Oh Look, Another Set-top Box For Streaming Movies
from the heard-this-one-before,-I-think dept
One tech idea that simply won't go away is the set-top box for streaming movies. It's been tried plenty of times before (Netflix, Vudu, Akimbo, Moviebeam, and more) with little success, thanks to technical problems, poor content, bad business models, or some combination of all of them. Each iteration takes a slightly different tack, but the end result usually ends up the same: the dedicated set-top boxes go out with a whimper. Now, there's yet another one coming out, called ZillionTV, with its own take on things. It's the same basic idea: you hook the box up to your TV and your broadband connection, then use it to stream video content. The business model's a little different, though: it will be sold in partnership with ISPs, and users will be able to choose between pay-per-view content without ads, and ad-supported video, including both films and network TV shows. The usual bugbears seem to apply, including worries about the streaming quality and lack of a wide range of content. The ad-supported model, which will be based on targeting ads to users by tracking their viewing habits and other data, is interesting, though TiVo was playing around in a similar space a few years ago and their efforts seem to have gone quiet. What's a bit odd, though, is that the company says the box will cost $100, because "consumers didn't respond as well to free." That's puzzling -- especially if the company really hopes to make its money from advertising. In any case, we definitely won't hold our breath to see if ZillionTV can succeed where so many others have failed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: set-top box, streaming movies
Companies: akimbo, moviebeam, netflix, vudu, zilliontv
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Dear makers of ZillionTV,
I would be more than willing to pay the $100 for the box, but our objective is to receive the content free, both of cost and of advertising.
Good luck to your future. You're going to need it, especially competing against torrent sites that offer what I want at no cost to me whatsoever.
On topic: When will these businesses ever learn? With the XBox 360 and the PS3 (note the exclusion of the Wii here), pushing content seems to be working so I doubt console owners will throw in another box for mediocre crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear makers of ZillionTV,
And I won't be buying one of those ridiculously expensive consoles either. Neither will 95% of the population, so I don't really see why media companies would care about those at all, there's just not enough market share for them to be relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dear makers of ZillionTV,
There's quite a bit of free content available on these consoles.
But you're correct to say owners won't see licensed content. At least, not until Sony/Microsoft pays the extortion, er, licensing fees to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dear makers of ZillionTV,
granted that they are simply on the internet, but thats the point, isnt it? that the service being offered here already exists.
to note -- many many people have bought the ps3 as a bluray player (it is basically the ps3's unique selling proposition).
the fact that, that one device can pull from the internet repository of videos and provide both services (and a slew of other services), makes me wonder why i would pay $100 for this box.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
or as R. Miles suggested free movies no ads (I could even see ppl buying the box for more than $ 100 in such a case).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attempting to put a business model up against torrent sites (as R Miles does) is insane. The difference between earning a living and robbing little old ladies at gunpoint.
It's really quite funny to see the unrealistic expectations created by the whole "free" marketing schemes out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Robbing? Crap, you're one of these pathetic idiots who thinks downloading is stealing, aren't you?
Tell you what, genius. Head over to a torrent site and download anything you want. If you feel bad about taking music, take something you don't feel is copyright.
Now, close your brower, re-open, and return to the page.
Guess what you'll find. The same file. It's still there. You didn't steal it. Everyone can still have access to it regardless how many times you copy it.
Welcome to the world of digital distribution. Low overhead for content distribution.
Yet companies like Warner Music feel $1 per song is justified.
Wrong. Not online. Not when it costs them little to distribute. This is about sheer greed.
And if you think you're going to sit there and call me a thief, you can go screw yourself.
I'M not the thief here. They are. $1 per song is TRUE PIRACY.
Sorry you can't get that. A shame, really, as you're the consumer who continues to fuel these businesses dead model.
Thank you for that. >:(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If nobody is paying for content, who can afford to produce it? Right now you are getting your music and movie free ride on the torrents only because enough people are overpaying for the content in other ways.
Your $1 a song price is in part because a large percentage of total sales are lost because people like you think that the music has not monetary value, and you have no interest in paying for it regardless of the price it is offered at.
digital distribution is only a method to ship the product, not the removal of cost to create it. When nobody pays for music anymore, there will be no more music produced of the current style and quality level.
If you want the shiny baubles of life, you have to pay for them. If you aren't paying for them, then you are stealing them. There isn't very many other ways to get them, now is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't deny them one red cent. That's the record label doing that, or have you not paid attention to artist gripes for over 20 years.
Artists who distribute via a record label isn't going to get my money this way. They'll get it DIRECTLY. And yes, I have done this. Just ask the band Scooter.
Of that $1 per song the DISTRIBUTOR is charging, much of it isn't going to the artist. Don't sit there and think I'm going to line the pockets of a distributor taking advantage of me.
Neither should you.
Your $1 a song price is in part because a large percentage of total sales are lost because people like you think that the music has not monetary value.
You're absolutely correct. I don't place value on the song. I place value on the performance of the song. HUGE difference.
