Anand's Thoughts on Intel's TV Initiative
by Anand Lal Shimpi on February 14, 2013 4:21 PM ESTWhat I'd Like to See
I've done my best to cut through to exactly what Intel has said up to this point. There's a lot and very little at the same time. One thing I can take for granted however is that Intel won't be able to hit a moving target. I figured I'd end this piece with my own thoughts on what I'd like to see, as well as get your feedback as to what you'd like to see as well.
I cut the cord a while ago. What drove me to getting rid of my cable TV subscription was the fact that I simply never used it. Live TV was nice to have, but I never had the time to watch anything when it aired. Years ago I was on the opposite side of the spectrum. I had multiple DVR boxes and was all-in on cable TV. Before then I even tried adding premium channels like HBO and Showtime to my lineup. I'd always heard folks talk about how much better the programming was on those channels. And without those premium channels I was always behind the times on shows like the Sopranos or Weeds. What ultimately happened however was I didn't have time to watch all of the content I was paying for. When I had time to watch something, it was almost never live - I relied heavily on my DVR, which never let me watch my recorded content on whatever device I wanted to use. Even the content on those premium channels was surprisingly disappointing. I was paying a lot for what ended up being just one or two shows that I wanted to watch, and a lot of other content that I really didn't care about.
I was a late adopter of Netflix, but that content library gave me enough to watch during my limited downtime. I'd rely on the web for everything else. I could grab local channels over the air, but I rarely exercised that ability. For the most part, I'm fine living with this combination of Netflix and the web. I'd like everything in one place and I'd like newer content, but I'm not willing to pay an extra $50 - $100 per month to get that. Netflix is a downright steal as far as I'm concerned. At $8 per month I feel like I'm paying far less than what I should be.
At the same time, I understand where Netflix falls short. I can't subsist on older content alone. Every now and then I might want to watch something that was actually filmed this year. For that, Netflix needs a counterpart. Some turn to Hulu, and if you're a Hulu Plus subscriber you do at least get portability across multiple devices similar to Netflix. Unfortunately the content I want isn't always available on Hulu, and I'm not a fan of the delayed availability aspect either (waiting until the day after a show airs seems silly). Hulu has the pricing right, but the content and experience side could both use some work.
The ideal solution for me would be a service that contains the set of everything I care about that's not included in Netflix, extensible across all of my devices/PCs/Macs, for a monthly price substantially south of $50/month. The trick in all of this is the first stipulation: a service that contains the set of "everything I care about". Although I like basketball, I don't follow it religiously. I need the major networks, Comedy Central, perhaps the Food Network and one or two more. I need a smaller, targeted bundle. I don't mind the ability to scale up, but if Intel is really going after the cord cutters it needs to offer small steps.
I haven't talked about the quality aspect of all of this yet but I do believe there's a play there. TVs have gotten a lot bigger and cheaper, and quality HD projectors aren't absurdly expensive either. Getting truly high-bitrate, high-quality content that's streamable just hasn't been possible. I'd love the ability to stream > 10Mbps H.264, high quality content whenever I wanted to. I don't need it for all devices, but to be able to optionally kick into a high quality mode would start to enable some interesting high end usage models (and potentially higher revenue for Intel). Ultimately I'd love to see a situation where we can stream BD quality content when a movie launches in theaters, but that's a discussion for another time.
I realize I'm just one datapoint in all of this. I'd be very curious to see what you all have to say. In the comments below, share your thoughts on bundles, network/channel lineup, features you'd like to see and pricing. I can't guarantee anything, but this will at least give me good data to take back to Intel when I meet with them next.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
97 Comments
View All Comments
mrdude - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
Targeted ads have been available since Google, Microsoft and others have been prowling our online behaviors. These "new" ads aren't new at all and they're something that the big content providers have had access to, and probably even used to some extent, for a while now.These ads aren't going to supplement the billions upon billions of dollars that they'd lose by providing a la carte programming. Ask Facebook :P
poorted - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link
I agree with this for the ads - yes, premium networks still need to be paid by subscription, but there is enough over the air programming that is entirely ad supported to show that that model works too.From the point of view of that broadcaster, why would they care if the viewers are watching over the air or over the internet if they are watching the same ads? In fact for that broadcaster, the internet route would even be preferable, they get targeted ads, and people can tune in from outside their transmitter range if they like.
From their point of view, they get more viewers, more ad revenue, and better demographic information.
taltamir - Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - link
People went to piracy because it supplied a better product, what people actually wanted.Netflix and hulu came in and gave people that same product.
The IP owners are desperately clinging to their guns and many view netflix and hulu and the like as an enemy.
