Hi, Thinking on how to improve the use of technology in developing countries has traditionally focused on "technology transfer", where technology developed and used in the west is adapted for use (or dumped!) in a developing country. The mobile phone itself is a good example of this - friends in Africa have the same handsets as friends in UK. However, I think the next generation of mobile phone applications are going to buck this trend. When looking for information (or data), friends in the UK will almost always use a computer on the internet. But the internet doesn't work in the same way in Africa, which is where mobile handsets will come in. Because people in the west tend not to use mobiles to access "serious" information, there is little incentive for companies to develop the kinds of useful applications we've been talking about. So we're not going to be able to transfer applications from US / EU to Africa. Instead, we will need to support local software companies to develop local solutions tailored to local conditions. There are some really good examples of locally developed applications, and some really talented people out there. I gather that some of the ICT incubator programmes have not been as successful as hoped. Are there other things that can be done? Nigel (Gamos)

Hi, When you combine the easy usability of the mobile phone with the resourceful creativity of rural people, you often come up with great ideas you never thought of. I think the best example of this is the way people use airtime as a virtual currency, mentioned earlier. Another example is "beeping" (or "flashing"), where you dial a number, let it ring, then hang up; this communicates to the other person that you want them to call you back. My point is that if you want to look at the impact of a pilot project, for example, you may have to look well beyond the project itself to see all of the impacts. I'm sure others of you have got some good stories. I think this is where some of the qualitative / quantitative methods that Carl talks about can be useful. Nigel Gamos

One aspect that I think is missing from our understanding is ways in which mobiles phones can have detrimental affects, so it's interesting to see Kristian expressing a some words of caution. We did some research some years ago which confirmed that people find mobiles really helpful for social matters, such as asking for help in emergencies, and keeping in touch with friends and family. On the other hand, relatively few people felt that mobiles contributed much to their economic activities. But what was really interesting was that there was a significant group of people who had strongly negative views concerning the use of mobiles for economic activities. Does anybody have any ideas why this should be?? One explanation is that there will be certain groups that get squeezed out of business, like the fruit and veg seller in Jimmy's story. Another explanation is as more and more people get mobile phones, there is a greater expectation (or social pressure) on people to keep in touch and make calls. Jawahar Kanjilal said that people will only continue to pay if there are tangible benefits (I think he was talking about economic benefits) but I'm not sure I agree - I think people will pay (a lot) just to chat. There is a school of thought in microfinance that giving loans to the poorest only pushes them further into debt as they are unable to repay, and I wonder if we may be seeing something similar with mobile phone costs. Nigel (Gamos)

Dear All, I love Paulo's story about his neighbour in Italy who gets his "market information" by talking to other farmers in the local bar. I have been told several times in Africa "Ah, but in my country we love to talk" - but maybe this is not only in Africa!. Shahid made the point that mobiles are mostly used for personal communication, and this certainly confirms our experience from a number of countries. But he also observed that people are beginning to use mobiles for contacting experts. I guess this is like the example given by Grace of contacting the vet, which is just making a normal voice call. A number of participants have stated the view that mobile applications in agriculture haven't really been very successful yet, and I wonder why this might be. Sylvester said that some people in Uganda use internet enabled phones to get information, while farmers unable to read and write use mobiles to make a call. So does this mean that SMS services are likely to be too complicated for the majority of rural farmers? Or is it simply not possible to get enough information on an SMS message to be of any practical use? Or do people just like to talk?