-
For Connected Devices, To Browse or Not to Browse - That is the Question
If Hamlet were considering what functionality devices connecting the Internet to TVs should have, he might well pose the question, "to browse or not to browse?" In other words, should connected devices come with a browser that allows users to freely the surf the entire Internet - as they do online and on mobile devices - or should they present content and services through walled gardens of approved "apps?"
With new connected devices proliferating (see Apple iTV tomorrow), and becoming less and less expensive (see Roku price cuts yesterday), it's inevitable that massive connected device adoption lies ahead. Yet even as these devices are poised to take on greater importance in consumers' lives and be ever more strategic to any company committed to a three-screen strategy, it is still far from clear which device approach will dominate.
Categories: Devices
Topics: Apple, Espial, Roku, Samsung, TiVo, Vizio
-
VideoNuze Report Podcast #73 - Aug. 27, 2010
Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 73rd edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for August 27, 2010. We're back after skipping last week due to Daisy being on her exciting first book promotion tour.
In this week's podcast, Daisy and I dig into the speculation surrounding Apple's plan to offer 99-cent TV program rentals from ABC, Fox and NBC and a $99 "iTV" device. I think the pairing could be quite tempting. Daisy, on the other hand, isn't as enthusiastic. She's a current Apple TV owner and aside from the potentially reduced price of the iTV, doesn't see what the excitement is about. Meanwhile, Apple has invited media to an event in San Francisco next Wed, Sept 1st, where we all may find out what Steve Jobs has in store. Listen in for more.
Click here to listen to the podcast (12 minutes, 56 seconds)
Click here for previous podcasts
The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today! -
Is Apple Planning to Pair 99-Cent TV Show Rentals With Its $99 iTV?
Bloomberg is reporting that Apple is in "advanced talks" with CBS, Disney and Fox about making available TV programs for 99-cent rental. The programs would be offered within 24 hours of when they aired and once rented, the viewing window would be just 48 hours. It's not clear whether the iTunes rental model would be targeted only to Apple's "i" devices, or if it would be more widely available. If the program deals happen, could it be that Apple is planning to pair availability of 99-cent rentals with the unveiling of its $99 iTV device at its rumored Sept. 7th keynote event?
In my earlier post, "Pondering the (Potential) Impact of Apple's New iTV Device," I speculated that the iTV device would have little impact on the pay-TV ecosystem, since major cable TV networks and pay-TV providers will resist Apple's attempts to reinvent their business models. However, I suggested that Steve Jobs could have a trick or two up his sleeve for the iTV's launch. Sure enough, 99-cent broadcast TV rentals, announced just weeks prior to the Fall TV season kickoff, would be a very good trick indeed.
Categories: Broadcasters, Devices
Topics: Apple, CBS, Disney, FOX
-
Pondering the (Potential) Impact of Apple's New iTV Device
Once again it's the silly season, when rumors and pronouncements about still-shrouded-in-secrecy Apple products start flying around the Internet, often forecasting a future radically changed by another wave of Steve Jobs' magic wand. The latest Apple product in the speculative crosshairs has been dubbed "iTV," and was originally described back in May by Engadget as an "iPhone without a screen" (and a phone for that matter), that would bring the world of Apple's App Store to the big screen and would also be capable of playing some flavor of HD video. It would also carry a surprisingly low (for Apple products anyway) $99 price tag.
It's easy to see an iTV device being a volume success for Apple, though given its low price point, profit margins could be a different story. The groundwork for iTV's success has been laid by the massive success of Apple's App Store and iTunes, which would now would be inexpensively connected to the TV. The concept "apps on TV' is getting a lot of attention lately, with Samsung making a big push, and of course Google TV being primed to deliver apps from the Android Market.
Categories: Devices
Topics: ABC, Apple, Google TV, iTV, Netflix
-
5 News Items of Interest for the Week of Aug 16th
I've received positive feedback on the Friday feature I introduced 2 weeks ago, highlighting 5-6 of the most intriguing online and mobile video industry news items that I noticed during the week. As a result, I'm continuing on today and look forward to your further reactions.
As a reminder, each day in the right column of both the VideoNuze web site and email you'll find the "Exclusive News Roundup" which includes the most relevant online and mobile video industry articles that I've curated from numerous sources around the web. Typically there are 35-40 links rounded up each week, which means VideoNuze now has thousands of links available, all fully searchable. This is an invaluable resource when doing research and I encourage you to take a look next time you're hunting for a specific piece of online/mobile video information.
Now on to this week's most intriguing news:
Hulu is Said to Be Ready for an I.P.O.
The big news leading off the week was that Hulu is testing the waters for a public offering valuing the company at $2 billion. Investors beware: while ad sales are up, exclusive deals with key TV networks are short-term, subscription service Hulu Plus is still unproven and competition from Netflix and others is intensifying. If the deal works, it will be a huge milestone for the company.
