Intel Set-Top Box and Cable TV Service Won't Initially Revolutionize the Industry

[MacRumors]

At today's AllThingsD Dive Into Media Conference, Intel Media vice president Erik Huggers announced that the company is indeed working on an Internet TV service and a set-top box to go along with it.

Huggers noted that Intel has put together a team of people hired from Apple, Netflix, and Google to work in a new Intel Media group devoted to developing an Internet television platform.

Rumors of an Intel set-top box and TV service began circulating in late December. The setup was said to be similar to what Apple offers with its Apple TV, but with access to cable networks and and a la carte content. Huggers confirmed today that Intel will be offering cable content, but not in a piece meal format as expected.

For the first time we will deliver a new consumer electronics product under a new brand. We'll offer consumers a box and they'll buy this directly from us. It'll be an Intel-powered device with fantastic industrial design. But it's not just a device. We're working with the entire industry to figure out how we get live TV to consumers over the Internet.

Intel is planning its service as an all-in-one solution that will incorporate live TV, catch-up TV, and on-demand TV. "We're shooting for a service that incorporates literally everything. ... But Rome wasn't built in a day. It'll take time," Huggers said.

Like Intel, Apple has been rumored to be working on a similar set up for its users, speaking with cable services like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, but Apple has struggled to secure content deals.

It is likely that Intel has had similar problems gaining entry into the cable TV market as content providers have been hesitant to offer television channels piece meal. Though earlier rumors suggested Intel would serve up individual channels a la carte, Huggers says that the company is taking a different approach.

Intel will provide the same bundled content that cable services offer, but over the internet, and he does not expect it to be less expensive.

Intel's proposal is similar to traditional cable offerings, and not the piece meal cable revolution that was expected when the project was originally announced. "We believe that there is value in bundles, if bundles are done right," he said, as noted by TechCrunch.

Though Intel is beginning with a more traditional cable model, the company remains interested in changing the way that cable is delivered in the future.

According to Huggers, the unnamed project will launch later this year.

Article Link: Intel Set-Top Box and Cable TV Service Won't Initially Revolutionize the Industry

[kwikdeth]

cable companies will never, ever allow a la carte because then customers will find out how badly they've been getting screwed over for the last 20 years.

[Squilly]

Will be an interesting change in the television market.

[HiRez]

So we pay the same as for cable, but with the inherent unreliability, lag, data caps, and higher compressed, lower-quality video of going through the internet? Sounds awesome.

[NorEaster]

Originally Posted by HiRez

So we pay the same as for cable, but with the inherent unreliability, lag, data caps, and higher compressed, lower-quality video of going through the internet? Sounds awesome.

How is this any different than Apple TV or roku?!?! Content is delivered to those devices over the internet, so they are subject to "unreliability, lag, data caps, etc" as well.

Are you bashing Intel just because they aren't Apple or do you really have a concern here? And if you really do have a concern, then why? Folks are effectively using Apple TV or roku devices today.

[nagromme]

Originally Posted by NorEaster

How is this any different than Apple TV or roku?!?! Content is delivered to those devices over the internet, so they are subject to "unreliability, lag, data caps, etc" as well.

Are you bashing Intel just because they aren't Apple or do you really have a concern here? And if you really do have a concern, then why? Folks are effectively using Apple TV or roku devices today.

It sounds very different from Apple/Roku/others, and I agree with him: to accept unreliability/lag I want to pay LESS, not the same, and/or get something much better than cable TV packages.

Netflix and Apple (buying multiple Season Passes, say, and renting some films) are cheaper AND have no ads AND let you cherry pick what you want.

It's not that the Internet is so unreliable as to be useless, it's that Intel makes it sound like they're simply adding the Internet's problems on top of cable TV's problems.

AppleTV, Roku/Netflix etc. are worth the Internet's problems because they can, for many people, be SO much better than cable TV in ways that matter.

I don't think we're bashing Intel because they're not Apple, but because of they way they've explained their coming offering.

[NorEaster]

Originally Posted by nagromme

It sounds very different from Apple/Roku/others, and I agree with him: to accept unreliability/lag I want to pay LESS, not the same, and/or get something much better than cable TV packages.

Netflix and Apple (buying multiple Season Passes, say, and renting some films) are cheaper AND have no ads AND let you cherry pick what you want.

It's not that the Internet is so unreliable as to be useless, it's that Intel makes it sound like they're simply adding the Internet's problems on top of cable TV's problems.

AppleTV, Roku/Netflix etc. are worth the Internet's problems because they can, for many people, be SO much better than cable TV in ways that matter.

I don't think we're bashing Intel because they're not Apple, but because of they way they've explained their coming offering.

