We aren't entitled to content. You aren't owed episodes of "Game of Thrones" simply because you want them.
This might be true - but that does take away from the fact that the existing business model is retarded. If a customer is willing to pay money, but there is no way to pay money and watch legally, there isn't much point in blaming the customer for resorting to other means.
I have faced similar situations in the past. When I moved back to India, I had to give up watching pretty much all the shows I used to see earlier. Thankfully, now some of these shows are available in India - but couple of seasons behind the US. But there are still several shows that you just have to give up on, or resort to torrents.
It is high time this business model is disrupted.
BTW -- I noticed you signed up just to post this.... Are you so affected by this that you signed up to post!?
Most of those folks aren't counted. DVR counts are from the same group as OTA and it's less than 100k viewers.
Sorry if its a stupid question, but what is OTA?
One thing I did want to had in my original post.
With TV, the other side of the , you are stealing "income" away from the people who make contact argument.
While illegal, in most cases it isn't taking money away from the content creators (be it studio, actors, writers, directors,ect).
The only way it is taking income away from the studios (and again the other players) is if you are:
1. Part of Nielsen's sample.
2. Or use illegal downloading to replace, a normal practice of legal streaming or legal purchasing.
Say customer X history is someone who only watches broadcast tv, and that person starts illegally downloading.
If person X isn't a Nielsen home, then their viewing habits or patterns have no impact on the actual revenue stream for the network.
It's still illegal, but technically has no impact on actual revenue so they aren't impacting the ad rates collected.
Now if person X, is now replacing purchasing media (again either digital or physical) then of course direct revenue is now lost to the studios.
But the majority of households, typically don't purchase much in the way of TV media. Online sales are still much smaller then physical media, and physical media.
And use DVR users legally bypass revenue streams in vastly larger numbers then people who are illegally watching shows. Nielsen's own data reports this.
This might be true - but that does take away from the fact that the existing business model is retarded. If a customer is willing to pay money, but there is no way to pay money and watch legally, there isn't much point in blaming the customer for resorting to other means.
I have faced similar situations in the past. When I moved back to India, I had to give up watching pretty much all the shows I used to see earlier. Thankfully, now some of these shows are available in India - but couple of seasons behind the US. But there are still several shows that you just have to give up on, or resort to torrents.
It is high time this business model is disrupted.
BTW -- I noticed you signed up just to post this.... Are you so affected by this that you signed up to post!?
I signed up a few days ago to be able to scroll through the comments with Zither on ignore.
And no I'm not affected by this. But the attitude of people that pirate content is astounding. Sure, they might otherwise pay for it. But "I can't buy it" isn't an excuse to download content illegally; Particularly if the excuse is "I can't buy it yet."
I stopped using my MacBook Pro a few months ago as my primary computer, opting to use my iPhone and iPad primarily instead. Piracy isn't even an option for me with my setup. I wait for things to appear on iTunes.
But somehow, surprisingly, I live!
I agree that the business model needs to be disrupted. You shouldn't be behind two seasons of your favorite shows in India. I believe that content should be made available everywhere at the same time. But it's not, and until someone like Apple can successfully disrupt this field, it's something we live with.
The only way it is taking income away from the studios (and again the other players) is if you are:
1. Part of Nielsen's sample.
2. Or use illegal downloading to replace, a normal practice of legal streaming or legal purchasing.
Who cares about a bunch of businessmen you don't even know and their revenue statement? The reason not to pirate is you... It should feel wrong to accept something without paying for it.
WHile I do purchase legal copies of material both online versions and DVD/ Blu-Ray copies. A growing number of people are watching TV in a manner that is legal but still bypasses how networks (and thus everyone else down) earn revenue.
And that's by using their DVR to skip commercials.
Its extremely common for households that use DVRs (over 50% of the US) to skip commercials. That is how networks earn the vast majority of their broadcast ad rates.
Apart from live sporting events, and just finding something on tv to kill a few minutes, I can't remember the last time I watched one of my 'regular' programs not by the DVR. I can set it for a Monday show, then Tuesday after work watch the show without commercials. What it records Tuesday, watch Wednesday.