Rumored $99 iTV Could Pave Way for $2,000 Apple-Connected Television
A Wall Street analyst conjectures that Apple is well-positioned to offer a high-end, connected TV. Apple has been on the sidelines as online video makes its way to the TV, surely this won't remain the case forever.
Netflix Lust for "True Blood" Is Unrequited As HBO Blocks Path
Though Netflix just landed Epix, it is unlikely to get a deal with HBO any time soon, as the big premium network is committed to its current distribution partners, and to its own online extension, HBO Go. Netflix will still find plenty of other willing partners given its strong motivation to acquire streaming content rights.
In Battle of Smartphones, Google Has the Right Answer
With Google's Android phones proliferating, the iPhone's market share is slipping. And with Android tablets coming, the iPad will soon be in the crosshairs from competitors. For mobile video this means more choices and flexibility.
Net Profits for BermanBraun
Big ad agency Starcom MediaVest commits up to a $100 million to upstart Hollywood producer for deeper brand integrations. More evidence that ad spending is moving online and in more creative ways.Categories: Advertising, Aggregators, Cable Networks, Deals & Financings, Devices, Mobile Video
Topics: Apple, BermanBraun, Google, HBO, Hulu, Netflix, Starcom MediaVest
-
VideoNuze Report Podcast #70 - July 30, 2010
Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 70th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for July 30, 2010.
This week Daisy first updates our podcast discussion from last week concerning the social media success of the Old Spice man campaign. Daisy cites Nielsen data that Old Spice Body Wash sales increased by 11% over the last 12 months (remember the campaign started in February around the Super Bowl). In last 3 months sales are up 55% and in the last month alone, when the campaign really caught fire, they're up 107%. Pretty dramatic results.
Daisy adds that no doubt Old Spice's success will spawn many copycats. In fact, Cisco just tried a tongue in check knockoff this week, though it didn't get much traction. Daisy makes a great point that success always starts with great creative.
We then segue to discuss my post from earlier this week, "Apple's New 27-Inch Display: Is a TV Next?" The new display showed once again how tantalizingly close Apple is to having its own high-end connected TV. In the post I suggested that Apple could offer any number of enhancements like integration with its "i" devices, access to apps and iTunes and other multi-platform features that at a minimum would make an "iTV" irresistible to Apple fans. The key issue is how to obtain the kinds of margins Apple's targets in the super-competitive TV industry. Daisy and I discuss the pros and cons. Listen in to learn more.
Click here to listen to the podcast (13 minutes, 28 seconds)
Click here for previous podcasts
The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!Categories: Devices, Social Media
Topics: Apple, Cisco, Old Spice
-
Apple's New 27-Inch Display: Is a TV Next?
With Apple's unveiling yesterday of its super high-resolution 27-inch LED Cinema Display, the company is once again tantalizing the market with just how close it could be to introducing a high-end connected TV. The new 27-inch display is officially positioned to connect to Mac laptops and takes the place of existing 24-inch and 30-inch models. It comes with 2560x1440 resolution with a 16:9 glass display.
I haven't seen the product yet, but no doubt it's gorgeous. And that of course leads to the TV speculation. A few relatively simple enhancements and
repositioning spin and voila, Apple is in the TV business, with another multi-billion dollar market opportunity. The connected TV market is poised for growth, with many new TV sporting Ethernet or WiFi connections. And the market for connected devices to bring existing TVs online is exploding with choices such as Blu-ray players, gaming consoles, standalone devices, etc. priming consumers' appetites for a product from Apple.
Categories: Devices
Topics: Apple
-
Steve Jobs, The Media and All Of Us
Today a slight diversion from VideoNuze's usual online/mobile video coverage, to share a few thoughts about "Antennagate" as the iPhone 4 signal loss issue has been called. If you're sick of reading anything related to Antennagate (and I don't blame you if you are) then feel free to move on now. But if you're like me, and believe that the whole Antennagate episode says far more about state of today's media than it does about Apple, then please read on.
The iPhone 4's signal issue, arising when the phone is held in a certain way has been demonstrated, and Steve Jobs completely acknowledged it right up front at Apple's press conference last Friday. However, since the start of Antennagate I've wondered just how serious it actually is? Apple's statistics, though no doubt presented with Jobs's best spin, pretty much summed up what I've suspected from the start - that Antennagate was a relatively minor issue completely blown out of proportion by the media.
Categories: Devices
-
Verizon Launches Droid X; Video is a Key Proposition in Battle with iPhone 4
Verizon officially unveiled its latest Droid smartphone this afternoon, the Droid X from Motorola, running Google's Android 2.1 mobile OS (with an upgrade to Android 2.2 planned for later this summer). I've been following
coverage this afternoon, and aside from all of the other cool new features, what resounds most for me is how video-focused the device is, and how strongly Verizon will be promoting this. I've previously said that video would move to the forefront of the ferocious smartphone battle underway between Google (with Android) and Apple (with the iPhone). With the Droid X launch, and the recent HTC Evo from Sprint (which I've been testing and will report on next week), plus numerous others to follow, I'm convinced that we are now getting into the thick of things.
From what I've read about the Droid X, there are 3 dimensions of the video proposition, each of which stacks up differently with the iPhone 4: (1) shooting video, in 720p HD, (2) watching video on the device's 4.3 inch 854 x 480 resolution screen, and (3) connecting the device via DLNA over a home network or via an HDMI-out port to your widescreen TV.
Categories: Mobile Video
Topics: Android, Apple, Droid, Google, Motorola, Verizon
-
VideoNuze Report Podcast #64 - June 11, 2010
Daisy Whitney and I are pleased to present the 64th edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for June 11, 2010.
We welcome back Daisy, who just took a relaxing vacation in Paris. As Daisy says, the media world continued to spin while she was away, and in particular Apple and Steve Jobs have stayed in the news. Earlier this week Apple launched the iPhone 4 and last week Jobs spoke extensively at the WSJ's D8 conference.
At D8, Jobs was asked a question about Apple's TV strategy (or lack thereof). His answer led me to me to write earlier this week "Why Apple Still Doesn't Have a TV Strategy," in which I outlined the 3 key reasons I think Jobs and Apple are stymied. In today's podcast Daisy and I dig into this topic further.
Click here to listen to the podcast (12 minutes, 10 seconds)
Click here for previous podcasts
The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!Categories: Devices
-
Reconciling iPhone 4's Video Push With AT&T's New Data Plans
To nobody's surprise, at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference yesterday, Steve Jobs announced the new iPhone 4, a powerful machine with a focus on performance. It carries the specs of an iPad including an A4 processor and 800:1 contrast IPS display, along with a new 960x640, 326 pixels per inch "retina display," a pixel density that is indistinguishable to the human eye.
The new iPhone also squarely emphasizes video use - video chat, video shooting and editing and a new Netflix app that Jobs was obviously so excited about that he brought Netflix CEO Reed Hastings up on stage to do his own short demo.
Surprisingly though, the new iPhone's push to more video comes just days after AT&T published its new data plans that seem to disincent video-hungry power users. The new plans, which are slightly cheaper, cap users at 2GB for $25 a month with additional 1GB increments available for $10. While AT&T says that less than 2% of its users exceed the 2GB/mo threshold currently, surely new iPhone (not to mention iPad) users, tempted by all the tasty new video offerings, will start blowing through these limits, knowingly or unknowingly. In fact, it won't take much to exceed the limit; Clicker CEO Jim Lanzone estimated that just 1 HD episode of Mad Men will take up 1.51 GB, or more than 3/4 of the monthly allocation - before you've done anything else.
Categories: Mobile Video
Topics: Apple, AT&T, Flash, iPhone
-
Why Apple Still Doesn't Have a TV Strategy
With the race to bring online video viewing to the TV now in full swing, I've continued to wonder why it is that Apple still doesn't have a TV strategy (or if they have one, why they haven't articulated it). More than 3 years since introducing Apple TV, its only TV-related product, Steve Jobs still routinely calls it a "hobby" and there has been virtually no innovation around it. Unsurprisingly, its sales have languished.
Asked at the D8 conference last week when Apple is going to do something in the TV arena, Jobs replied that the "problem with innovation in the TV industry is the go-to-market strategy. There's a subsidized business model that gives everybody a set-top box for free or for $10/month - and that pretty much squashes any opportunity for innovation because nobody's willing to buy a set-top box." As a result he said, "all you can do is add a box on" and that this brings "a table full of remotes, cluster of boxes and bunch of different UIs." Jobs asserted that the only way things will change is to "go back to square one and tear up the set-top box and redesign it from scratch."
Of course, there is virtually no chance that cable/satellite/telco-provided set-top boxes are going away any time soon, which, given Jobs's definition of the problem, will leave Apple on the outside looking in as consumers hunger to view online video on their TVs. From my perspective there are at least 3 reasons Apple appears stymied.
Categories: Devices
Topics: Apple, Apple TV, Google
-
How to Navigate the Video Format Battlefield
Today I'm pleased to offer a guest post from Jeff Malkin, president of Encoding.com. With all the recent news around video codecs, formats and corporate battles, the world is getting increasingly complicated for content providers looking to benefit from the shift to online video. Encoding.com is in the middle of this action and today Jeff cuts through the noise and provides some recommendations for success.
How to Navigate the Video Format Battlefield
by Jeff Malkin
For content publishers and consumers, there is chaos in the video ecosystem, and it's going to get worse before it gets better. No doubt you've been reading about HTML5 vs. Flash vs. Silverlight (and recently, WebM), Apple vs. Adobe, H.264 vs. VP8, iPhone vs. Android, Do-it-Yourself vs. OVP.
Whether serving tens or thousands of videos, maximizing viewership with reasonably high-quality videos across web and mobile devices is the new imperative. With so many permutations of video codecs, formats, containers and features, it's confusing to design a video workflow that's cost-effective, flexible to change with the evolving formats and scalable to meet your growth requirements. With this post, I offer a couple of recommendations to help simplify the array of options currently available.
Case in point: Just when it appeared that H.264 was emerging as the video codec leader, primarily because of YouTube support and strong backing by Apple on its devices, Google went and threw an open-sourced VP8 codec into the ring via the recently announced WebM project, a new video format launched by Google with support from other leading industry players such as Mozilla, Opera Software, Brightcove and Encoding.com.
While both H.264 and VP8 are good quality codecs, only VP8 is currently royalty-free and therefore has a great opportunity to emerge as the new leader within the next year or two. However, for web distribution today, we recommend encoding your videos using the H.264 video codec in an .mp4 container. This is a high-quality output format already supported by Flash, and the leading HTML5 browsers including Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Internet Explorer v9.
Categories: Technology
Topics: Apple, Encoding.com, Flash, HTML5, Silverlight, WebM
-
5 Reasons Why Google TV Looks Like a Winner
Google pulled the curtain back on Google TV ("GTV" for short) yesterday and the debate over whether it will be a game-changer or another in a long line of underwhelming web-TV approaches is already underway. I'm going to plant my stake firmly in the first category - I think GTV looks like a real winner and below I've articulated 5 good reasons why. I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, and there are still some unknowns (starting with price) which will have a huge influence on its adoption. But as I describe below, GTV looks like the right product at the right time.
(Btw, if you need more background on what GTV actually is, see my post from 2 months ago "Here's How Google TV Will Work" and Colin Dixon's guest post below, "Google TV Unites Web and TV in One Experience.")
1. Consumers Want Online Video on Their TVs
The touchstone of a successful new consumer product introduction is simple - does it solve a problem or fill a need? For GTV, the answer is an overwhelming "yes." Consumers want a simple, cost-effective solution for watching online video on their TVs. Millions have already availed themselves of alternative - and often sub-optimal - methods for doing so: connecting their laptops to their TVs, buying a Roku/TiVo/connected Blu-ray player, using their gaming console, etc. There is no question here of "do consumers want online video on their TVs?" They do and there's abundant research supporting the trend already (here, here, here for example). If you need more validation, just ask anyone who's using Netflix streaming.
Moving the online video experience to the TV is the next natural step in the evolution of this exciting new medium. When most online video was short clips and the experience was poor, watching on computers was ok. But now, with HD, full-screen, well-featured experiences gaining prominence alongside the advent of high-quality, long-form programming, the viewing experience wants to move to the living room and the wide-screen HDTV. And it's a virtuous circle - the more the online video experience moves to the living room, the more high-quality content will come online, further reinforcing the value of GTV.
2. It's the Full Internet and It's Open
A main point of skepticism regarding GTV is that other web-to-TV approaches haven't made it big, so why will GTV? It's a very fair question and I think there are 2 very significant differences between past approaches and GTV. The first is that GTV users get the full Internet, not just the bits and pieces that the device provider has made deals with, or those that have invested the time and money to integrate with the device. Fifteen years since the Internet went mainstream, people are conditioned to expect nothing less than full choice and selection. GTV is the first to recognize that a "no boundaries," fully-browsable experience is not a nice-to-have, it's a must-have. The second differentiator is that search is core to the GTV experience, while others have focused mainly on browse. Searching is THE way people are accustomed to finding what they want and the inability to do so simply in other devices and on-screen guides has been a real handicap. GTV blends online expectations into the TV experience; that will feel natural and meaningful for many.
As important as the full Internet is to consumers, GTV's openness is equally important to developers who will build the apps that will make GTV compelling. It's essential to remember the Internet's open standards and development tools have driven its success. With GTV, the full brunt of the Internet's openness is once and for all being brought to the TV, powered by advances in processors that would have been unimaginable until recently. Google's Android OS and Chrome browser help create the platform - at no charge - to make all this happen. Simply put, developers are going to love GTV and the fruit of their imagination is going to astound us.
3. For Content Providers, GTV Should be Love at First Sight
Of course, what good is a new device if there's no good content? This is a problem that all too often plagues new devices (some of you have no doubt heard me mention "Richmond's Law" - that you can't introduce a device AND the content/apps for it simultaneously and expect the device to succeed.) However, in GTV's case, since it's really just leveraging all the great content on the Internet, content shortage won't be a problem. For video providers large and small GTV offers the potential of massive new reach, usage, and importantly new revenue streams, whether from Google ads, their own ads or new paid models. Nothing is required of them, though if they want to optimize for GTV (as with YouTube's new "Lean Back" UI), they can do so very easily.
