AllThingsD » shows

TV Is Changing Before Our Eyes

David Pakman — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:26:09 +0000

TV image copyright antpkr

It’s finally happening. The Internet is taking over TV. It’s just happening differently than many of us imagined. There are two major transformations under way:

The Rise of the Internet Distributors. Led by Netflix, the group of new distributors includes Amazon and Microsoft now, but maybe Apple and Google later. They are largely distributing traditional TV shows in a nontraditional way. All the content is delivered over IP, and usually as part of a paid subscription or per-episode EST (electronic sell-through). Important to note that all of this content contains no advertising and is available entirely on demand. This content falls into the “non-substitutional” content bucket. To watch it, you don’t need to be a cable TV subscriber.
The Rise of Alternative Content Producers. Thanks to YouTube’s Channel strategy and investment in hundreds of content providers, new producers of content are emerging and offering nontraditional programming, usually in shorter form. This content is marked by dramatically different production economics than traditional TV content, taking advantage of an expanded labor pool and low-cost cameras and computer editing. This alternative content is chipping away at long- and mid-tail viewership on traditional networks (the “filler” and “nice-to-see” buckets).

Both of these transformations are successful to date, and will only become more so. Rich Greenfield has a nice summary of why the TV industry suddenly loves Netflix. (Disclosure: I’ve been a NFLX shareholder for some time.) The first transformation takes advantage of the massive pressure MVPDs place on traditional cable nets to not offer their programming direct to consumers. In this case, the HBOs and AMCs requirement that you authenticate your existing cable subscription in order to watch their programming over IP successfully persuades the cord-nevers to just avoid the programming on those networks until the hit shows are offered through Netflix or EST. Netflix, once again, looks like the hero. Those empty threats by Jeff Bewkes that he will never work with Netflix turned out to be, well, empty. The second transformation will take longer to fully prove out, but I believe it will happen. As more of our viewership takes place over IP, we lose our allegiance to networks as the point of distribution and allow new distributors to guide us toward content choice.

There is a third budding area of transformation, but I don’t yet see evidence that a business exists: Trying to repackage cable TV bundles and sell them over IP. Companies like Aereo and Nimble TV offer versions of this. I believe we live in a show-based world. Consumers aren’t looking for networks (with the exception of ESPN and regional sports nets) so much as they are looking for shows. Shows delivered over IP allow for the slow unbundling of television. One of the many challenges about this model for traditional broadcasters is that there is no advertising in this world. The traditional cable-net business model enjoys two great revenue streams — affiliate fees and ad dollars. In IP-delivered shows, there are no ads.

Who are the winners and losers in this model? Well, show creators continue to flourish. The new distributors enjoy great success. Of course, ISPs, who are often the same companies as the MVPDs, do fine in the ISP business, but I believe the decline in total cable subs will continue. In a world where shows do not contain advertising, why do we need Nielsen? They have been a measurement standard for decades, largely because advertisers needed a third-party validator of viewership. You can see why they have a vested interest in insisting TV ad viewership is not on the decline (despite everyone’s experience to the contrary). I don’t think cable nets are in immediate trouble. They enjoy a great business model now, and also get to reap EST or licensing benefits after the shows air. But the Netflix “House of Cards” effort shows that consumers will now expect to be able to watch shows whenever they want, and not be bothered by inconvenient broadcast schedules. The day is coming when the cable nets will have to respond.

For startups, one of the wide-open spaces seems to be in cross-provider discovery. Now that my shows are spread among Netflix, Amazon, YouTube and on my DVR, I would prefer one interface to reach them all. Companies like Dijit’s NextGuide, Peel, Squrl and Telly are taking cracks at this important space.

David Pakman is a partner at Venrock, focusing on ad tech, social/mobile media, consumer services, Web services, e-commerce, big data, SaaS and anything else hugely exciting and disruptive. This post is also live on his blog.

Comcast Bringing Live TV to Your iPad (In Your House)

Peter Kafka — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:57:34 +0000

Here’s a logical, and cool, marriage between your iPad and your TV, brokered by Comcast: The cable company says it will let subscribers stream live TV to their tablets later this year.

The catch here is that the capability, which will be offered on Apple’s iPad as well as tablets running Google’s Android, will only work inside subscribers’ homes.

So you still can’t watch a live episode of “Two and a Half Men” on your iPad in the airport, but you will be able to watch it in your kitchen, while your better half watches “Frontline” in the living room. Or whatever.

It’s worth noting that Verizon announced its own version of this feature (with the same limitations), for its FiOS TV subscribers last summer, but has yet to roll it out.

Comcast will be demoing the feature later today at a Citigroup investors conference, but won’t be providing details about timing, or if there will be any programming restrictions on what you can watch on your tablet.

It’s possible there could be some holdouts, but the cable giant ought to be able to offer just about everything, since there’s no issue with carriage rights or ad loads, etc.–tablet watchers will be watching whatever’s already on live TV.

The killer feature, of course, would be the ability to do this on-the-go, but we’re not there yet, and it may take awhile to get there. Mobile rights for video–especially live video–are a whole different ball game.

Meantime, though, Comcast is offering a half-step–as previously promised, it will let traveling iPad users start to watch a selection of on-demand content, via its Xfinity TV app.

Comcast says it will offer some 3,000 TV shows and movies that iPad users can watch on-demand, over any network–AT&T’s 3G, or Time Warner Cable’s broadband, or whatever. Once that feature is up and running, which should be shortly, we’ll be able to compare that catalog to the ones that Netflix and Hulu Plus are offering for $7.99 a month.

And that’s the big picture here: Comcast and the other big cable providers, which continue to insist that cord-cutting isn’t real, want to make sure that it doesn’t become a reality, by offering their subscribers access to as much stuff, in as many places, as they can. It’s going to take years to find out whether that works or not, but best to start experimenting ASAP.

Does the FCC Want to Kill Hulu?

Peter Kafka — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:31:18 +0000

One of Washington’s proposed conditions on the Comcast-NBC U deal will force the merged company to offer NBC’s shows to any Web competitor.

So what does that mean for Hulu, which has already locked up exclusive rights to NBC’s Web video?

A couple of possible answers: Perhaps Federal Communications Commission head Julius Genachowski is trying to put a fork in Hulu. Or maybe the conditions he wants to place on the merger are so toothless that they don’t really count as conditions at all.

Background: Each of Hulu’s three partners/owners–GE’s NBC, News Corp.’s Fox and Disney’s ABC–has agreed to mutual exclusivity pacts. If you want to watch one of their shows for free online, you can see them on the networks’ own sites, or via Hulu–either on the main site itself, or via other sites that are taking Hulu’s feed. (News Corp. also owns this Web site.)

But one of the primary conditions Genachowski wants to place on FCC approval for the Comcast-NBC deal is that Web competitors will get access to NBC’s shows, according to the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Here’s the WSJ:

Comcast would be required to offer NBC Universal programming to any online video provider that has reached a similar deal for content with some of NBC’s competitors, such as Walt Disney Co. or Fox Television, a division of News Corp.

That’s a bit vague, so we won’t really know what Genachowski intends until he goes public with his proposed rules. But there are basically two ways to interpret what the Journal is reporting here. Either:

The FCC wants to make sure that NBC doesn’t prevent Hulu from syndicating its content out to third-party sites, as it’s already doing with Yahoo, AOL and…Comcast. If that’s all Genachowski wants, that’s no big deal, and not really a restriction at all. Because Hulu’s business plan is predicated on wide distribution. Or….
The FCC is telling NBC that it has to offer its shows directly to other Web sites. That’s potentially devastating news for Hulu. If, say, Yahoo can license “The Office” directly from NBC, it may not want to bother cutting a deal with the joint venture site. And to be clear: The overwhelming majority of Hulu’s traffic comes from people watching shows from its big three partners.

So which is it? The FCC held a farcical press conference yesterday where it wouldn’t answer any specific questions about the deal. But it would be nice if it could clear this one up soon.

Apple to Dominate Tablet Market Until 2012–At Least

John Paczkowski — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:00:38 +0000

In 2011 tablet revenues will rise to $24.9 billion, and by 2012 they’ll reach $34.1 billion. And Apple will claim the lion’s share of both, according to J.P. Morgan analyst Mark Moskowitz. Which isn’t all that surprising, really. As Moskowitz observes, while the concept of the tablet has been around for more than a decade now, it wasn’t established and mainstreamed until Apple introduced the iPad in January 2010. And Apple set the bar so high with the device that rivals are finding it tough to match it, let alone surpass it.

“Our assumption is that Apple’s dominance will remain firmly intact in the near to mid-term, but gradually, technology improvements and component cost declines will enable the laggards to offer ‘good enough’ solutions to loosen some of Apple’s grip,” Moskowitz says. “Of note, we expect a host of competitive tablets in 2H 2011, following the release of Android 3.0 this coming spring. The upgraded Android operating system should gradually improve the competitiveness relative to Apple’s iOS. Our conversations with industry contacts indicate that the current version of Android does not provide a computing rich experience, which is a requisite of tablets.”

But a gradual improvement in the competitiveness of Android tablets isn’t nearly enough to slow the iPad juggernaut. Presumably, a lot of those first-generation Android 3.0 tablets will arrive at market about the same time as the second generation of the iPad. That alone should allow Apple to maintain a comfortable lead, but the company has iOS and the iTunes content ecosystem working in its favor as well.

“With tablets, we view form factor, operating system robustness, and content ubiquity as critical demand enablers, and here, we expect Apple to dominate,” Moskowitz concludes. “Similar to the iPhone, the iPad reflects Apple’s ability to introduce unrivaled technology experiences for the customer. The key factor driving the separation from other tablet vendors stands to be Apple’s content ecosystem. With tablets, we think that offering a trove of applications, as is industry practice in smartphones, will not be enough. The ability of the user to access content, such as movies and TV shows, is increasingly important for tablet users. This dynamic is where Apple has fought hard to secure access to content, and we think it will take time for other vendors to establish a similar content ecosystem.”

Netflix Adds More Disney/ABC Shows–But Not the Ones You Missed Last Night

Peter Kafka — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:08:28 +0000

Here’s the latest addition to the Netflix streaming video catalog: More TV shows from Disney and its ABC network.

But don’t expect to use Netflix to watch shows that aired last night, or even in the last few weeks or months. In most cases, Netflix is adding shows that are a year old or more.

And in the case of the handful of shows that Netflix does run in the same season they appear on TV, it is increasing the “window” between their air date and the time they show up on the company’s streaming service.

Netflix previously had the ability to stream some Disney Channel shows, like “Wizards of Waverly Place,” the day after they aired. But now it will wait 15 days to run them, says Netflix content boss Ted Sarandos. The flip side: Netflix will get access to other Disney/ABC-owned shows that it hasn’t had in the past, like “Scrubs,” and in some cases it will get a deeper catalog, like more episodes of “Lost.”

Which makes this deal similar to other deals Netflix has cut in the past year with movie studios like Sony and Time Warner’s Warner Bros. for their offerings: Netflix writes a big check and agrees to wait longer to distribute some content, in exchange for the rights to more content, overall.

So what if you want to watch TV shows that ran last night? There are plenty of other places to get that, like Hulu, Apple’s iTunes or video-on-demand offerings from cable providers.

“Day-after broadcast is not core to our strategy. We’re not in that business, particularly,” Sarandos says. “I highly value completeness over freshness. For our customers, it’s much more about being able to watch the entire run of a show, as it is about being able to see time-shifted episodes.”

Translation: Hey Hollywood and TV executives! Don’t believe what you hear and read–we don’t want to blow up your existing distribution models. We just want to write you big checks for stuff after you’re done with it.

Earlier this fall, Netflix announced a similar deal with GE’s NBC, and Sarandos says he thinks his agreement with News Corp.’s Fox is fairly robust (News Corp. also owns this Web site).

Which means we should expect to see something from CBS down the pipe, too, right? “We’re constantly in talks” with other content owners, Sarandos says.

Translation: Hey Les Moonves! We’re no Google. How much do you want for “The Mentalist”?

Google's 42nd Acquisition of the Year: Widevine

John Paczkowski — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 23:00:44 +0000

Back in January, Google CEO Eric Schmidt predicted the company would make one acquisition a month. Now with the year nearly finished, the company has made 41–including Phonetic Arts, whose purchase it announced earlier today. Many of the buys were deemed “not material individually,” but the significant ones numbered in the high 20s. That’s more than double Schmidt’s original forecast, and Google’s clearly not through yet. Moments ago, the company announced the acqusition of video optimization outfit Widevine for an undisclosed price.

“We’re pleased to announce that we’ve agreed to acquire Widevine,” the company said in a post to its blog. “The Widevine team has worked to provide a better video delivery experience for businesses of all kinds: from the studios that create your favorite shows and movies, to the cable systems and channels that broadcast them online and on TV, to the hardware manufacturers that let you watch that content on a variety of devices. By forging partnerships across the entire ecosystem, Widevine has made on demand services more efficient and secure for media companies, and ultimately more available and convenient for users.”

For Google, which ramped up its video efforts with the launch of Google TV last month, the acquisition is an important one for bolstering its streaming video offerings. The Seattle-based Widevine specializes in digital video optimization and digital rights management, and its services are used by everyone from Netflix and NBC.com to AT&T.

Interesting to see Google snapping up a video DRM company (Widevine did Flash DRM before Adobe), considering its purchase of On2 last year and its subsequent release of On2′s VP8 video codec as an open standard (something that did not go over well at MPEG-LA, the consortium that controls the AVC/H.264 video standard).

Cablevision Complains (Very Quietly) About News Corp.'s Web Blackout

Peter Kafka — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:49:08 +0000

Over the weekend, News Corp. briefly pulled down Fox shows from Cablevision customers’ Web browsers.

