Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Hero, Intel, casual games, cable industry  
•       •       •

67296 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jan 2013 at 1:15 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-01-02 03:33:40 AM  
TommyymmoT : I wonder what will happen to the shopping channels, which cable companies claim they need to include in order to offset their expenses?

Well, people shop on the shopping channels, so give the channel away for free.

// think about it, if there was a shopping channel that sold some decent tech shiat. Like a Think Geek TV or something, would you watch it? Would you buy?
 
2013-01-02 03:37:42 AM  

yukichigai: BolloxReader: Sorry if this has been said... actually no I'm not.

First of all, ISPs will put smaller caps on data. Why? Because Comcast will, to stop this.

Secondly, Comcast will never let its in-house channels and channels be sent over wire a la carte. The entertainment industry is a cartel and the other companies will likewise refuse to license their offerings a la carte.

Thirdly, Comcast will get away with this because it is a legal monopoly. Cable companies are regulated monopolies with guaranteed exclusive territories. Utilities own state governments. Expect this service to be blocked legislatively at the state level or through their agents on utilities regulation boards.

Is the announcement real? Absolutely. But they will have zero content unless they want to buy from independent studios. I have a series I'm developing that would be perfect for it, for example, but only because I won't give up control to the entertainment cartel.

I could see them doing a joint venture with Netflix for exclusive series content, if Netflix isn't too concerned with having existing content yanked.

This is a very high stakes game and Intel is trying to destabilize a highly regulated monopoly and a less legal but no less powerful cartel.

I would love to see the cartel and the monopoly both broken. I really would. It's been a pox on entertainment for too long. But I don't understand how Intel hopes to overcome the organized hostility they will face on all fronts.

I think they're hoping to do it nice and businesslike, without nastiness. The reason being that they aren't without their own methods of applying pressure too.

If this was just some random startup I think you'd be dead on: there's no way this would go through, at least not without serious political pressure brought to bear to get it done. The thing is, Intel has the means to apply political pressure where they need to.

Comcast starts throttling bandwidth? Well ignoring a supposed Net Neutrality bill finally being passed, Intel could just say, "hey Comcast, you know all those tiny tiny little processors and transistors you buy from us to make your cable boxes and modems and such? We've decided to stop selling them to you. Have fun negotiating a new contract with AMD, who we will be sure to let know how desperate for a new supplier you are."

If the legislators get involved, Intel can do a WAY better job of paying them off than Comcast could. Between defense contracts and other things, they can easily afford to give any congresscritter enough money in kickbacks for them to build a mansion out of other, smaller mansions. There's also the classic, "gee Senator asshat, I have no idea how the shipment of microprocessors tagged for your specific pork project were all bad, making you eat a huge cost thanks to the nature of our contract with you. Very, very strange. On a related topic, how's that monopoly decision going?"

As someone else said, Intel is the real 650 pound gorilla in this situation. They have the weight to throw around and the capacity to do it. It would take every single company who isn't in favor of this teaming up to match the amount of political and financial pressure Intel could put into the whole arrangement, and that's not even counting Intel's likely heavy-hitting allies, like Apple and Google. The only hope for the networks is that nobody sells to Intel at all, but I'm not sure how likely that is, not to mention that whole "regulated monopoly" thing may actually obligate them to do so (monopoly regulations being very, very strange sometimes).


I think that the networks will either all sign agreements or all offer unacceptable terms. This is a direct assault on their business model. It literally is a matter of life or death for the cable channel business, whether it is Comcast or Disney or anyone else.

You bring up a good point about Congress. The tech companies can certainly do better there than the media companies. But they would have to assert jurisdiction over the state legislatures.

Ever seen a state law being written? The legislator hands you a blank template for a law and you fill it out so they don't have to. They decide whether they like you enough to sponsor that law you yourself just wrote. The committee chair decides whether he or she likes you enough to allow discussion. The sponsor decides whether he or she likes you enough to defend it. And then the committee decides whether to advance it, which is often another popularity contest.

Sure, there are some ideological wranglings but assuming it isn't about abortion or guns or unions or teachers, it's an easy sell... if they like you enough. And "enough" means more than anyone else who may stand to lose because of the new law.

Utility regulation has always been a state issue, and they will have every other utlility fighting to preserve their bailiwick. All the energy companies, water, etc will be drawn into the fight because it is far easier to control state legislatures than Congress.

Again I would love to see the system disrupted. The whole "legal monopoly" thing needs to go away. Every single one of them is abusive and unaccountable and guaranteed profits regardless of it.

But it would not be easy, nor would it be quick.
 
2013-01-02 03:38:53 AM  

cretinbob: Already beginning

[uncrate.com image 470x327]


Roku is great. Love my Roku. But outside of Netflix and Hulu Plus, the availability of current, full-length programs is spotty at best. I'm sure this market will mature. But in the mean time, I'm still watching Craig Ferguson on CBS.com's shiatty player because there's no way to watch full episodes on Roku - or at least no way that I've found. (And CBS has finally started cracking down on the Craig-centric YouTube channels.)

/yes, I've tried Plex - it's a pain in the ass, doesn't work right 70% of the time, and despite being a QA Engineer, even I have a hard time figuring out how the fark it works
 
2013-01-02 03:41:00 AM  

inclemency: But you complaining about the subjective 'lack of content', which I'm assured is a spurious declaration just makes all of us look bad. Look into 'not being entitled 101' at that college near you. Oh, and I hear 'at least it's not a phonograph' is great as well


That's funny, because it presents not just the idiocy of social justice warriors, but also your own personal ignorance of the great Netflix/Qwixster debacle and the difference between Netflix Streaming versus Netflix DVD and how Netflix is trying to shutdown Netflix DVD.

Anyway, you're a total dumbass, and if you're going to college to learn about privilege 101, I hope for your sake it's a cheap community college and that you enjoy service oriented customer facing positions where you can provide them their daily fries.
 
2013-01-02 03:42:40 AM  
lordargent still quoting in green. It's like watching Spectravision or ONtv.
 
2013-01-02 03:47:23 AM  
Soupysales: lordargent still quoting in green. It's like watching Spectravision or ONtv.

After over a decade, you think you would be used to it by now.
 
2013-01-02 03:48:55 AM  

BolloxReader: Again I would love to see the system disrupted. The whole "legal monopoly" thing needs to go away. Every single one of them is abusive and unaccountable and guaranteed profits regardless of it.

But it would not be easy, nor would it be quick.


Oh god no. This is going to be a long, knock-down, drag-out kind of fight. Shots fired back and forth all over this. Like you said, this is someone's livelihood, though I think it's possible that Intel may find a way to make it profitable, not disruptive, for the networks. That still leaves the cable companies though.

I do see this dragging on for a while though, but if Intel decides they're going to give it the full push, my money is on them winning in the end.
 
2013-01-02 03:52:48 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: serial_crusher: Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.

This ridiculous. Controlling when content can be viewed is an excellent way of maintaining control over a population. For example, in Canada, traditionally traffic on city streets decreases significantly when Hockey Night in Canada is on. So does crime, hospital visits, etc.. it also means that a huge proportion of Canadians are available for targeted messages, like advertising, that runs the economy. Other messages, like political messages, can be run during HNiC as well.

Then let's look at social engineering experiments like reality tv shows where viewers vote. The CBC ran the first show like that, because private industries wanted to make the financial risks public. Canada tested it's infrastructure for cell phones, instant text messaging, and how business and government could coordinate hundreds of thousands of Canadians to obey a message all at once. It was also a cash cow, ensuring that the cellular companies at the time would get a guaranteed income on certain nights of the week, from customers who watched the show sending messages.

Your silly idea would not coordinate all of these things and would seriously fark up city planning, business, and government control mechanisms. It would bugger the economy in advertising alone. it is irresponsible.


Funny that. In my country, they use those moment for the tax-, fine- and repo-men to come and pay a visit to your house.
 
2013-01-02 03:53:14 AM  
Im not sure whats up with all the bandwidth cap etc comments... while its still basically regulated monopoly, ive got the choice between Comcast cable, DSL, Verizon Fios, and if you want to include them.. several local wireless internet companies.

Will comcast try to be dicks about this? Yes... but it will just drive the customers to Fios etc where there are no caps and there is plenty of bandwidth, on a modern infrastructure.
 
2013-01-02 03:53:55 AM  

lordargent: Soupysales: lordargent still quoting in green. It's like watching Spectravision or ONtv.

After over a decade, you think you would be used to it by now.


Oh, I am. I have no issue with it. I was more making a play on the cable offerings that existed way back in the olden days, when we all were Farking by mail.
 
2013-01-02 04:12:22 AM  

yukichigai: 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.


No, no. You're thinking of one of the Knights of the Round Table. He was often times given rhymes that were quite unsingable, not unlike a member of a boy band. A common mistake.
 
2013-01-02 04:13:31 AM  

roncofooddehydrator: SquiggsIN: shouldn't the more popular it is, the better bargaining can be reached, thus the CHEAPER it becomes. These are basic principles of economics.

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.


There's a lot more of them than are on the market. Rubies are more rare, yet cost less, because there's no cartel jacking the price up by withholding supply.
 
2013-01-02 04:15:29 AM  
I'm with the what's-new-about-this crowd.  I gave up on $70/mo cable three years ago.  If there's something I want to see, I will pay for a season pass or I will wait until it's on DVD or streaming free.  The main reason I do this is because when I had cable, I discovered most of the programming revolved around reality shows I had no wish to see.  And of course, the other reason I did it was that even the shows I wanted to see  were laced with ads I didn't want to see.  So now I see the shows I want to see, ad-free.
 
2013-01-02 04:31:34 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?


My Internet provider is also a cable company. If they can throttle torrent traffic, don't see why they wouldn't be able to throttle traffic to/from a device that has cost the a subscriber. I haven't had cable TV in over 5 years and don't miss any of it (except for baseball).
 
2013-01-02 04:39:57 AM  
I'd be happy if they just offered a non-sports package, since the bulk of the cable fees goes to pay for ESPN and simliar channels.  I don't watch sports, and I hate the idea that so much of my cable check would go towards them.
 
2013-01-02 04:46:35 AM  

serial_crusher: You're salivating over a la carte channels?  Really grampa?  I hear they're getting ready to make these newfangled things called compact discs next year.  They're going to be like cassette tapes, except they'll have lasers!

"Channels" are already obsolete.  You people sit here and biatch that there are 200 channels you don't watch, but you're perfectly comfortable paying for 24 hours a day of programming, even though you only watch like 4 hours of it on average?  It's the same thing in a smaller chunk.

Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.


Channels are not so bad. I own an mp3 player, but i sometimes listen to college radio because i want to hear something new. Channels remind me of what I used to like and introduce me to what i might like. A randomly programmed netflix channel could be kind of cool.
 
2013-01-02 04:53:26 AM  

MadSkillz: What? You don't want A&E bundled in with the channels you want? But you need to watch 16 minute shows like Storage Wars.

/A&E - Too many f'ng commercials.


I've been hitting the website for mine. And you are right. Average running time is 18 minutes.
 
2013-01-02 05:02:48 AM  

red5ish: 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.


I don't think he's too far off base.

Have you ever heard of Shay Carl, or Charles Trippy? These folks are far from extraordinary, but yet they have millions of viewers, and I'm sure they've managed to monetize what they do outside of their YouTube partnerships. I'd venture to guess that they actually have a larger viewership than some cable shows.
 
2013-01-02 05:16:44 AM  

Vaneshi: 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.


Viacom doesn't have enough money to stop this from happening?

That's what lobbyists and the FCC are for, silly!
 
2013-01-02 05:18:42 AM  

fusillade762: Do I have to fark her vagina or is the neck flab an acceptable alternative?


Thing is... you think your getting her vag... and then... SURPRISE! You weren't even close!
 
2013-01-02 05:19:23 AM  

randomjsa: You mean you want to be able to pick and choose the package you want rather than have a bunch of things you don't want?
Think hard now, because if you feel that passionately about doing so for cable television may I inquire why you are not screaming in RAGE over how health insurance works?


Okay, I want YOU to think really hard about this, and understand the false equivalency you just presented, but I'll let you think really hard about it first..

give up?

Cable TV is a WANT and a luxury. If you don't get cable TV, you won't die.
Healthcare is a NEED and a compulsory. If it is not provided for everyone equally all the time, people will die.

Furthermore, having choices in cable TV enriches the user experience. There is no choice when it comes to healthcare: You either have it or you don't. Cable TV has many purposes. There is only one purpose when it comes to healthcare: To be healthy.

To actually advocate that there is a "choice" when it comes to healthcare on par with cable TV subscriptions is what's wrong with the American healthcare industry.
 
2013-01-02 05:19:56 AM  
Meh. Bundle in some gigabit fiber at a decent rate and I'm in. Otherwise, no. I can live without Cable of any sort, and use OTT.
 
2013-01-02 05:21:42 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


...and you'd think the price would fall as a result. Sounds like a conspiracy!
 
2013-01-02 05:22:25 AM  

BolloxReader: Sorry if this has been said... actually no I'm not.

First of all, ISPs will put smaller caps on data. Why? Because Comcast will, to stop this.

Secondly, Comcast will never let its in-house channels and channels be sent over wire a la carte. The entertainment industry is a cartel and the other companies will likewise refuse to license their offerings a la carte.

Thirdly, Comcast will get away with this because it is a legal monopoly. Cable companies are regulated monopolies with guaranteed exclusive territories. Utilities own state governments. Expect this service to be blocked legislatively at the state level or through their agents on utilities regulation boards.

Is the announcement real? Absolutely. But they will have zero content unless they want to buy from independent studios. I have a series I'm developing that would be perfect for it, for example, but only because I won't give up control to the entertainment cartel.

I could see them doing a joint venture with Netflix for exclusive series content, if Netflix isn't too concerned with having existing content yanked.

This is a very high stakes game and Intel is trying to destabilize a highly regulated monopoly and a less legal but no less powerful cartel.

I would love to see the cartel and the monopoly both broken. I really would. It's been a pox on entertainment for too long. But I don't understand how Intel hopes to overcome the organized hostility they will face on all fronts.


Then the answer is obviously to break up these stupid monopolies. Derp.
 
2013-01-02 05:28:08 AM  

themasterdebater: fusillade762: Do I have to fark her vagina or is the neck flab an acceptable alternative?

Thing is... you think your getting her vag... and then... SURPRISE! You weren't even close!


If you hung the beast by its cankles and got the fat to flow away from the area, you might find it...

/dear god, the smell...
 
2013-01-02 05:34:42 AM  
I know people will accuse me of being a hipster or something but I haven't watched TV in years. Oh I have a TV of course and I do watch it, but only Netflix or shows that I've downloaded or bought on DVD. Watch what I want, when I want and without a bunch of stupid commercials every few minutes. Same deal with radio only I stopped listening to it in the late 90s, no idea how it's still around.

Anyway Intel will never be able to pull this off, the media conglomerates will never allow it. You'll let them screw you and pay for hundreds of crappy channels you don't want or you'll watch nothing! Good day Sir!
 
2013-01-02 05:35:14 AM  

themasterdebater: fusillade762: Do I have to fark her vagina or is the neck flab an acceptable alternative?

Thing is... you think your getting her vag... and then... SURPRISE! You weren't even close!


That could make 69ing more interesting. Or would that be a different number?
 
2013-01-02 05:36:22 AM  

moothemagiccow: serial_crusher: You're salivating over a la carte channels?  Really grampa?  I hear they're getting ready to make these newfangled things called compact discs next year.  They're going to be like cassette tapes, except they'll have lasers!

"Channels" are already obsolete.  You people sit here and biatch that there are 200 channels you don't watch, but you're perfectly comfortable paying for 24 hours a day of programming, even though you only watch like 4 hours of it on average?  It's the same thing in a smaller chunk.

Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.

Channels are not so bad. I own an mp3 player, but i sometimes listen to college radio because i want to hear something new. Channels remind me of what I used to like and introduce me to what i might like. A randomly programmed netflix channel could be kind of cool.


Kind of like pandora for tv. Yes, that would be a good thing.
Also porn. Pandora for porn.
 
2013-01-02 05:54:35 AM  

inclemency: RoyBatty: namatad: RoyBatty: [i.imgur.com image 850x287]
[i.imgur.com image 642x350]

god damn you so very very much
spacey is probably one of my top 5 actors
so NOW I need to get netflix??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

It would be ironic if what broke the HBO, Showtime, Warner Brothers model was their refusing to give Netflix access to their movies, forcing Netflix to make their own....

I am not happy at the moment with Netflix's streaming selection -- far too few movies or shows I want. But it's also only $8 a month, and gives me far more than I can watch. I am thinking of getting Hulu Plus to fill in some gaps, also for I think $8 a month. For stuff that's still missing there's Amazon, Google, Vudu, RedBox, and even an occasional Blockbuster.

That's a far cry from my mom and others who I think, pay more than a hundred for cable.

I don't have netflix, looking into getting it as it's inexpensive and highly regarded by my peers.

But you complaining about the subjective 'lack of content', which I'm assured is a spurious declaration just makes all of us look bad. Look into 'not being entitled 101' at that college near you. Oh, and I hear 'at least it's not a phonograph' is great as well


Your peers highly regard Netflix? Are you all wizards?
 
2013-01-02 05:56:12 AM  
This is great except for people like us in the boonies have very little options for high speed internet. Most of us can only get it from one provider - wait for it... the cable companies.
 
2013-01-02 06:01:58 AM  

yukichigai: Not only that, the White House only signed the damn thing. It still hasn't been ratified, nor has Congress or the Senate granted any approval to the treaty. We still need to get past that for the treaty to even start to THINK about applying to the U.S.


Yes, I know that. It doesn't change the fact that the WH signed it after heavy lobbying, and behind our backs to boot.

Fark the MPAA/RIAA. They're destroying their own business models and criminalising us (the consumers) for it, and they're all too retarded and/or money hungry to care.
 
2013-01-02 06:02:57 AM  

Macular Degenerate: This is great except for people like us in the boonies have very little options for high speed internet. Most of us can only get it from one provider - wait for it... the cable companies.


I can only get it from my phone company and it is slow as crap for what I pay, but at least there is no cap.
 
2013-01-02 06:06:48 AM  
And the ISPs will end up lowering the bandwidth caps to compensate.

Until something like Google Fiber is nationwide, we'll all going to have to put up with crappy cable.
 
Pav
2013-01-02 06:12:22 AM  
My cable company offers phone, vod, and the Internet service that is required to make this intel cable box work. Oh and they are quickly putting up wifi AP's to cover their entire footprint. But yeah if you think unbundled tv channels is going to destroy the cable company keep dreaming.
 
2013-01-02 06:20:54 AM  

fusillade762: From one of the linked articles:

[gigaom2.files.wordpress.com image 410x214]

Looks familiar...

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 400x300]


s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-01-02 06:25:04 AM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: Also, global synchronized releases, dubbing and captions on day one, low subscription price, multiple non-credit card payment options (paypal and all its local copycats). You will see global distribution for serialized shows go through the roof


This is... unexpected.... yet totally predictable. (i just didn't predict it)

America will eventually fall to beg for global socialism, via their TV set. =0

/*Time-Paging Mr Orwell. Please adjust your set*
 
2013-01-02 06:29:28 AM  
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.

No farking way. Channels that sell advertising would see their revenue plummet if they reduced the size of their potential viewing audience. There would be a whole slate of free channels that just want to keep their numbers up, the same way over-the-air TV works.
 
2013-01-02 06:29:39 AM  
So people who are happy to torrent content for free without legal consequence are suddenly going to start paying for it ... and the ones that currently pay for it are going to continue to pay for stuff like SyFy (which is pretty torrented already) when they're offered a la carte ...

www.pressingsave.com
 
2013-01-02 06:34:43 AM  

lemonysprite: inclemency: RoyBatty: namatad: RoyBatty: [i.imgur.com image 850x287]
[i.imgur.com image 642x350]

god damn you so very very much
spacey is probably one of my top 5 actors
so NOW I need to get netflix??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

It would be ironic if what broke the HBO, Showtime, Warner Brothers model was their refusing to give Netflix access to their movies, forcing Netflix to make their own....

I am not happy at the moment with Netflix's streaming selection -- far too few movies or shows I want. But it's also only $8 a month, and gives me far more than I can watch. I am thinking of getting Hulu Plus to fill in some gaps, also for I think $8 a month. For stuff that's still missing there's Amazon, Google, Vudu, RedBox, and even an occasional Blockbuster.

That's a far cry from my mom and others who I think, pay more than a hundred for cable.

I don't have netflix, looking into getting it as it's inexpensive and highly regarded by my peers.

But you complaining about the subjective 'lack of content', which I'm assured is a spurious declaration just makes all of us look bad. Look into 'not being entitled 101' at that college near you. Oh, and I hear 'at least it's not a phonograph' is great as well

Your peers highly regard Netflix? Are you all wizards?


If you live in Canada, it sucks - most of these free/inexpensive services like Hulu are blocked. The goddamn copyright lawyers have pretty much strangled access outside of the US with charging huge fees to foreign providers. Plus there are "Canadian Content" rules watering things down.

So we have to go with very limited choice of online availability. Sure there are proxies available to get around it, but you need to subscribe to pay-for proxies to get the BW, so you are screwed there, plus you need a level of technical competence to figure out ways around the blocking that is beyond what 95% of the users are capable of.

The other problem is that a major carrier (Bell Canada) also have a lucrative satellite service that they wish to protect so they impose bandwidth caps that make it uneconomical to get TV via internet. Sure upstarts happen all the time that offer cheaper rates, but the major players eventually buy them up. Anti-competitive? Illegal? You bet, but Bell and their buddies have deep pockets and has a powerful lobby to prevent any politicians calling them out on it and to protect their business model.

The ironic thing, in the days of broadcast TV here in S Ontario in the 1950s through 1980s, we had one of the widest selection of FREE media available over the air from every major network from both sides of the border, plus a few smaller networks and some independents. Now we just curse Bell, Rogers and copyright lawyers.
 
2013-01-02 06:47:03 AM  
This also opens the door to something thats been in development for quite a long time - smart advertising. My neighbor and I might be watching the same NFL game and as much as BudLight wants to reach the far reaches of the universe, i dont drink the crap no matter how aware of the brand I am. Whiskey and coffee on the other hand, I drink the shiat out of. There's no reason why when the Broncos score a TD, and the NFL goes to commercial that they cant show a bud Light commercial to my neighbor and a Dewars or coffee commercial to me.

99% of advertising sucks because it is a 20' wide net drug across the population hoping that a handfull of people get the message and want the product. I am 10x more likely to buy something off a google ad because it tracks my internet usage, what i typically buy online and suggests shiat from people who sell products that I typically buy.
 
