Google reportedly trying to bring TV to the Internet
posted by Michael H. / Jul 16, 2013, 7:06 PM
The standard term for the idea of setting up what would essentially be a cable provider service over the Internet is an "over-the-top" service. Google is the latest in a string of giant companies to attempt to woo media companies into licensing their content for an Internet TV service, and it wouldn't be a surprise if Google is also the next in line to fail in the attempt. Media companies are entrenched in the old business model of cable TV, and would rather try to destroy the Internet than change their business models to accommodate the modern on-demand streaming vision of media consumption. The idea is to ease media companies into the transition by simply offering the same controlled media on a different medium. So, instead of flipping through channels coming through a set-top box, you'd be flipping through channels in your browser.
The report from WSJ says that Google has even shown a demo of how the service would work to potential content partners, although no deals are expected any time soon. The biggest trouble is that media companies tend to give the best deals to established providers (like your cable company), but web service companies don't get such a good deal, not to mention that many providers have specific deals with cable or satellite providers that gum up the works.
Google has had talks with media companies in the past. Intel has been trying to make deals for about a year now. Apple has been rumored to be working on a true Apple TV with media company support for over a year now as well. Everyone wants in, but no one can make the deals it seems.
This is a novel idea, but Michael let's be real here you can not replace the traditional box top tv. No matter what the current trend is with people wanting to do more streaming with services like Netflix and others, the tv will still be going strong. I think you're again exaggerating somewhat here by implying that current cable companies business practices and ideas are archaic and unchanging.
posted on Jul 16, 2013, 7:35 PM 2
Posts: 483; Member since: Mar 05, 2013
It's about the worry of relinquishing control. If they move over to the internet, which is Google's playground, they're in a more vulnerable and non-negotiable position.
posted on Jul 16, 2013, 8:42 PM 1
Posts: 201; Member since: Oct 02, 2012
When it comes to technology, everything evolves and changes. Box top television is no different. In 1996, did anyone think cell phones would be what they are today? Whether its from Google, or the cable providers directly, one day cable boxes will be no more.
posted on Jul 17, 2013, 12:17 AM 2
Posts: 910; Member since: Jun 28, 2012
Hopefully sooner than later. Cable companies are worst companies to deal with. I know many people (and I am on the Verge of doing the same) that are so tired of dealing with them that have canceled their tv plans and opted for Netflix and Hulu running on a Roku, Google tv or Apple tv box. The only thing that keeps me vested is football and soccer games but I'm willing to take the treck to a sports bar just so I don't have to deal with them.
posted on Jul 17, 2013, 9:39 AM 0
Posts: 910; Member since: Jun 28, 2012
He's not exaggerating at all. Do you find it normal that cable provider lobbyists fought hard for TVs not to come with compatible card readers just so you are forced to rent the boxes and remotes from them. It's completely archaic and stupid. Cable companies and their practices are horrible and many of us can't wait to get rid of them for a better way of doing things.
posted on Jul 17, 2013, 9:43 AM 0
Posts: 58; Member since: Dec 15, 2011
What is the difference between this and being able to access tv through your cable companies apps? Comcast, Direct TV, Dish...they all have them. It seems like a pointless combo to me. Besides, you cant replace the experience of a 70 inch tv at home vs a tablet. Who cares if the content comes over the internet, through a dish, or through cable. People want the content, and dont care that much about delivery in that method because it is not as convenient.
posted on Jul 16, 2013, 7:41 PM 0
Posts: 776; Member since: Oct 17, 2012
this is the future! why would we continue to have dedicated infrastructure specifically for television? also i wonder what kind of money a company like Directv would save if they didn't have to supply, install, and maintain all of that hardware.
posted on Jul 16, 2013, 9:08 PM 0
Posts: 1409; Member since: Sep 29, 2012
Well for one American living in Europe, since the early 80's... I love getting TV channels here on the internet. I currently use USTVnow. com... It's my home away from home. Only difference is we're 6 hours ahead of the U.S., so Jay Leno and the Tonight Show comes on at 05:35 in the morning.
posted on Jul 17, 2013, 2:20 AM 0
Posts: 27; Member since: Nov 29, 2012
I'm surprised that Aereo wasn't mentioned on this article. The service is using traditional antennas to give over-the-air tv to clients, and the media/cable companies are very upset, even though they are making the same money from the same adds. The only difference is that they are not getting the extra money from renting the antennas. You all should read up on it, if it interests you. Ultimatly the big media companies aren't old or unchanging, they are greedy. They want to be the only ones making any money from the content, and allowing it to be broadcasted online will take control, and profit, from their hands.
posted on Jul 17, 2013, 12:15 PM 0
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):