Pda @ MindSay

WiMax will eventually engage with 3G in the field of voice communication.

---

 

[+] The declining communication revenue

 

Imagine this: you will be able to make mobile phone calls for unlimited minutes so long as you pay a fixed amount of money each month; if you want to watch a movie or download music or use other value-added services, you pay additional charges, but there's no such costs as communication fee or transmission fee any more.

 

For telecom operators, this is a nightmare. No more are the good days of waiting for subscribers to make phone calls and printing phone bills calculated on talking minutes. They now have to earn their meals by providing sufficient contents. But that is too troublesome and not the specialty for operators. Worst of all, they will have to share money with content providers.

 

This is what's happening to your phone line at home. For an ADSL line, the telecom operator is able to charge only two types of fee: the lease for the line (including voice and data services) and the Internet access fee. Both are almost fixed each month.

 

If, instead of dialing traditional phone calls, you use the line only to dial Skype VoIP calls, you will be able to use both the Internet and the voice services with that amount of monthly payment. Eventually, telecom operators will have to sell IPTV to you to look forward to earning more through contents.

 

Yes, wireless bandwidth resources are limited and incomparable with the cable broadband. But who can say that some kind of a novel technology will not appear in the future to change all this? After all, consumer demands are always there and the amount of bandwidth that a consumer can buy with each dollar has been on the rise over the past years.

 

[+] The unpredictable future of WiMax

 

In the field of 4G, a concept which is not even clearly defined so far, players are already fighting for the ability to set the standards. Thanks to the promotion of Intel, WiMax has got the support of many telecom equipment suppliers and handset manufacturers, and is now the hottest bidder for the 4G technology.

 

Intel is going to embed WiMax into its notebook computers, in a hope to get the popularity that WiFi once had. Despite the slower-than-expectation progress, the ambition of the giant should never be ignored. In addition, Nokia has also got into the line of supporters, announcing its plan of introducing WiMax handsets.

 

However, in view of the current status of 3G services around the world, WiMax, which claims to be 10 times faster than 3G, is really in an awkward position. As 3G has been in commercial use for only a few years, mobile operators who are yet to retrieve the return of their investments are really hesitating about making additional investments in WiMax.

 

A more possible solution is to issue licenses to fixed-line telecom operators or emerging mobile operators and allow them to build WiMax APs. As a matter of fact, struggling to stem the multi-year decline in revenue, fixed-line operators have been longing for accessing the mobile market for many years. For them, WiMax could be an opportunity.

 

When mobile operators have little interest in WiMax, a fallacy has appeared in the market, holding that WiMax is a complementary service, instead of substitute of 3G. This has rendered wider imagination for WiMax, particularly in the China market, where 3G has not been launched yet.

 

[+] 3G and WiMax: foes, not friends

 

The two services are considered by some to be complementary because the priority of 3G is the mobile voice communication, while WiMax, with its advantages in data transmission, can provide notebooks with the Internet access. In this regard, mobile operators could build two types of network to separate the services: "3G serves people on feet, and WiMax serves people on seats."

 

In Korea, dual-mode handsets supporting both 3G and WiMax are already available in the market. It seems possible for both to co-exist peacefully? However, we see now that the two technologies are born to fight each other to death and there could never be such a thing as complementation for each other in the real market.

 

First of all, if fixed-line operators get the WiMax license, they will use the data transmission capability of WiMax to provide wireless VoIP services, which is bound to dig a portion of subscribers away from mobile operators. With so many world-leading suppliers involved in the development of WiMax handsets, the supply of terminal devices will not be a problem sooner or later.

 

It is reported that the data transmission cost of WiMax is only one tenth of that of 3G. Maybe the WiMax community led by Intel is too optimistic. But if it were true, the fee rate of WiMax-based VioP could be as low as one tenth of that of 3G too.

 

If the operators that have got the license forget the fact that the number of mobile phone subscribers is far larger than that of notebook users, and only plan to provide Internet services to notebook or PDA users with WiMax, then they must be crazy. WiMax will definitely engage with 3G in the field of the voice communication.

