A Poor Reception for Mobile TV
Regular readers of this blog will know that debunking faddish technologies is a frequent activity around here. Continuing in that vein, the recently launched Nokia N77 showcases another example of clever but ultimately useless mobile functionality.
The N77’s ‘killer feature’ is the integration of a DVB-H mobile TV tuner. In addition to all the usual functionality we expect from a Nokia N-Series phone, this one will allow the user to watch TV on-the-move, without incurring huge data-charges. And yet scant attention is paid to the context-of-use issues that will plague mobile TV, rendering it no more than a novelty add-on.
‘Context-of-use issues’ are factors specifically relating to the situation or circumstances in which a technology is used. These can significantly affect the choice to use one technology over another, or the way in which a technology is used. Mobile phones – due to their omnipresence in our lives, and their versatile range of functionality – are affected by context-of-use issues more than any other technology. For example, when one is in a meeting and silent or discreet communication is required, text messaging is usually preferred over a voice call. In that situation, social and professional norms are the context-of-use issue. Similarly, in a loud environment (such as a rock concert), ambient noise becomes a context-of-use issue. Again, the user would probably choose text-messaging over voice-calling.
The key to understanding why context-of-use issues are so important is to consider where and why somebody would elect to use a particularly technology. In doing so, it soon becomes clear what a dramatic effect context-of-use can have on the frequency with which a technology is used, and with it, the potential profitability. Mobile TV is a brilliant example of this.
Let us consider where someone might want to watch mobile TV.
- It’s unlikely to be useful in the home, where most people already have access to large TVs.
- Most people don’t have access to TVs in their offices or workplaces, but then most people don’t have jobs in which it would be practical, acceptable or appropriate to watch TV on a mobile phone. And even if they could get away with it for short periods, it would be easier and more comfortable to watch content on their PC than a phone.
- Hotel rooms invariably have their own TVs, so there would be little to be gained there either.
- While socialising or undertaking leisure activities it’s (hopefully) safe to assume that the user would either be too distracted by other things to watch TV; or simply too embarrassed to be caught watching TV instead of talking with friends.
An iPod or any other digital audio player allows the user to listen to music whilst doing something else, and often makes that ’something else’ a more pleasant experience e.g. jogging. This is not true of mobile TV. It is not possible to watch mobile TV while walking around, working at a desk, carrying bags, exercising or really doing anything which requires hands or eyes.
There is also the issue of sound. Most users would want to listen through earphones. However, there are very few handsets which incorporate the standard 3.5mm headphone socket. Instead, most handsets use proprietary headphone interfaces or a 2.5mm socket. This limits users to the (generally abysmal) earphones which are bundled with handsets by manufacturers. If the user has an iPod (or any other audio player), two different pairs of headphones would need to be carried around: one pair for the phone, and one pair for the iPod.
So, for mobile TV to be useful, all of the following would have to occur simultaneously: The user would have to be: on the ground; in an area of good reception; carrying the proprietary headphones; not at home; not at the office; not in a hotel; not walking or running; not carrying anything; not socialising or talking to other people, and not undertaking any other task or activity which requires the use of eyes or hands.
In a procession of daft technologies, mobile TV would be pretty near the front.
Anon said,
February 26, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
You have said exactly what I feel about not just Mobile TV but most mobile video. If you are ever in the New York Subway, which I am daily, you see a large percentage of people listening to music, reading books or playing video games, But i can only think of a single instance in the last year where I saw someone watching a video on any type of player.
Tucker Snedeker said,
March 3, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
While you raise many relevant issues, you are missing the big picture.
1) For starters you can just assume “mobile TV” is going to evolve to be the same as “in-home TV”. Maybe the current implementations are following this paridigm because it’s the easier to imitate than innovate, but Mobile TV WILL evolve to be a more successful and useful service over time.
2) the Youth generation is different and consumes media and information differently. Don’t underestimate this paridigm shift. MySpace is a great example of this. So is YouTube.
3) There are plenty of times and places where people will begin to watch snippets of video as the paridigm shifts and culture adopts this. Ex: UseCase: Standing at the bus station. UseCase: Alert while your at dinner with your wife that your favorite team has just scored a goal and you can see the highlight it in “near real time”. Usecase: Your flight get’s delayed at the airport. Usecase: You work as a security guard. Usecase: your working the late shift at 7-11. Usecase: There’s breaking news and your stuck in a cab in LA rush hour. UseCase: your at the bar and there is only 1 or 2 football games on live but 15 of the teams you follow are all playing at once and you’d like to follow all of them for your fantasy sports league.
There are plenty of places and usecases for a healthy mobile TV market to develop but don’t assume it’s going to be “identically patterned” to in-home TV – it won’t be as it matures. It will become much more of an alert driven and interactive model that complements other mediums. Just like the naysayers said newspapers would be dead when the internet started to take off – they were wrong —- Mobile TV will become a very successful complementary channel to regular TV.
Eduardo Cruz said,
March 4, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
Tucker, i think you are being over optimistic describing these scenarios, regular TV requires nearly full brain attention and this is not compatible our everyday life duties as Robin is well describing. Apart from the basic im stuck or long waiting for something cases you describe which i agree the rest are kind of extreme and socially incompatible. Then we are left with a product for minorities?
I have written in my blog some extended thoughts on this matter.
Regards
Gabriel said,
April 16, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
Hi Robin, like the site. I think it’s always a good hint that technology won’t get taken up much if it’s already been technically possible for a long time. We’ve had the tech to do some sort of videophone in some fashion since the 1960s, but no one was interested then – I think if they had been, there’d have been more R&D and we’d have all had them installed decades ago.
Similarly with what you’re describing. You could buy analogue pocket TVs with aerials 20 years ago. A bit chunky and basic, but if they’d been popular I’m sure they’d have got smaller and neater since then. But they were clearly pointless for all the reasons you’ve set out, so that didn’t happen.
In fact thinking about that now, I seem to remember that the acme of futuristic techology was a TV on a wristwatch. I’m sure you could make one now quite easily – but, oh the irony, mobile phones have meant that young people don’t wear watches any more.
MiGs said,
December 2, 2007 @ 8:13 am
As i see it,
mobile TV is empowering the user to be able to watch his/her desired program wherever the user is or whenever when he/she wants to – TV viewing “on demand”.
It should not replace the traditional medium of watching tv programs.
having a mobile tv feature in a phone is just a “plus factor” so that the phone will be bought.
The only problem i see for mobile TV is the coverage area. Here in the Philippines, even 3G doesn’t cover that much are.
MiGs