Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Media Television Wireless Networking Handhelds Hardware

Television on your Phone 241

Posted by CmdrTaco from the it's-only-amatter-of-time dept.
zxnos writes "Television on mobile is all geared up to be the next big thing as UK provider Orange, rolls out a mobile handset service, which will offer customers top TV shows and channels. Channels such as Cartoon Network and CNN will be made available for a monthly subscription of £10. This will be UK's first TV-on-the-mobile service, which will allow customers to watch news, sport and entertainment programmes on their phone."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Television on your Phone More

Television on your Phone

Comments Filter:

  • WHY? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Why would anyone want a phone on their TV? I mean sure it might be convenient, but what if I've been making calls the battery goes flat? I can't watch TV!

    Why can't I get a TV which is just a TV?
    • Every time there is an article about a television with new features, someone has to whine about televisions being too complicated. There are plenty of televisions that are just that, they just don't get the coverage because it's not news!
    • The phone company has to charge for the connection time. By the time you watched a few movies through your mobile, the phone bill will exceed a 19" TV.
      • That's correct - we have standardised GSM/GPRS/UMTS(3G) networks in the UK and services such as this are merely provided at the cost specified.

  • And You Thought... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SpottedKuh ( 855161 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @10:40AM (#12605054)
    ...that people using their phones while driving was a problem before?

  • yes! (Score:1, Redundant)

    by N3TW4LK3R ( 841526 )
    finally, mobile pr0n !

  • screen (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cowplex ( 877690 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @10:41AM (#12605058)
    oooh, tv on a inch square screen! leave the TV to the TVs. an RSS feed would be much better.
    • oooh, tv on a inch square screen! leave the TV to the TVs.

      Sounds like those poor souls having to watch video using Windows 3.1 during the 90s.

      an RSS feed would be much better.

      As Peter Griffin would say, "Without being there it's only radio".

      Phillip.

  • broadcast (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @10:43AM (#12605069) Homepage
    Instead of yet another service to be charged for, what about receiving broadcast TV?
    • This opens up a relevant question of just how much collusion of our communications and multimedia entities we want, and what steps must we take to be guarded about the possible negative effects of the aforementioned collusion?

      Translation: When news media became more centralized, it raised heated debates and exposed grievous issues. What would happen in the world proposed here?

    • Re:broadcast (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <slashdot.monkelectric@com> on Sunday May 22, 2005 @10:53AM (#12605128)
      Instead of yet another service to be charged for, what about receiving broadcast TV?

      DING DING DING! Yes you got it. I can't describe how little I give a shit about watching tv on my cell phone, just like I didnt give a shit about taking pictures with my phone, using my phone as an organizer, or any of the other fucktarded things they've tried to get me to buy. I will admit text messaging is marginally useful, however, sprint (whose the devil) charges *$10 month* for unlimited text messaging ... HOLY SHIT!

      • Re:broadcast (Score:2, Insightful)

        by glesga_kiss ( 596639 )
        I can't describe how little I give a shit about watching tv on my cell phone

        I can't describe how little we give a shit about you describing how little you give a shit about watching tv on you cell phone.

        If you don't want one, don't buy one. Move along. There's a PC with 640K ram with your name on it over there...

      • DING DING DING! Yes you got it. I can't describe how little I give a shit about watching tv on my cell phone, just like I didnt give a shit about taking pictures with my phone, using my phone as an organizer, or any of the other fucktarded things they've tried to get me to buy. I will admit text messaging is marginally useful, however, sprint (whose the devil) charges *$10 month* for unlimited text messaging ... HOLY SHIT!

        I agree with you on the TV front, I tried the MobiTV (or whatever they call it) that
        • Well, not every network is the Internet, you know.

          I think this is a case where the suits actually get it. A network carries data. They may vary in terms of bandwidth, latency, and consistency, but underneath it all, it just carries data that encodes various things.

