There are three cable channels that I would watch. - UKTV, History and Discovery. As we had to subscribe to at least two packages (maybe three) to get them, we decidedthat it wasn't worth it. And not long after that, we had digital terrestrial aerial installed: the reception was so good that we cancelled the single cable package that we had (which had none of the above cannels) and haven't looked back.
If individual channels could be unbundled as TS suggests above we would seriously consider subscribing to that sort of setup.
Yes, but they don't have simultaneous-with-broadcast download, day-of shows. The show should actually start to download a few minutes before it's available to be played, that way you can automatically play it (on your Apple TV or wherever!) exactly when it's on TV.
That, I think, is a feature worthy of the Apple name.
Then why did you say the point was that nothing Apple says publicly can be trusted?
I should have been clearer in that they can not be trusted as to what they are working on. again, redirect, obfuscate, then amaze the world. maybe the term lie was a bit too strong???
I should have been clearer in that they can not be trusted as to what they are working on. again, redirect, obfuscate, then amaze the world. maybe the term lie was a bit too strong???
Does it really matter what you call it? It's still the same thing.
I thought that when Steve made that comment about 7-in tablets, one of the main complaints about them were the resolution. The deciding on one resolution for 7-in then having to recreate them for 10-in tablets, or stretching the image. The introduction of the Retina iPad then allowed them to create a 7-in with the same resolution as the none Retina iPads, minimizing any disruption to the developers.
...and instead have only exactly the shows you want, no watermarks, no ads....
But what will happen if those revenues are killed? Will the money simply go from the broadcasting companies > content creators and now from Apple > content creators?
I think it's an open question whether it provides the same revenue. Last I've heard, not so much.
Lower revenue, larger volume, boom.
And they don't have to stop offering broadcast TV. This would be additional revenue. I don't think they'd be stupid enough to overlook that, given that it's all they really care about.
As more people drop broadcast for digital, they can deal with it.
And they don't have to stop offering broadcast TV. This would be additional revenue. I don't think they'd be stupid enough to overlook that, given that it's all they really care about.
As more people drop broadcast for digital, they can deal with it.
I'm not seeing larger volume making up for the lower revenue for web video. People watch a lot of video as it is, I don't think a lot of growth in audience will happen.
I'm not seeing larger volume making up for the lower revenue for web video. People watch a lot of video as it is, I don't think a lot of growth in audience will happen.
Growth in paid audience is the idea.
Did more people get music digitally after the iTunes Music Store was announced, or did many pirates just move to iTunes?
Did more people get music digitally after the iTunes Music Store was announced, or did many pirates just move to iTunes?
I don't know the answer to that. There are parallels, but the two markets can be very dissimilar too. I don't think either the current sales model (Apple) or the current streaming model (Netflix) will do the job. I hope Apple introduces something different.
I don't know the answer to that. There are parallels, but the two markets can be very dissimilar too. I don't think either the current sales model (Apple) or the current streaming model (Netflix) will do the job. I hope Apple introduces something different.
Sure, sure.
Oh! I didn't post this here, did I?!
Originally Posted By Tallest Skil
The content creators getting their collective heads out of their collective rears and doing something intelligent for once in their existence.
And I'm not just talking about intelligent content (seeing as a percentage of television that is within the margin of error below 0% is actually intelligent and worthwhile today, and not a "reality" pile of zarkin' nonsense). I'm talking about an intelligent system for monetizing streaming.
See, there's a huge difference in broadcast and streaming media. Broadcast is just that, broadcast. It's out there, buy an antenna, tune it right, and boom, content. Streaming demands a hard connection between the two ends. It's called bandwidth, and that's limited. It's a lie, but it's "limited". And so they treat it as though it's a non-renewable resource. The content creators need to help the content providers pay for increasing that to the point at which it doesn't matter. It's their responsibility as much as it is the ISPs'.
Anyway, it's more expensive, so they don't want to do it. But streaming can be monetized incredibly easily, in one of two ways. Either treat it exactly like broadcast content in payment, allowing users to record shows as they play, storing them safely in the provider's proprietary hardware (which is lame like my leg after it has been crossed for too long) or disallow live consumer recording but offer a "Would you like to buy this episode/game/movie?" option right after it has aired."
That was a great football game! I wanna see it again. Hey, $2.99 for an HEVC-encoded, ad-free, DRM-free, watermark-free, full-length (with pre- and post-game commentary), chapterized file of the game? I think yes!"
Wow. Look at that. Not only have I captured the impulse buying demographic at a price they'll love ($3-7 for sports games, $2 for TV showepisodes, $5-10 for movies), I've earned these idiots a tidy little profit on EVERY UNIT OF WHAT THEY SELL. And after that, all they have to do is build out the fiber needed to take 'bandwidth' from a "non-renewable" to an irrelevant factor and they'll have even more money.
Now, for live stuff, it couldn't be an immediate download. Say within 24 hours, giving them time to package the stuff, edit it, and add chapters (for example, sports games would be chaptered pre-commentary, quarter, quarter, quarter, quarter, post commentary, minimum; with other—and differing—chapters as necessary).
Quote image link leads to its off-site context. Bolded content added here, since I just thought of it.
Quote image link leads to its off-site context. Bolded content added here, since I just thought of it.
Given that $2 TV show episodes aren't going gangbusters right now, I don't know how keeping the same price is going to solve anything. If they'd at least get season pass bundles down to $1/episode, then I might consider that.
Given that $2 TV show episodes aren't going gangbusters right now, I don't know how keeping the same price is going to solve anything. If they'd at least get season pass bundles down to $1/episode, then I might consider that.
Oh, aren't they? All right; kick it down further, then. But we're talking 1080p episodes here. I guess the goal would be to get them the same price as the physical copies.
Comments
If individual channels could be unbundled as TS suggests above we would seriously consider subscribing to that sort of setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes, but they don't have simultaneous-with-broadcast download, day-of shows. The show should actually start to download a few minutes before it's available to be played, that way you can automatically play it (on your Apple TV or wherever!) exactly when it's on TV.
That, I think, is a feature worthy of the Apple name.
Then why did you say the point was that nothing Apple says publicly can be trusted?
I should have been clearer in that they can not be trusted as to what they are working on. again, redirect, obfuscate, then amaze the world. maybe the term lie was a bit too strong???
Does it really matter what you call it? It's still the same thing.
Originally Posted by Kendog52404
I thought that when Steve made that comment about 7-in tablets, one of the main complaints about them were the resolution.
Usable screen size. I don't recall anything about resolution.
But what will happen if those revenues are killed? Will the money simply go from the broadcasting companies > content creators and now from Apple > content creators?
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
But what will happen if those revenues are killed?
So you don't think content creators make money on every instance of everything sold in the iTunes Store? What revenue is being killed?
I guess those of the channels. You and I don't care about video channels, but the media conglomerates don't want to undermine those channels.
Question is will they make what they're making now?
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I guess those of the channels. You and I don't care about video channels, but the media conglomerates don't want to undermine those channels.
They'll be fine with it if they make the same or better money through digital services.
I think it's an open question whether it provides the same revenue. Last I've heard, not so much.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I think it's an open question whether it provides the same revenue. Last I've heard, not so much.
Lower revenue, larger volume, boom.
And they don't have to stop offering broadcast TV. This would be additional revenue. I don't think they'd be stupid enough to overlook that, given that it's all they really care about.
As more people drop broadcast for digital, they can deal with it.
I'm not seeing larger volume making up for the lower revenue for web video. People watch a lot of video as it is, I don't think a lot of growth in audience will happen.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I'm not seeing larger volume making up for the lower revenue for web video. People watch a lot of video as it is, I don't think a lot of growth in audience will happen.
Growth in paid audience is the idea.
Did more people get music digitally after the iTunes Music Store was announced, or did many pirates just move to iTunes?
I don't know the answer to that. There are parallels, but the two markets can be very dissimilar too. I don't think either the current sales model (Apple) or the current streaming model (Netflix) will do the job. I hope Apple introduces something different.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I don't know the answer to that. There are parallels, but the two markets can be very dissimilar too. I don't think either the current sales model (Apple) or the current streaming model (Netflix) will do the job. I hope Apple introduces something different.
Sure, sure.
Oh! I didn't post this here, did I?!
Originally Posted By Tallest Skil
The content creators getting their collective heads out of their collective rears and doing something intelligent for once in their existence.
And I'm not just talking about intelligent content (seeing as a percentage of television that is within the margin of error below 0% is actually intelligent and worthwhile today, and not a "reality" pile of zarkin' nonsense). I'm talking about an intelligent system for monetizing streaming.
See, there's a huge difference in broadcast and streaming media. Broadcast is just that, broadcast. It's out there, buy an antenna, tune it right, and boom, content. Streaming demands a hard connection between the two ends. It's called bandwidth, and that's limited. It's a lie, but it's "limited". And so they treat it as though it's a non-renewable resource. The content creators need to help the content providers pay for increasing that to the point at which it doesn't matter. It's their responsibility as much as it is the ISPs'.
Anyway, it's more expensive, so they don't want to do it. But streaming can be monetized incredibly easily, in one of two ways. Either treat it exactly like broadcast content in payment, allowing users to record shows as they play, storing them safely in the provider's proprietary hardware (which is lame like my leg after it has been crossed for too long) or disallow live consumer recording but offer a "Would you like to buy this episode/game/movie?" option right after it has aired."
That was a great football game! I wanna see it again. Hey, $2.99 for an HEVC-encoded, ad-free, DRM-free, watermark-free, full-length (with pre- and post-game commentary), chapterized file of the game? I think yes!"
Wow. Look at that. Not only have I captured the impulse buying demographic at a price they'll love ($3-7 for sports games, $2 for TV show episodes, $5-10 for movies), I've earned these idiots a tidy little profit on EVERY UNIT OF WHAT THEY SELL. And after that, all they have to do is build out the fiber needed to take 'bandwidth' from a "non-renewable" to an irrelevant factor and they'll have even more money.
Now, for live stuff, it couldn't be an immediate download. Say within 24 hours, giving them time to package the stuff, edit it, and add chapters (for example, sports games would be chaptered pre-commentary, quarter, quarter, quarter, quarter, post commentary, minimum; with other—and differing—chapters as necessary).
Quote image link leads to its off-site context. Bolded content added here, since I just thought of it.
Given that $2 TV show episodes aren't going gangbusters right now, I don't know how keeping the same price is going to solve anything. If they'd at least get season pass bundles down to $1/episode, then I might consider that.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Given that $2 TV show episodes aren't going gangbusters right now, I don't know how keeping the same price is going to solve anything. If they'd at least get season pass bundles down to $1/episode, then I might consider that.
Oh, aren't they? All right; kick it down further, then. But we're talking 1080p episodes here. I guess the goal would be to get them the same price as the physical copies.
The thing is that there is already many paid (and cheaper) alternatives that people are already using and accustomed to.