VideoNuze Posts

Below is the 22nd edition of the VideoNuze Report podcast, for June 26, 2009.

This week Daisy and I discuss the TV Everywhere and OnDemand Online initiative that Comcast and Time Warner unveiled this week. As I wrote in this post on Wednesday, the companies are beginning a trial in July for 5,000 Comcast subscribers, who will gain online access to a selection of TNT and TBS programs. The primary purpose of the trial is to test security of the content. The companies anticipate that other cable networks will join the trial too, and that other video service providers will begin their own trials in the near future.

In the podcast we explore further why granting cable subscribers online access is an important step forward in the evolution of the broadband video medium, and what it means to the overall ecosystem. There are a lot of unknowns about how TV Everywhere/OnDemand Online will work; Time Warner's and Comcast's CEO were candid about that. For now they released a set of "principles" to guide their pursuits. There will be much more to come on this story.

Click here to listen to the podcast (15 minutes, 27 seconds)

Click here for previous podcasts

The VideoNuze Report is available in iTunes...subscribe today!

Move Networks, the well-funded Internet television technology company which has been virtually silent for the last 60 days since acquiring Inuk Networks and bumping former CEO John Edwards to Executive Chairman, is pursuing a major repositioning. Earlier this week I met with Marcus Liassides, Inuk's former CEO and founder who joined Move's management team, who previewed the company's new strategy to be a wholesale provider of IPTV video services delivered over open broadband networks.

Broadband video industry participants know Move best for its proprietary adaptive bit rate (ABR) technology and player, which power super-high quality live and on-demand video streams for broadcasters like ABC and Fox. Move gained a lot of attention by raising over $67M, including a $46M Series C round in April '08 from blue chip investors.

Despite all this, Marcus explained that coming into 2009 Move had at least 3 significant problems, symbolic of how fluid the broadband video market remains.

First, its core business of charging content providers in the range of $.30/GB of video delivered was being pressured by the fact that advertising-only business models couldn't support this pricing. Content providers loved Move's quality; they just couldn't afford it, particularly given the alternative of plunging CDN delivery rates.

Second, Move's pricing and business model were being challenged by both Microsoft and Adobe entering the market with ABR streaming features of their own (I wrote about this here). But because both were enabled on the server side (IIS and FMS respectively), the cost of ABR moved from content providers to CDNs, who might or might not choose to charge extra for these features. Either way, Move's direct cost looked comparatively more expensive, especially as the recession pounded ad spending.

Last, but not least, Marcus explained that Move's product development approach was undisciplined, leading to resources being spread too thin in too many directions. That was reflected by the market's ongoing difficulty in categorizing which business Move was really in.

Meanwhile, U.K.-based Inuk, which had been on its own funding and product development roller-coaster, was delivering its Freewire IPTV service to about 200K university students in the UK, Ireland and Canada. Because Inuk needed to serve these students when they were off campus, it had developed a "virtual set-top box" application that duplicates on the PC the IPTV service that had traditionally been delivered via an expensive IPTV set-top box. Inuk was using Move's ABR technology to power video delivery to the PC. Recognizing potential synergies and trying to address its other issues, Move acquired Inuk in April.

Move's new positioning as a provider of IPTV video services delivered over open broadband networks essentially replicates what Inuk has been doing, except that going forward services will be offered wholesale, not retail like with Freewire. Move's strategy starts from the proposition that to get cable TV networks online requires that they be paid consistent with the norms, rather than expecting them to free and ad-supported only. It also anticipates that consumers demand not just VOD offerings, but a full linear lineup as well (as an aside, that aligns with Sezmi's thinking too). While Move will continue supporting existing customers like ABC and others, its new wholesale model is a major shift in that it uses the company's core technology to support packaged multichannel video services, instead of a la carte web-based video.

Marcus explained that Move is targeting 3 verticals: (1) telcos which haven't traditionally offered video services (or have through direct satellite partnerships), (2) broadband ISPs looking to get into the video business, and (3) existing video service providers looking for a lightweight capex approach for extending their service either for remote access (a la "TV Everywhere") or in other rooms in the house (a model which has traditionally required another set-top box and truck roll for installation).

Marcus demo'd the Freewire service to me using his PC and a large monitor, and it looks great. There's instant channel changing, HD (when available), a great looking guide and auto-DVR of every program, all in the cloud. Freewire also offers targeted advertising, and HTML-based apps like Twitter integration, etc. My caveat is that I have no idea how well the service would scale to millions of homes.

Move's new positioning puts it in the middle of tectonic video industry shifts. For example, what's the appetite of 3rd parties like telcos and ISPs for new video solutions? Will other, well-suited consumer brands like Google, Netflix, Yahoo enter the multichannel video business, and if so how? What approach will cable operators like Comcast use for emerging, "TV Everywhere" services that would benefit from Move's lightweight capex model (note Comcast said it was using Move in its 5,000 subscriber technical trial yesterday)? How will major cable TV networks expect to get compensated in the broadband era where individuals, not homes, are the new unit of measurement? How will local ISPs, over whose networks remotely-accessed video will run, expect to be compensated? It's way too early to know the answers, but if Move's technology works as intended, and its costs are reasonable, it will likely find itself in the middle of a lot of very strategic industry discussions.

