The more things change, the more things seem to stay the same. Over the last ten years, the internet has redefined nearly every aspect of our lives. Whether it’s how we communicate with old friends, how we get our news or how we do our shopping, I could give you countless examples of how this technology has changed the way we interact with the world.

Thinking back to when dial up was first getting started, it’s not too hard to imagine an entirely different future. You see, when internet service providers first got into the business, they didn’t want to provide unrestricted access to their subscribers. Instead, they wanted to create a massive intranet where they could charge businesses fees to reach their customers.

In this bold new world that they envisioned, people wouldn’t be buying search terms on Yahoo!, they’d buy keywords on AOL. Instead of being able to use any email provider you wanted, they would only allow you to log into Compuserve accounts. This balkanization of the internet almost succeeded and for a time, Compuserve actually ran one of the top airline ticketing services, but eventually consumers saw the forest for the trees and instead of paying $19.99 a month for a stripped down version of the world wide web, they insisted on unfiltered access to the internet.

Once a few consumers started to move, the rest of the industry followed and as a result we now have third party sites like Facebook, YouTube and blogs, that have been able to build an audience on the free and open web.

With online video still coming of age, it’s interesting to see how the same Compuservation is occurring again, except this time it’s around the television. NewTeeVee has a provocative post out where they argue that the smart television providers are becoming the new gatekeepers for content. This is better than having the cable companies control your television, but it’s is still a watered down version of what you deserve.

I don’t care whether we’re talking about TiVo, Boxee, Roku, AppleTV or any of the latest digital video solutions, all of them have placed restrictions (albeit sometimes unwillingly) over how much their customers can do with their hardware.

Some of these restrictions are because of frightened content owners. For example, customers who rent their TiVo from a cable company aren’t allowed to access Netflix because of agreements Netflix made with the studios. Some of these restrictions are because of plain old fashioned greed. Hulu has already had more than their fair share of conflicts from disabling access to their videos on devices that are designed to sit next to your TV and would love to charge hardware companies for access. Some of these restrictions are self imposed. There’s nothing stopping Apple from offering flash on their iPad, except for their own selfish desire to control 100% of their media eco-system.

Whatever the reason, no matter how you slice it, these “internet” enabled devices have all failed to actually bring the internet to your TV. Looking over the headlines from CES, it’s clear that tablets and “smart TVs” were all the rage in Las Vegas this year and while it’s neat to see content companies start warming up to these devices, if consumers are forced to continue at big media’s pace, it will take another 10 years before you’ll be able to access even 90% of the content that’s out there today.

Because of these restrictions, it’s become increasingly difficult for me to endorse these options as adequate solutions. Over the years, I’ve managed to sample and collect a large number of different media streaming devices, but by far, the most powerful digital media device that I’ve ever used was the cheapest laptop that I could buy from Walmart. Maybe I’m crazy and other people don’t actually want access to the internet on their TV, but from the very first moment that I plugged it into my television, it was just as liberating as the first time I used TiVo to free my TV.

Since almost all new laptops include an HDMI port, getting it connected to the big screen was as easy as plugging it into an HDMI cable. Not only will this setup let you access sites like Hulu without big media interfering, but I can also do PC related tasks on a big screen environment. For example, over the holidays I was able to connect to Skype and do a video chat with the entire family on the big screen. I’ve always been a fan of comic books, but the comic book experience is very different when you’re looking at the action at 40+ inches. Do you ever play video games like Axis and Allies? Being able to see the entire war map actually changes your strategy compared to when you have to view troop movements region by region.

The point that I’m trying to make is no matter how progressive and advanced these technology companies are, no matter how many “apps” developers create, until the CE industry and the content industry abandon their gateway plans, you’ll never get to experience everything that the world wide web is capable of.

Instead of navigating this minefield of short sighted media companies and a CE industry that has lost sight of who their real customers are, take my advice and buy an HDMI enabled laptop before you buy the latest and greatest half baked technology product. A cheap laptop won’t necessarily make it easy to record your broadcast television, but if you’re only going to own one media device for your TV, an HDMI enabled laptop will beat the pants off of any digital device on the market today.

In 2006, Netflix scored a grand slam when they announced a $1 million prize for anyone who could improve their recommendation engine by at least 10%. It took 3 years for a team of scientists to actually accomplish this feat, but the prize was ultimately worth far more than a million dollars in publicity and to Netflix’s bottom line. Better recommendations not only led to happier subscribers (less churn), but they also made it easier for Netflix to sell the niche content that they spend less money on. Recognizing the benefit that they received from the contest, Netflix was quick to announce a sequel, but ultimately had to suspend their plans over privacy concerns.

While a contest to replace Silverlight likely wouldn’t garner as much attention, I believe that the financial benefit to replacing this outdated codec, would be just as significant.

Some will argue that I’m being tough on poor old Softie and that Silverlight represents some of the best video compression out there, but consider my logic for a moment. From the way I see it, Silverlight has two basic flaw. It’s buggy as all get out and it’s a bandwidth thief.

The screenshot posted above is a real life example that I encountered of Silverlight in action. All codecs are prone to errors of course, but look at all the hoops Netflix makes their customers jump through just to support a buggy piece of software. If I had a nickel for every time I’ve had to restart my browser after a Silverlightning strike, I’d probably have .35 cents by now. Seriously, I have less trouble with Real Network’s codec and that’s saying a lot. Instead of putting up with these kinds of errors, Netflix should be actively searching for a more reliable alternative.

Given Netflix’s runaway success, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the big telco companies are running scared. While usage based pricing hasn’t hit the US yet, the Canadian telcos were very quick to raise rates the minute Netflix invaded their territory. When you consider how many internet service providers also sell video, it’s clear that Netflix will need a way to undercut these tactics, especially if they plan on expanding internationally. Currently, an SD movie over Silverlight clocks in at approximately 2 Gigs, while an HD movie will cost the user 3Gbs towards their cap. If Netflix could reduce the size of a movie file by 50% – 75%, without sacrificing quality, they could end the usage based meter for their customers, while also undermining a critical future component to their latest competitors’ business model.

Getting Hollywood to sign off on an outsourced video codec could be a potential problem for Netflix, but even if they were able to gradually ween their customers away from Silverlight by delivering independent films with the new technology, the benefit could still be substantial. Given how little they pay for traffic, they probably wouldn’t save $1 million on their bandwidth bill, but being able to stop telcos from nickle and diming Netflix’s members would be priceless and would help to future proof their business.

For the last several years, the entertainment industry has been doing their darndest to put The Pirate Bay out of business. Whether it’s been suing TPB’s users, going after TPB’s hosting providers or trying to make the site’s founders criminally liable for the behavior of their customers, it’s clear that TPB doesn’t have many friends in Hollywood. More recently, we’ve seen a legal settlement industry spring up where mass lawsuits are threatened against consumers for allegedly participating in P2P activities. Whether or not the entertainment industry has been successful in these endeavours is open to interpretation, but in their zeal to put an end to filesharing, they may have created an even more dangerous monster.

One could argue that it all started with YouTube, but over the past few years we’ve seen a shift in consumer behavior away from P2P and towards streaming and downloading services. To see proof of this trend, all one has to do is compare the traffic of TPB with the streaming/downloading search engine FilesTube.

According to Compete.com, over the last year FilesTube.com has been able to consistently attract 50% more visitors than TPB. Not too shaby of a feat considering that Filestube.com didn’t even exist 3 years ago.

Given their animosity towards TPB, one would think that entertainment executives would be celebrating the cultural decline of TPB with a round of cold beers and high fives, but the reality is that instead of curbing piracy, they’re merely redirecting that illicit traffic towards safe harbors where consumers don’t appear to be at risk. In the immortal words of Princess Leia, “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers”

By continuing to squeeze P2P users with countless numbers of lawsuits, the entertainment industry may have been able to establish a precedent that uploading content to the internet is a copyright violation, but what’s less clear is whether or not simply downloading that same content is actually illegal?

According to the Copyright.Gov FAQ website, “Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. ” [Emphasis added by me]

Setting aside the ethical question of whether or not it’s moral to download grey area content, it is clear that US Copyright law places some restrictions on infringing downloads vs. legitimate ones. From the same FAQ page,

“Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.” [Emphasis added by me]

Now I’m not a legal beagle, but I believe that this means that consumers can’t be prosecuted for downloading a movie, if the service they are using claims to be offering content with the blessing of the legal copyright owner. For example when I’m streaming (making a cached copy) of old episodes of Battlestar Galactica from Netflix, I’m not actually breaking the law because I have a reasonable belief that Netflix has licensed this movie for their subscribers.

Since many streaming sites are largely controlled by the company that is paying for the bandwidth, it would be relatively easy for the studios to hold these companies accountable if they did stray off of the straight and narrow path. Where the legal waters become more murky though is when service providers (streaming companies) allow others to upload content instead of taking charge of this themselves.

With YouTube receiving 35 hours of content per second, it would be impossible for them to screen every second of footage that is uploaded to their site. Because of this the DMCA offers YouTube a safe harbor as long as they respond to DMCA takedown requests and don’t encourage piracy. To date we’ve seen several lawsuits that have tried to challenge this exemption, but so far they’ve all been a bust for the entertainment industry.

So on one side of this digital triangle you have consumers who are exempt from legal liability as long as the service provider requires uploaders to claim ownership of everything that they upload, on the other side of the triangle you have the service providers who are exempt from liability as long as they respond to DMCA request and don’t uploading anything themselves and on the final side of the triangle you have the content owners themselves who must choose between trying to police an endless stream of piracy or to quietly embrace the millions of consumers who are now streaming their television instead of paying for cable.

In a perfect world, only the actual copyright owners would be uploading their content to these digital locker services, but because sites like Megavideo.com pay users based upon the number of plays their videos get, there is an economic incentive for rouge operatives to cheat the system by claiming content as their own. To Megavideo’s credit, they have a history of refusing to pay copyright violators, but from a practical standpoint there are many who’ve been able to collect royalties on other people’s content.

Also to Megavideo’s credit, the entertainment industry has a long history of embracing “piracy” while staying in the closet about this. For example, when Viacom sued YouTube for copyright infringement, some of the clips they sued over were uploaded by Viacom employee’s themselves. It would hardly seem fair to hold either YouTube or consumers who watched those clips liable for copyright infringement when Viacom was creating a honeypot to tempt web surfers with.

