Interview: John Callahan, CTO of ActiveVideo Networks

ActiveVideo Networks (formerly ICTV) recently appointed interactive TV pioneer,
John Callahan, as its CTO. Callahan previously spent 15 years at Time Warner
Cable, where he was involved in many of the operator's interactive TV and
VOD initiatives, and where he served most recently as SVP of software
engineering for its Advanced Technology Group. He was a significant
contributor to the creation of the Time Warner Cable Pegasus digital television
system architecture, and to such seminal interactive TV technologies and
standards as the Interactive Services Architecture (ISA), VOD, OCAP and
EBIF/ETV. He was also one of the principal developers of the network PVR
service, MystroTV, and subsequently led the transformation of that service
into Time Warner Cable's current StartOver offering. In addition, he was
closely involved in implementing the operator's caller ID on TV service and
its OCAP set-top navigator. Earlier in his career at Time Warner Cable,
Callahan was part of the engineering team that created and deployed the
pioneering interactive TV service, the Full Service Network.

Callahan recently spoke to [itvt]'s Tracy Swedlow about why he decided to
leave Time Warner Cable and join ActiveVideo Networks; about the projects
he plans to work on at ActiveVideo, including developing a new
programming-navigation model which he terms "never-ending navigation"
and which he says will "put content front and center"; about his view of the
current status of the US cable industry's OCAP/tru2way and ETV/EBIF
standardization initiatives and how they relate to ActiveVideo's technologies
and services; and much, much more.

[itvt]: Could you give us a little background on your time at Time Warner
Cable? What motivated you to leave Time Warner Cable and to join
ActiveVideo Networks?

Callahan: Well, the first thing I would say is that Time Warner Cable was
absolutely a fabulous experience for me. It was a company that to some
degree I fell into by accident back in 1993: I was asked by folks at what
was then US West's Advanced Technologies group if I was interested in
working with the Time Warner Cable guys on a crazy project called the
Full Service Network.

So, the next day, I went to Time Warner Cable and talked to two guys
named Jim Chiddix and Mike Hayashi, and that was how it all began. I
really had a very special experience with Time Warner Cable, and so it
wasn't an easy thing to leave. However, I think more than anything, I just
got to a point where I had to make a change. Let me explain. When I was
at Time Warner Cable, I had had a series of five-year plans for myself:
the first of those was to take the opportunity to work on the cable
industry's analog-to-digital conversion. So, from the mid to the late
1990's, I had a really unique opportunity to have a major role in Time
Warner Cable's Pegasus program, which was the company's effort to
convert to digital. During that time, we also had a covert plan, which Jim
Chiddix used to describe as an attempt to get to "everything-on-demand."
So while we were ostensibly just implementing digital broadcast, we were
really preparing a platform that would gracefully migrate into
video-on-demand. (By the way, in those days, video-on-demand was
simply a generic phrase that meant using unicast video streams on a
one-to-one basis with the customer. Subsequently--fortunately or
unfortunately--it also became a marketing term, and towards the end of
the 1990's and into the early 2000's, it began to leak out as the brand
name for this new service that cable could provide.)

Anyway, this vision of "everything-on-demand" has been with me ever
since. My second five-year plan saw me working on building out the
video-on-demand platform at Time Warner Cable, and that eventually
resulted in Jim Chiddix asking me to put together the engineering team
for an internal start-up that became known as MystroTV. The goal of that
project was to make every broadcast program capable of being
time-shifted--so, capable of being paused, and started over again, and
even recorded and saved for later viewing much like you would do with a
DVR set-top box. "Network DVR" was actually a phrase that we used
back then to refer colloquially to what we were doing.

That project was technically very successful. We did a trial of the
MystroTV service in Green Bay, Wisconsin in which dozens of
programmers took part, and we had 200 of Time Warner Cable's
employees up there using the service for over a year. The response was
very positive: even if they already had a DVR, they loved the
convenience and having the ability to watch what they wanted whenever,
even if they hadn't remembered to set up their DVR schedule to record it.

Unfortunately, however, it turned out that we were way ahead of where
the business was back then: the advertisers and the rights-holders for the
programming just hadn't figured out how to make this all make sense
from a business perspective--e.g., who would make the money, how
would the chain of content copyrights be protected, and how would the
advertising models work? And so, because we were so far ahead of the
curve, a big part of my third five-year stint at Time Warner Cable was
basically about productizing a lightweight version of MystroTV--which
ultimately went to market as Start Over.

