Slashdot Mirror
TV On Mobiles: Not Yet There?
rustbear writes "It seems that perhaps Apple did their homework when they decided to downplay the video capabilities of the new iPod. The Guardian reports that "Most [British] people have no desire to watch television on mobile phones, preferring to use home computers to watch TV while on the internet, according to new research. Although 65% of British consumers surveyed cite the mobile phone as their most desired gadget, 70% of mobile owners said they did not want to watch television on their phone at all. Nearly 45% of consumers said they would watch TV on their home computer, because it enabled them to choose what they wanted to watch and when." Is the mainstream market not yet ready for portable video?"
The problem? Well, currently nobody really has a DVB-H network apart from a few trial areas in a handful a major cities. I understand that it's not too expensive to piggy-back DVB-H onto a DVB-T infrastructure, but it's still an expense.
Nokia are certainly taking a risk, but you know that's what business is about. Most consumers these days are demanding camera phones, for example, but a couple of years ago that wasn't even something that most handset manufacturers would have thought of. A lot of technlogies are like that - nobody really knows if the market wants them because they represent something new and untested.
Personally.. well, I'm the kind of geek who would sooner be surfing the web than watching TV, but I understand that watching TV is quite popular. Only the market can really decide if the concept is going to be a success.
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
The only place I'd use a call phone to watch tv is on the jon.. while at work.
is that movie/ipod-likes screens are too small - 1. strain on eyes and 2. not many people can watch together
sarchasm
Mobile audio and mobile video are two different worlds. If you have a high quality audio file and a good pair of headphones, a mobile audio player can deliver a virtually perfect listening experience, anywhere. On top of that, you can multitask with an audio player. I can lull myself into a good coding mood listening to Garbage, load up some podcasts for the drive to work, or make a running playlist where the BPM of each song synches up with my feet hitting the ground; it's a beautiful synergy.
Video is nothing like this. I can't watch a TV show while I'm driving, exercising or working. More so, the immersion experience is relative to the size of the screen. No matter how big your TV screen is, you'd like to be watching a bigger one. If your screen is only a few inches large, I would guess that this distraction would be constant. Yes, Apple sold a million videos in no time flat, but I think this is just novelty. Apple's teeming hordes will buy any new iPod that comes out, and everyone who bought a video iPod probably purchased at least one video to try it out. We'll see if the trend continues.
Saying that mobile video is "Not Yet There" implies that the natural progression of technology will eventually make it more compelling. I disagree. Any TV screen that fits in your pocket will always be too small to be enjoyable, and it's very difficult to multitask when something requires both your eyes and ears. Mobile video will never be as ubiquitous as mobile audio is today.
domain combinatorics
Is the mainstream market not yet ready for portable video?
More like portable video is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist.
If you want to portably watch television, get a portable tv.
As soon as they start making cell phones with 9" or better screens on them, I'll be interested in watching TV on them. But then, it'll be a bitch to get into my pocket.
Port. TV has been around for ages and ages. It's not that it's not here yet, but that it's been here and gone. You have to have a little mind to spend it watching a little 5cm screen, and watch what. There will be the few who spend countless hours recoding for the little screen, natch. The rest of us shake our heads and laugh...because we can, and it's funny. Wannabegeeks. What's next.
Doesn't this beg the question of whether they will EVER be ready?
Despite their foibles and quirks, "the mainstream," bless their souls, sometime has a pretty good bead on what they think is bullshit and what is not. I think that TV on a cell phone is counted in the former category and not the latter.
Just because technology can do a thing, does not necessarily mean that it will ever be accepted by the "mainstream."
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
I have never understood the appeal of those portable DVD players, the one good thing about I suppose is that you can plug them into your television if you have one handy. So its not surprising that the video ipod has a tv out, i had no real desire for a portable video player, but that tv out instantly gets me interested, I can put anything I can get from the internet on to the ipod video and watch it on my telly in my living room.
I think there is a good chance now that sony will re-release the PSP with a tv out, if they did I would definitely pick one up.
Question: Is is possible to assemble one from legacy components like we do with computer systems? I would not mind the size. I guess it would be quite big.
...if it, you know, worked better. iTunes under XP won't export videos to the iPod, just hangs ... I guess it works for a lot of people, but there's a number of people complaining in the support forums. Fortunately I only care about one video, Wave Twisters ...
why would anyone choose to watch movies and video on a screen about the size of a saltine cracker?, when there is a full size TV in the living room and atleast a 17 inch computer monitor in the HomeOffice?
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
"Is the mainstream market not yet ready for portable video?"
Not ready? Or perhaps people just aren't interested in trying to walk around downtown while staring down at a tiny screen trying to make out what the people on the screen are doing.
To me it sounds like a mugging waiting to happen.
> Is the mainstream market not yet ready for portable video?
With respect, this is disingenuos. Succesful products never wait until the mainstream market is 'ready' for any new product, if they did, then another company taking a risk would be the ones who get the marketshare. The key item here is 'disruptive technology'.
An example of disruptive technology is the 8" hard drive. The 14" hard drives were fast and stored a lot of data, but few of the disk companies bothered to make 8" drives when they came out because they were slower and didn't store as much data. Not only that, but they cost more per megabyte. But the market for Minicomputers demanded lower cost (even if it was higher cost per meg) overall drives, so they started improving. Only one or two hard drive companies from the 14" market survived the switch to 8" drives because they didn't see the benefit, and their customers didn't either, until it was too late.
The same thing happened again when the 5.25" HDs came out. Only a couple manufacturers of 8" drives stayed in business, and only because they spent money on the 5.25" drives well before they were good enough to sell, or profitable.
