The “conventional wisdom” of internet intellectuals is that its a foregone conclusion that the future of content delivery is via the internet. Furthermore, the same internet panel populaters seem to be of the mindset that traditional entertainment and content companies “just dont get it”. History has written that if it can be gotten for free, it should be gotten for free. It’s a given that the next re-make of Planet of the Apes is supposed to end with Taylor looking not at The Statue of Liberty, but an enormous Comcast or DIRECTV logo when he screams they “blew it all to hell”. That major content conglomerates like Viacom, Disney and the like, that depend on traditional TV models are doomed because they just dont understand the new world.
I agree.
Those big companies just don’t get it. Forget the Internet. For some reason they want to kill off the DVR. They think the DVR is the bane of their existence. That because consumers fast forward through commercials, DVRs must be dumbed down, limited in any and every way possible and even eliminated.
To this I reply, “Are you serious ?”
Do you not realize that the DVR is the one device that can save all things traditional and holy to your business and stock price ? That the DVR is what every internet based TV delivery device or service aims to be when they grow up ? That the more powerful and feature rich that you allow DVRs to become, the sooner your customers, the people that pay an average of what, $80 dollars a month to consume your content, will realize that all the capabilities that the internet pundits predict that the future of the internet will offer, are available today for the DVR ?
Let me ask a simple question, if everyone had a DVR that could record any and every series they liked, enabling them to watch the shows they missed immediately, why would they go to Hulu ever again ? Lunchtime at work you say ? I respond simply with “slingbox enabled DVR”. Let them stream the shows from their homes. Oh, and one more thing. When they do stream it from home to work, they pay for the bandwidth, not you.
Traditional media should be blasting the cable/telco/sat companies for not adding DVR features and dropping pricing fast enough. Not only should remote internet access to content be a given, but the ability to save shows at “internet quality” and original quality, side by side, should be as well. This would not only improve streaming, but also increase the number of shows that could be saved. I could go on for days with features that could and should be added to DVRs, but I will shortcut this by once again butchering a quote from Charlton Heston, this time from Soylent Green. “Its PCs. DVRs are made out of PCs.”. Which means that they can not only be upgraded with features, but if someone where smart and fully opened up Tru2way and added net connectivity, it could be a rich foundation for applications. Anyone got a Charlton Heston quote for the Iphone App store ? So what if Netflix does instant streaming to it. Go out and get the same rights and add them to your VOD Offering and create a movie on demand subscription service that you host on the internet or implement when you go IP. The full feature DVR is the killer of all boxes designed to integrate internet video into traditional TV viewing.
If you have gotten this far, you need to wipe away the tears. Yes, advertising dollars could take a hit. Sometimes the business world requires you to make a choice. Call me crazy, but a device that consumers love and further commits them to paying the cable/sat/telco distributors that PAY YOU BILLIONS EVERY YEAR, IS A GOOD THING ! A device that can pre empt whatever threat there might be from over the top video, is a good thing for you. A device that makes people watch MORE traditional TV is a good thing too, right ?
I know its tough recognizing that 40pct plus of DVR users want to and will skip through commercials. But do you think if you kill the golden goose and push people to the internet they will be more likely to watch your commercials ? No. They won’t.
Its time for you to finally understand the new world of technology and content. You have an amazing technology, the DVR, that has almost tripled its installed based to more than 30pct in just 2 years. DVR users watch 8 hours per month of time shifted TV, which by the way is more than total average consumption of 3 hours of internet video per month. Even kids 18 to 24 watch more video on their DVR than they do on the net ! Don’t you think its worth noting that the number of DVR users is growing faster than the number of video watching internet users ? The individual consumption of DVR video far exceeds internet video. More importantly, since most DVR users are cable/telco subscribers, they actually PAY YOU MONEY to do all the above.
Its time you come not to crush the DVR but to praise it.
Pingback: October 2009 Links « Maria's Guides
Pingback: infinicine » Blog Archive » What is the DVR of Indie Film?
