He starts by acknowledging what people thing:

The current and perhaps scariest Bogey Man yet is the INTERWEBS (duhn-duhn-DUHN!). The most recent doom-sayers predict ominously that audiences will “cut the cord” in favor of online video on their iPads, laptops and even on their big screens. The latest example of this gloom-o-logy is on full display in “The Death of Television May Be Just 5 Years Away” by Jim Edwards.

He then presents the evidence that television consumption has gone up by 25% recently because (or despite) many more outlets.

Technology not only did NOT erode viewing, it did the seemingly impossible, it actually created time — a new hour every day, seven new hours every week, 365 new hours — more than 15 additional days — every year. More people watch more television, now, than ever.

Once again, television has just refused to die. It has evolved.

As for those cord cutters… it is true that over the past year, paid TV subscriptions have flattened, or even declined. And, yes, technology has given audiences the power to disintermediate the advertisers who sponsor much of what is produced. These are indeed worrisome trends for an industry that relies on cable subscriptions for an enormous part of its revenues and advertising for most of the rest. It means that those of us in the business must adapt to the changing needs of the audiences we serve, in order to better reflect the value they attach to the programming we provide. We must change or risk becoming a sequel to the music industry.

I’m not entirely convinced the Networks can evolve fast enough, but they are not the essence of Television – the relationship between the producer and the audience is what’s paramount, and there are enough alternate channels being developed (and could be developed) that would make the Networks and Cable Channels as they are currently structured, irrelevant.

Clay Shirky has an interesting perspective in the Collapse of Complex Business Models, that suggests the current power players may end up out of the picture if they can’t adapt – and Shirky’s point is that complex systems can’t adapt, only become more complex until they collapse.

It’s a small sample but an interesting result:

The survey was prompted by the news that a generation of “cord-nevers” and “cord-cutters” is forming — young people who don’t want to pay for cable TV because their laptops and mobile devices provide plenty of free video.

By late Friday, 910 votes had been cast and the result was overwhelming:

• One third of you (307) said you had already given up pay TV and were not going back.
• Only 94 voters said they paid for basic cable.
• Another 103 owned up to buying premium TV service.
• Those low numbers were equalled by the 95 voters who said they could not ever imagine watching regular TV again.

I dont’ think that all cord cutters are motivated by a desire to not pay for cable. I’ll cheerfully pay for the product I want to buy: on demand, all shows, either with advertising or I’ll pay a subscription (or my preference, to pay a fair amount for each program I actually watch – the same amount that would otherwise be obtained by the owner from advertising, not 3-5 times more).  I won’t pay a cable company who declines to provide a DVR “because we don’t offer that in your area”.

I would just note that companies that stop meeting the needs of their customer, stop being companies shortly thereafter.

Frankly, when you can legitimately pay $7.50 a month for access to millions of tracks, the current statutory fine – up to $150,000 per instance – are way out of balance.  There are far worse things you can do – criminal acts – that incur less of a penalty.

Actually, one third of the respondents thought there should be no fine for what 70% of people apparently are already doing: downloading content that isn’t licensed to them.

I totally agree with this guy. When we moved from the West San Fernando Valley to Burbank we dropped out Dish service largely because the Dish representatives when I was closing out the service simply directly and clearly lied about where they had sent the pickup box, and then tried to charge me for not returning it on time. Dish, therefore, is not a company I would ever do business with again.

So we considered DIRECT TV but they would not issue any type of DVR product at my location, nor were they interested in explaining why. I have news for service providers: if you don’t want to provide me with what I want to buy, I will buy *nothing* from you. And that’s what I did, and now enjoy a mix-match of services, none of which are ideal and none of which really encourage me that there is a company that actually wants my business.

Back to the article:

In a time when people stand in line for Apple products for sometimes days in advance, DIRECTV simplifies its inventory management by sending you whatever unit they please.

and

We’ve all talked about how Apple is constrained by its ability to sign deals for sports and programming content. Apple can make cool hardware, even an HDTV, but unless Apple can strike deals with the studios to deliver primary content, the Apple TV will always be a supplemental device. Even so, I see some serious holes in DIRECTV’s customer relationship model and their hardware technologies. In the long run, a persistent Apple will break through the barriers. The contrast in the way each company does business makes that evident.

