My Photo

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Blog powered by Typepad

« Double your userbase with two lines of code and a box of Modafinil | Main | Transparent Etiquette: Moderating behavior in a post privacy world »

Comments

The ability to extend a cellphones technical capabilities and concept of creating a market platform of mobile devices will NEVER happen. Why? The cell phone companies don't want it to. They make lots of money as is and they like to control their market.

The big issue is the barrier to entry. Namely, the startup cost and the (artificial) limitation of airwaves.

Exceptions to this are Japans NTT DoCoMo and Apples iPhone.

great summary.

the other basic point is that altho there are hundreds of millions of cellphones out there, the "platform standard" is currently SMS and likely to remain that way for awhile. so while there's a pretty big market, the featureset is a bit limited.

however, there are probably several web-to-sms startups (like Twitter, Textmarks, others) that could be successful using that model. SMS is already built into the carriers ecosystems and isn't a threat.

i would agree the notable exception to the above is the Japanese market / several gaming & character software startups that work within the DoCoMo ecosystem.

- dave mcclure
http://500hats.typepad.com/

(ps - nice blog... 2nd time in less than a week i've referred to some really interesting material. keep up the good work :)

This post misses some obvious truths about the wireless industry

Myths:

1. Cell phone companies do not want new features in cell phones. Are that dense SIR? Gee who supplies all the network/hardweare infrastructure for Mobile Operators? Could it be the Handset makers who are pushing new features all the time? Whooops..

2. Mobile Social apps do not make it..tell that to the entire Korean and Japan i-mode ventures where social apps in fact drive their profits.


Get some wireless industry knowledge and facts before you mouth off SIR!

I know of three companies in my country that make money with mobile software: one of them is in the micro-payments sector, another one sells messaging/workflow applications that integrate with office application, the third has a "vehicle fleet" (sorry, don't know how it's said in English) control system. All three are very profitable and my country isn't as big as USA.

http://qpass.com

here's a startup making money.

I posted some remarks of my own regarding how cell phone applications might be built to be successful:

http://journal.dedasys.com/articles/2007/05/03/cell-phone-software-the-right-path

@Frted Grott: I think if you look at i-Mode, you'll see that a lot of the factors mentioned aren't present. I've never actually used the service, so my knowledge of Japanese mobile wireless comes mainly from "Smart Mobs" by Howard Rheingold and "Personal, Portable, Pedestrian" by Mizuko Ito.

While I agree that the current iteration of cell-phone applications are doomed for failure, we must look a little further and see what is on the horizon. There are some very compelling mobile business models which are making their way to market. These applications will go far beyond simple, awkward, social networking and, instead, will interact with your lifestyle on your terms.

http://journal.dedasys.com/articles/2007/05/03/cell-phone-software-the-right-path

1)You can develop software with compatibility in mind http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20031217/tammenkoski_pfv.htm
You also have nice tools to help you http://mobilecrunch.com/2006/12/04/mobile-complete-virtual-handsets-for-real-world-developers-a-mobilecrunch-exclusive
Java games developers have been able to run their game on a wide range of phones for a while. Yes it is a a hurdle but nothing you can't overcome.

2,3,4)Downloading apps through datacable/bluetooth with a PC CAN be a big pain in the ass, but it's not neceserally so (it depends on brand/phone/carrier).
If that's too hard you can download the application simply by going on a website, providing your number and getting an SMS with the link to download the application.
Alternatively you can point the phone's wap browser to a given url. See opera mini for example http://www.operamini.com/download/ . How easier could it get?

5)When you use your phone to make a call you expect your battery to be used, when you play music with your phone you expect your battery to be used. When you use a software that use the network you expect the battery to be used. Blackberries last much more than two hours.

8)Phone network provides you with an always available network while WiFi requires a bit of work/luck to get an internet connection working.
Wifi and mobile networks are two two different things which have their own use. Plus I don't see how a change of internet connection technology would make a product obsolete.

