In yesterday’s post, I spoke about how Apple should work on its TV strategy.
One of the ideas that have been floating around is that Apple will unveil an HDTV set with iTunes and a TV App Store.
After all, Google already announced Google TV that includes a set-top box and connected TV sets with Google software built-in. So can Apple’s TV product be far behind?
Today’s poll question is:
Recently, I was thinking that the concept of “owning the screen” is a smart strategy to go after.
For example, let’s look at Apple. They are redefining smartphones, and now introduced the 4th screen, the iPad. So it’s just a matter of time before Apple goes after the other two screens: PCs and TVs
Apple does well selling computers, but I think it should go after the TV screen next. It has a much brighter future than PCs. Now that Google showed its hand with Google TV, I expect Apple to make a move to TV in the near future. It’s not inside knowledge from Apple, just a hunch. Plus a few articles appearing on the blogosphere that say this may be forthcoming (check the links down below).
Now that Apple is dominating the mobile and tablet “screens”, it can go after the hardest screen of all: TVs.
TV’s aren’t just for watching TV. Television sets are just the biggest screen in the home now. Although many people say consumers don’t want the Internet on their TV, I think they’re not looking at the future.
How will Apple do it? Will it be a version of its Mac Mini? Or Apple TV? Or some new product? Some people are even saying Apple will release its own line of Internet-connected HDTVs. I’m not sure, but I think going with retail, like a set-top box is a difficult market in the U.S. Getting Apple products and services embedded into connected TV sets seems like a better way to go, with less risk. Google will test the market with Google TV this Fall, so perhaps Apple can afford to sit a wait for a bit.
But it’s clear that Apple’s TV strategy should be far more serious and less hobbyist. Apple investors don’t want the company to sell products that are for hobbyists. They want mass consumer adoption and blockbuster sales. Can Steve Jobs deliver? Can Google? Or will another company emerge?
I’ve been using computers since the early 80s when my parents bought me and my brothers an Atari 400.
It was cheap looking, and had a flat plastic keyboard, but it was the cheaper version of the Atari 800, which had a real keyboard. The Atari 400 has a famously flat keyboard that was tough to type on.
But I learned a lot from using the Atari. I remember buying a book on BASIC before we bought a computer and I would study the book to get ready. I began learning about BASIC programming from a book, but then I got bored and realized I just liked playing all the cool Atari video games. Although I never owned an Atari 2600 or 7800 game systems, I did have the computer which was a lot more functional.
The Atari 400.
After the Atari 400 years, I switched to other computers (like the Atari 5200!), then bought an IBM PC.
It was my first real computer, and I bought it in a local electronics store in Brooklyn. I remember having to take a taxi home because the box was really big due to the huge CRT screens at the time. After that, I owned a few Dells. I upgraded every few years, and the only operating system I’ve used is Windows.
I remember Windows 95, although I did not wait in line for the official release. (I’m nerdy, but not that nerdy.) I kept using windows, all the way up to Windows XP. But I never quite made it to Vista. And I never will.
In November 2009, I needed a new laptop and decided to get a MacBook Pro. It wasn’t a tough decision. I started using an iPod, then an iPhone for a few years. I guess the iPhone is like a gateway drug, right?
Anyway, I’m happy with my MacBook Pro. Sure it was expensive, but it’s reliable, sturdy and doesn’t require any tinkering. I’m done with tinkering with Windows settings and errors. (OK, I still have my desktop computer running Windows XP, but I don’t use it very often.)
I’m happy with my MacBook Pro. I probably won’t be going back to Windows. Sorry Bill.
Flickr photo courtesy of mwichary
As you may know, I’m in Rio right now. And I decided that I won’t use my iPhone on this trip at all because of the high price of international data plans and voice calls when abroad. So essentially, my iPhone is now an iPod Touch.
When I landed in Rio, I made sure I to turn on “Airplane Mode” so I wouldn’t have any surprises in terms of data charges. When I traveled to Hong Kong and London recently, I got hit with lots of charges for data and voice/text so I wanted to save some money this time. I’m already a heavy user of Skype, especially for international calls, so this isn’t a huge adjustment for my iPhone or laptop.
However Skype doesn’t have an instant messaging feature. It can send texts to cell phones, but it charges about 11 cents for each text. And that can really add up.
The hotel I’m staying at has Wi-Fi for a reasonable price, so I’m using that for Internet browsing and phone calls. However, I still wanted a way to text my friends and family back in the states. All the methods I researched didn’t have a great way to keep in touch.Other services allow you to chat with friends (like Facebook or even Truphone) but both sides need to have the app installed and be connected.
I wanted a chat-like instant message system that could be “always on”. I also wanted it to connect to a number of different instant message systems, including AIM, Google and text messaging. And I found the solution in AIM for iPhone.
With AIM, I can use it for regular instant messages with other AIM users. However it also allows for texts to your iPhone contacts for free. After importing your contacts, you just click on a contact to send free, unlimited texts directly to someone’s cell phone.
Yes, that’s free. And you can stay logged in as long as you like. When someone replies to you, you receive it as an AIM message, not a text. Thus, you avoid text charges and can stay connected in real time to anyone.
