Wow! Apple has just so many hurdles and entrenched "interests" to overcome to make this a reality. I'll happily believe it when I see it, though.
yeah - there's your "bag of hurt". I'm hopeful though. It will piss me off however if it is some small subset of the content on itunes. I want to be able to watch all the old seasons of shows, etc. for one price. $30 may not cut it.
Oh here he goes again. Seriously, if Apple upsets you this much it's probably not the best forum to visit everyday. And by the way, the real plan isn't to have this on top of your cable service, but to be a cable competitor, some place down the line. They'll probably have a basic plan for $30, and a full plan for $50, with everything you'd normally get on cable, all shows, and live sports and news. That would be ideal, but I assume difficult to get inked.
He's not upset. It's just one of the two ways he knows how to express himself, either with caustic sarcasm or ceaseless needling.
He's not upset. It's just one of the two ways he knows how to express himself, either with caustic sarcasm or ceaseless needling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Quit bringing perspective into this forum, damn you!
Come on guys! The holiday season is upon us. Let?s give Teckstud a break. Maybe were should all chip in and get him a new pair of blinders for Christmas. His old pair must be wearing out as I think he almost made an objective post yesterday.
The less advertising revenue the network gets, the less money the network is going to want to offer the production company when the next season comes up. If the owner of the show isn't the network, they'll have to finance the shortfall until they make up for it with Internet revenue.
I think what he meant was that as long as the production company is getting the same amount of money in the end, why would they care if it came from advertising or subscription?
Dollhouse is a good example. It didn't make enough advertising money to survive on the network, and the network decided to dump it. However, the producers had already received good sales figures (eg: iTunes sales) and know that Joss Whedon has good sales for years to come - so they offered to reduce the cost of the show for the network. The network agreed, and the show continues.
Quote:
Joss Whedon was able to do just that with Dr. Horrible, but he's had a long TV and movie writing career behind him that gets him enough recognition to do that.
He's got quite a following eh? And I agree totally that we NEED free episodes to get interested before we spend money on it, though as long as we're subscribing (not renting) those episodes can be watched "free" anyway.
The more I think about this $30 subscription, the more I think that Apple MUST have a plan to use advertising somewhere - perhaps just 2 ads in the entire show??. If so, these would be very high price ads - worth it to the advertisers as they're the only ads on the show, Apple can probably force viewers to watch those ads (no skipping!), the ads can be targeted to the viewer, and link directly to "tell me more" features (websites, request for brochures, etc). Apple could reinvent advertising.
edit: Looks like I'm starting to agree with macarena.
the $85 a month cable bill includes the cost of the cable box or DVR as well paying for the very expensive infrastructure that cable companies have set up to push TV signals over their cable lines as well as pay the interest on the debt they took out years ago to upgrade their networks to the latest tech.
i don't know if there is anything the cable companies can do to stop from becoming dumb pipes
Exactly - the $85 covers the cost of the content, plus the cost of delivering it. Apple will sell you the content for $30, and you can use your existing internet pipes for delivery.
This model is similar to the model used by Vonage to undercut Verizon. Of course there are other reasons as to why Vonage is cheaper, but the single biggest reason is because Vonage does not have to lay cables to your door.
At the end of the day, bandwidth is a commodity - whether it is Verizon fighting to retain control over content, or the Cable Networks doing the same, it is a losing battle - just a question of time before someone comes up with a model that can bypass the current bottlenecks put in place by the likes of Verizon, Comcast, etc.
Come on guys! The holiday season is upon us. Let?s give Teckstud a break. Maybe were should all chip in and get him a new pair of blinders for Christmas. His old pair must be wearing out as I think he almost made an objective post yesterday.
Careful... you're giving him an opening to comment.
