Consumers are/aren't hot for mobile TV, Part V
by Chris Ziegler 
posted Aug 14th 2006 at 9:43PM
It appears that despite a strong push by carriers and content providers, consumers' cold, uneasy reception of mobile video continues. This time around, LA Times and Bloomberg have the numbers, showing that a mere 9% of folks in the influential 18-24 age bracket have any desire to watch television on their handset, compared to 40% who wouldn't mind doing so on their computer. The numbers get even worse for movies -- and understandably so -- with just 6% wanting to squint their way through a film. The numbers get a little better among 12-17 year olds with 14% willing to give mobile television a shot, but still, it looks like major investments in mobile TV infrastructure could prove to be money pits if stakeholders don't figure out how to hook 'em while they're young.[Via PVR Wire]
Filed under: Multimedia, Studies
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mike @ Aug 14th 2006 10:33PM
Hmmmm.. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact it's half the price of FULL CABLE...My cell phone bill is already too much. The plan, the fees, the over priced Txt messages. Oh sure go ahead slap on $15 bucks so I can watch crappy video that was yesterdays news and wait 3 minutes while it buff.......ers..... Oh that and it only works in certain areas. Ummmmm.... blow me Verizon....Stupid vcast is MAYBE worth 3 dollars. If all these add on's cost 1-3 dollars maybe I'd consider it. At 5-10-15 dollars on top of my 40-60 dollar plan. They can kiss my ass... If techy people like me think it's a worthless turd what do you think the average joe thinks.
Z @ Aug 15th 2006 5:41AM
I have to agree with Mike - although I think people would be all for mobile TV, the only way it would EVER succeed is if the following things are in place:
1.) TV transmissions must be fast, fast, fast. No choppy video. Only smooth video transmissions will be acceptable.
2.) There must be variety. Offering only four channels, for instance, or uninteresting TV, or channels that few are truly interested in, simply will not be acceptable. People need to see a lot of variety - more than just local channels - maybe thirty or forty GOOD channels at least - not channels that broadcast senate hearings and boring crap like that, but that offer sports, comedy, local and world news, pop culture, music and concerts, animated series (like Family Guy), drama, nature, history, technology, maybe even weather, etc.
3.) TV broadcasts for mobile devices need to be live. For those who don't know what I mean exactly, mobile broadcasts need to air at the same time they're airing on regular TV. I don't want to know that all the popular shows I'm watching aired three hours earlier on regular TV in my timezone. I want to know that I'm sharing in whatever everyone else is watching at the same time they're watching it.
4.) In addition to that, people will want some on demand capability. They'll need to know that they have access to certain shows on every channel they have access to. Maybe someone enjoyed something and they want to watch it again, or maybe they want to show a family member or friend something they thought was really funny or entertaining. But this must be available for every channel that is offered (maybe not every show, but the biggest shows and specials) - there can't be a paltry selection like what we see on Comcast's on demand library, which is lame at best. There must be a lot of on-demand offerings.
5.) It needs to be inexpensive. If they accomplish everything I mention above, which they could over time, it still cannot be more than $10/mo. We'd be watching this on 3" and 4" screens, so they won't be able to demand much of a premium from consumers. I can go out and buy a pocket color TV and watch local channels for free right now. They only thing that would allow for them to charge anything would be an extended channel line-up of live TV and on demand capability.
6.) There needs to be some custom content just for mobile TV viewers. TV shorts and so on.
7.) They would succeed even more if they included a large and very well rounded selection of movies to an on demand service. Of course, these would cost extra I'd imagine, but they couldn't charge $3 and $4 for them - not on a 3" screen. $1 per movie at most (and not per showing, but for say, a week long rental). Also, offering pay-per-view events would be fantastic for many.
8.) The software interface needs to be utterly fantastic, flexible, and easy to use. There needs to be available the ability to choose between simple controls and advanced controls similar to what we see with the mobile software that works in conjunction with the Slingbox.
9.) All of the above needs to be available for Windows Mobile based Pocket PC Phones and Smartphones, whether or not they're unlocked or offered by the wireless provider. If they don't support unlocked devices as well, then they can forget seeing the success they want - too many people have unlocked devices, and as long as they're getting money in their pocket because of the service, then they should be happy to offer it as an add-on service for those customers.
Finn @ Aug 15th 2006 6:02AM
I'm not surprised. In fact I was surprised they were even considering it for the UK. It's such a saturated marketplace. Price, price, price is the only way they'd get easy traction, I think. Whilst they've got a super brand, I think I'd have a severe issue giving my 10 year old a premium priced Disney phone when I can get a second line, or a pay as you go, for next to nothing -- and definitely cheaper than Disney would be wanting to offer it to me.
JC @ Aug 15th 2006 8:43AM
Let's spend the money and get the networks up to 3G standards first, shall we? Why are these stupid, stupid companies investing in "shiny flashy" features when the infrastructure leaves MUCH to be desired?
I'm SURE they have our best interests in mind, rather than just creating seemingly useful features just to pull customers into contracts, right? RIGHT?!
Todd @ Aug 15th 2006 9:04AM
"TV on mobile phones" is really a Helter Skelter topic. I keep seeing studies ( under written by old school media outlets ) that say nobody wants it, then contradictory ones ( under written by the mobile carriers ) that say every one does.
In hopes that both camps are scraping these comments, I can only speak for my self when I say I want the ability to broadcast and consume USER CREATED video and I have no interest in "canned" productions whatsoever.
Example, if a friend of mine is somewhere and something cool is happening, he should be able to use his phone to broadcast live video to whomever wants it.
Sam Gonzales @ Aug 15th 2006 7:02PM
the stats make sense.. who wants to watch a movie on their phone? when it drains battery, quality isnt the greatest and it cost money?
I have a moto e680 and have King Kong the movie on an SD but have never actually made it throught the whole thing event though quality is ok...for reason number one..the battery!