Comments on: Loopt helps reduce cost of location services

The friend-tracking software developer has struck a new licensing deal with a Qualcomm subsidiary that should make it cheaper for wireless operators to offer location services.

[GPSPro]

I don't understand this. Don't all of the Tier 1 US carriers already have Location systems in place from TCS or Aepona, etc? Does Loopt actually have a CARRIER deal here or any concrete plans to sell locates to carriers? Wouldn't they have to undercut TCS (a huge SnapTrack customer) in order to do that? Seems like a long shot for a bunch of college kids (at best) and just terrible strategy at worst (really? they want to become a systems integrator?).

Let's focus: isn't Loopt's biggest challenge actually REVENUE (lack of users or even a credible business model for the users they DO have) and not COST at all? Isn't the Loopt service generally offered for FREE already (on Sprint, iPhone, etc)? How is cost holding anything back for them?

Look, I love the idea of being able to see where my friends are on my mobile phone. I really do. But Loopt has not cracked the code yet in terms of getting enough customers or getting PAID for the customers they do have. I'm skeptical that a branded mobile-social network ever will in the face of large existing social networks (Facebook, My Space, etc).

This feels like a meaningless "news" item and a distraction for a company that needs to focus on creating a legitimate business.

Can someone help me connect the dots? What am I missing here?

[wireless3]

Location based services are very useful services and they are the most demanded wireless services. Low charges for such services will be good encouragement for service users.
http://www.mywirelessnetwork.mywirelessrep.com/wireless_services.html

[Rick Weld]

CNET: Your bias is showing--quite clearly.

1. Interesting to note the story's omission of a key fact---Loopt is being sued by rival LBS provider Earthcomber in Chicago over patent ownership within this area. CNET publisher/Loopt pal Dan Farber is keenly aware of this, but chooses not to have his reporter include it in the story.

2. Loopt--as the other reader correctly notes--has not generated any significant revenue within this arena--even though others have. A point not lost on users.

Someone might want to wake up sleepy Mr. Farber and remind him that a long time ago--he held himself out as a journalist. Allowing such slanted bias PR nonesense to be published in a story without balance is becoming known as "pulling a Farber".

Sad, but unfortunately, all too true.