Doug Gross, CNN Thu December 29, 2011
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/29/tech/web/2011-tech-fails/index.html
Netflix's short-lived plan to split itself into two services didn't go over so well this year. Qwikster?
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
The highs were high but the lows were lower in the tech world in 2011
U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner makes our top 10 list for using Twitter to send lewd photos
PlayStation outage, "Duke Nukem Forever" and failed tablets also made the cut
It was a rough year for RIM and its BlackBerry, with a handful of "fails"
(CNN) -- Can't win 'em all, can you?
The highs were pretty high in the tech world in 2011, as new gadgets, updates and advances delighted the masses. I mean, Facebook made a change that most people (so far) seemed to actually like. What are the odds?
But the lows were lower. For every moment of digital bliss, it seemed, there was a clunker of equal or greater magnitude.
So, who are we to not rub salt in the wounds of those who got it oh-so-wrong this year?
In fairness, some of these "Doh!" moments came from folks who had otherwise good years. And nobody, not even perennial tech darling Apple, is perfect. (One hard-working journalist even had to write this very story twice after he accidentally deleted it and was forced to start over. Sweet, sweet irony.).
Sure, tech successes are nice. But these social-media miscues, foot-in-mouth e-moves and other digital duds gave us more to talk about in 2011.
Here are our 2011 "Tech Fails of the Year." Feel free to jump in the comments and let us know what we missed.
Weiner on Twitter
In a crowded and competitive field, former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner grabs our "What Were You Thinking?" award for this one.
The congressman (we're staying away from name jokes because ... well ... too easy) was being talked up as possibly the next mayor of New York City when his Twitter account was apparently hacked by someone who sent lewd photos to some of his female followers. That's the story Weiner gave, anyway.
Except, as it turned out, that someone was him.
Many of us gave Weiner the benefit of the doubt in the scandal's opening hours. I mean, what public official would be dumb enough to get raunchy on a platform like Twitter, where anyone who wants to can follow your every tweet?
Turns out ...
He wasn't alone. Comedian Gilbert Gottfried tweeted jokes about the Japan tsunami and earthquake that killed more than 15,000 people. Actor and Twitter pioneer Ashton Kutcher posted a hasty tweet defending Penn State coach Joe Paterno -- before, he says, learning the full extent of the school's child-sex scandal. The resulting backlash even led him to quit Twitter, at least temporarily.
But for so badly misunderstanding the public nature of Twitter, for the whirlwind of lies that followed before he fessed up and resigned and ... yes ... for thinking women like it when you send them closeup pictures of your crotch on the Internet, Weiner earns this bulging "Fail."
Go Daddy's SOPA misstep
When the vast majority of the Web's most active players are against something, and when your livelihood depends on the Web's most active players, it's probably best to either go along or keep quiet about it, right?
Not so for Go Daddy, the Web registrar and hosting company known for its titillating TV ads. In December, the company made the ill-fated decision to come out in support of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).
Google, Yahoo and Facebook are just some of the Internet heavyweights that have lined up to stop the proposed federal law, which would penalize websites that host pirated content. The bill has come under fire from Web-freedom advocates, who say it could dampen online expression.
Go Daddy, which had submitted testimony to Congress in support of the bill, issued a public statement supporting it -- even doubling down with a stronger statement when the Web backlash began.
Fast forward 24 hours and the company -- which had already earned ire in some quarters for its racy (some might say sexist) TV commercials and its founder's penchant for elephant hunting -- changed its mind amid a rash of defections.
Tens of thousands of domains, including more than 50 owned by Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales, were moved from Go Daddy, and that's before a Reddit-organized boycott planned for Friday. Oops.
'Duke Nukem Forever'
When video gamers wait 14 years for a follow-up to one of their favorite titles, they sort of expect it not to suck. In the minds of many, "Duke Nukem Forever" failed that important test.
First announced in 1997, "Forever" was to be a follow-up to a game that got lots of love for good-heartedly pushing the boundaries of sex, violence and naughty language in the emerging field of shooter games.
It was delayed. And delayed. And delayed. What finally emerged in June hit with a thud.
"At best, it can look a few years out of date; at worst, it is a blurry, stuttering mess," wrote CNN's Ravi Hiranand, in what actually was one of the kinder reviews of the game "Playing the game feels like being thrown back into the mid-'90s, and not in a happy, nostalgic sense."
In a post-"Grand Theft Auto" world, maybe waiting "forever" would have been a better idea after all.
The other tablets
As 2011 dawned, it appeared that Apple had created a thriving new space in personal computing with its iPad.
Beginning in January at the Consumer Electronics Show, a host of competing companies stepped forward with their rival tablets. The Motorola Xoom. BlackBerry's PlayBook. Samsung Galaxy Tab. The HP TouchPad.
One problem: Nobody bought them.
Most of the new tablets, many running Google's Android operating system, came in at roughly $500 -- about the same price as Apple's new iPad 2. And the public showed that at that price, they were happy going with the industry leader.
Some tablets got pulled. Others never made it off the production line. HP had some luck selling TouchPads -- after throwing up its hands and slashing prices to fire-sale levels.
One exception. Amazon may have cracked the code late in the year with its Kindle Fire, a smaller, simpler tablet that, at $199, is $300 cheaper than the least-expensive iPad 2.
Game off at PlayStation Network
When roughly 70 million users lose access to your gaming and entertainment network, it's a "fail."
In April, a hacker accessed account information for users of Sony's PlayStation Network, ultimately knocking the network offline in late April. It wasn't completely restored until early June and some gamers lacked access for weeks.
While getting hacked was bad, some users were even madder after Sony took a week from the time of the attack to let them know what happened.
Another, much smaller, attack happened in October. In the end, it looks like most of the network's fans stuck around -- a fact no doubt aided by multiple blockbuster game releases this year.
iPhones and bars don't mix
Seriously, Apple employees?
No ... seriously?
In 2010, the tech world was aflutter after an Apple employee, reportedly celebrating his birthday, lost a prototype of the unreleased iPhone 4 in a California beer hall.
Tech blog Gizmodo bought the phone, showcased it on their site, and touched off a firestorm that included everything from police raids to legal threats.
Well, at least we know that after all of that, it could never possibly happen again.
No ... wait. It happened again.
Tech blog CNET reported that an Appler left a prototype of the iPhone 4S in a Mexican bar and restaurant in San Francisco.
As our John Sutter wrote: "Here's a theory: Maybe there's some sort of connection between drinking and losing things?"
Netflix-Qwikster
Netflix, the Web's most popular movie-rental service, first rattled some customers by raising prices in July.
Then, in September, the company announced it was, basically, splitting itself in half. Web-streaming video would still come from Netflix. DVD-by-mail rentals would come from a separate company.
Called ... "Qwikster."
Where to start here? Customers who wanted both services complained about having to set up and maintain two different accounts on two different websites. Then there was the new name, which felt dated (Napster and Friendster, anyone?) and like it was spat out by some zany-misspelled-startup name generator.
Oh yeah ... and there was the fact that the "Qwikster" Twitter handle was already owned by a guy whose avatar was a weed-smoking Elmo muppet.
Chris Taylor, of Mashable, questioned whether Qwikster was "the worst product launch since New Coke."
It didn't even last as long as that syrupy mistake. About three weeks later, Netflix announced that Qwikster was dead.
PayPal plays Scrooge
Shutting down a fund to give presents to children in need at Christmas? Sounds like something one-percenter Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life" would endorse.
But that's essentially what Web-payment titan PayPal was doing before getting popped in the nose by the Internet.
Snarky blog Regretsy, when not mocking regrettable craft projects, has long maintained various charity funds. With the holidays approaching, actress and blog runner April Winchell (who writes on the site as "Helen Killer") announced a fund drive to buy toys for 200 children submitted by community members.
It was hugely successful, meeting its fundraising goal in the first 24 hours. Then PayPal, which was processing the donations, stepped in and froze the fund because it said Winchell used a "Donate" button that's supposed to be for nonprofits only.
The Web wasn't pleased.
Winchell used her popular blog to blast PayPal in less-than-friendly terms. Twitter users and other sites amplified the outrage.
A day later, PayPal said it "recognized our error" and even offered to donate to the fund.
God bless us ... every one.
iPhone 4S battery life
OK ... this one never reached the fever pitch that the iPhone 4's antenna problems did last year.
And maybe it's a sign that, when millions of people buy your product in the first few hours it exists, there are bound to be problems.
Despite not being the mythical iPhone 5, the 4S flew out of Apple stores when it was released October 14. But within hours, users started flocking to Apple's support forum to complain their batteries were running out of juice faster than Herman Cain's presidential campaign.
Apple publicly ignored the complaints for a little over two weeks. Then the company issued a statement saying that "a small number of customers" had complained about the battery and that an update to the phone's operating system was on the way.
As with the iPhone 4 "death grip," we'll call this a modest "fail" wrapped inside an epic win. The battery gripes didn't stop Apple from selling an iLoad of the new phones.
Bad year for BlackBerry
Alas, poor BlackBerry.
Research in Motion's crack-like gadget was once synonymous with "smartphone," effectively ushering in the era of messaging, e-mail-checking and other Phone 2.0 behavior.
But, 2011 wasn't kind.
It's bad enough that the iPhone and the rise of the Androids continue to muscle BlackBerrys out of the limelight. Then the BlackBerry PlayBook, RIM's effort in the burgeoning tablet space, arrived with a thud in April.
The capper, however, was an October outage at a data center that caused users to lose messaging ability in parts of Europe, the Middle East, India, Africa, Latin America and North America. (To their credit, RIM ultimately gave away a pile of free apps to the folks affected).
The outage lasted for several days and was the final straw for some users, who abandoned ship for other phones.
Showing posts with label Netflix. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Netflix. Show all posts
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Sunday, October 16, 2011
15 Disastrous Product Launches That Were Quickly Killed
Aimee Groth and Jay Yarow of the Business Insider
10-11-11
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/15-disastrous-product-launches-were-quickly-killed-150326494.html
Monday morning, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings announced that Qwikster is no longer.
Hastings decided to listen to shareholders and consumers and kill Qwikster before even giving it a chance.
Was it the right move?
Netflix shares plunged around 7% Monday while the rest of the market rallied. Investors clearly aren't impressed, but they may just be responding to the company's acknowledgement that Qwikster was a failure. Long term abandoning a bad idea could help the stock.
Plenty of other big companies have abandoned products after disastrous launches. We picked out some of the most quickly cancelled products in history.
Ford Edsel: 3 years
The name "Edsel" is synonymous with "marketing failure." Ford invested $400 million into the car, which it introduced in 1957. But Americans literally weren't buying it, because they wanted "smaller, more economic vehicles," according to Associated Content:
Other pundits have blamed its failure on Ford Motors execs never really defining the model's niche in the car market. The pricing and market aim of most Edsel models was somewhere between the highest-end Ford and the lowest-end Mercury.
It was taken off the market in 1960.
Joost: 2+ years
Joost, originally known as "The Venice Project," was supposed to be a peer-to-peer TV network for the future, invented by the European geniuses behind Skype. The company recruited a rising star -- Mike Volpi -- away from Cisco to become its CEO. It got a deal with CBS. Joost was supposed to reinvent the way we consumed professional video.
Instead, Hulu, a joint venture between News Corp., NBC and Disney became the go-to site for TV episodes-on-the-web.
Meanwhile, Joost had all sorts of problems with its P2P architecture, its bulky software player, its content library, etc. After launching in Sept. 2007, it never took off, with its scraps selling in late 2009.
Coors Rocky Mountain Spring Water: 2 years
This was an interesting experiment in brand extension. Coors Rocky Mountain Spring Water launched in 1990, and didn't fare well. Turns out beer drinkers only want one thing from their favorite label: beer.
HD DVD: 2 years
Sponsored mostly by Toshiba, HD DVD was supposed to become the hi-def successor to the DVD when it launched in March 2006.
But the Sony-led Blu-ray faction ended up winning the format war when Warner Bros. announced it was dumping HD DVD for Blu-ray on Jan. 4, 2008.
About a month later, Toshiba said it would shut down its HD DVD efforts.
Cosmopolitan Yogurt: 18 months
Cosmopolitan made an interesting decision to launch a brand of yogurt in 1999. Needless to say, the yogurt market was already saturated, and Cosmo's readers were content enough reading the magazine.
Pepsi A.M. and Crystal: Both 1 year
In 1989, Pepsi tried to target the "breakfast cola drinker" with Pepsi a.m. It only lasted a year.
In 1992, Pepsi tried again, this time with a clear cola, "Crystal Pepsi." No dice -- it died in 1993.
McDonald's Arch Deluxe: 1 year
In 1996, McDonald's introduced the Arch Deluxe. It was intended to appeal to "urban sophisticates" -- outside of its target demographic. To reach this group McDonald's spent $100 million, which makes it one of the most expensive product flops in history.
Microsoft Bob: 1 year
Microsoft Bob was supposed to be a user-friendly interface for Windows, a project that was at one point managed by Bill Gates' now wife. Microsoft killed it one year after launching it in 1995.
Why?
"Unfortunately, the software demanded more performance than typical computer hardware could deliver at the time and there wasn't an adequately large market," Bill Gates later wrote. "Bob died."
Orbitz soda: 1 year
Although the soda, which looks like a lava lamp, appealed to young kids, it was not tasty (people compared it to cough syrup). It disappeared off shelves within a year of debuting in 1997.
However, Orbitz is still sold on eBay for a premium.
JooJoo: 11 months
In the era of a $499 Apple iPad, an inferior tablet computer that also costs $499 doesn't work. (You may remember this device from its previous title, the CrunchPad.) It came out in 2009 and was gone by 2010.
But JooJoo backer Fusion Garage continues to tinker and it's coming out with another tablet, which will also flop.
Mobile ESPN: 8 months
Mobile ESPN, introduced in January 2006, was one of the biggest flame-outs of "mobile virtual network operators," or MVNOs, last decade, which also included Amp'd Mobile, Helio, Disney Mobile, and others.
The idea was that ESPN would exclusively sell a phone that offered exclusive ESPN content and video, leasing network access from Verizon Wireless. But ESPN only had one phone at launch, a Sanyo device selling for $400.
No one bought it, and ESPN quickly shut down the service, instead providing content to Verizon's mobile Internet service.
Google Lively: 4 months
For some reason, Google thought it had to compete with Second Life in mid-2008, with a virtual world called "Lively," which came out in July 2008. (Except unlike Second Life, Lively was supposed to be sex-free.)
When the economy went down the toilet, those dreams faded fast, and Google quickly pulled the plug by November 2008.
RJ Reynold's smokeless cigarettes: 4 months
In the 1980s, just as all the anti-smoking campaigns were heating up, RJ Reynold's put $325 million into a new product: smokeless cigarettes.
They didn't work, and people weren't buying them -- so 4 months later, they were gone.
New Coke: 77 Days
In the early 1980s, Coke was losing ground to Pepsi. So it tried to create a product that would taste more like Pepsi.
While New Coke fared OK in nationwide taste tests before launching in 1985, it turned out those were misleading.
Coke abandoned the product after a few weeks, and went back to its old formula. It also gave its product a new name: Coca-Cola Classic.
HP Touchpad: 49 Days
After just a month and a half on the market, HP gave up the TouchPad and its mobile OS, WebOS in August.
The tablet was no iPad killer, selling just 25,000 units for Best Buy over the 49 days it was on their shelves.
Where does this put the TouchPad in the pantheon of tech flops? Well, it lasted one day longer than the Microsoft Kin phones, another recent flop.
So it's not the worst flop ever.
And, in fairness to HP, the TouchPad wasn't that bad. It was rough around the edges, but those could have been smoothed in the coming months. It just didn't really do anything better than the iPad, which means it's just like every other tablet out there.
Qwikster: 23 days
In September, Reed Hastings announced that Netflix would spin off Qwikster as a DVD rental business. This move met tons of criticism, and Hastings backtracked on his statement 23 days later.
10-11-11
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/15-disastrous-product-launches-were-quickly-killed-150326494.html
Monday morning, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings announced that Qwikster is no longer.
Hastings decided to listen to shareholders and consumers and kill Qwikster before even giving it a chance.
Was it the right move?
Netflix shares plunged around 7% Monday while the rest of the market rallied. Investors clearly aren't impressed, but they may just be responding to the company's acknowledgement that Qwikster was a failure. Long term abandoning a bad idea could help the stock.
Plenty of other big companies have abandoned products after disastrous launches. We picked out some of the most quickly cancelled products in history.
Ford Edsel: 3 years
The name "Edsel" is synonymous with "marketing failure." Ford invested $400 million into the car, which it introduced in 1957. But Americans literally weren't buying it, because they wanted "smaller, more economic vehicles," according to Associated Content:
Other pundits have blamed its failure on Ford Motors execs never really defining the model's niche in the car market. The pricing and market aim of most Edsel models was somewhere between the highest-end Ford and the lowest-end Mercury.
It was taken off the market in 1960.
Joost: 2+ years
Joost, originally known as "The Venice Project," was supposed to be a peer-to-peer TV network for the future, invented by the European geniuses behind Skype. The company recruited a rising star -- Mike Volpi -- away from Cisco to become its CEO. It got a deal with CBS. Joost was supposed to reinvent the way we consumed professional video.
Instead, Hulu, a joint venture between News Corp., NBC and Disney became the go-to site for TV episodes-on-the-web.
Meanwhile, Joost had all sorts of problems with its P2P architecture, its bulky software player, its content library, etc. After launching in Sept. 2007, it never took off, with its scraps selling in late 2009.
Coors Rocky Mountain Spring Water: 2 years
This was an interesting experiment in brand extension. Coors Rocky Mountain Spring Water launched in 1990, and didn't fare well. Turns out beer drinkers only want one thing from their favorite label: beer.
HD DVD: 2 years
Sponsored mostly by Toshiba, HD DVD was supposed to become the hi-def successor to the DVD when it launched in March 2006.
But the Sony-led Blu-ray faction ended up winning the format war when Warner Bros. announced it was dumping HD DVD for Blu-ray on Jan. 4, 2008.
About a month later, Toshiba said it would shut down its HD DVD efforts.
Cosmopolitan Yogurt: 18 months
Cosmopolitan made an interesting decision to launch a brand of yogurt in 1999. Needless to say, the yogurt market was already saturated, and Cosmo's readers were content enough reading the magazine.
Pepsi A.M. and Crystal: Both 1 year
In 1989, Pepsi tried to target the "breakfast cola drinker" with Pepsi a.m. It only lasted a year.
In 1992, Pepsi tried again, this time with a clear cola, "Crystal Pepsi." No dice -- it died in 1993.
McDonald's Arch Deluxe: 1 year
In 1996, McDonald's introduced the Arch Deluxe. It was intended to appeal to "urban sophisticates" -- outside of its target demographic. To reach this group McDonald's spent $100 million, which makes it one of the most expensive product flops in history.
Microsoft Bob: 1 year
Microsoft Bob was supposed to be a user-friendly interface for Windows, a project that was at one point managed by Bill Gates' now wife. Microsoft killed it one year after launching it in 1995.
Why?
"Unfortunately, the software demanded more performance than typical computer hardware could deliver at the time and there wasn't an adequately large market," Bill Gates later wrote. "Bob died."
Orbitz soda: 1 year
Although the soda, which looks like a lava lamp, appealed to young kids, it was not tasty (people compared it to cough syrup). It disappeared off shelves within a year of debuting in 1997.
However, Orbitz is still sold on eBay for a premium.
JooJoo: 11 months
In the era of a $499 Apple iPad, an inferior tablet computer that also costs $499 doesn't work. (You may remember this device from its previous title, the CrunchPad.) It came out in 2009 and was gone by 2010.
But JooJoo backer Fusion Garage continues to tinker and it's coming out with another tablet, which will also flop.
Mobile ESPN: 8 months
Mobile ESPN, introduced in January 2006, was one of the biggest flame-outs of "mobile virtual network operators," or MVNOs, last decade, which also included Amp'd Mobile, Helio, Disney Mobile, and others.
The idea was that ESPN would exclusively sell a phone that offered exclusive ESPN content and video, leasing network access from Verizon Wireless. But ESPN only had one phone at launch, a Sanyo device selling for $400.
No one bought it, and ESPN quickly shut down the service, instead providing content to Verizon's mobile Internet service.
Google Lively: 4 months
For some reason, Google thought it had to compete with Second Life in mid-2008, with a virtual world called "Lively," which came out in July 2008. (Except unlike Second Life, Lively was supposed to be sex-free.)
When the economy went down the toilet, those dreams faded fast, and Google quickly pulled the plug by November 2008.
RJ Reynold's smokeless cigarettes: 4 months
In the 1980s, just as all the anti-smoking campaigns were heating up, RJ Reynold's put $325 million into a new product: smokeless cigarettes.
They didn't work, and people weren't buying them -- so 4 months later, they were gone.
New Coke: 77 Days
In the early 1980s, Coke was losing ground to Pepsi. So it tried to create a product that would taste more like Pepsi.
While New Coke fared OK in nationwide taste tests before launching in 1985, it turned out those were misleading.
Coke abandoned the product after a few weeks, and went back to its old formula. It also gave its product a new name: Coca-Cola Classic.
HP Touchpad: 49 Days
After just a month and a half on the market, HP gave up the TouchPad and its mobile OS, WebOS in August.
The tablet was no iPad killer, selling just 25,000 units for Best Buy over the 49 days it was on their shelves.
Where does this put the TouchPad in the pantheon of tech flops? Well, it lasted one day longer than the Microsoft Kin phones, another recent flop.
So it's not the worst flop ever.
And, in fairness to HP, the TouchPad wasn't that bad. It was rough around the edges, but those could have been smoothed in the coming months. It just didn't really do anything better than the iPad, which means it's just like every other tablet out there.
Qwikster: 23 days
In September, Reed Hastings announced that Netflix would spin off Qwikster as a DVD rental business. This move met tons of criticism, and Hastings backtracked on his statement 23 days later.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
From Apple to Vudu: 8 Netflix Alternatives Compared
Mike Isaac
September 21, 2011
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/09/netflix-alternatives
The curtain hasn't even opened on Netflix's new DVD-by-mail spin-off company Qwikster, and many customers are already walking out.
The company recently revised its quarterly projections of net subscribers to show 1 million fewer customers than it had previously expected. Much to Netflix's chagrin, folks are realizing that the king of mail-away media isn't the only game in town.
We've taken a look at some of Netflix's (and Qwikster's) main competitors, and judged each service accordingly. Do the rest offer enough to stand up to the best?
Netflix/Qwikster
Also known as Netflix: Redux. It's the same service we know and love, only completely different. Faced with massive customer backlash in the wake of a price hike, Netflix split itself into two separate companies this week. The streaming service will retain the Netflix branding while the DVD-by-mail service will be named Qwikster. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said the split will better serve customers in the long run because each company will be able to better focus on one type of service.
Netflix pioneered the DVD-by-mail service, creating an entire industry where one did not exist previously. But after serious flux in Netflix's new pricing system — which split the streaming and DVD mailing services into two separate plans starting at $8 a month minimum — there's no guarantee the company's customers will continue to stick around.
WIRED: It's been around the longest, and is the most familiar service. Massive offering of physical mail-away media. New game rental service sounds intriguing. Streaming to all iOS devices and Android smartphones.
TIRED: Can you say price increase? We don't like paying more money for the same service, and we're failing to see how splitting the companies in twain is going to benefit consumers. Streaming-only service still lacks selection compared to DVD catalog.
Amazon Prime
Amazon's elite-level service launched in 2005, offering two-day shipping on any of its products to members anywhere in the continental United States and other select countries for a reasonable $80 a year. Originally meant for those who couldn't wait more than 48 hours for their tangible goods, Prime expanded in February to offer instant, streaming movie and TV show access to existing Prime customers at no added cost.
WIRED: Fast shipping on everything Amazon! What other movie service offers that? Lower yearly rate than Netflix and Qwikster. Works with over 100 different web-connected set-top boxes, including the ever-popular Roku.
TIRED: Smaller media selection compared to other existing services. Lacks the DVD rental option that made Netflix famous.
Redbox
Redbox made it possible for legions of supermarket shoppers to pick up a movie on the cheap, without having to make multiple stops. Instead of leaving the grocery store (or 7-11, Walgreens or what have you) with only a TV dinner and a Mountain Dew in tow, Redbox's 30,000-plus DVD-rental kiosks make sure you won't go home alone on a Friday night again.
WIRED: Cheap, cheap, cheap. DVD rentals average two bucks a pop, with anywhere from 50 to 200 recent titles to select from in each kiosk, updated weekly. Game rentals to roll out this year.
TIRED: No streaming service? Bummer.
Blockbuster
Once the dominant force in the media-rental industry, Blockbuster has fared horribly over the past few years. After scoffing at Netflix's business model years ago, the big blue-and-gold company filed for bankruptcy last September.
However late, Blockbuster jumped on the bandwagon with its own Netflix clone mail-away service, but with the added advantage of allowing customers to return DVDs to brick-and-mortar Blockbuster stores. And finally, Blockbuster Express is a blue-and-gold Redbox rip, with kiosks placed in grocery stores and Kwik-E-Mart's across the country.
WIRED: The Dish Network acquisition could mean big things for Blockbuster when (or if) the companies get a game plan up and running.
TIRED: Brick and mortar is slowly dying, so the leg-up Blockbuster has on Netflix with in-store DVD exchange may soon be moot. Ripping off its two major competitors shows a lack of ability to innovate, possibly signifying that the company is still behind the times.
Hulu Plus
At $8 a month, Hulu Plus offers instant streaming access to a wealth of TV shows only a day or so after they've originally aired. But seriously, if you're paying a monthly fee, you shouldn't have to deal with mid-show commercial breaks. That's the whole point of paying for streaming service, right?
Still, I challenge you to find a more comprehensive archive of Hell's Kitchen reruns on the web.
WIRED: Streaming to all iOS devices and some Android smartphones and tablets. Tons of TV shows that aren't out to rent on DVD.
TIRED: Despite taking your $8 monthly fee, you still have to sit through asinine commercials. "Hundreds," not thousands, of movies to choose from. Again, no physical media. Rights agreements sometimes complicate how many episodes are available for viewing on the site.
Android Market
Google has struggled to keep up with Apple in its media service offerings, only recently debuting its movie rental service on the Android Market in conjunction with a complete interface makeover. Fortunately, renting flicks from Google is available on all Android devices running version 2.2 and up — that's something even Hulu can't say.
WIRED: Rental ain't pricey, averaging around two to five bucks a pop. Streaming to Android phones is nice. Compatible with PCs.
TIRED: No physical media. Not functional across all Android tablets.
iTunes and Apple TV
There's a down-payment to get Apple TV up and running in your home, and it's in the form of a small, sleek set-top box. Fortunately, it's only $100.
Along with Netflix compatibility, Apple lets you purchase and rent movies from its iTunes media store, along with the ability to buy TV shows (due to lack of customer demand, Apple discontinued TV show rentals last month). Further, you're able to watch streaming media on all of Apple's mobile devices. The company wants to hook you into an Apple-centric world, and the interconnection between its services makes it easier for customers to buy in.
WIRED: Purchase prices are par for the course, ranging from $1 to $3 depending on whether you want to rent or own. Ability to buy entire seasons of a show is convenient. Rumors and speculation have long suggested bigger plans for Apple TV's future, though Apple itself is staying mum on any potential developments.
TIRED: Lacks an "all-you-can-stream buffet" option, which can get costly if you watch a lot of flicks. Though its library is extensive, iTunes alone doesn't contain the esoteric indie films that Netflix totes. So if you're subscribing to Netflix and buying through iTunes at the same time, charges could add up fast.
Vudu
Wal-Mart got in on the media-services game in 2010 by buying Vudu, another streaming media company. Initially the service was available only in a set-top box version, but Vudu has since extended itself to other platforms as a standalone media service in and of itself, available to Playstation 3 users, Boxee for OSX owners and Windows-based PC users.
WIRED: Rentals and purchases stay on par with most other services, settling in the $1 to $5 range for rentals, and upwards of $5 for purchases. Titles available the same day they're released on DVD, unlike other services that require waiting periods. Streaming video available on iPad.
TIRED: No monthly unlimited movie-streaming option.
September 21, 2011
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/09/netflix-alternatives
The curtain hasn't even opened on Netflix's new DVD-by-mail spin-off company Qwikster, and many customers are already walking out.
The company recently revised its quarterly projections of net subscribers to show 1 million fewer customers than it had previously expected. Much to Netflix's chagrin, folks are realizing that the king of mail-away media isn't the only game in town.
We've taken a look at some of Netflix's (and Qwikster's) main competitors, and judged each service accordingly. Do the rest offer enough to stand up to the best?
Netflix/Qwikster
Also known as Netflix: Redux. It's the same service we know and love, only completely different. Faced with massive customer backlash in the wake of a price hike, Netflix split itself into two separate companies this week. The streaming service will retain the Netflix branding while the DVD-by-mail service will be named Qwikster. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said the split will better serve customers in the long run because each company will be able to better focus on one type of service.
Netflix pioneered the DVD-by-mail service, creating an entire industry where one did not exist previously. But after serious flux in Netflix's new pricing system — which split the streaming and DVD mailing services into two separate plans starting at $8 a month minimum — there's no guarantee the company's customers will continue to stick around.
WIRED: It's been around the longest, and is the most familiar service. Massive offering of physical mail-away media. New game rental service sounds intriguing. Streaming to all iOS devices and Android smartphones.
TIRED: Can you say price increase? We don't like paying more money for the same service, and we're failing to see how splitting the companies in twain is going to benefit consumers. Streaming-only service still lacks selection compared to DVD catalog.
Amazon Prime
Amazon's elite-level service launched in 2005, offering two-day shipping on any of its products to members anywhere in the continental United States and other select countries for a reasonable $80 a year. Originally meant for those who couldn't wait more than 48 hours for their tangible goods, Prime expanded in February to offer instant, streaming movie and TV show access to existing Prime customers at no added cost.
WIRED: Fast shipping on everything Amazon! What other movie service offers that? Lower yearly rate than Netflix and Qwikster. Works with over 100 different web-connected set-top boxes, including the ever-popular Roku.
TIRED: Smaller media selection compared to other existing services. Lacks the DVD rental option that made Netflix famous.
Redbox
Redbox made it possible for legions of supermarket shoppers to pick up a movie on the cheap, without having to make multiple stops. Instead of leaving the grocery store (or 7-11, Walgreens or what have you) with only a TV dinner and a Mountain Dew in tow, Redbox's 30,000-plus DVD-rental kiosks make sure you won't go home alone on a Friday night again.
WIRED: Cheap, cheap, cheap. DVD rentals average two bucks a pop, with anywhere from 50 to 200 recent titles to select from in each kiosk, updated weekly. Game rentals to roll out this year.
TIRED: No streaming service? Bummer.
Blockbuster
Once the dominant force in the media-rental industry, Blockbuster has fared horribly over the past few years. After scoffing at Netflix's business model years ago, the big blue-and-gold company filed for bankruptcy last September.
However late, Blockbuster jumped on the bandwagon with its own Netflix clone mail-away service, but with the added advantage of allowing customers to return DVDs to brick-and-mortar Blockbuster stores. And finally, Blockbuster Express is a blue-and-gold Redbox rip, with kiosks placed in grocery stores and Kwik-E-Mart's across the country.
WIRED: The Dish Network acquisition could mean big things for Blockbuster when (or if) the companies get a game plan up and running.
TIRED: Brick and mortar is slowly dying, so the leg-up Blockbuster has on Netflix with in-store DVD exchange may soon be moot. Ripping off its two major competitors shows a lack of ability to innovate, possibly signifying that the company is still behind the times.
Hulu Plus
At $8 a month, Hulu Plus offers instant streaming access to a wealth of TV shows only a day or so after they've originally aired. But seriously, if you're paying a monthly fee, you shouldn't have to deal with mid-show commercial breaks. That's the whole point of paying for streaming service, right?
Still, I challenge you to find a more comprehensive archive of Hell's Kitchen reruns on the web.
WIRED: Streaming to all iOS devices and some Android smartphones and tablets. Tons of TV shows that aren't out to rent on DVD.
TIRED: Despite taking your $8 monthly fee, you still have to sit through asinine commercials. "Hundreds," not thousands, of movies to choose from. Again, no physical media. Rights agreements sometimes complicate how many episodes are available for viewing on the site.
Android Market
Google has struggled to keep up with Apple in its media service offerings, only recently debuting its movie rental service on the Android Market in conjunction with a complete interface makeover. Fortunately, renting flicks from Google is available on all Android devices running version 2.2 and up — that's something even Hulu can't say.
WIRED: Rental ain't pricey, averaging around two to five bucks a pop. Streaming to Android phones is nice. Compatible with PCs.
TIRED: No physical media. Not functional across all Android tablets.
iTunes and Apple TV
There's a down-payment to get Apple TV up and running in your home, and it's in the form of a small, sleek set-top box. Fortunately, it's only $100.
Along with Netflix compatibility, Apple lets you purchase and rent movies from its iTunes media store, along with the ability to buy TV shows (due to lack of customer demand, Apple discontinued TV show rentals last month). Further, you're able to watch streaming media on all of Apple's mobile devices. The company wants to hook you into an Apple-centric world, and the interconnection between its services makes it easier for customers to buy in.
WIRED: Purchase prices are par for the course, ranging from $1 to $3 depending on whether you want to rent or own. Ability to buy entire seasons of a show is convenient. Rumors and speculation have long suggested bigger plans for Apple TV's future, though Apple itself is staying mum on any potential developments.
TIRED: Lacks an "all-you-can-stream buffet" option, which can get costly if you watch a lot of flicks. Though its library is extensive, iTunes alone doesn't contain the esoteric indie films that Netflix totes. So if you're subscribing to Netflix and buying through iTunes at the same time, charges could add up fast.
Vudu
Wal-Mart got in on the media-services game in 2010 by buying Vudu, another streaming media company. Initially the service was available only in a set-top box version, but Vudu has since extended itself to other platforms as a standalone media service in and of itself, available to Playstation 3 users, Boxee for OSX owners and Windows-based PC users.
WIRED: Rentals and purchases stay on par with most other services, settling in the $1 to $5 range for rentals, and upwards of $5 for purchases. Titles available the same day they're released on DVD, unlike other services that require waiting periods. Streaming video available on iPad.
TIRED: No monthly unlimited movie-streaming option.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Netflix Movie of the Week: Solomon Kane
The new "Conan the Barbarian" is much better than reviews or box office would suggest, but on Netflix, you can see an excellent other Robert E. Howard production never released in theaters. From Salon.com:
Solomon Kane, a grim demon-slaying pilgrim in a slouch hat, is one of Howard's more inspired creations, but the character hasn't exactly launched the careers of any Republican governors, so it's easy to see why the studio bean-counters backed "Conan" over "Kane." This isn't to say that "Solomon Kane" writer/director Michael J. Bassett ("Deathwatch") has delivered a completely faithful adaptation of any of the original Kane stories, but he has crafted a solid sword and sorcery movie built mostly on James Purefoy's (Mark Antony in HBO's "Rome") ability to be totally badassed in the title role while looking like a refugee from a Thanksgiving parade float. Joining Purefoy are the late Pete Postlethwaite ("The Town," "Inception") and Max von Sydow, who would've made an awesome Solomon Kane himself if Ken Russell or Dario Argento had directed this thing in the 1970s...
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2011/09/17/solomon_kane_review
Solomon Kane, a grim demon-slaying pilgrim in a slouch hat, is one of Howard's more inspired creations, but the character hasn't exactly launched the careers of any Republican governors, so it's easy to see why the studio bean-counters backed "Conan" over "Kane." This isn't to say that "Solomon Kane" writer/director Michael J. Bassett ("Deathwatch") has delivered a completely faithful adaptation of any of the original Kane stories, but he has crafted a solid sword and sorcery movie built mostly on James Purefoy's (Mark Antony in HBO's "Rome") ability to be totally badassed in the title role while looking like a refugee from a Thanksgiving parade float. Joining Purefoy are the late Pete Postlethwaite ("The Town," "Inception") and Max von Sydow, who would've made an awesome Solomon Kane himself if Ken Russell or Dario Argento had directed this thing in the 1970s...
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2011/09/17/solomon_kane_review
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Netflix Price Hike
From the L.A. Times:
Netflix Inc., America's largest video subscription service, is hiking prices as much as 60% in a move that has sparked outrage among its customers but brought smiles to Hollywood studio executives.
The service will no longer offer a $9.99 plan that lets users watch an unlimited number of movies online and rent one DVD at a time. Instead, subscribers who want that combination will have to pay a total of $15.98 a month — $7.99 for Netflix Instant streaming and $7.99 to receive discs in the mail.
The changes take effect immediately for new customers and in September for existing ones. Tony Wible, an analyst with Janney Capital Markets, estimated that 80% of Netflix's 22.8 million U.S. subscribers currently use a DVD/streaming combination plan and will be affected by the price hike. The company launched a $7.99 streaming-only plan late last year.
Reactions to Netflix's biggest-ever price increase were swift and overwhelmingly negative. More than 10,000 people had responded to the news on Netflix's Facebook page by late Tuesday, nearly all of them critical.
"A 60% hike with no added value is outrageous," said Courtney Penly, a 28-year-old limousine company dispatcher from North Hollywood. "Unless Netflix is going to offer its entire library via streaming, then I am canceling."
In a statement, Netflix's chief service and operations officer, Andy Rendich, said the new prices "better reflect … the underlying costs" and represent a better value for people who want only DVDs.
A Netflix spokesman said executives would elaborate on reasons for the price change when reporting the company's financial results July 25. But analysts pointed out that the company faces escalating costs to acquire content for its digital streaming library.
Consumers will end up paying more money or, if they switch to a cheaper plan, accessing less content. Either way, Netflix will benefit from higher revenue or lower costs, freeing up cash for the Los Gatos, Calif., company to buy digital rights to more movies and TV shows.
Subscribers who choose the online-only option won't have access to popular recent releases like "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1" or "Little Fockers." Those who opt just for discs will need to wait two days, instead of two minutes, from the time they request a movie until they can watch it...
Netflix has raised its prices several times before, most recently in January, but never to such a dramatic degree. It remains to be seen what the news will mean to its bottom line. On Tuesday, Netflix's stock, which has risen 66% this year, rose 5 cents to $291.27.
"We believe the unprecedented size of the potential increase and the lack of consistent [past] data makes it difficult to assess the net benefit or loss from the change," analyst Wible wrote in a research note.
Eric Wold, director of research for Merriman Capital, said, "We would not be surprised if existing Netflix subscribers reevaluate their monthly subscription." He predicted that the move could benefit the company's largest competitor: kiosk rental company Redbox, which offers DVDs for $1 a night.
Other beneficiaries could be pay cable channels like HBO, which is competing with Netflix as the latter company gobbles up rerun rights to television shows such as AMC's "Mad Men" and movies from independent studios like Relativity Media, maker of the March hit "Limitless." The $15.98 price for Netflix's one-disc-at-a-time plan with online streaming is the same monthly cost as HBO.
Rental chain Blockbuster, which was recently acquired by Dish Network, used the opportunity Tuesday to remind consumers of its recently lowered prices to rent DVDs in stores and its plans to develop a subscription streaming offering.
Netflix has made changes that provoked subscriber complaints before, with no apparent effect on its subscriber base. When it signed its first deal with a studio that included 28-day delays for new releases in early 2010, many users expressed outrage online. However, the company added 9.63 million subscribers in the last year. In March, it surpassed Comcast Corp. as the nation's largest subscription video provider.
Nonetheless, many users on Tuesday were adamant that they wouldn't pay a higher bill during tough economic times. Karla Hernandez, a 25-year-old music supervisor in Encino, said she didn't find any of Netflix's new plans compelling enough to continue with the service.
"The price increase seems really unreasonable," she said. "Having limited options with just one plan or paying $16 for both options doesn't seem worth it."
Netflix raising prices as much as 60%
Video subscription service will no longer offer a $9.99 plan that lets users watch an unlimited number of movies online and rent one DVD at a time. Instead, those who want that combination will have to pay $15.98 a month.
Ben Fritz, Los Angeles Times
July 13, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-netflix-20110713,0,4419525.story
Netflix Inc., America's largest video subscription service, is hiking prices as much as 60% in a move that has sparked outrage among its customers but brought smiles to Hollywood studio executives.
The service will no longer offer a $9.99 plan that lets users watch an unlimited number of movies online and rent one DVD at a time. Instead, subscribers who want that combination will have to pay a total of $15.98 a month — $7.99 for Netflix Instant streaming and $7.99 to receive discs in the mail.
The changes take effect immediately for new customers and in September for existing ones. Tony Wible, an analyst with Janney Capital Markets, estimated that 80% of Netflix's 22.8 million U.S. subscribers currently use a DVD/streaming combination plan and will be affected by the price hike. The company launched a $7.99 streaming-only plan late last year.
Reactions to Netflix's biggest-ever price increase were swift and overwhelmingly negative. More than 10,000 people had responded to the news on Netflix's Facebook page by late Tuesday, nearly all of them critical.
"A 60% hike with no added value is outrageous," said Courtney Penly, a 28-year-old limousine company dispatcher from North Hollywood. "Unless Netflix is going to offer its entire library via streaming, then I am canceling."
In a statement, Netflix's chief service and operations officer, Andy Rendich, said the new prices "better reflect … the underlying costs" and represent a better value for people who want only DVDs.
A Netflix spokesman said executives would elaborate on reasons for the price change when reporting the company's financial results July 25. But analysts pointed out that the company faces escalating costs to acquire content for its digital streaming library.
Consumers will end up paying more money or, if they switch to a cheaper plan, accessing less content. Either way, Netflix will benefit from higher revenue or lower costs, freeing up cash for the Los Gatos, Calif., company to buy digital rights to more movies and TV shows.
Subscribers who choose the online-only option won't have access to popular recent releases like "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1" or "Little Fockers." Those who opt just for discs will need to wait two days, instead of two minutes, from the time they request a movie until they can watch it...
Netflix has raised its prices several times before, most recently in January, but never to such a dramatic degree. It remains to be seen what the news will mean to its bottom line. On Tuesday, Netflix's stock, which has risen 66% this year, rose 5 cents to $291.27.
"We believe the unprecedented size of the potential increase and the lack of consistent [past] data makes it difficult to assess the net benefit or loss from the change," analyst Wible wrote in a research note.
Eric Wold, director of research for Merriman Capital, said, "We would not be surprised if existing Netflix subscribers reevaluate their monthly subscription." He predicted that the move could benefit the company's largest competitor: kiosk rental company Redbox, which offers DVDs for $1 a night.
Other beneficiaries could be pay cable channels like HBO, which is competing with Netflix as the latter company gobbles up rerun rights to television shows such as AMC's "Mad Men" and movies from independent studios like Relativity Media, maker of the March hit "Limitless." The $15.98 price for Netflix's one-disc-at-a-time plan with online streaming is the same monthly cost as HBO.
Rental chain Blockbuster, which was recently acquired by Dish Network, used the opportunity Tuesday to remind consumers of its recently lowered prices to rent DVDs in stores and its plans to develop a subscription streaming offering.
Netflix has made changes that provoked subscriber complaints before, with no apparent effect on its subscriber base. When it signed its first deal with a studio that included 28-day delays for new releases in early 2010, many users expressed outrage online. However, the company added 9.63 million subscribers in the last year. In March, it surpassed Comcast Corp. as the nation's largest subscription video provider.
Nonetheless, many users on Tuesday were adamant that they wouldn't pay a higher bill during tough economic times. Karla Hernandez, a 25-year-old music supervisor in Encino, said she didn't find any of Netflix's new plans compelling enough to continue with the service.
"The price increase seems really unreasonable," she said. "Having limited options with just one plan or paying $16 for both options doesn't seem worth it."
Netflix raising prices as much as 60%
Video subscription service will no longer offer a $9.99 plan that lets users watch an unlimited number of movies online and rent one DVD at a time. Instead, those who want that combination will have to pay $15.98 a month.
Ben Fritz, Los Angeles Times
July 13, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-netflix-20110713,0,4419525.story
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Al Franken: ‘They're coming after the Internet’
MIKE ZAPLER | 3/14/11
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51266.html
AUSTIN, Texas — Sen. Al Franken claimed Monday that big corporations are "hoping to destroy" the Internet and issued a call to arms to several hundred tech-savvy South by Southwest attendees to preserve net neutrality.
"I came here to warn you, the party may be over," Franken said. "They're coming after the Internet hoping to destroy the very thing that makes it such an important [medium] for independent artists and entrepreneurs: its openness and freedom.”
Net neutrality, he added, is "the First Amendment issue of our time."
Receiving a hero's welcome from the liberal crowd, Franken took repeated shots at big telecoms, singling out Comcast.
He said Comcast is looking to change the basic architecture of the Web by implementing a pricing scheme that allows moneyed interests to pay for faster speeds, leaving everyone else behind. That would be a particularly bad development for the independent musicians and artists gathered here, he said.
"The real end for Comcast is to put Netflix out of business entirely," Franken said, because of the threat that Netflix's streaming video business could pose to Comcast's cable franchise. "In the end, the American people will end up paying a lot more for worse service."
Comcast is now embroiled in a dispute with Level 3, a networking company that carries online video feeds for Netflix, over fees Comcast wants to charge to carry the high-bandwidth content.
In response to Franken’s comments, a Comcast spokeswoman said Monday that the dispute with Level 3 isn’t about net neutrality but is “a peering issue.” “Under the FCC order for the Comcast NBCU transaction, Comcast is required to comply with the FCC’s recent open Internet rules even if they are overturned in court. Our customers can access all Netflix content,” said Sena Fitzmaurice, Comcast’s vice president of government communications.
Franken, who was an aggressive opponent of the Comcast acquisition of NBC Universal, implored SXSW attendees to fight the political influence of the big telecom firms.
"Unfortunately one thing these big corporations have that we don't is the ability to purchase favorable political outcomes," he said. "Big telecoms have lots of [lobbyists], and good ones, too. ... The end of net neutrality would benefit no one but these corporate giants."
Franken said talk of a "government takeover" of the Internet by net neutrality critics has as much credibility as claims of "death panels" in the health care legislation and claims that "Obama's a Muslim," calling them a "pantheon of lies."
Franken finished up his half-hour speech by imploring the crowd to preserve net neutrality to avoid a future in which they're "stuck listening to the Black Eyed Peas and reminiscing about the days before you had to sell out to make it.”
“Let's not let the government sell us out,” he said. “Let's fight for net neutrality. Let's keep Austin weird. Let's keep the Internet weird. Let's keep the Internet free."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51266.html
AUSTIN, Texas — Sen. Al Franken claimed Monday that big corporations are "hoping to destroy" the Internet and issued a call to arms to several hundred tech-savvy South by Southwest attendees to preserve net neutrality.
"I came here to warn you, the party may be over," Franken said. "They're coming after the Internet hoping to destroy the very thing that makes it such an important [medium] for independent artists and entrepreneurs: its openness and freedom.”
Net neutrality, he added, is "the First Amendment issue of our time."
Receiving a hero's welcome from the liberal crowd, Franken took repeated shots at big telecoms, singling out Comcast.
He said Comcast is looking to change the basic architecture of the Web by implementing a pricing scheme that allows moneyed interests to pay for faster speeds, leaving everyone else behind. That would be a particularly bad development for the independent musicians and artists gathered here, he said.
"The real end for Comcast is to put Netflix out of business entirely," Franken said, because of the threat that Netflix's streaming video business could pose to Comcast's cable franchise. "In the end, the American people will end up paying a lot more for worse service."
Comcast is now embroiled in a dispute with Level 3, a networking company that carries online video feeds for Netflix, over fees Comcast wants to charge to carry the high-bandwidth content.
In response to Franken’s comments, a Comcast spokeswoman said Monday that the dispute with Level 3 isn’t about net neutrality but is “a peering issue.” “Under the FCC order for the Comcast NBCU transaction, Comcast is required to comply with the FCC’s recent open Internet rules even if they are overturned in court. Our customers can access all Netflix content,” said Sena Fitzmaurice, Comcast’s vice president of government communications.
Franken, who was an aggressive opponent of the Comcast acquisition of NBC Universal, implored SXSW attendees to fight the political influence of the big telecom firms.
"Unfortunately one thing these big corporations have that we don't is the ability to purchase favorable political outcomes," he said. "Big telecoms have lots of [lobbyists], and good ones, too. ... The end of net neutrality would benefit no one but these corporate giants."
Franken said talk of a "government takeover" of the Internet by net neutrality critics has as much credibility as claims of "death panels" in the health care legislation and claims that "Obama's a Muslim," calling them a "pantheon of lies."
Franken finished up his half-hour speech by imploring the crowd to preserve net neutrality to avoid a future in which they're "stuck listening to the Black Eyed Peas and reminiscing about the days before you had to sell out to make it.”
“Let's not let the government sell us out,” he said. “Let's fight for net neutrality. Let's keep Austin weird. Let's keep the Internet weird. Let's keep the Internet free."
Monday, December 6, 2010
Netflix Partner Says Comcast ‘Toll’ Threatens Online Video Delivery
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/netflix-partner-says-comcast-toll-threatens-online-video-delivery/
November 29, 2010
Netflix Partner Says Comcast ‘Toll’ Threatens Online Video Delivery
BRIAN STELTER
Level 3 Communications, a central partner in the Netflix online movie service, accused Comcast on Monday of charging a new fee that puts Internet video companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Level 3, which helps to deliver Netflix’s streaming movies, said Comcast had effectively erected a tollbooth that “threatens the open Internet,” and indicated that it would seek government intervention. Comcast quickly denied that the clash had anything to do with network neutrality, instead calling it “a simple commercial dispute.”
The dispute highlighted the growing importance of Internet video delivery — an area that some people say needs to be monitored more closely by regulators. Net neutrality, which posits that Internet traffic should be free of any interference from network operators like Comcast, is thought to be on the December agenda of the Federal Communications Commission.
“With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a ‘closed’ Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content,” Thomas C. Stortz, the chief legal officer for Level 3, said in a statement Monday.
Those issues cut to the heart of Comcast’s imminent acquisition of NBC Universal, which is in the final stages of review by the F.C.C. and the Justice Department. The F.C.C. is considering attaching a condition to the merger that would aim to keep Comcast’s Internet network open to competitors, according to public filings this month.
In theory, without government action, Comcast could speed up streams of NBC programs and slow down streams of its rivals’ programs. “This may be one of those teaching moments for consumers to understand what’s at stake,” said Michael McGuire, a media analyst for Gartner.
There is no known case of Comcast ever slowing the traffic to one of its direct competitors, but it did delay some peer-to-peer file traffic in a much-litigated case several years ago. Comcast says it supports an open Internet — but also says that it needs to be able to manage its expensive and still-evolving networks, which are essentially on- and off-ramps to the Internet.
Level 3 in essence operates a highway that connects to those ramps and handles traffic to and from individual Web sites. Comcast customers rely on the company’s on- and off-ramps from that highway. With nearly 17 million broadband Internet customers, Comcast is the nation’s largest such service provider.
The scuffle between the two started on Nov. 19, when Level 3 says Comcast demanded a recurring fee to “transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content.”
Three days later, under pressure from Comcast, “Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions,” Mr. Stortz said.
Mr. Stortz did not cite Netflix in his statement. But just a week before Comcast’s demand, Level 3 announced a multiyear deal to support Netflix’s rapidly growing streaming service.
A recent study found that at peak times, Netflix represented 20 percent of Internet download traffic in the United States. That makes it a de facto competitor for incumbent distributors like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, which are eager to protect both the subscription television business and the emerging video-on-demand business.
Mr. Stortz implied that Comcast was taking the action to impair companies that compete with its own cable and Internet services.
A spokesman for Netflix declined to comment Monday. Netflix, which announced a new pricing structure last week, is gradually weaning its customers from DVDs by mail in favor of online streaming, making any new costs a serious concern.
Comcast on Monday rebuffed the notion that the new fees were related to Netflix by saying that the type of traffic distributed by Level 3 was irrelevant. Joe Waz, a senior vice president at Comcast, says it has had a peering agreement with Level 3 to swap traffic fairly evenly. Now Level 3 is sharply increasing its traffic, he said, while resisting a commercial agreement to pay for that.
Comcast is “already carrying huge amounts of video to our high-speed Internet customers every day through commercial arrangements, and it seems to be working for everybody else,” Mr. Waz said. “Level 3 is trying to change the rules of the game.”
If nothing else, the dispute demonstrates that consumers have little, if any, idea how convoluted it can be to transmit video to a computer or mobile phone.
Nonetheless, on Monday night, public interest groups that have steadfastly opposed the combination of Comcast and NBC Universal argued that the Level 3 case proved that Comcast would discriminate against competitors if it could.
“On its face, this is the sort of toll booth between residential subscribers and the content of their choice that a net neutrality rule is supposed to prohibit,” said Harold Feld, legal director of one such group, Public Knowledge, in a statement.
Mr. Stortz said Level 3 would be approaching government regulators this week and “asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair, open and innovative Internet does not become a closed network controlled by a few institutions with dominant market power that have the means, motive and opportunity to economically discriminate between favored and disfavored content.”
Mr. McGuire, of Gartner, said, “There is no law here. There are only guiding principles. F.C.C. clarity on this kind of thing is going to be required.”
November 29, 2010
Netflix Partner Says Comcast ‘Toll’ Threatens Online Video Delivery
BRIAN STELTER
Level 3 Communications, a central partner in the Netflix online movie service, accused Comcast on Monday of charging a new fee that puts Internet video companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Level 3, which helps to deliver Netflix’s streaming movies, said Comcast had effectively erected a tollbooth that “threatens the open Internet,” and indicated that it would seek government intervention. Comcast quickly denied that the clash had anything to do with network neutrality, instead calling it “a simple commercial dispute.”