Start Over has actually become quite successful. Time Warner Cable has
indicated that it is available to a sizeable number of their customers and
its convenience is being well received by customers. I understand the
complexity of content copyright issues so it's encouraging that there seem
to be models maturing in that area as well. All in all, that's a vision that's
turned out quite well.

The other thing that I was involved in during my third five-year stint at
Time Warner Cable was building out the OpenCable platform. When
MystroTV was ramped down, along with Louis Williamson and most of
the MystroTV team, I returned to Time Warner Cable to work on this big
task of actually implementing the OpenCable Application Platform. I
spent a couple of years working with our internal engineering and
development resources, but also with Scientific-Atlanta, Motorola,
Samsung, Alticast, Vidiom Systems and others, to turn the OCAP
platform into a reality. As with everything else, when you got down to the
details, there was a lot of work to do.

When I got to the point where our implementation of OCAP was actually
being launched in the field--so, spring of last year--I started to cast about
for what my next big project would be. I came to the conclusion--which
many others had too--that I wanted to build a cable platform that would
allow the convergence of video from IP sources: so, of Internet-based
video or Internet-sourced video (I tend to avoid the term "IPTV," by the
way, because it's defined in so many different ways, depending on the
constituency). Basically, I was interested in expanding the platform to
create a user experience which would allow the viewer to browse IP
video streams in a very intuitive and elegant manner--and which would be
the realization of that "everything-on-demand" vision we'd had nearly 13
years ago. Actually, the whole time that we were building OCAP, I had

harbored a desire to push on this vision for "everything-on-demand." The
Internet is an interesting variation of that vision, in that you certainly have
a one-to-one experience, as you browse and find things you're interested
in. But the question is, how do you replicate that experience on the TV in
your living room as you sit in your comfortable couch with a relatively
primitive device in your hand--i.e., the remote control? How do you make
that kind of experience natural and intuitive? How do you make it so that
the end-user can sit down and browse video, and not even notice whether
it happens to be coming from a satellite in linear format, or coming from
a VOD server, or from a DVR, or even a disk drive on their PC via a
home network?

About a year ago, as I became excited by the idea of working on this, I
started to think it would be a good time for me to try things from the other
side--to go out to the vendor side of the product development community
and work with a number of different operators,. That's definitely one of
the things I'm looking forward to: the fact that I'll have the opportunity to
work with a plethora of operators--even with operators that might not be
in the traditional cable world. I was definitely very comfortable at Time
Warner Cable. It's a terrific company with great people, and I left on good
terms with everybody there and felt that we'd achieved a lot. But, look,
I'm getting older! If I don't give this a try now, I may never give it a try.

As for why I decided to join ActiveVideo after I left Time Warner Cable:
I got to know Jeff Miller last March, and ActiveVideo's vision of
enabling the sourcing of video from the Internet and of using a very thin,
lightweight client is one that I share. That idea has actually been at the
heart of what I've been working on for years. The last two years of
ActiveVideo's efforts have resulted in a very flexible video streaming and
interactive applications platform that can run on any number of devices
out there, including even some of the oldest, least powerful set-top boxes
as well as the newer boxes, and, of course, IP-connected devices such as
Web-connected TV's, Blu-ray players, video game players and others.
And so, from talking to Jeff, I began to learn a lot about what
ActiveVideo is working on, and I found that we had a lot of commonality
of vision. We were both excited by the idea of developing robust, but
intuitive navigation models for interactive video services. Jeff eventually
asked me if I'd be interested in coming on board and actually building that
stuff, and I got more and more excited by the idea, and so that's how I
ended up here.

[itvt]: Would it be fair to say that one of the reasons you left Time Warner
Cable was that they weren't as interested in moving to IP--as interested in
the potential for cable of IP technology--as you were? I know that cable is
one day expected to move to IP, but was it that you perhaps felt it was
moving too slowly?

Callahan: It wasn't about a negative like that. It was really because I
personally was looking for an opportunity to develop products that might
ultimately have a wider usage than the kinds of products I would have
developed within a large cable operator. I really wanted the opportunity
to work with a company like ActiveVideo Networks where we can
actually develop personalized video streaming.

