No theme as "the future of TV" has seen overlapping, over the years, the disparate views of the professionals. Everyone has an idea, more or less "informed" about where it going to end "the television" (so named because it still is): technologists, futurists, massmediology, socio-anthropologists, actors, authors, television hosts, hardware manufacturers, advertising. The basic problem is that "television" each means a different thing, so everyone can talk about everything: the "channels", "programs", the "TV" in a big rotisserie of the views of fulfillment, on time, some myths as "digital," "interactivity" and even "three dimensions". For what it is my job, I think I put out from this debate, because the questions I posed are usually disregard these different approaches, and require a response very secular, "there is no money in the 'new TV 'and if so, when they arrive? and where they are? ". Well, in 2011, the answer is very simple: money in the "new TV" - that, to be leading the infinite wealth of Web content on the screen in the living room, overcoming their supply chains and business models of today - there are none . They say the reports and forecasts from leading analysts, and there is no reason to doubt it.
But this answer seems
lapidary hides various shades. Meanwhile, even if money is not short if you will, in this game should begin to invest seriously (and we'll see why) the various actors involved:
- the traditional broadcasters, driven by the need to respond to new trend of use of users, also to diversify their offerings
- manufacturers of consumer electronics, for which the "net-enabled TV" is a major commercial lever
- 's Over The Top-TV operators, which are the main bearers of the new culture of use, and potentially infinite diversity of content
- telecommunications operators, which may put in place some valuable asset and are difficult to duplicate for distribution and monetization of these new content
Meanwhile, the traditional TV, linear and bound by the schedules, will not die at all, but should begin to think about their role "to strive", which could be to focus on televised events, "combining", namely those that are consumed in a shared, simultaneous, and offline - ie in the home - and online - that commented on the network in real time.
In the new television ecosystem "Net-enabled", however, making the contents of an infinite resource, the focus will be the real scarce resource which will focus on the climax of the battle. And at that point levers such as image quality, continuity of service and effectiveness of the user experience through the various device will point advantage for those who can guarantee them.
will also be essential to know how to ride the trend to use not only the transition from vision "Lean Forward" typical of the computer to "Lean Back" governed by the sofa, but also leverage the importance of sharing with friends: people not only like to point out the most interesting content to their circle of knowledge, but also love to receive something recommended by a friend of theirs, which then becomes a further topic of conversation, and then socialize.
The myth of the power of search engines in this field is rapidly disintegrating. And not just because these search engines require a continuous interaction, the enemy of relaxed enjoyment. But above all, because nothing like the ability to select in the 'internet sea ", typical of a true centralized preparation (see in this regard the success of" staff picks "of Vimeo) or decentralized (with the recommendations of friends) can really to meet our interests, to know what is the "Better for All", the "Better for a certain type of people," and finally what is "best for me." The pleasure, therefore, to encounter this personalization push, ending surprised by the intelligence of the application. Just as is already the case - successfully - in the music world thanks to services like Last.Fm, who learn from our "Like" and our "skip".
But back to the original question: why, given that the money in 2011, and for a few more years yet, in this new TV are not there, the players mentioned above would make any serious investments nell'assecondare these trends and provide immediately the best possible user experience? The answer is simple: because, like many other "internet businesses" even that of the Web screen TV in the living room may be one of those killer application in which there is only one winner. Someone like Google can monetize now as simple Pià (with AdSense, for example). Or a hardware manufacturer like Apple could cut a piece of 'Internet Sea ", namely that it does not create problems of use for end users (Apple TV). Or a person "Over The Top" as integral Blip.tv, free to regroup all that is in the network by leveraging distributed creativity of independent content owners pushed to its limits, and ready to reward it with intelligent services platform. Or maybe a telco, that at some point might be the only one able to run everything, especially if the explosion of video traffic would bring out all the technological problems of the case.
If only one wins, you might not necessarily because the strategy got it final, but maybe just because it has been able to offer the first on the two sides (end-users and content providers) a sustainable value proposition. At that point the subject would be sufficient to occupy the center of the new ecosystem and dictate the rules for all other stakeholders, namely the rules that are particularly profitable for him. The key is to overcome the "Tipping Point", a critical mass of no return. E 'already successful with iTunes, Skype, and even some standards of the past, not necessarily the best ones on the square (think VHS). And it could happen again.
[image Island Virtual ]
0 comments:
Post a Comment