Fox Starts TV Production For Cell Phones 232
prostoalex writes "Broadcasting television to the cell phones, which few people were actually interested in, is becoming a reality pretty fast, as Fox started making mopisodes (one-minute episodes targeted specifically for the mobile phone screen) to be broadcast on Vodafone and Verizon networks. The Fox announcement timed perfectly with Vodafone launching a broad variety of 3G services in Europe."
CNN Coverage (Score:4, Informative)
Rupert is The King. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Rupert is The King. (Score:2)
Oh boy! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh boy! (Score:3, Funny)
ALDERAAN SHOOTS FIRST! (Score:2)
Re:Oh boy! (Score:2)
WTF (Score:4, Funny)
Instead of spending the money on this, FOX might as well have just spent the money on sexual harassment training.
Re:WTF (Score:2)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:3, Funny)
A one-minute TV program isn't going to take that much of a bite out of your one-and-a-half hour comute, though...
Re:WTF (Score:2)
> one-and-a-half hour comute, though...
Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
-fight club
Re:WTF (Score:2)
I'd laugh if it came to light that you had a Game Boy.
Re:WTF (Score:2)
The added benefit being people with bluetooth on their phones and laptops will be able to use them from anywhere.
Of course, I'd settle just for coverage at my house right now...
Re:WTF (Score:2)
Besides, 15 minute spots are probably the sweet-spot, and that's just waiting on technology to catch up to make it feasible.
Re:WTF (Score:2)
Re:WTF (Score:2)
Sadly, stupid ideas like this are commonplace in Fortune 500 companies.
I swear, they pay people good money to waste the companies money on poorly planned projects.
My dotcom company was aquired by a big Fortune 500 company. They want to replace our product with their own product. Fair enough.
Huge chunks of this technical project were planned, and the entire budget was allocated,
Crazy like a Fox (Score:2)
Re:WTF (Score:3, Funny)
The idea was pretty obvious after looking at the attention span of most cellphone users.
Re:WTF (Score:3, Funny)
America's Most Trusted Name in Cell Phone News
It's time for our 60-second summary!
beep beep budeep beep beep
This just in-- Bush approval ratings are up!
Shares of Halliburton may rise in the near future!
Terrorists want to kill you-- stay home today!
Baby-killing doctors arrested in San Francisco!
Michael Moore needs to shut up!
John Kerry is French!
For more information on these breaking news stories, visit www.foxnews.com.
--
Farenheit 451 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:WTF (Score:2)
AP and Reuters, Fox, ABC News, NPR, CBS, etc. So I guess there's a bunch of jobs out there already doing this
There's also a mini-app to let you watch local TV straight on your phone, not sure if it is pre-processed by sprint or if the hardware was alrady built in to receive TV signals.
The apps look like they range from $3.95 - $9.99 per month, and I assume that part of that money gets kicked back to th
Re:WTF (Score:2)
1minute episodes ? commericals (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: 1minute episodes ? commericals (Score:2)
Get your phone number listed in the wrong place -> throw away your phone.
Re: 1minute episodes ? commericals (Score:2)
Re: 1minute episodes ? commericals (Score:3, Interesting)
Ewan
Re:1minute episodes ? commericals (Score:4, Funny)
Re:1minute episodes ? commericals (Score:2)
Think of it this way, for a few dollars you can see an entire season of bad programming in just a few minutes. Isn't your time worth that much?
"Mopisode" (Score:5, Interesting)
"Mopisode"? I thought a one-minute dramatic episode was called a "trailer".
Re:"Mopisode" (Score:3, Informative)
However, I do believe mopisode is stupid sounding and probably/hopefully won't catch on.
Re:"Mopisode" (Score:2)
First, there was
Then, there was
Now, we have
('Cause a one minute dramatic episode sure
isn't a "mopisode", but is a "trailer".)
Am I really missing something here? Is this
something that people need from their cell
phones? (Okay, a one minute episode of p0rn
might be interesting, but not if it's used to
sell automobiles or laundry soap.) FOX needs
to pull their heads out of that dark stinky
place, and put the kabosh on this brainfa
Other places to watch trailers on a phone (Score:2, Informative)
The distraction of driving while using a cell phone has already drawn the legal ire of a number of states and localities, and rightly so. Watching a FOX "mopisode" could be deadly.
Who's to say a driver would be watching such programs? Ever heard of carpooling or public transportation (bus, train, etc), the same places Nintendo expects grown-ups to touch their DS systems?
Re:"Mopisode" (Score:2)
Mobile hazard (Score:5, Funny)
Great.
Now I have to watch out for morons watching TV on their mobile phones while they drive their souped-up 4WDs in rush hour traffic.
Thanks, Fox!
