Jeffrey Belk, in a Qualcomm white paper entitled "Why MAX?" (PDF Warning) says that WiMAX, particularly WiMAX mobile, is not well placed to penetrate the mobile market.
Belk also seems to be quite upset at the amount of hype the technology is getting, given it's lack of performance thus far.
We think that there is a pretty simple explanation, in three parts - WiMAX has good marketers (e.g. Intel) good timing and a bold promise. The 3G services never talked about what their distances were, because it wasn't relevant to the end user. WiMAX makes claims that it will have huge ranges (~50 miles) which lends itself to hyperbole about expected use. This was especially true when the standard was first marketed - because mobile data was available only at anaemic speeds.
Whether it will be able to perform according to what's now expected is uncertain, but Belk's intrinsic assumption is probably right - If 3G data services are reasonably priced (at a flat rate), there is no scope for WiMax. It'll probably be cheaper to have that, and WiFi for easy multi device connection. (Some routers for this purpose are already available.) WiMAX's primary value might be in helping to make that a reality - by looking like a scary competitor; and it almost does, with products like DIY WiMAX announced. To end users, it's not about the technology, it's about how that end user derives an advantage. And the advantage is mostly about affordability.
P.S.: We also feel compelled to mention that it is not entirely certain that WiMAX mobile will be forced to use the 5.8Ghz spectrum and suffer through associated problems.
[via Mobitopia]
