LIVEdigitally

Author Archives: Jeremy Toeman

Curved TVs are the new 3DTVs

Posted on by

20140108-162233.jpgApparently the hot, buzzy thing at CES this year is the curved OLED TVs. I saw one – it’s very very pretty. And much like the last 2 attempts by manufacturers to stir up interest in buying new sets, this just isn’t going to cut it.

Firstly, we all need to acknowledge the massive rush to buy new sets last decade occurred because of *multiple* factors that contributed to a zeitgeist-level shift in set ownership:

  • Thinness: sets went from being 2 feet deep to 6 inches or less deep
  • Size: sets went from 27 inches to 50 inches
  • Resolution: shift from below standard definition to high definition
  • Quality: not only the raw resolution, but every aspect of picture quality was obviously visually improved
  • Sex appeal: being early to having a plasma was sexy – then when it became mainstream enough, not having some kind of flatscreen was definitively unsexy
  • Format shifts: simultaneous to new sets, tons of new content was instantly available – and not just new content, but libraries of favorites were accessible
  • Set price: getting a flatscreen (at Costco!) was very very affordable
  • Content price: while VHS libraries were only for the few, building a collection of your favorite DVDs was relatively inexpensive (for younger readers: VHS tapes in the early 90s would sell for $80 or so)

All of the above occurred in an effective blink of an eye. There were so many reasons to to upgrade, it just had to happen.

But now that these beautiful, thin, huge displays got mounted on peoples’ walls, it’s become a lot harder to unmount them. I don’t even want to think about doing it – and I don’t think the manufacturers have yet presented us a reason to follow along.

Smart TV? OK, if I’m buying a new set. Or I just get an Apple TV, Roku, Xbox, Playstation, Chromecast, etc. I gain very little benefit from an actual set upgrade, compared with the cost of an add-on box that I can easily replace. It’s akin in my eyes to paying the extra $3+K for an in-dash GPS unit as opposed to buying a $100 Garmin, or just using my phone.

2nd try: 3dTV? Personally, I actually avoided one the last time I bought a set (63″ Samsung plasma – yes!). Turns out I wasn’t the only one, and 3d was (as I predicted it would be) quite a failure.

Batter up…. CURVED SETS! Huh? Don’t get me wrong – they are pretty in so many ways. Thinner than my iPad – love it, very slick. But would I even consider the hassle of the upgrade for it? Same deal for 4K – just not *enough* to cause another societal shift for “MORE”. Further, I think the curved nature of the device is an ill-fit for most living rooms, where the benefit of super-thin is eliminated by the odd shape in the room. Has anyone checked if these things are Feng Shui?

Sooner or later we’ll likely find the next big reason to upgrade displays, but it’ll have to rank in there in the leagues of when TV was first available to the masses, to when it first went color, to the current state, before it happens.

Gravity Movie Review (spoiler-free)

Posted on by

20130913-003420.jpgLet me start by disclaiming “spoiler free” – I assume you have seen a preview or read at least enough to know the most basic premise of the film. If you truly have no idea what it’s about, well, I make references to content used in the trailers. But seriously, if this does describe you, why are you even click to get this far?

I had a chance to see an early screener of the movie tonight, and felt like doing a little writing about it. In all candor, I’m more negative than positive on it personally, but I think there are a lot of reasons to go see it in theaters (if you are going to see it at all). Gravity might well define the “must see in theater” experience far more than any action movie ever would.

The Good:

  • Beautiful, amazing, breathtakingly phenomenal cinematography. I honestly feel closer to having an idea of what being in space might be like as a result of the way this was shot.
  • Solid acting. I felt the characters were genuine, and Clooney/Bullock fit their roles quite well – in fact I’m surprised at any negativity toward the acting on IMDB message boards or other spots.
  • Suspenseful. Cuaron did a great job keeping the audience on the edge of their seat, and had a solid balance between slowly built, drawn out sequences and other “gotcha” kind of moments.
  • Dialogue and characters. Great blends of comic and serious, deep and light, etc moments. Very well put together from that end.

    • The Bad:

  • Repetitive events. You know that scene in the preview where someone is grabbing on to some space ship part for dear life, and it appears that if they miss it they will be lost in space forever? Yeah, I’ve now seen that moment a few dozen times, to the point where I’d predict a Gravity Drinking Game around it. It’s just too much, and while I get it that that’s a big part of the premise, it becomes nearly comical after the first few times it occurs.
  • Too many crises. If you’ve read the trivia around Apollo 13, you’ve probably noticed they deliberately removed some of the events that transpired in real life from the film, mostly because they didn’t think the audience would find it believable. In Gravity, I felt that the cascading series of mishaps were just too many from start to finish. I think numerous moments could’ve been reduced or removed completely and the end result would’ve been more gripping. Instead, I kept getting that feeling where my suspension of disbelief was being taxed.
  • Too many “last possible moment” sequences. To avoid spoiling anything, just imagine a caper movie where the bomb is set to go off, and after a ton of action, the bomb is defused with less than a second to go. Now do it 3 or more (I’ve lost count) times in the same movie. It certainly builds up tension, but also increased the “okay, now they are just messing with me” effect.
  • The trailer. While I’d say it’s a tossup between Drive and Hancock as to “worst expectation setting for a movie, EVER,” I’d say Gravity’s trailer is on thin ice. If you’ve paid too much attention to it, it’s pretty ridden with spoilers (thankfully I had not seen it more than once before going into the movie). But if you also just saw it once or twice, you’d probably be thinking it’s a non-stop space action flick. It isn’t, and if you are unfamiliar with the director’s other works, you should definitely pay them some attention first. The movie paces really well actually, but it’s a much more drawn-out film than I think a lot of people will expect.
  • Annoying 3D. I wish I’d seen the IMAX 3D version, maybe that would change my feelings here. As it is, I didn’t, and other than 2-3 “really cool” uses of 3D, it was pretty superfluous to the movie.

    • Overall, I have negative feelings about Gravity. Per the above, it was wonderfully put together, but ultimately I felt the movie spent more time trying to manipulate me with unnecessary tension. I think the basic premise was suspenseful and dramatic enough, but had several too many “and now we’ll find a way for *another* crazy bad thing to happen” moments for me. I wish that weren’t the case, as I really did want to like it, but I’ve spent the past few hours picking it apart, not sitting around stunned at its beauty

    What a Next-Gen Apple TV Could Bring

    Posted on by

    While I’m not as bullish as others that the following tweet should be taken as gospel, I’ve been thinking a lot recently on what a new version of an Apple TV product could look like.

    So, in no particular order… “why update the Apple TV?”

    • 4K video
      I wouldn’t bet on this, at all, since there’s virtually no content available today, and probably won’t be much in the next 24-36 months.  If 4K looks promising, they can rev again in the future.  Further, Apple has historically *not* led in this category, and I’d be surprised to see them do it this time.
    • Rich SDK
      Yes, there are plenty of apps available for Apple TV today, but access is limited and granted in an ad-hoc fashion to selected content providers.  Many folks assume one day they’ll open this up to a wider developer network -as in, all developers.  I know very little about the programmability/guts of the Apple TV, but I have to assume the current one simply wasn’t designed to be uber-expandable.  As a sub-point, I *could* see an argument for an extension of iOS here, but I’d hope it’d be a differentiated offering to relate to the different UI mechanisms.
    • HDMI Passthrough
      For the literal heaps of things Google TV has done wrong, HDMI passthrough was smart.  Enabling the Apple TV to sit on Input 1 at all times enables no-input switching for any connected experience.  But even better than that, it’s not a stretch to see a version of AirPlay with a, wait for it, transparent layer.  What does that mean?  Imagine every cool thing about Interactive TV you’ve ever heard or thought of, minus all the lame stuff, now have it actually work, powered by your iPhone/iPad.  Awesome.
    • Gaming
      Many of us already believe the next generation of consoles is doomed, but what if the Apple TV came with an optional joystick and as much gaming horsepower as an iPad or Xbox 360, and stayed at the $99 price point?  It’s the exact opposite strategy Microsoft is taking with their platform (gaming first, everything else second), but since about 1998 that’s pretty much a winning approach.

    And that’s it – which is telling in its own way.  There’s no other “basic” TV/streaming need to upgrade the current hardware, and Apple certainly isn’t going to put out a new version without a very specific reason.  Perhaps I’m missing something (comment please!), but I am at a loss to come up with any other drivers for new hardware.   Oh, and yes, I’m ruling out Siri, physical motion gestures, cameras, etc – while any could certainly come at some point, they aren’t going to exist without one of the above as well.

    Which leaves me with the following: if you do not think the above reasons are compelling, and you can’t come up with a better one, I think you can pretty much write off a new piece of hardware.  Further, I have strong convictions that the only truly viable option above is adding a Rich SDK/open developers kit, so if we don’t see that next week, I don’t think we see any new device show up either.

    Nine Things You Might Not Know About Cord Cutting

    Posted on by

    The topic of cord cutting is always an interesting one, one that waxes and wanes across technology and media outlets over time.  In all cases, there are compelling arguments for cord cutting, and just as compelling ones against it.  I thought I’d opine a little on the topic.

    1) Cord cutting is undeniably on the rise.  But how much is the real question. First, it’s important to acknowledge this is after the longest run of cable sub GROWTH we’ve ever seen. We hit the peak last year , and are now backing down to some other plateau – but i’m far from convinced we’re heading to an abysmal valley.  We might see decline continue for several quarters, but realistically – the rate of decline is virtually meaningless against the business operations of most Pay TV providers.

    2) How economic recovery is a factor. This may sound counterintuitive, but I believe much of the decline in subs is related to post-recession recovery – yes, recovery.  The #1 thing people spend money on in bad times is home entertainment – its much cheaper to go up to a premium cable package than go to the movies.  Now that the economy is doing better, people are reallocating their spend, and choosing to be entertained outside of the home.

    3) Cord cutting isn’t inherently disruptive, but it could tangentially be part of a massive change in the industry.  Here’s a “major impact” possible outcome: breakdown of geographic/regional MSO barriers.  Traditionally the only way for a Pay-TV Provider like Comcast/TWC to expand was via acquiring local providers (of which there are still ~12000 in the US alone, jfyi).  As we see these companies increasingly offer TV Everywhere and app-based offerings (on Apple TV, Roku, Smart TVs, iPads, and Web Browsers), it *must* be tempting for them to start figuring out how to legally encroach without boundaries.  I believe this must happen over time, and will be the “singularity” that most disrupts the ecosystem as it exists today.

    4) Awesome hype: I was recently discussing cord cutting with a reporter, and one thing that emerged from the conversation is the realization that nobody in the media is going to write a blog post/article entitled “TV: Doing Great!”.  It’s not interesting, not dramatic, and wouldn’t get page views – therefore isn’t news.  But to be the canary in the coal mine – now that’s enticing!  So we have a heap of prominent news outlets with articles written by people who don’t necessarily fully get the industry they are writing about (no offense intended – this is one of the most complicated industries to even attempt to understand!) AND are *incentivized* to write dramatic/sensational headlines.  “Death of TV” is a good one, “Nobody’s Cord Cutting At All” is not.

    5) Live TV is well-loved, and awesome – even if you don’t watch it. I find an amazing correlation between people who believe cord cutting is huge and also think everybody in the world has seen House of Cards, and in fact they all watched it opening weekend.  It leads to a terrible bias about how individuals perceive most TV audiences, which are nowhere near accurate.  The truth in TV watching comes down to this: even in households WITH DVRs (not the majority of US homes, btw), over 50% of TV watching is done live.  Now I personally cannot fathom that behavior, nor the desire to watch 4.5+ hours per day of TV – but it’s still more accurate than someone like myself, who watches virtually everything on my own schedule (and device of choice).

    6) MSOs will do just fine even if cord-cutting emerges more significantly.  These companies have spent a few decades with a lot of CapEx which has now enabled them to create new value-added services. Voice, for example, became a multi-billion dollar business for Comcast, with NO SIGNIFICANT investment whatsoever.  Now they are looking toward: Home Security, Home Automation/Monitoring, increased Communications, etc.  The revenue that fades (if any) from TV will shift to Internet and other value-added services.

    7) The real damage is to Broadcast Networks. If you really want to analyze the business impact, it’s essential understand the revenue flow and content itself.  Even in a cord-cutters utopia, with all of everything available fully on demand (and free, if I get them right), the content is still king. So in this utopia, however the business model works, it seems like the companies whose role is buying shows and distributing them to cable networks will need to find a new raison d’etre.  We’ll still need Internet, and we’ll still want stuff on demand – those two functions alone necessitate a service provider.

    8. Cord Cutting Paradise might really be more Hellish. Pretty much every analysis on the topic shows that a la carte pricing and unbundling will cost consumers more than it saves them.  Again, for everyone reading this who thinks most people are like them, and only watch two shows at a time, all marathon/binge-style – you are in the extreme minority of audiences.  Buying, for example, Game of Thrones on iTunes goes for roughly $39/season.  Or you can upgrade to get HBO (which typically comes with a bunch of other channels), and get all 3 seasons, and the entire back catalog of HBO originals for (depending on provider) typically $10-20 (or more) per month.  It’s a good deal.  For a household of 4, who watch 4.5 hours per day (on multiple TVs in multiple rooms, plus their mobile devices), that’s 540 viewing hours per month (or more) – so if you pay $100/month for TV, it’s averaging under a quarter an hour. Not too shabby.

    9) One more thing on the “great unbundling” of TV.  I’ve read numerous reports about how a variety of ambitious startups and tech ventures are negotiating with Hollywood to offer TV in different forms.  Sounds good in theory, and follows a very Google-like logical argument around content, but flies in the face of business interests and, more importantly, long term multi-billion dollar contracts.  The “big” service providers (Comcast, etc) all have “most favored nation” style clauses with the broadcasters that utterly prevent anyone else from buying it any cheaper.  So for anyone to offer it cheaper, they will likely do so at extreme loss.  Literally, any vision of any other type of offering is an unrealistic fantasy, and I cannot possibly imagine how it happens.

