that's cool. this youtube thing. i wonder how content providers are making money off that though. In fact, even youtube was bleeding cash before being bought by google.
please, tell me how to make money as a content provider using youtube. i'd love to hear it.
Ad hominem attack. Mistake 1. Anecdotal data espoused as if of value. Mistake number 2.
"In fact, these days, the less non-Free stuff that gets into my head, the happier I am. I am messing with a new term, "copyright pollution" to describe how I am beginning to look at things.
I prefer to put things in my head that I can legally build upon."
Snide holier than thou attitude - in a post of little value to the discussion other than what amounts to public masturbation (stroking that ego of your pretty feverently) - priceless.
There is no money in that. youtube is not a viable option for distribution as they don't allow for uploading long videos. coupled with the quality loss, it is not viable at all.
my point is that digital media doesn't necessarily make big production movies a thing of the past at all. the fact that the material is trafficked illegally means there is a demand for it (people download what they want to see).... and where there is a demand, there is a way to make money - or someone will figure out a way to make money from it. My point is that illegal download only CONFIRMS demand.
Check that: I used underpaid in places I should have used the word overpaid. Hopefully this clears that up and gives me a pass for an otherwise poorly written post.
I work in film and I'm aware of these numbers. I know that jackson claims he is underpaid as he is suing for the remainder. NEw Line has hidden revenue to avoid giving him his share and have not to date allowed for the audits to make the LOTR books open for review. So it's pretty much industry knowledge that New Line is in fact hiding revenue from him and stalling to cook the books enough to withstand public scrutiny.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that studios like Lion's Gate see profits. The average cost of a film most likely to turn a profit is 27 million. But companies like Lion's Gate rely totally on genre product and new talent to see returns. Horror, stoner films, teen/high school comedies, black/urban films are the genres that see the best returns at those costs. but that price point and those genres come at a price: more product dilutes profits: see how horror has done in the past six months. Also notice that Lion's Gate has posted a loss recently, one of the first in memory - a particular problem because Lion's Gate is publically traded.
The average movie goer is a youngish woman. Women establish relationships with their celebrities and support their work. Will Smith turned a run of the mill romantic comedy into a 200 million dollar film (Hitch). To say that certain celebs are underpaid is to not understand the returns they garner. Will Smith has also turned Pursuit of Happyness, ostensibly an independent film with limited appeal, into a 100 million dollar film with crossover appeal outside the black market. Is he worth the 20 million price tag? Absolutely. Because people PAY to see him on screen.
Your argument about the time it takes to make blockbusters is no longer the case. Google the speed with which War of the Worlds went from cameras rolling to screen.
Note how Quentin Tarantino licenses his name to Dimension/Weinstein horror films in order to give it that "Quentin Tarantino Presents" tag. To argue that brands have no value is short sighted.
Further, in light of New Line shorting Peter Jackson, and to the dismay of everyone (including me) who has been fucked over when it came time for studios to cut checks, why would they PURPOSELY OVERPAY ACTORS?
But record labels aren't opposed to electronic distribution of content. ITunes has deals with labels to distribute their content. There are several services that allow for distribution of movies via download for a fee - with files that expire, etc.
this isn't about legal downloads, it's about illegal filesharing. media companies would jump in wholesale if they'd figured out how to prevent illegal filesharing or developed a method of ensuring profits through a revised method of distribution options.
so I still think your point is... ehhh. *shrugs* No one is opposed to legal electronic distribution of anything.
I agree with you. but it's not just video rentals - it's dvd sales. dvd sales always outstrip box office for most films. In some cases dvd sales outstrip movie ticket sales by 2 to 1. This is the primary source of revenue for the big studios. And this is precisely what is being stripped from the studios. ticket sales erosion is modest at best - dvd sales have flattened significantly however.
I disagree. People will steal anything if they can get it for free, regardless of the cost. That isn't an indication of whether or not the cost is something that the market can or will bear. Nor is it necessarily an indicant of the viability of a business model.
