Interesting look at Apple and what Steve Jobs may have in mind for Apple TV.
I still say that the idea of Apple replacing set top boxes for the major MSO's is an idea that is vastly under-rated. Time Warner Cable alone probably has 40 million STB's. They would be very glad to help subsidize customers switching out their existing gear for Apple TV boxes. Apple would get a tremendous boost in revenue, Time Warner would increase profits by greatly lowering operating costs and the customers would get shiny new Apple TV boxes with features their existing legacy STB's can't come close to offering.
Why wouldn't everyone involved go for a scenario like this?
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Friday, October 19, 2012
Aereo Now Supports All Major Browsers.
Aereo has announced that they have expanded their support from just Apple and Roku to pretty much all major browser platforms.
The browser platforms added include Firefox (11.0 or higher), Chrome, Safari (5.0 or higher), Opera (12.0 or higher) and Internet Explorer (9 or higher). So unless you are still using a Radio Shack TRS 80 - you should be all set.
If I lived in New York City I'd try the service. For $12 a month its worth a try.
The browser platforms added include Firefox (11.0 or higher), Chrome, Safari (5.0 or higher), Opera (12.0 or higher) and Internet Explorer (9 or higher). So unless you are still using a Radio Shack TRS 80 - you should be all set.
If I lived in New York City I'd try the service. For $12 a month its worth a try.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Do You Have the Game?
When I was a kid - boxing was at perhaps its heyday. Marvin Hagler, Tommy Hearns, Roberto Duran, Sugar Ray Leonard, and Mike Tyson. It seemed there was always a big fight but the problem was where to watch it. This was the end of the closed circuit TV era and beginning of the PPV (pay per view) era. Some bars legitimately paid for the signal and charged an entrance fee to make up for the hefty fee. Other bars had a "hot box" and received the signal illegally.
Guess where I watched many of these fights.
Today bars, restaurants, hotel common areas and other places are supposed to pay commercial rates based upon formulas that make string theory algorithms look like child's play. For that reason and because its not a whole lot of money in this bundled channel package world - having cable in these places at the same rates as a residential customer is not really a big deal.
One of the unintended consequences of a la carte TV may be to completely change this.
If Disney can no longer bundle all the ESPN channels together to get a hefty rights package fee then they may need to find other avenues to recoup the costs of buying rights to things like the NFL's Monday Night Football. One of those avenues may be to go after some of these bars and other places that are paying residential rates when they should be paying commercial rates based upon bulk rate pricing and fire code seating and a bunch of other variables.
We could wind up in a world where bars have to charge $7 for a draft beer to cover their TV costs. Or, conversely, we may end up in a world where the bar avoids these rights fees by simply offering free WiFi and people watch what they want on iPads or other tablet-type devices. We may even have scenarios where one person uses a Slingbox to get their signal from home and the bar shows it on a "group projection device" (don't call it a hot box).
Not saying this is what is going to happen. Just saying it is possible.
Guess where I watched many of these fights.
Today bars, restaurants, hotel common areas and other places are supposed to pay commercial rates based upon formulas that make string theory algorithms look like child's play. For that reason and because its not a whole lot of money in this bundled channel package world - having cable in these places at the same rates as a residential customer is not really a big deal.
One of the unintended consequences of a la carte TV may be to completely change this.
If Disney can no longer bundle all the ESPN channels together to get a hefty rights package fee then they may need to find other avenues to recoup the costs of buying rights to things like the NFL's Monday Night Football. One of those avenues may be to go after some of these bars and other places that are paying residential rates when they should be paying commercial rates based upon bulk rate pricing and fire code seating and a bunch of other variables.
We could wind up in a world where bars have to charge $7 for a draft beer to cover their TV costs. Or, conversely, we may end up in a world where the bar avoids these rights fees by simply offering free WiFi and people watch what they want on iPads or other tablet-type devices. We may even have scenarios where one person uses a Slingbox to get their signal from home and the bar shows it on a "group projection device" (don't call it a hot box).
Not saying this is what is going to happen. Just saying it is possible.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Amazon versus Apple Business Plans
Yesterday there was a BBC article on Kindle Fire HD and Paperwhite making no profits for Amazon.
Basically the Amazon model is to sell the hardware at cost so they can make their profits on the content. This seems to be the exact opposite model from Apple who makes great profits from their device sales and, according to the article, runs the popular iTunes "slightly above" break even.
I immediately wondered what impact these two models would have for IPTV.
Apple seems to be positioning its Apple TV as a replacement for major MSO legacy set top boxes. That could prove to be a brilliant strategy. There are tens of millions of legacy MPEG2 STB's out there. How great would it be if customers voluntarily upgraded their own STB's by purchasing $99 Apple TV boxes on their own? Apple would get the hardware sales, the MSO's would keep their subscribers while being able to offer new services and the customer would own their STB.
Amazon's model? In terms of IPTV their offering would seem to appeal mainly to cord-cutters. Whereas if Apple isn't making much off the content they they can position themselves as not being in competition with the big cable companies (if they just support the Apple TV STB). Apple's business plan seems to make more sense.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
A Bad Argument Against A La Carte
Joe Flint tries to pass off analyst Todd Juenger's argument that cable prices really aren't that bad and that a la carte won't work. The reasoning on both counts is servery flawed.
The article starts off with a graph showing the price increases of various items from movie tickets to cups of coffee. The idea is to show that in comparison the recent increases in the price for cable TV is more than reasonable. The problem is all of the items listed (with the possible exception of health care) are voluntary purchases. If I think the price of Dunkin Donuts coffee is getting too expensive then I can go to McDonald's for their $1 large coffee. If I buy a cigar - the tobacco industry doesn't tell me I also have to purchase a pack of cigarettes and some nicorette gum as part of the package. Yet that's what cable TV does. You want ESPN - then you have to get at least 3 other channels along with that.
Then the example of if Nickelodeon was an a la carte option then viewers may have to say goodbye to shows like Dora the Explorer or SpongeBob SquarePants is used. Not sure if two worse examples of the effects of a la carte could have been chosen. Both shows are cartoons with low production costs and both shows probably make more in merchandising and web applications at this point than in affiliate rights. A la carte won't harm those two shows in the least.
I was told that consumers being able to buy individual MP3's of songs would kill CD sales. But it didn't - it just created a new market - for MP3 songs! And it also allowed entry into the market many of many more artists and bands.
So too with TV. If a la carte was available and a provider could simply give me a menu of choices - that provider probably would have incentive to put as many channels on that menu as possible. Instead of just the History Channel maybe a channel is put on the menu that actually shows history. I would subscribe to that and then maybe History would see that success and rethink doing shows like Ancient Aliens.
But I digress.
The article starts off with a graph showing the price increases of various items from movie tickets to cups of coffee. The idea is to show that in comparison the recent increases in the price for cable TV is more than reasonable. The problem is all of the items listed (with the possible exception of health care) are voluntary purchases. If I think the price of Dunkin Donuts coffee is getting too expensive then I can go to McDonald's for their $1 large coffee. If I buy a cigar - the tobacco industry doesn't tell me I also have to purchase a pack of cigarettes and some nicorette gum as part of the package. Yet that's what cable TV does. You want ESPN - then you have to get at least 3 other channels along with that.
Then the example of if Nickelodeon was an a la carte option then viewers may have to say goodbye to shows like Dora the Explorer or SpongeBob SquarePants is used. Not sure if two worse examples of the effects of a la carte could have been chosen. Both shows are cartoons with low production costs and both shows probably make more in merchandising and web applications at this point than in affiliate rights. A la carte won't harm those two shows in the least.
I was told that consumers being able to buy individual MP3's of songs would kill CD sales. But it didn't - it just created a new market - for MP3 songs! And it also allowed entry into the market many of many more artists and bands.
So too with TV. If a la carte was available and a provider could simply give me a menu of choices - that provider probably would have incentive to put as many channels on that menu as possible. Instead of just the History Channel maybe a channel is put on the menu that actually shows history. I would subscribe to that and then maybe History would see that success and rethink doing shows like Ancient Aliens.
But I digress.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Could Turnaround Be Fair Play and Smart Play for AT and T and Verizon?
Interesting report that AT and T and Verizon may be looking to add cloud based gaming capabilities.
