The first was the dreaded “talk bubble” info box. Actually a more complicated task than you’d think given the fixed nature of these templates, but with some assistance from Roku, we ended up with something that’s both more elegant and refined, and “feels” like HBO.

Design wasn’t the only problem – we also had to figure out the best way to replicate the way we were organizing the content on HBO GO into something that made sense on Roku. This meant many tests of different IAs, each optimized for a different way to navigate through the content stack. In the end, we decided on one approach that mixed both flat and hierarchical ways to browse content, which I think makes the best of HBO’s content library as well as the way people navigate on Roku.

So I hope all of you HBO GO users out there enjoy using it as much as we enjoyed making it.

If you’ve been following such developments as CableLabs OpenCable or Tru2Way, or GoogleTV, or AppleTV, or Boxee, or a zillion other products that I could mention, then you’re probably just as confused as everyone else about where the world is going to go.

The problem? The MSO/MVPDs. The simple reality is that for at least the foreseeable future, the cable companies will continue to control the bulk of the content that you actually care about. And while this is clearly a problem for innovation because of their tight control over the technical ecosystem and limitations of their platforms, we’re at least starting to see the MSOs themselves start to play far more aggressively with tech – case in point such developments as Xfinity’s well-designed iPad app, or U-verse integration with XBOX.

But the unfortunate reality is that there is no content interoperability yet. CableCards and Tru2Way were supposed to solve the problem – opening up the cable system to allow consumer electronic companies to create cool products that had direct access to the cable stream. But, saving for TiVo, very few products ever hit the market. Instead, we’re seeing a rash of so-called “over-the-top” products that interact with the internet but cannot provide the most necessary function to be a killer app – the ability to interact with the content that I actually want to watch!

One fair argument that MSOs make is regarding the cost and complexity of customer service. As anyone with even a slight bit of tech talent knows, most people are pretty bad when it comes to tech support. I’ve certainly done my own share of tech support for friends and family, so I believe there is a legitimate concern to be made about how the carrier can effectively support customers who are using open systems.

The problem is that this argument isn’t new, and the Wireless carriers have already set a precedent. Until the iPhone, the carriers made the same arguments in maintaining their “walled gardens”. Of course that was really just a veiled excuse for their desire to totally control the content ecosystem, and therefore be able to charge for every service (on top of the data charges you’re already paying). And as we know from the Net Neutrality developments, nothing is changing in those regards. But, the dam broke. iPhone opened the floodgates for an ecosystem open to any developer, and showed it can be functional and successful for both consumers and carriers.

Google is attempting to do the same with GoogleTV, but the cable companies are a much harder nut to crack. Mostly because unlike the wireless business, customers don’t select from hardware choices. You have, for the most part, no choice what cable box you get and with what operating system it uses. Getting the cable companies to cede control will be a tremendously difficult task. Of course, it most likely will happen eventually, but how long from now?

Thankfully, seriously big CE manufactures are finally starting to push at the edges. But, once again, each is building their own operating systems with their own interfaces, once again creating a world of competing standards and making it difficult for entrepreneurs to get into the mix and energize the market. Sound familiar? For anyone who build mobile applications before the iPhone revolution, it was a nasty affair of creating about a zillion different app versions for every flavor of phone OS, screen size, etc. You’d end up building twenty version of BREW apps, twenty Java apps, etc. Hopefully the TV manufacturers will be smart, learn from the mobile industry, and skip over that annoying part.

I’ve long been impressed with companies like Boxee. Ever since they walked into my office at Viacom/MTVN years ago while they were in early beta and unknown by the world, I’ve thought they had a great sense of how to evolve the social experience of watching TV. Unfortunately, they too are hampered by their ability to incorporate premium content…

So let’s hope the new year and CES bring some great announcements, pushing forward the future of social and interactive TV.

So it’s not surprise that Google and Facebook are taking this war public in a major way.

When I was at Viacom, one of the major sticking points in negotiating a deal with Facebook was over this very issue. A major problem for any business is (or at least should be) how effective they can be with CRM. And whether you’re looking to improve recommendations, incorporate behavioral targeting, or simply learn more about your visitors to make your site better and more relevant, once a user decides that they want to be a part of your community, they are making an explicit statement of interest. At that point, there should be no reason why the site, with the permission of the user, shouldn’t be able to develop and store their own user profile without forcing the user to re-input all their data, especially in a case when a third-party system is working in concert with a first-party system, as is the case with most implementations of Facebook Connect. It’s as simple as asking the user, “do you give us permission to import your data from Facebook?”

Facebook objects to this, while at the same time declaring that they’re on the side of the user. But, if the user owns their own data, should it be their choice to determine whether or not they can export data from Facebook into any site of their choosing? Google made this mistake when they shut down Orkut and have now down a total about-face on the subject.

I’m a believer in data portability. I think we, as businesses, will have plenty of opportunities and ways to convince consumers to provide us with personal data so we can improve their experience, make offers more relevant, and generally remove the clutter. The burden is on us to keep giving them great reasons to come back. I’m convinced that as long as we – as content owners, creators, programmers, product developers, and business owners – continue creating great experiences, users will continue to share their personal info with us, and no single company should have the ability to take ownership of your identity without your choice.

