For two reasons, Brian’s recent TV Everywhere post caught my renewed attention.

For one, earlier today, Comcast announced expansion of its online TV video efforts to an impressive 23 networks. From full-length movie channels – think Cinemax, HBO, IFC, an Starz –  to cable TV favorites such as A&E, E!, Food Network, and WE,  Comcast’s 5,000 trial homes are now among the very first to enjoy online video akin to legacy TV.

Read the rest of this entry »

Have you recently taken the New York subway, let’s say, to 23rd, 66th, 86th, or 103rd street?

If you exit at any of these stops you’ll notice some of your favorite entertainment stores vanished. Shut down. Closed for good.

At 23rd and 6th Avenue Barnes&Noble, gone! At Lincoln Center Tower Records‘ flagship store, gone! Over at 86th and 2nd Avenue Circuit City, vanished. And at 102rd and Broadway Blockbuster Video closed its doors, too.

Be it for books, music, movies, or consumer electronics (for anyone 30 years or older), those were among the brands you would likely turn to first – to discover, buy and play your entertainment retail. 

Read the rest of this entry »

I’m looking over some recent numbers from nielsen online and I’m struck by something: while hulu may indeed be a big fish, long-form internet video is still a pretty small pond.  Consider:

Of the four major broadcast networks, hulu partners Fox and NBC saw the largest month-over-month increases in October 2008:  Fox was up 165%, while NBC (helped by Tina Fey’s triumphant if temporary return to SNL as America’s favorite eye-winking, Russia-seeing hockey mom) saw a whopping 312% increase (by contrast, ABC was up 105% and internet video laggard CBS was only up 38%.)

312 % and 165 % increases over the course of one month? Let’s celebrate – professionally produced long-form video has finally come into its own, right?

Wrong.

From that same Nielsen report, here’s another statistic: during October, YouTube had almost 82 million unique visitors to hulu’s 6.3 million – that’s a factor of fifteen (even with Tina Fey’s Palin sketches driving users to hulu).

A direct comparison between the two by total streams delivered would skew unfairly towards YouTube due to the shorter running time of the average user-generated video – but what the heck, let’s do it anyway, just for fun…  because the difference between those Nielsen numbers is even more stark than you might imagine: YouTube delivered almost 38 times the total number of streams delivered by hulu.

That’s thirty eight times more streams from YouTube than hulu.

Granted, hulu is one well-executed website.  Yet clearly, long-form premium video over the internet still has a long way to go.  What’s the takeaway here?  In my opinion, the answer is somewhat obvious: people don’t want to sit alone in front of their computers for a half hour or more at a time to view long-form video – in other words, the effectiveness of the personal computer as a video-viewing device is inversely proportional to the program length of the video being viewed.

The numbers in this report clearly put Hulu and YouTube in stark contrast against one another in terms of actual usage.  However, it would be a mistake to fail to take into account the fundamental differences between the short form/long-tail (user generated) and long form/short-tail (professionally produced) video viewing experiences – or the fact that we don’t have a truly compelling lean-back device for delivering long-form internet video viewing just yet.  Therefore, it would be a mistake to infer from reports such as this that internet video will remain primarily a short-form UGC medium.

For long-form premium video over the internet, it’s going to take a new generation of device that offers content directly from the couch before we can make any such comparisons.   The user interface on these devices will not be a web-browser, instead it will be simpler and optimized for lean-back media. Companies such as boxee (at left) and Yahoo/Intel are working on just such user interfaces. While I’ve already written a bit on the Yahoo initiative here, Boxee is more recent development. Right now it’s just a Windows/Mac application that aggregates disparate video sources (including Hulu) into a cohesive whole. While that’s pretty cool in itself, what makes Boxee really interesting is that the company plans to bring dedicated set-top Boxee hardware to the market within the next year or so – and in ther meantime, the software can be installed on the Apple TV device today. As I’ve said before, I think the prospect of Boxee on – well, a box – changes everything.

We shall see – but in the meantime, a quick reality check is in order: while well-suited to workplace video snacking, the computer and web browser are inappropriate (and ultimately intermediate) solutions for viewing long-form video – no matter how well-implemented a given website (such as Hulu) happens to be.

The Holy Grail: internet video directly from the TV.

