Slashdot Mirror
Hello Kitty May Be Key to 3G Survival
wa4osh writes "It's scary to think that sophisticated 3G mobile systems may depend for their survival on Hello Kitty (a cutesy Japanese pink cat with whiskers but no mouth) according to the recent Commdesign article "Hello Kitty may be key to 3G success". The article suggests that 3G's main market is downloading ringtones and backgrounds. Reading between the lines, it also suggests that 3G did not find a killer application. For example, what happened to 3G Video phones, or using 3G to send video clips to each other? These are all things that can be done with today's 2.5G technologies - GPRS and 1XRTT. So what's 3G really for? Perhaps Wi-Fi / 802.11 is solving the real need for broadband data mobility." The Wall Street Journal has an article which suggests that cellular companies are turning to Wi-Fi to hedge their bets.
Sure it would be cool with video-phones and all that, but I'm not going to pay 10x the price for something I can't use because none of my friends have it, and batteries will die after a few minutes.. :P
I prefer my cheap old Nokia 6150 which I use to make phonecalls (surprise!) and send SMS with. Batteries last for about a week with normal usage.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
As soon as it becomes cheap enough for 3G to survive...
People don't like spending their money, and since the economy is in a slump, they are going to be even more uncertain about spending it on a product they don't really need.
3G means faster internet, etc. But, unless the users have the money to pay the price required, 3G won't move far...
But the concept of 3G will survive in some form or another until it becomes cheap enough for the casual user to purchase a 3G device.
Hello Kitty works in Japan, because the market is different there. In the States, Europe and Canada, either something that will get the consumers willing to pay the extra bucks is needed, or just plain old time, so the price of the 3G devices go down.
~ kjrose
This isn't a complete technology leap, though. This stuff exists, it's just expensive and hard to find, primarily because of lack of demand. I think a more appropriate question in 1870 would be: "If you could talk to anyone in the country any time from your own home through a box on the wall for $0.xx per minute, would you do it?" A person in 1870 would be a big flabbergasted, but they'd be able to think, "Sure, I could talk to my family without having to take a 3 day trip, I could talk to the guys at the store before making a 1 hour drive there, etc."
These companies asking "would you send pictures/video, etc. via your phone if it cost $xx.xx/month?" isn't a big leap. People know that it could be done. They know what it is. It's just that there honestly isn't any use for it for most people. I know, that I have no idea why I would want this service. If I need to send someone a picture, I turn on the computer, and send via email. It's done. I've never been anywhere where the need to send a picture or a video was so great that I *HAD* to do it right there over my phone, like they're showing in the ads. It's just ridiculous. They're trying to fill a non-existent need for a non-existent market.