The dispute highlighted the growing importance of Internet video delivery — an area that some people say needs to be monitored more closely by regulators. Net neutrality, which posits that Internet traffic should be free of any interference from network operators like Comcast, is thought to be on the December agenda of the Federal Communications Commission.
“With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a ‘closed’ Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content,” Thomas C. Stortz, the chief legal officer for Level 3, said in a statement Monday.
Those issues cut to the heart of Comcast’s imminent acquisition of NBC Universal, which is in the final stages of review by the F.C.C. and the Justice Department. The F.C.C. is considering attaching a condition to the merger that would aim to keep Comcast’s Internet network open to competitors, according to public filings this month.
In theory, without government action, Comcast could speed up streams of NBC programs and slow down streams of its rivals’ programs. “This may be one of those teaching moments for consumers to understand what’s at stake,” said Michael McGuire, a media analyst for Gartner.
There is no known case of Comcast ever slowing the traffic to one of its direct competitors, but it did delay some peer-to-peer file traffic in a much-litigated case several years ago. Comcast says it supports an open Internet — but also says that it needs to be able to manage its expensive and still-evolving networks, which are essentially on- and off-ramps to the Internet.
Level 3 in essence operates a highway that connects to those ramps and handles traffic to and from individual Web sites. Comcast customers rely on the company’s on- and off-ramps from that highway. With nearly 17 million broadband Internet customers, Comcast is the nation’s largest such service provider.
The scuffle between the two started on Nov. 19, when Level 3 says Comcast demanded a recurring fee to “transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content.”
Three days later, under pressure from Comcast, “Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions,” Mr. Stortz said.
Mr. Stortz did not cite Netflix in his statement. But just a week before Comcast’s demand, Level 3 announced a multiyear deal to support Netflix’s rapidly growing streaming service.
A recent study found that at peak times, Netflix represented 20 percent of Internet download traffic in the United States. That makes it a de facto competitor for incumbent distributors like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, which are eager to protect both the subscription television business and the emerging video-on-demand business.
Mr. Stortz implied that Comcast was taking the action to impair companies that compete with its own cable and Internet services.
A spokesman for Netflix declined to comment Monday. Netflix, which announced a new pricing structure last week, is gradually weaning its customers from DVDs by mail in favor of online streaming, making any new costs a serious concern.
Comcast on Monday rebuffed the notion that the new fees were related to Netflix by saying that the type of traffic distributed by Level 3 was irrelevant. Joe Waz, a senior vice president at Comcast, says it has had a peering agreement with Level 3 to swap traffic fairly evenly. Now Level 3 is sharply increasing its traffic, he said, while resisting a commercial agreement to pay for that.
Comcast is “already carrying huge amounts of video to our high-speed Internet customers every day through commercial arrangements, and it seems to be working for everybody else,” Mr. Waz said. “Level 3 is trying to change the rules of the game.”
If nothing else, the dispute demonstrates that consumers have little, if any, idea how convoluted it can be to transmit video to a computer or mobile phone.
Nonetheless, on Monday night, public interest groups that have steadfastly opposed the combination of Comcast and NBC Universal argued that the Level 3 case proved that Comcast would discriminate against competitors if it could.
“On its face, this is the sort of toll booth between residential subscribers and the content of their choice that a net neutrality rule is supposed to prohibit,” said Harold Feld, legal director of one such group, Public Knowledge, in a statement.
Mr. Stortz said Level 3 would be approaching government regulators this week and “asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair, open and innovative Internet does not become a closed network controlled by a few institutions with dominant market power that have the means, motive and opportunity to economically discriminate between favored and disfavored content.”
Mr. McGuire, of Gartner, said, “There is no law here. There are only guiding principles. F.C.C. clarity on this kind of thing is going to be required.”
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Cable subscribers flee, but is the Internet or the economy to blame?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Cable-subscribers-flee-but-is-apf-3875814716.html
Cable subscribers flee, but is the Internet or the economy to blame?
Peter Svensson, AP Technology Writer
Thursday November 4, 2010
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cable companies have been losing TV subscribers at an ever faster rate in the last few months, and satellite TV isn't picking up the slack.
That could be a sign that Internet TV services such as Netflix and Hulu are finally starting to entice people to cancel cable, though company executives are pointing to the weak economy and housing market for now.
Third-quarter results reported Thursday by major cable TV companies show major losses, but don't settle the question of what's causing them.
If "cord-cutting" in favor of Internet video is finally taking hold, that has wide-ranging implications. Consumers who use the Internet to get their movies and TV shows bypass not just the cable companies, but the cable networks that produce the content. The move could have the same disruptive effect on the TV and movie industries as digital downloads have already had on music.
A few weeks ago, the CEO of phone company Verizon Communications Inc. likened cord-cutting to what started happening to the local-phone companies five or six years ago, when people started giving up their landlines in favor of relying solely on their cell phones.
"The first thing when that happens is you deny it," Ivan Seidenberg said. "I know the drill. I have been there."
On Thursday, Time Warner Cable Inc.'s chief operating officer, Landel Hobbs, said the company doesn't see evidence of people dropping cable in favor of the Internet. He said the biggest subscriber losses have been among people who don't have cable broadband services; high-speed Internet -- from cable or a competitor -- is key to watching video online. These people seem to be going to satellite or giving up on pay TV entirely.
On the theory that college students might be among the first to drop cable TV, the company looked at changes in subscriber figures in college towns such as Austin, Texas, and Columbus, Ohio. They weren't out of line with previous years, and they corresponded to the level of student enrollment, he said.
"We'll continue to monitor cord-cutting, but haven't found evidence where you might expect to see it," Hobbs told analysts on a conference call.
Time Warner Cable lost 155,000 video subscribers in the July-September quarter, compared with 64,000 a year ago.
The only larger cable company, Comcast Corp., reported last week that its subscriber loss more than doubled in the third quarter, to 275,000. Comcast said many of those leaving had taken advantage of low introductory rates that the company offered last year when the analog TV broadcast network as shut down.
All together, seven of the country's nine largest pay-TV companies, representing about 75 percent of the subscriber total, had reported their results for the third quarter by Thursday. They showed a combined gain of 95,700 video subscribers, or a 0.6 percent increase at an annualized rate, less than the growth of the population. In the third quarter of last year, they gained 405,800 subscribers.
(Missing from the top nine: the third-largest cable company, Cox Communications, which is privately held and doesn't report subscriber counts publicly; and the second-largest satellite TV company, Dish Network Corp., which reports results Friday.)
Cable companies have been losing video subscribers for some time, but they have been compensating by upgrading basic subscribers to more expensive digital tiers, as well as adding broadband and phone subscribers.
However, both Time Warner Cable and Cablevision Systems Corp. lost digital video subscribers in the third quarter. Both added record-low number of phone subscribers, as years of growth are coming to an end.
Meanwhile, Netflix Inc.'s streaming service has become so popular that it is now the largest source of U.S. Internet traffic during peak evening hours, according to Sandvine Inc., a Canadian company that supplies traffic-management equipment to Internet service providers.
A variety of gadgets can send Netflix's streams to the living room TV, including game consoles and the $99 Apple TV box. Many high-end TVs now come with the built-in ability to play Internet content.
Thomas Clancy Jr., 35, in Long Beach, N.Y., canceled the family's Cablevision subscription this spring. He said he has been happy with Netflix and other Internet video services since then, even though there isn't a lot of live sports to be had online.
"The amount of sports that I watched certainly didn't justify a hundred-dollar-a-month expense for all this stuff. I mean, that's twelve hundred dollars a year," Clancy said. "Twelve hundred dollars is ... near a vacation."
But Clancy -- who has no relation to the thriller writer -- is also an example of the hurdles cord cutters face. He uses an Internet-connected Blu-ray player to get Netflix movies to the TV. And he pulls a cable from his computer to the TV for Internet content Netflix doesn't have. Clancy owns a computer consulting firm and is tech-savvy enough to do all that. Most people wouldn't know how.
Cablevision wanted to raise Clancy's Internet bill when he canceled TV service. That would have made cord-cutting less attractive, but he happens to live in an area where Verizon provides Internet service at speeds that are comparable with the best cable has to offer. He got a better deal from Verizon and switched to that provider.
Most people who have the technological skills to take advantage of Internet video find that the selection of movies and shows isn't broad enough to make the jump worth it, Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett said.
On the other hand, poor people have an excellent motive to cut cable and simply replace it with an antenna or nothing at all, he said.
"The price cable TV has risen to the point where it's simply not affordable to lots of lower-income homes. And right now there are an awful lot of lower-income homes," Moffett said. "The evidence suggests that what we're seeing is a poverty problem rather than a technology phenomenon."
In addition, high unemployment means fewer new households, as kids are probably delaying moving out of their parents' houses, or people move in with roommates. That can reduce the number of households that pay for TV.
Cable companies would like to get low-income customers back with cheaper cable packages, but their hands are tied. Content providers such as The Walt Disney Co. and News Corp. won't license their channels one by one, so subscribers have to take big, expensive channel packages, or very basic ones, which offer little beyond what's available with an antenna.
Content providers now get billions of dollars in fees from cable service providers, and they want to make sure that whatever new industry model comes along, they'll get paid. It's not obvious yet that Internet video will let them sustain their profit levels.
Six companies create the content that consumes 85 percent of U.S. viewing hours, Moffett said. "Until they get on board, the train's not leaving the station."
Cable subscribers flee, but is the Internet or the economy to blame?
Peter Svensson, AP Technology Writer
Thursday November 4, 2010
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cable companies have been losing TV subscribers at an ever faster rate in the last few months, and satellite TV isn't picking up the slack.
That could be a sign that Internet TV services such as Netflix and Hulu are finally starting to entice people to cancel cable, though company executives are pointing to the weak economy and housing market for now.
Third-quarter results reported Thursday by major cable TV companies show major losses, but don't settle the question of what's causing them.
If "cord-cutting" in favor of Internet video is finally taking hold, that has wide-ranging implications. Consumers who use the Internet to get their movies and TV shows bypass not just the cable companies, but the cable networks that produce the content. The move could have the same disruptive effect on the TV and movie industries as digital downloads have already had on music.
A few weeks ago, the CEO of phone company Verizon Communications Inc. likened cord-cutting to what started happening to the local-phone companies five or six years ago, when people started giving up their landlines in favor of relying solely on their cell phones.
"The first thing when that happens is you deny it," Ivan Seidenberg said. "I know the drill. I have been there."
On Thursday, Time Warner Cable Inc.'s chief operating officer, Landel Hobbs, said the company doesn't see evidence of people dropping cable in favor of the Internet. He said the biggest subscriber losses have been among people who don't have cable broadband services; high-speed Internet -- from cable or a competitor -- is key to watching video online. These people seem to be going to satellite or giving up on pay TV entirely.
On the theory that college students might be among the first to drop cable TV, the company looked at changes in subscriber figures in college towns such as Austin, Texas, and Columbus, Ohio. They weren't out of line with previous years, and they corresponded to the level of student enrollment, he said.
"We'll continue to monitor cord-cutting, but haven't found evidence where you might expect to see it," Hobbs told analysts on a conference call.
Time Warner Cable lost 155,000 video subscribers in the July-September quarter, compared with 64,000 a year ago.
The only larger cable company, Comcast Corp., reported last week that its subscriber loss more than doubled in the third quarter, to 275,000. Comcast said many of those leaving had taken advantage of low introductory rates that the company offered last year when the analog TV broadcast network as shut down.
All together, seven of the country's nine largest pay-TV companies, representing about 75 percent of the subscriber total, had reported their results for the third quarter by Thursday. They showed a combined gain of 95,700 video subscribers, or a 0.6 percent increase at an annualized rate, less than the growth of the population. In the third quarter of last year, they gained 405,800 subscribers.
(Missing from the top nine: the third-largest cable company, Cox Communications, which is privately held and doesn't report subscriber counts publicly; and the second-largest satellite TV company, Dish Network Corp., which reports results Friday.)
Cable companies have been losing video subscribers for some time, but they have been compensating by upgrading basic subscribers to more expensive digital tiers, as well as adding broadband and phone subscribers.
However, both Time Warner Cable and Cablevision Systems Corp. lost digital video subscribers in the third quarter. Both added record-low number of phone subscribers, as years of growth are coming to an end.
Meanwhile, Netflix Inc.'s streaming service has become so popular that it is now the largest source of U.S. Internet traffic during peak evening hours, according to Sandvine Inc., a Canadian company that supplies traffic-management equipment to Internet service providers.
A variety of gadgets can send Netflix's streams to the living room TV, including game consoles and the $99 Apple TV box. Many high-end TVs now come with the built-in ability to play Internet content.
Thomas Clancy Jr., 35, in Long Beach, N.Y., canceled the family's Cablevision subscription this spring. He said he has been happy with Netflix and other Internet video services since then, even though there isn't a lot of live sports to be had online.
"The amount of sports that I watched certainly didn't justify a hundred-dollar-a-month expense for all this stuff. I mean, that's twelve hundred dollars a year," Clancy said. "Twelve hundred dollars is ... near a vacation."
But Clancy -- who has no relation to the thriller writer -- is also an example of the hurdles cord cutters face. He uses an Internet-connected Blu-ray player to get Netflix movies to the TV. And he pulls a cable from his computer to the TV for Internet content Netflix doesn't have. Clancy owns a computer consulting firm and is tech-savvy enough to do all that. Most people wouldn't know how.
Cablevision wanted to raise Clancy's Internet bill when he canceled TV service. That would have made cord-cutting less attractive, but he happens to live in an area where Verizon provides Internet service at speeds that are comparable with the best cable has to offer. He got a better deal from Verizon and switched to that provider.
Most people who have the technological skills to take advantage of Internet video find that the selection of movies and shows isn't broad enough to make the jump worth it, Sanford Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett said.
On the other hand, poor people have an excellent motive to cut cable and simply replace it with an antenna or nothing at all, he said.
"The price cable TV has risen to the point where it's simply not affordable to lots of lower-income homes. And right now there are an awful lot of lower-income homes," Moffett said. "The evidence suggests that what we're seeing is a poverty problem rather than a technology phenomenon."
In addition, high unemployment means fewer new households, as kids are probably delaying moving out of their parents' houses, or people move in with roommates. That can reduce the number of households that pay for TV.
Cable companies would like to get low-income customers back with cheaper cable packages, but their hands are tied. Content providers such as The Walt Disney Co. and News Corp. won't license their channels one by one, so subscribers have to take big, expensive channel packages, or very basic ones, which offer little beyond what's available with an antenna.
Content providers now get billions of dollars in fees from cable service providers, and they want to make sure that whatever new industry model comes along, they'll get paid. It's not obvious yet that Internet video will let them sustain their profit levels.
Six companies create the content that consumes 85 percent of U.S. viewing hours, Moffett said. "Until they get on board, the train's not leaving the station."
Monday, September 27, 2010
From Blockbuster to turkey
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/09/blockbuster_files_bankruptcy
From Blockbuster to turkey
Sep 23rd 2010,
The Economist
IN THE early days of the commercial internet, it was often predicted that pure e-commerce sites would begin to struggle as bricks-and-mortar stores moved online. “Clicks-and-mortar” stores, which could reach consumers both on the internet and on the high street, were thought to be inherently superior. Surely Blockbuster would be able to crush Netflix, an online service that rents DVDs through the post? Surely Barnes & Noble, a bookseller, would easily see off Amazon?
As it turned out, they could not. Shares in Barnes & Noble have slumped over the past few years as those of Amazon have soared. The British arm of Borders, another media retailer, went into administration last year. And on September 23rd Blockbuster filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in New York. The firm, once owned by Viacom, a giant media conglomerate, aims to reduce its debts by about $900m. It is likely to close some of its 3,000 American stores. (The company’s non-American operations and franchised outlets are not affected by the bankruptcy filing.)
The growth of Netflix, a technologically savvy company with a vastly superior website and an attractive subscription model, was hard on Blockbuster. But the firm was caught in a pincer movement. On one side was Netflix. On the other was the decidedly low-tech Redbox, owned by Coinstar. Redbox rents films for one dollar a night through kiosks in drug and grocery stores—a 1950s technology applied successfully to a new medium.
Netflix is a long-tail company. Its vast selection of DVDs means consumers with rarefied tastes can indulge their taste for Satyajit Ray films and Italian comedies. The firm is promoting the online streaming of older films, which subscribers will increasingly be able to obtain through internet-connected television sets. Redbox, in contrast, focuses on big films and recently-released DVDs. Blockbuster thus faces a “clicks” competitor that offers an enormous selection of films and a “mortar” competitor that specialises in hits. Life in between is tough.
Tears in Tinseltown
There will be no gloating in Hollywood at Blockbuster’s struggles. Although the film studios greatly prefer to sell DVDs than rent them, they would rather rent through Blockbuster than through Netflix or Redbox. Warner Bros estimated in December that it makes $1.45 when a film is rented from a bricks-and-mortar store. It makes $1.25 from a subscription rental, and just one dollar when a film is rented from a kiosk (most people keep their dollar-a-night kiosk movies for two nights). And Blockbuster sells DVDs as well as renting them.
Hollywood wants to persuade consumers to rent films as videos-on-demand through their cable and satellite boxes. On each of these Warner Bros earns fully $3.50. To goose demand, studios now release some films as videos-on-demand before bringing them out on DVD. The worry is that the growth of two low-priced alternatives will persuade couch potatoes that films can be had cheaply. Netflix and Redbox have severely wounded Blockbuster. The next battle will pit them against the cable companies.
From Blockbuster to turkey
Sep 23rd 2010,
The Economist
IN THE early days of the commercial internet, it was often predicted that pure e-commerce sites would begin to struggle as bricks-and-mortar stores moved online. “Clicks-and-mortar” stores, which could reach consumers both on the internet and on the high street, were thought to be inherently superior. Surely Blockbuster would be able to crush Netflix, an online service that rents DVDs through the post? Surely Barnes & Noble, a bookseller, would easily see off Amazon?
As it turned out, they could not. Shares in Barnes & Noble have slumped over the past few years as those of Amazon have soared. The British arm of Borders, another media retailer, went into administration last year. And on September 23rd Blockbuster filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in New York. The firm, once owned by Viacom, a giant media conglomerate, aims to reduce its debts by about $900m. It is likely to close some of its 3,000 American stores. (The company’s non-American operations and franchised outlets are not affected by the bankruptcy filing.)
The growth of Netflix, a technologically savvy company with a vastly superior website and an attractive subscription model, was hard on Blockbuster. But the firm was caught in a pincer movement. On one side was Netflix. On the other was the decidedly low-tech Redbox, owned by Coinstar. Redbox rents films for one dollar a night through kiosks in drug and grocery stores—a 1950s technology applied successfully to a new medium.
Netflix is a long-tail company. Its vast selection of DVDs means consumers with rarefied tastes can indulge their taste for Satyajit Ray films and Italian comedies. The firm is promoting the online streaming of older films, which subscribers will increasingly be able to obtain through internet-connected television sets. Redbox, in contrast, focuses on big films and recently-released DVDs. Blockbuster thus faces a “clicks” competitor that offers an enormous selection of films and a “mortar” competitor that specialises in hits. Life in between is tough.
Tears in Tinseltown
There will be no gloating in Hollywood at Blockbuster’s struggles. Although the film studios greatly prefer to sell DVDs than rent them, they would rather rent through Blockbuster than through Netflix or Redbox. Warner Bros estimated in December that it makes $1.45 when a film is rented from a bricks-and-mortar store. It makes $1.25 from a subscription rental, and just one dollar when a film is rented from a kiosk (most people keep their dollar-a-night kiosk movies for two nights). And Blockbuster sells DVDs as well as renting them.
Hollywood wants to persuade consumers to rent films as videos-on-demand through their cable and satellite boxes. On each of these Warner Bros earns fully $3.50. To goose demand, studios now release some films as videos-on-demand before bringing them out on DVD. The worry is that the growth of two low-priced alternatives will persuade couch potatoes that films can be had cheaply. Netflix and Redbox have severely wounded Blockbuster. The next battle will pit them against the cable companies.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Nintendo drops Wii price to $199
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10360550-1.htmlSeptember 23, 2009
Nintendo drops Wii price to $199
by John P. Falcone
Nintendo has officially announced that the price of the Wii will drop to $199.99, effective on Sunday. The long-rumored $50 price cut comes in the wake of recent price drops for the PlayStation 3 ($299, with built-in Blu-ray player) and Xbox 360 ($299 for the 120GB version with built-in DVD player and Netflix support), which have boosted sales of the Sony and Microsoft consoles. (To date, the Wii remains the best-selling home game console of the three.)
Other than the price cut, there are no other changes to the current Wii bundle--you're still getting the console, along with the Wiimote and Nunchuk controllers and the bundled Wii Sports game. By contrast, there's at least one rumor that the U.K. will get a Wii package that adds the MotionPlus peripheral and Wii Sports Resort to the mix. Meanwhile, white remains the only color choice in North America (Japanese consumers can choose black as well).
Nintendo also took the opportunity to officially announce the release date for New Super Mario Bros. Wii, which had previously been slated for a vague "fall 2009" window. The multiplayer Super Mario game will hit store shelves on November 15.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Roku Netflix Player upgrade in the works
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/99078
Roku Netflix Player upgrade in the works
Christopher Null: The Working Guy
Wed Jul 9, 2008
Has the battle to create a dream product to link online digital media to the TV quietly been won? Despite competition from just about everyone—Vudu, Apple, TiVo, Xbox, and more—humble Roku, which released its Netflix Player set-top box barely over a month ago (making it a distant latecomer to the game), sold out of its first shipment in three weeks. Demand is so strong that the company is air-freighting new units to the U.S. in order to keep up.
Almost thrown off as an aside in a Forbes story about Netflix's online ambitions, Roku VP Tim Twerdahl mentions that later this year the $99 box will be upgraded to stream content from other providers aside from Netflix. That would make it the first major set-top box to hook into multiple services and could turn what is already a very good product into a category killer.
Even without the extra features, the Roku box is already a hit, and I think it's because it's embraced the idea of simplicity. There's nothing complicated or even sophisticated about the Netflix Player. There's no display on the box, and the remote control is reminiscent of the original Zenith "clicker." Next to famously "simple" products like TiVo and the Apple TV, the Roku player makes them look like baffling mainframe computers in comparison. Anyone who can plug in their television should have no problem setting up the device.
Naturally, the price is another huge boon for the product. At $99, it's cheaper than dinner and a movie. Since the service is free if you already have a Netflix account, what possible objections could anyone have to hooking one up?
Add in more streaming options and the Roku gets even better. Roku teases us by not mentioning exactly what services it will link to, though; they are described only as "other 'big name' providers." My only concern is that the box needs to retain its simple nature. If I have to input a credit card number using a remote with no number buttons on it, I'll unplug it in disgust.
Meanwhile, Netflix is wasting time with other set-top box providers (including Microsoft's Xbox), all of which is just a distraction that keeps it from adding to its 10,000-movie library available for streaming. Does anyone really watch movies on the Xbox 360 as it is? The fan is so loud it drowns out the dialogue.
Memo to Netflix: Stick with the Roku. Expand the library. Dominate the market.
Roku Netflix Player upgrade in the works
Christopher Null: The Working Guy
Wed Jul 9, 2008
Has the battle to create a dream product to link online digital media to the TV quietly been won? Despite competition from just about everyone—Vudu, Apple, TiVo, Xbox, and more—humble Roku, which released its Netflix Player set-top box barely over a month ago (making it a distant latecomer to the game), sold out of its first shipment in three weeks. Demand is so strong that the company is air-freighting new units to the U.S. in order to keep up.
Almost thrown off as an aside in a Forbes story about Netflix's online ambitions, Roku VP Tim Twerdahl mentions that later this year the $99 box will be upgraded to stream content from other providers aside from Netflix. That would make it the first major set-top box to hook into multiple services and could turn what is already a very good product into a category killer.
Even without the extra features, the Roku box is already a hit, and I think it's because it's embraced the idea of simplicity. There's nothing complicated or even sophisticated about the Netflix Player. There's no display on the box, and the remote control is reminiscent of the original Zenith "clicker." Next to famously "simple" products like TiVo and the Apple TV, the Roku player makes them look like baffling mainframe computers in comparison. Anyone who can plug in their television should have no problem setting up the device.
Naturally, the price is another huge boon for the product. At $99, it's cheaper than dinner and a movie. Since the service is free if you already have a Netflix account, what possible objections could anyone have to hooking one up?
Add in more streaming options and the Roku gets even better. Roku teases us by not mentioning exactly what services it will link to, though; they are described only as "other 'big name' providers." My only concern is that the box needs to retain its simple nature. If I have to input a credit card number using a remote with no number buttons on it, I'll unplug it in disgust.
Meanwhile, Netflix is wasting time with other set-top box providers (including Microsoft's Xbox), all of which is just a distraction that keeps it from adding to its 10,000-movie library available for streaming. Does anyone really watch movies on the Xbox 360 as it is? The fan is so loud it drowns out the dialogue.
Memo to Netflix: Stick with the Roku. Expand the library. Dominate the market.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Apple vs. Netflix: How do they stack up?
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/05/20/apple-vs-netflix-how-do-they-stack-up/
May 20, 2008
Apple vs. Netflix: How do they stack up?
The big gadget news Tuesday morning was Netflix’s entry into the set-top box market, with the inevitable comparisons to Apple TV.
So how do the two devices stack up? Technically, it’s an apples and oranges comparison. One box is a special purpose computer with a small (40 GB) or big (160 GB) hard drive built-in. The other is designed only to stream video to a TV.
But to consumers looking to watch their favorite movies and TV shows on demand, technical differences will mean less than the cost of the device, the cost of the service, and whether the titles they want to see are available for download.
In terms of content, Netflix (NFLX) seems at first glance to have a big edge, with 10% of its 100,000-title library available for download. Unfortunately, that 10% is mostly older movies (5 years or more) and TV shows, with some Indy flix thrown in.
Apple (AAPL), by contrast, has a much shorter list — in early May it finally delivered the 1,000 movies Steve Jobs promised back in January. But thanks to its latest round of deal-making, many of those titles are new releases, available the same day they come out on DVD.
Apple also has an edge in terms of quality: 720p versus 480i; Dolby versus mere stereo. Also, some of the Netflix titles that should be wide screen aren’t properly formatted.
But the price is right on Netflix. The player, made by Roku, is less than half the price of the entry-level Apple TV (and a lot less than the $329 high-end model). And if you’re already a Netflix member paying monthly dues, you get unlimited downloads for what feels very much like free.
Given the new competition, it will be interesting to see whether Apple rethinks its current pricing scheme: $2.99 to $3.99 to rent, $9.99 to $14.99 to own.
Filed under Apple, Apple TV, Netflix
May 20, 2008
Apple vs. Netflix: How do they stack up?
The big gadget news Tuesday morning was Netflix’s entry into the set-top box market, with the inevitable comparisons to Apple TV.
