Larry, you said:
" would make
the most sense for both consumer..." Explain this further please. How does your approach benefit the consumer? And if it does, then why isn't the consumer buying it? Furthermore, you didn't explain how your approach can coexist with Hdtv. Granted, the tivo approach is imperfect. But I doubt Sony would invest 2 million in it, AND license the technology, if they thought it was a complete bomb. Perhaps the problem here is that I am misusing the term 'interactive tv'. Basically all tivo is so far is a way for the consumer to break down time barriers and watch what he wants when he wants to by recording content onto a hard drive in his box. I'm not an investor in tivo OR iatv at the moment and, in fact, still have more reading to do to catch up with all that tivo or Actv has to offer. But tv and internet are melding and, considering that AT&T Broadband just virtually 'crashed' here in my part of Massachusetts for a month because of a surge in traffic following 911 (according to the cable guy. Who knows if that was really the reason or not...) I think I can still say that even a simple broadband connection to the web isn't running as smoothly yet as everyone hoped - and hyped - it would be by now. I'm simply of the opinion that regardless of whether the content is tv or the web, right now, and nearterm, it appears tivo offers a reasonable form of interactivity (for lack of a better word) by keeping that interactivity between the consumer and his box. If you'll read my earlier post carefully, you'll see that I do not denounce Actv altogether by any means. I don't know enough about what Actv offers now to profess such an opinion. Imho their approach and model has evolved so dramatically since I first was familiar witht the co. years ago, that it's hard for me to venture a guess as to exactly what they are up to now.
Don't be quite so defensive.
This thread hasn't changed a bit I guess - you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
lol...
Good luck with it. |
