1 / 12

Video Value Chains Case Study Update: The Evolution of Video Services

Video Value Chains Case Study Update: The Evolution of Video Services. Natalie Klym Research Associate, MIT nklym@cfp.mit.edu May 31, 2007 Philadelphia, PA. The goals of today’s talk . Give an overview of the video case study Look at today’s changes in historical context

ona
Download Presentation

Video Value Chains Case Study Update: The Evolution of Video Services

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Video Value Chains Case Study Update:The Evolution of Video Services Natalie Klym Research Associate, MIT nklym@cfp.mit.edu May 31, 2007 Philadelphia, PA

  2. The goals of today’s talk • Give an overview of the video case study • Look at today’s changes in historical context • Present a framework for video platforms • Examine current competitive dynamics among video services • Discuss future trends

  3. The evolution of the U.S. TV industry can be broken down into three phases • Original broadcast model (1930s-1940s) • First reinvention of television (1940s-1990s) • Second reinvention of television (1990s – present) • Each phase includes a combination of • TV extensions • New delivery platforms • New content providers • General trend towards value chain fragmentation • Today’s video landscape is messy and complex, and changing quickly Overview of video case study

  4. Simple TV service model • networks produce content • deliver content over licensed spectrum • linear programming, no interactivity • ad-supported service, free to consumers • Dominated by big three networks (ABC, CBC, NBC) • Vertical integration of production, content aggregation & delivery The original broadcast model TV Big 3 networks OTA

  5. Cable retransmits broadcasters signals (1940s) imports distant broadcast signals (1950s) Cable content industry is born (1970s) Satellite Direct-to-home systems (1980s) Distributes cable & broadcasters programming VCR late 1970s time-shifting, ad-skipping, trick plays on-demand retail channel The first reinvention of television New delivery platforms TV New content providers Satellite TV STB Cable TV networks STB Cable TV Recording VCR Big 4 networks OTA B&M New delivery platform for movies VOD (movies) Film studios

  6. Linear Cable TV VOD The second reinvention of television • Digital transmission • more channels • HDTV • enables interactive services (EPG, VOD) • Digital recording • increases rate of recording • enables transfer of recorded content to PCs, PDAs • integration with Internet /PC value chain • redistribution via Internet Transfer of recorded content to PCs, PDAs PDA PC Digital recording TV Satellite TV STB/DVR Cable TV networks STB/DVR Interactive services (EPG, VOD) DVD Big 4 networks OTA B&M Post (DVD) Digital transmission VOD added to digital cable Film studios

  7. Linear Cable TV VOD The second reinvention of television New delivery platforms Cell phone Public Internet Wireless networks PDA PC New content providers Private Internet Web video IP STB Public Internet TV IP STB Satellite TV STB/DVR Cable TV networks STB/DVR DVD Big 4 networks OTA B&M Post (DVD) Film studios

  8. Video Delivery Platforms Open Short + long tail Best effort IP Closed Short tail QoS Proprietary

  9. Video Delivery Platforms Web TV services Open Short + long tail Best effort IP Carrier-based TV services Over IP Closed Short tail QoS Over proprietary networks Proprietary

  10. Web vs carrier-based TV Web Internet open delivery platform short + long tail content best effort connection IP stream Joost PC iTunes modem You Tube Apple TV Akimbo Media center TiVo TV bridge Digital Cable TV (QAM) closed delivery platform short tail content QoS connection non-IP stream MSO Servers TV QAM STB MSO acquired content VOD

  11. Web video over “Cable IPTV” Web Internet Joost PC iTunes modem You Tube Home Network QoS path for YouTube content Apple TV Akimbo Media center IP STB TV bridge modem Option B Digital Cable TV (QAM) Cable MSO QAM path for YouTube content You Tube TV Option A QAM STB MSO acquired content VOD

  12. Will Web TV compete with or complement carrier-based TV services? • “Unbundled value chains innovate faster. The Apple’s and Microsoft’s will provide experiences, not pipes and will be more agile than the network operators who provide more integrated services.” • “The user has become the master. Consumers know how to put together their own bundle of services. It doesn’t have to be an integrated solution.” • “We’re starting to see the tail wagging the dog – the terminal is driving consumer choices. In the future, Sony and Samsung will have TVs connected to the Internet. People will buy devices that happen to connect to content.” • “At the end of the day, most people buy bundles of services. The consumer will buy the least costly package.”

More Related