OT: The best news all year

Started Jan 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
Jim Cockfield Forum Pro • Posts: 16,333
Sure, it matters

malch wrote:

Jim Cockfield wrote:

Well... personally, I'd prefer that Intel fails, and one of the vendors that have apps available for Android succeeds instead.

That's because you can buy *very* inexpensive devices (around $50 now for generic ones) capable of running apps like Hulu, Netflix, Crackle, etc.. I bought a set top box not long ago running Android 4.x myself that's capable of running a lot of different apps with a variety of different content available, with both analog and hdmi outputs, USB hosts ports, apps that can use network shares, and more.

So, I don't want to spend a lot more money to get an Intel based device for that purpose, and I'd prefer that content providers that have Android based apps running on inexpensive ARM based solutions succeed in offering better content.

I don't think it matters whose chip is used. Most likely, we'll end up with a choice anyway.

Sure it matters, as Intel wants to sell more Intel chipsets, which is the entire reason they want to introduce a set top box, not out of the goodness of their heart to help consumers.

This isn't really about the competing compression and encoding schemes. Or even technology. It's a question of how content is distributed to consumers. Do we continue with an oligopoly that imposes huge bundles, or do we provide a channel that allows consumers to purchase only the products they want.

I'm all for that. It looks like Intel thought they could produce a Set Top box and the content providers would be all for changing their pricing structure.

But, just because Intel wants to invest in Set Top box technology, doesn't mean they'll be better on the on the content side.

Sub $100 ARM based devices running Android are "coming out the woodwork" now there are so many of them, with many of them designed specifically for providing internet content to TVs, and Intel isn't going to be able to compete with those devices on the hardware cost level.

So, why would content providers want to make concessions for a manufacturer of higher priced hardware, when they should be targeting consumers wanting content via many of the [perfectly capable] lower priced ARM based devices instead, so they'd attract more users to those content offerings.

For example, see this article in the Wall Street Journal, implying that Intel may delay introduction of their Web TV type services, with sources "citing delays in reaching content-licensing agreements with entertainment companies that own major TV channels."


That's what iTunes did for/to the music industry. Once Apple cracked open the nut, other alternatives followed (Amazon, Spotify, etc.).

It will take someone with serious clout and determination to get the ball rolling (Intel, Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft or whatever). Once they do, others will follow and we'll have competition where there is currently none.

I'm all for the ability to get more content with more pricing flexibility. But, I don't want to be locked into an Intel solution to get it.

Frankly, I think Intel is probably "barking up the wrong tree" anyway if they think they can persuade content providers to give them a better deal, just because they're a large chipset manufacturer.

Sure, they may be large on the desktop, but ARM is the platform more users are going to for watching content (phones, tablets, set top boxes, integrated web services in new TV's they purchase, etc.)

There are tons of devices using ARM chipsets that content providers are more likely to look at for providing better pricing on content (via one of the existing providers like Hulu, Crackle, Netflix, etc., that have apps that run on multiple platforms), instead of making concessions for Intel (since their hardware offerings are most surely going to be priced higher than existing ARM based solutions).

-- hide signature --


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow