The savvy guide to the Internet-TV connection

I asked a group of professional contacts and friends - all of them with some high-tech, Internet or media connections whether they are watching Internet, streaming or downloaded content on their computers - and whether any of them are shifting it to their real TV’s. With few exceptions, they said no. Maybe it reflects their age - they’re not 20somethings - but their answers suggest to me we’ve got a long way to go to streaming Nirvana. Below are excerpts of their answers (with more to come).

Anne Holland, Editor, MarketingSherpa.com: “In the past nine months I’ve become a downloaded TV junkie. I don’t think of it as watching video on a computer, I think of it as watching the TV shows I want to watch when I want to watch them. Best of all, without waiting through commercials, and being able to hit “pause” at any time when I need a break.

“The only reason we still also pay for cable TV in my household is that iTunes TV doesn’t include any closed captions, which another family member requires. Currently, I buy my favorite shows with a season pass, resting easy in the knowledge I won’t miss an episode. I’ll also try out new shows and even surf iTunes looking for new shows to try. Often the first episode is free as a taster.

“I just wish some Internet entrepreneur would offer online server space so I could download my purchased shows and play them from there rather than having to download to my computer and then worry about backing them up for saving. Now I buy it and then often delete after viewing, which seems like a waste. I actually went out and bought the DVD’s of my fave iTunes TV show recently even though I’d watched them on iTunes first just because buying a pre-packed DVD was more convenient for storage and retrieval than worrying about doing it on my own….”

(Editor: Anne’s was probably the most “turned on, tuned in” answer I have received so far.)

Amy Gahran, journalist and blogger (RightConversation.com, Contentious.com, IReporter.org, E-Media Tidbits): “I subscribe to several video blogs, and yes I watch them on my computer. No, I don’t feel any desire to watch them on TV, but I’m not a TV person anyway.”

Patti Hart, Interactive Media Director, Times Union, Albany, NY: My 11-year-old watches the Disney Channel shows on our computer. It works pretty well as far as she’s concerned. She can watch the Zach and Cody and Hannah Montana when she gets computer time. However, if she had the kind of parents who would spring for a better cable TV package, she would probably prefer to watch on a TV screen.”

Tom Regan, NPR news blogger: “I watch baseball almost exclusively on my computer, thanks to the mlb.com package. I’m a Red Sox fan living in DC, so it’s the only way I can watch games. I don’t like the site’s policy of blanking out certain games - which are based on real world and not virtual world considerations. But it’s a lifesaver.

“I would watch more sports on my computer if it was available, and probably pay for it. I have no desire to watch regular TV, however, as I rarely watch it as it is. I have managed over the past several years to not see a single episode of “Survivor,” “24,” “The Apprentice” or “American Idol.” And those few shows I do enjoy - “NOVA,” “NOW” and other PBS stuff - is available on video at their sites anyway.

Share This

In Part 1 of our interview with Amit Shafrir, CEO of Internet2.tv, we discussed the idea behind the web video aggregation site. In this portion of our conversation, Amit talks about the creative side - what is happening with web video, and what makes it different and new.

TV Mama: Is this field growing? Are more artists, filmmaker types going into it rather than film school?

Amit Shafrir: Yes!

Is the corporate world going to take this space over (i.e. Vuguru’s “Prom Queen“) with higher production values, bigger budgets and slick marketing tie-ins?

Participate – yes. Take over, I don’t think so.

Will this video “graduate” to the networks/studios?

Some of it will. There has already been some talent that has migrated over and some content that has also done so. I do not think that “graduate” is the right term. In the past show-business had the hierarchy of “stage” > “TV” > “Movies.” I believe that has changed and you see major stars now migrating from one platform to another. I believe web video will be yet another platform.

Are these “test reels” for unschooled (hopeful) video artists?

Yes, and no. The cream will rise to the top as with everything else. That is why you need someone (like network2.tv) to help you find the “good” stuff.

Will this content migrate to “real” TV’s through AppleTV and other devices?

Absolutely. AppleTV, XBOX360, Tivo, Sling, MCEs, DVRs are various means by which Web video is already making its way to living room TV’s today. However the technical quality of what is good for a small browser screen does not always translate well to a large 60” TV screen. There are a slew of proprietary solutions in the works to address that, too.

Is it better online or on the big (plasma/LCD) box?

Is vanilla better than chocolate ? It is a matter of personal choice, timing , position, disposition, location, whim, etc. The point is that the way a person chooses to consumer video content should no longer be dictated. In the past, if you wanted to watch a certain TV show, you had to open a TV set on a certain date and time, point to a certain channel, and see it. You had no CHOICE. In today’s world you should be able to see what you want, wherever you want (place-shifting), whenever you want (time-shifting) on whatever medium you like (PC, TV, PDA, iPod, phone, etc.)

Is there anything artistically defining about this content - short form, humor/sarcasm/edginess - that distinguishes it as designed for the medium (Internet, mobile, etc…)?

This is evolving. Currently short form is more prevalent as it is cheaper to produce and simpler to consumer (less bandwidth requirements and also less attention required….). Humor is more prevalent, because it appeals to a larger audience, and therefore more likely to be produced and more likely to surface to the top in terms of popularity, thus becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Also, not many people are interested/able to watch a 60-minute documentary on 16th century Italian art on a 2” mobile phone screen (I think). As things evolve, the long tail effect will take place, and there will be enough audiences for niches and more types of content.

Is this an emerging art form different in any significant way from plain-old TV?

Yes. It is much less costly to produce, and more tolerant to experimentation. It is a good breeding ground for innovation. This does not mean that in the future things do not become more streamlined. The TV industry is being disrupted from the bottom. I am sure it will adopt certain ways from the independent web TV producers and vice versa.

Share This

“Tomorrow is about wireless and broadband media platforms.” - Motorola CEO Ed Zander

Proof:

Multichannel News reports that Hewlett-Packard in discussions with content providers to bring user-generated content, movie previews and TV shows to a new line of Internet-connected MediaSmart LCD TV sets (see pic below).

According to Multichannel News, HP has a deal with CinemaNow to offer MediaSmart users the ability to browse and purchase or rent more than 4,000 titles directly from the TV set. Videos are downloaded to a consumer’s PC, then streamed wirelessly to the TV.

HP official: “We knew TVs were destined to become connected devices. Sometime down the road, it will be unusual to see a TV that isn’t connected.”

Next up for HP: MediaSmart Server, a network-attached storage device that can hold up to 4 Terabytes of content and serve content to the TV and other devices in the home.

MCN also reports that Motorola is developing a product that will soon allow pay TV customers to transfer videos from digital-video recorders to mobile phones and other wireless devices.

No time-frame, yet.

Share This

Phillip Swann of TVPredictions made a couple of useful observations recently:

1. The quality of Internet video shown streaming or downloaded on full-sized TV screens must improve. He described AppleTV’s current video picture as “grainy and nearly unwatchable. It’s a total embarrassment and it should disturb a company with Apple’s reputation for quality. I’m told that Sony’s Bravia Link will look better, but we’ll see.”

He has company in that opinion, as evidenced by this piece, and this piece and this particularly colorful one (”If you want to know what the picture quality is like, do a couple Tequila shots, spin around a few times, bang your head against the floor, and then watch broadcast TV on an old 19″ JVC.)

Not everybody has been so underwhelmed, of course. CNet Australia gave picture quality a qualified thumbs-up and Macworld described it as having solid picture quality.

Swann’s other point is also worth discussing: The Internet TV feature must be part of the consumer’s existing TV service. He describes it as critical. “Americans have set-top fatigue, and they are not going to the store to buy yet another one just so they can watch a short video from the Internet on their TV’s.”

That’s a key point as far as we are concerned. Only a handful of geeks (they’re over-represented on the Web, so their voices tend to dominate the discussion) will put up with complicated systems, hacks, and multiple gadgets. My wife doesn’t want anything in the room along with the TV.

