The only thing in the middle of the road are dead skunks and yellow lines

Or so goes the Texas adage. Today’s 3-2 FCC vote on rules pertaining to so-called “Net Neutrality” may once again prove that compromise guarantees only one thing.  That nobody’s happy. The debate, which has been a five year long rollercoaster ride, came to a head in what is being described as “rules of the road” for the Internet. The inherent fuzziness of the provisions, which include such vague concepts such as “transparency,” “network management,” and “unreasonable discrimination” all but guarantee that the matter will ultimately be decided in the courts. Furthermore, the same rules don’t apply to fixed and mobile networks.

Fair to Middling

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski made a point of characterizing the rules as “middle of the road” approach—though likely one where no side even feels a little bit ok about it. “On one end of the spectrum, there are those who say government should do nothing at all, on the other end of the spectrum are those who would adopt a set of detailed and rigid regulations.” The Chairman said he rejects “both extremes in favor of a strong and sensible framework - one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment."

A Little Hyperbole Goes a Long Way

Indeed, critics are vocal on both sides, with opponents comparing it to the “government takeover of the Internet,” and Net Neutrality supporters calling it “worse than nothing.” Outspoken Senator Al Franken calls it the “most important free speech issue of our time,” and surmised that “ If corporations are allowed to prioritize content on the Internet, or they are allowed to block applications you access on your iPhone, there is nothing to prevent those same corporations from censoring political speech.” Republican FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, in a Wall Street Journal Op/Ed piece said that the new rules will squelch innovation and investment, and reflect more “coercion than consensus or compromise.” He goes on to say: “On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom.”

Netting Out Net Neutrality

It’s still not over

It’s not over—not even by a long shot. April’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenged the very role of the FCC in regulating broadband. Certainly, this is yet to be scrutinized and debated in Congress, and ultimately in the courts.

Please Have Exact Change

While the rules voted on today preclude service providers from blocking “lawful content,” they apparently do little to discourage the practice of “paid prioritization. ” The rules, set to go into effect in 2011, create a “toll road” of sorts on the metaphorical information superhighway—a road that companies such Google and Netflix may be forced to take.

FUD Factor 2.0

Markets don’t like fear, uncertainty and doubt. We all know that. And while Chairman Genachowski suggest that the rules “increase certainty in the marketplace, and spur investment both at the edge and in the core of our broadband networks”, the result may be just the opposite. Well, that’s what it smells like anyway.  -Ben Piper

At 4.30 yesterday afternoon I wished Anthony Rose well for 2011. He agree it was going to be an exciting time, as YouView moves into the launch phase, and gave no indication that within a few hours he would be stepping down from his high profile CTO role. Rose had just given another presentation on the progress of YouView, the broadband TV joint venture "spearheaded" by the BBC. As YouView's figurehead Rose, in a short time, had become a star attraction on the conference circuit, and I dare say a fair proportion of the packed audience (by no means just from the UK) at Informa's OTT TV World Forum were there primarily to listen to his latest update on the project's progress. In a one-to-one discussion after the panel, I had been asking Rose about the potential compatibility between the YouView system and hbbtv, the broadband TV standard being deployed in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. I'll bring more on this subject at another time, together with the views of hbbtv itself. During the Q&A one or two people noted the challenges of getting YouView to publish its guidance documents in a timely fashion. One questioner noted that he had learnt more about YouView in ten minutes of listening to Anthony than from reading hundreds of pages of documentation. Rose admitted that keeping the project on schedule, as well as meeting the information demands of multiple external stakeholders, had proved challenging. Today's news stories are suggesting that Rose was not considered capable of managing YouView as it moves towards the commercial deployment phase. He will stay on in "an advisory role", but this hardly smacks of a vote of confidence. Advice is one thing: the responsibility for taking decisions will clearly rest on new shoulders. YouView is inevitably putting a gloss on the development, which will come as a shock to many in the IPTV industry. Management turmoil is rarely a good thing, so if YouView is to meet its ambitious mid-2011 launch target it needs to rally the troops and have its new managers get the word out that they understand and can meet the challenges ahead, without losing the vision which Anthony brought to the project. Many YouView doubters remain; the battle with Sky and Virgin rumbles on, and a lot more water will flow under the bridge before the next phase in television's evolution becomes a commercial reality. Client Reading: Profiling the Connected Media Consumer - UK

