or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › NBC hitches onto download service from Apple rival SanDisk
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NBC hitches onto download service from Apple rival SanDisk - Page 3

post #81 of 117
[QUOTE=OriginalMacRat;1183020]It is? When did Apple state that?

[QUOTE]

They never did! Why would they???
Forbes.com has called it the iFlop.
post #82 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by OriginalMacRat View Post


You mean the unfounded SPECULATION from an analyst?


Wrong- more than analyst has said this. Please read article below.


http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/1001/046.html
post #83 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Wrong- more than analyst has said this. Please read article below.


http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/1001/046.html

Read thisone.
post #84 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guartho View Post

Sorry about that. It's just the whole latch on to single word like a rabid terrier thing is getting really really old. I realize that this is the first time you've done.

Looks like you're still missing the point though. I do in fact have neither. What I do now is miss the shows. I tried watching Heroes on NBC's site, but it stutters like mad and tends to crash during the "limited commercial interruptions." The iTunes store was the only workable way for me to legally see these shows. I'm not subscribing to cable or satellite to watch 40 hours of TV a year.

My original post that started this tangent was in response to "Why is NBC the bad guy?," or "Why do you hate NBC so much." Well, I don't really hate them, but they have these two great shows that I really enjoyed and then they said I can't watch them anymore. That's why I don't like them. Of course they have a legal right to do that, but that doesn't change the whole "I'm taking my ball and going home." crap that they're pulling.

Actually, I should be honest. Yours just happened to be the post where I ended up making a point that I've been wanting to make for quite a while.

It has troubled me for a while now: I would see a whole lot of posts gleefully pointing to "t.o.r.r.e.n.t" whenever an issue concerning a content provider not doing the consumers' bidding comes up. (I am not at all implying yours was in the same league; it just happened to be convenient). What the posts never seem to point out or realize is, how the heck does someone who lives off his/her content compete against 'free?' It is well nigh impossible.

The classic conundrum is, if we do not provide adequate returns to those who create intellectual property (IP), there is no incentive to create IP in the first place. I think you would agree with me that we would all be much worse off as consumers if there was no IP -- after all, that is the sole brain food we consume (and produce).

The real debate should really be about "what is/who has (Apple or NBC or whoever) an appropriate model for generating returns to the content provider," rather than the one I see most often, which is "if they can't or won't compete against free (or close to free), I'll go with free."

Again, I should point out that your post did not imply any of these, but just provided a hook that I latched on to.

(I should add: I have no self-interest in this point of view.)
post #85 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Would that be "got it right" like Zune's wireless sync that tech writers are paid to love? The wireless synch that ONLY works if you plug in a WIRE... and syncs far slower than an iPod that uses the same number of cables to sync?


I didn't say the Zune was a hit with me.

Regardless of our thoughts about the Zune, version 2.0 is selling pretty good. The MP3 player pie chart is going to change.
post #86 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottiB View Post

Read thisone.


I give you a serious, unbiased article and you give me biased claptrap? You're hurting me!!
post #87 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by cygnusrk727 View Post

Agreed. NBC is coming to the table to play. As much as I love iTunes and Apple, I'm afraid 2008 is going to be the year that viable alternatives come to the market. NBC's Hula might suck but they are determined to limp along until they get it right. Just as Microsoft has done with the Zune.

For the television content arena, 2008 is up in the air regardless of what competition comes along. The writers' strike could well continue so far into 2008 that no new drama or comedy programming will appear until very late in the year or 2009. Movie content might not as much of a problem, but distribution of movies is still just coming together, even on iTunes.

