Disrespect clearly understood. Your lack of respect for consumer behavior
research is very clear. Strange, as this remains a very active area of
academic research, but clear.
Since the research that I was quoting was funded by a very large
multinational organization, I thought it might offer some useful
insights. I'm not trying to impress or lecture....but share some things
that were recently found to be counterintuitive to some technology folks
currently working on some very interesting challenges.
They were a little shocked to find out that people were more connected to
their mobile phones than they had originally anticipated. and were
unwilling to shift to a converged device even though it had some
technically superior aspects. The major reason quoted was "security", as
in people didn't want to merge their phones with other devices (as has
often been suggested on this list, and was again being suggested in this
thread), for fear of what would happen in instances where they lost this
"superpower" device, if other "unsavory" types gained access to critical
information stored onboard, etc... There were other reasons mentioned too,
most focusing around behavioral uses of the mobile device itself, such as
complexity, etc, but these are only important if you're really interested
in my area of study.
Although you can take the macro-level approach and focus on something like
the 3G videophone (which I believe is a great example of a superior
technology with no added consumer value), I personally feel that studying
the reasons why people adopt and use specific mobile technologies and
applications will help organizations focus on truly relevant and useful
technologies. Basically, the reasons that motivate people to use
technologies and devices may hold critical insights for enhancements and
competitive offerings in the future. If you'd like me to use simpler
language so that I won't be accused of marketspeak, I'll be happy to do so
in an offline email.
I stick by my original point though. Better understanding the customer's
needs, from whatever perspective you'd like to take, will probably answer
the debate far more effectively than discussing the merits and demerits of
At 05:13 AM 2/17/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:17:15 +0900, Philip Sidel wrote
> > Please don't forget about the consumer side of this discussion.
>patrnoise me oh please great wise one, for i had not considered.
> > The tradeoff between convenience and security concerns is
> > significant, and cannot be ignored.
>marketingspeak - tradeoff between secriuty and convienence reminds me of the
>phrase "taken to its logical conclusion".
>no further disrecpect is intended here Phillip, but i have endured many as
>foresster repor, or a deliottes study, and have found on average, if the
>wind is in the right direcxtion and with the blessing of god, that most
>mobile research is widely inaccuracte.
>the best research for you and your kind is the top selling phones, and
>creative designers and developers with an instinctive understanding of what
>joe public wants.
>Additionally, there are other
> > factors at play, each affecting the choice to adopt and use specific
> > devices. Although the technology may be fantastic, without a
> > reasonable and effective story to the consumer, that technology will
> > fail.
>marketspeak again. no story needed to sell new technology, function sells
>it - ie clearer pictures = DVD, Videophone = 3G.
> > Best,
> > Philip
> > At 03:32 PM 2/16/2004 +0100, you wrote:
> > >Well, there are others that favour the Personal Mobile Gateway vision,
> > >IXI Mobile is one example (http://www.ixi.com/Products/index.html). The
> > >OQO is prepared for this view of a Personal Area Network since it has
> > >Bluetooth.
> > >
> > >One benefit with the gateway is that you can exchange it when you travel
> > >in areas with a different cellular standard without having to transfer
> > >loads of information from one device to another.
> > >
> > >There are loads of other convenient benefits with having more than one
> > >device so there will probably be companies in both camps, the
> > >one-device-vision and the multiple-device-vision.
> > >
> > >Cheers,
> > >Johan
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: keitai-l-bounce_at_appelsiini.net
> > > > [mailto:keitai-l-bounce_at_appelsiini.net] On Behalf Of Benjamin KRIEF
> > > > Sent: den 16 februari 2004 15:38
> > > > To: keitai-l_at_appelsiini.net
> > > > Subject: (keitai-l) Re: Related - Mobile computing on a new level
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > hi ,
> > > >
> > > > i don't know if it's the good place to speak about that ,
> > > > but what i REALLY don't understand , is why all those new
> > > > tiny computers don't integrate gsm/dcs capacities.
> > >
> > >[ excessive quoting removed by moderator ]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >This mail was sent to address psidel_at_iuj.ac.jp
> > >Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/
> > Philip Sidel
> > Assistant Professor of Marketing
> > The International University of Japan
> > Graduate School of International Management
> > Phone: 81-(0)25-779-1400
> > Fax: 81-(0)25-779-4443
> > Email: psidel_at_iuj.ac.jp
> > This mail was sent to address darren_at_ukmedia.us
> > Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-
> > l/
>This mail was sent to address psidel_at_iuj.ac.jp
>Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/
Received on Tue Feb 17 07:40:31 2004