So how do the two devices stack up? Technically, it’s an apples and oranges comparison. One box is a special purpose computer with a small (40 GB) or big (160 GB) hard drive built-in. The other is designed only to stream video to a TV.
But to consumers looking to watch their favorite movies and TV shows on demand, technical differences will mean less than the cost of the device, the cost of the service, and whether the titles they want to see are available for download.
In terms of content, Netflix (NFLX) seems at first glance to have a big edge, with 10% of its 100,000-title library available for download. Unfortunately, that 10% is mostly older movies (5 years or more) and TV shows, with some Indy flix thrown in.
Apple (AAPL), by contrast, has a much shorter list — in early May it finally delivered the 1,000 movies Steve Jobs promised back in January. But thanks to its latest round of deal-making, many of those titles are new releases, available the same day they come out on DVD.
Apple also has an edge in terms of quality: 720p versus 480i; Dolby versus mere stereo. Also, some of the Netflix titles that should be wide screen aren’t properly formatted.
But the price is right on Netflix. The player, made by Roku, is less than half the price of the entry-level Apple TV (and a lot less than the $329 high-end model). And if you’re already a Netflix member paying monthly dues, you get unlimited downloads for what feels very much like free.
Given the new competition, it will be interesting to see whether Apple rethinks its current pricing scheme: $2.99 to $3.99 to rent, $9.99 to $14.99 to own.
Filed under Apple, Apple TV, Netflix
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
DVD FORMATS
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080220.RBLURAY20/TPStory/?query=Toshiba
DVD FORMATS: HOW SONY'S BLU-RAY TRIUMPHED OVER TOSHIBA'S HD
Stringer makes his mark
Sony's CEO led his company to victory in the high-definition sweepstakes by convincing the major studios to come aboard
BARRIE MCKENNA AND MATT HARTLEY
February 20, 2008
WASHINGTON, TORONTO -- Howard Stringer made history in 2005 for being the first non-Japanese executive to take the helm at Sony Corp. But he may be better remembered as the one who won the high-definition war, erasing the stain on the electronics firm's image ever since it lost the videotape war two decades earlier.
Although celebrated yesterday, the victory was sealed last month when Sony swayed Warner Bros. to back Sony's Blu-ray technology and quit producing movies using Toshiba Corp.'s rival HD DVD format.
What remains a mystery is just how big a push Warner needed to pick sides. Analysts say Sony only prevailed following a heated bidding war against Toshiba, with the reward reaching as much as $400-million (U.S.). Neither side has confirmed the size of any bids or payments.
It was supposed to be the technology equivalent of First World War trench warfare: A prolonged battle to the death between Toshiba and Sony for global domination in high-definition DVDs.
In the end, the denouement was more like Germany's swift 1940 end run of the Maginot line.
Less than two years after its first HD DVD player hit the market, Toshiba president Atsutoshi Nishida raised the white flag, declaring yesterday that it would stop making and selling the devices altogether within a month.
Toshiba's unconditional surrender leaves the spoils to Sony, maker of the rival Blu-ray disc player - a technologically superior format that had the backing of virtually all the major movie studies and retailers.
"We simply had no chance to win," Mr. Nishida acknowledged bluntly.
The final straw, he said, was Warner's decision last month to exclusively release movies in Blu-ray. The decision by Warner, with about 20 per cent of the movie market, put a critical mass of the industry in the Blu-ray camp.
With billions of dollars in global sales at stake, experts had predicted the Toshiba-Sony battle would go on for years - not unlike the 1980s battle of videotape formats between VHS (Matsushita) and Betamax (Sony). That war lasted a decade, leaving Sony battered and humiliated.
So how did this epic battle come to such an abrupt end?
The answer lies in part with the bruising Sony experienced with Betamax, which, like Blu-ray, was also the better product on paper.
For more that 20 years, Sony has been "haunted by Betamax" and was fiercely determined not to let history repeat itself, explained Xavier Drèze, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton business school.
"Sony was much smarter," Prof. Drèze said. "They understood this time they couldn't do it alone. They understood that they needed strategic partnerships with industry players."
The war was over when Sony managed to line up a critical mass of partners - in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and on Main Street.
The tipping point was Warner Bros. But Sony Pictures, Walt Disney Co. and News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. had already done the same - signing exclusive sealed deals with presumably rich royalty arrangements.
"This was heavy hitters in a back room talking about what the royalty structure was going to be and how much money they were willing to put on the table to be exclusive with one camp or the other. That was the determining factor here," concluded Van Baker, an analyst with market research firm Gartner Inc.
Until last month, Warner had been backing both technologies.
Last Friday, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced it would sell only Blu-ray DVDs. Officials said "customer feedback" prompted its decision.
Netflix Inc., Best Buy Co. Inc., Blockbuster Inc. and Target Corp. had earlier done the same.
"Everyone was tired of the format war, the retailers were tired of it, the consumer electronics vendors were tired of it and they just wanted this thing to get settled," Mr. Baker said.
"Consumers and the industry learned the hard way with Beta and VHS that a prolonged format war was disastrous. There was a lot of motivation to get one or the other to win and the only thing that protracted it was the amount of money flying around."
The groundwork for Sony's stunning victory, however, came months, even years ago. Prof. Drèze said Blu-ray had several things going for it that helped it to build loyalty with consumers and the industry.
Six years ago yesterday - and years before the first Blu-ray disc or player was sold - Sony had lined up most of the other computer and electronics makers, including LG Electronics, Panasonic, Samsung, Apple and Dell.
Sony also owned a major movie studio. So it could push its own technology.
Third, the company sold Blu-ray to rival movie studios with the promise of superior digital copyright protection.
Sony also used its PlayStation video game console, which also works as a Blu-ray player, as a sort of "Trojan horse," Prof. Drèze said.
Sony has already sold 10.5 million of its PS3 consoles, compared with roughly one million HD DVD players. PlayStation buyers, he said, unwittingly embraced Blu-ray and undermined HD DVD.
Ultimately, the technology is superior. Blu-ray can hold up to three times more data (200 gigabytes versus 60) and offers higher resolution.
In the end, it could be a pyrrhic victory for Sony. The age of hard copy discs is already giving way to digital downloads, stored and played from PCs, iPods and other portable devices.
"I don't think the heyday of DVD is going to return," said Mr. Baker, the analyst. "For most consumers, digital downloads are going to be very appealing."
How Sony lost Betamax
1 QUALITY OVER
QUANTITY Despite better picture quality, Sony's original Betamax tapes could record only one hour of video, while rival VHS tapes could store double that.
2 SECRET RECIPE
Sony initially failed to license its Betamax technology to a sufficient number of manufacturers, thinking it could go it alone. This led to a situation where VHS players competed against one another for share, driving down prices and making the format more attractive to consumers.
3 BUYING V. RENTING When both systems arrived in the United States in the mid-1970s, VHS machines were less expensive to rent. When consumers began to purchase rather than rent their video players, they tended to go with VHS machines. 4PORN CONUNDRUM Sony refused to license the Betamax technology to adult film companies, who turned to VHS tapes and ended up creating a multibillion-dollar industry.
How Sony won Blu-ray
1 BIGGER IS BETTER
Sony's Blu-ray discs can store upward of 50 gigabytes of data on a single disc, while HD DVDs hold about 30 gigs.
2 PLAYSTATION 3
By including a Blu-ray drive in its next-generation video game console, Sony was able to drive sales of both the PS3 and its new DVD format.
3 SOLID PARTNERSHIPS Not wanting to duplicate the Betamax mistake, Sony took the initiative to license its Blu-ray technology with as many partners as possible. When Blu-ray was first announced in 2002, Sony had already signed up eight partner companies committed to producing players.
4 CONTENT IS KING
By signing exclusive deals with more studios and content providers than Toshiba, Sony was able to squeeze its competitor to the sidelines. Warner's defection to Blu-ray was the fatal blow.
Matt Hartley
Dead technologies
Media formats we have used, loved and discarded for the next best thing
The cassette tape
A Walkman and roller skates, anyone? Tapes were the original portable format and made music pirates of us all. (Can I tape your Fleetwood Mac Rumors?) But they were hated by record companies. The sound quality tended to go tinny after a few dozen plays, and many tapes wound up melting in a car on a sunny day.
Eight tracks
Developed by plane maker Bill Lear, eight-track tapes were large and couldn't be rewound. And because of their high tape speed, didn't sound great. Nevertheless, they were popular in the 1970s, thanks to the auto industry, which installed thousands of eight-track players. When sales slipped, companies eager to pare formats quickly dropped the eight track. Vinyl
Cumbersome to play and easily damaged, albums faded out in the late 1980s. But album covers managed to become a genuine art form and another way to grab music buyers' attention. Lately, albums have a enjoyed a comeback, thanks to collectors, club DJs and scratching (ask your kids).
Compact discs
CDs are dead? They will be soon. Who needs all those plastic cases and discs when you can fill your hard drive and iPod with thousands of songs? Using a credit card, of course. Downloading music for free is wrong, isn't it?
DVD FORMATS: HOW SONY'S BLU-RAY TRIUMPHED OVER TOSHIBA'S HD
Stringer makes his mark
Sony's CEO led his company to victory in the high-definition sweepstakes by convincing the major studios to come aboard
BARRIE MCKENNA AND MATT HARTLEY
February 20, 2008
WASHINGTON, TORONTO -- Howard Stringer made history in 2005 for being the first non-Japanese executive to take the helm at Sony Corp. But he may be better remembered as the one who won the high-definition war, erasing the stain on the electronics firm's image ever since it lost the videotape war two decades earlier.
Although celebrated yesterday, the victory was sealed last month when Sony swayed Warner Bros. to back Sony's Blu-ray technology and quit producing movies using Toshiba Corp.'s rival HD DVD format.
What remains a mystery is just how big a push Warner needed to pick sides. Analysts say Sony only prevailed following a heated bidding war against Toshiba, with the reward reaching as much as $400-million (U.S.). Neither side has confirmed the size of any bids or payments.
It was supposed to be the technology equivalent of First World War trench warfare: A prolonged battle to the death between Toshiba and Sony for global domination in high-definition DVDs.
In the end, the denouement was more like Germany's swift 1940 end run of the Maginot line.
Less than two years after its first HD DVD player hit the market, Toshiba president Atsutoshi Nishida raised the white flag, declaring yesterday that it would stop making and selling the devices altogether within a month.
Toshiba's unconditional surrender leaves the spoils to Sony, maker of the rival Blu-ray disc player - a technologically superior format that had the backing of virtually all the major movie studies and retailers.
"We simply had no chance to win," Mr. Nishida acknowledged bluntly.
The final straw, he said, was Warner's decision last month to exclusively release movies in Blu-ray. The decision by Warner, with about 20 per cent of the movie market, put a critical mass of the industry in the Blu-ray camp.
With billions of dollars in global sales at stake, experts had predicted the Toshiba-Sony battle would go on for years - not unlike the 1980s battle of videotape formats between VHS (Matsushita) and Betamax (Sony). That war lasted a decade, leaving Sony battered and humiliated.
So how did this epic battle come to such an abrupt end?
The answer lies in part with the bruising Sony experienced with Betamax, which, like Blu-ray, was also the better product on paper.
For more that 20 years, Sony has been "haunted by Betamax" and was fiercely determined not to let history repeat itself, explained Xavier Drèze, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton business school.
"Sony was much smarter," Prof. Drèze said. "They understood this time they couldn't do it alone. They understood that they needed strategic partnerships with industry players."
The war was over when Sony managed to line up a critical mass of partners - in Hollywood, Silicon Valley and on Main Street.
The tipping point was Warner Bros. But Sony Pictures, Walt Disney Co. and News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. had already done the same - signing exclusive sealed deals with presumably rich royalty arrangements.
"This was heavy hitters in a back room talking about what the royalty structure was going to be and how much money they were willing to put on the table to be exclusive with one camp or the other. That was the determining factor here," concluded Van Baker, an analyst with market research firm Gartner Inc.
Until last month, Warner had been backing both technologies.
Last Friday, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced it would sell only Blu-ray DVDs. Officials said "customer feedback" prompted its decision.
Netflix Inc., Best Buy Co. Inc., Blockbuster Inc. and Target Corp. had earlier done the same.
"Everyone was tired of the format war, the retailers were tired of it, the consumer electronics vendors were tired of it and they just wanted this thing to get settled," Mr. Baker said.
"Consumers and the industry learned the hard way with Beta and VHS that a prolonged format war was disastrous. There was a lot of motivation to get one or the other to win and the only thing that protracted it was the amount of money flying around."
The groundwork for Sony's stunning victory, however, came months, even years ago. Prof. Drèze said Blu-ray had several things going for it that helped it to build loyalty with consumers and the industry.
Six years ago yesterday - and years before the first Blu-ray disc or player was sold - Sony had lined up most of the other computer and electronics makers, including LG Electronics, Panasonic, Samsung, Apple and Dell.
Sony also owned a major movie studio. So it could push its own technology.
Third, the company sold Blu-ray to rival movie studios with the promise of superior digital copyright protection.
Sony also used its PlayStation video game console, which also works as a Blu-ray player, as a sort of "Trojan horse," Prof. Drèze said.
Sony has already sold 10.5 million of its PS3 consoles, compared with roughly one million HD DVD players. PlayStation buyers, he said, unwittingly embraced Blu-ray and undermined HD DVD.
Ultimately, the technology is superior. Blu-ray can hold up to three times more data (200 gigabytes versus 60) and offers higher resolution.
In the end, it could be a pyrrhic victory for Sony. The age of hard copy discs is already giving way to digital downloads, stored and played from PCs, iPods and other portable devices.