When the networks start seeing this behavior cut into their advertising dollars, then they will agree to Apple's terms.
These TV executives are simply ignorant and arrogant, exactly like the music industry was until Apple came (to some extent, still are):
In today's world, there are no borders anymore, the user in Europe, Asia or Australia wants to see the latest episode of House MD at the same time at the privileged consumer in the US. Broadband makes it possible, but the executive don't get that. That's why piracy is so wide-spread, not because it is expensive to buy and people are all fraudsters, simply because it is a matter of availability.
If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will do. With with that level of ignorance and arrogance they opened the door wide.
Old conservative dudes unwilling to open their minds to new ideas? This is breaking news!
These articles don't really contain enough information to form such a conclusion. You're just following the thing of if Steve wanted it, it must be a good way to go. The other guys have to look out for their own companies. The concern might be Apple and their controlling nature eventually being able to fully dictate terms to networks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36
Kodak "well this is just a fad. " and CBS "we don't see a need to start moving into the digital media arena. Its not fully developed and it could hurt our profits.".
Now Kodak is circling the drain.
Will CBS follow and get bought out?
They already distribute content digitally and not just through cable. They turned down one deal, and you're reading way too far into it with too little information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Guess what fuckwad, I'm not willing to wait 6 months for the damn DVD to come out, nor I imagine would anyone else.
..because that's EXACTLY what happened to me when I wanted to watch Game of Thrones. It was LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to buy. Anywhere. Or watch. I live in Canada.
The model is horribly outdated and archaic. There's nothing wrong with wanting things to improve. I like how you magically expect people to act in ways that are utterly unrealistic and inconvenient, where much simpler avenues are present, and instead of wanting the business model to change to acocomdate the consumer and motivate more people to pay, you can people like Steve Jobs a thief for attempting to do so, and pat the execs who are completely disconnected with the needs of most consumers on the back just cause they're doing such a bang-up job. I've never stolen an app, so fuck off with your implications.
The insults weren't needed, and you had the ability to purchase the dvd later when it came out anyway. On another note, cbs does host some of their shows online at their site. They can be viewed over a web browser. Is that option unavailable in Canada? I'm not sure if there's a US only restriction to the content which is why I ask.
Buy the DVD, thief. You guys think everything should be free. That is why Apple has to lock down iOS - to keep people from stealing the hard work of developers.
Oh, it's SO inconvenient to not steal - yeah right.
The big problem with copyright law is that the copyright holder has the right to withhold publishing and distribution, not just have the right to publish and distribute. That's the rub.
I think a requirement similar to FRAND for patents should be required for copyright holders. That is, copyright holders must license the works they hold for publication and distribution on fair terms of all material they control (this is more broad than FRAND for patents).
Image all those books that would be digitized and made available if CFRAND (copyright FRAND) were in force. This would also allow for massive expansion of access to material world-wide. Books that have not been translated from their original language would be available for translation, movies and tv would become widely available, both translated and in their original language.
If CFRAND became available, much of the legitimate arguments for "stealing" content would disappear.
I think the biggest mistake the TV Networks did was to forgo streaming rentals on iTunes. I for one have been complaining for a couple years now that its down right stupid and a waste of money to download shows on iTunes at $2.99 an episode or even more for HD. It makes no sense. The only time I do that is when I'm out of the country for longer than a month in fear that my DVR won't keep it or get to full and remove it for space. The iTunes model just doesn't really work since I watch just way too many shows for it to compare to the. Able plan. Plus there's no rental option for TV and no news or sports. I consider myself the average American user so Its no wonder why iTunes for tv hasn't taken off. I bought the 2nd gen aTV be ause it had Netflix on it. Not because of iTunes.
Everyone should calm down... Apple is sitting on nearly 100 billion cold-hard cash and proved they walled-garden model works. Old school network execs have no idea what opportunities they are losing out. The irony here is his quote on being friends with Netflix and how it saved the network.
