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

[jrobbins]

Bag of Hurt anyway you look at it

Yes something needs to be done. However how do you solve this.
Bundling shows from the Cable/Satellite companies is all about Commercial space. It isn't just about Comcast control and the shows you love. Companies want/need a venue to spend their marketing money and a local/national audience to sell to. Shows provide a reason to watch the ads. The networks sell us on other shows to watch so we can be sold to. The Cable/Satellite companies provide the Add space a one shopping mall that cross pollinates from the viewer browsing their packaged channels. The metrics of hits from a package sold from the providers ensures that the market forecasts are at "acceptable" ad rates. Popular shows make more ad money. Stupid shows fills the void between them. Ever notice the level of product goes down with the content of the show you are watching goes down.

Now Imagine, Apple, Sony, Google, ect.... want to start their own micro packages.... now companies have to reinvent the way they do business in the Ad Space Market.... Resistance not only comes from Content Provider, the Content Creators but from the very place that actually pays for everything, the Ad Money.

The trick is to create a "Safe" market to transistion the money form "Comcast" Ads to the new "Ala Carte". The problem with Ala Carte is that there is very little cross pollination to other new shows. We don't watch one channel now, the main way we find new things to watch is from the vast choice we have of other channels to sell us the interest to watch a new show.
Whew...

 

[Xtremehkr]

If it's the Sony that we've come to know then the service will be cheap and adequate at best.

It will probably be like everything else Sony does and will undermine itself by trying to lock people into an expensive and unrewarding Sonysphere of unnecessary proprietary peripherals and only Sony owned content.

 

[Freyqq]

so sony is trying to invent hulu? lol..it's already been done.

 

[something3153]

If it's the Sony that we've come to know then the service will be cheap and adequate at best.

It will probably be like everything else Sony does and will undermine itself by trying to lock people into an expensive and unrewarding Sonysphere of unnecessary proprietary peripherals and only Sony owned content.

Can I buy a movie on iTunes and play it on whatever software or device I want?

 

[AppleScruff1]

Tens of millions of Sony TVs in homes that don't have this feature built in. It looks more like an even playing field to me.

People already associate Sony with tv. If they come out with it first, people will remember the Sony name. Apple has no recognition in the tv market.

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.

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

You hope so, I'm sure.

 

[ctdonath]

Apple has no recognition in the tv market.

Apple had no recognition in the cell phone market.
Apple had no recognition in the music player market.
Apple had no recognition in the PDA market.

 

[JAT]

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?

Yes, they are out to make money. And they are making more by forcing people to pay for 500 channels than if people paid a la carte for 15 channels. This is why they do what they do.

Maybe you aren't familiar with Big Satellite Dishes? They were on a semi-a-la-carte model for the longest time. There were some packages, but not required like with cable, and smaller groups anyway. More like a la carte bundles. People loved it, paid for it, companies made money. There were big up-front costs to the consumer, and a BUD in your backyard, severely limiting the number of potential customers. And yet, that business model has remained in effect, basically unchanged, since the 1980s. (I'm not privy to financials, but seems to have worked)

But ESPN can make more by charging every provider over $5/channel/subscriber than they can charging $10 to each person that chooses to get all their channels. So, that is the business that is available at the moment.

It's not about breaking even to make some money, it's about how much money.

 

[bruinsrme]

I don't think it matters who is first to deliver such a service, who is cheaper, who is better.
In the end those that provide Internet access will win and the consumer will pay the same or more.
Access providers will impose data teirs just like cell phone providers, AT&T and Verizon.

We'll get our content but at what price?

 

[diamond.g]

Yes, they do. But what will they do when the broadcast pipe dries up because we are no longer buying their "bundled" channels. I dumped cable in February and went exclusively iTunes/Netflix/local streaming with my Apple TV.

The cable companies may be reluctant to "unbundle" their services while they still have customers willing to pay that way. If the customers abandon that model, they will have no choice. Better to sell me 5 channels I want than NOTHING, which is what they are selling me now. And at that point, download caps would only serve to reduce the amount of content I would buy. Their model will have to change.

As soon as the FCC gets off their butts and call them dumb pipes... They will quickly move to start throttling stuff based on QoS (and you know their own offerings won't count towards caps) until then.

Comcast at least was smart getting a content producer (NBC).

Sony should be in the better position since they actually have vertical control (TV, Content, "Network").

 

[AppleScruff1]

Apple had no recognition in the cell phone market.
Apple had no recognition in the music player market.
Apple had no recognition in the PDA market.

Tv's aren't trinkets or toys, they are expensive.

 

[linux2mac]

Apple had no recognition in the cell phone market.
Apple had no recognition in the music player market.
Apple had no recognition in the PDA market.

Exactly my thoughts. Some people still don't get it.

 

[something3153]

Yes, they are out to make money. And they are making more by forcing people to pay for 500 channels than if people paid a la carte for 15 channels. This is why they do what they do.

Maybe you aren't familiar with Big Satellite Dishes? They were on a semi-a-la-carte model for the longest time. There were some packages, but not required like with cable, and smaller groups anyway. More like a la carte bundles. People loved it, paid for it, companies made money. There were big up-front costs to the consumer, and a BUD in your backyard, severely limiting the number of potential customers. And yet, that business model has remained in effect, basically unchanged, since the 1980s. (I'm not privy to financials, but seems to have worked)

But ESPN can make more by charging every provider over $5/channel/subscriber than they can charging $10 to each person that chooses to get all their channels. So, that is the business that is available at the moment.

It's not about breaking even to make some money, it's about how much money.

