Asterisk, Digium, GPLV3 and New Secret Appliance AA250
June 30th, 2007Oh, OK, my pre-iPhone opinion too….
June 29th, 2007Seeing as every other mobile analyst & blogger has been pontificating about the iPhone, I might as well add my opinion as well.
1) Yes, it’s very cool
2) Apple seems to have done a great job getting AT&T to agree to its own private activation & application strategy
3) Apple fans will love obviously it
4) Fashionistas will love it for about 3.5 weeks and then move onto the next shiny thing
5) Nearly everyone who buys one will probably use a second device, probably a “boringphone”
6) The US mobile market may be galvanised by Apple’s “game-changing” approach
7) SMS will be a pain with the touchscreen
Success in Europe & Asia is dependent on iPhone v2 and v3
9) If it launches in current form in Europe, it stacks up badly feature-for-feature against its high-end peers (camera, no 3G or GPS etc)
10) Distribution in Europe is still up for grabs. Voda might make sense, given it’s professed desire for better PC/mobile integration - the iPhone looks classleading in that respect
11) It damn expensive, especially on a 2-year (!) contract
12) OK OK OK I was wrong when I guess that Apple wouldn’t put music in it. I’d thought they’d want to sell you a phone AND an musicplayer, but they’ve succumbed to the convergence hype…. (wrong move Steve - the future’s about lots of devices & multiplicity)
Bottom line: I’d say it’ll be a winner in the US, do OK in Europe - but that I’m waiting for Apple’s 2nd move to see if it’s actually got a real strategy rather than just a pretty product.
And me? I wouldn’t swap my main, personal, SonyEricsson K800i for an iPhone as I like the 3MP camera with a flash, and the ultra-quick UI. But I would use it as my 2nd/3rd/phone if it offered a better email/Internet experience (and maybe ‘content’ although personally I think video isn’t of use to me)
gridtech: Google Desktop now runs on Linux!
June 29th, 2007OMTP handset VoIP settings requirements - pretty sensible
June 29th, 2007The OMTP have issued their requirements document for VoIP settings on subsidised mobile phones. I talked through it the other day with them - in general, it seems to make a good amount of sense.
In general, I have sympathy with the notion that if a phone is subsidised, then within reason the company offering the subsidy has some authority to tell the user how they can use it. In a truly competitive market, the user should be able to choose between various subsidised-but restricted combinations, or standalone unsubsidised-but-flexible ones.
The general thrust of the OMTP’s recommendations is around those phones which are (a) subsidised, and (b) come with a pre-installed ‘native’ VoIP client.
Basically, if the phone comes with native VoIP, it should be able to have the operator’s own VoIP service settings installed and ‘locked’. It should also be unlockable after the contract expires, and critically, it should also be possible to load in 3rd party VoIP clients & settings, as long as they work alongside the operator’s.
At present, 3rd-party VoIP vendors have 2 main options:
- Use the native VoIP app (which is usually well-integrated with phonebook, messaging etc) and use it with new settings and a new “upper layer” (eg Truphone)
- Ignore the native VoIP app and do everything from scratch (eg Fring)
With OMTP’s stipulations, Option 1 becomes more difficult for a subsidised phone in-contract. That said, there’s nothing to stop the handset vendor pre-loading two identical VoIP clients, or having one added on a memory card or downloadable when connected to a PC. Then VoIP#1 can have operator settings locked, but VoIP#2 could be open to all.
Other good stuff in the document:
- Basically, the settings-lock is similar to SIM-locking. It’s intended to combat the risk of 100 operators locking phones in 100 different ways. Instead the idea is that they’re all locked in a consistent fashion - which helps everyone. With this, there’s absolutely no question of locking down the SIP stack outright, for instance.
- An enterprise should (in theory) be able to install its own VoIP applications and have them locked - essentially acting like an operator. So if Acme Inc goes out and installs dual-mode VoWLAN clients from Cisco, Avaya, Divitas or whoever, then John the Salesman shouldn’t be able to muck around with the settings if he wants to play around with Skype or whatever on his company phone. Mind you, exactly how this is done is another matter - I was with Cisco’s VoIP guys yesterday, and nobody had bothered to tell them that this type of option was going to be enabled, or how it might be achieved….
Apple iPhone Day
June 29th, 2007Today is the day Apple iPhone launches. Thousands queue up to buy. Ok, if you have enough market power, this is how you launch new products - be it the new Harry Potter or a gadget. You simply need the 5% idiots who want everything immediately and for any price to finance the remaining 95%.
The Apple iPhone is really looking nice, but will it succeed?
Michael Robertson from Gizmo and Sipphone has an interesting comparison of the 1-button Apple iPhone and the 51-button Nokia E61: Battle of the Buttons. Since I also have a Nokia E61, this is very interesting for me.
In most points the E61 is better, and I agree what he is saying about the major flaw of the E61: configuring and accessing a WiFi-hotspot is a pain … but if you have done it, it is fine.
And I also fully agree with his conclusion:
“…If your software needs are exactly what Steve Jobs and AT&T dictate and if you don’t mind AT&T’s hand in your wallet, then fine.”
We will see how this works in Europe.
SHDSL — Why Hasn’t It Replaced SDSL?
June 29th, 2007Are you frustrated by the pace of connectivity improvements? For how many years has (small) business been stuck with SDSL for affordable connectivity?
SHDSL was supposed to supplant SDSL as of 2003 (or so) I thought, but I never see advertised speeds go beyond a 1.5 Mbps SDSL line… SHDSL goes to 2.3 Mbps and has other advantages over SDSL (longer loop lengths for given speeds, less interference with other data lines, 4-wire mode). I’m not that well educated on the topic, but I also had the impression there could be some cost savings.
Today T1’s are often delivered using this technology, but why not offer SHDSL from the customer to DSLAM like a normal dedicated DSL line…. and give customers the speed they want, distance depending???
Are ISPs just not ready to upgrade their DSLAM equipment, or don’t want to cannibalize their higher priced bonded T1 services?
You may not need the SLA of a real T1, but you’d sure love 2.3 Mbps up and down for let’s say $150/mo or so.
First…. you have to look at who is selling SDSL. Basically Covad and a few small CLECs. They bought non-standards-based SDSL long ago and they are still using the equipment.
Given the financial state of Covad I can see why they aren’t going around ripping out all their DSLAMs.
There may be some hope though, with the new Earthlink money they are upgrading DSLAMs to support LPV and ADSL2 in larger markets. I *think* that the new DSLAMs will also be offering new SDSL speeds as well, which probably means SHDSL (and finally the ability to hook a real router up to an SDSL line).
Most DS-1s today are delivered using either HDSL or HDSL2 on 1 or 2 pairs.
Your ILECs aren’t going to upgrade equipment necessarily because of the availability of a different technology. Even with existing technology many consumers and businesses are in a fight just to be able to get ADSL services.
Covad, XO, etc. that are selling SDSL services already may not upgrade given their investment in existing equipment…. and given the state of competition now for internet services.
With the price of service dropping to $12.99/mo and the uptake of those discounted services increasing, I wouldn’t want to be one of the other players and be making large capital expenditures for upgrades right now. I’d be worried about staying in business. People are price driven…..
Just my opinion though, take it for what it’s worth.
No comments:
Post a Comment