It looks like the UK is going to become a rights battlefield as more and more player pile into the paid for online video market. First of all there was the venerable Blinkbox and the domestically reared Lovefilm (although subsequently bought by Amazon), then Netflix created a beachhead. Now, ITV has announced that it will launch a paid for service, and BSkyB is the latest player to enter the fray. I have it on good account that Sony and Samsung will also look to leverage their presence in the living room with services, and, last but by no means least is Apple's iTunes.
It's interesting to note that most of these are PC based services - the likes of Boxee, Roku and Vizio are yet to make an impression - probably since they would be second boxes in living rooms dominated by the likes of Sky and Virgin Media. This is probably the reason that Fetch TV closed its doors last week after a valiant attempt to make an impression on this sector.
But there again, I remember when there were four video rental stores on our local high street. Needless to say, they are long gone...
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Time Warp
For those with a keen interest in my home entertainment setup (don't all shout at once) I finally rigged up my Internet enabled Sony Bravia and enjoyed a replay of Hustle on the BBC I-player. Pretty standard broadband connection distributed within the house via the power system. BT infinity is still to come in about 8 weeks.
The picture even on a pretty big screen was flawless with no buffering - so with very little fanfare convergence really arrived in the Lewinton household. Next stop LoveFilm and NetFlix.
About 10 years ago I did a similar thing with the HomeChoice service (entertainment over DSL) and it may be interesting to consider the similarities / differences.
1. BBC interface much improved and the menu system is very shallow in comparison
2. I would guess that the bandwidth for delivery was about the same @1.5mbp
3. Far less of a walled garden approach (although Sony still trying hard)
From a consumer perspective more similarities than differences.
From a business model perspective the differences are stark;
1. BBC are going straight to consumer whereas HomeChoice licensed content from the BBC
2. HomeChoice provided the connectivity as part of the consumer proposition and had to pay BT about £350 per year per consumer for connectivity alone. Today the consumer picks up the bill for the broadband.
3. Broadband was only available in about 15,000 homes and BT were in no hurry to speed things up - possibly due to concern about cannibalising telephony revenue.
Intriguingly there is an icon on the Bravia Internet menu for Daily Motion (known for not always carefully monitoring the copyright issues around the content it shows) so pirate material may well now be only a few clicks away from legitimate material on a big screen TV in the main living area. More to follow on this.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Google and IP Piracy
Eric Schmidt responded to Rupert Murdoch's comment about Google being a "piracy leader" in a way which appears to suggest he has slightly lost his grip on reality.
Given that Google and YouTube have pretty advanced image and text search tools the idea that poor old Google are struggling to get it right against the pirates is not really credible.
In particular Google are a top purchaser of inventory on pirate sites and over the Xmas period data collected by our SnifferDog showed a concerted campaign run across pirate sites for Google Chrome.
Google ad sense is also a favourite mechanism for pirates to monetise the audiences they generate from copyright and trademark infringing material and Google are on a pretty fat cut of the revenues generated.
Perhaps Mr Schmidt has reasonable responses to this.......we would love to hear them and are very happy to share data ?
Given that Google and YouTube have pretty advanced image and text search tools the idea that poor old Google are struggling to get it right against the pirates is not really credible.
In particular Google are a top purchaser of inventory on pirate sites and over the Xmas period data collected by our SnifferDog showed a concerted campaign run across pirate sites for Google Chrome.
Google ad sense is also a favourite mechanism for pirates to monetise the audiences they generate from copyright and trademark infringing material and Google are on a pretty fat cut of the revenues generated.
Perhaps Mr Schmidt has reasonable responses to this.......we would love to hear them and are very happy to share data ?
Monday, January 23, 2012
Comparing Sky+ and Virgin Tivo
Yeah, yeah, I know. I swore that I wouldn't do it, but it was the red button wot did it.
I paid for Sky Sports online and on Virgin and was still unable to watch Welsh rugby teams play in Europe (without resorting to Justin.tv, of course..), so our home in Wales now has BSkyB TV, along with Sky Sports (and that pesky red button).
So, now I have full on experience of Sky+ and Virgin's Tivo box, so here here are my impressions.
The interfaces are both far from perfect but Sky gets 7/10 and Tivo 3/10. Sky has fewer services and plugins, but everything works seamlessly and is very fast, with a great remote control that works from a good distance (this may seem a minor point but is my single biggest bugbear, click, click...nothing..). The Sky interface is more logical and takes far fewer clicks to achieve anything. The Tivo interface seems to be a cobbled together bunch of services that have nothing to do with each other which take days to load and navigate. The Sky box seems to be on rocket fluid compared to the Tivo interface. I often give up on trying to reach content on Tivo since the process is so painful.
The Tivo remote gets 2/10 and the Sky remote 6/10. The Tivo remote is barking - the buttons are all in the wrong place and are totally illogical. The Sky remote has far too many buttons, but at least there is a logic to the layout and functionality.
The picture quality on Sky gets 9/10 and Tivo 6/10. To be fair, this may be an aspect of my screens, but both are of the same age and I can get HD on the Sky one, but not on the Virgin box; even this notwithstanding, the image quality on Sky is significantly better .
On recording functionality Tivo gets 7/10 and Sky 6/10. The gap here really should be greater since the Tivo box has an additional tuner and can record three channels to Sky's two, but the Tivo box is just hopeless. You can adjust the top and tail time, but then you lose the end of programmes, or you can record three programmes, but then nothing for the following hour. Sky somehow seems to manage this a bit better, but the Tivo functionality is better on this measure.
Tivo also wins on the marginal ability to find the beginning of a programme when fast forwarding, but knowing that the box can actually automatically wind past ads, but doesn't do this for commercial reasons, is a bit annoying.
Of course, Sky has better content, including the red sky content and the HBO driven Sky Atlantic.
Overall it's a total walkover. Tivo is a disaster. It's what a medieval knight would expect from a STB (although still a bit up the food chain from Humax's dreadful, dreadful Freesat offerings). Sky looks like a decent sixties chevy. God knows what a decent product could do in this market.
Game, set and match to Apple TV ?
We'll see..
I paid for Sky Sports online and on Virgin and was still unable to watch Welsh rugby teams play in Europe (without resorting to Justin.tv, of course..), so our home in Wales now has BSkyB TV, along with Sky Sports (and that pesky red button).
So, now I have full on experience of Sky+ and Virgin's Tivo box, so here here are my impressions.
The interfaces are both far from perfect but Sky gets 7/10 and Tivo 3/10. Sky has fewer services and plugins, but everything works seamlessly and is very fast, with a great remote control that works from a good distance (this may seem a minor point but is my single biggest bugbear, click, click...nothing..). The Sky interface is more logical and takes far fewer clicks to achieve anything. The Tivo interface seems to be a cobbled together bunch of services that have nothing to do with each other which take days to load and navigate. The Sky box seems to be on rocket fluid compared to the Tivo interface. I often give up on trying to reach content on Tivo since the process is so painful.
The Tivo remote gets 2/10 and the Sky remote 6/10. The Tivo remote is barking - the buttons are all in the wrong place and are totally illogical. The Sky remote has far too many buttons, but at least there is a logic to the layout and functionality.
The picture quality on Sky gets 9/10 and Tivo 6/10. To be fair, this may be an aspect of my screens, but both are of the same age and I can get HD on the Sky one, but not on the Virgin box; even this notwithstanding, the image quality on Sky is significantly better .
On recording functionality Tivo gets 7/10 and Sky 6/10. The gap here really should be greater since the Tivo box has an additional tuner and can record three channels to Sky's two, but the Tivo box is just hopeless. You can adjust the top and tail time, but then you lose the end of programmes, or you can record three programmes, but then nothing for the following hour. Sky somehow seems to manage this a bit better, but the Tivo functionality is better on this measure.
Tivo also wins on the marginal ability to find the beginning of a programme when fast forwarding, but knowing that the box can actually automatically wind past ads, but doesn't do this for commercial reasons, is a bit annoying.
Of course, Sky has better content, including the red sky content and the HBO driven Sky Atlantic.
