If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Paid Content)   Time Warner CEO: Our problem isn't "cord cutters" -- people who get rid of cable in favor of streaming TV online; the problem is "cord nevers" -- young people who never signed up in the first place   (paidcontent.org) divider line 187
    More: Interesting, CEO, video clips, Paley Center, cord, Jeff Bewkes, youths  
•       •       •

4098 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Nov 2012 at 5:22 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-21 04:00:20 AM  

Fail in Human Form: spman: Considering that the Internet Providers and Cable Providers are now mostly the same companies, they're just going to start throttling Youtube and Netflix.

BitTorrent with random ports, problem solved.


When that starts to fail, encrypted random packets hidden as HTML.

Every block they try to implement will be circumvented. They have a team of 60 guys working on how to stop people, the internet has a team of 60,000,000 guys working on how to not let that happen...

wraith95: Piracy, unless it's changed a lot in the past ten years, can be a bit of a hassle, and I don't think worth the even slight chance of getting sued.


It`s changed a lot. Type the name of the show, film or game you want into google followed by the word torrent. As long as you have a torrent client installed you are two clicks away from your show, game or film. If you have encryption, peer guardian etc then there is pretty much no risk of legal anything either.

So, changes in the last ten years are, no hassle and no legal problems...
 
2012-11-21 05:40:05 AM  

Trocadero: You people realize that if you go strictly a la carte, there's no farking way this show ever gets off the ground, right?


I know. History is full of examples of fully á la carte channels -- HBO, Showtime, etc. -- which have proven time and again they are incapable of producing any sort of decent programming or getting people to subscribe.

/ If you want to live in 1970s TV economics go ahead. There's no reason to drag the rest of us down with you.
 
2012-11-21 05:42:35 AM  

rugman11: More than half of shows don't see a second season.


That's a limitation of the current economic model -- where you have to appeal to an enormously wide swath of viewers -- not of media production in general.
 
2012-11-21 05:50:27 AM  

narkor: Piracy is the most efficient method of distributing content - and impossible to monetize (pirates simply edit out advertisements).


Piracy is hugely inefficient. It would be much easier to simply get the data directly from the producer, rather than pushing it through some distributer that pays for a huge distribution network (i.e. cable or broadcast), inserting advertising, recoding, stripping the advertising, re-encoding and re-distributing over the Internet. Direct distribution would cut out most of those steps while improving the end-user experience.

And near-line advertising is hardly the only method available to monetize a performance. It's arguably not even a good method for most businesses if you bother actually measure the results vs. costs. It's just the method the TV/radio developed in the past few decades, and that they're used to selling, so the people running those now-vertically-integrated businesses aren't keen to try anything else.
 
2012-11-21 06:37:59 AM  
For me, the best part of not having cable is not needing to have an opinion about the relative merits and political slants of various cable news channels.
 
2012-11-21 07:10:39 AM  
The only people I know who have cable are my 72 year old mother and her partner and they only have it because her partner is addicted to MSNBC because he is unable to form his own opinions on anything and likes/needs to be told what he thinks. They have never used their DVR and have no idea how to and schedule their lives rigidly around when their "programs" come on.

I've never had cable and can't imagine ever deciding to get it. I have a smart tv with built in Netflix etc., a laptop hooked up to it with which I can stream anything for free, 4TBs of media hooked up to that, a blu-ray player/burner, a dvd/vhs player/burner and an antenna so I can watch the local news --- in 3D!!! My dad had cable for a while when I was a kid and we watched a lot of Comedy Central and Nick at Nite and that was nice, but he dropped cable before it was cool to cut the cord and doesn't seem to miss it at all. He buys a lot of Criterion films and it can take days to go through all the extras on those discs.
 
2012-11-21 08:17:39 AM  

profplump: narkor: Piracy is the most efficient method of distributing content - and impossible to monetize (pirates simply edit out advertisements).