Comments
Wow! Apple has just so many hurdles and entrenched "interests" to overcome to make this a reality. I'll happily believe it when I see it, though.
yeah - there's your "bag of hurt". I'm hopeful though. It will piss me off however if it is some small subset of the content on itunes. I want to be able to watch all the old seasons of shows, etc. for one price. $30 may not cut it.
Oh here he goes again. Seriously, if Apple upsets you this much it's probably not the best forum to visit everyday. And by the way, the real plan isn't to have this on top of your cable service, but to be a cable competitor, some place down the line. They'll probably have a basic plan for $30, and a full plan for $50, with everything you'd normally get on cable, all shows, and live sports and news. That would be ideal, but I assume difficult to get inked.
He's not upset. It's just one of the two ways he knows how to express himself, either with caustic sarcasm or ceaseless needling.
He's not upset. It's just one of the two ways he knows how to express himself, either with caustic sarcasm or ceaseless needling.
Quit bringing perspective into this forum, damn you!
He's not upset. It's just one of the two ways he knows how to express himself, either with caustic sarcasm or ceaseless needling.
Quit bringing perspective into this forum, damn you!
Come on guys! The holiday season is upon us. Let?s give Teckstud a break. Maybe were should all chip in and get him a new pair of blinders for Christmas. His old pair must be wearing out as I think he almost made an objective post yesterday.
The less advertising revenue the network gets, the less money the network is going to want to offer the production company when the next season comes up. If the owner of the show isn't the network, they'll have to finance the shortfall until they make up for it with Internet revenue.
I think what he meant was that as long as the production company is getting the same amount of money in the end, why would they care if it came from advertising or subscription?
Dollhouse is a good example. It didn't make enough advertising money to survive on the network, and the network decided to dump it. However, the producers had already received good sales figures (eg: iTunes sales) and know that Joss Whedon has good sales for years to come - so they offered to reduce the cost of the show for the network. The network agreed, and the show continues.
Joss Whedon was able to do just that with Dr. Horrible, but he's had a long TV and movie writing career behind him that gets him enough recognition to do that.
He's got quite a following eh? And I agree totally that we NEED free episodes to get interested before we spend money on it, though as long as we're subscribing (not renting) those episodes can be watched "free" anyway.
The more I think about this $30 subscription, the more I think that Apple MUST have a plan to use advertising somewhere - perhaps just 2 ads in the entire show??. If so, these would be very high price ads - worth it to the advertisers as they're the only ads on the show, Apple can probably force viewers to watch those ads (no skipping!), the ads can be targeted to the viewer, and link directly to "tell me more" features (websites, request for brochures, etc). Apple could reinvent advertising.
edit: Looks like I'm starting to agree with macarena.
the $85 a month cable bill includes the cost of the cable box or DVR as well paying for the very expensive infrastructure that cable companies have set up to push TV signals over their cable lines as well as pay the interest on the debt they took out years ago to upgrade their networks to the latest tech.
i don't know if there is anything the cable companies can do to stop from becoming dumb pipes
Exactly - the $85 covers the cost of the content, plus the cost of delivering it. Apple will sell you the content for $30, and you can use your existing internet pipes for delivery.
This model is similar to the model used by Vonage to undercut Verizon. Of course there are other reasons as to why Vonage is cheaper, but the single biggest reason is because Vonage does not have to lay cables to your door.
At the end of the day, bandwidth is a commodity - whether it is Verizon fighting to retain control over content, or the Cable Networks doing the same, it is a losing battle - just a question of time before someone comes up with a model that can bypass the current bottlenecks put in place by the likes of Verizon, Comcast, etc.
Come on guys! The holiday season is upon us. Let?s give Teckstud a break. Maybe were should all chip in and get him a new pair of blinders for Christmas. His old pair must be wearing out as I think he almost made an objective post yesterday.
Careful... you're giving him an opening to comment.
Careful... you're giving him an opening to comment.
If only it took a reason for him to put the whine and cheese. Unfortunately, he?ll do it anyway. Plus, I felt the dig was worth it.