[opendtv] Re: Apple, TV Networks Clash Over Size and Makeup of Web TV Bundle | Re/code

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:40:17 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

It has a Disney property that is "the" heavy hitter in the
extended basic bundle in terms of subscriber fee. Aside from
ESPN it is no heavier with Disney content than other congloms,

Even if what you say had been true, this still makes Sling Disney-heavy. Which
is what I said to begin with.

And what delivers profits is not necessarily the same as what
people watch.

Sounds like trying to justify rape.

You are the one suggesting that they change business models
based on trends, based on small percentage changes in the
market.

No, Craig. I am the one saying that they ARE working on changing their business
model, and actually doing so, even while using soothing rhetoric for the
nervous nellies like you. I am the one who's been saying that you take the
soothing-rhetoric-for-nervous-nellies too literally, which is why you
consistently miss trends while they are happening. Just as photo magazines were
doing about film, a few years back.

The new distribution methods are being embraced.

Maybe there's hope for you yet. But then you seem to backslide.

Sorry Apple, but we won't let you upset the CARTel.

Oh, so now Apple would be the knight in shining armor? ROTFL. If Moonves
already upset the cart, with All Access, and Skipper with Sling TV, etc., why
would these gentlemen look to Apple to bring them salvation?

I see this very much as the GoogleTV debacle. The content owners are
understandably wary of some newcomer trying to horn in on the whole deal, with
the congloms' precious content. Both Google and Apple had, and have, similar
ambitions - essentially to monopolize the online TV arena. It's the hype that
comes with those names. So, the congloms say no. BUT, this doesn't mean that
the congloms are just sitting still, sticking to the old formula exclusively.
They aren't, because they have seen that they can't. And that's all that
matters. We do not need an Apple to genuflect to. That would be nice for Apple,
and they'll keep trying, but we can allow ourselves to think beyond.

The majority of Hollywood movies are still shot on 35 mm film.

Perhaps, but here is a more complete story about Kodak:

http://fortune.com/2015/03/20/kodak-patents/

This too is a bit of a hail mary. You will also find that vinyl records are
still being sold, but let's not fool ourselves. Just because stables still
exist, for horse riding enthusiasts, does not mean we are going back to using
horses and carriages for our daily transportation.

Not me. There's far more to TV entertainment than the live
linear channels, just as there is far more to music than FOTA
radio. But that does not mean that live linear is dead.

But now you're back to banalities. Once again, when the network is optimized
for IP, it becomes foolish, stupid, call it whatever you will, to dedicate,
100% of the time, the very vast majority of its capacity to one-way broadcast.
The tiny fraction of content that needs to be linear/live DOES NOT need to be
delivered on capacity that can **only do** linear/live. Get it? It can be
delivered linear/live as needed, and then that capacity can be used more
effectively at the end of the linear/live event. These decisions are made
dynamically. It all depends how many people are consuming that linear content,
within that portion of the local network, at that given time. The user doesn't
see the difference, but many more people can do many more things, on that same
PON, if it's used efficiently.

In short, everything you want and one thing you do not want -
to pay for this.

Not a problem. Just like you feel the urge to insist that linear/live isn't
dead, I will counter that FOTI can and will replace FOTA, and won't disappear.
Reason being, competition. If CBS decides no more FOTI, they will lose out to
the guy who continues to offer FOTI. Pretty much the same effect that is
breaking up your much-beloved "the bundle."

Thanks for making my case. They are content to extend and protect
the business model that has been working for decades.

I thought there was hope for Craig, but he's back at square one. Already
covered above, Craig. I hardly made your case.

Going it alone is not viable for CBS - they are getting nowhere
fast.

You don't know this, and you don't have the latest numbers on legacy
subscriptions either. We already got a hint that on demand viewing has been
marching on faster than you might ever have imagined. You need to do the
numbers, Craig, to understand trend lines.

There is no bill for TVE

Oh excellent. That must mean that I can get it too. I'll try tonight.

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.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. opendtv
  3. Archive
  4. 12-2015