I agree that the commercials before movies are bad, but you can always just come a little later to skip them.
not if you want to find a seat for a new release. they turn down the lights for the commercials, at least in my area, so if it's a popular flick and you want to be sure to find a pair of seats for you and your beau, you better be there for BOTH the movie trivia (an evil unto itself) AND those commercials.
ooh, ooh! and how about those wonderful previews permanently stamped onto dvd's and vhs tapes? at least on tape, they couldn't stop you from fast forwarding through that "dragnet" preview from 1987, but now they have that wonderful "that operation cannot be performed" lock so you'll always get to watch those wonderful "also from disney entertainment" previews on a disc you thought you paid a decent amount of money in order to AVOID.
Anyway, ads aren't all that bad since they pay for the costs of Television program production.
And the check I write to Insight for $100/mo is what? I pay good money for the ~100 channels I get and the DVR, I am busy, I would rather start watching 24 at 9:30 and be donewith it by 10:10...I pay Insight, Insight pays the OTAs and cable nets they carry, so what is the friggen problem? Either I pay and DO NOT see commercials, or the commercials pay, I watch them and get every channel as a free "ad pump" into my living room.
Ditto the cable companies and all other media providers that are too dense to get it. How many of you DVR owners are prepared to pay an additional fee to get your device to do what you bought it for in the first place? Which of you are ready to be barred from flipping to another show during a commercial break?
Yesterday, technology freed us from commercials. Tomorrow, technology binds us to them. As for today, I say we fight. Commercial broadcasts must go the way of the dinosaur. I am starting to believe that mass pirating of broadcast media is the only way to get their attention. I don't really have any solutions. I am just royally pissed off!
There will be a combination pity party and whine fest at my house in the center of Pissville square. It is on the corner of Rant Blvd. and Rave St. See you there.
Actually, the cable companies do not own Tivo and could care less if you have to paya additional to get it to do what it's supposed to do. As for the cable companies own DVR offerings, the function of the cable dvr is what they say it is.. so if you pay for cable dvr and cannot skip commercial, that is what you paid for (this is a circular argument but think about it).. I agree though, sucks to pay extra not to watch commercial. I definetly would not be happy with that technology. I can see it from the broadcaster point of view though.. they provide a service, someone's gotta pay for it.. if not advertisers, then us. Would you be happy to see your cable bill go up by 50 bucks just so you wouldn't see ads?. Not me!!!.. bring on the ads!!.. i need bathroom breaks anyway, wouldn't want to miss any part of the show.
NOTE: I totally don't get how you think walking away from the TV (snack, drink, bathroom) is "better" (in your moral algebra) than fast-forwarding. For that matter, what about switching channels during a commercial (TV or radio)? Is that morally wrong? Should it be illegal?
I believe this technology is mainly to combat DVR's. You can still switch channels and not watch the ads (provided the new channel you switch to is showing something othe than ads).
With this technology, it was the company's intention to develop a new paradigm for the watching of on-demand television, not to force people to watch commercials, said Caroline Kamerbeek, communications director for Philips International.
"A new paradigm". When MBAs start slinging 'paradigm' around, watch out. I thought that companies introduced products based upon what their customers/the market wanted, not to establish new paradigms. Seems to me that Apple tried to establish the PDA paradigm before people were ready and lost their shirt.
" ...not to force people to watch commercials,..." while they intruduce technology to force people to watch commercials. The 'MBA tunnel-visoned--groupthink-ness" inherent in that statement is breathtaking.
I, for one, will not purchase a television with this technology. Ever.
Who gives a shit? It's be cracked just like all of such schemes are... and you'll have a choice whether you want to be a sucker and take it up or not...
Comments
Originally posted by spindler
I agree that the commercials before movies are bad, but you can always just come a little later to skip them.
not if you want to find a seat for a new release. they turn down the lights for the commercials, at least in my area, so if it's a popular flick and you want to be sure to find a pair of seats for you and your beau, you better be there for BOTH the movie trivia (an evil unto itself) AND those commercials.
ooh, ooh! and how about those wonderful previews permanently stamped onto dvd's and vhs tapes? at least on tape, they couldn't stop you from fast forwarding through that "dragnet" preview from 1987, but now they have that wonderful "that operation cannot be performed" lock so you'll always get to watch those wonderful "also from disney entertainment" previews on a disc you thought you paid a decent amount of money in order to AVOID.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Anyway, ads aren't all that bad since they pay for the costs of Television program production.
And the check I write to Insight for $100/mo is what? I pay good money for the ~100 channels I get and the DVR, I am busy, I would rather start watching 24 at 9:30 and be donewith it by 10:10...I pay Insight, Insight pays the OTAs and cable nets they carry, so what is the friggen problem? Either I pay and DO NOT see commercials, or the commercials pay, I watch them and get every channel as a free "ad pump" into my living room.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
They never learn.
The time has come to overthrow the MPAA!
Ditto the cable companies and all other media providers that are too dense to get it. How many of you DVR owners are prepared to pay an additional fee to get your device to do what you bought it for in the first place? Which of you are ready to be barred from flipping to another show during a commercial break?
Yesterday, technology freed us from commercials. Tomorrow, technology binds us to them. As for today, I say we fight. Commercial broadcasts must go the way of the dinosaur. I am starting to believe that mass pirating of broadcast media is the only way to get their attention. I don't really have any solutions. I am just royally pissed off!
There will be a combination pity party and whine fest at my house in the center of Pissville square. It is on the corner of Rant Blvd. and Rave St. See you there.
Actually, the cable companies do not own Tivo and could care less if you have to paya additional to get it to do what it's supposed to do. As for the cable companies own DVR offerings, the function of the cable dvr is what they say it is.. so if you pay for cable dvr and cannot skip commercial, that is what you paid for (this is a circular argument but think about it).. I agree though, sucks to pay extra not to watch commercial. I definetly would not be happy with that technology. I can see it from the broadcaster point of view though.. they provide a service, someone's gotta pay for it.. if not advertisers, then us. Would you be happy to see your cable bill go up by 50 bucks just so you wouldn't see ads?. Not me!!!.. bring on the ads!!.. i need bathroom breaks anyway, wouldn't want to miss any part of the show.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
NOTE: I totally don't get how you think walking away from the TV (snack, drink, bathroom) is "better" (in your moral algebra) than fast-forwarding. For that matter, what about switching channels during a commercial (TV or radio)? Is that morally wrong? Should it be illegal?
I believe this technology is mainly to combat DVR's. You can still switch channels and not watch the ads (provided the new channel you switch to is showing something othe than ads).
With this technology, it was the company's intention to develop a new paradigm for the watching of on-demand television, not to force people to watch commercials, said Caroline Kamerbeek, communications director for Philips International.
"A new paradigm". When MBAs start slinging 'paradigm' around, watch out. I thought that companies introduced products based upon what their customers/the market wanted, not to establish new paradigms. Seems to me that Apple tried to establish the PDA paradigm before people were ready and lost their shirt.
" ...not to force people to watch commercials,..." while they intruduce technology to force people to watch commercials. The 'MBA tunnel-visoned--groupthink-ness" inherent in that statement is breathtaking.
I, for one, will not purchase a television with this technology. Ever.
V/R,
Aries 1B