Digital TV Europe September/October 2010


Technology focus > Personal TV


on-demand portals is greater than that made available on catch-up TV services offered by service providers, so viewers have less incen- tive to use the catch-up service, and less incen- tive therefore to stay with their service provider. This gap between pay-TV providers and broadcasters is likely to widen as connected TV services begin to gain momentum (one only has to think of the strength of feeling on vari- ous sides in the debate in the UK over Canvas, the UK’s BBC-led connected TV project). It is clear that a shift (though not a universal one) from linear to on-demand consumption is under way. “We believe there will be a general transition from linear to on-demand or time- shifted consumption,” says Matthew Huntingdon, vice-president of solutions mar- keting at Kudelski-owned interactive TV spe- cialist OpenTV. Huntingdon believes it will be harder for operators to charge for bundled con- tent as people become accustomed to viewing what they want, where and when they want it.


Over the top


The extent to which the service provider should embrace over-the-top delivery – allowing sub- scribers to access content from the open web or from selected partners on their TVs – as opposed to compete with it is a matter of hot debate. “One business case is driven by premi- um content as a way to drive premium sub- scriptions, and the other is providing a conduit to the service experience,” says Kirk Edwardson, marketing director at middleware provider Espial. A number of cable providers are deploying next-generation devices with TiVo software that can open the TV experience up to third-party service providers. IPTV oper- ators, on the other hand, are looking to “hybrid” delivery, bringing content to their sub- scribers’ screens from a variety of sources including over-the-air TV and managed and semi-managed internet services.


“IPTV operators want to bring a blended, hybrid experience. More and more people want to open up their interfaces to find other content and bring it in via the EPG and middle- ware to keep the branded operator experience going rather than have someone leave [the operator’s environment] and use a browser on the internet itself,” says Tom Fuerst, senior director of multimedia solutions marketing at Alcatel Lucent. “It could be a challenge from a service provider’s perspective but it’s about giv-


Visit us at www.digitaltveurope.net 15


ing the end user what they want and keeping them on the platform.” Huntingdon takes a similar view. “Operators need to embrace OTT because [users] want to get that content on the TV,” he says. “If operators don’t provide it, people will find ways around that.” While bringing YouTube or Facebook-based video to the TV might be uncontroversial (provided rights are respected), it becomes problematic if viewers want to see services that compete directly with those provided by the service provider. While operators are likely to integrate some elements of OTT, enhanced search and recom- mendation is necessary in the first instance to guide the viewer through what’s already avail- able within the service he or she subscribes to. Given the proliferation of channels and the potential growth of on-demand services, there is a need to deliver better tools to show the sub- scriber what’s available within the service provider’s own branded-environment or walled garden – and this could itself be more valuable in retaining customers than allowing them to have access to parts of the OTT world. “What we believe is that the strength of the operators and what they can best leverage is rights and ownership of premium content, which is unique to them,” says Björn Lang,


chief technology officer of Nordic IP middle- ware provider Dreampark. “It’s not something subscribers can easily access any other way.” How best to integrate traditional chan- nelised pay-TV with on-demand and internet- based elements? “It’s not just about search and recommendation or the way we consume con- tent,” says Pim van der Heijden, head of the office of the chief technology officer, SeaChange. “It’s about how can we present the content that’s available to a particular customer in the most attractive way.” To begin with, he says, service providers will seek to “merge the EPG with the on-demand experience”. There is clearly still a distinction to be drawn between the TV and other web-connected devices. “We still believe in a lean-back sort of approach and in having the living room as the focus,” says Per Skyttval, Dreampark’s CEO. “Everything should be quite easy, and con- sumers don’t have to know from where their content is coming. It might be that operators have to make this type of free content available because of competition – if you don’t have YouTube or whatever, then it’s true that sub- scribers might go to another service provider.” The extent to which service providers will embrace these features will depend to some extent on their size and lineage. Cable and DTH operators with large installed customer bases using a range of legacy set-tops will be more cautious about tearing up their EPGs and starting over than IPTV providers with only a few thousand customers.


Search


Search is an important part of the content dis- covery equation, but how to do it in a TV envi- ronment is a challenge. Text-based search is difficult via a remote control. Interactive TV specialists have focused on search that makes use of the arrow keys on the remote rather than text. However, the popularity of smart- phones and tablet devices including the iPad presents another way of doing things. Consumers want to be able to transfer media to and from such devices. Technology providers are addressing this need. OpenTV, for example, provides Core nX, an adaptive UI that allows operators to deliver a compara- ble experience to the TV UI on other devices.


Orca has highlighted the use of smart- phones to control and manage the TV.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80