[opendtv] Re: Closed systems
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 22:02:18 -0500
On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:41 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Craig wrote:
Obviously not. You took the time to tell us how difficult it is to run OSX
on a
PC.
Don't be so thick, Craig. It is not the PC makers that deliberately make this
difficult, it is Apple. Apple wants to keep its ecosystem closed. This has
its own advantages, perhaps, but you need to understand the basic facts.
It does not matter who is making it difficult. The fact remains that it is easy
to run Windows on a Mac, but not the reverse, as you pointed out.
A one time and tiny expense, which can't begin to be compared with the hugely
higher *and* recurring monthly expense of forcing everyone into walled
gardens, as you advocate.
A one time tiny expense multiplied by hundreds of millions. Net cost to
consumers in the billions for something most never used. And making ATSC
tuners optional would not have forced ANYONE to subscribe to a MVPD service -
they still would have had the ability to buy an ATSC tuner.
The reality is just the opposite of what you stated. Only a small percentage
were still using antennas, yet everyone had to buy an ATSC tuner, even if they
were already a MVPD subscriber. And then there was the minor issue that early
receivers did not work well, or at all in many locations.
Please get off the misguided notion that I advocate forcing everyone into
walled gardens. It's the broadcasters who want you in a walled garden. And it
is just plain reality that most of the the TV content consumed in the U.S. Is
now behind pay walls. As you tell us every day, there are free content options
for anyone who does not want to pay.
Dogmatic claptrap. If nothing else, you need safety regs, or the "intensely
competitive" would be likely to cut corners, and you need interoperability
regs, to curb the urge for companies to create walled gardens. So it's going
to be a balancing act, no matter how competitive.
What crap.
Safety regs for a tuner most people never used?
We asked for interoperability - we got a stinking pile of reworked and
manipulated IP that the government forced us to buy to enrich the developers of
the standard. And we are still being forced to buy it with every new TV despite
the fact that is is outdated and most of the patents have expired.
After the standard was approved in 1995 the number of FOTA viewers declined -
at the peak, 95% of U.S. Homes subscribed to a MVPD service...
VOLUNTARILY.
If the FCC had actually done its job, opened up the market for STBs as mandated
in the 1995 Telecommunications act, and blocked the illegal tying of additional
channels via retrans consent negotiations, we would not have the current
overpriced MVPD mess.
The ATSC tuner mandate did nothing to change the realities of what was
happening to the TV industry. It just enriched the companies that developed the
standard. The 1992 Cable Act changed the face of television, and enabled the
growth of MVPD bundles, both in terms of size and price.
And I thought it was high time. But the FCC was interested in recovering some
of that OTA spectrum for mobile, so the effort had non-TV industry benefits.
Which is highly correlated to to decision to recover spectrum that was being
underutilized. The fact that even more spectrum is about to be recovered speaks
to the fact that the original decision was appropriate. And it confirms that
the tuner mandate was completely unnecessary.
And force everyone in walled gardens.
Stop the crap Bert.
He did not say ATSC tuners should be BANNED or that all of the broadcast
spectrum should be recovered and sold. All he is saying is that the mandate
should end. He also pointed out that stand alone ATSC tuners are now widely
available and affordable.
Again, radio evolved as an open system, where ANYONE could build receiving
equipment, if they built to the standard. TV already existed, veryone was
using the same NTSC standard. To make the shift to a new and better standard,
which also allows repurposing some of the TV band, requires coordination. You
don't need copious prose to explain the obvious.
Coordination was obviously needed. Loaning broadcasters a second channel and
then repacking after the transition is exactly what the FCC is was tasked to
do.
But mandating the new tuner in every set was just a boondoggle - a huge payoff
to the companies that created the standard.
It obviously is. Not only can PCs run other OSs, but Windows is compatible
with any number of third part devices. It's the main reason why things don't
always work right, when a new OS comes out. Many many combinations to take
into account. Apple offers none of this interoperability. And it is this
interoperability that created the Windows monopoly in the workplace.
Good luck with drivers if you decide to run another OS. Actually, good luck
with drivers if you run Windows.
You seem to think that the lack of tight integration between hardware and
software is some kind of advantage. The reality it is that it has provided
millions of jobs for IT support people and massive headaches for consumers.
If open platforms are so beneficial, why is the industry now scrambling to
Follow Apple's lead with tight integration of hardware and software?
Why is Microsoft now building PCs?
Why is Samsung developing an OS and Google developing hardware?
Microsoft monopolized the enterprise by tightly coupling the OS and the core
productivity software. And by providing job security for IT departments, which
nearly became extinct when PCs replaced mainframes and terminals.
Now they are losing that monopoly.
Read what you posted, Craig. It's exactly what I already explained to you.
Not at all. It was a well orchestrated effort to kill a potential competitor
that was already monopolizing a core Internet technology. Google wanted to
control the radio and TV ad markets. They never had a chance.
There are some strong parallels with what happened when AOL bought Time Warner.
The Time Warner managers killed AOL.
Please show us where there is a bandwidth shortage.
Hilarious. You mean, quote you when you were trying to tell us that it will
take "decades" for people to be able to use Internet TV? Make up your mind,
Craig.
You tried that dodge yesterday.
Where is the bandwidth shortage Bert?
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