Nothing is a reasonable price FOR EVERYTHING. Your argument in and of itself doesn't imply that the model is inaccurate. Every walmart in the world would be looted bare if there was little consequence to taking what you wanted and walking out the doors.
What implies the model is inaccurate is that content providers haven't found a way to distribute instances of media without preventing other instances from being distributed in a manner that produces no value for the producer.
quite frankly, the industry is built on those millions of instances of sales of the same content. without those instances, the industry contracts significantly.
the fact that it's being downloaded to begin with - confirms DEMAND for the product. I'm certain that you don't have Britney Spears greatest hits or N'Sync Live in Dubai in your collection despite its ready availability for free online. so if you were to download - you'd probably be downloading something of interest to you to begin with, right?
Content providers look at this pool as potential cash and thus attempt to control distribution in order to maximize this pool. Whether this pool would buy or not will only be assured if and when distribution models are adjusted to limit end user distribution of corporate content.
So the DEMAND in this scenario confirms the financial viability of the content in question given controlled distribution channels. In fact, looking at download numbers for content is probably more accurate than other methods of determining the market viability of content.
So I maintain my assertion that downloading only asserts the market value of certain producers/execs, not the opposite.
Your second assertion about them not having a right to a profitable business is an arbitrary declarative statement. I'm not even sure how to take it.
In fact, actors and execs in the film industry are only paid what the market will bear - and what previous box office success warrants. for example, to say that peter jackson isn't worth what he's being paid for the LOTR franchise and ensuing going forward is absurd - because that franchise is verging on 5 billion, if not billions more. I'd wager that Peter's take is in the area of 250 million. I'd wager he's worth more than his take and then some.
infringement proves the opposite, actually - that the brands and content in question is of value that people are willing to take the moderate risk in STEALING IT.
and your point about sticking to a 19th century business model is moot - everyone complains about the business model but no one offers a viable alternative that won't result in a significant contraction/reshuffling of the industry.
Seriously, you make a good point. Bob's email is quoted as president (at) godaddy dot com. you can navigate to it from the main godaddy page by clicking on contact us and then clicking the parsons link.
peripherally, this is disgusting and scary. There is a quote about evil prevailing because good people do nothing. I am somewhat cognizant of governments limiting individual rights on one hand and corporations extending rights on another - with individual rights in the middle being squeezed at both ends. it sucks because the only power that individuals can muster is the power of numbers - and the internet is ideal for that, but the distractions are so strong that a critical mass might be difficult to successfully amass.
Not all three combined, but porn is definitely larger than the movie industry (box office excluding DVD sales) and the music industry (in serious recession for reasons that vary depending on your perspective).
These are generic numbers:
porn: 12-15 billion annually (US) movies (theatrical): 8-11 billion annually (US) dvds (non-porn/rental and purchase): 21-25 billion annually (US) music: anyones guess. numbers range from 5-15 billion depending on who is doing the telling. the music industry is notorious for lying about sales though - perceived popularity of music makes people buy more music. This number is probably high.
Your entire post is BS precisely because you have yet to use the device to know for certain that these features are in fact as well integrated as Apple claims.
And you still haven't explained to me how the touch screen makes up for the lack of tactile response one gets from keypad texting. I haven't read about the technology in the iphone that accomodates this.
your point about the razr is not relevant. I made no point about how well this will sell. The iphone will sell very well. Also, you bringing up the razr is interesting, because you bring up a poorly integrated device and point out that it still sells, which leads me to believe that in your mind of minds, you might not find the iphone as well integrated as your exuberant boasts suggest.
You claim brilliant integration in a device you haven't used: this is fanboyism. your only knowledge as to this perfect integration is what the chief exec of the firm selling this device has told you. This is fanboyism.
Yet you still don't explain how the touchscreen intends to accomodate for the lack of tactile response, meaning that the texter in question will have to visually confirm each keystroke.
You also don't address how texting has long outstripped voice and is the predominant use of most phones in the world. texting outstrips voice by orders of magnitude. how does a touchscreen make texting easier and faster? it doesn't.
you don't explain my assertion that rumbling on controllers makes games better because i can respond to stimuli I don't see. You don't in fact address this tactile issue at all.
