LG announced a new TV with the ability to stream movies from NetFlix without a set-top box. Essentially, the TV comes with an Ethernet connection and Linux operating system to run applications and stream content right to the TV.

Other TV manufacturers, like Sony, have said they will include Ethernet ports into their sets, but this is the first time that any application has been enabled directly into a TV set.

According to Gizmodo, the TV sets will cost about $200 to $300 more than similar TVs without NetFlix streaming. That’s rather interesting since you can buy the Roku NetFlix Player for $99. I imagine the disparity is because Roku is taking a loss on every Roku box they sell, and are making money from NetFlix somehow.

The other downside is that the LG TV sets will probably not have Wi-Fi. If that’s the case, you’ll need to run an Ethernet cable into your living room and connect it to your TV. (Actually, I’ve already done this because of the set-top box clutter, but that’s another story.)  The Roku box comes with an Ethernet port, but also comes with Wi-Fi.  If you’re into high quality video, you should probably connect with the Ethernet cable, because quality via Wi-Fi isn’t as good. There’s a longer start buffer, and seeking to different parts of the show is also very slow.

In effect, the only advantage to these broadband enabled TVs is avoiding another set-top box. That’s a noble goal, but it’s not very compelling or earth-shattering to most users. Another box vs. another $300 for your TV.

GigaOm has a post about Broadband TV, as he calls it, but he’s looking at it from NetFlix’s point of view.  And he makes a pretty good point about NetFlix. First of all, NetFlix already has the main ingredients to success as a primary VOD supplier. They have agreements with Hollywood, and they also have the technology to deliver movies over broadband connections.  Plus there’s the stand-alone Roku NetFLix Player box, and now broadband TVs.  So NetFlix needs to weather the storm now, and wait until the world (and technology) catches on to Internet-delivered entertainment into the home.

Eventually, I believe all HDTVs will be broadband enabled, so this is a good start.It’s a good bet that set-top boxes will disappear eventually, but not for a very long time.  Hopefully, future HDTVs will have broadband connections and an open source TV platform for running and creating applications. Imagine what creative applications we can experience on our TV screens. Imagine all the Internet companies that would rush to create applications. There would be Flickr, YouTube, Facebook, Google–anything on the web delivered to the TV. Think about the iPhone App model, except on the TV screen.

Interesting eh?

Looking at comScore’s latest Video Metrix rankings of video sites, I came across an interesting bullet point: Users watched an average of 11.6 minutes of video on Hulu. Eleven minutes! Actually, almost 12 minutes. That’s a long time. That’s more than YouTube. And almost four time longer than the average online video clip (3 minutes).

For years, online measurement companies like comScore and Nielsen|NetRatings have told us that the average video clip was very short. A few months ago, I saw it was at 2.8 minutes. Now it’s creeping up to 3 minutes. That’s not a large jump, but it’s noticeable because Hulu is the one drawing people to watch longer videos.

Hulu is managing to do what has been impossible for years; make people watch TV on the Internet.  YouTube’s strategy is more about user-generated content, connecting with others and creating the next Internet celebrity. YouTube is only beginning to license Hollywood content, and open up to longer-form videos, along with live streaming in order to maintain competitive.

Hulu is more about generating revenue and actually has a business plan. They partner with their parent companies NBC and Fox to get content that people actually want to see. That means that Hulu can actually sell advertising, whereas YouTube is finding it difficult to monetize user-generated content and spends untold millions on video hosting. In fact, some analysts believe that Hulu is (almost) profitable (unless you ask Henry Blodget).

But the important part is that Hulu is already beating YouTube in terms of the average vieweing time. comScore didn’t release the average length of YouTube’s videos, however I’d be interested to know what it is. Are they really far behind Hulu? Are they close?

Despite Hulu’s almost 12 minute average viewing time, the truth is that most people still don’t prefer to watch long-form content on the web.

However, the Internet may be a great way of delivering content to the TV. Just look at services like the Roku NetFlix Player which delivers movies to my TV or Tivo, where I can access any YouTube video from the comfort of my couch.

While watching last week’s Democratic National Convention, I noticed that CNN was promoting their website often and would use the phrase “Watch With Your Laptop”. Apparently, CNN is trying to integrate the TV experience with the Internet, via their blogs and, of course, their iReports.

It made me wonder: how many people actually watch TV with their laptops? I’d say very few although I am an exception.

I always keep my mini laptop nearby, in case I need to Google something. But it’s too difficult to pay attention to the TV screen and my computer at the same time. I don’t have that kind of attention span, where I can multitask successfully.

Besides, did I really have to go visit CNNPolitics.com to continue the discussion online with other CNN viewers? Nah. I’d rather go someplace else, like Huffington Post or CNN.com instead. And it’s good to take a breakfrom watching TV and do something else, too.

I think it’s good that CNN is trying to bring together the TV and computer. But I think the type of content must move audiences to do so. News might be a good applicationm as is sports or other live events. Movies, I don’t think so.

Anyway, do you watch TV with your laptop?

According to a study conducted by Ericsson and CNN, 34% of respondents ranked TV as the most in-demand application for their phones. About 44% said they are ready to adopt mobile TV in the next two years. I guess it’s time mobile operators start giving consumers what they want. Some of the current mobile TV applications out now–MobiTV, Sprint and Verizon’s VCast–leave a lot to be desired.

On my Sprint Mogul phone, I can’t receive Sprint TV at all, which is a crying shame. The Mogul is a Windows Mobile-based smartphone with EVDO and Wi-Fi connectivity. It’s an expensive phone with lots of advanced features. Yet I can’t get Sprint TV on it. Can someone please explain why this is the case? Fortunately, I can tune into videos on the mobile version of YouTube. But even then, I can’t watch just any video–they have to be popular, featured YouTube videos since they have to be converted from YouTube’s Flash-based video into something that can be viewed on my mobile phone.

I would definitely watch more TV on my phone if it was offered. Right now, my best bet is to download video onto my phone manually, store it on my phone and watch it later. That’s a slow, tedious process, when I should be able to watch streaming mobile TV right now.

Anyway, the report also said that 24% of current mobile TV users watch content daily with around half (52%) tuning in on a weekly basis. The most popular type of video was news (77%) followed by scheduled television at 48%. Among other findings were that 57% of consumers use mobile photo to send and receive images on a monthly basis, making it the most popular activity.

Technorati Tags: Ericsson, CNN, mobile TV, mobile video, Sprint TV, Sprint, Sprint Mogul, EVDO, MobiTV, YouTube, VCast

The combination of Internet advertising, Internet TV, mobile ads, game advertising and IPTV advertising will generate $41 billion in revenues by 2011, says research firm MultiMedia Intelligence.

In 2007, new media advertising will generate about $18 billion worldwide, which means ad revenues will more than double in five years.

The company says that three new categories–Internet TV, IPTV and mobile TV–will make up about 20% of media ad dollars in 2011. So far, advertising in these nascent media is pretty low.

Technorati Tags: IPTV, research, advertising, TV, DVR, new media, mobile TV