Replies to post #3711 on Distributed Digital Property Board

[aleajactaest]

"This all presupposes that the TVTonic platform offers a better differentiated viewing platform - from quality, filtering and ease of use."

Quality: speed of service vs picture quality
There are always going to be some kinds of content for which speed of service is more important than picture quality/size. Oddly enough, full screen isn't especially desirable in many circumstances. It is useful for certain conditions. Having said that, some streaming services run very impressive full screen images (or apparently full screen images) in real time using a regular US broadband service. See Vividas' service for example, which is used for advertising-type content. Basically as long as the download speed runs faster than the playing speed, you can offer a service in real time. It was a rather different calculation five or six years ago when both the network and the service were more primitive. So I'm not sure how valuable WXP's solution to the quality discussion really is. I think the advantage here is more an aged Wave mythology than anything.

Content and Filtering:
You didn't mention this, but one reason for YouTube's success was that it found a kind of content looking for a distribution channel. They achieved their audience by being the venue people use for short clips: users' own, and clips they scavenged from television. If WXP's funky channels can do something similar (hopefully without the legal issues) for slightly more persistent video experiences, maybe they'll have similar success. Personally, I've been expecting someone to make a living providing organised, super-specialised online programming for small, highly-distributed audiences for several years. The cost of equipment and network dissemination are increasingly tiny. A new layer of specialised online advertising will need to emerge to support it. But as you imply, build the audience and the advertisers will likely come. Life after television: maybe once it escapes the mass audience demands of large-scale advertising, the video medium will stop being quite so dumb. As regards filtering - I doubt any kind of algorithm will succeed at mimicking human choice/selection any time soon. If I want access to any channel regularly, why wouldn't I just add it to my favorites list: that's the way I select and get access to the online channels I watch occasionally.

Ease of Use:
There I'm not sure WXP has any great advantages.

[aleajactaest]

By the way, I completely agree re the technology.

It's the content and the business model and getting the audience which are the main challenges.

Essentially, WXP has not done enough to make me see a value in it yet.

I can see they will try to generate future value by providing greater security via the TPM/FDE architecture. But note, the consumer TPM/FDE market is going to take years to develop. Things like X-Box may help. But we're still talking peanuts from a critical mass viewpoint.

And anyway, you need to do more than offer security to cordon off a good-sized chunk of the revenues in the content supply chain. You need to offer content, functionality, audience etc. And for a distributor, the audience is key. It's the leverage with content suppliers, if leverage is to be had.

If Wavexpress offers to license its service to, say, ABC or the BBC, it's going to receive pennies on the dollar currently. If it can find a way to deliver 10 million users and advertising income, it's a different proposition. And if it can then offer a means to provide other models securely, such as pay-per-file, then they really have something.

It's probably a five year ask. But get some advertising to support the development costs, and I, for one, would be content to see WXP take shape over the longer time horizon.