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.

(Business Insider)   Please, please, please let this be true   (businessinsider.com) divider line 359
    More: Hero, Intel, casual games, cable industry  
•       •       •

67253 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jan 2013 at 1:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-02 01:39:58 AM

roncofooddehydrator: No... there's a limited supply. So the more popular something becomes the more expensive it becomes. Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.


"No" in pretty much every respect when it comes to entertainment content. 1500 people can watch a show as it airs from one guy's cable box if said box is streaming to the internet. One camera recording or DVD of a movie becomes 250k copies as people download it. The only scarcity even mildly related to the market is the ease or difficulty of viewing the original broadcast/showing.

It's been this way since the first Betamax players and blank tapes arrived on store shelves. Where were you?
 
2013-01-02 01:40:17 AM

apoptotic: Won't the threat of more people switching to streaming tv just result in stricter bandwith limits? Or are American cable companies and ISPs run totally separately?


yeah, we have free enterprise here
;-p
 
2013-01-02 01:40:51 AM
INTC at 20...
/off to check out
//wish i could play in the derivative markets
///this does have wifi, right
 
2013-01-02 01:41:15 AM
I don't watch sports. Sports channels have the highest feels. I look forward to not having to pay channels I don't like that cost more than the channels I don't want.
 
2013-01-02 01:41:37 AM
Stopped using cable 4 years ago. Now I use AppleTV and XBMC to see what I want when I want, which is more than I need because I rarely watch television anyway.

I like subscribing for the shows I want to watch. The Walking Dead is currently the only show I subscribe to and it's enough. I'm not tied to the television with the feeling I'm paying money for all this shiat so I need to watch to make it worth it. Plus, the anticipation of the next episode is nice, "Holy shiat! what's gonna happen next week?!?".... With normal television, I'd most likely forget about the next episode.

I just hope these cable companies don't decide to jack up broadband prices because of the drop in cable packages...

fark cable.
 
2013-01-02 01:42:14 AM
If this is internet based, then you have to watch out for provider data limits. Comcast starts throttling and reserves the right to drop your service if you exceed 250 GB a month. I can see television streaming exceeding that pretty easily, and you know Comcast isn't going to be lenient about it when you're circumventing their cable.
 
2013-01-02 01:42:27 AM
I'll go for it if the bring back the Appalachian Community Service Network.
 
2013-01-02 01:42:30 AM
i816.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-02 01:42:40 AM

MisterRonbo: Are you farkers under the impression that these channels are individual companies, or that their customers are you?

Bwaaa haaaa haaaaaa. Disney, Viacom, and other firms hold bundles of channels. Their customers are the cable and SatTV firms. The latter provide marketing, billing, customer service.

Now imagine you're a business who sells all of your output as one package, to only a handful of customers. Would you piss off your five or six customers, and break apart your core product to sell the high value parts separately, suddenly have to own a lot of the marketing yourself, to do business with a small niche player?

Intel's only hope - and it's slim - is to cut an agreement to sell bundles of channels in overseas markets. Even that is dicey as geo-IP is not hard to get around.

Know why its expensive if not impossible to get all of your sports, live, over the internet? Yeah, same reason this won't happen. Its a cozy arrangement for content and distribution providers. You are just the field they graze on.


This is the hurdle, Monopoly! 5 maybe 10 people are in control of Mass Media world wide.
 
2013-01-02 01:43:06 AM

steamingpile: Then all of you will be pissed once you get this then wind up paying $75 for just the few channels you want,


If people actually pay it, then it is priced correctly.
Refuse to pay it, go outside and make a garden, or read a book, and the price will come down.
 
2013-01-02 01:43:07 AM
Hollywood (and by that I mean American corporate content gatekeepers). You. Were. Warned. You could of played nice with the internet and the IT industry... you could of had strategic business alliances and kept a modicum of power.

Now get ready to see what actual, real, 800Lb gorillas appearing does to your industry. Welcome to the early days of the personal computer when IBM showed up to the party; you and your candy asses... well your farked.

Now... to get my hands on one of these three companies offerings (either the Google, Apple or Intel one) and see how well it works over a decent VPN.
 
2013-01-02 01:43:30 AM

Alonjar: No see... now you get to directly fund things you want. Now scifi gets a bigger chunk of the pie if you like scifi, so maybe they can afford to make cool new shows instead of airing ghost hunters 800 times.

/At least, thats what im telling myself


That actually makes sense. I mean right now every channel shows the same crap because they're all trying to attract the same audience, i.e. the majority of people who have cable. There's no margin in being specialized because all you're doing is cutting yourself off from the largest market share of people who already get your channel. Simultaneously, there's no PENALTY for alienating the specialized audience, because you can always just throw a bunch of pro wrestling and fake reality shows up there and earn back all those rating points and then some.

