More proof that the old guard media just DOES NOT GET IT. This is why innovation is stifled and consumers are annoyed and frustrated with the lack of options -- time to create NEW media to replace the tired old dinosaur media!
You do have to sympathize with the broadcasters, to some extent.
After all, you’re already paying for cable twice: your monthly bill plus a ton of ads. Shouldn’t you be paying a third time based on which screen you’re using? Seems only fair
Thats not the real issue with cable. Magazines and papers have ads too. The difference is the man at the news rack doesn't demand I buy a copy of every other magazine on the rack. I want sports illustrated and the economist, I don't have to buy woman's world and highlights for kids. Cable is too damn expencive because you are forced to pay for hunderds of bullshit channels for the dozen or so that are worth paying for.
I am taking the plunge and dropping "TV" altogether.
Put some of the money you were paying to upgrade your bandwidth for streaming.
The sheer quality of your content will be greatly improved.
The content creators will go to the Web when they realize the audience is leaving "TV".
You may miss a few things, but at least you are being causative over the situation.
I dropped cable tv in January, just after NFL Redzone went off the air for NFL Week 17. I do not at all regret the move, but I dont watch much TV at all anyhow. netflix and hulu+ is enough for me (too much in fact cause I watch maybe 2 - 3 hrs of hulu a month), but the downside is sports, its nearly impossible to watch local pro sports without cable, so go to a few games, and for the rest that you care about go to a pub and enjoy some nachos and a cold one.
Kept pausing and rejected my login often.... my experience with it was awful. I deleted it.
That said, the TV networks are being short-sighted here.
I also don't watch that much TV anymore, but I have a sling box so I can watch channel 1 in New York while not at home. They have on demand and an iphone app but it's just not the same... I'm a loser I know!
I'm glad that my iPad2 has Fox News. It sure beats the hell out of lying, leftist propaganda crap channels like MSNBC, which hardly anybody even bothers to watch, besides a few ignorant liberals.
ROTFLMAO!!
Here in America one is free to have poor taste, low IQ, and the desire to watch right wing propaganda from a FOREIGNER. Enjoy Faux!!!
Here in America one is free to have poor taste, low IQ, and the desire to watch right wing propaganda from a FOREIGNER. Enjoy Faux!!!
And here in America, one is also free to have impeccable taste, a higher than average IQ and a desire to watch News that is not terribly tainted by leftwing morons and ignorant baboons who get thrills up their legs.
And here in America, one is also free to have impeccable taste, a higher than average IQ and a desire to watch News that is not terribly tainted by leftwing morons and ignorant baboons who get thrills up their legs.
so other news channels have "ignorant baboons who get thrills up their legs." Did MSNBC hire Rush Limbaugh?
You do have to sympathize with the broadcasters, to some extent.
After all, you?re already paying for cable twice: your monthly bill plus a ton of ads. Shouldn?t you be paying a third time based on which screen you?re using? Seems only fair
Don't forget about the hours of the day and days of the week and oh yea months of the year. I'm sure they'd like to up-charge us on whatever they think they can get away with and then just a smige more.
Also doesn't anyone else find it mildly interesting that not a single (popular) cable channel exists that isn't owned by... One of the major networks and or one of the major cable franchises... The entire industry one great big incestuous orgy of money grabbers
You do have to sympathize with the broadcasters, to some extent.
After all, you’re already paying for cable twice: your monthly bill plus a ton of ads. Shouldn’t you be paying a third time based on which screen you’re using? Seems only fair
while I know you are making a joke, it is possible that the contracts with TW actually do have some kind of per screen clause in them. And if so, the networks could see this app as the company trying to play semantic games to avoid paying some kind of fee by saying that the ipad is not really 'a screen' because that was meant for TV sets and it's not a TV.
Not to mention, imagine if one or more of those folks was a Nielsen viewer and choose to watch something in her ipad and not the TV. So now there's a view that wasn't counted (that would have been with the TV) and it could cost the network money in "make good" because that one person is like 100k viewers in the ratings
In the end what we need is a way for all views regardless of live on a tv, live on an ipad etc, DVR, itunes rental/purchase, network site streaming and so on to count for budget make good. Even if it is done on a volunteer basis. I'm sure someone can figure out a way to make the demos work to a decent amount. Or stick with a better box and a bigger sample and add the rest into the mix as well even if done on a literal penny for penny basis. Then perhaps the networks would get the sticks out of their butts about tech. I know a lot of folks, for example, that would happily skip their cable company and pay HBO, Showtime etc directly to subscribe to a computer/ipad viewing system even with next day viewing. Either the whole network or a la carte for shows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zorinlynx
There must be something I'm missing here.
