All of you are right, but you should not forget that I-mode got successful
because it is docomo.
They are gigantic and powerful and at the time I-mode started they were
about 54% of the cell market. I am not very much sure if J-phone or IDO/DDI
would take the same scheme as docomo they were successful as I-mode. I am
not trying to underestimate docomo of course.
As for bandwidth, docomo will move soon to 3G and seems that by 2002 they
will move to WAP. However, Docomo can not be expected. I.e. they invested in
Hachinson in HKG to deploy the I-mode and cHTML. However, they decided to
use MML over there. It is hard to predict what they will do.
Yoshi
-----Original Message-----
From: keitai-l-bounce@appelsiini.net
[mailto:keitai-l-bounce@appelsiini.net] On Behalf Of Renfield Kuroda
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 6:04 PM
To: keitai-l@appelsiini.net
Subject: (keitai-l) Re: Another Euro iMode story; accuracy??
Punnamas nailed it. The reason I-Mode was and continues to be successful is
because from day one there were LOTS of high-quality, trustworthy sites with
good content and a simple payment scheme.
People seem to think I-Mode is the Wireless Web; it's not. It's a giant
DoCoMo
intranet. Think about that as a business model.
r e n
punnamas vichitkulwongsa wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I strongly agree with Ren here. It was not so much the technology that
makes
> iMode a runaway success. It is the business model and all the components
> that make it works (ex:payment settlement service, directory listing, and
> etc.) that makes iMode successful. More specifically, it is the content
and
> services on iMode that add tremendous value. The technology with always-on
> packet mode, ease of use, and etc. helped iMode gained early acceptance.
> However, WAP on CDMAOne can do most of what iMode can do now and has
always
> been faster than iMode`s 9.6kpbs and technically, you can take advantage
of
> WAP`s card/deck concept. But the KEY differentiator is that DoCoMo
realized
> from the beginning that it is the content and services that will drive
> consumer demand, not so much on the technology. They did a lot of
educating
> and providing assistant to content providers (ex: publishers) and service
> providers (ex: banks) to create iMode sites even before the official
launch
> of iMode service. As a result, from day one consumer sees value in iMode.
> IDO/DDI and same with most operators around the World have focused too
much
> of their effort on optimizing the technology while have done poorly in
> creating an effective business model to support the technology. For
example,
> it took IDO/DDI until recently to have payment settlement service in place
> and charges that are based-on packet. There has been hardly any efforts
from
> IDO/DDI to make WAP easier to use or create content/services with. DoCoMo
on
> the other hand is now talking to companies like Digital Hollywood to
further
> extend the knowledge and reduce the learning curve on iMode technology.
>
> In conclusion, WAP can also thrived if mobile operators put all the
> components in place to create compelling business cases for both business
> (content/service provider) and mobile subscribers.
>
> Punnamas
>
> >
> >I am always facinated by blanket quotes like "technically superior" --
> >as an engineer I ponder what that phrase means.
> >
> >But what nobody seems to understand is the that the success of I-Mode
> >has NOTHING to do with technical standards; it's the business model that
> >was successful, and it's the business model that DoCoMo will export out
> >of Japan and it's the business model that is killing the current WAP
> >business model.
> >I-Mode business model on WAP or 2-way pagers or cHTML...it doesn't
> >matter how the bits flow, people want a pricing structure, contents, and
> >a settlement system.
> >
> >And the more European/US wireless fanatics ignore this truth, the more
> >likely they are to be crushed, regardless of technology.
> >
> >r e n
> >
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Tue Jun 20 19:36:05 2000