Hi,
this interesting i-mode vs WAP article seems to be sent via email
newsletter only, I couldn't find any URL for it on the TechBuddha
site for it:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: TechBuddha News: Future Convergence of i-mode and WAP? -- 26
September 2000
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:59:02 -0500
From: news@techbuddha.com
To: ah@anima.de
TechBuddha News -- 26 September 2000
========Feature Article========
The Future Convergence of i-mode and WAP?
$B%-(B Maybe i-mode and WAP can be friends
$B%-(B WAP myths debunked
$B%-(B WAP v2.0-convergence with i-mode
$B%-(B i-mode abroad: why AOL is a better partner than a cellular operator
The current tendency of industry watchers is to dismiss i-mode and WAP
as transitional technologies. WAP is not the real deal, pundits smugly
point out, we'll only know the true possibilities of wireless when GPRS
becomes available. We, however, find it hard to delay gratification,
and that's not just because two of us actually bought the Nokia 7110.
No, it's because the next technology is always a disappointment and
hence not worth holding our collective breath for.
Already people, not least the head of the WAP Forum, are decrying 3G,
claiming it will be nowhere near as fast as people think. Makes sense,
remember how those theoretical cable broadband speeds of 1.5Mbps
suddenly became more modest (256kbps) when your neighbors signed up
too? The shared wireless broadband medium may only yield access speeds
of 28-64 kbps after all. Impressed?
That's why we are going to get on with the here and now, spending some
time comparing the technologies and engaging in some wild speculation on
the question$B)D(Ban i-mode take Manhattan?
WAP: Misunderstood yet Universally Despised
Recently, we have seen a lot of debate over the relative merits of WAP
and i-mode. It is becoming apparent that WAP is the underdog. It is
the scapegoat for our personal dissatisfactions with the phone company,
handset manufacturers, Americans, everyone, in short, but our
landlords.
Common complaints, all misguided: 1) WAP is too slow at 9.6 kbps; 2)
WAP runs only on circuit-switched networks; 3) WAP is a failed attempt
to reinvent the wheel for the wireless Internet; 4) WAP is a disgrace
and will soon be overrun by i-mode even in Europe and the US.
1. First of all, WAP is a protocol, not a language or a product. It is
the wireless equivalent of HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol).
-- Hence, WAP does not specify a speed, the network does.
2. WAP can run on either circuit or packet-switched networks and does
currently run on both types in the US.
-- This is not what separates WAP from i-mode.
3. WAP is comprised of several different layers: the oft-criticized top
layer is WML, the wireless substitute for HTML.
-- WAP 1.0 uses WML for the application layer, but WAP 2.0 will likely
use a different language, XHTML.
4. i-mode is not a protocol, it is a service. It is provided by a
cellular operator, through which customers are billed for the
downloading of content.
-- i-mode must take a different approach outside a monopsonistic content
environment.
How Fast is a Piece of String?
Performance...everyone's unhappy, but don't pick on the standard, pick
on BG Lee, Canning Fok, and Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala. The
performance of a WAP phone is mostly reliant on the speeds offered by
one's network. The circuit-switched GSM network allows for higher-speed
wireless access, if one turns down the error correction and increases
the number of channels available to a single user.
GPRS aside, if you remove some of the error correction, you can get
connection speeds of 14.4 kbps. Use more than one channel and you can
double or triple the speed. Currently Orange in the UK is allowing 14.4
connections and is selling a datacard for PCMCIA-equipped PCs which
provides 28.8 connections.
Packet Switching, How Do We Love Thee?
Packets won't solve your gripes. GSM networks now force you to use your
handphone like a modem, dialing up over a circuit-switched network. WAP
CAN, however, work on packet-switched networks. Nextel in the US
already has WAP on a packet-switched network. For a packet-switched
network to support WAP you need a radio frequency (RF) channel for
packet data and a data gateway that will do all the packet switching
between the phone and the Internet.
Packet switching doesn't improve performance, though: speed is again
network dependent. The main benefits of packet switching lie in the
ease of connection (always on) and billing (charged on the basis of
data, not time).
WAP v2.0 Will Be a Different Kettle of Fish!
Here we confront the main problem with WAP. People think that forcing
content providers to write using WML, a different language than that
used on the existing Internet limits the amount of content available to
WAP handset users.
While we think this is a weak argument, considering that even i-mode
content providers have to rejig their sites into Compact HTML (cHTML), a
new language is indeed a hindrance.
To get past this, WAP v2.0 may use a different language (XHTML vs. WML)
and transport layer (TCP vs. WDP) altogether. Extensible HTML (XHTML)
is a version of HTML that conforms to XML, giving one's content and
applications XML functionality while also being compatible with
HTML-based content.
WAP 2.0 may be an improvement in the way of interoperability between
legacy web content and purpose-designed WAP device content. After all,
one of our biggest problems is the shortage of good content offered to
wireless data service subscribers. First, there is a genuine shortage
of WAP-enabled web sites out there, second, some operators still
restrict their subscribers to a walled garden of "approved content."
Can I-mode take Manhattan?
Two reasons for i-mode's success (see Monetizing Content: i-mode Content
Providers) in Japan were: 1) NTT DoCoMo's strong bargaining position
vis-a-vis the content providers and 2) NTT's decision to be generous in
its revenue split with the content providers. The strategy was to make
an attractive proposition to the content providers, improving the
quality of the service, speeding adoption in a virtuous cycle.
20 months after i-mode's launch, its subscriber numbers are now rapidly
approaching Japan's wireline Internet users, estimated at under 20 mn.
Much of its success is due to its affiliation with NTT, whose 28mn
subscribers gave startup i-mode a lot of clout vis-a-vis content
providers. If this thing took off, it was easy to see it becoming the
#1 access provider pretty quickly. Best not to be left behind. Hmmm,
starting to notice some similarities to AOL here.
i-mode also made it relatively easy for developers to adapt their sites
or create new content, allowing them to use a familiar format. All
these factors combined to make the service the main channel by which new
content providers sought to reach their customers. The question now is:
can i-mode replicate this success outside of Japan, where it doesn't
have the dominant telco on its side and where it doesn't have such a
large head start over a competing technology?
Challenges for i-mode in overseas markets: Imagine i-mode trying to
promote itself as THE standard in the US or Europe. In order to provide
the service, you have to upgrade your network to enable packet switching
and install i-mode gateways to process data requests. That's the capex
intensive part. Secondly, you must convince your content providers to
i-modify their content. Thirdly, and most importantly, you must agree
with your content provider on how exactly the revenue pie will be
sliced.
That's where the negotiations with the cellular operators are going to
break down. Why? Because Europe and the US are competitive markets
with high wireline and growing broadband penetration. Moreover,
wireless operators are subject to more competition and taken
individually, are much less influential than NTT.
Content providers in Europe and the US have many alternative means of
accessing customers and are not so likely to rush into agreements with
single operators. Operators themselves have also proven to be less
progressive than their Japanese counterparts, seeking to lock up their
own content and bar access to competitors' content.
So there it is; numerous conditions will discourage the emergence of a
proprietary access channel such as i-mode. All of these factors, it is
argued, contributed to the open architecture WAP model in the first
place. With WAP's dismal debut, we begin to wonder: what it will take
for the wireless Internet to take off outside of Japan?
How AOL-Time Warner Came To Be: People posed this same question in the
early days of the consumer Internet. Then, as now, there were two
schools of thought on the subject: 1) make the most of narrowband by
making it user-friendly and charging people NOW or 2) stick to your
knitting and wait for the technology to catch up with you. We now know
who made the right choice: AOL did the former and Time-Warner did the
latter.
In the wireless world, it looks like i-mode is seizing the day while the
American and European cellular operators are waiting for the technology
to evolve in order that they might get a piece of a "real" revenue
stream at a later date. But how real is this supposed revenue stream?
Will GPRS be an instant hit if operators still haven't figured out: 1)
whether they want to be in the content business at all and 2) how they
plan to charge for content. Without answers to these questions, GPRS
won't be much of an improvement over WAP.
NTT DoCoMo's 25 September announcement of an agreement under which AOL
and DoCoMo will jointly develop mobile Internet services in markets
outside Japan is a sign that should worry competing operators. The
agreement gives the pair a way of accessing the US and European markets
without confining themselves to single operators. Such a partnership
highlights the importance of i-mode's strategy of content aggregation
and distribution above even the ownership of a network.
On close examination, i-mode and AOL succeeded for similar reasons:
their focus on optimizing the user experience within the bounds of
current technology and on creating solid relationships with content
providers. No one was thrilled with AOL's functionality, but it was the
most convenient way for many Americans to get wired in the Internet's
early days. AOL's momentum carried the company forward and allowed it
to grow through acquisition until it had an unassailable grasp on the
consumer access market.
i-mode provided a similar service for the Japanese market, introducing
many Japanese to the Internet and giving them limited but useful
Internet access. As for i-mode's momentum, the service currently has
11mn users in Japan vs a total of 3mn WAP subscribers in Europe (inc.
UK) vs cellular subscribers of 175mn (as of April). Considering the
wireless propensities of Europeans, that is a lot of blue sky indeed.
More on the US later$B)(B
Courtesy: Erlangshen
Did you like this article? Send your rants, raves, whispers, comments
and corrections to editors@techbuddha.com or use our letters form.
http://www.techbuddha.com/letters.html
==================================
Copyright 2000 TechBuddha
http://www.techbuddha.com/
Article may be forwarded with credit attached.
Subscribe to TechBuddha News at http://www.techbuddha.com/subscribe.html
Received on Tue Sep 26 03:14:46 2000