Back in the day, you could always get a good tech discussion going by asking which was better, Token Ring or Ethernet. It would bring out engineers that would give blow by blow differences on each and why their favorite was better. Heck, there used to be great battles on the merits of OS/2.

Then we got to the point of arguing about Windows Media vs Real Player vs Flash. Then Flash kicked everyones ass and MicroSoft tried to up the game with Silverlight. But where is the real down and dirty discussion contrasting the two and the best and worst places to use them ? Im not saying there isn’t some, there is, but its not part of the core discussion of video on the web and its future.

The same applies to the internet and digital connectivity to and in the home. When Yahoo and Intel announced their widget platform, everyone outside of cable industry publications ignored the Tru2Way element of the announcement. That shocked me. Intel and CableLabs announced more than a year ago that Intel would support Tru2Way on the chips that were core to the Yahoo/Intel announcement.

On fhe flipside, I got a good laugh out of my buddies at EngadgetHD (a site I love btw), who wrote that this announcement was much to my chagrin. Not quite guys, this is what I have been hoping for all along. Konfabulator on top of Tru2Way Thats progress. But it never generated any discussion as to how and where.

How would you configure a widget ? Yahoo says you wont use a keyboard, you will use a remote to pick your widget. How much of a true internet experience can it be if its limited to a remote ? RIght ? Where would the widget gallery be hosted ? This is an example of an announcement that people presumed they knew what it was about, when instead, it should have generated some amazing technical discussion as to what tech choices would be made. Maybe its too early, but I dont expect to read anything for a long time.

About the only tech discussions I seem to be able to get into these days are about P2P and those have all but disappeared along with any excitement for P2P, and with Dave from DSLReports about whether or not the last mile has enough bandwidth to allow the open internet to replace cable and satellite as a primary source of TV for mass consumption……it cant.

Call me nostalgic, but an indepth tech discussion is a whole lot more fun and interesting than today’s customary “the internet solves everything”

ShareThis

When you go to work, whether you get paid by the hour, or on commission, tips or by salary, you earn every penny of it. The operative word being earned.

When you invest your own sweat equity and/or money to create a company, the operative word being create, you earn every penny of it.

I think Obama is about to make a HUGE misake, if elected, by increasing taxes on EARNED income of 250k or more. 250k does not make you rich, particularly if you live in a city, say New York City, with a huge cost of living. 250k does not make you rich if you are 60 years old, hoping not to get laid off and holding on to your salary long enough to have enough in the bank to retire. 250k does not make you rich if you have 3 kids near or at college age.

The disparity in wealth in this country does not come on the backs of people making 250k, or even 500k or 1mm per year FROM THEIR JOBS. The ever increasing delta between the rich and everyone else does not come from EARNED INCOME at all. It comes from found money.

Found money is when an internet bubble hits and the options you got for 1 dollar are sold for 250. It comes from buying a stock for $1 and seeing it turn into a “10 bagger”. It comes from hitting the lottery. It doesn’t matter whether you were smart or lucky, it is money you FOUND based on good fortune.

When I sold broadcast.com does anyone seriously think I would have cared if the tax on my FOUND money was 10pct or 20pct more ? Hell no. Would I have made any decisions differently, HELL NO.

I dont have access to financial data, or maybe Im just too lazy to find it, to know how much income in this country is found money. Capital gains earned from limited risk capital. Things like stock options awards sold. I dont know what the number is, but its found money and could be taxed higher. If Steve Jobs gives himeself 1mm Apple options at a buck or two apiece, and he sells them for $175 dollars each, would anything about his actions change if that FOUND income were taxed at 20pct higher rate ? Sure Steve Jobs busts his ass to increase the output of Apple Computer. But his ass busting does really change the multiple or base price assigned to the stock. Thats a function of the market and market trends.

Im not the economist, fortunately, but if we can arbitrarily assign taxation to given income levels, we can arbitrarily define what constitutes FOUND MONEY.

