

The Next 4 Billion Connected People Won't Be Using HTML - borism
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2009/09/what-do-i-mean-by-next-four-billion.html

======
Perceval
The author states that people won't be using HTML, they'll be using SMS, MMS,
or WAP. This is reasonable, but the author doesn't seem to understand that SMS
(and the MMS extension of SMS) and WAP are _protocols_ , whereas HTML is a
_markup language_.

Perhaps a better dichotomy might be, "the next 4 billion connected won't be
using HTML, they'll be using WML," or "the next 4 billion connected won't be
using HTTP, they'll be using SMS/WAP."

But mixing up protocols and markup languages makes the author look like they
don't understand the topic they're writing about.

~~~
smhinsey
WAP strikes me as an odd horse to hitch your wagon to in the first place. It
may be that it's popular elsewhere, but I haven't had a phone that relied on a
WAP browser since maybe 2002, and between iPhone, Android, Pre, WinMo, and
Blackberry, I don't think most of them even support it, let alone rely on it.

~~~
borism
Most of the mobiles built in the last few years support HTML quite well, but
as you may know pure HTML is very little part of what we call Web (2.0) today.

~~~
smhinsey
Yeah, I am just thinking about all of the phones that have browsers
sophisticated to handle most modern web apps. Even if the built ins can't
handle it, you've got Opera which probably can. 3 of the ones I mentioned are
even webkit-based. This seems the way of the future, not WAP.

~~~
borism
But why would someone in the developed world need Web 2.0?

They're not spoiled by PC interface, so they won't require interface on the
tiny (smart)phone screen to be alike.

~~~
smhinsey
I can see that angle of it, but it just seems more to me that you're better
off sticking with markup the most clients can understand. I'm not too familiar
with programming for low phones (or phones at all for that matter) but it
doesn't strike me as unreasonable that even the low end will start to have
webkit derived browsers over the next several years. I do admit to knowing
nothing about how long that takes to filter its way down to the developing
world.

------
pohl
Strange. This must be a difference in perspective based on unique
characteristics of carriers in the United States. As an American, SMS and MMS
are ubiquitous, but they represent a brutal cost structure that makes me not
want to use them at all.

As for WAP, I've seen a lot of phones equipped with it that go unused based
not just on the same reason (the cost structure of internet access on those
phones) but also on usability: it wasn't until Mobile Safari and my iPhone's
flat rate that I even wanted to attempt mobile internet access on a regular
basis.

------
jhancock
Just today, I had a conversation about this very topic. The topic was solving
logistics for drug inventory in clinics in developing areas. The lowest common
denominator for communications for now and the foreseeable future is SMS. The
folks at headquarters can use PCs, online maps, and DBs to analyze the info.
But the core data needs to be sent in from the field via SMS. Patients finding
clinics and scheduling appointments and asserting need needs to be available
through SMS.

------
tici_88
Whether it is HTML, WAP, SMS or some other language/protocol yet to emerge is
largely a moot point.

The big question to me as a mobile app developer is, how do you make and sell
apps to "the next 4 billion"? And is this market segment even sellable to,
given their low disposable income? This can easily be a billion $ question...

~~~
ams6110
With 4 billion buyers, you can sell for pennies and still make a lot of money.
Remember the marginal cost of software is zero.

------
Tichy
Give me another example besides ringtones, please.

~~~
borism
Example of what? Business model?

There are plenty of examples both in the article (bicycle calling providers)
and elsewhere (mobile micro-finance).

And there are thousands of other uses people in places like Africa might be
hungry for, but nobody really even tries to provide them with a solution.

~~~
Tichy
I saw the bicycle calling provider, but my "yeah"-sensors somehow didn't fire.
I don't think that kind of thing will see widespread adoption.

I've been reading about this too often, but nothing seems to have happened
yet. How widespread is the micro-finance?

If any of these things would take off, maybe it would enhance economics to a
point where people could afford real computers (or at least "real" mobile
internet devices like the iPhone). In any case betting on an enormous market
for WAP and SMS apps seems like a wild bet.

------
InclinedPlane
I've heard this same sentiment before many times. And it's pretty likely to be
"true" in the simplest sense of the word. Smart phones will make huge inroads,
even in the developing world.

But I've always found it to be enormously silly. It's silly to imagine that
the entire developing world will gain access to smart phones and cellular
networks and yet there will be no substantial change in their wealth. It also
flies in the face of history. Looking back at the last 20, 50, and 100 years
we see several countries, and hundreds of millions of people move from 3rd
world to affluent, 1st world economies. To imagine that a future world filled
with affluent individuals won't also purchase laptops or netbooks (devices
which will undoubtedly be better and cheaper than they are today) is
monumentally unimaginative.

Also, the line "won't be using HTML" is a great shock line, but it's just
plain false on its face. The primary value of a smart phone is the ability to
browse the plain-jane HTML based web. The "web as we know it" will become even
more dominant in this scenario, not less.

~~~
borism
You've missed the point.

They won't get PC-netbooks not because they couldn't, but because they don't
need to. What use a netbook is if there's little-to-no electricity, no
broadband access, no wifi or cable router, and you're illiterate? Zero.

With regards to HTML - perhaps author is mixing protocols and markup languages
up. But that isn't the point. The point is that a lot of the "development"
like Web 2.0 won't be accessible to people in the developing world. Show me a
smartphone (well maybe except highest range iphone-android) that won't choke
on your average DHTML/AJAX site.

~~~
DannoHung
In 1996, the year that it was introduced, the Motorola StarTac cost $1000.

How much would you pay for one today?

In 2007, the year that it was introduced, the iPhone 8GB cost $600 with a
carrier subsidy.

How much would you pay for one today? Well, I don't know how much _you_ would
pay for one, but a more advanced model costs $99 with a carrier subsidy.

I don't think it is safe to say how the next 4 billion people are going to get
online and what technology they will have access to.

~~~
dejb
> but a more advanced model costs $99 with a carrier subsidy.

It isn't sensible to talk about 'costs with carrier subsidy'. You might as
well describe the cost of a rented apartment as the deposit.

------
joe_the_user
The thing about Html is that it is a medium which can be read and written by
anyone and no one owns. No one owning Html means that it can spread
"frictionlessly", with no restrictions.

Everything that one might imagine would replace Html does not have these
characteristics. That means that as mobile access to the web becomes the norm,
it will replace any mobile specific technology, no matter how clever one makes
them. What would you prefer - Kindle with no web or web with no Kindle? This
should happen in Africa in the same way it has happened here.