9, 10)Those arguments don't make sense :/

11)girls carry their cell phones as much as men, I don't see your point.

The real problem is how do I get users to pay me?
If you target companies it's not a problem but if you target people it's harder. Different markets work differently. I'm not into the business side of it so I can't talk about it much

Mobile phone is an amazing platform and it allows you to make really innovative applications. There certainly are a lot of opportunities to make kick ass applications

Re: 11) on your list - wtf are you talking about? Were you trying to make an actual point or were you just stretching for a cheap vibrator joke?

@weezy: For a lot of these social networking apps, women won't use them unless there is a vibrate mode. For example, lets say you have software that connects people with similar interests for the purposes of dating, a la Lovegetty in Japan. If the guy in question seems sketchy, the woman wants the ability to ignore the match and pretend it doesn't exist.

C.f. http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/1998/06/12899

I pay $6.75 a month for Airset on my phone. The UI is awesome, the service is totally essential for me.

$6.75/mo is evidence of a pretty damn good business plan if you ask me. Oh, and I've had it on both a Motorola and an LG phone - both worked easy and flawlessly. Downloaded the software through Verizon's "get it now", which, contrary to this post, seems to indicate that carriers are partnering with app developers to get apps to users.

According to Paul Graham's Hacker's Guide to Investors, VCs look for bigger risks because that's where the biggest rewards are.

All your article has said is that the challenges are so enormous that only the most brilliant company can succeed . This is exactly the company that VCs should be looking for.

(Writer Bias Warning: Employee at a Mobile Start-Up)

re: "How many successes can you name?"

You just named one in point 1 - Loopt.

2 - 4. You don't need blue tooth or a cable to load software. Slifter, our mobile local product search app can be installed just by pointing your wireless web to our URL. Or it works via WAP. Oh, and like most apps it is often found in your "Games" or "Apps" folder.

5. Your phone pings towers all the time. That is how it finds signal or uses e911. That is a non-issue with most apps even LBS ones.

6. - 7. See Loopt, MobiTV, etc.

8. Why? Because then you can get faster data access? You still need a compelling mobile product that is useful for consumers on-the-go. Faster access to your app doesn't eliminate a business model no more then faster web access kills web sites with useful content/info.

9. - 10. Uhm, like how when I am surfing the web to another person it may look like I am typing a document? Try the Slifter send-to-friend function when you find a product you like.

But most incorrect is:

11. My Nokia Navigator, Moto Rizr, Blackberry Pearl, and all fit in my jeans and I am a big fan of skinny (read: tight) jeans.

Interest POV but I sense the faint odor of sour grapes. ;-)

The technology is broken? A bit. We are not talking about merely how one formats bits streaming down a wire/fiber. RF technologies are varied and evolving. It is the competition in this space that is both a strength and weakness. Yes, it leads to "broken" implementations but, as you know or sense, this is from the desire to make money and to that end create business models that do so. The manufacturers and operators devolved into a deadly embrace scenario that is difficult to evolve out of.

Enter disruptive technology. It is with the introduction of new, disruptive modes of data transport that this broken carrier model will be gradually corrected. So as much as I dislike the carrier games of demanding crippleware, I can see their end in sight. (Even the smart guys within the operators see the same thing but the management is sticking its corporate fingers in its ears and shouting "La La La. I don't hear you!") In the end it is your second point (broken business model) that manifests itself as broken technology. Don't confuse the two as broken technology is much harder to "fix".

That minor point aside, what really caused me to post is your view of the software. Perhaps due to my age and having seen this many times before, I can also see the age of proprietary, locked-down, and difficult to update mobile device software is also giving way to new (read old) paradigms.

BTW, it isn't that Nokia CAN'T get packages such as Sensor on all/most/more of its products, that is due to the different requirements of each (phone) program. If a feature that pops up in one program develops a following this will cause the feature to spread. There are software impediments to spread (such as jumping the S60/S40 barrier and release targeting) but these *always* crumble to market pressure. Nokia is a company driven by the numbers and the end user adoption (or lack thereof) is the key to seeing a technology propagate across the segments.

The future...

Alternative connectivity will drive the repair of broken business models. (When the metro user can get an all-you-can-eat WiMax plan for $20/month the resulting revenue impact on operators will bring about significant change.)

Hardware advances (and to some degree standardization through virtualization models) will lead to adoption of platform models in the mobile software space. (The demise of AppForge is a temporary setback but no more than a "March pullback" for this space. If Oracle were really smart they'd pick up ALL of the technology including existing user support.) These platforms will be open (Linux) or semi-open (oops...can't say) and will allow that multi-billion-euro market in mobile tech to really take off. Hint: It isn't going to be 2008.

All in all though...I like your thinking. You just need more data to work with and I think you'll see some bright spots for exploitation...er...investment. ;-)

Foolishness and lack of vision

The sky is falling !!!

Alex makes a good point that right now mobile sucks. I've been developing mobile apps since the late 90's and the big thing that will kick mobile apps into the mainstream is always just around the corner. I stil havent given up, mobile has such great potential that we can't give up on it. Just be realistic. There won't be a big billion dollar company in mobile for another 10 years or so. I'm sure that big company will come out of Bangladesh or Kenya or any of the other countries where there is no good PC/landline infrastructure and where mobile is alread making disruptive changes.

Yes I agree totally with this post. I'm a software developer and no one I know downloads software to their phone - they wouldn't know where to start! I've tried in the past and its always been a right pain - enough to give up.
What about this news I heard the other day - ebuddy built 60 different versions of their Java IM client to be compatible with 250 different phones - that's just nuts.

Do not agree: http://www.openmoko.com/press/index.html

Alex...

I'm not particularly fond of the technology, and I do believe there is _WAY_ too much "potentiality" talk going on right now. But as much as I might be sympathetic to the your tone... Frankly, you has absolutely ZERO understanding of the industry, or the challenges we face.

1) There are hundreds of different phone models. Your software needs to run on all of them. How hard is this?

Not particularly hard, if you follow properly apply good software engineering practices (good device layer abstraction, scaling feature-sets, etc).

1a) Modifying the software for each phone's display is a matter of brute-force labor. There's no intellectual way around it.

There are no more than a 20 current mobile screen resolutions, and for those, most mobile developers only require 3-6 builds of any given application. Hell, given that most browser windows are infinitely re-sizable, we actually have life pretty good compared to other client guys. Hell, even if you take the brute force approach... as Gameloft, Hands-on and EA know, hacking handset-specific versions of a game is a trivial process very easily (and cheaply) done by many very willing lemmings overseas... Handset screen size is a non-issue.

No army of PhD's needed... hell, all you need is a single, decent engineer, a week or so, and good programming discipline. Its not that hard.

2) The carriers partially disable Bluetooth functionality to prevent customers from downloading their own ringtones. This also means all those good features you came up with in the last brainstorming session aren't going to work.

So many problems with this statement I don't know where to start.

A- _US_ carriers...
B- who gives a shit about Bluetooth? It's a fairly worthless technology to begin with.

There _ARE_ some tremendously aggravating software development road-blocks to mobile development that make my life hell on a day to day basis... but you obviously have no idea what any of those are... (BREW, for example).

3) In order to load software, you need to buy the optional cable. No one owns the optional cable. Even if you gave your customers the optional cable for free, it only works with windows. Your early adopters use Macs.

!?!?!
The ignorance of this statement is... astounding.
Only two US carriers have EVER even used cable-loading phones(Verizon and Nextel)... Both of those carriers went/do go to _EXTREME_ lengths to make sure that cable-loading capability is restricted to developer phones early (Verizon requires a downloaded enabled phone, and all cable-loaded apps expire after 30 days, Nextel, for the longest time, required a physical, parallel port HARD_KEY to run their cable load software, and even then enthusiasts cracked the system with little effort).

Google and Opera-Mini have both have (relatively, by mobile standards) Massive download and install numbers, and they exist entirely off deck... OTA loading has been the de-facto standard now for almost a decade...

This statement is pure, utter, and complete ignorance.

4) You don't know how to install software on your own phone, so why would you expect your customers to know how to do it?

Given that you fail to mention anything about the predominant form of mobile software distribution, its clear that _YOU_ don't know how to install software on his phone... But that doesn't mean that I don't. Nor does it mean that its any harder than installing software on your computer.

Fuck... my 17 year old Brother in law knows more about downloading and using software on his phone than I do, and he doesn't even know how to work a computer. You'd be fucking _AMAZED_ at the extent to which the current HS generation has embraced mobile tech... They make me feel like a fucking grandpa.

5) Any software that pings the cell tower will quickly drain the battery. Pinging the tower every five minutes completely drains the batter in two hours. So much for making calls.

Even when you have a point, you're still completely wrong. Pinging the tower doesn't drain battery... hell, the phone needs to do that 2-3 times per minute anyways.

Now... driving the processor hard (such as game rendering logic, or using GPS, or doing most 'useful' things) DOES wear out the battery... No more than a phone call, but it does... While the user is actively engaging the software, this is to be expected and not a big deal. Otherwise, be conservative with your cycle use when your suspended (for phones that support suspended MIDlet activity, which not all do... one of the _real_ engineering hurdles with mobile engineering) and you won't have a problem.

6) Cell phone carriers will never partner with you. At least not on terms that allow you to make a profit.

Tell that to MobiTV... TeleNav... Google... Infospace... And those are just _US_ carriers... you know - there's a whole other world of mobile consumers out there... a much larger world than just the Big-Four American Carriers (Cingular, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint). Yes the Carriers suck... but that doesn't mean their not greedy. Fuck, they're so desperate to get their average subscriber revenue up right now, show them a way they can sell more data and they'll be thrilled.

7) Even if one carrier partners with you, the rest won't.

Any of the big four American carriers (not to mention any of the worlds 'real' carriers) could make you and all of your friends quite wealthy with their subscriber numbers alone. Granted... don't put all your eggs in one basket (Infospace just learned that lesson)... but still, all you need is one major carrier to live it large.

8) The next generation of WiFi will make your product obsolete in two years anyway.

Again... I don't know where to start.
a) Technology doesn't matter... sub numbers do. Until the next generation of WiFi hits market and is in at least a million hands, its really not worth our time.
b) When it does come, when WiMax technology does become the standard, it's still irrellevant, because you still need to have experience developing and selling on a small-screen, input constrained platform... Who do you think is going to be first to utilize this new tech? We all know that the Mobile market right now isn't worth shit. We don't care. We're all jockeying to be the company 'in the right place at the right time' when the technology catches up.

9) Let's say that against all odds you get a few early adopters. To everyone else it will look like they are just sending text messages. Unlike the iPod, your software is invisible. Invisible software isn't viral.

"Hang on a sec, I'm going to pop Google Maps up on my phone to check the Traffic... nah, we should avoid 101 and take the 280 into town"
"Coooool".

Happens all the time.

10) You also can't flaunt what you can't see. So much for your idea of your product being a status symbol.

Because, you know, its so hard to hand a phone to someone else to check out that hot naked chick too.

11) Cell phones don't fit into girl's pants. Remember how the women you asked said they would only use your software if it had a vibrate mode? Oops.

What the fuck does getting a phone into a girls pants have to do with anything? All the mobile industry wants is to make you think when your drunk and horny, we might be able to help YOU get into a girls pants... the rest is just gravy.

I _DO NOT_ mean to say that all is gravy int he mobile world... its a pain in the fucking ass, and there are a lot of promises right now that are going to keep un-kept.