Some will argue that content owners would never do this, but there are many reasons why someone would choose to embrace piracy and the popularity that it can bring a film. Whether you’re trying to jumpstart a struggling TV series or you’re trying to increase licensing opportunities, just because someone doesn’t pay to view a video doesn’t necessarily mean that the creator won’t benefit from that attention.

One of the things I’ve noticed when browsing through the FileTube.com search results is that often times studios will be unrelentingly aggressive about filing DMCA takedown requests the minute infringing files are uploaded while other files will remain online for over a year without even being “noticed.” While it would be tough to argue that 100% of these files are being monetized by the original copyright holders, I do believe that many copyright holders have chosen to secretly monetize their content in this way, but aren’t able to publicly disclose this because of how it might impact their negotiations with more traditional video distributors.

While the uploaders who falsely claim ownership of copyrighted material certainly put themselves at legal risk, with most of the uploading activity occurring outside of US borders, it’s unlikely that many infringers will find themselves being dragged into US court.

Some will cry foul over this latest trend, but I do find it fascinating how alternative business models can thrive when copyright issues aren’t strangling internet startups.

For example, one of the unique ways that Megavideo is able to sell memberships for their service is by letting consumers watch a certain amount of video each day for free before being interrupted with a time out. By running their business this way, they are able to use each and every video as an advertisement for their paid service. Since you may be 80% of the way through a movie when the time limit hits, a consumer is given the opportunity to ask themselves whether or not the content is really worth paying for to see right away or if it is a piece of garbage that you don’t care about finishing anyway.

Can you imagine if you were able to go to a movie theater and didn’t have to pay for your ticket until you had already watched 80% of the film? It would probably hurt ticket sales for a lot of the big budget flops, but the really well made movies would be incredibly successful because they’d be able to convert a larger percentage of those free eyeballs into paying customers.

Whether or not content owners are embracing this business model may be unclear, but by aggressively pursuing P2P users, the entertainment industry has made it clear that downloading without uploading is a much safer alternative for consumers then participating in the P2P movement. As technology marches forward, we’ll find out whether or not this Bermudian Copyright triangle gets sorted out, but in the meantime the efforts to prosecute P2P users, only seems to be driving consumers from a clunky bandwidth intensive technological solution to offshore providers who are offering a more elegant experience.

It’s probably worth pointing out that the MPAA has claimed that movie streaming is still considered a form of theft, but instead of backing up their position by citing the appropriate copyright laws, they instead try to equate digital streaming with physical theft.

The problem with this position is that companies like Sony (one of the MPAA founding partners) is apparently offering a shoplifters paradise in the form of all you can stream free movies on their Crackle.com website. Other MPAA partners like 20th Century Fox have not only made their movies available online at their official sites, but have also licensed their content to a number of different distributors like Comcast’s Fancast.com. Since it would be impossible for the end consumer to know the contractual details of every one of these down stream relationships, it would hardly seem fair to hold the consumer liable if someone uploaded a clip that actually infringed.

While I’m entirely open to exploring other opinions that downloading (without uploading) is still a copyright violation, I’ve yet to see any legal evidence indicating that this is actually the case. What do you think, when you hit play on a Simpson’s clip on YouTube have you actually committed a crime?

While many media companies would like to see the first sale doctrine done away with, ever since the supreme court established the doctrine in 1908, consumers have enjoyed tremendous benefits from it. The concept, which was later codified into law in 1976, allows businesses and individuals to resell goods that they’ve legally purchased. Without it, companies like Ebay, Craigslist and Blockbuster Video wouldn’t even be possible.

Having the right to resell goods benefits consumers in two major ways. First, it reduces the risks that consumers have to take when making purchases. This ultimately makes things cheaper for all of us, because companies are forced to compete with their own products and consumers have a way of recouping part of their initial expense.

When I first purchased my TiVo series 3 for example, I spent over $800 on the product. While this may seem like an insane amount to spend for television, I was able to justify the cost in part, because I sold my original TiVo on eBay for $200 and knew that one day I would be able to resell my Series 3 (currently worth approximately $400 on Ebay) to recover part of my expense. As a result, I’ve been able to enjoy a premium DVR experience for about 1/3rd what it would have cost me to rent an inferior DVR from my cable company.

The second benefit to the consumer is that by having a robust resell market, it allows more businesses/middlemen to participate. This ultimately increases demand, stimulates innovation, and drives down prices. Redbox for example is able to rent you a DVDs at 1/20th of the cost or what it would cost you to buy the actual DVD thanks in large part to the first sale doctrine. Because Redbox knows that they can get more than 20 people to share the same product, it enables consumers to save money, the media companies to sell more DVDs and for Redbox to still earn a tidy profit in the process.

While the first sale doctrine has been a huge benefit for consumers over the last 100 years, these benefits are rapidly being eroded as media moves digital. Because the first sale doctrine was based on physical goods, it hasn’t aged very well in the digital realm. As a result, consumers have been forced to endure awkward DRM implementations, limited availability of digital content and higher prices for media services.

As the top media conglomerates have sought to seize more and more control over the distribution of their products, they’ve shifted from a world where you have the ability to “own” your media, to one where you only have the option to “license” your content.

For a lot of consumers, this distinction may not seem important, but it has profound implications on the future of digital entertainment. Since firms aren’t allowed to buy products at a wholesale price and rent them to multiple consumers, they’ve been forced to negotiate agreements one by one. This is a costly and time intensive process that has limited how quickly media can migrate online. It has also given the media conglomerates monopolistic control over prices. Instead of being forced to compete in an open environment, they are able to take their ball and go home, when they haven’t liked the terms and conditions that innovators offer them.

The result of this transition from ownership to licensing has increased costs for consumers even beyond the price of media. Take for example, the various hardware devices that we’ve seen released over the last five years. If you want to watch digital copies of old movies and TV shows, you can do it through Netflix, but only if it’s on a device that has a business relationship with them. When Sony decided to release a digital copy of Cloudy with a chance of meatballs at the same time the movie was in the theaters, consumers could only participate on select Sony TVs.

If you prefer to watch new releases from Apple’s iTunes store, you’ll need to buy an AppleTV to easily watch that content on your TV. If you want to watch a DivX file that you purchased from CinemaNow, you’ll need to illegally hack your AppleTV or purchase a DivX certified device instead. It’s fantastic that consumers have the ability to record HD cable TV through TiVo, but if you subscribe to AT&T or Dish Networks, you’ll need additional (proprietary) hardware to decode their signals.

While many of these businesses have come a long way towards opening up their systems and fulfilling the digital dream, they’ve all been limited by what content holders allow. As a result, consumers must face a digital minefield where DRM and file formats are used to limit what you can do with the content that you’ve paid for.

As we continue to move forward into the digital world, I think it’s important that consumers shouldn’t have to abandon the first sale protections that have served us so well over the last century. What I propose is a new set of rules that would allow media companies to control their prices, but would also give consumers (and businesses) a way to move past some of these restrictions.

While the DMCA has been a mixed blessing for tech companies and consumers, it is in desperate need of an update (and one that isn’t written by the lobbyists.) For example, currently, it’s illegal for consumers (or businesses) to circumvent DRM, even if consumers are being harmed by the DRM. This has led to situations where people who have purchased media, later lost access to those rights because a provider went out of business. Situations, where companies are unable to offer lifetime licenses in the cloud, because of exclusivity clauses in contracts with pay TV channels.

What I purpose is that if media companies want DMCA protection for their content, it should come with strings attached. In crafting new rules for a modern first sale doctrine, I would require content owners to set a wholesale price that all businesses would be allowed to buy content at. They could still require minimum purchases sizes and would have complete control over what they wanted to charge for that content, but they shouldn’t be allowed to sell a license at one price to one company and then exploit another company for political reasons.

What this would do is create a level playing field for all of the digital retailers. If UMG wants to charge $50 for a download, they would have the right to do this, but they couldn’t favor one vendor over another and they couldn’t punish innovators for being successful or passing on value to the consumer. This would also bring welcome competition to the pay TV market because media companies wouldn’t be able to play MSO’s off of each other.

For example, I’d love to be able to see every NFL game each season, but I can’t unless I’m willing to subscribe to DirecTV for service. Instead of making consumers fight and choose over exclusive content, everyone should be given fair access to that content. If cable companies don’t want to pay the price of admission, they would be less competitive with consumers. The end result would be more demand for NFL content by consumers and more competition for their dollars. If we allow media companies to continue with exclusive content in the digital realm, it will only makes it more expensive for everyone.

I also think that if the media wants to continue to have DMCA restrictions on their DRM, that they shouldn’t be allowed to use that DRM to discriminate between hardware partners. It’s great that I’ve got the ability to record HDTV on my TiVo, but since cablecards don’t work with satellite or U-verse, it essentially gives Comcast a monopoly on pay television for TiVo households.

As a result, Comcast is able to provide abusive cablecard support without having to worry about competition. If they knew that they had to actually compete for the $50 – $200 a month that they charge, it would encourage them to provide better service and to continue to innovate, (even if consumers decide not to use Comcast’s equipment.) Instead we’ve seen cable companies limit the ability for consumers to take their programs on the go and prevent consumers from accessing VOD services on DVRs that aren’t rented from them, all without having to worry about repercussions.

The same is true for digital downloads. If Apple wants to use DRM to help protect their content partners, they should be allowed to, but not at the expense of consumers. If other hardware manufacturers want to build support for iTunes’ product they should be allowed to license the DRM (at cost) from Apple. This would prevent Apple from offering exclusive downloads that lock consumers into their own hardware ecosystem. The end result would be more devices that could play Apple content and more competition among set top box manufacturers. This competition would cause prices to drop and would encourage Apple and others to be innovative with the features and services that they offer to their customers.

While some may be content to let the media industry continue to grow inside of these walled gardens, I’d like to see a world where someone can legally purchase media and play it on any device that they want to. By creating new laws to help better regulate the abuses of our current licensing system, consumers, businesses and the online video industry as a whole, would be allowed to flourish across many different platforms. Instead of being forced to buy the same content over and over and over again, consumers would be allowed to license their media under fair and reasonable conditions.

With consumers clearly wanting to access content online, one would think that HBO would be the first in line to embrace this trend, but because of their status quo, they’ve chosen to fight progress instead of helping to usher in the digital age.

Over the last two years, a group of digital and traditional media companies have formed an impressive collective known as the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem (DECE). This diverse group of firms includes firms ranging in diversity from Sony to DivX. While each company has their own agenda, the goal of the group is to try and create a media framework that allows consumers to purchase downloadable media and to play it on a wide range of consumer electronic devices.

