The quality argument notwithstanding, there is an avalanche of content available, in all genres (games, user-generated, traditional channel programming, websites, etc.) and consumption is up because of the ubiquitous opportunities for the user to consume the media at their convenience. And, if content is unavailable, the frustrated consumer simply moves on to that which is available; either tossing aside their original thirst or patiently waiting until it is available (e.g., “next day” on Hulu; or “in 30 days” via Netflix). The thirst for convenient content consumption will only increase as traditional and nascent technologies enhance their products and as new products are introduced. The easy to use, accessible, affordable product will be the most attractive.

Channel programmers, whose bread and butter are affiliate revenue (advertising revenue, withstanding) will irk the ire of their consumer/fan base if programming content can’t be accessed however the consumer demands. Hence, the broadcast/cable channels slowly making more programming available off the traditional distribution pipes. This process will continue and not ease. Starving these outlets for content will eventually prove futile.

David Polakoff
http://davidpolakoff.wordpress.com

As mentioned in other comment(s), content is where its at, whether the main menu is a TimeWarner Cable menu on my Samsung TV, or its one of the options, that is irrelevant. Wherever the content is, that is where I, and all consumers will go.

As far as ‘ceding control’ to the CE guys, that is hardly the case. Cable co’s have had a program ongoing for past several years to embed the smarts of the STB into CE devices such as Bluray players and connected TV devices.

The programmer/cable company relationship is complex, to say the least. I’m not sure, but I don’t think that programmers have a direct relationship with the end-consumer. Losing the cable company for a Smart TV deal may well lead to an a la carte environment, and trust me, NOBODY wins in that scenario.

However, if electronics manufacturers want to come to the table during retransmission consent fights, we’ll welcome the help.

In any delivery system, either physical or virtual, there are constraints and those who have a valued solution reap compensation. So yes Virginia, gatekeepers have always existed and will continue to be part of the system. The good news is that over time disruptive changes shift value equations and open doors. In my humble opinion this is what’s taking place in the video content ecosystem. There is no longer a gatekeeper standing in the pass between two unassailable mountains. We now have a series of passes between foothills. All have gatekeepers but their status is confined to certain access paths with none able to completely block access. What this ultimately means is that they will have to learn how to play together, power will be shared, and hopefully the consumer will benefit.

If yes, I’m in favor. If no, I’d prefer a dumb TV and a computer.

http://gizmodo.com/5728167/i-just-want-a-dumb-tv

Who are the ad revenue winners and losers in this evolving ecosystem? The pay-TV incumbents successfully blocked Google and Apple in favor of this scenario. But how is this a better outcome for the legacy big media power-brokers?

“In this strange new world, consumer electronics manufacturers are the new gatekeepers.”
Do consumers and content creators want new, different gatekeepers or no gatekeepers at all? I am strongly in favor of no gatekeepers at all and for me this is the whole appeal of online video.

“That’s a frightening thought for cable distributors, and for content owners alike”.
Will content owners and consumers settle for these new closed systems. I think they will continue fight to be freed from gatekeepers and self serving distributors.

These closed app systems appear to me as just a new way of doing an old thing – controlling/limiting/censoring content creators and their audience.