Reiter's Mobile TV Report

Ustream debuts cellular phone version of Watershed video streaming

Video streaming company Ustream has announced a cellular phone version of its white label, business-oriented video streaming service Watershed (see below), according to Mashable.

One significant feature, Ustream says, is Watershed mobile’s latency of one to three seconds — from the time the phone begins transmitting to the time it reaches a computer.  As the Mashable post says, “If true that is some serious technological innovation that makes interacting with an audience via mobile practical.”

So far, the cellular version is compatible with only some Nokia handsets.  However, Nokia phones — specifically the high-end Nseries — have some of the best phone video recording quality.

Many (all?) Nseries phones can record at 30 frames per second.  However, a few other phones can record at higher frame rates, such as the 120 fps Samsung Viewty.

Hoping for more enterprise streaming

Of course, the greater the fame rate, the more bandwidth that’s typically required.  Cellular phone streaming over 3G, let alone 2.5G, can be awful.

Still, I know the value of cellular phone streaming and would like to see businesses employ it more.  So far, it’s an esoteric concept.

Will consumers accept paying mobile TV subscription fees + commercials?

Well known media consultant Terry Heaton headlines his blog post that “mobile TV is a minefield for everyone involved” because content providers want two revenues streams — from subscriptions and advertising.

He notes that with a variety of options, including free TV on the Web, consumers aren’t going to be happy paying for mobile TV that also includes commercials.  I’m not sure about that.

On the one hand, we’re used to television commercials (certainly in the United States).  Sure, we can use Tivo and fast-forward through commercials, but we’ve lived with commercials for decades, albeit not today’s incredibly huge percentage of commercials.

On the other hand, there are fewer commercials on Web TV programs, and just because we’re used to commercials doesn’t mean we wouldn’t prefer to eliminate them.

Will the OMVC premise succeed?

So far, mobile TV hasn’t come anywhere close to capturing the number of users forecast by analysts in the early days of the business (no — I don’t do projections).  But I don’t think the presence of commercials is the main reason people haven’t been subscribing.  There are many reasons, ranging from the cost of monthly subscription fees to poor video performance to small, crummy phone screens.

It will be very interesting to see whether the Open Mobile Video Coalition's premise succeeds.  That group of broadcasters plans to offer free, ad-supported programs — the same as on “regular” TV — to specially equipped phones and other electronic devices.

At least the assumption is the service will be free.  The Coalition has to convince cellular phone manufacturers to include TV receivers, and without subsidization by cellular operators — or any participation by the operators — the handsets could be expensive.

Cantab Wireless forecasts 472 million global mobile TV users by 2013

The research firm Cantab Wireless’ latest report on mobile television says 472 million people worldwide will be watching mobile TV by 2013.  The strongest growth will be in Asia, especially South Korea and Japan, but Europe and the United States will start catching up in 2010..

One of the key problems is — not surprisingly — finding an appropriate business model.  “It is not yet obvious on how to make money in the mobile TV business,” Cantab Wireless says.

The report, “Mobile TV – Technologies, Country Cases, and Forecasts for 2009 – 2013,” notes the “contest” between cellular operators and TV broadcasters.  Cellular operators understand the mobile business, provide distribution systems for mobile TV devices and have established systems for charging subscribers, the report says.

Needing each other…and business models

TV broadcasters say they understand the television business, have established relationships with content providers and have their own broadcast networks.  Cantab says both cellular operators and TV broadcasters have strengths and weaknesses, and need each other to find viable business models.

Cantab says 4G cellular systems (LTE) will provide much greater capacity and “will become serious competitors to broadcast TV systems.  The current economic slowdown will have only a temporary effect on mobile TV user numbers,” the press release says.

The report says that in the medium term broadcast mobile TV systems will be popular.  In the long run, though, point-to-point mobile TV channels via 4G will become more popular. 

In some European countries, especially the U.K., the shortage of spectrum for mobile TV could delay implementations.  I’ve looked at this, and the U.K. certainly has problems with spectrum for terrestrial-based mobile TV, at least in the short run.  Satellite-based mobile TV is a possibility, but spectrum also needs to be allocated for that delivery mechanism.

