Smartphone uSage among ut StudentS and intent to buy among non uSerS

Kelly Coonan | Matthew Fisher Darien Femal | Kristin Heath

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Situation AnalysisIndustry History 2Consumer 3Products 4Competition 6SWOT 7Conclusion 7

Quantitative ResearchObjective 8Data Collection 8Sample 9Results 9Key Findings 11

Qualitative ResearchQuestions 12Methods 12Indices 13Correlations 14Analysis 15Reccomendations 16Limits and Further Research 17

Situational Analysis Executive SummaryGroup 14’s goal was to investigate UT students’ smartphone awareness, usage and intent to

buy. We conducted our investigation through both quantitative and qualitative measures.

To begin our research deductively we started with a focus group that provided us key qualita-tive insights to UT students’ minds regarding smartphones. We used the key findings in our focus group to create a quantitative survey to examine those findings further. The data analysis of that survey’s results helped us develop the following recommendations for smart phone manufacturers.

Our survey questions are designed to measure smart phone’s ease of use. We modified questions from “A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use measurement” by Girash Subramanian by replacing all references to voicemail’s ease of use with a smart phone’s ease of use. Additionally, we added a survey question regarding the importance of a smart phone’s ease of use related to a person’s intent to buy. Answering part of our original research question, regarding UT students’ awareness, usage and intent to buy. The design of this question closely followed The Theory of Planned Behavior.

These questions have face validity because they accurately measure the different aspects of ease of use. We have also identified criterion validity in our questions since the scores of our mea-sure are already validated by a measure of the same phenomenon. In fact, this measurement has been replicated in other studies with little variance, confirming its validity. Our index also covers the full range of the concept’s meaning, providing Group 14’s measures with content validity. The alpha as reported by Subramanian is .9027, indicates that these questions can reliably measure ease of use.

• Phone developers should use easy OS programming language and easy to use SDKs (soft ware development kits).

• Smart phone manufacturers should promote the simplicity of using their particular apps. • Smartphone manufacturers should promote and develop beneficial functions for their de-

vices to overcome the smart phones’ high price setback.

By reading our analysis and implementing our suggestions, smart phone manufacturers will have a better and more accurate understanding of smart phone awareness, usage and intent to buy among UT students.

Industry HistoryThe Smartphone industry is constantly

changing and has been since the first Smartphone was introduced in 1992. When the market was first introduced the definition of a Smartphone was not exactly what consumers might picture today. The first Smartphone introduced by IBM in 1992 was the Simon fea-turing a calendar, address book, world clock, calculator, notepad,

e-mail, games, and the ability to send and re-ceive faxes (“Smartphone : History.”). Although the Simon was the first noted Smartphone to be produced, the Nokia Communicator, released in 1996, was the first Smartphone to feature an open operating system (“Smartphone : History.”). Unfortunately, unwillingness of the public to pay a premium for these new products made it difficult for the smartphone industry to take off.

Years later the idea of third party applica-tions came into play. In 2001, the Palm OS Treo was released featuring wireless Internet, email and a contact organizer (Robers , “The History of

The Smartphone.”). This resulted in a trend that not only sparked the pub-lic’s eye, but would also redefine the concept of a smartphone. Despite the peak in interest, the market for smartphones was slim

and limited in scope. It was not until Blackberry launched that smartphones finally reached a

wider market, although it was still confined to mostly business ex-ecutives. However, Blackberry paved the way for all future Smartphone and their providers.

The most recent addition to the Smartphone family is the Apple iPhone, released in 2007. With its modern look and touch-screen for making web browsing easier, the iPhone proved to be very appealing to Smartphone consumers. With the iPhone’s ease of web browsing and Internet access, the popularity of third party apps began to rise. These app developers have harnessed cloud-computing ability, and have forever changed the way we view the mobile market.

Rise of the CloudThe latest trend in Internet technology is

the rise of cloud computing. Cloud computing can most accurately be defined as the mainframe storage of information and the utilization of web-based applications (Knorr). This latest trend in internet usage has really helped in developing the mobile market because people can now access their information and applications from anywhere simply through the internet. This cloud comput-ing is what has given apps the traction to develop and find success. Software developers no longer have to create applications specifically geared to any particular mobile OS but can build an app in the cloud and any phone can have access

21

Situational Analysisthrough the Internet.

The ConsumerDemographics

The smartphone market is very pervasive with variations in all shapes and sizes with vary-ing uses and applications. These smartphones are marketed in several manners, which suggests that the target market includes everyone from business executives to technology enthusiasts and millenials. The common thread between all of these targets is that they (or their parents) earn enough to cover the monthly $100 bill. Because owners must be able to afford the bill, the ma-jority of smartphone owners tend to be wealthy males, as shown below by Figure 1.

Although the smartphone industry previ-ously marketed their products for business use,

research shows that there is a fast growing mar-ket for personal use of these devices. As con-sumers find themselves living a more on-the-go lifestyle, they require a computer in their pocket and smartphones fulfill this need. These users also tend to occupy their down time with social networking, streaming videos and interactive game applications on their smartphones.

Another rapidly growing demographic for smartphone users is composed of high school and college students. The Iphone is enjoying high success in this market due to high ad pen-etration aimed directly towards teens and young adults. This demographic is likely to have par-ents who are paying for their phone bills. We found that parents are more willing to cover these costs because schools and universities are find-ing innovative ways to integrate this technology into the education sector of student’s lives.

Lifestyles and TastesOf those using mobile Internet, the top

three uses are e-mail, social networking, and news/current events, which can also be con-sidered entertainment for some (EBSCOhost). Because mobile phones have become a part of everyday life, consumers are relying on devices to make life more convenient and information readily available. Due to this increase in depen-dence, smartphone use has been rapidly increas-ing: in September 2009, only 19% of people used smartphones, today 31% of the population uses a smartphone (EBSCOhost).

Smartphone Products With numerous smartphone models be-

ing debuted each year, it is difficult to single out notable devices. Instead we will focus on the various operating systems (OS) on the market. Competitors in the U.S. market include Android OS, Apple IOS, Symbian OS, Linux, Research in Motion (RIM)’s Blackberry OS, Palm OS and Microsoft Window’s Mobile.

When comparing the market share of the operating systems, there are two factors to look at, all smartphone service subscribers and recent (within 6 months) acquirers. The former tells us about the OS distribution among all smartphone users, while the latter gives us insight into sales and the future distribution of all smartphone ser-vice subscribers. These trends are illustrated in Figure 2 and 3 (Nielson Wire).

Over the past years, the Blackberry OS has held the largest market share of all subscrib-ers with the Apple IOS steadily increasing to claim the second largest share. Windows Mobile, on the other hand has shown a significant de-crease in market share from its 2nd place share in the second quarter of 2009. Android OS has shown a remarkable increase from holding only 2% of the market a year ago, to its 13% share in the past quarter (Lovison). The remaining op-erating systems can only now claim 2-3% of the market.

Android’s gains are even more impres-

sive when looked at by purchases in the past

six months. In fact, the system recently over-

took IOS for second place in devices acquired.

Though Blackberry’s share has been rapidly

declining, they still have the largest share of six-

month recent acquirers. Windows Mobile takes

the fourth largest share with the remaining sys-

tems again only taking a 2-3% share (Frommer).

Android

The dramatic increase in the Android’s market share is attributed largely to its avail-ability on all carriers. Whereas Apple OS is only available on the AT&T iPhone, Android is an open-face operat-ing system, meaning it can be used on multiple devices made by different cell phone manufac-turers and available on all net-works. Additionally, the system is dynamic, allowing phone manufacturers to alter the appearance of the system. This means that

Situational Analysis

3 4

FIGURE 1

many different looking phones can enter the mar-ket while all operating on Android. Lastly, Android Market, while not yet as vast as Apples App Store carries many great apps not available on the App Store due to Apples subjective policies. This leaves potential for Android to grow in the future.

Blackberry OS Like Android, Blackberry OS is sold on

all networks. However, all Blackberry phones are manufactured by RIM, who partners with the car-riers to make various phones. Blackberry phones have long been thought of as business tools, as they evolved from an e-mail sending device.

Situational AnalysisToday though, around 80% of new subscribers are not in business (Hempel). Blackberry has achieved these numbers by targeting phone mod-els towards heavy social media users (especially

teens and tweens). Though Blackberry has caught up to other platforms by develop-ing a store for applications, its store pales in comparison to Apple’s. This acts as a

weakness as apps become an increasingly inte-gral part of the smartphone experience.

Apple IOS Apple’s IOS is used on iTouches and

iPads, but the only smartphone utilizing the OS are the various generations of iPhones which are only available through AT&T. Advantages of the iPhone include a much favored interface and mo-bile browser (Snell, 2010). Though many have attempted to copy the iPhone’s interface, Apple has successfully created brand loyalty among its users allowing them to retain customers and attract new ones through word of mouth. The iPhone’s App Store serves as both an advantage and a disadvantage. While the iPhone currently offers a larger selection of Apps, Apple has come under fire for its rejection policy, which reserves the right of Apple to reject an app for any reason without disclosure. Additionally, con-troversy has surrounded Apple regarding its refusal to integrate flash or even allow flash apps (Snell, 2010).

Situational Analysis

65

CompetitionSmart phones established a new mar-

ket for people needing Internet access on the go. This carved out an entirely new industry for mobile Internet access. Although smartphones are in a category all by themselves there are still technologies that exist offering many of the same capabilities as smart phones. Desktops, laptops, netbooks and tablets all offer wireless Internet accessing abilities but none of them can fit into your pocket. The most appealing feature of the smart phone is its ease of transportation; you can literally take it everywhere you go with absolutely no hassle.

However, smart phones are not perfect, users often complain of the small screen size being difficult to effectively and efficiently do in depth searches and discoveries. This is why smart phones are seen as a complementary technology to user’s already existing stationary Internet device. People are not ready to convert completely to a mobile society, which inherently seems impossible due to the size of these de-vices. Consumers need both technologies to comfortably search the web; stationary devices for in depth research and smart phones for on the go look-ups. In conclusion, these technologies do not necessarily threaten or compete with each other but rather smart phones complement them to more effectively cater their user’s needs.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

Qualitative Research

Research ObjectivesThe focus group was conducted to gain

insight on the relationship between UT students and smartphones on the levels of dependency, how they used their phone, brand loyalty, and future purchasing factors.

Data Collection ProcedureThe focus group was held September 23,

2010 at the Piazza Navona apartments in West Campus, 6:30 PM. Participants were asked to partake in the focus group being told that snacks and beverages would be provided. Upon their arrival, the contributors were handed a consent form letting them know how they would be filmed for educational purposes. They were then asked to help themselves to snacks and beverages or take a seat on any of the couches or chairs that were provided within the circle. While partici-pants were in the process of doing this, group members were setting up the video camera and their laptops outside of the circle to take notes.

Once everyone was situated, the modera-tor sat in the middle of the circle and had every-one introduce themselves so they would feel more comfortable with the situation. He then in-troduced himself (we chose a man because more than half of the group was male) and proceeded to explain the subject and procedures that were to be done within the focus group. As the mod-erator started to ask questions from the script the group was unresponsive; as time went on and topics of concern came up an open discussion

ensued. Members of the focus group chimed in with their own stories, feelings, and opinions which lead the conversation to be off topic at times; when the moderator saw this they made sure to redirect it so as to not waste time. Both users and non-users of smartphones had their input, but it seemed as though the smartphone users were much more talkative; the moderator made sure to ask questions to certain people, mainly the non-users, when it seemed like they were not contributing enough.

Within five minutes of the discussion the video camera stopped working and the discus-sion was paused to see if one of the research members was able to get it to work but to no avail. One participant suggested recording the focus group from his smartphone; the group ended up helping set up a voice recording on one of the research group members’ laptop and made sure the sound was good enough to hear. An ob-servation that was made early on by the research group members was that participants not only had their cell phones in their laps or hands the whole time, but were even texting before, during, and after the discussion.

The moderator ended the discussion by clarifying why the focus group was held and asking the participants if they had any other questions or things that they would like to share with the group. When none of the participants responded the moderator requested that they complete an optional exit survey that they were to fill out, but explained that they were not obligated if they did not wish to do so. The moderator

Situational Analysis

Strengths1. Convenient2. Always connected3. New Ways to communicate4. Telecommuting5. Apps for anything6. GPS7. Available to anyone8. Easily customizable9. New entertainment outlets10. Consolidates devices

Weaknesses1. Expensive data plans2. Slower than computers3. Hard to read text on screen4. Unreliable networks5. Users can become addicted6. Cash drain for manufacturers7. Learning curve for some users

Opportunities1. Profit for service providers2. New business opportunities 3. Break down barriers between time and

space4. Further consolidate devices5. Further global expansion6. Differentiate aesthetics to appeal to differ-

ent markets

Threats1. Security/Privacy concerns2. Collapse of face-to-face reality3. Moore’s Law4. Technology plateuing5. Network blackouts6. Difficult to enforce regulations7. FCC regulations

ConclusionsBased on our SWOT analysis, we con-

cluded that consolidation and convenience are the major strengths of smartphones. Because smart-phones allow users to do so much, mp3 players, digital cameras, and other devices are not neces-sary. This is extremely efficient and convenient for modern consumers. Despite the many needs smartphones serve, the monthly data plans re-quired with purchase act as a deterrent for many consumers. Additionally, unreliable 3G networks have been a common complaint among users.

With the popularity of smartphones, other opportunities have arisen, most notably the market for third party apps. These apps create endless uses for the smartphones, while provid-ing a stream of income for phone companies and developers. However, with the convenience that constant accessibility brings, privacy and security become compromised. Applications can access and possibly exploit information that users may believe is private. Geo-location applications such as Foursquare, Gowalla and Facebook Places can give criminals access to the location of users, which has created security threats.

7 8

SWOT Analysis

Qualitative Researchthen took up the surveys and, with the rest of the research group, thanked everyone for taking time out of their day to be an active part of the focus group.

Sample

Because neither the means nor the funds to select a random sample of University of Texas (UT) students were available, a convenience sample was used to obtain participants for the focus group. Group members invited friends through a Facebook event, created the Tuesday before the focus group was held, and text mes-saged friends pleading them to attend. Securing participants with such short notice was difficult with many people having conflicts, but in the end ten people attended; the only requirements being ownership of a cell phone, student status at UT, and availability during the time of the focus group.

Our sample consisted of eight males and two females. However, the females in our group did not seem intimidated by this and seemed to participate equally. Two members of the group (both male) were somewhat cut off from the circle due to limited space and were noticeably less vo-cal. Additionally, it seemed that participants who were familiar with the apartment contributed more to the conversation.

According to the exit survey in which all of the participants took, nine of our participants were white and one was black. They ranged in age from 18 to 20 years old, with the mean age of 19.3 and the median age of 19.5. Nine par-ticipants reported that their cell phone bill was

paid entirely by their parents with one stating that his is paid for by “me/my daddy”. Six of the participants owned smartphones, five of which were various versions of the iPhone. The sixth smartphone user owned a HTC Fuze. None of the non-users reported a model even though the survey specifically requested it. Instead, their responses including the makers of his/her cell phone with “Samsung, LG, Motorola, and ‘no idea’” being some of the answers.

Results

An important observation found was that everyone feels disconnected to the rest of the social world without his or her phone. One of the participants explained, “Losing your phone is the one of the worst things ever, you don’t have it and you don’t know where it is, simply help-less”. One participant’s phone was out of battery coming into the meeting and asked to borrow an iPhone charger so she would be able to charge it; she then continued to text throughout the rest of the discussion. Another participant even went as far to say that their phone was their only way of knowing what time it was besides the clock tower on the UT campus.

To gain further insight the moderator asked how the participants felt when they dropped their phone. A man gave a rather comical response, he felt like he had dropped his child when this happened (he was a smartphone user). An interesting thing to note was non-users did not seem to mind as much when they dropped their phones. One even called their feature phone, “a piece of shit”. All participants explained the trou-

10

Qualitative Researchbles of having to get a new phone after breaking or losing their devices, hating the disconnected feeling it brought in the process.

Another interesting find was that even though all the smartphones have fun and innova-tive apps, the number one usage of the phone was for texting. When asked about the lack of keys a feature phone provides, all the iPhone users said they acclimated to the change and explained how the fastest texter in the world used “swipe technology” on a smartphone. Partici-pants then began to debate on the usefulness of T9 texting.

Every smartphone user admitted to pull-ing out their devices during their down time. One iPhone user said, “Anytime I’m bored, I slide it open to see what’s going on”. The HTC user responded immediately, “You’re always playing that stupid game [Angry Birds]”. Another smart-phone user chimed in, “I’m going to download it right now.” HTC user refutes, “But its 99 cents”. The Angry Birds player concludes, “It is worth the 99 cents”; making the smartphone a good way to easily pass time. The smartphone users also mentioned liking the convenience of having their media player, GPS and phone consolidated into one device.

All iPhone users were found to be more brand loyal than those who were not iPhone us-ers (smartphone and non-smartphone). Much of the focus group believed that Apple was a leader in smartphones, design and functionality, as well as other technology and that the business model

is shifting from Blackberry to Apple. When asked what phone the focus group members would get when they were able to get a new one, most said the iPhone, one even joked, “the iPhone 5”. The reasons being: ease of use, “it looks cool”, the interface is faster, and messaging is faster as well. Although one participant did mention he might switch to Android because of their relaxed App regulations.

The moderator asked the group how they felt email communication was speeding up with the implementation of the smartphones. Smart-phone owners enjoyed the convenience of hav-ing email in their pockets but non-owners felt obligated to get to their computers to check their email regularly. A user said that now they expect email responses within a few hours compared to the couple of days that was expected a few years ago. Another participant said, “Just another example of how dependent we are on them, if my emails build up they will be ignored so I handle them as I receive them”.

Next, the moderator tried to discover the attitude non-users had towards the smartphone. A feature phone owner said, “It would be cool to have one, but it’s not necessary” but on the other hand, a smartphone owner responded, “after having a smartphone I could never see myself without one”. When asked if non-smartphone users felt out of the loop they all agreed that they felt just as social without the technology. After more talk about apps a non-smartphone user said that it makes her feel sad about how much she is missing out. The moderator then tried to

9

Qualitative Researchfigure out what was the resistance to upgrading and they all commented on the price. One user said they wanted to upgrade when it was avail-able but were scared to ask their parents to cover the monthly data plans.

The final topic was the privacy issues sur-rounding smartphones. Every single participant was unaware of geolocation on the iPhone cam-era. None of the participants used Foursquare or Facebook Places, two applications that allow others to see where you are. One participant referred to Big Brother from 1984, but all the other participants shot the idea down and said you can-not be worried since there is nothing you can do.

Summary of Key FindingsAfter reviewing the group’s notes, there

were a few main points that kept coming up about smartphones. The most important fact to note is that the reason the non-smartphone users did not have an internet-accessing device was because of the price. They continually commented on the expensive data plans and how their parents re-fused to pay for them. They all wanted the tech-nology but simply could not afford it.

Another finding was that among all the par-ticipants, texting was still the number one phone function; explaining why non-smartphone users are not out of the loop yet. Non-smartphone own-ers said they felt just as social but research says otherwise. Smartphone owners are constantly connected to Facebook and email; something feature phone owners cannot do. One participant

noted they could see feature phones eventually being washed out of the market and the number one phone function may change to something requiring internet such as a video chat.

Something that the group found interesting was that the feature phone users did not know what they were missing. After hearing about some of the smartphone features, some of them were saddened about their current device. All the smartphone owners said they could never go back after experiencing the convenience. This points out how dependent the smartphone users are now on the new capabilities. Every user, how-ever, said they felt lost and disconnected when they did not have their phone, regardless of each phone’s capabilities.

The final point was on the issue of brand loyalty. Five of the six smartphone owners owned an iPhone and almost all of them said they would stick with Apple for their next purchase, but the feature phone owners could care less about their brand. On average, smartphone users spend more time on their phones than feature phone us-ers do. They have not developed that emotional tie with their phone makers because it has not fully integrated itself into their lives.

Quantitative ResearchSurvey Questions

Our survey questions are designed to measure smart phone’s ease of use. We modified questions from “A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use measurement” by Girash Subramanian by replacing all references to voicemail’s ease of use with a smart phone’s ease of use. Additionally, we added a survey question regarding the importance of a smart phone’s ease of use related to a person’s intent to buy. Answering part of our original research question, regarding UT students’ awareness, usage and intent to buy. The design of this question closely followed The Theory of Planned Behavior.

These questions have face validity because they accurately measure the different aspects of ease of use. We have also identified criterion validity in our questions since the scores of our mea-sure are already validated by a measure of the same phenomenon. In fact, this measurement has been replicated in other studies with little variance, confirming its validity. Our index also covers the full range of the concept’s meaning, providing Group 14’s measures with content validity. The alpha as reported by Subramanian is .9027, indicates that these questions can reliably measure ease of use.

We used a seven point scale for our questions ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. The following questions were asked:

1. Learning to operate my smartphone was easy for me2. I find smartphones easy to interact with3. It was easy for me to become skillful at navigating my smartphone4. I find smartphones easy to use5. My friends and family find it easy to use smartphones

Sampling and Method for Survey ResearchGroup 14 choose to create a Facebook event on November 7, 2010 where each member

invited fellow college students, their friends, to participate in a survey. Facebook was chosen because Group 14 believed that Facebook was the best and fastest way to communicate with college stu-dents.

Survey responses started the day the Facebook event was created and ended on November 9, 2010. Group 14 had 243 respondents, but not all surveys were fully completed. Group 14 then sorted through the data to find the most important results.

1211

Quantitative ResearchQ

uest

ion

Mea

n SD

Lear

ning

to o

pera

te m

y sm

artp

hone

was

eas

y fo

r me

5.83

1.25

I find

sm

artp

hone

s ea

sy to

inte

ract

with

5.87

1.15

It w

as e

asy

for m

e to

bec

ome

skillf

ul a

t nav

igat

ing

my

smar

tpho

ne5.

941.

14I fi

nd s

mar

tpho

nes

easy

to u

se5.

851.

14

I am

ver

y co

ncer

ned

abou

t low

pric

e an

d am

equ

ally

con

cern

ed a

bout

pr

oduc

t qua

lity.

3.86

.98

Whe

n sh

oppi

ng, I

com

pare

pric

es o

f diff

eren

t bra

nds

to b

e su

re I

can

get t

he b

est v

alue

for m

y m

oney

3.83

.98

I gen

eral

ly s

hop

arou

nd fo

r low

er p

rices

, but

they

stil

l mus

t mee

t cer

tain

qu

ality

requ

irem

ents

bef

ore

I will

buy

them

.4.

05.8

7

Whe

n pu

rcha

sing

a p

rodu

ct, I

alw

ays

try to

max

imiz

e th

e qu

ality

I g

et

for t

he m

oney

I sp

end.

4.27

.67

Whe

n I b

uy p

rodu

cts,

I lik

e to

be

sure

that

I am

get

ting

my

mon

ey’s

w

orth

.4.

4.7

I alw

ays

chec

k pr

ices

at t

he g

roce

ry s

tore

to b

e su

re I

get t

he b

est

valu

e fo

r the

mon

ey I

spen

d.3.

531.

26

Gen

eral

ly s

peak

ing,

the

high

er th

e pr

ice

of a

pro

duct

, the

hig

her t

he

qual

ity.

3.34

.94

The

old

sayi

ng “y

ou g

et w

hat y

ou p

ay fo

r” is

gen

eral

ly tr

ue.

3.67

.76

The

pric

e of

a p

rodu

ct is

a g

ood

indi

cato

r of i

ts q

ualit

y.3.

3.9

2I g

ener

ally

sho

p ar

ound

for l

ower

pric

es, b

ut th

ey s

till m

ust m

eet c

erta

in

qual

ity re

quire

men

ts b

efor

e I w

ill bu

y th

em.

3.73

.9

This

is a

n ho

nest

sm

artp

hone

4.79

1.23

This

sm

artp

hone

is s

afe

4.86

1.24

I rel

y on

my

smar

tpho

ne5.

771.

52I t

rust

my

smar

tpho

ne5.

481.

39

I will

buy

my

smar

tpho

ne th

e ne

xt ti

me

I buy

a s

mar

tpho

ne4.

332.

02I i

nten

d to

kee

p pu

rcha

sing

this

sam

e sm

artp

hone

4.62

2.06

I am

com

mitt

ed to

my

smar

tpho

ne4.

652.

08I w

ould

be

willi

ng to

pay

a h

ighe

r pric

e fo

r my

bran

d of

sm

artp

hone

ove

r ot

her b

rand

s of

sm

artp

hone

s4.

61.

85

Ease

of U

se: 7

pt s

cale

Rel

iabi

lity:

.94

Valu

eC

onsc

ious

ness

: 5 p

t sca

leR

elia

bilit

y: .7

5

Pric

e/Q

ualit

ySc

hem

a: 5

pt s

cale

Rel

iabi

lity:

.81

Bran

d Tr

ust:

7 pt

sca

leR

elia

bilit

y: .7

3

Purc

hase

Loy

alty

: 7 p

t sca

leR

elia

bilit

y: .7

5

Bran

d C

omm

itmen

t: 7

pt s

cale

Rel

iabi

lity:

.83

Indices

Quantitative Research

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

12 -.11; .23 .04; .6 -.08; .364 .16; .07 0; .99 0; 15 .2; .02 -.02; .78 -.03; .75 .19; .026 .44; 0 -.07; .4 .24; 0 .25; 0 .4; 07 .04; .67 -.04; .61 .11; .2 .12; .15 .18; .04 .12; .158 -.52; 0 .09; .32 0; .96 -.29; 0 -.24; 0 -.48; 0 -.08; .369 .05; .61 .06; .49 -.16; .08 -.01; .95 -.02; .84 -.01; .9 .05; .55 .01; .910 .49; 0 -.03; .74 .08; .32 .27; 0 .34; 0 .5; 0 .19; .02 -.55; 0 .02; .08

Correlations and Alphas

Correlation; Alpha

Items1. Ease of Use2. Value Consciousness3. Price / Quality Schema4. Purchase Loyalty5. Brand Committment6. Brand Trust7. Parent Education8. How often do you use your smartphone to read emails?9. How often do you use your smartphone during idle time?10. How many apps do you have on your phone?

13 14

RecommendationsPhone developers should use easy OS programming language and easy to use SDKs (soft-

ware development kits). The easier it is for app developers to make apps the more applications will be in their app mar-

ketplace. According to our survey results, there was a strong correlation between ease of use and app usage. As ease of use increased so did the number of apps on their phone. Smart phone devel-opers want to increase the number of apps in their app store in order to make their phone appeal as the most easy and attractive to use. A large deciding factor in purchasing new smart phones is the number of apps available in the app store. Respondents want a device that will be easy to operate.

Smart phone manufacturers should promote the simplicity of using their particular apps. Our results showed that when respondents found their phone easy to operate the more they

trusted their brand of phone. Brand trust is one of the key factors in the repurchasing process. When more and more people repurchase the same brand, that brand significantly increases the amount of brand exposure and establishes itself as a market leader.

Smartphone manufacturers should promote and develop beneficial functions for their devices to overcome the smart phones’ high price setback.

In the focus group, those who did not have a Smartphone agreed that cost was their biggest issue and if they could afford one then they would purchase one. To take the focus off price, smart phone manufacturers should focus on developing new easy navigations and explain the convenience of using their devices.

16

Data AnalysisGroup 14 selected “Ease of Use” as our

index and chose different group’s indices based on what looked to significantly correlate. We sought items we believed would fluctuate due to an increase in ease of use. The following indices are from other groups, “Value Consciousness”, “Price/Quality Schema”, “Brand Trust”, “Purchase Loyalty”, and “Brand Commitment.” Value Con-sciousness seeks to determine whether or not consumers are worried about the price of the product relative to its usage value. Price/Quality Schema measures the consumer’s perception of the relationship between price and quality. Brand Trust seeks to measure how much stronger of a trust relationship the consumer has with their device. Purchase Loyalty measures how com-mitted consumers are to buying the same brand of smart phone. Brand Commitment depicts the consumers’ willingness to overpay simply for a specific brand.

The indices reliabilities were all above .75 indicating that indices’ questions were consis-tent and had both face and criterion validity. The most notable information derived from the means table was the lack of extreme answers. The aver-ages fell right in the middle of the answer spec-trum showing no heavy bias either way.

Group 14 ran the correlations to inves-

tigate the relationship between our index and other relevant indices to determine if there was statistical evidence between ease of use and the other indices. We found a number of significant correlations. Surprisingly, many of their alphas were 0, which means there no possibility that the

results were due to chance. The strongest corre-lation our group found was between ease of use and app usage. We found that as ease of use increases so does the number of apps on one’s phone. This correlation is relevant for app devel-opers, indicating that they should develop more easy to use apps. The alpha for this correlation was 0, therefore the correlation was statistically significant

The other important correlation that stuck out to us was the relationship between ease of use and brand trust. The easier the respondent felt they could use their device the most they trusted the brand. This was a particularly inter-esting correlation because it provides insight that developers should concentrate on ease of use. These results matched our expectations in ac-cordance with direction and strength; however, there were some items we expected to correlate but did not.

For instance, we expected to see a signifi-cant negative relationship between ease of use and value consciousness as well as a positive relationship with price/quality schema. We ex-pected to see if ease of use increased then the consumer’s value consciousness would decrease simply because they cared solely about the ease of use for the device. We also expected that the ease of use would predict an increase in the price/quality schema because the best devices would be the easiest to use and buyers would expect to pay a little bit more.

15

Limitations & Further Research AppendixSources:

Aaker, David A California Management Review; Spring 1996; 38, 3; ABI/INFORM Global: 102

“Android Soars, but IPhone Still Most Desired as Smartphones Grab 25% of U.S. Mobile Market | Nielsen Wire.” Nielson Wire. 2 Aug. 2010. Web. 18 Sept. 2010. <http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/android-soars-but-iphone-still-most-desired assmartphones-grab-25-of-u-s-mobile-market/>.

Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris B. Holbrook. “The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty” The Journal of Marketing. Vol. 65, No. 2. Apr. 2001: 81-93. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3203382>

Frommer, Dan. “Pressure on BlackBerry, Google, Microsoft to Catch Apple - Advertising Age - Digital.” Advertising Age - Ad & Marketing Industry News. 18 Mar. 2009. Web. 18 Sept. 2010. <http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=135325>.

Hempel, Jessi. “HOW BLACKBERRY DOES IT.” Fortune 31 Aug. 2009. Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 Sept. 2010.

Knorr, By Eric. “What Cloud Computing Really Means | Cloud Computing - InfoWorld.” Business Technology, IT News, Product Reviews and Enterprise IT Strategies - InfoWorld. Web. 20 Sept. 2010. <http://www.infoworld.com/d/cloud-computing/what-cloud-computing-really-means-031>.

Lichtenstein, Donald R., Nancy M. Ridgway, and Richard G. Netemeyer. “Price Perceptions and Con-sumer Shopping Behavior: A Field Study”. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, No. 2 (May, 1993): 234-45 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3172830>

Lovison, Josh. “Three Reasons Android Could Terminate Apple - Advertising Age - DigitalNext.” Ad-vertising Age - Ad & Marketing Industry News. 1 Oct. 2009. Web. 18 Sept. 2010. <http://ad-age.com/digitalnext/post?article_id=139414>.

Purcell, Kristen, Roger Etner, and Nicole Henderson. “The Rise of Apps Culture | Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.” Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. 14 Sept. 2010. Web. 07 Dec. 2010. <http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/The-Rise-of-Apps-Culture.aspx>.

“Report: In-depth News for Smartphones” Digital Media Test Kitchen. Summer 2010.<http://testkitch-en.colorado.edu/projects/reports/smartphone/smartphone-appendix1/>

Limitations of Current ResearchThere were many limitations to the current research to have it be generalized to the larger

population. The time limit given for research (less than a semester), was detrimental to our findings in many ways. First, a convenience sample was used so that we could acquire data in time and move on with the rest of the project. This also led to the small sample size that we had, about 243 people, which can hardly be generalized to about 40,000 people.

Another limitation was that we were unable to work closely with other groups on the survey which gave us trouble in coming up with correlations and relationships to other questions asked. The other limitation in the survey research would be the attention span of college students and their inabil-ity to take a long survey; more than likely this led to unreliable answers being posted.

Future ResearchTo locate causation between smartphone usage and UT students there are quite a few things

that could be done. One resolution would be to hold more focus groups with a well proportioned amount of people who own smartphones and feature phones as well as on the male and female scale.

It would also be a good idea to create a survey that does not assume everyone that is taking it owns a smartphone. If need be two surveys should be made, one for smartphone users, the other for non-users. These surveys should also be taken in a more formal setting; the participants will feel more pressure to take their time to answer the questions rather than racing through the survey to fin-ish it.

17

AppendixRobers, Don. “The History of The Smartphone.” Sooper Articles - Submit Articles - Free Ezine Ar-

ticles Directory. Web. 19 Sept. 2010. <http://www.sooperarticles.com/communications-articles/mobile-cell-phones-articles/history-smartphone-24602.html>.

“Smartphone Application Market Trends and Figures 2010-2013.” EBSCOhost. 5 May 2010. Web. 20 Sept. 2010. <http://web.ebscohost.com/src/detail?vid=1&hid=104&sid=9fb68b5d-7f1f-480c95a7a72518e6c72c@sessionmgr111&bdata=JnNpdGU9c3JjLWxpdmU=#db=nfh&AN=16PU704239862>.

“Smartphone Survey Report”. Center for Realtor Technology. Jan 2010. < http://www.realtor.org/wps/wcm/connect/c03d6e0041a0ba009215ffa3819af93a/smartphonesurveyreport.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=c03d6e0041a0ba009215ffa3819af93a>

Snell, Jason. “Apple’s App Store Guidelines Go Deeper than Adobe | Mobile | Mac Word | Macworld.” Apple, Mac, IPhone, IPad, and IPod Reviews, Help, Tips, and News | Macworld.” 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 19 Sept. 2010. <http://www.macworld.com/article/153993/2010/09/app_store_guidelines.html>.

“Spring Change Assessment Survey 2010” Princeton Survey Research Associates International for the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. 4 Jun 2010.

Standards, By Today’s. “Smartphone : History.” 1000s of Museums Online : MuseumStuff.com. Web. 20 Sept. 2010. <http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/smartphone::sub::History>.

Subramanian, Girish H. “A Replication of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use Measure-ment” Decision Sciences. Sep-Dec 1994.