In what
we're hoping
gets no one wants turned into Engadget Mobile's version of the "cellphones are dangerous/not
dangerous" saga, a new study released by International Data Corp (IDC) of Internet users in Australia, Hong Kong,
Malaysia, China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan claims that less that 10% of cellphone owners use non-voice
features other than text messaging. This study would seem to corroborate
an earlier one of U.S.
Internet users by InsightExpress showing that less than 25% of Americans express an interest in watching TV on their
cellphones- but also contradicts a
Nokia-sponsored study of
Europeans, whose optimistic results could have nothing to do with the fact the Nokia wants to sell people DVB-H
handsets. The IDC study also showed, unsurprisingly, that SMS remains a popular feature among the mobile crowd, with
65% of those surveyed sending text messages every day.
[Via
textually]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
earthling @ Mar 4th 2006 10:19AM
This has probably more to do with the geography/demographics in consideration. Nokia which is a very strong euro brand would find greater use for text and rich media messaging than the studies from north america and asia. A major difference between europe and the US for instance is the presence of state run television systems. There are very few channel choices for the average user in europe than there are in the states. In the states, phones are a fashion statement and a utilitarian tool (a phone!) unlike in europe where land line phones are so expensive that it is quite a bit cheaper to own and use a cell. So you have a contrast in the way that people not only use the device but how they percieve it. I for one have never been impressed with the whole TV on the phone business model. While companies search for ways to sell you new phones and services they are being distracted by the glitz of television and they are not paying enough attention to basic services. Chat (real-time) would be a better target for phone manufacturers, or more widely distributed and better integrated email. Location based services still have not taken off and they are a killer use for phones/location technology. Anyhow the whole TV on your phone thing is a solution looking for a problem and it could create an additional problem along the way as consumers find it increasingly hard to use the alloted bandwidth for just plain old calls because of the increased traffic of rich media services. In our area the peak hour call denial rate is getting quite high.
Personally I would have liked to see a more push to send video oriented service than television options but thats just me. I realize that mms does some of this but it does not encourage it in the same way that push to talk technologies do.
PAUL @ Mar 4th 2006 10:38AM
NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN HAVING SUCH A SMALL SCREEN TV AND WOULDN'T EXPECT THE QUALITY OF PICTURE TO BE VERY GOOD. I THINK THE PHONE SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON CHEAPER PRICE FOR FM RADIO AND MP3 PLAYER.
nicolas @ Mar 4th 2006 11:24AM
i think the service will be too expesive, and the mobile too, but in some years it will be something very common to see people in the metro watching tv on their mobile
Benson Leung @ Mar 4th 2006 1:57PM
I'm not sold on technologies like DVB-H. Digital television on a cell phone is a new medium for *existing* content...
My problem with live television is that I'm hard pressed to find desirable content at all times of the day... and usually the shows that i do watch are prime time shows that I will watch in front of my real television.
Bottom line for me is that I feel most TV shows suck, so why the heck would I want to watch inferior live TV content on an inferior cell phone display?
I predict that most Americans feel the same way. The whole switch to HD is a big enough pain in the ass... you're only going to muddy the water by introducing concepts like DVB-H.
lpret @ Mar 5th 2006 4:09AM
I just don't know where this would come in handy. Why would I want push technology when I could pull what I want?
For instance, if I want news, I want it now -- so waiting for a broadcast to finally touch on the subject is kinda stupid considering I could just visit a mobile news site. If I want entertainment, why not have an interactive form with games?
Besides, the TV shows that I religiously watch (including Lost, 24) require a lot more detail. Maybe Southpark could work, but that's about it.
I just don't understand what TV provides on cellphones that you can't find with some other technology.
Kunal @ Mar 5th 2006 4:23AM
Its all about the cost. In Europe, where talktime costs more than texts, texts are popular. In America, where texts cost more than talktime, you just call up the other person and talk.
Mobile Web is being KILLED right now by the carriers because they are making it too expensive for everyday use. Verizon has their super-duper 3G, but all they use it for is to get their unwitting customers to download the latest overpriced hit ringtone 2 seconds faster. All the carriers are the same, they want you to pay for the bandwidth and the content, but don't offer useful things - either make it free or make it indispensible.
Jerusalem @ Mar 5th 2006 6:58AM
where is that quote from?! I love it, but google cant find any "TV gets sad when" at all!
Z @ Mar 7th 2006 8:30PM
According to these posts, I'm going to go against the flow and say that I DO want mobile TV on my mobile device.
I want access to the news and other basic programming when I'm on the go. Certainly, those who do want it would want choice (not just local channels, but extended channels like we have with cable or satellite), and on demand streaming would also be an eventual necessity, I believe, in a service like this for it to really catch on.
And although some of this is going to also necessitate VGA screen resolutions as standard for optimum viewing on small screens, screens ARE getting better and better in mobile devices.
DMB, DVB-H, etc. for instance is a different technology than what a lot of the cellular providers currently offer, and DMB and DVB-H don't operate over 3G networks or existing cellular networks - they have their separate networks (that's why devices need to be specially equipped to receive the broadcasts), so the concern of it clogging cellular networks isn't an issue.
I don't think mobile TV is a solution looking for a problem, I just think it's simply another form of entertainment for consumers. It's the way things are headed and people will end up with it eventually whether they want it or not, whether they think it's smart or not.
Cellular providers need to work on other services as well, and I believe these things will be solved in time, but I think it's important not to resist the change that DOES come (like mobile entertainment), even if it's not in the order we want it.
People often resist change, but once they finally embrace it, they don't know how they did without it.
And now in the States, where VOIP is really taking off, where people are indeed concerned about the cost of landlines more than ever, where traditional phone companies are scrambling to offer VOIP solutions for fear of becoming obsolete, and where Americans are scrapping their landlines altogether in favor of mobile lines only (of which I and my significant other are two), I think mobiles in the States are very quickly becoming increasingly significant for people everyday. So the gap between how Americans and Europeans are viewing mobiles is absolutely narrowing. We're beginning to see things the same way.
And in regard to mobile TV, forget the crap that Verizon and Sprint (and soon Cingular) are currently offering. DMB and DVB-H is where it'll be at, and this new technology will make mobile TV much better than the crud the networks offer now.
And Kunal, just so you know, texting is not more expensive in the States than cellular voice. You can get unlimited text messaging for $10/mo. on T-Mo, for instance. Right now, with T-Mo, I have 500 messages/mo. for $3, and unlimited Internet access (including email and everything else) for $20/mo.
Jake @ Apr 18th 2007 4:36AM
I'm an early adopter and I am still struggling with the logic that pushes me to buy bigger and bigger TVs for home, larger displays for work, and then smaller and smaller for personal devices. (I get the logic of smaller devices for mobility sake, but we're talking about viewing experience).
When I can plug my video iPod into my wet-wired brain and watch at whatever size I want, that will be good. My eyes won't last that long.