Skip to comments.Internet-Connect TV Soars, Clicks With Mainstream Audience (Dinosaur Media DeathWatch™)
Posted on 07/01/2011 11:17:50 AM PDT by abb
Internet-connected television sets have been growing fast, and by the end of the year -- for the first time -- there will be more connected TVs than videogame consoles.
By the end of 2011, some 52 million connected TV sets will be sold globally -- from Samsung, LG and Sony versus 37 game consoles in the market from Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony --Xbox, PlayStation and Wii respectively. This is according to U.K.-base Informa Telecoms & Media.
"Until now, many online video services were launched primarily with the game console in mind, mainly because console users innately understand how to connect these devices and demand interactive video services from them," stated Andrew Ladbrook, analyst at Informa Telecoms & Media.
He said this trend is changing as "connected TVs bring these services to a mainstream audience."
Informa projects that in five years -- 2016 -- there will be 1.8 billion in-home video devices -- including tablets -- that will be sold, an 800% increase. That means 70% of all in-home video devices sold will be able to connect to the Internet. But connected TVs might have to undergo a change by then. Informa says new TV set makers will need to build and support platforms that works across both the latest and legacy video devices.
Which company could lose out here? Informa says Apple could lose ground in the connected TV space if it does not launch a dedicated Internet-enabled TV instead of relying upon a standalone box to stream video.
This is why Glen Beck started GBTV!
I have a PC hooked to my HDTV. It gives you a lot more flexibility. You are locked into the TV manufacturer’s software if you get a Internet connected TV. There is LOTS of free TV on the web that they lock you out of. You can only purchase Netflix, etc.
Sanity check - an Internet enabled flat screen has a $200-1,000 premium over a similar TV without the internet capability.
AppleTV costs $99, and takes a single HDMI connection on your TV, is wireless, small and completely silent (no fan).
MSNBC’s Liberal Stance: Decision Based on Profit, Not Politics
Nashville | A forum just for Tennessean layoffs
White House press pool losing scoops to Twitter
11 Employees Take Buyout Offer to Leave Lee’s Lincoln Journal Star
Cable TV looks to go social to keep audiences tethered
Dawning of a new media age: Journalism in the time of social media
McDowell: Better Than Average Chance Net Neutrality Rules Will Be Stayed
FCC Finishes Net Neutrality Rule Review
But a roku box ($59 to $99) is far cheaper. I got one about a month ago and I love it. Combine that with a digital antenna and I am seriously considering dropping cable.
Honestly, I expected Apple to utilize the A4 processor in the AppleTV and the memory space available far more than it has (or hasn't, as the case may be).
I fully expected Apple to release a' la cart programming several months ago. The AppleTV has the computing power to easily manage this feat. If I could pay $5/month for each channel I actually watch - I could drop my $88/month satellite bill to zero. Video-on-demand, streaming from Netflix and watching ONLY the channels that I like would save me a fortune. Why am I forced to supplment channels that I have no interest in watching .... ever?
How come all of FOX's critics don'tsay the same thing?
The sat-cable industry is on the precipice, to the extent they are not ISPs.
Same here. The problem is that outside of the major vendors like Netflix, the chances of finding something that doesn’t look absolutely awful on a large flat panel is slim to none. Most internet sources still look like crap on my 26” monitor.
Better yet, a decent Blu-Ray player will run you around $150 and will have all the benefits of a Roku box plus it will play Blu-rays and DVD’s.
Google is well positioned to take advantage of a switch to ip tv.
They bought up all that dark fiber several years ago...it was bargain priced after the dot com bust. High speed wireless could connect everyone in a large metro area to that dedicated fiber network at little cost.
Free Republic should draw on the pool of talented members here
and start a news network on the web. It would cost very little and could earn revenue from ad sales. It could be based on a peer to peer model...this model works and is robust.
A misnomer that retailers are trying to push on customers who want Broadcast HDTV.
An Old fashioned TV Antenna like Grandpa had on the side of his house will do the same job.
(Shhh, don't tell anyone else though...)
We love ours.
New York Times Co. sells part of Red Sox stake
July 1, 2011 5:58 PM
By Beth Healy, Globe Staff
The Red Sox have been struggling lately, but the team is paying off for The New York Times Co., which today sold a portion of its Sox holdings for a sizeable profit.
The Times Co. reported that it sold more than half its holdings in the Fenway Sports Group, which includes the Sox, for $117 million, recouping more than what the media company spent on its entire original investment.
JULY 2, 2011
Times Co. Sells Part of Stake in Red Sox
By RUSSELL ADAMS
New York Times Co. sold more than half of its 17% stake in the holding company of the Boston Red Sox to three separate buyers for $117 million in cash.
The sale, disclosed in a regulatory filing on Friday, represents 390 of the 700 shares that Times Co. held in Fenway Sports Group, which owns the Red Sox and most of the cable network that airs its games.
GBTV is $99 per year, seems a bit steep multiplied over many channels.
FreeRepublic.com is $100.00 a month for me. So $99 a year is a bargain!
_______MSNBCs Liberal Stance: Decision Based on Profit, Not Politics________
Wow! That must be why they are kicking FOX’s tail in ratings and market share. /s/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.