This post was published 2 years 10 months 3 days ago which may make its actuality or expire date not be valid anymore. This site is not responsible for any misunderstanding.

Since GPRS, there has been a constant hype around non-SMS data applications.  Attending mobile trade shows, one could easily identify the annual killer-application. WAP, MMS, Streaming and Mobile TV have all enjoyed much more than their deserved 15 minutes of fame, but none have delivered anything but a trickle of early-adopters.  While there can be no single explanation for this failure, the unspoken truth is that these network-oriented services have failed mainly because they been generated to serve the interests of industry, and primarily network and handset vendors.  Unfortunately, the user’s interest is low on the totem pole.  Although we all hold devices and constantly fiddle with their buttons, we refuse to adopt the data services offered.  If services continue to be network-oriented and to primarily serve the industry, rather than the user, expensive DVBH and HSDPA networks will be launched, but used by few.

It can not be disputed that streaming services generally, and Mobile TV specifically have been the dandy of vendors for years.  Attending Symbian events as early back as 2002, developers could watch Nokia keynote speakers demonstrate the live streaming of TV programs, and promoting it as the next big thing.  At 3GSM, the industry’s main trade show, topics such as Push to Talk and Instant Messaging have received some attention, but Mobile TV has for years enjoyed unparallel exposure.  In the high-tech industry, where Next Big Things enjoy a short shelf life, the on-going obsession with Mobile TV requires examination.

The reason for the vendor obsession with Mobile TV is clear: Vendors will inherently promote services which favor network and handset upgrades, and thus vendor sales.    Mobile TV has been the main justification vendors have emphasized in getting operators to buy UMTS, HSDPA and DVBH networks and devices.   The reason is clear: of all the rich-media services, streaming generally, and Mobile TV specifically place the greatest demand on the radio network, the most precious network resource.  By promoting Mobile TV, vendors are directly causing operators to upgrade or replace networks every few years, each time vendors produce a new radio technology. 

The streaming of TV content is more demanding than other type of services for several reasons.  As with PC-based streaming, viewing streamed content involves the simultaneous delivery and viewing of content.  Content is not stored, so delivery and viewing occur at the same time.  As a result, the radio link between the user and network must be sufficiently broad and consistent to enable the user to watch the content smoothly, without delays.   A decent Mobile TV experience requires a radio technology capable of delivering a data flow of at least 124 – 256 kbps per user, depending on the type of video content.  The bandwidth must be multiplied for each user in the cell. 

The race for

Once operators deployed UMTS, the vendors began claiming that actually, 3G lacked the bandwidth to offer acceptable Mobile TV services, and that further upgrades were required.  UMTS, they now argued, could only deliver 1 Mbps.  As most of this capacity is used for voice calls, UMTS could actually support one Mobile TV user per cell at best.  Additional Mobile TV users in a cell meant sharing bandwidth, and a poor, inconsistent user experience.  The situation is much worse in crowded areas or during peak times, which is usually where and when such services are used.  As a result, operators ended up launching Mobile TV services over UMTS for PR purposes, nothing more.

Vendors claimed that NETWORK bandwidth problems were the reason users were keeping away, and began championing new radio-enhanced.  HSDPA today and MBMS tomorrow are the network solutions they offer, each requiring their own network upgrades and handset replacements. Alternatively, Nokia is championing DVBH, which requires building entirely new non-cellular networks, not to mention the need for new Nokia handsets.

Mobile TV is but the most recent network and device dependent data service hyped by vendors.  Mobile Internet was the first.  Leveraging the internet hype, vendors recognized the huge sales potential if operators could be persuaded to data-enable the network.  A clever and recurring strategy emerged: piggyback on widely-popular, often non-mobile services, then simply add the prefix "mobile" to them.  Internet becomes Mobile Internet.  TV becomes Mobile TV.  By leveraging popular services, vendors were able to persuade operators that porting services was easy, and that the mass-market would rapidly adopt already popular services on mobile devices, with revenue to follow.  Self financed analyst reports, combined with operators caught in a prisoner’s dilemma made it an easy sell.

As with Mobile TV, however, the usability of Mobile Internet proved terrible.  The Pull-based, click & wait experience is probably the single main factor behind the failure of Mobile Internet; a failure, that is, for all but the vendors.  In 2000, the year in which first major European operators launched Mobile Internet, Ericsson and Nokia’s network sales reached approximately $23.7 billion.  In that year, Nokia alone sold 128,000,000 handsets, generating Euro 21.8B in sales. 

The operators, though closer to the user, have also contributed their share of self-motivated, unpopular service concepts, the WAP portal being the most prominent. The WAP Portal, a user-nightmare, was neither created, nor has it evolved with the user in mind.  Rather, portals were created during operator consolidation and the emergence of Global Operators.  Vodafone Live was, and remains a tool to build and strengthen a brand, poor user-experience notwithstanding.   

After the failure of so many network and device dependent services, one would expect operators to ask fundamental questions before investing billions on new network components, frequencies, device subsidies and marketing campaigns.  However, given the operator’s prisoner’s dilemma, the tendency to believe the latest hype is strong.  No one wants to ignore industry analysts or the media, and allow the competitor to move forward alone.  However, at some point, should one not suspect the message from an interested messenger?

Putting aside vendor-sponsored research, no one is sure whether people want to watch full-length television programs on small mobile screens, or whether there is even a technology that can actually deliver streamed TV to the mass-market.  The fact is, however, that Mobile TV and Mobile Internet could have been delivered years ago on existing networks and devices, in ways far more user-friendly. On-Device-Portals and Background-Download download solutions are two such client-oriented examples.  Unfortunately, while been user-friendly, these solutions are vendor unfriendly.  They do not require any upgrades, and thus face an uphill battle, so long as the industry marches to the vendor beat.

We, the users, are constantly holding our phones and pressing its buttons, looking for something to do with the device.  Vendor network and device dependent services have not delivered to date.  Client-based solutions have the potential to provide users with an immediate interactive and content experience.  However, given the industry focus on network-based Mobile TV and Portal services, it is unclear whether the user will receive them.

Mobile Monte (3 Posts) - Website | Twitter | Facebook