Finally, look at the excavating market: Up until the 1940s, steam shovels were all cable activated. They used cables to lift the arms and control the scoop, not hydraulics. When the first hydraulic dirt movers came out, they couldn't move anywhere near as much dirt and they cost more to operate, but eventually they became more powerful, safer, and cheaper to own and operate then cable operated stuff. NONE of the steam shovel companies that were in business in the 1940s survived past the 1950s because they didn't see the benefit of selling what they saw as inferior technology, which hydraulics definately were in the beginning.
This created opportunities for the startups to dominate the small hydraulics market unopposed until they were able to grow into and take over the domain of the cable operated steam shovel.
Cell phone video sucks right now, and doesn't _sound_ smart to the mainstream market. After all, it's not as high quality as DVD now, and it has lots of deficiencies, but they know that eventually, the market for digital downloads of video may grow to compete with and even replace physical media sales. That's not what customers want right now, but the market and technologies change, so 5-10 years from now, customers will demand this, and whoever is in the business first will have lots of advantages.
Remember, what the customer wants is not always best, and if you spend your life following the customers requests only, you'll eventually go out of business when a disruptive technology appears. It happened to the 14" drive manufacturers who listened to their customers (who weren't interested in slower, lower capacity drives), and it could happen to the media industry that doesn't take a risk with this stuff. I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, but whoever takes the risk stands to reap the rewards, while everyone else has to play catch up, IF the technology takes off.
Just something to think about...
This smells like a very badly formed question. I would never want to watch TV on my home computer if I could 'choose wat and when to watch' on my TV.
My TV is way bigger than my PC, located in a far more confortable room. This answer looks like the question had too few possible options; if you could have video-on-demand on your TV you wouldn't dream of giving the above answer.
--
If code was hard to write, it should be hard to read
people will only want larger screens to view TV (or any other type of video) on their phones, and yet they don't want their phones to bloat in size until they become voice-enabled PDAs, so it's really a perpetual dilemma.
everything else succeeded on a cell phone - voice, WAP (well, partially), ringtones, simple games, mp3s, camera...EXCEPT video
same reason why all those portable Windows Media players aren't selling like hot cakes, and the same reason why people buy the 5th Gen iPod primarily for mp3. The screen can only get so small until it becomes squinting.
And what's the point of Hi-def video on cell phones when the native resolution is merely 240x320 on most of the high-end phones. even when we quadruple that to VGA, that's still only DVD-quality, hardly the definition of "HD." So for those fanatics calling for 1080p streamed to their $49 heavily-rebated phone from NextHell, please be realistic =)
Just like speakerphone lets you use your phone without holding it up to your ear, video speakerphone will let you watch video without squinting at a tiny screen!
Sure, the details are vague, but it sounds good to me!
sig.
TV on mobiles have been 'there' in Japan for awhile now. It is pretty much a standard feature on all of the "free" phones you can get when you sign up for new service. Whether people actually watch TV on their phones is another question...
...is being phased out. It is a moving target, but I think the present date is 2008, rendering your portable TV useless after that point (unless you are an amateur radio operator...)
-everphilski-
The desire for TV on a mobile isn't coming from consumers, it's being pitched to them by phone companies desperate to set themselves apart somehow.
Without a new feature to set themselves apart, they will be seen as technologically deficient. If the other guy has it, we must have it too.
Of course, whether TV is actually useable (much like early internet on cellphones) isn't really important. Only that it is offered to make someone sign a contract.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
One was the fact that most consumers would happily pay double or triple for their phone so they could get it without TV but with good reception and sound quality. However, the most daunting problem with video on phones still hasn't been addressed.
To learn about this problem, I invite you to watch my video on the subject. The documentary was filmed in hi-def and recoded to for streaming cell-phone transmission. Simply click the video screen below to start watching.
Video Screen -->> [=]
Thank you for watching. I hope it is quite clear why TV on cellphones isn't a mainstream desire.
In the issue of full disclosure, my company is working on displaying e-books on cell phones. You can see a preview below.
Cell-E-Book 2.0 -->> [N]
if they want to watch Sex and the City while they are on the subway, more power to 'em. Although the signal condition is erratic in my part of the world, I'd say only passengers should operate mobile devices of any kind. As a cyclist, I would like people to understand that the less distractions for drivers, the better.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
The big ta-do over Apple allowing video downloads was not the crappy mini-version they are currently offering, it is that this could be the crack-in-the-dam that allows us to download video on demand for /real/ TV-quality shows.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Verizon still stocks basic cell phones. They don't flip, no color screens, etc.
-everphilski-
Why not, they have the internet on computers now.
Has anyone stated the obvious yet? The ipod video is NOT a phone...
Realistically, I don't think such a small screen will ever be useful for something longer than say a 5 minute video. Paying attention to the small screen for extended periods of time is rather annoying...
Instead of :Is the mainstream market not yet ready for portable video?
The question should be: Is portable video not yet ready for the mainstream market?
Why spend time and money to be able to watch TV and/or movies on a portable device like an iPod or phone, when all that is on TV is crap? There are two different reasons people watch TV (usually gender differentiated), one is excitement and the other is escapism into a good story. Big budget movies and sporting events on a small screen are, let's face it, a stupid idea and painful to watch. Escapist television is all about cocooning in your big comfy couch/recliner and ignoring the rest of the world for awhile, which is not really suitable for a mobile device.
I wouldn't want to watch most of what is on TV on a 60-inch plasma w/ surround sound, let alone a teeny-tiny LCD with earbuds.
