The Future of TV
On Friday I had a debate with Mark Cuban on the future of TV. We disagreed on most things. The main debate circled around whether the future living room will be driven by the Internet, or by the existing TV infrastructure delivered by Cable/Sat/IPTV operators. Mark followed up with a post titled “Don’t Waste the Internet on TV – Protect the Future of the Internet”.
In our opinion it is not a question of “if” the Internet represents the future of TV it is a question of “when” (answer below). Here is why Internet on TV is inevitable:
- Everything is connected – We consume video and entertainment in general on multiple devices (mobile, computer, tablet, etc.). We will want to access Internet content, apps and games on our TVs as well. It does not make sense that our biggest screen should remain disconnected.
- We are all passionate about something – One of the greatest things about the Internet is that you can dive as deep as you like into almost any subject whether it is cricket, anime, or music videos. Each one of us has a different set of interests and passions and for the first time we have a medium that’s personalized. The existing approach (and architecture) of a curated list of channels designed by a sole provider doesn’t address this basic human need.
- Less control = more innovation – There is a reason TV is lagging behind so many computers and mobile devices. TV is an oligopolistic environment with tight controls. Developers and entrepreneurs are attracted to open platforms with critical mass. We’re not there, yet, but when you read that 27.5% of TVs sold in the US in January were connected to the Internet you know this day is getting closer.
- CE manufactures are already on it – They are watching consumer demand rise and are building Internet connectivity into their entire product line. TVs, BluRay players, and game consoles are now all being connected to the Internet. Even if the set-top box is not connected the users will use some other way to get their TVs connected.
- Content owners follow the audience – If you are a content owner you have two main concerns… a) getting your content in front of as many consumers as possible and b) getting paid for it. There is already a critical mass of users who are online and want to watch premium content (26% of online users watch TV shows online more than once a week), yet most mainstream TV content is still not available online. It is a huge missed opportunity.
- Broadband is the #1 priority for many – Younger generations see broadband as vital and PayTV as an accessory. This generation is willing to pay for content, but likely to do so online. Making them pay for traditional TV, just so they can watch their shows online does not make sense.
People want Internet on their TVs, the CE companies want to address that need, the content owners see the opportunity and now the FCC’s plan indicates that the government also would like to see it happen. It is safe to assume that within the next 3-5 years Internet connected TVs will be a mainstream phenomenon and we will have more and better entertainment options on our TVs.
TV as we know it today offers a reliable and familiar experience for consumers, and a proven business model for content owners and distributors. There is great concern about the what TV content delivered over the Internet will mean for the industry (the fear of analog dollars turning into digital cents). There are the examples of the music industry (resisted the move towards digital and is now in search of a business model) and the newspapers industry (embraced the Internet and is now in search of a business model), which point to a damned if you do and damned if you don’t scenario.
But the talk and fear of cord-cutting is overzealous by both the media and the industry. Not only are their fears unnecessary, the focus on the negative impacts takes away the attention from the great opportunities that are opening up. We believe the time for content owners to embrace the Internet is now, and that the parallels to the music and newspapers industries are not entriely appropriate, here is why:
- Unlike newspapers, video content is not easily commoditized – You can read about last night’s political scandal from hundreds of sources, but there is only one company making American Idol, Lost, or Heroes. When you have a unique product, it’s more likely people will pay for it.
- Unlike music, pirating video is still a hassle – Downloading a pirated version of a newly released movie is still a cumbersome experience. It can take a long time, the quality is sometimes terrible, it could be hard to find, you may catch a virus, etc. However, this is not a long-term advantage because piracy will become much easier. Right now, the industry has the time to make a pre-emptive strike by making content available online and making it easy to find and enjoy.
- Freemium is easier to offer for video than for news or music – Once a music album is out it is hard to create a premium offering around it. In the case of video however, content owners can create premium value in multiple ways: HD quality, access to additional content, live broadcast, windowing of releases and more.
- Unlike music and newspapers there is a clear path for subscription revenues – There are already examples of successful online subscription services like Netflix and MLB, so it is not farfetched to imagine people subscribing to shows, channels or bundles based on their personal interests.
The users and the technology are ready, it is time for the industry to step up.
subscribe to blog
join boxee
boxee on twitter
The only concern I’ve been having about internet TV is the cases in the past we’ve seen where ISPs drop customers due to excessive bandwidth usage. Streaming HD movies all day Saturday and Sunday might put people on their radar.
Has this been addressed / discussed / with any of the major ISPs
i assume ISPs will evolve their packages in the future. probably we will see QoS offerings for higher-prices guaranteeing video delivery.
I’d love to see you have a discussion with Bob Garfield from AdAge, author of “The Chaos Scenario”. If his theory of Ad Supported content collapsing in the future is correct, I think you guys are in a great position for the future. It makes sense to me, the Internet provides an unlimited supply of content that can’t all possibly be supported by Advertising, thus driving down the price of ads, and revenue. That’s why cable rates keep going up and up and up. They’ll need a new revenue stream, and subscriptions are the answer…..A-la-carte subscriptions that is. Boxee offers that with Netflix and MLB.tv as two perfect examples!
I would love to sit down with Bob Garfield. I hear he has a great sense of humor, too
He has that “On The Media” radio show in NY. Maybe send him some tweets @Bobosphere
will do. actually listened to the OTM podcast this morning…
Hey Avner. Have you heard about this Google STB? This would pretty much be a direct competitor to the boxee box, right? Any thoughts?
http://gizmodo.com/5495856/a-google-tv-set+top-box-is-coming?skyline=true&s=i
i don’t know more about the Google TV effort beyond what was reported in the NYT. i hope that it will be an android-based platform that is open for developers. that could be great news for us and anyone else that is trying to distribute software into living rooms.
that could be one the initiatives that really opens up the TV market for innovation.
I agree.
Honestly, if ESPN offered they’re channel online, that would be all that’s left for me to completely ditch my Sat TV provider.
I’d actually be happy paying the same amount I pay for full DISH access now. I just want the content on my computer where I can make the best use of it and order just the channels I want.
I think the real issue may be streaming local sports online. For example, you can get MLB.tv through boxee, but if your in Chicago, you can’t watch the Cubs that way since the local rights go to ComcastSportsnet. They’ll probably stream online eventually, once you prove you are a “TV Everywhere” subscriber. That means that if all you really want to do is watch the Chicago Cubs…in Chicago, on your iPhone, iPad, Boxee HDTV box, you need to pay the 60+ dollar a month cable/satellite subscription, even if you don’t own a TV!
I think in the future you’ll be able to sign up for these type of bundles from companies like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, etc. so you’ll pay for access separately from paying for content
That’s the ESPN conundrum isn’t it? Disney drives ESPN into 102 million homes via the basic tier at $4/month each, and ties several other channels to the deal. But ESPN cumes like 25% in a month — most households never tune in, but all pay for it. Hard to improve that status quo!
If you assume most households that us ESPN would buy it a la carte, and that all others would drop it (given the choice), using households would have to pay more than $16 each for ESPN to have the same revenue. But at that level, 25% of households probably won’t buy. If your status quo is
This is the problem with bundling generally. Line item payments for bundled video take a disproportionate share of the typical household’s triple or quad play bill. If people could pay less for video, they could buy more broadband (I argue that the demise of the long distance voice market spurred a lot of broadband adoption in the 1990s, because it freed up consumer telecom spending). A lot of people don’t buy broadband because they spend too much on TV, and because it’s hard to use (for non-tech savvy households). Boxee and other innovative services/products address the ease of use part, and help build pressure for unbundling, but many of the programmers and all of the wireline MVPDs will fight to the end (obviously, this is what TV Everywhere is all about — or, as I call it, TVFees Forever.
For a different view of bundling, http://bit.ly/d7m4yb
I’m totally with you. I don’t have access to the local sports channels I want anyway. Since I DVR almost everything else, having access to channels like ESPN online would cause me to ditch cable altogether. ESPN360.com is pretty good, but if it were at the next level I’d switch.
I don’t recall Steve Jobs ever debating anyone publicly on the merits of his corporate strategies. He leads by example, not talk.
Here’s some free advice: focus your on developing delightful consumer experiences and leave the talk for those sitting in the bleacher seats.
One thing is clear about Boxee, the current product isn’t very mainstream or compelling. If your goals are more ambitious than selling a set top box to the cable companies then you better dive in and get to work because todays Boxee (and the upcoming Boxee box) aren’t revolutionary or teh future.
i think we could do both. we could engage with our users and the industry in a public discussion while we are working to improve Boxee. hopefully the on-going dialog will help both us and others to build better products and get users the content they want.
Being in the UK, I can’t get to Hulu.
Would I pay say £10 a month for an ad-free version of Hulu that I could watch in the UK?
Yes, probably.
Can I?
Nope.
And people say that it is piracy that is costing them business. We’d buy it, if we only had a decent and easy way to do so.
Oh and please pass on to the content providers that we are not totally dumb. If you offer us a worse deal that we already get through recording broadcast TV or from DVDs – ie adding in more DRM, more restrictions, less content, time-limits, limited availability – we will go elsewhere for our content, and we’ll take our money with us.
I think there are millions of users who share your pain. They want to watch the shows and are willing to pay for it. It is a real missed opportunity for many of the content owners.
Avner,
I believe your view will prevail in the long term, and hopefully that will not mean, as Keynes said, we will all be dead when it does. Perhaps my opinion is biased by my natural inclination to disagree with Mark Cuban, but the drumbeat of changing consumer preferences seems clear e.g.
- I want to watch, listen and read what I want when I want (see the impact of time shifting on TV behavior)
- Formally disparate forms of media are now inter-connected (see how internet searches, download etc. are impacted in real-time during TV broadcasts)
Cuban’s post is correct that bandwidth is and will continue to be an essential issue. As someone familiar with networking technologies and deployment economics, I am most concerned about the famous “last mile” and how very high bandwidth gets to the consumer, specifically in the States. I can think of much less productive uses of taxpayer dollars than underwriting future broadband deployments.
Jonathan
Would be great to see some serious government funding going towards broadband (for both wireless and wireline) to ensure the US is as the forefront of speed, affordability and ubiquity of Internet access. it is the utility of the 21st century and the US can not afford to lag behind.
It may have been said but there is no way to underscore the importance enough … Ala Carte! If content providers hear NOTHING from the consumer … they need to hear that! If I want to watch the SyFy channel and ONLY the SyFy channel, then you better realize that unless you provide it to me in a form that is convenient and easy to consume, yet ALSO successfully competes with other forms of entertainment, I will go elsewhere. Which I have done now for about a decade, since that is how long it has been since I owned an actual television. I used to be an anomaly, but no more. There are a lot of consumers like me and if you miss the boat TV, you will quickly find yourself trying to deal with being a price marginalized media type just like your brethren, newspapers and music. The only smart thing Jobs did was create a great music player and pay per song purchase model.
Would be great if the content owners will figure out a way to offer their content in multiple models to accommodate different consumer needs. Would be great to see more bundles as well as a-la-carte offerings. It all comes down to price and opportunity cost.
If forced into a “pay per view” scenario similar to Amazon + TiVo, I want to also download and keep my purchase for future viewing.
For example, it does not make sense to charge $2.00 for a classic Gumby episode for our 2 year old, watch it once, allow future recorded shows and movies to erase existing content stored on the hard drive, and then be forced to pay yet another $2.00 for our 2 year old to watch the same episode again. If you have a child, you will understand that he/she will want to watch the same favorite cartoons repeatedly. Buy a DVD, you say? I wish I could. Many shows are not available on DVD, only “pay per view.”
How does your product compare to TiVo?
kids programming are a classic example for content people will want to download-to-own vs. rent, for the reason you mentioned as well as for the possibility to have it on an iPod/phone, so the kid can watch it in the car/train/plane, etc.
Boxee is currently an online only experience, while TiVo primary’s focus is DVR that records traditional TV programming (though they are starting to offer more online features, too).
excuse my ignorance if these things had been discussed before.
1. the main advantage of TV over any kind of interactive content presentation is exactly that: it’s passive. people sometimes want to be passive, they want their choice to be reduced to switching channels, they want to get angry about the programming of the TV station and not always make the playlists, they want to discover something the channels scheduled without having to look for it. i doubt that this need will ever disappear.
2. another advantage of classic tv is the shared experience. people can have conversations like “hey did you see XX last night, it was a great episode”. I also doubt that the need for this type of exchange will disappear.
both points are accurate. people tend to have a pretty passive TV experience and the medium does enable watercooler conversations (though ratings has been declining since the introduction of digital cable and hundreds of channels).
the Internet is a delivery method and a platform. Boxee and others can/should enable experiences that would provide for a more passive experience. It will likely make it more appealing to a mainstream audience.
live broadcasts over the Internet are becoming popular and companies such as LiveStream, ustream and justin.tv are doing a great job in making live video streaming a big success
I couldn’t agree more about a la carte. And about the passion thing. And about paying a reasonable price for it. We turned off DirecTV several years ago, disgusted at spending $60+/month to watch a couple shows a week on the only channels we found of interest (History, A&E, etc.). I’ve told their salespeople every time they call that I want a la carte. That stops the conversation.
In addition, I adore and am involved in dog agility, equestrian sports, natural history, art, photography, and so on. Shows on any of these topics? rare to nonexistent, with the extremely occasional exception of dog agility on Animal Planet (and so commercial-interrupted as to be painful – 3 runs, then 3 commercials…). Being spoon-fed only the ‘top’ few sports of each Olympics (as defined by NBC, not by me) is another example of current providers’ pablum approach. Ugh.
I SO cannot wait for the internet and entertainment revolution to reach my TV.
We believe that people value video content and will be willing to pay for it, probably not less than what they are paying today for entertainment. In your case you may be willing to pay for a package of content that includes shows and movies related to nature.
It is a natural progression for consumption based on the possibilities offered by the medium. The industry will catch up, they have to.
There’s a difference between “TV” and “the internet” ???
Avner,
Great post, great debate; funny to see that Mark is now acting like “old media!”
I’d add that TV on the net has one additional advantage- it invites interactivity. In addition to going deep, the net empowers consumers with a voice. That voice can transform experiences like live sport (today) and new forms of video entertainment that don’t exist in conventional TV. Exciting times indeed, and go Boxee!
Drake
True. Interactive TV has been a topic for discussion for the past 20 years, without much success among consumers. I don’t believe it has failed because there is no need, I believe it failed because of the way it was implemented.
The arrival of Internet to TVs will enable many more entrepreneurs and developers to experiment with interactive offerings and I am confident some will hit the spot.
great post and again thx for the debate. Had to share an older blog post
http://blogmaverick.com/2008/05/04/the-ala-carting-of-video-on-the-net-will-it-lead-to-disaster/
Mark,
Thanks again for coming out to Austin.
Internet video does not mean everything will go a-la-carte. It is up to the content owner to decide how to package and market their content. For some, a-la-carte may work, for others it may be a terrible idea. I believe the Internet will open the door for new and creative ways to bundle and package content.
The question of whether a-la-carte works or not for content owners is a matter of pricing and rights. If a season pass for the NBA costs $169 then maybe $9.99 to watch a single game works for both consumers and the NBA?
We are still in the early days of Internet video, but it is pretty clear that an ad-only model will not work (i don’t think anybody expected it to be the exclusive model). The issue today is that even if I want to pay, most of the content is just not available.
“we are still in the early stages of internet video”. I think thats where we disagree the most. Internet video is nothing new. Its been around for more than 10 years and while bandwidth has changed, not much about internet video has changed.
Except maybe that Google is willing to subsidize most video bandwidth consumed on the net. Beyond that, its the same old story and not that compelling. There are far more exciting applications than video based entertainment.
Im with you in hoping that Android on a setup box is open. I think Boxee is a better interface for good ole fashioned , traditional tv than what the tv providers today are putting out there. you could make some real money there licensing and platforming it.
I know you think Im behind the times. I see it as the exact opposite. Internet video is ancient news. Even at our widest chasm, we still only really disagree about the business and bundling. Where is the excitement in that ?
Im way past video. Im looking for something that in 10 years I can argue is old news. just like we argue about internet video today
m
Mark,
I guess we have a different perspective regarding time. It is very often the case that there is 10-20 year gap from an initial commercial implementation of a technology to successful mass market adoption.
For example, Vocaltec released the first commercial Internet telephony service in 1995, but it was Skype that turned it to a mainstream phenomenon reaching 100M users and selling to eBay in 2005 (and there are many more such examples).
I think a better comparison would be TV in the 50s and 60s. It was a new medium and it took time for the creative and the business models to adopt.
I don’t think you’re behind the times. I actually think that you are probably in a unique position as someone that if fluent in both the Internet and the media worlds to take advantage of the new opportunities opening up by the Internet as a new medium for video.
Avner
Can we get a link to the video of the actual discussion, or maybe just an mp3 version please?
Thanks
will try to find it
Thanks, cant wait to take a look at the debate…been looking forward to it since I first got news, but the day of the debate I couldn’t find a live feed or even recorded video anywhere online…hopefully you will have better knowledge of such a source since you were actually there. Thanks again
“People want Internet on their TVs…” – I don’t think people want anything about the Internet on their TV’s other than its video content. Nobody wants to use a TV and some hacked together clunky interface to read textual websites. Devices like iPads will be the future of how this traditional content is consumed.
But I agree that there is significant potential for online video content to migrate to the TV. I already find myself consuming more short and specific Internet content than traditional TV productions.
I agree that people don’t want the Internet as it is on their laptop, they will want a version of the Internet that is designed to work in 10-foot. Similar to mobile where you have versions of Pandora, YouTube, Flixster, Yelp, etc. there will be existing services that will be ported to the 10-foot experience as well as new services that are designed with the TV in mind.
It will be more than video. It will be photos, music, games and other apps.
The amalgamation of TV and Internet is something that has been coming for a long time, but the problem has been that TV has always been such a passive medium that enacting any change requires what amounts to a pretty severe paradigm shift for the viewer and that’s not something that a lot of the TV watching public are willing to do, at least not those who have built up a sufficiently solid comfort zone. The issue is not getting the internet onto TVs, it’s how to deliver the *content* of the internet onto TVs in a way that doesn’t seem like you’re having to use a computer/web browser to do it. The key to this delivery is to use the internet as the storage ‘cloud’ and deliver the content via content-type specific apps/widgets or whatever you want to call them that integrate (as seamlessly as possible) with the viewing experience. And that’s the real challenge. I was involved in a fairly minor way with an interactive TV workshop run by the AFI back around ‘99/’00 where, at the time, a bunch of companies were trying to demonstrate their ideas for the future of “Interactive Television” and it’s not an easy task because what is being sought after is a totally new archetype but one which is also familiar enough that it won’t appear alien in nature across the widest possible audience. And that’s just where the content is involved. Once you add advertising into the mix and try and incorporate a working business model that can generate revenue from content which has, to all intents and purposes, been free up until now (not taking into account service charges) the problem becomes exponentially more complex.
Although the majority of viewers are paying for cable/satellite TV, that TV content has always been considered “free” – advertisements are the price you pay for that “free” service, but content delivered over the internet is considered by many to be “truly free” – you pay a monthly fee for your internet service so why should you have to then pay extra for the content? Additionally, because content from the internet is also considered to be “on-demand”, the inclusion of advertising is an intrusion – with “free TV” advertising is in there and there’s not much you can do about it – it’s being passively delivered (unless you’re watching on a DVR and can skip over the ads), but with TV content from the internet it’s something that you have “requested” – you’ve made a conscious decision to ask for this content and have it delivered to you, and to then have advertising included is like being forced to read junk email before you can read your actual legitimate email.
