Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Communications Entertainment

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fox Starts TV Production For Cell Phones

Comments Filter:
  • by sPaKr ( 116314 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @10:54PM (#10794918)
    I thought the correct term for a one minute episode was commercial. I cant belive people are going to pay for that.
  • by Oyume ( 464420 ) <jdshaffer@@@gmail...com> on Thursday November 11, 2004 @11:02PM (#10794956)
    I wonder why Vodafones in the US aren't like the ones here in Japan -- The newer phones receive regular broadcast TV, no fees or special equipment required. On your Vodafone you can watch anything that's not on cable TV. Pretty nice. But I just don't get the whole "download and pay" gambit in the WEST...

    *shrug*
  • by infernalC ( 51228 ) <matthew@mellon.google@com> on Thursday November 11, 2004 @11:06PM (#10794975) Homepage Journal
    By gosh, I want Verizon to get rid of those fast-busy signals around rush hour and all those dead spots on my way to work. Cell service just plain sucks for a lot of us out here.
  • Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) <homerun@gmail.com> on Thursday November 11, 2004 @11:19PM (#10795034)
    People are nuts. They want the tiniest cell phone possible, and then they want full motion/realtime video on it as well as a huge amount of memory for an MP3 player, add some circuitry for GPS, and whatever else. Do people really want to watch tv on their phone? Maybe this trend has more to do with people never being home because they have to or choose to work insane hours and also run kids back and forth and try to do other things as well. We are a Type A society I suppose. If it's gotten so bad that watching tv on a cell phone seems like a good idea, well, then, it's gotten pretty bad.
  • by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Thursday November 11, 2004 @11:55PM (#10795248) Homepage
    Roll-out of cellular products in the US is terribly, terribly slow. For one, uptake in the US is slow, with many people holding on to their phones until they break. For another, the US market is quite large but needs to be supported as a cohesive whole... As such if Verizon wants to try something out, they will wait until success is reasonably assured then do a full nationwide roll out. Japan is a smaller, less-risky market which has traditionally used cell phones in roles that in the west would have been filled by computers... as computer uptake was somewhat slower over there and internet access was more spotty.

    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.

  • by rtphokie ( 518490 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @12:16AM (#10795336)
    this one tops the list. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it needs to be done.
  • Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MidnightBrewer ( 97195 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @12:24AM (#10795365)
    Live in a country where your daily commute is an hour-and-a-half train ride one way, and perhaps you'll begin to see the justification.
  • Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)

    by meme_police ( 645420 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @12:29AM (#10795386)
    Why would I do that? I walk to work in 15 minutes. I'd rather live close to work in a 100 sq ft apartment shared with 12 other people than take 1 1/2 hour train ride.
  • Wow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Yaa 101 ( 664725 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @12:29AM (#10795388) Journal
    Neocon propaganda in cellphone format, isn't the world wonderfull?
  • Re:Mobile hazard (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Craig Ringer ( 302899 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @12:32AM (#10795403) Homepage Journal
    You'd be a tad more credible if you felt like putting your name to your post.

    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.
  • by BlastM ( 663010 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @12:53AM (#10795481) Journal
    _Not a troll_ just an observation.

    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.
  • Missing The Point (Score:2, Insightful)

    by johnnywheeze ( 792148 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @01:08AM (#10795528)
    This is a blatant plug, but a plug with a point...

    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, about attractions near to where you actually are at that moment.

    A video guide book, carried on your phone, that both knows where you are, and what's there to see.

    Some Clips from Bangkok here: http://www.studiolanna.org/movies.htm [studiolanna.org]

    It's this combination of two technologies (mobile phones and video) that makes 3G into the next big thing, if it's taken advantage of, and not used just as a really tiny screen to watch movie trailers, and commercials.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 12, 2004 @01:19AM (#10795573)
    As if talking on the phone while driving isn't bad enough. And you know poeple are going to do it. There will be morons driving and watching TV on their phones, and likely many of them will be teenagers in SUVs. great.
  • Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tho 1234 ( 709100 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @02:26AM (#10795850)
    "Generations have been working in jobs they hate, just so they can buy what they don't really need"

    -fight club
  • Re:Mobile hazard (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Craig Ringer ( 302899 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @03:13AM (#10795994) Homepage Journal
    You make some interesting points, but I can't say I entirely agree. If somebody cannot stop in time to avoid hitting something doing 1/2 the normal speed, they can't stop in time to avoid hitting a broken down car or a stupid child, either. That's called reckless driving, and it tends to land you in a small bare room for a long stay.

    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 unavoidable to use a road poorly suited to cycling. It is a driver's responsibility to drive safely, and it is reasonable to expect that they do so, much as it's reasonable to expect cyclists to stay out of the way or off the roads where possible and to be considerate of drivers.

    As for riding in the middle of the lane - it's the right thing to do when you know there is not enough room for somebody to pass safely but suspect they might try anyway. The road rules permit it, and while it's generally impolite it's necessary on poorly designed roads. I prefer to avoid such roads instead, but if it's a choice between being wiped out by a moron or forcing the moron to (*gasp*) slow down for a minute, I'll force them to slow down.

    The other design issue is that such short-sighted design decisions were made in the first place. Here, even now they're narrowing the roads and adding blocked parking on the sides of the roads, making it a frightening gauntlet to ride between traffic and parked cars with people who may open doors without warning. These roads USED TO BE SAFE. It is beyond me why in a world of high fuel costs, pollution problems, national weight and fitness problems, etc city councils continue to design infrastructure that is actively hostile to cyclists.
  • Re:Uggh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @06:36AM (#10796552) Homepage Journal
    " I think it's because people want everything, but only want to pay for one device. "

    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 double duty as a entertainment device? Why not be able to get movie show times on it? Why not download a 1 minute TV ep? Why not take pictures of your 3 year old nephew being funny at a restaraunt that you so thoughtlessly forgot to bring your $500 digital camera to?

    I don't think the problem is that the rest of the world is defective, I think you're just not making the most of your phone. Don't want extras? Fine. Go be happy. However, consider that the rest of us aren't just stupid sheep. I used to have a phone that went a week without charging. Whoopy, I made a few calls on it and .. uh.. I didn't have to plug it into the wall as often. Ok. Now I've got a phone, it's smaller which is easier on the pocket, and yeah it lasts only 3 days on a charge. Did I trade down? Uh, no. I have some classic photos of my nephew I wouldn't normally have gotten. Heck, I've even got a hilarious video of my dog harassing my cat. During waits in line I keep up on the news. I've got a few silly games that keep me entertained on the john. (yeah yeah, giggle giggle, snort snort.) I have occasional text message chats with a friend who's bored at work. I'd keep going, but hopefully my point is starting to come into focus: Yeah, my phone isn't bullet proof, but it's a lot more useful to me now than the 'better' phone I had a few years ago. I don't care about Quality? Perhaps not. I care about value. Oh, did I mention that this phone was half the cost of the 'better' phone that lasted a week on a single charge?

    Before I finish my post here, part of my rant here wasn't directed at you. If you take personal offense, I apologize. I'm just sick of "nerds" here suddenly going all minimalist when cool things are developed. I thought we were supposed to embrace technology here. I have.
  • stupid (Score:1, Insightful)

    by chadm1967 ( 144897 ) on Friday November 12, 2004 @08:02AM (#10796762)
    This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of. I love technological advances but come on. This is a waste of time.

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Working...