Sound does accomplish part of the immersion thing pretty well. When you've got some okay headphones on, even with the teeny screen, you can hear the rumble of the rush on Akaba in Lawrence of Arabia. You just can't see the wide screen image.
And you're right, music you listen to in parallel with other stuff, whereas video you have to focus on, and those are different. It's hard to see the convergence of the iPod player and portable DVD players any time soon. You'd need some sort of projection screen...
Or alternatively, you can make the size of the screen completely irrelevant by just bringing it closer to your eyes. When some Jonathan Ives type cooks up "TV Glasses" that don't look as "stylish and comfortable" (and headache-inducing) as this, then we'll be getting someplace. For portable video, you just can't be wedded to the physical screen across the room the way we are now. You have to approach the problem from another angle.
Jobs pitched video as a little perk added in the update to the top-end iPods, and that was just about right.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
So I know I'm probably just addding to the other people on here that have already vented that portable TV is a thing of the past, and that the screen is too small, and that there's nothing good on anyway, etc... but obviously the OEMs and Service Providers don't realize this yet... It used to be cool to be able to pick up that TV signal anywhere and watch TV, but not only is it old hat, but why would I want to do that on a Cell Phone of all things? Think about it:
I'm at home, I watch the HDTV in the living room.
I'm in the Home Office, I have a TV tuner (that rarely gets used, but that's beside the point)
I'm on the go, there are DVD players and TV tuners for in car stereos (which have much better sound and typically are like 7" screens)
I'm in the office, there's a TV in the break room (besides, I'm too busy to watch TV at work anyway or I wouldn't have a job)
Why do we need another one? Are people standing around waiting in lines for the train? Is that the only market? I used to surf the net on my phone waiting for my plane when I traveled, but it was usually only for a few minutes to get the news because the screen was too darn small. How many people ride the train/plane/bus to work? I assume it's a decent number, but compare that to the number of people that can afford a phone that enables them to watch TV and how many actualy care to watch TV in the first place and then see how many are in all categories... then realize that we're talking about a small percentage of people here and realize that Cell phone TV = "Nothing to see here, move along"
Just my $0.02 I guess.
-=JML=-
Considering that the UK has DVB coverage in virtually every populated area (and it's unencrypted), it is a wonder that there is no phone that can tap into it. There might be issues with roaming around from area to area & reception, but even so a phone that offered unimpeded access to DVB would still kick 3Gs arse all over the shop. Later models would probably even be DVRs as well, either to a memory card or hard drive.
But such a device is unlikely to ever happen - at least as a subsidized offering. The telcos have spent billions on the lame duck called 3G and they're certainly not going to let their customers get something better for free.
"Is the mainstream market not yet ready for portable video?"
Better question, "How much is the average person willing to pay to watch TV on his cellphone?"
Speaking for myself, $0.00. The only possible market I can think of for this (outside of you hardcore "gadget heads") would be sports fans that want to be able to immediately see instant replays while at a game. However, aren't games often "blacked out" in the area near the stadium anyways?
I can see how a Phone/PDA has potential - especially if Palm and Blackberry join forces. Problem is, you'd only want to have that as part of your work. You certainly don't want to take that anywhere it could get damaged.
Therefore, give me a reliable phone that is small and can tolerate rough handling. Something I can throw in the seat pack of my mountain bike and not worry about it getting scratched up or beat up if I drop the bike.
A Basic phone that is reliable, waterproof, shockproof, and small. If you absolutely must add a "gadget", make it an MP3 player - the fitness crowd can use that during thier morning jogs, spin sessions, bike rides, etc.
I'll lay odds that phone will outsell any "gadget phone" out there.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Well, if I'm going to enjoy a TV how, I'd like to be able to see it. Cell phone screens are too small. Once upon a time I thought those Casio 1.5" TVs were neat, but coul dnever afford one in my childhood, and now don't think I would have really enjoyed it anyway. Too small. Would I have been able to read the big "01" painted on the side of the car in Dukes of Hazzard? Would I have been able to make out Mr. T's mohawk hair cut in the A-Team? Would one be able to tell what the gross stuff is that people are supposed to eat or sit in on those reality shows? Would I be able to see much of anything at all?
Now, blow that picture up to computer monitor size. Video iTunes sounds like a neat idea, but I ain't gonna watch anything at iPod resolution on my 19" monitor. Blocky and pixellated like there's no tomorrow. It'd probably make my eyes hurt. No thanks.
Now, I could see a cellphone with a big memory capacity being somewhat of a portable Tivo. Maybe it could receive and store a TV show while you're driving a long distance, so you can't go home anc copy a recording there before watching it at your destination that doesn't have a DVR, like maybe visiting your parents who still haven't figured out how to work their now ancient VCR. Or you're on your way to some business conference thing and don't want to be stuck with the limited channel offerings or expensive pay-per-view junk of the hotel you're stuck in for the next week.
But such cellphone recordings when connected to TV or monitor for playback should look good, not like they were obviously blown up from a 1 inch screen resolution. The phone should be able to play back anyway in case no large screen is available on the plane, or to preview what's already stored so you can choose and delete some old show to make room for a new recording.
It's just matter of quality.
With music, you have good quality speakers at home, or earphones you wear and they provide comparable quality. You don't listen to the music in form of ringtones from the phone speaker, keeping an inch wide speaker a foot away from your ear causes so much quality loss that it's worthless.
Same with video. If you watch the tiny screen of your phone from 1 foot away, it's hard to make out any details. The loss of quality is so huge the experience is worthless. If it was based on "VR glasses" that provide nearly-total immersion and allow the picture to take up most of your field of view, meantime not making you dizzy, nauseous or (hard part) blind to the surrounding world, it would be a great success. Video equivalent of earphones, instead of video equivalent of a pocket radio with tiny speaker...
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
See, I am quite certain that, were my mobile to offer a screen of at least the same size as a GBA and free TV capability, then I would watch it. I've certainly used my GP32 to watch movies on for long journeys these last couple of years, despite (or to some extent, because of - it IS usable on a bus as a TV isn't) the 3 1/2 inch screen. However, its worth remembering that if money can be milked from something (especially by phone companies) it will be... SMSes are still, iirc, ridiculously overpriced, just as are picture messages (can't remember the figures, but a few years ago it was something like 0.01p cost and 10p being charged by the phone companies), and were a mobile phone to tout its video capabilities, I'd automatically assumes I'd be paying through the nose to get at them. Which I imagine most are unwilling to do. The question should be wether eople would be interested in *free* TV on their mobile handsets, or whether, say, you would choose a handset with 3 days' battery life with TV against one with 20 days' battery life without. Or whatever other features you want to compare with TV's desirability.
Say you aren't at home but the big game is on. Or a big news event occurs, etc.
Also I can see the appeal for teenagers who don't control the family TV.
For starters, who wants to look at a screen that tiny for any length of time. It's already a bugger to surf the internet on a cell phone as it stands now, much less watch a video of a news article. With a screen that small important details would be rendered too small to be of much use.
Secondly, cell phone battery time is an issue. Anytime you have your phone communicating with the network, you're burning up your available useability. Would you like to explain to your boss that you missed that very important call because your phone snuffed while watching Friends?
Thirdly, there is the cost. How much are people willing to pay for the ability to watch this stuff? This service with enough connection minutes to be actually able to watch anything of interest must cost a bit of cash. I'm more inclined to use that money for Cable.
We're just not ready for this technology as it stands right now. Give it a few years and the tech and the demand will be there...unless something better comes along.
Phoenix
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
Am I the only on here who is not surprised by this news? For quite some time, everyone was predicting the video iPod, and some users screamed for it. Now the video iPod is available, and no one really cares a whole lot. I think Apple knew what they were doing by waiting, and smart by including video capabilities in the full size iPod instead of making a separate iPod video.
I think a big part of the reason that no one is too excited about this is that Apple is creating this market by having TV shows and music videos available for download. Portable DVD players exist, sure - but no one has really been able to make any waves in the portable video market until now. I'm excited about the possibilities, and I'll be watching where this goes closely. God knows I'd love to be able to buy episodes of 24 they day after they air (hint, hint, Fox).
I'd say it just needs to be done right. I would've thought that the tiny iPod screen would be the last place to learn about brain on any meaningful level, but then you see something like this.
Not a huge innovation by any stretch, but a great example of solid content + clever implentation = decent user experience, despite the apparent limitations of the delivery device.
However, in order for this to happen there are three huge barriers...screen size and battery life and cellphone companies. Screen size might be solved partially by roll up screens that you could pull out of your phone, or holographic ones, or by an eye piece of some sort. I personally wouldn't be surprised to see an eye piece in the future, I mean, the bluetooth ear sets are practically a fashion item now.
Battery life could possibly be solved by fuel cells. The thing is...cellphones have pretty much transcended the world of just being a phone, and have become a portable extension of our home computing platform. I watch a lot of downloaded video on my PC, be it viral clips or movies I've downloaded, and I'd love to watch them on my cellphone if it wasn't at the expense of other functions.
Unfortunately, the third barrier is one I don't see as being solvable. You see, the cellphone and media companies who provide the hardware and content are not in this game to give you a good product the way you want it. They're in it to make money. If they realized the two go hand in hand, we might have a chance, but they never will. They will tie all of this down with exhorbitant per episode fees, subscription fees, bundled packages, DRM, etc. If by any chance someone comes out with a phone that solves the first two issues and provides an easy way to convert any video file from your home computer, I think that one might become a real winner...but hey, what are the odds of that happening?
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
The whole problem with portable video is that it isn't all that practical. Like others point out, audio is great cuz with headphones, you shove the player in your pocket and listen without having to pay attention. Portable video requires your attention. When people get the time to sit down and watch a show, they are most likely to be in front of a tv. so why bother with portable video.
The market for portable video is in the business traveler. My first thought when reading about the video ipod was man, if you could connect to your tivo, transfer some saved shows, and run to the airport....It would be golden. I know of one family member that would absolutely love that as he travels around the US by air at least once every couple of weeks. It would benefit others with long commutes by train or subway too as long as your sitting and waiting time was around 30 minutes. (and recently I read here that a company had produced just such an idea?)
Otherwise it is a novelty. (though conveniently wrapped in an ipod...)
What really excites me about the whole thing though is the potential to change the distribution method for shows. They put the lost episodes up but you have to buy even the first episode. I think it would be better to give the first 3 episodes of the show for free so you can sample the content. Then you can decide if the rest is worth buying. That would be my ideal distribution method. (they should partner with the likes of Blockbuster or something so they can give people the option to buy and download or buy dvds)
Oh, and I suppose there is a market for all the movie makers/video people out there. Didn't I read here that Lord of the Rings were using their ipods for such a purpose of transferring the days shoot? with the video ipod they could simply view it as well as transfer it. Handy tool. How big is that market though?
