Jason
I do agree that the company's dominant position has helped them grow premium
content and get people interested in using the service ... But the real
story is not that i-mode has been successful - it is that it has been SO
successful. And that is down to more than a 50%+ market share and a PR
double-act of Masakazu Tamura and Ryoko Hirose.
I think you're giving Docomo's Marketing Department a lot more credit than
they really deserve. They went for an extremely soft launch in Feb.'99 and
any major marketing points scored since then (especially internationally)
have been created by the success of the service in terms of attracting new
users and content providers and in the handset innovations which have
accompanied this. If they are able to mobilise such brilliant marketeers
then why was PHS such a flop? My own view is that if the technology doesn't
satisfy the users, then you're not going to see the sub growth ... but maybe
that's just me.
re: European subscribers not using their handsets for sending e-mails ...
Have you seen how successful SMS has been in Europe? Mass person-to-person
communication took off here first with Sky Walker (even though SMS was
available in Europe a few years then) and has now spread back into Europe in
a big way. A definite case of where Japan has been a test-lab for new
mass-market technologies - maybe we'll see the same thing happening with
i-mode.
re: content...MIDI downloads of the "Friends" theme-song, multi-user fishing
games, and 2-frame animation of Hello Kitty don't do it for me either - but
they do show the possibilities available for the wireless internet in terms
of mobile music and mobile gaming once the technology catches-up. At least
I can see a definite roadmap with cHTML whereas it's all a bit vague over in
WAP-world.
Maybe screen-savers from Bandai wont sell well in Europe, but it's the
technology behind the delivery of that type of content (colour, animation,
etc.) that will help produce something that European users will want to see
on their handset. And these are not proprietary Docomo standards that we are
talking about here - you can find the open specs for cHTML at www.w3c.org
which were written in 1998. And once you've got open standards then you can
let a disparate groups of creative types do the rest. That's what Sony did
with the PS ...
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
差出人 : jason.c.freedman@ac.com <jason.c.freedman@ac.com>
宛先 : keitai-l@appelsiini.net <keitai-l@appelsiini.net>
日時 : 2000年8月15日 17:27
件名 : (keitai-l) Re: New member/i-mode stumbles?
>
>I have to say that I don't understand the point.
>
>I guess my going in possition is that iMode is successful here despite, not
>because of the technology. iMode is a brilliant marketing scheme combined
>with the force of a company that owns their market. Basically, if you
>wanted to play in this market period you must support DoCoMo. I don't
>think that the technology is either a benefit or hinderance. The same is
>true of WAP and it's so-called problems. The Au wap services here are
>pretty good and when they complain about iMode it's because of unfair
>market access and not technology. The Au companies have asked to have NTT
>broken up so that they have a chance to compete.
>
>The first question you have to ask yourself is how successful would iMode
>be anywhere else? Sure there are 10million users registered here. Most of
>those users use exactly 2 things: email and games (oh, and Hello Kitty
>screensavers..). Would it be sucessful in the EC or US anyway (in other
>words, how many Eurpoeans are excited about wap screensavers and typing
>email on a cell phone?).
>
>OK, let's say you get past that. iMode is successful in the same way
>Amazon is - lots of traffic. Then you need to ask yourself what stops WAP
>from having the same success?
>
>Is it the language? True cHTML is easier than WML - just as HTML is easier
>than XML (cHTML is a subset of HTML, WML is a part of XML) - but you still
>have to create special content for the phone and can not just use your HTML
>web pages (or it will look like crap). And really, how tough is any markup
>language?
>
>How about contents? Well, I have both an iMode and a EZWeb Phone (WAP).
>Today, there are 10 Million iMode users and about 4 million EZWeb
>(interestingly, this is a similar ratio to the overal number of phones from
>each company). Now with iMode I have a tremendous number of local sites,
>banks, etc. and I think that is exactly what is needed here in Japan. If my
>Japanese were better, I would probably have no need for any other solution.
>Having said that, my EZ Web phone has access to sites all over the world.
>One could argue that the Japanese market doesn't care as much about the
>external world and/or English content (this may well be true, I don't know)
>but I think this model is not as logical in places like Europe or the US.
