The time has come, again to rant about the past year. However,
there are a variety of subjects to choose from. One could go on about
the current state of the telecommunications industry, and the future on
online viewing habits and venues, to the recent advances in
television technology.
However, there are bigger issues that need addressing. Such as Gun
Control, Mental Health, and fiscal responsibility of our government, and
the like. Its all fine and dandy to sit here in our techie towers and
ponder the future of telecommunications, which is important, but in the
final analysis, if the country has lost its moral compass and its roots
all the technology in the world won’t get it back on the right track.
It will just go down the wrong way in a technological blaze of glory,
which will keep people from seeing what the real problems are.
The shooting last year , prompted me to write about my views on gun
control, particularly concealed carry. I don’t belive new rules
governing guns are going to solve the problem. The majority of shooting
are done by people who have mental issues who were not treated properly
or at all. In many cases they were dumped from one organization back and
forth to another and no one took responsibility for making sure they
got what they needed, either treatment that worked or locked up for both
their and societal safety. The point is everyone who has any
responsibility in any level of government is too busy playing the blame
game, pointing their fingers at everyone elses when the Sh**t hit the
Fan, No one has gumption enough to stand up and say, he was my patient,
or our department was handling him, and frankly, we screwed up, and
we’re looking to see where we screwed up. No one has said anything
remotely like that, nor will they, because, the would be taking
responsibility for ones own actions, or in some cases inaction.
This country was founded on a principle that all men are created
equal, and should be given the benefit of the doubt, and along with
certain other rights, such as to vote, and pursue that which give us
pleasure, so long as it do no harm, to society . When the government
has become so big and complicated that many times one department doesn't
know what the others are doing, there is a fundamental issue with the
power structure, and delegation of authority, and who answers to who.
While it is clearly laid out in the constitution, and on the state
levels, Sometimes many things are lost in translation, and the people
who are responsible, tend to forget to whom they’re ultimately
responsible to, to the people who elected them to their offices. They
were elected and they can be unelected just as easy. President Obama
made history when was the first black president to be elected., again he
made history by being reelected, what his final role in history will be
remains to be seen, and will not be fully understood for decades. Just
as all of our past presidents have been judged through the eyes of time
and history to be kinder than they were at the time. One can hope
history and time will be as kind to President Obama.
Looking
forward to the new year, which has already started. Once again find
many things to talk about. The advances in media in the last ten years
or so have far outstripped sixty plus years of media that came before
it. From the time in the 1950’s when color TV came on the scene and the
movie industry felt threatened, to the next generation of TV, being
cable and satellite, there really hasn’t been a fundamental change in
the content itself, it was essentially still the same as it was in the
1950’s plus or minus a few little tweaks, depending on your point of
view. Then the VCR came along, and that was the beginning of the changes
which are still happening. The movie industry soon embraced TV, as a
way to reuse a huge backlog of movie content that had stored and
monetize it and get it to still make them money, which they’re still
doing, only today on a grander scale. The VCR became the DVR, Digital
Video Recorder,, in which we still say we’re “taping” a show or a
movie, and there is no actual tape involved, it all ones and bytes. Of
course with the surge of good relatively cheap fast broadband internet
across the nation, sites, like Hulu came along, which allowed us to
stream content directly to our computers. while it wasn’t a perfect
world, the content still had ads, but it was a small price to pay to be
able to see free content, we wouldn’t be able to see in places we
wouldn't normally see it.
After
that, came Netflix, one price a month, and all the streaming you could
watch. Best part no commercials. It was the right product at the right
time. They were aggressive with the marketing, and making content deals
to get more content as they went along, as they were doing that, they
also perused the hardware side, making deals to get their software in as
many types of consumer products as possible, making it easier for the
consumer to watch the content they paid for and as many platforms as
possible. Since then many other players have jumped into the video
streaming pool. It has become somewhat crowded. Amazon has their own
streaming service, Amazon Prime, for a flat rate you get to stream a
large catalog of material, however, having used it, I have to give it
mixed reviews.
To aid in the distribution of all of this video content online a
number of set top boxes have come out. The best of theses is the Roku,
its cheap their cheapest box is about 50. dollars, and their most
expensive is 100.00. Theres no fee for using it. Only if you are using
Netflix or other pay service, which you're paying for anyways. The best
part is all of the free channels they have available .
At present they have several hundred channels which you can add, 99% of
them are free, The ones that require a fee are relatively cheap. As
for subject manor, that ranges from many niche subjects such as
specialized cooking to various forms of tech , to a wide range of music
channels to stream almost any taste in music to you tv, and sound
system, If one is is looking for a good way to supplant their cable or
in a few cases eliminate it completely the Roku Box is a good candidate.
The discussions in Washington, about both technology, and gun
control, and health care, are important and far reaching. The right of a
citizen to defend themselves is paramount in the minds of many people.
While I am deeply saddened by the shooting that happened last year,
particularly the school shooting. I refuse to give up my right to defend
myself and my family and anyone else who is in danger at a given time.
As for limiting rounds in magazines that is just a first step to
working to take our guns away completely, If we give in to that, we’re
saying ok, fine you have my constitutional right, even if it only a
round in my magazine at a time, I’ll remind you of it when I need it
and I’m a round short to stop the situation and people get dead because
I couldn’t have the capacity magazine I needed to stop the bad guy and
he killed more people.
Showing posts with label Netflix. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Netflix. Show all posts
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Monday, September 17, 2012
The Long Rough Road to "TV Everywhere"
The idea of “TV Everywhere” has been taking hold over the last year or so. While more and more providers are beginning to embrace the idea of making their content available on a number of platforms. There are still a few problems to be solved.
One major stumbling block is the national broadband rollout. As with all government projects things take longer than planned;
http://www.multichannel.com/article/488723-FCC_Broadband_Deployment_Still_Not_Timely_Reasonable.php
In order to bring the concept of “TV Everywhere” into a reality as it has been hyped, much needs to be done on the back end with infrastructure both for wired networking, ie; DSL, Cable, and Google’s Fiber to the home, and other land lines, along with wireless networking, both in 3g, and 4g also known as LTE. On that front much needs to be done. Consumers need simple to understand and use data plans, and devices that can handle whatever network they happen to be on. Right now the wireless market is fragmented , each provider has their own ideas for data plans. As with text messaging, a few years ago they charged per text, both incoming and outgoing, now they have evolved to a” all you can eat “ bundled with your regular plan. I suspect that they’re still making money on the texting plans, although they’ll never say it.
Now data is a whole another matter. The wireless companies, ie; Verizon, AT&T and other have been trying to move consumers up from either a feature or basic phone to a “Smart Phone” now for about a year. Anyone who has a smartphone, either Apples, or a Android, loves it. What they generally don’t love is the extra data package that have to pay for every month to make the thing work the way its supposed to.Which is tolerable if you only have one phone. What if you and your wife/husband both want a Smartphone? Then want to charge you a separate data plan for each phone. At a minimum of 30.00 each thats 60.00 on top of the rest to the bill. Verizon has announced their “Share Everything” Plan which sounds good, and for some folks it might fit, although the concept is good, they need to refine it some more.
http://solutions.vzwshop.com/shareeverything/?cmp=KNC-58100000004897908
The charges per month to add a device varies, however, I did find a page which list the charges for the different devices, the smartphone being the most expensive.
