|
|
By Kate on 2 August 2010, at 17:43 pm I know, not more on 3D right? Well, it goes in conjunction with our post from last week on the ever-expanding number of smartphone options, and the need for handset manufactures to separate themselves from the pack by offering new products that are easy to use – preferably ones that work seamlessly with the devices we already know and love.
It looks like we were right on the money about the growing demand for smart(er)phones. According to a post over at FierceMobile Content, the smartphone surge shows no signs of slowing. Global shipments of smartphones increased by almost half in the second quarter, proving that the latest batch of handhelds is indeed “the hottest sector in mobile.” The one down-note (if you can call it that) of this whole scenario may be that, as this post puts it, “the smartphone industry is starting to feel the effects of intensifying competition.” Manufacturers are scrambling to offer new features and carve out a special place for their devices in this volatile market, which is all the more reason to create new and innovative user experiences.That’s usually a good thing for consumers.
So, how will the hottest sector in mobile make itself even hotter? Say it with me now… 3D! That’s right, we’ve talked about 3D TV in your living room and prepping for a 3D future that includes TV and gaming devices. Now its time to consider an even more exciting proposition…… 3D on your smartphone. Some are now saying that the era of 3D cell phones might be closer than we think. And who can blame them? When you combine the public’s ferocious interest in 3D with the incentive to innovate among smartphone manufacturers, you get a perfect storm that just might deliver 3D mobile devices sooner rather than later.
And no, you won’t have to wear those stupid glasses. The iTV Doctor’s article we looked at a few weeks ago confirms that a smaller screen actually makes it easier to achieve vivid 3D effects—minus the headgear.
Do you 3D mobile devices are just around the corner? How would you use this technology to connect with your friends? Is this going too far
By Kate on 26 July 2010, at 8:34 am  Last month, we talked about a ton of cool ways to view the World Cup on any screen. This year’s festivities really took advantage of some serious advances in technology and communication—especially when it came to mobile devices that allowed fans to watch matches whenever and wherever they wanted.
We were pretty impressed with the amount of mobile coverage (and user interest!) this worldwide event inspired, and so was the team over at Fierce Mobile Content. They outlined the World Cup’s mobile TV footprint in a post last week, showcasing some very solid numbers in the process.
Here are just a few of the details:
- ESPN’s mobile coverage reached 1 million unique viewers during the tournament and registered 93 million total minutes of viewing over the 31 days of the tournament
- MobiTV streamed 108,291,096 World Cup minutes
- 73% of all FLO TV viewers between 2:00 pm and 5:00 pm EST on June 26 were tuned in to the U.S. loss to Ghana
- FLO TV’s total usage minutes grew 34% in June over May, with close to one in five subscribers tuning in for more than an hour each viewing day
Toward the end of post, though, they raise good question: what’s next for mobile TV? Does it take a large and endlessly hyped event like the World Cup to motivate mobile TV viewing?
The numbers don’t lie, but I think this momentum can definitely build on itself—no spectacle necessary. As more and more companies see the numbers that mobile TV can deliver, more and more content will become available (great news for those of us who like our TV on our schedule and on the go).
One company that’s taking the lead is music video distributor Vevo, which just announced plans to expand its web-based service to any and all of your favorite screens, mobile devices included. Vevo has iPhone, iPad, and Android apps in the works, and plans to roll out Video On Demand cable services in the near future.
According to a Vevo CEO, their overall mission is to “put more content in more places,” which means more options and easier access for the user. It sounds like this is one company that’s really embraced the multiplatform gospel. Here’s to hoping that others follow suit. Do you think music videos can make a splash in mobile TV? Will the World Cup’s success spill over into other types of content?
By Kate on 19 July 2010, at 19:07 pm  Financial Times posted an interesting article last week about the war that’s currently raging among smart phone makers. Mobile devices are getting stronger and more diverse by the day, but which company will come out on top? With Apple, Microsoft, Nokia, Google and others crowding the market, the business world is hard at work trying to place bets on a winner. Here’s a little bit of what FT had to say on the subject:
“Amid this upheaval, a familiar battleground is re-emerging…Apple is reprising its role as the high-end, beauty-is-truth contender while Microsoft’s part is, unfortunately for Microsoft, being taken by Android.”
