I've been meaning to comment on this article about OTT Models for a few days. I've been meaning to comment on it because the basic premise behind the article is wrong - and it seems to be very common mistake people make when describing OTT (over the top) video.
The article seems to assume the models for connected CE and mobile devices are the same. THEY ARE NOT!
A company like Charter may want to have strategic partnerships with Microsoft for their XBox and Apple for Apple TV because those devices could be used to replace existing set top boxes while adding value to the subscriber experience. And if the customer is the one replacing the STB with their own box - even better. In that case Charter saves on both capex and opex costs adding directly to the bottom line. In this case OTT for connected CE makes perfect sense but what about OTT for mobile devices?
If the mobile device is set up as the equivalent of a set top box within the home then yes - it would make sense. In this case Charter would have the added expense of a conditional access / DRM license for the iPad, tablet or other mobile device but once again they would be eliminating the support of additional set top boxes while at the same time improving the user experience.
But what of a model that calls for a company like Charter to support mobile devices outside the home? How does that model make any sense for Charter? They would not be gaining any advertising revenue from additional eyeballs as that revenue would be going to the content owners. Sure there might be some local ad insertion type opportunity but that depends on whether the content providers would give up enough local avail opportunities to make the costs of authentication worth the while. And if the mobile device is used outside the home then chances are the subscriber would be using someone else's broadband connection to view it. How would that help a company like Charter? It wouldn't!
The models for OTT for a connected CE and mobile devices are two very different things. Very different things.
No comments:
Post a Comment