Frankly anyone could kill every cable and satellite company by simply caring about customers and actually providing a quaint little thing called “customer service”!

The biggest barrier to Google and Apple’s desire to create a new television distribution network has been the intransigence of the content owners to disrupt their own business model while it’s still profitable. So the obvious answer is for them to invest in content directly.

Then, yesterday evening Google announced that it was launching more than 100 new YouTube channels with exclusive content from big-name celebrities and news organizations.

Google is directly funding this content with more than $100 million in advances, and it’s probably just the beginning. The company has also explored buying Hulu, and a deal is not off the table even though Hulu has stopped considering other bidders.

In other words, Google is seeding the explosion of video content on its own massively popular online video network, where it sells advertisements and makes money. Then, it’s providing an interface that puts that content on equal footing with the TV shows provided by the traditional TV industry, where Google’s presence is minimal. (Not for lack of trying — Google has a program calledGoogle TV Ads that lets advertisers buy ads on traditional cable networks like CNN. So far, it does not make a material contribution to earnings, whereas YouTube is probably a billion-dollar business.)

While we haven’t seen Apple show signs of investing directly in content, they have the means to simply bypass the Studios and Networks and go directly to the show runners and producers directly. Google has started what I hypothesized about in Dec 09.

Last July, about a year and a half later, Rapid TV News reported on a white paper by British technology research company Mobile Interactive Group, which updated that number for the US and UK. It had “40% of mobile users saying that they are most likely to be multi-tasking using their phone while watching the TV.” (Some estimate that number nearly doubles when you look at the 18-24 demographic.)

The white paper summary states, “Mobile will become the main vehicle for interaction between viewer and broadcaster,” predicting that interactive events on Facebook alone could generate billions of dollars.

This is something I’ve been thinking about for a long time now. From my June 3, 2010 post “Why are Google TV and Apple TV the wrong approach?”:

And the it hit me: Apple and Google (et al.) are going about it the wrong way. The program goes on the big screen. Period. The interface is on our laptop, or iPhone, or iTouch, or (the killer one) an iPad. All have a keyboard for easy entry of urls and search; there are social applications that work just fine on those existing screens.

Trying to put the interface on a screen 20′ away without a keyboard (and wireless keyboards aren’t really an option) is just wrong: not only is it the wrong place, I don’t want to clutter my program communally (which presumably I’m watching because I enjoy it) with social media that’s personal.

The two screen approach makes much more sense. Put the program on the screen – uncluttered like  the program’s director intended – and put the control and any desired interactivity on another screen. An iPad would seem to be perfect for this, but since I don’t plan on getting one, an iPhone or iTouch or Laptop could also run the interface anywhere on the same local area network.

This is a long article but well worth the read as Habib Kairouz runs through a comparison between the ills that afflict the print industry with those that are affecting television as we’ve known it.

It is now widely accepted by the major industry stakeholders, content owners, MSOs, CE manufacturers and new startups that the following trends are unavoidable:

• Consumers will demand linear and on demand, short-form and user generated videos, to be viewed anytime, anywhere and on multiple devices. I believe that companies that build models to meet that demand will win. Those that deny it will go on life support.
• TV rooms in homes will have multiple screens running simultaneously, presenting a much better form factor to interface with the TV set than the traditional remote control. Most new TV-viewing devices will be Internet connected in 10 years.
• A substantial percentage of programming will have on demand, time shifted and interactive capabilities. New formats of programming with embedded interactive applications will emerge, and social TV will take off.
• Advertising will be targeted and personalized, at the individual and household levels, using legacy data from the settop box as well as ongoing rich data being generated every day, unless regulators step in to over restrict that. Smart marketers are already challenging the convention of TV time buying by demanding the same accountability that they are getting in their online buys.

He then goes into why fighting this round of disruption will be even harder than the previous rounds and concludes with:

The question is not if a market disruption is looming. It is. The question is who will lead the charge and end up on top? Will the MSOs be able to innovate and keep consumers tuning in on their terms? Will the digital media houses continue successfully on their transition into the market? Or will smaller players find a way to fill the gap and create the next generation dynasty?

My bet is on companies that will embrace rather than fight the trends, control at least one end of the value chain (content or consumer interface) and build sticky or proprietary assets such as viewing data and recommendation engines, billing or storage of personal content. Only time will tell, but one thing is for sure, we’ll all be tuning in (on multiple devices) to find out.

