| 1:13 pm on Apr 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Google is going to have the same problem MS has.. no "one" brand to compete against i*.* I prefer zune myself since it works great on devices i already have and i can chose to sync or stream in qualities from 480p to 1080p with 5.1 surround sound. Is it going to be google music, youtube tv so on and so forth?
| 1:20 pm on Apr 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I believe this is just the beginning of a much broader movement by Google into TV. There are things happening with YouTube that run parallel with Google TV. Keep an eye on GTV, there's a bit going on there that isn't being discussed yet. ;)
| 1:33 pm on Apr 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Does that mean YouTube will drastically improve its stream quality or is this a hoax? YouTube has by far the worst streaming around. If I were to stream a brand new movie to my house instead of go to the theaters, I would want to do it via Netflix not Youtube.
| 1:34 pm on Apr 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Agree with various posters on the wrap .."service not available in your country"..meh..and yet if it was ..I'd pay $50.oo a month for English language movies and TV series streamed on demand to France..
Would you believe we are on episode on of House season 6..and a huge number of movies, and TV series never make it to Cinemas or BR or HD TV ..in France..or if they do, are badly translated..and / or not available in English anyway ..or very very late..even on BR ..same goes for PC and console games even the "huge" ones ..lots are "bad translations only"..unavailable in English..
And the UK amazon doesn't carry all the BR "region2" material available in the USA "region1"..and sometimes won't ship it to us even when they have it ! and "region free" players are not easy to find.
[edited by: Leosghost at 1:38 pm (utc) on Apr 26, 2011]
| 1:35 pm on Apr 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I don't think Google is going to get this market without a fight, Bryan. Netflix reportedly added 3.3 million subscribers in the United States in three months’ time. This is from today's NYT:
But, yeah. Good luck to Netflix. They are going to need it. It's going to be a battle. But, they know it...
|So far, Netflix is the only major player in the online-only video subscription business, but others are playing catch-up. Some cable and satellite operators are bragging about their own video streaming options: last week, for instance, when the Dish Network introduced HBO’s streaming service, HBO Go, it promoted movies that were “not offered by Netflix’s online service.” HBO Go requires an existing subscription to HBO through a cable or satellite operator, so Netflix does not consider it a direct competitor. |
|Netflix wrote to shareholders on Monday, “Our competitive strategy relative to other streaming services is simply to grow as fast as we can, so we can afford more content, more marketing, and more R&D than our competitors.” |
| 2:34 pm on Apr 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
YouTube's new VOD won't compete directly with NetFlix or HuluPlus because it offers one-off movie purchases just as I-Tunes and Amazon do. No subscription fees here.
I think Mark Cuban sums it up pretty well in the associated article on his blog comments on YouTube: NetFlix et all are moving very fast and NetFlix and Amazon VOD are already on pretty much every piece of streaming internet hardware you can find.
If you have Roku Box or AppleTV or even a wi-fi/internet enabled TV or Blu-ray player you can see how the competition is lining up. Amazon/NetFlix are already on your "desktop". YouTube is too, but for the moment it's not clear if the VOD service will be active on those devices. It would not be too smart to miss that opportunity, but worse has happened.
Google TV and Boxee Box operate in a slightly different universe (think tv web browsers with proprietary channels) and their $250+ price point ensure that they will have a much smaller installed base than the $100 or less Roku box and AppleTV (think proprietary channels).
Personally, I think YouTube will quickly gain traction as a way to watch recently released movies for people who want to watch one or two movies a month but don't want to pay a monthly netflix, HuluPlus or amazon Prime subscription. In that case they will just compete with Itunes and Amazon VOD. YouTube will have better demographics than Amazon for this service, but a less substantial offering. In the event that YouTube can match its offering, then ITunes will feel the most pressure from this announcement as they are not in the mainstream hardware desktops and they don't yet have any channels to offer developers for AppleTV. So AppleTVs next release will be critical, and it can no longer be seen by Steve Jobs as a hobby if he wants to continue to play in the big leagues.
| 4:40 pm on Apr 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Good analysis. They are different markets. I'm taking the longer view, however, where they will both be going after the audience of the other. They are all competing for not just comsumers' eyeballs, but consumers' time.
|YouTube's new VOD won't compete directly with NetFlix or HuluPlus because it offers one-off movie purchases just as I-Tunes and Amazon do. No subscription fees here. |
Meanwhile, soon there will be a "Law & Order" channel and a NFL channel. That is to say, the brand will be the content and the content will be the brand. "Channels? We don't need no stinkn' channels," the NFL will soon say. (But, the Super Bowl will be on broadcast for a long time to come.)
