Live TV Losing Younger Adults

Nearly three in five US consumers watch at least some video on a device other than a television, according to market researcher Morpace. Time shifting using a digital video recorder, DVDs, online and video on demand represent about 48 percent of overall video consumption.

Overall, across demographic cohorts, Morpace found 52 percent of total TV viewing time consisted of live TV. Among younger adults ages 18 to 34, that proportion fell to 41 percent. Adults 55 and up watched live TV almost two thirds of the time, but even Gen Xers and younger boomers were evenly split between live TV and several timeshifting nethods.

Online was the most popular alternative to live TV, with about half of consumers using some online source for viewing video content, and another 23 percent using a streaming video service.

Live TV Losing Younger Adults

Regulatory Strategy Now Becoming More Important for Apple, Google, Others

The Texas attorney general's office is conducting an antitrust review of Google Inc.'s core search-engine business, a sign of widening government scrutiny of the Web giant.

The move is one more sign of the growing importance all sorts of regulatory issues now pose for technology companies that historically have not paid much attention to regulators, though Microsoft and Intel long ago became aware of the importance of regulatory affairs.

Texas's top prosecutor has inquired about allegations by several small companies that Google unfairly demoted their rankings in search results or the placement of their advertisements on the search engine, Google said Friday.

But with the increased awareness of regulatory downside has come an awareness that regulatory action can help a company as well.

In April, the Federal Communications Commission invited comments on a proposal that cable and satellite operators let viewers use any "smart video devices" available in stores to connect to their TV service. It says it wants to "foster a competitive retail market" in the devices.

If implemented, it could have far-reaching implications. Among other things, the FCC hopes such a mandate would prompt electronics manufacturers to make devices offering both Internet video and traditional TV services.

That could create a much-bigger opportunity for Apple, Google and other firms as well.

To the extent that the set-top decoder is the physical embodiment of the ability to access applications and services, the new rule would open the door for third-party devices, or integration of new features directly into set-top decoders, in ways not possible up to this point. Where the decoder that now enables multichannel video services also effectively blocks access to Internet video, that could change if the new FCC rules are adopted.

Telcos, cable, mobile and satellite companies long have been acutely aware of the role regulations play in enabling or disabling business models. That is something technology firms only recently have learned.

Apple TV, Google TV Take Different Approaches

Apple and Google are taking different approaches to their TV efforts. Apple TV essentially wants to be an add-on that delivers streaming Internet video to the TV display, in an "iTunes for TV" type approach. But consistent with the way Apple approaches its other businesses, the emphasis will be on streaming video available within the Apple ecosystem, in all likelihood.

Google TV really aims to be an active organizer of linear and Internet TV options, acting more like a traditional set-top decoder than a provider of online video that can be viewed on a TV. And, so far, Apple has gone with an "accessory" approach to the "iTunes for TV" business, while Google is working with partners to embed the functionality directly into the TV itself.

Apple's approach likely will work better in the near term, but Google's approach would be more powerful long term, if sufficient number of Google TV units can be shipped. Historically, one would side with Apple in terms of building the user base.

Cable, satellite and telco video providers have found they must provide their own decoding units, instead of relying on TV suppliers to build that functionality into the actual TVs.

Apple's approach makes it more of a distribution channel and partner to content companies. Google's approach, riskier in some ways, represents a potentially more significant change in video viewing habits. For one thing, it essentially makes linear video delivered by a service provider and Internet video gathered from across the web "equals" in terms of viewing choices.

Apple TV Deal with Disney, Fox Not Exclusive

Apple TV's plan to stream some Fox and Disney content for 99 cents does not have universal support, judged by the content companies that are not participating.

However well the offer is received, it will not be exclusive to Apple. The same content could be offered by Google, who supply the broadcast networks with content, hate Google, Amazon, Netflix or others.

Apple TV

Google TV: Still the Business of the Future?

There's no telling what Steve Jobs, Apple CEO, might bring up today at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference. He might announce something that would make Apple TV more than a hobby, which is how Apple formally characterizes it.


But that hasn't stopped Google from launching Google TV, its own effort to meld "the best of TV and the best of the web in one seamless experience." Google  TV builds on Google Chrome to allow users to access all of their favorite websites and easily move between television and the web.

Google TV will use an SDK and web APIs for TV so developers can build richer applications and distribute them through Android Market.

Google is working together with Sony, Logitech and Intel to put Google TV inside of televisions, Blu-ray players and companion boxes. These devices will go on sale in the fall of 2010, and will be available at Best Buy stores nationwide.

"The TV industry is eventually going to be severely disrupted by the Internet, and eventually, I hope that I'll be able to get everything I want to watch online," says Dan Frommer, Business Insider deputy editor. "But it's going to take longer than it should, because TV companies are still fairly insulated -- especially as Comcast buys NBC -- and can protect their legacy business models for a while longer."

link

Will Google TV Fare Better Than Apple TV

One still gets the feeling we are still a bit early for mass adoption of Internet-delivered, TV set displayed video, though we are lots closer than we used to be. But this is an entertaining video, anyhow.


To be sure, Google has assembled quite an ecosystem, Sony, Logitech, Intel, Dish and Best Buy. But it probably is worth remembering that Apple itself describes Apple TV as "a hobby." The point is that lots of companies over the last 10 years have tried to create a mass market appliance that captures Web video and delivers it to the main household viewing screen.

That doesn't mean it will not happen. Someday it will. The issue is whether Google TV can crack the code, or whether content rights agreements still have further to go. Some people will appreciate being able to watch YouTube videos on a high-definition TV. But most people probably do not want to spend several hundred dollars for the ability to do so.

What it seems people do wish to do is watch YouTube and other video on a handheld device, including smartphones and devices such as the iPad, as well as PCs.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt says “we’ve been waiting a long, long time for this day." The issue is whether we'll still be waiting.

Sony will provide the one-stop experience with Sony Internet TV built into an HDTV or a a set-top box with a Blu-ray Disc drive. Logitech plans to offer set-top box that will “seamlessly” add Google TV to current HDTV sets.

Dish Network will be supporting the ecosystem as well, allowing subscribers to add web video to their regular multi-channel video options.

Android and Chrome devices are expected to allow communication between Internet-connected TVs and Android or Chrome-based mobile devices. Users should be able to push content on the phone to the TV.

Best Buy will provide a venue for selling all the new boxes.

Netflix Download -to-TV Service Coming

Netflix is working with LG Electronics to market a set-top-box=based movie download service for TVs, Business Week reports. The move is not unexpected, but is significant in terms of its timing. Netflix has over the last few years modified its statements about the DVD rental business, moving from a "consumers don't want to mess with downloading" to "we'll do it when it's the right time" stance.

The move now means it is "time." The transition from physical distribution of movie content to electronic download to TVs is underway, Netflix is signaling. The service, which extends the Netflix download service beyond "movies to your PC," is expected to begin service in the fall of 2008.

And though Apple TV has not gotten much traction, Business Week expects Apple to unveil its own download-to-TV service as well.

Netflix has been offerings downloads to PCs for about a year. But just about everybody who thinks about the matter agrees that downloads directly to TV screens is what is needed to really jumpstart the business.

Amazon.com, TiVo and Blockbuster also have decided they no longer can wait to enter the nascent business.

Again, what is important about the Netflix move is the timing, not the move itself. Netflix has concluded that even if revenues from online-to-TV downloading will not eclipse DVD rentals for some time, one tipping point has been reached. Netflix has to get into position now if it wants to maintain leadership in the movie rental business of the future.

By some reckoning, that business already is entering its 3.0 phase, having started with retail store rentals, followed by mail delivery and now starting the download phase.

And it is worth noting that if cable TV "pay per view" or "on demand" efforts had been quite a bit more than a niche, the video rental business and Netflix would not have developed. Cablers will note that studio licensing rules and release windows account for the rise of the independent video and DVD rental business.

That is true. What also is true is that studio profit margins and gross revenues control the availability of product. Once studios decide they can make as much, or more money, by switching to online distribution, they will do it.

In that regard, a recent slowdown in growth rates for DVD sales in retail outlets is another important market indicator. Consumer fascination with DVD purchases might be waning, overall. Legally or illegally, online-delivered content might be a contributing factor.

So legal alternatives such as Netflix will provide should have a shot at success. What remains to be seen is how widespread adoption will be. Consumers are quite fickle about special-purpose electronics devices. If the value is high enough Netflix will not find there is a problem. "No late fees" and "no drive to the store" have proven to have high consumer value.

But Netflix also seems to be pursuing the integration of the decoder circuits into other Internet-connected devices. The decoding software might reside into a TV, a game player or media reader, for example. That would alleviate the "one more box" barrier, as some consumers just don't want another device, with cords and cables, around their entertainment center.

On the other hand, Netflix then encounters the "only available on one model or one brand" problem. Consumers generally don't want to bother with "this flavor of access on this device" issue.

And though on-demand video should in principle provide even more convenience, the problem has been the content release windows, which essentially dictate that by the time an on-demand movie is available, consumers have had lots of other opportunities to view the content.

For the moment, at least, Netflix should continue to have an advantage over cable, satellite or telco on-demand content. The studios aren't going to disrupt the profitable DVD window just because online delivery now is possible.

Providers of broadband access services face a more complex business challenge. Demand for download speeds should get a boost if the download services take off. The issue is how much actual profit might exist. The problem with video is that it offers scant returns on a cents-per-bit basis compared to voice.

Put another way, video necessarily "commoditizes bandwidth." For those of you who are Bellheads, think of it this way. A two-hour movie delivered in widescreen format essentially requires bandqwidth equivalent to a DS-3 with a holding time of two hours(45 Mbps). True, we compress and pre-process now so only 4 Mbps to 6 Mbps is needed.

But the point is that the value of a 4 Mbps to 6 Mbps circuit used continuously for two hours or so is "worth" what a consumer deems a fair price for watching a two-hour video event. Call it $3 to $7, depending on what the content is and when it can be viewed.

All bits are not valued equally. On a cents-per-bit basis, text messages represent the highest return, with voice someplace in the middle and video at the very low end of the revenue continuum.

It might not matter so much whether "streaming" or "downloading" is the delivery technique, though analysts at the Yankee Group so far think streaming will get more volume. Most consumers won't care. But downloading offers more opportunity for managing bandwidth.

Volpi Joins Joost

Joost has named Mike Volpi CEO. The ex-Cisco executive says "traditional television as we know it is gradually going to go away.” Separately, Apple TV now supports the display of YouTube video. In principle, there is no reason why Joost software could not be embedded into a TV set top decoder, into a TV itself, a mobile phone or personal digital assistant. Given the early support provided by Time Warner and Viacom, it appears video content owners have gotten the message the music industry did not: the Web is a new distribution medium.

To this point, most telecom executives have taken an approach to IP-based and Web-based services more akin to the music industry than the video industry. To wit, they've seen more threat than opportunity. That will change, at some point, just as every content, advertising or media business will have to adapt as well.