steinar kristoffersen* · saturated with respect to mobile phones, there is still amazing growth in...

122 Int. J. Knowledge Management Studies, Vol. X, No. Y, XXXX

Copyright © XXXX Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Users’ perception of mobile payment

Steinar Kristoffersen* Steinar Kristoffersen, Faculty of Computer Sciences, Østfold University College, Halden N-1757, Norway Fax: +47-69-21-50-02 E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Anders Synstad and Kristian Sørli Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1080, Blindern, Oslo N-0316, Norway Fax: +47-22-85-24-01 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: This paper reports from an empirical study of users’ attitudes pertaining to novel payment solutions, particularly e-cash and mobile micro payments (m-payments). This is a particularly important aspect of mobile services development, since cumbersome payment allegedly is a significant barrier to the adoption of mobile commerce. Moreover, it is often seen as a ‘killer’ mobile application in its own right, which is expected to have great ramifications for the industry. This paper questions this assumption. Based on a medium-sized questionnaire (n = 462), which was administered to a sample of mobile phone users, we concluded that the current view of m-payment as a stand-alone ‘product’ has not been very successful. We believe instead that users enjoy tighter integration of ‘trying with buying’. It seems that co-located buying, trying and paying within the same medium comprise the more promising approach. The findings of this paper also confirm that mobility as such is not a particularly strong determinant for mobile services adoption.

Keywords: mobile content; micro payment; m-payment; e-cash.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Kristoffersen, S., Synstad, A. and Sørli, K. (XXXX) ‘Users’ perception of mobile payment’, Int. J. Knowledge Management Studies, Vol. X, No. Y, pp.XXX–XXX.

Biographical notes: Steinar Kristoffersen is a Professor of Computer Science in the Mobile Applications Group at Østfold University College in Halden, Norway. Before that he was a Post-doctoral research fellow of Information Systems at the Department for Informatics, University of Oslo. He received a PhD in Computing Science from Lancaster University. He has been teaching Human–Computer Interaction and Research Methodologies. His research areas of interest include innovation and industrial realisation of mobile services,

Users’ perception of mobile payment 123

information infrastructure architectures and the philosophy of research methods. He has published in journals such as the Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems and Interacting with Computers.

Anders Synstad and Kristian Sørli contributed to this paper with data that they collected as part of their MSc-work at the University of Oslo in 2004 and 2005.

1 Introduction

This paper is motivated by the disappointing diffusion and development rate of mobile content services and the mobile services industry (Anil et al., 2003), which seems to lack innovation momentum. The lack of mobile services adoption is a problem since it represents underutilisation of a highly advanced and expensive infrastructure that already is deployed. A tremendous amount of resources went into its licensing and deployment, most of it invested by recently privatised telecom operators. Today one has to ask if there is any possibility of regaining this sunk cost at all.

Although the adoption of mobile services has not lived up to expectations, their potential seems inevitably quite strong. There is great interest, generally, in new mobile devices with ever more functionality. Although many markets are almost completely saturated with respect to mobile phones, there is still amazing growth in hardware sales. Network traffic is also increasing. For example, Sweden, Norway and Denmark are all showing a 10–20% growth in mobile-originated voice traffic time. However, the operators’ revenue in almost all areas of data-based mobile services is now decreasing, mainly due to increased competition and decreasing rates. Increased functionality of devices and better network capacity have not been sufficient to leverage the mobile market so far.

According to analysts, new services will be required in order to secure growth and justify investments in next generation mobile telephony (Vincent, 2001). The challenge throughout, of course, is to find out in advance which services the market is actually going to want. Today there is no sure sign of demand for many novel nomadic applications in the market (Middleton, 2002).

User will continue to surprise us with regards to the ways that new technology are eventually used (Repo et al., 2004). However, the role of billing and safe and user-friendly payment is all-pervading in the argument about which new mobile services could and should be developed (Kreyer et al., 2002a,b). As a service in its own right, mobile payment is an interesting example of intuitively useful applications which has not been as successful as anticipated (Ondrus and Pigneur, 2005).

This paper looks at what users think of mobile e-cash micro payment (m-payment), their experiences, attitudes and expectations related to exactly these factors and it explores their relation to actual adoption. It shares with Sarker and Wells (2003) the observation that adoption literature regarding mobile services is in lack of the perspectives of the users themselves.

Promising steps have been taken towards modelling mobile services adoption using general requirements (Pedersen et al., 2002). On the other hand, there is no consensus as of yet that existing innovation theories have had sufficient explanatory power in this particular domain (Carlsson et al., 2005). The design of new services ought to be based on a systematic impression of what users want. This paper, therefore, aspires to be seen

124 S. Kristoffersen, A. Synstad and K. Sørli

as one initial contribution towards creating a dedicated analytical framework for understanding the adoption of mobile services.

2 Background

The mobile operators today control access as well as billing. They typically provide a framework so that third-parties can offer fairly simple services (Nielsen and Hanseth, 2003; Podnar et al., 2002) and basic content to mobile phones (Davie et al., 2004) and for that they charge the content providers between 30% and 70%. This is a business model that works, somehow, in some countries and not in others, but it does not seem to offer room for all kinds of actors (Nielsen and Hanseth, 2003). Representatives of companies who invest in developing innovative technologies for 3G often point to what they see as the unresolved question of a fair split of revenues in the mobile network. In most of today’s networks, the operators are in a very strong position, controlling as they do the access to the network as well as the billing systems. It should surprise no-one that they see billing as a strategic tool that enables them to stay on top of the value chain (Crookes, 1997; Sabat, 2002). At the same time, the introduction of novel and more advanced services which are necessary to maintain revenues is likely to require a different approach to charging, accounting and billing the user (Koutsopoulou et al., 2002).

3 Problem

In addition to anticipating that operators might not being willing to share their revenue, content providers have to consider as well that users might actually not want to pay for new services and content via alternative billing or payment systems, because these alternatives in themselves are not perceived as very user-friendly or trustworthy (Tong et al., 2005).

“On the mobile internet there is a need to enable a simple payment system that neither necessitates quitting your browser to send a premium rate SMS, nor requires entering credit card details – indeed, the majority of the content is too low value for credit card details to be worthwhile (Tim Jones, CEO of Simpay, in ITadviser, Issue 35, January/February 2005)”.

Therefore, content providers, developers and vendors are forming alliances which aim to develop mobile payment schemes that can help these actors fight their way back into the mobile value chain. Especially, the ‘crux’ is believed to be the lack of a suitable, open regime for mobile small payments, which is why this paper is concerned with m-payment and anonymous peer-to-peer transactions rather than credit card-based or subscription-based mechanisms for mobile service. In this paper, ‘mobile’ is taken to mean initiated using the mobile phone (Henkel, 2001) and (in principle) potentially used to acquire even non-mobile content.

It could be that although the need for mobile payment technologies appears real, perhaps the popularity of conventional payment devices such as credit cards prevents ‘smarter’ alternatives from emerging. How much simpler can it get, after all? Alternatively is there perhaps just too great a distance between the ways in which the


phenomenon of m-payment is rhetorically presented by the industry, as a potentially ‘revolutionary’ innovation and its actual implementation and usage in users’ everyday technological environment?

The objective of this paper, thus, is to investigate in a quantitative manner how people look at and eventually use mobile payment solutions today, in order to inform the design of improved mechanisms for m-payment and e-cash in the future.

4 Related work

Telenor, which is the biggest operator in Norway, reports about having 40,000 users per week on their mobile payment system ‘MobilHandel’ (which translates into something like ‘mobile purchase’ (MH)). That certainly sounds like a lot, but one needs to bear in mind that every day, 1.3 million Norwegians use their access/switch-cards, generating annually about 460 million transactions. MH makes up less than half a percent of this.

There is little empirical evidence of ‘cumbersome payment’ standing in the way of m-commerce. Ease-of-use is not usually reported as a determinant of adoption of mobile services, either (Pagani, 2004). On the contrary, although personal experiences for a lot of people might indicate that the current technology for making payments on the web or using their mobile phones are far from optimal (in terms of its user-friendliness), studies show that it is the usability and usefulness and speed and convenience of the services themselves that count (Pagani, 2004). Actually, previous findings indicate limited interest in ‘transactional applications’:

“However, the actual transactional m-commerce applications (transaction mode), such as issuing electronic payment, buying products from physical shops, or transferring money from a preconfigured bank account, did not rank as high as we had predicted they would (Mahatanankoon et al., 2005)”.

Credit cards dominate electronic payment world-wide (Chakravorti, 2003), even for internet-based transactions today (Asokan et al., 1997), but they are not available to everyone. M-payment clearly can offer a modern instrument of electronic payment to groups of people who do not have access to it yet. One example could be users in their early teens who otherwise would not, due to their occupational or financial status, be able to acquire a credit-card (Szmigin and Foxall, 1998). This is also indicated by the important role of prepaid subscription cards and they are coming into play as a component in mobile payment solutions as well (Lin et al., 2000). Therefore, further research into the requirements to – and properties of e-cash seems warranted.

With the rapidly developing business scenarios of web- and mobile commerce, we ought to expect from ‘disruptive technologies’ in this domain that they eventually catch up with requirements that they fall short of today (Christensen, 1997). So it also seems relevant to ask if mobile payments in the guise of m-payments and e-cash are, indeed, the start of a disruptive technology (Ondrus and Pigneur, 2005). However, the current status of m-payments is a puzzling one exactly because of the opposite. It seems to be a domain dominated by big actors (the banks and credit card companies) and at the same time customers and users are by and large unaware of its opportunities. It would certainly be useful to understand much better how come.


5 Method

This paper is based on a medium-sized questionnaire (n = 462) administered to a sample of mobile phone users. Before the main quantitative study in a population consisting mainly of visitors to the site http://digi.no, we carried out two pilots with n = 27 and n = 62, respectively.

It is necessary to exercise caution with material that is collected via internet-based surveys. Upon re-examination of our material from the original logs, we discovered that a series of 60 responses had originated from the same internet-address within a short period of time. Approaching the pertaining service provider, we were told that this address belonged to a range that was used for back-office applications, such as mail- and proxy-servers. It was confirmed that no-one could access these hosts manually and we therefore concluded that our survey must have been accessed via a web-proxy with this address. The service provider in question is also one of Norway’s biggest employers of IT-personnel, which is digi.no’s target audience. It is possible that 60 from their 4000 workers decided to respond to the questionnaire within the timeframe of a couple of days and we therefore decided to keep these responses in our data.

Digi.no has 265,000 monthly visitors. As the table below shows, it is skewed towards a younger, male population (Table 1).

Table 1 Demographics of the population

Sex/age Male Female <20 years 20–29 years 30–39 years 40–49 years >50 years

Digi.no 93% 7% 4% 35% 38% 15% 9%

It is important to know that this population is indeed very experienced with regard to electronic commerce. About 97% of digi.no’s readers have bought services or merchandise over the internet, 65% within the last month. The population of digi.no is quite evenly distributed across ‘white-collar’ professions, however and unfortunately, around 60% of them work in computer and information systems related firms (source: digi.no). This needs to be kept in mind when our results are interpreted.

We realise that this makes the sample less representative of the population in general and that we will not be able to generalise towards the entire group of possible users of mobile payment services. However, since this is one group regularly targeted for early adoption of exactly this type of services (Dickinger et al., 2006), their attitudes and usage patterns are particularly telling of how the industry develops. Therefore, the focus of this investigation could be seen as exactly its vantage point, rather than a disadvantage.

The questionnaire was implemented in phpESP and published by digi.no in late April 2005 and closed one month later. As a background to the questions and providing a common context to users who might not have such a broad background in actually using m-payment, the following scenario was presented alongside:

Imagine a businessperson who has to do extensive traveling as part of the job. He or she might be abroad several times every week. Keeping track of various currencies is a hassle, thus, the person we have in mind uses a mobile phone with m-payment functionality, i.e., it can be used as a wallet of electronic cash for small payments. At the airport, waiting for the next flight, the person buys a drink and a paper at the news stand. The phone has a near-range radio which means that the drink and paper can be paid for simply by holding the phone up in front of the cashier. Before boarding, the person connects to a currency


exchange terminal in the same way, to have the ‘contents’ of his mobile wallet converted from local currency to Euros. Later in the evening, having enjoyed dinner in Paris, the person wishes to pay using Visa. The mobile phone is again put to its use as a wallet, holding it up against the waiter’s switch terminal until the Visa logo shows as a token that the payment went through. Returning to Norway, the remaining money is converted to local currency.

From a population of 265,000, a sample of 462 people responded to this questionnaire. This would indicate that our findings are representative and statistically valid within a confidence interval of 4.6, with p = 0.05.

6 Mobile payment technology

It certainly would have been nice in a paper like this to be able to discuss in detail a lot of exiting, broadly implemented examples of electronic cash, m-payments, digital peer-to-peer transactions, etc. Unfortunately, however, most of these projects in the telecommunications’ realm never took it beyond the piloting stage.

Many times the possibility of purchasing soft drinks from a vending machine and have the drinks charged on the mobile phone bill, have been publicised. Most people never see any such machines at locations that they frequent themselves. This rhetoric seems to feed well on itself, regardless. Some implementations do exist, however. One can, for instance, in the C-mode network in Japan use the mobile phone to buy soft drinks. The payment transaction as such is done either by a 2D bar code coupon displayed on your mobile phone screen or via an infrared connection. The cost of the coke is charged to a prepaid C-mode Club account, which one must fill with cash before one can use it to purchase anything. There are about 1000 C-mode Coke machines in Japan now and one can find some around the main train stations in Tokyo.

In many big cities there exists m-payment for parking as well. The company mPay in Oslo is responsible for implementing one solution (Kristoffersen et al., 2005), not to be confused with the Finnish MPAY-project. mPay’s system is internet-based and requires users to register in advance for the service. Users have to enter their personal data including credit card information for payment, which is managed by mPay. The service is activated by Short Messaging Service (SMS), however, payment is not actually implemented by mPay or by the operator. It is carried out by the major credit card banking institutions including Visa Norway, Eurocard and Nordea. mPay deducts billing information from the SMS and then transfers it to the credit card company regularly for them to do the actual invoicing according to ordinary credit card membership procedures.

Another existing example is the system based on Telenor’s MH-system. Via a portal called Filmweb, which is also available in a very limited version on WAP, one can read notices and reviews about the films, and order tickets. Payment, in the end of the day, comes either from the subscribers’ VISA-cards, their bank-accounts via a third-party system called SmartPay or a separate mobile account managed by the operator. There is not much service enrolment to speak of except entering the account details and one can even do that over SMS.


7 Content provider access

A related example of mobile payment is called the Content Provider Access (CPA) agreement. It is at the same time a successfully implemented platform for billing and a business model developed by the two operators Netcom and Telenor in Norway. The CPA gives content providers the possibility to develop and offer simple services to mobile users within the network and to do so in an operator-independent way. It is a billing API, not a mobile service directed towards the end-users as such. However, one of its important properties is that it gives the end-users an operator-independent interface based on a four-digit access number and the same set of messages to memorise for each service. This is not technically an implication of the CPA as such, but a sense of standardisation that certainly makes the marketing easier. The message is then routed from the operator to the content providers, who return a pointer to the content and input to the charging data records, which are then processed by the operators’ billing system.

With CPA the content provider can distribute both ‘pull’ services, meaning that the end-users need to request the service every time and ‘push’ services, which the mobile user initiates once with a request message and after that content arrives automatically. An example of a pull service is downloading ring tones for the mobile phone, while an example of a push service could be sending messages to the user with football results from ongoing matches.

The CPA is used mainly for logos and ring tones. The operators have chosen not to compete on differentiation by services exclusively provided in one of the networks. This strategy is the basis for a reasonably successful enterprise offering ‘infotainment’ services by and for the mobile phone, with revenues currently around 250 million €.

From the brief survey of technologies above it would seem that although some of the projects we have mentioned, such as the CPA, are no doubt useful, operators charging via the phone bill is still the predominant form of m-payment today. Mobile banking, e-cash and m-payment solutions exist as well, but they are rarely used. Although people quite clearly have a great deal of confidence in the telecom operators, a study carried out by tns.gallup2 in 2004 tells us that users still trust their mobile ‘wallet’ less than the alternatives, although the trend is improving. In this study, 39% say that they would trust their phone to be used as a vehicle for mobile payments, versus 34%, saying that they would not. About 27% are undecided and this category had actually increased from the year before.

To summarise, m-payment remains esoteric and e-cash are only used to a very limited extent. Content providers think they need such technologies, since they might help them get a fairer share of the revenue stream. Users want simpler, better ways of paying for mobile services, for which heavy service enrolment or other transaction costs are not warranted due to their limited value. Or is this simply not the case?

8 Results

Summarising the descriptive statistics of the main questionnaire (n = 462), it has to be said that it by and large confirmed our expectations based on the pilot (n = 62) about this particular population in terms of their mobile telephone ownership. In the pilots, our respondents were actually much less advanced and enthusiastic consumers of mobile content than we might perhaps have been led to believe (Townsend, 2000). The bigger


sample consisted of relatively young people, but still not as young as in the first two, which were sampled from a population of students. About 20% of them were in their early twenties and younger and a total of 44.8% fell into the next ten-year tier between 25 and 35. In the second pilot particularly, we did not really find any usage patterns matching the usual picture of predominantly male, adolescent users in complete and clever control of new technological services. This might have made us to suspect that there is an element of marketing-based rhetoric expressed in such popular myths. Actual adoption was limited.

The bigger sample turned out from our descriptive analysis to yield a similar picture. For instance, our youngest, as well as the oldest, users tended to have less experience of e-cash relative to their age group, then the middle tier (who, admittedly, are still quite young) (Figure 1).

Figure 1 The relative percentage of e-cash adopters within each age segment

Yes, I do use e-cash solutionsNo, I don't use e-cash solutions

DONT_USE_ECASH

100,0%

80,0%

60,0%

40,0%

20,0%

0,0%

Perc

ent

Over 5045-5040-4435-3930-3425-2920-2415-19Under 15AGE

A brief, descriptive synopsis of the data that we collected shows that the ‘subjective importance’ of technology, in this case the mobile phone, was distributed along an unexpectedly ‘normal’ pattern (Figure 2).

In our sample, people did not see themselves as being particularly mobile. More than 55% travelled only occasionally and 6% travelled very often.

The general trend was that few of the respondents saw the usage of mobile payment as very troublesome at all, although 11.9% did see it as relatively or very problematic.

A large group reported that they would not trust their mobile phone at all as a means of carrying out a payment; 56.3% trusted credit cards more. As few as 4.3% believed that m-payment would be safer than using credit cards. This is in correspondence with the tns.gallup findings.