That’s an unprecedented move in the ongoing fight between cable providers, broadcasters and networks over programming fees. And the news was a big deal for the digerati and people contemplating the future of video.

But it doesn’t seem to have registered in the broader world, and you have to work hard to find any mention of the story in old-media news outlets. And even Cablevision, which uses any ammo it can in the PR fight against Fox and News Corp. (which also owns this site), hasn’t said much about it.

Here, for instance, is Cablevision’s newest message to its customers. If you fast forward to the 1:35 mark, you’ll find a two-sentence description of the Web blackout. But hard to believe many Cablevision customers will be sticking around to hear this one:

At the very least, blacking out part of the Web sounds scary. So why is Cablevision so (relatively) quiet on this?

Two theories, which are not mutually exclusive:

It’s not worth complaining about because this stuff doesn’t really resonate with consumers–at least, not in the way that losing access to NFL games and play-off baseball does. No one spent Saturday evening or Sunday afternoon in a bar because they couldn’t watch “Glee” on Hulu.
It’s not worth complaining about because Cablevision and News Corp. are actually on the same ideological page when it comes to this stuff. Neither side is really that happy about free TV shows on the Web. The only real difference the two sides have is about money: News Corp. wants to get more of it for its programming, while Cablevision wants to pay less.

On a related note: I still don’t understand why News Corp./Fox backed off so quickly on Saturday, once news of the blackout got out.

There’s no official reason, but there were mutterings about the technical difficulty of cutting off access to Cablevision TV subscribers while leaving Cablevision’s Internet-only subs alone. But hard to believe that News Corp. didn’t think that one through in advance. Same goes for any “optics”-related reason–the whole point of a move like this was to generate publicity, right?

News Corp. Shuts Off Hulu Access to Cablevision Customers–And Turns It Back On [UPDATED]

Peter Kafka — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:18:41 +0000

UPDATE: That was fast. People familiar with the situation say that News Corp. is changing tactics and will turn on access to Fox.com and Fox programming on Hulu for Cablevision’s customers. This could take a “few hours” to roll out across the Cablevision footprint, I’m told.

EARLIER:
One new twist in the Cablevision-News Corp. fight: News Corp. has cut off Cablevision subscribers’ access to its shows on Hulu, the video site joint venture, as well as on its own Fox.com.

Here’s a screenshot from Fortune.com columnist Seth Weintraub, taken this afternoon when he tried to watch a Fox show on the site, which is co-owned by News Corp., Disney’s ABC and GE’s NBC Universal:

News Corp.’s comment, via Fox Networks PR guy Scott Grogin: “Fox.com and Fox content on hulu is unavailable to Cablevision subscribers.”

And here’s Hulu PR rep Elisa Schreiber:

Unfortunately, we were put in a position of needing to block Fox content on Hulu in order to remain neutral during contract negotiations between Fox and Cablevision. This only includes Fox content. All other Hulu content is accessible to Cablevision internet subscribers. We regret the impact on Cablevision customers and look forward to returning Fox content to those users as soon as possible.

This is an important escalation from News Corp. (which owns this Web site) in its fight to extract more dollars from its cable partners.

In the past, cable subscribers who couldn’t get Fox shows during fee disputes were still able to watch some of them via Hulu. I know that News Corp. has discussed shutting off access to the site during past fee fights, but as far as I know this is the first time they’ve actually done it.

It’s also a logical move, at least from News Corp.’s perspective.

If it’s trying to increase the pain felt by Cablevision and its subscribers, it may as well use every tool it has. And in the past, the Web has been used against programmers like Fox in these fights: Last year, when Time Warner Cable was fighting with News Corp., it prepared a video showing customers how to find their favorite shows on sites like Hulu.

But while the move is certain to rile up the digerati (astonished industry executive to me, over the phone, just now: “That is crazy!) I’m not sure how much real impact it will have in the fight.

News Corp.’s most valuable weapon is access to the Phillies-Giants playoff game tonight, and the New York Giants-Detroit Lions game tomorrow.

Both are scheduled to air on Fox, and many of Cablevision’s three million subscribers who live in the New York area will holler loudly if they can’t see them. But they wouldn’t be able to see them on Hulu or Fox.com, anyway.

Instead, those sites are used to show reruns of Fox broadcast shows. That means Cablevision subs can’t see Sunday night’s episode of “The Simpsons” on Monday, but that’s not the same kind of impact.

Hulu's "Modern Family" Problem

Peter Kafka — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 19:18:16 +0000

Hulu’s pitch to viewers: We have all the great network TV shows you want to watch, for free. The pitch for Hulu Plus: Pay us $9.95 a month and you can watch even more episodes of those same shows.

But Hulu Plus can’t show subscribers all of the episodes of all the shows in Hulu’s catalog. Rights issues mean that certain shows will flit on and off the service, and it’s up to subscribers to figure that out for themselves.

Example: “Modern Family,” ABC’s award-winning hit sitcom, disappeared from both Hulu and Hulu Plus this summer after its first season. Now it’s back. But both services are only offering shows from the current season–there’s no way to go back and catch up on last year’s shows, even if you’re paying.

I think, but haven’t been able to confirm, that this has to do with DVD sales for the show, which is produced by News Corp.’s (NWS) 20th Century Fox. I’ve got queries into both Fox and Disney’s (DIS) ABC to try to confirm.

Meantime, here’s what Hulu has to say:

Yes, the first season of Modern Family is no longer on Hulu Plus. We acknowledge this can sometimes be confusing for TV fans, so we do all we can to provide as much advance notice as possible when shows are slated to come down. Below is an example from our Saturday Night Live show page on Hulu Plus. You’ll notice it says “New episodes are posted Sunday afternoons and are available for 17 days.” This is consistent across all our content.

Of course, we keep content on Hulu and Hulu Plus for as long as possible. We can’t offer a specific reasons why a particular video may be taken down, as streaming clearances differ from show to show.

And sure enough, if you head to each show’s Hulu page, you’ll find a different set of availabilities.

Regular Hulu users can only see the last five episodes of “The Family Guy,” for instance, while Hulu Plus subscribers can see all nine seasons. But even if you’re a paying customer, Hulu can only show you five episodes of “The Simpsons,” period.

Meanwhile, the last season of “Lost” fell off both the free and paid services last month, and the other five seasons will go away at the end of the year. Etc.

To be fair to Hulu, it’s certainly not the only service negotiating the frustrating rights/windows patchwork. Everyone who deals with digital media has to navigate this stuff. And none of it makes sense to viewers who just want to watch their shows, when they want to watch them.

But the patchwork is a bigger deal for Hulu, because the service’s primary pitch is that it’s a one-stop shop for all your TV viewing (or at least your broadcast TV viewing). Instead it’s really closer to a half-stocked Super Target: There’s a lot of stuff in there, but you still may not find what you need.

Hulu competitor Netflix (NFLX) offers lots of TV shows via its paid streaming service, too. But it pointedly doesn’t play up the presence of any particular show–Reed Hastings and company simply tell consumers that they’ll find shows they like.

