The Mobile Phone Among Young Danes

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

TROELS F. BERTEL & GITTE STALD

Abstract

The focus of this chapter is on the appropriation and use of the internet on mobile phones among young Danes. We ask why young people in Denmark begin using the internet (and features requiring internet connectivity) on their mobile phones—or why they do not. The analysis builds on qualitative and quantitative data from a pilot study conducted among students at the IT University of Copenhagen in spring 2011. The findings from this analysis are discussed theoretically and compared to other studies. We find that the main argument for using the internet on the mobile phone is that the possibility is there and that easy and convenient due mainly to the affordances of modern smart phones. The main arguments for not using the internet on the mobile phone are that it is not possible due to handset or subscription limitations, that it is too cumbersome to be practical or too expensive to be worth it. Altogether we conclude that we are studying a phenomenon in the making with changing patterns and perceptions of use, and that further studies are needed in this area.

Gitte Stald is an associate professor in Digital Culture & Mobile Communication Group, the IT University of Copenhagen. She Participated in the European comparative project Children and Their Changing Media Environment 1995-1998, and in the research programme Global Media Cultures 1999-2001 with the project Global Media, Local Youth. She participated in a number of research and development projects: MIL—Mobil Indholds Lab, on qualitative content for young Danes mobiles with Danmarks Radio and TDC 2004-6; a project on mobile solutions for dyslexics, MELFO, 2006-7; and in a project development on a user driven mobile media community Mobity, 2008-9. She is co-editor with Thomas Tufte of Global Encounters: Media and Cultural Transformation (2002) and with Arild Fetveit of Digital Aesthetics and Communication, Northern Lights vol 5, 2007.

Troels Fibæk Bertel is a PhD Fellow at the IT University of Copenhagen with a background in Informatics and Media Studies. His research focuses on the social uses of new media among Danish youth. He has a special interest in processes of change associated with the convergence of mobile media and internet services and content.

13. From SMS to SNS: The Use of the Internet on the Mobile Phone among Young Danes

TROELS F. BERTEL & GITTE STALD

Introduction

The landscape of mobile communications is changing. Denmark is currently witnessing a rapid uptake of so-called "smartphones", in short, mobile phones with computer-like capabilities. A recent survey from Gallup Index Denmark (2011) conducted with more than 3500 respondents found that approximately 1.5 million Danes—or more than one third—own smartphones. A similar finding is reported by Statistics Denmark (2011), which found that that in 33% of families (consisting of one or more members) at least one person owns a smartphone.

With this level of smartphone adoption, practices of mobile phone use also seem to be changing. The National Danish IT and Telecom Agency recently published data showing that data traffic from mobile phones increased by a factor of approximately 8 in the 1.5 years between H1 2010 and H2 2011 (The Danish Business Authority, 2011).

Use of traditional mobile phone functionality also seems to be changing in a Danish context although not as dramatically as data related functionality. Text messaging via the SMS protocol decreased by 6,9% and voice calls increased by 10,7% between H1 2010 and H1 2011 [1] (The Danish Business Authority 2011, 4).

Following these changes in both the handsets that users carry and what they use them for, it is interesting and relevant to study what motivates users to begin using these new technologies.

In this chapter, we discuss the current state of the use of the internet on convergent mobile devices—particularly smartphones—among youth in a Danish context. We ask why young people in Denmark begin using the internet on their mobile phones—or why they do not. Further, we discuss how using the internet on the mobile phone interacts with the use of the internet on the personal computer.

From the Mobile Phone to the Smartphone

The mobile phone. When the first "modern" mobile phones—phones which in addition to voice communication allowed for textual communication via SMS—were introduced with the GSM standard circa 1992 (Agar 2003; Hillebrand et al. 2010) it was in many ways a development that influenced, challenged and changed existing social practices. The mobile phone made individuals directly addressable. Where users had previously called household phones, now they called or texted directly to the person they wanted to talk to (Ling and Stald 2010; Stald 2000; Stald 2008). Users were placed in a state of permanent reachability—always in touch with the network, everywhere (Aakhus and Katz 2002). Further, the mobile phone allowed users to "micro-coordinate" daily activities with friends, partners and family: For instance to call them from the supermarket asking whether to get milk or not and to call ahead if running late for an appointment (Ling 2004; Stald 2000).

Texting via SMS, of course, was one of the primary forces driving the appropriation of the mobile phone in the Nordic region with teens in particular making this technology their own. Recent findings suggest that while SMS texting today is used by most age groups—the elderly being a notable exception—teens are still texting much more than any other age group (Ling, Bertel, and Sundsøy 2011).

The smartphone. A recent industry report states that the current growth in the use of the internet on mobile phones is "…largely attributable to the growth in smartphone adoption, 3G/4G device ownership and the increasing ubiquity of unlimited data plans…"(comScore 2011, 5). Since use of the internet on mobile phones is strongly related to smartphone adoption, a pertinent question to further frame the discussion is "what is a smartphone?". A precise definition of what constitutes a smartphone is not readily available. In the general public discourse the definition often seems to be something along the lines of "phones with computer-like capabilities". Casual observation tells us that they frequently run iOS or Android operating systems, most often lets the user install "apps" as well as accessing the internet, and that many have touch screens. More comprehensive technical definitions (in the form of lists of typical features) are also sometimes employed (see for instance PC mag 2012; Wikipedia 2012).

While a precise operationalized definition is important for measurement purposes, it is not equally important in helping us understand the potential of the smartphone for influencing adoption, use and social practices. Rather than being fixated on a given implementation of technology, our interests, like those of Katz and Aakhus (2003), are centered around social practices and "how mobile communication helps us understand them, as well as how the mobile character and richness of the technology change and initiate new social processes" (Katz and Aakhus 2003, 302). In what follows, we are focusing on individual and social practices surrounding convergent mobile media with smartphones currently being the clearest example of this general category. With this focus in mind, at least three macro level characteristics of smartphones can be identified which seem to carry a special potential for influencing such practices and are of particular interest: The devices 1) have the computing power and technical platform to run applications and access internet content, 2) have—in principle—a persistent data connection to the internet, and 3) are typically equipped with positioning technology, often GPS. These three aspects are of course quite often interrelated and interdependent with the combination of a powerful open computer platform, internet connectivity, and sensors each adding to the whole.

What changes with the smartphone? With the smartphone mobiles have evolved into what Klaus Bruhn Jensen (2010) has termed "media of the third degree"—media technologies or platforms integrating previously separate media and associated content into a single device. Smartphones now integrate media content which previously was associated with many separate technologies and often distinct social spheres such as SMS, voice calls, internet content, social network sites, positioning technology, radio and television etc. This holds a great potential for changing how the individual media are used—by themselves or in concert.

Further, the persistent connection to the internet associated with smartphones provides instant access to information regardless of the physical context of the user: Office workers for instance can check their email on the go and mobile Google can be used to quickly settle any discussion, anywhere.

New modes of mobile sociability also become possible. The access to social network sites, for instance, changes the potential audiences associated with the mobile phone: Where the sending of an SMS or MMS message used to occur between individuals in one-to-one communication, text or multimedia content posted directly to a social network site such as Facebook can be considered one-to-one, one-to-many or many-to-many communication depending on the settings of the poster's profile and the context of the communication. The addition of mobile location aware sensor information further extends social network sites to allow for location based social networking and games (Gordon and de Souza e Silva 2011).

It is yet unclear what the social and societal consequences of the appropriation of the smartphone and other convergent mobile media will be. They are, however, likely to be less striking than those of the mobile phone and the internet—evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The mobile phone in its day challenged and changed existing social practices and the appropriate use of the device had to be negotiated through a process of domestication (Haddon 2003; Ling 2004). Changes in and challenges to social situations were easy to observe because of the introduction of the new and quite noticeable medium—with its bright screen, clicking keypad noises and users speaking into the air. With the smartphone, the "mechanics" of our interaction with the devices basically seems to remain the same: We still click keypads, tap bright screens or speak into our devices regardless of whether we are using "old" features such as SMS, voice and music playback or more advanced internet features. Thus the smartphone in a sense comes to us already domesticated—borrowing the form of a previous medium (the mobile phone) coupled with the content of another (the internet). For this reason, the smartphone may not be experienced as being disruptive to the same degree as the mobile phone and the internet were in their time—and challenges to existing social practices and dynamics may not be as obvious.

Method

The data that is used to frame the discussions that follow come primarily from a survey conducted by the authors with students at the IT University of Copenhagen (ITU) in Spring 2011. We focus here on one qualitative aspect of the survey in particular, namely replies to an open-ended question prompting students "Please describe in a few words why you started accessing the internet with your mobile phone—or why you do not".

The survey was sent to approximately 1400 full time students of which 338 students completed the survey. 269 students answered the open-ended question forming the main empirical basis of the analysis. Since our aim with the survey was to study the motivations for using the internet on the mobile phones among young Danes, all respondents above the age of 30 was excluded from the analysis. The number of respondents included in the analysis is 216. The mean age of the respondents is 25,1 with a standard deviation of 2,85. 64% (N=216) of the respondents are male, 36% are female—a distribution that is roughly similar to the overall distribution in the ITU population. 80% (N=216) of the respondents use the mobile internet—66% use it daily.

As the main part of what follows, we will be conducting an analysis inspired by grounded theory (Charmaz 2006) though we do not adhere strictly to all aspects of this approach. In our analysis, we have employed an iterative coding process performed using the ATLAS.ti computer aided qualitative data analysis software. In a first cycle of initial coding (Charmaz 2006, 47) the reasons respondents give for using or not using the internet on the mobile phone were identified. A single coder was responsible for this initial coding which stayed quite close to the data and primarily used descriptive coding (Saldaña 2009, 70) due to the condensed and often descriptive nature of the material. In a second cycle, two coders collaborated to form categories from the initial codes and identify more abstract themes through focused coding (Charmaz 2006, 57; Saldaña 2009, 155). During the focused coding cycle, the initial codes were collaboratively revisited, discussed, and revised as needed to ensure a common understanding of the material among the coders.

To strengthen the analysis and interpretation and to provide context and background for the qualitative material we will also draw selectively upon the quantitative aspects of the survey. Specifically, we will draw upon descriptive statistics about the uses and non-uses of the internet on the mobile phone from the sample of the 216 respondents.

The educational profile of the ITU is situated at the intersection of design, media studies, business, and software development. Because of the university’s overall focus on IT, the students are typically earlier adopters and heavier users of information technology than the average young Dane. The students of the IT University in this way cannot be assumed to be representative of the average Danish mobile phone user and it is important to keep in mind that we are not trying to generalize our findings to a wider context. However, because the students at the IT University are somewhat ahead of the Danish adoption curve—many being early adopters of technology— we expect that the categories and themes discovered here will have exemplary value for a range of the issues at stake in the use of convergent mobile media in a Danish context.

Analysis

We now move on to the analysis of the qualitative replies to the open-ended question "Please describe in a few words why you started accessing the internet with your mobile phone—or why you do not". This section is divided into three parts. The first part analyzes the replies from respondents who use the internet on the mobile phone, the second part replies from those who do not. As will become apparent, some analytical concepts apply to both parts: It is clear for instance that handset affordances can be both enabling and constraining of internet use on the mobile phone. To avoid analytic redundancy any overlapping concepts will be considered in greatest detail in the first part. We round off the analysis with a discussion of the uses of the mobile internet vis-à-vis pc based internet.

Categories and themes identified using the grounded theory approach described earlier are used as headings to structure the presentation of the analysis in the following.

Use of the Internet on the Mobile Phone

"Because I can!". The statement used to label this first category was used by several respondents to describe their reasons for using the internet on the mobile phone. For them, a main motivation to use the internet on their phones is simply that after acquiring a new (smart) phone, they have the possibility of doing so:

"Because I can when I have a smartphone" (female, 20).

"My old phone died and I got myself a smartphone. It seemed natural to me to use all features it could offer: Like weather forecast, browser etc." (male, 22).

"I broke my old phone and didn't see the point in not buying a smartphone. I didn't expect to get this dependent on internet features. I guess you only realize how convenient it is once you've got it" (second female, 20).