    Looking forward to thoughtful replies in the comments!

    All anyone needs to do to "disrupt" television is…

    Posted on by

    Want to know how to “kill” the traditional TV industry?  It’s easy.  Come up with a cash flow of roughly $70 billion.  That’s it.  Pure and simple.

    The thing about it, that so many people out there seem to not grasp (which frustrates me to no end, I must say), is it takes about that much money to maintain the rough production costs (and profits) for all the shows we love to watch.  See, we all know that there’s some perfect blend between Live TV broadcasting and an all-streaming/on-demand library (neither end of the spectrum are “correct”), but we don’t know how to get there.  Meanwhile, everyone wants to talk about killing/disruption the TV ecosystem. So let’s talk about the cold hard facts of this world:

    TV Shows Are Expensive to Make. While new technologies across the spectrum certainly reduce many aspects of production, if you want a Game of Thrones, House of Cards, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, etc type of show, you need sets, lighting, etc.  We *cannot* get around that statement in any way.  So regardless of the surge in lower cost reality shows, if you enjoy quality dramas/comedies for 44/22 minutes at a time, you need a budget.  Unless you can get all the actors, directors, writers, key grips, etc to take a big salary haircut, this will not change.

    Advertising Pays The Bulk of it. Other than fine shows from HBO, Showtime, Netflix, and a handful of others, the wide array of money that covers costs of TV shows comes from the $70(+) billion ad industry.  There is no model, from subscription to a la carte to anything else that can easily replace this cash flow as far as I am aware, but if so, I’m sure we’d all love to hear about it.

    victoryag.org Advertising Models Are Based on Live/Near-Live Viewing. Another tough, but true, fact about the existing ecosystem is the revenue is predicated on live audiences.  While I love catch-up and streaming as much as anyone, it does not contribute to the bill-paying.  For this to change/shift/be disrupted, the massive amounts of people, and money, all have to come up with an entirely new model for their world.  Again, even if we know there’s a desire/trend toward a decrease in live viewership, nobody, anywhere, has come up with a successful alternate structure here.

    So the TL;DR version of the above: TV Shows Cost a Lot Of Money, and the Only Way to Pay for them is Advertising, and the Only Way Advertisers Spend Money is on Live Viewing.

    If you want/expect the above statement to change, get ready for more ads in your streaming – lots of them.  Like 8 of every 30 minutes worth.  That’s what it takes.

    While we’re at it, I just want to add two topics regarding the discussion around TV disruption:

    Pay-TV Operators Have an Arbitrarily Bad Rep. It’s easy to blame Comcast, ATamp;T, etc for anything and everything, but they should not be pointed to as “the problem” of television.  Yes, they have their part to play, but when you consider the fact that someone has to send people into homes to repair lines, answer customer service calls, etc, there is always going to be an easy enemy.  And as much as our cable bills have risen dramatically over the past two decades, the cost the operators are paying for content have risen *more* dramatically, and those costs are not entirely being passed along to consumers.  I’m not defending anything about Pay-TV providers, but I’m also not in agreement that they are “bad” and everyone else is “good”.

    Most Startups Are Clueless About the TV Industry. Yes, that probably sounds harsh, but considering the quantity of companies who spring out of nowhere and want to disrupt or change things, it amazes me how few of them actually take the time to learn enough about the world and business they are getting into (read Mike Wolf’s solid piece on this here).  This is important because the “TV Industry” is actually an amalgam of many industries, from service providers, content production, distribution, studios, data, etc.  It’s easy to say “TV Industry” but in reality, we shouldn’t say it at all – it’s isn’t “an” industry, it’s many.  My tip to startups: pick one specific sub-industry you want to get into/go after/change/kill/whatever, and go learn how it *really* works.

    So there you have it, your simple recipe for how to disrupt the simple world of television.  Good luck with that.

    Quickie: Introducing NextGuide Web

    Posted on by

    TL;DR version: “Pinterest meets Evernote meets TV Guide” 🙂

    Today we introduced NextGuide Web. NextGuide Web is a new site that helps people find and explore TV shows and movies and see what their friends recommend and watch. The site lets users discover and watch shows on live TV and popular streaming services including Amazon Prime, Amazon Instant Video, iTunes, Hulu Plus, and Netflix.

    What can you do with it?

    Single Search – No more need to browse site after site to find your favorite show on a streaming service – search once on NextGuide for combined live and streaming results.

    Universal Watchlist and Queue – No need to maintain unique queues on all your favorite sites, just create one list at NextGuide for anything you’d ever like to see.

    Automatic Reminders – For any show or movie, set a reminder and NextGuide can email you whenever there’s a new airing on live TV or any streaming service.

