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
Cometer - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link
The problem is, this guys don't get it. All of them.It's a box for this. A box for that. A new TV with this small new feature that costs $1000 more.
People are tired of wasting money in stuff that doesn't do anything special in the end.
Right now I see one way and one way alone to "revolutionize" the TV.
And that is a single product that merges gaming+media streaming+internet
For instance, a gaming console with an open app store that completely integrates with your TV. Similar to Google TV but without content maker restrictions.
Similar to Xbox/PS3 in terms of being powerful enough to make people want to buy the console for games alone. And with enough horsepower to become the home media server (Mac Mini with Plex comes to mind).
People will buy the console to play games, but if the integration with the TV is good, they'll get hooked and people will start buying this consoles to be the "brains of the TV".
On top of this, all other devices in your home, tablets, smartphones, PCs, they need to be able to remotely control this device.
Obviously part of the secret is in building an interface that is easy to use and that grabs attention.
Unfortunately I know how the industry works and I'm not seeing this happening any time soon.
If Sony was smart they could sign an agreement with Google and release a PS4 that runs on Android and has access to the Android ecosystem.
Since next-gen consoles are very similar to high-end PCs, they could even work as a pretty powerful media server.
Your console could record your TV programs. IT would integrate with the program guide and send notifications to your phone when your favourite show is about to start.
From your phone you could hit the notification and an app would open where you could choose if you wanted to record the show or live stream it to your phone.
I could go on and on.
One last thing. The true success of the first iPhone was that Apple managed to merge the phone+ipod+internet into a single easy to use device.
Same needs to be done to "revolutionize" the TV.
Zanegray - Saturday, February 16, 2013 - link
This.As a college student I completely agree and as far as our generation is concerned the TV box is dead. Completely. I will never buy a single box for a single purpose. What I want is a service I can subscribe to that is better than Netflix that lets me stream to whatever device I want. I already have the hardware why do I need to buy more. The issue perhaps is the DRM and hence why Intel is going custom as Amand mentioned.
pzs_80 - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link
The subject header says it - im wondering why we havn't seen powerfull SOC's in TV sets, able to decode 1080p video, use apps and browse the web?The smart TV experience is horrible as it is today - the cost of these chips would be a miniscule addon to the price of an already pricy TV.
Pheesh - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link
If I recall boxee box was originally going to use the Tegra3 but switched to intel's CE SOC for performance reasons. logitech's revue and google tv used the same intel SOC which pretty much enables the above, although that's a few generations old and this new offering likely trumps it performance wise.FITCamaro - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link
I'd be happy just seeing high quality 720p streaming. Far less bandwidth required, still looks good on 1080p screens.beginner99 - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link
Besides the fact that it will probably be years before this is available outside of US, I don't see it. The ultimate limitations come from the copyright limitations and those can't be magically ignored.Yes, it would be great to be able to view at any time a 5 year old episode or whole season of your favorite series without needing to have my own copy. But I doubt that is possible and even more so without commerical breaks and the possibility to fast forward. Also if your internet connections breaks you are f*****.
So having your own copy be it legal or not just offers way to many advantages over this.
Gunbuster - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link
I won’t be holding my breath waiting for Intel to produce excellent software for this endeavor. They can barely do a passable video driver control panel.Hrel - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link
Streaming 1080p is good, but it doesn't have to be 10MBPS. I play a 90 minute movie that totals 2GB and I play the uncompressed file that's 30GB and I see now difference at all. I think it incredibly stupid. I want the smallest file sizes possible at a given resolution; so long as it looks good. Which, as I stated, it looks great at 2GB.I'd prefer a model where you cut out the middle man. Just give us a platform for content creators to sell directly to customer. UFC sets it's own price, House sets it's own price, Dexter, How I met your mother, so on and so forth. That way people can pick and choose what they want. Just give us a platform for these content creators to deliver the content on. Choose any 10 for 10/month. Choose any 20 for 18/month. Shows never air year-round, so it would have to be monthly. I'm not paying or their holiday vacation where they stop filming. Offer entire back catalogues for cheap, 5-10 bucks. Then you own it, stream it, download it, edit it; whatever you want cause it's YOURS!
Personally I don't really care about live content. I'm always doing other things when live stuff happens. The one exception to this is MMA; but now days there's way too much of that for me to catch it all live. I'd probably have Bellator and UFC as live content and just have back catalogues for everything else. In general I prefer to watch shows all at once anyway, rather than one episode/week. For example when I got into Dexter I watched 5 seasons over a few days, perhaps a week. That's how I like to consume tv shows, I don't want to wait for new episodes. Even when I do get caught up I just ignore that series until at least another entire season has come out.
Shadowmaster625 - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link
Only stupid and lazy people have any use for such a ridiculously large cable tv bill. For the price you pay you can have a netflix subscription, and buy over a dozen seasons of your favorite tv shows each year. Who the heck watches even that many tv shows? Or alternatively you could rent 4 movies a week. Or half a dozen tv series and 2 movies a week, plus whatever is on netflix. It makes no sense. Yet people still shell out $60,$80,$100, even $150 a month for cable tv service. It makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Those people ar ejust lazy and think they have money to burn but that kind of money doesnt stick around forever. In this new economy it is on the top of the poop list if you know what I mean. There is no future for content in those quantities.crimson117 - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link
<quote>I had the opportunity to speak with Erik Huggers</quote>aka The Scarecrow.