Assessing the 3G goldrush

The wireless market seems stuck in a cycle of hybrids and hacks, and simply notching up the bandwidth by an order of magnitude changes nothing.

These are good times for those addicted to portable computing. The reinvention of Windows CE as PocketPC has resulted in a workable, if somewhat clumsy, PDA platform for running applications requiring large amounts of colour and data storage.

Palm's insecurity, along with inventory problems and its tenuous relationship with hardware partners, is the market's gain, leading to low prices on handhelds that will last a smart shopper for years.

The notebook-addicted in particular will reap serious rewards when the time comes to replace their device.

AMD and Transmeta have independently regrouped for another attack on the Intel-dominated chip market.

Realistically, neither the Athlon 4 nor the Crusoe are going to dethrone the mobile Pentium, but the competition between laptop manufacturers will at least be heightened by a legitimate alternative for high-power and long-life environments.

This leads us on to mobile phones. The best I can say for the future of mobiles is that it reaffirms my faith in good sense to see that the repeated industry and media attempts to build a gold rush around third-generation (3G) wireless technology have largely failed.

Given the fact that current mobile internet access is a 'suitable for emergencies' novelty at best, perhaps experience has taught a valuable lesson.

Even with better bandwidth, cramming worthwhile wireless applications onto the more generous 3G screens will be a challenge.

Although software outfits such as SAP are trying to cram functionality into PDA-sized devices, relying on a wireless data connection to run mobile applications will be riskier than the current desktop application service provider model.

If it's multimedia you're after, why wait for 3G? You may as well buy a pocket games machine, or make do with one of today's Pocket PC or palm devices.

3G will open up a new realm of portable digital entertainment, or so the argument goes. Yet media companies are more interested in quashing the distribution of movies and songs, and the open formats that make widespread adoption possible, than in setting up novel, attractive delivery services.

And it's not clear that even those high-bandwidth applications that have gained some traction, such as video conferencing, will translate to a network where time spent communicating has a price tag.

The most compelling argument I've heard in favour of the 3G revolution cites the ridiculous number of Japanese iMode users who constantly check their mobiles for horoscope updates, paying a small fee each time.

I'm sure astrologers everywhere are anxious about the possibilities, but the evolution of the traditional internet has shown that simply expanding end user bandwidth has little impact on the type of content delivered. Broadband is more useful for providing faster access to existing data than for reshaping the landscape. At some point, common sense must kick in.

Wireless network developers and software outfits such as Symbian have been pushing the convergence dream for years, and have a pitiful array of overpriced hybrid phones to show for their efforts. There's nothing wrong with an oversized phone built to accommodate a PDA, but there's nothing compelling about it either.

Handspring's snap-on phone module is a nice idea but, considering that it costs more than a low-end Visor PDA, not to mention a perfectly competent standalone phone, it's difficult to see the appeal.