Posts for 'Broadcasters'

Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 52nd edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for March 5, 2010.

First up this week I discuss my post from this past Monday, "ABC.com is Now Achieving 'DVR Economics' for Its Programs," in which I described how ABC is now generating roughly the same revenue per program per viewer in online as it is when its programs are watched in DVR playback mode. Albert Cheng, EVP of Digital Media at Disney-ABC had explained to me last week that ABC recently concluded that since online and DVR are both "catch-up" opportunities, it was more appropriate to compare them to each other than to on-air.

Key to this logic is that ABC maintains a release window for its programs, with them being posted on the site 4-6 hours after broadcast. As a result, people who really want to see the program when it's first available still watch on-air (and may in fact re-watch online or via DVR). As long as there's an audience for broadcast, and online doesn't cannibalize it, the logic makes sense to me. Albert also explained that there's further upside in online through increasing the ad load, which is something ABC has experimented with.

Daisy picks up on that point, noting that CBS's Anthony Soohoo told her in an interview for Beet.tv that CBS is considering moving to a full ad load online because the online and on-air experience are converging, which suggests to them that viewers would tolerate more ads. We dig into the interplay between online and DVR usage, which I think is increasingly going to be a key focus for networks in how they choose to monetize online viewing.

Wrapping up, we review what some of the social media "listening" sites that are tracking the Oscar predictions are saying. Daisy appears officially addicted to following the online chatter.

Click here to listen to the podcast (14 minutes, 41 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

Last week while I was in LA I had a chance to sit down for an extended chat with Albert Cheng, EVP of Digital Media for Disney-ABC Television. Aside from general catch-up, I wanted to dig into a comment I'd heard Albert make at the recent NATPE conference - that full-length programs on ABC.com are now achieving "DVR economics."

The comment caught my attention because, as I've written a number of times, I've been concerned that the broadcast networks' streaming initiatives (and Hulu specifically) could be undermining their traditional business models. The main reason for this is that the ad load in streaming programs is a small fraction vs. what it is in on-air. If all online viewing is incremental to on-air that wouldn't matter. But despite certain research that suggests online doesn't cannibalize on-air, for some viewers who have long since transitioned to time-shifted consumption, it surely does. More importantly, as convergence devices that link broadband to TVs gain penetration, the choice for viewers of how to watch a particular program - via online or via on-air - gets even more pronounced, putting further pressure on on-air.

Albert explained that ABC has been closely following the economics of programs' different viewing methods and recently concluded that it was more appropriate to compare online's economics to DVR's economics than to on-air's. Their reasoning is that because online is a "catch-up" medium it should be weighed against other comparable opportunities, not against on-air. Importantly, ABC "windows" the online release of its programs by 4-6 hours, so that hard-core fans who have to watch immediately will skew to on-air, rather than waiting. (Of course the question arises - in our increasingly on-demand, time-shifted world, how sizable is the "must-see" audience for all but the most popular programs like "Lost?" But that's a question for another day.)

When looked at this way, ABC believes online delivery compares favorably to DVR. No surprise, Albert would not disclose ABC's revenues or research, but he did give me a wink-and-a-nod when I shared my estimate that the on-air revenue per program per viewer is in the $.50-$.75 range (of course specific programs and specific episodes are above and below this range). To be clear, this only means the revenue generated is in this range. Because of bathroom breaks, channel flipping, viewers chit-chatting, etc. obviously not all of the ads are actually viewed.

Estimating the revenue per program per viewer range for DVR playback, given its attendant ad-skipping, is more complicated. Ad-skipping is surely high, but it's unclear exactly how high. For example, last Nov, the NY Times reported Nielsen research that somewhat remarkably showed that 46% of viewers age 18-49 still watched a program's commercials when in DVR playback mode. A different story is told by TiVo, which released data last Sept saying that for the programs that won the top Emmy awards, somewhere between 55-83% of the audience viewing these programs in DVR mode skipped the ads.

Just to round off, if we say that 60% of the ads in DVR playback are skipped, then DVR economics - and therefore ABC.com's economics - are in the $.20-$.30 range on a per program per viewer basis (i.e. 40% of $.50-$.75). Even on the low side of that range, that's better than my previous estimate of $.15 per program per viewer for Hulu in particular (which in reality was probably a little high anyway).

Further, Albert said that there's plenty of room for improving online's economics. One key focus is increasing the ad load, possibly to as much as double the current 5 ads per program. ABC.com has experimented with this and its research shows that neither the viewer nor the advertiser experience is diminished. As a result, ABC is inclined to increase the ad load to continue improving online economics further, but is somewhat constrained by advertisers' desire to minimize clutter and their own desire to remain consistent with non-ABC sites' ad loads.

Online distribution of full-length programs is still in its relative infancy. Yet as consumers hunger for it, broadcast networks have little choice but to provide it. The key is how to make this new delivery method profitable and also not harmful to the traditional network P&L. The use of windows for example, seems like an effective tactic insofar as there exists an audience intent on watching a program the moment it's shown on-air. Based on last week's conversation with Albert, along with prior ones, it seems like ABC is balancing things well - taking steps to pursue online, but doing so in a well-researched and analytically sound manner.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

KickApps and NBCU are announcing a licensing deal this morning which includes KickApps' App Studio and Premium Social Video Platform. The deal enables all of NBCU's entertainment properties to use KickApps' social software solution, expanding upon a prior relationship between the companies which has primarily focused on NBC's local media properties.

As Marc Siry, NBCU's SVP, Digital Products and Services explained to me, KickApps's key differentiator was its self-service App Studio which allows NBCU's brands to quickly create customized, socially-oriented sites and video players using drag-and-drop tools. Marc said that the self-service aspect to the App Studio was particularly important as each NBCU property has its own customization requirements. With resources tight, it was key to be able to have each property be somewhat self-sufficient. Marc said that social wrapping is essential to all media today, and that no other online video platform that NBCU evaluated offered the same capabilities.

(As a side note, I have always thought of KickApps as a social platform first and foremost, which also offered video functionality. As a result it's not really a pure OVP, though with its NBC win, KickApps is showing that for some customers, it is a bona fide OVP competitor.)

NBC has strongly pursued social interaction on its local sites, encouraging users to submit comments, video, and other engagement opportunities. With local media impacted by audience fragmentation, efforts to re-invent how to connect with audiences have been crucial. Looking ahead - though unable to get too specific for now - Marc told me that NBCU already has several projects in the works that will leverage KickApps: a fan site from Telemundo, a new video portal emphasizing "secondary" non-TV program content with rabid fan interest, and a celebrity-oriented user-generated site. Parent company GE is even planning to use KickApps as an enterprise solution for video sharing among internal units.

Marc said that one other appealing aspect of KickApps was its embrace of Adobe's Open Source Media Framework ("OSMF"). For those not familiar with OSMF (formerly known as "Strobe") it is a public, pre-release initiative aimed at allowing developers to use pluggable components to create rich Flash-based playback experiences. It is still early days for OSMF and it represents something of a challenge to many online video platforms which offer similar integrations as part of their product or through professional services.

But as Marc explained, OSMF is valuable to NBCU because it is seeing more and more requirements from its brands and advertisers to do custom creative and OSMF gives it a baseline of functionality on which to build. Prior to KickApps, NBCU properties relied mainly on homegrown software for video applications, which Marc said had limited flexibility.

KickApps's NBCU win is yet another example of how dynamic the market for video solutions is today. I am continually hearing about how specific content providers each have their own unique requirements, so an individual video platform provider can be a perfect fit in one situation, but be less than optimal in another. While some requirements are converging, I anticipate a level of individuality will persist for some time to come, sustaining the OVP fragmentation we've seen to date.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).

Fox.com has quietly switched from Move Networks' player to Flash for its online video, with Brightcove powering content management and publishing. Separately, a Disney-ABC spokesperson told me that ABC.com will also be transitioning from Move to Flash in the coming weeks, though both will be used temporarily.

Neither of the changes will surprise Move. Earlier this week I spoke with Move's Marcus Liassides, who explained that the company is continuing its own transition, evolving from a technology provider to content owners to an end-to-end broadband delivery platform for powering next-generation multichannel video services. Marcus said that Move has been working closely with its content customers to support their respective swap-outs.

Move was an early leader in adaptive bit rate streaming and gained a ton of visibility for raising close to $70 million, including a whopping $46 million round in April '08. Move gained notice for showing people that the Internet could indeed delivery crystal-clear, high-quality video that could credibly compete with TV viewing. For many, Move's player was very tangible evidence of how far the online video experience had changed since the pioneering days of RealNetworks' RealPlayer just 10+ years earlier.

