Kafka Interviews Boxee
Peter says in this video that I am "constantly blogging about Boxee" and I suppose that’s true so I am going to continue that behavior and reblog his interview of Avner at CES last week.
Here’s the blog post from All Things D where the video was originally posted.
Many people run boxee on their laptop to watch on their laptopOthers connect a laptop to a LCD projecter and watch that wayOthers run Boxee on appletv or a mac mini that is directly connected to the TVIf those devices are connected to your network and so is your laptop, then they can play the media that’s on your laptopThat’s how I use it for example
Thanks for the clarification fred.What I really need is a TV that has a built in browser in it. Then I will be all set. That will bring the web video on to our TVs.
plug your computer into your TV
I do this once in a while but it is not very convenient. In developers lingo it is a klugy solution :)I think TV will have a built in browsing capability in not too distant future. Then web TV will be just TV.
It¹s coming, but what you really need is a TV with boxee in itCheck it out and I think you might agreeA browser is good (I use one all the time on my 60² plasma) but for a lot ofstuff, boxee is much better
I will certainly check it out fred. Thanks.
How does Boxee get the video from the laptop/mac to the TV? I understand it uses wi fi, but all the TVs are not wifi enabled. This is the big problem in getting the video to the TV, not aggregating all the videos in one place.
I assume Boxee’s strategy is to license the platform to the number of “convergence” devices that will be coming out, particualrly with the Internet-enabled TV’s. We’re ultimately in a “three-screen” world (mobile, computer, and TV), so just as the mobile is finally enabled with a full Internet experience, with iPhone and Adroid, the same *must* happen with that last screen.However, so many players out there have substantial interests for that *not* to happen: studios, cable providers, etc. So I can see some logjams up ahead. I know people like to poo-poo metering, but I still can’t help but think that cable broadband providers (Comcast, Verizon, RCN) that provide data *and* video services, they are going to want to avoid those channel conflicts, as the interviewer alludes to, or at least be compensated for the data services cannibilizing the video services.If you want an unsolicited suggestion, in my opinion, it’s more important for Boxee to natively support internet-enabled TV’s (and major set-top-boxes) than to do various ports to a number of PC platforms. I still don’t think there’s that big of a market for PC->TV bridges outside of the geek early-adopters. The TV will ultimately have the PC inside it.But you probably already have that planned out… 🙂
I think ubuntu is a good modelThere was a longish piece on them in the times yesterdayhttp://bit.ly/C0Ck
Yes, I have ubuntu on one of my development machines. For a MIT geek – like me – it’s fun to watch a Linux variant take a shot at the mainstream consumer desktop market.What is the market for Ubuntu in the context of an Embedded Linux type-platform? For example, I think Boxee would be perfect for the Roku box. I assume that Roku is running something of a Linux micro-kernel. The question might be whether there’s enough horsepower to power such a UI compared to the rather light interfaces that are currently on the Roku boxes.If that is clear sailing, then I think the next-generation TV’s will have embedded linux in them – as opposed to having to pay MSFT a $$$ licensing fee for WindowsCE. Given that, I think it’d be a logic step for Boxee to step into that market.
So I was curious about what the economics of a cable business like Comcast were like and wanted to make the statement that if they cut their video business gradually and switch it all over to more expensive high speed internet business they would be better off. For example on average you pay $99 a month for phone/tv/internet. In reality you end up paying $130ish and after a year you are in the $150 zone. Then I was looking at their latest earnings release…..7.3 million or 44% of digital cable subscribers have advanced services such as digital video recorders (DVR) and/or high-definition television service (HDTV).I wish they would break that out into just DVR as I think that would be a huge stat for the success of Boxee. And a huge reason why Comcast should be afraid because DVR and HD are another $25 a month.But back to my original point……if they became a bandwidth provider and scrapped video content delivery. They made $1.8 B in Q3 on internet only penetrating 30% of homes. Lets say adoption increases to that of their Video service in which they reach 69% of homes and they also up their average costs because they deliver faster speeds from $40 a month to $60 a month. Market penetration would get them to $4.2 B in revenue and the up in price gets them to $6.4 B. They made about $374 M from Advertising in Q3 (down 10%) and $347 MM from programming which would all get stripped away because they don’t have a hand in the content anymore. And lets say they keep the Digital voice business because people figure it’s easy to plug the phone into the modem and, hey, they’re paying a lower overall bill now….so add $690 B (for argument sake lets say this doesn’t grow and suckers remain suckers and Skypers remain Skypers).So that gets them to about $7.1 B in revenue in the new Boxee world per quarter and only $1.4 B less than their current revenue while shedding the fees and administrative costs of running their video business. The costs are a lot harder to estimate…..but interesting none-the-less.