..is Internet-based TV from foreign countries. Globalization is spreading people all over the place, and they want to watch shows in their native language, reflecting their own native culture. There is a huge demand for shows all over the world, and not only for entertainment purposes:I've seen kids of immigrant families(born and raised here in the US) who refuse to speak in anything but English to their moms and dads, and it pains me as much as it pains the parents. Availability of TV shows in the native language would have helped somewhat.
Just look at how successful Telemundo etc. are. Satellite coverage is spotty for many European/Asian televisions here in the US, and Internet is the only option in many cases. I and a lot of people I know would gladly pay for high-quality (as opposed to the problematic Real Video/Windows Media Player feeds we currently have) overseas TV on portable devices and Internet appliances, maybe something like Tivo which can download content from the Internet.
Zigbee Central: A Zigbee weblog
Check out http://www.mreplay.com/ ;-)
Instead of bringing "full TV" to your mobile (who would want to have that anyway in times of HDTV and huge flat screens?) it just gives you the imagery you might want to have when mobile: replays of the best scenes of a sports event.
And not when it's on TV, but when you want to see it. In bullshit bingo that's called "On Demand".
It works really well - and with todays mobiles. No UMTS or DVB-M required. Just the simples J2ME profile is enough.
You can go back/forward individual frames and eventually (if the download contains higher resolutions) even zoom in. It's great for sports!
By not streaming unnecessary data like audio or unneeded video frames it minimizes the downloads, too.
Debian GNU/Linux - apt-get into it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Can you imagine if a few per-cent of mobile TV viwers get motion sickness on the train or bus? It's not going to be fun finding if you, or the person sitting next to you gets motion sickness.
I have never understood the appeal of those portable DVD players
They are very handy for long (e.g. cross-country) flights. I have a Toshiba portable, and the battery life is quite good: so far the longest I have used it is ~2.5 hours.
Yes, the screen is smaller, but this is quite helpful when the jackass in front of you decides to recline his seat all the way back without notice and as violently as possible. A laptop [with a larger screen] is more likely to be damaged in this case.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
... TV stations broadcast Gina Lollobrigida movies!
If you think mobile phones are annoying now, wait 'til you have to sit in front of the dipshit watching Tupac videos at top volume (crappy mobile phone speaker quality of course) behind you on the train.
Is already happening here (Germany).
One of the many things I hate. thingsihate.org
I got into the habit of lugging my laptop to the laundromat with me to watch DVDs while I waited for my clothes to dry. This was definitely not an optimal solution--it's already awkward to manage two baskets of laundry and a bottle of detergent; having to deal with a laptop bag on top of that was a pain.
When I got a PSP, I started using that instead. But the movies and games are expensive.
An iPod with video capability seems like it would be a perfect laundromat companion. The fact that they're not really sacrificing any of the original functionality or design, or increasing the price, makes it a no-brainer. If you can give me more options without taking away the things I like already, I'm a happy camper.
For cell phones, on the other hand, the "feature" I used to like was being able to quickly select a name from my phone book and dial that person's number. Now, with the camera and the games and the other garbage they've installed, this process takes longer and longer and seems to be less and less reliable.
Why is this an "Apple" story? Last I checked "Apple" didn't make any cell phones capable of receiving video broadcasts.
Best Buy can have you arrested
Try watching TV in a high speed train then. It's not about PORTABLE tv, but MOBILE tv.
The main problems addressed by DVB-H (the European^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hrest-of-the-world standard for mobile TV) are:
- Mobility and nomadism. Broadcast frequencies are not constant across territory. With non-mobile TV (digital or analog) you must constantly (and manually) tune your receiver. With DVB-H, national TV channels are available seamlessly on the whole territory (you can also have local channels) whatever the actual broadcast frequencies, even if you're moving at high speed (train, car...).
- Battery life. DVB-H is an adaptation of DVB-T that sends data in short bursts to save power due to the reception antenna and tuner. The antenna is the most power-demanding part of a mobile set.
Limiting DVB-H to mobile phones is narrowing the possibilities of this standard. Think in-car TVs. Applications are countless, and I predict that, if the technology is ready, demand will rise before the beginning of Soccer World Cup in Germany next summer, the same way it will drive demand for HD TVs, and the 1998 World Cup drove demand for big screen TVs. You could for example get summaries of matches, videos of the best goals, statistics, and so on in a customized fashion.Offtopic but I'll ask anyway, since the previous post prompted me to ask the question...
DVB-H, DVB-T...GSM, CDMA...110V/60Hz, 220V/50Hz...why does there always seem to be a slight yet significant difference in what should otherwise be a universal te3chnology when it comes to the North American and the rest of the world?
Two different types of digital broadcast television, so global electronics manufacturers have to build two different types of equipment or build in the capability to accept either one.
GSM, a GLOBAL standard for cellphone technology, yet the US is quite late to adopt it in favor of CDMA (coincidentally, patented by a US company, Qualcomm.) Granted that CDMA is superior in some respects (power requirements and bandwidth come to mind) but why be a telecommunications island?
Basic electricity...ok, most modern devices can accept 110 or 220 vac, 50 or 60 Hz, but again, why did it have to be different? 220 vac would make more sense, as the same amount of power can be delivered with less current and less heat loss, but 110 vac may be safer due to the lower voltage...
I fully admit that I don't have all the technical details, and probably live in my own utopian world where everybody has the same electricity and everybody can roam on anybody else's cellphone network without needing a phone capable of three or four different frequency bands, but sometimes I think that the differences are more political and territorial than technical. (US GSM at 1900 MHz where the rest of the world uses 900/1800 MHz?)
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Whenever someone says "The iPod's screen is too small," I just remind them of the Gameboy Advance, which kids and adults alike don't seem to mind staring at for hours at a time.
I think it's just a mental paradigm shift for a lot of people to adjust from turning on a TV and flipping through channels to catch something, to downloading what you want to see and watching it whenever you want.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Who wants to watch TV on a 2 inch display?
This reminds me of some of the other questions:
- 2002: Who wants to read other peoples blogs?
- 2000: Who wants to use digital cameras? The analogue ones are far better.
- 1998: Who wants to be online all the time with this ICQ thingie?
- 1997: Who wants to write SMS's on a nummeric keyboard? Make a phonecall instead.
- 1995: Who wants to carry his phone around?
- 1999: E-mail? Why? I can make a phonecall or fax.
- 1984: Who wants to own a microcomputer?
- 1972: Who wants to mount wheels under their shoes?
- 1964: Who wants to hear this Beattles-noise?
Do not underestimate people's confusion about what they really want. Of course they want to be able to watch videos anywhare and anytime and show off with it to our poor friends, family and colleagues.
I haven't tried the 5G iPod yet. But I have had a Nintendo Gameboy Advance and have enjoyed playing on it's small display. When being in train or on a plane, it's a nice way to make the time pass.
I do not say, that video on mobile devices will catch on as a fire in a pile of tyres, but I have learnt never to say never. Strange things catch on.
regards
picz
------- Look mum! I have posted another Slashdot comment! --------
Is the mainstream market not yet ready for portable video?
That's the perfect inverse of the real question: is portable video not yet ready for the mainstream market?
We know people love their mobile phones, and love having them perform a wide variety of functions. We know people love TV. We know people love having control of their TV via electronic gadgets. It seems silly, then, to blame lack of adoption on people being unready rather than the technology being unready.
I'd like to receive TV portably and controllably, but not when I have to watch it on microscopic screen. The TV I like to watch - things like football, Modern Marvels, and Forensic Files just won't come across well on a 3" screen.
This may or may not be an insurmountable hurdle for the technology - having a huge screen defeats the mobility of the device, after all - but blaming me for being "unready" for the technology isn't going to hurry adoption. The technology isn't ready for me.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Flexible OLED screens. A phone with a 6" screen that unrolls from the side.
Zing!
So here's an interesting theory. The only thing that can really unhinge the iPod run is if phones start to become an appealing replacemnet.
So, Apple goes and adds video to iPods - knowing that it won't really be appealing for many people to use in that way, but heck color screens are getting pretty cheap and it doesn't take a lot of effort.
The side benefit? Every phone maker and thier grandmother go to a huge amount of work to support mobile video, with upgraded screens and networks to transmit vidoe and so on and so forth. All at huge expense and increasing the price of phones and services.
Now you have a whole generation of phones that are overly pricey, and do too many things - leaving people to prefer the more popular dedicated solution for music, the iPod.
Market accident or design - you decide.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ok - I feel quite qualified to join in here as I have both a 3G phone (Sharp 902) from vodaphone and also the video ipod. Now I don't know what others have experienced with 3G TV but I can tell you that at BEST (i.e. full strength 3G signal - stationary) it passes off as "barely acceptable" - i.e. you might just bother to watch it if you had no other option and you NEEDED to watch something. The moment you add in factors like (for example) moving on a train ( where I have been doing my research on this matter whilst on the way to work), then the quality drops significantly as you move between base stations. Add that to the occasional drop to GPRS and the whole thing becomes a bit of a farce. Oh yes, and lastly a new handset feature I call "pocket warmer" - so god only knows how much battery its churning through. My all time record for continuous TV watching is around 6 minutes at the moment - before the signal dropping or whatever. I don't know if any of you remember those comical days when people use to have to move a coathanger around in an aerial socket to try to get the best picture - but I think we've metaphorically taken a step back to those times with 3G TV.
... at BEST I would only recommend the video ipod for shows no more than 30-40 minutes and if you do subject yourself to them ( mandatory H&S tip) look away into the distance frequently to relax your eyes
With the Ipod, however, its possible to watch a show "quite" comfortably. I say that as I was watching Sin City (great flick) on Sunday and I noticed I'd watched the first hour with the thing about 40cm from my nose. Dang did I notice the eye strain when I looked away... So
Two wrongs may not make a right, but three
The mobile companies are very arrogant in this respect. They really believe that if they build a service that a small group of people have expressed interest in that the marketplace as a whole will mature into using it. You know what, maybe it was a bad idea to start with, maybe the economics only work in the presence of a Gee Whiz factor. How much longer are people going to pay for ringtones, $2.50 songs, and subscription games that are mere shadows of what is available on any other device.
The model is to nickel and dime you into a constat revenue source. The problem is that the services on top of the basic phone are not very good. Mobile companies then complain that the marketplace is not ready. I'm sorry, but it is not my fault, or that of my peers, that we don't want to buy a particular service.
I find it strange that 70% of people won't watch TV on there mobile phone. I know that while at work, there isn't much access to TV, so why not plug in a headset and catch up on the news? There are many places to watch TV on your phone.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
"Is the mainstream market not yet ready for portable video?"
This is pretty typical of the stupid questions that get asked on slashdot. The question should be "Is portable video ready for the mainstream market?" The answer is NO it isn't, at least not in the US. I've seen the extremely crappy offerings that SprintPCS had like MobiTV. It was like a slideshow with audio. I've never understood that why no one has offered black & white streaming video with mono audio. You'd be able to get a much better picture while reducing the bandwidth. I've not seen any streaming video for computers in b&w especially for dialups.
