SciFi is not trademarkeable. SyFy is. Case closed...
Is that the reason why they changed it? Like you said, SciFi isn't trademarketable, but SciFi Channel would be, no? I mean, the History Channel didn't change it's name to the HsTrY or some other variant. Besides, aren't businesses more logo oriented, than name oriented?
Just remember a lot of government agencies have to Ok this deal before it is done.
True. I wonder if they've signed any understandings NOT to make new deals while this is investigated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LighteningKid
Why exactly would Comcast tell Apple to take a hike if approached with this deal? Maybe it's something obvious to the States-men, but us syrup-suckers can't always keep up.
Interesting. I presume Comcast sees producing content as the premium revenue area, while the cable to the home is more a commodity. As such... would they do their best to market their content everywhere, or make it exclusive to Comcast to force subscriptions. Would they take Syfy off Dish networks to encourage their own cable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift
.... Boxee or Plex or iTunes -- or a combination of them -- delivers a far superior product than any broadcast/cable content except for live sports and news.
Do you mean LIVE news? Or regular news? Nobody has got it yet - but an a-la-carte online TV news service could be far superior... allowing choice of articles, links to more indepth coverage, etc. Live news can't match until streaming is equivalent quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64
I see a future in which SOMEONE (maybe Apple, maybe another company) bridges the gap between the traditional-cable/networks and YouTube. A middle ground in which quality content of 30-60 minutes (uh, make that 22-42 minutes, but I digress) is available without "channel" or time slots.
Yes we need a bridge from the old to the new.
Personally I'd like to see the "Free to Air" (advertiser supported) move to "Free to Download". Still provide a 'free' service, with fewer commercials but customised specifically to us.
This wont stop - just delay the inevitable. They say nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. In this case, it is just a question of time before all the parts of the equation fall in place, and Apple (or someone else) can offer an iTunes or NetFlix like business model for TV Shows.
For Live News, it is actually already better to access online - because you get to choose what news stories you want to watch, how much detail you want on these stories, etc.
For Live Sports, I am not sure what the situation is, with respect to US sports, but there are quite a few sports that have embraced the online model willingly. Cricket boards across the world, and the ICC have sold "Internet rights" along with TV Rights for several years now. There are websites like willow.com, etc that exist exclusively for live online cricket viewing. It is just a question of time before this becomes universal.
In any case, a lot of premium sports have a separate charge, and are not included in the "regular" cable bill - so might as well pay this separate charge to an online provider.
Yeah, some of the same idiots that allowed Sirius to takeover and destroy XM Radio.
There isn't a big enough market for satellite radio to support two separate companies, and that merger didn't create the vertical integration issues would arise if Comcast were allowed to buy NBC. I doubt that this one will be allowed under the current administration.
This wont stop - just delay the inevitable. They say nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. In this case, it is just a question of time before all the parts of the equation fall in place, and Apple (or someone else) can offer an iTunes or NetFlix like business model for TV Shows.
Like I said above, nobody has made a profit off their online streaming business. Explain how Apple could make a profit by producing a show at a cost of $1.2 million per episode (average cost for a 1 hour drama) and then offer it for free online? Even Hulu, which sells ad space, doesn't make enough money to pay for a single TV show--last year its profits were estimated at less than $20 million, which isn't enough to pay for a single season of 24 or Heroes.
Quote:
For Live Sports, I am not sure what the situation is, with respect to US sports, but there are quite a few sports that have embraced the online model willingly. Cricket boards across the world, and the ICC have sold "Internet rights" along with TV Rights for several years now. There are websites like willow.com, etc that exist exclusively for live online cricket viewing. It is just a question of time before this becomes universal.
The US sports broadcasting rights are much more lucrative than abroad. Right now the NFL sells its TV broadcasting rights to the tune of $21 BILLION dollars to all 4 networks. Since nobody can make money streaming online content right now, let alone 21 billion dollars worth, I don't think live sports will go away anytime soon.
Quote:
In any case, a lot of premium sports have a separate charge, and are not included in the "regular" cable bill - so might as well pay this separate charge to an online provider.
That's not true for mainstream sports. The NFL, MLB, NBA and Olympics all have broadcast agreements with broadcast (e.g. free) networks. If say the NFL were relegated to a sports package, not only would customers be livid (around 60 million people watch the NFL a week) but it would be stupid on the part of the NFL. Why would they jeopardize their $21 billion in revenue from NBC, CBS, ABC/ESPN and Fox just so they can earn a couple dollars from the NFL Network?
