http://cid-facb429f1db87808.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Public/ICC%202008%20LBS%20for%20Mobiles%20%7C5simplified%7C6%20R2.pdf

These years I browsed around about the location-based services (LBS). A more detailed explanation of LBS for mobiles can be found by

http://to.swang.googlepages.com/
http://to.swang.googlepages.com/lbs

Most people believe it would be the next big thing or killer app. Quite a few others have different opinion. e.g.,

http://www.smallsurfaces.com/2008/06/do-we-need-lbs/
http://www.lewebmobile.com/2008/06/do-humans-really-need-location-based.html

Here I can possibly present one opinion from the consumer/end-user perspective, which I have posted in some other places too.

Do we need LBS so badly?

Before I really go to the details. Let me give a review of one simple concept and theory here, which are called “Home Range Concept” and “Traffic Pattern Theory”.

Home Range Concept. It is a concept that can be traced back to a publication in 1943 by W. H. Burt, who constructed maps delineating the spatial extent or outside boundary of an animal’s movement during the course of its everyday activities.

Traffic Pattern Theory. A people’s daily activity pattern is pretty regular, which comprises of several major events, such as school, work, home, shopping.

As I remember, a technical explanation of traffic pattern theory can be found in a report by Stefan Schonfelder, STRC 2001.

http://www.strc.ch/schoenfe.pdf

What happened here is if you are looking at the traffic pattern of a person, saying a full-time employed, 45 years, car, 3-person-household, one child, the regular activity route is so LIMITED. So, does this mean …

I just wanted to show everyone my project – http://geocities.com/gene_technics

I think that a standard hardware platform is the foundation for Mobile 2.0 – a two displays device allows to divide the core content of a Website and its framework – menu and ads. It allows developers to make sites with easily seen structure – site map on the second display. It allows advertizers to place easily a??essible ads on the second display-keyboard – the ads is at the fingertips of consumers. It allows users have a good experience from working with it – comfortable form factor, easy-for-typing keyboard with full and standard localization and all the functions they would expect from a mobile device.

Regards,

Nice list up. It appears majority of the Mobile 2.0 components are taking place in the open-market GSM rather than the operator-controlled CDMA realm. I doubt CDMA will ever open up to the full potential and reach of Mobile 2.0. How is your opinion?

It’s actually moving the other direction, but you might means something else. Those blogging applications you see on phones now are actually not embedded in the true sense. They are Java/Symbian/etc applications that are thrown in at the last stage of development of the phones, and might even be thrown in by the operator. The customer is none the wiser. They get a phone with the applications already installed, but the manufacturer and operator have saved tons of time doing this and can provide applications that are needed rather than that were thought would be needed years ago.

See my piece on OMA for more on this:
http://www.abiro.com/news/2006/09/debate-has-oma-lost-its-mojo.html

And if you want to know about what I think about Mobile IM (I know you don’t) see here:
http://www.abiro.com/news/2006/10/mobile-im-vs-sms-and-pc-im.html

Maybe the pragmatic definition of Mobile 2.0 is “Actual access to information, not just enabling technology”.

LUUPgirl

A good start but I agree with Mark that it should be WAP -> Web.

SMS -> IM I do really disgree with. While IM will take the place of some SMS functionality it has the problem that it requires interactivity. SMS is ‘fire and forget’, there is no need to respond immediately, it’s ideal for quick notifications and enables me to respond when I choose. IM is more like a text based chat (and IM apps are adding voice/video functionality anyway!)

So how about Operator IM -> Global IM? As the big IM names become interoperable then the operators will have to follow suit.

“WAP sites -> .mobi sites”?!?! .mobi was and is a bad idea, unless everybody simply redirects to their .com site (and then it’s simply a tax on publishers).

I’d prefer;

“WAP sites -> Web sites”