Mobile TV suffers from lack of on-demand programming
November 19 2008 - 11:01 am ET | Colin Gibbs | RCR Wireless News
Comment on this story
Mobile TV has a lot of things going for it: a ton of hype, an eye-catching wow factor and, in one case, an $800 million dedicated network.
But it doesn’t have viewers. And that isn’t going to change anytime soon.
U.S. adoption of wireless TV is languishing around 1%, according to a study released last week by JupiterResearch, and interest in the stuff has halved — halved! — among consumers in the last two years as the novelty wears thin.
As the document points out, there is no shortage of reasons why the long-ballyhooed application has failed to attract users. Hit-and-miss network coverage, high price points and limited content options are to blame, as is a lack of affordable, video-friendly handsets that actually let users see what they’ re paying for.
Most of those problems will eventually be addressed, of course, as high-tech phones become cheaper and network operators continue to upgrade their infrastructures. Interestingly, traditional television broadcasters are sure to lower the cost barrier as they come to the mobile market with an impressive offering that allows TV stations to reach on-the-go users via a $100,000 transmitter.
But after spending another week away from home and my beloved widescreen and DVR, it is increasingly clear to me that mobile TV’s biggest problem is a lack of on-demand programming. Mobile-broadcast services such as those offered (or soon to be offered) by MediaFlo and the Open Mobile Video Coalition can't support on-demand viewing. Instead of futilely flipping channels while I’ve been away from home, I’ve leaned heavily on Hulu.com and Netflix’s movie-streaming service as well as direct-to-consumer Internet offerings from content owners and traditional TV broadcasters.
That value proposition — allowing users to access what they want when they want it — is especially important in mobile, which accommodates a regular programming schedule about as well as Lindsay Lohan accommodates colleagues. And while it’s true that some carriers and other players like MobiTV have gained traction by tapping that market, on-demand services still rely on traditional cellular networks, leaving carriers to wonder how many viewers they really want to attract.
There are attractive use-case scenarios for live mobile TV, of course — I’d be happy to shell out a few bucks to watch an important ballgame on the go, and major news events such as natural disasters could easily attract flocks of wireless viewers. Also, I suppose there’s something to be said for the mass-transit user who wants to catch the local news on the train ride home every night.
Those cases are few and far between, though, and may require more complex business models. So for now, the industry will continue to try to lure users with the kind of programming they’re used to getting at home. And would-be viewers will continue to stay away in droves.
November 22, 2008 02:15 am
Can only speak for Australia and have no mobile TV experiences in North America upon which to rely, but down hereon the Telstra Next-G (HSDPA) network, Foxtel can be accessed for $12/month is it really, REALLY top quality (Discovery Channel, NatGeo, Fox News, BBC, SKY-News, CNN, Comedy Channel (incl. Saturday Night Live), Sci-Fi, Bio, E!, Nickelodeon, Nick Jnr, Disney Channel, Playhouse Disney, Cartoon Network, Channel V, Channel V2, MTV - the list goes on). I quite enjoy listening (not watching) the news channel when driving to/from work. All this on a 2nd-hand Palm Treo 750!! I find it hard to beleive I'm alone in this??!!Cheers, Tim.
November 21, 2008 04:07 pm
It’s strange, I keep hearing about the lack of uptake for mobile TV, and yet MobiTV, which I have on my AT&T BlackBerry Bold as well as my last 3 devices, is totally humming along and is (as I understand it) AT&T’s top-selling app. It’s not perfect – bad network coverage can lead to buffering & the like – but I pass the phone back to my children all the time in the car & let them watch cartoons. No need for an SUV with a DVD player for us. Also agree that more personalized content, say content targeted to the user’s preferences, and set up within the app – is the key. Still like flipping around and watching the live stuff, though, and I suspect I’m not alone.
November 20, 2008 06:00 am
Colin,Some of us believe the best chance of success for Mobile TV is in Local Broadcasts over independent channels. The business model of national networks offering multiple channels and rev sharing with Operators is not a customer focused approach. How about some RCR reportage on what's cooking in those Chicago R&D labs! http://nmiupdate.blogspot.com/
November 19, 2008 01:02 pm
Been preaching this for years now. Gotten into more dust-ups on conference panels with folks from MediaFLO and the like than I care to remember. It's not about the small screen, my kids could care less (and already watch small-screen video on PSP's and iPods and in-car DVD's). But all those portable video devices have a PAUSE button! (And are of course completely on-demand.) The use model is to watch a movie like you read a book (who makes an appointment to read that novel next Tuesday afternoon?) Meanwhile, in Japan, the one-seg mobile TV handsets (yet another broadcast one-to-many, limited channel throwback to 50's style TV) are now coming with DVR functionality built in. THAT starts to get more interesting...
November 19, 2008 01:02 pm
Excellent article, Colin - and you're spot on with your analysis.On-demand mobile TV is where the future is.After all, not many people will pay a fee to get the full-form programming they get on their widescreen TV at home - for free - on their mobiles.But we at ROK already know through our global deployment of streamed on-demand mobile TV, there is a market for on-demand mobile TV.