|
Newsletters
|
|
|
|
|
| Wireless Developer Network Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | Re: MobileLBSList: Article slamming wireless web |
| Date: |
10/30/2000 08:40:03 AM |
| From: |
robert.cayzer@my.arthurandersen.com |
|
continued...
#WAP sucks because the new "old majority" are mostly privvy to only to
applications layer and leave the finer points of engineering and networking
technology to others. The standardisation to ethenet made the "old majority"
think that wireless engineering will provide the same level of service. A
majority of the reason that WAP sucks is because CSD sucks. Even waiting 40
seconds for a (pre-ISDN) modem connection on your PC is kinda ok, because thats
only around a 5th to 10th of the time you wait for you PC to fire up. For a
phone user, that's around 15 to 25 meters of walking plus phone charges. How
many poles, cars, people, bikes would you have to avoid just to get a connection
Actually, I can't see how bearer consolidation and integration would work in the
near future (othe than multi-bearer devices) because the innovation cycle for
wireless core technology is moving extremely fast. There is another issue to
cross-boundary standardisation which always increases cost and production
cycles. I just hope some body does integrate and create a generic, yet
extendable "ethernet" bearer for wireless. And no, it's not 3G. Well, so far,
WAP is the only body that is doing it.
#Many Japanese people do not have PC's. To cut a long story short, this was
caused by the protection of it's internal market which leads to the lack of
internet access. This was exacebated by the (over?) protection of it's
TDMA-based PDC mobile technology and infrastructure which is deemed unattractive
for the global market. NTT's offshoot Docomo was also deemed unattractive until
their Chief Executive turned around a liability into an asset by getting the
marketing right first before driving the technology... and it was over 2 years
in the making. So, there you go - there is value in PDC after all.
Many many many many many many operators around the world did it completely the
opposite (Wireless Data technology first then the strategy), mainly because they
were already making money all over the world without doing anything new or
special. Ditto for technology providers. But that's now reversing back to the
"natural process".
#Final note on the history lesson: that mainframe to net story took almost 20
years. We are only around < 20 months into ours.
#Great nice story, but why WAP?
Who else will develop standards?
- I wouldn't leave it purely to the current operators. Their agenda lies in
expanding and protecting their markets. I would not recommend another Microsoft
to arise, especially for an operator who provides both communications and
financial services. This to me, is more dangerous than some monopolist selling
operating systems and OA software
- IETF? Sure, they have great standards for mobile IP. But have you seen
anything from them yet on location based services? Push Services? Anything
remotely practical for smartcards on a portable device? Integration with
Intelligent Networks? Their architecture board has little/no agenda or even
reflection on the great impact of mobile technology, though there are some very
interesting movements in the areas of mobileIP and Manet with great
participation from many of the internet and wireless technology providers
(thumbs up)
- ITU, 3GPP / 3GPP2 and affiliates? Now these fellows are heavy contenders as
standards bodies because they too are custodians of wireless. Internet also,
though to a lesser degree. However, they have varied interests with wide ranging
issues and all the standards haven't been 100% finalised yet for carrier
infrastructure. Value added platforms is not closely addressed by ITU. WAP on
the other hand is carrier / bearer independent, so no matter what ITU, 3GPP,
3GPP2, 4GPP19.5 or whoever comes out with new standards, a bearer specific
extension is merely added to ensure your applications will work.
- As a concession, I admit the WAPForum does not communicate it's vision as
clearly as it should, which I "hope" will be fixed soon.
Again, this mail is personal. So, "Uncle Arthur" doesn't necessarily subscribe
to any of it. :)
cheers,
rob.c.
*******************Internet Email Confidentiality Footer*******************
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of
the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone.
In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by
reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to
Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other
information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my
firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
To unsubscribe, write to mobilelbslist-unsubscribe@geocomm.com
__________ |
|
|
