AOL's Mystro TV vs Tivo? 358
admiral2001 writes "Here is is a NYTimes story about AOL-Time-Warner's plans for a TiVo-killing 'Mystro TV' (nytimes annoying free registration required). They plan to begin rolling this out sometime in the next two years. Their major features are the simple pause, rewind, and fast forward that all PVRs have. However, they've taken the obvious stance to "let[s] networks set the parameters, dictating which shows users can reschedule, and it also creates ways for networks to insert commercials." The article even mentions how they could get an advantage in pushing their product because "viewers could try out Mystro TV by pushing a button on their remote"."
TiVo killer? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this will be a successful product anytime soon, unless AOL bundles the appliance with its 1e6 hours free cds.
Re:TiVo killer? (Score:3, Insightful)
It comes down to marketing. AOL/TW has wayyy more marketing power than Matsushita (ReplayTV) or TiVo.
Nobody thinks that McDonald's has the greatest hamburgers in the world, yet they are the number 1 hamburger-based fast food chain in the world. Nobody (not even many of AOL's own users) think AOL is a great ISP, yet it's number 1.
Make something convenient, easy and cheap enough, back it with some good marketing and you can sell sand to Arabs.
Re:TiVo killer? (Score:2)
Um.... not quite. McDonalds is successful due as much to CONVENIENCE as anything else. They're everywhere, fast, cheap, and you basically know what you're going to get at any one of them.
By adding such limitations as letting the networks decide what programs you can timeshift, and adding in commercials, they're removing the "convenience" factor that makes Tivo successful in the first place. Marketing or not, useless gadgets don't live long in a connected marketplace. MadCow.
Re:TiVo killer? (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, let me say I've been a tivo owner since 2000 and I will remain one until their service is destroyed by networks and us users with our pirate guide-info sites are hunted in the streets for sport.
That said, after reading a dozen comments like this, I think people are missing the point. AOL is not trying to make a better consumer product. They are trying to create a network friendly version of Tivo (with far less consumer goodness as a side effect) that they can get the networks backing.
If it's built into your digital cable box and all you have to do is press a button to activate it, people will buy it. If they aren't afraid that it will go belly up next year and lose it's service, people will buy it. If it costs $200 instead of $500 because the networks are subsidizing it with built in commercials, people will buy it. If it's easy to use and user friendly, people will buy it (Tivo IS easy to use and user friendly, but you won't get that impression from the general media).
It is a sorry state of affairs when something made to server corperations may defeate the ultimate in TV addons, but how many people in the world still don't own Tivos who could afford them?
Re:TiVo killer? (Score:2)
If it's easy to use and user friendly...
You're dead on right. The new device will be cheaper and slightly but significantly less-featured than a TiVo.
Most consumers have a state of mind where commercials represent distracting blather that they try to tune out of their heads, use to go get food, take a pee break, etc.
They don't realize just how reversed the situation is at the networks: the shows are distracting blather that must be used to convince viewers to watch the advertisements.
I love my TiVo. And everyone I know that has one loves it, too. But most consumers aren't even aware of what a TiVo is or what it can do. So, despite the enormous potential if its price were brought down and its advertising budget brought up, a large number of consumers will be co-opted by a less than TiVo-like experience for their first PVR.
Re:TiVo killer? (Score:2)
Also ths thing that makes even *less* sense is that AOL-TW is pushing their digital cable system that lets you watch the programs they have available when you want them. So why exactly would they offer half a service that gives you flexability, and have a service that takes it away? Because of greed.
so what doyou figure? arsenal without a chance?
Re:TiVo killer? (Score:5, Funny)
This is the part that struck me:
> it also creates ways for networks to insert commercials.
Why wouldn't the networks "insert" (ie, flag) all of their commercials into your PVRed program? You can't tell me they would just sit back and only include "the important ones". From their point of view, they're all necessary.
TiVo killer? More like PVR killer. At least my old VCR lets me do whatever I want with my programming, including fast forward through the same recycled Pepsi and Chevy commercials I've seen countless times before. I might not even care if they would limit commercials to new content I haven't seen (much) before, but who needs to see the same Coca-Cola ad every 5 minutes during breaks? I AM AWARE OF YOUR PRODUCT AND HOW REFRESHING IT IS, THANK YOU.
Look maw! The talking box says 'dem corporate folk made a new sody pop. Sum 'bout Cokie Colie!
Re:TiVo killer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:TiVo killer? (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, if the Mystro came bundled with cable TV and had varying levels of utility, it'd be great. Pause live TV (FF disabled) and PPV ordering (keeps shows up to 7 days) is free. Record shows by time, FF disabled, $5/month. Then the $10-13 charge for full TiVo-like service.
Divx was a great idea too, the problem was it was set up in opposition to DVDs. If it had been introduced much later (like now!), the response would be much better. And the studios, at this point, would not care kill off the cash cow that is DVD sales.
the problem with Mystro and Divx is that they are set up in opposition to the user-controlled experience, instead of an improvement over the content producer-controlled experience. Divx would be a lot better than renting DVDs at Blockbuster; Mystro will be great for a lot of people who just want the simple functions made possible (pause TV, record PPV for upcoming viewing), or made simpler (no need to return DVDs).
