Apple WWDC 2014/iOS 8

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

Just like "nothing" in your other thread.  I hear comments like yours and just shake my head. 

Let's start with innovation....it will be a big deal for mobility and video.  Let's talk about pricing.  Prices go up every year because content costs are going up about 10% a year from Disney, Viacom, NewsCorp, etc.  When you have scale of size, you can help to beat that back.  Imagine a Viacom that wants a 15% increase annually for Cartoon Network or whatever, and a company with 25 million subscribers saying NO.  We'll give you COLA increase, but not that much.   That is what scale brings, and that is passed on to consumers.  The smaller you are, the more you get clobbered by those selling the content.

I could go on, but nothing, never, always, zero benefit, etc.  Well, that's lazy and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how things really function.

Why not stand up more for your principles and not even go to that bar to watch a game, afterall you're giving that television provider and evil ESPN your money still, at a Commercial rate I might add (which is many X times more costly).  Want cheaper beer at a bar, go to one without games on TV. The costs to them is very high, brought to you by Fox, ESPN, CBS, etc.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

The technology might exist, but I think we are just scratching the surface of it becoming user friendly and cost effective for smaller productions.

To clarify again, I don't think Two and 1/2 Men is suddenly going to take a pay cut and go on youtube.

BUT, out-of-work actors, writers and comedians are making ZERO dollars. So, if they can create some content and monetize it on the internet and make a reasonable salary per year, you can bet your ass they will be interested in doing it. That's where the shift will could come.

Also, at the high-end, guys like Seinfeld are pushing the boundaries of what is possible, especially because he's been able to monetize it.

http://jalopnik.com/what-jerry-seinfeld-gets-about-the-internet-that-most-d-1589305773?utm_source=recirculation&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=wednesdayPM

[MUsoxfan]

I was paying about $1,700/year to watch TV. TO WATCH TV!

On top of that, I have a much lesser interest in sports than I ever have. So I don't watch the White Sox lose or the Blackhawks win quite as often anymore.

Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus and the network apps will keep my television needs met for quite some time.

I understand that there are costs involved all across the board. What I don't understand is why the cost of watching TV is so astronomically high. To me, the answer is a simple one: when ESPN says "Hey, DirecTV...we're gonna need some more dough from you so you can keep showing us", the answer should sometimes be a hard line "No".


I'm not taking some political stance against TV, just a financial one. Now that costs are sure to go up again, with customer service getting even worse, I can't think of a real reason to pay so much money to simply watch TV

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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.

What about Seinfeld's show?

That's good content, and it's free.

Now, it's not easily replicated because it's Jerry F-ing Seinfeld, but still, the idea that content HAS to go through a "traditional" channel to be effective is silly.

Also, nothing is "free". Acura is paying big dollars to sponsor Jerry's show. That's a throwback to how television was funded from the start. Advertising was sold to fund programs.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The technology might exist, but I think we are just scratching the surface of it becoming user friendly and cost effective for smaller productions.

To clarify again, I don't think Two and 1/2 Men is suddenly going to take a pay cut and go on youtube.

BUT, out-of-work actors, writers and comedians are making ZERO dollars. So, if they can create some content and monetize it on the internet and make a reasonable salary per year, you can bet your ass they will be interested in doing it. That's where the shift will could come.

Also, at the high-end, guys like Seinfeld are pushing the boundaries of what is possible, especially because he's been able to monetize it.

http://jalopnik.com/what-jerry-seinfeld-gets-about-the-internet-that-most-d-1589305773?utm_source=recirculation&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=wednesdayPM

You'll always have the high end guys, because they have the brand and already monetized it through. I give you credit that you recognize this, too many people have zero clue on this.  They will make comments like Louie CK is doing it, or fill in blank of guy that's been around 30 years and built up that cache.

I get the comment on new tech, ease of development, etc....but it's the same thing with musicians.  They have access to that now, selling direct, etc and they are making LESS, not surprisingly.  It makes it even that much more difficult on the video side.  A musician can do it on his own essentially...mix, background tracks, etc.  Technology is there for a one man show.  Video, regardless of how cheap it is, needs many people.  The cost to produce, to film, to write, to act, to edit....lots of moving parts.

[keefe]

A lot of improvements and big developments on the developer side of things, but for the consumer no new products.  I guess pretty typical and what I should have expected.... no hardware.

I think the real issue is that back-end services has created a step change in the baseline technology. There is game changing  development happening around Big Data. The next several years will be exciting.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You'll always have the high end guys, because they have the brand and already monetized it through. I give you credit that you recognize this, too many people have zero clue on this.  They will make comments like Louie CK is doing it, or fill in blank of guy that's been around 30 years and built up that cache.

I get the comment on new tech, ease of development, etc....but it's the same thing with musicians.  They have access to that now, selling direct, etc and they are making LESS, not surprisingly.  It makes it even that much more difficult on the video side.  A musician can do it on his own essentially...mix, background tracks, etc.  Technology is there for a one man show.  Video, regardless of how cheap it is, needs many people.  The cost to produce, to film, to write, to act, to edit....lots of moving parts.

Bad musicians are having trouble making money.

I don't mean "bad" technically (they might be brilliant), but "bad" because they aren't producing the content that people want to pay for.

That's the key.

The free market is still in play. Supply and Demand still matter, even with digital content.

TALENTED people, CAN make a living cutting out the middle man and distributing their product themselves. Happens all of the time. Comedians sell their own tickets/albums. Musicians produce their own album. Authors self-publish.

Television has different execution requirements, but the hurdles are far less than they used to be. Listen to Seinfeld. He says 5 years ago, he could never do what he is doing now. He also said "experts" told him keep it under 5min. Well, he's doing just fine going longer than 5min. Sometimes "experts" are wrong.

The marketplace is changing. Traditional cable/network distribution is expensive for the consumer, and often ineffective for marketers. The model is going to change.

[keefe]

The technology might exist, but I think we are just scratching the surface of it becoming user friendly and cost effective for smaller productions.

To clarify again, I don't think Two and 1/2 Men is suddenly going to take a pay cut and go on youtube.

BUT, out-of-work actors, writers and comedians are making ZERO dollars. So, if they can create some content and monetize it on the internet and make a reasonable salary per year, you can bet your ass they will be interested in doing it. That's where the shift will could come.

Also, at the high-end, guys like Seinfeld are pushing the boundaries of what is possible, especially because he's been able to monetize it.

http://jalopnik.com/what-jerry-seinfeld-gets-about-the-internet-that-most-d-1589305773?utm_source=recirculation&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=wednesdayPM

You guys need to get out of the 20th Century. The best starting point is to understand how data has changed, enabling new, exciting delivery mechanisms that integrate multiple feeds and are presented in best of breed rich formats. The whole ecosystem is undergoing radical change and the focal point is personalization. Content has nothing to do with the evolution of consumption patterns. A revolution is happening right now that centers on UI/UX and is redefining the how, when, what, and why of content. The two epicenters of this are Mountain View and Bellevue.

I hate to say it but the pipes will likely become redundant if not entirely obsolete. Sorry, Chico.

[brandx]

You guys need to get out of the 20th Century. The best starting point is to understand how data has changed, enabling new, exciting delivery mechanisms that integrate multiple feeds and are presented in best of breed rich formats. The whole ecosystem is undergoing radical change and the focal point is personalization. Content has nothing to do with the evolution of consumption patterns. A revolution is happening right now that centers on UI/UX and is redefining the how, when, what, and why of content. The two epicenters of this are Mountain View and Bellevue.

I hate to say it but the pipes will likely become redundant if not entirely obsolete. Sorry, Chico.

You put it very well. This is the point that I, and a couple others, including Ammo, have been trying to make.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I was paying about $1,700/year to watch TV. TO WATCH TV!

On top of that, I have a much lesser interest in sports than I ever have. So I don't watch the White Sox lose or the Blackhawks win quite as often anymore.

Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus and the network apps will keep my television needs met for quite some time.

I understand that there are costs involved all across the board. What I don't understand is why the cost of watching TV is so astronomically high. To me, the answer is a simple one: when ESPN says "Hey, DirecTV...we're gonna need some more dough from you so you can keep showing us", the answer should sometimes be a hard line "No".


I'm not taking some political stance against TV, just a financial one. Now that costs are sure to go up again, with customer service getting even worse, I can't think of a real reason to pay so much money to simply watch TV

$141 a month?  Looks like if you didn't like TV you were subscribing to a bunch of stuff you clearly didn't need.  That's way over what most people pay.  I'm paying over $2000.00 a year JUST TO TALK ON THE PHONE.      

