Mobile entertainment faces issues

(continued from previous page)

wireless networks. These services are expected to be launched as early as the end of the year. Vodafone has already launched such a service in Europe.

But music downloads over cellular networks won't be cheap. Some experts predict that they'll be as much as two or three times as expensive as songs downloaded onto PCs. The inflated price can be justified, in part, by the added cost of transmitting data over the cellular network. What's more, with consumers willing to pay $3 or more for ring tones, it seems reasonable that they'd be willing to pay at least that for a full song, analysts say.

"Cell phone carriers have been making a lot of money in ring tones, and they want their due in music, too. But the real issue is about the price point and what consumers will be willing to pay."

--Linda Barrabee, analyst, Yankee Group

But it's not clear that consumers will be willing to pay extra to download their music directly onto their cell phones. According to a recent study by the The NPD Group, more than half the respondents, who said they'd be willing to buy an MP3 phone, said they'd prefer to transfer their music from their PC to their phone. Only 37 percent said they'd prefer to download music directly to their phone over a mobile network.

Those preferring to download music onto their phones said they'd be willing to pay a premium for the songs, but "the optimal price point" for these songs would be about $1.75, compared to the typical 99 cents that people pay for songs on iTunes.

"Cell phone carriers have been making a lot of money in ring tones," Barrabee said, "and they want their due in music, too. But the real issue is about the price point and what consumers will be willing to pay."

Music isn't the only form of entertainment cell phone operators think people are willing to pay for. They're also betting that people will want to watch TV on their mobiles. All three of the major U.S. cell phone operators offer a mobile TV service for between $10 and $20 per month. Verizon Wireless has its V Cast service. And Sprint and Cingular offer a service from start-up MobiTV.

So far, mobile-TV services have not been a big hit with consumers. But experts say the service is still in its early days, and cellular providers are banking on the fact that mobile TV--including movies, news clips, real-time sports and mini soap operas--will turn into a significant money-maker.

Mobile TV does have several challenges to overcome before adoption hits the mainstream. The first is image quality. Cingular's service runs over its older EDGE network, an Internet access service that provides relatively slow download speeds, between 100kbps and 135kbps. Viewing the video clips is more akin to watching a slide show than an actual television program. Once the 3G network is in place, the quality is expected to improve, but even then, it will not be on par with what people are accustomed to viewing in their living rooms.

At least one wireless company is investing big bucks to improve the quality of mobile TV. Qualcomm has invested $800 million to date in a new service it calls MediaFlo.

Essentially, the company is building an end-to-end network that consists of entirely new wireless transmitters and receivers. Qualcomm hopes to eventually sell MediaFlo as a service to wireless operators, who will then offer services directly to consumers. Mobile operators will be able to offer from 15 to 20 channels of broadcast-quality TV.

Another big piece of the mobile TV puzzle has to do with content. Part of the success of these services will depend on the robustness of the content that's offered. Media companies such as the National Football League, NBC Universal and CBS are already developing content specifically for the mobile market. More are expected to come on board.

[Mendz]

Greedy!!!

The great we-want-them-all-so-we-give-them-to-you-but-get-them-only-from-us cellular network providers.

These are the reasons why there is no progress in developing mobile devices with a built-in TV tuner: because they want TV like content to delivered like cable TV content if not pay-per-view.

These are the reasons why even the simple FM/AM radio tuners are still not standard in mobile devices: because they want music and audio content to be delivered like iTunes is doing it.

These are the reasons why the Internet on mobile devices (WAP, GPRS, EDGE, etc.) are still more expensive (considering the slow speed): because they want to charge per transaction if not by the KB.

Such politics of businesses stifling the progress of mobile technology adoption and application is not at all helpful. There is no such thing as service-driven network providers. They're all money driven and profit driven.

And surprisingly, the mobile phone manufacturers want to make sure these network providers stay in business so that their models will continue to sell...

Hmmm... I wonder who's dictating who?

[Mendz]

Greedy!!!

The great we-want-them-all-so-we-give-them-to-you-but-get-them-only-from-us cellular network providers.

These are the reasons why there is no progress in developing mobile devices with a built-in TV tuner: because they want TV like content to delivered like cable TV content if not pay-per-view.

These are the reasons why even the simple FM/AM radio tuners are still not standard in mobile devices: because they want music and audio content to be delivered like iTunes is doing it.

These are the reasons why the Internet on mobile devices (WAP, GPRS, EDGE, etc.) are still more expensive (considering the slow speed): because they want to charge per transaction if not by the KB.

Such politics of businesses stifling the progress of mobile technology adoption and application is not at all helpful. There is no such thing as service-driven network providers. They're all money driven and profit driven.

And surprisingly, the mobile phone manufacturers want to make sure these network providers stay in business so that their models will continue to sell...

Hmmm... I wonder who's dictating who?