Sony wanted 'The Interview' on iTunes for Christmas, but Apple rejected fast timetable

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 110

    I agree with the possible bandwidth issue but suspect the real reason:

    Sony was too greedy with their cost to allow Apple and iTunes to make

    a buck without really pushing cost through the roof.  Other option is 

    Apple wants a long term deal and Sony will not play ball.

  • Reply 42 of 110
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Special showing at the White House?
  • Reply 43 of 110
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Bottom line:

    Risk is not worth the Reward

    Exactly right. What's the upside for Apple? Massive sales of one movie on one of their busiest days of the year: maybe 20 million sales @ $3 for Apple = $60 million. Plus some vague "do the right thing"/free speech publicity. The downside: potential service disruption on the single most important day of the year due to load and/or denial of service/hacking attacks; possible long term hacking target; risk of something going wrong because of the rush to market (I'm sure most movies take more than a few days of processing and reviewing).

    Unfortunately word of this got out. So that adds a very minor downside to not doing it, but haters gonna hate.

    Also Sony could have released this on the own network but they presumably made exactly the same calculation that Apple did. They don't want millions of new PS4 owners having a crappy first-day experience because their network is overloaded with The Interview. I bet there were heated arguments between the various Sony units about this (and the Japan-based Playstation group won out over the US-based movie guys).
  • Reply 44 of 110
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Syrran View Post

     

    "Corporatism," according to political scientists, is a political arrangement that exists mainly in Western Europe wherein the government, large corporations, and large unions govern the country in a triumvirate, or more like a "common council." So, the actions of the government in trying to broker the deal could be viewed as "corporatist" because it is government working closely with large corporations to try to help out a large corporation (Sony).   That is what the original poster might have meant. I do not wish to get into an exchange over this. 


    I know what it means. Thanks. I am not sure that you know what a 'corporation' means.

     

    (As an aside, if you do not wish to get into an exchange, perhaps it's best not to post.)

  • Reply 45 of 110

    Apparently Google already said yes to the deal:

    http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/24/google-reportedly-showing-the-interview/

  • Reply 46 of 110
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    On a broader topic, does anyone else have trouble believing that N Korea -- a podunk, IT-challenged country with perhaps no more than a 1,000 IP addresses -- was able to do something like this?

    And, if it was indeed the case that they were able to pull off something of this magnitude, that we're really doomed in more ways than we could possibly imagine?

    I do not have trouble believing this. NK is a nation state with massive resources. They can buy hackers just as easily as a certain terrorist group could destroy three landmark buildings in the US. And reportedly Sony's security basically sucks.
  • Reply 47 of 110
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by malax View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post



    On a broader topic, does anyone else have trouble believing that N Korea -- a podunk, IT-challenged country with perhaps no more than a 1,000 IP addresses -- was able to do something like this?



    And, if it was indeed the case that they were able to pull off something of this magnitude, that we're really doomed in more ways than we could possibly imagine?




    I do not have trouble believing this. NK is a nation state with massive resources. They can buy hackers just as easily as a certain terrorist group could destroy three landmark buildings in the US. And reportedly Sony's security basically sucks.

    See this: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/debating-north-koreas-involvement-sony-hack/

     

    I am curious: do you have a link to a story from a reasonably credible outlet that says Sony's security is worse than average?

  • Reply 48 of 110
    rogifan wrote: »
    Why didn't Sony ask Google to put it up on YouTube? Or as the US government to host a secure site where people could watch it?
    The U.S. Government has no business being involved in the distribution of media.
  • Reply 49 of 110
    [@]mpantone[/@] and [@]eightzero[/@],

    YouTube has rentals.
  • Reply 50 of 110
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    I know what it means. Thanks. I am not sure that you know what a 'corporation' means.

     

    (As an aside, if you do not wish to get into an exchange, perhaps it's best not to post.)


    I did not wish to get into precisely this exchange: when somebody makes a petty and inane allegation that I do not know what a 'corporation' is. And I refuse to cede the forum to people like yourself who look for ways to insult and demean others. But yes, because of people like you I have greatly reduced my online posts. So in way, you win.

  • Reply 51 of 110
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    <\delete>
  • Reply 52 of 110
    gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    hexclock wrote: »
    The U.S. Government has no business being involved in the distribution of media.

    Because...?
    So only corporate monopolies get your 'freedom' blessing?
  • Reply 53 of 110
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bikertwin View Post





    If this were about free speech, Sony would release it for free, or reduced cost. But it's not about free speech, it's about profits. Going to this movie means you are supporting Sony, the company that was too cheap and/or incompetent to have even a modicum of network security. Is that what you want to support?