The entire article is a through provoking read and great background as we try and divine how and where we’ll make money in production in the future.

Dan Frommer at Business Insider takes a look at the various aspects of the evolving future of Television.

Content and Programming

Eventually, things like channel numbers will go away. Networks will emerge, merge, and fold. Someday, your search bar may be your channel guide. But that’s going to take a while.

Distribution

One misplaced assumption is that TV is necessarily going to get cheaper as more streaming is available. Sure, you may end up picking fewer “channels” or services to subscribe to, but you might also have to pay more for them, or at least spend more on Internet access to stream all that video.

The cable guys will also try to force their content partners into schemes where you can only access certain streaming programming if you prove that you’re a cable subscriber. This “authentication” concept is called “TV Everywhere,” and you’ll probably see more of it soon.

TVs and User Interfaces

Software stands to change TVs profoundly, giving users more powerful ways to find shows, watch them how and where they want, and obtain them from different sources. It could allow you to control your TV with your voice, hand gestures, or a device like your iPad. It could make “social TV” a reality. It could make every TV a casual game console.

Advertising

While some companies — notably Google — are trying to bring Internet-like characteristics to TV advertising, it’s still in the early going. Expect to see more developments around targeting, measurement, interactive and rich media, algorithm-based placements, and “closing the loop” via new commerce techniques.

These are only excerpts. Frommer has a lot more at: http://www.businessinsider.com/future-of-tv-2011-10#ixzz1b4G20JXr

Other than legal constructs that make them different, in practice a download with embedded ads and a real-time broadcast with embedded ads should be the same thing. And yet, no-one in the TV industry has even thought of the possibility, despite it being a very old idea.

For years, I’ve been referring to Mark Pesce’s Hyperdistribution model – both here in the blog and also in some of my public presentations – as one viable alternative to the current situation that would allow more consumption flexibility without changing the economics.

The responses are mixed. There are, certainly, a lot of people who insist they would never do that because they hate all advertising. I still think those people really just hate bad advertising, and don’t realize that they actually like good advertising (for example, the TV shows they download? They’re just “advertising” for other episodes of that TV show). But there are two types of answers that stand out and are seen throughout the comments. The first are that some people would agree to do this, having no problem supporting the TV folks. The second are people who say they hate commercials and wouldn’t do this, but that they would pay for a similar thing without commercials.

I generally dislike advertising, although more correctly I should say that, like others, I dislike irrelevant advertising, so I’d prefer to pay the equivalent (not the inflated prices attempting to be charged via iTunes et. al. ) but might be prepared to receive relevant advertising. Now, I don’t have children, am happy with my current car and already know what will replace it, not planning on going out to dinner or movies anytime soon, really don’t buy many clothes, don’t buy cosmetics…  I am a little non-consumerism, so just what advertising won’t be horribly intrusive and irrelevant?

There are some hints that the traditional US cable subscription may be in decline, but not only in the US but around the world are moving toward  more online video and less real-time broadcast.

The survey, which was conducted in Australia, Austria, Brazil, China, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, the UK, the U.S. and South Korea, consisted of 22 qualitative and 13,000 quantitative interviews, and represented almost 400 million consumers. The conclusion is that the Internet has changed the way we watch TV, but hasn’t cut down much on demand for broadcast television. However, it’s not the demand that’s an issue, but figuring out monetization strategies for what is essentially a new and fragmented delivery platform that’s leading to high drama and various strategies that make finding content a crapshoot for consumers.

We’re not there yet, but we’re heading there.

After a slow start – and still controversy over exactly what format video will be supported in “HTML5″ – is the Flash era finally over?

Colleen Taylor writing for GigOm discusses recent data on HTML5 and how Apple’s position on HTML5 and Flash has – as I predicted several years back – pushed the adoption of HTML5.

As is often the case in business, where there’s a winner, there’s usually a loser. HTML5 could largely replace Abobe’s proprietary Flash technology. And HTML5′s swift ascent could render Flash irrelevant in short order. “I think the disappearance of Flash is closer than people think,” ABI senior analyst Mark Beccue said in a press release accompanying the data.

HTML5′s projected growth is all the more impressive considering that the actual standard is not officially expected to be completed until 2020 2014, according to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards body. But that won’t stop companies and independent engineers from developing and deploying HTML5 features now, ABI said.

Full HTML5 interoperability isn’t expected until 2014 but we’re already a long way in, and will get further thanks to, somewhat ironically, Adobe.  I’ve long advocated that Adobe were in the best position to create an HTML5 authoring tool, and indeed they have now shown one in Adobe Labs – Edge. AppleInsider has a first look at Edge.

[Update] One day later Flixmaster launched another HTML5 authoring tool

Slate magazine’s Bill Wyman argues that the movie studios are repeating the mistakes of the record labels of the last decade, by refusing to adapt business models, suing customers and trying to make their business model problem a legal one.

Right now, in fact, the movie and TV business looks a lot like the music one did in the early 2000s. And as we’ve seen, that decade didn’t work out too well for the labels. So it’s worth looking at the situation and wondering how things are going to fare in the TV and movie world in the decade ahead. It can all be summed up in one single sentence. I’ll get to that in a minute.

He goes on to demonstrate how the legal offerings are inconvenient (at best) for the legal customers making unauthorized distribution not only cheaper but a significantly better product:

The trouble facing the movie industry right now is the same one the music industry had to confront 10 years ago. This is the summing-up sentence I referred to above:

The easiest and most convenient way to see the movies or TV shows you want is to get them illegally.

and

Again, to belabor the obvious: The illegal version isn’t just free. It’s better.

He goes on to suggest the solutions, but read the whole article (please), before commenting

PROTECT IP is a badly worded, very vague Bill being bought and paid for by the MPAA and RIAA that many think will break the INternet and criminalize normal behavior like embedding a video. The problem with vague Bills is that they tend to be interpreted to suit the enforcer of the day.

Trouble is, those that are supposed to balance all the needs of society before passing laws seem to not even have any idea what PROTET IP is actually about!

When these serious questions are raised, the MPAA puts its fingers in its ears and goes “nah, nah, nah, won’t happen, nah, nah” and never addresses the actual issues. Sadly, the Representatives have been bought and paid for and unless all voting Americans get to their Representative, it could pass and really, really screw up the Internet, and your life.

However, the guys who wrote the white paper have been speaking up lately trying to get our elected officials to recognize the consequences of passing PROTECT IP as is. But the really funny part is watching the technically clueless MPAA try to brush off these concerns. It’s almost laughable. Basically, the MPAA stamps its collective foot, and insists that it couldn’t possibly break the internet, and then suggests that “America’s technology community” can fix any problems:

As for the clueless Repreentatives: half of them have no idea what the Legislation is even about, thinking it has something to do with “immigration” or “the Internet Kill Switch” (it is neither).

Last week, we wrote about how Rep. Anna Eshoo (whose district covers much of Silicon Valley) is apparently so incredibly out of touch on what PROTECT IP is about (despite it having a huge impact on the economy of her district) that she thought it was really about immigration. We were willing to chalk it up to a busy staffer sending out the wrong form letter, but there’s growing evidence that our elected officials simply don’t know what PROTECT IP is about at all. 

David Segal from Demand Progress was kind enough to pass on that they’ve been watching the responses from elected officials to letters sent via their form about PROTECT IP and nearly 50% of them seem to be about things totally unrelated to PROTECT IP. Are Congressional staffers really that busy or are our elected officials just clueless? 

As an example, they sent over this letter, sent in response to someone who wrote to Senator Kristen Gillibrand protesting PROTECT IP, which, you’ll note, has nothing to do with PROTECT IP, but is instead about the “internet kill switch.”

Mathew Ingram analyzes a series of articles looking at the evolution of media in a digital age from The Economist. The premise is that mass media is a byproduct of its era. Before mass media there were hundreds of small media voices, often opinionated (just like blogs) and ultimately that’s where we’re returning with hyperlocal news and altered nature of “news”.

You should read the whole article, because it’s a good summary of The Economist articles:

As The Economist notes, up until the early 19th century there was no “mass media” in the sense that we think of the term now. Newspapers had not really been invented yet, and news still travelled via word-of-mouth, or via hand-printed pamphlets written by people likepolitical theorists Thomas Paine and John Locke. And even when newspapers as we know them started to be published and distributed, they were opinionated — and often gossip-filled — publications that catered to a tiny audience, much like blogs did when they first appeared. Says The Economist:

In many ways news is going back to its pre-industrial form, but supercharged by the internet. Camera-phones and social media such as blogs, Facebook and Twitter may seem entirely new, but they echo the ways in which people used to collect, share and exchange information in the past. “Social media is nothing new, it’s just more widespread now,” says Craig Newmark.

