Sony Looking to Cut Out Cable Providers with Web-Based TV Service

[gschumsky]

Sony beats Apple to the punch. Tens of millions of Sony tv's in homes. It might work.

Even though Sony may beat Apple to the punch, they're not known for life-altering products.
Apple will wait, watch all the new stuff come out that are "almost there", and then put their own product out whatever it may be- and it will be life-altering.
Before the iPod there were MP3 players, before the iPhone there were smartphones, before the iPad there were tablets (I worked for a company that designed one of the first tablets), and so on.

I had a friend who was a long distance runner. He was never first off the line, nor the fastest, but he always came in first. Why? He paced himself, watched the mistakes of the other runners, and didn't make any of those himself.

Apple is a long-distance runner. They're not a "We've gotta beat everyone to the punch" company. Except with the Apple OS and iOS of course.

 

[samcraig]

Interesting point. If they can't even mange their own network (especially in light of what's happened over the past 6-7 months), then how will essentially the same crew manage something as ambitious as what they're proposing? They can't even get their TVs to sell.

Apple, I can see having a solid, workable plan that is already halfway there thanks to the successful ecosystem already in place and their experience with building exceptional hardware, added to that their obsession with getting major initiatives right the first time, out the door. Sony, I can't. even if they manage the content aspect, they'll have absolutely nothing at all on Apple when it comes to slick delivery.

Who says the PS3 or it's network will have anything to do with the TV side of things. No one. So your conjecture is meaningless.

Apple's had tons of server issues lately. They've had security issues as well. All companies have. Point is - until something is more than vaporware (and that goes for any company) you really can't judge. You, yourself, said that vaporware is meaningless anyway. Or don't you remember?

 

[69650]

That makes it a wash - so what's the customer benefit? Aside from not having to click through 500 channels.

Whether I'm paying $50 for cable and $50 for internet or $100 for internet and no cable doesn't much matter to me.

The model only works and will sell if any rise in internet costs doesn't equate to cable packages that already exist.

Good point. It's certainly a conundrum.

 

[JAT]

What did coax ever do to you!?

I don't know about him, but it reduced everything to mono to me. Bastard coax.

 

[TWSS37]

This is exactly what everyone wants they just don;t realize it. 90 of the 100 channels I do get are just noise to me. I want to "subscribe" to individual channels or networks or even just shows like I do podcasts and pay appropriate amounts of money for them (sub $9.99). When I am not enjoying that kind of content I am either playing games, using apps or consuming web-based content on my 55in set.

Does Apple deliver a full on iOS TV set or some super duper Apple TV device I don't know, but I want my set to become the worlds largest iMac with my iPad or iPhone as my controller.

Bring it!

No trust me, your providers get it. They just dont want to give it to you. In order to make up for higher subscription fees per channel, they need to give you hundreds of stations to make up for the difference in cost. I don't think there's one household that wouldn't subscribe to a a la carte service. The problem is, everyone would subscribe to virtually the same 'core' stations. The highest cost per station is ESPN at around $4.50 per subscriber. The rest are in the less than a dollar or two range. So most a la carte bills would top out around $20 or less per month, in many cases not even (I'm not factoring in premiums, like HBO). So providers need to give you 100's and charge you around $80 to offset all their costs. A la carte TV is not a sustainable business model.

 

[cube]

"Web-based" or "internet-based" ?

 

[something3153]

Even though Sony may beat Apple to the punch, they're not known for life-altering products.
Apple will wait, watch all the new stuff come out that are "almost there", and then put their own product out whatever it may be- and it will be life-altering.
Before the iPod there were MP3 players, before the iPhone there were smartphones, before the iPad there were tablets (I worked for a company that designed one of the first tablets), and so on.

I had a friend who was a long distance runner. He was never first off the line, nor the fastest, but he always came in first. Why? He paced himself, watched the mistakes of the other runners, and didn't make any of those himself.

Apple is a long-distance runner. They're not a "We've gotta beat everyone to the punch" company. Except with the Apple OS and iOS of course.

You really feel that Apple products have "altered" your life in a meaningful way?

 

[JAT]

A la carte TV is not a sustainable business model.

Yep. Except for, you know, HBO, which has been doing fine a la carte for longer than most cable channels existed. And BUD, which was a la carte its whole existence, and the only problem was the size of the dish in the backyard. Cable companies managed to kill that with new rights contracts on channels, and by purchasing networks outright.

But, other than that, doesn't work at all.

Sorry, that may be an unknown acronym here. BUD = Big Ugly Dish

 

[linux2mac]

Sony beats Apple to the punch. Tens of millions of Sony tv's in homes. It might work.

Execution is the key! Xerox beat Apple to the punch with first GUI computer and mouse, but Apple did it better.

 

[zoetmb]

As always, the devil is in the details.

The question is which cable networks would they provide and which would be left out. Would it really be less expensive?

Would it be at least 1080i and as good (or better) quality as I already get from my cable co.?

Is it viable considering that most ISPs are starting to apply bandwidth constraints?

And there are other issues. While I don't like my cable provider and I agree with others who wish the cable providers would move to an ala-carte system, I get a hugh discount for having both web and cable with the same provider. So even if Sony was able to undercut my cable provider on price, it would up my internet bill by $20-$30 a month, so it probably wouldn't be worth switching.

And one of the reasons why the cable MSOs don't move to ala-carte is that for many channels, they have to pay the cable network based on the total subscribers to the service, not the total number of subscribers who actually watch the channel. That's why cable bills keep rising. I think the Yankee Network, for example, gets $3 per subscriber. Yet I never watch it.

 

[something3153]

Yep. Except for, you know, HBO, which has been doing fine a la carte for longer than most cable channels existed.

If you're willing to pay as much per channel as HBO costs, you'll be able to get a la carte. I doubt you'll pay less than currently, though.

 

[*LTD*]

Even though Sony may beat Apple to the punch, they're not known for life-altering products.

Agreed. You can only expect so much from the same management that so far has failed to any make major impression in any of the other progressive, forward-looking segments in four years (mobile, tablets, etc.) and who has nothing like the ecosystem Apple has - both in breadth and quality.

These guys just aren't set up for the kind of paradigm shifts that Apple is known to (and is usually expected to) pull off.

Unless they sprouted some major visionaries at the company, you see the Sony name these days and think "meh".

The outcome is rather predictable.

 

[jasonv1]

Frustrating subject

I dropped my satellite service a few months back in favor of a Roku/Hulu/Netflix/OTA antenna solution.

In most cases this is not a big deal, even with a 12 year old daughter in the house. What I miss the most is sports, and there is no real fix for that.

One example is hockey. Local (Carolina Hurricanes) games are shown on Fox Sports Carolinas (primarily) and Versus. There is no (legal) way to get these games right now unless you buy cable or satellite service. I'm even willing to pay the cost of something like NHL Center Ice BUT since the games are local they would be blacked out.

I think it is absurd that I am willing to pay good money for the right to watch the games but no one can make it happen.

If Sony can get the ball rolling on things like this it will be good for everybody. I have zero problem paying for the content I want, I just need someone to sell it to me.

 

[theOtherGeoff]

And what has loomed Apple in this field?

Apple[Mac]rumors have loomed.

But this is an interesting development. Much like pulling out of the stores and trying to deliver their own content in music, and then realizing, that the key channel via iTMS because the users have such low barrier to $$$ (trust, payee, ecosystem and interface have all been established), that really only the Apple [depth] and Amazon [breadth] are needed. Any producer centric model will fail on the myriad of [notso] good ideas delivered badly, and eventually, they'll go with amazon and apple to focus on what they do best, which is create content, not deliver it.

We will soon see the hulu experiment die. Netflix, unless it can get back in the game will die. New things may replace them (the money is too good not to try), Microsoft has Kinect, which can play, Sony with PS can play.

But the battle has been joined to disintermediate the 'pipes'

will Cable become a true utility like gas and electricity? You buy bandwidth, maybe a couple different flavors (VOIP, streaming, web, email) for QoS I certainly hope so.

The value of broadcast/cable will be real time events (sports, breaking news), but eventually, I see the NFL wanting to cut out the middle man and drive direct to consumers

 

[TWSS37]

Yep. Except for, you know, HBO, which has been doing fine a la carte for longer than most cable channels existed.

Are you serious? HBO is a standalone product that you are forced to subscribe to if you want it due to the amount of money HBO charges (because of their overhead) in order to have it. Providers don't pay exorbitant fees and pass them along to you for those types of channels. HBO has always been in excess of $10/mo or more. You're confusing what a la carte programming is to the end user. By your definition, anything more than a basic package is considered a la carte since I am paying additional for it.

 

[divinox]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X; en_US) AppleWebKit (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile [FBAN/FBForIPhone;FBAV/4.0.2;FBBV/4020.0;FBDV/iPhone4,1;FBMD/iPhone;FBSN/iPhone OS;FBSV/5.0.1;FBSS/2; FBCR/AT&T;FBID/phone;FBLC/en_US;FBSF/2.0])

Sony could be a success on a small scale but I think Apple's more like to win the masses.

Even more reason for gatekeepers to resist Apple, while letting Sony pass through. Not mentioning that Sony itself is a powerful gatekeeper with its vast base in media content.

 

[TWSS37]

If you're willing to pay as much per channel as HBO costs, you'll be able to get a la carte. I doubt you'll pay less than currently, though.

Exactly. HBO costs in some cases thousands percentage points more than what other stations cost to be a part of a channel line up. If you're willing to pay what HBO costs for a station like History, then cable companies will be all over a la carte. There's a reason why not every household has a premium station add on.

 

[divinox]

Even though Sony may beat Apple to the punch, they're not known for life-altering products.
Apple will wait, watch all the new stuff come out that are "almost there", and then put their own product out whatever it may be- and it will be life-altering.
Before the iPod there were MP3 players, before the iPhone there were smartphones, before the iPad there were tablets (I worked for a company that designed one of the first tablets), and so on.

I had a friend who was a long distance runner. He was never first off the line, nor the fastest, but he always came in first. Why? He paced himself, watched the mistakes of the other runners, and didn't make any of those himself.

Apple is a long-distance runner. They're not a "We've gotta beat everyone to the punch" company. Except with the Apple OS and iOS of course.

Actually, if anything Sony is known for the Walkman, in every way a life-changing product (if we keep the bar low enough for Apple to get over it, that is).

 

[Renzatic]

Execution is the key! Xerox beat Apple to the punch with first GUI computer and mouse, but Apple did it better.

No. The first Macintosh GUI wasn't much different than what you saw on the Star. The mouse and everything? Almost exactly the same. The only reason why Apple succeeded where Xerox failed was because they advertised it.

 

[69650]

Item #1 won't work in the US. The number of people using antennas in the US is very small. I've read some articles that have that percentage down to 15%.


I don't know how it works in the UK, but this won't happen in the US. The cable companies over here typically have local monopolies. They won't give up their reveunes without a fight. Unlimited broadband (at least unlimited in the sense of enough data for TV streaming) in the US is a pipedream in the current system.

The problem with having a majority of folks switching from traditional cable TV to streaming would mean that each household would be hitting the network at ~7 Gbps for each TV that's on. That's a lot of bandwidth that's consumed. No way this can work while retaining the 100+ channels that consume ~ 40Gbps each.

The current cable TV system works because everyone watches the same data streams at the designated time.

They'll need to come up with a new way to distribute content before they can switch from appointment TV to "on-demand" TV. Perhaps it'll be done with local storage (encrypted, of course) that gets filled up from a single common data stream that gets transmitted at a designated time. Then every customer that watches that particular show will grab that data stream an save to a local harddrive that each TV set can access.

The bottom line (IMO) is that the current broadband system isn't ready for everyone to jump to streaming.

