Speed = QoE?

I was chairing the LTE World Summit in Amsterdam last week. One of the great presentations made there was by Bouygues Telecom's EVP of Strategy Frederic Ruciak. He presented the operator's strategy for LTE launch in France that led the challenger to the number one market share on LTE in less than one year. He was showing that consumers were not ready to pay for "more speed" because they had been sold the myth of mobile internet too many times. Consumers had been sold wap on GPRS, EDGE, them wireless internet on 3G, HSPA with low satisfaction. Using internet as the reason to upgrade to LTE is a loosing proposition.

One of the mistakes many make in this industry is equating speed with quality of experience (QoE). 

Our quest to increase speed in wireless networks is futile if we do not consider the other side if the coin: service experience. 

For instance, there is always a wave of enthusiasm at the launch of a new radio technology, when few users have access to ample network resources and the services that ride on it are those that were designed for the precious generation. 
I have generation 1 iPad and the latest iPad mini both on wifi. When I bought my first iPad, I had a great browsing experience. Navigation was fluid and fast. Now, it is rare that I am able to have more than 10 minutes browsing without a crash. It is not that the browser is corrupted, just that web pages have grown in size and complexity and when it took 2 seconds to load 10 elements 4 years ago, it now tries to load 40+ elements and inevitably runs out if resource, memory and crashes. The ipad mini is not as bad but not as good as the first generation 4 years ago.

When we are looking at LTE and LTE advanced and soon 5G, it seems that the only "benefit" we are selling as an industry is speed. We tend to infer an improvement in QoE, but it is rarely there. If I used LTE to browse a monochromatic text-based wap site, I am sure that speed would be an improvement in QoE. But no, as LTE is launched, web pages grow in complexity and size, encryption and obfuscation is creeping in, video is graduating from SD to HD to 4K... With video, the problem is even larger as the increase in screen size and definition seems to consistently outpace network speeds.
It becomes harder to sell a new technology if all it does is keeping up or catching up with the service, not improve drastically the user experience.

Pay TV vs. OTT part V: appointment vs. on-demand

The recent emergence of LTE broadcast and eMBMS has prompted many companies to bet much R&D and marketing dollar on the resurgence of the mobile TV model. 

I have trouble believing that many mobile users will be tuning-in "en masse" at regular appointment to watch their favorite show on a mobile device. 

There is nothing wrong with Pay TV, its audience is stable-ish and while most would see OTT services compete for these eyeballs, I see them as a more complementary play. Pay TV is here to stay and I do not see cord cutting as a credible threat in the short term, more cord shaving or cord picking.

Many have been developing and promoting mobile TV models in the past either through broadcast or unicast technologies. The long defunct services from Qualcomm (MediaFLO) and DVB-H should serve as cautionary tales to those who are betting on the next generation of broadcast services. 

Many fail to understand that mobile TV is not attractive to most people in many circumstances. If you are like me, you will watch TV programs, by order of convenience:

1. When I want, at home, on my PVR (so I can skip the ads)
2. Live, at home, when it is time sensitive content ( news, sport event, ceremony...)
3. At a bar, live, when I want to watch sport live with friends or strangers
4. On a tablet at home (wifi) when I want to watch something else/more than the main screen
5. On a tablet at hotel /airport (wifi) ...etc... when I want to watch premium content catch up
6. On a phone / tablet (cellular) if there is no other choice

Don't get me wrong I watch a good amount of video on mobile, just not TV programs. I remember living in Switzerland some 10 years ago and having one of the first video phones

that would perform video calls and stream mobile TV. Past the novelty aspect, no one was watching TV on their phone then, and it wasn't due to network capacity or video quality. Having a video phone then was seriously cool but that did not take away the fact that the TV content I wanted to watch was not available when I wanted to watch it. My Sonyericsson K600 (remember?) joined my first Smartphone (Philips Ilium, I designed it at Philips) and my first MMS phone (ericsson T68i) in my private museum together with my first PDA (I sent the world's first picture message on a CDMA iPAQ in 2002). 

This is mostly due to the fact that TV is an appointment experience. I like to be comfortable watching TV because I watch only very specific programs. When I sit down to watch TV, I mostly know beforehand what I will watch. The videos I watch on mobile are not necessarily only short form content but I don't mind being interrupted as much because in my mind, it is mostly light entertainment that does not require concentration nor continuity. It is also mostly serendipitous in nature, I do not necessarily plan what I will watch in advance. 
I know that my children and their elder's behavior is similar. They might watch more long form content on their mobile than me but they are mostly not watching TV content. 

While some see broadcast as a means to considerably reduce video load on mobile networks, I think they are missing the point. TV by appointment is a very small portion of the preferred usage, for very specific content, in very specific circumstances. Broadcast TV on mobile makes very little sense apart from niche usage (stadiums,...). 

I don't think that because LTE offers  better network capacity, higher speeds, better quality pictures it will make a better mobile TV service. Don't think for a second that subscribers will pay more than a couple of bucks per month (if anything) to have a TV experience on mobile. People pay for quality, relevance and immediacy on mobile, not the best attributes for broadcast. So before you think about "monetizing" my mobile TV experience, think hard because I won't pay for TV broadcast on mobile.

If you haven't read the other posts in this series, you can find them here for context.
Pay TV vs. OTT:
Part I: The business models
Part II: Managed devices and services vs. OTT
Part III: CE vendors and companion screens
Part IV: Clash of the titans

Openwave fights back

A day after Openwave announced it has come to an agreement with Myriad group to settle their patent dispute, Openwave files for legal action against Apple and RIM.


If you remember, Openwave invented most of the technology around the mobile internet and browsing on a phone. Back in the days, it was called WAP. The user experience was poor (monochrome, slow, text based browsing) but was the foundation for today's Smartphones and tablets' success.
Openwave was then the uncontested market leader in the growing browsing gateway business and was licensing its technology to most handset makers, along with a WAP browser.


In 2008, then in full reorganization, Openwave sells the browser and messaging business unit to Purple Labs for $32M. It was not a glorious moment, after being the pioneer and leader of mobile internet, Openwave was separating from key assets to alleviate the financial pains it was experiencing. Along with these business units, a number of patents were transferred to Purple Labs. Purple Labs, now Myriad group has been contesting Openwave's right to use some of the technology derived from these patents and yesterday's announcement is now settling that matter. Openwave essentially buys back the patents for $12M.


Some of these patents are now the basis for the legal action filed today by Openwave against Apple and RIM.
"The complaint, filed at the International Trade Commission in Washington, DC, requests that the ITC bar the import of smartphones and tablet computers that infringe Openwave patents, including, but not limited to, Apple’s iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPod Touch, iPad and iPad 2; and RIM’s Blackberry Curve 9330 and Blackberry PlayBook."

•  Openwave's 212 patent generally allows a user to use e-mail applications on a mobile device when the network is unavailable — such as when a user is on an airplane.
• Openwave's 409 patent generally allows the mobile device to operate seamlessly, and securely, with a server over a wireless network. 
• Openwave's 037 patent generally allows access to updated versions of applications on mobile devices. 
• Openwave's 447 patent generally allows consumers to experience an improved user experience in navigating through various pages of information without delay. 
• Openwave's 608 patent generally relates to cloud computing. For example, the 608 patent enables data to be accessed or shared by different devices such as mobile handsets or computers. 

These legal actions won't change Openwave's capacity to effectively market their technology, but their capacity to monetize their intellectual property, if successful, will impact positively their valuation in the mid term.