Dan Rayburn - StreamingMediaBlog.com

Livestream's $495 Broadcaster Is Here, Unboxing Photos, Review Coming Soon

In April, Livestream announced a new hardware encoder called the Livestream Broadcaster. I've just received my unit in the mail and have included some unboxing photos below. I'll be posting a full review of the device shortly, but in the mean time, my initial impressions from being hands-on with it is that it's really well designed.

One of the first things you notice when you pick it up is how solid it feels, even though it is only 4.8 x 3.0 inches in size and 1.25 inches in height. It's small, but the broadcaster doesn't feel cheap at all. It's also been really well thought out with the top cover held on by magnets so that it's easy to swap the AA batteries inside. The two buttons on the front that also act as joysticks to navigate the on-screen menu work really, really well.

If this performs as well as it looks and feels, then this $495 encoder will make encoding and distributing live HD events to the web and mobile devices easy and very affordable for many.

If you have specific questions about the device you want to know the answers to, put it in the comments section and I'll make sure to answer them during the testing process.

Less Than 10% of iPad Users Have Bought An Apple TV, Total Sales of 5.5M Are Meaningless

Yesterday at the D10 conference Apple's CEO said that so far this year, Apple has sold 2.8M Apple TV units. If you combine that with the 2.7M units Apple sold from September 2010 to December 2011, Apple has now sold a total of 5.5M second (720p) and third (1080p) generation Apple TV's. It originally took Apple 16 months to sell 2.7M units and now they are selling that same volume in 1/3 the time. While it's good to see the growth, the problem is that Apple still has no real presence in the living room and selling 5.5M Apple TV units in 21 months time really isn't that spectacular.

While Apple won't call their Apple TV device a failure since they always thought of it as a "hobby" to begin with, the fact is, they have yet to even get 10% of users who buy an iPad to also purchase an Apple TV. Between the fiscal Q1 of 2011 up until Apple's Q1 of 2012, the company has now sold almost 60M iPads and even more if you count those sold before 2011. So even for those users who have selected Apple's ecosystem, less than 10% of them have purchased the Apple TV. And if you factor in users like myself who have multiple Apple TV units, the percentage of unique users Apple is reaching in the living room is well under 5M.

Naturally, you don't expect Apple to sell many Apple TV units to consumers not using the Apple ecosystem and the content available via the Apple TV doesn't even come close to the variety of content offered from Roku, for the same $99 price. But Apple can't even crack the 10% mark with iPad users and if you combine all of the iPhones sold with the iPad, the Apple TV isn't even reaching 2% of the total iOS market.

Of course these numbers aren't going to stop all of the crazy analysts and media people who are already declaring Apple as the winner in being able to disrupt the traditional TV and broadcast market with a product that does not yet exist (an Apple TV with a screen) and has been speculated about for more than three years with nothing yet in the market. These are many of the same analysts who said that when the first generation Apple TV came out in 2007 it would kill off DVDs. Deutsche Bank went so far as to say that the new Apple TV would, "cannibalize a good chunk of the U.S. DVD player market in the next several years".

Five years has passed since that statement and the Apple TV hasn't cannibalized or disrupted anything in the market. At the same time, when Apple TV hit the 1M sales mark, other analysts were quoted as saying, "one million is a real benchmark". Really? We're now judging the success of a device based on selling only 1M units? Clearly, most of the analysts and media really don't understand these streaming devices or their real impact on the over-the-top video market. They don't get how they really work or have any idea what you can or can't do with them. All I keep hearing about is how good AirPlay is, yet about half the content apps I have on my iPad don't even have AirPlay functionality built in. For instance, TNT's iPad app is AirPlay enabled, yet TNT's iPhone app isn't. And you still can't get something as basic as Hulu on the Apple TV.

To think of it another way, the Apple TV is nothing more than a $99 adapter that lets you mirror what is on your iPad/iPhone on your TV, if the app supports it. That's all it is. And for all of the raving by the media and analysts about how "disruptive" the Apple TV was suppose to be, Apple has yet to even sell it to 10% of their installed iPad base. These are same analysts who are saying the new iTV or whatever it's going to be called, if/when it is released, is going change and disrupt the TV and broadcast markets, which in truth, is as far from reality as you can get.

Note: Here is an interesting analysis on how much revenue Apple might be generating from their Apple TV product.

Compare The Latest Streaming Devices and Content Platforms, All In One Chart

[Chart updated 6/19] Today, at the broadband device pavilion on the exhibit floor of the Streaming Media East show, we released our latest chart that compares all of the dedicated streaming media boxes in the market and lists which content platforms are available for each box. You can download the full PDF by clicking on the image below and you can always find the latest version of the chart at www.StreamingMediaDevices.com

I'll be updating this chart a few times throughout the year and you can send any additions or errors you spot to me directly. A big thank you to the following companies who helped us with the chart: Boxee, Roku, D-Link, TiVo, Dolby, Microsoft, Sony, Vizio and Western Digital.

Updated 6/3: Added Amazon support to Xbox 360. Removed .MOV support on the Roku.

Updated 6/14: Updated MovieNite device to the newly announced MovieNite Plus.

Updated 6/19: Added the Netgear NeoTV Pro to the chart.

Here's Your Chance To Win 1 of 12 Google Chromebooks at The Streaming Media East Show

Thanks to Google, we're giving away 12 Samsung Chromebook Series 5 laptops at the Streaming Media East show, taking place May 15-16th in NYC. To attend the Google keynote on May 15th, simply register online for a free exhibits pass and you are in. After the keynote, attendees will have the chance to win one of these laptops. An extra special thanks to Google for being so generous with the giveaways!

It's not too late to get a full conference pass to the show and readers of my blog can register using my own personal discount code of DRF01, which gets you a two-day ticket to the show for only $445. #smeast

Hands-On Review: D-Link's MovieNite Streaming Player Not Worth Buying

Over the weekend I picked up the new D-Link MovieNite streaming media player, a $48 box developed in conjunction with Walmart and sold exclusively in their stores and via the Walmart.com website. Of all the streaming media devices I have reviewed and tested, I don't think I've ever told readers not to buy something, until today. For what is suppose to be a very simple player aimed at a non-techie crowd, this player falls far short in just about every category and is not worth the money.

The player supports 1080p video streaming and has 802.11n WiFi, 10/100 ethernet port, HDMI out and composite video connections. The player only supports content from Netflix, Vudu, YouTube and Pandora and has no support to play back local content via USB and no slot for any kind of memory card. While some of those shortcomings would be just fine for someone who only wants to use it to stream movies and TV shows from Netflix and Vudu, I'm afraid even those simple tasks are painful with this player.

The box supports 802.11n, yet no matter what I tried I could not get it to connect to my WiFi network. Another issue is that the name of WiFi networks are cut off, with my network only showing up as two letters in the name, out of seven. Putting in a call to D-Link's tech support number was no help as they couldn't solve the problem. My router sits ten feet from the box, has ten other devices that can connect to it via WiFi, yet the D-Link player kept telling me it could not connect to the network. D-Link support had me reset the box over and over again, with no luck. They then asked me to wait on hold for at least 30 minutes while they "called headquarters", but I declined to wait. On a side note, I know that most companies these days outsource tech support calls to foreign countries to save money, but trying to diagnose a tech issue, with someone who does not speak English fluently, is never a good user experience.

Hoping my WiFi issues were just a software problem that could be resolved with a firmware update, I tried to update the box under the maintenance option, but was given an error message of "Memory space is not enough for upgrade! Do you want to reboot now?" So if you can't download updates for the box, I'm not sure how D-Link expects to ever add fixes and features? For my last option, I actually broke out the printed three page Quick Install Guide in the box, but that was useless. But I did get a good laugh when step three told me not to plug in an ethernet cable if I wanted to use WiFi as the "on-screen setup wizard will allow you to configure your wireless settings". Now I get what they were saying, but if this box is really targeting non-techie's, step four should not be telling you to plug in the power supply when step three is talking about an on-screen setup wizard.

Giving up on trying to connect the box via WiFi I plugged in an ethernet cable which saw my network right away. Since the box only supports four content services, the remote has dedicated buttons for Netflix, Vudu, YouTube and Pandora. The bad news is that the software interface for this box is slow and buggy. Netflix takes nearly twenty seconds to load and videos take much longer to start up when compared with the Roku or WD TV Live player. D-Link does have a note on their website saying that they have released a product software update that resolves issues with streaming content from Netflix, but they don't say what issues they are fixing and there is no way to force download the update.

To get the update on the box D-Link says to "reboot it by powering it off and then back on, wait for the update message to appear, and select ok." Problem is I don't get that message when I reboot it and I have no way to know if that means I already have the update or not. The entire user-experience with this product was not well thought out and it's a really poor interface. I don't know why this box is so slow, but there is a lot of lag time with the software and the box froze on me twice, forcing me to pull the power plug.

Overall, there is nothing to like about this box and consumers would do far better spending $30 more for a Roku HD. And if 1080p isn't required, you can get a Roku LT for the same price as this box, which will also give you hundreds of content channels, instead of only four. The only advantage D-Link's MovieNite box has over Roku is their support for YouTube, something Roku is still missing for some unknown reason.

While I could understand D-Link and Walmart's desire to want to put out a really cheap streaming box in the market for those who just want to stream Netflix and Vudu, it's really pointless when every connected TV, Blu-ray player and streaming box already has Netflix on it. This box really doesn't fill any void in the market and isn't worth buying.

D-Link Releases $48 Streaming Player, But Can't Compete With Roku

Yesterday, D-Link announced a new streaming media player called the MovieNite which is only available via Walmart. While some have suggested this device will compete with the Roku, it falls far short of the Roku player. The good news is that Walmart is currently selling the $59.99 retail box for only $48. The player supports 1080p video streaming and has 802.11n WiFi, 10/100 ethernet port, HDMI out and composite video connections.

The bad news is that the player only supports content from Netflix, Vudu, YouTube and Pandora. It has no support to play back local content via USB, no slot for any kind of memory card and lacks a lot of content choices that Roku has. While Roku's 1080p streaming box is $30 more expensive than the D-Link model, you get so much more for your money with Roku, not to mention tons of content chocies. And for those who only want to spent $50 on a streaming box, chances are they don't care about 720p versus 1080p, in which case you can get a Roku for the same price as D-Link's box, with more content choices, but in 720p instead of 1080p.

While some might suggest this box does a lot less compared to Western Digital's WD TV Live player or the Boxee Box, that's not who D-Link and Walmart are targeting with this device. D-Link and Walmart are looking to sell this box to consumers who aren't very tech savy, don't have complex requirements and don't wan to play back local content. This is basically a $48 box made to promote the Vudu movie rental service, which is owned by Walmart. The one thing this box has over Roku is that it supports YouTube, something Roku still does not support for some very strange reason. YouTube is on just about every other box in the market, connected TVs, yet Roku is one of the most popular boxes in the market for years and they still don't have YouTube support.

We'll have the new D-Link box on display next month at the device pavilion in NYC at the Streaming Media East show, along with 50+ other streaming players, tablets, game consoles, connected TVs and Blu-ray players and content platforms.

The special broadband-enabled device pavilion allows thousands of attendees to get hands-on with more than 50 of today’s leading streaming devices and Over-The-Top video content platforms and is the only show where you can try out all of these devices and platforms in action, compare them side-by-side and get your questions answered - all for free.

Screenshots Show Amazon Streaming On Xbox, But Confirmation Still Needed

Over the years, I have gotten lots of emails from people I do and don't know sharing information on new streaming services coming to the market. Yesterday, someone I don't know sent me images that show an Amazon app running on the Xbox LIVE platform for the Xbox 360, streaming videos from Amazon's Prime Streaming service. As with anything image based, you can never tell if what you are looking at is 100% legit, but the images do appear to look real to me.

I use to be in the beta testing program for Xbox and they would test new un-announced services like this with beta testers, so it's not a crazy idea that someone might get access to it and want to share it. That said, even if they are legit like I think, we don't have any way to know how quickly such a service would be rolled out to the market if it is in fact happening. I've seen most other content services on the Xbox get tested for about six months before they are made public and I have no way to tell from the images I was sent what stage the testing may be in.

In 2009, I got sent similar images of Netflix running on the Wii that I published on my blog and sure enough, two months later, Netflix announced their deal with Nintendo. That time around, I was able to confirm what was happening through a third party and was able to validate what I had been sent. In this case, I have not yet been able to verify this news from another source, but am working to do so. While I know neither Amazon or Microsoft would be willing to comment on what I was sent, I did reach reach out to representatives of the Xbox team anyway who had "no comment". I have not heard back from Amazon as of yet.

Maybe others will be able to help verify more of these details, but from what I can tell, I think it's a safe bet that Amazon's streaming service is currently being tested on the Xbox platform.

Note: I am not sharing any of the images I received.

Report: Walmart To Charge $2-$4 Per DVD To Convert Movies To UltraViolet Cloud

[Updated: Tuesday, March 13th - Walmart announced they will charge $2 for SD and $5 for HD.]

Tomorrow at 1pm ET, Walmart along with UltraViolet partners Universal, Paramount, Warner Brothers, Sony Pictures and Fox will announce Walmart's UltraViolet offering. Studio execs I have spoken with say that consumers will be able to bring their DVDs into Walmart, which will then charge the consumer between $2-$4 per DVD to give the consumer access to that movie in the UltraViolet cloud locker system. DVDs will then be stamped at the store, so they can't be used by multiple people and I'm told pricing for converting the DVD to digital will vary based on either SD or HD quality.

