Hi all,
I wonder if and how Docomo is planning the technical evolution o=
f i-mode technologies beyond
1.2.0 specs, and if anyone on the list hav=
e heard any rumors on this topic.
The reason why I think Docomo is upd=
ating (or should update) it's standard is the following
one: looking at=
figures provided by European operators offering i-mode services (the so-=
called
i-mode alliance: KPN-M, E-Plus, BouygTel etc.), it's evident tha=
t the penetration trend of i-mode
services in Europe is not even close =
to what happened in Japan, though it's probably improving
in the last mo=
nths. This fact is due to a number of concurrent reasons (reduced availab=
ility
of i-mode terminals, popularity of SMS as an alternative to mail,=
lack of prepaid support, no
MMS interoperability etc.), nevertheless i=
t'a matter of facts that in the last year Docomo lost
most of it's tech=
nology edge (color screens and polyphonic rings are now common features),=
and it's probably facing a challanging decision - in Europe at least -=
, expecially considering
the emergence of strong competitors like Vodaf=
one Life!
To be more explicit: the i-mode alliance in Europe generally i=
ncludes the #3 operator of each
country (after the incumbent and Vodafo=
ne - Telefonica in Spain is an exception). The reason to
be part of the=
alliance, for third-tier operators, is not (anymore) technology and know=
-how, but
an international brand and stronger marketing capabilities. =0D
=
All that lead me to a conclusion: the usage of a proprietary technology f=
or i-mode (and
expecially the mail protocol), albeit fully justified an=
d a success co-factor in '99 in Japan, it's
today an obstacle to i-mode=
success in Europe, in my view. Requiring that terminal vendors
comply =
to a proprietary standard put a strong limit to the number of available t=
erminal models
for EU operators, and this factor could prove to be unbe=
arable for them in the mid term.
Cheers,
Giorgio
Received on Thu Sep 4 13:13:23 2003