    One Click to Watch amp; Record to DVR – When browsing shows, NextGuide includes direct links to watch on streaming services, or queue recordings to your home DVR (note: DVR features only for Comcast and DIRECTV subscribers at present).

    Social Recommendations – Easily discover what shows and movies your Facebook friends are Liking, and get recommendations from other people who watch similar shows and movies as you do.

    For an example, here’s my personal TV profile on NextGuide.

    Here’s some of the other coverage about NextGuide Web.

    VentureBeat: http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/20/dijit-launches-a-web-version-of-its-nextguide-app-tv-utility/

    TechCrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/20/dijit-nextguide-web/

    Robert Scoble : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRZlfml5Aowamp;feature=youtu.beamp;a

    The Verge: http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/20/4346866/nextguide-web-replaces-your-dvr-interface-with-your-web-browser

    GigaOm: http://gigaom.com/2013/05/20/nextguide-web-app/

    Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/20/dijit-unveils-nextguide-web/

    The Next Web: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/05/20/dijit-media-launches-nextguide-web-a-site-to-help-discover-tv-and-movies-your-friends-love-to-watch/

    CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57585296-93/social-tv-app-nextguide-goes-from-mobile-to-the-web/

    PandoDaily: http://pandodaily.com/2013/05/20/nextguide-web-launches-can-it-possibly-be-a-discovery-powerhouse/

    Lost Remote: http://lostremote.com/dijit-media-debuts-nextguide-on-the-web-to-make-it-easier-to-find-and-watch-tv-shows_b37680

    TechNewsDaily: http://www.technewsdaily.com/18109-nextguide-keeps-track-favorite-shows.html

    Multichannel News: http://www.multichannel.com/technology/dijit%E2%80%99s-personal-tv-guide-targets-web/143394

    Appmarket.TV: http://www.appmarket.tv/second-screen/2124-dijit-media-introduces-nextguide-web-a-next-generation-social-tv-discovery-and-sharing-web-experience.html

    nScreenMedia: http://www.nscreenmedia.com/1/post/2013/05/guide-web-seeks-to-unify-search-and-discovery-of-video-online.html

    The End of Television: http://www.theendoftelevision.com/nextguide-tv-dijit-introduces-a-web-version-of-nextguide/

    Would love your feedback, so please take a glance around and let us know!

    Was Releasing House of Cards All At Once a Mistake?

    Posted on by

    Though I haven’t watched House of Cards yet (no spoilers!), I’ve followed the viewing behaviors and studies around the show extensively, and have come to an interesting conclusion: I believe, fundamentally, that shows should not be released all at once for optimal viewing.  Instead, my proposal would be a monthly release cycle of 4 episodes per month, followed by a season finale. Let me also state I’m a *huge* Netflix fan and supporter, so this isn’t intended as criticism of that company – this is uncharted territory and the company must be applauded for their (expensive) risk-taking.

    For backgrounder, here are some stats (not necessarily accurate) on per-episode viewing and others on overall Netflix traffic during opening weekend.  The TL;DR version of them is that Netflix did not experience an overall bump in usage – in effect House of Cards cannibalized against other Netflix traffic, not against live TV watching.  This isn’t necessarily a bad thing at all, though I’m sure they’d prefer to have eaten away at primetime content.  I’d postulate that perhaps a weekend launch wasn’t the right timing, and a mid-week release cycle of 4 episodes could have had a better impact.

    Next, the waiting cycle. I have a few friends who’ve binged the whole season already (as did TheVerge apparently), all of whom loved it, and are now waiting for a year to get the next season.  With any other show, the typical cycle is watch one, wait a week, get a new one.  That said, many shows really benefit from being able to watch more than one in a row (especially shows with a lot of nuance, such as my personal favorite Arrested Development), so there’s clearly value in the batch release.  If 4 episodes came out once a month, the audience would get the recurring sip of nectar whilst also enjoying the back-to-back viewing.

    Next, there’s a lack of scarcity being created here.  There’s no anticipation, no wait, no build-up – until next year. This basically benefits Netflix only once annually, whereas with a high quality show like House of Cards, they could see the uptake in “water cooler” effects on a monthly basis.  And the season finale would be “an event” as opposed to an utter non-event like it is now.  There’s no social pressure, no “OMG That Happened!?!” moment possible amongst any group of people.  In fact, there’s literally nothing tying together any form of a “community” around the show.  A cycle would help this immensely.

    So overall, I think that the “all at once” model is a great experiment, but one that certainly doesn’t “break” anything about TV.  I believe some shows deserve the weekly treatment (especially genres like traditional sitcoms, reality shows, etc), and others would be great with a monthly batch.  Personally, I find some shows have their own rhythms – I am catching up on The Wire only once every week or two specifically to savor the sweet deliciousness of that awesome show.  Let’s see what happens with House of Cards for Season 2.

