[opendtv] Re: Why Apple and Comcast Need Each Other to Reinvent TV
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 07:42:39 -0400
On Apr 10, 2014, at 5:24 PM, "Manfredi, Albert E"
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>
>> Apple is far more than an equipment manufacturer Bert. 10% of revenues
>> come from non hardware sales.
>
> The rule of thumb in electronic circuit design is that anything 10 percent or
> less is considered "negligible." It applies here as well.
Not in this case, for two reasons:
1. This is the fastest growing portion of Apple's business - Apple does not
sell devices, it sells an ecosystem that devices share to create value. Like
the PC ecosystem before it, value is added by third party hardware AND software
offered by developers. The App economy is huge and growing rapidly (+105% last
year).
2. Sheer size- while this segment is only 10% of Apple's sales today, it is
significantly larger that competitors.
>
> Craig, I'm not looking for a long list of excuses. I'm simply saying that
> Comcast would happier with a box as limited as the existing AppleTV box is,
> than it would be with a box that incorporates a no-apologies browser. If
> Apple does succeed in colluding with Comcast, you can bet that any expansion
> of AppleTV's limited capabilities would be delayed indefinitely.
This is pure speculation on your part. You do not know what Apple is planning,
nor what Apple and Comcast are negotiating. And we do not know what Apple's
plans are for native browsing the next generation of Apple TV or a product that
integrates MVPD and OTT services. It is quite possible that Apple believes that
browsing directly through the TV is less desirable than multiple devices
working together to browse, play games, share content, and share the big screen.
>
>> Please stop this crap Bert. Apple does not block anything,
>
> Really? Can AppleTV browse to something as obvious as cbs.com? Ooooh, you
> mean no it doesn't as long as you buy ANOTHER Apple device.
CBS already offers apps for the iPhone and iPad. One would think that an app
for Apple TV is just around the corner, but this is where licensing comes in.
When THEY are ready, CBS.com will become available to Apple TV, Google
Chromecast, Amazon Fire, Roku et al. In the meantime, the content CBS is
willing to make available via the Internet is accessible via "another Apple
device." You obviously don't like this approach - a much larger number of
people don't like the idea of hooking a PC up to their TV.
The primary role of Apple TV to date is as an iOS accessory for the TV. Not
just for watching OTT TV or viewing content from iTunes, but for sharing stuff
on iOS devices including photos, music, and personal videos that can be shot
and edited on iOS devices.
You have blinders on. In the battle to control the TV in in the Family room,
viewing traditional TV programming is one small part of the future. It is the
integration of the devices the consumer owns, and soon a wide range of
connected third party appliances and other devices, that is in play here.
Why do you think Google bought Nest? What does a connected thermostat have to
do with all of this?
Before the Web existed, Time Warner tried to develop a home gateway that could
support TV commerce - The Full Service Network. The web killed that misguided
attempt at gatekeeping. But the idea that one will be able to use intelligent
devices to help control our lives has not gone away. Being able to monitor the
web cams in your home to see what is happening when the kids get home from
school or you are on vacation is likely to hold more value in the mind of the
consumer than watching CBS.com.
You think using a smartphone or tablet with a TV is overkill. Millions of
Americans think it is the future, including the new management of Microsoft.
Get you head out of the last century, and stop thinking so small.
>
> Here's a better way to think about it, Craig. AppleTV does block 99.9999
> percent of the Internet, but no worries, you can buy a $35 Chromecast and
> bypass Apple entirely! Now you have access to the Internet on your TV, even
> without Apple's blessing!
And how do you control Chromecast?
Hint: it is called a Chromebook.
It is a war of ecosystems Bert, and the TV is one small piece of the puzzle.
>> Comcast is not worried about ANY of these OTT services - they license
>> content TO THEM, and they provide broadband to the cord cutters as well.
>
> ROTFL. That's why Comcast and Netflix had to come to a new agreement.
That agreement had nothing to do with this. It was nothing more than what you
argue for all the time - cutting out a middleman. Netflix was paying CDNs to
deliver their content. Most CDNs have peering agreements with Comcast. This
deal simply allows Netflix servers to connect directly to Comcast, bypassing
the CDNs, and may improve QOS for Netflix subscribers.
> I think you read that wrong, Craig. In many cases, you can access the content
> beginning in the wee hours of the next day. The point that article was making
> is that PEOPLE use VOD within 3 days. Not that they are forced to, but that's
> when this 40 percent tend to get to the VOD content. Because, simply enough,
> that's when it's convenient for them. The complaint is that SUPPOSEDLY the
> ads are less effective, if you believe that.
The majority of viewing via the network portals like CBS.com occurs after the 3
day window. 40% of Comcast VOD viewing of the same programs occurs inside the 3
day window. That is a significant difference, in part because many shows are
not available TO YOU in that three day window.
Consider this:
http://gigaom.com/2013/10/04/cbs-now-lets-you-watch-full-episodes-of-its-shows-through-its-apps-8-days-after-they-air/
When CBS launched its iOS app in March, the network said it would make full
episodes of “some” primetime shows available 8 days after they aired. But
viewers discovered that content was actually pretty limited — and the app
racked up one-star reviews from users who complain that few full episodes are
available.
Now CBS, which says the iOS app has been downloaded nearly four million times,
claims it is going to fix that. On Friday, the network announced its app is now
available for Android and Windows 8, and also said that starting immediately,
the app will offer “every episode of CBS’s new and returning primetime
entertainment series eight days after broadcast. In addition, the app will
offer episodes of many classic CBS shows like Macgyver, Star Trek and Perry
Mason.”
> I couldn't care less if a company like Apple furnishes non-standard STBs to a
> cable company. The problem comes when the CE industry decides to cripple all
> of their boxes to further the cause and interests of the walled gardens.
> AppleTV, Roku, connected TVs, and all the rest, are cases in point. We've
> been over this a zillion times.
You have been wrong about this a zillion times. The CE industry is not trying
to "further the cause and interests of the walled gardens." Nor are they trying
to turn your TV into a web browser. They are trying to license content that the
conglomerates refuse to sell to them. In the meantime, these devices offer what
they can.
>
> If Apple wants to build a walled garden product, for a walled garden MVPD,
> that's really, really ho-hum news. Slow news day kind of news.
You mean like the 2007 announcement that Apple was introducing the iPhone,
which would run on the AT&T cellular network?
IF, and it is a BIG IF, Apple were able to work out a deal with Comcast to
offer an integrated device that would access the Comcast MVPD content AND all
the OTT services you use, I can assure you it would not be ho-hum news.
> Depends. If this Comcast STB is a separate product, business as usual. If
> this cozy relationship makes Apple hesitant before designing a proper
> Internet TV appliance, for fear of offending Comcast, that's collusion, and
> should be illegal.
You REALLY have no clue what Apple is all about Bert. They do not roll over...
They disrupt business as usual, and are not afraid to eat their own children to
help us get past these roadblocks. It is quite possible that Apple and Comcast
are "colluding" on the X-1. If this opens the market to new competitors and
services, as the iPhone did to the wireless telcos, I would find this
infinitely more desirable than the current collusion between the media
conglomerates and the politicians.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