But if you’ve ponied up $10 a month for Hulu Plus and find that you still can’t watch a show that aired a few months ago, you may not be cool with that at all.

Gaps in Hulu’s free service may not be as frustrating for users, because they’re not out any cash. But it is a problem for the joint venture as it ponders a public offering, premised on the notion that its TV partners/owners–ABC, Fox and GE/Comcast’s NBC–are in it for the long haul.

But if Hulu can’t tell users that it has all the rights it needs, how can it convince investors?

Meanwhile, a similarly confusing story:

Hulu's Subscription Service Could Come Next Week–For Some of You

Peter Kafka — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 02:28:50 +0000

Some of you may finally get a chance to pay for Hulu. The video Web site is finalizing plans to launch its subscription service, and people familiar with the company say a beta test of “Hulu Plus” could launch as early as next week.

If you’re in a select group, that is. One person familiar with the site, owned by a joint venture of broadcasters and Providence Equity Partners, says the initial test could be limited to 10,000 people.

The Hulu Plus pitch, as I’ve previously reported: $9.95 a month for access to a deeper catalog of shows than the free service currently offers, plus the ability to watch it on devices other than a laptop or PC, including Apple’s (AAPL) iPad. Other reports this month indicate that the service may also be available on Microsoft’s (MSFT) Xbox and Sony’s (SNE) PS3 game consoles.

I’m also told that Hulu’s network owners–GE’s (GE) NBC, Disney’s (DIS) ABC and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox–are still hammering out rights deals for particular shows. So it’s possible that the launch could be pushed back or that the service will have weird gaps in its catalog when it does launch.

One example of a possible programming stumbling block: Viacom’s (VIA) “Comedy Central” has rights to older episodes of NBC’s “30 Rock.”

Hulu says it is already turning a profit from ad sales and is on track to generate more than $200 million in revenue this year. A successful subscription service would beef up those numbers.

It would also accomplish an equally important goal for CEO Jason Kilar: Mollifying his network owners, who worry that Hulu is cutting into their existing businesses, including licensing fees, DVD sales and conventional TV advertising. Hulu and its network partners would split the $10-per-head fee, I’m told, though I don’t know the formula the JV will use to split up the dollars.

No comment from Hulu. The Wall Street Journal is also reporting on Hulu’s plans.

The TV Guide Is Dead, Right? Not at the Los Angeles Times.

Peter Kafka — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:30:10 +0000

Two articles of faith among the digerati:

Print editions of newspapers are going, going, gone.
TV may not be going anywhere. But it will get a lot better when we can use the Web to find our favorite shows.

And here’s the Los Angeles Times’ retort: “TV Times,” a new 44-page TV guide insert that will be bundled with the paper’s Sunday edition.

Here’s what you get: “A 24-hour daily grid listings spanning morning, afternoon, primetime and late-night programming, four pages of alphabetized TV/cable/satellite movie listings, a full-page cover story, a TV-related crossword puzzle, episode highlights and synopses, and a dedicated sports programming page.”

In a Hulu/GoogleTV/iTunes/BitTorrent/Clicker/TV Everywhere/Etc., etc., etc. age, why would you possibly want this? Because you don’t use any of the aforementioned services. The LAT, owned by bankrupt Tribune Co., doesn’t spell this out, but that’s clearly the thrust here: Anyone who still reads our print edition probably doesn’t spend much time online. Let’s see if they’ll pay up for more paper.

And the Times does expect people to pay, by the way. The LAT is charging its subscribers an extra $3 a month for this.

Sure, the iPad Is Cool. But Have You Played With Dell's "Streak"?

Peter Kafka — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:57:34 +0000

Has Apple’s iPad (AAPL) won the tablet wars before they even started? Maybe. But before you leap to that conclusion, best to see what everyone else has to offer, too.

I’ve heard anecdotal reports from media types who are lukewarm about the forthcoming HP (HPQ) tablet. But here’s a rave mini-review for Dell’s (DELL) Streak from Greg Clayman, who runs digital for Viacom’s (VIA) MTV Networks:

All the important caveats: Clayman’s thumbs-up isn’t an official Viacom endorsement. And even if everyone at Viacom loves the thing, it doesn’t mean the cable programmer is going to let you watch lots of its shows for free on the thing. In fact, it probably won’t. And past performance does not guarantee future results, and objects in mirror are closer than they appear, etc., etc.

[Streak image via Engadget.]

The iPad Will Be Great for Free and Cheap TV Shows. But Not This Weekend.

Peter Kafka — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:00:28 +0000

So now we know what to expect when the iPad appears Saturday: A really cool device that will be great for watching TV shows. Here’s one thing you shouldn’t look for: Lots of cheap or free TV shows–at least not ones that aired recently.

Apple (AAPL) has been pushing the TV networks to get on board for the iPad launch, but the industry is in no rush. Like everyone else in media, TV execs are trying to figure out what the iPad means for their pricing power. Which means people who are used to watching lots of free top-tier TV on the Web won’t get the same experience on the iPad this weekend.

Meanwhile, the networks have resisted Apple’s lobbying to drop prices on the stuff they sell at the iTunes store. So if you want to watch the latest episode of “The Simpsons” on your iPad this weekend, it’s still going to cost you $1.99 (and $2.99 for high-def).

And while Hulu is building an app for the iPad, the plan, as I reported in February, is to make it part of a subscription offering. That’s scheduled to roll out sometime this year, but it won’t be ready in two days.

Where things stand now:

Hulu has the basics of a subscription plan, which includes access to an iPad app, worked out, sources tell me. But it will take a while for the company to negotiate rights clearances. A key part of the plan is to offer users the ability to watch Hulu on mobile devices, and the joint venture needs to wrangle permission from its programming partners to do that. So no Hulu app Saturday. When might we see one? Within “single digit months,” says an insider with a wry sense of humor.
Apple, which pushed a TV subscription service last fall, switched gears in recent months and tried persuading TV executives to cut their iTunes prices to 99 cents. But executives at two of the big four broadcast networks–CBS and Fox–have told me they’re not dropping prices on their big shows right now. No word from Disney’s (DIS) ABC or GE’s (GE) NBC yet. It’s possible that ABC, which has tight ties to Apple CEO Steve Jobs and is already promoting the iPad on its shows, may drop prices unilaterally. But my understanding is that Apple was aiming for across-the-board cuts.
As The Wall Street Journal notes, both CBS (CBS) and ABC are planning to deliver free TV to the iPad on Saturday. ABC will do so via an app, and the Journal says it could have a “a large number” of shows at launch. But CBS, which will use a Web site customized for the device, will have only one full-length program–“Survivor”–and some short clips. You can blame encoding issues for the limited offering, but if CBS really wanted to get a lot of stuff on the iPad at launch, it would.
One intriguing possibility for Saturday: There are reports of a Netflix (NFLX) app that would let subscribers to the company’s “Watch Instantly” service use it on the iPad. That’s not free. But it would be cool.

New TiVo Mixes TV and Internet, but Falls Short

Walter S. Mossberg — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 01:06:48 +0000

TiVo is the most famous third-party set-top box for your TV. The company popularized the idea of digital video recording and, in recent years, also has added to its devices the ability to deliver some Internet video content to the TV screen.

But TiVo is being squeezed. Cable and satellite companies now offer boxes with DVR capabilities. And other tech companies are rolling out competing set-top boxes to get Internet video to televisions.

[ See post to watch video ]

TiVo (TIVO) is responding with a new model, the TiVo Premiere, that aims to seamlessly blend programming from conventional TV and the Internet. It is slimmer, has a slicker user interface and holds more recorded programming than earlier models—45 hours of high-definition programs, up from 20 hours in the prior model, the TiVo HD. A more expensive version of the Premiere, the XL, has the same new software and holds 150 hours of HD shows.

I have been testing the new Premiere, and it worked as advertised, with conventional cable programming and with the available Internet sources TiVo (TIVO) supports. But, in my tests, it showed some flaws and, in my view, it doesn’t go nearly far enough in tapping the Internet.

Like prior TiVos, I’d rate the Premiere as better than the standard cable-company-supplied boxes I’ve seen. But, if you already own a recent-model TiVo, I don’t believe the Premiere justifies an upgrade, unless you need the greater built-in storage.

The TiVo Premiere goes on sale Sunday at Best Buy (BBY) stores for $300, plus a monthly fee of $13, or an annual or lifetime payment plan ranging from $129 for a year of service to $399 for the life of the device. The Premiere XL costs $500, plus the same fees. Both will be available Monday at tivo.com.

TiVo calls the Premiere “the One Box,” because it better integrates regular TV and Internet content. However, it actually has no additional Internet services compared with recent TiVo models. It allows you to get movies, TV shows and videos from YouTube, Amazon (AMZN), Netflix (NFLX) and Blockbuster (BBI), which are available on competing set-top boxes. It also includes a number of online music and photo services.

The company says a couple of added Internet services will be available later this year. These include the Pandora streaming music service and a widget system displaying things like news, stock prices and Twitter updates. However, the widgets won’t allow you to interact with Twitter and won’t be viewable while you’re watching TV or Internet video.

The biggest changes in the new Premiere involve the user interface. The TiVo Central screens, where you find and manage recorded shows and other content, are now presented in high definition and wide screen. This allows more menus on a single screen. The screen containing your recorded shows is now called My Shows instead of Now Playing.

You also can now watch TV in a small window while you’re on the menu screens, and there is a 30-second skip button on the remote.

The new TiVo Premiere

Also, a new Browse function lets you look for programming without typing search terms, by scrolling through colorful icons that include “collections” of related content, such as Oscar or Emmy winners.

Both Search and Browse now integrate regular TV shows with Internet content. If you start typing letters into the search box, TiVo will respond not only with TV shows that match, but with movies and TV shows that you can download from Web sources. You can also easily find YouTube clips related to a favorite show.

A new Discovery Bar of icons appears across the top of the Tivo Central screens. It’s filled with icons of TV shows and available Web content TiVo thinks you might like.

But there are some big downsides to the Premiere. You can’t watch videos on popular sites like Hulu (owed in part by News Corp., which owns The Wall Street Journal and its Web sites), CBS.com, blogs or news Web sites. This may be partly due to media-company restrictions, not TiVo’s shortcomings, but it means the Premiere omits vast sources of Internet video.

The new HD interface was slower than the old standard one in my tests, with frequent delays, even in scrolling through a list of recorded shows. TiVo says this is a bug being fixed.

In addition, I found the Discovery Bar a distraction, cluttering the menu screens, with no way to turn it off unless you revert to the old interface (a buried option.) This is partly because TiVo hopes to sell ads on the bar.

Finally, the new HD interface isn’t available when watching live TV. You have to constantly bounce between the new and old software designs.

All in all, TiVo Premiere looks incomplete. It seems more like a platform for a future set of offerings TiVo hopes one day to have, rather than a way to deliver new content right now.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free of charge, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

YouTube and Viacom Find Lots of Emails, but No Smoking Gun

Peter Kafka — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:25:33 +0000

The YouTube-Viacom documents released today are chock full of interesting morsels. Feel free to ignore most of them.

Because if you’re trying to handicap the way the copyright lawsuit pans out, today’s document dump won’t do much to help you. There are revelations here, but they’re of the minor and historical variety, and I’ll get to some of them later.

No smoking gun, though. Just a lot of chest-beating and desk-thumping as both sides talk past each other.

Still, it does make for fun reading if you’re of a certain troubled mindset. If you’re not, here’s a summary:

Viacom’s case: YouTube was full of content that wasn’t supposed to be there, and both YouTube and Google knew it.

Of course they knew it! Anyone who visited the site in 2005 and 2006 knew it. The problem was what to do about it.

And that’s the most interesting part of the emails and IM exchanges Viacom has dug up: They let you watch YouTube’s co-founders, and later, Google executives, argue over the best way to keep the site growing like a weed while fending off the lawyers.

Actually, they knew the lawyers would show up eventually. “Ok man, save your meal money for some lawsuits! ;) no really, I guess we’ll just see what happens,” co-founder Chad Hurley tells partners Steve Chen and Jawed Karim via email in July 2005, as the three men decide to leave some copyrighted stuff on the site.

As as YouTube boomed, Google (GOOG) was trying to figure out how its lackluster Google Video site could compete. The big debate, according to former executive David Eun: “Whether we should relax enforcement of our copyright policies in an effort to stimulate traffic growth, despite the inevitable damage it would cause to relationships with content owners.”

Google’s eventual answer, of course, was to buy YouTube. But it went in with open eyes. A due diligence report estimated that just 10 percent of the “premium” stuff on the site was authorized.

Google’s case: Viacom–which talked about buying YouTube–was perfectly happy to use our site to market its movies and TV shows. Until it wasn’t.

Of course it was! In 2005 and 2006, all of the entertainment companies were desperately trying to get their clips in front of the site’s huge audience. Even more so at Viacom (VIA), whose youthful audience was spending lots of time on YouTube.

And the fact that Viacom executives, who had lost MySpace to Rupert Murdoch (remember when MySpace was a world-beater?), were thinking about buying YouTube–in part so Murdoch wouldn’t get it–shouldn’t be surprising, either.

Google makes a lot of the fact that Viacom “secretly” uploaded videos to YouTube, either via its employees or from marketing shops it hired. But I don’t get the impression that the “secret” uploads were supposed to dupe YouTube. I get the impression they were trying to dupe YouTube users into thinking the videos were edgy and cool.

“The goal is to make it look “hijacked,” an executive at Viacom’s Spike network told the producers of a mixed martial arts show, describing a video he gave them so that they could seed it on YouTube. The idea was to make the clip “look as though it was leaked out by production.”

Viacom’s embrace of YouTube does bolster Google’s case in one way. Google shows, fairly effectively, that Viacom’s lawyers have had a hard time figuring out which YouTube clips the company authorized. If Viacom can’t figure out what’s supposed to be on the site, Google argues, how do you expect YouTube employees to know?

So. Strip out all of the depositions, documents and emails, and we’re back to where we started. This case will hinge on the way the court decides to interpret federal copyright law.

Viacom argues that YouTube is a video version of Napster or Grokster–designed to profit from intellectual property it knows is stolen. And Google argues that it’s doing exactly what the Digital Millennium Copyright Act tells it do–asking its users to behave, hoping they do, and taking down offending clips when their owners ask them to.

So pay attention to that ruling–it’s going to be really important. But unless you’re paid to keep an eye on digital media, you can ignore most of today’s paperwork.

[Image credit: Michele Hubacek]

Want to Chatter About Chatter About the Oscars?

Peter Kafka — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:06:19 +0000

Who’s going to clean up at the Oscars on Sunday? If you’re the kind of person who is frantic with anticipation…you’re probably not reading this.

But you may still end up watching the awards or find yourself in conversation with someone who cares about them. Or just making small talk, or whatever.

So here are a couple of data points you can bruit about, if you’d like. They come via Nielsen, which is trying to measure online “buzz” about the films and actors up for awards.

What is “buzz”? In this case, Nielsen is monitoring user-generated chatter about the Oscars over the last month. Whether it’s Twitter, blog comments, discussion boards, etc. Note that Nielsen is just reporting on volume here, not sentiment. So it’s possible that many of the people talking about “Avatar” hate it.

But they are talking about it, more than anything else (see chart below; click to enlarge).

Go ahead and draw your own conclusions. Mine: Not at all interesting that “Avatar” is generating chatter since it’s the most popular–or at least the highest-grossing–movie of all time. But barely anyone has seen “The Hurt Locker”–at least compared with, say, “The Blind Side.” So that’s interesting. Right?

And here’s Nielsen’s assessment of the Best Actor and Best Actress categories:

Again, many more people saw George Clooney saunter in and out of airports than saw Jeff Bridges getting drunk, so that means…I don’t know. Maybe they’re talking about Jeff Bridges because all the Oscar TV shows and articles are predicting a win for Jeff Bridges. That would make sense, right?

Meanwhile, an update on the three million New York-area TV watchers who may not be able to watch the Oscars on ABC if Disney (DIS) and Cablevision (CVC) can’t work out their spat: There is no update.

At the moment the two companies are still sending out press releases that are supposed to be incendiary. But they are, in fact, very dull.

Vudu Convinces Walmart to Pay Up: Why an Also-Ran Web Movie Service Sold for More Than $100 Million

Peter Kafka — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:37:56 +0000

As I wrote in January, Walmart is indeed interested in buying Vudu, the online movie service. I was off about one thing, though–the price.

Walmart (WMT) will be paying more than $100 million for the service, people familiar with the deal tell me. That’s much more than the $50 million I had previously heard Vudu was seeking and much more than industry observers thought it would get.

At this point I need to advise skepticism about reported sales prices, since they’re often inflated or include theoretical but seldom achieved “earnout” clauses. But my source tells me this will be a cash deal when it officially closes, which it hasn’t. No money has changed hands yet.

Vudu is an also-ran in the online movie business, which isn’t that much of a business to begin with. So why would the world’s biggest retailer pay a premium to get in?

Because Vudu’s management has convinced Walmart that its video-compression technology is something special, people familiar with the transaction tell me. Apparently, others think so, too: Vudu was able to attract multiple bidders. I’ve heard, but haven’t been able to confirm, that one of them was Cisco (CSCO).

Vudu has licensing deals with all the big movie studios as well, but that’s of secondary importance to Walmart, which has way more leverage with Hollywood than Apple, Netflix or Amazon (AMZN): The studios need Walmart’s physical reach much more than Walmart needs to get into the digital movie business.

Still, doesn’t hurt to make nice. Walmart and Vudu have been briefing the Hollywood studios today in advance of an official announcement, which could come later today.

Here’s some more background on the piece, from my January story:

After trying for two years to compete with Netflix’s DVD-by-mail business, Walmart gave up in 2005 and agreed to send its customers directly to Netflix (NFLX). In 2007, with the backing of all the big studios and tech help from Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), the retailer tried to launch a download service, a la Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes. But it abandoned that effort in less than a year.

Meanwhile, sources say Vudu has been seeking a buyer–in the form of either a big-box retailer or an electronics manufacturer–for some time without success. Internet executive Mark Jung ran the company for a year but left in November 2008; founder Alain Rossmann became interim CEO when Jung left and has kept the title since then.

Santa Clara, Calif.-based Vudu has raised at least $21 million from Benchmark Capital and Greylock Partners.

UPDATE: Walmart has officially announced the deal, noting that it is expected to close within a few weeks. No word on price except that it won’t be material.

Walmart Announces Acquisition of Digital Entertainment Provider, VUDU
Company takes next step to enhance home entertainment and information delivery options for consumers

BENTONVILLE, Ark., Feb. 22, 2010 — Walmart announced today a definitive agreement to acquire VUDU, Inc., a leading provider of digital technologies and services that enable the delivery of entertainment content directly to broadband high-definition TVs and Blu-ray players. The deal is expected to close within the next few weeks.

VUDU is a revolutionary service, built into a growing number of broadband-ready TVs and Blu-ray players, that delivers instant access to thousands of movies and TV shows directly through the television. Customers with broadband Internet access and an Internet-ready TV or Blu-ray player can rent or purchase movies, typically in high-definition, without needing a connected computer or cable/satellite service. New movies and features will be added continually, enabling customers to enjoy a product that continues to become more robust long after they have left the store.

“The real winner here is the customer,” said Eduardo Castro-Wright, vice chairman for Walmart. “Combining VUDU’s unique digital technology and service with Walmart’s retail expertise and scale will provide customers with unprecedented access to home entertainment options as they migrate to a digital environment.”

VUDU has licensing agreements with almost every major movie studio and dozens of independent and international distributors to offer approximately 16,000 movies, including the largest 1080p library of video on-demand movies available anywhere. Via their broadband Internet connection, users have the ability to rent or buy titles and begin viewing them instantly.

VUDU will continue developing entertainment and information delivery solutions such as VUDU Apps, a platform that delivers hundreds of streaming Internet applications and services to TVs and Blu-ray players with built-in Internet connectivity. VUDU has partnered with some of the leading names in Internet and media entertainment to offer applications on its platform including Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, The New York Times and The Associated Press.

“We are excited about the opportunity to take our company’s vision to the next level,” said Edward Lichty, VUDU executive vice president. “VUDU’s services and Apps platform will give Walmart a powerful new vehicle to offer customers the content they want in a way that expands the frontier of quality, value and convenience.”

VUDU, based in Santa Clara, Calif., will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Walmart. The company is not disclosing financial terms of the agreement as the acquisition is not material to its first quarter earnings for fiscal year 2011.

