Intel (INTC) is "offering to pay as much as 75 percent more than traditional cable rates" to...

Intel (INTC) is "offering to pay as much as 75 percent more than traditional cable rates" to secure content for its Web TV service, Reuters reports. The higher rates likely have to do with Intel's upstart status, and its interest in offering features (e.g. an advanced cloud DVR) and more service flexibility (but not full-blown a la carte) than standard pay-TV offerings. Intel is said to have reached agreements with CBS, News Corp., and Viacom "over how their content would be distributed;" talks with NBC Universal are said to be less advanced. A March report indicated Intel had "signed off on the broad outlines of its service" with Time Warner, NBC, and Viacom. (previous)

From other sites
Comments (14)
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (9709) | Send Message
 it me, or is this Intel TV thing just completely not something Intel investors care about?
    8 Jun 2013, 12:13 AM Reply Like
  • Sam Liu
    , contributor
    Comments (3711) | Send Message
    Is Intc as Msft, Goog, Aapl, etc. having the "deer in the headlights" complex, it can't figure out ways to generate huge revenue and profits from its core business?
    8 Jun 2013, 01:36 AM Reply Like
  • The Aristos
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
    True. It's much more interesting to me as a consumer than an investor. I am excited to see how TV evolves over the next few years. I just don't think Intel is going to be the one that wins this new landscape. Perhaps knowing that ahead of time is why you are so lackluster about it?
    8 Jun 2013, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • Ron Myers
    , contributor
    Comments (255) | Send Message
    I'm an INTC investor and feel like this is interesting, but unlikely to work out and is probably not that material compared to the size of their core business even if it does (which I am pretty excited about).
    8 Jun 2013, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • FreeStateYank
    , contributor
    Comments (803) | Send Message
    I've been waiting for someone to get it right... Can't stand paying the cable company for a whole lot of stuff we never, ever watch.


    If Intel is first to a better way to deliver content now provided by the cable outlets, I'm all for it.
    8 Jun 2013, 08:48 AM Reply Like
  • Wanna
    , contributor
    Comments (726) | Send Message
    Check out that Mossberg interview with Intel exec re: Intel tv box earlier this year. A PR disaster. No ala chart, er, kart, hmmm...carte(?), just some minor tinkering re: choice (very little, but something compared to what we have now) but no break in price when compared to what we pay now. Needles to say, er...pinless to say, heck! Need less to say Mossberg wasn't impressed. Interesting that the Intel speakperson was a former Apple orcharder. Looks to MHO that the dude was expecting a bunch of yes folks to do the interviewing for it appears to MHO that he wasn't prepared. Fer sure Intel will have another PR go at it when the box is finally ready for chipment.
    8 Jun 2013, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • investingInvestor
    , contributor
    Comments (2464) | Send Message
    Intel Corporation and U.S. Steel Corporation in the late 1950s. One will be a classic business case study, and the other already is a classic business case study. Both are Lose-Lose. Both are C level management who are significant capital destroyers.


    Any right thinking investor would know 50 percent idle fab lines were an indication of malaise at Intel. This will be remembered as a sad time. What could be the possible upside for Intel?
    8 Jun 2013, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • ephud
    , contributor
    Comments (4288) | Send Message


    "Any right thinking investor would know 50 percent idle fab lines were an indication of malaise at Intel."


    Any right thinking investor would know Intel's fabs are running close to capacity now.
    8 Jun 2013, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • fidgewinkle
    , contributor
    Comments (597) | Send Message
    Any streaming service is going to have to pay some premium for content if it wants to have the kind of flexibility that will truly differentiate it from cable. Some premium will be required to have flexibility in when content is available for streaming. For example, will a TV episode be available for days, weeks, months or years after release? Also, there is the issue of how fine grained the licensing is. It sounds like Intel is pursuing a more fine grained model than is available in cable, which will cost a premium.


    There is definitely value to the consumer in being able to stream what they want when they want it, including old content. There may even be some willingness to pay extra, but I wouldn't count on 175%. Clearly, more fine grained control of what you're buying can significantly reduce subscription cost through elimination of no value channels packaged in.


    It is reasonable to presume that the content for a typical streaming user will be less than 175% and more than 100% of cable. It is also reasonable to expect that streaming will have to be the same price or lower than cable to significantly draw customers. This means that there is something less than 75% of the cable content cost to be made up. Fortunately, there is massive inefficiency in ad delivery.


    Most ads are priced in a way that is predicated upon a low level of relevance to the viewer. Just by being able to determine gender and rough age of a viewer, the value of an ad view becomes much higher. By having an intelligent system that evaluates viewers and manages ad selection, a lot of value can be unlocked. Content owners may want to have some ads imbedded in their programming, but they might also prefer that the streaming manager handle that for them. The real question about any streaming service is how well can it take advantage of targeted ads to make up for that ~75% premium.


    For Intel this is all about hardware. Undoubtedly, they are frustrated with TV partners that have screwed the pooch on multiple occasions. Running a streaming service not only allows them to get their hardware in people's homes, but allows them to define the network hardware that manages and delivers the content.


    I'm not sure that Intel belongs in this market, but it is interesting. To a large degree, this is about defining the home entertainment/computing hub. I could very easily see the set top box hardware from this service being able to run Windows and/or Xbox OS in a virtualized environment that would make for a very compelling entertainment system.
    8 Jun 2013, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • mikedmont
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
    Why don't they stick to their core business?
    9 Jun 2013, 10:20 AM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (9709) | Send Message
    Which one? The PC business that all of the pundits are whining about dying, the server business that everyone is wetting themselves about because ARM shows powerpoint slides of new server tech, the mobile business that up until recently the analysts didn't think stood a chance, or semiconductor manufacturing which TSMC claims it can do better than Intel...on powerpoints?
    14 Jun 2013, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • Sam Liu
    , contributor
    Comments (3711) | Send Message
    today on the two planes I took to HKG and from CAN, I saw many IPhones and various IPads, I suppose since it means that that consumer has arrived at a certain attainment of status, I never attained that.


    Nevertheless, on the budget airline from PVG, I saw the same amount of IPads and IPhones as I would see on any typical or full fare(+) airliner. What particularly hit me on my way back to SHA, the man on my right had his IPad mini propped up on the smart screen while the lady on the left had the IPad propped up in a groove in a Logitec keyboard.


    Then I dreamed on of my next Apple device that being most possibly a 13" MBA, since it would be my rarely used 2ndary computer. Also can't adjust to IOS.
    15 Jun 2013, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • techy46
    , contributor
    Comments (11418) | Send Message
    I sure wish somebody would offer pay per show or view programming that beat my $80 per month DirectTV cost without having to be a bleeding edge innovator. Wouldn't it be great to order a schedule of what you wanted without all the dribble. I might even pay more just to teach Comcast, DirectTV and others a lesson.
    9 Jun 2013, 10:50 AM Reply Like
  • Wanna
    , contributor
    Comments (726) | Send Message
    Well, Intel-A-Box went kaput. Time for a write-off, I mean, write-up as to why it didn't go good, and the lessense learned.
    8 Jan 2014, 10:45 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs