TV & Cable Execs Clueless about the Internet

Listen to TV and cable execs flounder around helplessly as they reveal how badly they just don’t get it.

CNN, (who does not offer live streaming of their TV broadcast since it would threaten the business of their parent company “Time Warner cable”), ran a story on “Why we still can’t watch live TV online“. I can sum up the gist of the story as follows; the existing content delivery companies (cable & satellite, etc.) don’t want any new competition so they are blocking live streaming on the web. The content makers aren’t pushing the issue because they can’t really figure out this whole Internet thing anyhow.

Yup, it’s the music, newspaper and movie industry all over again. You’d think that eventually some traditional business would figure out that it’s better to learn to adapt than to try and fight the internet. But no, time and again they keep proving that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

The most revealing thing about this story are the quotes from the TV and Cable company execs.

My favorite is Tim Connolly, mobile vice president for ABC who says, “We haven’t done any of this discussion — $10.99 for ESPN per month or whatever,” Connolly said. “But we think it’s much better to get a mass distribution of cable television.”

Did I read that right? The vice president of mobile for ABC has not even discussed live streaming and thinks it’s “much better” to get a cable T.V. deal! Why the hell is this guy in the mobile division if he isn’t even discussing mobile?! Take a look at what his job description is supposed to be: “a primary focus on growing the distribution of linear mobile video, mobile Video On Demand”. Mobile delivery of video is this guys “primary focus” and he’s quoted as saying they aren’t even discussing it! Five years from now ABC is going to be stumbling around wondering what went wrong. I’m telling them now, this guy should be fired.

But not satisfied with completely undermining his own job description, he continues; “With new content just a button away, the bundled cable model could foster a better landscape for competition than the a la carte Web model…” What?!? Being forced to get your programming from your one and only cable provider is “a better landscape for competition” than being able to choose a la carte from the Web?

He continues; “the a la carte Web model which forces users to make a separate purchase each time”. He used “Mad Men” as an example.

Mr. Connolly, here is a news flash for you, something you might want to look into being as your supposedly in the “mobile” web delivery business; “Netflix”. $8/month, all you can watch unlimited programing. One guess how I watched the first 3 seasons of Mad men? Guess what I wasn’t watching while I was watching Mad Men. Answer: “anything on T.V.”

Tim Connolly doesn’t get it but Kinsey Wilson, senior vice president of National Public Radio does. “Wilson, a longtime newsman, compared the obstacles facing TV companies in the internet age to the recent tidal wave that has upended the newspaper industry.”

In other words, they are about to get slammed and they don’t even realize it.

Smartphones and tablets to surpass PC in 18 months

IDC has predicted that smartphones and tablets will outsell the PC within 18 months. That’s probably true but it’s not the end of the PC by a long shot.

For one thing, I’m not sold on tablets. As the size of a device increases, it’s portability, and therefore usefulness declines. My rule of thumb is, if it doesn’t fit in your pocket or in a holster, it’s not a portable device. The few people I know that ran out and got iPads flashed them around work for a few days and they’ve never been seen again. I’m sure they’re a nice alternative to a netbook, but that’s about it.

Relatively speaking I’m sure tablets will sell well (not as well as many are predicting), but replace the PC? Not likely.

As I’ve said before, the device that will replace the P.C. is the dockable smartphone. A pocket sized device that can be docked to give you a full sized keyboard, mouse (or maybe touchscreen?) and display is the killer device I’m waiting (and waiting, and waiting) for.

It really is that simple. Everything else is just evolutionary, not revolutionary. So why am I still waiting for this device? Get on it manufacturers!

The war between Cable T.V. and the Internet has already begun

Wow. When I wrote yesterday about the pending demise of Cable and broadcast T.V. and expressed concern that cable companies would probably begin to fight back, I didn’t realize that the battle was already well underway! Slashdot has a story today about a U.S. cable company (Comcast) is attempting to charge high fees to distribute Netflix.

This demonstrates how nonsensical peering arrangements are as well as exposing them for the threat to network neutrality they really are. But more on that in a future post.

A television revolution is under way

The Internet has already shattered the business models of many a pre-internet company, (most notably the music business) and it’s now poised to take a swipe at the television industry.

In terms of the raw technology, there really isn’t anything new. It should be obvious to anyone who has ever heard of “YouTube” that capability for real-time television streamed over the internet exists yet the concept hasn’t really made much of an impact until now. The fundamental obstacle continues to be that most people just don’t want to watch much TV sitting in front of their computer. They want to lay back on the couch and and relax, not sit in an office chair. What’s been missing is that mythical set top box that marries the internet with the T.V.

