Vimeo bought streaming service VHX
3Saw this on BBC America:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36185268
I actually used the VHX site & their Roku app, and found it was pretty good. Hope the site continues on when it's a part of Vimeo.
@Pavlov, any thoughts here?
- 1 comment, 4 replies
- Comment
VHX was bound to get bought, I'm somewhat surprised it was Vimeo, but with the recent strong push Vimeo has been making to bolster their own "On Demand" pay to view product offerings by aggressively courting and converting even casual up-loaders using their service and moving their content to Vimeo's pay to view model, it makes sense. Vimeo has long been looking for a better way to avoid interstitial in-stream ads (like those found on Youtube) and capture micropayments while still acting as a hub type repository. Vimeo may have finally come to the realization that decentralization is absolutely inevitable as online video is very rapidly moving away from a few, mainstream ad supported / subscription based services into a flourishing world of interest-based streaming channels (call them micro-channels if you'd like), much like the evolution from broadcast to cable television but with even more and more specific niche's targeted. And the speed at which this happens will become exponential. Vimeo feels that VHX will help them profit in that marketplace and also promote their own on demand contracted content through their own proprietary subset of channels they may build with VHX which will become available across multiple devices / platforms.
However, here's the downside for Vimeo and VHX - I'd look for device manufacturers to start closing the door (more) on services like VHX (and probably sooner than later) and start offering / pushing their own app/channel creation and monetization services while phasing out "open source" (for lack of a better word) channel creation / creators - or doing it at such a low cost that it undercuts third parties like VHX and forces them out as they don't have hardware as a revenue stream to offset losses. It only makes sense, especially as device penetration begins to approach the first plateau, that device manufacturers will begin to look deeper for other revenue streams. What is now open may simply begin to close.
@Pavlov Thanks for the insight!
@Pavlov Like we need some sort of net neutrality for over-the-top boxes, or some sort of standard protocol for devices that lets any box easily run any channel, really like the web, but with a unified standard for interaction via remote control. Tangentially related, did you see ATSC 3.0 is out for comment now?
@jqubed IP based OTA broadcasting . . . scares the shit out of me, in many ways. 3840×2160 at 60 fps, OTA? Sure, that's fucking awesome. That 1080 set you've got now, well, it's landfill if you want the pretty picture in a couple of years (which watching will probably make you throw up initially, it did me), so there's that. But, HD on ANY screen (cellphones, tablets, etc.) with ABSOLUTELY NO bandwidth charges - even fucking awesomer (IF the manufacturers play ball and install the chip, and that's a strong IF - just look how long it has taken them to implement FM chips in every cellphone / device - yeah, hasn't universally happened yet, so UHDTV on my phone for free, that's probably a long way off after roll-out). But here's what freaks me absolutely the fuck out - ATSC 3.0 materially changes the advertising business model, and it changes forever the manner in which broadcasters push us even the most basic information / news for free. And IMHO, that right there is fraught with danger. When we start meddling with the mandate that broadcasters should provide the poorest, most feeble, and those least interested in paying among us FULL access to broadcast television, (specifically, news), what happens when the lighthouse stations eventually go dark? No broadcaster should have as much control as is currently proposed within the standard, which as it is now is frankly contrary to the public good. Bloggers and other proponents say, "Oh, well 3.0 is a regulator's dream, it's easy". It isn't. Yes, there will be some expectation that spectrum-specific global emergency warnings and information may continue to be broadcast, but there's (currently) NO ENFORCEABLE MANDATE to do so. And no way (in any circumstance) to ensure the end user actually SEES IT (if their set is on). Other current mandates, such as programming for the arts, well, that shit is already being systematically disassembled in the world of what's left of "public television". IMHO, 3.0 has the propensity to be information overkill, with no clear, defined pathway to insure the right information reaches the right audience. In many circumstances, some similar issues already exist with CATV providers now. Finally, 3.0 allows broadcasters to play (compete in many ways) directly with cell providers in and for the same limited spectrum. There are already firms running 24/7/365 banging global deals to capture (afford) as much spectrum at auction as possible - and they'll do it with offshore holding companies - and the FCC can't regulate the broadcast content on a spectrum from a plane 5 miles high, 12 miles offshore. Or what's piggybacked and encrypted and broadcast on (what will then be) existing live spectrum. In many ways, it is a nightmare. And it is infinitely exciting, also.
Maybe I'm just getting too old, but it all seems eerily like I've been to this dance before . . . and everyone got stood up. (ATSC 1.0, 1996)
Sorry for the TL;DR.
@Pavlov Holy shit, once again you have proven the inestimable value of having an expert who is willing to teach the rest of us a little bit about something highly technical and otherwise incomprehensible.
Thanks for sharing what I'm sure was originally hard-earned knowledge.