Whatnot - Your underlying premise seems to indicate that ANY technology that successfully comes to market must do so in the same manner as recent cellular technologies (TDMA, CDMA, GSM). There are a number of wireless technologies that each have benefited (or failed) based not upon technology, but upon overall business efficacy.
Globalstar, a exciting application of CDMA technology, failed miserably because it tried to utilize the same sales channels as pre-existing terrestrial cellular (cellular carriers may have even seen G* as a competitor and hastened its demise through non-performance despite acting as agents to sell G* service). Additionally, there may have been limited demand for a new service introduced based upon a 'price skimming' strategy (new products and services are typically offered based on a 'market penetration' strategy with low introductory pricing).
OmniTracs, one of the original applications of CDMA technology, came to market as separate 'hubs' each operated and managed as a separate, end-to-end business solution. Omni continues to successfully dominate this niche of the wireless market due to its effective, comprehensive business model. In the early days, Omni lost money and was it not for the original partnership with Schnieder Trucking, the bugs would have never been worked out and a successful business model, never built. Sometimes, Irwin used to have to make payroll out of his personal check book (no lie). With the exception of leasing terrestrial networks for some applications, Omni does no business with current cellular carriers and comes to market very, very differently.
Cricket, another innovative application of CDMA technology, came to market providing "all-you-can-use voice and data service", but failed to achieve economies of scale necessary to pay for their brick and mortar operational overhead. The idea was to compete with existing cellular industry business models in order to speed the adoption of CDMA. However, larger market forces (the barriers to entry in the cellular business--can you say spectrum auctions?) may have seen the early demise of LEAP Wireless. Gotta re-define the business model if you want to play in this arena.
WiFi, offering improved data rates, has been widely endorsed by information technology industry heavy weights (INTC, MSFT, IBM) and has begun appearing in all of the most economically advantageous environments (corporate IT, universities, 'hotspots'). It has started to become something that is offered by the more desirable wireless service providers 'for free' as an added incentive to choose their service or brand. Offering WiFi for free is the epitome of a market penetration strategy. As the 'bugs' get worked out of the technology and the business models, more salient products and services will continue to be created as people like to have reliable, high speed unlimited, low cost access to the Internet. Further, continued development of 'real-time' applications may require higher data rates. By being an 'open standard' it may allow WiFi to more closely achieve Irwin Jacob's vision that was held for CDMA (a closed, highly litigious standard) to 'build the wireless world' through collaboration, innovation and widespread adoption. Indeed, it must profitably do so; however, by providing a palette without barriers to entry, it may allow the best product, rather than the most 'patented' one to establish the marketplace. One is a controlled market and the other, a free market.
The FCC and wireless carriers have too much control over the wireless marketplace. Ask LEAP Wireless, Intl, BK. Ask Irwin Jacobs, QCOM, EV-DO, EV-DV adoption. When is ETSI ever going to adopt CDMA for Europe? If QCOM is clever, they'll figure out how to cut deals with the Wi-Fi guys to insure CDMA and Wi-Fi become the bundled, de-facto standards--but they're likely too inflexible (yet, paradoxically, we see the WiFi trials at the Jacobs School of Engineering--strange, isn't it?). Ego (although necessary for motivation) in excess, can be a tough thing to get past once it defines individuals, technologies, companies and even societies. Whether we're talking about GSM, CDMA, or WiFi here is tough to say.
The more one subscribes to false paradigms (premises) the more they're potentially imprisoned by them. The QCOM wall of patents may cut both ways. Industry may be trying to find a way around the wall. See also: "Berlin". QCOM has tried to develop a new market, 'wireless data', without controlling the supply chain or very few resources; hence, several other companies are after the same sandbox. It's interesting to hear Irwin Jacobs and Jeff Belk publicly WARN industry about the dangers of WiFi (after QCOM created the LWIN bankruptcy, contributed to the Globalstar bankruptcy, a string of failed investments, and continue to nervously await adoption of EV-DO, EV-DV). The chase is on...
My point still remains: It will not be a quick, one-sided victory for any company or technology. |
