Figuring out the online TV model

April 22, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Hulu, LLC

The announcement today that Hulu plans to roll out a subscription pay model for premium content fits well with my previously planned rant about watching television online. Intellectually, I understand that companies are experimenting with different platforms and models, trying to figure out what brings in viewers and revenue without overly cannibalizing their broadcast schedule. But all that experimentation comes at the expense of the consumer. I don’t enjoy being a guinea pig and I suspect that most other people don’t either.

In the past week alone, I have watched TV shows that 1) I downloaded from iTunes, 2) streamed from Netflix, 3) watched on Comcast On Demand and 4) watched on regular ol’ cable TV. I have also searched for shows on 1) Comcast xfinity online and 2) bootleg sites on the internet.

Now, I have no problem paying for content. In fact, I’d rather spend $2.99 to download an HD-quality episode from iTunes than watch it with Chinese subtitles off some bootleg streaming site from Asia. I’d even prefer to pay upfront rather than watch it for free with commercials (however, I suspect the commercials make the network more money than my $2.99). But the problem is, I never know where (or if) I’m going to find a show online. The bootleg search was for season 2 of True Blood, which is not available for download anywhere as far as I can tell. But how do I know without spending half an hour searching for it?

The real problem is that, as a consumer, I have to spend a lot of time figuring out where to find a show, and then, once I’ve found it, figuring out which episode I want to watch and if it’s available. This show is available at this site, but only for a few weeks at a time. This show is available on iTunes, but only the previous season. This show was available to stream on Netflix, but now it’s not…it’s a lot of work for a 40 minute TV episode.

The question is, will the TV networks have this figured out by the time most viewers move online? According to eMarketer, 64% of internet users watch at least “some” TV online already.

eMarketer chart

That’s a pretty big audience to treat so cavalierly. When I watch cable TV, the networks don’t scramble all of the channels around, or stop broadcasting shows that they previously broadcasted. So why don’t online consumers get the same amount of respect?

I’m just sayin.

Filed Under: broadcast, cable, Comcast, hulu, internet, itunes, Netflix, tv

Paying for Content and the Lost iPhone

April 20, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Image representing Gawker Media as depicted in...Image via CrunchBase

According to The New York Times, Gawker paid $5000 for the “lost iPhone” found in a bar in California.

The Gawker publisher tweeted, “Yes, we’re proud practitioners of checkbook journalism. Anything for the story.” This after Engadget refused to pay for the device.

Now that the phone is out, there’s the buzz of 1) is it real? 2) how did Apple lose it when it so tightly controls its products? and 3) is it all just a marketing ploy?

To all three, I answer: who cares? The end result is publicity for Apple. Not that Apple really needs to go out of its way to market the new iPhone. There’s an army of Apple loyalists that will be lined up on the first day to buy it.

I find the more interesting aspect of the story to be the price that Gawker paid for the device. From a strictly financial point of view, $5000 was peanuts when compared to the result for the Gizmodo site, according to the NYT:

“Traffic spiked on Monday, and at midday more than one million visitors stopped by the site in one hour to see pictures of the coveted gadget.”

I suspect the seller is feeling a bit of seller’s remorse. But was it ethical for Gawker to pay for the iPhone? And should Apple try to get a cut of that revenue back, or is it simply the cost of marketing a new product?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Filed Under: Apple, Gawker Media, Gizmodo, iPhone, mobile

So of course I bought an iPad

April 15, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Image representing iPad as depicted in CrunchBaseImage via CrunchBase

It’s only fitting after my last post that I purchase the iPad. Here’s the deal. My husband’s birthday was Monday, my original idea for his present fell through, and I needed a backup. Ergo…an iPad purchase was made.

How is it? Well, we don’t have it yet as I purchased the 3G version. We are mobile people (we lived on a boat for six months) and wi-fi is too limiting. I have a Verizon 3G card that I use enough to make the $60/month fee totally worthwhile. While I think a lot of people intend to use the iPad primarily as a home device, it’s portability is a key feature and I think it will be great to take along on trips as a substitute for the laptop. I also think the GPS features will come in handy.

