TV and mobile

Pondering the latest iPlayer stats pack, this comparison really leaps out at me: handheld devices are now as popular as TV viewing for the UK's biggest broadcaster's online catchup service. 

For those who don't know, iPlayer is the BBC's online catchup service. It has essentially all of the BBC's output (barring a few edge cases) on all channels, generally for 30 days. WIth none of the channel conflicts that beset US providers, the BBC makes it available on as many devices as are practical, for no extra charge. The only restriction is a UK-only geofilter. 

There is an unspoken assumption in discussion of on-demand, internet based TV that a major hurdle to be passed is getting 'it' onto the living room TV, because that is where most viewing will happen. This is where Google TV, Vudu, Roku, Boxee and of course the connected TV efforts of the OEMs focus. 

Yet in the UK, where the single most popular content provider makes its content available on any device, the most popular UI is not this:

But rather this - a rich touch screen arms-length experience

Now, there are plenty of caveats here. To start with, iPlayer is not yet on Sky boxes, and this will change imminently, which will push the STB numbers back up: given the size of Sky's base that means the 'TV Devices' line could double. And of course PCs remain dominant.

But 10-20% of TV viewing today happens on secondary TV screens. How many of those will be supplanted by hand-held screens? How many people will decide that actually, the best viewing experience is not tied to wires, any more than the best phone experience was tied to wires, and that the combination of portability, a touch UI and the intimacy of a screen you can hold yourself is better than a huge LCD on a wall on the other side of the room? I suspect a large share of secondary screens will convert, and with it a large new slice of viewing as well. That would imply 20-30% of total viewing on might be on non-traditional screens. 

Apple, of course, has a foot in both camps, since the Apple TV lets you browse content on your iPhone and then throw it to the TV screen, as well as browse directly on the TV itself. But perhaps, Apple will never make a TV set because it is already selling a different solution to that problem.

iPlayer: mobile passes TV, for now

Interesting data from the BBC: mobile + tablet requests on the iPlayer catchup service now outnumber all requests made on TV screens, via STBs, consoles, smart TVs etc. 

Still dominated by PCs, as one would expect, but portable devices appear to be growing fast than  devices that 'put internet video onto your TV.

Of course, this is partly because there are not many good solutions for doing this. The addition of Sky to iPlayer in the next few months will spike the numbers in other other direction. However, it seems quite possible that hand-held devices will take a big share of viewing - especially for the kinds of viewing that currently happens on 'second sets'.

Source: BBC

Sky shows why Apple can’t make a TV. 

This will work, right now, in all of Sky’s 4.3m Sky+ HD homes. (That’s roughly the same number as Apple’s total global AppleTV sales…)

A pay TV provider can do this: Apple can’t do any of this, because they don’t actually have the content or the channels, nor will they unless the people who own the content and channels (in other words, Sky) allow them to.

Nor is there any compelling reason why many pay TV providers would allow Apple do do this - why would they sell their soul? They’ve spent 15 years fighting to keep Microsoft out of the living-room - they’re not about to give Apple the keys to the kingdom. 

And, to state what ought to be obvious, Apple cannot afford to outbid the existing broadcasters and pay TV providers for content in every major market in the world - and even if it could, it would be monetising that content against a far smaller base. RAI can monetise HBO shows in Italy far better than Apple, or even HBO. 

These are the barriers Apple has been butting against for years: it’s a business model problem, not a technology problem. Apple didn’t need Nokia’s permission to make the iPhone, but it does need permission from content owners and pay TV providers to make a TV that does anything disruptive. 

Tangentially, it is much easier for a Pay TV provider to innovate through smartphone apps than to embed new functionality directly into the STB. Not only are there memory and processing limitations, but anything you do to a STB risks bricking it, necessitating months of testing, whereas the worst a smartphone app can do is crash itself - embarrassing but not catastrophic. 

Average selling prices

Apple tends to sell at around double the average price for the industry. 

Naturally, a PC or phone with the same specs as an Apple product will cost around the same - but Apple stays in the high end while others don’t. 

Pondering the implications of this for the TV business. Can Apple sell a TV for double the average price? What would it have to do? Whose permission would it need?

No cord-cutting at HBO

HBO on why they’re not going to unbundle from cable networks any time soon. 

Airplay

A very simple reason why Apple doesn’t need to make its own television. Just licence AirPlay. 

Zeebox

Anthony Rose (Zeebox) and Ralph Kunz (Catagonia Capital) discuss connected TV