Looking back on 2007: IPTV disappoints again
This was going to be the year of IPTV, and Apple TV was going to spearhead the movement. Guess not. ABI Research released this last week:
A new breed of retail-based Internet video delivery devices has emerged over the past few years, the most notable being Apple TV. However ABI Research notes that these devices have had difficulty resonating with consumers, largely due to their higher prices and competition from legacy set-top boxes, as well as confusion over the benefits they will ultimately bring to the buyer. Overall, ABI Research believes that this new breed of devices will see shipments of 1.2 million in 2008.
“Since this category first emerged in 2004-2005 with the debut of Akimbo’s public Internet VOD product, vendors of these products have struggled with a number of hurdles that have so far made this market relatively unsuccessful,” says research director Michael Wolf. “The high cost of these devices, their reliance on the home network, the need for consumer self-installation, and the scarcity of content have all contributed to their lack of commercial success.”
I’m not interested in attaching yet another box to the TV, and placing another remote on the coffee table. Like the DVR, IPTV will need to be fed through an already-existing set top box. For this to happen, the cable companies and telcos will have to abandon their walled garden approach and embrace openness.
I obsess over the adoption rate for IPTV because it’s the game changer for content creators. We’ve got the inexpensive cameras and the inexpensive NLEs. All we need is inexpensive distribution. Amazon S3 can provide the storage and bandwidth at a reasonable price. Currently all you need to sell your content are links in iTunes or Amazon’s Unbox. The problem is that if you’re not a big studio Apple’s not interested in selling your content, and nobody is using Unbox or anything like it. That’s why we need open IPTV to succeed.
We all know the Long Tail story by now. And here’s the condensed version. IPTV is the most efficient way for content producers to serve niche markets effectively. Until it becomes a widespread reality, services like CustomFlix represent our most effective approach to living off the long tail.
Avid names new CEO
Gary Greenfield’s the new boss. The whole announcement’s here.
There’s been the requisite gnashing of teeth on some of the mailing lists, mostly because Greenfield lacks video industry experience. I’m not convinced that’s reason enough to dismiss the hire. Avid needs a leader experienced in changing a technology organization as its product faces commoditization.
Greenfield has been CEO of GXS since 2003, a leading worldwide provider of business-to-business integration, synchronization and collaboration solutions. Since December 2003, he has also been an operating partner with Francisco Partners, a leading technology-focused private equity firm.
Previously, he served as CEO of Peregrine Systems where he managed the restructuring of their business; president and CEO of MERANT; and while CEO of INTERSOLV, they merged with Micro Focus to form MERANT. He has experience growing businesses both organically and through acquisition, managing development, marketing and operations, and serving diverse customers from small businesses to the Fortune 500.
The question is what will Greenfield do with Avid. MERANT was sold to Serena in 2004 after Greenfield left the helm. But rumors of an acquisition had been in and out of circulation for a couple of years. GXS is privately owned by Francisco Partners and Norwest Ventures.
Might Avid be sold? Might it go private? Interesting enough questions for investors, what about editors and facility owners? Greenfield’s background is in managing B2B companies. Good. The fixation the previous team, spurred on by analysts, had with Avid getting into the consumer space led to the disastrous Pinnacle acquisition. Greenfield is comfortable in narrow verticals. Better.
In the past Avid’s been terrible at the relationship thing. Maybe now Avid can get serious with companies like Adobe and find ways to partner to fill the ever-expanding gaps in the Avid post-production workflow (especially on the Mac). An overture to Red might work well for both companies as P, though it probably will have little effect on either companies’ top line.
If I was a betting man… I’d bet Avid will end up going private, and the NLE market will continue evolving as it has.
Interesting list fodder, but little near term effect for editors. Normally I’d say wait until NAB, but…
Another productivity tool
I was remiss in failing to acknowledge Martin Baker’s Life Shaker utility. Though not a cult-like adherent to GTD like OmniFocus [see 11/26], it is a nifty utility. It’s it got one of the cutest promo videos of all time.
Martin Baker is a former BBC editor who went into the post production facility and software business seven years ago. His was one of the first major facilities to make the jump from Avid to FCP. There’s a good chance that a personal productivity tool with this kind of DNA might work for a lot of my readers.
Sorry, Martin. It won’t happen again.
Why Final Cut Express matters
Often it’s hard to get fired up about the younger sibling versions professional content creation tools. I’ve been on a multi-year tear ripping Avid’s Xpress Pro for being a needlessly and excessively hobbled version of Media Composer. So when Apple announced Final Cut Express 4, I yawned. Having been on Final Cut Studio 2 for some time, there wasn’t much to be learned running Final Cut Express through the paces.
Apple sent a review copy, so what the heck? Let’s see what FCE can do. The short answer is it doesn’t do much more or less than expected. It’s a nearly fully featured, Firewire-only version of Final Cut Pro. It lacks batch capture and logging, some compositing and keyframing features, and time code display for sources in the browser.
Limitations noted, Final Cut Express is an impressive piece of software for $199. For the pro, already using Final Cut Studio, FCE is a great satellite station since all the above-noted features reappear once an Express project is opened in Final Cut Pro. Final Cut Express captures time code info and includes it in the QuickTime metadata, so FCP reads it, and accesses it.
For so many video projects, Final Cut Express is a fine solution — Firewire in/Firewire out, or Firewire in/QuickTime out. Just enough power, and none of the bloat. Installing FCE on an older PowerBook took only a few minutes. The package contains FCE and good, old Live Type — not a bad throw-in for a $199 package.
The beauty of Final Cut Express is not the application itself, but where it fits into Apple’s video ecosystem. FCE 4 — why not just call it 6, so the Express numbers match the Pro? — can import iMovie ‘08 projects. Apple has created a seamless path from pulling the Mac out of the box all the way up to Final Cut Studio 2. This is something Avid and Adobe can’t do. Pros can scoff, but Apple’s virtually guaranteed every student, every mid-career creative professional looking to get into video, and every corporate user who has outgrown iMovie is likely to migrate to Final Cut Express before trying something else.
Academic discounts and “lite” packages such as Premiere Elements and Xpress DV Free don’t have that hook into the crowd that learned iMovie first. Apple’s strategy with Final Cut Express is longterm. It often takes several years to get from iMovie to Final Cut Pro, but for those just beginning to explore video editing, the path is clear.
Adobe has a clear path as well, all those Dreamweaver, Flash, and Photoshop pros will surely consider Premiere Pro first. And Adobe’s products work on the other 95% of all desktop computers. That’s not a bad starting point.
Where does this leave Avid? Can Avid appeal to the next-generation of editors? I can’t help but notice that the apparent median age of members of the various Avid communities I participate in and visit is roughly 10 to 12 years older than the FCP communities. Pinnacle was going to be that bridge to the consumer/prosumer. What happened?
