A problem with this is the pricing model of TV. We don't pay for TV (except for premium channels); we just pay for access. If something really caught on (Replay TV doesn't count as it hasn't really "caught on") that was effective at skipping commercials then the pricing model could shift and we (consumers) could start having to pay for TV like we pay for HBO, Showtime, et. al.
Move to Britain. We have to pay for all the BBC channels.
Quote:
how would that work? most shows only film like 22min per 30 min block to make room for commercials... what would we (people paying for no commercials) see instead?
We have The Simpsons in a 25minute block, Buffy the Vampire Slayer in a 45minute block, etc... Creative scheduling can get round that.
Sorry, but this looks like backtracking. You said he'd be an idiot for ignoring the television, and that's what I responded to. An idiot is an idiot.
Hmmm, either you need to re-read my post, or I wasn't clear in my wording of it. My post (which I stated was simply MHO) was predicated, not that he should pursue TIVO--or any TV-related idea for that matter--rather, if he rejected some idea simply because it was related to TV, and against his purported TV beliefs, without considering the idea, then I stand by what I said.
However, you're right. I have no direct knowledge of:
a) whether he was presented a TV-related idea that could be a good fit
and
b) that he rejected it.
For all I know--or anyone else on these forums--he's cooking up some deal/idea now that makes this all moot; then again, maybe there is no good idea to be had until TV somehow evolves into something new, but I digress....
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
On the other hand, ignoring the fact that it is an "idiot box" and imagining that it's capable of something that it's not capable of shows a lack of vision as well - and I mean a more basic sort of "vision." Television is a passive, numbing entertainment medium by design. The whole industry is built around that assumption.
Again, we don't see eye-to-eye here. I'll grant you that much of what is on network TV is "passive, numbing entertainment"; however, on occasion (and depending on the programs you watch) there is thought-provoking programing that can expand people's minds and horizons. Just because there are a lot of stupid shows doesn't mean there is nothing redeaming about TV. Discovery (not the channel ) is about seeing the extrodinary in the ordinary. Just because neither you or I have thought of it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
Move to Britain. We have to pay for all the BBC channels.
Curious, I know this is going on a tangent, but what do you mean by you "have to pay for all the BBC channels"? Is every channel essentially treated like a "premium channel", and you pick and choose those channels you want to receive, or is the model not that quite extreme?
Then Steve must be a moron IMHO...sad, as I previously thought he was a marketing genius. <sigh>oh well, all great figures have a fatal flaw somewhere; call it a black-hole in vision.
After all, the TV and telephone have the greatest penetration of all consumer (digital, we're not counting beds here) products. Anything that ties to either of those two products and demonstrates an "I must have it quality" could rival the success of the iPod.
--edit, let me add one thing: as I realized that Steve's comment may have been taken out of context; if he realizes the importance of the TV in the market, and is open to ideas that could capitilize on it (assuming there was a good product fit) then I don't think he is a moron. However, if he would totally ignore a good idea that his people come up with because of his personal dislike for the TV, then my original opinion (in my own mind) stands.
Steve Jobs doesn't think like this. He's more of an artist. Yes, he is an excellent marketer/salesman, but he must believe in what he's selling. That's what makes him so convincing, because he's good at conveying his own enthusiasm for something to the masses. Ultimately Jobs is an idealist who want's to change the world.
This contrasts heavily with your illustration of him as a robotic business-dork, following the herd to sell them what they "want" using complex marketing studies and demographic data. Steve Jobs doesn't want to sell to the herd, he wants to lead the interesting parts of the herd to his ideas and prod them into eating, a much more difficult task with far more hidden potential. Thus the reason for some of his utter failures like the Cube, and for some of his brilliant successes like the original Mac, the iMac, the Powerbook G4, the iPod, ect....
You would see just the straight 22 minutes of video edited to be commercial free. This would come over a separate feed. Moving to Digital has allowed the "Proveribial" 500 channels. Why not have commercial free television. What's 2-4 hrs of your time worth? To many that's a substantial $$$$ amount. Of course Sports and other live shows that have required breaks would be exempt.
Currently the Content Providers idea of "Premium" Cable is to toss more shows at you. But the fact is we have enough shows. It is Time that we don't have and cannot modify.
What an awesome idea. I'd pay for something like this, for sure.
Expounding on your idea with one that's even more unlikely, is to pay for a single premium channel that could be programmed to display the commercial-free content one chooses. For example, I could decide when to watch TV when it's most convenient, then program 2 hours worth (actually 110 min) of shows: MASH, Seinfeld, Whose Line Is It, Star Trek TOS. Each show would be the episode currently playing that day or week, and of course edited into a commercial-free version.
Providers could charge a high premium for such a channel, since it would effectively render all others obsolete. In effect, instead of "channel surfing", one would pay a flat rate for access to the same gamut of channels as now, except that instead one would be selecting content "by the show", and the content from all of them would be commerical-free. Another benefit with this format is that the commonly practiced method of watching two shows at once by flipping between them at commercial breaks would cease (thankfully).
Why not just offer all the channels commercial-free, and let the watcher flip between them? Two reasons. One, I hate when people switch between shows to try and watch each at the same time, when really they are effectively watching neither show. I despise this practice and it must go because I say so Two, by forcing one to commit to entire shows, the provider ensures that a person is only watching one show at a time, and is able to monitor the viewership of each show. This is important because the rates collected for this service will be divided up for providers on a per-show basis. It also leaves open the possibility to charge by the show, which I'd be willing to do if it were a fair fee that would add up to the price of such a premium channel each month.
Imagine a pay-per-view service for commercial-free shows like sitcoms and Star Trek, but instead of $4/show it's more like 15-25 cents per show based on duration. Maybe not worth it for those who veg-out in front of the boob-toob 7 hours a day, but for people like ME who watch maybe 3 hours of TV per week, it's perfect.
Another benefit with this format is that the commonly practiced method of watching two shows at once by flipping between them at commercial breaks would cease (thankfully).
Great point! I do tend to stay on one channel if the show is commercial free.
I'm with you. With the relatively small amount of TV I watch per week I'd be interested in a more efficient Al A Carte method of watching shows. Even if that means paying a premium. After all that means my storage requirements go down anywhere from 10-20% as well as frustration level.
Why content providers are at least attempting this is beyond me.
Comments
Originally posted by fuzz_ball
A problem with this is the pricing model of TV. We don't pay for TV (except for premium channels); we just pay for access. If something really caught on (Replay TV doesn't count as it hasn't really "caught on") that was effective at skipping commercials then the pricing model could shift and we (consumers) could start having to pay for TV like we pay for HBO, Showtime, et. al.
Move to Britain. We have to pay for all the BBC channels.
how would that work? most shows only film like 22min per 30 min block to make room for commercials... what would we (people paying for no commercials) see instead?
We have The Simpsons in a 25minute block, Buffy the Vampire Slayer in a 45minute block, etc... Creative scheduling can get round that.
Amorya
Amorya
Hmmm. I thought Amorph had the 'op' for a second.
Guess it's late...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Amorph
Sorry, but this looks like backtracking. You said he'd be an idiot for ignoring the television, and that's what I responded to. An idiot is an idiot.
Hmmm, either you need to re-read my post, or I wasn't clear in my wording of it. My post (which I stated was simply MHO) was predicated, not that he should pursue TIVO--or any TV-related idea for that matter--rather, if he rejected some idea simply because it was related to TV, and against his purported TV beliefs, without considering the idea, then I stand by what I said.
However, you're right. I have no direct knowledge of:
a) whether he was presented a TV-related idea that could be a good fit
and
b) that he rejected it.
For all I know--or anyone else on these forums--he's cooking up some deal/idea now that makes this all moot; then again, maybe there is no good idea to be had until TV somehow evolves into something new, but I digress....
Originally posted by Amorph
On the other hand, ignoring the fact that it is an "idiot box" and imagining that it's capable of something that it's not capable of shows a lack of vision as well - and I mean a more basic sort of "vision." Television is a passive, numbing entertainment medium by design. The whole industry is built around that assumption.
Again, we don't see eye-to-eye here. I'll grant you that much of what is on network TV is "passive, numbing entertainment"; however, on occasion (and depending on the programs you watch) there is thought-provoking programing that can expand people's minds and horizons. Just because there are a lot of stupid shows doesn't mean there is nothing redeaming about TV. Discovery (not the channel
Btw, good debate
Originally posted by Amorya
Move to Britain. We have to pay for all the BBC channels.
Curious, I know this is going on a tangent, but what do you mean by you "have to pay for all the BBC channels"? Is every channel essentially treated like a "premium channel", and you pick and choose those channels you want to receive, or is the model not that quite extreme?
Originally posted by fuzz_ball
Then Steve must be a moron IMHO...sad, as I previously thought he was a marketing genius. <sigh>oh well, all great figures have a fatal flaw somewhere; call it a black-hole in vision.
After all, the TV and telephone have the greatest penetration of all consumer (digital, we're not counting beds here) products. Anything that ties to either of those two products and demonstrates an "I must have it quality" could rival the success of the iPod.
--edit, let me add one thing: as I realized that Steve's comment may have been taken out of context; if he realizes the importance of the TV in the market, and is open to ideas that could capitilize on it (assuming there was a good product fit) then I don't think he is a moron. However, if he would totally ignore a good idea that his people come up with because of his personal dislike for the TV, then my original opinion (in my own mind) stands.
Steve Jobs doesn't think like this. He's more of an artist. Yes, he is an excellent marketer/salesman, but he must believe in what he's selling. That's what makes him so convincing, because he's good at conveying his own enthusiasm for something to the masses. Ultimately Jobs is an idealist who want's to change the world.
This contrasts heavily with your illustration of him as a robotic business-dork, following the herd to sell them what they "want" using complex marketing studies and demographic data. Steve Jobs doesn't want to sell to the herd, he wants to lead the interesting parts of the herd to his ideas and prod them into eating, a much more difficult task with far more hidden potential. Thus the reason for some of his utter failures like the Cube, and for some of his brilliant successes like the original Mac, the iMac, the Powerbook G4, the iPod, ect....
Originally posted by hmurchison
You would see just the straight 22 minutes of video edited to be commercial free. This would come over a separate feed. Moving to Digital has allowed the "Proveribial" 500 channels. Why not have commercial free television. What's 2-4 hrs of your time worth? To many that's a substantial $$$$ amount. Of course Sports and other live shows that have required breaks would be exempt.
Currently the Content Providers idea of "Premium" Cable is to toss more shows at you. But the fact is we have enough shows. It is Time that we don't have and cannot modify.
What an awesome idea. I'd pay for something like this, for sure.
Expounding on your idea with one that's even more unlikely, is to pay for a single premium channel that could be programmed to display the commercial-free content one chooses. For example, I could decide when to watch TV when it's most convenient, then program 2 hours worth (actually 110 min) of shows: MASH, Seinfeld, Whose Line Is It, Star Trek TOS. Each show would be the episode currently playing that day or week, and of course edited into a commercial-free version.
Providers could charge a high premium for such a channel, since it would effectively render all others obsolete. In effect, instead of "channel surfing", one would pay a flat rate for access to the same gamut of channels as now, except that instead one would be selecting content "by the show", and the content from all of them would be commerical-free. Another benefit with this format is that the commonly practiced method of watching two shows at once by flipping between them at commercial breaks would cease (thankfully).
Why not just offer all the channels commercial-free, and let the watcher flip between them? Two reasons. One, I hate when people switch between shows to try and watch each at the same time, when really they are effectively watching neither show. I despise this practice and it must go because I say so
Imagine a pay-per-view service for commercial-free shows like sitcoms and Star Trek, but instead of $4/show it's more like 15-25 cents per show based on duration. Maybe not worth it for those who veg-out in front of the boob-toob 7 hours a day, but for people like ME who watch maybe 3 hours of TV per week, it's perfect.
Another benefit with this format is that the commonly practiced method of watching two shows at once by flipping between them at commercial breaks would cease (thankfully).
Great point! I do tend to stay on one channel if the show is commercial free.
I'm with you. With the relatively small amount of TV I watch per week I'd be interested in a more efficient Al A Carte method of watching shows. Even if that means paying a premium. After all that means my storage requirements go down anywhere from 10-20% as well as frustration level.
Why content providers are at least attempting this is beyond me.