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/plan-information/?page=share-everything
You can read the pricing structure at the link above. To my way of looking at it its backwards. Devices like a tablet are far more likely to use more data out the the data pool then the phones, even smartphones. The ability to use a device as a mobile hotspot will also increase data usage.
In short the confusion in the wireless sector is helping to keep “TV Everywhere” from getting the traction it needs in the wireless sector.
Other aspects that are slowing “TV Everywhere” is the way content owners and providers are handling the media they own or control. Simply put ; greed and control. While Netflix is famous for their breakthrough in bringing streaming content to the masses. Which they’re doing a good job at minus a couple of setbacks last summer, when they tried separating the streaming side from the DVD rental side,they created a huge backlash which they’re just getting over.
Now they’re looking to expand into other markets; ie other countries. All of which cost money. They have to pay license fees for all of the content they stream. The content owners have been requiring ridiculous amounts of money from streaming services like Netflix, and Amazon to allow them to stream their content. Often these deal have very tight limitations which can limit availability for other markets, or time frames.
Content owners need to balance the need for money with the idea of making their content available to a number of vendors.
Venders such as Netflix and Amazon are caught between trying to make their prices affordable for consumers, and making enough to cover the cost, most of which are licensing fees.
On the consumer side, it can be confusing. There are so many different places to get content. Some have the same material as the others.
There are at least 6 streaming services out there. Which one is right for you depends on what platforms you want to use, and what type of content you are looking for.
Here is a article that compare 6 streaming services;
6 Streaming Services Compared
This will give you a general idea of what's out there.
As to adding a set top box to use to stream your content to your tv, There are several; Appletv, Roku, are the top two, along with Boxee , and several lesser known streaming Set top boxes. Which one you choose depends on what you want to stream. Roku offers the best value for the money to me. The XS model will stream 1080 and has a usb plug on it allowing you to plug in a usb drive and play content directly off your usb drive to the tv. The selection of channels in increasing at a steady rate. You can find a wide variety of niche content channels that specialize in content that traditional media wouldn’t touch either because its too narrow of audience, or they won’t make enough money from it to justify a investment.
The adaptation of mobile devices by consumers to consume their media has driven content owners to rethink how they distribute and monetize their media. This is one area that is still fragmented and likely will remain so for some time as content owners figure out how to track viewership and make deals that are fair to everyone.
The road to “TV Everywhere” is still young. While great strides have been made, particularly on the OTT side, much needs to be done on the mobile side. Along with more equitable content licensing deals for venders.
The consumer is demanding more ease of use and the ability to take their content from one device to another without missing a frame. While in place and in some cases work very well, there is little cross-platform compatibility , which needs to happen to make “TV Everywhere” work.
In the end, there is still a long rough road to truly make the idealized concept of “TV Everywhere” work.
One major stumbling block is the national broadband rollout. As with all government projects things take longer than planned;
http://www.multichannel.com/article/488723-FCC_Broadband_Deployment_Still_Not_Timely_Reasonable.php
In order to bring the concept of “TV Everywhere” into a reality as it has been hyped, much needs to be done on the back end with infrastructure both for wired networking, ie; DSL, Cable, and Google’s Fiber to the home, and other land lines, along with wireless networking, both in 3g, and 4g also known as LTE. On that front much needs to be done. Consumers need simple to understand and use data plans, and devices that can handle whatever network they happen to be on. Right now the wireless market is fragmented , each provider has their own ideas for data plans. As with text messaging, a few years ago they charged per text, both incoming and outgoing, now they have evolved to a” all you can eat “ bundled with your regular plan. I suspect that they’re still making money on the texting plans, although they’ll never say it.
Now data is a whole another matter. The wireless companies, ie; Verizon, AT&T and other have been trying to move consumers up from either a feature or basic phone to a “Smart Phone” now for about a year. Anyone who has a smartphone, either Apples, or a Android, loves it. What they generally don’t love is the extra data package that have to pay for every month to make the thing work the way its supposed to.Which is tolerable if you only have one phone. What if you and your wife/husband both want a Smartphone? Then want to charge you a separate data plan for each phone. At a minimum of 30.00 each thats 60.00 on top of the rest to the bill. Verizon has announced their “Share Everything” Plan which sounds good, and for some folks it might fit, although the concept is good, they need to refine it some more.
http://solutions.vzwshop.com/shareeverything/?cmp=KNC-58100000004897908
The charges per month to add a device varies, however, I did find a page which list the charges for the different devices, the smartphone being the most expensive.
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/plan-information/?page=share-everything
You can read the pricing structure at the link above. To my way of looking at it its backwards. Devices like a tablet are far more likely to use more data out the the data pool then the phones, even smartphones. The ability to use a device as a mobile hotspot will also increase data usage.
In short the confusion in the wireless sector is helping to keep “TV Everywhere” from getting the traction it needs in the wireless sector.
Other aspects that are slowing “TV Everywhere” is the way content owners and providers are handling the media they own or control. Simply put ; greed and control. While Netflix is famous for their breakthrough in bringing streaming content to the masses. Which they’re doing a good job at minus a couple of setbacks last summer, when they tried separating the streaming side from the DVD rental side,they created a huge backlash which they’re just getting over.
Now they’re looking to expand into other markets; ie other countries. All of which cost money. They have to pay license fees for all of the content they stream. The content owners have been requiring ridiculous amounts of money from streaming services like Netflix, and Amazon to allow them to stream their content. Often these deal have very tight limitations which can limit availability for other markets, or time frames.
Content owners need to balance the need for money with the idea of making their content available to a number of vendors.
Venders such as Netflix and Amazon are caught between trying to make their prices affordable for consumers, and making enough to cover the cost, most of which are licensing fees.
On the consumer side, it can be confusing. There are so many different places to get content. Some have the same material as the others.
There are at least 6 streaming services out there. Which one is right for you depends on what platforms you want to use, and what type of content you are looking for.
Here is a article that compare 6 streaming services;
6 Streaming Services Compared
This will give you a general idea of what's out there.
As to adding a set top box to use to stream your content to your tv, There are several; Appletv, Roku, are the top two, along with Boxee , and several lesser known streaming Set top boxes. Which one you choose depends on what you want to stream. Roku offers the best value for the money to me. The XS model will stream 1080 and has a usb plug on it allowing you to plug in a usb drive and play content directly off your usb drive to the tv. The selection of channels in increasing at a steady rate. You can find a wide variety of niche content channels that specialize in content that traditional media wouldn’t touch either because its too narrow of audience, or they won’t make enough money from it to justify a investment.
The adaptation of mobile devices by consumers to consume their media has driven content owners to rethink how they distribute and monetize their media. This is one area that is still fragmented and likely will remain so for some time as content owners figure out how to track viewership and make deals that are fair to everyone.
The road to “TV Everywhere” is still young. While great strides have been made, particularly on the OTT side, much needs to be done on the mobile side. Along with more equitable content licensing deals for venders.
The consumer is demanding more ease of use and the ability to take their content from one device to another without missing a frame. While in place and in some cases work very well, there is little cross-platform compatibility , which needs to happen to make “TV Everywhere” work.
In the end, there is still a long rough road to truly make the idealized concept of “TV Everywhere” work.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Consumers Embrace Media Choice, Industry Fears It
The tale of woe continues for the broadcast industry . This last week’s light reading included articles about cable rating drop offs. 11 of the 15 top cable networks have lost audience this year. The article could give no clear reasons why the sudden loss of audience. There are a number of factors at work here. The first in my opinion being price. The price has continued to go up for all involved with the industry. from content producers, to distributors and finally vendors, such as Netflix and Amazon who are constantly being asked for more money every year. In the broadcast world retransmission rights are the big deal breakers, along with sports franchise, brokering deals worth billions of dollars that will eventually have to be paid for by both the sports fans, and the non sports fan alike. in the final analysis the one paying for all of the “deals” and retransmission fees that are being charged back and forth between the local and national broadcaster such as Dish Network, and other cable companies will be passed to the consumer either directly in the form of higher bills, or add-on charges for services.
On the other side is the changing habits of viewers. No longer are they tied to the couch for 3-4 hours every evening guided by a set schedule. With the advent of the VCR and now the DVR consumers can now timeshift whatever they want and watch it whenever they want. and skip cominicals. Networks and content produces have just begun to learn how to embrace timeshifting, and figured out metrics to count what watched on the DVR in the total rating game. Now they have to contend with many new forms of competition for viewers eyes. With the advent of game systems that get online and allow consumers to stream content, granted a very limited amount of content, and just plain hooking a computer to the tv, which is ridiculously easy theses days. the whole world of internet content is suddenly available to the big screen in the living room. Now there is a wide range of ways to bring content into the tv, though various set-top boxes ranging from Blue-ray players, to the PS3, Xbox360, and the Roku, and Boxee, and, and other lesser know OTT boxes the open up a limited amount of content from the web to be streamed directly to the tv at the consumer’s convenience. Now there is no more “must See” tv. Its now I’ll see it when I get around to it” On whatever platform is handy. It's also possible to switch platforms mid viewing, going from one platform say the big tv, in the living room, and finishing watching the content on the Ipad, or other mobile device, thus freeing up the consumer to take their content as they like it.
A very recent article was just released with some very interesting statistic about the change in the numbers of households with connected tv, and the devices that connected to the tvs and what makes a tv a connected tv.
It can be read here;
http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/040912release.html
On the broad stroke, 38% of all households have at least one tv hooked to the internet via a video game system, Roku, or other OTT device, up from 30% last Year and 24% 2 years ago. The are a host of other very interesting statics in the article. The bottom line, to me, consumer are embracing OTT platforms and the offering they have. I don’t think traditional tv is anywhere near dead, and has many more years to go., If it is to continue to evolve and be open-minded about that way it handles its content deals. Retransmission deals and sports deals need to regulated preferably by the industry itself If they can’t keep the numbers down to reasonable rates, then the FCC and possibly the FTC needs to step in and set up new guidelines if not rules about the amounts that can be charges in theses deals.
One of many questions is what are media distributors, and content producers going to do about the changes in the ways that consumers are using their media.
Some are already embracing the shifts in available venues. Such as HBO, they are continuing to open up their “HBO to Go” Concept to work with more devices.
Comcast has been slowly opening it walled garden to allow more networks to be viewed on more devices. All of theses players need to compete with Netflix, amazon, and other OTT players who have been reaching to other means to get content in the face of rising bill for traditional cable/sat venues. Particularly if one does not need sports, or 10 channels of news and shopping . If one is not paying for the extra movie packages, ala, HBO, Showtime, etc, then the OTT venues start looking better and better.
Last Week, Netflix posted Q1 numbers. They showed that they are back to growth, although much slower. You can read the whole article herehttp://www.videonuze.com/article/netflix-q1-results-back-to-growth-albeit-much-slower
The main point which I commented on is that they did make some mistakes last summer which they’re paying for. The Achilles heel of all of this, is the content owners who have routinely demanded more and more in licence fees, Thus leaving Netflix and its fellow players between a rock and a hard place in keeping prices down for consumers and still paying licenses and operation expenses.
The consumer is demanding more choices about what content is available, and on what platforms. One may wonder if content producers and distributors actually watch the content they produce or distribute. If they used the many options available today they would be embracing ways to make deals work for all parties. Instead of making its almost impossible for for places like Netflix and Amazon to do a decent deal that's fair to both. In the end it's the consumer that pays the price in one way or another.
On the other side is the changing habits of viewers. No longer are they tied to the couch for 3-4 hours every evening guided by a set schedule. With the advent of the VCR and now the DVR consumers can now timeshift whatever they want and watch it whenever they want. and skip cominicals. Networks and content produces have just begun to learn how to embrace timeshifting, and figured out metrics to count what watched on the DVR in the total rating game. Now they have to contend with many new forms of competition for viewers eyes. With the advent of game systems that get online and allow consumers to stream content, granted a very limited amount of content, and just plain hooking a computer to the tv, which is ridiculously easy theses days. the whole world of internet content is suddenly available to the big screen in the living room. Now there is a wide range of ways to bring content into the tv, though various set-top boxes ranging from Blue-ray players, to the PS3, Xbox360, and the Roku, and Boxee, and, and other lesser know OTT boxes the open up a limited amount of content from the web to be streamed directly to the tv at the consumer’s convenience. Now there is no more “must See” tv. Its now I’ll see it when I get around to it” On whatever platform is handy. It's also possible to switch platforms mid viewing, going from one platform say the big tv, in the living room, and finishing watching the content on the Ipad, or other mobile device, thus freeing up the consumer to take their content as they like it.
A very recent article was just released with some very interesting statistic about the change in the numbers of households with connected tv, and the devices that connected to the tvs and what makes a tv a connected tv.
It can be read here;
http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/040912release.html
On the broad stroke, 38% of all households have at least one tv hooked to the internet via a video game system, Roku, or other OTT device, up from 30% last Year and 24% 2 years ago. The are a host of other very interesting statics in the article. The bottom line, to me, consumer are embracing OTT platforms and the offering they have. I don’t think traditional tv is anywhere near dead, and has many more years to go., If it is to continue to evolve and be open-minded about that way it handles its content deals. Retransmission deals and sports deals need to regulated preferably by the industry itself If they can’t keep the numbers down to reasonable rates, then the FCC and possibly the FTC needs to step in and set up new guidelines if not rules about the amounts that can be charges in theses deals.
One of many questions is what are media distributors, and content producers going to do about the changes in the ways that consumers are using their media.
Some are already embracing the shifts in available venues. Such as HBO, they are continuing to open up their “HBO to Go” Concept to work with more devices.
Comcast has been slowly opening it walled garden to allow more networks to be viewed on more devices. All of theses players need to compete with Netflix, amazon, and other OTT players who have been reaching to other means to get content in the face of rising bill for traditional cable/sat venues. Particularly if one does not need sports, or 10 channels of news and shopping . If one is not paying for the extra movie packages, ala, HBO, Showtime, etc, then the OTT venues start looking better and better.
Last Week, Netflix posted Q1 numbers. They showed that they are back to growth, although much slower. You can read the whole article herehttp://www.videonuze.com/article/netflix-q1-results-back-to-growth-albeit-much-slower
The main point which I commented on is that they did make some mistakes last summer which they’re paying for. The Achilles heel of all of this, is the content owners who have routinely demanded more and more in licence fees, Thus leaving Netflix and its fellow players between a rock and a hard place in keeping prices down for consumers and still paying licenses and operation expenses.
The consumer is demanding more choices about what content is available, and on what platforms. One may wonder if content producers and distributors actually watch the content they produce or distribute. If they used the many options available today they would be embracing ways to make deals work for all parties. Instead of making its almost impossible for for places like Netflix and Amazon to do a decent deal that's fair to both. In the end it's the consumer that pays the price in one way or another.