What this company can do is basically create intelligent streams: i.e.,
synthesize MPEG video and metadata together, deliver that stream to a
very thin client, and allow the viewer to have a personalized, relevant
viewing experience. I use the term, "intelligent streaming," to indicate
that the (unicast) MPEG-2 stream delivered to the customer is actually
composed of several different sources of media--e.g., an MPEG-2 file
from a local VOD server, one or more video sources streamed from an
Internet-based media server, a set of JPEG images, etc.--that are
"stitched" together into this standard MPEG-2 stream at the moment
requested and delivered to the set-top box. As the customer interacts with
the application--via the expected press/select of UI elements, cursor
movements, text entry, etc.--each command is sent back to the
ActiveVideo application (running in the network) and, depending on the
application logic, causes the various media sources to be modified and the
process of composing the MPEG-2 stream to be repeated. This all
happens in real time, so the customer has a great video-rich, interactive,
multimedia application experience that is unique to him or her. The fact
that ActiveVideo can deliver all that over MPEG-2 to existing set-top
boxes--and, of course, ultimately it can be delivered over IP to other
platforms too--was definitely very interesting to me.

[itvt]: Would it be fair to say that you were somewhat frustrated by the
amount of time it's taking for tru2way/OCAP to be deployed, and that
you felt ActiveVideo's platform presented a viable alternative? Or do you
rather see ActiveVideo's platform as complementary to tru2way and also
to EBIF?

Callahan: Well, I would say that we always expect these new
technologies to be implemented faster than actually ever happens. When I
was working on FSN, back in 1996, I figured, "OK. By next year, this
technology is going to be everywhere." I was only off by a few years, as
it turned out. Same thing with video-on-demand: we spent what felt like
an eternity getting cost-effective video streaming in place, and it still
ended up taking another three to five years, depending on how you want
to calculate it.

So yes, I would say I'm always somewhat impatient about these things. I
would love to see OCAP/tru2way and EBIF--and a whole bunch of other
technologies--become ubiquitous much faster than is currently happening.
I definitely do think it will take a while before OCAP is universally
available. Even though it's basically a Java platform--so based on a
tried-and-true technology--there's still a lot of room for more
optimization. It needs to be scaled and made robust. I think it will take a
few more years for it to become absolutely bulletproof.

But I do think that what ActiveVideo does is actually very
complementary to these technology standardization initiatives: I don't see
it as competing with OCAP/tru2way. In my opinion, nothing but good
can come of there being a common platform that's distributed across
multiple operators. The worst thing that could happen would be for this
situation to continue where there are literally dozens of different versions
of clients from different manufacturers, and even multiple different
versions of each manufacturer's software. The amount of time it takes to
regression-test against each different version, every time you try to
introduce or upgrade a service, is simply cost-prohibitive. So I definitely
think that the tru2way and EBIF efforts are very important, and that
ActiveVideo complements these efforts: ActiveVideo's client is really just
a very thin key-click client; the whole point of the ActiveVideo approach
is to do the heavy lifting--the video optimization, the interactive logic of a
given application--on the server side, on the network side; and the client,
then, is actually very collaborative. On an OCAP platform, it's really just
a small Java app; and on the EBIF platform, the EBIF trigger simply fires
up the ActiveVideo client. So there's really no conflict at all between
ActiveVideo and the cable industry's standardization initiatives. The day
when Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Cablevision, and Charter all
have Java platforms that are basically the same--that will be a good day
for ActiveVideo, just like it will be a good day for the interactive TV
industry as a whole.

[itvt]: Now, although I know neither party is being very public about this,
ActiveVideo Networks has been working closely with Time Warner
Cable for some time now, and your technology has been deployed on a
couple of their systems at least on a trial basis. Is the technology now
mature enough to be deployed by Time Warner Cable--and other
operators--on a commercial basis? And do you feel that your long
relationship with Time Warner Cable will accelerate that process?

Callahan: Well, what I can say is that I would certainly hope that
ActiveVideo would become a technology that's widely used by Time
Warner Cable, and by other operators as well. As for whether the
technology is ready to deploy and ready to scale: it is definitely ready.
The core technology for ActiveVideo's server-side processing and its
lightweight client are something that it and its predecessor company,
ICTV, have been working on for years now. Actually, one of the things I
wanted to be sure of before coming on board the company was that its
core technology was robust and deployable. And this robustness is not
just a result of the technology having been a long time in development: as
it happens--and I probably can't talk too much about this--ActiveVideo's
core technology has been deployed in a number of systems to many
hundreds of thousands of users. So, thanks to these real-world
deployments, the company has now had ample opportunity to find out
what the problems are with its platform, and to fix them. So the
ActiveVideo Networks platform is absolutely ready to go: it's been
proven through multiple deployments to date, some of them quite large.
I'm now looking forward to the opportunity to take it to whichever
operators are interested in using it and getting it deployed in even bigger

Now, I have to acknowledge that the best person to answer your question
about whether the technology is ready for mass deployment would be our
senior engineer and chief operating officer, Don Gordon. He's someone
I'd heard about for years and years--long before I joined ActiveVideo. He
was previously with Microsoft, and before that--and I think this is where I
first heard of him--at DIVA, which was one of the pioneers of
video-on-demand. Anyway, for the past year-and-a-half, Don has been
refactoring the core technology of the former ICTV into this intelligent
streaming capability of ActiveVideo Networks' platform, and he's
someone I have a lot of confidence in. So I absolutely think that our
technology is ready for mass deployment, and I think we enable
applications that operators are going to find very compelling. And I
should add that the technology is deployable by all kinds of different
operators: our platform doesn't care whether it's transmitting via MPEG-2
or MPEG-4, or whether it's transmitting over IP.

[itvt]: Can you talk more about some of the things you're interested in
using ActiveVideo's technology for, now that you're at the company? You
mentioned earlier that your main reason for leaving Time Warner Cable
and joining the company was in order to fulfill your vision for the future
of television, so presumably you already have in mind some projects you
want to work on...

Callahan: Absolutely. One of the things that ActiveVideo is well known
for--internally they call it "stitching"--is a process for massaging the
MPEG video to only deal with the portions of the application that are
modified at any given moment. Basically it means you don't have to
re-encode an entire 30-frame-per-second MPEG video frame by frame.
You only have to stitch into the existing MPEG stream that part of the UI
or that part of the application that has a modification or a change. This is
much like the basic premise of MPEG itself, where the I-frame is the
complete picture, and the other formats of MPEG are modifications to
that baseline, and every few seconds you get a new baseline.

So anyway, the folks at ActiveVideo Networks have developed this
technology that allows them to basically have very good
compression--and thus very good scalability, because that's always been
an issue with server-side architectures. And the way they've done this is
to really only send changes in the MPEG stream where they're really
necessary. Of course, this isn't a mind-boggling concept: lots of people
have a good understanding of the principle behind it, and, as I mentioned,
it's part of the premise of MPEG itself. In addition to this, ActiveVideo
has enabled the stream with lots of other metadata, in order to render a
user interface, in order to prompt for keystroke input--things like that.

So one of the things I'd like to experiment with that is enabled by these
capabilities of ActiveVideo's platform is something that I call
"never-ending navigation"--and, by the way, EBIF could be used to
initiate the viewing session for what I have in mind. Let me explain what
I'm talking about by giving you a scenario: you're watching a program
you really love--for example, "The Sopranos"--and you're interested in
finding out about other programs HBO has that are similar to it.
Currently, in order to find that content, you'd have to bring up

full-screen application that would cover most of the video and that would
have a somewhat limited interface, even with the more recent guides. So,
instead of that, let's have a very subtle user interface. Let's have what is
essentially a navigation toolbar--with the metadata that populates that
toolbar being delivered in real time with the stream that you're watching.
What this means is that the content on the toolbar can be packaged in
such a way that, when you hit, say, the blue key on your remote control, a
nice little menu drops down and says, "Here are other episodes of 'The
Sopranos'; here's other content that stars James Gandolfini; here's other
content that's mob-related," and so on.

With complete flexibility, the metadata architect for HBO or any other
programmer could create a database of its content that could be accessed
through this toolbar. The toolbar would also have some global options,
allowing the viewer who was done with HBO to go to another channel or
whatever. One way to conceive of this is that it would be somewhat akin
to the right-click function you have on Windows computers--which is one
of the things that Windows does really well, in my opinion. When you
right-click, that drops down a menu containing content and options
related to the application you're currently working in. However, although
some of the operations listed on that menu are unique to Photoshop or
whatever application you're in, there are also more global options that are
always listed regardless of the application--such as the ability to navigate
through your hard drive.

Anyway, the goal here is to create an interface that, rather than always
taking you away from the video you're currently watching, is much more
non-intrusive and elegant, and would basically enable the viewer to
navigate from stream to stream very quickly and easily--so without
having to bring up the VOD application, without having to drill down
through a series of tree-structured menus, and so on. Basically, it would
allow the viewer to effortlessly browse, snack on content, and find the
things that interest them.

