Posts Tagged ‘disintermediation’

Will “Postal 2″ Create a New First Amendment Exception?

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

There has already been an interesting consensus that the Supreme Court was skeptical of California’s violent video game law. Due to the long line, I missed the first 10 minutes or so of California’s argument for the law but was there for the remainder. After reviewing the transcript, I still have a slightly different take.

First, I think that Justice Scalia likes violent video games, or at least certainly doesn’t think there can or should be an exception to the first amendment around violence and children. For many others on the court, I’m not so sure.

Breyer seems to think that the usual first amendment scrutiny shouldn’t apply to the notion of violent speech as it relates to those under 18, and that it should be a simple balancing test. He appears to assume that there is a problem to support the state’s side of the balance.

There also seems to be a surprising level of support from the justices for a law, more narrow than this one, but one that allows states to restrict access to some violent video games. That’s troubling as it really impacts the shift of video games away from retail and into the online channel as we explain in our amicus.

That said, it does appear that there is enough skepticism about the reach and vagueness of this law that we’re not going to see that exception fully carved out here. Per Justice Sotomayor, players in Star Trek Online can sleep soundly tonight knowing that they can torture and maim all the Vulcans they want to…

Viva the Internet TV revolution

Friday, June 4th, 2010

Bill Gurley recently wrote an in depth blog post lamenting the overly anxious technologists who were foretelling the demise of cable and satellite TV.

Bill makes a host of very good points about the $32 billion at risk and the depth of the channel conflict. I had this point repeated to me by someone who has long been a part of the television business and he added how the even more widely split rights packages would lead to even more stickiness in the coming video channel transition.

However, the Services Tsunami is not going to spare television and movies.

I reminded the individual in question that I heard every single head of the major recording companies tell me how dis-intermediation was not going to happen on their watch. At the end of the day, the only senior record people gone from the industry left because their company was sold to someone else because of the consolidation caused by the Services Tsunami.

I think the item missing from Mr. Gurley’s analysis is the base practical argument. Today, when the television goes down in my home, as a DVR hard disk crash recently caused, there is no real panic. We move comfortably to either the Wii or Roku and Netflix to offset toddler television demands. However, when the internet is down for as little as an hour, for whatever reason, there is a sense of panic.

Most consumers will scream far more about a DSL or cable modem outage than a video satellite out of alignment outage.  Once IP connectivity is superior in each consumer’s life, then the tsunami is pulling the tide far past mean low water.

There is an Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) argument of which I’m suspicious. The argument goes something like this: IP is subsidized by television content or Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) and thus the current cost of broadband is artificially low. That may be true, but everything I see shows that actually quick (5Mbp+ or 1080p capable) broadband is worth more than $30 to consumers. Turning off POTS and satellite/cable is a wonderful proposition to many of the folks with the most disposable income. I’d rather buy a UPS and a generator for when the power goes out.

Add in the demographic shift – my children have a hard time understanding why the TV in a hotel isn’t on demand – and the consumer pull really doesn’t care at the end of the day what the $32 billion reasons against adoption of television over the internet to PC equivalent means to them. To those consumers it means easy access to the DVDs or Blu-Rays they ripped so the kids don’t scratch them up.  It means on-demand access to sports, movies and their few favorite brands (Mythbusters, Top Gear, American Experience, NOVA, and The Pacific are some of mine – No Reservations, Simpsons and agreement on American Experience and NOVA are my wife’s.). Excluding the indirect subscription business of HBO, I care little about what channel those brands use to get to my HDTV. My DVR has taught me not to care and I can’t wait to not have to think about using a DVR to mimic what Boxee.tv will deliver me. Further, don’t get me started on how hard it is to immediately move that which I find on the web to my HDTV to watch with my wife or my whole family.

Boxee Boxes, iPads, and a storage system are far more functional for my whole family. Why would I keep paying $60 to $100 for less functional video? MLB and NHL have made the switch. Boxee was a superior NCAA Basketball Tournament experience this past spring . I’m not the only one thinking about cutting off my DirecTV soon and I’m more than happy to spend more on a faster link. Too bad no one wants to offer me that, but luckily my neighborhood DSLAM will get me to 720p comfortably and usually 1080p as well.

$32 billion is a wonderful market to cut in half while enhancing the consumer experience. Viva the Internet TV revolution.

Murdoch: Go Back to the Drawing Board

Thursday, April 8th, 2010

Rupert Murdoch is out making news today that pay walls are a great idea and fingering Google Search as his nemesis. He’s off the mark on two points.

