The next big battle

[frenchmon]

I've never lost signal OTA during a storm. Sometimes depending on atmospheric conditions reception is better. With satelite or cable you just get a black screen, or maybe an error message.

The solution.....Uverse


frenchmon

[manlystanley]

Analysis Plus Clear Oval speaker cable.Tweeks---->Isolation "ceramic blocks for CDP and SACDP, Stands filled with cat litter Dedicated two channel/library room with refection points treated.

Frenchmon,

Did you try other fillings besides cat litter? Perhaps 'used' cat litter would have a more useful density?? :-)

Best Regards,
Stan

[nightflier]

Here's a question: if I pay for cable service, why should I have to sit through commercials? Maybe it's time someone did get fed up with this fact-of-cable too.

Also, everyone is so gung ho about the downfall of advertising, but aren't we at the bottom of a recession? Sure things look bleak now, but as Warren Buffet says, the American economy always recovers. When the economy crawls back, so will advertising, and OTA. I'm no fan of advertising, but I can't deny that so much of our economy depends on it.

[Hyfi]

Here's a question: if I pay for cable service, why should I have to sit through commercials? Maybe it's time someone did get fed up with this fact-of-cable too.

Also, everyone is so gung ho about the downfall of advertising, but aren't we at the bottom of a recession? Sure things look bleak now, but as Warren Buffet says, the American economy always recovers. When the economy crawls back, so will advertising, and OTA. I'm no fan of advertising, but I can't deny that so much of our economy depends on it.

Go back and look at my 1st response. That was the big deal when cable first hit the scene. Then after they hooked everyone, there is now more commercials than on OTA in some cases. If you are paying for Content, you should not have to watch the Advertising, they should already be making enough money from the customers. But, thanks to corporate greed, they take your money and still advertise.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Here's a question: if I pay for cable service, why should I have to sit through commercials? Maybe it's time someone did get fed up with this fact-of-cable too.

They could remove commercials very easily, but then your cable bill will go through the roof. Those commercials are keeping your cable bill in the nose bleed territory and out of the wallet is exploding territory. Their programming costs have gone through the roof over the last decade, and they need commercials to offset the cost.

Also, everyone is so gung ho about the downfall of advertising, but aren't we at the bottom of a recession? Sure things look bleak now, but as Warren Buffet says, the American economy always recovers. When the economy crawls back, so will advertising, and OTA. I'm no fan of advertising, but I can't deny that so much of our economy depends on it.

Advertising has been moving away from broadcast for nearly a decade, but the last two years has seen a quick acceleration of that trend. It does not have anything to do with the recession because overall advertising spending has not decreased, it has just moved from one place to another. To make up for the loss, the networks are starting to ask for more money from the cable companies that carry their programming. Once the networks hit the wall with trying to offset the loss of advertising dollars by charging more, they will end up leaving broadcast for the web or cable entirely.

[Mr Peabody]

Yeah, but U-verse isn't free either. You are right though that it is the best reception option. Well.... I don't know they could be prone to some of the same outage issues as cable.

[nightflier]

Well I neither watch much OTA TV, nor do I own cable. It's actually kind of funny the way they keep trying to sell me on these packages mailings, door tags, and the occasion solicitor (who gets the door slammed on him/her promptly). They must have some kind of database in which I must be at the top of the list of detractors, rebels, and non-conformists. It's probably integrated with the other databases that have me on their lists: store-discount cards, toll-road-meters, magazine subscriptions, and the charities I refuse to donate to. Pretty soon they'll be able to build a psychological profile of me just from the records of things they can't track and that I won't purchase. Is it 1984 yet?

For my part, I'm mostly renting and buying movies, and I fast-forward through all the crap at the beginning of the movies too. Now most movies don't allow that any more either (Disney's real big on that kind of force-feeding), so now I usually put the disk in the player first, go get my beer and snacks, and then turn on the TV and sound. If I do want to see previews, I'll select them after I'm done watching the movie.