    To Win in Technology, Sell Benefits, Not Features

    Posted on by

    Passoverriffic!

    Pictured here is a container of good ol’ Manischewitz brand cake meal (a staple of my pantry every Passover).  The packaging could show the contents, which is basically flour.  Instead, we see a picture of a cake (enticing or not).  I couldn’t think of a simpler way to make the point: if you really want to sell, focus on the benefits or outcome, not the features or process.

    Every time I read about a new phone and I hear about the processor, the cache, the RAM, etc, I think about cake meal.  This is something only Apple’s mastered, and Samsung’s rapidly learning – nobody cares about what’s inside the phone, they care about what it can do.

    And the same is true for computers, for TVs, even for Websites and apps.  In fact I can’t think of anything involving technology, other than cars, where this isn’t the case.

    Back when I was a consultant, this was possibly my most common advice.  When I mentor with 500Startups or FounderFuel, again, a topic that comes up virtually every meeting.

    And the reality is this is the blunt feedback so few people in technology seem to receive: other than your team and your supporters, nobody cares about what’s under the hood.

    I recommend exactly two things for anyone not sold on this:

    1 – think about how you’d try to sell cake meal

    2 – watch this video by Simon Sinek, one of my all time favorite TED Talks.

    Prediction: Cord Nevers Become Cord Getters

    Posted on by

    El Cable Guy es Mucho Loco

    As the phenomenon of predicting the death of TV via cord cutters is waning, it’s being replaced by a plausible (at first) sounding theory: cord nevers.  Whereas a cord cutter is one who cancels their Pay-TV service for free/streaming alternatives, a cord never is, roughly, a person under the age of 22 who, upon renting their first apartment after college, never subscribes for TV services in the first place.  My theory at this point is these people may live happily cable-free for a year or few, but sooner or later, they’ll pay.  Here’s a few reasons why:

    Cultural Zeitgeist
    The single most common binding element pulling modern culture together today is TV, and I can’t see anything replacing that in the short term.  As someone nearing the end of their first year watching entirely “catch up” I’ve noticed, multiple times, the feeling of being left out of some conversations.  By the way, I’d like to keep this post and ensuing discussion free from judgment regarding watching decisions – I don’t care what the show is, everyone’s free to be entertained however they’d like.  But I currently have no idea what exactly a Honey Boo Boo is, nor what the Amish Mafia are after, and I have literally zero friends who just finished Season 4 of The Wire like I just did (btw – awesome).  I believe the natural gravitas of “fitting in” will drive most people toward paying.

    Cheapest Entertainment Around
    Estimates vary, but for a typical 4+ hours/day home, watching TV with a pay-TV provider works out to about $0.25/hour.  People love to complain about their cable bill, but they really wouldn’t if they did the math. (not that I’m advocating any provider, I’m just not dissing on them either).   Then again, math is hard.

    victoryag.org Laziness FTW
    While it’s certainly simple enough to browse Netflix on my Apple TV, find a show, then watch it, it’s nowhere near as simple as turning on the TV, then pushing “channel up” enough times until something watchable appears.  As I’ve blogged about elsewhere, I fundamentally believe in the “escapism” nature of TV watching, which makes an all-on-demand lifestyle a lot of work.

    More Money, Less Time
    It’s easy to talk about “those kids today” and their willingness to watch movies in 10 minute increments on YouTube.  Yeah, I remember college too –  I had loads of free time, no money.  Now I have no time, and while I don’t have loads of money, I can easily do the mental math to figure out the money value of time makes hunting around websites and menus not a good use of time.

    TV, now with Free Internets!
    As the pay-TV industry has morphed into MVPDs (“multichannel video programming distributor” – worst rename ever!) and offer Internet and voice and home automation and monitoring and security and dishwashing and laundry and other services (mostly for sheer profit – other than the laundry part), the allocation of revenue is less relevant for them.  They can offer quintuple packages and more because it doesn’t really cost them anything, and most have invested so much money into capital expansion that they can continue to lay out new value added services for incremental costs.  So perhaps we’ll eventually pay for TV, with free everything else – or vice versa – it just won’t matter that much.

    While I do fundamentally believe we are in the middle of the most transformative era of television behaviors since the advent of the cable industry, I also think we are far from a radical new world.  Looking forward to constructive comments and feedback below.

    Why the HBO/Universal deal is VERY important

    Posted on by

    HBO and Universal just renewed a distribution deal.  For the next 10 years.

    If you are in any ways connected to the TV industry, be it for the past, present, or future of it, this is quite significant.  Why?