Apple TV just isn't the right thing for the time. I want HD. I spent over $2000 on my 1080p LCD HDTV. I'm not about to spend money on downloaded movies and television programs just to watch a lesser format on my LCD HTV. Its heart is in the right place, and fewer steps are involved, but as the average American consumer is a middle-line HDTV owner with subpar (compared to other countries) bandwidth to the Internet, it's just not going to fly.
post #88 of 117
bittorrent will get bigger and bigger, until the studios realize that they messed up like the record studios did...

with s/w like "tv shows" for mac it's gotten so easy to download your favorite shows in SDTV or HDTV quality...

the numbers aren't lying, the big shows have around 100k-200k downloads per episode, there used to be 10% of that 1 year ago... that clearly shows that people are catching on and that people are fed up with the way the studios handle content internationally!

in the EU, besides the UK, there no service that allows one to get your favorite shows in english or dubbed... unbelievable! so people in the EU HAVE to use bittorrent to get their stuff...
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
post #89 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel_Monkey View Post

For the television content arena, 2008 is up in the air regardless of what competition comes along. The writers' strike could well continue so far into 2008 that no new drama or comedy programming will appear until very late in the year or 2009. Movie content might not as much of a problem, but distribution of movies is still just coming together, even on iTunes.

Apple TV just isn't the right thing for the time. I want HD. I spent over $2000 on my 1080p LCD HDTV. I'm not about to spend money on downloaded movies and television programs just to watch a lesser format on my LCD HTV. Its heart is in the right place, and fewer steps are involved, but as the average American consumer is a middle-line HDTV owner with subpar (compared to other countries) bandwidth to the Internet, it's just not going to fly.

i don't think it's apple fault for not offering HD shows on iTS... i think it's the studios not giving apple the HD content!

on hulu.com they clearly state they're close to offering HD episodes, right now they only have some pilot previews in HD, which look ok, not as good as apples HD movie trailers, but hulu.com works with flash, so we can't expect too much from a service like that...
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
vista = virus inside switch to apple
Reply
post #90 of 117
This SanDisk device will be dead in the water once Apple releases the firmware update for current generation iPods that will support 720p output.
post #91 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galley View Post

This SanDisk device will be dead in the water once Apple releases the firmware update for current generation iPods that will support 720p output.

.....or let's us use the mysterious USB port to record a la TIVO!
post #92 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by marzetta7 View Post

Honestly, what brain children are running NBC/Universal? First, they back a fledging HD DVD format that is assured to lose in the optical realm to the highly superior Blu-ray, and now they shun Apple's iTunes that clearly dominates the download realm. I just don't get it. Are NBC/Universal trying to lose money?

.... and don't they have some connection with a company called MS whoever that might be? Isn't it called MSNBC or something like that?
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #93 of 117
sorry somehow I got a double post!!
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #94 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guartho View Post

No... my exact words were in direct response to...

I agree, context is an indispensable tool in interpreting people's true meaning. Indeed, nothing in what you stated can strictly be taken to advocate quite the extreme standpoint that I had originally attributed to you. I apologize.

Quote:
I will admit that I thought that said Apple's method requires instead of Apple's method calls for. My point was that the AppleTV is not the only way to watch iTunes content on your TV. Also, your statement still doesn't work because I'd have to buy a PC to use the Fanfare content.

I'll grant that it apparently is not an option in your case, sure. But I would not be so bold as to conclude from that fact that the statement simply "doesn't work" at all.
post #95 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by cygnusrk727 View Post

I didn't say the Zune was a hit with me.

Regardless of our thoughts about the Zune, version 2.0 is selling pretty good. The MP3 player pie chart is going to change.

Yes, that was self-evident at Target. I happened to be in there for something and had just walked past a 100 feet of gleaming white futuristic looking displays stuffed with iPods and iPod accessories and I noticed and 2 foot space on the other in a dark and miserable looking display. I had to get close to see what it was ... "Oh" I said to myself "So that is a Zune". It was hard to see for the dust.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #96 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Actually, I should be honest. Yours just happened to be the post where I ended up making a point that I've been wanting to make for quite a while.

The classic conundrum is, if we do not provide adequate returns to those who create intellectual property (IP), there is no incentive to create IP in the first place. I think you would agree with me that we would all be much worse off as consumers if there was no IP -- after all, that is the sole brain food we consume (and produce).


It's all good. Looks like we were both doing like the US & the Soviet Union in those 80's nuclear war movies I totally understand what it's like to slowly get irritated at a trend and then go off on the first person that says the wrong thing at the wrong time. I did it to you after all.

