ALTOM: Is your smartphone good for business use?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Tim Altom

I love smartphones. Not because I think they’re the greatest business accelerators since the invention of the telephone itself. They’re far from that. It’s because no other form of biz-tech allows me so much opportunity to be so curmudgeonly about something so popular.

To me, smartphones are a great example of the ubiquitous 80-20 rule: 80 percent of our productivity is due to only 20 percent of our technologies, and the rest is embellishment. Rarely has a piece of equipment sold so quickly for so little demonstrable ROI.

And sell it has. According to comScore (comscore.com), a well-known tracking firm, as of January a hefty 234 million Americans had some kind of mobile plan, out of 309 million total souls in this country. Of those, nearly 43 million had smartphones.

While a long way from being a majority, that’s an 18-percent increase over October’s figures, and consumer-observation firm Nielsen (Nielsen.com) expects smartphones to catch up and take the lead by the end of 2011. I’m not convinced of that, but given the trend line, anything is possible.

Another report from Forrester Research (forrester.com) found that fully 17 percent of adults used smartphones by November of last year. Among doctors, traditionally some of the last consumers to embrace computer gadgetry, 64 percent now own smartphones, and that number is expected to climb to 81 percent by 2012, according to Manhattan Research (manhattanresearch.com).

I should pause and point out that, despite the hype, the word “smartphone” doesn’t even have a universal definition. Wikipedia offers perhaps the most unintentionally ironic clarification: “a miniature computer that has phone capability.” For most of us, a phone that has some advanced features like Internet connectivity likely qualifies as a smartphone. If it can get you on Facebook, it’s a smartphone.

It also appears that, for many of us, the smartphone is becoming indispensable. Ringcentral.com (blog.central.com) unscientifically surveyed 400 smartphone business users, who said their smartphone was as important in their lives as having intimate relationships, both at 40 percent. Having morning coffee trailed behind at 17 percent. Just having a smartphone can imperil many intimate relationships. A recent survey by Retrevo (retrevo.com) claims that 7 percent of respondents admitted to checking their phones during sex.

So what do these hordes of users indulge in (aside from making phone calls, presumably)? According to CrowdScience (crowdscience.com), another online research firm, the single biggest use for a smartphone is accessing the Net. Right after that came picture-taking, followed closely by e-mail. Then much further behind came playing music and other functions. It doesn’t mention texting, which may come under the heading of Internet access. E-commerce firms report that Web pages going to smartphones are increasing every month, and although the screens are too small to make buying convenient, some consumers are even purchasing through smartphones.

Ironically, according to J.D. Power and Associates (jdpower.com), call quality has declined as bandwidth is sucked up by all that texting, picture-sharing and Web play, so the one thing you want a phone to do—make and receive calls—is fast becoming its least-effective function.

One last bit from the CrowdSource survey strikes me: 71 percent used their smartphones for both business and personal purposes, 26 percent used them for personal communication only, and only 3 percent used the smartphone exclusively for business.

Which tells me smartphones are mostly toys.

Sure, you can pick up e-mail remotely on a smartphone, and remote e-mail access may be important if you visit your office only to clean the cobwebs and pick up snail mail, but otherwise most e-mail can wait until you slide back in front of a monitor.

Even if you need to be e-mail-tethered while you’re out, the BlackBerry has long made its bones with little more than calendaring, e-mail and voice, and it’s indicative to me that it’s still out in front in the smartphone races even under the intense pressure from Apple’s iPhone. No, I think a great many of us businessfolk may well be carrying smartphones more for the hipster factor than because we’re making any money from them. Surveys indicate that the biggest uptake is with males 25-44, so it may well be cool rather than ROI that’s the attraction.

I don’t want to leave the impression that I’m contemptuous of tools combined with toys. If you can make sales calls driving a Boxster, why not enjoy the drive? Business is all too often overbrimming with dullness, so having a toy that doubles as business gear can relieve some of the tedium and make you feel more connected out in the field. I suggest, however, that you not succumb to the urge to answer those text messages in the middle of sales calls.•


Altom is an independent local technology consultant. His column appears every other week. He can be reached at taltom@ibj.com.


  • Fun vs. Work
    << One last bit from the CrowdSource survey strikes me: 71 percent used their smartphones for both business and personal purposes, 26 percent used them for personal communication only, and only 3 percent used the smartphone exclusively for business.
    Which tells me smartphones are mostly toys.

    If it's for work, work is paying for it and it can be whatever they dictate. If it's personal, that's another story. And I don't receive work calls on my personal phone.

    This seems unrelated, and it's likely to be another discussion, but work cells should be left at work when you're on vacation. There's no need to deal with work when you're away, right? "How do we reach you?" or "call us and let us know your phone number so we call get you if we need to." *cough* *cough* Vacation is supposed to be a break from work, not a "mostly a break" from work.

    My personal cell/phone? I wish there was a way to crack the display. All I need is voice, voicemail, text (my wife is the only one I text with), usually that our dachshund is on the way home from getting supper. Lest anyone worry, I key the message waiting in line at the drive-thru, and hit the [send] button after pulling ahead so the car behind can be serviced. where was I? a directory, perhaps a list of calls (received, missed, called). There aren't enough features exposed to have more than one screen of the little icons, which would make my life simple. ("Make things simple, not simpler." - attributed to many, including Erasmus.)

    I have no need for cameras, games, calculators, and whatever else is there which I don't know about.

    There is one phone-related service which is nice: a phone number which has one purpose: voicemail. Is there a reason you want calling you all hours of the day & night, no matter how well-intentioned? (Who needs long distance, or any other service for that purpose?)



    I can't resist this: everyone names their boxer (dog) "Tyson". If you see someone with a male boxer, "What's his name?", the answer seems to be "Tyson". I've wondered why females couldn't be named "Portia". I realize it's a bit of a stretch for Boxer/Boxster, but it's original...and cute.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Apologies for the wall of text. I promise I had this nicely formatted in paragraphs in Notepad before pasting here.

  2. I believe that is incorrect Sir, the people's tax-dollars are NOT paying for the companies investment. Without the tax-break the company would be paying an ADDITIONAL $11.1 million in taxes ON TOP of their $22.5 Million investment (Building + IT), for a total of $33.6M or a 50% tax rate. Also, the article does not specify what the total taxes were BEFORE the break. Usually such a corporate tax-break is a 'discount' not a 100% wavier of tax obligations. For sake of example lets say the original taxes added up to $30M over 10 years. $12.5M, New Building $10.0M, IT infrastructure $30.0M, Total Taxes (Example Number) == $52.5M ININ's Cost - $1.8M /10 years, Tax Break (Building) - $0.75M /10 years, Tax Break (IT Infrastructure) - $8.6M /2 years, Tax Breaks (against Hiring Commitment: 430 new jobs /2 years) == 11.5M Possible tax breaks. ININ TOTAL COST: $41M Even if you assume a 100% break, change the '30.0M' to '11.5M' and you can see the Company will be paying a minimum of $22.5, out-of-pocket for their capital-investment - NOT the tax-payers. Also note, much of this money is being spent locally in Indiana and it is creating 430 jobs in your city. I admit I'm a little unclear which tax-breaks are allocated to exactly which expenses. Clearly this is all oversimplified but I think we have both made our points! :) Sorry for the long post.

  3. Clearly, there is a lack of a basic understanding of economics. It is not up to the company to decide what to pay its workers. If companies were able to decide how much to pay their workers then why wouldn't they pay everyone minimum wage? Why choose to pay $10 or $14 when they could pay $7? The answer is that companies DO NOT decide how much to pay workers. It is the market that dictates what a worker is worth and how much they should get paid. If Lowe's chooses to pay a call center worker $7 an hour it will not be able to hire anyone for the job, because all those people will work for someone else paying the market rate of $10-$14 an hour. This forces Lowes to pay its workers that much. Not because it wants to pay them that much out of the goodness of their heart, but because it has to pay them that much in order to stay competitive and attract good workers.

  4. GOOD DAY to you I am Mr Howell Henry, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance. Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills? i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to reliable individuals. Services Rendered include: *Refinance *Home Improvement *Inventor Loans *Auto Loans *Debt Consolidation *Horse Loans *Line of Credit *Second Mortgage *Business Loans *Personal Loans *International Loans. Please write back if interested. Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail howellhenryloanfirm@gmail.com Yours Sincerely MR Howell Henry(MD)

  5. It is sad to see these races not have a full attendance. The Indy Car races are so much more exciting than Nascar. It seems to me the commenters here are still a little upset with Tony George from a move he made 20 years ago. It was his decision to make, not yours. He lost his position over it. But I believe the problem in all pro sports is the escalating price of admission. In todays economy, people have to pay much more for food and gas. The average fan cannot attend many events anymore. It's gotten priced out of most peoples budgets.