If broadcast commercials were as simple as Hulu's. It's a short break of 30 seconds. Not 5 30 second commercials per break - one.
Frankly, I use Hulu, Netflix, and precious little of iTunes because of the cost. I have purchased TV shows when i wasn't patient enough to wait, but now I'm in the habit of waiting up to a year to watch it on NetFlix.
Oh, I agree that the commercials aren't as bad as what's on broadcast, but they're still commercials. I guess I've been spoiled by Tivo, I FF through 99.9% of them. But compared to what I'm used to from Tivo, iTunes, and Netflix too, Hulu is the bottom of the barrel as far as I'm concerned.
As I mentioned before, Comcast is keeping with their core strength... shit.
What makes you think that hulu will remain free? Drug dealers always give the first taste for free.
Yes, but there will be commerical-free or download premium options. The networks are quickly figuring out that online streaming of episodes leads to viewers and ad revenue they never would have gotten before. That being said, for the free stuff, I think you'll start seeing 2 or even 3 commercials in the breaks instead of just one.
Christmas is approaching, your Christmas gifts ready?
coolforsale com mall for you, which involves a number of well-known brands from the Asia-Pacific region the trend of merchandise. Promotional discounts should be, come SHOPPING bar!Christmas sale, free shipping discounts are beautifully gift ,Christmas gifts,look, Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Service is our Lift.
Interesting. I presume Comcast sees producing content as the premium revenue area, while the cable to the home is more a commodity. As such... would they do their best to market their content everywhere, or make it exclusive to Comcast to force subscriptions. Would they take Syfy off Dish networks to encourage their own cable?
Well, they already have a history of leveraging SyFy to "encourage" customers to upgrade to a higher tier of their programming packages. Where I live, first they bumped it from their analog channel lineup to a digital-only channel, forcing me to upgrade my package and rent one of their set-top boxes (losing my TiVo in the process). Then later they moved it up to their next higher digital package forcing another upgrade to my service. (I've since moved back down a tier because it wasn't worth it since there were only two channels, SyFy being one of them, that I watched from that tier.)
Refusing to sell to satellite providers would probably get them in trouble, especially if it was NBC. But they could easily use SyFy and USA as bargaining chips by setting such a high price to the sat providers that they are forced to move those stations to higher priced service tiers, make the total cost of satellite higher for people who want those stations. Or they could tell the satellite providers that if they want USA they must also carry Comcast SportsNet (that's a common practice which is why you are forced to have all those channels that nobody ever watches...CBS says "if you want to include CBS in your channel lineup you also have to carry our weather channel and our 24-hour news channel, etc.")
Similarly with online content, they could either refuse to license it all together, or insist on such a high price that it wouldn't be affordable for online providers. Again, if they use NBC as leverage, they might get into trouble (and besides, most Americans could get NBC over the air if they had to), but all they'd have to do is make SyFy and USA unaffordable via online providers, and that would be enough for a lot of people to stick with cable.
And now Fox will have to infiltrate Comcast shareholder meetings! And GE will "return" to being republican because they all love big businesses, and now Comcast will be ridiculed as being socialist.
GE-owned NBC was never as liberal as Fox News is conservative, nor does it play as central a role in liberal or Democratic-party messaging as Fox does for the other side. MSNBC is only allowed to be as liberal as does no harm to GE's interests. Phil Donahue was fired, even though his was the highest rated show on MSNBC, because having an anti-war advocate defining MSNBC's image in 2003 was intolerable to GE. By the time Keith Olbermann came along, being against the Iraq War was both popular and largely meaningless because the mission was accomplished, at least as far as defense contractors like GE were concerned, so he and Rachel Maddow are tolerated as niche money-makers. To this day NBC News has not been allowed to cover, at all, the Pulitzer-winning story in the New York Times about the conflicts of interest between on-air defense consultants who appear on news shows and the military and defense contractors they consult with and serve as mouthpieces for while falsely appearing to be giving independent (invariably pro-war) opinion.
I'm delighted Comcast is not a defense contractor. For all I know they do have military contracts to supply media services or something, but they don't make weapons systems as a primary business.
