HitBliss Is So Familiar But Yet So Strange, Because You Can Watch Ads To Earn Cash To Pay For Digital Contents

Digital contents are cheap, because everywhere you look there are some more.  This is why some people are cutting their traditional TV cord and opting for Netflix, Hulu Plus, and the likes.  Nonetheless, it doesn’t mean that everyone can afford any digital content whenever.  Let say, subscribing to too many cheap services such as Netflix, Hulu Plus, or other similar type of services can push up the monthly spending by a lot.  Perhaps, this is why HitBliss is here to alleviate some of us from spending too much on digital contents.

What?  According to Forbes “Watch Ads, Get Paid: Is This The Future Of Ad-Supported Content?” article, you and I can easily watch a new movie — that is available for online rental — for free if you and I are willing to watch few ads here and there.  Perhaps, you insist that this is nothing new, because you can just do the same thing on Hulu.  Nonetheless, I think HitBliss is onto something new.  Basically, if I’m not wrong you can earn HitBliss cash by watching video ads, and the cash you earned can be accrued to pay for digital contents.  I’m not sure if this is HitBliss virtual currency or real cash.  Nonetheless, since HitBliss allows you to earn cash to pay for digital contents, it’s different from Hulu in many ways.  Let see, if I’m not wrong, with HitBliss cash you might be able to pay for digital contents other than just movies.

How would HitBliss operate?  A guess work on my part, I think HitBliss shakes hand with digital content partners to license those hot digital contents, streams or distributes digital contents to end users, collects the digital content costs from advertisers who got their commercials aired to the end users, and eventually separates the digital content license fees from profits to make sure there would be money to pay up to digital content partners.  In a way, it feels like HitBliss just modernizes the traditional TV/ads model and more.  And more in a sense that HitBliss allows the end users to pay for whatever digital contents with the money they earn from HitBliss.  And more in a sense that advertisers now will know that they will always have the right audiences for their advertisements.  How?  According to Forbes, HitBliss will annoy end users with frequent interruptions to make sure that the end users are actually watching the advertisements and not just turning on the display and walk away.  Furthermore, HitBliss might personalize the advertisements to tailor the advertisements that fit the taste of each end user.  How might HitBliss going about to do that?  I guess HitBliss can collect end user data such as digital content purchasing behavior, digital surveys, and so on.  If HitBliss is able to tailor such ads for different groups, I can see that the advertisers will love to see how their ads perform specifically for specific audiences to maximize their advertising effectiveness and minimize the advertising budget (i.e., save costs).

Will HitBliss business model work?  I think it’s a guess work since nobody has yet seen how this business model performs ever before.  Nonetheless, I’ve a feeling that HitBliss is onto something quite interesting.  Let say, if HitBliss is able to license enough digital contents to distribute to end users and executing superbly in delivering core services, I can see that HitBliss might be making it big.  Then there is also a question about will today, online end users want to expose themselves to online ads so they can get free digital contents such as free movies?  So far, Hulu Plus is doing OK with forcefully showing ads even though end users are already paid up for the service.  Maybe, HitBliss will find its business model will be OK too.  Anyhow, I think HitBliss might be something big and people like us will have another choice to go to for consuming awesome digital contents, affordably.  So let see folks, because time will tell.

Sources:

About these ads

TV Revolution Is Upon Us?

television

television (Photo credit: jeevs)

How many more players are going to join the TV revolution?  As now, we know Google, Apple, Microsoft, and other players are trying to tear down the old and introduce the new TV experience to the mass.  It’s all about how to unplug consumers from Cable and plug ‘em into the Internet pipe.  Why would they and the consumers want everything, from phone to TV, to be plugged into the Internet pipe?  I guess the consumers demand and so they give ‘em.  After all, the Internet isn’t just more hip and compatible with the time, but consumers can make wiser choices and have more control with their programs.

It’s about on demand yo!  On demand is definitely easier and more hip when consumers plug into the Internet, and so Cable will have to go the way of the dinosaurs.  Netflix is superb example of how on demand would work.  Instead of dictating when a content consumer should view a program, Netflix aired a complete first season of House of Cards show at once, so everyone could watch this all at one go.  Of course, whoever has all the time in the world will be able to watch the whole show at one go with few breaks in between, but most people have jobs and other pleasures to tend to, and so they will have to make their own time to enjoy Netflix’s House of Cards.  The big difference between Netflix’s House of Cards content viewing experience and Cable is that content consumers are in the driver seat for program choices and schedules.

A new player who has just joined the TV revolution is now Intel.  According to The Verge’s “Intel confirms its Internet TV will launch this year, complete with set-top box and a camera” article, Intel will launch Internet TV which comes with hardware that even has camera.  The camera can be turned off at will, but if you leave it on it will watch you watch whatever that you watch… it’s a little creepy in my opinion.  The Verge suggests that Intel will be able to make a wiser choice of showing what commercials and to suggest what shows to the TV audiences if the camera is on.  In my living room?  Sigh…  I don’t mind the camera watch me doing my things in the public space, but in my living room is just creepy.  I prefer a little more privacy when I enjoy my time in my own living room…

I think the TV revolution is about to be cranked up even more.  It’s the trend yo!  I like where this trend is taking us, but I think there will be things that will be discarded into the forgotten pits.  Through trial and error process, the TV revolution will reward the sensible features.  For an example, I don’t think that many people will appreciate being watched by a camera as they watch their favorite shows in the living room.  Features like this will definitely be thrown into the forgotten pits when the TV revolution (of this time) becomes the norm.

I think the TV revolution (of this time) is more about the experience and less of marketing gimmicks.  How come?  There aren’t that many choices for the publishers and marketers when it comes down to how to dictate what will be the ultimate TV experience in the Internet age.  After all, the TV audiences have plenty of choices to tap into for their content viewing pleasure from the Internet itself.  It’s like the TV revolution has to compete with the medium that hosts it.  It competes against the Internet and yet the Internet will be the medium which hosts this Internet TV thingy.  The trick is to make Internet TV the tube to go to for all TV and video content viewing pleasures…  The trick is to beat YouTube?

Sources:

Traditional Advertising Over The Traditional Airwaves Is Broken! The Internet Broke It!

Advertising

Advertising (Photo credit: Wrote)

Writing in a haste, because I got place to go.  Nonetheless, hopefully this post won’t end up as a mess of incoherency and full of grammar errors.  Anyhow, I like to think that the traditional, on air advertising model is broken.  Traditional, on air advertising model?  You know, those advertisements that you’re being bombarded with while listening to car radio or watching TV at home and so on.  So, why is it broken?  It is broken because of only one word, and this word is Internet.

Yep, the Internet has been gradually training people to be impatient and inclined toward on demand.  People’s attention span have gotten shorter than before for the culture of the Internet is all about getting to the information fast even though the information might be inaccurate or unpleasant or expensive or all of the above.  So, it’s not hard for me to see that people rather have a more benign, concise, and quiet form of advertising nowadays.  The ads on the right or left hand side of a webpage, if done with moderation, are certainly more benign and quiet than the typical in your face or ear, loud commercials that you often hear or see on the airwaves of radio and TV.  This is why I think as time goes on, the Internet dictates advertising to be creative and less intrusive, and people will continue to have none of the traditional form of advertising model.  If the traditional form of advertising model cannot be changed, people will not have any of it.  Furthermore, people are willing to cut the cord for more of on demand type of experience.  Just this sort of behavior alone can foretell that people do not appreciate to be force feeding with those loud and in your ear or face type of commercials.

What I had written above is my personal opinion on how modern people, the information age generation kind of people, might react to the traditional advertising model.  This traditional advertising model is the model that is still being used on TV and radio of today.  For an example, after watching few minutes of a show or news, commercials then be aired forcefully and loudly.  Even some Internet video services are still deploying this traditional advertising model, but with more clever methods (e.g., allowing people to skip the commercials randomly, keeping commercials short and exciting, etc…).  Obviously, there are enough people who might like to watch good commercials, but as the traditional advertising messages being traditional, these messages won’t have the options of staying benign, concise, and quiet… people might rather have the more boring but benign, concise, and quiet advertising messages that proliferate across the Web.  In a sense, this is what I feel toward today advertising form factors, but I can be wrong about this since I have zero experience in advertising business.  Still, I think my personal opinion has merit since I’m too a consumer who is being bombarded with traditional advertising messages over car radio and home TV.  What do you think?  (Not having time to proofread this, but I’m going to publish this anyway.  Will revisit this post in a day or two to proofread it.)