Overall it's a total walkover. Tivo is a disaster. It's what a medieval knight would expect from a STB (although still a bit up the food chain from Humax's dreadful, dreadful Freesat offerings). Sky looks like a decent sixties chevy. God knows what a decent product could do in this market.
Game, set and match to Apple TV ?
We'll see..
Is Google Destroying Value ?
On the 2nd Nov 2007, Google's share price hit an all time high of $711.25. Five years later, it stands at $585.99. In other words, the pin up company of the internet has managed to lose nearly 20% of its owners' money over the past five years.
The endless free and uncommercial services that blight the online business world are being paid for by shareholders. Every time you watch a YouTube video a Google shareholder is, effectively, putting their hand in their pocket to pay for your pleasure: the internet brought with it a raft of new business models (or lack thereof in many cases), and some were madly successful - such as Google's Adwords - but many others simply have not worked. Almost nothing else Google does makes money, and it has amongst the most obfuscated of core business metrics as well as business models.
In 2007 Google had revenues of $16.594bn and income of $5.084bn; in 2011 this had grown to $37.905bn with income of $11.742bn. So, even doubling the business seems not have returned any value to shareholders, suggesting that investors think that Google is a very poor investment and its business model a bad way of utilising capital.
Now, this has, of course, been a rocky period for any business, but the Apple share price has gone from $88 to nearly $400 in the same time and its revenues quadrupled. The Apple business model is very transparent and it is ruthless in not supporting unprofitable business lines.
In the more ruthless business environment we now operate in, it is worth asking if there is a place for companies like google on public market unless they start returning value to shareholders in the form of dividends, as Microsoft has had to do.
Equally, I'm longing for the day when bad execution of unprofitable business models subsidised by deep pockets are no longer tolerated by shareholders and management alike.
Friday, January 20, 2012
The Vicious Eunuch
Around seven years ago I wrote a review of UGC video sites (user generated content) and YouTube was low down the list. Since then I've spent a career trying to fight that gorilla, despite, or perhaps because of doing what they did weeey before them.
Being the first doesn't count - in TV terms, ask Philo Farnsworth or John Loggie Baird.
Understanding a market doesn't count. Even correctly predicting the future doesn't count.
All that counts is execution. And being lucky. Oh, and having deep pockets...
The YouTube guys had a dreadful product and impossible business model, but by finding a sugar daddy in Google who threw hundreds of millions at the problem, they may have a business that has some value. The irony is that they have destroyed thousands of startups in the video space, but are still incapable of competing with mainstream broadcasters.
Meanwhile, the rest of us live off crumbs, and I spend my life being asked to replicate YouTube - for free, of course, since people are often too lazy and/or stupid to think of video beyond YouTube.
So, here comes the next challenge. Taking on YouTube at its own game...
Being the first doesn't count - in TV terms, ask Philo Farnsworth or John Loggie Baird.
Understanding a market doesn't count. Even correctly predicting the future doesn't count.
All that counts is execution. And being lucky. Oh, and having deep pockets...
The YouTube guys had a dreadful product and impossible business model, but by finding a sugar daddy in Google who threw hundreds of millions at the problem, they may have a business that has some value. The irony is that they have destroyed thousands of startups in the video space, but are still incapable of competing with mainstream broadcasters.
Meanwhile, the rest of us live off crumbs, and I spend my life being asked to replicate YouTube - for free, of course, since people are often too lazy and/or stupid to think of video beyond YouTube.
So, here comes the next challenge. Taking on YouTube at its own game...
Thursday, January 19, 2012
NewsCorp's Shine Adopts Rights Tracker
The past few months have been highly challenging for us here at TVE as we bed down a number of massive new client wins that we've been unable to publicise... until now!
I'm delighted to announce that Rights Tracker has been adopted by NewsCorp's Shine production subsidiary to manage all of its rights. Here's the press release:
Leading rights management software developers Rights Tracker has licensed its web-enabled software suite to global production group Shine. The system will completely manage the Group’s Production and Distribution Rights end-to-end.
Rights Tracker Enterprise is a bespoke, configurable system which has been designed to integrate with Shine’s business platforms. Multi-company functionality will allow companies within Shine Group to independently control their licenses and title metadata. Meanwhile, the system will manage the Group Sales and Distribution arm Shine International’s end-to-end acquisitions and sales processes. As phase one of the implementation Rights Tracker’s modules have been integrated into Shine International’s financial package.
Ronan Walsh, Rights Systems Manager at Shine Group: “As part of a wider business systems initiative, Shine Group had identified a need for a web enabled solution covering our product life cycle, from group production companies through to our international distribution division. The Rights Tracker solution fulfilled all of our requirements.”
Ross Bentley, Rights Tracker’s CEO comments: “It is tremendous news that Shine has made the decision to use our software in order to manage their business processes. The Group is a hugely impressive global player whose ability to grow super-brands such as MasterChef speaks for themselves. Shine understands that rigorous management of rights and metadata from initial production through to international exploitation and beyond is key to ensuring maximum return on their brands. This deal points to a very exciting future for us.”
I'm delighted to announce that Rights Tracker has been adopted by NewsCorp's Shine production subsidiary to manage all of its rights. Here's the press release:
Leading rights management software developers Rights Tracker has licensed its web-enabled software suite to global production group Shine. The system will completely manage the Group’s Production and Distribution Rights end-to-end.
Rights Tracker Enterprise is a bespoke, configurable system which has been designed to integrate with Shine’s business platforms. Multi-company functionality will allow companies within Shine Group to independently control their licenses and title metadata. Meanwhile, the system will manage the Group Sales and Distribution arm Shine International’s end-to-end acquisitions and sales processes. As phase one of the implementation Rights Tracker’s modules have been integrated into Shine International’s financial package.
Ronan Walsh, Rights Systems Manager at Shine Group: “As part of a wider business systems initiative, Shine Group had identified a need for a web enabled solution covering our product life cycle, from group production companies through to our international distribution division. The Rights Tracker solution fulfilled all of our requirements.”
Ross Bentley, Rights Tracker’s CEO comments: “It is tremendous news that Shine has made the decision to use our software in order to manage their business processes. The Group is a hugely impressive global player whose ability to grow super-brands such as MasterChef speaks for themselves. Shine understands that rigorous management of rights and metadata from initial production through to international exploitation and beyond is key to ensuring maximum return on their brands. This deal points to a very exciting future for us.”
Kodak in Chapter 11
Sadly Kodak was put in Chapter 11 today. The US system is weighted towards keeping the business going as opposed to the UK system of administration (pre-pack being closer to Chapter 11) so something may yet rise from the ashes.
However this is quite a significant point in the transition to digital and marks the end of a 131 year old analog giant of the US economy. Basically Kodak did not accept fast enough that a large number of consumers would move from film to digital believing that brand and "habit" would be enough to keep consumers locked in the past. A very good parallel would be the paper based book / journal business.
As Iolo suggests things are really moving now - perhaps because financing to prop up "zombie" business models is not about anymore.
On the subject of copyright and IP protection online we need new rules to govern in the digital age and SOPA and PIPA (does it look good in a wedding dress ?) are doing a great job in sparking a debate - hopefully at the end of it a decent set of regulations will emerge after everyone has had their say. Both the uber censors and the "property is theft" nutcases are equally wrong.
However this is quite a significant point in the transition to digital and marks the end of a 131 year old analog giant of the US economy. Basically Kodak did not accept fast enough that a large number of consumers would move from film to digital believing that brand and "habit" would be enough to keep consumers locked in the past. A very good parallel would be the paper based book / journal business.
As Iolo suggests things are really moving now - perhaps because financing to prop up "zombie" business models is not about anymore.
On the subject of copyright and IP protection online we need new rules to govern in the digital age and SOPA and PIPA (does it look good in a wedding dress ?) are doing a great job in sparking a debate - hopefully at the end of it a decent set of regulations will emerge after everyone has had their say. Both the uber censors and the "property is theft" nutcases are equally wrong.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
We All Have Copyright
SOPA and PIPA are, let's face it, bad.
