We can't go more than a week now before someone proclaims that their set top box is the one that's going to revolutionize television. It doesn't matter that attempt after attempt (by the likes of Apple, Google and others) runs face-first into restrictive TV licensing that's designed to inhibit evolution -- each new release breathlessly insists it's the one that's going to finally change the game. Earlier this year it was Intel that was proclaimed by the press to be an Internet TV genius for a service that hasn't launched and will run into the same exact licensing issues.
Microsoft's recently announced Xbox One is now the latest Internet video savior. While the Xbox 360 was also heralded as something that would revolutionize Internet video, it was painfully hamstrung by the cable and broadcast industry, which mandated that you needed a traditional cable connection to see most of the content and in some cases a content deal in place with your specific broadband ISP as well.
Despite the usual breathless PR hype about the Xbox One's video functionality changing everything, things on the TV front don't appear to be all that different.
Despite a cable-esque GUI and some lovely new motion controls, the Xbox One still requires a cable box, and it's not entirely clear that the options for cord cutters will be that much more robust than what we've seen on the Xbox 360. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer allegedly traveled to Hollywood recently to schmooze with entertainment industry executives and pitch them on expanding Microsoft's role in the video ecosystem, for whatever than winds up being worth:
quote:Deadline has learned that Ballmer touted "what we could do with" the Xbox One in sports, music, reality and scripted programming, promising execs that they’d see more sophisticated technology and that his company "doesn’t want to be a cable channel."
While there's no doubt that Xbox One will bring a few new tricks to the table, and Microsoft appears interested in following Netflix's lead and creating some original content (like a show based on their popular Halo franchise), there's still nothing that indicates they've managed to get broadcasters and Hollywood to loosen their fear-driven grip on licensing restrictions.
And from the Hollywood and broadcast perspective, why should they budge? Traditional TV continues to be a huge cash cow and despite episodic griping, most consumers keep right on paying for cable TV -- despite bi-annual rate hikes for hundreds of unwatched channels and piss-poor customer service.
In short, for all the new bells and whistles, Xbox One is going to fall short on giving consumers what they really want, just like the last dozen or so companies that attempted to run the exact-same gauntlet. It's rumored that Microsoft may have a few tricks up their sleeve to be unveiled at next week's E3 (like an "Xbox Lite" that plays videos but not games), but none of them will magically make the entertainment industry any less myopic, or any less terrified of television's inevitable evolution.
i am not even sure its that. they are scared of change because of the unknown. they know they are making money now but they cant see how much they might be making if they changed. bellow BF69 said it took them 10 years to accept the vcr. look how badly they fought that. how it was going to kill the theaters off. took them a long time to figure out they can make even more money with vhs and now dvds/blu ray. now there is a new way of doing things and they are worried about physical copies not that its just another way to make money.
unless someone comes in and offer to pay them off to allow change i dont see any that will change the system in a huge way. its going to take small steps over time.
The mistake to me is obvious. Users want to move away from huge cable bills. Netflix has made this obvious: people are more into "on demand" than paying for channels. On demand is where it's at. this is where they could actually make something "revolutionary". Everything I've seen assures me that this is the same crap we've had for decades, but "smarter".
· 2013-Jun-5 5:06 pm: ·
RRedline Rated R Premium Member join:2002-05-15 USA
The mistake to me is obvious. Users want to move away from huge cable bills. Netflix has made this obvious: people are more into "on demand" than paying for channels. On demand is where it's at. this is where they could actually make something "revolutionary". Everything I've seen assures me that this is the same crap we've had for decades, but "smarter".
This isn't Microsoft's "mistake." It's the entertainment industry that is causing the transition to on-demand, streaming content to be slow and painful. We have the technology to do exactly what you (and I and most people) want, but you must have cooperation from those who hold the rights to the content that we want.
I think it is. They are playing along instead of sticking to their guns. Cable Television is an obsolete technology. I guess you could argue they are doing this simply because they can. And it's sort of a good argument, since from a technology perspective there's really not that much of a challenge in supporting cable TV.
The problem to me is that something better came along, and it's cheaper and superior in almost every way.
If you think the ps4 wont have drm you are fooling yourself. Sony already said developers get to choose to use drm. If a game has drm on the xbox chances are it will have it on ps4.
· 2013-Jun-6 8:41 am: ·
newview Ex .. Ex .. Exactly Premium Member join:2001-10-01 Parsonsburg, MD kudos:1
Hooking up my laptop with HDMI. I can watch what I want when I want. Their are so many free streaming sites out there I never have any trouble finding what I want to watch for free. I have Comcast internet but dropped cable tv a long time ago.
· 2013-Jun-5 5:28 pm: ·
GlennLouEarl Three brothers Premium Member join:2002-11-17 Richmond, VA
Yep, everyone who can should do so. I especially enjoy watching stuff from hulu (what little I watch there) on my HD-TV--bypassing their ludicrous restrictions (esp. using the Mute button on the TV remote). If you don't have it yet, you should consider getting the Logitech K400 keyboard (wireless w/mousepad)--makes a good additional remote. It's on sale at Best Buy (and other places I presume) this week for $10 off.
Things are SLOWLY changing. And if this has a 12 year lifecycle who knows what it can offer by then.
Let see many networks are now streaming their content live. Now true you still need a pay TV subscription, but it wasn't that long ago that even the though of offering live programming on the internet was major no no for them. Hell you could barely to get them to put programing the recently aired online. So things are slowly changing. Not as fast as we would like but there is change. Remember it took over a decade for them to embrace the VCR.
· 2013-Jun-5 5:55 pm: ·
Kearnstd Space Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:2
The issue they now face is the people want their content to keep pace with the devices they are buying. The VCR itself took time to become an affordable gadget, but today cloud based or merely home network based media stream devices are released at reasonable prices so they shock the market instantly with demand for streaming content to play from them.
The issue they now face is the people want their content to keep pace with the devices they are buying. The VCR itself took time to become an affordable gadget, but today cloud based or merely home network based media stream devices are released at reasonable prices so they shock the market instantly with demand for streaming content to play from them.
But the demand does not exist. No one is willing to pay (more) for content delivered ala-carte; industry has no financial incentive to change distribution methods.
· 2013-Jun-7 2:01 pm: ·
Metatron2008 Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state
ever try to do... Even if they went on a patent troll fest.
First, even though I hate Apple's patent trolling, I LOVE their products. This huge VCR is FUGLY.
Second, the 24 hour DRM? Kinect watching you? Used game DRM?
Lastly, it does everything your remote and smartphone does, only costs a lot more. The Wii U already does all you need with TVii.
The XBOne is only 13.5 inches wide, 10.4 inches deep and 3.2 inches high. That is the same depth as the 360 slim. Three inches wider than the 360 Slim and .25 inches taller that the 360 Slim. I would not call that a huge console.
· 2013-Jun-5 7:45 pm: ·
88615298 Premium Member join:2004-07-28 West Tenness
The XBOne is only 13.5 inches wide, 10.4 inches deep and 3.2 inches high. That is the same depth as the 360 slim. Three inches wider than the 360 Slim and .25 inches taller that the 360 Slim. I would not call that a huge console.
The One is not much larger than the fat 360. And I am assuming the power supply is actually on the inside which means it actually takes up less space.
Re: This overpriced remote is worse then anything Apple could...
Even if the dimensions are actually that, the Xbone will easily look bigger due to being a big box, while the PS3 looked like a.... George Foreman Grill
True, especially with the Kinect and Used games. This one is a loser. I have a 360 but I will NEVER buy this thing! Going to switch to PS4 or just skip consoles in favor of the PC in the future.
are people that blind to realize that every cable company is going all digital? the days of plugging a tv up to coax is dead. and people with satellite have been using a boxes for years.
yup, welcome back to the 80's,, i could care less if you need a box to get all the premiums, but basic tv subs shouldnt have to fork over yet more money to rent a box.. no, now if we could BUY the box's out of any ole walmart, or do rent to own and it work on any cable system. sure why not. but im not renting a box and basically paying for it 10X over they move all digital where im at, bye bye cable. hello antenna.
· 2013-Jun-5 7:37 pm: ·
88615298 Premium Member join:2004-07-28 West Tenness
yup, welcome back to the 80's,, i could care less if you need a box to get all the premiums, but basic tv subs shouldnt have to fork over yet more money to rent a box.. no, now if we could BUY the box's out of any ole walmart, or do rent to own and it work on any cable system. sure why not. but im not renting a box and basically paying for it 10X over they move all digital where im at, bye bye cable. hello antenna.
IF all you want is just your locals and you live in an area that has good OTA reception of course it make sense to go with that. You'd be kind of dumb to pay for cable in that situation.
As far as the cost of the box you 10X remark is a little off I think. firstly Charter charges $6 per box. And if you could buy a box it would be around $300 or more. So it would take you 4 years to break even. So to pay 10X more would take 40 years.
Comcast I believe let people that just want locals to use what's called a DTA. They charge like $2 a month for those. now these are obviously much cheaper. But would still take at least 2 years to break even so to pay 10X as much would take 20 years at least.
Also you can say it so "mean of cable to charge for a box just for locals when getting locals from satellite, FiOS or U-verse also requires a box. Why are these company less mean?
its called an exageration, however $6? i wish, mediacom was charging me $16/per box because of dvr, so no im not far off. plus if something happens even though you have paid for that box a few times over they still demand full price.
now that $300 is for a dvr unit right?. because as it stands i use hulu as my "dvr" because im not paying that rate. and im not going to rent a "dumb box" DTA with no such capeability, when i could hook up a dvd recorder. unless of course they go all digital.
as to that last part about the rest ,,, well heres the thing, cable has this little thing called clear qam, those other services dont, its obvious you NEED the box's on those services to convert the signale. however. you do not need such a device for cable, unless cable forces it on you to make a profit
box's in the case of cable is just a profit move.
we moved away from mandated box's in the 80's for a reason, mark my words, they do this and some one WILL find a way to hack the system, them theyl be bitchin about that.
oh and btw, i can BUY the box for sat and not have to pay a rental fee. thats my point. let me buy the freakin box out right, even if it is $300, at least then im not paying for bs fees just to use the built in features of said box.
$300/$16=18.75 2 years, what you think they die off after that? no, every 2 years after that ive paid for it again, so 6 years of service youve paid for it 3 times over.
hell at that rate a nifty 2 year contract idea would make since, after 2 years the "dvr fee" can be dropped, the "digital box fee" can be dropped, of course theyd still demand a cable card fee, and a "digital gateway because we can" fee....
im just sick and tired of being nickle and dimed...
id just get a mast mount outdoor antenna (thanks to the "big switch" i cant get locals with an indoor antenna) then aquire the content i cant get that way, elsewhere..
It's rumored that Microsoft may have a few tricks up their sleeve to be unveiled at next week's E3 (like an "Xbox Lite" that plays videos but not games)...
Is it just me, or does that seem like the exact opposite of what a "lite" version of the Xbox should be?
That's like a "lite" car that does everything a normal car does, except move.
Is it that you have to have a STB in your house or does the STB need to be connected to the Xbox via ethernet. From what I read on att the you only need to own one box in your household
they should just put a tuner and cable card slot in it to make it a dvr also. i would then by one if i only have to pay $50 a year for xbox live. no more tivo bill or cable company dvr bill. And they would probably have a lot less licensing issues.
How about one Xbox one for main stream video and one for just gaming. I could care less about TV being on this console. I already have devices that works for me needs. However I still game and consider the Xbox One a waste of money and to have if MS has left the gaming community in the dust and have not considered maintaining the gaming community for Xbox. I wish they would come up with separate models in stead of just one. But of course that would be to easy and not profitable for MS. Forgive my ignorance.
There is nothing innovative about streaming video or sending it to something other than a wired television set.
The only "innovation" is the potential to change the pricing model to allow for granular purchases - and unless the MBAs can see a bigger pie at the end of the day, it ain't gonna happen. That's going to require an 11-figure down payment.
Apple, Google, Microsoft, Sony, Samsung, Netflix, Redbox, Roku , Blockbuster, Aereo et al - unless they're collectively willing to pony up and pay the market price to free the content from its current delivery format, OTT / IPTV is going to remain a third-class product, forever segmented and highly irrelevant.
·
·
