While the web and the internet have become widely used over a relatively short period of time, there is still a tendancy to associate them solely with computers. However, internet access of some description on mobile phones has been widely available for several years, from the WAP phones of the 1990s to GPRS, EDGE and 3G technologies today.
According to this years Ofcom report, while around 2 out of 3 UK households have a computer and just over half have a broadband internet connection, 93% of UK households own a mobile phone (for the first time, more households now have a mobile phone than a land line). On a worldwide scale, in many developing countries it has proven cheaper and easier to install wireless mobile networks than nationwide cable networks, so mobile internet connections are more prevalent than cables.
However, despite this increasingly wide availability of mobile internet access, the mobile web has yet to really take off in mainstream usage. One reason for this is that data costs on most mobile phone plans are very expensive, which discourages users from using them to browse the web, making it difficult to attract users or inform them about sites that could be of use or interest to them.
There are two exceptions to this broad generalisation; Blackberry mobile phones are becoming increasingly popular, particularly with business users who need to be in touch with colleagues and clients and want or need constant access to their email. For personal use, sports news websites are popular. Both of these uses of the internet involve a need or desire to follow events happening, as they happen. When a sports fan is out and about, unable to watch a game on television or follow it on a radio, the mobile web via their mobile phone offers an alternative and unobtrusive way to follow the progress of a match and experience the highs and lows in a way that watching a replay or hearing the final score can’t compare with.
Other than these uses, which involve relatively low volumes of data and low bandwidth, but do require “always on” connectivity, the mobile web has yet to really take off.
Mobile internet without a mobile phone
Earlier this year, Apple released the iPhone; a device thought by many to mark the beginning of the mobile web in the mainstream. Although smartphones and PDAs with web browsers have been around for a while, the iPhone was heralded as being easier and more fun to use, more stylish, and aimed more at being used for fun than for work (as opposed to Microsoft’s Windows Mobile devices, where one of the main selling points is the ability to view and edit spreadsheets on the move.)
Last week, Apple announced their new revamped iPod range, which includes the iPod Touch; essentially an iPhone without the telephone, but with the large screen and “multi-touch” interface. Also, like the iPhone, it has WiFi capability, so it can connect to the internet via WiFi hotspots. Unlike the iPhone, it will be available in the UK soon (from the end of September.)
In an earlier post, I talked about how the high costs and slow speeds of web access on a mobile phone compared to the increasing availability of wireless internet connections over WiFi might well stunt the development of the mobile web, as early adopters are less likely to be using the more common GPRS networks in favour of 3G or WiFi networks. So it’s interesting to see a device from Apple that makes use of mobile internet access without relying on telephone networks. Perhaps, as some have speculated, this move signals Steve Jobs’ disilluisonment from working with the cellular networks?
On the web side of things, Facebook have designed a version of their site specifically tailored for the iPhone’s screen (alongside the existing mobile-friendly version of the site), and the iPhone and iPod Touch have a YouTube button as part of the user interface.
Oddly, considering that YouTube uses Adobe’s Flash 7 video format, the iPhone’s web browser doesn’t support the Flash player for websites- at least, not yet. (Although it’s worth noting that Apple have removed all the prominent Flash content on their own website, and a version of their Quicktime video plugin is featured in Safari; perhaps an indication of the future they envision for the web.)
Online Video
The YouTube connection is particularly interesting here in the UK, in light of the announcement at the end of August that TV shows would at last be available to download through the iTunes Store in the UK at a rather expensive £1.89 an episode. (That’s $3.80 at current exchange rates- compared to $1.99 in the US.) Meanwhile, Apple and NBC have fallen out over NBC’s wishes to sell their shows for $4.50 per episode in the US.
There is also some concern over DRM on videos; while the iTunes Music Store has anti-piracy measures which prevent them from copying music and sending it to others (without using one of their five authorised machines), users can still put MP3s from other sources onto their iPods, or rip borrowed CDs. Some content providers argue that Apple should be taking steps to prevent this from being possible, although there are numerous technical challenges that would first need to be overcome.
The Apple TV has also been released earlier this year- this is a set-top box that wirelessly syncs with iTunes on a computer to play video from an iTunes library on an HDTV; a useful device if you want to watch TV in the living room but keep your computer elsewhere in your home. It can also stream videos from YouTube, and seems aimed more as a device to stream content from a computer than a standalone media player. However, what’s conspicuous by it’s absence is the ability to function as a DVR (like Sky Plus) and record from the television; a function that will probably be essential if it’s to compete with traditional satellite or cable television in the UK, rather than function alongside them.
At first, I thought it seemed odd that both the iPhone and iPod Touch, both with a screen design that lends itself so obviously to video playback, had gone for the smaller capacity Flash based storage option. That was, until the significance of the YouTube connection became clear; connecting to an enormous streaming source of video content makes much more sense than carrying around a video library on a hard drive. The details of exactly how big YouTube’s library is aren’t made public, but according to a study in August 2006 , YouTube had some 45 terabytes of videos, and in a single month the number of videos on the site grew 20% to 6.1 million, with the number of videos viewed reaching 1.73 billion- 100 million video clips being watched a day. Over a year on, the actual figures today are undoubtedly far larger.
From the content providers’ perspective, streaming video has a number of advantages over a stored video library; for example, it would be possible to charge per download if a user wanted to watch the same video more than once (although current pricing structures suggest that this isn’t a strategy being actively pursued.) It would also be easier to protect content if it’s played on a closed platform, where there isn’t the readily available option to save the video, or to install third party software that would allow you to add that functionality. Following recent experiments in adding advertising to some of their videos, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see YouTube introducing pay per view videos in the near future.
I’m also personally attracted to the idea of a device that isn’t going to run out of battery and leave me unable to make a phone call when I reach my destination because I’ve spent an hour on a train watching videos; one of the problems I’ve encountered in the past with using devices which share a single, all too short-lived battery for the essential functionality of a telephone and the added luxury of a portable media device.
Starbucks- the next generation of music shops?
Starbucks already have their own section on the iTunes music store, where you can download the CDs they sell in their stores online. Apple have now also announced a partnership with Starbucks, where their devices will automatically connect to the iTunes Music Store when in range of a WiFi-enabled Starbucks, allowing users to buy music from iTunes, as well as a feature allowing them to see and buy the currently playing track in the shop. However, the deal doesn’t include free access to the web through Starbucks- only access to the iTunes Music Store. Whether this partnership will be as revolutionary to the high street music market as the iTunes Music Store has been in the digital music market remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, HMV have opened a new ‘next generation’ store near Birmingham, where visitors will be able to download songs and video clips directly to a USB memory stick, to then take it home and upload to their computers. (I’m not entirely sure why people wouldn’t prefer to download directly over the internet…) The store will also include a mini Apple store, a juice bar, and an Xbox 360 Live zone; a place to hang out, and not necessarily to buy music.
Opening just 2 days after Starbucks’ announcement, it seems clear that the future of buying music isn’t likely to involve flicking through endless flourescent lit racks of CDs and buying an album because there’s two songs on it that you like. The ease of use and value for money of downloading music seems to be creating significant competition from traditional record sales, clearly making it harder for high street record shops to do business. However, if digital media becomes a true alternative to physical media and the racks of plastic can be replaced by live bands, video feeds, comfortable chairs and wireless downloads, perhaps shopping for music will become a different experience.
I wonder how long it will be until the WiFi capabilities of the iPod are used for the next logical step; just as “Web 2.0″ has marked the transition of websites from a one-to-many to a many-to-many form of communication, perhaps the next step is for music shopping to follow suit, where you could send copies of music you’ve bought directly to someone else’s WiFi-enabled music player for them to check out. Obviously, there would need to be some restrictions in place to keep it profitable for record companies; perhaps only the original purchaser would be able to send tracks— you wouldn’t be able to send on a track you’d been sent yourself, and you would be limited to sending, say, a maximum of three copies of a track and no more than three tracks per album to another user. Or maybe copies could only be listened to three times before it would have to be purchased. After all, record companies are practically falling over themselves to get their records played on radio stations, while listeners generally choose their station because they like the DJ and think of them almost as a friend; the benefits of music that is directly recommended by a real friend and easy to identify and purchase later on seem obvious.
If there’s one lesson that the music industry should have learnt by now, if you don’t take advantage of what technology has made possible and make it easy to use, then someone else will; most likely without the kinds of restrictions that the industry would like to see.
No comments