Texting is not only used by a handful of users. in fact it is the predominant form of communication for rising generations as it allows students to communicate silently during class - workers in meetings, etc. texting and mobile email definitely outstrip voice by orders of magnitude and texting is the predominant form of mobile communication for people under 25 - and according to studies, has been since at least 2003. This trend is even more predominant overseas where services plans make texting even more attractive relative to voice.
and tactile response counts for a lot in texting.
the lack of keypad all but rules it out as a corporate device, amongst other reasons. the lack of qwerty also makes it less than ideal for high school and college students who prefer keypads for texting. That coupled with the price make it... an interesting device.
I'm sure it will sell. The reasons behind that are easy to guess - and they have little to do with the tech.
ones uses a word processor to process words. one uses pen and paper to write. in your example it's interface and features: I can manipulate the entire content of my work in powerful ways with but a thought in a word processor. Not so for pen and paper. Editing is a breeze for word processing - not so for pen and paper.
so in your example, features are as important as interface - in fact, the interface allows for and introduces the possibility of new features.
parent is correct in that the features touted by the iPhone aren't unique or cutting edge and have already been available at about half the cost for several years.
Now lets talk about interface? Touch screen? Even with a drastic leap in technology - a pure touch screen interface leaves a lot to be desired, PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE WHO TEXT AND MOBILE EMAIL OFTEN.
So for the corporate user - battery life and ungainly touch screen interface (for texting and email) seem to be limiting reagants. To the casual user, battery life and cost will be limiting reagants - along with the ungainly interface with which texting becomes arguably less efficient than with a qwerty device.
The sidekick is popular amongst kids - despite its ungainly appearance - because of utility and cost. texting and email on a qwerty keypad is FAST. It won't be as fast on a touch screen because you have to visually confirm a keystroke instead of having tactile response confirm it for you. This isn't a function of the technology - more a function of human design. In gaming, the rumble in my controller lets me know I'm being shot even if the shooter isn't onscreen - and i react accordingly.
To date, the key limiting reagant for convergance devices is BATTERY LIFE. Plenty of devices do all of these things, but batteries limit full utility.
In my estimation the thing that would have made this device revolutionary would have been an extremely durable long lasting battery that in turn makes all of its functions viable in a way they aren't on other devices, but this isn't the case.
To conclude, I can't justify getting a communication device that handles certain aspects of communication less efficiently than devices that cost half as much. This is why blackberries are popular. They are ungainly and unattractive, but they do what they are supposed to damned well.
Just my $0.02. I suspect that the mods have already marshalled their forces and loosed the dogs of war. Do with it what you will.
i still can't imagine how functional texting will be on this device. i've used smartphones with qwerty keypads for a while now, and find myself typing out text messages without looking at the keypad - as I would type on a computer. Sometimes I can type a message while conversing, or looking elsewhere - muscle memory. This is fast and efficient. Without tactile response from key strokes - will it be as fast? How often will the screen need to be recalibrated to ensure accurate taps? How prone is the touchscreen to failure?
texting is a predominant form of communication, especially for the demographic that would probably account for the bulk of this product's purchases should it take off. It doesn't matter how good and "smart" the screen is, the lack of a tactile response to keystrokes and concern about accuracy, combined with its price, makes it a less than ideal device for someone like myself who spends significant time on mobile text and email.
Couple that with battery life issues that I'm certain will arise - and this is less than a dreamy device.
I think that's the point. The notion that it'd shock you that they'd go to those depths to manipulate you is EXACTLY why it makes sense to them to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
that's cool. this youtube thing. i wonder how content providers are making money off that though. In fact, even youtube was bleeding cash before being bought by google.
please, tell me how to make money as a content provider using youtube. i'd love to hear it.
Where there is demand, there is market opportunity.
"Perhaps that is how you operate, I don't."
Ad hominem attack. Mistake 1. Anecdotal data espoused as if of value. Mistake number 2.
