"Isn't AOL Time Warner planning on offering AOL TV via Time Warner's cable lines? If they are, that could be one such deal. Here's a couple of lines from the AOL TV web site"
Eric- I thought it was for dial-up only. Just like Microsoft TV. If you can find a url showing it's a CM connection, I would appreciate it.
____________
"3. The larger screen size of an average TV could be useful for streaming video applications (assuming that bandwidth is sufficient)."
But you would be opening up the Panadora's Box. This may turn the traditional TV model upside down overnight. I can't see the MSOs taking the risk.
____________
"That's a good point; low-cost TVs tend to have display qualities equivalent to those of older 14" VGA PC monitors. However, most new TVs tend to be a bit better."
Current TV resolution standard is no better that I know of. Now Digital TV sets, well that's entirely different. But they currently cost triple to quadruaple a standard TV set of comparable size. If you bring it up to the HDTV level, the price is astronomical today. But I do ponder what will happen as consumer start the change over to digital TV sets. Then it would make more sense to browse the web via TV. I think that's so far off that the MSOs are not too worried about it today.
____________
"I'm a little confused here; wouldn't proprietary interactive TV services upset these advertisers in a similar manner by taking away eyeballs?"
No. Interactive TV is a dream for advertisers. The eyeballs are turned to their product. That is what the "i" is in Interactive. The subscriber cannot go willy nilly all over the WWW. He can click on a product he likes and that will take him to a place to buy it. But the next step is to return the subscriber back to the TV program.
Personally I envision a "The Truman Show" type of situation. Where the show is the 'ad'. If you see something you like that an actor is wearing, you click on it and it'll take you to where you can buy it. Or click on a piece of furniture. Bingo! You can order it to be delivered to your home. If you look into MPEG-4, that is what I believe makes it so attractive for content producers. The ability to tie in marketing with content.
From what I understand, MPEG-4 could turn everything upside down and make MSOs, subscribers, and advertisers all very happy. I see MPEG-4 being the 'killer app' that changes everything.
_____________
"Aside from AOL Time Warner, AT&T Broadband, with its huge stake in @Home and its telco-oriented parent, may also jump in. So might Charter, given Paul Allen's position in the company. Lastly, Microsoft may attempt to influence some of the MSOs that it's invested in to head this way. Obviously, the more applications that a subscriber uses a set-top for, the more it benefits Gates & co. As I said, it ought to be interesting to see how all of this develops."
Well I think it's hard enough to get the plant up to speed for the CM-Computer subscribers they are picking up. I just don't see an incentive to attempt to go after CM-TV when it could really mess things up badly for them.
IMO, if the CM in STB rolls out, it's for i-TV use and nothing more. -MikeM(From Florida)
PS BTW if it was easy to search back a year or so ago on this thread, I used to have your opinion. I thought there was going to be a HUGE push to get web browsing to the other 50% of US households lacking a computer and connection to the web. I thought TV was the key. But as I see how the entrenched interests work, I no longer see this happening. |
