Sorry about that. It's just the whole latch on to single word like a rabid terrier thing is getting really really old. I realize that this is the first time you've done.
Looks like you're still missing the point though. I do in fact have neither. What I do now is miss the shows. I tried watching Heroes on NBC's site, but it stutters like mad and tends to crash during the "limited commercial interruptions." The iTunes store was the only workable way for me to legally see these shows. I'm not subscribing to cable or satellite to watch 40 hours of TV a year.
My original post that started this tangent was in response to "Why is NBC the bad guy?," or "Why do you hate NBC so much." Well, I don't really hate them, but they have these two great shows that I really enjoyed and then they said I can't watch them anymore. That's why I don't like them. Of course they have a legal right to do that, but that doesn't change the whole "I'm taking my ball and going home." crap that they're pulling.
Actually, I should be honest. Yours just happened to be the post where I ended up making a point that I've been wanting to make for quite a while.
It has troubled me for a while now: I would see a whole lot of posts gleefully pointing to "t.o.r.r.e.n.t" whenever an issue concerning a content provider not doing the consumers' bidding comes up. (I am not at all implying yours was in the same league; it just happened to be convenient). What the posts never seem to point out or realize is, how the heck does someone who lives off his/her content compete against 'free?' It is well nigh impossible.
The classic conundrum is, if we do not provide adequate returns to those who create intellectual property (IP), there is no incentive to create IP in the first place. I think you would agree with me that we would all be much worse off as consumers if there was no IP -- after all, that is the sole brain food we consume (and produce).
The real debate should really be about "what is/who has (Apple or NBC or whoever) an appropriate model for generating returns to the content provider," rather than the one I see most often, which is "if they can't or won't compete against free (or close to free), I'll go with free."
Again, I should point out that your post did not imply any of these, but just provided a hook that I latched on to.
(I should add: I have no self-interest in this point of view.)
Would that be "got it right" like Zune's wireless sync that tech writers are paid to love? The wireless synch that ONLY works if you plug in a WIRE... and syncs far slower than an iPod that uses the same number of cables to sync?
I didn't say the Zune was a hit with me.
Regardless of our thoughts about the Zune, version 2.0 is selling pretty good. The MP3 player pie chart is going to change.
Agreed. NBC is coming to the table to play. As much as I love iTunes and Apple, I'm afraid 2008 is going to be the year that viable alternatives come to the market. NBC's Hula might suck but they are determined to limp along until they get it right. Just as Microsoft has done with the Zune.
For the television content arena, 2008 is up in the air regardless of what competition comes along. The writers' strike could well continue so far into 2008 that no new drama or comedy programming will appear until very late in the year or 2009. Movie content might not as much of a problem, but distribution of movies is still just coming together, even on iTunes.
Apple TV just isn't the right thing for the time. I want HD. I spent over $2000 on my 1080p LCD HDTV. I'm not about to spend money on downloaded movies and television programs just to watch a lesser format on my LCD HTV. Its heart is in the right place, and fewer steps are involved, but as the average American consumer is a middle-line HDTV owner with subpar (compared to other countries) bandwidth to the Internet, it's just not going to fly.
bittorrent will get bigger and bigger, until the studios realize that they messed up like the record studios did...
with s/w like "tv shows" for mac it's gotten so easy to download your favorite shows in SDTV or HDTV quality...
the numbers aren't lying, the big shows have around 100k-200k downloads per episode, there used to be 10% of that 1 year ago... that clearly shows that people are catching on and that people are fed up with the way the studios handle content internationally!
in the EU, besides the UK, there no service that allows one to get your favorite shows in english or dubbed... unbelievable! so people in the EU HAVE to use bittorrent to get their stuff...
For the television content arena, 2008 is up in the air regardless of what competition comes along. The writers' strike could well continue so far into 2008 that no new drama or comedy programming will appear until very late in the year or 2009. Movie content might not as much of a problem, but distribution of movies is still just coming together, even on iTunes.