..because that's EXACTLY what happened to me when I wanted to watch Game of Thrones. It was LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to buy. Anywhere. Or watch. I live in Canada.
The model is horribly outdated and archaic. There's nothing wrong with wanting things to improve. I like how you magically expect people to act in ways that are utterly unrealistic and inconvenient, where much simpler avenues are present, and instead of wanting the business model to change to acocomdate the consumer and motivate more people to pay, you can people like Steve Jobs a thief for attempting to do so, and pat the execs who are completely disconnected with the needs of most consumers on the back just cause they're doing such a bang-up job. I've never stolen an app, so fuck off with your implications.
Wow. The guy who's trying desperately to justify his own theft is calling others a "fuckwad". Theft is theft. You can't justify it.
A growing number of people are watching TV in a manner that is legal but still bypasses how networks (and thus everyone else down) earn revenue.
And that's by using their DVR to skip commercials.
Its extremely common for households that use DVRs (over 50% of the US) to skip commercials. That is how networks earn the vast majority of their broadcast ad rates.
Network tv hate, hate the fact that people can bypass their largest revenue stream.
Out of the masses of the US population, vastly more people DVR and skip commercials then who illegally stream or watch torrents.
Actually, the DVR allows the networks to claim for the commercial time and conveniently ignore the fact that DVR users don't watch the commercials. Using a DVR does not allow anyone to bypass the revenue stream, .... it just lets viewers ignore the content they don't want to see.
Seems like you are justifying your actions with some false assumptions.
There are no "legitimate arguments for "stealing" content".
I understand that the Internet has radically changed the consumer mindset from "I want one when I can get it" to "I want it now" and there's no going back. And relax - I count myself among them. But "stealing" and "legitimate" do not belong in the same sentence. Theft is not a victimless crime, no matter what you think of the original owner.
Guess what fuckwad, I'm not willing to wait 6 months for the damn DVD to come out, nor I imagine would anyone else.
I'd wait, in fact I do wait. When a miss a series on TV that I want to see I wait for the DVD. Or if I miss a film at the cinema I wait for it to be on pay per view. It's basically called obaying the law.
People seem to think for some random reason they have a right to watch a program/film or listen to some music imediately. You didn't make it, it's not yours, you have absolutely no right to it in any way. Just because it's easy to steal it and you don't think your going to get cought, it doesn't make it right. You are essentially no different from someone shoplifting.
When it comes to consumer demand for TV shows, "utterly unrealistic" is utterly redundant. It's a TV show. You can wait a lifetime for it, and it's still just a TV show. You're the one who is being unrealistic.
I don't care much for the networks tease and withhold strategies, but having a hard on for medieval fantasy does not justify content theft. Learn patience and/or write a letter.
I can see it in iTunes, but I think Apple makes deals with national TV broadcasters to not put episodes up until they have aired in that country.
No, this is the issue. Apple doesn't and shouldn't have to make deals with each and every local broadcaster that also wants to air a show.
Apple is trying to make deals with the studios who produce/own the shows, and content owners.
Unfortunately, these owners have all kinds of deals going all the time -- with cable companies, local and international broadcasters, etc. A cable company might negotiate to get a TV Show or Movie first and base it's whole deal with the Studio on getting the content before iTunes.
The issue isn't that someone wants to wants to be able to get episodes of White Collar om iTunes before they air ANYWHERE in the world or before the studio releases it to it's own primary network. The issue is that you can only get Series 1 on iTunes, while from what I can tell, there have been 3 series aired in the US.
Imagine if the new iPad was released in only the US this time, instead of internationally. Imagine if Apple had only made 4 million for launch, instead of the possible 10-15 million it might be launching with (who knows?). If they did either, they would take flack for this launch being an epic fail. Of course, they still will take the flack, because each launch has been greeted thus, because of the huge demand (sounds like success to me!) and despite the launches getting bigger and bigger and smoother and smoother. So, why can't the studios see it as a good thing to have an international/universal launch of a new show to all possible places and marketplaces and audiences and formats at once? Imagine a pilot show being viewed by 1 billion people around the world? They would soon find new ways to finance new productions and raise the quality in the process! Just the kind of disruption that Horace Dediu speaks of on Asymco.com -- changing value chain to get value to content producers so more, new, higher quality content can be produced!
