ActiveVideo -- or, join "my" cloud, and my cloud only
When ActiveVideo's CEO Jeff Miller made a plea to pretty much everybody (the media, entertainment, and consumer electronic "communities") to agree on a "single, unified platform for the delivery of Web video to the television" (his own words), my first uninformed reaction was definitely good. I did have some doubts about the use of the word "communities" -- there's media producers, the entertainment world, and the consumer electronics producers... but which communities was he talking about, exactly? It was a curious choice of words, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt. However, I was wrong.
Looking at their web site, once again, everything looks good (on paper): ActiveVideo's technology page mentions the use of "Web standards-based authoring tools: DHTML, JavaScript, Flash, CSS, XML", as well as "Lightweight 200 KB client that captures and retransmits remote control key clicks" (written in Flash, which is proprietary, but I guess that's OK since the world hasn't quite embraced HTML 5 yet).
After a deeper analysis, I realised what ActiveVideo is: it's a Flash application which allows some level of interactivity with the viewer. It tracks clicks, and reports them back to the server, which then in turns can take some kind of action -- for example, bring up a menu, change channel, and so on. The result could be somehow nice (interaction with your TV is always nice), or an utter disaster (ads that push you to click on several spots to get rid of them, while you get force-fed their information).
Still: there are plenty of proprietary video solutions out there, and it's definitely not a crime to sell them. So, where is the problem?
The problem is where ActiveVideo sues Verizon over five patents, specifically:
- United States Patent No. 6,034,678, titled "Cable Television System With Remote Interactive Processor;"
- United States Patent No. 5,550,578, titled "Interactive And Conventional Television Information System;"
- United States Patent No. 6,100,883, titled "Home Interface Controller for Providing Interactive Cable Television;"
- United States Patent No. 5,526,034, titled "Interactive Home Information System with Signal Assignment;" and
- United States Patent No. 6,205,582, titled "Interactive Cable Television System With Frame Server."
Patent 6,100,883 looks interesting. The patent is so broad, it basically means "any kind of application where the user clicks on something, the input is processed, and then something different is possibly sent back to the user." It was filed in 1996, but yet here a single company is saying that something as broad as this is owned by them. And, are ready to sue other companies believing that.
Miller says that "'Platform Chaos' -- the fragmentation of countless video devices and technologies -- must be overcome in order to accelerate the rollout and monetization of compelling interactive and Web-to-TV services", which is true. Then Miller continues with "What's needed is for all of the players to 'join the cloud' by coming together to embrace a true One Platform approach that will benefit the entire industry'" which is also possibly true.
I have some ideas on which "one platform" he's thinking about. And I have some ideas on what happens to you if you don't agree with their view (and their patents). Miller should be reminded that the very technologies ActiveVideo is based on (DHTML, XML, CSS, Javascript) are available to him because nobody is going to sue him over them. I agree with him: the world could do with one platform. But a patent-encumbered platform owned by a litigious company is not the answer. HTML 5, and existing technologies, are a more realistic answer.
What remains to be seen, is if companies using open and available technologies (like Javascript, HTML 5, CSS, and so on) to provide interactive content are going to be sued as they are violating patent 6,100,883 -- or another patent owned by ActiveVideo.
The world definitely doesn't need that.
3 comments so far
Anonymous
Tue, 03/01/2011 - 06:25
Merc.,
ActiveVideo doesn't have a "new" CEO, and considering they've been around in one form or another for over 20 years, I think your ominous "yet" is unfounded.
Also, several pages on their website list "Apps are built with standard web tools (Javascript, HTML, CSS, etc).", and the page "http://www.activevideo.com/content_providers.php" even says, "No app downloads! User always gets the latest version of app that lives in the Cloud."
This page "http://www.activevideo.com/technology.php" says "Lightweight 200 KB client that captures and retransmits remote control key clicks." I'm not sure what tests you've done, but it seems pretty clear to me that their technology consists of a client that simply sends remote control commands upstream, where web-standards based applications are executed, and then encoded as MPEG and sent downstream to the device to be decoded as any other video stream would be.
Anonymous
Tue, 11/23/2010 - 06:34
Interesting that you take such a negative perspective on this subject, but I think if you dig deeper, you'll find that your premise isn't well-supported. It looks like ActiveVideo have many long-held patents involving interactive TV. However, I can't find any evidence that they've been aggressive or overzealous in protecting their patents.
Also, the website doesn't say the device client is Flash-based; it says the applications (that run in the Cloud) can be Flash, but can also be written in HTML, XML, and JavaScript. The application is then rendered as MPEG and sent back to the controlling device. This seems like the best of all worlds to me — applications built using technologies that are standardized and to which Web developers are accustomed, while the experience is delivered to devices using the most ubiquitous video format, MPEG.
applicomhq
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:42
Hi,
> However, I can't find any evidence that they've been aggressive or overzealous in protecting their patents.
"yet". Who knows what they are going to do next. Or what the new CEO will do...
> Also, the website doesn't say the device client is Flash-based; it says the applications (that run in the Cloud) can be Flash, but can also be written in HTML, XML, and JavaScript
The application always run in the browser, and is downloaded from the cloud.
The various tests I ran, and what I read on their site, suggests that you really need a Flash client to have a working ActiveVideo client. I looked and looked for information about an ActiveVideo client based on HTML/CSS/JS and couldn't find it... links?
Merc.