jason.c.freedman@ac.com wrote:
> My only real disagreement with Ren is that I still don't agree that iMode
> is an open standard or that WAP is closed. It seems to me that DoCoMo
> simply uses its HUGE leverage to force some tags to be supported and others
> not to be (the Microsoft solution to open standards).
I don't think so. DoCoMo didn't create cHTML. Access Japan submitted the
proposal to the W3C long before i-mode.
DoCoMo adopted cHTML because it met the needs of contents creators.
> Also, we still don't
> know what java classes they will support, etc.
We know it will be J2ME running on KVM.
> WAP's languages use http
> and a subset of xml and are completely open in the sense that the standard
> is published and is free to use. What makes that less of a standard or
> less open? W3C is just a standards organization as well, no?
W3C does NOT have a vested business interest in the protocols it approves, WAP
Forum does.
W3C members not have patents on fundamental protocols and technologies like WAP
Forum members do.
But this is getting into a religious debate again.
Arguing over whether WAP standards and the WAP Forum is any more open or free
than W3C and IETF standards is kind of silly; pretty soon everyone will be able
to make contents in any kind of markup, so the point will be moot.
> If the
> argument is that network operators need a WAP gateway product to run WAP,
> well no one else can operate an iMode gateway other than NTT - at least you
> can buy a WAP solution.
Yes, but the failure of all the gateway operators in Europe is that they aren't
big enough to dominate the market like DoCoMo can, and yet they ACT like they
do, by locking their users into their own walled garden.
> Also consider that JPhone could not use cHTML just
> a similar system - actually I probably shouldn't say this I don't really
> know the history of why Jphone used MML and who provides their gateways,
> etc..
J-Phone could have used cHTML as it's an open standard and DoCoMo has not lock
on cHTML.
J-Phone probably went with MML so that they had some more influence over the
markup and didn't have to be totally at the mercy of DoCoMo's content
providers.
>
>
> Comparing iMode to WAP is a bit like comparing AOL to HTTP. iMode is not a
> technology, it is a service. I certainly agree with almost all of your
> points about WAP operators not getting it, I just don't think it's the
> technology which stops them (i.e. WAP has SSL, a scripting language,
> support for animation, color (although I don't think this is part of the
> spec?)). I think it's plain old stupidity, and maybe a different market
> preventing WAP operators from success. If I were a WAP operator I would
> make everything as easy to use as possible (one button access?), provide a
> subscription based service, micropayments schemes for 3rd parties, etc.
>
I do think the technology has something to do with it. First and foremost WAP
makes two big mistakes:
1 WAP assumes a given device. WAP is inarguably designed for CELL PHONES.
Protocols should NEVER be designed with a delivery platform in mind. Internet
protocols (HTTP, HTML, etc.) do not make this mistake, and THAT's why they are
more widespread and robust.
2 WAP assumes limited devices. Again, the protocol should not be designed to
fit the device. Furthermore, WAP was specifically designed for limited text
only, low memory situations. As we can see with i-mode handsets, phones these
days can display text, color graphics, and soon java. They also have more
powerful processors, long batterylife, bigger screens (especially when
connected to car navi systems), etc.
The WAP Forum's biggest mistake is focusing on limited-ability cell phones,
when they should have designed a protocol regardless of device.
cHTML does a much better job of this than WML. cHTML is nowhere near perfect,
but the existing standards of the W3C and IETF come considerably closer than
WAP.
>
> I would never just be a gateway. The great "marketing" decision of NTT is
> that they did not think like typical network operators, i.e.: provide the
> wires (so to speak) and they will come. They provided a service. This is
> a great, great lesson for network providers everywhere (especially since
> the network will become a commodity and not a source of revenue growth in
> the future).
>
I agree. DoCoMo makes money on bits, but doesn't think of itself as a bitpipe,
they are a service provider, helping people connect.
>
> Overall, I guess we are in violent agreement, so to speak. Maybe for
> different reasons, but there you go.
Our ability to argue amicably on mailing lists sets us apart from the
ocean-floor spongial forms of life.
Regards,
r e n
--
ascii: r e n f i e l d
octal: \162 \145 \156 \146 \151 \145 \154 \144
hex: \x72 \x65 \x6e \x66 \x69 \x65 \x6c \x64
morgan stanley dean witter japan
e-business technologies | engineering and strategy
-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Listar --
-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
-- File: smime.p7s
-- Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Wed Aug 16 10:54:37 2000