Comments on: Set-top box makers still waiting for customers
Cable set-tops are everywhere, but consumers continue to show a lack of interest in buying separate boxes for Internet-based video-on-demand services.
Cable set-tops are everywhere, but consumers continue to show a lack of interest in buying separate boxes for Internet-based video-on-demand services.
January 1, 2010 12:16 PM PST
January 1, 2010 9:20 AM PST
January 1, 2010 7:31 AM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
able to bake in the ads (beforehand) or with a ticker (yuck!). Those
who don't want ads can pay extra it's their choice.
That's why TiVo, for all its high media profile, barely clings to a 7% market share.
Consumers will not "pay twice" for their content, as they perceive it. First, when they buy the STB hardware and second when they get the content. (TiVo is worse, you pay a third time, as you watch, because the they sell ads you're expected to sit through.)
The business model needs to change.
Either they lease the boxes or subsidize the sale (like Microsoft's WbTV/MSNTV does) and make up the revenue elsewhere, or they meed to wrap the feature in a standalone product. Notice how everybody sees the Video Marketplace on XBOX as a *bonus* feature? Because nobody buys the XBOX just for VOD; they buy it to play games. VOD is a pleasant addition to the core product. Now, over time, as MS cost-reduces the XBOX and the service grows, you might see some folks buying the XBOX, say when it drops under $199, for VOD first and gaming second, but even those folks are likely to be a minority.
Realistically, VOD is going to remain where it is today: in the same set-top boxes (whether from a CableCo, TelCo, or SatCo) that brings in broadcast programming. The market is theirs to lose cause so far nobody is offering a better deal.
as for the other options, I really think that if the experience on the PS3 ( lacks DVR or cable card) or XBOX 360 (lacks integrated HD-DVD, cable card, and DVR) were a little better I would prefer them over the boxes of today. I hate the VOD offerings my Comcast service offers. Plus, I would rather be able to switch from VOD, to cable TV, to my music, my pics, my movies ( purchased and home movies), and games all from one interface.
These boxes will be obsolete before most people even know about them.
Netflix has a good service that is PC only for now. Use windoze to
watch an hour for each dollar a month you pay in netflix deliveries.
Not bad. They say a Mac verison is coming soon.
TiVO and Apple TV together would be hard to beat. If they could
toss in Netflix, it would be a coutch potatoes' dream.
ad WiFi make it a house video server
Ad Tv guide services HD Radio
Ad DVR services even at Vontage like services into the box the Box must be multi Functional
Even a Web TV box Add video inputs RCA USB for MP3
maybe even a open source Game system but make more than a Video Hard drive
Maybe the pieces of the puzzle aren't in place yet. Copious broadband + ubiquitous file format support might make some future STB the must-have device for open & licensed content.
Just not yet.
Give money straight to the artists, producers, directors, actors, and some money to the distributors. It shouldn't be how it is today. Today we are giving too much money to a small oligarchy of media distributors (media conglomerates, movie studios, etc.), and barely anything to the actual entertainers.
A Popular Science article online today shows how much more content they have than anyone else. VUDU apparently were able to sign up all six of the major studies; Apple has movies from only 2 of the six. They also signed up 20 independent movie studios. Songs and old TV shows can be had for a pittance, but movies are not cheap to obtain because the content is in the hands of a very few big companies who know exactly how valuable their property is. The movie studios make most of the money - not VUDU or Apple. That is why it costs more. Apple may or may not be cheaper, but they only give you movies from two studios (who may be cheaper, or not.) VUDU charges $400 for the box (think $100 a year for 4 years with high def) as well as the movie charge. You don't have to pay a yearly fee and you only pay for what you rent or buy. Apple has been promising rentals for 2 years and hasn't delivered. You have to buy a movie from iTunes, and who wants to buy their movies? This is the technology that Apple should have delivered. I rooted for little Netflix when they were young and provided a lot new for the marketplace, and I will root for VUDU now. They have a hands-down better product than anyone else, in my opinion. I think those who criticize about the price must use the product in order to see that you pay more for when you are given much more. Read David Pogue in the NYT and run his online video, or today's Popular Science article online. They know more than I do, but I agree with them. These people may charge more, but they have provided much more than anybody else. Good luck to them.
Ken
I'm sorry, if I want this I can just get it from cable and pay nothing up front with whatever they charge per month for the unit - which is not even close to $399. Good luck on this one....
Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
- VUDU is Pointless & Disappointing
- by cjohn17 December 2, 2007 11:23 AM PST
- "It's the rental delay that's killing me. The movies I want to see
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(20 Comments)are available now on DVD ("La Vie En Rose" and "The Namesake")
and won't be rentable on Vudu until the end of December ... I'm
not willing to wait that long to see something on Vudu
(particularly with no subtitles) ...
I figure at least HD will be good since I won't be buying an HD-
DVD or Blu-ray player because I don't buy DVDs and they're not
rentable at BB ...
Right now, Vudu is not a good fit for me and I should have
waited to buy because for me -- the box is nothing more than a
well-engineered, high-priced doorstop ... frustrating ... " -
VUDU Forum Senior Member, December 2, 2007