Interesting article giving 5 reasons why Apple TV will crush the competition.
Three quibbles about the article:
1. I think Apple will actually have two products - an Apple TV set top box to be used as a legacy STB replacement for MSO's and other service providers and also an Apple iTV.
2. This iTV product won't crush the competition because there really won't be any. It will be a product unto itself just as the iPhone was when first released. It will be both a TV and computer monitor with built in apps like Siri and other Cuppertino goodies.
3. Still think that videoconferencing will be a killer app for the iTV. This will give Apple entree into the business VTC marketplace which will also allow it to take share in a multi-billion market.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Apple's TV Plans
Brightcove's CEO Jeremy Allaire predicted that Apple will make both a set top box and a TV. Big whoop - I predicted that months ago.
In addition to making my prediction I also explained why that strategy is genius for Apple. Everyone connected to the industry knows that there are billions of dollars worth of legacy MPEG2 set top boxes that would be ripe for upgrading. An Apple TV STB product could help accomplish that with the added bonus that the subscriber may actually pay for the box on their own.
It is the TV, however, that could be the real game-changer. When's the last time you thought of your PC monitor? An Apple TV could be a combination TV / computer monitor and videoconferencing unit. If the product could just grab 10-20% of the markets in those segments then you're talking a product that would be as revolutionary as the iPhone.
An Apple TV would give people reason and incentive to upgrade their TV's at home and their monitors at work. Pure genius.
In addition to making my prediction I also explained why that strategy is genius for Apple. Everyone connected to the industry knows that there are billions of dollars worth of legacy MPEG2 set top boxes that would be ripe for upgrading. An Apple TV STB product could help accomplish that with the added bonus that the subscriber may actually pay for the box on their own.
It is the TV, however, that could be the real game-changer. When's the last time you thought of your PC monitor? An Apple TV could be a combination TV / computer monitor and videoconferencing unit. If the product could just grab 10-20% of the markets in those segments then you're talking a product that would be as revolutionary as the iPhone.
An Apple TV would give people reason and incentive to upgrade their TV's at home and their monitors at work. Pure genius.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Verizon Fios to Stream NFL Network
Interesting development - Verizon Fios has signed an agreement that allows them to stream both the NFL Network and NFL RedZone channels.
My initial thought upon reading the news was that this is just another sign of a growing digital divide in this country. Verizon Fios has pretty much frozen where they will be deployed and the same can be said of most of the major cable operators. So this announcement is just a reminder to most of rural America that there are services out there that they don't have access to because they don't fall into the right "footprint."
Even the people who live in areas with independent FTTH operators probably would not have access to services like the TV Anywhere NFL Network from Verizon Fios because the authentication process today is just so expensive.
I guess people could still use the new Slingbox units that can stream to smart phones and tablets but that's not just the same.
My initial thought upon reading the news was that this is just another sign of a growing digital divide in this country. Verizon Fios has pretty much frozen where they will be deployed and the same can be said of most of the major cable operators. So this announcement is just a reminder to most of rural America that there are services out there that they don't have access to because they don't fall into the right "footprint."
Even the people who live in areas with independent FTTH operators probably would not have access to services like the TV Anywhere NFL Network from Verizon Fios because the authentication process today is just so expensive.
I guess people could still use the new Slingbox units that can stream to smart phones and tablets but that's not just the same.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Sports Programming
Very interesting development - DirecTV to start charging customers with multiple regional sports networks (RSN's) a $3 charge.
Nobody argues that sports programming pricing is going through the roof but this news makes me think the following:
1. The logical thing would to be to move the sports programming to an expanded tier. I have Charter cable at home and the NFL Network is in the expanded tier but the MLB Network is in basic. Moving the sports channels to expanded would allow only the people who want sports to be paying for them. People like the RSN's, ESPN and others would fight this tooth and nail. They enjoy being is the most popular tiers because it makes them the most money.
2. The move by DirecTV is a little hypocritical when you think of how much they are paying for the NFL rights and the fact that many people subscribed to DirecTV just for NFL games.
3. This move could be interpreted as another step towards a la carte programming. I think if you gave sports content channel owners the choice between a la carte and having their channels on an inclusive expanded tier (sports, women's programming, etc.) - then the content owners would choose the expanded tier. We could therefor start to see some movement by the content owners regarding "must carry" requirements and tier placement as new agreements are reached with the major cable operators. The price expansion simply just can't go on like this.
Nobody argues that sports programming pricing is going through the roof but this news makes me think the following:
1. The logical thing would to be to move the sports programming to an expanded tier. I have Charter cable at home and the NFL Network is in the expanded tier but the MLB Network is in basic. Moving the sports channels to expanded would allow only the people who want sports to be paying for them. People like the RSN's, ESPN and others would fight this tooth and nail. They enjoy being is the most popular tiers because it makes them the most money.
2. The move by DirecTV is a little hypocritical when you think of how much they are paying for the NFL rights and the fact that many people subscribed to DirecTV just for NFL games.
3. This move could be interpreted as another step towards a la carte programming. I think if you gave sports content channel owners the choice between a la carte and having their channels on an inclusive expanded tier (sports, women's programming, etc.) - then the content owners would choose the expanded tier. We could therefor start to see some movement by the content owners regarding "must carry" requirements and tier placement as new agreements are reached with the major cable operators. The price expansion simply just can't go on like this.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Bad Connections
The New York Times recently had an interesting op-ed piece by David Cay Johnson about the dangers of an ATT and Verizon duopoly.
I would make a few comments about the article:
1. Part of the reason a triple-play bill is so high in the US is due to very high content costs. That's a much bigger component that Internet data or voice services. That should be noted.
2. It is true that both Verizon Fios and ATT U-Verse won't be doing much expansion in the coming years and it is also true that copper based POTS (plain old telephone service) could be endangered in rural or less populated areas. It should be noted that this could actually be a blessing in disguise. Municipalities, smaller more nimble telephone companies and electrical cooperative could easily step in and start providing the FTTH services that Verizon and ATT will walk away from. These opportunities could be the real growth areas in the coming years - much more than what Verizon or ATT will accomplish.
Worth saying.
I would make a few comments about the article:
1. Part of the reason a triple-play bill is so high in the US is due to very high content costs. That's a much bigger component that Internet data or voice services. That should be noted.
2. It is true that both Verizon Fios and ATT U-Verse won't be doing much expansion in the coming years and it is also true that copper based POTS (plain old telephone service) could be endangered in rural or less populated areas. It should be noted that this could actually be a blessing in disguise. Municipalities, smaller more nimble telephone companies and electrical cooperative could easily step in and start providing the FTTH services that Verizon and ATT will walk away from. These opportunities could be the real growth areas in the coming years - much more than what Verizon or ATT will accomplish.
Worth saying.
Google Selling Motorola STB Business
The Wall Street Journal has reported that Google is accepting bids for their Motorola STB (set top box) business unit.
This is not surprising to anyone who has been paying attention. When Google Fiber decided to use another product rather than the in-house Motorola STB for their Kansas City deployment - the writing was on the wall.
This is not surprising to anyone who has been paying attention. When Google Fiber decided to use another product rather than the in-house Motorola STB for their Kansas City deployment - the writing was on the wall.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Netflix Signs Deal to Stream Disney Movies
Netflix has signed a deal to stream Disney movies.
First let me say that I was amused by the headline writer for that article calling it a "blockbuster" deal. I wonder if the pun was intended. The deal allows Netflix to stream older movies immediately, direct to video movies starting next year and their first run movies months after release starting in 2016.
The analysis of the deal in the article was lacking though. The reason Wall Street likes this deal is because Carl Icahn's investment has put Netflix into play and this deal with Disney adds value to any potential suitor. How hard is that to understand?
First let me say that I was amused by the headline writer for that article calling it a "blockbuster" deal. I wonder if the pun was intended. The deal allows Netflix to stream older movies immediately, direct to video movies starting next year and their first run movies months after release starting in 2016.
The analysis of the deal in the article was lacking though. The reason Wall Street likes this deal is because Carl Icahn's investment has put Netflix into play and this deal with Disney adds value to any potential suitor. How hard is that to understand?
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Why Some Content Packages Will Fall Apart
Today most content providers bundle their channels together and you have to take them all. As this article points out - that has to end because the prices are out of hand.
One important factor that the article does not point out is the fact that today's middleware and OSS/BSS systems can tell operators exactly how many people are watching particular channels, when they are watching and for how long. They don't have to rely on Neilson ratings or any other factors. They can also use those eye-ball reports to compare channels against similarly viewed channels to see if things are over-priced.
If a channel that costs $.20 per sub is getting the same viewership as another channel that costs $.10 - how do you justify paying that $.20 in a new contract?
One important factor that the article does not point out is the fact that today's middleware and OSS/BSS systems can tell operators exactly how many people are watching particular channels, when they are watching and for how long. They don't have to rely on Neilson ratings or any other factors. They can also use those eye-ball reports to compare channels against similarly viewed channels to see if things are over-priced.
If a channel that costs $.20 per sub is getting the same viewership as another channel that costs $.10 - how do you justify paying that $.20 in a new contract?
Saturday, December 1, 2012
DVR's In US Homes
A new study says that DVR's are in 52% of the homes that have pay TV in the US. I remember that it was just a few years ago when the number of homes with outhouses in US outnumbered the homes with TiVo (literally - that was an actual stat that stuck in my head).
The real interesting stat to me though was that DVR viewing only made up 8% of TV viewing in the US. That's a number that will explode in the next few years and something that must have TV networks and advertisers worried. Very worried.
The real interesting stat to me though was that DVR viewing only made up 8% of TV viewing in the US. That's a number that will explode in the next few years and something that must have TV networks and advertisers worried. Very worried.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)