The intel offering is basically netflix, only crappy. With the promise of new content. There is absolutely no reason netflix can't offer new content but the MPAA members don't want them to. Intel is trying to appeal to them with a tech that gives them that same measure of control and provides the same sub-par service that nobody actually wants to buy.
taltamir - Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - link
" clinging to their guns" - should be clinging to their distribution models... I must have had something else on my mindCrono - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
... At least it will for me. I don't want channel based subscriptions like cable companies provide, nor do I want a bundle of multiple services like existing streaming boxes.I just want the ability to select individual currently airing programs and internet content (podcasts and other episodic content) so I don't have to wade through reality shows. I don't want to see ads or commercials, either.
Now if such an a la carte service were available even at a premium, I wouldn't hesitate to get it. I don't like cable TV anymore, I like being ble to watch documentaries, educational programming, and shows like Top Gear. Give me something like that and a good hardware/software device, Intel.
Krysto - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
Only if we ignore that Intel has pretty much failed at anything that doesn't have to do with PC chips. They've only managed to create a relatively sustainable business in the SSD market, but they are not the best, nor the biggest there.The one who gets the smart TV market is not going to be a mostly hardware company. And just wait until you hear how much these Intel set top boxes are going to cost....that should wake people up to reality pretty fast.
poorted - Friday, February 15, 2013 - link
True, unless their play is just to enter the market with awesome devices at reasonable prices but leverage all the cable companies to use their hardware. If they can get the TV market using their chips or standardized on x86 or whatever, then essentially they wouldn't care if their consumer offerings burn cash and fail, they'd have the bigger victory that they haven't been able to get in the mobile space.IanCutress - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
Not sure how it entirely works in the US, but in the UK we all get five basic channels for free, two from the BBC (no ads) and three free-to-air (with ads). For a £20 one-off set top box we get Freeview, another 30 channels or so, all with adverts apart from the BBC ones. For a bit more you can buy a box with Freeview HD and Freeview+, allowing a DVR type of arrangement. To watch any BBC program broadcast in the past week, we get iPlayer, and ITV/C4 have content on their On-Demand services too.The only show(s) I watch religiously are Top Gear and Formula 1. Top Gear is BBC2, so covered by normal TV and iPlayer, and Formula 1 is in a weird flux where all the races are shown in full on a cable company (Sky), half the races are show in full on the BBC, and the other half are highlights-only on the BBC.
The only other things I watch are usually BBC issued comedy - QI, Mock The Week, Have I Got News For You, or sometimes 8 Out Of 10 Cats on C4.
At this point in time the only reason I'd ever want to pay £/month is for the Formula 1 races. Don't have time to sit and endlessly watch X or Y, and if it's a well reviewed program (Breaking Bad, Six Feet Under, House) I tend to get the DVD box set. There's also my video library backed up on PC which I can stream when needed.
Any Intel TV venture would hit the US/North America first, so I wonder if a Europe launch would occur even within 12 months of that. Not that I have any need for it, unless it's a silly £10/month. But even at that price, my ISP will bundle in their cable TV service with my super fast internet connection (but it won't have Formula 1).
IMO most 'live' content becomes less important as you age, the obvious exception is sport. I'm happy to catch most things 24hr+ after they air with an on-demand or catch-up service.
mrdude - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
Hasn't this been tried many times before? with each previous suitor flatly denied by the big content companies?The reason these TV channels are packaged together is because they're all under a single network. For example, ABC (Disney) owns all 50 varieties of ESPN and other channels as well. If you want ABC's (read: Disney's) channels then you've got to sign up to the lot of them. This is a practice that's mimicked by the other companies, and that ultimately leads to a stranglehold on all things TV.
While I appreciate Intel's goals here, and I do believe that a la carte TV and entertainment would be amazing, it's not going to happen unless those companies can compensate the decreased $$ per customer by volume. But considering the very small relative number of people who have cut the cord, this makes the entire scenario extremely unlikely.
Then there's the other aspects of this to consider, like ads, pirating (YARRRR!!), web presence, and pricing.
Furthermore, if this is going to be another one of these 'Intel only, everybody else go screw themselves' approaches with respect to hardware (again), then it's going to fail before it even starts. Intel's WiDi is an excellent example. It's a fantastic idea and really forward thinking, but the management decided to sell it with 'Intel only' and as a result it's gone nowhere, slipping inevitably closer to irrelevancy.
Porkfist - Thursday, February 14, 2013 - link
To be suitable for general consumption I'm certain this box will be very limited in it's capabilities. That being said, I would find it very difficult to abandon my HTPC in favor of a box that would limit my flexibility. I suppose I would buy in, only if you are not required to have their streaming box. If that was the case, then it would come down to price.I'm currently using XBMC, Windows Media Center with an HDHomerun and a Netflix subscription. I have everything I need. I would like to have some other stuff, such as HBO or Comedy Central but I don't need it. So give me the option to get that additional content, at a reasonable price, and let me roll it into my current setup. If you do that, you've got me hook, line and sinker.