"In fact, these days, the less non-Free stuff that gets into my head, the happier I am. I am messing with a new term, "copyright pollution" to describe how I am beginning to look at things.
I prefer to put things in my head that I can legally build upon."
Snide holier than thou attitude - in a post of little value to the discussion other than what amounts to public masturbation (stroking that ego of your pretty feverently) - priceless.
Thanks for that tho.
Yes!!!!! This is it. Thanks. Greatly appreciated.
There is no money in that. youtube is not a viable option for distribution as they don't allow for uploading long videos. coupled with the quality loss, it is not viable at all.
my point is that digital media doesn't necessarily make big production movies a thing of the past at all. the fact that the material is trafficked illegally means there is a demand for it (people download what they want to see).... and where there is a demand, there is a way to make money - or someone will figure out a way to make money from it. My point is that illegal download only CONFIRMS demand.
There are loads of films being done this way as we speak. It doesn't work because you probably can't name many that have been widely successful.
Check that: I used underpaid in places I should have used the word overpaid. Hopefully this clears that up and gives me a pass for an otherwise poorly written post.
I work in film and I'm aware of these numbers. I know that jackson claims he is underpaid as he is suing for the remainder. NEw Line has hidden revenue to avoid giving him his share and have not to date allowed for the audits to make the LOTR books open for review. So it's pretty much industry knowledge that New Line is in fact hiding revenue from him and stalling to cook the books enough to withstand public scrutiny.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that studios like Lion's Gate see profits. The average cost of a film most likely to turn a profit is 27 million. But companies like Lion's Gate rely totally on genre product and new talent to see returns. Horror, stoner films, teen/high school comedies, black/urban films are the genres that see the best returns at those costs. but that price point and those genres come at a price: more product dilutes profits: see how horror has done in the past six months. Also notice that Lion's Gate has posted a loss recently, one of the first in memory - a particular problem because Lion's Gate is publically traded.
The average movie goer is a youngish woman. Women establish relationships with their celebrities and support their work. Will Smith turned a run of the mill romantic comedy into a 200 million dollar film (Hitch). To say that certain celebs are underpaid is to not understand the returns they garner. Will Smith has also turned Pursuit of Happyness, ostensibly an independent film with limited appeal, into a 100 million dollar film with crossover appeal outside the black market. Is he worth the 20 million price tag? Absolutely. Because people PAY to see him on screen.
Your argument about the time it takes to make blockbusters is no longer the case. Google the speed with which War of the Worlds went from cameras rolling to screen.
Note how Quentin Tarantino licenses his name to Dimension/Weinstein horror films in order to give it that "Quentin Tarantino Presents" tag. To argue that brands have no value is short sighted.
Further, in light of New Line shorting Peter Jackson, and to the dismay of everyone (including me) who has been fucked over when it came time for studios to cut checks, why would they PURPOSELY OVERPAY ACTORS?
But record labels aren't opposed to electronic distribution of content. ITunes has deals with labels to distribute their content. There are several services that allow for distribution of movies via download for a fee - with files that expire, etc.
this isn't about legal downloads, it's about illegal filesharing. media companies would jump in wholesale if they'd figured out how to prevent illegal filesharing or developed a method of ensuring profits through a revised method of distribution options.
so I still think your point is... ehhh. *shrugs* No one is opposed to legal electronic distribution of anything.
I agree with you. but it's not just video rentals - it's dvd sales. dvd sales always outstrip box office for most films. In some cases dvd sales outstrip movie ticket sales by 2 to 1. This is the primary source of revenue for the big studios. And this is precisely what is being stripped from the studios. ticket sales erosion is modest at best - dvd sales have flattened significantly however.
I disagree. People will steal anything if they can get it for free, regardless of the cost. That isn't an indication of whether or not the cost is something that the market can or will bear. Nor is it necessarily an indicant of the viability of a business model.
Nothing is a reasonable price FOR EVERYTHING. Your argument in and of itself doesn't imply that the model is inaccurate. Every walmart in the world would be looted bare if there was little consequence to taking what you wanted and walking out the doors.
