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!
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
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2002/09/kitty.html ;)
(Score:-1, Wrong)
I honestly doubt that Canada and the US *can* change to the same kind of infrastructure that Japan has.
With Japan, there are no huge wide open spaces. No worries about long highways to provide expensive and infrequently used (but critical to getting customers) service to. Just slam home a cell tower every five blocks and bob's yer uncle.
They also have huge penetration because it's so ungodly cheap over there. My roomie just came back from Japan, and was virtually offended by how much the service here was going to cost him - AND they were making him pay for the phone! The nerve! In Japan he got better service, for a quarter the price, with a free phone included.
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.
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.