Al Gore may have claimed to have invented the internet, and in a way he did, by sponsoring the Digital Millennium Act. The DMA has a number of principles, including that online trades are not taxed and that the interchange of data over internet networks remains neutral. It was as important to the growth of the internet as the development of HTML and the world wide web by Sir Tim Berners Lee in my opinion.
But the DMA has been hijacked by companies who have created virtual online monopolies such as Google and Facebook, the vampire squids of the online world. They blatantly use other people's IP as their own and build massive businesses on the back of this. Imagine if we all charged Facebook copyright for the content we freely give them ?
The problem is, we either have copyright, or we don't. Online users glibly click on those 'I Agree' buttons that link to sixty page legal terms drafted by the finest legal brains of our generation in order to circumvent this, but, fundamentally, we're in the wrong place.
If Wayne Rooney can make money from his resurfaced head, so can I. If anyone takes my photo and publishes it anywhere, they owe me. And that includes on Facebook.
If Google links to pirated content on the internet, they have the same liability as a student from Sheffield, or anyone else who actively supports piracy (for Godsakes, Google puts its own ads around content pirated using its own services... A vampire's vampire...).
In the past, Governments were concerned about monopolies, about organisations that fundamentally worked outside the spirit of the law.
SOPA and PIPA represent one part of bug business against another part of big business. What we actually need is another Al Gore - someone who will stand up for freedom, free markets, but also protect the value generated by small entrepreneurs, from traders to musicians and film-makers, who are now horribly exploited by big business.
The real irony of this is that Sky has been shutting down Al Gore's Current TV channel across Europe. We're in a new era, where the big guys are bigger than ever.
Al Gore may have claimed to have invented the internet, and in a way he did, by sponsoring the Digital Millennium Act. The DMA has a number of principles, including that online trades are not taxed and that the interchange of data over internet networks remains neutral. It was as important to the growth of the internet as the development of HTML and the world wide web by Sir Tim Berners Lee in my opinion.
But the DMA has been hijacked by companies who have created virtual online monopolies such as Google and Facebook, the vampire squids of the online world. They blatantly use other people's IP as their own and build massive businesses on the back of this. Imagine if we all charged Facebook copyright for the content we freely give them ?
The problem is, we either have copyright, or we don't. Online users glibly click on those 'I Agree' buttons that link to sixty page legal terms drafted by the finest legal brains of our generation in order to circumvent this, but, fundamentally, we're in the wrong place.
If Wayne Rooney can make money from his resurfaced head, so can I. If anyone takes my photo and publishes it anywhere, they owe me. And that includes on Facebook.
If Google links to pirated content on the internet, they have the same liability as a student from Sheffield, or anyone else who actively supports piracy (for Godsakes, Google puts its own ads around content pirated using its own services... A vampire's vampire...).
In the past, Governments were concerned about monopolies, about organisations that fundamentally worked outside the spirit of the law.
SOPA and PIPA represent one part of bug business against another part of big business. What we actually need is another Al Gore - someone who will stand up for freedom, free markets, but also protect the value generated by small entrepreneurs, from traders to musicians and film-makers, who are now horribly exploited by big business.
The real irony of this is that Sky has been shutting down Al Gore's Current TV channel across Europe. We're in a new era, where the big guys are bigger than ever.
2012 - The Year Of Internet TV ?
As someone who's been espousing internet TV since 1997, the above headline might be surprising to those of you who have know me during this time.
But, finally, it all seems, well, more mainstream, doesn't it...
It's been a busy old start to a new year, with some of the announcements to date being obvious, but others a bit surprising.
Microsoft admitted that it couldn't afford to launch a content service that would be profitable. (So, how come Apple can ? It shows how far ahead Apple are in the domestic market). Google hasn't bother with service and instead claims that half of all tellies sold this year will carry its Google TV platform.
Netflix has arrived in the UK to a great big yawn, but it has resulted in a price war that should be good for all use viewers.
Meanwhile, everyone wants be a broadcaster - from Sony to Philips. Companies that used to have a sensible place in the supply chain now fawn and preen over ownership of the interface; hardly surprising when you can buy a sophisticated smart 42" screen with the power to run a web browser that's been shipped half way around the world, taken a retailer markup and sales tax, for under £500!