I would do the following:

if an individual, in any given year, has short term capital gains of more than 1mm dollars, AND that gain is 200pct or more (remember, for your taxes, you list cost and sales price, so gain percentage would not be difficult to calculate) you pay the existing cap gains tax, plus you get hit with a “You got lucky tax of 30pct”

For long term capital gains, it would be more difficult, but I would tax it at a gain greater than $1mm or a basis equal to the compounded CPI for every year held, against a 300pct increase and reduce the GOT LUCKY percentage to 20pct.. So in the Steve Jobs example, if he had held his stock for 5 years, then sold it at 175mm a share, he would pay tax on 175mm in gains at the current rate, then a GOT LUCKY tax at 20pct of $175mm or $35mm dollars.

Will it piss off rich people like me.. Yep. But it wont affect our behavior at all. At some point you know the difference between FOUND MONEY and EARNED INCOME. That stock that went crazy, the options or warrants you got that vested just at the right time, thats where people get in to the Fuck You money territory, and most if not all recognize that paying taxes at that level is a great problem to have.

The transactions this GET LUCKY tax is most likely to impact

ShareThis

If you havent read, ESPN has come out and said that they will be aggressively bidding for the retransmission rights for the next available Olympics, which will be in 2016. Notice I didnt say TV rights. The battle for the Olympics rights will be in spreadsheet projections done by ESPN, NBC and probably DirecTV (my guess, not based on any info), that will have to take in to account what revenues can be generated on TV advertising (traditional and interactive), through cable/satellite subscription revenues, an ever increasing market size for mobile video and advertising, and of course audio/video and text advertising of all types.

My guess is that ESPN, with their great per sub charges and more trafficed internet sites will feel that they have the advantage over NBC or other bidders simply because they get more revenue per cable subscriber for their networks than NBC does for theirs, they can monetize their internet and mobile traffic in many more ways than nbcolympics.com and ABC can match up to NBC in terms of broadcast TV. With the exception of course that 1080i will always look far better than 720p… but I digress.

If DirecTV gets in the bidding, it will be a simple process. If the retrans rights cost 2Billion dollars, and they can generate revenue per new subscriber of 1k dollars per year, which is probably low for the year 2016, then all they have to do is add 2mm subscribers around the Olympics. All the advertising is gravy. It worked for the NFL, why not the Olympics ?

DirecTV could also push out events to the Discovery branded channels that Liberty Media owns, and probably also do a deal with at least 1, if not more of the broadcast networks. How much would it be worth to the CW Network to pay them for the rights to show some of the 2ndary events during primetime and replays of major events that were previously shown on DirecTV ?

Chase Carey of DirecTV and John Malone are two of the smartest dealmakers out there. It wouldn’t be a shock.

So what can NBC, or really any bidder do to give themselves an advantage ? What technology could they monetize in 2016 that would help get a return on their bid that doesn’t exist today ?

The answer is simple: The Out of Home Market

How many people can they convince to leave their homes to watch the games in a unique viewing venue. Would people pay 20 bucks to watch Michael Phelps go for medals 17 to 25 in a theater on a 3 story screen in the highest possible quality HD with a thousand other screaming fans ? Would they pay 30 bucks to watch it in 3D ?

Could they get 10mm people into theaters (thats the equivalent of a movie that did about 70mm in box office in 2 weeks). Would people get more excited about the Olympics than they did Batman ?

Would people go to the Royals stadium in KC to watch any of the games on a Daktronics screen that is 12 stories tall with 40k of their friends ? Would they fill 100k in the new Dallas Cowboys or the new Yankees stadiums whose HDTV screens will be even bigger ? How many different nights ? Particularly given that in 2016, those screens will be “old” and probably smaller than the current generation of screens in arenas and stadiums.

Of course it would also not be a stretch to place the biggest screens in existence in open air locations where huge gatherings and related events can take place. Would families pay 50 bucks for a day of Olympics fun outside on 100 acres ? Olympicsalooza anyone ? Why should it be any different than all the events that take place SuperBowl, or NBA or MLB All Star weekends ? Make it a huge party. In 100 cities across the country.

