Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Intel to Offer A La Cart?


  • Please log in to reply
458 replies to this topic

#41 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:34 PM

Foolish to think this is not going to happen.

Two keys reasons:

1. HD cameras are now dirt cheap, can be hand held and produce stunning HD/Movie quality video. This is going to be the un-doing of Hollywood's control and they know it. Anyone can now produce a movie or tv show on the cheap and distribute it without Hollywood's blessing. Content is dirt cheap and getting cheaper.

2. Pure economics. TV is an elastic product. This means if the price of coke increases to a certain level people will buy a substitute. If no substitute exists they will stop drinking soda. Don't be fooled, at a certain price people will stop watching tv and find an alternative which includes torrents. To think otherwise means you don't understand economics or read history.

Look at google fiber, this is the first shot across the bow of the content providers but they had no choice but to work with google. Why? Google could produce 10 tv shows without anyone ever noticing a blip on their balance sheet. Netflix is already going down this path.

Hollywood is losing control due to these cameras and that is the key here. Sat racer et al, you guys are kool aid drinkers. History is filled with markets being decimated. Half the dow companies from the 1980's are gone. Just a few years ago it was sears then walmart now amazon is killing them all. Some comedy writer is now sticking it to the shaving industry to the point they lowered prices and are now fighting back via commercials. I can go and on and on and on. Content providers are no longer immune from market disruption due to these cameras.

Kid, you're on a roll. Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it never does.
Lou Mannheim:


That's not how the Walmart and Amazon P&L sheets tell the story. Your comment about Sears might be accurate, but not Walmart. Amazon.com in no way is killing Walmart. Walmart posted a $27 Billion profit in 2012. Capital B. Amazon on the other hand lost 60 cents a share in Q3. Amazon isn't even in the same league as Walmart. They are Northern Illinois to Walmart's Alabama.

Hollywood is not losing control. The companies that own the networks report record profits. How is that losing control?

I think you under estimate the cost to produce programming. How much does something like Game of Thrones cost to produce? Google says $60M dollars for the first season. Even for Google, that's a lot of cash to risk on something that might fail.

Tech history is also not on your side re your comment about HD cameras being cheap... Just because a camera is cheap doesn't mean that people who know how film, direct, edit, write and act are. This is the same argument that anti-luddites made when YouTube came out, and when Amazon started selling independently authored books, and when Apple made it easy for any garage band in America to "professionally" record their own music and release it through iTunes. And to this day - truly professionally produced content from the major publishers and record lables still dominates. And YouTube is nothing more than a gathering place for people to watch the latest oddity - i.e Gangnum Style. History is not on your side.

Edited by tulanejosh, 03 January 2013 - 06:53 PM.


...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#42 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:37 PM

The question is whether or not channels that are supposedly documentary in charter should be concentrating on documenting such things as whack job individuals and messed up relationships without a balancing exploration of successful people and surprisingly successful collaborations. [See more at Only In America].

Why show countless hours of spectacularly destructive fighting that obviously isn't worth saving when there are so many important persons and concepts that need to be placed prominently in the public eye?

While I'm at it, family TV is no place for professional wrestling much less ultimate fighting.


Furthermore, google fiber was an experiment to show other companies that Gigabit Fiber buildouts can be done profitably and that remains to be seen. Google is not building out the entire nation.

#43 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 03 January 2013 - 06:39 PM

The question is whether or not channels that are supposedly documentary in charter should be concentrating on documenting such things as whack job individuals and messed up relationships without a balancing exploration of successful people and surprisingly successful collaborations. [See more at Only In America].

Why show countless hours of spectacularly destructive fighting that obviously isn't worth saving when there are so many important persons and concepts that need to be placed prominently in the public eye?

While I'm at it, family TV is no place for professional wrestling much less ultimate fighting.


That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But this is about business, and businesses serve up what the public demands. If they public demanded more Downton Abby, it would be blasted on network television instead of quarantined on PBS. But instead, the public demands Honey Boo Boo and WWE. It's not the studios or distributors responsibility to instill their cultural values on the rest of the nation.

#44 OFFLINE   saleen351

saleen351

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 478 posts
Joined: Mar 28, 2006

Posted 04 January 2013 - 11:14 AM

That's not how the Walmart and Amazon P&L sheets tell the story. Your comment about Sears might be accurate, but not Walmart. Amazon.com in no way is killing Walmart. Walmart posted a $27 Billion profit in 2012. Capital B. Amazon on the other hand lost 60 cents a share in Q3. Amazon isn't even in the same league as Walmart. They are Northern Illinois to Walmart's Alabama.

Hollywood is not losing control. The companies that own the networks report record profits. How is that losing control?

I think you under estimate the cost to produce programming. How much does something like Game of Thrones cost to produce? Google says $60M dollars for the first season. Even for Google, that's a lot of cash to risk on something that might fail.

Tech history is also not on your side re your comment about HD cameras being cheap... Just because a camera is cheap doesn't mean that people who know how film, direct, edit, write and act are. This is the same argument that anti-luddites made when YouTube came out, and when Amazon started selling independently authored books, and when Apple made it easy for any garage band in America to "professionally" record their own music and release it through iTunes. And to this day - truly professionally produced content from the major publishers and record lables still dominates. And YouTube is nothing more than a gathering place for people to watch the latest oddity - i.e Gangnum Style. History is not on your side.


You can't correlate current profits to a nascent paradigm shift in the market. Example Amazon's profits are lower due to their prime program and their new expansion to offer same day delivery which will cause Walmart huge headaches in the future.

I'm looking at the long term trend and it's not favorable to content producers.

Napoleon Dynamite was filmed for less than 500k, it grossed 46m and that doesn't include TV, DVD etc.

Clerks was filmed using Kevin's credit cards for 27k, did 3m in the theaters but had a cult following on DVD.

These were 1994 and 2004, imagine what they could do with today's technology.

Just check out the numbers on Roger and Me.

I work in the tech startup world, you should see the wacky companies who get funded. Now you can raise money and shoot films for practically nothing. More and more of these films will hit it big and guys like Mark Cuban will be right in the middle of it. (he owns a chain of movie theaters.)

Hollywood is on the run, there was a great article a few weeks back in one of the financial papers (I'll try and dig it up) about how they are running scared. I look at my own friends who shoot video for famous djs, you'd think major Hollywood studios are producing these, but it's just a guy with one single 7k camera. (Red Camera) Some of them are now filming commercials here locally. My other buddy shoots these funny videos for his night club and posts them on youtube, they feature celebs and even a famous director, all done with one cheap hd camera, one writer in an afternoon. (These are espn spoofs and get millions of hits) 5 years ago this was impossible. My other friends worked on the Jersey Shore show, this show did not have a huge buget, a crew of about 30 people, a few tiny cameras and mac books.

#45 OFFLINE   Hoosier205

Hoosier205

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,596 posts
Joined: Sep 03, 2007

Posted 04 January 2013 - 11:46 AM

You can't correlate current profits to a nascent paradigm shift in the market. Example Amazon's profits are lower due to their prime program and their new expansion to offer same day delivery which will cause Walmart huge headaches in the future.

I'm looking at the long term trend and it's not favorable to content producers.

Napoleon Dynamite was filmed for less than 500k, it grossed 46m and that doesn't include TV, DVD etc.

Clerks was filmed using Kevin's credit cards for 27k, did 3m in the theaters but had a cult following on DVD.

These were 1994 and 2004, imagine what they could do with today's technology.

Just check out the numbers on Roger and Me.

I work in the tech startup world, you should see the wacky companies who get funded. Now you can raise money and shoot films for practically nothing. More and more of these films will hit it big and guys like Mark Cuban will be right in the middle of it. (he owns a chain of movie theaters.)

Hollywood is on the run, there was a great article a few weeks back in one of the financial papers (I'll try and dig it up) about how they are running scared. I look at my own friends who shoot video for famous djs, you'd think major Hollywood studios are producing these, but it's just a guy with one single 7k camera. (Red Camera) Some of them are now filming commercials here locally. My other buddy shoots these funny videos for his night club and posts them on youtube, they feature celebs and even a famous director, all done with one cheap hd camera, one writer in an afternoon. (These are espn spoofs and get millions of hits) 5 years ago this was impossible. My other friends worked on the Jersey Shore show, this show did not have a huge buget, a crew of about 30 people, a few tiny cameras and mac books.


...and what does any of this have to do with Google Fiber?
DTV = Digital Television

#46 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:47 PM

You can't correlate current profits to a nascent paradigm shift in the market. Example Amazon's profits are lower due to their prime program and their new expansion to offer same day delivery which will cause Walmart huge headaches in the future.

I'm looking at the long term trend and it's not favorable to content producers.

Napoleon Dynamite was filmed for less than 500k, it grossed 46m and that doesn't include TV, DVD etc.

Clerks was filmed using Kevin's credit cards for 27k, did 3m in the theaters but had a cult following on DVD.

These were 1994 and 2004, imagine what they could do with today's technology.

Just check out the numbers on Roger and Me.

I work in the tech startup world, you should see the wacky companies who get funded. Now you can raise money and shoot films for practically nothing. More and more of these films will hit it big and guys like Mark Cuban will be right in the middle of it. (he owns a chain of movie theaters.)

Hollywood is on the run, there was a great article a few weeks back in one of the financial papers (I'll try and dig it up) about how they are running scared. I look at my own friends who shoot video for famous djs, you'd think major Hollywood studios are producing these, but it's just a guy with one single 7k camera. (Red Camera) Some of them are now filming commercials here locally. My other buddy shoots these funny videos for his night club and posts them on youtube, they feature celebs and even a famous director, all done with one cheap hd camera, one writer in an afternoon. (These are espn spoofs and get millions of hits) 5 years ago this was impossible. My other friends worked on the Jersey Shore show, this show did not have a huge buget, a crew of about 30 people, a few tiny cameras and mac books.


Sure i can correlate it. Businesses only existing to make money. I dont care what industry it is - if it can't turn a profit after a certain period of time, it goes away. Amazon has struggled from day 1 to turn a profit. They have these crazy idea about buying market share.... Well, let me tell ya, they are still a long long way off from grabbing the kind of market share that Walmart has. If you don't want to talk profit, look at revenue ($450B vs $48B).

That's all great that your freinds are using cheap equipment to make small time videos (no disrespect intended). But videos for DJs that most of america has never heard of and doesn't care about, local commercials, and youtube videos doesn't exactly translate into a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry. YouTube and ESPN video clips have been around for quite a while (at least in tech terms) and they have failed to be disruptive to the traditional model. Clerks and ND might be indie, cult favorites, but on their best day they never garnered the attention of an Avatar or even a John Carter. Think about that. John Carter, a universally labeled flop and a horrible 2 hours of film if ever there was, grossed nearly 8x more than ND. Why? Well - my belief is that independent movies and art house cinema just don't garner the maintstream's interest. And independents such as your friends just don't have the financial backing to produce something like Avatar. Or John Carter. A music video is a far cry from a full length feature film or even 60 minutes of well produced television. And again - no dispresect - they'll never get the backing to produce something like Avatar. or John Carter. Or Game of Thrones. without a business model that provides some reasonable degree of certainty of financial success.

Edited by tulanejosh, 04 January 2013 - 12:53 PM.


#47 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,032 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:54 PM

Foolish to think this is not going to happen.

Two keys reasons:

1. HD cameras are now dirt cheap, can be hand held and produce stunning HD/Movie quality video. This is going to be the un-doing of Hollywood's control and they know it. Anyone can now produce a movie or tv show on the cheap and distribute it without Hollywood's blessing. Content is dirt cheap and getting cheaper.

2. Pure economics. TV is an elastic product. This means if the price of coke increases to a certain level people will buy a substitute. If no substitute exists they will stop drinking soda. Don't be fooled, at a certain price people will stop watching tv and find an alternative which includes torrents. To think otherwise means you don't understand economics or read history.

Look at google fiber, this is the first shot across the bow of the content providers but they had no choice but to work with google. Why? Google could produce 10 tv shows without anyone ever noticing a blip on their balance sheet. Netflix is already going down this path.

