Disclaimer: I work for a IPTV provider currently although my job doesn't relate to it directly... my past departments however saw me developing IPTV applications and working to "enhance the viewer experience" so I feel I have a good understanding of what this article is reaching for.
Essentially the problem is that people want TV...
(A) Now.
(B) As frequently as they want and
(C) at a low cost.
Its the issue that providers CAN'T offer all these things because of massive hardware/delivery demands that it would require as well as the fun of dealing with copyright and licensing issues from content providers (tl;dr - They suck at negotiation because they essentially hold all the cards).
What IPTV providers are starting to realize is that they wont win the game with Breaking Bad or Workaholics. Those things are provided over the top regardless of whether they want it to be or not. The focus is towards "Live" TV with an enhanced experience. When a viewer can watch the game live on their TV with an app overlay providing realtime statistic updates for whichever player the viewer has selected as their "favorite" the IPTV provider wins. You can't get that online as easily. (Think fantasy league + TV)
TV is a losing game for many providers because they're playing the middle man where its no longer needed. The providers need to provide a unique service that the rival over-the-top content providers cannot in order to stay relevant.
> Ergen noted that a $7.99 subscription to Netflix might not be as attractive if the cost of broadband increases. If broadband goes up $20, that’s the equivalent of a $27.99 service, he argued, which is something streaming video providers can’t control.
This is silly. Everyone is going to have a broadband internet connection, regardless of whether they get Netflix, Cable, or no TV.
“One reason our premium business is down is… when someone can buy Netflix for $7.99, do they really want to pay $14.99 for HBO? And so when people look at their pocketbooks, obviously, every time somebody subscribes to Netflix, it’s probably 1/2 of a customer that our industry loses from a premium perspective,” Ergen said.
Those aren't even competing services. Every time someone signs up for cable, they ask themselves, "Do I want to pay $14.99 for HBO?" It's an add-on for cable, and it'd be an add-on for online viewing, too. IF they offered it, that is. If they don't offer it, it's not the viewers' fault for not choosing it.
They are competing services. You can really only watch one TV show at a time, so HBO is necessarily in competition with every other thing you could be watching right now.
Heck, HBO is also in competition with Call of Duty, Carcassonne, and Canondale, to varying extents.
4 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 21.3 ms ] threadEssentially the problem is that people want TV... (A) Now. (B) As frequently as they want and (C) at a low cost.
Its the issue that providers CAN'T offer all these things because of massive hardware/delivery demands that it would require as well as the fun of dealing with copyright and licensing issues from content providers (tl;dr - They suck at negotiation because they essentially hold all the cards).
What IPTV providers are starting to realize is that they wont win the game with Breaking Bad or Workaholics. Those things are provided over the top regardless of whether they want it to be or not. The focus is towards "Live" TV with an enhanced experience. When a viewer can watch the game live on their TV with an app overlay providing realtime statistic updates for whichever player the viewer has selected as their "favorite" the IPTV provider wins. You can't get that online as easily. (Think fantasy league + TV)
TV is a losing game for many providers because they're playing the middle man where its no longer needed. The providers need to provide a unique service that the rival over-the-top content providers cannot in order to stay relevant.
This is silly. Everyone is going to have a broadband internet connection, regardless of whether they get Netflix, Cable, or no TV.
Those aren't even competing services. Every time someone signs up for cable, they ask themselves, "Do I want to pay $14.99 for HBO?" It's an add-on for cable, and it'd be an add-on for online viewing, too. IF they offered it, that is. If they don't offer it, it's not the viewers' fault for not choosing it.
Heck, HBO is also in competition with Call of Duty, Carcassonne, and Canondale, to varying extents.