    And, remember, Apple doesn't allow new app submissions this week because they try to give their employees time off. Sony's timeline would've meant lots of extra work for Apple employees. Again, to support Sony's incompetence? Apple intelligently said No thanks.



    There are too many people who cite "free speech" regarding Sony's decision.  Sony is free to do what it wants.  And it has.  No one in the USA stopped Sony.  That is where free speech is protected.  And if some exec spiked the film, that's what happens in the corporate world.

     

    I have created various works of art, and I do not get all pissy when someone does not like something I have made and won't release it through their corporate distribution claiming it violates my free speech.  If any of the artists involved cared that much, they would've done what they wanted to do and would never ceded their ability to release this on their own terms.

  • Reply 54 of 110
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    So apparently Google and Microsoft are streaming this movie $6 to rent and $15 to buy. For all those who say Apple only cares about profits...
  • Reply 55 of 110
    gqb wrote: »
    Because...?
    So only corporate monopolies get your 'freedom' blessing?
    Not sure what you mean by my "freedom blessing" but it's simply not the provision of the government to spoon feed us media.
    Protect free speech, yes. Be an outlet for for it, no. It's just my opinion.
  • Reply 56 of 110
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,518member
    nolamacguy wrote: »
    jesus i hope you aren't an american. satire of course does deserve free speech protection in our nation.

    and no, it's not like yelling "fire!" since in that classic litmus test we see the speech actively hurting people as they stamped. there is no such equivalency in a dumb comedy about killing an overseas dictator.

    I would argue that it's not satire we're seeing here, but ignorant incendiary blowhard speech. The stampede you refer to may take months or years to unfold, or nothing at all may happen. Doesn't matter when thousands or millions of lives and an already shaky world are at risk. I wouldn't defend their right to show this movie, and would rather say it serves them right if it's suppressed.

    Something handled intelligently like Chaplin's The Great Dictator is another story. It was not incendiary in the sense that Hitler was given a redemptive look at himself. Not so with Kim.

    McLuhan's War and Peace in the Global Village, Wilhelm Reich's The Mass Psychology of Fascism (he was there), and Alice Miller's For Your Own Good (she was too) are indispensable in understanding the volatile nature of the fascist personality, which extends to the state apparatus it creates. And then there's the history of the 20th century, but you understand all that, I expect, about how victorious post-Versailles Europe made Germany fascist, and how the "police action" in Korea allowed the North Korean state to develop in isolation. We're good at creating sociopaths, and provoking them, not so good at curing them.
  • Reply 57 of 110
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,518member
    rogifan wrote: »
    So apparently Google and Microsoft are streaming this movie $6 to rent and $15 to buy. For all those who say Apple only cares about profits...

    Right on Rogifan!
  • Reply 58 of 110
    syrran wrote: »
    I did not wish to get into precisely this exchange: when somebody makes a petty and inane allegation that I do not know what a 'corporation' is. And I refuse to cede the forum to people like yourself who look for ways to insult and demean others. But yes, because of people like you I have greatly reduced my online posts. So in way, you win.

    Ah, petty and demeaning indeed. Perhaps you should read your own post above.

    Reread the original post. I was not seeking a clarification. It was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek comment about posters here who are often against the government regulating corporations, and yet ironically, against the government helping corporations. I guess the implied sarcasm did not come though. My bad.

    Also, please stop sounding so high and mighty about not wanting to get into an exchange, when you just did.
  • Reply 59 of 110
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    Ah, petty and demeaning indeed. Perhaps you should read your own post above.



    Reread the original post. I was not seeking a clarification. It was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek comment about posters here who are often against the government regulating corporations, and yet ironically, against the government helping corporations. I guess the implied sarcasm did not come though. My bad.



    Also, please stop sounding so high and mighty about not wanting to get into an exchange, when you just did.

    I had a feeling you were going to reply to my first post with a belittling comment, so I tried to head that off. You are a perfect example of somebody who acts out online whatever psychological issue they would be afraid to act out in person. Psychologists are studying this, and I hope they find this exchange. I have no time to get into arguments with losers like you.

  • Reply 60 of 110
    syrran wrote: »
    Psychologists are studying this, and I hope they find this exchange. I have no time to get into arguments with losers like you.

    They are!?

    It's far better to be a loser than a petty, demeaning, insulting hypocrite.
Sign In or Register to comment.