling "Poor folk love their cellphones." "Poor folk" don't have cellphones. They can't afford them.
Bruce Sterling "Poor folk love their cellphones." "Poor folk" don't have cellphones. They can't afford them.
There is a $20 Billion (with a B) a year market in prepaid cell phone services that says you are wrong. And as is often the case, providing convenient retail solutions for small purchasers can be more profitable than demanding long term contracts. As with many things, when it comes to mobile services the poor pay more and get less.
Bruce Sterling "Poor folk love their cellphones." "Poor folk" don't have cellphones. They can't afford them.
In downtown Palo Alto you can see people sitting on the sidewalk with cardboards which say they lost their jobs and don't have money for food, talking on their iPhones.
Wikipedia has per capita income in Palo Alto, CA as $56,257.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_locations_by_per_cap...
I don't know, maybe it means more to all those motivational self-help and internet marketing types on Twitter.
One of the great advantages I see in microblogging is the ability to walk in and out of the "attention stream" at leisure. Try that with IM and you're considered rude or strange.
Of course, some probably have a harder time walking away than others.
This reads more like a comparison of "old money" and "new money" to me, than of rich and poor. I have more than one rich friend who would hate to be disconnected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class
(This is a wonderful book by the way, and it was recommended to me by a Chief Marketing Officer. Reading it on his recommendation was the first time I realized he was actually quite smart.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a $20 Billion (with a B) a year market in prepaid cell phone services that says you are wrong. And as is often the case, providing convenient retail solutions for small purchasers can be more profitable than demanding long term contracts. As with many things, when it comes to mobile services the poor pay more and get less.
Those are lower middle class people buying those services. The poor would be choosing between their cellphones and shelter. Am not saying there are no people that choose to be homelessness and keep their cellphone, but there aren't very many.
In all seriousness, "poor" to me does not mean homeless. In fact, there are many people above the poverty line who I consider poor (the so-called "working poor".) Obviously this is different for you, and it's silly to have an argument over semantics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In downtown Palo Alto you can see people sitting on the sidewalk with cardboards which say they lost their jobs and don't have money for food, talking on their iPhones.
You think there's poor people in Pala Alto, CA, huh? Wikipedia has per capita income in Palo Alto, CA as $56,257. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_locations_by_per_cap...
Bruce Sterling "Poor folk love their cellphones." "Poor folk" don't have cellphones. They can't afford them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are lower middle class people buying those services. The poor would be choosing between their cellphones and shelter. Am not saying there are no people that choose to be homelessness and keep their cellphone, but there aren't very many.
No true Scotsman would own a cellphone! In all seriousness, "poor" to me does not mean homeless. In fact, there are many people above the poverty line who I consider poor (the so-called "working poor".) Obviously this is different for you, and it's silly to have an argument over semantics.
I use the same terminology and standards the US. Gov't does. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh07.htm...
If someone insists on trying to communicate applying their own individual definition to terms of common usage that are different than those others in a region uses, they themselves are the ones that will have difficulty communicating their ideas.
If the discussion is about poverty and the poor, and the discussion is in the US, the US Gov't standard would be the reasonable standard for terminology to be derived.
So a single person with no dependents is considered poor in the US if they make less than $10,590 or roughly 10/11 K a year. I responded to Sterling's statement that said poor people love cellphone because people that make less than 10/11K a year don't have cell phone because they can't afford them.