I’m not sure if Netflix(or should I say Quikster?) is worried about losing DVD rental subscribers. I think they may be angling to get out of the DVD-by-mail business, eventually. Netflix has a bigger battle to fight, and that is with their online streaming content foes, and it is going to be a tough road.

Some Netflix customers already cancelled their DVD rental plans as a result of the de facto price increase. I think a whole lot more will cancel when Netflix separates the DVD website from the streaming website, and makes it somewhat more inconvenient for customers to make their rental selections.

But, there is a RedBox kiosk seemingly on every corner. Customers can easily log on to the Redbox website or phone app, check movie availability and reserve their copy. It beats visiting a Blockbuster store and hoping they have what you want, when you want it. And getting that movie from Redbox is a whole lot cheaper.  For a vigilant and cost-conscious customer, they can get probably twice as many rentals in a month from a Redbox than they would ever be able to get with a mail service, for about the same amount of money. Plus, they can get them when they want them, which means they are most likely going to watch them right away, instead of getting them in the middle of the week and leaving them lying on the counter for a few days.

If the streaming services continue to struggle for content, especially more recent content, they could easily start to see their subscriber numbers fall off, and customers may start using that more Redbox rentals.

Sure, Redbox doesn’t have new releases on day one, but in the current economy, most people aren’t going to suffer through the inconvenience of Blockbuster stores, not to mention the prices, to get them. And customers certainly aren’t buying the new releases, since the latest sales numbers continue to show a downward trend.

I think that at least in the short-term, Redbox is going to make a killing. And if they are smart, they will continue to install those kiosks at every available location to take advantage of it.

We all know the big media companies are hesitant to fully embrace on-demand streaming for all of their programming, due to the loss in advertising revenue.

Customers are looking to cut the cable cord and/or eliminate their satellite services due to the continuing increases in cost with very little added value. Most customers can’t get the exactly what they want out of their services without paying for one of the huge programming ‘bundles’ which usually includes a lot of stuff they don’t want. And the providers don’t look to be willing to offer any reasonable a la carte options that would allow a customer to save money while getting the programming they want.

Even though services like Hulu offer options for watching programming after it’s first run (days to over a week, depending), in a lot of cases, customers want live television, especially for popular shows and sporting events. This leaves a opening in the market for a different type of streaming television service, that streams live television over the internet to internet connected televisions and video devices (because people want to watch television on their television, without the hassle of a computer).

There are already IP television services from communications companies like AT&T and Verizon, but they generally follow the same model that traditional services follow; set top box rentals/purchases and similar programming bundles. A new type of service needs to emerge (like Netflix or Hulu) that is independent of the companies that own the pipes. This type of service would work thusly:

It would run as an application on existing internet connected televisions, and video devices like Roku boxes and video game consoles.

It would broadcast live television channels selectable through an onscreen guide.

It would offer the ability for customers to subscribe to individual channels for a reasonable price, and to change those subscriptions on the fly with no penalty. You would only pay for what you watch.

It would offer on-demand video similar to current services as well as pay-per-view, but also offer on-demand pricing for single television programs and events (imagine buying access to the Super Bowl, the NBA Finals or the Grammy Awards, even if you don’t subscribe to that particular network).

It would be able to provide access to local television stations broadcasts.

It would offer a ‘virtual DVR’ service, where customers could save shows to watch at a later time, on their schedule.

It would allow for customers to watch television on their phones, tablet and/or computers as well.

A service like this would finally provide customers with the kind of flexibility and value that they are looking for their television entertainment. Since this service does not have to maintain a physical connection to the home, there would be no overhead for installs, repairs, or maintenance for the ‘wires’ – this should allow for a lower price for the service. It would also allow customers to take their service anywhere they can take their video device and connect to the internet. As cell phone data networks continue to get faster and better able to handle a larger traffic volume, it would even be possible to use the service in vehicles.

Will something like this ever happen? It’s unlikely in the short term, due mostly to the fact that many of the large television networks are owned by or partner with the larger of the service providers (e.g. Comcast owns NBC).  But a guy can dream, can’t he? (Note: Microsoft is taking a step in this direction by apparently integrating television from Comcast or Verizon into their Xbox Live service. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long term).