Statement such as the above exemplify that using the internet on the mobile phone may not be something that there is a strong pre-existing need for in the group. Once the opportunity arises—for instance through the purchase of a new handset—smartphone owners, however, come to appreciate the opportunities the extra connectivity provides. This resonates well with previous research. Ling and Sundsøy (2009) conducted a longitudinal study of the data use patterns of Norwegian mobile phone users who switched to the iPhone. A main finding from this research is that after switching to a modern smartphone, data use patterns changed. Newly converted iPhone users began using the mobile internet much more than they had prior to being iPhone users. This supports the notion above that once users get the opportunity to use the internet on a capable mobile device they tend to do so.

Affordances of the smartphone. It is apparent that the experience—good or bad—of using a mobile device influences patterns of adoption and use of the internet on that device. Indeed, the fact that using the internet on the mobile is easy is the most common motivation given in the material for using it—by far. This is often linked to certain properties or affordances of the smartphone—the possibilities, enablements and constraints associated with it (Hutchby 2006, 166)—which make it a viable and sometimes even preferred way to access the internet. Indeed, our quantitative data show that of smartphone owners [2] , 89% (N=156) use the mobile internet on their mobile phones daily; by contrast 78% (N=45) of non-smart mobile phone owners never use the mobile internet.

One important characteristic of most smartphones is the small physical size of the devices themselves. The following quote illustrates how the smaller size of the devices in some situations make it the best option for accessing the internet when the physical context is not well suited for using the computer:

"Because I got a phone which could access the internet, it's always available, and it's nicer to handle if you're e.g. laying down or sitting without a lot of space around you." (male, 26).

The above quotation exemplifies how the smaller physical frame of the mobile device affords easier handling than for instance a laptop computer in some situations: It is easier to use it while lying down, walking around outside or sitting on a crowded bus.

The size and resolution of the screens on modern phones also makes the content more useable in comparison to earlier phones. A 26 year-old female respondent writes:

"Easier, always by your side. The screens became so big that you could actually see something on them." (female, 26).

One aspect of the ease of use associated with particularly smartphones is due to the intuitive and fluent interaction a good touch interface implementation affords. Norman and Nielsen (2010, 49) in a recent report on the gestural interfaces employed on many smartphones and other convergent mobile media noted that these interfaces "... can be extremely effective while also conveying a sense of fun and pleasure". The main point of the article, however, is that the lack of standards associated with the new gesture based interfaces (as implemented by the programs and apps that use them) is resulting in poorer usability of the devices. For Norman and Nielsen the frame of comparison, however, seems mainly to be the usability and standardization of current personal computer interfaces—not the taxing interfaces of previous generations of mobile phones. Compared to these, modern smartphones arguably offer a much more fluent and easy access to internet services.

Associated with the large touch screen displays of many newer handsets are also often full QWERTY keyboards, which afford the writing of longer messages with greater ease for some users when compared to the alphanumeric key pads found on older mobile phones.

"Apps"—small programs that can be installed after market on mobile phones (Krum 2010, 133)—also likely play an important part in the overall ease of use associated with smartphones. While the quantitative data show that our respondents download apps—69% (N=213) downloads free apps and 44% (N=210) downloads paid apps at least monthly, few, however, mention them in the qualitative material. It is unclear why we see this discrepancy, but one interpretation would be that the use of apps may simply be an integrated part of the use of the mobile internet in general and implicit in the statements that using the internet on the mobile phone is easy and convenient.

Some features, then, make the smartphone the preferred way to access the internet under particular circumstances. There are however increasingly also services that are mobile-only. This is for instance the case with services such as Foursquare, a location-based social network (Gordon and de Souza e Silva 2011), which uses the geographical position of the mobile phone to allow users to "check in" to physical locations:

"Some things are done more easily on the phone, and some things are done only on the phone (e.g. Foursquare)". (Male, 27).

Interestingly, very few of the respondents actually use location-based services (such as Facebook Places, Foursquare and Gowalla). Out of 213 respondents 8% use them daily, 7% weekly, 6% monthly, and an overwhelming 80% never use them.

Overall, these affordances help to make modern smartphones and the mobile internet easier to use which is a main motivation for the adoption and use of the latter.

Passing time. Frequently, the internet on the mobile phone is used as a means to pass time in various ways. One recurring scenario in the material is that it helps to pass time during downtime such as transport. This is similar to Cui & Roto’s finding that the mobile internet is often used in "the moments between planned activities" (2008, 908), time that would otherwise be idle. The use of mobile technologies to pass time has been well documented in earlier studies about the use of the mobile phone and in particular SMS (Stald 2007; Stald 2008) as well as mobile internet use (Cui and Roto 2008; Nielsen and Fjuk 2010).

One respondent describes how boredom during transport was the initial reason motivating him to get a phone capable of internet access—only afterwards did it become useful to him:

"I was bored when traveling from Ringsted to Copenhagen. That was the main reason for buying a phone with internet access. Afterwards it became a useful feature besides transportation." (male, 24).

This illustrates how the ability to use the technology to pass time is an important reason for its use and at the same time in many ways echoes the sentiments found in the category "Because I Can!" above.

Passing time, of course, can be many things. One such thing is the use of social network sites. A female respondent writes:

"To check Facebook during transportation. And I use it to settle bets when we (friends) disagree on something while out." (female, 24).

Using social network sites rather surprisingly is only mentioned specifically by few respondents. However, considering the widespread use of social network sites and similar social media, we expect that when respondents mention how the smartphone is used for passing time this most likely includes the use of social network sites. Indeed, 60% (N=212) of our respondents use Facebook on their mobile phones at least weekly and 41% use it daily.

Another variant of passing time mentioned by some respondents is the ability to be productive in otherwise unproductive situations. The quantitative data underscores this; email for instance is a very popular application of the internet on the mobile among the respondents—it is in fact the most popular application—with 59% (N=206) using it daily.

Online gaming is likely an aspect of "passing time" as well. We did unfortunately not ask about online gaming behavior in the ITU pilot study, and it was not mentioned as a reason for using the internet on the mobile phone in the qualitative material.

Staying connected. A salient theme in the material is the importance of staying connected. This theme appears directly—through explicit statements—as well as indirectly in the material. When respondents discuss the ability to stay connected explicitly, they often mention the value of having access to information wherever they are:

"Very simple: Accessibility. I don't have to limit myself to the confining of my home, university or work but can gather information all the time, everywhere." (Male, 27).

Social mobile communication (such as access to social network sites) is also mentioned as a reason for using the mobile internet, albeit not as frequently. As described earlier, however, we can see from the quantitative data that the respondents do use services such as Facebook—but they rarely give this as a specific reason for using the mobile internet. Interestingly, email (which is also a very popular application of the mobile internet) is mentioned by several respondents in the qualitative material. A reason that mobile email may be more important to the respondents than social media is that email is often the preferred medium for university and work communication—important information that they would not want miss out on. Facebook on the other hand is likely more about social updating, relaxation, and fun.

It is clear that there are significant overlaps between this theme and the "affordances" theme presented above—internet connectivity, after all, is an affordance of the smartphone and what enables many of the use patterns associated with it.

Non-use of the internet on the mobile phone.

Limitations of handsets or subscriptions. The most salient reason for not using the internet on the mobile phone is by far that phones or subscriptions either full out do not support or allow internet access, or support it so poorly that the respondents cannot be bothered to use it. As was evident from the reasons given for using the internet on mobile phones, ease of use—in this case the lack of it—is important:

"I don't think it's even capable of it. I'd want an iPhone or something like that, in order to even bother trying to access the internet with my phone." (male, 30).

In many ways this quotation also belongs to the affordances category that we presented previously: Users of the internet on the mobile phone praise the fact that their devices afford quick and easy access to the internet whereas non-users conversely lament the fact that their devices do not.

Costs associated with handsets or use. Another important reason for not using the internet on the mobile phone is the issue of cost. Both acquiring the actual smartphone handset as well as the data subscription to go with it to use the internet can seem costly—particularly when on a student’s budget. For some, this is an obstacle to the use of the technology:

"I would like to, but can not afford a smartphone at the moment, with access to the internet." (female, 24).

"It's complicated and expensive with my cell - maybe if I had a smartphone and could go on wireless." (female, 25).

That cost is an important factor in the appropriation and use of mobile technology is in accordance with previous research where cost has also been found to play an important role in the adoption of mobile technologies: The early mass adoption of SMS in the Nordic region was in part driven by the relative low cost of this communication form vis-a-vis voice calls (Ling 2004, 150). The recent growth of texting in the US too has been tied to the availability of cheap unlimited texting plans (Lenhart et al. 2010, 23). Also, the use of the internet on the mobile phone has been found to depend on the associated costs (Nielsen and Fjuk 2010).

