> If he can not hear music anymore, because
the battery empty, that's
> fine. But if he can not get reached by phone
anymore because his
> battery is empty, that's like (socially) dying.
it would seem obvious to me that two
separate sets of batteries should be used. the
one for mp3 could be kind of small, too. it
wouldn't be THAT problematic if you only had 3
hours of audio playback when your phone will
still work after that like normal. i believe some
of the european handsets with mp3
functionality had that design.
i'm amazed that no one has brought up the
issue of transfer cost yet. even for one single
mp3 file (3-4 megs) the cost would be quite
high, several bucks i suppose (without
checking the details).
even in the long run I guess they wouldn't be
able to bring the transfer cost to less that 40 or
50 cents per track- which might be acceptable
to customers, but that wouldnt include even
ONE cent of profit for the label, and if they
continue to ask 50 cents to 1.50$ per song
like they do now the total price would be WAY
to high for customers.
the problem is that mobile bandwidth is
limited, and will always STAY limited since you
can't just lay another cable after the spectrum
has been used up, like with fixed-line cables.
another problem is that the music industry
most probably won't allow users to transfer
the music they have bought to other devices.
and in that case even 1$ per track is too much.
a solution i can see would be to use WLAN or
PHS for downloading music, i.e. cheaper
flatrate-based networks.
fX
Received on Mon Apr 28 16:13:32 2003