There are multiple aspects that define the Social TV experience.

Some of these aspects are:

*Changing basic TV experience from lean-back to lean-in;
*Technology factors like Internet-Connected TV adoption;
*Remote controls that support the social experience effectively and
*Broadband access and so on.

These aspects are all external when we look at the social experience itself, namely communication/interaction.
Would (the type of) interaction be a determinant of how the Social TV experience is created?

What if instead of the enabling of interaction being the starting point for Social TV developments, we take the TV content and its public interaction as starting point.

In the Social TV: Designing for Distributed, Sociable Television Viewing paper, the type of interaction is being researched.

At a general level, we can characterize the comments exchanged by our participants using five broad types (Table 1):
• Content-based comments directly reference the content that is on or recently shown on the screen.

• Context-based comments are relevant to the show in its greater context, but perhaps not the specific episode or moment that is being viewed.
Examples are references to the actors, past episodes, show trivia, etc.

• Non-sequitur comments are social exchanges such as asking about one’s family, or talking about events unrelated to the TV program. These are usually more common in groups who already have some social connection with each other.

They often take the form of side conversations (usually whispered, or at least toned down) between two participants and rarely follow the structure of the show.

• Logistical comments are relevant to the television watching experience, but are independent of the programming.
Tasks like changing channels, adjusting volume, etc. must be verbally communicated to the group so that whoever has control of the set can respond.

• Phatic responses are almost involuntary reactions from the audience like laughter, gasps, groans, “Whoa!”, etc.

To summarize, our observations reveal that interactions between television viewers are tightly interwoven with the structure of the show they are watching.

Do the types of comments/interaction need to be taken into account when designing the Social TV technologies?

Yes, here’s why:

Depending on the TV show, one- or two-screen experiences can be dynamically created in offering widgets or sites in order to communicate in a way which is appropriate for that TV show.

For instance Content-based comments could be showed directly next to the TV content, whilst Logistical comments can be better displayed on a second-screen, without adding noise and irrelevance in relation to the TV content.

Key is to keep it simple without complicating matters in terms of usage and consistency.

This point of view might also explain why current Social TV widgets only clutter the screen instead of adding additional value for the viewers.  Twitter for instance is so broad it contains any kind of comment that will be displayed by the Twitter widget.  Intelligent systems could detect types of comments and distribute them differently.

Maybe intelligent systems are one step too far ahead, but the offered applications can be enhanced to the most probable or occuring type of interaction related to the TV show.

What do you think, does taking into account the type of interaction, enhance the Social TV experience or not?

Q: Where do these two mutually intersect?
A: On the level of two-screen solutions and applications/widgets.

Wikipedia says on two-screen solutions:

“Two-screen”, or “synchronous solutions”, are a form of interactive TV that enables information about a TV show to be accessed via the internet on a mobile phone, laptop or desktop PC. Unlike one-screen interactive TV solutions, where all of the interactivity is on the television, two-screen applications are typically done from a computer, and are free to the user. In these cases, users are not changing the content on the television, they are accessing supplementary information about the show. The difference between two-screens and normal web pages are the two-screens are relevant to the live programming, refreshed in real-time, and often provide social networking around live broadcasts.

Augmenting the TV experience in a one-screen solution is happening, sure, think of teletext or subtitles for instance.
But the augmentation is up to a certain level, due to the content and focus it has on that certain time.

Two-screen solutions on the other hand enable augmentating of the TV experience to a new level, where it comes into its own.
These kind of solutions are great for multitaskers and the information hungry society we live in.
Social complementary solutions which will connect you with friends and recommendations on the second screen, whilst consuming the core content via TV.
One can ask him-/herself if the TV content is primary or simply the reason for social activity.

The other intersection is with regard to the emerging TV applications and widgets which will enhance the core content on one screen.
there’s a learning curve though, simply cluttering the screen with additional information/widgets doesn’t work according to researcher Marie-José Montpetit at MIT’s Research Lab for Electronics on NewTeeVee.

Though the potential is present, a smart and enhanced usage and application of widgets is needed, to create and validate relevant and quality augmentation.
Almost anything can be an augmentation of the reality or experience, but as explained in Augmented Reality Semantics it has to be contextually qualitative and easy to use. Technologies are one thing, but if it’s not simple and powerful enough, users won’t adopt due to the high perceived risks.

On AppMarket.tv, we created the poll “ Two Screen or One Screen? What is the Future of Social TV?“.
Do let us know what you think is the future of Social TV.

I’ve been quiet for a couple of weeks now as I have been working on a new project related to socialTV. The project started when I tried to write a blog post that defined socialTV – what I have discovered was that socialTV is really a new ecosystem that is developing and that the second screen services, connectedTV services, widget et al. all are just a part of that ecosystem.

So defining socialTV was hard as everyone was using the term for the individual part of the ecosystem that they were working on. That project is nearing completion and I would hope to be able to blog about my results by the end of the week.

What I found though was that there was no real consumer research into socialTV though – many companies are developing technology, many start-ups are launching, many bloggers (including myself) are talking about socialTV – but no one had actually spoken to the consumers.

With the help of my wife (who runs a media research company) I put together a short survey that tries to answer a couple of key questions.

- do people want socialTV
- when do they want to use socialTV
- what functionality do they want from their socialTV

The survey can be found here - it would be great if people could complete the survey and pass onto their friends/family. I’m particularly interested in women at the moment as currently I have a heavy male skew.

Once the results are in, I’ll be blogging about each area of the results so that hopefully we can all get a better understanding about what consumers actually believe and want socialTV to be.

Richard Gale is the European Director of Marketing & Sales for Playboy Europe having worked in the broadcast industry for nearly a decade, looking after 15 linear channels that run across 27 countries from the UK down to New Zealand. He also runs a small agency set up to handle consultancy work for start ups and media companies.

Please add your company in our directory if you are in the business. It’s free… Or even if you have relevant experience and ‘want’ to offer your portfolio of skills to the industry. If you want to write with us, contact us via the site. Share the knowledge. Brand yourself or your company.

AppMarket.tv Manifesto

We composed a Manifesto (click to read complete Manifesto), explaining our vision on the evolution of the industry.

Manifesto
Appmarket.tv is the Internet’s first portal dedicated to application and middleware development communities in the Social TV and Connected TV landscape.

We support open API’s, SDK’s, WDK’s and our own roots lie in Open Source communities. It’s our opinion that completely closed, proprietary development in this emerging space will fail and models that are built on more systems similar to the Iphone App and Facebook Application worlds will do well. Truly open source software like Google’s Android will likely be the winners.

Revenue sharing between corporate entities and small businesses around and a prevalence of freemium models will appear and flourish. And a new word will enter tech lexicon. tCommerce.

Future advertising models on TV will be dependent on interaction and creative ways to bring brands to viewers as future audiences will no longer accept ‘broken’ TV… or TV with a slew of interruptions. Video On Demand (VOD) and TV in the Cloud, ubiquitous and everywhere, will change that. I expect my daughters, in the future, to think it was novel how they used to have to watch certain programs at certain times when they were young.

The TV industry, like many other’s affected by disruptive and game changing technologies, is a mess. There are so many players and so many technologies right now which is both good and bad. Darwinists say the best will survive, but in the meantime… directional decisions we make now can really affect our futures. There are a lot of choices for developers, investors and consumers. And we want to help sort it out by providing a solid directory, consolidating events worldwide to help us all plan better, and even meet!

Collective Intelligence
We can’t build AppMarket.tv up without the collective intelligence on this industry which is out there, fragmented amongst many industry leaders, technologists, evangelists etc.

We like to write about the industry – and we welcome others who want to reach players in this targeted niche by contributing to Appmarket.tv with ideas, reviews and new analysis.

We can’t pay, but we can plug you.

This is, essentially, a labour of love. We love new, creative technology and innovation that empowers people and creates a better, more fruitful, active-rather-than-passive TV experience.

Contact us if you’re interested in contributing your expertise and knowledge, brand yourself or your company!

We invite you as well to submit your company in the AppMarket.tv Directory.

The Directory is divided in Connected TV, iPad/Mobile, Social TV, tCommerce Specialists, TV Widget & App Developers sections, select the best category which fits your company and add your listing.

