Not quite. Their advertisers are their customers and clients. Us users are the product.
Exactly. It's the same situation as with commercial television; the programmes aren't the product; the *viewers* are.
This is one of those "bleeding obvious" points that most people (myself included) wouldn't otherwise have thought about too much until it was stated like this.
A lot of things aren't as complicated or messed up as we think they are; it's the misconceptions (or lack of desire to see the situation as we would like it to be) that makes something appear nonsensical or unfair.
Personally, I *would* pay to use Google. We're talking about a very small amount here- even at US$0.01 per search, costs would soon exceed your monthly Broadband bill- and the problem is that no-one has come up with a commercially viable micropayment system yet. (Okay; with Google, you could pay them some money, and let that slowly get used up, so it's not a good example. For other sites you don't use often- or only once- you wouldn't do this. We *need* a proper micropayment system.)
Well, I supposed it makes it easier to hide the stupid things some of us may have posted (especially in university) to Usenet back in the 80s and early 90s.
Amen... I posted some stuff to Usenet in the early to mid 90s that, given the choice, I'd rather weren't around today. Mainly due to their naive and juvenile nature...
Problem with Usenet nowadays is you *know* it will be archived, and for that reason I use it much less (also because of the worse signal:noise ratio). When I do, it's never under my real name (last did that over 3 years ago), although I use a plausible sounding pseudonym because I have nothing to hide.;-)
I don't even tend to use the same name for different accounts (so if you see a 'Dogtanian' elsewhere, it's someone else). If someone wants to find out about me, they probably can, but not just through a 30-second search in Google groups.
But Wil Wheaton isn't married. If you look close Bob Goatse is wearing a wedding ring....
Most of us try to avoid looking at goatse *at all*, let alone closely. (BTW, you know what "ring" also means in Britain? Rather unfortunate choice of words there...)
Why would any government actually want to pay Microsoft any money when they could pirate the software instead? whats Microsoft going to do? come and sue them? yes I know its more complicated than that and there are all sorts of WTO issues not to mention plain diplomacy, but if were talking about a country that doesnt care, then seriously? why not just open up big government-run CD presses and start churning out copies of Windows for your country? (All bold emphasis mine)
I think you answered your own question. If you don't want to do business with certain countries (the biggest and richest, most typically), then you can probably get away with pirating Windows. You say "why would any government actually want to pay..."; well, because they want to do business and not be penalised in some form or another.
I'm not justifying this, but that's really the way it is. If you're North Korea, you're obviously not going to give a flying fuck about whether your copy of Windows is legitimate, but who the hell wants to be North Korea?
I just moved into a new place and after 3 weeks still had NO inclination whatsoever to plug the aerial into the TV... and still don't...so i thought fuck it, I'll just download stuff when I want it.
Watch it, as far as I know, the law simply covers the ownership of equipment that can receive TV transmissions; I doubt not having it plugged into an aeriel would be a defence.
I know one guy who had the TV license people come round. He showed them into his living room, and they saw that he didn't have a TV and left.
He didn't show them into his bedroom, where he kept the TV though.
My sister (UK resident) obtained a Sky subscription for my Aunt and Uncle (French residents), then took the Sky box out to France for them. Likewise, on holiday in Spain over the Summer the hotel I was staying in had Sky. I suspect the trick is not to tell Sky where you live;)
You deserve... well, some nice reward for that insight.
You did miss the potential business plan in there, though. Sell stuff to foreigners that only the British are meant to see, and vice versa.
Decent porn... yay! Oh, hang on, I can download that anyway.
Stationery vs. Employee Welfare? No competition.
on
TV Piracy is Next
·
· Score: 1
Studies have shown the way to reduce office theft is not just to increase the penalties for stealing, but to REDUCE things that can be used to justify the theft to the individual... i work long unpaid hours, the company is a faceless corp... the company can afford it etc.
Let's face it, unless people are stealing PCs and photocopiers (which is going to be damn hard to get away with in the same casual manner), the company is going to bite the cost of the stationery rather than reduce hours, pay more, or treat their staff as human beings.
Seriously, if I was a pennypinching amoral fuck, it'd be a no-brainer. Stationery just isn't that expensive (even accounting for the bloated prices in your average office stationery catalogue).
Survivor made it onto TV in a UK version, and no-one gave a fuck, probably because they were too busy watching Big Brother (the exact reverse situation of the US).
As for showing the US Survivor in Britain... well, I don't think British audiences would be interested enough to justify broadcasting it on any major channel. Even the celeb-based shows wouldn't play well, because, although there are tons of US celebrities known in the UK, the ones who appear on US daytime TV and the like (the kind most likely to appear on reality shows) would have UK audiences scratching their heads and saying "Who the fuck is that?".
I mean, do *you* know any famous US gameshow presenters, or hosts of daytime magazine shows? The sort of people that would be household names in the US but will never be widely known in the rest of the world? Of course not.
Actually, forget that. I doubt half the "celebrities" on "I'm a Celebrity.... Get Me Out of Here!" were known to anyone who doesn't have "Hello" and "OK!" as their sole reading matter before they appeared on the show.
And they only appeared in Hello because they were going to be on the TV show.
Jeesus... there's *nothing* more soul-destroying than C-List, famous-for-being-famous schedule-filling, supermarket-magazine-selling celebrities.
In my last place (a visual effects company) people worked at least 9am-10pm 7 days a week for long periods, and some frequently worked into the small hours. Maybe a 30 minute lunch break.
Don't work in visual effects. It's a crap business.
Hallucinations caused by chronic sleep deprivation are the best visual effects of all!
Re:Dixons stopped VHS because of TiVo/PVRs?...
on
The VHS is Dead
·
· Score: 1
The Asus Pundit boxes are quite shiny.
Had a look.... mmm... it's *not bad*, but it doesn't quite have the appeal of the Hoojum boxes for me. Arguably that finish would match most modern audio-visual equipment better than the Nanode or Cubit, but.... dammit, I want the Nanode. And I hope they sell it in lots of different colours. Red, or coppery-bronze. Yummy (^_^)
They should sell more audiovisual stuff with a copper finish... *everyone* does silver now. Although silver can still look decently expensive if they put the effort in.
Myth supports ACPI soft powering off between recordings, and if you're using Freeview then you can use a really low-spec CPU since you're not having to do any encoding (it just grabs the MPEG2 stream straight off the air).
Yeah, I was taking all that into account.
I thought most slashdotters enjoyed fiddling with computers?:)
Sometimes. Sometimes they can be a PITA, and if you're missing your favourite TV program because of a ropey home-brew box, you could end up kicking the thing across the room.
Thing is, even when I was watching more TV, I often did something else while I was doing it, and didn't watch a particular program (i.e. I turned on when I felt like it and turned off when I felt like it). And if I'm watching something prerecorded, I feel like I have to give it my attention. This is one problem I have with TV.
Radio on the other hand, I can listen to it in the shower, I can listen to it when I'm doing the dishes...
Re:Dixons stopped VHS because of TiVo/PVRs?...
on
The VHS is Dead
·
· Score: 1
Sky knew they were going to be launching Sky+ about a year after TiVo. By making one of the least important features the main selling point would mean that the differences between the less functional Sky+ and the TiVo would be less obvious.
Sky marketed/sold TiVo in the UK?
Re:Dixons stopped VHS because of TiVo/PVRs?...
on
The VHS is Dead
·
· Score: 1
Good suggestion, but I don't have Sky and have no intention of getting it. My TV reception is pretty poor where I live, but even when I was getting great reception with my Freeview box, there were still times there was *nothing* worth watching on, IMHO.
Basically, I'm fed up of casual TV browsing. I can't recall the last TV program I'd actually make a point of watching regularly. Yeah, I watch it, but not that much.
I wouldn't consider going for a PC-based solution unless it was in a small, attractive (*), and more importantly, *very* power-efficient and noise-free box. Plus, I'd need a Freeview card, so already it's getting quite expensive, and that's ignoring the time taken to set up MythTV (maybe it's easy; I haven't checked it out).
It might be cool for doing it for the sake of it, but I don't really have the time, money or inclination at present.
(*) Damn... when the hell is the Nanode finally going to come out.... it's already delayed.
Re:Dixons stopped VHS because of TiVo/PVRs?...
on
The VHS is Dead
·
· Score: 1
But apart from that, it's very hard to get across how it differs from a VCR.
Maybe the mistake was in comparing it to a VCR. Sell the "I can do what I like with TV, watch anything I want, when I want, and have recommendations" angle, shift the emphasis away from superficial comparisons.
The VCR for the most part was being used as a slightly limited way of doing something (i.e. time-shifting). Perhaps TiVo should have shown how it lets people control their TV watching and concentrated on a functionality angle. Comparing with a VCR is hard, because many of TiVo's functions are far cruder, if not nonexistent, in a VCR.
Re:Dixons stopped VHS because of profits.
on
The VHS is Dead
·
· Score: 1
Dixons are attempting to beat their image of "only for idiots who can't shop online, or believe that their shop assistants know one end of an extension lead from the other", and promote themselves as meccas for the tech-savvy. Never going to happen, but they're trying. Saying "we're too modern for VHS" helps that.
Bingo.
Have you noticed that Dixons stores seem to have become more *transparently* box-shifting operations in the past few years? They seem to have (slightly) fewer sales people, supermarket style barriers at the doors, and most importantly, boxes on display for immediate purchase, even for higher-priced items. They pleasantly surprised me by starting to sell almost reasonably-priced Canon-compatible ink carts too...
I don't know how well this format will work in the smaller Dixons stores, though. They're pretty small to keep all the goods on immediate display, and this seems like a format better suited to their larger non-High Street stores (i.e. Currys and PC World).
Which would explain...
Its not that no-one is buying VCRs, but that the margins are miniscule, thanks to competition from Tesco and Asda. They would much rather sell you a 700 quid DVD+HD PVR box
Yep (although they still sell DVD players; see the nephew(*) post to this one). VCRs are commodity items nowadays; I bought my last one as a stop-gap, and wasn't that bothered about the quality. I guess most people don't need Dixons "high-tech" (cough) image or handholding (COUGH!) for a VCR, just something damn *cheap*. I'd reckon that Tesco and friends probably sell more VCRs than the tech-stores like Dixons, though that's just a guess.
(*) Yeah, you know what I mean. Maybe it's a niece, who cares..... though I'll stop using the analogy if it gets to "third cousin twice removed" level.
Re:Dixons stopped VHS because of profits.
on
The VHS is Dead
·
· Score: 1
That was my immediate reaction, but I can't believe that the margins on DVD players are exactly PROFIT! I suspect the problem is that most people have got a VCR, so new sales are small, they're physically bulky on the shelves
I was thinking the same thing myself- DVD players are generally cheaper than VHS nowadays. (Bearing in mind that VHS, even with all the clever tricks used to simplify the design nowadays, are very mechanical compared to DVD- servo with head, spinny(!) motor, that's about it- it's not really surprising).
However, DVD players are still not much less bulky than VCRs. As the parent mentioned, this probably has to do with Dixons' image, and that would not be well-served if they stopped selling DVD players. Even low-margin ones...
Re:Dixons stopped VHS because of TiVo/PVRs?...
on
The VHS is Dead
·
· Score: 1
Just one point. Freeview does have 7-day EPG now. Older boxes may not have the ability to see the new EPG. I do have an ancient OnDigital box which can not see the EPG.
I'd heard about that, but assumed it hadn't been completely rolled out, because my Daewoo Setpal box (bought in February this year) hasn't picked up any updates.
Now, this could be because I live in a poor reception area, *and* the rooftop aeriel is fscked; hence, I can only pick up BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, CBBC and News-24 with the digibox. But aren't the software updates meant to be available through BBC1 or 2 anyway?
Dixons stopped VHS because of TiVo/PVRs?...
on
The VHS is Dead
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This announcement by Dixons smacks of not telling the whole story.
I don't know how popular PVRs are in the US market (in absolute terms; yes, I know TiVo has a cult following, but what are *most* people using?), but they have *not* yet taken off that much in Britain.
TiVo was introduced to the UK, then subsequently withdrawn (*1). Although Murdoch's Sky have since launched "Sky Plus", that only works with Sky satellite TV.
Basically, I am convinced that PVRs will be phenomenally successful (even more so than DVD players) in the UK *once* you can get a decent 80Gb model for less than UKP 100, and the Freeview (Digital Terrestial TV) electronic program guide provides a full 7-day service.
However.... this hasn't happened yet! I was considering getting a basic PVR for UKP 150.00 in February, but it was very limited, so I got a 50 quid VCR with 12-hour recording capacity instead (as a stopgap). My guess back then, and one I still hold, is that Christmas 2005 will see massive PVR sales in the UK, and the swift death of VHS.
Until then, what are people buying?
I can now buy a DVD recorder for 200 pounds, but I don't see this as a replacement for the VCR. Put simply, most VCRs were used either for watching pre-recorded films (DVD players now have this market) or time-shifting. Sure, a DVD recorder looks like a direct replacement for the VCR, but the PVR is actually a better choice for what they are actually *doing*- time shifting!
Anyway, this is beside the point. VCR sales may be falling, but I don't see recordable DVD, nor PVR sales filling the gap just yet.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's notable that it's only the Dixons stores (which tend to be smaller and based in the city-centre) are discontinuing them, and the sibling Currys stores (larger, based mainly in retail parks) are not.
In short, I think the Dixons group are trying to improve the profit margins in their smaller stores. They just finished closing down a large number of them (good riddance).
(*1) Possibly due to bad publicity they got when they automatically uploaded a BBC program without prior notification, or maybe just bad marketing in the first place. They pushed the 'pause live video' selling-point over everything else, and.... maybe that wasn't enough to convince people to shell out.
HOwever , these programs could do anything which is the worrying part. 99% of them may just be Gary Grocer trying to make some extra money
I think you're underplaying the seriousness of Gary Grocer's nefarious activities. After all, he's an internationally-wanted credit card fraudster who is also notorious for using zombified PCs to send spam.... that's how he makes his "extra money". (Note: There is a reward for the capture of him and his money-laundering associate, Freddy Firefighter).
"These people are scum, " says Florida's Head of Anti-Fraud Investigations, Calvin Criminal.
"Damn right, " adds his colleague, Alvin Arsonist.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite. Their advertisers are their customers and clients. Us users are the product.
Exactly. It's the same situation as with commercial television; the programmes aren't the product; the *viewers* are.
This is one of those "bleeding obvious" points that most people (myself included) wouldn't otherwise have thought about too much until it was stated like this.
A lot of things aren't as complicated or messed up as we think they are; it's the misconceptions (or lack of desire to see the situation as we would like it to be) that makes something appear nonsensical or unfair.
Personally, I *would* pay to use Google. We're talking about a very small amount here- even at US$0.01 per search, costs would soon exceed your monthly Broadband bill- and the problem is that no-one has come up with a commercially viable micropayment system yet. (Okay; with Google, you could pay them some money, and let that slowly get used up, so it's not a good example. For other sites you don't use often- or only once- you wouldn't do this. We *need* a proper micropayment system.)
Well, I supposed it makes it easier to hide the stupid things some of us may have posted (especially in university) to Usenet back in the 80s and early 90s.
;-)
Amen... I posted some stuff to Usenet in the early to mid 90s that, given the choice, I'd rather weren't around today. Mainly due to their naive and juvenile nature...
Problem with Usenet nowadays is you *know* it will be archived, and for that reason I use it much less (also because of the worse signal:noise ratio). When I do, it's never under my real name (last did that over 3 years ago), although I use a plausible sounding pseudonym because I have nothing to hide.
I don't even tend to use the same name for different accounts (so if you see a 'Dogtanian' elsewhere, it's someone else). If someone wants to find out about me, they probably can, but not just through a 30-second search in Google groups.
Perhaps the people employed to greet employees in shops, and press buttons on the elevators could be employed to visit old people instead.
Just a thought.
Which is why joining the military is a good start to your occupation.
Of Iraq?
I know that I am going to regret this, but what does it mean?
*sigh* I'm surprised you didn't just Google it.
Ring == slang for 'anus'.
Someone has already written an Everything2 writeup on this.
And someone else has marked it for destruction...
But Wil Wheaton isn't married. If you look close Bob Goatse is wearing a wedding ring....
Most of us try to avoid looking at goatse *at all*, let alone closely. (BTW, you know what "ring" also means in Britain? Rather unfortunate choice of words there...)
Anyway, Tubgirl it is then.
What is missing in most movies today, if anything? Is it possible to make a geeky movie that has a chance of commercial success?
The Matrix.
Have you heard of it?
Yes, I realise it probably got lost in the memory-repression you needed to forget "The Matrix Revolutions".
Wil, is it true that youre really the guy who makes all those Goatse posts?
It's worse than that. I have it on good authority that Wil Wheaton *is* the Goatse Man.
Either that, or Tubgirl, I forget which.
Why would any government actually want to pay Microsoft any money when they could pirate the software instead? whats Microsoft going to do? come and sue them? yes I know its more complicated than that and there are all sorts of WTO issues not to mention plain diplomacy, but if were talking about a country that doesnt care, then seriously? why not just open up big government-run CD presses and start churning out copies of Windows for your country? (All bold emphasis mine)
I think you answered your own question. If you don't want to do business with certain countries (the biggest and richest, most typically), then you can probably get away with pirating Windows. You say "why would any government actually want to pay..."; well, because they want to do business and not be penalised in some form or another.
I'm not justifying this, but that's really the way it is. If you're North Korea, you're obviously not going to give a flying fuck about whether your copy of Windows is legitimate, but who the hell wants to be North Korea?
My understanding of the law is that you are required to have a license if your equipment (arf) is capable of receiving TV transmissions.
No skin off my nose, though, and if you're sure of your rights, then you've got nothing to fear.
I just moved into a new place and after 3 weeks still had NO inclination whatsoever to plug the aerial into the TV... and still don't.. .so i thought fuck it, I'll just download stuff when I want it.
Watch it, as far as I know, the law simply covers the ownership of equipment that can receive TV transmissions; I doubt not having it plugged into an aeriel would be a defence.
I know one guy who had the TV license people come round. He showed them into his living room, and they saw that he didn't have a TV and left.
He didn't show them into his bedroom, where he kept the TV though.
My sister (UK resident) obtained a Sky subscription for my Aunt and Uncle (French residents), then took the Sky box out to France for them. Likewise, on holiday in Spain over the Summer the hotel I was staying in had Sky. I suspect the trick is not to tell Sky where you live ;)
You deserve... well, some nice reward for that insight.
You did miss the potential business plan in there, though. Sell stuff to foreigners that only the British are meant to see, and vice versa.
Decent porn... yay! Oh, hang on, I can download that anyway.
Studies have shown the way to reduce office theft is not just to increase the penalties for stealing, but to REDUCE things that can be used to justify the theft to the individual... i work long unpaid hours, the company is a faceless corp... the company can afford it etc.
Let's face it, unless people are stealing PCs and photocopiers (which is going to be damn hard to get away with in the same casual manner), the company is going to bite the cost of the stationery rather than reduce hours, pay more, or treat their staff as human beings.
Seriously, if I was a pennypinching amoral fuck, it'd be a no-brainer. Stationery just isn't that expensive (even accounting for the bloated prices in your average office stationery catalogue).
Survivor made it onto TV in a UK version, and no-one gave a fuck, probably because they were too busy watching Big Brother (the exact reverse situation of the US).
As for showing the US Survivor in Britain... well, I don't think British audiences would be interested enough to justify broadcasting it on any major channel. Even the celeb-based shows wouldn't play well, because, although there are tons of US celebrities known in the UK, the ones who appear on US daytime TV and the like (the kind most likely to appear on reality shows) would have UK audiences scratching their heads and saying "Who the fuck is that?".
I mean, do *you* know any famous US gameshow presenters, or hosts of daytime magazine shows? The sort of people that would be household names in the US but will never be widely known in the rest of the world? Of course not.
Actually, forget that. I doubt half the "celebrities" on "I'm a Celebrity.... Get Me Out of Here!" were known to anyone who doesn't have "Hello" and "OK!" as their sole reading matter before they appeared on the show.
And they only appeared in Hello because they were going to be on the TV show.
Jeesus... there's *nothing* more soul-destroying than C-List, famous-for-being-famous schedule-filling, supermarket-magazine-selling celebrities.
In my last place (a visual effects company) people worked at least 9am-10pm 7 days a week for long periods, and some frequently worked into the small hours. Maybe a 30 minute lunch break. Don't work in visual effects. It's a crap business.
Hallucinations caused by chronic sleep deprivation are the best visual effects of all!
The Asus Pundit boxes are quite shiny.
:)
Had a look.... mmm... it's *not bad*, but it doesn't quite have the appeal of the Hoojum boxes for me. Arguably that finish would match most modern audio-visual equipment better than the Nanode or Cubit, but.... dammit, I want the Nanode. And I hope they sell it in lots of different colours. Red, or coppery-bronze. Yummy (^_^)
They should sell more audiovisual stuff with a copper finish... *everyone* does silver now. Although silver can still look decently expensive if they put the effort in.
Myth supports ACPI soft powering off between recordings, and if you're using Freeview then you can use a really low-spec CPU since you're not having to do any encoding (it just grabs the MPEG2 stream straight off the air).
Yeah, I was taking all that into account.
I thought most slashdotters enjoyed fiddling with computers?
Sometimes. Sometimes they can be a PITA, and if you're missing your favourite TV program because of a ropey home-brew box, you could end up kicking the thing across the room.
Thing is, even when I was watching more TV, I often did something else while I was doing it, and didn't watch a particular program (i.e. I turned on when I felt like it and turned off when I felt like it). And if I'm watching something prerecorded, I feel like I have to give it my attention. This is one problem I have with TV.
Radio on the other hand, I can listen to it in the shower, I can listen to it when I'm doing the dishes...
Sky knew they were going to be launching Sky+ about a year after TiVo. By making one of the least important features the main selling point would mean that the differences between the less functional Sky+ and the TiVo would be less obvious.
Sky marketed/sold TiVo in the UK?
Good suggestion, but I don't have Sky and have no intention of getting it. My TV reception is pretty poor where I live, but even when I was getting great reception with my Freeview box, there were still times there was *nothing* worth watching on, IMHO.
Basically, I'm fed up of casual TV browsing. I can't recall the last TV program I'd actually make a point of watching regularly. Yeah, I watch it, but not that much.
I wouldn't consider going for a PC-based solution unless it was in a small, attractive (*), and more importantly, *very* power-efficient and noise-free box. Plus, I'd need a Freeview card, so already it's getting quite expensive, and that's ignoring the time taken to set up MythTV (maybe it's easy; I haven't checked it out).
It might be cool for doing it for the sake of it, but I don't really have the time, money or inclination at present.
(*) Damn... when the hell is the Nanode finally going to come out.... it's already delayed.
But apart from that, it's very hard to get across how it differs from a VCR.
Maybe the mistake was in comparing it to a VCR. Sell the "I can do what I like with TV, watch anything I want, when I want, and have recommendations" angle, shift the emphasis away from superficial comparisons.
The VCR for the most part was being used as a slightly limited way of doing something (i.e. time-shifting). Perhaps TiVo should have shown how it lets people control their TV watching and concentrated on a functionality angle. Comparing with a VCR is hard, because many of TiVo's functions are far cruder, if not nonexistent, in a VCR.
Dixons are attempting to beat their image of "only for idiots who can't shop online, or believe that their shop assistants know one end of an extension lead from the other", and promote themselves as meccas for the tech-savvy. Never going to happen, but they're trying. Saying "we're too modern for VHS" helps that.
Bingo.
Have you noticed that Dixons stores seem to have become more *transparently* box-shifting operations in the past few years? They seem to have (slightly) fewer sales people, supermarket style barriers at the doors, and most importantly, boxes on display for immediate purchase, even for higher-priced items. They pleasantly surprised me by starting to sell almost reasonably-priced Canon-compatible ink carts too...
I don't know how well this format will work in the smaller Dixons stores, though. They're pretty small to keep all the goods on immediate display, and this seems like a format better suited to their larger non-High Street stores (i.e. Currys and PC World).
Which would explain...
Its not that no-one is buying VCRs, but that the margins are miniscule, thanks to competition from Tesco and Asda. They would much rather sell you a 700 quid DVD+HD PVR box
Yep (although they still sell DVD players; see the nephew(*) post to this one). VCRs are commodity items nowadays; I bought my last one as a stop-gap, and wasn't that bothered about the quality. I guess most people don't need Dixons "high-tech" (cough) image or handholding (COUGH!) for a VCR, just something damn *cheap*. I'd reckon that Tesco and friends probably sell more VCRs than the tech-stores like Dixons, though that's just a guess.
(*) Yeah, you know what I mean. Maybe it's a niece, who cares..... though I'll stop using the analogy if it gets to "third cousin twice removed" level.
That was my immediate reaction, but I can't believe that the margins on DVD players are exactly PROFIT! I suspect the problem is that most people have got a VCR, so new sales are small, they're physically bulky on the shelves
I was thinking the same thing myself- DVD players are generally cheaper than VHS nowadays. (Bearing in mind that VHS, even with all the clever tricks used to simplify the design nowadays, are very mechanical compared to DVD- servo with head, spinny(!) motor, that's about it- it's not really surprising).
However, DVD players are still not much less bulky than VCRs. As the parent mentioned, this probably has to do with Dixons' image, and that would not be well-served if they stopped selling DVD players. Even low-margin ones...
Just one point. Freeview does have 7-day EPG now. Older boxes may not have the ability to see the new EPG. I do have an ancient OnDigital box which can not see the EPG.
I'd heard about that, but assumed it hadn't been completely rolled out, because my Daewoo Setpal box (bought in February this year) hasn't picked up any updates.
Now, this could be because I live in a poor reception area, *and* the rooftop aeriel is fscked; hence, I can only pick up BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, CBBC and News-24 with the digibox. But aren't the software updates meant to be available through BBC1 or 2 anyway?
This announcement by Dixons smacks of not telling the whole story.
I don't know how popular PVRs are in the US market (in absolute terms; yes, I know TiVo has a cult following, but what are *most* people using?), but they have *not* yet taken off that much in Britain.
TiVo was introduced to the UK, then subsequently withdrawn (*1). Although Murdoch's Sky have since launched "Sky Plus", that only works with Sky satellite TV.
Basically, I am convinced that PVRs will be phenomenally successful (even more so than DVD players) in the UK *once* you can get a decent 80Gb model for less than UKP 100, and the Freeview (Digital Terrestial TV) electronic program guide provides a full 7-day service.
However.... this hasn't happened yet! I was considering getting a basic PVR for UKP 150.00 in February, but it was very limited, so I got a 50 quid VCR with 12-hour recording capacity instead (as a stopgap). My guess back then, and one I still hold, is that Christmas 2005 will see massive PVR sales in the UK, and the swift death of VHS.
Until then, what are people buying?
I can now buy a DVD recorder for 200 pounds, but I don't see this as a replacement for the VCR. Put simply, most VCRs were used either for watching pre-recorded films (DVD players now have this market) or time-shifting. Sure, a DVD recorder looks like a direct replacement for the VCR, but the PVR is actually a better choice for what they are actually *doing*- time shifting!
Anyway, this is beside the point. VCR sales may be falling, but I don't see recordable DVD, nor PVR sales filling the gap just yet.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's notable that it's only the Dixons stores (which tend to be smaller and based in the city-centre) are discontinuing them, and the sibling Currys stores (larger, based mainly in retail parks) are not.
In short, I think the Dixons group are trying to improve the profit margins in their smaller stores. They just finished closing down a large number of them (good riddance).
(*1) Possibly due to bad publicity they got when they automatically uploaded a BBC program without prior notification, or maybe just bad marketing in the first place. They pushed the 'pause live video' selling-point over everything else, and.... maybe that wasn't enough to convince people to shell out.
HOwever , these programs could do anything which is the worrying part. 99% of them may just be Gary Grocer trying to make some extra money
I think you're underplaying the seriousness of Gary Grocer's nefarious activities. After all, he's an internationally-wanted credit card fraudster who is also notorious for using zombified PCs to send spam.... that's how he makes his "extra money". (Note: There is a reward for the capture of him and his money-laundering associate, Freddy Firefighter).
"These people are scum, " says Florida's Head of Anti-Fraud Investigations, Calvin Criminal.
"Damn right, " adds his colleague, Alvin Arsonist.