For my news & info, I read. Most of what's on TV isn't news anyhow - it's just pointless drivel to get me to buy more products. As for magazines & newspapers, I skip right over the adds, and tear them out if I intend on keeping the mag. Anyhow, that's what a table of contents is for (when I can find it). If the rag is too ad-bloated, I usually loose interest and let the subscription run out.

I've given up on a whole host of websites I used to frequent to (about.com, anything from Microsoft, and the major newspapers too). My browser usually does a decent job filtering out the crapola, but if it's all over the place, then I'll find my info elsewhere. Fortunately, that's where the web is most useful: for every intrusive piece of mallware code, there's an intrepid hacker who finds a work-around and lets me plug it into my browser. Maybe that's why the media corporations hate the web so much - they can't completely control the force-feeding of junk.

[Hyfi]

Well I neither watch much OTA TV, nor do I own cable. It's actually kind of funny the way they keep trying to sell me on these packages mailings, door tags, and the occasion solicitor (who gets the door slammed on him/her promptly). They must have some kind of database in which I must be at the top of the list of detractors, rebels, and non-conformists. It's probably integrated with the other databases that have me on their lists: store-discount cards, toll-road-meters, magazine subscriptions, and the charities I refuse to donate to. Pretty soon they'll be able to build a psychological profile of me just from the records of things they can't track and that I won't purchase. Is it 1984 yet?

For my part, I'm mostly renting and buying movies, and I fast-forward through all the crap at the beginning of the movies too. Now most movies don't allow that any more either (Disney's real big on that kind of force-feeding), so now I usually put the disk in the player first, go get my beer and snacks, and then turn on the TV and sound. If I do want to see previews, I'll select them after I'm done watching the movie.

For my news & info, I read. Most of what's on TV isn't news anyhow - it's just pointless drivel to get me to buy more products. As for magazines & newspapers, I skip right over the adds, and tear them out if I intend on keeping the mag. Anyhow, that's what a table of contents is for (when I can find it). If the rag is too ad-bloated, I usually loose interest and let the subscription run out.

I've given up on a whole host of websites I used to frequent to (about.com, anything from Microsoft, and the major newspapers too). My browser usually does a decent job filtering out the crapola, but if it's all over the place, then I'll find my info elsewhere. Fortunately, that's where the web is most useful: for every intrusive piece of mallware code, there's an intrepid hacker who finds a work-around and lets me plug it into my browser. Maybe that's why the media corporations hate the web so much - they can't completely control the force-feeding of junk.

I hear ya. I get something in the mail every other day for Verizon Fios, which they should give me for free after the 1.5 year battle I had to get my property and driveway back to the condition it was in before they dug it all up. Comcast sends me crap on a daily basis. I do get some Dish stuff but nowhere near the ammont from Verizon and Comcast. Hmm maybe they could lower the price if they stopped chopping down trees and sending people the same crap every other day.

The other point you made about not being able to select Menu instead of all the previews does piss me off. I just rented UP the other day from Redbox and there is no menu or audio selections.

Side Question-
As stated in another thread about new releases being delayed for redbox over royalties or fees, and it was said that they buy them from Target or WallMart, how to they get labeled as dvdname_rental?

[Mr Peabody]

Hyfi, it's Red Box, you paid $1.00 per movie, and you have expectations?

[pixelthis]

ANYWAY..
back to the future.
At CES they have pocket TV, and not those old lcd casios.
There are two competing formats, DTV AND FLO.
They convert broadcast tv to wi-fi, and it plays on your blackberry, smartfone etc, on
a OLED SCREEN with a great picture.
Thats the presentation, anyway.

[nightflier]

ANYWAY..
back to the future.
At CES they have pocket TV, and not those old lcd casios.
There are two competing formats, DTV AND FLO.
They convert broadcast tv to wi-fi, and it plays on your blackberry, smartfone etc, on
a OLED SCREEN with a great picture.
Thats the presentation, anyway.

