You could have clicked the "about" page for example to read about their monetization concepts for broadcasters - it is basically for broadcasters that do not have the resources inhouse to build a very expensive player and see how it works out...
The company is 2 years old. They have more than 8 million of their downloadable player now in the wild. At the same time the platform allows for live streaming (I very much doubt this part to be pure P2P). I am currently working on a solution that allows Web-based Real-time VoD that works in a p2p fashion when the critical mass of viewers is reached. Any thoughts on that? Mit freundlichen Grüßen Sebnem Öztunali Siemens AG Corporate Technology Intelligent Autonomous Systems CT IC 6 Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 81739 München Tel.: +49 (89) 636-44127 Fax: +49 (89) 636-41423 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Siemens Aktiengesellschaft: Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Gerhard Cromme; Vorstand: Peter Löscher, Vorsitzender; Heinrich Hiesinger, Joe Kaeser, Rudi Lamprecht, Eduardo Montes, Jürgen Radomski, Erich R. Reinhardt, Hermann Requardt, Uriel J. Sharef, Peter Y. Solmssen, Klaus Wucherer; Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin und München; Registergericht: Berlin Charlottenburg, HRB 12300, München, HRB 6684; WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 23691322 -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Frank Wales Gesendet: Samstag, 8. Dezember 2007 01:06 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: [backstage] The next big thing in ipTV Matthew Cashmore wrote: > I'm at a conference in LA at the moment about Next Gen technologies and > we've just been shown this as the 'Next Big Thing in TV' - I'd be really > interested in everyone's thoughts > > http://pages.tvunetworks.com/index.html Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but ... is this intended solely for streaming live TV? No catch-ups, or watching old stuff, or recording for later? No sharing clips? No skipping commercials? If so, then it seems like a reversion to me, made by people with a pre-YouTube, pre-PVR mindset. It reminds me of a bonkers web site I saw in 1995-ish, which *must* have been created by clue-deprived TV executives; it had scheduled content on the same web pages (News: 10-11; Sport: 11-12, Entertainment: 12-1, etc.). "Here's the old camel for doing things, nailed onto the back of the new horse." It was a stunning success, where by 'success' I mean 'failure', and by 'stunning' I mean 'blitheringly obvious'. Likewise, I think TVUnetworks is solving the wrong problem, too. Apart from things where the liveness is essential (news, sport, Big Brother (either kind)), I don't see the benefit to the viewer. I also don't see their business model -- what are they enabling, that people will pay for, that isn't already doable? Is it just lower-cost live streaming for broadcasters, dressed up as a new consumer platform? I think people are now getting used to ignoring schedules (which are only a hack to get around radio spectrum capacity limits anyway), and are deciding what they want to watch, when, rather than organizing their activities around a TV schedule. Or worse, zillions of schedules. "Let's all watch TV like it's 1994! On the Internet!! In Korean!!!" -- Frank Wales [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