While I do think that there are some problems with their proposed implementation, I’m also pragmatic enough to see this consortium as our best chance of furthering the internet video revolution. To date, media companies have fought digitization tooth and nail, but this co-op between Hollywood and the Silicon Valley could create an environment where more new release content is made available to the public.

Anyone whose used Netflix’s Watch Instantly program knows that there is a ton of content from the 1980′s, but very few titles from the last decade. One of the biggest reasons for this, is that companies like HBO have used their vast financial resources to outbid them and other digital players for these films. With studios scared to death of upsetting deep pocket partners like HBO, it’s created an environment where consumers must either pirate recent content, set an appointment to see TV or stick to watching it on a disc.

While, HBO has made some of their content available through Comcast’s TV anywhere initiative, it’s only includes their weakest titles and you must be a cable subscriber to get access to the content. Contrast this to Showtime’s digital experiments and it’s clear that HBO is standing in the way of progress.

Like Netflix’s Watch Instantly platform, DECE has proposed a system where consumers can store their media content in the cloud and then stream it whenever (and more importantly wherever) they want to view the film. Yet, according to the industry trade publication, The Wrap (via Inside Redbox), HBO isn’t a fan of this system and is actively trying to block it’s implementation. Since they insist on legal language in their contracts that prevent consumers from accessing digital content while it’s playing on their channel, it’s possible that you could purchase a film and then be blocked from seeing it while it’s playing on HBO.

Imagine paying a steep premium to see a recently released film and then being told that you can’t watch it on certain dates, just because HBO is afraid that you might not subscribe to their channel. Clearly, this isn’t in the interests of consumers and yet HBO is using their financial resources to try and create this very scenario.

“Paying hundreds of millions of dollars a year for output deals with Warner, Fox and Universal, HBO currently restricts these studios from distributing their films digitally during its exclusive pay-TV window. Typically, that window starts six months after a film debuts on DVD and extends for 18 months. It already has presented itself as a challenge for established download sellers including iTunes and Netflix.”

HBO is free to run their business anyway that they like, but I believe that policies that are downright hostile to consumers should not go unpunished. Because of this, I’m asking HBO subscribers to call your cable company and cancel the channel. I know that this may mean giving up some great content, but if HBO starts to feel the sting from a consumer backlash, perhaps they’ll rethink their position and start to embrace the digital revolution. Currently, only 3% of the entertainment industry’s revenue come from online, but if just 3% of HBO’s subscribers were to cancel service, it would have a profound effect on the company’s profitability.

For too long, consumers have been abused by these exclusivity agreements and if you sit back and allow them to walk all over you, then you’re only part of the problem. Instead of rewarding an outdated analog business model, we need to be demanding that studios and their partners join the 21st century and make their content available online.

Over the next decade, it’s clear that things will improve, but I also worry that we’ll repeat some of the same mistakes. As the industry moves past early adopters and into the mainstream, it will have a profound change on the entertainment industry.

One of the biggest drivers of that mainstream adoption will be the rise of the internet television. A year ago, it was hard to find them outside of tech events, but television manufacturers have started to embrace the concept and now there’s at least a high end market for internet enabled TV sets. The New York Times, has a good article on this trend as well as some appropriate criticism,

“we’re still a long way from being able to order any movie we want to watch whenever we want to watch it. Film studios are loath to release what they perceive will be blockbuster DVDs for digital distribution, for example, until months after release, and there are many more held back by copyright issues and concerns about piracy. And even the movies you can rent digitally from Blockbuster or Amazon are often subject to the dreaded 24-hour window, which means if you don’t finish watching on the same day you started viewing it, you’ll have to pay an additional charge. Still, the option of streaming a movie from anywhere — Netflix, Amazon or whoever — is a major leap forward. It frees viewers from the yoke of the one-store-only approach taken by cable companies and products like Apple TV.”

While I agree that consumers are foolish to enter into one-store arrangements like AppleTV, I also don’t feel like any of the TV manufacturers have differentiated themselves with what they are offering. Whether you’re talking Samsung, LG, Panasonic, Sony, Mitsubishi, Sharp or Vizio all of them seem to be going after a small handful of Hollywood partners.

Don’t get me wrong, Netflix, Amazon, Blockbuster and Sony all have great content, but in such a tightly controlled eco-system, the consumer doesn’t really have very many options. If you don’t like a restrictive 24 hour window, then you just have to deal with it. There’s also a lot of content that isn’t available on these new services. Whether we’re talking new releases or material that is more appropriate for adult audiences, consumers can’t access it, without some kind of alternative device.

Limiting your audience makes sense if Hollywood is the one buying your televisions, but is a poor strategy to employ when you want consumers to buy your TV sets. At one point I had hoped that DivX would partner with one of the TV makers to give consumers more flexibility, but so far they have struck out when it comes to the connected television. I don’t know why the internet TV has been such a tough nut for DivX to crack, but I suspect that it has something to do with why they have been so hell bent on partnering with Hollywood. The sad part is that in order to win over these studio partners, DivX has already started to ignore their consumers.

Take for example, DivX’s recent acquisition of AnySource Media. Ideally, this software will accelerate DivX’s plans to the TV, but even if they are successful it doesn’t necessary mean that consumers will win. In an article for NewTeeVee, DivX CEO Kevin Hell said that “content partners of the new entity will not be required to offer video in the DivX format, and the platform will support a wide variety of codecs.”

If DivX is truly committed to being “a digital media company that enables consumers to enjoy a high-quality video experience across any kind of device”, then how could they even consider creating a device that doesn’t support the eco-system that their fans have built their entertainment system around? Making such a sacrifice may be seen as necessary, in order to get their piece of the connected television, but it would be self-destructive to their brand and only highlight the sacrifices that they seem willing to make just to be another me too provider of digital content.

Instead of partnering with Hollywood, DivX should be arming consumers so that they have the tools to force content owners to accept a digital revolution. How many TV sets could DivX sell, if they provided support for MegaVideo alone? With over 1% of all internet traffic, they get more hits then Amazon.com, let alone Amazon Video or what if DivX’s software supported free streams from any of the adult websites that regularly appear in the Alexa top 100 listings? People may not want to admit it, but the adult film industry is almost as large of the regular film industry. Samsung may not want to splash a XXX logo on the front of their TVs, but if DivX;) could offer this functionality, I guarantee you that there would be demand for it.

Getting down and dirty with copyright thieves and alternative content providers may not be DivX’s grand ambition, but I’d rather see them comprise their morals in this regard, then to see them knife their own customers and still not end up on any connected televisions. The development of the internet TV is an exciting chapter in the transition to digital, I just hope that consumers don’t get trampled on in the rush to fight over the same old content.

For the most part, the television world has been forced to accept reasonable restrictions in exchange for the public bandwidth they use to deliver their content. In the internet world though, the content rules are more like the old west because consumers are opting into the service by paying for it. As long as you have the quickest draw, your behavior doesn’t matter as much and so far companies like Netflix have been more concerned about digital market share, then doing what’s right.

Maybe this is because internet audiences are still small compared to television or it could be that it takes time for rules and standards to develop and emerging markets don’t tend to care about these things. Whatever the reason though, there are parts of the television experience that aren’t making the jump to the internet.

Specifically, I’m talking about closed caption data. For years, television studios have been legally required to provide this information, so that people who are hard of hearing can also enjoy the content. While there are some technical issues associated with adding this kind of data to a movie file, technology is at a point where it could easily support this. The Matroska container for example, is able to include optional sub-title information along with video and audio data. Alternatively, because online delivery can microstream to people, files with the embedded sub-titles could made available to viewers who opted into them. This would involve keeping multiple copies of the same movies though and so far the digital movie industry hasn’t wanted to bear this cost.

While I’m loathe to suggest new regulations on a burgeoning industry, I also feel like we have a responsibility to consider the needs of everyone. It costs companies extra money to include wheel chair ramps at their physical locations, but we pay for that as a society because we want to treat everyone as equally as we can. As the traditional line between telecommunications and entertainment becomes blurred, it’s important that we don’t leave behind those less fortunate in life. Having a law that requires subtitles in order to qualify for DRM legal protections wouldn’t be popular with the entertainment industry, but it would fill a void that the market isn’t interested in addressing. Personally, I don’t know whether or not I’d actually support a legal mandate for firms like Netflix, Amazon and Apple to require this data, but I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the issue.

Update – Interestingly enough, I found out that the FTC is actually hosting a hearing (not sure if there was a pun intended) on this topic on Friday Nov. 6. It sounds like the entertainment industry’s position may not be represented, but they will have several prominent members of the deaf community weigh in on the topic. The event will run from 9am – 1pm EST and will be broadcast on the web at the FTC’s website.

Anyone who has paid attention to digital distribution knows that P2P is a popular way for people to download content, but how popular it is may surprise more than just angry content owners. Last June, Futuresource Consulting released the results of an in depth survey called “Living With Digital: Consumer Insights into Entertainment Consumption” which examined legitimate and illegitimate video usage in the UK, France, Germany and the USA and came up with some pretty interesting data.

According to their survey’s, 8% of consumers in these countries have admitted to using p2p in order to get content.

With these countries representing approximately 500 million of the 6+ billion global population, it would mean that approximately 40 million people are participating in illegal downloading in just these four countries alone.

In France, where the p2p movement initially got started, as many as 25% of the population admits to downloading illegal content. What is so amazing about this statistic is that it stands in stark contrast to the draconian rules that the French government has tried to impose on their citizens. How elected officials think they can get away with making behavior a crime that one out of four is engaging in, I’ll never understand, but there does seem to be strong political support for banning downloaders from the net.

If you’re a content owner not all hope is lost. Some are taking advantage of this huge audience by encouraging them to share their films with friends, while others are finding that if they put their content online at a reasonable price, plenty of consumers don’t have a problem with paying for it. In fact, according to Futuresource’s report, 48 – 65% of residents in the respective countries mentioned that they watch TV sometimes or a lot on their PC or laptop. This would suggest that as many as 200 -300 million people in these countries are consuming legal internet content.

With more and more people turning to their computer as a television, the popularity of P2P will have a profound effect on video. Already we’ve seen content starting to become more bite sized for the web and smart producers turning towards alternative distribution systems to get their films out there. Competing in a world where you don’t control the entire chain of distribution may be scary for the big studios, but for small independent films, this rabid 8% could be your biggest source of marketing for your film.

