Gprs @ MindSay

"Killing time" is the core for the development of mobile TV.

---

 

[+] Consumers are spending less time watching TV day by day.

 

Being optimistic about the mobile TV market, chip makers, cell phone manufacturers, telecom operators, media operators and value-added content providers have been making preparations in advance. However, is mobile TV really what consumers want? An unspoken doubt is: will anyone really watch TV on the go?

 

First of all, a trend is crystal clear. Consumers are spending less time watching TV through TV sets. Statistics show that at least in mainland China and Taiwan, the number of people surfing Internet after 8 p.m. at night are increasing steadily, so is the time spent.

 

Each person has only limited hours in a day. As more and more people choose to spend their off hours in front of computer screens, the TV audience group would diminish. IPTV has not been successful, largely because it is still trying to bring people back in front of TV screens, ignoring the fact that nowadays people hardly watch TV anymore.

 

The correct way to attract today's TV audience is to move audio or TV programs onto the screen of computers and cell phones. However, the decrease of the time for watching TV and the increase for using computers do not mean that the hours spent on watching cell phone screens would increase.

 

Here we have two questions to think about: 1) Consumers' hours on the go are fixed (on their way to work/home, or weekend outdoor trips, etc.), so what are their requirements for TV programs during those hours? 2) Is it possible to stimulate the enthusiasm of consumers for mobile TV even in room?

 

Will consumers buy if we successfully address the user experience challenges for watching video programs on 3G cell phones, and enable press-and-play, fast and effective channel switching and easy, simple billing?

 

[+] "Killing time" is the core for the development of mobile TV.

 

Product managers of mobile TV programs might have been racking their brains for clues about consumer requirements. The fact is they don't have to. What consumers want is just to kill time. It would be so boring at bus or subway stations that consumers would like to have something to watch; they may just want to snatch a little rest during busy office hours to steal a look at the cell phone, or they want to take a look at some important news.

 

Killing time, by all means, is the most critical application of mobile TV. There's no need for complicated interaction programs. Previously, 3G cell phone-base audio/video programs were so troublesome to operate that the "interaction" eventually turned "killing time" into "killed by time".

 

"Killing time" is also the key to mobile TV billing. One simple question: how much are you willing to pay for killing time? Currently in Taiwan, cable TV bills are about NTD 600 per month. How much, then, is reasonable for mobile TV? 200? Or 100?

 

DVB-H-based mobile TV offers one-way broadcasted digital programs, which, in theory, don't have to be received only with cell phones. Special terminal devices would be developed in the future for receiving such wireless digital programs. And there might be USB terminals for computers, too.

 

If digital TV itself is offered for free, there's no need to bother with which terminal device to use (ideally, of course, it's more convenient to be built in cell phones). In view of the current situation, however, monthly billing modes such as those adopted by the cable TV sector will be considered by operators. Therefore, integrating the fee into cell phone bills seems to be a natural choice.

 

If so, telecom operators would be put into a very subtle position. They might have nothing to do with mobile TV program provider, or become just a billing solution provider for the later, or even play a role similar to cable TV system operators.

 

[+] The subtle position of telecom operators in the mobile TV industry

 

In the first case, where telecom operators have nothing to do with digital TV content providers. TV-enabling cell phones bought by consumers (or other terminal devices) will be able to receive TV programs by design. If the programs need charges, consumers can make payment to TV program provider directly to get user IDs.

 

To get a simpler picture, just imagine binding a cell phone with a digital TV terminal. Each device functions independently without the interference of the other. If TV program providers want to charge the users, they could choose a number of channels, but would have to print and send the bills themselves.

 

Program providers can also choose to cooperate with telecom operators, if they do not want such troubles. That leads us to the second case: fee collection through cell phone bills. A more deep cooperation model could make interactive programs together with mobile operators and enable real-time program balloting through GPRS.

 

Trouble, however, is at door. There would be numerous program providers and TV channels. Say, there might be 5, and a consumer could choose to pay one for the program he watches, but he would not be able to afford all 5 if he wants to watch them all.

 

Generally speaking, that is not good news to the mobile TV sector. The real solution to maximize the interest of program providers is to build a single platform to enable free switching of channels. Yes, there are always competitions. However, if competitions lead to obstacles for consumers, that's no good to anyone.

 

More over, consumers have been accustomed to the monthly billing mode of one package for watching over 100 channels, which will not change in a short time. Therefore, a player capable of integrating all programs, which is similar to a cable TV system operator, is highly expected. Who will assume this role? It seems to be telecom operators.

 

That turns out to be the third case. However, everybody wants to dominate. The TV industry does not want their channels to be controlled by others, while the telecom industry will not give up the opportunity of entering the media market. Ironically, the fate of this scenario depends on whether mobile TV is fee-based or not. ( 2007/11/25 - By Digitalwall.com - Way to China Internet/Telecom )

---

- Read More

Prev : Mobile TV Market (1) Cell Phone plus TV, the Dream of Everybody
Next : Mobile TV Market (3) Terminal Manufacturers & Content Providers

---

- Today in History

Mobile TV Market (2) the Subtle Role of Telecom Operators - 2007/11/25

Great Future of Wireless Broadband (3) Scarce Resources - 2006/11/26

Google's Choice (2) Lessons for the Software Giant - 2005/11/20

VoIP (1) It's a Fool Not to Make Telecom Money - 2004/11/28

Many telecom practitioners believe that mobile phone will become the "fifth media" in the age of 3G. But that won't come true without telecom practitioners' intended guiding.

---

 

[+] Looking for killer application

 

Is there any kind of service that can attract large group of existing 2G customers to upgrade to 3G? If this is the so called killer application, it barely exists for telecom operators, because no application can help them to rapidly attract a lot of 3G subscribers.

 

Many killer application services of this kind have been tried by 3G operators all over the world. For example, the European Hutchison Telecom who started to operate 3G many years ago mainly promoting video phone and mobile email services at the beginning. However, the growth of subscriber number was extremely slow.

 

In short, from the perspective of telecom operators, the only killer application to rapidly obtain 3G subscribers might only be the "lower voice service calling rate". For consumers, that is a simple and clear reason for using 3G. Once they use 3G phone numbers, they will start to use its value added services.

 

I joined one of large 3G operators five years ago and started to do 3G market planning. I used to hold high expectations on value added services. However, as time went by, I found out that there was no big difference between 3G and 2G (especially GPRS) value added services.

 

MMS and WAP have already been realized on 2G, not to mention SMS. Even the hot Instant Messenger (IM) service can also be realized without 3G. Those won't become the reasons for consumers to upgrade to 3G services.

 

The advantage of 3G is its speed that is faster than CDMA and much faster than GPRS. However, it is not enough to bring an essential difference, because consumers can hardly feel any speed difference when browsing WAP on the small screen of mobile phones.

 

[+] The possibility of the fifth media

 

There is an embarrassing situation for sales people. Imagine that if you are a sales person of a telecom operator, when you try to persuade a 2G customer to upgrade to 3G, you fail to answer the customer's question when asked "what's the major difference between the two services?"

 

The reason why 3G fails to attract a large number of subscribers through its value added services is that there is no major difference from 2G. The only difference: speed, however, is hard to be felt by consumers immediately. After purchase, customers usually will have only a slight feeling after some time. How can we sell this kind of product?

 

Eventually, our hope inevitably falls on several services that show evidently the speed of 3G: video telephone, streaming media and download. Applications including mobile TV, video on demand, music download, which consume large bandwidth can reflect the difference of 3G more evidently.

 

However, will consumers upgrade to 3G just by telling them that they can watch TV and listen to the music on 3G phones? Yes, they will. Some technology manic or first adopters will be tempted to upgrade to 3G. But those people only hold a very small market share. Most people will tell you that it seems to be never used to watch TV on the mobile phone.

 

Especially when they find out that the price plan of watching TV on the mobile phone is calculated by time, they will resist more apparently. The billing model that is quite natural for telecom operators (for example, billing in seconds) drastically violates the general payment habit for TV services: free or paying monthly.

 

Many telecom practitioners believe that the mobile phone will become the "fifth media" in the age of 3G. But that won't come true without telecom practitioners' intended guiding, especially with regard to the price plan. Monthly unlimited mobile phone TV service itself will arouse drastic arguments inside telecom operators.

 

[+] The way to survival for free WAP sites

 

It has been spread for a long time that telecom operators will act against free WAP sites. Each time telecom operators carry out a new policy, this topic is heated up again. Especially recently it is said that telecom operators plan to set the rates of their own WAP sites to be different from those of external WAP sites.

 

It is the common practice for telecom operators all over the world to "design and enrich their own WAP sites, keep users in their own walled garden, and make content providers bend their knees". Although free WAP sites are very hot, they fail to keep from telecom operators' threat.

 

To be honest, there is no relation between that market situation and 3G. I don't understand why some people think that such obstacles will disappear after China's entry into 3G. Telecom operators always keep their leader's attitude and control over subscribers and content providers regardless of 2G or 3G, don't they?

 

However, there is probably a market breakthrough point here. Never forget that China has a self-developed standard TD-SCDMA. Telecom operators who have obtained this license are relatively less aggressive (or will become so after suffering from market stagnation). It is possible for free WAP to collaborate with them.

 

Telecom operators' practice on WAP is called "The Walled Garden" in the industry. Users can enjoy enriched content services within the garden, but they can never go outside. The more powerful telecom operators are, the more they want to do so. Cooperation can only start from relatively weak operators.

 

The next phase of development is quite obvious for SP (Value Added Service Provider) or CP (Content Provider) and free WAP site operators. For example, videophone dating, mobile phone movies on demand or download, live music or download, etc. The content is becoming more and more important. As a result, many SP have started to integrate resources from the media.

 

[+] Conclusion: It's true that telecom operators will beg consumers to use 3G

 

My insights of 3G telecom services in the past four years can be concluded into one sentence: it is true that telecom operators will beg consumers to use 3G. Because there is no obvious difference between 3G and 2G, while the major difference can not be experienced immediately, the sales of 3G are very difficult.

 

The difference can only be experienced after a period of usage. However, sales people can barely wait users to gradually find out the difference, because they can not bear the slow sales progress. Thus, they are forced to attract users to upgrade to 3G with lower voice service calling rates first.

 

But users are more accustomed to use value added services on 3G than on 2G. Therefore, the fifth media is expectative. The point is whether telecom operators invest resources on user experience and services, and whether the design of rate plans fits in with users' expectations.

 

Finally, the key user group of 3G is labor workers in big cities in addition to residents (primarily students) in second-tier cities in China. Those people will bring large amount of WAP and streaming media usage. Of course, the elite people are the sales target, too. But the total amount of elite users can barely meet the demand of telecom operators. ( 2007/04/22 - By Digitalwall.com - Way to China Internet/Telecom )

---

- Read More

Prev : The Mist of 3G in China (3) Low-End Customers Are King
Next : Web 2.0 Think Again (1) It's All about Relationships

---

- Today in History

The Mist of 3G in China (4) The Way to Survival for SP - 2007/04/22

Predictions on China Internet Market (8) War of Instant Messenger - 2006/04/23

3G Time Comes (7) 3G Is Nothing to Do with WLAN - 2003/04/27

3G Time Comes (6) Phones Don't Need to Be Smart - 2003/04/20

While games are a must-have function for future handsets, hardcore players still need special featured models.

---

 

[+] Play games anywhere

 

Back in the 1980s, the black-and-white handheld game console (HGC) that made only a monotonous beep sound got popular throughout Taiwan. Usually each model only had one game. You had to buy a new one if you wanted to play another game. Owners of this rare game device could often get envious eyes from other children.

 

Sometimes adults, too, played the gadget, but obviously the majority users were children, some of whom would even bring one during family outings to kill time on road.

 

Thanks to its continuous evolution, the device is upgraded from the black-and-white version to one that accepts add-on game cards, and then to a color one, with increasing number of colors, better stereo sound effects and diversified functions. Sony's latest released PSP even allows gaming with other people simultaneously through WLAN.

 

Parents of each generation are forced to buy the latest models. However, with the extension of functions, for example, music and movie playing, and the slow growth of the mental age of modern people, children are no longer the only consumers of mobile game consoles.

 

Will handset manufacturers ignore this big cake? In 2003, Nokia launched N-Gage, used as a mobile phone when held in one hand and a game console with two hands. Despite the criticism for its design at the beginning (the battery had to be removed for switching game cards), it still shocked the industry.

 

[+] A war between two industrial leaders

 

N-Gage offers a complete array of mobile phone functions, such as SMS and MMS, a built-in WAP browser that enables GPRS-based Internet accessing, and Java. It can play MP3 music and even play video streaming online, support POP3 and SMTP protocols to receive and send emails.

 

If those are all it offers, N-Gage could be nothing more than an ordinary handset. Restricted by hardware and the size of memory, handsets have not been able to compete with special handheld game consoles in terms of audio and video effects. For hardcore players, the mini Java games available for most handsets today are not enough.

 

Fully aware that the effect is exactly what players want, Nokia invests much on the hardware of N-Gage, making it powerful enough even for 3D gaming. While the top priority is the game display and interface, communication seems to be an accessory function of the handset. As for Camera? Of course not available.

 

Communication is what handsets exist for. In addition to stand-alone games, the N-Gage handset also supports MOG (Multi-player Online Game) through Bluetooth and GPRS (given that the game itself supports MOG). The former enables gaming with a few others, while the latter with anyone in the world through the Internet.

 

SONY PSP does not support making phone calls and SMS. In addition, without a web browser, it cannot send or receive emails, either. While it supports WLAN and allows connection with a small group of 16 PSPs through the ad-hoc mode. It allows gaming with players anywhere in the world through WLAN too, given that the game itself supports MOG.

 

The hardware specifications of both products are available at:

 

N-Gage: http://web.n-gage.com/en-R1/gamedeck/ngage/techspex/

 

PSP: http://www.us.playstation.com/consoles.aspx?id=4

 

[+] Who on earth are the buyers？

 

Personally, I do not believe that anyone would buy an N-Gage solely for making phone calls, nor a PSP for its MP3 function. Their HGC features are so obvious, that any buyer would have one very strong intension: gaming.

 

Here the market segmentation becomes crystal clear: those who use handsets mainly to make phone calls may need mini Java games to kill time; the built-in MP3 function would be sufficient, too. While games are a must-have function of future handsets, hardcore players still need special models.

 

It would be meaningless for handset manufacturers to introduce HGCs were it not a online game era (no matter download or play games online) However, for the way of wireless transmission, PSP selected WLAN, virtually shutting telecom operators out of the door.

 

It can be expected that before the completion of the deployment of WLAN hot spots, the GPRS network of telecom operators will remain the first option of MOG for players. In addition, telecom operators have been aggressive in handset marketing. Nevertheless, the expensive GPRS connection fee has stopped many potential buyers.

 

The decisive factor of the war among game consoles in the past decades, however, is not the performance of the consoles themselves, which has been mostly similar among competitors, but the number of games they support. Some ultra-popular games could even decide the fate of a console.

 

Will the story of the online game, which is now the mainstream for PC games, be repeated on HGCs? Due to the personal entertainment characteristic of most HGCs, which are used outdoor (instead of at home), where players have only a short period of time to finish a game, the most feasible option is the smaller MOG.

 

On the other hand, PC online game developers could consider such a mobile device as an extension for their products too, so that their users could enjoy themselves a little bit when they cannot have access to a computer. Such zealous players would consider paying for both the handset and the game. ( 2005/06/26 - By Digitalwall.com - Way to China Internet/Telecom )

---

- Read More

Prev : Ultimate Mobile Device (1) Age of Hybrid Handset
Next : Ultimate Mobile Device (3) Video, Storage, Copyright Management

---

- Today in History

New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (3) Who's Gonna Be the Price Killer? - 2008/06/29

New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (2) Opportunities and Burdens for New China Mobile - 2008/06/22

Web 2.0 Think Again (5) Unearth the Value of "People" - 2007/06/24

Ultimate Mobile Device (2) Competition of Handheld Game Console - 2005/06/26

The forbidden fruit handed over by the Serpent - to eat it or not to eat it?

---

 

[+] The complicated relation between the telecom operator and the handset market

 

Let's make one thing clear first: the core business of telecom operators is to sell phone numbers. No matter it is mobile or landline network, operators may collect money by just printing phone bills as long as they sell phone numbers along with the related tariff to consumers.

 

However, phone numbers and tariffs are invisible. Fortunately telecom operators can focus on different market segments according to the appearance and price of the handset which is more visible. Therefore, operators inevitably have to depend on the handset business to sell their phone numbers.

 

That, however, does not mean telecom operators have to be handset manufacturers or distributors themselves. In the former case, operators must make handsets themselves; while in the latter case, operators must procure handsets themselves and resell them to consumers.

 

The advantage of selling phone numbers is, as these are virtual products, there's no need to worry about the inventory. With handsets, however, it is a different situation. In addition to buying a lot of handsets with big money, there are also a lot of other headaches including inventories, marketing plans, maintenance and losses resulted from the depreciation of the phones.

 

In order to reach the scale of business, there occurs a room of existence for handset distributors. With their own stores or franchised outlets, they sell handsets together with the phone numbers of telecom operators. So both players have their own work to do, and telecom operators do not have to "raise cows to drink milk".

 

Since the main business of handset distributors is selling mobile phones, they could sell the phone numbers of any telecom operator at the same time and be loyal to none. Without an effective control over those distributors, it is hard for operators to extend their brands, which is especially bothering in the time of the mobile value added service.

 

[+] Distribution channel reform as a result of the development of the value added service

 

As traditional handsets are used for phone calls only, sales staff does not need to make detailed explanation. For the mobile Internet and other value added services, however, such explanation is necessary. But distributors would rather sell products that do not need much explanation to deal as soon as possible. That is why the value added services of telecom operators have been unable to infiltrate into distribution channels.

 

Yet it is a different case for the marketing of mobile phone numbers in Japan, where mobile Internet is a mature service. In order to market their mobile Internet service brands, telecom operators are directly involved in handset manufacturing and specification development. All the products of handset manufacturers are bought by telecom operators, who would then resell them at their own stores.

 

The advantage of that business model is, with tailor-made specifications especially for a telecom operator, handsets could be fully integrated with the services of content providers, allowing better user experience of value added services. In addition, by selling the products at their own stores, the operators could request their sales staff to provide more detailed explanation.

 

In Europe and the United States, where the mobile service is not so convenient as that in Japan, similar business model is employed. Telecom operators purchase handsets first and resell them at their own stores, instead of through distributors. Obviously, with the advent of 3G, the telecom operator will get involved in the handset manufacturing and distribution more deeply, or "be forced to raise cows".

 

Yet we should not forget that the core business of the telecom operator is always printing phone bills and collecting money (of course, there could be the issuance of prepaid cards, too). Should a great invention occur one day that make it impossible to increase the amount of payment on a phone bill, operators would loose their interest immediately.

 

[+] Smart Phone is threatening the business of telecom operators.

 

Driven by the high gross profit, handset manufacturers around the world vow to introduce more smart phone models. That is indeed a trend. Yet in the long term, a conflict of interest with telecom operators is inevitable.

 

Internet access, of course, is a must-have function of all smart phones. In the future, users might use their handsets to access the Internet and, whereby, to make VoIP calls. With the open architecture of the smart phone, anyone could write and install a VoIP program like Skype into his/her phone.

 

Everybody knows that VoIP is very cheap. Although currently, the mobile Internet accessing service is enabled through the GPRS network, the tariff which charges by packet is still high. Obviously, making VoIP calls through that way is not an economical choice. However, in Japan, the 3G mobile Internet service is charged by monthly fees, instead of packet. The Mobile VoIP now seems only a matter of time.

 

Even the revenue of mobile portals will be affected. In addition to the communication fees charged for mobile Internet service by packets, users should pay additional "content fees" for downloading pictures, ringtones or games. Operators would collect the fees through phone bills and then share them with content providers.

 

Currently, mobile portals are operated by telecom operators themselves. As handsets of specific models are bound with a portal, consumers will access the portal for most of the time. In that situation, content providers are vying to get into those portals to expose themselves in front of consumers.

 

The smart phone, however, is quite different. Take it as a PC with an open architecture: enter a URL address, and there you are. The portals of telecom operators are only one of the thousands of options. No more advantages of monopoly, content providers can now contact directly with users, instead of through telecom operators.

 

[+] Back to the standpoint of consumers

 

Concluded from the above, the smart phone will reduce, instead of increase the amount in a phones bill that telecom operators deliver to the subscribers. The mobile operator will face the challenge of the IT sector and gradually loose its monopoly status. Will the smart phone be the first gun to shoot for the liberation war?

 

Now that telecom operators are relying more and more heavily on and tightening their control over handsets. Is that a sweet poisonous pill? Shall they take it or not? Or is that a road leading to an unknown destination and rewarding those who follow the trend first with the favor of consumers? ( 2005/01/30 - By Digitalwall.com - Way to China Internet/Telecom )

---

- Read More

Prev : Smart Phone (2) Who is the User?
Next : Media, Community, and Blog (1) The Beginning of the Story

---

- Today in History

Smart Phone (3) Attitude of Telecom Operator - 2005/01/30

Smart phone is a mobile phone with an open operating system.

---

 

[+] Many mobile phones are not smart enough in fact.

 

Smart Phone is perhaps one of the most confusing concepts today. What kind of mobile phone can be called smart? In addition to the earliest concept: "Mobile Phone plus PDA", it has lately got involved with 3G, too. What is it all about?

 

The primary function of the mobile phone, or course, is communication. Back in the years of black-and-white screens, many mobile phones started to provide built-in convenient functions, such as the phonebook, calendar and even game. Yet nobody would call them smart phones.

 

As we move into the Internet and multimedia age, the phonebook, calendar and game grow to have their color versions. The mobile Internet access allows users to download pictures, ringtones, games and other multimedia contents. Camera phones enable users to take pictures and send them to friends. Those, however, are not smart phones, either.

 

Following that, handset manufacturers introduce another function: PTT (Push to Talk) through a GPRS network. Pressing down a button on your handset, then you are able to talk with a group of people. In addition, there are a number of other fad applications, including audio/video recording, MP3 playing and even TV remote controlling.

 

With so many functions, those phones are certainly "smart enough". Yet generally, they are not called smart phones. Instead, they are referred to as "Feature Phone". They are phones with special features.

 

[+] Smart Phone means open operating system

 

Usually, manufacturers do not put all functions into one model (unless it's a top-class model with very high cost and price). Therefore, there are handsets that can be used as cameras but cannot play MP3 music, or that have the PTT function but cannot take pictures.

 

After all, only a small number of people need, or could afford all-in-one handsets. As I said in the above discussion, "to endow a handset with a special feature" becomes a satisfactory option for both manufacturers and consumers. Hence the so-called feature phone comes into being.

 

Integrating all functions into one handset will certainly increase the manufacturing cost, as each model of feature phone will involve hardware modification. If a handset could be built like the computer and have a built-in operating system to enable all functions by adding software, isn't that much more convenient?

 

For example, by installing special software in the handset, we could have the PTT or MP3 function instantly. That kind of architecture needs a built-in operating system similar to Windows and software vendors willing to develop programs for the operating system.

 

That is the smart phone, an open architecture similar to the environment used in computers. With the feature phone, handset manufacturers do everything from software to hardware, leaving no opportunity for others. However, the smart phone would allow many software vendors to develop programs for the phone.

 

[+] Fiercely competitive operating system market

 

A straightforward idea is to move the operating system of Microsoft directly to the handset. In this case, then the handset would be powered by Microsoft Office immediately, can open and edit Word and Excel files, receive or send Emails and manage contact information and calendars with Outlook, and play MP3 music and movies with Media Player.

 

Want to use the handset as a TV remote controller? Just install a program, as long as your handset has an infrared communication port, it can then have such function. With regard to the method of installing software, you can connect your handset with a computer or download a program directly through a browser.

 

Such freedom of "playing with your handset as you like" is, perhaps, something beyond the experience of traditional handset users. For PDA users, however, that is a familiar experience. As the PDA market seems to be saturating, manufacturers are taking a path toward the smart phone.

 

Traditional handset manufacturers, of course, will not just sit there. An operating system is emerging to compete with Palm OS and Microsoft OS from PDA manufacturers. The smart phone operating system, Symbian, bears high market expectation.

 

Why is the smart phone so important? Just think: in the future, everybody would carry an all-in-one device, which could be used to make phone calls, access the Internet, remotely control appliances in a digital home, play music, take pictures, and even take the place of the credit card.

 

It would take years to realize such a vision. However, the smart phone market is regarded as a frontier of those future applications, although for manufacturers, it is now only an instinctive reaction to "migrate to a market with a larger gross profit". ( 2005/01/16 - By Digitalwall.com - Way to China Internet/Telecom )

---

- Read More

Prev : VoIP (4) Dual-network Handsets Will Die of Subsidies
Next : Smart Phone (2) Who is the User?

---

- Today in History

Smart Phone (1) Let's Begin with the Definition - 2005/01/16