By: Mike Demler
Never made any sense as a standalone device. What they misjudged was consumer (lack) willingness to pay.
View ArticleBy: ed
What I’m about to say is competitive intelligence but no one listens to me anyway. This IPTV implementation by GoogleTV, AppleTV, Flo TV has not/will succeed because they are trying to put an old...
View ArticleBy: will marks
that was, what, 3 years overdue? how much money was poured down the tubes on this boondoggle.
View ArticleBy: markaitken
Access to content CLEARLY was an issue! “Where are my local stations?” The problem was that it was not “TV” in the way people have gotten to know “TV”. It wasn’t real. Now, I would agree that it (“TV”)...
View ArticleBy: Bubba
What a FLObacle. Trying to jam an old TV paradigm down the new platform use. They misjudged how thin consumer wallets are at tolerating yet another subscription plan. Its nice that they have sooo much...
View ArticleBy: Tim Meyer
What was a manufacturer and IP licensor doing in the operator business in the first place? Qualcomm trying to get into the business of their customers is a doomed strategy. I think you don’t even need...
View ArticleBy: ugly george
When O when will engineers like Paul Jacobs & paper-shufflers like Stone learn that you cannot “engineer” paid subscriptions? CDMA is NOT boobs, and people pay for Boobs! UG was (rudely) told that...
View ArticleBy: ce1111
I agree with the first comment. The author (no doubt falling for the evasiveness of the Qualcomm spokesperson) missed perhaps the most important point: PEOPLE WEREN’T WILLING TO PAY!
View ArticleBy: Staci D. Kramer
@ce1111 — I mentioned the lack of willingness to pay as one of the reasons FLO TV failed but I think it has more to do with a lack of desire for another $150-200 standalone device that then requires a...
View Article
