[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject: UKNM: Re: Wap Numbers
From: Tom Hume
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:35:02 GMT

At 19:11 12/12/2000 +0000, UKNM Digest wrote:

>Its expensive, slow, ugly (in tech terms too) and will be had over by the
>new phones using HTML and bigger screens with OS's like WindowsCE/DOTnet.

WAP has nothing to do with the cost of data services provided by telcos.

It has little to do with the speed or capabilities of underlying networks -
it was designed specifically to run across a wide variety of em.

Can anyone out there who's got one of the Sony web-browsing phones pitch in
with a comment regarding how they compare to WAP?

>We had it pumped down our necks to make up for the research budget that was
>spent on it, no one wants to flush that much cash.

Do you have any figures or references for the "research budget" spent on
WAP? Feel free to reply off-list, it's the first time I've heard that it
involved massive expenditure early on.

>Consumers need something that looks good and not like a loading screen from
>a ZX spectrum in black and white.

So consumers would never go for, say, a clumsy, text-only service offering
at best simple graphics? Like SMS? I think not.

If consumers can achieve their aims (either through genuine utility, or
services specifically designed for "time-wasting") they'll use it. The fact
that there are few useful services out there today for WAP doesn't mean
that it's a dead end.


(I'll shut up now Sam)

Finding it impossible to trawl through mountains of irrelevant
information on the web? Trying but failing to reach a niche market?
Help is at hand with the launch this week of online advertising
marketplace ADictive.com - the solution to all your advertising needs.

Visit http://www.adictive.com to find out more.
To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to
http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing or helpatchinwag [dot] com

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]