DeepBlueSky: Good on Telecom taking on the Monopoly that is Sky, it can only be good for the NZ market. Lightbox could offer other content that NetFlix or Hulu don't offer, try and get the TVNZ content from the channels they flicked off to Sky maybe a go, add some live sports, bid for rights when the licenses come up for renewal.
The initial comment on 5000 hours of content, how does that compare with Netflix does anyone know ?.
Good question!
This link was posted a while back on geekzone, and I had it bookmarked for this exact question :P
Not totally apples with apples of course, but if you assume a movie is typically 2 hours, and a TV show is typically 30 minutes (US style dramas often 45-50 mins, kids stuff, discovery channel type stuff and UK content usually 20-30 mins per episode) then it's not unreasonable to assume 1 hour per title on average.
So that means netflix US has around 9500 hours (~5 years after launch), and Netflix UK has around 3000 hours (1 1/2 years after launch) Netflix USA uses algorithms to only show you stuff it thinks you will like, but it bulks out its catalogue with a LOT of rubbish. Pick a random letter and scan down that list on that blog to see how much of the content you think is actually good.
So Lightbox coming in at around 5000 hours at launch - with the promise of a growing catalogue - seems pretty decent to me. Obviously we don't know the quality yet, aside from the three things already mentioned. (and I don't have any inside knowledge beyond that either!) but that is a separate question impossible to answer for now.
Meh, when they give me native access through HTPC software (XBMC/MediaPortal etc.) with a remote control on my TV then I'd be interested. By native I mean simple webpage login that an app can be developed for and they don't hide any of the stream details. I don't mind if its in flash, HTML5 or Silverlight as long as its not restricted like TVNZ Ondemand is.
Thank BigPipeNZ, That does sound good I guess we will know more as they release information, but I agree with Mattwnz it will need to be an all you can eat service, or a mixed model where you get movies in the same time frame as Netflix for the monthly fee the pay maybe an extra amount for new to blueray realese and say sports an All Blacks test pay per view.
JarrodM: it will have airplay compatibility according to their facebook page
so that sorts out IOS...now what about everything else?
Yes and no.
My experience with Airplay is that it is an extremely unreliable streaming protocol. Often when using Airplay to stream from my iPhone 5S or iPad Air, to my Apple TV 3, the content will fail to stream correctly. Sometimes an Apple TV reboot fixes this. Sometimes I need to reboot our router (Apple Airport Extreme 5th gen). Sometimes I need to reboot both.
And in some cases (NBC app), Airplay will only stream the audio, with video only shown on the source device. In this case it is doubly frustrating, because the ads preceding the content stream with no issues. But as soon as the actual content is due to stream, only the audio is streamed to my ATV.
tl;dr: Airplay is a poor workaround until native apps for common set top boxes & TVs are available.
That has never been my experience, I would say that is most definitely a wireless network problem at least as much as anything else.
But I agree that Airplay is a poor workaround - if Telecom really want to sell this they should offer a free router upgrade for Xtra users (to start with) with will spit out an HDMI signal from their service only.
But, this is Telecom we are talking about, and I would keep all expectations for Lightbox very very very very LOW.
I know there are many (often very kind and helpful) Telecom employees on this forum, but exceeding all but the lowest of customer expectations (i.e. for those who didn't even know the technology already existed, haven't used alternative methods of getting same service, and/or have experienced better versions of the same thing elsewhere), is not something Telecom NZ do, ever. They are certainly not innovators in delivery, in anything.
FYI, I have never worked for any telco in any country, my bias is purely from painful experience. TNZ suffers from serious institutional entropy and lack of imagination. I have even had TNZ staff admit the stupidity of certain procedures and policies on more than one occasion who have tried to get some fix on the issue and hit a stone wall.
But that said, there is always room to be surprised in life!
Benoire: Meh, when they give me native access through HTPC software (XBMC/MediaPortal etc.) with a remote control on my TV then I'd be interested. By native I mean simple webpage login that an app can be developed for and they don't hide any of the stream details. I don't mind if its in flash, HTML5 or Silverlight as long as its not restricted like TVNZ Ondemand is.
Agreed. Lightbox or any streaming service should be an app you can add to really as many platforms as the market has significant support for, or an upgraded router that passes an HDMI output from your streaming service, for example. You would have thought that they would have consulted with AV installation companies or some other experts? The kids may just watch everything on their devices but they aren't the ones paying for anything and they are quite aware of the non-paying alternatives out there.
People plugging their laptops (or tablets) into the TV is just a terrible, terrible idea. It is just a bad way of delivering your product, and an even worse way of presenting it.
The ideal market for this is really UFB and really Telecom is best positioned for it to be a selling point for their service - i.e. get UFB from Telecom, get free Lightbox and box that delivers it into your TV. It's a no-brainer. But obviously not when you need the absolute biggest margin on anything possible...
Benoire: Meh, when they give me native access through HTPC software (XBMC/MediaPortal etc.) with a remote control on my TV then I'd be interested. By native I mean simple webpage login that an app can be developed for and they don't hide any of the stream details. I don't mind if its in flash, HTML5 or Silverlight as long as its not restricted like TVNZ Ondemand is.
Agreed. The idea that you could offer a service like this without consulting AV installation companies or other experts about what the local market needs and how best to integrate a streaming service would be an obvious move, you would have thought. Lightbox or any streaming service should be an app you can add to really as many platforms as the market has significant support for, or an upgraded router that passes an HDMI output from your streaming service, for example.
People plugging their laptops (or tablets) into the TV is just a terrible, terrible idea. It is just a bad way of delivering your product, and an even worse way of presenting it.