If channels go a la carte it will, among other things, allow more specialized channels to exist and maybe be profitable. Instead of having to spend $80/mo to get the top "tier" just so you can watch weird channels, it'll cost something like $5 apiece, something that the more discerning viewer might be willing to pay. It'll also cut down on this homogenized pastiche of crap we have going on in terms of programming. If you have to pay for every channel individually you're only going to buy so many copies of the same horrible program lineup before you decide its enough.
 
2013-01-02 01:44:31 AM

gregscott: Sports channels have the highest feels.


Sports channels will receive none of my feels.  NONE OF THEM!!!
 
2013-01-02 01:44:34 AM
You guys trust these tards to tell you anything straight when they have a BS story about Neil Armstrong?
 
2013-01-02 01:44:51 AM
Wow. You people talk a lot.


Id pay for this. I am however gullible so.
 
2013-01-02 01:45:04 AM
upload.wikimedia.org

HBO/Showtime/GM/Ford/Pentagon Warehouse
 
2013-01-02 01:45:13 AM
So people who like to watch ESPN will have their premiums go up because they won't have the rest of the people who don't watch ESPN subsidizing it for them?

aerojockey.com

/and would have been ok with this even when I was one of those guys who watched ESPN all the time
 
2013-01-02 01:45:16 AM

Kittypie070: You guys trust these tards to tell you anything straight when they have a BS story about Neil Armstrong?


That's the Live Strong guy, right?
 
2013-01-02 01:47:15 AM

Counter_Intelligent: Kittypie070: You guys trust these tards to tell you anything straight when they have a BS story about Neil Armstrong?

That's the Live Strong guy, right?


Yeah, the one who used to be in that boy band and then came out of the closet.
 
2013-01-02 01:47:19 AM

Thraeryn: roncofooddehydrator: No... there's a limited supply. So the more popular something becomes the more expensive it becomes. Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.

"No" in pretty much every respect when it comes to entertainment content. 1500 people can watch a show as it airs from one guy's cable box if said box is streaming to the internet. One camera recording or DVD of a movie becomes 250k copies as people download it. The only scarcity even mildly related to the market is the ease or difficulty of viewing the original broadcast/showing.

It's been this way since the first Betamax players and blank tapes arrived on store shelves. Where were you?


You're misunderstanding what the supply is. The supply is quality television. There's only so much of it. When there's a demand for it, the price goes up. That's why ESPN can charge $5 per subscriber. It's not some arbitrary number, it's the law of supply and demand at work.
 
2013-01-02 01:47:45 AM
I'll take 2, 3, and, uh...5, no, 6.

/8, I should have taken channel 8.
 
2013-01-02 01:49:56 AM
like, i dont even have a tv
 
2013-01-02 01:50:26 AM
i don't have an hdtv, but OTA broadcasts are good enough for me. it's mostly in the background anyway.

WCIU Chicago holla
 
2013-01-02 01:51:27 AM
Channels will cost a nickle a piece, right?
 
2013-01-02 01:51:30 AM

thisiszombocom: like, i dont even have a tv


Oh, you should check them out, they've got knobs and dials, and the pictures move around like they were real.
 
2013-01-02 01:54:04 AM

Counter_Intelligent: That's the Live Strong guy, right?


No, that's the Louisianan jazz musician.
 
2013-01-02 01:54:42 AM
I don't care if it costs twice as much, if it puts the current cable companies out of business.
 
2013-01-02 01:55:05 AM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm predicting that within 10 years, professionally created video entertainment specifically for home consumption will disappear. Yes, even Law & Order.
People will still go to new movies for the communal experience.
People will still go to local theater for the novelty of watching live people perform.

But "television" will be replaced by whatever six people with a couple of cameras want to put on the Internet. They'll have day jobs. Their "reward" will be Internet viewings. If they're really good enough, they'll make their entertainment some sort of pay-per-view.


Maybe there could be a show....Fark TV?
 
2013-01-02 01:55:30 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: No, that's the Louisianan jazz musician.


How did you know I'm from Louisiana?
 
2013-01-02 01:56:26 AM

madgonad: And you both would be completely wrong.

What is never mentioned in these a la carte vs all inclusive comparisons is that competition would fundamentally change. For the first time EVER the channels would be selling directly to the consumer. The costs aren't laundered through BigCableCo - they are directly charged to the customer.


