Determinants For Smart Phone Usage

HELSINKI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Faculty of Information and Natural Sciences

Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Pardeep Maheshwaree
DETERMINANTS OF SMARTPHONE USAGE
Master‟s Thesis
Espoo, August 25th , 2009
Supervisor: Professor Antti Ylä-Jääski

Instructors: Hannu Verkasalo Dr.Sc. (Tech)
Professor Heikki Hämmäinen
II
HELSINKI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Abstract of the Master’s Thesis
Author: Pardeep Maheshwaree

Name of the Thesis: Determinants of smartphone usage
Number of pages: 8 + 146
Department: Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Professorship: T-110 Telecommunication Software
Supervisor: Prof. Antti Ylä-Jääski
Hannu Verkasalo Dr. Sc. (Tech.)
Instructors:
Prof. Heikki Hämmäinen
This thesis explores behavioral data collected in real environments of mobile subscribers,
to determine how people use mobile services and their handsets. In order to analyze
consumer behavior, the thesis uses a combination of subjective questionnaire and
objective smartphone usage data. The data has been collected from coordinated user
surveys and handset-based measurement panels, respectively. This way, it provides a
mechanism to observe actual user behavior in addition to their subjective intentions. The
thesis uses hypotheses driven research approach to formulate a user behavior research
model, to be evaluated with statistical analysis. Statistical techniques used include non-
linear regression models and duration analysis.
The conducted analysis assesses the quantifiable impact of contextual, user-specific,

demand-side and technology related factors in influencing the usage of mobile
applications. As a conclusion of the analysis, all these factors are found to have a
significant effect on the usage, though to a varying degree. User-specific variables
explain greater variance (e.g. Female users are nearly twice more likely to use SMS
service than males) in the user behavior, comparatively. Amongst contextual variables,
time of the day and roaming status (home vs. abroad) tend to affect the usage of all
services substantially. For example, odds of using browsing and voice are almost halved
when roaming abroad. It is also revealed that people using handsets having WiFi
connectivity capabilities are 1.5 times more likely to use the mobile browsing. Access
network technologies (e.g. Wireless Local Area Network and Wideband Code Division
Multiple Access) also affect the usage of data services in terms of session durations.
The analysis method presented provides a mechanism to analyze the behavior of mobile
subscribers at micro-level, accurately. The modeling process and results of the thesis can
be taken into use by network operators, service providers, handset-manufacturers and
regulatory bodies for business gains. The extracted insights on user behavior are
beneficial in segmenting the user base, designing new user interfaces, deciding on the
strategies to bundle services into fixed price plans, or in customizing devices and
designing effective targeting strategies. This has significant bear on telecommunication
industry which is currently seeking ways to increase revenues, particularly through novel
mobile data services.
Keywords: mobile user behaviour, smartphone service usage, service adoption.

III
Acknowledgements
First and foremost I would express my gratitude by thanking Prof. Heikki Hämmäinen for giving
me this great opportunity to join his team and carry out my master‟s thesis work here. I would
like to express thanks to the utmost level to Dr. Hannu Verkasalo for providing me great deal of
invaluable guidance, support and help in accomplishing this work. I am also grateful to Prof.
Antti Ylä-Jääski for his supervision and advice.
I am thankful to MoMI project stakeholders for their financial support and providing me with the
research forum for participation. I am thankful to Mikko Heikkinen and Netbiz team for their
valuable support in the thesis work.
I express my gratitude to all my friends, especially Kasimir and Sachin for revitalizing my energy
levels during the office lunches.
I have no words to express thanks to my family, but a fact that without them I have not existed to
complete this work.
Espoo, Finland, August 2009
Pardeep Maheshwaree
IV
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ III
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... III
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. IV
List of Tables.................................................................................................................... VI
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ VII
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ VIII
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Motivation ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Research question and objectives .......................................................................... 2
1.3 Scope ................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Research methods ................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Structure ............................................................................................................... 4
2 Background ............................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Mobile industry .................................................................................................... 6

2.2 User research ........................................................................................................ 8
2.3 Technology adoption frameworks ......................................................................... 9
2.4 Context and user behaviour ................................................................................ 11
2.5 Empirical research methods ................................................................................ 12
2.6 Handset-based measurement of user behaviour ................................................... 15
3 Data processing and statistical methods ................................................................ 18
3.1 Data processing .................................................................................................. 18

3.2 Statistical methods .............................................................................................. 18
3.2.1 Logistic regression ...................................................................................... 19
3.2.2 Multinomial Logistic regression .................................................................. 22
3.2.3 Duration modelling...................................................................................... 23
4 Analysis ................................................................................................................... 25
4.1 Dataset ............................................................................................................... 25

4.2 Research model .................................................................................................. 27
4.3 Hypotheses ......................................................................................................... 28
4.4 Descriptive statistics of service usage ................................................................. 33
4.5 Logistic regression model of service usage ......................................................... 48
4.5.1 Model description ........................................................................................ 48
V
4.5.2 Model results ............................................................................................... 50

4.5.3 Model fit and validation .............................................................................. 56
4.6 Multinomial regression model of service usage................................................... 58

4.6.1 Model description ........................................................................................ 58
4.6.2 Model results ............................................................................................... 59
4.6.3 Model fit and validation .............................................................................. 61
4.7 Survival analysis of service usage sessions ......................................................... 62

4.7.1 Analysis description .................................................................................... 62
4.7.2 Analysis results and validation .................................................................... 62
4.7.3 Analysis validation ...................................................................................... 65
4.8 Significant findings and discussion ..................................................................... 67

4.8.1 Hypotheses summary................................................................................... 67
4.8.2 Internal validity and research inferences ...................................................... 68
4.8.3 External validity and results generalization .................................................. 70
4.9 Data limitations .................................................................................................. 72

5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 74
5.1 Results................................................................................................................ 74
5.2 Exploitation of results ......................................................................................... 75
5.3 Limitations and future research ........................................................................... 77
References ....................................................................................................................... 79
Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 86
Appendix A - Logistic regression output ....................................................................... 86

A.1 - Voice model..................................................................................................... 86
A.2 - SMS model ...................................................................................................... 90
A.3 - MMS model ..................................................................................................... 95
A.4 - Browsing model ............................................................................................. 100
A.5 - Camera model ................................................................................................ 105
A.6 - Music model .................................................................................................. 109
A.7 - Calendar model .............................................................................................. 113
A.8 - Maps model ................................................................................................... 118
Appendix B - Multinomial logistic regression output .................................................. 123

Appendix C - Survival analysis output ........................................................................ 129
C.1 - Time of the day .............................................................................................. 129
C.2 - Weekend/Weekday ........................................................................................ 135
C.3 - Access network technology ............................................................................ 138
VI
List of Tables
FIGURE 2.1: PANELISTS' INTENTIONS FOR USING AND THE MEASURED ACTUAL USAGE OF SMART-PHONE SERVICES (ADAPTED FROM
VERKASALO , 2008B) ................................................................................................................................ 7
FIGURE 2.2: THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR (ADAPTED FROM AJZEN 1991) ................................................................ 10
FIGURE 2.3: ARCHITECTURE OF HANDSET-BASED RESEARCH PROCESS (ADAPTED FROM VERKASALO 2009) ............................ 16
TABLE 3.1: STATISTICAL METHODS FOR DIFFERENT VARIABLES .................................................................................... 19
TABLE 4.29: DESCRIPTION OF PREDICTOR VARIABLES USED IN THE MODELLING ............................................................... 50
TABLE 4.30: CHANGE IN ODDS OF SERVICE USAGE (1 - ODDS RATIO) DUE TO CONTEXTUAL FACTORS .................................... 51
TABLE 4.31: CHANGE IN ODDS OF SERVICE USAGE (1 - ODDS RATIO) DUE TO CONSUMER ATTRIBUTES .................................. 53
TABLE 4.32: CHANGE IN ODDS OF SERVICE USAGE (1 - ODDS RATIO) DUE TO TECHNOLOGY FACTORS.................................... 54
TABLE 4.33: CHANGE IN ODDS OF SERVICE USAGE (1 - ODDS RATIO) DUE TO SERVICE-RELATED FACTORS .............................. 55
TABLE 4.34: CHANGE IN ODDS OF SERVICE USAGE (1 - ODDS RATIO) DUE TO USAGE INTENTIONS ........................................ 56
TABLE 4.35: MODEL FIT INFORMATION ............................................................................................................... 56
TABLE 4.36: CHANGE IN ODDS OF SERVICE USAGE DUE TO CONTEXTUAL FACTORS IN MULTINOMIAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS ....... 59
TABLE 4.37: CHANGE IN ODDS OF SERVICE USAGE DUE TO CONSUMER ATTRIBUTES IN MULTINOMIAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS ..... 60
TABLE 4.38: FACTORS AFFECTING SIGNIFICANTLY THE CHOICE OF APPLICATION OVER OTHERS ............................................. 61
TABLE 4.39: LIKELIHOOD RATIOS TESTS OF MULTINOMIAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL ................................................... 61
TABLE 4.43: GEHAN'S GENERALIZED WILCOXON TEST FOR CONTROL VARIABLE WEEKEND_DUMMY ..................................... 66
TABLE 4.44: GEHAN'S GENERALIZED WILCOXON TEST FOR CONTROL VARIABLE DAY_TIMES ............................................... 66
TABLE 4.45: GEHAN'S GENERALIZED WILCOXON TEST FOR CONTROL VARIABLE NETWORK ACCESS TECHNOLOGIES ................... 67
TABLE 4.46: HYPOTHESES RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 68
VII
List of Figures
FIGURE 2.1: PANELISTS' INTENTIONS FOR USING AND THE MEASURED ACTUAL USAGE OF SMART-PHONE SERVICES (ADAPTED FROM
VERKASALO , 2008B) ................................................................................................................................ 7
FIGURE 2.2: THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR (ADAPTED FROM AJZEN 1991) ................................................................ 10
FIGURE 2.3: ARCHITECTURE OF HANDSET-BASED RESEARCH PROCESS (ADAPTED FROM VERKASALO 2009) ............................ 16
FIGURE 3.2: S-SHAPED CURVE............................................................................................................................ 20
FIGURE 3.3: SURVIVAL FUNCTION GRAPHS (ADAPTED FROM KLEINBAUM AND KLEIN 2005) .............................................. 24
FIGURE 4.1: DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE DATASET USED. ............................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 4.2: RESEARCH MODEL – THEORY OF REAL BEHAVIOUR .................................................................................. 28
FIGURE 4.3: APPLICATION USAGE AT DIFFERENT BATTERY LEVELS – ACTIVE TIME ........................................................... 34
FIGURE 4.4: APPLICATION USAGE AT DIFFERENT BATTERY LEVELS – LAUNCHES .............................................................. 35
FIGURE 4.5: APPLICATION USAGE BY INTERNATIONAL ROAMING /HOME – ACTIVE TIME ................................................... 35
FIGURE 4.6: APPLICATION USAGE BY INTERNATIONAL ROAMING /HOME – LAUNCHES ...................................................... 36
FIGURE 4.7: APPLICATION USAGE AT DIFFERENT PHASES OF THE DAY – ACTIVE TIME ...................................................... 36
FIGURE 4.8: APPLICATION USAGE AT DIFFERENT PHASES OF THE DAY – LAUNCHES ......................................................... 37
FIGURE 4.9: APPLICATION USAGE ON WEEKDAYS/WEEKENDS – ACTIVE TIME ............................................................... 38
FIGURE 4.10: APPLICATION USAGE ON WEEKDAYS/WEEKENDS – LAUNCHES ................................................................ 38
FIGURE 4.11: APPLICATION USAGE BY GENDER – ACTIVE TIME .................................................................................. 39
FIGURE 4.12: APPLICATION USAGE BY GENDER – LAUNCHES ..................................................................................... 39
FIGURE 4.13: APPLICATION USAGE BY AGE – ACTIVE TIME ....................................................................................... 40
FIGURE 4.14: APPLICATION USAGE BY AGE – LAUNCHES .......................................................................................... 40
FIGURE 4.15: APPLICATION USAGE BY OCCUPATION – ACTIVE TIME ............................................................................ 41
FIGURE 4.16: APPLICATION USAGE BY OCCUPATION – LAUNCHES ............................................................................... 41
FIGURE 4.17: APPLICATION USAGE BY SMARTPHONE EXPERIENCE – ACTIVE TIME ........................................................... 42
FIGURE 4.18: APPLICATION USAGE BY SMARTPHONE EXPERIENCE – LAUNCHES .............................................................. 42
FIGURE 4.19: BROWSING USAGE BY WLAN – ACTIVE TIME ...................................................................................... 43
FIGURE 4.20: BROWSING USAGE BY WLAN – LAUNCHES ......................................................................................... 43
FIGURE 4.21: ACCESS-NETWORK USE .................................................................................................................. 44
FIGURE 4.22: APPLICATION USAGE BY DIFFERENT SCREEN SIZE – ACTIVE TIME .............................................................. 45
FIGURE 4.23: APPLICATION USAGE BY DIFFERENT SCREEN SIZE – LAUNCHES ................................................................. 45
FIGURE 4.24: APPLICATION USAGE AT DIFFERENT SUBSCRIPTION PLANS – ACTIVE TIME .................................................. 46
FIGURE 4.25: APPLICATION USAGE AT DIFFERENT SUBSCRIPTION PLANS – LAUNCHES ..................................................... 46
FIGURE 4.26: APPLICATION USAGE AT DIFFERENT INTENTION LEVELS – ACTIVE TIME ...................................................... 47
FIGURE 4.27: APPLICATION USAGE AT DIFFERENT INTENTION LEVELS – LAUNCHES ......................................................... 47
FIGURE 4.28: ARCHITECTURE OF SERVICE USAGE MODEL .......................................................................................... 48
FIGURE 4.40: SURVIVAL FUNCTION OF BROWSING SESSIONS FACTORED BY TIME OF THE DAY .............................................. 63
FIGURE 4.41: SURVIVAL FUNCTION OF BROWSING SESSIONS FACTORED BY WEEKDAY/WEEKEND ......................................... 64
FIGURE 4.42: SURVIVAL FUNCTION OF BROWSING SESSIONS FACTORED BY SESSION BEARER (ACCESS-NETWORK) ..................... 65
VIII
Abbreviations
3G Third Generations
ABPU Average Billing Per User
API Application Programming Interface
ARPU Average Revenue Per User
EDGE Enhanced Data rates for GSM Evolution
GPRS General Packet Radio Service
GSM Global System for Mobile communications
ICT Information and Communication Technology
ISP Internet Service Provider
MDS Mobile Data Services
MMS Multimedia Messaging Service
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OR Odds Ratio
OS Operating System
PIM Personal Information Management
S60 Series 60
SEM Structural Equation Model
SMS Short Message Service
TAM Technology Acceptance Model
TKK Teknillinen korkeakoulu
TPB Theory of Planned Behaviour
TRA Theory of Reasoned Action
URL Uniform Resource Locator
UTAUT Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
WCDMA Wideband Code Division Multiple Access
WiFi Wireless Fidelity
WLAN Wireless Local Area Network
Chapter 1 - Introduction 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Motivation
The mobile phone industry and the business around mobile applications have seen tremendous
growth in the past few years. The number of mobile subscriptions has already crossed the four
billion mark (GSMA 2009). But number of phones with advanced multimedia and connectivity
capabilities, referred as smartphones, is proportionally low (Strategy Analytics, 2009). However,
smartphone penetration is growing exponentially and as a consequence mobile industry grows
through more expensive device sales and associated supplementary revenues from services and
applications (Strategy Analytics, 2009). Consequently, instigating several industries converge to
mobile (entertainment and commerce to name a few).
The evolution of mobile industry, along with very high and rapid user penetration, has a profound
effect on consumer behaviour and the mobile phone subscribers use mobile device in a variety of
ways. It is now important to know under what circumstances people use the device, how they use
it and what are the factors triggering that specific use. Such knowledge is now seen very
important to all major players of the industry namely: mobile service developers, device
manufacturers and telecommunication operators to keep up with the growing maturity of the
industry. High-quality user experience research with new data collection mechanisms can open
doors to a whole new set of insights into mobile consumer behaviour and exhibit the needs for
next generation mobile applications, devices and services.
These factors affecting the mobile service usage can be broadly classified as: contextual factors,
technology-related factors, supply-side factors, demand-side factors and others (Verkasalo
2008a). Under the umbrella of contextual factors many variables dwell including (but not limited
to): location, time of the day, weekday, network (roaming or home network usage), battery status
and social context. Technology-related factors refer to parameters like device capability,
application usability and network performance. Supply-side factors include: pricing of the
service, service marketing (or service push), service availability and similar factors. Likewise
demand-side factors examples could be the needs or intentions of end-user and technology
absorption capabilities.
The thesis explores the effect of contextual factors, which influence the likelihood and the way of
using specific devices, applications and services for a given user and compares their observed
affect with the other usage-impacting factors. The study mainly employs empirical data with
statistical analysis methods. The behavioural data used for analysis, is collected from handset-
based research method (see Verkasalo & Hämmäinen 2007) in Finland during fall 2007. The
thesis also uses subjective data gathered from user surveys, this helps in building a
comprehensive view on user behaviour and experience. The analysis uses several statistical
techniques to find the relations between device usage and the triggering factors. The results are
then analyzed and findings on user behaviour are concluded based on the results.
This research is part of the MoMI project (Modeling of Mobile Internet Usage and Business) at
the Helsinki University of Technology. The objectives of the project include analyzing and
modeling of mobile user behavior, service usage and relevant business models. The partners of
the MoMI project are Elisa, DNA, Nokia, Aina, YLE, Accenture, the Ministry of Transport and
Communications, and, as the main financer, Tekes. In addition, there has been a research
cooperation with TeliaSonera.
1.2 Research question and objectives

There exist studies on mobile device usage in general (see Schlosser 2002; Sarker and Wells
2003; Nysveen et al., 2005 ; Verkasalo 2008a) and on more specific topics like, the effect of
context in mobile internet usage (see Sidel & Mayhew 2003) and adoption of mobile commerce
(see Pedersen 2005). But existing studies generally employ subjective data, study few services (or
service categories) and/or study user behaviour in a certain context only. This identifies a valid
research challenge of understanding mobile user behaviour comprehensively and precisely.
Therefore, foundation laid by the existing research work is used by the thesis in formulating
extensive and accurate mobile user behaviour model to be validated with the objective
behavioural data.
In order to have a broader understanding of the user behaviour, the thesis analyzes contextual,
user-specific and technology related variables simultaneously across multiple mobile services. A
model is prepared to study how contextual variables independently affect the service usage and
compare their effects relative to other variables, and across services. Also the statistical
techniques like causal and predictive analysis of the end-user usage of mobile device and the
relative impact of each of those factors have not been analyzed with empirically precise data
points yet.
The main research problem, taken here, is to analyse: how people use mobile services in a
certain context and which factors moderate their usage behaviour?
The research objective can be broken down into several research questions:
How weekday and time of the day affect the usage of a specific mobile service (e.g.
browser, music, navigation application and/or email)?
How does international roaming affect the mobile device usage?
How does end-user specific variable (e.g. user intentions, demographics) explain variance
in the device usage, compared to context-related variables (e.g. time of day)?
How do technical enablers (e.g. display screen size and network access technologies)
moderate service usage?
How service subscription-plans (e.g. flat rate) are affecting service adoption?
The objective of the research is to use statistical methods in a variety of ways in exploiting the
collected dataset and devising a mobile-consumer behavioural model. This model can then be
employed by service facilitators to efficiently utilize their resources by having the forecasting
ability of service usage and also provide users with context-aware and thus relevant service
offerings. It can be utilized by handset manufacturers to improve handset usability backed by the
usage patterns. It can also reveal social insights about the people in general (ethnographic
studies).
1.3 Scope
The thesis is primarily focused on statistical analysis of the empirical data with the aim of
modelling mobile consumer behaviour. Some marketing and business aspects are discussed as
well in order to have some practical insight of the analysis. Important service usage patterns are
also highlighted and are reflected in the model devised.
The data set used for analysis is from randomly invited smartphone users from Finland in the year
2007. There are inherent limitations involved with the use of specific data samples to model
mobile consumer behaviour in general. These include both sampling (like selection bias due to
random sampling and small subset of total smartphone users due to cost constraints of panel
studies) and non-sampling errors (random errors like unrealistic usage durations). However non-
sampling errors are minimised by data manipulation and outlier analysis techniques. Apart from
that, user segment contributing to the smart-phone usage data set are in the early adapter category
of Roger‟s innovation adoption curve (Rogers, 1995). Since analysis is based on the available
data, some trends might not be so viable which might depend on some other factors not present in
data.
1.4 Research methods

Literature study of the relevant background information involving statistical methods for
modelling, mobile consumer behaviour and contextual modelling is done using scientific
journals, publications and books.
Data processing and analysis is done using SPSS software package and its software add-on
packages including regression and neural networks modules. Understanding and application
usage of the package is acquired through associated manuals and statistics books.
Statistical methods used include multivariate regression analysis for assessing effect and impact
of certain factors on the service usage. Logistic regression method is also applied to realize the
predictive analysis for the behavioural modelling. For usage-duration analysis survival analysis
technique is employed.
1.5 Structure
Foremost, background information about the telecommunication industry as a whole and existing
research about mobile services and mobile user behaviour is discussed. Following this, is the
discussion regarding user-behaviour data and data collection mechanisms.
In the subsequent chapter data processing methods and employed statistical techniques are talked
about and their importance in the context of available handset usage-data is discussed. The
research model is then proposed for the hypotheses study. Following it is the descriptive study
about the behaviour data. Subsequently, findings from the in-depth statistical processing of data
are explored and the device usage habits and creditworthy factors are highlighted.
Then, a thorough analysis about the findings is presented and mobile device usage model is
formed. Concluding with the summary of research process and significance of results attained.
After that are the limitations of the current work and propositions for the future work, connecting
from the presented research work.
Chapter 2 - Background 6
2 Background
2.1 Mobile industry
Mobile industry has headed towards the future through enormous growth, reaching four billion
subscribers within three decades of its commercial launch and is forecasted to mark six billion by
the year 2013 (GSMA 2009). The industry is no more associated with voice services only.
Handsets have also become very sophisticated piece of equipment, which can act as a computing
device and are often referred as Smartphones. They typically have multimedia and internet access
capabilities and platform for installing new applications. Development of smartphones and digital
convergence has made inroads for mobile data services in the telecommunication industry.
The exponential growth of mobile industry and creation of competitive environment shaped by
telecommunication regulatory authorities, service prices have been falling sharply. This has
raised concerns for all the industry players to look for alternate revenue sources and hence
innovation has been at the centre of the industry evolution. Digital convergence of mobile
communication technologies and data communication services (internet), referred to as mobile
data services (MDS) by ITU. MDS has brought a new dimension in the telecommunication
industry and is considered as a potential source of returns to the industry. MDS are foreseen to be
the key drivers of revenue in the industry and their revenues were forecasted to reach $200 billion
in the year 2008 (ITU 2008).
The digital convergence has also caused the industrial boundaries to diminish and has attracted
many players from the data services domain to enter mobile industry and vice versa, thus
effectively raising the competitiveness of the industry. As a result of this convergence many new
areas of business have emerged into the industry and value networks (the relationships between
actors of the industry in providing value to consumer) have become more dynamic. However
alongside this convergence and evolution of MDS, expected ARPU has not increased to a level as
expected as seen in the Finnish market (Bouwman et al 2008a). One of the reasons for this lies in
the lesser adoption of mobile services by the user.
From a brief look at the research in mobile service adoption, it can be seen that intentions to use
mobile services are higher than the actual usage for many services (Verksalo 2008b) as depicted
in the figure 2.1. This necessitates detailed research on the mobile consumer behaviour, to find
further causal factors for understanding accurate user behaviour and hence ensure adequate
mobile service adoption levels to meet expected MDS revenues.
Figure 2.1: Panelists' intentions for using and the measured actual usage of smart-phone services
(adapted from Verkasalo, 2008b)
In order to explore more about service adoption, let us first define the mobile service in our
scope. Vargo & Lusch (2004) defined service as „the application of specialized competences
(knowledge and skills) through deeds, processes, and performances for the benefit of another
entity or the entity itself‟. Electronic services are therefore classified as services, which involve
electronic transactions. In this view mobile services can be defined as,‟ Mobile services are a
specific subset of electronic services. A mobile service is a service that is offered via mobile and
wireless networks. This assumes mobility on the part of the user of the services, the devices or
applications‟ (Bouwman et al. 2008b). Examples of mobile services include, but not limited to,
voice calling, messaging, mobile internet, email and mobile search are few broader categories of
them. In the scope of this thesis simplified definition of mobile service is held, defining mobile
services as, „electronic services consumed by a consumer of a handheld device, defined as a
pocket size device having a cellular radio interface‟.
With the roll out of third generation of networks, referred to as 3G, operators have laid a
considerable investment and have enhanced their overall capacity and bandwidth. The returns for
this investment were mainly bet on the high network utilization by mobile data services, but this
hypothesis is not proven yet. High capacity networks are yet to bring more good. Recent situation
has fierce competition with many players involved, ultimately resulting in decline in voice and
data tariffs and revenue from mobile data services was also not enough as expected (Bouwman et
al. 2008a).
2.2 User research