Mobile is doing the dot-com thing right now... Lots of irrational exhuberance... tons of money getting spent on impractical schemes... you know what? its a necessary stage in the development of any new platform.

But for crying out loud... I don't know what your background is, but before you decide to flame an entire industry, at least try and learn _the basics_ about it.

Uh, you WORK with the cell companies, get the 3rd party testing done, and now you're on the rack. At which point users download your app off of the cell companies' systems. So BlueTooth doesn't matter. Neither does a stupid cable that no one uses. Ever use Verizon. Over a hundred apps for me to download to my not-exactly-modern phone.

The point on platform variance between manufacturers, or even different models from the same manufacturers, makes a lot of sense. Beyond that I think you go a little off base...

Re #2 - Ever heard of bluecasting? It's made quite an impact in the UK and was part of Coldplay's last album release. Terminals at various popular tube stations fed songs to users' phones. It's still slow to catch on in the US, but we're always years behind.

Re #3 - Most smartphones I've seen these days use mini-USB which is a universal standard. Even the super popular Razr uses that cable. As for cheapo phones, how do they get games and other content? Wirelessly.

And no, 'early adopter' isn't synonymous with 'Mac user'. In fact, beyond the iPod most of the Mac loving creatives at my agency are far behind us supposedly ancient PC users. Think IT guys, media strategists, developers, etc...all on PC, and all far more likely to be early adopters.

Re #5 - My phone checks for emails on three separate accounts, then downloads those emails, multiple times an hour. It can go nearly two days before needing a charge. Blackberry's and other smartphones do this regularly. Having my QVGA screen on is by far the biggest power-drain, and I can still get 5+ hours on it (and many long internet sessions can attest to that).

Re #6-8 - For most smartphones they don't need to partner with the networks, those devices are open to whatever you like (i.e. Palm, Windows Mobile, Symbian, Blackberry). See Handango.com. For generic phones this may be an issue, but many with generic phones are happy with campy ringtones and SMS.

Re #9-10 - To think that the classic viral, community driven 'Web 2.0' path to success is the *only* path to success is quite naive...

Re #11 - WTF? This is incredibly sexist. And even when a phone can fit in the pockets, I don't think vibrating one's hip would have the effect you're suggesting...

And FYI - with designer jeans women don't keep *anything* in their pant pockets. That's what handbags are for.

see this http://photo2text.com/

Its different in Europe - the carriers don't place anything like the restrictions on handsets you see in the USA. Java is pretty universal now, and there are some ingenious uses for it which blur the lines between traditional on board and user-installed apps. For example, ultra low cost SMS (http://www.hotxt.com) and webcam monitoring on your handset (http://www.phonewebcam.com).

Also, if you think battery life is a problem now wait till we all start watching TV on them!

I was going to post, but then ESC said it all for me very nicely. At the very highest level, this post has a point, but that just goes to show you can have the write opinion for totally the wrong reasons.

And #11 - this is very definitely not true. I have first hand experience of girls who are able to get mobile phone software with vibrate features into their pants. The trick is getting the damn things back before the battery runs out ;)

> 1) There are hundreds of different phone models

Which have things in common: http://svg.org/special/svg_phones


btw, Opera rules

I read your blog on my archaic phone, Nokia 3100 in Google RSS reader for mobiles. GPRS network is full accessible in Poland, the poorest country of EU. My company is using mobile devices with GPRS and GPS for telemetry in fleet of more than 10 000 cars in East Europe and we are developing digital maps services for cellphones. The most popular instant messaging application in Poland, GaduGadu was ported for MIDP 2.0 devices and it's advertised on webs of all main GSM carriers. Europe, Japan and Korea are more mobile-friedly than USA and this maybe reason for failure of phone applications business in USA.

My list of points why this market is successful, and will get better sooner: (not reflective of above numbers)
1.) Developers are already educated on common platform -

Look into Java ME addition. It's designed for mobi app development.

2.) Payment options -

Look REALLY close at Java ME enviornment, you will see "Demo mode", for disabling app at key points or on a timer, "Payment Method", so people can enjoy your app, then BUILT RIGHT INTO SOFTWARE buy app and have it dumped right on their bill!

3.) Market Share -

There are over 400 phones on market right now that support java (just look at the screen when you turn phone on!)

4.) 5-Digit number SMS links -

True, in America these services are utter crap (barrier to entry, price points). Though, you don't have to own the service! You just have to convince one of the companies that your killer app will make them money. Take your pick a) flat fee for selling them licences rights to software b) Per download royalty fee c) mix of a and b

Consider this: 250,000 downloads of your app at .10 USD cents for each download (royalty): USD $25,000 profit! Don't get me started on high download bonuses and selling rights one time payments.

Rob's Final Thoughts: Either a) your methods of getting into this sector suck, and you don't know what your talking about b) you found a lucritive sector and your trying your best at FUD to push other indy developers away or c) Someone in sector screwed you and your wanting to rant to us about it.

@The social aspects are more awkward than a middle school dance
That's one of the biggest problems.

Once Wareen Buffet said that if early investors into aviation would knew what financial disaster it would become, they would put brothers Wright before firing squad. Buffet claimed that two industries, aviation and car making, had never made profit. Still both industries are part of our life. The same goes for mobile.

Wow, I've never heard so much ignorant tripe in all my life.

Lets take it point by point, shall we?

1) Nokia put their software on handsets that it's strategic for them to put it on. Some phones are for business, others are for pleasure. They have no problem writing an app that targets a whole range of phones.

2) By "carriers" what you mean is "US carriers." Just because your part of the world has a warped outlook, try not to tar the rest of the world with a broad brush. My bluetooth works fine, thanks.

3) By "no one" of course you mean "everyone", because it comes in the box. No one uses the cable anyway because their phone has bluetooth.

4) Installing software is easy. You click on it, and it installs.

5) It doesn't "ping the cell tower." The information is broadcast. It costs nothing to gather it passively because the telephony processor is doing it ALL THE TIME. Stop trying to look like you know what you're talking about.

6) And yet they partner with hundreds of companies every year... one wonders how any of them survive.

7) In fact, the exact opposite. Once you've snared one operator, you're hot property.

8) Typical US delusional thinking. OMGZ! WiMax is teh coming. It'll be teh free! Lets handwave over all the problems that GSM solved two decades ago and WiMax doesn't even address. Also, carriers love investing in yet another set of ridiculously expensive infrastructure when they're still paying for the last lot.

9) In Europe, we're proud of our phones. We put them on the table when we eat. We show them off to our friends. The whole world isn't like your little backwater.

10) Ever heard of people recommending software to their friends? Nah, that never happens does it? Ignore skype! Ignore every instant messenger service ever!

11) Wow. Just. Wow.

Some points are interesting but some are not. Your point about coming up with software that targets all cell phones is available. No big deal for PayCash Mobile.

>Cell phone carriers will never partner with you.
Well that is happening all of the time. Each software vendor that has a special niche is breaking off to find one. Today's announcement: Cellular South, Obopay Launch Mobile Payment Service.
Now whether it's a profit, well that is to be determined.

Note that Obopay heads for the BREW subscriptions.

Drop by and get your self a free account at PayCash Mobile. Kick the tires and let us know what you think.

https://consumers.paycash.us

Regards Al

This is a great discussion.

We sell SDKs/APIs to mobile developers, so we deal with people building applications across all sectors in several countries (both server and client side). There is no doubt that, compared to the world market, the US (which is our strongest market) is the most restricted and backward - 3 different networks with little to no adherence to published standards (with the exception of Cingular and T-Mobile and even then there are customizations that are not found anywhere else in the world). Spend one day in Japan with even their lowest-end cellphone and you'll see exactly how far behind the US is.

I don't think that any developer can truly defend mobile development compared to traditional platforms (web, PC, Mac) - multiple network protocols, multiple protocols which staggered implementation, multiple handsets (read: multiple browsers) - it's a total mess. However there are many great applications available which are easy to purchase, install and use. Verizon, for all it's annoying restrictions and proprietary mechanisms, seems to have it somewhat right with Get It Now.

Dealing with an operator is hard in any country, some more than others but I can tell you for a fact that of the thousands of companies trying to get their application on deck or even approved, a very small percentage make it through to the end.

The underlying technology isn't broken - it's the carriers who are making things harder than they need to be.

this article makes what JAMDAT, Floodgate and Gameloft, among many others, has accomplished all the more impressive.

Very Good Article!

Can I translate it to Chinese and put on my blog?

@Loki II: Sure, go for it.

... but mobiles can generally access the web out of the box, so web-software designed for mobiles. That takes care of 1 - 8.

myspace didn't grow because of the "flaunt factor" or the "status symbol", as with many successful startups. That takes care of 9 - 10.

11: Bad joke?

In South Africa there is a startup called MXIT http://www.mxit.co.za , which is basically IM on a cellphone. They manage to support most handsets with J2ME, and they're a huge success, mostly because it costs 85c for an SMS and 2c for a longer message on MXIT.

Hi~ I make it done.
I translate your great article to Chinese, plz take a reference at

行動軟體市場:一個造價億萬元的陷阱.

http://augmented-reality.blogspot.com/2007/05/blog-post.html

Badly researched dross.

Hi Alex.

I agree with some of your points, and I often make similar points when arguing against certain types of mobile development. I know how hard it is to make something that installs on enough devices to be worth making (and I designed the Yahoo apps that you mentioned -- thanks for the props).

However, there is a way to get around nearly all of your points. Develop using the mobile web and SMS through an aggregator. It works on nearly any device in nearly any country, and there is a clear path to $$ through advertising, SMS rev shares, and carrier deals once you have a big user base.

Also, I disagree with points 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10. And I have no idea what 11 means.

better to use

I do agree where you said that network operators locked the bluetooth feature in many handsets so that user can not download wallpapers, ringtnes and applications of his taste. But its not true with every operator... I have Nokia N73 from Voda Phone and frequently buys applications from youpark.com, nclubsoft.co and install through bluetooth option... so my handset's bletooth works...

luck pluck and virtue....well put. I laughed at #11 too

I find this hard to believe. Lets look at the company CellSpin:

Cellspin allows their users to send their mobile audio/text/images/video to many popular websites such as Ebay, Facebook, Myspace, Blogger, MSN LiveSpaces. They support over 300 phones with their free software. It is the easiest and simplest to use mobile blogging software on the market. This amazing mobile blogging solution shows that your points: 1,3,4 are not valid.

Loni
A proud CellSpin user

Ofcourse there wouldnt be billion dollar mobile corporate for many years now. Countries where infrastructure for telecom is not good, they stand a chance there.

Yer, in the UK we are not nearly as restricted as you guys are regarding hadsets being locked to a single provider!

I have never seen a UK mobile with its bluetooth being partially disabled to stop ringtone transfer either... Jeez! It seems like over the water you guys have it tough!!!!

Well,as for now we can say that cellular industry is more popular.


-Ava

> The carriers partially disable Bluetooth functionality ...

Interesting! I had been wondering why the most useful Bluetooth profiles are never implemented. I had a Nokia which let me push pictures to my computer for free, at least, but it died within a month, and the LG that replaced it doesn't have the capability :-(

I hear the very latest bitpim can work if I claim it's some other model of phone, but I can't decide whether I should spend the effort to set it up, or just haul the Nikon around with me.

I have been getting a lot of useful and informative material in your website.

It becomes an seriously useful presentation that provides good examples of the best way to participate folks in carrying out here is the strategy. I ran across this extremely insightful. Congratulations as well as several thanks.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)