Douglas Rushkoff, a very smart, interesting guy who writes books and magazine articles, teaches, develops TV programs and writes a Weblog, tears apart the idea of using a cellular phone as a television in an article in The Feature.
On Friday I wrote about Sprint PCS' new MobiTV service -- Tv broadcasts for cellular phones.
Rushkoff believes the cellular industry should focus on improving voice services to eliminate the need for landline phones rather than concentrating on adding more jerry-rigged capabilities that aren't suitable for handsets.
Inch, foot and yard devices
Douglas writes in "My Cell Phone is Not a TV," that there are three types of devices based upon scale: Inch, foot and yard. "Inch devices, like cell phones, pagers, and PDAs, are for a single person's use, and are unique for their ability to help a person deliver important information from anywhere. Their screens are not for reading, but for eyeballing or copying a fact or figure that will most likely be used on that very device...."
"Foot devices, like computers, TV sets, and kiosks, permit just about as much data retrieval as data entry. They're for one to three people to collaborate. This is where you can open a file and work with it - respond to email with appropriate deliberation...."
"Yard devices are things like large screen TV's, movie screens and white boards. They're less for collaboration than presentation - or one-to-many communication."
Wrong priorities?
Rushkoff says that while it's possible for one type of device to offer the capabilities of another, devices shouldn't be designed with these capabilities in mind. Instead, wireless companies should focus on improving the killer application -- voice -- and eliminate the need for landlines.
I agree that the cellular industry doesn't spend enough time and money improving voice quality and coverage. It's an expensive, labor intensive undertaking and each cellular operator balances the need to improve coverage with the expected return on the investment.
I also agree that trying to shoehorn certain features into a device doesn't make sense, like creating a refrigerator/oven. However, I disagree with what I think might be the implied criticism of incorporating certain valuable features -- such as adding a camera or a keyboard -- to turn a cellular phone into a camera or a better e-mail device.
"Useful" doesn't have to be "the best"
We've seen in the wireless industry that enhanced features don't have to be as good as or even slightly worse than features on dedicated devices for these features to be successful. For example, the 640 x 480 "high resolution" photos on camera phones are far from good. But they are good enough for a variety of fun and useful purposes that are sparking a huge global wireless photography ecosystem.
People are willing to put up with and, indeed, even enjoy, features that are far from optimal. SMS is an excellent example. The keypad is an ergonomic disaster for text entry and being limited to 160 characters is a pathetically tiny number of words. But SMS has, obviously, become an incredible success.
The keyboards on the BlackBerry pager or the Treo 600 can't compare to a regular external keyboard. But they are good enough to be extremely useful and a major reason why people buy these devices.
Not your main TV
The "television-in-your-phone" is far inferior to a TV-only device, but that doesn't mean a significant number of cellular users might not find it useful and, indeed, a major reason for purchasing a specific phone.
I haven't tried the Sprint MobiTV service yet, so I'm reserving judgment.
The value of the content to the end user is inversely proportional to its presentation. For example, insider newsletters with four pages of plain type can sell for thousands of dollars a year, while a mindless Hollywood action movie requires a hundred million dollars worth of special effects to hold the viewer's interest. ("Production value")
If the content leverages mobility-- if the timeliness (and perhaps location-based nature) of the delivery of the information is more important than how prettily and entertainingly it's packaged-- then indeed the user will find value in it and pay accordingly.
There may be times (stuck in an elevator?) where even plain old real-time streaming video ("broadcast TV") may hold that value, but the more the video content can be tailored to the user's needs-- on demand-- the higher its value will be.
Posted by: Bill Sanders | Sunday, February 01, 2004 at 11:57 AM