EDIT - sorry for rambling. I kinda did a stream of conciensness (sp?) thing.

I agree with you that the broadband network is not ready for mass streaming at the moment. Whenever I've watched it I get a lot of buffering and the picture quality is not that great. I'm sure that will get better with faster broadband but that will take years to roll out at prices most people can afford.

Whichever way you look at it, it just doesn't make any sense. I wonder what Steve meant when he said he'd cracked it?

The only other thing I can think of is that maybe Apple has invented a new compression technology which only takes up a fraction of the current bandwidth. I don't even know if that is technically possible.

 

[TWSS37]

Actually, if anything Sony is known for the Walkman, in every way a life-changing product (if we keep the bar low enough for Apple to get over it, that is).

Not to mention PS1.

Or the portable video camera.

While they may have not been the first with these products, but (much like how Apple touts its products) they certainly made them more accessible and were the customer's choice based on quality and innovation.

 

[JAT]

Are you serious? HBO is a standalone product that you are forced to subscribe to if you want it due to the amount of money HBO charges (because of their overhead) in order to have it. Providers don't pay exorbitant fees and pass them along to you for those types of channels. HBO has always been in excess of $10/mo or more. You're confusing what a la carte programming is to the end user. By your definition, anything more than a basic package is considered a la carte since I am paying additional for it.

Uh, yeah. Serious. That is the definition of a la carte, not mine personally, but the one in use, barely, in the industry we are discussing.

And it's $10-20 for what, 12 HBO channels, now? ESPN, as mentioned above, is the most expensive channel around.

Maybe y'all aren't as interested in this system as you claim once you actually add it up?

 

[linux2mac]

No. The first Macintosh GUI wasn't much different than what you saw on the Star. The mouse and everything? Almost exactly the same. The only reason why Apple succeeded where Xerox failed was because they advertised it.

The first Xerox mouse was clunky, used two wheels to move, and had 3 buttons. Apple's first mouse had one button and replaced the wheels with a trackball.

Xerox Alto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto

Apple Mouse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Mouse

Furthermore,

"The improvements were in not just the details but the entire concept. The mouse at Xerox PARC could not be used to drag a window around the screen. Apple‘s engineers devised an interface so you could not only drag windows and files around, you could even drop them into folders. The Xerox system required you to select a command in order to do anything, ranging from resizing a window to changing the extension that located a file. The Apple system transformed the desktop metaphor into virtual reality by allowing you to directly touch, manipulate, drag, and relocate things." (Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson)

 

[TWSS37]

Uh, yeah. Serious. That is the definition of a la carte, not mine personally, but the one in use, barely, in the industry we are discussing.

And it's $10-20 for what, 12 HBO channels, now? ESPN, as mentioned above, is the most expensive channel around.

Maybe y'all aren't as interested in this system as you claim once you actually add it up?

Even if we were to consider HBO, the inherent flaw you are using for your argument is that you are using the most expensive choice that isn't a part of what is considered normal programming and is included in basic plans. Most stations are a dollar or two, even less depending on the station. You can't use out-liers as your foundation. While people may still choose HBO (which they obviously will), most people want to reduce stations they are forced to buy that they don't watch. So unless you're willing to pay the difference on other stations and pay what you would for something like HBO, the business model doesn't work.

Companies are out to make money. You think that if they could have sustained this and extrapolated a viable plan they wouldn't have done it already?

 

[mytdave]

vote with wallet

Ha. Unlikely anything will change unless the masses change behavior. I would welcome a la carte and would be willing to pay a minimal fee per "channel", but I don't see it happening, again it comes down to what the masses do.

I for one have already cut the cord. TV is sooooo unimportant to life. I get all TV through an antenna. Local stations, 4 major networks. Even that is too much. I have to exert extra effort to keep the damn thing turned off at home. It's a time suck (ironically so is posting comments on forums).

I'm more interested in the quality of a television device than I am in how many worthless channels I can get. Any media that is worthwhile is already available from other sources. But it won't be until enough people realize this that anything will change.