 | | It's the revenue Let's face it. $7/month internet TV subscriptions aren't going to pay for big dollar content. | |
|
 |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: It's the revenue said by fifty nine:Let's face it. $7/month internet TV subscriptions aren't going to pay for big dollar content.
And doing a deal with Apple is like a supplier doing a deal with WalMart - Walmart gets the profit and the supplier gets the shaft. CBS depending on Apple for a fair deal is ludicrous. | |
|
| |  Subaru1-3-2-4Premium
join:2001-05-31
Greenwich, CT | Re: It's the revenue looks like they (Apple) thought the name would of sealed the deal hah | |
|
| | | | | Re: It's the revenue [GrammarNazi] Would HAVE, not would OF.[/GrammarNazi]
 | |
|
| | | | said by Linklist:said by fifty nine:Let's face it. $7/month internet TV subscriptions aren't going to pay for big dollar content.
And doing a deal with Apple is like a supplier doing a deal with WalMart - Walmart gets the profit and the supplier gets the shaft. CBS depending on Apple for a fair deal is ludicrous. It's just like how cable companies pay big bucks to keep ESPN and ESPN2 TV only.
Let's face it. If streaming becomes a reality, content companies would have to deal with piracy even more.
--
Ask me about my sites:
bay area jobs Dogs for adoption coupons NBA: »nbaintelligence.com | |
|
| | | jagged
join:2003-07-01
Boynton Beach, FL | Re: It's the revenue ESPN gets $4+ from me per month whether or not I watch it. I wouldn't call that cable companies paying the channel owners | |
|
| | | | I'm pretty sure if your statement had any truth at all, then Walmart would be without suppliers.
Simply based on your belief system, why would any company continue business if they can't make money, well the same holds true for Walmart suppliers. If they arent making the money they need, then they will either stop producing the product or they will take their business elsewhere (Im going with option 2 there). | |
|
| | |  CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | Re: It's the revenue Walmart is killing the small stores, who could they possibly take their business too? | |
|
| | | | | Walmart is the one that makes out in their stores. The suppliers make SHIT. A simple google search will show you that. Walmart does NOT care about the supplier and tells them how much they will pay for the shelf, how much WM will pay for the product (if at anything- Lay's only gets paid when WM sells a bag) and then yet WM has every right to put those on sale without Lay's approval and can even throw them away if they wish- Lay's takes the hit. NOT WM.
There is a Rolling Stones article from several years ago and it even says WM pays below TEN (10cents) for music CDs and then charges $15+ for them. The same as for anything else.
Not to mention you are REQUIRED to purchase your UPCs FROM Wal-Mart/Kroger's UPC company. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: It's the revenue Ive watched the documentry and now how their system works.
They are cut throat without question, but my point still stands. Suppliers will not use Walmart if they can't make money and your "sale argument" is BS. Walmart purchases items from these people and then resells them. They can give them away if they want, but the supplier has already been paid so it is WM loss, not the product manufacturers.
Your music CD example is probably very wrong, but even if it wasnt, then the suppliers are still making money (enough to make them happy) or they wouldnt sell through Walmart. It is that plain and simple.
Regardless of what else you through at this, the bottom line still stands. ANYONE and EVERYONE that supplies to Walmart is getting an amount that is satisfying to them or they wouldnt be selling to Walmart. Any of you arguing any other way are talking out of your rears.
Walmart does 2 things I dont like, 1 they require businesses to have an established place in the town of their HQ and 2 because of their cut throat method they encourage companies to use off shore labor.
Did you know that products are made specifically for Walmart for that reason? So that 46" you bought at Walmart probably isnt the same quality build as the one selling at BestBuy for $50 or $150 more. This I know for a fact for when I was an electronic reseller my supplier was required to disclose Walmart sku's to me. | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: It's the revenue Can't believe I'm saying this, but NWOhio is right. Walmart does dictate the price, and you know what this causes? Outsourcing! Cutting corners! Lower quality!
In order to make money at the prices Walmart forces you to charge, you have to make huge cuts to push the cost to manufacture (+overhead) below the sale price. In manufacturing, you can cut labor or material costs. Lower material costs are obtained by getting lower quality materials. Lower labor costs are obtained by outsourcing.
Believe it or not, but Walmart is one of the biggest causes of outsourcing in the manufacturing sector. In order to survive, you have to outsource to make a profit on the Walmart dictated price.
Don't outsource, and one of your competitors will, undercutting your price, allowing the competitor to offer better prices to the retailers (more profit for them), and eventually you will have nowhere to sell your goods.
There's a reason the Walton family is one of the richest in the world. | |
|
| | | | | said by Skippy25:I'm pretty sure if your statement had any truth at all, then Walmart would be without suppliers.
Simply based on your belief system, why would any company continue business if they can't make money, well the same holds true for Walmart suppliers. If they arent making the money they need, then they will either stop producing the product or they will take their business elsewhere (Im going with option 2 there).
The walmart model makes perfect sense.
Netflix = Walmart
The suppliers get very little from walmart. | |
|
| | | | | Apparently you don't realize that if you open up some small stores in the area Walmart will lower their prices as far as required in that area to undercut them out of business, the only stores that can survive this are the ones massive enough to actually hold a price war of their own like Kmart/Sears and Target and a few of the smaller grocery companies that can at least get people in by stocking allot more specialty items and regional goods that will draw people in.
Walmart isn't a store, it's an economic death machine. | |
|
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Do broadcast networks need ANY subscriber revenue to create "big dollar content"? Other than the ridiculous retransmission fees, I thought advertising paid their bills.
How much do MSOs pay per subscriber for broadcast network retransmission fees? Whatever this amount is, add to it something for Apple/Netflix/Service X and you'll have what's fair. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Hargray Cable
| Re: It's the revenue said by rradina:Do broadcast networks need ANY subscriber revenue to create "big dollar content"? Other than the ridiculous retransmission fees, I thought advertising paid their bills.
How much do MSOs pay per subscriber for broadcast network retransmission fees? Whatever this amount is, add to it something for Apple/Netflix/Service X and you'll have what's fair.
More more more pump every last dollar out of where ever they can get it. | |
|
| | | | said by rradina:Do broadcast networks need ANY subscriber revenue to create "big dollar content"? Other than the ridiculous retransmission fees, I thought advertising paid their bills. Ad revenue is down, bad economy etc.
How much do MSOs pay per subscriber for broadcast network retransmission fees? Whatever this amount is, add to it something for Apple/Netflix/Service X and you'll have what's fair.
In the end you'll be paying the same amount or more. You think those who work in the TV industry are going to voluntarily take a pay cut so you can watch TV on the cheap? LOL. | |
|
| | | | 9 out of 10 broadcast networks do NOT create the content except for the local "news". They license that content from the actual network who owns it.
The local broadcasters do NOT have to charge retransmission fees; they can force the providers to carry their channel; but yet REFUSE to because they wish to get the $$$$ for their "award winning news". MSOs need to tell those provides to *uck off and walk away. see how well they do then; or do pay them and move their channel up to a digital tier or out of the local broadcast. Due to once they require payment; they're not required to be on a local broadcast tier. | |
|
| | | | | Re: It's the revenue said by 25139889:MSOs need to tell those provides to *uck off and walk away. see how well they do then; or do pay them and move their channel up to a digital tier or out of the local broadcast. Due to once they require payment; they're not required to be on a local broadcast tier.
They do that and subscribers leave.
In the end who blinks first? The cable companies don't have an original product. They are for the most part dumb pipes. | |
|
| Reviews:
·Hargray Cable
| said by fifty nine:Let's face it. $7/month internet TV subscriptions aren't going to pay for big dollar content.
Who says these pickle licker's need to make millions a year?? The people involved in TV make huge amounts of money and that wasn't true back a few decades ago, why should an actor work for 5 years and be able to retiree??/ Why should a producer and a director be able to buy a plane for a few years of work.
My 2 cents. | |
|
| |  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: It's the revenue Because they can. | |
|
| | | | said by Corehhi:Who says these pickle licker's need to make millions a year?? They do.
It's their content. If they want to price it to make millions, it's their choice.
You don't have to watch.
The people involved in TV make huge amounts of money and that wasn't true back a few decades ago, why should an actor work for 5 years and be able to retiree??/ Why should a producer and a director be able to buy a plane for a few years of work.
My 2 cents.
| |
|
| | | | | Re: It's the revenue BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am so sick and tired of people bitching and whining that stuff like TV shows and Movies (and other things too) cost to much.. If it's to much then don't pay the price and move on!
--
Stunod | |
|
| | | Do you seriously think it is going to be $7/ month?? Get real! Your premium channels are still going to be worth $$$. Once Apple starts talking to Showtime, HBO, Starz then we really need to be interested. Who the crap cares about CBS?? | |
|
| | | | Re: It's the revenue Not with Apple. They'll try and under cut to get some more fanboy customers. After all they make their money on their hardware NOT anything else. | |
|
| | | | | Re: It's the revenue Wow, methinks you are just pulling off the curmudgeon card. | |
|
| | | | said by TheGuvnor9:Do you seriously think it is going to be $7/ month?? Get real! Your premium channels are still going to be worth $$$. Once Apple starts talking to Showtime, HBO, Starz then we really need to be interested. Who the crap cares about CBS??