Most people have been talking about more and more video services being ported to game consoles like X-Box, Wii and PS3 enabling cord cutters and potentially cutting into MSO revenue streams. What if the MSO's turned around and eliminated the need for game consoles by porting the games to the MSO's cloud. Gaming on demand instead of video on demand.
Here's another thought - what if this is the strategy Apple is looking at for their new Apple TV? They could upgrade the box so that it is both a replacement for existing MSO set top boxes and also a replacement for the customer's game console. A STB with Kinect-like functionality? There would be a huge market for Apple game console.
The thing holding most MSO's back from offering new features and functionality is the huge sunk investment in existing MPEG2 based STB's. Imagine if the customer - on their own - replaced those old boxes with new Apple TV boxes! Wouldn't that be most welcome by the major MSO's like AT and T and Verizon?
Most people have been talking about more and more video services being ported to game consoles like X-Box, Wii and PS3 enabling cord cutters and potentially cutting into MSO revenue streams. What if the MSO's turned around and eliminated the need for game consoles by porting the games to the MSO's cloud. Gaming on demand instead of video on demand.
Here's another thought - what if this is the strategy Apple is looking at for their new Apple TV? They could upgrade the box so that it is both a replacement for existing MSO set top boxes and also a replacement for the customer's game console. A STB with Kinect-like functionality? There would be a huge market for Apple game console.
The thing holding most MSO's back from offering new features and functionality is the huge sunk investment in existing MPEG2 based STB's. Imagine if the customer - on their own - replaced those old boxes with new Apple TV boxes! Wouldn't that be most welcome by the major MSO's like AT and T and Verizon?
Monday, October 1, 2012
Dish Network Putting the Internet TV Pieces Together
There has been much discussion about Dish Network speaking to Viacom and other content providers regarding the launch of an Internet TV service. Most people commenting on the news seem to be missing the big picture about the possible Internet TV solution Dish Network may be assembling and how it has the chance to change how we watch TV for all-time.
First question that needs to be asked is "what is Internet TV"? Secondly, "What are the pieces that go into a successful Internet TV solution"?
Simply put Internet TV could be defined as the ability to watch broadcast quality video over the Internet. But by saying that you could argue it already exists today in YouTube, Hulu, Vudu or Netflix form. So more people would say that to be a true game-changing Internet TV solution you would have to offer enough services to challenge the existing cable solutions and make people willing to "cut the cord" for your new Internet TV.
Well what goes into the average cable package? There are the local channels (which are the most watched). There are live sports. There are content choices appealing to most groups like kids, pre-teens, college kids, foodies, history geeks, etc. Then there are the movie channels. Assuming this broad bush painted enough of what makes up a 200 channel cable package - what would a Dish Network Internet TV package have to rival that?
Dish (and DirecTV for that matter) already have many of the major metropolitan local channels up and on their transponders. It would take a simple addendum to most of the retransmission agreements to allow Dish to offer up these local channels a la carte to potential Internet TV customers. The carrot would be that each of these new subscribers would be paying the full rate retransmission agreement rights. The stick is the potential success of companies like Aereo where the local channels would get nothing for their off-air signal. Why not make a deal with Dish if those are the options?
Sports? Everyone seems to think ESPN is the end all and be all but it is not. NBC Sports is struggling to survive and CBS Sports is looking to make inroads (they have been spending big for on-air talent like Jim Rome). They might be very willing to do a deal with Dish. Also consider the RSN's (regional sports networks). I'd be willing to pay an extra dollar or so for the privileged of Dodger baseball if it meant watching Vin Scully announce the games. The RSN carrying Dodger games benefit would be to get access to millions of potential subscribers outside their normal viewing area. Red Sox fan living in California? I'm guessing they would be willing to pay to watch NESN. There are plenty of RSN's out there that could fill any sports fan's requirements. Subscribers within the normal broadcast zones? Just charge them the going rate. Cable companies in New England are not going to drop NESN if they make a deal with Dish. They need the Red Sox (and Bruins) games.
Premium movies? Blockbuster at Home is owned by Dish and they have over 25,000 titles in their library. Stream movies on demand and have a new DVD or game for your X-Box, PS3, Wii or other console. One disk at a time and streaming on demand will fill most people's entertainment needs. Every person I've seen writing about Dish looking into Internet TV has neglected to mention Dish's ownership of Blockbuster at Home. That is a HUGE oversight!
That leaves the niche channel viewing of kids, pre-teens, foodies and others. That's where the deals with Viacom (Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV) and Scripps (HGTV, the Food Network, etc) would come in. That's the part of the story most people are commenting on but by doing so miss the bigger picture.
Dish has an investment in Roku and they have already made a trial run with Internet TV with their launch of DISHWorld. An inexpensive, proven delivery platform - done! Easily replicated for game console platforms? Sure - absolutely!
Probably most important - Dish already has the back-office components in place. They have ways to insure the signals only go to paying customers and a system to pay the content providers for their products. They have 14 million people already in their billing system!
Internet TV - the pieces are almost in place. Soon I will be detailing Dish Networks real "killer app" when it comes to Internet TV. (Do people still say "killer app"?)
First question that needs to be asked is "what is Internet TV"? Secondly, "What are the pieces that go into a successful Internet TV solution"?
Simply put Internet TV could be defined as the ability to watch broadcast quality video over the Internet. But by saying that you could argue it already exists today in YouTube, Hulu, Vudu or Netflix form. So more people would say that to be a true game-changing Internet TV solution you would have to offer enough services to challenge the existing cable solutions and make people willing to "cut the cord" for your new Internet TV.
Well what goes into the average cable package? There are the local channels (which are the most watched). There are live sports. There are content choices appealing to most groups like kids, pre-teens, college kids, foodies, history geeks, etc. Then there are the movie channels. Assuming this broad bush painted enough of what makes up a 200 channel cable package - what would a Dish Network Internet TV package have to rival that?
Dish (and DirecTV for that matter) already have many of the major metropolitan local channels up and on their transponders. It would take a simple addendum to most of the retransmission agreements to allow Dish to offer up these local channels a la carte to potential Internet TV customers. The carrot would be that each of these new subscribers would be paying the full rate retransmission agreement rights. The stick is the potential success of companies like Aereo where the local channels would get nothing for their off-air signal. Why not make a deal with Dish if those are the options?
Sports? Everyone seems to think ESPN is the end all and be all but it is not. NBC Sports is struggling to survive and CBS Sports is looking to make inroads (they have been spending big for on-air talent like Jim Rome). They might be very willing to do a deal with Dish. Also consider the RSN's (regional sports networks). I'd be willing to pay an extra dollar or so for the privileged of Dodger baseball if it meant watching Vin Scully announce the games. The RSN carrying Dodger games benefit would be to get access to millions of potential subscribers outside their normal viewing area. Red Sox fan living in California? I'm guessing they would be willing to pay to watch NESN. There are plenty of RSN's out there that could fill any sports fan's requirements. Subscribers within the normal broadcast zones? Just charge them the going rate. Cable companies in New England are not going to drop NESN if they make a deal with Dish. They need the Red Sox (and Bruins) games.
Premium movies? Blockbuster at Home is owned by Dish and they have over 25,000 titles in their library. Stream movies on demand and have a new DVD or game for your X-Box, PS3, Wii or other console. One disk at a time and streaming on demand will fill most people's entertainment needs. Every person I've seen writing about Dish looking into Internet TV has neglected to mention Dish's ownership of Blockbuster at Home. That is a HUGE oversight!
That leaves the niche channel viewing of kids, pre-teens, foodies and others. That's where the deals with Viacom (Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, MTV) and Scripps (HGTV, the Food Network, etc) would come in. That's the part of the story most people are commenting on but by doing so miss the bigger picture.
Dish has an investment in Roku and they have already made a trial run with Internet TV with their launch of DISHWorld. An inexpensive, proven delivery platform - done! Easily replicated for game console platforms? Sure - absolutely!
Probably most important - Dish already has the back-office components in place. They have ways to insure the signals only go to paying customers and a system to pay the content providers for their products. They have 14 million people already in their billing system!
Internet TV - the pieces are almost in place. Soon I will be detailing Dish Networks real "killer app" when it comes to Internet TV. (Do people still say "killer app"?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)