Are PVRs a thing of the past?

[Halstead]

Ok, yes, the thread title is a bit of hyperbole. However, I have been wondering more and more if the era of PVR functionality as the center of the HTPC universe is coming to an end. It seems like PVR functionality is being squeezed on both sides:

1) The cable and sat companies are only going to work harder to keep us from recording content and storing it locally. The HD-PVR is a great short term fix, but will work only as long as the analog hole stays open. Given recent rumblings by the cable industry, I wonder how long this state of affairs will last.

2) Meanwhile, we're seeing a proliferation of on-line 'first-run' television content via services like Hulu, Slingbox, and Netflix, as well as directly from the broadcasters. As the industry makes it more and more painful to get high-quality content via a tuner, it's making it easier and easier to stream it on-line.

Looking at this changing landscape, it seems like Boxee has the most compelling story to tell, presenting itself primarily as an aggregator for both local and networked content through a unified user interface.

SageTV has already make several large strides in this direction, both through the on-line services menu and 3rd party plugins for Pandora, Netflix and the like. However, I do not see it as a leader in this area (as it arguably is in the HTPC PVR arena). This could become more and more of an issue moving forward, if my hypothesis is correct.

So, discuss. Are we heading towards the end of the PVR era? Should Sage adjust it's priorities? Am I nuts?

[wayner]

The online content is not available everywhere - the US is far, far ahead of the rest of the world. Here in Canada we cannot get Hulu, Netflix, US networks shows on iTunes, content from US network web sites. Eventually we will catch up but I think it will take a while.

I personally far prefer the model where I store and control the content on my end with as little DRM as possible. Hollywood doesn't like that but I don't see them stopping me, other than disabling component outputs on my cable box and I don't think that is very likely in the near term.

[pjpjpjpj]

Personally, I think those of us in the HTPC world, and the authors of the various websites that we surf, often fail to consider that most of society is fairly tech-dumb. Think about the millions - that's right, millions - of VCRs blinking "12:00" right this very minute.

There are so many people out there who pay the cable bill and watch ESPN and CNN and HGTV and don't even think about any of the topics that are mentioned above. All they know about the digital switchover is that it doesn't affect them because they have cable. Their use of their home internet connection is not to watch Hulu and Netflix (or try to figure out a way to do in on their TV), it is to forward on emails promising to make your dreams come true, or asking for a donation for little Susie who is sick, or, if they are really advanced, to check the latest radar loop on weather.com.

(yes, everyone, I am making generalizations - please don't bother being personally offended!)

No, in fact, I think the PVR/DVR market is about to explode... the minute that cable goes digital and those millions of VCRs become effectively useless (unless you want to manually set your now-required cable box to the channel where the show you want to record will be playing, BEFORE you leave for the evening). Whenever cable finally makes the switch to digital, and force-feeds everyone an STB, which, IMO, will be a much bigger deal than this February's change, I think DVR's will be the biggest selling item in the tech market.

Of course, cable companies will be giving them away left and right, knowing that they are about to cash in on the monthly service fee.

[Halstead]

I fully agree that limited functionality, walled-garden PVRs provided by the operators will continue to proliferate. However, how does this help SageTV users?

[reggie14]

I think the OP is right. DVRs, for the most part, are a bridging technology between old fashion TVs and some form of on-demand IPTV. There's been a movement away from physical media, and I think its widely agreed that will continue. A movement away from locally-stored video files seems consistent with that.

Don't get me wrong- I think we're probably a ways off from that being a reality. Cable companies are just starting to transition to all digital networks, and I think it will be a while before they are ready to make another big jump. But I certainly don't expect to be using a DVR in 15 years.

[HelenWeathers]

When DirecTV offers me a six tuner DVR with 4TB storage capacity and the ability to burn the recordings to Blu-ray Disk; without kill dates or DRM on my recordings and without the extra monthly PVR fee, I think SageTV will be in trouble. Until then, I'm not leaving.

[stuckless]

Online services are going to explode and then implode, much like the music services are doing. Services like netflix and hulu are almost designed to fail. Sure there will be a ton of early adopters that will throw their money at it, but eventually you'll just have a bunch of files that you can't play.

