It used to be that mobile phone networks were scared of being nothing more than pipes for data and calls, so they added extra features to make them portals rather than pipes. But the increasing number of smartphones coming to market mean they now have another approach to ward off this fear – the added value on top of the Operating System to make the network version of a popular handset 'better' than the stock factory model. But in the process, this creates a handset that's not what the end-user expects, creates user interface discrepancies, and frustrates their own customers as to the capabilities of the device they see talked about online, and the one in their hand. Have the networks forgetten how to balance their needs with the needs of the users​?

There's very little sign that the networks are becoming more amenable to the needs of hackers and tinkerers. The US networks are having a field day with Android and the ability to not only pre-install wallpapers, desktops and applications, but also in ensuring that the applications cannot be uninstalled from the smartphone.

It's a situation that Symbian users in the US (stop laughing, they do exist!) may remember from the E62, where the networking capabilities were restricted to ensure that the network was used (and the consumer paid) to get online. Look on any network that carries a smartphone and you will see both restrictions and little tweaks put in place that help the network in some way and restrict the user in others.

Of course there is a way around this – buy your handsets unlocked if at all possible, and go for a SIM only contract. The problem with that is very few people are comfortable paying the full cost of the handset up front, preferring to hide the true cost of ownership in higher monthly line rentals.

If that's the case, then should you be complaining that, as part of the “finance package”, the network will have its own caveats, be it branding of the home screen, third party applications, or trading your views on display advertising? Networks are businesses, and the first rule of business is to make money. Subsidised handsets lock people into a long term contract, and that means fixed and predictable incomes; it provides opportunities to engage and up-sell with the end-users.

We here at AAS are fully expecting a Symbian^3 handset to be picked up by a US network, and one of the first things I'm going to look at is how much it differs from the stock Symbian^3 implementation we are seeing now on the released N8 and C7 units. It's unlikely, given the power that the networks have in the US market, to be a clean implementation of the OS – but how far will they go in the quest to maximise revenue? And how much of an impact will that have on the user experience? Nokia need a solid launch of their smartphone platform, and so far they are on track, but as we've discussed before, the American market has a much bigger PR influence than the global sales percentage suggests that they should have.

I would agree that the balance between network operator and their customers is a very careful balancing act and that as smartphone platforms become more open in their code, and thus easier to adapt to increase the ARPU of a user, the networks could very easily overstep the mark in 2011. Users need the freedom to explore and tinker with their device. I do think that the average smartphone buyer will accept a little bit of 'interference' from the networks in their handset, but not to the extent seen previously. The question is whether networks, who are feeling the effects of the economy as much as any other company, will go with a more hands off approach to try and keep customers engaged with them, or whether they decide to maximise their revenue and rely on longer 24 month contracts and acquiring new subscribers to keep the bottom line fresh.

Like any hacker, I'd prefer the former, but I'm watching carefully to see what choice is made.

Ewan Spence, AAS