TV and hardware manufacturers are a poor match: see for instance: Samsungs attempt at OTT settops. Let alone technology companies. Intel made a dash, many frowned and apparently rightfully so. Rights and then making money off of them are a difficult problem for any business to overcome. And then all of that for ensuring a slice of the hardware cake that powers this. Eric Huggers was the man hired to pull it off, after Microsoft and doing iPlayer & more at the BBC.
Still: what may emerge is OTT as an increasing force, with a true TV company at the helm. Now delivering TV services in a large part of the USA. Not sure how this works out with the cost of traffic, and attempts of competing TV/internet providers to “block” it somehow.
Intel May Turn Over Its Web TV Project to Verizon | All Things D
Intel about to quit TV | Advanced Television.
And a nice long backgrounders, for the ever growing archive:
Rethinking How We Watch TV | Wall Street Journal
The Big Bet at Intel Corp. That Could Change TV | Variety
What are we not getting here: a NowTV box for 10 pounds (plus 8 pounds/month subscription), Chromecast for 30 pounds (no strings attached) and Samsung’s latest internet player box for $150 – mostly Samsung store, netflix and hulu content. It indeed does not add up: the first two are heavily pushed by their platform proponents, and bring great deals to the consumer as all of them try to gain a piece of the new online TV market – but with great fixed fee per month offers. The last one does not seem to be good at anything: it is expensive and offers access to expensive PPV content unless you take a subscription anyway. CE companies could never flourish in the settop box market since they could not deal across content and hardware: seems that is still the case, even though Samsung is offering some content now – but not on a subscription model, which is seriously flawed.
Samsung Smart Media Player | Advanced Television.
A somewhat puzzling outcome of a study of Arthur D Little on the German TV market shows that DTT has the best consumer value and WebTV is highest cost (but also highest supplier value). It is an awkward finding in the light of DTT gradually disappearing in Germany: recently RTLannounced it would withdraw it’s presence from DTT (Prosieben decided to continue). One reason is the cost of network carriage which is implicitly subsidized by network operators. Also the cost of the terminal equipment is assessed as high (which is strange as typically is it an almost zero cost co-function of an existing piece of equipment, and typical IP devices cost 70 euro and may drop to 30 euro (significantly less than that of DVB-T2 receivers) or zero in case of TV integration (which is identical to DVB-T2 integration).
The report argues a DTT upgrade to DVB-T2 is the cheapest solution for the future of supporting the 5M of German households exclusively on DTT today. This is more or less counter the trend of gradually reducing interest in the DTT platform. It is also counter typical marketing wisdom which would simply disregard the 5% minority (with relatively low income) – and since there are ample alternatives there is no social issue. Finally the cost of spectrum is not brought into the equation.
The report does not mention the sponsor, which is customary. Overall this makes the report seem like a lobby statement more than anything else.
Here is the link to the report, and an uncritical report by BroadbandTV news.