But back to the phones. You may be able to cram all of this wonderful software and technology into a phone. You may even be able to offer high bandwidth. Battery life will continue to limit the usefulness of these features for sometime to come.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
If iTunes Music Store can successfully sell video with granularity lower than an entire movie... and, in general, content that is "worth" less than $20... it opens up a world of possibilities. And I'd say individual episodes of popular television sitcoms at two bucks a pop are a good start.
It doesn't matter what device you watch them on. That's just technology, which--not to be dismissive--is the least important part of the equation.
If companies can make money selling five-inch DVD players for $70, making a five-inch DVD player that doesn't need to have a DVD drive in it should be a slam dunk. If Apple can make an iPod nano, making a BIGGER iPod with a bigger screen shouldn't be too hard.
Besides, I don't want to watch TV on a 2" screen at home, where I have an easy chair and a TV receiver. But on an airplane flight... or a bus ride... or a dentist's waiting room... I might be willing to compromise.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
The problem is one of cost. Why do people want to pay $400 for a device that realistically only plays something you have to pay $2-$3 per episode to see. The ipod was a hit more because it got the blessing of music companies, confering legitimacy on everyones gb stash of pirated music. If not why has Apple sold >20 million players but only a few hundred million songs (roughly 1-2 cds per ipod. Video players will not take off until there are vast stores of video programming that people have located on their computers (or pr0n is socially acceptable to watch as a commuter).
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I have mobitv on my nokia 6620, and I use it quite a bit to catch up on news. The quality is alot better than you would think as well.
Personally, I don't watch that much TV on my phone (a Sanyo 8300), however I do watch the short video clips they have on Sprint TV quite often. It's nice to be able to watch the news or see clips from adult swim I may have missed on my way to work or on my lunch break. Also, there may not be much of a market for TV, but one of my favorite new functions is sirius radio on my phone. I listen to that a lot more than I watch TV on my phone.
I have a cell phone. I like having a cell phone. My cell phone has no MP3 player, no video, no camera.
I have a wireless PDA. I like my PDA. I can browse the web. I can use it as an MP3 player. I can watch videos from different video blogs over my lunch hour.
I would love to push these both into 1 product. But there is 1 major issue. If the battery in my PDA dies, I turn it off for the day. If the battery in my Cellphone dies, I'm screwed. Running a video player on your cell phone uses plenty of juice. If the video player and the cell phone are on the same power source, I'm screwing with my communication ability. So until someone comes out with a split battery phone/PDA or battery/micro-fuelcell technology that makes it a mute point, I just don't see the market potential beyond a nitch.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Company called MobiTV http://www.mobitv.com/.
I haven't tried it yet; but they seem to support a decent number of cell-phones, nearly every carrier (in the United States), nearly 40 channels, and it's only $10 bucks a month.
Of course in order to use it you will want a high speed data connection for your cell-phone and a unlimited data plan.
no such thing as a digital portable... your speaking about vaporware. We'll talk when it happens. For now the only broadcast is analog and the only portables are analog. If you buy an analog portable your screwing yourself over cause you'll have to replace it in 2 years...
-everphilski-
It is quite simple, really. When I want to watch a movie (or series etc etc), I don't want to be interrupted. I want to be confortable, and I want peace. So I'll want to be in my room, livingroom or even computer room for that. I can get my notebook with me to an hotel, and watch some DVDs. Same for an airplane. I can even do that in my car, is someone else is driving (good batteries and car adapter cords are avaliable).
Where else would I want (and be able to) watch a movie ? I can't think of a single place where the ViPod would be a better option than my notebook.
Considering how much the price of notebooks have dropped lately, you can get one with better image and sound quality than an ViPod for, humm, 10% more ? Maybe even less than that, if you can settle for a refurbished one.
Yes, iPods are great for music, but for Video ? No, thank you.
morcego
right, but the point is that there exists no portable digital receiver at the moment.
-everphilski-
Contrary to what the focus has been by all of the news about "Portable Video," the "one more thing" that Steve focused on was not the fact that the iPod could play videos, but rather the fact that Apple had suddenly blown the door open for video content distribution. Ignoring the fact that they only have a few shows on their site right now to buy, the fact that they have ANY shows at all to buy at a very reasonable cost in an "a la carte" format is what people need to be focusing on. The fact that you can take it with you on your iPod is just an added bonus.
The real feature is downloading TV shows over the internet. iTunes Music ( and Video ) store, to be specific.
Why is everyone focused on the iPod video and mobile phones? Did you not notice that iMac shipping with an integrated remote control ? Do you think every one of those million videos sold in the first 20 days of iTunes selling videos went anywhere near a mobile?
If I had a chance to sell a million of something for $2.99 each this month, I'd do it, even if I only made a fraction of that $2.99 off each sale.
This may not be all about the iPod, people. Apple has to keep refreshing the iPod to chase those huge iPod sales numbers, but this iTunes video initiative may not depend on a portable device. 45% of everyone is a pretty good start, and as people get used to the idea and put their computers in more media-friendly locations with more high-speed connections, that number is only going to grow.
I continue to be amazed that, in 2005, people still post comments implying that a computer playing video content = a 20" or smaller monitor on a desk.
I understand the concept of poor households for whom even a single computer is a significant expense and where, for logistical reasons, their lone computer is distant from their lone semi-large-but-low-res TV, but I've yet to see any of the "I want to watch it on a big screen from the couch, not a computer" posters ever explain their comment with something like "I can't afford another computer for my TV." They simply post as if it was "common knowledge" that computers can never have big displays attached to them.
And the people posting things like "I'd rather watch it on the 60" HDTV in the living room with surround sound than on my computer" are just dumb. They can afford that setup but not an extra $500 PC to play video on it?
Ok,
Here's the deal. I don't like surfing the web on my cell phone and I can't imagine watching TV on it. It'a 2" x 2" screen! I only surf the web on my cell phone when:
1) I'm not in a location where something like my laptop has a 'net connection
2) I'm desperately in need of some piece of information
I can't see a time or place that I'd want to watch TV. It's a mobile device. If I'm away from the 52" big screen with surround sound, it's because I'm out either with friends, running errands, at work, etc. None of which are places where staring raptly at a 2" x 2" screen would be deemed socially appropriate.
Frankly, I've seen a few jacka**es driving around in various contorted positions in order to watch the screen from the in-car DVD player while driving. This is all I need - some MO-RON on the freeway watching TV on his cell phone...
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
I still can't reliably call my wife across town or retrieve my email indoors but I did get a great deal on mt car insurance.
They are releasing a ton of movies and tv shows for the psp, and you can put almost anything on it if you use psp video 9. There are a lot more movies than games for it. Someone must want it. I think if the Ipod had a screen like the psp it would work well.
They just want to get there $600 TV license worth.
I have a Verizon Samsung i730 phone with the data plan. Thanks to Orb, I can watch cable television that is sent to my cell phone. It's awesome as long as I have an EV-DO connection.
The comment has already been made. Let's move it along people. Nothing to see here.
In fact, in many European countries you can actually watch live or recorded TV broadcasts on your mobile using GPRS/EDGE paying only for a traffic, if not on a monthly plan. For sure, neither all television put their broadcasts online, nor many have phones that could show video. Imho, it's only a matter of time and availability of this feature on most medium-priced phones, when mass will use it. I could find a link between appearance of SMS/MMS/WAP and mobile TV. Don't you?
So the commercial interests in the market for portable video decided to add these features to their devices before thinking, "Hmmm, I wonder if I would watch TV on a 3" screen." What I find so interesting about this is it seems our market leaders are flying 50,000ft above the peas^H^H^H^Hconsumers. If they are this clueless about technology I wonder just how clueless they are about real world matters suck as security and what the pursuit of happiness really means.
Let them eat cake and watch TV on their cell phones. Captialism at its best.
It's not surprising really since people really don't even care that much about the music features of the phones, they still prefer to have a camera phone than an MP3 phone. I posted about this a while back: http://cellwatch.blogspot.com/2005/10/trends-peopl e-like-camera-phones-more.html
My guess is that within a year or 2 we'll see people really start getting into multimedia phones. But we'll need quality first and mobile TV is just not there yet.
I live in Japan, my mobile has access to TV for a year. You can watch football matches or whatever.
There's been little tv's around for a damn long time now! Why does everyone think it's a NEW technology for? I remember seeing one in Grade 8(1996) at school and even before that. All they were was this little tv screen on the top half, buttons on the bottom half, and a big aerial to go with it. Geez you idiots..
http://www.psychopanic.com
You know, this has no relation to Apple's downplay of the iPod's video capabilities. You're (Actually, the British Suvey is) comparing statistics for how many people in England enjoy watching TV on their Cellphone. That has nothing to do with mobile videos. Who the hell watches video on their cellphone? I didn't even know there was a precentage of people who did, and if there is, then they must be real rich, because the service is frigging expensive, and the phones that have an actual built-in TV tuner are equally expensive. Most people, if not everyone, would like to be able to pull dozens of movies encase in a sleek looking thin box with a 5" screen. No one wants to tune into CNN on the 1.5" screen of their Sony Ericsson. Take that into consideration.
video killed the audio star
"I can put anything I can get from the internet on to the ipod video and watch it on my telly in my living room."
Alternatively, for half the price of the 30Gb iPod, you could get a chipped Xbox with Xbox Media Center, and have effectively the same setup, except streaming video straight from your PC to the Xbox, rather than having to copy it to the iPod, then connect it to the TV each time. Not as portable, true, but a lot more convenient for general home use IMO.
I purhased a one month subscription to mobitv for my treo 650 and watched it once, just to see if it worked. I had no desire to continue watching after that.
or else!
Do we know the sample size? Whogot the data and how wasthe collection paid for?
Let us get this straight.
You're trying to tell me people don't want to watch pixelated postage-stamp sized television with the need for headphones. I think this is going to take a lot of convinicing to get me to believe that! This has the possibility of the joys of 200x200 pixelated porn (mmm... it's a four-pixel nipple).
[end sarcasm]
Seriously folks. It's neat to see a short clip or series of images (cell phones already have a graphics format like flash movies and small animations and flip-book styles) for things like the weather... but live TV. Jeeze.
PS: The only time you might need it (an emergency or something) I'm sure it'll be too overloaded to get the news.
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
whole point of the freeware over at www.orb.com
it'll be verrrrrry interesting to see how the battle shakes out between Pay Twice vs. Leverage Your Existing Investments
You'd be surprised what's not on the map in this country. - Mulder
But your criteria are:
As big as possible, but it doesn't block your vision? Ain't going to happen in any sort of portable device. That's a huge screen far away, almost by definition.
I'm still not sure portability is a fundamental technology problem that has to wait for (another clumsy example) the window glass that can become an opaque "screen." Seems like a design problem is at least waiting for something more imaginative than visors, tiny screens, and plugs to use the existing TV.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.