[ad_1]
We are officially in the phase of "binge eating" of the continuous streaming revolution. Every media company and anyone with any interest in capturing a viewing have announced the creation of a streaming content service with an application, a modest library of original content. and, generally, subscription fees.
On the one hand, this multiplication of options is ideal for viewers wishing to break free from arbitrary bundles of strings to get more choices or save a little money. But it has also introduced a lot of complexity and confusion. And if you really want to see a show that only deals with a particular service but can not justify new subscription fees? What happens if there are five cable / cable TV channels that you can not live without? And if you're not crazy going from one application to another on your SmartTV to find and watch what you want?
All of this complexity stems from a major flaw in today's fragmented business model: Content Lords focus on locking viewers onto their private walled garden platforms. The short-term benefits for the winners are obvious. However, the long-term costs for all of us – businesses, consumers and innovators – should also be part of the discussion.
Is there an alternative? Can we spend this moment of fragmentation to create something that serves the best interests of all? I say yes. I see a future of home entertainment based on open platforms, open standards, flexibility and choices. Here's why.
Open is better for consumers
Consumers are obviously the biggest winner in an open future. Freed from platform locks, viewers could choose the broadcasts they wished, regardless of their provider. They could also browse a unified directory of programs to find their favorite content, without having to remember the programs broadcast on which services.
From a technology perspective, it's quite simple to create a meta-service that serves as a standard, connecting content viewers to providers and enabling them to access the revenue and data they need, while offering viewers a single, simple point of entry for the entire market. entertainment universe on the device of their choice. Hardware devices such as Amazon Fire, Apple TV, and Roku include cross-platform search, but they also-or will soon-have their own streaming services to broadcast.
JustWatch is an example of a company offering true inter-service discovery and discovery, independent of any hardware or service provider. Reelgood, another young company, goes one step further by allowing you to view content via its front end and transmit the data to interested parties via its recent acquisition, Guidebox.
Open it's better for innovation
An open model will bring faster improvements to the viewing experience. This will release innovation from the constraints of the internal systems. We will not have to wait for cable companies or streaming services to develop and implement new features according to their own schedule, using patented technology, and mbadively duplicating investments to track improvements such as RA / VR, better display resolution, interactive video, etc. the rest comes.
Instead, an open, standards-based technology platform would enable agile startups and small businesses to focus on solving big problems for the entire industry. It works in software development, and it will work for entertainment.
We already see examples at the micro level with plug-ins that allow users to adjust Netflix when viewed via a browser, such as LifeHacker's FlixPlus. Now imagine this "browser extension" model applied to smart TV and multimedia viewing applications universally across multiple streaming services, to enable everything from image optimization and performance to the integration of features such as AR / VR.
Open it's better for providers
This one seems counterintuitive, so stay with me here. The providers want viewers and, for now, they think the best way to get them is to capture them through subscription templates and closed platforms. The risk they run is to have only a few seats at the table – only a limited number of subscriptions for which consumers will pay. Everyone will lose the game or end up with a hard-to-reach niche audience.
There is also concern that consumers are fed up with the complexity and limitations of the subscription model and will fall back on the lack of bundled services. If this happens, almost everyone loses. Open systems offer equal conditions for all. It's not as good as having all the ground for you, but it's better than being left out.
Can this happen?
The open future of home entertainment sounds like an absolute dream today, as everyone loads ammunition for Streaming Wars and continued fragmentation seems to be our short-term destiny. But we can arrive at this vision.
At present, only a few bare outlines are visible through the work of some pioneering startups navigating in the opposite direction of the wind. Perhaps we still do not have all the answers on what the future can or should look like, let alone on any kind of roadmap of the product stating how to achieve it. What we have is what every entrepreneur needs: a set of problems to solve regarding simplification, rapid innovation and market access.
I firmly believe that we (as a collective industry) can solve these problems by developing innovative technologies, protecting and respecting this intellectual property and allowing it to spread through licenses rather than acquisition or development. cloisonne. Once this approach has taken root – and there are good business reasons to believe it – the rest of the elements can come from it.
The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of TiVo or VentureBeat.
Arvin Patel is an Inventor and Executive Vice President and Director of Intellectual Property (OPIC) at TiVo.
Source link