>Personally, I use my EZWeb phone to look at US newspapers to check on my
>home sports teams, Look up book reviews at Amazon, get my email from
>Hotmail, and sync my address book and calendar with my Pilot through Yahoo.
>I can not do that on iMode and will never be able to until NTT convinces
>the rest of the world to go to that standard.
>
>Now, the argument does make sense to me that NTT can just dictate what
>technologies are appropriate whereas like any good committee WAP needs
>years to decide what type of paper to write the minutes on. Therefore,
>Java phones can be thought out, developed, and rolled out on DoCoMo while
>the rest of the WAP Forum is still deciding on Java vs other technologies.
>Having said that, would any other solution work in the fragmented markets
>of the rest of the world?
>
>Cost is also certainly an issue. One of my friends from the EU told me
>that just from trying her WAP service for a month, she spent the equivelent
>of 400$ usd and felt she barely used the service. Certainly an argument
>for a packet-based network!
>
>Phone turnover is another. I have been told that here in Japan the average
>phone turnover is once every 4-5 months. This allows you to get the latest
>technology into the market right away. In Europe almost no WAP phones even
>exist. Of those that do, most have gone to early adopters, not teenagers
>checking their email or getting movie tickets. In the US there are usually
>large penalties for turning over your phone after less than one year. On
>my ATT phone, I believe it was a 300$ fee for dropping the service after
>less than 1 year and if I needed to replace my phone I didn't get a
>discount on a new one.
>
>Maybe I'm missing the point entirely. I just think that way too much is
>made of the technology and current level of contents. I think that if
>iMode started on WAP (yes I know that it wasn't released yet), then it
>would have been just as popular and have the same, if not more content.
>
>Jason
>
>
>keitai-l-bounce@appelsiini.net
>08/15/2000 11:50 AM ZE9
>Please respond to keitai-l@appelsiini.net
>
>To: keitai-l@appelsiini.net
>cc:
>Subject: (keitai-l) Re: New member/i-mode stumbles?
>
>
>I agree. Whilst a packet network is probably a prerequisite for a
>successful
>wireless data service, it alone does not guarantee success.
>
>NTT DoCoMo very specifically chose and continues to choose open technology
>standards (HTTP, cHTML, Java) to encourage a wealth of contents.
>Also, I think DoCoMo could keep ALOT more than 9% of billing charges if
>they
>wanted to, but they don't b/c they make more on packet use and want to
>encourage
>more use. And I agree with Bruce that 9% probably barely covers infra
>costs.
>
>The WAP Forum's biggest failure has been it's excessive inclusion of
>technologists, operators, etc. and not enough contents providers. WML and
>other
>WAP protocols are a perfect example of what happens when very smart
>engineers
>invent technically brilliant standards that are completely out of touch
>with
>business reality.
>
>DoCoMo, on the other hand, when it was first devising i-mode, went and
>spoke to
>potential contents providers (like banks) and found out that, for example,
>they
>had all just gotten the hang of html, so if they could continue to use
>their
>html skills and existing web infrastructure they'd be much more willing to
>provide contents for i-mode. And DoCoMo listened.
>
>Granted, anyone can join the WAP Forum and participate in the
>decision-making.
>But that's alot different than if all of Europe's operators asked all the
>banks,
>newspapers, and video game makers what they wanted/needed in order to
>bother
>making wireless contents.
>
>r e n
>
>
>Bruce Kirk wrote:
>
>> There seems to be commonly-held believe in Europe at the moment that the
>> imminent introduction of high-speed GPRS packet networks will
>miraculously
>> solve all the teething problems associated with WAP 1.0 and beyond. I'm
>not
>> 100% convinced.
>>
>> Accessing content over CSD is a problem (reliability, cost, convenience,
>> etc.) and packet will make this a more attractive proposition...However,
>the
>> success of i-mode has got nothing to do with bandwidth. In Japan, it's
>> already possible for users to have access to EZ Web's WAP service on a
>64K
>> packet-link, but it's still i-mode's 9.6K service which has build up a
>10M+
>> user-base. What's the point of increased data-speeds if you can only get
>10K
>> of memory on the handset with limited CPU capability?