          The disconnect is that they see this as a way to create extra services they can charge for that don't cost very much to provide, given that the network costs are sunk. Sure, more people would use text messaging if it were free, but what's
      • I wish we had such good deals in the UK for unlimited text messaging.

        At one time Genie (now owned by o2) offered such a service for £10.00 per month and a lot of people signed up for it since it was so useful. I actually ended up "in trouble" from the company after using 5,000 text messages in a month - so much for unlimited.

        Nowadays you either pay per message, buy bundles of messages at a reduced rate, or take out a contract that includes a certain number of free messages per month.

    • Re:broadcast (Score:4, Informative)

      by amembleton ( 411990 ) <aembleton&bigfoot,com> on Sunday May 22, 2005 @10:56AM (#12605143) Homepage
      Read this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4563007.stm [bbc.co.uk]

      It states that o2 will be providing TV on mobiles by using digital TV signals although these will be special ones designed for mobiles, so they will probably still get to charge you.
    • Because broadcast TV requires more hardware in the phone, or at least decoding software, while this just requires a videophone, which are already on the market and available. That is why.
    • Think about it. How can the cell companies improve their revenue stream if you are recieving broadcast video?

      Despite what the press releases say, *all* new features are designed to increase the cell providers ARPU*

      If you believe that video to your handset, downloading ringtones, camera phones, and all the other bells and whisthle are some sort of gift from the cell phone gods, then you're likely to believe anything a marketeer tells tou.

      *ARPU = Average Revenue Per Unit(subscriber)

  • Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Crimson Dragon ( 809806 ) * on Sunday May 22, 2005 @10:44AM (#12605076) Homepage
    I see all these new mobile technologies develop. Mobile web access, 3G networks, multimedia content, picture mail.... these are all well and good.

    What I question is why there isn't more urgency on working on the increasingly insufficient battery life of the modern mobile device. This is not restricted to cell phones, either, but is particularly relevant in this case. The more features we jam-pack into these phones, the more and more our talk time (which is why we call these devices cellular telephones and not something else: they should make phone calls) tanks. Granted, much technological innovation and research is being done globally with hydrogen fuel cells, increasing efficiency of solar technologies, etc.... but the effort spent adding another gimmick (or feature, whichever is less offensive to you) is wasted when this mobile power problem for these devices seems ever the more relevant....

    Though the possibility of watching Scrubs at work to make my bosses that much madder at me seems enticing....

    Seriously, we should dedicate more energy to the mobile power problem.

    • Re:Concerns (Score:3, Interesting)

      by taskforce ( 866056 )
      Ask a LOLLERSKATES!!11 teenage girl if she wants a custom ringtone composer on a par with Sony ACID or a few more hours on her phone's battery and it's quite obvious which one she would pick.

      Free market forces are dictated by those who spend the most money on the service.

    • Re:Concerns (Score:4, Interesting)

      by markholmberg ( 631311 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @01:05PM (#12605832)
      I studied related stuff for my thesis and found out an interesting bit of info.

      One of the main reasons for big third generation mobile services markets in Japan and Korea are the lengthy daily commutes people do in trains.

      And normally, in trains, you can charge your phone (there is AC or DC available). Thus, power consumption is not a problem when you take into account the environment where these 3G services are used.

      Same thing for me here in Finland. I use my phone to surf the net during my 3 hours of daily commuting on a train. I decided pretty quickly against carrying a 6 pound computer with me the whole day just to be able to surf the net. Now I use just my Nokia 6600 to read PDA version of slashdot. Some of my commuting friends use a Nokia 9300 for the same purpose and yes, they use it to watch TV shows too.
      • Over a million people in the US have the T-Mobile Sidekick (including myself), which is definately data-focused.

        I have no problems running the entire day, even with 3-4 hours of data use.

        But, TV on your phone? Please. UTMS is fast, but it's not *that* fast. Remember, capacity in the cell is *limited*. More use of UTMS for video leaves less room for data. It's even worse when you consider the fact that few of these services implement multicasting properly.

        Here in the US, Verizon already has a similar serv

    • Re:Concerns (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sevinkey ( 448480 )
      I agree with you entirely. I would find a week long battery for my cell phone that charges in 15 minutes a lot more useful that TV on my phone.

      I wish the world worked where the most useful features got developed first, but I'm afraid here that some new technologies has be the TV a much lower hanging fruit, and doesn't require a scientist to figure out. It's a straight forward engineering problem, and the business side just requires a could of solid relationships to pull off.

      I think the sales team at wor

  • In related news (Score:5, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @10:44AM (#12605077)
    I am setting up a new chain of Opticians to cater for all the people who damage their eyesight while trying to watch tv on their mobile.

    I also expect to be recruiting medical staff shortly to cater for all the people who get injured becase they were watching their mobile when they should really have been watching where they were going.

  • On the bus (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    And I thought the crazy frog ringtone was anoying. Just imagine people watching re-runs of the eurovision song contest while they go to work!
  • If I sit so close to teh TV I'd get nearsighted.
    Well I am, and I suspect that is why most people with bad eyesight are nearsighted more than other.

    So whats the trend now? cellsightedness?

    Hmmm, the solution: get a cell with a camera on it and view the world thru a small small lcd panel...

  • Here is what I want in a phone: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nasor ( 690345 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @10:49AM (#12605104)
    -a good strong signal that won't drop calls
    -a long battery life
    -the ability to survive repeatedly being dropped onto a hard surface from a height of about 5 feet
    -waterproofing might be nice

    Maybe once I can get all that, I'll be interested in a phone that can deliver TV shows, play Beethoven ring tones, take grainy pictures, and allow me to play simply video games. Honestly, what do these companies think that people buy phones for?
    • Here is what I want in a phone:
      -a good strong signal that won't drop calls
      -a long battery life
      -the ability to survive repeatedly being dropped onto a hard surface from a height of about 5 feet
      -waterproofing might be nice

      I bet you like your martinis shaken and not stirred too.

    • Re:Here is what I want in a phone: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @11:08AM (#12605195)

      Here is what I want in a phone:

      You do realise that you are no longer the profitable market for mobile phones? Here in the UK, the primary market for mobile phones is now 15 - 29 year olds, and that just happens to include the age range of people who like gadgets, so to gain more consumer market, your phone has to have an MP3 player, a megapixel camera, video capability, sms, instant messaging, wap, 3G, polyphonic ringtones, colour screen etc.

      Honestly, what do these companies think that people buy phones for?

      Cameras, MP3 players, etc etc. Really, in the largest growing market area its all about gadgets that come with the phones. Your phone doesnt take pictures? Thats poor. Your phone doesnt have polyphonic ringtones? Bad. Your phone cant receive picture messages? Not good. What does your phone do? Oh, its built like a rubber brick to survive your clumsiness?!

      • You do realise that you are no longer the profitable market for mobile phones?

        Yes! Shame! Shame on you, GP, for your failure to conform to the most profitable demographic. Surely you know by now that there is no demand for anything you might want? How dare you express your feeble opinions with out first undertaking extensive market research to ensure your desires are widely held?

        Seriously, what is it with companies today? If you aren't part of the maximally profitable marketing group, then you don't

        • Yes! Shame! Shame on you, GP, for your failure to conform to the most profitable demographic. Surely you know by now that there is no demand for anything you might want? How dare you express your feeble opinions with out first undertaking extensive market research to ensure your desires are widely held?

          Thanks for an overtly hostile response to my post.

          The fact of the matter is that featureless phones jsut dont yield good enough profits while requiring a similiar investment on the part of the phone com

          • Thanks for an overtly hostile response to my post.

            You know, you should back and reread your previous post in this thread. Let me jog your memory

            Your phone doesnt take pictures? Thats poor. Your phone doesnt have polyphonic ringtones? Bad. Your phone cant receive picture messages? Not good. What does your phone do? Oh, its built like a rubber brick to survive your clumsiness?!

