In 2003, Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom launched Skype, an online communication tool that has forced some of the world’s largest telecommunications groups to rethink their business models. Now they are hoping to do the same for television.
“At the time we launched Skype, broadband capacity was extremely ripe for communication,” Mr Friis recalls. “Now, three years later, it’s the same thing for video: you can do TV over the internet in a really good way. TV is a huge medium – that’s something we’d like to be a part of.”
The Venice Project’s blog describes its mission as “fixing TV, removing artificial limits such as the number of channels that your cable or the airwaves can carry and then bringing it into the internet age”.
At this point in time, anyone who can offer easy access to IPTV — and independent programming — is worth attention.
At this point in time, anyone who can offer easy access to IPTV — and independent programming — is worth attention.
While I agree with this point, the problem with their new venture is that the same people interested in IPTV are those interested in HDTV (the high end crowd).
HDTV can’t be done well over the ‘net as of yet, and there isn’t enough interest in new methods of distributing SDTV to drive the market in the same way Skype did.
I agree, James, no one’s talking about the whole potential market. But:
1. Have you downloaded Leo’s MacBreak in 1080p? Presuming — as I imagine the Venice Project folks are — an off-peak download, screen resolution is terrific on my widescreen Cinema Display.
SD is still useful, too — when it’s available in 16×9.
2. Have you joined the group experimenting with the HR20-700 DirecTV receiver? Experiments with the Serial ATA port seem to be working just fine — with some of the folks using a few terabytes of external storage.
Latest experiments with the ethernet port [we’re not running video, yet] make it possible [to an optimist like me] they’ll be announcing web-accessed video/TV content that can be streamed to your living room HDTV.
It’s what I’m hoping Apple will enable with the iTV.
#1, that’s true, for real-time viewing (or point-click-watch right away). I wouldn’t mind waiting many minutes for the file to load.
Also the fact that broadband is lousy in NA for the very reason to make IPTV unfeasible or unpopular.
If I paid $ per month for HD-IPTV, I wouldn’t mind the 1/2 hour wait before watching, as I could download ahead of time, or watch something else as I download the show.
For the same reason I buy MP3’s – or make my own, for the quality, I would pay to watch IPTV in HD only.
Television is going in 2 directions Hi Def with limited access and high cost or low def inexpensive and many differnt channels. Youtube innertube iptv vlogs video podcasts all are easy to access and availible now.The Super Bowl on Hd yes Leave it to Beaver on HD no.
And people will always wait — hours or day — to excise commercials. That’s the reason for the expending popularity of DVR’s. At least among people who can figure out how to use a remote for more than channel surfing.
I for one have no interest at all in HDTV. I have seen it side by side with standard def and the difference IMHO is negligible. It is certainly not in the same league as the improvement seen between video tape and DVD. I would not pay any additional money for HDTV let alone the thousands that many people are shelling out currently. I personally think HD is just a marketing campaign being shoved down our throats by the manufactures. I just don’t get it.
That being said (obviously I am not part of HD’s target audience) I am very interested in IPTV and would be very p*ssed-off if it was delayed because there is currently insufficient bandwith for something as insignificant as HD content.
Steve
By no means the cheapest, the 32″ LCD HDTV we’re thinking of getting is $600. If #8 is babbling about thousand$ for the upgrade, I guess he needs a much larger set than we do.
Even the larger set [46″] still being discussed in the family, is available in HDTV technology for $1400. That’s not the primo bargain out there — just the price in the nearest big box to home for the set that looks fine to me. I don’t think much of anyone manufactures SD in that size or larger anymore.
#2 – Yes, MacBreak looks great in 1080p… and the download is reasonable, giving me hope for larger 1080p downloads in the future… but I’m not watching it streaming. Doesn’t mean I can’t, but the technology just isn’t there yet.
As for the HR20-700, and the iTV, I believe both device will have a online media component for television and movies. Dish is in the process of rolling out something similiar, but knowing that company they won’t pull it off as well as D* and Apple can. I haven’t had a chance to buy an HR20-700 yet, as I was waiting for the recently released OTA patch. I’ll probably buy 2 in January and retire my HD Tivo.
#3 – The only practical application of IPTV, in my mind, is over an all-fiber network… similiar to the UTOPIA project going on in my neck of the woods (UTOPIANet.org… not available at my house of course). The funny thing is, going off what’s available here, the channel lineup via fiber is no better than cable or satellite.
As an aside, what makes anyone think the DSL (with satellite TV) and Cable providers of the world are going to go for IPTV when each have their own television sales to worry about.
#4 – The problem is that, with the YouTube crowd, no one is making any money. The “branch” going towards cheap, widely available low resolution content will die if it cannot eventually generate revenue.
#8 – You’re definetly in the minority with that train of thought, considering the difference between 480i (regular broadcast TV) and 480p (DVD) isn’t nearly as great as between 480p and 720p/1080i/1080p (HD).
That being said, why are you interested in IPTV? You can get everything you want in the quality you want through a number of current providers? Nothing in history suggests that another television content provider will make things less expensive?
Well apparently I am certainly in the minority here! Also it appears that the prices have come down from the “thousands of dollars” of a couple of years ago to the “hundreds of dollars” for today. Regardless, the differences are not worth spending tens of dollars to me so I will just continue to “not get it”. Everyone has their own priorities. To each his own.
Steve
On the HDTV debate, I got just last week Samsung 32″ LCD, here’s why
– Cheap, my Sony Trinitron 32″ I paid 1200$ (still have it) in 1994.
– Integration. PS2 in hi-def, my laptop, my home PC
– Small form factor
– Weight
I have as yet to subscribe to ANY video service, because most of it is crap in HD. All they do is upscale 420i or 480i to 720i, and it looks lousy.
The brand new stuff, or say Discovery Channel or National Geographic.
I’m the perfect candidate for monthly subscriber to HD IPTV, my cableco gives me 6.5Mbs in d/l speed, rather than buy each HD channel 3.99 per month from my cableco.
PEDRO – you just don’t get it 🙁
Its a pipe dream…
1. Until the Telco’s fix things, and get better access, and more interconnects between the 5 systems..
2. OR tthe Wirelss and cable systems create THEIR OWN backbone and dump the telco’s.
3. Until we get the infrastructure up, you are only going to get Direct Video, at SD bandwidth and 320×200 and MAYBE 640×480…
A 1.5 hour movie takes from 1/2 hour to 4 hours to DL, depending on bandwidth of your system, the net, and the server you are getting it from.
You could start DL, for programs you wish to watch TOMORROW.
Pedro, I stand corrected. Read it all 🙂 but don’t agree on the IPTV bit.
However I had the need for a second TV set in the house, and didn’t want to spend big bucks on current HD technology when some really amazing screens will be at today’s prices in 5 years.
The conversation was about HD IPTV, where yes, I would gladly pay, even though I have to wait before viewing, just to promote the technology.
I can either pay 30$ per month to my cableco for a couple of good HD feeds and a bunch of lousy ones, or pay that same amount for IPTV in true HD quality.
Do I want to give more $ to my cableco, or, help an IT upstart that sells his services worldwide? Plus give me an almost-on-demand viewing choice?
I’d gladly build up such a company, but I’m too busy right now, so would rather just be a client.
The telcos and cable cos will kill this as soon as they can. This is where the so called “service levels” will begin. Or, they will try to extort payment from whoever is delivering this content because they deign to use “their pipes (tubes)” to carry this traffic.
Wow. I just realized I read way too much Dvorak — I am starting to sound more like him everyday.
Mike T
IT STILL WONT HAPPEN.
There isnt enough power for 1 server to maintain 100,000 persons ONLINE downloading.
and thats a SMALL number compared to the acual numbers..
Talk to those Game shows that tell us to LOG IN, and PLAY…
Get hit by 3-10,000,000 for the next hour and SEE if you can connect to the servers…
Can you see, 1,000,000 trying to watch 60 minutes LIVE, or any NEWS broadcast…
Until the BACKBONE has been increased 100 times, IT WONT HAPPEN.
FIBEr to every house would give the ability…But do you THINK the telco’s will do it, and PAY FOR IT??? NEVER…YOU WILL PAY for the next 50 years.