<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>
MorningWd 12/5/2012 | 3:57:38 AM
re: Cuban Won't Stream HDNet Cuban states that he wouldn't stream HD because he doesn't control the end user experience. I agree that this would be the case in streaming such as what Disney announced the other day (which I don't think will work because of the QoS issues mentioned in this article). What I would point out is that the article paints the picture as if Cuban is saying that he wouldn't allow HDnet over IPTV. IPTV is a closed solution that does control the user experience through last mile QoS. QoS is why carriers need to create different service levels for the different traffic types. If the end-user experience was not satisfactory, no true broadband application would succeed.
danielsk 12/5/2012 | 3:57:35 AM
re: Cuban Won't Stream HDNet Caveat though, IPTV needs to really work on the MPEG4 tolerance to packet loss in even a closed IP network. Stick to the highspeed 100 mbps pipes for now.
whyiswhy 12/5/2012 | 3:57:33 AM
re: Cuban Won't Stream HDNet Cool dude:

I say there's a ton of old movies that would generate nice revenue from a cheap device in NRT...for $1.99 each. And it does not have to be HDTV, but it could be. And it does not have to use big pipes, but it could. And it does not have to be RT, but it could. All in time.

Timing is everything. So is strategy.

They call it IPOD.

CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:57:30 AM
re: Cuban Won't Stream HDNet Why-

8 track tapes had at least a good 8 years, but is now historically are looked at as an inferior technical gimmick. IMO, video with a 1 degree field of view and sub-DVD quality pixels will go the same way.

Lots of companies made good money on 8 tracks and I don't begrudge them one bit. Lots of money can be made on technical fads and fads can be appropriately evolved into tools that stand the test of time.

Historically, low quality display of high quality content will be viewed as a fad and a compromise- Do you really want argue against this? iPods are great for music because their technical capability is passable and the portability makes them easy to integrate into a multitasking world. Good movies and other premium video are not meant for multitasking- they are meant for immersion. TV shows that are not especially visually stimulating are fine to watch (actually most consumption is actually listening to these shows) using a small pixelated screen.

But again, I'm a HD elistist. It used to be that AM radio was "fine" quality for listening to music.

Timing and strategy is not everything to me. Selling something to someone you will know will end up with "buyers remorse" may make you rich, but it lacks integrity. Sony is recognizing this and there is talk of pulling the plug on the UMD format movies for PSP. IPod Video quality is embarrassing bad when compared to PSP.
Portable 6-9" DVD players are doing much better than either iPod or PSP. Laptop PCs with DVD do better still.

Premium video is intended for the largest and best video display in the theater or in the home theater. Everything else is curently a very significant compromise.

Scott Raynovich 12/5/2012 | 3:57:27 AM
re: Cuban Won't Stream HDNet Let me toss something out here:

Isn't the whole concept of HDNET kinda silly? It's like when they came out with color TVs, you would declare yourself the "Color TV Channel."

HD is just a technology, not a content vertical. Folks like NBC and ESPN will just port their content to the next level of HD. If Cuban is smart he will focus on content in niche and growing areas like Spanish-language programming and organic farming -- where nobody has anything. Rerunning footage of swimsuits models at Best Buy has its novelty right now, but as soon as HBO, ESPN, and MTV have their own HD content it won't matter anymore.

DCITDave 12/5/2012 | 3:57:25 AM
re: Cuban Won't Stream HDNet yer looking at it from a content pov, boss.

cuban's genius at broadcast.com wasn't the content -- it was in being the first, and exclusive, distributor in a new medium. that's how he locked the NBA for the Internet broadcasting rights to all their games for so long.

HDNet, because it's only available in HD, is Cuban's way of getting a channel picked up by all the Dish providers, and most of the cable guys and lots of IOCs. It's distribution.

He'll make more money off sending around cheap and the cheerful HD shows he does originate than we can imagine simply because it's the only game in town.

But, when HDNet ceases to be the only game in town, his pull with the mavericks and some movie distributors will mean he'll go back to locking up exclusive distribution deals again. and he'll make another billion or so on that.

not that i'm jealous or anything.

sunra 12/5/2012 | 3:57:24 AM
re: Cuban Won't Stream HDNet Umm Scott, HBO and ESPN already have HD channels. While HDNet isn't ecactly offering cutting edge programing it has more than bug shows: NHL games which are way cool in HD, plus a limitied but eclectic selection of movies in HD. People with HD displays are dying for something to watch, and with only about 5 non-premium HD channels HDNet is filling a void.
Scott Raynovich 12/5/2012 | 3:57:24 AM
re: Cuban Won't Stream HDNet Yeah I dunno. Broadcast.com.. as far as I can tell... went NOWHERE! Plus, the stock picks on his blog really suck.

He does know how to run a Basketball franchise, that's for sure. Maybe he's going to try to do the Ted Turner thing.. use the sports franchise to leverage his media empire.

Scott Raynovich 12/5/2012 | 3:57:24 AM
re: Cuban Won't Stream HDNet Yeah I get ESPN HD. But from what I've heard from the HD geeks, it's not "real" HD (like half resolution). And not all the programming on ESPN HD is full size.

What I'm saying is at some point in time, probably in the next 3 years, everybody's programming will just be in HD and that will no longer be a point of differentiation. I mean, really, it's just the type of camera and transport you are using!
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:57:23 AM
re: Cuban Won't Stream HDNet Scott,

HD will come across the Internet and for now, it does not have to be realtime streamed.

If most of the value from the content is the visual stimulation, that is, the intent of HD, then compromises on streaming or display quality are just defeating the whole purpose.

LRTV would need to film in Hawaii or actually show vendors equipment close up before I would start desiring HD content from you guys.

As you are, the lower resolution is actually quite flattering ;)

<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>
Sign In