Having tested Microsoft’s Xbox Kinect for the last few days I can confirm that it has the elusive wow factor. Controlling on-screen icons and menus with a wave of the hand is the first sign that this stuff is definitely not of the old generation. Seeing your own avatar mirror your movements introduces the real sense of spookiness which only comes with genuinely ground-breaking technology. And when you are first signed into the service simply by entering the room, the realisation dawns that the age of intelligent technology may finally be upon us. My other conclusion is that if you are not physically fit before you buy Kinect, you certainly will be after a few sessions of gameplay. Microsoft is very clear that the initial raft of Kinect games titles are aimed at its “non-traditional” audience (implying, not entirely accurately, spotty teenagers shooting each other from the comfort of oversized armchairs) and involve varying levels of energy expenditure from a standing position. You may or may not be relieved to know that there is at least one application which does not require you to abandon the sofa: VideoKinect is the built-in video communications service, allowing Kinect games players to take a break to share their exhausting exploits with friends and relatives around the world. As for the games themselves, we found the bowling and track and field in Kinect Sports a lot of fun. Bowling illustrates the strengths of gesture-based gaming because the system appears to recognise genuine bowling actions which are impossible for any controller system to replicate. Track and field includes a variety of athletics events, and, yes, the 100m dash involves running on the spot as fast as you can. Microsoft told me that an elderly 80-year old lady in Australia had enjoyed some of these sports. I would like to see this. Children will love Kinectimals, the classic cutsey furry animal petting game. Choose your favourite cub, cuddle it with your virtual hands, and watch it mimic your actions and learn tricks. Parents of young children should avoid installing this game on their main TV as they will never get to watch TV again. Kinect Joy Ride didn’t work as well for me. This is the main racing game available at launch, and, yes, you have to pretend to hold a steering wheel. I would love this to have worked more effectively, but this is the point at which virtualisation just doesn’t seem to make any sense. Try it at home: See how long you can keep your hands spaced the same distance apart while moving them around in a circle, changing direction frequently, and leaning your body one way or the other to perform tricks. Sorry, but holding a real steering wheel has just got to be a better experience. Microsoft hope that Kinect will help it to “more than double” the number of Xbox 360s sold worldwide so far, which is more than 42 million. Our own core scenario forecast is that Microsoft will fall slightly short of this objective, selling a cumulative 79 million 360s by 2015. Our analysis did allow for further upside to 360 sales as a result of a successful Kinect launch, so we will be tracking its near term progress and impact on core console sales before updating our scenario models. We should also be clear that Microsoft, along with other platform vendors, tends to talk in terms of cumulative sales. Our analysis also takes account of console retirement and replacement, and this could be a critical issue as we begin to understand Kinect’s impact on wider 360 ownership. It is, after all, being offered for sale as a peripheral to existing 360 owners, as well as packaged with a complete 360 console system. Again, the mix between these two packaging options will be important in determining the real impact on the 360’s overall performance. Sales to existing 360 owners may extend the life of the system in those households but will not help to widen the audience. Microsoft’s primary interest will be to increase sales of the 360 itself to new owners. Will Kinect succeed? As always, it will depend on how we define success. Kinect is certainly innovative, and as such it will appeal to existing 360 owners who want to explore the new technology for its own sake or find the new games appealing. Kinect should also bring the 360 more forcefully to the minds of existing owners of other consoles who may be tiring of their current platform. The obvious target is Nintendo’s Wii, global sales of which, as we predicted, are declining by more than 20% this year. While Nintendo works out its post-Wii strategy, Kinect has a window of opportunity of maybe a year to tap into demand from lapsed Wii users. In spite of the enthusiasm indicated above, Kinect is not without its challenges. The biggest concern for many potential buyers will be the space required in front of the TV. Our system is installed in a traditionally small English cottage, and there is just about enough space to use Kinect for the few games we have tried. Demonstrations of some games I have seen suggest that Kinect owners will need clutter-free floor space of three feet by six feet (1m x 2m) at a minimum distance of six feet (2m) from the sensor in order to get the maximum benefit. Xbox actually recommends a distance of 8-10 feet (c. 3m) from the sensor. It goes without saying that this space must be free of all obstacles, alive or dead, if minor injuries are to be avoided. Other commentators have noted the potential for lag in motion sensing. The movements in the self-image window or the avatar certainly appear some fractions of a second behind actual motion. The critical question is whether this has an impact on usability, and so far, in an admittedly short series of tests, I have not noticed any significant negative impact on gameplay. There have been occasions when voice recognition and motion sensing do not appear to function perfectly, but I would not draw any conclusions regarding weaknesses in the technology versus the need for familiarisation. Only time will tell whether these are persistent issues which need to be resolved by further technology enhancements. Kinect’s success will hinge on whether “really clever stuff” is good enough to drive sales, and whether its integration into games is perceived as ground-breaking. Xbox is also taking a risk in focusing Kinect purely on the “active gaming” sector. Nintendo did break new ground with motion control, but Wii games did not always require players to stand up or indeed move around. Microsoft says that developers can deploy Kinect in more “subtle” ways, supporting sit-back gaming. Until such games appear the first titles risk being positioned as a niche market. But overall Kinect is an impressive attempt to take the TV games console industry in a new direction and we believe it will have the initial positive impact on the 360 business which we predicted earlier this year. Judgment on its longer term success will have to wait a few more months once the novelty has begun to wear off, but it would be very surprising if Kinect’s arrival does not push development of games and other TV-based applications in directions we can today only barely imagine. Client Reading: Taming the Waves: Games Console Life Cycles and Platform Competition

