Internet Television: Who Will Win The Day? 5 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
What is the potential impact of IPTV on traditional media and distribution? There are almost too many questions to answer when you think about the potential impact of IPTV on industries like cable, satellite, network TV, movies, sports and gaming.
Who is best positioned to win in an IPTV-enabled world? Do people want a single, easy-to-use platform for managing all things audio and video? What about gaming? Is this a separate decision or an integrated decision when choosing an IPTV platform? Which players are best positioned to take advantage of their existing installed base? Is it Apple via iPod and iTunes? Microsoft via Xbox 360 and Windows Media Center? Or maybe Sony with the high-octane blu-ray PS3? Google doesn't seem to think this IPTV business is a very big deal, and is focused on cutting deals with the cable companies and providing both text and video search.
All of this brings me back to two prior posts: one discussing the rise of the Consumer Era of Computing and the other concerning the move towards a time-shifted, on-demand Asynchronus world. I believe that the principles outlined in each of those pieces have bearing and relevance on how the IPTV debate plays out. I'd like to quickly revisit these concepts in order to ensure that we're using the same terms.
The Consumer Era of Computing (written when discussing Apple vs. Microsoft): With the Internet, cheap storage and massive processing power, the playing field has flattened measurably. One doesn't need thousands of developers, hundreds of man-years and tens of millions of dollars in "big iron" to develop applications people want. People want to connect. People want to be able to share. People want to discover. Pictures, movies, music, email, web pages, files, spreadsheets, and more. This means that people want programs and applications that are easy to use. And fun. And open. People and companies became dependent upon Microsoft because the lack of computing power and bandwidth called for a high degree of desktop integration. However, this isn't the case any more. Big, heavy OS and related applications simply aren't necessary. Google threatens Microsoft in search and email. Apple is chipping away with consumers. And these are only two of many companies that are relentlessly challenging the Microsoft franchise.
The Synchronus vs. Asynchronus World (when discussing the SIRI/XMSR merger): I think there is little doubt of the financial motivation of the SIRI/XMSR tie-up. It reminds me a lot of the in-market bank mergers I looked at as an M&A associate in the late 1980s; it's principally about the cost savings, while some revenue accretion is possible due to increased pricing power. But this entire line of thought needs to be considered in light of the over-arching issue: is premium synchronous (real-time) radio worth it (for news, sports and other real-time media) in a world where the lion's share of content can be consumed easily, flexibly and cost-effectively in an asynchronous (time-shifted, on demand) manner? I think this is THE question for the long-term investor. Because if satellite radio is here to stay, economics at scale could look pretty attractive. But if not...
I find this whole discussion of IPTV as a "new" concept pretty funny, since I remember back in 1991 when GTE was running pilots of video-on-demand [VOD] over phone lines in Florida. At the end of the day, that, along with the Sony Walkman, were two early examples of the move towards asynchrony in how people consumed media. Sure, the Walkman was a huge hit, spawned imitators and eventually morphed (in both form and company) into the now ubiquitous iPod, while the VOD pilot was plagued by bandwidth issues while its antecedents were eventually integrated into cable and satellite TV offerings. Further, this started the ball rolling on the capability and desire for an "a la carte" pricing plan, where one can choose both what one wants to consume and when one wants to consume it, and to avoid paying for unnecessary and undesired programming and services. While this creates massive new opportunities for some, it represents a profound threat to those who have built large, costly development and distribution models predicated on historical assumptions. Most of those assumptions are gone - so how does this impact tomorrow's competitive landscape?
But the point remains: the trend towards an on-demand, take-it-with-me world was seeded over 20 years ago, and is just now being more fully played out. Is the catalyst available bandwidth and peer-to-peer streaming content distribution? Is it because of the rise of YouTube? Perhaps the ease with which people can publish and distribute podcasts and vodcasts on the Internet? Or maybe the ease-of-use with which a consumer can integrate these disparate capabilities? It is probably a combination of all these things. But one thing is certain: the current environment is both very confusing and wickedly complicated, and I'll provide you with some of the latest online dialogue and thinking going on in this dynamic debate.
Setting the Stage
From the Mercury News 12/25/2006 - Takahashi: 10 Tech Trends of 2007
8. Couch potatoes celebrate
The dream of a world where anyone can watch just about any Hollywood movie ever made in their living rooms at the touch of a button will start to become reality in 2007. AT&T and Verizon are planning big roll-outs of their IPTV (Internet protocol television) services, which have the potential to offer hundreds of movies and other programming on demand.