Summarising thus far; our investigations characterizes a population that is used to using technology to do business – as well as personal transactions. They know the technology and do not consider it highly problematic (as such), but they do not trust their


mobile phone to be used as an instrument of making the payments, although they think that it would be effective. We must not forget that this is a population of which the majority carries out internet-based transactions and m-commerce on a regular basis. This is therefore a sobering report. It ought certainly to have implications for service providers in this industry, since at the same time as many as 61.5% of the respondents believed that this was a technology that would make their lives easier.

The actual usage of mobile and electronic payments was reported to be as shown in the following graphics (Figure 3).

Figure 2 Distribution of device importance to owner

Figure 3 Do you use electronic payments today, such as Payex, ContoPronto (Luup), Buypass (Norsk Tipping), Smartpay (Telenor Mobilhandel), Paypal?


In the very first of our pilot studies, which was based on a very preliminary set of questions (n = 27), 75% had purchased mobile content and paid for it using their mobile phone. In the larger sample we found that 56% do not use any of the available m-payment methods. Those means of electronic payment which are used are mainly (with literally one exception) for the internet. This supports our interpretation from the first pilot; users are willing to try a mobile content service maybe once and then they abandon it. There is nothing wrong with using the mobile phone to purchase content for the mobile phone, but there is nothing special about it either, according to our subjects. Relating briefly this discussion to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM (Davis, 1989)), one can perhaps say that our users were slightly positive when it comes to the perceived usefulness of m-payments, bearing in mind that 61.5% thought that it would make life easier and that ca. 50% thought that the scenario represented a solution that appealed to them. Perceived user-friendliness, on the other hand, which can be seen as close to normally distributed, could perhaps be interpreted as neutral (next graphics) (Figure 4).

Figure 4 How easy is m-payment to use (in your view)?

The majority of our sample were people with more than five years of mobile phone ownership, dating that ‘back and through’ a period when premium SMS already had become widely available, so either they never did use it a lot or they discontinued using it, quite recently. We believe that our sample never did make any massive commitments to mobile content provisioning at all and that additionally they are only moderately interested in this technology per se. This does not contradict their predicted usage of SMS and phone calls for interpersonal communication, however, even at a highly advanced level (Taylor and Harper, 2002). It is, quite simply, something else in terms of perceived usefulness and easy-of-use.

Figure 5 does not show any distinguishing patterns of preferences amongst our users with regard to how they think m-payment could be improved. We suspect that this is due to a lack of experience. They are not aware of individual aspects of such services, and have little experience with mobile platforms except as a telephone.


From our study it also seems that people grow increasingly aware of how much they depend on their mobile phone, as they get older, but it is not clear from the data if that is because they grow older and get more serious commitments, for example, with children in day care and proper jobs or if they simply have had the phone longer by then and have become even more adapted to it.

Figure 5 What do you think would improve m-payment?

The correlations in this material seem reasonably good and we have especially found it worthwhile to look further into issues related to trusting the technology. We would like to establish if this as a determinant of a positive evaluation. It thus complements results presented elsewhere that point to usefulness, user friendliness, price and speed as important determinants of adoption of third generation mobile services (Pagani, 2004) (Table 2).

Table 2 Correlation matrix (selected questions)

PROBLEMATIC_SCENARIO Yes..no (2..6)

INT…_SCENARIO No..yes (2..6)

TRUST_PH…_IN_SCENARIO No..yes (1..2)

TRUST_PHONE_M_THAN_CARDS No..yes (2.3)

INTERESTING_ SCENARIO No.. yes (2..6)

0.323**

TRUST_PH…_ IN_SCENARIO No..yes (1..2)

0.497** 0.344**

TRUST_PHONE_ M_THAN_CARDS No..yes (1..2)

0.343** 0.270** 0.545**

ECASH_IS_ USEFUL_TECH No..yes (1..2)

0.310** 0.533** 0.445** 0.321**

**Means significant correlation at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Note: Low values indicate negative attitudes towards the phenomena.


From the questionnaire, the selected subset of questions corresponding to the variables presented in the table above was (in translation, with variables as subitems):

• How to find the usage of the mobile phone (as a wallet) in the above scenario (Problematic, interesting)?

− INTERESTING_SCENARIO

− PROBLEMATIC_SCENARIO

• Would you trust your mobile phone if it was being used as a means of payment?

− TRUST_PHONE_IN_SCENARIO

• Do you trust your mobile phone more or less than traditional credit cards?

− TRUST_PHONE_MORE_THAN_CARDS

• Do you see how a technological solution like the one described here would contribute to making your day easier?

− ECASH_IS_USEFUL_TECHNOLOGY.

In terms of where we found correlation, the material might comprise of some doubtful structures. For instance, it is probably not a good idea that we ended up measuring two variables for finding the scenario with the phone interesting or problematic as part of the same question in the web-based form. We know now that we ideally would have liked to see this as independent variables and it was indeed indicated by one respondent using two separate likert-scales. However, it is probably not entirely inappropriate to worry about respondents having seen all questions pertaining to the scenario as basically one and the same question, along the lines of “did the scenario seem an appealing usage of this type of technology”. Due carefulness must be exercised in the interpretation of the data. We still think that the observations are well worth stating, since they certainly encourage research into a broader range of adoption/evaluation criteria than those covered by the traditional TAM (Davis, 1989).

We believe that the questionnaire needs to be redesigned again and administered to another sample of users now that we have found correlations that indicate that the focus of the analyses ought to be with trust. It is not completely intuitive that trust of technology correlate so strongly with a positive evaluation of the scenario, whilst ideas about the user friendliness (need to improve the user interface) or usability (the number of places that this new ‘currency’ can be used) does not. We do not know why this is the case and it is unfortunately not possible to establish valid variables from the material onto which several questions load significantly. Therefore, at the current point of this research, we can only note these observations. They will be further explicated in future research into this set of topics regarding m-payment.

Also, the requirement of pervasive use (another way of looking at critical mass?) seems to correlate with many other ‘positive’ factors, such as how positively m-payments are evaluated and the weight attributed to usability. A little bit more surprising, perhaps, it is that in the one of our pilots (n = 62) we found that people who have had their phones longer, generally to a higher degree want m-payment to be anonymous, in which case they also wanted better receipts of each transaction. Males were significantly less concerned with anonymity than women.

Based on the correlation between the questions listed above, we decided to run a linear regression analysis on the following two models for the investigation (Figure 6 and Table 3).


Figure 6 Two possible investigation models with correlation significance indicated

Table 3 Summary of model 1

Model R R 2 Adjusted R 2 Std. error of the estimate

1 0.528 a 0.279 0.273 0.932

1′ 0.535 b 0.286 0.277 0.929

aPredictors: (Constant), ECASH_IS_USEFUL_TECHNOLOGY, TRUST_PHONE_ MORE_THAN_CARDS, INTERESTING_SCENARIO, TRUST_PHONE_IN_SCENARIO1.

bPredictors: (Constant), ECASH_IS_USEFUL_TECHNOLOGY, TRUST_PHONE_MORE_THAN_CARDS, INTERESTING_SCENARIO, TRUST_PHONE_IN_SCENARIO1, AGE, GENDER

When we look at the summary for the first of these models, we notice that the explanatory degree is reasonably good. Given that users did not have extensive experience with the actual technology and was offered to relate its usage to an introductory scenario, being able to explain 27.3% of the variance of the dependent variable representing ‘the usage of the mobile wallet in the scenario is problematic’ by the independent variables, is fairly good. Adding control variables (age and gender) to the model to get 1′, we find that there is almost no increase in explanatory degree (Table 4).

Table 4 ANOVAa

Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

1 Regression 153,419 4 38,355 44,182 0.000 b Residual 396,728 457 0.868 Total 550,147 461

1′ Regression 157,451 6 26,242 30,405 0.000 c

Residual 392,696 455 0.863 Total 550,147 461

aDependent variable: PROBLEMATIC_SCENARIO. bPredictors: (Constant), ECASH_IS_USEFUL_TECHNOLOGY,

TRUST_PHONE_MORE_THAN_CARDS, INTERESTING_SCENARIO, TRUST_PHONE_IN_SCENARIO1.

cPredictors: (Constant), ECASH_IS_USEFUL_TECHNOLOGY, TRUST_PHONE_MORE_THAN_CARDS, INTERESTING_SCENARIO, TRUST_PHONE_IN_SCENARIO1, AGE, GENDER.


The Anova table above indicates that both models are significant to the 1%-level, which is also satisfying for this class of analysis. Looking at the models again, we find the following table of coefficients (Table 5).

Table 5 Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardised coefficients

Standardised coefficients

B Std. error Beta

t Sig.

(Constant) 2.413 0.242 9.992 0.000

INTERESTING_SCENARIO 0.134 0.042 0.151 3.186 0.002 TRUST_PHONE_IN_ SCENARIO1

0.856 0.112 0.388 7.663 0.000

TRUST_PHONE_MORE_ THAN_CARDS

0.178 0.105 0.081 1.698 0.090

1

ECASH_IS_USEFUL_ TECHNOLOGY

0.068 0.112 0.030 0.605 0.546

aDependent variable: PROBLEMATIC_SCENARIO.

From the table of coefficients, we seem to be able to safely to remove the variable ECASH_IS_USEFUL_TECHNOLOGY from the model, since it has no significant effect. We then get the following table as a report from the total analysis (Table 6).

Table 6 Linear regression for dependent variable PROBLEMATIC_SCENARIO

Model Standardised beta Sig.

INTERESTING_SCENARIO 0.164 0.000

TRUST_PHONE_IN_SCENARIO1 0.396 0.000

1

TRUST_PHONE_MORE_THAN_CARDS 0.083 0.082

Note: Model statistics R2: 0.278; F-value: 58.869.

The second model is based on the users’ perspective of the (perceived) usefulness of mobile payment (although the variable was somewhat imprecisely referring to ‘e-cash’, the questions explicitly related it to the usage of mobile payments as demonstrated by the scenario). It is also useful to look more closely at this model now that we found that this particular variable was not significant of the regression analysis for the first model. It could then be seen as a truly independent perspective from the perception of the scenario as more or less problematic.

Similarly to the summary of model 1, we find that the explanatory degree of our second model is good, indeed it is quite a lot better than the first (Table 7).

Given the number of factors that generally can influence the evaluation of how useful (or useless) a particular technology can be, we must be quite satisfied by the R2 of 36%, which means that the independent variables explain more than one third of the variance of dependent variable ECASH_IS_USEFUL_TECHNOLOGY. Similarly, the model 2′ enhanced with age and gender control variables, does not increase its explanatory degree.


Table 7 Summary of model 2

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. error of the estimate

2 0.604a 0.365 0.360 0.390

2′ 0.613b 0.376 0.368 0.387

aPredictors: (Constant), PROBLEMATIC_SCENARIO, INTERESTING_SCENARIO, TRUST_PHONE_MORE_THAN_CARDS, TRUST_PHONE_IN_SCENARIO1.

bPredictors: (Constant), PROBLEMATIC_SCENARIO, INTERESTING_SCENARIO, TRUST_PHONE_MORE_THAN_CARDS, TRUST_PHONE_IN_SCENARIO1, AGE, GENDER.

Tables 8 and 9 shows that models 2 and 2′ are both statistically significant to a sufficient degree (0.01), which means that we can look at the coefficients for the model.

Table 8 ANOVAa

Model Sum of squares

df Mean square F Sig.

2 Regression 39,983 4 9996 65,788 0.000b

Residual 69,436 457 0.152

Total 109,420 461

2′ Regression 41,153 6 6859 45,715 0.000c

Residual 68,266 455 0.150

Total 109,420 461

aDependent variable: ECASH_IS_USEFUL_TECHNOLOGY. bPredictors: (Constant), PROBLEMATIC_SCENARIO, INTERESTING_SCENARIO, TRUST_PHONE_MORE_THAN_CARDS, TRUST_PHONE_IN_SCENARIO1. cPredictors: (Constant), PROBLEMATIC_SCENARIO, INTERESTING_SCENARIO, TRUST_PHONE_MORE_THAN_CARDS, TRUST_PHONE_IN_SCENARIO1, AGE, GENDER.

Table 9 Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardised coefficients

Standardised coefficients

B Std. error Beta

t Sig.

