After a series of disastrous attempts to milk NY Times content online, the New York Times announced plans to once again try to charge online readers for access to certain types of content. This time, it proposes to use a metered model that will let users access a limited number of articles for free before being charged. They estimate the cost for heavy users as around $20 a month, less than their Kindle Subscription rate.
What's the prospect for success? Well, in January, Bloomberg reported that after spending $40-$50 million on the system, they had fixed some 500 known glitches, "with 200 to go." And, at $20/month, they'll need 2.5 million heavy users/months just to recoup initial investment. The Times' past history with pay models suggests its unlikely to reach those levels. So I'm not surprised that they also announced they'll start charging for its iPad and iPhone apps.
Source: "NYT: All the News That's Fit to Mint," Media Daily News
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
New approach for iTunes?
Apple is said to be in talks with record companies about changing how iTunes customers can access and use music they've purchased.
Apple is seeking licensing rights that would allow them to provide a permanent backup of music purchases, and allow downloads to multiple devices linked to the same iTunes account.
iTunes, which became the top US music retailer in 2008, and accounts for about two-thirds of all digital downloads in the U.S., is facing increased competition from streaming services like Pandora, new Web-based services like Spotify, Rdio, and MOG. They are also facing Amazon's shift to DRM-free downloads that do not place limits on how or where music is used by consumers. They argue that expanding digital rights might revive the recently stalled growth in digital downloads.
Source: "Apple is Said to Negotiate to Allow Unlimited Downloads of Music Purchases" Bloomberg
Apple is seeking licensing rights that would allow them to provide a permanent backup of music purchases, and allow downloads to multiple devices linked to the same iTunes account.
iTunes, which became the top US music retailer in 2008, and accounts for about two-thirds of all digital downloads in the U.S., is facing increased competition from streaming services like Pandora, new Web-based services like Spotify, Rdio, and MOG. They are also facing Amazon's shift to DRM-free downloads that do not place limits on how or where music is used by consumers. They argue that expanding digital rights might revive the recently stalled growth in digital downloads.
Source: "Apple is Said to Negotiate to Allow Unlimited Downloads of Music Purchases" Bloomberg
Where is the Living Room?
A panel on "The Living Room Wars: Convergence or Chaos," held at OMMA Global, looked at the rise convergence and connected devices in terms of where and how video programming is consumed. From the old days where the family TV set dominated the living room, to recent years where most homes had multiple TV sets in a variety of rooms, and the plethora of other devices (computers, video games, etc.) emerging in recent years, the ways in which video is sought and consumed is changing.
Anthony Soohoo of CBS Interactive suggested that the really big change is still coming, as "last year is the first year that video went portable," and that portable video had the potential to impact audience uses as much as portable radios changed radio listening behaviors. And the issue is not limited to where video is used, but also to whether video programming should be tailored to alternative experiences, to whether programmers need to rethink content.
Source: "Where is the Living Room?", VidBlog
Anthony Soohoo of CBS Interactive suggested that the really big change is still coming, as "last year is the first year that video went portable," and that portable video had the potential to impact audience uses as much as portable radios changed radio listening behaviors. And the issue is not limited to where video is used, but also to whether video programming should be tailored to alternative experiences, to whether programmers need to rethink content.
Source: "Where is the Living Room?", VidBlog
Decline of Traditional TV?
Damion Huntoon recommends this piece on the decline of TV -
"Tech and the Decline of Traditional TV," Larry Magid, The Huffington Post.
"Tech and the Decline of Traditional TV," Larry Magid, The Huffington Post.
In search for new revenues, Discovery offers Archive
Discovery Communications is making its footage archive, comprising more than 100,000 hours of content, available to external production companies. It's new content licensing business, DiscoveryAccess.com, is an early move in the shift from sales to licensing as the source of ongoing revenue streams.