Apple TV just isn't the right thing for the time. I want HD. I spent over $2000 on my 1080p LCD HDTV. I'm not about to spend money on downloaded movies and television programs just to watch a lesser format on my LCD HTV. Its heart is in the right place, and fewer steps are involved, but as the average American consumer is a middle-line HDTV owner with subpar (compared to other countries) bandwidth to the Internet, it's just not going to fly.
i don't think it's apple fault for not offering HD shows on iTS... i think it's the studios not giving apple the HD content!
on hulu.com they clearly state they're close to offering HD episodes, right now they only have some pilot previews in HD, which look ok, not as good as apples HD movie trailers, but hulu.com works with flash, so we can't expect too much from a service like that...
Honestly, what brain children are running NBC/Universal? First, they back a fledging HD DVD format that is assured to lose in the optical realm to the highly superior Blu-ray, and now they shun Apple's iTunes that clearly dominates the download realm. I just don't get it. Are NBC/Universal trying to lose money?
.... and don't they have some connection with a company called MS whoever that might be? Isn't it called MSNBC or something like that?
No... my exact words were in direct response to...
I agree, context is an indispensable tool in interpreting people's true meaning. Indeed, nothing in what you stated can strictly be taken to advocate quite the extreme standpoint that I had originally attributed to you. I apologize.
Quote:
I will admit that I thought that said Apple's method requires instead of Apple's method calls for. My point was that the AppleTV is not the only way to watch iTunes content on your TV. Also, your statement still doesn't work because I'd have to buy a PC to use the Fanfare content.
I'll grant that it apparently is not an option in your case, sure. But I would not be so bold as to conclude from that fact that the statement simply "doesn't work" at all.
Regardless of our thoughts about the Zune, version 2.0 is selling pretty good. The MP3 player pie chart is going to change.
Yes, that was self-evident at Target. I happened to be in there for something and had just walked past a 100 feet of gleaming white futuristic looking displays stuffed with iPods and iPod accessories and I noticed and 2 foot space on the other in a dark and miserable looking display. I had to get close to see what it was ... "Oh" I said to myself "So that is a Zune". It was hard to see for the dust.
Actually, I should be honest. Yours just happened to be the post where I ended up making a point that I've been wanting to make for quite a while.
The classic conundrum is, if we do not provide adequate returns to those who create intellectual property (IP), there is no incentive to create IP in the first place. I think you would agree with me that we would all be much worse off as consumers if there was no IP -- after all, that is the sole brain food we consume (and produce).
It's all good. Looks like we were both doing like the US & the Soviet Union in those 80's nuclear war movies I totally understand what it's like to slowly get irritated at a trend and then go off on the first person that says the wrong thing at the wrong time. I did it to you after all.
I do have a bit of a personal stake in that I own a video production company. I once had a little old lady tell me straight to my face that she had had her niece make copies of one of my show DVDs for about half the cast so they wouldn't have to pay for them. She said this to me like I should shake her hand and tell her how nice a thing it was for her to do that. I try awfully hard to make these things available to people as cheaply and easily as I can. I also go the extra mile in making a custom designed DVD cases and printing labels directly on disks etc. I do this to add value in the hopes of making people want the real deal.
Because I, in my 1 1/2 man operation bend over backwards to make things as cheap and nice and easy as possible for my customers I notice when groups like NBC don't. I really notice when groups like NBC used to and then change their minds. Naturally, I couldn't expect you to know any of this.
Wow that guy just doesn't like SJ and he sure has a low opinion of us Apple fans doesn't he? His tone hardly comes across as balanced writing. It is one thing to write an intelligent critique but this sounds like he is the son of the man who created Vista or the maybe Zune and just hates Apple.
I'll grant that it apparently is not an option in your case, sure. But I would not be so bold as to conclude from that fact that the statement simply "doesn't work" at all.
I will also admit that my situation is probably fairly unique.
The classic conundrum is, if we do not provide adequate returns to those who create intellectual property (IP), there is no incentive to create IP in the first place. I think you would agree with me that we would all be much worse off as consumers if there was no IP -- after all, that is the sole brain food we consume (and produce).
What's really ironic right now is that the writers are on strike because the studios are paying them ZERO for any streaming views of the shows they create.
So NBC is saying that there's no reason to provide ANY return to those who created that intellectual property. If they don't think their shows are worth paying the talent for, why should audiences think those shows are worth paying NBC for?
Not that I'm advocating piracy, but until NBC starts compensating their creatives, it's hard to really feel bad if people are watching the shows in ways that make no money for NBC. Some might even argue that pirating shows instead of watching them on HULU or whatever hurts the networks and could put pressure on them to end the strike.
What's really ironic right now is that the writers are on strike because the studios are paying them ZERO for any streaming views of the shows they create.
So NBC is saying that there's no reason to provide ANY return to those who created that intellectual property. If they don't think their shows are worth paying the talent for, why should audiences think those shows are worth paying NBC for?
Not that I'm advocating piracy, but until NBC starts compensating their creatives, it's hard to really feel bad if people are watching the shows in ways that make no money for NBC. Some might even argue that pirating shows instead of watching them on HULU or whatever hurts the networks and could put pressure on them to end the strike.
Well, the complicating thing with what you are saying is, we do not know for sure as to who actually owns the copyright on the work -- the employee, or the corporation? For instance, the IP from R&D done in companies typically belongs to the company, not the scientist. Often, music publishing rights belong to the recording company, not the artist. The company may, in good judgment (and as a smart business decision in order to better incentivize employees) decide to share some of the spoils, but it is typically not required.
Second, you are implying that if people knew that the actual creator (as opposed to the corporation) was getting the returns, they might pirate less. I am less optimistic than that: I think people who want it for free will always find a way and an excuse to get it for free.
Comments
You mean the unfounded SPECULATION from an analyst?
Wrong- more than analyst has said this. Please read article below.
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/1001/046.html
Wrong- more than analyst has said this. Please read article below.
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/1001/046.html
Read thisone.
Sorry about that. It's just the whole latch on to single word like a rabid terrier thing is getting really really old. I realize that this is the first time you've done.
Looks like you're still missing the point though. I do in fact have neither. What I do now is miss the shows. I tried watching Heroes on NBC's site, but it stutters like mad and tends to crash during the "limited commercial interruptions." The iTunes store was the only workable way for me to legally see these shows. I'm not subscribing to cable or satellite to watch 40 hours of TV a year.
My original post that started this tangent was in response to "Why is NBC the bad guy?," or "Why do you hate NBC so much." Well, I don't really hate them, but they have these two great shows that I really enjoyed and then they said I can't watch them anymore. That's why I don't like them. Of course they have a legal right to do that, but that doesn't change the whole "I'm taking my ball and going home." crap that they're pulling.
Actually, I should be honest. Yours just happened to be the post where I ended up making a point that I've been wanting to make for quite a while.
It has troubled me for a while now: I would see a whole lot of posts gleefully pointing to "t.o.r.r.e.n.t" whenever an issue concerning a content provider not doing the consumers' bidding comes up. (I am not at all implying yours was in the same league; it just happened to be convenient). What the posts never seem to point out or realize is, how the heck does someone who lives off his/her content compete against 'free?' It is well nigh impossible.
The classic conundrum is, if we do not provide adequate returns to those who create intellectual property (IP), there is no incentive to create IP in the first place. I think you would agree with me that we would all be much worse off as consumers if there was no IP -- after all, that is the sole brain food we consume (and produce).
The real debate should really be about "what is/who has (Apple or NBC or whoever) an appropriate model for generating returns to the content provider," rather than the one I see most often, which is "if they can't or won't compete against free (or close to free), I'll go with free."
Again, I should point out that your post did not imply any of these, but just provided a hook that I latched on to.
(I should add: I have no self-interest in this point of view.)
Would that be "got it right" like Zune's wireless sync that tech writers are paid to love?
I didn't say the Zune was a hit with me.
Regardless of our thoughts about the Zune, version 2.0 is selling pretty good. The MP3 player pie chart is going to change.