What implies the model is inaccurate is that content providers haven't found a way to distribute instances of media without preventing other instances from being distributed in a manner that produces no value for the producer.
quite frankly, the industry is built on those millions of instances of sales of the same content. without those instances, the industry contracts significantly.
how are those low budget films financed, marketed, and distributed?
the fact that it's being downloaded to begin with - confirms DEMAND for the product. I'm certain that you don't have Britney Spears greatest hits or N'Sync Live in Dubai in your collection despite its ready availability for free online. so if you were to download - you'd probably be downloading something of interest to you to begin with, right?
Content providers look at this pool as potential cash and thus attempt to control distribution in order to maximize this pool. Whether this pool would buy or not will only be assured if and when distribution models are adjusted to limit end user distribution of corporate content.
So the DEMAND in this scenario confirms the financial viability of the content in question given controlled distribution channels. In fact, looking at download numbers for content is probably more accurate than other methods of determining the market viability of content.
So I maintain my assertion that downloading only asserts the market value of certain producers/execs, not the opposite.
Your second assertion about them not having a right to a profitable business is an arbitrary declarative statement. I'm not even sure how to take it.
Wow, this isn't insightful at all.
In fact, actors and execs in the film industry are only paid what the market will bear - and what previous box office success warrants. for example, to say that peter jackson isn't worth what he's being paid for the LOTR franchise and ensuing going forward is absurd - because that franchise is verging on 5 billion, if not billions more. I'd wager that Peter's take is in the area of 250 million. I'd wager he's worth more than his take and then some.
infringement proves the opposite, actually - that the brands and content in question is of value that people are willing to take the moderate risk in STEALING IT.
and your point about sticking to a 19th century business model is moot - everyone complains about the business model but no one offers a viable alternative that won't result in a significant contraction/reshuffling of the industry.
LOL. you loosed your faith! That's funny to me.
Seriously, you make a good point. Bob's email is quoted as president (at) godaddy dot com. you can navigate to it from the main godaddy page by clicking on contact us and then clicking the parsons link.
peripherally, this is disgusting and scary. There is a quote about evil prevailing because good people do nothing. I am somewhat cognizant of governments limiting individual rights on one hand and corporations extending rights on another - with individual rights in the middle being squeezed at both ends. it sucks because the only power that individuals can muster is the power of numbers - and the internet is ideal for that, but the distractions are so strong that a critical mass might be difficult to successfully amass.
i've also seen it run VERY slow on a g4 and slow a g3 to a virtual standstill.
one observation doesn't obviate the other, i guess.
Not all three combined, but porn is definitely larger than the movie industry (box office excluding DVD sales) and the music industry (in serious recession for reasons that vary depending on your perspective).
These are generic numbers:
porn: 12-15 billion annually (US)
movies (theatrical): 8-11 billion annually (US)
dvds (non-porn/rental and purchase): 21-25 billion annually (US)
music: anyones guess. numbers range from 5-15 billion depending on who is doing the telling. the music industry is notorious for lying about sales though - perceived popularity of music makes people buy more music. This number is probably high.
LOL. well you've definitely confirmed my suspicions.
Your entire post is BS precisely because you have yet to use the device to know for certain that these features are in fact as well integrated as Apple claims.
And you still haven't explained to me how the touch screen makes up for the lack of tactile response one gets from keypad texting. I haven't read about the technology in the iphone that accomodates this.
your point about the razr is not relevant. I made no point about how well this will sell. The iphone will sell very well. Also, you bringing up the razr is interesting, because you bring up a poorly integrated device and point out that it still sells, which leads me to believe that in your mind of minds, you might not find the iphone as well integrated as your exuberant boasts suggest.
You claim brilliant integration in a device you haven't used: this is fanboyism. your only knowledge as to this perfect integration is what the chief exec of the firm selling this device has told you. This is fanboyism.
Yet you still don't explain how the touchscreen intends to accomodate for the lack of tactile response, meaning that the texter in question will have to visually confirm each keystroke.
You also don't address how texting has long outstripped voice and is the predominant use of most phones in the world. texting outstrips voice by orders of magnitude. how does a touchscreen make texting easier and faster? it doesn't.
you don't explain my assertion that rumbling on controllers makes games better because i can respond to stimuli I don't see. You don't in fact address this tactile issue at all.
For these reasons and many more, your post is BS.
Texting is not only used by a handful of users. in fact it is the predominant form of communication for rising generations as it allows students to communicate silently during class - workers in meetings, etc. texting and mobile email definitely outstrip voice by orders of magnitude and texting is the predominant form of mobile communication for people under 25 - and according to studies, has been since at least 2003. This trend is even more predominant overseas where services plans make texting even more attractive relative to voice.
and tactile response counts for a lot in texting.
the lack of keypad all but rules it out as a corporate device, amongst other reasons. the lack of qwerty also makes it less than ideal for high school and college students who prefer keypads for texting. That coupled with the price make it... an interesting device.
I'm sure it will sell. The reasons behind that are easy to guess - and they have little to do with the tech.
ones uses a word processor to process words. one uses pen and paper to write. in your example it's interface and features: I can manipulate the entire content of my work in powerful ways with but a thought in a word processor. Not so for pen and paper. Editing is a breeze for word processing - not so for pen and paper.
so in your example, features are as important as interface - in fact, the interface allows for and introduces the possibility of new features.
parent is correct in that the features touted by the iPhone aren't unique or cutting edge and have already been available at about half the cost for several years.
Now lets talk about interface? Touch screen? Even with a drastic leap in technology - a pure touch screen interface leaves a lot to be desired, PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE WHO TEXT AND MOBILE EMAIL OFTEN.
So for the corporate user - battery life and ungainly touch screen interface (for texting and email) seem to be limiting reagants. To the casual user, battery life and cost will be limiting reagants - along with the ungainly interface with which texting becomes arguably less efficient than with a qwerty device.
The sidekick is popular amongst kids - despite its ungainly appearance - because of utility and cost. texting and email on a qwerty keypad is FAST. It won't be as fast on a touch screen because you have to visually confirm a keystroke instead of having tactile response confirm it for you. This isn't a function of the technology - more a function of human design. In gaming, the rumble in my controller lets me know I'm being shot even if the shooter isn't onscreen - and i react accordingly.
To date, the key limiting reagant for convergance devices is BATTERY LIFE. Plenty of devices do all of these things, but batteries limit full utility.
In my estimation the thing that would have made this device revolutionary would have been an extremely durable long lasting battery that in turn makes all of its functions viable in a way they aren't on other devices, but this isn't the case.
To conclude, I can't justify getting a communication device that handles certain aspects of communication less efficiently than devices that cost half as much. This is why blackberries are popular. They are ungainly and unattractive, but they do what they are supposed to damned well.
Just my $0.02. I suspect that the mods have already marshalled their forces and loosed the dogs of war. Do with it what you will.
I agree with your touchscreen asssertion.
i still can't imagine how functional texting will be on this device. i've used smartphones with qwerty keypads for a while now, and find myself typing out text messages without looking at the keypad - as I would type on a computer. Sometimes I can type a message while conversing, or looking elsewhere - muscle memory. This is fast and efficient. Without tactile response from key strokes - will it be as fast? How often will the screen need to be recalibrated to ensure accurate taps? How prone is the touchscreen to failure?
texting is a predominant form of communication, especially for the demographic that would probably account for the bulk of this product's purchases should it take off. It doesn't matter how good and "smart" the screen is, the lack of a tactile response to keystrokes and concern about accuracy, combined with its price, makes it a less than ideal device for someone like myself who spends significant time on mobile text and email.
Couple that with battery life issues that I'm certain will arise - and this is less than a dreamy device.
: - O This is the best post ever!
I think that's the point. The notion that it'd shock you that they'd go to those depths to manipulate you is EXACTLY why it makes sense to them to do so.