keitai-l@appelsiini.net writes:
>My question is why the mobile Internet
>is so different from other technologies? Most technologies are adopted
>first
>by business users and after the price goes down the rest of the public
>adopts the technologies.
surely the path is military --->smut/porn ----> business ----> general
public
>This is the way PCs and mobile phones diffused in
>the 80s and 90s. Is the mobile Internet different because the price of
>the
>technology (phones and content) is already cheap and thus young people
>can
>afford it and are willing to experiment?
The mobile internet piggy-backed on something the young already had -
mobile phones. if you wanted the best new phone, you got one that was
internet capable. <pop-sociology> It also took place at a time when young
women were/are becoming increasingly independent - and they are amongst
the earliest adopters of the technology. </pop-sociology> Does anyone have
a sex-breakdown of imode use amongst the young?
>Were young people the initial users
>of the fixed-line Internet in the mid-90s
No. That is one reason why they took to wireless so well - no internet
experience with pc's for tiny screen, slow imode to disappoint. PC's and
imode are perceived as entirely different. One is "a computer" - the other
is an "extension of your hand" - a personal appliance. Imode phones are
the first internet appliances.
>and if so was it because the
>technology was already cheap and desire to experiment was the critical
>issue?
I very much doubt that - calls were not cheap and computers expensive.
The desire to experiment is no stronger here than anywhere else. The
critical issue was that they already had the handsets, handset churn was
high, so the new-tech came into their hands automatically.
Nick
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Thu Nov 2 03:54:02 2000