Anyone can sing a song. Some are better at it than others. Distributors don't sing, now do they? Instead, they control the market by falsifying the value of the song.
Let me put it to you this way. Any song by Britney Spears has NO VALUE to me whatsoever. However, a song by Charlotte Church has INFINITE VALUE to me. Why? Because I want one but not the other.
If Charlotte put out a new album on her website and charged me $1 for the song, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. Because I know ALL OF THAT $1 GOES TO HER.
But not through her record label when ONLY PENNIES go to her of that $1.
Screw that. Charlotte's revenues aren't derived from her music. It's from her concerts, which continue to sell out where ever she goes. Never once have I heard her bitching about me copying her music, but I sure do from her record label.
not the removal of cost to create it.
"Singing blah blah blah and no topic at all! Fala lee loo do dippity doo!"
There. I just created a song. It cost me nothing to do it. Sing it, go ahead. I won't sue you. As an artist, if I want this song heard by others, I'm going to give it away for free. I won't charge.
Why? Because if people like my song, they'll come to my concert. They'll buy my merchandise to be part of the experience. THAT'S where my money will be made, by making ME the scarce good, not a song that can be given away infinitely.
And one more thing I want to point out: Just how much does it cost to make a song? Let's assume it's $20,000, k? So, wouldn't it make sense that AFTER $20,000, the song is paid for?
At this point, the song SHOULD be free. Anything over $20,000 is profit, which is used to buy big houses, luxury cars, yachts, etc. The $20,000 obviously will cover the cost of the next song.
And for you to sit there and tell me I'm stealing from this model is laughable, especially when there's so much money being made, both the ARTIST and the RECORD LABEL can buy big houses, luxury cars, yachts, etc. all the while YOUR wallet dwindles paying $1 per song.
Tell me again why I'm the pirate? I'd love to hear this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and you are making the same mistake that all content producers make: the cost of production is fixed and has no impact on price.
the market decides the price it will pay without regard for your fixed costs. you can't just make up numbers to charge and expect success. if you price yourself out of the market, you fail.
the going rate for content online is nothing. you can either sell at that price and have a chance at succeeding or charge more and be guaranteed to fail.
profit is a privilege, not a right. if you want to be guaranteed a profit, then don't make content, get a real job and put your money in a savings account.
show business it risky, that's why everyone's parents tried to talk them out of doing it.
a great way to increase profits is to cut your fixed costs. if a movie costs $200 million to produce and promote, then it has to do $200 million in sales to break even. cutting costs means the film has to do far less in sales to turn a profit.
If nobody is paying for content, who can afford to produce it?
there are plenty of people out there that give their content away and make money. penny arcade is a great example. new comics and other downloadable content every week for free, and they are not only able to make money, but they can raise and donate millions to charity every year.
Right now you are getting your music and movie free ride on the torrents only because enough people are overpaying for the content in other ways.
torrents give the market what it wants: decent quality, ultra low price, freedom, usability, and plenty of choice.
if you want to make money provide something that the torrents can't: convenience, speed, longevity, etc.
Your $1 a song price is in part because a large percentage of total sales are lost because people like you think that the music has not monetary value, and you have no interest in paying for it regardless of the price it is offered at.
paying for songs? hell no. i won't pay for songs, movies, or plastic discs. i will, however, pay for merchandise. i have never purchased an mc frontalot or mc chris cd or a single track, but i have t-shirts for both. i have never purchased a penny arcade or megatokyo comic or book, but i have quite a few t-shirts. the same is true for linux and bsd software.
digital distribution is only a method to ship the product, not the removal of cost to create it.
no one gives a rat's ass about your costs. your costs are not anyone's problem but your own. no one cares how much it costs for GM to make a car, no one cares how much it costs mcdonald's to make a cheeseburger. all we care about is convenience, quality, and price.
the sooner you figure out that fixed costs are your problem, and not the consumers', the sooner you will have a chance at succeeding.
if you want to see people paying for access to free content, take a look at newsgroup services. the content is free, but people pay monthly fees to get it quickly and conveniently.
i would pay for a service that helped me find quality digital content quickly AND recommended new content ala the netflix/amazon recommendation system AND kept me from being hassled by the content compaines. getting my internet access shut off due to a DMCA letter is an inconvenience, not a deterrent, since my provider just switches me back on again.
When nobody pays for music anymore, there will be no more music produced of the current style and quality level.
first off, the current style and quality is total crap.
all the music i pirate is back catalog stuff that has been sold on probably two formats already and may or may not be available for sale anymore. those songs are paid for several times over.
as for new music, i really only listen to independent and underground music that really isn't all that mainstream and most of the time the internet is the only way those artists can distribute and promote their music.
the current state of popular music is dreadful. all the pop stars in the world could die in a fire and i wouldn't care in the slightest.
when it comes to piracy of music, the labels have themselves to blame. they wanted everyone in the world to listen to and buy a small selection of music so they can save money on the manufacture and promotion of their stars.
congratulations! good job! thanks to the record labels and radio conglomerates there are only 40 hit songs in circulation now. your generic music is universal now, which makes pirating it a breeze.
why not inject a whole lot of variety into your pablum?
why not diversify your offerings? why not make music that has cult followings rather than universal appeal? that seems to have worked for the grateful dead.
if you can build a community or a cult around your acts, you are going to see more purchases of merchandise and tickets to events by fanatical fans.
also, if the top40 or the itunes top100 was more like the top ten thousand or the top one million then it would be a lot harder for piracy to reach critical mass because of the sheer volume of music that was available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
music and movies aren't shiny baubles. they are things which are experienced.
if you are in the bauble business, where you are making and selling baubles, and someone takes one, then you are out one bauble. if you want to use or sell that bauble you need to either get it back from the person that took it or create or buy another.
a digital copy of song or movie cannot be stolen. it can be distributed without your authorization, but that is not the same thing as stealing because you still have your original to use or sell or whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually the reason I don't use torrent sites is due to hassle. It's a hassle for me to obtain torrents. I have an SD TV and the cpu hooked to it is simply a pain to look at. I guess I could set up a system to auto-download the shows I want, but again, hassle. Maybe I could download it on my laptop and ftp it? But hassle.
Or I can watch a minute or two of commercials on hulu. The subscription feature keeps up with what shows I like. I setup one icon shortcut to the hulu queue and I'm all set.
So that's the difference in business models. Torrents are a hassle for me, streams with advertising aren't. I look at the ads I watch as buying convenience my wife can use. It's nice if they pay for the content too.
I'm also open to having ads in my content. Suddenly, torrents are free advertising, and the fact that a show gets downloaded 1,000,000 times is a credit and not a negative.
You see my job isn't figuring out how to monetize my attention. My job is to demand things be as cheap, convenient, and high quality as they can be. If we don't demand that, then the population is wasting time and money on inefficiency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really a nice piece of software. Thousands of 'channels' where each channel is more like a show.
Add to that tvrss.net and/or rss feeds from piratebay (or similar sites) and you'll always have the latest episodes of whatever you want to watch (tv shows, internet broadcasts, even youtube searches) waiting for you.
It hooks up to several video sites, but unfortunately I don't think hulu is one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulu
But they need a lot more channels on there. Now it is only NBC and Fox I think. Discovery, History, News channels all in one place. Let Youtube be for community and hulu for corporate.
And they need to keep stuff up. Why ever take something down? You still get ad money if I watch old Brady Bunch crap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me get this straight. The movie industry, the music industry, and the newspaper industry all claim that "you can't compete with free."
Now ZillionTV is telling us that people do not want free. And when faced with a choice between free and paying $100, they'll buy the one costing $100?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, I do. An inferior product would be one with lower quality and/or lacking features of a comparable product.
"No you don't, because you read Mike's crappy blog."
And yet you read it too, so that must mean that you also don't know, right?
"You think you know, but he just twist economics to make himself sound right."
Let's twist again, like we did last summer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In a weird way, I can understand this. People attached money to quality.
I work as a web developer. I used to charge people $10/hr. for my work. It was really good and people complimented me on it often, but I didn't get many clients.
I boosted my price up to more of what I deserve with my experience. $50/hr. People flocked around me trying to get my services.
Why? Because someone charging $10 must be terrible and not at all skilled. Someone charging $50 must know what he's doing to charge that much. It's an incorrect step in logic, but one people make all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yet another?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
95%
http://news.softpedia.com/news/72-of-US-Population-Plays-Games-82413.shtml
Read that article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got all I need
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$100 Paper weight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is how to sell this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New set top box released.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moviebeam, yah, has definately nevef worked, but I don't see Roku's Netflix player going away anytime soon.
Sure, the problem is that Hollywood is sticking their head in the sand and not letting anyone watch their entire library, but that's bound to change sooner or later.
I just got my Amazon update on my Roku last night, and while I won't buy rent anything because of the short viewing window, I was really impressed by how much the catalog had expanded since I checked it last time.
Call me optimistic, but I think its just a matter of time before we'll see more content available elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What (I think) a lot of (families) want.
No monthly fee.
$3-$5/movie. $1-$2/TV show.
*All* movies, TV shows available
Full HDTV (1080p).
Partial download, then stream. (No wait, no stop-and-go).
It's the *all* part (going back decades) that I want most of all because that will let me pick in choose worthwhile things for my kids to watch. For instance, the (original) BBC "Connections" series by James Burke or, say, Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" episodes are good examples. I can't put up w/ the stuff on Discovery/TLC -- com'on American Chopper?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What (I think) a lot of (families) want.
there are too many regional hoops to jump thru, too many studios have to agree, too many lawyers and too many people that will want their share.
now, if you were willing to pay $500 a month, or say buy the box for $15,000 then that would be a different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Video On Demand
I agree with your position on most things but I think your statement about "with little success" is wrong. I think you just wish it were true because it fits your idea about how the world is supposed to be. This kind of undermines my opinion of this blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a Bad Business Model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]