The solution, whatever that may turn out to be, is to find that perfect balance of service vs content vs commercialism vs passive experience vs interactive experience and deliver it to the consumer in a way that doesn’t turn their current world upside down but also gives those who *want* the whole “new media” experience the choices if they so desire.
The challenge comes from being able to deliver content in a fluid dynamic form and allowing the viewer to choose their model, be it passive or interactive or a mix of the two. Any paradigm shift too far in either direction will alienate the viewer at the other end of the spectrum.
The “secret sauce” is going to be that which sweetens the experience for the viewer without challenging their ability to understand and use the system, and right now that’s primarily what’s missing from most setups.
The single biggest reason I have made the switch to internet based TV is that the marketing companies have not figured it out yet.
I am willing to pay for content to keep the marketing strategies created by very smart 20 and 30 something’s out of my living room and away from my children. The knee level advertising at the supermarket is bad enough, but at least it’s not at my house.
I agree with the passive nature of Broadcast TV today. That has been the biggest switch for me as an adult with lots of hours clocked on the couch looking for something to watch. But I think I am mostly a product of my environment, my children will be adults themselves in the next 10 years and will never have had the opportunity to let the TV decide what is entertaining.
realy good
Hey Avner
I saw your debate @ SXSW and followed up with a post on our blog – thought you might want to see what one interested observer took away.
https://fivewords.mckinney.com/post/2010/03/22/the-fight-for-your-tv.aspx
Cheers,
Trevor.
“26% of online users watch TV shows online more than once a week”
I don’t believe that. I’m not going to even read the source. Maybe they see a small video clip or two but no way 26% watch full shows online once a week like they do in front of the TV.
I do agree things are moving that way though and I would love to get rid of my cable TV service (homebuilt HTPC + Boxee/XBMC + Hulu + ?). I don’t see that anytime soon though since I need local channels and local sports which are sometimes on cable sports channels (Fox Sports Net stations). I don’t really watch ESPN as much as I used to but I have to buy a medium-high tier cable package to get the local Fox Sports Net station. I wouldn’t mind seeing regular tv shows a bit after original air date but that doesn’t work for sports and news obviously.
Thanks for all the comments Avner.
Let me just say, we got a new apartment that came with basic cable. We won’t be upgrading it because I plan to have Boxee and my Xbox 360 do all the entertainment.
Netflix on Xbox 360 is probably the most bang for your buck ever, especially if you are sharing it amongst family (we have two Xboxes on our Netflix).
Add to that the extra content from Hulu/ABC/etc that Boxee provides PLUS movies/music streamed from your PC, and who’d want cable anymore?
Ideally, in the future I’d like to choose shows and just package them all up nicely so they’ll automatically download and queue when they air. Then I can just sit down and watch what I want to watch. Boxee is already getting very close to this… just needs The Soup
Mr. Cuban can say that ala-carte content is stupid, but you can’t deny that more and more people are looking for this. I know 2 people who purchased a WDTV over the holidays and they are not technically savvy. I agree, however, that bandwidth limitations will be an issue without big change to the infrastructure and growing an audience will be harder for content creators than simply pitching an idea to a network. But I don’t think it will take an infinite advertising budget. With a more guerrilla approach and conversation with your users, I still think the good stuff will rise to the top and get better over time and because of the interaction. That’s the interactive tv that I see, more back and forth between audience and creators, less “you can buy the drink the lead guy is sucking down.”
I have been in favor of a ‘a la carte’ system for a longtime. A number of years back a possible ‘bill’ was talked about for cable operators, ie: put your own program pkg together. It was quickly squashed by ‘lobbyists’.
I live in a remote area,(my choice). The only option is ’satellite’. Two years back I bought a 42 LCD and wanted the full experience of HD, so opted for satellite and a $90. monthly bill. In that time period I needed 2 recievers replaced, the main dish core and several service calls…luckily I opted for the ’service contract’.
