backtop


Print 3 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Nov 26 at 7:47 PM

Intel wants to close the deal by the end of the year

Intel is trying to sell off its OnCue online pay-TV service for a reported $500 million and wants to complete the deal by the end of the year. Unnamed sources cited by Bloomberg claim that Verizon Communications is one of the potential buyers of OnCue.
 
Intel has offered no official comment on the deal.
 
The main attraction of OnCue is its ability to deliver pay-TV programming over any high-speed internet connection without the need for a dedicated cable line. Intel has pumped a lot of resources – including dedicated hardware and software platforms -- into OnCue, but has faced challenges getting off the ground.
 
One of the big reasons the service failed according to industry sources is due to costs. Bloomberg’s sources claim that licensing for paid programming cost Intel hundred of millions of dollars upfront under the terms Intel was able to get the chipmaker would have needed to outlay hundreds of millions of dollars up front regardless of whether the service was a hit or not with customers.
 
Intel CEO Brian Krzanich decided that the internet TV arm was a distraction for the company and has decided to make a major push into mobile and internet-connected devices instead.

Sources: Bloomberg, Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Interesting
By CaedenV on 11/26/2013 1:41:33 PM , Rating: 1
Both Intel and MS (and supposedly Apple) have bet large on being able to provide a 'cable killer' service to customers. It seems that Intel is now folding, and MS has been hedging their bets on making the worlds most expensive IR Blaster rather than their own service.
I wonder if Apple will ever unveil something, or if the cable service providers have won this time around.




RE: Interesting
By Denigrate on 11/26/2013 2:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
The content providers are the root problem. They want to be able to sell thier crap channels to the cable company along with the channels people actually watch, forcing the consumer to pay for content 95% of us never watch. Content provider sells advertising on the channel, and collects money from the Cable company and PROFIT. Why would they change this?


RE: Interesting
By Mint on 11/26/2013 7:47:48 PM , Rating: 4
It's a bit misleading to say consumer are paying for content they don't watch.

Once a cable/sat company installs the ability to broadcast 500 channels, they barely save anything from a consumer only wanting 1 channel. Some popular channels have the leverage to charge significant subscriber fees, but most of the channels people don't watch cost providers almost nothing.

Same thing with content providers. The crappy channels have negligible running costs for Viacom, Time Warner, etc. Their goal is to maximize revenue with whatever pricing scheme they can get away with. Selling channels a la carte is unlikely to save you anything once they adjust prices.

Until a significant portion of the population stops ordering cable/satellite (and it may well happen in the next decade) and becomes a market worth luring back in, both content providers and cable/sat companies are more worried about existing customers switching to online. They'll resist it until they have no choice.


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki