Why can't Google just license content from major networks and make it all available in the Play Store.. but in a typical "set top box" UI?

by redditwithafork

Google's obviously hellbent on taking over the living room, but a VAST majority of non-tech people I talk to are comfortable with their cable or satellite box, and are intimidated by "internet content"

My parents will set a DVR schedule to record a movie that's going to be on next week, when they could just watch it now on Netflix on their smart tv.

If cable and satellite providors, and hulu, and other outlets license current..let's call it "live" programming, then why can't Google create a "live" app, that's nothing more than a program guide, like we're all used to seeing on our set top boxes for years.. Users could scroll through the "channel guide" and the program would play, relative to the current time.. for instance, say Conan started at 9:00pm, it's 9:15. User could scroll down to TBS, select the program, and it would instantly start playing at 00:15:00 with a soft transparent popover asking the user if they'd like to start from the beginning, if not, popover fades, users watching the show.

While this seems like a ridiculous, counter intuitive way to stream video, it would be a simple, comforting interface that all tv viewers would understand, and could allow Google to break in to every living room in America.

Since programming is only available on a timed schedule, Google could even implement a "DVR" style interface that would allow users to "record" future events.. except instead of actually "recording" the program, it would simply wait until it's scheduled broadcast time, when it would just add the title to a "playlist" if you will... which would be similar to the current DVR recorded shows list. When the user picks a show, it starts to stream (since it's a historic show at that point).

Honestly, the only reason I haven't cut the cable yet is because while google play, netflix, hulu are all great things, I'd miss channel surfing, plus I enjoy local stations, and sporting events (mainly formula1 and other soccer games)

Mr_You

First local station/major network affiliates are easy: OTA antenna + DVR.

But the simple answer is money. A cable/satellite provider will pay a lot of money to have "exclusive rights" to network(s) content which then essentially requires anyone who wants to watch that content to subscribe to their service. ESPN/sports are a good example.

I don't doubt that many networks would love to sell their content via multiple outlets, but apparently the math says they would lose money from their bread and butter exclusive licensees because they would want to pay much less because they no longer have exclusive rights. There would have to be some sort of tipping point (most likely from subscriber losses which result in tighter profit margins) where cable/satellite providers are only willing/able to pay the networks so much while at the same time networks then determine that is not enough for exclusive rights.

Obviously some networks have worked into their exclusive rights agreements that it only guarantees the licensee rights to the first/live broadcast and that is why some content is available after this broadcast.

kinisonkhan

Its the local advertising thats really at risk, but this is only part of the problem.

Your average TV show has a bunch of ad slots which normally go to nationwide companies, but they do offer a few local slots. For me, its watching Seattle Seahawks doing some local ads for a local company. Once you go IPTV, its no longer a local service and they wont be able to charge as much money if local slots are gone. So while I'll still be subjected to McDonalds, Coca Cola and Microsoft ads, I wont see those local Seahawk ads, or Bears ads if you live in Chicago, or Patriot Ads if you live in Boston, etc, etc.

You watch TV on DirecTV and you wont see those local ads, its all national companies and they lose out, you'll see far more PPV ads because DirecTV needs to fill in those slots, and since they cant fill it in with local ads, they fill it in with their own ads, which are usually PPV. Overall not a huge deal because dish based companies need only maintain the satellite system and not thousands of miles of coax cable, which needs far more people and money to maintain.

An IPTV service would steal away, not dish/directTV owners, but local cable subscribers. So without being able to offer local ad slots to an IPTV service, the value of selling their block of channels isnt as valuable and they wont get as much money as they normally demand.

So networks who want to protect this advertising cash cow will charge obscene prices. Its the reason why Qwest, Apple, Intel, Google, etc, etc, all failed at providing IPTV service, its the main reason why everyone pulled out of the biding process for Hulu. The prices were so high, you couldn't actually compete with local cable as they had the luxury of placing local ads for dozens of shows. The only way you could compete is with alacarte programming, which network object to on principle.