I own a DirecTiVo, and it's great. I won't give it up. But it doesn't mean there can't be other options.
Re:TiVo killer? (Score:3, Informative)
When will these companies realize... (Score:4, Insightful)
PVR's are going to kill the TV industry. We must stop them!
Linux is going to kill Microsoft. We must stop it!
File swapping is going to kill the music industry. Destroy it!
VCR's are going to kill the movie industry.
Video killed the radio star.
When did we go from a country where companies were supposed to compete on merrit to a country full of whining baby companies that don't want to change, inovate, or suffer any losses. Just because you can see that something is going to happen that will hurt your business, doesn't mean it's your job to try and stop it from happeneing. Lay a few people off to prepare for the impending belt tightening, don't hire a fleat of lawers and lobyists and wonder why your profits are down so much.
If you sell water don't sue mother nature expecting to stop the coming rain.
Re:TiVo killer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Q.E.D - Wal-mart
Re:TiVo killer? (Score:4, Insightful)
But the average AOL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:TiVo killer? (Score:4, Insightful)
do you think they will notice the little * indicating to look at the small print saying some shows may not be recordable.
They will see that one is less than the other and doesn't require a monthly fee (guessing on that point) and that will settle their minds.
Now is the time for TiVo to get aggressive in how they market their box.
Interactiv TV (Score:3, Interesting)
No, this is actualy just Time Warner going back to their pre-Ineternet per-AOL fiasco, Interactive TV. The model is completely unchanged from 1992, content to be stored in distribution hubs and downloaded on demand. The only thing that is interactive is you get to shop while you watch the crap.
These days I am pretty much a post-Tivo TV viewer. I don't rate the tivo features because I simply don't watch network TV - PERIOD. Heck we didn't even get the local network channels for over a year when we first got Dish TV and we never missed them.
The problem is that network TV gets worse and worse as the cost gets higher and higher. The last decent shows on US TV were Seinfeld and the X-Files, both long gone to reruns. Ad skiping technology is superfluous when the shows on offer are Joe Millionaire and the bachelorette.
The only significant feature missing from my dishplayer as far as I am concerned is removable storage. Give me the ability to plug in nice fat 160 Gb drives at a time via serial ATA and I can actually get to record some of my own stuff. At the moment we have 4 hours teletubbies, 16 hours Dora the Explorer, 8 episodes of Blues Clues and some sessamee street. I have one episode of the sopranos. Funny thing is that when I think about it most of the stuff on my dishplayer is actually more intellectually demanding than the average network tv show.
I Love Google (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I Love Google (Score:5, Informative)
1) Connect Cable In.
2) Connect Cable out to TV.
3) Plug in phone line.
Re:I Love Google (Score:2)
Re:I Love Google (Score:2)
Re:I Love Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I Love Google (Score:3, Insightful)
With Mystro, you should be able to just plug it into the cable jack and connect it to the TV. The cable company will do the rest. You bet your patooty that it will be talking back up the cable line. It has to, actually, your shows are stored in the cable system rather than on the local box. Thus, to watch last nights Baywatch, you have to go to the up the network and tell the network to start downloading your show.
Mystro also has one other big advantage, you can potentially get the whole library of stuff that's been shown. If you missed Baywatch three weeks ago, you can potentially go back and watch arbitrary episodes. Of course, they have to get the rights to let you do that, but still, you don't have to worry about your disk filling up, shows coming on at the same time, power failures, etc.
And.. (Score:2)
Rich
Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like DivX was supposed to be the DVD-killer, right? I'm as likely to buy this as I was to buy into DivX--which is to say, not happenin'.
Industry seems to think it can lead consumers around by the nose, telling them, "We know what's best for you." Sometimes it succeeds; but when an obviously-good idea like Tivo beats drek like this to the punch, it's no contest.
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:2)
Considering that the average consumer runs MS and not apple or that VHS beat betamax says that money counts.
Wrong Audience (Score:2)
This is a hard balance to find when creating a "middle-ground" product like AOL is attempting. If the industry were to insist on it being moderately crippled, they could make it more appealing to consumers by subsidizing the cost to increase the availability. That approach would probably work, which is also why we won't ever see it tried (they don't want to compromise or out of pocket expense, they want the consumer by the nose and nothing else).
Re:Yeah, right. (Score:2, Insightful)
network leverage, alas, works (Score:5, Insightful)
One reason that it's good to be Second to Market (not First) is that you can pick-and-choose on which features to compete with, and don't have to do as much work informing people.
First to Market: teach people what it is, and sell them on buying it
Second to Market: convince people to buy yours, not theirs.
For those of you who hate registering. (Score:3, Informative)
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Personal video recorders like TiVo mock everything a television network is about. The devices let viewers thumb their noses at program schedules and, even worse, fast-forward past commercials. To many at the networks and studios, it is a cruel joke that could drive them out of business.
