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.
Hello Kitty cellphone/vibrator combo. Hey, it's definitely not out of the question when we're talking about all things Hello Kitty.
If you build it...
...nerds will come.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
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.
True they *can* be done with other technologies, but I think that the point is that people just don't need to do this stuff, with *any* technology. It's still just gee-whiz stuff without any real purpose outside of, "check out my new toy, Bob!".
I, for one, don't understand how major companies with gigantic R&D and marketing budgets can proceed to spend billions on infrastructure without doing just a bit of market research first. I think that asking a few thousand people, "Would you use a video phone if it cost this much?" would cost a few grand, and would very quickly tell them what they needed to know. Sounds like these companies didn't even do that much.
The article does have valid points, and yes Hello Kitty is (scarily) still quite a big thing in many parts of asia, much more of a thing than here. But the article is slanted in that it makes a much bigger deal about things then they really are.
Of the world's 70 million mobile-data users, 80 percent are in Japan, noted Kurt Hellstrom, president of troubled mobile-phone giant Ericsson.
This may be true, but you have to understand that they have a FAR superior infrastructure and are years ahead of most of the US and Canada, but remember tha once the rest of the world catches up that figure will change drastically - remember these are mobile data users and its a lot more common down there to do mobile data comm... for now until other places catch up. Singapore is also quite impressive. Going on a subway when I was in Singapore was almost like a video arcade with nearly 60-70% of everyone staring at their phones playing games or sending SMS's around to their friends.
Once data sending is more widley available in phones and our networks are built up a bit more things will change drastically. Reliant on Hello Kitty? I don't think so....
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.
3G's main market is downloading ringtones and backgrounds
This focus on non-core functionality is rampant throughout the technical industry. Take MP3 players for example; the main feature of MP3 players (winamp, Musicmatch etc.) nowadays in skinning.
Who cares what the music quality is, as long as I can make my player look like Tux it must be good.
There's so much crap out there, I don't understand why designers don't try to make their product stand out by actually working properly instead of looking pretty.
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
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2002/09/kitty.html ;)
(Score:-1, Wrong)
Just gimme an IP address.
I'll roll my own content and killer app.
Thanks.
Oh no! Do you people have any idea what this will lead to?!
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Isn't that a weird place to put the on/off switch?
Or is it supposed that Hello Kitty is the part you put inside?
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
I think many many people dream of just using a laptop of PDA for true wireless internet access -- if the costs are reasonable.
Right now the wireless telcos are pricing themselves out of the market.
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.
Even in games people do this... In Half-Life people care a lot about their custom "spray decals" that others see. In another game called SubSpace people take pride in their tiny 12x8 'banners' and in their 'audio taunts'. And on websites like DeviantArt people actually PAY to have their user icons made professionally.
--
Power to the Peaceful
Audio-on-demand. From anywhere you want. THAT will kick ass. MP3s have been one of the killer apps for the web. Being able to build a little MP3 player that can play MP3s, record them from the radio, AND stream any song you want over a 3G network - that will rock. Again, it's not a fucking cellphone. I want a small cellphone that I can talk into. Maybe a bluetooth headset would be nice. And an ultra-high density fuel cell to power the handset. But other than that, I am pretty satisfied with my cellphone as a thing I use to call people, not a thing I use for video, picture-taking or music-listening.
I mean, this stuff doesn't take much creativity to come up with. Sending phone-quality pictures to my friends from my cellphone? Eh. Not that impressive. Videophones? They've failed utterly though the technology has been there for years (and the bandwidth is actually there in many households for it to work quite well). No reason to think that video-cellphones will do better. People like cellphones because they can do other shit while they talk on them - I drive and use my cell all the time because I'm a BUSY fucking person (before I get flamed, I always use my handsfree set so I can devote most of my attention to the road).
So, in short, think of all the cool apps that could be built with 3G wireless bandwidth that ARE NOT cellphones. My car should have a GPS console, with integrated 3G wireless, that lets me search the web, auto-updates the map data (I don't know how the current car-GPS units do this). And audio-on-demand in the car - that would be great. Anyway, there are still things *I* can't do with *my* cell phone - real SMTP email access, real web browsing (not the current shitty excuse for this), download email attachments and view them - I suppose these examples are mostly 2.5G compatible apps, but the ones above seem to require 3G.
For those of you who have no idea of what 'Hello Kitty' is, you may want to check the web site.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
BZZZT! Wrong!
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/08/16/cell.phone.drivin g/index.html
Probably nobody else will see this because the parent article is days old by now, and the mod wave has passed by, but maybe you'll come back and see if anyone replied to your comment, and then at least you'll be ONE person who's had their vision adjusted.
When you talk on the phone, your driving skills are compromised; using a hands-free kit doesn't help much. I'm also a busy fucking person, I carry a cell phone, and I don't talk on it while the car is moving (even stop-and-go traffic). You need to stop kidding yourself. Sorry.
One simple rule for its versus it's