Comments on: Sky in Europe http://www.borthwick.com/weblog/2006/04/10/sky-in-europe/ occasional thoughts by john borthwick Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:42:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: max191 http://www.borthwick.com/weblog/2006/04/10/sky-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-214905 max191 Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:46:00 +0000 http://www.borthwick.com/weblog/2006/04/10/sky-in-europe/#comment-214905 Definitely a great post. Hats off to you! The information that you have provided is very helpful.<br>regards<br><a rel="dofollow" href="http://www.charcoalgrillsite.com" rel="nofollow">charcoal grill</a> Definitely a great post. Hats off to you! The information that you have provided is very helpful.
regards
charcoal grill

]]> By: John http://www.borthwick.com/weblog/2006/04/10/sky-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-8 John Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:13:42 +0000 http://www.borthwick.com/weblog/2006/04/10/sky-in-europe/#comment-8 Agree in the US IPTV providers are thinking about video services as a replacement to cable or satellite from day one - and they think they need to first offer the video experience that everyone has today -- that said I do question whether its the right approach. Outside the US video is often an added benefit as part of the bundle, not the driver of the bundle. Video and telephony are meant to be used as "second line" services that over time may become primary. In some bundles video is presented as a "free" add on if you sign up for broadband. In cases where IP based video isnt meant to be the primary video service its becoming differentiated from the begining. Just like Skype didnt begin by trying to mimic the behavior and services on pots phones I believe the value of IPTV will emerge from providers who treat it as a new platform to offer video on, with properties that are different from broadcast or satellite. Agree in the US IPTV providers are thinking about video services as a replacement to cable or satellite from day one – and they think they need to first offer the video experience that everyone has today — that said I do question whether its the right approach.

Outside the US video is often an added benefit as part of the bundle, not the driver of the bundle. Video and telephony are meant to be used as “second line” services that over time may become primary. In some bundles video is presented as a “free” add on if you sign up for broadband. In cases where IP based video isnt meant to be the primary video service its becoming differentiated from the begining. Just like Skype didnt begin by trying to mimic the behavior and services on pots phones I believe the value of IPTV will emerge from providers who treat it as a new platform to offer video on, with properties that are different from broadcast or satellite.

]]> By: Andrew Cleland http://www.borthwick.com/weblog/2006/04/10/sky-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Andrew Cleland Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:06:27 +0000 http://www.borthwick.com/weblog/2006/04/10/sky-in-europe/#comment-7 The IPTV guys in the US know that it can be different, but feel that they need to deliver the TV experience that everyone knows today to reduce customer resistance to the fear of change -- no one wants to lose their TV experience, just gain new ones. When they've gained share, they'll start to innovate on top of the core TV-as-it-is-today offering. The IPTV guys in the US know that it can be different, but feel that they need to deliver the TV experience that everyone knows today to reduce customer resistance to the fear of change — no one wants to lose their TV experience, just gain new ones.

When they’ve gained share, they’ll start to innovate on top of the core TV-as-it-is-today offering.

]]> By: John http://www.borthwick.com/weblog/2006/04/10/sky-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-6 John Fri, 21 Apr 2006 08:21:24 +0000 http://www.borthwick.com/weblog/2006/04/10/sky-in-europe/#comment-6 Cable wasnt me too when it started and likewise IPTV has to become different from multichannel cable or sat video to succeed -- I suspect it can be more than a me too service. Offerings that are starting to emerge in more advanced IPTV markets (hong kong, france, spain) suggest that it can and will do things differently. See what how Illiad program sports events -- its would sat or cost cable a ton of money to do what Illiad can program in days in basic HTML (on screen grids or mosiacs, pick your own feed, archive, etc.) Cable wasnt me too when it started and likewise IPTV has to become different from multichannel cable or sat video to succeed — I suspect it can be more than a me too service.

Offerings that are starting to emerge in more advanced IPTV markets (hong kong, france, spain) suggest that it can and will do things differently. See what how Illiad program sports events — its would sat or cost cable a ton of money to do what Illiad can program in days in basic HTML (on screen grids or mosiacs, pick your own feed, archive, etc.)

]]> By: pip coburn http://www.borthwick.com/weblog/2006/04/10/sky-in-europe/comment-page-1/#comment-5 pip coburn Tue, 18 Apr 2006 04:18:31 +0000 http://www.borthwick.com/weblog/2006/04/10/sky-in-europe/#comment-5 cable wasn't me too in the states in the 1970s partially because the content was different which was easy to pull off since there were only three stations broadcast at the time. In the US IPTV is at best me-too. In a ocuntry without 200 channels IPTV might still be value-added. i think it is about choicepip cable wasn’t me too in the states in the 1970s partially because the content was different which was easy to pull off since there were only three stations broadcast at the time. In the US IPTV is at best me-too. In a ocuntry without 200 channels IPTV might still be value-added. i think it is about choicepip

]]>