The future of sagetv speculation thread

[darcilicious]

Also, there's a difference between "search" and "discovery". Since I basically watch commercial-less TV, how do I find about new TV shows that I might like? Certainly not through the promos/ads that I'm not seeing A discovery aspect might work like how (I think) SageTV's "intelligent recording" should work -- "you've watched/rated highly all the CSI type shows, so you might also like this new show coming out from CBS..."

Additionally, while the typical SageTV user may not be the market for "interactive" or "social" tv, that doesn't mean there isn't a market for it. Social tv apps like GetGlue, Miso, Trakt, and built-in social features in Boxee are around... and being used.

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by brainbone

What is "TV"? Just watching movies/shows? Is it only a "TV" while we're watching a show? Does it have to be live? Do DVRed shows count? Would a pop-up at an end of a show asking you to rate it suddenly make it "Not TV"? If not "TV", what should we call it? "Smart TV"? Living room/kitchen/bedroom monitor? Intelligence suppression machine?

Good question. For me TV = a big screen that I can watch (and maybe listen) what I want, when I want. It should also tell me about other things I may be interested in. (i.e. Sage's Intelligent recording.) There are of course many "checklist items" that you must have in order to be competitive (like search, an attractive interface, reliablility, affordability, etc.) I don't care if the content comes from my cable, the internet, or a local server as long as it plays.

What I don't want:
- An internet browser. I'll sit in front of my computer for that. Any useful content that gets to the TV should do so without me launching a browser or typing on a keyboard.
- A complicated interface. I don't want an interface as complicted as a computer. I want point and click. If my kids can't figure it out in 10 minutes it's too complicated. I have plenty of options available to satisfy my inner Geek, the TV should not be one of them.
- Loads of ads and "crapware". I know companies want to make money through ads, but don't kill me with them.
- Social networking. Call me old fashioned, but I don't really care what 300 of my "friends" are watching and I don't really care to advertize to them what I am watching. I have no interest to Tweet during the Football game to voice my opinion of a referee's call.
- Open systems that support third party apps. There are lots of creative people out there that can develop great apps. I don't want some company filtering them and telling me what they deem OK and what they deem not worthy.

I'm probably in the minority on some of these issues but so be it.

[matterofrecord]

I think targeted ads are a reasonable guess. So far google has made a lot of money by providing a great service for free and using adverts to subsidise it.

I think what your saying makes sense but theres one part I don't get.

Originally Posted by rrhorer

< snip >
Currently, TV commercials that play to a national audience, for say a thirty second prime time slot, pay a huge amount and probably miss 90+% of their intended audience. Add the knowledge of our TV habits < snip > to Google's knowledge of our internet preferences, and Google can offer advertisers the opportunity to reach more of their intended audience with much less use of the available advertising space. In turn, the freed-up advertising space will accommodate more advertisers, resulting in more advertising $$ from both the existing advertising pool and from new advertisers. Content will follow the advertising $$. Streaming could easily follow the free Hulu business model except, again, in a more targeted manner.

so what your saying is that adverts by google would be more targeted. You could include the applicable adverts and equally eliminate the adverts that would be ineffective. the targeted applicable ads would be more useful and hence be higher value. The eliminated, inneffective ads could be replaced with either more targeted ads or neutral ( applies to every market ) adverts. thus the advertising would eliminate low/no value ads increase high value ads and (if they ran out of target ads) use nuetral or semi targeted ads. this would increase the overall value of the advertising space, which would then increase the sale price of said advertising space which would then mean there would be more money available for content.

However, if I've followed you correctly ( ad space talk is new for me ) , then that would assume google had some control over the ad space. This is certainly possible and desirable for streaming content. However this model wouldn't work with broadcast network television using network televisions current one size fits all model. google would have to over write the network broadcast ads with their own user specific ads. This concept would surely need network consent.

Even streaming media has a problem in that the streaming media is variable for differnt users. I find that the infrastructure lets streaming media down. buffering , compression and the peak time slow down all make streaming quite dire for many people at the moment. Drm doesn't help either. with youtube you can at least pause the video and let it buffer. with protected streams the buffer is what 10 or 20 seconds - if you suffer from a congested network your tv watching is going to suffer.

so if your only going to work with streaming content in the short run - why buy sage for anything other than data mining ?

The problem with data mining is that what happens in a family home. is everyone going to log in individually or are you going to have to suffer my little pony ads during the superbowl or beer ads during kids tv. without knowing who in the household is watching a show the targets ad is regressing back to something close to the guess work that network advertising already uses? no beer in kids shows and no toy adverts in the superbowl. the concept doesn't completely fail but its still not a huge leap ahead. For single people it's pure gold.

If sagetv has been bought purely for data mining purposes then does that mean sage version 7 was the last version that could work without an internet connection and which had no viewer privacy concerns ( for those who are concerned about privacy)?

(NB please I know google et al already know more about me than half my family this doesn't need restating. lets not get in to an "orwellian" vs "nothing to hide" bun fight in this thread. this thread is about guessing sagetvs future).

[matterofrecord]

Originally Posted by brainbone

What is "TV"? <snip>
Intelligence suppression machine?

LOL


- on one hand tele is kind of brainless on the other hand I think it broadens our horizons. television had shown me people and places I would never have expereinced in real life, but then again I did just sit and stare at it.
either way I'm an addict so it's very important for me to find out whats happening with my favourite dealer namely sagetv .

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by matterofrecord

so if your only going to work with streaming content in the short run - why buy sage for anything other than data mining ?

I think Google figured out that streaming content alone won't work in the short run, and its pass-through hack in the current GoogeTV just didn't fill the gap. There is currently far too much fragmentation in streaming content (exclusive contracts, etc.), not everyone has a good enough broadband connection, the networks aren't ready for it yet -- and things will not settle down any time soon.

SageTV has a good, java based, DVR server solution that should be relativity simple to integrate with Android/GoogleTV. Add data collection (user ratings, audience size, etc.), and you have a great interim solution until streaming has matured.

Targeted, real time commercial replacement/injection in DVRed broadcast TV is also a possibility, but I think there would be considerable resistance from the networks, making it more difficult for Google to gain streaming partners. ("No, you can't include our content in your Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/what-have-you GoogleTV streaming app because...") But, the more accurate viewer statistics gained would create more value for the current broadcast advertising model.

Yes, one way or another, if Google is involved, it's all about data mining.

[7up]

Originally Posted by brainbone

It has less to do with what you want, and more to do with what you are willing to allow balanced with the relative value of the offering.

I agree with this statment which is why most of us are trying to speculate on the new product as what are they going to offer that has value? As for what the consumer wants, to date the consumer has shown little interest in integrating internet surfing/email on their TV. Looking back at history, nearly every device which has attempted to integrate the "internet" has failed. I am not referring to specific services or channels delivered via the internet, ie Netflix, Vudu and a plethora of other video services which are curretnly available via STB and new TVs. I realize some may say these are "basic", however what content/feature is GoogleTV going to add which isn't already availablethat will be desired by the masses? I'll state again that the mass public has not show interest in surfing the web from the couch or a desire for interactiveTV other than channel surfing. I completely understand Google's desire to make Android the "OS" for TV and STB's analogous to their cell phone presense however as stated above, even gaining access to your "TV" is complicated by the fact that cable and satellite providers would need to pay for it and pass the cost on to the consumer. GoogleTV box could absolutely could add a cablecard slot and compete with cable co's and Tivo by adding better internet options, streaming, etc. Of course, others have tried this and failed and this product

My own prediction is a cablebox (motorola?) running GoogleTV with Sagetv as the DVR and Tivo will be put out of business

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by 7up

I'll state again that the mass public has not show interest in surfing the web from the couch

While I agree that web browsing probably won't ever be a big hit on TVs, people said that same about browsing on the phone. While web browsing isn't very enjoyable on the small screen of a modern smart phone, it does work well in a pinch -- when the desired content isn't available via a native app. I believe the same will hold true for the TV. Add in Google's speech recognition for data input, sans keyboard, and things could become more manageable (if not humorous).

