PayPal president David Marcus: Bitcoin is good, NFC is bad

PayPal President David Marcus at LeWeb

(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET)

PARIS -- Online payments will look completely different in the next decade, but Bitcoin has a better chance at revolutionizing commerce than the NFC tap-to-pay technology, PayPal President David Marcus predicted Tuesday.

"I really like Bitcoin. I own bitcoins," Marcus said at the LeWeb conference here. However, he believes people don't correctly understand what bitcoins actually are today, and he's yet ready to let people link their bitcoin wallets with their PayPal accounts.

People are confused. They think because it's called cryptocurrency it's a currency. I don't think it is a currency. It's a store of value, a distributed ledger. It's a great place to put assets, especially in places like Argentina with 40 percent inflation, where $1 today is worth 60 cents in a year, and a government's currency does not hold value. It's also a good investment vehicle if you have an appetite for risk. But it won't be a currency until volatility slows down. Whenever the regulatory framework is clearer, and the volatility comes down, then we'll consider it.

Also, bitcoins aren't widely enough accepted by merchants yet, Marcus added.

Marcus is paying close attention to payment changes as part of his effort to re-energize an eBay service that grew sluggish and complacent after the early dot-com years. He's trying to fostering innovation at the company and cater to developers, particularly those at start-ups.

Although he has some concerns about bitcoin, he's unequivocal about near-field communications (NFC), the very short-range radio communication that can let people tap a credit card or mobile phone to a payment terminal.

"Instead swiping or using a PIN pad, they're tapping. How is that really better? How is that changing your life? People don't want that," he said. People don't want to go to a payment terminal at all, not go to one and tap instead of swipe."It's technology for the sake of technology or for the sake of pushing the agenda of the companies supporting it vs. solving real people's problems," Marcus said of NFC.

Other changes are more likely, he predicted.

"Today a merchant has Internet connectivity at the point-of-sale terminal. All the consumers have phones with wireless networks," he said. "Why do you need to be at a place in a store to make a payment? [NFC is] too little too late."

Other changes will be a gradual transformation of retail to become just part of online sales.

"I think the retail chains will have to reinvent themselves," he said. They'll be showrooms where people can check out products then buy them later online. They'll be logistics centers where people can pick up items quickly that they ordered online. They'll be warehouses from which companies can ship products quickly to online purchasers.

Naturally, PayPal hopes to be part of those transactions, and to help make them easier. People like shopping but not paying, and PayPal can ease the hassles, he said.

"If we're successful, we'll make payments invisible," Marcus said.

Tech giants call for limits on government surveillance

Leading technology companies have presented a unified front in calling for restrictions on U.S. government surveillance, as ongoing spying revelations undermine trust in their products around the globe.

Bombshell stories throughout the summer in The Guardian, Washington Post and other publications, based on leaks from former security contractor Edward Snowden, uncovered broad and varied digital surveillance programs by the National Security Agency and others. Many sucked up communications and user data handled by major tech companies either through legal requests, or secret taps on their networks.

The latest disclosure arrived on Monday, with news that U.S. and British spy agencies had infiltrated popular online games like World of Warcraft and Second Life. They created their own characters “to snoop and to try to recruit informers,” the New York Times reported, citing confidential documents provided by Snowden.

The move by AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft and Twitter on Monday underscores the enormous toll that these disclosures could take on their bottom lines and expansion plans. Foreign citizens who lack privacy protections under U.S. law may choose to forgo the products of these companies, and some nations themselves are moving to block or sidestep U.S. Internet services.

Forrester analyst James Staten argued the cost to cloud services alone could reach as high as $180 billion, “or a 25 percent hit to overall IT service provider revenues” over the next three years.

The question is whether the combined lobbying strength of some of the biggest and most influential companies in the United States can rein in government spy tactics, in a way that public opinion and legislators have failed to do to date.

In an open letter to Congress and President Barack Obama published as full-page ads in several major newspapers, the seven tech companies stated: “This summer’s revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide. The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual — rights that are enshrined in our Constitution.”

It added: “We urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight.”

At a new website, ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com, the companies called for a series of specific principles and changes: including codifying “sensible limitations” on government’s ability to force online companies to turn over user data;  creating stronger checks and balances on the ability of intelligence agencies to demand information, including review by an independent court that hears from critics; allowing companies to disclose “the number and nature of government demands” for user information; and creating a sort of international treaty that would offer a common framework governing requests for user data, cutting across the patchwork of often conflicting national rules.

In addition, the companies argued that governments shouldn’t restrict access to information outside national borders or require companies to locate their infrastructure or operations locally. That appeared to be a specific reaction to countries, such as Germany, where politicians or companies have called for keeping domestic Internet traffic and data within national boundaries.

The Snowden leaks have highlighted that the U.S. government has few legal restrictions on monitoring the communications of foreigners and even fewer compunctions about doing so. That apparently includes listening in on European leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Brazil responded to these realizations by announcing a plan to sidestep the United Stations altogether, through construction of a direct, undersea fiber-optic connection between South America and Europe.

Meanwhile, it seems there are many other shoes to drop, as reportedly only one percent of Snowden’s leaks have been revealed so far.

Companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo were required in many instances to hand over user data when presented with proper legal requests, although the court review process has been widely criticized. But it’s clear the NSA was also tapping into networks without companies’ knowledge, infiltrating communications links between data centers operated by Yahoo and Google, which infuriated some within these companies.

Some businesses took steps to prevent future government surveillance through this route, encrypting the information that passes between data centers.

“The security of users’ data is critical, which is why we’ve invested so much in encryption and fight for transparency around government requests for information,” Larry Page, chief executive of Google, said in a statement. “This is undermined by the apparent wholesale collection of data, in secret and without independent oversight, by many governments around the world. It’s time for reform and we urge the US government to lead the way.”

Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer hit a similar note.

“Recent revelations about government surveillance activities have shaken the trust of our users, and it is time for the United States government to act to restore the confidence of citizens around the world,” she said in a statement.

There’s a grave fear in tech circles that these national movements to cut off foreign online services will lead to the Balkanization of the Internet, undermining its promise as an open, global platform for communications and commerce. Which is a valid fear and important issue.

But to be clear, the announcement on Monday is at least as much about money as it is high-minded ideals.

Most of these companies, but particularly Facebook and Google, are hardly privacy champions on any other day of the week. It’s not so much that an organization is trying to derive useful information from the bulk collection and analysis of their data — they do that themselves everyday for the purpose of targeting ads. The issue is that another organization is doing it and scaring away existing or potential users in the process.

“The government’s comment was, ‘Oh, don’t worry, basically we’re not spying on any Americans,’” said Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, earlier this year at a TechCrunch conference. “Oh, wonderful, that’s … really going to inspire confidence in American Internet companies.”

Indeed.

I have no doubt that the technology giants that signed the open letter on Monday truly want these changes put in place: They would surely reduce the amount of government requests for data and simplify their job of complying with those demands.

But part of this is just good public relations, a way to distance themselves from the NSA in the minds of consumers. And far broader reforms than what they’re proposing are still necessary, as are stronger privacy rules aimed at the private sector itself.

But regardless of the motives, here’s the good news: the seven deep-pocketed companies speaking out for changes are harder for the government to ignore than the civil liberties groups that were calling for digital surveillance restrictions long before Snowden’s leaks began.

Turn smartphones into helpful elves

Kit Eaton, Dec8, 2013, NYT :

It’s very nearly the season to be jolly - and stress out about buying gifts and throwing parties.

Gift planning can eat up a lot of time, of course. But apps on your smartphone or tablet can help with all sorts of seasonal tasks.

Santa’s Bag is a smart shopping list manager for iPhone with a Christmas twist. The app gives you space to put down all your gift ideas, sorted by the person who’ll be receiving the gifts and including sections for you to keep track of spending.

You can enter photos of each person in your list, and keep track of which gifts you’ve bought and which are left to buy. The interface is slick and easy to use, and the ability to view your data as a list of gifts or by recipient could relieve some pressure during your actual shopping. You can even set a pass code so prying eyes can’t see what gifts you have planned.

But while the app is free, it is ad-supported and the ads may annoy you. Plus, while the countdown to Christmas display in hours, minutes and seconds is cute, it could stress you out as the holiday nears. 

It costs $3 (Rs 184) for an in-app upgrade to ditch the ads and get extra features like Dropbox backups and the ability to archive gifts from past years.

RedLaser is another shopping app that could be very useful right about now. It’s technically a shopping support app. You scan the bar code of a product you’re interested in buying, and the app works out where you are and delivers you information on the product, telling you if there’s a better deal in a different store nearby or online.

There’s even space inside RedLaser to keep lists of products, so it’s useful 
for shopping for party food and gifts. 

My one complaint is that you have to tap a button to activate the bar code scanner - and that can get tiresome. It’s free on iOS, Android and Windows Phone.

If you’re planning parties or long journeys, it can also be great to know the weather forecast. Although there are thousands of weather apps, WeatherBug, a free Android and iOS app, is my recommendation.

It’s easy to spot the information you need, and the app is jammed with data beyond temperature and wind speed, like dew point, humidity and a “feels like” temperature index. There are also weather maps and text-based forecasts for the next week.

If commercialism and the weather have you down, there are plenty of 
apps to put you in the holiday spirit. For example, Christmas Radio, free on iOS and Android, is a simple and cheerful way to get Christmas music over the Internet.

The app is simple, offering a list of stations you can listen to and basic volume and play controls. 

But since there are many stations from around the world to choose from, it’s easy to switch to a different channel if you don’t like a particular song. It’s also free, although this means you have to click through the occasional advertisement.

If you need to keep your children occupied for half an hour while you get on with some planning, then Toca Boca Hair Salon Xmas app is a great choice on iOS.
With great cartoon graphics and sounds, this app is all about cutting, colouring and styling either Santa’s hair and beard or the needles on a Christmas tree.

 It’s free and great fun for younger children. Just make sure they don’t click on the prominent ads for other Toca Hair Salon apps.

For Android devices, check out Tappy Run Xmas Christmas Game. It’s a simple game with cute graphics in which the goal is to guide cartoon animals through a forest to rescue Santa’s stolen toy sack. It looks great and has simple one-touch controls that even young children can manage.

Here’s hoping your seasonal stresses melt away like snow by the fireside.

One video on FB; hundred deaths in India

Well, yes, it’s true just few months ago; Facebook turned Hindus and Muslims into enemies in the peaceful town of Muzaffarnagar in the state of Uttar Pradesh in India.

A video showing brutal killing of two Hindus by a group of Muslims was uploaded on Facebook. The place mentioned was Muzaffarnagar. Hundreds of fake accounts were created and the video was made to go viral. Especially, users from Muzaffarnagar were e-mailed this video. It was later known that it was a fake video (and not even in India!).

The Facebook post included the words – “Be ready for the war!” in Hindi. Later, the video was removed (an earlier uploaded) using a proxy code connected to a server in the US of A. At least 150 people (and that’s a big number) died in the riot.

Here’s one incident-

“I was tied to a pole using ropes. My wife’s and children’s hands and legs were tied. They were burnt using kerosene in front of my eyes.” said a man to a news channel.

Yes, it’s true; TECHNOLOGY IS NOW POWERFUL ENOUGH TO KILL HUMANITY. The same way ‘unreal and disgusting’ news was spread through Twitter. The news even reached till parts of Qatar. Some people in Pakistan tried (yet again) to start an Anti-Hindu campaign. Some Hindu communities are still angry about the riots and keep blaming it on Muslims.

All this was a result of intentionally created misunderstanding by political parties. The lesson of ‘divide and rule’ has been glued to the minds of Indian politicians. I do not want too much into politics. I want to say that misuse of social networking sites is a matter of worldwide concern. As far as I am considered, I do not want to see social networks become a tool of dirty politics and terrorism.

Parliamentarians and other leaders can influence IT firms so much that they find no shame in killing people. It takes few thousand bucks to kill hundreds of people.

Here’s one example-

“67% of twitter followers of Narendra Modi (Opposition party’s Prime Ministerial candidate in India) are false.” according to an Indian magazine (although I don’t know how true this figure is).

MONEY IS AGAIN AND AGAIN SHOWING THAT IT IS SUPERIOR TO HUMANITY. But, money alone cannot create about a thousand FB accounts. Of course it is done by members of different IT firms but HOW?

I need to do a little more research about how IT firms are able to kill hundreds with few mouse clicks; undetected.

Share this article and e-mail this to you friends and family to spread awareness about this issue. You can find me, Aditya Kumar Saroj on Facebook or/and follow me on my new twitter account @aditya_speaking (I am not doing this to be popular.).

I will publish the second part of this article as soon as possible.

And I repeat again misuse of social networks is a matter of international consideration.

Pages steals a march over Microsoft Word

The New York Times

My mother is not anti-Apple. She owns a Mac and an older iPad but has always been perfectly satisfied with her trusty copy of Microsoft Word. “That’s what everyone uses,” she says. She may want to think about switching.

The new version of Apple’s Pages word-processing software - part of a trio of applications the company calls iWork that includes a spreadsheet program and a presentation manager - seems tailor-made for someone like her: It removes the pain of learning a new software and is easy to use and share. It should finally put an end to her complaints about friends who are unable to open the documents she sends them.

There are plenty of people who will find that Pages does not meet their needs (more on that later). But the company, based in Cupertino, California, has rethought its approach to the most boring of computer applications - the word processor - with some impressive results. It particularly shines in three areas: appearance, compatibility and sharing.

To appreciate the improvements, it might be helpful to offer a comparison between Pages and Word.

Round 1: Appearance

Ever since text-based programs like Word Perfect gave way to the point-and-click variety, companies have crammed more and more buttons into their programs. The latest version of Word has a bevy of tiny icons for every function imaginable.

Pages takes a different approach, with just a handful of icons across the top and a contextual panel that slides out from the right. Editing text? Out pops the buttons for bold, font size and justification. Inserting a table? The panel switches to let you modify the rows and columns. Add a picture and you automatically get options for borders and shadows.

I compared Pages with a version of Office 365 on a Surface Pro tablet. Microsoft groups its icons in different tabs along the top, but they don’t automatically appear when you need them as they do in Pages. And each tab has too many buttons, most of which are not intuitive. Longtime power users will figure it out, but I suspect that Mom would be happier with the simpler interface.

The decision for appearance: Apple.

Round 2: Compatibility

The previous versions of Pages had a serious problem: Documents created on Pages for the Mac didn’t open easily on Pages for the iPad. Even worse, the two didn’t share anywhere near the same capabilities; they supported different headers, graphics, tables of contents and charts. A document created on the Mac looked different on the iPad, which also supported fewer fonts.

But the new version of Pages on a Mac is identical to Pages for the iPad or the iPhone. And the company now has a version of Pages that runs amazingly well in any modern Web browser, even on a Windows PC.

I opened it on the Surface Pro in Internet Explorer. Mom can start a letter on her Mac, edit it on her iPad and send it to Dad’s Windows XP PC for some final edits. (Dad is afraid of upgrading his system, but that’s a topic for another column.)
In fairness, Microsoft is no slouch in this area.

The company has versions of Word for the Mac and the PC, although they look different. And a web-based version of Word, introduced recently as part of the company’s Office 365 software, is a good, pared-down likeness of the desktop counterparts. 

The company supports minimal editing of documents on iPhone or Android phones, but it does not have a full version of Word for iPads or Android devices. For now, the company reserves that for Microsoft’s own tablets, although it has announced that an iPad version is coming.

The decision for compatibility: Tie.

Round 3: Sharing

OK, let’s say it. The reason most people don’t switch from Word is that everyone else they know uses it. Sending a Pages document to a friend who doesn’t have the program installed has been an exercise in futility and frustration that always leads to the same sentence: “I can’t open that document you sent me.”

The new version of Pages introduces an all-new sharing option, powered by the company’s iCloud service, that works remarkably well. Type in a person’s email address, click send and that person receives a link to your document. When they click the link, the document opens in a Web browser that looks like a fully functioning Pages application.

They don’t have to have Pages installed or have an iCloud account. It even makes Mac-PC sharing easy. The new version runs just fine in Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome or Safari on a Windows PC.

Apple has also copied a crucial feature from its competitors, adding real-time document editing to Pages. With a shared document open in the browser-based Pages, multiple people can make changes and collaborate at the same time. The edits appear magically in real time. Word and Google have had this feature for a while, and now Pages catches up in a way that is simpler and somewhat easier to understand.

The decision for sharing: Apple.

The new version of iWork, which includes Pages, Numbers and Keynote, is free for anyone who buys a new Mac, iPad or iPhone. Others can buy the three programs for $9.95 (Rs 613) each on the iPad and $19.95 (Rs 1,229) each on the Mac. The updated features for Pages - the new appearance, sharing and compatibility - also apply to Numbers and Keynote. That makes them attractive options, especially considering that a subscription to Microsoft’s Office 365 Home Premium costs $99.99 (Rs 6,161) a year, and you have to pay every year.

But the Apple programs are not for everyone.

Pages seems like a bad choice for anyone who works in an office environment dominated by colleagues with Microsoft Word on their computers. Even though co-workers could open the Pages documents, they most likely won’t want to, just because it’s not their default. And going back and forth between formats is still a pain in the neck.

The new version of Pages may also frustrate people with highly specific needs. In trying to make the different versions of Pages identical, the company decided to remove many editing and formatting tools that had been in its previous Mac software.

There is no way to select non-contiguous text, which makes bulk formatting harder. Vertical rulers are no longer there to help place photos and charts precisely. There is no way to view facing pages at the same time.

Users of the former versions of Pages have complained loudly in online Apple forums. One thread on the Apple support website has 82 pages of complaints. In response, Apple has since said it will begin adding back some of the features it removed. 

Recently, the company started by putting back the ability to customise the toolbar and restoring slide transitions that had gone missing in Keynote, its presentation software. A support document the company published online says additional features will start reappearing within six months.

And as with any software, there are still frustrations: Creating a document in the web-based Pages, which is technically still labelled a “beta” service, leaves the user wondering just how to give the new document a name. And sending a copy of a document, instead of a link, is more difficult than it should be.

Still, for many people, who own a Mac and an iPad, Pages can now legitimately serve as their only word-processing software. They may even find they like it better than Word.

Wipro to log out of PC manufacturing business

New Delhi: After HCL Infosystems, another IT major Wipro has decided to shut down its manufacturing of computers and servers due to changing market scenario and consumer preferences.

Azim Premji-led Wipro, the country's third largest software services player, said it will re-deploy all the affected employees in the company.

However, the company will continue to have a presence in the hardware business offering solutions in large integrated deals.

"After evaluating the changing market scenario and customer needs, Wipro has decided to strengthen its position as system integrator (SI) and increase its focus on IT solutions and services," Wipro said in a statement.

As a consequence, the company will discontinue manufacturing of Wipro branded desktops, laptops and servers, it added.

Last month, HCL Infosystems said it will phase-off its manufacturing business in the next few years to improve margins and increase organisational efficiency.

Instead, HCL Infosystems will instead focus on strengthening its services and distribution verticals. Revenues for PC makers have been under pressure for some time now as newer devices like tablets and phablets are finding more takers.

Also, over the last few years, most PC makers in the country have incurred losses due to the rupee's fluctuation against other currencies, especially the US dollar.

This has hurt the PC business in India as it is low-margin and almost 90-95 per cent of the components are imported.

Wipro will, however, be present in the PC market by providing suitable brands as a part of its solutions offerings in large integrated deals, it said.

"Our vision is to strengthen our position as a leading SI. Manufacturing our own PCs was not giving us a competitive differentiation in our SI solution offering," Wipro Infotech Senior VP and Head Soumitro Ghosh said.

Wipro will fulfill its warranty and annual maintenance contracts (AMCs) obligations as per the terms of the existing contracts, he added.

The company will execute all customer commitments and provide support services to the entire installed base as part of its regular managed services offering, Wipro said.

"All the affected employees will be re-deployed in the company," Ghosh said. Shares of Wipro closed 2 per cent higher at Rs 491.60 apiece. 

A Robot Cop!

The lesson of Intel TV's demise: We failed, and so can you

(Credit: Lindsey Turner/Creative Commons Public License)

Intel was set to revolutionize television.

In fact, Erik Huggers, the head of Intel Media, said in February that this would be the year Intel shakes things up. After all, he had a small army of 300 at work and more than 2,000 Intel employees testing OnCue, a new box and service that would allow users to watch live TV, on-demand video, and other Internet-based offerings like video apps in one package.

Now, with 2013 in its final weeks, Intel's goal for OnCue has morphed into securing the best payday it can from somebody who will take the venture off its hands.

Erik Huggers, head of Intel Media, speaks at the AllThingsD media conference.

(Credit: Screenshot by Shara Tibken/CNET)

Intel is just one company attempting -- and failing -- to change the TV industry, underscoring the difficulties involved with convincing the major players to move out of their comfortable and lucrative business models. There are lessons that can be gleaned from Intel's botched project, lessons that should be heeded by the likes of Apple, Google, and Sony, which are all said to be chasing the same vision.

Their goal is to leap onto the biggest screen in the household, where Americans still spend the majority of their time watching media, and deliver what cable and satellite companies do now and more, all in one.

Luckily for them, the most crippling of OnCue's problems was specific to Intel -- apathy of new management. Yes, all the tech giants must jump over some of the same hurdles, but we know other players have more of a spring in their step than Intel does: deeper pockets and more knowledge about media are examples. But the reasons OnCue lacked appeal for Intel's new CEO are the same snarls that Intel's tech competitors must untangle to make Internet-based pay TV a reality.

More money, more problems
Unfortunately for all tech companies eyeing Internet TV, the problem that rankles cable and satellite customers most -- climbing bills -- is a problem technology can't solve.

The hard part is content. Be it TV shows, sports programs, or live events, content is expensive to produce and it's expensive to license.As Intel proved, the easy part was creating a new technology to deliver television with a user interface that beats cable and satellite. Test versions of OnCue have been deployed in Intel employees' homes for months.

Erik Bannon, analyst at IHS, called it the biggest barrier to tech companies. Media companies not only negotiate for carriage fees, he said, but also aim for a new distributor to guarantee a minimum number of subscribers.

"Out the door, you're paying for a million subs, whether you have zero or a hundred thousand," he said, noting that fee payments aren't going down over time and typically have three- to four-year terms. A new Web TV provider likely would need to commit to three to four years of content payments as though it's already operating a business with millions of subscribers.

But what does that mean for the tech competitors attempting to break through with Web TV?

The contenders
In Apple's case, making a significant investment to upend a product category comes straight from its playbook. The New York Times Magazine's recent recounting of the iPhone birth pegged Apple's investment in its development at $150 million. Apple is also the world's most valuable company, with a market capitalization of more than $500 million, and it had $14.3 billion in cash on its balance sheet and $9.9 billion in cash flow in the last quarter. Unlike Intel, Apple has a background prodding media companies to break their molds, selling electronic music, TV and movies through iTunes.

(Credit: Apple)

In Google's case, the company has never shied away from pursuing outlandish innovations while it enjoys a reliable, lucrative stream of revenue from its search ads. The cash on its balance sheet rivals Apple's -- $15.2 billion -- and like Apple, both companies have a head start getting onto televisions. Apple TV and Chromecast, though not technological home runs, have proven popular: Apple virtually splits the market for set-top boxes with Roku, and Chromecast was on back order for weeks at launch in July and for weeks was the top-selling electronics item in Amazon's massive online store.

In the case of Sony, it means pushing the bounds of its PlayStation gaming console, but the company was the first to make early headway on content. Sony is the only contender reported to have have a tentative deal with a media company, Viacom, which owns Comedy Central, MTV and other channels. (Sony's gaming rival Microsoft's Xbox at one time expressed interest in morphing its console to include a full Internet-based TV service, but the company instead opted to join forces with other television providers for its Xbox One, integrating cable services instead of replicating them.)

The technology companies pursuing Web TV have stayed silent on their TV ambitions publicly. Google and Apple didn't respond to messages seeking comment, and Sony said reports of its own Internet-based TV project are based on speculation.

For Internet-based TV to be a competitive option, it either needs to be cheaper than cable and satellite or it needs to provide the content that subscribers want in a better way. Intel knew early on that it couldn't win on price. Huggers said in February that Intel's service wouldn't cut a user's television bill in half. For the companies still working on Web TV, it would mean charging less than traditional competitors for a service while paying more than traditional competitors to offer it.

In addition, for a Web TV offering to be truly Web TV, it would need to offer all the channels consumers want alongside the "over-the-top" video capabilities like Netflix and Hulu that they associate with Internet viewing. But traditional pay-TV providers in the US have been leery of coexisting with over-the-top services, even though some pay-TV providers abroad have begun limited partnerships with Netflix.

ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, Showtime, HBO, AMC and ESPN either declined to comment or didn't respond to messages from CNET for this story. Comcast, Time Warner Cable, DirecTV and Dish -- the largest of the country's cable and satellite TV operators -- wouldn't comment for this story. (CBS is the parent company of CNET.)

The barriers go higher
The irony of the world's top tech companies jockeying to launch virtual pay-TV services is that the traditional providers have only become more entrenched with time.

The idea of an online player taking over has affirmed cable and satellite companies' positions in the landscape and made all players realize what they could lose by rocking the boat, said Brannon. The prospect of new tech competitors reiterated how important the traditional distributors are -- with their massive subscriber bases -- to media companies, who need as many people watching their programming as possible -- all while measuring how many of them there are -- in order to raise ad rates, he said.

It also spurred cable and satellite to ramp up their own innovation -- but in a controlled way that fits in the existing business model. DirecTV last month said it would start streaming more than 30 channels live for viewing on devices outside the home, and Comcast in October said it was allowing 35. Time Warner Cable is nearing the end of a process ensuring that its local programming is encoded so it can be delivered via apps.

In other words, tech companies put up defenses on the front where technology companies had their biggest advantage.

Conviction at the top
One of the biggest advantages Intel's competitors have in the race for Internet-based TV is that they're not led by Brian Krzanich.

Intel's former chief operating officer succeeded Paul Otellini as CEO in May. Despite some investor hopes that Intel would seek fresh blood, the appointment of Krzanich -- a two-decade company vet in the office Intel typically uses to groom CEOs -- came as no surprise. He also wasn't expected to steer Intel's strategy in a different direction.

That is how his tenure has largely played out, with OnCue a victim of apathy.

Intel CEO Brian Krzanich

(Credit: Intel)

Since Krzanich took charge, Intel's TV project has dropped off the radar, except for reports of Intel attempting to sell it off. Where Otellini saw Web television as the chance for Intel to take the lead in a big consumer business rife with dissatisfaction, Krzanich has focused on reviving PC and mobile business, reportedly concluding the TV project was a costly distraction.

Intel said its policy is to decline comment on rumor and speculation and said that it is continuing to trial OnCue internally.

But Apple, for one, has been clear in the past that it is keen to be the centerpiece of the living room. Former CEO Steve Jobs and his successor, Tim Cook, have stated their passions for producing a revolutionary device to supplant the typical TV.

It's easy to see why. People are still watching their TVs for most of their video, but they're increasing their viewing on connected devices. The average U.S. consumer packs in nearly 60 hours of media content each week, and more than half of that -- 35.1 hours -- is traditional television, according to Nielsen's latest cross platform report. However, the amount of time spent watching traditional TV has shrunk from a year earlier, supplanted by more time spent watching video on the Internet, game consoles, and mobile phones.

There's certainly an opening for a new entrant. Cable TV providers rank dead last in customer satisfaction. (Satellite providers tend to score better than cable.) Consumers are fed up with paying sky-high monthly bills that keep rising for a product that has been a technological slowpoke while devices like smartphones have made huge leaps forward.

That new entrant, however, won't be Intel. The deflation of its TV project offers lessons to those still vying to create a true Web TV service, even if their combined efforts have rallied the established players to defend themselves better. To bring Internet-based TV to consumers, companies like Apple, Google, and Sony may need to get over their tendency, as one media and advertising executive described it, to feel like they have answers to everything. To make Web TV a reality, they'll need to face reality first.

Audiovox turns smartphone or tablet into a TV

NEW YORK — In this modern era of binge, on-demand, anywhere/anytime TV, you have numerous ways to overdose on television. If you're not downloading something to watch on your tablet, smartphone or computer, you're getting your fix by streaming.

Still, for many TV addicts there's nothing like the immediacy of live television — to catch the big game, keep up with the news, and to watch other shows when they're being broadcast.

But there's a lot of static associated with mobile television, and I'm not necessarily referring to poor reception. Consider that even if what you want to watch live is streamed to your phone or tablet via an app or by way of the Web, costs can pile up if you're relying on a cellular connection without an unlimited data plan. In other words, kiss your monthly data allotment bye-bye fast, maybe even before you discover whodunit on your favorite show. And you're out of luck altogether if you lack access to the Internet.

The folks behind the Dyle Mobile TV platform are attempting to avoid such scenarios with the wireless Audiovox Mobile TV receiver that I've been testing. The pocket-size $130 accessory turns compatible iOS and Android devices into portable televisions. But there's a ginormous drawback: There are way too few station options.

Too bad because the Dyle/Audiovox pitch would otherwise appeal to the person who can't get enough TV: Once you've paid for the gizmo — which can be found for as little as $100 — you won't be subjected to ongoing subscription fees. That's different from rival mobile TV service Aereo, which charges $8 a month under its basic plan.

Moreover, because you don't rely on cellular using the Audiovox, there's no data plan to put at risk. In fact, you don't even need a separate Internet connection because the Audiovox device establishes its own dedicated Wi-Fi hot spot, used to transmit the TV signal to the corresponding Dyle app on your phone or tablet. The app was developed by Siano, an Israeli company that is a major supplier of mobile broadcast technology.

To pull down the signal from Dyle, you raise a telescopic antenna on the Audiovox, a compact white box that reminds me of a container of breath mints.

A little context: Dyle's Mobile TV service is backed by a consortium of broadcasting companies that includes Fox, NBC and Gannett, which own USA TODAY. The Audiovox device is not the only portable device that is compatible with Dyle. Elgato makes an EyeTV Mobile TV Tuner for iPhones and iPads, and RCA sells a Mobile TV Android tablet.

Dyle's mobile TV reach touches 38 markets, or about 57% of the U.S. Since Dyle has the blessing of broadcasters and TV networks, there's none of the litigation clouding its service that there is with Aereo, which relies on remote antenna technology to receive over-the-air broadcasts. Aereo has been sued by broadcasters looking to put it out of business but has prevailed to date in the courts.

More than 120 over-the-air stations are compatible with Dyle's Mobile TV, but station availability varies considerably. In the New York City area, I could only get four channels: local Fox and NBC stations, plus Qubo (programming for kids), and WNJU which broadcasts in Spanish.

You have a few more Dyle choices in markets such as Dallas, which adds local ABC and CBS affiliates to Fox and NBC; and in Atlanta, which adds PBS to the four major broadcast networks. Go to the Dyle.tv website to check out coverage and available stations in your area before you buy. TV station owners would have to upgrade their equipment to make their channels Dyle-ready, at a cost, Dyle claims, of about $100,000. For now there are no premium cable-type channels available.

Another turnoff had to do with NFL football. A recent prime-time game that was broadcast on NBC was blacked out inside the Dyle app because I later learned Dyle doesn't have the rights to broadcast the NFL. Instead, the app ran a Magnum, P.I.rerun on NBCUniversal-owned Cozi TV. Dyle says the NFL is the only major sport that it doesn't have the rights to broadcast, but it was hard to be forgiving when the program guide inside the Dyle app listed the football game as being shown.

To a far lesser degree I was bothered by the several seconds it took to switch from one channel to another. You can pause or rewind a show, but there's no way to record a show on the Audiovox as there is on Aereo. The Aero service also is only available in limited markets but does give you more viewing choices in those markets. I counted 32 available Aereo channels in New York.

Dyle's mobile TV signal is not high-definition but not bad for the smaller screen. Except for the odd momentary hiccup, I managed to hold onto a signal during a 40-minute bus ride from northern New Jersey toward Manhattan, at least until I got into the Lincoln Tunnel. Audiovox promises about four hours of battery life before you have to charge it via USB.

The Audiovox device provides a simple and relatively inexpensive way to watch TV on your phone or tablet and would appear to be on the front edge of a still nascent space. But for now anyway, the viewing options are too limiting for the average TV junkie.