Craig Birkmaier wrote: > You may believe it is wrong the way that Google monetized the > search business, but in general, consumers have not objected. GoogleTV and regular old Google search engine are not the same thing. *IF* GoogleTV did *NOT* attempt to pare down the offerings, or to organize them in some easy to browse manner under their control, then there'd be nothing there. Might as well use Yahoo or Webcrawler, or plain jane Google search. > iTunes is no more a walled garden than Amazon or other online > music retailers - it is a store that aggregates content and > provides the consumer with the ability to easily find what they > want and to pay ONLY for what they want. Okay, so once again: There's nothing wrong with creating these content aggregation portals. Just let's not have the CE companies accepting bribes to make them the only choice on their receiving equipment. And let's not lull consumers into thinking that this is the way it has to be. (You will note that consumers, this time around, are not letting themselves get duped. That's what the article you just posted says about connected TVs.) > The telcos wanted to control every aspect of what you could do > with a phone and to monetize every desirable feature. That telco unwalling actually happened several years before the mobile phone. It happened when the AT&T was broken up. Ironically, instead, mobile phones took this trend backwards, in the US anyway. Mobile phone companies are NOT being forced to allow any and all mobile handsets on their networks, as the wired telcos had been required to. So, it's been a mixed bag. > I can see a day in the not too distant future, where a content > creator will be able to aggregate a large audience via direct > Internet "sales." And I can see broadcasters negotiating with > these new entrepreneurs for the broadcast rights to this > content. They already are. The major networks and small producers are already selling, or distributing for free, their content on the Internet. On independent, aggregated sites (Hulu, Hulu Plus, Netflix), and on their own sites, like fox.com. Some of this can be strictly a la carte (Netflix movies). Hulu already offers obscure movies that no one has heard of. And more than that, if small producers want to, they can all band together and make a small-producer site of their own. Just don't tie me down with silly CE-equipment-imposed restrictions, that's all. > The congloms are doing exactly what you detest. They are ONLY > providing "search results" that advantage the media oligopoly. Really? Then how come I can watch live TV programs from obscure local stations in Italy, France, and the UK (not to mention oodles of other places)? I found them using Webcrawler. No big feat. Bert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.