The more competing online services we have, the more like it is that online video services will fail. Sony, Toshiba, MS, all knew this. It's why HD-DVD had to die. Sony payed alot of money to ensure the HD-DVD did in fact die, because they knew that Blu-Ray was never going to become sucessful as long as people needed to buy 2 different peices of hardware in order to play their content. Online services is no different. Unless the industry decides to provide drm-free content, or a single drm model that anyone can license (ie, like dvd css, etc), then online services will not suceeed to any great extent.

I think a dvr of the future, will be more of an on-demand media download service, much like an AppleTV device.... let's just hope that we don't need a Fox box, CBS box, TSN box, Apple Box, Netfilx Box, Hulu Box, Paramount Box, Sony Box, Lionsgate Box, etc, etc, just to watch the same TV and Movies that we can currently do with 1 box.

[Halstead]

Originally Posted by stuckless

I think a dvr of the future, will be more of an on-demand media download service, much like an AppleTV device.... let's just hope that we don't need a Fox box, CBS box, TSN box, Apple Box, Netfilx Box, Hulu Box, Paramount Box, Sony Box, Lionsgate Box, etc, etc, just to watch the same TV and Movies that we can currently do with 1 box.

It seems like we're saying much the same thing. I was looking at DVR as one functional aspect of HTPC software, with the on-demand services you're describing as another one.

What started me thinking about it was playing around with Boxee, which is also an HTPC app, but with a focus on on-demand and (secondarily) local media functionality. Sage is very focused on the DVR side (although certainly less exclusively than, say, BeyondTV is), and I wonder if that's the right focus moving forward.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by HelenWeathers

When DirecTV offers me a six tuner DVR with 4TB storage capacity and the ability to burn the recordings to Blu-ray Disk; without kill dates or DRM on my recordings and without the extra monthly PVR fee, I think SageTV will be in trouble. Until then, I'm not leaving.

I think the point is that most of the compelling reasons to use a DVR- not just Sage, but TiVo, etc., go away if you can simply stream everything off the Internet in high quality (nearly) wherever you want. I think we're moving toward that. You won't get everything you get with Sage and other DVRs (if commercials are going to stay, commercial skipping is going to go away), but I don't think people are going to create expensive and complicated setups to get around these limitations.

I'm sure this will be controversial, but in the long run I think DRM will become pretty successful at discouraging piracy. TPMs, and other hardware modules, seem to have the functionality required to make DRM pretty robust. In the short term, that may very well result in obtrusive DRM, limited portability of media files, and paying multiples times for a single item to run on different devices. But, in the long term, I think content providers will back off as long as DRM is successful at curbing piracy. I think the market will dictate that- if people really want flexibility with their media, content providers will sooner or later figure out its in their best interest to give them what they want.

Probably before that even happens we'll start seeing more and more (semi) open standards for DRM. Again, I thik the market will evenctually demand this. We'll never had completely open DRM standards, because ultimately is going to have to be responsible for seeing that playback devices and other media devices enforce DRM protections. That may very well kill open source and niche products, as the costs involved in licensing DRM will likely be high.

And DRM will always be a little obtrusive, but that won't necessarily hinder its acceptance. Most people don't care about having limitless functionality. They have some idea of what they want to be able to do, and they expect the DRM system to let them do it. iTunes DRM is still moderately obtrusive, but a lot of people don't care because they just want to play back those files on their computers or iPods. There's a sweet spot somewhere, between letting content provides have some control over their works, and letting consumers do what they want. I have no idea how long it will take to find it, but it will certainly happen sometime. I think it will be in my lifetime (luckily, I'm still pretty young).

[Ken C]

Think about this ... The on-line video content is via internet download. A LOT of that is provided by the cable companies, the same companies that provide cable TV service. If the cable companies core business is TV, then there is a conflict. Several cable companies are already testing / implementing download caps. Check your TOS and see if there is a monthly limit mentioned.

So, the company providing you with both TV and internet service might not be interested in allowing lots of on-line video streaming.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by Ken C

So, the company providing you with both TV and internet service might not be interested in allowing lots of on-line video streaming.

I see your point, but I think it illustrates another reason why unlimited/unmetered Internet usage is not going to last. Could you imagine paying a flat rate for electricity? I think at some point we'll move to metered Internet usage. I don't think this is going to happen on a large scale until after bandwidth usage goes up quite a bit more for quite a few more people (meaning, until lots of people start streaming lots of high quality videos).

