[opendtv] Re: Here’s Comcast’s Version of Apple TV
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:20:58 -0400
On Jun 13, 2013, at 6:12 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From the article that started this thread.
> Improving the TV’s interface is an engineering problem that you can solve
> with time and talent; remaking the TV business is the truly difficult task.
> --------------------------------------
>
> Not such a difficult task, if the FCC redefines what constitutes an MVPD.
>
> This quote:
>
> "But then again, none of the pay-TV outsiders that want to wrest control of
> your living room from Comcast have done that, either — not even Google."
>
> continues to make me wonder, why should they? Why should the hardware
> companies have any part to play, other than playback?
So who should be in control Bert?
You are very quick to point out that the content owners have the right to
control the availability and pricing models for their programs. It should be
obvious from this article, the recent Microsoft X-Box announcement, and many
other stories, that the media conglomerates are working overtime to protect the
current MVPD based bundling model.
Even if the FCC does redefine MVPD to include Internet services, this does not
mean that there will be any meaningful change. In all likelihood, the content
owners will force the Internet services into the same bundling agreements, or
make the price for ala carte access higher than the price of a bundle.
At least it appears that Comcast is putting some resources into improving the
end user experience via their STBs. But there were also indications that
Comcast may be moving toward a more open network approach. In their story on
the Comcast Announcement, 9to5Mac reported:
http://9to5mac.com/2013/06/12/comcast-isnt-waiting-around-for-apple-next-tv-shows-off-new-x2-tv-platform-ios-apps/
An interesting aspect of the presentation, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts noted that
the company sees the new open platform as being an open architecture that would
allow for a “family of boxes” and a family of personalized remotes. We’re not
sure if that means the company has plans to integrate third-party hardware with
its platform, like an Apple TV for example, but it’s clear Comcast has no plans
on completely getting rid of its own cable box anytime soon.
Everything that Comcast demonstrated on their box can be supported on the $99
Apple TV box except for hardware DRM (i.e. Cable Card). Perhaps Comcast is
reaching the conclusion that the STB business is not very interesting when
consumers can buy a third party device that does the same thing for $100. Or
maybe they have figured out that they can take a percentage of all transactions
that take place on their network, and make more money by opening up to third
party hardware.
>
> This X3 device is a super fancy STB, designed to accept those Comcast one-way
> MPEG-2 TS broadcasts (how quaint to see the daily broadcast schedule, for
> instance), and make them available with a real fancy UI, locally recorded,
> well organized, comments, preferences, ratings, etc.
You obviously did not watch the video, or are ignoring what was said. The box
ALSO supports OTT video services and a wide range of Apps, and integrates with
a bunch of third party data services.
>
> Hey guys. It's time for a paradigm shift!!
Indeed. TV Commerce may be the next big thing.
>
> These days, you don't need to create all this localized storage and localized
> processing. You don’t need to depend on broadcast one-way streams. This is
> the era of "the cloud," remember? The content owners do not have to depend on
> these third party attempts, especially when that third party isn't even
> associated with the MVPDs they do business with (like Apple, for instance, or
> Microsoft).
The content owners are dependent on the MVPDs to support the lucrative bundling
model. They are deathly afraid of real marketplace competition AND the
possibility that consumers might elect NOT to pay for their content.
The third parties you allude to are trying to figure out how to disrupt the
current oligopoly so that there CAN BE competition, or to come up with a new
model that can co-exist with MVPD bundling. It looks like the latter is where
most of the effort is.
> A major TV content creator is certainly capable of hosting its own web sites,
> or use OTT sites, with the content available on demand, with your preferences
> stored when you log in, without going to great lengths to compensate for the
> scheduling artifacts created by MPEG-2 TS broadcast streams, and without
> having to obsess if some third party box designer will do something against
> the creator's best interests. The more the content creator can use "cloud
> services," the less he'll be vulnerable to the whims of STB designers
> (especially third party ones).
You still don't get it. This is an oligopoly where everyone in the club is
benefitting today. The members of the club do not want to risk the possibility
that you could elect NOT to pay for and watch their content.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
