[opendtv] Re: More Than 50% Of All Video Views On Mobile Devices? The Time Is Now, Ooyala Says 06/25/2015
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:41:08 -0400
On Jun 29, 2015, at 8:00 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Foremost among the awesome stats in the Ooyala's Q1 Global Video Index, out
today, is that viewing on mobile devices--smartphones and tablets--now makes
up 42% of total online viewing."
Right away, that tells us it's still less than half, even if it's a sharp
rise. But to me, there's a logical disconnect that doesn't make any sense.
The article at first claims that long term viewing on tablets is predominant,
and short term viewing on PCs is predominant. And yet, toward the end, it
says:
Bert. Stop with the obfuscation. The article also said that mobile devices
would be more than half some time later this year.but that's not the point I
was making.
These devices have grown from
"Keeping them ingesting is the trick, as other parts of this report note. For
right now, at least, ad completion rates for online videos from broadcasters
are very high: 90% on PCs, 89% for tablets and 79% for mobile devices. Ooyala
says that's because most of that viewing is long form, and viewers recognize
they've got to stand by for the advertisements."
This last bit says that PCs predominate "because most of that viewing is long
form," which is as one would expect. You cannot watch long form TV online
streams without completing the ads, Craig. You cannot skip those ads, no
matter whether you're viewing on a tablet. So, whatever.
But we know from other studies that PC use is declining overall.
This is the hype promoted by trade scribes, even while they do their own work
on PCs. What we know is that with handheld computers having become available,
clearly some of what was done on PCs is now done on the hand held gadgets.
But anyone who has to do anything other than the most mundane and trivial
work, and I'm including here students as well as the work force that uses
computers, will still use the PC for the bulk of their heavy lifting. If for
no other reason, one reason is that you never have enough screen real estate,
when doing any but the most mundane of tasks. And never mind the I/O tools
you need.
Just as you have books open on a physical desk, to refer to while you work,
you need files open on your workstation. Being confined to a tiny screen
merely says that (a) you need more paper documents and that physical desktop
too, or (b) you aren't doing any but the simplest kind of work.
If it mentions anything, that would be OTT sites. Not MVPDs, nor
TVE (which is the same thing). If the article suggests anything,
it would be that the MVPDs should get on with it, and become OTT
sites more quickly.
They are with TV Everywhere.
Only in your mind, Craig. The article clearly states:
"But with many providers still waiting on the sidelines of the OTT game, it's
become increasingly obvious that in large part, the industry is lagging in
execution of mobile initiatives."
The best you can do is to say that what's been around for some time, MVPDs
and their still-walled-in TVE model, is all you need? This suggests otherwise
to me. This suggests that "the providers," which probably includes both
congloms and your MVPDs, need to get in the OTT game. Not retrench in their
old business models, as you insist. The old model is in decline, Craig, no
matter how to try to wordsmith your marketing ads.
That's 57% of all long form content viewed Bert.
And did you see that of all platforms only PCs are declining
in ad views Bert?
The numbers above claim otherwise. Ad completion is the highest on PCs. So
again, whatever.
Did you notice the use of one critical word Bert?
OPTIONS
Go ahead and read once again the ATSC 3.0 blurb you posted.
"Flexibility in service options is a keystone of the next-generation ATSC 3.0
DTV broadcast system, including the opportunity for terrestrial broadcasters
to send hybrid content services to fixed and mobile receivers
seamlessly-combining both over-the-air transmission and broadband delivery."
So, both "hybrid content" and "broadband delivery" require a 2-way network. I
already explained to you what the possible outcomes of this are, in terms of
what ATSC 3.0 itself might contribute, as opposed to what ATSC 3.0 might be
using other networks to contribute. And I already explained multiple times
that if ATSC 3.0 only provides broadcast (and the multicast definition you
got stuck on, which is still broadcast), then this feature will become
increasingly underutilized in short order.
We have talked at length about cell densities for various
visions of the future of broadcasting. I have noted that
one-way SFNs can be built with relatively low cell
densities; you generally disagree.
Craig, it took me close to **15 YEARS** to get you to pay attention to some
primary sources that explain how SFNs work and what their limitations are.
And even then, after **15 YEARS**, the best I could do is to have you focus
on some very high level numbers for LTE only. And this, even after many, many
attempts to show you how the numbers work. I think you got stuck on some
superficial words from some marketing hack, 15 years ago, and have been
unable to move on. So at least for LTE, at least one time, you managed to
acknowledge that the tower density had to be very high (I still want to know,
though, how many towers would be required for a market radius of 40 miles.
You have yet to give me that number. Make that for ~3 b/s/Hz.) I have no
illusions. Already, you're back to armwaving. (Or, did you already forget
that ATSC 3.0 is heavy on mobility?)
But you then say that a 2-way network that supports on
demand unicasts is critical if broadcasters hope to survive.
Okay, so shut off that distracting TV droning in the background, Craig. What
was the main OTT role I said broadcasters needed to pursue? Anything to do
with RF transmissions? No! What I said was, if broadcasters wanted to also
create their own 2-way wireless network, using their own spectrum, that can
also be a role. It would be a complementary role, I said, and for sure, it
would not be free. Also, it would require a dense mesh of cells.
Leveraging existing broadband networks makes much more sense,
I've said this for years now, Craig. And I'll repeat that therefore, from my
point of view, broadcasters should do whatever it takes to find a role on the
Internet, even as they continue to broadcast using ATSC (1.0 is good enough,
as far as I'm concerned) for as long as it takes, until everyone has migrated
to IP reception of TV. For all those new ATSC 3.0 features they want to
support? Use all the 2-way nets, wired and wireless, already in existence.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
