Mobile TV
Bryan Copeland
IUJ Platform 07 – The Impact of Mobile Technologies
on Markets and Societies
(Supervised by Dr. Philip Sugai, Associate Dean - GSIM)
“What is Mobile TV”?
„
No one has really answered this question.
¾
TV Shows Downloaded from P2P (BitTorrent)
¾
iPods (40GB of data, video playback), iTube?
¾
Content on a server accessed remotely (YouTube)
¾
Pre-recorded Programs on DVR
¾
Screen displaying TV signal on a Bus or Train
¾
Ad-space or Billboard on a truck
¾
RFID-controlled Displays
Mobile TV ‐ Definition
„
TV -
„
Mobile -
Any telecommunication system used for broadcasting
and receiving moving pictures and sound over a distance
An object having the ability of motion, but not
necessarily being in motion.
„
Mobility can be summarized by 2 qualities:
¾
¾
„
portability
variability
Mobile TV?
Any television signal transmitted to a portable
device (possibly, but not necessarily while on the go).
Japan’s Mobile TV Business‐Model
OneSeg (Broadcast via terrestrial)
Their’s is the most secure link in the
Content Aggregators will be any relevant “value chain” of OneSeg content
technologies formed to enable the Content
distribution… most of the risks related to
Broadcasters
have thedo
most
Providers to offer the features
and OneSeg
not pressure
apply to them as they
of
all,
despite
the
fact
that
they
have
functionality for viewing content on this
simply continue
to improve
handsets,
less to lose than
Carriers.
Their
platform
adding features & functionality
must
remain
competitive
(i.e. Media-streaming service,programs
Media-player)
closely
tied
to consumer demand
in an age of user-generated content.
Content Providers will be any subsidiary
group other than the users, who
collectively push content onto the
platform (i.e. Content Creator, People,
Fan Group, Company)
They stand to gain/lose the most from
OneSeg. How does it afffect/redefine
their core business?
I believe they should reward content
providers greatly, as per MyNews model
Relevant Content & Advertisements
Content
Aggregator
1
2
Content
Provider
The appeal of their products to
4
3
8
The effectiveness of
their ads determines
their Their
value-exchange
customer service and
consumer/viewer determines
their value-exchange
Advertiser
Broadcaster
Handsets
Manufacturers
9
sales capacity will decide
their success in exchanging
value w/ users
Retailer
Content Flow
Money Flow
Advertising
Agency
Mobile Carriers
Their ability to create, exchange,
and utilize the information
available through the OneSeg
network will determine their
status
(and possibly level of rewards)
within the network
5
7
EndAd-linker
Useris just a touch-point
that helps to route the ad for the
ad agency + advertiser, the
retailer might be able to
exert some control as well
depending on stock, sales, etc
6
Interacts with Ad linker
Bridging the Gap Between Broadcasters & Viewers
„
Profit-sharing to reward users uploading the most
popular web content (featured)
„
Could be based on a number of metrics; from
traffic, to user rating, to number of forwards
„
Would encourage both submission & sharing of
content; Network Externality
„
Increases data traffic
(> revenues for carrier in non-flat plan)
Web 2.0 – User‐Generated Revolution
„
User-generated content – “If they build it, they will come”
Non-traditional entertainment content broadcasters:
„
„
„
„
„
„
(designed to share user-generated content, also used for copyrighted)
(act like video-only search engines for entire web)
(mostly for Social Networking, but built on video/image sharing)
(Social Networking, image sharing, experimental blog, vod & podcasts)
(Social Networking & Image-Sharing respectively)
(Interactive user content, games, flash videos & shorts)
Traditional Content providers:
„ Television Broadcasters
„
Movie Studios
Internet TV & Video-on-Demand
PPV
Subscription
Fee
Ads
Ad-free
Free
Web 2.0 – Mash‐ups Go Mobile
„
Mashup – merging information from multiple sources
„
„
„
Wiki’s are in many way the original mash-up
Make content available in standard wiki format, can talk to other wikis
Wikipedia increasingly accessible via mobile
„
HousingMaps = GoogleEarth + Craig’s List
„
FlickerMaps = TeleAtlas + Flickr
„
Amazon
¾
¾
„
DVDAficionado = IMDB + Amazon
musicovery = Podcasts + Amazon
Perpetual Beta – release crap; continually improve/update
based on real, observed consumer needs
How Do We Sort All This Data?
World Doesn’t Always Agree
Tags are just the beginning
Web 3.0 – Defining the Disorder
„
What the web was originally meant to be
WWW = Web of information
„
Metadata
„
–
–
„
„
Data about data
Can be understood by machines
Web of Metadata = Semantic Web
Examples:
„
(Product ratings & recommendations engine)
„
(Music-finding & recognition service)
„
(XMLTV powered EPG with ratings system)
Semantic Web
„
Semantic Web is happening already, as we upload
content, information, ideas
“We Become the Web”
„
To understand concepts, we (humans) need:
– language
(a formal way to communicate concepts in visual cues, writing, or speech)
–
meaning
(widely accepted definition of language symbols, or unique approximation)
–
order
(sequential, alphabetic, reverse-chronological, categories)
Web 2.0
Web 3.0
A Basic Mobile TV Ontology
Semantic Web for Mobile TV
Purposes
„
Intelligent Program Recommendations
¾
¾
„
Smart Advertising
¾
¾
„
Collaborative Filtering
Comprehensive Parental Controls
Product Placements
Ad Relevancy
Integrated Contextual Search
¾
¾
Search-Result Relevancy
Agent-based (automated) search & retrieval
Proposal
„
Mobile community needs to work together
towards a commonly accepted software
standard
„
A matter of standards:
¾
Open Source standard – each company provides its own unique,
value-added services atop free software
¾
De Facto standard – one major company champions software
¾
Hybridization of standards – one company develops / releases
to public for improvements, sells a non-public version also