First time posting here, just thought I'd comment on this "streaming audio/video in cars" debate.
To be honest, I'm not sure if the TV/VCR analogy is a proper one. By nature, such devices are extremely bulky and only good for minivans, SUVs, etc. Also, you only have video tapes and your standard antenna-based broadcast receptions to watch. Since the people that can generally afford a minivan or SUV already have cable or satellite TV, this isn't an appealing proposition for them.
Telematics devices, on the other hand, would most likely be embedded into dashboards, seats, etc., and would have streaming video support. No one's ever looked at streaming video as a TV susbstitute due to the fact that it's traditionally been done on PCs, viewed in places where a TV's nearby.
Obviously, PC-based streaming video can't come close to matching TV in terms of convenience, ease of use, QoS, etc. However, it does have the advantage of being able to satisfy niche audiences looking for content that would never be on their TV sets due to the fact that the markets they're aiming for were too small, at least for that particular geographic region. This is great if you're one of those people who gets the content that they want, but if you're among the many that's sufficiently entertained into a mindless stupor by cable TV, then you're not going to care much for PC-based streaming video. And to make the situation worse,
Although a number of the companies in this field still don't realize it yet, wireless streaming video is a whole different story altogether. TV isn't a competitor. There is no competitor, other than perhaps the executives within the companies that are in this field. What's more, although picture quality and ease of use still won't come close to that of the TV, the convenience different won't be as large, as cell phones and telematics devices load up almost as fast as TVs. Bluetooth-enabled speakers could go into the ears of users, and fit easly into their pockets when they're not being used. Since the television is, for all intents and purposes, non-existent for this market, this industry's able to move top-down rather than bottom-up and attract a mass-market audience, provided that the major TV network owners are willing to put their content in streaming format for wireless access (once again, the biggest competitors are...).
What's more, while wireless streaming video won't be half as accomodating to niche audiences as PC-based streaming video, simply due to the fact that most of these content providers will still opt for the PC as their primary conduit for delivering streaming content, it should still be much more accomodating than cable and satellite given its low startup costs and the ability of any content provider to reach nearly any user. While there may not be hundreds of thousands of options to chose from, there could be thousands of TV and radio options, still much better than the usual. And as Kent's pointed out, there could be tremendous potential within this market for niche audiences as well.
Of course, all of this only takes place provided that the user is made aware of all these services, perhaps by means of an EPG-like portal/guide that comes on the start page of his/her WAP browser. Maybe Infospace or one of its brethen will do this. Maybe they won't (another potential roadblock).
Anyway, the point is that, if played right, wireless streaming audio/video/radio/TV could be the killer app for high-bandwidth services. Given the present situation, with video conferencing undoubtedly several years away irrespective of the pace of 3G rollouts, it may be the only potential killer app out there. And although I think it has a good chance of success, given all the obstacles that are in the way, technological and most likely managerial, it's by no means a sure thing.
Eric |