Well I know I get blasted for this every time I bring it up, but it sure looks from all indicators that movies on small screens is indeed the future. That's certainly the message I'm getting from this threat to OTA, the pervasiveness of Android, Cisco's moves into video, as well as everything that's trickling in from CES, and it sure looks like a merged Comcast/NBC will be targeting that market too. I expect Google to sign some deal with NetFlix anytime, now. Sorry to all the naysayers who think that the battle is over larger TVs, but I just don't see that. Maybe it's because they're still looking at last year's sales figures, lol.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well I know I get blasted for this every time I bring it up, but it sure looks from all indicators that movies on small screens is indeed the future. That's certainly the message I'm getting from this threat to OTA, the pervasiveness of Android, Cisco's moves into video, as well as everything that's trickling in from CES, and it sure looks like a merged Comcast/NBC will be targeting that market too. I expect Google to sign some deal with NetFlix anytime, now. Sorry to all the naysayers who think that the battle is over larger TVs, but I just don't see that. Maybe it's because they're still looking at last year's sales figures, lol.

Sorry, but the prepondurance of evidence does not support your comments. What is happening is not a trend towards movies on small screens, but a trend to add mobility to digital content. Survey after survey points to the television as the main viewing device for movies, and that trend has not changed one bit. What is viewed on the small screened video devices according to surveys are youTube videos, and television shows rented from Itunes, not movies at all.

Movies are shot for the big screen, and have copious amounts of detail in the foreground and background that are totally lost on a 4.5" screen. They are QC checked on a large screen, not a small screen. Nobody sits in their living room(where movies are watched by the majority of the population) with a cell phone watching movies. Nobody is going to sit for 2-2.5 hours staring at their cell phone or netbook. The latest survey I have seen points to the reality that people that use portable viewing displays watch an average of less than 20 minutes of video on that device per day. That would point to short videos or television programming, not movies. Just over 3% of mobile subscribers watch video on their phones, according to comScore, so not many folks are watching anything on their phones.

The only trend we are seeing here is a broadening of choices to view broadcast and online content, not movies. Movies are less than 10% of the overall content a broadcaster shows daily. With more and more displays being produced that can be connected to either a network, or directly to the net itself, there is no reason to believe OTA changes reflect that more than folks viewing content on small screen devices.

The trend in movies is to shoot, scan, author, and compress at higher resolutions (with 4k on the horizon) to be viewed on larger screens, not smaller ones. 3D is huge at CES, and 3D requires larger screens to be most effective. Both of these trends in movie production and reproduction are beyond the capabilities of portable video devices.

Here is an interesting read:

http://www.businessinsider.com/here-...-course-2009-4

You get blasted because your comments are not based on facts, but gut feelings, desires, and out right fantasy.

[Woochifer]

Well I know I get blasted for this every time I bring it up, but it sure looks from all indicators that movies on small screens is indeed the future. That's certainly the message I'm getting from this threat to OTA, the pervasiveness of Android, Cisco's moves into video, as well as everything that's trickling in from CES, and it sure looks like a merged Comcast/NBC will be targeting that market too. I expect Google to sign some deal with NetFlix anytime, now. Sorry to all the naysayers who think that the battle is over larger TVs, but I just don't see that. Maybe it's because they're still looking at last year's sales figures, lol.

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

"All indicators"? You mean, the increasing average screen sizes for the TVs that actually get sold? How does that indicate that "small screens is indeed the future" when the screen sizes for what people actually purchase and use keep getting larger? If you don't see the trending towards bigger screens, then you're just not paying attention or simply ignoring any and all info that contradicts your web-centric bias.

Your backhanded slight on "last year's sales figures" seems to indicate that you'd rather keep perpetuating uninformed presumptions than rely on facts. To each their own, I guess.

As T already pointed out, data on actual viewing habits indicate that people who watch online video (which constitutes less than 60% of households) average less than 20 minutes a day. Contrast this with the average daily viewing time for live TV, which continues to increase and has now gone over 5 hours a day.

Your habits (i.e., relying on OTA broadcasts, not subscribing to any TV services, relying on online video for programming, etc.) are not reflective of the population as a whole, yet you project your preferences as if they are a generalization of the market. They are not. Why not just acknowledge your iconoclast status and leave it at that, rather than trying to convince people that your habits somehow portend things to come for everybody else.

What I'm seeing at CES is certainly not in agreement with what you're saying. Also, the people who are being targeted for 3D are those who cannot afford large HT setups.

What makes you think that 3D wouldn't be right at home in a large HT setup, given that the demo units at CES are at least 50" sets?

I think you're still basing your assumptions on past information which says very little about the future, and also on sales figures, which simply doesn't reflect the whole picture of what people are watching - it leaves out free content and pirated content because it cannot account for it.

You can't figure out where the growth will come from without knowing what the baseline is doing. That data on viewing habits includes all forms of online video, and it shows that the general population remains uninterested in shifting all or most of their TV viewing online.

The network features getting added at CES are basically TV manufacturers trying to prop up the price points on HDTVs, which have plunged into the commodity range. 3D serves the same purpose.

A lot of techies are only looking at what they want to see in the future, without acknowledging the present or the direction that trends are going. The tech press' constant harping on Blu-ray (i.e., predicting that BD will fail, when its sales growth is more than double that of the digital distribution that they claim is taking over) is but the latest example of their usual blindered myopia.

You are also forgetting that the Gen-X and younger crowd is even more expectant of free content instead of paid content.

Over 80% of all households subscribe to some form of paid TV service (and about 90% of TV households). Cable/satellite/fiber TV penetration has consistently continued to increase and it does not differ significantly by age range.

YOU don't subscribe to cable or satellite, but that places you squarely in the minority. The expectations of free content are by people who do not subscribe to cable or satellite.

[Feanor]

...
Over 80% of all households subscribe to some form of paid TV service (and about 90% of TV households). Cable/satellite/fiber TV penetration has consistently continued to increase and it does not differ significantly by age range.

YOU [nightflier] don't subscribe to cable or satellite, but that places you squarely in the minority. The expectations of free content are by people who do not subscribe to cable or satellite.

Undoubtedly you are correct, Wooch.

On the other hand I hope for, if I don't necessarily expect, more Internet content.

With retirement looming, I'm looking for ways to reduce our routine expenses. C$80/month for our satellite service that comprises only a little more than the minimum, mandated content, is simply too much for the value delivered. ($80 might be small change to you, SirT, and nightflier (for that matter), but it is lot of money to me.)

80% of my personal viewing is news: mainly CBC, BBC, and CNN, plus Steward & Colbert. All of the TV content and more is available on the Internet. Other than these, I watch a few documentaries.

Why pay for news and Steward/Colbert when I can get them on Internet? Why pay for documentaries when some are available online from the producers for free -- and, (sad to say maybe), most of the rest available via Bit Torrent?

[nightflier]

the screen sizes for what people actually purchase and use keep getting larger? If you don't see the trending towards bigger screens, then you're just not paying attention or simply ignoring any and all info that contradicts your web-centric bias.

You're missing the point. Your sales figures don't include cell phones. Those are also screens, and in the very near future, they will be used to watch everything from broadcast TV to full-length movies. The number of smart phones out there is staggering in comparison to TV sets.

Your backhanded slight on "last year's sales figures" seems to indicate that you'd rather keep perpetuating uninformed presumptions than rely on facts.

Nothing backhanded about it. Sales figures are in the past. This is not uninformed or a presumption, it's factually old information. Unless you'd like to try and convince us that the past is the present/future, but then we will have left the realm of reason...

