For it to work, they have to make it SEXY otherwise your right "Mobile TV is dead in the water"
Chris.Ott@referralkey.com/
· 1 year ago
Don, I completely agree with you but perhaps for a slightly different reason. I don't think mobile TV will ever make it because they are charging a fee but also because nobody is using it anyways. Ipod video? VCast? and PSP? While all of these devices can play mobile video content nobody really uses them for that.
While we might like to romanticize about watching the latest blockbuster on our new iPhone the truth is that its impractical. I live in Boston and frequent NYC and while its not a scientific survey, I can honestly say that I rarely see people using these devices for videos. Why would you have your eyes glued to a 4 inch screen with so much stimuli occurring right around you.I could only imagine with driving a factor, suburbanites would probably have even less of a need for mobile tv.
gagahput3ra
· 1 year ago
I wonder what will happen if Steve Jobs came out next year at WWDC with another new iPhone and said "iPhone, with mobile TV."
Chris.Ott@referralkey.com/
· 1 year ago
1. Mac fanatics would immediately embrace it without question, giving the illusion to the general public that it was a highly functional and already adopted product.
2. Millions would pick up the new product and would not use the service after owning it for a week but would still swear by it in order to justify its designer price tag.
3. Sensing the end of the publicity cycle and realizing people own more broken "iPod TV's" than functional ones, Steve would re-release the same phone without the TV feature and call it the new iPhone nano
Wash, rinse, repeat:
You get the idea
JT
· 1 year ago
baseless apple bashing
they dont want mobile TV; by the way they don't even let FM radio get in the way of the iTunes store
Chris.Ott@referralkey.com/
· 1 year ago
JT: I was responding to "gagahput3ra"'s hypothetical scenario in good fun. Furthermore, I think Apple's strategy is genius, I don't bash them I applaud them. The truth is if such a poke was made about Microsoft anyone would have found it in good taste, you are a vessel for Apple and testament to their incredible brand building strategy.
Go Apple!!
whifsquash
· 1 year ago
Chris - brace yourself for this. Please get a spine. For the rest of our sakes. If you don't have one, at least borrow one. Maybe you think you're cool? But sometimes even people who aren't cool have a brain which makes their posts at least readable or informative, even if they can't pick an opinion to stick by either.
Oh, BTW, you are all misinformed about the advent of mobile tv in this country. Of course it sucks now - the only thing we've heard about from the dis-information or marketing departments that our beloved carriers (AT&T with 'media-SLO,' etc) have seen fit to forward to us to complement their f-d up business agenda. If any of you dug just a wee bit, you would find something that is clearly going forward, that no one seems to know about yet, and will blow you away. Unfortunately, I'm not going to make it any easier, since I see the level of the playing field here. the only hint is February, 2009. Those of you with a brain will know what I'm talking about... heh, heh, heh...(evil laughter....) - the whifsquasher
Shawn Sl Carrtel
· 8 months ago
You my friend are so correct, but the Date is actually April -6 2009 CTIA
Jens
· 1 year ago
I actually disagree.
I can actually watch mobile TV already. It is called YouTube. Many TV stations are starting to stream their content online. So I can watch that, too. Well, provided I have a speedy connection.
The point is: mobile TV is simply Internet TV watched on a mobile. We don't need to re-invent the wheels, they are already on the car.
But yes, why would I pay for a second set of wheels when the ones that I already have for free work just fine?
Burak
· 1 year ago
Watching mobile TV is a solitary thing to do because of the small screen/limited audio. Until there's a way of making mobile TV more social (maybe when phones have a way of projecting an image onto a wall) then it's only ever going to be used during the daily commute or while killing time.
Jim
· 1 year ago
Oh, and the prototypes for having phones project images onto walls are almost set to be released. And phones that come WITH the projector as part of the phone are in the near future as well.
Jim
· 1 year ago
I agree with Jen,
I really think Hulu is mobile TV already. Problem, iPhones can't stream the video yet. Extremely frustrating. But what appeals about having phones or portable devices capable of playing mobile video is simply the ability to transfer it from an iPod to your TV screen. Perhaps the iPod classic, with it's 160 "virtual library" gigs may end up being the way to go. Just bring that and a cable and I can watch TV at any friend's house, or my own. Add wiFi to the classic and you may have something.
Mr. Kazinec
· 1 year ago
For me there are two problems. First, the fee, I'm already paying for my base cell package, text messaging, and if you add mobile tv into the mix I'll have to cancel the satellite at the house. Secondly, when would I watch it? When I'm working I'm doing just that, working. When I'm not working I'm at home watching a real tv. I guess they could market it to students; they could watch it while there not paying attention in class.