Meanwhile, Apple Computer will launch its iTV device, which will connect consumers' TVs with its iTunes music and movie service. BitTorrent plans to launch an iTunes rival in February with thousands of major studio movies. And with Intel offering Viiv-based entertainment services on PCs and Microsoft already offering downloadable movies to its Xbox 360 users, Sony is likely to follow closely behind with a similar service for its rival PlayStation 3.
The Mercury News is not alone - MANY have been waiting for IPTV to hit the mainstream. And in 2007 it is becoming reality.
Apple TV - the "It" Girl
Without question, Apple TV has been one of them most hotly anticipated devices in recent memory (not including the iPhone, of course). It has generated far more buzz than any other offering, with critiques ranging from fawning to "What's the big deal?" And let's not forget our zealous and cheerleader-like sell-side analyst community for a little hyperbole early in the game.
From The Unofficial Apple Weblog 02/21/2007:
I don't give predictions of market analysts too much serious thought, mostly because the statistics don't really mean much other than to hype up a particular product. Or maybe these analysts just like to be able to say 'told ya so' if their predictions become true. Anyway, one Deutsche Bank analyst claims
that the Apple TV can potentially capture 20-30% of the CD and DVD market within a few years after its launch this month. Not to be a naysayer or anything, but that is a huge percentage that seems way too optimistic to be taken seriously. There are a ton of factors at play here. (Oh, and let's not forget that only Disney, Paramount, and Lions Gate are on board to sell films through iTunes... and as far as I know, there are a couple more movie studios out there than just these three).
********************
Needless to say, even on an Apple fanboy blog like tuaw.com there is more than a healthy degree of cynicism about this analyst's claims. Here is comment #6, for example:
6. I dont think this is close at all, I see this as sort of a test for apple. They still really need some development in bandwith capabilities, as does everyone. Also, I don't really understand why the appletv has hdmi, there is no high def content for users. If I want to stream content at good quality, I have to rip some pretty big files, but it can be done, I just don't see it to the point where it actually makes sense to do that rather than pop it into my upscaler. So here is how I see it:
Hard DVDs will actually become obselete, apple will get a fair amount of this streaming/digital distribution market, which will be based on 2 things: content, and ease of use. When apple integrates the store right into apple tv, and doesnt compress content as much, appletv will kill the dvd industry. But for this to really happen, bandwith improvements need to be made in order to actually have reasonable times when downloading a high def movie
*end analysis*Posted at 6:28PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Brandon
There is lots of theorizing going on concerning Apple TV, Steve Jobs "master plan," its impact on ad-based media and much, much more. There is significant enthusiasm for the pay-to-download model as it relates to video, with Apple as the primary beneficiary.
From Searchviews 02/22/2007:
Geekmaster Robert Cringley takes Apple conspiracy theories to a whole new level in a post where he ponders the meaning of the 40 GB hard drive inside Apple TV. His answer: a iTunes-based peer-to-peer network, solving a mammoth piece of the bandwidth problem for dealing with many large video streams:A report by Adams Media Research says that by 2011, the pay-to-download model will dominate online video distribution. Whereas ad-supported streaming will likely see revenues of $1.7 billion annually, paid downloads are expected to generate $4.1 billion a year in revenues. Tom Adams, president and senior analyst for Adams Media Research tells the Financial Times,
"The real issue becomes the connection to the TV...Given all the [recent] excitement about product launches, there is a general feeling that the market is bigger than it is, and that boom times are just around the corner."
Though Apple TV was announced as more of an afterthought to the iPhone, thanks to high demand for download-to-own online TV shows and movies, it might end up as Apple's Next Big Thing. MovieWeb questions whether Apple TV will kill DVDs, while The Apple Core calls it the "Trojan Horse of the Living Room." The Apple Recon blog even rumors that Apple TV sales have already blown away expectations by more than double initial estimates.
From I, Cringley 02/16/2007
The new Apple TV media extender is supposed to ship this month, perhaps even by the time you read this column, and if you are like me you are wondering what that 40-gig hard drive is doing inside. I'm guessing we won't know for sure until later this year, though of course I also think I know the secret answer, too.