In your scenario, if someone told ESPN no, what would happen to their customer base?  That's the issue.  You can take stances against the Dodgers, or Lakers, or Weather Channel or even some others, and when one does, you lose customers.  That's the issue, all kinds of different folks subscribe to TV, those on the high end that want it all and cost is no issue and those where cost is very much an issue.  A TV distributor has to be all things to all people, problem is that the content creators require a distributor if they wish to carry their channel to penetrate them deeply, meaning most of the subscribers have to receive it.  That means costs have to be born across the board. 

Many people do not understand the cost of video, it's complex.  You're certainly not in the minority on that front nor would I expect most people to understand.  Just as most people don't understand how the cost structure are setup with video games and how X dollars go to Sony or Microsoft and X dollars to Best Buy to put it on shelf space, and so on and so forth. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

What about Seinfeld's show?

That's good content, and it's free.

Now, it's not easily replicated because it's Jerry F-ing Seinfeld, but still, the idea that content HAS to go through a "traditional" channel to be effective is silly.

Also, nothing is "free". Acura is paying big dollars to sponsor Jerry's show. That's a throwback to how television was funded from the start. Advertising was sold to fund programs.

Yup, Seinfeld's stuff is free.  I never said it HAD to go through there.  I said how is the next guy going to become Seinfeld, not by giving it out for free. 

Yes, advertising used to run that way.  We'll see how much ROI Acura sees on that kind of investment.  How many cars they feel they will sell, ultimately that's what advertisers want to know.  What am I spending, what is my cost per sale, how many units am I moving, how efficient is it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You guys need to get out of the 20th Century. The best starting point is to understand how data has changed, enabling new, exciting delivery mechanisms that integrate multiple feeds and are presented in best of breed rich formats. The whole ecosystem is undergoing radical change and the focal point is personalization. Content has nothing to do with the evolution of consumption patterns. A revolution is happening right now that centers on UI/UX and is redefining the how, when, what, and why of content. The two epicenters of this are Mountain View and Bellevue.

I hate to say it but the pipes will likely become redundant if not entirely obsolete. Sorry, Chico.

You haven't been paying attention Keefe.  As I've said a thousand times here, it ain't about the pipes.  It ain't about the delivery mechanism.  Of course that's going to change.  Whether it is P-Cell or whatever.   That's a given.  That's not the point, it's about who owns the content and what is the price for that content.

Cable, fiber, wireless, satellite could all blow up tomorrow...Disney is still going to get theirs, HBO is still going to get theirs, CBS, NBC Universal, Discovery, A&E, etc.  They're all still going to demand they get theirs.  They could not care less how you get it, as long as they get theirs and that's what they control...the content.

[brandx]

You haven't been paying attention Keefe.  As I've said a thousand times here, it ain't about the pipes.  It ain't about the delivery mechanism.  Of course that's going to change.  Whether it is P-Cell or whatever.   That's a given.  That's not the point, it's about who owns the content and what is the price for that content.

Cable, fiber, wireless, satellite could all blow up tomorrow...Disney is still going to get theirs, HBO is still going to get theirs, CBS, NBC Universal, Discovery, A&E, etc.  They're all still going to demand they get theirs.  They could not care less how you get it, as long as they get theirs and that's what they control...the content.

That's kinda what I have been saying all along. I don't expect content for free.

But consumption patterns change and when they change enough, the cable, wireless, satellite companies will change their model. Content will still cost, but it will be a different distribution model.

The only things I want are Internet, Sports channels and HBO (and even that is iffy as I am willing to wait 8 months and watch shows over the period of a week or so). That combo is not possible, but the point will come where I can get those - and not in the too distant future. I'm not looking to get them for free or even at a discount - I just don't want anything else. I can get local channels with an antenna.

HBO is about $15 a month. I and millions of others would pay that standalone where we could watch on Roku or whatever along with Netflix and Amazon Prime.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Yup, Seinfeld's stuff is free.  I never said it HAD to go through there.  I said how is the next guy going to become Seinfeld, not by giving it out for free. 

Yes, advertising used to run that way.  We'll see how much ROI Acura sees on that kind of investment.  How many cars they feel they will sell, ultimately that's what advertisers want to know.  What am I spending, what is my cost per sale, how many units am I moving, how efficient is it.

Don't add qualifiers.

You said this:

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.

Seinfeld's program is already free and good. If Acura has terrible ROI, it doesn't really matter. Cat is already out of the bag. You can put GOOD content. For FREE. Online. It's been proven.

Now, can it be replicated? Well, probably not in the same way, but the iphone couldn't be replicated when it first came out either. Takes a while for people to catch up when an innovative idea hits the market.

Podcasting was a really new idea 5 or 6 years ago. Now you have guys developing a lot of good content and becoming well known for their podcasting, not their previous career. More people know who Marc Maron is from his podcast vs his television work. Ironically, his podcast has put him back on television in a scripted show.

NOW... how long before somebody like Maron doesn't sell his scripted show to a network, and just distributes it himself? It costs a lot more than a podcast, so they just have to figure out a way to monetize it... but it's probably more of a "when", not an "if".

[ChicosBailBonds]

Guns, as I said, I'm not right in the middle of all of this with my new gig.  Fun times.  The entities you have to convince to make this happen are the big boys...Disney, A&E, NewsCorp, CBS, etc.  Any change will have to come from them.

If I had a crystal ball, you will start to see broadband based packages of video content in the next 6 months to a year, but it will still have bundled TV services...again, delivery isn't the issue, the pipe doesn't matter.  What will be of most keen interest is how much "value" is in those packages because those guys will not want to trade dollars for digital dimes.   

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Guns, as I said, I'm not right in the middle of all of this with my new gig.  Fun times.  The entities you have to convince to make this happen are the big boys...Disney, A&E, NewsCorp, CBS, etc.  Any change will have to come from them.

If I had a crystal ball, you will start to see broadband based packages of video content in the next 6 months to a year, but it will still have bundled TV services...again, delivery isn't the issue, the pipe doesn't matter.  What will be of most keen interest is how much "value" is in those packages because those guys will not want to trade dollars for digital dimes.  

So that's a fair point.

Disney isn't suddenly going to accept less for their product. I get that. The mouse wants his money.

Here's an example though:

Disney's kids programming is a monster, but how long before an alternate company starts making good children's content and starts selling an app for $2 per month? They won't have any of the overhead that disney has, so they really don't have to sell that many monthly subscriptions to be profitable. Most good children's programing can be "evergreen", so they can collect and keep quite a library of content and offer a good amount of content and value for the $2 per month.

I think the existing infrastructure and networks will have their place, but I think the comp. is going to become a lot fiercer as we go. People find a lot of content organically now, or maybe it gets recommended to them on social media, or a blog.

ABC/NBC/CBS can't just produce crap and expect people to watch. The options are almost limitless, and the competition is only going to increase.

EDIT:

I realize I'm just rambling over and over again.

Put it this way, if "regular" television costs continue to rise for the consumer, I think there is a very real chance that several different online sources will be able to undercut it to the point where consumers cut the cord. I'm not talking about netflix of hulu either. I'm talking about original content, created and distributed via the web.

[keefe]

You haven't been paying attention Keefe.  As I've said a thousand times here, it ain't about the pipes.  It ain't about the delivery mechanism.  Of course that's going to change.  Whether it is P-Cell or whatever.   That's a given.  That's not the point, it's about who owns the content and what is the price for that content.

Cable, fiber, wireless, satellite could all blow up tomorrow...Disney is still going to get theirs, HBO is still going to get theirs, CBS, NBC Universal, Discovery, A&E, etc.  They're all still going to demand they get theirs.  They could not care less how you get it, as long as they get theirs and that's what they control...the content.

Then we agree on the pipes. The real step change has occurred in back end cloud services. What people are not seeing is that personalization and individual control is reshaping consumption and enabling new content formats. Incipient technologies in Bellevue and Mountain View will alter the ecosystem in a fundamental form that will shift authorities from a handful of loci into a multi-mode decentralized system of production. The next five years will bring radical change in content. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Then we agree on the pipes. The real step change has occurred in back end cloud services. What people are not seeing is that personalization and individual control is reshaping consumption and enabling new content formats. Incipient technologies in Bellevue and Mountain View will alter the ecosystem in a fundamental form that will shift authorities from a handful of loci into a multi-mode decentralized system of production. The next five years will bring radical change in content. 

Not radical change in content, radical change in aggregation and how it is delivered, but not in content itself.

Those companies you mention, we are tied at the hip with many of them as well as many here in California.  Personalization, etc, will go to an all new level, but the content itself is still the content. 

I appreciate Guns idealistic world of someone is just going to come in and create Disney like content and offer it at a $2 app.  Sounds cute, then there is reality. 

[keefe]

Not radical change in content, radical change in aggregation and how it is delivered, but not in content itself.

Those companies you mention, we are tied at the hip with many of them as well as many here in California.  Personalization, etc, will go to an all new level, but the content itself is still the content. 

I appreciate Guns idealistic world of someone is just going to come in and create Disney like content and offer it at a $2 app.  Sounds cute, then there is reality. 

Back end services offers a significant uptick in aggregation and integration. But the proliferation of devices, connectivity, and enhanced UI/UX is enabling an explosion of content generation. Stop thinking like a middle aged guy in the entertainment biz who sees content within 4 or 5 verticals. The very definition of content is morphing through personalization.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Back end services offers a significant uptick in aggregation and integration. But the proliferation of devices, connectivity, and enhanced UI/UX is enabling an explosion of content generation. Stop thinking like a middle aged guy in the entertainment biz who sees content within 4 or 5 verticals. The very definition of content is morphing through personalization.

I'm well aware of the content enabling, at the end of the day all of that "stuff" is being offered for free.  Sure, some people will end up paying for some of it, but I believe (as do many of us) that the monetization of that content is a small piece of the pie.  Sure, a huge pie means a small piece of it is still a big nut, but in the grand scheme of things still small by industry standards.  That content enabling is going to be good for comedy, animation and things of that nature.  It is not going to replace live action, larger production, story based content.  It will have its place.  How much will people pay for that?

My new gig, I'm in the very space you are talking about with OTT and mobility and where the future is going.  Smack in the thick of it.  Couldn't be more in the thick of it if I tried. 

[keefe]

I'm well aware of the content enabling, at the end of the day all of that "stuff" is being offered for free.  Sure, some people will end up paying for some of it, but I believe (as do many of us) that the monetization of that content is a small piece of the pie.  Sure, a huge pie means a small piece of it is still a big nut, but in the grand scheme of things still small by industry standards.  That content enabling is going to be good for comedy, animation and things of that nature.  It is not going to replace live action, larger production, story based content.  It will have its place.  How much will people pay for that?

My new gig, I'm in the very space you are talking about with OTT and mobility and where the future is going.  Smack in the thick of it.  Couldn't be more in the thick of it if I tried. 

Give a call and we can discuss. Mobile remote sensors is the future. Sports/entertainment is a big vertical but there are others that are far more significant from a societal contribution and financial standpoint.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Give a call and we can discuss. Mobile remote sensors is the future. Sports/entertainment is a big vertical but there are others that are far more significant from a societal contribution and financial standpoint.

Happy to....and yes, mobile is a big deal.  I hear some mobile company just put up about $50 billion for another company to expand in that space.   

[keefe]

Happy to....and yes, mobile is a big deal.  I hear some mobile company just put up about $50 billion for another company to expand in that space.   

That's just distribution. I am happy to sit in the middle tier. That's where the jaw dropping innovation is happening. The Internet of Things has arrived and is shattering the definitions of content, production, and consumption. Back end cloud services around Big Data is empowering personalization. C'mon up to Bellevue and I'll show you.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I appreciate Guns idealistic world of someone is just going to come in and create Disney like content and offer it at a $2 app.  Sounds cute, then there is reality. 

I don't know if you're trying to sound dismissive or whatever.

I might be COMPLETELY WRONG, and that's fine. I've been wrong lots of times in my life.

But, pretending like there is NO CHANCE that technology in production, distribution, consumption and personalization change the marketplace is short sighted.

[keefe]

I don't know if you're trying to sound dismissive or whatever.

I might be COMPLETELY WRONG, and that's fine. I've been wrong lots of times in my life.

But, pretending like there is NO CHANCE that technology in production, distribution, consumption and personalization change the marketplace is short sighted.

The reality is that the WHY of content and consumption is evolving. If the Masters of the Entertainment Universe are missing this it is, in fact, a good thing.