LIVEdigitally

Category Archives: Convergence

Nine Thoughts On An Unbundled HBO

Posted on by

HBOToday HBO’s CEO Richard Plepler announced that they’d offer some form of HBO service in 2015 that doesn’t require a cable subscription. From Re/Code:

Plepler said the company will go “beyond the wall” and launch a “stand alone, over the top” version of HBO in the US next year, and would work with “current partners”, and may work with others as well. But we wouldn’t provide any other detail.

This is what we’d call “kind of a big deal.”  It’s big enough to make my head spin a little bit, so I’m going to share my thoughts in a non-“prose” fashion. So in no particular ordering, my thoughts (mostly questions really):

“Could this be the death of Pay TV as we know it?” Yes, this could easily be the canary in the coal mine. If HBO “fully” unbundles, then the combination of Netflix+Hulu+HBO as (non-sporting) Pay TV Alternative is pretty compelling. And if it works, then it’d be easy to see ESPN and others follow suit. Which then takes us to unbundled TV – and probably higher overall content costs, but a lot fewer junky channels to watch.

“What exactly are they going to offer?” I highly doubt the Unbundled HBO offering will be the exact equivalent of the current HBOGO product/service. My bet’s on a library similar to what you can find in Amazon Prime.

“Is this for the masses?” About 30-odd-million US households have HBO. That leaves 80mm as the opportunity ahead. So do these folks not have HBO today because of price, interest, accessibility, catalog, other? Curious.

“This could have no impact on Pay TV after all.” Before we run off and say Comcast and Directv are ruined here, let’s go back to that 30 million HBO subscriber number. Does it *really* drop in a meaningful way? I could easily see this as a non-predatory move.

“But then again, what about cable-delayers?” We’re clearly seeing the adoption of Pay TV shift from something 22-year-olds do when they get their first apartment to something done later in life (long term impact of this is still TBD). It’s really, really hard to go FROM a full Pay TV lineup to an all on-demand/a la carte one. But the reverse isn’t true – if you have never had 500 channels, you don’t know what, if anything, you are missing. And with an HBO service available without Pay TV, maybe this impacts that delay even more.

“How will it price-compare to iTunes and Netflix?” If I were to buy the shows I already enjoy on HBO from iTunes, it’d cost me roughly $60 this year (Game of Thrones and Silicon Valley), or $5/mo. But if I were a larger consumer of their content, let’s say 6 original shows per year, that’d be roughly $15/mo. I’m not even using any new math to figure that all out – which means anyone/everyone can do the same. Would I spend more than that for full HBOGO access today? I don’t think so, because any price point above $10-15/mo is going to cause me, and others, to do math. Which turns out to not be that hard to do. Obviously with an unknown product offering, this is hard to speculate, but again – I’m curious.

“What does Comcast think?” While I don’t know the intricacies of the distribution terms between HBO & Comcast, I do know that, for the most part, Comcast tends to have a “most favored nation” type of clause. This is what’s historically prevented new offerings (Intel Media?) from actually competing in the market, since “nobody” can get better pricing than them for a given channel. So *something* exists between HBO & Comcast to enable this new service – wondering what that looks like.

“What if there’s more to the story in terms of distribution/devices?” Maybe this is an all-Amazon deal, and Prime subs get even more HBO, and that’s it? Or if it’s unique to iPad owners? Or is only on Samsung Smart TVs? Or Google Fiber? I don’t really think any one of the above is on the money, but there could definitely be other players involved here. Further, I’d muse that this is a distinctly “not available on a TV set or connected TV device” offering – but I could even be wrong on that too.

“What if it does actually still require cable?” It’s very hard today to subscribe to basic cable + HBO in all markets. What if this is a move that requires *some* kind of cable subscription, but then unlocks the full HBO service? This would still fit in the description Mr Plepler outlined earlier.

