|
My
ex-colleague David Bye writes from Singapore...
David,
As
someone who has developed and implemented a WAP WML solution I feel
Ive got some creditibility in commenting.
I
think youve been in Texas too long !!!!!
Have
you any experience in how the WAP solution works ? I just dont see
how standardising on XML by content providers is likely to solve
some of the current issues with implementation.
There
are two key reasons why content aggregators have to do the WML
presentation and not the content providers. The first is a sound
business reason - Branding. The second is a Usability reason -
Consistency. Both reasons are mutually dependent.
Youve
made a leap that its the aggregators who want to brand and not the
content providers. This would be a significant change to the current
business models being operated today - and generally not desired
by the content provider.
You
are right on the consistency, but thats like saying we should operate
the internet through portals - and luckily the world is already
moving on from that bit of castrated thought.
Not
to mention the security exposure that's opened up by such an implementation
(geez imagine if yahoo could see your banking password and account
information....Im afraid, based on the WAP specs, youre suggestion
would lead to this ???) In fact the secuirty hole is so big that
a number of content providers are already looking to have their
own "WAP Sever" directly accessible.
Its
also unlcear how in the suggested model you deal with unsolicited
pushing of information from the content provider ?
I
guess the Oracle Panama product is what you see the world heading
to...where the content providers send to Oracle and Oracle is responsible
for the channel management. I saw this working prior to GA - since
they wanted my firm to use it for their WAP service - the demo highlights
the business limitations and chaos this model implements.
Regards,
David
Hi
David,
Nice
to hear from you. How is Singapore? I see from your note that the
bank got the WAP Banking solution up-and-running.
You
raise several interesting points. I will try to address some of
them.
Yes.
I am suggesting that Wireless Carriers want to be Content Aggregators
and they do want to brand. They want to "own" the customer.
This is certainly true in the North American market. The Carriers
have a vision of WAP phones being sold where the user has a single
bookmwark to the portal and that is all. Everything is sourced through
the carrier portal site.
There
are now several WAP Server and Portal products on the market which
carriers can buy, configure and use to provide such services.
Doubtless
there will still be original content where the brand "shines"
through the translucent layer provided in the Carrier portal. This
is known as "Home Deck Deal" where the Content Providers
pays to get a placement on the Home Deck of the Carrier Portal.
Perhaps,
you are seeing a different business model in Asia but I am calling
it as I see it in the US market.
You
raise a good point about security. I confess that I really know
little on this topic. However, my guess is that you can find a method
of implementing which doesn't involve passing the bank account number
and PIN around as http parameters. My Web MVC model described in
the White Papers at this site might be one architectural approach
to take toward a solution of this problem.
As
for unsolicited "pushing" of material from the Content
Provider, well the Carriers don't want them doing that. The Carrier
wants to control that and charge for it. They want to be taking
the advertising revenue.
What
we are watching is an emerging power struggle. Talk at the recent
CTIA show in New Orleans was centered around whether traditional
portals such as Yahoo have a future. Many Carriers think not. The
bigger ones are playing for the prize of replacing Yahoo as the
main internet portal for this decade.
It
will be very interesting to see how things work out. Meanwhile,
I believe that while big business engages in a power struggle the
consumer will lose as usability suffers.
David
|
