DISQUS

ben · 5 months ago

Actually, that's kind of the opposite of the truth. The reason Japanese handsets have so many cool features is that NTT DoCoMo has 50% market share and simply orders the handset markets to add particular features - DoCoMo's own versions of barcode scanning, NFC or Java, for example. In the past, the handset markers didn't even get to put their names on the handsets. No handsets are available on more than one operator. And the other 2 operators have followed DoCoMo's lead in ordering the device makers around.

In contrast, Nokia deals with operators in a hundred countries, most of which have at least 4 operators and are ferociously competitive (have a look at some long-term pricing trends). So individual operators get virtually no say in what features are available. The Japanese manufacturers haven't been able to deal with that structure, so they stayed at home.

So, you think that the world outside Japan is a monopoly and shut out the cool Japanese handsets - but actually, it's the other way around - Japan built a monopolistic monoculture in devices that can't be exported to the far more competitive RoW

christmasgorilla · 5 months ago

Ben, we're partially on the same page here. I agree that a large part of the reason that high technology can be easily deployed is that NTT DoCoMo has 50% of the market; I think that scenario is also clearly shown in South Korea with SK Telecom.

While those phones have many nice features and advanced hardware (and some things that wouldn't be possible without a a concentration of power and influence such as wide deployment of QR code scanners), only recently has there been much choice for the consumer on what kinds of applications they'd like to put on their phones. As a note to that, I would say that the web will eventually beat the AppStore.

I think the new iPhone 3GS showed that the iPhone software was way ahead of the hardware. Any carrier, particularly those using Symbian phones, could have offered up a more open software platform regardless of whether they had much say over the hardware specifications of the device. But they all act in concert to try to protect the notion that they 'own' their networks and any and all content that flows over it.

As a footnote: I think more open software standards make things easily portable to the rest of the world. I think the two things that won't get cracked easily without an almost total monopoly are: mobile banking and things that require in-venue specialized devices (like scanners).

Tinus · 5 months ago

As 'law' catches up with the internet, the internet's power to erode decreases. It's already happening.

In todays news: The Pirate Bay is now a forbidden website in The Netherlands, for very vague reasons.

If the judge forces ISP's to block The Pirate Bay, a very dangerous precedent is set. Regulation stifles innovation.

christmasgorilla · 5 months ago

I agree but you've sort of used a free as in ice cream vs a free as
in freedom example. It seems that much of what you reference is about
various content owners protecting their copyright. I agree that
copyright law needs to change to accomodate the web (I'm a fan of
Lawrence Lessig) and that there will probably be an overreactive
lockdown (or perhaps the RIAA has already seen to that).

But I also think that the arguments over content licensing and piracy
are only a small part of the future of the web. I think one of the
more heartening things is that the design of IP based services
encourages experimentation and provides a sandbox for products and
business models with almost no gatekeepers and increasingly less
technical friction.

Tinus · 5 months ago

Copyright doesn't bother me that much. I would gladly pay to rent movies from iTunes, if it was available here in The Netherlands, which it's not. I use The Pirate Bay because the entertainment industry doesn't understand how I want to consume their media, not because I hate copyright. Their loss.

If the ISP's start filtering specific websites, the same filter can (and probably will) be used to influence net neutrality. Just like Apple (or AT&T) blocked the Google Voice App for the iPhone, ISP's can decide to block Google Voice. That isn't far fetched, because all big ISP's over here are also wireless carriers and they're probably dying to get rid of Google's innovative application.

Just like you said, wireless carriers are part of big cartels and if this cartel decides to block (for example) Youtube from their networks if Google doesn't pay up, the face of the entire internet will change.

ISP's should never block any website. They are data pipes, not gatekeepers.