Pingback: Could the DVR actually help SAVE the TV industry? | The Future of Movies
Pingback: Linkpost | 10.25.2009 - Tech News
It’s not just the handful of shows on Hulu or Fancast; it’s the classic movies on TCM, the live sporting events,and the TV shows not found on the internet. It’s the epic events that can be captured in their entirety, but are translated into sound bites for the internet. It’s about the best quality on TV’s over 50″ diagonal (not to say there aren’t good HTPC’s). It’s digital surround on so many offerings, and it’s currently the best and most available HD content. And to the statement “I don’t want to deal with a utility” I ask how do you get your broadband? When that Comcast box goes down, it’s replaced; when your computer crashes, who do you turn to? We can find pluses and minuses in any medium. And someday the internet will need to catch up. But I can skip the commercials easily on VOD (if there are commercials) but not so easy on Hulu. I’m with Mark on this one. Given the choice to watch my favorite show on a 100″ screen or my cell phone……
Comment by chazz77 -
Why should I have to record all the shows I want to watch? Why should I have to setup a sling box to watch them at work? They are already available on hulu and other network sites.
My computer is connected to my flat screen at home and it looks great!
I personally don’t have a need for cable anymore between hulu, netflix (streaming) and itunes downloads. I get everything I want and cancelled my cable service.
Sorry comcast, embrace being the pipe or get out of the way. We’re still a long way from the average user hooking up their computer to their TV, but this is the inevitable future. Why? Because it’s SO MUCH BETTER!
Comment by DJ Burdick -
Pingback: Shelf Life, Participation Value, and Television in the 21st Century « seed change
Mark,
Very nice article. Normally it wouldn’t have interested me much as I was never much of an internet video consumer (if you can call them consumers). In a recent attempt to trim down our monthly bills, I suspended our cable and kept only our internet service. We had U-Verse, so the savings of eliminating my DVR box rentals and service equates to $100+ a month. Obviously, the trade-off is I can’t access the content I want as much. When we initially cancelled our cable service, I used the logic of “most of the cable television shows we watch we can watch on their websites free of charge.” For the most part, this is true. We watch DWTS, Vampire Diaries, The Hills, etc. all on their respective websites. What I failed to realize was the absence of “live” content. I can’t watch the Mavs (I even explored NBA league-pass to resolve that dilemma, still looking for an alternate offering), I can’t watch Monday Night Football, etc. So in that regards, it is very difficult to say the dollar verse content is not justifiable. Still, I’ll trade the inability to watch certain content over paying for a DVR that is restrictive. Don’t get me wrong, I loved (have loved) every DVR I’ve owned (Dish Network, U-Verse) … it’s just for the features I could be provided, I’d rather not pay for the service when I can get many more features off-video enabled websites. Take NBA League-Pass for example, I can watch the game, keep track of my favorite player stats, check the standing updates, etc. all from the comfort and convience of one window. Are their implications to the Mavs losing this game, let me check the current standings. So, yes, it has advantages and I make this point on something that still costs money to provide the content. I don’t need that kind of content for average TV shows, but wouldn’t it be great for DWTS? I want to vote for Michael Irvin or you … give me the option to “click-a-vote” as I watch. Yet again, goes into your category of participation content and has nothing to do with DVR content (as obviously you couldn’t “click-vote” on time-delayed content). For the dollar, I don’t get the features I want from many of my providers. U-Verse gave me uninterupted signal that cable provides, but I couldn’t pause, rewind, etc. from ANY room in my house only on the main DVR. Dish lost signal during any major storm and lagged on content. Then you have your plus-side, U-verse multi-view … how cool is it to watch a game from 4 different camera angles (made me sad I cancelled service right before those pre-season games). I definitely like the direction of U-Verse and FiOS based services, but the cost for services rec’d is still a bit steep for premium content. Then again, that’s why it’s premium isn’t it? In the interim, I’ll use the internet to keep me up with certain aspects of pop culture, while I make the occasional trip to Buffalo Wild Wings to buy a soda and desert and catch the vital Mavs match-ups. 🙂
Comment by minorniner5 -
I agree that the DVR is king, and lay the service in the user’s lap. It can be no more complex than two cords on the back of the box and a remote that looks vaguely familiar. And the on-screen guide has to be integrated to the live service (oh – now the tv and internet providers are working together, or are the same). Give the user a website and login that works for their computer and phone so they can program and stream. Is there an app for that?