CES was, meanwhile, evolutionary not revolutionary, with LG's new 55" OLED TV was my show favourite, and Vizio's $99 streaming box leading the vanguard for Google TV (but I still don't want Facebook and Twitter on my telly, thanks... I want them on my phone whilst I'm watching the telly).
And of course, everyone's just waiting for Apple TV..
It's going to be a busy old year as more and more TV becomes internet TV... But will the consumer care as they struggle to keep their jobs and hang onto their Sky/Comcast subscription ?
But, finally, it all seems, well, more mainstream, doesn't it...
It's been a busy old start to a new year, with some of the announcements to date being obvious, but others a bit surprising.
Microsoft admitted that it couldn't afford to launch a content service that would be profitable. (So, how come Apple can ? It shows how far ahead Apple are in the domestic market). Google hasn't bother with service and instead claims that half of all tellies sold this year will carry its Google TV platform.
Netflix has arrived in the UK to a great big yawn, but it has resulted in a price war that should be good for all use viewers.
Meanwhile, everyone wants be a broadcaster - from Sony to Philips. Companies that used to have a sensible place in the supply chain now fawn and preen over ownership of the interface; hardly surprising when you can buy a sophisticated smart 42" screen with the power to run a web browser that's been shipped half way around the world, taken a retailer markup and sales tax, for under £500!
CES was, meanwhile, evolutionary not revolutionary, with LG's new 55" OLED TV was my show favourite, and Vizio's $99 streaming box leading the vanguard for Google TV (but I still don't want Facebook and Twitter on my telly, thanks... I want them on my phone whilst I'm watching the telly).
And of course, everyone's just waiting for Apple TV..
It's going to be a busy old year as more and more TV becomes internet TV... But will the consumer care as they struggle to keep their jobs and hang onto their Sky/Comcast subscription ?
Monday, January 16, 2012
Murdoch squares up to Google
Rupert Murdoch writes on his Twitter page in direct style "Piracy Leader is Google". Does he have a point ?
People who work in the "content" business will understand the costs and risks of creating new content that drives an audience and makes a profit. For every successful movie, TV series, book, album etc etc there are many failures and people who have lost money on them. Google and YouTube have never needed to invest significant sums in risky content creation and therefore have been able to post the best content in the world for free (and keep the revenues) which is a business model to die for. Essentially they exploited the slowness of the incumbents to realise what was happening and the failure of IP law around the world to adapt to new technologies (plus a healthy dollop of political lobbying to stop the Politicians bringing forward appropriate legislation). So yes he does have a point.........but probably wishes he had thought of it / realised it could be done. Certainly our SnifferDog harvests data which consistently shows Google as one of the top 5 infringers on a consistent basis.
Credit goes to the US for so actively and openly debating the proposed SOPA legislation. Over the past few days DNS blocking provisions at the ISP level have been dropped but it still looks like the essence of a solid framework for regulation will emerge. Certainty on where the line is to be drawn (re copyright online) will help all parties and makes the lack of clarity in Europe (Digital Economy Act, Copyright Act, WIPO treaties) look a bit behind the times.
This in an indirect way brings us to the issue of Richard O'Dwyer who faces extradition to the USA re the TVShack website which made movies and TV programmes available for free. His claim is that he simply linked to others who provided the content but that is pretty thin given that he generated $230,000 in advertising and had 300,000 people per month visiting. A more realistic position perhaps is that the law is very unclear and it was and is difficult to know if he was on the right side of the line. An interesting point however is that while the $230,000 looks large given this was run from a bedroom this level of revenue would not come close to funding a single movie he was distributing and shows that the "you guys need a new business model" brigade are frankly talking out of their *****. No business model can survive the proposition that entity A creates, builds and markets and bears the the costs of this and entity B then gets a free ride selling it and is not required to pay entity A anything.
I wonder who bought all that advertising ? At £5cpm that will be a lot of banners. Perhaps that is next on the list of things to consider here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)