"Mobile users diss premium content"

<http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>:

We'll have it - as long as it's free

Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their
phones, but they won't pay a premium for it.

Operators should view mobile content as a way to reduce churn rather
than as a new revenue stream, according to a worldwide survey from
accountants KPMG. Forty per cent of those questioned said they would
not pay a premium for mobile content.

[MORE]

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: "Mobile users diss premium content"

KUDOs to John for keeping his ear to the ground for wireless
communications trends and articles.

A trade magazine discussed "mobile TV" last summer and presented two
very opposite views.

One side observed that watching TV is a "sit down experience" not very
adaptable to walking down the sidewalk, much less while driving. And
could you really enjoy watching a 1"x1½" screen?

The other side touted it as the next killer app for cellular and as the
article mentioned, with the same fevor that you heard in the time before
the intenet bubble burst. It was obvious the guy pitching this new
concept was using "talking points" and "power terms" similar to a snake
oil salesman.

I noticed in the article that John referenced, it was European trials.
In Europe, as well as many Pacific rim countries, text messaging is far
less expensive than voice calls compared to the current pricing
structure of cellular calls in the U.S. that average well under 10 cents
a minute. That along with the European use of "called party pays"
illustrates the Europeans have a different mindset to cellular usage.

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:

> I noticed in the article that John referenced, it was European trials.
> In Europe, as well as many Pacific rim countries, text messaging is far
> less expensive than voice calls compared to the current pricing
> structure of cellular calls in the U.S. that average well under 10 cents
> a minute. That along with the European use of "called party pays"
> illustrates the Europeans have a different mindset to cellular usage.

The per minute rates in Europe, with CPP, are far higher than what we
pay in the U.S..

It is counter-intuitive that SMS is so expensive in the U.S..

It's kind of amusing that a survey had to be done to find out that
mobile users are not willing to pay for premium content. You'd think
that the carriers could figure this out based on their falling ARPUs.
The premium content gets old really fast, especially when the bill comes
the first time.

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>
>> I noticed in the article that John referenced, it was European trials. In
>> Europe, as well as many Pacific rim countries, text messaging is far less
>> expensive than voice calls compared to the current pricing structure of
>> cellular calls in the U.S. that average well under 10 cents a minute.
>> That along with the European use of "called party pays" illustrates the
>> Europeans have a different mindset to cellular usage.
>
> The per minute rates in Europe, with CPP, are far higher than what we pay
> in the U.S..
>
> It is counter-intuitive that SMS is so expensive in the U.S..
>
> It's kind of amusing that a survey had to be done to find out that mobile
> users are not willing to pay for premium content. You'd think that the
> carriers could figure this out based on their falling ARPUs. The premium
> content gets old really fast, especially when the bill comes the first
> time.

IMO, in this country, people always want "something for nothing". We have
"free" long distance, "free" nights and weekends, "free" roaming, "free"
mobile to mobile and "free" phones. Now we tell the customer that he needs
to pay as much for the extras as he's already paying for his voice
plan..."It costs what!?"

Cingular's mantra these days (with their dealers) is "sell features." Does
anybody want to watch a 10 minute trailer of their favorite television show
on a 2" diagonal screen? I know the technology works, but does the mass
market want it, or more to the point, are they willing to pay for it?

Mark

Mark W. Oots wrote:

> Cingular's mantra these days (with their dealers) is "sell features." Does
> anybody want to watch a 10 minute trailer of their favorite television show
> on a 2" diagonal screen? I know the technology works, but does the mass
> market want it, or more to the point, are they willing to pay for it?

All the carriers do that. I was in a Verizon store last week, and the
manager was training the sales people on selling Mobile Web. It was
amusing to listen to.

Funny thing is, if they priced the services more reasonably, I think a
lot of people would use them on occasion, rather than never using them
at all.

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:15:43 UTC, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

> DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
>
> > I noticed in the article that John referenced, it was European trials.
> > In Europe, as well as many Pacific rim countries, text messaging is far
> > less expensive than voice calls compared to the current pricing
> > structure of cellular calls in the U.S. that average well under 10 cents
> > a minute. That along with the European use of "called party pays"
> > illustrates the Europeans have a different mindset to cellular usage.
>
> The per minute rates in Europe, with CPP, are far higher than what we
> pay in the U.S..
>
> It is counter-intuitive that SMS is so expensive in the U.S..
>
> It's kind of amusing that a survey had to be done to find out that
> mobile users are not willing to pay for premium content. You'd think
> that the carriers could figure this out based on their falling ARPUs.
> The premium content gets old really fast, especially when the bill comes
> the first time.

The only premium I pay for is for Mediaworks, and that is for PDA
tethering, and very occasionally laptop usage when Wi-Fi is not
available. But never over 40MB/month so far.

--

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (known to some as John Navas) scribed...

> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>:
>
> We'll have it - as long as it's free
>
> Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their
> phones, but they won't pay a premium for it.

<snippety>

Heh... Personally, I just want my phone to do a really good job at
being a phone. I'll stick to my laptop and a wireless connection if I
want mobile "content."

Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.

Outside of that, I couldn't care less about what else might be
offered.

Keep the peace(es).


--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
http://www.bluefeathertech.com -- kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t calm
"Salvadore Dali's computer has surreal ports..."

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:47:32
-0800, Dr. Anton T. Squeegee <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (known to some as John Navas) scribed...
>
>> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>:
>>
>> We'll have it - as long as it's free
>>
>> Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their
>> phones, but they won't pay a premium for it.
>
> <snippety>
>
> Heh... Personally, I just want my phone to do a really good job at
>being a phone. I'll stick to my laptop and a wireless connection if I
>want mobile "content."
>
> Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
>point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
>I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.
>
> Outside of that, I couldn't care less about what else might be
>offered.

While I likewise prefer my laptop (notebook) computer for many things, my
phone is better for other things, particularly since I don't always have my
computer with me. Things which work well on my phone include:
* Google Mobile personalized (email, weather, news, movies)
* Google Local for Mobile (maps, businesses, and directions)
* Froogle Mobile (shopping)
* Weather
* Movies (reviews and showtimes)
* Phone directories
* Flight schedules
* eBay
* FedEx tracking

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (known to some as John Navas) scribed...
>
>> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>:
>>
>> We'll have it - as long as it's free
>>
>> Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their
>> phones, but they won't pay a premium for it.
>
> <snippety>
>
> Heh... Personally, I just want my phone to do a really good job at
> being a phone. I'll stick to my laptop and a wireless connection if I
> want mobile "content."

Well, I'd really like my phone to replace my Palm. I don't want "content"
but I really want to keep my calendar and address book on it - and be able
to sync with a PC (which some phones will do, but not mine). I certainly
don't want any media content from the phone company, though.
--
derek

Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
[...]
> Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
> point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
> I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.

You are asking for what amounts to an insecure connection.

[...]

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:22:34
-0500, Wolf Kirchmeir <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
>[...]
>> Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
>> point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
>> I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.
>
>You are asking for what amounts to an insecure connection.

Just the opposite. VPN can create a very secure connection, and can work over
a secure wireless connection.

The problem is that some wireless hotspots make it impossible to use VPN to
secure your connection.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:22:34
> -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dr. Anton T. Squeegee wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Even at that, I ask one thing, and one thing only, of whatever WiFi
>>> point I hook up to: That is pass VPN traffic without any restrictions so
>>> I can hook up to my home office LAN while on the road.
>> You are asking for what amounts to an insecure connection.
>
> Just the opposite. VPN can create a very secure connection, and can work over
> a secure wireless connection.
>
> The problem is that some wireless hotspots make it impossible to use VPN to
> secure your connection.

OK, didn't think of that. I understood Squeegee's "restrictions" to
include security measures that would block access to his own LAN. If I
misunderstood, well, it's not the first time. And won't be the last. :-)

John Navas <[email protected]> hath wroth:

><http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>:
>
> We'll have it - as long as it's free

Someone out there has to pay retail.

> Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their
> phones, but they won't pay a premium for it.

This is the automobile that includes a snow plow and trailer as
standard. Very useful, but might get in the way. I found that out
the hard way when I plugged a 512MByte SD card into a Sony Clie PDA
and played a rather long video clip over and over until the battery
died. 15 minutes and it was dead. I suspect cell phones will be
similar (or worse).

Translation: Anyone that actually pays for mobile video will need to
solve some technical problems.

> Operators should view mobile content as a way to reduce churn rather
> than as a new revenue stream, according to a worldwide survey from
> accountants KPMG. Forty per cent of those questioned said they would
> not pay a premium for mobile content.

Yep. It's the traditional battle between selling bandwidth and
selling content. The TV and CATV content providers have always
considered it more profitable to force feed packaged content to the
users than to allow them to choose their own entertainment. With
packaged content, one can add commercials and guarantee that the user
is force to slog through them to get to whatever they are watching.
It's not internet access. It's "interactive video". Sigh.

In my never humble opinion, the cell phone is just a communications
device. It can talk audio or data and communicate with other devices
with Bluetooth or 802.11. My ideal cell phone is NOT a conglomerated
monstrosity that does iTunes, video, GPS, PDA functions, camera, and
game console. It can do all those, but the results are invariably a
compromise. The benifits of conglomeration are often negated by the
compromises necessary just to make everything work in one package and
on one small screen.

Methinks integrated video is such a compromise. Small screen, short
battery life, limited memory, DRM, slow delivery, and price of
necessary air time, will make video a wasted effort. Maybe for short
video clips from the built in camera turned video recorder, but
nothing that will justify advertising content and revenue.

The right answer (for me) is a modular system that includes the cell
phone. My oversized PDA would have a keyboard that I can actually use
to type instead of peck at the screen. The screen would be big enough
to see the subtitles. I would also have a screen and keyboard
imbedded in my vehicle dashboard. My cell phone would be just a
handset. Everything would communicate with UWB (wireless USB),
802.11, Bluegoof, or whatever is in fashion at the time. Transfer of
data would be extensible making this wearable network part of my home
or office network automatically. Replication of the address book is
seamless. If the phone can't find someones number, it checks the PDA,
which then checks the vehicle server, which then checks the cellular
directory, which then checks the internet directory servers. One
lookup for everything.

Video would be an easy fit into this puzzle as a cellular video phone.
Transmission would not be full motion video but animated avatars and
characters where the only data being transfered are the motions and
talking head instructions. Etc (I'm late...)

Science fiction? Nope. All it would require is a concerted
initiative by the various players to decide how it all should work.
Chances of that happening are slim. Cellular nervana will have to
wait.

--
Jeff Liebermann [email protected]
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:27:07
-0800, Jeff Liebermann <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> hath wroth:
>
>><http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>:
>>
>> We'll have it - as long as it's free
>
>Someone out there has to pay retail.

Not necessarily -- ads underwrite much of the Internet, and might well
underwrite mobile content as well.

>> Mobile users will use almost any kind of media content on their
>> phones, but they won't pay a premium for it.
>
>This is the automobile that includes a snow plow and trailer as
>standard. Very useful, but might get in the way. I found that out
>the hard way when I plugged a 512MByte SD card into a Sony Clie PDA
>and played a rather long video clip over and over until the battery
>died. 15 minutes and it was dead. I suspect cell phones will be
>similar (or worse).

My Motorola V551 does quite a bit better than that -- even with steady use of
multimedia I still get a few hours of battery life.

>The right answer (for me) is a modular system that includes the cell
>phone. My oversized PDA would have a keyboard that I can actually use
>to type instead of peck at the screen. The screen would be big enough
>to see the subtitles. I would also have a screen and keyboard
>imbedded in my vehicle dashboard. My cell phone would be just a
>handset. Everything would communicate with UWB (wireless USB),
>802.11, Bluegoof, or whatever is in fashion at the time. Transfer of
>data would be extensible making this wearable network part of my home
>or office network automatically. Replication of the address book is
>seamless. If the phone can't find someones number, it checks the PDA,
>which then checks the vehicle server, which then checks the cellular
>directory, which then checks the internet directory servers. One
>lookup for everything.

That's more bulk and complexity than I'm prepared to deal with. I prefer to
just carry a high-end cell phone that can do all the essential tasks. (If and
when I need more, I'll tether a full notebook computer.) The current Motorola
V360 does that pretty well now. An HSDPA version, or something like the
Motorola V1150/V3X, would be even better.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> John Navas <[email protected]> hath wroth:
>
>> <http://www.theregister.com/2006/03/21/users_wont_pay_content/>:
>>
>> We'll have it - as long as it's free
>
> Someone out there has to pay retail.

The carriers have to decide whether to go after the mass market, or just
sell a lot less at higher prices.

SBC decided to move DSL into the mass market, and accept a falling ARPU.
At some point, the wireless carriers may decide that it's more
profitable to sell higher volumes of premium content at lower margins.
Everytime someone signs up for inclusive premium content at the high
price, it helps to delay when the carriers decide to drop their pants on
price.

Some restaurants have tried selling wine for non-gouge prices in the
hopes of increasing their volume enough to make up for the customers
that would buy wine regardless of the price. I don't know how these
restaurants did with this experiment. The thought was to sell wine at 2x
the retail price, rather than 3x to 5x.