Piracy is hugely inefficient. It would be much easier to simply get the data directly from the producer, rather than pushing it through some distributer that pays for a huge distribution network (i.e. cable or broadcast), inserting advertising, recoding, stripping the advertising, re-encoding and re-distributing over the Internet. Direct distribution would cut out most of those steps while improving the end-user experience.

And near-line advertising is hardly the only method available to monetize a performance. It's arguably not even a good method for most businesses if you bother actually measure the results vs. costs. It's just the method the TV/radio developed in the past few decades, and that they're used to selling, so the people running those now-vertically-integrated businesses aren't keen to try anything else.


I've always said if they dropped an ad-supported file on usenet at the same time as the show hit the air, I'd go ahead and watch that. I'm not pirating to avoid commercials. I'm pirating because I have to wait between 1 and 7 days to watch a show on Hulu, and even then I'm frequently not allowed to watch it in my living room for whatever reason.

Now, I'm intrigued that you talk about other monetization models. Care to expound on what options there are? I can think of subscriptions and product placements. I don't think either would fully fund the amount of content we consume these days (at least not without pissing off consumers). Product placement works in shows like Chuck where they made a big joke about it, but in serious shows you have to be a little more subtle. Subscription only services will probably turn into the same kind of crap you're paying for with cable ("look, I only wanted to pay $8 for Netflix because they had Star Trek and Law & Order. Now they've jacked the price up to 10 so they could pick up a bunch of Reality shows and crappy movies?!?!?").
A la carte subscriptions to individual shows might work but I'd figure you'd spend more per-show than you would otherwise. Look at the costs of buying a show on iTunes.

Are there any that I missed?
 
2012-11-21 09:20:50 AM  

profplump: Trocadero: You people realize that if you go strictly a la carte, there's no farking way this show ever gets off the ground, right?

I know. History is full of examples of fully á la carte channels -- HBO, Showtime, etc. -- which have proven time and again they are incapable of producing any sort of decent programming or getting people to subscribe.

/ If you want to live in 1970s TV economics go ahead. There's no reason to drag the rest of us down with you.


HBO and Showtime don't get anyone to subscribe ... the cable providers do. HBO and Showtime model's work because they run on the backs of the Cable conglomerates to pay for all the overhead of marketing, subscription and getting their product into people's television sets, while they get to focus solely focus on providing content. Thus the reason why they'll never go independent and provide their content away from the subscription cable/satellite model (even access to HBOGo requires a cable/satellite subscription).
 
2012-11-21 09:30:14 AM  

FishyFred: For BB, it's not important at all. Gritty dramas don't travel well. Big dumb action movies travel well.


Huh, really? So lets see...
NCIS, NCIS:LA, Detroit 187... Boardwalk Empire... all of these and more are on my XBMC machine. So yeah drama's gritty or otherwise travel well because they aren't on a machine in the states.

You were and appear to be continuing to do exactly the same thing as the people who run Hulu do; ignoring that the internet has no borders. You need 6 - 7 million globally and that is exceptionally easy for a decent show to do.
 
2012-11-21 09:31:34 AM  
Also getting cable is like inviting organized crime into your house. Once you establish a "business relationship" with those people you lose all protection from the harassing phone calls, especially if you want to leave later.
 
2012-11-21 09:43:27 AM  

NickelP: jayhawk88: The other day my wife picked the girls up from daycare and took them out for dinner and shopping with her mom, leaving me with the house to myself for several hours. As a bonus, KU was playing Mich State that night, bonus.

I grab a greasy burger on the way home and load up the XBox to turn on ESPN3. Updating...updating...updating, horray! Oh but ESPN3 app needs to update too. Updating...updating...updating, horray! There's the game, load it up....

...blacked out. For pretty much the entire country east of the Rockies. For no other reason, apparently, than the game was on ESPN proper, and ESPN can't figure out how to stream the same number of commercials online that the broadcast over the air has.

I suppose somewhere, some television exec figures that artificial limitations on streaming content will make me want to subscribe to cable TV, but in reality it just makes me hate every company involved more. Cox, ESPN, Disney, hell Microsoft for no damn reason.

Fark cable TV. I wasn't sure if I'd enjoy it when we cut the cord ~a year ago, thanks to the lack of sports, but there's no way I'm ever going back.

This, that shiat pisses me off so much. I just use the money I save on cable to go to the sports bar though when needed. I wind up having a good time there so its win/win.


Me too, I play a bit of Keno, as well, and come out significantly ahead most often.
 
2012-11-21 09:47:29 AM  

dready zim: It`s changed a lot. Type the name of the show, film or game you want into google followed by the word torrent. As long as you have a torrent client installed you are two clicks away from your show, game or film. If you have encryption, peer guardian etc then there is pretty much no risk of legal anything either.


It's not even that hard. With private trackers and RSS feeds you can have downloaded automatically to your computer, you don't even need to go find it. Combine that with an HTPC running XBMC and, when you turn on your TV, you automatically have access to pretty much any content you want without having to do any work at all
 
2012-11-21 10:21:31 AM  

Vaneshi: Huh, really? So lets see...
NCIS, NCIS:LA, Detroit 187... Boardwalk Empire


Procedural, procedural, police procedural... and a gorgeous period piece. BB is none of those.

I like how you're so sure that it would be easy to get 6 million people to pay $2 to watch Breaking Bad (which is an unrealistically low price AND is still too expensive for several billion of your potential customers) even though, without traditional TV, we would have just lost the most valuable avenue for marketing the show in the first place.

You are engaging in wishful thinking.
 
2012-11-21 10:44:11 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: ModernPrimitive01: you just end up watching on your tiny a$$ computer monitor

My monitor has the same size screen my teevee had when I trashed it. It wasn't a small teevee either.



Tiny? oh dear...
I have my media center computer hooked up to a projector on my wall. My screen is 112".
www.electronichouse.com
 
2012-11-21 10:44:55 AM  
I did that in 1987.
 
2012-11-21 10:46:52 AM  

Bukharin: www.electronichouse.com


I should have quoted MP01 and not Pony's quote.
Sorry about that.
 
2012-11-21 11:04:12 AM  
I'm too old to be a "cord never", but I am an early cord cutter. I would have been completely cut off from cable if my ex-wife hadn't been so into live television and unwilling to learn new technology. My fiancee now is totally different. She's all for having the entertainment via my various Internet/Rental services, as long as I can get certain shows and content, which I can.

Between Netflix, Redbox, Amazon Prime, Vudu, Over-the-Air broadcasts, and Video-On-Demand purchases from either Amazon or iTunes, I can get any show or movie we want. More obscure stuff can be had, too, if one is creative.

And here's the thing: With over 60 years of TV shows behind us now, it's not like we're going to run out of things to watch. So few good things are made now, anyway. Instead of paying for cable to watch some shiatty reality show, we'll watch reruns of Kids in the Hall, The Addams Family, Buck Rogers, Dark Shadows, Three's Company, Greatest American Hero, and a bajillion other old shows.

We have enough content to last us forever. F♥ck the networks and their new reality show crap. I'll tune in (or pay for) episodes of Fringe, Doctor Who, Red Dwarf, The Venture Bros., Game of Thrones, and The Walking Dead. My fiancee is getting me into Once Upon a Time, and she likes Castle (I might learn to like it). That's about all the current lineup offers to us. (Oh, okay. Scooby Doo Mystery Incorporated, Young Justice, Adventure Time, and Regular Show, too.)

Between my PS3, my Wii U, my Sony SMP-N200 streaming media player, and my Micca Slim, we have the opportunity for great movie nights, awesome gaming entertainment (which we both agree is better than passive entertainment like TV), and the best cable TV can offer, served in affordable slices.

