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.

(Entertainment Weekly)   EW slaps whiny readers and 'Firefly' fans: "7 TV gripes you should quit complaining about"   (insidetv.ew.com) divider line 86
    More: Spiffy, fireflies, suburbanites, picket fences  
•       •       •

5911 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 01 Feb 2013 at 10:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-01 10:06:52 AM
#1 Internet Gripe I will never stop complaining about: Slideshows

Deslided
 
2013-02-01 10:47:35 AM
Meh. Someone needed column inches for a paycheck.
 
2013-02-01 10:55:54 AM
Oh to be an EW "writer."

I too wish i could get paid to string together a pointless set of slides that amounts to: You'll get over it.
 
2013-02-01 10:56:26 AM
meh... I tended to buy shows in DVD sets, after they proved themselves worth watching...

With the internet, I buy the episodes or get though via subscription services and such.

I've gotten rid of cable/satellite years ago because I found it pathetic to pay 75+$ per month and barely watch one show or just to have it on as background noise, as I had an extensive DVD (both movies and series) collection that we were watching more and more.

The money is where the future is, lose the cable and such and go internet for everything and be done with it... Stuff worth watching, priced at 1-2$ to download per episode would probably bring in more money if done right, which is already getting there.
 
2013-02-01 10:59:18 AM
So this is "stop not liking what I like".

When you're defending SyFy, maybe you need to take a step back and stop typing for a while.
 
2013-02-01 10:59:22 AM
That slideshow was horrible.
The only thing in that shiat slideshow I agreed with was the bit about Firefly and the bit about online spoilers. I loved the show, and it did get screwed over, but it's over, and I can live with that.

Everything else has merit.

Yes, TLC is supposed to be the Learning Channel. The phaseout author talks about was an excuse for them to break out of their niche. Same for Syfyllis network. The branding change was an excuse to breakout into a different market. I can understand their reasons for doing so, but it's lame they pissed off the core audience that enabled them to keep going to that point in the first place.

The HBO complaint is somewhat valid, they really do need to work on a more up to date distribution model. They can still get paid for their shiat without forcing people to get an entire channel of shiat they don't want.

The MTV/VH1 argument has a bit of a point. Yeah they don't do music as much as they used to, but there's loads of other methods of getting new music and music news these days, and has been for quite some time now, they did have to evolve or become completely irrelevant.

Reality TV though is the Anti-Christ and it should burn in hell.
 
2013-02-01 11:00:36 AM

Dr. Whoof: When you're defending SyFy, maybe you need to take a step back and stop typing for a while.

 
2013-02-01 11:03:35 AM
At this point I would welcome a Firefly cartoon voiced by the original actors, as was brought up the other day.  Joss Whedon could totally squeeze in overseeing that.
 
2013-02-01 11:08:32 AM
The firefly one is awesome because I am also tired of fans complaining about Fox cancelling it. Last time I checked Fox is pretty much the only network that plays space shows to begin with. Plus as far as Friday night goes, if you look at the schedule for that year, there really was no other timeslot that would have worked, since it would have been up against a huge hit on another network (which means the ratings would have been even lower) or it would have required Fox to move one of their actual hit shows to another night (do you really think they are going to move American Idol or 24 to Friday to make room for Firefly) or it would have been up against Angel on the WB (and Whedon fans would have complained even more). Honestly if Whedon and the producers wanted the show to last for years, they should have slashed the budget (and their pay) and got it on a cable channel.

rickycal78: The MTV/VH1 argument has a bit of a point. Yeah they don't do music as much as they used to, but there's loads of other methods of getting new music and music news these days, and has been for quite some time now, they did have to evolve or become completely irrelevant.


The problem with the MTV argument is that there is no money for a network that plays music videos all day.I mean people can watch any video any time they want on youtube, so why would anyone want to watch a preprogrammed block of videos some of which they might not like. Plus back in the day the music companies didn't charge MTV royalties for videos and now they do, so they are even less profitable. Compared to running something like Teen Mom or Jersey Shore (which MTV own) running videos is a big money loser.
 
2013-02-01 11:10:04 AM

Dr. Whoof: So this is "stop not liking what I like".

When you're defending SyFy, maybe you need to take a step back and stop typing for a while.


...they were defending SyFy?
 
2013-02-01 11:11:52 AM
FOX didn't air the pilot, which introduced the characters, first, in a show that was basically a character study. Maybe nerds who watched it because other nerds told them to saw a different episode first and were intrigued, but joe sixpack would probably need the context. Then they failed again by promoting the show as an action adventure comedy instead of a character driven sci fi western. Then they kept preempting it for football ala Futurama.

So I'll whine about it if I want EW, you stupid morons
 
2013-02-01 11:13:51 AM
8. "Stop complaining about our articles. Writing is hard"
 
2013-02-01 11:16:45 AM

CPennypacker: FOX didn't air the pilot, which introduced the characters, first, in a show that was basically a character study. Maybe nerds who watched it because other nerds told them to saw a different episode first and were intrigued, but joe sixpack would probably need the context. Then they failed again by promoting the show as an action adventure comedy instead of a character driven sci fi western. Then they kept preempting it for football ala Futurama.

So I'll whine about it if I want EW, you stupid morons


Yikes, I wouldn't go that far.  For me, the pilot drug on way beyond its necessary length, and it took me three or four attempts just to get through the thing.  It was Whedon at this worse: excessively masturbatory narrative.
 
2013-02-01 11:21:42 AM
I thought the HBO gripe was not that people didn't want to pay for HBO, but that they wanted to pay for HBO (or HBO GO) only without having to pay for an entire cable package, which there is no way to do.
 
2013-02-01 11:23:46 AM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-02-01 11:25:03 AM

VarmintCong: I thought the HBO gripe was not that people didn't want to pay for HBO, but that they wanted to pay for HBO (or HBO GO) only without having to pay for an entire cable package, which there is no way to do.


Yep. He seems to think people want the ability to purchase individual shows within HBO and not get the HBO package that's available to all cable subscribers. He never stopped to think that people who don't have cable want access to all of HBOs programs, and only their programs.
 
2013-02-01 11:25:35 AM

CPennypacker: FOX didn't air the pilot, which introduced the characters, first, in a show that was basically a character study. Maybe nerds who watched it because other nerds told them to saw a different episode first and were intrigued, but joe sixpack would probably need the context. Then they failed again by promoting the show as an action adventure comedy instead of a character driven sci fi western. Then they kept preempting it for football ala Futurama.

So I'll whine about it if I want EW, you stupid morons


Look the only people who get to complain about Firefly are those of us who actually watched the show when it aired. If you were not watching when it aired, and I know it aired opposite Buffy the Vampire Slayers final season, then you need to shut your dick hole.
 
2013-02-01 11:29:37 AM
#2 TLC "the network hasn't been branded The Learning Channel in about 10 years (the network began phasing out the name in 1998). Here's the misunderstanding: The channel name wasn't merely shortened, it was changed. It's not like how NBC is still the National Broadcasting Company. Ask TLC and they'll tell you the letters don't stand for anything"

Then don't call it TLC. Complete the "re-branding" and call it the Dimwitted Housewife Channel, White Trash TV, The Hillbilly Channel or any other label that will appeal to / or describe the sub-human demographic you are obviously targeting. If you keep using TLC we'll keep biatching.
 
2013-02-01 11:30:06 AM

Slaves2Darkness: I know it aired opposite Buffy the Vampire Slayers final season


Really?  I did not know that.  That was Fox's only stupid move then, IMO.

I reserve the right to biatch about Better Off Ted though.  My dick hole won't stand for that.
 
2013-02-01 11:32:41 AM
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY?
...
...
Hmmmmmm......
...
...
OH!! Isn't that one of those.......magazines?
Those things half ripped up in a doctors office and the only thing left to read besides a 6 month old TIME?
Those things at the checkout stand people look at while they're waiting in line and then put back on the rack when it's their turn to checkout?
Yeah, I remember those.

/print is dead
 
2013-02-01 11:37:29 AM

VarmintCong: I thought the HBO gripe was not that people didn't want to pay for HBO, but that they wanted to pay for HBO (or HBO GO) only without having to pay for an entire cable package, which there is no way to do.


Came here to say this.  I would gladly pay for HBO.  I don't want to pay cable companies for channels I don't want, just to get HBO.  And they are totally stupid for not letting me.  They'll wait till Netflix gets a strong foothold in their market share, then join Blockbuster in bankruptcy.
 
2013-02-01 11:42:07 AM

Omis: VarmintCong: I thought the HBO gripe was not that people didn't want to pay for HBO, but that they wanted to pay for HBO (or HBO GO) only without having to pay for an entire cable package, which there is no way to do.

Came here to say this.  I would gladly pay for HBO.  I don't want to pay cable companies for channels I don't want, just to get HBO.  And they are totally stupid for not letting me.  They'll wait till Netflix gets a strong foothold in their market share, then join Blockbuster in bankruptcy.


HBO's current business model brings in money by the truckloads, and they have absolutely no incentive to change it.   The cable companies take on all the overhead, marketing, distribution, billing  and getting it into people's living rooms, while HBO just gets to focus 100% on providing great content.
 
2013-02-01 11:44:19 AM
#4 "I won't pay HBO to watch Game of Thrones!"
Even in this shiny digital age, not all content is a la carte.


The music industry had that same attitude ten years ago and it worked out great for them. If your customers want a la carte then either give it to them or prepare to have your content stolen. If you choose the latter option don't stand there in doe-eyed bewilderment wondering why you lose money.

HBO, in particular, is a money truck and not eager to radically shake up their business model to make dragon lovers happy

Fark you. Adapt or die.
 
2013-02-01 11:47:39 AM

Tyrosine: Fark you. Adapt or die.


Ugh, they made 1.2 billion in revenue last year.
 
2013-02-01 11:53:45 AM

InmanRoshi: Tyrosine: Fark you. Adapt or die.

Ugh, they made 1.2 billion in revenue last year.


Then I guess illegal downloading isn't an issue for them....
 
2013-02-01 11:56:09 AM

Tyrosine: If your customers want a la carte then either give it to them or prepare to have your content stolen.


So basically, give me what I want or i'll steal it?
 
2013-02-01 11:59:47 AM
I am now going to whine about the whiner who whined about other whiners whining.
 
2013-02-01 11:59:56 AM
Half of those are staple gripes in any Fark TV thread.

So, what the author's FARK handle?

/and yeah, get "Castle" cancelled.first.
 
2013-02-01 12:04:43 PM
YouTube is not a replacement for MTV.

People have already shown with Spotify and Pandora and Last.fm that even on the Internet they can't be bothered to maintan a music collection of their own, they prefer to have it spoonfed to them instead of seeking it out.

And that is exactly what MTV used to do.

It shouldn't be a surprised that the most watched videos on YouTubes are music videos.  Take a hint from YouTube, air videos like Gangnam Style, the Walk Of The Earth videos, a few more other gimmicky and parody videos MIXED IN WITH the "old style" MTV videos, dial down the amount of talking in between them, don't cover the corner of the screens with annoying shiat, and people will watch the shiat out of that channel.beacuse they'll see stuff they like and they'll discover new stuff they didn't know about all at the same time.  This is what used to work on MTV and still works on the Internet now, there is no "get over it it's not 1993 anymore".
 
2013-02-01 12:06:06 PM

Hebalo: Tyrosine: If your customers want a la carte then either give it to them or prepare to have your content stolen.

So basically, give me what I want or i'll steal it?


The issue isn't "what" it's "how". A growing number of people, especially in the under 45 demographic, are getting their media via downloading and illegal copies are readily available. By limiting their customer's choices they are creating a situation where people are more likely to steal and like any business HOB needs to respond to customer demand.

Is it wrong? Sure. But it will still happen and at greater frequency. It's not like downloading is a passing fad, it's here to stay, so HBO needs to buck up and face the new reality.
 
2013-02-01 12:08:26 PM

imfallen_angel: meh... I tended to buy shows in DVD sets, after they proved themselves worth watching...


I once did that...until I found out that those that did prove themselves worth watching to me didn't to anyone else.

/A lot of one-season "complete series" on my shelves can attest to that.
 
2013-02-01 12:10:04 PM

mechgreg: The firefly one is awesome because I am also tired of fans complaining about Fox cancelling it.


Get over it. It ain't comin' back. You won. Don't like people complaining about it? Don't go to where they complain about it and yell "STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE!"
 
2013-02-01 12:10:18 PM

Tyrosine: InmanRoshi: Tyrosine: Fark you. Adapt or die.

Ugh, they made 1.2 billion in revenue last year.

Then I guess illegal downloading isn't an issue for them....


I don't think you understand how the business model works.....

 You are not HBO's real customer, at least not directly.    Time Warner/DirectTV/AT&T/Comcast/etc. are HBO's real paying customers.    HBO sells their content them.

This is a win/win for both the cable providers and HBO..

It's a win/win for Time Warner/DirectTV/AT&T/Comcast/etc. because they can then market and distribute HBO content, even below cost, as part of their other service packages in which they have higher profit margins.     Thus you're offered "*3 months of free HBO!!  *Upon signing up for the SuperDuper Bundle  with high speed internet, broadband telephone and HD Television for $109.99/month (fees may apply)"
It's  win/win for HBO becuase they have absolutely no costs involved in  delivering their content in HD to to hundreds of millions of people's living rooms, as this is all handled by the cable and satellite systems' built in infrastructure.

What you're wanting HBO to ditch their middle man,  put billions upon billions into their own distribution network, take on all the risk, all the cost, all the marketing ... and then rather than just selling their product to just 8 super providers, try to sell their product to 300 million finicky, undependable households who could decide to cancel their subscriptions the moment their favorite show is off-season.

One could see why this would be pants on the head retarded.
 
2013-02-01 12:11:51 PM

Tyrosine: Hebalo: Tyrosine: If your customers want a la carte then either give it to them or prepare to have your content stolen.

So basically, give me what I want or i'll steal it?

The issue isn't "what" it's "how". A growing number of people, especially in the under 45 demographic, are getting their media via downloading and illegal copies are readily available. By limiting their customer's choices they are creating a situation where people are more likely to steal and like any business HOB needs to respond to customer demand.

Is it wrong? Sure. But it will still happen and at greater frequency. It's not like downloading is a passing fad, it's here to stay, so HBO needs to buck up and face the new reality.


I'm sure when HBO feels they need to change their deals with cable providers, they will. But the argument of "GIVE ME WHAT I WANT IN THE EXACT MANNER I WANT IT OR I'M GONNA JUST TAKE IT" is essentially dealing with terrorists.
 
2013-02-01 12:15:12 PM

Zombie DJ: ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY?
...
...
Hmmmmmm......
...
...
OH!! Isn't that one of those.......magazines?
Those things half ripped up in a doctors office and the only thing left to read besides a 6 month old TIME?
Those things at the checkout stand people look at while they're waiting in line and then put back on the rack when it's their turn to checkout?
Yeah, I remember those.

/print is dead


I actually have a subscription to Entertainment Weekly and TIME... also Sound & Vision and Hollywood Reporter. Gotta have SOMETHING to read while in the toilet!

/get off lawn, etc...
 
2013-02-01 12:26:34 PM

InmanRoshi: Tyrosine: InmanRoshi: Tyrosine: Fark you. Adapt or die.

Ugh, they made 1.2 billion in revenue last year.

Then I guess illegal downloading isn't an issue for them....

I don't think you understand how the business model works.....

 You are not HBO's real customer, at least not directly.    Time Warner/DirectTV/AT&T/Comcast/etc. are HBO's real paying customers.    HBO sells their content them.

This is a win/win for both the cable providers and HBO..

It's a win/win for Time Warner/DirectTV/AT&T/Comcast/etc. because they can then market and distribute HBO content, even below cost, as part of their other service packages in which they have higher profit margins.     Thus you're offered "*3 months of free HBO!!  *Upon signing up for the SuperDuper Bundle  with high speed internet, broadband telephone and HD Television for $109.99/month (fees may apply)"
It's  win/win for HBO becuase they have absolutely no costs involved in  delivering their content in HD to to hundreds of millions of people's living rooms, as this is all handled by the cable and satellite systems' built in infrastructure.

What you're wanting HBO to ditch their middle man,  put billions upon billions into their own distribution network, take on all the risk, all the cost, all the marketing ... and then rather than just selling their product to just 8 super providers, try to sell their product to 300 million finicky, undependable households who could decide to cancel their subscriptions the moment their favorite show is off-season.

One could see why this would be pants on the head retarded.


Well, two things:

1. An increasing number of shows are successfully distributed this way and this trend is likely to continue.

2. HBO's business model doesn't mean shiat if the customers won't embrace it. In a world where downloading is common and scheduled programing appears ready to be replaced by a al carte programming, you'd have to be "pants on the head retarded" not to see reality. I'm not suggesting HBO "embrace the future". They need to acknowledge the present.
 
2013-02-01 12:28:43 PM

imfallen_angel: meh... I tended to buy shows in DVD sets, after they proved themselves worth watching...

With the internet, I buy the episodes or get though via subscription services and such.

I've gotten rid of cable/satellite years ago because I found it pathetic to pay 75+$ per month and barely watch one show or just to have it on as background noise, as I had an extensive DVD (both movies and series) collection that we were watching more and more.

The money is where the future is, lose the cable and such and go internet for everything and be done with it... Stuff worth watching, priced at 1-2$ to download per episode would probably bring in more money if done right, which is already getting there.


Yep. Once I found out that ESPN was charging the providers almost $5 a month for each subscriber, I said screw this nonsense.

That's the "wholesale" price. How much do you think the provider was tacking onto that before passing it along to me? For something I never watched.
 
2013-02-01 12:38:27 PM

Hebalo: I'm sure when HBO feels they need to change their deals with cable providers, they will. But the argument of "GIVE ME WHAT I WANT IN THE EXACT MANNER I WANT IT OR I'M GONNA JUST TAKE IT" is essentially dealing with terrorists.


We've seen this play out before: Remember Napster in 1999? Remember the biatching, whining and prophecies of doom? Has music downloading gone away? Nope, but it took the industry almost a decade to see reality and get dragged, kicking and screaming, into the modern world. Like it or not retail (whether on-line or bricks and mortar) is always customer driven. If you don't give the customer what they want, they'll get it some other way.

Again, I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying it's reality. Don't shoot the messenger.
 
2013-02-01 12:41:49 PM

InmanRoshi: Tyrosine: InmanRoshi: Tyrosine: Fark you. Adapt or die.

Ugh, they made 1.2 billion in revenue last year.

Then I guess illegal downloading isn't an issue for them....

I don't think you understand how the business model works.....

 You are not HBO's real customer, at least not directly.    Time Warner/DirectTV/AT&T/Comcast/etc. are HBO's real paying customers.    HBO sells their content them.

This is a win/win for both the cable providers and HBO..

It's a win/win for Time Warner/DirectTV/AT&T/Comcast/etc. because they can then market and distribute HBO content, even below cost, as part of their other service packages in which they have higher profit margins.     Thus you're offered "*3 months of free HBO!!  *Upon signing up for the SuperDuper Bundle  with high speed internet, broadband telephone and HD Television for $109.99/month (fees may apply)"
It's  win/win for HBO becuase they have absolutely no costs involved in  delivering their content in HD to to hundreds of millions of people's living rooms, as this is all handled by the cable and satellite systems' built in infrastructure.

What you're wanting HBO to ditch their middle man,  put billions upon billions into their own distribution network, take on all the risk, all the cost, all the marketing ... and then rather than just selling their product to just 8 super providers, try to sell their product to 300 million finicky, undependable households who could decide to cancel their subscriptions the moment their favorite show is off-season.

One could see why this would be pants on the head retarded.


This, this, and more this.

It's no like HBO isn't looking at different distribution models, it's just that they're not experimenting with their biggest cash cow (the American market).  They're experimenting with offering HBO Go as a standalone service in Scandanavia.  I think they're experimenting with immediate iTunes availabliity in other markets.  They're trying different things, but they're not going to blow up their entire business structure just to appease the small number of people who torrent.
 
2013-02-01 12:43:15 PM

Tyrosine: Well, two things:

1. An increasing number of shows are successfully distributed this way and this trend is likely to continue.


How successful.   1.2 billion successful?   That's what HBO's revenue last year was.   You're talking about taking on the Netflix or Hulu business model or else Netflix will put HBO out of business?    Netflix' business model has yet to show it's capable of turning a profit.   Netflix is up to it's eyeballs in debt and looking to raise  another $400 billion in debt so they can keep their business afloat.    This is all under the belief that some distant day in the future Netflix could be half as profitable as HBO currently is.    Hulu is breathing it's final death rattles as it's partners had to fork in $100 million last year to keep it running, and it's already being reported that they'll be asked to fork in $200 million this year. One of Hulu's founding partners have already jumped ship and had to be bought out.     The only thing Netflix and Hulu have proven is that it's far more expensive and unprofitable to run an internet streaming distribution network than anyone previously dreamed it would be.

<i>
HBO's business model doesn't mean shiat if the customers won't embrace it. In a world where downloading is common and scheduled programing appears ready to be replaced by a al carte programming, you'd have to be "pants on the head retarded" not to see reality. I'm not suggesting HBO "embrace the future". They need to acknowledge the present.</i>

Currently, the only thing HBO has to worry about to remain relevant is to continue making great content that people will want to watch.    That's best done by focusing 100% of their time and energy on making great creative content, and not diverting energy and resources toward finding a way to create a profitable distribution network and how to market it towards 300 million households.
 

To pay for all this overhead and distribution costs, HBO would likely have to charge upwards of a subscription $20-30/month.   Then people like you would say "Whah??    Greedy HBO is now charging $25 a month for something that used to cost $8 a month?   No way I'm paying $25 a month when I can just steal it anyway".   Immoral people will always find a way to be immoral.
 
2013-02-01 12:54:56 PM
no click for you.

I WILL COMPLAIN AS LONG AS I LIKE!

/browncoats unite.
 
2013-02-01 12:58:03 PM

rugman11: It's no like HBO isn't looking at different distribution models, it's just that they're not experimenting with their biggest cash cow (the American market). They're experimenting with offering HBO Go as a standalone service in Scandanavia. I think they're experimenting with immediate iTunes availabliity in other markets. They're trying different things, but they're not going to blow up their entire business structure just to appease the small number of people who torrent.


You're right.  They've done the homework and crunched the numbers,  to say the least.  The numbers just don't look very appealing at all.    I don't think we'll see the numbers start looking good until we develop and implement better technologies that cut down on the costs of bandwidth.
 
2013-02-01 12:58:16 PM

Tyrosine: 2. HBO's business model doesn't mean shiat if the customers won't embrace it. In a world where downloading is common and scheduled programing appears ready to be replaced by a al carte programming, you'd have to be "pants on the head retarded" not to see reality. I'm not suggesting HBO "embrace the future". They need to acknowledge the present.


HBO currently has 30 million American subscribers.  The estimates of torrenting suggest that between 300,000 and 400,000 Americans torrent each episode of Game of Thrones, many of whom wouldn't pay even if HBO did offer a standalone service.

And pretty much everything else you said was wrong as well.  87% of broadcast television is watched live.  93% of cable television is watched live.  Even among the most time-shifted shows, 64% of people still watch it live.  The average person aged 18-49 spends about 25 hours per week watching live television, 3 hours watching time-shifted television, and about 1 1/2 hours watching television on the internet.  And even the 20% of users who do the most streaming still watch 10x more television than they stream.

Things are changing, but not nearly as quickly as people like to think.

Source
 
2013-02-01 12:58:17 PM

InmanRoshi: Tyrosine: Well, two things:

1. An increasing number of shows are successfully distributed this way and this trend is likely to continue.

How successful.   1.2 billion successful?   That's what HBO's revenue last year was.   You're talking about taking on the Netflix or Hulu business model or else Netflix will put HBO out of business?    Netflix' business model has yet to show it's capable of turning a profit.   Netflix is up to it's eyeballs in debt and looking to raise  another $400 billion in debt so they can keep their business afloat.    This is all under the belief that some distant day in the future Netflix could be half as profitable as HBO currently is.    Hulu is breathing it's final death rattles as it's partners had to fork in $100 million last year to keep it running, and it's already being reported that they'll be asked to fork in $200 million this year. One of Hulu's founding partners have already jumped ship and had to be bought out.     The only thing Netflix and Hulu have proven is that it's far more expensive and unprofitable to run an internet streaming distribution network than anyone previously dreamed it would be.

<i>
HBO's business model doesn't mean shiat if the customers won't embrace it. In a world where downloading is common and scheduled programing appears ready to be replaced by a al carte programming, you'd have to be "pants on the head retarded" not to see reality. I'm not suggesting HBO "embrace the future". They need to acknowledge the present.</i>

Currently, the only thing HBO has to worry about to remain relevant is to continue making great content that people will want to watch.    That's best done by focusing 100% of their time and energy on making great creative content, and not diverting energy and resources toward finding a way to create a profitable distribution network and how to market it towards 300 million households.


To pay for all this overhead and distribution costs, HBO would likely have to charge u ...


Like I said a couple posts above, this has all played out before. Do you think the music industry served it's best interests by resisting downloading and refusing to adopt a new business model? What makes this fight any different? Have they invented some magic bullet to stop downloading and bring the "criminals" who do it to justice? Hardly.

Will HBO go TITA if they don't embrace downloading? No, but right or wrong, their content will increasingly be stolen. The only question is when they will make the jump.
 
2013-02-01 01:08:21 PM

rugman11: Things are changing, but not nearly as quickly as people like to think.


As Farkers we tend to think everyone is adapting new tech instantly, and as content saavy as we are. Just like how if you spend a lot of time on Lifehacker, you think everyone is a metrosexual 28 year old who needs 35 organizational apps and tips for opening jars.
 
2013-02-01 01:08:32 PM

Tyrosine: Like I said a couple posts above, this has all played out before. Do you think the music industry served it's best interests by resisting downloading and refusing to adopt a new business model? What makes this fight any different? Have they invented some magic bullet to stop downloading and bring the "criminals" who do it to justice? Hardly.


You desperately keep wanting to compare the music model with HBO's business models,  when they're is nothing remotely similar.    We get it, you're an immoral person who likes to steal things.   It doesn't make your comparison any better.
 
2013-02-01 01:11:55 PM

Tyrosine: Like I said a couple posts above, this has all played out before. Do you think the music industry served it's best interests by resisting downloading and refusing to adopt a new business model? What makes this fight any different? Have they invented some magic bullet to stop downloading and bring the "criminals" who do it to justice? Hardly.

Will HBO go TITA if they don't embrace downloading? No, but right or wrong, their content will increasingly be stolen. The only question is when they will make the jump.


The music industry got rocked not because of illegal downloading or because they refused to embrace electronic distribution as a new model but because, in their rush to appease all the people saying "we wouldn't download illegally if you'd let us download legally" they didn't think about what would happen when they unbundled their product.  The number one cause of the recording industry's downfall is that people don't buy CDs anymore because they can buy singles.  And CD sales represented more than 90 percent of music revenues in 2000.

And the thing is, television networks ARE using different models.  Pretty much every non-premium show is up for download on iTunes and Amazon the day after it airs.  The broadcast networks stream almost all of their shows on Hulu or their own websites.  And tons of shows end up on Netflix streaming as well.  In this day in age, if you're American, there is pretty much no excuse to torrent anything but premium network shows except that you're just too cheap to pay for it, which changing the business model isn't going to solve.
 
2013-02-01 01:13:48 PM

Hebalo: rugman11: Things are changing, but not nearly as quickly as people like to think.

As Farkers we tend to think everyone is adapting new tech instantly, and as content saavy as we are. Just like how if you spend a lot of time on Lifehacker, you think everyone is a metrosexual 28 year old who needs 35 organizational apps and tips for opening jars.


It reminds me of my sister who works in fashion in Manhattan who thinks that 70% of men are gay, because she's constantly surrounded by nothing but gay men.    I think it would make most farkers heads assplode to know that 90% of households who own a television have some sort of pay TV service.   And that 86% of Netflix subscribers are also pay TV subscribers, and just use Netflix as a supplement to Pay TV rather than a substitute.
 
2013-02-01 01:22:51 PM

Hebalo: Tyrosine: If your customers want a la carte then either give it to them or prepare to have your content stolen.

So basically, give me what I want or i'll steal it?


You just summed up unions perfectly.  Give me what I want or I'm going on strike.  Who cares if the business fails, fark you pay me.

The better solution is to make the price of the content reasonable enough that you can get a majority of the downloaders to buy it instead of pirating it.  I saw at Hastings that Sons of Anarchy is $35 a season.  The show is good but I can't justify spending $175 just to watch it again sometime next year.  But I'd gladly pay $15 a season.  They can't claim they're losing money on that since it's money they weren't getting anyway.
 
2013-02-01 01:23:24 PM

InmanRoshi: Hebalo: rugman11: Things are changing, but not nearly as quickly as people like to think.

As Farkers we tend to think everyone is adapting new tech instantly, and as content saavy as we are. Just like how if you spend a lot of time on Lifehacker, you think everyone is a metrosexual 28 year old who needs 35 organizational apps and tips for opening jars.

It reminds me of my sister who works in fashion in Manhattan who thinks that 70% of men are gay, because she's constantly surrounded by nothing but gay men.    I think it would make most farkers heads assplode to know that 90% of households who own a television have some sort of pay TV service.   And that 86% of Netflix subscribers are also pay TV subscribers, and just use Netflix as a supplement to Pay TV rather than a substitute.


This is why people's mouth goes agap when they visit, see my network and system, it's like they walked on the bridge of the Enterprise (TNG).

For me, my system has been built 2 years ago without any need to upgrade or such, and I'm seriously the person with the most advance system that I know of.

Most don't even know that such a system isn't hard to setup or put together or even available... the "biggest system" they might be aware of is someone with a Xbox or PS3 that stream.

Some get those crappy little players (some with streaming capacity) and think that they're the shiats.
 
Displayed 50 of 86 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report