Would you be interested in a service like this? What would you add to make it better?

I’ve been a loyal Netflix subscriber for several years now. When Netflix introduced streaming movies and television shows for free as part of my current DVD subscription plan, I knew they were moving to fill a demand that entertainment customers had been dreaming about since the inception of the internet.

When Netflix capable set-top boxes released, and game consoles added a Netflix app, I was certain that Netflix was about to assume near total domination of the streaming entertainment market.

Sadly, I am now afraid that Netflix might be undoing itself right before our very eyes, and unfortunately taking with it the kind of streaming video service that consumers everywhere want.

The success of any streaming media service hinges on one thing – content. If there is not sufficient content, customers will not subscribe. The availability of content hinges on Netflix’s ability to secure licensing agreements with the companies that own the content.

The key ingredient in Netflix having the ability to be successful in negotiations with those content owners boils down to one thing – subscribers.

Subscribers ultimately supply Netflix with the money to pay the licensing fees to the content owners. But they also give Netflix a certain amount of bargaining power in the entertainment industry. Being the strongest and most well-known movie rental and streaming company in the U.S. provides Netflix with an enormous amount of clout when dealing with the industry.

Since Netflix separated its streaming and DVD-by-mail services and effectively raised the prices for all of its customers, thousands of customers have cancelled their subscriptions outright and many others have downgraded. Netflix already had to downgrade their subscriber growth numbers for this quarter by 1 million subscribers. In the process, Netflix has lost a lot of customer good will, and their brand is taking a beating in the media and on social networks.

Adding to these troubles is the loss of several content deals (most recently Starz) that continue to reduce the amount of content available for streaming. And most current customers continue to complain that the amount of content available now is not nearly enough to justify what they are paying for the service.

All of this is working to degrade Netflix’s position of power in the marketplace, which will make it that much more difficult for them to negotiate with the content owners, especially if they are given the impression that Netflix is on a downturn.

The most troubling thing, is that as Netflix continues to slide, there are not many alternatives. And of the alternatives, none of them are really any better. None of the other similar services has nearly as many total titles available for streaming. Some have similar content. Some have a handful of different content that may or may not be newer (and newer content not available for streaming is one of the biggest complaints toward any streaming service).

The real truth is that the content owners do not want consumers to have a service available to them that allows them to stream any movie or television show anytime they want. The content owners want to sell you piles and piles of overpriced plastic discs that can be damaged, and have to be replaced at full price. They want to then re-release the same content in another format years later so you will buy another overpriced plastic disc again. Or, they want you watching their live television broadcast or streaming from their sites or apps, so that they can charge large amounts of money to advertisers. The content owners want to maintain the status quo at all costs and control all of the revenue streams.

I’m afraid that if Netflix goes down, the prospect of a single streaming service providing access to all of the content that we as consumers want goes down with it.

Media Companies are trying to stop the future from coming.

After Netflix announced their new price structure today, the most common question from commenters was if Netflix was going to increase the size and scope of their streaming catalog.

The problem with this question, is that Netflix is not entirely responsible for which titles are available for streaming. The main resistance to allowing those titles to be streamed comes from the content owners themselves who are either clamoring for more licensing fees or trying to ‘encourage’ customers to buy physical media copies by making a physical copy the only availablilty.

What the media companies really want is to continue to make piles of money selling a physical product that is very inexpensive to produce, where they take most, if not all, of the profit. The problem is, with the state of technology in this day and age, consumers want media at their fingertips. They want it available on their computer, smartphone, tablet and through their set top box. They don’t want to own a piece of physical media (most of the time). We are living in the age of the e-reader and the portable music player and smartphones that do all of that and more. We are moving music to the cloud, and still, media companies are clinging to their old business model while it shrivels and dies.

All the while, the media companies are crying about online ‘piracy’, when most of the ‘pirates’ are either people who would have never bought their product anyway, or others who just want to get the media when they want it, in the format they want it in and not be encumbered by draconian copy protection schemes.