Add in Network DVR and you get more capacity, shared capacity, added customers who forgot to record, and easy access to those Internet versions of the shows. I banged my head trying to make that work, and trying to get the rights to do it, but customers loved what it would have given them. Back to simplicity, though – don’t mention Network DVR – let the consumers just see cool features on an easy-to-use interface.
Comment by anentropymedia -
Pingback: Future TV consumption « MikeHales.com
regarding a old related post on Internet Lies, do you think the same after the 10 millions views of the U2 on Youtube concert?
There are 10M not just 10k !!!
I personaly think that peer asisted CDNs would help to get igger and better audiences… even U2 on youtube doesnt take that hand ;-
From MC> What a HUGE disappointment it was. Akamai never showed more than about 1.2mm users across its entire network during the concert. Figure its about 5mm unique viewers and its a show that gets cancelled if its no network TV
Comment by kindmartin -
I understand you’re just trying to be provocative, but I think you’re just getting it half right. The way you’re describing “internet video” really means “getting video from web sites” like Hulu or brand sites. But as you know, the internet is nothing more than a communications protocol. I disagree that Big Media should “forget about the internet”. I would argue they should care a lot MORE about the internet and embrace the shift from traditional cable simulcast delivery to a true multicast delivery that would allow for new advancements in both programming and monetization.
As you replied to a comment – the DVR is just a PC and can do everything a PC can do. But not if it is blocked from the internet or given only limited internet access. Embracing DVR and Sling-like technologies is one half – evolving programming and content to take advantage of new technologies and behaviors is the other. And Big Media has been terrible at understanding both…
In the same way that Xbox Live revolutionized game playing at home, we can provide new experiences to people while watching TV. By doing so, we can also create many new opportunities for monetization and move beyond just relying on the 30sec spot.
-Joshua
http://www.mistheory.com
Comment by memeticjmd -
Pingback: Internet Video vs the DVR and Cable | Anti-Social Musings
I have a CableCARD Media Center PC that is the dream DVR of all DVRs. When the Time Warner Cable guys were here this weekend installing a couple of SDV tuning adapters, I showed them the interface and they were blown away. I told them that these Media Center PCs with CableCARD are the only think that keep me on Time Warner Cable. Otherwise I would have fled to U-Verse.
So, yes – the EQUIPMENT is a major player in service selection, and service companies need to cater to the equipment, not try to fight it.
Comment by dmccall -
Mark,
I think it is a noble and logica idea. However, wouldn’t the networks (primarily the majors) reject to this idea. Most major networks stream their shows on their website, and believe that this will slowly build and evolve to significantly add to their bottom line. These networks, whom hold major power in the industry, will strategically lobby against further expanding the DVR.
-Jamison
Comment by dwize20 -
Only 40% of DVR users skip through commercials? Why else would you have a DVR?
DVR has made it impossible for me to watch regular commercial TV. Even if something I want to watch is on RIGHT NOW, I’ll still record it and watch it later so I can zip through the commercials. When I travel and am stuck in hotels, I don’t even bother turning on the TV — the constant interruptions of 2-3 minute commercial breaks drive me nuts.
The only thing stopping me from using Hulu more often is the crappy Internet connection speed at home. Hulu’s 15-30 second commercials are at the limit of what I can stand; if they introduced longer ones, I’d do all my TV watching on DVR.
Comment by mlanger -
Mark, please go and read the post I linked to.
This isn’t about an individual setting up his own DVR – it’s about how the current providers can provide something of value.
Comment by Ike Pigott -
“slingbox enabled dvr”: already have my slingbox hooked into my DVR.
What I’m really waiting for is SlingBox enabled XBOX… I’ve tried to wire-up a IR controller remotely, with little success.
Along the lines of what MC was discussing about access to content, the use of cloud computing to access any show, any time, from any device would be truly remarkable…
Comment by ebita4ever -
I would be on the pro-DVR side if companies like comcast actually made quality ones available to their customers. I am getting ready to return my third DVR to comcast in 8 months. comcast appears to refuse to remove faulty hardware from their supply, no matter how many are verified as failing in the field. The last time I returned a box I noticed that they placed a piece of red tape on it and added it to a rack of about 50 other returned units with red tape on them. This was at 11am on a Monday morning. If it’s acceptable for them to have (and publicly display) that many returns in a week (or maybe that was in a day), then it shows that this company just doesn’t care about their customers, or the view their customers have of them.
If you wonder why I stick with them, is because highspeed internet access in my area is only available through them. Once someone breaks their monopoly, I’ll be breaking my chains. Until then I will continue to keep my eye on sites I can get the shows I want, to make sure I am ready for the next DVR failure.
Comment by monkeybeat -
Well, DVR is definitely part of it, but I think that this speaks to a baseline of re-thinking the device that the cable and satellite guys engage consumers with.
If the premise was how to deliver the best user experience, period, and build a platform of services around it, like…iPhone, you have could see multiple premises rebooted. In the case of the cell phone, it was a boom for AT&T.
Can see why it wouldn’t be the same for Comcast and/or DirecTV.
Some fodder on what that might look like here:
What it Means to be a “Social” Media Center: Boxee, Apple TV and Square Connect
http://bit.ly/3EPXXY
Check it out, if interested.
Mark
Comment by marksigal -
Obviously it make technical sense to optimize the plant capacity and provide users with as close to an on-demand service for THEIR preferred shows. If only the in-home wireless were faster, or, we all had gigE and more RJ-45 ports at home. My TiVo units are all connected through 11g dongles. transferring a single HD movie from one series III tivo to another (when that’s not “restricted” which is truly goofy – both TiVo units are on the same account in the same home) takes something like 4X the length of the film: 6 hours for a 90 min movie. If I had the same fiber or coax connection that would be different. Considering the huge “dead time” between 2 am and 10 am on the cable plant I would be great if seasons were pushed to DVRs. Could be to a single unit with a MOCA unit in the home.\
From MC> Amazing how long it takes in home, and people expect video to be everyone and fast online !
Comment by spassmeister -
Pingback: Playstation Hooks up With Netflix, Streams Follow
Agree. I think DVR itself should be part of TV. There are too many devices surrounding TV. Stuff like DVD player, Slinkbox, DVR should all be part of TV with a WiFi connection. Like DVR is a PC, TV is a PC – with a large screen.
Comment by Raju Vegesna -
I much prefer the on-demand model, and I think the trend is going in that direction. DVRs are just a stepping-stone to full, on-demand home video consumption. Why should I figure out when a show is on so I can record it? Why should I have to worry about how much space I have to store the show and that kind of thing? I’d rather just subscribe to the show and it shows up in my “inbox” when it’s out (or watch a movie when I feel like it).
And, following Mark Cuban’s argument, this should be spun in their favor, not against it. In a way they’re becoming their own little iTunes store but with a subscription model instead of pay-as-you-go (or some mix of the two). But, as he said, if the cable companies don’t adjust to the market in this way, then those canceling their cable in favor watching content via the Internet with continue to grow.
I know I’m among that crowd and, as more shows become available via iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, etc…, and more live content becomes consumable via the Internet, there is less and less of a reason to subscribe to cable. I’d much rather spend that $80 budget on content I *know* I’m going to consume, instead of a plethora of content that I will never watch.
