Some Random Moblog

On an average day, I use the Internet on at least 5 different web browsers; Chrome on my work PC (for general browsing), Firefox on my work PC (for personal/design-related tasks), Internet Explorer on my work PC (for work applications which, for one reason or another, don’t work in anything else), Safari on my iPhone, and the in-application browser in my iPhone’s Twitter client.

The point of the Web, the problem it was designed to solve, was to create a single platform for sharing information across networks, computers, operating systems and software. But it isn’t quite working out that way.

A Wired article talks about the idea of the Internet fracturing into separate systems- as any language or system of communication in history has done in some way or other. Well, I think it’s already happening. My iPhone has a great browser, but it can’t deal with Flash (which seems to be more of a problem with Flash than the iPhone- I’m aware that some mobile phones can “do” Flash, but I’m not aware of any that do it well.) Some sites won’t work in Chrome or Firefox; although they are few and far between these days, they do still exist- mainly B2B applications which can get away with it, or can’t justify the expense of moving away from a Microsoft-based framework (depending on your perspective, I suppose.)

Then there are the applications; PC applications that use services my iPhone can’t see, iPhone applications using services my console can’t see.

But what of the future? Well, the next big move for the web is going from the computer screen to the TV screen, and dealing with the challenges that presents. I can use my PC or PS3 to look at a web page on my TV, but I either have to deal with the “incompatibility” of a keyboard and mouse with the position I am in when reclining on a sofa, or the tedious problem of entering text into an address bar or search engine using a game controller pad.

Project Canvas aims to bring online video to the TV, while Microsoft are bringing Facebook and Twitter to the Xbox- but without web browser, are they “solving” the problem? Will I be able to click a link to see what’s being shared with me? And without cracking the UI problem of bringing the keyboard and mouse interface, is it really worth having a browser that’s almost unusable?

Then there is the problem of my browser cookies; I can log into a service to check my emails or RSS feeds, but have to do it all over again if I move from one device to another- and I’m not even going to bother trying to put my reasonably secure password into my PS3 (with a combination of letters, numbers and upper/lower case characters.) If sites want to start introducing paywalls (as Rupert Murdoch is keen to do) then this is a problem that they are going to have to solve now, as it’s going to get more significant.

For me, the web is already fragmented; different services that just don’t work with different devices. But here’s the strange thing; it’s not that bad. Anyone who was using Firefox or a mobile browser just a few years ago will know that it’s getting better- not worse. The devices are improving, websites are getting better designed, more standards-compliant and more accessible.

The mobile phone could be the thing that solves it. If I can use my mobile instead of my browser- the one thing that is always with me- to store cookies, passwords and bookmarks, and use its touch screen as a controller for my TV-connected device (something I already do with the Air Mouse iPhone app) then I could hop from screen to screen without a worry.

So to me, a “fragmented web” is a current problem that is being solved, not a future threat. At least for now…

I’ve never been much of a fan of hands-free devices for mobile phones. Bluetooth ones just look stupid, and wired ones are an annoying tangle. While I do like the iPhone headphones for music (to pause or skip tracks), I’d usually rather unplug them if I’m going to take a phone call.

Maybe my behaviour is just an artefact or a relic of a different age of telephones, but I think the truth behind it is a little more complex.

It’s not to say I’m not interested in ways to make a phone more usable. There are two or three people who I will talk to on my hands free— not because of who they are, but because of how I take the call. I’ve set up some of my contacts with different ringtones— our first married dance for my wife (Al Green, Lets Stay Together) and Still Dre for my dad (a long story…) so I don’t need to look at the phone screen to see who is calling. If I need to free up my hands to take a call in the first place, then there’s no value in freeing up my hands once I’ve answered it; “old” behaviours kick in.

It’s not hands-free that saves me the hassle; it’s eyes-free. Not having to check who is calling saves me having to take my phone out of my pocket (I don’t answer to unknown numbers, “08″ call centres or— depending what I’m doing at the time— mobile numbers I don’t know) and lets me just cancel the call by fumbling for the right button. Particularly handy if I’m in the middle of an “actual” conversation or meeting that I don’t particularly want to interrupt.

With touch-screen devices, what you can do without seeing the screen can be a little more limited. The original iPod Touch, for example, had no volume keys; to turn it down, you had to be able to see the screen, find the slider and then set the volume you wanted.