AOL Time Warner, however, is trying to beat TiVo Inc. at its own game.
A secretive team of AOL Time Warner executives has begun talking with other major cable operators and media companies about speeding up and co-opting the potential revolution that TiVo kicked off. The company's system, called Mystro TV, is AOL Time Warner's gambit in an imminent battle over the future of the television business. Satellite services, cable systems and television manufacturers are all racing to promote their versions of the TiVo-like technologies that threaten to wreak havoc on networks and studios, and AOL Time Warner wants to put its own stamp on the evolution of the medium.
Advertisement
Its plans will turn in part on whether the company can end two years of internal discord following AOL's acquisition of Time Warner. If the company's often antagonistic divisions can cooperate, their collective arms reach to all sides of the television business. The company's Turner Broadcasting and WB are the largest collection of networks. Warner Brothers is the largest television studio. And Time Warner Cable is the most technologically advanced and second-largest cable operator.
AOL Time Warner already has a track record of directing the technological course of the entertainment business, most recently by single-handledly forcing Hollywood to adopt the low-priced sale of DVD's. Now it has dedicated significant financial and personnel resources to Mystro TV. Two years ago, the company transferred Time Warner Cable's top executive, Joseph J. Collins, and top engineer, James A. Chiddix, to the secretive project full time. Meanwhile, the cable division has already implemented some elements of the technology. Viewers in New York and elsewhere can subscribe to an HBO on-demand channel, enabling them to watch "The Sopranos" and other offerings on their own schedule with fast-forward and rewind. Viewers in Hawaii can watch the nightly news and other programs whenever they want, and the cable system is testing new forms of targeted advertising there as well.
But as the company rushes to stay ahead of competing services from satellite and electronics companies, AOL Time Warner must also overcome questions about its technology. At the same time, Mystro TV needs to win the cooperation of networks, studios and the creators of shows. So far, most industry executives -- even some at AOL Time Warner's networks and studios -- say they are dubious about the feasibility of the idea.
The essence of AOL Time Warner's Mystro TV is a technology that uses a cable system itself to provide viewers capabilities similar to computerized personal video recorders like TiVo: watching programs on their own schedules, with fast-forward and rewind. But it also lets networks set the parameters, dictating which shows users can reschedule, and it also creates ways for networks to insert commercials.
Two senior AOL Time Warner executives said the company was hoping to begin rolling out service within two years. They said the company planned to sell the Mystro TV service to other competing cable operators, just as it sold HBO, potentially giving Mystro a central role as a gateway between television networks and viewers around the country.
For now, senior AOL Time Warner executives said the company is trying to keep its efforts under wraps, partly because details may still change. The company was also stung by excessive publicity surrounding a disappointing test of interactive TV technology in Orlando, Fla., in the mid-1990's. A spokeswoman for Mystro TV declined to comment.
A confidential CD-ROM demonstrating a prototype of the service depicts a viewer arriving home in the middle of "Friends," (produced by Warner Brothers and shown on NBC) and restarting it from the beginning. Another viewer pauses a broadcast of "Charmed" (produced by Warner Brothers and shown on WB). "Go ahead, answer the phone," the demo suggests, "Mystro TV allows you to pause what you are watching."
As with the current HBO on-demand service, viewers can scroll through an on-screen programming schedule to look backward and forward at available shows. They can watch "Sex and the City" while "The Sopranos" is on, or preview next week's episode of either. "Want to watch a show that aired last night or a few hours ago?" the demonstration asks, "Simply go backward in the guide and press `Play.' No advanced planning required."
Advertisement
Those capabilities frighten many at the networks, studios and Hollywood talent agencies, all of whom control crucial rights to the use of their shows. Letting viewers reshuffle the TV schedule cripples the network's ability to build audiences for new shows by putting them on after hits. More troublesome, the easy fast-forwarding promises to deprive networks of revenue by decimating the audience for commercials.
But the demonstration also stresses that the Mystro TV system offers networks and studios considerable advantages over in-home personal video recorders such as TiVo or ReplayTV, which is made by Sonicblue. Not only can networks determine the availability of their shows, but Mystro TV prevents consumers from making, storing or sharing copies (something ReplayTV allows). Mystro also does not automatically skip commercials or even include a fast-forward button that leaps past one 30-second commercial at a time (another feature of ReplayTV.)
While a program is paused or rewinding, networks can insert new commercials during the process or display them around the periphery of the screen. On the CD-ROM demo, for example, a viewer pausing "Charmed" might see a commercial for Special K or Pizza Hut.
The demonstration also promises advertisers new ways to target viewers. A viewer watching a car commercial might be able to select an additional view of the interior or safety features. Or one household might see a commercial for a luxury car while another sees a pitch for an economy model. "Increase the effectiveness of advertising by sending different ads to different homes," the demonstration promises.
Unlike TiVo or other set-top appliances, the demonstration notes, viewers could try out Mystro TV by pushing a button on their remote, an enormous advantage to wooing customers. (Consumers would presumably pay a monthly fee for Mystro service.)