Add your thoughts to the comments below. And for no particular reason, the Game of Thrones theme sung using nothing but Peter Dinklage’s name:

Thoughts on Amazon Fire TV

Posted on by

amazon_fire_tvLet me open by saying: clear win for Amazon. Here’s why:

  • Internet streamers are still a growing market, only present in less than a quarter of US households – not to mention International opportunities. Bringing *any* product to market under the Amazon brand is sufficient to move units. Amazon has an amazing channel to sell through, and numerous reports cite them as the #1 outlet for both Chromecast and Roku products.
  • It’s at worst a good-enough product, at best it’s the most thoroughly designed Internet STB available on the market today. Unlike the first gen of Kindle Fire, which had to compete against a mature iPad, there’s nothing utterly amazing in the category to compare against.
  • Supporting non-Amazon content is brilliant. I think they could’ve pulled off a winner just by supporting Amazon Prime and Amazon Instant Video, but now it opens up to anyone who watches any streaming content. Plus, just as Apple TV helps sell iTunes content, I’d be shocked to discover that FireTV households don’t slowly convert into Amazon content customers.
  • I’ve heard some naysay (already!) about the price point, and how it should be cheaper than Apple TV to compete. Totally disagree, no reason to do this as there’s no other magic point under $99 other than hitting $49, which I don’t see a reason to do.

Other stuff I like:

  • Voice search seems nicely done, especially in context with the mess of any 10-foot-UI experience.
  • Gaming! Very smart to make this a core component of the platform – I actually hope this remains in the cheap, simple, and easy category of gaming. Not that I don’t love trying to push 17 buttons on my Xbox controller simultaneously, but I think “Big Gaming” is just too complex these days and there’s a latent opportunity for simpler stuff.
  • Gary Busey

My two minor (emphasis on minor) missed opportunities:

  • HDMI passthrough. The single good aspect of the original Logitech Google TV product was HDMI passthrough – it let the end-user connect the device to the fought-after Input One, and work well. While I know adding passthrough isn’t going to sell any more Fire TV’s, it’s one of those little things I’ve been hoping for.
  • Not Free With Prime. Okay, this isn’t exactly fair to complain about, but I harbored this suspicion that Amazon would offer the Fire TV free with a 2-year Prime subscription. Now they always can just start a program like this, but I think it’d be a major wow-er out of the gate.

Let me close this this: building products is hard. Building really good products is very very hard. To get a 1.0 product out of the gate in such a strong state is impressive work, and while many might call it a “me-too”, I don’t. I think this is the exact right first step for Amazon in the living room, and will keep an eye on where it goes from here.

Prediction: Amazon Fire TV is the #2 Internet STB on the market (behind Apple) within 2 years.

Also, and again, Gary Busey.

Why it’s (almost) 2014 and you still need a set top box

Posted on by

I actually had one of these!

I stumbled onto a discussion on Quora entitled “Why do we still have television set top boxes?” and as I often see, it’s full of conjecture and suspicion about the evil empire that is the pay TV industry.  While I am not specifically trying to support or vilify anyone from that industry, I thought it worthy a response that has less conspiracy theory than others.  So let’s start with some important facts:

1) Set Top Boxes (STB’s) take, on average, from day of deployment 30+ months to “break even” for a cable company2) Any tech support, home maintenance (“truck roll”), etc is costly to a cable company
3) Software updates, QA, etc are slow and costly to a cable company
4) Most north american pay TV providers now enable some form of “TV everywhere” service available by App or Browser
5) Many pay TV providers now offer same apps on Roku, Apple TV, and several smart TVs
6) Smart TV software platform updates happen 1+/year – which could easily result in incompatibility with pay TV services.  Only very recently have any of the manufacturers begun to standardize their own platforms.
7) The technology in homes is moving at an *extreme* pace, so even if a pay TV operator is moving “fast” they will still appear, relatively speaking, to be moving slowly.
7a) thinking point – Until about 5 years ago, this just wasn’t the case at at all, the pay TV providers didn’t really even need to innovate whatsoever.  So here we are 5 years later and they have APIs, multiple apps, etc – not too many industries one could point to and make a similar statement about incumbents…

I think if you add the above together, the answer should be something like this:

The pay TV industry would be happy to rid itself of STBs, but only *very recently* have viable alternatives hit the market.  Pay TV companies are very rapidly adopting these platforms, but your definition of “rapid” is radically out of whack with how an established industry moves.  Over the next few years you should expect most North American Pay TV providers to give you as a consumer multiple options for using their services in the platform of your choosing.

