Comments on: Apple, Microsoft, Google and the sad state of TV

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 11:01:03 +0000

Necessity is the mother of invention. It is obvious that cable needs to be regulated as a utility. Right now, it is the only way to get the full spectrum of internet and television. However, we need to get back to a free TV model. The broadcasters and cable companies greed is literally driving people away from technologies that are older than me. My own local ota transmitter was just down for two weeks. I never remember that happening when I was growing up on ota. There’s a lot of politics as well. The FCC is riddled with regulations that hurt the consumer and help the broadcast industry. We are in a long term economic depression and in the end, the companies that can offer the most for the least will win out. It is a hard pill to swallow when you are paying for bandwidth that contains mostly infomercials and low budget reality shows. Originally, advertisers foot all of the bill. Now, the consumer is being asked to foot the bill of the advertisers. it’s not just tv either. It’s the NFL. It’s pay per view. It’s the internet. It’s everything. Their greed is going to kill display entertainment altogether and send us back to stone age and we will all go back to playing board games and checkers.

By: Marc Niola

Marc Niola — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:15:57 +0000

Interesting article and comments… I think Google has the best chance of successfully disrupting the traditionally TV industry. Everyone knows Google has the financial and infrastructure resources needed to challenge the vested-interest of the TV/cable industry. With the user-generated content Google is nurturing via YouTube and a possible play to woo award winning shows away from TV/cable, Google could revolutionize the TV experience.

Imagine Breaking Bad, Mad Men and Southland (admittedly my favorite) exclusivity on YouTube and not on cable. I haven’t done the math, but if Google could cover the production cost with ads it would be a game changer. This could also develop the nascent complimentary TV show-web/mobile experience that has tremendous potential.

By: YY

YY — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 07:13:52 +0000

Bundling has been the mode of operation for the media industry for decades. My guess on the reason, for every one big hit, there are probably 100 failures. The studios, the production houses, the broadcasters all need to make money. So besides charging a lot for the hits, they bundle the misses with the hits. For instance, one probably cannot buy the rights to “The Pirates” series on a stand alone basis. Disney will bundle a lot of their library and other titles along. That’s why they resist a-la-carte.

As for the music business, they used to adopt the same strategy. Their defense was weaker because it cost much less to produce a sound track than a full length series or movie. They were also the first to take the hit. The video side of media now has more experience in defence and they will probably fight to their death?

By: Terry

Terry — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:43:31 +0000

No one has mentioned the changing viewer. Most young audiences seldom watch TV at all. They connect with content on their mobile devices – iPhones, Android Phones, iPads, etc. The day of traditional TV is quickly drawing to a close. Broadcast style TV is a dinosaur waiting for the meteor to strike. And, I think Apples is beginning to recognize that, which explains why iTV remains a “hobby.”

By: Tim Acheson

Tim Acheson — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:47:11 +0000

Xbox 360? Here in the UK, we have BBC iPlayer, Sky, and various free and pay TV services on our Xbox dashboard.

By: Tim Acheson

Tim Acheson — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:44:58 +0000

“Microsoft’s Xbox 360 is arguably the most innovative living room entertainment device out there. ”

True.

@GigaOM tweeted this article saying: “Even Apple can’t disrupt the TV space”

Why “even”? Apple is a one-trick pony. Without iOS, a lucky success but technically nothing new or revolutionary, what does Apple have? And iOS is old news, now.

Apple is now famous for being profitable and having a high valuation — but these are achieved through over-priced products and services.

By: Pooja Kohli

Pooja Kohli — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:52:58 +0000

How could you not talk about Roku in this piece?
They were actually doing the right thing, up until Dish came and did an exclusive arrangement for south asian content (best selling on Roku) and killed the leaps that IPTV and App providers had made till date.

At some point everyone is going to cave in to the pressure and money that these companies throw at the Market, the platforms and consumers are no different.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:16:11 +0000

Those in tv land live a dangerous dream state… Ad rates are not accurate to begin with but are allowed due to fear ( king has no clothe) we all know The content quality lacking, and the number and cost of ads too high ( 70% user cost of products goes onto marketing costs)

The crash you hear will resonate for a generation and beyond

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:32:12 +0000

This is such a goofy article. Television content is sold on-demand right now through iTunes and other platforms.

Janko, your focus on technology for technology’s sake is perplexing. Want free DVR functionality for broadcast TV? Just smack an antenna on a Tivo. There’s no need to pay some sketch new company to kozmo it over the internet to you. Want individual cable programs? Amazon will sell them to you for a low cost, delivered right to that same Tivo.

There is nothing “wrong” with the state of the TV experience. There is constant innovation every day in programming, delivery and interactivity.

If you’re upset that there hasn’t been innovation in television *devices*, that seems to be missing the forest for the trees. I think the content owners have smartened up about providing technology companies with free assets to build the tech guys’ own businesses. If tech isn’t going to pay a fair price to disrupt the content guys’ businesses, I think it’s a pretty silly mistake to blame that on the content guys.

By: Liddell

Liddell — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:09:02 +0000

Great article Janko.

The internet has proven to be a formidable weapon in the disintermediation of numerous industries.

Content producers will only adapt their pricing models when the historic distribution model changes. At present there are far too companies involved as intermediaries (just count the number of pre-titles next time you watch a movie! e.g. “Brought to you by XXX”).

Yes, devices and user interfaces do need to become more elegant, but this is competing at the periphery of an industry that will undergo fundamental change.

Increasing broadband penetration and on-line viewing hours will eventually change the balance of power between traditional broadcasters and ISPs; this will only happen with ongoing investment by ISPs into their networks. At present most of them seem to want to fight this trend, preserve capital expenditure, impose bandwidth constraints and generally make life more difficult for their customers.

That is a very dangerous strategy!

There will be new content producers emerging as the distribution model changes – and that will be a tremendous source of innovation; but I would personally think that investment by the ‘big boys’ such as Apple and Google would be better directed at transforming the current means of distribution.