Page 1 / 2   >   >>
DOShea 11/27/2013 | 10:28:05 AM
Licensing How are giant companies like Intel and Microsoft getting this far into OTT ventures without realizing the abomination of content licensing economics? They might want to have someone at least monitor the industry headlines before they invest hundreds of millions in this kind of thing.
KBode 11/27/2013 | 10:41:04 AM
Re: Licensing Agreed. In early press statements they were so certain that THEY would be the ones to break the content licensing logjam that companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft and many others could not. I remember statements suggesting that those companies failed because they simply weren't smart or aggressive enough, not that the entire licensing field is rigged specifically to prevent these kinds of disruptive solutions from coming to market.

The $500 million price tag certainly seems ambitious.
craigleddy 11/27/2013 | 11:09:36 AM
Re: Licensing It's astonishing, isn't it? How many times will Silicon Valley companies try to conquer television, only to get their heads handed to them? Intel did a lot of things right but the economics of TV content are an obvious obstacle. 
Carol Wilson 11/27/2013 | 12:23:32 PM
Re: Licensing So Craig, you missed a great revenue opportunity. You could be advising Silicon Valley giants to stay as far away from video entertainment as possible and saving them millions in the process. 

Come to think of it, I could have done the same thing...me or anyone of several dozen folks I can name. 
Liz Greenberg 11/27/2013 | 1:54:51 PM
Re: Licensing Meanwhile we are still stuck with cable companies etc. who force us to pay for extra unwanted channels just so that we can see the few channels that we can't find on the internet.  It would be wonderful if we could only get the content providers to open their thinking and sell to Intel, Microsoft, Apple, and anybody else who wants to distribute their content!
bosco_pcs 11/27/2013 | 1:55:41 PM
Re: Licensing Maybe one shouldn't broadside SV when Intel's track record in branching out is not so pristine, to put it diplomatically. Its management is great in operational excellence, but innovations and out-of-the-box thinking? Readers can be their own judge
Carol Wilson 11/27/2013 | 2:17:19 PM
Re: Licensing The content guys are too addicted to the money they make from the big deals with cable and IPTV players - in many respects, it's the content folks driving these megachannel lineups. You can't get ESPN without also getting their 16 other channels. 

So I put some of the blame for the current bloated systems on the greed of the content folks as well. 
Liz Greenberg 11/27/2013 | 2:23:47 PM
Re: Licensing You are right...if only they would value they actual consumer of the content!  Although sports fans probably don't mind getting all 16 channels of ESPN but they probably do mind that the only way to get some channels is to go through the right ISP!
Carol Wilson 11/27/2013 | 2:25:47 PM
Re: Licensing Sports fans are probably not the best example because live sports drives up the cost of everything for everyone, even those who, for reasons I can't fathom, don't pay any attention to sports. 

But your point is well-taken. Even sports fans wind up paying more because they can't get just the channels they want, they have to get what the content provider wants to sell. 
Liz Greenberg 11/27/2013 | 4:13:32 PM
Re: Licensing Exatly Carol, why should non-sports fans pay for sports fans and vice-vera.  A la carte service is really the solution to the problem but it seems that cable, satellite and any other TV providers a loathe to give that choice to customers.  It seems as if they would rather people go to services like Netflix or Hulu instead.  A potential revenue losing proposition if you ask me.  The younger generation is more tied to the internet than TV so it would seem that the writing is on the wall, the only question is how long.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Sign In