But the thrust of AOL Time Warner's pitch to networks and studios is an implicit threat that the personal video recorder technology is coming, with or without their permission. So far, only about 700,000 of the most avid television mavens have bought TiVo devices, which are cumbersome to install and cost $200 to $400 in addition to a monthly fee. But two major satellite TV companies, EchoStar Communications and the DirectTV business of the Hughes Electronics unit of General Motors, have recently begun promoting TiVo-like set-top boxes as part of their services. In the fall, Toshiba is expected to begin selling a television with a similar device already installed. Time Warner Cable itself is hedging its bets by investing in TiVo-style cable boxes. It included similar functions in about 60,000 of the set-top boxes it has already installed, with 200,000 more expected to be delivered by next year.
Still, rolling out Mystro TV will not be as easy as an engineer pushing a button, mainly because of the elaborate telecommunications capacity required. TiVo and similar other devices store recorded programs in a hard drive on top of the set; the Mystro TV system would store the programming in hubs of cable networks. For the cable company, each additional user would mean squeezing another stream of video content through its cables. Then the system requires software to play digital traffic cop, managing the flow of so many distinct transmissions at once.
Michael Ramsay, the chief executive of TiVo, said he doubted AOL Time Warner could handle the capacity. "We have never been able to figure how you could do that economically," he said. But for their part, Time Warner Cable engineers have told industry audiences that they have been building their capacity toward this goal for years, so they think they are ready to tackle the logistics.
The requisite deals are even more tangled. Unlike recording on a personal hard drive, storing programming at a central location entails reaching licensing agreements with the owners of the shows -- studios, networks, producers, and others.
Executives at the major networks declined to comment. Privately, many acknowledge that they fear the spread of personal video recorders could do to their business what Napster did to music. They also worry that letting viewers watch shows like "Friends" at any time might sap the lucrative demand for reruns in syndication. For now, some senior network executives say they are putting their faith in the couch potato factor: many consumers apparently prefer to sit in front of whatever happens to be on, including commercials.
For now, said Josh Bernoff, an analyst at Forrester Research, the fear of personal video recorders is not potent enough to drive Hollywood into the arms of Mystro TV. But, he said, the idea behind Mystro TV was "the holy grail" of television -- a vast library of programming at the viewer's finger tips.
"If you could get the license to everything that was ever broadcast on television, could you create a tremendous video-on-demand service?," he said. "Oh yeah, then all the technical problems would be worth it. But its getting the licenses that is the problem."
WHy would anyone buy this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:WHy would anyone buy this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Screw your ad revenue! We want fresh content. (Score:3, Funny)
> You reimburse them by watching the advertising.
I'm sure that will comfort me when I am watching yet another Pepsi, Chevy, 1-800-Collect, Volkswagon commecial that I've seen a million times and make me no more or less aware of their product's existence. I am aware that Pepsi is better than Coke and vice versa. I am aware that VW is looking for drivers. I am well aware 1-800-Collect is a retirement home for washed up actors.
One thing confuses me, however: Why is toilet paper always "new and improved"? It seems to work and feel the same as it always did to me. With retzin!
Re:WHy would anyone buy this? (Score:2)
Then again, I can see why they don't like the commercial skip feature some PVRs have, but I don't see why its any different from getting up and using the bathroom, getting a bite to eat, changing channels, so on. Lets be fair here.
Re:WHy would anyone buy this? (Score:2, Interesting)
On top of that, the network shows commercials, and if I'm reimbursing them by watching commercials, I shouldn't be paying part of my monthly fee towards them, and vice versa.
Re:WHy would anyone buy this? (Score:4, Interesting)
The TV networks need to get their heads out of their *sses and stop running around like they are living in some fantasy land where the Neilson ratings actually mean something. They need to be more mindful and directed with their advertising. They need better feedback and confirmed (rather than merely assumed) viewership.
They simply need to be willing to be told when commercials suck or are annoying. They also need to know what commercials end up viewed for their own sake even by viewers that have the option not bothering.
TV networks need to get over the idea that commercial viewing is an entitlement. They need to EARN our eyeballs. The sooner they realize this, the better off they will be.
BTW, there IS NO CONTRACT between me and a broadcaster. I owe them NOTHING. They OWE US, since we are their revenue source.
Don't pretend that any altruism is remotely involved in this situation.
Re:WHy would anyone buy this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then average Joe wonders why he would spend money out of his pocket buying another Tivo box. Chances are he wouldn't unless he really wants to skip commercials and program/keep any programs he wishes. AOL is probably betting that average Joe who thinks AOL is the Internet will take the TV-network-driven free PVR over paying for Tivo.
If this strategy works, then Tivo is driven out of business.
PreempTiVe strike (Score:4, Insightful)
A large portion of the populace still thinks AOL is "the Internet".
If AOL spends a billion or two to give everyone a taste of Mystro - thereby convincing the Great Unwashed that PVRs are "like VCRs, but they suck, and have more ads" - and they've pre-empted TiVo from ever gaining traction.
Think about it - if the average Joe's first impression of a PVR was this thing, would he risk dropping another $299 on a TiVo?
