Videonet has published a fairly stimulating “Editor opinion” which poses that the TV industry is loosing the battle with its present connected TV approach. Various figures show enormous popularity of various online TV services on mobile and tablet platforms, rising popularity of (also online) PayTV, and online FTA broadcaster initiatives. Development of applications for connected TV is fragmented and the replacement cycle for TVs is still not very fast.
Some critique is in place however: live streaming of channels is not available on 2nd screen devices. So the craving for content on 2nd screens is now filled with the available online initiatives – sort of explaining the skewed figures. And more from a distance: is the large screen really under threat? For the 2nd and 3rd TV in the home it is, but hardly for the first screen. And that is getting bigger and bigger. Nevertheless, maybe in 2 years from now many of us watch online stuff from our tablet streamed wirelessly with Miracast onto that big screen; and the TV becomes a monitor again. And all of us will say that Mr. Schmidt from Google was a true visionary.
The TV industry has chosen to compete rather than to collaborate in the connected TV space. This has probably accelerated the initial development, but now the downside of that choice is starting to be felt.
Editor’s view: The trouble with CE Connected TV | Videonet.
The two large cable operators (joint market share 70%) in the Netherlands are blocking the HbbTV signals from broadcasters on their networks for no stated reason. It is speculated that the reason is to prevent competition with their own interactive services. The Dutch parliament want to have this block ceased now. This would enable many smartTVs with CI+ modules to receive enhanced programming (interactivity). People using cable-boxes (and older TVs without HbbTV) would still not be able to access such services.
Note: there could be some interference between HbbTV applications and interactive applications from the operator on the CI+ module. I.e. at minimum some technical testing work may have to be conducted on already deployed products.
Nevertheless, there seems to be significant room for a more constructive solution.
Dutch parliament to enforce HbbTV on cable.
Rovi has lost an EPG patent case against Netflix and Roku. In the recent past also Virgin cable and Ziggo have won cases, sometimes patents were overturned (in Ziggo’s case prior art was one of the opposing arguments). The lawyers at Rovi are stating they will keep going at it.
Rovi loses initial ruling in ITC case.
The operator as an App is an interesting trend. Some operators’s life is in an App, like Netflix. Some have created their own rich app environment, like YouView. There are important counter arguments like:
- QOS of the delivery medium (OTT is not exactly the qulity medium of choice today)
- New hardware developments, like HEVC etc.
- Channel zapping times (ahum)
- Default operator selection on power-on (even more ahum)
This model will come, but it may tke long time; more due to the fact that IP is simply not ready for mainstream delivery. TV mnufacturers should consider a model where a “persistent” operator navigtor app can mix with classical DVB delivery. That is probably cooking, Samsung with Teliasonera leading the pack.
The Operator as an App: A practical, not philosophical debate | Videonet.
Finally the long wait is over. Telenet has turned the corner on CI+ as one of the last strongholds against the technology (admittedly, there are even more notible exceptions).
The module cannot do MHP, the Telenet chosen interctive middleware, just channel zapping.
Telenet moves to CI Plus with SmarDTV.