Comment by seanjs -
I work for Comcast in Residential Sales and I agree completely. DVR’s are absolutely one of the biggest selling points. More and more people are wanting them, and when it comes to switching people from Dish Network or ATT, it is tough because they cling to that 4 tuner DVR like it’s their lifeline. We’ve been begging the “higher ups” to upgrade our DVR’s to the level of our competitors for 2 years now. Why haven’t they? Who knows… Its costly I know, but its a huge selling factor. And the price needs to come down some too, so Comcast is going to have to make some concessions by buying more expensive upgraded DVR’s and lowering the price to consumers.
In whole, I agree 100% Mark. Good article.
Comment by smorcy -
DVR vs. Internet is the wrong discussion. People want to watch whatever show they want, whenever they want to watch it. They would also like to be able to watch it from whatever device they happen to be at. Internet can be a great distribution mechanism for this, if we can just pput it on TV. This has been done through AppleTV and Boxee.
DVR is popular because it’s the easiest way to get to an anytime viewing model today. But it’s not the right solution long-term. It means have a piece of hardware at my house that can crash. And I can’t watch TV from anywhere else unless I get something like Slingbox, which means another device and configurations. Ugh.
What I love are on-demand movies. Pick a movie. Pay $5.95 (for HD, of course). And watch. Done. Easy. Why can’t TV be like that? I’ll pay for it. I’ll pay a subscription for some, and one-time fees for others. And why can’t we move past the one-device-per-subscription model. When I’m traveling, why can’t I log into my account and watch my shows on my laptop? I shouldn’t have to wait until I get back to my DVR at home. Or better yet, why can’t the TV in my hotel allow me to log into my provider and just watch my shows there? I’d be happy to pay for service like that.
Comment by jeffkeltner -
The magic will come from Network DVR. The broadcaster will record every channel, 24/7. The servers will cut up the stream based on the channel grid/schedule. The user ‘marks’ the shows they want to ‘record’, and the server places that marker in their library database. Only one copy is actually saved at the network, but everyone who marked it can now watch it like a video on demand. No hard drive in the local set top box. The set top box doesn’t even have to be hooked up for it to have the shows recorded.
No need for multiple tuners, the user can ‘record’ as many shows as once as they desire.
After 24 hours, if no one marked a show for “DVR”
, it gets deleted for disk space…
And with the videos actually at the server, they would be available from every set top box in the same house.
This is a service you could charge for, but wouldn’t need to. The provider could place commercials at the start of the VOD (like the DVDs do) that the user can’t fast forward through.
Comment by macklinh -
jdmacor, thanks for your response. Look, I know that there are work arounds but the point is that to get what the internet easily provides you have to 1) spend a lot more money and 2) be inconvenienced.
That 4 or 5 tuner DVR you have isn’t the barebones model that the cable company provided, is it? You have to pay quite a lot to get something like that. Or maybe you have a much better cable company than me. I just don’t want to look at the 2010 tv schedule and be worried that I have to chose between 2 of my favorite shows on tuesday night and then remember to watch the other online the next day. I want technology that conforms to my lifestyle, not the other way around.
And I don’t want to spend a day or 2 devising some intricate system of wires in order to hook up 2 dvrs to one television, then have to use 2 different remote controls and remember which program I recorded on which DVR…. it’s just an inconvenient mess. I’m a tech geek, but no thanks.
At least I know with internet TV quality, it’s going to improve with time as bandwidth keeps going up. I’m not sure that the DVR problems I’ve explained will ever be worked out. Give me a single box that can record any program I want and give it to me for under $200 and then I’ll be onboard.
And I just have to completely disagree with you about the service fees. I don’t mind service fee if I’m receiving a service. But top-box service fees are payments for the right to use the hardware. It would be like GE charging you $10/month to use the refrigerator you bought.