Hollywood is losing control due to these cameras and that is the key here. Sat racer et al, you guys are kool aid drinkers. History is filled with markets being decimated. Half the dow companies from the 1980's are gone. Just a few years ago it was sears then walmart now amazon is killing them all. Some comedy writer is now sticking it to the shaving industry to the point they lowered prices and are now fighting back via commercials. I can go and on and on and on. Content providers are no longer immune from market disruption due to these cameras.

Kid, you're on a roll. Enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it never does.
Lou Mannheim:


Explain the HD camera thing to me. It seems to me we've had channels with amateurs running around with HD and SD cameras creating content....Current TV, You Tube, etc.

My guess is most consumers want professionally done content, with professional actors and hosts...those people do not come cheap, nor do their production units.

I'm all ears, but I'd like you to expand on this because I don't see where people are leaping to purchase content that is not attractive to watch, let alone throw dollars at to consume.
DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#48 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:57 PM

...and what does any of this have to do with Google Fiber?


Not directed at you... but whoever brought google fiber up really misses the point on what Google is trying to do with that experiment. Google really wants America to have gigabit internet. It wants its ISP partners to invest in it. Google is trying to show then that it can be done profitably, but Google itself has no intention of embarking on a national fiber build out. While they might have $72B in assets on hand, that's not where close to what it would cost to build something like google fiber out nationally. Verizon and ATT are much much larger companies than Google and have way more cash on hand, and even they are hesitating at the cost of build out.

#49 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,032 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:06 PM

Napoleon Dynamite was filmed for less than 500k, it grossed 46m and that doesn't include TV, DVD etc.

Clerks was filmed using Kevin's credit cards for 27k, did 3m in the theaters but had a cult following on DVD.

These were 1994 and 2004, imagine what they could do with today's technology.

Just check out the numbers on Roger and Me.


I'm a big fan of some of those films. Those are the exceptions, not the rule.

At the end of the day, you need distribution. There have been independent films around since time began. With new technology, new distribution, I have no doubt that distribution will expand in terms of availability. Now, does that translate into eyeballs? Hmm, not so sure. Very fractured world out there in media, getting eyeballs is tough. Takes marketing muscle, PR, etc. Something indie films and people running around with HD cameras typically don't have.

As far as me being a Kool Aid drinker, well I believe I am someone that is grounded in facts and not emotion. I have no doubt things will change because that's what happens pretty much in all walks of life. The pace of change is something that we can all debate. The adoption and success of those changes is ripe with further debate.

Happy New Year
DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#50 OFFLINE   HinterXGames

HinterXGames

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 313 posts
Joined: Dec 20, 2012

Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:53 PM

This would be a great start.


Part of the problem not discussed too, is that, I believe, some content providers now require a certain portion of their programming be sent to a percentage of a companies customer base, or penetration rate.
--
Maybe Satracer can confirm this, but I believe I read in another post that the penetration requirement for ESPN is something ungodly, in the 90%'s, which is why you only see one package without it, the Family package 29.99.
--
It would also explain why some packages include certain channels above others. I"m pretty sure package bundling isn't just one thing, but a multitude of things. Providers also have to go through the 'bundle hell' with networks.
--
DTV could tell Disney we just want your main Disney channel and they will so, no, to get it you have to take A, B, C and D. You get the picture.

#51 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:56 PM

Part of the problem not discussed too, is that, I believe, some content providers now require a certain portion of their programming be sent to a percentage of a companies customer base, or penetration rate.
--
Maybe Satracer can confirm this, but I believe I read in another post that the penetration requirement for ESPN is something ungodly, in the 90%'s, which is why you only see one package without it, the Family package 29.99.
--
It would also explain why some packages include certain channels above others. I"m pretty sure package bundling isn't just one thing, but a multitude of things. Providers also have to go through the 'bundle hell' with networks.
--
DTV could tell Disney we just want your main Disney channel and they will so, no, to get it you have to take A, B, C and D. You get the picture.


