* VOD - died tonight!

original - blog.viraltrends.ru/?p=1#more-1

On January 15, 2008, Apple introduced to the market, in addition to new fantastic gadgets, the APPLE TV 2.0 media console ... along with the movie rental service, which is almost completely dissolved in the hype of discussing the subtleties of the new “air” MacBook. what else as the provision of a multimillion audience of consumers of the Itunes + Ipod service with the possibility of remote video rental, or how it is “fashionable” to speak in the modern service environment VideoOnDemand (Video on Demand) - with the ability to view this the most content in the conditions of the existing paradigm - “Anytime, anywhere” (naturally within the framework of devices supported by the platform). It would seem? One small addition to an existing media store? Which has a chance to completely change the landscape of the market of interactive services once and for all, and bury the possibility of local Internet providers to provide access to paid video ...

What is the VOD service for the local market, which is my local ISP (or a provider’s subcontractor receiving a percentage) proudly calling itself a “multiservice” network ??? - A limited set of films, updated every 3-6 months, for access to which you need to purchase equipment for an average of 150-250 dollars, connect it to one viewing point, and on a very incomprehensible interface for me (of course, why should there be a staff member dealing with usability?) engaging in sampling of what the subscriber wishes to view at prices ranging from 1.5 to 3 USD. - Within 24 hours, the user must view the ordered film. But the film is not copied anywhere, does not swing, and if he changed his mind or wanted to “postpone” the viewing, the opportunity to return again will be exactly the same 1-3 US dollars - If the consumer has a laptop, a couple more computers, a mobile gadget, a media player, a Sony PSP, an Iphone or something else (cross out) capable of displaying the video, he will not be able to watch the rented video. , the existence of the current media pa Adigma consumption of the content of the format “Anything - anywhere - anytime” contradicts what the “Internet service provider” offers to the consumer and leads to a completely reverse situation. Wishing to “fill” the newly released blockbuster with its “pill” for viewing on-the-go, he will face the fact that it is much easier to download (and most importantly for free!) from the peering resources this film, recode it to the required format and deliver it to the “media viewing” device to enjoy the play of actors and special effects masters…. What are consumers willing to pay for content in BRIC countries (taken as the most dynamically developing markets where the issue of legality / non-legality of digital content is acute), where so-called “digital piracy” is elevated to the rank of a national idea? They are ready to pay only for the ease of access and getting the same content “anytime, anywhere!” They are willing to pay for the fact that the place of hourly searches for the right songs and videos on the torrent portals, they just have to press two buttons and (that's that!) replete with new dialogues and the music folder is supplemented with new melodies. They are ready to pay for simplicity, convenience, and the inability to once again learn how to work with the new interface - creating another personal account - and feeling like the last stupid person who doesn’t understand how press the black button on the red foneOni willing to pay for the lack of opportunities to touch very long shelf with the right DVD box, and access to "his collection" by pressing a button So why does Apple one of its micro-service "killed" the young VOD market in local service providers? Why exactly “rent” and not “purchase” video is the key driver of the entire legal sector of the online cinema sector? - The consumer no longer needs to be tied to a single point of content consumption. In case he is not eager to buy Apple TV, he can always connect an external monitor to his laptop, or download a TV “in the car” to the Iphone — Consumer is no longer depends on the specific “web”. Any possible wireless connection gives him the opportunity to “rent” the video for viewing. Sitting in the airport's waiting room, for $ 20 you can “fill” your laptop (along with an Ipod) with a dozen movies! -The consumer in the countries of BRIC (with the arrival of iTunes in their region) received a legal opportunity to watch films cheaper than the cost of the DVD “in transition”. It is still “not free”, but how many of you watch movies, or do they keep “medium-sized” pictures on their “shelf” or on a hard disk? In one day, the company’s video-on-demand services faced a new colossus that had the chance to completely leave out of control the structures that previously dominated the communication channel owners. In one day, it became much easier for copyright holders to work with one giant Apple - as with a company guaranteed base of tens of millions of subscribers who own more than 28 million iPods worldwide (and Ipod-only media player whose sales are growing rather than stagnating) than to sign contracts with IPTV structures whose subscriber base hesitate Xia from 1 to several thousand subscribers limited one viewer content - its teleekranom.V one day become almost unnecessary and uneconomical process of selling DVD drive which becomes substitutable the OTA (OverTheAir) delivered to any device .... What should be the steps of the Stream, QWERTY, AKADO and Corbina companies after yesterday's launch of this service so that the P & L figures for the video did not go to a total minus and the shares of the companies did not fall below the baseboard? Tomorrow they should close the existing VOD projects with one stroke, let alone abandon the services of “intermediaries” of this service, providing questionable quality for the same questionable interest. And it is worth concentrating all efforts on supporting the launch of Itunes Store Russia and lobbying its right local launch of Itunes Store in their networks, with the ability to pay for media from the personal account of an Internet provider subscriber. Perhaps their experience (if there is a right) in marketing and statistical research of their own subscriber base should be actively used by both parties to create a list of video material that would be most representative and “economically digestible” by the mass of subscribers. In the very losing variant, the company “intermediaries” turned out to be leasing their media capacities in the field of content to local players of the Internet provisioning market, who do not want to personally engage in purchasing and working with content. labels of the digital media industry, having spent on the purchase of platforms and their own “content”, these companies signed a death sentence because of the further limited possibilities of providing “this content to consumers. Oddly enough, but the future has come today. Moreover, it came quietly and unexpectedly, with one stroke showing that in a world where everyone turns upside down every day, “temporary monopolies” (and thus super-profits) create ONLY those companies that put usability, usability and opportunities for their consumers in the first place Because the point of primary consumption has changed from a limited user of a certain Network to a creative social consumer who, over his morning coffee at Starbucks, uses an Iphone to pour a couple of fresh blockbasts into his set top box moat for a couple of bucks apiece ...