So I’m very interested in the new
accessibility feature for the blind that the iPhone 3Gs introduces. As it’s a hardware feature, it’s missing from the 3G and older handsets (even with the 3.0 software update) but in short, it allows blind people to use the phone without having to be able to see the screen. Which, I suspect, with a little tine to learn how it works, could include some useful functionality for the sighted who sometimes don’t want to take their phone out of their pockets.

And as they wouldn’t need one hand to hold the phone while using the other to operate the touch screen, maybe it would even keep their hands free as they use it too…

I came across this Techcrunch article via Twitter this morning, which got me thinking about where iPhone applications and accessories could (or maybe should) be heading.

The article is about the Flip video cameras- compact pocket-sized camcorders.

And the iPhone has something that the Flip will never realistically have, cellular and wifi connectivity that lets you upload your videos immediately. No need to sync back with your base computer to edit the video and upload it. You can do basic editing right on the iPhone, and publish it to YouTube immediately. As an added bonus, that video can be geo-stamped via the phones GPS capability.

One of the features of the iPhone 3.0 operating system is the ability for applications to tie in with accessories. Now, the camera built into a phone is always going to be compared to a dedicated camera- whether a compact still or video camera, or a bigger camcorder or SLR. The tiny blob of glass that a phone has for a lens that is right next to the tiny sensor is always going to be inferior to the bigger lens and sensor in a dedicated device.

But why should it be a competition? Why couldn’t they work together? Why couldn’t a dedicated camera connect via a USB to Dock cable, Bluetooth or WiFi to the iPhone, allowing the iPhone to act as a controller? The same touch-screen autofocus that the iPhone 3Gs has could be used as a remote control for a dedicated camera. The iPhones internet connection and GPS could be used to stamp locational data and upload to Flickr or YouTube. Perhaps with existing cameras ability to send pictures via USB, the ability to upload via an iPhone application could be as straightforward to achieve as selling a USB to iPhone dock cable…

If Apple chose not to allow it through the iPhone or Apps store (say, because they saw it as a reason not to buy the more expensive iPhone models) then it could be a killer feature for another less restrictive mobile platform- Android, for example.

We’ve still seen remarkably few applications that make the most of the new operating system- I’m waiting for a blogging application that will let me select a chunk of text and then add HTML tags to it, let me know through push alerts when I have comments or trackbacks (through the Push alert system) or a Twitter app that will let me copy the URL of a web page I’m looking at. Accessories are obviously another step away.

It’s an opportunity either for an iPhone developer to get first-mover advantage, or another platform to steal a march on the iPhone.

I just want to say how happy I am to be able to easily post this link— which also explains why…

I’m getting increasingly irritated with these messages. (Note the signal level in the pictures at the end of this post.)

I live and work in central London, where you would expect a good mobile signal. Yet there are holes in the service all over the place.

We’ve got the devices that can make the mobile web a reality. We’ve got the online services like RSS readers, Twitter and Facebook that make it sticky- something you can dip into when you’ve got five minutes, and will come back to again.

Provided it works.

The weakest link is the networks. All we need them to do is provide network coverage and carry the data. But they seem to be too busy trying to differentiating themselves with services that are tangential to what we pay our bills for.

So right now, while I would like to say that I am my network of Twitterers, my Facebook friends and my favourite RSS feeds, I’m actually just a bloke on a bus playing with an electronic notepad.

How about someone differentiate themselves by providing the best coverage, the most consistent 3G data connection, or the greatest consumer satisfaction? Stop trying to differentiate your service by providing extras, and just provide the basic service that you promised; an Internet connection that’s always on, and 3G that actually has coverage?

Give me the mobile Internet coverage that I’m already paying for- then start worrying about how you’re going to sell all my web-surfing data on to the GSMA. Otherwise, an iPod Touch for a quarter of the total cost of an iPhone will do the job just as well.

(Oh, and while you’re at it, can you get the BT Openzone wifi hotspots to recognize my phone again? After all, that was a part of the deal too. Ta.)

Posted from my home wifi connection which- I believe- is not being recorded for the data to be sold on without my consent.

The idea of this blog when I started it about 6 months ago was that it would look at the “always on” mobile internet; the permanent connection that the latest generation of mobile phones is giving us to the internet, and how that affects what we can do, and how we interact with it. The idea was that everything would be done on my mobile phone.