Jeff Miller came up with a very good analogy for what I have in mind
here: it's really not dissimilar in its concept to the experience of using
YouTube--though the specific interface YouTube has would likely
change for television. With YouTube, once you find the video you’re
looking for, you're presented with a whole bunch of videos that are on
related topics; and the typical user generally views two, three or four
other videos that they would never have watched, had the service not
subtly and unobtrusively guided them to those videos. The whole process
is driven by affinities in the content, and not by hierarchies of menus.

So anyway, I think that ActiveVideo has a platform and a technology
which--along with some of the things I've been working on with Time
Warner Cable and the rest of the cable industry for the past 10 years--can
blow the doors off the traditional program guidance model. We can
develop a very interesting and compelling user interface for the

Now, the content that this user interface would present to the viewer
wouldn't necessarily just be content promoted by the content owners. The
interface would also feature some kind of relevance engine that would
present you with other programs you might be interested in, based on
your specific viewing behavior. Or it could present you with other content
based on Web 2.0 scenarios--so on recommendations from community
networks. For example, if you were watching "The Sopranos," and you
brought up the navigation toolbar, you might find that the community had
commented on the various other pieces of content it brought up, and rated
them--perhaps with simple emoticons that could be entered with the
remote control.

Anyway, the point of all this is to have a navigation model that puts the
content front and center, that has an elegant interface, and that binds the
video and navigation into an intuitive user experience, wherever the video
comes from--whether it's the Internet, VOD servers, or broadcast. Those
are some of the objectives I want to work on with ActiveVideo Networks,
and I'm really looking forward to having the opportunity to do so.

[itvt]: Your idea for "never-ending navigation" seems somewhat similar
to what other people in the industry are calling "video navigation." I
know that a lot of players in the industry--GuideWorks and OpenTV, for
example--are looking to develop navigation that's content-driven and
avoids the classic EPG grid-format...

Callahan: You're absolutely right. I don't claim to be the first with any of
these ideas: I think a lot of people are aiming in more or less the same
direction, and implementing this kind of thing is something people have
been talking about for some time. I've known GuideWorks' Gerard
Kunkel for years now, and we've had some really exhilarating discussions
about all this. Of course, what it will come down to is the specifics of
each company's implementations of new, more intuitive forms of

I should also point out that the kind of navigation system I was just
describing isn't by any means the only thing ActiveVideo is working on,
or that I'll be working on. We'll be developing a whole bouquet of
different types of services.

[itvt]: Will ActiveVideo target this "never-ending navigation" capability
at cable MSO's? If so, don't the operators already have fairly
well-established plans in place for next-generation TV guidance/operating
systems--whether they're developing them in-house, like Comcast is with
its GuideWorks unit, or with third parties, like Cox is doing with NDS?
Or is this something you're thinking more of targeting at telcos and at
smaller cable operators?

Callahan: "Never-ending navigation" is really a conceptual or
philosophical baseline for a user experience that is video-rich,
personalized, relevant, and intuitive to use without a complicated
input/control device. It's not a specific product for a specific customer. As
you note, cable operators have in-house development groups and are
investing in their own product roadmaps--as are telephone companies.
My objective is that ActiveVideo, working with these operators, will
greatly add to their ability to present a variety of compelling, interactive
media-streaming services to their customers via their respective
navigation platforms. ActiveVideo takes advantage of something that the
operators do better than almost anyone else: i.e., unicast video streaming
with very high quality of service. As ActiveVideo's presence in the set-
top box itself is very simple, it complements the rest of the navigation
functionality that the operator develops.

[itvt]: Obviously, a lot of industry players are interested in the idea of
intuitive, content-driven navigation. What do you think will differentiate
ActiveVideo's implementation of this idea?

Callahan: There are a few major differentiators for ActiveVideo's
platform. First, as all the complicated application logic and media
rendering is done on network servers, a media-rich user experience can be
developed, which is often difficult to do on set-top boxes that do not have
powerful processors and lots of memory. Second, this media-rich user
experience can be delivered to all devices with an MPEG-2 decoder (and
this is all digital set-tops boxes deployed in the field for the past 10+
years--from the oldest SD to the newest HD DVR, and everything in
between). Third, ActiveVideo's platform does not just deliver a stored
MPEG-2 video asset, it locates the appropriate content--using standard
URI/URL Web standards--for the application, whether it's video files,
images, etc., and composites these sources in real time into a standard
MPEG-2 video stream. If we combine these capabilities in the context of

