The Verge has a great piece on the potential for Intel to succeed in their latest digital home initiative…
The fact that Intel doesn’t by and large work in media could be a handicap, but if you stop to reconsider, it potentially gives Intel a huge advantage. Think about it: how was Google ever going to make a deal with Viacom when Viacom was suing Google? How were companies like Google or Yahoo built on selling advertising ever going to meaningfully share data and revenue with other companies built on advertising like TV networks? How were Sony or Samsung ever going to create a smart TV platform large enough to compete with cable when their businesses depended on selling giant multithousand-dollar screens that were only updated every few years? How would Apple, or Microsoft, or Amazon, or Netflix create new deals for live TV with networks when they already had huge businesses in selling digital video in completely different formats? Intel has no conflicts of interest with television; it has no strategy taxes. All it has are years of R&D into hardware for the connected home, a solid history of developing hardware standards and prototypes, and many, many chips built for graphics-intensive, generally stationary devices that badly need somewhere to go.
This has long been an area of interest for me and I hope they succeed here because the industry needs a good kick in the ass.
Great profile in GQ… I really hope Netflix evolves and succeeds in their mission to bring first party content direct to consumers. I don’t even watch much TV but really want the model to change so we have better options for the things we do choose to view.
More power to Aereo … I’ve played with a demo account and it works quite well. Tempting even.
Ad Age: So broadcasters shouldn’t have dual revenue streams, like cable channels?
Mr. Kanojia: I don’t know their business at all. All I know is the current paradigm is this: They have [broadcast] spectrum. They are required to program in the public interest and to offer it widely for free. You are allowed to have an antenna. There is no prohibition on where you have it; it can be on your roof, your window or 50 feet away; in my computer or in the cloud. Tell me what the dispute is? Because you didn’t see it coming? That is really what it is.
Ad Age: But since fees are so important to broadcast now, why shouldn’t they fight it?
Mr. Kanojia: Technology catches up. When the VCR came out there was the same hyperbole: It’s going to kill television. They made billions. It spawned a whole industry of home video. These technologies [Aereo] are single-cast, they know where you are. I think they are just ignoring that technologies like these are immensely helpful in attracting younger audiences and are helpful in creating new ad models.
This ad from Sprint really bothers me. It’s not the completely smug attitude from the boss – I like the cheeky style. What’s bothersome is the complete miss by Sprint on who’s paying the bill. While it’s certainly possible that the bring your own device user base is growing, I can’t imagine that an international business would expect employees to carry their own weight for for data intensive things like video conferencing. Who’d want to work like that? Maybe Sprint’s business accounts are limited …
The only thingI want to know is how much the panel gets paid to endure 16 MINUTES of ads during a 30 Minute show. Who are these people? I’m sure the groups were considered a great success …
Viewers of 30-minute TBS sitcoms like “Meet the Browns” watched, on average, 40 percent of the episode if there was one minute of ads and 37 percent of the episode if there were 16 minutes of ads. Viewers of hourlong TNT shows like “Memphis Beat” watched 59 percent of the episode if there were one minute 15 seconds of ads, and 49 percent of the episode if there was 20 minutes of ads.
We’ve officially lost ABC on Cablevision today. Thanks Disney. Aside from the Oscar blackout tonight, which upsets my wife more than anything, we’ll lose access to Lost as well the only other show we care about on ABC.
The question I have for ABC is this … If it’s really about the money, how are you able to justify the efficacy of the ads sold for the Oscars with such a substantial portion of the NY Metro removed? Charging for what’s available for free over the air (if we all hadn’t switched to digital) is ridiculous and you should be ashamed.
Unlike the vast majority of crap that ran last night, Google delivered an incredibly focused piece for the Super Bowl. The ad is simple, shows off the product and keeps the brand on screen for the entire time.
a multi-tasked stream of consciousness or perhaps just emails to myself