Today, I’m breaking that self-imposed rule. I’ve currently got my hands on a Netbook- specifically, the Acer Aspire One. (More specifically, the sapphire blue, 8.9″ screen, 1Gb RAM and 8+8Gb SSD storage model, running a Linux operating system.) So rather than writing about mobiles from a mobile, today I’m writing about Netbooks on a Netbook.

Physically, Netbooks bridge a gap between laptops and mobile phones. The large colour screen of devices like the iPhone mark them out as being “smartphones”, but if the actual devices were any larger, it would become a detriment; a phone needs to be small enough to fit into a pocket, and it needs to be light enough that you can comfortably hold it up for a reasonably long period of time. The design of a Netbook, on the other hand, means that they are about as small as they can be without creating a problem with the way they work; the keyboard is a key feature that distinguishes it from smaller devices, and although not as big as a full size keyboard, it is about as small as it can be while still being usable for general typing. Although the general measure of Netbook’s size is the screen (diagonally, in inches), this isn’t really a key metric for it’s usability. It’s the size of the keyboard, and the resolution of the screen that really matter.

There is an argument that there is no such thing as a “Netbook”; that the name doesn’t actually mean anything, and is purely a marketing gimmick, and they are nothing more than small, cheap laptops. No doubt there is some truth to this; in the same way that “Web 2.0″ didn’t really mean anything that the World Wide Web didn’t already cover, “Social Media” doesn’t really mean anything not already covered by the “Web 2.0″ buzzword, or mobile phones are “just” a telephone without a wire, Netbooks are simply small laptops. But this difference changes the way you can comfortably use them.

Back in the 1980s, we had what were called “Portable Televisions.” In fact, their portability was limited to the fact that you could lug them around the house; they were heavy and were rarely were moved anywhere. Although laptops are far less unweildy than these old TVs, most of them tend to be used in a similar way; the focus of their portablity in terms of the way they are actually used is often limited to being moved from room to room, and the fact that they can be stowed away out of sight when not being used. Essentially, most laptops are simply “portable” versions of desktop PCs.

Netbooks place the focus on mobility, rather than mere portability; not just a device that you can carry around in a bag, but something that you can carry around all day without being bothered by the size or weight.

The size and weight of the aaspire One is really impressive- this is what makes it a truly mobile device. Admittedly, I have a habit of carrying around more books and papers than I need to, but this fits into my bag without me even noticing the weight. In fact, if I were to remove my Moleskine notepad, a paperback book and a 40 page printed document that are in there at the moment, at 1kg they would take out more weight than the Aspire One (900g) would add. (You could argue that the Netbook could replace them; personally, I’m not so sure- but that’s a subject for a different post.)

This particular model was chosen specifically to illustrate the differences between the “typical” laptop and a netbook; rather than a 120 gigabyte hard drive, it has 8 gigabytes of internal storage, and an additional 8 gigabyte SD card. While this might be a negative factor in terms of storage space, the lack of moving parts means that it’s better equipped to deal with being carried around, knocked around in a bag or occasionally dropped without damaging all that data. But the other point is that you shouldn’t need all that storage; one of the ideas of the Netbook is that it’s online; with services like Last.fm, Flickr and YouTube, and various other ways of keeping your data stored online, the need for dozens of gigabytes of local storage is changing.

But perhaps the real future of these kinds of devices aren’t as a replacement for a “proper” desktop or laptop computer, but as an additional machine. Not something to store every photo, video and document you own, but just the ones that you want to work on. According to Nielsen Online, there are 14 million people in the UK who use the internet at work, and with 60% of households having broadband internet connections, the vast majority of these are probably also using the internet via a computer at home. In other words, the idea of using more than one computer isn’t a new one for many people, but something that they are already doing; perhaps with one “main” computer, or a centralised “cloud computing” solution for managing files etc, or just carrying around a USB storage device and working from files on that from different computers.

The only two negative points that I can find are, firstly, the speakers, which are on the base of the unit, which is raised slightly at the front. On a desk, this means that they are raised slightly. But if you’re using it on your lap, or in bed, this means that they are probably going to be slightly muffled. Secondly, the touchpad is very close to the keyboard, meaning that I’m occasionally finding that I’m tapping it while typing, which means that when typing, the cursor jumps to wherever it happens to be pointing at the time.

This leads me on to the operating system; although the Aspire One is available with a Windows XP operating system installed, I’m using the Linux option. I’m familiar with Ubuntu Linux, so I’ve already got an idea of the differences (and similarities) between Linux and Windows. My feelings on the preinstalled system are mixed; on one hand, I can see the reasoning behind the way it’s been set up- it’s as simple as possible, while staying thematically very similar to the Windows look and feel (in terms of title bars and the colour scheme. However, it feels like it lacks the flexibility of Ubuntu; the range of free, open source applications that Ubuntu makes it easy to install via Apt-get seems like an odd thing to omit (or at least hide.) I can’t help imagine that Acer has missed the mark; people who want Windows will no doubt take the Windows option, while people who choose Linux will probably want to make the most of the flexibility that Linux offers. It seems like an own goal to make this difficult to access the tools needed to make the most of what Linux can offer. On the other hand, anyone familiar with Linux will have no trouble installing their preferred distro, as the hardware being used is clearly already supported.

Although my current laptop is aging somewhat (a Compaq Presario V2000, released in 2005- I think), the Aspire One has a processor that runs at about the same speed (1.6GHz), yet weighs just over a third of it’s weight. With that in mind, I think it’s safe to say that the netbooks that we will see over the next year or two are going to change the way we think about the shape of computers all over again. What that means is that the way we will use them- not necessarily sitting on a desk or a table, but comfortably sitting on your lap on the sofa, in bed, or anywhere that you want to use it- will also be changing. There are already offers from mobile networks in the UK that are subsidising the cost of a netbook with contract network costs; however, they are relying on 3G USB dongles for connectivity, and t’s only a matter of time before 3G is built into the netbook. So perhaps this will be a future alternative for mobile contract renewal offers; rather than offering new handsets, customers might be offered a free laptop with internet connectivity and a limited amount of free data each month. This would be a great way to encourage mobile internet use, and a hook to get people into the habit of using the internet on the go without having to move to an expensive or complicated phone handset.

Exactly what that will mean for the multifunctional mobile phone, or the television that might be on in the background rather than the focus of your attention, remains to be seen.

It’s been nine months since I set up this blog as an experiment into what it would be like to write a blog purely from a mobile device- this is a brief summary of what I’ve learnt from the experience.

Firstly, it’s not the best way to blog. From a technical point of view, not being able to cut/paste chunks of text, manage links, merge half written posts into a single piece, use functions like a spell checker (especially when combined with the iphone’s propensity to add apostrophes)- there are dozens of minor niggling roadblocks that make life difficult when you take a “desktop” computer out of the workflow. Some of these are only temporary (like cut/paste on the iPhone), but not all of them. The way you use a mobile is fundamentally different to the way you use a keyboard and mouse.

But at the same time, I can’t see myself maintaining a blog without a mobile device any more. It’s a brilliant tool to use for blogging- for writing notes when inspiration strikes, or you come across a piece of information that relates to a post you’re in the middle of writing. Not necessarily to replace, but to augment existing tools.

The self-imposed limit I gave myself of only using a mobile was the reason that this blog has ground to a halt- it’s not that I started using my mobile less, but that I started using it to write more and more “proper” blog posts that I could rework on a desktop machine, then add more to next time I found myself on a bus with something to add. Rather than a seperate project, it has morphed into the work I do over on my main web home page.

So this blog is now going to drop the “mobile only” rule for managing posts and instead just be about the world of mobile technology.

If you’re interested in the wider world of communications technology and digital media, you might like to follow me over at SomeRandomNerd.com instead- posts here will feed into the main site as well.

So my mobile blog experiment is over. It’s been an interesting experience, but this moblog is dead; long live mobile blogging.

There is one thing that makes the iPhone an incredibly powerful device, which at the same time makes it incredibly annoying.

Cloud computing.

When you’re permanently connected to the Internet, a whole lot of opportunities open up. Most obviously, you can get the latest information- news, sports, emails, Facebook and so on. At the touch of a button (well, screen) you can know the latest goings on anywhere in the world.

But there are also services like RSS feeds, which make it quick to access a wide range of information from a variety of sources- Google Reader and Newsgator in particular are well worth taking 5 minutes to set up. Social networking applications like Facebook and Twitter keep you up to date with the latest goings-on with people you are interested in.

But it also opens up new opportunities. Suppose you’ve got some notes saved on your work computer that you’d like to check, or photos on your home computer that you’d like to show someone, or a bookmark to a web page that you’d like to see. By saving them online, using something like Flickr or GigaOm) has announced that he is “retiring” his iPhone- not because of a problem with the phone, but because his network is failing to provide an adequate network coverage.