Paywalls are attempting to monetize access to content. That model died the day Tim Berners-Lee released CERN HTTPd. Raw access to content will or has been commoditized and that trend will only continue. Especially in the realm of content creation where there is little value add (read hard news), there just isn’t enough invested that the crowd can’t do as well or better that allows for simple monetization of that access. In point of fact, using the paywall in such a way that you break the network effect devalues the the content in question by taking it out of the conversation.

This is why I say that Murdoch has the wrong boogeyman. Murdoch is not competing with the Google search and Adwords. He’s competing with Google Reader.

As Reader continues to improve it will start to learn how you consume news and start to make staying informed easier for the end user. The real challenge for major news organizations is how to go back to the product development drawing board and understand their businesses as services that add value for their end users.

Newspapers were begun to facilitate news aggregation and to  make keeping informed easier, more reliable, and enjoyable in the days where telegraphs were expensive or even earlier where 6-8 knots or 20 horse miles per day was the speed of information.

It is now time for news organizations to start thinking about how they are particularly able to add value in ways that leverage the network effect (instead of hindering it) and starts to organize the crowd and the news in ways that both entertain and speed the end users acquisition of news information.

Money can be made and subscriber bases can be grown by major news organizations, but they will be grown because the news business makes a pitch to news consumers that adds value to how the consumer uses their content today instead of simply disconnecting content from the open network. News organizations that choose to try to understand the news I want and offer it to me for one price across my PC, iPhone, iPad, game console, Boxee Box, etc. will give me a reason to be their subscriber.

I’ll note that I have but one login to Netflix and that login knows what I like, what I’ve consumed, helps me find new stuff that will amuse me and comes with a single cross channel price.

Which news organization will compete with Google Reader to make me happy to pay them?

Don’t Waste the Internet on TV?

Monday, March 15th, 2010

Recently, Avner Rosen of Boxee debated Mark Cuban about the future of television. I didn’t get to see the debate (GDC overlaps with SXSW) but I saw Mark Cuban’s post debate post. It’s actually kind of funny as Mark had always been a visionary in the past, but it is what happens when you make a major capital investment in things like HDNET it colors your perspective. His basic thesis is that either because “Application Specific Networks” or the large capital investments in distribution infrastructure are pretty efficient, there is no reason that TV will migrate to the internet.

AOL proved that “Application Specific Networks” are an excellent way to lose a whole lot of money. It was profitable while it lasted but AOL is now a shell of itself and has to reverse its walled garden to hope to keep the small business left. Mark’s comment that there isn’t a revenue model to get content providers to move is just funny. Napsterization comes to everyone. My big question for Mark, though, is how did those large capital investments in shipping, warehouse, and retail capacity work out for Tower Records

As seems to be common in these major channel disruptions, people seem to be focusing on simply replicating the old distribution channel. TV over the internet is going to be about a lot more than just access to TV and movies. It’s going to be about being able to use video in new and different ways that will be impossible to replicate over a satellite and a waste of bandwidth over last mile connections that could otherwise be part of the total IP bandwidth of the last mile bandwidth instead.

I can’t wait to turn my TV provider off. We’re close.

Pricing, Macmillan, and Disintermediation

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

The book industry is doing some things right and some things wrong. On the positive side, it appears that most of the book publishers have decided to embrace disintermediation by internet enabled digital channels. They’re correct that, for now, piracy of books isn’t as easy as it has been for movies and music. By making compelling digital editions available they are staving off some piratical demand.

However, the Amazon/Macmillan price spat speaks to a darker side of the problem. Some commenters imply that everyone will lose money should the price of an ebook be less than the traditional hardcover. The reality of the matter is that consumers do expect to make direct monetary gains from the cost savings of digital distribution. There is certainly an argument that the ebook is a superior user experience (just have a hankering for a few new books and take a multi-leg round trip with only carry-ons to see what I mean) but there is no real economic argument on the other side that publishers have the same cost structure that they had in the physical book.

Unsurprisingly, price elasticity is in full effect and Amazon has shown publishers that the lower prices for which they are advocating sell more books. The usual economic rule here is that the unit increment (with no additional print/storage/ship/over inventory costs) increase will more than offset the revenue per unit decrease. Unlike the music industry, there is no historical bundling issue where the music business was selling you 1 song for the price of 12.

To assume that Amazon “taught” users that ebooks should be cheaper simply ignores the intelligence of the average book reader. Books are now going to be a full participant in the Napsterization of commerce and I predict book publishers and retailers will start to have to think about how to create longer customer lifetimes and higher customer lifetime value. I look forward to ebook subscription services.