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
So you're suggesting that we should all just go back into our caves and plan on 4%+ a year increase forever for no increased value?Tom Robertson said:So now the story is the Internet will survive long enough for a major dent in the industry ripples back to the content providers?
What would happen is ESPN will still get its money. Dish, DIRECTV, comcast, etc. won't. They will feel the squeeze first. Then Intel will as it grows to a size that ESPN will start charging them more. (If they haven't all along.)
Every channel you like is being subsidized by others.unixguru;3183086 said:So you're suggesting that we should all just go back into our caves and plan on 4%+ a year increase forever for no increased value?
I don't care how ESPN gets their money. Maybe the consumers of it will actually flip the whole bill instead of being subsidized by those of us who don't use it. The day everyone starts subsidizing my premium channels we can talk.
Amazon and the like are middlemen. Their margins are much smaller and their breadth of product much wider. Not much more than wholesale + a tiny markup. Shipping is probably the biggest part.tonyd79 said:Best Buy gets replaced by another middle man. So what?
Obfuscation.Hoosier205 said:Every channel you like is being subsidized by others.
But linear distribution is actually the cheaper mechanism than heavily burdened Internet with large buildout costs and the need to develop a large caching infrastructure, etc. broadcast is cheaper. So, you example actually works against you position when viewed from cost.unixguru;3183097 said:Amazon and the like are middlemen. Their margins are much smaller and their breadth of product much wider. Not much more than wholesale + a tiny markup. Shipping is probably the biggest part.
The so what is that consumers pay a lot less money. The only downside is the delay in getting the product. It's extremely rare to see any product in BB that isn't much more expensive than online. When they start price-matching online then they are toast. BB is going to get taken out by the overhead of physical stores.
If the consumer electronics industry was like the TV industry then none of the manufacturers would sell to internet retailers. They would only sell to big box stores that could buy in large volume. Prices would be much higher - like they used to be. Manufacturers would make more money too. Why aren't things this way?
Blah blah TV distribution is totally different blah blah. Greed is universal. Things are getting ripe.
Based on my own, personal standard of television content value (your mileage may vary) I did see increased value from D* in 2012 and already in 2013. In addition to the national HD channels that were added in 2012 (someone else can provide the specific list if that is necessary) D* added my locals in HD. While I have a deep fringe antenna on a 20' mast on top of a 2 story home with a pre-amp and a rotor the D* supplied locals do come in more consistently (I'm in a wooded valley in a rural area). That in and of itself provided the value to offset the increase. And now in 2013 they've already added 8 HD channels, 6 that are in my tier.unixguru said:So you're suggesting that we should all just go back into our caves and plan on 4%+ a year increase forever for no increased value?
Agreed that the technology is cheaper and more efficient. In fact, it can be made much more so. Take what I've said about internet DVRs and apply to satellite. Imagine every unique show is pushed out over satellite 2 or 3 times - just for redundancy. Live stuff wouldn't change. What fraction of satellite equipment would be required to deliver the same content?tonyd79 said:But linear distribution is actually the cheaper mechanism than heavily burdened Internet with large buildout costs and the need to develop a large caching infrastructure, etc. broadcast is cheaper. So, you example actually works against you position when viewed from cost.
Are you sure? Do you have a valid trusted source that says that no portion of the cost of carrying premium channels is paid for by non-premium channel subscribers? Not once cent?unixguru said:Does a portion of every subscribers bill go to the premium channels? No.
You are missing the huge difference. Manufactured goods can be cranked out in an assembly line along with man power being replaced with automated machines or cheap outsourced labor. TV is not just distribution, those shows you enjoy require a cast and crew. Even things early in the development cycle cost money. For every Game of Thrones there's The Corrections. Even if a show never makes it to air or is cancelled after several episodes the people involved in making the pilot and all the unaired episodes still get paid. The iTunes's, Netflix's, Vudu's and Amazon Prime's don't get their content until after the development is done and they're a proven success on television or when it comes to the failures, if they're included as part of a bulk deal with someone like 20th Century Televison or Warner Bros.unixguru said:Blah blah TV distribution is totally different blah blah. Greed is universal. Things are getting ripe.
The revenue Turner generates from other networks like TNT and TBS are shared with CNN, which you mentioned you do watch. (Some money generated from HBO gets in the mix further up along the Time Warner line too)unixguru said:Obfuscation.
Does a portion of every subscribers bill go to the premium channels? No.
Nobody that knows the answer is going to say. (And no, I don't know.)James Long said:Are you sure? Do you have a valid trusted source that says that no portion of the cost of carrying premium channels is paid for by non-premium channel subscribers? Not once cent?
I am well aware of that. I continue to contend that I could pay more for the programs I watch that would provide the same level of funding for the shows I watch and cost me less overall.KyL416 said:You are missing the huge difference. Manufactured goods can be cranked out in an assembly line along with man power being replaced with automated machines or cheap outsourced labor. TV is not just distribution, those shows you enjoy require a cast and crew. Even things early in the development cycle cost money. For every Game of Thrones there's The Corrections. Even if a show never makes it to air or is cancelled after several episodes the people involved in making the pilot and all the unaired episodes still get paid.
We watch very little CNN and if it cost me $1/mo I wouldn't watch it at all. We never watch TNT or TBS. So there are some of the high-end wholesale costs involved in forced packages.KyL416 said:The revenue Turner generates from other networks like TNT and TBS are shared with CNN, which you mentioned you do watch.
I used to do engineering in a very large high-tech R&D company. Those products that come off those assembly lines also had a massive investment and risk to develop with no guarantee they would be successful.KyL416 said:You are missing the huge difference. Manufactured goods can be cranked out in an assembly line along with man power being replaced with automated machines or cheap outsourced labor. TV is not just distribution, those shows you enjoy require a cast and crew. Even things early in the development cycle cost money. For every Game of Thrones there's The Corrections. Even if a show never makes it to air or is cancelled after several episodes the people involved in making the pilot and all the unaired episodes still get paid.
I'm curious how much TV the average homes without a DVR watches.sigma1914 said:Over half the homes in America with TV don't have a DVR...so they're live viewers. Now, factor in those with a DVR who still watch live and the numbers increase. You make it seem like it's the norm when it's not.
http://rbr.com/dvr-penetration-raising-eyebrows/
So true. I find it amusing how some people think that the total cost associated with making a widget is the cost of the actual manufacturing process. This false belief is what leads people to erroneously think that the TV industry is somehow different than other industries. Because if the final product is something you can't touch then it must be magic! :lol:unixguru said:I used to do engineering in a very large high-tech R&D company. Those products that come off those assembly lines also had a massive investment and risk to develop with no guarantee they would be successful.
Ignorance is seldom amusing..... R+D, testing, QA are all part of the cost to get something out and into the market place, but after a few million units, those costs have been pretty well absorbed in the unit price.pdxBeav said:So true. I find it amusing how some people think that the total cost associated with making a widget is the cost of the actual manufacturing process. This false belief is what leads people to erroneously think that the TV industry is somehow different than other industries. Because if the final product is something you can't touch then it must be magic! :lol:
Manufacturing, with its associated R&D, engineering, marketing, etc. costs has absolutely nothing to compare with TV production and distribution. Ok, there are a few similarities. Marketing. The pitch.unixguru said:I used to do engineering in a very large high-tech R&D company. Those products that come off those assembly lines also had a massive investment and risk to develop with no guarantee they would be successful.
The cost of a typical "TV" show from pre-development to distribution is peanuts compared to the lifecycle cost of developing - and supporting - most technology products. Especially if you consider how technology builds upon prior technology over and over and over again. If you were to sum together the cost of all that development it would be shocking.
Do you think the creative process is any different for coming up with and evolving new technology products? It's actually much harder as there are far more details and real hard limits of physics, etc.
When you talk about manufacturing of technology products you are looking at the cheapest stage. Similar to distributing a TV program.
There is no reasonable argument that entertainment should be treated completely differently.
No difference. You can amortize the TV show over many thousands or millions of TV viewers watching each episode.Tom Robertson said:Manufacturing, with its associated R&D, engineering, marketing, etc. costs has absolutely nothing to compare with TV production and distribution. Ok, there are a few similarities. Marketing. The pitch.
After that, think about doing all the R&D and engineering necessary to develop and produce a new product EVERY week. Or every NIGHT! There is no economy of scale as there is in manufacturing. You can amortize all that R&D across many products, each with a manufacturing cycle of many thousands or millions of units to be sold.
Once TV production is done then the computer gets it and it's broadcast with little human knowledge worker required. Just people who are trained to make sure the broadcasts get transmitted hour after hour after hour.Tom Robertson said:TV is human intensive, just like the R&D and engineering portion of product development. But once the robots get it, there is very little human knowledge worker involvement. Sure, a few people on the assembly line, but no knowledge worker required. Just people who are patiently able to do the same thing again, and again, and again, and again, thousands of times a day.
I don't think anyone would argue that writing scripts is hard work, but so are most other jobs. Nobody has shown why it's harder or more challenging to produce TV content than other widgets.Tom Robertson said:Tell me you can product a whole new product 22 times a year. The script is empty. The page is blank every new week.
And every week CBS has to make 38 new products: 7 news products, 21 prime time products, plus 10 late nite products. Every one of them is brand new, 22 weeks out of the year. (Some 52 weeks.) Tell me how your R&D started with a blank page every week. There is no comparison.
Peace,
Tom
Excellent points.pdxBeav said:No difference. You can amortize the TV show over many thousands or millions of TV viewers watching each episode.
Once TV production is done then the computer gets it and it's broadcast with little human knowledge worker required. Just people who are trained to make sure the broadcasts get transmitted hour after hour after hour.
I don't think anyone would argue that writing scripts is hard work, but so are most other jobs. Nobody has shown why it's harder or more challenging to produce TV content than other widgets.
Live sports / live TV needs a lot more work.pdxBeav said:No difference. You can amortize the TV show over many thousands or millions of TV viewers watching each episode.
Once TV production is done then the computer gets it and it's broadcast with little human knowledge worker required. Just people who are trained to make sure the broadcasts get transmitted hour after hour after hour.
.
Depends on how widely you look. ESPN is part of Disney Media, which is part of the Walt Disney Company which owns Disney Studios. So the money from ESPN, at least in part, helps support the production of films that you see on the premium channels.unixguru said:Obfuscation.
Does a portion of every subscribers bill go to the premium channels? No.
Tom Robertson said:Manufacturing, with its associated R&D, engineering, marketing, etc. costs has absolutely nothing to compare with TV production and distribution. Ok, there are a few similarities. Marketing. The pitch.
After that, think about doing all the R&D and engineering necessary to develop and produce a new product EVERY week. Or every NIGHT! There is no economy of scale as there is in manufacturing. You can amortize all that R&D across many products, each with a manufacturing cycle of many thousands or millions of units to be sold.
TV is human intensive, just like the R&D and engineering portion of product development. But once the robots get it, there is very little human knowledge worker involvement. Sure, a few people on the assembly line, but no knowledge worker required. Just people who are patiently able to do the same thing again, and again, and again, and again, thousands of times a day.
Tell me you can product a whole new product 22 times a year. The script is empty. The page is blank every new week.
And every week CBS has to make 38 new products: 7 news products, 21 prime time products, plus 10 late nite products. Every one of them is brand new, 22 weeks out of the year. (Some 52 weeks.) Tell me how your R&D started with a blank page every week. There is no comparison.
You assume that it's a physical product. You assume that one is made and then everybody other than manufacturing and distributing is done and goes home.Tom Robertson said:Excellent points.
Yet...
Yes, easy to write a script. Seems like everyone writes one script or novel in their lifetime.
Hard to write a great script. One that would be a single episode of Big Bang Theory and garner millions in ad dollars. That is where it's tough.
Then the acting, directing, costumes, score, etc., etc. Every week.
Everyone can play football. Few can play well enough to be in the NFL.
Whereas manufacturing is about making millions of units.
Then the content should be free. You have said that the content is 40%+ of Premier subscription. And that doesn't make us a customer as well?Diana C said:Again I find myself going back to a point made many pages ago...all the comparisons to high tech manufacturing, supermarkets or even water buffaloes (that one made me giggle, thanks Hoosier) miss the most important salient point: we, the viewers, are not the real customers.
The TV industry (the producers, creative teams, actors, directors, makeup artists, camera people, etc.) all work to produce a product that we never buy. Rather, it is sold to advertisers. The car companies, the fast food chains, the perfume makers, the household cleaner manufacturers, THAT is the industry's customer. They are in the business of selling advertising time. The content they produce is previewed to the advertisers and, if they think it might attract viewers, they buy the advertising space within it. We are no more the customers of the content producers than the bees are the customer of the bee keeper.
The only influence we have is whether we watch a given program or not. If few people watch (if the bees don't colonize the hive) the network fails to deliver the promised "impressions" (no honey is produced) and the advertisers don't pay (no honey gets sold). The more households that receive a channel (the more hives that are built) the greater the chance someone in that household will watch the channel's show (the greater the chance bees will colonize a hive). That means that the only goal the network has for distribution is to insure that it can get into the greatest number of households.
At a high cost with little free market influence.Diana C said:Sure, we pay the MCOs to deliver all this programming, wrapped up in a nice service, with a program guide and all sorts of extra services,
Which also means ESPN helps put movies in the theaters. So what? By that logic, if I buy an HP computer I have helped support the production of Windows that you run. (Which I pay for even if I don't use Windows on it.)Diana C said:Depends on how widely you look. ESPN is part of Disney Media, which is part of the Walt Disney Company which owns Disney Studios. So the money from ESPN, at least in part, helps support the production of films that you see on the premium channels.
Replace entertainment with "software" and your statement holds as well. Still does nothing to justify anticompetitive business practices.Diana C said:From a commercial point of view, the larger entertainment industry is an overwhelming success. The US exports entertainment in vast quantities. Our films, music, TV shows, books and magazines are eagerly consumed by people all over the world. The wealth of entertainment options available to the average American is the envy of the world. When you compare what we have, and what it costs, to the options available elsewhere, you'll soon find that what we have is a relative bargain.
For completeness, I've merged that info into the spreadsheet.Diana C said:The only comprehensive list is from 2009 (http://allthingsd.com/20100308/hate-paying-for-cable-heres-the-reason-why/)...add 25% for a rough current estimate, or spend a lot of time searching for individual channels.