Paid versus free

The dynamics of the business vary in different in regions of the world.  The U.S. is dominated by mobile TV via 3G and Qualcomm’s FLO.TV system.  Europe is mostly a bastion of DVB-H, and Asia has several standards and business models, including more free TV broadcast both phones and other electronic devices.

Although some U.S. cellular operators offer a few free mobile TV programs on compatible handsets, the business of free, ad-supported mobile TV will get its chance to be tested if the standard promoted by Open Mobile Video Coalition members sees a commercial launch this year, as expected.

RIM's BlackBerry Curve 8900: Nice photos, awful video recordings

Thanks to Research in Motion’s analyst/consultant program, I recently received the BlackBerry Curve 8900 to test over T-Mobile’s GSM network.  There’s a lot to like about it, but from a mobile TV/mobile video standpoint, there are problems.

There are and will be many reviews about the 8900, so I won’t go into a great deal of detail.  It’s relatively lightweight, with a nice keyboard (I’m still not sure whether I prefer the BlackBerry Bold’s, though), a relatively high resolution 480 x 360 pixels screen (a bit higher resolution than the Bold’s 480 x 320, although it’s noticeably smaller at 2.44 inches).

The 8900 is only EDGE, not 3G (boo!), but it includes Wi-Fi (yea!) and GPS (another yea!).  The camera is the best on a BlackBerry — 3.2 megapixels with a flash — although it can’t compare to higher-end cameras with more megapixels and better software imaging controls.

Poor video recording

Unfortunately, the video recording quality is awful.  The so-called normal mode is 240 x 180.  The MMS mode is 176 x 144. 

“Normal” is extremely pixelated.  It’s not the handset to get if video quality is a major consideration.  Try a high-end Nokia Nseries or high-end Samsung. 

I have found, though, that RIM often improves image quality — both still photos and videos — with updates to its operating systems.  So if the video recording quality can be improved with software, there’s a good chance it will be.

Good video viewing

However, other high resolution videos — not those recorded with the 8900 — are bright and sharp because the 8900’s LCD is excellent.  If the handset ever would be able to receive mobile TV, the experience could be good — at least from the standpoint of the quality of the screen.

My InternetEvolution column examines Google's mobile TV vision

My InternetEvolution.com column (see below) discusses the comments of Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, about mobile television, and the ramifications of Internet-connected TVs.

As a guest on the Charlie Rose Show, Schmidt briefly talked about today’s “foolish” TVs and his interest in “smarter” sets.  He said:

“When I turn on the television, it shows the same shows that I saw yesterday, and I watch them and it doesn't know that I watched them yesterday.  What a foolish television. 

“Why is it not smarter?...So you can imagine the mobile device will say, 'Well, Eric, you watched this episode of this television show, we'll offer you this other one?'…Or 'Didn't you forget that you already watched that episode of Charlie Rose?  You should watch this other one because it's related to the one you liked.' 

“This personal viewing experience is a fundamental thing that the Internet can do, and companies like Google can do.”

Google’s Android push

Although I agree with Schmidt’s wish for smarter TVs, he’s not being altruistic.  Google would like the Android platform employed across multiple devices, not just cellular phones.  Manufacturers are pondering whether to incorporate Android in netbooks as well as in set-top boxes and other electronic products.

Check out my column where I discuss the advantages and challenges of developing Internet-enabled TVs and cellular phone TV.

Ovum sees greater use of mobile TV, but still small numbers

Market research firm Ovum says compared to its survey in June 2008, its most recent survey shows more people are using and interested in mobile television, although those numbers are still small.

“We believe that some of this renewed or new interest is being drive by high-speed, flat-rate data plans, an open-garden approach and the availability of free content,” Ovum says.  “But mobile players still face substantial barriers in taking mobile video to the mass market.”

Ovum says 74 percent of people surveyed said they never watch online videos or television on their cellular phones, but 18 percent said they watched at least once a month and 12 percent said they watched once a week or more.  “In itself, this is not a bad result for the mobile phone industry,” the research firm says.  In the June survey, only four percent of respondents said they used their phones to watch online videos or TV.