If it costs AOL/TW a billion or two to wipe TiVo off the map, that's money well spent.
Other links (Score:5, Informative)
NY Times Technology (no reg req): AOL Is Planning a Fast-Forward Answer to TiVo [nytimes.com]
CNN Money: AOL eyes TiVo-like offering [cnn.com]
Yeah good luck... (Score:5, Interesting)
Getting an industry behind you won't help that much either. You could probably get bunches of AOL people who are on the fence about a Tivo purchase but anyone who owns a Tivo probably wouldn't jump at the chance to start receiving commercials.
Analysis... (Score:5, Insightful)
TIVO is a hard drive with multimedia software.
Guess who wins?
Re:Analysis... (Score:4, Insightful)
You left out the cable operators. They'll charge extra for this "feature".
-MDL
Re:Analysis... (Score:2)
I propose nobody use the word "Orwellian" unless refering to something that is Orwellian.
Re:Analysis... (Score:4, Insightful)
The one that corporations throw their money behind. Like MiniDisc vs. DAT.
Re:Analysis... (Score:4, Insightful)
Missing the boat... (Score:5, Interesting)
This reigns back in that control. That being the case, it is not the "killer app" TWC hopes it will be.
-Pete
It's an old rebuttal, but still valid... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's an old rebuttal, but still valid... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's an old rebuttal, but still valid... (Score:2)
AOL - Missing the boat since 1984 (Score:2, Interesting)
They can hope that people will be stupid enough to shell out money for crippled hardware, but DivX (the original crippled DVD competitor) shows how well that works.
It's the control stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's the control stupid! (Score:2)
as long (Score:5, Funny)
Re:as long (Score:2)
Correction: "Here's one for the grammar Nazis:"
Too Little Too Late (Score:5, Insightful)
The cable companies want to take that away from people, and it may have worked, if TiVo had not been so popular. I think the only VoD services that are going to fly will have to give the customer _Total_ control over what they want. I predict that this technology will be limited to VoD for pay-per-view movies, not regular television.
oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the cruel joke is the horrible load of advertising I'm put through to watch generally tasteless, unorginal, mediocre programming. If the TV networks can't adapt to the new style of TV, then they deserve to go out of business.
Re:oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:oh really? (Score:2)
Even if there was high quality television programming and a small amount of advertising - people would still fast forward through the commercials.
Why? Because however small a number they are, they're inconveniant and break up your favourite program.
To put it another way, people who copy software illegially these days claim that they wouldn't do it if the price was cheaper. Yet in the days of the Sinclair Spectrum when games were £1.99/$3 (ie. cheap) there were just as many people copying them.
In other words, however many adverts you put on or however good the quality of the television - viewers are still going to complain about the amount and then skip them. Fact of life.
Re:oh really? (Score:2)
You'd really be surprised at how much you can get done, if you're doing a little hobby programming or electronics instead of watching TV.
You've only got a few hours between work and sleep; spend them watching TV and in a few years you'll be just as stupid and have nothing to show for it.
That's if you don't have kids. If you do, there is no excuse for teaching them that ambition is pointless, and the road to success is sitting on the couch in front of the tube.
Don't watch TV just to keep up with your coworkers. Do something constructive, and grab a few movies off Netflix and watch one or two a week for entertainment.
Re:oh really? (Score:2)
Despite my love of Tivo, I am a little worried about how the networks will adapt. I mean, for now (and prior), Tivo is in it's golden age (people own it, but the networks haven't punished us for not watching their commercials). Soon enough however, one of four things will happen.
1. Tivo will be crushed and go out of buisness.
2. Tivo will remain a small enough % of the population to be ignroed by networks.
3. Networks will start inserting advertisements into television (like they did in old timey radio). This could do a lot of damage to television content and quality (more so then already).
4. We will start having to pay for regular broadcasting tv (either through Tivo, or directly).
I think a world with tivo is better then without, but people need to understand that everyone can't have free, ad-free tv all the time.
Re:oh really? (Score:2)
you know, in many countries you already do this, resulting in goverment funded channels, THAT DON'T HAVE ANY COMMERCIALS, and can have variety of tv shows too(actually required by the law that they serve the smaller portions of population too, iirc at least in my country.)
you say they can't get anything good shown if they're not commercial funded? the hell they do, band of brothers was shown without without adverts in full... and the if you had digital tv the feed was ridiculously good quality too, so you could rip it on dvd equivalent quality (oh yeah they started digital tv transmissions well over year ago). some of the better tv productions are funded by them too.
with some of the tvrips out of usa i just can't understand how much there's commercials crammed in and people still watch, here it isn't that bad on the commercial channels..
i don't watch that much tv though still, like, 2-6 hours per week maximum, i just can't enough of conan o'brien.. which is supposed to be an one hour show? takes around 40-45 minutes here, even though it's on a commercial channel..