>>
>> The success of i-mode comes down to NTT Docomo choosing (perhaps by
>> accident) to replicate the internet experience for a mobile device rather
>> than build something again from scratch a la WAP Forum. The choice of
>cHTML
>> as a mark-up language and open access has allowed a huge community of
>> unofficial content sites to grow in Japan (about 18,000 the last time I
>> looked which account for 40% of total i-mode traffic). It's pretty easy
>to
>> develop a site in cHTML...but how many developers out there are going to
>> learn WML or rely on pretty unreliable content convertors? cHTML enabled
>> handsets support (or will support very soon) colour screens, gifs,
>> animation, MIDI, SSL, Java...etc., etc. ... If you want to introduce
>these
>> types of rich content features on WAP then you're going to have to wait
>for
>> the WAP Forum to debate, agree and then define them. It just doesn't make
>> sense.
>>
>> re: Business Models ... People concentrate on the fact that Docomo makes
>9%
>> on the 5-600 content sites. Big deal ... I doubt if the revenue raised
>from
>> that channel would be enough to cover their monthly stationery costs. The
>> success comes down to the fact that there is content out there which
>people
>> want to access (which isn't happening on WAP) and the content is in a
>format
>> which closely resembles the internet (rather than black and white minitel
>in
>> WAP's case) ... This in turn generates more data traffic and voice calls
>> which is where Docomo make their money.
>>
>> The way the European operator and vendor community have seized upon the
>> recent i-mode network failures as a sign that it somehow "doesn't work"
>may
>> just be a case of sour grapes on their part ... and perhaps insecurity
>from
>> those who have staked their careers and future on WAP. I'm sure the
>> boardrooms of Detroit in the 1970s were full of similarly desperate
>> sentiment about the success of compact Japanese cars in the American
>market.
>> "It's a cultural thing ... will never take-off here ... nothing to worry
>> about ..."
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> ·ol : Peter Roxburgh <peter.roxburgh@securetrading.com>
>> ˆ¶æ : keitai-l@appelsiini.net <keitai-l@appelsiini.net>
>> “úŽž : 2000”N8ŒŽ14“ú 19:22
>> Œ–¼ : (keitai-l) Re: New member/i-mode stumbles?
>>
>> >Susan
>> >
>> >Europe is perched on the edge of packet networks; we may then see an
>> >explosion of I-mode type services. There is nothing stopping operators
>> using
>> >the same billing models and 'content-alliances' as NTT - other then
>shear
>> >greed. Most European operators have tried to keep control (and the
>revenue
>> >streams) with WAP; the I-mode model would require a massive paradigm
>shift.
>> >
>> >Could you please explain how WAP plays into this? If what's important
>about
>> >i-mode is the business model
>> >(and I agree), isn't it the same for the European carriers? Or does WAP
>> >somehow
>> >allow them to limit users' access to
>> >sites? My apologies if this is a ridiculously uninformed question.
>> >
>> >
>> >European carriers have the same options available to them as any other
>> >operator. Yes, the important thing about i-mode is the business model.
>And
>> >yes, the European operators could have adopted this model with WAP, but
>> they
>> >choose not to.
>> >
>> >
>> >Limiting user's access if fairly simple with WAP. You can block your
>site
>> to
>> >any user that has not come through your WAP gateway (or any other
>choosen
>> >gateway). However, by 'keeping control' operators do not have to block
>> users
>> >visiting other sites.
>> >
>> >
>> >Peter Roxburgh
>> >Mobile Solutions Developer
>> >peter.roxburgh@securetrading.com
>> >http://www.securetrading.com
>> >Tel: +44 (0) 1248 672007
>> >Fax: +44 (0) 1248 672017
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: keitai-l-bounce@appelsiini.net
>> >[mailto:keitai-l-bounce@appelsiini.net]On Behalf Of
>> >susank@mbizcentral.com
>> >Sent: 11 August 2000 17:45
>> >To: keitai-l@appelsiini.net
>> >Subject: (keitai-l) Re: New member/i-mode stumbles?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>--
>ascii: r e n f i e l d
>octal: \162 \145 \156 \146 \151 \145 \154 \144
>hex: \x72 \x65 \x6e \x66 \x69 \x65 \x6c \x64
>morgan stanley dean witter japan
>e-business technologies | engineering and strategy
>
>
>
>-- Binary/unsupported file stripped by Listar --
>-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
>-- File: smime.p7s
>-- Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Aug 15 12:34:13 2000