But, I tend to think the current efforts by ISPs to institute caps and try out metered usage are really just to squeeze more money out of customers, not to create a more fair pricing structure.

Also, part of me really thinks ISPs will have to start mirroring a lot of high-bandwidth content on their own systems, using Akamai-like systems. That would save a lot of redundant information from having to cross over the Internet's main pipes. So basically, I'm saying TV and Internet providers will merge into a single industry, so they really won't have a reason to try to stop you from streaming stuff. They'll just get more money because bandwidth usage is metered, and they might not even have to use their expensive big pipes to the Internet backbone to send it to you.

[sandor]

Originally Posted by Ken C

Think about this ... The on-line video content is via internet download. A LOT of that is provided by the cable companies, the same companies that provide cable TV service. If the cable companies core business is TV, then there is a conflict. Several cable companies are already testing / implementing download caps. Check your TOS and see if there is a monthly limit mentioned.

So, the company providing you with both TV and internet service might not be interested in allowing lots of on-line video streaming.

Just to clarify this....

Cable companies DO NOT produce the majority of content they deliver. For the most part, cable companies can be thought of as distributors NOT creators.

Comedy Central, NBC, ABC, HBO, Showtime, etc are the copyright holders of the content and THEY are the ones that put the content on their websites, and they are the ones that collect the check from iTunes (another distributor, just like the cable companies)

Yes, these content owners have current contracts with cable companies (hence the reason Comedy Central cannot stream COMPLETE episodes on their website, but they CAN stream multiple individual clips that make up the whole episodes).


Content creators are the ones starting these websites to compete with cable companies.

[Ken C]

Originally Posted by sandor

Just to clarify this....
Cable companies DO NOT produce the majority of content they deliver. For the most part, cable companies can be thought of as distributors NOT creators.

You are correct. Should have said something like the cable company provides access to on-line video content ...


I read somewhere that a very large cable company currently caps the monthly download at 250gb. That works out to around 2 hours a day for HD content, about 4gb per hour for HD, not much. More with compression.

And, if internet video streaming wins out, every TV connected to cable will need some sort of STB. But, that's likely no matter what happens.

Plus the internet connection will have to handle multiple video streams simultaneously, me, the wife and kids are all watching something different.

If you look at it as if the content providers are nothing more that a remote media server, it may be very similar to what we have today. But, it will undoubtedly cost more. And, probably not for a few years.

I still think the cable TV companies view video streaming as eroding their core business and might throw up some roadblocks.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by sandor

Comedy Central, NBC, ABC, HBO, Showtime, etc are the copyright holders of the content and THEY are the ones that put the content on their websites, and they are the ones that collect the check from iTunes (another distributor, just like the cable companies)

Are the networks really the content creators or do they just buy the rights for the shows from the studio that produces it? I believe it is a bit of both but TV networks could become just as obsolete as cable cos selling channels -why not get content from the original creator.

For example, in the future will you still watch an NFL game on CBS delivered by your cable company? Or will you subscribe to live games at nfl.com for several hundred dollars per year? The money goes straight to the NFL and you could out to layers of "middlemen" both the cable co and the TV networks.

The same thing could happen to regular TV shows as the studio that creates the show could sell it directly to the end consumer via their web site. Future Matt Groenigs will not have to depend on FOX to carry their show.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by Ken C

I still think the cable TV companies view video streaming as eroding their core business and might throw up some roadblocks.

I think that this is already happening. I don't see why my cable box, which is made by Cisco (aka SA), could not recive shows from Netflix, Hulu, iTines, etc. But if you are the cable company why would you want yourself being disintermediated - you would likley refuse to offer to carry the boxes with this functionality and just offer the basic cable boxes.

Do you need already see similar instance with cell phones where certain types of functionality is crippled by the network so as to not impair their revenue stream?

[sandor]

Originally Posted by Ken C

I still think the cable TV companies view video streaming as eroding their core business and might throw up some roadblocks.

definitely. much in the same way that the RIAA wanted/wants to get a cut of digital music players, internet providers want a larger cut of what they see as a growing market.

this is much of the reason Comcast (my local cable company) is fighting tooth and nail AGAINST Verizon getting FIOS up and running in the city of Philadelphia - competition. In the same way networks setting up alternative distribution systems is competition against the cable companies... hoepfully it will get cable companies to change their archaic practices.