2013-01-02 06:47:06 AM  

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.


i212.photobucket.com

Cable, shows, and channels will be so fragmented that we won't know exactly how to get anything any more. Netflix is already doing exclusives which Hulu and Amazon won't get. These a la carte channels will be spread throughout different plans and services, some on the web sites directly. Pretty soon, this will be the only centralized location for all of your shows:

cdn-static.zdnet.com
 
2013-01-02 06:48:49 AM  

blue_2501: 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.

[i212.photobucket.com image 618x347]

Cable, shows, and channels will be so fragmented that we won't know exactly how to get anything any more. Netflix is already doing exclusives which Hulu and Amazon won't get. These a la carte channels will be spread throughout different plans and services, some on the web sites directly. Pretty soon, this will be the only centralized location for all of your shows:

[cdn-static.zdnet.com image 220x287]


Life is short. I dont have 4 hours to search for a pirated version of Dexter that doesn't have Turkish subtitles or is loaded with WAREZ that destroy my PC
 
2013-01-02 06:49:20 AM  
i just watch whatever the neighbor lady is watching when i peep thru her windows.
 
2013-01-02 07:06:47 AM  
But will it bring back Firefly?
 
2013-01-02 07:11:49 AM  
Hello science channel, goodbye nasty nun.
 
2013-01-02 07:14:07 AM  

Relatively Obscure: About 70% of the time I turn on the TV (and not some other service), I do it to flip through channels I don't normally watch until I land on some random show.


Have Dish. What usually happens is, I scroll through the guide, see that either nothing interesting is on or that the only interesting things are on in four hours, then turn the TV off.

Single-channel subscription SOUNDS like a good idea, maybe there will be less crap on the air.
 
2013-01-02 07:17:33 AM  

Circusdog320: Nofun: Cancelled my cable a year ago. Netflix is way cheaper, on demand, and no commercials.

That's where TV needs to go. Of course it will never happen. Too many people whose only job is to sell you crap you don't need would watch their jobs get flushed away... The lawsuits are already incubating to make sure it never happens. They did it with the cable cards a few years ago to make sure you couldn't make your own DVR without giving them "their" cut.

Got rid of cable 4 years ago....They just need to stream March Madness!


I believe that CBS or the NCAA does. It's a paid subscription but only about $10 total for all the games. You can also stream on an iPad or iPhone and possibly other devices. We had it last year and it was wonderful.

This is what ESPN should adopt for their WatchESPN bullshiat. ESPN3 was great when it was basically 'Any Game, Any Where'. Now it's certain exclusive games on ESPN3 (with numerious providers) and any game anywhere with WatchESPN (which uses about four providers)
 
2013-01-02 07:24:49 AM  
Call me crazy, but this seems like an incredibly stupid idea.
 
2013-01-02 07:24:55 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: serial_crusher: Let me subscribe to a show, and get the episodes instantly when they're released, instead of waiting until the next day.  That's where TV needs to head.

This ridiculous. Controlling when content can be viewed is an excellent way of maintaining control over a population. For example, in Canada, traditionally traffic on city streets decreases significantly when Hockey Night in Canada is on. So does crime, hospital visits, etc.. it also means that a huge proportion of Canadians are available for targeted messages, like advertising, that runs the economy. Other messages, like political messages, can be run during HNiC as well.

Then let's look at social engineering experiments like reality tv shows where viewers vote. The CBC ran the first show like that, because private industries wanted to make the financial risks public. Canada tested it's infrastructure for cell phones, instant text messaging, and how business and government could coordinate hundreds of thousands of Canadians to obey a message all at once. It was also a cash cow, ensuring that the cellular companies at the time would get a guaranteed income on certain nights of the week, from customers who watched the show sending messages.

Your silly idea would not coordinate all of these things and would seriously fark up city planning, business, and government control mechanisms. It would bugger the economy in advertising alone. it is irresponsible.


My God, you people and hockey.
 
2013-01-02 07:30:09 AM  
My roomate is gonna be wondering what happened to Lifetime.
Fark you Lifetime. No more movies about how evil men are!
 
Displayed 50 of 359 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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