********************
At $299 the Apple TV is a pretty expensive video extender, but if you think of it instead as a computer, it is darned cheap. It might, in fact, be the prototype for a whole family of Mac Sub-Minis. We know it has an Intel processor, though nobody says WHICH Intel processor. We know it runs an operating system and has a GUI. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Apple TV hardware is based on the iPhone, with the exception that the mobile phone transceiver is replaced with Apple's WiFi bits.********************
Here is what I think is happening with the Apple TV hard drive. I think sometime this summer Apple will ship a firmware upgrade for the Apple TV and it will suddenly gain an important new capability. That's when the Apple TV becomes a node on the iTunes peer-to-peer video network.
If the Apple TV is plugged in it is turned on. Did you notice that? That means the hard drive will have at least the capability of running 24/7. Now envision a BitTorrent-like file distribution system that is controlled primarily by iTunes, rather than by you or me. A centrally controlled P2P system is VERY powerful because it allows for the pre-positioning of content.
Say Disney releases Cars 1.5 -- a direct-to-DVD release expected to sell millions of copies in its first few days. There is no way iTunes could even hope to participate in a launch like that simply because there isn't enough bandwidth at a good price -- or any price. Even BitTorrent would have troubles handling a small part of such a launch until enough seeds were populated and running. But what if the movie was effectively pre-seeded -- loaded over a few days on a distribution tree of thousands of Apple TV boxes which could then deliver the movie locally at high speed if purchased. Or if not purchased the seeded copies could still work together to serve other Apple TVs on the same ISP subnet.
********************
The business case for Apple is downright amazing. Lowering network costs by 99 percent will enable the company to add to its portfolio the equivalent of half a Time Warner. Apple becomes a cable company without trucks or network costs. It becomes a whole bunch of cable networks with an instant audience the exact size of the iTunes registered user base, which is frigging enormous. Add $40 billion to market cap, no waiting.
Ok, Rob, chill out. He is even more heated and expansive elsewhere in the post, but you get the drift. Bottom line - even if only a small part of what he says comes to pass, Apple TV will be the shot heard round the world, with potentially stunning effects for media distribution businesses everywhere. There is even discussion that Apple TV might, in fact, be a Tivo-killer.
The fascinating thing about the following post - and please click on the link to check it out - is that it provides side-by-side theoretical pricing of Apple TV on a per show, a la carte basis versus a conventional cable TV/Tivo package, i.e., paying for just want you want versus getting and paying for everything, with predictable results:
From Web 2.0 Explorer 01/24/2007
Yeah, I'm calling it. I think Apple (and others) are about to send Cable TV and Tivo a clear message…your time is almost up. The Web 2.0 world is about to kick the door in and escort the old methodology to pasture. And I think it is going to happen pretty quickly.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Now I've heard a lot of complaints about the Apple TV, and plenty of skeptics who think the device doesn't hit the right technical marks, but I disagree. I think it hits a number of sweet spots that make it one of the most compelling devices we've seen in some time. Other companies are trying to get into the living room, but I think this one may finally have the legs it needs to make a big impact in our lives. Bigger…yes I'm saying it…bigger than Tivo!
********************
The Apple TV is a time-shifting media viewer that allows me to buy only the media content I want to watch, when I want to watch it, with pause/rewind/fast forward, at a reasonable price, with no monthly subscription fee, small hardware footprint, works with Macs and PCs, automatically downloads my season passes when available, doesn't require any BS to move it to my iPod or another computer, could very well stream "live" television like news and sports (as it does movie previews), supports HD, I only pay for content not service, doesn't force me to watch commercials, and gives me back 18 minutes of my life for every hour I spend watching broadcast shows.
And why would I want Cable/Tivo?
So Apple…I am opening the door to my living room. Come on in.
Hmmm, so let's see. Paying for only what I want, seeing it when I want to, and getting to take it with me and see it wherever I want via my iPod. That sounds pretty good. Kind of like the integration of the Consumer Era of Computing and the Asynchronus, on-demand world, huh?
