Measuring The Effect Of The Inevitable Won’t Help Cable Industry Wins Back TV Cord-Cutters

Instead of finishing reading the article “TV Cord-Cutters: Who You Are And Why You Scare Bigwigs” on Forbes, impatiently I’m writing this article here to simply point out that there might be time still for Cable and similar industry to rebuild their foundations — that’s, rebuilding their backbone networks such as making a transition from cable to Internet TV.  Sure, the upfront cost might be outrageous, but in the end they can survive the dramatic changes in their industry.

We can take a look at Blockbuster to see that professing to an outdated business model can bring about a death knell to a business/industry.  Blockbuster failed to catch the trend and had allowed Netflix to accelerate its downfall (i.e., Blockbuster was sold to Dish Network through auction for less).  Netflix had never considered the video rental stores’ business model as it went ahead to send DVDs through mail and now stream videos through Internet.


Just Something Something About TV Over The Internet

Can TV over the Internet help us save money than otherwise?  Let see, we have to pay for TV over the Internet subscription, and on top of that we still have to pay for the Internet.  I guess we cannot say for certain that we know we can be better off with TV over the Internet than the traditional media.

How about Netflix?  Netflix isn’t TV over the Internet, because it’s more of video streaming service.  If Netflix is TV over the Internet, then we can suffice to say that Netflix TV over the Internet can save us some money.  Why?  Netflix is so affordable even though its prices are now higher than before.  I think with $50 Internet connection from any ISP and $15 of Netflix’s Instant Streaming service together, we can still save some money from not having to spend on Cable or satellite.  Unless you don’t want to have Internet at all, it’s like one stone kills two birds at the same time, because you can have the Internet and Netflix at the same time.  Unfortunately, Netflix isn’t TV over the Internet, and so it’s impossible for folks who want true TV experiences over the Internet to cut their TV cords.

I think it’s suffice to describe a media type as TV over the Internet when people can watch live TV over their IP addresses.  YouTube is free to use and free to watch, and YouTube has some live programs; since YouTube is delivering over IP addresses, we can suffice to say YouTube is sort of TV over the Internet.  How come we can’t really say YouTube is a true TV over the Internet?  YouTube can’t deliver the range of live programs as Cable and satellite companies.  So, in a way we can recognize a service as TV over the Internet only when such service has enough live programs and those programs must be delivered over IP addresses.

Should TV over the Internet be any different in user experiences than traditional content delivering systems such as Cable and satellite?  I guess TV over the Internet should be smarter and allowing people to have more freedom of when to watch and what to watch —  more live shows the better.  Since live shows are live, it’s sufficing to say that it’s easier to say than distribute.  Fortunately, people are big spenders, even in bad economy such as this, as they’re buying up tablets and similar gadgets with little regrets.  Tablets and similar mobile gadgets allow people to watch live shows on the go anytime and at anywhere.  So, we can suffice to say that the demand for TV over the Internet is there, but the supply isn’t there!  That’s it, they demand smart, live shows on the go!  Smart as in allowing people to feel that user experiences from watching live shows over the Internet is better than the traditional content delivering systems.  Otherwise, we can suffice to say what’s the point, right?  After all, contents will be contents, and it doesn’t really matter what types of content delivering systems should people tap into as long user experiences are best.  Of course, affordable subscription plans will always be priced into the user experience formulas!

Many people cut their TV cords, because they feel so many programs they do not need to watch and yet they have to pay for them all.  It means the user experiences on outdated content delivering systems are no longer appropriate for a modern time such as today, because people are busier and consuming information way more faster and much more than ever before.  It’s easy to see why people do not like to pick up a TV Guide to figure out what channel has their favorite programs on what time so they can squeeze in couple hours in the day, away from work, just to relax and watch their favorite shows.  Nowadays, it’s more like I’ve two hours right now to waste, and so let get on the Internet and see what’s interesting!  Isn’t this obvious right now that TV has to be over the Internet, too?

There are too many factors that keep TV off the Internet!  Regulations and people who do not want to see TV over the Internet thrives are major obstacles for opening up TV over the Internet to the mass.  The technology is there, but TV over the Internet is something we haven’t seen widely adopted ever, therefore unknown consequences and benefits cannot be estimated and evaluated; unknown risks and benefits have prevented the advances of TV over the Internet.  Advertising models have to change too for TV over the Internet isn’t similar to the traditional content delivering systems.  It might be harder to gauge the Internet audience’s interests than the traditional content delivering systems’ audiences, because the folks who want to bring TV over the Internet to the mass may not have enough experience in figuring out their audiences just yet.  On the contrary, the folks who behind the traditional media had years of figuring out what their audiences would love to response to.  With so many uncertainties in the model of TV over the Internet, we can suffice to say the advertising folks and corporations may not take TV over the Internet as serious just yet, and this can prevent TV over the Internet to go forward in a big way.  Finally, I think/surmise that the biggest challenge of all is to convince people TV over the Internet is better and cheaper than traditional types of content delivering systems.

In conclusion, people want to move away from traditional media since the people of today aren’t the same people of many generations ago.  The Internet is something that has changed the way people behave in their daily lives such as shopping and watching TV and so on.  This is why it’s easy for us to see that TV over the Internet is the next big thing!  In order for this next big thing to work, TV over the Internet must save people money, otherwise it’s pointless for people to adopt TV over the Internet when they can just stick to the traditional media.  On top of saving people money, TV over the Internet must deliver the same capability and beyond the traditional media such as wide range of live shows, otherwise people will be reluctant to make a switch.  Everything will follow suit when most people make a switch from traditional media to TV over the Internet, because the audiences are the bread and butter for whatever industries that have to deal with TV (e.g., advertising agencies, corporations)!

App A TV?

Sometimes I fail to understand why Google and Yahoo and Apple have not yet gone beyond the tradition by producing apps that replicate Google TV and Apple TV and Yahoo TV experiences onto anything which has a screen!  This way users who have desktops and laptops and handheld devices can download such apps to begin experience live TV or whatever TV experiences that shall be, whether users have Windows or Mac!  I’m sure this way more users can connect to futuristic TV experiences, consequently making more businesses want to spend money on advertising since everyone is able to reach such media!  The idea of buying a set-top box is so outdated to me!  I’m not even want to mention about traditional cable!  App is the way, or even better — to standardize HTML5 and allow such technology to deliver the very same experiences!  What do you think?

Microsoft Plans To Launch TV Service Through Xbox 360

I fail to see why even though now we have somethings as small as tablets and smart phones, and yet we don’t try to add the set-top box capability to these convenient to be carried around devices.  Instead, Microsoft and Google and Apple are trying to latch TV subscription services onto their clunky gadgets such as Xbox gaming console.  Don’t get me wrong, it sounds very enticing for Xbox gaming console owner such as me to be able to play games or watch TV on one machine, but my thinking of a better way to do than what they’re trying to do is to make smaller devices such as iPad 2 to have set-top box capability.

Imagine this!  Without even needing to look for a remote control, you dish out your iPhone from your pant’s pocket, turn on the TV with an iPhone app, change to the set-top box app, and then beam a TV subscription plan (i.e., you pay for a monthly TV subscription plan) wirelessly over to your TV.  Of course, you need a smart TV to be able to work with this kind of technology.  Anyhow, don’t you think having an iPhone or something similar in size as a set-top box is way better than a clunky machine which can never be mobilized around?

I guess for now we have to settle with what Microsoft is trying to do!  According to an article “Microsoft’s TV subscription, if not rumored may launch with Apple’s iCloud” on, Microsoft may launch some type of TV service for Xbox 360 gaming console very soon.  Although I’ve already subscribed to Dish Network’s two year plan, I may want to take a look at Microsoft’s TV service sometimes after its launch date.  Microsoft, can I get a free trial?  What do you think about Microsoft’s TV service which requires Xbox 360 to act as a set-top box?


TV, TV On The Wall, Who’s The Fairest Skeleton Of All? And Kinect Replies!

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who in the land is fairest of all?  In this case, TV, TV on the wall, who’s the fairest skeleton of all?  Kinect has now had a decent arsenal of tricks such as this one here where researchers at Technical University of Munich rely on Kinect to project augmented reality.  They have Kinect projects skeletal parts that match with the test subject’s real body parts as he/she moves around.  Unfortunately, Kinect itself cannot capture the real skeletal parts but only use to project augmented reality, the test subject still has to go through the process of having a 3D CT scan.