For cable TV networks in particular GTV is a big-time winner. It doesn't disrupt their traditional model (see reason #5 below for more on that), but does open up all kinds of new interactive content opportunities. Another set of winners are the independent providers that have already attracted audiences online, like blip.tv, Next New Networks and Revision3. Other winners include print publishers like the NY Times, WSJ, Sports Illustrated, etc, who have been avidly building out their video libraries. The independent and print guys were limited mainly to computer-based consumption, but with GTV they get equal on-TV footing for the first time with their cable TV network counterparts. This will make for an exciting new round of content innovation. Lastly, if past is precedent, we can expect Hulu to dig its head further into the sand and block GTV users. That's ok, users will just turn to ABC.com, Fox.com, etc. As GTV and more convergence plays emerge, Hulu's insistence on computer-based viewing only is a self-inflicted bullet to its head (which btw, could be to YouTube's benefit as it seeks to increase its premium content roster).
4. GTV is Part of a Compelling 3-Screen Experience
As important as GTV is to on-TV viewing, it's critical to see its place in the larger context of a 3-screen, converged world. Today "convergence" is more a slogan than anything. But as Google showed in its demos yesterday (flawed though they were by incongruous Bluetooth snafus), the interplay between mobile, online and TV is tantalizing. Seeing an Android smartphone act as a voice-activated GTV remote control is just the tip of the iceberg. Today we are in just the first inning of consumer expectations for how devices interact ("my contact list synchs to my iPhone - whoohoo!"), but increasingly, as the cloud gains more prominence, the consumer technology battle is going to gravitate to integrated 3-screen experiences.
In this respect, GTV must also be seen in the context of Google's epic battle with Apple. GTV is a rare instance of Google actually being ahead of Apple, rather than playing catch-up (as in smartphones, tablets, operating systems, etc.). For now at least, Apple doesn't have a TV of its own, giving Google an opportunity gain an early lead in how 3-screen experiences will work. GTV further exposes key weaknesses of Apple's tightly-controlled, vertically integrated model. While Apple has enjoyed a huge head-start with the iPhone and a smaller one with the iPad, developers are increasingly going to ask themselves whether developing for essentially one company (and to its particular, exacting demands) is better than returning their roots and comfort zone of developing for the open Internet and GTV. As I mentioned last week, Apple vs. Android is looking increasingly like Apple vs. Wintel, and we know how that story ended. While Apple is busy ranting against Flash, Google has been presented with a monster-sized PR opportunity for Android to be positioned as the open, neutral alternative.
5. It's Evolutionary, Not Revolutionary
Possibly the most remarkable thing about GTV is that rather than trying to disrupt the TV ecosystem, Google pragmatically incorporates it and tries to enhance its value. That Google chose to go this route rather than doing something revolutionary that would incent "cord-cutting" is almost miraculous given the company's nearly dogmatic approach to re-inventing everything it touches. While the cable/satellite/telco set-top box sitting alongside GTV may seem like a ridiculous hack to many, serving little purpose but to preserve the entrenched cable business model, for Google, this "friend, not foe" approach means genuine partnership discussions can ensue for Google with Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs). That's key to GTV not relying on a risky, retail-only distribution model.
In my initial post on Google TV 2 months ago, I highlighted the fascinating negotiating dynamic about to unfold between Google and the MVPDs. Some will be frightened of Google and its potential Trojan horse incursion into the living room, while others will be compelled by the upside. One thing is for sure: yesterday's news that DISH's set-top box will be optimized for GTV means that GTV's new features are poised to become key messages in DISH's advertising. If you're an MVPD and you don't have an "Internet-on-TV" story you're going to be at a disadvantage. GTV adds value to MVPDs by enhancing both the TV experience and also driving more need for bandwidth on the ISP side. For all of these reasons, I think it's going to be very tempting for many MVPDs to engage with Google.
Wrap-up
OK, so those are my arguments why GTV looks like a winner. The main caveats to my enthusiasm are GTV's pricing and seeing GTV actually work (initially with the Logitech box and Sony products). These aren't trivial. If Logitech prices its companion box at $499, then despite the above arguments, GTV will be too expensive and not take off. But say it comes in at $249? Imagine a consumer contemplating buying it (with no monthly fee!) or an iPad, which is $500-800 (plus a $30 monthly fee!). GTV is a hand-down winner in that scenario.
There's a lot to be excited about with GTV, as a whole new chapter in online video's rise is set to begin.
What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).Categories: Devices
Topics: Apple, DISH, Google, Google TV, Logitech
-
iPhones vs. Android Phones - The Competitive Battle is Underway
A report from market research firm NPD earlier this week, showing that in Q1 '10, sales of smartphones running the Android operating system outpaced the iPhone by 28% to 21% (though both were behind RIM at 36%), highlighted something that I've been thinking about a lot lately: could it be that Apple is about to replay in smartphones its losing fight from the past against Microsoft-Intel in desktop computers?
While plenty is different about today's Apple, the basic contours are similar. Apple, the vertically integrated and control-oriented hardware/software/service company has a well-loved, but extremely narrow smartphone product line. Meanwhile, smartphones based on the Android OS are sprouting like wildflowers, riding a wave of broad OEM adoption, wider customer choices, heavy purchase incentives by multiple carriers and diffused innovation (note Google is saying its partners are shipping 65K Android smartphones each day). Aren't these some of the main reasons why Microsoft and PC OEMs swamped Apple in desktop computers?
I'm not suggesting Apple is headed for a fall any time soon, but one thing's for sure, Apple's early ownership of the smartphone category is over; the market has caught up. One area where we can expect the iPhone vs. Android competition to be particularly intense is in video. As the Evo's launch (see above) shows - better screens, network capacity and yes format support (i.e. Flash) are going to be pushed as proof points for sexy video apps. Meanwhile Apple has ensnared itself in the ever-escalating battle with Adobe over Flash, which is a huge distraction. It will be interesting to see how these iPhone vs. Android sales numbers unfold in 2010.
What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).Categories: Mobile Video
Topics: Android, Apple, iPhone
-
Comcast's New iPad App is Full of Surprises
Here's something to get your head around: yesterday at the Cable Show, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts did a short demo of a Comcast Xfinity "remote control" prototype app for the iPad, video of which is available on YouTube. I'll get to the app in a minute, but first, if you're a long-time cable industry watcher like me, you'll immediately be struck by several surprising things:
First - when (if ever?!) did you see a cable CEO do a hands-on product demo? Sure, they'll periodically narrate a demo of something, but actually navigating through the experience themselves, a la Steve Jobs? Not in my memory. While Roberts doesn't exude the gusto that Jobs does for his products, the CEO touch is still very meaningful (Jobs's personal touch is arguably what makes Apple so special, turning its product introductions into genuine events). And credit to Roberts - he executes the demo admirably, with no errant moves.
Second - speaking of Apple, a cable CEO demo'ing an unaffiliated third-party's device? And that third party happens to be Apple, which is tacitly sworn to disrupting the cable industry's hegemony over the video ecosystem? Going a step further, Roberts highlights the iPad's virtual keyboard, which allows title-by-tile searching, as addressing "the missing link" with existing set-top boxes (later Roberts says "this liberates us from the cable box"). The iPad's pixie dust knows no bounds!
And third - the irony that the video of the demo is available on YouTube (see below). YouTube! Not Comcast's Fancast portal nor in its VOD menu. Think about it - not long ago YouTube was derided as a copyright infringing haven and collection of user-generated schlock. Now, when the CEO of America's largest cable operator wants to get the word out beyond the audience at the Cable Show about its sexy new iPad app, the vehicle is YouTube. My how the world changes.
Meanwhile, the app itself, which "pairs the iPad to Comcast's set-top box" using EBIF (Enhanced TV Binary Exchange Format, the cable industry's spec for delivery interactive app to set-top boxes), allows the user to navigate through the full channel lineup and zero in on categories like sports and movies, and also drill down on specific shows and VOD selections. When a show is chosen to watch, voila, the app changes the set-top's channel, just like an over-sized remote control. You can also choose to record if you prefer. Lastly, in a nod to social viewing, Roberts shows how he can invite a friend to view the same program. The friend receives a notice on his iPad and with one touch, can tune in as well. Comcast sees lots of upside in the iPad app, with users eventually able to view the programs themselves right on the iPad. The app is both surprising and neat.
The logical question to ask is why is Comcast relying on Apple's latest innovation in order to deliver some of its own innovation? I mean, Apple had nothing to do with video until a few years ago, and arguably is still a nascent player in the space, while Comcast is the largest cable operator in the land. If it wanted to deliver a tricked-out remote control years ago, why didn't it?
There are many different ways to answer the question, but I think it boils down to 2 things: first, while most cable companies have invested heavily in behind-the-scenes infrastructure to deliver broadband and other advanced TV services, relatively few new on-screen services have been created because cable is largely a closed environment for application developers. Cable has been closed because cable operators have it in their DNA to be focused on control of what goes into their subscribers' homes. Letting "a thousand flowers bloom" is not in the average cable executive's mindset.
Second, and as a byproduct of this, most developers have ignored the cable environment. While Apple's App Store boasts of hundreds of thousands of innovative apps, the cable world has lumbered to deliver a tiny fraction of this amount, and at a glacial pace. It's not for lack of interest by developers; going back to the mid-90s there has been interest in interactive apps. But between the technology impediments and the cart-before-the horse negotiations over revenue splitting that cable operators inevitably get into, most developers have simply moved on to the open, flexible Internet. That's been a huge missed opportunity for cable, which could have been an intensely appealing platform for interactivity. Instead the door has been opened wide for others like Apple and Google to rush in.
All of this makes the iPad app from Comcast look like an important, yet admittedly small step forward. It's just one prototype, from just one operator, but it should be a strong signal to the cable community to embrace the technology advances happening all around them, to deliver innovation to their customers. That's what winners like Apple and Facebook are doing, and that's what cable must do as well.
What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).
Categories: Cable TV Operators, Devices
-
Apple Slaps Ellen DeGeneres for Fake iPhone Ad
On a lighter note to end the week, did you catch comedian Ellen DeGeneres's fake iPhone ad, and then her subsequent apology for it - apparently prompted by an Apple rebuke? The fake ad itself is hilarious; that Apple didn't think so is further evidence of how tightly Apple tries to control its brand and image. See what you think.
Categories: Devices
Topics: Apple, Ellen DeGeneres, iPhone
-
Jobs on Flash - There's No Turning Back Now
Definitely make time to read Steve Jobs's blog post from yesterday, "Thoughts on Flash" - no doubt you'll conclude as I did that there's no turning back in this battle. Over the past few weeks the war of words between Adobe and Apple over the latter's lack of Flash support in iPhones, iPods and iPads has flared to new levels. Now Jobs's new post kicks things up another notch. Jobs's argument is mostly a technical/product one - "open" vs. "closed" systems, reliability, performance, security, battery life, touch attributes, etc. (Adobe posted a short response here)
But Jobs's last point is clearly the most important, as he acknowledges. Apple wants to control its own destiny to provide the best products possible and doing so requires eliminating any dependency on 3rd party tools. Lack of dependency on others is a hallmark of Apple's model more generally, but when it comes to the Flash war, the number of penalties Apple is imposing due to its uncompromising position is pretty remarkable: users' inability to view video at some of the web's most popular sites like Hulu, forcing these sites to offer their video in HTML5, marginalizing smaller content providers that don't have the resources to make the change, etc.
However, Apple's products are loved and only Jobs would have the single-mindedness and guts to force a pretty wrenching change in the video ecosystem. Until we see Android or other smartphones emerge as a counter-weight to the iPhone's hegemony, Adobe's role in video is bound to wane.
What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).Categories: Devices, Technology
-
Revisiting the iPad's Impact on Video
With the iPad available tomorrow, it's worth revisiting the prospects for the device, with respect to video specifically. Two months ago, based on
information provided during the iPad's unveiling, I wrote that while the iPad is ultra-cool, it was unlikely to have a very big impact on the online and mobile video worlds, due to 3 key limitations - high price/narrow gadget appeal, no new video applications and certain key product limitations. In the past 2 months a number of things have happened, so while I'm still doubtful of big iPad success, at least in the short-term, I am somewhat more sanguine about its prospects longer-term.
High price/narrow gadget appeal - Since the unveiling, nothing has changed on the price front, which I continue to believe is the number one factor that will suppress sales. If you want the 3G capable model, you'll be paying approximately $700 including tax, plus $30/month for the AT&T 3G service. Sure, there have been many encouraging reports in the last 2 months that America is emerging from the recession, but the reality is that many people are still watching their expenditures closely. Until Apple cuts the price (and btw, I'm betting on a $150-200 reduction by Christmas), the iPad's high price alone will limit its sales.
Of course price doesn't stand alone; consumers evaluate price in the context of utility and other factors. However, on the utility scale, the iPad's constraint is that it still feels a lot like a gadget. The closest it comes to must-have utility is as an e-book reader, but if that's your main motivation there are many great e-book reader options already available for half or less the iPad's price.
The conversations I've had with those who submitted iPad pre-orders, or intend to buy one in the coming weeks leads me to believe that most early buyers are more eager just to get their hands on one (a gadget motivation if ever there was one) than because they already envision it somehow playing a central role in their lives. While I love gadgets as much as anyone, I just don't think that type of positioning will drive sales in the millions as Apple hopes.
Video availability - In Steve Jobs' demo two months ago he showed video from the NY Times and YouTube, but didn't highlight any new partners or even any new applications. Since then magazines and newspapers have been most enthusiastic in unveiling iPad apps. And in the last 24 hours new apps from Disney/ABC, Discovery, Paramount, Time, NBA, Yahoo and many others have surfaced. One new app of particular note is from Netflix, which hasn't offered an iPhone app to date (I've confirmed that Netflix will issue a press release tomorrow morning at 8am, no doubt officially announcing it). For sure others will be announced tomorrow as well.
It's encouraging to see a content ecosystem around the iPad and the touch screen interaction will create new excitement for these brands. Still, as I asked 2 months ago, will the iPad bring some new type of video, that is more engaging in some way? I think it is possible longer-term (3D on the iPad?), but is unlikely for tomorrow's launch. Jobs is right that iPad viewing will be more intimate. The problem is, try using the iPad on AT&T's overloaded 3G network and excitement will quickly turn to frustration. AT&T is trying hard to keep up, but given iPad users' expectations, disappointment is all but guaranteed when longer-form content from Netflix, ABC or others is accessed.
Product limitations - Cool as the iPad is, when it comes to video, it is missing the most fundamental building block - support for Flash, which is by far the most widely adopted video player. Steve Jobs's disdain for Flash is widely known, and it is forcing partners to reformat their video to work with the iPad. For the deep-pocketed like Disney/ABC and Netflix this isn't so big an issue, but for many others it is. The rise of HTML5, which Apple does support is surely in the iPad's favor, yet its widespread adoption is still a way's off. In the meantime, users who surf to Hulu and other Flash sites on their iPads will be let down. Another issue is battery life. It will be interesting to hear reports from users about how close to spec the iPad's battery performs when watching video continuously.
Despite these concerns, tomorrow will bring a frenzy of activity at Apple stores nationwide which will last for weeks as the first reviews emerge. In addition to the iPad a bevy of additional tablet devices will roll-out this year as well. The whole category will be scrutinized closely to see if consumers have decided there is indeed room in their lives for this new type of device. My sense is that at the right price, people can be convinced. The iPad's price is not there yet, but by fueling early adopter interest, Apple is setting itself up for deeper mass appeal as it brings the price down. If nothing else, with the hysteria we're witnessing around the iPad, Apple has once again proven itself as the world's unparalleled marketer.
What do you think? Post a comment now (no sign-in required).Categories: Mobile Video
-
In Unprecedented Deal, Google and Apple Team Up to Privatize the FCC
VideoNuze has learned that Google and Apple have teamed up to privatize the FCC in a transaction preliminarily valued at $42.5 billion. Though the U.S. government is already widely believed to be controlled by corporate interests, this is the first time that a formal deal to transfer ownership of a government agency has been contemplated. The deal has far-ranging implications for the media and technology industries, not to mention for American democracy. VideoNuze has gained exclusive access to the details.
In an interview last night, Google's CEO Eric Schmidt provided background: "Larry, Sergey and I were recently working on this new algorithm to fix the pickle we've gotten ourselves into in China. The boys are still just so incredulous that this is happening; they keep on saying 'We're Google for chrissakes, we can't let mere countries boss us around!' But then we got to thinking, yikes, what if the U.S. government started treating us this way? That would really suck."
He continued, "And then it just hit us all at the exact same nanosecond (we're so wondrously simpatico that way) - what if, instead of being subject to the regulatory powers-that-be, we owned the regulatory powers-that-be?" But then, Larry's like 'Hmm, I'm not so sure about this guys - even though it would be wicked cool, would the public really let us pull it off?' Now, Larry can be a little bit of a Nervous Nellie, but in this case he had a good point. And then, boom, yet another brilliant idea hit us at the same nanosecond (I know it sounds freakish, but this really does happen with the three of us). We thought, 'What company can we partner with whose brand is walk-on-water loved and can do absolutely no wrong? And we all agreed - it's Apple of course!"
In a follow-up interview, Apple's CEO Steve Jobs added further detail, "I was sitting in my office micro-managing the legal weenies on this HTC lawsuit aimed at gumming up the Nexus One's rollout when my iPhone rings with Eric's caller ID. Ordinarily I wouldn't even answer that back-stabbing, lying sack of you-know-what's call but I wanted to rub his nose in our big legal plans. So I nonchalantly answer the phone, 'What's up dirtbag, looking for some more of Apple's product ideas to steal?' And he's like, 'yeah, whatever, look, here's why I'm calling.' And then he proceeds to tell me about this cockamamie scheme that he and those two Doogie Howser co-founder dorks of his have come up with, to privatize the FCC." Jobs went on:
Categories: Miscellaneous
Posts for 'Apple'
Connect with VideoNuze
Exclusive News Roundup
- Disney’s Hulu, Fox Entertainment Ink Four-Year Streaming Deal Renewal Variety
- DirecTV officially calls off merger with Dish Network The Desk
- Mediaocean Buying Adtech Company Innovid for $500 Million WSJ
- The Trade Desk is building a CTV operating system called Ventura Axios
- Why Everyone Is Now Watching Podcasts on YouTube WSJ
- Netflix’s Tyson-Paul Boxing Show Spikes Views, Crashes Service Bloomberg
