Maybe I'm missing something but how is (or was) Google leaching or sucking dry the ad revenue from the networks? I was under the impression that GoogleTV is basically just a web browser; the idea was you go to the networks' own websites (complete with their ads) to watch the content. Eg you navigate to fox.com to watch Fox shows and since it is fox.com, Fox gets the ad revenue. It isn't any different to me going to fox.com in Safari on my iMac.
Yeah but the CPM's on broadcast TV are so much higher than web CPMs. Live broadcast ad inventory is fixed- 24 hours in a day / x amount of networks. Advertisers bid up for those time slots. Think Super Bowl ads. On-demand content is better monetized though pay per view model. Ad monetization is better suited for live broadcast content whereby a large audience can only be reached at that specific time, at that specific place, forcing advertisers to pay up to reach those consumers.
UP really sucks in the original English. The plot has so many problems as well as some very controversial social commentary and agenda. Definitely not a children's film.
I thought it was clear that my point was that some movies, the one I cited (because I believed that people at least knew of it) was from Disney, are not available in Japan in their original audio format and that I would be happier if they were.
If you are watching a TV Show from the web on TV, then you are not watching the TV show from network/cable. How much does a highly rated primetime TV show generate in review? Millions... Compare that to what networks generate off internet advertising from web distribution. That's laughable. Content available on the web is offered under the premise that it's not cannibalizing audience when it airs on TV.
In addition, people might cut back on their cable packages for channels they subscribe to. Comcast et al lose out on distribution fees. That would lead to metered broadband at higher prices. Google's approach could destroy the economics of the TV industry dramatically decreasing the available content. Just look at how many newspapers and magazines have evaporated. I think Apple's proposition represents a fair middle ground.
Like I said. If they are worried about people watching their TV shows on the web instead on cable then they shouldn't put them on the web to begin with. What if those TVs were equipped with Windows OS and IE instead of Android. Are they going to block Windows IE from access their website as well?!
Yeah but the CPM's on broadcast TV are so much higher than web CPMs. Live broadcast ad inventory is fixed- 24 hours in a day / x amount of networks. Advertisers bid up for those time slots. Think Super Bowl ads. On-demand content is better monetized though pay per view model. Ad monetization is better suited for live broadcast content whereby a large audience can only be reached at that specific time, at that specific place, forcing advertisers to pay up to reach those consumers.
Then maybe the websites should switch to pay per view.
I don't think this is really about GoogleTV; this is about TV in a web browser. I think AppleTV will eventually include Safari and let you browse the web (my guess is within the next 12 months) and unless these issues are resolved we will see this problem repeated.
ps - I'm not convinced that on-demand is not suitable for ad based models. People might not watch the advert simultaneously, but the same number of people should still watch it.
Then maybe the websites should switch to pay per view.
I don't think this is really about GoogleTV; this is about TV in a web browser. I think AppleTV will eventually include Safari and let you browse the web (my guess is within the next 12 months) and unless these issues are resolved we will see this problem repeated.
ps - I'm not convinced that on-demand is not suitable for ad based models. People might not watch the advert simultaneously, but the same number of people should still watch it.
I agree. It's hard to know exactly what he best approach is, thus I think stakeholders are being careful not to allow brash move that destroys the entire industry.
True, the same number of people should still watch on-demand, but advertisers don't have to pay more to have their voice heard over competitors. If TV has 50 channels, 20 minutes ads/hr. then 1000 minute spots that everyone fights over. However, if there are 1000 TV shows available on demand, each represents a channel in a broadcast sense allowing for 20K minute ad spots. Obviously that would devalue ad revenue. To max ad revenues, networks have to hold their audience captive, forcing them to watch by eliminating alternatives and choice for viewers. However, it's impossible to hold everyone captive, as people have many things to do that take precedence over watching a show. Therefore, revenue is left on the table since a single time/place isn't convenient for everyone. That's where making content available on the web comes in. People can watch on mobile devices or PCs when they can't be home to watch on TV and/or miss episodes. Ad revenue is much much less, but those viewers wouldn't have watched the TV broadcast anyway.
Media companies are trying to have it both ways. But one could kill the other, and the one left could be the one that doesn't bring in the revenue.
I am not enthused about having a browser on my TV. Now, seeing a browser displayed is different. Browse on iPhone/iPad then beam it up to the TV. I think navigating through an UI based on the TV is less appealing to doing all the nav on a handheld device then viewing on the TV. That's why I hope AirPlay is expanded across all aspects of iOS. And that would be very hard for studios to block since it's essentially plugging a VGA/HDMI cable into a TV, except wirelessly.