Monday, March 26, 2012
On Casablanca, Netflix, and Apple, Three Sides of the Same Coin
On March 21,2012 My wife and I took my youngest one to see the TCM 70th Anniversary showing of Casablanca . Casablanca, a long time favorite film of mine, starring Humphrey Bogart Ingrid Bergman, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet.
The film was one of many made in the time before tv, when they were all done in a almost factory like production, and churned out and released one after another. No one thought much of it at the time, other the myriad of problems they had making it mainly being the lack of script and daily rewrites, and no real ending. Somehow it got made. While it did get generally favorable reviews and a good reception from the public . Time have proven to be its best friend. The lasting impression of this movies and a few movies like it are what every movie made strives for. 99.9% don’t even come close. Casablanca was one of those rare cases of the right script actors, and directors and the the right moment in time. When you watch Casablanca, particularly like I had the pleasure of last week, you forget where you are and for a while you believe there is a Rick’s Cafe’ Americana . Bogart become Rick, and seems to embody the character. In watching it last week I recall seeing scenes that I don’t remember seeing before, when I’ve watched the movie, and I’ve seen the movie more times than I can count. Everything seemed sharper and and more defined , I know it was on a big screen, and had been remastered to be as near perfect as they could get, It seemed almost surreal .
Of course of bigger moral questions still abound on either screen, At what point does one put aside one's feeling and do what needs to be done for the greater good of country, or in this case possibility even the world. Rick by, making it possible
for Victor Laszlo and Isa Lund, his wife to leave and continue Victors work. In spite of his feelings for Ilsa. In doing so, Rick set himself up to finely become a more than a spectator of WWII .
Every movie should be seen the it was intended on the big screen, with a audience and the whole experience. For thoses of you you are not a Casablanca fan heres a link to the wikipedia article on it;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_(film)
The last 2 months or so have been eventful. One of the more significant events was the introduction of Apple's next Generation IPad, Officially known as “The New Ipad” The rest of us call it the Ipad3. While it did seem to make several advances from the Ipad2 I got the impression from what I saw and heard that many tech reporters/ pundits etc, they were less than blown away by it other then its new screen, the retina display, which claims to pack more pixels then a HD screen into a small screen. Adding more connectivity options including models that will use the new LTE as it become available is a definite plus, However I’ve already read articles says that most of the use they get is on Wi-Fi, even that those that have 3g build into them don’t use it that much or even at all. If most the the use the 3g and potentially LTE units are getting is on Wifi, then one wonders if is it really that big of a selling point.The question then becomes to upgrade or not. If you don’t have one at all, the the new one is a no brainer. Also if you still have one the originals, it's pretty obvious that the Ipad 3 is a huge upgrade from the original. However, if you the the Ipad2, The question is more interesting. What do you do with it? How often do you use it and what apps that you use will like benefit from the new display and other advances under the hood. If you're happy with the Ipad2 and it does what you need it to do, and you feel like its working for you long term, then wait.
Other big news I’ve been reading about is the huge upswing in streaming of the last year, q11. Netflix has been reporting record numbers in over 2 million hours of content streamed, globally primary us The point of this and other streaming venues is that for the first time streaming is projected to beat out physical media .
http://www.videonuze.com/article/it-s-hard-to-see-how-streaming-movies-will-surpass-dvd-blu-ray-in-2012
The question becomes how much will the public let themselves depend on streaming media? They allready depend to a large degree on cable and satellite for their media intake, with the help of DVRS they can time-shift their content to watch when they want. It took a few years but content owners have embraced the DVR and are now including DVR viewing in the rating. And have realized that even time shifted eyes are better then no eyes seeing their content, and thus their ads.
The advent of streaming media over the last few years have forced content owners, providers to rethink their game plan, as to how they package their content and sell their content. Being able to pull netflix up on almost device from my Ipod Touch to a Ipad, or android tablet and any number of tv/internet connected devices,ie, Roku, Boxee, Xbox360, etc, open a whole new world for content owners. They now have a much wider audience to graze their offering, and putting content that was not useable on other venues suddenly give older underused content a new life.
As much as I like streaming and use my Roku box, have found content that I didn’t even know existed on the various channels of the Roku. My feeling is that there will will always be a place for physical media. There are collectors and folks who don’t believe in have media be it music or movies/tv that they bought and paid for in a cloud, be it Apples or Google’s or Amazon’s. And would rather have a copy in their own hands to use as they please. Thats not even counting have ones own copy of classic movies or tv series that they particularly love.
Yes streaming is good, in fact it can be very good, There is no substitute for owning ones own media and content. Content owners and distributors need to understand several things; They can’t put all their egg in one basket, Streaming and DVD are here to stay, however, They are still missing a huge market in not bringing older classic content to the big screen on a regular basis. There are a number of ways that that programs could be set up to draw in older moviegoers who don’t care to see the newest hit of the week, but would love to see their favorite classic movie they way they first saw it on the big screen.
To me streaming and movies are opposites sides of the same coin, and can definitely complement each other if done right.
The film was one of many made in the time before tv, when they were all done in a almost factory like production, and churned out and released one after another. No one thought much of it at the time, other the myriad of problems they had making it mainly being the lack of script and daily rewrites, and no real ending. Somehow it got made. While it did get generally favorable reviews and a good reception from the public . Time have proven to be its best friend. The lasting impression of this movies and a few movies like it are what every movie made strives for. 99.9% don’t even come close. Casablanca was one of those rare cases of the right script actors, and directors and the the right moment in time. When you watch Casablanca, particularly like I had the pleasure of last week, you forget where you are and for a while you believe there is a Rick’s Cafe’ Americana . Bogart become Rick, and seems to embody the character. In watching it last week I recall seeing scenes that I don’t remember seeing before, when I’ve watched the movie, and I’ve seen the movie more times than I can count. Everything seemed sharper and and more defined , I know it was on a big screen, and had been remastered to be as near perfect as they could get, It seemed almost surreal .
Of course of bigger moral questions still abound on either screen, At what point does one put aside one's feeling and do what needs to be done for the greater good of country, or in this case possibility even the world. Rick by, making it possible
for Victor Laszlo and Isa Lund, his wife to leave and continue Victors work. In spite of his feelings for Ilsa. In doing so, Rick set himself up to finely become a more than a spectator of WWII .
Every movie should be seen the it was intended on the big screen, with a audience and the whole experience. For thoses of you you are not a Casablanca fan heres a link to the wikipedia article on it;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_(film)
The last 2 months or so have been eventful. One of the more significant events was the introduction of Apple's next Generation IPad, Officially known as “The New Ipad” The rest of us call it the Ipad3. While it did seem to make several advances from the Ipad2 I got the impression from what I saw and heard that many tech reporters/ pundits etc, they were less than blown away by it other then its new screen, the retina display, which claims to pack more pixels then a HD screen into a small screen. Adding more connectivity options including models that will use the new LTE as it become available is a definite plus, However I’ve already read articles says that most of the use they get is on Wi-Fi, even that those that have 3g build into them don’t use it that much or even at all. If most the the use the 3g and potentially LTE units are getting is on Wifi, then one wonders if is it really that big of a selling point.The question then becomes to upgrade or not. If you don’t have one at all, the the new one is a no brainer. Also if you still have one the originals, it's pretty obvious that the Ipad 3 is a huge upgrade from the original. However, if you the the Ipad2, The question is more interesting. What do you do with it? How often do you use it and what apps that you use will like benefit from the new display and other advances under the hood. If you're happy with the Ipad2 and it does what you need it to do, and you feel like its working for you long term, then wait.
Other big news I’ve been reading about is the huge upswing in streaming of the last year, q11. Netflix has been reporting record numbers in over 2 million hours of content streamed, globally primary us The point of this and other streaming venues is that for the first time streaming is projected to beat out physical media .
http://www.videonuze.com/article/it-s-hard-to-see-how-streaming-movies-will-surpass-dvd-blu-ray-in-2012
The question becomes how much will the public let themselves depend on streaming media? They allready depend to a large degree on cable and satellite for their media intake, with the help of DVRS they can time-shift their content to watch when they want. It took a few years but content owners have embraced the DVR and are now including DVR viewing in the rating. And have realized that even time shifted eyes are better then no eyes seeing their content, and thus their ads.
The advent of streaming media over the last few years have forced content owners, providers to rethink their game plan, as to how they package their content and sell their content. Being able to pull netflix up on almost device from my Ipod Touch to a Ipad, or android tablet and any number of tv/internet connected devices,ie, Roku, Boxee, Xbox360, etc, open a whole new world for content owners. They now have a much wider audience to graze their offering, and putting content that was not useable on other venues suddenly give older underused content a new life.
As much as I like streaming and use my Roku box, have found content that I didn’t even know existed on the various channels of the Roku. My feeling is that there will will always be a place for physical media. There are collectors and folks who don’t believe in have media be it music or movies/tv that they bought and paid for in a cloud, be it Apples or Google’s or Amazon’s. And would rather have a copy in their own hands to use as they please. Thats not even counting have ones own copy of classic movies or tv series that they particularly love.
Yes streaming is good, in fact it can be very good, There is no substitute for owning ones own media and content. Content owners and distributors need to understand several things; They can’t put all their egg in one basket, Streaming and DVD are here to stay, however, They are still missing a huge market in not bringing older classic content to the big screen on a regular basis. There are a number of ways that that programs could be set up to draw in older moviegoers who don’t care to see the newest hit of the week, but would love to see their favorite classic movie they way they first saw it on the big screen.
To me streaming and movies are opposites sides of the same coin, and can definitely complement each other if done right.
Friday, September 16, 2011
On Turning 50, and Other News of Interest
August has been a month of many milestones. I turned 50 early in the month.
The technology world has been stood on its head. Steve Jobs resigns from Apple.
HP first pulled their tablet,from the market, and then announced they are getting out of the PC business altogether.
The 800 Pound Giant in the room, Netflix has stood its ground with Starz and refused to bow to their demands about tired pricing and let them take their content elsewhere. I won’t miss it.
Apple, and Steve Jobs have been called one of the greatest inventors in the 20th Century. If one dose research one will find all of the products that he made famous are products that have been made by someone else before he refined it and set a new standard. There had been portable computers before, Apple made them usable.
More important then the legacy of Steve Jobs, and it is very important, is the future of Apple and the entire tech industry as a whole. Over the last few months I’ve noticed a change in the focus of many tech company, even companies as venerable as Kodak are changing their focus looking for ways to sagging sales and poor product lines. Right now there are only a very few product lines that are interesting, the top players among them being the tablet, and the king of the hill, is Apple’s IPad. But there seems to have been a shift to a very large degree away from trying to make a better product to protecting intellectual property . ie, their patents. While some concepts and ideas are pretty cut and dried, and obvious , and the patent for that should be obvious, and the company that first filled the patent for it owns it at least to start with,. However, thee are a great many patents are are far more questionable. To the point of one questioning is there even a prototype filed at the patent office, and did anyone even read it? The patent office has said that need access to experts to help them sort through all to the tech patents the receive to help them tell which are legit, and which ones should be rejected. Because they don’t the the personal or expertise to go over all the material.
That's not even counting all of the patents the various companies have already, and are either trying to protect or sell. In many cases the intellectual property may be worth more then the products they make with the information or ideas, sometimes even the company. What kind of messages dose that send to consumers who see new reports about companies suing each other over patent infringement or other subtleties that no lay person or many lawyers can understand. Instead of putting the efforts to helping build the economy by giving consumer better products at lower prices. and creating more jobs and products we want to buy.
All their doing is making lawyers rich, and generally making a mockery of the US patent system. A complete rebuild of the US patent system is in order, along with the copyright office and reevaluating the way the publishing industry works. However, I don’t see this thing happening in the foreseeable future.
What dose it mean when Google buys a hardware company like Motorola,?
They didn’t buy a printer company, or a camera company. They bought a company that makes hardware to run their operating system. Android. At this point Android is powering roughly about 50% of all the smart phones in use depending on what report you read, and what is being covered, US or world. Point is it it fast edging Apple, and is generally killing other smart phone devices. Thus the questions becomes is there a conflict of interest in Google owning the maker of its own software distributor , the Motorola versions of the Android smart phones. Along with the the other companies who also make phones that run Android. On the flip side, Apple owns both the hardware and the software for their phones, in fact for all of their products. The difference being they don’t licence their IOS out to other hardware builders to put IOS into and sell to the public. Apple maintains a very tight control of their product cycle and loop from development, to production, distribution to sales both on line and retail. Something no other company has ever had.
Netflix finds itself in a quandary, much of it its own making. Last month they announced a new pricing scheme, separating the Streaming and the Dvd content, into two separate billing options, and increasing streaming fees. and increasing to total if you want both streaming and DVDs. So essentially you have your choice of three prices. Streaming, is 7.99, Dvd only is 7.99 month Nd more for both Streaming and DVD.
Netflix is expecting to lose around a million subscribers due to this new format.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/netflix-price-increase-subscriber-loss_n_964026.html
It’s expected that after several years of a format that has essentially changed the entire video delivery system in may ways and set new standard to make what are precised as radical changes, to a tried and true format that upsets the satus qu will bring on a out cry, in this case its likely to take the form of a loss of subscribers. Weather it will be as much as they predict or not m also how long the numbers will stay low are two important questions. Balancing them out are the cost of the content . Netflix has to be in a position to pay a fair price for content, but but not let itself be bullied into doing deals like Starz wanted. I have commented several times under different articles about the Netflix /Starz issue. One can be found here;
http://www.videonuze.com/blogs/?id=3201#comment-304411031
Here:
http://www.videonuze.com/blogs/?id=3215#comment-311925790
The whole landscape of on line video is going to reshaped yet again as the dust settles over Hulu, and who eventually buys it. The main goal of any content owner and provider should be essentially the same: To provide consumer with easy acces to any content they have the right to through either subscription, like Netflix, or Amazon VOD, or even Hulu, or Boxee, and Roku, including the IPad, and Android tablets. If the consumer knows they can get they’re content when and where they want it with minimal fuss, and low price, they will be less likely to go to alternative places to get the content they want. Distributors, and content owners will both be paid and everyone will be happy.
A side note on turning 50 this year. Its now been a about a month since my birthday. Sometimes, 50 is a concept one has to wrap ones brain around. The idea that you’ve been alive and doing your thing, for half a century. Most days you don’t feel any different then you did at 49. Suddenly your 50 and everything is older, every tool or possessions that you bought or acquired when you where younger seems older. Events that didn’t seem that long ago suddenly seem like ancient history when you stop and do the math as to how long ago it really was. Getting to be 50 has been a real adventure for me. As many of you who personally know me I’ve had heart issues since I was born, and was not expect to live, I was sent home, they had done all they could do for me. But I survived and eventually a operation was developed in Canada, The Mustard Procedure, which essentially rebuilt the top half of my heart. I was the first one in the United States to have it and Survive. To this day I’m setting new records. I have since gone on to do all the things everyone else dose, high school get married, and raise 4 kids, and many other things that the little blue boy they sent home to die was never expected to. do. The Lord has seen fit to keep me around for this half century .I’m looking forward to many more years of doing what I do best, being a tech pundit and all around geek and movie lover, Lord willing.
The technology world has been stood on its head. Steve Jobs resigns from Apple.
HP first pulled their tablet,from the market, and then announced they are getting out of the PC business altogether.
The 800 Pound Giant in the room, Netflix has stood its ground with Starz and refused to bow to their demands about tired pricing and let them take their content elsewhere. I won’t miss it.
Apple, and Steve Jobs have been called one of the greatest inventors in the 20th Century. If one dose research one will find all of the products that he made famous are products that have been made by someone else before he refined it and set a new standard. There had been portable computers before, Apple made them usable.
More important then the legacy of Steve Jobs, and it is very important, is the future of Apple and the entire tech industry as a whole. Over the last few months I’ve noticed a change in the focus of many tech company, even companies as venerable as Kodak are changing their focus looking for ways to sagging sales and poor product lines. Right now there are only a very few product lines that are interesting, the top players among them being the tablet, and the king of the hill, is Apple’s IPad. But there seems to have been a shift to a very large degree away from trying to make a better product to protecting intellectual property . ie, their patents. While some concepts and ideas are pretty cut and dried, and obvious , and the patent for that should be obvious, and the company that first filled the patent for it owns it at least to start with,. However, thee are a great many patents are are far more questionable. To the point of one questioning is there even a prototype filed at the patent office, and did anyone even read it? The patent office has said that need access to experts to help them sort through all to the tech patents the receive to help them tell which are legit, and which ones should be rejected. Because they don’t the the personal or expertise to go over all the material.
That's not even counting all of the patents the various companies have already, and are either trying to protect or sell. In many cases the intellectual property may be worth more then the products they make with the information or ideas, sometimes even the company. What kind of messages dose that send to consumers who see new reports about companies suing each other over patent infringement or other subtleties that no lay person or many lawyers can understand. Instead of putting the efforts to helping build the economy by giving consumer better products at lower prices. and creating more jobs and products we want to buy.
All their doing is making lawyers rich, and generally making a mockery of the US patent system. A complete rebuild of the US patent system is in order, along with the copyright office and reevaluating the way the publishing industry works. However, I don’t see this thing happening in the foreseeable future.
What dose it mean when Google buys a hardware company like Motorola,?
They didn’t buy a printer company, or a camera company. They bought a company that makes hardware to run their operating system. Android. At this point Android is powering roughly about 50% of all the smart phones in use depending on what report you read, and what is being covered, US or world. Point is it it fast edging Apple, and is generally killing other smart phone devices. Thus the questions becomes is there a conflict of interest in Google owning the maker of its own software distributor , the Motorola versions of the Android smart phones. Along with the the other companies who also make phones that run Android. On the flip side, Apple owns both the hardware and the software for their phones, in fact for all of their products. The difference being they don’t licence their IOS out to other hardware builders to put IOS into and sell to the public. Apple maintains a very tight control of their product cycle and loop from development, to production, distribution to sales both on line and retail. Something no other company has ever had.
Netflix finds itself in a quandary, much of it its own making. Last month they announced a new pricing scheme, separating the Streaming and the Dvd content, into two separate billing options, and increasing streaming fees. and increasing to total if you want both streaming and DVDs. So essentially you have your choice of three prices. Streaming, is 7.99, Dvd only is 7.99 month Nd more for both Streaming and DVD.
Netflix is expecting to lose around a million subscribers due to this new format.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/netflix-price-increase-subscriber-loss_n_964026.html
It’s expected that after several years of a format that has essentially changed the entire video delivery system in may ways and set new standard to make what are precised as radical changes, to a tried and true format that upsets the satus qu will bring on a out cry, in this case its likely to take the form of a loss of subscribers. Weather it will be as much as they predict or not m also how long the numbers will stay low are two important questions. Balancing them out are the cost of the content . Netflix has to be in a position to pay a fair price for content, but but not let itself be bullied into doing deals like Starz wanted. I have commented several times under different articles about the Netflix /Starz issue. One can be found here;
http://www.videonuze.com/blogs/?id=3201#comment-304411031
Here:
http://www.videonuze.com/blogs/?id=3215#comment-311925790
The whole landscape of on line video is going to reshaped yet again as the dust settles over Hulu, and who eventually buys it. The main goal of any content owner and provider should be essentially the same: To provide consumer with easy acces to any content they have the right to through either subscription, like Netflix, or Amazon VOD, or even Hulu, or Boxee, and Roku, including the IPad, and Android tablets. If the consumer knows they can get they’re content when and where they want it with minimal fuss, and low price, they will be less likely to go to alternative places to get the content they want. Distributors, and content owners will both be paid and everyone will be happy.
A side note on turning 50 this year. Its now been a about a month since my birthday. Sometimes, 50 is a concept one has to wrap ones brain around. The idea that you’ve been alive and doing your thing, for half a century. Most days you don’t feel any different then you did at 49. Suddenly your 50 and everything is older, every tool or possessions that you bought or acquired when you where younger seems older. Events that didn’t seem that long ago suddenly seem like ancient history when you stop and do the math as to how long ago it really was. Getting to be 50 has been a real adventure for me. As many of you who personally know me I’ve had heart issues since I was born, and was not expect to live, I was sent home, they had done all they could do for me. But I survived and eventually a operation was developed in Canada, The Mustard Procedure, which essentially rebuilt the top half of my heart. I was the first one in the United States to have it and Survive. To this day I’m setting new records. I have since gone on to do all the things everyone else dose, high school get married, and raise 4 kids, and many other things that the little blue boy they sent home to die was never expected to. do. The Lord has seen fit to keep me around for this half century .I’m looking forward to many more years of doing what I do best, being a tech pundit and all around geek and movie lover, Lord willing.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Getting Back to Basics in Business
Over the last few months much has been made of relatively new tech companies, less then, 2-5 years old coming out and announcing that they want to do a IPO, which is a Initial Public Offering. There are several questions that have been risen, such as do they have a solid business plan, and are they actually making money. While I don’t pretend to completely understand all the ins and outs, of big time money management and all of the ramifications of events to both the economy or the business itself.
There are several basic ideas that I do understand, The primary object of any business is to both make money, and give the consumer the most value for their money as possible. If you give the customer value above and beyond what they expect , and follow it it up with support and service, whatever, that might entail everything from basic hand holding, to either going and fixing or replacing the product with no hassle, and a BIG smile on your face. You’ll do far more more good for your business then any amount of advertisement can ever do. Happy customers come back, and Happy customers talk,, a lot. Word of mouth can go a long way to either building your business, or destroying it slowly. Just remember that the next time a customer is driving you crazy over something YOU think is stupid, to them its important, how you handle what they think is important, is important to them. So much for business 101.
Netflix has become the 800 pound guerrilla in the room when content and tv companies get together. No matter what else they talk about, what deals they may want to do, Netflix is in their shadow waiting to take their market share way form them. Content providers need to go back and reevaluate their core objectives.
As I mentioned in the opening segment, the object of any business, be it a small family business that sells fruit out on the side of the road, to a multi-million dollar conglomerate is to give the customer value above and beyond what they expect.
Quite simply the TV/media industry at least on the broadcast and consumer provider side, not the theatre side so much, has dropped the ball a LONG time ago.
Way back in the 1950’s at the beginning of TV, advertisers knew they had a captive audience and played it up to the max. Having corporate sponsors,and having host of talk and game shows actually plugging the product as part of the routine show, is was annoying, but far less annoying then today's commercial breaks which can last from 3-10 minutes long, and often repeat the same ad several times in a roll.
That just covers what broadcast show “live” on a daily basis to the masses.
That includes those who don’t have the technology to bend their TV to their will.
Those of us with DVRs can record,pause and rewind and generally bring the TV to its knees. And advertisers hate this. they can’t count on you seeing their ads every time you want to see your favorite show. and Appointment Viewing is long dead. That is to say if you wanted to watch a certain show you had to be in front of your TV at that exact time, or you missed it until next week. Worse yet, if there were two shows on at the same time, on different channels you had to choose which one you liked better. Advertisers loved that, it helped with getting numbers, they could tell much better what was being watched, and who commercials were being seen. Today, consumers demand to watch what they want when and where they want. The devices and platforms that media is available is constantly expanding. Content owners and providers need to embrace the new directions and come up with models that allow them to get access to the content they want, when they want.
They need allow consumers to watch their content on a variety of platforms.
The basic concept is to spread your content around as much as possible; instead of trying to do a deal to limit ones content to one venue and asking a exuberant sum for a very short year deal, try spreading it out out over several venues with less for money each deal, and make more money in the long run.
Better yet they make their content readily available to whole new audiences which might not have discovered content they didn't know about. Making content easier to access or rent, either via Netflix Amazon, any number of other places to rent or view content, doing such deals to let ` the consumers find the content and play it where they want, or need to, with out having to resort to to other means to get the content they want.
A YouTube search will yield many movies and TV shows put up in short 10-14 minute segments watching a series of 8-10 segments in a row will allow you to essentially watch the whole program. Whether this is legal is another question for another time. However, the bigger point, is the is people want to see the content, and will put it out one way or another. So content providers do yourself a favor and make you stuff easy to rent, buy or otherwise enjoy the content, and moving content from one platform to another should be seamless with a DRM issue and no issues with software formats not being capable. Everything should just work.
The notion of cord cutting that the industry pundits are taking about is probably right to a degree, However, As people get the new TVs that can connect to the web, either directly or through a computer, easiest being hooking a laptop and piping everything from the laptop to the TV, the uses for a fast connection are increased, suddenly you can fire up Netflix, on the laptop and send it to the TV and enjoy the same content from the laptop on the big TV, same for YouTube, any other web content, be it podcast, or videos etc. Suddenly the pipe from the cable provider is’nt as important as it was, However, there’s still a lot of content that only available on broadcast TV. While a large percentage will cut down on the size of the package that keep, both for budget reason, and because content is available on line and they can get it there and pipe it to the platform of choice to watch it. I don’t think its cord cutting, so much as its cord switching, and sharing, one supplementing the other.
Some content providers are making strides to make their content available on mobile platforms with limitations, while its a good start. But there’s a long way to go.
Netflix has pretty much set the standard for streaming video, and a business model that works. They have been able to get themselves placed in a wide variety pf platforms from DVD players, TVs themselves, I even read at one point, there was talk of them actually having a physical button on a remote, on some TVs, weather anything has come of it, is not important. What is important is their dominance and saturation in the video industry . They do have some big hurtles to jump, the biggest is the deals they have to make with content owners. Every time they try to do a deal the price goes up or the owners want to renegotiate a deal halfway though a contract. The point is if content owners would quit being so worried about their content and how its being used, and work to get it into as many venues as possible and not make is prohibitively expensive that small providers to get into. They would in the long run probably make more then they trying to do with the high price deals they’re doing now, only it’s be spread out over more companies, and longer terms, so if there was a loss somewhere it won't be as much as it it was in one big deal the lost.
The long and short of it content owners, and providers need to go back and reevaluate their core business model, and why they are in business. Are they in business to serve the stockholders, or the customer, aka, public? If its the customer, they need to rethink how and what kind of deals they do, to get their content out, with a minimum of constraints both on the provider and especially the end user. If the customer is is happy and willing to pay the reasonable rental fee or subscription fee, and can get what they want when and where and on what platform they want, with no issues, the profit for the stockholders will come.
There are several basic ideas that I do understand, The primary object of any business is to both make money, and give the consumer the most value for their money as possible. If you give the customer value above and beyond what they expect , and follow it it up with support and service, whatever, that might entail everything from basic hand holding, to either going and fixing or replacing the product with no hassle, and a BIG smile on your face. You’ll do far more more good for your business then any amount of advertisement can ever do. Happy customers come back, and Happy customers talk,, a lot. Word of mouth can go a long way to either building your business, or destroying it slowly. Just remember that the next time a customer is driving you crazy over something YOU think is stupid, to them its important, how you handle what they think is important, is important to them. So much for business 101.
Netflix has become the 800 pound guerrilla in the room when content and tv companies get together. No matter what else they talk about, what deals they may want to do, Netflix is in their shadow waiting to take their market share way form them. Content providers need to go back and reevaluate their core objectives.
As I mentioned in the opening segment, the object of any business, be it a small family business that sells fruit out on the side of the road, to a multi-million dollar conglomerate is to give the customer value above and beyond what they expect.
Quite simply the TV/media industry at least on the broadcast and consumer provider side, not the theatre side so much, has dropped the ball a LONG time ago.
Way back in the 1950’s at the beginning of TV, advertisers knew they had a captive audience and played it up to the max. Having corporate sponsors,and having host of talk and game shows actually plugging the product as part of the routine show, is was annoying, but far less annoying then today's commercial breaks which can last from 3-10 minutes long, and often repeat the same ad several times in a roll.
That just covers what broadcast show “live” on a daily basis to the masses.
That includes those who don’t have the technology to bend their TV to their will.
Those of us with DVRs can record,pause and rewind and generally bring the TV to its knees. And advertisers hate this. they can’t count on you seeing their ads every time you want to see your favorite show. and Appointment Viewing is long dead. That is to say if you wanted to watch a certain show you had to be in front of your TV at that exact time, or you missed it until next week. Worse yet, if there were two shows on at the same time, on different channels you had to choose which one you liked better. Advertisers loved that, it helped with getting numbers, they could tell much better what was being watched, and who commercials were being seen. Today, consumers demand to watch what they want when and where they want. The devices and platforms that media is available is constantly expanding. Content owners and providers need to embrace the new directions and come up with models that allow them to get access to the content they want, when they want.
They need allow consumers to watch their content on a variety of platforms.
The basic concept is to spread your content around as much as possible; instead of trying to do a deal to limit ones content to one venue and asking a exuberant sum for a very short year deal, try spreading it out out over several venues with less for money each deal, and make more money in the long run.
Better yet they make their content readily available to whole new audiences which might not have discovered content they didn't know about. Making content easier to access or rent, either via Netflix Amazon, any number of other places to rent or view content, doing such deals to let ` the consumers find the content and play it where they want, or need to, with out having to resort to to other means to get the content they want.
A YouTube search will yield many movies and TV shows put up in short 10-14 minute segments watching a series of 8-10 segments in a row will allow you to essentially watch the whole program. Whether this is legal is another question for another time. However, the bigger point, is the is people want to see the content, and will put it out one way or another. So content providers do yourself a favor and make you stuff easy to rent, buy or otherwise enjoy the content, and moving content from one platform to another should be seamless with a DRM issue and no issues with software formats not being capable. Everything should just work.
The notion of cord cutting that the industry pundits are taking about is probably right to a degree, However, As people get the new TVs that can connect to the web, either directly or through a computer, easiest being hooking a laptop and piping everything from the laptop to the TV, the uses for a fast connection are increased, suddenly you can fire up Netflix, on the laptop and send it to the TV and enjoy the same content from the laptop on the big TV, same for YouTube, any other web content, be it podcast, or videos etc. Suddenly the pipe from the cable provider is’nt as important as it was, However, there’s still a lot of content that only available on broadcast TV. While a large percentage will cut down on the size of the package that keep, both for budget reason, and because content is available on line and they can get it there and pipe it to the platform of choice to watch it. I don’t think its cord cutting, so much as its cord switching, and sharing, one supplementing the other.
Some content providers are making strides to make their content available on mobile platforms with limitations, while its a good start. But there’s a long way to go.
Netflix has pretty much set the standard for streaming video, and a business model that works. They have been able to get themselves placed in a wide variety pf platforms from DVD players, TVs themselves, I even read at one point, there was talk of them actually having a physical button on a remote, on some TVs, weather anything has come of it, is not important. What is important is their dominance and saturation in the video industry . They do have some big hurtles to jump, the biggest is the deals they have to make with content owners. Every time they try to do a deal the price goes up or the owners want to renegotiate a deal halfway though a contract. The point is if content owners would quit being so worried about their content and how its being used, and work to get it into as many venues as possible and not make is prohibitively expensive that small providers to get into. They would in the long run probably make more then they trying to do with the high price deals they’re doing now, only it’s be spread out over more companies, and longer terms, so if there was a loss somewhere it won't be as much as it it was in one big deal the lost.
The long and short of it content owners, and providers need to go back and reevaluate their core business model, and why they are in business. Are they in business to serve the stockholders, or the customer, aka, public? If its the customer, they need to rethink how and what kind of deals they do, to get their content out, with a minimum of constraints both on the provider and especially the end user. If the customer is is happy and willing to pay the reasonable rental fee or subscription fee, and can get what they want when and where and on what platform they want, with no issues, the profit for the stockholders will come.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
As Media Evolves, Will The Consumer be Left Behind?
Can Netflix Make a series of their Own?
Will AT&T Buy T-Mobile?
Did Showtime Shoot its Foot Off?,, Definitely Yes..
Is the IPad2 a Hit Definitely Yes...
Lots of things have been happening in the world this last week, Netflix ; AT&T ; and Showtime,shoots itself in the foot.
One of the top news stories everyone talking about is Netflix picking up the first run option on a show that's not even made yet. Having now had the pleasure of enjoying streaming content from them on my computer and on the Wii, I can see where they would be interested in doing a deal of this type. They know their bread and butter is the catalogue of material going back to the 1920’s on a very few cases and being to let a consumer explore either old shows they watched and loved in younger days, or just find new and interesting stuff to watch and discover treasures they missed before.
So, For Netflix to spend 100Million dollars to get the first run rights to “House a Cards” seems out of character, however... Looking at it from their side, If they do this and if works, and they wind up bring in more subscribers on top of the 20 million or so they have now, and the publicly is good for the show itself, interest in the show and Netflix will increase along with its stock price.
On the content creators side,developing a project for the like of Netflix where one knows theirs a instant 20 million+ viewer audience is a big plus, and the publicity that goes with it is priceless. Netflix only has first run rights, which means it then be resold and of course that means more revenue streams coming in down the road.
Showtime on the other hand shoots itself in the foot. At least to my way of seeing things. Showtime is renegotiating the deal which ends later this spring and starts in the summer. The end result is that they are pulling new content from Netflix, like Dexter, and Califorination . One will only able to stream them if one is a subscriber and and log into their official site. I was under the impression that one of the great things about site and venues like Hulu.com was the eyes it got in front of a show. If you can get more people interested in watching a show, particularly one that on the likes of showtime, the chances are they will subscribe to the network to see the new shows, Taking off the older episodes and forcing those who really want to see the content to go to bit-torrents and the like or say “the heck with it” and don’t bother even trying to watch them if they can’t get them, is defeating the propose of publicly which when it come right down to it Netflix is a great publicly machine for a huge world of content that's been long forgotten about.
AT&T has put in a bid to buy T-Mobile for 39Million dollars. There a a lot of questions that arise from deals like this. Such as, a big one will the FCC and/or FTC let it go through? The advantages to AT&T are they get more network to expand their 4G layer, They have a reputation for very bad coverage in cities where they are not a primary provider., so they need the T_Mobile towers and coverage. What doses T_Mobile need? They need the IPhone, which they can’t get right now, I’m also thinking it would give them some better android phones. AT&T will be able to provide T-Moble with other support services that that probably lack.
Will this be good for consumers. I’m not sure sure. On the face of it it looks like its reducing the numbers a main cell phone carries from 4, Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile to 3.
I think that will only tell half of the story. The rest of the story is how they change rates planes and most importantly, customer service. AT&T customer service is notoriously bad, I suspect that T-Mobile’s is all that great either. In any case a complete overhaul of customer service is probably in order.
I would be completely remiss if I didn't talk about the IPad2 which just recently came out.
On March 2rd Steve Jobs surprised the crowd by just showing up on stage. Steve Jobs had stepped down from day to day operations of Apple earlier this year citing health issues. So his being there to present today was a huge surprise to those in attendants.
The bigger questions emerge: Do we need a new version of the IPad, for some the new capabilities will fit right into what they are doing now, and allow them to do more with one device.
Why they announced the IPad this early is easy: Competition.
Apple has the knack for staying ahead of the curve, even when they invented it.. As I said in my last article, there were 18 new tablets announced in CES in early January.
At this point there seems to be a number of contenders for the “Tablet King” Now Title: Motorola Xoom, HP TouchPad, Blackberry Playbook, Samsung Galay, . I am already finding comparisons about which one has best stats. To my way of thinking the stats of any device don’t tell the whole story. The real test is how a device is used by the end consumers. In the IPads case the consumers have overwhelming said that the Ipad is the right device at the right time and it dose what they want/need it to do, will the IPad2 do as well?, its a pretty safe bet..
Apple has done a number of things right, the reduced the price of the 1st generation units, and they kept the pricing the same for the 2nd generation the same as they were for the originals. a very smart move.
The improvements in the IPad2 will force the competition to up their game, and continually evolve their products to make them more more appealing to consumers. No matter nice they look, if they don’t preform, and do what the consumers expect them to do, they will be dumped for the next big thing to come along.
While I have not have the pleasure yet of experiencing any of the tablets. The ideal way to test a unit is to take it for a week and see what it will and won’t do, and how you like it. However not many folks have the option of “Borrowing” a unit for a week to see if they like it. So we must rely on reviews and what we feel when we see at the store..
There are many more things yet to discuss, hopefully I can continue to offer my humble opinion in a more timely matter as the summer progresses..
Ken Lawson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
