Discussion about
peter

This piece appeared in the gdgt weekly newsletter.

Sign up for it here: gdgt.com­/newsletter/

***

The past few months have been big ones for the future of television: the Boxee Box finally shipped, Hulu Plus rolled out of beta, the first Google TV boxes and TV sets came out, Apple rebooted Apple TV, and Netflix announced a streaming-only option. There's no denying that more and more households are canceling their cable or satellite in favor of getting their TV online, and while the numbers are still relatively small, it's actually possible to imagine a future for television that's not dominated by the likes of Comcast and Time Warner.

It's funny how much things have changed in just a few short years. Digital media players (i.e. boxes that stream stuff to your living room) have been around for a while, but it's only recently that they've actually become something the average person might consider buying. That's not because they've suddenly become cheaper or easier to use -- although they have. It's because they're starting to come bundled with apps that provide access to legal licensed content services like Hulu, Amazon Video On Demand, Vudu, iTunes, and Netflix that make it easier for the average person to watch a lot of the same programming they were getting via cable or satellite.

Access to content is helping drive sales of digital media players, but it also presents a challenge. If it's all about services, sooner or later consumers are going to base their buying decisions on whether or not a box supports the services they care about, and that is a precarious situation for anyone trying to sell a digital media player. If you're Apple the last thing you want to be selling is a commodity.

Since most service providers strive to be platform-agnostic -- i.e. they want to be on every box possible -- it stands to reason that sooner or later every box is going to have roughly the same line-up of services. That’s why it’s no surprise to see online services like Netflix, Hulu, Pandora, Flickr, and YouTube all showing up on so many different devices; these guys all get that ubiquity is the path to success. It’s why they’re all making sure they’re on as many different mobile platforms as possible, too.

Once everyone starts offering more or less the same set of features and services on their box, it makes it tough to differentiate on any other basis than price, which is why it’s really not that surprising to see how aggressive prices have already become: Apple introduced its latest version of Apple TV at $99 and Roku’s line-up starts at a mere $59. If all you want is something for accessing Hulu, Netflix, and YouTube why would you pay more than $60? (This is why I think Apple, for instance, is going to have to add more services if they want Apple TV to be successful.) All this competition is great for consumers, but it's margin-killing for manufacturers.

I'm not saying there won't be variation or anything like that. One platform or another might get an exclusive on something for a few months. There will continue to be differences in terms of hardware (like support for HDMI, 1080p, etc) and software (like codec support). And without a doubt good UI and social features will help distinguish one product from another. It's just that I think over time we'll see something of a convergence in terms of content services, and you'll probably be able to access the same TV shows and movies on pretty much any platform.

Another potential pitfall for anyone trying to sell a standalone digital media box is that the same online video services that are driving interest in their boxes are also getting integrated into a variety of connected devices that many consumers already have in their living room, including TVs, game consoles, and Blu-ray disc players. So by the time we get to a point where you can reliably use the internet to replace what you're getting from cable or satellite (i.e. most of the programming the average person would want is available on-demand online) it's possible that most people will already have something that does the trick for them. Why buy yet another thing to connect to your TV if you can already get what you need on your Xbox or PS3? It's kind of like what's happening to MP3 players, fewer and fewer people see the need to buy an iPod when they already own an iPhone that does all the same things.

The current must-have service, of course, is Netflix, which is showing up tons of smartphones, tablets, TVs, Blu-ray players, game consoles, and digital media players and has both manufacturers and the studios concerned over its steadily increasing power. Netflix has about 17 million monthly subscribers, and in the US alone accounts for a whopping 20% of downstream traffic during prime time hours. These are big numbers that are sure to attract competitors, and it's rumored that Amazon and Microsoft are looking to launch competing streaming services. In the meantime, Netflix is so popular that not supporting it on your digital media player essentially puts you at a competitive disadvantage, witness the outcry over the Boxee Box not supporting Netflix at launch. It's easy to understand why users would be upset: from the average consumer's standpoint it's just a box connected to the internet, so there's no reason it shouldn't be able to access everything that's out there any less than a PC would be limited to browsing only certain sites.

The growing importance of services may eventually give Netflix, Hulu, and others a sizeable amount of leverage over the box makers. Apple was smart and/or lucky with the iPod that they were able to control both the hardware and the content service (i.e. the iTunes store). If you make the box, but don't control the service, there's always a risk that you'll end up at the mercy of a provider. We saw this early on when Hulu blocked access to Boxee users (they've finally come to an agreement that will bring Hulu Plus to Boxee) and more recently when so many networks and online video providers blocked Google TV users.

This isn't to say that the likes of Boxee and Roku are doomed. I'm actually optimistic, if for no other reason than we are at the very early stages of this shift and there is still tons of room for the market to grow. Eventually there are going to be millions of households that cancel their cable or satellite service, and for many of them a digital media player will be just what they're looking for. It's just that with the competition fierce and the balance of power shifting to service providers, carving out a successful business won't be easy.

sort by

16 replies
WhiteyMcBrown

Here's the issue: They're all not very good. Your best bet is a PC running Win 7 Media Centre and even that's not great. No one has worked it out yet. It might be a cleverness thing, or it might be a license thing, but it's still a thing. I don't want to have to figure out if I want to watch Netflix, Roku, iTunes... I don't even want to pick which channel I want to watch. I just want to decide if I want to watch a particular show.

My problem all along has been that the cable guys are doing their own thing and the internet guys are doing their own thing. Everyone claims that they have the best way of watching stuff while they ignore the benefits of the other. Cable is WAY better for discovery. Internet is WAY better for ad hoc programming.

My idea: A grid of shows on my television that I can browse (like moving a selection square around a grid to hear the sound coming from each, and show info displayed at the bottom) or I can just search akin to GoogleTV. These shows are running all the time, just like cable. I can peruse all I want or I can search for "Sharks" and it will bring up every show having to do with sharks, as an example. So I start watching and after 3 minutes I'm charged a dollar for the show. I just rented it. The rest of the time I pay nothing or a nominal fee for the service.

I can channel surf like cable, but I don't have to pay for anything I'm not watching. This is perfection to me and I'll figure that the first company to do this will be the winner
4 like dislike
itchyeyes

I currently get my media over 3 devices: Xbox 360 (Zune & Netflix), PS3 (PSN, Netflix, Hulu+), and a Roku (Netflix, Amazon VoD, Hulu+). Despite the Xbox currently lacking Hulu+ the 3 devices have roughly similar content available on each one. However, they're far from interchangeable, and the differentiating factors go well beyond price.

The PS3 is best for physical media, but the 802.11g antenna can't handle high def content as well as the 802.11n that the Roku and 360 have, and the PSN store doesn't do streaming content. For paid content, I prefer the Zune over both Amazon VoD and PSN because of the way it streams instantly and adjusts bitrate on the fly. And while the Roku probably has the most content of the 3, the interface is sluggish and can make it a hassle to get to what I'm looking for.

I think that device makers still have lots of opportunities to differentiate themselves from competitors, be it through hardware, UI elements, or, as in the case of Zune, better streaming and compression.
3 like dislike
peter

I actually had something along these lines originally in the piece, but took it out after I reworked it because it didn't quite fit in with the flow of the rest of the piece. Maybe I'll figure out how to get it back in there.
1 like dislike
rucknrun

I found pushing HD over a wireless connection is not a good idea in general. It is not the fault of the PS3. Stand up a good Gigabit network in your house and the media flys around.
1 like dislike
ssstraub

I've always been surprised by this as my router has handled streaming perfectly over "g" to the point I can't imagine "n" being better. Maybe it's because I'm using DD-WRT instead of the typical consumer router software? That thing is a beast. Maybe because my router is only one room (20') away?
1 like dislike
rucknrun

I down rez my hd to 720 from 1080 too. The difference is minimal and that helps with streaming it around the house if you have to use wireless.
0 like dislike
peter

Ok, just added a paragraph to touch on what you're talking about. I'll also include your comment in the newsletter.
0 like dislike
qyiet

I agree that content is the key then it comes to these streaming boxes, and picking a winner there is somewhat harder. I think the winner is whoever can (properly) take their service worldwide first. The vast majority of these are US only or other geographical restrictions. The US has about a GDP of 14 Trillion, or about 25% of gloal GDP. So all these services are leaving at least 75% of the money they could be getting on the table. I know that its much more likely to be a content licensing holding back worldwide deployment than anything else, with content licensing being suck in a web of legacy mess that licence holders are unwilling or unable to extract themselves from.
2 like dislike
wrlee

The full push over the edge from cable/satellite to streaming will be the availability of high quality live sports streams; but I have have heard nothing of the sort in our immediate future. The other factor that will influence the transition off cable/satellite is the cost of the data pipe on which streaming video depends. With lack of competition for broadband in most areas of the country, we can expect the data costs to go up. Comcast provides not only the cable TV in my area, but also the broadband service. I fully expect the cost-shift to move to increased data plan costs as their profits on TV subscriptions diminishes appreciably.

With broadcast digital TV, Netflix, and downloads, I find little need for cable/satellite and have been disconnected for almost two years (except for my Comcast supplied broadband).
1 like dislike
zkarj

Two points. First, this is an entirely US-centric view. Go outside of North America to Europe, Asia and more and Netflix is meaningless. As is Hulu and a raft of others. And yet everyone is already talking up Asia (in particular China) as "the next big thing" in consumer markets. Here in New Zealand we have a single cable provider who covers a tiny percentage of the population and a single satellite provider who pretty much has the market sewn up. Anything else at this time must go over our flaky ADSL and is therefore doomed to be a niche product.

Second, I really don't care what the box OR BOXES are. Steve Jobs made some comments at D8 which I have interpreted to mean that the ultimate solution to digital video in the living room is an operating system for TVs. After all, do we not plug all manner of software and hardware into our PCs and Macs and it all just works? The reason is that the *platform* has been standarised.

I'd like to be able to buy a game console of my choice, a physical disc player (e.g. DVD/Blu-Ray) of my choice, some sort of audio system (perhaps just an iPod) a satellite broadcast system, an internet video link and heck, even a photo frame source - and plug them all into my "TV-OS" TV which will integrate all of their content under a single interface with a single basic remote. Sure some things like the console might provide more complex controllers as required, but the single interface is the key.

The simplest road to this solution is to take something like Apple TV and give it ports like an AV receiver. In fact, going the other way seems most logical. How hard would it be to fit the innards of an Apple TV into a modern AV receiver and give the whole thing an on-TV interface? Hopefully one or two standards would emerge (like OS X versus Windows) to encourage competition and all the service or device providers of note would ensure they support both (like MS supports OS X and Windows for Office, and Adobe for their Creative Suite).

Striving for one box, or even one delivery method to meet all requirements is a bad direction. The TV-OS solution unifies the experience without compromise and, best of all, your TV will only need one HDMI port. :-)
1 like dislike
zkarj

An additional thought. If the platform could be developed as an open standard (perhaps based on Linux) then we'd be in for an absolutely marvellous time!
0 like dislike

This post has been removed.

DanNugent

These services are great for people in large metropolitan areas with good broadband. A lot of people like myself do not have access to high enough bandwith for HD. A streaming only box is useless to me.
1 like dislike
mpodrazik

Totally agree with you on the commoditization of Netflix and YouTube, and, eventually, Hulu. The content offered on these services are not even close to the content available with a cable subscription, however, which is why the ability to secure content partnerships will be key. Apple is best positioned right now for this, as evidenced by the Google TV launch debacle.

The value-add of dedicated boxes over a connected DVD player, for example, is apps. The AppleTV does not have them yet, of course, but does anyone doubt it will? Ditto Google TV. Could XBox be far behind?

I see the emerging Internet TV device market shaping up a lot like the smartphone market, with Apple and Google duking it out and Microsoft a wildcard. I don't think there is a very bright future for Boxee and Roku playing with those three giants...
0 like dislike
PatW

The "elephant in the room" missing from most of these discussions on alternate TV is sports! Are Geeks all non-sports watchers? Don't think so. I've been fortunate to not have a cable or satellite subscription, because I can get all the soccer I want to watch online, either for free or by paying Fox or MLS for a streaming subscription. ESPN3 is there, too, but only via Comcast as my ISP. It makes my channels a la carte via my notebook connected to my HD TV. Most of it is available either live or on demand, so no DVR is needed. I also get one channel (CBS) over the air to satisfy my college basketball needs. If you are a baseball fan, MLB will gladly sell you everything almost any where. But, not NFL! Until everyone's favorite sport is available to them online, watching movies and shows will not be enough. Live sports is the killer app for TV boxes. Boxee? Roku? Apple? Google? anyone?...
0 like dislike
joshhyde

I agree those who will win will have the best content at a good price. Coming in a close second is those who have the best or a better front end. Companies like Roku, Boxee, Google, and Apple I expect to update software running on their boxes in a timely manner. CE manufactures like Philips, Sharp, and Sony, not so much.
0 like dislike
mrothman

I continue to be surprised that MS's Media Center has not gained a greater following. With one connected low cost PC running Windows 7 and a low cost tuner you gain full DVR functionality with free guide data, live tv, internet tv, music, pictures, gaming, media extension, Netflix, and lots of apps for extensibility all in one mature tightly integrated and beautiful user interface. Doesn't this leave all the discussion of one or more add-on boxes in the dust?
0 like dislike
share:

13 users following this discussion, including:

  • PatW
  • peter
  • WhiteyMcBrown
  • bsobel226
  • qyiet
  • dave
  • mrothman
  • wrlee
  • mpodrazik
  • joshhyde

This discussion has been viewed 646 times.
Last activity .