I never thought I would hear it, but the buzz on the streets of Essex, that trend-setting county just east of London, is that Research in Motion (RIM)’s BlackBerry handsets have now replaced Apple’s iPhone as the gadget of choice. I should immediately qualify this “finding” as purely anecdotal research, based on a conversation with my 13-year-old niece this past weekend regarding her latest phone, acquired because, as all parents will recognise, “all her friends have got one”. It doesn’t seem five minutes since she was demanding the latest iPhone, hence my surprise that the BlackBerry has risen so rapidly in the teenage desirability league table, at the expense of the apparently unstoppable iPhone. My colleague, Andy Brown, our resident RIM expert, assures me that the Canadian company has been promoting the BlackBerry as a consumer device for some years, largely by advertising it in the hands of celebrities. In spite of those efforts I would argue that it is still commonly perceived as a business-centric device. Nevertheless, consumer sales of BlackBerrys have been rising rapidly, contributing to RIM’s impressive overall performance in the mobile phone market. I was obviously keen to learn why today’s younger teenagers are apparently bucking the accepted trend towards using touchscreen, button-free devices. The QWERTY keyboard, according to my niece, is in fact one of the appealing features of the BlackBerry, since typing messages is so much easier. And it turns out that messaging appears to lie at the heart of RIM’s success in this segment: the ability for young friends to send each other messages using RIM’s BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) service, completely free of charge, has huge appeal to the device’s owners as well as their parents, concerned at rising monthly bills. So the obvious question is, what happened to the apparently eternal appeal of an unlimited choice of apps, as well as 4” touchscreen displays? At least for this small sample, it seems they are now considered of secondary importance. For my niece and her group of friends, the ability to stay in touch via near-constant, rapid messaging, and at zero additional cost, is what matters most. Whether that will be the case as they get older remains to be seen, but it’s a reminder that one device format is unlikely to suit the needs of all segments, however successful a particular product may appear. “With iPhone, every handset works the same,” said Apple’s Steve Jobs during yesterday’s results call. Yes, Steve, they do: and it seems, amazingly enough, that some people really don’t need it that way. Client Reading: RIM Announces PlayBook Tablet and Multiplatform Strategy

A year ago almost to the day we called for Ofcom to put an end to ISPs’ ridiculous practice of describing broadband speeds with the meaningless phrase “up to”. Now Ofcom is again skirting around the issue in its latest survey of UK broadband speeds. Its own data shows that while “headline” speeds (ie the theoretical maximum – and even they are not true) have increased significantly over the past year, the actual speed achieved as a proportion of that “top” speed has actually fallen, from 58% to 46%. The craziness is illustrated further by the fact that the average speed attained by customers subscribing to “up to 20Mbps” packages is only 6.8Mbps, ie lower than the “headline” speed of inferior “up to 8Mbps” packages. The average download speed for all DSL connections has increased by only 10% over the past 12 months, from 3.7Mbps to 4.0Mbps, in spite of the fact that many more customers are being offered “up to” 20Mbps packages (ie DSL 2+). Note that the primary factor behind the higher increase in UK speeds overall is because of Virgin Media’s upgrading of its cable service: average cable broadband speeds have more than doubled, from 4.9Mbps to 9.9Mbps. That’s a testament to the growing strength of the UK’s cable operator, and an indictment of the recent supposed improvements in the DSL network. Ofcom’s excuse regarding regulating the “up to” nonsense is that this is not its job, but that of the advertising regulator. We regard this as a cop-out. Ofcom does have a Voluntary Code of Practice which “ensures that consumers are given the clearest possible information on access line speeds at point of sale”, and if that doesn’t relate to advertising, I don’t know what does. The Code of Practice talks a lot about maximum speeds, but not about minimums. This now has to change. Even with the well-known limitations of DSL technology, in the second decade of the 21st century customers have a right to know what minimum level of service they should expect to receive in return for their hard-earned pounds. BT will moan that it cannot yet deliver a minimum of 2Mbps to some parts of the country, so those remoter rural areas should be considered a special case, where “true” broadband (however that is defined) is technically (and temporarily) unavailable. This all goes back to early political demands that broadband be made “universally” available, and the politically inspired nonsense that 99% of UK homes can get DSL broadband services. Yes, but only if you count 250kbps as broadband. We need to step back so that we can move forward. The reality is that a small percentage – perhaps 5% - of UK homes are currently out of reach of 1-2Mbps+ broadband services, and remain “geographically challenging”. That needs to be accepted as a policy issue and targeted accordingly. The market as a whole should no longer be distorted because of this artificial and technical constraint. Once those homes are identified, the rest of the country should be given guarantees of minimum service, and tiered services will emerge which will give customers a great deal more clarity and confidence than they have had until now. Client Reading: Global Broadband Scorecard: 2010 Broadband Composite Index (BCI) Rankings

Returning to temperate climes after my first “summer” visit to Las Vegas, I am more amazed than ever at Nevada residents’ ability to withstand daily temperatures of 40 degrees plus and practically zero humidity. At least I now know what 108 Fahrenheit feels like. The contrast between this and a proper British summer (a few days of 25C followed by cool cloud and rain) could not be more stark. Las Vegas’ Mandalay Bay was the venue for Cisco’s annual customer gathering, which this year also brought together a hundred or so analysts for in-depth discussion of product and commercial strategy. The highlight product announcement was the Cius, as reported by my colleague, Susan Welsh de Grimaldo. While the company has not officially announced pricing, I expect it to be closer to $1000 than $500. Cisco is quite clear that the Cius is positioned as an enterprise solution, and these prices are likely to prevent much leakage towards “unofficial” consumer markets. What was most interesting, perhaps, is the genesis of the Cius within the Cisco organisation. It was obvious from many conversations that few people were aware of its development until very shortly before its unveiling. Even John Chambers himself claims to have been unaware of it until two months ago. If the product proves successful it will be further justification of Cisco’s innovation in organisation and management which allows dynamic cross-fertilisation of ideas across multiple teams. The other news centered on home energy management, where Cisco is launching a “Home Energy Controller” allied to Cisco Energy Management Services, which will be offered by utility companies to help consumers understand and control their energy consumption. The Controller uses Zigbee, WiFi and other home networking technologies to exchange data with and, potentially, control a variety of home devices. Much of our discussion with Cisco execs centered on the challenges and opportunities for service providers offered by OTT video, as well as the potential for telepresence in the home environment. Telepresence has a been a success for Cisco in the corporate market, and it is still on track to bring a consumer solution to the market by the end of 2010. It still strikes many people, both in the industry and consumers, as odd that Cisco should have a serious consumer strategy. While its brand presence is growing, not many would consider it as a competitor to the Sonys, Samsungs and Apples of the world. And there is no doubt that the company’s financial power is built on its core network switching and routing market dominance. Cisco does have key positions in home networking and set-top boxes, as well as the TV and broadband service provider space, but the jury is still out on whether Cisco itself will become an overall leader in consumer markets over the next decade. But consumer players cannot ignore Cisco as an influence on market direction. Its innovation processes, as demonstrated by Cius, will combine with its financial strength to create a wave of consumer innovations over the coming years. Many may fail, but it will only take a few to be successful for rivals to feel the heat. Client Reading: Chasing the Elusive IPTV Business Model: NDS, Cisco and Comcast to the Rescue?

Is it a sign of Trouble at’ Mill? Or just another corporate shake-up while business goes on as usual? Microsoft yesterday announced the departure of leading Entertainment and Devices executives Robbie Bach and J. Allard. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer will take charge of the division, with Don Mattrick running the Xbox side and Andy Lees the mobile business. There are clearly problems for Microsoft in its mobile business. All the various iterations of its mobile phone software over the years have failed to make significant market impact as Apple and, now, Google, make the running. Microsoft’s biggest problem is that consumer is still a relatively small and fragmented part of its overall business. It’s losing out to Apple, and others, in the consumer market because its primary corporate focus continues to be business users of Windows. Apple, which, not through lack of effort, never achieved prominence in business markets, has been able to focus its strategy on the consumer space without the hindrance of adhering to a corporate software strategy. From Microsoft’s perspective it might seem logical to group Xbox, music players and mobile phones under one roof, but this makes less obvious sense to the outside world. Xbox has been successful largely because it has been left alone to formulate its own strategy focused on games, entertainment and the digital home. Dan Mattrick, whom I met last summer to discuss Xbox strategy, should now try to persuade Ballmer that the Xbox team needs to remain a discrete unit with liberty to forge its own direction, and if necessary outside of the demands of the corporate Windows strategy if necessary. With the launch of Natal imminent, the continued ramping up of online services based around the Xbox 360, and the plateauing of Xbox 360 sales, Microsoft can ill afford a dilution in focus because of this disruption to the senior management team. David Mercer Other Blog Posts Of Interest: PS3 Global Market Share Reached 31% in Q1 2010 Sony’s PS3 to Win Current Games Console Battle; SA Forecasts 47.5 Million Global Console Market in 2010 Sky Player Finally Arrives Where It Belongs, But Work Still to be Done TV or Videogame? 1 vs 100 on Xbox Live Offers Lifeline To Appointment Viewing Client Reading: Taming the Waves: Games Console Life Cycles and Platform Competition

Downtown LA’s Nokia Theater, venue of the Season 7 and 8 finals of American Idol, played host for a highly anticipated - though somewhat poorly attended - keynote from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowsi.  The interview format, moderated by NCTA president Kyle McSlarrow, was heavy on platitudes, and light on real news. “Let’s roll up our sleeves, and get down to business!” seemed to be overarching theme. In a very brief press conference later in the day, the Chairman did respond to some slightly tougher questions - and gave a pretty non-responsive answer to one posed by yours truly A “Healthy and Fair” Third Way? April’s court decision “has created a problem, and has damaged the legal foundation,"  according to Chairman Genachowski.  The FCC’s was faced with several options, according to a statement issued by the FCC:

• Do Nothing

The Commission could continue relying on Title I “ancillary” authority, and try to anchor actions like reforming universal service and preserving an open Internet by indirectly drawing on provisions in Title II of the Communications Act (e.g., sections 201, 202, and 254) that give the Commission direct authority over entities providing “telecommunications services.”

• Deploy the “Nuclear Option”

The Commission could fully “reclassify” Internet communications as a “telecommunications service,” restoring the FCC’s direct authority over broadband communications networks but also imposing on providers of broadband access services dozens of new regulatory requirements.

• Third Way

With each of these deemed “too extreme,” the Commission instead has decided on a so-called “Third Way,”  a “Healthy and fair option” which would:

• �
  • Recognize the transmission component of broadband access service—and only this component— as a telecommunications service;
  • Apply only a handful of provisions of Title II (Sections 201, 202, 208, 222, 254, and 255) that, prior to the Comcast decision, were widely believed to be within the Commission’s purview for broadband;
  • Simultaneously renounce—that is, forbear from—application of the many sections of the Communications Act that are unnecessary and inappropriate for broadband access service; and
  • Put in place up-front forbearance and meaningful boundaries to guard against regulatory overreach.

Unfortunately, the FCC's chosen path, reclassifying ISPs as common carriers and "forbearing" the majority of Title II regulations, hasn’t done much to instill confidence.  Critics say it opens the door to potential pricing regulation going forward, though the Chairman insists that is “off the table.” The key enforced provision, Section 202, prohibits carriers from making any "unjust or unreasonable discrimination" in the way it charges.  Section 208, another provision on the table for enforcement, allows carriers, enterprises, and individuals to file complaints directly with the FCC for violations.

Buckle Up and Hang On

Along with many others, I have long operated under the assumption that, in principle, net neutrality was decided with the election of Barack Obama in November 2008. The latest court rulings have insinuated more fear, uncertainty and doubt into the mix.  And markets don't adapt well to fear, uncertainty and doubt.  I would suggest everyone buckle in tight, because this ride isn't over.  

See You in Court!

The process will be slow, there will be numerous legislative challenges and speed bumps--Representative Cliff Stearns from Florida recently introduced a bill that would require the FCC to deliver a detailed cost-benefit analysis to Congress before moving forward.  When I asked the Chairman yesterday about this, he only said that FCC "will work with Congress as a resource." Not to mention the court cases…we should anticipate numerous legal challenges in the forthcoming months, and it wouldn't surprise me to see this ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. The real brunt of this will be felt by OTT ecosystem players.  Over the Top, by its very nature, is predicated on an open Internet. Twelve, eighteen, or twenty-four additional months of limbo is the last thing these guys need.   -Ben Piper

Thomas Edwards, VP, Digital Television Testing & Evaluation, at Fox, was speaking this morning at the Digital Cinema Summit at the Las Vegas Convention Center, one of the many conference programs running concurrently with the NAB Show over the next few days. Fox, of course, is a sister company to BSkyB under the News Corp parent, and BSkyB, as we have regularly reported, is a firm advocate of 3D as the next major business opportunity. So it would be interesting to see Fox and BSkyB executives debate the business viability of 3D after Mr Edwards’ comments that he “doesn’t know if 3D can make money”. Edwards listed some of the obstacles he is facing as Fox experiments with 3D production and broadcasting. 3D equipment, particularly cameras and rigs, are still “hard to obtain”, and are fragile, large and heavy. Stereographers, the specialists responsible for the 3D experience, need to be trained. There are design issues such as placement of the score box and other graphics. There are issues of quality with broadcast 3D, which today (under BSkyB and Fox’s current side-by-side approach at least) is sub-HD quality. And there are challenges associated with keeping the 3D material in synch throughout the various stages of production. Edwards also didn’t seem to be convinced that 3D necessarily improved on the 2D experience when it comes to sports productions. He noted in particular that wide shots, such as a view of a full half of a soccer pitch, tended to reduce the players to “matchstick figures”. In certain close-ups, however, 3D clearly offered a benefit, allowing viewers to appreciate the positioning of players more accurately than in 2D. Edwards called for the beginning of mass production of 3D cameras, rather than the current range of custom-produced two-camera rigs, and that they should be much smaller than present designs. No doubt we will see some examples of early “integrated” 3D cameras here at the NAB Show, with Panasonic for one expected to announce its first model. Register for Strategy Analytics' Analyst Breakfast at the NAB Show Client Reading: Global Audiovisual Market Forecast

We’ve covered Hillcrest Labs many times, such as here. Today the company introduced its latest offer, a web browser. At first sight it may seem like a new browser is the last thing the market needs, but this one has a key difference: it’s not designed to be used on the PC screen. It’s aimed at that growing band of consumers who connect their PCs to a TV so they can surf and watch web video from the comfort of their couch or armchair. Some browsers can be set for TV display but these options are often unsatisfactory. Hillcrest’s Kylo browser is offered free of charge. From the early demonstration we saw the company seems to have done a good job of presenting web pages more appropriately for the big screen and video consumption. As our Digital Home Observatory research has shown that connected TV viewers see the control device as a key impediment to a satisfactory experience. Using a standard PC keyboard and mouse on the couch is inconvenient at best. Onscreen keyboards can be offered for entering URLs but these are often slow and cumbersome compared to the real thing. As we’ve noted before Hillcrest’s Loop pointer deploys an impressive combination of technologies to make pointing at a screen more accurate than other motion controllers. Hillcrest’s business model is not changing as a result of the Kylo launch. While it is packaging certain web video services, it is not currently seeking to turn this into a revenue stream, although the company will watch for opportunities. Hillcrest’s primary aim and business model focus is to increase sales of its control devices. David Mercer Client Reading: Touchscreen Controllers Set to Drive the Connected TV Experience