The broadcast tech stack is moving from products to platforms

The shift in vendor strategy across broadcast technology can be read in a single decision.

Lawo, a company long associated with engineered hardware for live audio and video, has been moving its product portfolio toward cloud-native processing apps. Chris Scheck, head of marketing content at Lawo, described the logic in commercial terms.

“In Lawo’s case, the decision to evolve its product portfolio towards cloud-native processing apps was based on the finding that developing dedicated hardware for a relatively small target audience no longer makes sense when you can rely on giants that keep releasing increasingly powerful servers at a breathtaking speed. Lawo’s core business is the development of cutting-edge solutions — the hardware that delivers the expected results is only a means to an end, a commodity,” said Scheck, in the Industry Insights roundtable on cloud production.

That position, treating hardware as a commodity layer below the software, would have been difficult to imagine from a broadcast vendor a decade ago. It reflects a calculation that the compute economics driven by general-purpose servers have moved faster than what any single vendor can match with proprietary hardware platforms.

The Lawo decision is one data point in a broader market shift.

Customers are no longer asking vendors a simple yes-or-no question about cloud support.

“Customers are no longer asking whether a product supports cloud, they’re asking how cloud-native it is at the architecture level,” said Golan Simani, director of cloud and technical operations at TAG Video Systems. “Vendors that repackaged on-prem software for cloud deployment are hitting limits around scalability and elastic resource use that weren’t designed in from the start. The fail-fast, design-for-failure operating model that cloud enables requires fundamentally different engineering assumptions, and products built under the old assumptions tend to expose that in production.”

The distinction has commercial consequences.

Advertisement

A product that runs in the cloud is not the same as a product engineered for the cloud, and broadcasters are starting to feel the difference in performance and scaling behavior.

The platform expectation

The pressure on vendors is not limited to a single market segment. Broadcasters running live operations, post-production, distribution and monitoring have all begun describing similar expectations of their suppliers. What they describe is less a feature list than an operating layer.

“The market is clearly moving away from isolated products toward platform thinking,” said Yaya Selva, CMO at Net Insight. “Customers still care about individual capabilities, of course, but increasingly they expect orchestration, visibility, automation and open interoperability across the full workflow, not just another function hosted in software. That is a healthy shift because the operational challenge today is almost always systemic.”

The argument is that broadcast workflows are too tightly connected for point products to address. A piece of software that solves one function but cannot coordinate with adjacent functions adds friction rather than removing it.

The contrarian read

Not every vendor reads the situation the same way.

Ian Wagdin, VP of technology and innovation at Appear, offered a framing that pushes back against the implied conclusion that everything must move to software-only platforms.

“From Appear’s perspective, that is exactly why the conversation is about combining dense, high-performance hardware with software capabilities in a way that lets customers move at their own pace. That is the only realistic approach for broadcasters with mixed estates, different business models and different stages of transition. The vendors that will matter most are the ones that help customers make that transition cleanly, rather than asking them to conform to a single technology ideology,” said Wagdin.

The argument has two parts.

The first is practical: broadcasters with substantial existing infrastructure cannot, and in many cases will not, replace it on a vendor’s preferred timeline. The second is positioning: vendors that ask customers to choose between hardware and software are asking the wrong question for a market that operates across both.

The Appear position does not contradict the platform argument so much as constrain it. A platform that runs only in the cloud serves only the cloud portion of a customer’s estate. A vendor that operates across hardware, hybrid and cloud environments addresses the actual shape of broadcaster operations.

That practical reality shows up in how other vendors describe their engineering work. The phrase that recurs across responses is not “cloud-only.” It is “anywhere.”

“Customers now expect software that can run anywhere without forcing disruptive migrations. As a result, vendors are re-architecting products to be cloud-ready by design while preserving performance and reliability. That means evolving solutions to operate seamlessly across environments, and delivering cloud-native services that provide shared intelligence and orchestration across the ecosystem,” said Guillaume Aubuchon, VP of product management at Avid.

Advertisement

The Avid framing splits the difference between Wagdin’s hardware-and-software argument and Selva’s platform argument.

Cloud-ready software that runs anywhere preserves the customer’s option to run on-premises while giving the vendor a single codebase to maintain.

The technical foundation

The architectural mechanism most often cited is containerization. Scheck described its role earlier in the same roundtable series.

“Containerization is crucial as it abstracts the processing apps from the hardware they run on, allowing for no-compromise portability between servers. Microservices, for their part, offer the advantage that they can be used in a variety of circumstances,” said Scheck.

Containerization makes the same software image deployable to a private server room, a hybrid environment or a public cloud region. Microservices allow individual functions inside that software to be updated, scaled or replaced without disturbing the rest of the system. Together, they are the technical foundation of the platform pitch most vendors are now making.

The translation from technical foundation to commercial promise is operational consistency. Vendors describe their work as building systems whose behavior does not change when the deployment model changes.

“Vendors are building systems that can operate consistently across on-prem, hybrid, and cloud environments, so customers have flexibility in how they deploy, while keeping a consistent operational workflow regardless of deployment model,” said John Mailhot, SVP of product management at Imagine Communications.

“At the same time, there’s a clear shift toward tighter integration, with solutions expected to work as part of a complete workflow rather than as standalone tools,” added Mailhot.

What customers will actually verify

The disagreement among vendors has commercial consequences that broadcasters will resolve in deployment, not in sales conversations.

Vendors that began as software companies are extending into orchestration and platform services. Vendors that began with hardware are building software layers that integrate with that hardware. The middle ground is increasingly crowded.

Advertisement

Several respondents described product strategies that converge on similar end states regardless of starting point: software portable across environments, operational interfaces that stay consistent across deployment models and integration points for third-party tools.

The competitive question is no longer which vendor offers the best individual product. It is which vendor can run across an operational footprint that includes products from competitors.

That raises a separate problem.

Platform thinking sells well to customers who want a single accountable supplier. It sells less well to customers who have already built workflows around multiple vendors and want those workflows to keep working. Interoperability, the word most respondents used, is the answer most vendors offer. The depth of that interoperability is harder to verify in a sales conversation than in production.

For now, the language has converged faster than the products. Vendors describe platforms, cloud-native architectures and orchestration in similar terms. The Lawo bet, that hardware is a commodity below the software, and the Appear position, that the right answer combines both, define the range. The space between them is where the next several years of vendor competition will play out.