Apple to Test Dollar TV Show Downloads

John Paczkowski — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:00:41 +0000

As Apple prepares for the official launch of the iPad, the company is pushing television networks to lower the price of TV episodes. People familiar with the talks tell the Financial Times that the Apple soon hopes to sell standard-definition TV shows for $1 each–half the price it currently charges for them on iTunes.

The new pricing structure is being described as a test to determine whether a lower price point will increase sales. According to the FT, at least a few networks have agreed to a lower download price for their content, though it’s not clear which ones those are.

Meanwhile, Apple (AAPL) continues to work on ginning up interest in the monthly iTunes subscription TV service MediaMemo first reported last November–though without much success. People familiar with the offering say network talks appear to have stalled, at least for the time being.

How to Cram Most of the Web Into One Super Bowl Ad–And Not Sell TVs

Peter Kafka — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:00:05 +0000

Yep, Google did indeed take out its first Super Bowl ad last night–a tweaked version of the “Search Stories” clip it has been showing on the Web for several months.

But Google also got a second promotion during last night’s game, though I’m guessing it didn’t pay for this one. An ad promoting Internet-connected TVs from Vizio featured a battery of viral video stars made famous via Google’s YouTube–without ever mentioning Google (GOOG) or YouTube by name.

The spot does give formal, if very fast, shoutouts to Web services like Facebook, Pandora, Twitter, Vudu, Yahoo (YHOO) and Yahoo’s Flickr. Oh. And Beyoncé.

Swing and a miss, in my humble amateur advertising critic’s opinion.

For one thing, anyone who’s going to recognize the likes of Tay Zonday and the Numma Numma guy knows that the whole “cramming all of YouTube’s stars into one bit” bit has been done by lots of people before, most notably South Park. Everyone else will just wonder who the fat kid and the skinny dude are.

The other problem with this ad is one common to many efforts to sell Internet-connected TVs: It doesn’t explain the most compelling use for these things.

Because you may not want to watch YouTube on your big screen (or to use Twitter or call up Pandora, etc.). But you may very well want to watch streaming movies and TV shows from services like Netflix (NFLX) and Vudu.

You’d have to squint very hard to see that the Vizio spot was showing a clip from “The Hangover,” though. And chances are that almost no one who saw the ad has heard of Vudu (hence its sale talks).

So there’d be no way for anyone to know that Internet-connected TVs make this stuff really easy. Too bad. If you see this stuff demoed in person, it’s really compelling–it gets close to the “500 channels” pitch we used to hear about in the early 90s, in the best possible way.

At some point in the next few years, there will be no need to pitch this, because the majority of new TVs sold will be Internet-connected. In the same way HD is now more or less standard on new sets.

But for now, this stuff is still a novelty. A good way to change this might be with an effective ad.

Stern Ditching Sirius for Terrestrial?

John Paczkowski — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:00:13 +0000

Is Howard Stern going to return to terrestrial radio? That seems highly unlikely given his obvious affinity for the…permissiveness of satellite. But the radio show host isn’t above threatening to return to earth as part of his contract negotiations.

Stern said today that he has been approached by several “regular” radio execs about returning to his original turf when his five-year $500 million contract with Sirius XM (SIRI) expires.

“I actually have an offer,” Stern said, according to a report on The Wrap. “Well, not a bona fide offer, but people have been making them.”

Stern’s remarks today follow a public call-and-response negotiation with Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin that began last fall. “It will start with Howard feeling that he is working too hard and doing too many shows and not making enough money,” Karmazin told attendees of the Reuters Media Summit in November. “Our side would say, ‘We want you to do more, and get less money.’ The hope would be that we would come out with Howard staying with our service.”

Stern, of course, is angling for the exact opposite. “I don’t think I’m going to be re-signing. I know exactly what I want to do here,” he said last year, referring to a less busy schedule. “And I don’t know if it would interest [Sirius.]“

Given the size of Stern’s audience and the availability of much of Sirius’s other content on the Internet, my guess is that it would.

The Jay Leno Effect: Eyeballs Bail on Broadcast for Cable

Peter Kafka — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 17:32:40 +0000

When you sit down to watch TV at night (which you are still doing an awful lot of, no matter how much Web time you’re logging), you don’t distinguish between shows that are on broadcast TV and those on cable. You just want to watch TV.

But TV executives and advertisers haven’t caught up with you. Advertisers still pay less for a cable TV eyeball than for one watching something from a broadcaster. And programmers still cling to the belief that a broadcast TV viewer has different habits from someone watching cable.

Makes no sense, but there’s a lot about old media that doesn’t make sense and that takes a long time to change. Worth remembering as you watch ad dollars trickle ever so slowly to the Web.

Still, maybe this will help the industry figure it out. Look what happened when GE’s (GE) NBC replaced its 10 pm dramas with Jay Leno. For some reason, executives at CBS (CBS) and Disney’s (DIS) ABC figured viewers who liked to watch stuff like “ER” or even “Southland” would automatically move over to their offerings.

But as Pali Capital’s Rich Greenfield (registration required) points out, citing data from MediaLife, NBC’s viewers didn’t move to other broadcasters when they didn’t like what they saw at 10 pm. They went to the cable guys:

The cable network original programming push continues to gain momentum, with the notable increase in overall cable network ratings at 10 pm so far this TV season likely leading to even more significant programming investment in the year ahead–cannot be viewed positively for broadcast networks as higher quality original cable programming will drive continued viewer fragmentation.

While originally we expected networks such as TNT (TWX) and F/X (NWSA) to be the prime beneficiaries of the Leno move on NBC as they focus on 10pm dramas similar stylistically to what NBC used to air at 10pm, we believe the impact has been quite fragmented, helping a wide array of cable networks that air original programming at 10pm (including networks owned by DIS, DISCA, SNI, VIA/B).

And here, to underscore the point quite nicely, is broadcast’s Jay Leno interviewing the cast of cable’s “Jersey Shore,” the MTV show that, for better or worse, is one of this year’s big hits:

(Quasi-apology for making this the second “Jersey Shore” clip on All Things D today. But then again, The Situation is The Situation.)

Digital Video Recorders, Microsoft Money on the Mac and Droid

Walter S. Mossberg — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:47:36 +0000

Twenty years ago I could buy a VCR to record TV programs off the airwaves. Is there an analogous device, using digital recording instead of videotape, that doesn’t require a subscription, monthly fees etc.?

A: TiVo digital video recorders can capture free, over-the-air TV shows, if you connect your antenna to the TiVo box. Also, you can use a properly equipped computer to do this. Some Windows computers come with a built-in TV tuner, and Windows itself comes with functionality that allows you to watch TV shows and record them to the hard disk for later playback. You can also buy add-on TV tuners for PCs that lack them. Macs don’t come with hardware and software for watching and recording TV shows, but you can buy add-on hardware and software for Macs that do this as well.

I migrated to a Mac about two years ago. One program I keep using in Windows is Microsoft Money. Microsoft has announced it is discontinuing support for the product. Do you know of any Mac alternatives out there?