Re:Mobile hazard (Score:2)
Re:Mobile hazard (Score:2)
The sort of people this is already a problem with are _exactly_ the sort of people who would watch sitcom update snippets. *uggh*.
Re:Mobile hazard (Score:5, Insightful)
As it happens, I agree with you. Cyclists and major roads/highways/freeways do not mix. The difference is that instead of saying "so cyclists should get off the road" I say "I'm paying for this, and can expect decent transport infrastructure too." When roads are upgraded, it's not hard to add a bike path or a cycle lane or two, nor does it take much space. In general, I strongly prefer to stick to cycleways anyway, and in Perth (Western Australia) that's usually a viable option.
On minor roads, however - a cyclist has as much right to use the road as anybody else. It is entirely reasonable to expect not to be wiped out by morons just because they can't be bothered looking where they're going. Paying attention isn't hard. When it comes to the speed issue, at worst people have to slow down for 30s until there's a decent place to pass, and only because that bit of road is too stupidly cramped. Deal with it. Seriously.
As for the insults and generalisations, my thoughts about giant-truck driving redneck hicks are similar - but I'm not making the assumption that you are one like you've made unreasonable assumptions about me (despite the strong temptation to do so).
I must note, also, that I've met more than a few winy idiots myself. Some have been cyclists - and really, painfully bitchy about it. The sort of people who will tell someone who lives 30km from their work in a country that hits 40C in summer that they don't need a car. The temptation to beat them to death is strong. A similar temptation exists for intolerant morons who assume all cyclists are like that and who think they're the only ones whose needs matter.
Re:Mobile hazard (Score:2)
Considering it had a tiny (1'-2'/ 3/4m) sholder on one side and a rather significant drop-off on the other I'm suprised there weren't regular fatalities as semi's CAN'T slow suddenly when confronted with some idiot doing <1/2 the normal speed.
Re:Mobile hazard (Score:2)
Anyone who can't stop, nevermind slow, when an obstacles appears at the limit of current visibility is not in control of their vehicle. That's true of bicycles as well as cars of course and there are idiots driving both. Plus that's small comfort when a maniac who "CAN'T slow suddenly" hit
Re:Mobile hazard (Score:3, Insightful)
As for design issues - agreed. I strongly prefer to use cycleways or cycle lanes, and where that's not possible nice wide roads. Sometimes that's not possible, and it's unavoid
Re:Mobile hazard (Score:2)
Re:Mobile hazard (Score:2)
Car drivers take advantage of the fact that if they hit a bike the cyclist will probably be killed, so they can intimidate cyclists from asserting their rights to use public roads. The situations you mention annoy drivers who feel chagrined when a b
Rules (Score:2)
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as the giant cyclist overmind to make the decision. It's individual, much like driving like a moron or driving sensibly is. Consequently, you'll see cyclists riding like maniacs, sensible cyclists, agressive rules lawyers, and some who combine two or three of of those traits. Not much
One minute episodes? (Score:3, Funny)
[ducks and covers]
Reality? (Score:2, Interesting)
TV Phone has two factors to become a big hit
(1) The technology has to be available
(2) People have to shell out the money for it
The technology is available, which, granted, is a large step and testimony to technological projects. However, people must buy/subscribe this technology which no doubt will be very expensive. I for one would not throw a pretty penny at something I could get
Re:Reality? (Score:2)
Just like that, the technology will die. Some marketing flack will bemoan the "fact" that people just aren't ready for it yet, and there will be some hand-wringing.
Then everyone will forget about it.
1 minute episodes based on 24? (Score:2, Funny)
What New Hell is This? (Score:4, Funny)
As if their pointless yattering conversations weren't enough....
Why is it Different in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
*shrug*
Re:Why is it Different in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus the carriers out here get to say what their customers use as phones, not vice-versa. Up until recently phones had to be flashed to a specific network provider and a specific user... the idea of buying a general purpose cell phone and finding a provider later is laughable here, despite being a perfectly functional model in Europe.
We expect the carrier to subsidise the cost of the phones, and then are shocked that we can't get any phone that has features they don't want us to have. Sigh. I'd say vote with your dollars, but we really don't have any choice here.
Re:Why is it Different in the US? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is it Different in the US? (Score:4, Interesting)
That having been said, the cell phone industry in the US has a lot to answer for. The fact of the matter is that everyone has been hit with at least 1 100 dollar phone bill in their lives, if not routinely. And while getting hit with that once a year means the company makes 8 dollars more per month for that subscriber, the customer suddenly feels like they're owed.