While the primary challenges would seem to be hardware-based,  there are equally significant (and equally daunting) software challenges to be met as well, because no computer = no OS = no web browser.   Traditional operating systems aren’t appropriate for a lean-back passive viewing system on any number of levels, and studies repeatedly show that nobody really wants a full-featured browser on their television (and a keyboard on their coffee table) anyway, so in one sense it’s no great loss.  However, forgoing all that standardized functionality leaves one with a lot of design and development work to do: what about an operating system?  What should the user interface(s) look like?  Can we get by with the current button-laden remote as an input device, or should a Wii-like pointing remote be developed?  And how does the type of input device dictate what type of functionality can get built into the system itself?  All in all, a pretty heavy lift – because what we’re talking about here is the creation of an entirely new interface to the internet (potentially every bit as important as the web browser).

Into the void step Yahoo and Intel.  Just announced at last week’s CES is the Connected TV Widgets Channel, a ‘software foundation’ for internet-enabled television hardware built around a new generation of specialized Intel processors.  While the framework will be open to 3rd party software developers (according to Yahoo’s Patrick Barry, “We get a nice advantage, knowing the ins and outs, but we will not limit the platform to being addressable by us”), it’s worth noting that Yahoo and Intel are going with a lightweight “widget” model rather than a heavier-weight application model.   Running a widget on a modified JavaScript engine rather than an installed application down on the operating system itself tends to protect the OS from poorly-behaved software and also allows for more generalized control of what the software can and can’t do.  Much like the Apple App Store model, the widget model represents an attempt to strike a balance between encouraging open and innovative software development, while at the same time providing appropriate “guard rails” for what are, after all, consumer electronics devices rather than computers (look for this trend to continue as cloud computing and the overall “CE-ization” of home computing continues).

Initially at least, the Widget Channel appears to be primarily about adding ancillary features on top of the traditional cable/satellite television you already have – in other words, imagine being able to call up feeds from fan message boards or team websites in a dock at the bottom of your TV screen while simultaneously watching the big game on cable…   Or having a dashboard of specialized weather, news, or twitter feeds available while watching “Madmen” via satellite dish…

• On a purely technical level, though, there’s nothing to prevent a Connected TV widget from streaming video, either (bandwidth permitting).  At that point, things get interesting – as the innocent little ‘widget’ starts to eat into existing television distribution models.

• In fact, the terms “Widget” and “Channel” are both misleading, because the Intel/Yahoo initiative is not about merely adding additional incidental functionality -  it’s about (cue the thunderclap and the dry ice) letting internet video into your television.  In other words, that local weather report or eBay quote on the bottom of your screen is really something of a Trojan Horse (a point already probably not lost on the cable industry).

Connected TV is, um, well-connected: on the hardware side, CE manufacturers such as Samsung, Sony, and LG are already on board, and for web content, deals have been inked with traditional heavyweights such as eBay and the New York Times (among others).  For the video over IP scenario to play out, though, what Connected TV needs are video content partnerships – and there too, Yahoo and Intel seem to have things well in hand: agreements have already been signed with CBS, Netflix, Amazon, Blockbuster, and Showtime

It’s been a while since we’ve seen much good news coming out of Yahoo, but they seem to be getting a lot of things right here.

Yahoo intends to monetize the Widgets Channel through advertising, but in an effort to reach a critical mass of users as quickly as possible, will reportedly go easy on the advertising initially.  So who knows, maybe in a few years from now, Yahoo stockholders could actually be thanking Mr. Yang for turning Mr. Ballmer down at $31 per share….

The groundswell of interest in finally getting internet video over to the television in such a way that avoids the clunky computer-centric workarounds we’ve seen to date is picking up steam – just in time for next month’s CES show.

While this is much as we expected, a more surprising (and related) development is the resilient strength in game console sales:

• As of October, the video game industry is up 18% year-over-year, and remains on track for a record year.
• Microsoft reports November was its biggest xBox month ever in Europe, with sales up 124% over last November.
• According to a recent Pew Internet & American Life Project survey, more than half of American adults play video games, and 20% play every day.  More importantly (because after all, this is the future we’re talking about here), a full 81% of respondents between the ages of 18 and 29 are home video gamers.  And the gender gap is less than one would think: while 55% of adult males play, surprisingly, 50%of adult females report playing as well.

Needless to say, given the current economic climate, numbers like these are quite impressive – and suggest the game console could be a much more viable solution to that pesky internet video ‘last yard’ problem than previously thought.  With that, a brief overview of the three competing platforms:

Sony Due to an ongoing price war, Sony now loses money on each PS3 it sells, according to Macquarie Securities analyst David Gibson.  However, the company is firmly committed to the PS3 as an integral part of their long-term internet video strategy, and just rolled out a newly revamped Playstation Network direct video download service for the PS3.  What’s unique about the PS3?  Sony is able to leverage its unique position as both a CE manufacturer and a major film studio, and recently made Sony Pictures’ summer Will Smith vehicle ‘Hancock’ available via download prior to the DVD release.

Microsoft The complex and expensive prospect of upgrading the home PC to Vista Premium or Ultimate just to get internet video to the television has unsurprisingly proven less than compelling to most consumers.  In contrast, over the recent Thanksgiving weekend Microsoft reports a 25 percent increase over last year’s already robust sales of 310,000 xBox units – in short, it’s clear where the growth is.  Like Sony, Microsoft has a direct video download service for their game console (and like the Playstation Network, the xBox Live Marketplace offers a large number of titles in HD).  What’s unique about the xBox 360?  The Microsoft download library is larger than the recently launched Sony service’s, and in addition, the xBox can now also stream content from your Netflix ‘Watch Instantly’ queue (in other words, but an xBox, get Roku functionality for free).  While (like Roku) titles must be added to the queue from the Netflix website, the ability to both stream and download (and the better selection for both) gives the xBox an edge over the PS3 in terms of internet video functionality.

Nintendo Here we have a bit of a wild card.  Thanks to their groundbreaking motion-sensing remote control (and a unique selection of games made possible by it), the Nintendo Wii is the market leading game console in the US, selling 34.6 million units for 2008 Q3 (compared to 16.8 million for the PS3 and 22.5 for the xBox).  The company has been remarkably circumspect regarding its plans for internet video, though – so look for some kind of announcement shortly, perhaps at CES in January.  What’s unique about the Wii?  With no hard drive, any internet video solution would be streaming-based – which is just as well, since the Wii has only 480p (DVD) resolution anyway (although it’s worth noting that real-world demand for HD video has proven surprisingly low).   But perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Wii is the motion sensing remote – as user interfaces get more advanced to support direct internet video access from the TV, we expect this point-and-click technology to replace the cluttered button-filled remotes of today.

Who knows, Apple TV and Vudu have certainly gotten a lot of things right, but neither has yet made a meaningful impact on the market – perhaps the Trojan Horse of online mutli-player video gaming will be just the added value proposition needed to make for a compelling ‘Last Yard’ solution.

Who knew? Porn on the New York subway. But then again, wasn’t it inevitable?

The place: A crowded afternoon N train from Manhattan to Brooklyn. The culprit: a Sony PlayStation Portable held by a young man sitting and watching in solitude, yet surrounded by plenty other strap hangers trying to get home.

What exactly happened here?

The first thing that got me was the audacity of it. With his PSP packed with genuine XXX fodder, simply put, what he was watching was nothing short of hard core pornographic visual certainly not intended for public transportation.

The next thing I noticed, no one seemed to pay attention. Hence – at least for the duration of my ride – no one seemed to mind.

What about the woman next to him, seemingly asleep? Another nearby busied herself reading, of all things, scripture. There were plenty  of other men and woman immediately around us while others got on and off the train.

Now, I know New York subway commuters have long learned to mind their own business.

But the video that unfolded in front of all of us (the sound was muted) clearly lowered the bar on anyone’s standard of privacy; clearly was so out of the ordinary that for it mere ostentatiousness I figured someone would have to bring it up.

Above and beyond my own discontent about the young man’s obvious lack of social skills, I quickly found myself rather intrigued by something else in this – the apparent disconnect between device and audience.

What used to be a consumer video experience “curbed” by the lack of technology’s reach, a TV set and a VCR simply didn’t lend itself to any practical use in full public view.

This kept anyone’s viewing choice a private matter. No matter how sexual, violent, or mundane the footage was, consumption and intent remained locked inside the home.

Fast forward, today’s “anytime anywhere” video consumption capabilities have changed the playing field. The new paradigm: Anyone’s personal video experience is super-portable, devoid of any particular time, place, and for that matter choice of companion viewers.

Think about it.

Sprint Nextel recently started delivering WiMAX-enabled wireless broadband service powerful enough to give you downlink speeds of 25 Mbps or more while driving down the highway.

Essentially an open pipe into and out of the World Wide Web, it’s going to be interesting to see what passing cars are watching in the back seats once content is no longer limited to wholesome satellite subscription services or Disney DVDs brought along for the kids.

And what about in-flight Web access, such as the service recently announced by American Airlines for select domestic trips?

No matter whether on a highway, on an airplane or inside a subway car in New York, what’s OK for the person to the left of you might be unacceptable to the one on the right.

Clearly, with the pervasive nature of digital content and enabling delivery devices, the meaning of “privacy” is undergoing change.