Mobile service industry is evolving with many new services around. But acceptance of the new
services by users has not been that rapid as anticipated, say in the case of MMS, video call or
mobile TV in many OECD countries. Mobile data services have not really picked up the
momentum in many western markets, besides being the availability of the services as well as the
device capabilities. Voice and SMS service are the major source of ABPU (Average Billing Per
User) for the operators (Verkasalo 2008c). This compels us to research on the consumer part and
analyse consumer behaviour and usage patterns of the mobile device, which can then help us
having effective service designs and better understanding of mobile-user needs.
There are many data services available today but their acceptance is no match to voice and SMS,
even in markets having high smart phone penetration like Finland (Verkasalo 2007). Large
consumer base and hence greater market potential of mobile services has attracted many
innovations in the mobile data service industry but still yet to find a disruption (Christensen
1997) in the industry which would change the dynamics of mobile service industry and shift the
play field in industry from traditional voice and SMS services to novel MDS.
There are existing studies which discuss the interaction between consumer and handheld device
as a whole (and not the specific applications) include, „Understanding Mobile Handheld Device
Use And Adoption‟ by Sarker and Wells (2003) and „So, how do people really use their handheld
devices? An interactive study of wireless technology use‟ by Schlosser (2002).
Schlosser study is focused on the use of handheld device in organizational context and studies
social and psychological factors moderating adoption of the technology in such context. Whereas
Sarker and Wells, use grounded theory approach and create a use and adoption framework for
handheld device, structured as inputs, process and output. They considered user characteristics,
message/task characteristics, technology characteristics, modality of mobility, and the

surrounding context as input factors affecting the device use.
However both these studies use interview methodology and carry a prominent subjectivity
element in their results. Also, their focus has been very macro from the behavior point of view
(like social factor does moderate the use), not exactly which social or contextual factors (time,
location, home/roaming) affect the use and how.
There are also several adoption studies based on services usage. They include: „Asynchronous
Adoption Patterns of Mobile Services‟ by Carlsson et al. (2005), „Adoption of Mobile
Devices/Services – Searching for Answers with the UTAUT‟ by Carlsson et al. (2006). These
studies also employ questionnaire based (subjective) approach. Later study is based on existing
adoption framework referred as UTAUT, and defined in section 2.3. Several other mobile
consumer research studies exist and many of those are based on established technology adoption
theories. Those studies are discussed alongside the relevant theory in the following section.
2.3 Technology adoption frameworks

There are several theoretical models on the adoption research in the information systems domain.
Starting from a generic model, Diffusion of Innovation from Rogers (1962) to more consumer-
focused theories like theory of reasoned action (TRA) by Fishbein & Ajzen (1975), theory of
planned behaviour (TPB) by Ajzen (1985; 1991) and technology acceptance model (TAM) by
Davis (1989).
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) defines person‟s behavioral intention of do something is

based on individual‟s own attitude (set of beliefs) towards the behavior and its subjective norms
(social influence). Later as an extension to TRA, Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) was
proposed by Ajzen (1985; 1991). TPB defined a new component „perceived behavioral control‟,
which refers to person‟s perception of difficulty or ease of performing the intended behavior (e.g.
economic freedom or self efficacy), as shown in figure 2.2. This factor accounted for the reason
of, intentional behavior not always leading to the actual behavior in TRA.
Figure 2.2: Theory of Planned Behavior (adapted from Ajzen 1991)
In this evolution of acceptance models, Davis (1989) forwarded Technology Acceptance model
(TAM). This model is focused to technology acceptance and defined perceived usefulness (PU)
and perceived ease of use (PEoU) as primary factors for acceptance of a technology. Perceived
Usefulness is defined here as, "the degree to which a person believes that using a particular
system would enhance his or her job performance." Perceived Ease of Use, in contrast, refers to
"the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort”.
TAM assumes that effect of external variables effecting intention to use can be mediated by PE
and PEoU. Later this model was extended to TAM2 by including social influence and cognitive
instrumental processes. TAM2 explained 40% of the variance, in the intention to use technology.
(See Venkatesh & Davis 2000).
TAM has been modified several times; one significant modification was Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) by Venkatesh et al. (2003). UTAUT holds
performance expectancy, effort expectancy and social influence as determinants of intentions to
use, and facilitating conditions along with intentions to shape the actual behavior. The theory
augments the existing theories on adoption of information technology and eight existing models
into a unified model and is able to explain 70% of variance in intention to use better than the
existing models of the time (Venkatesh et al. 2003).
Mobile service adoption has also been studied in the line of existing models. Pedersen &
Thorbjørnsen (2003) studied four mobile services (text messaging, gaming, contact and payment)
with an extended TAM model by combining information system theories with “uses and
gratification theory” (to understand gratification sought by users) and “domestication theory” (to
understand technology integration in people‟s daily life and its overall impact). Their model
employed statistical method, Structural Equation Model (SEM) and was able to explain 72.3%
variance in mobile service adoption (Nysveen et al. 2005).
Luarn and Lin (2005) studied intentions to use mobile services, by adding some new constructs
on top of TAM, in mobile banking context. Those constructs included trust-based (perceived
credibility) and resource-based (perceived self-efficacy and perceived financial cost). Later,
Verkasalo also studied the adoption of mobile services with a simple path model (Verkasalo
2008c).
Having intentions to use a service does not guarantee actual use by the consumer as depicted in
figure 2.1. This thesis intends to explore the underlying factors which could mediate intentions to
actual usage behavior. It studies the variance in actual use and not particularly the intentions to
use, as presented by the above theories, with four constructs in par with intentions in defining real
consumer behavior these include: context, service characteristics, technology enablers and
consumer attributes.
2.4 Context and user behaviour

Service adoption is a complex phenomenon to study and involves many study fields. Some
services are adopted at a rapid pace and frequency of usage of some services is significantly
higher than others. Service adoption is also variable with reference to user demographics and age
groups (Verkasalo 2008c). This econometric study (application of mathematical and statistical
techniques to economics) helps analyzing the consumer‟s usage behaviour of the mobile services
from the contextual point of view and compares the variance observed with contextual variables,
with user-specific and supply-side variables statistically.
Contextual variables gathered in this study can help us model partial context of the user. As
context is defined in this scope by these variables: Time of the day, weekend/weekday, battery
life and roaming/home. But context is more than that, as defined by Dey (2001) as “Context is
any information that can be used to characterize the situation of an entity. An entity is a person,
place, or object that is considered relevant to the interaction between a user and an application,
including the user and applications themselves”.
Context plays an important role in determining the use of mobile services by consumers and
hence is crucial in identifying adoption of mobile services. People use different services in
different context as demonstrated by Verkasalo (2008d) which identified contextual patterns in
mobile service usage and observed variance in their usage, in different contexts.
Other studies which highlight the role of context in mobile service usage include, „Mobile Phone
Talk in Context‟ by Esbjörnsson, M & Weilenmann (2005). The study focuses on the voice
calling (conversation) behavior in different contexts (e.g. conversation is preferred in car but
fitting room is not appropriate for it) and concludes that context has a significant impact in the
usage behavior and implies the need of context-aware applications.
Effect of context on another specific services like mobile internet, has also been studied by Sidel
& Mayhew in „The Emergence of Context: A Survey of MobileNet User Behavior‟ (2003),
specifically looking at the effect of time and location on mobile internet user behavior. The study
concludes that time and location context does not explain much variance in the MobiNet (mobile
internet) usage behavior, but suggests that psychological (e.g. need, motivation) or psychographic
factors (e.g. attitude, values) could potentially lead to good results. The research uses survey
methodology and hence subjective information.
The thesis explores the importance of context not only for calling service or mobile internet but
also for other services (e.g. messaging, music, office) using objective (hard usage) data as well as
subjective data (psychological factors). And also compares the variance observed with contextual
factors to that of demographic, psychological and psychographic variables, hence providing a
unique insight on this novel research area.
2.5 Empirical research methods

Empirical research involves the use of empirical observations (usually through collection of data)
to answer the research problems or test a hypotheses. The empirical research method can be
explained as a five stage cycle (De Groot, 1969). It starts with „Observation‟ phase which
involves collection of empirical facts and naive formation of hypotheses. Following is the
„Induction‟ phase where hypotheses are formulated. Then is the „Deduction‟ part where
consequences of the hypotheses are deduced as testable predictions. Fourth phase is „Testing‟ in
which the hypotheses are tested against new empirical material (data), to check if predictions are
justified. Final phase is of „Evaluation‟ of the outcome of the testing on the basis of
hypotheses/theories stated.
The empirical research methods can be classified as qualitative or quantitative, depending on the
type of the data collected and analysis methods applied (qualitative or quantitative). Quantitative
research methods typically involve numerical data collection and usually use statistical methods
for data processing whereas qualitative research methods involve qualitative data collection
(image, text or sound) and use different kinds of analysis techniques from qualitative ones.
In practice categorizing research methods as qualitative or quantitative is not always clear (Yin,
1994). For example, questionnaire studies can qualify for both the methods depending on the type
of questions i.e. open or closed. However different methods can lead to similar class of data
(quantitative or qualitative) but they have a difference in the „nature‟ of the data collected,
branched as subjective (from the user/subject) and objective data (of the actual use/object).
Objective behavioural data gathering involves automatic data collection procedures without
(possible) user influence on the data and/or experiment e.g. direct recording of the data from
user‟s actions. On the other hand subjective data is exposed to the possible individual bias e.g.
questionnaires and interviews. Objective data collection methods are usually preferred but are
costly and difficult to achieve. The thesis uses subjective as well as objective behavioural data
collection methods as prescribed by the research requirement.
Empirical research methods used for research in mobile consumer data analysis can be valuable
for: analysis of service adoption, research on stickiness of application usage, measurement of
technical performance, evaluation of end-user experience and collection of end-user feedback
(Verkasalo, 2009). These methods can be classified as:
Questionnaires
Expert Interview
Laboratory/Road tests
Traffic measurement
Server-based measurement
User charging/billing records
Handset-based client
Questionnaires methodology usually involves a series of questions to be asked by the

respondents. Here design of the questions and understanding of the respondents play a key role.
Also response interpretation poses another challenge, because of the subjectivity of the
respondent and researcher. However, they provide flexibility of gathering wide range of
information which could be difficult to measure otherwise and is subjective (personal views) like
pleasure, attitude, need, satisfaction, etc. They are used in this thesis to acquire immanent data
about service usage.
Interview methodology is interactive, and is more time consuming. This is more useful when
respondents have superior information about the topic and might open up new insights on the
subject. If research involves questions pertaining to tacit knowledge or personal beliefs or
questions and/or answers are not known in advance (unstructured interview), interview might be
a good choice (Forza 2002). Data accuracy is generally good, due to controlled environment.
Laboratory tests are done in the set and pre-planned environment. They are preferred in clinical
research, where context has to be known and controlled for the experiment to succeed. They are
also suited in situations when there are relatively few subjects and research involves well-defined
concepts (Pinsonneault & Kraemer 1993). But they might not be preferred for analysing general
user behaviour due to the high cost of setting of environment, even if the test environment is set
in casual-use context. In natural context they can be referred as road tests.
Traffic measurement is done at the network gateways (an entry point in the telecommunication
network) and is useful for network management. In this method data passing through the gateway
is recorded and analyzed. However mobile devices can connect to different networks (telecom
operators, different ISPs) it is not always possible to get all the usage data. Also device-user
interaction and services which do not require network connectivity cannot be recorded with it.
This is a preferred method when packet-level data within a network needs to be analysed rather
than application layer data (Kivi 2007).
For network applications, server-side measurements can also be arranged. Servers are application
specific and could record accurately service access-data measurements. Services which are billed
by the operators on usage can also be analyzed by their billing data. However they also have
similar limitations of the traffic measurement method.
For details on these research methodologies see Verkasalo (2009), where Verkasalo draws
comparisons between above research methodologies on the basis of these parameters: subjectivity
element in data, data accuracy and granularity, type of data (qualitative/quantitative) collection,
service suitability for the method, reach and scalability of method, external validity (general
representation of the sample being studied), reliability and internal validity of the data, flexibility
and potential for computerization.
2.6 Handset-based measurement of user behaviour

Mobile phone manufacturers, telecommunication operators and mobile service developers are
interested in knowing consumer behaviour and device usage trends at finer granularity. This can
help handset manufacturers to segment market (including niches), to add/remove/modify features
or functionalities and to measure success of the device and many business reasons could emerge
in this research area ranging from device design to service marketing and segmentation. Similarly
for telecommunication operators data is a critical asset in their business development and
management, as they are the ones in direct communication with the user. They need to know the
most useful services, the peak usage times and understand patterns in their customer‟s service
use. The more accurate and granular the data is, the more useful it could be. Same is the case with
service producers.
Despite being the immense need to analyze consumers, there has not been any established
traditional way to get accurate device and/or service usage data at micro-level. They typically rely
on survey-based research or server side measurements, so apart from data accuracy concern also
user-device interaction part is difficult to model.
Earlier Raento et al. (2005) have developed a software client for S60 platform which could
measure context specific end-user information (along with other functionalities) and facilitate
easy development of context-aware applications (see ContextPhone project from Raento et al.
2005). Their base version of the handset client can be customized for different research needs, as
used in “Reality Mining” research project at Media Labs in MIT (see Eagle 2005).
Another similar system and corresponding tool is MyExperience (see Froehlich et al. 2007),
which can capture objective as well as subjective in-situ data. MyExperience can be configured to
set triggers on sensor reading (objective behavioral data) to launch surveys (subjective behavioral
assessment) at decisive times, referred to as in-situ user experience sampling (e.g. if heartbeat
sensor records 150 bpm ask user about the pain feeling). Currently, this tool runs on proprietary
windows mobile operating systems.
Verksalo (2005) also studied the handset-based data measurement method, but with the intent of
end-user modelling and consumer research in contrast to ContextPhone which meant to
incorporate intelligence in the device and served as API (Application Programming Interface) for
context-aware applications. The objective behavioural data analysed in the thesis is acquired
through this method and the associated tools.
The method has been used and developed by the coordination of Helsinki University of
Technology, Nokia and Finnish Telecom operators. It requires a software program on the smart
handheld device, which records the customer usage data and logs it on to a panel. The software
client logged data is also complemented with questionnaire data to acquire demographics,
intentions and other subjective natured data. The data is stored at centralized servers as depicted
in architectural diagram below in figure 2.3:
Figure 2.3: Architecture of handset-based research process (adapted from Verkasalo 2009)
Panellists are selected with the help of operators which are partners in study. They typically send
thousands of invitation messages (SMS with a URL link to the panel subscription page) randomly
to their subscribers which possess required device capabilities. Those who are willing to
participate subscribe on the web page, where participants fill in their background information.
After successful registration they are sent with a link to download the handset monitoring client.
Users are to be given gift vouchers for their participation in the study.
Data collected by the handset-client is sent over http to the servers and is stored in MySQL
database. Data is stored in a way that all the related details are stored in a table form in one data
table in the database. For example all voice call data is stored in a separate table with a unique
handset identifier and every row in the table contains the details of a voice call made or received
by the panellist. Similarly many such tables are formed for other handset usage or events like
changing battery status (levels). Technical architecture of the data collection method and end-user
recruitment process can be found in Verkasalo‟s dissertation (2009).
This data collection method is far more accurate and observes micro-level usage of smart phones.
The process has several advantages over other research methods including: micro-level service
usage and user-device interaction logs, automatic gathering of device usage data which in effect
is objective and factual, and accuracy.
However handset client used is compatible with Nokia S60 smartphones only, which poses a
limitation to study only Nokia smartphone users. But this can be re-engineered for other
platforms. Also such studies require relatively good technical sophistication on user part to
successfully install client, this way study involves harm for random sampling. The monetary and
time cost (panellist recruitment) of panel study is high, which limits the number of participant and
hence contributes to statistical sampling errors. Legalities involved with a client capturing user
data are cumbersome and vary across international boundaries.
Handset-based methodology takes the user-centric view of the service and it is difficult to handle
data concerning: market push of the service (e.g. service marketing), network performance and
hence service performance (e.g. service availability), participant‟s beliefs and other subjective
information (like motivation, beliefs, need and attitude) about the service.
The thesis therefore uses questionnaire methodology, to acquire the subjective and demographic
information, alongside handset-based measurements to gather comprehensive data set on the
usage data and provide new insights in the domain by explaining the most variance in the usage.
Chapter 3 – Data processing and statistical methods 18
3 Data processing and statistical methods

3.1 Data processing
Data processing here refers to all operations done on the data before doing any statistical or
descriptive analysis. Data when extracted from the server databases is spread across different text
files in standard formats, each containing different set of information (different variables). These
files are then imported in statistical software packages (e.g. SPSS). Then formatting of the data is
done, following the same process for rest of the file. Then depending on the requirement of the
analysis, different files are merged. This merger can be of transactions (also referred to as cases
in SPSS) in different files or of variables in different files.
Some new variables are also computed and calculated like Time of the day e.g. morning, evening,
night, etc. Some binary variables (also referred as dichotomous or dummy or logical variables)
are also calculated like Boolean variables for weekend usage. Apart from these binary variables
new categorical variables are also computed, which for example include application categories
defining whether the application used is a multimedia application, Personal Information
Management (PIM) application, Map application, etc.
Data processing operation also include aggregation of data by some variables, sorting (ascending
or descending) by variable(s) and computation of some other types of variables (e.g. hour of the
day from the time variable of raw data). Data cleaning is also done as a part of data processing
where transactions (or cases) say which last for unusual duration or users who did not stay with
the panel study for enough time or any such unusual happening which most probably hinted data
errors were removed from the analysis. Since datasets became huge and contain variety of
variables so depending on the analysis many subset datasets are generated from the master file
and used for the analysis.
3.2 Statistical methods

Statistics encompasses techniques and methods which can be used for collecting, analyzing,
explaining and visualizing the data. Moreover since most of the statistical methods are
mathematical, so they can validate the results themselves, for example by statistical significance
or goodness-of-fit and similar measures. With these techniques one can explore data, observer
relationships in the data (between variables), do probabilistic analysis of occurrence of an event,

predictive analysis, cause-and-effect (causality) analysis, find data clusters (data classification),
duration analysis of events, and so forth. In context of mobile services these methods can be used
to find out the usage patterns of the consumers and assess the effect of different variables on it.
This analysis is then used to address the research goal of the thesis.
Use of statistical methods for observing mobile consumer behavior was also demonstrated by
Verkasalo (2005) with variety of statistical techniques, that too employing handset-based research
methodology. Methods used in this analysis typically involve „dependent‟ and „independent‟
variables; where independent variable(s) are the factor(s) that influence dependent variable,
which typically indicates the service use. These variables could be metric or non-metric
depending on the measured entity. The non-metric variables are then further classified as nominal
(e.g. Gender; nominate 1=Male and 2=Female) and ordinal interval (e.g. Brands; assign
BrandA=1, BrandB=2, BrandC=3, in decreasing order of preference i.e. BrandA has highest and
then it keeps on decreasing) and metric variables as interval (similar to ordinal variables but
difference between the values is taken equal in intensity like Likert scale) and ratio (similar to
interval but have natural base value e.g. age and ratios can be compared). This division of
variables gives rise to the different methods for different analyses as tabled below:
Statistical Method Dependent Variable(s) Independent Variable(s)
Logistic Regression Non-metric (but dichotomous) Non-metric and/or Metric
Multinomial Regression Non-metric (but categorical) Non-metric and/or Metric
Duration Modeling Metric (time) Non-metric and/or Metric
Table 3.1: Statistical methods for different variables
These methods are defined in detail in following sections.
3.2.1 Logistic regression
Logistic regression is a form of regression techniques, where a model is built to explain

relationship between a response variable and explanatory variable(s). The goal of this technique
like other regression techniques is to find a best-fit model to explain the variance in the response
variable (also known as dependent variable) by the independent variables (also known as
explanatory variables or predictors.
Regression methods can be classified as linear and non-linear methods based on the model
assumption. Logistic regression assumes non-linearity because unlike linear regression methods
(where outcome variable is continuous), dependent variable here is a dichotomous variable or
binary variable (Cox 1958). By non-linear relationship it is meant that change in the dependent
variable varies across same unit change in independent variable. For example change in battery
level from level 7(maximum) to 6 might not affect the music listening usage on handset to the
same extent as change from battery level 4 to 3. These kind of relationships are best described by
S-shape curves (Pampel, 2000).
Figure 3.2: S-shaped curve
Logistic regression model follows the general principles of linear regression, however there are
some differences as explained by Hosmer and Lemeshow (2004), important of those are briefly
discussed here. First, mean of outcome variable given value of independent variable (conditional
mean) denoted as E(Y|x), read as, expected value of Y (independent variable) given x (dependent
variable). In linear regression it equates to:
E(Y|x) = β0 + β1x (1)
In above equation it can be seen that conditional mean can take on any value between positive
infinity to negative infinity as x proceeds to infinity. However when dependent variable is
dichotomous, the mean cannot be greater than 1 and less than 0, and to form S-shape curve it is
defined by a logit transformation, denoted by π(x) by Hosmer and Lemeshow (2004):
(2)
or [in terms of π (x)]: (3)
= (4)
Second difference is in the error term of the model. Linear regression models defines: y = β0 +
β1x + ε, where ε is the error term and accounts for deviation from observed conditional mean.
Assumption there is ε is normally distributed with zero mean and constant variance. However for
logistic regression either ε = -π(x) for y =0 or ε = 1 - π(x) for y=1, i.e. binomial distribution and
has a variance of π(x) [1 - π(x)] (Hosmer and Lemeshow 2004).
In order to define model and estimate model parameters (β0 and β1) logistic regression uses
maximum-likelihood method. This method strategy is to estimate the parameters which maximize
the probability of obtaining observed dataset from the model constructed. For simplifying
calculation log likelihood is used.
Having fitted the model, it is also required to assess the adequacy and significance of the model.
Without assessing the fit of logistic model, consequences could be adverse (Hosmer et al., 1991).
There are two concerns here, one is associated with the variables in the model and can thought as,
whether the model with the predictor variable included effects the outcome of the model than the
model without that variable. If there exists a difference between the two models then the variable
in question is referred as „significant‟, this can be examined using log-likelihood and likelihood
ratio tests (for details see Hosmer and Lemeshow 2004). Second test defines how accurate model
can represent predicted values or outcome and is known as „goodness-of-fit‟. This can be tested
with „Hosmer-Lemeshow Tests‟ and/or Omnibus tests.
Result of logistic regression is interpreted in terms of „Odds Ratio‟ (OR). „Odds‟ is a way of
representing probability and is defined as the ratio of the probability of occurrence of an event to
the probability that it does not. For example odds of getting 1 when throwing a dice are:
(probability of getting 1) ÷ (probability of not getting 1) = 1/6 ÷ (1-1/6) = 1/5. For logistic
regression odds ratio can be defined as:
(5)
This can be further simplified to yield:
(6)
For example if y (dependent variable) denotes use of messaging application (isUsed=1) and x
(independent variable) represents gender (1=female; 0=male), then odds-ratio=2 indicates use of
messaging twice as likely as to occur in females than males. Odds ratio are easy to interpret but it
tends to have a skewed distribution as it cannot be negative, so logged odds (ln OR = β1) is used
to approximate normal distribution.
Logistic regression here is used to study the effect of variables (e.g. day times, user intentions,
and gender) on the use of every mobile service, where each mobile service is assigned a
dichotomous variable indicating its usage.
3.2.2 Multinomial Logistic regression
Multinomial logistic regression (also referred as „Multinomial Regression‟) is used to handle

situations when the outcome variable is nominal and contains more two categories (dichotomous
or binary). It is often used in situation when choice exists for several options and odds are to be
evaluated for predicting the choice based on the covariates. Multinomial regression requires a
reference category like logistic regression where value „0‟ is commonly assumed to be the
reference. But unlike logistic regression here it requires more than one logit function, typically n-
1 where n is the number of possible outcomes or categories. For example for three-outcome
dependent variable it needs two logit functions to estimate model parameters (Hosmer and
Lemeshow 2004). Output of multinomial regression is often interpreted in terms of Relative Risk
(RR) ratio which is defined as ratio of the probabilities (in contrast to ratio of odds), i.e. RR =
p1/p2 where p1 and p2 denote the probabilities of the categories. The relation between odds ratio
and relative risk ratio is defined in Agresti (2007) as:
(7)
However in some cases it is not always possible to estimate relative risk, especially when there is
retrospective sampling design (Agresti, 2007). But in situations when probabilities are small
odds ratio can be used to approximate relative risk as seen from equation 7.
3.2.3 Duration modelling
Duration modelling also referred as „Survival Analysis‟, is used to model time to the event of an
interest using statistical procedures . Survival analysis is one of the oldest statistical procedures, it
dates back to 17th century when John Graunt studied mortality tables in his book „Natural and
Political Observations made upon the Bills of Mortality‟. The technique was further developed in
19th and 20th century for use in other sciences. One major seminal development was a paper by
Kaplan & Meier (1958), which proposed a method of estimating survival curve without grouping
data into time interval and catered for incomplete life-time observations.
Outcome variable in survival analysis techniques is time until an event occurs. Time could be in
years, months, days, hours or seconds, and is usually from the beginning of the follow-up of case
to the point when the event occurs. Event could refer to any happening of interest, for example
termination of a voice call session. In survival analysis time is also termed as „survival time‟
because it usually denotes the period to which case (e.g. browsing session) has survived and
event is often referred as „failure‟ as it marks the end of case lifetime (Kleinbaum and Klein,
2005). Survival analysis is often presented in the form of a table, termed as „survival table‟.
Survival analysis often has to often deal with a problem of „time censoring‟. Censoring happens
when survival time of the case is not known exactly. This generally happens because: the case
does not encounter an event before the end of study period, cases is lost to follow-up or case
withdrawal (Kleinbaum and Klein, 2005). So survival time is usually censored to the known
(recorded) time.
Mathematically, survival analysis usually involves survivor function denoted by S(t) and hazard
function referred as h(t). Survivor function can be represented as can be represented as:
S(t) = P (T > t) (8)

Survivor function, in equation 8, can be read as the probability that a case survives longer than
some specified time (denoted as„t‟) where T is a random variable and denotes the survival time of
the case. In theory S(t) forms a smooth, non-increasing curve and it equals S(0) = 1 and S(∞) = 0,
however in practice typically it forms step function (Kleinbaum and Klein, 2005) as shown
below:
Figure 3.3: Survival function graphs (adapted from Kleinbaum and Klein 2005)
Hazard function denoted by h(t) and represented as:
h(t) (9)
Hazard function, in equation 9, is defined by Kleinbaum and Klein (2005) as, „The instantaneous
potential per unit time for the event to occur, given that the individual has survived up to time t‟.
It is also referred as „conditional failure rate‟ and graphically, unlike survivor function, can take
any form or shape and start anywhere. However it is an instantaneous measure over time and not
the cumulative one.
To statistically compare survival curves (for equivalence), of different groups in the study, log-
rank test is often used. Other alternatives to log-rank also exist like Wilcoxen or Breslow and
Tarone–Ware, and they all usually lead to similar conclusion (Kleinbaum and Klein, 2005).
Survival analysis techniques, specifically „life tables‟, are used to assess and compare the
survivability of duration of the service usage session (like voice call duration). They can also be
used to group the cases by variables like day-time, data-plan (in case of browsing sessions) and
other service-specific variables.
Chapter 4 – Analysis 25
4 Analysis
4.1 Dataset
The behavioural data used in this thesis is also collected with the handset-based research method,
in Finland during fall 2007. In total 579 Finnish smartphone users participated in the study.
The smartphone panelists by Roger‟s diffusion of innovation theory (1962) are still in early-
adapters phase of technology S-curve, who relatively embrace technology quicker than others and
typically have different view to a new technology. This imposes a limit to generalize the results
later to a mass-scale. The demographic distribution of the panelists is shown in graphs below in
figure 4.1:
Gender Age
< 20
50+ years
years
12,2%
3,5%
Female,
21.2 %
40-49
years
16,3%
20-29
Male, years
78.8 % 30-39 37,8%
years
30,2%
Employment
Others, 14.9 %
Student,
17.6 %
Employed , 67.6 %
0 25 50 75 100
Display Screen Resolution WLAN Availability in Device

800x352
3,7% 176x208 YES, 45
352x416 5,1% %
12,4%
NO, 55
%
240x320
320x240 43,8%
35,0%
User Smartphone Experience

4+ years
14 % < 1 year
22 %
3-4 years
13 %
1-2 years
2-3 years
27 %
24 %
Figure 4.1: Demographics of the dataset used.
Figure 4.1 gives an overview of panelist distribution across different variables. There is some bias
in the data, which is prominent specifically in terms of gender (male over-representation). The
thesis also studies the effect of international roaming on service usage, but roaming usage is very
shallow compared to the usage at home. Bias in the data should not be ignored while applying the
results of the analysis to general population.
Dataset used for analysis is transactional based, where transaction is defined as an interaction
with the handset. Data points used in the analysis vary from 0.20 million transactions to 0.45
million transactions depending on the analysis being done and also statistical method being used.
The dataset used for analysis contains data not only from handset monitoring but also from
questionnaires, thus making behavioral dataset comprehensive. The handset-based monitoring not
only records the usage of the handset but also the events at the handset which do not involve user
interaction, like change in battery level and/or cell-id change (cell-id is the identifier of the cell
tower(s), which are used in telecommunication as the contact point for the handset to
communicate). This effectively results in many variables which can be broadly classified as: user-
related variables (e.g. age, gender and data plan), service-specific variables (e.g. attitude, useful,
satisfaction, killing time, social push friends), actual service usage variables (e.g. application
name, date-time, other application specific details), event variables (e.g. battery life, cell-id).
Service-specific variables are of subjective nature and observed on a seven point Likert scale,
while most of the background variables are of categorical type.
Dataset used for analysis is a result of data processing of raw data, which then resulted in this
many transaction cumulatively and around 650 variables which contains processed/calculated
variables too.
4.2 Research model

Previous research, as discussed above in chapter 2, indicated that mobile service adoption is a
complex phenomenon and dependent on many variables. Several studies have been conducting
by extending and/or modifying existing IS models (TAM and TPB). Here a model is created
which is focused only on the interface between intentions and real behaviour. Our model intends
to explain the effect of other possible constructs (along with intentions) which lead to actual
consumer behaviour. These constructs are broadly classified as contextual, consumer attributes,
technology enablers and service specific variables along with intentions in shaping the actual
usage behaviour, as depicted below in figure 4.2. For simplicity of the model, interrelations
between the constructs are omitted. Also there could be indirect effect of the variables in these
constructs mediated through intentions, not described in the model.
Figure 4.2: Research model – Theory of real behaviour
4.3 Hypotheses
For hypothesis formulation, thesis use existing literature as a starting point and base our
hypothesis on the existing studies. Although one has to keep in mind that the referenced studies
about mobile consumer adoption theories also have their own limitations as defined in detail in
the studies. Below are the hypotheses and their references, categorized by variable categories.
Contextual:
H1: Lower battery life increases likelihood of using basic voice service over other services.
“Only 31% of the mobile users in our user survey correctly pointed out voice communication as a
large power consumer. From the remaining 69%, 39% chose text messaging as a large power
consumer while text messaging is usually much more energy-efficient than a voice call to convey
the same message, as our measurement indicated.” (Rahmati et al., 2007).
People consider smartphone as a communication device and voice as the most crucial mobile
communication application. Moreover, they consider voice to be less power consuming
application for communication, relatively, as shown in the study by Rahmati et al. (2007).
H2: When roaming internationally, likelihood of using price-sensitive applications (e.g.

voice and browsing) decreases significantly.
“A clear majority of users limit their mobile communications when travelling abroad” AND
“The survey demonstrates clearly that excessive communication costs are by far (81%) the main
reason why Europeans use their phone less often when travelling abroad” Eurobarometer (2006).
The hypothesis is derived from Eurobarometer; the survey-based study is done in 25 member
states of the EU, during that time, on 24,565 people (see Eurobarometer 2006).
H3a: Evening time (16:00-23:59) increases the likelihood of using mobile browsing.
H3b: Night time (00:00-07:59) sessions of mobile browsing tend to be lengthier.
“Over half of respondents (54.8 percent), however, report that no day-part exceeds evening
(18:00-24:00) in MobileNet usage.” (Sidel, 2001).
“Investigating whether heavy users have a particularly high proportion of their usage in any
particular day-part, we find the strongest correlation between minutes per day and percentage of
usage in the late night/early morning (0:00-6:00”) (Sidel, 2001).
Hypothesis 3a and 3b are based on survey study by Sidel on the use of mobile internet by
Japanese consumers (see Sidel, 2001). However the analysis in thesis uses 8-hour time slot and
divides day into three intervals referred as Morning, Evening and Night. Unlike Sidel study,
where day is divided into four intervals of 6 hour each.
H4a: People have lower odds of using office applications (e.g. Calendar) on weekends in
comparison to weekdays.
H4b: Weekend increases likelihood of using browsing application on smart phones

compared to weekdays and/or also result in lengthier usage sessions.
“…Second, if you view the percentage of traffic over a weekly period, day by day, the weekdays
are fairly regular and the peaks are found on the weekend days” (Martin et al, 2006).
The hypothesis 4b is derived from the study on mobile internet by analysing traffic on mobile
portal (see Halvey et al. 2006). However it should be noted that increase in traffic could be a
consequence of more intense data sessions and/or frequent application usage.
Consumer attributes:
H5: Female users are more likely to use SMS and MMS application, with no significant
difference in voice application.
The results also revealed that the gender gap in cellular telephone use is narrowing, with men
and women reporting virtually equal usage (DeBaillon, and Rockwell 2005).
Women seem to be active in SMS/MMS messaging, while men are more active particularly in e-
mailing and Bluetooth (Verkasalo and Hämmäinen 2007).
DeBaillon and Rockwell (2005) studied difference in cellular telephony use and landline use with
a survey study. The focus in the study was on attitude differences towards both, the alternatives
and usage patterns by different genders and age groups. On the other hand, Verkasalo and
Hämmäinen (2007) conducted a study of handset usage with around 500 consumers, highlighting
the demographic differences in usage.
H6: Increasing age decreases use of mobile browsing and SMS applications.
“For every aspect of Mobile Data Services (MDS), younger people tend to use and enjoy them
more than older people” (Oh et al. 2008).
“We found no apparent relationship between (MobiNet) usage and age” (Sidel 2001).
It should be noted that mobile web browsing is not the everything that people can do with the
mobile Internet connectivity (e.g. Email clients, IM messengers, network games etc. are also part
of mobile Internet), but mobile browsing corresponds to substantial part of mobile internet usage
(Verkasalo 2007). Therefore mobile browsing usage can have significant effect on the mobile
internet usage. There are some differences in the claims from the different studies, but Sidel
(2001) study is relatively old so hypothesis 6 is based on the study by Oh et al (2008).
H7: Likelihood of using mobile browsing and calendar is higher for working people.
H8: Prior experience with the smartphone increases the likelihood of using mobile data
services. For example SMS, mobile browsing and map application, with no significant
difference in voice usage.
“The results of this study reveal that there are some significant differences in the relative
influence of the determinants of behavioral intention toward MDS depending on prior
experiences with MDS….. link between perceived enjoyment and behavioral intention is stronger
for users with prior experiences” (Kim et al. 2009).
The study is based on survey data collected from 149 inexperienced users and 393 experienced
users and intendeds to explain variance in mobile data service adoption from the perceived fee,
explained in the paper as the amount of economic outlay that must be sacrificed in order to obtain
a product or use a service, and prior experience with the service. However it should be noted that
prior experience in the hypothesis is defined at the device level and not at the service level (due to
limitation with the dataset).
Technology enablers:
H9: Smartphone users with WLAN connectivity capabilities are more likely to use mobile
browsing.
H10: Mobile data usage-session lengths are affected by available access networks (e.g.
WCDMA, WLAN or GPRS).
The results of our study show that among the panelists, WLAN connections are typically made at
home and used for web browsing…… Apart from map and navigation applications, more than
half of mobile service usage took place at home across all application categories…….. It also
appears that WLAN is mainly used by those users that in general use large amounts of data
services. (Smura 2008).
The study by Sumra (2008) explains the use (and hence preference) of alternative radio access
technologies (e.g. WLAN, 3G) for accessing the mobile services and content. The study is done
on Finnish consumers and is based on the behavioral data of smartphone usage. However the
study relates WLAN to heavy data sessions and not the usage frequency directly. But in context
of our study addition of a radio (WLAN) facilitates the user to a greater extent, relatively to those
without WLAN and hence increases the likelihood of more usage. Thus hypothesis 8 and
hypothesis 9 is derived from the study by Smura (2008).
H11: Users having smartphones with relatively larger screen sizes are more likely to use
mobile browsing service.
A proper screen size and efficient layout or space usage by the mobile data service is preferred by
significant percentage of consumers as shown in study by Choi et al. (2005). Study also suggest
that large amount of information on a given screen is also preferred.
Service characteristics:
H12: Flat-rate pricing increases likelihood of using mobile services which are typically
billed by the service provider for usage (e.g. internet, SMS and voice).
“Perceived fee is the strongest predictor of MDS user behaviors for both groups, and its effect
increases over time” (Kim et al., 2009).
“Japan has email and has been successful; we in the West have relied on SMS on our mobile
phones. Japan has been successful, we have not. From here one can proceed to looking at other
potential cause and effect relationships and testing for their correlation. For example one can
argue that a monthly flat rate price encourages the services to be used more frequently”
(Saarikoski, 2006).
Saarikoski (2006) studies mobile internet and its adoption bottlenecks in the West compared to
Japanese market which adopted email rather than SMS and monthly fixed pricing rather than
transaction-based charging. The study suggests that for successful mobile internet adoption, it is
important to create a scale-free network on mobile and argues that, it is easier to achieve it with
email and flat-rate pricing than with SMS and transaction-based pricing (i.e. technical features
alone cannot make it happen, but techno-economics factors together can do it). Hypothesis 12 is
suggested on study by Saarikoski.
Intentions:
H13: Intentions to use a service positively affect service usage.
This hypothesis takes its root on the theory of reasoned action, which holds intention as the
primary factor responsible for user‟s behaviour. This factor holds it place as an immediate
antecedent of user behaviour in the all of the Information System (IS) adoption theories following
TRA, including TPB, TAM, Extended TAM (TAM2) and UTAUT, which are studied in this
thesis.
4.4 Descriptive statistics of service usage

Descriptive studies provide a good starting point when doing empirical data analysis. As they
highlight some general trends in data, and can help in naive hypothesis conceptualization.
Two types of descriptive studies of the data are done on most of the variables depicted in the
research model. One of these is focused on service usage duration (in minutes) and other on usage
intensity (clicks). To normalize study across different variables for comparison, “Active hours”
are calculated for each the variables. Active hours in total equal to “73839 hours” and they
represent total number of hours, where in each hour at least one service is used. For example,
active hours break down by variable “time of day” is:
Morning - Active hours 32458

Evening - Active hours 32343
Night - Active hours 9038
Total 73839
Morning-Active hours represent number of hours during 8:00 – 15:59 time, where a service(s) is
used, over the study period.
Active hour is an hour of the day where at least one service is used.
Active hours = Sum (Number of all active hour)
Service usage intensity is defined as number of “Transactions/Active hours”, where transactions

represent total interactions with the application. And for usage duration it is “Minutes/Active
hours”, where minutes represents total time spend with the service. Following is the assessment
of hypotheses, based on the descriptive study.
Contextual:
1,4
Minutes / 1,2
Active Hour Level 1 (Min)
1,0
Level 2
0,8 Level 3
0,6 Level 4
0,4 Level 5
0,2 Level 6
Level 7 (Max)
0,0
Figure 4.3: Application Usage at Different Battery Levels – Active Time

2,0
Launches / 1,5 Level 1 (Min)

Active Hour
Level 2
1,0 Level 3
Level 4
0,5 Level 5
Level 6
0,0
Level 7 (Max)
Figure 4.4: Application Usage at Different Battery Levels – Launches
Hypothesis 1 seems to be suggested by figure 4.3, where time spent with the voice application is
higher when battery is on decline however in terms of launches, as shown in figure 4.4, there is
no visible effect.
Also, music application seems to be negatively affected by battery decline.
H2: When roaming internationally, likelihood of using price-sensitive applications (e.g. voice
and browsing) decreases significantly.
2,5
Minutes / 2,0
Active Hour
1,5
1,0 Home
Roaming
0,5
0,0
Figure 4.5: Application Usage by International roaming/Home – Active Time

3,0
Launches / 2,5
Active Hour
2,0
1,5
Home
1,0
Roaming
0,5
0,0
Figure 4.6: Application Usage by International roaming/Home – Launches
Hypothesis 2 seems to be fully supported, as shown in figure 4.5 and 4.6, in terms of both time
spent and launches of both voice and browsing application. However, it is interesting to see that
the use of messaging application seems to be higher when roaming abroad. This might be
explained by price factor, as messaging is relatively cheap when compared to other forms of
communication as depicted.
H3a: Evening time (16:00-23:59) increases the likelihood of using mobile browsing.
H3b: Night time (00:00-07:59) sessions of mobile browsing tend to be lengthier
1,4
Minutes / 1,2
Active Hour
1,0
0,8 Morning
0,6 Evening
0,4 Night
0,2
0,0
Figure 4.7: Application Usage at Different Phases of the Day – Active Time
2,5
Launches /
Active Hour 2,0
1,5 Morning
1,0 Evening
Night
0,5
0,0
Figure 4.8: Application Usage at Different Phases of the Day – Launches
Hypothesis 3a is not favoured by figure 4.7. It seems night time activity with smartphone takes up
higher proportion of browsing usage (in terms of time spent) than other times. Also, in terms of
launches, morning activity seems to take the lead as shown by figure 4.8. One has to note that
active hours in night are relatively low, hence lesser active hours (denominator).
Hypothesis 3b is supported by figure 4.7, as there is more time spent on mobile browsing
relatively.
H4b: Weekend increases likelihood of using browsing application on smart phones compared to
weekdays, and/or also result in lengthier usage sessions.
1,4
Minutes / 1,2
Active Hour 1,0
0,8
0,6 Weekday Time
0,4 Weekend Time
0,2
0,0
Figure 4.9: Application Usage on Weekdays/Weekends – Active Time
2,0
Launches /
Active Hour 1,5
1,0
Weekday Time
0,5 Weekend Time
0,0
Figure 4.30: Application Usage on Weekdays/Weekends – Launches
Hypothesis 4a direction is not clear from figures 4.9 and 4.10, as the difference in usage of
calendar application is small.
Hypothesis 4b is not favoured by figures 4.9 and 4.10 as there seems no substantial difference in
browsing usage or sessions, on weekdays and weekends.
Also, other observed applications do not reflect any significant change in usage behaviour with
weekend and weekday usage segregation.
2,5
Minutes / 2,0
Active Hour
1,5
1,0 Male
Female
0,5
0,0
Figure 4.11: Application Usage by Gender – Active Time
3,5
Launches / 3,0
Active Hours 2,5
2,0
1,5 Male
1,0 Female
0,5
0,0
Figure 4.4: Application Usage by Gender – Launches
Hypothesis 5 is highly implied by figures 4.11 and 4.12. However it should be noted that
messaging application includes other messaging forms also, apart from SMS and MMS.
Nevertheless variation in messaging application usage is significant.
Figures above also suggest significant difference in usage behaviour of browsing application
across gender. But this should be viewed keeping in mind the substantial sample bias (with
respect to gender) in the data set.
3,0
Minutes / 2,5
Active Hour
2,0 1 = "< 20 years"
1,5 2 = "20-29 years"
1,0 3 = "30-39 years"

4 = "40-49 years"
0,5
5 = "50 years >"
0,0
Figure 4.53: Application Usage by Age – Active Time
4,5
4,0
Launches / 3,5
Active Hour
3,0 1 = "< 20 years"
2,5 2 = "20-29 years"
2,0 3 = "30-39 years"
1,5
4 = "40-49 years"
1,0
5 = "50 years >"
0,5
0,0
Figure 4.14: Application Usage by Age – Launches
Hypothesis 6 is partially favoured by figure 4.13 and 4.14, as there seems drastic decline in usage
of messaging application with increasing age but for browsing there is no clear pattern about
usage change behaviour with age. Also music application shows the similar trend as of messaging
while maps application use appears to increase with age.
1,6
1,4
Minutes /
Active Hour 1,2
1,0 5 = "Others"
0,8 6 = "Student"
0,6
7 = "Employed"
0,4
0,2
0,0
Figure 4.15: Application Usage by occupation – Active Time
3,0
Launches / 2,5
Active Hour
2,0
1,5 5 = "Others"
1,0 6 = "Student"
7 = "Employed"
0,5
0,0
Figure 4.16: Application Usage by occupation – Launches
Hypothesis 7 is not clear from the figures 4.15 and 4.16. But there appears to be some indication
in its favour as browsing application usage seems higher for employed people (in terms of time
spent). On the other hand calendar application looks to be used more frequently by students.
H8: Prior experience with the smartphone increases the likelihood of using mobile data services.
For example SMS, mobile browsing and map application, with no significant difference in voice
usage.
2,0
Minutes /
1,5 1 = "< 1 year"
Active Hour
2 = "1-2 years"
1,0 3 = "2-3 years"
4 = "3-4 years"
0,5 5 = "4-5 years"
6 = "5 years >"
0,0
Figure 4.17: Application Usage by smartphone experience – Active Time
2,5
Launches / 2,0
Active Hour 1 = "< 1 year"
1,5 2 = "1-2 years"
3 = "2-3 years"
1,0
4 = "3-4 years"
0,5 5 = "4-5 years"
0,0 6 = "5 years >"
Figure 4.68: Application Usage by smartphone experience – Launches
There is no clear support for hypothesis 8, as usage behaviour of messaging and browsing
applications by different age groups does not reflect any trend from the figures 4.17 and 4.18.
However, contrary to the hypothesis voice application usage shows upward trend with age (in
terms of time spent) as shown in figure 4.17.
browsing.
1,09
Minutes / 1,2
Active Hour
1,0
0,63
0,8 WLAN Missing
0,6 WLAN Enabled
0,4
0,2
0,0
Browsing
Figure 4.7: Browsing usage by WLAN – Active Time
0,30
Launches / 0,3
Active Hour
0,3
0,2 0,12 WLAN Missing

0,2 WLAN Enabled
0,1
0,1
0,0
Browsing
Figure 4.80: Browsing usage by WLAN – Launches
Hypothesis 9 is highly supported by figures 4.19 and 4.20. Smartphone users having WLAN
capable handset show significantly high usage of browsing application, in terms of both
application launches and usage duration
H10: Mobile data usage-session lengths are affected by available access networks (e.g.
WCDMA, WLAN or GPRS).
8,0
Minutes /
Session 7,0
6,0
EdgeGPRS
5,0
GPRS
4,0 WCDMA
3,0 WLAN
2,0
1,0
0,0
Sessio bearer technology
Figure 4.21: Access-network use
The hypothesis seems to be favoured by figure 4.21. Internet sessions initiated with Edge-GPRS
technology to be lengthier on average compared to other network access technologies and
WCDMA to be the shortest amongst all.
H11: Users having smartphones with relatively larger screen sizes are more likely to use mobile
browsing service.
2,5
Minutes / 2,0
Active Hour
1,5 176x208
240x320
1,0 320x240
0,5 352x416
800x352
0,0
Figure 4.92: Application Usage by Different Screen Size – Active Time
3,0
Launches / 2,5
Active Hour 176x208
2,0
240x320
1,5
320x240
1,0
352x416
0,5
800x352
0,0
Figure 4.103: Application Usage by Different Screen Size – Launches
Hypothesis 11 appears to be favoured by figures 4.22 and 4.23. There seems to be a higher
browsing usage trend with increasing screen size (resolution) of handheld device. It is interesting
to see that messaging application shows opposite trend.
H12: Flat-rate pricing increases odd of using mobile services which are typically billed by the
service provider for usage (e.g. internet, SMS and voice).
3,0
Minutes /
2,5
Active Hour
2,0
1 = "I dont know"
1,5
2 = "Usage-based"
1,0 3 = "Block-priced"
0,5 4 = "Flat-rate"
0,0
Voice Messaging Browsing
Figure 4.114: Application Usage at Different Subscription Plans – Active Time
2,5
Launches /
Active Hours 2,0
1 = "I dont know"
1,5
2 = "Usage-based"
1,0 3 = "Block-priced"
4 = "Flat-rate"
0,5
0,0
Voice Messaging Browsing
Figure 4.125: Application Usage at Different Subscription Plans – Launches
Hypothesis 12 is partially supported by figures 4.24 and 4.25. As seen, browsing usage increases
significantly with flat rate pricing scheme and to a good extent voice application follows the same
trend. But for messaging application block-priced (or bucket pricing) scheme shows higher
application usage behaviour.
Intentions

1,4
Minutes / 1,2
Active Hour 1,0 Level 1 (Disagree)
Level 2
0,8
Level 3
0,6
Level 4
0,4 Level 5
0,2 Level 6
0,0 Level 7 (Agree)
Figure 4.136: Application Usage at Different Intention Levels – Active Time
3,0
2,5
Launches / Level 1 (Disagree)
Active Hour 2,0 Level 2
Level 3
1,5
Level 4
1,0
Level 5
0,5 Level 6
Level 7 (Agree)
0,0
Figure 4.147: Application Usage at Different Intention Levels – Launches
Usage intentions show higher variation (positively) in the usage behaviour of some applications
as seen by figures 4.26 and 4.27, thus supporting hypothesis 13. These applications include voice,
browsing, camera, music and maps. Messaging and calendar applications do not show any clear
usage-trend with varying intentions. Statistical modelling, in section 4.5, will be used to quantify
the effect of user intentions on every service in depth.
4.5 Logistic regression model of service usage
4.5.1 Model description
In exploring the likelihood of using the mobile service, the outcome is a dichotomous variable
(service used or not used, for example) therefore logistic regression is a relevant method for the
analysis. Use of this technique in related studies is studied in Katz and Rice (2003), Carlsson et
al. (2005) and Carlsson et al. (2006).
First service usage data is gathered at a single place (in one data table in SPSS) from raw files.
Then dichotomous variables are computed for the services mentioned in figure 4.28. It should be
noted that not all the variables are used as predictors for every service, for example size of the
screen is not used as a predictor to voice service usage.
Explanatory variables
Mobile services
Battery Life
Time of Day
International Roaming Voice
Weekend SMS
Age MMS
Occupation Browser
Gender Camera
Relevant Subscription Plan (if any) Music
Smartphone Experience Calendar
Intentions Maps
Device Screen Size
Device Capabilities
Figure 4.28: Architecture of service usage model
It should be noted that the dataset used here is a service-usage dataset; where if a certain service
(say browsing) is not used, implies that some other service is used. Thus limiting the model to a
bias, where not using of a service is more or less related to the use of other services.
The explanatory variable‟s description and their data type are listed in the table below:
Variable Type Description

Battery life Scale The seven bar battery status in Nokia

devices, with 1 being minimum and 7
maximum
Time of day Dichotomous It is decomposed to three dummy

variables, namely: Morning time (08:00
– 15:59), Evening time (16:00-23:59),
Night Time (00:00-07:59)
International roaming Dichotomous It is true (one) when consumer is

abroad and false when home (zero)
Weekend Dichotomous It is true when it is Saturday or Sunday,

otherwise false
Age Scale Age of consumers and is scaled (2-7) in

decades (e.g. 20s, 30s, etc.)
Occupation Nominal Employed, student or other
Gender Nominal Male or female
Subscription Nominal Represent flat-rate, block-priced or

usage based billing plans. It differs for
voice, SMS, MMS and browsing
Smartphone experience Scale Represents experience of user with

smartphone in years on a scale (1-5)
Intentions Ordinal Denotes user‟s willingness to use the

service, on a Likert scale of 1-7 with 1
represents disagreement and 7
agreement
Display-Screen size Nominal 176x208, 240x320, 320x240, 352x416,

(resolution) 800x352
WLAN capability Dichotomous Represents if handset has WLAN

feature (chip) or not
Table 4.29: Description of predictor variables used in the modelling
4.5.2 Model results
Logistic regression is run using SPSS software package for every service in observation, one at a
time. Summarized result of all the regression runs (8 models - one for every service) are
presented in the tables 4.30-4.34 below. Following it is table 4.35 which states parameters to
describe model-fit information of all the models. Detailed output is attached in appendix 7.1.
It should be noted that for every service model is run once with all the variables entered at the
same time. Five separate tables are used to present results for readability and ease of hypothesis
testing purposes. Thus all the tables have same convention and legends.
Contextual:
This hypothesis seems to be validated by the voice service usage model. From table 4.30, it is
observed that with every single unit increase in battery level odds of using voice service decrease
by 2.2 %. This implies that as battery level runs lower likelihood of using voice service increases.
It is interesting to see that only voice service usage shows this trend to a statistical significant
level, other services show increase in likely usage with increasing battery life.
H2: When roaming internationally, likelihood of using price-sensitive applications (e.g. voice and
browsing) decreases significantly.
Hypothesis 2 is supported by the voice and browser model significantly but SMS model rejects it
and MMS model result is not statistically significant (see table 4.30 below). This way it can be
said that hypothesis is partially favoured. One reason for users not holding back SMS usage
might be due to the reasons that SMS could be relatively cheap than other forms of
communication (which are already cut down as seen in case of voice and browsing service) while
roaming abroad. Similar result was found in descriptive study (see figure 4.5 and 4.6). It should
be noted that during the study around 24% of the users were recognized roaming abroad but they
constituted only 1.2% of the total handset usage.
H3a: Evening time (16:00-23:59) increases the likelihood of using mobile browsing
This hypothesis is not favoured by the browsing model in table 4.30, where relative to night time
(00:00-7:59) odds of using browsing service decrease approximately 21% during the evening.
Also one could see that morning time (8:00-15:59) likely usage is relatively more than evening.
This hypothesis cannot be verified with these models, it can be observed with service duration
modelling which is done in section 4.6.
Hypothesis 4a is supported by the calendar service usage model in table 4.30. Odds of using
calendar application on weekend decline by around 30%.
weekdays and/or also result in lengthier usage sessions.
This hypothesis seems unfavoured by the browsing model. Change in browsing usage on
weekends relative to weekday is not statistically significant and also the change in usage odds is
very small (only 3%). Hypothesis part related to browsing session length is tested in section 4.6.
Table 4.30: Change in Odds of service usage (1 - odds ratio) due to contextual factors
Morning Evening International Battery

Applications Weekend
Time Time Roaming Levels
REFERENCE -
REFERENCE - Night REFERENCE -Home Scale variable
Weekday
Voice **3.60% ***67.60% ***107.40% ***-47.00% ***-2.20%
SMS -2.10% ***24.10% ***16.40% ***71.80% 0.30%
MMS -3.50% 13.70% **-27.60% 21.50% -0.50%

Browser -3.00% ***-11.10% ***-21.40% ***-52.10% -0.40%
Camera ***23.10% 5.60% ***-21.00% ***258.00% **3.50%
Music -6.20% ***-27.30% ***-40.00% 19.00% ***4.50%
Calendar ***-30.40% **-11.80% **14.70% **-41.40% ***4.30%
Maps ***26.70% **21.80% ***41.40% **53.10% 2.00%
Two-tailed test *p < 0.05 ; **p < 0.01 ; ***p < 0.001
Hypothesis 5 is partially favoured but most part of it is rejected as it spans three services and
hence 3 models (voice, SMS and MMS) and 2 models reject it (voice and MMS). Learned from
table 4.31 female users show a greater difference in likelihood of using SMS service, almost
twice more likely than male counterparts. But contrary to the hypothesis, MMS show a reverse
trend by having 60% higher odds of likely usage by males. Also voice usage show a significant
difference, with males predicted to use more than females. It is worth noting here that data
sample has over-representation of male population (see details in the limitation section of the
study).
Hypothesis 6 is partially backed from the model results in table 4.31. Decrease is use of SMS is
significant, with every step increase in age (in decades) odds of using SMS application reduce by
approximately 15%. For browsing application decline is there with increasing age but it is not
statistically significant.
Hypothesis 7 is also partially defended from the models as seen in table 4.31. For mobile
browsing likelihood of its usage by students or other occupation holders is significantly less
relative to employed people. Odds of browsing service usage decrease by about 26% and 14% for
students and others respectively when compared to employed. But for calendar application, odds
(and hence likelihood) of using it are higher for students than for employed persons.
H8: Prior experience with the smartphone increases the likelihood of using mobile data services.
For example SMS, mobile browsing and map application, with no significant difference in voice
usage.
Major part of hypothesis 8 is upheld in table 4.31. With every year increase in smartphone
experience odds of using SMS and maps service increase by around 5% and 17% respectively.
But for browser application odds decrease by approximately 8% for every additional year of
smartphone experience.
Table 4.31: Change in Odds of service usage (1 - odds ratio) due to consumer attributes
Smartphone Work
Age
Applications Experience Gender
(in decades)
(in years) Student Others
Scale variable Scale variable REFERENCE - EMPLOYED REF- FEMALE
Voice *-0.80% **2.20% ***-6.60% ***-31.00% ***10.80%
SMS ***4.90% ***-14.50% ***0.164 ***43.20% ***-53.80%
MMS ***14.50% ***97.70% ***2.572 ***-51.70% ***60.70%
Browser ***-7.70% -1.70% ***-26.40% ***-15.60% ***240.50%
Camera **-4.60% ***9.50% 6.80% 3.20% ***55.80%
Music 0.70% ***-14.60% ***35.30% 4.20% ***21.50%
Calendar ***6.30% ***39.20% ***57.20% ***-43.80% ***46.90%
Maps ***17.30% ***28.60% ***-21.40% **-17.40% ***374.60%
browsing.
Hypothesis 9 is favoured largely as seen from the browsing model in appendix 7.1.4. Users with
having WLAN capable devices are 1.5 times more likely to use browsing service, than the users
having handset without WLAN capability.
H10: Mobile data usage-session lengths are affected by available access networks (e.g. WCDMA,
WLAN or GPRS).
Hypothesis 10 required survival or duration modelling analysis and is looked into in section 4.6.
H11: Users having smartphones with relatively larger screen sizes are more likely to use mobile
browsing service.
Hypothesis 11 is greatly supported by the browser model in table 4.32. Reference here is the
highest resolution in the dataset and compared to it all significant resolution handsets odds reduce
drastically. Highest resolution device users are almost twice more likely to use browsing service
and it can be observed that with decreasing resolution likelihood of using browsing service keeps
on reducing. But one should keep in mind that apart from screen-resolution there could be other
factors associated with the device (e.g. market push, device marketing, other associated device
features, etc.) which could influence user behaviour and might be mediated by screen resolution.
Table 4.32: Change in Odds of service usage (1 - odds ratio) due to technology factors
Applications Display screen size (Resolution)

REFERENCE - 800x352
176x208 240x320 320x240 352x416
Voice ***18.70% ***36.60% **8.70% ***66.80%
SMS ***190.60% ***116.40% ***33.90% ***27.20%
MMS *121.10% **92.10% **106.00% 42.60%
Browser ***-50.90% ***-56.00% 6.30% ***-46.50%

Camera -17.60% ***78.60% ***81.50% ***-3.60%
Music **42.50% ***38.30% ***66.30% ***40.30%
Calendar ***156.40% ***223.00% ***138.00% ***172.00%
Maps 40.60% ***223.90% ***227.70% ***168.80%
H12: Flat-rate pricing increases likelihood of using mobile services which are typically billed by
the service provider for usage (e.g. internet, SMS and voice).
Hypothesis 12 can be partially verified from table 4.33 below. Compared with flat-rate pricing,
odds of using voice, SMS and browsing service are significantly low. Odds of using browsing
with flat-rate compared to usage-based are almost 8 times high [calculated as: 1 / (1-87.3%)]. But
for MMS, trend is reversed and block-priced data plan users are to times more likely to use MMS
compared to flat-rate.
Table 4.33: Change in Odds of service usage (1 - odds ratio) due to service-related factors
Applications I do not know Usage-based Block-priced

REFERENCE – FLAT RATE
Voice ***-53.30% ***-30.00% ***-29.90%
SMS **-18.90% ***-29.70% 11.00%
MMS 43.80% 44.70% ***1052.00%
Browser ***-67.10% ***-87.30% ***-70.20%
Intentions:

Hypothesis 13 seems to be favoured by every service studied with this modelling. There are some
interesting figures in table 4.34; one of them is relatively very low and less significant effect of
intentions on browsing usage and very high effect on MMS usage. Intention effects can be read
as, with every unit increase in intention level on likert scale (7-point scale from disagree to agree)
odds of using MMS service increase by over 50%, while for browsing it is only around 3%.
Table 4.34: Change in Odds of service usage (1 - odds ratio) due to usage intentions
Applications Intentions
Likert-Scale variable
Voice ***11.60%
SMS ***21.20%
MMS ***50.20%
Browser **2.60%
Camera ***26.70%
Music ***13.20%
Calendar ***24.00%
Maps ***36.90%
4.5.3 Model fit and validation
Table 4.35: Model Fit Information
Hosmer and Omnibus Tests of

Modelsb Model Summary
Lemeshow Test Model Coefficientsb
Chi- df Sig. Chi- df Sig. -2 Log Cox & Nagelk
square square likelihood Snell -erke
P p R2 R2
Voice 51.59 8 .000 3494.74 18 .000 225449.274 - 5a 0.017 0.025
SMS 371.87 8 .000 15860.55 18 .000 203925.881 - 5a 0.073 0.112
MMS 106.31 8 .000 2021.19 18 .000 8694.926 - 10a 0.01 0.193
Browser 375.14 8 .000 11701.91 19 .000 85094.466 - 7a 0.054 0.147

Camera 40.63 8 .000 624.58 15 .000 29089.387 - 8a 0.003 0.023
Music 177.34 8 .000 792.88 15 .000 40444.93 - 7a 0.004 0.021
Calendar 106.03 8 .000 1765.05 15 .000 53604.502 - 7a 0.008 0.036
Maps 195.34 8 .000 2562.01 15 .000 28454.201 - 9a 0.012 0.088
a. Estimation terminated at this iteration number because b. ENTER method is employed (all model
parameter estimates changed by less than .001. terms are entered in one step)
Model fit information of all the models will be discussed together, as they show similar
characteristics.
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
H-L goodness-of-fit test divides the cases into deciles (referred as “deciles of risk”) and computes
a contingency table for H-L test, with predicted probabilities as shown in appendix 7.1. It then
uses observed and expected frequency to compute chi-square. p value then is calculated from the
chi-square distribution with 8-degrees of freedom (Hosmer and Lemeshow 2004) and if it is
greater than 0.05, research is unable reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference between
model-predicted and observed values. Thus indicating that model fits the data at an acceptable
level.
It can be seen from the table 4.35 that H-L test is statistically significant. This suggests that
(based on the difference between observed and predicted values) model tends to favor alternate
hypothesis, which means model prediction capability is not statistically sound.
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients
This test has positive response for all the models. Chi-squares listed under this column represents
drop in deviance (-2Log likelihood) in model with variables, compared to intercept-only model
(model with no variables). The chi-squares observed for all the models are statistically significant
as well. Suggesting that model with predictors is significantly different from zero variable
models.
Model Summary
Coefficient of determination (R2) values, which indicate the proportion of variance explained by
the predictive models, are listed in model summary part in table 4.35. For logistic regression R2 is
computed observing the difference between null and fitted model and are often referred as
Pseudo R2. Table lists two R2 values namely Cox & Snell and Nagelkerke, they both are
computed using the concept of log likelihood differences between null-model and fitted-model.
They differ in value because of the difference in underlying formula used to compute them
(Nagelkerke one is grounded on Cox and Snell formula).
R2 value ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 representing saturated model (model explaining full variance
in the dataset). It can be seen that R2 values are lower in our models, but as stated by Hosmer and
Lemeshow (2004) R2 are typically low even in well-fitted logistic regression models. Hence one
should avoid its comparisons with other regression models (say Linear). It is also interesting to
see that MMS, Browsing and SMS models state better R2 values, relatively.
4.6 Multinomial regression model of service usage
4.6.1 Model description
Multinomial regression model‟s underlying principles are same as logistic regression. Here it
serves the purpose of inter-service comparisons across predictor variables. The model take
services under observation as a choice variable to consumer and study the influence of predictors
in dictating the choice of a particular service. To do such comparisons, reference category
(service) is required. The reference event added is denoted as Display and it refers to the “display
power” event, which always occurs before the use of any service. It should be noted that this
event does not necessarily follow service usage, for example user can just check the handset
screen and do nothing after it. Also it can follow more than one service use. Cases no any service
follows the particular display-event, are omitted as outliers. The dataset involving dichotomous
variables for every service is modified to form a categorical variable, including all the services
(referred as “Usage_category” in the dataset).
One limitation with this modeling is that, some independent variables cannot be modeled with it.
Since it makes one dependent variable indicating all the services (say 1 = Voice, 2 = SMS and so
forth) thus only independent variables, which are common to every service can be used (e.g. data
plan variable cannot be used as it is relevant to browsing service only). Therefore here this model
is used for modeling only contextual parameters and consumer attributes. But overall this model
provides with normalized results due to common reference category (Display) for all services and
conceptually it differs from logistic regression in a way that it treats services as choices and
variables as factors which affect user‟s choice of using one service over others.
The data set used here contains only the studied eight services (unlike logistic regression where
all services used on handset by the consumer are present), to make a fair comparisons.
4.6.2 Model results
Table 4.36: Change in Odds of service usage due to contextual factors in Multinomial Regression
analysis
Morning Evening International Battery

Applications Weekend
Time Time Roaming Levels
REFERENCE - REFERENCE –
REFERENCE - Night Scale variable
Weekday Home
Voice **3.91% ***47.25% ***68.02% ***-35.29% ***-2.30%
SMS -1.84% ***14.62% **5.99% ***41.39% -0.52%
MMS -1.80% -8.84% -***-50.49% 5.94% **-4.77%
Browser -1.72% ***--17.06% ***--32.51% ***-51.42% ***-2.10%
Camera ***25.96% --0.16% ***--27.80% ***181.49% *2.34%
Music -6.62% ***--29.58% ***--44.08% *33.45% ***3.28%
Calendar ***-29.14% **--14.84% 6.68% **-41.29% ***3.23%
Maps ***27.98% 13.40% **28.75% **53.60% 1.01%
Table 4.37: Change in Odds of service usage due to consumer attributes in Multinomial
Regression analysis
Smartphone Work
Age
Applications Experience Gender
(in decades)
(in years) Student Others
Scale variable Scale variable REFERENCE - EMPLOYED REF- FEMALE
Voice -0.19% ***2.95% ***-23.61% ***-7.51% ***8.01%
SMS ***2.96% ***-17.74% ***25.74% ***-6.98% ***-46.31%
MMS ***33.35% ***139.84% 13.43% ***838.76% 15.94%
Browser ***8.76% ***5.66% -1.09% -15.31% ***498.41%
Camera ***-4.53% ***15.13% ***28.38% **18.66% ***61.18%
Music *2.65% ***-18.53% 8.81% ***24.08% ***61.45%
Calendar ***4.01% ***36.60% ***-32.53% ***61.17% ***39.09%
Maps ***15.38% ***36.94% *-14.17% ***-23.99% ***750.98%
Exploratory analysis of service choice by the consumers based on contextual factors and
consumer attributes from table 4.36 and 4.37 is presented. Below, table 4.38 highlights the factors
which most significantly influence the choice of consumer in choosing a service over other:
Applications Factors increasing likelihood Factors decreasing likelihood
Voice
At evening time Roaming abroad
SMS
Roaming abroad Being male
MMS
Increasing age Evening time
Browser
Being male Roaming abroad
Camera
Roaming abroad Evening time
Music
Being male Evening time
Calendar Being male Roaming abroad
Maps
Being male Being student
Table 4.38: Factors affecting significantly the choice of application over others
4.6.3 Model fit and validation
Model fit of this model is very similar to logistic regression model (i.e. model does not
adequately fits the data), as seen in appendix 7.2. Here it has one interesting piece of information
output from SPSS labeled as likelihood ratio tests as show in table 4.38.
Likelihood Ratio Tests

Model Fitting
Criteria Likelihood Ratio Tests
-2 Log
Likelihood of
Effect Reduced Model Chi-Square df Sig.
Intercept 90091.609a .000 0 .
battery_level 90247.219 155.609 8 .000
age 92225.701 2134.092 8 .000
Smart_experience 90649.792 558.183 8 .000
day_times 91607.239 1515.629 16 .000
roaming 90432.889 341.280 8 .000
gender 97429.233 7337.624 8 .000
work 91866.188 1774.579 16 .000
weekend_dummy 90293.000 201.390 8 .000
The chi-square statistic is the difference in -2 log-likelihoods between the final model
and a reduced model. The reduced model is formed by omitting an effect from the
final model. The null hypothesis is that all parameters of that effect are 0.
a. This reduced model is equivalent to the final model because omitting the effect
does not increase the degrees of freedom.
Table 4.39: Likelihood ratios tests of multinomial logistic regression model

Table 4.39 indicates that significant contribution to the model is given by variables gender and
age with relatively highest chi-square static difference followed by work. Thus implying
consumer attributes outperform contextual variables in the model, given this set of independent
variables. Time of the day is highest contributing variable amongst contextual predictors.
4.7 Survival analysis of service usage sessions
4.7.1 Analysis description
Here browsing usage sessions are analyzed to validate hypothesis 3b, hypothesis 4b and
hypothesis 10. Three different analyses are done on the browsing and data-session data sets.
Browsing datasets includes browser application sessions, whereas data-session dataset contains
session-level and no service (or application) level information. Detailed analysis, including life
tables are supplemented in appendix 7.3.
4.7.2 Analysis results and validation
Hypothesis 3b seems to hold true in the survival analysis of browsing sessions as seen in figure
4.40 and appendix 7.3.1.
Figure 4.40: Survival function of browsing sessions factored by time of the day
weekdays and/or also result in lengthier usage sessions.
Hypothesis 4b‟s component about browsing usage sessions is not favoured by the survival
analysis, as seen from figure 4.41. Besides appendix 7.3.2 and the analysis‟s Wilcoxon test,
discussed in the validation section 4.6.3., further entails that there is no significant difference
between the session-lengths on weekdays and weekends.
Figure 4.41: Survival function of browsing sessions factored by weekday/weekend
H10: Mobile data usage-session lengths are affected by available access networks (e.g. WCDMA,
WLAN or GPRS).
Hypothesis 10 is favoured in the dataset analysed as seen in figure 4.42 and appendix 7.3.3.
Access technologies do affect session lengths and lengthier sessions arise from Edge-GPRS,
followed by GPRS, WLAN and WCDMA technologies in the decreasing order.
Figure 4.42: Survival function of browsing sessions factored by session bearer (access-network)
Complete life tables of the analyses are attached in appendix 7.3. Appendix includes quantified
differences in cumulative survival percentages (along with other statistics) of the sessions, after
every minutes of usage in the table form (life table). Apart from life table appendices also contain
graphical plot of (cumulative) hazard function, which alternatively can also be used to prove the
observed phenomenon.
4.7.3 Analysis validation
To find the difference between survival distributions of the groups formed by factor variable,
Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test provides means to do such comparisons. (see Gehan 1965).
Here null hypothesis is, survival experience of service usage-session across different groups is
same.
Survival analysis by variable: weekend/weekday

