1. saran says:

    MO, From consumer’s point of view: Mobile TV, basically I think users would expect a trial period, a free Beta period, once they started to use, users give much attention to picture quality/connection speed, screen size. I also don’t like to waste my battery life for not an essential service.
    I guess adoption strategy of text and video have major difference in mobile, I do view/share text content, since its cheap, I do see/share videos(short live streams) with close circle, not all the links in FOAF, Secondly quality(rating) of content matters a lot. I don’t know where Ads go here…People do hate Ads in mobile, may be Free/cheap video service can go with Ads. Sometimes P2P, content forwarding etc go hand and hand with mobile tv.
    - Saran

  2. MrBesserwisser says:

    Well…. Hate to be a Messerschmidt but: Your point that broadcasting updates to friends (“Twitter style”) using 3G “unicast” doesn’t scale and that you should use DVB-H broadcasting instead sounds like a given, but it is actually wrong. If you have maybe 10-100 friends (who should receive your latest update) it is still incredibly much more efficient to send 10-100 copies of that update (text, picture or video) to each friend than to reserve a broadcast frequency for an entire city or even the entire country, just to reach the same 10-100 people. What you fail to realize in your argument is that what twitter is doing is not broadcasting (i.e. sending the same content to almost ALL PEOPLE in an area, like a TV channel), it is multicasting (sending the same info to SOME people in an area). And unless the number is absolutely huge, it is much more efficient to simulate this multicast with several unicasts, than to simulate it with a broadcast, especially if your friends are not physically situated close to each other so the broadcast can be very local. Sorry for raining on your parade, it’s compulsive ;-)