2 (Constant) 0.298 0.111 2690 0.007

INTERESTING_SCENARIO 0.166 0.016 0.421 10,383 0.000

TRUST_PHONE_IN_ SCENARIO1

0.251 0.048 0.255 5200 0.000

TRUST_PHONE_MORE_ THAN_CARDS

0.059 0.044 0.060 1331 0.184

PROBLEMATIC_ SCENARIO

0.012 0.020 0.027 0.605 0.546

aDependent variable: ECASH_IS_USEFUL_TECHNOLOGY.


From the table of coefficients above, we can infer that at least the variable PROBLEMATIC_SCENARIO can be removed, since it does not contribute significantly. One of the ‘trust’-variables, TRUST_PHONE_MORE_THAN_CARDS, is clearly borderline with its 18.4% significance-level, but we have decided to keep it in the model for reference. Future research will have to provide a more stable variable for measuring trust, which comprises several questions.

When we remove the insignificant variable and clean up the table, we get the following final result from the analysis of model 2 (Table 10).

Table 10 Linear regression for dependent variable ECASH_IS_USEFUL_TECHNOLOGY

Model Standardised

beta

Sig.

2 INTERESTING_SCENARIO 0.425 0.000

TRUST_PHONE_IN_SCENARIO1 0.265 0.000

TRUST_PHONE_MORE_THAN_CARDS 0.062 0.167

Note: Model statistics R2: 0.361; F-value: 87.717.

It is not possible from the instrument that our questionnaire comprises, to conclude forcefully from an analysis like this. It might look like it encourages (for both models) the usage of scenarios rather than asking users to compare m-payment to an existing alternative technology, when it comes to determining the outcome of evaluating a technology which they do not know all that well. For future research, the influence of a scenario-based approach must be isolated and kept in check versus the influence of how users see the actual technology. It would have been a striking observation, indeed, if a scenario-based approach per se could be found to influence users’ perception of a technology in a certain direction, in other words that the method itself introduces a positive bias. This is something that we will have to leave for later research to find out.

In our pilot study, age correlates positively with seeing the need for a dedicated ‘e-currency’, which is interesting seen in relationship to another item, namely that experienced users seem to trust their phones even more than younger people, when it comes to using it as a mobile wallet. Is this a prerequisite to trust the mobile wallet, that it is perhaps ‘sandboxed’ in a currency of its own or is it simply a matter of experience pointing in the directions of increased trust? This is also something to look into for future research.

9 Discussion

To the extent that users’ perceptions, expectations and early experiences can be used as a basis for such assumptions (Venkatesh et al., 2003), we think that we can see some indications from the work presented here in the direction of mobile IS research in general. Firstly, mobility (as such) does not seem to be a particularly interesting determinant of the adoption of mobile technologies. This might seem surprising, but really it is not. Highly mobile people often travel to do their work elsewhere using predominantly stationary technologies and often no IT at all. We have seen this similarly


in case studies of auditors working to classify ships, consultants, etc. (Kristoffersen and Ljungberg, 1999). On the other hand, demographic groups with very limited mobility, such as children down towards the age of eight are starting to use mobile phones everywhere, to coordinate their everyday lives at school and with friends. We did not find more enthusiasm for m-payment in the youngest (nor the oldest) respondents of our sample, however. These two categories tended to have less experience of e-cash relative to their age group, than users in the thirties. It might seem reasonable to assume that it is a combination of being technology savvy and having money to spend on internet-based entertainment services and cinema tickets that contribute to making users adopt e-cash solutions. However, some alternative explanations are imaginable. It could be that the younger age group do not possess sufficiently advanced handsets. They could probably afford such handsets, but they represent a technology that is not likely to be as fashionable in the young adolescent segments as they are in the aspiring professional segment.

One could argue that this research is to some extent looking towards the literature about disruptive innovations (Christensen, 1997), but then we might perhaps expect to see a picture of adoption that was less intuitive, for example, by a particular user group without previous presence on this technological arena. Often, this is a notion which is seen as characterising disruptive technology (Carrier, 1999). When we look at CPA-supported mobile content services in Norway, they seem to match well with the characterisation given by Christensen (1997) in terms of their adoption by a segment hitherto not explicitly targeted by the operators; for ‘marginal’ purposes such as micro-coordination (Ling and Yttri, 2002), fashion and identity (Ling, 2000) and with fundamentally simple, inexpensive technologies. However, it is easy to forget when we look at the fabulous growth in premium-rate SMS- and CPA-based services (Andersson et al., 2006), that although early adoption has been widespread there are still reverse salients (Hughes, 1987) in terms of adoption setbacks and marginal business opportunities (Nielsen, 2004) to be found here as well. Moreover, we need to be aware that we are looking at services coming out of industrial processes that have been going on for a long time (Jørstad et al., 2005). It is also far from easy to transfer the innovation from one market to another (Alphonse, 2004). Thus, the idea of technologies as such being disruptive seems compelling, but not entirely general.

Successful m-payment today revolves around credit-cards, which is the big payment technology already. It is managed by the big companies, the banks and the operators, but at the same time it allows smaller companies to make a little from many small opportunities in an economy that is largely sustained rather than disruptive (Kristoffersen et al., 2005). In the Norwegian market, a negligible volume of potential users are shut out due to the charging and billing mechanisms, given that prepaid subscription cards are available to everyone and the standardisation of mobile services on CPA indeed relies on charging via the existing phone bill that way or another. Given the services that are available in the mobile networks today, this seems to be sufficient and cost-effective. This is perhaps exactly what makes m-payment not a disruptive technology right now. It might also be that we are thus looking at a ‘catch-22’, since m-payment could still be one of the factors necessary to make new services with another set of requirements possible.

Technology can be good enough without that resulting in adoption (Blythin et al., 1997). Although people may use a technology extensively for a while, they also sometimes simply stop using it. We believe our results remind us that it is the user and


the user’s subjective experience with technology and their active engagement with it within the scope of their everyday lives, that constitute the main factor for adoption, although the rhetorical strategies of marketing organisations as well as users themselves are an integral part a of shaping the subjective experience (Phillips, 1998).

Summarising some core findings from our work, then, we arrive at a set of relevant and interesting hypothesis for further research.

Mobility is not a particularly interesting predictor of mobile services adoption. Services and applications for mobile terminals that are offered in the marketplace today are not, as such, mobile-aware. By this we mean that there is only a weak or no association at all between the adoption of services and users’ physical mobility.

