Analyzing the case of WiMAX and LTE, a general conclusion can be reached that the ecosystem of WiMAX is larger than LTE and has much more partisans at the present time of deployment. The ecosystem of WiMAX as an interaction of organizations can be seen through operators, end user devices suppliers, end users, infrastructure suppliers, and others. The key players, in that regard, can be seen through the operators and end-user device manufacturers. For the former, it can be explained that end-user device manufacturers determine the attachment rate of a technology, and contribute to its rapid spread, as it can be seen through the example of Wi-Fi networks. It can be stated that for WiMAX, Intel gathered all the important participants for the creation of a WiMAX ecosystem. LTE, on the other hand, it can be stated that the ecosystem is yet to be created. The only participants of the systems are mobile operators, with neither devices nor infrastructure existent in the ecosystem. Thus, LTE the main and the only player are some 30 mobile operators, the largest of which are AT&T and Verizon. Considering the scale of implementation and the participants of the ecosystem, it can be assumed that both technologies will coexist in some way or another. With LTE being developed over cellular networks, while WiMAX targeted computer devices first of all, it can be stated that the development might take simultaneous, different, and largely successful directions. One thing that can be stated for sure is that with WiMAX the situation might not be similar as with Wi-Fi, where the infrastructure was built by the end user. In the case of the WiMAX and LTE, the existent infrastructure and coverage plays the largest role, and thus, it might be assumed that they will be developed simultaneously. The speed of development, however, might different in favor of WIMAX, considering the fact that the WIMAX chose the path of standardization, and accordingly, the involvement of a largest number of participants. Additionally, when an IP is open, rather than proprietary, it will be developed in a faster pace, even with the support of a few organizations. Such statement can be supported through the case of Adobe Flash format, and HTML5. The development of Flash, Adobe’s proprietary format, took several years until it is supported by many websites and browsers. HTML is an open standard, and once it was officially promoted by a single large company, Apple for their IPads, IPods, and IPhones, it can be seen how within a year many companies started integrating the format into their WebPages and browsers, making their content available for both platforms (Miller, 2010). Although Apple is not a good example of openness, in this case it supports the statement that both technologies will succeed, but the speed of a widespread of a technology might be different. The impact of 4G is mainly can be seen through providing accessible and mobile bandwidth everywhere. Thus, the impact on users can be seen through more cheap options to choose from in the segment of devices that support 4g. Hybrid devices which provide mobility with the capabilities of laptops might emerge. At the current state it can be assumed that internet tabl