So we’ll see how it goes in a few weeks when the thing shows up.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Filed Under: Apple, iPad

Yes, yes, I should probably mention the iPad

April 8, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Well the iPad has been out for a week now. I still haven’t seen one in person, despite my husband’s frequent proclamations that he is going to buy one. As someone who is fascinated by media convergence, I should be totally enamored by the iPad. But frankly, my response to its announcement was a big “meh” (except for my reaction to the name, which I thought and still think is incredibly lame).

I think part of it is that, for now, I don’t have a desire to read my books onscreen. So the e-reader component doesn’t appeal to me. Everything else I can do on my Macbook, which is light and portable. So for me, right now, the only interesting point is whether the iPad will “save” the magazine publishing industry.

Two things come to mind with that. 1) I just finished reading Appetite for Self-Destruction, Steve Knopper’s account of the crash of the record industry. My favorite part of the book is reading about the music company executives’ anger at Apple taking away their “profits” (the profits they had already lost by not embracing delivering music over the internet) by being the first one to come up with a viable online music store. Guys, it’s called capitalism…if you don’t serve your customers the way they want to be served, someone else will. The same thing is happening now with the magazine publishers — they want someone to save the day for them, but not make too much money doing it.

2) As more and more newspaper and magazine publishers start embracing the Wall Street Journal‘s model of paid content, will they make us pay for all of these different delivery mechanisms? Of course. The WSJ already does it – one has to pay to have content delivered over the iPhone app even though the exact same content is available on the Safari on the iPhone! I had no problem paying for the WSJ online, but I was really pissed when they started making me pay for the iPhone app (especially since they initially offered it for free). Did I pay for it? Yes. Was I happy about it? No. Which is more important? And why should I buy the iPad to read my favorite online content if I’m going to have to pay for it all over again?

So, for me, it’s not yet worth spending the money. However, I did enjoy this in depth review at Daring Fireball. Enjoy.

Filed Under: Apple, iPad, Magazines, music, Wall Street Journal

When Will It Be Instantaneous?

April 8, 2010 By Leave a Comment

I recently upgraded from my 7-year old PC laptop that was frankensteined together with spare parts to a shiny new Macbook. It’s obviously a far superior computing experience in every way, but what I didn’t expect was the vast improvement in the viewing quality of the Macbook screen. It’s just…pretty.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I am looking for the right computer to use for my home theater PC. I know that I could build my own to the right specs, but I’m lazy and I want to buy something off the shelf that has everything I want, like Blueray (ahem, I’m looking at you, Apple). So in the meantime, I’ve been hooking my my Macbook up to my projector and watching downloaded files or streaming them off the internet. The viewing quality isn’t quite as good as off my DVD player, but it’s pretty darn close.

And in less than a month, I’ve noticed my viewing habits changing. I have HD cable and a DVD player. I probably watch cable TV once every two weeks. It’s basically there for my husband to watch sports. Most of the time, if I turn on the projector, it’s to watch a movie on DVD from Netflix, not to watch cable TV. However, for the first time, I’m starting to use On Demand off Comcast. I’ve also started downloading movies directly from iTunes to watch on the projector (I’ve been downloading TV shows for years but never movies – I always wanted the superior quality delivered by DVD).

Basically, I want to watch what I want right now. Netflix is too slow and I don’t want commercials. I know that movies and TV can be delivered to me digitally over my network (whether cable or internet), so why can’t I access everything that way?

Now, I’m not saying anything groundbreaking here. Companies know that this is where it’s going. Look at Netflix’s home page…”Watch Instantly” is the first tab now, not “Browse DVDs,” even though the selection in Watch Instantly is still crap. And Comcast is pushing convergence as their business strategy. My point is that for me, the shift just happened. One day I was satisfied waiting three days for a movie to show up on DVD, and the next day I wasn’t. So when will there be a critical mass of people that make the same shift? What do you think?

Filed Under: Comcast, home network, Mac, Netflix
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.