Could you sell 20mm tickets to attend out of home Olympic events at an average of 20 bucks each ? Thats 400mm minus the cut to the theaters, locations, etc of 50pct, or 200mm. Plus of course there is all the non stop advertising that will be built into all of these events. On screen, at stadium/field/farm/theater………

NBC proved that the Olympics can still be a communal event in the USA. Dark Knight proved that if enough people get excited about the same event, if you make it a special event, they will leave their homes to see it. Sports leagues have done an amazing job of building specialty events around the main event. Could technical advances in large stadium screens be a tipping point in the economics and presentation of the Olympics ?

How big can a screen be in 2016 and at what price ? Why not a panoramic emerssive experience in the new Cowboys stadium ? Or a 10 story tall 3D presentation of Olympics Basketball in the American Airlines Arena ? 20k or 50k or 100k people screaming U-S-A and watching on a screen that makes you feel as ifyou were there, is that worth 20 bucks ?

Or did I get it all wrong and all the new excitement in 2016 will be coming across the net through my PC to my TV

ShareThis

For years people have been saying that they will watch things in HD, that they would never ordinarily watch. In the 12 years I have been involved in Internet Video in one form or another, I have yet to have anyone ever tell me they will watch something just because its on the internet.

Thats not to say people wont surf the net and sample something they otherwise would not watch. Thats what the internet video aggregation sites are all about. Sampling things you never would other wise watch.

One thing is becoming increasingly clear, while more people are “snacking on Internet video“, the real “meal” continues to be TV.

It appears like the Olympics are proving this out and presenting an interesting conclusion, people are starting to define the content they want to watch on each platform. The Platform is the Message to content creators.

Without question, people want to watch big events on their big HDTVs. There is a reason why 30pct of homes and quickly growing now have HDTVs…..they like to watch them. With a 73″ HDTV from Mitsubishi down to about $2200 bucks, its easy to see why and the pricing of all HDTVs continuing to fall, its a trend thats not going to end anytime soon. Watching an event like the Olympics, just about any sporting event and even big shows like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars benefit. ESPN has issued research saying their ratings across the board are up 47 to 50pct every month in HDTV households.

I think the real question of the Olympics isnt “whats the impact of the Internet”, its “whats the impact on viewing of HDTV ?”. If and when NBC releases numbers regarding ratings in HDTV households, I wouldnt be shocked if the numbers are 75pct higher. People with big, beautiful TVs that they spent a lot of money on, want a reason to watch them. This could go down as the year the Olympics reinvigorated TV.

if programmers understand that people will watch different programs on different platforms, we can stop playing the game of trying to replace TV.

Programmers will create content differently for every platform, from cellphone, even to movies. In the movie world , its pretty simple to see that big movies, with big special effects look great and sound great in theaters. Same with 3D. Thats an experience even a 73″ HDTV cant recreate fully

Events look great on HDTVs, whether they are sports, shows or movies.

Quick hits and short clips are great for the internet. Sure some people will watch shows that perform better on other platforms on the net. We all use what we have available when its our only choice. Which is why so much video consumption online is in the office. Its our only choice.

replays and breaking news and anything that helps us kill time are what we will use our MIDS, PDAs, and phones for.

The platform is the message from viewers to content providers.

ShareThis

No matter what year you were born, by the time you finish high school, its a completely different world. Today’s high school seniors were born prior to the World Wide Web, wireless internet, digital phones, and changes in world politics that were never imagined.

Compare the technology, political, social world we live in today, and you realize quickly. None of us are born in to the world we live in…..

ShareThis

No matter what year you were born, by the time you finish high school, its a completely different world. Today’s high school seniors were born prior to the World Wide Web, wireless internet, digital phones, and changes in world politics that were never imagined.

Compare the technology, political, social world we live in today, and you realize quickly. None of us are born in to the world we live in…..

ShareThis

No matter what year you were born, by the time you finish high school, its a completely different world. Today’s high school seniors were born prior to the World Wide Web, wireless internet, digital phones, and changes in world politics that were never imagined.

Compare the technology, political, social world we live in today, and you realize quickly. None of us are born in to the world we live in…..

ShareThis

First a word to the Philadelphia Inquirer that is taking all kinds of heat for saving their best stuff for print. Smart. Remember, these words, “those who can, do. Those who can’t, blog about what everyone else is doing”

You are on the right track, although finding the right balance is not going to be easy. The problem isnt that newspapers are dying, its that newspapers have a cost structure that prevent them from fluidly adjusting to the marketplace. They cant price based on demand or on the value of what they print and deliver. Unlike the digital world,because of legacy agreements, they have to fight for every change in their work environment which puts them at a huge disadvantage.

Moving on…

I know, and I believe all of us who have fully integrated all the digital media options available to us into our lives also know, what we like to watch, read or listen to on our laptop, desktop, phone, TV, PDA and radio.

I multi-task. Not just sometimes, but for the most part, all the time. Heck, i can even multitask with my PDA or phone, at the gym, in a plane, in a car. There are few places that I can’t or don’t multitask. I also am not a platform bigot. I use the platform to consume what I want, where I want, how I want. I won’t exclude a platform because its not hip, or cool, or popular.

For some reason, unknown to me, there are old timers who apparently limit themselves to just the internet. Techmeme took me here, where the blogger, in reference to the Philly Inquirer, had this to say “They know that the internet is the present and the future and the paper is the past.” Talk about closed minded.

Newspapers and magazines are great places to find in depth coverage of stories. I dont want to read more than 2 pages on an internet site. Given the choice of reading a 3 page article from a PC or from paper. Give me paper every time. Which is why I continue to subscribe to and purchase paper based products.

My lifestyle is such that Im in digital mode probably 10 hours or more a day. I go through a hierarchy of digital consumption that incorporates business first. Which means Im on email continuously. After first checking email, and in between email updates, I go through a process of
1. Must check = which are the 10 or so websites I go to every day to make sure Im on top of everything related to my world.
2. Just in case – Then I go through the RSS feeds, just in case there is something I could use.

3. Be Informed. – Then I go through the non essential things that I want to stay informed about or that I might find interesting. For me, this is where newspapers and maagzines come in. I can grab a bite to eat or get on a bike at the gym and read about things that are interesting to me. Its a break from a digital screen, and for anyone who spends their day working around digital screens knows what I mean. You need a break, but are still in work mode.

4. Mindless mode. Entertainment is an escape for me. I want to disconnect at some level. I still may check my email/PDA for anything that impacts my professional or personal life, put Im going to do my best to enjoy whatever it is in front of me. Whether its playing with my kids, or watching TV.

If Im watching TV, i dont want to have to know what Im looking for, I want to channel surf. Im not going to go on a website to find video to entertain myself., thats far too much work and its not enough of a pay off. If I need to get out of the house, go out with my wife, family, or friends, then Im going to a game,movie, park to disengage as much as I can. I do my best to try to find the best balance of all the above.

I think there are a lot of “pundits” that make the mistake of thinking the above type choices are based on demographics. I dont think they are. I think they are based on lifestyle choices . Some of which that match up to age and demographics.

I think in the broadest brush strokes, I think our lifestyle as it pertains to media can be grouped as following:

Growing Up: Growing up is when your life is all about you and your friends. Your only responsibility is to yourself. Learning about yourself. Having fun. Making friends. Trying to decide what is next. Its during this phase that digital media dominates your life. There is absolutely no reason to manage your time. In this phase, money is worth more than time.

Real World: as long as our job is “growing up”, which we do until we decide that we have a specific goal in mind that we want to accomplish and finally get serious about it. It might be stay at home dad, artist, enterpreneur or who knows what, but at that point in time, we recognize that we have to use our time and resources to reach those goals. How we consume media changes.

