3G Is A Dog, And Other Truths
naylorjs writes: "This is an interesting article from the BBC about the technological future, in particular broadband and wireless. What makes it more interesting is the comments about nation states and such like. A certain amount of lateral thinking in use here, something that we don't see enough of in the technology field. IMHO."
A: First of all, put that in context that the largest amount of semi-conductor material to flow into the home will undoubtedly be through toys. It's not TV sets; it's not refrigerators; it's not PCs; it's not handsets - it's going to be toys. The reason I use that Barbie doll example is that the Barbie doll has to be connected in order to get stories, in order to get your content.
Somehow, I think the online contents for a Barbie doll will be quite minimal.
On a serious note, I think he's got a point there. Imagine one of these toys always getting an updated interface (audio) to interact with the children. Interesting.
Have you ever really tried to do any of this stuff with a phone? Browse the web? Get your email? It's useless on a phone. The screen is too small and entering information into the phone is an exercise in frustration. Or you end up with a phone like the Kyocera which is a great palm, but sucks as a phone. Ever try actually holding it to your face and talking on it?
I'm all for cool technology and doing things that are cool just for the sake of doing it, but John Q. Public is never going to accept this stuff if it's a pain to use. It solves a problem that doesn't exist.
Scottaroo
----------
If your answer is Microsoft, you obviously didn't understand the question.
According to the Pentagon, it would be detrimental to national security for them to re-tool equipment to use different frequncies. In the current political climate, nobody is going to force the issue.
-CT
The guy is a pundit dressed in academic clothing, nothing more.
No one honestly cares! Now, before you dismiss this as "troll", let's take an honest look at the situation:
I have a Motorola StarTAC using Sprint's service. Now, outside of the occasional dropped calls, I don't have a complaint about the quality of the service. Guess what I use my phone for? That's right, sending and receiving phone calls, which is exactly what 90% of America uses their phone for.
My phone is "wireless web capable". I have never used it... it doesn't appeal to me. Everytime I've seen someone using "wireless web" it looks like a novelty. 4 lines with maybe 25 characters each... nothing particularly special.
I don't have a burning desire to check my e-mail from my mobile phone... the last thing I need is some damned electronic leash. If I'm not in front of my computer, it's because I'm not doing work; if I'm not doing work, the last thing I want is to be interrupted by e-mail.
My mobile phone has a PCMCIA interface to allow "dial-up" through the cell service. The attachment runs about $200, and the speed is 19.2Kbps. I would think that if you really needed to have a wireless internet connection, 19.2Kbps would be fine. Let's face it, if having an internet connection anywhere is THAT important to you, you're probably using it for business purposes. That means e-mail, possibly messaging co-workers. No, you can't VPN into the intranet at 19.2Kbps, but I wouldn't want to try it at the numbers 3G LIKELY produces ("see, you'll get 1Mbps, but only if you're standing still between these blocks during the vernal equinox...").
Most every mobile provider offers quick messaging, and several of them DO offer e-mail to the phone.
Instead of concentrating on videophones or MP3 trading or full-color sega produced videogames, how about improving the phones? My StarTAC is fairly small, but it's not as sturdy as I would have liked. Give me a a solid 2G phone with an aluminum or titanium skin that can take a beating, and a battery that gives me 8-10 hours talk time. I'll jump on that phone for $500 long before I'd buy a 3G videophone/e-mail device/Game Boy wannabe/MP3 player for $200.
The article misses some of the points of what 3G is about. 3G was developed to be a converging path of current technologies to integrate them in a more practical way.
Currently there is almost a different standard for each region / country on the planet.... where is the sense in this?
3G allows technologies based on TDMA/ GSM and those based on CDMA / IS-95b to meet somewhere.
IS-136 derived technologies will merge to WCDMA/UWC-136 and IS-95b derived technologies will merge to cdma2000/3xrtt.
Handsets that are 3G capable should be able to work with any 3G network through mediation carried out at the base station.
The added bandwidth, whilst integral to the standard, is only one part of it. This defiantly was not addressed 3G was called a dog.
bleh whatever....
I would rather a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy
All the arguments you have given are (kind of) true. But just check out Japan. Their phones have at least 160x160px (and less than 90 grams weight), most are in color. And that's more than enough to use "wireless web access". 4x25 was what killed WAP, it's not what will kill 3G.
Japanese people are tottaly into mobile phones. They use them for iMode, phone-calls, mail, surfing, sending eachother pictures and some-kind-of MIDI files etc. etc. etc.
The catch is that with 3G you will not have a phone anymore but a multimedia all-purpose communication device.
boky
In the UK text messaging (SMS) is huge. Almost everyone over the age of 12 now has a phone, and teens are famous here for communicating mostly by SMS.
My partner (29) and her best friend, (30something) hardly ever their phones to make voice calls. I see people using text phones like Motorola V100 and Nokia 5510 all the time now.
The instant messaging analogy is correct - people don't want to talk to other people all the time - why do you think that Post-It Notes became so popular?
Now wash your hands.
It seems the fate of many new technologys goes something like this:
1) Hyped
2) Introduced
3) Debunked
4) Used
5) Taken for granted
(Of course, the process is not entirely linear.)
At the moment, a lot of people are debunking 3G,
a natural response to the hype. As there are no
phones on the market as of yet, it's too early to
say what will happen.
It's likely the people will, in fact, use 3G but
maybe not in the way intended.
(Much as the european phone companies had no idea
that SMS messaging would be a major future source
of revenue when the GSM standard was introduced)