Will
· 1 year ago
Nice post. I used to watch TV on my iPod when I lived in NYC and commuted on the subway. As for paying for TV on cell phones? It's a bit of a stretch; I agree that it won't happen.
Darayush
· 1 year ago
Dont completely agree with the dead part and here are my top 3 reasons why;
1 - The technology is still being worked out and the bottlenecks in most cases are not the devices or S/W but the networks.
2 - It would apply to segments like sports where fans do often want to watch games live. So service providers putting up a pay as you go per event model might work. Think of it as an iPod/iPhone with live video content instead of downloads/YT.
3 - There are markets in Asia and maybe even parts of Europe where folks are on public transport for close to two hours a day in packed trains with very little wiggle room for newspapers or laptops. Imagine them getting their fav shows or sporting events live on their phones. Its a huge untapped opportunity that cannot be satisfied just by a slingbox or Tivo.
Mr. Kazinec
· 1 year ago
Darayush, You make a great point about the markets in Asia and Europe(lengthy public transportation commutes), but would those markets really be worth the investment considering all of the failed attempts to date? I could definitely see the sports crowd paying for premium service but am not convinced it would be enough of a market to justify an ongoing struggle to bring this technology to life and to keep it breathing.
Eric Rice
· 1 year ago
Wait, Asia markets and Sports Markets *enough* of a market? Makes it sound like boutique niche content, heh. That's insane cash money in the bank if you can win those, so yeah, more than enough of a market.
Mr. Kazinec
· 1 year ago
They are indeed very large markets but to continue with the progression of this technology solely in the hopes that these markets will bite on the technology would be a huge risk. Especially considering it has done so poorly so far. I did not mean Asia and sports markets are insignificant; that is obviously not the case.
giacomo
· 1 year ago
yes hulu is a great tool... unfortunately it doesn't work here in Europe... I hate these damned rights which are geographically shaped, they have no sense in a global world were English is becoming a kind of standard exchange language... we need a globalisation of media content production/distribution over the internet: if someone buys the rights for reproducing a show on the internet they would be allowed to distribute it everywhere in the world without borders provided they will do that only through the internet media!
I don't care about traditional media as TV, they can still follow geography... but internet must not be bound with territorial restrictions which are sauropods coming from the age of XIX century nationalistic mentality...
Dennis
· 1 year ago
You are so right, Mobile TV is dead. Everyone I know that has that Verizon "TV Phone" doesn't even use it for the TV feature cause they don't want to pay for it. I did like it when Mobile ESPN did it with the college bowl games cause I was out of the house working and during breaks I could just flip it open and catch about 30 minutes of the game. The video quality wasn't amazing and there was always a lag between audio and visual. And yes the only things offered on Mobile TV are crap and not even worth watching ever. Great article.
Jamie
· 1 year ago
I have often wondered about mobile tv too... I am just not THAT into TV that I have to have it with me and see the show right when it is on... besides, if I do that I have to watch commercials... if I wait, and say buy it off Itunes... then I have nothing to worry about!
AC
· 1 year ago
Operators need to realize that Mobile TV isn't something that subscribers are willing to pay for -- even in Japan the service is free:
It seems to me that in the big metros it would be better off to watch television via some sort of digital antenna rather than stream it over the internet. If you are going to watch video asynchronously than you've got youtube, hulu, etc.
Johannes
· 1 year ago
Is this fun, watching TV on a little screen of a mobile, never! Internet on mobiles is a great thing,to stay informed, one can read without disturbing the others in train or bus. I would never pay for a mobile TV service! My Big Flatscreen at home is much sexier...
All the best Johannes netjobbers.de
Juergen Hoebarth
· 1 year ago
As i am living in europe i have to say they introduce mobile TV because they have at the moment a lot of proplems with getting new revenue modells and so on. But u are right they just think - okay we make a lot of advertising and the poeple will buy it - i was thinking the same as most of you guys from ameria - but say this to a manager - who ha to make new things and the industrie knows the TV business so they tink they will adobt it for the mobiles - but u are right usage is totaly different - and they will have ne next FAILER as they hade with VIDEO Telephonie at the UMTS hype
IanEnvivio
· 1 year ago
As a manufacturer of mobile TV equipment, I can tell you that we have been selling many $$$ worth of broadcast headend equipment over the last few years specifically for mobile TV services. And while most of the criticisms mentioned here are valid, some operators have deployed popular successful services. As Whifsquash alluded early next year the ATSC-MH standard should be finalized opening the Nth American market to services similar to the ISDB-T markets of Japan and Brazil.