Null hypothesis: No difference between survival rates of browsing usage sessions on weekends
and weekdays.
Overall Comparisonsa
Wilcoxon
(Gehan) Statistic Df Sig.
.741 1 .389
a. Comparisons are exact.
Table 4.43: Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test for control variable weekend_dummy
Here it fails to reject null hypothesis (see table 4.43 above), implying that, statistically there is no
significant difference between browsing session lengths on weekdays and weekends.
Survival analysis by variable: day times (morning, evening and night)
Null hypothesis: No difference between survival rates of browsing usage sessions across different
daytimes.
Wilcoxon
(Gehan) Statistic Df Sig.
17.710 2 .000
Table 4.44: Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test for control variable day_times
Here it fails to reject the null hypothesis (see table 4.44 above), implying that, statistically there is
a significant difference between browsing session lengths at different times of the day (nominated
as morning time, evening time and night time).
Survival analysis by variable: data session bearer (network access technology)
Null hypothesis: No difference between survival rates of browsing usage sessions across different
network access technologies.
Wilcoxon (Gehan)
Statistic Df Sig.
210.808 3 .000
Table 4.45: Gehan's generalized Wilcoxon test for control variable network access technologies
Here it fails to reject the null hypothesis (see table 4.45 above), implying that, statistically there is
a significant difference between browsing session lengths between different network access
technologies.
4.8 Significant findings and discussion
4.8.1 Hypotheses summary
Table 4.46 summarizes the observations about hypotheses. Hypotheses are stated along with their
evaluation and additional information, represented by Status and Comments columns
respectively. Some of the hypotheses relate multiple mobile services, and it might be the case that
only some of the services might conform to the hypothesis. Such hypotheses are stated as
partially accepted in the table, with additional information in the comments section.
# Hypotheses Status Comments

Lower battery life increases likelihood of using
H1 Accepted
basic voice service over other services
When roaming internationally, likelihood of using
Partially SMS does not
H2 price-sensitive applications (e.g. voice and
accepted follow it
browsing) decreases significantly
Evening time (16:00-23:59) increases the likelihood
H3a Rejected
of using mobile browsing
Night time (00:00-07:59) sessions of mobile
H3b Accepted
browsing tend to be lengthier
People have lower odds of using office applications
H4a (e.g. Calendar) on weekends in comparison to Accepted
weekdays
Weekend increases likelihood of using browsing

H4b application on smart phones compared to weekdays Rejected
and/or also result in lengthier usage sessions
Female users are more likely to use SMS and MMS Voice and MMS
Partially
H5 application, with no significant difference in voice likely to be used
accepted
application more by male
Difference in
Increasing age decreases use of mobile browsing Partially browsing is
H6
and SMS applications accepted statistically
insignificant
Calendar is
Likelihood of using mobile browsing and calendar is Partially
H7 likely to be used
higher for working people. accepted
more by students
Prior experience with the smartphone increases the
Browsing
likelihood of using mobile data services. For
Partially application
H8 example SMS, mobile browsing and map
accepted follows opposite
application, with no significant difference in voice
trend
usage.
Smartphone users with WLAN connectivity
H9 Accepted
capabilities are more likely to use mobile browsing.
Mobile data usage-session lengths are affected by

H10 available access networks (e.g. WCDMA, WLAN or Accepted
GPRS)
Users having smartphones with relatively larger

H11 screen sizes are more likely to use mobile browsing Accepted
service
Flat-rate pricing increases likelihood of using mobile Block-priced

Partially
H12 services which are typically billed by the service plan is favored
accepted
provider for usage (e.g. internet, SMS and voice) by MMS service
Intentions to use a service positively affect service

H13 Accepted
usage
Table 4.46: Hypotheses results
4.8.2 Internal validity and research inferences
The internal validity perspective, elaborated by Campbell and Stanley (1966), of the experiment,
has been taken into care by making sure that data gathering process has very few errors and the
change in independent variable has actually caused the outcome observed in the analyses. This
has further been validated by the empirical research process, which is standard and involves
statistical verification of the same. The study does not involve much threats internal validity and
can be justified on the factors identified by Campbell and Stanley (1966), imposing threats to its
internal validity.
Having good internal validity of the model, other interesting observation apart from the
hypotheses and usage trends can also be inferred from the analysis. Significant of these are
discussed here (classified by variable categories).
Contextual factors:
Differences (in terms of preferences or likelihood) in handset usage on weekdays and weekends
is observed in Camera, Calendar and Maps applications only, with almost no effect on Voice,
SMS, MMS, Browsing and Music applications. Time of the day typically affects all of the
services, with major influences on voice and music applications. Likewise, international roaming
beside price-sensitive applications (Voice, Messaging and Browsing) also affects Camera,
Calendar and Maps applications. While, battery life affects Camera, Music and Calendar
applications, with increasing battery chances of using these applications are enhanced.
Smartphone experience effects almost all applications (except music), with most of its effect on
Maps and MMS applications. These applications are more likely to be used with increasing
experience.
Age also seem to effect almost all applications other than browsing. Its greater effect is observed
on MMS, Calendar and Maps applications, which are more likely to be used with increasing age.
Occupation (employed or student) has effect on all applications except Camera. Browsing and
Maps are more likely to be used by employed people while Music and Calendar applications by
the students.
Gender seems to have more profound effect than other variables and this is observed across all
applications. All applications are more likely to be used by males except SMS. But it should be
noted that it should not be generalized because of very high sample bias as discussed in
limitations section 4.8
Display resolution seems to affect every application. The likelihood of mobile browsing increases
with the increasing display resolution of device and rest of the applications does not show a clear
trend but are more likely to be used with median resolutions. Results of this factor should be
interpreted with caution since resolution is a feature of a device and often devices are targeted for
certain applications. Also sampling bias needs to be explored for this factor to reach any
conclusions. Also, WLAN capability of device has a significant effect on browsing as shown with
the hypothesis testing.
Service subscription plan seems to have effect on application usage, as verified with the
hypothesis.
Intentions:
Intentions seem to affect likelihood of every service, with increasing intentions (to use) increase
the likelihood of service being used. Interestingly, this seem to have relatively higher effect on
MMS, Maps and Camera applications, lower effect on Voice and minimal effect on Browsing.
4.8.3 External validity and results generalization
External validity refers to the applicability of the results to other population (than the observed
one) and environments (see Campbell and Stanley 1966; Isaac & Michael, 1971). The results
have some threats to its external validity mainly due to the panellist selection bias; hence care
should be taken when applying results to other populations. But these threats to external validity
can be evaluated only when the model is applied to other populations.
Generalization of the model results (both hypothesis driven in section 4.8.1 and explorative in
section 4.8.2) to the higher level research questions undertaken in this research is discussed here.
This also depicts some generalization and validity of the result and hence aids to the external
validity dimension of the analysis. Below is the retorting of the high- level research goals of the
thesis (generalization of results to a certain extent):
How weekday and time of the day affect the usage of a specific mobile service (e.g.
browser, music, navigation application and/or email)?
Weekday/weekend segregation of the device usage is found to have an effect on some

services namely: Camera, Calendar and maps but not on the others including: Voice,
SMS, MMS and Browsing applications as observed in the dataset. But time of the day
separation in: Morning time (08:00-03:59), Evening time (16:00-23:59) and Night time
(00:00-07:59), of mobile service usage is seen to affect all services. Voice service is likely
to be used more in the evening while SMS in the morning and Browsing in the night time.
How does international roaming affect the mobile device usage?
Roaming has a considerable effect on the handset usage. Voice and Browsing service
usage is likely to decrease significantly but SMS service usage is likely to increase.
Increment in usage is also likely to occur in Camera and Maps service.
How does end-user specific variable (e.g. user intentions, demographics) explain
variance in the device usage, compared to context-related variables (e.g. time of day)?
End-user specific variables have a substantial effect service usage. Gender is observed to
have most significant effect than other variables, but dataset also has a sample bias in this
view. In the multinomial regression model‟s fit information (table 4.39) it can be seen that
end-user specific variables are able to explain more variance in service choice than the
context-related variables.
How do technical enablers (e.g. display screen size and network access technologies)
moderate service usage?
Technology enablers also prove to be one of the determinants of handset usage. For
example consumers owning devices with WLAN connectivity capabilities are 1.5 times
more likely to use mobile browsing. Further data sessions using Edge-GPRS access
technology tend to be lengthier whereas sessions enabled by WCDMA are relatively the
shortest.
Display screen size also has an impact on service usage. Browsing service usage is likely
to increase with large screen size while SMS service is observed to follow the reverse
trend. But this observation has a limitation as discussed in section 4.8.
How service subscription-plans (e.g. flat rate) are affecting service adoption?
Service subscription plans have a dense effect on billed services. All charged services
observed (Voice, SMS, MMS and Browsing) are highly likely to be used more with flat-
rate (e.g. Voice, SMS and Browsing) or block-priced plans (e.g. MMS) compared to
usage-based billed subscriptions.
4.9 Data limitations

Dataset is still small particularly when including high number of variables. Data used also
involves some biased sample of a population. Major bias is involved in gender ratio of
smartphone usage, where females are underrepresented compared to general population of
handset users (Statistics Finland, 2006). Overall, sampling mechanism is random and is subject to
possible biases which imply carefulness to the applicability of results. Some of the factors are not
logged in the dataset including device honeymoon periods, experience with the current device
and its pricing. These could have explained some of the variance and enhanced goodness-of-fit of
the model.
Dataset used in logistic regression modelling contains information of the handset, only when it is
used. Thus leaving out cases where user does not intend to use any service (idleness data) and
information related to those time periods. Presence of this data could have made results more
neutral.
Display screen resolution is a device feature and there could be other features (in software or
hardware) associated with that device which might be causing the resulted usage phenomenon.
Also different devices are marketed and bundled with variety of subscription packages for
different purposes (e.g. Nokia communicator series handsets have larger screens and provides
better internet connectivity features). This implies that device features should be studied in
totality, also including marketing and availability of the device along with service push. Because
it is possible that there could be other factors associated with, say large-screen, devices which
might be causing the actual usage behaviour.
Subscription plans of service usage also have market influence and availability concerns. Related
analysis results should be studied keeping in view the external factors (e.g. plan suitability and
price). Experience with smartphone is experience of owning the device, which does not
necessarily mean same experience with the services analyzed.
Chapter 5 – Conclusion 74
5 Conclusion
5.1 Results
Research goal of the thesis: to analyze how people use mobile services in certain context and
which factors moderate their behaviour, is achieved by analysing consumer‟s mobile usage data.
The data collected through a process employing handset-based measurement methodology and
questionnaires, is found to be very empowering to mobile user behaviour research.
The scientific approach taken in the thesis is empirical research methodology. Therefore the goal
is carved up in the form hypotheses which take their root in the existing research in our focus
area. A research model has also been proposed referred as “Theory of real behaviour” to predict
mobile service usage. The model specifies user-context, service characteristics, intentions,
consumer attributes and technology enablers constructs in defining actual device usage. These
constructs provide broad classification of handset usage predictor variables (e.g. time of use,
access technology and age), which are logged. Hypotheses are suggested for each of these
predictor variables.
The thesis has analyzed patterns in the mobile application usage data across various variables
quantitatively. Results provide an assessment of how variables including: time of day,
international roaming, battery life of handset, weekday or weekend, age of consumer, occupation,
gender, service subscription plans, smartphone-usage experience, intentions to use a service,
display screen size of the terminal, connectivity capabilities of the device and different network
access technologies affect the use of mobile services and to what extent. These variables are then
classified in terms of contextual, consumer-related, technology enablers, and service-related
categories as specified in the research model to analyze categorical impact (of these factors) too.
Thesis demonstrated use of two statistical models, used for predictive modelling, namely: logistic
regression and multinomial logistic regression on mobile-consumer usage data. For service
duration-usage analyses thesis also employed survival analysis technique from the statistics
toolbox.
Logistic regression models have been analyzed separately for each service upon the predictors
suggested by the research model. Results of the models explained the impact of each predictor in
the usage of a specific service. The services studied include: Voice, SMS, MMS, Browsing,
Camera, Music and Maps. Although not that good model fit is achieved with this dataset, the
effect of each variable can be analyzed by relative terms. Multinomial regression technique for
modelling user behaviour has also been established, which provided a way to compare services.
For example, given night time which mobile services are consumers more likely to be used?
Establishment of this model can now be used to compare related services on different factors,
particularly when there is an implied need to use one of them. Then survival analysis technique
elaborated how usage-session time duration is affected by the factors. For example, browsing
sessions at night time are found to be lengthier compared to other day times. This analysis
provides a mechanism to study mobile services where session lengths are of particular
importance. (E.g. services which are billed depending on the usage session lengths).
Results of the analyses done conclude that most of these variables do affect mobile service use.
Some of the significant findings indicate consumer attributes (age, occupation, gender,
smartphone-usage experience, intentions to use a service) are found to have predominant impact
on service use, relatively. Amongst variables categorized as contextual (time of day, international
roaming, battery life of handset, weekday or weekend), time of day and international roaming
tend to affect usage of almost all the services. Flat-rate or block priced subscription plans seem to
boost service usage. Consumer intentions are found to have a high impact of service use, except
for browsing service where they score relatively low.
Essence of the thesis is the mobile consumer behaviour modelling process, which carries the
capability of analysing and predicting the usage behaviour of future mobile services as well.
5.2 Exploitation of results

Analysis of the data is primarily based on existing research on mobile services use, thus results
already inherit a set reference point. It should be noted that, very accurate predictive model of
mobile-user behaviour is not attained yet with the available data therefore results should be
viewed in consideration to their limitations. However, these results can be used in a variety of
meaningful ways and by different stake holders in the mobile industry.
For operators and other service facilitators, they could be very helpful in planning and allocation
of resources used in the provision of certain services. For example, if browsing is predicted to be
used more during late hours in the day resource planning and allocation for data-traffic can be
managed accordingly. Other concrete use of the result telecommunication operators could be
service-device bundling. As observed in the analysis, with smaller screen size devices browsing-
use decreases significantly but SMS use increases. This can be helpful in bundling of devices
(with difference screen sizes) with different subscription packages (e.g. SMS favoured plan
versus internet-use promoting plans).
For handset manufacturers, such usage behaviour analysis at handset level can also provide
valuable insights. For instance, they along with operators can offer customised devices for better
user experience for specific services (or service bundles). E.g. appending hard-button for web-
browser application in the large-screen devices (targeted for mobile internet use). Such an
analysis can also help businesses understand consumers and create a positive user-feedback loop.
Similarly, regulatory implications can also be drawn. For example, it has been observed while
roaming abroad use of browsing and voice decreases drastically. This information (in the
quantified form) can be used by operators and regulators to arrange better roaming agreements
between operators and adjust termination costs so that both the consumers and service facilitators
benefit.
For service providers such analysis and results has great inferences. Our analysis shows that that
the user specific variables (e.g. gender, age, experience) have a substantial influence on the
mobile service use than others. This analysis could be used to identify target market for specific
services, by service creators and promoters, at first level by these variables. Then further
curtailing service offerings based on contextual differences.
Apart from these this model can provide various significant benefits to the businesses including
but not limited to: achievability of context-aware mobile applications, providing social insights
on user behaviour (ethnographic studies), assistance in techno-economic analysis of substitute
technologies e.g. (WLAN and cellular data usage) by highlighting the concrete differences in
their use.
The thesis demonstrated a novel process of analysing and modelling of handset usage data in
combination to questionnaire data (user experience, attitude, etc.). Furthermore, it identifies the
value of results obtained from such analyses. This model can be extended and applied to almost
any mobile service, with indefinite number of parameters and with very large data points, hence
laying the foundation for accurate predictive modelling of mobile-consumer behaviour.
5.3 Limitations and future research

Limitations of the thesis work can be categorized into limitations by the data and analysis
processes and this can be classified as the analysis‟s internal validity and external validity.
Internal validity involves the outcome validation and the verification of cause and effect
relationship of the service usage demonstrated. Whereas, external validity here refers to the
limitations of the results to which they can be generalized.
One of the internal validity threats in the data is the comparatively narrow subset of the
population. The subset studied and analyzed also has some biases as defined in section 4.8. This
enforces a caution on the generic-applicability of the results. This can be overcome in future by
improving a sampling mechanism so as to choose a best sample of the population, extending the
data-sample size and doing extensive (in time) logging of the data.
Handset-based measurement of user-behaviour method also has some limitations. Currently, it

lacks to specify whether user is actually involved with the application (or device). E.g. User can
open a browsing application and leaves the device for some time, later closes the application.
This way, it is not possible to tell for how long user actually centered on it in comparison to the
duration logged. This limits the granularity of user-mobile behaviour analysis.
External validity of the thesis is also limited by the capability of the device (services it can offer)
analyzed. The thesis has smartphone (Symbian platform) devices in the dataset, but future work
should take into account also laptops, tablets, PDA devices and smartphones with other platforms
(e.g. Android, iPhone OS, Windows Mobile). Such an analysis can give more generalized
insights on mobile consumer behaviour, due to more factors of differentiation and greater mix of
mobile services. When focusing on mobile service usage, in particular, future work should also
cater for alternatives available (e.g. music player, digital camera, etc.) to use such services and
their usage behaviour.
Also user-behaviour changes rapid in time. It should be insightful to do similar analysis on same
dataset over time. One line of direction of future work can also be to automate the demonstrated
process. So that the longitudinal studies in a real-time fashion on consumer usage behaviour can
be done. This can add more dynamism to service offerings and customer relationship
management.
The research model and hypotheses formulation can be further explored in the future work. It can
be achieved by acquiring more behavioural information (e.g. precise location of the user, user
emotions and social context, etc.) and exploring possible correlations, hence enhancing the
model.
Future studies can also focus on adoption of new application and do continuous panel studies to
highlight seasonal trends in the mobile user behaviour. They can also emphasize people‟s social
behaviour (observed through their handset) given their demographics.
References 79
References
Agresti, A. (2007). An introduction to categorical data analysis, 2nd Edition, Wiley-
Interscience.
Ajzen I. (1985). From intentions to actions: a theory of Planned Behaviour. In Action-control:

From Cognition to Behaviour (Kuhl J. & Beckmann J., eds), Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 11–
39.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organization Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes 50(2), pp. 179-211.
Bouwman, H., Carlsson, C., Walden, P., & Molina-Castillo, F. J. (2008). Trends in mobile
services in Finland 2004–2006: from ringtones to mobile Internet. Info, 10(2), 75–93.
Bouwman, H., De Vos, H. and Haaker, T. 2008b. Mobile Service Innovation and Business
Models, Springer, Germany
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Carlsson, C., Hyvönen, K., Repo, P., Walden, P., (2005). Asynchronous Adoption Patterns of
Mobile Services. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS-38), Island of Hawaii, USA, January 3 - 6, 2005.
Carlsson, C., Carlsson, J., Hyvönen, K., Puhakainen, J., Walden, P. (2006). Adoption of Mobile
Devices/Services - Searching for Answers with the UTAUT. Proceedings of the 39th
Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 2006. s. 1-10.
Choi, B., Lee, I., Kim, J., and Jeon, Y. (2005). A qualitative cross-national study of cultural
influences on mobile data service design. Proceeding of CHI 2005. ACM Press.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator‟s Dilemma. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
References 80
Cox. D. R. (1958). The Regression Analysis of Binary Sequences. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society. Series B (Methodological), Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 215-242, Blackwell Publishing for
the Royal Statistical Society
Davis, FD. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of
Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13, pp. 319-340.
DeBaillon, L. and Rockwell, P. (2005). Gender and student-status differences in cellular

telephone use. Int. J. Mobile Communications, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.82–98.
Dey, A.K. (2001). Understanding and using context. Journal of Personal and Ubiquitous
Computing; Vol. 5, No. 1, February 2001
Eagle, N. (2005). Machine Perception and Learning of Complex Social Systems. Doctoral
dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Esbjörnsson, M & Weilenmann, A. (2005). Mobile Phone Talk in Context. In Proceedings of

Context‟2005 – The 5th International and Interdisciplinary Conference Modeling and
Using Context. Springer Verlag, 11:140-154.
Eurobarometer. (2006). Special Eurobarometer. 269/Wave 66.1–TNS Opinion & Social.
Fishbein M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: an introduction to
theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.
Forza, C. (2002). Survey research in operations management: A process-based perspective.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 152-
194.
Froehlich, J., Chen, M.Y., Consolvo, S., Harrison, B., & Landay, J.A. (2007). MyExperience: A
System for In Situ Tracing and Capturing of User Feedback on Mobile Phones. Proceedings
of MobiSys „07, (Jun 2007), pp.57-70.
References 81
Gehan, E.A. (1965). A generalised Wilcoxon test for comparing arbitrarily singly-censored
samples. Biometrika, Vol. 52.
Groot, A. de, (1969). Methodology: Foundations of Inference and Research in the Behavioral
Sciences, Mouton & Co, Belgium.
GSM Association, (2009). Mobile World Celebrates Four Billion Connections. Press release,
issued 11 February 2009
Halvey M., Keane M., Smyth B. (2006). Time Based Patterns in Mobile-Internet Surfing.
Proceedings of CHI 2006 (April 22-27, 2006), Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Hosmer, DW., Taber, S. & Lemeshow, S. (1991). The importance of assessing the fit of logistic
regression models: a case study. American journal of public health 81(12), pp. 1630-1635.
Hosmer, D.W. and Lemeshow, S. (2004). Applied logistic regression, Wiley-Interscience.
International telecommunication Union (ITU). 2008. Mobile Data Revenues to Exceed $200
Billion in 2008. Press release, issued 28 July 2008
Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1971). Handbook in research and evaluation. San Diego: EdITS.
Kaplan, E. L. & Meier, P. (1958). Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations.

Journal of the American Statistical Association, 53, pp. 457–481.
Katz J.E., R.E. Rice. 2003. Comparing internet and mobile phone usage: digital divides of usage,
adoption, and dropouts. Telecommunications Policy 27(8-9): 597-623
Kim, B., Choi, M. and Han, I. (2009). User behaviors toward mobile data services: The role of
perceived fee and prior experience. Expert Systems with Applications. Volume 36, Issue 4,
pp 8528-8536, Elsevier.
References 82
Kivi, A., (2007). Measuring Mobile User Behavior and Service Usage: Methods, Measurements
Points, and Future Outlook. In 6th Global Mobility Roundtable, 1-2 June 2007, Los
Angeles, California, U.S., 2007.
Kleinbaum, DG. and Klein, M. (2005). Survival Analysis: A Self-learning Text. Second edition.
New York: Springer.
Luarn, P. and Lin, H.H. (2005). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use
mobile banking. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 873–891.
Martin, E. (1983). Surveys as social indicators: Problems in monitoring trends. In Handbook of

survey research, ed. Peter Rossi, James Wright, and Andy Anderson. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press, pp. 677-743.
Nysveen, H. & Pedersen, PE. & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2005). Intentions to Use Mobile Services:
Antecedents and Cross-Service Comparisons. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
33(3), pp. 330-346.
Oh, S. Yang, S. Kurnia, S. Lee, H. Mackay, MM. & O'Doherty, K. (2008). The characteristics of
mobile data service users in Australia. International Journal of Mobile Communications,
(6:2), pp. 217-30.
Pampel, F.C. (2000). Logistic regression: A primer. Sage Publications Inc.
Pedersen, P. E. & Thorbjørnsen, H. (2003). Adoption of Mobile Services. Model development and
Cross-Service study. Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration.
Pedersen P.E. (2005). Adoption of mobile Internet services: an exploratory study of mobile
commerce early adopters, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce
15 (2005) (3), pp. 203–221.
References 83
Pinsonneault, A. & K. L. Kraemer (1993), “Survey Research Methodology in Management

Information Systems: An Assessment,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 10,
75-105.
Raento, M. & Oulasvirta, A. & Petit, R. & Toivonen, H. (2005). ContextPhone – A prototyping
platform for context-aware mobile applications. IEEE Pervasive Computing 4(2), pp. 51-59.
Rahmati, A., Qian, A. and Zhong, L. Understanding human-battery interaction on mobile phones.
International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services
(MobileHCI), ACM.
Rogers, EM. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edition, The Free Press, New York, USA
Saarikoski, V. (2006). The Odyssey of the Mobile Internet. Doctoral Dissertation. University of
Oulu, Finland.
Sarker, S. and Wells, J.D. (2003). Understanding mobile handheld device use and adoption.
Communications of the ACM, December, Vol. 46, No. 12, pp.35–40.
Schlosser, Francine K. (2002), “So, how do people really use their handheld devices? An
interactive study of wireless technology use,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 (4),
401-423.
Sidel, P. H.; Mayhew, G. E. (2003). „The Emergence of Context: A Survey of MobileNet User
Behavior‟. Working paper. International University of Japan, Niigata Japan
Smura, T. (2008). Access alternatives to mobile services and content: a techno-economic

analysis, in ITS 17th Biennial Conference, June 24-27, 2008, Montreal, Canada.
References 84
Statistics Finland (2006). Use of information and communications technology 2006. Web
document. Available at:
http://www.stat.fi/til/sutivi/2006/sutivi_2006_2006-12-11_kuv_007_en.html
Accessed on: 21st July 2009.
Strategy Analytics. (2009). Global Smartphone Sales Forecast by Region and Operating System
:2002 to 2014.
Venkatesh, V. & Davis, FD. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance
Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science 46(2), pp. 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., (2003). User Acceptance of Information
Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 425 - 78.
Verkasalo, H. (2005). Handset-Based Monitoring of Mobile Customer Behavior. Master‟s Thesis

Series. Networking Laboratory. Department of Electrical and Telecommunications
Engineering. Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland, September 2005.
Verkasalo, H. and Hämmäinen, H. (2007). A Handset-Based Platform for Measuring Mobile

Service Usage. INFO: The Journal of Policy, Regulation and Strategy. Vol. 9, No. 1, 2007
Verkasalo, H. 2007. Handset-based measurement of smartphone service evolution in Finland.

Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 16, 7 - 25 (01 Dec
2007)
Verkasalo, H. (2008a). „Dynamics of Mobile Service Adoption‟, International Journal of E-

Business Research, 4(3), 40-63, July-September
Verkasalo H. (2008b). Summary of the Annual Finnish Smartphone Study 2007. Web document.
Available:
http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/tutkimus/momi/publications/Finland_Smartphone_Report_2007.pd
f. Referenced March 18th 2008.
References 85
Verkasalo, H. (2008c). Dynamics of Mobile Service Adoption. International Journal of E-

Business Research, 4(3), 40-63, July-September
Verkasalo, H. (2008d). Contextual Patterns in Mobile Service Usage‟. Journal of Personal and
Ubiquitous Computing; February 2008 (Online First collection).
Verkasalo, H. 2009. Handset-based Analysis of Mobile Services Usage. Doctoral dissertation.

Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Appendix A – Logistic regression output 86
Appendices
Appendix A - Logistic regression output
A.1 - Voice model
Logistic Regression Model - Voice
Categorical Variables Codings
Parameter coding
Frequency (1) (2) (3) (4)
device_resolution 176x208 9835 1.000 .000 .000 .000
240x320 91337 .000 1.000 .000 .000
320x240 73998 .000 .000 1.000 .000
352x416 23143 .000 .000 .000 1.000
800x352 11137 .000 .000 .000 .000
voiceplan I dont know 6383 1.000 .000 .000
Usage-based 71527 .000 1.000 .000
Block-priced 130244 .000 .000 1.000
Flat-rate 1296 .000 .000 .000
work Other 27317 1.000 .000
Student 46768 .000 1.000
Employed 135365 .000 .000
day_times Morning Time 96326 1.000 .000
Evening Time 91314 .000 1.000
Night Time 21810 .000 .000
gender Male 161631 1.000
Female 47819 .000
Block 0: Beginning Block
Variables in the Equation

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Step 0 Constant -1.174 .005 52083.332 1 .000 .309
Variables not in the Equation
Score df Sig.
Step 0 Variables weekend_dummy .398 1 .528
day_times 1445.128 2 .000
day_times(1) 87.103 1 .000
day_times(2) 847.798 1 .000
international_roaming 204.482 1 .000
battery_level 23.691 1 .000
voiceplan 160.596 3 .000
voiceplan(1) 134.876 1 .000
voiceplan(2) 7.527 1 .006
voiceplan(3) .393 1 .531
shortintention_voice 24.475 1 .000
smartphone_experience 65.757 1 .000
age 66.519 1 .000
work 655.921 2 .000
work(1) 576.373 1 .000
work(2) 13.983 1 .000
gender(1) 57.350 1 .000
device_resolution 831.519 4 .000
device_resolution(1) 22.722 1 .000
Overall Statistics 3330.353 18 .000
Block 1: Method = Enter

Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 3494.744 18 .000
Block 3494.744 18 .000
Model 3494.744 18 .000
Model Summary
Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R

Step -2 Log likelihood Square Square
1 225449.274a .017 .025
a. Estimation terminated at iteration number 5 because

parameter estimates changed by less than .001.
Step Chi-square df Sig.
1 51.592 8 .000
Contingency Table for Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
voice_dummy = .00 voice_dummy = 1.00
Observed Expected Observed Expected Total
Step 1 1 18102 18135.707 2855 2821.293 20957
2 17296 17201.755 3644 3738.245 20940
3 16574 16674.962 4337 4236.038 20911
4 16644 16381.400 4292 4554.600 20936
5 16055 16036.894 4858 4876.106 20913
6 15473 15675.010 5339 5136.990 20812
7 15533 15538.268 5403 5397.732 20936
8 15381 15256.810 5579 5703.190 20960
9 14597 14813.020 6346 6129.980 20943
10 14345 14286.174 6797 6855.826 21142

Step 1a weekend_dummy .035 .012 8.422 1 .004 1.036
day_times 1359.818 2 .000
day_times(1) .517 .021 626.375 1 .000 1.676
day_times(2) .729 .021 1246.199 1 .000 2.074
international_roaming -.636 .055 134.412 1 .000 .530
battery_level -.022 .003 67.656 1 .000 .978
voiceplan 175.295 3 .000
voiceplan(1) -.761 .071 114.024 1 .000 .467
voiceplan(2) -.356 .063 31.802 1 .000 .700
voiceplan(3) -.355 .063 31.817 1 .000 .701
shortintention_voice .110 .013 68.107 1 .000 1.116
smartphone_experience -.008 .004 3.974 1 .046 .992
age .022 .007 10.613 1 .001 1.022
work 444.485 2 .000
work(1) -.372 .018 443.682 1 .000 .690
work(2) -.068 .015 21.865 1 .000 .934
gender(1) .103 .013 58.081 1 .000 1.108
device_resolution(1) .171 .037 21.961 1 .000 1.187
Constant -2.310 .123 353.496 1 .000 .099
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: weekend_dummy, day_times, international_roaming, battery_level,

voiceplan, shortintention_voice, smartphone_experience, age, work, gender, device_resolution.
95% C.I.for EXP(B)
Lower Upper
Step 1a weekend_dummy 1.011 1.061
day_times(1) 1.610 1.746
day_times(2) 1.991 2.159
international_roaming .476 .590
battery_level .973 .983
voiceplan(1) .406 .537
shortintention_voice 1.087 1.146
smartphone_experience .984 1.000
age 1.009 1.035
work(1) .666 .714
work(2) .908 .961
gender(1) 1.079 1.138
device_resolution(1) 1.105 1.275
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: weekend_dummy, day_times,

international_roaming, battery_level, voiceplan,
shortintention_voice, smartphone_experience, age, work, gender,
device_resolution.
A.2 - SMS model
Logistic Regression Model - SMS
Parameter coding
Frequency (1) (2) (3) (4)
240x320 91337 .000 1.000 .000 .000
320x240 73998 .000 .000 1.000 .000

352x416 23143 .000 .000 .000 1.000
800x352 11137 .000 .000 .000 .000
smsplan I dont know 9032 1.000 .000 .000
Usage-based 94445 .000 1.000 .000
Block-priced 103395 .000 .000 1.000
Flat-rate 2578 .000 .000 .000
work Other 27317 1.000 .000
Student 46768 .000 1.000
Employed 135365 .000 .000
Evening Time 91314 .000 1.000
Night Time 21810 .000 .000
Female 47819 .000
Step 0 Constant -1.276 .005 58176.743 1 .000 .279
Score df Sig.
Step 0 Variables weekend_dummy 6.469 1 .011
day_times 129.273 2 .000
day_times(1) 114.362 1 .000
day_times(2) 41.193 1 .000
smsplan 3841.910 3 .000
smsplan(1) 97.842 1 .000

smsplan(2) 3622.038 1 .000
smsplan(3) 3334.778 1 .000
shortintention_SMS 1776.413 1 .000
age 4240.632 1 .000
work 1840.872 2 .000
work(1) 1358.305 1 .000
work(2) 191.427 1 .000
gender(1) 9436.439 1 .000
Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 15860.558 18 .000
Block 15860.558 18 .000
Model 15860.558 18 .000
Model Summary

a
1 203925.881 .073 .112

1 371.878 8 .000
SMS_dummy = .00 SMS_dummy = 1.00
Step 1 1 19337 19343.105 1647 1640.895 20984
2 18092 18462.035 2844 2473.965 20936
3 18560 18053.646 2379 2885.354 20939
4 17543 17734.072 3473 3281.928 21016
5 17144 17319.609 3775 3599.391 20919
6 17272 16945.979 3684 4010.021 20956
7 16615 16190.449 4332 4756.551 20947
8 14599 15236.291 6374 5736.709 20973
9 13569 13575.385 7384 7377.615 20953
10 11008 10878.429 9819 9948.571 20827
Step 1a weekend_dummy -.021 .013 2.717 1 .099 .979
day_times 129.840 2 .000
day_times(1) .216 .019 123.714 1 .000 1.241
day_times(2) .152 .020 59.373 1 .000 1.164
international_roaming .541 .043 161.393 1 .000 1.718
battery_level .003 .003 1.073 1 .300 1.003
smsplan 1305.956 3 .000
smsplan(1) -.209 .062 11.310 1 .001 .811
smsplan(2) -.353 .057 38.083 1 .000 .703

smsplan(3) .105 .057 3.344 1 .067 1.110
shortintention_SMS .192 .009 459.825 1 .000 1.212
smartphone_experience .048 .004 113.779 1 .000 1.049
age -.157 .008 391.501 1 .000 .855
work 479.615 2 .000
work(1) .359 .017 463.098 1 .000 1.432
work(2) .152 .015 97.124 1 .000 1.164
gender(1) -.772 .013 3575.804 1 .000 .462
device_resolution(1) 1.067 .038 775.412 1 .000 2.906
Constant -2.475 .101 604.569 1 .000 .084
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: weekend_dummy, day_times, international_roaming, battery_level, smsplan,

shortintention_SMS, smartphone_experience, age, work, gender, device_resolution.
95% C.I.for EXP(B)
Lower Upper
Step 1a weekend_dummy .954 1.004
day_times(1) 1.194 1.289
day_times(2) 1.120 1.210
international_roaming 1.580 1.867
battery_level .997 1.009
smsplan(1) .718 .916
smsplan(2) .628 .786
smsplan(3) .993 1.242
shortintention_SMS 1.191 1.233
smartphone_experience 1.040 1.058
age .842 .868
work(1) 1.386 1.480
work(2) 1.130 1.200

gender(1) .450 .474

international_roaming, battery_level, smsplan,
shortintention_SMS, smartphone_experience, age, work, gender,
device_resolution.
A.3 - MMS model
Logistic Regression Model - MMS
Parameter coding
Frequency (1) (2) (3) (4)
240x320 91337 .000 1.000 .000 .000
320x240 73998 .000 .000 1.000 .000
352x416 23143 .000 .000 .000 1.000
800x352 11137 .000 .000 .000 .000
mmsplan I dont know 34946 1.000 .000 .000
Usage-based 160124 .000 1.000 .000
Block-priced 11324 .000 .000 1.000
Flat-rate 3056 .000 .000 .000
work Other 27317 1.000 .000
Student 46768 .000 1.000
Employed 135365 .000 .000
Evening Time 91314 .000 1.000
Night Time 21810 .000 .000
Female 47819 .000

Step 0 Constant -5.540 .035 25040.286 1 .000 .004
Score df Sig.
day_times 56.809 2 .000
day_times(1) 31.066 1 .000
day_times(2) 56.074 1 .000
international_roaming .937 1 .333
mmsplan 2801.045 3 .000
mmsplan(1) 50.462 1 .000
mmsplan(2) 467.797 1 .000
mmsplan(3) 2798.845 1 .000
shortintention_MMS 275.784 1 .000
age 104.985 1 .000
work 345.961 2 .000
work(1) 19.814 1 .000
work(2) 345.596 1 .000
gender(1) 43.404 1 .000

Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 2021.196 18 .000
Block 2021.196 18 .000
Model 2021.196 18 .000
Model Summary

1 8694.926a .010 .193

1 106.312 8 .000
MMS_dummy = .00 MMS_dummy = 1.00
Step 1 1 21013 21029.616 21 4.384 21034
2 20930 20938.131 19 10.869 20949
3 21194 21207.578 31 17.422 21225
4 20925 20943.911 42 23.089 20967
5 20938 20939.672 32 30.328 20970
6 20876 20881.350 43 37.650 20919

7 20902 20898.171 46 49.829 20948
8 20766 20750.936 53 68.064 20819
9 20625 20601.356 76 99.644 20701
10 20462 20440.280 456 477.720 20918
Step 1a weekend_dummy -.035 .084 .177 1 .674 .965
day_times 31.070 2 .000
day_times(1) .128 .110 1.367 1 .242 1.137
day_times(2) -.323 .119 7.390 1 .007 .724
international_roaming .195 .342 .325 1 .568 1.215
battery_level -.005 .018 .075 1 .784 .995
mmsplan 405.612 3 .000
mmsplan(1) .363 .384 .894 1 .344 1.438
mmsplan(2) .369 .366 1.018 1 .313 1.447
mmsplan(3) 2.444 .376 42.221 1 .000 11.520
shortintention_MMS .407 .035 135.138 1 .000 1.502
age .681 .052 168.813 1 .000 1.977
work 253.893 2 .000
work(1) -.728 .151 23.121 1 .000 .483
work(2) 1.273 .108 139.495 1 .000 3.572
gender(1) .474 .121 15.297 1 .000 1.607
Constant -12.370 .552 502.889 1 .000 .000


a
Step 1 weekend_dummy -.035 .084 .177 1 .674 .965
day_times 31.070 2 .000
day_times(1) .128 .110 1.367 1 .242 1.137
day_times(2) -.323 .119 7.390 1 .007 .724
international_roaming .195 .342 .325 1 .568 1.215
battery_level -.005 .018 .075 1 .784 .995
mmsplan 405.612 3 .000
mmsplan(1) .363 .384 .894 1 .344 1.438
mmsplan(2) .369 .366 1.018 1 .313 1.447
mmsplan(3) 2.444 .376 42.221 1 .000 11.520
shortintention_MMS .407 .035 135.138 1 .000 1.502
age .681 .052 168.813 1 .000 1.977
work 253.893 2 .000
work(1) -.728 .151 23.121 1 .000 .483
work(2) 1.273 .108 139.495 1 .000 3.572
gender(1) .474 .121 15.297 1 .000 1.607
Constant -12.370 .552 502.889 1 .000 .000
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: weekend_dummy, day_times, international_roaming, battery_level, mmsplan,

shortintention_MMS, smartphone_experience, age, work, gender, device_resolution.
95% C.I.for EXP(B)
Lower Upper
a
Step 1 weekend_dummy .819 1.137
day_times(1) .917 1.409
day_times(2) .573 .914
international_roaming .622 2.374
mmsplan(1) .677 3.051
mmsplan(2) .706 2.964
mmsplan(3) 5.512 24.077
shortintention_MMS 1.402 1.608
age 1.784 2.191
work(1) .359 .650
work(2) 2.892 4.412
gender(1) 1.267 2.038
device_resolution(4) .834 2.438

international_roaming, battery_level, mmsplan,
shortintention_MMS, smartphone_experience, age, work, gender,
device_resolution.
A.4 - Browsing model
Logistic Regression Model - Browsing
Parameter coding
Frequency (1) (2) (3) (4)
240x320 91337 .000 1.000 .000 .000
320x240 73998 .000 .000 1.000 .000

352x416 23143 .000 .000 .000 1.000
800x352 11137 .000 .000 .000 .000
dataplan I dont know 33693 1.000 .000 .000
Usage-based 70860 .000 1.000 .000
Block-priced 61351 .000 .000 1.000
Flat-rate 43546 .000 .000 .000
work Other 27317 1.000 .000
Student 46768 .000 1.000
Employed 135365 .000 .000
Evening Time 91314 .000 1.000
Night Time 21810 .000 .000
Female 47819 .000
Step 0 Constant -2.725 .009 89784.255 1 .000 .066
Score df Sig.
day_times 150.396 2 .000
day_times(1) 44.863 1 .000
day_times(2) 130.875 1 .000
dataplan 11426.727 3 .000
dataplan(1) 401.162 1 .000

dataplan(2) 3582.890 1 .000
dataplan(3) 206.492 1 .000
shortintention_internet 1670.538 1 .000
age 329.408 1 .000
work 231.130 2 .000
work(1) 61.329 1 .000
work(2) 123.667 1 .000
gender(1) 2627.953 1 .000
WLAN_dummy 2411.716 1 .000
Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 11701.911 19 .000
Block 11701.911 19 .000
Model 11701.911 19 .000
Model Summary

1 85094.466a .054 .147

1 375.145 8 .000
browsing_dummy = .00 browsing_dummy = 1.00
Step 1 1 20914 20876.869 88 125.131 21002
2 20650 20673.630 302 278.370 20952
3 20736 20609.836 235 361.164 20971
4 20461 20472.219 473 461.781 20934
5 20074 20246.427 876 703.573 20950
6 19658 19954.915 1254 957.085 20912
7 19835 19717.508 1080 1197.492 20915
8 19383 19319.259 1550 1613.741 20933
9 18513 17962.015 2540 3090.985 21053
10 16345 16736.322 4483 4091.678 20828
Step 1a weekend_dummy -.031 .022 1.985 1 .159 .970
day_times 71.874 2 .000
day_times(1) -.117 .030 14.995 1 .000 .889
day_times(2) -.241 .031 59.782 1 .000 .786
battery_level -.004 .005 .790 1 .374 .996
dataplan 4778.181 3 .000
dataplan(1) -1.112 .034 1054.422 1 .000 .329

dataplan(2) -2.063 .034 3589.462 1 .000 .127
dataplan(3) -1.212 .024 2496.020 1 .000 .298
shortintention_internet .026 .010 7.291 1 .007 1.026
age -.017 .012 2.068 1 .150 .983
work 141.576 2 .000
work(1) -.170 .032 28.045 1 .000 .844
work(2) -.306 .027 129.588 1 .000 .736
gender(1) 1.225 .047 670.913 1 .000 3.405
WLAN_dummy .404 .021 362.599 1 .000 1.498
device_resolution(1) -.712 .074 93.696 1 .000 .491
Constant -1.908 .136 196.295 1 .000 .148
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: weekend_dummy, day_times, international_roaming, battery_level, dataplan,

shortintention_internet, smartphone_experience, age, work, gender, WLAN_dummy, device_resolution.
95% C.I.for EXP(B)
Lower Upper
Step 1a weekend_dummy .929 1.012
day_times(1) .838 .944
day_times(2) .739 .835
dataplan(1) .307 .352
dataplan(2) .119 .136
dataplan(3) .284 .312
shortintention_internet 1.007 1.046
smartphone_experience .911 .936
age .960 1.006

work(1) .793 .899
work(2) .698 .776
gender(1) 3.103 3.736
WLAN_dummy 1.437 1.562
device_resolution(1) .425 .567

international_roaming, battery_level, dataplan,
shortintention_internet, smartphone_experience, age, work,
gender, WLAN_dummy, device_resolution.
A.5 - Camera model
Logistic Regression Model - Camera
Parameter coding
Frequency (1) (2) (3) (4)
240x320 91337 .000 1.000 .000 .000
320x240 75491 .000 .000 1.000 .000
352x416 23143 .000 .000 .000 1.000
800x352 11137 .000 .000 .000 .000
work Other 27317 1.000 .000
Student 48261 .000 1.000
Employed 135365 .000 .000
Evening Time 91864 .000 1.000
Night Time 22027 .000 .000
Female 47819 .000

Step 0 Constant -4.311 .019 51232.708 1 .000 .013
Score df Sig.
day_times 52.971 2 .000
day_times(1) 39.042 1 .000
day_times(2) 52.572 1 .000
shortintention_camera 150.074 1 .000
age 25.549 1 .000
work 10.978 2 .004
work(1) 5.999 1 .014
work(2) 2.779 1 .095
gender(1) 67.319 1 .000

Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 624.588 15 .000
Block 624.588 15 .000
Model 624.588 15 .000
Model Summary

a
1 29089.387 .003 .023

1 40.630 8 .000
camera_dummy = .00 camera_dummy = 1.00
Step 1 1 20993 21015.874 108 85.126 21101
2 20944 20967.804 175 151.196 21119
3 20975 20929.289 143 188.711 21118
4 20951 20911.255 178 217.745 21129
5 20849 20837.342 239 250.658 21088
6 20779 20814.045 320 284.955 21099
7 20751 20778.511 350 322.489 21101
8 20779 20742.488 326 362.512 21105
9 20672 20672.302 408 407.698 21080
10 20456 20480.090 547 522.910 21003


a
Step 1 weekend_dummy .207 .042 24.033 1 .000 1.231
day_times 50.018 2 .000
day_times(1) .054 .063 .744 1 .388 1.056
day_times(2) -.235 .066 12.899 1 .000 .790
international_roaming 1.275 .109 137.604 1 .000 3.580
battery_level .034 .010 11.555 1 .001 1.035
shortintention_camera .237 .021 132.430 1 .000 1.267
age .090 .023 15.559 1 .000 1.095
work 1.672 2 .434
work(1) .032 .057 .307 1 .580 1.032
work(2) .065 .052 1.604 1 .205 1.068
gender(1) .444 .055 65.394 1 .000 1.558
device_resolution(4) -.037 .133 .076 1 .783 .964
Constant -7.013 .224 978.839 1 .000 .001

shortintention_camera, smartphone_experience, age, work, gender, device_resolution.
95% C.I.for EXP(B)
Lower Upper
day_times(1) .933 1.194
day_times(2) .695 .899
battery_level 1.015 1.056

shortintention_camera 1.217 1.320
smartphone_experience .927 .981
age 1.047 1.145
work(1) .923 1.155
work(2) .965 1.181
gender(1) 1.399 1.735

international_roaming, battery_level, shortintention_camera,
smartphone_experience, age, work, gender, device_resolution.
A.6 - Music model
Logistic Regression Model - Music
Parameter coding
Frequency (1) (2) (3) (4)
240x320 91337 .000 1.000 .000 .000
320x240 75491 .000 .000 1.000 .000
352x416 23143 .000 .000 .000 1.000
800x352 11137 .000 .000 .000 .000
work Other 27317 1.000 .000
Student 48261 .000 1.000
Employed 135365 .000 .000
Evening Time 91864 .000 1.000
Night Time 22027 .000 .000
Female 47819 .000

Step 0 Constant -3.896 .016 62514.626 1 .000 .020
Score df Sig.
day_times 169.684 2 .000
day_times(1) 8.682 1 .003
day_times(2) 96.356 1 .000
international_roaming .239 1 .625
shortintention_offlinemusic 327.456 1 .000
age 174.856 1 .000
work 164.062 2 .000
work(1) 3.157 1 .076
work(2) 163.201 1 .000
gender(1) 54.722 1 .000
device_resolution(1) .048 1 .827

Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 792.880 15 .000
Block 792.880 15 .000
Model 792.880 15 .000
Model Summary

