Keith Moore writes:
-----Original Message-----
WAP might evolve into something more useful, but I don't see
how it will
replace IP in any sense.
One is an architecture for supporting application on diverse wireless
systems, and other is a network layer packet transport mechanism. Two
aren't even comparable.
WAP's goal is not to replace IP, but mediate between non-IP wireless
devices, and existing IP based wire line applications.
WAP as it currently exists isn't a solution
to any future problem - it is a solution to the problem of how to
build a consumer information service over SMS and cell phones
with limited displays.
No. It is a solution of how to support meaningful applications over a
wireless channel with *limited bandwidth*, and use the same
application over wide variety of radio protocols and systems without
change (or minimal change). Meaningful applications include some of
current wire line applications. The size of display has nothing to do
with it. The bottleneck is BANDWIDTH not the display size (you may
have a device that has a screen size of 1 meter by 1 meter - but that
doesn't obviate the need of devising mechanisms that better utilize
the radio spectrum.
But cell networks are starting to deploy far better data
delivery services than SMS (more bandwidth, less latency) and I
expect
that cell phones will get better display capabilities along with PDA
functionality (and likewise, PDAs will get wireless data
capability).
Under these conditions, WAP as we know it today isn't very
interesting.
See above. The size of display isn't the issue. Contrary to what you
say, most people who work in cellular industry think that WAP is very
interesting piece of work given the limitations of the systems that
are *widely deployed and used today*.
As far as wireless industry is concerned, the die is already cast -
WAP, BlueTooth and UMTS are three future technologies.
cheers,
--brijesh
(my personal views only.)