As a bonus:
8) CableCards *could have been* a good solution, but were way too soon to market to make the industry comfortable with them.  Ask yourself this question: if you were the person in charge of P&L on the hardware deployment business, and you knew full well that consumers will call you with any problems whatsoever, would you support some “standard” by which *other company’s hardware* was causing YOU customer service issues?  Me neither.

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.

5 New Reasons Why Apple Might Not Build a TV, Yet.

Posted on by

So my last time around, I was pretty “pro” on the debate of Apple building a television set device product thing. I actually was following the topic fairly heavily, and bullishly, through CES last year, when the topic just kinda sorta disappeared.  For a bit I had a hunch they had intended to launch one in the Winter of 2012, then something fell apart with it, as the rumor mill simply hasn’t been the same since.

The two reasons I surmise why they may have planned, then pulled, a set are: (1) they weren’t happy with the physical product, possibly as a direct result of LG/Samsung demoing OLED TVs at CES this year, or (2) couldn’t pull together the content/partnerships they needed to make it the success they demand.  Then again, maybe they never had a plan to do one and finally the tech media moved on to another topic.

But here I am just shy of a year since my last post, and with some new thoughts.  In no particular order…

1) Apple makes “small” stuff. Every current product they make can be easily carried out of a store.  In fact, you can almost sense it by comparing sales rates of iPhones/iPads to iMacs.  TVs are even bigger, and while Apple has magic, you just can’t shrink the physical requirements of shipping around 55″ flat panels. While they could certainly have a white glove level of service, it doesn’t “feel” Apple to me if I can’t get it in the store, and bring it home – now. Apple is amazing at satisfying the on-demand lifestyle, and a big bulky box shipped to your door isn’t quite the same.

2) Apple makes “frequently replaced” stuff. Every current consumer product Apple makes has replacement cycles under 4 years, some 1-2. TV is 7+ and I don’t see that changing.  There’s a certain point at which the inconvenience and hassle of mounting (and unmounting) big things to walls trumps the sexiness of any product.  It’s one thing to decide on a whim you’ll replace your phone or laptop, it’s another to deal with TVs and inputs.  And even if there’s a magical solution for wall-mounting and a magical solution for cable management and a magical solution for set-top boxes, game consoles, and other equipment, consumers are used to this cycle, and that’s a much much harder thing to change.

3) Apple makes “clean” stuff. Of all my Apple products, my iMac has the most potential cables to connect, most of which aren’t used, and comes with wireless peripherals. My iPad has but one.  Clean, simple, elegant – Apple.  TVs, on the other hand, must be connected to other stuff.  Unless they can actually solve A/V Receivers, Set-Top Boxes, Game Consoles, and DVD/Blu-Ray Players in a single product, this mess continues to exist.  The living room TV world is practically defined by gozintas, so unless this is a TV set just for my bedroom, or Apple can convince consumers to replace a whole lot of other boxes, it’s putting an Apple product inside a big mess.  Doesn’t feel like their style as I see it.

4) Apple makes “transformative” stuff. Smartphones before Apple, with the exception of Palm products (early days) and a few other rarities, were ugly clunky awful things that came with plastic pens. Then the iPhone came, and most smartphones are better as a result.  The iPad too, transformed the entire concept of a tablet, one so good nobody else is even realistically in the market right now (and probably won’t be for a while).  They did it before with the original iMacs.  In each case, there was an experience to transform.  But TV isn’t broken in nearly the same way – yes, there are issues, but for the most part, most consumers utterly love the way TV works today. Further, in order to transform a TV experience, Apple would need to go leaps and bounds beyond current offerings.  I’ll never count the company out on anything, but the entrenched TV ecosystem is a bigger badder monster than anyone’s taken on before.  I have a very, very hard time seeing a transformation happening here.