ShareThis

Could there be anything better for the NBA ?

The more NBA players in Europe the better. The movement of players is taking away the stigma and fear that younger players perceive when they are asked to play in Europe before signing an NBA contract. Knowing that they will be competing against Josh Childress, Earl Boykins, Carlos Arroyo, et al, and getting a chance to get real minutes, AND make good money is a win for everyone.

I know a lot of people think a team that loses a player could get really hurt by the move. In reality, if a team truly has a good handle on your skill level and ability to contribute to the team, they will pay to that level. If they arent sure, then the player going to Europe is a huge win. The player gets paid, but more importantly, the team gets to further evaluate the player in a high pressure situation.

High pressure ? Absolutely. When you are the highest paid American player on your team overseas, you better be a star that produces, on a team that wins. If as a player, you improve your game (and the 2 a day practices over there give you that opportunity), then you can come back to the states after a shorter season and your value will have improved. If you are a player that went over to be the star and didnt star… Well, you probably will have a long career in another country.

From the NBA team’s perspective, not only do we get additional evaluation time, but we still retain the same rights we had the day before you left, and I dont want to speak for any other team, but the hardest part of a player leaving is his going to a team you compete with and having to see him and read about it all the time. When a player defects overseas and you still hold the same rights, its not nearly that bad.

And one last question thats been getting asked a lot. What about a guy getting far more overseas than he could get paid in the NBA ? Yes, yes, yes. Nothing better than competition for the NBA.

With the exchange rate, 25mm a year paid in Euros is the equivalent of about 12mm paid in Euros just a few years ago. So NBA players look like bargains. If we lose a few players, thats not a bad thing. in fact a couple All Stars going over there is a GREAT GREAT thing.

Let me explain why. Lets say for the sake of example a couple players got 25mm, 50mm or whatever a year pay and they play on teams that just dominate. They rip apart every team they face. What happens next ? People wonder who the best teams in the world are. When that discussion becomes serious, the NBA and those winning overseas teams get paid.

European Soccer has done a phenomenal job of inventing tournaments that drive huge revenues and TV dollars. This would allow the NBA to do the same thing. Take a Christmas break, or do it in the summer , where the top 6 records in the league play the top 6 teams over there , with the revenues from the event being split primarily among the participant teams rather than equally among all NBA teams. Not only would that be a great revenue source for all the teams involved, but it would create a huge economic incentive for the other 24NBA teams and all overseas team to become top tier teams.

Then of course we could create our own World Cup type tournament every 4 years.

ALl of this could open the door to create more NBA owned competition. I’m not saying it would be easy or automatic. Quite a few parties that dont always see eye to eye would have to come to agreement, But the timing for all of that is right and its an amazing opportunity for players, leagues and teams alike.

Who would have ever thunk that the combination of Josh and the drop in the dollar could create such a wonderful opportunity.

ShareThis

In 9th grade, my social studies teacher taught me that the greatest marketing slogan ever were the words “rinse and repeat ” that they put on shampoo bottles. There is absolutely no reason to wash your hair twice, but if anyone does, they are that much closer to buying another bottle.

A simple, and maybe as effective option for video ? Allow for downloads.

I was watching video on a news site and wanted to keep a copy of the video. This was original video to the station, so there were no copyright issues. So there was no reason for them not to allow a download.

The crazy part is that since they were using flash, it was progressive download. The video is there on the hard drive, its just a matter of making it easy for the end user to rewatch the video. Again and again and again..

Many of the major video sites have added this option, but its amazing that newspaper, TV and other sites that have recently added video, for the most part do not.

With online video, maybe adding the word “Save” to Share & Replay might not double viewing, but every additional local view not only can increase revenue, but it can eliminate paying for bandwidth for those users who go back to the original link and stream the video again.

Im just saying..

ShareThis