Although we think of “mass media” such as television, radio and newspapers as fixtures in our lives and in the media economy, says The Economist, “the mass-media era now looks like a relatively brief and anomalous period that is coming to an end.” As media and publishing become something anyone can do, whether on their blog or via other social tools such as Twitter or Tumblr, media companies are having to reinvent themselves to take advantage of this phenomenon — and to survive.

A new generation that has grown up with digital tools is already devising extraordinary new things to do with them, rather than simply using them to preserve the old models. Some existing media organisations will survive the transition; many will not.

He also talks about the risks of having only opinionated news but seems to think it’s OK if it is revealed.

Of course, the implications for the mass market media producers would, by inference not be that great. If mass markets (ultimately – not next week or anything) disappear, then the production workflows and support technologies will change as well.

The only thing we really know about the future is that it will NOT be like today.

The question isn’t so much that Big Media is giving way to New Media, but rather that the era of Big Media – i.e. mass media, is a historical anomaly.

Before mass media all media was small, serving local audiences or (with books) very slowly distributed over wider territories. Then came an era of mass capital and limited airwaves that allowed broadcasters to build mass audiences, up to the 130 million Americans that saw “Roots” during its first broadcast.

The movie studios once owned all the production technology, talent and distribution channel – the movie theaters. That structure was forcibly broken apart, but the broadcast industry has fragmented due to the proliferation of cable channels, and now direct Internet distribution.

The cited article covers the why in detail and proposes:

Put very simply, if we take today’s early adopters as a sign of where things are headed, the structure of people’s lives has changed such that no one content creation OR distribution company takes up the bulk of a person’s day. Instead, time is spread very thin across a number of outlets of not only media, but other activity too. Work, social life, travel and family, now spread out over both space and time as more and more people live in cities, occupy more of a person’s day.

To wit: people’s lives are no longer organized in a way that will allow media to dominate someone’s days for hours. Media can no longer be as dominant because of the strange situation in which it is both everywhere and nowhere all at once.

The article continues with some great ideas on how the whole nature of “work” and “non work” is changing (among the leading/bleeding edge consumer) which will lead to inevitable changes to mass media because of the way the structure of people’s lives change.

What will it look like? In a day, a person might use a personalized news service, check a social network, watch a TV show – but never in the same place and from the same content company. And because more and more people will live in the city – where a multi-faceted day in which people move around, go out and are just ‘busy’ more often – less and less people could watch four hours of TV a day or spend 2 or 4 hours a week at the movie theatre.

And so for that reason and many more, big media companies will just have to accept that they will never be massive companies again.

To answer the question: probably never. What the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch have shown, 160 million users don’t seem to be having a problem in a Flash-free world.

I have been using my iPhone for years and my iPad for one year. I honestly can’t remember the last time I went to a Web site that wouldn’t load because I didn’t have Flash installed. I can load videos from YouTube and a host of other sites too, no problem.

Apple has sold more than 160 million iOS devices and there are no screaming, angry hordes of users breaking down the doors at 1 Infinite Loop demanding Flash on their devices.

In order for Apple to change its mind and adopt Flash, the technology has to be proven to be indispensable and that it will benefit its users. Apple has proven just the opposite is true.

I note that the current Safari version of ClicktoFlash automatically substitutes H.264 or other video and plays without Flash, if present. I rarely click on Flash in my brower, and never miss it on the iPhone.

A small write-up on a report from AccuStream Research without a link to the original source.

Growth was attributed to increased viewing of TV episodes online, combined with the growing importance of video aggregators like AOL, MSN, Yahoo and Blinkx.

Over 10 billion long-form videos — such as TV episodes on Hulu — were viewed in 2010, accounting for 14.5% of total views.

Websites branded by cable or other premium TV services accounted for 26.3% of total views, while “online-only” brands generated 63.1% of total views.

You’ve got to wonder about the mental health of organizations like the RIAA and their UK counterpart the BPI. The BPI’s own figures show that more units of music were sold in 2010 than ever before and that figure is up 27% since 2006.

And yet all we hear is how “piracy is killing music”.

In their press release the BPI points out that album sales overall were down by 7%. Although digital album sales were up 30.6%, physical CDs were down by 12.4%. If we believe the music industry, this drop in sales of physical CDs can be solely attributed to piracy. This is an interesting conclusion, because one would expect that piracy would mostly have an effect on digital sales.

“Solely attributed to piracy”. Not the fact that people don’t buy physical media any more; or that the ability to buy the (only) good tracks off an album leads to a drop in the sales of the (stuffed with filler) album? Really? Could the BPI be that intellectually dishonest?

Why, yes they can!

The digital revolution in music and the consumer shift from albums to singles described above is hurting the industry’s revenue. Despite the fact that more music is being sold, revenue is shrinking because consumers prefer singles over full albums. And if someone buys 6 single tracks instead of a full album, this means usually that less money is coming in.

This change is mostly being felt by the managers and employees at record labels, and not as much by artists. Since album and single sales are just a small fraction of the artists’ yearly income, and with attendances of live performances being up, the artists are doing great.

Record labels are losing their business, but so did lamplighters, linotype operators and stenographers. The world changes and if you don’t continually modify your business practices your business will die. That’s what should happen. What should not happen is laws being passed to prop up outmoded businesses that refuse to adapt. Not entirely surprising when they’ve enjoyed (in economic terms) monopoly rents in the past.

Digital production and distribution killed the monopoly the labels once had. That’s the way it should be and if the members of the RIAA and BPI aren’t going to adapt they should be immediately disbanded to save society the pain they’ll force us through (with their compliant politicians).

Netflix has been very successful because it is customer friendly. Right from the start they realized that the customer was who they were their to serve, unlike TV Networks and Cable channels who are their to serve their advertisers. It didn’t matter to Netflix if you had a DVD for a night, or kept it all month immediately spoke to customers who hated DVD rental late fees.

They have worked consistently to create a business that customers like. I’ll likely become a customer when we upgrade to the newer Apple TV. On the other hand here’s what Turner Broadcasting Systems chairman/CEO Phil Kent) thinks:

But if you thought Kent was being hard on the studios—Warner Bros. is actually a corporate sibling of Turner’s—that’s nothing compared to what he says the industry is doing to Netflix to effectively block Reed Hastings from getting his hands on premium TV series. The new and old broadcast sitcoms and dramas Turner pays billions for may never even get an opportunity to be on Netflix because Kent implied SVOD rights are being “frozen” in the latest rounds of dealmaking.

This is after putting pressure on the studios to not allow Netfilx to get access to the content. And yet, Netflix is the brightest light the program producers have. It’s the closest business model to what customers want that we currently have and they WANT to pay “Hollywood”.

We have customers who are increasingly demanding “what I want to watch, when I want to watch it, on the device I choose for a reasonable payment”. That’s my demand. So far, only Netflix goes close; at least with the three parameters under their control (when, device, payment). But cable, and networks, want to thwart customers and keep desirable content from Netflix so they can continue to prop up a business that is built on a scarcity that no longer exists (or will no longer exist shortly). There’s only one outcome from that, and it doesn’t involve Turner getting any money and it robs studios of some money they might have made via Netflix. It will encourage unauthorized distribution, which is more a symptom of a market need/demand than a desire to obtain something free.

But Kent is not without some measure of mercy. He did say that Netflix still has a seat at the table, but for the scraps. He talked about a deal between Netflix and Warner Bros. TV Distribution for the FX series “Nip/Tuck,” a program that drew little interest from the TNTs of the world.

Thanks for the scraps Phil, but we’re not willing to settle for it. The scarcity that is a cable channel (access) today won’t exist in the near future and when it doesn’t, the only place Turner might have an outlet would be on Netflix. No, wait it won’t because Turner wants to provide programming on their schedule, and that’s just not enough anymore.

The presentation takes a very liberal view of media – essentially anything that is presented with ads beside it to support it (and I’d disagree with that definition but whatever) – but makes the point that “new media” companies are as large and important as “old media” companies.

Slide 8 of the deck shows the relative sizes (market cap) of new and old media and the companies that are included.

Slide 12 introduces the question of “the next battleground: Video” and shows that the trend to IP-delivered video entertainment is “real”.

Good stuff – hard to copy and past images of graphs but clicking through is worth the effort.