1 40444.939a .004 .021

1 177.349 8 .000
music_dummy = .00 music_dummy = 1.00
Step 1 1 20950 20922.255 138 165.745 21088
2 20953 20875.793 154 231.207 21107
3 20824 20788.121 253 288.879 21077
4 20772 20752.605 315 334.395 21087
5 20636 20738.168 474 371.832 21110
6 20668 20681.064 425 411.936 21093
7 20620 20710.539 555 464.461 21175
8 20495 20484.566 510 520.434 21005
9 20384 20545.205 773 611.795 21157

music_dummy = .00 music_dummy = 1.00
Step 1 1 20950 20922.255 138 165.745 21088
2 20953 20875.793 154 231.207 21107
3 20824 20788.121 253 288.879 21077
4 20772 20752.605 315 334.395 21087
5 20636 20738.168 474 371.832 21110
6 20668 20681.064 425 411.936 21093
7 20620 20710.539 555 464.461 21175
8 20495 20484.566 510 520.434 21005
9 20384 20545.205 773 611.795 21157
10 20438 20241.684 606 802.316 21044
B S.E. Wald df Sig.
Step 1a weekend_dummy -.063 .037 3.004 1 .083
day_times 115.004 2 .000
day_times(1) -.318 .046 48.361 1 .000
day_times(2) -.510 .048 113.546 1 .000
international_roaming .174 .129 1.825 1 .177
battery_level .044 .008 28.482 1 .000
shortintention_offlinemusic .124 .009 203.818 1 .000
smartphone_experience .007 .012 .378 1 .539
age -.158 .023 48.146 1 .000
work 59.745 2 .000
work(1) .041 .051 .634 1 .426
work(2) .302 .040 57.813 1 .000
gender(1) .194 .046 18.036 1 .000
device_resolution(1) .354 .113 9.852 1 .002

Constant -4.688 .140 1119.027 1 .000

shortintention_offlinemusic, smartphone_experience, age, work, gender, device_resolution.
95% C.I.for EXP(B)
Exp(B) Lower Upper
Step 1a weekend_dummy .938 .873 1.008
day_times(1) .727 .665 .796
day_times(2) .600 .546 .659
international_roaming 1.190 .925 1.532
battery_level 1.045 1.028 1.062
shortintention_offlinemusic 1.132 1.113 1.152
smartphone_experience 1.007 .984 1.031
age .854 .817 .893
work(1) 1.042 .942 1.152
work(2) 1.353 1.252 1.463
gender(1) 1.215 1.110 1.329
device_resolution(1) 1.425 1.142 1.778
Constant .009

international_roaming, battery_level, shortintention_offlinemusic,
A.7 - Calendar model
Logistic Regression Model - Calendar

Parameter coding
Frequency (1) (2) (3) (4)
240x320 91337 .000 1.000 .000 .000
320x240 75491 .000 .000 1.000 .000
352x416 23143 .000 .000 .000 1.000
800x352 11137 .000 .000 .000 .000
work Other 27317 1.000 .000
Student 48261 .000 1.000
Employed 135365 .000 .000
Evening Time 91864 .000 1.000
Night Time 22027 .000 .000
Female 47819 .000
Step 0 Constant -3.511 .013 73222.093 1 .000 .030
Score df Sig.
day_times 131.766 2 .000
day_times(1) 101.691 1 .000
day_times(2) 129.646 1 .000

shortintention_office 269.567 1 .000
age 355.942 1 .000
work 188.506 2 .000
work(1) 165.760 1 .000
work(2) 54.281 1 .000
gender(1) 187.350 1 .000
Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 1765.050 15 .000
Block 1765.050 15 .000
Model 1765.050 15 .000
Model Summary

a
1 53604.502 .008 .036


1 106.031 8 .000
calender_dummy = .00 calender_dummy = 1.00
Step 1 1 20916 20921.331 162 156.669 21078
2 20733 20783.312 333 282.688 21066
3 20586 20697.771 480 368.229 21066
4 20677 20642.191 415 449.809 21092
5 20693 20686.975 522 528.025 21215
6 20567 20473.638 513 606.362 21080
7 20557 20456.565 599 699.435 21156
8 20374 20296.723 728 805.277 21102
9 20144 20127.935 941 957.065 21085
10 19579 19739.559 1424 1263.441 21003

a
Step 1 weekend_dummy -.362 .034 115.854 1 .000 .696
day_times 89.298 2 .000
day_times(1) -.125 .047 7.188 1 .007 .882
day_times(2) .137 .046 8.819 1 .003 1.147
battery_level .042 .007 34.519 1 .000 1.043
shortintention_office .215 .011 389.731 1 .000 1.240
age .331 .016 426.365 1 .000 1.392
work 355.720 2 .000
work(1) -.577 .050 130.641 1 .000 .562

work(2) .453 .035 169.031 1 .000 1.572
gender(1) .385 .037 106.795 1 .000 1.469
Constant -7.430 .143 2697.439 1 .000 .001

shortintention_office, smartphone_experience, age, work, gender, device_resolution.
95% C.I.for EXP(B)
Lower Upper
Step 1a weekend_dummy .652 .744
day_times(1) .805 .967
day_times(2) 1.048 1.255
shortintention_office 1.214 1.266
age 1.349 1.436
work(1) .509 .620
work(2) 1.469 1.683
gender(1) 1.366 1.581

international_roaming, battery_level, shortintention_office,
A.8 - Maps model
Logistic Regression Model - Maps
Parameter coding
Frequency (1) (2) (3) (4)
240x320 91337 .000 1.000 .000 .000
320x240 75491 .000 .000 1.000 .000
352x416 23143 .000 .000 .000 1.000
800x352 11137 .000 .000 .000 .000
work Other 27317 1.000 .000
Student 48261 .000 1.000
Employed 135365 .000 .000
Evening Time 91864 .000 1.000
Night Time 22027 .000 .000
Female 47819 .000
Step 0 Constant -4.257 .019 52643.817 1 .000 .014
Score df Sig.
day_times 53.554 2 .000
day_times(1) 12.617 1 .000

day_times(2) 43.890 1 .000
shortintention_maps 1307.522 1 .000
age 607.409 1 .000
work 222.498 2 .000
work(1) 30.847 1 .000
work(2) 152.970 1 .000
gender(1) 680.882 1 .000
Chi-square df Sig.
Step 1 Step 2562.017 15 .000
Block 2562.017 15 .000
Model 2562.017 15 .000
Model Summary

1 28454.201a .012 .088

1 195.345 8 .000
maps_dummy = .00 maps_dummy = 1.00
Step 1 1 21103 21093.779 0 9.221 21103
2 21082 21058.734 10 33.266 21092
3 21040 21042.318 66 63.682 21106
4 21064 21051.689 97 109.311 21161
5 20908 20928.634 198 177.366 21106
6 20775 20839.255 330 265.745 21105
7 20642 20654.480 366 353.520 21008
8 20408 20618.917 666 455.083 21074
9 20630 20532.304 491 588.696 21121
10 20345 20176.890 722 890.110 21067
Step 1a weekend_dummy .236 .042 32.377 1 .000 1.267
day_times 29.690 2 .000
day_times(1) .197 .073 7.234 1 .007 1.218
day_times(2) .346 .073 22.595 1 .000 1.414
international_roaming .426 .145 8.614 1 .003 1.531
battery_level .019 .010 3.805 1 .051 1.020
shortintention_maps .314 .013 544.750 1 .000 1.369

age .252 .021 137.188 1 .000 1.286
work 21.702 2 .000
work(1) -.192 .066 8.464 1 .004 .826
work(2) -.240 .060 16.189 1 .000 .786
gender(1) 1.557 .117 178.226 1 .000 4.746
Constant -10.090 .200 2551.460 1 .000 .000

shortintention_maps, smartphone_experience, age, work, gender, device_resolution.
95% C.I.for EXP(B)
Lower Upper
day_times(1) 1.055 1.406
day_times(2) 1.226 1.631
shortintention_maps 1.333 1.405
age 1.233 1.342
work(1) .726 .939
work(2) .699 .884
gender(1) 3.776 5.965

95% C.I.for EXP(B)
Lower Upper
a
Step 1 weekend_dummy 1.168 1.374
day_times(1) 1.055 1.406
day_times(2) 1.226 1.631
shortintention_maps 1.333 1.405
age 1.233 1.342
work(1) .726 .939
work(2) .699 .884
gender(1) 3.776 5.965

international_roaming, battery_level, shortintention_maps,
Appendix B – Multinomial logistic regression output 123
Appendix B - Multinomial logistic regression output
Nominal Regression
Model Fitting Information
Model Fitting Criteria Likelihood Ratio Tests
Model -2 Log Likelihood Chi-Square df Sig.
Intercept Only 107992.730
Final 90091.609 17901.121 80 .000
Goodness-of-Fit
Chi-Square df Sig.
Pearson 85266.187 21496 .000
Deviance 61067.800 21496 .000
Pseudo R-Square
Cox and Snell .065
Nagelkerke .069
McFadden .024
Likelihood Ratio Tests
Model Fitting
Criteria Likelihood Ratio Tests
-2 Log Likelihood
Effect of Reduced Model Chi-Square df Sig.
a
Intercept 90091.609 .000 0 .
battery_level 90247.219 155.609 8 .000
age2 92225.701 2134.092 8 .000
earlyadopter 90649.792 558.183 8 .000
day_times 91607.239 1515.629 16 .000

roaming 90432.889 341.280 8 .000
gender 97429.233 7337.624 8 .000
work2 91866.188 1774.579 16 .000
weekend_dummy 90293.000 201.390 8 .000
The chi-square statistic is the difference in -2 log-likelihoods between the final

model and a reduced model. The reduced model is formed by omitting an effect
from the final model. The null hypothesis is that all parameters of that effect are 0.
a. This reduced model is equivalent to the final model because omitting the effect
does not increase the degrees of freedom.
Parameter Estimates
95% Confidence
Interval for Exp(B)
Std. Lower Upper

a
usage_categorical B Error Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Bound Bound
Voice Intercept -1.810 .063 827.614 1 .000
battery_level -.023 .003 75.760 1 .000 .977 .972 .982
age2 .029 .007 19.939 1 .000 1.029 1.016 1.043
earlyadopter -.002 .004 .296 1 .586 .998 .991 1.005
[day_times=.00] .387 .021 342.265 1 .000 1.472 1.413 1.534
[day_times=1.00] .519 .021 615.031 1 .000 1.680 1.613 1.751
[day_times=2.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[roaming=.00] .435 .055 62.575 1 .000 1.545 1.387 1.721
[roaming=1.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[gender=1] .077 .013 34.067 1 .000 1.080 1.053 1.108

b
[gender=2] 0 . . 0 . . . .
[work2=5] -.269 .018 231.225 1 .000 .764 .738 .791
[work2=6] -.078 .014 29.991 1 .000 .925 .899 .951
[work2=7] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[weekend_dummy=.00] -.038 .012 9.991 1 .002 .962 .940 .986
[weekend_dummy=1.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
SMS Intercept -.036 .048 .557 1 .455
battery_level -.005 .003 3.499 1 .061 .995 .989 1.000
age2 -.195 .007 725.994 1 .000 .823 .811 .834

earlyadopter .029 .004 53.874 1 .000 1.030 1.022 1.038
[day_times=.00] .136 .019 50.333 1 .000 1.146 1.104 1.190
[day_times=1.00] .058 .020 8.854 1 .003 1.060 1.020 1.101

b
[day_times=2.00] 0 . . 0 . . . .
[roaming=.00] -.346 .038 83.650 1 .000 .707 .657 .762
[roaming=1.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[gender=1] -.622 .012 2554.51 1 .000 .537 .524 .550

5
[gender=2] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[work2=5] .229 .016 204.992 1 .000 1.257 1.219 1.297
[work2=6] -.072 .015 24.086 1 .000 .930 .904 .957
[work2=7] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[weekend_dummy=.00] .019 .013 2.134 1 .144 1.019 .994 1.045
[weekend_dummy=1.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
MMS Intercept -8.827 .402 483.252 1 .000
battery_level -.049 .018 7.640 1 .006 .952 .920 .986
age2 .875 .042 442.487 1 .000 2.398 2.211 2.602
earlyadopter .288 .024 148.209 1 .000 1.333 1.273 1.397
[day_times=.00] -.093 .106 .756 1 .385 .912 .740 1.123
[day_times=1.00] -.703 .116 36.953 1 .000 .495 .395 .621
[day_times=2.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[roaming=.00] -.058 .338 .029 1 .864 .944 .487 1.830
[roaming=1.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[gender=1] .148 .107 1.916 1 .166 1.159 .940 1.429

b
[gender=2] 0 . . 0 . . . .
[work2=5] .126 .138 .837 1 .360 1.134 .866 1.486
[work2=6] 2.239 .090 616.110 1 .000 9.388 7.866 11.203

b
[work2=7] 0 . . 0 . . . .
[weekend_dummy=.00] .018 .082 .050 1 .823 1.018 .868 1.195

b
[weekend_dummy=1.00] 0 . . 0 . . . .
Browsing Intercept -4.690 .141 1099.25 1 .000

0
battery_level -.021 .005 20.335 1 .000 .979 .970 .988
age2 .055 .011 23.853 1 .000 1.057 1.034 1.080
earlyadopter .084 .006 208.944 1 .000 1.088 1.075 1.100

[day_times=.00] -.187 .030 39.829 1 .000 .829 .783 .879
[day_times=1.00] -.393 .031 165.724 1 .000 .675 .636 .717
[day_times=2.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[roaming=.00] .722 .127 32.069 1 .000 2.058 1.603 2.643
[roaming=1.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[gender=1] 1.789 .043 1692.29 1 .000 5.984 5.495 6.517

8
b
[gender=2] 0 . . 0 . . . .
[work2=5] -.011 .030 .129 1 .719 .989 .932 1.050
[work2=6] -.166 .026 40.798 1 .000 .847 .805 .891

b
[work2=7] 0 . . 0 . . . .
[weekend_dummy=.00] .017 .022 .648 1 .421 1.017 .975 1.061
[weekend_dummy=1.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
Camera Intercept -3.436 .150 526.176 1 .000
battery_level .023 .010 5.251 1 .022 1.023 1.003 1.044
age2 .141 .023 38.478 1 .000 1.151 1.101 1.204
earlyadopter -.046 .013 12.498 1 .000 .955 .930 .980
[day_times=.00] -.002 .063 .001 1 .979 .998 .883 1.129
[day_times=1.00] -.326 .066 24.707 1 .000 .722 .635 .821
[day_times=2.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[roaming=.00] -1.035 .107 93.552 1 .000 .355 .288 .438
[roaming=1.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[gender=1] .477 .054 76.901 1 .000 1.612 1.449 1.793

b
[gender=2] 0 . . 0 . . . .
[work2=5] .250 .057 19.094 1 .000 1.284 1.148 1.436
[work2=6] .171 .052 10.975 1 .001 1.187 1.072 1.313

b
[work2=7] 0 . . 0 . . . .
[weekend_dummy=.00] -.231 .042 29.922 1 .000 .794 .731 .862

b
[weekend_dummy=1.00] 0 . . 0 . . . .
Music Intercept -3.065 .153 403.019 1 .000
battery_level .032 .008 15.162 1 .000 1.033 1.016 1.050
age2 -.205 .022 90.559 1 .000 .815 .781 .850
earlyadopter .026 .011 5.950 1 .015 1.027 1.005 1.048
[day_times=.00] -.351 .046 57.922 1 .000 .704 .643 .771

[day_times=1.00] -.581 .048 145.202 1 .000 .559 .509 .615

b
[day_times=2.00] 0 . . 0 . . . .
[roaming=.00] -.289 .127 5.177 1 .023 .749 .584 .961

b
[roaming=1.00] 0 . . 0 . . . .
[gender=1] .479 .043 124.071 1 .000 1.615 1.484 1.757
[gender=2] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[work2=5] .084 .051 2.743 1 .098 1.088 .985 1.203
[work2=6] .216 .040 29.400 1 .000 1.241 1.148 1.341

b
[work2=7] 0 . . 0 . . . .
[weekend_dummy=.00] .068 .037 3.467 1 .063 1.071 .996 1.151
[weekend_dummy=1.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
Caelndar Intercept -5.397 .181 884.420 1 .000
battery_level .032 .007 19.932 1 .000 1.032 1.018 1.047
age2 .312 .016 398.914 1 .000 1.366 1.325 1.408
earlyadopter .039 .009 20.845 1 .000 1.040 1.023 1.058
[day_times=.00] -.161 .047 11.703 1 .001 .852 .777 .934
[day_times=1.00] .065 .046 1.950 1 .163 1.067 .974 1.168
[day_times=2.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[roaming=.00] .533 .163 10.672 1 .001 1.703 1.237 2.344
[roaming=1.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[gender=1] .330 .037 78.688 1 .000 1.391 1.293 1.496
[gender=2] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[work2=5] -.393 .050 61.081 1 .000 .675 .611 .745
[work2=6] .477 .035 188.990 1 .000 1.612 1.506 1.725

b
[work2=7] 0 . . 0 . . . .
[weekend_dummy=.00] .344 .034 104.324 1 .000 1.411 1.321 1.508

b
[weekend_dummy=1.00] 0 . . 0 . . . .
Maps Intercept -6.702 .210 1015.74 1 .000

8
battery_level .010 .010 1.017 1 .313 1.010 .991 1.030
age2 .314 .021 216.760 1 .000 1.369 1.313 1.428
earlyadopter .143 .011 157.666 1 .000 1.154 1.128 1.180
[day_times=.00] .126 .073 2.949 1 .086 1.134 .982 1.309
[day_times=1.00] .253 .073 12.032 1 .001 1.288 1.116 1.485

b
[day_times=2.00] 0 . . 0 . . . .
[roaming=.00] -.429 .144 8.936 1 .003 .651 .491 .863
[roaming=1.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[gender=1] 2.141 .115 344.885 1 .000 8.510 6.789 10.667
[gender=2] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[work2=5] -.153 .064 5.656 1 .017 .858 .757 .973
[work2=6] -.274 .060 20.918 1 .000 .760 .676 .855
[work2=7] 0b . . 0 . . . .
[weekend_dummy=.00] -.247 .041 35.391 1 .000 .781 .720 .848
[weekend_dummy=1.00] 0b . . 0 . . . .
a. The reference category is: Display Event.
b. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.

Appendix C – Survival analysis output 129
Appendix C - Survival analysis output
C.1 - Time of the day
Life Table
Number Number Cumulative

Interval Number Withdrawing Number of Proportion
day_ Start Entering during Exposed Terminal Proportion Proportion Surviving at
times Time Interval Interval to Risk Events Terminating Surviving End of Interval
Morning 0 7367 0 7367 2488 .34 .66 .66
1 4879 0 4879 1398 .29 .71 .47
2 3481 0 3481 811 .23 .77 .36
3 2670 0 2670 563 .21 .79 .29
4 2107 0 2107 430 .20 .80 .23
5 1677 0 1677 272 .16 .84 .19
6 1405 0 1405 235 .17 .83 .16
7 1170 0 1170 185 .16 .84 .13
8 985 0 985 139 .14 .86 .11
9 846 0 846 119 .14 .86 .10
10 727 0 727 106 .15 .85 .08
11 621 0 621 69 .11 .89 .07
12 552 0 552 77 .14 .86 .06
13 475 0 475 55 .12 .88 .06
14 420 0 420 56 .13 .87 .05
15 364 0 364 51 .14 .86 .04
16 313 0 313 28 .09 .91 .04
17 285 0 285 26 .09 .91 .04
18 259 0 259 31 .12 .88 .03
19 228 0 228 28 .12 .88 .03
20 200 0 200 21 .11 .90 .02
21 179 0 179 9 .05 .95 .02
22 170 0 170 25 .15 .85 .02
23 145 0 145 8 .06 .94 .02
24 137 0 137 11 .08 .92 .02
25 126 0 126 9 .07 .93 .02
26 117 0 117 8 .07 .93 .01
27 109 0 109 6 .06 .94 .01
28 103 0 103 9 .09 .91 .01
29 94 0 94 4 .04 .96 .01

30 90 0 90 90 1.00 .00 .00
Evening 0 5655 0 5655 2052 .36 .64 .64
Time
1 3603 0 3603 945 .26 .74 .47
2 2658 0 2658 649 .24 .76 .36
3 2009 0 2009 442 .22 .78 .28
4 1567 0 1567 318 .20 .80 .22
5 1249 0 1249 205 .16 .84 .18
6 1044 0 1044 165 .16 .84 .16
7 879 0 879 131 .15 .85 .13
8 748 0 748 120 .16 .84 .11
9 628 0 628 70 .11 .89 .10
10 558 0 558 73 .13 .87 .09
11 485 0 485 57 .12 .88 .08
12 428 0 428 58 .14 .86 .07
13 370 0 370 40 .11 .89 .06
14 330 0 330 43 .13 .87 .05
15 287 0 287 33 .11 .89 .04
16 254 0 254 23 .09 .91 .04
17 231 0 231 23 .10 .90 .04
18 208 0 208 17 .08 .92 .03
19 191 0 191 13 .07 .93 .03
20 178 0 178 17 .10 .90 .03
21 161 0 161 18 .11 .89 .03
22 143 0 143 13 .09 .91 .02
23 130 0 130 12 .09 .91 .02
24 118 0 118 4 .03 .97 .02
25 114 0 114 9 .08 .92 .02
26 105 0 105 6 .06 .94 .02
27 99 0 99 5 .05 .95 .02
28 94 0 94 7 .07 .93 .02
29 87 0 87 4 .05 .95 .01
30 83 0 83 83 1.00 .00 .00
Night 0 1898 0 1898 612 .32 .68 .68
Time
1 1286 0 1286 315 .24 .76 .51
2 971 0 971 201 .21 .79 .41
3 770 0 770 144 .19 .81 .33
4 626 0 626 111 .18 .82 .27
5 515 0 515 76 .15 .85 .23
6 439 0 439 67 .15 .85 .20
7 372 0 372 52 .14 .86 .17
8 320 0 320 31 .10 .90 .15
9 289 0 289 29 .10 .90 .14
10 260 0 260 36 .14 .86 .12
11 224 0 224 30 .13 .87 .10

12 194 0 194 22 .11 .89 .09
13 172 0 172 12 .07 .93 .08
14 160 0 160 13 .08 .92 .08
15 147 0 147 10 .07 .93 .07
16 137 0 137 6 .04 .96 .07
17 131 0 131 16 .12 .88 .06
18 115 0 115 9 .08 .92 .06
19 106 0 106 10 .09 .91 .05
20 96 0 96 8 .08 .92 .05
21 88 0 88 11 .13 .88 .04
22 77 0 77 7 .09 .91 .04
23 70 0 70 5 .07 .93 .03
24 65 0 65 6 .09 .91 .03
25 59 0 59 6 .10 .90 .03
26 53 0 53 8 .15 .85 .02
27 45 0 45 3 .07 .93 .02
28 42 0 42 2 .05 .95 .02
29 40 0 40 2 .05 .95 .02
30 38 0 38 38 1.00 .00 .00
Life Table Continued
Std. Error of
Cumulative Std. Error Std.
Interval Proportion of Error of
Start Surviving at Probability Probability Hazard Hazard
day_times Time End of Interval Density Density Rate Rate
Morning 0 .01 .338 .006 .41 .01
1 .01 .190 .005 .33 .01
2 .01 .110 .004 .26 .01
3 .01 .076 .003 .24 .01
4 .00 .058 .003 .23 .01
5 .00 .037 .002 .18 .01
6 .00 .032 .002 .18 .01
7 .00 .025 .002 .17 .01
8 .00 .019 .002 .15 .01
9 .00 .016 .001 .15 .01
10 .00 .014 .001 .16 .02
11 .00 .009 .001 .12 .01
12 .00 .010 .001 .15 .02
13 .00 .007 .001 .12 .02
14 .00 .008 .001 .14 .02
15 .00 .007 .001 .15 .02

