It's interesting that the biggest criticism made of the Web 2.0 sphere is how people who write about it - from Mike Arrington on down (dare I say?) - constantly distort the reality of the space. 
Bloggers, the story goes, are pumping up the bubble uncritically. Arrington's blog gets criticised for focusing on small, interesting companies (even though TechCrunch gives Microsoft - hardly a small company - undue coverage considering how dull the vast majority of the Windows Live services are).
Why is the same level of cynicism not payed to the mobile space - and more importantly, the mainstream media coverage of the mobile space?
Take a look at the BBC News coverage of the slow down in mobile handset sales, even despite new markets in the developing world.
The cure - the Beeb suggest - is mobile TV. Funny that - a broadcaster suggesting that the cure for the mobile market slowdown is some cobbled together standard (DVB-H) that's controlled by the existing players.
Why are people going to pay for mobile TV as opposed to TV downloaded over their home connections and then loaded on to their phones or portable devices. I mean, mobile TV has a few little physical barriers to get over - tunnels, slower bandwidth networks and so on.
The DVB standard is going to be as irrelevant as the argument over Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. YouTube, Google Video, video podcasts and so on are where it's at - they're more entertaining and not locked down by some Goliath player.
Where is the evolution to mobile TV? Why aren't we getting MP3s on our phones at the moment? Too expensive to transfer and the software sucks far, far more than iTunes could ever suck.