Comment by mateo2 -
Pingback: Linkpost | 10.25.2009 | yKvz Blog
“if everyone had a DVR that could record any and every series they liked, enabling them to watch the shows they missed immediately, why would they go to Hulu ever again ?”
Because you have to get the DVR and deal with another utility company. There’s still an extra barrier to entry with DVR, whereas Hulu and related services are an extension of a preexisting service.
From MC> How is the DVR not an extension of your cable/sat ? With Hulu you not only have to deal with your ISP for enough bandwidth, but you have to have a PC that supports it well, and you have to depend on Hulu to do deals with the content providers. Thats far more convoluted than adding a DVR and recording every show you like to watch. You can only hope your show will be on Hulu. You know its on TV
Comment by steveplace -
I’m not sure DVR owners miss many of the commercials that matter to them. It’s just that everyone knows which commercials they miss using a DVR vs just guessing who gets up to go the bathroom during standard TV fair. Bad for advertising rates. However, as tech progresses that info is going to become available anyway causing the same reduction in rates.
Comment by Fred H Schlegel -
Pingback: El DVR vs Video en Internet « web television
Mark,
Do you think they will catch on and start incorporating traits of the new medium into dvr’s using their relationship with the consumer to box out the “apple tv’s” of the world like they did with Tivo? Or do you think they will be too slow to react?
-Aaron
From MC> If they are smart, they will.
Comment by aaroncray -
Hey Mark… how about making the DVR “social”? http://occamsrazr.com/2009/10/14/thinking-social/
From MC> the dvr is just a pc. It can be enabled to do what a pc does
Comment by Ike Pigott -
Actually, it IS about the advertising. Program producers depend on the advertising revenue in order to have the money to pay the actors, the crew, and other expenses necessary to produce the programs.
Lost advertising revenue will have to be reclaimed somehow — I guess we’ll just have to get used to a pay per view tier for every program we want to watch. It’s becoming an “on demand” world, pay for it when you want to watch it. It worked wonders for program providers and recent movie distributors like HBO, Showtime and other pay channels.
The only programming that will have local advertising that won’t be 100% zapped will be news, both national and local (though you’ll be able to see the news anytime you wanted) and live sports.
The DVR is here to stay, and it will be the eventual death of local TV advertising, and it will lead to the creation of pay-per-view episodic television, and it’s something we can all see in the future, but will we be ready when it comes to fruition?
Comment by myinhouseagency -
Pingback: The Future of Internet Video | Gadget Wisdom
Pingback: Basketball Blog.com – The Best Basketball Blogs Resource Online » Blog Archive » The DVR vs Internet Video
I use Hulu to get 75+% of my TV show viewing. I like that it provides a one-stop place to watch and it’s queue system is excellent. I can subscribe to a show and it will pop in my queue. No need to keep track myself. In fact, I like Hulu so much that I stay away from most networks that don’t use it (CBS and The CW), simply because watching their shows becomes a major inconvenience. I have to remember to bookmark the sites and check for new videos. This is the 21st century, we don’t have time to browse.
There is an online television aggregator site called Clicker that is in beta. I have an account and it is pretty good. This will hopefully solve the problem of some networks using their own or different services.
DVR has 2 major downsides. One, they are usually very expensive. I bought what is now a piece of junk Philips dvr several years ago that randomly doesn’t work. I could get a TiVO but I hate paying a subscription for hardware; they don’t provide much of a service. I know I could buy a “life time subscription” but again you run into the price problem.