Oh really (Score:2)
Keerist you have your knickers on backwards. What gives you the right to tell TV producers how to spend their money, what to produce? It's their money. In fact, even that's not right, it's money they get from advertisers in return for enticing people to watch said ads. If you don't like that exchange, don't participate, no one put a gun to your head. Or be proactive instead of reactive or merely whiny, produce your own shows and entice viewers away from the inferior crap you complain so much about.
What a laugh: the horrible load of advertising I'm put through, freaking amazing what pampered people expect.
Re:Oh really (Score:2)
I don't claim that getting-to-watch-TV-without-ads is my birthright, but I'll take it if I can get it. :-)
FWIW, I'm happy to dump money on those who act in a manner that is compatable with my desires. My local PBS station gets a shitload more money from me, than the amount of money that any commercial network gets from selling ads, divided by the number of people who watch them. (Well, ok, the Superbowl might have a higher ad revenue per viewer payoff, but that's an anomaly.)
Fair enough, no argument there.There is just one thing you should remember. It doesn't apply to cable TV users (and yes, I use cable), which means there's a lot of people it doesn't apply to. But here it is: for over-the-air broadcast, the broadcasters actually do owe us something. What that something is, though, isn't clear. But we give them a government-enforced monopoly on some piece spectrum, we should get something in exchange for that.
Re:oh really? (Score:2)
You forgot the Slashdot corolary that belongs on the end of all such anti-media statements:
"... unless it takes Farscape/Buffy/X-Files/Enterprise/Joe Millionaire off the air, in which case crippled media is our friend!"
Are we that antagonistic? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like iControl (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it comes in a cable through the wall, someone can descramble, store, compress, and distribute it. What in the world would keep me from attaching my TiVo to this thing (which may just be my cable box with Mystro-enabling chips) and TiVo-ing channel 3?
Besides, this thing will never fly, because it would require every TV show to give licensing agreements to AOL/Time Warner. Then, A/TW will have to have a central server that talks to every cable provider in the US. Uh huh...good thing I can TiVo past this on CNN tonight.
Re:Oh, really? Laziness will ground your Tivo (Score:2)
Good for ReplayTV/TiVo (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good for ReplayTV/TiVo (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with this is it assumes the ability to distinguish the difference between Mystro TV and TiVo (for example). But if people only know Mystro and nothing about TiVo, how will they find the restrictions to be annoying? To them they're not restrictions. They're not capabilities taken away from TiVo. They're improvments to regular TV.
Overblown vaporware (Score:2)
Given the investment that would be required, and the current state of the economy, I can't see this happening. There are only marginal differences between this and a Tivo, hardly enough to justify such a huge undertaking.
cable on demand (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine sitting down at 4AM and throwing on the news. It of course would not be live, but who cares. If you can watch it then, then great.
I do own a Tivo, and my TV watching has changed drastically. Unfortunately though, if its 7:30PM on a Sunday and I want to watch the new Simpsons episode at 8:00, I still have to wait. Imagine a system like this:
The channel decides which shows will "air" in a given week, and the viewer has access to ALL of them, at any time. If it's Monday and I want to watch something that typically airs on Friday, no problem. The only caveat with this, is live television. And you know what, if the live broadcast is that good, people will tune in at that time too.
Bad things in store..... (Score:5, Insightful)
This cannot be achieved till the networks collect personal information, spending habits, viewing habits and the like. We all loathed realplayer and windows media player for calling up home about the clips we watch. This is far bigger and more ugly.
Re:Bad things in store..... (Score:2, Insightful)
How does it work? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, does this mean that there is no extra machine to install, and a minumum service cost?
This may be a good thing actually. If you are able to select exactly the content you want to receive and when over the cable, then it's great, as long as the subscription price to cable remains the same. There used to be some widgets to automatically remove advertisements in VCRs. I think it worked by recognizing some special signal that happens when you switch from a program to an ad (among other thinks, the volume is louder). So with this AOL thingy you theoretically can attach a machine that removes the ads, and presto.
In other words (to summarize), I think AOL is aiming to stop people from buying Tivos by offering a cheaper service, and not to replace Tivos.
Re:How does it work? (Score:2)
I have digital cable where I live (Rogers in Toronto, Canada)...and find the VoD service clunky. I would imagine this service would suffer the same "lags and jitters".
-psy
They fear their audience. (Score:3, Insightful)
Those capabilities frighten many at the networks, studios and Hollywood talent agencies.... Letting viewers reshuffle the TV schedule cripples the network's ability to build audiences for new shows by putting them on after hits. More troublesome, the easy fast-forwarding promises to deprive networks of revenue by decimating the audience for commercials.
One more example of an entertainment industry that doesn't understand point-to-point and can't break the ingrained habits of centralized, "broadcast" control. This is what they're supposedly worried about? That scheduling flexibility offered to the audience will prevent people from having new shows scheduled down their throats? A generation of network schedulers is quaking in their boots -- but c'mon, you can't think of any better ways to promote a program? Movies become big hits, almost always, without any such scheduling "in." (The ones that get heavy TV ad time are usually crap: "Master of Disguise," anyone?) And what about the full half of the glass: the people who DO get to watch it who couldn't otherwise? Huh?