What other industry forces you to estimate the amount of something you are going to use, pay for services that may or may not be rendered, and make you pay through the nose if you guess low? This isn't a business relationship, this is The Price is Right. Do you think you will or will not roam? Will you be making any long distance calls? Do you think you will roam off our network in your home calling area? Planning on recieving any text messages? Are you sure you're only going to use 300 minutes with the holidays coming up? *DING!* The player guessed wrong. The phone company wins!
I got hit with a 100 dollar bill one month because I switched to "unlimited nationwide coverage" at a 15 dollar a month premium, traveled out to California, and mysteriously dropped off of AT&T's network. If I had paid an additional additional 10 dollars that month I would have had "unlimited nationwide coverage with off-network roaming" and recieved the same service from the same people for 90% less. They charged me 10 times the amount for the same service. That's 90 bucks they owe me. My girlfriend has to ask people to call her house long distance, because while her cellular phone company's landline long distance is only about 15 cents per minute (a high total these days, I might add), cellphone long distance is 60 cents per minute no matter which way the call is going. So if I pay 15 cents to get a call to the switching station of her cell phone company, and she pays a monthly fee to get it from the switch to her cell phone, she still has to pay a stupidly high fee for the priviledge of receiving the call.
If cell phone service were like power, you would pay X cents per minute. Maybe there would be variables like X cents per minute local, or X cents per minute off-prime, but they would be linear variables. None of this exploding-bill-for-the-same-service BS.
I buy a gallon of milk. It costs me 2 dollars. I buy another gallon of milk. It costs me 2 more dollars. I buy 400 minutes of talk time. It costs me 40 dollars. I buy another 400 minutes of talk time. It costs me 240 more dollars. Where else would we put up with this?
If the cellular companies didn't try to screw their users, maybe their users wouldn't try to get everything they can out of them.
Again, I know that isn't you. But you have to realize that the system you work for is not working for its users. BTW, cry not a tear for Verizon Wireless, it's making a healthy 10% [forbes.com] return on capital. I'm convinced wireless companies could be making a lot more than that with a simple, fair pay-as-you-go non-prepaid no expiring minutes bullshit.
Re:Why is it Different in the US? (Score:2)
Remember that ISPs used to do this at one time a
Re:Why is it Different in the US? (Score:2)
Yeah, because then they might not be able to afford seven Philipino sex slaves and will have to settle for only six.
Poor babies.
Re:Why is it Different in the US? (Score:2)
You would think that these would be one in the same goals.
The fact of the matter is that everyone has been hit with at least 1 100 dollar phone bill in their lives, if not routinely.
Not me. I don't have a cell phone. My wife has one, but it is a pre-pay. I honestly do not understand the "need" for cellphones. I am no technophobe, in fact I used to work for Motorola, and I had a
Re:Why is it Different in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have never been to Japan, but from what I gather Japanese society is generally tech-profficient and consumers make educated decisions when buying electronics.
Apart from us geeks who are skeptical of big business at the best of times and paranoid at other times, western society will consume what the television tells it to, and is short-sighted enough not to realise that micro-payments add up quickly.
I'm an Australian, and I can see this happening right now. SMS and MMS has become a huge fad, as have mobile phones in general. Many young people now face debt problems after running up phone bills in the thousands and tens of thousands of dollars.
Broadband internet service is well below basic for a developed nation, but that's mostly attributed to the reelection of the conservative federal government that has sold half of the telecommunications utility that owns all the copper phone infrastructure and DSLAMs and most of the outgoing internet pipes.
The population just isn't tech-savvy enough to force the market to be competitive, and as a result we are all fucked over, although only the geeks (and the farmers in the outback who can barely make phone calls) can see it.
Re:Why is it Different in the US? (Score:2)
Of course, with so many souls for sale, they're becoming less and less valuable.
Re:Why is it Different in the US? (Score:2)
Before they do that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Before they do that... (Score:4, Informative)
Kintanon
Really common here in Korea (Score:4, Informative)
You pay per packet, and for content for some 'premium' stuff like music videos, and it's a relatively closed system so the telco and the content providers love it.
Great (Score:2, Funny)
I don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention that on a price per bit basis this will be something like 100,000x as expensive as cable television.
Of course, I think paying for ringtones is a dumb idea, too; but that's a multi-billion dollar industry!
cool east/west contrast (Score:2, Interesting)
Aye Carumba (Score:2, Funny)
3G is not toon porn
3G is not toon porn
Enough! (Score:2)
so much greed... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:so much greed... (Score:2)
Uggh (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a Walmart civilization these days. People are told they want the absolute cheapest thing out there, nevermind quality. What is the point in paying for something that only half-works? People buy cellphones that have horrible reception and sound quality -- makes it quite useless as a phone. I work as a computer service technician; we get people in on a daily basis demanding to know why their shit broke. HMM! I don't know. PCchips motherboard, generic ram, FORSA video card. Fujitsu hard drive...Liteon optical. I don't understand these people. They want the world, but they don't want to pay. I used to buy cheap crap. THEN IT BROKE. Then I realized that there is a bit of truth to 'you get what you pay for', at least, for tangible things. After buying a few cheap electronics I decided NO MORE. I don't buy something to have it stop working in a few months.