One of my very first jobs was working behind a concession counter for a big multi-plex cinema. It isn’t the sort of place where one would expect to learn a life skill, but early on I learned an important lesson in business, the art of the up-sell.

You see, movie theaters make very little from the box office receipts, so the concessions counter is the lifeblood of the industry. The setup is pretty much the same at every theater, but most people don’t tend to think about it. Because the actual cost of the popcorn and soda is so low, the theaters reap big profits from selling captive customers overpriced snacks and beverages.

One of the problems that theaters face, is that there are a ton of people who tend to order small sizes. It could be that they are trying to save money or that they don’t need oversized portions, but because the containers cost the theater more than the actual popcorn or soda, going from a small to a larger size, tends to be pure profit for the theater.

To help “encourage” movie goers to pay the max, theaters will price their small popcorns at ridiculously expensive levels and then have a minor jump in price from small to medium and medium to large. If you were to price the popcorn by ounce, a small would cost four times as much as a large, but because of the high cost at the small level, it makes it easier to convince consumers to pay a little bit extra for a lot more food.

When I sold concessions, the sales pitch would typically go “hey did you know you can get a large for only 50 cents extra?” That was all it took and at least 75% of the customers would go big.

In thinking about why my theater was so effective at up-selling, two things jump out at me. The first has to do with the way the pricing was set. Consumers got tremendously more value at the higher levels, then the lower ones. It might be tough convincing someone to spend $5 on a bucket of popcorn to begin with, but once they made that purchase, an extra 10% for 200% more, seems small. Secondly though, they had an actual human explain this value to the customer. Concession employees were expected to upsell or suggestive sell on every single transaction. It could be subtle, but management made sure that every employee was at least presenting more options to the customers.

What made me take this trip down memory lane is a recent experience with Real’s Rhapsody music service. Before the internet, napster, and digitization, I used to collect music with a passion. Records, Tapes, CDs, it didn’t matter. I would scour local garage sales and thrift stores looking for bargains, (not to mention all of the BMG and Columbia House memberships.)

When the internet first started to take off, my collecting habits intensified. I’d surf Ebay for favorite artists. I didn’t care about the singles or the greatest hits, I was after the rare B-sides that were released internationally. There is something amazing about listening to an artist’s entire discography in order, but back then, it took a lot of money to buy every single song that an artist produced.

Once MP3′s took off, I abandoned physical playback and spent many late nights digitizing my music. As time has gone on though, I’ve realized what a hassle it is trying to maintain a large digital library. Computers have a way of freaking out once you go over a certain limit, there are countless hard drive failures involving added expenses and I don’t even want to think about the amount of time I’ve spent dealing with buffer overrun errors while backing up my music. The bottom line is that if you’re trying to collect a couple hundred thousand Mp3′s, it’s not only cheaper to rent then it is to buy, it’s cheaper just to store it.

Because I had such a large music collection, I never gave Rhapsody a chance, but as one hard drive failure after another has taken large chunks out of my music library, I’ve found myself turning to the internet for specific artists or songs that I’m now missing.

Over the last year, I’ve signed up for Rhapsody three different times to listen to music that’s disappeared over time. Thanks to their free trial offers, I’ve been able to hear a lot of great music, but never kept my membership for longer than a month.

What surprised me so much about the experience was how much I enjoyed it. Not only can I get the latest top hits for a fraction of what I used to spend, but I also get access to the expensive b-sides that were never in wide circulation. The first time I logged onto the service, I was estactic after discovering an entire album’s worth of material from my favorite artist.

Given how much enjoyment I’ve gotten out of the service, one would think that it would be a no brainer for me to spend a modest amount of money for access to more music then you can even think about, but when it came down to becoming a paying member, Real Networks lost me on the up-sell.

You see, as a streaming internet music service, Rhapsody really is an amazing product, but its lack of a robust download solution, means that if you want to take your music on the go, customers have limited options. Since Real realizes that not every consumer wants downloadable functionality, they price their service in two tiers.

The first is the standard all you can eat streaming music of just about any song or artist you can think of (we’re talking stuff not even on Bit Torrent.) For $2 more though, you can download songs to “approved devices” and rock out using a portable device that doesn’t need to be connected to the net.

As an internet streaming service, I would have been happy to pay their monthly fee for all of the music that they provide, but by offering a download “upgrade”, it makes me keenly aware of a significant limitation to the service. As is, I can listen to Pandora via the internet now, so a streaming only service makes me second guess how much value Rhapsody really has. I wouldn’t even mind paying the $2 more per month just for streaming access, but don’t see enough value in the $2 upgrade to justify signing up for the downloading tier.

Part of this is because I’m not able to download a DRM free MP3. Even if you download your music, you still have to “refresh” your approved device once a month or your songs get disabled. You’re also limited in the number of devices you can play your Real files on.

As much as I prefer downloading over streaming, it simply isn’t worth an extra $24 per year for a weaksauce version of the real thing. Having to connect my cell phone to the net once a month is obnoxious and I’m not particularly fond of downloading music that I can’t play on all the electronic gadgets that I own.

If they eliminated the download tier, I’d probably be a customer right now, but by making me choose, they’ve persuaded me not to sign up for either package.

Not everyone purchased an up-sell when I sold concessions, but during my entire time behind the counter, I never had a single customer walk away without at least buying the small popcorn that they originally asked for. When it comes to Rhapsody though, the different pricing tiers have cost them at least one customer who would have paid, if he didn’t have to choose between streaming only or weaksauce downloading.

I don’t know if Real does consumer surveys, but I bet that I’m not the only one to agonize over this distinction. Instead of using the price difference to highlight their weaknesses, Real would be better off by either raising the price $2 on everyone and then including their downloading solutions with the service or eliminate the downloading tier entirely and focus on being an amazing and comprehensive streaming service only. By trying to straddle between streaming and downloading, they are only confusing customers and highlighting the limitations to their service.

Netflix on the other hand, seems to feel that they own your ratings data and have guarded it closely. This wouldn’t be so important, if Netflix was the only movie site out there, but because they refuse to implement many web 2.0 features, there are many other movie sites that consumers may prefer.

Because I have memberships with about a dozen of these sites, it has created an awkward and cumbersome situation where I’m forced to to maintain a dozen different sets of ratings, instead of being able to sync them all together.

Since even small differences in how you rate a movie can have a big impact on the recommendations that you receive, whoever is able to get a consumer to input the most ratings is given a powerful moat around their subscribers.

For a long time, Netflix kept their silo closed, but about nine months ago, they opened up their API to outside developers. At the time, I saw this as a watershed event because it marked a change in philosophy from one of control to one allowing for innovation, inside or outside of Netflix’s site.

If you go their developer site, you’ll see that they still encourage people to use ratings data to create cool apps.

“The Netflix API allows developers full access to our catalog of movies and actors, and–when properly authorized–subscriber data, such as queues, ratings, rental history, and reviews.”

Regrettably, after opening up this data to outside developers, Netflix has apparently changed their tune and is now trying to take away this feature from their customers. From an email I received from Jinni.com,

“Hi Davis Freeberg,

As always, feel free to get in touch with questions. And stay tuned for new features and improvements that we’re working on now toward our public beta opening!” (Note: Bold added by me)

In the long run, I believe that this will hurt the company. I can understand Netflix’s desire to protect their competitive moat, but as a subscriber this upsets me to no end. Instead of letting me choose the most innovative movie site, they are making it more difficult for other sites to work with their data. This may not seem like a big deal to most, but preventing customers from accessing content in their preferred format, tends to create dissatisfaction. I feel that it also raises questions of anti-trust abuse when you consider Netflix’s market position and the grip that they are maintaining on their subscriber data.

Instead of using their rating silos to stop competition, I’d rather see Netflix forced to compete fairly by creating the best product out there.

I’m not sure that I’ll cancel my account, but taking this kind of a hostile stance against a competitor makes it hard for me to continue to recommend the service to others. I hope that Netflix reconsiders their stance on this issue and allow consumers to take full advantage of the openness of the web.

Update – Netflix responds on their developer forum – “The API Terms of Service don’t allow an application to capture a subscriber’s user name and password, which is required to scrape user data from the site. While we do expose ratings via the API, we do recognized that there isn’t a good way to grab a subscriber’s full rating history. We’re working on the technical and legal details to allow developers to access this info without running afoul of our terms of service nor enabling a unsatisfactory user experience.”

If you don’t actively engage in P2P sharing, you probably don’t think you need to worry about this, but I think there are already reasons to be alarmed. Even before the program’s launch, we are seeing reports of innocent customers being targeted by Comcast’s DMCA enforcement division.

Recently, John Aprigliano received a letter from Comcast asking him to take down a torrent that he was allegedly seeding. As if hitting him with a bogus DMCA takedown request wasn’t bad enough, Comcast had to insult his taste in movies by accusing him of sharing Cadillac Records, a movie that he had never heard of BTW.

When he called Comcast to figure it out, he got the usual run around. After 4 different telephone calls and an hour of hold time, he was finally able to determine that Comcast sent him the notice because of an old modem that was now being used by someone else.

I find this scary because I tend to move around a lot. Over the course of my life, I’ve easily used ten different modems. Considering how popular Bit Torrent is, there is more than a good chance that one of my former modems is being used pirate media. Why should I now have to worry about getting kicked off the net, just because Comcast can’t tell the difference between an IP and MAC address?

In John’s case, he was fortunate to be tech savvy enough to catch this, but what happens when some little old lady loses her broadband just because of a Comcast screw up? Are most people really going to know that they need to ask Comcast, what they have down for their Mac address? Somehow, I doubt that my Mom would have been able to prove herself innocent in the same situation.

During the RIAA’s lawsuit blitz, there have been plenty of examples where they filed lawsuits against innocent “infringers”. Now the media industry wants to exploit government granted monopolies, in order to take away high speed internet from those same victims. Forgive me, if I’m more then a little pessimistic. Why Comcast or AT&T would even consider such an anti-consumer proposal is beyond me, but the whole scheme is doomed for failure.

The pirates will eventually figure out even better ways to encrypt their traffic and the end result will just be a bunch of ticked off consumers feeling like big brother is breathing down their neck. It’s hard to get excited about having Comcast monitor P2P activity, when they already have a history for screwing these things up.