I hope someday we’ll see that “export your data” function in Facebook.

This is a refrain I’ve certainly heard before. After spending a decade working in the music industry, prior to the last handful of years in broadcast media, the constant topic of conversation was how to get people to pay for something we’d previously given them for free. For the music industry, the answer was fairly simple in principle (and much harder in practice). The answer was to focus on service and quality, and basically get the entire industry to completely re-think everything they previously thought a record label was. Though it’s taken a long time, some progress has been made. Most notably the changing relationship between labels and artists so that it is simultaneously more equitable while giving the record labels better incentives to focus their energy on an artist. For most artists, and I was once of them, too, the problem is always one of mindshare. The label will only push a handful of acts, and how do you become one of those handful? It used to be mostly luck and who you knew (as if it wasn’t hard enough just to get a record contract, you also had to make sure you had the political alignment in the company in your favor). The new approach is to provide more equitable financial relationship between artists and labels, which would be a fantastic approach if labels could be trusted. But that’s another conversation for another time…

For Twitter, the solution is far less clear. The problem with Twitter is not that it’s free or that it’s programmed user behavior. In actuality, people already DO pay for the things Twitter give you for free. It’s called text messaging and you pay your mobile carrier for it every month. The problem is that Twitter as a service is not what I like to call a “purpose driven” service. It’s been driven by marketers and leveraged to excellent effect by celebrities, but for the average user, there is very little purpose or need for them to use Twitter. What would happen if suddenly they couldn’t “follow” Britney’s exploits on Twitter? Well, they’d simply get them from their favorite gossip blog who’ll happily repost, or a zillion other sources. And you already have a great way to send short messages to your friends…those aforementioned carrier provided text messages.

So will any social networks be able to charge customers? Probably not, unless they’re purpose driven. LinkedIn can charge users who have the goal of using LinkedIn to either find candidates for open positions, or those who are job hunting and want to leverage LinkedIn’s tools. And let’s not forget that dating sites are really not quite different from social networks, especially with the functionality that’s evolved to match sites like Facebook. So the problem comes when you build products that have no clear underlying “purpose” other than that of communicating with your friends. Good luck getting end users to pay. Pandora has certainly learning this lesson, with some counts putting their paid subscriber base at less than 1% of their users.

As a consumer I’m a big lover of Hulu. But as a former senior exec at MTV Networks, I was never happy about Colbert & Stewart on Hulu. Daily Show and Colbert Report immediately became the most popular content on Hulu, which helped build and strengthen Hulu’s brand far more than Daily Show or Colbert’s. Some have talked about Colbert and Stewart’s “halo effect” on Hulu overall, but while having their programming on Hulu helped grow Hulu’s brand, it damaged the respective shows’ ability to build a stronger community around their programming directly on their own sites, nameely ColbertNation.com and TheDailyShow.com. Furthermore, a conflict was created between the two companies’ ad sales groups as both attempted to best monetize the content. Not to say that I think more networks should pull their content from Hulu. I believe that Colbert & Stewart are a particular exception because of the volume of content and the popularity compared with other content on Hulu.

On the other hand, I also was not happy with the user experience on either site – as is obviously the case for many other people, too – finding them too difficult and confusing for the average visitor, and the full-episode player, which usually works fairly well, doesn’t have the same stability, polish and cleanliness as Hulu’s.

So in the end, was it the right move to pull the content? Many people, like user ‘Joe. F’ on PaidContent, are saying things such as, “Why do people keep saying that they should change to a subscription model? Doesn’t everyone realize it will kill the website? Hulu has attracted many illegal downloaders of their weekly shows, me being one of them. If they go to a pay model I will simply go back to pirating the shows, as would many people.” On the other hand, user ‘NJ’ on NY Times wrote, “Eh. This is hardly a shake-up. If Viacom were to take Colbert and Daily Show offline entirely, that would be something. But avid watchers of both shows can pretty easily access them on comedycentral.com.”

Ultimately, it’s all about a balance between ad dollars and viewers. It may seem counter-intuitive that removing content from Hulu could increase revenue, but let us assume for a minute (and this is just hypothetical – I’m not saying this is actually true) that Viacom is able to sell ads at a rate 30% higher than Hulu is for the same content. And also assume that some percentage of people who watch the shows on Hulu will migrate to watching them on Viacom sites. Obviously not 100% of people will migrate, but then again, not 100% need to migrate for it to be a net win. Furthermore, not having the content on Hulu actually protects Viacom’s ability to sell that space for the 30% premium.

So in the we’ll see if Hulu or Viacom or both are hurt by this. In the end, people who are big fans of the show will find an alternate way to view it, and will happily just visit their respective sites. Especially since the shows will still appear in search results on Hulu, so it’s hard to say that the move will damage Comedy Central very much.