            That sounds pretty hostile to me, both overtly and overly so. You reap what you sow, man.

            Its called shareholders

      • Indestructability and robustness is gadgety too. It's just that there aren't ANY phones that fit his specs for the market to respond to. Granted it's not actually the phone that affects signal quality the most. The poor sales performance of the panasonic toughbook may be holding back indestructable phones.
        • Nokia did a padded and increased robustness phone, and apparnetly it tanked in sales. Unfortunately, it traded features for robustness and almost everyone I spoke to that got one said they wouldnt recommend it because of the sheer lack of features. It also had an internal ariel, as external ariels and robustness dont really go together in the same sentance, and that affected the signal quality.
    • Oh, come on - there are tons of those, the problem with guys like you is that when the moment to buy it comes you all go "bleh, it's big", "bleh, it's not cool" and stuffs. You want a practical phone? My old trusty 3510i used to be what you probably want. It's not tiny though. Let's see:

      -a good strong signal that won't drop calls

      Well, if you don't live a country road away from the nearest cell tower, you know, they all do that.

      -a long battery life

      Which means a big(ger) battery. 3510i I had lasted 5 to
    • Well you can get all that, and could for quite some time. Check out the Nokia 5100, 6250, and another one I can't remember, or Siemens M-series (35, 65, 75). So get one of those or many others fitting your requirements, and quit bitching.
    • You're missing something. Those phones already exist . Many of them aren't in production anymore, but I've noticed for example Nokia keeping such a model in stores (I think it's the 3310 model). It has a good battery life (about a week or so), I never have dropped calls, and there are cheap rubber 'jackets' which protect them from said 5 ft. drops. Hell, I've dropped it many times without the jacket and it always survived. It's even somewhat waterproof. It got soaked in sweat at a concert, rendering the s
    • Honestly, what do these companies think that people buy phones for?

      To make them a profit. If you want no-frills, buy a low-end phone and get a no-frills plan at reduced rates. Since most people are crap at budgetting, and suckers for shiny things that blink, they get their phones with a plan (and a hefty handset subsidy).

      This is what drives telcos to want to recoup ever more money, so they tell the manufacturers to build in more billable features, driving up prices, which in turn drives up handset subsi
    • -Good sound (perhaps a flip, so you can hear something and people hear you talking as well? it's like most cell makers believe your mouth is an inch away from your ears)
      -Decently sized (not too small nor too big)
      -Useable keyboard (for people with big fingers, or those with hand numbness/tingling)
      -A screen you can read in most lighting conditions
      -Conservative look
      -Decently priced

      If anything more I'd wish for a vibrating ringer as an option (for during meetings and such).

      Not some convergence-of-gadgets toy
    • -a good strong signal that won't drop calls

      That's broadly dictated by your provider; granted, a phone can emitt more power to improve the phone to tower SNR, but you can't do much about the tower-to-phone SNR, except putting up more towers.

      -a long battery life

      Mostly constrained by battery technology, but you can by larger 'long life' battery packs for some phones.

      When someone invents better batteries, you can bet the cell phone, camera, laptop, MP3 player, electric car, etc companies will jump on it.

  • Wireless bandwidth limits? Why TV style? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @10:51AM (#12605117)
    Certainly not a bad service - only problem would be having some odd person on the subway ask to watch with you. All this video-over-widerange-wireless stuff makes me wonder though - what are the long-term limits of wireless data transfer over large areas? I anticipate (article was more early marketing than real info)that users of this service will not be getting a high-resolution image on their cell phone, and what they get will likely jam with any signal interference, but it won't be too long until competition pushes for higher resolution, more video buffer, etc.

    Can we expect ultra-high-resolution TV-style instant video eventually for everyone over a cellphone-style wireless network, or will it become more of a video-on-demand system where you chose ahead what you want to watch, then are notified when your show is available to watch? I wonder what the bandwidth will end up making plausible and simpler to provide.

    Which makes me think - once people get to commonly learn video-on-demand or TIVO-style interfaces, which will be more popular? If providers can get past the nickel-and-dime mentality of providing shows on demand (see NetFlix for why losing this mentality helps), then I believe that style would be much more popular for people using cellphones who'd want to watch specific shows rather than the usual TV-zombie experience. So long as they can eventually have shows in storage rather than streaming them, it should be easier on the network too.

    Ryan Fenton

    • All this video-over-widerange-wireless stuff makes me wonder though - what are the long-term limits of wireless data transfer over large areas? I anticipate (article was more early marketing than real info)that users of this service will not be getting a high-resolution image on their cell phone, and what they get will likely jam with any signal interference, but it won't be too long until competition pushes for higher resolution, more video buffer, etc.

      You may have heard of this thing called "satellite t
  • Japan and Korea are on the bandwagon as well, but it seems like it's just a great way to drain your batteries. Article on mobile TV [thefeature.com]
  • I'm curious about how monochrome video would look as opposed to color on such a small screen. Although it seems common enough now for phones to have small color screens, and resolution is not the problem it used to be, might B&W be simply easier on the eyes? Might old movies now have a new niche market? Unfortunately I don't have the spare $ to find out for myself!

  • Up here Rogers is planning [marketnews.ca] on offering the same service, although this seems like something that would be much more likely to succeed in Europe rather than North America.

    Now why the hell can't they get some reasonable prices for wireless internet?

  • No more peace (Score:4, Funny)

    by sean@thingsihate.org ( 121677 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @11:06AM (#12605185) Homepage
    Great now I have to listen to laugh tracks and sports announcers coming from other people's phones when I ride the train or bus.
  • Why doesnt someone just put a small TV tuner in a phone w/ some extra hardware space (hard to find, I know).

    You could just click a button on the side of the phone, and the TV tuner takes over the screen, have a small analog dial on the side for tuning and you'd be set.

    Of course, that way it'd be impossible to charge for the service, which I'm sure the phone companies would be none too pleased about.

  • In 96x96 pixels? (Score:3, Informative)

    by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @11:15AM (#12605236)
    I've been researching displays for a project, and the phone-sized ones are 96x96 pixels. I can't imagine trying to watch video on something that low-rez.
    • More like 320x240 with 262.000 colours. This [ag0ny.com] is my current phone, which is old enough already (I bought it for just 1 yen in January).

      More than enough to watch TV on the train on your way to the office, as I see many people doing every morning.
  • It's bad enough with mobile phones ... all I need is a commuter in a Huummer trying to merge onto the freeway while watching the sports channel to have something to gab about at the office.

    Although watching a commuter in a Hummer, his mobile phone to his ear so it blocked his peripheral vision, try to occupy the same spot in the lane as the loaded gravel truck he failed to spot was entertaining ...

  • I see this as the broadcast television industry attempting to prolong their outmoded form of linear content delivery. I don't want content delivered to me at a corporation's convenience. I want on-demand. I think that by offering this service they are trying to keep people from remembering that they will simply be able to download any content whenever they want before too long. So I can't see a service like this having any legs at all.

  • People are getting more money than me for this. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @11:38AM (#12605333)
    I have a hard time accepting that people are actually getting paid more than I am to conceive and implement ideas such as this. Paying serious money ($20/month) for the opportunity to watch a limited number of television shows on a 3-cm square handheld screen.

    Every technological innovation goes through several stages:

    1) First there is the long hard expensive period of research and development of the basic underlying engineering.

    2) Then comes the conceptualizing of a possible product and/or application.

    3) Then comes the stage when large amounts of resources are put into making a truly stupid product.

    4) Then, the nadir. The point of absolute and total despair where the developers realize that they have spent all this time and effort into making something that is truly stupid, unbelievably expensive, and does nothing more than duplicate the function of a simple, common widely-used device that costs a tiny fraction of the new product.

