Quantcast

Google Working To Secure Programming Deals For Upcoming Internet TV Service

Discussion in 'Google TV General Discussion' started by CatfishRivers, Jul 16, 2013.

  1. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Google working to secure programming deals for upcoming internet TV service, says report | The Verge (click for full article)

    by Dante D'Orazio - July 16, 2013

    "Google is considering an entrance into the internet TV game, according to a new report out today. The new over-the-top service would offer live TV broadcasts to customers over their internet connections, bypassing cable operators like Comcast and Time Warner Cable. The Wall Street Journal says the product has been demonstrated to programmers as Google has worked to strike content deals.

    It's said that TV channels would be available in bundles much like traditional cable packages (rather than à la carte), meaning that popular and less-watched networks would need to be purchased together.

    Notably, such an arrangement would go directly against the idea of Google TV, which sought to replace traditional cable services by streaming on demand offerings from multiple web sources. It's not clear how far along Google is with its latest plans, nor when it will ever launch such a service."
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2013
  2. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Google Pitches Online TV Service to Media Companies - WSJ.com

    "Google Inc. has approached media companies about licensing their content for an Internet TV service that would stream traditional TV programming, people familiar with the matter say.

    If the Web giant goes ahead with the idea, it would join several other companies planning to offer such "over-the-top" services, delivering cable TV-style packages of channels over broadband connections. Chip company Intel Corp. and Sony Corp. are both working on similar offerings, while Apple Inc. has pitched various TV licensing ideas to media companies in the past couple of years."
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2013
  3. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmm I wasn't aware that Sony was also working on a TV service.

    So if this comes to fruition will it be able to work on GTV hardware?

    And the WSJ article mentions that the TV bundles would be similar to what you get with cable TV operators. In other words no ala carte and small pick & choose TV bundles. If that is true then I don't see this as anything earth-shattering. So the big deal is just a supposed better interface? Meh... And think of all the extra internet bandwidth this will use. Not good for people with internet caps.
     
  4. ChrisG8

    ChrisG8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,846
    Likes Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It better be available for Google TV devices. If this Google internet TV service ever launches, I will assume it won't be an inexpensive service and will need to be available by firmware update on Google TV, maybe even Roku, PS3, XBox 360, PS4, XBox One and Wii U, or others. I can't guess which devices will handle the service but it will need to be a wide selection. If they can pull it off and offer the service at half of the cost of a comparable cable or satellite package, it will get my attention. If it won't offer any substantial savings, I sure won't be interested.
     
  5. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well one sure fire way to light GTV device sales on fire would be to make this service exclusive to GTV devices - AND offer a nice cost savings over traditional cable TV packages -:) IMO if Google did this GTV sales would surpass Roku and Apple TV.

    Unfortunately I don't expect either of those 2 scenarios to happen. -:(
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2013
  6. drhill

    drhill Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2011
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    18
    If it was near the same cost that would be good enough for me. I would assume they would go with h264 so they can send the exact same content at way less bandwidth then traditional cable. This would open the door for content to be sent as 1080p which would help bandwidth for movies and dramas.

    The interface would be everything at that point, and one less box in the mix. Because of sports and my wife I can't get away from traditional cable style channel offering, but the experience could be more enjoyable. I would assume they could offer DVR like services built in without need for much local storage (couple minute pause buffering and stream buffering). The Primetime app is great when it opens fast. They would need to have a fallback grid style guide which isn't a big deal with their SageTV acquisition.

    The one question I would have is will they be able to get local sports networks? My local Comcast Sportsnet Philly is protected by an archaic loophole against being required to sell to satellite, but FIOS can carry it because it isn't satellite. Google should fall under the same thing.

    As far as bandwidth Comcast has currently suspended their caps, but I was told before that a business class connection doesn't have caps and it was only $30 more a month I believe.

    Now we just need a gen 3 blu ray player device.
     
  7. ChrisG8

    ChrisG8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,846
    Likes Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I am sure with you on the need for a third generation Blu-ray player with Google TV. As far as the internet TV packages being near the same cost as traditional pay TV, I am not interested in that. I will stick with local DVR storage and not wasting bandwidth for things that can be done cost effectively without internet access, whether there are caps or not. Bandwidth isn't infinite and limiting bandwidth use when possible is in my best interest, even if there are no caps. I am afraid there will be caps and more expensive service if I don't take that approach.
     
  8. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I will believe this rumored service when I see it. I'm sure Google is involved in some discussions with the content providers - but so are Apple, Sony, Intel and a few others.

    Thus far the only thing along these lines to actually materialize is Aereo - and the only reason Aereo is up and running is because they use a gazillion tiny antennas to avoid the "problem" of negotiating with the content providers. It's a rather bizarre workaround IMO. -;)

    But no company has been able to successfully launch anything like what Google is trying to do yet. I'm not saying it's impossible - but the sticking point is always the negotiations with content providers. The technical aspect of the hardware, the interface, marketing etc is a piece of cake compared to negotiating for the content deals.
     
  9. ChrisG8

    ChrisG8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,846
    Likes Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ya, there has been a lot of talk, some rumors, and some speculation regarding internet TV services but little action. If Aereo is the best thing so far, paying for OTA I can receive for free with an antenna, nothing of any interest to me has actually happened. I just wish some cable channel would break ranks, offer internet TV directly to consumers, HBO and ESPN are you listening? What would Comcast, Cox, DirecTV, Dish Network and the other pay TV providers do, quit carrying the channels? I can't see how that could happen.
     
  10. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The author of the following article is referring to the rumored Google television service and not our current GTV (in the title & article).

    5 Reasons Why Google TV Is an Awful Idea | InvestorPlace (click for full article)

    by Jonathan Berr - July 19, 2013

    "When Google (GOOG) CEO Larry Page thinks about Google TV, he should remember the old joke about boats being bottomless holes in the water that their owners keep throwing money into.

    Indeed, Google TV isn't just a bad idea. It's a god-awful one of epic proportions that should raise red flags among investors. There are many reasons why I believe this to be the case. For the sake of space and reader patience, I have culled them down to five:"
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2013
  11. Carlszone

    Carlszone Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Norfolk Va
    Thanks for that explanation. I also posted that article in the GTV News thread on Web-nuts. But I was left scratching my head...
     
  12. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Battle for Your TV Heats Up: Apple and Google's Competing Visions (click for full article)

    by Eric Bleeker - July 21, 2013

    "The following video is from this week's installment of The Motley Fool's Weekly Tech Review, in which Alison Southwick sits down with analysts Eric Bleeker and Lyons George to look at the biggest stories driving the tech sector this week.


    The future of television was once again in focus this week. First off, there was a report from former Wall Street Journal reporter Jessica Lessin that Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL ) is actively pitching a television service that would allow viewers to skip ads but would offer compensation back to television networks for the skipped ads.


    Not to be outdone, reports also surfaced that Google (NASDAQ: GOOG ) has been actively pitching an online TV service to media companies. Both of these reports come hot on the heels of Intel's (NASDAQ: INTC ) own negotiations to offer an Internet-based television service through an internally designed set-top box.


    As Eric and Lyons discuss in the following video, all of these services show one thing in common: no cost savings for consumers. They're all focused around more "premium ideas" for the future of television. Intel has reportedly been offering as much as 75% more than the rates channels currently receive from cable. Likewise, Google's deal isn't focused on cost savings, and Apple's has built-in costs for commercial skipping. Instead, the "selling point" for all these services is on a better experience for the television viewer, whether through ideas like ad-skipping or more intuitive user interfaces. No one has ever accused today's cable programming menus of being works of art, which leaves room for technology companies like Apple and Google to improve the television experience.


    That means consumers hoping to see an "un-bundling" of cable will very likely be disappointed by whatever final deal companies like Intel and Apple can strike. The future of television will likely be a better experience, but with media companies holding firm in negotiations, it won't be cheaper either. To see Eric and Lyons' full thoughts, watch the video."


    Are Google and Apple a Threat to Netflix? | Weekly Tech Review...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2014
  13. jonw747

    jonw747 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The "pundits" seem to be missing a couple of pertinent facts ... Google already has experience as a content provider thanks to the Google Fiber initiative, and that many people *will* pay for a premium experience (as TiVo demonstrated). Google is also pretty good at monetizing information by targeted advertising and data collection. With a web TV paradigm, all you can eat programming doesn't make a lot of sense, but people don't much like feeling metered. It will be interesting to see what they do. IMO, the current charge of .99 to watch a show is too high; but a solution where I can watch what I want to watch when I want to watch it where I want to watch it and skip commercials is certainly appealing.
     
  14. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Google Fiber was able to negotiate with content providers to provide traditional TV bundle subscription packages as a primary TV provider- the same way all the other TV providers offer the traditional TV bundles.

    What no-one has been able to do yet is to bypass the cable TV companies and offer their own 'pick & choose' TV bundles as an 'over-the-top' provider. This is because of the tight grip that cable companies have over the content providers.

    Apple TV doesn't want to bypass the cable companies - they will take a full Time-Warner cable bundle subscription and run it on their (Apple's) interface.

    Google and Intel reportedly are trying to negotiate directly with the content providers to bypass the cable companies (and create their own customized bundles and/or allow consumers to create their own bundles for an over-the-top online service).

    To date no one has been able to accomplish this......
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2013
  15. jonw747

    jonw747 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes, selling content without traditional programming packages would be something new, but if Google can get in the door selling the same package that they supply to Google Fiber customers ... just without the fiber ... are the content providers going to say no? What's going to make them turn down a new source of $$$? I guess that's for the lawyers to decide, but it just seems to me Google does have a foot in the door and a whole lot of leverage. I wonder if they wouldn't just go and buy a provider?
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2013
  16. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Silicon Valley vs. the Tyranny of Traditional TV : The New Yorker (via Mowser)

    From the article:

    "Last month, Bloomberg detailed how Time Warner Cable, the second-largest cable provider in the United States, has over three hundred contracts for content, "and some of them may bar media outlets from providing content to online pay-TV services," like those that Intel and Google want to build, which would transmit content over broadband Internet. Under these arrangements, some programmers, in order to have their content shown on Time Warner Cable, would not be able to license their content to, say, Google's TV service, too."
     
  17. Travel

    Travel Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2012
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston
    It's all operated as a cabal. The cable companies, Google, Facebook, Apple, television shows, Hollywood movies, all of it. There's about as much chance (less) of them undermining each other as OPEC members competing against each other. They'll set the prices, and if the content is on line, you won't actually be "cord-cutting," you'll just be "cord plugging-in" to the same thing with the same characters controlling the prices.

    To change anything, you'll need some new "outside-of-the-cabal"entrants into the on-line streaming business. And, you'll need a federal Justice Department to force the third-hand content (i.e. , content that's already made a profit in the theaters and cable; like Netflix uses for content) into some sort of public domain status. Either that, or there has to be a new entertainment industry to provide their own first-run content on the internet that "dramatically lower prices to internet streaming users" everyone wants.

    They're thieves and will continue to soak the public relentlessly.

    There needs to be at least some -anti-trust action/cable pricing reform- on this rip-off monopoly that's squeezing consumers dry.

    If that sounds "political," well, it is political.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2013
  18. jonw747

    jonw747 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Assuming the feds/lawyers don't jump in and put an end to that, contracts don't last forever and they are voluntary. Once Apple/Google/Intel/etc have established a presence in the market and can actually start waving $$$ in front of the noses of the content providers, companies like Time Warner are either going to have to make up the difference or give up on those contract clauses in future negotiations. The reason TWC can get away with that is because the leverage their customer base grants them. Right now Google has some early adopters in Kansas City, and Apple/Intel have nobody. They need a whole lot more leverage than that.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2013
  19. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IMO the Google Fiber TV service does not have content from "early adapters". Google Fiber has a traditional model TV service. If Google actually launches an "over-the-top" internet TV service bypassing the cable companies - then I would consider those content providers that are part of that service as being early adapters (because an over-the-top TV service has never been successfully accomplished yet). I don't really see anything as 'early adaptor' by having content providers sign up with a traditional TV service.

    And Apple TV already has Time Warner and HBO GO.

    http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/19/4...apple-tv-could-obviate-the-cable-box-says-nyt

    The following thread is directly related to this debate - so I'm posting the link here:

    http://www.googletvforum.org/forum/...ter-than-google-s-but-not-winner-viewers.html
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2013
  20. CatfishRivers

    CatfishRivers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    14,605
    Likes Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Apparently Google briefly had a TV service called "Chromecast" listed in the Google Play Store. It's since been removed so the service is not live yet. But apparently something is in the works. I made a thread about it in the off-topic section today but it's relevant here also:

    http://www.googletvforum.org/forum/...ay-s-devices-list-what-updated.html#post53194

    The fact that the Chromecast TV service would only be available in "limited markets" - is directly related to the complex licensing required with content providers and the stranglehold that cable TV has with content providers.

    So I'm not saying that Google can never ever over time get an over-the-top internet TV service off the ground - but it is very difficult due to the licensing of content. So what we will see (at least in the early stages) is a limited amount of content partners and the service available only to "limited markets".

    In contrast Apple will not bypass the cable companies but instead just put an entire Time Warner subscription package on their Apple TV.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    **Update: Chromecast is now available for pre-order on Google Play Store - turns out Chromecast is actually the previously rumored $35 dongle called "Chromekey". It connects to a HDTV and mirrors content from other devices. So Chromecast doesn't appear to be Google's TV service.

    https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=chromecast
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2013

Share This Page