Unfortunately the company encountered a perfect storm. First, as CDN prices fell, content providers considered Move an increasingly expensive-looking solution. Then, since Move's customers used a free, ad-supported model, as the recession crimped ad spending their ability to afford a luxury video player deteriorated. Meanwhile, both Microsoft (with Smooth Streaming) and Adobe (with FMS 3.5) both launched their own adaptive bit rate alternatives. Between their ultra-competitive pricing and large embedded customer bases, Move was squeezed from all sides. Compounding matters, Move also conveyed mixed messages about its strategy and rumors about its disjointed product development process were widespread.

Last June, Marcus provided me with an extensive overview of Move's revamped game plan, which blends Move's underlying delivery system with "virtual set-top box" technology acquired from Inuk Networks. The goal is to provide telcos, broadband ISPs and others with a platform to deliver an end-to-end multichannel linear, live, on-demand and DVR service, all through broadband.

More recently, Move hired Roxanne Austin, a former DirecTV president and COO as its new CEO, who in turn has brought in new executives to run operations, strategy and business affairs. Last September, Move announced that Cable & Wireless has partnered with it to roll out IP-based TV services. Marcus said that additional customer announcements are forthcoming soon.

What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required)

Following are 4 items worth noting for the Jan 4th week:

1. TechCrunch disagrees with my Netflix-Warner Bros. deal analysis - In "Netflix Stabs Us In The Heart So Hollywood Can Drink Our Blood," (great title btw) MG Siegler at the influential blog TechCrunch excerpts part of my post from yesterday, and takes the consumer's point of view, decrying the new 28 day "DVD window" that Netflix has agreed to in its Warner Bros deal. Siegler's main objection is that "Hollywood thinks that with this new 28-day DVD window deal, the masses are going to rush out and buy DVDs in droves again." Instead, Siegler believes the deal hurts consumers and is going to touch off new, widespread piracy.

I think Siegler is wrong on both counts, and many of TechCrunch's readers commenting on the post do as well. First, nobody in Hollywood believes DVD sales are going to spike because of deals like this. However, they do believe that any little bit that can be done to preserve the appeal of DVD's initial sale window can only help DVD sales which are critical to Hollywood's economics. Everyone knows DVD is a dying business; the new window is intended to help it die more gracefully. And because new releases are not that critical to many Netflix users anyway, Netflix has in reality given up little, but presumably gotten a lot, with improved access for streaming and lower DVD purchase prices.

The argument about new, widespread piracy by Netflix users is specious. With or without the 28 day window, there will always be some people who don't respect copyright and think stealing is acceptable. But Netflix isn't running its business with pirates as their top priority. With 11 million subscribers and growing, Netflix is a mainstream-oriented business, and the vast majority of its users are not going to pirate movies - both because they don't know how to (and don't want to learn) and because they think it's wrong. Netflix knows this and is making a calculated long-term bet (correctly in my opinion) that enhancing its streaming catalog is priority #1.

2. comScore's November numbers show continued video growth - Not to be overlooked in all the CES-related news this week was comScore's report of November '09 online video usage, which set new records. Key highlights: total video viewed were almost 31 billion (double Jan '09's total of 14.8 billion), number of videos viewed/average viewer was 182 (up 80% from Jan '09's 101) and minutes watched/mo were approximately 740 (more than double Jan '09's total of 356).

Notably, with 12.2 billion views, YouTube's Nov '09 market share of 39.4% grew vs. its October share of 37.7%. As I've previously pointed out, YouTube has demonstrated amazingly consistent market dominance, with its share hovering around 40% since March '08. Hulu also notched another record month, with 924 million streams, putting it in 2nd place (albeit distantly) to YouTube. Still, Hulu had a blowout year, nearly quadrupling its viewership (up from Jan '09's 250 million views). But with 44 million visitors, Hulu's traffic was pretty close to March '09's 41.6 million. In '10 I'm looking to see what Hulu's going to do to break out of the 40-45 million users/mo band it was in for much of '09.

3. Consumer groups protest TV Everywhere, but their arguments ring hollow - I was intrigued by a joint letter that 4 consumer advocacy groups sent to the Justice Department on Monday, urging it to investigate "potentially unlawful conduct by MVPDs (Multichannel Video Programming Distributors) offering TV Everywhere services." The letter asserts that MVPDs may have colluded in violation of antitrust laws.

I'm not a lawyer and so I'm in no position to judge whether any actions alleged to have taken place by MVPDs violated any antitrust laws. Regardless though, the letter from these groups demonstrates that they are missing a fundamental benefit of TV Everywhere - to provide online access to cable TV programming that has not been available to date because there hasn't been an economical model for doing so. In the eyes of people who think that making money is evil, the TV Everywhere model of requiring consumers to first subscribe to a multichannel video service seems anti-consumer and anti-competitive. But to people trying to make a living creating quality TV programming, the preservation of a highly functional business model is essential.

These advocacy groups need to remember that consumers have a choice; if they don't value cable's programming enough to pay for it, then they can instead just watch free broadcast programs.

4. 3D is the rage at CES - I'll be doing a CES recap on Monday, but one of the key themes of the show has been 3D. There were two big announcements of new 3D channels, from ESPN and Discovery/Sony/IMAX. LG, Panasonic, Samsung and Sony announced new 3D TVs. And DirecTV announced that it would launch 3 new 3D channels by June 2010, with Panasonic as the presenting sponsor. 3D sets will be an expensive proposition for consumers for some time, but prices will of course come down over time.

Something that I wonder about is what impact will 3D have on online and mobile video? Will this spur innovation in computer monitors so that the 3D experience can be experienced online as well? And how about mobile - will we soon be slipping on 3D glasses while looking at our iPhones and Android phones? It may seem like a ridiculous idea, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Enjoy your weekend!

Happy New Year. If you're just back from a holiday vacation and have been partially or totally off the grid for the last week or two, here are 7 video-oriented items you may have missed:

1. Time Warner Cable and News Corp fight over fees, then settle - Two behemoths of the cable and broadcast TV ecosystem spatted publicly during the holidays over the size of "retransmission consent" fees that News Corp (owner of the Fox Broadcast Network and cable channels like Fox News) wanted TWC (the 2nd largest U.S. cable operator) to pay to carry its 14 local stations. While a last minute deal averted the channels going dark, broadcasters' interest in dipping into cable's monthly subscription revenues will only intensify as audience fragmentation accelerates and ad revenues are pressured.

For my part I wish Fox and other broadcasters were as focused on building new and profitable digital delivery models for their programs as they were on trying to redistribute cable's revenues. Even as Rupert Murdoch continues advocating the paid content model, the freely-available Hulu is seeing its traffic skyrocket (see below). But if Hulu's viewership isn't incrementally profitable, then all that growth is pointless. Urgency is mounting too; in '10 convergence devices that bridge broadband to the TV are going to get a lot of attention. In the wake of their adoption, consumers are going to want Hulu on their TVs. If Hulu doesn't allow this it will be marginalized. But if it does without first solidifying its business model, it could hurt broadcasters further.

2. Hulu has a big traffic year, but no further information provided on its business model - Hulu's CEO Jason Kilar pulled back the curtain a bit on the company's strong progress in 2009, citing 95% growth in monthly users, to 43 million, 307% growth in monthly streams, to 924 million (both as measured by comScore) and a doubling of available content, to 14,000 hours. While noting that its advertisers increased from 166 to 408 during the year, with respect to performance, Jason only said that "we are extremely excited about atypically strong results we have been able to drive for our marketing partners."

Though Hulu is under no obligation to disclose details of its business model, I think it would dramatically increase the company's credibility if it shared some metrics about how its lighter ad load model is working (e.g. improved awareness, click throughs, leads, conversions, etc.). Per the 1st item above, as Hulu grows, a lot of people have a lot at stake in understanding what effect it may have on broadcast economics. In addition, as I pointed out recently, it is important to understand whether Hulu thinks it may have already saturated its U.S. audience. After a jump in Q1 '09 from 24.6 million to 41.6 million users, traffic actually dipped below 40 million until October. What does Hulu do from here to gain significantly more users?

3. Cable networks' primetime audience is nearly double broadcasters' - Punctuating the ascendancy of cable over broadcast, this Multichannel News article pointed out that in 2009, ad-supported cable networks as a group captured 60.7% of primetime audience vs. 32% for the 4 broadcast networks. That's a major change from 2000 when the broadcasters had a 46.8% share vs. cable's 41.2%. Cable increased its share every single year of the last decade, powered by its innovative original programming. NBCU's USA Network in particular has become the real standout performer, winning its second consecutive ratings crown, with 3.2 million average primetime viewers, up 14% vs. 2008.

