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

[Rogifan]

So flashing on my TV screen right now is news that Comcast is buying out GE's stake in NBC Universal for $16.5B. Remind me again how it's possible for Comcast to own NBC?

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by taylortm

Wow! samcraig and i DO think the same (about at least one thing in the world)! Seriously, samcraig, it's like you were channeling my thoughts. We cancelled cable and went to HDTV antenna + eyeTV/HomeRun + ATV/HuluPlus a couple of months ago.

My only uh... not regret... but maybe annoyance with it is trying to get my wife to understand that live TV is not a given anymore. She invited a bunch of people over for Super Bowl last weekend. "Uh, Honey. We don't have cable anymore. Remember?" Then she wanted to watch the Grammies the other day. "Uh, Honey..."

But, all in all, we are VERY happy with this approach. Saving griploads of cash and not really missing much.

(For those of you on the edge of your seat, I grabbed a "Leaf" antenna and threw it on the TV for Super Bowl and Grammies. Worked great and then just "hides" behind the TV when not in use.)

It was bound to happen sooner or later if we talk about enough subjects

And I second the Leaf. Love it.

Our setup is an old (2009) laptop (with HDMI out to the TV) I wasn't using any more - HDHomeRun - Leaf Antenna + windows media center. I thought I would have to get Eye TV software or something - but so far, I have to say with the amount we watch/need to record (which isn't much) WMC works just fine.

We also have Apple TV on both sets and I love PLEX. We haven't subscribed to Hulu + yet. We're debating.

So for $40 (antenna) + $80 (HDHomerun) - we now pretty much have as much "cable" and "dvr" as we ever really needed in the first place.

And I was honestly surprised at the quality of the HD signal coming from the Leaf antenna too.

[ncbill]

Scripted content is already available a la carte per episode from Apple iTunes & Amazon Video.

I have cable shows like "The Walking Dead" automatically pushed down to my Tivo to supplement what I record over the air (OTA).

The big issue is live sports carried on pay (not broadcast) channels.

Unless Intel can solve that problem they're just offering another Roku.

[winston1236]

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.

Its time to bypass the cable companies. Its ridiculous we pay so much to watch commercials.

[handsome pete]

Originally Posted by winston1236

Its time to bypass the cable companies. Its ridiculous we pay so much to watch commercials.

You're kidding yourself if you think commercials are going away with any new television business model.

[thekev]

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.

Others will jump on board buying out networks? It's unlikely that such a purchase could go through with antitrust protections. It's also unlikely that Apple would make such a purchase. They typically look for small companies with talented staff. Think of Apple like like this.



They look for companies that can be easily assimilated. They have no real experience running a television network and do not make a habit of taking on wholly owned subsidiaries most of the time. Filemaker Pro was published by a subsidiary, but it was more of an exception. Returning capital to investors would likely make more sense than taking on increased bloat in areas where they have no experience and a lack of appropriate evaluation skills.

[macs4nw]

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.

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.

It's a 'comfortable little cycle' that has worked great for them up till now. There's zero incentive for them to change, after all, why would they rock the boat; they have a good thing going. But nothing lasts forever, and neither will their stranglehold over our cable content and DSL broadband. If they are not willing to be reasonable with any negotiations, technology will find a way around them, sooner or later. I'm 100% convinced of that. When that time comes, you won't find many people weeping for them.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by macs4nw

It's a 'comfortable little cycle' that has worked great for them up till now. There's zero incentive for them to change, after all, why would they rock the boat; they have a good thing going. But nothing lasts forever, and neither will their stranglehold over our cable content and DSL broadband. If they are not willing to be reasonable with any negotiations, technology will find a way around them, sooner or later. I'm 100% convinced of that. When that time comes, you won't find many people weeping for them.

I know I won't be. I want a'la carte, and I want it now.

Thing is, until the internet provides a model that provides the networks and studios at least the same amount of cash as the oldschool model, and allows them to hype and advertise their shows just as easily, they won't be willing to move on. They certainly won't be doing it simply because it's cheaper and easier for us.

If they're not getting the cash, they can't make new shows and movies for us to watch. They can't gain a profit to impress their shareholders and allow them to grow. Tragically, our convenience only plays a small part of a much larger whole. One day we'll have a'la carte, but realistically, I'm not expecting things to change all that much over the next 5 years or so.

...though I'd happily eat a whole bunch of crow if it does.

[MacDav]

Yeah, everybody's gonna have an internet TV service. All they have to do is napalm all the cable companies and strong-arm all the content providers. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Shaun, UK]

The only way to revolutionise this industry is to cut the stranglehold of the cable/internet companies by switching to wireless broadband. 4G technology is faster than most fixed line broadband now. Apple could set up a MVNO wilth unlimited data at 4G speeds. Access TV on the internet wirelessly on your iOS device or Apple TV. No more cable companies. Subscribe to individual channels as app's.

[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.

[jdoll021]

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.

Then what's the point?

[lilo777]

Originally Posted by jdoll021

Then what's the point?

Bundled content is just one aspect of Intel TV. The on-demand/streaming options is a totally different story.

[unplugme71]

Originally Posted by Peace

Don't think the FCC or the DOJ would go for that.

Comcast got lucky. Apple would be scrutinized with a fine tooth comb.

Doesn't Cablevision own HBO and a few others? Seems like the cable companies are slowly buying up networks.

[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.

[mantan]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

I know I won't be. I want a'la carte, and I want it now.

Thing is, until the internet provides a model that provides the networks and studios at least the same amount of cash as the oldschool model, and allows them to hype and advertise their shows just as easily, they won't be willing to move on. They certainly won't be doing it simply because it's cheaper and easier for us.

If they're not getting the cash, they can't make new shows and movies for us to watch. They can't gain a profit to impress their shareholders and allow them to grow. Tragically, our convenience only plays a small part of a much larger whole. One day we'll have a'la carte, but realistically, I'm not expecting things to change all that much over the next 5 years or so.

...though I'd happily eat a whole bunch of crow if it does.

Exactly! the networks control the content. They have absolutely no incentive to move to a model that's going to mean LESS money to them.

A la carte means no bundling of channels and ad dollars they get from putting families of channels together. It means no subscription fees for multiple TV networks.

Everybody assumes their a la carte pricing is basically a fraction of their bill for 'what they watch'. In reality it'll be much higher because the cost of shared programming now has to be floated by customers of that one show or network.

Until the group of 'cord cutters' is big enough to make it worthwhile...things aren't going to change. And until live sports and first run content is available, that number is going to stay relatively low...

[d21mike]

Originally Posted by unplugme71

Doesn't Cablevision own HBO and a few others? Seems like the cable companies are slowly buying up networks.

I believe TWC owns HBO.

[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.