The trick to successful services is flat-rate subscription pricing, combined with premium content (primarily news & sports) delivered with impressive quality (>CIF, >12fps) with broadcast reliability. Do all that and operators like Orange in France are now boasting >1M subscribers paying >6€ per month.
All Comments
I completely agree with you but perhaps for a slightly different reason. I don't think mobile TV will ever make it because they are charging a fee but also because nobody is using it anyways. Ipod video? VCast? and PSP? While all of these devices can play mobile video content nobody really uses them for that.
While we might like to romanticize about watching the latest blockbuster on our new iPhone the truth is that its impractical. I live in Boston and frequent NYC and while its not a scientific survey, I can honestly say that I rarely see people using these devices for videos. Why would you have your eyes glued to a 4 inch screen with so much stimuli occurring right around you.I could only imagine with driving a factor, suburbanites would probably have even less of a need for mobile tv.
2. Millions would pick up the new product and would not use the service after owning it for a week but would still swear by it in order to justify its designer price tag.
3. Sensing the end of the publicity cycle and realizing people own more broken "iPod TV's" than functional ones, Steve would re-release the same phone without the TV feature and call it the new iPhone nano
Wash, rinse, repeat:
You get the idea
they dont want mobile TV; by the way they don't even let FM radio get in the way of the iTunes store
Go Apple!!
Please get a spine. For the rest of our sakes. If you don't have one, at least borrow one. Maybe you think you're cool? But sometimes even people who aren't cool have a brain which makes their posts at least readable or informative, even if they can't pick an opinion to stick by either.
Oh, BTW, you are all misinformed about the advent of mobile tv in this country. Of course it sucks now - the only thing we've heard about from the dis-information or marketing departments that our beloved carriers (AT&T with 'media-SLO,' etc) have seen fit to forward to us to complement their f-d up business agenda. If any of you dug just a wee bit, you would find something that is clearly going forward, that no one seems to know about yet, and will blow you away. Unfortunately, I'm not going to make it any easier, since I see the level of the playing field here. the only hint is February, 2009. Those of you with a brain will know what I'm talking about... heh, heh, heh...(evil laughter....) - the whifsquasher
I can actually watch mobile TV already. It is called YouTube. Many TV stations are starting to stream their content online. So I can watch that, too. Well, provided I have a speedy connection.
The point is: mobile TV is simply Internet TV watched on a mobile. We don't need to re-invent the wheels, they are already on the car.
But yes, why would I pay for a second set of wheels when the ones that I already have for free work just fine?
I really think Hulu is mobile TV already. Problem, iPhones can't stream the video yet. Extremely frustrating. But what appeals about having phones or portable devices capable of playing mobile video is simply the ability to transfer it from an iPod to your TV screen. Perhaps the iPod classic, with it's 160 "virtual library" gigs may end up being the way to go. Just bring that and a cable and I can watch TV at any friend's house, or my own. Add wiFi to the classic and you may have something.
First, the fee, I'm already paying for my base cell package, text messaging, and if you add mobile tv into the mix I'll have to cancel the satellite at the house.
Secondly, when would I watch it? When I'm working I'm doing just that, working. When I'm not working I'm at home watching a real tv. I guess they could market it to students; they could watch it while there not paying attention in class.
1 - The technology is still being worked out and the bottlenecks in most cases are not the devices or S/W but the networks.
2 - It would apply to segments like sports where fans do often want to watch games live. So service providers putting up a pay as you go per event model might work. Think of it as an iPod/iPhone with live video content instead of downloads/YT.
3 - There are markets in Asia and maybe even parts of Europe where folks are on public transport for close to two hours a day in packed trains with very little wiggle room for newspapers or laptops. Imagine them getting their fav shows or sporting events live on their phones. Its a huge untapped opportunity that cannot be satisfied just by a slingbox or Tivo.
You make a great point about the markets in Asia and Europe(lengthy public transportation commutes), but would those markets really be worth the investment considering all of the failed attempts to date? I could definitely see the sports crowd paying for premium service but am not convinced it would be enough of a market to justify an ongoing struggle to bring this technology to life and to keep it breathing.
I don't care about traditional media as TV, they can still follow geography... but internet must not be bound with territorial restrictions which are sauropods coming from the age of XIX century nationalistic mentality...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1seg
All the best
Johannes
netjobbers.de
The trick to successful services is flat-rate subscription pricing, combined with premium content (primarily news & sports) delivered with impressive quality (>CIF, >12fps) with broadcast reliability. Do all that and operators like Orange in France are now boasting >1M subscribers paying >6€ per month.