    5) Finally, the phoenix. The price of the new technology falls to the point where its secondary benefits make it worth as much and more than the simple common ordinary device that it is replacing. It then becomes the new simple, common ordinary way of doing a task.

    This is seen over and over. The word processor replacing the typewriter. Steven Levy in Hackers writes of the despair of the guy who invented the word processor when he realized that he was using a $20000 minicomputer to duplicate the function of a $20 typewriter. Word processors started to make sense when minicomputers started to cost $2. The CD replacing the vinyl phonograph, the energy saver light bulb, the music synthesizer, the television infra-red remote, the list goes on and on. It's a process.

    These guys are at the point where they have invested a ton of money to make a truly stupid product but haven't realized it yet. Let's all hope that they survive the coming crash. Yes, guys, you actually did spend millions on the idea that people would give you money to watch a inch-square TV in a television picture on their cell phone. But, cheer up! It's not the end of the world and eventually something really wonderful will come directly from it.

    Someday.

  • Hidden fees (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Aggrav8d ( 683620 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @11:43AM (#12605363) Homepage
    $10 UK to access the channels.
    $0.5 UK/minute to watch the show.
    If they didn't do it then it would be tantamount to saying that a full month of constant connection to someone else costs them *at most* $10 UK which would make the rest of their pricing policies seem all the more outrageous in comparison. You can't be to obvious about how you grift people - if you want to squeeze blood from a stone you gotta squeeze *slowly*.
  • This is the sort of 'convergence' technology that I'll never, ever understand. It's like once a piece of technology becomes mature, we rewind time to when it was an inconvenient pain in the ass.

    Land lines have high-reliability, high-quality, low per-call cost... and what does everyone move to? Cell phones, which sound like everyone's stuck under six feet of molasses, crap out on every third call, and have impenetrable service agreements in which the only certainty is that you'll be told you "don't understa
    • Good point.

      I'm in Silicon Valley, where, surprisingly, cell phone coverage sucks. In the expensive neighborhoods, residents bitch about cell towers, so coverage is lousy. There are many big trees, so PCS frequencies are attenuated. Stanford University only allows one cell phone vendor on campus (Cingular) so they can add their own fees. And coverage in the hills west of I-280 is spotty.

      I'd rather have decent voice coverage than tiny-screen video.

  • Phase II: Format Wars (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Agelmar ( 205181 ) *
    The sad part is that I have no doubt another company will be pushing "HDTV-cellular" within a year. 1080i on a 96x96px screen anyone?

    Seriously, I've no intention of watching TV on my phone, but is this going to turn into a format war? 1080i vs 720p is bad enough, but now will we get competing standards like 96p, 240i, etc, for all the various models?
    • No, it's going to turn into a gouge-the-customer war. In japan, NTT DoCoMo charges $6 for 400KB transfered on its 3G network. The US is barely starting to get 3G now, so they're behind the curve. In any case, prices may be getting worse over time, I don't know. It just seems like even at 96p, bandwidth is still going to be way too expensive for most people. WLAN is starting to show up on phones, so that's cheaper at least, but it eats batteries for breakfast lunch and dinner, and of course, it's hard

  • Once again... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by RemovableBait ( 885871 )
    We're back to the jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none situation here.

    With the amount of new technology and features in phones today, their original purpose is becoming less and less efficient.

    For example: on my old Nokia 3310, I pushed the 'Down' button until I found the person I wanted to call, then I pressed the 'Phone' button and it dialled the number. No difficulties there.

    On my new, all-singing-all-dancing Samsung monstrosity, I must press the 'Menu' button, whisk past 'Camera' and 'Applications'

    • Re:Once again... (Score:5, Informative)

      by cnettel ( 836611 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @12:31PM (#12605657)
      On my SonyEricsson Z1010 with camera, video calls, media player, J2ME goodness, I still just press "down" to navigate my phone book. If I press a number key after doing so, I scroll to that letter. With the left menu button, I have direct access to my call list, both outwards and inwards. I can easily place another call to the same number.

      Point being? Lots of features don't have to make the obvious and common ones hard to access. Thanks to a larger, color, display, it's also easier to find what I want in the menus, when I need to access those, as I can view all available options at the top level, compared to previous Nokia phones, where I could only see one at a time and scroll between them.

      I can call with my phone, from the phone book, easily. No configuration or menu madness. I can create simply key shortcuts to those of the more complex features I actually use. And then, I have a userfriendly menu for other stuff, when I need that. If cramming in more features has made your phone hard to use, that's because of bad implementation, not because of the features.

      • I suppose that really, the true call to the phone manufacturers should be to not lose sight of the original purpose of the device, rather than cut out features.

        I guess I was just unlucky with the phone I chose. It also hits home again, that the control is with the end-user: try before you buy, and pick one that suits your needs. But those key shortcuts sound like a damn good idea to me. :)
  • I don't think the viewer will be in the driving seat. It's too good an opportunity for them to throw away.

    Let's see, you get to control my mind and I pay you for it. This is an extention of the newspapers and I'm fine with that if you guys promise me if you get a TV mobile, to be critical of yourselves when watching.

    I don't have a TV.

    Think people, think!
  • I signed up with Cingular recently after some issues with Verizon and Sprint. They were offering a free MobiTV (or something like that) demo for 10 days with no charge, so I figured why not?

    That wasn't TV.

    What I got was a grainy slideshow that updated once every 5 seconds or so with terribly low-quality audio, all played through an application with no volume control (with a very loud default volume) and a terrible interface. ...and this was with EDGE on a Motorola V3 Razr.

    The mobile TV thing seems like i

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • How far away from an actual TV can you be?
  • How much will it cost?
    Well, how much are you able to borrow?
  • ...and confusing. Does it really make sense to watch television on a cellular phone? I mean, I can see a time here and there when I might need to watch something on television when I'm away from home, but honestly, is this worth an increase in the prices of cell phones and service?

    Even if this is an option, cell phone providers have a way of raising everyone's fees by, say, $5 a month, instead of charging individual users who want the service $20 a month extra, and giving everyone access to this new service

  • I saw TV on a telephone 20 years ago.

    I think it was a Curtis Mathes.

    Posted to to show prior art to any relevant patent applications, and because I think it's funny.
  • See this yellow pixel over here? That's Spongebob.

    --Rob

  • I can't even pay $10 just to get it on my TV. Why can't we get a la carte service like this over the internet, or the TV, but it's available for phones?

  • What the fuck are these (Score:3, Interesting)

    by doc modulo ( 568776 ) on Sunday May 22, 2005 @05:57PM (#12607712)
    "I just want a simple phone without net access" people, doing on slashdot?

    On the other hand, don't let yourself be fleeced by greedy companies. TV sounds dumb, use them as wireless ISP instead. They don't want that because they want to be "special" so they can charge "special".

    Keep jumping ship to the provider that has the lowest net access and create those "special" services with your own software on your phone. Java MIDP 2.0, Linux or Symbian. I'm talking about Europe.

    At least that's my advice.
  • Ok, TV on a mobile is (marginally) cool.

    For $20 (ish) a month? I hope that commercials are removed. For $30 I can buy a battery powered TV that can catch regular broadcasts. A little more for LCD and pocket size.

    Also... I get charged for text messaging on my mobile. Email on my mobile. "They" are kind enough to give me 100 minutes a month, and unlimited weekends talking, but the low-volume data is ALWAYS charged for.

    I guess the telcos view TALK services the "loss leader" and try to make up the difference
  • "Televisions are getting smaller and smaller, and bigger and bigger. Soon the market for the medium sized tv will disappear."

Slashdot Top Deals

Them as has, gets.

Close