GE-owned NBC was never as liberal as Fox News is conservative, nor does it play as central a role in liberal or Democratic-party messaging as Fox does for the other side. MSNBC is only allowed to be as liberal as does no harm to GE's interests. Phil Donahue was fired, even though his was the highest rated show on MSNBC, because having an anti-war advocate defining MSNBC's image in 2003 was intolerable to GE. By the time Keith Olbermann came along, being against the Iraq War was both popular and largely meaningless because the mission was accomplished, at least as far as defense contractors like GE were concerned, so he and Rachel Maddow are tolerated as niche money-makers. To this day NBC News has not been allowed to cover, at all, the Pulitzer-winning story in the New York Times about the conflicts of interest between on-air defense consultants who appear on news shows and the military and defense contractors they consult with and serve as mouthpieces for while falsely appearing to be giving independent (invariably pro-war) opinion.
I'm delighted Comcast is not a defense contractor. For all I know they do have military contracts to supply media services or something, but they don't make weapons systems as a primary business.
I don't think MSNBC is that liberal either, but, hey, Fox literally can't stand them!
They changed their name when they started showing less and less sci fi shows (like showing professional wrestling). One day they'll be like MTV not playing music
Exactly. Except your missing that FOX News is not FOX, and FOX News is far more rightwing than MSNBC is left wing.
But this isn't about Comcast or NBC or FOX for that matter. It's about neo-liberal economic policies from the Reagan Era that were good in that it shook up the system regarding taxes and welfare, but bad in accelerating deregulation and the dominance of the investor class over the labor class.
You don't need to be a socialist to see the results that have taken 20 years to develop. Reaganomics screws things up - just ask his friend Alan Greenspan who admitted that the free-marketeers were wrong to congress.
No cable company should be able to own a network. No multinational light bulb manufacturer should be allowed to run a news network. Microsoft shouldn't be able to marry NBC. And FOX News needs to be held to accountable for basic journalism requirements. Glenn Beck and Hannity need to have some sense of accountabilty.
Walter Cronkite was part of a capitalist, corporation, but he had integrity and journalistic freedom to report news and commentary independent of corporate oversight. Keith Olbermann goes over the top, but at least he sticks to facts and is clear when he is giving opinion and when he made a mistake. Beck acts like every beta-male 6th grader I've known, who becomes popular by ridiculing the teacher rather than learning the facts.
Anyway, there needs to be some fair, free-market way of re-regulating corporations so that accurate journalism - the life blood of democracy - does not totally fade away into left-wing and right-wing versions of the Home Shopping Channel.
Comcast is a public company has no majority holders of note. ( actually they have the lowest insider ownership of any company I've ever seen... just proves what a bottom of the barrel sleeze company they are ) Apple could easily buy a large stake in the company and get a seat on the board.
heck, 51% ownership in the company at its current stock price that would end up being ~$20B, which apple has in cash on hand right now. ( not that I think it would be a good way to spend their money )
)
But that is the problem. A free and fair and independent press is a vital national interest - as much as an independent military and democratic elections and open markets - and it should not be a commodity to buy and sell like Happy Meals!
It would be nice if companies that produce the content could directly market to Apple and sell there, away from the Big 3 and Fox. Then, Apple just turns into a market for whoever thinks they are good enough to produce content.
Given the poor quality of much of the downloadable content, I don't know if this is good or bad. But, I do like the idea of cutting out the middle man and letting the market decide which TV shows to keep in production. Quality would probably be maintained by the producers that would have to fun the content anyway.
Also, it would be interesting what Apple would do regarding rating systems.
Something similar began happening in the music industry. Artists with the technical know how began doing their own producing so they could get away from being owned by the record labels. I believe Dave Matthews started his own record label because of this & offered the label to assist other artists who didn't want to be controlled by the big labels.
I've been keeping an eye on Comcast, hoping they never buy out our local cable company. If they do they would ruin my internet service, someone really needs to put a stop to Comcast.
Comments
SciFi is not trademarkeable. SyFy is. Case closed...
Maybe this has already been brought up, but the new spelling looks like the abbreviated name for syphilis.
Just saying...
SciFi is not trademarkeable. SyFy is. Case closed...
Is that the reason why they changed it? Like you said, SciFi isn't trademarketable, but SciFi Channel would be, no? I mean, the History Channel didn't change it's name to the HsTrY or some other variant. Besides, aren't businesses more logo oriented, than name oriented?