While we only see costs mentioned as a negative influencing factor in the material, it is clear that it may also work in a positive direction; the cost of mobile data subscriptions has decreased over the last years (see for instance The Danish Business Authority 2011)—presumably further lowering the threshold for beginning to use the mobile internet.

Attitudes. Very few of our respondents provide general attitudes (such as reservations to being connected at all times) as the reason for not using the internet on their mobile phones. Non-use among the respondents seems to be mainly due to the more pragmatic concerns listed above and less due to general considerations. The fact that most of the respondents are users of the mobile internet, however, probably also contributes to the relative absence of more general attitudes; as does the generality of the question they are responding to. More specific questioning may illicit more nuanced data on the attitudes towards convergent mobile technology among users and non-users alike, an interesting topic for further research.

Already covered. Some respondents do not see the need in using the internet on the mobile phone at all. Their need for being online is already met by using the internet on the computer and they do not experience a need for connectivity beyond that:

"[It is a] Waste of money when I have a laptop. I seldom have the need to check the Internet on my phone" (male, 24).

"I use my phone for calling or texting people. If I want to go on the internet I use a computer. I have no use for a phone with internet" (male, 26).

An important point in this context is that virtually all the respondents in the sample own a laptop computer (99%, N=213) and use it at the ITU (98%, N=211). Denmark in general also has a high penetration rate for laptop computers—78% of households in 2011 owned at least one (Danmarks Statistik 2011). When the respondents thus use the internet on the mobile phone this occurs in a context where internet services are already available to them much of the day through the laptop computer. The use of the internet on the smartphone in this way becomes more of a supplement than a requisite for online access—something that some users see no need for.

The mobile phone vs. the personal computer. As we described above, it is clear that much of the internet based functionality found on the smartphone is already available to users on the personal computer. Therefore it is hardly surprising that many of our respondents use the computer as the frame of reference when discussing the use of the internet on the mobile phone. When approaching these discussions analytically, two distinct patterns emerge where the mobile phone appears in the role of either an extension to or a task-specific substitute for the personal computer.

For some respondents the internet on the mobile phone is used as an extension to the computer by providing access to tasks and services typically associated with the computer in situations where this is not available:

"If I'm not close to a computer, I use my phone instead. I would use a computer at anytime over my mobile, but when I'm not in contact with a computer, the mobile will have to do" (male, 27).

For other respondents, the internet on the mobile phone is used as a substitute for using the computer—particularly for smaller and simpler tasks. In the material there are two main reasons given for this. First, the mobile phone is always with you and always at hand. For smaller tasks such as checking email or Facebook it may simply be easier and more convenient to pull out the mobile phone rather than sitting down at the computer. Second, the mobile phone is always and instantly on whereas the computer can take much longer to start up. These aspects are both exemplified in the following quotation:

"I always have my phone with me, so it's easy and convenient. It's also always turned on, so I don't have to wait for my laptop to start up. Sometimes I am in a hurry" (female, 20).

As mentioned previously, the internet on the mobile phone may be particularly useful for smaller, simpler tasks. We see this exemplified in the following:

"Its easier to pick your phone out of your pocket than to take your laptop out of your bag. So usually it is used for quick internet searches and mail reading, while the laptop is used for replying longer answers back." (male, 25).

For this respondent, the mobile phone is preferred for small quick tasks such as email reading. Conversely, the computer is preferred for longer replies. Why is this? The physical size of the device—which we previously discussed in terms of its affordances—may be one factor influencing use: The predominantly touch based interaction of modern smartphones may be efficient for tasks that can be performed via the often limited interfaces of apps or adapted web pages ideally suited for finger based interaction. However, more complicated interaction may be easier to perform on the computer with the more fine grained pointing tools available there (Ling and Svanæs 2011). Reading an email or writing a short informal one may be fine, whereas writing longer more formal emails may be deemed too cumbersome. Likewise, navigating a full sized webpage may require so much "pinching" and moving about that it simply becomes annoying—despite the much improved interfaces of modern smartphones.