That said, even with all of its supporters, it is not as if Apple TV lacks critics. Many have valid, well-reasoned points for why Apple TV might not set the world on fire - at least not yet - and why an investor should view the hype with caution. Here is a representative selection:
From The Apple Core 02/19/2007 - Theories on Apple TV
From Shawn Oster's Blog 01/10/2007 - Comparing Apple TV to the Xbox 360
From Ten Forward 01/09/2007 - An Xbox without the X
Ok, got it. But bottom line, the Internet dialogue about Apple TV is predominantly positive, with many cynics conceding that, over time, Apple will load more features and flexibility into Apple TV such that it will achieve broad adoption. Execution remains to be seen, but given their success with the Macbook, iPod and iTunes, it is hard to be against them. Steve and Co. are particularly good at bridging the gap between new technologies and the consumer experience, and Apple investors expect nothing less from Apple TV.
What of Microsoft, Sony and the Others?
Microsoft: Ballmer et al are getting geared up for Microsoft's big Xbox 360/IPTV launch in London in early March.
From Kotaku 02/22/2007
********************
Microsoft will showcase IPTV on Xbox 360 for the first time in Europe at The Connected Home show to be held in Olympia, London on 5-7 March, 2007 (www.the-connected-home.co.uk). Ed Graczyk, Worldwide Director of Marketing and Communications for Microsoft TV, will demonstrate IPTV on Xbox 360 during his keynote at the conference, entitled "Future of Connected Entertainment".
The demonstration will showcase what happens when next-generation television is combined with next-generation gaming in a unique, new service delivered by your broadband provider. Graczyk commented, "Separately the Xbox 360 and Microsoft TV IPTV Edition deliver unique and exciting entertainment experiences, but IPTV on Xbox 360 delivers a real value proposition for consumers, service providers and content and game developers alike. By integrating these industry-leading solutions, we continue to drive innovation and enable new connected entertainment experiences for consumers."
********************
And earlier, from Microsoft's annoucement at CES
From WebTVwire 01/11/2007 - Xbox 360 Internet TV features I Video from CES
Sony: Phil Harrison of Sony recently announced the pending PS3 video download service. As usual, his language is oblique, his tone detached, and his effect not unlike that of a soggy blanket. Someone should break it to him that he should not be the front-person when discussing a new product release - kind of like Bill Gates. I think they need a little more media training and to sit on a few whoopie cushions.
From DailyTech 02/17/2007
********************
“Well we made a very conscious decision in putting a hard drive in every machine and a minimum of 20GB, 60GB and who knows in the future, maybe that will rise -- you know, that tends to be a trend,” said Harrison, adding that he sees the long term benefits of the hard drive. “The ten year plan of allowing people to download all kinds of digital content to their PlayStation 3 -- not just games but movies, music, HD, standard definition TV, you name it. And that was a significant investment, but it was absolutely the right thing to do.”
In response to a question if the PlayStation Network could soon see something comparable to Microsoft’s video service, Harrison said that official announcements weren’t yet ready, but did offer, “We have a hard drive, we have a commerce engine, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out we will have that on the network very shortly.”
********************
Ok, Phil, thanks for sharing. Question is will anyone except hard-core gamers use PS3 as the vehicle for audio and video over the Internet? Not that hard-core gamers are necessarily a bad market - they're not - but they are certainly not mass market in the same way as, say, the iPod is mass market. The same can be said of Xbox 360 Live. Will casual games (or non-gamers) choose the Xbox 360 platform as their method of accessing and organizing their audio and video on the Web? It is hard to imagine. Consider the success that Nintendo has had with both the DS and the Wii reaching the casual gamer. Big, big success. In gaming. But nothing remotely resembling Apple's installed base of 90 million iPods dotting the landscape with iTunes in tow. Xbox 360 - perhaps 9-10 million? PS3? Well, a lot less than that. So if one gives a structural advantage to the company with the largest embedded base, Apple is miles ahead of the pack. And don't look for them to let the others catch up.
BitTorrent: Their recent commercial (read: legal) offering was just released, and was met with a resounding thumbs-down.
From Gizmodo 02/25/2007
The BitTorrent Entertainment Network
we told you about a couple month ago launches tomorrow with "around 3,000 new and classic movies and thousands more television shows, as well as a thousand PC games and music videos."
Movie content is provided by Twentieth Century Fox, Paramount, Warner Bros., and MGM, and will sit alongside free videos uploaded by users. Exceedingly lame, however, is that all of the studio movies are rentals only, imploding 30 days after you download one or a day after you start watching it.
New flicks go for $3.99, older ones for $2.99. TV show stuff is standard—$1.99 to buy (and keep). Since they're wrapped up in Windows Media Player DRM, you can guess where, how and on what they'll play (or not). Observation: Microsoft must be making a killing licensing their DRM to people, since most of the big digital movie distributors other than iTunes use it.
While overall I find these services to be ill-conceived, limiting and wholly unsatisfactory, if you do decide to buy crippled, overpriced
content, a NYT test showed that thanks to BT's p2p setup, it took less time to download a movie than it did from Wal-Mart. Moreover, it seems to solve the issues that the Xbox 360 download service ran into on the first day.
********************
From Om Malik on GigaOM 02/26/2007
BitTorrent is all set to launch a legal P2P
video download service, BitTorrent Entertainment Network, that will offer television shows for sale and movies for rental from some of the major Hollywood studios. The news has created quite a stir amongst the technorati. Mathew Ingram, a man not known to mince words, is convinced that the new service is destined to fail. It is hard to disagree with his assessment, though our reasons are slightly different that his. Here is a short list of challenges we see for BitTorrent’s new store:
- Internet Service Providers dislike BitTorrent
- BitTorrent’s not easy, especially for novices
- Content on BitTorrent Store ain’t all that
- Who uses the official BT client?
- Why pay to play?
********************
If the user interface is poor, it is hard to use, "purchased" movies evaporate after 30 days, content selection is weak and the company has a history of facilitating illegal downloading, are they really a formidable long-term competitor to Apple? I don't know, but they certainly lack many of the advantages and capabilities that Apple has secured over the past five years.
Netflix: The company recently launched their own online initiative, with an initial content base of over 1,000 movies and TV shows.
From Yahoo! 01/16/2007
Online DVD rental company Netflix Inc is unveiling its long-awaited online movie delivery service which allows subscribers to watch about 1,000 movies and television shows on their personal computers at no additional charge.
********************
Rental and retail sales revenues of DVDs and home videos reached $24.5 billion in 2006. About 100 million U.S. households have DVD players, and an estimated 41 million U.S. households had access in 2006 to broadband Internet services needed to download or stream video content.
Netflix's goal is to sign up 20 million of them as subscribers by 2012.
The instant viewing feature also puts Netflix squarely in competition with several players already offering movies for rent online, including Starz Entertainment's Vongo and the studio-owned MovieBeam, MovieLink and CinemaNow services.
Netflix's limited slate of electronically available titles mirrors its new rivals' but its subscriber base of about 6 million dwarfs those of the other online rental services.
********************
Now I understand why Netflix is doing this - they kind of have to in the wake of the Blockbuster's recently launched Total Access program, or risk being marginalized - but does this really represent a threat to Apple, much less Microsoft or Sony, in the IPTV arena? Further, Blockbuster also appears to be taking a swing at Netflix, with the recently disclosed discussions surrounding their potential acquisition of Movielink (from the WSJ 03/01/2007):
Movie-rental giant Blockbuster Inc. is in advanced talks to acquire Movielink LLC, an online movie-downloading company owned by the major Hollywood studios, according to people familiar with the matter.
While the proposed deal is small -- the price is said to be less than $50 million in cash and stock -- it has important strategic implications. For Blockbuster, it represents a quick way into the online download business. Movielink has quietly peddled films online since 2002, with little success. In the past year or so, the nascent field has begun to pick up momentum, with big players like Apple Inc.'s iTunes and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. jumping into the fray. Blockbuster could bring much-needed marketing muscle to Movielink's efforts to increase market share.
********************
It also would help Blockbuster compete against its main competitor, Netflix Inc., which unveiled its own movie-download service in January. Blockbuster is still stinging from the strategic mistake it made in initially ignoring the shift of consumers to Netflix's DVD-by-mail rental service.
Given the breadth of capabilities of the BIg Three, together with their installed bases and millions of devoted users, Netflix appears to be positioned as a niche player in a world that will likely be dominated by a handful of larger, more diverse, better funded competitors.
Google - IP What?
Google has come out and said it: IPTV might not be the wave of the future. Why not? One of the big reasons: inadequate web infrastructure.
From Macsimum News 02/09/2007
If you think that Internet TV is the wave of the future, you should think again, according to Google. The company says that new Internet TV services such as Joost and YouTube may bring the global network to its knees, according to a Reuters report. In fact, Google, which acquired online video sharing site YouTube last year, said the Internet was not designed for TV. But not everyone agrees.