Source: "Discovery Offers Archive Via e-Commerce Site", MediaDailyNews
Source: "Discovery Offers Archive Via e-Commerce Site", MediaDailyNews
In search of new revenue sources, U.K. lifts ban on product placement
For more than 50 years, the U.K. has prohibited any form of paid brand integration or product placement on its airwaves. They did so even as the rest of Europe was easing similar rules as stations, networks, and program producers sought new revenue streams in the increasingly competitive broadcasting markets. But in this case, the pressure seems to be more a mandate from the EU towards standardization of broadcast revenues than a quick money grab. Although the current culture minister is quoted as saying that the product placement revenues are needed to keep U.K. program production firms competitive. While lifting the band, Ofcom (the British version of the FCC) is still imposing strict limits on sponsorship, still banning it for alcohol and foods and drinks high in sugar, fat, or salt.
Source: "U.K. Lifts Product Placement Ban," TVBlog
Source: "U.K. Lifts Product Placement Ban," TVBlog
AT&T's U-verse - Coming Soon?
As I've mentioned a couple of times in class, you can see the thick AT&T U-verse cable being laid along the river-side edge of campus, on its way to the downtown telephone hub.
It's a local reminder of U-Verse's rapid expansion, which surpassed 3 million TV customers in January. Further promoting this expansion is the FCC's approval of a WiFi set-top-box for Pay TV, which means that you won't have to run your home computer network to all of your TVs, saving time and money.
Source: "AT&T touts U-verse TV's fast growth, as WiFi set-top box approved," Connected Planet
It's a local reminder of U-Verse's rapid expansion, which surpassed 3 million TV customers in January. Further promoting this expansion is the FCC's approval of a WiFi set-top-box for Pay TV, which means that you won't have to run your home computer network to all of your TVs, saving time and money.
Source: "AT&T touts U-verse TV's fast growth, as WiFi set-top box approved," Connected Planet
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Network Neutrality & Congress - Status
Congress has delayed a vote that would void the FCC's current Network Neutrality rules.
So what's Network Neutrality and why would Congress try to circumvent the FCC?
Well, Network Neutrality is one of those nice-sounding buzzwords that gets applied to a range of concepts, some with little or no real relation to either networks or neutrality. In the current focus, it's all about whether ISPs and the people running the actual Internet infrastructure, can differentiate among users and uses, particularly with different pricing schemes. To those pushing the policy, it's spun as keeping the Internet open and free (or at least at flat-rate pricing). They proclaim that without Network Neutrality, you'll have a two-tier (or more) system where all the good stuff is only available at a premium. The net industry, though, sees that the Net, with ever-increasing demand for bandwidth, is approaching capacity, and that in many cases, only a few users dominate data flows on the net (for example, Netflix accounts for 25% of all US Internet usage during evenings - alternatively, think about someone who's constantly downloading video on a shared system and slowing things for other users). The ISPs and backbone folks want to be able to either limit usage, or charge high-users more. Another idea that's been floated as the network nears capacity, is to have a class of transmission that has priority, or guarantees a bandwidth (for example, to guarantee a data rate that would stream HD programming in real time).
While both sides have their preferred metaphors, I like comparing this to mail - You have a basic system at one set price, but you can pay a little more for faster delivery or a variety of service guarantees.
The real problem, though, is not the contrasting ideas or metaphors, but with the FCC's proposed rules - which mainly limit ISP and network operator's ability to control use and prices. Data usage on the Internet doubles every few months, so there is a constant need for upgrades, and occasionally a need to limit usage at points between upgrades. The FCC's rules limit systems ability to upgrade (and one study suggests will result in a loss of 700,000 jobs and a decline in service).
More importantly, this is the FCC's second set of Network Neutrality rules - the first was struck down by the Federal Courts on the argument that the FCC did not have the authority to impose that particular set of rules. Then Congress got into the act, with a majority of both Senators and Representatives signing onto a letter basically telling the FCC to knock it off. So does the FCC obey the Courts and the will of Congress? No - they basically reissue the rules that have already been declared void by both the Court and Congress (and without going through the mandated regulatory process this go-around, to boot). So don't expect this set of rules to last too long either.
