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.

Maybe mobile TV is intended for use ‘out-and-about’ or for filling periods of ‘dead’ time (e.g. while travelling). It goes without saying that there will no reception while flying or taking underground trains. It might be possible to watch while taking an overground train. But the all-too-common problem of dropped voice-calls should be enough to convince anyone that constantly losing sound and pictures while going through a tunnel or an area of poor reception would result in a pretty unrewarding viewing experience.

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.

Most of the news coverage of Apple’s iPhone dealt with the somewhat underwhelming technical specs and the innovative interface. However, the really interesting part was barely covered until a few weeks later: the backstory of how Cingular ended up inking a deal with Steve Jobs to become the exclusive carrier for Apple’s new gadget. And why Verizon – Apple’s first-choice carrier – turned it down.

Jim Gerace, a Verizon VP was quoted as saying “We said no. We have nothing bad to say about the Apple iPhone. We just couldn’t reach a deal that was mutually beneficial”. Apparently, the major sticking points were that Apple wanted a cut of each subscriber’s monthly bill while retaining control over how and where the phones could be sold.

It is understandable that Verizon would find these conditions problematic. No other cellphone manufacturer is allowed to take a direct cut of subscriber revenues, nor to dictate how their phones should be sold. Verizon may have felt that it would be setting a terrible precedent if it capitulated to Apple’s demands.

However, there is a lot more to this than might be initially apparent. Significantly, handset manufacturers do already take a cut of subscriber revenues – but they do so indirectly – via handset subsidies. Many consumers demand a new handset every year. All operators heavily subsidise handsets (or even give them away free) as a way of reducing churn and enticing new customers. While the size of the subsidy varies depending on the price of the handset and the monthly spend of the customer, it still constitutes a significant chunk of revenues. If the networks didn’t subsidise the handsets, the manufacturers’ sales figures would go through the floor. Thus the network operators are already (in effect) giving a big chunk of each subscriber’ tariff to the handset manufacturer.

Apple’s plan is to sell the handsets with little or no subsidy (at $599, the 8gb iPhone would be the most wallet-busting mainstream handset available) and to take a cut of operator revenues instead. Of course, one of the most salient points in this discussion is how much of a cut Apple have managed to wangle from Cingular’s grasp. That information is presently a secret. But it means that Cingular avoids taking a hit when the handset is purchased because it is no longer subsidised. Instead, Cingular ends up sending a portion of its revenue to Apple, depending on how much the customer spends on voice and data.

This leads on directly to a broader point: the real significance of the iPhone’s new interface.

It is always risky to comment on the details of a device which one hasn’t used, isn’t yet available and for which few hands-on reviews exist. Nevertheless, from the demonstrations and information Apple has made available, it is apparent that the iPhone has an innovative and easy-to-use interface.

In addition to voice calling, the iPhone puts useful data services front-and-centre in a way which other manufacturers and network operators have previously failed to do on consumer devices. As a case-study of how not to do it, there is no better example than the disasterous campaign launched by British network operator Three - which heavily promoted its video-calling service as a USP. By heavily pushing a consumer service that consumers really weren’t interested in (and were even less interested in paying for) Three failed to attract subscribers and simultaneously tarnished their brand. Of course, this is just one example, but there are countless others. Having paid through the nose for their 3G licenses, the UK operators have conspicuously failed to monetise them by failing to realise their own projections of vast consumer data revenues.

The iPhone could allow them to buck the trend. Examine the picture below.

There are 15 buttons on the screen, of which 5 are data services (Stocks, Maps, Weather, Mail, Web). Crucially, the icons and choice of nomenclature accurately ‘describe’ the services they link to. This compares well with many other handsets, which routinely describe web/wap access as ‘Services’ and use low-resolution, poorly defined iconography. The weak iconography is often compounded by the operators’ ham-fisted attempts to plaster their own branding – or worse – their own interface on top (check out the awful Orange Homescreen for another example). Apple’s insistence on maintaining control over the handset should prevent the operators from destroying the iPhone’s elegant navigation and look-and-feel.

Everything that has been seen so far suggests that uniquely, Apple has produced a very data-centric handset aimed at the consumer market. The quality of the interface is significant because it can affect how much consumers use their handsets each month, and with it how much they spend each month (the ‘Average Revenue Per User’ or ARPU). By providing an elegant interface and a simplified setup, Apple is indirectly encouraging users to spend more by using data services more frequently. This is likely to see more customers signing up for ‘unlimited’ data plans (e.g. T-Mobile’s Web ‘n’ Walk) or using more pay-as-you-go data on existing tariffs.

The idea that if you make something easier to use, people will use if more frequently is rooted in both common sense and empirical evidence. Nokia is a good example of this, as their handsets are frequently perceived as being easier to use than many of their competitors and they usually lead ARPU research findings.

• In their 2002 mobile report, Continental Research showed the average Nokia user spends £22.06 per month; making 15 voice calls and sending 18 text messages each week. This contrasts with an average of all the other handsets manufacturers, whose users spend a mean of £15.14 per month; making 11 voice calls and sending 10 text messages each week.

• Nokia’s own 2006 study had 30,000 respondents across 6 European countries. The three highest ARPU generating 3G handsets were all from Nokia.

Of course, correlation does not equal causation. There are potentially other signficant variables such as age. It would be difficult to prove definitively that Nokia’s ARPU advantage is derived solely from its superior user interface. However, the Director of Continental Research suggests usability may be significant – “handset functionality may also encourage greater usage. If it is easier to use a phone it may stimulate calling and usage of text messages.”

So, Apple is launching a device which should significantly raise the consumption of mobile data amongst those who own the iPhone. This should raise ARPUs, and benefit the network operators. This brings us back to Verizon. Should Verizon have embraced Steve Jobs’ offer? Did they screw up by saying ‘no’? It all depends on the cut the man from Cupertino was asking for. And that it is likely to remain a secret for the forseeable future.

In the mean time, we can only wait to see if the iPhone fulfills its promise to the operators as well as to consumers.

The theme underlying most of these articles is that “the consumer will lose out”. The conventional wisdom goes as follows. Consumers will unwittingly purchase overpriced players that will only play content from the movie studios which happen to have signed deals with the relevant ‘side’. Consumers will then be unable to play any content from the ‘other side’. Worse still, one side may come to dominate the market, leaving the other one a dismal failure – a la Betamax – and leave millions of consumers stranded with expensive but obsolete players.

Fortunately, that kind of forecast is wrong on every level. It’s predicated on two false assumptions

• It assumes that consumers are both ignorant and stupid

• It assumes that hardware manufacturers and content providers will endlessly put politics and pride ahead of making money.

And it ignores some pretty salient facts:

• Most consumers are happy with the current DVD standard and are in no particular hurry to upgrade. They’re willing to wait for prices to drop, especially as the advantages of next-gen DVDs are much slimmer than the benefits of, for example, DVD against VHS or CD against audio cassette.

• For all intents and purposes, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray present identical value propositions i.e. they’re equally good, but they’re also equally incompatible and equally expensive. As neither is better than the other, there’s nothing to persuade consumers to pick one over the other (apart from slick marketing).

HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players are expensive right now. If we’ve learnt anything from our experiences of first generation DVD players, it’s that few standalone players (i.e. excluding the PS3) will be sold until the price drops below £200. This is unlikely to happen until 2008, at which time dual-format players (i.e. compatible with both formats) will be hitting the market at similarly affordable prices. LG’s dual-format player was the first out of the gate, but at $1,199 it’s hardly a commoditised device yet.

In other words, most consumers are likely to ignore next-gen DVDs throughout 2007 because the players are too expensive and widespread media coverage has highlighted the compatibility issues. But 2008 will see prices plummet and dual-format players become the norm (because most consumers simply won’t accept a device which only plays half the available content).

Meanwhile, the movie studios would never accept a situation in which they knowingly and deliberately froze themselves out of half the potential market. Fortunately, they also know that affordable dual-mode players are on the way, and can safely cut deals with whichever side it’s politically expedient to do so.

The only real question is whether the technology ‘champions’ for Blu-Ray and HD-DVD (Sony and Toshiba respectively) will produce dual-format players of their own, or continue making single-format standalone players that no-one will want to buy.

Sadly for sports fans (and anyone who enjoys the analogy) we’re unlikely to witness a real prize-fight. Instead, it’ll be more like a prolonged stare-a-thon, as each side gazes menacingly at the other, and everyone else just gets on with business.