There is an uninteresting contrast between the ‘indifference’ and low value of mobile content and the ‘heavy’ enrolment needed for (alternative) payment schemes. A lot of the content that is available and popular for mobile terminals is lightweight entertainment. We are usually talking about simple java games, logos, ring tones and a few more advanced multimedia services. These are hardly services that one would expect people to be willing to enroll in a credit card-based transaction to get. However, this is exactly what people do, in these and similar circumstances. Moreover, they claim to trust these alternatives (and use them) a lot more than they would use their mobile phone as a wallet.

There is a much more intriguing persistent relationship between the ‘inspiredness’ of buying such content and the ‘immediateness’ of trying it. CPA-based content can usually be enjoyed immediately on the handset itself; indeed, regulations stipulate that this is the only type of content which is admissible via this particular channel. Its success can then be seen as an indication of the need to implement buying, trying and paying in an ambient triad with each other, which represents a much more interesting reflection of the job that money does for us, then alternative conceptualisations of electronic money as ‘another’ representation of value. Money sets up the shop, creates the customer-role, makes buying and paying possible at the same time and for physical money, implicates that the product or service can be handed-over in the same instance. M-payment needs to strive for the same in the media where the product itself ‘lives’. A ring-tone paid for with CPA is a good example. It is bough with the phone, for the phone and the user finds out immediately if its works or not. The matter of paying for it is already settled ‘matter-of-factly’ since the operator handles the billing as part of the ‘deal’ of using the phone, for instance for this purpose.

Anonymity, transparency and pervasiveness are often brought forward as important aspects of m-payment (Kreyer et al., 2002a,b). Looking at what a sample of users in a population of youngish, technology-savvy and in their own eyes trendy enough people though about using their mobile as a wallet, we found that a lot less people than expected wanted anonymity. This is much more similar to the findings of Poutsttchi (2003). Users’ interest in anonymity correlates with being concerned about the number of places, and the familiar confirmation of a receipt. In future research we have to find out more about exactly what this relationship signifies. Finally and perhaps most importantly, we submit to have found that most users are simply not that impressed by the services they have been offered by the industry, in the first place. Perhaps this simple explanation also is the most precise one, for the time being.


10 Conclusion

There seems to be some agreement between analysts and our findings that billing as a detached back-office function that can be easily outsourced or looked at as a ‘killer application’ in its own right (Henkel, 2001), is not really taken seriously among users. As a matter of fact and quite practically, respondents in our sample simply do not seem to be particularly ‘moved’ by technology and their lack of trust in the mobile phone needs to be looked more closely at. There is of course a need for new services and there is a need to make those services billable in an easy, safe and efficient manner, but there is not really an indication in our data that this is a barrier to adoption.

People prefer to pay using their credit cards or other familiar payment schemes, even though such schemes also have transaction costs. On the other hand, we do not know exactly what users need for novel applications, in terms of m-payment. What, then, exactly stands between eventual new m-payment solutions and the community of project managers, designers and programmers? We think that we need to look back at the data and try to elicit a design framework from the perceptions and experiences that users report having had with this technology. We hypothesise that payment and paying should be seen as more tightly coupled with the buying experience, which is exactly and characteristically what happens with the arguably successful CPA. In future research, we shall need to model these concepts more precisely, but within the descriptive scope of this paper we want only to introduce the notion of ‘dis-ambience’ of paying and buying when the action of settling the bill is detached in space or time from that of buying, as a way of explaining why some solutions work whilst others fail. In addition, we shall distinguish between confirmations or receipts of a purchase that happens immediately, versus one that is postponed. This extends the notion of a receipt conceptually, with technical as well as practical consequences, from confirmation of payment to confirmation of a bona-fide purchase. Postponed confirmations implicate that receipts are seen as a way of being able to keep (reasonably) accurate accounts of spending, plus the possibility of returning goods it after a while they turned out to be faulty. We assert that in the virtual, mobile world of m-buying, immediate confirmation is required of the actual receipt of the goods themselves, something that is taken-for-granted in the physical world, plus that it has to be linked to the product or service actually working as promised, right away.

Most of our users have tried buying and paying mobile content (even logos, ring tones and games) with their phones, but those who have, have only tried it once. Alas, the discussion in this paper has taken the topic of m-payment to stages that most ordinary users would consider futuristic and irrelevant. Rather than the other way around, however, the lack of innovation in today’s mobile networks is an indication of the relevance and need of continued research in this area. Future developments in the telecommunications industry depends on a sustainable value chain, in which well-thought out payment mechanisms will be an integral part.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge comments from anonymous reviewers, friends and colleagues who have inspired and improved the research that we have documented here. The research described here was carried out while the corresponding author was a


post-doc at the Department of Informatics, University in Oslo and the generous support of this institution has to be duly noted.

References

Alphonse, J. (2004) ‘Re-creating the Norwegian model for selling mobile content in Malaysia’, Second Workshop on International Strategy and Cross-cultural Management, European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management, EIASM, Edniburgh, Scotland.

Andersson, K., Foros, Ø. and Steen, F. (2006) ‘Text and voice: complements, substitutes or both?’ 33rd Conference for the European Association for Research in Industrial Economics, Amsterdam.

Anil, S., Ting, L.T., Moe, L.H. and Jonathan, G.P.G. (2003) ‘Overcoming barriers to the successful adoption of mobile commerce in Singapore’, International Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 1, Nos. 1–2, pp.194–231.

Asokan, N., Janson, P.A., Steiner, M. and Waidner, M. (1997) ‘The state of the art in electronic payment systems in Computer’, Vol. 30, No. 9, pp.28–35.

Blythin, S., Hughes, J.A., Kristoffersen, S., Rodden, T. and Rouncefield, M. (1997) Recognising ‘Success’ and ‘Failure’: Evaluating Groupware in a Commercial Context, Phoenix, AZ: ACM Press, pp.39–46.

Carlsson, C., Hyvonen, K., Repo, P. and Walden, P. (2005) ‘Asynchronous adoption patterns of mobile services’, p.189a.

Carrier, L. (1999) ‘Managing at light speed’, IEEE Computer, Vol. 32, No. 7, p.107.

Chakravorti, S. (2003) ‘Theory of credit card networks: a survey of the literature’, Review of Network Economics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.50–68.

