Tag: interactive TV

Some of you will have already heard about Joost (formerly known as The Venice Project) – an IPTV thingy from the folks who brought us Kazaa and Skype. There has been much speculation about its implications for the media, advertising and marketing industries – bringing together the wonders of the internet and TV in one glorious multimedia dream (well – that’s what the hype will have us believe anyway). Find out more over at Wired and MIT.

Anyway – I’ve have been having a bit of a play and it looks rather nice indeed. Not that I’ll be watching TV all day – it’s all purely in the name of research, of course!

I’ve also got a bunch of beta invites for anyone who wants to check it out for themselves – just let me know your email that you want to use for your Joost account…

I feel the need to air some thoughts after recent goings on in the “convergence” realm. It’s a term that has been bashed about for years now – with every new development being heralded as the harbinger of a new dawn of convergence in digital media and the like. And this last year has been no different. We have the other weekend’s Homechoice (aka Video Networks) and Tiscali merger. There’s that BSkyB and Easynet deal last October. There’s a peer to peer IPTV service about to surface. And finally, there’s something a sales guy said to me this afternoon. In fact, something that got me thinking about all this in the first place. Something about “convergence”, “entertainment hubs” and how we’ll all “obviously be browsing the internet on our TVs in the next couple of years”. Well, sorry, but I beg to differ. Will digital media delivery really converge on a single device as many people seem to think? Surely, as more electronic media devices become IP enabled, media delivery will start to diverge not converge? Okay – so I’m getting bogged down with semantics – I guess that the term “convergence” really refers to overlapping realms of different media with new technologies. But I’m not sure that this single device view is the right direction for IPTV. Particularly whe you consider the most successful interactive TV programmes I have worked on have been those that encourage interaction using a completely different device and media – such as mobile and SMS – rather than relying on a remote control or a keyboard.

The advent of broadband has made delivery of video and other digital media possible via the internet but viewing via your desktop or laptop computer screen is not always practical. Equally, browsing and searching the web from your sofa via the TV is not exactly an easy or sociable thing to do. Surely the best solution is one where you would search on your PC then sit back and view on your TV? I know this is exactly what many people are already doing but it often means situating the PC near the TV so that you can run a cable from the PC’s AV output into the TV. What I want to do, and I’m sure a solution must exist (please tell me if it does – otherwise I hereby patent this idea!), is utilise my Wi-Fi network to stream content to the TV. Maybe via a SCART device that doubles as a Wi-Fi antennae, receiving data streams via the local network? Surely such a simple single device must exist? It’s all I need – not some “media hub” or “home entertainment centre”. It seems to completely bridge that gap between the different tasks of searching/ interacting (i.e. “lean forward” tasks) and watching (i.e. “sit back” tasks). Please – somebody help!

Channel 4 have ditched their clunky red button interactive TV service that supports some broadcasts like Big Brother. Some might be shocked by this but, if the truth be told, it makes sense. It’s a bold move that apparently flies in the face of interactive TV “progress” but look at the underlying factors and you’ll see it’s actually a very wise decision. The red button service that Channel 4 offered was only ever delivered over the sky platform, where the initial data associated with the interactive TV service had to be transmitted as part of the broadcast stream via satellite. Over satellite, this broadcast stream bandwidth is very limited and, as you’ve probably seen, results in a very slow interactive experience. Once the base interactive TV application had been loaded, additional data could be retrieved via a sluggish 28k modem. All in all a rather painful user experience. And, believe me, unless you are following a “template” like the i-Ad format (the red button feature for interactive TV adverts, which C4 are keeping) developing for the platform was an even more tedious process! In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the driving force behind Channel 4’s decision were their programme producers. When I left Endemol they were struggling to develop interactive TV applications – it simply did not fit into the way TV is produced. These applications require defining and rigorous testing, whereas TV production is a much more fluid process – with concepts potentially changing completely at the 11th hour. Besides, SMS voting is much easier to shoe-horn into a TV concept as a viable revenue stream.

So, step aside clunky satellite interactive TV and make room for TV delivered via a fast broadband connection. The real interactive TV experience is when you don’t even notice you are “interacting” – where viewing is no longer passive but your involvement (like choosing what to watch, whether live or achived) is very much part of the TV experience. Whether you call it internet TV, broadband TV, IPTV or Video On Demand, the underlying concepts are essentially the same. And Homechoice is already there.

As mentioned before I’m keen to see how the areas of TV content, broadband and search technologies eventually come together. I’m sure it won’t be a clean race.

Sky have apparently seen the light and are considering making a bid for Video Networks – the owners of Homechoice. They say they are not for sale and, of course, it is all rumours but I’d say it was inevitable that a big player such as Sky makes a move on these guys at some point. And what with Sky going on a bit of a spending spree right now, you know it makes sense. Sky certainly appear to be angling towards IPTV – having bought broadband provider EasyNet and a few specialist content providers in recent weeks. I’ve been ranting about Homechoice for a while now and think their technology is second to none. To me it’s true interactive TV – you don’t even notice it happening – the interactivity just happens as part of the viewing experience. Not like Sky’s slow and rather hotch-potch combo of a piddly modem and satellite data feed. Does this mean the technology might finally reach further than the 15,000 Londoners currently subscribing to Homechoice? At the moment the cost of installing digital exchanges required to provide the kind of IPTV you see with Homechoice is preventing its growth but perhaps Sky’s credibility and massive subscriber base will help prolificate the reach of this technology beyond the M25. And it might just keep BT’s move into IPTV at bay too. However, one of the reasons I like Homechoice (technology aside) is the simple fact it’s not Sky. I guess Homechoice is hardly a little guy either – with some heavyweight shareholders such as Microsoft’s Chris Larson, Time Warner, Sony and Disney – but it did feel as if Homechoice was one of the last great hopes in the fight against the Murdoch media empire.