Ok - so maybe that's harsh. But $3.1billion for the company? That provides a technology Google have already? I'm sure the decision makers over there know a lot more than me (hell, I've been drinking for the last eight hours) - but key Doubleclick partners (such as News Corp) aren't going to be too hot on Google suddenly knowing their ad business inside out. This smacks of splashing the cash to kill competition - had Microsoft picked up Doubleclick, that would have presented a serious challenge to Google's display ad syndication business.
Who, exactly, are they going to support? The current government is a barely functioning coalition of religious factions, several of which have their own private armies. The only thing stopping them going hammer-and-tongs at each other are the US forces.
That's truly dumb. Educating parts of the market by beating people with a piece of legal two-by-four is not productive. Advertise, promote, share information and engage with the people you're trying to reach is healthier and more likely to create understanding.
I think the key point you make is 'If you have a PVR'. I don't. I also watch very little TV. The few programmes I do want to watch are invariably broadcast when I'm not around. I can envisage several reasons why this is (potentially) a very useful app:
1) You don't have a PVR or VCR (i.e. me)
2) You didn't realise a show you wanted to watch was being broadcast - so you didn't set your PVR or VCR.
3) Someone tells you about that great show they saw on the beeb last night - sounds cool, you want to check it out when you get home.
Most BBC shows are not repeated straightaway. There are guidelines in place covering the frequency of repeats and digital channels (such as BBC3 and BBC4) have distinct programming agendas that mean shows from other BBC channels do not fit their editorial guidelines.
On another note - other posts mention the lack of P2P on the IMP trial. There are only a few thousand users - not enough to support a proper P2P network. Once the software's properly rolled out the P2P side of the app should help the BBC off-set bandwidth costs.
Mark.
Shame I don't speak their crazy moon language:)
It's really heartening to see projects such as this. The production quality of amateur (home brew?) film making, especially sci-fi, is really impressive.
I'm not going to judge this on the strength of its trailer, but one parallel I've noticed recently is a lot of amateur film-making falls into the Hollywood-type style-over-substance trap.
Guess we're all equals now.
It could be plain old H2O. Then again, it could be a frozen CO2 crust or any one of dozens of other frozen gases. Or a combination of many different things.
When I worked on Commodore User (UK mag) in the 80s, we gave away a flexi-disc as a covermount. It was basically a floppy plastic record. One side was a Heaven 17 track and the other, IIRC, was a datatrack designed to be recorded onto tape then loaded on a C64.
'Why is the fans' money different from advertisers' money, in your mind?'
Advertising revenues aren't actually used to pay for program development directly - this comes from development budgets. Advertising is the pay-off that allows you to recoup the investment should the programme succeed. Presumably this money isn't there as the show has been canned.
Going slightly off-topic:
If Paramount were to receive a windfall of the size suggested, they presumably would be liable for tax on that to begin with - which further raises the cost.
I just don't think this thing is a goer.
In the unlikely situation that the money is raised - an individual, or registered organisation that represents the fund would have to enter into a contract with Paramount. At this point they become an investor in the franchise and its development. What happens if Paramount fail to produce the show? Legal action?
What also happens to the advertising and syndication revenue? Are people investing purely to finance a vehicle that will make the franchise owner money - or would they seek to recoup their investment?
That's just the beginning. I can't see Paramount taking cash from the fans in this way.
Slashdot Mirror
Talk to the hangover, the brain's not listening. At least, not this morning :(
Ok - so maybe that's harsh. But $3.1billion for the company? That provides a technology Google have already? I'm sure the decision makers over there know a lot more than me (hell, I've been drinking for the last eight hours) - but key Doubleclick partners (such as News Corp) aren't going to be too hot on Google suddenly knowing their ad business inside out. This smacks of splashing the cash to kill competition - had Microsoft picked up Doubleclick, that would have presented a serious challenge to Google's display ad syndication business.
Who, exactly, are they going to support? The current government is a barely functioning coalition of religious factions, several of which have their own private armies. The only thing stopping them going hammer-and-tongs at each other are the US forces.
Wasn't he in Street Fighter II :)?
That's truly dumb. Educating parts of the market by beating people with a piece of legal two-by-four is not productive. Advertise, promote, share information and engage with the people you're trying to reach is healthier and more likely to create understanding.
I think the key point you make is 'If you have a PVR'. I don't. I also watch very little TV. The few programmes I do want to watch are invariably broadcast when I'm not around. I can envisage several reasons why this is (potentially) a very useful app: 1) You don't have a PVR or VCR (i.e. me) 2) You didn't realise a show you wanted to watch was being broadcast - so you didn't set your PVR or VCR. 3) Someone tells you about that great show they saw on the beeb last night - sounds cool, you want to check it out when you get home. Most BBC shows are not repeated straightaway. There are guidelines in place covering the frequency of repeats and digital channels (such as BBC3 and BBC4) have distinct programming agendas that mean shows from other BBC channels do not fit their editorial guidelines. On another note - other posts mention the lack of P2P on the IMP trial. There are only a few thousand users - not enough to support a proper P2P network. Once the software's properly rolled out the P2P side of the app should help the BBC off-set bandwidth costs. Mark.
Shame I don't speak their crazy moon language :)
It's really heartening to see projects such as this. The production quality of amateur (home brew?) film making, especially sci-fi, is really impressive.
I'm not going to judge this on the strength of its trailer, but one parallel I've noticed recently is a lot of amateur film-making falls into the Hollywood-type style-over-substance trap.
Guess we're all equals now.
It could be plain old H2O. Then again, it could be a frozen CO2 crust or any one of dozens of other frozen gases. Or a combination of many different things.
I think we need to get a little more real with planet naming. Forget the gods, let's call it Dave.
The pace of her body threw off the suspense that was (supposedly) building, and conflicted with the (then) slow music. One word: Boobs.
Who shot first - the fat guy or goth chick?
When I worked on Commodore User (UK mag) in the 80s, we gave away a flexi-disc as a covermount. It was basically a floppy plastic record. One side was a Heaven 17 track and the other, IIRC, was a datatrack designed to be recorded onto tape then loaded on a C64.
'Why is the fans' money different from advertisers' money, in your mind?' Advertising revenues aren't actually used to pay for program development directly - this comes from development budgets. Advertising is the pay-off that allows you to recoup the investment should the programme succeed. Presumably this money isn't there as the show has been canned. Going slightly off-topic: If Paramount were to receive a windfall of the size suggested, they presumably would be liable for tax on that to begin with - which further raises the cost. I just don't think this thing is a goer.
In the unlikely situation that the money is raised - an individual, or registered organisation that represents the fund would have to enter into a contract with Paramount. At this point they become an investor in the franchise and its development. What happens if Paramount fail to produce the show? Legal action? What also happens to the advertising and syndication revenue? Are people investing purely to finance a vehicle that will make the franchise owner money - or would they seek to recoup their investment? That's just the beginning. I can't see Paramount taking cash from the fans in this way.
...The Jedi are sure gonna feel that one when Lucas' lawyers catch-on to this.