Frengle, Nik, VF-JP wrote:
> Darren Luckett said:
>
>>s true that they are the most globaly useful, but the vodafone range is
>>18 months behind the docomo devices. vodafone have normalised the japan
>>and rest of the world market as the 802se is the v800. my friends in
>>europe are shocked. they thought japan would lead as docomo and au
>>does.
>>
>>
>>vodafone global may be good for foriengers, though personally the
>>n900iw is a better global phone , but not for japan in the eyes of the
>>mobile rest of the world. thank god for docomo and au.
>>
>>
>
>Darren,
>If you don't mind me asking, in what way is the Vodafone range 18 months behind DoCoMo?
>
ok, 18 months a bit cruel. 12-18 months would be better as it allows
functional range, i.e. 3g - at least 18 months behind, j2me 6-12 months,
flash 12 months
> The battery life on our new handsets is significantly better than anything DoCoMo had 18 months ago, the weight and features, including 2 megapixel cameras, is equivalent to models that DoCoMo released about 5-6 months ago.
>
umm. comparable to the early 900i series maybe, which was 12 months ago.
> I would admit, while our Java features, I should add, are basically superior in terms of adherence to the CLDC/MIDP profile, while at the same time including classes to achieve certain other functionalities,
>
indeed, the j2me does adhere to the spec. as an ex-member of the global
standards group - working on the VGS J2ME in at the old mannesmann hq in
dusselldorf - i can tell you that the specs for vgsj2me where basically
copied from doja.
> and the Bluetooth support of several of the handsets is not something that I am aware any DoCoMo models of having.
>
f900it has bluetooth. as i said before, it is a silly that docomo have
ignored bluetooth. I remember a report from somebody, cant remember the
persons name, that said the reason docomo weren't to keen on bluetooth
is that the MAIN use on handsets is for hands free. As you know, hands
free is not popular in Japan - the article guessed that this was a
cultural thing.
>See above for my comments concerning the balance of profitability and market share. With our network, the
> story is similar: DoCoMo paid a huge premium for it's FOMA network, one, incidentally, which still does not adhere to all of the IMT2000 standards. We have spent significantly less, and if you look at our coverage as compared to DoCoMo's two years on into FOMA, I think we compare favourably.
>
exactly, "two years ago". you aren't even at European level for 3g. I
think you'll find that the most expensive 3g license in the world was
that of the United Kingdom, home of vodafone.
> Certainly, there is an issue with coverage. DoCoMo had the same issues early on, because, as has been pointed out, we are rolling out an entirely new network, versus au's backwards-compatible CDMA 2000 1X network, or our European bretheren's hybrid GSM/UMTS networks which allow the existing GSM networks to pick up the slack where there are UMTS coverage gaps. No doubt about it, this is an issue for us, but one that is to be expected. I have been monitoring the network since joining, in 2003, and can say that it has gotten very good in the two years I have been here. Can it get better? Absolutely. But this is always going to be an issue if you roll out an entirely new network.
>
>
see above and 2 years behind. still building, not built. I got foma
coverage when i went to the top of mount aso! the docomo coverage maps
said i shouldn't have had coverage for at least another 50km - and that
was over a year ago.
>In our case, we got ahead because we did better than our competitors, even with certain competitive handicaps which favored DoCoMo and au: No access to the 800 Mhz bandwidth is a big one, but so were unfavorable connection fees, as well as other factors.
>
you, as in vodafone, got ahead not because you offered a better service,
or that you are now emulating the "3" network model of dropping prices
to attract customers. You got where you are today thanks mainly to one
man, Sir Chris Gent. Where it not for his astonishing business awareness
and ability to borrow astronomical sums of money, vodafone would be no
more than 02.
>We got to where we are not by being the mature, staid, play-it-safe company that both IDO and DoCoMo were, but by being innovative, creative, young, and nimble.
>
> We could do that partially because actually we were not one company, but nine very small companies, able to move quickly, if not always in concert. Who was first with e-mail connectivity? Who rolled out the first mobile content service in Japan?
>
> Which company came up with Sha mail? Which is the only company to build a successful pre-paid business in Japan? You guessed it: J-Phone/Vodafone.
>
are you so sure about your lists of first there? even so its not that
impressive really! who is the company that copies docomo? you guessed it
- vodafone. there are too many examples to justify my argument.vfl, your
sales brochures, vgs j2me.
>The news of our demise, however, is very premature. Very.
>Best from Nik
>
>
that's the problem though, it isn't really new(s) anymore. Its been
floating around for at least a year.
vodafone is great, im British, an ex-employee of their head office, i
want them to succeed, i really do. but i would be so overly confident
that voda wont pull out of Japan. they have done it before in other
countries where they flopped. when i company is based so heavily on debt
as vodafone, the future can never be certain.
however, i am concerned now about docomo as they have joined forces with
voda to promote super-3g. I cant help feeling wi-max should be on their
radar.
Received on Mon Feb 14 10:23:25 2005