I do have a bit of a personal stake in that I own a video production company. I once had a little old lady tell me straight to my face that she had had her niece make copies of one of my show DVDs for about half the cast so they wouldn't have to pay for them. She said this to me like I should shake her hand and tell her how nice a thing it was for her to do that. I try awfully hard to make these things available to people as cheaply and easily as I can. I also go the extra mile in making a custom designed DVD cases and printing labels directly on disks etc. I do this to add value in the hopes of making people want the real deal.

Because I, in my 1 1/2 man operation bend over backwards to make things as cheap and nice and easy as possible for my customers I notice when groups like NBC don't. I really notice when groups like NBC used to and then change their minds. Naturally, I couldn't expect you to know any of this.
post #97 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Wrong- more than analyst has said this. Please read article below.


http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/1001/046.html

Wow that guy just doesn't like SJ and he sure has a low opinion of us Apple fans doesn't he? His tone hardly comes across as balanced writing. It is one thing to write an intelligent critique but this sounds like he is the son of the man who created Vista or the maybe Zune and just hates Apple.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #98 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post


I'll grant that it apparently is not an option in your case, sure. But I would not be so bold as to conclude from that fact that the statement simply "doesn't work" at all.

I will also admit that my situation is probably fairly unique.
post #99 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by cygnusrk727 View Post

Regardless of our thoughts about the Zune, version 2.0 is selling pretty good. The MP3 player pie chart is going to change.

Source? I've heard this claim a few times, but no numbers to back them up. So how many have they sold?

And despite the links to other articles saying the aTV isn't selling well, this question has yet to be answered:

What competing download/TV box is selling better?

Why can't someone answer that question?
post #100 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The classic conundrum is, if we do not provide adequate returns to those who create intellectual property (IP), there is no incentive to create IP in the first place. I think you would agree with me that we would all be much worse off as consumers if there was no IP -- after all, that is the sole brain food we consume (and produce).

What's really ironic right now is that the writers are on strike because the studios are paying them ZERO for any streaming views of the shows they create.

So NBC is saying that there's no reason to provide ANY return to those who created that intellectual property. If they don't think their shows are worth paying the talent for, why should audiences think those shows are worth paying NBC for?

Not that I'm advocating piracy, but until NBC starts compensating their creatives, it's hard to really feel bad if people are watching the shows in ways that make no money for NBC. Some might even argue that pirating shows instead of watching them on HULU or whatever hurts the networks and could put pressure on them to end the strike.
post #101 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

What's really ironic right now is that the writers are on strike because the studios are paying them ZERO for any streaming views of the shows they create.

So NBC is saying that there's no reason to provide ANY return to those who created that intellectual property. If they don't think their shows are worth paying the talent for, why should audiences think those shows are worth paying NBC for?

Not that I'm advocating piracy, but until NBC starts compensating their creatives, it's hard to really feel bad if people are watching the shows in ways that make no money for NBC. Some might even argue that pirating shows instead of watching them on HULU or whatever hurts the networks and could put pressure on them to end the strike.

Well, the complicating thing with what you are saying is, we do not know for sure as to who actually owns the copyright on the work -- the employee, or the corporation? For instance, the IP from R&D done in companies typically belongs to the company, not the scientist. Often, music publishing rights belong to the recording company, not the artist. The company may, in good judgment (and as a smart business decision in order to better incentivize employees) decide to share some of the spoils, but it is typically not required.

Second, you are implying that if people knew that the actual creator (as opposed to the corporation) was getting the returns, they might pirate less. I am less optimistic than that: I think people who want it for free will always find a way and an excuse to get it for free.
post #102 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Well, the complicating thing with what you are saying is, we do not know for sure as to who actually owns the copyright on the work -- the employee, or the corporation? For instance, the IP from R&D done in companies typically belongs to the company, not the scientist. Often, music publishing rights belong to the recording company, not the artist. The company may, in good judgment (and as a smart business decision in order to better incentivize employees) decide to share some of the spoils, but it is typically not required.

Second, you are implying that if people knew that the actual creator (as opposed to the corporation) was getting the returns, they might pirate less. I am less optimistic than that: I think people who want it for free will always find a way and an excuse to get it for free.

