8 Comments

Summary:

Is the trend for smart TVs that connect to the Web and run apps a big mistake? Anthony Rose, the co-founder of hot social TV app Zeebox, took to the stage at MIPCube to suggest the future of television lies somewhere very different.

anthony rose, co-founder of social TV app zeebox

These days you can barely move for smart television sets, as every TV manufacturer tries to wow us by producing the snazziest, most-connected screens on the market.

But even so, not everyone is a fan. Some program makers are cutting their support for smart platforms — and now other industry insiders are turning on it too.

“When smart TVs came out I was really quite enthused by it all,” Anthony Rose, the co-founder of hot social TV app Zeebox — and a former head of the BBC’s iPlayer project — told me over the weekend. “But that enthusiasm really has declined for me, because they have failed to embrace what technology can offer.”

He thinks that making TVs ape computers by adding apps and proprietary controls and interfaces has caused a war between manufacturers and broadcasters that has “halted innovation.”

“You can buy your beautiful, new connected TV, and you can either be in the one area that watches live TV, or, 18 clicks later, you can be in the app store and do something else — and no one ever goes to the app store,” he said. “On my iPad it takes about 60 seconds for zero cost to be trying some new application.

“I think innovation will flourish here and that in the future your TV will be a beautiful but dumb hi-res panel that will play the content it is told to by your smartphone or tablet.”

Follow the money

The comments were made during a panel I moderated at MIPCube, a television and technology industry conference in Cannes, France.

Focused on the question of where the emerging investment trends were in this area, the answers from the panelists — Rose was joined by Ralph Eric Kunz of Catagonia Capital, an investor in German video discovery app Tweek.tv — came loud and clear.

While many are still focused on the disruption of distribution, such as IPTV or video on demand, that area is mostly covered now, they said: The future lies in developing new and interesting ways to use the plumbing.

“It feels very much like the music space 10 years ago,” said Kunz, who was one of the architects of German media group Bertelsmann’s purchase of Napster a decade ago.

“I think this whole plumbing era is the necessary prerequisite for the innovation era. The interesting thing is how established industry . . . is actually going to hedge their bets. There’s a lot of value in the old world that’s going to be destroyed.

“Without knowing what the future will look like, I think this ‘second screen’ will be a complementary way of looking at content — in some circumstances it might even be the ‘first screen.’ I think that’s one of the fascinating innovation areas of the future, to figure out how those screens interact with each other.”

His belief is that this will come in large part through social innovations and applications that provide a companion experience to big-screen viewing — hence the investment in Tweek, which recently launched an iPad app for finding video content that you might want to watch.

“I think in the end, the question will be, Is the selection process, are the criteria for selection, the ways I select, going to change? I think Facebook plays a strong role in that today, but we don’t know what that’s going to look like in the future. Tweek TV goes in that direction, to build an interface that is focused on moving content in order to make a much better selection process in future.”

Broadcasters could be cut out of the loop

Meanwhile, Rose said he believed the big disruption in TV was happening at the human level, because technology means that program producers are now able to access audiences in ways that weren’t possible before.

“Back in the old days before the Internet, the audience would engage with the broadcaster — the broadcaster created a channel and an aggregation and schedule things, and the audience were there and the broadcaster would buy content, and the content provider or owner really had no direct audience engagement. Then came the Internet and the makers of Glee could set up a website — but they were disconnected. Now with the rise of second-screen viewing, with companion viewing, there’s a way for the content producer to connect directly to the audience.”

Large producers can now create applications and experiences that audiences can use that deepen their link to the program, he said. And that could leave broadcasters becoming little more than a pipeline.

“The broadcaster, who today is a distributor, a channel and a content provider, may ultimately be like an ISP, and the audience engages directly with the program maker. That’s one way it may play out.”

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. Cable DRM is ruining smart TV. Open up cable DRM to the smart TV manufacturers and smart TVs would be much more useful since they could replace the pointless, expensive cable box that is impossible to hide on a wall mounted HDTV.

    1. I know people get frustrated with cable, but I think there’s a much more fundamental question than this, Jon. In Europe (where Rose and Zeebox operate) free-to-air digital transmission is the norm, not cable. And he still thinks smart TVs are stupid — because it’s a mess of companies and standards trying to impose themselves on an already-too-complicated experience.

    2. When cable switched to Digital only broadcasting, they did tests beforehand where you could see if your current TV was capable of receiving the transition or would need an adapter (box). Most all modern day TVs did just fine and were already capable. Then suddenly the cable provider said a cable box was required regardless. All of which is truthfully not necessary, and only a way for them to charge more for leasing the box aside with cable TV. I do not have cable…I have a digital antennae that picks up digital broadcast over the air of all local channels for free….and in HD. Is the biggest scam by the cable company.

      1. Jason: Unless, like me, you live in an area that receives virtually no OTA transmissions due to being on the opposite side of the hills from the tranmission antennae. So, I could get a cable card, rather than a cable box, in order to utilize the TV’s built-in digital tuner, but I am still stuck with cable. Or, in my case, I switched to satelite recently. Further, cable companies are not “scamming” with respect to OTA broadcasts. If that is all someone wants, then like you they just need an antennae. No one is forcing them to pay a cable company to get OTA broadcasts. Now, you may say that the cable companies are scamming for some other reason if you think their profit margins are too high, but that would be a different discussion for which I am not facile enough to comment upon.

  2. Shaun Flagg Monday, April 2, 2012

    “But even not everyone is a fan.” ? What is that? This article is really hard to read. Please proof before publishing.

    1. My mistake, now fixed. The whole article’s hard to read? Tell me more: it’s not meant to be!

      1. There are rather strange sentences within the article. Here is another one “Large producers can now create applications and experiences that audiences can use that deepen their link to the program, said.”

  3. Charlie Pinker Monday, April 2, 2012

    Not that I disagree with him, but the guy works for Sky, so it’s hardly surprising he’s anti-smart TVs.

    “Always consider the vested interest”

Comments have been disabled for this post