Comments for Mobile & Wireless Roundup - Innovation & Industry News http://www.wirelessroundup.com Sat, 11 Oct 2008 16:53:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 Comment on PicLens - Not mobile related, but who cares! by Mat Diss http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/03/14/piclens-not-mobile-related-but-who-cares/#comment-68 Mat Diss Mon, 12 May 2008 16:12:18 +0000 http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/03/14/piclens-not-mobile-related-but-who-cares/#comment-68 Very nice - hads loads of fun playing with this. Very nice - hads loads of fun playing with this.

]]> Comment on Proximity Marketing or SPAM? by Arash http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2007/07/04/proximity-marketing-or-spam/#comment-67 Arash Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:37:54 +0000 http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2007/07/04/proximity-marketing-or-spam/#comment-67 It's a nice article in general. But I don't agree with classifying this marketing methodology as spam. It's quite a permission-based system that people can simply accept or reject the connection. It’s a nice article in general. But I don’t agree with classifying this marketing methodology as spam. It’s quite a permission-based system that people can simply accept or reject the connection.

]]> Comment on US Lags in Mobile TV Adoption - Inaccurate Truth? by Tarek http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/02/14/us-lags-in-mobile-tv-adoption-inaccurate-truth/#comment-66 Tarek Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:55:42 +0000 http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/02/14/us-lags-in-mobile-tv-adoption-inaccurate-truth/#comment-66 blaqk: Most western networks are already using HSPA technologies that would enable great TV quality but even if they weren't good quality does not define Mobile TV. The South Korean DMB implementation was indeed a great success but in mobile terms these types if successful trials in South Korea and Japan rarely translate when similar implementations happen in the West. I really hope DVB-H services will be free in Europe but I have a feeling we're looking at an extra monthly charge. On another note it's good to see Nokia include DVB-H support in their new Flagship device, the N96. In the past DVB-H support in Nokias had only been included in fringe models so it;s good to see that Nokia feel the time is right to make it a bit more mainstream. Let's hope the services follow soon... blaqk: Most western networks are already using HSPA technologies that would enable great TV quality but even if they weren’t good quality does not define Mobile TV.

The South Korean DMB implementation was indeed a great success but in mobile terms these types if successful trials in South Korea and Japan rarely translate when similar implementations happen in the West. I really hope DVB-H services will be free in Europe but I have a feeling we’re looking at an extra monthly charge.

On another note it’s good to see Nokia include DVB-H support in their new Flagship device, the N96. In the past DVB-H support in Nokias had only been included in fringe models so it;s good to see that Nokia feel the time is right to make it a bit more mainstream. Let’s hope the services follow soon…

]]> Comment on Sarin on “Internet On Your Mobile” - Flaw by Tarek http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/02/14/sarin-on-internet-on-your-mobile-flaw/#comment-65 Tarek Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:02:04 +0000 http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/02/14/sarin-on-internet-on-your-mobile-flaw/#comment-65 I doubt there has ever been a term that has caused more confusion than "One Web". It implies something totally different to what the One Web ideal really stands for. In fact the original One Web ideal does indeed embrace everything you believe Olaf, but it seems to have been hijacked into One Web==Transcoding. It might have helped if the W3C had been a bit more clear in presenting this ideal in the first place. Ian is probably right, a change in terminology might help. http://www.littlespringsdesign.com/blog/2008/01/24/one-web-and-other-defintions/ http://dev.mobi/node/705 http://dev.mobi/node/744 I doubt there has ever been a term that has caused more confusion than “One Web”. It implies something totally different to what the One Web ideal really stands for.

In fact the original One Web ideal does indeed embrace everything you believe Olaf, but it seems to have been hijacked into One Web==Transcoding. It might have helped if the W3C had been a bit more clear in presenting this ideal in the first place. Ian is probably right, a change in terminology might help.

http://www.littlespringsdesign.com/blog/2008/01/24/one-web-and-other-defintions/
http://dev.mobi/node/705
http://dev.mobi/node/744

]]> Comment on US Lags in Mobile TV Adoption - Inaccurate Truth? by blaqk http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/02/14/us-lags-in-mobile-tv-adoption-inaccurate-truth/#comment-64 blaqk Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:54:39 +0000 http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/02/14/us-lags-in-mobile-tv-adoption-inaccurate-truth/#comment-64 Mobile TV should be regarded as satellite TV (or otherwise) with broadcast quality as good as real TV. Watching TV over a cellular network is just not good enough, especially the quality. If cellular networks could provide very high speed access speeds (currently, most cannot) that did not harm TV reception quality, then that would be okay although I doubt that'll arrive any time soon. A classic example where mobile TV has *really taken off* is South Korea and its DMB satellite broadcasts. It is 100% free (with all the free-to-air TV and radio stations providing content) and is not just restricted to phones but also desktop and portable computers and even come standard with Navigators and PMPs. I guess it was easier to implement such a system in South Korea since it is a small country compared to the US but still, you have it admit that it's a huge success with relatively low costs. Mobile TV should be regarded as satellite TV (or otherwise) with broadcast quality as good as real TV. Watching TV over a cellular network is just not good enough, especially the quality. If cellular networks could provide very high speed access speeds (currently, most cannot) that did not harm TV reception quality, then that would be okay although I doubt that’ll arrive any time soon.

A classic example where mobile TV has *really taken off* is South Korea and its DMB satellite broadcasts. It is 100% free (with all the free-to-air TV and radio stations providing content) and is not just restricted to phones but also desktop and portable computers and even come standard with Navigators and PMPs. I guess it was easier to implement such a system in South Korea since it is a small country compared to the US but still, you have it admit that it’s a huge success with relatively low costs.

]]> Comment on Send gifts via mobile phone by blaqk http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/02/07/send-gifts-via-mobile-phone/#comment-63 blaqk Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:43:15 +0000 http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/02/07/send-gifts-via-mobile-phone/#comment-63 Oh nice. Oh nice.

]]> Comment on US Lags in Mobile TV Adoption - Inaccurate Truth? by Tarek http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/02/14/us-lags-in-mobile-tv-adoption-inaccurate-truth/#comment-62 Tarek Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:05:21 +0000 http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/02/14/us-lags-in-mobile-tv-adoption-inaccurate-truth/#comment-62 While statistic like this are usually misleading I think you have been misled in what you think Mobile TV is. TV viewed over cellular networks *is* Mobile TV, it isn't limited to TV on mobiles over dedicated broadcast networks like DVB-H et al. Also Mobile TV over cellular networks doesn't always imply a poor user-experience, though this has been an issue in the past. As networks with HSPA protocols have started to go online across the globe they will have more than enough bandwidth to deliver a good TV experience. And as more and more networks are now giving into all-you-can-eat data packages, data usage shouldn't be an issue Finally assuming that DVB-H services will be free might be misguided. I'd put money on most European networks charging an extra monthly fee for DVB-H usage. Sponsorship money for commercial channels wouldn't cover the costs the network incurs in setting up and maintaining the DVB-H network and the operators are notoriously greedy. While statistic like this are usually misleading I think you have been misled in what you think Mobile TV is.

TV viewed over cellular networks *is* Mobile TV, it isn’t limited to TV on mobiles over dedicated broadcast networks like DVB-H et al.

Also Mobile TV over cellular networks doesn’t always imply a poor user-experience, though this has been an issue in the past. As networks with HSPA protocols have started to go online across the globe they will have more than enough bandwidth to deliver a good TV experience. And as more and more networks are now giving into all-you-can-eat data packages, data usage shouldn’t be an issue

Finally assuming that DVB-H services will be free might be misguided. I’d put money on most European networks charging an extra monthly fee for DVB-H usage. Sponsorship money for commercial channels wouldn’t cover the costs the network incurs in setting up and maintaining the DVB-H network and the operators are notoriously greedy.

]]> Comment on Sarin on “Internet On Your Mobile” - Flaw by Ian Homer http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/02/14/sarin-on-internet-on-your-mobile-flaw/#comment-61 Ian Homer Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:00:35 +0000 http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/02/14/sarin-on-internet-on-your-mobile-flaw/#comment-61 Good points Olaf. There are great technologies out there that tuck the device complexity up, allow solution developers embrace this variety and let the users be whoever they want to be. We shouldn't need to be boxing people into the same thing everywhere. I do however think that there is some difference opinions in what one web means. Some people see it as the transcoding world and other's see it as an optimised environment that adapts to the context. Either way I prefer not to use the term one web and instead to use terms like contextual or mobile 2.0 which I believe embraces your vision. Good points Olaf. There are great technologies out there that tuck the device complexity up, allow solution developers embrace this variety and let the users be whoever they want to be. We shouldn’t need to be boxing people into the same thing everywhere. I do however think that there is some difference opinions in what one web means. Some people see it as the transcoding world and other’s see it as an optimised environment that adapts to the context. Either way I prefer not to use the term one web and instead to use terms like contextual or mobile 2.0 which I believe embraces your vision.

]]> Comment on Mozilla’s Mobile Browser - Mockups by nako http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/01/29/mozillas-mobile-browser-mockups/#comment-60 nako Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:25:33 +0000 http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/01/29/mozillas-mobile-browser-mockups/#comment-60 Thanks for the nice article site You can access to my site NakoTech new global technology for free service http://nakotech.com or my blog for new mobiles phone http://nakotech.com/blog Thanks for the nice article site

You can access to my site
NakoTech new global technology
for free service

http://nakotech.com

or my blog for new mobiles phone

http://nakotech.com/blog

]]> Comment on Mozilla’s Mobile Browser - Mockups by Doug Turner http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/01/29/mozillas-mobile-browser-mockups/#comment-59 Doug Turner Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:58:57 +0000 http://www.wirelessroundup.com/2008/01/29/mozillas-mobile-browser-mockups/#comment-59 These designs aren't close to finalize and are a first cut at building something that can test our render on mobile. Also, they are a good strawman to solicit feedback from the community. These designs aren’t close to finalize and are a first cut at building something that can test our render on mobile. Also, they are a good strawman to solicit feedback from the community.

]]>