A: There’s a Mac version of Quicken, but it isn’t great. Intuit, which makes Quicken, is bringing out a new, supposedly better Mac version soon, but I haven’t seen it. There’s also a product called Moneydance for the Mac (and Windows) that looks decent, but I haven’t reviewed it. Another option is to keep using Windows and switch to Quicken on that platform, though converting from Money may be time-consuming.

My cellphone is ready to be replaced. I am considering the new Droid. although I wouldn’t use it for Internet browsing, but rather as a pure communications device and to keep my calendar and perhaps a few other apps. With such limited use, is it worth it to buy a Droid?

A: I’m not sure which “few other apps” you expect to use, so it’s hard to say which smartphone platform would be best for you, since the leading platforms have different varieties and numbers of apps. But if you really expect your use to be very limited, you might want to look for something that costs less than the $150-$200 a Droid would set you back. For instance, you can get a Palm Pixi for as little as $25 or its more powerful sibling, the Pre, for around $80. You can even get a BlackBerry for well under $100, or an iPhone for $99, or a different phone that runs the same Android operating system as the Droid does for $100 or less. I suggest you consider which apps you expect to run, or how much variety in apps you desire, then weigh your budget, consider which network you prefer and compare models.

You can find Mossberg’s Mailbox, and my other columns, online for free at the All Things Digital web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

Comcast Won't Talk About NBCU, Will Talk About Internet Video

Peter Kafka — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:49:33 +0000

Wall Street has been displeased with Comcast (CMCSA) since news of its interest in NBC Universal broke in late September, and the company didn’t do much to mollify investors today: Executives refused to say much about the deal except to refer to reports of the deal as “rumors.” Silly, but expected.

Comcast did have reasonably good news to deliver this morning. It signed up more new customers than Wall Street expected, though it had to cut prices to do so. We’ll see if that mollifies investors, who really have been salty–look what’s happened to CMCSA shares since news of the GE (GE) transaction broke:

Since Comcast barely addressed the NBCU deal during its earnings call this morning, it had more time to tackle other topics. A recurring theme: How would increased Web video consumption affect the company?

The answer: No one knows, exactly.

On the one hand, there’s the threat that consumers will be less likely to pay for cable TV if they’re getting their shows over the Web, whether it’s through illegal streams or legitimate “over the top” services like the one Apple (AAPL) is trying to assemble.

That’s why Comcast CEO Brian Roberts described his company’s “authentication” efforts, which are in a beta test now but are scheduled to go nationwide next month, as an effort to make sure that people who consume Web video do so “in a way that secures the existing model.”

That is–he’d like them to keep paying Comcast for a TV subscription even though they’re watching shows online. Tough sell.

On the other hand, even if you stop paying for cable TV, you still have to pay someone to connect you to the Web, and it’s very likely that company will be Comcast. And if you’re not paying Comcast for TV, there’s a very good chance you’ll pay more for your Internet connection.

“I’ve been saying for a long time that I think video over the Internet is more friend than foe,” Roberts said this morning. Let’s see if Wall Street agrees.

Exclusive Xbox 360-Netflix Partnership Not So Exclusive Anymore

John Paczkowski — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:22:45 +0000

“This exclusive partnership offers you the ability to instantly stream movies and TV episodes from Netflix to the television via Xbox 360. Xbox 360 will be the only game console to offer this movie-watching experience, available to Xbox LIVE Gold members who are also Netflix unlimited plan subscribers…at no additional cost.”

– Microsoft on its Xbox 360/Netflix partnership, Aug. 2009

So much for Xbox 360’s game console exclusivity on Netflix streaming. This morning, the DVD-by-mail pioneer said that beginning sometime next month, owners of Sony’s PlayStation 3 game consoles will be able to stream movies and TV shows from Netflix.

The feature, which brings an unlimited amount of online viewing with any subscription worth $9 or more, will initially require an “instant streaming Blu-ray disc” to enable it. Not the most elegant of implementations, but presumably a firmware upgrade will likely follow and bake the feature into the PS3.

For Netflix (NFLX), the deal provides a chance to broaden its subscriber base. About nine million PlayStation 3 systems have been sold in U.S., and more than 25 million worldwide. So the potential for new customers here is substantial. For Sony (SNE), which already offers movies and TV shows to PS 3 users for a $3 to $4 fee, it’s a way of removing an Xbox 360 marketing advantage Microsoft (MSFT) has been lording over it since this past August.

How Much Will You Have to Pay for Hulu? Nothing. How Much Will You Pay for "Hulu Plus"? Good Question.

Peter Kafka — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:31:24 +0000

Is Hulu putting up a pay wall around its Web TV site? Nope.

Does Hulu want to charge people to watch Web TV? Yes.

Confused? Don’t be.

It’s pretty straightforward: Hulu, the joint venture between News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, GE’s (GE) NBC Universal and Disney’s (DIS) ABC, doesn’t plan on charging people to watch the stuff it’s currently airing on the site–a mix of first-run shows from broadcast TV, a limited number of cable TV shows and a smattering of movies. But Hulu is trying to figure out how to create some kind of premium offering where you’ll pay for stuff that isn’t on the site right now.

That’s what Hulu’s backers have been saying for months, so it’s a little puzzling that News Corp. COO Chase Carey’s comments got folks worked up yesterday. Meanwhile, multiple sources familiar with Hulu’s plans tell me that…Hulu doesn’t actually have a plan yet, but it is trying to piece one together.

There are some pretty obvious ways to go here. Hulu could sell movies or TV shows on a pay-per-view basis, or it could sell subscriptions to shows it doesn’t offer now or to a deeper offering of shows it already has. You could call it “Hulu Plus” (no charge for that one, guys).

If you’re a fan of Fox’s “Family Guy,” for instance, Hulu is only of limited help: The site only has the most recent five episodes. So how much would you pay to watch the rest of them?

If you don’t have an answer for that, don’t worry–Team Hulu doesn’t know, either. Nor can they tell you if airing free shows on Hulu has cut into other revenue streams like broadcast TV advertising or DVD sales, even though “we’ve done a thousand regression analyses on this,” says an industry executive involved in the site.

Do bear in mind that this was a problem Hulu’s backers didn’t really envision when they were dreaming up the site; at the time, they were most concerned with building a video site that would allow them to barter with Google (GOOG) and Apple (AAPL).

Now they own one of the biggest video sites on the Web, one they say is performing ahead of plan. And Hulu is selling enough advertising that it’s coming close to reaching break-even, according to executives I spoke to this week.

But at the very least, adding a pay component to Hulu helps mollify those who fear the site is cannibalizing their existing businesses. Or who simply want another revenue stream. And a pay element dovetails with Hulu’s interest in joining up with the “authentication” movement pushed by cable guys like Comcast (CMCSA) and Time Warner (TWX).

Meanwhile, here’s the use case for Hulu that its backers originally envisioned–“catch up viewing.” I was on a plane when last night’s episode of the “The Office” aired, but I can watch the whole thing–with ads I can’t skip–on my laptop today. And so can you: