mobile TV and TV mobile

In China, people raised the arguments on the mobile TV till so far. Should mobile TV/TV mobile be defined as new media or just the new application on the mobile network? Many experts raised their argument base: someone said content is the most important for the new stuff, just like content does to TV, so better be mobile TV; while someone else said the transmission telecom network is so vital that it is only a new technology developed from the mobile base.

I would say it is both. it will carry the content of course, and it is also part of the mobile service. However, behind all the arguments, the basic question is the power fight between the two regulatory departments, Ministry of Information Industry(MII) regulating telecom companies and the State Administration of Radio Film and Television (SARFT).With the merging of the industries regulated by the two regulators, the conflicts has increased a lot, from the Internet shown on TV, to the TV shown on the mobile. The two departments not only has diffferent opinion on how to regulate the new services, but also support different technical standards. For example, the SARFT proposed a new standard, named China Mobile Multimedia Broadcasting, using the STiMi standard, and annouced to use it during the Beijing Olympics 2008; however, the stanford is not very accepted by the MII and the mobile carriers.

The deeper side is also on the two regulators' industry. MII, as one of the nation's pinoeers, has encouraged the competition between telecom carriers and the overseas listing of the four largest telecom companies. The telecom industry created the revenue of over 600 billion yuan last year, almost 7 times of the revenue created by the media industry (regulated by SARFT) with only 88.9 billion yuan. It is understandable that the SARFT may feel a little envy towards the peer. But they should learn more from the peer instead of just trying to grab from MII. Taking a look at the SARFT, it is easily found the pieces containing keywords such as "forbidden", "stop","warning". In fact, the development of an industry should be depend on the regulator's positive attitude, while "forbidden" is definitely not the right word.

We have seen the fast development of Chinese mobile carriers and their must improved customer services. ( if you tried 10086, the customer service line of China Mobile). But then people are still complaing the higher and higher charge of cable fees but still bad customer service of cable companies(usually just TV stations). If customers are satisfied, they will pay more, and in reverse, they will not pay when they could be satisfied. so either mobile TV or TV mobile, who could provide a better service, who will win.

Should Hang Seng index always follow U.S. market?

Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index always follows U.S. market, a very easy way for traders to judge its daily up and down. So did today. Now the problem is not only on how the suprime mortgage problem will be solved, but on if the investors' confidence will be rebuilt. The mortgage crisis should just directly affect property and banking stocks. However, funds have been selling out their portfolios because of large amount of redeeming, which as a result leading to the stock falling down in all sectors.

Are investors in Hong Kong too nervous now? I believe so. The market, with over half of the market value from mainland firms, is not the same as the U.S. market. For example, housing and related industry generates over one quarter of U.S.' GDP, while China is still dominated by the prosperous manufacturing industry. Also, the liquidity is totally different: U.S. and European banks have to ask capital injection from central banks, while Chinese banks have enough cash and deposits on hand to meet the loan demand. Just saw one piece quoted Yi Xianrong, a Chinese academic, saying China is even worse than U.S., while I really don't think so. China's personal loan market is still developing very fast from infant, compared to a mature market like U.S. . So Hong Kong investors and traders should realize this huge difference, and react differently. If Hong Kong really wants to build itself as an international finance center, it should always have its own stand. Stock market is one example.

Gmail's keyword ads

Do you often click on Google's Ads when you using your email?

I don't, and never did. I may do it when I use the search engine since it is something I want to know. But for email, I seldom take a look at the ads link on the right since it is not my priority to know more.

Yesterday, found something interesting. I typed something in the sequence of ABC, but then saw accidentally the ads on the rights including some company named in the sequency of ACB. Oh, if that's the truth, then it has nothing to do with my email content. Then I guess who is going to click that.

To me, the ads integrated in the searching engine is something really smart, since that will help boost match between info searchers and advertisers. But for ads inside the email, I still doube the profitability. People writing the email are not in the intention to find something. Then why bother clicking into it?

It's just a deal

When we say Murdoch's deal of Dow Jone, many people just consider it as a bad thing. Here I got someone saying Don't be afraid of Murdoch on NYTimes. In fact, every newsroom gets controlled in some way. It's not Murdoch who set an example of this. Reporters are always the lowest class in the newsroom. So I would not say it is Murdoch's fault for reporters to lose their freedom and independence, it just depends on the boss of the newsroom. All the people get judgement, and it is not a surprise when you meet someone.

So there must be some way to work it out to a more independent and fair news world in this new media era.

Could Jimmy Wales compete with Google?

Seems Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, finally said and did something official against Google. From the starting of Wiki, I could smell the competition against Google since Wiki is a place where people could search definite answer instead of going to good for infinite results. The article in the above link compared Jimmy Wales vs Google with Linux vs Windows. Hmmm, personally, I don't think it is quite right since we still see an innovative Google which has more edge in the research more than monopoly. But it will never hurt to have more search engines, especially professional and vertical ones. I once had the opportunity to talk to Jimmy in Hong Kong, of course, as a big fan. He is very smart, a former hedge fund manager now dedicated to Internet. So I will not doubt his ability to do something outstanding. Let's see.