Pay for decent Internet service. Tell the cable company they can keep their channel line-ups. Get yourself some decent hardware and a good antenna. Save a ton over the course of a year. Save tens of thousands (or more!) over your lifetime.

Sorry, cable: We're not as complacent and easy to trick as our parents. We're tech-savvy. We're not couch potatoes. We're not surgically-connected to our "clicker" like the Baby Boomers are.

/I love my parents, but they would go crazy without the ability to flip channels.
//It's compulsive with their generation, I think.
 
2012-11-21 11:15:05 AM  
Your problem is you're a greedy, unreachable monolith with IT monkey wage slaves and you sell something you paid off years ago at a ridiculous price and rarely actually deliver what you said you would. IT isn't all shiny and new, anymore and there's grease all over the kitchen, your parking lot is rubble and people are sending the food back. I realize that once you foist this dump off on some conglomerate and take all the cash you scraped out of it and move to the Caymans, you wont care, but asking us to care now is a bit insulting.
 
2012-11-21 11:43:37 AM  
InmanRoshi: HBO and Showtime don't get anyone to subscribe ... the cable providers do.

So you're telling me that the cable providers pay for all of HBOs ads? Like on billboards and bus stops and the like?

And that HBO doesn't pay other cable operators to advertise their channels?

And that the cable operators don't tack their own fees on top of HBO so that they can make a profit on it as well?
 
2012-11-21 11:48:17 AM  
ZeroCorpse : And here's the thing: With over 60 years of TV shows behind us now, it's not like we're going to run out of things to watch. So few good things are made now, anyway. Instead of paying for cable to watch some shiatty reality show, we'll watch reruns of Kids in the Hall, The Addams Family, Buck Rogers, Dark Shadows, Three's Company, Greatest American Hero, and a bajillion other old shows.

I watched all of that, what else you got? Especially in the sci-fi range.

// I even watched Andromeda, Lexx and Cleopatra 2525
 
2012-11-21 12:50:30 PM  
Awwwwwwww maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan I don't feeeeeeel like breaking into this new market. Come ooooooon guyyyyzzz my service is already there it'd be too much work to make a new one. Jeeeeeeez.

As my wife puts it, when dudes whine, it kills her girl boner. This guy is definitely killing her girl boner.
 
2012-11-21 12:58:59 PM  

BumpInTheNight: Count_0: Finally, there is the question of advertising. According to Bewkes, advertising-only models are not viable for most types of content, pointing to the era of the big three networks as a "wasteland" for TV. He called on companies to make more ads that people want to watch, citing a James Bond trailer or ads in GQ magazine as examples.


Is there such a thing as Ads people want to watch? Ads are the main reason I don't watch more TV in the first place.

I use to go to the international Adfest showings, there be gems within the rough. But yah, 99.9999% of them are just a nuisance.


And even the clever ones tend to get really annoying once you've seen them four times in the same evening.

/that's why I won't watch shows off of MTV.com anymore
//watched one episode of Beavis and Butthead, saw the same 2 commercials over and over and over and over again.
///sometimes the same commercial 3 times in a row in the same break
 
2012-11-21 01:46:35 PM  

Bukharin: The My Little Pony Killer: ModernPrimitive01: you just end up watching on your tiny a$$ computer monitor

My monitor has the same size screen my teevee had when I trashed it. It wasn't a small teevee either.


Tiny? oh dear...
I have my media center computer hooked up to a projector on my wall. My screen is 112".
[www.electronichouse.com image 300x227]


Why XP, why?
 
2012-11-21 02:11:31 PM  

MadMattressMack: Why XP, why?


It's not a Medic Center™ brand OS, it's just a center for my media. Nero... Winamp... Firefox... etc.

I tried WMC XP 2005 and that piece of shiat would freeze all the time, I had to reinstall it almost every year. I never tried Vista to compare, but I bet it was worse than Vista.
 
2012-11-21 02:39:02 PM  

FishyFred: You are engaging in wishful thinking.


