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
With FOX about to compete with ESPN as they launch their FOX Sports One network, I only see prices going up. They need content so they will overbid to get it. They are offering $500 million right now for the Catholic schools that are breaking off from the Big East. Crazy.tonyd79 said:But the providers will probably find a different solution.
Yes, prices are going up, but the real bone of contention is the price of sports. The rest is livable. You may see an adjustment in sports tiers or a consolidation (heck Fox is already buying its way to merging split markets) that could make prices insane or calm down. Right now, the splintering is the biggest problem. Look at the LA market. Throw in PAC 12 with that and you almost have a channel per team. Drives the cost to the consumer up.
That is where the bubble is. None of the hoopla about a la carte is about TVLand. It is espn and the RSNs. And maybe Fox."Satelliteracer" said:With FOX about to compete with ESPN as they launch their FOX Sports One network, I only see prices going up. They need content so they will overbid to get it. They are offering $500 million right now for the Catholic schools that are breaking off from the Big East. Crazy.
The bone of contention is the placement of sports. The fallout will be that they will continue to cost more and the providers will eventually have to take some of the burden off the subscribers that don't live or die by sports and make the subscribers that cost the most pay their fair share rather than continuing to subsidize them and their many receivers. For DIRECTV and their old business model, this would have been a catastrophe.tonyd79 said:Yes, prices are going up, but the real bone of contention is the price of sports.
what about a sports only pack + say the big channels like tnt / tbs that some time show big sports events.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.
Cost to the customer is only one part of the equation. Customers might gripe, but if they only gripe that's not going to change anything. And model isn't going to change until they do more than gripe. And they won't do more than gripe until theres alternative content sources and there won't be alternative continent sources until they do more than gripe. Circular. Chicken and egg."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.
The article actually covers ages below 35, not 25. Is 25-35 not prime job/kids age?tulanejosh said: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.
Exactly. That's why I said it won't change until customers stop paying for content. The only thing that will change the current model is when the $$$ stop flowing to the programmers.tulanejosh said:Cost to the customer is only one part of the equation. Customers might gripe, but if they only gripe that's not going to change anything. And model isn't going to change until they do more than gripe. And they won't do more than gripe until theres alternative content sources and there won't be alternative continent sources until they do more than gripe. Circular. Chicken and egg.
That's what they used to say about the old model too. Who got most the $? The distributors and retailers.tulanejosh said: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.
That's what happens to the loser in a competitive market. If CD profit was the only reason BB spent that floor space you can bet CDs would be gone - they help get bodies into the store. It won't be long until CD/DVD/BluRay is gone from BB.Satelliteracer said:By the way, ever wonder why it's cheaper to go to Best Buy and purchase the entire CD album yet that same album on iTUNES costs more. Hmm. Despite there being no case to create, no CD to create, etc...yet it's still cheaper than the digital download.
Perhaps content creation costs too much. I suspect too many overpaid middleman. You don't see the big expensive actors in too many losers.Satelliteracer said: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.
Perhaps, but those "big expensive actors" were once small inexpensive actors that performed in programs of questionable quality but made an impression. A perfect example is the medical dramas St Elsewhere (which, among other then unknowns, featured a young Denzel Washington) and E.R. (which launched the careers of George Clooney and Juliana Margolies). Neither of those shows were sure fire hits (and while E.R. did very well, St. Elsewhere lasted 6 seasons, won a number of awards, but was never a huge hit).unixguru said:Perhaps content creation costs too much. I suspect too many overpaid middleman. You don't see the big expensive actors in too many losers...
Or they just stop producing the product because its no longer worth their time. How does that benefit anyone? I think your mistake is thinking that consumers have all the power. It would be nice if that were the case - but I don't personally believe that to be true. Your arguments are just a little too utopian for me."unixguru" said:That's what they used to say about the old model too. Who got most the $? The distributors and retailers.
If it weren't for people willing to pay for entertainment they wouldn't have a job. They create a product like anyone else and that product has a value - set by a complicated set of conflicting interests. When the consumer's view of the value changes then so be it. That's the way the world works.
This is all really just a microcosm of a much bigger problem with the entire economic system. The game is about prying as much money out of the consumer as is possible. If you can manipulate long enough you can build a system that sustains disproportionate reward. Rarely the "system" becomes so bloated and obvious that it fails under it's own abuses. Then they cry relentlessly when there is a challenge to their gravy train.
In a nutshell that is the root of all these discussions.
Not yet. Still on Premier. Held hostage by a few series we like on SHO/HBO/MAX. (Choice Extra + SHO/HBO/MAX is only ~$10/mo less than Premier.)tulanejosh said:Have you personally cut the cord?