[sandor]

Originally Posted by wayner

Are the networks really the content creators or do they just buy the rights for the shows from the studio that produces it? I believe it is a bit of both but TV networks could become just as obsolete as cable cos selling channels -why not get content from the original creator.

With the big broadcast networks, they buy the rights after seeing pilots. They pay the writers actors etc and all the production costs by formulating contracts for XX amount of episodes. I assume that most "cable" television stations do the same.


Certainly, there are events, such as sporting events, that fall outside of this process, and something like the NFL would possibly be perfect for direct-to-consumer via nfl.com, but i would wager that most scripted television is paid for by the network even if the initial idea was someone else's.


Think of scripted television as being pretty much the same as major motion pictures - someone brings the corporations an idea, the corporation fronts all the money for production and marketing.

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by wayner

I personally far prefer the model where I store and control the content on my end with as little DRM as possible. Hollywood doesn't like that but I don't see them stopping me, other than disabling component outputs on my cable box and I don't think that is very likely in the near term.

I would prefer almost the exact opposite. I'd like a model where I store nothing locally but can access almost anything instantly out on the web.

As for DRM, I do not care if it is DRMed as long as I can watch on any TV or PC in my house at any time, as many times as I want. I'd also like to be able to copy something to a portable video player. If I can see what I want, when I want, where I want, I have very little need to burn something to DVD. I do not have a problem with people and companies protecting their IP from being pirated as long as the terms of use is not overly restrictive.

I'm willing to pay a small monthly charge, say $10.00 to $20.00 per month.

This seems very economical to me. No buying or renting DVDs/BDs, no servers, no massive storage issues, lower electric bills, no backup worries, the list goes on and on.

[sandor]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

I would prefer almost the exact opposite. I'd like a model where I store nothing locally but can access almost anything instantly out on the web.

As for DRM, I do not care if it is DRMed as long as I can watch on any TV or PC in my house at any time, as many times as I want. I'd also like to be able to copy something to a portable video player. If I can see what I want, when I want, where I want, I have very little need to burn something to DVD. I do not have a problem with people and companies protecting their IP from being pirated as long as the terms of use is not overly restrictive.

I'm willing to pay a small monthly charge, say $10.00 to $20.00 per month.

This seems very economical to me. No buying or renting DVDs/BDs, no servers, no massive storage issues, lower electric bills, no backup worries, the list goes on and on.

i completely agree. if i have absolutely no reason to buy TB's worth of storage space, and can still access the content i want, when and where i want, i will be happy. this is the reason i love Netflix "Watch it Now" - i just want more content, and higher quality streaming. though if i have to choose, i will take accessibility over resolution.

[reggie14]

=Ken C]I still think the cable TV companies view video streaming as eroding their core business and might throw up some roadblocks.

Some of the alleged "roadblocks" really aren't roadblocks. You can't expect ISPs to serve customers a much higher volume of data at the same price. Download caps and metered usage aren't necessarily roadblocks. They need to recoup their expenses somehow.

Originally Posted by sandor

much in the same way that the RIAA wanted/wants to get a cut of digital music players, internet providers want a larger cut of what they see as a growing market.

Is this what you meant to say? The RIAA has tried, and apparently was successful with the Zune, to invoke a piracy tax on digital audio players. I think its stupid, but I see their point. But that's a separate issue than them wanting "a cut" in the market. The RIAA certainly is getting a cut in the digital audio file market though. Though, I think that's a separate issue. The RIAA is basically representing the content creators whereas cable companies are middle-men in the distribution network. You can't cut out the providers, but you certainly can cut out the middle-men- and that's what cable companies are afraid of. I think the big cable companies see that their future is in providing data services, not video, though.

Originally Posted by tmiranda

I'm willing to pay a small monthly charge, say $10.00 to $20.00 per month.

What are you saying this charge is for? It seems awfully low if you're saying its for the ability to stream TVs shows from the stations that make up the expanded basic lineup.

But, I agree with your point. I don't care about DRM as long as it doesn't stop me from doing what I want to do.