The surging popularity of cable programming is a crucial barrier to consumers cutting the cord on cable. Since cable networks are highly invested in the monthly multichannel subscription model, they are unlikely to disrupt themselves by offering their best shows to others under substantially different terms than how they're offered today. So to the extent cable programs are either unavailable to over-the-top alternatives or offered less attractively (e.g. less choice, higher cost, delayed availability), little cord-cutting can be expected. And if TV Everywhere achieves its online access goals, the cable ecosystem will only be further strengthened.

4. YouTube is working to drive higher viewership - Amidst the turmoil in the traditional ecosystem and Hulu's growth, YouTube, the 800 pound gorilla of the online video world, is working hard to deepen the site's viewership. As this insightful NYTimes article explains, a team of YouTube developers is analyzing viewing patterns and tweaking its recommendation practices to encourage more usage. YouTube says time on the site has increased by 50% in the last year, and comScore reports that the average number of clips viewed per user per month jumped to 83 in October, up from 53 a year earlier. Still, as comScore also reports, duration of an average session has yet to crack 4 minutes, meaning video snacking on YouTube is still the norm. YouTube's moves must be watched closely in '10.

5. Showtime's "Weeds" available online before on DVD - This WSJ article (reg req'd) pointed out that Lionsgate, producer of Showtime's hit "Weeds" series is offering episodes online before they're available on DVD. By putting the digital "window" ahead of DVD's, Lionsgate is further pressuring DVD's appeal. We've seen periodic experimentation in this regard, and I anticipate more to come, especially as the universe of convergence devices expands and consumers can watch on their TVs instead of just their computers. Until a tipping point occurs though, "Weeds" like initiatives will be the exception, not the rule.

6. Netflix goes shopping in Hollywood - And speaking of reversing distribution windows, this Bloomberg Businessweek piece was the latest to highlight Netflix's efforts to woo studios into giving it more recent releases. Netflix has of course made huge progress with its Watch Instantly streaming feature, but its appeal to heaviest users will slow at some point unless it can dramatically expand its current slate of 17K titles available online. Hollywood is understandably wary of Netflix given all the variables in play and a desire to avoid Netflix becoming master of Hollywood's post-DVD, digital future. Whether Netflix will spend heavily to obtain better rights is a major question.

7. Get ready for Google's Nexus One and Apple's "iSlate" - Unless you've really been off the grid, you're probably aware by now that two very significant mobile product releases are coming this month. Tomorrow (likely) Google will unveil the Nexus One, its own smartphone, powered by its Android 2.1 operating system. The Nexus One will be "unlocked," meaning it can operate on multiple providers using GSM networks. The device will further fuel the mobile Internet, and mobile video consumption along with it. Separately, Apple is widely rumored to introduce its tablet computer later in the month, which many believe will be called the "iSlate." The tablet market is completely virgin territory, and while it's early to make predictions, I believe Apple could have most of the ingredients needed to make the product another big hit. The prospect of watching high-quality video on a thin, light, user-friendly device is extremely compelling.

It's time to say goodbye to 2009 and begin looking ahead to 2010.

2009 was yet another important year in the ongoing growth of broadband and mobile video. There were many exciting developments, but several stand out for me: the announcement and launches of initial TV Everywhere services, the raising of at least $470 million in new capital by video-oriented companies, YouTube's and Hulu's impressive growth to 10 billion streams/mo and 856 million streams/mo, respectively, the iPhone's impact on popularizing mobile video, the Comcast-NBCU deal, the maturing of the online video advertising model, the proliferation of Roku and other convergence devices and the growth of Netflix's Watch Instantly, just to name a few.

Looking ahead to next year, there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about video's growth: the rollout of TV Everywhere by multiple providers, the proliferation of Android-powered smartphones and buildout of advanced mobile networks, both of which will contribute to mobile video's growth, the launch of Apple's much-rumored tablet, which could create yet another category of on-the-go content access, the introduction of new convergence devices, helping bridge video to the TV for more people, new made-for-broadband video series, which will help expand the medium's appeal, and wider syndication, which will make video ever more available.

In the midst of all this change, monetization remains the fundamental challenge for broadband and mobile video. More specifically, for both content providers and distributors, the challenge is how to ensure that the video industry avoids the same downward revenue spiral that the Internet itself has wrought on print publishers.

Regardless of all the technology innovations, high-quality content still costs real money to produce. If consumers are going to be offered quality choices, a combination of them paying for it along with advertising, is essential. While it's important to be consumer-friendly, this must always be balanced with a sustainable business model. In short, no matter what the size of the audience is, giving something away for free without a clear path for effectively monetizing it is not a strategy for long-term success.

VideoNuze will be on hiatus until Monday, January 4th (unless of course something big happens during this time). I'll be catching my breath in anticipation of a busy 2010, and hope you will too.

Thank you for finding time in your busy schedules to read and pass along VideoNuze. It's incredibly gratifying to hear from many of you about how important a role VideoNuze plays in helping you understand the disruptive change sweeping through the industry. I hope it will continue to do so in the new year.

A huge thank you also to VideoNuze's sponsors - without them, VideoNuze wouldn't be possible. This year, over 40 companies supported the VideoNuze web site and email, plus the VideoSchmooze evenings and other events. I'm incredibly grateful for their support. As always, if you're interested in sponsoring VideoNuze, please contact me.

Happy holidays to all of you, see you in 2010!

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal story, suggesting that CBS and Disney may participate in Apple's planned TV subscription service, caused was yet another tremor in the already chaotic video industry. Though Apple's plans are still preliminary, when I consider the numbers the Journal reported, the company's fuzzy math suggests incumbent distributors have little to worry about just yet.

The Journal said that in "In at least some versions of the proposal, Apple would pay media companies about $2 to $4 a month per subscriber for a broadcast network like CBS or ABC, and about $1 to $2 a month per subscriber for a basic-cable network..." Let's assume the mid-points for both: $3/mo for broadcast networks and $1.50/mo for cable networks. With 4 broadcast networks (assuming NBC participates, which under Comcast ownership is itself unlikely), that would be $12 in fees/mo. Say Apple signed up 12 cable networks, that would be another $18 in fees/mo. Together the $30 in fees/mo equals what Apple is reportedly looking to charge consumers. And this package would only deliver 16 channels, which would induce few consumers to cut the cord. And by the way, there's zero chance that one of those 16 cable channels would be Disney's ESPN, which already gets north of $3/mo/sub in all of its existing affiliate deals.

Given the broadcast networks' woes, it's within the realm of possibility that they would be enticed by the $2-$4/mo, considering it's above the $1/mo/sub that is often bandied about in retransmission consent discussions. Yet, Apple is supposedly talking about delivering the programs commercial-free, which means broadcasters' total revenue per month has to equal or exceed what they're already making per month for the plan to be interesting to them. With $60 billion/year in TV advertising revenue at stake, that's a big gamble for broadcast networks to make. Even the notion that consumers would pay for broadcast programs simply because they're commercial-free is speculative. Most research I've seen suggests the opposite consumer preference (they'd rather stomach ads in exchange for free content).

An even bigger challenge for Apple is to get cable networks to play ball. Starting with my post over a year ago, "The Cable Industry Closes Ranks," I've continued to assert that, despite ongoing skirmishes, cable networks and cable operators are joined at the hip in their desire to defend the traditional multichannel subscription model. In the model, big owners of cable networks bundle smaller channels with bigger, more popular ones, and require that cable operators, telcos and satellite operators take these as a package. This is the backdrop for why consumers often grouse that there are lots of channels, but little on that interests them personally. Meanwhile, TV Everywhere is intended to preserve this model as online viewing expectations build.

It stretches my imagination to believe that big cable network owners (Disney included) are going to allow Apple to cherry-pick which cable networks they want and disrupt the traditional model, especially at a time when cable networks want more, not less control. That cable networks would be willing to put Steve Jobs in the driver's seat of their digital futures is very unlikely. Analogies to the music business only go so far: remember, music companies were already under assault from rampant piracy and reeling under financial pressure when Apple came riding to their rescue. Cable networks feel no such urgency; they've been the brightest star in the media landscape as the recession has worn on.

I've learned never to underestimate Steve Jobs or Apple. But based on what's been reported so far, Apple's subscription TV math seems very fuzzy and any service that emerges from it is likely, for the most part, to be non-threatening to incumbent distributors. And that's before getting to the issues of Apple being a closed system and requiring consumers to buy a proprietary Apple TV box to get their programs onto their TVs. In the budding 'over-the-top" sweepstakes, Apple is one to watch for sure. But there are a lot of variables in play here. It will be fun to see if Jobs has yet another rabbit up his sleeve.

What do you think? Post a comment now.