Yup. Apple has been on the bleeding edge regarding TV. First, too much too soon, now too little too late. But, that's the game now.
|So AppleTVs next release will be critical, and it can no longer be seen by Steve Jobs as a hobby if he wants to continue to play in the big leagues. |
| 6:41 pm on Apr 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Fast forward to a world without fast forward...
Movies are not the big prize here - it's who controls personalised TV advertising.
I'd put money on TV/STB hardware enforcing advert watching (no way to fast forward even on recordings, due to having to use a given set top box) which is streamed (although the programming might not be streamed - still broadcast) based on what the ad network knows about you (that's likely to be Google). The power of TV advertising could be increased hugely by personalisation (and hence cost to advertisers) - probably to such a degree that TV subscriptions (where they exist) fade away to be re-replaced by advertiser supported channels.
People love "free" - the willingness of the majority to forego privacy (and some of their time) in exchange for premium programming at no "cost" will shape the future of television, regardless of the delivery mechanism.
| 2:36 am on Apr 27, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|a welcome new revenue stream for Hollywood as home entertainment revenues continue their steep decline. |
Where is the new revenue going to come from? Are the studios anticipating that this will result in people consuming MORE media? How much more media can people consume? Maybe it will be more licensing revenues for the studios and less margin each of the "streamers"? What content producer makes more money when they cuddle up with Google aside from the small YouTube content producers?
| 9:20 am on Apr 27, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Where is the new revenue going to come from? |
Many people today pay a cable company for their media. Fast Forward only 5 years and we can imagine a world where most people consume media without the container (e.g. DVD, VHS) and it is streamed or downloaded from somewhere without the cable middleman, or with a cheaper middleman (the streamers). Maybe people will consume more paid media at home when it costs $2 or $3 rather than $15 or $20. People under 30 already laugh at me for buying blu-ray discs, DVDs or CDs...say I'm old fashioned and stuff! I wish I could still buy a double album and read the liner notes for an hour while I listen!
Today online video revenue for free streaming sites comes from in-video ads (like Hulu) or from on page ads (like AdSense or other traditional banner type ads), but that revenue is pretty small compared to what you get for VOD or paid downloads. So I imagine it will soon be more like cable, subscription fee with Pay Per View for recent release movies, or in some cases just Pay Per View.
Hollywood is better off with more competing streaming services (Yahoo, Amazon, NetFlix, ITunes) because then the margins of those services will fall as they compete to sign deals with the major studios. How can the streaming services differentiate themselves? Distribution (here that means which hardware platforms are they on), product offering, including what is their free offer and what else does their site offer to make VOD an impulse purchase? So here NetFlix's only advantage is their vast offering. Amazon and YouTube are everywhere that NetFlix is and YouTube has the biggest free offering, even if it is often quirky...So this will get interesting, and cheaper for us and less profitable for the streamers.
| 2:23 am on Apr 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I don't think I've seen the economics and marketing laid out as clearly and simply as by sundaridevi here. What's interesting is to make streaming pay, it's going to have to scale. $1 downloads are only attractive if you have a LOT of downloads. What is a lot? For me, a million. For the kid next door, a hundred. For General Electric or Apple, I look like the kid next door. Yet, as they get bigger, the streamer undercut their own market as they are driving prices down to make more sales. Everyone here with a retail site knows this. The world has seen this with iTunes. And Walmart.
|Today online video revenue for free streaming sites comes from in-video ads (like Hulu) or from on page ads (like AdSense or other traditional banner type ads), but that revenue is pretty small compared to what you get for VOD or paid downloads. |
There are issue here for the arts and culture. Does our society require the potential of super-dupe huge fame and fortune to create the Beatles? Nothing in the past would indicate that to be necessary. Indeed, perhaps the late 20th Century was unusual in its huge cultural brands. I'm talking about Tide soap and the Rolling Stones, both. Maybe those of us building the web, especially the independent web, have been a part of all of that unwinding, slowly...
We'll still have the people talented as the Stones, but more than ever we are going to have to use our own judgment to find them.
Is Tide really a good soap?
| 2:14 pm on Apr 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|There are issue here for the arts and culture. Does our society require the potential of super-dupe huge fame and fortune to create the Beatles? Nothing in the past would indicate that to be necessary. Indeed, perhaps the late 20th Century was unusual in its huge cultural brands. I'm talking about Tide soap and the Rolling Stones, both. Maybe those of us building the web, especially the independent web, have been a part of all of that unwinding, slowly... |
We'll still have the people talented as the Stones, but more than ever we are going to have to use our own judgment to find them.
I love this statement. Radio and media made groups like the Rolling Stones. There were surely other bands as good or better that never went anywhere. What I like about what you said is that it means websites/communities will have their own micro-stars. I guess like some hotels are famous on TripAdvisor, but outside of that community nobody would ever care about them.
| 3:17 pm on May 2, 2011 (gmt 0)|
People under 30 already laugh at me for buying blu-ray discs, DVDs or CDs...say I'm old fashioned and stuff!
because you like to own a physical copy of something that you can play back at anytime anywhere?
streams are handy but lets not get foolish here, you don't own a stream or have your own copy of it, and when you aren't online whoops, or when you get close to your data cap that the cable/DSL companies are now enforcing, ouch.
streaming media is heading to an early grave.
| 9:04 pm on May 2, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|because you like to own a physical copy of something that you can play back at anytime anywhere? |
Physical copy of something I can rip or resell ... plus impress babes with a library of something they don't often see ! [careful on the rebuttal! Let's call it the modern stamp collection]
Sorry to disagree, but streaming media ain't goin' nowhere, nohow, anytime soon. Free streams? Maybe a different story. I'm waiting for the day when archive.org melts down. LOL
In 1994 I got a client on email and he laughed and said, "Well I'll do it because I can see that it has some advantages over faxes, but I remember when everybody was talking about CB Radio"
| 10:05 pm on May 2, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|streaming media is heading to an early grave |
I would say it is headed in the opposite direction.
I'm not sure how else one can deliver live events over the web.
Recordings are sooooo last week.
| 3:06 pm on May 6, 2011 (gmt 0)|
try to use netflix on a regular basis with a data cap. The same ISP's that want you to BUY from them don't want you going around the system and streaming for cheaper or free..... hence [DATA CAPS]
Physical copy of something I can rip or resell
don't think you can't rip a stream.
| 3:19 pm on May 6, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|don't think you can't rip a stream. |
you can ..on both linux and windows ..probably on mac too
| 6:43 pm on May 6, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I didn't mean
"I don't think" i meant - don't think it is not possible to rip a stream.
streaming is great, but with all the data caps ISPs are now tossing on everyone it just can't keep growing like it has.
You stream a few HD netflix movies and you are at your cap for the MONTH within a few DAYS.
Are they going to start charging me by the hour again? haah *gasp*
| 7:35 pm on May 6, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Sorry I was misreading and "chewing gum" at the same time, need to get that down ;-)
No data caps here..but the choice of what is streamed isn't as good without VPS
| 11:12 pm on May 6, 2011 (gmt 0)|
250GB is what seems broadband and DSL are enforcing around here.... 57% of the US is now data capped, im sure 50% of them don't even know it.
I bet some users in this thread are capped and don't even know it.
| 1:10 am on Jul 1, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I watch every new trailer of new movies on Your Tube. This is the best and amazing source.
[edited by: goodroi at 1:33 am (utc) on Jul 1, 2011]
[edit reason] Please no urls [/edit]