...Sirius to takeover and destroy XM Radio.
explain your pov?
Just remember a lot of government agencies have to Ok this deal before it is done.
True. I wonder if they've signed any understandings NOT to make new deals while this is investigated.
Why exactly would Comcast tell Apple to take a hike if approached with this deal? Maybe it's something obvious to the States-men, but us syrup-suckers can't always keep up.
Interesting. I presume Comcast sees producing content as the premium revenue area, while the cable to the home is more a commodity. As such... would they do their best to market their content everywhere, or make it exclusive to Comcast to force subscriptions. Would they take Syfy off Dish networks to encourage their own cable?
.... Boxee or Plex or iTunes -- or a combination of them -- delivers a far superior product than any broadcast/cable content except for live sports and news.
Do you mean LIVE news? Or regular news? Nobody has got it yet - but an a-la-carte online TV news service could be far superior... allowing choice of articles, links to more indepth coverage, etc. Live news can't match until streaming is equivalent quality.
I see a future in which SOMEONE (maybe Apple, maybe another company) bridges the gap between the traditional-cable/networks and YouTube. A middle ground in which quality content of 30-60 minutes (uh, make that 22-42 minutes, but I digress) is available without "channel" or time slots.
Yes we need a bridge from the old to the new.
Personally I'd like to see the "Free to Air" (advertiser supported) move to "Free to Download". Still provide a 'free' service, with fewer commercials but customised specifically to us.
For Live News, it is actually already better to access online - because you get to choose what news stories you want to watch, how much detail you want on these stories, etc.
For Live Sports, I am not sure what the situation is, with respect to US sports, but there are quite a few sports that have embraced the online model willingly. Cricket boards across the world, and the ICC have sold "Internet rights" along with TV Rights for several years now. There are websites like willow.com, etc that exist exclusively for live online cricket viewing. It is just a question of time before this becomes universal.
In any case, a lot of premium sports have a separate charge, and are not included in the "regular" cable bill - so might as well pay this separate charge to an online provider.
Yeah, some of the same idiots that allowed Sirius to takeover and destroy XM Radio.
There isn't a big enough market for satellite radio to support two separate companies, and that merger didn't create the vertical integration issues would arise if Comcast were allowed to buy NBC. I doubt that this one will be allowed under the current administration.
This wont stop - just delay the inevitable. They say nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. In this case, it is just a question of time before all the parts of the equation fall in place, and Apple (or someone else) can offer an iTunes or NetFlix like business model for TV Shows.
Like I said above, nobody has made a profit off their online streaming business. Explain how Apple could make a profit by producing a show at a cost of $1.2 million per episode (average cost for a 1 hour drama) and then offer it for free online? Even Hulu, which sells ad space, doesn't make enough money to pay for a single TV show--last year its profits were estimated at less than $20 million, which isn't enough to pay for a single season of 24 or Heroes.
For Live Sports, I am not sure what the situation is, with respect to US sports, but there are quite a few sports that have embraced the online model willingly. Cricket boards across the world, and the ICC have sold "Internet rights" along with TV Rights for several years now. There are websites like willow.com, etc that exist exclusively for live online cricket viewing. It is just a question of time before this becomes universal.
The US sports broadcasting rights are much more lucrative than abroad. Right now the NFL sells its TV broadcasting rights to the tune of $21 BILLION dollars to all 4 networks. Since nobody can make money streaming online content right now, let alone 21 billion dollars worth, I don't think live sports will go away anytime soon.
In any case, a lot of premium sports have a separate charge, and are not included in the "regular" cable bill - so might as well pay this separate charge to an online provider.
That's not true for mainstream sports. The NFL, MLB, NBA and Olympics all have broadcast agreements with broadcast (e.g. free) networks. If say the NFL were relegated to a sports package, not only would customers be livid (around 60 million people watch the NFL a week) but it would be stupid on the part of the NFL. Why would they jeopardize their $21 billion in revenue from NBC, CBS, ABC/ESPN and Fox just so they can earn a couple dollars from the NFL Network?
If broadcast commercials were as simple as Hulu's. It's a short break of 30 seconds. Not 5 30 second commercials per break - one.
Frankly, I use Hulu, Netflix, and precious little of iTunes because of the cost. I have purchased TV shows when i wasn't patient enough to wait, but now I'm in the habit of waiting up to a year to watch it on NetFlix.
Oh, I agree that the commercials aren't as bad as what's on broadcast, but they're still commercials. I guess I've been spoiled by Tivo, I FF through 99.9% of them. But compared to what I'm used to from Tivo, iTunes, and Netflix too, Hulu is the bottom of the barrel as far as I'm concerned.
As I mentioned before, Comcast is keeping with their core strength... shit.
What makes you think that hulu will remain free? Drug dealers always give the first taste for free.
Yes, but there will be commerical-free or download premium options. The networks are quickly figuring out that online streaming of episodes leads to viewers and ad revenue they never would have gotten before. That being said, for the free stuff, I think you'll start seeing 2 or even 3 commercials in the breaks instead of just one.
Just remember a lot of government agencies have to Ok this deal before it is done.
And its a pretty good bet that approval will come with some conditions from regulators.
http://www.coolforsale.com /productlist.asp?id=s76(Tracksuit)
Christmas is approaching, your Christmas gifts ready?
coolforsale com mall for you, which involves a number of well-known brands from the Asia-Pacific region the trend of merchandise. Promotional discounts should be, come SHOPPING bar!Christmas sale, free shipping discounts are beautifully gift ,Christmas gifts,look, Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Service is our Lift.
Nike shox $35,Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket,ect...
For details, please consult http://www.coolforsale.com
Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.
Some believe that a new Comcast-owned NBC, however, would be unlikely to participate in an "all-you-can-eat" subscription plan.
Why?
Are they saying that Comcast will introduce a Hulu-like service of their own, for which they can either charge a small fee or sponsor with ads?
Interesting. I presume Comcast sees producing content as the premium revenue area, while the cable to the home is more a commodity. As such... would they do their best to market their content everywhere, or make it exclusive to Comcast to force subscriptions. Would they take Syfy off Dish networks to encourage their own cable?
Well, they already have a history of leveraging SyFy to "encourage" customers to upgrade to a higher tier of their programming packages. Where I live, first they bumped it from their analog channel lineup to a digital-only channel, forcing me to upgrade my package and rent one of their set-top boxes (losing my TiVo in the process). Then later they moved it up to their next higher digital package forcing another upgrade to my service. (I've since moved back down a tier because it wasn't worth it since there were only two channels, SyFy being one of them, that I watched from that tier.)
Refusing to sell to satellite providers would probably get them in trouble, especially if it was NBC. But they could easily use SyFy and USA as bargaining chips by setting such a high price to the sat providers that they are forced to move those stations to higher priced service tiers, make the total cost of satellite higher for people who want those stations. Or they could tell the satellite providers that if they want USA they must also carry Comcast SportsNet (that's a common practice which is why you are forced to have all those channels that nobody ever watches...CBS says "if you want to include CBS in your channel lineup you also have to carry our weather channel and our 24-hour news channel, etc.")
Similarly with online content, they could either refuse to license it all together, or insist on such a high price that it wouldn't be affordable for online providers. Again, if they use NBC as leverage, they might get into trouble (and besides, most Americans could get NBC over the air if they had to), but all they'd have to do is make SyFy and USA unaffordable via online providers, and that would be enough for a lot of people to stick with cable.
And now Fox will have to infiltrate Comcast shareholder meetings! And GE will "return" to being republican because they all love big businesses, and now Comcast will be ridiculed as being socialist.
GE-owned NBC was never as liberal as Fox News is conservative, nor does it play as central a role in liberal or Democratic-party messaging as Fox does for the other side. MSNBC is only allowed to be as liberal as does no harm to GE's interests. Phil Donahue was fired, even though his was the highest rated show on MSNBC, because having an anti-war advocate defining MSNBC's image in 2003 was intolerable to GE. By the time Keith Olbermann came along, being against the Iraq War was both popular and largely meaningless because the mission was accomplished, at least as far as defense contractors like GE were concerned, so he and Rachel Maddow are tolerated as niche money-makers. To this day NBC News has not been allowed to cover, at all, the Pulitzer-winning story in the New York Times about the conflicts of interest between on-air defense consultants who appear on news shows and the military and defense contractors they consult with and serve as mouthpieces for while falsely appearing to be giving independent (invariably pro-war) opinion.
I'm delighted Comcast is not a defense contractor. For all I know they do have military contracts to supply media services or something, but they don't make weapons systems as a primary business.
