Sorry...content distributer vs content producer is what I meant. Comcast also retails content as well as PPV and paid VOD.
Government scrutiny is far better than getting shut out of the market. So is alienating partners that are not cooperating anyway by withholding content. As I stated, it hasn't hurt Sony all that much tactically and they have used it to significant strategic advantage. Comcast will likely buy NBC and use it to its competitive advantage vs companies that do not produce content.
Google owning lots of dark fiber and building out a trial 1GB internet service hasn't put it in any worse position with Verizon as a partner.
Would you prefer to control as much of your own destiny as possible or leave it to government regulators to keep the field level for you? Especially if you're a company executing as well as Apple.
Just pointing out the downsides. It's probably not a coincidence that Apple is having a hard time getting cooperation on TV distribution from anyone but Disney. This was mentioned as a potential issue when Steve sold Pixar to Disney and became their largest stockholder. Would it be better or worse if Apple actually owned Disney? By contrast look at the music business, where Apple has remained in a far more neutral position as retailer only and not competitor. Would they be more in control of their own destiny if they'd purchased one of the music companies?
LOL. Either they changed the title or I was on crack when I posted.
As for affect/effect as a noun/verb, just looked it up and you are right again. Having said that, the most common use of affect is as a verb and the most common use of effect is as a noun. They do have different meanings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland
Wrong. Effect is used correctly in the title.
Also, for what it's worth, affect and effect can both be used as a verb and as a noun.
Eventually, shows will simply be an app that will be sold episode by episode, or as a season pass to consumers. NBC, CBS, etc... will disappear over time.
I disagree about the app idea but agree with the core idea that the middleman is disappearing. However the networks aren't really that middleman, the cable companies are.
Networks will continue to exist as executive producing entities but will serve up their content in a variety of forms including OTA and online, with OTA dying out over the next few years. Particularly if the nets finally get a clue that their precious ratings/advertising system is severely flawed to the point of being a dead and decayed dog. It needs an extremely thorough upgrade to be relevant anymore and should be one part of a collective of money sources not the all holy but in effect censorship by a tiny group that it is now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland
Guess what quietly showed up in the firmware refresh on my Sony Bly-ray player this weekend? Hulu Plus for $9.99 a month with content from ABC, NBC and Fox -- but no shows from CBS or any of the cable networks.
$10 a month and you still have ads. I'll stick to Netflix
Comments
Sorry...content distributer vs content producer is what I meant. Comcast also retails content as well as PPV and paid VOD.
Government scrutiny is far better than getting shut out of the market. So is alienating partners that are not cooperating anyway by withholding content. As I stated, it hasn't hurt Sony all that much tactically and they have used it to significant strategic advantage. Comcast will likely buy NBC and use it to its competitive advantage vs companies that do not produce content.
Google owning lots of dark fiber and building out a trial 1GB internet service hasn't put it in any worse position with Verizon as a partner.
Would you prefer to control as much of your own destiny as possible or leave it to government regulators to keep the field level for you? Especially if you're a company executing as well as Apple.
Just pointing out the downsides. It's probably not a coincidence that Apple is having a hard time getting cooperation on TV distribution from anyone but Disney. This was mentioned as a potential issue when Steve sold Pixar to Disney and became their largest stockholder. Would it be better or worse if Apple actually owned Disney? By contrast look at the music business, where Apple has remained in a far more neutral position as retailer only and not competitor. Would they be more in control of their own destiny if they'd purchased one of the music companies?
As for affect/effect as a noun/verb, just looked it up and you are right again. Having said that, the most common use of affect is as a verb and the most common use of effect is as a noun. They do have different meanings.
Wrong. Effect is used correctly in the title.
Also, for what it's worth, affect and effect can both be used as a verb and as a noun.
Eventually, shows will simply be an app that will be sold episode by episode, or as a season pass to consumers. NBC, CBS, etc... will disappear over time.
I disagree about the app idea but agree with the core idea that the middleman is disappearing. However the networks aren't really that middleman, the cable companies are.
Networks will continue to exist as executive producing entities but will serve up their content in a variety of forms including OTA and online, with OTA dying out over the next few years. Particularly if the nets finally get a clue that their precious ratings/advertising system is severely flawed to the point of being a dead and decayed dog. It needs an extremely thorough upgrade to be relevant anymore and should be one part of a collective of money sources not the all holy but in effect censorship by a tiny group that it is now
Guess what quietly showed up in the firmware refresh on my Sony Bly-ray player this weekend? Hulu Plus for $9.99 a month with content from ABC, NBC and Fox -- but no shows from CBS or any of the cable networks.
$10 a month and you still have ads. I'll stick to Netflix