And in case anyone is wondering, I finally found a phone that works so god damned well as phone. Motorola i90c. I'm using it on the Mike network (ie. iDen) and it's amazing. I get full signal everywhere I've been so far, in places where I got no signal with my Nokia piece of crap.
Re:Uggh (Score:2)
Re:Uggh (Score:2)
I'll bet you're going to knock Nero next, because it costs less than EZ CD Creator. Go back to using AOL, it's expensive, so it must be good! ($23 for dial-up,
Re:Uggh (Score:2)
Re:Uggh (Score:2)
I used-to agree with you completely... THEN IT BROKE! Yes, if you think it's a pain when you buy a cheap piece of junk that breaks, you should try buying an insanely expensive piece of junk, and have it break anyhow.
I don't buy crap from Lite-on or NEC, but at the same time, I certa
Re:Uggh (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever tried carrying around an MP3 player, Game Boy, digital camera, PDA, and Sidekick all at once?
"I don't watch TV much, but I certainly don't want to watch it on a 1'' screen."
Good for you. Now consider other people's desires for a moment. A phone, because of it's 'phoney' nature, is something one carries around at all times. Since that phone already does the standard phone stuff, why not have it pull do
Re:Uggh (Score:2)
2) The quality of features in an electronic device or software is inversely proportional to the number of features in the device or software. Phone? Works fine. Phone and camera? Well, battery life is lower, and the camera sucks. Phone, Camera, and MP3 player? Less room for pictures and M
technology that nobody asked for (Score:3, Insightful)
One minute equals... (Score:3, Funny)
I'll pass, thanks.
So now... (Score:2, Funny)
First Mover Advantage (Score:2)
Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Missing The Point (Score:2, Insightful)
Video over mobile phone networks is actually pretty exciting, but just dumping video content onto 3G networks lacks vision and creativity.
The idea is to make programming that takes advantage of the MOBILE part of the equation. Focusing on things you can ONLY do with a mobile video platform.
Our first project is a mobile phone travel show. The killer idea is that the phone, knowing roughly where you are in a city, will stream a video to you on demand,
Fox Ringtone (Score:3, Funny)
The "Wow, Cool!" factor is dead (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe I'm just getting old. How do you younger kids feel? You bored by these things, too?
Re:The "Wow, Cool!" factor is dead (Score:2)
If I was a jogger I would have picked up a flash based player with similar qualities.
I still have my Ti Powerbook 500mhz... I paid $3400 for it but it did everything I wanted it to do
Re:The "Wow, Cool!" factor is dead (Score:2)
I don't think it's indicative of the market, really. I think it may have more to do with growing maturity in your life. When you get older, work gets harder, and more serious issues pop up in your life, the desire for simplicity starts to settle in.
You have to remember that "wow! cool!" has been around for decades. I'm not sure how you'd find them, but there are some old commercials from the 50's and 60's of n
Lies, damn lies, and Republican lies (Score:2)
Europe (Score:2)
GREAT! (Score:2)
You'll see (Score:2)
I mean, you don't know. That guy, last century, he thought he had mold, but really, he had penecillin, which is used to kill bad germs and save lives And now people are saying he's really great, just because he found mold. And mold is everywhere.
Now, this phone tv is better than mold. So just imagine how important this could be.
Also, this could be us
Re:You'll see (Score:2)
Many would say TV was one of the greatest inventions of the 20th Century, but I still think TV is a terrible idea. The social costs we pay for TV far outweigh the benefits. It is a useful tool (imaging, and the potential to put a theatre in any home), but like many such things it has been severely abused.
Look at it this way: marijuana is popu
Re:You'll see (Score:2)
I thought it was frikken hilarious, but no one else seemed to get it.
yet another reason to (Score:2)
I am sure that this has been posted already... (Score:2)
Fox watchers are, depending on the issue, between three and seven times more likely than public-network audiences to harbour factually incorrect beliefs [guardian.co.uk]
I want to watch The Three Stooges on my phone (Score:2)
Bugs Bunny & Yosemite Sam would be good, too.
Sometimes the classics are the best.
Chip H.
Re:Now Bill Orielly can harass you on your cell! (Score:2)
Re:I love Apple, but Fuck the South (Score:2)
Do YOU? Try reading about it. [lectlaw.com]