Debi, Giovanni, Benedict,
Does this discussion need to be one technology vs the other? We feel that
all of these technologies are (or will be) actually complimentary and will
soon become invisible to the end user. I believe I've posted some of this
information on prior postings (sorry, I'm not the archive master that
Juergen is) so I apologize for repeating myself.
Three things to consider:
1) Switching between service technologies (PHS, GSM, GPRS, WiFi, 3G, Soma,
Ultra Wideband, FWA, etc...) is now feasible for select technologies, and
will likely be for all of them in the near future (see article below from
Nikkei Net Interactive, May 12th, 2003)
2) Major telecommunications companies (such as NTT Communications) are
already expressing visions of such solutions in which smart devices simply
find the most appropriate access service -
http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/activity_rep/200211_tf_sum/slides/tomita.pdf
(please see slide 12)
3) Sources that may be a little more objective than Forrester Research
(ok, I'm not sure if this is truly an accurate statement, but I'll go out
on a limb with it anyway), such as this article from Wireless Asia, are
also discussing how WiFi and 3G actually should be viewed more as
complimentary than competitive technologies.
http://www.telecomasia.net/telecomasia/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=57820
In light of all of this, I would suggest that there will remain to be hype
and disappointment around promising (and failing) communications
technologies for a very long time. If the very basic vision that I've
outlined above actually comes to pass, then consumers will never need to
care about or consider which access technology they are using. This whole
debate of a "best" technology becomes moot regardless of which technologies
dominate during a specific point in time.
The simple challenge in front of all of us on this list then, is to find
compelling business models within this space that actually resonate with
consumers and not to get so heated in our discussions of dominating
technologies, or enamored by their capabilities. The fact is that each
technology has significant advantages and disadvantages, and the true
advantage for end users comes when these are all wedded together. That
seems to be the vision of most telecommunications "visionaries" that we're
speaking to here in Japan... and the Tanner article in Wireless Asia seems
to support that as well...
Please educate me a little bit more on this if I've missed a fundamental
point (never out of the realm of possibility), as I have a masters student
sponsored by one of the leading telecommunications companies in Japan
finalizing his thesis on this very subject. If my suggestions are in any
way off base I'd like to fix my mistakes before he submits this in August.
Wireless communication devices to choose own response mode
Nikkie Weekly, May 12, 2003
Government-affiliated Communications Research Laboratory, known as CRL, has
developed a method that enables a single wireless communications device to
choose different technologies to transmit data, automatically selecting the
appropriate one for a given situation.
Currently, wireless communications devices use one of three basic
technologies: cell phone, personal handy-phone system or wireless local
area network. The new technology will enable one terminal to use all three.
CRL aims to commercialize the technology in two to three years.
The new technology is the result of a private-public partnership including
KDDI Corp. and the Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. group.
Cell-phone and PHS handsets now use specialized networks, but by 2010 the
networks are expected to be merged with the Internet, which includes
wireless LANs, creating the need for terminals that are compatible with
different wireless technologies.
The new technology measures the strength of the signals being received with
a terminal from base stations and then chooses the appropriate format to
respond in.
Wireless LANs, for example, offer the highest speed. But outside urban
areas, it may be unavailable in places, so the terminal will choose to
operate as a slower cell phone. This will allow the smooth transmission of
video data anywhere in the nation.
-- Philip
At 02:48 PM 6/25/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>Benedict,
>
>Your first couple of questions are good ones. Please see the reference
>sites that I've provided in previous posts to the list for the answers to
>those questions.
>
>I fear the rest of your post is a result of linear thinking. Your convinced
>that 3G is the solution, because you have believe it until now. Your not
>really taking the time to investigate and consider the alternatives. We
>live in a complex environment and it's likely that a number of wireless
>solutions will exist for different aspects of our environment. The one
>clear impact that Wi-Fi has already had on 3G worldwide is in investment.
>It was thought only a couple of years ago that the business market would
>belong to operators. That compelling applications would be funded and
>built. Wi-Fi and it's associated startups have disrupted the flow of
>capital and that is clearly a disruptive and competitive issue for 3G
>service providers and application developers.
>
>Wi-Fi has momentum and to simply deny it's capabilities, competitive
>advantages, and rapid growth won't make it go away.
>
>Realistically, the speeds to expect from Wi-Fi currently are in the 6 to 10
>MB range and that increases significantly with 802.11a and 802.11g. The
>user experience of using the same applications one uses on wireline networks
>with the same expectation of broadband throughput isn't insignificant to the
>end user.
>
>As for the voice impact of Wi-Fi, I believe that the operators who want to
>offer "push-to-talk" to enterprises may well feel the sting of competition.
>I don't see Wi-Fi replacing voice communications of the cellular/PCS
>operators. The battle is laid out for data communications.
>
>I'm not unaccustomed to being in a minority opinion position. I predicted
>that Palm and Handspring would become one company a year ago. Many people
>disagreed with me then.
>
>...Debi
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Benedict Evans" <ben@ben-evans.com>
>To: <keitai-l@appelsiini.net>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 2:31 AM
>Subject: (keitai-l) Re: Forrester: WI-FI is going to crash
>
>
> >
> > I think there are two separate questions here:
> >
> > *What can WiFi really do over wide areas without putting a base station
> > ever few hundred yards?
> >
> > *Would consumers use wifi for anything other than the laptop
> > connectivity ghetto? If not, all due respect, but who cares?
> >
> > The second question depends partly, but only partly, on the first. I can
> > get 64-384Kbits/sec in around 50% of the UK TODAY, with Hutchison's '3'
> > product. That will get better, and wifi will never come close in terms
> > of coverage. So:
> >
> > Under what circumstances will the speed advantage (realistically, wifi
> > might offer up to twice the speed of 3G where available) and cost
> > advantage (if any) cause people to use wifi instead of 3G for anything
> > other than a laptop?
> >
> > It seems to me self-evident that wifi cannot compete with cellular for
> > voice. PHS, a comprehensive, integrated cordless system, has only 5M
> > subscribers, compared with over 50m cellular subscribers. No wifi voice
> > offering would be anything like as good as PHS.
> >
> > -Benedict
>
>This mail was sent to address psidel@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@iuj.ac.jp
Received on Thu Jun 26 05:50:32 2003