I’ll let Swann say it, but I agree wholeheartedly: “When Internet TV is a seamless service offered by your cable or satellite operator for a monthly fee (and no upfront equipment cost), it will begin to generate a serious audience in this country.”

Share This

Network2.tv is a new project of VOIP guru Jeff Pulver. Network2 is aggregating, rating and reviewing original web video programming. We spoke with Network2.tv CEO Amit Shafrir about his site, and the future of this emerging art form – whether web-centric, episodic video is in fact a different and new thing. In Part 1 we talk about the site; Part 2 focuses on the special nature of this emerging art and commerce form.

TVMama: Network2.tv: Why?

Amit: As part of his research done last year, Jeff Pulver has identified the new phenomena of individuals creating episodic TV content.

As it is nowadays possible to produce video content with nothing more than a cheap video camera, a broadband connection and talent, it is no longer necessary to procure expensive resources like bandwidth or spectrum or “airwaves” or deploy expensive “pipes” to the home. Therefore, the costs of production are extremely low.

However the ability to reach an audience and monetize still has certain barriers that small independent producers may find difficult. A meta-aggregator such as Network2.tv is in the position to create a large enough aggregate audience that is suitable to targeted advertising and toward harnessing of this long tail video content phenomena into a valid business for itself and for the content producers.

How much time/effort/money has been put into Network2.tv?

We do not get into details as to the cost, but we have been working on the technology and service for over a year.

How much traffic buzz and promotion is the site getting?

We have decided to develop the site in the public eye (as opposed to developing in stealth mode and then launching). We are not yet finished with our product offering and are therefore not promoting it and refraining from creating any buzz.

How much indie, original web-only programming is out there?

A lot !!! The question should be how much QUALITY web-only programming is out there. That, too, is growing, but is more difficult to find and curate. This is what we at Network2.tv want to focus on.

How much of it (what percentage) do you think you have aggregated?

We do not provide such data, but I would say a significant percentage.

Most of it seems to be talk show-type programs. Do you have any soap operas/comedy/dramas with recurring characters and plot lines, like “real” TV? (Like “TheBurg,” “Something to be Desired,” and others).

There are some, but you need to bear in mind that such programs have a higher production cost (even if every one of the actors, script writers, directors, etc., work for free) and there is still a higher level of complexity to producing such shows. This is a developing market and as soon as more $$$ flows into it – more such shows would be developed.

Share This

Here are the four most important news items showing more proof that convergence is real, that platforms are connecting and that all of this may (someday) be easy enough for most of us to use:

• Korea’s Compass produces a hi-def PC/TV combo.

• Buried in the news of a new AT&T mobile video sharing technology is this tidbit about media convergence: Video Share ultimately will be accessible over any of the three primary screens that customers use most frequently. These are “the wireless device, the PC and the television.” AT&T also says researchers at its labs are perfecting service enhancements that eventually will enable wireless video feeds now aimed at mobile user to be shared over IPTV or PC screens.

• HungryFlix.com now offers independent videos and movies that can be viewed on iPhones or Apple TV. See also: BigBanana.TV .

• Computer World reports that Apple published a patent that would allow iPhones and iPods to control Apple TV video and music files. Now the darn things may become remote controls, too.

Share This

Apple TV may be able to pull content off your computer and put it on your TV, but it can’t do something far simpler: turn off.

In browsing the Apple Support Discussion forum, it is clear that many Apple TV users don’t like the lack of an on/off switch. Some are concerned that keeping it on all the time could hurt the device; others worry about the wasted energy and the consequent damage to the environment (not to mention their electric bills).

AppleTV does have a standby mode that can be activated by holding down the play/pause button, but the amount of time the button needed to be held varied from unit to unit, causing some confusion amongst forum participants. Furthermore, even in standby mode many users were still concerned about the amount of energy the device wastes.

“Even in standby mode AppleTV remains quite warm to the touch, almost hot. It absolutely must be drawing a considerable amount of power in standby mode. I’m surprised Apple didn’t design this thing to be more green (what with Al Gore on the board), and I’m very disappointed,” said one post.

However, it appears that the heat generated by the device owes more to a lack of a cooling system than a waste of energy. One forum participant claimed the Apple TV uses a maximum of 48 watts when on based on the device’s specs, while another claimed that he measured that his unit used 17-19 watts while in use and 13.8 watts after having been in standby mode for a couple of days. Apple TV may not qualify for an Energy Star rating, but leaving it on all the time certainly consumes less energy than leaving on your computer or refrigerator.

Share This

In the past decade, Apple’s specialty has been creating user-friendly products. The iPod popularized mp3 players even though others were already on the market, and Mac users are more loyal than users of any other computer brand.

No one is surprised that Apple TV is the most user-friendly PCTV convergence product on the market. Optimists had hoped that the advent of Apple TV would usher in a new era in which even more TV options (like we don’t have enough already) would stream seamlessly from the home computer to the television by means of a device as easy to use as your television’s remote control.

Instead, Apple TV is being dubbed “the least successful Apple product this decade.” Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

Most convergence devices on the market work from the television end with a box that sits on your TV set and grabs information out of your PC.

AMD’s new technology, Active TV, lets the computer do the work instead of the television. The computer seamlessly sends videos to your TV and even reconfigures video formats to formats the TV can support. The computer can be used as usual for word processing, Internet browsing, etc., while Active TV is functioning.

Active TV also has an open html platform, meaning that adding to the list of content that is displayed on your television is simple, much like adding a favorite to your web browser.

Active TV not only sends internet video content to your television, but it can also display videos, photos and music that are stored on your computer.

Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Here’s the catch. Both computer and TV must be formatted for Active TV. The computer only uses a browser plug-in, but the TV requires a chip and a network jack that don’t exist yet.

(Editor’s note: Similarly, SanDisk’s USBTV, which we have mentioned a few times here, is working on getting next-gen TV’s in 2008 and beyond to contain the company’s proprietary new generation USB connection with extra pins for transmitting video and other information.)

AMD purchased ATI, which manufactures the “guts” of 40 percent of TV’s, with the hope of manufacturing properly equipped televisions soon.

For now, they have released set-top boxes in Europe and are planning on releasing them in the states as well. AMD is also hoping that soon you will be able to use the Active TV technology with Playstation 2.

Check out the above interview from the Bleeding Edge with Graham Kinahan of AMD.

Share This

CRN invited a group of channel executives to D&H Distributing’s Mid-Atlantic Show in Hershey, PA last month for a panel discussion about the future of convergence. The consensus was that the market has not been living up to expectations.

“I think the forecasts were wrong for [convergence]. The industry saw a tidal wave of expectations, but it’s really more of a rising tide,” said Ted Houser, general manager of Glick Audio and Video, Lancaster, Pa.

Convergence has not been as popular as predicted, but the executives were optimistic about its long-term prospects.

“Maybe we’re moving glacially, but we’re moving from the attachment to the TV world to the network world. I have come to the conclusion that it is an absolute, an inevitability,” commented David Kaplan, executive director of Digital Delivery Group, a Seattle-based conglomerate or regional digital distributors.

So what’s the hold up?

The main problem is the technology. No one has come up with the perfect product. Most convergence devices are difficult to set-up, not user friendly, expensive, and often have quirky performance.

One CEO thinks convergence is not going to happen, saying that convergence is against the laws of nature and that “things want to move apart.” I understand that the PC-TV convergence is not happening as quickly as people would like, but his rationale is completely off. Convergence has never been more popular. People are downloading television shows to their computers and ipods en masse and checking their email on their telephones. Either we’re defying the laws of nature, or this guy is just not familiar with them.

The problem isn’t that there’s no interest in convergence. The problem is that companies are afraid to take the plunge into a new market. The executives were optimistic about Apple TV’s ability to bring convergence mainstream, but even Steve Jobs has regarded Apple TV as a “hobby.”

The convergence industry is going to go nowhere until someone is willing to produce an affordable, quality product that will capture the market.

Share This