8. Service maturity
• Low service performance
– Slow content access. From switching on to
watching content 30..90 seconds and two clicks at
least
– Low user interaction speed
8
9. Service maturity
• No interoperability
– Separate applications for each vendor
– Every year new hardware, functionality,
limitations, design, SDKs
– Fast platform changes cause Smart TV becoming
obsolete earlier than customer is ready to replace
it
9
10. Service maturity
• Hardware & SDK limitations
– HLS and some other technologies are not fully
supported
– Limited support of existing software libraries
– No access to hardware functions (e.g. video
management)
10
11. Service maturity
• DRM issues
– TV vendor specific DRM required
– Poor rolled out DRMs support
11
12. Service maturity
• Connection issues
– Connection quality (backbone and residential “last
inch”) affects perceived service quality
– Connection quality impacts product performance
12
14. Service maturity
• Design guidelines
– Clients forced to adopt its design for vendors
guidelines
– Very limited design animation abilities
14
15. Service maturity
• Payment systems
– No built-in payment system
– Developers forced to use 3rd party payment
gateways
15
16. Service maturity
• Business contradictions
– Vendors are now attracting content providers
– However vendors are already developing their
own content platforms
16
17. Conclusion
• Smart TV is the potential winner as content
access platform
• Current implementation limits Smart TV
platform utilization as content access platform
• In 1-3 years horizon Smart TV platform will
reach its maturity stage and will compete for
its market share as content delivery platform
17