16 .00 .004 .001 .09 .02
17 .00 .004 .001 .10 .02
18 .00 .004 .001 .13 .02
19 .00 .004 .001 .13 .02
20 .00 .003 .001 .11 .02
21 .00 .001 .000 .05 .02
22 .00 .003 .001 .16 .03
23 .00 .001 .000 .06 .02
24 .00 .001 .000 .08 .03
25 .00 .001 .000 .07 .02
26 .00 .001 .000 .07 .03
27 .00 .001 .000 .06 .02
28 .00 .001 .000 .09 .03
29 .00 .001 .000 .04 .02
30 .00 .000 .000 .00 .00
Evening 0 .01 .363 .006 .44 .01
Time
1 .01 .167 .005 .30 .01
2 .01 .115 .004 .28 .01
3 .01 .078 .004 .25 .01
4 .01 .056 .003 .23 .01
5 .01 .036 .002 .18 .01
6 .00 .029 .002 .17 .01
7 .00 .023 .002 .16 .01
8 .00 .021 .002 .17 .02
9 .00 .012 .001 .12 .01
10 .00 .013 .002 .14 .02
11 .00 .010 .001 .12 .02
12 .00 .010 .001 .15 .02
13 .00 .007 .001 .11 .02
14 .00 .008 .001 .14 .02
15 .00 .006 .001 .12 .02
16 .00 .004 .001 .09 .02
17 .00 .004 .001 .10 .02
18 .00 .003 .001 .09 .02
19 .00 .002 .001 .07 .02
20 .00 .003 .001 .10 .02
21 .00 .003 .001 .12 .03
22 .00 .002 .001 .10 .03
23 .00 .002 .001 .10 .03
24 .00 .001 .000 .03 .02
25 .00 .002 .001 .08 .03
26 .00 .001 .000 .06 .02
27 .00 .001 .000 .05 .02
28 .00 .001 .000 .08 .03

29 .00 .001 .000 .05 .02
30 .00 .000 .000 .00 .00
Night 0 .01 .322 .011 .38 .02
Time
1 .01 .166 .009 .28 .02
2 .01 .106 .007 .23 .02
3 .01 .076 .006 .21 .02
4 .01 .058 .005 .19 .02
5 .01 .040 .005 .16 .02
6 .01 .035 .004 .17 .02
7 .01 .027 .004 .15 .02
8 .01 .016 .003 .10 .02
9 .01 .015 .003 .11 .02
10 .01 .019 .003 .15 .02
11 .01 .016 .003 .14 .03
12 .01 .012 .002 .12 .03
13 .01 .006 .002 .07 .02
14 .01 .007 .002 .08 .02
15 .01 .005 .002 .07 .02
16 .01 .003 .001 .04 .02
17 .01 .008 .002 .13 .03
18 .01 .005 .002 .08 .03
19 .01 .005 .002 .10 .03
20 .00 .004 .001 .09 .03
21 .00 .006 .002 .13 .04
22 .00 .004 .001 .10 .04
23 .00 .003 .001 .07 .03
24 .00 .003 .001 .10 .04
25 .00 .003 .001 .11 .04
26 .00 .004 .001 .16 .06
27 .00 .002 .001 .07 .04
28 .00 .001 .001 .05 .03
29 .00 .001 .001 .05 .04
30 .00 .000 .000 .00 .00
Median Survival Time
First-order Controls Med Time
day_times Morning Time 1.8552
Evening Time 1.8206
Night Time 2.1095

C.2 - Weekend/Weekday
Life Table
Cumulative
Number Number Proportion
Interval Number Withdrawing Number of Surviving at
weekend Start Entering during Exposed Terminal Proportion Proportion End of
_dummy Time Interval Interval to Risk Events Terminating Surviving Interval
Weekday 0 11147 0 11147 3859 .35 .65 .65
1 7288 0 7288 1975 .27 .73 .48
2 5313 0 5313 1177 .22 .78 .37
3 4136 0 4136 865 .21 .79 .29
4 3271 0 3271 636 .19 .81 .24
5 2635 0 2635 405 .15 .85 .20
6 2230 0 2230 357 .16 .84 .17
7 1873 0 1873 291 .16 .84 .14
8 1582 0 1582 223 .14 .86 .12
9 1359 0 1359 165 .12 .88 .11
10 1194 0 1194 163 .14 .86 .09
11 1031 0 1031 114 .11 .89 .08
12 917 0 917 127 .14 .86 .07
13 790 0 790 86 .11 .89 .06
14 704 0 704 89 .13 .87 .06
15 615 0 615 71 .12 .88 .05
16 544 0 544 43 .08 .92 .04
17 501 0 501 51 .10 .90 .04
18 450 0 450 46 .10 .90 .04
19 404 0 404 41 .10 .90 .03
20 363 0 363 37 .10 .90 .03
21 326 0 326 31 .10 .90 .03
22 295 0 295 31 .11 .89 .02
23 264 0 264 18 .07 .93 .02
24 246 0 246 14 .06 .94 .02
25 232 0 232 16 .07 .93 .02
26 216 0 216 19 .09 .91 .02
27 197 0 197 11 .06 .94 .02
28 186 0 186 13 .07 .93 .02
29 173 0 173 8 .05 .95 .01
30 165 0 165 165 1.00 .00 .00
Weekend 0 3773 0 3773 1293 .34 .66 .66
1 2480 0 2480 683 .28 .72 .48
2 1797 0 1797 484 .27 .73 .35
3 1313 0 1313 284 .22 .78 .27
4 1029 0 1029 223 .22 .78 .21

5 806 0 806 148 .18 .82 .17
6 658 0 658 110 .17 .83 .15
7 548 0 548 77 .14 .86 .12
8 471 0 471 67 .14 .86 .11
9 404 0 404 53 .13 .87 .09
10 351 0 351 52 .15 .85 .08
11 299 0 299 42 .14 .86 .07
12 257 0 257 30 .12 .88 .06
13 227 0 227 21 .09 .91 .05
14 206 0 206 23 .11 .89 .05
15 183 0 183 23 .13 .87 .04
16 160 0 160 14 .09 .91 .04
17 146 0 146 14 .10 .90 .03
18 132 0 132 11 .08 .92 .03
19 121 0 121 10 .08 .92 .03
20 111 0 111 9 .08 .92 .03
21 102 0 102 7 .07 .93 .03
22 95 0 95 14 .15 .85 .02
23 81 0 81 7 .09 .91 .02
24 74 0 74 7 .09 .91 .02
25 67 0 67 8 .12 .88 .02
26 59 0 59 3 .05 .95 .01
27 56 0 56 3 .05 .95 .01
28 53 0 53 5 .09 .91 .01
29 48 0 48 2 .04 .96 .01
30 46 0 46 46 1.00 .00 .00
Std. Error of
Cumulative
Proportion Std. Error
Surviving at of
weekend_ Interval Start End of Probability Probability Hazard Std. Error of
dummy Time Interval Density Density Rate Hazard Rate
Weekday 0 .00 .346 .005 .42 .01
1 .00 .177 .004 .31 .01
2 .00 .106 .003 .25 .01
3 .00 .078 .003 .23 .01
4 .00 .057 .002 .22 .01
5 .00 .036 .002 .17 .01
6 .00 .032 .002 .17 .01
7 .00 .026 .002 .17 .01
8 .00 .020 .001 .15 .01
9 .00 .015 .001 .13 .01

10 .00 .015 .001 .15 .01
11 .00 .010 .001 .12 .01
12 .00 .011 .001 .15 .01
13 .00 .008 .001 .12 .01
14 .00 .008 .001 .13 .01
15 .00 .006 .001 .12 .01
16 .00 .004 .001 .08 .01
17 .00 .005 .001 .11 .01
18 .00 .004 .001 .11 .02
19 .00 .004 .001 .11 .02
20 .00 .003 .001 .11 .02
21 .00 .003 .000 .10 .02
22 .00 .003 .000 .11 .02
23 .00 .002 .000 .07 .02
24 .00 .001 .000 .06 .02
25 .00 .001 .000 .07 .02
26 .00 .002 .000 .09 .02
27 .00 .001 .000 .06 .02
28 .00 .001 .000 .07 .02
29 .00 .001 .000 .05 .02
30 .00 .000 .000 .00 .00
Weekend 0 .01 .343 .008 .41 .01
1 .01 .181 .006 .32 .01
2 .01 .128 .005 .31 .01
3 .01 .075 .004 .24 .01
4 .01 .059 .004 .24 .02
5 .01 .039 .003 .20 .02
6 .01 .029 .003 .18 .02
7 .01 .020 .002 .15 .02
8 .01 .018 .002 .15 .02
9 .00 .014 .002 .14 .02
10 .00 .014 .002 .16 .02
11 .00 .011 .002 .15 .02
12 .00 .008 .001 .12 .02
13 .00 .006 .001 .10 .02
14 .00 .006 .001 .12 .02
15 .00 .006 .001 .13 .03
16 .00 .004 .001 .09 .02
17 .00 .004 .001 .10 .03
18 .00 .003 .001 .09 .03
19 .00 .003 .001 .09 .03
20 .00 .002 .001 .08 .03
21 .00 .002 .001 .07 .03
22 .00 .004 .001 .16 .04

23 .00 .002 .001 .09 .03
24 .00 .002 .001 .10 .04
25 .00 .002 .001 .13 .04
26 .00 .001 .000 .05 .03
27 .00 .001 .000 .06 .03
28 .00 .001 .001 .10 .04
29 .00 .001 .000 .04 .03
30 .00 .000 .000 .00 .00
C.3 - Access network technology
weekend_dummy Weekday 1.8681
Weekend 1.8690
Life Table
Cumulative
Number Number Proportion
Interva Number Withdrawing Number of Surviving
bearer_ l Start Entering during Exposed Termina Proportion Proportion at End of
category Time Interval Interval to Risk l Events Terminating Surviving Interval
Edge 0 1772 0 1772 605 .34 .66 .66
GPRS
1 1167 0 1167 170 .15 .85 .56
2 997 0 997 115 .12 .88 .50
3 882 0 882 99 .11 .89 .44
4 783 0 783 60 .08 .92 .41
5 723 0 723 69 .10 .90 .37
6 654 0 654 46 .07 .93 .34
7 608 0 608 48 .08 .92 .32
8 560 0 560 28 .05 .95 .30
9 532 0 532 31 .06 .94 .28
10 501 0 501 23 .05 .95 .27
11 478 0 478 25 .05 .95 .26
12 453 0 453 23 .05 .95 .24
13 430 0 430 23 .05 .95 .23
14 407 0 407 18 .04 .96 .22
15 389 0 389 16 .04 .96 .21

16 373 0 373 10 .03 .97 .20
17 363 0 363 12 .03 .97 .20
18 351 0 351 14 .04 .96 .19
19 337 0 337 8 .02 .98 .19
20 329 0 329 8 .02 .98 .18
21 321 0 321 9 .03 .97 .18
22 312 0 312 9 .03 .97 .17
23 303 0 303 12 .04 .96 .16
24 291 0 291 5 .02 .98 .16
25 286 0 286 6 .02 .98 .16
26 280 0 280 7 .03 .98 .15
27 273 0 273 5 .02 .98 .15
28 268 0 268 3 .01 .99 .15
29 265 0 265 9 .03 .97 .14
30 256 0 256 256 1.00 .00 .00
GPRS 0 1950 0 1950 762 .39 .61 .61
1 1188 0 1188 206 .17 .83 .50
2 982 0 982 124 .13 .87 .44
3 858 0 858 99 .12 .88 .39
4 759 0 759 69 .09 .91 .35
5 690 0 690 84 .12 .88 .31
6 606 0 606 52 .09 .91 .28
7 554 0 554 27 .05 .95 .27
8 527 0 527 31 .06 .94 .25
9 496 0 496 27 .05 .95 .24
10 469 0 469 24 .05 .95 .23
11 445 0 445 22 .05 .95 .22
12 423 0 423 16 .04 .96 .21
13 407 0 407 19 .05 .95 .20
14 388 0 388 22 .06 .94 .19
15 366 0 366 11 .03 .97 .18
16 355 0 355 12 .03 .97 .18
17 343 0 343 13 .04 .96 .17
18 330 0 330 11 .03 .97 .16
19 319 0 319 10 .03 .97 .16
20 309 0 309 4 .01 .99 .16
21 305 0 305 8 .03 .97 .15
22 297 0 297 7 .02 .98 .15
23 290 0 290 4 .01 .99 .15
24 286 0 286 8 .03 .97 .14
25 278 0 278 6 .02 .98 .14
26 272 0 272 3 .01 .99 .14
27 269 0 269 2 .01 .99 .14
28 267 0 267 12 .04 .96 .13

29 255 0 255 1 .00 1.00 .13
30 254 0 254 254 1.00 .00 .00
WCDM 0 4996 0 4996 2201 .44 .56 .56
A
1 2795 0 2795 595 .21 .79 .44
2 2200 0 2200 399 .18 .82 .36
3 1801 0 1801 250 .14 .86 .31
4 1551 0 1551 198 .13 .87 .27
5 1353 0 1353 147 .11 .89 .24
6 1206 0 1206 104 .09 .91 .22
7 1102 0 1102 104 .09 .91 .20
8 998 0 998 82 .08 .92 .18
9 916 0 916 51 .06 .94 .17
10 865 0 865 71 .08 .92 .16
11 794 0 794 67 .08 .92 .15
12 727 0 727 50 .07 .93 .14
13 677 0 677 35 .05 .95 .13
14 642 0 642 28 .04 .96 .12
15 614 0 614 31 .05 .95 .12
16 583 0 583 34 .06 .94 .11
17 549 0 549 22 .04 .96 .11
18 527 0 527 31 .06 .94 .10
19 496 0 496 26 .05 .95 .09
20 470 0 470 24 .05 .95 .09
21 446 0 446 15 .03 .97 .09
22 431 0 431 19 .04 .96 .08
23 412 0 412 11 .03 .97 .08
24 401 0 401 10 .02 .98 .08
25 391 0 391 7 .02 .98 .08
26 384 0 384 6 .02 .98 .08
27 378 0 378 5 .01 .99 .07
28 373 0 373 10 .03 .97 .07
29 363 0 363 10 .03 .97 .07
30 353 0 353 353 1.00 .00 .00
WLAN 0 934 0 934 356 .38 .62 .62
1 578 0 578 114 .20 .80 .50
2 464 0 464 68 .15 .85 .42
3 396 0 396 51 .13 .87 .37
4 345 0 345 40 .12 .88 .33
5 305 0 305 39 .13 .87 .28
6 266 0 266 25 .09 .91 .26
7 241 0 241 21 .09 .91 .24
8 220 0 220 13 .06 .94 .22
9 207 0 207 12 .06 .94 .21
10 195 0 195 12 .06 .94 .20

11 183 0 183 21 .11 .89 .17
12 162 0 162 8 .05 .95 .16
13 154 0 154 6 .04 .96 .16
14 148 0 148 7 .05 .95 .15
15 141 0 141 9 .06 .94 .14
16 132 0 132 4 .03 .97 .14
17 128 0 128 3 .02 .98 .13
18 125 0 125 4 .03 .97 .13
19 121 0 121 3 .02 .98 .13
20 118 0 118 7 .06 .94 .12
21 111 0 111 5 .05 .95 .11
22 106 0 106 6 .06 .94 .11
23 100 0 100 2 .02 .98 .10
24 98 0 98 4 .04 .96 .10
25 94 0 94 1 .01 .99 .10
26 93 0 93 3 .03 .97 .10
27 90 0 90 4 .04 .96 .09
28 86 0 86 5 .06 .94 .09
29 81 0 81 1 .01 .99 .09
30 80 0 80 80 1.00 .00 .00
Std. Error
of
Cumulative Std.
Proportion Std. Error Error
Interval Surviving of of
Start at End of Probability Probability Hazard Hazard
bearer_category Time Interval Density Density Rate Rate
Edge GPRS 0 .01 .341 .011 .41 .02
1 .01 .096 .007 .16 .01
2 .01 .065 .006 .12 .01
3 .01 .056 .005 .12 .01
4 .01 .034 .004 .08 .01
5 .01 .039 .005 .10 .01
6 .01 .026 .004 .07 .01
7 .01 .027 .004 .08 .01
8 .01 .016 .003 .05 .01
9 .01 .017 .003 .06 .01
10 .01 .013 .003 .05 .01
11 .01 .014 .003 .05 .01
12 .01 .013 .003 .05 .01
13 .01 .013 .003 .05 .01
14 .01 .010 .002 .05 .01
15 .01 .009 .002 .04 .01

16 .01 .006 .002 .03 .01
17 .01 .007 .002 .03 .01
18 .01 .008 .002 .04 .01
19 .01 .005 .002 .02 .01
20 .01 .005 .002 .02 .01
21 .01 .005 .002 .03 .01
22 .01 .005 .002 .03 .01
23 .01 .007 .002 .04 .01
24 .01 .003 .001 .02 .01
25 .01 .003 .001 .02 .01
26 .01 .004 .001 .03 .01
27 .01 .003 .001 .02 .01
28 .01 .002 .001 .01 .01
29 .01 .005 .002 .03 .01
30 .00 .000 .000 .00 .00
GPRS 0 .01 .391 .011 .49 .02
1 .01 .106 .007 .19 .01
2 .01 .064 .006 .13 .01
3 .01 .051 .005 .12 .01
4 .01 .035 .004 .10 .01
5 .01 .043 .005 .13 .01
6 .01 .027 .004 .09 .01
7 .01 .014 .003 .05 .01
8 .01 .016 .003 .06 .01
9 .01 .014 .003 .06 .01
10 .01 .012 .002 .05 .01
11 .01 .011 .002 .05 .01
12 .01 .008 .002 .04 .01
13 .01 .010 .002 .05 .01
14 .01 .011 .002 .06 .01
15 .01 .006 .002 .03 .01
16 .01 .006 .002 .03 .01
17 .01 .007 .002 .04 .01
18 .01 .006 .002 .03 .01
19 .01 .005 .002 .03 .01
20 .01 .002 .001 .01 .01
21 .01 .004 .001 .03 .01
22 .01 .004 .001 .02 .01
23 .01 .002 .001 .01 .01
24 .01 .004 .001 .03 .01
25 .01 .003 .001 .02 .01
26 .01 .002 .001 .01 .01
27 .01 .001 .001 .01 .01
28 .01 .006 .002 .05 .01

29 .01 .001 .001 .00 .00
30 .00 .000 .000 .00 .00
WCDMA 0 .01 .441 .007 .57 .01
1 .01 .119 .005 .24 .01
2 .01 .080 .004 .20 .01
3 .01 .050 .003 .15 .01
4 .01 .040 .003 .14 .01
5 .01 .029 .002 .11 .01
6 .01 .021 .002 .09 .01
7 .01 .021 .002 .10 .01
8 .01 .016 .002 .09 .01
9 .01 .010 .001 .06 .01
10 .01 .014 .002 .09 .01
11 .00 .013 .002 .09 .01
12 .00 .010 .001 .07 .01
13 .00 .007 .001 .05 .01
14 .00 .006 .001 .04 .01
15 .00 .006 .001 .05 .01
16 .00 .007 .001 .06 .01
17 .00 .004 .001 .04 .01
18 .00 .006 .001 .06 .01
19 .00 .005 .001 .05 .01
20 .00 .005 .001 .05 .01
21 .00 .003 .001 .03 .01
22 .00 .004 .001 .05 .01
23 .00 .002 .001 .03 .01
24 .00 .002 .001 .03 .01
25 .00 .001 .001 .02 .01
26 .00 .001 .000 .02 .01
27 .00 .001 .000 .01 .01
28 .00 .002 .001 .03 .01
29 .00 .002 .001 .03 .01
30 .00 .000 .000 .00 .00
WLAN 0 .02 .381 .016 .47 .02
1 .02 .122 .011 .22 .02
2 .02 .073 .009 .16 .02
3 .02 .055 .007 .14 .02
4 .02 .043 .007 .12 .02
5 .01 .042 .007 .14 .02
6 .01 .027 .005 .10 .02
7 .01 .022 .005 .09 .02
8 .01 .014 .004 .06 .02
9 .01 .013 .004 .06 .02
10 .01 .013 .004 .06 .02

11 .01 .022 .005 .12 .03
12 .01 .009 .003 .05 .02
13 .01 .006 .003 .04 .02
14 .01 .007 .003 .05 .02
15 .01 .010 .003 .07 .02
16 .01 .004 .002 .03 .02
17 .01 .003 .002 .02 .01
18 .01 .004 .002 .03 .02
19 .01 .003 .002 .03 .01
20 .01 .007 .003 .06 .02
21 .01 .005 .002 .05 .02
22 .01 .006 .003 .06 .02
23 .01 .002 .002 .02 .01
24 .01 .004 .002 .04 .02
25 .01 .001 .001 .01 .01
26 .01 .003 .002 .03 .02
27 .01 .004 .002 .05 .02
28 .01 .005 .002 .06 .03
29 .01 .001 .001 .01 .01
30 .00 .000 .000 .00 .00
bearer_category Edge GPRS 2.9652
GPRS 2.0565
WCDMA 1.4992
WLAN 1.9737

Determinants For Smart Phone Usage

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Determinants For Smart Phone Usage

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

HELSINKI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

Faculty of Information and Natural Sciences

DETERMINANTS OF SMARTPHONE USAGE

Supervisor: Professor Antti Ylä-Jääski

Abstract of the Master’s Thesis

Author: Pardeep Maheshwaree

The conducted analysis assesses the quantifiable impact of contextual, user-specific,

Keywords: mobile user behaviour, smartphone service usage, service adoption.

Espoo, Finland, August 2009

1.1 Motivation ............................................................................................................ 1

2.1 Mobile industry .................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Data processing .................................................................................................. 18

4.1 Dataset ............................................................................................................... 25

4.5.2 Model results ............................................................................................... 50

4.6 Multinomial regression model of service usage................................................... 58

4.7 Survival analysis of service usage sessions ......................................................... 62

4.8 Significant findings and discussion ..................................................................... 67

4.9 Data limitations .................................................................................................. 72

Appendix A - Logistic regression output ....................................................................... 86

Appendix B - Multinomial logistic regression output .................................................. 123

1.2 Research question and objectives

How does international roaming affect the mobile device usage?

1.4 Research methods

2.2 User research

message/task characteristics, technology characteristics, modality of mobility, and the

2.3 Technology adoption frameworks

Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) defines person‟s behavioral intention of do something is

Figure 2.2: Theory of Planned Behavior (adapted from Ajzen 1991)

2.4 Context and user behaviour

2.5 Empirical research methods

Questionnaires methodology usually involves a series of questions to be asked by the

2.6 Handset-based measurement of user behaviour

3 Data processing and statistical methods

3.2 Statistical methods

relationships in the data (between variables), do probabilistic analysis of occurrence of an event,

Statistical Method Dependent Variable(s) Independent Variable(s)

Logistic Regression Non-metric (but dichotomous) Non-metric and/or Metric

Multinomial Regression Non-metric (but categorical) Non-metric and/or Metric

Duration Modeling Metric (time) Non-metric and/or Metric

Table 3.1: Statistical methods for different variables

These methods are defined in detail in following sections.

3.2.1 Logistic regression

Logistic regression is a form of regression techniques, where a model is built to explain

Figure 3.2: S-shaped curve

E(Y|x) = β0 + β1x (1)

or [in terms of π (x)]: (3)

This can be further simplified to yield:

3.2.2 Multinomial Logistic regression

Multinomial logistic regression (also referred as „Multinomial Regression‟) is used to handle

3.2.3 Duration modelling

S(t) = P (T > t) (8)

Hazard function denoted by h(t) and represented as:

Display Screen Resolution WLAN Availability in Device

User Smartphone Experience

Figure 4.1: Demographics of the dataset used.

4.2 Research model

Figure 4.2: Research model – Theory of real behaviour

H2: When roaming internationally, likelihood of using price-sensitive applications (e.g.

H3b: Night time (00:00-07:59) sessions of mobile browsing tend to be lengthier.

H4b: Weekend increases likelihood of using browsing application on smart phones

H13: Intentions to use a service positively affect service usage.

4.4 Descriptive statistics of service usage

Voice 3.60% 67.60% 107.40% *-47.00% ***-2.20%

SMS -2.10% 24.10% 16.40% ***71.80% 0.30%

Browser -3.00% -11.10% -21.40% ***-52.10% -0.40%

Camera 23.10% 5.60% -21.00% *258.00% 3.50%

Music -6.20% -27.30% -40.00% 19.00% ***4.50%

Calendar *-30.40% -11.80% 14.70% -41.40% ***4.30%

Maps 26.70% 21.80% 41.40% 53.10% 2.00%

Voice -0.80% 2.20% -6.60% -31.00% 10.80%

SMS 4.90% -14.50% 0.164 43.20% ***-53.80%

MMS 14.50% 97.70% 2.572 -51.70% ***60.70%

Browser -7.70% -1.70% -26.40% -15.60% 240.50%

Camera -4.60% *9.50% 6.80% 3.20% ***55.80%

Music 0.70% -14.60% 35.30% 4.20% ***21.50%

Calendar 6.30% 39.20% 57.20% -43.80% ***46.90%