But it did provoke another thought. What we are seeing now is what you might call the third phase of the mobile evolution. Phase one was about transforming eighties mobile bricks into slick, design lust objects. Phase two was about figuring out how to make mobiles impersonate your Walkman and personal video player. Phase three, in my opinion will now pit Apple, Google and Microsoft against each other as they all attempt to control the ecosystem for cloud based applications.



I won't speculate as to the odds of who will win that, save for making two observations. Firstly, cloud based platforms are, in the end, a winner takes all game. It comes down to scale. More users means more data, more data means more value, which in turn increases your ability to play dirty to win even more users. 



Secondly, the rise of the mobile data cloud is (another) big wake up call for Telcos. The more that value is delivered as a result of cloudware rather than software, bundled content or product design - the more commoditised the simple act of providing a data pipe becomes. Unlocked handsets are the future, as are unlimited mobile data plans that allow the dreaded voice over IP. As the pools of fast WiFI expand across urban areas, and geeks figure out how to make mesh networks easily run on mobile phones - the days of being able to charge monopoly rents for merely plugging holes in people's network coverage will draw to a close far swifter than anyone on the executive floor may realise.

Had an interesting chat about sports rights today with Jason O'Sullivan who is the VP, Digital Media at ESPN STAR Sports in Singapore. There is a growing trend for Federations and rights holders to package and sell online rights distinct from broadcast rights. One of the challenges is that many of the people bidding for the latter are network operators and ISPs, who see exclusive content as a loss leader to get people to buy their communications products. That drives up the prices of those rights. For media companies, online advertising revenues are growing, but not to the extent to monetise massive investments in new media licensing. So, what about premium content? ESPN in the US has been successful with broadband platforms like ESPN 360 but O'Sullivan sees small upside in subscription revenue in Asia for the immediate term. In his view, broadband, disposable income and credit ownership are limiting factors in emerging markets. After all, in India even Pay TV is generally "don't need to pay" TV.

The show was funded by Whedon, cost less than six figures and was shot in a week. His idea was to release it free for the first week, without fees or advertising. As reported by the LA Times, Whedon expects that with merchandising, iTunes sales, the soundtrack and DVDs, the show will pay back its costs within a year. But in a way, that's not the point. By building such a massive online fan base with almost no paid promotion, Dr Horrible has become a content platform in its own right. It is the art of the Hollywood sequel reimagined. Just without most of Hollywood.

When Wired asked Whedon about whether he was worried about illegal downloading and piracy, he was relatively sanguine. "A note to all you would-be pirates" he said "Scurvy is a serious issue. Eat some limes."

Had a very interesting chat last night at the FED with Mark Scott, Managing Director of the ABC. If you didn't make the event you can listen to the podcast. The premise of what it means to be a 'public broadcaster' over the next few years is set for a collision course with dramatic changes in the media consumption behaviour of audiences as well as the new economics of funding content.

The ABC have been successful lately in nurturing local content programming like The Chaser and Summer Heights High, which might have otherwise got lost in the reality TV mire of commercial TV networks. Both shows have done well in engaging younger viewers through building audience networks on new platforms like Myspace.

Experimentation is good news for Australian media - after all, if any broadcaster is in a financial position to take risks with the distribution model of content - it is the ABC. IP based distribution of ABC content is growing - by all accounts by the end of 2008, the ABC will have facilitated 50 million downloads of its shows. That raises two questions. Firstly, should ABC content be provided to local audiences unmetered through ISPs as part of an expanded notion of public distribution? And secondly, is the future of public broadcasting really broadcast at all?

Part of Mark's vision of the future was a multitude of new ABC channels. On this point, I disagree. In ten years, where most of the world's media content will be delivered on demand, time shifted by a PVR or streamed through an IP network - the concept of a 'channel' will have little meaning. The real question for the ABC is how it can continue to feed the long tail of Australian content, while becoming useful as a community platform for the discovery and distribution of local stories. And that's a scary thought.

As Mark observed, when you are held accountable at Senate Estimate Meetings for every piece of content, whether it be a TV show or a talkback call - the notion of unmoderated social media is not an easy one to countenance.