As the P2P networks developed, DivX and it’s open source cousin XviD, became an important resource for file sharers. Initially, my own interest in DivX was driven by it’s technological advantages over other video formats, as well as the wide availability of DivX content on the grey market, but as compression technology has evolved, my reasons for using DivX have changed as well. Since I’m no longer on a dial-up network, compression is less important then what I can actually do with my videos.

As DivX gained in popularity, they were able to forge agreements with consumer electronic manufacturers that allowed you to play DivX files on a wide range of devices. Even though, H.264 is a superior standard for internet video, I still prefer DivX files because I know that I’ll be able to play them on the hardware devices that I own.

By creating an eco-system that supports portability, DivX has been able to lock me into their format in the same way that Apple has been able to use iTunes to keep their customers buying iPods instead of mp3 players.

As H.264, Microsoft, Apple and Adobe all continue to creep into DivX’s territory, there has been a lot of concern over how DivX would respond to these competing threats. Microsoft’s approach has been to batten down the hatches by developing their proprietary Silverlight codec. By retaining full control over the video format, they are able to convince people to buy as many Microsoft supported products as possible. These extra restrictions increase the appeal of Silverlight for DRM hungry Hollywood studios, but it also frustrates their customers in the process. Incompatible file formats are the reason why services like Netflix’s Watch Now doesn’t get along with Apple. Since Microsoft (and Apple) refuse to open up their codecs, it gives them a monopoly on the hardware that is allowed to support their video files.

Apple has at least opened up their system a little bit by adding support for the H.264 format, but they’ve still chosen to wrap their h.264 files inside of the Quicktime container. This prevents other companies from supporting Apple H.264 content, without obtaining a license for Quicktime first. This helps to open up Apple’s eco-system to alternative video formats, but still gives Apple control over the companies that are allowed to play nice with their your media.

Similarly, Adobe has also forged agreements to support H.264 inside of flash, but if you want to take your Flash H.264 files portable, you’ll need a device that can support the Flash format. To their credit, Adobe has done a good job of building momentum for downloadable flash by supporting open source initiatives, a new DRM system, and by removing license fees for mobile providers, but despite their early traction with these efforts, there are still very few hardware devices that are actually capable of playing portable flash content.

With so many companies pursuing proprietary video strategies, one would expect DivX to be focusing on locking consumers into the DivX format, but like most things having to do with DivX, their strategy for dealing with the next generation of codecs is also built on a system of openness.

We got our first real glimpse of this strategy last November when DivX announced that they had acquired Mainconcept for $22 – $28 million. The Mainconcept acquisition gave DivX an immediate footprint in the H.264 space, but it also raised some important questions about how DivX could maintain a monopoly on their community, while supporting a format that is widely available to competitors.

Interestingly enough, while discussing H.264 on their latest conference call, DivX CEO Kevin Hell pointed out that the current state of H.264 really isn’t all that different from the MPEG-4 standard that DivX was built on.

“Looking forward, a real opportunity exists for DivX to emerge as the consumer face of H.264, serving as a trusted brand for users who don’t want to concern themselves with underlying formats or technologies. In fact, the current H.264 market resembles in many ways the early stages of MPEG-4 market.

When DivX first emerged seven years ago there were number of different and incompatible MPEG-4 implementations available. Through our strong consumer adoption and the creation of the DivX certification program, we were able to simplify the experience for consumers and provide a solution that just works across any device. We plan to repeat that strategy by incorporating broad H.264 support into both our software and consumer electronics offerings under the DivX brand. We are on track to release a new version of our software in 2008 that supports H.264 and then extend that support to consumer electronic devices that are likely to hit the market in 2009. We believe that this development will help move the DivX brand beyond one single format and toward promise of support for any video content, on any device.”

DivX’s evolution towards H.264 won’t be a clean and easy transition, but it is the right direction for the company. If they can successfully integrate H.264 into their certification program, it will reduce the threat of their codec becoming obsolete and will highlight their certification process as being the real value added for consumer device manufacturers.

Instead of trying to educate consumers on the differences between MPEG-4 Part 2 vs. MPEG-4 AVC (H.264), CE manufacturers can slap the DivX label onto their devices and consumers will know that it will support their digital video libraries without complications. In fact, during the Q&A section of their conference call, DivX discussed the possibility of pushing this envelope even further by adding Flash support to their certification program.

“In terms of how we think about Flash more broadly, the vast majority of content that is downloaded today is in DivX format or variations of the DivX format, so we don’t see that as being a threat in terms of the use case that we’re really providing, which is high quality content delivered through the internet and then played back on a variety of devices. To the extent that Flash starts to get traction in terms of files that are downloaded at high quality and based on the terms, it would be something that we could actually extend into and offer into our certification program as well and that’s what we’d be looking to do.”

Part of what makes DivX such a difficult company to pin down, is their ability to take competitors and turn them into partners. On one hand, Microsoft is one of the biggest threats to DivX, but if they can get them to extend DivX support to the Xbox, they could become an important customer.

Adobe is currently using Mainconcept to power their H.264 support, but they are also trying to establish their own format as the new standard for internet delivered video. These complex relationships are enough to make anyone’s head spin, but DivX has a way of getting their partners to look at the glass half full side of the equation.

On one hand, It’s hard for me to believe that Adobe would be all that enthusiastic about giving up control over their flash content, but on the other hand, a DivX partnership would create a powerful competitor to Apple and Microsoft’s closed systems.

Adobe would gain access to an established community of video fans and would have one more platform that could drive demand for Flash content. Instead of having to worry about the lack of downloadable flash content, they could leverage DivX’s popularity, while slowly introducing their own standard for web video. While I doubt that older DivX devices would be able to support Flash with a firmware update, any new DivX devices would be able to support their content.

For DivX, they would be able to increase the appeal of their brand by offering support for the next generation of internet video. They could also use Adobe DRM as a way of bypassing studio approval for DivX content. While DivX did mention plans to update their DRM later this year, getting in through Adobe’s backdoor could be a lot easier than buying off the studios. According to DivX’s 4th quarter 10k filing, they paid Sony $1.5 million and gave them 100,000 warrants at a strike price of $16.14, in order to get the studio to bless the DivX format. While it’s possible that DivX plans on buying off all of the studios, this could get expensive really quick, if DivX is serious about going legit.

For consumers, it would be the biggest win of all. Instead of being locked into a single file format, they would have the flexiblity to adopt alternative standards without having to abandon their current media libraries. This would pressure Microsoft and Apple to open up their hardware, instead of maintaining data silos.

It’s hard to judge how serious DivX is about adopting flash support from just a few comments, but even beyond flash, having support for multi-formats adds real value to their brand. As new forms of digital transmission unfold, DivX is in a position to attach their brand to a much larger category of web video.

Some of the niche video formats don’t have the ability to negotiate partnerships with the device manufacturers directly, but through DivX could gain access to a much larger audience. If DivX certification suddenly meant that Matroska containers could play on DivX devices, it would open up another community that DivX could tap into and it would change how Matroska fans think about the DivX brand.

Bringing other formats into the DivX program, would add to DivX’s cost of revenue, but it would make DivX certification more valuable to their CE partners. I may enjoy dissecting the nuances between the various competing video formats, but most consumers don’t want to think about it. They want to be able to play whatever file they have without converting it into a single format. By focusing on supporting as many formats as possible, DivX may end up competing with their own eco-system, but they’ll also expand their reach in the process. By taking DivX beyond the codec, it allows their community to move forward with the future, while hanging onto the treasures from the past.

Disclosure – I own shares of Netflix

Over the past few months, I’ve finally started to get a feel for Media Center Vista and while I haven’t tried out every feature in the program, I have played around with it long enough to have some initial thoughts. Before I tried the software, I had low expectations, but after actually using the program, I’ve been really impressed with what the Media Center team has put together.

Media Center Vista allows you to perform some pretty advanced tasks without having to be a computer geek in order to figure out how to use it. I initially had some reservations about the user interface, but it only took about a week, before I found it growing on me. There are still improvements that Microsoft needs to make, but they’ve made a giant leap forward, compared to the original XP version.

Pros

-Media Center Vista is wicked fast at finding new programs. In the XP version, the software was painfully slow at trying to search for shows. As soon as I would start typing in the name of a show, XP would freak out from trying to sort through so much information. In Vista, the program still starts searching immediately, but the indexing has been turbocharged. Instead of having to wait for the menu, the results will appear as fast as you can type. This faster indexing shows up in a number of areas. When you are browsing, you can hit page down and scroll through programs as fast as you can read them. If you want to rearrange the priority of your recordings, you can make changes and move onto other areas of the program without having to wait forever while the system checks for conflicts.

-The interface looks fantastic. Microsoft has done a good job of creating a clean and intuitive DVR experience. The program is easy to navigate and has lots of extra features. On the surface the design appears relatively simple, but you can tell that Microsoft has paid a lot of attention to the little details. Whether it’s being able to double click on the picture in picture window, in order to bring up the full screen or being able to see the DVD art for upcoming movies, there are a lot of subtle features that make for a more enjoyable media experience.

-Vista comes with 30 second skip enabled. TiVo fans know that you can hack your remote to add this feature, but the big studios were able to scare TiVo into disabling it for the masses. In the past, I’ve never really used the 30 second skip feature because it meant giving up the skip to the end button on my remote. After spending some time with it on Media Center, I’ve been really surprised at how much I’m enjoying it. Hitting a button six times is a lot easier than trying to guess when the program is about to start again.

-There is minimal interference between you and your recordings. One of my biggest frustrations with the generic DVR was that it required too many unnecessary steps, before I could interact with my content. It felt like I had to hit ten buttons before I could schedule a movie, delete a recording or even watch a show. With Vista Media Center, it’s an entirely different story. The entire experience is built around the content that you are interacting with. You can’t do everything from all levels of the software, but each step is intuitively linked to the task that you are focused on. If you are watching a TV show, then by right clicking you can delete the program or burn it to DVD. If you are playing music it’s one click to pause, skip, repeat, shuffle . . . .

-You can watch TV while surfing the web. Media Center is really designed for the living room, but I’m primarily using it in a desktop setting. I didn’t think that I’d watch a lot of TV at my desk, but I’ve found it to be the perfect compliment to streaming Netflix and YouTube. This isn’t ideal for shows with intense action and complex story lines, but its perfect for tuning into the news when you see a story break online or for listening to late night talk shows, while you’re multitasking on the web. This feature won’t benefit you, if you plan on using Media Center on your TV, but it’s a good reason to add on a TV tuner, the next time you upgrade your PC.