5) Apple makes “well-distributed” stuff.  Every Apple product is available anywhere in the US, as well as Canada and oodles of other countries.  Even when the iPhone was only on AT&T you could buy it – you might have to switch carriers, but you could buy it.  Many rumors put Apple partnering with cable companies (eg buy an Apple Television from Comcast with a 2-year contract, at a steep discount), but this limits distribution regionally in a major way.  This would force them to deal only with satellite companies, but that brings an entirely different set of hurdles.  This effectively rules out distribution partners as a deployment vehicle, which then in turn limits the product to being a “dumb set” – something that seems even less likely for the company.

I may be wrong.  Heck, it’s Apple, they know how to solve problems others can’t even begin to figure out.  Let’s also be real and notice that their little “hobby” is already the #1 Internet streamer on the market, in a single year! But something about the magic needed to make a TV might be out of reach for a little while longer here.  Seems like until OLEDs become affordable (or some other equivalent step up) and until there’s a viable MVPD with full Internet distribution, we are going to have to wait a little longer for a glowing bezel to show up in our houses.

Some TV is Created More Equal Than Others

Posted on by

As one could imagine, I end up in a lot of conversations about second screen TV apps, companion apps, social TV, etc.  Virtually every discussion takes some long varied road to get to a point where all involved agree that the only rule in building next generation TV platforms and products is this: not all TV shows are alike, and experiences must be built with this rule in mind.

Let’s start with #SocialTV – broadly defined in current terms as “people tweeting, checking in, and liking TV shows on social media platforms.”  While I’m pretty jaded in my belief that this is resoundingly uninteresting as a topic, it’s important to think of it on a per-genre basis, and in fact, a per show basis.  One could state that “dramas” for example won’t garner much social TV activity – who really cares about checking in to shows like CSI or House?  Then along comes Game of Thrones, rule broken.  Then you could use Game of Thrones data to claim people don’t tweet while watching live TV.  And along comes sports and reality shows.

When it comes to planning and thinking about how users may/will behave regarding social TV and shows, I recommend thinking about it from two perspectives: (1) live interaction and (2) cultural impact.  The personal drivers for a lot of these activities have to do with the social perspective.  People are interested in “connecting” with others, which drives the interactions (tweeting about your team, someone getting voted off the island, etc).  People are also interested in being part of the cultural zeitgeist – Game of Thrones is “in” and “cool” to tweet about, whereas CSI and House are not.

Next up are companion apps – smartphone and/or iPad apps designed for use during a TV show.  As above, the potential value creation here is entirely about the content.  Do users really want to pull out their phones and read trivia while watching an intense or immersive show like Game of Thrones or The Good Wife?  Doubtful.  Am I going to look away from a visually-rich experience such as Planet Earth? Or how about Family Guy, where half the show is visual gags?  Seems unlikely.  But during any reality show, game show, talk show, or sports? I’d guess there’s a huge opportunity here.

Same moral as above, the right companion apps keep the content in mind.  First, we really don’t need (or want) a dedicated companion experience for every single show that airs – it’s just plain unnecessary.  But regardless of that, the experiences should think about the audience and how they want to interact.  Sports is all about real-time and stats.  Cooking shows, on the other hand, don’t need a real-time experience, but yet offering recipes, how-to, pictures, etc that can be bookmarked, archived, and viewed in the future is quite handy.  Complicated plot-driven shows can offer complementary experiences that supply background or other pertinent information to help audiences keep up with whatever’s going on.

Enhanced content offerings – featurettes, behind-the-scenes, and other options that plunge the user in a further immersive landscape blah blah blah. Now, speaking as the guy who watched all 3 Lord of the Rings movies, extended cut, with director’s commentary on, there’s no question a marketplace exists for extra content.  Blooper reels.  Making-of’s.  Interviews with Cast & Crew.  The key focus again is identifying the right content for the right show and deploying it in the right place.

Do I really need a dedicated app for my iPad just to get extra content for each show I like?  Do I need to subscribe to something?  I think, fundamentally, content creators and technologists need to really spend time crafting the right offering for each individual show.  For example, having the “webisodes” of The Office available openly via Facebook each week is a great solution to enhance that offering.  But if I needed an Office app, with a new Office username and password, would it be worth the investment beyond the “Like”?  Doubtful.

