r e n wrote:
>You are confusing the current technical standards for i-mode in Japan with
what
>i-mode is: a business model.
>i-mode on wap will succeed if it means offering:
>lots of good contents
>a simple user experience
>an easy way to bill for pay contents
No, I don't confuse them, please take a look at my earlier contributions.
I-mode comes with a business model that can be copied to another
environment.
Replace I-Mode for WAP in your text and you will see what I mean: it's all
the
same. Would we in Europe be calling WAP I-Mode if WAP comes with the same
business
model as I-Mode does? No.
But I don't want to argue about the label. Maybe, and they already
committed
to this at the end of 1999 at the GSM congres in Cannes, DoCoMo will adopt
WAP 1.3 or 2.0 and still call it I-Mode.
>Color screens/WML/cHTML/etc. have nothing to do with i-mode. The current
>technical implementations of i-mode are totally irrelevant. For many
reasons,
>DoCoMo went with cHTML and not WAP, but this is not a requirement for
i-mode.
I totally agree with you and haven't posted any opinion that said something
else.
Received on Tue Aug 22 11:09:00 2000