My guess is that it’s a matter of time until Apple start either enabling this kind of functionality for 3rd party apps to download information in the background, or extending the applications that they provide themselves as part of the iPhone operating system. Other smartphones like Blackberry and Windows Mobile enable it, and more and more services that really need this kind of functionality are bound to start appearing.

So the devices are here already. What’s missing is network coverage. The problem here lies with the telecoms industry. In the UK, we have five mobile networks- O2, Vodafone, Orange, T-Mobile and H3G. All five networks have 3G coverage, and all but H3G have 2G networks running in parralel. All five networks are aiming for maximum coverage, yet none are achieving it alone.

As the final few percent of households need to be covered, the return on investment for all five networks to independantly cover every inch of the United Kingdom gets lower and lower. The efficiency of the networks also gets lower- while the O2 network might be full where I want to use it, Vodafone could have plenty of space in their section of bandwidth. (Ironically, users from overseas aren’t tied to a single network- they can happily switch from one to another. An option not available to the UK consumers who make up the majority of their revenues.)

One solution to this problem would be sharing of networks. T-Mobile and H3G are already planning on doing this to maximize their coverage for mobile data- extending together into areas they don’t cover, and removing masts where they have excessive and unnecessary overlap. To me, this seems like the only way to move things forward- the amount of data being transmitted is bound to increase as both phones and laptops become increasingly active mobile data devices. The networks, however, have finite limits to how much information they can carry.

So the industry-led solution has gone as far as it can. Lots of people have made and spent lots of money on mobile networks. How the industry will progress, via sharing networks rather than hoarding spectrum space, is going to be a very interesting area to watch over the next few years.

“Netbooks” are a new category of laptops that mark a fragmentation of the laptop market. The reason that netbooks mark a change from laptops is a change in the direction of what a laptop is supposed to do; the focus is now truly on portability. Not just a PC that you can conveniently carry through to a different room, but one thats light enough to carry around from day to day- either because you need to lug one around wherever you go, or because you don’t want to be worrying about whether it’s something you really need on a particular day.

The size of a netbook is pretty much the limit of how small a laptop can be and still have a useable keyboard (although the screen size is the standard measurement, it’s the keyboard size that has the biggest practical implications), and the weight is simply as light as it can be.

A modern, powerful, multi-core CPU might be the best thing for powerful computing or graphically intensive applications, but it simply doesn’t fit in with this design philosophy; a powerful CPU needs either a powerful (and heavy) battery, or sacrifices battery life for a lighter weight- something that doesn’t fit with the “portability” ideal. Instead, netbooks use processors designed with mobile phone technology in mind; lightweight, and energy efficient.

There is an argument that netbooks aren’t powerful enough to replace “proper” laptops. That might be true right now for some, but as I get by perfectly well on an aging Compaq Presario V2000 (with 1Gb Ram, a 1.6GHz Pentium M processor and a 1280×768 resolution screen (in other words, similar to many netbooks), I find that hard to agree with. It also overlooks the fact that computing power is still getting cheaper, smaller and faster; the netbooks available next Christmas will be a leap ahead of what’s on the market right now.

But maybe it’s simply looking for Netbook’s market in the wrong place. One of the differences in the way people use their mobile phones is how they carry them around; men tend to keep them in their pockets, while women tend to carry them in their handbag.

What this means is that men don’t want something too big for their pockets- but that’s not a restriction that’s important for women. Perhaps this is a sign of how netbooks have an opportunity to grow; if a man is going to carry a laptop around, then they need a bag to carry it in. But women carry a bag with them everywhere they go.

So maybe the future of laptops for men is something like the Macbook Air; thin and light, but with a full sized keyboard and screen, making the most of the “proper” bag that men tend to use, while the ideal form factor for women is something smaller.

For me, the main appeal of a netbook is the weight; I carry a bag around with notebooks (that is, paper notebooks) and a magazine or book or two; I don’t carry a laptop in there very often because of the weight. A Macbook Air would be my ideal laptop if it weren’t for the price; something that was a similar device in terms of size and shape but cheaper and less powerful would be ideal for me.

Currently, Netbooks are the closest thing to that idea, and it seems to be the direction that the hardware industry is heading. But I wonder if there’s an opportunity being missed here; something small and light, but keeping the size down to a truly portable handbag-sized box.

The iPhone has demonstrated a way to make it work; the ability to zoom in and out gets around the limitations of a small screen, and the touchscreen keyboard deals with data input. But whether it would be as useable if the screen was a few inches larger is hard to say; the larger screen would mean a bigger power drain, so a heavier battery and/or shorter battery life. Perhaps the iPod touch would be a better comparison; take away the phone functionality and the need to be always switched on would disappear. But would it be light enough to hold up and use? I guess that the balance between size and weight would get difficult once you get bigger than pocket size.

Perhaps something netbook-sized (with a ~7″ screen), but replacing the cut-size physical keyboard with either something larger but detachable (ie. That you would only use when you really need it) or a touch screen interface would be the ideal handbag-friendly solution?

As someone who doesn’t carry a handbag (let alone design mobile hardware) it’s hard for me to say. But it’s my bet that somewhere between a pocket sized smartphone and the current generation of “netbook” is where the “big thing” of 2009 is going to be found.

Reading through a report from mobiThinking.com, a point caught my eye; the paper suggested that “browser sniffing” is an essential feature to deploy for mobile-orientated websites with two odd but, to me, seemingly contradictory pieces of advice;

Don’t build your site for a minority audience- remember most people don’t have an iPhone.

Don’t build a mobile site and not invest the time to detect handsets and serve the correct version for the phone.

The iPhone might be a minority device, but there are a few caveats that need to go along with that point to put it into context; firstly, proportionally more users of iPhones are accessing online services than any other handset. This means both that mobile Internet users are more likely to get an iPhone because of the browsing experience, and that iPhone users who were attracted to the integrated iTunes, big colour screen etc. are more likely to try out the web access. The rate of growth has been phenomenal and from my own experience, even though I’ve had a Smartphone or PDA for about 5 years, I’ve never had even close to the use that I’ve had with the iPhone.

Secondly, every mobile device is a minority device. The market is highly fragmented, and that’s a trend that’s not going to go away- at least, not in the next 5 years. But the iPhone seems to represent a consistent platform; if Apple were to release a new iPhone with a different sized screen (for example), the existing applications and websites would need to be reworked- meaning it’s an unlikely move for Apple to make. Because the screen is a standard size, and the browser implements web standards well (better than Internet Explorer on the desktop, in fact) in developing an iPhone website, you’re not really developing “just for the iPhone”; you’re developing for the web.

The alternative is developing (or trying to develop) for every single minority device. A huge undertaking…

The point of the Web is that it’s a network of documents which can be read on any device, regardless of what sort of hardware, operating system or software it runs. The web page (in HTML) contains the information, a seperate system called CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) controls the way it’s presented, and a third system (Javascript) controls it’s behaviour (features like animation, drag-and-drop or AJAX.) This means that a web page with lots of graphics in the design can have an alternative CSS file to change the way it’s displayed on a handheld device- either because the visual design wouldn’t work on a small screen, or because the graphics would take too long to load on a slower (possibly metered) mobile connection.

Browser sniffing is something different; it means detecting what sort of device someone is using and then serving a version of the web page that’s optimised for that device. In other words, rather than letting the handset decide how a page would look best, according to an established set of open standards, the page decides on it’s behalf- often with no way to override it.

There’s no doubt that the wide range of mobile phone manufacturers, models and software versions make life difficult for mobile website developers, but the idea of browser sniffing goes against the basic idea of the web. A few years ago, the idea of a full HTML page being usable on a phone was virtually unthinkable. Now there is a new generation of handsets with web browsers that do a genuinely good job of making the web on a mobile a genuinely good experience. It’s up to the handset manufacturers- not the website designers and developers- to make the web a standardized platform, rather than the fragmented, unusable mess that much of it currently is from a mobile perspective. If websites follow the trend that we saw in the days of the desktop browser wars, then everyone loses out- especially the end users. Websites will be harder to develop, and new devices that don’t follow established standards will take time to gain support. We already have a protocol for mobile devices that don’t support web pages; it’s called WAP, and it’s a relic of the past. (But it works…)

Seeing this advice coming from a company who happens to have (and sell) a database of mobile devices- just the thing you would need if you were to implement their advice- leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

I did learn something interesting on their website though; Japan, the country with probably the most successful implementation of the mobile web, is number 10 on the list of countries with the most registered .mobi websites. Which, considering the subject of my last post, was something I found quite interesting.