Mobile Working Experiences
The realities of remote working
Wednesday 19 September 2007, 7:56 PM
IDF - Day 2 - Gloves are Off
Day 2 marks a change in direction for the '07 IDF. The morning kicks off with a bullish keynote in which Intel's SVP of Ultra Mobility, Anand Chandrasekher, sets his sights on the ultra mobile sector. In line with other predictions he maintains that mobile internet will be the 'killer app' for mobile computing. Quoting Comscore data - he cites that 25% of internet traffic is now on social networking sites, but 95% of this is done via PC, rather than via mobile devices.
His agenda is then revealed, he quotes comment on the cellular networks connectivity offering as a 'big mess'. He goes on to quote research data citing that 61% of handheld devices with internet browsing functionality are never used for this function - claiming users are frustrated or confused by the poor connectivity available. He then shows Intel test bench data that reports 'error frequency' comparing Intel's Silverthorne+Menlow platform with ARM's mobile processors. He shows download speeds comparing WiMax with US mobile data speeds.
I can see the commercial motives, but it seems grossly unfair to lay the blame for the limitations of mobile internet solely at the feet of mobile operators and processor manufacturers. The mobile internet experience is far from perfect, but in many cases the websites are not rendered for mobile devices, and to compare WiMax to mobile networks without including 3G just seems like a very uneven playing field. He is wrong to assume that because mobiles are not being used for web browsing the user experience must be to blame - perhaps some of those mobiles were purchased to make phone calls with.. not to surf the web...
The WSJ is spot-on today with an article highlighting Intel's 'new rivals' both in graphics technology (e.g. Nvidia) and processors (ARM). It is interesting that AMD has barely been mentioned in any of the keynotes so far - is Intel looking to pick fights with new contenders? are they right to be so critical of the operators and processor manufacturers in delivering a poor user experience for mobile internet?
His agenda is then revealed, he quotes comment on the cellular networks connectivity offering as a 'big mess'. He goes on to quote research data citing that 61% of handheld devices with internet browsing functionality are never used for this function - claiming users are frustrated or confused by the poor connectivity available. He then shows Intel test bench data that reports 'error frequency' comparing Intel's Silverthorne+Menlow platform with ARM's mobile processors. He shows download speeds comparing WiMax with US mobile data speeds.
I can see the commercial motives, but it seems grossly unfair to lay the blame for the limitations of mobile internet solely at the feet of mobile operators and processor manufacturers. The mobile internet experience is far from perfect, but in many cases the websites are not rendered for mobile devices, and to compare WiMax to mobile networks without including 3G just seems like a very uneven playing field. He is wrong to assume that because mobiles are not being used for web browsing the user experience must be to blame - perhaps some of those mobiles were purchased to make phone calls with.. not to surf the web...
The WSJ is spot-on today with an article highlighting Intel's 'new rivals' both in graphics technology (e.g. Nvidia) and processors (ARM). It is interesting that AMD has barely been mentioned in any of the keynotes so far - is Intel looking to pick fights with new contenders? are they right to be so critical of the operators and processor manufacturers in delivering a poor user experience for mobile internet?
Previous
