Intel CEO Liked Their TV Tech, But Content Licensing Killed It
Despite a massive load of early hype, Intel's streaming TV service ran face-first into the same thing that has stopped a long list of companies dead in their tracks: broadcast industry licensing restrictions designed specifically to prevent market disruption. Last we checked in with Intel's stumbling ambitions, the company was hoping to offload their TV technology for $500 million
-- most likely to Verizon, who is interested in offering an out-of-traditional FiOS footprint streaming TV service.
Talking to Re/code
, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich again confirms that licensing killed what Intel believed was a somewhat revolutionary video product. According to Krzanich, the technology for the service works great, but Intel was too small (in TV, at least) to make headway in negotiations:
It’s actually a very good product, if you take a look at the hardware and the technology. We've said pretty repeatedly that the technology is quite good. I could get into the “hows” but it really does have a great user interface. This concept of having three days of everything that is on TV at your instantaneous access is really unique.
When you go and play with the content guys, it’s all about volume. And we come at it with no background, no experience, no volume. We were ramping from virtually zero and so what we've said is we are out looking for a partner that can help us scale that volume at a much quicker rate.
Granted it's not like Intel couldn't see the long, winding road lined with the carcasses of similar efforts from Microsoft, Apple, Google, and countless smaller startups. Intel's hope now is that they can sell the technology to Verizon and wash their hands of it, Krzanich claiming Verizon's size as a pay TV operator will allow them to negotiate the necessary deals.
But while scale and size certainly helps in content negotiations, many of these licensing restrictions exist solely to prevent disruption, meaning that even under Verizon's watch -- the technology you'll wind up seeing when it's all said and done will be a pale imitation of the original concept because the broadcast industry didn't want to upset the apple cart.
Another example of TV stations being greedy So this is just one of those situations where companies being greedy are limiting our advancements.
I am all for a business to make money and people being paid well but at a point it becomes greed a wasteful. Intel was onto something great but because content costs and restrictions got walled.
Get rid of all this crap programming and stop charging so much. Yes people would lose jobs etc. then but in that case this is no different vs. welfare. They can go get jobs like the rest of us have to. I wish I could do something that sucked or no one cared about and got paid decent for it because it was bundled in with something you did want...
As a country the only true way to succeed is to advance and we can't do that. The future is IPTV. TV use to pay for itself with commercials. Now it double dips. This is why people need ad-skipping etc. I have no problem watching adds for something I don't pay for. If I have to pay though you are damn right I am blocking or skipping them...
I wish more providers would stand up to these companies and drop channels. Yes people get pissed and will switch to a company that has it but that's because when a content provider is dropped the price isn't for me and you so of course they get pissed and switch to another provider.
If Verizon dropped CBS and all channels related but gave a 10-15$ a month bill reduction you would be shocked how many people would switch to them and put up an antenna if they wanted CBS lol
"Revolutionary" Everyone keeps saying Intel had figured it out, that the product was "great" and that it would have turned the industry upside down, but who has actually seen it? What made it different? Was it simply that it would be delivered via the public internet instead of a private network (be it QAM, IP Multicast, or satellite)?
If Intel's stuff was so "revolutionary" why not release the tech and just license it to cable and satellite companies? Why sell it off as a complete product to one single company? All of these "revolutionary" attempts always seem to be on price and that's never going to be where the revolution happens, it'll be in the UI and experience.
If anyone thought it was going to be on price, you're nuts. If you think anyone will EVER disrupt on price, forget it. Every large cable and satellite company has a most favored nation clause meaning that no one can ever buy content cheaper than Comcast or DirecTV, because the content would then instantly become that price for Comcast and DirecTV. And why would the content providers ever want disruption? They're making money hand over fist. There's all this talk about cord cutting and whatnot, but they're making more money than ever. Until all of this doom and gloom actually starts to happen (and it'll happen slowly enough for them to react, everyone won't cancel cable overnight) then nothing will ever change.