Who is piping the data to the consumer? It's still the cable company. They'll get their money one way or the other, if cable television becomes obsolete, they'll simply hike the prices for internet service. They would actually need to if that happens because bandwidth would become an issue and they'd need to upgrade their infrastructure.
 
2013-01-02 01:57:20 AM

Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm predicting that within 10 years, professionally created video entertainment specifically for home consumption will disappear. Yes, even Law & Order.
People will still go to new movies for the communal experience.
People will still go to local theater for the novelty of watching live people perform.

But "television" will be replaced by whatever six people with a couple of cameras want to put on the Internet. They'll have day jobs. Their "reward" will be Internet viewings. If they're really good enough, they'll make their entertainment some sort of pay-per-view.


Holy crap that's a bad prediction.
 
2013-01-02 01:57:46 AM

serial_crusher: fusillade762: by some estimates, only about 25 percent of cable customers actually watch ESPN on a regular basis. So if you unbundled ESPN, the per-subscriber cost might shoot up to $20 or more, to account for the 75 percent drop in its customer base.

So why not create bundles targeted at certain demos? Create a sports bundle for sports fans, a nerd bundle with stuff like Siffy, Discovery, The Science Channel etc. Seems like anything would be better than the one-size-fits-all system we have now.

Why only worry about the people who watch ESPN regularly?  They have to watch everything on the channel?  The only sports I ever watch on TV are Virginia Tech football games, so I wouldn't be in the regular viewership category, but me and thousands of other people like me would gladly pay 10 bucks a season to watch all the Virginia Tech football games.  That's going to add up.

From there, it's easy enough to create other relevant bundles.  Make a college football bundle for the guy who likes to watch every game.  Make a Virginia Tech package that includes all the different sports, but only VT.  And have an "everything" package for the guy who just wants to watch sports.


The only problem with this model is that it won't pay, or you would have to pay exorbitant fees to sustain it. The cost to televise VT football isn't any more or less than any other football game. But it'll be you and, say, 50,000 other VT fans who want to watch VT football. Add in another 100,000+ who might have it as secondary interest and you get about, oh, let's be generous, 250,000 viewers willing to pay for VT football. Well, $20/month for that isn't going to be enough to pay for all that televising for the whole season. They'll either say, "we'll get rid of VT football, Clemson football, and several other smaller interest teams" or, "we will have to charge $120/month for VT football."

That's the main problem. Currently, big name movies, TV shows and sporting events help pay for the production and broadcast of smaller movies, shows and events.

It will also require that shows have to have a bang-up first few episodes to catch people's interest, but no funding to make it happen.

I personally think that this selfishness by the viewer will be the death of television. Which isn't a bad thing in the grand scheme of things.
 
2013-01-02 01:58:08 AM
Call me when cable tv is 100% on demand programming, no DVR, no cloud storage, just click and watch.  Until then I'll stick with Hulu and NetFlix.
 
2013-01-02 01:58:47 AM

cretinbob: Huck And Molly Ziegler: I'm predicting that within 10 years, professionally created video entertainment specifically for home consumption will disappear. Yes, even Law & Order.
People will still go to new movies for the communal experience.
People will still go to local theater for the novelty of watching live people perform.

But "television" will be replaced by whatever six people with a couple of cameras want to put on the Internet. They'll have day jobs. Their "reward" will be Internet viewings. If they're really good enough, they'll make their entertainment some sort of pay-per-view.

Maybe there could be a show....Fark TV?


With sweat and dead man's balls?
 
2013-01-02 01:59:18 AM

WhyteRaven74: roncofooddehydrator: Diamonds are very popular but there's only so many of them.

you can create all the diamonds you want these days


Which is why synthetic diamonds are cheap and natural ones are expensive...
 
2013-01-02 01:59:40 AM
so if this actually comes true, what channels would you guys choose to pay for? i don't have cable at all right now because i don't watch television very much, but if they offered individual channels, i would get cartoon network (for adult swim), maybe fx (for the show archer) and the discovery channel (for mythbusters, until they finally cancel it). i'd also probably get whatever station broadcasts green bay packer games, but only during football season.
 
2013-01-02 01:59:43 AM

gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.


That makes three of us.I shut our cable off about seven years ago and only miss seeing the NYY games.I keep an old tv around for one grandson to play his games on(no one touches my computer).Netflix costs me less then $9 a month for the little I watch.Cable tv equals dull,wasted time.
 
2013-01-02 02:00:29 AM

madgonad:

The key benefit of this is that a lot of the crap channels will start folding. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing.


thisiszombocom: like, i dont even have a tv


I own one but I only use it to watch old VHS tapes.