GE-owned NBC was never as liberal as Fox News is conservative, nor does it play as central a role in liberal or Democratic-party messaging as Fox does for the other side. MSNBC is only allowed to be as liberal as does no harm to GE's interests. Phil Donahue was fired, even though his was the highest rated show on MSNBC, because having an anti-war advocate defining MSNBC's image in 2003 was intolerable to GE. By the time Keith Olbermann came along, being against the Iraq War was both popular and largely meaningless because the mission was accomplished, at least as far as defense contractors like GE were concerned, so he and Rachel Maddow are tolerated as niche money-makers. To this day NBC News has not been allowed to cover, at all, the Pulitzer-winning story in the New York Times about the conflicts of interest between on-air defense consultants who appear on news shows and the military and defense contractors they consult with and serve as mouthpieces for while falsely appearing to be giving independent (invariably pro-war) opinion.
I'm delighted Comcast is not a defense contractor. For all I know they do have military contracts to supply media services or something, but they don't make weapons systems as a primary business.
I don't think MSNBC is that liberal either, but, hey, Fox literally can't stand them!
SciFi is not trademarkeable. SyFy is. Case closed...
Oddly, 'SciFi Channel' or 'SciFi Network' would be "trademarkable"... and no need for an idiotic spelling. SyFy is just horrible.
They changed their name when they started showing less and less sci fi shows (like showing professional wrestling). One day they'll be like MTV not playing music
Eventually, they'll just be known as "Sy".
Apple = Disney = ABC
Comcast = NBC
FOX = slant
MSNBC = BIGGER SLANT
There I said enough
Exactly. Except your missing that FOX News is not FOX, and FOX News is far more rightwing than MSNBC is left wing.
But this isn't about Comcast or NBC or FOX for that matter. It's about neo-liberal economic policies from the Reagan Era that were good in that it shook up the system regarding taxes and welfare, but bad in accelerating deregulation and the dominance of the investor class over the labor class.
You don't need to be a socialist to see the results that have taken 20 years to develop. Reaganomics screws things up - just ask his friend Alan Greenspan who admitted that the free-marketeers were wrong to congress.
No cable company should be able to own a network. No multinational light bulb manufacturer should be allowed to run a news network. Microsoft shouldn't be able to marry NBC. And FOX News needs to be held to accountable for basic journalism requirements. Glenn Beck and Hannity need to have some sense of accountabilty.
Walter Cronkite was part of a capitalist, corporation, but he had integrity and journalistic freedom to report news and commentary independent of corporate oversight. Keith Olbermann goes over the top, but at least he sticks to facts and is clear when he is giving opinion and when he made a mistake. Beck acts like every beta-male 6th grader I've known, who becomes popular by ridiculing the teacher rather than learning the facts.
Anyway, there needs to be some fair, free-market way of re-regulating corporations so that accurate journalism - the life blood of democracy - does not totally fade away into left-wing and right-wing versions of the Home Shopping Channel.
Comcast is a public company has no majority holders of note. ( actually they have the lowest insider ownership of any company I've ever seen... just proves what a bottom of the barrel sleeze company they are ) Apple could easily buy a large stake in the company and get a seat on the board.
heck, 51% ownership in the company at its current stock price that would end up being ~$20B, which apple has in cash on hand right now. ( not that I think it would be a good way to spend their money )
)
But that is the problem. A free and fair and independent press is a vital national interest - as much as an independent military and democratic elections and open markets - and it should not be a commodity to buy and sell like Happy Meals!
It would be nice if companies that produce the content could directly market to Apple and sell there, away from the Big 3 and Fox. Then, Apple just turns into a market for whoever thinks they are good enough to produce content.
Given the poor quality of much of the downloadable content, I don't know if this is good or bad. But, I do like the idea of cutting out the middle man and letting the market decide which TV shows to keep in production. Quality would probably be maintained by the producers that would have to fun the content anyway.
Also, it would be interesting what Apple would do regarding rating systems.
Something similar began happening in the music industry. Artists with the technical know how began doing their own producing so they could get away from being owned by the record labels. I believe Dave Matthews started his own record label because of this & offered the label to assist other artists who didn't want to be controlled by the big labels.
I've been keeping an eye on Comcast, hoping they never buy out our local cable company. If they do they would ruin my internet service, someone really needs to put a stop to Comcast.