Judging from the titles of the articles, it seems that the press think that Intel might be on to something with its web TV offering. Here's a few:
Has Intel cracked the TV problem that Apple couldn't?
Could Intel Be the Next Big Threat to Netflix and Redbox?
Intel's web TV service will be smart
But the real proof is in how much effort the board shills are putting into trying to create negative spin.
Looks like Intel has a winner...
Sentiment: Strong Buy
"The live television and on-demand content that Intel has announced isn’t something Netflix or Redbox offer, and it could be a key point for winning over customers. If Intel can match content quality and amounts to Netflix and RedBox while also exclusively offering live content, it may be able to steal customers from both sides of the fence…
A multilevel service like this can draw in customers who currently only use online services to watch video but want more, only use traditional cable or satellite but want online video, or pay for both traditional and online services but want it all in one package."
Sentiment: Strong Buy
I agreed your point. Let's think about why today most people like to read/search news on internet rather on newspaper. One of the important reason is I can read/search the news I'm interested, not that the news editors pushed in front on me, like on newspaper. However no thing had been changed yet on TV channels. We are set to either watch the programs that are broadcasting on certain channels or to watch certain programs we had recorded in a hard drive (extra $). Nothing we can do to choose the programs we want to watch the same way as we did to search and read news in Website. I don't know yet what in details that INTEL TV will do. I hope it could provide us a tool that I can simply choose the programs to watch on different channels ~ equivalent to different websites. I wish INTEL TV could also bring in the IE experience on surfacing the program/channels.......I bought an apple iTV, but felt it didn't bring in a new exciting experience as I expected.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Interesting commentary from both you and merlot 1. Unfortunately, I'm more of a pragmatist. Our share price is barely above $21. Steve Jobs always saw INTC as a bit stodgy and slow. Now you want me to believe that the tiger can change the color of its stripes....possibly, but like the good folk from Missouri, show me
Your posts with factual data and or insightful analysis about Intel's products are informative and useful. But what is the above? It's a list of article headings in the form of questions "Has Intel cracked.....:, "Could Intel be......". We all know Intel is so influential in the industry that it will get press no matter what it does. It also generated tons of press when it promoted WiMAX and the investment in the wireless carrier Clearwire, when it entered the web hosting business, when it launched the media PC, etc. Today those projects ie on the trash heap of failed efforts. And they failed not for lack of good technology but poor business judgement and inexperience in the targeted market. The point is that not everything Intel does is perfect and it's OK not to drink the Intel Kool-Aid all the time. Intel does enough things right where it counts and to become hugely successul in all things mobile.
Will the web TV box be successful? We shall see.
First the consumer behavior monitoring and spying feature is so intrusive and so reprehensible that that feature alone could sour public sentiment against the entire effort. Further, if Intel doesn't take action to isolate the potential negative impact of this product from the rest of the company's efforts it could easily taint Intel's brand in core products where it really counts like Ultrabooks, tablets and smartphones. Consumers shouldn't have to worry about Intel spying on them via their Intel tablets and smartphones too just because its profitable to do so.
However, Intel can easily fix the web TV product. All it has to do is remove the camera from the box. It serves no other purpose than to spy on the consumer. If the business model Intel created for this product rests on revenue generated from spying, then they really aren't adding enough value to the consumer and the product will die a natural death.
As for Intel's web TV taking Netflix customers I'm doubtful. A lot of people purchased Netflix to reduct the cost of video programming. Netflix customers pay $20/month or less and cable HDTV packages start at about $80 and can run much higher. Intel stated this isn't a value play which means the monthly fee for the Intel service is likely to be no lower than current cable HDTV service. Therefore if one wasn't paying for cable HDTV service already they probably aren't going to become a customer of Intel's service. This product will be for those that are already cable HDTV customers and might want the additional flexibility of viewing the programming on second or third devices without having to have a settop box for each TV, plus perhaps the possibility of viewing the video content on other Intel-based portable devices.
Also, what no one has talked about yet is the cost impact of using one's Internet connection to deliver all the live video programming and movies to the consumer via the Internet. Fixed price unlimited Internet service is no longer guaranteed by federal regulation. Today the FCC allows broadband ISP's to charge high usage Internet customers more.
The only thing assured in the video programming business is that the cable and content companies aren't going to lose.
Well, let me begin by saying that I am very protective about a person's right to privacy. I myself am a very private person and I am against all forms of government and corporate invasion of privacy.
But you seem to be accusing Intel of having developed its web TV project of the sheer purpose of spying on people and I don't think that's the case. I think their motive is the normal one for a corporation - profits and expanding the ecosystem.
You also seem to believe that this is a novel and new capability being used in a nefarious way. It's not. Cameras are everywhere today including most cell phones. It's just an expansion of technology beyond voice to video. Even the identification part of it is not new and is currently being used in many, many places.
I would be more concerned it one couldn't simply turn the camera off. And if that is considered a leap of faith one could simply put the device in an opaque box or put something in front of or over it. I'm pretty sure the camera will not see through solid objects or the Intel stock price would be 1600 by now.
I don't believe Intel will get bad press because of the camera simply because it can be turned off or incapacitated and because similar devices are in common use.
If you have a big problem with Intel's web TV camera, then you should have an equally big problem with Skype or cell phone cameras. Do you have a problem with Skype?
As far as the criticism goes of this being a distraction or that it is not in Intel's expertise, I don't agree with it. The project isn't being done by the processor development group. It's being done by a new and separate group and their credentials, background and experience appear to be quite good. Because it's a separate group I don't believe it will be a distraction from core activities. As the upside is about $19 billion a year in revenues it seems like it is worth a shot. I applaud Intel for attempting to free themselves of prior non-performance with a new team and a new approach. It would be an extremely useful addition to Intel's ecosystem. It's the kind of thing Apple would be applauded for doing.
If I am so lucky as to have access to Intel's web TV, I will probably just throw a box on top of it except for those explicit times when I need its capability. You might consider this approach it its non-camera capabilities appeal to you.
Regardless, thank you for your comments...
Sentiment: Strong Buy
My 2 cents on the topic –
Intel makes money by selling chips.
Studios make money be selling content.
ISPs/Cable companies make money by providing the means of transmission.
And there are others in that chain (e.g., T.V manufacturers).
Intel is not a competitor to studios or cable companies.
In contrast, Apple essentially burned record companies by buying music from then for cheap and then re-selling it, making a ton of money. The entertainment industry (content producers) won’t make that mistake again, which is why “Apple TV” is going nowhere.
Amazon makes money by re-selling content they buy from studios. They are a middle-man. So is Netflix – a largely non-value added re-selling intermediary.
Intel’s interest is in selling chips – they want Intel chips in every living room in the US. Intel’s interests could, if they work things right with producers/studios, and cable companies, develop some tools that could benefit everyone – studios, cable companies, Intel.
How? We’ll have to wait and see.
Bottom-line – Intel is not a competitor to content producers or cable companies, but a possible value-added partner. Possible value-added. We’ll see.