 

[+] Mobile phone flat rate with unlimited minutes

 

Were WiMax to appear a little bit later, the follow-on versions of 3G might have the chance to provide larger bandwidth and a more comprehensive IP environment; or, in plain words, a 4G network environment upgraded from 3G might be able to provide the VoIP service, thus render WiMax unnecessary?

 

Could VoIP all-you-can-eat monthly flat rate become a reality in the 4G time? It will have to depend on how low the transmission cost is. Even if it is low enough, the 4G-based VoIP service might still be charged by minutes in the initial stage. Operators will not withdraw to the bottom line of monthly flat rate at once, so long as the fee rate is acceptable to consumers.

 

Yet for 4G Internet accessing for notebooks, which does not go through a phone number, operators might consider to offer monthly flat rate. Although 4G is a comprehensive IP environment, operators might still want to separate the Internet access from the voice communication after taking into consideration the reality in the marketplace.

 

However, there's one thing uncertain here. Today, WiFi handsets with embedded Yahoo! Messenger or Skype are already available. Such handsets will be supported in the 4G wireless network too. With such handset and access to the 4G network of an operator, consumers would be able to make phone calls free by only paying the monthly fee.

 

Such handset might not have their own phone numbers, or would have to go through troublesome procedures (e.g. SkypeIn) for the numbers, or might encounter the containment from telecom operators. But anyhow, the competition is there and operators have no way to pass it by. It will eventually drive 4G VoIP toward the destiny of monthly flat rate.

 

The trick is that if 4G really offers monthly flat rate, it will deprive Skype of its room of survival on the mobile terminal. How could Skype, a service that depends on consumers' hunger for lower fee rates, expect to survive any longer once the mobile phone service is as cheap as what monthly flat rate offer?

 

To be able to make free phone calls has been the dream of mankind, and unintentionally become the driver for the evolvement of the communication technology. Telecom operators who depend solely on the switching of phone calls or transmission of data for their income would face severe challenges sooner or later. They will have to transform into service providers with diversified abilities. ( 2006/12/03 - By Digitalwall.com - Way to China Internet/Telecom )

---

- Read More

Prev : Great Future of Wireless Broadband (3) Scarce Resources
Next : The Fourth Generation of Internet Marketing (1) RSS Marketing

---

- Today in History

Mobile TV Market (3) Terminal Manufacturers & Content Providers - 2007/12/02

Great Future of Wireless Broadband (4) WiMax, 3G and 4G - 2006/12/03

Internet and Books (1) Dilemma of Online Publishing - 2005/12/04

VoIP (2) Who Depends on Whom - 2004/12/05

VoIP Gives out the First Cry - 2003/12/07

The home server will not be so marvelous as manufacturers have imagined.

---

 

[+] Mistake an industrial demand for the consumer demand.

 

Marketing staff in high-tech industry often have this headache: when a new product is introduced, it might create user experience which consumers never had before. How do you know that consumers will accept and buy it?

 

Because of that, however, the development of high-tech products is full of fun (of course, for manufacturers involved, it might be a tormenting life-and-death bet). Whatever it might be, the least a manufacturer should not do is to mistake a demand of the industry itself for the demand of consumers.

 

One example is the WAP Mobile Internet in 2000. In the midst of the dotcom tide, telecom equipment and handset manufacturers, in an effort to stop their sales from further declining, successfully persuaded telecom operators to enter the mobile Internet market. Eventually, an industrial demand is disguised into the demand of consumers, who won't come to pay the bill.

 

Today, another industry-hyped high-tech sector is about to move. The sector is called digital home, whose mobilization has extended to the hardware/software manufacturing, as well as the media sector, and caused the opposition and alliance of the traditional consumer electronics industry and the IT industry.

 

While manufacturers involved believe firmly that the vision is eventually going to become true, there are arguments about how it looks like. Here I would like to warn once again: it is dangerous for businesses to mistake their own demands for the demands of consumers. It is impossible to get a look at the real picture of the future development without knowing the difference of the two first.

 

[+] Now, the demand for the digital home is just from manufacturers.

 

The origin of the digital home sector is very simple: the slowdown in the market growth of the IT hardware and software industry. The practice of driving the market performance with product functions, which was effective in the past, is at a standstill, at least for now.

 

Consumers are no longer desperate about the CPU speed or upgrading software. A desktop with Windows XP would be good enough for at least two or three years, so long as it could enable Internet access and offer Office software.

 

Manufacturers, however, are trying to create space for consumers to buy their second computer, for example, a desktop at home and a notebook for use on the move. Essentially, the digital home is an attempt to create a market segment of a second computer in the sitting room.

 

For traditional consumer electronics manufacturers who have been tied to sitting rooms and kitchens so far, the market has been saturated for a long time. If, in this new digital home tide, they could booster their sales, or even introduce new changes to the long-stagnant sales rank list, that would be a good opportunity, wouldn't it?

 

For every additional computer installed in the sitting room, Intel will be able to sell one more CPU and Microsoft one more Windows system, not to mention all the other suppliers—the graphic card, sound card, hard drive, and memory manufacturers can all benefit from a share.

 

[+] Does the digital sitting room need a control center?

 

Hence the concept of the home server is proposed, holding that, in the future, all digital appliances will need a host computer, which can not only access the Internet, but also connect all the appliances (through wired or wireless links), store and deliver digital contents. The home server, of course, will allow remote control.

 

Obviously, this seemingly inevitable vision is a demand of manufacturers. The question is: is it a demand of consumers too? So far, there has been such user experience of connecting all other appliances into one, which is the TV set (it connects the audio system, the DVD player and the game player).

 

Is the home server going to take the place of the TV set, or becomes a peripheral product of the latter, or to turn the TV set into just a display panel? If it is the first case, the home server must have a built-in TV. So far many products have been introduced with the aim of integrating the TV with the computer, but none is successful because of the problem of the operating interface.

 

For the second and third cases, the home server is nothing but a network hub plus a keyboard. It doesn't matter at all whether it is placed at the sitting room or not. Let's take another viewpoint. It is better to connect the computer in the study with the TV in the sitting room through wireless links, isn't it? If so, there's no reason for consumers to buy a home server.

 

In addition, we all believe that digital appliances should be networked. Yet there is another scenario: the digital appliances are networked, but not through a host. In other words, if there's a standard that enables the networking and data exchanging among the digital appliances, there's no need for a host.

 

[+] The imagination of a digital home

 

IT manufacturers have made a lot of efforts to make the computer an essential part of the sitting room. In the first place, the interface is reduced to contain only icons. And then the keyboard and mouse are replaced by the remote controller, in an assumption that this would be easier to use and fit better with the habits in the sitting room.

 

Yet underneath this mindset is a fundamental contradiction: to become the control center of the household, the home server should have powerful function, far more powerful than what a remote controller could handle. Too simple to enable the complicated functions, remote controllers have become a big trouble for digital appliance users.

 

One crucial challenge is the fact that the user will have to handle the computer two meters away, which makes it difficult to read things on the screen. I tried such a product before and was very eager to throw away the remote controller and grab a keyboard. But I found soon that I had to look down at the remote controller and up at the screen two meters away again and again. That is enough to drive the user mad.

 

There are two possible solutions. The first is to move the host back into the study, give it the keyboard and mouse back, keep it at an appropriate distance from the screen and get it wirelessly connected with other appliances. The second is to make a full-functional remote controller with a keyboard, a wheel (to replace the mouse and be handled with a finger), and a LCD display, as a mini-sized PDA.

 

In other words, consumers may control other digital appliances by looking at the display of the remote controller. As a matter of fact, we have seen such remote controller interface on air conditioners, and they fit perfectly with consumers' experience of using the appliance. The key of the digital home is the remote controller in consumers' hands, not a host at a remote end.

 

The home server will not be so marvelous as manufacturers have described. They will be nothing but a carrier capable of storing digital contents. It does not matter where they are placed. If digital appliances could be networked without a host, what consumers hold in their hands would be the real control center with preliminary computing powers. ( 2005/10/16 - By Digitalwall.com - Way to China Internet/Telecom )

---

- Read More

Prev : It All Boils Down to Brand Names
Next : Google's Choice (1) Lessons for Portals

---

- Today in History

The Web 2.0 Revolution (7) Death of the Intermediaries - 2006/10/15

Another Picture of Digital Home Market - 2005/10/16

Corporate Website a Handful (3) Strategic Alliance Why? - 2003/10/12

Is Windows more difficult to operate than a household appliance? I don't think so.

---

 

[+] A requirement for universal user experience

 

Let's look closely at the development paths of the major mobile devices. The first type we think of is PDA. Since its first appearance as an "electronic business notepad", the device has taken a road toward the smart phone. In an effort to break away from the limitation of the business market, it is leaning toward another end: entertainment, which makes it more like PMP (Portable Media Player).

 

In addition to traditional PDA functions, the PMP-like model also enables movie playing and offers larger memories. You can get more information on this model of Palm, one of the leading PDA manufacturers at: http://www.palmone.com/us/products/mobilemanagers/lifedrive/

 

The history of the mobile phone is known to everyone: integrating a number of functions, from the camera, PDA, to MP3 player. To avoid extinction, MP3 player manufacturers are beginning to produce PMP to develop into a higher end market.

 

While the mobile phone is developing toward the featured game console functions, the game console manufacturers are eroding the PMP market by offering built-in media playing functions; as a counter-attack to the handset manufacturer, the digital camera is providing built-in sending/receiving Email functions. Follow the trend, the portable digital camcorder will be the next target of the integration into mobile phones.

 

Predictably, future terminals will fall into two major categories: the handset-oriented terminal with generic all-in-one functions, and the featured non-phone device that offers professional functions for hardcore players.

 

With such a diversified portfolio of terminals, a more important topic is surfacing: is a universal user experience needed for the increasingly numerous kinds of mobile device?

 

[+] "Windows experience" is the mainstream user experience.

 

In the future, one person could have a number of terminals at the same time. Even if all-in-one units would become pervasive, it is also possible that such products become fad items and consumers change one every half year.

 

The key to save the trouble of learning how to use so many kinds of terminal device each time is the user interface. If all devices could share a similar operating method, they would be much easier to use, and the device replacement frequency would increase substantially.

 

That is why a universal operating system is necessary for every mobile device. Traditional mobile phones do not have many complicated functions. Making phone calls, sending short messages and checking phonebooks are what most people expect from them. However, when many functions are integrated into one device, it is important to provide universal user experience.

 

Although it is hard to sense or describe, the importance of an easy-to-use interface and consistent user experience has significant weight in the heart of consumers. As a result, some operating systems or mobile devices brands would prevail over time.

 

When it comes to the integration between the Windows-based IT products and the consumer electronics, a common argument is the latter should be easier to use. However, Windows-based products are not so easy to use, therefore not fit for the "household appliance mindset".

 

Although there is still room of improvement for the Windows interface on mobile devices, Microsoft's idea of extending the competitive advantage of Windows to mobile devices is frightening from the viewpoint of "extend the user experience".

 

Most of us have the experience of using household appliances, and the majority of those between 15 and 45 years old also have the experience of operating a computer. "Windows experience" today could be seen as the mainstream user experience, which is comparable to that of watching TV. Obviously, that is a force no one could afford to ignore.

 

[+] Integrated user experience of digital home appliance and mobile device

 

In addition to its own diversified functions, an ultimate mobile device might be used as the remote controller for other household appliances. In fact, with mobile phones, remotely controlling toy cars or transmitting music files around the house through wireless means, such as Bluetooth and WLAN, are applications already in development.

 

That means the communication between mobile devices and household appliances is becoming more and more frequent. In the past, the method of operating a TV set or an audio system might vary substantially from brand to brand. The user interface of Brand A might differ from that of Brand B, even though they are the same type of product.

 

However, to realize the dream of digital home, allow dozens of digital appliances and their control center: the computer to communicate smoothly with the mobile phone, and reduce the complexity of operation, it is extremely important to provide consistent user experience.

 

In today's market, Microsoft is the only one capable of providing such user experience, from household appliances to mobile devices, and the software giant is working on its way toward that goal. The effort may seem fruitless in the short term. Yet compared with other rivals in this field, that might prove to be a real competitive edge.

 

In a market with hundreds and thousands of competitors, there might easily be calls for a leader. However, will the mobile terminal industry and digital home industry end up to be another IT industry, which has a very thin profit margin because manufacturers struggle under the heavy burden of license fee for the operating system? Let's wait and see. ( 2005/07/24 - By Digitalwall.com - Way to China Internet/Telecom )

---

- Read More

Prev : Ultimate Mobile Device (4) Email Service Anywhere Anytime
Next : What to Invest When It Comes to Internet Business?

---

- Today in History

New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (7) The Pricing of 3G Value-added Services - 2008/07/27

New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (6) Insight into 3G Price War in Taiwan - 2008/07/20

From Idea to Business (2) How to Estimate Your Income and Cost? - 2007/07/22

New Era of Online Advertising (2) from Exposure to Deal - 2006/07/23

Ultimate Mobile Device (5) Universal User Experience - 2005/07/24

Special mobile devices for accessing the Internet and Email terminals will be replaced by the smart phone.

---

 

[+] Mobile Email service requirements

 

Do you feel uneasy if you do not receive any Email for an entire day? To us in this modern world, Email is more than a mere tool of communication. It is a kind of mental comfort that assures us the existence of a connection with the outside world.

 

However, it is quite doubtful that anyone would want to buy a portable device to send and receive Emails only because of this mental requirement. In general opinions, people with such a requirement are those in the business community that cannot do without Emails for even a minute.

 

Because of their jobs, such people must have access to information and give responses anytime necessary, which is particularly important for those who have been out of office for a considerably long period of time. Without such strong requirements for the Email service, other groups (e.g. students) are less interested in such terminal (or service).

 

So far, PDAs have been able to synchronize with Email software, and copy Emails from Outlook for reading outside of the office. Having replied Emails on road, one will have to synchronize the device again with his/her computer when he/she gets back to the office so as to send those Emails through Outlook.

 

That, of course, is a troublesome process. By employing a mobile device for managing Emails, one certainly wants to be able to receive and send Emails instantly. Although there are other devices like the PDA Modem that provides dial-up Internet accessing, there are few users for additional expenses incurred by using such devices.

 

Nevertheless, that requirement does exist. A few years ago, telecom operators introduced a service that converts Emails into SMS. However, as SMS is not a sufficiently cheap service (at least Emails received through the Internet are not charged by pieces), and inputting information into and operating a handset are somehow not an easy work, there were few users for that service, either.

 

[+] Various mobile Email terminals

 

Let's leave aside the issue of fee rates and prices for a while. To enable mobile Email receiving and sending, input methods and operating interface are the first things to be considered. Restricted by the design of the buttons, handsets are certainly not an ideal tool for the purpose. Is it necessary, then, to have a special device?

 

Fortunately, there has been one: Blackberry, which has been very popular recently. Developed by a Canadian company named RIM a few years ago, the product is seeing steady increase of the user number each year. Its most distinct feature is the ability to push Emails into users' Blackberry terminals.

 

With the existing fee rates of telecom operators, users can reply Emails anytime they want and are charged a monthly fee only. Blackberry devices, which was designed exclusively for sending and receiving Emails, can now be used to make mobile phone calls and access the Internet, too. It even supports WLAN to make VoIP calls.

 

More information on Blackberry is available at: http://www.blackberry.com

 

The prospering market has attracted many rivals. Companies similar to Blackberry mainly produce terminals and collect monthly fees, which they share with telecom operators. However, there are also mobile device manufacturers, such as Nokia, that develop their own Internet accessing devices.

 

More information on Nokia N770 is available at:reviews.cnet.com/Nokia_N770_Internet_Tablet/4505-3127_7-31396042.html

 

Nokia N770 Internet Tablet accesses the Internet mainly through WLAN. It has a Web browser and special software to receive and send Emails. Of course, the user can get connected to the Internet through the handset (as a modem) connect to N770 if he/she wants to. However, that would be a little laborsome.

 

What's interesting is N770 is the first product of Nokia that has nothing to do with any GSM operator. As it does not access the Internet through the GSM mobile network, it cannot be used to make mobile phone calls, in which case, of course, it is not entitled to any handset subsidy provided by telecom operators. Therefore, it does not depend on the communication community for its sale.

 

[+] Market positioning of different devices

 

Question No.1: will anyone buy a mobile device exclusively for accessing the Internet anytime anywhere? Question No.2: hasn't the smart phone already offered such functions (and the handset-associated keyboard and software too)?

 

In the meantime, there are many multifunctional PDAs and miniature notebooks in the market. With their networking abilities, those devices, of course, would enable receiving and sending Emails. Where, then, is still the niche for a special-featured Email receiving and sending device?

 

The key to the answer is the difference in prices. Of course, more functions mean higher prices. If what a consumer needs is only receiving and sending Emails outdoor, spending a lot of money on a smart phone or handheld notebook is obviously an act of waste.

 

Compared with a full-functioned device (mainly for making phone calls or with functions similar to a PC), a special device, for receiving and sending Emails or for accessing the Internet, will have to depend on a lower price for its survival. There will be a group of customers willing to accept that cost-performance ratio.

 

On the other hand, there will be many hardcore users wishing for an all-in-one too. In addition to offering a sense of high-tech, such products could save the trouble of bringing too many mobile devices outdoor. Willing to pay more, these people are the target users of the smart phone.

 

However, no manufacturer would want to be tied to just one market segment. Priced at about USD 199, Blackberry offers almost all the functions of a handset. With the additional Internet accessing feature, it is already infiltrating into the upstream smart phone market. The trend of the hybrid device is getting stronger and stronger.

 

What's smart about Blackberry is its cooperation with telecom operators, which has ensured a stable source of income every month (monthly fees could be charged for mobile Email services). Bundled with wireless services to sell, that might prove to be a way for hardware manufacturers to break away from the situation of low gross profit. With regard to Nokia's portable Internet accessing device N770, however, it is really hard to understand its strategy. ( 2005/07/10 - By Digitalwall.com - Way to China Internet/Telecom )

---

- Read More

Prev : Ultimate Mobile Device (3) Video, Storage, Copyright Management
Next : Ultimate Mobile Device (5) Universal User Experience

---

- Today in History

New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (5) Fee Rates of 3G Services - 2008/07/13

From Idea to Business (1) How to Estimate Your User Number? - 2007/07/15

New Era of Online Advertising (1) from Media to Channels - 2006/07/16

Ultimate Mobile Device (4) Email Service Anywhere Anytime - 2005/07/10

Are they business elites, computer addicts or common people? The sales channel varies.

---

 

[+] Early adopters and late majorities

 

When the color handset first appeared in the market dominated then by black-and-white models, its price was awfully expensive. Of course, the volume of sale was low because few people could afford it. Today, black-and-white handsets are almost driven completely out of the market. With a few hundred dollars, you could select from a wide array of color models.

 

Handsets that enable the Internet accessing were expensive too at first. Today, it has become a built-in function of all handsets, no matter they are high, middle or low end. When it was first introduced to the market, a handset with a 3-mega-pixel built-in digital camera sold at a price beyond the reach of most people. Today, as models with millions of pixels are available, the 3-mega-pixel camera has become the built-in function of low-end products.

