Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Comments
Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
peter_glaskowsky
User Rank
Rookie
What a terrible article
peter_glaskowsky   11/6/2013 3:28:53 PM
NO RATINGS
Schweber admits he didn't understand the user end of the system, and here he shows he doesn't understand the server end either.

1. Aereo isn't addressing a non-problem; it's certainly a problem for some people that they can't receive their hometown TV broadcasts while traveling or after moving.

2. It isn't particularly complicated, unless a network of TV receivers is "complicated."

3. It doesn't necessarily consume any wireless data capacity at all! Aereo's own infrastructure certainly doesn't use any. End users may have wireless Internet connections or use Wi-Fi access points at home, but Aereo doesn't influence that significantly.

4. Aereo doesn't have transmitters at the receive end. In spite of what Schweber says, the Wall Street Journal article doesn't say anything about transmitters, so apparently Schweber has a reading comprehension problem.

5. Aereo's infrastructure doesn't scale linearly with the number of customers. Like any other multi-subscriber system, Aereo benefits from statistical multiplexing. Only some fraction of their subscribers are using the system at any given moment, and as Aereo's customer base expands, that fraction actually declines because its later customers are likely to be less avid users of the system.

The WSJ article has some problems of its own. Six watts per user is about fifty cents per month of electricity, which is a very small part of the $8/month of Aereo's per-user revenue. If that power figure is actually only for logged-in, active users, then Aereo is paying much less than fifty cents per month per subscriber.

The WSJ story flings around this $2 million per year figure as if it means something, but Aereo's annual revenue for 350,000 subscribers would be $33.6 million. Clearly power is the least of their worries.

I also don't understand why Aereo would be talking about going off-grid and using fuel cells. That would dramatically increase the company's power costs. No kind of power is as cheap as utility power.

So anyway, I think Schweber wasted a bunch of time with this post. Not his own, I suppose, assuming he gets paid for it, but that of his readers.

.                 png

<<   <   Page 2 / 2


Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Curiosity Killed the Cat (Just Call Me Mr. Curiosity)
Max Maxfield
23 comments
My wife, Gina The Gorgeous, loves animals. She has two stupid dogs and two stupid cats. How stupid are they? Well, allow me to show you this video of the dogs that I made a couple of years ...

Martin Rowe

No 2014 Punkin Chunkin, What Will You Do?
Martin Rowe
Post a comment
American Thanksgiving is next week, and while some people watch (American) football all day, the real competition on TV has become Punkin Chunkin. But there will be no Punkin Chunkin on TV ...

Rich Quinnell

Making the Grade in Industrial Design
Rich Quinnell
13 comments
As every developer knows, there are the paper specifications for a product design, and then there are the real requirements. The paper specs are dry, bland, and rigidly numeric, making ...

Martin Rowe

Book Review: Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design
Martin Rowe
1 Comment
Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design, Third Edition, by Michel Mardiguian. Contributions by Donald L. Sweeney and Roger Swanberg. List price: $89.99 (e-book), $119 (hardcover).