Comments on: Wireless 2.0: Vicious to Virtuous? http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/09/23/wireless-2-0-vicious-to-virtuous/ Business + Technology in the Exponential Economy Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:49:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Lynne Gregg http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/09/23/wireless-2-0-vicious-to-virtuous/comment-page-1/#comment-83632 Lynne Gregg Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:37:30 +0000 http://www.xconomy.com/?p=42765#comment-83632 Liked your historical account of the wireless world and where things lie today. You are right, the walled-garden scenario isn't the best, but it is changing, albeit slowly. Don't hold your breath on your proposed experiment. 1. Handset revenue is a significant portion of the wireless operator's total revenue, so they are not likely to hand over the keys to third parties (as you see in the computer industry) - at least not any time soon. 2. Wireless operators are always the consumers first line of support on devices. If they don't sell them and know them, they can't be effective in troubleshooting and support (and as devices become more complex the quality of support is certainly debatable). On the other hand, if carriers could be relieved of this responsibility (hardware support) you may have something to toss into a financial model and build a business case... 3. Any app at the consumers fingertips? I think we're getting there - particularly with the iPhone model that is now rapidly driving carrier behavior and competition. Liked your historical account of the wireless world and where things lie today. You are right, the walled-garden scenario isn’t the best, but it is changing, albeit slowly.

Don’t hold your breath on your proposed experiment.

1. Handset revenue is a significant portion of the wireless operator’s total revenue, so they are not likely to hand over the keys to third parties (as you see in the computer industry) – at least not any time soon.
2. Wireless operators are always the consumers first line of support on devices. If they don’t sell them and know them, they can’t be effective in troubleshooting and support (and as devices become more complex the quality of support is certainly debatable). On the other hand, if carriers could be relieved of this responsibility (hardware support) you may have something to toss into a financial model and build a business case…
3. Any app at the consumers fingertips? I think we’re getting there – particularly with the iPhone model that is now rapidly driving carrier behavior and competition.

]]> By: Wireless 2.0: Vicious to Virtuous? | Xconomy Mobile CHN http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/09/23/wireless-2-0-vicious-to-virtuous/comment-page-1/#comment-83628 Wireless 2.0: Vicious to Virtuous? | Xconomy Mobile CHN Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:20:37 +0000 http://www.xconomy.com/?p=42765#comment-83628 [...] more here: Wireless 2.0: Vicious to Virtuous? | Xconomy By admin | category: open mobile | tags: asian, awarding-the-innovation, being-held, [...] [...] more here: Wireless 2.0: Vicious to Virtuous? | Xconomy By admin | category: open mobile | tags: asian, awarding-the-innovation, being-held, [...]

]]> By: Tom N. http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/09/23/wireless-2-0-vicious-to-virtuous/comment-page-1/#comment-83441 Tom N. Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:51:56 +0000 http://www.xconomy.com/?p=42765#comment-83441 First, I wouldn't call Apple's environment "friction-free" - in fact, there's an overwhelming number of stories about problems with their app approval process. The recent Google Voice app rejection, which the FCC is currently investigating is a good example, and further goes to prove your point that there's still plenty of work to be done, even in the iPhone/ Pre/ Blackberry 'era.' Furthermore, your proposed "spec" already exists, and can be boiled down even simpler. GSM _is_ the spec - if the device has a GSM radio, I can buy a card from carrier X and be on their network. Great. Now, when I buy that GSM card, I can agree to some reasonable terms of service that dictate that I cannot go over X GB of bandwith per month or something similar to avoid abuse. This is identical to how consumer internet access works now. You plug an ethernet-capable device into your cable or DSL modem and you are good to go. I don't see why it has to be any more complicated than that. First, I wouldn’t call Apple’s environment “friction-free” – in fact, there’s an overwhelming number of stories about problems with their app approval process. The recent Google Voice app rejection, which the FCC is currently investigating is a good example, and further goes to prove your point that there’s still plenty of work to be done, even in the iPhone/ Pre/ Blackberry ‘era.’

Furthermore, your proposed “spec” already exists, and can be boiled down even simpler. GSM _is_ the spec – if the device has a GSM radio, I can buy a card from carrier X and be on their network. Great.

Now, when I buy that GSM card, I can agree to some reasonable terms of service that dictate that I cannot go over X GB of bandwith per month or something similar to avoid abuse. This is identical to how consumer internet access works now. You plug an ethernet-capable device into your cable or DSL modem and you are good to go. I don’t see why it has to be any more complicated than that.

]]>