Queue the game changer.

40% of U.S. households have a video game system and all current systems (PS3, Xbox & Wi) now support live on-demand streaming via one or more services such as Netflix. Netflix just arrived in Canada on the PS3 and having tried it, I can tell you that it’s easiest and most convenient way to watch on-demand content on your T.V.

And the real kicker is that a fully HD compatible game system with Netflix is not only much cheaper, but much superior experience than the equivalent cable or satellite system. The proves that internet delivered T.V. content is the future.

There are only two real obstacles to getting rid of your cable or satellite T.V. system forever. The first is access to high speed internet.

The second is content. The T.V. networks and cable channels are still far bigger and therefore have far more money to spend on exclusive first-run T.V. shows and other content like sports which has so far meant the selection available is on-line is limited.

The million dollar question is, will the online providers be able to access enough premium content to attract a critical mass of subscribers? I’m sure similar questions were asked when “small” cable channels started to appear in the 1980s. Remember a little channel called HBO? It took a long time but HBO is now a content heavyweight and no cable company would be without it.

Surely the pointy heads at companies like HBO & Netflix can see that it’s a match made in heaven?! Brand new premium content from HBO, not only available, but available on-demand on Netflix, and they cut out the middle man at the cable companies to boot!

But there is danger ahead; once cable companies start to loose subscribers to the internet, they will surely take action to try and stem the tide. Bandwidth caps, slowing of video streaming, and higher internet rates are likely just a few of the things we’ll see but the bottom line is, video content delivered over the internet is here to stay and cable T.V. should be very worried.

Another installment of "I wish I was a journalist"

CNN continues to circle the drain. What happened to this former “most trusted” news authority? I’m consistantly stunned by what a joke it’s become. I guess they are trying to emulate Fox?

Anyhow, the premise of this story is that Google, for all it’s cash and prestige, actually never releases a “killer” anything. It’s fair comment that Google has had many unsuccessful “product” releases, but, it seems this particular “business insider” hasn’t been paying attention.

First, the dismissive claim that the only thing Google has ever done well is its original search engine. Uh what?

First of all, even if that were true, search is still the most important application on the web and Google’s turned it into gold not only by making the best search engine, but by creating adwords. The dominance of search can not be dismissed. It still makes Google is still the most important company on the web and if Google never did anything else, they would still make a zillion dollars.

But setting aside search for the moment, somehow, Dan Frommer has never looked up an address on Google maps, or watched his own channel (CNN) zoom in on a map using Google Earth. What about street view? If ever their was a “killer-app” on the web, that has to be it. He says, “Google is no product-killer” ? Perhaps he should go ask the map makers at Rand McNally or map-quest their opinion on that?

And what about that gmail thing? Granted that Google hasn’t destroyed anyone, but GMail slammed hotmail and does anyone still have a yahoo mail account? I guess they do if they love spam.

How about phones? The article makes a big deal about how Google launched, the canceled it’s Nexus One phone making it sound like Google’s attempt at getting into phones was over, case closed… This must be intentional ignorance. The Nexis One was introduced to demonstrate the power of Google’s Android phone operating system which is now gaining market share at stunning rate. While the “iPhone” gets all the press, Android is steadily gaining market share.

As I’ve pointed out before, unlike Apple which is the only company that can release iX-ish products (iPad, iPhone, iPod, etc) Android can be taken and used by anyone. Thus it’s starting to appear on phones, tablets, set-top boxes, netbooks, and the list continues to grow.

I think maybe CNN is a bit sore over that other “non-killer-app”, Google news. Ya, the one that is so not important that every news outlet in America has been whining about the “death of real journalism”. Or maybe it’s the threat that youtube will replace news channels where you have to sit through hours of garbage just to see a few solid news stories?

Let us not forget the punch line to all this; Apple and Microsoft buy adds on CNN, Google does not. But of course this would never have any influence on a company with true journalistic integrity would it?

Does digg predict the future?

I’m really not that strongly anti-Apple, but I keep coming across these prominent stories on digg about how people are switching away from Apple.  The latest of which is “Switching from iPhone to Android”. Choice quote “Android is looking good nowadays, and Apple’s creepy corporate culture is wearing me down.”

Just in case you’ve not ready any of my other posts on the topic, I predicted Android will rule the world because it’s open and therefore it can run on anything. In much the same way that VHS ultimately crushed Betamax, (or the Phillips screw beat Robertson’s design), (a perceived) technical superiority is no match for proliferation. Devices running Android will starting appearing out of the woodwork while the next Apple gadget has to wait for Apple.

But I digress; the topic of this post is actually digg’s ability to predict the future. For a long time I thought digg wasn’t anything special, just another site rehashing stories from other sites. But then the 2008 US presidential election came along.

Long before his name was ever mentioned in main stream media, while everyone was still talking about Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama was generating buzz on digg. And against all odds he actually won! From nowhere to the first black president, and all predicted on digg. Was it just a fluke? I don’t think so.

Since then I’ve noticed that I read about new movies on digg long long before anyone else has even heard of them. A recent example is Avitar. It was getting “buzz” on digg before anyone even knew what it was about and now it’s the most successful box office movie of all time.  Another example was “The Dark Knight”. Heath Ledger was getting “buzz” as the Joker long before he died. His death may have propelled the movie even higher, but I have a feeling that it was going to be a smash hit even if he hadn’t passed away.

However, there is one thing to be cautious of, does digg reflect the true feeling of the people, or is it just the result of clever marketing planting stories? Or a better question, does it matter? If all we care about is predicting the future, then whether or not the buzz is real or artificially generated, the result is the same.

So is digg predicting the future downfall of  the iPhone, or is Google just planting all those positive Android postings? Either way, if recent digg history is any indication, Apple should be worried.

Android on the March

Just a quick follow up to my post from yesterday about just how disruptive Android is going to be. I spotted a story today on Engadget that talks about how Motorola is planning to put Android on it’s set top boxesматраци.

As an interesting side note; the article correctly points out that it’s even harder to deal with cable companies than cellular companies. But, keep in mind, cell companies are only now starting to bend since Apple demonstrated it had the power to transform their business.

Cable companies are still arrogant. They sit on their comfortable monopolies printing money paying little attention to emerging trends and doing no innovation. Do they not realize that TV over IP is about to transform broadcast and cable? If we could ever get decent bandwidth, who would need cable?

Android isn't just tipping over Apple's cart

If anyone had doubts about the impact Google is having on the mobile space, the Mobile World Congress (MWC) should have put those doubts to rest.

Ad revenue from Android phones are the fastest growing segment of the mobile ad space and mobile carriers are starting to make some disturbing pronouncements such as Vodafone chief Vittorio Colao declaring that they may start to charge search engines for access to their network. Cell phone carriers are true “bellheads“. They just can’t fathom a network where they don’t control every aspect of it. I’m just dieing to see what happens when Vodafone cuts off their customers from Google (“What? Your network doesn’t have ‘The Internet’?!?!).

But I digress. The point of this post is that even though the iPhone still gets all the media attention, Google’s Android is the one gaining market share and making the most waves in telecom circles.

And it won’t stop there. Android’s openness is poised to make it the most disruptive technology this decade. Unlike the iPhone which only runs on devices developed, sanctioned and released by Apple, Android can run on anything. Soon it’ll be popping up not only on phones, but netbooks, laptops, TVs, desk phones and absolutely anything that device manufactures want to put an interface on.

Android won’t just challenge the smart phone market, but it has the potential to make inroads into every consumer technology out there; tipping over everyone’s apple cart as it goes.

Google’s Android to Run Laptops, Challenge Microsoft

” Google Inc. is set to offer its free Android mobile-phone operating system for computers, opening a new front in its rivalry with Microsoft Corp. by challenging the dominance of the company’s Windows software. Acer Inc., the world’s second-largest laptop maker, will release a low-cost notebook powered by Android next quarter” [full story]
carrier to noise ratio

Android was a slow starter but is continuing to make waves… Inching closer and closer to that dream system.

MTS Advocates Open Access Model

MTS released a zinger of a press release today attacking Bell and Telus. Here is a couple of highlights with my comments:

“Granting the Bell and Telus request would also put Canada directly at odds with the emerging international consensus that an open access model is the optimal means for broadening competitive choice for broadband customers.”

Open access?! This must have been written by someone on the Allstream side of the business because you can reset assured nobody at MTS even knows what open access means. But wait! It gets better:

“Compared to most of the industrialized world, Canadians already pay higher prices for slower Internet speeds.”

And nowhere is that more true than in MTS’s home territory. If MTS is so eagar to provide faster, cheaper internet, why don’t they start with Manitoba?

I’m floored by these statements, not because they’re wrong, but because they’re 100% right! MTS continues to be the beast with two heads. The Allstream head is a “nethead” that gets this whole internet thing, and the MTS head is a “bellhead” that represents the worst of “big telco” arragance and poor service.

I’m just glad that someone at Allstream understands what’s at stake and is doing something to counter the rest of the ILECs. Maybe there is hope for Canada after all?