Around the Net
Fox Calls Google 'Footprint Too Small' for TV
- Fortune et al, Thursday, November 11, 2010 1:11 PM
"No more Simpsons or Glee!" cries Fortune.
"The feeling at Fox was
that Google's 'footprint was too small,'" writes CNet, citing an unnamed source. In other words, "Google TV had yet to develop a large
enough user base to make it worthwhile for the broadcaster."
As paidContent notes, "The
increasing number of defections from TV partners has overshadowed the new device ... since its launch last month."
Under the headline, "Google TV is Like a Cow that Charges You for Milk," ReadWriteWeb contributor
(and GoogleTV owner) Mike Melanson says: "So far, having a Google TV without cable has been more a disappointment than anything else."
Still, "There's still lots of content
available on GoogleTV ... and that content list is growing," notes Fortune. For starters, "Crackle, the online gateway to Sony Pictures Television is now available on GoogleTV."
In an
official statement, Google says it's early days for Web TV, and remains confident that it can eventually win over content partners and consumers alike.
Meanwhile, at a conference this
week, Google TV product lead Rishi Chandra admits that GoogleTV won't convince consumers to cut their cable cords anytime soon.
"Our point of view is that cord cutting is not
happening," Chandra said during a NewTeeVee conference. "We think the cable industry does a pretty good job of
delivering content to users ... so we don't think that all of a sudden users are going to shut off all that content."
Disruptive technologies that penetrate existing delivery systems are always rejected if they come from the outside or from a non-player. Google has the cash and technology to skip cable either through internet or cell carrier data services.
If you are paying $65-90 for premium cable, $45 for internet over cable or dish and $90 for cell phones including non-metered data services, it can all add up to a lot of money for communications and media. Google will attack each of the pieces and Google TV can easily move to non DVR, cable tethered systems.
SlingBox, Sony's ORB, SageTV, TV2Me, MobiTV, Silicondust HDHomeRun and Pinnacle PCTV To Go HD are all chipping away at the hard wired market.
Cable wont go away but will become more price sensitive when one can be untethered to the always on set top box.
China is way ahead in this direction and sees the mobile device (laptop, 3G/4G smartphone, tablet) as the broadcast media distribution access point. In this environment, fiber optics delivers to cities and using various wireless protocols connects to the end user.
They see the convergence of broadcast, internet and wireless as the most cost effective solution for national coverage. It is the only way to leverage spectrum in the most efficient way, unlike what WiMax promised and 4G/LTE can deliver. Their goal is 500M users by 2014.
Once again, America is held hostage by outdated technologies and oligopolistic practices that innovations like GoogleTV provide. Expect the latter to surface in Asia to prove its point.
As one who has tried to watch YouTube on my Crackberry, it ain't cracked up to be what I expect.
Android may just be the tool that creates a tipping point and makes content delivers realize that there is more money to be made without cable providers charging egregrious amounts to its subscribers.
One last point. I think that of the 200+ channels my cable provider makes available (Dish), I watch at most 15 not counting my local TV stations. The rest is useless yet my cable rates have to cover it. A better solution is to buy my channels according to my selection choices.
If GoogleTV becomes that pseudo delivery channel, they will kick butt by licensing content from any and all sources and charging by the number or users (eyeballs) that drive advertising. Better yet, would not mind a premium that would go back to the content providers if it was ad free.
I am not completely immersed in the conversations and I understand that Google has positioned themselves as the technology piece of this equation, but I don't understand why Google doesn't subsidized the technology. I feel you would be able to expand outside just early adopters if the product was close to free. They will more than make up for it once they realize and launch the revenue stream.