Read thisone.
I give you a serious, unbiased article and you give me biased claptrap? You're hurting me!!
Agreed. NBC is coming to the table to play. As much as I love iTunes and Apple, I'm afraid 2008 is going to be the year that viable alternatives come to the market. NBC's Hula might suck but they are determined to limp along until they get it right. Just as Microsoft has done with the Zune.
For the television content arena, 2008 is up in the air regardless of what competition comes along. The writers' strike could well continue so far into 2008 that no new drama or comedy programming will appear until very late in the year or 2009. Movie content might not as much of a problem, but distribution of movies is still just coming together, even on iTunes.
Apple TV just isn't the right thing for the time. I want HD. I spent over $2000 on my 1080p LCD HDTV. I'm not about to spend money on downloaded movies and television programs just to watch a lesser format on my LCD HTV. Its heart is in the right place, and fewer steps are involved, but as the average American consumer is a middle-line HDTV owner with subpar (compared to other countries) bandwidth to the Internet, it's just not going to fly.
with s/w like "tv shows" for mac it's gotten so easy to download your favorite shows in SDTV or HDTV quality...
the numbers aren't lying, the big shows have around 100k-200k downloads per episode, there used to be 10% of that 1 year ago... that clearly shows that people are catching on and that people are fed up with the way the studios handle content internationally!
in the EU, besides the UK, there no service that allows one to get your favorite shows in english or dubbed... unbelievable! so people in the EU HAVE to use bittorrent to get their stuff...
For the television content arena, 2008 is up in the air regardless of what competition comes along. The writers' strike could well continue so far into 2008 that no new drama or comedy programming will appear until very late in the year or 2009. Movie content might not as much of a problem, but distribution of movies is still just coming together, even on iTunes.
Apple TV just isn't the right thing for the time. I want HD. I spent over $2000 on my 1080p LCD HDTV. I'm not about to spend money on downloaded movies and television programs just to watch a lesser format on my LCD HTV. Its heart is in the right place, and fewer steps are involved, but as the average American consumer is a middle-line HDTV owner with subpar (compared to other countries) bandwidth to the Internet, it's just not going to fly.
i don't think it's apple fault for not offering HD shows on iTS... i think it's the studios not giving apple the HD content!
on hulu.com they clearly state they're close to offering HD episodes, right now they only have some pilot previews in HD, which look ok, not as good as apples HD movie trailers, but hulu.com works with flash, so we can't expect too much from a service like that...
This SanDisk device will be dead in the water once Apple releases the firmware update for current generation iPods that will support 720p output.
.....or let's us use the mysterious USB port to record a la TIVO!
Honestly, what brain children are running NBC/Universal? First, they back a fledging HD DVD format that is assured to lose in the optical realm to the highly superior Blu-ray, and now they shun Apple's iTunes that clearly dominates the download realm. I just don't get it. Are NBC/Universal trying to lose money?
.... and don't they have some connection with a company called MS whoever that might be? Isn't it called MSNBC or something like that?
No... my exact words were in direct response to...
I agree, context is an indispensable tool in interpreting people's true meaning. Indeed, nothing in what you stated can strictly be taken to advocate quite the extreme standpoint that I had originally attributed to you. I apologize.
I will admit that I thought that said Apple's method requires instead of Apple's method calls for. My point was that the AppleTV is not the only way to watch iTunes content on your TV. Also, your statement still doesn't work because I'd have to buy a PC to use the Fanfare content.
I'll grant that it apparently is not an option in your case, sure. But I would not be so bold as to conclude from that fact that the statement simply "doesn't work" at all.
I didn't say the Zune was a hit with me.
Regardless of our thoughts about the Zune, version 2.0 is selling pretty good. The MP3 player pie chart is going to change.
Yes, that was self-evident at Target. I happened to be in there for something and had just walked past a 100 feet of gleaming white futuristic looking displays stuffed with iPods and iPod accessories and I noticed and 2 foot space on the other in a dark and miserable looking display. I had to get close to see what it was ... "Oh" I said to myself "So that is a Zune". It was hard to see for the dust.
Actually, I should be honest. Yours just happened to be the post where I ended up making a point that I've been wanting to make for quite a while.
The classic conundrum is, if we do not provide adequate returns to those who create intellectual property (IP), there is no incentive to create IP in the first place. I think you would agree with me that we would all be much worse off as consumers if there was no IP -- after all, that is the sole brain food we consume (and produce).
It's all good. Looks like we were both doing like the US & the Soviet Union in those 80's nuclear war movies
I do have a bit of a personal stake in that I own a video production company. I once had a little old lady tell me straight to my face that she had had her niece make copies of one of my show DVDs for about half the cast so they wouldn't have to pay for them. She said this to me like I should shake her hand and tell her how nice a thing it was for her to do that. I try awfully hard to make these things available to people as cheaply and easily as I can. I also go the extra mile in making a custom designed DVD cases and printing labels directly on disks etc. I do this to add value in the hopes of making people want the real deal.
Because I, in my 1 1/2 man operation bend over backwards to make things as cheap and nice and easy as possible for my customers I notice when groups like NBC don't. I really notice when groups like NBC used to and then change their minds. Naturally, I couldn't expect you to know any of this.
Wrong- more than analyst has said this. Please read article below.
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/1001/046.html
Wow that guy just doesn't like SJ and he sure has a low opinion of us Apple fans doesn't he? His tone hardly comes across as balanced writing. It is one thing to write an intelligent critique but this sounds like he is the son of the man who created Vista or the maybe Zune and just hates Apple.
I'll grant that it apparently is not an option in your case, sure. But I would not be so bold as to conclude from that fact that the statement simply "doesn't work" at all.
I will also admit that my situation is probably fairly unique.
Regardless of our thoughts about the Zune, version 2.0 is selling pretty good. The MP3 player pie chart is going to change.
Source? I've heard this claim a few times, but no numbers to back them up. So how many have they sold?
And despite the links to other articles saying the aTV isn't selling well, this question has yet to be answered:
What competing download/TV box is selling better?
Why can't someone answer that question?
The classic conundrum is, if we do not provide adequate returns to those who create intellectual property (IP), there is no incentive to create IP in the first place. I think you would agree with me that we would all be much worse off as consumers if there was no IP -- after all, that is the sole brain food we consume (and produce).
What's really ironic right now is that the writers are on strike because the studios are paying them ZERO for any streaming views of the shows they create.
So NBC is saying that there's no reason to provide ANY return to those who created that intellectual property. If they don't think their shows are worth paying the talent for, why should audiences think those shows are worth paying NBC for?
Not that I'm advocating piracy, but until NBC starts compensating their creatives, it's hard to really feel bad if people are watching the shows in ways that make no money for NBC. Some might even argue that pirating shows instead of watching them on HULU or whatever hurts the networks and could put pressure on them to end the strike.
What's really ironic right now is that the writers are on strike because the studios are paying them ZERO for any streaming views of the shows they create.
So NBC is saying that there's no reason to provide ANY return to those who created that intellectual property. If they don't think their shows are worth paying the talent for, why should audiences think those shows are worth paying NBC for?
Not that I'm advocating piracy, but until NBC starts compensating their creatives, it's hard to really feel bad if people are watching the shows in ways that make no money for NBC. Some might even argue that pirating shows instead of watching them on HULU or whatever hurts the networks and could put pressure on them to end the strike.
Well, the complicating thing with what you are saying is, we do not know for sure as to who actually owns the copyright on the work -- the employee, or the corporation? For instance, the IP from R&D done in companies typically belongs to the company, not the scientist. Often, music publishing rights belong to the recording company, not the artist. The company may, in good judgment (and as a smart business decision in order to better incentivize employees) decide to share some of the spoils, but it is typically not required.
Second, you are implying that if people knew that the actual creator (as opposed to the corporation) was getting the returns, they might pirate less. I am less optimistic than that: I think people who want it for free will always find a way and an excuse to get it for free.