Overall, the time has come for TV technologists, creators, producers, etc to work together to avoid one-size-fits-all approaches to TV experiences.  Every show, every network, every device, and every platform should be regarded as a unique opportunity to engage an audience and tell a story.  Except, of course, for reality shows about celebutantes, which should just go away. Please folks, just do the right thing here.  We can find a cure, we can make it happen.  We can do it!

How the content industry has, massively, adapted to the Internet

Posted on by

At GigaOm, a piece just ran called “It’s not about piracy, it’s about a failure to adapt” and all I can think of is how off the mark it is (and while I don’t agree with the premise, I do think it’s quite worth reading).  Here are some examples of how the industry has adapted in the past few years:

  • 5 years ago, even with high speed internet, you couldn’t legally obtain *any* hollywood content streaming over the Internet.  Today you have Netflix, Redbox, Blockbuster, Amazon, Apple, VUDU, and many others doing just that.
  • 5 years ago, your cable company only offered linear broadcasting.  Today, they offer huge selections of video on demand content, much of which is free.
  • 5 years ago, your cable/satellite set top box was a completely locked down product.  Today, most offer programmable APIs, and have smartphone and iPad apps to control and program them directly.
  • 5 years ago, your cable/satellite companies only let you watch stuff on TVs, via set top boxes.  Today, many offer TV Everywhere options streaming to your computer, phone, and iPad.  Further, some of them even offer apps to run on Smart TVs.
  • 5 years ago, your Xbox was a game console.  Today it is a viable platform for end-to-end content delivery.
  • 5 years ago, HBOGO could never, ever have existed.  Today it’s on a multitude of devices, and growing.

I’m not saying everything is grand and perfect and we’re all in the ultimate utopia or anything.  SOPA was a disaster, and the RIAA and hollywood lobbyists do terrible things.  It is true that getting Game of Thrones, right now, anywhere but live on HBO is impossible to do legitimately.  But I can make the same argument that getting Hunger Games outside of movie theaters is impossible to do legitimately.  Let’s face it, the amount of content you CAN get, legitimately, right now, is quite a bit.  And it’s all pretty cheap too.

As a guy who spends virtually every day talking to people out of Hollywood, device manufacturers, and cable/satellite providers, I can say with extreme confidence: these people are moving, and moving fast. They are not sitting on their laurels.  But they also aren’t abandoning their businesses and rushing to jump on board the Internet train of “everything, regardless of quality or production cost, is supposed to be free.”  There’s a great piece over on Wired today on the topic, I recommend reading it as well.

From my calculations, including the end-to-end costs of producing hardware *and* producing TV content, the TV industry alone represents well over $500 BILLION dollars.  This doesn’t include movies, music, video games, or other pieces of the puzzle.  It’s an impossibly huge amount of our economy and jobs to make and distribute the entertainment that we all enjoy for effectively meager amounts of money.

Just because we are getting used to everything we want, RIGHT NOW, doesn’t mean we are actually going to get it, RIGHT NOW.  Sometimes, as a man once said, you can’t always get what you want (when you want it).  Even my 5-year-old has that one figured out (except when it applies to chocolate).

The Only Two Ways People Watch TV

Posted on by

Over the past 30 years we’ve evolved the television experience from something where everybody watched the same shows on the same channels on the same devices in the same rooms at the same time to a world where that’s almost never the case.  Today, with the exception of appointment TV, it’s such a fragmented landscape that it’s almost a challenge to find other people watching the same stuff you do.  But with all the variance in content, services, devices, location, price, etc, there’s still really only two ways people choose to watch TV.  This is a subtle, but extremely important concept to anyone in the business of changing television.

Deliberate viewing: you go to the TV with a specific piece of content in mind.  This includes live TV (“let’s watch Idol at 8pm tonight”), your DVR (“I need to watch last night’s 30 Rock”), and any VOD/OTT platform such as Comcast OnDemand, Netflix, Hulu, etc (“I’m going to watch the first season of Breaking Bad”).  We could also include a deliberate type of content in this category (“I’m going to watch a comedy” – not necessarily something you’d say out loud, but if you are in the mood for something funny, that’s a pretty deliberate concept).  I also refer to deliberate viewing as “search mode” for TV, since you will specifically search for the piece of content you want, whether by changing the channel, navigating your OnDemand menu, or going to your DVR library.