"I don't think the heyday of DVD is going to return," said Mr. Baker, the analyst. "For most consumers, digital downloads are going to be very appealing."
How Sony lost Betamax
1 QUALITY OVER
QUANTITY Despite better picture quality, Sony's original Betamax tapes could record only one hour of video, while rival VHS tapes could store double that.
2 SECRET RECIPE
Sony initially failed to license its Betamax technology to a sufficient number of manufacturers, thinking it could go it alone. This led to a situation where VHS players competed against one another for share, driving down prices and making the format more attractive to consumers.
3 BUYING V. RENTING When both systems arrived in the United States in the mid-1970s, VHS machines were less expensive to rent. When consumers began to purchase rather than rent their video players, they tended to go with VHS machines. 4PORN CONUNDRUM Sony refused to license the Betamax technology to adult film companies, who turned to VHS tapes and ended up creating a multibillion-dollar industry.
How Sony won Blu-ray
1 BIGGER IS BETTER
Sony's Blu-ray discs can store upward of 50 gigabytes of data on a single disc, while HD DVDs hold about 30 gigs.
2 PLAYSTATION 3
By including a Blu-ray drive in its next-generation video game console, Sony was able to drive sales of both the PS3 and its new DVD format.
3 SOLID PARTNERSHIPS Not wanting to duplicate the Betamax mistake, Sony took the initiative to license its Blu-ray technology with as many partners as possible. When Blu-ray was first announced in 2002, Sony had already signed up eight partner companies committed to producing players.
4 CONTENT IS KING
By signing exclusive deals with more studios and content providers than Toshiba, Sony was able to squeeze its competitor to the sidelines. Warner's defection to Blu-ray was the fatal blow.
Matt Hartley
Dead technologies
Media formats we have used, loved and discarded for the next best thing
The cassette tape
A Walkman and roller skates, anyone? Tapes were the original portable format and made music pirates of us all. (Can I tape your Fleetwood Mac Rumors?) But they were hated by record companies. The sound quality tended to go tinny after a few dozen plays, and many tapes wound up melting in a car on a sunny day.
Eight tracks
Developed by plane maker Bill Lear, eight-track tapes were large and couldn't be rewound. And because of their high tape speed, didn't sound great. Nevertheless, they were popular in the 1970s, thanks to the auto industry, which installed thousands of eight-track players. When sales slipped, companies eager to pare formats quickly dropped the eight track. Vinyl
Cumbersome to play and easily damaged, albums faded out in the late 1980s. But album covers managed to become a genuine art form and another way to grab music buyers' attention. Lately, albums have a enjoyed a comeback, thanks to collectors, club DJs and scratching (ask your kids).
Compact discs
CDs are dead? They will be soon. Who needs all those plastic cases and discs when you can fill your hard drive and iPod with thousands of songs? Using a credit card, of course. Downloading music for free is wrong, isn't it?
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Wal-Mart dumps HD DVDs to back Blu-ray
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080215/tc_nm/walmart_dvd_dc
Wal-Mart dumps HD DVDs to back Blu-ray
By Franklin Paul
2-15-8
Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N) has decided to exclusively sell high-definition DVDs in the Blu-Ray format, dealing what could be a crippling blow to the rival HD DVD technology backed by Toshiba Corp (6502.T).
The move by the world's largest retailer, announced on Friday, caps a disappointing week for HD DVD supporters, who also saw consumer electronics chain Best Buy Co Inc (BBY.N) and online video rental company Netflix Inc (NFLX.O) defect to the Blu-ray camp.
In a statement on its Web site, Wal-Mart said that over the next few months it will phase out sales of HD DVD systems and discs. By June, it will sell only products in the Blu-ray format which was developed by Sony Corp (6758.T).
"We've listened to our customers, who are showing a clear preference toward Blu-ray products and movies with their purchases," said Gary Severson, a Wal-Mart senior vice president.
The move affects 4,000 Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in the United States, as well as related online sites. The stores will continue to sell traditional DVD players and movies.
The so-called format war between HD DVD and Blu-ray has been a thorn in the side of retailers, which have had to commit shelf space to devices from both camps even as they field complaints from frustrated and confused customers.
Next-generation DVDs and players, boasting better picture quality and more capacity, were expected to help revive the $24 billion global home DVD market. But Hollywood studios had initially split their alliances between the two camps, meaning only certain films would play on a consumer's DVD machine.
Like the Betamax-VHS battle in the 1980s, having two DVD standards has dampened sales of both and put retailers in a conundrum of having to either choose sides or sell products that have a chance of becoming obsolete very quickly.
The balance of power, however, tipped toward the Sony camp in January after Time Warner Inc's (TWX.N) Warner Bros studio said it would only release high-definition DVDs in Blu-ray format. With that, studios behind some three-quarters of DVDs are backing Blu-ray, although some release in both formats.
Blu-ray also has support from News Corp's (NWSa.N) 20th Century Fox, Walt Disney Co (DIS.N) and Lions Gate Entertainment Corp (LGF.N). Sony's PlayStation 3 game console can also play Blu-ray films.
"So if you bought the HD player like me, I'd retire it to the bedroom, kid's playroom, or give it to your parents to play their John Wayne standard def movies, and make space for a BD player for your awesome Hi Def experience," Wal-Mart's movie and gaming blogger, Susan Chronister, wrote in a posting.
To be sure, Toshiba has secured agreements with studios including NBC Universal's Universal Pictures, Viacom Inc's(VIAb.N) Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc (DWA.N).
Microsoft Corp's (MSFT.O) Xbox 360 also currently works only with HD DVD. However, Microsoft said in January it could consider supporting Blu-ray technology at consumers' behest.
Toshiba could not be reached to comment on Wal-Mart's move.
Earlier on Friday, the Hollywood Reporter quoted unidentified industry sources as saying Toshiba was widely expected to pull the plug on HD DVD in the coming weeks.
Toshiba spokeswoman Junko Furuta said none of what was reported in the magazine had been decided. She declined to comment further, saying: "We cannot comment on speculation."
(Reporting by Franklin Paul; additional reporting by Kiyoshi Takenaka in Tokyo; editing by Phil Berlowitz and Gerald E. McCormick)
Wal-Mart dumps HD DVDs to back Blu-ray
By Franklin Paul
2-15-8
Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N) has decided to exclusively sell high-definition DVDs in the Blu-Ray format, dealing what could be a crippling blow to the rival HD DVD technology backed by Toshiba Corp (6502.T).
The move by the world's largest retailer, announced on Friday, caps a disappointing week for HD DVD supporters, who also saw consumer electronics chain Best Buy Co Inc (BBY.N) and online video rental company Netflix Inc (NFLX.O) defect to the Blu-ray camp.
In a statement on its Web site, Wal-Mart said that over the next few months it will phase out sales of HD DVD systems and discs. By June, it will sell only products in the Blu-ray format which was developed by Sony Corp (6758.T).
"We've listened to our customers, who are showing a clear preference toward Blu-ray products and movies with their purchases," said Gary Severson, a Wal-Mart senior vice president.
The move affects 4,000 Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in the United States, as well as related online sites. The stores will continue to sell traditional DVD players and movies.
The so-called format war between HD DVD and Blu-ray has been a thorn in the side of retailers, which have had to commit shelf space to devices from both camps even as they field complaints from frustrated and confused customers.
Next-generation DVDs and players, boasting better picture quality and more capacity, were expected to help revive the $24 billion global home DVD market. But Hollywood studios had initially split their alliances between the two camps, meaning only certain films would play on a consumer's DVD machine.
Like the Betamax-VHS battle in the 1980s, having two DVD standards has dampened sales of both and put retailers in a conundrum of having to either choose sides or sell products that have a chance of becoming obsolete very quickly.
The balance of power, however, tipped toward the Sony camp in January after Time Warner Inc's (TWX.N) Warner Bros studio said it would only release high-definition DVDs in Blu-ray format. With that, studios behind some three-quarters of DVDs are backing Blu-ray, although some release in both formats.
Blu-ray also has support from News Corp's (NWSa.N) 20th Century Fox, Walt Disney Co (DIS.N) and Lions Gate Entertainment Corp (LGF.N). Sony's PlayStation 3 game console can also play Blu-ray films.
"So if you bought the HD player like me, I'd retire it to the bedroom, kid's playroom, or give it to your parents to play their John Wayne standard def movies, and make space for a BD player for your awesome Hi Def experience," Wal-Mart's movie and gaming blogger, Susan Chronister, wrote in a posting.
To be sure, Toshiba has secured agreements with studios including NBC Universal's Universal Pictures, Viacom Inc's(VIAb.N) Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc (DWA.N).
Microsoft Corp's (MSFT.O) Xbox 360 also currently works only with HD DVD. However, Microsoft said in January it could consider supporting Blu-ray technology at consumers' behest.
Toshiba could not be reached to comment on Wal-Mart's move.
Earlier on Friday, the Hollywood Reporter quoted unidentified industry sources as saying Toshiba was widely expected to pull the plug on HD DVD in the coming weeks.
Toshiba spokeswoman Junko Furuta said none of what was reported in the magazine had been decided. She declined to comment further, saying: "We cannot comment on speculation."
(Reporting by Franklin Paul; additional reporting by Kiyoshi Takenaka in Tokyo; editing by Phil Berlowitz and Gerald E. McCormick)
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Will The iPod Kill Blockbuster?
http://www.forbes.com/technology/2007/12/28/apple-movie-rental-tech-media-cx_bc_1228apple.html
Apple's World
Will The iPod Kill Blockbuster?
Brian Caulfield 12.28.07
Burlingame, Calif. - Forget the cavernous big box stores that laid waste to the retail landscape a decade ago. Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs' tiny iPod has turned his company into a category killer for the digital era--first wiping out music stores and now, potentially, the corner video store.
Starting in mid-January, the Cupertino, Calif., computer and gadget maker will take on Blockbuster and Netflix by renting movies from Fox on its iTunes digital media store, according to a report first published in the Financial Times earlier this week.
While older models of the iPod--and its low-end iPod Shuffle--can't play digital video, the gadgets now have a proven record of disruption, with customers bypassing record stores to tap into illegal distribution networks, along with Apple's iTunes music store, to fill the up their devices.
The result: Sales of CDs fell more than 30% to 614.9 million units last year from a peak of 881.9 million in 2000, according to the Recording Industry Association. Once sprawling chains, such as Tower Records, have shuttered.
Apple, however, isn't the first major tech company to offer digital video rentals. Amazon rents movies to users of PCs and TiVos via its Unbox service. Microsoft is even offering digital movie rentals on its XBox 360 game console. Neither company, however, poses the same threat to DVD rental companies as Apple, which has an installed base of more than 100 million digital media devices that consumers carry in their pockets.
Since Apple first began offering video content in its store two years ago, Jobs has expanded the company's video offerings. The weak link: the AppleTV set-top box effort. Some industry observers estimate that the device has sold fewer than 1 million units since it went on sale earlier this year, so video rentals could surely revive the effort.
Despite Apple's movie rental push, Blockbuster and Netflix won't disappear tomorrow. They likely will continue to slug it out in the business of renting digital video discs. Blockbuster has moved to counter the threat from Netflix, which mails movies to customers who queue up their orders online, with a Web-based service of its own. Netflix, meanwhile, allows customers to rent digital movies for their PCs.
Still, their days might be numbered: The iPod has killed before. It will kill again.
Shares of Netflix sagged 2.19% to $26.85 in Friday trading. Shares of Blockbuster fell 1.03% to $3.86. Apple rose 0.40% to $199.37.
Apple's World
Will The iPod Kill Blockbuster?
Brian Caulfield 12.28.07
Burlingame, Calif. - Forget the cavernous big box stores that laid waste to the retail landscape a decade ago. Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs' tiny iPod has turned his company into a category killer for the digital era--first wiping out music stores and now, potentially, the corner video store.
Starting in mid-January, the Cupertino, Calif., computer and gadget maker will take on Blockbuster and Netflix by renting movies from Fox on its iTunes digital media store, according to a report first published in the Financial Times earlier this week.
While older models of the iPod--and its low-end iPod Shuffle--can't play digital video, the gadgets now have a proven record of disruption, with customers bypassing record stores to tap into illegal distribution networks, along with Apple's iTunes music store, to fill the up their devices.
The result: Sales of CDs fell more than 30% to 614.9 million units last year from a peak of 881.9 million in 2000, according to the Recording Industry Association. Once sprawling chains, such as Tower Records, have shuttered.
Apple, however, isn't the first major tech company to offer digital video rentals. Amazon rents movies to users of PCs and TiVos via its Unbox service. Microsoft is even offering digital movie rentals on its XBox 360 game console. Neither company, however, poses the same threat to DVD rental companies as Apple, which has an installed base of more than 100 million digital media devices that consumers carry in their pockets.
Since Apple first began offering video content in its store two years ago, Jobs has expanded the company's video offerings. The weak link: the AppleTV set-top box effort. Some industry observers estimate that the device has sold fewer than 1 million units since it went on sale earlier this year, so video rentals could surely revive the effort.
Despite Apple's movie rental push, Blockbuster and Netflix won't disappear tomorrow. They likely will continue to slug it out in the business of renting digital video discs. Blockbuster has moved to counter the threat from Netflix, which mails movies to customers who queue up their orders online, with a Web-based service of its own. Netflix, meanwhile, allows customers to rent digital movies for their PCs.
Still, their days might be numbered: The iPod has killed before. It will kill again.
Shares of Netflix sagged 2.19% to $26.85 in Friday trading. Shares of Blockbuster fell 1.03% to $3.86. Apple rose 0.40% to $199.37.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
