07-23-2002, 06:42 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,177
|
|
Why Microsoft wins: the Internet and Windows
Ask your friend what the Internet is, and you will get an answer that is either about the Web or e-mail. Perhaps both. Microsoft will win in this market because they focus on making the Internet mobile, and not on creating some new "Mobile Internet" beast.
The Mobile Internet. I saw a huge poster with those words at a telecom exhibition three years ago. The logotype beneath was Ericsson's. What they really were talking about were Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) and Short Messaging Services (SMS), two standards completely unrelated to the Internet.
My opinion regarding information vs the Internet is in essence: If it is not available on the Internet, it does not exist. I believe in the Internet. I do not believe in the proprietary sphere labeled, dishonestly by mobile phone makers and mobile network operators, as the "Mobile Internet".
Ericsson is not alone. Nokia and the rest of the gang continues to play the old proprietary game. Take a look at infoSync's review of Nokia 7650. The Nokia 7650 is supposed to be Nokia's super phone for the Mobile Internet. Did you notice the absence of a Web browser? J�rgen writes: "...the 7650 isn't capable of browsing standard HTML pages but only WAP pages..."
I haven't used a Nokia 7650 myself, so I can't confirm. But if this is true, and J�rgen usually is well informed, I both extremely surprised (how else achieve a mobile Internet) and not surprised at all (Nokia...).
Enter Microsoft: the company that turned itself around in 1995 and embraced the Internet, and since then has ensured that each and every product it makes is tied to the Internet in one way or the other. The strategy is crystal clear: Embrace and Extend. (Quite an interesting aspect of the 1995 turnaround is that before the turnaround, there were plans to try to replace the Internet with the proprietary MSN Network. Deja Vu, Nokia?)
Embrace the old and proprietary: SMS, WAP and so on. Microsoft Pocket PC 2002 Phone Editions and Smartphones all embrace these standards. Microsoft even acknowledges the role of the players. Today, the mobile network operator (carrier) is seen as "owning" the user. In my opinion, the mobile network operator is nothing more than an ISP, a bit pipe. But Microsoft does not care about my opinion. Microsoft cares about the real state of things. Thus make carrier priority One. Embrace.
Extend. What does Microsoft to this world? Well, two major building blocks: real Internet connectivity and the Windows platform.
Microsoft continues to bet on the standards that runs the Internet today: TCP-IP, HTTP, HTML, XML, GIF, JPG, MP3 etc., etc. The bets are integrated into Microsoft's efforts to make the Internet mobile. When the average user starts to realize that Microsoft brings the Internet as she understands it to mobile devices, then we'll see some very interesting market dynamics happening. The Windows platform is familiar to the user, developer, and corporates alike. Making Windows mobile is a key factor in their success.
Two cups of embracing telecom standards and products. Seven spoonfuls of successful partnerships with carriers and Asian mobile device makers. Extend it all with Windows and the (real) Internet. Bake for yet another two years, and we have a winner. What do you think?
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2002, 07:19 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 140
|
|
I'd be curious to know what's proprietry about SMS, MMS and WAP since I don't know of any one company that owns all these. While you're at it, tell me about Palladium.
The 7650 is short-changing on a HTML browser (though there is one available for a quite modest price), but at least the manufacturer is confident to sell the device.
Enter the P800, the spec on that rocks! The only thing that doesn't support is WMA.... but that's proprietry - the standards for media are MP3 and RA 8)
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2002, 08:01 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 312
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PlayAgain?
I'd be curious to know what's proprietry about SMS, MMS and WAP since I don't know of any one company that owns all these. While you're at it, tell me about Palladium.
The 7650 is short-changing on a HTML browser (though there is one available for a quite modest price), but at least the manufacturer is confident to sell the device.
Enter the P800, the spec on that rocks! The only thing that doesn't support is WMA.... but that's proprietry - the standards for media are MP3 and RA 8)
|
I love your feedback! I had this dicsussion so many times with Andreas, I'm tired about it!
At least he is always blaming WAP but what is WAP, an screen optimized Internet access, not more/not less! I believe that we will not see to many people, surfing the "real" Internet (web) on a Smartphone 2002 but might be doing it on WAP 2.0 which is screen optimized and supports: "TCP/IP, XML, GIF, JPEG, MP3". Andreas, you see something? The discussion you are always staring is past, 3 years ago - like you said!!! And 3 years ago there was NO GPRS fo a convenient "real" Internet access and the first idea, to deliver Internet contents through SMS as the bearer service was the right one!
__________________
Cheers ~ Arne, MS MVP - Mobile Devices
Editor in Chief the::unwired - where mobility meets wireless
http://www.theunwired.net |
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2002, 08:39 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 147
|
|
Double standards...
Why is it that when Microsoft advertised the Pocket PC's internet features they were bashed for false advertising, but when phone manufacturers state that their phone has "mobile internet" or "web browsing" it's ok?
There is no "mobile internet". There is only the internet. And WAP, however standard it may be, is not web browsing. The World Wide Web gets its name from the fact that it spans the globe and is interconnected with itself. WAP is just a format for presenting information using a limited subset of features, and geared towards text devices and other limited display devices.
Just my .02 USD
__________________
Jonathan Rogers
Email
Web
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2002, 08:59 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 713
|
|
Maybe I just didn't get it...
I'm not sure if I agree with you or not Andy, because I'm not sure what you are saying. While it is true that most people think of the Internet as how they transfer email and web pages, the only reason is that that is what they mainly use it for. Not too many years ago you could ask people the same question and they would have said email and ftp and telnet (OK, maybe a couple would have said Gopher). The Internet is the medium for the transfer, not the data itself. Regardless of how marketing folk try to sell services on it that doesn't change. If SMS is run across it that's fine. Same goes for WAP. These are meerly tools for transferring data from one device to another (limited) device. It would be great if every device could handle full HTML but they can't. My phone lines are so bad at home that I turn off display of images when browsing. Does that mean I'm not using the "real" Internet because I choose speed over loss of some (often superfluous) content? I don't think so.
Now the rest of your post goes on to talk about MS "winning" by embracing and extending all of these protocols. Isn't Nokia and Ericson embracing SMS and WAP? Why does MS get credit for it but not everyone else. Who's to say that, as bandwidth, processing power, and battery life increase Nokia and Ericson won't be extending their services? Am I missing your point here?
I agree that MS is way ahead of the phone guys when it comes to supporting Internet access. After all, the Internet has been connecting computers with land lines for years (decades, actually). It is only in recent years that cell phones (and mobile devices in general) have reached the processing power to even attempt to join in this network. I believe that MS will continue to dominate the "full featured" Internet for years (of course, I don't think they support Gopher anymore). I also believe that there is room for a diverse range of devices and, yes, protocols and feature sets to accompany them. I doubt we will ever get to a point where every device is equal in capabilities. I'm not sure that should be the goal anyway.
Or maybe I just don't get it.
---
Bwana Jim
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2002, 09:11 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,177
|
|
Arne!
I am sorry! I can't help my passionate feelings when it comes to the Internet mobile vs the "Mobile Internet". I know we've had this discussion a thousand times, and most often we seem to conclude that we agree on more things than we disagree. I appreciate you patience with me, even though you're getting tired of me! :wink:
Back to the subject!
Why do so many carrier side debaters assume that because Web content is currently designed with desktop PCs in mind, the only way to get Internet content onto a mobile device is using WAP, WML and SMS? In fact, it is possible to describe a Web page in HTML and fit it just as nicely on a small screen as with WML. From a design perspective, there is no need for another mark up language. In my opinion, WAP and WML was the answer to low bandwidth communication, at best. As wireless bandwidth increase the issue is no longer there. WAP and WML has no problem to solve. The window is closing. The only people wanting it to stay open is the "Mobile Internet"-people. By effectively keeping real Internet connectivity far from mobile devices, they can build "walled gardens" and charge premium for "Mobile Internet" services. This is what I see as proprietary, not nescessarily the standards themselves. I am sorry for not having made that distinction in the first place.
SMS is the same story. It is just a matter of time before SMS dies in favor of "Internet SMS" -- the middle way between e-mail and Instant Messaging:
1. Phone_1 gets IP number from server.
2. Server associates Phone_1's phone number with Phone_1's IP number.
3. Phone_2 sends message to Phone_1's phone number
4. Server routes message to Phone_1's IP number
5. If Phone_1 is online, message is sent immediately
6. If Phone_1 is offline, message is stored on server and sent when Phone_1 comes back online
I know this is a bit overview, but all it takes is a couple of Internet servers (DHCP and Web server) and the client application.
All in all, this is a won battle already. The Internet wins, and the company betting on that outcome has the best chance of winning the mobile devices market.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2002, 09:16 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,177
|
|
oh, I forgot mentioning WHY carriers don't want SMS messages to come across the Internet. An SMS message costs 10-500 times as much to send as an iSMS message. Take away that revenue from any carrier, and we'll end up with some pretty sad "Mobile Internet"-people.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2002, 09:17 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 713
|
|
Re: Double standards...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JonathanWardRogers
Why is it that when Microsoft advertised the Pocket PC's internet features they were bashed for false advertising, but when phone manufacturers state that their phone has "mobile internet" or "web browsing" it's ok?
There is no "mobile internet". There is only the internet. And WAP, however standard it may be, is not web browsing. The World Wide Web gets its name from the fact that it spans the globe and is interconnected with itself. WAP is just a format for presenting information using a limited subset of features, and geared towards text devices and other limited display devices.
Just my .02 USD
|
I think the Pocket PCs got bashed because they advertised Internet Access without mentioning you had to buy a modem, and sign up with an ISP, and have a phone line to do it. Not because they didn't have a browser. That was the issue with the HP class action suit, anyway.
I agree that there is no "mobile Internet." It's a silly marketing slogan that everyone seems to be using. There is, however, mobile access to the Internet. And, again, I contend that HTML is not the Internet. It is simply one of many standards for transferring data across the Internet. WAP is another, designed for a limited display, limited bandwidth device. Claiming it is as rich as an experience as HTML is dishonest, but it does have its place.
---
Bwana Jim
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2002, 09:18 PM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 9
|
|
Yeah, right, mobile internet
Smartphone is mostly about talking, and as practice shows, sending short messages. I can't imagine browsing ordinary web pages using a smartphone screen, be it Nokia 7650 or MS Stinger. Unless, of course, one is OK with constant scrolling back and forth. imode could become popular, especially with GPRS when you are not charged by time. But full-scale HTML on a tiny screen? No, thanks.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-23-2002, 09:24 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 18
|
|
Personally, I think it sucks to browse HTML on my PDA unless it is formated for the device. What standard dictates that a webpage should support 240x320? If I want fast information (weather, movies, scores, news), I use WAP in Pocket IE.
Don't get me wrong, I visit the PocketPC formated sites, but if you want to surf the web with pictures why would you use a phone? I saw the survey about replacing the laptop with a PDA, now we want a phone to replace the PDA. Yes I said that correct. The N7650 and similar devices are phones first.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
