Technology360

I Want My FrontRow-on-TV

Om Malik writes:  "Apple’s recent hardware announcements including Video iPod have caused a stir, but in reality it is Front Row software that should be getting all the headlines. While not as expansive as Microsoft’s Media Center platform, Front Row has the potential of easing us into the computer-television convergence. I think for those of us who are not early adopters, FrontRow is all about baby steps, while Media Center is for the do-it-yourself crowd.  ...¶... Front Row ... is a piece of software that runs on the new iMacs, and when fired-up gives an easy access to Music, Photos, Videos and DVDs and Video Podcasts. A little hackery could give us access to movies we have ripped as well. You can control these with the new Apple Remote. Such solutions have been available for the Windows world for a while, though none of them have been made this easy, and haven’t worked as well as Front Row seems to work. ..."  Link:  Om Malik's Blog.

Frisky disc biz1

Ben Fritz writes:  "A year after it slashed prices in an aggressive move to hold off competitor Blockbuster, Netflix is moving in for the kill.   ¶  Third-quarter earnings reported Wednesday showed Netco is continuing to boom, surging ahead of its nearest competitor on the Net and directly challenging those in the non-virtual world as well.   ¶  Rather than taking the opportunity to raise prices and focus on profits, Netflix is looking to use its position to put the permanent kibosh on remaining challengers.  CEO Reed Hastings said company will test further price cuts over the next six months to see if it can accelerate growth further without sacrificing margins. ..."  Link:  Variety.

From push to pull: The next frontier of innovation

Update 11/13/2005:
A longer version of this paper, From Push to Pull - Emerging Models for Mobilizing Resources, is available at johnhagel.com along with some additional thoughts.  Also, Umair Haque comments on this in Next Big Things - Pull Models at bubblegeneration.com.

The McKinsey Quarterly  has an interesting article of this title by John Seely Brown and John Hagel III, contrasting "push" and "pull" systems for resource mobilization.  Link:  McKinsey Quarterly.  Free registration required.  Hagel also has a long discussion of the concept in his weblog, Edge Perspectives.  --Dennis

Media Companies Go Too Far in Curbing Consumers' Activities

Few people are neutral about DRM, but Walter S. Mossberg had a reasonably balanced column about it on Thursday.  Good overview.  Link:  Wall Street Journal.  Thanks to Doc Searles' IT Garage.  --Dennis

Senate Panel OKs '09 Deadline for Digital TV Transition

Drew Clark writes:  "By a 19-3 vote, the Senate Commerce Committee approved legislation setting April 7, 2009, as the 'hard date' for the end of analog broadcasting. After that date, television viewers lacking a digital TV set or not subscribing to a cable TV or satellite service would need a converter box to receive digital broadcasts on an analog TV set.  ¶  The bill passed after the committee, by a 17-5 vote, rejected an amendment by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to move the hard date ahead two years -- to April 7, 2007. McCain has pushed for an earlier date in order to free up a portion of the analog spectrum by use by public safety officials. ..."  Link:  National Journal.

Also see A Bill Advancing Digital TV Is Approved by Senate Panel.  Link:  New York Times.  Also $3 Billion Proposed for TV Conversions.  Link: Washington Post.

House, Senate Panels At Odds On Converter Box Subsidies

Drew Clark writes:  "The Senate and House committees with jurisdiction over the digital TV transition have come up with dramatically different figures to cover the cost of providing consumers with so-called set-top converter boxes. The latter are designed to allow viewers to receive digital television broadcasts after analog broadcasting is cut off.  ¶  The Senate Commerce Committee – which takes up digital TV transition legislation Thursday afternoon -- anticipates spending $3 billion to subsidize up to 60 million converter boxes at a cost of $50 or $60 apiece, Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska said ... Consumers seeking to purchase the boxes would have a $10 'co-pay'.  ...¶... Meanwhile, House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders – who may vote on DTV transition legislation as early as next week -- continue to insist on spending less than $1 billion to subsidize the converter boxes. Due to pressures imposed by House leaders to increase the savings achieved during the forthcoming budget reconciliation process, the Energy and Commerce Committee will have far less spending flexibility than its Senate counterpart.  ¶  Involved House members are also said to favor a $20 co-pay -- $10 higher than the Senate – and want to limit the number converter boxes per household. Stevens said his measure would not limit the number of boxes per household. ..."  Link:  National Journal.

In Pod We Trust

John O'Connor writes:  "... So why would the networks shift from four commercial breaks per hour to five? Right now, more breaks means the pods are shorter. Right now. Every two or three years since 1996, networks have been adding a unit or two per hour to commercial inventory. But with only four breaks per hour, there is a limit to how many commercials you can string back-to-back before viewers start stepping out to wash their cars during the break. With five breaks, another 30 seconds could be added per pod, and it still wouldn't be as long as the old four-break pod. And in a year or two when a five-break pod is as long as the old four-break pod they can go the Clear Channel radio route, cut the standard unit length in half, and start the escalation cycle all over again.  ¶  Is there an advertising threshold at which people will just stop watching television? No. But technology is providing consumers the simple methodology to stop watching advertising. As marketers move their dollars to other, more effective alternatives, their TV budgets will decay, demand will fall, and fewer commercials will air. At that point the networks' golden goose will become just another animal in the barnyard. ..."  Link:  MediaDailyNews.  Thanks to Terry Heaton.  --Dennis

The coming paradigm shift in TV broadcasting

Ken "Caesar" Fisher writes:  "With last week's advent of the video iPod came a rush of fanfare followed by a not minuscule degree of concern. Rhetoric or not, plenty of players in the content industry were seemingly caught unaware of Apple's intentions and the deal they made with Disney. The question is now asked: what does this portend? ¶ While I was composing last week's report on the new iPod, a thought immediately crossed my mind: how are the local affiliates taking this? It dawned on me then that one of two scenarios was likely: either affiliates were informed of the pending announcement, and signed off on it, or (more likely) they had no hard data on the deal, but were at least put on notice by Disney CEO Iger's recent comments. ¶  As it turns out, Disney did not announce the deal to its affiliates, but it apparently didn't need to: the company has already secured the rights from its affiliates to "repurpose" 5 hours of primetime programming each week, after broadcast. Still, affiliates are talking. ..."  Link:  ars technica.

Also see TV Downloads May Undercut ABC Stations.  Nick Wingfield, Joe Flint and Ethan Smith write:  "... Apple may have helped open a Pandora's box for the media business. The Cupertino, Calif., company and its first TV partner -- Walt Disney Co., the parent of ABC -- have taken a potentially significant step in the dismantling of a decades-old system for distributing TV programming to viewers, a move that could have profound long-term consequences for broadcasters, cable systems and satellite companies if more users download shows instead of watching them the old-fashioned way. ..." Link:  The Wall Street Journal Online.

McCain Seeks Quicker DTV Transition

Drew Clark writes:  "Throwing a bombshell into a combustible mix as the Senate Commerce Committee prepares to vote on digital television legislation, Sen. John McCain -- a former Commerce Committee chairman -- said that he would seek to change to 2007 the date when analog television broadcasts must cease.  ¶  Current Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, last Friday proposed a cut-off date of April 7, 2009. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has recommended a "hard date" of Dec. 31, 2008. That is within range of an emerging consensus, and one that broadcasters and telecommunications industry officials say they can accept. ...¶...

In remarks at a New America Foundation event on digital television and first responders, McCain said he would offer an amendment Thursday to strike the April 7, 2009 date in the draft bill and replace it with April 7, 2007, in the interest of keeping it simple and securing favorable passage. He said he is not sure whether he has enough votes on the committee to secure passage. ..."  Link:  National Journal.  NB: NAF link added.  --Dennis

Unlicensed To Kill DTV?

John Eggerton writes:  "A battle between the broadcast industry and backers of a more wide-open spectrum policy is turning into wide-open warfare.  ¶  The Association for Maximum Service Television (MSTV), essentially the broadcasting industry’s spectrum watchdog, has been showing a videotape to staffers of the House and Senate Commerce committees warning of the dangers of allowing unlicensed devices, such as Wi-Fi–enabled laptops, to operate in the spaces between DTV channels. Backers of the devices say the video is a “shameless” attempt by broadcasters to protect their spectrum windfall from the digital transition.  ¶  The MSTV video, which is also available on its Web site (mstv.org), shows a viewer with an indoor antenna trying to watch various Washington-area DTV channels, only to have them stop abruptly and pixelate when adjacent-channel interference is simulated; a Wi-Fi-enabled laptop is identified as the likely culprit. ..."  Broadcasting & Cable via mediachannel.org.

And, in the other corner, we find the New America Foundation among others.  It has published a "policy backgrounder" titled, Wireless Public Safety Data Networks Operating on Unlicensed Airwaves:  Overview and Profiles.  Link:  New America Foundation pdf.  --Dennis