It seemed like Apple wanted a share of the apple (revenue) pie in Singapore from the telcos who are selling their phones - something which the local telcos have not been giving in to. Agreement to this may open a can of worms where other manufacturers such as Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Samsung or LG might start asking for the same treatment. However, it is known that iPhones are locked to the telcos which Apple had partnered with and may be unlocked illegally, effectively voiding any warranty and attracting possible litigation to the owner, hacker or both.

This effectively means that the Singapore version of iPhone will take longer to come - which may result in either a rise in demand for locked iPhones or a wane of interest of it. Either way, I hope Nokia will come up with something nice (a touch phone?) with a longer battery life - though I am not sure if this is an oxymoron. =P

SINGAPORE consumers who want to get their hands on Apple’s iPhone, hailed as Time Magazine’s gadget of the year for 2007, will have to wait.

The reason: None of the three mobile phone operators here has been able to lock down a deal with the California-based tech giant.

In all the markets that Apple has launched the iPhone in, the device has been sold through a single operator, with whom Apple shares revenue.

Market observers say that local operators may be baulking at Apple’s reported insistence on such a tie-up, and the company is unlikely to make an exemption to its money-spinning model for such a small market.

Officially, the three operators would only say that discussions are ongoing.

Over four million iPhones have been sold worldwide since it was launched last June.

In addition to its cellular phone capability, the gadget also boasts a full touch-screen interface and can play music and video.

Many hankering to get their hands on it have bought it while overseas. Some retailers here have also taken to parallel importing of sets.

The software on these grey-market sets has to be ‘hacked’ to allow them to work with the SIM cards issued by local operators. Apple has since threatened these parallel importers with legal action to get them to stop importing iPhones, but The Straits Times understands that some are still selling them.

Arguably, hacking the iPhone’s software constitutes copyright infringement in much the same way modifying a PlayStation game console to play pirated games is, although it is untested in court. Rights owners have never gone after end-users doing this here.

Apple enforces its one-mobile-operator-per-market policy by ‘locking’ the iPhone so that only the designated operator’s SIM card can be used. This means customers must sign up with that operator.

In return, Apple reportedly requires that its operator partner give it a 10 to 30 per cent share of the revenue from iPhone sales.

But Singapore’s Infocomm Development Authority has outlawed SIM-card locking, to allow consumers to switch operators freely. This, however, also means any operator here will not enjoy the full benefit of a deal with Apple.

France also prohibits SIM-card locking. Apple’s operator partner there, Orange, sells two iPhone versions - a locked one for 399 euros (S$844) and an unlocked one for 749 euros.

The issue has also surfaced in Germany, where the courts allowed Apple’s partner T-Mobile to keep selling locked iPhones despite complaints from T-Mobile’s rivals.

Operators here are likely to say no to the unprecedented demand for a cut of their revenues.

An executive with one telco said any deal to share revenue with Apple would ‘open up a can of worms’.

Give in to Apple, the executive said, and other big phone makers like Nokia and Sony-Ericsson may start asking for similar arrangements.

Just this week, China’s biggest mobile operator, China Mobile, rejected Apple’s offer to be its exclusive iPhone distributor in the world’s biggest mobile market because Apple wanted a 30 per cent cut of its revenues from iPhone sales.

Another factor that depresses chances of a deal: The longer negotiations take, the less desirable the iPhone becomes, said Cazenove telecommunications analyst Lai Voon San.

‘Those who really want and can afford a premium product like the iPhone probably already have it,’ he said.

Apple did not reply by press time.

chuahh@sph.com.sg

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 17th January 2008

Perhaps I am not in a position to comment much, but the principal of a girls’ mission school had been defended for her statement to Secondary 5 students, where she told them not to bother with sitting for the O levels examination since they are unlikely to fare well and that she wanted 100% passes in her school. She was defended by Minister of State for Education Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui Tuck Yew that she meant well and that the message was meant to give the students a wake-up call. He continued to condemn students who feel demoralised, saying that this is just an excuse not to do well. In addition, he noted that 40% of Secondary 5 students will not do well enough at the O levels to qualify for polytechnic.

In my personal opinion, I would have believed that those were harsh words meant for the better of the students. However, when the principal had to bring in the statement that she wanted 100% passes in her school, I began to doubt a little because it seemed to betray her true intentions. Of course, this really is personal opinion. Moreover, it is understandable that people do not usually take harsh comments well, but should we continue to condemn them? It seemed like our dear MoS just did.

Since it is known that about 40% of the students do not make it to the polytechnics, I wonder if this corresponds to the lower 40% of a cohort of if there is no correlation to the N levels results. If there is a correlation and if the principals are so concerned about their students wasting valuable time, why not do the favourite Singapore past time and stream off the lower 40%? In this case, the principal will not be lambasted for any insensitive statements and students will no longer have to "waste time" prepare for their O levels which "they will fail anyway".

And I thought it takes more to be an educator.

THE tone of a principal’s message to Secondary 5 students may not have gone down well, but it was one that had to be delivered, for the students’ sake, a minister said yesterday .

This message was that Sec 5 students who stay on to do the O levels instead of applying to the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) will find it a tough road ahead.

Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew said students and parents need to know that 40 per cent of Sec 5 students will not do well enough at the O levels to qualify for polytechnic.

The Straits Times had reported on Saturday that the principal of a girls’ school had told students from one Sec 5 class they should apply now for places in the ITE as they were unlikely to do well in the O levels at year’s end.

Some parents became upset. The story also drew more than 20 other responses, with parents saying their children had also been told this by their principals and teachers.

Speaking to reporters after a teachers’ investiture at the National Institute of Education, Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui said it was important to separate the ‘tone’ from the ’substance’ of the message.

‘We can calibrate the tone. We can soften it, improve on the presentation, but there is a lot of work to be done between Secondary 4 and Secondary 5.’

He said principals needed to do their job of conveying this message to the students, and to teachers to do their part to challenge them, set high goals and to help them achieve these goals.

Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui said the educators meant well and had wanted to make sure the students were ‘on a firm footing’ for the path ahead.

The greater danger would have been indifference.

He said it would be a great injustice to principals to insinuate that they wanted good school results only because their own performance appraisal - and performance bonus - was linked to the results.

He added: ‘I have interacted with enough educators… they are by far more ambitious for their students than they are for their career advancement.’

On concerns raised that episodes like last Saturday’s would shatter students’ confidence, he said that if that were the case, he would be worried about just how fragile young people were.

‘We can take the approach where you cringe, your confidence is affected and it impacts you negatively, and it’s an excuse. Or you can stand up tall, with resolve and say that I am a better person than you think I am and I will do better and I will show you I have what it takes to achieve the results.’

He added that it was necessary to build that resilience in students, because when they go into the real world, they are going to have to face circumstances well beyond their control.

A parent, whose daughter is in the school involved, said he was upset with not just the tone of the principal, but the timing of the the message.

‘The students could have been told earlier, even before their N levels, not when school has started and they were elated about getting to do their O levels,’ he said.

Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui said the Ministry of Education preferred not to prescribe to principals what they can or cannot say, or what their tone should be, since they knew their students better.

‘There are students who need to be told that if you don’t work hard, you won’t make it. So you must not take away some of these tools from our educators,’ he said.

janeng@sph.com.sg

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 17th January 2008

Mobile TV - literally TV on mobile phones, not to be confused with TV mobile, which is generally TV on in-vehicular units, particularly buses, will be kicked off in June this year by M1. For a start, it will be a trial by M1 subscribers to determine the popularity of this technology.

This is in fact nothing new as telecom operators in other countries such as Korea and Japan had been using this for a few years. Pick-up rate, however, had not been good because users have to stare into a small screen for their movies or TV serials. In addition, cost may be a factor because the need for a low subscription rate and the critical mass required for it leaves the telcos in a catch-22 situation.

Personally, I might give this a miss mainly because:

• I am not really willing to pay more for it
• I don’t quite enjoy staring into a small screen
• After my experience with iMode (Starhub), which locked me to a particular phone, I don’t think I want to be locked to another phone
• Battery life may be an issue - what good is a phone if the battery is flat from watching all the TV programs
• I doubt the quality of the transmission
• I would want to spend some time doing something else that will not leave my eyes tired after alighting from the train/bus

With regards to the last statement, I am not sure how different it would be compared to playing games on the PSP, surfing the net on the bus/train, playing games on mobile phones, or reading books - all of which strains the eye in one manner or another. Ultimately, the launch should be market-driven because the lack of subscribers will probably leave the telcos a bad aftertaste, while the absence of good TV programs will leave subscribers wanting.

Lastly there is the question on the type of programs that should be aired. I’m sure there will be a lot of people will difference preferences, but personally, Just-for-laughs, Mr Bean and anything that does not require a long attention span would be good. Of course, this is personal.

FROM June, an M1-MediaCorp trial of mobile TV will see direct broadcasts of full length shows to your handset. However, the Media Development Authority’s (MDA) offer of four mobile TV licences seems more technology- than market-driven.

The idea of converging the extremely high penetration rate of mobile telephony with TV, which everyone watches, is a beguiling one. With WAP, MMS and video calls not being quite the killer applications the telcos need in a saturated market for mobile lines, the search is on for something new.

Yet the trend is towards free video on demand, like YouTube. Being free is critical: On-demand for-pay TV over the Internet is not doing too well, with SingTel’s MIO service garnering only 10,000 subscribers thus far.

The other trend is ever richer content. Specifically, the young are drifting away from over-produced studio content, preferring instead user-generated content. (More later.)

For mobile TV to survive financially, people must want and be willing to pay for traditional broadcast TV on their cellphones. Yet a recent poll found that 95 per cent of Europeans are not interested in mobile TV. Similarly, in its position paper available for public comment through Friday, MDA reveals that ‘only 11 per cent of Singaporeans are willing to pay between S$5 and S$15 per month for (mobile TV, so) demand could be lower than elsewhere’.

There is no mass market demand here for TV simulcasted to mobile phones - even if an industry forecaster like New York-based ABI Research is cheerfully predicting a US$27 billion (S$39 billion) global market by 2010.