I am not enthused about having a browser on my TV. Now, seeing a browser displayed is different. Browse on iPhone/iPad then beam it up to the TV. I think navigating through an UI based on the TV is less appealing to doing all the nav on a handheld device then viewing on the TV. That's why I hope AirPlay is expanded across all aspects of iOS. And that would be very hard for studios to block since it's essentially plugging a VGA/HDMI cable into a TV, except wirelessly.
The lack of Flash is currently preventing iOS devices from displaying these websites, but if that was ever fixed (maybe switching to html5) the networks would probably block iOS devices just like they are trying to block everything else.
Hulu is free on the web. But on iOS devices you have to pay $10 a month.
you mean the TV networks don't want to see Google suck them dry of ads and pay nothing for their content, like it's done to the newspapers? gosh. but isn't Google so cool and hip? like vampires are these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turley Muller
If you are watching a TV Show from the web on TV, then you are not watching the TV show from network/cable. How much does a highly rated primetime TV show generate in review? Millions... Compare that to what networks generate off internet advertising from web distribution. That's laughable. Content available on the web is offered under the premise that it's not cannibalizing audience when it airs on TV.
In addition, people might cut back on their cable packages for channels they subscribe to. Comcast et al lose out on distribution fees. That would lead to metered broadband at higher prices. Google's approach could destroy the economics of the TV industry dramatically decreasing the available content. Just look at how many newspapers and magazines have evaporated. I think Apple's proposition represents a fair middle ground.
Google didn't destroy the newspaper and magazine business, change did. Tell me why on iPad Zinio is still just offering subscriptions at super low prices but not individual issues at decent prices? As for newspapers... *sigh* I don't even know where to begin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
Except that the shows we want to watch can't be made without that revenue stream.
They have to figure out a new revenue stream then. Ads, fine. Or 99c rentals without ads. International distribution like almost all Mac, PC, PS3 and XBOX360 content.
One day I'll face the karma for whatever torrenting I've done (I do purchase and rent TV shows and movies as well from time to time, but doing so in USD equivalent is not cheap for me and multiples of my cable bill which is shared by the family).
But for now, just like the music industry (I generally purchase a song if I like it, most recently I've just been downloading podcasts and supporting the DJs when they come to my city)... Just like the music industry tv and movies have got to do some rethinking.
Sure, you have to deal with "Lord Jobs" but you're about to go over a waterfall, Apple's stick is the only one near you.
And that would be very hard for studios to block since it's essentially plugging a VGA/HDMI cable into a TV, except wirelessly.
Think again. Most iTunes TV and Movie HD content is now HDCP DRM'ed. Even if I LEGITIMATELY PUT UP THE HARD EARNED CASH FOR THE DARN HD shows I CANNOT WATCH IT from my Mac/ iPad/ iPhone to my TV OR 21" COMPUTER SCREEN over VGA or EVEN DVI.
If this doesn't say something is seriously screwed up with the TV and movie industry, I really don't know what does.
As long as these Hollywood movies come with Japanese subtitles I'll be really happy. I have a large collection of Japanese releases which I use to improve my Japanese reading ability. This would really speed things up for me. iTunes would get a lot of my money and I would even buy a nextGen iPad or AppleTV so I'm not just stuck with watching movies on a tiny iPhone.
Switzerland also finally got movies in the iTunes store. Still, they totally screwed this up - the prices are exorbitant and all the content is dubbed. This is insanity. I know nobody who would pay a single cent for dubbed movies. Come on Apple, we're not legally retarded here, give us the films as they were meant to be seen. Oh, also: no TV series as of now. FAIL. Seriously, I WANT to pay for good content and I DON'T WANT to use torrents, so why does everyone make it so damn hard?
Switzerland also finally got movies in the iTunes store. Still, they totally screwed this up - the prices are exorbitant and all the content is dubbed. This is insanity. I know nobody who would pay a single cent for dubbed movies. Come on Apple, we're not legally retarded here, give us the films as they were meant to be seen. Oh, also: no TV series as of now. FAIL. Seriously, I WANT to pay for good content and I DON'T WANT to use torrents, so why does everyone make it so damn hard?
I also would love to have not dubbed content. But on the other hand many people will love dubbed movies.
Apple is aiming for the living room after all, not just the "geek" living room, both in terms of prices of the ATV as well as in terms of selection. So I find it reasonable as a strategy, for now. Maybe not dubbed content will come in the future (I expect it to be the case).
Did anyone notice that, with the opening of the server center in the US, Apple is making more and more content available?
Regarding the dubbed question...
I think part of the choice is also due to the studios in hollywood... I think licensing problems are preventing movies to be released in original language, to limit piracy (at least that is what I think happened here).
If movies are successfull, then Apple will expand selection.
You say movies are pricey. I don't think so. Renting a movie for 2 people costs less than drinking a coke...
So but what are the movies dubbed to? French, German or Italian?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkettpolitur
Switzerland also finally got movies in the iTunes store. Still, they totally screwed this up - the prices are exorbitant and all the content is dubbed. This is insanity. I know nobody who would pay a single cent for dubbed movies. Come on Apple, we're not legally retarded here, give us the films as they were meant to be seen. Oh, also: no TV series as of now. FAIL. Seriously, I WANT to pay for good content and I DON'T WANT to use torrents, so why does everyone make it so damn hard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinolo
I also would love to have not dubbed content. But on the other hand many people will love dubbed movies.
Apple is aiming for the living room after all, not just the "geek" living room, both in terms of prices of the ATV as well as in terms of selection. So I find it reasonable as a strategy, for now. Maybe not dubbed content will come in the future (I expect it to be the case).
Did anyone notice that, with the opening of the server center in the US, Apple is making more and more content available?
Regarding the dubbed question...
I think part of the choice is also due to the studios in hollywood... I think licensing problems are preventing movies to be released in original language, to limit piracy (at least that is what I think happened here).
If movies are successfull, then Apple will expand selection.
You say movies are pricey. I don't think so. Renting a movie for 2 people costs less than drinking a coke...
French, German and Italian versions are all available in Switzerland. Just not the originals.
Also, I don't think the Swiss living room thrives on dubbed movies. Most cinemas here show original versions with German and French subtitles, and I don't know anyone who would ever watch a dubbed version of a movie.
As long as these Hollywood movies come with Japanese subtitles I'll be really happy. I have a large collection of Japanese releases which I use to improve my Japanese reading ability. This would really speed things up for me. iTunes would get a lot of my money and I would even buy a nextGen iPad or AppleTV so I'm not just stuck with watching movies on a tiny iPhone.
Same here. I've learned quite a bit from subtitles (I especially like the way Japanese news doesn't dub over a foreign speaker like they do in the US and instead subtitle it so you can actually hear the real person's voice).
The DVDs usually come with at least two languages and subtitle sets; I've even rented a few that had eight or so different languages. As the data actually therefore exists, would it be so hard for them to provide?
Comments
Maybe I'm missing something but how is (or was) Google leaching or sucking dry the ad revenue from the networks? I was under the impression that GoogleTV is basically just a web browser; the idea was you go to the networks' own websites (complete with their ads) to watch the content. Eg you navigate to fox.com to watch Fox shows and since it is fox.com, Fox gets the ad revenue. It isn't any different to me going to fox.com in Safari on my iMac.
Yeah but the CPM's on broadcast TV are so much higher than web CPMs. Live broadcast ad inventory is fixed- 24 hours in a day / x amount of networks. Advertisers bid up for those time slots. Think Super Bowl ads. On-demand content is better monetized though pay per view model. Ad monetization is better suited for live broadcast content whereby a large audience can only be reached at that specific time, at that specific place, forcing advertisers to pay up to reach those consumers.
UP really sucks in the original English. The plot has so many problems as well as some very controversial social commentary and agenda. Definitely not a children's film.
I thought it was clear that my point was that some movies, the one I cited (because I believed that people at least knew of it) was from Disney, are not available in Japan in their original audio format and that I would be happier if they were.
If you are watching a TV Show from the web on TV, then you are not watching the TV show from network/cable. How much does a highly rated primetime TV show generate in review? Millions... Compare that to what networks generate off internet advertising from web distribution. That's laughable. Content available on the web is offered under the premise that it's not cannibalizing audience when it airs on TV.
In addition, people might cut back on their cable packages for channels they subscribe to. Comcast et al lose out on distribution fees. That would lead to metered broadband at higher prices. Google's approach could destroy the economics of the TV industry dramatically decreasing the available content. Just look at how many newspapers and magazines have evaporated. I think Apple's proposition represents a fair middle ground.
Like I said. If they are worried about people watching their TV shows on the web instead on cable then they shouldn't put them on the web to begin with. What if those TVs were equipped with Windows OS and IE instead of Android. Are they going to block Windows IE from access their website as well?!
Yeah but the CPM's on broadcast TV are so much higher than web CPMs. Live broadcast ad inventory is fixed- 24 hours in a day / x amount of networks. Advertisers bid up for those time slots. Think Super Bowl ads. On-demand content is better monetized though pay per view model. Ad monetization is better suited for live broadcast content whereby a large audience can only be reached at that specific time, at that specific place, forcing advertisers to pay up to reach those consumers.
Then maybe the websites should switch to pay per view.
I don't think this is really about GoogleTV; this is about TV in a web browser. I think AppleTV will eventually include Safari and let you browse the web (my guess is within the next 12 months) and unless these issues are resolved we will see this problem repeated.
ps - I'm not convinced that on-demand is not suitable for ad based models. People might not watch the advert simultaneously, but the same number of people should still watch it.
Tough sh for them. Not our problem.
Except that the shows we want to watch can't be made without that revenue stream.
Looks like someone forgot to take their meds today...
I second that one mate, heck I would even create another account here to third it LOL
I thought Up was a fun movie.
Change the user id and they won't know the difference.
They got wise to that one. These days they use the Flash version ID instead of the browser's user agent strings.
Then maybe the websites should switch to pay per view.
I don't think this is really about GoogleTV; this is about TV in a web browser. I think AppleTV will eventually include Safari and let you browse the web (my guess is within the next 12 months) and unless these issues are resolved we will see this problem repeated.
ps - I'm not convinced that on-demand is not suitable for ad based models. People might not watch the advert simultaneously, but the same number of people should still watch it.
I agree. It's hard to know exactly what he best approach is, thus I think stakeholders are being careful not to allow brash move that destroys the entire industry.
True, the same number of people should still watch on-demand, but advertisers don't have to pay more to have their voice heard over competitors. If TV has 50 channels, 20 minutes ads/hr. then 1000 minute spots that everyone fights over. However, if there are 1000 TV shows available on demand, each represents a channel in a broadcast sense allowing for 20K minute ad spots. Obviously that would devalue ad revenue. To max ad revenues, networks have to hold their audience captive, forcing them to watch by eliminating alternatives and choice for viewers. However, it's impossible to hold everyone captive, as people have many things to do that take precedence over watching a show. Therefore, revenue is left on the table since a single time/place isn't convenient for everyone. That's where making content available on the web comes in. People can watch on mobile devices or PCs when they can't be home to watch on TV and/or miss episodes. Ad revenue is much much less, but those viewers wouldn't have watched the TV broadcast anyway.
Media companies are trying to have it both ways. But one could kill the other, and the one left could be the one that doesn't bring in the revenue.
I am not enthused about having a browser on my TV. Now, seeing a browser displayed is different. Browse on iPhone/iPad then beam it up to the TV. I think navigating through an UI based on the TV is less appealing to doing all the nav on a handheld device then viewing on the TV. That's why I hope AirPlay is expanded across all aspects of iOS. And that would be very hard for studios to block since it's essentially plugging a VGA/HDMI cable into a TV, except wirelessly.
I am not enthused about having a browser on my TV. Now, seeing a browser displayed is different. Browse on iPhone/iPad then beam it up to the TV. I think navigating through an UI based on the TV is less appealing to doing all the nav on a handheld device then viewing on the TV. That's why I hope AirPlay is expanded across all aspects of iOS. And that would be very hard for studios to block since it's essentially plugging a VGA/HDMI cable into a TV, except wirelessly.
The lack of Flash is currently preventing iOS devices from displaying these websites, but if that was ever fixed (maybe switching to html5) the networks would probably block iOS devices just like they are trying to block everything else.
Hulu is free on the web. But on iOS devices you have to pay $10 a month.
I'm going to f**ing bleed you studios dry with torrents.
Some of you don't even want to rent me an episode for a miserable 99c.
F*** YOU and your BOLLOCKS DINOSAUR distribution arrangements.
Enjoy the view on your Titanic.
Apple TV and Movies!!
http://www.umag.it/content/2530-la-n...to-italia.html
http://www.umag.it/content/2528-su-i...-noleggio.html
you mean the TV networks don't want to see Google suck them dry of ads and pay nothing for their content, like it's done to the newspapers? gosh. but isn't Google so cool and hip? like vampires are these days.
If you are watching a TV Show from the web on TV, then you are not watching the TV show from network/cable. How much does a highly rated primetime TV show generate in review? Millions... Compare that to what networks generate off internet advertising from web distribution. That's laughable. Content available on the web is offered under the premise that it's not cannibalizing audience when it airs on TV.
In addition, people might cut back on their cable packages for channels they subscribe to. Comcast et al lose out on distribution fees. That would lead to metered broadband at higher prices. Google's approach could destroy the economics of the TV industry dramatically decreasing the available content. Just look at how many newspapers and magazines have evaporated. I think Apple's proposition represents a fair middle ground.
Google didn't destroy the newspaper and magazine business, change did. Tell me why on iPad Zinio is still just offering subscriptions at super low prices but not individual issues at decent prices? As for newspapers... *sigh* I don't even know where to begin.
Except that the shows we want to watch can't be made without that revenue stream.
They have to figure out a new revenue stream then. Ads, fine. Or 99c rentals without ads. International distribution like almost all Mac, PC, PS3 and XBOX360 content.
One day I'll face the karma for whatever torrenting I've done (I do purchase and rent TV shows and movies as well from time to time, but doing so in USD equivalent is not cheap for me and multiples of my cable bill which is shared by the family).
But for now, just like the music industry (I generally purchase a song if I like it, most recently I've just been downloading podcasts and supporting the DJs when they come to my city)... Just like the music industry tv and movies have got to do some rethinking.
Sure, you have to deal with "Lord Jobs" but you're about to go over a waterfall, Apple's stick is the only one near you.
And that would be very hard for studios to block since it's essentially plugging a VGA/HDMI cable into a TV, except wirelessly.
Think again. Most iTunes TV and Movie HD content is now HDCP DRM'ed. Even if I LEGITIMATELY PUT UP THE HARD EARNED CASH FOR THE DARN HD shows I CANNOT WATCH IT from my Mac/ iPad/ iPhone to my TV OR 21" COMPUTER SCREEN over VGA or EVEN DVI.
If this doesn't say something is seriously screwed up with the TV and movie industry, I really don't know what does.
Switzerland also finally got movies in the iTunes store. Still, they totally screwed this up - the prices are exorbitant and all the content is dubbed. This is insanity. I know nobody who would pay a single cent for dubbed movies. Come on Apple, we're not legally retarded here, give us the films as they were meant to be seen. Oh, also: no TV series as of now. FAIL. Seriously, I WANT to pay for good content and I DON'T WANT to use torrents, so why does everyone make it so damn hard?
I also would love to have not dubbed content. But on the other hand many people will love dubbed movies.
Apple is aiming for the living room after all, not just the "geek" living room, both in terms of prices of the ATV as well as in terms of selection. So I find it reasonable as a strategy, for now. Maybe not dubbed content will come in the future (I expect it to be the case).
Did anyone notice that, with the opening of the server center in the US, Apple is making more and more content available?
Regarding the dubbed question...
I think part of the choice is also due to the studios in hollywood... I think licensing problems are preventing movies to be released in original language, to limit piracy (at least that is what I think happened here).
If movies are successfull, then Apple will expand selection.
You say movies are pricey. I don't think so. Renting a movie for 2 people costs less than drinking a coke...
Switzerland also finally got movies in the iTunes store. Still, they totally screwed this up - the prices are exorbitant and all the content is dubbed. This is insanity. I know nobody who would pay a single cent for dubbed movies. Come on Apple, we're not legally retarded here, give us the films as they were meant to be seen. Oh, also: no TV series as of now. FAIL. Seriously, I WANT to pay for good content and I DON'T WANT to use torrents, so why does everyone make it so damn hard?
I also would love to have not dubbed content. But on the other hand many people will love dubbed movies.
Apple is aiming for the living room after all, not just the "geek" living room, both in terms of prices of the ATV as well as in terms of selection. So I find it reasonable as a strategy, for now. Maybe not dubbed content will come in the future (I expect it to be the case).
Did anyone notice that, with the opening of the server center in the US, Apple is making more and more content available?
Regarding the dubbed question...
I think part of the choice is also due to the studios in hollywood... I think licensing problems are preventing movies to be released in original language, to limit piracy (at least that is what I think happened here).
If movies are successfull, then Apple will expand selection.
You say movies are pricey. I don't think so. Renting a movie for 2 people costs less than drinking a coke...
Also, I don't think the Swiss living room thrives on dubbed movies. Most cinemas here show original versions with German and French subtitles, and I don't know anyone who would ever watch a dubbed version of a movie.
As long as these Hollywood movies come with Japanese subtitles I'll be really happy. I have a large collection of Japanese releases which I use to improve my Japanese reading ability. This would really speed things up for me. iTunes would get a lot of my money and I would even buy a nextGen iPad or AppleTV so I'm not just stuck with watching movies on a tiny iPhone.
Same here. I've learned quite a bit from subtitles (I especially like the way Japanese news doesn't dub over a foreign speaker like they do in the US and instead subtitle it so you can actually hear the real person's voice).
The DVDs usually come with at least two languages and subtitle sets; I've even rented a few that had eight or so different languages. As the data actually therefore exists, would it be so hard for them to provide?