> > 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.
the two are comperable in that WAP applications compete with
traditional Internet applications, and people will sometimes
have to choose between "native Internet" and WAP as a means
of running their application (or support both)
> > 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*,
sure, but SMS was the limiting case on the bandwidth side. were it
not for the need to support SMS it would have made a lot more sense to
just use IP. (though not necessarily to use traditional IP transports or
applications on top of it - but that would have at least been possible
for those who were willing to suffer the expense/delay.)
display size might not have been a fundamental design constraint
of WAP's lower layers, but WAP applications are certainly designed
to cope with limited display size, and the limitations of cellphone
displays are often used as a justification for using WAP instead
of IP based applications.
> 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*.
today, perhaps. tomorrow is different.
> As far as wireless industry is concerned, the die is already cast -
> WAP, BlueTooth and UMTS are three future technologies.
an industry that believes its own marketing propaganda is quite often wrong.
Keith
