Set top box not a set top box?
What if the set top box wasn't a set top box? What iif it was a box that plugged into a FW port and had an RC and V-in/V-out ports. Then there is no seperate HD needed... can be powered through FW... finally a TV adapter for OSX... there are a lot of benefits to this theory.
Comments
Your device would better fit into the whole digital-hub dealy for the computer, though. Like I said, I'd buy one.
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: spotbug ]</p>
The problems is that people can take out the commercials and then send it to other people. YET, I do not understand why that is a problem because probably the majority of America switches to another channel when the commercials come on, unless it is a good one.
AS Chuck D, front man for public enemy, said in a MacWorld interview about Napster "Artists have to work now, they have to make an effort to make their money."
Same with advertisers and broadcasters.
I don't understand why NBC and other broadcasters get one Dual Gigahertz and run a quicktime streaming server/
<strong>Well, considering there was just a law suit against Replay TV...
The problems is that people can take out the commercials and then send it to other people...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not only, but I heard a snippet of the testimoney on Morning Edition the other day that just made me freak:
Some TV exec was saying that watching yer Replay TV but skipping the commercials was stealing.
No, really... he said this, and was quite serious.
<strong>
Not only, but I heard a snippet of the testimoney on Morning Edition the other day that just made me freak:
Some TV exec was saying that watching yer Replay TV but skipping the commercials was stealing.
No, really... he said this, and was quite serious.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you doubt him...? Here's the dillemma. TV (and radio) are free to us... the end-users... due to promotional adtertising funding the operation and production of the station and/or network. It costs a LOT of money to run a network and produce quality (or not) Television. So... FOR that quality programming, they charge premium dollar(s) for advertising... those companies that advertise do not do it for their health... they are looking for a return on their investment, such as YOU, the consumer, buying their product(s) or using their service(s). They actually DO track the results. If a promotional campaign on a network does not yield the results desired, they do not buy that time slot again.
If the industry saturated consumers with boxes that allowed them to record shows while AUTOMATICALLY bypassing the commercials, then the advertisers' commercials would be less effective if at all... thus they decide to promote ELSEWHERE... the station or network LOOSES revenue due to loss of ad income... their ONLY means of revenue.
Eventually, TV would prove to be an ineffective means of advertising and they would need to change their revenue model... to what...? Pay TV? would you PAY to subscribe to NBC...? ABC...? CBS...? Comedy Central...? you would need to pay for EACH ONE as if they were premium movie channels.
The point is... the commercials are what keeps it free... remove that aspect... and the house-of-cards will come falling down. That's (most-likely) his point.
Anyone disagree...?
<strong>The point is... the commercials are what keeps it free... remove that aspect... and the house-of-cards will come falling down. That's (most-likely) his point.
Anyone disagree...?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't disagree with your explanation. You're right. If everybody skips the commercials, there's no money to make the shows.
I disagree that this in any way proves (or shows) that skipping commercials is stealing. That's the statement it seemed to me you were about to defend, but then you didn't.
I look at it like this: the old business model of showing commercials during TV shows to generate revenue is about to get a huge kick in the pants. It is inevitable. There is no way this will not happen. The networks are desperately (futilely) trying to force legislation to keep their old revenue stream working.
It's a bummer, but things change. When the internal combustion engine came along, a lot (probably big) horse and buggy businesses went away. Telephones really hurt the messenger service business. Electricity wasn't too good for candle makers. Nobody has the right to mandate that the world not change in their little niche just because it might hurt profits even to the point of putting them out of business.
They (and we, I guess) should be discussing what they will (must) do to remain viable even with commercial-skipping PVR.
2) There's nothing that says that skipping ads is a function su[pported by this device
3) There's nothing to say that a set-top-box would not include the same feature.
Not that your points aren't valid, just that they don't only apply to this, they would also apply to the set-top-box that everyone is promoting.
<strong>
If everybody skips the commercials, there's no money to make the shows.....
They (and we, I guess) should be discussing what they will (must) do to remain viable even with commercial-skipping PVR.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I remember when Fox took the Nascar contract and the first race they blocked the logos of the sponsors who didn't buy commercial time. If they can take it off they can put it on. Imagine corporate logos digitally added to the programming itself (of course I can imagine the complaints the first time they project the "Hooters" logo during a topless scene. I wonder if we'll see logos in the corner of the screen and scrolling messages on the bottom of the screen during programming. I bet it'll get ugly before a new consensus on how to "pay for" TV programming is reached (the same problem that internet content providers are wrestling with now).
However it is done I expect the advertising will have to become so integral with the programming that you can't have one without the other.
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: BobtheTomato ]</p>
<hr></blockquote>
Actually, most people DO pay for the channels you listed. They pay a monthly fee for cable or sattelite service.
Furthermore, advertising doesn't make anything FREE, it simply changes the currency used to pay for programming. Instead of paying with money, advertising forces you to pay with creative and intellectual freedom. When programming is payed for by advertisers, the viewer no longer controls the content, rather, the advertisers control the content. This may be fine with sitcoms, but when it comes to things like NEWS, then an insidious bias creeps into the programming content and colors all national dialogue.
Remember that most programming bias is extremely covert, it is not based upon what is said, rather, what is NOT said. By the news stories that are NOT covered. By the experts that are NOT interviewed. By the subjects and themes that are NOT used in entertainment programming. Think about this next time you watch commercial TV...it is under full control of global corporations, and they are deciding exactly what you will watch. Such programming is not FREE in any sense of the word.
<strong>What's the difference between recording a videotape and fast forwarding through commercials, and doing the same on a PVR? I do this all of the time. yes, a PVR makes it easier, but this is not new technology. Their argument should have been made a long time ago.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interestingly, ReplayTV is the only PVR company (I believe) that's getting sued. Tivo has a "fast-forward" as well. They used to have a button that let you skip exactly 30 seconds ahead. They changed it when the networks started making lawsuit noises. It's not the fast forwarding they're getting worked-up over (although I'm sure they'd like for that to disappear, too), it's the commercial skipping.
ReplayTV has an explicit "commercial skip" feature. I'm not sure if it's just a timed skip during playback, or if it actually (somehow) removes the commercials during recording. This is why they're being singled-out and sued.
Obviously, very soon, it will be completely possible to time-shift your viewing and make it commercial-free in the process. The networks really need to find another way to make money. My guess is, in 5 to 10 years, TV will be very different than it is today.
[ 06-10-2002: Message edited by: spotbug ]</p>
1) the show itself was not great
2) they realized that nobody would have reruns because they can't show new ads. (Think of watching M*A*S*H and seeing the ads from that era)
I had another thought, The Truman Show! Everybody remembers how the wife does like ads for household appliences while they're arguing in the kitchen.