-You can use the XBox360 as an extender. I’ve read a lot about the Xbox extenders, but I had never actually seen one in action. Connecting my Xbox to Media Center took an extra registration step, but it was well worth the time to get it set up. When I first heard about Microsoft’s extender strategy, I was skeptical that it would stream videos without problems or program lock ups. While I didn’t test the connection using WiFi, my experience using the Xbox was almost identical to having the PC directly connected to the TV. No lag, no stuttering, just instant access to my content on my big screen tv.

-You can watch TV while using the menus. TiVo uses picture in picture technology on their Comcast download, but you won’t find it on their stand alone DVRs. I had forgotten how much I enjoyed this until I started using Vista as a DVR. Whether it’s a live show or a recording, Vista will minimize whatever program that’s on, when you want to dig deeper into the menu settings. This isn’t good if you’ve accidentally stumbled onto a football game and are desperately trying to avoid the score, but it is nice for when you’re not exactly sure what you want to watch.

-It will help you find programs that are on right now. Vista Media Center allows you to search for programs in a number of ways, but its their support for upcoming television, that impressed me the most. When it comes to searching for things like TV series, kid shows, etc., it allows you to browse alphabetically or by date. They’ve also built a separate section for movies and for sports where they’ve packed in some extra bonus content. In the TV and movies section, they offer plugins for various movie download services and in the sports section Vista will let you check the box scores or add fantasy players to track.

-You can skip automatically skip commercials. DVRs make it easy to skip commercials, but Vista Media Center takes things one step further by supporting plugins, that can edit out those pesky little ads entirely. It’s not easy to set up and it’s not something that is enabled by default, but it’s still a pretty sweet feature to add.

-You can placeshift your TV. The Slingbox is great if you have a cable DVR or a TiVo, but with Media Center you can download a free plugin that will let you watch your content wherever you can connect to the net. I haven’t actually used the program yet, but it’s still a great feature to have access to.

-You can burn DVDs. Normally, I’m pretty good about watching all of the shows that I record, but when it comes to boxing, I just don’t have time to see every fighter. It’s my favorite sport, but since I record every fight (even the ones on the Spanish channels), there isn’t enough time/hard drive space, to get caught up. Since I’ll never really know which fighters will end up making it big, I’ve decided to use my Media Center to archive all of the fights. By saving them to DVD, I should be able to go back and watch the fights that mattered.

-It supports external storage. Media Center gives you a lot of control over how you want to set up your storage. Since I’m using it as a secondary DVR, I’ve set it up to record a maximum of 100GB on my internal drive. If I need more, I can add an external drive or increase my internal hard drive allocation.

Cons

-You shouldn’t have to reboot your TV. One of the things that I love about my TiVo is that it just works. You don’t have to be a tech geek to figure it out, you plug it into your TV and it records everything. In the entire time that I’ve been a TiVo customer, I can think of very few occasions where TiVo failed to record my programing. When it comes to Media Center, it’s important to remember that it’s a PC first and a DVR second. Over the last few months, I’ve found the program to be mostly reliable, but it hasn’t been smooth sailing either. Whether it’s been dealing with poor DRM design, troubleshooting a bug that refused to let me download the guide data or having my computer crash while recording television, there have been several times where I’ve missed recordings, because of PC related problems. While I can’t blame Microsoft for all of my problems, it’s still frustrating to miss a show because of technical difficulties.

-Internet video support is weak. Media Center includes support for services like Vongo and Showtime on Demand, but it involves registering and downloading a separate program before you can get it working. As a Netflix subscriber, I was looking forward to being able to use Watch Now inside of Media Center, but Microsoft has left it up to the fans to build support for this. Microsoft includes some MSN internet video content, but they make you watch pre-roll ads before knowing whether or not it’s something that you are interested in. The Xbox may unofficially support DivX, but you can’t access it inside of media center. If you prefer to use a media extender instead, it will support your XviD files, but it’s set up to block your DivX content.

-It won’t record radio. XM may have just settled a lawsuit over their radio DVR, but recording radio shouldn’t be any different than television content. Media Center will let you listen to OTA radio, but it doesn’t let you record any of the programs.

-Fast forward is a little too powerful. It may be, that I’m just used to TiVo, but Vista’s fast forward speeds are hard to adjust to. They’ve got slow, almost fast and then it jumps to hyper speed. I can’t tell whether or not they are using a five second skip back, but when I hit play, I’m usually way past the start of the program. If you stick to the 30 second skip it’s not a problem, but it’d be nice if there was some kind of a way to adjust the timing on this.

-You can’t skip to the middle of a program. One of the things that I like about downloaded video is being able to immediately jump to the middle or the end of a program. Since this is a key feature in Window’s media player, I was surprised to see this missing from Media Center. There is also no way to jump 15 minutes ahead. If you happen to fall asleep during the middle of a program, you’re stuck with fast forwarding in order to get back to where you were at.

-You can’t rate your television. As television continues to involve, it’s becoming increasingly personal. Media Center does a good job of recording TV, but it doesn’t do a very good job of getting to know you. You can sort movies by the highest rated, but its using someone else’s criteria. Because you can’t tell Media Center what you do and don’t like, there are no suggested recordings or personalization.

-It doesn’t support auto-recording of wishlists. I’m a big basketball fan, but I’m really only interested in seeing the Laker games. Media Center will let me search for the next time that they are playing, but it won’t automatically record the game. It would be nice to be able to use media center to record programs that are customized to my interests.
Al pointed out in the comments that you can actually uses wishlists, you just need to set it up from the add recording field. Thanks for the help Al. This one definitely should go in the pro category.

-Vista’s DRM doesn’t play nice with HD. I’m still fuming over this one. I knew that recording HDTV on Vista would be a hassle, so I stuck with standard tuners when I customized my computer. After upgrading to an HD monitor, Vista disabled my Netflix Watch Now and put Media Center into lock down. If Apple’s DRM wasn’t just as bad, I would be thinking differently after this experience.

-It takes forever to burn a DVD. I was really jazzed up over being able to archive shows onto DVD, but the sluggishness of the DVD burning capabilities has me rethinking this game plan. It took me 2 and a half hours to burn a one hour program to DVD. It’d be one thing if I was using lousy hardware, but it takes less then 4 minutes for me to burn a 2 hour DivX film. It’s nice to be able to save your TV, but it should never take more time to burn the disc, than it does to watch it.

-Good for early adopters, complicated for everyone else. Vista Media Center offers a lot of unique features, but it takes too much tweaking to set these up. Placeshifting and auto commercial skipping are available, but it’s up the consumer to find and install these programs. Even if you know what you are doing, the setup can still be complicated. Instead of making consumers seek out these programs, Microsoft should be including them as part of the package. It wouldn’t be popular with the media companies, but it’d win the company a lot more fans.

-The recording quality is terrible. It’s probably not fair to compare a cablecard connected TiVo with an analog cable media center set up, but the TiVO SD recordings on my 60″ screen, look way better than the Media Center recordings on my 22″ monitor. This probably has less to do with Media Center and more to do with the tuners that I’m using, but it still takes away from the user experience. Unless you want to spend the big bucks on a cablecard media center, you may end up having to deal with poor resolutions.

-There’s no turning back once you delete – As careful as I am, sometimes my DVR instincts go on auto-pilot and I’ll accidentally delete a show before watching it. With TiVo I can recover that program, but in Media Center it is gone forever. The file isn’t even in the Recycle bin. Media Center will always ask you to confirm before deleting, but this also creates one more button to push when you are done with the shows that you have watched.

So there you have it, the good, the bad and Media Center Vista. There are some rough spots around the edges, but it really is a fantastic program. I’m hoping that we’ll see better support for HDTV and for online video as the program continues to evolve.

Even though I’m an HDTV fanatic, it wasn’t until this past weekend, that I finally made the jump to an HD monitor. While I don’t have HDTV tuners on my Media Center, I do have an HD camcorder and it was important for me to be able to edit my high resolution videos.

After doing a little bit of research, I decided to pick up a SyncMasterTM 226BW from Samsung. Between the new monitor and my ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT video card, the resolution looks absolutely stunning. Even my home movies look fantastic in HDTV. I really couldn’t have been happier with the upgrade.

Unfortunately, Hollywood isn’t quite as thrilled about my new HD Media Dream Machine and they’ve decided to punish me by revoking my Watch Now privileges from Netflix.

I first found out about the problem on New Year’s Eve, when I went to log into my account. When I tried to launch a streaming movie, I was greeted with an error message asking me to “reset” my DRM. Luckily, Netflix’s help page on the topic included a link to a DRM reset utility, but when I went to install the program, I stopped dead in my tracks when I saw this warning.

The minute I saw“this will potentially remove playback licenses from your computer, including those from companies other than Netflix or Microsoft” I knew better than to hit continue. Before nuking my entire digital library, I decided to call Netflix’s technical support, to see if I could get to the bottom of my C00D11B1 error message.

When I called them they confirmed my worst fears. In order to access the Watch Now service, I had to give Microsoft’s DRM sniffing program access to all of the files on my hard drive. If the software found any non-Netflix video files, it would revoke my rights to the content and invalidate the DRM. This means that I would lose all the movies that I’ve purchased from Amazon’s Unbox, just to troubleshoot the issue.

Technically, there is a way to back up the licenses before doing a DRM reset, but it’s a pretty complex process, even by my standards. When I asked Netflix for more details, they referred me to Amazon for assistance.

Perhaps even worse than having to choose between having access to Netflix or giving up my Unbox movies was the realization that my real problems were actually tied to the shiny new monitor that I’ve already grown fond of.

Netflix’s software allows them to look at the video card, cables and the monitor that you are using and when they checked mine out, it was apparently a little too high def to pass their DRM filters.

Because my computer allows me to send an unrestricted HDTV feed to my monitor, Hollywood has decided to revoke my ability to stream 480 resolution video files from Netflix. In order to fix my problem, Netflix recommended that I downgrade to a lower res VGA setup.

As part of their agreement with Hollywood, Netflix uses a program called COPP (Certified Output Protection Protocal). COPP is made by Microsoft and the protocol restricts how you are able to transfer digital files off of your PC. When I ran COPP to identify the error on my machine, it gave me an ominous warning that “the exclusive semaphere is owned by another process.”

My Netflix technician told me that he had never heard of this particular error and thought that it was unique to my setup. When I consulted Microsoft, they suggested that I consult the creator of the program. Since Microsoft wrote the COPP software, I wasn’t sure who to turn to after that.

The irony in all of this, is that the DRM that Hollywood is so much in love with, is really only harming their paying customers. When you do a DRM reset, it’s not your pirated files that get revoked, it’s the ones that you already paid for that are at risk. I’m not allowed to watch low res Netflix files, even though I have the capability to download high def torrents? How does this even make sense? It’s as if the studios want their digital strategies to fail.

While I understand the need for the studios to protect their content, I believe that these measures go too far. It makes little sense to block my ability to copy low res internet movies, when I can always rip the DVD straight from my Netflix discs instead. By blocking access to my Netflix membership, Hollywood is once again punishing their customers by pushing defective DRM.

Whether its their ridiculous lawsuit against XM Satellite radio or Creative’s decision to remove FM recording from their MP3 products, there are plenty of examples where the RIAA has used heavy handed tactics to try and stifle innovation.

Yet, no matter how hard they try, they can’t put this genii back into the bottle and by taking such a strong stance against legitimate companies, they’ve driven DVR radio underground, where they’ve now lost all control over it.

The RIAA may have been worried about RadioShark, but it was the radio piranhas that were the real threat and while they were busy suing their partners, the open source movement has been filling the stream ripping wake, that corporations are now too afraid to touch.

Stream ripping software isn’t new, but the functionality has been relatively limited and the interface hasn’t been ready for the average user. Screamer Radio is an excellent open source solution for DVR radio, but it lacks the aesthetic appeal and scheduling features, that make traditional DVRs so easy to use.

Luckily, the open source community has been hard at work and what Screamer Radio leaves out, Raima Radio is now bringing to the table. Raima Radio is a powerful freeware program that fuses features like wishlists, program scheduling, and video support with the traditional features of most stream ripping programs.

This combination turns a tremendous amount of power over to the consumer and will certainly have the RIAA taking extra heartburn medication (when they find out about it ) If they didn’t like XM’s limited subscriber base, having the ability to record satellite radio, then they will hate this program. It gives anyone with a computer and an internet connection, the ability to time shift radio to an mp3 player.

Raima supports a large number of internet radio stations and includes links to web pages, where you can find even more mainstream programs. If you are midway through a program, you can hit record and it caches the data, so that you can get all of the program. For years I’ve wanted to tune into Kevin and Bean’s morning show on KROQ, but since I live in San Francisco, I haven’t had easy access to the program. Now I can use Raima’s program to start recording, before I even wake up. By bridging the gap between the internet and the mp3, Raima allows you to follow radio that would normally be out of geographic reach.

Even more powerful then the scheduling capabilities, is the ability for Raima to monitor and record specific songs or artists that you are interested in. Instead of illegally downloading songs from the P2P networks, Raima allows you to create wishlists and will scan for those songs on any station that you tune into. The number of streams that you can simultaneously record is only limited by your bandwidth. This allows you to set up filters, record 10 different stations overnight and in the morning you’ll have a hefty mp3 collection.

This is the functionality that has the RIAA so terrified. If consumers are able to easily record the songs that they hear off the radio, it reduces their need to buy the hit singles. As someone who prefers albums over singles, I think that this is the wrong way to look at it, but I can still understand why they would see this as a threat to their business model. If you get me hooked on a few of your best songs, I’m going to buy your albums, go to your concerts and tell my friends about you, but if you are a casual music listener, this software will enable you to avoid ever having to purchase music again.

While the radio capabilities are Raima’s strongest suit, they’ve also thrown in support for recording streaming video. There isn’t a large selection of channels and the quality is terrible, but its a nice bonus over some of the other stream ripping programs. I would like to see them add support for recording internet video into XviD, but portability is more important for music, than it is for video.

The biggest drawback to Raima’s software is that the quality of the sound files isn’t always the best. The songs usually start recording ten seconds early and cut off before they finish. Unlike TiVo, there is no way to tell the system to start recording earlier or later to account for the lag. The mp3 streams also tend to include commentary from the DJs and sponsors. This isn’t a big deal if you’re trying to listen to a half an hour of talk radio, but it can be annoying, if you are only focused on the music. The quality of the mp3′s is also dependent on your internet connection. If you are trying to record a stream from Japan, while watching YouTube, running Bit Torrent, and playing online poker, then expect stuttering and interference to show up in your recordings. If you have a dedicated connection to a local radio station, then you should be fine.

While these deficiencies aren’t a major drawback, they still help to differentiate time shifted radio from buying the actual music. As great as Raima Radio is, it still can’t replicate the selection or quality that you can get from visiting Amoeba or buying .mp3′s online.

Another drawback to the software is that you can’t tell if a station is broadcasting until you try to tune into it. Because Raima includes a lot of dead streams, it means that you have to spend a lot of time trying to load dead air.

Overall, Raima Radio is a great freeware program and one that is pushing the envelope for time shifted radio. While there is plenty of room for improvement, its one of the better stream ripping programs out there. Universal may be relishing the royalties that they extracted from XM, but in the end, they paid a fair steeper price by trying to squash innovation.

‘Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a computer was stirring, not even a mouse;

But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight,
“Happy pirating to all, and to all a good-night.”

To celebrate the holidays, DivX is currently giving away free copies of their Pro, Converter and Player software. Normally, this bundle would cost $20, but if you act fast enough, you don’t have to pay anything. In order to get the promotional deal on the software, all you’ll need to do is download and activate the program using the following instructions.

Unfortunately, Fox Business News has turned out to be a big joke and continues to lose credibility on Wall St. Since launching the channel, I’ve seen three of their stories to go viral, but instead of giving me a reason why for why I should be tuning in, the stories have been about embarrassing gaffes by the channel.

The first story involved an anchor who incorrectly reported that Apple had purchased an 8% stake in AMD. Even after discovering the mistake, Fox compounded this error by misreporting that it was the “Arabs” who had purchased AMD instead.

A few days later, Fox followed up this viral hit with another blunder, after they rushed to report that HP had missed their earnings estimates, when in fact they had easily beaten them.

The latest story to hit the innerweb, involves a man on the street interview with a planted shill from the National Retail Federation

I don’t know why Fox is having so many problems getting their news right, but these types of stories are having a serious impact on their credibility. “Fair and balanced” may work for their political reporting, but when traders are betting millions of dollars on breaking information, they expect their news to be accurate.

While it’s easy to blame these PR errors on clumsy anchors, I think that Fox’s PR failings have more to do with their web video strategy. These may only be a few isolated events, but without positive buzz, it leaves people with the impression that Fox gets things wrong, more often then right. I don’t think that Fox can prevent future goof ups from going viral, but by making it easier for the web community to share their reporting, they could begin to repair their tattered reputation.

When it comes to premium content, it’s understandable that the studios would be reluctant to move it to the net, but when it comes to business news, it’s an entirely different animal. You don’t need to watch Heroes live, in order to extract value from the content, but breaking financial news isn’t the sort of thing that people time shift.

Because the information is time sensitive, it protects business channels from the DVR effect, but it also limits the monetary value of their archived content. Even though people won’t pay for a Squawk on the Street DVD box set, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t real marketing value locked up in the business news vaults.

The problem with Fox’s web video strategy, is that they are trying to control what goes viral, by only uploading certain highlights to their website. This might help to beef up the content on their site, but it doesn’t make the best use of their archived footage. I believe that the stock market is the ultimate example of the long tail in action. The large cap companies may get all the press, but there are an unbelievable number of companies out there and each one has an eager audience. By making it easier for the long tail community to easily share their reporting, I believe that Fox can strike a body blow against their CNBC rival.

Over the last year, Sling Media has been working on a clip and sling service, that would allow their customers to snip certain sections of a program and send them to people in their social network. Sling hasn’t released very many details on the software, but it’s already stirred up some controversy among some of the media companies.

Instead of fighting this technology, Fox should be using it as a weapon against CNBC. If Fox were to run a 20 minute delayed feed and let viewers clip and share the news within their social circles, they would soon have an army of volunteers creating a massive and valuable advertising platform for them. It may only be a 60 second clip talking about an obscure company, but that clip would get included in email groups, message boards and blogs, that are devoted to these subjects.

By running the news at a 20 minute delay, it would also encourage people to watch the channel live, so that they could then jump online to share the video. It would also help the home viewers have a better understanding of how breaking news impacts the markets. With most online quote services being 20 minutes delayed, sometimes its hard to tell why a stock is jumping or falling without the live data. If home viewers had a way of syncing the business news with their delayed quotes, it could help them to make better sense of the trading activity in the markets. A 20 minute delay would also give Fox enough time to at least spin/correct any mistakes, before the bloggers jumped all over them.

Giving up this type of control can be scary for big media companies, but Fox has already lost control of their live video. If they have a major screw up, someone out there will take the time to get that footage onto YouTube because scandal sells and people love to gossip, but if they have an interesting interview with an exec, someone needs to be really motivated before they can share that content with their audience.

Instead of fighting this trend, Fox should accept that they can’t suppress live video and instead make it easier for people to share the good reporting that is also going on. Instead of limiting their videos to mainstream content, Fox should be opening up their programming to the entire web, so that they can leverage the marketing power of the content. When you only hear about the negatives, it’s hard to put a lot of value on Fox’s live coverage, but if people started to see content that was relevant to them, it would make them think about how they would have seen it live, if they were only watching Fox business instead.

“A method wherein contents of DVDs may be restricted based upon purchased certificates is provided. The certificates allow for secured information on playback. Specifically, whenever a DVD is to be played, a certificate is consulted to determine whether the content of the DVD should be played with or without commercial interruptions. If the certificates provide for commercial interruptions, then commercials can be obtained from an online service that renders commercials on demand, or from the DVD itself. In such a case, the content of the DVD may be interspersed with commercials.”

I’m usually a fan of new DVD technology, but I’ve got mixed feelings on this one. Every now and then, I’ll come across a DVD that won’t let me skip past the previews and it drives me absolutely nuts. If I’ve already paid for my content, then should I be forced to watch advertisements? It makes me feel like the studios are double dipping.

On the other hand, I could see plenty of advantages to having ad supported DVDs. There are a lot of people who aren’t willing to pay money, in order to watch a DVD. If they can catch up on a series by dealing with the ads, then this technology could introduce time shifting to an entirely new audience. It could also open up new distribution channels for content providers. For example, if McDonalds included ad supported Disney flicks in their Happy Meals, I’d wager that they would reach more viewers, then Friday nights on ABC.

With advertisers already scared to death of the ad skipping powers of the DVR, I could see studios adopting this as a way of shoring up advertising revenue. I’m certain that the TV producers would prefer live viewers, but if a consumer ends up watching the ads eventually, then why should it matter, when they see the program?

One of the more interesting components to the IBM application, was it’s focus on internet delivered advertising. Whenever I’ve been forced to watch previews on DVDs, it’s typically been for movies that were released a long time ago. While the previews may have been relevant seven years ago, they seem a little outdated today. I don’t think that the free DVD consumer market is going to have the latest internet connected DVD players, but I still found it interesting to learn, that IBM is working on a solution to this problem.

I don’t see this patent making it all the way through the application process, but I do expect that we’ll see more of these types of advertisements in the future. The optimist in me, would love to see this technology used to reach new consumers, but my inner cynic knows that the studios would rather unleash ads on paying viewers, then risk cannibalizing their precious DVD. I don’t fully understand IBM’s motives for filing the patent, but thought that it was an interesting solution for bringing entertainment to the masses.

During the quarter, DivX took in $20.9 million in revenue, of which $17.1 was related to their core licensing business. This jump in revenue represents an increase of 44%, over the same period a year ago.

During a conference call discussing the results, DivX estimated that as of June 30th, they had captured 37% of the global DVD player market. This compares to a 25% penetration rate, from a year ago. During the more recent 3rd quarter, they saw their market share for US based DVD players, climb from 20% to 31%, over the past year.

Kevin Hell, DivX’s newly appointed CEO, attributed the growth to top OEMs, reacting favorably to greater consumer demand for DivX products.

“These penetration gains are a direct result of our growing relationships with the key OEM partners, as they react to increasing consumer demand for DivX devices. In Q3, our top 5 OEM partners, taken as a group, increased unit shipments of DivX Certified products by 55% relative to the same period last year. What’s more, we are especially pleased that we have been able to achieve this growth while maintaining our historically strong average royalty rates.”

What I find so fascinating about this aspect of DivX growth, is that they are seeing it come from their existing partners. If new partners were coming on board, it would be easy to dismiss their gains as being driven by OEM competition, but to see 55% growth from your existing customers, would suggest that DivX’s market share is either being driven by consumers directly choosing DivX devices over non-certified products, or from OEMs recognizing the value that DivX adds in a more competitive environment. Whether it’s the chicken or the egg that has been driving demand, these gains represent a strengthening of DivX’s core business and offers further proof, that DivX certification can drive the adoption of consumer electronic devices.

In addition to seeing progress in their core DVD licensing business, DivX also saw key developments in their emerging products category. During the quarter, they successfully launched their DivX Connected platform, they formed a strategic relationship with Qualcomm to help drive DivX mobile, and they signed an important advertising agreement with Yahoo!

On their conference call, DivX didn’t unveil any new customers for their Connected platform, but they did announce that Connected would begin shipping on November 12th. Initially, it will only be available in the UK, Germany and France, but DivX expressed hope that we could see a North American launch sometime in 2008.

One area where DivX continued to struggle, was in securing the rights to premium content. When asked about their progress, Hell said that DivX remained committed to the idea, but that negotiations with studios tend to take a lot of time.

“we continue to aggressively pursue Hollywood content and believe that there is a strong rationale for a deal. Of course, these sort of deals take time, particularly with our open approach, where we’re working across a number of different device types and a number of different brands, but we think that the rationale for the studios and other premium content owners is compelling. We have over 100 million devices out there that are certified. All of those devices have our DRM inside and so ultimately we believe, it’s just a matter of time. Once we do get these folks on board, the studios and other premium content owners, we’ll then be working with other folks like Amazon or Netflix to enable services for distribution in the powered by DivX model.”

There may be strong rationale for a deal, but it appears that DivX is finding out the hard way, that studios don’t always behave rationally. DivX may still be committed to trying to secure the digital rights to content, but you wouldn’t know it by looking at their their legal department. During the quarter, DivX sued Universal music group, in order to help establish the legality of their Stage6 video sharing site. On October 22nd, UMG fired back by filing a copyright complaint against DivX, as well as ten John Does who are accused of uploading infringing content to the Stage6 website.

When asked about whether or not the lack of premium content would impact the popularity of DivX Connected, Hell didn’t seem to feel that it would be an issue.

“I think Connected in its current form and the sense that it has access to all of your music, your photos and, of course, your video, as well as access to Stage6 and other services is a compelling offering and I believe that its something that solves the problem out there, unlike any other platform that’s out there today. That said, of course, I do see Hollywood content as being an accelerator to Connected.”

For most digital media companies, being denied access to premium content would make or break your business, but because DivX’s core customers already have access to premium content, this really isn’t all that significant of an issue. Customers may have to steal their movies off the P2P networks, but DivX consumers have already demonstrated a willingness to take content, especially when legal downloading isn’t an option. Premium content will be an important part of Connected, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be legal content, in order for the platform to succeed.

During the quarter, DivX saw three major developments for their mobile strategy. As part of a new multi-year agreement with LG Electronics, they introduced another DivX certified cell phone, they expanded the global availability of the Samsung F500, and they formed a strategic partnership with Qualcomm.

Of these events, the Qualcomm deal was the most important, because it lays the infrastructure for mass deployment further down the road. Qualcomm is a major player in the cell phone chip market and if DivX can achieve interoperability with their technology, it will accelerate the mass adoption of DivX mobile, once the phone companies finally warm to the technology.

Of all the questions that the analysts raised, I was most surprised by the confusion surrounding their Yahoo! agreement. Over the quarter, DivX reported that they had replaced Google with Yahoo!, as their advertising partner on DivX software downloads. While I can understand why people might be concerned by the end of the Google agreement, I also believe that the move makes perfect sense for Yahoo! and DivX.

Over the last several years, DivX has bundled the Google toolbar as an option, when you download or update their software. Even before, DivX went public, there were concerns that Google’s toolbar would be less effective, as market saturation set in. As more and more people download the Google toolbar, it becomes increasingly harder to find new customers to cross sell to.

From DivX’s perspective, I have to believe that they’ve been experiencing diminishing returns on this revenue stream. By partnering with Yahoo!, they are not only able to cross sell a less saturated product, but Yahoo! will also get a chance to directly steal current Google toolbar customers, every time, someone updates their DivX software. By swapping out advertisers, DivX is able to help keep this revenue stream fresh and relevant, despite their success with the Google software.

When it comes to Stage6, DivX was understandably tight lipped about their progress towards spinning off the asset. For negotiation reasons, they didn’t want to discuss the valuation or the format of the spinoff, but did give some background metrics on the development of the video sharing service.

During the quarter, DivX spent $4.0 million on Stage6. Of this amount, $2.6 million was directly related to bandwidth costs. While this expense was considerably higher then a year ago, it was still less then the $4.5 million that DivX had previously predicted it would spend. DivX CFO Dan Halvorson pointed to infrastructure constraints as a reason for the reduction in spending.

“As we mentioned in the past, the site experienced huge trajectory in 2007, moving from 4 million “uniques” in April to 10 million by July. At the end of October, Stage6 reached 11.7 million unique visitors. Our view is the number of uniques could have been higher, but were limited by infrastructure capacity. To accommodate the increased traffic we have continued to enhance the Stage6 infrastructure.”

Halvorson didn’t elaborate on how they were enhancing the infrastructure, but during the 3rd quarter, DivX did take a $2.2 million charge on their Veatros acquisition from the prior quarter.

While it’s understandable that DivX investors would be worried about the death of the DVD player, DivX’s current results suggest that they will handle this transformation just fine. Unlike the movie studios or print newspapers, DivX should see greater growth from the transition to a digital environment and can still take DVD player market share, even with the industry in decline. As the DVD format begins to disappear, DivX will eventually lose this business, but if they can transfer this licensing revenue into new product categories, they should see a dramatic increase in the demand for DivX devices.

When he was asked to rank the importance of these emerging technologies, Halvorson pointed out that the potential market for DivX devices is 10 times larger then the current DVD opportunity.

“In terms of the ranking of those opportunities, I would say, mobile, given its size obviously, is probably the largest. We are also thus seeing DTVs, HDTVs, set top boxes and gaming consoles all being interested to us over time as well. Cameras, of course, are important not just because it’s a large market, but because it is also a generic content in the DivX format, and as I mentioned, I think the addition of H.264 to our overall media language will allow us to penetrate that more quickly as well.”

The death of the DVD business will happen eventually, but whether it takes five years or twenty, DivX is in a good position to take advantage of this shift. In the near term, OEMs are recognizing the value that DivX brings to a more competitive environment and over the long run, DivX will only need to capture 10% of their market opportunity, in order to replicate their current level of success. As consumers turn away from the DVD, they will need to embrace a digital format and DivX has positioned themselves to directly benefit from this evolution in the digital market.

Disclosure – I am a shareholder of Netflix

Normally, I’d be bothered by a dirty room or poor customer service, but in this case, it was a big fat sticker, that cautioned their guests about hooking up your outside equipment, to their television sets. Five years ago, I wouldn’t have cared about something like this, but with the explosion in the number of laptop to TV solutions, this has become an important issue for consumers to think about. What good does it do you, to be able to take your PC on the go, if hotels end up freezing you out, by neutering their TV sets?

I know that hotel PPV is a huge business, but I would think that tech savvy consumers would be a juicy demographic, that the casinos would be after. In the past, the hotels haven’t had to compete against outside video sources, but as technology has gotten better, we’ve seen new possibilities emerge. Instead of leaving your TV at home, you can placeshift it with Sling or Orb. With the proliferation of portable DVD players, it’s easy to take movies on the go. Whether it’s the newly announced Sansa TakeTV or the upcoming SlingCatcher, we are seeing an increase in the number of solutions for getting digital video to the television, on an almost daily basis.

I’ve never thought about checking to see if a hotel offers open access for their TVs, but in the future, it will be something that I make sure to ask about. I understand that the casinos would rather have me gambling, then watching TV, but being able to placeshift local sports, makes betting on them all that much more exciting.

In my dream world, casinos would charge $20 more per night and I’d get unlimited broadband, along with a TiVo that can record content during my stay, but I’m not holding my breath on this one. Right now, this is only an issue for early adopters, but as PC to TV technology goes mainstream, it will be something that more people will want to think about.

Some hotels may try to lock people into their proprietary systems, but in the future, I’m going to insist on free wifi and open television, even if it means that I’m staying at motels, instead of clowning around with Circus Circus.