Random viewing: you go to the TV with no idea what you want to watch.  This includes simple channel surfing (“nope, next!”) as well as direct channel changing (“I wonder if anything good is on TNT now.  Maybe Shawshank or Blues Brothers??”).  It also includes browsing the OnDemand options (“I wonder if there’s anything new on Netflix?”) and even your DVR (“Maybe we recorded something we haven’t watched yet?”).  I also refer to random viewing as “browse mode” for TV, since you are just perusing lists of stuff until you find something you are content to watch.  Note the last phrasing here, as random viewing is less about the “excitement” factor of watching something deliberately, and more about the “good enough to pass the time” factor, with the potential for excitement.

Now for the cold, hard fact: any “future TV” service or product which doesn’t account for both types of TV viewing, will fail. This includes OTT services, smart TV apps, second screen apps, third screen apps, eighth screen apps, widgets, websites, gadgets, platforms, and everything else under the hood.  Again, if you cannot service both primary needs of a viewing audience, your system is a goner – unless, that is, you are specifically aiming to replace an existing component of those services (in other words – if your live TV service is designed to replace another live TV service, that’s viable, since the consumer’s ecosystem will still include whatever else it had before).

How do I back this up without cold, hard facts?  Because people don’t really change much, and TV, specifically, is not merely “another” activity up there with Angry Birds, Facebook, Pinterest, reading books, etc.  Watching TV is a very specific type of activity, one about entertainment and more importantly, escape.  Life is hard, TV lets you escape for a period of your day – why on earth would Americans spend 4-8 HOURS per day in front of it otherwise?

So if people don’t change, and people need escape (especially as they age – I’m not talking about 13 year olds here, for the most part), they need some version of deliberate and random lean back TV watching.  Could this include YouTube videos? Sure. How about an all-on demand lineup?  Doubtful.  How about a “TV is just an app” concept? Doubtful. It’s why most cord-cutting theories aren’t holding water.  It’s why #SocialTV is still mostly just a fad. It’s why most “second screen” apps are just barely gaining traction. It’s why Google TV is such a mess right now.  It’s why Apple TV is still a hobby.  Sure, these things work absolutely great for some, but absolutely don’t for most.

The future of TV involves a lot of change.  And the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Long live TV.

Can Social TV Survive Without Appointment TV?

Posted on by

This is the image you get if you do a google image search for "world record".

So the Grammy’s unsurprisingly (I will explain why I say it that way in a moment) set all sorts of records for social TV.  Just like the Superbowl did a few weeks ago.  Just like the ___ did a few weeks before that. I call this a big yawner, but first, some definitions:

  • Appointment TV: a TV show where the majority of the audience is watching live.  The 5 primary examples are Reality Shows (American Idol, Amazing Race, etc), News (CNN, uh… CNN Headline News?  I don’t know, televised news is just propaganda in my opinion anyway – but I digress), Sports (mostly hockey, particularly the Canadiens), Events (Oscars, Royal Weddings, etc), and “big episodes” of scripted television (Lost Series Finale, Game Of Thrones Season 2 Premiere, etc).
  • Catch-up TV: everything that doesn’t fit into Appointment TV above.  Literally.  Every “typical” episode of every “typical” show is in the catch-up category, which means there is no particular driver for someone to watch it anywhere near to real-time.  This is why I’m still on Weeds season 5, Entourage season 6, etc, and will catch up on things like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones and others whenever I find the desire.
  • Social TV: let’s do this SAT-style.  Social TV : TV :: Social Media : Web.  In other words, it’s a nebulous mess of “stuff you use things like Facebook and Twitter to do while watching TV”.  It includes hashtags, check-ins, second screen, likes, and is a big jumbly undefined thing.  And I have no problem with that.