The reality is hard. In September 2006, Virgin Mobile became the first in Europe to broadcast TV to handsets. For £25 (S$70) a month, British subscribers got five channels 24/7 of normal free-to-air TV programming on the free Lobster 700, a lumpy handset as ugly as its name. (The service did not work on any other cellphone.)

By July 2007, despite a Pamela Anderson-fronted £2.5 million promotional campaign, Virgin had snagged only 10,000 subscribers in Britain. It was never rolled out to Europe as had been originally planned. The service terminates this month.

Fans would, however, point to South Korea, but even in the world’s quickest adopter of mobile innovations, mobile TV has not been a market success.

In a population of 48 million, there are nine million mobile TV subscribers, according to an October 2007 report from Telecoms Korea. But no operator is making money from this.

In fact, by August 2007, South Korea’s six terrestrial mobile TV operators had accumulated losses between US$22 million and US$33 million each. Its only satellite mobile TV operator, whose losses amount to US$220 million, has already laid off a third of its workforce.

Terrestrial systems use radio signals to broadcast TV and audio channels, which can be received on suitable handsets as well as portable media players and in-car navigation systems. Satellite systems use a satellite signal, which requires a handset that comes with a satellite antenna.

In South Korea, satellite mobile TV - with 13 video and 36 audio channels - costs subscribers US$13 a month on top of their voice and data contract, whereas the terrestrial system - with seven video and 12 audio channels - is free.

The only clear winners in all this are Samsung and LG, who sell expensive TV-ready handsets.

How was mobile TV pioneered in 2005? Basically, the South Korean government pushed it through by, first, mandating the digital multimedia broadcasting (DMB) standard when the broadcast spectrum was auctioned off and, next, pressuring vendors to make devices to that standard. Then it made sure that there would be free mobile TV on the terrestrial systems: The studios do not allow telcos carrying their content to charge for the service. So although there are five terrestrial customers for every satellite customer, advertisement revenues have been marginal. The hope for terrestrial operators is that mobile TV might induce more to sign up for their high-end mobile lines.

Both business models, however, are hamstrung by a common problem: There is no killer content. Pundits thought that mobile TV content had to be ’snack entertainment’, as people would not squint at tiny screens for more than three to five minutes. Music videos were thought to be ideal while other TV content would likely have to be repurposed accordingly.

In fact, the satellite mobile TV service reported in June 2007 that its average user watched for a surprisingly long time - 64 minutes per day - and were demanding higher quality service. People were watching not just on the commute or at lunch but also while in the doctor’s or dentist’s waiting room, in the toilet, in secret - at work and in school - when they were bored at meetings or with classes, and in their bedrooms too.

It turns out that video length is not as crucial as content. In fact, in a 2007 field study, Nokia experts found that South Korean subscribers considered mobile TV content to be like third-rate programming on cable.

What do people want? In December 2007, Nokia’s Future Laboratory asked trendsetters in 17 countries about their digital lifestyles. From the study, Nokia extrapolated that, in five years’ time, a quarter of the entertainment that people consume will be content which they have themselves created, remixed and passed on to share with peers. Nokia attributed this to the ‘human desire to compare and contrast, create and communicate’.

Whereas once the act of watching, reading and hearing entertainment was passive, it said, consumers are increasingly demanding their entertainment be truly ‘immersive’. That is, people want to be able to access and create entertainment wherever they are, so the offline/online dichotomy will matter little.

It has also to be collaborative in that ‘consumers will want to be recognised and rewarded’, thus blurring the difference between being commercial and being creative.

Finally, as people begin to build their identities in things local, they will want entertainment to be more localised, customised and home-grown too.

If this is any guide, mobile TV cannot be simply (broadcast) TV on your mobile. Instead it must be a new service with a new kind of instantly engaging, made-for-mobile content that people want.

Where to source such content now? Even if service providers could do this and also overcome all other barriers - concerns about battery life, picture clarity, lags when channel surfing, handset pricing - so that mobile TV becomes a success in South Korea, it might still mean little for Singapore.

The South Korean government kick-started the market by mandating technology standards, spectrum allocations as well as free-of-charge terrestrial services to ensure customer uptake - all of which the MDA says it will not do.

But rightly so. Far better to wait and see how the cookie crumbles in South Korea.

andyho@sph.com.sg

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 17th January 2008

It seemed like the MDA rap got more people agencies into hip-hop faster than any other Japanese/Korean/American(?) trends did. I wonder if this guy was posing for the camera… looked a little… crabby?

Dancing ‘traffic policemen’ have been the centre of attraction at the Orchard MRT station access since Tuesday.

After the main exit from Orchard MRT station near Wisma Atria was closed due to ongoing construction above the station, they have been posted there to guide disoriented commuters who want to go to Wisma Atria and Ngee Ann City. The new access from the station is at the junction of Paterson Road and Orchard Road.

The dancing ‘traffic cops’ will be in action at 1pm and 5pm until tomorrow.

Article obtained from straitstimes.com on 17th January 2008