On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Daniel & Michiyo Helmer wrote:
>
> As for the technical and design limitations of this scenario, I'd like
> to hear some comments from content developers and others from this
> list. Is the HTML browser a realistic option at this point? (or
> anytime soon? ever?). Isn't the c-HTML browser already sort of the
> mobile version of the HTML browser? Here are a few odd quotes from the
> paper that could help get you started:
c-HTML is good enough for the size of screen so far. Unless in future
they have really high resolution screen ( like the one exhibited by IBM
for their Linux OS based video watch.) c-HTMl is like HTML 1.0+
You can't really do much with table in the current resolution and screen
size.
>
> a.. "[using the HTML browser] application developers are relieved
> from coding issues, as the display on the mobile device will mirror
> the one on the desktop".
> b.. "WAP's main competitor, DoCoMo's i-mode, is also a licensed
> technology that is being offered to a select few. To date, it has
> targeted very large, powerful, vendors based predominantly in the US"
> (this one, I can't make much sense of...)
I think they are referring to ATT Wireless but ATT Wirelss is not
the largest one. Verizon and Sprint PCS are fairly large in terms
of market shares.
> c.. Due to its low bandwidth requirements and the existing
> infrastructure, WAP is likely to remain as the lower cost option. For
> user requirements where only simple functionality and text based
> output is needed, WAP may deliver more value relative to cost compared
> to mobile HTML browsers.
WAP 2.0 which is coming out in summer. ( I hope) will have compactibility
of the WAP 1.0, XHTML basics ( which cover the c-YHTML). And they ( wap
forum or should I say openwave.com ( aka phone.com)) promised a
high resolution browser. ( if you have the phone with it.) WAP phone
in Japan is so much better than European and US's.
> d.. "This
new infrastructure [GPRS & 3G] will enable the complete
> Internet to be delivered over wireless means"
What does it try to say exactly? yes, it is pack based ( so is TCP/IP)
other than that you still have the channel availability just like
internet has bandwidth problem.
> e.. While applications that are country or organization specific may
> still be utilized, it's likely to prevent a complete 'open and mobile'
> experience for users who anticipate unrestricted access as per their
> WWW Internet experiences.
I think he is trying to say Wall garden established by the telecom.
That will depend how they 'change' their policy and presentaiton.
Daniel, fire the guy. :)
Hubert
> Cheers,
>
> Daniel Helmer
> Consultant, Communications & Content
> KPMG Consulting
> dhelmer@kpmg.com.au
>
>
>
> [ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
>
>
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Mon Mar 5 18:48:47 2001