It’s not news to hear that Apple is – yet again – locking horns with a large and powerful competitor…it’s the way of the world. I won’t pretend to know which of these giants will win at the end of the day (or at all), but I will say that the prize will probably go to whichever company creates the easiest and most appealing user experience. It’s easy to get lost in analyzing the business side of the mobile market, but it’s ultimately the users who have the power to make or break the latest smart phones, and we want devices that fit into our lives!
“In the most compelling devices, software and services have been integrated with hardware to form a whole… But the rapid ascent of Android, which now powers devices from the Verizon Droid to Samsung’s new Galaxy S, shows the power of software.”
This is an interesting point. Android has become successful by making software its major concern, especially with Google’s new App Inventor.
But let’s not forget that hardware and software are both important, because they both contribute to making a device easy to use. With so many choices out there, when it comes to mobile devices, the decision to buy really comes down to the handheld that the user feels most comfortable with. This means a smartphone with inviting hardware and engaging software, not one or the other.
“The gatekeepers in the mobile world – operators that subsidise and sell handsets – have a vested interest in diversity”
If service carriers want to compete in the ever-changing mobile world, it’s true that they have to offer a wide variety of handhelds that allow users to accomplish a wide variety of tasks. But with so much competition, these operators will constantly be looking for ways to separate themselves from the pack.
And that doesn’t mean that application providers are off the hook. They need to provide solutions that work on at least two or three OSs, and this can be a challenge – to make sure you’re on the winning platforms and that you can strongly fight for visibility on those platforms.
I’d say they should develop products that focus on delivering what the user wants rather than the offerings of other manufacturers or operators. The device that will really win out is the one that fits best into peoples’ lives and creates an experience that’s easy and seamless. More than a brand name or a handheld with complex bells and whistles, potential customers want a device that satisfying user experience.
What features do you most want to see in a smartphone?
By Kate on 14 July 2010, at 9:57 am 3-D technology has invaded movie theaters with a vengeance lately, paying huge box office dividends for the studios involved. We talked about it last Friday, but it looks like there was some more conversation over the weekend that’s worth a look.
Whether its content created with 3-D in mind from day one (a la Avatar) or content that’s been up-converted to capitalize on pop culture’s latest love affair (see Alice in Wonderland or Clash of the Titans), 3-D interactivity seems to be on everyone’s mind.
What’s the banter about? How the 3-D craze will soon conquer its next platform: your TV. And hey, let’s be honest, we’re as captivated as everyone else.
The ITVT doctor, over at Interactive TV Today, had some interesting thoughts on what he calls 3D TV Mania (we’d have to agree!). He spoke to a CEO at Z Spot, a company that’s taken on the difficult task of up-converting existing TV content to take advantage of new 3-D technology. Its a tricky proposition with a lot of upfront costs, and even the Z Spot CEO admits the process of conversion is “more art than engineering.”
The interview was a jumping off point for the doctor to think about some bigger questions on the future of 3-D TV. Are we ready to embrace the possibilities of 3-D technology outside the movie theaters and inside their living rooms? What does that mean for TV as we know it? These are looming questions with no clear answer. It was at the center of the Six Pixels article we talked about last week.
Ready or not, though, industry giants like Sony are throwing their full weight behind 3-D TV as we speak…not to mention launching huge ad campaigns to build excitement (I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve watched Justin Timberlake and Peyton Manning go nuts over Sony’s latest TVs).
Most of the conversation around the inter-webs has focused on content as delivered through a set inside the home, and it got me thinking…..could the same technology be adapted to mobile devices with TV capabilities?
Enter ITVT Doctor, who mentioned the success of Nintendo’s new 3-D handheld device, the 3DS. If 3-D can create a vivid experience on a gaming handheld, then why not a smart phone or something like it? Maybe the rise of 3-D TV and the popularity of viewing content on mobile devices will be a perfect pair. It certainly seems like a match made in tech-heaven to me. What do you think? Does 3-D TV have a bright future in the living room, on the go, or both?
By Kate on 9 July 2010, at 14:31 pm Mitch Joel had a great post on where TV was going yesterday, “Television at the Crossroads.” It was pretty well on the mark: viewers are evolving – especially younger viewers – and they want different choices and ways to consume content…I’m still not convinces that 3D TV in the home is going to be a die for app, but we’ll see….
A few thoughts to some of Mitch’s thoughts:
“In what could be considered a strange twist of self-perception, the TV industry is looking more toward interactivity in a world where most people enjoy television because it keeps them passive without having to think or work too hard (we might not like to admit this, but TV is successful because the majority of human beings are pretty lazy).”
While I think Mitch is mostly right about television viewers and their passivity, and his comment is really focused on interactivity, not necessarily socializing, I think one interesting thought here is that a lot of social activity is complimentary to passivity. People like to socialize, and it’s not very difficult for them do so nowadays, they’re connected to others through so many devices, it takes almost no effort interact with others. If the socializing type of interactivity is what we’re going to see on TV, it still supports this laziness.
“Is TV’s next prime time how it shifts from a passive media (one we just sit back and consume) to a highly interactive one (think about choosing content, commenting on it, sharing it and – maybe even – creating it as well)? It’s a big, bold move, and those same media executives who are banking that the Internet and television are going to converge may be in for a big surprise when they realize that people like TV and the Internet for very different reasons.”
To answer your question, yup, that’s exactly where we think it’s going. We’ve said it before, more than once, and again (ok we say it a lot!). This commenting and sharing is just the least of it. It WILL be full on socializing. People want to talk with others while watching TV.
“Ultimately, we may also learn that it’s not about one media channel to rule them all, but rather how these many media channels play with one another and the consumer’s desire to consume content in one moment, interact with it at another and create the experience at some point as well.”
The “create the experience” part here is where the real juice lies. Yes, people may want to just sit on their couches and consume TV, but if that lazy viewing is turned into an experience, I don’t think too many people will be upset about it.
Thanks to Mitch for getting the conversation going on the topic. He asked everyone what they thought the future of TV would be… we ask the same thing, so give us your thoughts!
By Kate on 2 July 2010, at 15:42 pm Earlier this month there was a great post over at ITVT on integrating smartphone capabilities with your TV (“The ITVT Doctor is In!: Using the Smartphone as a TV Companion Device,” 10 June 2010). It was in response to an interesting question concerning cross-platform connectivity and the possibly missed opportunities to engage TV viewers.
iTV Doctor answered with a meaty discussion with the team from ThirdWave Interactive on the topic that highlighted the “superior intelligence (and ubiquity)” of smartphones and how they could be leveraged with the “audience power” of TV. While their technology focuses specifically on interactive video on mobile phones, there are many references that are directly applicable to Social TV. We’ve pulled out a few great pieces below:
“If we think that interactive “television” should be focused on the user, and we think that every platform should be exploited to the maximum of its capability (e.g. don’t export a crummy low-end EBIF application over to iPhone–do a custom iPhone app that SINGS!), then we need a way to connect all that, integrate all that, and track/report all that.”
“Smartphones are fast becoming the indispensable workhorse for truly personal computing. Their usage for media consumption, including video, is exploding. Now they are even starting to be used as remote controls for Internet-enabled TV’s (IETV’s). So what was once a telephone is now becoming the personal media controller.”
“….estimates that as many as 50% of the televisions sold in the US within a few years will be Internet-enabled.”
“Using the smartphone as a companion device, not just a standalone viewing device or as a remote control, is where the real value lies. The reality of using the smartphone as a companion to control and enhance the TV viewing experience is with us.”
“With this companion device in the hands of viewers, interactive TV is no longer constrained by the limited remote control device, nor is it bound by the limited capabilities of many existing STB’s. When you add IETV’s or IESTB’s together with mobile, you get an even more powerful interactive experience.”