Winner Takes All In Term Of Media Will Have To Fully Support And Simplify The Internet In The Living Room

Living room 01335

Living room 01335 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How ironic this is!  I’d moved away from watching TV to watching the Internet through computers and laptops, but now I’m moving back to watching TV more than ever.  OK, before the folks who support the traditional media such as Cable companies and the folks who support the new media such as the Internet get the wrong idea of what I had said, let me clear this up right now.  Instead of watching more TV in a normal and traditional sense, I hug the TV only when Apple TV and iPad 2 are humming in symphony.  Thanks to Airplay, iPad 2 has became a remote control for the Internet, and the TV has once again became my gateway to entertainment, politics, learning, gasping moments, laughing moments, and host of other senses.  As more people are changing their behaviors in term of accessing media as I have been doing so in the living room, we are going to see the landscape of the media will evermore be drastically changed for some time to come.

Questions arise when we question what will happen to the traditional media if people are demanding for the Internet to be streamed to their devices evermore, especially to devices that anchor in the living room.  Such questions are:

  • Will traditional Cable companies survive if more people like me don’t use the traditional media more and more?
  • What changes the traditional Cable companies have to adopt in order for them to find hope for their future?
  • How come smart TV isn’t yet a big of a deal even though people are demanding for the Internet to be streamed evermore?
  • Can tablets such as iPad be a more favorable form of remote control than the standard stick-like TV remote control for the TV of the future?
  • Will the Internet has to be faster, cheaper, and bigger (in term of bandwidth) in order for people to be able to enjoy the Internet as their TV media?
  • Will advertisement programs be weaved in a way that do not obstruct the enjoyment of having the Internet as the TV media in the near future?
  • Will the tablet form factor be more important in term of TV computing than general computing for the consumers in the near future?
  • If the tablets will be evermore important to the living room, what will become of the suggestion that the tablet form factor will kill off the desktop form factor?
  • Will the average people get to be evermore informed if the Internet will constantly be watched in the living room in the near future?
  • Will the media industry come up with simpler Internet TV technology so average folks can connect to the Internet through TV, 24/7, easier?
  • Should the sectors within the media industry of today that embrace the Internet in the living room think about promoting less on wonder TV techs and just promote the simplification of any technology which deals with having the Internet in the living room?
  • Will culture in whatever country change dramatically as the Internet overtakes the living room?
  • Will live Internet (such as live stream of whatever) be the revolution of live TV?
  • How will the people of the future define their particular trustworthy sources when the Internet overtakes the living room in the near future?

Of course, if I think harder, I might come up with more questions in regarding to what if and how the Internet will change people/consumers’ lives and behaviors when the Internet overtakes the TV in the living room of most Americans and elsewhere.  Nonetheless, no matter what will become of the TV of the future, right now I feel that the iPad that supports Airplay feature is just an amazing technology which has me crazily hug my TV again.  Before, I prefer to watch the Internet whatever from a small, computer monitor or a tiny, laptop monitor.  Now, thanks to Apple TV device, I prefer the big screen TV as the Internet is streaming to it.  YouTube has been so far my go to place for most stream videos in my living room.  With extremely satisfactory personal experience from watching the Internet in my living room, I predict (rolling my eyes when I use the word predict) that whoever or whatever can make the Internet easier in the living room will be the victor of the next media in term of entertainment and technology industries.  What do you think?

Apple TV And Similar Platforms Are Just Scratching The Surface, Because Watching Newest Movies At Home Might Be The Next Media Revolution!

Home theater projection screen displaying a hi...

Home theater projection screen displaying a high-definition television image (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Watching iTune rental movies on iPad 2 isn’t exactly great, because movies should not be shrunk to such a proportion (i.e., 9.7 inch).  With Apple TV and Airplay though, I’m able to enjoy movies on humongous TV screen.  Lovely!  Streaming HD quality too!  Also, I don’t have to miss any part of a movie during viewing time as I can just pause the movie, go do whatever, and come back to finish up the movie whenever.  It gets better when I crank up my sound system (e.g., amplifier, speakers, mixer, equalizer, dual engine processor, etc…).

With my scenario above, I can totally understand why nowadays it’s less attractive to go to the theaters.  Of course, watching movies in theaters can have advantages such as you get to watch the newest releases of movies.  Nonetheless, the downsides of watching movies in the theaters are many too.  The examples of the downsides for watching movies in theaters are strangers can be loud and rude, cell phones can go off whenever, crying children, and dangers such as recent theater shooting (i.e., 2012 Aurora Shooting).  Weighing the downsides with the upsides for watching movies in the theaters, it’s obvious that conveniency matters most.  This is why I think people will go to theaters less as they can just sit at home, in their most comfortable environment, and enjoy their movies from their home theater systems.  It’s less hassle and safer this way!  Really!

Internet has changed so many things in people lives, and watching movies is definitely one of the things that the Internet has been meddled with.  It’s not yet an evolution, but the revolution of watching movies is clearly shown in the ways that people have watched their movies, nowadays.  People prefer to stream movies from the Internet more and more.  So, the revolution would be that people rather rebel against the traditional media such as TV reruns.  Furthermore, people also rebel against watching movies in theaters.  They only go to the theaters whenever their most anticipated movies are showing.

Nonetheless, the traditional media has one advantage over the Internet medium is that going live on the air.  Going live on the air is still something that people love most.  Nonetheless, if the new media (i.e., the one that utilizes the Internet for streaming media) begins to adopt going live on the air, the traditional media will have no advantage left.

Obviously, I don’t know what will have to come into an earthly existence to actually make me think that there is an evolution in watching movies, because watching movies is a definitive process.  Definitive process?  We can say we used to watch movies in black and white in the era of no color picture, and the revolution was that we had color picture.  We can also say we used to watch movies in theaters, and the revolution is that nowadays we prefer to watch movies from our home theater systems (i.e., home theater systems that utilize Internet for streaming movies).  So, to have an evolution in watching movies is like begging for the process of watching movies to change into an unrecognizable form of watching movies.  Such a change might have us not watching movies anymore.  Instead of watching movies, we might have to experience the movies in ways that might explode our mind.  One example would be that we get to be in the movies, and so our unique actions within the movies might change the endings of the movies.  Or we can just be the observers of the movies, and yet we get to enjoy the movies as if we enjoy the many realities.  Nonetheless, such possibilities are still in the realm of science fiction for now.

Let us leave science fiction for another day and stick to the talk of a revolution for watching movies, shall we?  So, it’s clear that watching traditional media is still have one advantage over the new media (i.e., media utilizes Internet for streaming), and the advantage is going live on the air.  Well, I lie, because the traditional media has not one, but two advantages over the new media.  The second advantage would be the newest movies that get to air in the theaters.  Imagine, what if the new media begins to stream the newest movies to homes.  This would be another revolution for watching movies, right?  Internet definitely has the potential to continue to throw volleys of revolutions, one after another, at the traditional media.  Picture this, if we can begin to stream the newest movies at home, we don’t really have to go to the theaters and feel nervous about all sorts of things (e.g., theater etiquettes, theater shooting, etc…).

Before Steve Jobs died, there was a rumor that Steve Jobs had planned to revolutionize how people are going to watch their TVs.  If this is true, I wonder that he had thought about teaming up with various media partners to bring newest movies to homes.  Nonetheless, even if Steve Jobs hadn’t thought of this, I think someone else would eventually will be able to iron out deals that will bring the newest movies to homes.  How come?  Well, if they care about how people want to watch their movies, then they should think about making people feel happier and more satisfied in watching movies.  What better way than having people feel evermore so excited about turning on their TVs than watching the newest movies from home?  And safer too?

Samsung Goes Futuristic, Showcasing Samsung Smart Transparent Window At CES 2012

SAMSUNG Group CI (Logo)

Image via Wikipedia

Samsung Smart Transparent Window is definitely something we had seen in Tom Cruise’s Mission Impossible 4 and other movies.  Say what?  Remember Tom Cruise and his female coworker/agent had to chase the bad guys in his cool electric car?  I think it was an electric Audi, but I might be wrong.  His female coworker/agent had to pull up an interactive map or something like that through the car’s front windshield, and the front windshield was transparent enough which allowed her to peek through the front windshield and yet keep the interactive content visible on the front windshield.  Well, Samsung Smart Transparent Window has the same concept, except that it allows users to check weather and other contents on real window (i.e., a window inside a house).

Samsung Smart Transparent Window can also allow users to use a virtual blind to close the window.  In regarding to virtual blind, I think it’s cool, but I’m just worrying that some really bizarre, embarrassing situations might occur if Samsung Smart Transparent Window crashes, disengages the virtual blind and allowing strangers to peek inside whatever compartment which it supposes to shut out.

Anyhow, I like the idea of this technology!  Perhaps someday in the future when Samsung Smart Transparent Window is popular and cheap enough, I might install it inside my house.  Check out the video right after the break to see Samsung Smart Transparent Window in action at CES 2012.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 900 other followers