If media companies would make their products available when and how the customers want them, at reasonable prices (not $30 for a Blu-ray, thanks), they would more than make up in volume what they lose in profit per unit. Would it negatively affect physical media sales? Perhaps, but those are most likely going to continue to decline regardless, due to the changes that technology is bringing to the culture.

The movie and television industries need to take a look at the music industry and see how much it has struggled due to its failure to change its business model to capitalize on technological advances. The technology shift affected the music industry much earlier than visual media, and should serve as a warning to the movie and television industries to get some vision, or get ready for a very hard road in the years to come.

I use my Xbox 360 to watch Netflix streaming video pretty heavily. I don’t own an Xbox 360 Remote Control, so I have to use a wireless controller to navigate in Netflix and pause or stop videos.  Using a controller to do this can get to be inconvenient, since most of the time it is going to sit idle long enough to power off, on top of the fact that you still need your television remote to adjust the volume.

I could have purchased the Xbox Remote, but that would still require using two remotes. Since I have Comcast digital cable service, I have the Comcast-provided multi-device universal remote control.  It was already programmed to control my television, but I had not programmed the Auxiliary (Aux) device.  Since I had an available device slot on the remote, I did some internet digging and found some information posted on A/V forums as to how to program the Comcast remote to control the Xbox 360.

(This works with the Comcast Universal remote with the RED Select/OK button and the On Demand button.  It may work with the universal remote with the GREY Select/OK button with a different remote code, but I have not tested it.  You can see the remote information here.)

Here’s how to get all of the functionality you should need to use your Comcast remote on your Xbox 360:

1. Press the AUX button on the Remote.
2. Hold down the Setup button until you see the AUX button flash twice.
3. Press the following number combination on the number pad: 2 1 7 0 8 (0 5 2 2 for the remote with the grey select button). You should see the AUX button flash twice if you entered the code successfully.

The OK/Select button on the remote is locked to operate the receiver, so in order to have that function work with the Xbox 360, you need to program another button for that function (A/Green button on the controller).  I remapped the A button on the remote (located just under the DVR controls) for this function(these instructions may not work for the remote with the grey Select/Ok button). To do this:

1. Press the AUX button on the Remote.
2. Hold down the Setup button until you see the AUX button flash twice.
3. Press the following number combination on the number pad: 9 9 4.  You should see the AUX button flash twice if you entered the code successfully.
4. Press the Setup button once.
5. Enter the following number combination on the number pad: 0 0 0 0 1.
6. Press the A button.  The Aux button should flash twice again.

If you want to undo the remapping of the A button, repeat the above steps, but  press the A button twice instead of entering the number code.

After you have reprogrammed the remote, you should be able to control the Netflix app on your Xbox 360.  The functions/buttons are as follows:

Select(A/Green) – A button
Back(B/Red) – Exit button
Play –  Play Button
Pause – Pause Button
Stop – Stop Button
Fast Forward – Fast Forward Button
Rewind – Rewind Button
Navigation – Directional buttons (surrounding the OK/Select button)

The menu button on the remote will take you back to the video details in Netflix, depending on the screen.  I’m not sure which controller/Xbox remote function that equates too.  The Power button also seems to work to turn the Xbox 360 off/on.

For the best results, make sure you have good line-of-sight to the Xbox, because the IR reception seems to be tricky at times.

I’ve used this with Netflix quite a bit, and it has worked very well.  I have not tried it with the Hulu Plus app yet, but it should work similarly. As with anything like this, your mileage may vary.

For anyone unfamiliar, Hulu is an online video service created by a consortium of television networks that allows you to watch television episodes and movies online for free (with advertisements inserted).  I used Hulu in its internet browser only incarnation to watch an entire season of Burn Notice some time ago, but since Netflix rolled out it’s Xbox 360 capable player software, I’ve been content to watch my streaming shows and movies on my television. On-Demand from my cable provider does a good job of filling in the television gaps for the more recent shows that Netflix does not offer.

Hulu has since rolled out a subscription service, Hulu Plus,  that provides access to more content, both via their website, and through applications for supported devices (iPhone, PS3).

Since the Hulu Plus video player rolled out to Xbox Live members and offered a free month’s subscription, I thought I’d give it a try.  In general, I found it very similar to Netflix in its interface and functionality.  After using Hulu Plus to watch several television shows, here are my observations:

• Finding shows to watch is not a simple and straightforward as it could be. Netflix does a good  job here, with it’s genre categories and recommendations creating a list of icons to scroll through.  Hulu Plus has a similar display, but not nearly as many divisions, or icons displayed.  There is a search function as well, but not all of the resulting shows can be watched on the Xbox 360 (listed as web-only). Which leads me to my next point.
• Not all of Hulu’s library of shows is available on the Xbox 360. Hulu has a number of shows listed as web-only, which is confusing.  It’s somewhat understandable that Netflix has much of it’s content listed as Disc-only, but for a service that is entirely for streaming video, forcing a paying customer to watch something on his computer instead of his television doesn’t make sense.
• The show selection is not that great, especially for a for-pay service. At least in my opinion. There are a number of shows I would gladly watch on Hulu Plus, if they were available. Sadly, most of them aren’t.
• There are still advertisements before and during the shows. I can understand having advertisements during a free trial period, but once you become a paying customer, at the least, the number of ads should decrease.
• The interface still needs some work. Especially when watching back-to-back episodes in a series. When the video ends, you are returned to the start screen for the current episode, instead of going back to the episode list, or the start screen for the next episode.  It is a minor gripe, but it does get annoying.

The question remains, is it worth $7.99 per month for the subscription service?  The jury is still out.  If I find shows that I want to watch enough to pay the the monthly charge, I may keep the service just for convenience sake.  And since you can only watch Hulu content outside of a web browser when you are a Hulu Plus subscriber, the convenience of having it available on other devices might be worth it.  At this point, I’m going to enjoy the free trial, and worry about it when my free ride is up.

I would have called it a ‘pet peeve’, but that term does not seem strong enough.  And my friends ‘across the pond’ use the term ‘pet hate’, and I just like the way it sounds.

There are a number of things one could hate about Facebook.  I could probably write a book about the things I hate about Facebook.  I tolerate Facebook, if only for its marginal usefulness to me.

I prefer Twitter for my social networking needs, if not for anything but the 140 character post limit.  Yes, I like the limit, because it forces the poster to consider their words more carefully, and not to add superfluous information.  Sure, many of the posts on Twitter are not any more useful than the posts on Facebook.  But there is something that happens in Facebook posts that I have never seen happen on Twitter.  The dreaded ‘I love you tag’.

The ‘I love you tag’ is when a poster follows their seemingly normal Facebook update with a shout-out to their boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, et. al. The horror of the ‘I love you tag’ is that they not only add it once to one post, but they add it to every single Facebook status update, regardless of the context. It is so ridiculous in its application that status updates like the following are entirely probable:

“Rest in peace, Grandma Moses. I love my adorable boyfriend!”

“Snowed in with nowhere to go. So bored. I love you sugarbritches!”

“I just took the biggest dump of my life. Seriously, do not go into the bathroom. I love my honeybear!”

Now, I could un-friend the repeat offenders of this practice, but considering their emo-centric leanings and propensity to co-dependent relationships, I’m sure they would take it personally. And since I know many of my Facebook friends in real life, I can’t hide their updates for fear that I miss something important and they ask me about it.

So, I will do the only thing I know to do. Talk bad about them on my blog. You know who you are. Just stop.

My iPhone is one of my favorite devices of all time.  The things you can do with an iPhone are nearly limitless, and many things aren’t entirely unproductive.

My only gripe with the iPhone as a music player was with the iPhone ear bud headphones.  They sound ok, but are entirely uncomfortable to wear for an extended period of time. Of course, you can use any set of stereo headphones to listen to music on an iPhone, but a regular headphones lack the inline mic and the button that allows you to pause and skip tracks.

I already owned a set of ear bud headphones that fit my ears better and sounded better in my opinion, but they had a really short cord.  So I went searching for a product that would both supply the missing mic and button, but also extend the length of the headphone cord.

I found exactly what I was looking for in the Griffin SmartTalk iPhone Headphone adapter, at ThinkGeek.  At $14.99, some might think that this little gadget is overpriced. I thought so too when I ordered it, but when it arrived, I was surprised at it’s rugged construction. The 30-inch cable is sheathed in nylon braiding, which should make it very durable, and less prone to breaking. The mic/button is covered in a protective rubber-like coating, and includes a clip to attach it to your collar or lapel.  The button works exactly like the one on the original iPhone headphones, and the mic is pretty clear for picking up your voice on phone calls.

This device is available at several internet retailers, so bargain hunters may can find a better deal.

(Disclaimer: I was not compensated for writing this review. I bought and paid for this product myself. The link to purchase this product is not a compensated affiliate link.)

Actually, I’m not that cool at all. I’ve always been very backwards when it comes to social interaction, especially when dealing with people I don’t know well.

There are situations that I can do well in, like meetings where I have a good working knowledge of the subject. I can verbalize much easier in that regard than I can in more interpersonal situations.

I find it much easier to communicate in writing. I love email, texts and twitter.  I generally despise actually talking on the phone. I find it difficult to gather my thoughts into words when speaking to other people personally, although I usually do well in a presentation mode (again where I control the subject matter).

In emails, or on social networks, I am much more outgoing (although I still carefully consider my messages that are sent directly to people). I find it much easier to hold a conversation with someone I don’t know well within the confines of email, twitter, or even over SMS.

My wife is the absolute opposite. She does extremely well in social situations, always seems at ease in conversation, and can make fast friends of just about anyone. She is on Facebook, but for the most part, does not get that involved in socializing online, except for the convenience of communicating short messages. She doesn’t Twitter, does not have any interest in getting on Twitter, and really does not understand my fascination with it.

So, blog readers, where do you feel most comfortable socializing? Are you more social online or off? Somewhere in the middle?

For those of you who work a day job at a larger corporation, you have probably run into the web filter from time to time, especially if you are trying to access a site classified as “social networking”.

There are dozens of ways to get around filters, but not all of them are feasible for every environment and some are borderline hacking.  I have no desire to visit Facebook while I am at work (I barely visit when I am home) or to visit Myspace ever, but I am fairly active on Twitter.  Most of the time I keep up with it on my phone, but that is not always feasible.

I recently discovered the twitgether gadget for Gmail, and I’ve been using that as a supplement to my phone for following my twitter time line while at work. (I’m not suggesting that you goof off on Twitter at work. But, if you have created a twitter list with your must read/follow people, you can use this to keep up closer to real time.)

As long as you have access to Gmail at work, you should be able to use this twitter gadget to keep up with your tweets, even if twitter.com is blocked by your internet filters. Here’s how to make it work:

1. Turn on the Add Any Gadget by URL feature in the Labs section in Gmail settings. (It is the last feature on my Labs list.) To enable this feature, toggle the “Enable” radio button next to the feature’s listing, and click “Save settings.”
2. Add the twitgether gadget. In the Gadgets section in Gmail settings, you should now have an “Add a gadget by its URL” box. Put this url [http://twittergadget.appspot.com/gadget-gmail.xml] in the box and click the Add button.
3. Reload Gmail.

You should have a twitter gadget in your Gmail Sidebar now. You’ll need to fill in your twitter account info – the gadget will walk you through that process.  You can update your status by using the input box in the sidebar gadget without opening a full screen. Clicking on the link in the sidebar gadget will open a full screen with your twitter timeline, with options for DM, @ replies, favorites, retweets (you can retweet the new and the old way if you like), lists and search. Clicking to open the full screen gadget obscures your Gmail inbox, though.

If you’re like me, and want immediate availability to your Gmail inbox, you can just open another Gmail session in a new browser tab and open the gadget in the new tab.

Anyone else have any “creative” solutions to getting around an internet filter?