    Part of the reason TV as an industry is fairly impervious to disruption is the unbelievably tangled knot of deals and relationships.  In TV/Movie-land, deals are (1) worth Billions, and (2) made for the long-term.

    victoryag.org

    But with all the kerfuffle about TV changing, TV dying, TV this and that,we should take note that two of the biggest players in the industry just renewed a deal that is (1) worth Billions and (2) made for the long term.

    The significance is, in a nutshell, that in TV-land, business as usual is still going on.

    ps – dont think I’ve ever made a point before in 100 or less words!  😉

    Expectations and Thoughts for CES 2013

    Posted on by

    I love the smell of CES in the morning.  Seriously, I *love* CES (here’s my walkthrough the show last year with Robert Scoble – be warned – its 45 minutes long), though I’d love to see them move it back in the year a few weeks.  CES is like SXSW, except people actually get some work done in addition to all the partying.  I love the vaporware demos sandwiched in between the unnecessarily huge screens and the neon. Lots and lots of neon.  LOVE IT – and no, this isn’t a long, drawn out sarcastic rant.  But I’m taking a break from my annual “CES Tips” lists, as there’s nothing substantive to add.  Instead, here’s some thoughts on what I’m expecting next week:

    Nothing Revolutionary
    That might sound weird, but I’m just not expecting any “big new thing” at this year’s show, instead lots of “mostly better things than last year”.  Bigger screens.  Thinner screens.  Lighter phones.  Longer batteries.  The major keynotes are from Qualcomm, Panasonic, Verizon, and Samsung – not one of these companies has a history of revolutionizing the show.

    But yet, lots of cool updates
    While nothing should blow us away, I’m expecting tons of improvements to other products.  More smart TVs with more smarterness to them.   Lots of UltraHD/4K TVs (sigh). More well-done AirPlay integrated devices.  It’ll be fun.

    Especially OLED
    Coolest thing at CES 2012 were the 4MM thick OLED TVs that didn’t ship in 2012, despite promises they would.  Coolest thing at CES 2013 will be the 4MM OLED TVs that might actually ship in 2013.

    Meme Prediction: Complaints about the lack of stuff
    If there’s one thing that follows the theme of “nothing revolutionary” its listening to everyone, their mother, and their mother’s facebook friends complain about nothing being new at the show. You shouldn’t be expecting something big, and whining about how you could’ve stayed home is just annoying.

    Potential sleepers: Verizon & Qualcomm
    Interestingly, both have keynotes, and both have large booths (and near each other).  If I had to put money on “doing something unexpectedly big” I’d place on either, or both of these companies.

    What I’d love to see, but don’t expect
    Flexible displays.  I’ll go so far as saying there’ll be *nothing* exciting in consumer electronics and mobile devices between now and when the first generation of devices with flexible/bendable displays arrive.  So I’ve got a secret hope that even prototype stuff will emerge from someone’s labs at this year’s show.

    What I’m already bored of: More Tablets
    I still haven’t seen a single product from a single company that defines a “tablet market” and I’m not expecting that to change at CES.  But, I am expecting loads of cheap tablets that might do well overseas, which is all fine and good.  Yawn.

    I’m Betting On: Smarterer TVs
    Every single TV company will announce new Smart TVs.  And every one of them will continue to make TVs that are harder to use than they were before.  Bummer.

    Who Will Be Missing?
    Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple – the four companies that would make the show dramatically more interesting.

    That’s about all I can think of.  Shame is I’ve got so many other commitments at the show this year I have no idea if I’ll even get to walk the floor.  C’est La CES, C’est La Vie!

    The only thing that could kill TV? TV itself.

    Posted on by

    It’s fun to write about the “death of TV” (or flip flop on it, whatever).  Why it’s so fun, I’m not sure, but I have a hunch it’s because…

    1. It’s a HUGE industry ($500+B/year if not more)
    2. It’s been utterly untouched by the Internet (so far – a thing that really rankles a lot of people, mostly tech bloggers)
    3. The newspaper and music industries both got trashed, so why not TV too?
    4. It’s controlled by a very small number of extremely powerful and wealthy companies
    5. The aforementioned companies have a perception of (a) greedy profiteering, (b) being dinosaurs, and (c) restricting people from doing whatever they want with content, which also tends to rankle said tech bloggers

    Arguments for the death of TV are equally fun to read and fantasize about.  They tend to fall into these categories:

    • “Those Kids Today”:
      Theory – Kids today like to watch the YouTubes and the Torrents!  Kids today don’t like to pay for content. Therefore when kids get older, they will continue to watch YouTube and not pay for content.
      Reality – To debunk comically: kids today like Play-Doh, Lego’s, Justin Bieber, and eating Mac & Cheese at every meal – none of which hold true when kids become grownups (well, maybe the mac & cheese bit).  To debunk more seriously: kids have loads and loads of time on their hands and very little money, so they can spend the time and energy hunting and pecking for free content – something most adults (30+, with kids) just don’t have.  Or, it’d be like assuming that because kids like Justin Bieber when they are teenagers they will like equally crappy music in their fifties.  Well, that might just happen I guess.
    • “Cord-Cutting/Shaving/Trimming/Slicing/Thinning/Balding/Receding”:
      Theory – everybody’s quitting cable! EVERYBODY!
      Reality – I’m not even going to bother finding the links, but bottom line is this – for every article that shows XX thousand customers quit Cable, if they don’t ALSO INCLUDE the part where XX thousand customers signed up for IPTV, FIOS, Telco’s, or Satellite, you need to utterly ignore the article.  After that, there’s not much evidence left.  This may change, but that’s just a theory, and one that’s yet to be really substantiated.
    • “The Great Unbundling/A La Carte/Go Direct to Consumers”:
      Theory – In the not-too-distant future, you’ll be able to set exactly the lineup you want, and not pay for channels you don’t watch.  Or you’ll watch *everything* a la carte, paying as you go.  Or channels like HBO will start selling direct to consumers.
      Reality – This is in utter conflict with how the TV industry actually works and makes money. And since they, you know, like making money, and since shows are, you know, expensive to make, they need to keep making the money.  So if channels were to unbundle, they’d instantly get so expensive people wouldn’t be paying for them.  Here’s some of my previous thoughts on this same topic.
    • “Newspapers/Music died!”:
      Theory – Because of the deaths of other industries, TV will die too, as it’s antiquated, etc.
      Reality – This is like arguing that because the coal and steel industries in the US shrank, so will the TV industry. Other than being ad-supported, TV and Newspapers are utterly dissimilar (and BTW, the way the ads work for both are exceptionally different).  Other than being, well, media, TV and Music are utterly dissimilar.  We might as well say the Internet will die soon because it’s just like newspapers.
    • “Startups! Technology!”:
      Theory – Some startup will come along and just utterly kill TV in every way.
      Reality – Yeah, no.

    OK, Jeremy, Mr Big Talk Guy, so what could actually happen?  Here’s my theory on what could “kill” the TV industry as we know it – it’s “catch up TV”. For those unfamiliar with the term, “catch up TV” (also called “binge viewing” sometimes) is when you watch a show long after it aired, by days/weeks/months/even years.  Whether it’s via Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, iTunes, Video On Demand, or any other service, it’s the rapidly increasing trend on TV consumption.  And it’s the one thing the TV industry is massively enabling, and could massively come back to haunt them.

    In a nutshell, the TV ecosystem is like a big food chain, with advertising dollars acting at the bottom of it all (yes, TV ads are the kelp of the TV world).  Should advertising falter in a notable way (which, by the way, it isn’t at present), it could bring down the whole system.  There are several exceptions to the system, such as HBO, but the numbers there ($1.2B) are literally paltry when compared to TV ads ($90B).  And catch-up TV represents a problem, as it’s not monetized the same way as live TV.  See the Live TV part is where almost all of the $90B of TV ad revenue comes from – hence why ratings declines cause shows to get cancelled, as they don’t generate the cash flow to sustain themselves.

    So as we all get further and further accustomed to being able to watch shows whenever we want, we (collectively) are reinforcing the habit of “why bother watch live?”  For example, my friends all tell me to watch Homeland, but I don’t really have the time for a new show right now, so I’ve bookmarked it for later (ahem, NextGuide), and will just start watching it on Netflix.  Along with Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and lots of other shows I know are great, but just haven’t watched – yet.

    What, then, happens to highly anticipated shows that launch, combined with audiences who increasingly choose to wait to view them?  They get cancelled (great thoughts on this by Andrew Wallenstein here).   Sure a startup like mine can benefit from this, and even become a fabled Billion Dollar Company (FTW!), but success beyond our wildest dreams will, in no way, replace the lost revenue the entire ecosystem would suffer.  And just as environmentalists are concerned about loss at the bottom of our food chain, if the TV ad system begins to crumble, then so do budgets for new shows, etc.  It ain’t pretty.

    Now I’m not predicting the above will all happen – but at the current pace of things, it wouldn’t shock me to see much of it play out.  The TV industry is giving its content away way too cheaply to all the providers to sustain itself without the advertising, and they are effectively disincenting viewers from the live experience (not that it’s not cool to get a sticker or a badge or something, but let’s face it, people are smarter than that – hence the general “meh” of most of the social TV offerings – sorry guys, but #come #on), other than for appointment TV programming.  Further, it has a certain prisoner’s dilemma aspect to it all, as no single network can make the bold move to pull recent content from the variety of catch-up/streaming services – oftentimes their own apps! From the discussions I’ve had with TV execs, there’s a lot of awareness and a growing concern, but no solutions in sight yet.   But, at least it’s the enemy we know…