It is amusing watching the WiFi announcements - some of them seem without clue.
Imagine sitting down at a McDonald's and surfing with uncomfortable chairs (much has been written on making ergonomics undesirable to rotate customers), screaming kids and no powerstrips to go past the 1 hour "free" surfing before you pay.
I have been visiting WiFi hotspots for nearly a year and would claim that the McDonald's announcement is not different from the old argument of getting eyeballs - someone is trying to show a large number of hotspots, even if it doesn't make sense.
To make something work you need to supply
- a comfortable area to work
- an expectation that the customer can loiter long enough to work
- power outlets if people are to be around for much more than an hour (which begs the question - why not ethernet plugs?)
- easy access and billing proceedures (the best is unbilled dhcp ... many of the wireless access providers require the user to go through loops to get a low quality experience for which they are charged)
- unadulterated net
Most of the fee based schemes I've seen are lacking. The best places seem to be those that are provided as a service for the consumer rather than another way to squeeze nickels. Think pay toilets vs clean restrooms for patrons. There is a danger of giving consumers a bad experience with WiFi and loosing your main business to businesses that offer good WiFi.
These people should also try to understand why so many people who have WiFi equiped laptops are not using the for pay hotspot services.
McDonald's needs to be worring about rebuilding their business by focusing on what is broken. They seem to be a very poor match for this.
I am a strong believer in wireless net, but I'm also realistic enough to note that the current boom may be just that - a boom with a bust (for most of the companies) on the other side. The winners have to understand how and why customers will use this. The average freenet seems to have much more sense than the average $20 million startup.
10:28:45 AM
|