And note to TV execs: anything that actually reports, legitimately, the rate of viewing is going to "decimate" your revenues from commercials. We go to the bathroom. The same people who watch commercials for Bud Light and laugh now aren't going to stop. The rest of us hit "mute."
What about the benefits? (Score:3, Interesting)
Every time I see an Old Navy ad, I make a solemn vow never to set foot in one of their stores. Were I allowed to zap these commercials, I wouldn't loathe their store quite so much.
The fact that the commercials are being skipped could be useful information in and of itself. If such information were collected in an aggregate, private way, maybe advertisers would take the hint and stop running stupid commercials.
Sounds like a good idea (Score:2, Interesting)
I do see some reasons why I will still keep my Tivo:
"Or one household might see a commercial for a luxury car while another sees a pitch for an economy model. 'Increase the effectiveness of advertising by sending different ads to different homes,' the demonstration promises."
For those of you wearing tin foil hats that don't want to register go here [nytimes.com]
This doesn't have to be the "TiVo killer" (Score:5, Informative)
If the cable companies want to charge more for it, though, then it may steal some sales from TiVo, but it's more likely that folks will avoid it entirely. I actually think that if some form of digital VCR/on demand technology makes it into the cable network by default, it'll be a bonus for TiVo.
Think about it. Right now, one of the toughest things for TiVo is just explaining it to people. If some TiVo-like capabilities become available by default to everyone, then TiVo actually has something to relate their product to. They can say, in essense, "Mystro isn't bad. But when you want the real thing, try TiVo". That has some potential.
By the way, I explain TiVo to folks by saying "I don't watch any particular network anymore. I watch the TiVo channel, and it knows what I want and shows it to me when I want it, automatically". It seems to work as an explanation.
Oh, yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's just what's always annoyed me about our VCR: it lets me skip ads and watch things when I want to. At last, a recorder that really recreates that "just watching normal TV" feel.
What a pack of dickheads.
TWW
It's a step in the inevitable direction (Score:4, Interesting)
A recent film made in Africa - where copying is rife and people are poor anyhow - demonstrates this wonderfully. Critical Assignment, paid for by Guiness, is a kind of African James Bond action film with sexy women and a cheesy plot. The hero is Michael Power, already famous as the kung-fu kicking hero of Guiness adverts across Nigeria and other countries. I've driven past a huge poster of him in Lagos many times.
While businesses like AOL and Sony are worrying about how to (a) keep their customers and (b) make money from movies and (c) prevent piracy, other more pragmatic businesses are thinking: "piracy is inevitable, so let's use that to our advantage".
To be honest, films like Critical Assignment (which I've not seen, just read about) are probably really bad, but then many commercial efforts are as well. And as competition for viewers heats up (when Guiness's competitors, like South African Breweries and Heineken make their own action movies), quality will go up (or down, if you like).
I think the US/Japanese/Western content industry is too old and inflexible to understand how to use the new digital economy usefully. Expect the next Hollywoods to be in South Africa, Bombay, and Hong Kong, catering for audiences that number in the billion range.
What kind of a name is that? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What kind of a name is that? (Score:2)
The converstion to digital TV with the "broadcast flag" is what the content providers are dreaming about -- then this kind of system is viable, because all the old Tivos and ReplayTVs and PVR card in people's PCs become obsolete, and the Mystro-like order is enforced by the DMCA. In time, you will learn to love it.
-dB
Re:What kind of a name is that? (Score:3, Funny)
Corporate Intelligence (Score:5, Insightful)
So far, only about 700,000 of the most avid television mavens have bought TiVo devices, ...
I am one of those 700,000 folks, but I respectfully disagree with the collection ("avid television mavens") I've been dropped into. I bought my TiVO because I'm *NOT* addicted to the TV and don't want to be. I wanted to choose what and when I watched. I wanted to STOP being a slave to the TV clock.
TiVo has 100% changed the way I watch TV (insert beginning of ad-like-comments). I no longer watch programs that I don't care about "to fill up space." I watch ONLY what I want, when I want.
Oh my yes; plugging in two cables is certainly cumbersome :(
I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that they would say such a thing: this is the same company that stated above that by reducing the number of options you have for your PVR (what you can record, when, and what you can skip) they will attrack more customers from the TiVo ranch.
I now officially hate (AOL) Time Warner! (Score:2, Interesting)
I just hope it's not a ReplayTV killer (Score:2)
"Half Pr.."
"Great Pruh.."
"Mutual of..."
"Sex..."
(7 second instant replay back)
"The earl of sussex wuh....."
"Can you he..."
"And, we're back! Tell me Ann, " (etc).
You guys are missing the point. (Score:2, Insightful)
You get the super feature of Tivo - 80% of the rescheduling power and not having to know when your show is on to record it. You give up the commercial killing stuff and maybe 20% of the rescheduling power. They can sell it cheaper then Tivo, because they are funded by the networks to keep the commercials.
Will it sell? Depends on price.
If you tell me that for a one time payment of $50 bucks, I can get the rescheduling, then YES it will sell and Tivo will die.
