Is the fourth screen doomed?

When Verizon Wireless recently halted production of the much-hyped Verizon Hub, an in-home multimedia and voice-over-IP-capable device, it called into question not only its strategy but the interest of consumers in so-called “fourth-screen” devices.

Critics of the device cited its price — $200 for the phone and $35 per month for service — as well as some of its application limits, such as lack of e-mail service or Web browser, mandatory VoIP and an application approach that remained strictly under Verizon's control versus a more open app store. Perhaps just as damning was the fact that Verizon Wireless was pitching the device. The mobile operator obviously has bigger fish to fry in the mobile market, and it is unlikely consumers went to a Verizon retail location or online looking for an in-home device.

But are such devices doomed altogether?

ABI Research has predicted strong growth in the fourth-screen market, predicting it to reach $5 billion on sales of more than 30 million units shipped by 2014, said Michael Inouye, analyst with ABI. ABI's definition of such a device includes not only media phones but Internet applications and even digital photo frames — all of which have the potential to include network services ranging from video playback, Internet connectivity, application or widget support and more.

The challenge for such devices will be competing with new highly-functional wireless devices like the Apple iPhone.

Some service providers still have high hopes. Orange in the U.K. and Hong Kong's PCCW — which recently launched its second such device, the Eye2 — continue to pursue fourth-screen strategies. Here at home, Qwest sees potential, as well. “Hopefully we'll be landing a vehicle such as this within the home,” said Neil Cox, executive vice president of product and IT for Qwest. “We're looking very seriously at the fourth screen.”