From MC> Actually you are completely dependent on whether or not networks will make their shows available on Hulu. Dont plan on them competing with themselves and giving to you for free what they charge others for. As far as multiple tuners, its just as easy for your programming guide to go to the Net to get a show as it is for your PC. In fact, Directv does it. You can pick shows and have them downloaded via the net to your DVR. As this gets more prevalent with providers, you can bet they will reconsider whether or not they make their content available to hulu. You can also bet that they will make sure the 3rd party aggregators that are not approved dont have access to their content. Their biggest cop will probably be google/youtube. No reason for Google to let competition for youtube survive if they are breaking the law
The second problem is a deal-breaker. You can’t record programs that are on at the same time, unless you buy the even-more-expensive dual tuner DVRs. And in that case, you can record 2 simultaneous programs. I’m not going to be forced into only watching 1 program just because a DVR isn’t advanced enough to record both. Why would I, when I can watch them online and don’t even have to worry about what time they actually air?
#1 is fixable (although after so many years, the prices are still high) but #2 is not. Sorry, DVR isn’t user-friendly enough.
Comment by mateo2 -
In regards to your downsides to DVRs, most people should get them from their sat/cable co’s. It is pointless to buy one outright; you can have the technology updated every year or two if you lease them, at a rate between $7 – $15 per month. Now, these are tough times, but that service fee isn’t unreasonable.
Your second issue is also ridiculous. My dish network DVR has FOUR whole tuners, and I can still watch a recording while the tuners are all recording something else. Then of course fios and uverse have dvrs with 4 and even 5 tuners! Is that enough for you? If you are like me, and have 2 dvrs, then they start to add up.
I hate the quality and reliability of Internet video. It looks like crap usually, and certainly doesn’t scale up well on tvs. Then every once in a while, the damn thing stops playing and starts buffering. It drives me nuts.
Comment by jdmacor -
I think I know what you’re saying. I’m never quite sure if I’m smart enough to understand you or that you ramble incomprehensibly. Maybe a little of both.
Anyway, I think you’re saying instead of youtube, hulu and the other online video conglomerates trying to wall their garden off and compete with DVR, they should find a way to stream their content to the DVRs at a quality comparable to cable/sat/etc?
From MC> EVERY future TV show that is on Youtube or Hulu will have been delivered over a traditional tv provider. A subscription on your DVR is usually faster than on the net. For those times when you cant get it on your DVR (two shows at once), or for original content, its every bit as easy to enable a DVR to receive content over the net. For the customer its far, far, far easier this way than to add multiple boxes and then content your pc or those boxes to your TV. Repeat after me, A DVR is a pc. It is capable of doing everything a PC can do, if you allow it to. Of course, right now its a big if. Which is my point. It shouldnt be a question of if they let your DVR take on new features. They should be forcing those features
Comment by soiquitmyjob -
I agree that I would much rather watch TV on my TV. My DVR adds to that experience (and it’s just a few extra bucks) via Comcast. In addition, the DVR could become a hub for “TV Everywhere” (I could see identifying my laptop, iPhone Fancast app, etc. from my DVR – “limit of 10 devices per family”). In this world, give the DVR away and further lock in the relationship.
Comment by Tom Turnbull -
If your theory is right, time is of the essence for according to Comscore, in September 2009, “the average online video viewer watched 582 minutes of video, or 9.7 hours.” – http://bit.ly/14EOCJ
Comment by andrewbaron -
As much as I like Hulu, I have never watched more than a 5 min. clip on it. I see that are considering charging for Hulu. I don’t think that will work, not b/c people won’t pay for content, but I imagine that a lot of people are like me and don’t enjoy watching more than 5 min. SNL clip on a CPU. However, I probably buy 2-3 movies a month off my on demand DVR. My point is people will pay for content if it is decently priced and delivered in a simple and easy to navigate way. Look how apple took over music sales at a time when it was easy to get music for free. They made it simple, cheap and easy.
Comment by mburkons -
I completely agree. The DVR is the over the top box that new media pundits dream about,and DVR resolution blows Boxee and Roku out of the water.
I think it would be pretty cool if you could mod out your cable subscription on the fly through a dashboard in a DVR. Want to access YouTube through your DVR? Just pay a couple more bucks a month.
Sounds like a fair deal to me.
Comment by michaeltapp -