It’s even issued a warning to companies that think they can start distributing mainstream TV shows and movies on a global scale at broadcast quality over the public Internet, Reuters says. “The Web infrastructure, and even Google’s (infrastructure) doesn’t scale. It’s not going to offer the quality of service that consumers expect,” Vincent Dureau, Google’s head of TV technology, said at the Cable Europe Congress.
Google instead offered to work together with cable operators to combine its technology for searching for video and TV footage and its tailored advertising with the cable networks’ high-quality delivery of shows. For now, broadband Internet delivery to homes and small businesses is one of the most lucrative segments for cable TV operators, but heavy investments in infrastructure are needed to meet the rapid rise of Internet file-swapping and video downloads.
********************
Research group Gartner estimates that 60 percent of the Internet traffic that is uploaded from computers is peer-to-peer traffic, mostly from consumers swapping films and TV shows through select user groups and BitTorrent. Cable operators are set to return to capital investments of a modest 10 to 12 percent of revenues, but they can be forced to spend much more due to outside pressures from increased Internet consumption and from rival telecoms operators that upgrade their broadband Internet packages to fiber optic super speeds, Reuters notes.
********************
Most of the material I’ve run across touting the promising future of Internet television is at least a year old, so Google may be onto something. On the other hand, IPTV may flourish as a developing technology that will allow consumers with a high speed internet connection (DSL , Cable, etc.) to receive a television signal over the Internet, not from Cable or Satellite. A set top box will decode the IP video and convert it to a standard TV signal.
There are doubtless substantial technological barriers to overcome. The question is whether it’s worth the time and money involved.
Does Google really believe this? Are they simply stating this position in order to play up their natural strengths - search and advertising - while discounting the natural strengths of their competitors (Apple?). Without question the issue of technological challenges relating to IPTV have been raised in many quarters, so the issue is anything but a red herring. But does it really portend a weak future for the medium? It seems doubful.
A Word on Installed Bases
A few factoids on the current breadth of Apple's reach. From Steve Jobs 02/07/2007 in a piece titled Thoughts on Music:
********************
Some have argued that once a consumer purchases a body of music from one of the proprietary music stores, they are forever locked into only using music players from that one company. Or, if they buy a specific player, they are locked into buying music only from that company’s music store. Is this true? Let’s look at the data for iPods and the iTunes store – they are the industry’s most popular products and we have accurate data for them. Through the end of 2006, customers purchased a total of 90 million iPods and 2 billion songs from the iTunes store. On average, that’s 22 songs purchased from the iTunes store for each iPod ever sold.
Today’s most popular iPod holds 1000 songs, and research tells us that the average iPod is nearly full. This means that only 22 out of 1000 songs, or under 3% of the music on the average iPod, is purchased from the iTunes store and protected with a DRM. The remaining 97% of the music is unprotected and playable on any player that can play the open formats. It’s hard to believe that just 3% of the music on the average iPod is enough to lock users into buying only iPods in the future. And since 97% of the music on the average iPod was not purchased from the iTunes store, iPod users are clearly not locked into the iTunes store to acquire their music.
********************
90 - million - iPods. 2 - billion - songs. Those are HUGE numbers. There are currently 9.36 million Xbox 360s and 2 million PS3s based upon the latest worldwide console sales numbers (from VG Charts). Don't you think Apple has got to have an advantage rolling out an IPTV product to its user base relative to either Microsoft or Sony? Even if one assumes that the demographics of the three user bases are similar, the sheer reach of Apple's audience gives it a built-in head start relative to its top competitors. At least it seems that way to me.
Conclusion
IPTV is right at the intersection of two technology and user mega-trends - light, flexible, powerful and easy-to-use web-based applications (Consumer Era of Computing) and on-demand content that is exactly what I want, when I want it that can be consumed where I want it (Asynchronous World). The online conversation clearly sees IPTV as massively disruptive to legacy content creation and distribution platforms, forcing recognition of and adaption to these new mega-trends. Apple has been the recipient of most of the favorable discussion in this burgeoning arena, notwithstanding a spate of recent competitive offerings. That said, it appears that some technological hurdles need to be overcome - and performance proven - before the IPTV medium is accepted in the same way as, say, music downloads. But the handicapping is that these technical hurdles will be overcome and that IPTV will be massively disruptive, with Apple likely being the big winner. Surprise, surprise.
