In a response to one of my recent unread Tech series, a poster suggested;
↑
"The concept of a decentralized digital ledger is directly opposed to a central CSP system" and "The system already exists and doesn't doesn't differentiate the nature of the connection."
Well that is not strictly correct as access to the CSP itself is not required, only the app being used needs to have the CSP built in and if an access point is available for either system then the SYT product generally will always be able to help the consumer.
And of course we need to consider upgrades and changes in operating systems for both hardware and software as well as application functionality, but let's not quibble about these small things.
It is always nice to receive feedback and to see that some out there are thinking tech from time to time.
And our poster is nearly right that the systems from for both driverless Cars and Blockchain do not necessarily need to be cross carrier solutions.
Or do they?
Here we have an example of a misunderstanding of the technical elegance of the SYT offering. While the central platform for the development of the service offering is the CSP it is not accessed but rather incorporated into an application that utilises the CSP functionality.
While we often fixate on the cross carrier strategic advantage, it is not the only technical aspect of the development tools available from Syntonic.
But our poster seems to forget that, in remote locations or from the volume transaction perspective, not all of the billions of transactions that will be completed over the mobile Internet in the future with these new developments developments, are going to be able to be completed via the end users selected Service provider.
This poses significant issues where consumers are not able to access service. In such cases the requirement to be able to access alternative routes for entry into Blockchain, IOT or Driverless Cars existing systems will be imperative and required for safety and ease of use.
This will be a particular importance, for example, where a block chain confirmation of validity of software is required for the commencement of the journey by a driverless vehicle or the validation for transfer of funds for a financial transaction for example or even more importantly, to turn off your stove you turned on the remotely!
Therefore when faced with the potential of being unable to complete a "transaction" Application developers will need to build in capacity to switch the access points from a designated carrier to an alternate required.
Beside it will be like "intel inside" perhaps we should trademark "cross carrier enabled" and think up a little jingle. After all, all computers have Chipset.
This cross carrier functionality will need to be part of any future app developed as a redundant safety feature if nothing else but is also a great marketing tool.
Some might suggest the cross carrier function might be the minimum requirement built in to apps which service this type of transaction. Of course I would not suggest that we lobby the lawmakers to ensure that this "cross carrier enabled" (copy right Pizzas4 2017) safety feature is always incorporated, but I could understand some thinking that this would be important.
That is where the special developers Toolkit or SDK will need to be utilised by app developers or content providers (as they are often called) to ensure that these important transactions, that are likely to be conducted over the mobile Internet, are able to take place in a timely manner and for safety.
As developers and consumers in time are likely going to require this type of backstop to be built into their applications, I expect that the SDK will find a myriad of potential users who need to ensure they are able to claim a cross carrier solution.
So in summary, it seems that whether the cross carrier solution is actually used or not on a regular basis, the SYT team are once again industry enablers and at the forefront of proving users and consumers a superior product to non-cross career solutions.
Look out for the next in the unread text series, "are skinny thick and fat MVNO's just names we scream when our piggybacked mobile service doesn't work?