This is what the interviewee is reluctant to change or upset. He is reluctant to give Apple an even playing field with all the traditional players. Everyone else gets precedence apparently. I have seen a new movie appear fairly timely on iTunes, and then get taken off, because it conflicted with a deal that a local cable provider negotiated for itself.
Despite the fact that there are 300 or so million iOS devices out there and who knows how many copies of iTunes on Macs and PCs and tons of active iTunes accounts around the world, the studios think they are better off holding on to the old, and they would still like to divide up all the markets in the world.
The studios are completely out of touch with how people want to experience TV today and must not get that people are increasingly disatisfied with Cable packages where you get a lot of junk channels, just to be able to watch the one or two shows you want to watch (not even one or two channels). A la carte downloads and subscriptions are the way forward. I don't want a hundred crappy channels from my local provider or pay for stuff I don't watch or don't want.
In fact, I don't have a TV at all. I currently live in Netherlands; and I have lived in UK and USA. What do I care when a show is due to be "aired" in Netherlands? Why should I worry if it is going to be on TV here in six months, a year, two years? Why should it be an issue that the Netherlands is typically 4 seasons or so behind the USA? Why can't I find out about a new show that would interest me, and start watching it on my computer/Apple TV as soon as it is available ANYWHERE?
I can guarantee you I am not going to watch the ads aired with the show -- whatever those ads are due to be in a couple of years. So, what is this studio guy hanging on to -- the going rate that a local provider typically pays given typical local audience and ad negotiating power in that region? Does this studio exec think this will last forever? Is he willing to hold out for the diminshing amounts that providers are going to pay up front for his programs? Shouldn't he just give it a go and watch millions upon millions of individual subscribers happily fork over small amounts per show or series because they actually WANT to watch the content? The studios just need to take the plunge like the newspapers, magazines and publishers.
Also, don't fall into the trap of thinking that you aren't taking money from folks by torrents etc because you aren't part of the ratings sample. Those that work on shows often do get a cut (albeit very small) of the paid downloads, the DVDs etc.
Comments
We aren't entitled to content. You aren't owed episodes of "Game of Thrones" simply because you want them.
This might be true - but that does take away from the fact that the existing business model is retarded. If a customer is willing to pay money, but there is no way to pay money and watch legally, there isn't much point in blaming the customer for resorting to other means.
I have faced similar situations in the past. When I moved back to India, I had to give up watching pretty much all the shows I used to see earlier. Thankfully, now some of these shows are available in India - but couple of seasons behind the US. But there are still several shows that you just have to give up on, or resort to torrents.
It is high time this business model is disrupted.
BTW -- I noticed you signed up just to post this.... Are you so affected by this that you signed up to post!?
Most of those folks aren't counted. DVR counts are from the same group as OTA and it's less than 100k viewers.
Sorry if its a stupid question, but what is OTA?
One thing I did want to had in my original post.
With TV, the other side of the , you are stealing "income" away from the people who make contact argument.
While illegal, in most cases it isn't taking money away from the content creators (be it studio, actors, writers, directors,ect).
The only way it is taking income away from the studios (and again the other players) is if you are:
1. Part of Nielsen's sample.
2. Or use illegal downloading to replace, a normal practice of legal streaming or legal purchasing.
Say customer X history is someone who only watches broadcast tv, and that person starts illegally downloading.
If person X isn't a Nielsen home, then their viewing habits or patterns have no impact on the actual revenue stream for the network.
It's still illegal, but technically has no impact on actual revenue so they aren't impacting the ad rates collected.
Now if person X, is now replacing purchasing media (again either digital or physical) then of course direct revenue is now lost to the studios.