[As part of a “living room” scenario] “Meanwhile, your spouse has joined you with his smartphone. Since he was a few minutes late to the program, he uses the app on his phone to select the catch-up video of the first couple’s performance. He is just in time to provide his own rating of the first performers. He also chooses to share his rating and a link to a videoclip of the performance with his social networks (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, etc.)”
Needless to say, it may be worth a full read over at ITVT!
By Kate on 30 June 2010, at 12:13 pm  With all the ways you can currently view your favorite TV shows, it could be argued that the content originally made for that box in the corner of your living room is easier to access than ever—great news for the TV junkie inside all of us. Of course, this assumes that the army of television industry execs are willing to embrace the technology that makes time-shifted and on-demand viewing possible. The desire for these technologies definitely exists.
Many within the industry have recognized that non-traditional venues like hulu, mobile TV, and Netflix streaming services offer a unique way to connect to a customer base that may not be tuning in at the same time each week or driving to the video store to pick up the latest season of that HBO show they never could catch up on. Recent reports make the relevance of online TV abundantly clear.
This week brought us a new case: one media outlet is limiting its viewers’ online options in the name of traditional distribution.
A blogger at NewTeeVee was shocked and dismayed this week to find that one of her favorite new shows had been yanked from her preferred Netflix streaming service. The new season of the show will only be available in its regular weekly timeslot or online through the network’s dedicated player, and the previous season has been relegated to the singular format of its DVD release.
Presumably, these moves were made to protect familiar revenue streams and ease the minds of those who see the emerging marketplace of online TV as something of a Wild West atmosphere, but what could this kind of thinking mean in terms of user backlash? Is it unwise not to take advantage of all the different ways that a TV show can reach its audience?
TV is no longer a one-size-fits all medium. When it comes down to it, limiting the ways that content can be viewed is a slippery slope that might lead to the alienation of the very audience that new shows are so desperate to find. What do you think? Will limiting viewers’ options have a negative effect on TV networks? Would you like to see television outlets embrace more online content? What does it mean for the Social TV industry?
By Kate on 23 June 2010, at 16:54 pm
 We’ve spoken before about the increased desire for time-shifted TV viewing. Which is why we were encouraged to hear that some European markets are seeing big jumps in time-shifting service adoption.
Right now, time-shifted, or “appointment,” TV supports a shift towards Social TV by offering users an opportunity to schedule their viewing around when they’re able to connect with their friends – in person or virtually – and not let the programming schedule dictate how they’re going to engage over the content. We’ve covered this before ) and also highlighted a general trend in user behavior towards wanting to socialize, converse and interact with others around various TV programs.
It still remains to be seen how time-shifting technologies will affect the Social TV industry. In some ways, it could discourage socialization by taking away the “live” aspects that make people want to get together in the first place. Whether it’s a reality TV show or a live sports event, sometimes real-time is the only way to go.
On the other side of the coin, time-shifting also opens up plenty of opportunities to socialize by being more accommodating of peoples’ schedules. In busy lives, sometimes real-time is impossible.
Part of this will depend on Social TV technology capabilities, and what interfaces/platforms/etc can be integrated that would support Social TV and time-shifted viewing at the same time. If I’m able to connect with friends via [insert cool Social TV platform here], will I have those same capabilities if I want to watch the same show with the same people on Saturday instead of Wednesday night, when two of my friends couldn’t make it?
What do you think? Will time-shifting TV services enhance Social TV or detract?
By Kate on 18 June 2010, at 18:29 pm Here’s what we were reading this week…..
ESPN’s World Cup content yields 8 million mobile views (FierceWireless, 14 June)
Interactive TV Trivia Challenge (ITVT, 17 June) Fun trivia questions!
Is TV the Next Domino To Fall? (Connected Planet, 17 June)
TV Widgets to Generate Over $1.7B by 2013 (IPTV News, 17 June)
Top 20 Mobile Phones in the US (WebProNews, 18 June)
Mobile Phone Gathering Outlines Successful Projects (MediaShift Idea Lab, 18 June)
|
|