One important note: some hotels charge you for each device that is using Wi-Fi. So if you have a laptop and an iPhone, you’ll be charged twice the daily Wi-Fi rate. I discovered this when I was in Hong Kong and logged in from both devices and was stuck with a higher than expected Internet bill.
However, some hotels allow you to log-in by your room number which means you’re only charged once no matter how many devices you have. (Clearly, I prefer this method since it seems most fair for travelers.)
So, the beauty of using AIM for iPhone means I can chat with my Google Mail contacts, AIM friends, and anyone else via text messages. All for free. (I’m pretty sure you can’t send picture mail though, but that’s ok.)
My iPhone tends to log me out of the Wi-Fi connection at the hotel (since it requires a log in and authentication) but it doesn’t take much to log back in when I turn my phone back on. At least I can be connected with the world, as long as I have Wi-Fi.
When I want to make a voice call, I use Skype (on my iPhone or laptop) which has worked great.
Of course you can’t always have Wi-Fi available everywhere you go. If I leave the confines of my hotel, I have to hunt out Wi-Fi signals. But it’s a great alternative to high phone bills and expensive international data plans.
Yesterday I arrived in Rio de Janeiro for the IPTV Americas show. It took about 18 hours to fly here (along with a stop over and a plane delay), so you have to really want to come here. I was joking earlier today that I should use Skype to give my presentation next year–if Skype is good enough for CNN and Oprah it should suffice for conference organizers.
Early evening view from my hotel room
Anyway, the first step to coming to Rio is getting a visa. It seems like Brazil is one of the few South American countries that requires a visa from U.S. citizens. No big deal, really, but there are a lot of hoops to go through before you know you actually receive a visa. You probably shouldn’t buy that plane ticket yet, in case you’re denied the visa. And you probably don’t want to book your hotel either. Plan ahead!
In order to get a visa, you need to hand over your passport to the Brazilian consulate, and also give them supporting documents so they know you’re not going to Brazil to work.
Upon entering the Brazilian consulates’ office, I was reminded of waiting at the local DMV office. The consulate was just a big waiting room (with the requisite uncomfortable chairs), and protective windows where you can interact with the employees.
Once you take a number from the machine, just sit and wait for your number to be called. If you’re like me and got a number by pressing the wrong button (Brazilian citizens vs. tourist visas), you have to wait an extra long time. You might even be asked to get a new number and start waiting from the beginning. (I insisted on not having to do that.) Oh, and before all this, you have to make an “appointment” on the Brazilian consulate’s web site, which means you just come in and get a number and wait like everyone else.
After your number is called, things go a lot smoother. Handing over my passport to a complete stranger was an odd experience. But after 5 business days, I was told to come back and get my passport with visa.
So far, I’ve managed to pick up two words in Portuguese: Hello and “thank you” (obrigado). But since I speak Spanish, I can actually understand Portuguese if someone speaks slow. I estimate my comprehension level is about 70%. Although I try to use my simple Portuguese, I find that I always start speaking in Spanish initially.
It seems people here are really friendly about the language, which is really nice. I just wish I could remember to stop saying “Gracias” and say “Obrigado” instead.
So here I am. Rio. IPTV Americas. More to come, later.
P.S. It is winter here.
P.P.S. It gets dark at about 5pm.
Over a year ago, I decided to move all my blog content from DVR Bulletin here on alvear.com. I also let my domain registration lapse.
So I just noticed that someone has already registered DVRBulletin.com and is using it as a blog, or perhaps a splog. I’m not really sure what they are doing.
When I first started the DVR Bulletin a few years ago, I had just come off writing for a blog network about DVRs (it was called AllPVR.com). But eventually, I realized that DVRs are just one piece of the puzzle. DVRs are really about making TV on-demand. So is watching TV on the Internet. The term just sounded out of date and not relevant as a single topic for a blog.
In any event, if you link to any old DVR Bulletin stories, feel free to link here instead. You can look at the archives or just search here to find some older articles. I may even pull out some of the less time-sensitive articles and re-post them in the future.
Yesterday I wrote about the debate about the future of TV, referencing a debate during this year’s SXSW festival featuring Avner Ronen battling with Mark Cuban. So here’s a clip of that debate, thanks to YouTube.
Talking about the future of TV is one of my geeky interests, so I can really appreciate both sides of the debate here. As I mentioned in yesterday’s post, I think both the Internet and TV can work together rather than battle for domination.
Many people have been saying that the Internet is going to replace TV. Others say that TV cannot be replaced because of the business structures and technology in place today favor the current system of Service Providers and content owners.
For a few months, Boxee CEO Avner Ronen has taken the side of the Internet as disruptor of TV. Meanwhile, Mark Cuban, CEO of HDnet, said that TV won’t be changing anytime soon. At SXSW, Avner and Mark had a debate called “Battle for TV” which I didn’t catch live, but I did read some of the blog posts.
However, I think people are missing the point. It’s not TV vs. the Internet. It’s TV and the Internet.