If instead they try to price it as competitive with Tivo and then try to make Tivo Illegal, it will not do well, and hopefull the lawsuit will die.
Not a Tivo Killer (Score:5, Insightful)
If you asked me what I loved most about my TiVO, I would say that it lets me watch what I want when I want to. And then second, I can skip commercials. Don't get me wrong, I hate commercials. But time shifting is much more important to me.
The ability to play back shows whenever I want (freeing me from network scheduling) is a major advantage of the technology. It seems like this is what Myestro TV is trying to do.
I can imagine that some shows will allow time shifting for a few days or a week, while others won't have restrictions. I think it could be more flexible than TiVO.
The problem with TiVO is that you have to know what you want to watch before you want to watch it. And you can only record one thing at a time (unless you have two TiVO's or a DirectTiVO). This causes my wife much fretting when she needs to decide between Buffy and Gilmore Girls. With this system, there is no problem. You can watch them both.
Another problem I have found with TiVO is that all the commercials are stale. When I get around to watching a Junk Yard Wars from last week, if I do happen to see a promo for something I might like, it is too late to record it. With this system, I might be able to find it in the archive, or at least when watching a week old show at least I would get up-to-date promos.
The advantages of TiVO are that you can skip commercials, and that you can store things indefinately. These will still be important to some users, so there will always be a market for a personal video recorder.
A completely on-demand television system creates many interesting things. There would be no more schedules, just when shows were available. Television contracts would be rewritten to pay for the amount of plays, not . You might be able to pay a premium to see an obscure show, but you would be able to see it. Commercials might be more geared to the viewer. Broadcasting standards might be lifted (since parental controls could be built into this).
Anyway, sounds interesting. Not that I would want to give up my TiVO.
Network Sponsored *AND* consumer friendly? (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole reason I LIKE my tivo(s) is because I have freedom of choice. I watch what *I* like to watch, when I want to watch it. I don't need a 'MAX HEADROOM' network executive dictating to me when I can watch anything-- including those repetitious commercials!!
Max Headroom said this would happen... (Score:4, Interesting)
It predicted the rise of "BlipVerts" as advertising, in the use of short ads that flash constantly-moving and -changing images to the viewer because the viewers' attention spans had become so increasingly short.
It predicted the common occurrences of computer viruses, tapeworms, timebombs, and Trojan horses as ways of defeating other programs. In fact, one episode showed Max invading an enemy's computer network with an image of a wooden Trojan horse! Of course, today, these are well-known hackers' (crackers') products. It predicted what is known today as "page-jacking," or the surrepticious taking over of another's Web page, calling it "zipping" (of an online broadcast station's signal) in one episode. In the same "zipping" episode it introduced the idea of on-line shopping. It predicted, in a sense, the clandestine use of Web anonymizers or ways of being online without being tracked, calling the people who can do this "blanks."
It also included features such as televisions functioning as webcams, by remote control with two way feed, televisions which are manufactured without shutoff buttons, in a world where the television show/ network with the most ratings wins an election. And of course, my alltime favourite quote from The Max himself, "Why do you think they call it 'programming?'"
But how will it work with my TiVo? (Score:3, Interesting)
You are all missing the point (Score:3, Interesting)
This, in and of itself, does not bother the networks. The networks are largely aware that there is a limited subclass of the population that is going to find ways out of their pay schemes.
Their primary interest is not actually to eliminate this subclass. It's to make sure that they remain a subclass, and that their newfangled PVRs and the like don't spill out into the mainstream. It's only when they fail miserably at this (c.f. mp3s) that they will begin cracking down wildly.
No one really pretends that they can get rid of technological innovation like this. Geeks will always be ahead of the curve. The interest of the networks and corporations in general is in making sure that the mass population doesn't catch up with these foul innovations.
That's what MystroTV is about. Getting the mainstream to avoid fancy stuff like TiVos. The handful of us who already have TiVos? We're only of interest to them in that we'll show them the next innovation they have to keep limited to the elite.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Informative)
What will be interesting is the potential for another technology arms race. Right now TiVo cuts out commercials by sensing black frames that are inserted between prgramming and commercials. Based on the current technology, if the networks start getting fancy with the splices, (say green frames instead of black) Tivo is SOL, that is, atleast, until they upgrade your Tivo software; let the arms race begin.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why do English people have disgusting teeth? (Score:2)
Perhaps there's a correlation?
Now, if only I could get Caffienated Diet Mountain Dew in Canada I might be a happier hacker... mutter, mutter, grumble, socialist, grumble, kvetch, communist, mutter, complain, fascist, grumble, mutter, curse... geez, I miss the U.S.A.! War-mongering Dubya, and all!
Re:Why do English people have disgusting teeth? (Score:2)
it is illegal to market tooth-whitening products in England
One would think it were illegal to sell any oral hygene products in England.
Re:More info (Score:2)
However, having never heard of TubGirl before I wish a thousand demonic monkeys would materialise beside your ears and wrap your testicles around a beanpole, before playing some swingball with them. You bastard.