Isn't the television industry all about getting as many eyes as possible on your programming?
yes but the catch is that they don't literally count everyone. They use a sample. And anything that could possibly affect that sample is evil in the eyes of the networks. Including online streaming, itunes etc
I'm glad that my iPad2 has Fox News. It sure beats the hell out of lying, leftist propaganda crap channels like MSNBC, which hardly anybody even bothers to watch, besides a few ignorant liberals.
Murdock didn't pull Fox News, because he is a smart business man who understands that more eyeballs is more eyeballs. That's why he beats his competitors.
Which explains why he pulled his FX and National Geographic channels.
And here in America, one is also free to have impeccable taste, a higher than average IQ and a desire to watch News that is not terribly tainted by leftwing morons and ignorant baboons who get thrills up their legs.
Your jealous of "liberals" because they have normal size "apparatus"? LOL!!
This is just another example of giant media conglomerates not understanding the marketplace WRT what consumers want. They are already getting a subscription fee from TW based on its own subscribers. But if those SAME subscribers want to watch TV on their mobile device (iPad in this case), they want...more money? WTF? That is just straight-up greed. There is no justification for asking for more money. Zero.
The media content providers are now going through what the music industry did 10-12 years ago. There is a demand for mobile content, just like there was and is a demand for digital music. Yet those providers are stuck clinging to a 20th century business model. They attack those that dare challenge that model, or even enhance it. Time Warner, Comcast and Verizon all want to offer mobile TV. But they've ben prevented from doing what consumers want.
Comments
Programmers are looking to squeeze more money directly from the consumers.
There must be something I'm missing here.
Isn't the television industry all about getting as many eyes as possible on your programming?
Doesn't this mean anything to get more eyes on the programming (including the iPad streaming) would be a GOOD THING for broadcasters?
More eyes = more people see ads = more revenue, right?
Or did I miss something? I've always been confused by the way big media acts when it comes to issues that *should* be obvious.
Next you'll be trying to say that Rachel Maddow doesn't offer "fair and balanced" news either.
She was a lot more attractive before she became a lesbian.
You do have to sympathize with the broadcasters, to some extent.
After all, you’re already paying for cable twice: your monthly bill plus a ton of ads. Shouldn’t you be paying a third time based on which screen you’re using? Seems only fair
Thats not the real issue with cable. Magazines and papers have ads too. The difference is the man at the news rack doesn't demand I buy a copy of every other magazine on the rack. I want sports illustrated and the economist, I don't have to buy woman's world and highlights for kids. Cable is too damn expencive because you are forced to pay for hunderds of bullshit channels for the dozen or so that are worth paying for.
Put some of the money you were paying to upgrade your bandwidth for streaming.
The sheer quality of your content will be greatly improved.
The content creators will go to the Web when they realize the audience is leaving "TV".
You may miss a few things, but at least you are being causative over the situation.
I am taking the plunge and dropping "TV" altogether.
Put some of the money you were paying to upgrade your bandwidth for streaming.
The sheer quality of your content will be greatly improved.
The content creators will go to the Web when they realize the audience is leaving "TV".
You may miss a few things, but at least you are being causative over the situation.
I dropped cable tv in January, just after NFL Redzone went off the air for NFL Week 17. I do not at all regret the move, but I dont watch much TV at all anyhow. netflix and hulu+ is enough for me (too much in fact cause I watch maybe 2 - 3 hrs of hulu a month), but the downside is sports, its nearly impossible to watch local pro sports without cable, so go to a few games, and for the rest that you care about go to a pub and enjoy some nachos and a cold one.
That said, the TV networks are being short-sighted here.
I also don't watch that much TV anymore, but I have a sling box so I can watch channel 1 in New York while not at home. They have on demand and an iphone app but it's just not the same... I'm a loser I know!
I'm glad that my iPad2 has Fox News. It sure beats the hell out of lying, leftist propaganda crap channels like MSNBC, which hardly anybody even bothers to watch, besides a few ignorant liberals.
ROTFLMAO!!
Here in America one is free to have poor taste, low IQ, and the desire to watch right wing propaganda from a FOREIGNER. Enjoy Faux!!!
Here in America one is free to have poor taste, low IQ, and the desire to watch right wing propaganda from a FOREIGNER. Enjoy Faux!!!
And here in America, one is also free to have impeccable taste, a higher than average IQ and a desire to watch News that is not terribly tainted by leftwing morons and ignorant baboons who get thrills up their legs.
And here in America, one is also free to have impeccable taste, a higher than average IQ and a desire to watch News that is not terribly tainted by leftwing morons and ignorant baboons who get thrills up their legs.
so other news channels have "ignorant baboons who get thrills up their legs." Did MSNBC hire Rush Limbaugh?
It's in the app store
Check it out sometime
Maynot be everything cable is but check it out.
(Video quality various quite a bit though)
You do have to sympathize with the broadcasters, to some extent.
After all, you?re already paying for cable twice: your monthly bill plus a ton of ads. Shouldn?t you be paying a third time based on which screen you?re using? Seems only fair
Don't forget about the hours of the day and days of the week and oh yea months of the year. I'm sure they'd like to up-charge us on whatever they think they can get away with and then just a smige more.
Also doesn't anyone else find it mildly interesting that not a single (popular) cable channel exists that isn't owned by... One of the major networks and or one of the major cable franchises... The entire industry one great big incestuous orgy of money grabbers
You do have to sympathize with the broadcasters, to some extent.
After all, you’re already paying for cable twice: your monthly bill plus a ton of ads. Shouldn’t you be paying a third time based on which screen you’re using? Seems only fair
while I know you are making a joke, it is possible that the contracts with TW actually do have some kind of per screen clause in them. And if so, the networks could see this app as the company trying to play semantic games to avoid paying some kind of fee by saying that the ipad is not really 'a screen' because that was meant for TV sets and it's not a TV.
Not to mention, imagine if one or more of those folks was a Nielsen viewer and choose to watch something in her ipad and not the TV. So now there's a view that wasn't counted (that would have been with the TV) and it could cost the network money in "make good" because that one person is like 100k viewers in the ratings
In the end what we need is a way for all views regardless of live on a tv, live on an ipad etc, DVR, itunes rental/purchase, network site streaming and so on to count for budget make good. Even if it is done on a volunteer basis. I'm sure someone can figure out a way to make the demos work to a decent amount. Or stick with a better box and a bigger sample and add the rest into the mix as well even if done on a literal penny for penny basis. Then perhaps the networks would get the sticks out of their butts about tech. I know a lot of folks, for example, that would happily skip their cable company and pay HBO, Showtime etc directly to subscribe to a computer/ipad viewing system even with next day viewing. Either the whole network or a la carte for shows.
There must be something I'm missing here.
Isn't the television industry all about getting as many eyes as possible on your programming?
yes but the catch is that they don't literally count everyone. They use a sample. And anything that could possibly affect that sample is evil in the eyes of the networks. Including online streaming, itunes etc
I'm glad that my iPad2 has Fox News. It sure beats the hell out of lying, leftist propaganda crap channels like MSNBC, which hardly anybody even bothers to watch, besides a few ignorant liberals.
Murdock didn't pull Fox News, because he is a smart business man who understands that more eyeballs is more eyeballs. That's why he beats his competitors.
Which explains why he pulled his FX and National Geographic channels.
Also still available: CNN, MSNBC and CNBC.
And here in America, one is also free to have impeccable taste, a higher than average IQ and a desire to watch News that is not terribly tainted by leftwing morons and ignorant baboons who get thrills up their legs.
Your jealous of "liberals" because they have normal size "apparatus"? LOL!!
The media content providers are now going through what the music industry did 10-12 years ago. There is a demand for mobile content, just like there was and is a demand for digital music. Yet those providers are stuck clinging to a 20th century business model. They attack those that dare challenge that model, or even enhance it. Time Warner, Comcast and Verizon all want to offer mobile TV. But they've ben prevented from doing what consumers want.
Same old story.