Reports indicate Intel may offer a set top box with a la cart programming.
http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-cable-2013-1
http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-cable-2013-1
Google?tulanejosh said:Still not a single shred of concrete data to back up your assertions.
I see little relationship to this industry. Power is a great anti-example. Total monopoly. Tied to population. Evolution of consumption devices reduces demand. Yet it's still 100% a la carte - you pay, to the penny, for exactly what you use. Ain't regulation a bi...tonyd79 said:When a product had reached saturation, it is not possible to trend up. Growth by its very nature slows.
By trends, electric power delivery to households is on the wane because they aren't adding as many as they did years ago.
^^^^Example A^^^^"pdxBeav" said:People who claim a la carte can't work don't understand that industries evolve and business models can change over time.
There's a reason why the programmers fight tooth and nail against a la carte. And it isn't because they're looking out for the consumer.
They will certainly fight it to the death.HinterXGames said:I don't see Al la Carte ever happening, simply because I don't think Networks will ever allow it and they control the pricing/structure, because they control the content.
Music industry:Hoosier205 said:It would drastically reduce channels, dramatically drive up cost, and gut revenues for production.
Completely different industry and distribution model. [mod edit, inappropriate content removed]"unixguru" said:Music industry:
[*]drastically reduce songs - nope
[*]dramatically drive up cost - nope
[*]gut revenues for production - reduced, maybe
Classic FUD.
The reason is money.pdxBeav said:People who claim a la carte can't work don't understand that industries evolve and business models can change over time.
There's a reason why the programmers fight tooth and nail against a la carte. And it isn't because they're looking out for the consumer.
What young people do today has a way of changing when they have jobs and kids. Predicting trends based of what 16 - 24 year olds do right this second is silly. When I was that age I watched very little tv - I was out doing things. And I wasn't alone in that. By that articles rationale TV should have died off when people of my generation gained a greater degree of social control. But it didn't die - because people change their behaviors as they get older."unixguru" said:Google?
2 seconds shows this from almost a year ago: Young People Are Watching, but Less Often on TV.
And not my responsibility to google it. Your re one making the argument and not backing it up. I've backed my claims up with revenue and subscriber statistics. It's not too much to ask you to do more than say "it's just the trends, man"."unixguru" said:Google?
2 seconds shows this from almost a year ago: Young People Are Watching, but Less Often on TV.
Depends on your perspective whether digital distribution of music is viable. Many artists claim they make very little from the sale of their music digitally. So basically you want what's good for you."unixguru" said:They will certainly fight it to the death.
What is content? Who creates it? Does it have to be owned by broadcast networks? How many networks have their own production studio?
I believe most content is created by independent production studios and then sold to networks.
My wife recently told me that the series Hunted, which is on Cinemax (and BBC), was being dropped by BBC but that Cinemax was going to continue it. Looking at the detail of that link shows there are 3 production companies - one of them is BBC. Cinemax is not one of them.
Dexter, Game of Thrones, True Blood, Strike Back, Homeland, Fringe, Grimm, NCIS all have multiple production companies. I stopped looking for more but I haven't found a single program that is produced only by a production studio owned by a distributor.
It's no different than music artists vs record labels.
A viable distribution alternative will have no problem getting content.
I see. You reject the electricity comparison as not the same model but you go to a model that was always a la carte. Yup."unixguru" said:Music industry:
[*]drastically reduce songs - nope
[*]dramatically drive up cost - nope
[*]gut revenues for production - reduced, maybe
Classic FUD.
The economics of the music industry and the television are so radically different it doesn't pass the smell test. There is no "creativity" in cost to create an album. You use a studio, you lay tracks, you cut the album. Much different than video where a series can cost more than $50 million dollars to create. Movies, sometimes in excess of $150 million. The cost of music albums has not gone up appreciably.unixguru said:Music industry:
Classic FUD.
- drastically reduce songs - nope
- dramatically drive up cost - nope
- gut revenues for production - reduced, maybe
Ooooh. I know. One is a la carte and the other is bundled."Satelliteracer" said:The economics of the music industry and the television are so radically different it doesn't pass the smell test. There is no "creativity" in cost to create an album. You use a studio, you lay tracks, you cut the album. Much different than video where a series can cost more than $50 million dollars to create. Movies, sometimes in excess of $150 million. The cost of music albums has not gone up appreciably.
Sorry, just not even close to a good example.
By the way, ever wonder why it's cheaper to go to Best Buy and purchase a CD that costs LESS than that same album on iTUNES. Hmm.
Of course they're not going to do it voluntarily. The reason the programmers don't want a la carte is to protect their revenue stream. The only way it'll happen is when the costs become so high that consumers finally say enough is enough. Just like with anything else. Obviously we are not at that point yet, but give it time. It might be two years or twenty years.tulanejosh said:I'm not trying to be recalcitrant here toward anyone but I'm just not seeing the "why" for a la carte or paradigm shifts. The best argument I've seen is that some customers are tired of paying for channels they don't watch. Ok I get it. But a la carte is not going to be cheaper because that would involve the companies and contractors involved in the production and distribution of video to take less money and I just don't see that happening. Business models can change but they do so for reasons that make more money not less.
If a la carte made sense from a financial perspective, it would be done. It's really that simple. People want unique content, good series, good movies, etc and that costs money. There are many losers that don't make it past pilot or after series one, yet those shows cost a lot of money to make.pdxBeav said:Of course they're not going to do it voluntarily. The reason the programmers don't want a la carte is to protect their revenue stream. The only way it'll happen is when the costs become so high that consumers finally say enough is enough. Just like with anything else. Obviously we are not at that point yet, but give it time. It might be two years or twenty years.
As has been discussed here before the best (from a consumer point of view) way would probably be to have the ability to pick from mini-bundles like all ESPN channels or all Scripps channels, etc. It makes no sense for millions of people to help pay for athletes' mega salaries when they don't care at all about sports. The sports channels are the poster child for this problem. Let the people who want the sports channels pay for them. I understand the argument of having everyone subsidize some type of programming, but no valid argument exists for this subsidy to apply to the sports channels.
I mostly agree with all your points. The only way it's going to happen is when enough people stop paying for it.Satelliteracer said:If a la carte made sense from a financial perspective, it would be done. It's really that simple. People want unique content, good series, good movies, etc and that costs money. There are many losers that don't make it past pilot or after series one, yet those shows cost a lot of money to make.
I honestly think some people think every show is a hit and guaranteed. If that were the case, it would be much easier argument to make, but of course that isn't the case. Content creation costs a TON of money, fortunately or unfortunately, it is simply reality.
The sports option you are suggesting would be great, but I don't see that happening. They have tremendous leverage even if only 40% of the people are watching those channels. If a provider doesn't have ESPN, they are going to lose massive numbers of subscribers. Because of the leverage of ESPN, they are going to demand 85% to 90% penetration, so the mini-bundle idea is dead before it gets off the ground.
But the providers will probably find a different solution."pdxBeav" said:I mostly agree with all your points. The only way it's going to happen is when enough people stop paying for it.