The $2 per month, 6 - 7 million subscribers to sustain/fund a show like "Breaking Bad" ARE YOUR FIGURES DIPshiat, IT'S ALSO THE SHOW YOU MENTIONED.

Now it's been proven that's possible you want to move the goal posts. NOPE. In the retard corner you go asshole.
 
2012-11-21 03:08:25 PM  
I am also proud of all the media I steal. Let me tell you about it.
 
2012-11-21 04:08:00 PM  

Vaneshi: FishyFred: You are engaging in wishful thinking.

The $2 per month, 6 - 7 million subscribers to sustain/fund a show like "Breaking Bad" ARE YOUR FIGURES DIPshiat, IT'S ALSO THE SHOW YOU MENTIONED.

Now it's been proven that's possible you want to move the goal posts. NOPE. In the retard corner you go asshole.


I'll give you the three million who watch in America. How are you going to get the other three million? Consider the following:

It's in English. It has little international appeal. Your suggestion that it could sell overseas is just wrong. How do I know that? Because Sony is trying to sell the concept internationally for LOCALIZED productions. (pops) They don't want to just hire some international voice actors to dub this show. And if they did, by the way, that's more production costs and your $2 price is looking sillier than it already does.

More than a billion people live on about $1 per day. And really, anyone who's below what would be considered the American poverty line is out of the question. Your international audience is starting to look very narrow.

You have no marketing budget and, without the force of cable marketing and channels, your show is about to get lost in a sea of other entertainment options vying for your attention. There isn't enough room for everyone. Why are you so sure people will choose BB over something else? Again, the subject matter doesn't have a lot of international appeal. People have a thing for localized productions. The American imports that work tend to be big dumb action movies, which aren't made anywhere other than Hollywood (and maybe Bollywood).

You have zero examples to draw from. You are the one working from bare-assed assertions. I'm not saying that there won't eventually be a first example to prove me wrong, but the idea that you can bring in as much money right now selling a show directly to consumers as you can in the current arrangement is utter nonsense.
 
2012-11-21 06:47:37 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: I am also proud of all the media I steal.


*You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means*
 
2012-11-21 09:11:16 PM  

narkor: And why would a "cord never" pay $2 an episode for anything that they can torrent off The Pirate Bay? Piracy is the most efficient method of distributing content - and impossible to monetize (pirates simply edit out advertisements). Until piracy is made difficult for the average person, the average person will spend their $2 on a necessary expense rather than an "ethically optional" one.


Because I'm not a teenager and I know that people need money for content. I always try for a legal option before torrenting any show and I wish I had more.
 
2012-11-21 10:57:01 PM  

Bukharin: MadMattressMack: Why XP, why?

It's not a Medic Center™ brand OS, it's just a center for my media. Nero... Winamp... Firefox... etc.

I tried WMC XP 2005 and that piece of shiat would freeze all the time, I had to reinstall it almost every year. I never tried Vista to compare, but I bet it was worse than Vista.


What the...!? *checks calendar*

Windows 7, man! Windows 8 is out but avoid it at all costs.
 
2012-11-21 11:15:19 PM  

wraith95: narkor: And why would a "cord never" pay $2 an episode for anything that they can torrent off The Pirate Bay? Piracy is the most efficient method of distributing content - and impossible to monetize (pirates simply edit out advertisements). Until piracy is made difficult for the average person, the average person will spend their $2 on a necessary expense rather than an "ethically optional" one.

Eventually piracy gets tiresome. I'm in my early thirties and tech savvy, but frankly can't be bothered to pirate stuff anymore. Netflix and Amazon prime are cheap with loads of content, and I don't mind paying a bit for dvds or digital episodes of stuff I can't find elswhere. My local library either carries or can get any recent popular show as well. Piracy, unless it's changed a lot in the past ten years, can be a bit of a hassle, and I don't think worth the even slight chance of getting sued.


It's not a hassle but I would rather pay $2 and get a show honestly if the option is there.
 
2012-11-21 11:26:51 PM  

FishyFred: Vaneshi: FishyFred: You are engaging in wishful thinking.

The $2 per month, 6 - 7 million subscribers to sustain/fund a show like "Breaking Bad" ARE YOUR FIGURES DIPshiat, IT'S ALSO THE SHOW YOU MENTIONED.

Now it's been proven that's possible you want to move the goal posts. NOPE. In the retard corner you go asshole.

I'll give you the three million who watch in America. How are you going to get the other three million? Consider the following:

It's in English. It has little international appeal. Your suggestion that it could sell overseas is just wrong. How do I know that? Because Sony is trying to sell the concept internationally for LOCALIZED productions. (pops) They don't want to just hire some international voice actors to dub this show. And if they did, by the way, that's more production costs and your $2 price is looking sillier than it already does.

More than a billion people live on about $1 per day. And really, anyone who's below what would be considered the American poverty line is out of the question. Your international audience is starting to look very narrow.

You have no marketing budget and, without the force of cable marketing and channels, your show is about to get lost in a sea of other entertainment options vying for your attention. There isn't enough room for everyone. Why are you so sure people will choose BB over something else? Again, the subject matter doesn't have a lot of international appeal. People have a thing for localized productions. The American imports that work tend to be big dumb action movies, which aren't made anywhere other than Hollywood (and maybe Bollywood).

You have zero examples to draw from. You are the one working from bare-assed assertions. I'm not saying that there won't eventually be a first example to prove me wrong, but the idea that you can bring in as much money right now selling a show directly to consumers as you can in the current arrangement is utter nonsense.


If only there were other English speaking countries in the world that consume US TV shows.
 
2012-11-22 06:07:26 AM  
What I like about CEOs these days is by the time they've attained their position they've stopped thinking as humans and entirely converted to thinking like vampires. They look at consumers as food.
 
2012-11-23 09:43:20 AM  

FishyFred: It's in English. It has little international appeal. Your suggestion that it could sell overseas is just wrong. How do I know that? Because Sony is trying to sell the concept internationally for LOCALIZED productions. (pops) They don't want to just hire some international voice actors to dub this show. And if they did, by the way, that's more production costs and your $2 price is looking sillier than it already does.


Article: The Russian free-to-air broadcaster has already aired several versions of Sony formats including Married With Children and King of Queens and discussions are underway about a local version of the sitcom, which still airs on broadcast network CBS in the US.

Wikipedia: The King of Queens is an American sitcom that originally ran on CBS from September 21, 1998, to May 14, 2007

Super fail.

/syndication, how does it work?
 
2012-11-23 09:45:31 AM  

dletter: FishyFred: It's in English. It has little international appeal. Your suggestion that it could sell overseas is just wrong. How do I know that? Because Sony is trying to sell the concept internationally for LOCALIZED productions. (pops) They don't want to just hire some international voice actors to dub this show. And if they did, by the way, that's more production costs and your $2 price is looking sillier than it already does.

Article: The Russian free-to-air broadcaster has already aired several versions of Sony formats including Married With Children and King of Queens and discussions are underway about a local version of the sitcom, which still airs on broadcast network CBS in the US.

Wikipedia: The King of Queens is an American sitcom that originally ran on CBS from September 21, 1998, to May 14, 2007

Super fail.

/syndication, how does it work?


My bad, they were referencing "Rules of Engagement", not King of Queens.... slightly bad referencial english though.
 
2012-11-23 12:00:15 PM  

dletter: /syndication, how does it work?


I didn't say that no shows get dubbed. I said that Breaking Bad is not dubbed.
 
2012-11-23 01:07:00 PM  

FishyFred: dletter: /syndication, how does it work?

I didn't say that no shows get dubbed. I said that Breaking Bad is not dubbed.


Wasn't commenting on you was commenting on the article linked.
 
Displayed 37 of 187 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report