But the majority of households, typically don't purchase much in the way of TV media. Online sales are still much smaller then physical media, and physical media.
And use DVR users legally bypass revenue streams in vastly larger numbers then people who are illegally watching shows. Nielsen's own data reports this.
This might be true - but that does take away from the fact that the existing business model is retarded. If a customer is willing to pay money, but there is no way to pay money and watch legally, there isn't much point in blaming the customer for resorting to other means.
I have faced similar situations in the past. When I moved back to India, I had to give up watching pretty much all the shows I used to see earlier. Thankfully, now some of these shows are available in India - but couple of seasons behind the US. But there are still several shows that you just have to give up on, or resort to torrents.
It is high time this business model is disrupted.
BTW -- I noticed you signed up just to post this.... Are you so affected by this that you signed up to post!?
I signed up a few days ago to be able to scroll through the comments with Zither on ignore.
And no I'm not affected by this. But the attitude of people that pirate content is astounding. Sure, they might otherwise pay for it. But "I can't buy it" isn't an excuse to download content illegally; Particularly if the excuse is "I can't buy it yet."
I stopped using my MacBook Pro a few months ago as my primary computer, opting to use my iPhone and iPad primarily instead. Piracy isn't even an option for me with my setup. I wait for things to appear on iTunes.
But somehow, surprisingly, I live!
I agree that the business model needs to be disrupted. You shouldn't be behind two seasons of your favorite shows in India. I believe that content should be made available everywhere at the same time. But it's not, and until someone like Apple can successfully disrupt this field, it's something we live with.
The only way it is taking income away from the studios (and again the other players) is if you are:
1. Part of Nielsen's sample.
2. Or use illegal downloading to replace, a normal practice of legal streaming or legal purchasing.
Who cares about a bunch of businessmen you don't even know and their revenue statement? The reason not to pirate is you... It should feel wrong to accept something without paying for it.
WHile I do purchase legal copies of material both online versions and DVD/ Blu-Ray copies. A growing number of people are watching TV in a manner that is legal but still bypasses how networks (and thus everyone else down) earn revenue.
And that's by using their DVR to skip commercials.
Its extremely common for households that use DVRs (over 50% of the US) to skip commercials. That is how networks earn the vast majority of their broadcast ad rates.
Apart from live sporting events, and just finding something on tv to kill a few minutes, I can't remember the last time I watched one of my 'regular' programs not by the DVR. I can set it for a Monday show, then Tuesday after work watch the show without commercials. What it records Tuesday, watch Wednesday.
When the networks start seeing this behavior cut into their advertising dollars, then they will agree to Apple's terms.
In today's world, there are no borders anymore, the user in Europe, Asia or Australia wants to see the latest episode of House MD at the same time at the privileged consumer in the US. Broadband makes it possible, but the executive don't get that. That's why piracy is so wide-spread, not because it is expensive to buy and people are all fraudsters, simply because it is a matter of availability.
If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will do. With with that level of ignorance and arrogance they opened the door wide.
Old conservative dudes unwilling to open their minds to new ideas? This is breaking news!
These articles don't really contain enough information to form such a conclusion. You're just following the thing of if Steve wanted it, it must be a good way to go. The other guys have to look out for their own companies. The concern might be Apple and their controlling nature eventually being able to fully dictate terms to networks.
Kodak "well this is just a fad. " and CBS "we don't see a need to start moving into the digital media arena. Its not fully developed and it could hurt our profits.".
Now Kodak is circling the drain.
Will CBS follow and get bought out?
They already distribute content digitally and not just through cable. They turned down one deal, and you're reading way too far into it with too little information.
Guess what fuckwad, I'm not willing to wait 6 months for the damn DVD to come out, nor I imagine would anyone else.
I can relate to this: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
..because that's EXACTLY what happened to me when I wanted to watch Game of Thrones. It was LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to buy. Anywhere. Or watch. I live in Canada.
