I would argue just the opposite.
Keep the portal free to official content providers (so as to make the
economic argument for building a site compelling), but loosen up the listing
requirements a little (at least make them painfully transparent -- appoint a
"Listing Ombudsman" whose binding decision can arbitrate complaints).
Also, open up the operator billing service to anyone. Presto--it doesn't
matter whether you're an official site or not, as long as all 3rd pty CPs
can make use of the microbilling. Then there's incentive for anyone to
become a content/service provider, while the portal operator can still brag
to potential subscribers that the portal providers have been "carefully
vetted to guarantee quality... blah blah blah."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick May [mailto:nick_at_kyushu.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 12:59 AM
> To: keitai-l_at_appelsiini.net
> Subject: (keitai-l) Re: DoCoMo does AOL
> keitai-l_at_appelsiini.net writes:
> > Two prettuy interesting news. First DoCoMo does AOL. After
> > getting critical mass of users to their service they turn
> > their jackets and consider to start charging to content
> > providers for letting them to be an (official) i-mode service.
> As long as they do not prevent access to the wider 'net (i.e. to
> unnoficial sites) this will (I suspect) reduce the incentive to be an
> official imode site, encourage more quality sites to be unofficial and
> encourage third party billing systems for unofficial sites.
> and that is no bad thing.
> [ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Fri May 25 06:56:49 2001