The problem is, and always has been, on the content side.
Most people in the mainstream still want to spend their time watching mainstream shows - and no mainstream US-based content holder is interested in offering internet-based streaming of their TV channels (as a live stream of the live broadcast). If they were, they would have done so already.
Case in point: There is no Comfast Xfinity or Dish style subscription that is online only that doesn't require a cable box or dish as your primary source of reception. I'm sure everyone on Hacker News would love to subscribe such a service but the rights holders are having none of it.
What's stopping these companies is not that they can't push the bits but that they want to protect their existing investments and not find themselves in a commoditized and highly competitive market with many players.
Comcast in most markets has no competition for cable, Dish has no competition. They don't want to race to the bottom and compete with upstart startups that we might be running - so they're playing hard ball with the rights holders (or they are the rights holders too - Comcast owns NBC) and having none of it.
I like Bram, I like this technology and I think there are lots of awesome things we (away from mainstream) can do with it.
But it won't kill TV because the majority of people want mainstream content. And that's going to sit on TV (in some form) for some time to come.
There is a reason that Apple (not Napster) killed the physical CD. To digitize the TV distribution network we need someone with the legal team to properly negotiate these licenses. BitTorrent is already here, it already distributes TV and the networks will never use it.
The future of TV first involves someone like Apple or Google working with the content providers and the ISPs to provide a solution that everyone can agree with (probably with DRM). This is what happened with music, it will happen again with TV.
What his really provides is a way for two generations from now to steam media, but it's dilusional to think that this technology is what people will be using that far into the future.
"The future of TV first involves someone like Apple or Google working with the content providers and the ISPs to provide a solution"
Won't happen. The music industry handed, well, the music industry to Apple on a plate. The wider media watched, learned and face slapped.
Apple and Google are far too powerful for the media to hand any more of that kind of control to. Watch how Google really is struggling to get industry partnership with Google Music.
With Hulu we saw major players (NBC, ABC and Fox) come together and build out a solution themselves.
My guess is that any future internet-based "TV subscription service" will come from a similar joint venture. The technology isn't that difficult so why hand over the keys to a 3rd party when they can own things themselves?
My personal aspiration is that the %age of the population who want to buy tv subscriptions (by whatever medium - cable, dish, internet) will actually decrease and the power will shift away from the existing incumbents simply providing the same service over a new medium but to actually something radically different.
Google should just put more focus on their artist hub, and promote that. They should promote the decentralized of the music industry and indie artists, and not beg for scraps from the big labels.
As a GOOG holder, I fear that isn't a big enough addressable market to make it worth while.
My personal view on this is that if Google can't get first citizen rights with the music industry like Apple and Amazon have, then they should focus entirely on having a strong music locker service which supports user's "grey" music (ie who knows, who cares where the mp3 came from).
This would then add massive value to owning Android (which I do, and the cloud-based Google Music is a killer app). Google Music is not available on Apple, I don't believe.
And thanks to DRM, the TV industry will also give all the power to Apple or Google, just like the music industry did, and how the book publishers gave it to Amazon.
> Case in point: There is no Comfast Xfinity or Dish style subscription that is online only that doesn't require a cable box or dish as your primary source of reception.
But certain content owners are catering to the internet only crowd. Check out the NHL's Gamecenter Live offering. Sure it's on the pricey side (like most on-demand sporting content), but it actually goes beyond simple streaming and makes use of the richness of the platform with customizable PiP, pause, rewind and a visual break down of the timeline of the game with goals, penalties, other noteworthy events highlighted by a small timeline at the bottom of the viewer. It's pretty slick... when it works (reliability is still an issue) and they went ahead and implemented region based blackouts that really don't translate well to the watch anywhere - anytime pitch of the product.
The NHL is a great example. We carried their games as streaming for years (until Akamai purchased the company that was reselling us), allowing you to listen to every single game, everywhere in North America, every game day. It was like NFL's season tickets on DirectTV, but for hockey. Fans love that.
The content owners who realize they can market mass audience content through traditional "channels" while also marketing niche content at a premium through direct "over the top" streaming, and that the niche offering does not cannibalize the mainstream offering, are showing the way. NHL's less popular games, Champs car racing multiple cameras, Tour de France full coverage -- all these offer the die hard fan something more than they can get on TV, so the fans go for both.
We had fun working in the late 90's with the World Wrestling Federation whose shows were popular enough the cable companies wouldn't drop them even if they were made available as streaming. A given PPV was priced the same on cable and on Internet, meaning the only people who bought it from us were the people who couldn't get it on their cable system. The lift was significant and more than paid for production and bandwidth, back when bandwidth cost 100x what it does today.
Over the top can be a massive revenue driver when used to supplement or support your TV offering. Here's hoping more rights holders at least get the idea they can have tiers of content released appropriately.
Most people in the mainstream still want to spend their time watching mainstream shows - and no mainstream US-based content holder is interested in offering internet-based streaming of their TV channels (as a live stream of the live broadcast). If they were, they would have done so already.
[this just launched today, and read the cavets: http://allthingsd.com/20120213/barry-diller-gets-into-the-co...]
Case in point: There is no Comfast Xfinity or Dish style subscription that is online only that doesn't require a cable box or dish as your primary source of reception. I'm sure everyone on Hacker News would love to subscribe such a service but the rights holders are having none of it.
What's stopping these companies is not that they can't push the bits but that they want to protect their existing investments and not find themselves in a commoditized and highly competitive market with many players.
Comcast in most markets has no competition for cable, Dish has no competition. They don't want to race to the bottom and compete with upstart startups that we might be running - so they're playing hard ball with the rights holders (or they are the rights holders too - Comcast owns NBC) and having none of it.
I like Bram, I like this technology and I think there are lots of awesome things we (away from mainstream) can do with it.
But it won't kill TV because the majority of people want mainstream content. And that's going to sit on TV (in some form) for some time to come.