And if you sell each channel to only the people who want them, the price-per-channel will go up, I promise. That's the bit that people clamoring for a la carte don't want to accept - the networks aren't going to offer a selection that results in them making less money.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Exactly my thoughts. Some people still don't get it.

How do you think Apple would do in the grocery business? Car business?

 

[divinox]

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)

Once you have a) the metaphor, and b) a pointer device - moving things on a desk using your hand (i.e. pointer), well... is somewhat obvious (after all, that is how we manipulate objects in real life). Not saying Apple did not do it first, I'm just saying that the idea itself is not that grand (especially in comparison to, say, the metaphor itself).

 

[mungo2k]

Big deal. BT Vision already does this in the UK, for content that isn't available via DVB-T.

 

[samcraig]

Exactly my thoughts. Some people still don't get it.

People get it fine. But it's flawed. There's a difference between a cell phone or PDA purchase and a TV. How often do people buy a new TV? Exactly.

How much is a portable MP3 player vs a TV? Exactly.

And two of the three examples were in its infancy when Apple came along. TV's have been around a lot longer. The market would be seemingly harder to dominate.

Further - if (big if) Apple does enter the market - it will be an expensive and niche product which will most likely have ONE style/version if it's actual TV and not an add-on.

I don't know about you - but I know a lot of people take into a lot of considerations when buying a TV. Size of their room, Color scheme of their room, how it will be mounted or not, etc. If Apple releases a TV the same way they release a phone - again - it will be niche.

 

[Xtremehkr]

Can I buy a movie on iTunes and play it on whatever software or device I want?

I can download anything I want off of the internet, use HandBrake to rip it to a suitable format, and use it on every single Apple device that I own.

That's nothing even similar to Sony's prior attempts to lock people into a Sony only universe with their expensive and unnecessary proprietary requirements.

Sony will develop a platform that has promise, but will ruin it by being overconfident and believing that people will prefer Sony no matter how onerous they make the user experience. Unless recent failures have had an impact on the corporate culture at Sony.

 

[Big Dave]

...when your service provider limits your data to 250Gb a month. TV via the web will easy hit that cap when someone in your house has the set on most of the day.

The cable company still controls the pipe.

I expect the price of cable internet to increase if they lose revenue on their television segment. I'll pay it because I don't have another choice for fast internet. When bandwidth usage significantly goes up in the next few years, the fact that we are not #1 in internet connections will become even more evident.

 

[something3153]

I can download anything I want off of the internet, use HandBrake to rip it to a suitable format, and use it on every single Apple device that I own.

That's nothing even similar to Sony's prior attempts to lock people into a Sony only universe with their expensive and unnecessary proprietary requirements.

Sony will develop a platform that has promise, but will ruin it by being overconfident and believing that people will prefer Sony no matter how onerous they make the user experience. Unless recent failures have had an impact on the corporate culture at Sony.

That's fascinating, except for the fact that my Sony TV displays anything I plug into it. People here have been asking for Apple to not do that, and Apple excels at lock-in themselves.

 

[darster]

The pipe dream of a la carte is never going to happen. Do you actually think ABC will just let you buy ESPN? Of course not. You will be required to buy all the networks associated with ABC, and so on. In the end, the so called a la carte will cost more than cable because cable can negotiate a better price because of it's large customer base, the same with DirecTV. People think they will be able to buy the 5 or 6 channels they want, but it will cost you more than the entire cable package. In the end, you are going to have to pay that $100 a month to the cable companies, satellite companies, or directly to the broadcast industry. It sure won't get cheaper.

 

[Xtremehkr]

That's fascinating, except for the fact that my Sony TV displays anything I plug into it. People here have been asking for Apple to not do that, and Apple excels at lock-in themselves.

That's not the digital content delivery platform that Sony is preparing to release, is it?

You are not using Sony's web based TV service, are you?

 

[thenerdal]

so sony is trying to invent hulu? lol..it's already been done.

No. They're going to make an alternative to cable tv, except it will be web-based.

 

[darster]

I expect the price of cable internet to increase if they lose revenue on their television segment. I'll pay it because I don't have another choice for fast internet. When bandwidth usage significantly goes up in the next few years, the fact that we are not #1 in internet connections will become even more evident.

Exactly. Considering during peak hours, Netflix consumes over 30% of the bandwidth in the US, it won't take long for the bottleneck to occur. Probably within the next 5 years the US will suffer a major internet disruption or failure. I dropped cable tv less than 2 weeks ago. My normal data usage on the internet has gone from less than 10 GB a month to 5 to 10 GB a day. Multiply that by millions, and you can easily see a problem in the very near future.

 

[something3153]

That's not the digital content delivery platform that Sony is preparing to release, is it?

You are not using Sony's web based TV service, are you?

Nope. You're not using Apple's TV though, are you? And you can't use anything but iTunes for an iPod/ iPhone/ iPad anymore. This is all just hot air.

 

[Xtremehkr]

Nope. You're not using Apple's TV though, are you? And you can't use anything but iTunes for an iPod/ iPhone/ iPad anymore. This is all just hot air.

I am using an AppleTV2, apparently you're not aware of what they're capable of.

You can download anything you like, rip it using Handbrake, and then drag it into iTunes. iTunes will treat it like any other digital content.

Once, let's say Dexter, is in iTunes I can add artwork, the episode ID, group it by season and content type, even add en equalizer setting if I choose to.

From there I can watch it on my LG TV.

So, no, it's nothing like some of the proprietary madness that Sony has tried to lock people into in the past.