The author does not hold a position in this company's securities.
UPDATE: No sooner had I written this (very) long post on IPTV and its potential ramifications for the entrenched creators and distributors of media than I picked up Joe Morgenstern's interesting piece in today's Wall Street Journal titled YouTube Youth. It really got me thinking about what the Internet has been saying about the paradigm shift towards an asychronous, on-demand world, and what this means for how Big Media and others approach the youth market. What are the concerns that we parents have when thinking about the explosion of new content, messages and media from every direction that is bombarding our children (mine included)? To list just a few:
- Is the content educational?
- Is the content enriching?
- Is the content engaging?
- Is the content bundled with off-topic messages or advertising?
- Can the content be consumed when my child wants it and where they want it?
There are many more but these are the five off the top of my head. Let me share a few of the thoughts Joe wrote about in today's article:
********************
Kids are ditching traditional forms of entertainment -- especially theatrical films -- in favor of digital media, and they've got Hollywood scared stiff.********************
But techie tots, if that's what our children are becoming, pose a conundrum that Variety's article never quite articulated: No one has a handle on how they think. Not only how they think about toys, as expressed in what the toy trade calls play patterns, but how these junior multitaskers are taking in the world around them.********************
Video iPods and other dazzling gizmos are here to stay. So are videogames, which can be engaging and challenging as well as benumbing. And the enemy is not the Web, per se, where oases of creativity coexist with vast reaches of trash and gibberish...The enemy, in whatever medium, is incoherence along with its partner in crime, indiscriminateness. In this fevered media environment, kids need not only to be restricted in their access to commercial junk, but exposed to what will delight and nourish them -- first to children's literature, and then to our endlessly rich heritage of motion pictures.Exposing them is all we can do; what happens next must be an article of faith. I'm certainly a congregant, though. I believe the same lures that hooked me on movies as a kid -- the spectacle, the mystery, the roiling emotions and the suspense about what happens next -- can hold their own against whatever enticements the new media may serve up. First, though, our techie tots must see the flickering light.
This is deep, profound stuff. I respect Joe's perspective - the issue isn't how to roll back the clock to a simpler, more straight-forward time, but to figure out how to harness the power of today's technology and media to tap in to the inner creativity and capacity our children have for consuming quality content. And while this is certainly a challenging and elemental question for movie studios and others producing kid-focused content, it is equally if not more important for parents who care about what their children see and listen to. It really does seem to play into the mega-trend about which I've been writing quite a bit lately - that of the asynchronus, on-demand world.
It is incumbent upon the studios and content developers to figure out what will turn kids on while addressing concerns over appropriateness, educational content and advertising, all in a way that doesn't bust their economic model. Notwithstanding stunning advances in technology, the cost of producing feature films continues to rise, upping the ante of not really understanding your audience and having your costly project debut with a thud. What about a model that depends less on hits and more of a steady stream of less costly, easier-to-produce, more targeted content that segments the youth audience in a more granular manner? This doesn't necessarily mean the end of the feature film, it just means getting closer to the audience and really getting a handle on the intersection of attention and interest. And I've got to think that keeping a consistent finger on the pulse of the multi-facted, fragmented and fickle youth market has got to increase the likelihood of successful feature film productions.
I know this is not necessarily in Hollywood's DNA, but I think they might need to undergo a little genetic therapy in an effort to become more adaptive in the asynchronus, attention-challenged, taste-shifting youth market. Otherwise, it'll be boom-and-bust until that one big bust ends the game and more forward-looking, flexible and cost-efficient content developers step up to meet the challenge. A highly profitable, yet formidable challenge.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 5 comments:
Nice analysis. My take, "elevator version":
MSFT: Never a strong player in content delivery. Execution suffering under Ballmer.
SNE: Lots of nice products, but very prone to shooting themselves in the foot.
GOOG: YouTube is a GREAT asset, IMO
YHOO: Yahoo who?
AAPL: They have REALLY been reading the consumer and executing in the Jobs 2.0 era.
GOOG-AAPL: A much underappreciated possibility. Eric Schmidt is on Apple's BOD. And Jobs has much experience working with big market cap media delivery companies (remember DIS/PIXAR)?
www.iphone-converter.o.../
www.mp4-converter.net/.../