Think about it....anybody that is not happy with their current TV service can just go to Best Buy or Amazon and pick up a set-top box and then go online and sign up for the service and begin watching Live TV ...no need to make an appointment for installation.
And since the set-top box will have a WiDi receiver, you can use your WiDi enabled smartphone, tablet or PC to watch stuff from the internet on your TV....ie. Netflix or youtube. Plus WiDi will allow for a new breed of smartphone and tablet apps and games that allow you to interact with your TV. For example, apps that allow you to pick and choose shows to record or games that use your smartphone as a controller.
Why do you misrepresent this product so much? It's a good thing Intel's future isn't dependent on this product.
For your first claim to be true the consumer must already be paying for cable Internet service or equivalent from Verizon FIOS. If the consumer has an HDTV package from their cable company they can already watch live TV. Intel's Web TV doesn't offer a la carte selection of programming nor does it lower the cost of content to the consumer. It may offer several options of bundled programming but the cost to the consumer isn't expected to be any less than what they already pay the cable company.
WiDi uses a short range wireless technology to deliver video to another device in the same room - but not to other rooms in the house. There is a noticeable delay from the time the material is displayed on the source device and the WIDI client. The delay makes it less useful for applications sensitive to timing and interactivity.
Intel Web TV can't compete against Netflix or most other movie streaming services in affordability because the movie streaming services are already built into most Smart TV's and virtually every DVD player already, while consumers have to go buy another box for the Intel service. Further, Netflix starts at about $8.00 a month and the Internet service will cost just as much as the cable's HDTV package. Those typically start at about $80 a month and more.
I also note you failed to mention the reasons why consumers won't even consider putting that device in their home and that is the built-in camera designed to turn the occupant's privacy & behaviorial profile into a revenue stream for sale to third parties.
Intel is #$%$ a lot of things right, especially in CPU's and SoC's for mobility. However, Intel's Web TV is misguided and presently on a trajectory for failure.
So is there a way Intel can participate in the media and entertainment business? Yes, but they need to build on their strength rather than get distracted with a project that tries to make a business model selling-off consumer's privacy to the highest bidder.
Today nearly all Smart TV's today use ARM chips. The very first thing Intel needs to do is leverage the performance of its new Atom chips (Clovertrail Plus) to convince TV and DVD makers to put Atom chips inside their devices instead of those from ARM. There are a lot of reasons device makers may want to make the switch. Intel's chip performance is a big benefit because even new Smart TV's are too slow to be really useful. Because of this only about 15% of people who own Smart TV's even use the Smart TV feature.
If Intel gets its chips inside TV's, DVD players and related devices it can offer many of the benefits reportedly available in Intel's Web TV box but without the extra box, the extra cost and without spying on anyone. And repackaging live cable TV at the same price cable companies already charge for the same content wasn't so compelling to begin with.