Apple WWDC 2014/iOS 8

[ChicosBailBonds]

Maybe I'm wrong but I think that's the point we're all making that Chico's misses.  Yes content development right now is very expensive and therefore the alternative delivery streams can't support it from a revenue standpoint.....however, there will be a time when the content will become cheaper and the alternative delivery methods will support, the same, if not better the content developers.

I don't think I'm missing that at all.  Show me how content is going to become cheaper AND of same quality?  Certainly not on the sports side and that bed has already been made through 2026 with the current contracts.  On the entertainment side, with the union power and Hollywood machine...well, dream big I guess.

Had a great meeting with two premium channels this morning on this, talking a lot about going direct to consumers.  Huge chicken and egg issue.  As one said, they are spending well over $100M on their current series, no way they could ever justify that expenditure without built in audience.  Cannot do it, not worth the risk.

I keep hearing how there is all this great, new content available for super cheap online.  But is it really?  Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves in terms of how great it is, furthermore how much accretive value it will truly provide.  It's like saying a guy in instructional ball is really good.  OK, at that level he's really good, but does that translate to anything further down the road?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not at all. I don't think you are getting my point.

Not to steal from Malcolm Gladwell, but there will be a tipping point. It may be next year or it may not be for 10 years, but it will happen. Once that is reached, whatever it will end up being, changes will happen fast. If and when people start leaving the cable companies in droves (as they quit buying CDs in droves), the cable companies and studios will team up and will take steps to maintain their revenue stream just as the record companies were forced to do. The contracts won't matter. Keeping the revenue flowing will.

Record companies said they couldn't change because they already were locked into contracts. But once the tipping point was reached (when people changed their CD buying habits because of what they learned from Napster), the old line about contracts didn't matter.

CD habits...again, you're talking delivery.  STOP TALKING ABOUT DELIVERY. And comparing the record companies again.  Good lord, how many times can the same bad analogy be made time after time.  JESUS

Yes, things could change in 10 years, there will be some changes, at the end of the day, the consumer is still going to pay.  My point is how many people that it was already dead, already done, done 2 years ago, 3 years ago, next year.  Just because you want it to be done, doesn't mean it will get done.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not an attack, but this essentially a blog, with zero sources.  How can you take this seriously?  C'mon man, you know you are better than this CBB.  Now read this.  http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022905775_seatacprop1xml.html

Surprise surprise, both positive and negative impacts.  Not everything is black and white.

Agree Reinko, not everything is black and white.  Though, usually when I see who implements these things, typically people with zero business acumen, they are dumbfounded when reality comes into play.

Look, prices have to go up in this situation.  Poor people that rely on cheaper food, they won't be able to buy as much.  People that want the hours, there will be cutbacks.  Some businesses will choose not to be in Seattle at all.  Overall, prices will go up across the board because the cost of doing business just went up considerably.  It's just basic math.

I am absolutely convinced that every person in this country should be mandated to take a few basic business courses because so many people just have no clue how the business world works.  In the end, the cost to live in Seattle will go higher, ultimately hurting the poor when this supposed magic wand was to help the poor.  Ironic.

[Lennys Tap]

I don't think I'm missing that at all.  Show me how content is going to become cheaper AND of same quality?  Certainly not on the sports side and that bed has already been made through 2026 with the current contracts.  On the entertainment side, with the union power and Hollywood machine...well, dream big I guess.

Had a great meeting with two premium channels this morning on this, talking a lot about going direct to consumers.  Huge chicken and egg issue.  As one said, they are spending well over $100M on their current series, no way they could ever justify that expenditure without built in audience.  Cannot do it, not worth the risk.

I keep hearing how there is all this great, new content available for super cheap online.  But is it really?  Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves in terms of how great it is, furthermore how much accretive value it will truly provide.  It's like saying a guy in instructional ball is really good.  OK, at that level he's really good, but does that translate to anything further down the road?

 I think guys like Louis CK and Jerry Seinfeld are established at a level above the instructional league.

[mu03eng]

I don't think I'm missing that at all.  Show me how content is going to become cheaper AND of same quality?  Certainly not on the sports side and that bed has already been made through 2026 with the current contracts.  On the entertainment side, with the union power and Hollywood machine...well, dream big I guess.

Amazon Prime and Netflix have created content for themselves.  Other folks can start created content as well.  Why does the quality have to be the same cost?  Are you saying a quality product couldn't be made cheaper?  Why would television programming not be subject to the same forces that govern all free markets?  I absolutely believe that technology has gotten to the point where a group of really smart, talented people could create a show like The Office, as a quality product and deliver it to an audience that will generate at least as much profit as a studio backed television show.  The pieces are available, just needs someone of vision to do it.  I think this is like when Bannister broke the 4 minute mile....3 people broke it within a month of him doing it I think.  Not because we suddenly got faster, but because we mentally knew we could do it.  Someone with vision will pull the pieces together to make it happen, everyone will see it and so will begin the creative destruction process as everyone joins in.  The bottom line is that there is FAR too much bloat in the television industry for it to not happen, just a matter of time.

I absolutely concede that sports changes the game significantly and I think that is the only real reason we haven't seen a change yet.  I think that's a lot of why the sports contracts have exploded, its the one way for the content delivery folks to stay in the game.  However, sports content will not be immune forever.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What about from a mirco level?

Right now, studios and networks are HUGE businesses that take advantages of economies of scale (infrastructure, staff, marketing, etc.).

But, what if you had talented people writing, directing and producing their own content? Now, ultimately, they are in control of their entire program.

Here is a specific example:
http://youtu.be/uSDR3w6-Kzw?t=4m18s

The guys from It's Always Sunny wrote, directed, and produced their own pilot.

Now, obviously, being on FX has helped them tremendously, but how long before another group of talented people figure out a way to create their own show and distribute it on the internet and it legitimately becomes popular? How long before a major player (google, apple, virgin, whatever) starts a mini-network of this type of content?

The barriers for entry have gotten a lot lower as the technology has gotten better.

In theory, talented people could just cut out the studio and network all together. It's what Louis CK has done with his stand-up, it's what Seinfeld has done with his web show. It's what Adam Carolla has done with his podcast.

You don't need huge ratings if your costs of production are 1/100 of what the other studios are doing. Plus, if the marketers can monetize that content, then you'll have something.

You're proving the point, all those guys, Carolla included, got big on the macro level first.  Its easy to monetize stuff in the area you are talking about when someone already has a built in name or reputation.  Quite the opposite coming the other way, and that's why the dollars for investment aren't there either.  Scale is everything.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You're proving the point, all those guys, Carolla included, got big on the macro level first.  Its easy to monetize stuff in the area you are talking about when someone already has a built in name or reputation.  Quite the opposite coming the other way, and that's why the dollars for investment aren't there either.  Scale is everything.

Just be honest, did you even click the link and watch the stuff about It's Always Sunny, or did you just respond so you could disagree with me?

Click the link and listen to what the guys are saying, and then think about what that actually means. They didn't need a studio. They didn't need a network. They needed distribution and revenue. That can be obtained through channels other than major networks. It's only a matter of time.

Seinfeld, Carolla, Louis CK are on the other end of the spectrum, but that's part of my point. If young, up-and-coming guys bypass the networks and go straight to consumers via web, and the older, well established guys bypass the traditional networks and distributors, that just leaves the middle guys for the networks.

And for the 100th time, NOBODY here has said television, or pay television are going to go away. But, the idea that the networks or content owners are in control of the evolution is silly and close minded.

We can rehash this thread in 2025 when "My Dad is a Vampire IT Guy" is a big hit on Google.TV.

[ChicosBailBonds]

If you go back and look at his posts, Chicos always sides with the rich and powerful. Not making a judgement, but that is just his viewpoint.

So he sees this issue in that context. The people in charge with money say they won't change, so it's not going to happen. But the technology has opened so may other options. I honestly believe the whole cable/studio influence would be blown up already if not for Sports programming. That is the one area, so far, that cannot be overcome by new technology. It is the ONLY reason I have cable and I would suspect that is also the case for millions of others.

With the online providers, there is no reason to spend $2000 a year on cable just to watch a few shows you like. Just wait a few months and use the cheaper options. But it doesn't work with Sports.

 

With all due respect, Brandx, I side with reality.   I side with both the business reality and that of the worker in this industry...that little guy, who demands to be paid for his work...the screenwriter, the camera operator, the copywriter, the key grip, etc.  You are painting way too broad a brush because you don't like the fact content costs money....athletes want to be paid, directors, producers, actors, writers, most of them on your side of the political aisle...those damn rich bastards only caring for themselves        want to be paid in an ultra competitive industry. 

The average consumer spends $1,032 a year, so you're off by double.  That's for 24/7 entertainment, news, sports, etc.  How much are people paying per year on their cell phone?  Their Lattes, etc?  Their internet provider?  Are you a season basketball ticket holder?  You must be furious that a good chunk of your dollars for MEN's basketball actually go to women's basketball, soccer, track, etc...you didn't choose that...you were told that money was for MEN's basketball. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

About those young, startup artists making money on music streaming....come again


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/business/media/free-music-at-least-while-it-lasts.html

[forgetful]

About those young, startup artists making money on music streaming....come again


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/business/media/free-music-at-least-while-it-lasts.html

I know some of those young startup artists and they all love the new system.  I actually read an article about how in a single generation they rewrote the book on how music is produced leading to more independent artists who can now make a living doing what they love.

The low cost of music production has always been present, but the high cost of distribution kept young creativity out of the market.  The streaming and youtube channels and other internet distribution methods has led to increased involvement, increased quality and greater diversity of choices.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I know some of those young startup artists and they all love the new system.  I actually read an article about how in a single generation they rewrote the book on how music is produced leading to more independent artists who can now make a living doing what they love.

The low cost of music production has always been present, but the high cost of distribution kept young creativity out of the market.  The streaming and youtube channels and other internet distribution methods has led to increased involvement, increased quality and greater diversity of choices.

Well apparently these guys aren't so happy.  At some point you want to be paid.  


"Many labels and the musicians and songwriters they work with say streaming outfits risk wiping them out by paying tiny royalties, but the people who make all that yummy music are actually being loved to death by fans who expect it to be free."

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Well apparently these guys aren't so happy.  At some point you want to be paid.  


"Many labels and the musicians and songwriters they work with say streaming outfits risk wiping them out by paying tiny royalties, but the people who make all that yummy music are actually being loved to death by fans who expect it to be free."

That's not new, I mean, there have been struggling musicians for as long as there has been music.

The new distribution model isn't going to make everybody rich, it simply provides a different opportunity for people to produce and distribute content.

And again, NOBODY in this thread has said the internet is magic and its going to make all content free for consumers and the content creators will magically make a lot of money. I apologize if we have given you that impression.

What everybody here has said (or implied) is that the delivery model of ALL CONTENT is changing. Music, books, news, radio, television, etc.

How consumers receive and intake content is drastically different today compared to just 10 years ago.

Now, as the delivery model continues to evolve, it's not just the content creators or providers that are in charge, that's short sighted.

Ultimately, consumer demand will determine how the model evolves, and IMHO, that demand will not only be met by "traditional" content providers (studios, cable, HBO, etc.), but also (as the cost of production go down) independent content providers (independent films & independent series, etc.).

How all of this is ultimately funded and paid for is actually up to the marketers. It's a bit of a throw-back, but more and more brands are paying to produce and sponsor specific/exclusive content, not unlike television in the 1950's. What's old is new again.

[brandx]

Ultimately, consumer demand will determine how the model evolves, and IMHO, that demand will not only be met by "traditional" content providers (studios, cable, HBO, etc.), but also (as the cost of production go down) independent content providers (independent films & independent series, etc.).

I've said this to Chicos at least a dozen times and he hasn't bought it, so I doubt if he will when you say it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Here I am caring about the musicians and their ability to make money.....I'm waiting for the "Chico only cares about the rich" diatribe to begin.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That's not new, I mean, there have been struggling musicians for as long as there has been music.

The new distribution model isn't going to make everybody rich, it simply provides a different opportunity for people to produce and distribute content.

And again, NOBODY in this thread has said the internet is magic and its going to make all content free for consumers and the content creators will magically make a lot of money. I apologize if we have given you that impression.

What everybody here has said (or implied) is that the delivery model of ALL CONTENT is changing. Music, books, news, radio, television, etc.

How consumers receive and intake content is drastically different today compared to just 10 years ago.

Now, as the delivery model continues to evolve, it's not just the content creators or providers that are in charge, that's short sighted.

Ultimately, consumer demand will determine how the model evolves, and IMHO, that demand will not only be met by "traditional" content providers (studios, cable, HBO, etc.), but also (as the cost of production go down) independent content providers (independent films & independent series, etc.).

How all of this is ultimately funded and paid for is actually up to the marketers. It's a bit of a throw-back, but more and more brands are paying to produce and sponsor specific/exclusive content, not unlike television in the 1950's. What's old is new again.

LOL....when is production going to go down on the tv side?  We're not talking about making a record, or a 5 minute You Tube video.  Production costs right now are SKYROCKETING because that is what people want...or as you say, what consumers demand.  Well known actors, exotic story lines and scenery, special effects, etc.  All cost lots of money and that's what people are paying for.  Stuff isn't free.....as musicians are finding out.

[mu03eng]

LOL....when is production going to go down on the tv side?  We're not talking about making a record, or a 5 minute You Tube video.  Production costs right now are SKYROCKETING because that is what people want...or as you say, what consumers demand.  Well known actors, exotic story lines and scenery, special effects, etc.  All cost lots of money and that's what people are paying for.  Stuff isn't free.....as musicians are finding out.

Key items highlighted....what people want and will pay for can, has, and will change.  Lower cost content might come into vogue and the model will change.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

LOL....when is production going to go down on the tv side?  We're not talking about making a record, or a 5 minute You Tube video.  Production costs right now are SKYROCKETING because that is what people want...or as you say, what consumers demand.  Well known actors, exotic story lines and scenery, special effects, etc.  All cost lots of money and that's what people are paying for.  Stuff isn't free.....as musicians are finding out.

Right, the Rolling Stones aren't free.

Again, I've NEVER said pay-content is going away. HBO will be around. ESPN will be around.

Do you think it's possible for somebody to create and distribute their own show outside of the traditional studio/network system?

http://youtu.be/uSDR3w6-Kzw?t=4m18s

[reinko]

LOL....when is production going to go down on the tv side?  We're not talking about making a record, or a 5 minute You Tube video.  Production costs right now are SKYROCKETING because that is what people want...or as you say, what consumers demand.  Well known actors, exotic story lines and scenery, special effects, etc.  All cost lots of money and that's what people are paying for.  Stuff isn't free.....as musicians are finding out.

You would know better than I, but isn't reality TV a lot cheaper to produce that sitcom TV?  Clearly the market is demanding a TON of reality-based TV, again you know would better than I, it makes up what, 30% of TV?

[ChicosBailBonds]

The most fascinating study on musician income, those that are "tech savvy" are making less than those that are.  Or as the article states, those that are trying to sell direct to consumers are making less than those that are going through traditional models. Why?  Pretty simple, scale and marketing and resources.  The very same reason why HBO and others haven't peeled away.  You can go it alone, or you can have a lot of huge companies spend a ton of money promoting and marketing you, bundling you, etc, to drive purchases.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

The most fascinating study on musician income, those that are "tech savvy" are making less than those that are.  Or as the article states, those that are trying to sell direct to consumers are making less than those that are going through traditional models. Why?  Pretty simple, scale and marketing and resources.  The very same reason why HBO and others haven't peeled away.  You can go it alone, or you can have a lot of huge companies spend a ton of money promoting and marketing you, bundling you, etc, to drive purchases.

Absolutely right.

If you're a crappy musician, but really tech savvy, guess what? You probably won't make much money. You have to actually be good at what you do, and offer a sellable product.

I'm a crappy author and I self published. Guess what? I haven't made any money on it.  

On the high end, the studios, the record labels, publishers etc. have the marketing $ to help drive awareness and sales. Thus, Justin Beiber or whatever.

On the low end, self-published musicians, writers, comedians, actors, etc. have trouble breaking through. That's why PR people get paid. They put the book in Oprah's hands, Oprah pretends to read it, and BOOM, I'm a famous author.

Anybody who can't see that is stupid.

BUUUUUUT...
Some self-published things HAVE broken through, and it will continue to happen. AND, IMHO, as people become more comfortable with the technology, I think we're likely to see a "hit". Podcasts are a great example. Word of mouth is really what is driving their popularity, and the people doing them seem to be doing ok.

Also, you may see larger names continue to peal off and do exclusive projects/content for specific brands. Lebron and Samsung, Jay Z, Pharrell, etc.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Key items highlighted....what people want and will pay for can, has, and will change.  Lower cost content might come into vogue and the model will change.

It might, but I'd wager to bet that most viewers are going to migrate toward stuff that is worth watching and that typically comes with a price tag to make.  Those gravitating toward the free stuff, one of two things will happen.  The guy that is good at creating the free or low cost stuff will eventually want to be paid.  Or, that content will live at the bottom and the content companies that create this stuff will not care about it just as they don't care about YouTube and similar types of content today because it doesn't impact their bottom line.  Just a guess, we'll see.  Quality usually comes with a price tag.  Or if not quality, tonnage does simply for the variability of the library, but depending on what is in the library (A's, B's, C's, D's, or just pass content), will determine how buffet style oriented the pricing and consumption is.

The point on the music post was a few years ago you couldn't stop reading an article about how musicians were going to sell their wares direct, make a bunch of money, the playing field leveled, etc.  Of course, those articles were speculating as there was no data.  Now that data is available....reality.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

It might, but I'd wager to bet that most viewers are going to migrate toward stuff that is worth watching and that typically comes with a price tag to make.  Those gravitating toward the free stuff, one of two things will happen.  The guy that is good at creating the free or low cost stuff will eventually want to be paid.  Or, that content will live at the bottom and the content companies that create this stuff will not care about it just as they don't care about YouTube and similar types of content today because it doesn't impact their bottom line.  Just a guess, we'll see.  Quality usually comes with a price tag.  Or if not quality, tonnage does simply for the variability of the library, but depending on what is in the library (A's, B's, C's, D's, or just pass content), will determine how buffet style oriented the pricing and consumption is.

The point on the music post was a few years ago you couldn't stop reading an article about how musicians were going to sell their wares direct, make a bunch of money, the playing field leveled, etc.  Of course, those articles were speculating as there was no data.  Now that data is available....reality.

#1 Nobody here in this thread has said anything about every musician getting rich by cutting out the record labels. Specific examples of talented bands/people have been provided (Radiohead, Louis CK). Again, not EVERYBODY is going to get rich by cutting out the middle man. It can't work like that. There is still competition in the marketplace. I can't get rich by cutting out ebay and selling my own stuff online. I still ultimately have to make a product people want to purchase.

#2 20 years ago, newspapers weren't concerned about online, and bookstores weren't concerned about amazon.

10 years ago, they were concerned, but probably said things like: "People may read SOME things online, but they still like the feel and portability of a newspaper. I mean, what are people going to do, take their computers with them? hahahaha."

Today, many newspapers and bookstores are shrinking or are gone. They missed the boat. They've gotten swallowed up.

Now, newspapers and books are NOT like television. HOWEVER, the example I'm providing is about how industries often don't see it coming. They are too ingrained in their own business model, and they can't pivot and evolve efficiently.

"traditional" television isn't going to go away, but I think you'll see a trimming of the heard as more efficient delivery models come to market and segmentation of the marketplace continues.

Hell, you might see "shows" put specifically on brand websites. Go to bankofamerica.com to see this week's episode of "My father is a vampire lifeguard."

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well Guns and Brandx, my new gig is going to bring me very very close to this stuff.  Going to be fun.  Again, technology and delivery isn't the issue, but I'll get to live that every day.  All about content and can anyone crack the code on getting these guys to trade dollars for digital dimes.  Shall be interesting.

[MUsoxfan]

I just bailed on DirecTV and cable/satellite providers as a whole.

I'll be missing some stuff, but the $1200 per annum savings will be worth it. If I really want to watch a game, I'll go to the tavern down the block

AT&T buying DirecTV was the last straw. There are zero ways that's good for any consumer

[ChicosBailBonds]

Right, the Rolling Stones aren't free.

Again, I've NEVER said pay-content is going away. HBO will be around. ESPN will be around.

Do you think it's possible for somebody to create and distribute their own show outside of the traditional studio/network system?

http://youtu.be/uSDR3w6-Kzw?t=4m18s

To create with true scale, not likely.  If you're talking about throwing a program up on a direct model like YouTube, sure.  That can be done today but at what scale?   It takes an extremely popular clip a month to get a million views.  It takes a broadcast platform 1 second to do that.  But let's say it does happen, at the end of the day the consumer is still going to have to pay good money for good content.