In many ways, the above is a continuation of the affordances theme presented earlier; certain properties of the internet equipped smartphone makes it a preferred medium in some situations. As Green and Haddon (2009, 36–42) have pointed out, however, while the technological properties of ICTs are important in shaping media uses and choices, the affordances view cannot stand on its own; there are many contextual factors to consider as well. Considering the communication aspects of ICT use, Green and Haddon mention the urgency of the communication, the nature of the relationship between communication partners, the physical proximity of the communicating parties, and the communication norms as factors that—while in no way intended as an exhaustive list—are all considerations when making choices (Green and Haddon 2009, 40). These contextual influences on media use and media choices are difficult to capture using a method such as the one used in this article. They are, however, interesting and future research could explore these in greater detail using qualitative methods producing richer contextual descriptions.

It is clear that both themes identified above presupposes the presence and use of the personal computer. Whether the respondents use the smartphone to extend the personal computer or they use it instead of the computer for some (typically simpler) tasks, the computer is—so far—still the dominant internet medium. Much like the introduction of the mobile phone allowed for micro-coordination—which introduced increased flexibility in planning face-to-face appointments (Ling 2004)—mobile access introduces flexibility in Internet use. This becomes less of a discrete event—lifted out of the (less mobile) use context of the computer—and further integrated into the mobile micro flows of everyday life.

Conclusion

Many of the categories and themes we have presented from the material are in a way quite mundane: The internet is used on the mobile phone because it is available, easy and convenient—when the mobile phone and associated subscription properly affords such use. When the internet is used on the mobile phone instead of on the computer—which offers much of the same functionality—this likely happens in situations when the mobile phone is experienced as the best choice. That is, when it best fits the context or when it is simply easier to use the mobile because of quicker access to simple functionality in particular. Conversely the computer may be easier for more complex tasks and the best choice in such situations.

The respondents who use the internet on the mobile phone do not do so because they lack internet access in general—they have it with them on their computers through much of the day. Using the Internet on the mobile phone for this reason may not seem like something there is a strong need for—which is also reflected in the non-use and disinterest of some respondents. Once respondents acquire a capable handset, however, they tend to use the mobile internet daily—which seems to suggest that for some the mobile internet is somewhat of an "acquired need". Buying a mobile phone with internet access is not a necessity in order to be able to go online frequently but rather an opportunity to expand the number of platforms and situations when one can be online. It allows users to do things which may not be particularly different from what they can do on the computer but they can do so easily when and where they please. In this way mobile internet extends pc based internet, and in some cases may even displace it—particularly for smaller, simpler tasks. The empirical material indicates that the computer, however, at the present time is still the frame of reference and preferred medium for internet use.

When the internet is not used on the mobile phone, main reasons are that it is not possible due to handset or subscription limitations, too cumbersome to be practical or too expensive to be worth it. The last two points are often associated with older mobile phones. In our material very few more general attitudes (towards technology and use etc.) are given as reasons for non-use.

While many of the reasons given for using the internet on the mobile phone as mentioned above are somewhat mundane, we do see indications that being able to use the internet on the mobile phone is still something new and even exciting to many respondents. An example of this is that a few of the respondents spontaneously wrote in their replies that they were "in fact" doing the survey on their smartphones. The sense of wonder implicit in such statements underscores the fact that being able to use the internet on the mobile phone in a relatively unhindered and easy way is still a very new and novel thing to many people at this time.

Even if mobile internet access has been possible since the late 1990s when the WAP protocol first became available (Goggin 2006), we are studying a phenomenon still in the making, its role still being negotiated and consequences not yet clear. As the use of the mobile internet continues to grow it is increasingly gaining a position as an obvious choice for communication, information access and entertainment. Some of the respondents from the ITU study whom we have quoted in the section about non-use may be the next users of online services from their mobile—because a new phone, new apps, new pricing, new social opportunities or perhaps a new everyday life will make it the obvious choice for them. Besides this, the use of the mobile phone for an increasing number of services online as well as offline takes place in a continuous interaction with other digital platforms; ongoing negotiations take place regarding which platform to use in which situation for which purposes and with which results. And the balance between the use of the platforms is constantly changing. As these negotiations proceed over time, it is likely that the perception of the role of the mobile phone as a platform for personal communication, as a citizen tool and as a handheld mobile internet platform is changing with them. This, however, needs to be studied further.