gdgt

In response to benbowers and blackmannx, I think FLO had no choice but to develop a standalone device, since the carriers (AT&T and VZW) commitments to FLO has been very tepid. This way, FLO can directly reach the consumer. If nothing else, it may help increase perceived valuation of FLOTV when (not if) QCOM spins it off.

having worked for a company that attempted the mobile tv game I can tell you that if the service didnt take off on something that users carry all the time such as a mobile phone then why would it work on something larger that requires more room in an already crowded tech bag?? America is the land of the home theater not the on the go theater..

Looks interesting however I'm not sure if a TV only device is really the way to go. With convergence happening everywhere, would people really shell out just for TV access, as opposed to picking up a smart phone or PMP that included the service as well? I guess serious addicts would potentially, but I'm not sure if it would catch on with the masses.

Look folks, QCOM has never revealed the number of subs, nor have AT&T or VZW. And read the tea leaves from their July 22, 2009 10-Q - "As part of our strategic investment activities, we intend to pursue various exit strategies at some point in the future, which may include distribution of our ownership interest in FLO TV to our stockholders in a spin-off transaction."

Yes, more details about their business model would be nice, but one thing is for sure: Americans have proven wholly willing to pay for good TV service... and a new model like this could prove quite compelling if priced right...

I think content is the issue here, not hardware (well except battery life of course). In a world TV is dying and ad dollars move online having such a server and a service would require subscription or free content supported by ads. In today's world with 32GB in storage and now 48GB with the N900 and 3.5 inch displays why someone would pay or watch ads?

Peter, great scoop. I have my doubts on the wisdom of introducing a device for a pay service whose business success has been underwhelming so far, as have been all attempts to mass-market pay mobile TV services. Mass adoption requires 1) free service 2) compelling content and 3) open standards. FLOTV scores a low 1 out of 3 at best. Frog Design or whoever built the PTV should take a serious look at developing a device for the still nascent but fast developing ATSC Mobile DTV. Local US broadcasters have already begun to "inject" mobile versions of their channels on the spare capacity that most have on their DTV spectrum. From their perspective, the investment is modest relative to the upside potential for increasing revenue as well as the value of their free spectrum. And if free, local channels, especially the networks and prime time are definitely compelling. Japan's 1seg free mobile TV service was introduced sometime in early 2006. Two and a half years later, 75% of cellphones in Japan have 1seg out of the box. That's may be a good indication why ATSC Mobile DTV may score high soon.

I love that that U.S. could catch up to Japan with devices such as this. Mobile TV is amazing and I'll take a broadcast service over a cell-based IPTV service any day. I love my Slingbox and Locationfree devices but this could make them obsolete in a good way....