So why do I say things like “unsurprisingly” and “yawner”?  Because this is a burgeoning activity.  We are at the very earliest stage of people using second screens whilst (yup, whilst) watching TV.  I myself tweeted a couple of times during the Superbowl (really during the ads):

This is an infinite increase over last year’s SuperBowl.  I didn’t watch the Grammy’s, but had I, I likely would’ve tweeted.  And this isn’t just about me, it’s a pretty universal trend.  Why?  Because Twitter, the platform we are using to measure Social TV as a concept, is still growing.  So anything measuring a growing service with growing use and calling the outcome “record-setting” is really just fulfilling an exercise in redundancy.  Every new instance of appointment TV tweeting will outpace all previous instances, until Twitter stops growing.

But really, that’s all just a sidepoint.  My issue, concern, and question, is whether or not there’s any value whatsoever in any of this for catch-up TV.  Do I care about tweets someone sent during an episode of House from last year?  Or last week?  Or even 10 minutes ago?  I don’t, and I don’t understand why someone else would either.  Nor do I care about what someone is watching right now unless I too can (and should) watch the same thing, at the same time.  Heck, I hate seeing the promos to text in my vote (to Top Chef, my guilty pleasure show) when I’m seeing an episode 4 months after it aired.

I don’t see a solution to this conundrum.  To be clear, I’m not questioning will social media impact TV behaviors – that will certainly happen. Further, as evidence is mounting that catch-up TV is growing steadily and will inevitably outpace real-time/appointment TV, I see the window somewhat shrinking for what’s currently called “Social TV.”  But that shouldn’t really surprise anyone, as it’s such an early stage in the evolution of TV.  And if you think about it in evolutionary terms, TV is just learning about making fire now, and the wheel is probably a few years away…

Data Confirms: Apps + TV = :(

Posted on by

Research firm Xyologic released a bunch of statistics about Google TV today.  And those statistics point squarely at the amazing lack of app installs on the platform.  Granted, these aren’t official numbers from Google or anything, but they seem quite believable (except for the whole Napster as #1 app thing, which is just bizarre, but then again, so are apps on your TV).  Here’s the top 10 chart:

Source: RWW

So, people don’t want to download apps on their TVs eh?  I guess I’m going to go with the whole “I told you so” as my commentary (and I wrote that piece well over a year ago).

TV isn’t about apps.  It isn’t about technology.  It isn’t about “interacting.”  And most tech startups seem to want to make it a lot more about apps, technology and interaction.  Which is probably the leading indicator of why most TV-related ventures crash and burn – unfortunately too many of the folks involved are far removed from the typical TV audience.

I’d go so far as to say “TV isn’t about entertainment” when push comes to shove.  I think the best word to use to think about TV is “escape.”

There’s a reason channel surfing still beats out DVR usage, and why cord cutting is still not really a mainstream behavior.  Using your DVR or browsing content lineups is not about “escape”.  It’s about “work”.

The more the industry tries to get people to “work” for simple, enjoyable TV viewing, the more the industry will be littered with failures.  The same is true in the Smart TV space, the Social TV space, the Connected TV space, etc etc etc.  Keep in mind, as it is so very relevant, the concept of the paradox of choice: the more options and “power” you give a consumer, the more you will probably just be frustrating them.  It’s pretty hard to beat the experience of good ol’ TV today, period.

So if you are building a platform, an app, an experience, a gadget, a whatever to “improve” TV, think about the concept: “are you helping people escape?”  If not, it might be time for a “pivot.”

Is Amazon Building a Kindle Set-Top Box?

Posted on by

I'm awesome at photoshop! I hope it doesn't look like this!

I’m pretty sure the headline here says it all.  Let’s review the facts (it might be worth re-reading my bit on why HBO doesn’t go direct to consumers, as many of those issues are addressed here):

  1. Amazon has a large content library. They are actively increasing it.
  2. Amazon has a content distribution platform already capable of streaming to non-PC devices.
  3. Amazon has a recurring billing relationship with consumers.
  4. Amazon has a (phenomenal) marketing and distribution channel for getting devices into consumers houses.
  5. Amazon has a strong brand in the hardware space.
  6. Amazon has the customer service & support infrastructure needed to deal with service issues.
  7. Amazon has the ability to build hardware and deal with supply chain issues.
  8. The TV services industry is huge, and Amazon wants in.