But but... they'll just have to change that because that's what i want them to do!:nono2:

#52 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 567 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:41 PM

That's all great that your freinds are using cheap equipment to make small time videos (no disrespect intended). But videos for DJs that most of america has never heard of and doesn't care about, local commercials, and youtube videos doesn't exactly translate into a multi-billion dollar entertainment industry. YouTube and ESPN video clips have been around for quite a while (at least in tech terms) and they have failed to be disruptive to the traditional model. Clerks and ND might be indie, cult favorites, but on their best day they never garnered the attention of an Avatar or even a John Carter. Think about that. John Carter, a universally labeled flop and a horrible 2 hours of film if ever there was, grossed nearly 8x more than ND. Why? Well - my belief is that independent movies and art house cinema just don't garner the maintstream's interest. And independents such as your friends just don't have the financial backing to produce something like Avatar. Or John Carter. A music video is a far cry from a full length feature film or even 60 minutes of well produced television. And again - no dispresect - they'll never get the backing to produce something like Avatar. or John Carter. Or Game of Thrones. without a business model that provides some reasonable degree of certainty of financial success.


I agree with you that quality can't be ignored nor the need to generate profit.

But Avatar is interesting in the context of cable/sat. It was so successful (box office, Blu-Ray/DVD) that it didn't need either. You can buy it from iTunes or Vudu and probably others. I imagine at some point it will be rentable this way too.

It is arguably the only really successful 3D movie. It single-handedly started the 3D TV wave.

What if it wasn't available on cable/sat but only on the internet? That could change the paradigm quickly. I'm sure these movie companies have no problem with cable/sat as it's just another delivery path along a long chain and why pass up a buck? But if the paradigm changes I'm pretty certain they could care less. George Lucas and Cameron have enough clout to do anything they want.

So I'm thinking big movies are the least impacted by cable/sat.

Then take just about anything on SyFy. We always imagine greater... and never get it. Most of the movies they create look like they were filmed by a community college film class. Looks to me like a few decent cameras and Macs and a little skill is all it took. Obviously didn't spend any money on special effects, sets/location, story, or actors.

Surprisingly there are some really good things being made by the pay-movie channels. Game of Thrones, Dexter, Strike Back, True Blood, Homeland, Borgias. All of these could easily make it on their own A La Cart. Only thing preventing it is that the non-cable/sat distributions are one or more seasons behind. I don't think any of them are all that closely bonded to the network that carries them - except for contracts, etc. The creative people behind those will likely go on to create new series that are associated with different distributors.

The opinion in my house is that all the good stuff could easily be prosperous independent of any broadcast method. We would gladly pay for them directly and drop sat.

There is a set of programs we watch that are good enough to watch but not good enough to pay much for - and we find that just about all of them are OTA.

In our view it wouldn't take much to push the paradigm switch in our house. If Apple or Intel or anybody does it right then we're sold.

#53 OFFLINE   pdxBeav

pdxBeav

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 390 posts
Joined: Jul 05, 2007

Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:56 PM

Part of the problem not discussed too, is that, I believe, some content providers now require a certain portion of their programming be sent to a percentage of a companies customer base, or penetration rate.
--
Maybe Satracer can confirm this, but I believe I read in another post that the penetration requirement for ESPN is something ungodly, in the 90%'s, which is why you only see one package without it, the Family package 29.99.
--
It would also explain why some packages include certain channels above others. I"m pretty sure package bundling isn't just one thing, but a multitude of things. Providers also have to go through the 'bundle hell' with networks.
--
DTV could tell Disney we just want your main Disney channel and they will so, no, to get it you have to take A, B, C and D. You get the picture.


Yep, and that's why the current model won't be changed easily. ESPN has no problem over-bidding for TV rights to all the sports leagues because they'll just pass on the costs to ALL cable/sat subscribers. There is a limit, but it hasn't been reached yet.

#54 OFFLINE   tonyd79

tonyd79

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 12,292 posts
  • LocationColumbia, MD
Joined: Jul 24, 2006

Posted 04 January 2013 - 04:00 PM

Surprisingly there are some really good things being made by the pay-movie channels. Game of Thrones, Dexter, Strike Back, True Blood, Homeland, Borgias. All of these could easily make it on their own A La Cart. Only thing preventing it is that the non-cable/sat distributions are one or more seasons behind. I don't think any of them are all that closely bonded to the network that carries them - except for contracts, etc. The creative people behind those will likely go on to create new series that are associated with different distributors.

The opinion in my house is that all the good stuff could easily be prosperous independent of any broadcast method. We would gladly pay for them directly and drop sat.

There is a set of programs we watch that are good enough to watch but not good enough to pay much for - and we find that just about all of them are OTA.


The problem is that you know of this good stuff because of the current distribution system. And they largely exist because it is a good bet. Take Game of Thrones. While a successful sci-fi book, HBO went for it as an expensive endeavor (and it would pale horribly if it were done on the cheap) because they knew they had the distribution mechanism for it. And it got lots of eyeballs because it was on HBO. Do you really think it would have been anything near the phenom it was/is without an HBO behind it. Heck, a lot of people just watch the new HBO series because it is HBO and they have a track record. Meanwhile, HBO knows it will get return on investment and kicks the quality ante up, which, in turn, makes the show more popular.

Now, tell me who was going to invest in a long run, quality version of Game of Thrones without any sure distribution mechanism?

Then you quote OTA programming as a staple at your house? Wow. That is exactly the distribution mechanism we are talking about. This nonsense about a la carte is because of a handful of expensive channels. No one really cares about the nickel and dime channels. Those make your bill pretty much nothing. It is all about ESPN and other sports greed. But kill the whole thing and go a la carte or a la programme and you are killing the whole system, including OTA, which is the biggest bargain out there.
LR: HR34-700, H24-200, Fios DVR, BD350 Blu Ray, Roku Netflix Player, Chromecast, Sony 65w850 TV
BR: HR21-200, Viso 32LX, DB350 Blu Ray
Dish: Slimline, SWM8
Other: genieGo

#55 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 04 January 2013 - 04:43 PM

I agree with you that quality can't be ignored nor the need to generate profit.

But Avatar is interesting in the context of cable/sat. It was so successful (box office, Blu-Ray/DVD) that it didn't need either. You can buy it from iTunes or Vudu and probably others. I imagine at some point it will be rentable this way too.

It is arguably the only really successful 3D movie. It single-handedly started the 3D TV wave.

What if it wasn't available on cable/sat but only on the internet? That could change the paradigm quickly. I'm sure these movie companies have no problem with cable/sat as it's just another delivery path along a long chain and why pass up a buck? But if the paradigm changes I'm pretty certain they could care less. George Lucas and Cameron have enough clout to do anything they want.

So I'm thinking big movies are the least impacted by cable/sat.

Then take just about anything on SyFy. We always imagine greater... and never get it. Most of the movies they create look like they were filmed by a community college film class. Looks to me like a few decent cameras and Macs and a little skill is all it took. Obviously didn't spend any money on special effects, sets/location, story, or actors.

Surprisingly there are some really good things being made by the pay-movie channels. Game of Thrones, Dexter, Strike Back, True Blood, Homeland, Borgias. All of these could easily make it on their own A La Cart. Only thing preventing it is that the non-cable/sat distributions are one or more seasons behind. I don't think any of them are all that closely bonded to the network that carries them - except for contracts, etc. The creative people behind those will likely go on to create new series that are associated with different distributors.

The opinion in my house is that all the good stuff could easily be prosperous independent of any broadcast method. We would gladly pay for them directly and drop sat.

There is a set of programs we watch that are good enough to watch but not good enough to pay much for - and we find that just about all of them are OTA.

In our view it wouldn't take much to push the paradigm switch in our house. If Apple or Intel or anybody does it right then we're sold.


Don't read too much into my reference of Avatar. It could be any large big budget movie that generates hundreds of millions of dollars.... Dark Knight Rises, Battleship, John Carter. My point is that independent film makers with a laptop and a cheap HD camera do not have the ability - regardless of how talented they may or may not be - to produce content on par with the quality of some of Hollywood's larger productions. You only get that ability with companies with deep pockets behind you, and those companies are not going to back a horse that's distribution model doesn't gaurantee them maximum return. And for better or worse - that's not a guy whose plan is to put it on YouTube. A

You are correct that something like huge budget movies being available on the internet "could" change the paradigm. But none of your a la carte advocates have yet made the case as to why Cameron or Lucas or Warner Bros should even try. Right now, on the one hand, you have a license to print money that you know works. On the other, you have a ton of risk and a billion dollar property that you are taking chances with. CEOs get fired for taking smaller risks than that. I'm sorry but you and Saleen just wanting it and promising it will work is simply not enough for large corporations to gamble that much on. To your point, it's just another distribution method so why should any of them care enough to lift a finger to change a paradigm?

You mention HBO. You say they could make it a la carte. Perhaps. Yet they choose to continue down the current path, restricting access to HBO GO to only customers who subscribe to linear channels. You think their management is just dumb? That they don't evaluate these things with armies of finance guys/gals that determine that their best opportunity to maximize rev/profit is to continue down this model? It's not about "making" it. It's about killing it and swimming in Scrooge McDuck pools of money. And if they leave even $1 on the table, it's not acceptable. This is how every large business in the world is run. It's just a fact.

The only thing that's really going to shift the paradigm is consumer cutting the cord in mass. And to date - that just hasn't happened. And i don't really see it happening. This is a chicken and egg situation. People won't change until they are assured of the content they way on the big screen, and companies won't put it there until there's enough of an audience to make the same or better. Stalemate.

Edited by tulanejosh, 04 January 2013 - 05:39 PM.


#56 OFFLINE   Sanderson K.

Sanderson K.

    Duplicate User (Account Closed)

  • Banned User
  • 9 posts
Joined: Jan 04, 2013

Posted 04 January 2013 - 05:56 PM

Not directed at you... but whoever brought google fiber up really misses the point on what Google is trying to do with that experiment. Google really wants America to have gigabit internet. It wants its ISP partners to invest in it. Google is trying to show then that it can be done profitably, but Google itself has no intention of embarking on a national fiber build out. While they might have $72B in assets on hand, that's not where close to what it would cost to build something like google fiber out nationally. Verizon and ATT are much much larger companies than Google and have way more cash on hand, and even they are hesitating at the cost of build out.


Funny since Google isn't even publicly sure what its plans for fiber are yet.

http://www.businessi...e-fiber-2012-12
http://www.dslreport...sas-City-120809

And its believed that Verizon may have halted roll out of FiOS due to a deal with Comcast.

http://www.dslreport...-is-Over-118949

#57 OFFLINE   tulanejosh

tulanejosh

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 425 posts
Joined: May 23, 2008

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:31 PM

Funny since Google isn't even publicly sure what its plans for fiber are yet.

http://www.businessi...e-fiber-2012-12
http://www.dslreport...sas-City-120809

And its believed that Verizon may have halted roll out of FiOS due to a deal with Comcast.

http://www.dslreport...-is-Over-118949


You do the math... $72B in assets vs $140B to cover nationally.

#58 OFFLINE   jessshaun

jessshaun

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 158 posts
Joined: Sep 13, 2005

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:58 PM

Someone will eventually do it, I just know it, but perhaps a better solution than ala-cart would be programming bundles.... a "family" tier, a "movie" tier, a "sport" tier, that sorta thing... don't say it can't be done, because that's how my local cable company bundles their digital networks. THAT I truly think could work, but individual channels? no. it wouldn't.

#59 OFFLINE   Satelliteracer

Satelliteracer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 3,032 posts
Joined: Dec 06, 2006

Posted 04 January 2013 - 07:30 PM

Someone will eventually do it, I just know it, but perhaps a better solution than ala-cart would be programming bundles.... a "family" tier, a "movie" tier, a "sport" tier, that sorta thing... don't say it can't be done, because that's how my local cable company bundles their digital networks. THAT I truly think could work, but individual channels? no. it wouldn't.


From a technology perspective, absolutely. From a business perspective...will ESPN let themselves be contained in a sports only tier? Will CNN and FOX be contained in a news tier? What about a channel that does movies and family and something else? I don't know. Hard to see how that works.
DIRECTV employee

All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#60 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,159 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:08 AM

From a technology perspective, absolutely. From a business perspective...will ESPN let themselves be contained in a sports only tier? Will CNN and FOX be contained in a news tier? What about a channel that does movies and family and something else? I don't know. Hard to see how that works.


Why not have a entertainment + package with no sports and no EPSN but all the other channels in the higher level packs?

or a BIG sports pack with espn / rsn's / golf / nbc sports / nfl / ect....

A big sports pack is still basic like but it's can be different then a sports tier.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.




spam firewall