As to my personal opinion, I am in favor of self-regulating one’s public conduct. Anything beyond that might quickly collide with core principles such as net neutrality or freedom of speech.

Still, our old-world definition of privacy seems to be changing as more of our new world trends towards digital and portable at once.

It’ll be interesting to see how this pans out.

During a Digital Hollywood panel concerned with the future of the television as an internet video delivery device, one panelist rather glibly declared the problem already easily solved – via only a $10 DVI/VGA-HDMI cable.  Since another one of my other pet peeves is the tendency of us technical folks to disconnect entirely over the value of simplicity , I have to take my hat off to panelist JD Colaco of Hulu, who correctly pointed out that such a solution was beyond “95%” of the general population (I would further add that it would also still require the viewer to boot up the computer and administer everything from there – not the most elegant solution).

But perhaps JD’s point was best made only minutes later, as another panelist’s ‘brave new world’ powerpoint presentation was delayed for several minutes, as (and this is in a roomful of digital media professionals and with hotel A/V support on hand) there was a problem with his laptop and the flat screen:

…connecting the DVI/VGA -HDMI cable.

When talk turns to video distribution over the internet, I’m always amazed that the issue of physically bridging that last yard or two from the home internet connection behind the computer to the television in front of the coffee table isn’t discussed more.

At last week’s Digital Hollywood show in LA, the majority of panels were about how to better monetize the video currently being streamed to the web browser (understandable, given the current economic climate).  The basic problem is that while the CPM rates that web video publishers can charge advertisers run several times higher than what traditional broadcasters can get away with charging, online viewers will tolerate only a small fraction of the amount of advertising that traditional broadcast and cable television viewers will put up with (imagine how well a traditional two minute commercial break would work on Hulu…).

To me, the issue is fairly clear –

• Only longer-form programming (lasting a half-hour or more) will support higher advertising density and attract more mainstream brands.
• Ales’ Theorem: The willingness of the viewer to sit alone at a desk or in front of a laptop is inversely proportional to the length of the programming.
• Therefore, a truly sustainable internet video business model relies on solving the physical problem of getting that content onto the television.

In other words, to paraphrase Gil Scott Heron: The Revolution Will Be Televised

…look for some big announcements at CES in January.

Interesting approach?

A couple of weeks ago, Blockbuster, the country’s largest video rental service announced testing of 50 or so DVD vending kiosks in preparation for a massive 10,000 store roll-out in the next 18 months.

The company certainly lacks neither scale nor resources to put this good plan to work.

But somehow – in the age of ubiquitous, super-”liquid” consumer video – Blockbuster’s push into the stationary DVD vending business seems somewhat “backwards” I thought.

Maybe afraid to miss the boat again – especially Netflix’s DVD mail-order success comes to mind – Blockbuster may have decided it could simply not cede any more business to others.

Among those, there’s Redbox of course, operating at least 8,000 kiosks each filled with 500+ DVDs. Currently one-night rentals run at $1 per DVD. For all titles, reservations can be made online and any of Redbox’s kiosk accepts returns.

Fair enough. Both Netflix and Redbox are certainly siphoning off consumers’ video dollars away from Blockbuster stores. Obviously that must hurt.

But will simply replicating someone else’s stationary vending model be enough for the video store king to (re)claim lost market share?

By now, most consumers certainly have ample alternatives to quench their thirst for full-length commercial video without the need to drive to a local store.

Cable VOD is already available in at least 50 million US homes. Add to that a growing IPTV subscriber base (2 million and counting), plus Apple TV, Hulu.com, and soon-to-launch Amazon Video on Demand. Then there’s Sony’s internet-connected Bravia TV sets of course, pre-loaded with Hollywood hit movies and other popular fair.

The list goes on and on.

But wait. Maybe NCR can add much-needed differentiation to Blockbuster’s DVD vending idea. The former AT&T-owned company partnered with Blockbuster on its planned in-store kiosk deal but has more to offer than that.

Turns out, NCR is behind the predecessor to the 802.x WiFi standard, and knows all about RFID.

To that end, what if a Blockbuster / NCR combination lets you use your cell phones or other portables equipped to scan DVD packaging while browsing through Blockbuster stores? Or, for that matter, any other store carrying DVDs. (Similar to what Amazon.com has done for in-store books).

While you’re already heading for the door, behind that RFID system, a backend transmission network pushes your favorite Blockbuster hit straight to your residential network, and you’re ready for movie night by the time you enter your home.

No DVD kiosk required, no return date to adhere to; oh, and much lower delivery cost boosting margins on incremental sales.

Interesting approach?