The model is horribly outdated and archaic. There's nothing wrong with wanting things to improve. I like how you magically expect people to act in ways that are utterly unrealistic and inconvenient, where much simpler avenues are present, and instead of wanting the business model to change to acocomdate the consumer and motivate more people to pay, you can people like Steve Jobs a thief for attempting to do so, and pat the execs who are completely disconnected with the needs of most consumers on the back just cause they're doing such a bang-up job. I've never stolen an app, so fuck off with your implications.
The insults weren't needed, and you had the ability to purchase the dvd later when it came out anyway. On another note, cbs does host some of their shows online at their site. They can be viewed over a web browser. Is that option unavailable in Canada? I'm not sure if there's a US only restriction to the content which is why I ask.
Buy the DVD, thief. You guys think everything should be free. That is why Apple has to lock down iOS - to keep people from stealing the hard work of developers.
Oh, it's SO inconvenient to not steal - yeah right.
The big problem with copyright law is that the copyright holder has the right to withhold publishing and distribution, not just have the right to publish and distribute. That's the rub.
I think a requirement similar to FRAND for patents should be required for copyright holders. That is, copyright holders must license the works they hold for publication and distribution on fair terms of all material they control (this is more broad than FRAND for patents).
Image all those books that would be digitized and made available if CFRAND (copyright FRAND) were in force. This would also allow for massive expansion of access to material world-wide. Books that have not been translated from their original language would be available for translation, movies and tv would become widely available, both translated and in their original language.
If CFRAND became available, much of the legitimate arguments for "stealing" content would disappear.
Guess what fuckwad, I'm not willing to wait 6 months for the damn DVD to come out, nor I imagine would anyone else.
I can relate to this: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones
..because that's EXACTLY what happened to me when I wanted to watch Game of Thrones. It was LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to buy. Anywhere. Or watch. I live in Canada.
The model is horribly outdated and archaic. There's nothing wrong with wanting things to improve. I like how you magically expect people to act in ways that are utterly unrealistic and inconvenient, where much simpler avenues are present, and instead of wanting the business model to change to acocomdate the consumer and motivate more people to pay, you can people like Steve Jobs a thief for attempting to do so, and pat the execs who are completely disconnected with the needs of most consumers on the back just cause they're doing such a bang-up job. I've never stolen an app, so fuck off with your implications.
Wow. The guy who's trying desperately to justify his own theft is calling others a "fuckwad". Theft is theft. You can't justify it.
A growing number of people are watching TV in a manner that is legal but still bypasses how networks (and thus everyone else down) earn revenue.
And that's by using their DVR to skip commercials.
Its extremely common for households that use DVRs (over 50% of the US) to skip commercials. That is how networks earn the vast majority of their broadcast ad rates.
Network tv hate, hate the fact that people can bypass their largest revenue stream.
Out of the masses of the US population, vastly more people DVR and skip commercials then who illegally stream or watch torrents.
Actually, the DVR allows the networks to claim for the commercial time and conveniently ignore the fact that DVR users don't watch the commercials. Using a DVR does not allow anyone to bypass the revenue stream, .... it just lets viewers ignore the content they don't want to see.
Seems like you are justifying your actions with some false assumptions.
I understand that the Internet has radically changed the consumer mindset from "I want one when I can get it" to "I want it now" and there's no going back. And relax - I count myself among them. But "stealing" and "legitimate" do not belong in the same sentence. Theft is not a victimless crime, no matter what you think of the original owner.
Guess what fuckwad, I'm not willing to wait 6 months for the damn DVD to come out, nor I imagine would anyone else.
I'd wait, in fact I do wait. When a miss a series on TV that I want to see I wait for the DVD. Or if I miss a film at the cinema I wait for it to be on pay per view. It's basically called obaying the law.
People seem to think for some random reason they have a right to watch a program/film or listen to some music imediately. You didn't make it, it's not yours, you have absolutely no right to it in any way. Just because it's easy to steal it and you don't think your going to get cought, it doesn't make it right. You are essentially no different from someone shoplifting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPP8DJPbBkw
utterly unrealistic and inconvenient
When it comes to consumer demand for TV shows, "utterly unrealistic" is utterly redundant. It's a TV show. You can wait a lifetime for it, and it's still just a TV show. You're the one who is being unrealistic.