I'm sure the studios and Walmart are going to talk about how great this is for consumers and they will probably use a term like "nominal" to describe the fee consumers will have to pay. In reality though, the studios are doing exactly what consumers don't want, which is forcing them to pay multiple times for the same piece of content. The fact that consumers already spent money to buy the DVD apparently is not good enough to allow them access to a free digital copy, which they could easily get if they ripped the DVD on their own. It costs the studios almost nothing to store the movie in the cloud, about two cents per movie, and it only costs about four cents, at most, for them to pay a CDN to stream the movie to the user. So at $2 per DVD, a user would have to watch the movie 50 times from the cloud before the studio was losing money from digital.

Consumers have been vocal in saying they want more content digitally, at a fair price, and many of the studios are acting like they are giving consumers what they want, when in reality, they aren't. You can get digital, but only of you pay for the movie again. And you can get a digital copy with the Blu-ray disc, but only if you pay between $5-$10 more for a copy that includes a digital copy. Pricing seems to be all over the map for a Blu-ray with digital copy, but they are clearly much more expensive than just the Blu-ray only disc.

While there have been a lot of technical issues with the UltraViolet system that have been well documented in the media, those issues could be resolved over time, but it's no guarantee. UltraViolet is not easy to use, it requires multiple accounts with multiple websites, there is very little device support and Disney and Apple refuse to join the consortium. Physical Blu-ray copies with digital are more expensive and studios are charging so much for their download and own offerings, between $15-$25 a movie, that it makes more sense for a consumer to rent the movie for $3.99 instead of buying. Many studios have gotten so greedy that they are pricing themselves out of the digital download to own market. In addition, with the way the content windowing works for content going from theatre, PPV, rental, purchase etc. the studios are now going to have to augment that window in some way to allow for the new UltraViolet offering.

Aside for all of this, UltraViolet is a cloud based system that requires you to have to be connected to the Internet. As far as I know of, there is no way to play your movies from the cloud locally on your machine if you don't have access to the Internet. You have to connect to UltraViolet's system to get you license key and if you can't you won't be able to play any content. Unless UltraViolet comes up with an option for local playback, your entire library of movies and content will be in the cloud not accessible locally. That's not going to be ideal for a lot of people and it also requires consumer to once again choose between one quality over another. Studios should want to deliver consumers the best quality video available, yet they are going to force many users away from HD, simply due to price. That's not the best user experience.

Another topic one has to wonder about is privacy. UltraViolet is going to know every movie you stream from the cloud. And with so many studios, broadcasters, CE manufactures etc. in the program, what you what and when you watch it is going to be known. Who has access to that information? I can't find any language on the UltraViolet website that talks to the privacy of one's account in the cloud. Are they going to be data mining our usage habits and sharing that with third party companies? If they do, and I expect they will, that data is worth a lot of money to advertisers who will then know the demographics of who is watching their movies. That is very powerful data that UltraViolet is collecting, which they can make a ton of money from.

And what if UltraViolet starts using that information to track what you do outside of UltraViolet? Can they now deny you access to a movie in the cloud if they notice your IP address shows up in a torrent site? Can they now disable your UltraViolet account? In the end, do you really own the content that is in the cloud? I think this could be a major concern if the service starts to get some traction and is something UltraViolet will need to address

In January, Paramount rolled out a service to sell ten year old movies via the UltraViolet cloud for $22.99 for HD. Many of these same movies are available via Blu-ray for $8-$10 cheaper and I still can't find any definition from UltraViolet on what they classify as an "HD" movie. What exactly is the quality? How was it encoded? Is the digital copy in the cloud comparable to the Blu-ray disc? I highly doubt it as it would probably require 8-10Mbps to stream, which means the studios are selling HD digital copies, which are less quality than the Blu-ray, yet are charging consumers more for it. And the studios think this is something consumers won't notice?

Every year the studios seem to come up with new ideas and ways to try and charge consumers for movies. First it was the studios delivering two-hour movies to cell phones, even though consumers weren't and still aren't asking for the service. Then came the studios charging more for a digital download over the physical DVD. That was quickly followed by Sony charging $24.95 for a 24-hour rental and admitting it does not want to upset Walmart and the studios own DVD business. Then you had studios charging consumers more for movies on USB drives, and you also have some of the studios forcing Netflix and Redbox (and library's) from renting physical DVDs for 28 or 56 days, because the studios are trying to force consumers to buy more DVDs. Not to mention you constantly have the MPAA complaining about piracy. I don't condone stealing, but what do the studios think will happen when they aren't giving customers what they want at a fair price and will do everything in their power to prevent consumers from copying their own DVDs?