Now, there are good arguments on both sides, for a number of issues under the "Network Neutrality" concept. But, as with several other actions this government is taking with regard to the Internet - this action is not good for the Net or for users in the long run, although it may make some people feel good about doing something, at least until the real impacts are felt.
So what's Network Neutrality and why would Congress try to circumvent the FCC?
Well, Network Neutrality is one of those nice-sounding buzzwords that gets applied to a range of concepts, some with little or no real relation to either networks or neutrality. In the current focus, it's all about whether ISPs and the people running the actual Internet infrastructure, can differentiate among users and uses, particularly with different pricing schemes. To those pushing the policy, it's spun as keeping the Internet open and free (or at least at flat-rate pricing). They proclaim that without Network Neutrality, you'll have a two-tier (or more) system where all the good stuff is only available at a premium. The net industry, though, sees that the Net, with ever-increasing demand for bandwidth, is approaching capacity, and that in many cases, only a few users dominate data flows on the net (for example, Netflix accounts for 25% of all US Internet usage during evenings - alternatively, think about someone who's constantly downloading video on a shared system and slowing things for other users). The ISPs and backbone folks want to be able to either limit usage, or charge high-users more. Another idea that's been floated as the network nears capacity, is to have a class of transmission that has priority, or guarantees a bandwidth (for example, to guarantee a data rate that would stream HD programming in real time).
While both sides have their preferred metaphors, I like comparing this to mail - You have a basic system at one set price, but you can pay a little more for faster delivery or a variety of service guarantees.
The real problem, though, is not the contrasting ideas or metaphors, but with the FCC's proposed rules - which mainly limit ISP and network operator's ability to control use and prices. Data usage on the Internet doubles every few months, so there is a constant need for upgrades, and occasionally a need to limit usage at points between upgrades. The FCC's rules limit systems ability to upgrade (and one study suggests will result in a loss of 700,000 jobs and a decline in service).
More importantly, this is the FCC's second set of Network Neutrality rules - the first was struck down by the Federal Courts on the argument that the FCC did not have the authority to impose that particular set of rules. Then Congress got into the act, with a majority of both Senators and Representatives signing onto a letter basically telling the FCC to knock it off. So does the FCC obey the Courts and the will of Congress? No - they basically reissue the rules that have already been declared void by both the Court and Congress (and without going through the mandated regulatory process this go-around, to boot). So don't expect this set of rules to last too long either.
Now, there are good arguments on both sides, for a number of issues under the "Network Neutrality" concept. But, as with several other actions this government is taking with regard to the Internet - this action is not good for the Net or for users in the long run, although it may make some people feel good about doing something, at least until the real impacts are felt.
Smartphone race tightens
The latest report from Nielsen shows a tight race for among the top smartphone platforms:
Android OS - 29%
Apple iOS - 27%
Blackberry OS - 27%
The release of the iPhone for Verizon and the current price drops for the iPhone 3 may give Apple a boost, breaking the current tie with Blackberry. But Android is leading by far globally, and as the number of apps available grows, it should maintain its lead.
Source Online Media Daily "Android Pulls Ahead in U.S. Smartphone Share"
Android OS - 29%
Apple iOS - 27%
Blackberry OS - 27%
The release of the iPhone for Verizon and the current price drops for the iPhone 3 may give Apple a boost, breaking the current tie with Blackberry. But Android is leading by far globally, and as the number of apps available grows, it should maintain its lead.
Source Online Media Daily "Android Pulls Ahead in U.S. Smartphone Share"
Upgraded iPad
Announced recently. Adds camera, slightly faster processor and much faster video processing in a slimmer and lighter package. With sound and video editting capabilities (and the ability to port out HD video), it offers some more flexibility, but still, it seems more an upgrade than significant improvement. Still, it still leads the growing class of handhelds..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)