71 posts tagged “media”
Your social network relationships have become a kind of data which can be carried and peeped.
[+] social networks will become personal profile centers
So far we have seen social network sites' plans to open up their users' profiles, such as Facebook Connect, MySpace Data Availability and Google Friend Connect. One common idea behind all these plans is to allow users to decide which websites they can bring their profiles to. We can call it "portability of personal profiles."
Users of Facebook and MySpace can decide if they want to carry their personal data - name, phone number and address - and social network profiles - friend list or user group - with them to other websites. For example, you may access your Facebook friends from other websites you are using, of course with your authorization.
Through this strategy of opening up, social network is moving towards its next stage to play the role of personal profile center. Quite a few online users prefer to store their personal profiles in one central place, so that they will not need to fill in the same data repeatedly no matter where they go, and moreover, they only need to make changes to their profiles at one place - data at other websites will all be automatically updated. As such, we can see the value of such personal profile centers.
One thing calling for our attention is that, the idea of "portable profile" may not be a new one, but what is portable this time is your "relationship". In the past, your data or your tracks online do not include your social network relationships, which now become a kind of data that can be carried about and, of course, peeped.
[+] Personal profiles become tangible
You may have no idea about what websites your friends regularly visit, not to mention when they do. With the portability of personal profiles, you, when browsing some small website, may unexpectedly find your friends there, too. It is because you both are Facebook users and you carry your personal social network profiles with you to this site.
The society is thus turning into a gigantic tangible net where you may bump into someone you know at some corner. The impact of this development on people's social life is yet to be understood, but this is the first time we are able to transform our social relationships into tangible data, which can be stored in one place, carried about and, maybe, traded?
Social network websites, as places where personal profiles are stored, will have to bear social and even legal responsibility more than before. Who is after all the legal owner of the profiles - the users or the social network websites? Do social network sites merely provide data hosting service? What kind of responsibility they may have if the data gets stolen by hackers/ Can the government intervene in the management of personal profiles for the sake of social security?
In addition to legal aspects, there are business aspects, too. Thanks to the rapid flow of news content on the Internet, traditional media have almost got wiped out by portals. Now with open platforms and open user profiles, we see personal profiles flow rapidly on the Internet, and we wonder which traditional industries will be clawed down this time.
[+] Standard of personal profile portability
There is no standard so far for portable personal profiles. At least MySpace, Facebook and Google use three different methods. Users are bound to meet difficulties if they want to carry their profiles to another social network websites. Such portability benefits competitors, which will not be allowed.
However, if the ownership of these profiles belongs to users, there is no reason to obstruct the free and convenient flow of personal profiles among major social network websites? In this case, there may be a reason for the government to step in to break down the barrier set up by competing websites. Such intervention has a precedent in the telecommunications industry - telephone number portability, which allows users to carry their telephone numbers with them when switching service providers.
Furthermore, we can see this issue at as high as the national level. Imagine a scenario in which American companies such as MySpace and Facebook providing services in other countries. These American companies may accumulate an enormous amount of personal data and social network profiles of the citizens of another country. In that case, who owns these profiles? Is the government of that country entitled to intervene in the usage and management of these profiles?
It is possible that the data exchange standard for personal profile portability may become an international issue because a country may want to prevent foreign companies from controlling the profiles of its citizens. In the case of terrestrial TV standards, the result was that we have three standards: American, European and Japanese. So far the government seems to be slow in response because it sort of lags behind the fast development of technology.
Openness is an intrinsic feature of the Internet, and after a decade, we see a new exciting development of openness - open platforms and open user profiles related to social network. Business competition happens very fast, and it may take us another decade to manage to solve the legal and international issues it has incurred.
- Read More
Prev : Openness, where is it going to take us? (4)
- Today in History
Openness, where is it going to take us? (5) - 2008/12/07
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
"To grow bigger" is an inevitable pressure rising from within.
[+] The Internet was born to be open.
The Internet was born to be open and free. Since the time when people established the underlying architecture of communications network, the Internet was endowed with the attributes of a decentralized architecture like its genes. Some negative impacts have come along, such as issues of online security and spams. Yet as such things are the consequences of the working of the Internet's genes, they are meant to subsist. For those Internet businesses that go against the Internet's innate characteristics, they would inevitably face tremendous pressure from competition.
Ten years ago, the Internet had posed a severe challenge to the conventional logic of business world – monopoly - , especially of the capital-intensive media industry. The Internet broke the structure and created an opening. An open Internet enabled more content partners to join. Free Internet services quickly drew in a large number of users. People running Internet companies were aware that only through opening up themselves could they continue to grow.
As the Internet follows the pattern of scale economy, inevitably, there is always an innate pressure for Internet businesses "to grow bigger." They need to quickly increase their user base and traffic to achieve a comparatively low marginal cost. One way to grow big fast is to offer free services; to open and embrace more partners is another. During the first decade of the Internet, these two methods seemed to work well.
Now we've seen a third method emerges with Web 2.0 - social network. The way social network works is similar to multi-level marketing. Spreading from one user's social network to another's and then many others', social network services quickly accumulate a huge amount of users. However, the pressure to grow bigger never wanes. Following the innate nature of the Internet - open and free - , renowned social network services providers have come up with solutions: an open platform and opening up users' profiles.
[+] No opening up, no monopoly
Doesn't it sound paradoxical? The only way to achieve a monopolistic position on the Internet is through opening up. In the conventional business world, businesses that survive fierce competition would build bulwarks to enclose its empire within and erect competition barriers. This is why we've seen the first-generation Internet companies, such as Yahoo!, developing into new monopolies. It seems that they have followed the same trajectory of history.
If its monopolistic advantage can last out, why would Yahoo! have Yahoo! Open Strategy? Why would a monopoly need to open itself up? The reason is new players keep coming on the stage, first Google, and later MySpace and Facebook. They have come with a new revolutionary power to rewrite the old business rules, and on the Internet, the revolution can happen at an astonishingly fast speed.
Openness is embedded in the genes of the Internet. It is difficult to monopolize the Internet marked with a decentralized architecture. Internet companies are constantly under pressure for growth, and putting up walls is not good for growing big because no Internet company, however powerful it may be, can monopolize the traffic on the Internet with its own websites - the majority of the traffic is always fall outside its own websites.
Moreover, new comers will exercise the power of openness to challenge the success of existing players. One of the most successful products of Google is the omnipresent Adsense, but Google has been threatened first by Facebook, which took the lead to open its platform, and later by MySpace, which was the first to open up users' profiles. They have unsettled both Yahoo! and Google. More openness leads to greater competition.
[+] Technological innovation is a key catalyst.
The first-generation Internet aggregates and opens up "content;" typical examples are portals like Yahoo!, and issues concerned around copyrights, trading of content and the transformation of patterns of mass communications. The second-generation Internet aggregates and opens up personal relationships; typical examples are social network websites like MySpace, and issues concerned around privacy, property rights of personal data and the transformation of patterns of interpersonal communications.
A key catalyst of all the changes is technological innovation, such as standardization of data exchange and standardization of applications interoperability. The former refers to the prevalence of document (e.g. XML) exchange standards and the later the sophistication of Web Service. The former enables users to insert content of one website to other websites; the latter allows users to embed a function module of one website to other websites.
10 years ago, when a portal wanted to use the content of a certain media company, both parties would need to go through a lengthy process of program development and docking. Now, website operators share their content in standard RSS format freely. When this becomes a common practice, the barriers to content exchange are instantly pulled down, and content may flow more rapidly on the Internet.
The concept of open platform, first raised by Facebook, is to allow applications of other websites to be embedded on Facebook. On the other hand, the idea to open users' profiles, first brought up by MySpace, is to enable users to embed their personal profiles onto other websites. The mode of the former is like "one-stop shopping"; the latter is more like "take out" - portable personal profile.
Furthermore, the idea, initiated long ago, to integrate various login ID's for different websites into a universal one, has been back to the talk again. The Internet world is sure to become more transparent with data flowing faster and content and functions among websites more integrated. It will affect the closer integration of industry chains, the decline of old business giants and the emergence of new ones, disputes over privacy issues and so on.
Openness is a path of no return, but where is it going to take us?
- Read More
Prev : New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (8) WAP Sector Is Slowing Down
Next : Openness, where is it going to take us? (2)
- Today in History
Openness, where is it going to take us? (1) - 2008/11/09
The Web 2.0 Revolution (10) the Big Future of Web 3.0 - 2006/11/05
It is more possible to become a stable, low-growth market. Therefore, it's no use being hasty.
[+] Will the advent of 3G lead to a reshuffle of WAP market?
Despite continuous setbacks since 2000, telecom operators have never stopped efforts in the mobile Internet market. Theoretically, Moternet, the WAP portal of the largest mobile operator in the world, China Mobile should have the heaviest traffic volume in the world. After all, it has such a huge subscriber base. This, however, is not the reality.
From an iResearch report, Handset-enabled Internet Activities in China in 2008, we can see that Sina, Baidu and Tencent are among the most visited WAP sites in China. There are even a few independent 3G WAP portals. Thanks to their huge PC-based user bases, traditional Internet players seem to have a chance to challenge telecom operators.
Will the advent of 3G lead to a reshuffle of the market? Despite the fierce battle for subscribers, New China Mobile, New China Telecom and New China Unicom have not changed their visions of transforming from "communication service providers" into "information service providers". Key to this effort will be WAP. Will other WAP sites score another goal along with the promotion of 3G?
What we might not have understood correctly is the fact that, with the advent of 3G, the WAP market might have a stable and slow growth, instead of a sweeping revolution. Therefore, it's no use being hasty. It seems that, at the present time, the conditions for a sweeping revolution are not yet in place.
[+] The development of the WAP user base is a long-term process
First, if the 3 new operators do not offer substantially lower WAP rates, there would be no momentum for WAP users to upgrade to 3G, as no major change is expected to the contents offered by WAP sites. There might be more video and mobile TV services, but the key to the acceptance of users is still the fee rate.
The problem is that only telecom operators could decide the fee rates. Other Internet players have no say in it. In view of the current competition picture, the operators are expected to cut 3G WAP fee rates to some extent. But as I said, only substantial cut in voice fee rates could significantly increase the 3G user base, which is essential for a sharp increase in 3G WAP user base.
Secondly, does a substantial increase of 3G user base mean the same for WAP user base? Experience of telecom operators indicates that a large portion of the first 3G mobile phone subscribers would be WAP users of the 2G time. In other words, as a 2G WAP user becomes 3G WAP user, there would be no increase in the total WAP user number in the market.
In the long term, with intensive 3G promotion efforts of operators, all users will eventually give up 2G (whether voluntarily or forced to do so). The process, however, might not be as fast as you and I have thought. Considering the WAP service, which might be offered as an accessory service, the development of the WAP market could be even slower. The key to the speed of growth is the fee rate, not the number of Gs.
[+] The pain in business models
Why have telecom operators not been able to make good WAP sites? Based on my 5 years of experience in an operator, I could see that the root of the problem is their business models. For telecom operators, there's no free service. Every service should generate revenue, which ideally should be collected from end-users with phone bills. One dollar from each user would add up to an amazingly large amount for the hundreds of millions of income.
WAP services are duplicates of those of the Internet, whose basic business model is to offer free service and gain revenue from advertising. Sharp conflicts are expected for the business model transformation, not to mention the difficulty of changing the mindset of staff in a short time. Telecom operators need to regard themselves as media players before establishing ad departments to gain ad revenue. For them, that's too much.
This business model would have nothing to do with the number of Gs. For WAP, if the business model were transformed to that of media in the 2G time, Monternet could have done it very well even without 3G. Now we are back to the basic question: which is scored "better", higher ARPU or advertising income? If the former, there will not be any change.
It does not mean that telecom operators have to give up fee-based music or image download services, which are, in fact, the revenue sources of the traditional Internet companies, too. Yet, if operators cannot think of anything else, their business growth would be limited. For example, Nokia is seeking cooperation with telecom operators even as it has its own advertising network.
Why didn't operators make the proposal first? Because they are still using the old mindsets. Any business you don't do, somebody else in the business chain would do. Nokia Advertising Network is a manifestation of the company's resolution to transit from the manufacturing industry to the service (particularly the Internet service) industry. Do New China Mobile, New China Unicom and New China Telecom have the same resolution?
- Read More
Prev : New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (7) The Pricing of 3G Value-added Services
- Today in History
New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (8) WAP Sector Is Slowing Down - 2008/08/10
PDA in Siege (1) The Attack of Notebooks - 2004/08/15
3G value-added services will be cheap, but not so cheap as you have expected.
[+] The pricing of video phone service
As a result of the fierce battle for subscribers between operators, 3G value-added services eventually become a secondary role. In the long-term, however, mobile subscribers will gradually accept the services and use them more than they did in the 2G time. In fact, subscribers first switch to 3G because of attractive voice fee rates. Then they begin to use more value-added services because of faster Internet access speed.
Generally speaking, the most talked-about 3G services include video phone and streaming media. With video phone, you will be able to see the one you are calling. Of course, you can also dial a number to watch a live broadcasting program. Streaming media, on the other hand, enables users to watch audio/video programs via the Internet, mostly by logging onto portals of operators with handsets.
Voice service, video phone and streaming media, how should the three services be appropriately priced? First, as video phone consumes 4 times of bandwidth than general voice calls do, should it be 4 times as expensive? The answer is no, because 4 times is pretty scaring. Most operators offer rates ranging between 1.2 to 1.5 times.
Due to privacy and courtesy concerns, video phone is rarely used. Some people argue that operators should offer lower rates to increase use of video phone services. The fact is, however, low price is probably not sufficient to eliminate the privacy concern. Operators even believe there are reasons you have to use video phone (e.g., your wife requires you to). Is there any other chance of earning such easy money?
[+] The pricing for streaming media
Streaming media service, which enables mobile TV and movies, has been in a dilemma of whether to charge by traffic volume (e.g., RMB X for watching Y mega bytes per month) or by service time (e.g., RMB X for Y hours per month). Eventually, all operators chose service time-based fee rate models.
As most users are still not accustomed to traffic based models, while charging by service time also seems weird (nobody pays TV bills by minutes), the best solution would be monthly packages without time or traffic volume limit. Fearing that users might turn on their handsets 24 hours a day, which would result in considerable waste of wireless network resources, most operators dare not choose the solution.
If they choose to charge by service time, how much per minute would be appropriate? Streaming media service usually consumes twice bandwidth as much as video call does. Nevertheless, I suggest its fee rate be set similar to, or even lower than that of general voice calls. As streaming media service is delivered through IP-based packet-switched network, it could use network resources more effectively than video phone, allowing larger bandwidth for users.
That billing model encourages the use of streaming media to improve the efficiency of the network resources of operators. A challenge for operators is that they have to collect payments for content providers, which would increase the total cost of users. However, that seems to be a problem without solution, because content providers need to be paid, too.
[+] WAP monthly package and the pricing for mobile Internet access
In my view, WAP, the service that has been available since the 2G time is more profitable than mobile TV, which is wildly betted on because of the Olympic Games. Some operators have already offered WAP monthly packages without traffic volume limit. With the advent of 3G, they now face a problem: whether to raise or lower the package rates?
As the costs of operators are based on traffic volumes and 3G, with higher speed, will generate far larger WAP volumes than 2G, maintaining the monthly packages does not seem to be a good deal. However, in order to encourage 3G subscribers to use WAP services, it makes no sense to raise the price. But operators do not want to cut price. Eventually, the fee rates are usually kept at the same level of the 2G services.
As to the monthly mobile Internet access packages (via computers) for current China Unicom's CDMA network, no substantial change is expected because the speed of 3G service remains low (384k for WCDMA). However, as 3G has just been launched in mainland China, it would be well equivalent to the level of 3.5G (HSDPA) right from the beginning. As a result, the fee charging model would change.
For example, there might be packages of RMB X/month for the speed of 128k and RMB Y/month for 256k. Such a pricing model is similar to that of ADSL. Theoretically, the peak rate of HSDPA could be up to 14.4M (it is reported that 3.6M Internet access services would be available soon in Taiwan). Therefore, it is possible to introduce different fee rates for different speed.
[+] The fee rate of value-added services is not the key to attract subscribers
Why operators are so reluctant to cut fee rates of 3G value-added services? Because in the fight for subscribers, they have already cut prices of general voice calls. How do they compensate the loss? Through the above value-added services, of course. Will the value-added service fee rate level affect their subscriber base? Basically not. Then why not setting the fee rates a little bit higher?
Many consumers would consider switching to operators who offer lower voice rates, not the one who offer lower value-added service fee rates. The pricing of value-added service is not the key for operators to attract subscribers. With this user experience and such a mindset of operators, 3G value-added services will be cheap, but not so cheap as you have expected.
- Read More
Prev : New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (6) Insight into 3G Price War in Taiwan Next : New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (8) WAP Sector Is Slowing Down
- 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
Operators always seek to avoid direct discount.
[+] The 3G war in Taiwan started 5 years ago.
In the previous sessions, I envisioned the post-restructuring 3G fee rate war in mainland China, and provided suggestions on the offensive and defensive strategies for operators. However, as those are just general discussions, it is hard for ordinary people to understand the remarkable aspects of the strategies. Now let's forget about New China Telecom, New China Mobile and New China Unicom, and take a look at the 3G price war that has been ongoing in Taiwan for 5 years.
Taiwan is a place with a GSM penetration rate higher than 100%. In other words, it has more GSM phone numbers than its entire population. Thanks to white hot competitions in the market, the public has been well educated about the "on-net" and "off-net" fee rates. Calls between subscribers of the same operator are entitled to 50% off "on-net fee rates".
Just take a look at the fee rate lists of operators in Taiwan, and you will see this is an inherent logic of their billing practice. As a result, the larger an operator is, the more powerful its ability to attract new and retain existing subscribers. The public knows that, for example, being a subscriber of Chunghwa Telecom, you have better chance of calling somebody who happens to be a subscriber of the same operator and being entitled to preferential (on-net) fee rates.
At the beginning, emerging operators were not able to take a bite from the existing subscriber bases of the "Big 3", i.e., Chunghwa Telecom, Far Eastone Telecom and Taiwan Mobile. The first attack was launched by Taiwan's first 3G operator: Asia Pacific Broadband Wireless Communications Inc. (APBW) In July 2003, APBW launched its value-added brand QMA and two expensive 3G handset models, believing that the first 3G subscribers would arrive soon for its rich portfolio of applications.
[+] Free calls for on-net subscribers
It was not long before APBW found that its 3G vision was a beautiful mistake. Unable to achieve its sales target with expensive handsets and value-added services, the operator soon started its phase-II operation. With free handsets and a stunning offer of "free calls between on-net subscribers", it triggered a price war. Free on-net calls meant that calls between any two 3G subscribers of APBW were free of charge.
The bloody price war did not trap the Big 3, which, as public companies, could not stand the consequent ugly finance statements. In addition, with strong brands, they did not feel the need of an immediate response. Many lovers and students joined the subscriber base of APBW in couple for the free on-net calls. They turned out to be the first subscribers of APBW.
The Big 3 seemed to be so confident that they waited until the end of 2005 to launch their own 3G services. Their strategies were simple: just regarding 3G as a value-added service of 2G. They offered similar fee rates for 3G, except for the mobile Internet service. Up until then, there had not been an all-out 3G price war, as existing operators had been defensive, instead of offensive in the 3G market.
In December 2005, a new 3G operator, VIBO Telecom launched its business operation. Like APBW, VIBO Telecom tried to build its subscribe base from scratch. With lessons learned from APBW, VIBO Telecom did not expect too much from value-added 3G services. Instead, it posed for a price war right from the beginning by offering a package "Everybody On-net".
[+] Same fee rates for on-net and off-net calls
"Everybody On-net" was just the opposite of free on-net calls. The following are a few examples of the differences:
General 3G: NTD X/second for off-net calls and NTD 0.5X/second for on-net calls (like the case of 2G);
APBW: NTD X/second for off-net calls, free of charge for on-net calls
VIBO Telecom: NTD 0.5X/second for off-net calls, NTD 0.5X/second for on-net calls (the same price for on-net and off-net calls, "uniform rates")
As mobile subscribers in Taiwan tended to believe that using services of major operators means better chance of enjoying the 50% discount on-net rates, "Everybody On-net" was actually an attempt to tell consumers that, with VIBO Telecom, they could have 50% discount rates for both on-net and off-net calls. As a matter of fact, VIBO Telecom's price war was to offer 50% discount for off-net fee rates.
"Everybody On-net" led to the counterattack from the Big 3. The first to respond was Taiwan Mobile, which offered a "Local Life" package, dividing Taiwan into 5 regions. Calls within each region were entitled to uniform fee rates similar to those of VIBO Telecom. However, out of the selected region, the cost of communication would rise sharply.
It was really a smart action. It squeezed VIBO Telecom out of the spot light of "uniform rates" without too much compromise in actual fee rates. The region-specific preferential rate package was not as lethal as the 50% discount of VIBO Telecom. However, the strong brand of Taiwan Mobile helped to prevent its subscribers from switching to VIBO Telecom.
[+] Big brands sat tight
For Taiwan Mobile, it was a successful defense. For APBW, however, it was an alert. It followed suit immediately by launching the brand new "Wonder 4" package, ,which, like that of Taiwan Mobile, divided Taiwan into just 4 regions, and offered lower rates than "Local Life". In this package, on-net calls were no longer free. It gave APBW a chance to get rid of the double-edged sword of free on-net calls.
By far the 3G price war really begun, only Far Eastone Telecom and Chunghwa Telecom still sat tight. Instead of introducing new 3G packages, Far Eastone Telecom offered "get one free minute for each minute of on-net calls" promotion for the its existing package. In other words, it was another 50% off based on the existing 50% discount rate.
Far Eastone Telecom promotion: NTD X/second for off-net calls, NTD 0.25X/second (roughly) for on-net calls.
In face of deep cuts in off-net fee rates by rivals, Far Eastone Telecom chose to increase discount for its on-net rates to consolidate its subscriber base. Chunghwa Telecom launched an intensive TV advertising campaign for its F2 (Friend and Family) package, which offered ultra-low rates for calls between each group of 10 mobile subscribers and 6 local fixed line subscribers. Leveraging its advantages in the local phone market, Chunghwa Telecom consolidated its subscriber base, while responding to the 3G price war in a roundabout way.
It is not until lately that Chunghwa Telecom eventually joins the price war by introducing "uniform fee rates for on-net and off-net calls". Yet it has been 3 years since VIBO Telecom triggered the price war, it is true that market leaders are hurt by the proposition of VIBO Telecom. However, with strong brands, they can afford to be the last ones to join the price war.
[+] Being cheap is just an excuse
Aren't we talking about 3G? How comes that price war takes the place of value-added services as the prime role? As I have said, regarding value-added services as the prime role of 3G is a beautiful mistake. The fact is value-added services are only an excuse for operators to avoid price wars. Whether in Taiwan or in mainland China, 3G price wars are inevitable, so long as price killers exist in the market.
In addition, operators are always seeking ways to avoid direct discounts. For them, the best solution is to make consumers feel an offering is cheap, which is actually not. "Being cheap is just an excuse". This is what I have learned from my experience in designing the "Everybody On-net" package at VIBO Telecom and the consequent price war. Consumers will never know the real planning of the operators behind the fee rates.
- Read More
Prev : New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (5) Fee Rates of 3G Services
- Today in History
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
There might be 2 big and 1 small, or 1 big and 2 small operators.
[+] 3G might have 3 versions.
On May 24, 2008, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and National Development and Reform Commission of the People's Republic of China jointly published Notice on Deepening Telecom Structural Reform. The hottest topic it brought was the restructuring of the nation's telecom industry. The notice announced the attitude of the Chinese government toward 3G. For the operators, any action is better than no action at all.
In China, 3G is no longer a matter of "to have or not to have". Rather, it's about making sure to build it first and seeing how to do it next. The latest round of restructuring highlights the support of the government to the Chinese version of 3G: TD-SCDMA. Prior to that, there were many critics towards 3G and even those arguing for a direct leap to 4G. Now, none of these matters. The operators are posed for a massive merger. Following that would be the issuance of 3G licenses and a new round of infrastructure development. Then, 3G comes.
As a pioneer with 4 years of experience in 3G operation, I have written a lot about the new landscape in the 3G market. As a matter of fact, with the delay of 3G license issuance, Chinese telecom operators have the chance to learn the 3G operation experience from their international peers. As a result, the expectation for 3G, which was once irrationally eager, is getting gradually rational.
The restructuring will turn the operators into 3 powers: 1) China Mobile + China Tietong, let's call it "New China Mobile" for the time being; 2) China Unicom's GSM Network + China Netcom, "New China Unicom"; and 3) China Telecom + China Unicom's CDMA Network + China Satcom, "New China Telecom". Specifically New China Mobile is expected to adopt TD-SCDMA as its 3G version, while New China Unicom will adopt WCDMA and New China Telecom CDMA2000.
[+] Subscribers face bigger barriers for changing network in the 3G time
The restructuring plan seems to have taken care of the interest of each party and each 3G standard fairly. Ideally, a tri-player market structure would facilitate competition and benefit consumers eventually. The fact is, however, to facilitate real market competition, the 3 new operators should use the same version for 3G, for example, TD-SCDMA or WCDMA.
Consumers have to buy a 3G cell phone to be able to use 3G services. Think about this: a consumer who has a New China Unicom's 3G cell phone wishes to switch to the 3G network of New China Mobile. What he needs do is just change his USIM card, instead of buying a new cell phone. If such an easy thing occurs frequently, the operators will have to figure out better ways to cater for their customers, and preventing them from changing network.
Now a subscriber of New China Mobile has a 3G, TD-SCDMA cell phone, and wishes to switch to New China Unicom. The problem is New China Unicom's 3G version is WCDMA. So he has to buy a new cell phone, which is by no means easy. With more functions than 2G devices, 3G phones will not be cheap. The consumer begins to hesitate.
As it is now definite that the 3 new operators will get 3 different 3G licenses, this is sure to happen. To a large extent, it has decided the landscape in the future market: the one who builds its customer base first is expected to retain the customers for a considerably long period of time. No one who has spent so much on a 3G cell phone would so casually switch a network in the immediate future.
[+] Customer base building: winner takes it all
One of the most attractive aspects about 3G is the video phone. Being able to see the person at the other end of the call is a feature that people both love and hate (and that accounts for why it has not been popular anywhere in the world). With the existence of different versions, a person with a WCDMA phone will not be able to call someone with a CDMA 2000 phone. The attractive aspect of 3G, it seems, is not so attractive.
For operators, this is both a challenge and an opportunity. If the new operators could persuade lovers (or mothers and sons) to buy their 3G phones (for video phone communication) at the same time, subscribers would increase by couple. For both parties of a call, no barrier exists for using 3G phones of the same spec to make video phone calls.
The above observation has drastically increased the possibility of "winner takes all" in China's 3G market. The one who builds up its customer base first would establish a leading edge. It was the same situation that once occurred as the result of the competition between China Mobile and China Unicom's CDMA Network. The difference is the new landscape brings everybody back to the start line again. At least it gives us new expectations.
If the 3 new operators end up being equal rivals, it would be the consumers who eventually benefit most. Although under the protection of different versions of 3G, changing network is difficult. There would be a landscape of competition between equally powerful players. However, if the tri-party balance is disturbed, there might be 2 big and 1 small, or 1 big and two small operators.
- Read More
Prev : Glimpse into Profit Model of SNS-based Advertising Next : New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (2) Opportunities and Burdens for New China Mobile
- Today in History
New Landscape in China's Telecom Market (1) Winner Takes All - 2008/06/08
Web 2.0 Think Again (3) A Reason to "accost" Someone Online - 2007/06/03
Viral marketing will be the key word for marketing in the Web 2.0 time.
[+]The history of SNS
Last month, AOL's purchasd Bebo, the largest social networking site in Britain, for USD 850 million in cash. That once again highlighted the value of SNS (Social Networking Service). In the United States, Bebo is the No.3 social networking site, behind MySpace and Facebook, with more than 40 million users around the world.
Further back, News Corp acquired MySpace with USD 580 million in 2005; Microsoft paid USD 240 million for merely 1.6% stakes in Facebook. The first deal seems to be too hasty for MySpace and too juicy for News Corp. What, indeed, is the most attractive aspect about SNS to investors?
SNS is really a confusing concept when mentioned together with dating sites, community sites or Blog. Even SNS operators do not view themselves as dating sites, community sites or Blog sites. While those sites have been in place since the Web 1.0 time, or at least the end of that time, SNS focuses on inter-personal relations, and therefore is a mixture of all above.
Finally, it seems that only ambiguous terms such as "personal space" could differentiate SNS from those traditional concepts. In terms of functionality, SNS enables blog, photo album, friends, community (or group) as basic functions. With the intentional guide of the operators, users could visit the blogs and photo albums of others, eventually activating the social networking function.
In terms of social networking behavior, SNS depends on the migration of offline personal relations to online platforms to combine with those of others to build a larger relation network. While using the service primarily to interact with acquaintances, users might meet strangers for deeper communication intentionally or unintentionally, resulting in larger social communities. Hence, interpersonal relations could be maintained by paying attention to the activities of each other.
[+]How to convert page views into revenue
With more than 40 million users around the world, Bebo is worth USD 850 million. In China, the largest social networking sites, e.g., Tecent Q Zone and 51.com, have more than 100 million users, yet none is deemed to be worth that much. What, indeed, is the commercial value of the social networking sites? At the present time, it seems, the value lies primarily in being purchased.
Thanks to the high interactivity among its users, social networking sites have far more page views than conventional portals. What's more, each user would keep an eye on the presence of his/her friends, resulting in a much longer average online time. Many SNS users log onto the site as soon as they get off work/class, and remain connected until they go to sleep. How to convert the addiction into revenue?
There are 3 possible ways: 1) through Internet advertising; 2) by providing users with fee-based value-added services; 3) by offering e-commerce services in the communities and collecting commissions from transactions. In the foreseeable future, any social networking site is expected to reap revenue through all of these 3 approaches. The only difference lies in the revenue proportion because of different primary users of each SNS site
One of the most distinct features of SNS is its distribution by word-of-mouth. An article by a common person on MySpace or Facebook would get widely spread through his friends, or friends of friends. Such effect is what advertisers have been dreaming for, as distribution by word-of-mouth is the most cost-effective approach.
In the Web 1.0 time, however, this kind of viral marketing was only a result of sheer luck, rather than deliberate planning. Without a platform to operate on, most advertisers had to pay for the views of their ads, allowing their budgets to be washed away by the visit traffic of the portals. While the focus of Internet advertising in Web 1.0 time was target advertising, it would be viral advertising enabled by SNS in the Web 2.0 time.
At the 2008 Annual Conference for the New Economy hosted by iResearch, I gave a speech titled "The Key Word for Marketing in Web 2.0: Viral marketing". You can find and watch the video at: http://v.iresearch.cn/data/20080425/79812.shtml
[+]Impacting the traditional Internet advertising model
However, the business model has trouble facing advertisers, who generally accept it as a cost-effective approach. For example, one million clicks at a portal or one million users' interaction at a social networking platform, which one do you prefer? For online advertisers, the answer is the latter. The question is, however, how do you charge them for the one million users' interaction?
Currently, SNS is still not able to compete with portals by means of CPM or CPC. With surprisingly good results but no billing method available for SNS, there has appeared a weird phenomenon of "free interaction for ad exposure or clicks purchased". Unable to generate income from its most valuable part, SNS is not yet ready to compete with portals for users by means of CPC.
For advertisers, word-of-mouth-based distribution is the most cost-effective marketing method, as well as one of the reasons for them to move their budgets from portals to SNS. In addition, there's not yet a unified standard in the industry for billing by results. An event might have one million participants, however the extent of involvement varies substantially. There is not a simple and intuitive measurement like CPM or CPC.
Currently, advertisers are still testing SNS marketing, while SNS operators are exploring new billing methods. Therefore, there's a huge potential. Eventually, it becomes a process of negotiation between sales reps and advertisers, and the final result depends on who is going to convince whom. The criteria for advertising effect in the Web 1.0 time is no longer able to keep up with the market changes, but the Web 2.0 criteria are yet to be developed.
Viral marketing will be the key word for marketing in the Web 2.0 time, as SNS will become a platform enabling word-of-mouth-based distribution among advertisers. Share and recommendation by friends would enable higher market awareness and better marketing effect. What we don't have yet is a set of criteria to measure the marketing result, as CPM and CPC, which derived from traditional media, are obviously out-of-date.
- Read More
Prev : Initial Experience of Widget's Profit Model
- Today in History
Glimpse into Profit Model of SNS-based Advertising - 2008/05/11
3G Time Comes (8) Who Are First Users of 3G? - 2003/05/18
Nokia must turn itself into a platform, which must be more open than existing ones.
[+] Handset operating systems are getting increasingly unimportant.
In the mobile communication industry, Nokia is a legend of invincibility. According to the data released at the end of January, Nokia sold 134 million handsets in the 4th quarter of last year, with a market share as large as 40%, way ahead the 15% of Samsung, the closest follower.
If you were the CEO of Nokia, you would think: "can I further do something with these users?" when you see the data. Lucrative as the handset business is, isn't it better to squeeze something more out of the users? Internet becomes a target.
For years, Nokia has been dedicated to the development of its handset operating system Symbian and a series of smart phones to battle with Microsoft - with eye-catching sales. Worldwide, 60% of the smart phones are driven by Symbian. Only 11% use Windows Mobile.
What's clear is, however, amid the tide of wireless Internet, handset operating systems are getting increasingly unimportant. It is not that players on the stage will give up operating systems, but they have found that the ability to provide services is even more important.
If, as described in the previous section, Yahoo! introduces Yahoo! Go to enable service delivery across operating systems on the wireless Internet, and Google's operating system becomes available to handset developers for free. Where is the value of those different operating systems? The users would care nothing else but the services available.
Apple iPhone is an amazing product. But the central topic is not the operating system iPhone uses. In terms of sales, it would have a long way to go before becoming a threat to the market leader Nokia. However, iPhone's ability to drive sales with its music service is something that Nokia cannot afford to ignore.
[+] Nokia moves into the Internet market.
According to data released by Google internally in January 2008, during the 2007 Christmas season, page views of Google through iPhone was next only to that through the Symbian smart phones. iPhone's share of the smart phone market was as low as 2%, while that of Symbian was 63%.
What's the reflection it would give Nokia? Obviously, iPhone offers better Internet experience than Nokia - easier to use, more user-friendly browser functions. Maybe Apple is better able to attract users with high demand for Internet accessing to buy its smart phones.
To Nokia, both the improvements to the interface and the selling model of handsets bound with Internet services are shockingly new. A player that has been traditionally regarded a computer manufacturer is now one step into the telecom industry after a successful transformation into an Internet service provider and a consumer electronic product manufacturer.
What will be the right move for Nokia to infiltrate into the territories of its rivals? The first idea would be to provide proprietary contents, which could be obtained through M&A or through partnerships. Fortunately, many Internet players are interested in getting their services available on Nokia phones.
Therefore, Nokia introduced a series of services, including Nokia Search, Nokia Maps and Nokia Music. Most of the services, however, require download of special software into handsets in prior, and are not compatible with all Nokia handset models. Therefore, pre-installation of the software becomes a necessary means to sell handsets.
Nokia Search is a service offered jointly with search engines such as Google, while Nokia Music is a fee-based online music store through partnerships with leading labels - something similar to the iTunes music store of Apple. To Internet players, Nokia is both a partner and a rival.
Nokia service list: http://europe.nokia.com/A4496273
[+] WidSets: an open platform that pulls together the Internet world
It takes time to build such services. To establish itself in the Internet world as soon as possible, Nokia will have to pull the entire Internet over to its side. Don't forget that the Internet is a huge eco-system that needs a common leader to open the gate to the world of wireless Internet.
Nokia must turn itself into a platform, which must be more open than existing ones, to enable the upload of any service, regardless of the handset operating system - Symbian, or whatever else. If the handset operating system is no longer important, sticking onto Symbian would become Achilles' heel.
To Internet players that Nokia wants to pull over to its side, the prospect of handset-based Internet services available on any handset is a deadly attraction. Perhaps it was based on this idea that Nokia introduced its open platform WidSets.
For handsets, this open platform is a small Java program. Any handset that supports Java can run the software. Theoretically, Internet players would be able to provide services to all Java-enabling handsets, so long as the services are developed on the basis of the small program.
In terms of operation logics, what WidSets offers is similar to that Yahoo! Go does. Internet service providers could ignore the specifications of various handsets and make their services available on the wireless Internet through simple programs, so long as the receiving handsets have WidSets.
Currently, a number of leading Internet players, such as Wikipedia, Blogger and Flickr, as well as news media including Routers and BBC have started to develop applications on the Widsets platform. In addition, many amateur players are developing small games on it for downloading by users. Obviously, application development has become an easy thing.
Download WidSets at: https://www.widsets.com/widgets
[+] Can handsets be free?
Theoretically, Nokia's WidSets can be installed into a GPhone, or an iPhone, so long as it supports Java. In this regard, what operating system a handset uses is really unimportant. Why then is Google still sticking on the development of its own handset operating system?
What's really in the mind of Google, perhaps, is to extend its advantages in online advertising. By knitting Google services closer with handset functions, it would be able to continue its leadership in the handset-based advertising market as the wireless Internet population grows, or even use the income to offer cheaper or free handsets.
Of course, Nokia and other handset manufacturers would hate the idea. Instead of selling products, they would have to depend on advertising to make money. Will this wild dream of Google become true? First of all, handsets will never really be free. They are just paid by somebody else.
Telecom operators were once bill payers that made handsets free through bound service contracts with consumers, who were thereby requested to pay subscriptions, which they had no way to cancel for a given period of time. With the subsidies of telecom operators and Google, it is indeed possible to further drive down the prices of handsets.
If the appearance of GPhone means that telecom operators would pay less subsidy, that's absolutely good news for them. The problem is it will have to be paid, either by telecom operators, or by Google, because handset manufacturers such as Nokia will not sell handsets at prices below costs.
If Google pays the subsidy to make handsets free, it will have to earn the money back from follow-on handset-based ads. To spend the money before there's an income, is this a good deal? Google will have a huge amount of cash to give away as subsidy. It seems exactly what powerful telecom operators did in the previous years.
Compared with those of Yahoo! and Nokia, Google's wireless Internet plan seems more like a big bet.
- Read More
Prev : Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (2) Yahoo!'s Strategy
Next : Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (4) Apple's Strategy
- Today in History
Great Changes in Wireless Internet Industry (3) Nokia's Strategy - 2008/03/23
Predictions on China Internet Market (5) Search Engines - 2006/03/26
Media, Community, and Blog (4) Production-Marketing Relations - 2005/03/27
Media, Community, and Blog (3) Deconstruct Blog - 2005/03/20
Stop Internet Marketing (3) All Determination; No Distribution - 2004/03/21
3G Time Comes (3) SMS, Email and MMS - 2003/03/23
A gradual blending of old and new.
[+] Web 2.0 is direct marketing
In the traditional business world, it may not be difficult for start-ups to innovate or produce good products, but it surely takes much more efforts for them to channel products to end-users. Finding a channel may not be very hard, but it would cost you dearly. Capitalist who own channels are tough guys to deal with.
Ten years ago the emergence of the Internet brought some changes for the first time. For Internet start-ups, their products are websites, and their services can reach end users directly. They don't need other channels. This was how the advantage of the capital-intensive newspaper industry, which controlled the distribution channel, gradually dissolved. The Web 1.0 world has taken its place.
This new channel of the Internet has impacted on traditional media, traditional business models and also traditional communications. Generally, in the Web 1.0 era, there are a lot of people with only a small capital starting their businesses. They can do so because they've found a low-cost marketing channel to break the blockade set by traditional capitalists.
Yet after 10 years, some startups, such as Yahoo!, have become new capitalists. They control the distribution channels and suffocate the chances of new Internet startups, which have to buy expensive advertisements from "traditional" channels - Web 1.0 websites - to draw visitors to their websites.
Many years ago in the traditional business world, there was a new channel called direct marketing. It was about bypassing the traditional distribution channel by marketing through social networks. Today with so many tycoons in the Internet, how can we avoid them and do business in a low cost way?
The answer lies in social networks. Web 2.0 startups make ingenious use of social networks or interpersonal relationship to do low-cost marketing. To market through social networks is a very smart strategy. Without this, we won't see significant growth in these new websites' user-base and traffic.
[+] Back to the basics is the key to growth
Many people have the experience of buying products via direct marketing, but they don't have much confidence in it. People who participate in the direct marketing system constantly come and go, making it not very stable. Web 2.0 services attract new users through interpersonal relationship in a similar way. Moreover, a brilliant marketing strategy still cannot solve the inherent problems of products.
The first article of this series talks about two problems of Web 2.0 websites. The first is high user churn rate, and the second is that once users decide to leave, they won't turn to other competitors but will quit all websites/services of similar kind for good.
For a website operator, this has two implications. Firstly, users who leave your competing websites won't go to yours, which means you have to target at first-timers. Think about those users who are still new to the market, and they are the ones your products should be designed for.
Secondly, users will leave sooner or later, so most importantly you should strive to capture heavy users. Only heavy users would migrate among Web 2.0 websites of similar kind or try new websites. An important step for your website to succeed is to seize this group of users.
Once a website can control a certain group of heavy users, it can then start to think about how to either make profits or stay small and survive gracefully, like all successful community websites. However, is there any way to expand the user-base by drawing in less-active users?
My suggestion is, get rid of the strong community atmosphere and cultural ambiance! They are incompatible with things that can meet people's basic needs, such as storage, tools and content.
These things, simply put, are products of Web 1.0.
[+] Next step: storage, tools and content
The founder of Facebook Mark Zuckerbery once said that Facebook is not a social network but a social tool. His words are often interpreted as "Facebook as an operating system or platform," and Facebook's open API implies such possibilities.
His words are impressive because he points out concisely that the key to get big is to serve as a "platform." My understanding of his words is that platforms and tools are things that have little to do with culture. They can be used by anyone and don't require users to change their habits.
You use Gmail to write emails and MSN to send messages very easily. These tools don't have much to do with culture (at least not as much as online community websites.) Operators who have been focused on developing a vibrant online community to retain active users need to think about what are the tools that are not so hot but can be used by all.
Instant messaging (IM), a tool that is highly related to social activities, is one example. For the past ten years, the IM market has been very stable. If a social networking service (SNS) provider with several hundred million users launches a new IM tool, it may have the potential to change the market dynamics.
In addition, people get tired of social activities once in a while. Maybe a user just needs a space to store their photos, documents and bookmarks. S/he doesn't want anyone to know the URL of his/her homepage or to bother her/him with status alerts. Is it possible that a SNS website can provide such functions?
Storage is one of such basic needs. Some active users may be happily busy with various social activities all day long, but there are still more people who need only basic services. What will make a user to keep on visiting a website once s/he gets tired of online social activities? Maybe s/he just needs a space to store pictures.
Active users visit a website because they need the social network there; other users do so simply because this is where they store their stuff.
[+] Web 2.0 evolution is about to complete
The third thing is content. This is easier to understand, and many Web 2.0 websites are doing it. For those who are not keen on social activities, let's give them some content. Using tags to aggregate content is a common method.
So at the end you'll find that Web 2.0 is still about the four pillars of the Internet, which I mentioned years ago: content, community, communication, and commerce.
In Web 1.0, a website operator would start from providing content and then functions of online community, communications and commerce. In Web 2.0, an operator would start from developing communities and then content and communications tools and lastly commerce.
We finally get a clear picture of Web 2.0 in the context of our time. It's about a grand evolution of websites all over the world. The result will not be about replacing old websites with new ones, but a gradual blending of old and new.
Whatever it is in Web x.0, it is all to be used by people. And the humanity of people do not change.
- Read More
Prev : Web 2.0 Finale (2) Websites With a Specific Culture Can't Grow Big
- Today in History
Web 2.0 Finale (3) Finally blended in Web 1.0 - 2008/01/06
The Fourth Generation of Internet Marketing (3) IM Marketing - 2007/01/07
If so, telecom operators would be shut out of the mobile TV market.
[+] The past experience of cell phone manufacturers
From the tide of WAP-based Internet accessing in 2000 to the crazy bid for 3G licenses, and then to the bet on MMS for promoting sales of camera phones and music phones that enable music downloading, and finally to 3G phones with audio/video services, cell phone manufacturers have had thrilling experiences over the years.
The world cell phone market started to show signs of saturation in 2000. To maintain their growth, manufacturers had to motivate consumers to replace their phones with newer products. All of the thrilling experiences in the past 7 years seem to be a quest for what really are the selling points. Fortunately, the result so far has been satisfactory.
In summary, there are a few observations:
1)Mobile Internet is a hard-to-handle concept. The key is consumers tend to compare their expectation for mobile Internet with their PC-based Internet experience, which, in most cases, ends up in disappointment, as cell phones are not so easy to handle as PCs. Mobile Internet has been successful in Japan, only because of the low PC penetration rate there.
2)Telecom operators wish that new cell phones be bound with particular services, so that they could benefit from their sales, instead of being un-paid sales reps of the manufacturers. However, it turns out that consumers buy camera phone only because they can use it to take pictures, and anyone seldom uses MMS service.
3) There's no concern for the shortage of content accessing channels. Despite the hot sale of music phones bound with download service offered by telecom operators, most users choose to transmit music from their computers to cell phones, instead of downloading them from the WAP portal provided by telecom operators. Although it is more troublesome, but it is free.
4)3G audio/video services, including IP-based audio/video streaming and video phone, have not brought satisfactory user experience. It is a very simple concept to allow both parties of a phone call to see each other. However, due to privacy concerns, it has not been able to become a killer application.
[+] Telecom operators might be ignored
With the above experience, cell phone manufacturers finally realized that their business is to make and sell handsets. The simpler their products are the better. There's nothing simpler than the concept of mobile TV.
Consumers no longer have to bother whether the TV programs are downloaded from the Internet, nor cell phone manufacturers to care about whether their phones are bound with particular services offered by telecom operators, so long as they free themselves from the troublesome 3G audio/video experience.
In fact, a hi-tech company in mainland China has developed a sort of chip, which can be built in cell phones to receive traditional analog TV signals. In other words, with such a chip, you will be able to watch wireless channel with your cell phone, regardless of its specification or standard.
The only shortcomings are the mobility and fidelity. As analog TV signals are not intended for mobile environments, the fidelity cannot be compared with that of digital programs of mobile TV. However, it would be good for some people, if the programs are played on small-screen cell phones.
In most cases, however, people watch mobile TV on static environments, e.g., bus or subway stations, or in offices. It explains a fact that cell phone manufacturers will be able to sell their products without binding themselves with telecom operators.
The only thing that those manufacturers have to worry about is where programs would be, once new standard-based mobile TV is launched? Will telecom operators become content aggregators as we discussed in the previous section? If not, they'd better establish connections with content providers right away.
[+] Charging or not, it's a matter about the structure of the industry
The high production costs of movie/TV programs turn out to be a big obstacle for traditional value-added service providers to produce contents themselves. Imaginably, a big part of contents for mobile TV will come from traditional TV stations.
An interesting cooperation mode is that after consumers buy a mobile TV-enabling cell phone, they will get a set of passwords from TV program providers. Upon activation, the cell phone will be bound with the passwords to enable watching programs. The fee is charged each month through the phone bill from telecom operators.
That mode is designed for charging fees. If mobile TV programs are offered for free, and program providers depend on ads for their incomes, the passwords and the additional lines in the phone bills of telecom operators would be unnecessary. If so, telecom operators would be shut out of the mobile TV market.
With regard to the mobile TV services, the only way for telecom operators to gain the favor of cell phone manufacturers is to persuade content providers to charge fees, in which case, they would become the largest content aggregators and channels for charging fees. Otherwise, they would be easily abandoned in the game.
In addition to traditional TV stations, will website operators (e.g. Yahoo! and Google), which are gaining influence in the mobile Internet sector be able to get a share in the market? Those players do not have program-producing ability themselves. However, through audio/video content sharing, they will have some opportunities.
Audio/video content sharing sites, such as YouTube, has a lot of interesting programs. In spite of the low fidelity (as most programs are produced by non-professionals, after all), such programs might be good enough for cell phone-sized screens.
Currently, the mobile TV market is still a virgin land for a lot of players, including telecom operators, cell phone manufacturers, traditional TV media and emerging Internet media. The future will be interesting and full of expectations. Eventually the biggest winner will be consumers. The distribution of audio/video contents will be fast and convenient as never seen before.
- Read More
Prev : Mobile TV Market (2) the Subtle Role of Telecom Operators
- 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