We do know, the corporations own the copyrights because the writers transfer those rights in exchange for payments which include residuals.

There has traditionally been an agreement that they get a residual for broadcasts and sales, the only reason they're not getting them on internet streaming is because it simply didn't exist when the last contracts were negotiated, and the studios refuse to allow them in a new contract. In the case of music, the record label may get some of the money, but there's never a situation where the music is reused and the author gets nothing.

And while the general public doesn't usually know who gets what, the current strike has made many people aware of what's going on, and the fact that the creatives are currently getting absolutely nothing on internet streaming. While that may or may not encourage piracy, it doesn't change the fact that pirating a show instead of watching a legal streaming version is taking money out of the pocket of the studio...but it's not taking anything out of the pockets of those who created the content. The studios have already kept those pockets empty.
post #103 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

We do know, the corporations own the copyrights because the writers transfer those rights in exchange for payments which include residuals.

There has traditionally been an agreement that they get a residual for broadcasts and sales, the only reason they're not getting them on internet streaming is because it simply didn't exist when the last contracts were negotiated, and the studios refuse to allow them in a new contract. In the case of music, the record label may get some of the money, but there's never a situation where the music is reused and the author gets nothing.

And while the general public doesn't usually know who gets what, the current strike has made many people aware of what's going on, and the fact that the creatives are currently getting absolutely nothing on internet streaming. While that may or may not encourage piracy, it doesn't change the fact that pirating a show instead of watching a legal streaming version is taking money out of the pocket of the studio...but it's not taking anything out of the pockets of those who created the content. The studios have already kept those pockets empty.

Fair enough -- you obviously know the writer/studio split better than I do, and I take your word for it.

But are you still suggesting that if, somehow, that split were to change in favor of the writer, people would pirate less? My view is: I don't think so.
post #104 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I give you a serious, unbiased article and you give me biased claptrap? You're hurting me!!

You're hurting yourself by quoting Forbes.
post #105 of 117
A lot of people don't really know what they are talking about, whether it is calling AppleTV a failure or that Apple killed the music industry. Just because some self called "analyst" or "expert" says something doesn't mean it is true. Just because something gets printed doesn't make it true.

There are many reasons why the music industry is hurting. For example, music labels have traditionally owned multi-million dollar studios. Now with the latest computer technology, one can have an equal or better project studio for under $50k. Labels are stuck with high costs and can't charge the rates they use to get because the smaller, newer studios are undercutting their price. This is one reason why the traditional music labels are hurting and it has nothing to do with iTunes.

There are many more non-distribution reasons why the music industry is hurting and they all combine to create a crisis for the labels. I actually think iTunes saved the music industry from file sharing stealing. People who accuse Apple of ruining the music industry are knocking the good guy. And I know this industry and technology well. I don't need to find an expert about this subject because I am an expert. I live in Nashville, run a project studio, and know what is going on in town.

The main fact is that computer technology is revolutionizing everything it touches - music, video, photography, gps navigation, printing, film, shopping, communication, warfare - you can go on and on. Everybody who continues in their old ways without some change quickly go extinct.

Take Kodak for example. They are not in the music or tv business but they are struggling. Why? Because they did not fully anticipate the quick rise of digital photography. I bet they sell 1% of the film they use to. They never figured HP and Epson would sell more photography paper then they would. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of these same worthless analysts blame Kodak's problems on iTunes and Apple. (The only reason they don't I bet, is because MS isn't paying them to do so.) The point is digital technology brings change big time.

TV production is also changing. Give me a Mac and FCP and a small HD camera, and I can produce good tv content. Sound familiar? Same thing that happened in the music business is happening in the tv business. However, the networks don't want to adapt. Yes, the distribution end is changing but so is the production end. Everything is changing.

Why doesn't NBC continue on with Apple? There is the MS connection. Also, Apple is in bed with Disney which owns ABC/ESPN. Therefore they view Apple as one of their competitors. Who wants their distribution controlled by their competitor? NBC is scrambling to get free of iTunes. They could care less about the viewer; they are thinking about themselves in the long run.

Apple is also thinking about their company too. The big difference is that Apple's interests align with the consumers. They are years ahead of the competition. That is why Apple is so successful in the music business and tv download business.

As for AppleTV being a flop, hard to say. We are one mile into a marathon and so far Apple is leading the race. I wouldn't call it a flop or failure. If Apple introduces a new version with 720p HD and an additional movie download rental service, I would think the race is only getting started.

I think Apple realized the AppleTV wasn't the elegant solution they really wanted but they didn't want to wait and let others grab the mindshare or newborn tv/movie download market. The AppleTV secured Apple's lead by offering the best solution at that time. However, the market is growing and Apple will ride that growing wave.

The question is how is that wave going to grow? We are facing a watershed with HD vs. small web TV. We want HD content from iTunes but most people do not have the bandwidth connection to make this feasible. This battle is not like the HD audio formats that flopped. Most people could not hear the difference between SACD and CD. Therefore they had no reason to buy HD audio.

However, people can see a difference with HD video. We want and need the better HD content. It just takes up tons of bandwidth to move. Can internet tv really work? What about real time broadcasts like sports? Lots of race still to come.

The only thing for sure is that nobody and nothing is a failure when it comes to tv/movie internet distribution. I am not just talking about Apple, though they have a good head start. Nobody is out of this race yet.
post #106 of 117
Good response visionary.

In all this talk about the "death" of the music industry two things are not being mentioned. Cost and content. Like all suppliers, the labels want top dollar for their product and are used to skirting the edge of what the consumer will bare to get it. But unlike in the past where the consumers only choice was to do without or pay the labels price, the current consumer has the third choice of 'pirating' the product. With iTunes and we found that many consumers will pay a reasonable amount but this by its nature is below the top dollar that the consumer will bare. I see Universal and the others trying to jack the prices back up to the top dollar what the consumer will pay. But this is a dangerous game for them and ignores the new third choice of piracy.

The second problem is content. The labels complain that their CDs are not selling and blame piracy. I content that their CDs aren't selling because they are not worth buying. Admittedly I have reached the old fart age and most new music isn't for me. (And thanks to Clear-Channel I quit listening to radio ten years ago so even have a poorer knowledge of what's out there in the commercial world.) But seeing as I am having no problem in finding podcasts with music I like I, and performers playing it, can't help but conclude that the labels are making conscious decisions to sell music not worth buying.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #107 of 117
Nice post Visionary

The music industry is dead, long live the music industry! The music labels are victims of their own success which has afforded them broad market control spanning production, distribution and, unfortunately for them, reception of their products eventuating in dissent from both artists and consumers. To a degree this wasn't just a power struggle, pirates will always find the next excuse not to pay and being brought to it's knees undoubtedly helped this industry to accept & adapt to accommodate the changes. I've never been convinced technology alone will successfully bring swelling ranks of artists/wannabe artists with the public and the old structures will never fade entirely and perhaps they shouldn't, similar ones will eventually emerge. As is the nature of us.

The TV industry is dead, long live the TV industry! This industry is still strong and able to fight, maybe Apple should have let piracy have its way here before creating a 'solution'. Unfortunately it has a real problem, while we were relatively happy with CDs (just iPods are better) consumers have been asking a question for 30 years - to change how we watch TV, initially when (with VCRs/DVRs) and now where. No answers for 30 years! Really not good. It'll be us that change how we watch TV and Apple are happy to rescue us this time not the industry.

Why are we angry at AppleTV & calling it a flop? Because we know what it could & should be, we know that Apple is capable of delivering it and someone's getting in the way and we now see who that is. Are we happy? Are we hell.

McD

(by the way the only point I didn't agree with was the broadband/download part - my broadband sustains 400-600KBytes/second from local servers and many Kiwis have access to 10Mbps cable on affordable plans. Movies, shows and non-live content can be on scheduled for download similar to the current TV Show/Podcast system. For live Rugby & other broadcasts? As said before, some things shouldn't die completely)
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #108 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

That little device is a kick-ass idea.

Why? it only works if you plug it into a TV. With a Nano you can do that or watch directly. Don't see the benefit in it, other than for NBC it isn't manufactured by Apple.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #109 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

What's really ironic right now is that the writers are on strike because the studios are paying them ZERO for any streaming views of the shows they create.

So NBC is saying that there's no reason to provide ANY return to those who created that intellectual property. If they don't think their shows are worth paying the talent for, why should audiences think those shows are worth paying NBC for?

Not that I'm advocating piracy, but until NBC starts compensating their creatives, it's hard to really feel bad if people are watching the shows in ways that make no money for NBC. Some might even argue that pirating shows instead of watching them on HULU or whatever hurts the networks and could put pressure on them to end the strike.

Very few, if any other creative fields do the creators get paid a royalty for the work that they do for their employer. Even if something is done freelance the rights to the content are typically held by the person who hires the creative professional. I know that I don't get a penny in royalties for any of the 100 or so books and other published material I've designed over the years.

The writers have a Union and that is fine, they are able to get royalties and that is OK as well, but if they want to get paid for content delivered over the internet today then they should be willing to pay part of the price as well. Do you think for a second that the writers would cough up one penny of their money if the networks lost money on one of their digital delivery ventures? No they would still expect to be paid for every download whether the networks made money off of it or not.
post #110 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by @homenow View Post

The writers have a Union and that is fine, they are able to get royalties and that is OK as well, but if they want to get paid for content delivered over the internet today then they should be willing to pay part of the price as well. Do you think for a second that the writers would cough up one penny of their money if the networks lost money on one of their digital delivery ventures? No they would still expect to be paid for every download whether the networks made money off of it or not.

In a way they are taking on some of the risk. The arrangement was that they would accept less pay up front in exchange for royalties on broadcasts and sales. So if it doesn't sell, then they get paid less than they would have if they had gotten fully paid up front.
post #111 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

In a way they are taking on some of the risk. The arrangement was that they would accept less pay up front in exchange for royalties on broadcasts and sales. So if it doesn't sell, then they get paid less than they would have if they had gotten fully paid up front.

As I understand it they want a royalty from every download, whether the venture as a whole makes money or not. They networks could still loose money on the venture while the writers are getting paid for each downloaded episode. They may be getting a smaller salary up front, but they are not taking any risk on the new delivery method or helping out with any of the costs that developing that method take.
post #112 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by @homenow View Post

As I understand it they want a royalty from every download, whether the venture as a whole makes money or not. They networks could still loose money on the venture while the writers are getting paid for each downloaded episode. They may be getting a smaller salary up front, but they are not taking any risk on the new delivery method or helping out with any of the costs that developing that method take.

There's no reason for them to take risk like that, because they've been duped into that that once, and they're trying to avoid that again. They did take risk by accepting lower royalties on home video sales when it was new, 80% reduction, and despite the decades since and billions of dollars a year market, their share hasn't returned to its previous percentage.
post #113 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by @homenow View Post

As I understand it they want a royalty from every download, whether the venture as a whole makes money or not. They networks could still loose money on the venture while the writers are getting paid for each downloaded episode. They may be getting a smaller salary up front, but they are not taking any risk on the new delivery method or helping out with any of the costs that developing that method take.

Oh give me a fucking break. There is no risk! The networks already have websites and advertising bandwidth costs. NBC charges a per-view commercial advertising fee on the web posted content. You know damn well that it took a few hundred dollars of labor to turn an already paid for finished product into a streaming download which will make that amount back in advertising over the first several hundred views. Thus for a vanishingly small incremental cost, they generate near pure profit from the new distribution channel. Again. There is no risk!

If you want to talk about risk you have to create non-broadcast not already paid for original content to put directly on the web. Since that isn't happening in major network distribution the whole risk argument is stillborn. PR webisodes complicate things, but that exposure is so small that if the rebroadcasts are worked out the PR stuff will not be a sticking point.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #114 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Oh give me a fucking break. There is no risk! The networks already have websites and advertising bandwidth costs. NBC charges a per-view commercial advertising fee on the web posted content. You know damn well that it took a few hundred dollars of labor to turn an already paid for finished product into a streaming download which will make that amount back in advertising over the first several hundred views. Thus for a vanishingly small incremental cost, they generate near pure profit from the new distribution channel. Again. There is no risk!

A few hundred bucks? Are you kidding? It's few hundred bucks if you conveniently ignore the cost of the delivery system which for that amount of concurrent views will be 5-6 figures. This is a new area and the cost models are still being thrashed out, the content creators have zero risk and while zero pay is a bit much they should take a hit on the 'usual' royalty figure and negotiate up once the platform proves a success.

McD
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #115 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave View Post

A few hundred bucks? Are you kidding? It's few hundred bucks if you conveniently ignore the cost of the delivery system which for that amount of concurrent views will be 5-6 figures. This is a new area and the cost models are still being thrashed out, the content creators have zero risk and while zero pay is a bit much they should take a hit on the 'usual' royalty figure and negotiate up once the platform proves a success.

McD

My dollar amount is based on one of the networks costs as explained by the employee that transcodes and posts most of their content, on the side from their normal duties. A straight to the source kind of thing.

As for delivery costs, the site is hosted externally, maintained semi-internally. Streams generate pathetically incremental bandwidth costs which are tiny fractions of the per-stream advertising revenue. There is no large up front equipment cost because of the external hosting. And the transcoding is done on underutilized systems already used for other pre-existing PR tasks so no extra cost there either.

Again, that is an essentially zero risk business. They are delivering already proven-demand content through a content delivery mechanism that almost entirely removes the single most expensive component - human labor - and has incremental costs that generate near pure profit from that distribution channel.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #116 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

My dollar amount is based on one of the networks costs as explained by the employee that transcodes and posts most of their content, on the side from their normal duties. A straight to the source kind of thing.

As for delivery costs, the site is hosted externally, maintained semi-internally. Streams generate pathetically incremental bandwidth costs which are tiny fractions of the per-stream advertising revenue. There is no large up front equipment cost because of the external hosting. And the transcoding is done on underutilized systems already used for other pre-existing PR tasks so no extra cost there either.

Again, that is an essentially zero risk business. They are delivering already proven-demand content through a content delivery mechanism that almost entirely removes the single most expensive component - human labor - and has incremental costs that generate near pure profit from that distribution channel.

Ahh - I see. How much, in business costs, executive time, legal QA etc. do you think it costs to produce the memos & sign-off which were necessary to authorise a new 'stream'? And you're really telling us your contact has full sight of the set-up costs of that hosting arrangement? Sounds more like a conveniently segregated and simplistic view with no real grasp of business kind of thing

McD
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
Android proves (as Windows & VHS did before it) that if you want to control people, give us choices and the belief we're capable of making them. We're all 'living' the American dream.
Reply
post #117 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave View Post

Ahh - I see. How much, in business costs, executive time, legal QA etc. do you think it costs to produce the memos & sign-off which were necessary to authorise a new 'stream'? And you're really telling us your contact has full sight of the set-up costs of that hosting arrangement? Sounds more like a conveniently segregated and simplistic view with no real grasp of business kind of thing

McD

You sound like an RIAA member accountant trying to explain why 76 cents per song income on iTunes is losing them money on a per download basis. Or a major movie distribution studio exec trying to explain how Lord of the Rings lost the studio money on over one billion dollars of income, or a defense contractor trying to justify a BRAC closing by explaining how much cheaper they will be at providing the service.

In every case the accounting used is irresponsible and outrageous lying, hiding the true effects in a multilayered indirection riddled morass. If the cited accounting were only half true every one of those industries would be out of business, not stating record profits on quarterly reports.

And yes, my friend was involved in pitching the reference implementation in the first place, getting the original effort funded several years ago when they started streaming PR show snippets that had lead-in ads. So I don't think it's particularly simplistic, I think your unjustified memo hawking jacking costs up is a bit thin though. Do you expect me to believe the business of authorizing a stream runs at over a dollar per streaming? When hosting and amortized posting is a few cents per stream?

ZUKER WANTS YOU!!!!!
.
Reply
.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › NBC hitches onto download service from Apple rival SanDisk