Even if they don’t plan to decouple content from Amazon Prime, making a box is a very viable, and, in my opinion, a likely move.  In addition to all of the above, it is a strong move versus Apple (and possibly Google and Microsoft too).

A $99 Amazon Kindle TV box would not surprise me this coming holiday season (how about a September launch, right in time for school?).  But then again, I occasionally get Kindle predictions wrong.

Kinda saw this one coming, didn't ya?

Oh, and one more thing.  What if they do it by acquiring Roku?  Let’s review that scenario:

  1. Roku already has something better than a minimum viable product.
  2. Amazon could skip all the work on developing a new UI/UX (regardless of your feelings on the Roku UX, it is well more than functional).
  3. Roku isn’t a sustainable business yet, enabling Amazon to purchase at a reasonable price.
  4. Roku has a team with a strong background and industry knowledge relevant to the TV/Device space.
  5. Amazon can distribute the same hardware at the same price point (which seems to fall in the not-too-profitably category), yet supplement with reliable recurring revenue.
  6. Amazon wouldn’t have to drop the Netflix service, but could slowly chip away at it from within.
  7. It’s cheaper than trying to buy Xbox from Microsoft (though that’d be quite the coup, plus nobody would even need to relocate)

I don’t really think Amazon *needs* to buy Roku, but it would probably let them fast-track a bunch of steps.  And then it could be a $49 Kindle TV, which just sounds so… right.

Why 2nd Screen Superbowl Ad and Social TV Experiences Suffered

Posted on by

According to Lost Remote, social media was en fuego during the Super Bowl this year.  Bluefin Labs contributed to these stats, and found over 12 million “social media comments” during the game.  Another element Lost Remote tracked were the plurality of Social TV Second Screen Apps in play:

The best second-screen experience: To start things off, we checked into the game on GetGlue, Miso,IntoNow, Shazam, ConnecTV, Umami, Foursquare and Viggle. Ok, that’s overkill, but we wanted to give them a spin on the biggest social TV event of the year. For starters, GetGlue sailed passed its all-time check-in, counting over 100,000 before halftime and 150,000 total for the game, 3X its all-time record (the company doubled its servers for the Super Bowl.) We’re let you know of other second-screen stats when we get them.

Now that doesn’t include the “official” Super Bowl app, NBC Sports, or a few other options.  But overall, I’m see a glass is half empty scenario myself.

The problem was in the experiences.  I tweeted a couple of times during the game, by using the Twitter app, which was native and easy to do.  The thought of launching another app, just to get something that would enable be to tweet never even crossed my mind.  In reality, most of these apps actually got in the way of the experience.  And yes, while there was tons of tweeting and updates occurring, I’d lay down a strong bet most of this was about people posting, not reading what others were posting.

I also found the Super Bowl ads highlighted two major flaws in the ad experience.  Shazam got a lot of pre-game buzz for all their ad partners.  Sounds cool in theory, but the experience is just plain lousy.  First, the commerical starts airing.  Then, at some point in the middle of the ad a little Shazam logo appears somewhere on the screen (I only noticed it a handful of times personally).  At this moment, the viewer must grab their phone, turn it on, unlock it, switch to the Shazam app, and then – and this is important – get everyone in the room to be quiet for 7-10 seconds.  Great in theory, but this is not a good experience for any user.

The second was a QR code which displayed on screen.  This in my eyes was even worse than Shazam, since QR codes require the user to have a QR app, which is just too obtuse for the average viewer.

worst. crossword. ever.

Compare either the Shazam or QR experience to having a simple URL onscreen.  Is it really easier to go through all the hassle and end up on the Honda website, or just tell the user to go to honda.com?  Plus, by obfuscating the simple methods, advertisers lose brand reinforcement AND are busy handing over the experience to a third party.  Similarly, when it comes to social experiences, is it to a consumers’ advantage to launch an app just to get an update into Twitter or Facebook, or to just use the native ones?

These experiences have come a long way, and are offering exciting potential for the future of TV and second screens.  But so far, we’re clearly at the infancy of what the consumer can use to really “enhance” a TV offering.  I hope some or many of these offerings will improve over the years, and really create a better experience, not one that makes us work harder just to watch TV.