/No I don't have Beta, I'm not a hipster
 
2013-01-02 02:01:47 AM
I have never owned a tv, and I castigated my parents for ever exploring that new technology when they were kids. No, that's a lie, I was just trying to be cool. I watch a lot of tv. I love tv. If I can get my fix cheaper, I'm all for it. But I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, I will continue paying for every channel that is available to me. Because I'm a dumb ass.
 
2013-01-02 02:02:00 AM
Viacom is ready to troll us & stop this from happening.
 
2013-01-02 02:03:29 AM

roncofooddehydrator: You're misunderstanding what the supply is. The supply is quality television. There's only so much of it. When there's a demand for it, the price goes up. That's why ESPN can charge $5 per subscriber. It's not some arbitrary number, it's the law of supply and demand at work.


So . . . companies that don't supply, who currently rely on very inclusive groupings, will find their profits dwindle. They'll have to up the quality of their content or go bankrupt. Companies that currently supply quality programming may be able to lower the cost the average subscriber pays because, instead of being in an inclusive grouping from which they only get a portion of profit, they'll be able to accrue subscribers paying them directly for their product. They'll accrue more subscribers like me, who don't currently pay for cable and would be unlikely to purchase a premium package over the basic ones.

I think some companies should be terrified, and others should be champing at the bit.
 
2013-01-02 02:04:18 AM
i.imgur.com
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-02 02:05:17 AM
Unlikely.

My Holy Grail is to walk away from the set once and for all (save for the off-air freebies) and save my money and time that way.

Intel or no.
 
2013-01-02 02:05:24 AM

sweet-daddy-2: .I shut our cable off about seven years ago and only miss seeing the NYY games.


I killed mine over 20 years ago.
And I pay for MLB.com (which is really, really done well) for my baseball fix.
 
2013-01-02 02:05:40 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-02 02:06:44 AM
Enjoy paying big bucks a month for ESPN, Comedy Central, TNT, other popular channels, etc., and everything else that is in any way niche going out of business completely
 
2013-01-02 02:07:51 AM

Triumph: I'm for this if it's what finally kills MTV.


Been considering canceling my cable for a while now... when my main TV blew up, I just never got around to replacing it; that was TWO Thanksgivings ago. 90% of what I watch, I watch online.. the rest is on a 22" flat screen that doesn't impress me.
If they can come out with this service... it would be great; probably only have like 20 channels (actually, I can only think of about 8 or so), but they would be what I actually wanted.

/since I would lose VIP status in dumping cable, I would just drop the phone, too.. go with Magic Jack and save even more $$$$ to spend of free porn
 
2013-01-02 02:08:49 AM

gibbon1: President Merkin Muffley: People still watch TV?

I came here to say this. I've haven't watched any TV for maybe 20 years. When I occasionally see it, my god, it's way way overwhelming.


So you haven't watched TV in 20 years except for when you watch it. Huh, a new take on reality ill have to try. "No babe, I don't cheat on you except when I sexy time other girls."
 
2013-01-02 02:09:53 AM

7th Son of a 7th Son: Zombie DJ: Oh good. I can see it now.

TNT $20 a month
MTV $3 a month
Comedy Central $40 a month
SyFy $10 a month
and so on...

I get the feeling I'd be paying MORE because I like popular channels like CC, USA and TNT.
People who like dreck like MTV will probably end up paying less.

THIS THIS THIS SO MUCH THIS.


I agree and you'll still have to deal with commercials. As much as I like streaming, most of the media we will watch/read in the future will be bought through apps. That is also what Micro Soft is heading for an interaction between Windows 8 and having apps along with the current internet. I see it working well for cell phones and tablets but for systems that do not have a touch screen it is still really all that great.

I am sure cable will work its way in there somewhere, if they do not innovate somewhere into this by offering a bundle of apps for a certain price for streaming or get on the wireless service where apps are bought and billed through them. Cable is all but done for.
 
2013-01-02 02:11:04 AM

eddievercetti: Viacom is ready to troll us & stop this from happening.


Viacom don't have enough money to stop it happening. None of them do; even combined. If the business insiders are correct then Viacom would have to fight Apple, Google and Intel all at the same time. That is some serious 18 wheeled heavy mental thunder approaching.

Apple the company with a market cap larger than the worlds biggest oil company. Google, the darling of the internet who are about to release 'Google Glass', they don't know what its for, they haven't really got a a business model for it... but people are queuing up to pre-order the dev units and finally Intel. The company that makes the processors in everyones laptop/desktop and servers.

Viacom's small fry compared to that monster.
 
Displayed 50 of 359 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report