|
|  |
| |
|
| | The Un-Marketing Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | | W-Fi-TV vs. Cable | Views: 1158 | | Jan 06, 2007 4:27 pm | | W-Fi-TV vs. Cable | # | 
Lamar Morgan 954-603-7901 | | On another network I was introduced to Wi-Fi-TV. It's huge and I was not even aware of its existence. Is the future of marketing through television going to be on The Internet? Are people actually going to prefer to watch TV programs on their computer screens via The Net rather than traditional cable or satellite networks?
I used to look upon services as YouTube as something of a novelty. But lately, I see even the Fox News Channel using YouTube to report many of its news stories.
Lamar Morgan
CDMM
www.squidoo.com/CDMM
Attract more customers! Private Reply to Lamar Morgan 954-603-7901 | | Jan 08, 2007 6:30 pm | | re: W-Fi-TV vs. Cable | # | 
Angelo Cerase | | I don't think that tv over the internet will replace regular tv, the same way that tv did not replace radio, and radio did not replace newspapers.
Rather it is just another way to reach a potential audience. Decades ago, the only way to watch the news was at 6pm on one of the few major networks. Elvis Presley (Happy Birthday Elvis!) used to have 3 tvs side-by-side so he could watch the news on all three US networks at the same time, because he heard the US president used to do the same.
Then stations like CNN came along with news 24 hours a day. 15 years ago CNN was your only option, but now there are so many 'CNN-style' stations that I've lost count.
With lower distribution costs for 'alternative' ways to reach your audience decreasing, choices for consumers are growing.
FOX News already spends $$$ on producing video. It doesn't cost them that much more to get an intern to take that video and post it on YouTube. It may not turn a profit directly, however it does increase brand recognition to a new audience.
One "station" that would not have been possible even 5 years ago is this one (forgot the name) that caters to bicycle racing enthusiasts. Where it's not feasible for a regular tv station to broadcast a bicycle race (other than the Tour de France) on tv for the small number of viewers that it would get, one company broadcasts numerous races live year round for the hardcore fans that are more than happy to pay the subscription fee. It's a win-win situation for all - fans get to watch a race they otherwise would not have been able to, the company providing the service makes money, and the race organizers get paid AND get increased exposure to their race.
Fortunately the link between your TV and your computer will finally be bridged soon. Check out whatever Apple releases tomorrow at Mac Expo to see what the future of the computer-to-TV will be. Fortunately Apple has seen the light and whatever multimedia device they create should be available for both Windows and Mac users, just like the iPod.
AngeloPrivate Reply to Angelo Cerase | | Jan 10, 2007 12:34 am | | re: W-Fi-TV vs. Cable | # | 
Russ Jackman | | Hi Lamar,
First, please clarify: are you referring to IPTV (video delivered over internet protocol) with a wi-fi (802.11x) component, or the company/website Wi-FiTV?
If the former, yes I think IPTV and WiFi (actually, WiMax and wireless mesh technologies) will make video content available pretty much anywhere, anytime, on almost any type of device you can imagine. I'm a big fan of Nortel for that reason, as IPTV, WiMax and wireless mesh are technologies that they should dominate in over the next several years.
If you are referring to the website / company Wi-FiTV, I'm not as convinced. They want an awful lot of money to "buy" a channel, which is really nothing more than selling a subdomain on any other website for $25,000, and covering bandwidth / hosting costs for $5,000 per year. You have nothing of value outside of the company, so the fortunes of your "channel" are tied to the success (and continued existance) of their company. If visitors / viewers count in the hundreds for your "channel", it is expensive; if in the hundreds of thousands or millions, then they could be a victim of their own success ... even at $5,000 per year per "channel" they couldn't come close to covering YouTube's $1 million plus per month bandwidth costs.
They also have nothing really proprietary as far as I can tell, as there are other video delivery sites, video conferencing "rooms" and other "social networking by video" alternatives. That doesn't mean they won't be successful, but as far as I can tell they are basically a video-based portal site. Don't let the initials "TV" confuse you, they do not offer any form of "television" services other than streaming existing content (again, basically a portal for content, some of which happens to be produced by traditional TV outlets) that for the most part is available elsewhere.
All that said, it's also important to remember that we won't be watching video content (whether "TV", video on demand, YouTube, whatever) on our computers in the corner of our livingroom, kitchen or bedroom for long.
The increasing popularity of high-def panels, combined with home media servers (video and audio), mean that our HDTV will become our windows to the world ... the actual source of the signal (whether ATSC, cable/satellite, internet, etc.) will be irrelevant, they will all converge into that one display for entertainment and information.
Russ Jackman
http://www.InternetAdvisor.caPrivate Reply to Russ Jackman | | Jan 13, 2007 3:51 am | | re: re: W-Fi-TV vs. Cable | # |
Lamar Morgan 954-603-7901 | | Russ,
What I am hearing online is that while Wi-Fi-TV, the company, may be a risky pink sheet stock speculation - despite their high-profile participation at the Consumer Electronics Show - the idea that the Internet may soon provide real competition for TV viewers - is not. In fact, the cover of this month's Time Magazine is focused on Web 2.0 innovation promoting citizen media - through blogging, podcasting and Internet TV. It is really amazing to me. So much is now freely available to the public if they are willing to take the time to provide content. Squidoo.com gives you FREE web space they call an "online lens." Talkshoe.com allows you to freely conduct interactive podcasts. Skype.com allows you to make free Internet phone calls anywhere in the world and transmit files of any size. But, I do not think we have arrived at the place where a TV station can be contained within a desktop computer. I think there will always be a need for a real studio with real people working the cameras, switcher, etc.
Lamar Morgan
CDMM
www.squidoo.com/CDMM
Attract more customers! Private Reply to Lamar Morgan 954-603-7901 | | |
| |
| |