Being Open Source advocates at heart, learning and sharing together will only improve the new industry and make it easier for all of us aiming to participate in it!

Yes, what it will do at least, is shake up the TV industry and get them out of their “Walled Gardens”, and actively look for business model innovations.  Google has the potential, reach and money to penetrate the market with more than just a shake up. It will likely be cataclysmic… and they will truly launch the concept of Social and Connected TV into the Zeitgeist by 2011.

The rumour mill has once again ground out another flutter of gossip about Google going into the TV market – but still – nobody will go on record. This time it’s about when they will release their official foray into this space.

The Wall Street Journal wrote that:

Google Inc. is planning to introduce Android-based television software to developers at an event in May, according to people familiar with the matter.

Google is headhunting for developers in this space, which validates the buzz.

Android and Chrome both have substantial development communities, but it will likely take some time before investments are made from software developers – and it will come when Google can show a critical mass adaption. Until now, Yahoo Connected TV has been leading in this space, but interest in their Widget Development Kit (WDK) is rather tepid. Google TV’s future development kit (likely based on Android and Chrome),  won’t likely be wide open, but will surely be more flexible and malleable than Yahoo’s.

But other news on Google TV recently came with a report from the  Korean Herald,  who published an article about a possible marriage between the world’s leading TV manufacturer, Samsung, and Google TV. In other words, Samsung, who is already tied to Yahoo Connected TV is considering cutting another deal with Google and building CE devices with Android architecture.

Yahoo won’t be happy if this pans out – but they don’t seem to be able to develop much traction in attracting developers to this space, nor creating enough buzz about Social TV, TV Apps, Widgets etc.

Will hardware manufacturers lose their control? They might, if they don’t play ball, Google just might start producing TV’s themselves.

According to a quote from the same Korean Herald article

Chun Seung-hoon, an analyst at Eugene Investment & Securities, said Samsung’s Google TV is plausible, given that Google’s Android is an open platform. “There is no problem for Samsung to produce Google TVs,” he said. However, he said the hardware manufacturer faces the risk of losing its control over the TV market to Google, a software firm, should it make Google TVs. “This is not a good picture. I think it would be better for Samsung to expand its own platform Bada,“ he said.

Google’s perspective is from the software side, manufacturers is from the hardware perspective, and a complementary growth strategy for both sides is more plausible.

Expansion of its own mobile development platform Bada – Samsung could perhaps itself  head towards their own Social TV development and make a play for both a two screen and one screen experience.  People’s demand in the end is what will make or break a Walled Garden, in this case Bada, which already has an ample app store.

Already mentioned in one of my earlier analysis Television 2.0’s foremost challenge is… , consumer control and attention are essential in understanding the coming paradigm TV shift.

In the end, all that people want is any content at their time, on their screen when they’re in the mood. Creating a battle between open systems, from any kind of manufacturer, is a risk for growth strategies and revenue streams.

Going from the platform to the actual content consumption which will be enabled by Google Android TV, it will be interesting to see how this will develop and evolve.
On NewTeeVee, researcher Marie-José Montpetit at MIT’s Research Lab for Electronics, says that Social TV doesn’t mean a cluttering of content and widgets on the TV screen.

Google has the resources to analyse this in-depth, create understanding how the new television experience could be enhanced in appropriate ways, not a simple centralisation of different content on a screen.

There’s more than enough landscape on the next generation of TV’s to allow for optional widgets to be popped in and out, and if sized correctly,  a single screen experience can work. The widgets, from a design perspective, can and should be optional and can and should be designed to be part of the overall TV experience, if planned well. If they can get the Interactive Design down pat – getting ‘social’ on one screen can work. There are many examples of websites that have this kind of alternative.  Our blog has an optional widget for Twitter that can be pulled out and retracted quite nicely 0n the bottom right.

Here again the ultimate quest is to provide users control to gain their attention which will lead to -new- revenue models.

Apps/Widgets have been said to be the new Cash Cow generators for the digitized ubiquity, the syndication of content and the consumption of it. If Google and the industry will be able to go forth in the evolution of television and the experience, conventional revenue models could be proven not to be the only valid ones.

What do you think, will Google be able to get movement in this cumbersome sector?

It is not confirmed yet, but the blog mentions an subscription service of $9.95

“[...] according to people with knowledge of the plans.“

The subscription service should start on the 24th of May. Viewers will still be able to view the first couple of shows for free, but for additional shows needs to be paid.
At the end of the article, the mentioning of

“Ultimately, Hulu is expected to adopt the same commercial loads as network television.”

is interesting, because one of the differentiators is the load of commercials. If this will be within the same amounts of network televisions, a Hulu and other streaming video platforms need to position and gain an unique advantage through Content, social aspects etc. Of course syndication their content to devices like the iPhone and iPad could add value to their proposition as well.

Would you pay $9.95 to access a more comprehensive collection on Hulu?
What do you think of the advertising plans similar to existing television networks, are there other revenue models which generate the same or more and be less disruptive?

If you aren’t a lucky recipient of Cooper’s emails, you can sign up for free here.

He’s simply one of the smartest guys in the Social TV and TV 2.0 landscape and always connects the dots in a brilliant fashion.

YouTube envisions future of television viewing – 18 April 2010

It is just five years since the first video was uploaded on YouTube by one of its founders. Now over 24 hours of video a minute are uploaded to the site and it receives over a billion views a day. YouTube has its sights set on turning a few minutes a day watching videos on the web to something more like the hours a day we generally spend watching television. That vision could become a reality once televisions are routinely connected to the internet.

“People think about the world of TV and the world of online video as being different ways to distribute video,” said Chad Hurley, the co-founder of YouTube, in an interview with the Telegraph newspaper. “But what happens when every TV is connected to wi-fi with a browser?”

“That is what we envision. Instead of this world of online video and this world of TV there is just one world,” he said. “There won’t be a difference in the future.”

“The iPad — is that a phone or a computer?” he questioned. “If I put it on my wall is it a TV? People continue to try to throw things in the buckets when really these are all going to be different-sized devices with a connection to the internet.”

Read full article here

ps: I am about to get my connected TV next week here in Holland. Fresh off the shelves a Samsung with Internet@TV so will be running some tests and shooting video next month. For Dutch readers, yes, there are Dutch Apps already developed. Eerste Nederlandse widgets op Samsung-tv’s

I’m interested in seeing if and how they will differentiate the iPhone and iPad application in comparison to their television application. The iPhone screen isn’t too big, this might devaluate the watching experience. Maybe the focus of the iPhone application has a more social focus, whereas the iPad is a great substitution for the television screen?

What do you think the distinction between television, mobile and tablet will be?

For those who don’t know Boxee, check out this video taken from their website:

• You’re visualizing tweets in real-time online or on-air.
• You want to present tweets in a continuously-refreshing experience, e.g, you want to broadcast new NCAA basketball tweets as they’re created.
• You’re following a specific group of users in real-time, e.g. a group of reporters.
• You want to capture a very large number of tweets for analysis (either real-time or after-the-fact), e.g. all the tweets about a State of the Union address.

These are interesting applications which can and will have impact on TV formats and concepts. Real-time integration of User Generated Content (UGC) into the TV content.

In the further integration of TV and Web, Twitter has been tested more than once in bridging the two, think of TV Chatter and Chitter.tv, both are efforts and learning curves in order to understand relationships between the two and how people consume their content.
Another interesting effort is Twision, the Spanish Twitter driven TV show. Have a look at the video (Spanish spoken) to have an idea how the concept works.

Both have different approaches and will benefit by the Streaming API opportunities.

What are the different approaches?
TV Chatter and Chitter.tv are sites which bundle tweets/UGC around other content. A network of information is created and displayed around the broadcast.
Twision on the other hand goes further in its integration of co-creational efforts. In this program, viewers co-create with the presentators the content which is real-time broadcasted.

I have tested both TV Chatter and Chitter.tv, and the distribution of attention between the broadcast and the network tweeting around it, makes it difficult to follow both.
The two require attention in order to be fully experienced and understood. I got the feeling that the television was on the “background” in a kind of multitasking way where the served Web content was the primary focus.

However the TV Chatters’ are solutions “in between” and easier, for an integral experience of TV and Web, Twision formats are the future. Not only format- and technology-wise, but more importantly, from a prosumerist and co-creational concept. To create a near real-time experience, the power of the Streaming API willl add its value.

Regarding the last point, capturing tweets for analysis, could prove itself to be an important addition to Social Network Analysis (SNA), real-time uncovering patterns and relationships.
Besides the insights and knowledge acquirement, this kind of UGC can be moulded into a business model, able to be accessed by companies to learn more about their target groups and further granulate marketing efforts.
It can be a revenue stream for Twitter, in a partnership model or otherwise.

What do you think of the Streaming API and its possible effect on TV?

The two questions that need to be asked and answered, correctly pointed out by Wired also, are the following two:

* What is the point of some of the services that are being offered through the Android TV.
* Web-TV is the future, but simply replacing a screen (laptop for TV) is not the way to go.

With regard to the first question, I think it’s a matter of comfort, new/enhanced experiences made possible by the TV screen instead of the laptop screen.
Video calling with Skype on your TV is the same kind of starting point in finding a solution for a need.

The real challenge is the control part. For services on the Android TV, a keyboard is needed, the perceived risks or transition risks can be too high for many, willing to make the trade off between a better/new experience (Web TV) and a known device/process (Laptop). Why choose for a TV+Keyboard when there is the much used laptop?

This challenge relates to the second question, a replacement of screen is not the the long-term sustainable solution, from the user point of view it adds only a new device for the same needs, which could complicate usage or offer too much choice.

Researches have pointed out to the fact of multitasking during the (passive) TV experience. The new TV experience is dynamic, reciprocal and certainly not passive, but combining the laptop and TV in media consumption without the burdens/difficulties of usage, can be a relevant middle-way to change TV behavior without being too disruptive.

From an application point of view, the Android TV will be interesting if the portfolio of applications is broad. Will this be a chicken-egg scenario?

People of Lava can tap in two applications sources, their own and of course the Open Source Android platform. Their own app store can be relatively extensive, but real power of such a device -and future Android TV devices- will be reflected by the community efforts/applications.

Below you’ll find specifications and a couple of images which can be found on the People of Lava website:

Scandinavia – Window to the World
TV, Internet, Multimedia, Internet and Social Media – all interconnected.
Finally, it´s here.
The Android(TM)-based (or Google TV as some call it) television from People of Lava.
Watch TV, chat with your friends, play Youtube-clips, surf the net.
This is your window to the world!

Apps, apps, apps!…
Out-of the box – your Scandinavia Window to the World comes pre-loaded with your favorite applications. YouTube, Google Maps, Weather, Time, Calendar and Internet Browser! But this is just the start. From the Lava App Store new applications will become available, both free and payed! From the start there’s Facebook, Twitter, E-mail and more!

Surf the net
Your Scandinavia Television has a built-in web-browser, based on Webkit (the foundation of many current web-browsers. So surf the web like you are used to!

Facebook(TM)
We all love it, don’t we? Facebook! Your Scandinavia MediaTV has Facebook, ready to go! Read more about Facebook here http://www.facebook.com.

Youtube(TM)
Youtube, yet another brilliant platform from Google. Watch your favorite clips, and let your video-world come alive!

Google Maps(TM)
No further introduction required. Google Maps from Google is just the best way to map your trip, check how close that hotel is to the beach, or just zoom in on your own house!

Mail
Why use a separate computer for your emails? With the build-in mail program, use your Scandinavia to check your emails!

Twitter(TM)
Another great application with no further introduction required. Your Scandinavia television comes with Twitter available. Read more here http://twitter.com/.


Open Source
The Scandinavia television from People of Lava is based on Google’s operating-system Android(TM). Read more here http://www.android.com. This is a small, efficient, fast, power-saving operating-system. And it´s “Open Source”, which means that 1000’s and 1000’s enthusiastic skilled developers around the world will make “apps” (applications) for the TV. Apps that you can download and install! And so will we – So expect a continuous flow of new cool apps to give you even more to view through your window!

Keyboard
+ Wireless keyboard with pointer/mouse, in the box

Your window
Finally, it´s all about you. Your time, your content, your friends.
Your window to the world.
Welcome!

Overall, what do you think of the Android TV?

What do you think the primary challenges will be in order to set off the adoption and usage of such a TV?