Anand's Thoughts on Intel's TV Initiative
by Anand Lal Shimpi on February 14, 2013 4:21 PM ESTWhat I'd Like to See
I've done my best to cut through to exactly what Intel has said up to this point. There's a lot and very little at the same time. One thing I can take for granted however is that Intel won't be able to hit a moving target. I figured I'd end this piece with my own thoughts on what I'd like to see, as well as get your feedback as to what you'd like to see as well.
I cut the cord a while ago. What drove me to getting rid of my cable TV subscription was the fact that I simply never used it. Live TV was nice to have, but I never had the time to watch anything when it aired. Years ago I was on the opposite side of the spectrum. I had multiple DVR boxes and was all-in on cable TV. Before then I even tried adding premium channels like HBO and Showtime to my lineup. I'd always heard folks talk about how much better the programming was on those channels. And without those premium channels I was always behind the times on shows like the Sopranos or Weeds. What ultimately happened however was I didn't have time to watch all of the content I was paying for. When I had time to watch something, it was almost never live - I relied heavily on my DVR, which never let me watch my recorded content on whatever device I wanted to use. Even the content on those premium channels was surprisingly disappointing. I was paying a lot for what ended up being just one or two shows that I wanted to watch, and a lot of other content that I really didn't care about.
I was a late adopter of Netflix, but that content library gave me enough to watch during my limited downtime. I'd rely on the web for everything else. I could grab local channels over the air, but I rarely exercised that ability. For the most part, I'm fine living with this combination of Netflix and the web. I'd like everything in one place and I'd like newer content, but I'm not willing to pay an extra $50 - $100 per month to get that. Netflix is a downright steal as far as I'm concerned. At $8 per month I feel like I'm paying far less than what I should be.
At the same time, I understand where Netflix falls short. I can't subsist on older content alone. Every now and then I might want to watch something that was actually filmed this year. For that, Netflix needs a counterpart. Some turn to Hulu, and if you're a Hulu Plus subscriber you do at least get portability across multiple devices similar to Netflix. Unfortunately the content I want isn't always available on Hulu, and I'm not a fan of the delayed availability aspect either (waiting until the day after a show airs seems silly). Hulu has the pricing right, but the content and experience side could both use some work.
The ideal solution for me would be a service that contains the set of everything I care about that's not included in Netflix, extensible across all of my devices/PCs/Macs, for a monthly price substantially south of $50/month. The trick in all of this is the first stipulation: a service that contains the set of "everything I care about". Although I like basketball, I don't follow it religiously. I need the major networks, Comedy Central, perhaps the Food Network and one or two more. I need a smaller, targeted bundle. I don't mind the ability to scale up, but if Intel is really going after the cord cutters it needs to offer small steps.
I haven't talked about the quality aspect of all of this yet but I do believe there's a play there. TVs have gotten a lot bigger and cheaper, and quality HD projectors aren't absurdly expensive either. Getting truly high-bitrate, high-quality content that's streamable just hasn't been possible. I'd love the ability to stream > 10Mbps H.264, high quality content whenever I wanted to. I don't need it for all devices, but to be able to optionally kick into a high quality mode would start to enable some interesting high end usage models (and potentially higher revenue for Intel). Ultimately I'd love to see a situation where we can stream BD quality content when a movie launches in theaters, but that's a discussion for another time.
I realize I'm just one datapoint in all of this. I'd be very curious to see what you all have to say. In the comments below, share your thoughts on bundles, network/channel lineup, features you'd like to see and pricing. I can't guarantee anything, but this will at least give me good data to take back to Intel when I meet with them next.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
new-paradigm - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
Ok, so I can understand how dvr is based on having live tv channels and a tuner.Whilst the omission of both dvr and tuner functionality may be fine for the US, where the tv market is pretty much only catered for by payed for cable services, over here in the uk, and many other parts of the world, there are actually very good freeview broadcasting services and channels.
I think the lack of dvr and tuner functionality would be a big factor in its success in these markets.
Personally the only reason I haven't plumped for a roku or similar, and am now looking to build a media center pc is because I want the dvr and tuner functionality as well as the catch-up and streaming internet based tv services.
new-paradigm - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
For example... in the uk this will be competing with youview (http://www.youview.com/), a free dvr and catch up initiative, which has boxes on offer from nearly all major internet and tv providers, as well as stand alone boxes. This works with the freeview tv channels (about 70) which a lot of people have instead of paying for cable or sky.Exodite - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
Somehow I can't help but think than any development along this line is going to end up being stillborn.Not because of content, or rather content /owner/, issues but rather by being too little too late.
There's already YouTube, Google is currently monetizing the platform and I can only see services like that being the real future of television.
The Internet and the WWW is a marvelous thing, we really don't need a new delivery system for a dying media platform when we already have something better.
new-paradigm - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
I don't really see this as a new delivery system, merely an extension of the internet system and getting more content on to it... in the uk this is already happening as various mainstream channels start to make their content available through their own web based portals (iplayer, 4OD, etc)Midwayman - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
The media companies have repeatedly shut down previous attempts to get streaming media to the TV. Even streaming content they already offer on the web. They want eyeballs on adds and the whole industry has a titanic amount of inertia. They don't want to change their business model. Honestly Amazon or Netflix have a better chance of forcing it on them by producing original content that is only available streaming. If they take off as 'must have' channels and refuse to be bundled into cable they media companies might have to follow suit.CSMR - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
What is the current wholesale cost of downloading a GB?That will determine whether IPTV is successful.
fteoath64 - Saturday, February 16, 2013 - link
It is not the cost in terms of money for downloads. It is the time delay wasted DOING IT so there is no interest from users. No instant gratification!. Click Buy and it plays right away!. If you have to wait, you might not bother!. If anyone subscribe to IPTV, they will be given a fat pipe period. Now how fat the internet pipe depends on the provider. They will restrict the bandwidth based on current pricing levels.IPTV can be successful only if people pay a fixed tier of bundle based on how much they use. A bit like cable-premiums channels now but if a user did not use much, he might just pay the minimum amount rather than a fixed premium every month. The old model habit is hard to die but usage based is the fairest of all, yet providers are not really doing it.
tcitrus - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
I love Intel. I understand the concept. But what why would I change my current TV set up for Intel's box? I already have Playstation 3 with apps such as Hulu, Youtube, Crackle, and it is a blue ray player. I have Roku, which is very small and portable. On top of all that I have a Dish Network w/ DVR and includes Blockbuster. Why get another box? Convince me why I should switch.This Guy - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
I'ld like the ability to run steam on it. If their OS is a derivative of their linux work this might be possible.I'ld like instant on and ssd like speed for the OS, settings and user data.
I would like the UI to minimise upsells to a small and consistant part of the screen. The UI should focus on my content and make it eaiser for me to view/use it.
I would love for Intel to get global content licences. I live in Australia where media is vastly overpriced. Many smaller markets have it far worse.
Concillian - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
The biggest problem faced with getting into TV is that the media companies own the pipes. They already restrict access in an effort to keep people from cutting the cord (very difficult to stream sporting events without buying a very expensive package, for example.)It doesn't matter what the hardware looks like. The block is getting the people who own the cable companies to give up their $100+ bundling strategy that is currently working and working well to milk the average consumer.
Until we have viable broadband options that are NOT TV providers, I don't see this changing. Hardware doesn't matter. The whole landscape of big media needs major changes before anything like this can become viable.