I don't care much for the networks tease and withhold strategies, but having a hard on for medieval fantasy does not justify content theft. Learn patience and/or write a letter.
I can see it in iTunes, but I think Apple makes deals with national TV broadcasters to not put episodes up until they have aired in that country.
No, this is the issue. Apple doesn't and shouldn't have to make deals with each and every local broadcaster that also wants to air a show.
Apple is trying to make deals with the studios who produce/own the shows, and content owners.
Unfortunately, these owners have all kinds of deals going all the time -- with cable companies, local and international broadcasters, etc. A cable company might negotiate to get a TV Show or Movie first and base it's whole deal with the Studio on getting the content before iTunes.
The issue isn't that someone wants to wants to be able to get episodes of White Collar om iTunes before they air ANYWHERE in the world or before the studio releases it to it's own primary network. The issue is that you can only get Series 1 on iTunes, while from what I can tell, there have been 3 series aired in the US.
Imagine if the new iPad was released in only the US this time, instead of internationally. Imagine if Apple had only made 4 million for launch, instead of the possible 10-15 million it might be launching with (who knows?). If they did either, they would take flack for this launch being an epic fail. Of course, they still will take the flack, because each launch has been greeted thus, because of the huge demand (sounds like success to me!) and despite the launches getting bigger and bigger and smoother and smoother. So, why can't the studios see it as a good thing to have an international/universal launch of a new show to all possible places and marketplaces and audiences and formats at once? Imagine a pilot show being viewed by 1 billion people around the world? They would soon find new ways to finance new productions and raise the quality in the process! Just the kind of disruption that Horace Dediu speaks of on Asymco.com -- changing value chain to get value to content producers so more, new, higher quality content can be produced!
This is what the interviewee is reluctant to change or upset. He is reluctant to give Apple an even playing field with all the traditional players. Everyone else gets precedence apparently. I have seen a new movie appear fairly timely on iTunes, and then get taken off, because it conflicted with a deal that a local cable provider negotiated for itself.
Despite the fact that there are 300 or so million iOS devices out there and who knows how many copies of iTunes on Macs and PCs and tons of active iTunes accounts around the world, the studios think they are better off holding on to the old, and they would still like to divide up all the markets in the world.
The studios are completely out of touch with how people want to experience TV today and must not get that people are increasingly disatisfied with Cable packages where you get a lot of junk channels, just to be able to watch the one or two shows you want to watch (not even one or two channels). A la carte downloads and subscriptions are the way forward. I don't want a hundred crappy channels from my local provider or pay for stuff I don't watch or don't want.
In fact, I don't have a TV at all. I currently live in Netherlands; and I have lived in UK and USA. What do I care when a show is due to be "aired" in Netherlands? Why should I worry if it is going to be on TV here in six months, a year, two years? Why should it be an issue that the Netherlands is typically 4 seasons or so behind the USA? Why can't I find out about a new show that would interest me, and start watching it on my computer/Apple TV as soon as it is available ANYWHERE?
I can guarantee you I am not going to watch the ads aired with the show -- whatever those ads are due to be in a couple of years. So, what is this studio guy hanging on to -- the going rate that a local provider typically pays given typical local audience and ad negotiating power in that region? Does this studio exec think this will last forever? Is he willing to hold out for the diminshing amounts that providers are going to pay up front for his programs? Shouldn't he just give it a go and watch millions upon millions of individual subscribers happily fork over small amounts per show or series because they actually WANT to watch the content? The studios just need to take the plunge like the newspapers, magazines and publishers.
Sorry if its a stupid question, but what is OTA?
Over the Air, i.e. Broadcast
Also, don't fall into the trap of thinking that you aren't taking money from folks by torrents etc because you aren't part of the ratings sample. Those that work on shows often do get a cut (albeit very small) of the paid downloads, the DVDs etc.