Big difference between where the music industry was and where the video industry is. The music industry was getting decimated by piracy and was on life support when Apple came knocking. Video not anywhere near that shabby a state and has learned its lessons in minimizing it's piracy risks. I'll agree with you if that consumers start to move in mass, then the industry will shift. But not before then. And i see nothing in the tea leaves that suggests such a consumer shift is imminent.unixguru said:The REAL Death Of The Music Industry (iTunes was announced in January of 2001)
I'm certain all the same arguments were presented about the music paradigm in 2001.
Look how sweet the money was before 2001 (the small dip 2000-2001 about the same as 1996-1997).
If the "TV" industry wasn't rapidly putting out internet-oriented extensions to their services I might believe that there is no cliff ahead. Unlike the music industry they have the benefit of a historical lesson. No doubt that is why they resist supplying their content to Apple for example.
Note how the book industry may have saved themselves - not by fighting the trend but by making it their own. Apple does book sales yet nothing like the success of music. Amazon and B&N were there right at the start with their own devices and their own estore. There is no Windows in our house - we are almost all Macs (except for server) - yet my wife and son, both big readers, use B&N for books (iPad & Nook).
I suspect that the "TV" industry will eventually see the writing on the wall and will adapt themselves.
They are still in business. If they had followed the retail record store model they would have been gone years ago. They are not selling devices because people want iPads which also have a Nook app. They will probably go out of business. It's inevitable due to the retail stores.Diana C said:Barnes and Noble is a bad example of "success" in on-demand electronic delivery. They are struggling to make any money at all, let alone money selling Nooks and the associated eBooks.
I can agree that services like these (Channel Master TV, Vudu, etc) will be around and have a place for a certain type of niche customer. Where we disagree is just how big these alternative services are going to get, and why.unixguru said:Of course nearly everybody has different viewing habits. For many it will still make sense to stay with sat/cable. As prices continue to rise, and the average joe's income continues to not, more and more people are going to do these kinds of calculations.
It's not that we're too worried about the business's perspective, it's that many of us recognize that "the customer is always right" is an intensely outdated concept and doesn't pay enough attention to the wholistic view of why things are the way they are and how current realities influence future change.unixguru said:Success can come in many forms but I think people are too worried about the business-persons view of success.
I have no data on this but here is a thought to consider...tulanejosh said:From my perspective, if there was ever a time for people to do those cost/benefit calculations - it would have been during the last 3 or 4 years when much of this country was gripped by the worst economy in our lifetimes. But they didnt. You didn't see a massive shift from Pay TV to a cord cut model, a la carte model. In fact, what you saw - as i noted earlier - was a net subscriber increase for many companies - like Directv. If what you are saying is as true as you think it is, we should have seen the opposite. If customers aren't going to do those calculations at a time like that, what makes you think that they're going to do them when things are actually good again?
Actually, having been an engineer in a Fortune 500 software company, I can emphatically agree that "the customer is always right" is often very wrong. For the most part companies are tactical and that mentality rules. The end result is rushing to build products that customers think they want (or Product Managers believe they want) that are of low quality. It consumes an enormous amount of resources and produces little of value. Might make some customers happy in the short term but it never lasts. It takes away most investment in real innovation. (The stock value and revenue for that company have been flat for 7 years.) There are a few exceptions. Apple is one. Apple would not exist today if they followed that typical approach.tulanejosh said:It's not that we're too worried about the business's perspective, it's that many of us recognize that "the customer is always right" is an intensely outdated concept and doesn't pay enough attention to the wholistic view of why things are the way they are and how current realities influence future change.
I'm curious to see how they are going to get content onto the box... Using someone else's pipe is the most likely option (maybe in combination with an OTA antenna).unixguru said:http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=212819 (Intel confirms it's building an Internet TV service and box)
Not a la cart.
It will keep the lawyers in business. :lol:tulanejosh said:I see that as a dicey proposition. If it takes off and cablecos start to see that they are losing their video customers to it - say hello to restrictive data caps and goodbye to Intel's offering.
In many places - valid concern. Personally I have a DOCSIS 3.0 50 down / 5 up connection from Time Warner at my house. Im sure it would be able to handle it. But I'd think twice if TWC tried to re-introduce bandwidth caps in Austin like they did about 5 years go. And they were draconian - 50 GB limit.unixguru said:It will keep the lawyers in business. :lol:
While I realize it's vastly different in terms of data volume, one can get a dry DSL (no phone service) from the phone company and run VOIP over it.
One would expect that Intel will have to price it such that there is some compensation for higher internet service fees.
Should be interesting. If it takes off I think a bigger problem is cable internet technology being able to handle the load.