As T already pointed out, data on actual viewing habits indicate that people who watch online video (which constitutes less than 60% of households) average less than 20 minutes a day. Contrast this with the average daily viewing time for live TV, which continues to increase and has now gone over 5 hours a day.

Statistics are just assumptions taken from a sample of the population. There's a million ways that statistics can be twisted to reflect an intended point of view. The very fact that you're quoting "60% of households" tell me right there that it misses the pot a bit. What about viewers who don't comprise "households"? And how do you know that those "5 hours of viewing time" constitutes actually sitting in front of the tube rather than just having the TV on in the background? And how many people in that "household" are actually viewing it at a time? There's way too many variables at play here that these statistics cannot control for. Contrast that to someone watching video on a computer or smaller screen - they are much more likely to be actively watching it attentively and by themselves. Stats don't take these factors into account.

Your habits (...) are not reflective of the population as a whole, yet you project your preferences as if they are a generalization of the market. They are not.

I never implied that my preferences are exemplary of the rest of the population. Where did you get that? Certainly not from what I wrote. I'm basing my observations on what I read and see.

What makes you think that 3D wouldn't be right at home in a large HT setup, given that the demo units at CES are at least 50" sets?

I never said they would not be at home on large sets. Another attempt at putting words in my mouth. What I'm seeing at this year's CES is that cell phone technology is everywhere. You can't turn a corner without some reference to the wireless internet. The buz word I'm hearing is "personal video" and we can all agree that's not for the big screens. Yes, the big screens are there for the flash and wow factors at the booths, but what people are talking about is smaller screens. You're missing the bigger story, I think.

You can't figure out where the growth will come from without knowing what the baseline is doing. That data on viewing habits includes all forms of online video, and it shows that the general population remains uninterested in shifting all or most of their TV viewing online.

Where are you getting this stuff? Your "household" surveys? Your past sales figures? I'm telling you, you're missing the bigger picture. You don't have to believe me, heck I don't really care. But by the same token I don't have to accept your opinion either. We obviously get our info from different sources and if you can't accept an alternate point of view, then that's your loss.

The network features getting added at CES are basically TV manufacturers trying to prop up the price points on HDTVs, which have plunged into the commodity range. 3D serves the same purpose.

You're downplaying this more than you should, and I think you know that.

A lot of techies are only looking at what they want to see in the future, without acknowledging the present or the direction that trends are going. The tech press' constant harping on Blu-ray (i.e., predicting that BD will fail, when its sales growth is more than double that of the digital distribution that they claim is taking over) is but the latest example of their usual blindered myopia.

Not that old "techies hate BR" line again. Yes, we know your bias against us "techies" but rather than dismissing everything we're saying, maybe you should start paying attention. It was us "techies" that brought you CD-RW, MP3s, iPods, SmartPhones, YouTube, NetFlix, etc.. For better of for worse, you can't possibly suggest that these technological advances didn't influence the A/V industry. As a matter of fact, the whole purpose of your post has been a response to what us "techies" have brought to the table.

Over 80% of all households subscribe to some form of paid TV service (and about 90% of TV households). Cable/satellite/fiber TV penetration has consistently continued to increase and it does not differ significantly by age range.

There we go with the whole "household" blanket case again. Yes cable TV is everywhere, but the more it becomes ubiquitous, the more it becomes background noise, in homes, in bars, and just about everywhere. If there is one ongoing complaint about cable that just never gets heard it is that "there's nothing on." That's because despite all the choices, people are bored with it.

YOU don't subscribe to cable or satellite, but that places you squarely in the minority. The expectations of free content are by people who do not subscribe to cable or satellite.

My subscription preferences have nothing to do with the desire of people to want free content. You sure are really reaching here. Nice try stringing these two together.

And for you information, the people who are searching for free content are all living in those "households" that already subscribe to cable. Isn't that a kick in the pants for your argument? That's right, they are our own kids. So your comment above is total nonsense.