Disclaimer: I wasn’t personally involved in the original negotiations with Hulu, and I have no special knowledge about the current negotiations between the two companies. This post represents only my own thoughts on the matter.

I was amazed by Dead Space’s ability to maintain the mise en scene by making sure that menus didn’t pause the game and were completely diagetic – you never left the story and terror could really be around any corner. In my mind, it was a breakthrough that people haven’t fully realized yet. But Demon’s Souls takes the next step in a million tiny ways. Most importantly, they’ve redefined traditional online play into a collaborative, multilinear experience.

As you move through the world, you see ghostly figures that are actually other players who happen to be in the same place in the world map as you are. You don’t actually play with them, but you can see their movements through your area, helping you see if there are enemies up ahead. And each player is encouraged to leave notes for each other about what may be in store for them ahead.

These two simple elements have completely changed the way the story unfolds. Unlike traditional online game play that is often totally distinct from the single-player campaign, Demon’s Souls completely merges those experiences.

Sacrificed here is story, though. I’m excited to see how this type of non-linear multi-user approach could be applied where story and character play a larger role. Even more so, how could this approach be applied to traditional storytelling?

Once upon a time there was the big bad AT&T, which was later broken up into the RBOCs, otherwise known as the regional Bell operating companies. Each of these RBOCs had the luxury of a near monopoly in the various regions they represented for many years, and during that time delighted in pillaging the coffers of their customers with ever increasing prices, poor service, and the like. Doesn’t this sound familiar so far? Replace RBOC with your local Cable Operator – for me that’s Time Warner Cable.

Over the last ten years there has been a monumental shift, however. As wireless technology improved and moved into the mainstream, customers found wireless to be an excellent alternative to the good ‘ole landline. Then things became even more interesting as VOIP changed the landscape for voice services even further. Suddenly, the RBOCs were faced with competition on three fronts – wireless carriers, cable MSOs who could offer VOIP over their traditionally video networks, and upstart companies like Vonage that had no limitations of competing in markets dominated by the RBOCs.

How does this compare to that traditional cable video industry? Well, it wasn’t long ago that you had only one choice in receiving service, your local MSO. Then the satellite business came along and offered a viable alternative to most customers in the form of DirectTV and Dish Network. Not to mention a couple of upstart MSOs that began trying to compete, with middling success, against the established players, like RCN. So, just like the RBOCs sat comfortably and didn’t evolve their business only to be “caught off-guard” by the massive landscape change (even though it took a decade to play out), the same thing will happen to the cable biz.

Already there are alternatives that are satisfying the early adopters, and as the worlds of Hulu and Sezmi begin to evolve, and as new wireless technologies like WiMax allow the wireless carriers to compete with video delivery services effectively (not to mention MediaFlo and the like), consumers will soon have many more choices and options with how they receive video content.

So what does this mean? Think about it in terms of the wireless biz… Since the service itself has been turned into commodity, they now can only compete mainly on price, features, and hardware. You can jump from one wireless carrier to another simply because you like the phone they carry better than the one offered by your current carrier. So imagine a cable biz that looks similar, where cable companies are forced to innovate on their technology as a core driver to customer acquisition. Where it’s not enough to have that same old cable box you always had, but you want the fancy new “smartbox” – making the parallel between so-called feature phones and smartphones… If the cable companies were smart, they would already be developing these new smartboxes, but to date they are still focused on the wrong things. Perhaps some get it, like EchoStar bringing Sling functionality into their suite of offers, but others are instead still focused on how to keep their captive audience even more captive by leveraging their negotiating powers with the content providers to lock out upstart companies.

On the surface TV Everywhere sounds like a good idea, but in the long run it just opens the floodgates to the cable biz morphing into an industry that will look exactly like the wireless biz of today.

I, for one, look forward to that day.

He says, “Forget the Internet!” But I think he’s missing the point and confusing “internet” as meaning “watching videos on your computer.” Don’t think of the Internet as a collection of web sites. Instead, think of the internet as nothing more than a delivery pipe that doesn’t care about the receiving mechanism, then the question becomes what are the advantages of delivering content via IP technology over the current status quo of cable delivery?

We are already seeing the internet radically change related industries. Think how different gaming is now that there’s XBOX Live. For many people they couldn’t imagine playing games at home by themselves anymore. Why not create XBOX Live-like experiences but for watching TV?

So, I agree with Mark that the Big Media companies still don’t get it. And I agree that Big Media should embrace DVR and Sling-like technologies wholeheartedly. But I think there’s a lot more to it. Programming needs to advance, and the internet provides a better, open platform for doing so.

As I said before in my post about multi-linear storytelling, we need to find ways to allow programmers to create more compelling content. Big Media shouldn’t forget about the internet, they should just stop worrying so much about “web sites” and focus more on how to take advantage of internet technology for real-time delivery of advanced programming tools. Whether it’s social connections and simultaneous viewing, or multi-linear story options, the nature of content delivery changes drastically when you move from a traditional cable simulcast delivery model, to a true multicast delivery model that allows each person watching a program to have a customized viewing experience.