I would certainly have preferred a Japanese phone 3 years ago - but I
am not sure how convinced I am that they were advanced BECAUSE they
were "tied down".
In fact in one important way they were LESS tied down than phones
overseas. True, you could not move handsets between carriers - but
since the JP carriers used different systems, that was a tech issue as
much as anything. But you COULD browse the raw net with them. Shifting
address books and the like around was tricky (3rd party apps were
required) but at the "data download" level they were pretty open - they
all understood a cut down version of html - either directly or through
their carrier's proxy. They had their walled gardens - but that went
with their micro-payment system - you didn't have to be a flower in
that garden...
So - one reason the JP market thrived in its early days was because it
WASN'T tied down for THE major data type of the early mobile 'net.
What I am objecting to now is that it IS starting to be more and more
tied down for more and more data types. I want to throw Bach's "Well
Tempered Clavier" onto my phone - it is a couple of hundred meg. Will
Voda ever offer it as a download? Unlikely... Will Voda allow me to
upload it to my 702NK and then play it as an MP3? No chance! - Sure - I
can hack my way around their restrictions - but it is a pain to do each
time... (And no - I haven't done it yet as my memory card is currently
too small...)
Attempting to restrict my phone so that I am unable to play music that
I already own is simply an attempt by carriers to get me to buy it all
again, through them - (or prevent me from listening to it at all if
they can't profit from it.)
And THAT is cultural warfare - and they are the baddies.
Nick
(Gawd - I am beginning to sound like Andrew Orlowski... Help!)
On May 17, 2005, at 5:56 AM, Curt Sampson wrote:
> ... next you will be telling us that phones being tied down is an
> enormous benefit to the consumer...
It was for a while. Three years ago, would you have rather had a
Japanese or an American handset?
Received on Tue May 17 06:46:12 2005