 

In the market, there are always a group of people that buy products which are the freshest and most expensive. In high-tech marketing theory, they are called early adopters. As those people are less sensitive to the price than common people are, manufacturers could get a fat profit by setting the price high above the cost very much.

 

Leading handset and IT product manufacturers have seen the attractive gross profit and steady market growth of the smart phone. But obviously, the market is still in a stage of early adopters. Once the current stage is over, it will be the end of the high gross profit.

 

We can summarize the development as follows: (1) cater for early adopters and enjoy the high profit margin; (2) the early adopter market is saturated, and the volume of sale appears to be a bottleneck; (3) introduce lower-end model for the mass market, in the hope of increasing the sale to make up for the loss of profit margin.

 

 

There have been historical cases where many products, such as PDA, are unable to break through the second stage. Even with the introduction of low-end models, such products cannot expand their markets, for they are not needed by mass consumers. Will smart phones be able to enter the mass market like the color handset did?

 

[+] Business elites and general consumers

 

The handset you use must have the calendar function, which you might never use, not to mention accessing the Internet with your handset. Let's increase the size of your screen, turn its desktop into Microsoft Windows, its calendar into Outlook and its browser into IE, will you start to use it then?

 

When it first appeared in the market, the smart phone was regarded as a mixture of the handset and PDA. Therefore, it was a wise strategy to focus on the business people, the prime users of PDA, as the target group of the smart phone. With their preference for multiple functions and convenience, those people might want an all-in-one device.

 

General consumers, however, do not have so many expectations for a handset. Many powerful functions that manufacturers brag about, for example, Word editing, are of little value to them. They usually just make phone calls, send short messages, take pictures, download images and ringtones, play games and MP3, seldom else.

 

If the smart phone follows the path of the PDA and ties itself with early adopters among the business people, its good days will end soon. Manufacturers need to focus more on entertainment functions that general consumers need. Therefore, audio/video will be a priority in the future.

 

From their appearance, smart phones could be divided into two categories: the PDA-like and the general handset-like. Currently, most manufacturers are making the former, because early adopters like their large screens and diversified functions (hence the larger size). However, most general consumers prefer the latter.

 

In others words, the smart phone must disguise themselves as the general handset to be able to infiltrate into the mass market. The ultimate reason for mass consumers to accept the smart phone would be the substantial drop in prices, which renders "smartness" as the standard function of every phone. As to those "smart" functions, how many of them will be actually used? Not many.

 

[+] Computer users and handset users

 

Generally, there are two types of smart phone manufacturer: the traditional handset manufacturer and the IT product manufacturer. Both have their own advantages. Consumers, on the other hand, have their own purchase channels. Should smart phones be sold in computer stores or handset stores?

 

Let's return to the start point, and look at the issue from the standpoints of the market stage and consumer identity. We can see that most of the existing early adopters are hardcore computer users and business people who, while being addicted, use computers to process files and contact others.

 

Therefore, IT product manufacturers are selling smart phones through computer distribution channels, which are expected to boost sales at a surprising speed. But very soon, once the early adopter market is saturated, the bottleneck will appear.

 

On the other hand, traditional handset manufacturers are also making multifunctional and large-screened smart phones, but sell them through telecom product distribution channels, which are not conventional to most early adopters. Therefore, the sale of those smart phones is less promising. Should the manufacturers make audio/video-oriented smart phones and "disguise them as general handsets", then it is a right strategy to sell them in the telecom distribution channels.

 

In addition to the desire of manufacturers to achieve continued good sales in a saturated market, the smart phone also bears the expectation from telecom operators to increase the revenue per subscriber, which might turn out to be a factor for change to the development of the smart phone. ( 2005/01/23 - By Digitalwall.com - Way to China Internet/Telecom )

---

- Read More

Prev : Smart Phone (1) Let's Begin with the Definition
Next : Smart Phone (3) Attitude of Telecom Operator

---

- Today in History

Smart Phone (2) Who is the User? - 2005/01/23