Look, I realize that on this A/V forum my point of view is in the minority. But let's broaden our horizon and consider what the big media companies are really targeting. That's right, they want to sell their content to cell phone providers and the latter are more than willing to allow that because it will increase talk/online time. What cell phone providers are not as interested in is the wired internet, that which feeds entertainment and video into the homes because they have no part of that. There is a battle raging out there between the cellular network and the wired network. What is of interest to the media companies is that they simply cannot control content on the wired one, but they have an opportunity here to control it on the cellular one. That is the carrot that the cellular carriers are offering to them.

Now I am of the opinion that the cellular network will become an extension of the now ubiquitous wired network (the Internet) and so whatever control they hope to offer, is going to be transitory. But if the cellular network remains completely private and separate with (heavily guarded) points of access to the Internet, where things like Net Neutrality have no meaning, then that's a different story. I really don't know what is going to happen in this battle, but there is absolutely no denying that it is raging. You can choose to see it or you can be like the proverbial three monkeys.

[nightflier]

Well, we'll just have to wait and see. What I'm seeing at CES is certainly not in agreement with what you're saying. Also, the people who are being targeted for 3D are those who cannot afford large HT setups. I think you're still basing your assumptions on past information which says very little about the future, and also on sales figures, which simply doesn't reflect the whole picture of what people are watching - it leaves out free content and pirated content because it cannot account for it. You are also forgetting that the Gen-X and younger crowd is even more expectant of free content instead of paid content. Finally, I'm kind of surprised you don't see the Comcast-NBC-Universal deal as a hedge play in response to these trends - that's been the mantra for all those who oppose the merger.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, we'll just have to wait and see. What I'm seeing at CES is certainly not in agreement with what you're saying. Also, the people who are being targeted for 3D are those who cannot afford large HT setups. I think you're still basing your assumptions on past information which says very little about the future, and also on sales figures, which simply doesn't reflect the whole picture of what people are watching - it leaves out free content and pirated content because it cannot account for it. You are also forgetting that the Gen-X and younger crowd is even more expectant of free content instead of paid content. Finally, I'm kind of surprised you don't see the Comcast-NBC-Universal deal as a hedge play in response to these trends - that's been the mantra for all those who oppose the merger.

Wrong again NF. 3D is going to eventually be offered at all price points. The information I have is from studies done last year, and nobody can know what is happening this year. You have offered nothing to support your comments but your gut, and it has a 100% failure rate so far.

I believe my comments included broadcast television and online video content, so free content is covered. Beside what you call free isn't free at all. You need a internet connection to access youTube. It is not free. If you use wifi, it is not free except in certain places.

As far as what Gen -X wants....let's put it this way. They can want all they want, but they are probably not going to get it.

As far as the Comcast NBC deal, we'll see what happens with that. I however cannot see it being any different than Disney/ABC deal. Its just another marriage of a content producer and a content provider. It might not really help Comcast that much because they are developing an extremely negative reputation as a cable company. Their prices are too high, and they are on the verge of pricing themselves out of the market of the very people they are trying to reach. Comcast will only have a 51% stake in the deal, so it is not certain that the whole deal will be any good for them. Investors think they are paying too much, and there's going to be a well-defined set of regulations around how Comcast is going to treat others in the media industry, how they're going to treat consumers. So I think that will restrict at least initially how big of an impact this deal will have on the media industry.

[nightflier]

Wrong again NF. 3D is going to eventually be offered at all price points. The information I have is from studies done last year, and nobody can know what is happening this year. You have offered nothing to support your comments but your gut, and it has a 100% failure rate so far.

You're saying I'm wrong about something that hasn't even come to pass yet - you really shouldn't pass judgment so soon. Let's just wait this out. I think all your fancy figures of glories past will not stand up to this much change in this industry. All the comments I'm reading point towards miniaturization and yes, Mr. P, that is also because many other players want a piece of the iPod pie. The tide is shifting and you can try to beat it back with a spoon if you like, but you'll look pretty silly....

[Woochifer]

You're saying I'm wrong about something that hasn't even come to pass yet - you really shouldn't pass judgment so soon. Let's just wait this out. I think all your fancy figures of glories past will not stand up to this much change in this industry. All the comments I'm reading point towards miniaturization and yes, Mr. P, that is also because many other players want a piece of the iPod pie. The tide is shifting and you can try to beat it back with a spoon if you like, but you'll look pretty silly....

Mixed metaphors are just as bad as mixing alcohol. The audio and video markets have been going in divergent directions for decades. Audio has been moving towards increased mobility, while video has been going towards larger and larger screen sizes and higher resoltion. The tide that you keep talking about hasn't amounted to anything significant despite all the hype. "fancy figures of glories past" is a rather curious way of characterizing facts and actual viewing habits.

[Mr Peabody]

I wonder if all the small devices could just be other companies wanting a piece of the Ipod pie?

[Mr Peabody]

NF, what do you do text to speech? Do you develope it or utilize it in your job?

[audio amateur]

I understand what NF is saying. More and more, you see people watching movies, yes movies on a handheld apparitus, whether it be iphone cell phone laptop and what have you; usually on the go of course. Some people commute for quite a while, so if theyre not reading a book, why not? This will only be more common as cell phone screens get bigger and better.
It seems the US phone market isn't quite like it is here, it always looks like US phones are a couple years lagging, but I could be wrong. It's the impression i get when i'm in the US, which means Americans might not be watching as much video on their portable screens as they are in Europe (because of the less capable phones). But then Americans usually commute longer.

Of course it's not the same experience as it is with a massive home screen, but it's still happening. Whether or not it's more popular or will be than home viewing, I can't say. Probably not, but who knows...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I understand what NF is saying. More and more, you see people watching movies, yes movies on a handheld apparitus, whether it be iphone cell phone laptop and what have you; usually on the go of course. Some people commute for quite a while, so if theyre not reading a book, why not? This will only be more common as cell phone screens get bigger and better.

Here is the rub, cell phone screens are not getting larger, at least not the ones we see here.

It seems the US phone market isn't quite like it is here, it always looks like US phones are a couple years lagging, but I could be wrong. It's the impression i get when i'm in the US, which means Americans might not be watching as much video on their portable screens as they are in Europe (because of the less capable phones). But then Americans usually commute longer.

As a person who travels to Europe alot, you guys are a lot further ahead technology wise than we are. From everything from public transportation to health care and technology, Europeans are just more sophisticated in their thinking and usage. However, from what I have seen on our public transportation in the Bay Area not too far from Silicon Valley, you see a wide variety of things used for entertainment like the kindle(of which I see people using alot), and cell phones are mostly used for email and playing games while riding. Mostly people here get more shut eye, or read the paper on public transportation while listening to Ipods. What you don't see(at least on BART) is people looking at video, and I didn't see much of that in LA subway system either. I asked my kids who are heavy smartphone users(they have the iPhone), and they, nor their friends watch much video on their phones either. It is mostly texting, and little video clips they make themselves.

Of course it's not the same experience as it is with a massive home screen, but it's still happening. Whether or not it's more popular or will be than home viewing, I can't say. Probably not, but who knows...

Studies on cell and smartphone usage here show decisively that the home is the number one place for viewing televsion and movies, and that is by a wide margin.

[audio amateur]

Here is the rub, cell phone screens are not getting larger, at least not the ones we see here.

Strange... Here they're definitely getting better. iphone style I guess. Touch screen technology is being used rather than keyboards simply because they have to use the whole area of the phone in order to maximize screen size.

[E-Stat]

Here they're definitely getting better. iphone style I guess.

I guess it depends upon your point of reference. My iPhone screen is 3" x 2" for a total of six square inches . My mid-sized laptop is 14" x 7.5" for a total of one hundred five square inches - or nearly twenty times the amount of screen real estate. Are your phones any bigger?

rw