Christensen, C.M. (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies cause Great Firms to Fail, Harvard Business School Press, p.256.

Crookes, J. (1997) ‘Multiservice billing system-a platform for the future’, BT Technology Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, p.98.

Davie, R., Panting, C. and Charlton, T. (2004) ‘Mobile phone ownership and usage among pre-adolescents’, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.359–373.

Davis, F.D. (1989) ‘Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.319–340.

Dickinger, A., Arami, M. and Meyer, D. (2006) ‘Reconsidering the adoption process: enjoyment and social norms; antecedents of hedonic mobile technology use’, Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2006. HICSS ‘06, IEEE, Hawaii, pp.23–33.

Henkel, J. (2001) ‘Mobile payment. The German and European perspective’, in G. Silberer (Ed). Mobile Commerce, Wiesbaden: Gabler Publishing, Available at: http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/ anil/MTP/MobilePayment.pdf.

Hughes, T.P. (1987) ‘The evolution of large technological systems’, in W. Bijker, T.P. Hughes and T. Pinch (Eds). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.51–82.

Jørstad, I., Dustdar, S. and Than, D.V. (2005) ‘An analysis of current mobile services and enabling technologies’, International Journal of Ad Hoc and Ubiquitous Computing, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2, pp.92–102.

Koutsopoulou, M., Kaloxylos, A. and Alonistioti, A. (2002) ‘Charging, accounting and billing as a sophisticated and reconfigurable discrete service for next generation mobile networks’, IEEE 56th Vehicular Technology Conference, pp.2342–2345.

Kreyer, N., Pousttchi, K. and Turowski, K. (2002a) ‘Characteristics of mobile payment procedures’, The ISMIS 2002 Workshop on M-Services, Lyon.


Kreyer, N., Pousttchi, K. and Turowski, K. (2002b) Standardized Payment Procedures as Key Enabling Factor for Mobile Commerce, p.400.

Kristoffersen, S. and Ljungberg, F. (1999) ‘‘Making place’ to make IT work: empirical explorations of HCI for mobile CSCW’, Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, Phoenix, AZ: ACM Press.

Kristoffersen, S., Nielsen, P., Blechar, J. and Hanseth, O. (2005) ‘‘Ordinary innovation’ of mobile services’, in C. Sørensen, Y. Yoo, K. Lyytinen and J.I. DeGross (Eds). Designing Ubiquitous Information Environments: Socio-Technical Issues and Challenges, New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, pp.305–320.

Lin, Y-B., Chang, M-F. and Rao, H.C-H. (2000) ‘Mobile prepaid phone services’, IEEE Personal Communications, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.6–14.

Ling, R. (2000) ‘‘We will be reached’: the use of mobile telephony among Norwegian youth’, Information Technology and People, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.102–120.

Ling, R. and Yttri, B. (2002) ‘Hyper-coordination via mobile phones in Norway’, in J. Katz and M. Aakhus (Eds). Perpetual Contact, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp.139–169.

Mahatanankoon, P., Wen, H. and Lim, B. (2005) ‘Consumer-based m-commerce: exploring consumer perception of mobile applications’, Computer Standards and Interfaces, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.347–357.

Middleton, C.A. (2002) ‘Exploring consumer demand for networked services: the importance of content, connectivity and killer apps in the diffusion of broadband and mobile services’, Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Conference on Information Systems, AIS, Barcelona, pp.391–399.

Nielsen, P. (2004) ‘Implementing public platforms for mobile phone content services: standardization in an era of convergence’, Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS): the European IS Profession in the Global Networking Environment, Turku, Finland.

Nielsen, P. and Hanseth, O. (2003) ‘Enabling an operator-independent transaction model for mobile phone content service provision through the open CPA platform’, Proceedings of the Workshop on Standard Making: A Critical Research Frontier for Information Systems, Seattle, WA, pp.344–353.

Ondrus, J. and Pigneur, Y. (2005) ‘A disruption analysis in the mobile payment market’, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'05) – Track 3, pp.84–94.

Pagani, M. (2004) ‘Determinants of adoption of third generation mobile multimedia services’, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.46–59.

Pedersen, P.E., Methlie, L.B. and Thorbjørnsen, H. (2002) ‘Understanding mobile commerce end-user adoption: a triangulation perspective and suggestions for an exploratory service evaluation framework’, System Sciences, 2002. HICSS. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, Vol. 7, No.10, p.8.

Phillips, D.J. (1998) ‘The social construction of a secure, anonymous electronic payment system: frame alignment and mobilization around Ecash’, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.273–283.

Podnar, I., Hauswirth, M. and Jazayeri, M. (2002) ‘Mobile push: delivering content to mobile users’, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pp.563–568.

Poutsttchi, K. (2003) ‘Conditions for acceptance and usage of mobile payment procedures’, Second International Conference on Mobile Business, Wien, pp.201–210.

Repo, P., Hyvonen, K., Pantzar, M. and Timonen, P. (2004) ‘Users inventing ways to enjoy new mobile services – the case of watching mobile videos’, System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on, Vol. 5, No. 8, p 8.


Sabat, H.K. (2002) ‘The evolving mobile wireless value chain and market structure’, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 26, Nos. 9–10, pp.505–535.

Sarker, S. and Wells, J.D. (2003) ‘Understanding mobile handheld device use and adoption’, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 46, No. 12, pp.35–40.

Szmigin, I. and Foxall, G. (1998) ‘Three forms of innovation resistance: the case of retail payment methods’, Technovation, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp.459–468.

Taylor, A.S. and Harper, R. (2002) ‘Age-old practices in the ‘new world’: a study of gift-giving between teenage mobile phone users’, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Changing our World, Changing Ourselves, Minneapolis, MN: ACM Press.

Tong, F., Zhou, X. and Liu, S. (2005) The Value Chain of Mobile e-payment, Xi’an, China: ACM Press, pp.880–882.

Townsend, A. (2000) ‘Life in the real-time city: mobile telephones and urban metabolism’, Journal of Urban Technology, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.85–104.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003) ‘User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3.

Vincent, G. (2001) ‘Learning from i-mode’, IEE Review, Vol. 47, No. 6, pp.13–18.

Notes 1Short Messaging Service. 2Norway’s biggest company for marked analysis; http://www.tns-gallup.no/.

steinar kristoffersen* · saturated with respect to mobile phones, there is still amazing growth in...

Documents