Originally Posted by 7up

or a desire for interactiveTV other than channel surfing.

I think you're wrong here (though I hope you're not -- I'm not a fan of social networks). I agree, not while watching a show -- but interactivity is a given while doing all the other things people do these days.

[matterofrecord]

Originally Posted by 7up

I realize some may say these are "basic", however what content/feature is GoogleTV going to add which isn't already availablethat will be desired by the masses?

I kind of deep down agree with you but in theory they could just do it better.
If you use apples iphone and tablets as a comparison. they were products that apple got right at the time of release and the concepts have since taken off. However if the first ever smart phone or tablet had been as awful as some of the first cheap android devices were then those concepts may have either faded ( tablet ) or taken longer to be adopted en masse ( smart phone) .

However I still have my doubts outside of video and audio streaming but then I'm not a facebook addict ( although i am addicted to this thread at the moment). some people can play games for hours on their phones or their computers ( i'm thinking farmville , angry birds and not call of duty) so why not their televisions?

a lot of television shows are interacting more with twitter. rubbish daytime tele could be made a lot more fun with good lulz-y open to anyone twitter feeds coming in.

in theory you could plant a news feed on every/any channel

I do find myself watching tv sometimes and looking up actors and films on the net. where have I seen that actor before? is that film on tonight any good, lets check the trailer on youtube and maybe imdb/rotten tomatos as well . I genuinely do these things. I also sometimes have the tele on in the background whilst surfing the net.

however having said that a laptop or smart phone and a tv does pretty much everything I've just mentioned and you get two screens to work from.

You could look at it as diversification. just as some people bought tablets and others didn't. some people will use smart tvs other won't. If google want to be on every platform then smart tvs are just another way of doing this. If smart tv takes off good google are in there at the start ( pretty much ) and if smart tv fail then it's not a platform that google have to worry about competition from.

I mean a few hundred million isn't alot to google. It could just be a throw of the dice, get your foot in the door, be willing to adapt and see what happens. Adding a dvr like sage is going to help massively because people know and want dvrs ( unlike smart tvs where most people don't know, don't care and don't want - they've already got a device like that it's called a computer or a laptop). currently in the UK we're just switching over to HD so the old sd dvrs ( with their 80 gb hdd's, no photo or music ability let alone tv catchup service ) are going to be getting replaced. It's a good time to launch an HD dvr if you get it right.

If googletv is sold just as a dvr ( even when the smart tv capabilities aren't used ) sagetv will look 10X better than the horrible interfaces that most dvr boxes use. If it's priced right, looks good and isn't too confusing for cutomers it should sell just on the strength of sagetv alone. If they force people to connect the smart dvr to their internet to get the epg it won't be too long before people start playing around with the other apps. whether they'll keep using them is another matter.

Thinking about people I know, some will use the dvr some will use the dvr and photo and tv catchup, some might use the music ( spotify would certainly help ) some might also use the streaming. some might use the games and some might use the email and rss feeds. however I don't see anyone doing general websurfing on their television. maybe I'm just myopic.

[rrhorer]

Originally Posted by matterofrecord

so what your saying is that adverts by google would be more targeted. You could include the applicable adverts and equally eliminate the adverts that would be ineffective. the targeted applicable ads would be more useful and hence be higher value. The eliminated, inneffective ads could be replaced with either more targeted ads or neutral ( applies to every market ) adverts. thus the advertising would eliminate low/no value ads increase high value ads and (if they ran out of target ads) use nuetral or semi targeted ads. this would increase the overall value of the advertising space, which would then increase the sale price of said advertising space which would then mean there would be more money available for content.

Correct. And, you've even said it better.

However this model wouldn't work with broadcast network television using network televisions current one size fits all model. google would have to over write the network broadcast ads with their own user specific ads. This concept would surely need network consent.

No. Google simply targets when and where the network broadcast ads are run. The networks are content providers that still get paid when the ads are run; but now, with Google's help, they are able to run more ads with higher value, probably from some cloud structure. Different business models are possible. For example, assume that the advertisers contact Google directly rather than the networks to run the same ads as they did with the networks. Google gets paid by the advertisers and pays the networks even more than the advertisers would have for the ad space that is used. Everyone wins.

so if your only going to work with streaming content in the short run - why buy sage for anything other than data mining ?

Again, no. I doubt that Google would be that interested in the streaming business and, instead, might team with someone like Amazon for the streaming part. I do think they will need to include streaming for a complete package, especially to promote the use of android mobil devices.

The problem with data mining is that what happens in a family home. is everyone going to log in individually or are you going to have to suffer my little pony ads during the superbowl or beer ads during kids tv. without knowing who in the household is watching a show the targets ad is regressing back to something close to the guess work that network advertising already uses? no beer in kids shows and no toy adverts in the superbowl. the concept doesn't completely fail but its still not a huge leap ahead. For single people it's pure gold.

Remember an intelligent Google STB device is sitting atop your TV set - something akin to a Sage server appliance. It has a profile of family members usage (both internet and TV) and knows what is currently showing in each room. So, the kids get the little pony ads; the wife, whose watching DWTS, gets ads on supplements to make her husband more attentive; and you, watching what you shouldn't be watching, get into trouble.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by rrhorer

Remember an intelligent Google STB device is sitting atop your TV set - something akin to a Sage server appliance. It has a profile of family members usage (both internet and TV) and knows what is currently showing in each room.

Add a webcam and facial recognition, and it would know who and how many are watching, and for how long -- not that I would want or accept anything like that in my home, but seeing what people are willing to divulge to the public today.... it'll probably happen sooner than later.

[7up]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

What I don't want:
- An internet browser. I'll sit in front of my computer for that. Any useful content that gets to the TV should do so without me launching a browser or typing on a keyboard.
- A complicated interface. I don't want an interface as complicted as a computer. I want point and click. If my kids can't figure it out in 10 minutes it's too complicated. I have plenty of options available to satisfy my inner Geek, the TV should not be one of them.
- Loads of ads and "crapware". I know companies want to make money through ads, but don't kill me with them.
- Social networking. Call me old fashioned, but I don't really care what 300 of my "friends" are watching and I don't really care to advertize to them what I am watching. I have no interest to Tweet during the Football game to voice my opinion of a referee's call.
- Open systems that support third party apps. There are lots of creative people out there that can develop great apps. I don't want some company filtering them and telling me what they deem OK and what they deem not worthy.

I'm probably in the minority on some of these issues but so be it.

I agree with all of the above. Social networking on the TV? blech! Not in my house. Is GoogleTV going to stop kids from fighting over the Wii? I'm skeptical of desire to use TV for social media anyway. Do those using it really want all their comments on the TV for everyone to see vs. the privacy of their phone?


I know everyone keeps speaking about GTV2 adding SageTV and becoming this super DVR, but what is going to be the source for the video services? Here in the US, the main options are OTA, cable and satellite.

OTA DVR's exist but not sure of the demand.

Cable would seem to be the easist entry by adding a cablecard slot however there is signficant competition in this market from the cableco and Tivo.

SatelliteTV boxes are proprietary making a GoogleTV DVR unlikely unless an arrangement the DTV or Dish is made, however DTV moved away from this with Tivo previously. There would have to be some very compelling reasons for either provider to develop a GoogleTV DVR. People were not exactly jumping through hoops to pay another 5 dollars/month to integrate GoogleTV with Dish.

[matterofrecord]

Originally Posted by rrhorer

Google simply targets when and where the network broadcast ads are run. The networks are content providers that still get paid when the ads are run; but now, with Google's help, they are able to run more ads with higher value, probably from some cloud structure. Different business models are possible. For example, assume that the advertisers contact Google directly rather than the networks to run the same ads as they did with the networks. Google gets paid by the advertisers and pays the networks even more than the advertisers would have for the ad space that is used. Everyone wins.

This is still surely reliant on the network, google and advertisers coming together and making some sort of deal. although it would seem in every groups best interest you've got to consider that the networks may be resistant to change. They make a lot of money selling a lot dud adverts to a lot of companies. a more efficient model ( as you've suggested ) would reduce this "dud advert" revenue stream for the network. In theory the more efficient model should make them more money. But in practice there may not be enough targeted adverts to include and irrelevant adverts to eliminate from their current stock of adverts to make any noticable difference. Also target ads may have shorter runs due to their effectiveness.

You've also got to consider that networks like to advertise a product to as many people as possible to increase it's effectiveness. sure a new sugary snack might be best aimed at kids but everyone likes a sugary snack and advertisers like to create a "buzz" about a new product. the more people who know about ithe product the better. even car ads get shown in kids programming to encourage pester power.


thats not forgetting that a lot of adverts are about brand awareness which advertisers want to create in everybody. ( you'll see car, supermarket and beauty product adverts in kids shows. - no kid is driving, food shopping or trying to eliminate wrinkles BUT they will be in 10 or 20 years time and they are more likely to buy a familiar product/brand - or so the theory goes. It's like they grow up with these products so they don't ever question the need for them)

All these concepts reduce the need for targeted ads.

Originally Posted by rrhorer

I doubt that Google would be that interested in the streaming business

google would have no interest creating or directly streaming content. however they may be interesting in the adverts within streaming content. with so many different streaming platforms there are more ways into the advertising market. also google has developed expertise in advert inclusion using youtube. the adverts at the begining of youtube videos are occasionally skipable. if someone watches the whole ad you've got either a fun to watch ad OR a relevant ad. they are watching and learning and getting better at what they do. small scale streaming start ups might be very willing to go to google and ask them to sort out all their advertising leaving the start up to focus on content.

Originally Posted by rrhorer

Remember an intelligent Google STB device is sitting atop your TV set - something akin to a Sage server appliance. It has a profile of family members usage (both internet and TV) and knows what is currently showing in each room. So, the kids get the little pony ads; the wife, whose watching DWTS, gets ads on supplements to make her husband more attentive; and you, watching what you shouldn't be watching, get into trouble.

LOL.
To some extent your are right however if you look at a prime time schedule ( in the UK at least ) the programs are designed to have a broad appeal. A lot of biggest shows are designed to appeal to the whole family ( britians got talent, x factor etc) this leaves the question how do you know whose eyeballs you've got. Is the whole family watching. just the kids, just the adults while the kids play video games. A lot of prime time shows are like this. which leaves a certain amount of guess work involved. which is pretty much whats going on right now without google. However with more specialised shows it might be easier to take a quality 90% correct guess at who is watching.

But anyway I think we are getting too far ahead of oursleves. Google seem to be a fast turn around company. they seem to get products to market quite quickly. I would expect we'll see something within a year if not 6 months. however some of these ideas we are putting forward will surely take longer than that to become viable.

[matterofrecord]

Originally Posted by 7up

I know everyone keeps speaking about GTV2 adding SageTV and becoming this super DVR, but what is going to be the source for the video services? Here in the US, the main options are OTA, cable and satellite.

OTA DVR's exist but not sure of the demand.

In the UK it's very different. OTA is the standard with 28 million households. Pay per view Satellite 10 million and cable 3 million. ( both satellite and cable have good dvrs as part of their package ). In the UK Payper view Satellite made dvrs popular and well known and now people want dvrs for OTA digital ( I had one of the earliest freeview dvrs which was much better than anything else at the time. Then I found sagetv and I'm not going back. You'de have to prise sage tv from my cold dead hands. OR with a better replacement. either works. )

one more thought. Adding internet capabilities also reminds people that they could be on the internet ( via their computer/laptop) instead of watching a boring television show. Kind of like subtle background advertising for the internet. ( remember the sum; user + intenet = ??? = google makes money )

also text to speech could be used to make text based web articles into podcasts. that would make some websites borderline usable on the tele.

[brainbone]

Originally Posted by 7up

Cable would seem to be the easist entry by adding a cablecard slot however there is signficant competition in this market from the cableco and Tivo.

Google's purchase of Motorola gives them the largest cable STB manufacture in the US.

Originally Posted by 7up

SatelliteTV boxes are proprietary making a GoogleTV DVR unlikely unless an arrangement the DTV or Dish is made, however DTV moved away from this with Tivo previously.

Dish Network already offers a GoogleTV option, and GoogleTV already integrates with Dish's DVRs to some extent. I don't think it would be a long-shot to imagine a GoogleTV powered Dish DVR. DirectTV is another story, but at least one Sat provider in the US is already behind GoogleTV.

[7up]

Originally Posted by brainbone

Google's purchase of Motorola gives them the largest cable STB manufacture in the US.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I do believe this is their likely strategy as well. The obvious question then becomes, does a cableco Sage/Google DVR have restrictions on what you can access via internet? Cableco sells Premium channels and PPV and understably doesn't want provide you with access for purchasing other video content from other providers.

Originally Posted by brainbone

Dish Network already offers a GoogleTV option, and GoogleTV already integrates with Dish's DVRs to some extent. I don't think it would be a long-shot to imagine a GoogleTV powered Dish DVR. DirectTV is another story, but at least one Sat provider in the US is already behind GoogleTV..

The Googletv boxes which integrated with Dish receiver were little/zero threat to Dish for online content and from what I've read mostly a failure. Consumers found no value for the 5 dollars extra a month required to integrate GoogleTV with Dish receiver. Anything is possible with regards to an Android powered Dish DVR with GoogleTV however it would seem highly unlikely at least in the immediate future. You are probably away of Dish's purchase of Blockbuster and announcement of Blockbuster movie pass which will be available through their receivers? The last thing Dish wants to do is provide you access to the other online video services, Netflix, Vudu etc. and compete with their own products. I guess there could always be customized versions of Android for each service provider. In the future, hacking satelliteTV might mean accessing Netflix

[nyle]

Originally Posted by brainbone

I think this may be as close as we can currently get to understanding Google's future plans for SageTV:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srI6Q...bedded#t=2400s

What more needs to be said. The first real post and this video link tell you everything you need to know about why Google acquired SageTV. I don't think you could hit the nail on the head any more unless you worked on the project.

Google is positioning itself to become a major delivery method for Television content. I wouldn't be surprised if they announced agreements with some major media outlets to distribute their content.

[Monedeath]

Originally Posted by UgaData

Warning: The following post is totally Neilson (spelling?) has been used to count the eye balls watching a TV program and the commercials within the TV programming. Neilson doesn't take into account if a show has been recorded (or is going to be recorded). As I understand it Neilson only counts if a program was watched live. And Neilson doesn't include watching anything over the Internet.

Uh, you are at least a few years out of date. I was part of a Nelson survey a few years ago(paper and pencil version, no box) it was before we went with sage so it was before the summer of 2009(I want to say spring of 2008). One of the things they asked us to track was our DVR use(when the show was recorded, and when we actually watched it).

[Audacity]

I've got a very different view than some people here about the future of TV and how it relates to the browser (HTML interface).

I think that the browser is going to be a bright spot in the future of TVs. Sure, pages would need a different layout than they currently have for "optimal" consumption, but TVs are better suited for rendering existing web pages than smartphones are, and browsers are a hit for smartphones.

I think that the main issue that "Smart TVs" have right now is that there isn't a compelling reason for people to develop apps for them. The app platform changes every year, and is different from vendor to vendor. You could develop for Sony or Samsung TVs, for instance, but you'd need to develop your app twice if you wanted to support both.

HTML5/Javascript fixes this problem, and solves an additional issue: the chicken/egg problem of app development. If you were to make a new platform, you would need to wait for all the apps to be created. The web already has plenty of content.

I think the TV manufacturers just need to get to work on adding a HTML5 compliant browser, and a nice input device for it. One path to this goal is just adding Android/GoogleTV compliant hardware and letting Google handle the software updates.