Move Networks Acquires IPTV Company, Adds To Their Confusing Portfolio

This morning Move Networks announced that it would acquire UK based Inuk networks, a provider of IPTV based technology. While terms of the deal were not disclosed, I've been told it was an all stock deal and was basically a fire sale as Inuk was out of operating capital. PaidContent UK has a detailed overview of Inuk's previous funding and money woes.

While it's too early for me to access what this means for Move Networks from an IPTV product offering perspective as I have not yet heard their strategy or seen the Inuk technology in action, this deal will only add to the confusion in the market of what exactly Move Networks core focus is.

Right now, Move Networks is in quite a state of transition, trying to figure out exactly who they want to be in the market and what their core offering is going to look like. I really wonder if they have any of that figured out yet and I hope they start to focus, iron out their offering, outline their product road map and then convey all of this to the market. Right now, no one has any idea what exactly Move's focus is, what their value proposition is to the market and what their core strength is. They are now involved in trying to offer so many different solutions that I think they have diluted their brand. 

With Move's board of directors still calling the shots while they look for a new CEO, no message is being delivered. Move's board clearly thinks they have a plan in place and they may, but without conveying any of that to the market and to customers, their strategy can only go so far. I don't remember the last time I saw a company in our industry manage the communication in the market so poorly after so many changes took place. I place blame on this with the board, who is literally running the day to day operations of the company, something a board is not setup to do.

With new executive appointments already confirmed and being announced shortly, hopefully they can fix all of these problems. But until the board finds and appoints a new CEO, the vision for this company is coming from a board of directors instead of one person being in charge. That's simply a bad strategy and one I hope they are quick to fix.

Comments

[jhm212]

Clearly it is a merging of strengths, the move here is to grab a dominant position in the IPTV space. Broadcast TV is now evolving toward Broadband TV and the virtual STB combined with Move's world-class streaming tech will offer a compelling HTTP offering to both open and closed networks. I agree that the company has been muzzied of late, since MSFT's rip-off of the tech for Silverlight Smooth, it's been a downhill slide for Move. Dan, how can you profess to know anything of video and not know Move's 'core strength'. Have you seen the video, for example, have you seen ESPN 360??
Didn't SM just include Edwards as a Video AllStar?? Were you right or wrong there??
I sometimes read your blog and leave every time with a chuckle. You seem to be the first to slam the initiatives with little or no understanding for where video is headed. Where's your vision for the 'big picture'?? You should try to assert a 'windshield' view on occasion. All the while, you slam others for their 'vested interests' and yet isn't it you that has perhaps the largest 'vested interest' in video, after all, it is your career, the business of SM, your blog and every paper, seminar and conference you market and conduct. I have no problem with the 'no-bull video blogger', just don't become the 'blind no-bull video blogger'. BTW, what is MPEGLA's 'official' relationship with SM, any thing you wish to declare or should I just wait for the report??
GLTY Dan....

[Dan Rayburn]

Let me take a guess JHM, investor in On2? You champion for Move Networks and the quality of the video at ESPN360 and profess the "strengths" of both companies. And you ask about what StreamingMedia.com's relationship is with MPEGLA, which is very simple, we don't have one. Why would we? We're not in the codec/video platform/licensing business. But you're asking because you're an investor in On2 and anything that is related to H.264 that we cover you don't like. We're not invested in any of these companies, you are.

What is Inuk's strength? You didn't point that out. They have burned through at least $15M U.S. dollars in about a year, have no real business to show for it and to date, has failed to sign up any clients outside academia. If you feel their technology has some strengths, then outline what they are.

I know what Move's core strength "use" to be. It use to be their video quality. But they can't sell on that alone anymore in the market as Adobe and Microsoft have been constantly improving on their video quality. Move can no longer just go to customers and say "we have good video quality" and win the business. Ask them, they will tell you that. Hence why they changed their website to showcase their broadcast platform so they can try and sell something other than just what the quality of their video looks like.

You ask about my "vision for the big picture". My vision for the big picture does not include owning stock in any public company, so my "vision" is not tied to the stock of any company, like your "vision" is. Investors "visions" often get clouded as they don't want to hear the truth, they only want to hear what might be good for the company they invested in.

Yes, I have a large interest in video being successful, hence why I print my home phone number on my business card, publish my cell phone number on my blog, answer every single call and e-mail no matter who it is from and do all of this for free to try and help the industry grow. The fact I don't stand up and agree with many of the wild predictions for companies and the industry as a whole is because I have been and will be in this for the long run. I want to help build an industry that is real and survives over time. But you'd rather have people like me profess how great everything is, so that hopefully the stock in your company goes up and you make money. Not going to happen.

I find it interesting that all of these mad On2 investors are very quick to want to argue via e-mail or on the blog, without using their real name or disclosing their vested interest and never seen to call my number, listed on every website I operate. I wonder why.

[jhm212]

My response to you, had NOTHING to do with On2 Technologies, it was with concern to Move Networks, the video landscape and the ecosystem looking forward. There were so many things in your response that drew issues, in lieu of a battle of words, I decided to call you......
....Dan, thanks for the time you gave to discuss a few things. I was surprised to learn that SM is actually 3 employees and unless it's Eric or Dan, it's a freelance writer that provides most of the SM content. Their writings are reviewed for fact but not necessarily for the opinion they express. The writers have 'other jobs' and it is possible that their 'opinions' could be influenced by thoughts that are outside of SM.
We discussed many video related topics but agreed on two things...
1) My responses to blog articles will no longer assume it's about On2. I have a dozen investments in 'video' and On2 won't be the focus of future responses to me.
2) As On2 remains a small company and still very speculative investment there are an ill-proportioned number of emails and calls to SM regarding On2 when compared to some of the larger, more established video companies mentioned in SM. Dan agreed, that many of these may not indeed be concerns of true On2 investors, but 'noise' created by 'parties' that are not actually apart of the investment community.
Dan, my comments with regard to the 'future of video' are not tied to a single company or 'stock' investment. They pertain to an understanding of video, standing on the cusp and sharing thoughts on where video is going next....
Regards, jhm212

[Eric Schumacher-Rasmussen]

Well, since you brought me into the discussion...

As editor of StreamingMedia.com and Streaming Media magazine, my job is to present editorial content that helps our readers make sense of the news by bringing insight and analysis to the latest announcements, rather than just the "Hey, this is pretty cool" comments that pass for news on other sites that cover the same topics. None of our writers are stockholders or have any vested interests in the companies/technologies we cover, and so what they write is based upon their informed analysis of the news at hand.

Streaming Media's purpose is to be both and advocate for the industry and provide a critical voice that looks at the latest news and developments. Yes, our writers have a "take" on the news, but it's not one based upon personal investment of a financial or any other nature. They provide perspective and analysis, with the only bias being towards providing a better understanding of the industry.

And, unlike you, they write under real bylines with clear contact information.

[Chris]

JHM212

I would love to discuss IPTV with you. I have been doing a lot of research and am head of a company that is building a sales and marketing application for the technology. Please email me at childhero1@mail.com and give me a phone number and name and I will call you.

[Jason Corbet]

I know I'm late to the conversation here, but the reason you haven't heard of any clear direction from move (and especially not their former CEO) is because they likely laid off the entire marketing department in November of last year. Not exactly the best decision when you're trying to save face after two huge rounds of layoffs and an identity crisis.

Move should have stuck with their quality--which is still light years ahead of Adobe and Microsift/Akamai, and added emphasis on live programming and CDN relationships. Instead they're out there trying to become a player in ad serving, etc. Come on...you can't be everything to everyone. They've aptly demonstrated that.

You won't hear a clear vision coming from their board and least of all from Edwards. But keep looking. Like Dan, I hope the company survives. They have what consumers are looking for.