Who doesn’t like Hulu.  As a fan of user interface design, I enjoy the elegance and simplicity of the site almost as much as the video streams themselves.  Launched in 2007 as a joint venture between NBCU and News Corp. (Fox/Paramount), the service has since grown to offer streams from many other content owners as well (recently Disney signed on, and is also reportedly planning to become an equity stakeholder).
Read the rest of this entry »

Has lengthy Sigur Ros concert coverage replaced subversive short-form clips on Current TV?

In other words, is US television’s first intrepid citizen journalist network gradually jettisoning its user-generated videos, in favor of a content format ubiquitous elsewhere on TV? 
Read the rest of this entry »



Speculating here about Disney’s recent (quasi-) presence on YouTube, we concluded that:

• YouTube was expanding beyond its core business of UGC (user-generated content) hosting into premium licensed content – and is willing to be just an aggregator to do it.
• Disney was finally ‘dipping its toe into video stream syndication via YouTube before placing its bet on hulu.
  Read the rest of this entry »

I recently attended an event in New York presented by videonuze (a highly recommended resource for all things internet video, by the way).  The  evening’s panel discussion tended to focus primarily on three issues:

• Monetization
• Content aggregation
• Whether overall video consumption will continue to grow to accomodate increased internet video usage, or will terrestrial television (cable and broadcast) start to lose market share

Listening to the panelists, I found myself increasingly struck by fact that they all appeared to be laboring under the assumption that as a technology, internet video is necessarily a function of the personal computer and the web browser (and perhaps someday the smartphone).   It wasn’t until moderator Will Richmond explicitly addressed the issue in his final question that what I consider to be the elephant in the room was even mentioned: internet video on the television.

That the subject sat so low on the panelists’ collective radar screen was interesting, only because there happens to be such a major CE push underway right now: a slew of network-enabled hardware was just announced at CES, Adobe’s got Flash running a chip, and several noteworthy cross-industry partnerships have been struck between some pretty heavy hitters – I’ve commented previously on a few of them:

• zillion tv
• yahoo connected tv
• tivo search

The question was put to the panelists: “Do you see internet video coming to the television in two years?”  Answers ranged from a clear “no” to a hedged “it’s a ways off” to an interesting prediction (from a cable executive) that users will likely be frustrated attempting to connect such devices themselves without the high level of customer care they’re used to receiving from their cable company.

The consensus?  That ‘killer app’ internet television solution you’ve been waiting for is probably closer to five years away than two.  While I’m of the opinion that it will come sooner than that (and sooner than might be comfortable for many in the industry), the one thing everyone agrees on is that it is coming.  There are not ‘ifs’ in this conversation – only ‘whens’.  Here then is my take on how it will impact the three core issues listed above:

Monetization: Internet video on the television will mean the high-CPM targeted ads of the internet, and (due to the lean-back, social nature of the television viewing experience) an audience finally willing to tolerate a more traditional (i.e. heavier) ad load.  From the perspective of the advertising industry, this long-awaited combination represents the best of both worlds – and so in the long run, I’m optimistic that internet video on the television will more than solve the monetization issues many industry analysts and executives have struggled to address so far.

Content Aggregation: This is a very interesting topic.  The web (and the web browser) are arguably the killer apps of at least the last several decades (happy 20th birthday, btw), but a wide-open browser paradigm (with all the accompanying complexity, security, and instability issues) is not really an appropriate solution for a CE device such as a television or set-top box (nobody wants to have to worry about their television crashing).  In place of all that convenient web standardization, though, there will be some heavy lifting needed to create more appropriate dedicated solutions.  Unlike the web, the system architecture will be closed and centralized: in other words, the hardware will present the viewer with a user interface containing all necessary controls and content meta data, and upstream communication will be limited to a single service-providing host – even if the actual video data streams are then streamed from an assortment of asset-owning partners and their optimized CDNs.  The goal is an elegant and cohesive user experience that still solves the tricky problem of allowing content search, discovery, and delivery across multiple sources and multiple video formats (TiVo, for one, recognizes the challenge and is taking an interesting search-based approach to solving it).

The Size of the Pie: The prospect of a disruptively successful lean-back internet video experience eating into terrestrial broadcast and cable viewership (and the resulting impact on traditional advertising and cable/satellite subscription revenue models) is on a lot of people’s minds these days.  For example,  note how quickly (and how thoroughly) joint owners Fox and NBCU recently forced hulu to shut down access from the boxee application after it became clear the small startup had plans to release a set-top hardware device (and that people were already installing boxee on their Apple TVs).  To insulate the incumbents from such zero-sum viewership concerns, several recently-announced initiatives (Time Warner’s TV Everywhere and Zillion TV) have announced they plan to require customers maintain at least one concurrent cable or satellite television service contract.  Of course, there’s no technical reason for this policy – it’s just there to prevent viewers from canceling their cable subscription and going “over the top” with only their broadband internet connection.  Long term, such an arbitrary restriction will prove unsustainable in the marketplace, but in the short term it’s a smart move: in a nascent market such as internet-enabled CE, first-mover advantage is huge, and any insurgent internet television solution that makes the cable companies feel at least a little less threatened (even if only for the time being) is going to have an advantage gaining traction quickly.

All in all, aside from the realtively short shrift given to the CE industry’s recent discovery of the internet by the panelists, it was an excellent discussion – and once again, if you’re at all curious about the future of internet video, I highly recommend videonuze.

Time are tough – maybe you’ve heard, it’s been in all the papers.  Oh wait, there aren’t any more papers – but we’re going to guess that one way or the other, you’ve had more than your share of macro-economic doom and gloom over the past few months anyway.  So we’re starting a new series of posts – think of them as occasional signs of (internet video-related) corporate hope amidst all the (over-leveraged under-regulated financial services) corporate rubble…

• The BBC, having seen a 152% increase in UK usage of their successful iPlayer streaming application over the past 12 months, has just increased their online budget for the next three years by almost 25%.
• The stock of mail-order DVD rental leader (and online pioneer) Netflix is up over 30% over the past 6 months.
• CBS has announced 2.8 million first-day unique users of its Silverlight-powered NCAA Men’s Tournament (March Madness) streams – at 56% increase over last year’s first day numbers.
• Pure Digital Technologies, the privately-funded startup responsible for the easy-to-use “Flip” personal internet video camcorder, is purchased by Cisco for $590 mil.

Hang in there – more good news to come…

It’s time to talk about Zillion TV.  Announced a week or two ago and slated for a 2009 Q4 launch, this set-top box streaming initiative has already received quite a bit of coverage. Here’s our quick take:

What They Got Right

• Investors – One impressive thing about Zillion TV is the stature of the companies behind it:  Visa is a major investor (and will implement the back-end billing transactions for purchasing streams), and content providers Disney/ABC, Fox, NBC Universal, Sony Pictures and Warner Bros. Digital Distribution are all also investors/partners.  In fact, while I’ve read Zillion TV described as the “Hulu” of set-top boxes (due to the innovative cooperation between otherwise competing companies Fox and NBCU), Zillion TV goes Hulu one further, having Sony, Warner Brothers, and even long-time Hulu holdout and rival Disney/ABC on board as primary stakeholders as well.

• Revenue Model – Although television viewers and web browser users have consistently expressed a preference for “free” (ad-supported) content over paying subscription or per-view fees, Zillion TV itself will be agnostic as to which monetization model individual content owners choose, and will be able to support either.  One thing Zillion seems to understand, though, is the game-changing impact targeted advertising will have, given a lean-back audience willing to tolerate the heavier ad-loads typical of traditional TV.  I touched upon this a few weeks ago here – and as Zillion TV’s initial press release puts it: “Gone are the days of mass market, untargeted television commercials.  Through the ZillionTV Service, advertisers clearly will reach a more highly-targeted and engaged audience.  This is a major boon for the advertising industry.”

• User interface - We believe that in the absence of a keyboard on the coffee table (which studies show nobody really wants), the problem of the remote control and the user interface will have to be solved.  One way or another, the current remote paradigm (dozens of never-used dedicated buttons) is going to go away – to be replaced by either a touch-screen iPhone-like device or a Wii-like pointing remote (something I touched upon a few weeks ago here).  While Apple’s been quietly filing for patents on the laser-recognition pointing technology necessary for such remotes, Zillion TV will be the first internet video device to market that actually features one (which, come to think of it, is probably why the Zillion TV “box” has to hang over the top edge of the screen – see image).

• Zillion TV and the Service Provider – Easily the most noteworthy aspect of Zillion TV is that like Time Warner’s “TV Everywhere,” access will be limited to customers with current cable and/or ISP contracts from selected vendors already in place (more on TV Everywhere here).  Could this be an emerging trend – internet video services sharing monetization with carriers?  Possibly – in Zillion TV’s case, the device will be marketed as a hardware value-add available through (as yet unnamed) service provider partners.  The decision to Include the carrier in the revenue stream is huge, because instead of an insurgent over-the-top internet video service threatening to dramatically increase user bandwidth consumption while simultaneously making cable TV access less valuable, Zillion will instead be a business partner.  Of course, as the issue of monetizing internet video remains up for grabs, incumbent service providers remain (to put it mildly) “concerned” over what services running “over the top” could ultimately mean to the business models they’ve come to know and love – but from the service provider’s perspective, Zillion TV will likely be seen as the lessor of several evils, because at least some participation is better than none.  And the arrangement works for Zillion TV, too: the company plans to install caches of video content at your local ISP.  The technical innovation of expanding the content delivery network one step closer out to the user (from the edge of the internet onto the user’s local service provider) is potentially huge- and yet another step in one of our favorite topics, the privatization of the internet (something I touched upon a few weeks ago here).   Which brings us to…

What Could Be A Problem

• Net Neutrality - With Zillion TV content caches sitting out there in ISP data centers, look for this to come up when Zillion TV launches later this year – and look for the issue to be ongoing, because If I’m a Vudu, Roku, TiVo (or any other 4-letter box making company) – or if I’m a Yahoo Connected TV, Amazon VOD (or any other television/set-top streaming service), even if I lose a legal challenge to the Zillion TV business model, I’m going to be out there doing continuous comparative testing to see if there’s any hint of Zillion TV-partnered ISPs slowing down my packets – in other words, it’s going to be a good couple of years to be a media (or antitrust) lawyer.

Conclusions

In short, I’m impressed with Zillion TV – the big players are clearly onboard, I think including the service providers is a smart business move, and I like what little I know about the user interface.  A few things to watch:

• As the year progresses, which MSOs and ISPs will announce they’ll be partnering with Zillion TV?
• WIll the hyper-localized ISP/CDN model offer dramatically enhanced performance over competing solutions using CDNs external to the carrier?
• If so, will the net neutrality/anti-trust challenges be equally forceful?
• Will Zillion TV expand from television content into film as well?

We’ve been going on lately about how much sense netbooks make.  Evidently, some smart people out in Cupertino might think so too: within the last 2 days, the online rumor-mill about all things Apple has kicked into full gear again, this time started by reports that a Taiwanese firm has just signed an agreement to begin supplying large touchscreens to Apple later this year.

What we’re talking about here is essentially a large (9″ or 10″ screen) iPod Touch – physically, it could well end up looking very much like this mock-up concept imagined by gizmodo (at left) – but under the hood (or ‘glass’, rather), I wonder if it will run a stripped-down version of the Apple OS or follow the closed iPhone/iPod Touch “App Store” model – in other words, will it allow traditional fully-installed applications, or will it allow only the more limited (but easier and safer) widget-like software products (running one layer up on a virtual machine) available on the iPhone?

Either way, if unlike the iPhone and iTouch, this device will (finally) run Adobe Flash (the ubiquitous video streaming application behind Hulu and YouTube), then this will be a hee-uge hit..

I’ve written before on what an ill-suited viewing platform I feel the PC and web browser make for viewing internet video. Keeping that in mind, the big unknown about this sleek full-screen “net tablet” is whether it will run Flash. If so, it could make the whole web video experience a lot nicer – and a lot less tied to the workplace and/or deskop…

I know I promised to keep politics off this blog. Do indulge me, though. 

Besides. It’s much more about the (digital) economy than politics.

The White House web site folks replaced YouTube with Akamai as the preferred video delivery platform for the President’s weekly online video address.

What sparked the decision was privacy concerns over how YouTube-embedded video dealt with cookies placed on the devices people used to access the popular White House Web domain.

OK. I get it! But what about the other, much less discussed issue in this context? Money!

Behind the decision to ditch YouTube for Akamai also were complaints that a tax-payer funded government site should not generate free advertising for YouTube and thus Google, the online video giant’s parent company. (The rational being that someone clicking from the White House domain back to YouTube becomes a potentially valuable set of eyeballs against which YouTube can charge advertisers). 

Well, how about this? (All completely hypothetical of course, and somewhat simplified):

YouTube – which for all intents and purposes has solved its cookies issue. Gone is the privacy concern – continues to deliver the President’s video address to the White House site. The nation’s most prominent government Web destination thus drives traffic back to YouTube as it has in the past. 

But this time, this time we go out and actually buy shares in Google stock. (Believe me, it’s cheap right now).

Yes, rather than complaining about taxpayer money being misappropriated by letting www.whitehouse.gov drive free traffic back to YouTube, how about sharing in the financial upside (and risk, I admit) in YouTube’s incremental revenue benefit from my tax-funded arrangement?

Net, net? The White House site would regain an exceedingly capable video partner; one with unparalleled online brand recognition and viral video marketing ability unlike any other video site today. 

And taxpayers? They would have opportunity to realize a potential return on their stock investment transferring right back into their own pockets. (Capital gains tax not withstanding, that is).

Wait! Does this sound too much like a mini version of the current US stimulus plan, bailing out an already lackluster Internet stock with public money?

Is this a (mini) step towards socializing the digital economy – akin to the previous administration’s proposal to let taxpayers (partially) invest their tax-funded social security, with all the inherent risk attached?

Listen, I am just a telco guy. What do I know?

But quite frankly, to me the bigger picture is that the digital economy has grown and prospered best every time we rewarded value (here YouTube’s unique video delivery expertise) and risk (my trust that buying Google stock) will pay off.

Artificially disconnecting any Web site from a quality vendor makes little sense to me.

Besides, wouldn’t we want to see our tax dollars placed where they are likely to generate the highest return?

What’s wrong with that? Especially in this economy.

PS: Yes, I own a handful of Google stock. And no, this post is not a vote against Akamai.

The trend is unmistakable: the consumer electronics industry has discovered the internet, and activities that have until now always involved a “computer” (such as internet video viewing and mobile internet access) will be increasingly done using a new generation of leaner and meaner dedicated CE devices instead.  This is all well and good: arguably, the modern home computer – more flexible and powerful but also more complicated and (let’s face it) maintenance-intensive than ever – is clearly overkill for such activities.  But as the computer justifiably loses the battle to convince us it’s also a CE device, CE devices are in turn left to grapple with an issue of their own: how much and how best to emulate the computer.

I’m talking software deployment.  You buy a computer, it includes a license for an operating system, and you’re free to go and install whatever software (or malware) you want – in other words, “you buy it, you break it” (in a way, an inversion of the “Pottery Barn rule ” invoked by Colin Powell over the war in Iraq).  But what about a smartphone, or that internet-enabled television you’ll be buying within the next year or two?  While the availability of a rich selection of high quality 3rd party applications is in the best interest of both the device maker and the user, a wide open ”no guard-rails” software deployment policy is in both parties’ worst interest: poorly written applications can harm both the user  as well as the brand, and (news flash) the average home user is a lot less interested in taking on that kind of responsibility than many companies in the computer industry have ever really understood.

For their upcoming line of internet-enabled televisions, Yahoo/Intel have addressed the issue by going with a “widget” rather than “application” model: lightweight software running on a JavaScript engine rather than the OS itself.  Taking another approach, Apple (which in terms of revenue has been a CE company with a side business in computers for a while now) has come up with the iTunes App Store: applications for the iPhone (and likely for the Apple TV in the near future) are installed on the OS itself, but must be first vetted by (and subsequently purchased through) Apple.  This offers the best of both worlds: the developer base for the device is virtually unlimited, but nothing’s going to break, and apps are guaranteed to be secure.  In fact, the “app store” model is currently being imitated by other smartphone makers such as Nokia because it’s been so successful and popular with users.

Well, 98% of us, that is – there’s also a growing geek subculture out there that believes they have the right to do whatever they want to with something they’ve purchased, thank you very much – and they’re dedicated to removing the iPhone’s software restrictions – “jailbreaking”, as it’s called.  Although the practice is in direct violation of the iPhone EULA (software license agreement), it’s gotten so widespread now that a Google search of “jailbreak” and “iPhone” currently yields 3.6 million results -and so the two sides (the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Apple) are set to face off this spring.

Apparently, this dispute is subject to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act , originally meant to fight piracy of copyrighted “works” such as film and music – therefore, it will ultimately fall upon those famously tech-savvy folks at the Library of Congress to decide the issue.  A case can be made for either side – but although I have to admit I’d love the ability to put my iPhone on a network that covers the NYC metro area better than AT&T , I tend to side with Apple on this one – not only because I feel the iPhone EULA puts them on a pretty strong legal footing, but also because I feel that it’s “good and right” to treat software for CE devices differently than software for computers.

One thing is for certain, though – just as developers will continue to write great App Store applications for Apple, others will continue to hack open the system.  What’s unknown is whether Apple go to the length of actually suing users – a tactic that didn’t work very well for the RIAA .

We’ve written before on how ill-suited the personal computer is for viewing long-form internet video – and on the strange inability one often finds in the personal computing industry (and in a lot of new media analysis) to distinguish between how a 2 minute YouTube video and last week’s full episode of Lost are actually consumed.  The point is not lost on the CE industry, though: there will be a deluge of internet-enabled video hardware coming to market within the next 6-9 months (both televisions and set-top boxes), and while the few devices already out there (i.e. Apple TV, Vudu, and Roku) have all been based on closed “walled-garden” models, this new generation of hardware will instead be open, offering the promise of access to multiple internet video sources directly from the couch.

Which begs the question: what should the user interface for a system that aggregates multiple (and often competing) video services look like?  Clearly, a wide-open web browser model isn’t the appropriate solution for what is, after all, a consumer electronics device.

From an application design perspective, it’s an interesting question. Although I’ve already written about the approach Yahoo/Intel are taking with their Connected TV initiative, last week I had the opportunity to speak with Bob Poniatowski of TiVo regarding their upcoming internet video solution (currently in beta testing).  Two things I took away from our chat: (1) TiVo continues to place a substantial premium on UI design and ease of use, and (2) they’ve determined that focusing on a searching (rather than browsing) model neatly solves the problem of how to integrate multiple internet video services into a single cohesive user experience.  In fact, the name of the initiative (to be rolled out later this year as an additional feature on existing Series 3 and HD boxes) is “TiVo Search” – as CEO Tom Rogers puts it, “what Google did for the Internet, TiVo is now doing for the TV”.

It’s all about the search: users will be able to look for short-form content from sources such as YouTube, The N.Y. Times, and The Onion (among others).  As for premium content, if you have an account  with Amazon VOD, CinemaNow, or Netflix, you’ll enter a TiVo PIN on the respective website and be good to go.  However, one caveat: searching on Netflix is not yet supported – like the  Roku device, only whatever “Watch Instantly” titles already added to the Netflix queue via their website are available.

As an example, search “No Country for Old Men”, and you’ll be able to compare, purchase, and view the title from either Amazon or CinemaNow if you have accounts there (TiVo transparently handles any transactions).  You’ll also get reviews and related articles (from the N.Y. Times, for example), and from Youtube, you’ll get trailers, clips and fan raves/rants (Poniatowski likens the YouTube content to that of a “global DVD Extras menu”).  Search Tommy Lee Jones and you’ll get bio information, any other available films and/or television programs he’s appeared in, and again, any related short-form and user-generated content.

In addition, TiVo Search will include a (very TiVo-like) internet video “Discovery Bar” of suggestions based on your previous searches, and will also allow you view images from any computers on your home network… all in all, it’s easy to imagine this being pretty cool.

Things to watch:

• How will TiVo’s subscription revenue model compare to Yahoo/Intel’s Connected TV advertising-supported model?
• How will TiVo’s traditional in-house software development/deployment model compare against the Yahoo/Intel Connected TV “widget” model (and/or Apple TV’s App Store model)?
• When will Netflix “Watch Instantly” content become searchable too?
• Will TiVo expand into the lower end of the IPTV market by releasing a more affordable streaming-only (no HD, no DVR) device to compete with devices such as the Roku?  Having already done the heavy lifting of implementing the search system together, this would seem an likely move.

All in all, this looks to be a powerful and (as one would expect from TiVo) a well-designed long-form internet video solution.  Although TiVo’s market share has been under pressure from lower cost carrier-bundled DVRs in recent years, TiVo Search could be just the differentiating value-add the company’s looking for.