Apple WWDC 2014/iOS 8

[mu03eng]

You're getting too tied into the details. It's not apples to apples, but it ain't watermelons to cars... and if people in the television industry really think that, then they are going to get crushed and Apple/Google/(Virgin?).

Music & television
- They are forms of entertainment.
- The delivery model is a form of media (tape, record, VHS, DVD) or broadcast (radio & television)
- The content is largely created by "artists", while the bills are paid for the studio/label.

Now, Apple/Napster changed the music delivery model overnight. I don't think that's going to happen to television. HOWEVER, the idea that we will all be hooked into some form of coax and paying for 100's of channels is probably antiquated as well.

Content, and content delivery is going to change. Companies that don't evolve will get left behind. Happens in every industry. It's the beauty of capitalism.

We can stomp our feet and hold our breath all we want, but content delivery is going to change in the next 10 years.

I think one of the things that gets overlooked in the TV/Music debate, is the key changing point in the music industry.  Napster was a catalyst but the straw that broke the camel was Apple getting two major record labels(can't remember the two...RCA was one I think) to sign up to a new model....the change came from within the industry.

Someone from the TV content model is going to break ranks and is going to sign a deal with a new delivery company.  That will force a reaction from the other players.....almost all paradigm changes like this happen from within.  Someone will cave.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I think one of the things that gets overlooked in the TV/Music debate, is the key changing point in the music industry.  Napster was a catalyst but the straw that broke the camel was Apple getting two major record labels(can't remember the two...RCA was one I think) to sign up to a new model....the change came from within the industry.

Someone from the TV content model is going to break ranks and is going to sign a deal with a new delivery company.  That will force a reaction from the other players.....almost all paradigm changes like this happen from within.  Someone will cave.

Agreed, and the really smart media/distribution/content companies will try to evolve and partner with the new technologies so they can make it profitable.

If you just stand pat, eventually you'll get swallowed/crippled. 

See: Detroit vs Japan

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think one of the things that gets overlooked in the TV/Music debate, is the key changing point in the music industry.  Napster was a catalyst but the straw that broke the camel was Apple getting two major record labels(can't remember the two...RCA was one I think) to sign up to a new model....the change came from within the industry.

Someone from the TV content model is going to break ranks and is going to sign a deal with a new delivery company.  That will force a reaction from the other players.....almost all paradigm changes like this happen from within.  Someone will cave.

Why would they cave when they saw what it did to the music industry?   Since Apple, Google, Intel, Amazon have all tried and the major execs at all the content creators have flat out said NO, for obvious reasons, what makes you think they will cave?


The models are totally different.  Creating a song or an album, is peanuts compared to creating video content.  They have to be able to monetize that content and the model you suggest as a comparison (music) CANNOT do this.  It is not financially possible.  Unless Apple, or Google or someone else is going to write huge checks to these content makers to cover the cost of the product creation, there is no reason for them to do so. 

Totally different model, but the mistake of comparing continues to be made each and every day.

[brandx]

I think one of the things that gets overlooked in the TV/Music debate, is the key changing point in the music industry.  Napster was a catalyst but the straw that broke the camel was Apple getting two major record labels(can't remember the two...RCA was one I think) to sign up to a new model....the change came from within the industry.

There was a reason those labels dealt with Apple. Trying to stay ahead of the inevitable.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Agreed, and the really smart media/distribution/content companies will try to evolve and partner with the new technologies so they can make it profitable.

If you just stand pat, eventually you'll get swallowed/crippled. 

See: Detroit vs Japan

They are profitable now, what you are suggesting will make them unprofitable.  Why would they do this?  The only ones to "break ranks" are small independents or companies like WWE that are getting absolutely destroyed in the process.  Do you guys not think that HBO is made up of really smart people?  Disney \ ESPN?  If they could make this work by going direct, or parsing it off "like the music industry", why wouldn't they already be doing it?   There is a simple reason, they can't make as much money or guarantee their cost structure right now.  Perhaps years down the road they can, but right now they cannot.

The comparison to Detroit and Japan....non-starter.  Detroit had to deal with union costs per vehicle of over $1,500 that Japan did not.  When you are competing on price and you are already 1,500 in debt before the first rivet is put in, you are screwed.  You end up cutting corners and the consumer won't buy crap for the same price, whether it says made in America or not.   The comparison, like the music industry to television, is just not appropriate.

[brandx]

Chicks is still under the impression that nothing changes till the rich and powerful say it will change. History would beg to differ with him.

On another topic discussed here, I see Seattle passed new minimum wage law going up to $15/hr. So in 3 years we may have definitive evidence whether it helps or hurts economy.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You're getting too tied into the details. It's not apples to apples, but it ain't watermelons to cars... and if people in the television industry really think that, then they are going to get crushed and Apple/Google/(Virgin?).

Music & television
- They are forms of entertainment.
- The delivery model is a form of media (tape, record, VHS, DVD) or broadcast (radio & television)
- The content is largely created by "artists", while the bills are paid for the studio/label.

Now, Apple/Napster changed the music delivery model overnight. I don't think that's going to happen to television. HOWEVER, the idea that we will all be hooked into some form of coax and paying for 100's of channels is probably antiquated as well.

Content, and content delivery is going to change. Companies that don't evolve will get left behind. Happens in every industry. It's the beauty of capitalism.

We can stomp our feet and hold our breath all we want, but content delivery is going to change in the next 10 years.

You are painting way to broad a brush.  The delivery isn't the concern, the technology is there to do it today.  It is the COST for that content which is key, and the content makers control that. 

A la carte isn't happening any time soon.  The content companies have flat out said that is the case.  They aren't going to give up their golden goose.  Plus, consumers would be wise to understand the implications.  http://www.thestreet.com/story/12459069/1/a-la-carte-cable-tv-could-cost-consumers-more.html

[GOO]

I am someone without cable, by choice, and love my Apple TV's.  I get over the air TV, and I get a lot of great channels that I wouldn't get with cable including a lot of PBS channels.  But I know that I am not the typical consumer as my favorite show is Charlie Rose. 

The Apple TV is simply an easy way to get additional content on demand, from PBS, Netflix, Bloomberg, etc.  The nice thing about Apple TV is that they are cheap and allow one to buy dumb TV's.  No need to get some poorly executed over priced TV with a built in TV interface/software and wifi to watch Netflix, etc.  Just get a basic TV with a good picture and a cheap Apple TV and you have the start of a great set up.

Apple is going to have to cut a deal to run cable TV through the Apple TV.  Unless a lot more people start cutting the cable cord, which seems like it will be a very slow process.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Chico's, you're getting too tied into minutia. (again). Don't be so myopic.

Detroit didn't get "crushed" by Japan because of $1500 worth of union dues.

They got crushed by Japan because they didn't evolve and deliver a quality product to meet the demand. Think BIGGER PICTURE. Detroit's future was determined when they couldn't figure out how to produce a good car that Americans actually wanted. They kept producing their IDEA of what Americans wanted (large, fuel-ineffecient, rust out in 5 years), and it left a HUGE hole in the marketplace. It was easy for Honda to fill the void.

Music and television may be wildly different at the microscopic level, but on the whole, it's just content/entertainment. So are books. (seen a lot of new bookstores lately... hmmm... maybe technology changed that?).

How consumers receive and consume content is changing. I don't know how it will all actually work in the future for television... but the idea that the network execs/content makers are holding all of the gold is a mistake (IMHO). It leaves a gaping hole in the marketplace that somebody will eventually figure out how to fill.

The gold is the CONSUMER EYEBALLS, NOT THE CONTENT. That's the real GOLD. If I can figure out how to make a good "show" on youtube and get enough viewers, boom, I can carve out a career. How many more people could do the same thing?

You want more examples?
- Google Louis CK and look at how he's producing and distributing his own stand-up (no more ticketmaster, no more HBO, etc.). Louie's loyal audience is the gold. That's how it works. You don't need (insert studio) to be successful.

- Google Marc Maron and look at how his podcast has changed everything in his career. How can he do it offering free content without major network distribution? OMG. GASP.

History is FILLED with companies/brands/people that fail to evolve.

Big picture, dude. BIG. 10,000ft view. Use whatever business cliche you want. Content delivery is going to change. That's it. No way around it. It won't look the same in 10 years. Book it.

[mu03eng]

Why would they cave when they saw what it did to the music industry?   Since Apple, Google, Intel, Amazon have all tried and the major execs at all the content creators have flat out said NO, for obvious reasons, what makes you think they will cave?


The models are totally different.  Creating a song or an album, is peanuts compared to creating video content.  They have to be able to monetize that content and the model you suggest as a comparison (music) CANNOT do this.  It is not financially possible.  Unless Apple, or Google or someone else is going to write huge checks to these content makers to cover the cost of the product creation, there is no reason for them to do so. 

Totally different model, but the mistake of comparing continues to be made each and every day.

They will cave because it will give one of the content creators an edge eventually.  Yes, the record labels regretted the deal they made with Apple(even said so in the Jobs bio-book) but it wasn't that they made any deal it was the value they assigned to it.  The content providers have that as a lesson, so yes they won't make a bad deal, but I think one of them will make a deal.

The model is already changing, look at what Fox is doing with it's pilots and season orders.  It is ordering fewer pilots, ordering more shows direct to a season order, and decreasing in some cases the number of episodes that constitutes an actual season (22 was standard, I think Sleepy Hallow was a 12 episode season and there are others).  With the exception of the all at once model that is pretty close to what Netflix did with Orange and HoC.  As the legacy model moves closer to the "future" model the barriers get lowered.

I completely agree that the content providers are insanely expensive and don't compare to the music costs, but some of those costs are brought on by the content providers themselves...if they can reduce those costs they can maintain margin and lower what they charge to the delivery folks.  The content providers should also want to bring Netflix and Amazon Prime, etc into the fold...more places to put their content and more leverage in negotiating a deal.

Just wait, one of these days, one of the big networks is going to get smart and sell their rejected pilots to a Netflix who is going to push it and you'll see a show get a season order based on the reaction....not that different then what's going on between over air and cable.  In the last 4 years there have been at least 3 over the air shows that have been picked up by cable when canceled by over the air, I think 3 more are in talks for this fall, not that far to slide into the Netflix model.

[mu03eng]

- Google Marc Maron and look at how his podcast has changed everything in his career. How can he do it offering free content without major network distribution? OMG. GASP.

Or Adam Carolla....podcasting is his main revenue stream, he now is funding his own movie via fund anything as well as a fight against patent trolls.  There are the tools available to get eyeballs that don't require a big studio or a major network.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Or Adam Carolla....podcasting is his main revenue stream, he now is funding his own movie via fund anything as well as a fight against patent trolls.  There are the tools available to get eyeballs that don't require a big studio or a major network.

Yep, and you don't need network infrastructure to produce good content, either.

Network content is expensive because it's BLOATED and it's an old business model.

You can get most/all of the equipment you need from Amazon and have it shipped to your house. Boom. You're making a movie.

Podcasts have proven to be very good to a lot of comedians and writers because it allows them to showcase their abilities, cultivate and audience, and then sell sponsorships, or themselves directly to the consumers.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that youtube/apple/podcasts/etc. are going to bring Time Warner or NBC to it's knees tomorrow. (it won't).

But, think long term. The marketplace is segmented. The traditional studio-network-distributor-consumer business model is going to evolve.

[mu03eng]

Yep, and you don't need network infrastructure to produce good content, either.

Network content is expensive because it's BLOATED and it's an old business model.

You can get most/all of the equipment you need from Amazon and have it shipped to your house. Boom. You're making a movie.

Podcasts have proven to be very good to a lot of comedians and writers because it allows them to showcase their abilities, cultivate and audience, and then sell sponsorships, or themselves directly to the consumers.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that youtube/apple/podcasts/etc. are going to bring Time Warner or NBC to it's knees tomorrow. (it won't).

But, think long term. The marketplace is segmented. The traditional studio-network-distributor-consumer business model is going to evolve.

No kidding, look at the Scrambled Eggs podcast.  We spend roughly $5 a month on that plus time and effort(pretty minimal) and use only free social media to "promote" it and we average 3000 downloads an episode with a peak of 10,000 for one episode.  Zero marketing or cost.  We don't even have any talent to fall back on

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

No kidding, look at the Scrambled Eggs podcast.  We spend roughly $5 a month on that plus time and effort(pretty minimal) and use only free social media to "promote" it and we average 3000 downloads an episode with a peak of 10,000 for one episode.  Zero marketing or cost.  We don't even have any talent to fall back on

It's actually a good example of an extremely segmented marketplace.

I don't think you're ever going to get rich doing a MU podcast.

But, that doesn't mean you can't produce quality content that a specific market demands. (much like this site), and in theory, if enough people do that, it'll hurt the large content providers. The cost of entry for a normal person is pretty low now, and that has ruined some of the scale advantage that networks and studios have always had.

10 years ago I'd visit ESPN.com several times per day. Now it's maybe once per week. Obviously my readership isn't hurting ESPN, but multiply that out for a growing segment of the population, and now multiply that by 20 years, and it's not hard to imagine the traditional content providers changing their business model.

Look at the music industry, books, newspapers, etc. You either evolve, or you die. That's it.

The JS used to have the best MU information because they had a "beat reporter"... well, now Paint Touches is providing way better content, and they are doing it for free. Think JS should keep doing the same thing? They hold all of the best content, right? They have a "real" reporter.

How/where people receive their entertainment/content is changing. This includes traditional broadcast radio, television, cable, etc.

Also, I'm not saying that there isn't a marketplace for "traditional" content/viewership... but the landscape is going to change.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicks is still under the impression that nothing changes till the rich and powerful say it will change. History would beg to differ with him.

On another topic discussed here, I see Seattle passed new minimum wage law going up to $15/hr. So in 3 years we may have definitive evidence whether it helps or hurts economy.

Not really, but I am a product of history and I know smart people want to avoid repeating the mistakes others.  I heard Randall Stephenson speak to us for 2 hours yesterday, he is the CEO of AT&T.  Much of it was on mobility of video. As I've said many times, technology isn't the issue, it is all about rights.  He recognized that as well.  They can build the greatest delivery system in the world, and arguably are doing that right now....get it in your car, train, plane, whatever.  Your video, wherever you want.  Awesome, everyone wants it...go do it.   Still comes down to what are you able to put on those devices or vehicles?  What do you legally have the right to put up there, and what will those that create that content allow? 

That, still, remains the key.

Good for Seattle.  I don't get why they didn't increase it to $1000 an hour...I mean, it should lift all boats, why stop at $15.  Makes no sense why they capped it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

They will cave because it will give one of the content creators an edge eventually.  Yes, the record labels regretted the deal they made with Apple(even said so in the Jobs bio-book) but it wasn't that they made any deal it was the value they assigned to it.  The content providers have that as a lesson, so yes they won't make a bad deal, but I think one of them will make a deal.

The model is already changing, look at what Fox is doing with it's pilots and season orders.  It is ordering fewer pilots, ordering more shows direct to a season order, and decreasing in some cases the number of episodes that constitutes an actual season (22 was standard, I think Sleepy Hallow was a 12 episode season and there are others).  With the exception of the all at once model that is pretty close to what Netflix did with Orange and HoC.  As the legacy model moves closer to the "future" model the barriers get lowered.

I completely agree that the content providers are insanely expensive and don't compare to the music costs, but some of those costs are brought on by the content providers themselves...if they can reduce those costs they can maintain margin and lower what they charge to the delivery folks.  The content providers should also want to bring Netflix and Amazon Prime, etc into the fold...more places to put their content and more leverage in negotiating a deal.

Just wait, one of these days, one of the big networks is going to get smart and sell their rejected pilots to a Netflix who is going to push it and you'll see a show get a season order based on the reaction....not that different then what's going on between over air and cable.  In the last 4 years there have been at least 3 over the air shows that have been picked up by cable when canceled by over the air, I think 3 more are in talks for this fall, not that far to slide into the Netflix model.

Ironic you bring up Fox...I work with them daily.

What does the head of Fox say about what you are proposing.... he says it is a FARCE.  http://www.thewrap.com/fox-coo-chase-carey-la-carte-cable-farce/

At the end of the day, that's what those that own the content are saying.  You want to change it, convince them that they will make AS MUCH MONEY as they do now.  For the last 15 years, no one has been able to do that.  Not McKinsey, not Stanford's innovation team, not Apple, not Google, not Intel, not Amazon, not scores of Ivy league grads running around.  Not even the little guys, who you think will break away and do this.  Not the WWE, which just tried it and is getting destroyed in their earnings as a result.  http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-wwe-stock-falls-tv-deals-20140516-story.html

Again, it's not about the technology.  You guys need to stop with that argument, everyone gets it.  Everyone wants it.  It is about the rights of what can be sold and HOW it can be sold.  The owners of the content have that control.

[ChicosBailBonds]

No kidding, look at the Scrambled Eggs podcast.  We spend roughly $5 a month on that plus time and effort(pretty minimal) and use only free social media to "promote" it and we average 3000 downloads an episode with a peak of 10,000 for one episode.  Zero marketing or cost.  We don't even have any talent to fall back on

You've pointed out exactly why that doesn't work in big boy land.  Your $5 to create a pod cast is MILLIONS of DOLLARS to create television series, that they MUST pay regardless.  They need to get an ROI on that.  We're not talking about small investments, this is why the recording industry comparison is so ludicrous.  It costs next to nothing to produce a record in comparison.  With video, huge huge huge difference.  They can't go out and spend millions and millions to create content and hope a bunch of people buy it individually, it cannot sustain itself. 

That's the problem and they've gone on record many times flat out telling you why.  Does HBO go out and make Game of Thrones without having 30 million built in subscribers paying them more than $10 a month whether they watch 1 minute of HBO a month or 50 hours a month?  Nope.  But they have guarantee revenues that allows them to make that bet.  Same for AMC, same for ESPN, same of MTV or anyone else.  They rely on the guaranteed revenues to back that investment.  Those guaranteed revenues are from bundling, not a la carte. 

This is the critical different.  You guys are smart guys, I know you understand this difference.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You've pointed out exactly why that doesn't work in big boy land.  Your $5 to create a pod cast is MILLIONS of DOLLARS to create television series, that they MUST pay regardless.  They need to get an ROI on that.  We're not talking about small investments, this is why the recording industry comparison is so ludicrous.  It costs next to nothing to produce a record in comparison.  With video, huge huge huge difference.  They can't go out and spend millions and millions to create content and hope a bunch of people buy it individually, it cannot sustain itself.  

That's the problem and they've gone on record many times flat out telling you why.  Does HBO go out and make Game of Thrones without having 30 million built in subscribers paying them more than $10 a month whether they watch 1 minute of HBO a month or 50 hours a month?  Nope.  But they have guarantee revenues that allows them to make that bet.  Same for AMC, same for ESPN, same of MTV or anyone else.  They rely on the guaranteed revenues to back that investment.  Those guaranteed revenues are from bundling, not a la carte.  

This is the critical different.  You guys are smart guys, I know you understand this difference.

You're coming at it from the studio/business side.

Come at this from the consumer side.

I quit listening to terrestrial radio because podcasts better fit my interests.

I quit reading the JS because other news sites have similar/better content and they are free.

I quit watching ESPN because I can get all of my sports new and highlights online.

I quit watching HBO, because I can find entertaining content elsewhere.

See where I'm going with this?

YES, I'm aware the studios and the networks have HUGE infrastructure, and everything costs a lot. I know that. I get it.

But, if I (the consumer) can find entertaining content elsewhere, I don't need the huge studio with the huge infrastructure to entertain me.

Also, this isn't an all-or-nothing scenario. People aren't going to wake up tomorrow and quit watching television. But, in an increasingly segmented marketplace, the traditional business model is going to change.

The economies of scales aren't the same anymore, and ROI on a quality independent film or television series isn't nearly as tough. Add to that things like kickstarter (google Reading Rainbow), and the entire demand/delivery system is changing.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

DELETE. REPEATED POST BY ACCIDENT.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You're coming at it from the studio/business side.

Come at this from the consumer side.

I quit listening to terrestrial radio because podcasts better fit my interests.

I quit reading the JS because other news sites have similar/better content and they are free.

I quit watching ESPN because I can get all of my sports new and highlights online.

I quit watching HBO, because I can find entertaining content elsewhere.

See where I'm going with this?

YES, I'm aware the studios and the networks have HUGE infrastructure, and everything costs a lot. I know that. I get it.

But, if I (the consumer) can find entertaining content elsewhere, I don't need the huge studio with the huge infrastructure to entertain me.

Also, this isn't an all-or-nothing scenario. People aren't going to wake up tomorrow and quit watching television. But, in an increasingly segmented marketplace, the traditional business model is going to change.

The economies of scales aren't the same anymore, and ROI on a quality independent film or television series isn't nearly as tough. Add to that things like kickstarter (google Reading Rainbow), and the entire demand/delivery system is changing.

Most of your comparisons here offers FREE content elsewhere, that is your mistake. 

Sports news...free...available elsewhere.

Terrestrial radio...free.

HBO...not free....and guess what, their paid subscriptions at an all time high in Q1 because people are buying it and find the content worth it.  In your view, your replacement content is "good enough".  For many others, it isn't.  You want HBO quality, you get to pay for HBO quality.

So no, I don't see where you are going with it.  You are a guy that likes free stuff and you find other free stuff to get.  Most on the business side aren't going to do charitable works to deliver a bunch of quality stuff for you to get for free....or you will get it many months or years later, after it has already been monetized.  If you stifle the monetization funnel at the top, then the quality content goes bye bye.

This isn't about getting sports news on ESPN or going elsewhere for it.  That is a commodity.  Watching the game tonight, that isn't a commodity and someone OWNS the rights to it.  That is the difference.  You want Game of Thrones, you have ONE place to get it...HBO.  You want Madmen, only one content company makes Madmen production, not 20.

So yes, I am coming from a business side because it is a business and a unique one at that.  You are basically arguing you can not watch Breaking Bad because someone else is going to come up with as good Breaking Bad AND give it to you a la carte at next to nothing.  From a business side, good luck with that.  Who is going to invest the money to develop that kind of program knowing that risk?


Back to the podcast example of Scrambled Eggs.  How much is that costing consumers?  FREE....that's a lot different than having to pay for it.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Most of your comparisons here offers FREE content elsewhere, that is your mistake.  

Sports news...free...available elsewhere.

Terrestrial radio...free.

HBO...not free....and guess what, their paid subscriptions at an all time high in Q1 because people are buying it and find the content worth it.  In your view, your replacement content is "good enough".  For many others, it isn't.  You want HBO quality, you get to pay for HBO quality.

So no, I don't see where you are going with it.  You are a guy that likes free stuff and you find other free stuff to get.  Most on the business side aren't going to do charitable works to deliver a bunch of quality stuff for you to get for free....or you will get it many months or years later, after it has already been monetized.  If you stifle the monetization funnel at the top, then the quality content goes bye bye.

This isn't about getting sports news on ESPN or going elsewhere for it.  That is a commodity.  Watching the game tonight, that isn't a commodity and someone OWNS the rights to it.  That is the difference.  You want Game of Thrones, you have ONE place to get it...HBO.  You want Madmen, only one content company makes Madmen production, not 20.

So yes, I am coming from a business side because it is a business and a unique one at that.  You are basically arguing you can not watch Breaking Bad because someone else is going to come up with as good Breaking Bad AND give it to you a la carte at next to nothing.  From a business side, good luck with that.  Who is going to invest the money to develop that kind of program knowing that risk?


Back to the podcast example of Scrambled Eggs.  How much is that costing consumers?  FREE....that's a lot different than having to pay for it.

You sound just like the newspapers did back when people started getting their news on the internet.

"We have all of the reporters. We produce all of the content. You can't do what we do for free. People will always want to read the paper."

Also, this isn't as polarizing of a topic as it appears. I'm saying there is going to be an evolution as the demand for content changes. This doesn't mean ESPN or HBO are going out of business. Or that Ala Carte (IMPOSSIBLE, I know) is going to happen.

I'm simply saying that the current business model (big studios, big networks, big providers, big contracts, etc.) is going to change because the demand is changing.

The EYEBALLS are the valuable commodity, not the content. When the eyeballs start looking elsewhere, then the content model will HAVE to change.

[mu03eng]

Most of your comparisons here offers FREE content elsewhere, that is your mistake. 

Sports news...free...available elsewhere.

Terrestrial radio...free.

HBO...not free....and guess what, their paid subscriptions at an all time high in Q1 because people are buying it and find the content worth it.  In your view, your replacement content is "good enough".  For many others, it isn't.  You want HBO quality, you get to pay for HBO quality.

So no, I don't see where you are going with it.  You are a guy that likes free stuff and you find other free stuff to get.  Most on the business side aren't going to do charitable works to deliver a bunch of quality stuff for you to get for free....or you will get it many months or years later, after it has already been monetized.  If you stifle the monetization funnel at the top, then the quality content goes bye bye.

This isn't about getting sports news on ESPN or going elsewhere for it.  That is a commodity.  Watching the game tonight, that isn't a commodity and someone OWNS the rights to it.  That is the difference.  You want Game of Thrones, you have ONE place to get it...HBO.  You want Madmen, only one content company makes Madmen production, not 20.

So yes, I am coming from a business side because it is a business and a unique one at that.  You are basically arguing you can not watch Breaking Bad because someone else is going to come up with as good Breaking Bad AND give it to you a la carte at next to nothing.  From a business side, good luck with that.  Who is going to invest the money to develop that kind of program knowing that risk?


Back to the podcast example of Scrambled Eggs.  How much is that costing consumers?  FREE....that's a lot different than having to pay for it.

You've got to look at both sides of the equation, because you are right content providers aren't going to deliver quality content for free....but are eyeballs going to continue to pay for quality content.  If I can watch a low budget tv show and get nearly as much enjoyment out of as I can for the high budget tv show I now have to determine if the cost difference to ME is worth it to ME.

Just because it's high cost content from a studio standpoint doesn't mean it's a high value product to the customer.

The timing is a bit inconvenient for my point given that Kevin Reilly is now out at Fox, but he was interviewed by Andy Greenwald on his podcast where to talked specifically about killing pilot season.

http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/the-andy-greenwald-podcast-fox-chairman-kevin-reilly/]
Most of your comparisons here offers FREE content elsewhere, that is your mistake. 

Sports news...free...available elsewhere.

Terrestrial radio...free.

HBO...not free....and guess what, their paid subscriptions at an all time high in Q1 because people are buying it and find the content worth it.  In your view, your replacement content is "good enough".  For many others, it isn't.  You want HBO quality, you get to pay for HBO quality.

So no, I don't see where you are going with it.  You are a guy that likes free stuff and you find other free stuff to get.  Most on the business side aren't going to do charitable works to deliver a bunch of quality stuff for you to get for free....or you will get it many months or years later, after it has already been monetized.  If you stifle the monetization funnel at the top, then the quality content goes bye bye.

This isn't about getting sports news on ESPN or going elsewhere for it.  That is a commodity.  Watching the game tonight, that isn't a commodity and someone OWNS the rights to it.  That is the difference.  You want Game of Thrones, you have ONE place to get it...HBO.  You want Madmen, only one content company makes Madmen production, not 20.

So yes, I am coming from a business side because it is a business and a unique one at that.  You are basically arguing you can not watch Breaking Bad because someone else is going to come up with as good Breaking Bad AND give it to you a la carte at next to nothing.  From a business side, good luck with that.  Who is going to invest the money to develop that kind of program knowing that risk?


Back to the podcast example of Scrambled Eggs.  How much is that costing consumers?  FREE....that's a lot different than having to pay for it.


[/quote]

You've got to look at both sides of the equation, because you are right content providers aren't going to deliver quality content for free....but are eyeballs going to continue to pay for quality content.  If I can watch a low budget tv show and get nearly as much enjoyment out of as I can for the high budget tv show I now have to determine if the cost difference to ME is worth it to ME.

Just because it's high cost content from a studio standpoint doesn't mean it's a high value product to the customer.

The timing is a bit inconvenient for my point given that Kevin Reilly is now out at Fox, but he was interviewed by Andy Greenwald on his podcast where to talked specifically about killing pilot season.

http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/the-andy-greenwald-podcast-fox-chairman-kevin-reilly/

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Also, something that has been forgotten along the way.

OTA television isn't "free". It's paid for by advertisers getting spots to sell products.

In the past 30 years, Americans have shown a willingness to pay for content as well (first cable TV, then subscription stations like HBO).

I think Americans will still continue to pay for some quality content (movies, television shows, etc.).

But, I also think the marketplace is becoming extremely segmented, which is going to hurt the larger production companies ability to see a good ROI on a show. It's going to become harder and harder to draw a significant audience.

Advertisers will get smarter as well, and they will go after specific targets. White, middle aged, goth, vampire loving, IT professionals all watch "Dracula is your IT guy" on (insert internet streaming network). There are companies that would love to have that segment, they will pay for it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You sound just like the newspapers did back when people started getting their news on the internet.

"We have all of the reporters. We produce all of the content. You can't do what we do for free. People will always want to read the paper."

Also, this isn't as polarizing of a topic as it appears. I'm saying there is going to be an evolution as the demand for content changes. This doesn't mean ESPN or HBO are going out of business. Or that Ala Carte (IMPOSSIBLE, I know) is going to happen.

I'm simply saying that the current business model (big studios, big networks, big providers, big contracts, etc.) is going to change because the demand is changing.

The EYEBALLS are the valuable commodity, not the content. When the eyeballs start looking elsewhere, then the content model will HAVE to change.

I don't sound like the newspapers at all, because I knew what they were selling was a commodity.  Why do you think a certain television distributor took a hard stand against the Weather Channel?  Because weather information, like news, is a commodity.  You can get it anywhere and no one owns it.  No one owns the news, but companies OWN the rights to the Lakers, or Marquette, or Breaking Bad, or Game of Thrones.  They are not commodities.

You can change the demand all you want, those companies are not in the business of giving stuff away for free, they have to monetize it.  The guys that love Netflix and Hulu and say really dumb things like "see, it's only $8.99 a month".  Is it really?  First, it was already monetized prior and how they are just remonetizing it again further down the funnel.  They can do this because they are already getting billions from pay tv subscribers whether they watch it or not.  If that money goes away as you suggest it will (which I suggest, may happen...but there is a big difference...you will pay the piper) there has to be another way for them to monetize it.  This stuff isn't free and it isn't a commodity. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I don't sound like the newspapers at all, because I knew what they were selling was a commodity.  Why do you think a certain television distributor took a hard stand against the Weather Channel?  Because weather information, like news, is a commodity.  You can get it anywhere and no one owns it.  No one owns the news, but companies OWN the rights to the Lakers, or Marquette, or Breaking Bad, or Game of Thrones.  They are not commodities.

You can change the demand all you want, those companies are not in the business of giving stuff away for free, they have to monetize it.  The guys that love Netflix and Hulu and say really dumb things like "see, it's only $8.99 a month".  Is it really?  First, it was already monetized prior and how they are just remonetizing it again further down the funnel.  They can do this because they are already getting billions from pay tv subscribers whether they watch it or not.  If that money goes away as you suggest it will (which I suggest, may happen...but there is a big difference...you will pay the piper) there has to be another way for them to monetize it.  This stuff isn't free and it isn't a commodity. 

Few things:

#1 You're projecting.

Not once in this thread have I said anything about Netflix or Hulu. I understand that those systems are subsidized by "traditional" content, and without people paying for cable, Netflix wouldn't be what it is.

#2 Look at how technology has changed content delivery and entertainment.
- 20 years ago, Pearl Jam was fighting against Ticketmaster.
- Flash forward to today, and Louis C.K. is distributing his own tickets, booking his own venues, directing his own comedy special, and selling it all through his site. 20 years ago, that was IMPOSSIBLE.
- Radiohead released an album in 2007 that was pay what you want to pay and download it. That idea would have been INSANE just 5 years earlier.
(the list goes on. JayZ's mobile partnership, SNL's Digital shorts, etc.)

#3 Entertainment as a commodity is a whole additional debate, but I'll just say this:

Television isn't in the television business... and if the studios, networks and distributors think they are in the TV business, they are going to get steamrolled.

They are in the content/entertainment business. There are sharks in the water, and any inefficiency in the current studio-network-provider-consumer supply chain will be discovered and exploited. Just like music. Just like books. Just like radio. Hooray free market!

Again, I don't know what this will evolve into... and it probably won't even be free. But, the idea that the content creators and the providers are holding all of the cards is a mistake. Ultimately, consumers hold the cards.