Since the advent of ‘internet’ tech advances,(and companies like Boxee) this past month I dropped ’satellite’ and went the PC to TV route. Bought a really small outside antenna, (eBay $30.) to try. Approx 250 miles from Phoenix and 100 from Las Vegas, surrounded by hills and mountain range. I am testing the antenna on the eave of my back porch. Pulling in: 13 digital and 6 analog stations. The HD is better than satellite. My various sources now of internet-antenna options, Netflix,etc. are much more than I need. Not paying a “outrageous” monthly bill for 10 fav channels, (while 150 go “unwatched).
Also to note: my best net download speed is only about 1.2k. Because of all the tech inovation and people like Avner Ronen, my internet quality is no diff from satellite.
Most opinions are correct, TVcable-sat., will not disappear,(they provide a service). But Internet content is, (I believe) here to stay. Yes, it will be a mix of free and pay platforms, and that is fine, as the fee rate choice is much lower than the cable-satellite attitude of “take it or leave it”.
Many broadcast networks are offering their current programs from 1 day after to a week later over the internet. And that is spreading to many broadcasters.
Consider e-mailing and thanking them on doing this continued service.
I am not a younger generation ‘tech type’, just someone who wants the option of a ‘choice’. Thanks Avner-Boxee team! Desert Dingo
“26% of online users watch TV shows online more than once a week”
~Michael says: I don’t believe that. I’m not going to even read the source. Maybe they see a small video clip or two but no way 26% watch full shows online once a week like they do in front of the TV. ~
I watch ALL my shows online via Hulu and the channel sites. I’m totally with Ronen on this. It’s what the consumers want, and the providers are missing the boat.
As to Cuban’s assertion: yes, infrastructure is always a problem. But technology has a way of catching up to demand so I just don’t see his “we’ll run out of bandwidth” sky is falling scenario. That’s just a problem to be figured out. Nowhere in his argument does he talk about the consumers and what they want, and THATS what is going to dictate what happens in this space.
While finding the online movie portals there are certain things which you need to keep in mind. Firstly, you need to make sure that whether you will be watching movies legally and want to watch full length movies or not. In some of the sites, you can get free movies but that doesn’t mean that it will be illegal because the advertisements showing at the beginning of the films actually pays revenue for the site. Secondly, you can either choose from public domain movies where you can get old and classic movies, or you can get movies that have a proper license for viewing. Generally, those movies may include ads in the middle film. In all of the cases, a site may or may not allow you to watch latest movie trailers online.
[...] היום למשרד וראיתי פוסט חדש בבלוג של בוקסי, על העתיד של הטלוויזיה. כדאי לכם לקרוא אותו (זהירות, זה [...]
[...] This is Avner’s point of view:The future of TV [...]
[...] by admin on Mar.18, 2010, under TV The idea of your TV being connected to the internet has been out there for a few years, but now the concept is reality. Manufacturers are offering TVs (and Blu-ray players, for that matter) with Wi-Fi capability to take advantage of the wide variety of content on the ‘net. Learn more about where this trend is going by checking out this blog post about Why the web is TV’s future. [...]
[...] Boxee Blog » The Future of TV [...]
[...] There’s been a lot of discussion lately about the future of TV. [...]
[...] 20:58 This item was posted in Hardware, Mobile and has 0 Comments Avner Ronen / Boxee Blog:The Future of TV — On Friday I had a debate with Mark Cuban on the future of TV. We [...]
[...] This post was first published on Boxee blog. [...]
[...] debate (did you know it was a debate? I didn’t) Mark Cuban of Blog Maverick and Avner Ronen of Boxee indulged in dueling blog posts about the future of TV following a discussion that they had at the [...]
[...] March 20, 2010 by Simon The Cuban and Ronent slugfest is a public service and you should read about it here. Mark Cuban in his commentary to their SXSW debate on Avner’s blog asks what are the [...]
[...] event nor what each have posted on their respective blogs since (you can read about it here & here), but I am going to discuss what was not really said [...]
[...] via @heiko “The Future of TV” – http://blog.boxee.tv/2010/03/18/the-future-of-tv/ [...]