As a whole, the studios still don't get it. They aren't listening to consumers, they haven't truly changed their way of thinking and their pricing and business models don't make sense. In reality, a back-end system like UltraViolet that would allow such seamless viewing across all devices still hasn’t been created and it won't be the studios that make it happen.

Multiple Cable Operators Say They Are Not In Talks With Netflix To Bundle Services

Earlier in the week, Reuters was reporting that Netflix's CEO was in talks with cable operators about bundling Netflix's streaming service in with cable TV packages. Of course when then media got wind of the story, most of them naturally assumed something was in the works, yet a quick check with execs at many of the MSOs tells a very different story. Over the past week, I spoke to four different cable TV execs, three in the U.S. and one in Latin America, who all say no such deal is in the works. Add in the recent public comment from Comcast and that's five major MSOs who say the Reuter's story is "all noise".

Meetings between Netflix and the MSOs take place all the time and one cable TV exec told me that, "bundling was definitely on the table but discussions never went very far." Another said that, "in our many meetings with Netflix, the bundling of services is something that always comes up, but it is not something we are actively looking at". Cable TV executives has told me that the idea of bundling Netflix's service with their own is not new and that it has come up in their various discussions with Netflix, "over the past two years". The Reuters story made it sound like the idea of bundling was something new and called their story an "exclusive", but it's clear there is nothing new about the discussions at all. Each of the MSOs I spoke with reiterated that they have a clear strategy for video OTT and IPTV and are not currently working on any such bundling deals with Netflix.

Some suggested it would make more sense for Netflix to bundle their services with MSOs outside the U.S. in countries where credit cards aren't popular. That would give Netflix a way to charge for their services, through the MSO, who already has the relationship with the consumer. But a quick check with some of the major MSOs in these regions reveals no such deal is in the works. In a NYT story, which did a good job of questioning the news, they quoted Netflix as saying that Netflix's CEO comments about bundling were "futuristic."

Aside from the obvious content licensing questions around a bundled Netflix service through an MSO, cable execs also told me that they don't think that Netflix currently charges enough for their service to be able to share with the MSO the kind of revenue split they would want. One cable TV exec said, "at $7.99 a month, Netflix does not have a lot of revenue to share with any cable operator. Netflix would need to charge more per month to be able to give MSO's a few bucks per user". Those I spoke with all suggested that Netflix would also have to acquire a lot more original and exclusive content in order for such a service to even make sense.

Adding all of these details up, it appears that Netflix's desire to bundle their service with cable TV operators is just a wish for now, with nothing in the near-term taking place.

Apple Updates $99 Apple TV, But With No Subscription Service, It's No Game Changer

At Apple's iPad event, the company announced an updated version of their Apple TV streaming box, which now supports 1080p video and has a new user interface (pictured at left). Pricing on the Apple TV remains at $99 and can be ordered today, with devices available in stores next week. Also related to the Apple TV is the announcement that iCloud now supports streaming for movies. Users will now be able to re-download movies they have purchased on any iDevice and stream it via the Apple TV.

While it's nice to see Apple offer 1080p support on their device, to date, they have sold less than 5M second generation Apple TV units in the past 18 months. Without some kind of content subscription service, this updated Apple TV isn't going to disrupt the market at all. It's a great box for doing AirPlay mirroring but it still lacks the ability to run apps and simply updating it to support 1080p is pretty weak. Nearly all of Apple's competitors in the $99 streaming box space have been supporting 1080p video for years and have support for side-loaded content via USB. Not to mention, the Apple TV does not support Hulu Plus, Amazon, have a web browser or an open SDK for developers. It's really only a device targeting iPad/iPhone users for AirPlay functionality. If Apple brought more third-party content to the box that would help, but they didn't mention any new content partners during their presentation, so don't get your hopes up. To me, Vizio's new $99 streaming box will kick Apple TV's butt, in terms of functionality and value.

Apple is so short-sighted on their living room strategy because if they Licensed iTunes For Non-Apple Devices, They Could Own The Living Room. But we know that's not going to happen.

Updated 1:55pm: I have confirmed that users of the older 720p Apple TV will not able able to get 1080p support via a software update. You want 1080p, you'll have to spend another $99 and buy the new Apple TV. Typical Apple. Add a new feature that has been out for years, and charge people more for it in a "updated" version. There is no excuse for Apple not having 1080p support built in to the second generation model to begin with. Users of the 720p Apple TV model will be able to get the new user interface.

Updated 3:00pm: Netflix has just announced that consumers can now sign up directly on their $99 Apple TV and pay for a Netflix subscription via their iTunes account.