More encouraging stats

The firm’s survey reports 37 percent wouldn’t want to watch videos on the move.  However, Ovum says the implication is 63 percent would be interested.  Obviously, there are many levels of interest.

Ovum says the good news 63 percent is “surprisingly high” for indicating some level of interest.  “Therefore, get the content, business model and form factor right, and the demand will follow.”

I believe Ovum is correct.  But it’s easier said than done.

Free is good, paid is a problem

I’ve always believed — contrary to most analysts — that people want to use their cellular phones for the same functions as on their computers, in addition to mobile-specific functions.  I’ve never thought it was a question of desire, but, rather, a question of either not being able to accomplish a task at all or not being able to accomplish it with sufficient ease on a phone.

Interestingly, Ovum says about video that “users want to replicate their fixed Internet experience on the mobile Internet.”  The survey notes that 73 percent of respondents say the main appeal of Internet video is it’s free.

“We believe that this is also a growing trend on mobile as well.  Users will, of course, pay the traffic or data fee, but not for the content itself.  Mobile players will need to segment their offerings and encourage access to free sites to generate mobile broadband traffic, offering some advertising-supported content and providing premium content packages where possible.

“The former will target the mass market, while the latter will appeal to a smaller segment of users,” Ovum says.

No surprises

I certainly don’t find this reaction surprising.  Whether you like it or not — and many businesses certainly do not — people are used to receiving a huge amount of free content on the Internet, and they rebel against paying for the same content on their phones.  This isn’t always the case, of course, but it’s certainly a problem for cellular operators, content providers, etc.

Many mobile TV content providers/aggregators offer at least some free content.  MobiTV and FLO TV (formerly MediaFLO) offer free channels with some cellular operators, that are available on mobile TV-compatible phones.  I’ve always thought cellular operators should have offered some free TV and videos from the start of their services.  They’re learning <g>!

It’s also no surprise that the top reason consumers don’t like to watch videos on the phones is the size of the screen.  Duh!  Ovum says 69 percent of people surveyed said it was a deciding factor.

“Short term” problem

Ovum says, “There are now more phones optimised for viewing video and mobile TV on the market than ever before, but naturally there will always be limitations on the mobile screen size in comparison to the PC or laptop, which will ultimately limit the mobile phone’s role in video consumption — at least in the short term.”

I’m glad Ovum wrote “short term” because I believe technology will be able to solve — for many situations — the problem of screen size.  As I’ve written in my InternetEvolution column, which often examines the future of wireless Internet, technological developments, such as microprojectors incorporated into phones and eyeglass displays (see below), will eventually ameliorate the problem of small screens.

Also, I expect that once the “formula” for mobile TV use is discovered (free TV?), many consumers will accept larger, higher resolution screens.  We’ve already seen this with the Apple iPhone.

Arthur D. Little forecasts 140 million mobile TV users by 2011

The consulting firm Arthur D. Little says there are 40 million mobile television users now, and forecasts 140 million users by 2011, according to an article in mocoNews.net.

Current subscribers include 18 million in Japan, 17 million in South Korea, 1.2 million in China and one million in Italy.  Although the number of subscribers will increase significantly, it’s much lower than was previously predicted, as I’ve written many times before.

Despite the increase in viewers, “mobile TV operators can only generate one euro ($1.30) profit per broadcast mobile TV subscriber (assuming a critical mass of ten percent of mobile subscribers using the service and pay six euros a month), so a fundamental part of running a profitable mobile TV service will be bringing down the costs of launching and running it,” notes mocoNews.

The article says Arthur D. Little recommends that governments must help support mobile TV, including assisting with negotiations between cellular operators, broadcast networks and content providers.  The research firm says users have many options for watching video, so cellular operators must provide a superior user experience to convince people to purchase subscriptions.

Small profits

The small profit of one euro doesn’t seem sufficient to justify the time and effort of offering mobile TV, but I haven’t seen the report so I can’t comment.  Arthur D. Little, according to mocoNews, says mobile TV will allow cellular operators to differentiate their services and increase customer loyalty.

Still, there have to be sufficient profits to warrant the service.