I don't disagree with your argument that "Intel TV's" business model and services are different than Apple TV and/or roku. You have valid points there. BUT, the OP didn't bring any of that up. He was merely mocking (or criticizing) Intel TV, saying that it would be crap because of internet unreliability. And I was merely stating that a) the internet unreliability that would affect an Intel TV product would be the same unreliability that affects Apple TV today and b) criticizing Intel TV for internet unreliability isn't warranted given that it affects other streaming services as well.

I think there is merit to your arguments above and these arguments justify your criticism of Intel TV...BUT the OP didn't make the same arguments that you did.

[HiRez]

Originally Posted by NorEaster

How is this any different than Apple TV or roku?!?! Content is delivered to those devices over the internet, so they are subject to "unreliability, lag, data caps, etc" as well.

Are you bashing Intel just because they aren't Apple or do you really have a concern here? And if you really do have a concern, then why? Folks are effectively using Apple TV or roku devices today.

I'm not paying $120 every month for a cable-like bundle with AppleTV, that's the difference.

[NorEaster]

Originally Posted by HiRez

I'm not paying $120 every month for a cable-like bundle with AppleTV, that's the difference.

While I agree that paying $100+ for a cable-like bundle IS different than Apple TV, please read the original post that I was responding to.

The OP was claiming that Intel's TV service would be horrible due to internet unreliability and my statement was related to that. Apple TV, roku, and similar streaming services are also subject to internet / ISP unreliability...hence my question: How is Intel's service different than Apple TV in this regard?

If folks want to criticize Intel's business model, pricing, content service... then sure I think there are valid points. But criticizing Intel's efforts based on something that they can't control (and affects all streaming services) is a bit unfair and seems to be "bashing Intel" without proper justification.

[Yvan256]

Anything that tries to work with the cable and satellite companies instead of dealing directly with the media creators is bound to fail.

The Internet is the new channel to move content, we don't need the cable companies to be anything else than ISPs. The 1950's called and they want their money-making scheme back.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by Yvan256

Anything that tries to work with the cable and satellite companies instead of dealing directly with the media creators is bound to fail.

The Internet is the new channel to move content, we don't need the cable companies to be anything else than ISPs. The 1950's called and they want their money-making scheme back.

The problem with that is the media creators are bound to the networks, which are bound to the cable and satellite companies, who like providing channels to you in big bulk packages because it nets them tons of cash both from subscription fees and advertisements, which they then cycle back to the media creators to make their movies and shows so they can make even more money off of them.

The TV industry is a very tightly knit system that works very, very well for those directly involved in it. As of right now, there are no internet based services that provide as much money as good old fashioned television.

[Yvan256]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

The problem with that is the media creators are bound to the networks, which are bound to the cable and satellite companies, who like providing channels to you in big bulk packages because it nets them tons of cash both from subscription fees and advertisements, which they then cycle back to the media creators to make their movies and shows so they can make even more money off of them.

Except for the fact that more and more people, like me, don't have cable or satellite TV at all.

They're starting to lose subscribers and money and their first reaction seems to be "increase prices" instead of "let's try and sell what people actually want". I'm pretty sure most people who have cut their TV services are turning to other things like reading, videogames, internet and hobbies.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by Yvan256

Except for the fact that more and more people, like me, don't have cable or satellite TV at all.

They're starting to lose subscribers and money and their first reaction seems to be "increase prices" instead of "let's try and sell what people actually want". I'm pretty sure most people who have cut their TV services are turning to other things like reading, videogames, internet and hobbies.

The more people who cut their cable, the most likely thing to happen is pricier internet.

[dvwtwo]

If you see a bundle, they blew it.

[samcraig]

Won't revolutionize the industry - true or not - is editorializing the article.

He did take a swipe at Jobs/Apple though with the latter part of this quote

"We have been working for around a year now to setup Intel Media -- it's a new division that includes a lot of people from outside of the company. We've hired people from Apple, Netflix, Google, BBC, etc. We're aiming to develop an internet television platform. My opinion is that not many of those rivals have cracked it -- have truly delivered."

[Rogifan]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Won't revolutionize the industry - true or not - is editorializing the article.

He did take a swipe at Jobs/Apple though with the latter part of this quote

"We have been working for around a year now to setup Intel Media -- it's a new division that includes a lot of people from outside of the company. We've hired people from Apple, Netflix, Google, BBC, etc. We're aiming to develop an internet television platform. My opinion is that not many of those rivals have cracked it -- have truly delivered."

One we don't know what Jobs meant when he said he "cracked it" and two, I don't think anyone believes the current ATV is Apple's grand vision when it comes to the TV space. If anything he's taking a swipe at Google TV and Samsung's Smart TV.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by Rogifan

One we don't know what Jobs meant when he said he "cracked it" and two, I don't think anyone believes the current ATV is Apple's grand vision when it comes to the TV space. If anything he's taking a swipe at Google TV and Samsung's Smart TV.

I dunno. Using the word "cracked" seems to be a direct jab at ole Steve there.

Though the sad truth of the whole situation is that it doesn't matter who has the best concept for the future of television, or who has the best UI, best delivery service. The content providers hold all the cards here. If they don't want to play along, even the most brilliant ideas will wither on the vine.

[dwman]

The only way cable and satellite companies start offering a la carte channels is if they start losing subscribers via cord cutting. Right now, that's a very small percentage of the populous. Until they start truly losing business like the music business did on the early 2000's, you won't see a shift to individual channels.

[unplugme71]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

I dunno. Using the word "cracked" seems to be a direct jab at ole Steve there.

Though the sad truth of the whole situation is that it doesn't matter who has the best concept for the future of television, or who has the best UI, best delivery service. The content providers hold all the cards here. If they don't want to play along, even the most brilliant ideas will wither on the vine.

I'm sure Apple could just buy a few networks with their almost $100 billion in cash. Once others see how successfull it is, they will jump aboard.

[Moonjumper]

Originally Posted by kwikdeth

cable companies will never, ever allow a la carte because then customers will find out how badly they've been getting screwed over for the last 20 years.

My Mum is on a higher cost TV cable package just for 1 channel, but it is a channel she watches a lot, but maybe not for much longer as she has seen most of the content on that channel. A la carte would be a brilliant for her, and the cable company might get to keep some business.

It is cheaper for me to get the Blu-Ray or DVD of the series I want rather than a cable package. A la carte would be a brilliant for me, and the cable company would get some business from me.

Packaging channels raises the value of some customers, but I'm sure it keeps many away.

TV companies than embrace the new options stand a massive chance of leading the race into the future, but stand still for fear of losing their existing (and diminishing) market. But would they really lose out?

[Chrjy]

I'm from the UK and as far as I'm concerned the UK needs to focus their efforts on telecommunications before anything else, we're so far behind in this area it's now becoming a joke.

Without the proper technology in place initially (because the telecommunication companies are so tight!) the option of quality TV internet services and the like are far from our reach....obviously a UK based opinion only!

[rbrian]

Originally Posted by Chrjy

we're so far behind in this area it's now becoming a joke.

Surprisingly, that isn't entirely true - it's one area where the USA trails the world. This time next year, 65% of the UK by population (and some remote sparsely populated areas where they got government funding) will be able to get fibre broadband. Within 5 years, that will rise to 90%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19267090

http://www.superfast-openreach.co.uk/the-big-build/

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by rbrian

Surprisingly, that isn't entirely true - it's one area where the USA trails the world. This time next year, 65% of the UK by population (and some remote sparsely populated areas where they got government funding) will be able to get fibre broadband. Within 5 years, that will rise to 90%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19267090

http://www.superfast-openreach.co.uk/the-big-build/

The USA is also a lot bigger with huge rural and desert areas. Not comparable. Better to compare the UK with the Northeast USA.

----------

Originally Posted by unplugme71

I'm sure Apple could just buy a few networks with their almost $100 billion in cash. Once others see how successfull it is, they will jump aboard.

The government will not allow Apple to buy up networks.

[d21mike]

I don't care how the content is delivered to the house. I just want a better way to search and organize that content on the 9 TV's in my house. The problem for me is having to pay for 9 STB's if I want all channels on each TV plus if I want Netflix / iTunes I then need 9 ATV's. I want to have my Network Tuners (with CableCards) in 1 room that will feed my ATV's (or Intel box or Google TV box) which can combine all of the content in a customizable UI.

I think everyone needs to understand if we went with all Internet TV our Internet Cost are going to go up. You have to increase bandwidth to hand multiple TV's streaming HD Channels at the same time in every household.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by Rogifan

One we don't know what Jobs meant when he said he "cracked it" and two, I don't think anyone believes the current ATV is Apple's grand vision when it comes to the TV space. If anything he's taking a swipe at Google TV and Samsung's Smart TV.

I disagree. No other company has claimed to have "cracked" the TV thing.

You don't know context of what Jobs' comment meant. He said that he cracked it. This guy is saying that no one has cracked it (yet) or has delivered.

I don't think he means Apple TV was supposed to be what cracked TV.

He's making a general statement - that, to date, no one has cracked anything. IE - the proof is in the pudding. Or "talk is cheap."

He's drawing a line in the sand and saying he believes intel will be the first to market with something unique. And in his mind - "cracks" it.