Another big change is that Marcus said the company's messaging will be focused more around business cases and services than its specific technologies. That seems smart given giants like Microsoft and Adobe are closely circling these waters with lots of their own technology, which could easily swamp Move. If all this wasn't enough, Move is also in the midst of hiring a new CEO and implementing a new management team, all of which will be announced imminently. One thing Move isn't doing for now is raising additional capital, which Marcus said is not needed.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

(Note: Move Networks is a current sponsor of VideoNuze)

Nokeena Networks is announcing this morning that it has raised $6.5M from Mayfield Fund, bringing its total funding to $15M. The new funding will be used primarily for marketing and sales. Nokeena's Media Flow Director is a software appliance that combines storage, caching and network optimization to deliver high-quality video at lower cost. I noted Nokeena in my recent post about the robust ecosystem of technology companies enabling higher-quality broadband video delivery.

Today at 1:30pm EDT / 10:30am PDT, I'll be participating in a free webinar, "Demystifying Online Video Syndication." Video syndication continues to be one of the key trends in the online video market. I'll be sharing thoughts on where syndication is heading and where the main opportunities and challenges lie. We have over 500 people registered and it promises to be an exciting and educational session.

The webinar is sponsored by Grab Networks, whose co-president Marcien Jenckes will present information about its grabMediaOS solution that enables a "Create Once, Publish Anywhere" business model. Grab works with hundreds of content providers and is one of the primary players in driving the video syndication market.

If you're trying to understand the syndication opportunity and identify the right solutions to fit your needs, this webinar is for you!

Register now for this free webinar

This morning I listened in on the press conference with Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and Time Warner Inc. CEO Jeff Bewkes where they announced a 5,000 subscriber technical trial of TV Everywhere/OnDemand Online starting in July along with a set of "principles" guiding their efforts. Primarily the trial will test the security of the authentication technology.

TW will make available TNT and TBS programs in the trial, and will offer additional programs over time. Comcast plans to bring in other networks too. Both executives emphatically stated that for cable subscribers there will be no additional charge for online access. The companies clearly hope to use the trial and the publicity that will surround it to galvanize interest from other cable operators and programmers.

The partnership effectively unifies the companies' disparate initiatives so that paying video subscribers will be "authenticated" to receive certain cable network programming online. Up until now Comcast has been pursuing its own vision of online access under a plan it dubbed "OnDemand Online," while TW has been pursuing a plan it called "TV Everywhere." The essential difference between the two, as I wrote about here, was that Comcast planned to only make programs available on its owned sites (at least initially), which TW talked of multiple third parties gaining access as well, right off the bat.

I've been critical of TW's approach to date as I thought it was wildly ambitious and under-estimated the technical challenges involved in pulling off third party integration. On the other hand, Comcast's walk-before-you-run attitude seemed far more practical. On the call, Mr. Bewkes in particular continued to downplay the difficulty of authenticating third parties, a position I think is unrealistic.

Regardless, I've been supportive of the general idea that paying video subscribers gain online access to cable programs. While some decry this as antithetical to the open, free-flowing Internet ethos, and a plot by evil cable companies to control video on the 'net, I've seen it differently.

The key is finding a model that's attractive to cable programmers (e.g. MTV, USA, CNN, etc) and consumers. Programmers benefit because they'd be provided with a viable online extension of their proven hybrid (monthly affiliate fee + advertising) business model. Until now they've been largely shut out of online distribution. That's because doing so for free would antagonize their cable/satellite/telco distributors who pay them around $25B/year. And that's before the point that free, ad-supported premium sites like Hulu have not yet proven themselves economically viable. Meanwhile, aside from a la carte paid download sites like iTunes/Unbox/others there hasn't been an online subscription model available to programmers.

These are some of the real, but often not well-understood business issues. Everyone wants something-for-nothing, and the Internet has too often set those expectations. But cable programmers need to get paid for their efforts so they can continue to deliver the quality programming consumers have grown accustomed to. The newspaper industry's woes offer tangible proof of what happens to an industry when its proven business model gets stripped away.

Despite what some skeptics say, consumers also stand to gain. All that great cable programming that's been locked to the set-top box in the home would now be available online. It sort of like cable's version of on demand Sling, but without any upfront or monthly charge (at least that's what we're hearing for now).

With TV Everywhere/OnDemand Online, Comcast and Time Warner are taking a solid step forward in delivering more value to their subscribers who increasingly live their lives online. Now they need to tamp down the hype and just focus on executing in a logical, user-friendly way.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Netflix and its CEO Reed Hastings are profiled in today's WSJ ("Netflix Boss Plots Life After the DVD"). Hastings offers a frank assessment of the where the DVD business stands, suggesting that as soon as four years from now DVDs-by-mail will start to decline. He notes however that DVDs will still be around in 20 years.

The article underscores Netflix's challenges in obtaining Hollywood movies for its Watch Instantly service. This is no surprise given the strict "windowing" business model Hollywood employs, along with its desire to preserve its DVD revenues as long as possible. In fact, last November, in this post, I acknowledged this as an obstacle unlikely to be resolved any time soon, and instead recommended that Netflix beef up its network TV offerings. Doing so would have a lot of upside as a high-quality VOD service that would generate immediate revenues for broadcasters.

The article also explores Netflix's aborted effort to build its own set-top box for its subscribers to receive streaming video. Hastings admits that he "fell in love with building boxes" in an attempt to emulate Apple's hardware-content delivery model. Eventually logic prevailed and practically on the eve of the box's launch Netflix pulled the plug and spun the project off to Roku, in which it made a $6M investment. While it was confusing to outsiders, it was the right move. Going into the box business seems like it would have been an example of "undisciplined pursuit of more," the second stage of the framework Jim Collins outlines in his new book, "How the Mighty Fall."

Netflix has an interesting road ahead of it, as it tries to transform itself from a hugely successful DVD rent-by mail company to an online deliverer of digital media. Hastings sizes up Netflix's odds saying "Almost no companies succeed at what we're doing." Despite his sobering tone, it's encouraging that he understands the significance of the challenges ahead. The question I continue to have is whether Netflix will ultimately tackle these challenges independently or as part of a larger entity (VideoNuze readers will recall my final prediction for 2009 - that Microsoft will acquire Netflix). One way or another Netflix is going to be a key player for some time to come.

What do you think? Post a comment now.

Brightcove and Qik are announcing a partnership this morning that further fuses the broadband and mobile video worlds. Under the partnership Qik users will be able to distribute their mobile-recorded video through Brightcove players if they have a Brightcove account. For Brightcove customers the deal will enables mobile recording as a new source of video into their catalogs.

Qik's client is one of a number of options for mobile video recording and uploading. As I wrote yesterday regarding the iPhone's new video recording capabilities, mobile video capture (and eventually full-featured editing) is poised to become a big activity, implying that few spontaneous significant live events will go unrecorded. We will see additional partnerships like Qik-Brightcove as mobile recording becomes a key source for content providers distributing video over both broadband and mobile.

After reading many different reviews over the weekend of the just-released iPhone 3G S, it's hard not to conclude that this device is going to be a serious catalyst for mobile video recording and consumption. Since I don't have an iPhone 3G S myself (I'm a Verizon subscriber), I've been relating to the iPhone phenomenon through friends and from what I've read.

Specifically, the iPhone 3G S is poised to push user-generated video content to a new level, as Daisy first explained on our podcast a week and a half ago. That's because, as reviews at TechCrunch, Business Insider and others have pointed out, the iPhone 3G S dramatically improves the convenience of the mobile video experience that Flip and other video cameras have pioneered. Certainly the biggest benefit is that iPhone 3G S owners will effectively have a low-end Flip in their pockets at all times, meaning they're ready to shoot video whenever they want, not just when they remembered to bring along their video camera.

I can relate to this because about 6 months ago I bought a Creative VadoHD video camera (basically a cheaper, somewhat more powerful version of the Flip MinoHD). It's a nifty little device, except for weak zoom and a lousy mic. But the big problem is that I never seem to have it with me at the spontaneous moment I want to shoot video. In other words, like my digital camera, it hasn't broken into the keys/wallet/cell phone must-have-when-leaving-the-house checklist. Nor do I expect it ever will.

To the contrary, iPhone 3G S owners will become conditioned to always having video capability with them. And because the iPhone 3G S is a connected device (unlike Flip, Vado or others), you can upload your videos immediately, to YouTube, of course (and with YouTube's AutoShare feature those videos can now be distributed to Facebook and Twitter as well). The iPhone 3G S comes with video editing on the device, allowing you to instantly share just what you want. Simply put, having robust video recording and editing subsumed into a cell phone/smartphone is huge.

Of course the iPhone 3G S isn't perfect, nor is it for everyone. The biggest hurdle is that you need to be an AT&T subscriber, which rules out a big chunk of the market, unless you're ready to switch. iPhone 3G S video is SD-only for now vs. widespread HD-quality on Flips and others (though that will no doubt change soon enough). Actual battery life is still uncertain, and I for one continue to wonder how willing people will be to risk draining their batteries shooting and watching video.

Still the iPhone 3G S brings us closer to a world where no significant spontaneous event will ever go unrecorded. Things like emergency airplane landings and instances of police brutality will have a much higher chance of being captured in the future. That makes me think about what role iPhone 3G S and other video-enabled smartphone users can have in the traditional news gathering process? How can they tap into this energy to reinvent their own models? We've already seen the success CNN is having with its iReports. What's next, as news gatherers evolve to the instantaneous mobile video world?

The iPhone continues to set the bar in mobile video. But with other smartphones from Palm, Blackberry and Google being introduced, there is much more innovation still ahead. For sure we are moving into an era when mobile recording and playback is going to become commonplace.

What do you think? Post a comment now.