Google TV has already showcased this–they are putting together the best of the the Internet and TV into one seamless interface. They aren’t trying to limit what can be viewed, either. Google TV will open up the full Internet, with its Chrome browser that supports Adobe Flash.
Google’s vision seems to make sense, even though it is an untested consumer product. The Internet is all about on-demand content. It’s also especially great at breaking up content into smaller pieces, like news clips, TV shows or anything other is posted on YouTube. So putting together on-demand (Internet) with live shows (regular TV) is a great way to round out the next-generation TV.
In the future, the Internet can be used as a delivery platform for on-demand TV content. Today, the Internet is already being used by many people to watch YouTube, NetFlix, Amazon, iTunes and Blockbuster. And for live shows, like breaking news, sports and live reality shows, TV still works great.
Think about it: The Internet isn’t great for live content. Where do you go first when you hear of a breaking news story and want to watch a live video feed? Your trusty TV.
Where do you go when you want to watch TV on your own time? Or watch clips? You go on the Internet and watch a clip on Huffington Post. Or perhaps go to ABC.com or Netflix and watch something on-demand.
Mark Cuban said recently: “The future of television is television.”
My response: “The future of television is Internet-connected television.”
So let’s not fight about TV vs. the Internet. They aren’t competing against each other. They’re just trying to find a great way to work together in a seamless way on your TV set.
Yesterday, AT&T announced that it was dropping its $30 per month unlimited data plan for new mobile phone customers, including the iPhone and iPad. Instead, AT&T will offer metered plans for users.
This is awful news for consumers, especially for new iPad users who were looking forward to getting unlimited Internet. After all, the real power of the iPad comes from its always-on Internet connection.
All You Can Eat (Not)
This move by AT&T will no doubt begin a round of similar activity by other mobile and broadband operators. Unlimited data plans aren’t a sustainable business, and it never has been. Although some people don’t use data much, it’s becoming clear that data use is becoming more popular than phone calls.
Of course, Comcast has already been testing a metering plan for broadband Internet. It has even put out a metering application that lets consumers see how much data they’ve been using in the month. Comcast says that very few people actually go over these unwritten data limits so it won’t apply to everyone.
But clearly, this move away from an all you can eat model is the way of the future. Mobile and broadband operators understand that unlimited data plans can only lead to trouble down the road. It’s better to make consumers understand what they are using, and charge them for it. That way, they won’t be just another dumb pipe provider. Plus, they can earn more revenues via a tiered offering than an all-you-can-eat model.
Aside from this tiered broadband, I think other models will emerge including something that I call “Premium Broadband”. This essentially means that broadband operators will offer tiered pricing for Internet access, but will also offer premium plans for users that want to watch video and TV online.
So, broadband providers can offer a $20 to $30 plan that gives consumers access to unlimited Netflix, Amazon or Blockbuster streaming, for example. And this premium plan can come with certain quality of service guarantees, so that there’s very little buffering.
It seems like the age of unlimited data plans are soon to be history.
(Flickr photo by Jeremy Brooks)
IPTV is all about the walled garden approach. For the last five years or so, Telcos around the world have been building up their broadband networks in order to support advanced data, voice and video services.
With declining wireline/voice revenues, many telcos are realizing that adding video to their offerings makes great sense. Although it’s an expensive and time-consuming proposition, rife with few global standards and unknown ROI, telcos realized that they had to do something or they’d no longer have a business. Innovation and investment is what is saving the telcos.
IPTV was always about the walled garden–meaning keeping the broadband network manageable by only allowing broadcast TV and VOD services. And keeping out content that wasn’t authorized. Opening up the full Internet to consumers was seen as a risky move.
It is also unprecedented. I don’t know of any telco providers anywhere in the world that allows full Internet browsing via their IPTV networks. It was seen as a threat. Opening the doors to Internet video, like YouTube and Netflix on the TV was a threat to TV revenues being generated by Service Providers.
After all, won’t consumers just watch shows on YouTube? Won’t they forget about watching the broadcast version of a show and just watch highlights later on? Or save it on their DVR? Or even order a recent blockbuster through Netflix or Amazon, rather than using the cable or IPTV carrier’s VOD system?
But it looks like the genie is out of the bottle.
Consumers are consuming more and more video on their computers and phones. It’s almost second nature. Consumers also want to watch TV shows and movies on their own time–not just waiting for shows to appear on primetime every night at a certain time.
Now that the genie is out, consumers have taken the lead. Service Providers are finding that offering a variety of Over the Top (OTT) video services can be a crucial differentiator for them and something that consumers really want and value.
As a result, many Service Providers are opening up their walled gardens. The real question now is: how much of the walled garden do you open? Do you open the gates all the way? Or just open up certain sites? Or certain TV apps?
Perhaps the bigger question is, how do you earn more revenues from opening up the walled garden? Do you charge broadband subscribers more per month? Is there a premium offering that lets consumers watch unlimited Internet video? Will providers switch to tiered pricing and throttling, rather than unlimited data plans?
It seems like Broadband operators understand that they are getting to the point where they may be seen as a dumb pipe operator. But before that happens, I think they’ll fight tool and nail.
RSS Feed
Twitter