"never-ending navigation," we can envision a video stream containing
within it the necessary metadata for rendering a compelling, personalized
user experience--picture a screen with a combination of video and
graphics that represents the customer's "favorites" as defined by profile or
behavior--and, based on the customer's selections via the remote control,
rendering a new video stream in real-time. As I was describing earlier, the
metadata driving what the customer watches and how the navigation is
displayed is easily enabled by the ActiveVideo platform--again to all
MPEG-2 devices. This fits our "Sopranos" scenario or YouTube-like
scenario very well. The fourth point is that ActiveVideo applications will
be displayed just as the author designed them, no matter what set-top box
they are deployed to--thanks to ActiveVideo's "Studio" which features
standard AVML and DHTML technologies. This is a solution to the
"lowest common denominator" problem of client-side application
platforms--i.e., where an application will have to be developed to look
and act differently depending on the class of set-top box it is running on
(which is both technically difficult and, from the content-developer point
of view, not an ideal situation).

[itvt]: What other projects are you planning to work on at ActiveVideo, in
addition to "never-ending navigation"?

Callahan: I cannot go into specifics, but I can say that we are very
interested in assisting the efforts to enable an advertising platform that
meets the needs of operators and advertisers. ActiveVideo does not see
itself developing campaign management platforms, but we will be
working closely with the industry to support the relevant platforms as
they emerge. The ability to execute on all set-top boxes is something that
needs to be married to a business platform that will take advantage of

[itvt]: ActiveVideo just hired a high-profile advertising-industry figure,
Todd Nisbet, to lead its interactive and targeted advertising efforts. Could
you talk a little about the kinds of things you'll be working with him on?

Callahan: A key virtue of ActiveVideo is that it enables advertising to be
targeted, interactive, accountable and actionable, just like on the Internet.
Campaigns can be developed once and made available to viewers on any
set-top box, giving advertisers the scale that they desire. We think this
ability to deliver Internet-style advertising with scale will be very
valuable to advertisers. Todd is working to create partnerships with some
carefully chosen brands to validate the efficacy of the kind of advertising
ActiveVideo enables.

[itvt]: Can you talk about how ActiveVideo's technology could be used to
enable user-generated content or social TV services?

Callahan: I'm not ready to talk about all this at this stage, but I will say
that ActiveVideo has the platform to bring UGC and Web 2.0 services to
the operators' television platforms without need of DOCSIS, MOCA, or
other emerging technologies.

[itvt]: ActiveVideo recently announced that it had enhanced its platform
to address TV on multiple kinds of network-connected devices. Could
you explain the significance of this announcement and how it plays into
the company's strategy going forward?

Callahan: The same advantage of the ActiveVideo platform that makes it
a compelling choice for thin-client set-top boxes also works well when
considering the plethora of other platforms that are in the market: e.g.,
broadband connected devices. In general, the ability to author and deploy
a compelling application--whether it is a "traditional" interactive
television application or a complex Web 2.0 service--to thin-client
devices is what ActiveVideo’s strategy is all about.

[itvt]: Presumably, due to the nature of ActiveVideo's technology, the
company frequently finds itself having to think up ways of repurposing
Web content for television. Do you have any general thoughts on the
design principles for successfully effecting this kind of translation?

Callahan: I don't believe this is an issue "due to the nature of
ActiveVideo's technology." Rather, I believe it's the realization, on the
part of passionate and professional content producers and application
developers, that the strengths and weaknesses of a large screen display, a
simple remote control, and the user's expectations of application behavior
all contribute to the need to design a different presentation and experience
on the television--even when using the same content that is delivered via
the Web. This is not unique to television; it is true for all presentation
platforms--PC's, mobile phones, PDA's, etc. I personally believe the
television experience is expected to be, above all else, simple. With
respect to ActiveVideo's technology, it allows Web developers to
repurpose a cool Web application using Web authoring tools that they are
likely familiar with, and--when they get a user experience laid out to their
satisfaction in all respects--they know that it will be executed with exactly
that presentation on all ActiveVideo-connected platforms. Of course, this
Web developer could leave the user experience exactly the same as it is
on the Web: the results will not likely be as compelling to the user but the
ActiveVideo technology will faithfully deliver it!

[itvt]: Now that you've joined ActiveVideo Networks, will you be moving
from Denver to Silicon Valley?

Callahan: No, not at this point. I've lived in Denver for almost 20
years—other than for one year I spent in Connecticut--and my son is still
at high school, so we're not going to be moving at this point. I'm not
opposed to the idea of moving, but we'll be staying in Denver for the time

ActiveVideo Networks