The FiOS deal sounds sweet enough—watch live TV through your Xbox 360!—until you realize it’ll require you already have a Verizon FiOS subscription. In that sense, Verizon’s deal is like all the others from cable providers who offer their services through devices likes computers or laptops. What sounds wonderful in theory—the ability to watch live TV without a cable box—turns out to require the cable box after all, and a regular subscription to boot. Instead of supplanting cable boxes, your computing devices become adjuncts to an aging, increasingly old-school method for consuming digital content, not the independent pipelines for discrete digital content they’re capable of being…and that so many consumers seem to be looking for.

Underlying all of this: The balkanization of cable content, which seems as inevitable now as its print analogue did years ago. In the late 1990s, if my wife wanted to read the daily comic strips, she had to buy a newspaper and pluck that particular broadsheet from the “entertainment” section, either discarding the rest, recycling it, or marking it for campfire (or fireplace) kindling. Today, by contrast, she just visits a website like GoComics.com and shuffles through whatever’s on offer. She hasn’t leafed through (much less bought) a print newspaper in years.

That’s had an understandably disastrous impact on print and related media, which spent decades subsidizing “hard news” reporting and content with lighter (and more broadly appealing) fare. People bought newspapers for stuff in the entertainment or “living” sections or the tucked-inside coupons, but wound up paying for all the parts bypassed and of interest to much smaller numbers of readers. For better or worse, that’s the way it goes–you can’t force people to pay for content they don’t want when that content’s available unbundled elsewhere.

It’s been a question in my household and among friends for years: Why, in this era of Netflix and Hulu and YouTube and I-pay-for-what-I-want-and-nothing-else, don’t we have the option to purchase a subscription to just a handful of channels? What if all I care to watch is CNBC? AMC? The CW? The Learning Channel? The Food Network? Some combination of those, or any of the hundreds of others?

The practice of bundling is under fire, and has been for years. True, à la carte pricing would cost more on a per-channel basis (and relatively speaking), but I’d gladly pay more per channel per month for one or two channels I’ll genuinely watch, instead of $60 or $80 or $100 a month for hundreds of channels I never will. And don’t forget the political “feedback” component: How many times have you wished to keep or cancel a channel because you wanted to send a message of one sort or another? Backed away from canceling because it meant canceling everything? This all or nothing business only works, in terms of justification, when there’s one way to access content. These days, serious Internet-driven alternatives pop up annually.

But okay, let’s leave the cable-bundling debate aside: There’s another reason to frown (granted, small frown) at the Xbox Live-Verizon FiOS deal. You have to be both a FiOS TV and Internet subscriber to access it, for starters–that much you’d expect. But you also have to be an Xbox Live Gold member. Gold tier membership costs $60 a year, or $5 a month. You’re essentially paying extra, if you’re not already a Gold subscriber, for the “privilege” of not having to tap the “input” button on your TV remote when you want to switch from game-playing to TV-watching (assuming your Xbox 360 connects to a TV that’s already cable-wired, that is—for those planning to use the 360 with a TV that’s not connected, it’s probably a more justifiable perk).

Microsoft’s been sticking stuff like this behind the pay-wall for years now, and customers seem happy enough to pay the bill, but when you look at the revenue model, it starts to feel less like a “value” thing and more like gratuity. Microsoft rival Sony offers comparable features through its PlayStation Network at no cost, taking care to place original content (and not third-party front-ends) behind its PlayStation Plus pay-wall. Industry pundits have nothing but plaudits for Microsoft’s monetization skills, and I’ll tip my hat to Microsoft’s clear success here, but as long as less expensive alternatives exist from serious contenders, you’ll never convince astute consumers that paying more for “the same” equals more.
In a more ideal world, Verizon would allow customers to subscribe to content on a channel-by-channel basis (or at least in smaller, demographically informed bundles) directly over the Internet–no need for cable boxes or secondary subscriptions. And in that world, Microsoft would either enhance its tie-in service in a way that actually justified the Gold membership markup, or offer it outside Xbox Live’s pay-wall.

[This post republished from Techland.

A year ago, the first devices based on Google TV–Logitech’s Revue box and some Sony TVs–debuted. Initial irrational exuberance over for the platform melted away quickly: The software was buggy and confusing, and major media companies such as the big networks started blocking Google TV from streaming their content.

And then everybody sort of forgot about Google TV for the most part. Google occasionally said that it was working on an improved version, but the platform made news most recently when Logitech said that the Revue’s sales had been catastrophically bad. I began to worry the Google TV wouldn’t make the cut of arrows that Google wanted to put wood behind.

Now Google is talking about Google TV again. Rather than hyping expectations, the company is taking an intentionally subdued approach–its blog post is titled merely “An Update on Google TV,” which sounds at first like it might be a warning that it’s winding down. But the news is good: Sony TVs will be getting the new version early next week, and the Revue will get it soon thereafter. (There apparently won’t be any new Google TV devices until 2012.)

After just about everybody agreed that Google TV was too complex, the company decided to focus on making it simpler. For the most part, it sounds like it’s not adding new stuff so much as trying to make what’s already there easier to use. It’s streamlining the interface, beefing up the emphasis on YouTube, and introducing a new Movies & TV app designed to help you find stuff to watch, whether it’s on cable or on the Internet. (The original Google TV had a feature that let you Google for TV in a way that felt much like the classic Google search engine–it’s still there, too.)

Oh, and there’s one major addition that will give Google TV all-new capabilities: This Android-based software is finally getting access to the Android Market. You’ll only see apps–about fifty at first–that will work well on a TV, including existing ones and ones tailored specifically to Google TV.

It’s dangerous to get too excited about Google TV based on screenshots and explanations and videos–after all, the original version demoed a lot better than it actually worked. But I’m glad to see that Google has been so quiet not because it had lost interest but because it didn’t want to raise expectations too high. Google TV still has plenty of potential–and nobody else, including Apple, has nailed the living-room Internet TV box yet.

I’m going to update the Revue I have when the new version is available and will let you know what I think.

At some point, all the unhappy Netflix campers will leave, and I still think that the company is going to a good place with its streaming service. At the moment, though, it needs to repair its reputation. It needs to prove that it cares about its customers and isn’t going to spring any more bizarre surprises on them. It needs to show that it has an adequate degree of self-awareness. It just needs to be normal for a while.

Roku, which pretty much invented the cheap, easy-to-use Internet TV streaming box, is the sort of scrappy startup which you might have assumed would get steamrolled by mammoth competitors early on. Instead, it’s continued to do well even as Apple and Google have muscled in on its territory–in part because it’s a fine product, in part because it’s aggressively priced, and in part because the lineup of content is good and keeps getting better.

Today, Roku has news on two of those fronts. It’s introducing a new basic model called the Roku LT that brings the price down to $49 for the first time–cheap for a Roku, and absurdly cheap in a market in which some products cost $200 or more. The LT does 720p video, and joins fancier models at $59, $79, and $99. (The top of the line Roku 2 XS does casual gaming, including Angry Birds.)

Are there people who wouldn’t buy a $59 Roku who will buy a $49 one? Roku thinks so, and it does sound like a lot of fun for the money. It’ll be available from Roku and retailers in early November.

Roku is also announcing that it’s adding the HBO GO streaming service to all Roku players at the end of this month. HBO includes moves and full seasons of all HBO shows, and is available only to people who subscribe to HBO via cable or satellite. It joins more than 300 other channels on Roku, including Netflix, Amazon Video on Demand, Hulu Plus, Pandora, Major League Baseball, and much more.

So even though I haven’t been at Netflix in a long time, I can easily imagine the growing frustration they must have felt these last few years as they made decisions they knew were suboptimal for the streaming business in order to maintain compatibility with the DVD business.  How to work out pricing that covers multiple use cases.  How to come up with messaging that embraces two different ways to receive movies.  How to manage the significant differences in the content available between the two services.  How to simplify the landing page and sign up flow.

Well no longer.  Not having to worry about compatibility between the services makes it infinitely easier to optimize every decision around the real prize, which is clearly streaming.  Pricing.  Messaging.  Content.  Sign-up-flow.  All better now.

Randolph doesn’t defend Netflix’s communications about the price hike, name change, and related matters: He calls them “ham-handed” and “tone-deaf.” But I wonder how well Netflix customers would be taking the news if the company’s communications had been flawless, and if it had come up with a way better name than “Qwikster.”

I don’t come away from Randolph’s piece entirely convinced of the righteousness–ham-handed, tone-deaf messaging aside–of what Netflix is doing. Or maybe I’m so convinced that I don’ think the company’s going far enough. I mean, if renting DVDs by mail is so unpleasant a business to be in, shouldn’t Netflix just sell, spin off, or shutter Qwikster? Sooner or later, it’s going to take one of those actions. Why not do it today, rather than complain about all the downsides of disc rentals and how they’re standing in the way of the streaming business?

This whole Netflix-Qwikster split had a fair number of people wondering if Reed Hastings had lost his mind. Hastings is no dummy, though, so there’s got to be some sort of method to the perceived madness.

Industry analyst Michael Pachter wrote in a note to clients the very same thing; that there’s “a method to their madness,” reports MarketWatch.

Pachter’s theory? Netflix could sell its streaming business to Amazon, a company with deep pockets that’s been aggressively trying to make inroads with its digital content offerings. It’s done well with digital books, it’s still trying to get its footing with digital music, and perhaps now we get to see how big it can go with movies and TV. And what better way to go big with streaming movies and TV than to buy the company best known for streaming?

But why split the company in two and just sell the streaming features to Amazon? Turns out it might have something to do with taxes. Since Netflix has physical distribution centers in various parts of the country, Amazon would ostensibly have to start collecting sales tax in those same areas—but just selling streaming bits of entertainment wouldn’t be taxable.

Another potential plus to Amazon’s deep pockets: It might have an easier time securing deals with content companies. Netflix’s leverage so far is that it has customers who want to watch content. Amazon has the same, but it also has customers who want to buy physical DVDs, music, and just about anything else a content company might produce—tangible or otherwise.

I actually love this idea from a consumer perspective for two reasons: One, there’s a chance that Amazon might bundle access to all this new content with its $79-per-year Amazon Prime expedited shipping offering. Amazon already doles out free streaming for certain titles but most of it’s older and/or more obscure stuff—nothing like you’d find on Netflix.

Second, imagine this: You want to watch a current season of a TV show or a newer movie but it’s not available for unlimited streaming. In Netflix’s current state, it’s either just not available or maybe it’s available via the DVD-by-mail service (that’s more complicated, too, now that you have to use two different sites and accounts).

With Amazon integration, anything that wasn’t available for instant streaming as part of your unlimited monthly package could be offered to you either as a paid stream through Amazon’s Video on Demand service or as a physical DVD purchase through Amazon’s online store. That’d be convenient for consumers and could be pretty lucrative for Amazon, too.

[via MarketWatch]

[This post is republished from Techland]

If Dish had managed to come out with something more directly competitive with Netflix/Qwikster during the worst PR week in that company’s history, it would have been a huge coup. Instead, Movie Pass looks like it might appeal to current Dish subscribers or folks who were flirting with getting the service anyhow, but it won’t prompt unhappy Qwikster campers to leave in droves.

Dish does say that it’ll announce a version of Movie Pass that doesn’t require satellite service soon, but it’s not a given that it’ll be able to blow away Netflix/Qwikster. For one thing, the $10-per-month charge (which includes one disc at a time) is made possible by the economics of Dish’s existing agreements with content owners; anything it can offer to non-Dish subscribers will cost more. Also, it isn’t yet competing with Netflix in terms of sheer volume of streaming content: It’s starting with 3,400 movies and TV shows streamable to TVs via a Dish box and 4,000 streamable to PCs, vs. tens of thousands of titles available on Netflix.

Oh, and there aren’t Blockbuster streaming apps for iPhones, iPads, and Android phones yet, although it sounds like they’re in the works.

Blockbuster already has movie rentals and purchases over the Internet, including newer titles not available with the all-you-can-watch service. (Last time I tried it, it was very disappointing–it didn’t even fully support Windows 7–but it may have improved.) The company didn’t announce any integration between this service and Movie Pass today, but that too seems like an area where it could beat Netflix, which doesn’t have any options for people who are willing to pay more to stream the latest stuff.

I still hope that Netflix/Qwikster repairs its current unhappy relationship with a meaningful percentage of its customers, but it’s going to take a while. (Assuming it doesn’t reverse course on the split-up, we won’t really know its full impact until the deed is done.) But the fact that the company that killed Blockbuster is giving Blockbuster the opportunity to kill (or at least wound) it is a remarkable turn of events.

I wonder how quickly Dish/Network can come up with a no-Dish version of Blockbuster Movie Pass, and just how compelling they could make it?

Branding company Strategic Name Development–the outfit that named Wendy’s Baconator, among other products and companies–has already conducted a survey of five hundred consumers, and…they don’t like “Qwikster” either! Or at least they find it confusing. (Only 19 percent say it’s a good name for a service that does its business by mail.)

I found the data and comments so interesting that I’m just going to embed the entire report. (I hope it’s adequately legible–I’m doing this on my iPad.)

Of course, there are other examples of names that got rocky initial receptions that stuck it out and found success–Nintendo’s Wii is an excellent example. And I suspect that Netflix isn’t going to kill “Qwikster” even before it starts using it. But I’m still startled that it was the best thing Netflix could come up with–and a nagging voice keeps asking me whether it’s lame on purpose, since Netflix is trying to wean people off DVDs.

So here is what I think happened with Netflix’s recent price change (for the record, I have no inside data here, this is just an educated guess). Netflix has for the past several years been negotiating with Hollywood for the digital rights to stream movies and TV series as a single price subscription to users. Their first few deals were simply $X million dollars for one year of rights to stream this particular library of films. As the years passed, the deals became more elaborate, and the studios began to ask for a % of the revenues. This likely started with a “percentage-rake” type discussion, but then evolved into a simple $/user discussion (just like the cable business). Hollywood wanted a price/month/user.

This is the point where Netflix tried to argue that you should only count users that actually connect digitally and actually watch a film. While they originally offered digital streaming bundled with DVD rental, many of the rural customers likely never actually “connect” to the digital product. This argument may have worked for a while, but eventually Hollywood said, “No way. Here is how it is going to work. You will pay us a $/user/month for anyone that has the ‘right’ to connect to our content – regardless of whether they view it or not.” This was the term that changed Netflix pricing.

It’s not surprising to see TiVo go upscale–unfortunately, the company has already lost the war for mainstream DVR users with cheap rental boxes from cable companies. Over at ZDNet, Ed Bott recently wrote an interesting post on the fall of the DVR which noted, among other things, that TiVo’s user base has fallen from a high of 4.4 million in 2007 to 2 million today. It makes sense for it to focus its efforts on the most serious DVR fans, but I’m still sad that TiVo–or its original rival, ReplayTV–never became the pervasive gadget that it seemed like it could be a decade ago.

Is TiVo quietly working on anything that’s not a beefier model of its current box but something all-new, and maybe designed for a world in which recording TV is less important than streaming TV? I hope so.

I’m still a happy owner of a TiVo Series 3 (the last generation before the current generation); about 90% of the cable TV I watch is really TiVo’d cable TV. It does the job for me. (I rarely want to watch or record two things at once, let alone four.) I paid for lifetime service for this box and plan to run it into the ground. And if the day comes when I’m in the market for another DVR, I really hope that I’m moved to get another TiVo rather than break down and rent a lowest-common-denominator cable-company DVR.

Then again, by the time I can’t get this TiVo to work, it’s at least conceivable that I’ll have dumped cable altogether…