The ideal market for this is really UFB and really Telecom is best positioned for it to be a selling point for their service - i.e. get UFB from Telecom, get free Lightbox and box that delivers it into your TV. It's a no-brainer. But obviously not when you need the absolute biggest margin on anything possible...
hahah, how much longer do you think it would take to launch, and how low would the uptake be to provide a service that only works through a special router. If you are talking about terrible terrible ideas, you have one right there. It would probably require $100+ extra cost to acquire a customer spending $15 per month, and HDMI from a router is only going to suit the small percentage of people who have their router by their TV.
you know this is just for launch, right? They have said they will be adding more devices quickly.
But why delay launch to wait for devices, when you can make it available for most people initially, albeit in a less than ideal way.
I think one of the articles mentions that Netflix, even with it's massive range of devices, still sees more usage via laptop/desktop than any other device.
NonprayingMantis: hahah, how much longer do you think it would take to launch, and how low would the uptake be to provide a service that only works through a special router. If you are talking about terrible terrible ideas, you have one right there. It would probably require $100+ extra cost to acquire a customer spending $15 per month, and HDMI from a router is only going to suit the small percentage of people who have their router by their TV.
you know this is just for launch, right? They have said they will be adding more devices quickly.
But why delay launch to wait for devices, when you can make it available for most people initially, albeit in a less than ideal way.
I think one of the articles mentions that Netflix, even with it's massive range of devices, still sees more usage via laptop/desktop than any other device.
How about one reason would be because your market can get exactly what you are offering, in effectively the same way, without paying anything at all? You actually need to offer a better service, legally, and in a better way. The difference between the user experience of it being in an app compared to a browser is very minimal.
It's called actually delivering the service that the market wants, in a way they feel is a significant upgrade from what is currently available.
Your image of how/where people currently have their router and the supposed limitation of it being 'far away' from the TV is infantile, as is your 'it would cost too much up front' argument. Firstly, it would never cost that much, and secondly your router can be a very long way away from the ONT, HDMI over cat6 etc etc many many easy solutions, I do them myself, and the idea of extending the functionality of a home router now that the DSL part is defunct (as far as the ideal market for Lightbox) is just one idea, and I'm sorry if you got the notion that I meant it would be the only way it was on offer - I meant it was an obvious way of offering it in the best fashion to your current customer base, and/or as a way to extend that customer base. It in no way stops it from being offered in the ways they are advertising currently.
Because people use Netflix poorly, should be even more of a reason for you to implement it better for your customers.
DeepBlueSky: Good on Telecom taking on the Monopoly that is Sky, it can only be good for the NZ market. Lightbox could offer other content that NetFlix or Hulu don't offer, try and get the TVNZ content from the channels they flicked off to Sky maybe a go, add some live sports, bid for rights when the licenses come up for renewal.
The initial comment on 5000 hours of content, how does that compare with Netflix does anyone know ?.
Good question!
This link was posted a while back on , and I had it bookmarked for this exact question :P
Not totally apples with apples of course, but if you assume a movie is typically 2 hours, and a TV show is typically 30 minutes (US style dramas often 45-50 mins, kids stuff, discovery channel type stuff and UK content usually 20-30 mins per episode) then it's not unreasonable to assume 1 hour per title on average.
So that means netflix US has around 9500 hours (~5 years after launch), and Netflix UK has around 3000 hours (1 1/2 years after launch) Netflix USA uses algorithms to only show you stuff it thinks you will like, but it bulks out its catalogue with a LOT of rubbish. Pick a random letter and scan down that list on that blog to see how much of the content you think is actually good.
So Lightbox coming in at around 5000 hours at launch - with the promise of a growing catalogue - seems pretty decent to me. Obviously we don't know the quality yet, aside from the three things already mentioned. (and I don't have any inside knowledge beyond that either!) but that is a separate question impossible to answer for now.
Many of those "titles" appear to be entire seasons of TV series so the average is probably way higher than one hour.
DeepBlueSky: Good on Telecom taking on the Monopoly that is Sky, it can only be good for the NZ market. Lightbox could offer other content that NetFlix or Hulu don't offer, try and get the TVNZ content from the channels they flicked off to Sky maybe a go, add some live sports, bid for rights when the licenses come up for renewal.
The initial comment on 5000 hours of content, how does that compare with Netflix does anyone know ?.
Good question!
This link was posted a while back on , and I had it bookmarked for this exact question :P
Not totally apples with apples of course, but if you assume a movie is typically 2 hours, and a TV show is typically 30 minutes (US style dramas often 45-50 mins, kids stuff, discovery channel type stuff and UK content usually 20-30 mins per episode) then it's not unreasonable to assume 1 hour per title on average.
So that means netflix US has around 9500 hours (~5 years after launch), and Netflix UK has around 3000 hours (1 1/2 years after launch) Netflix USA uses algorithms to only show you stuff it thinks you will like, but it bulks out its catalogue with a LOT of rubbish. Pick a random letter and scan down that list on that blog to see how much of the content you think is actually good.
So Lightbox coming in at around 5000 hours at launch - with the promise of a growing catalogue - seems pretty decent to me. Obviously we don't know the quality yet, aside from the three things already mentioned. (and I don't have any inside knowledge beyond that either!) but that is a separate question impossible to answer for now.
Many of those "titles" appear to be entire seasons of TV series so the average is probably way higher than one hour.
it's not very clear what they mean TBH
"The combined total number of movie/file/show/episodes is 11235."
so does that mean each show is one title, or one episode is one title? obviously a movie is one title, but for TV they could probably explain it a lot better. I would assume each title is an episode for TV?
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
BigPipe
