The next generation of TV's is multiplying going by some of the latest news articles. A few days ago it was Sony saying they had something special in the works. Now today Reuters is reporting Samsung in the final planning stages with Google on a "Google TV". Almost feels like there's a flash mob in the planning with everyone seemingly converging on the same spots.
The next generation of TV's is multiplying going by some of the latest news articles. A few days ago it was Sony saying they had something special in the works. Now today Reuters is reporting Samsung in the final planning stages with Google on a "Google TV". Almost feels like there's a flash mob in the planning with everyone seemingly converging on the same spots.
Heh, it's only a flash mob if the mob (customers) shows up. With Google TV 1.0 not so much.
I guess my inclination is to dislike AIOs...which is why I've always bought minis vs iMacs. I'm still using an older 24" dell ultrasharp (2005) long after same generation iMacs (G5) are obsolete. I can't remember if this is PVA or IPS but it's a damn nice monitor even today 6 years later.
I got my parents a pretty nice 46" bravia several years ago around the time that the first iPhone came out. Imagine if the TV had a ARM11 CPU like the original iPhone...and what would still run well on it...
Meh. At least with computers you expect rapid obsolescence, even phones. Perhaps it'll be okay if the architecture is driven by cloud services like OnLive and not driven by apps. This is the reason why I think AirPlay is a critical part of Apple living room strategy. They're less likely to adopt the OnLive approach than Google or Amazon despite having that huge new data center.
And content producers make far less than $32B but have to deal with individual customers and all the costs associated with that...so how is this a win for content producers?
I wouldn't see the content producers going direct to customers, they would still be packaged up by network service providers.
So for example, say you get your cable broadband from Comcast, they can offer you a subscription to 50 streaming TV shows e.g TV://HBO, TV://Fox etc. When you tried to access these streams with any browser on any device, you'd just choose the provider, login to authenticate your subscription and the provider would send the stream to you.
You still have to pay for packages but you can watch anywhere and it means you can easily get other services on top without buying a box per provider.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
How does offering content directly to consumers help HBO in any way? They aren't going to make any MORE money going the Netflix streaming route. Especially if Comcast/Verizon/etc drops them in retaliation.
I think the content providers hold all the cards in this. If Comcast/Verizon drop them, subscribers drop Comcast/Verizon. The way HBO etc may benefit is by allowing many more providers to offer the services and possibly even reach an international audience. If you go on holiday to Australia, and take your iPad, you can stream your standard TV over the hotel wifi.
I wouldn't see the content producers going direct to customers, they would still be packaged up by network service providers.
So for example, say you get your cable broadband from Comcast, they can offer you a subscription to 50 streaming TV shows e.g TV://HBO, TV://Fox etc. When you tried to access these streams with any browser on any device, you'd just choose the provider, login to authenticate your subscription and the provider would send the stream to you.
You still have to pay for packages but you can watch anywhere and it means you can easily get other services on top without buying a box per provider.
That's how xfinity on demand, HBO Go, etc already work. They just require a cable sub...and the box.
The cable companies (including Verizon, AT&T, Dish, etc here) don't want to become just dumb pipes or lose their more profitable Double and Triple play packages. They are providing the "On The Go" functionality for their users...and blocking any attempt to get access to that content by cable cutters via Hulu, etc.
Quote:
I think the content providers hold all the cards in this. If Comcast/Verizon drop them, subscribers drop Comcast/Verizon.
When cable forced Hulu to drop Boxee I think that showed the relative hands of content providers vs content aggregators
"Many people blamed Hulu for its decision to block access on the Boxee platform. These users simply didn?t understand the power of affiliate fees. Comcast told NBC/Fox that if Hulu could distribute their content for free, then they would like to take their own affiliate fees (the newly negotiated ones in #4) to $0.00. This caused NBC/Fox to tell Hulu that maybe Boxee isn?t such a good idea."
Comments
http://9to5google.com/2011/11/22/reuters/#more-11264
The next generation of TV's is multiplying going by some of the latest news articles. A few days ago it was Sony saying they had something special in the works. Now today Reuters is reporting Samsung in the final planning stages with Google on a "Google TV". Almost feels like there's a flash mob in the planning with everyone seemingly converging on the same spots.
http://9to5google.com/2011/11/22/reuters/#more-11264
Heh, it's only a flash mob if the mob (customers) shows up. With Google TV 1.0 not so much.
I guess my inclination is to dislike AIOs...which is why I've always bought minis vs iMacs. I'm still using an older 24" dell ultrasharp (2005) long after same generation iMacs (G5) are obsolete. I can't remember if this is PVA or IPS but it's a damn nice monitor even today 6 years later.
I got my parents a pretty nice 46" bravia several years ago around the time that the first iPhone came out. Imagine if the TV had a ARM11 CPU like the original iPhone...and what would still run well on it...
Meh. At least with computers you expect rapid obsolescence, even phones. Perhaps it'll be okay if the architecture is driven by cloud services like OnLive and not driven by apps. This is the reason why I think AirPlay is a critical part of Apple living room strategy. They're less likely to adopt the OnLive approach than Google or Amazon despite having that huge new data center.
And content producers make far less than $32B but have to deal with individual customers and all the costs associated with that...so how is this a win for content producers?
I wouldn't see the content producers going direct to customers, they would still be packaged up by network service providers.
So for example, say you get your cable broadband from Comcast, they can offer you a subscription to 50 streaming TV shows e.g TV://HBO, TV://Fox etc. When you tried to access these streams with any browser on any device, you'd just choose the provider, login to authenticate your subscription and the provider would send the stream to you.
You still have to pay for packages but you can watch anywhere and it means you can easily get other services on top without buying a box per provider.
How does offering content directly to consumers help HBO in any way? They aren't going to make any MORE money going the Netflix streaming route. Especially if Comcast/Verizon/etc drops them in retaliation.
I think the content providers hold all the cards in this. If Comcast/Verizon drop them, subscribers drop Comcast/Verizon. The way HBO etc may benefit is by allowing many more providers to offer the services and possibly even reach an international audience. If you go on holiday to Australia, and take your iPad, you can stream your standard TV over the hotel wifi.
I wouldn't see the content producers going direct to customers, they would still be packaged up by network service providers.
So for example, say you get your cable broadband from Comcast, they can offer you a subscription to 50 streaming TV shows e.g TV://HBO, TV://Fox etc. When you tried to access these streams with any browser on any device, you'd just choose the provider, login to authenticate your subscription and the provider would send the stream to you.
You still have to pay for packages but you can watch anywhere and it means you can easily get other services on top without buying a box per provider.
That's how xfinity on demand, HBO Go, etc already work. They just require a cable sub...and the box.
The cable companies (including Verizon, AT&T, Dish, etc here) don't want to become just dumb pipes or lose their more profitable Double and Triple play packages. They are providing the "On The Go" functionality for their users...and blocking any attempt to get access to that content by cable cutters via Hulu, etc.
I think the content providers hold all the cards in this. If Comcast/Verizon drop them, subscribers drop Comcast/Verizon.
When cable forced Hulu to drop Boxee I think that showed the relative hands of content providers vs content aggregators
"Many people blamed Hulu for its decision to block access on the Boxee platform. These users simply didn?t understand the power of affiliate fees. Comcast told NBC/Fox that if Hulu could distribute their content for free, then they would like to take their own affiliate fees (the newly negotiated ones in #4) to $0.00. This caused NBC/Fox to tell Hulu that maybe Boxee isn?t such a good idea."
http://abovethecrowd.com/2010/04/28/...orld-go-round/