Netflix already set the price point at $7/month.
If it's $20/month for CBS content only then it gets to be more expensive than cable, so why even bother. | |
|
| | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: It's the revenue said by fifty nine:said by TheGuvnor9:Do you seriously think it is going to be $7/ month?? Get real! Your premium channels are still going to be worth $$$. Once Apple starts talking to Showtime, HBO, Starz then we really need to be interested. Who the crap cares about CBS??
Netflix already set the price point at $7/month. Actually it's $8 a month for Netflix. And Netflix can only get you PAST seasons of TV shows not current ones.
If it's $20/month for CBS content only then it gets to be more expensive than cable, so why even bother.
| |
|
| | | said by fifty nine:Let's face it. $7/month internet TV subscriptions aren't going to pay for big dollar content.
and last i checked technology is about making things cheaper for everyone, kinda like the robots did that make your cars....unions fought and lost that battle....SO SHOULD THE HOLLYWOOD UNION. | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Innovative? What is "innovative" about streaming or subscriptions?
Bring us 2K, with guaranteed / QoS / capless delivery, with buffering algorithms that the user can tailor, targeted ads with a choice of viewing methods, auction-based, resolution-based pricing, charge options (minute, hour, day, week, month, series, network) and payment options that exclude PayPal. | |
|
|  aaronwtPremium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Innovative? said by elray:What is "innovative" about streaming or subscriptions?
Bring us 2K, with guaranteed / QoS / capless delivery, with buffering algorithms that the user can tailor, targeted ads with a choice of viewing methods, auction-based, resolution-based pricing, charge options (minute, hour, day, week, month, series, network) and payment options that exclude PayPal.
Why exclude Paypal? You would want to include Paypal. The more payment options the better. | |
|
| | |
| | | |
| | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: Innovative? said by Nightfall:Nothing wrong with Paypal. Whats wrong are the people who don't ship items that they sell or people who don't want items that they bought. Dishonest dealings are a lot of what is wrong with the buy/sell systems like ebay, not Paypal.
While there is everything wrong with Paypal, the reason I excluded them is that they, and their parent company, are not, in any way, innovative. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Innovative? Apple and Paypal/Ebay not innovative?? What have you been smoking down in Santa Monica?? | |
|
| | | | | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Re: Innovative? What is innovative about a tablet computer?
A cellphone with an MP3 player?
Streaming video?
Digital music sales?
Online auctions?
Online retail?
Pretending to be a bank and credit card processor?
iTunes gets partial credit for innovation - where Jobs was able to bring together five major record labels and get them to agree to sell their product - covering 90% of what the public wants, in one place. But that was 10 years ago.
Apple gets minor credit for pushing screen resolution / dpi density past today's norms. Unfortunately, we aren't yet seeing that they learned from the iPhone network issues. QXGA or 2K video is going to have to come with bandwidth guarantees - they won't be able to blame the carrier, MSO, or ISP. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Innovative? Oh I see, you are merely referring to the here and now!! All Apple releases have to qualify for an innovative award by elray, correct?
I am no Apple fanboy but I will dole out credit where credit is due. I think you are having trouble discerning the difference between originality, invention and innovation. You don't have to be original to come up with a tablet computer. Seamless integration with the appstore and the ability to download thousands of apps overnight equals innovation my friend. Further integration with iCloud has improved the functionality of iTunes. Sure, Microsoft windows 7 has been doing this for a while, but it still adds innovation to the iTunes network.
Look up the definition of the word and you might understand why the majority of Apple's products are innovative. Also, features on new releases are just that, features and they don't count for innovation.
Apple has become a 100b dollar company because of their innovative products, tight supplier control, and aggressive pricing. | |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Stupid is as stupid does When will these morons see that things like this will actually make them MORE money not less and reduce piracy. Of course these are the same idiots that tried to kill off the VCR. | |
|
|  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Vitelity VOIP
| Re: Stupid is as stupid does Networks make most of their money through their affiliate system. If they de-value the product they are selling to the affiliate networks by delivering content directly to consumers their revenue stream would dry up faster than end-user subscriptions could possibly replace it. | |
|
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Stupid is as stupid does said by espaeth:Networks make most of their money through their affiliate system. If they de-value the product they are selling to the affiliate networks by delivering content directly to consumers their revenue stream would dry up faster than end-user subscriptions could possibly replace it.
Yeah whatever. They tried to kill the VCR because it would kill the industry and kill jobs. Now Hollywood couldn't survive without the home video industry. Hollywood has tried to kill every new technology because that technology was going to kill revenues and in EVERY single case that has turned out to be the exact opposite. EVERY TIME. | |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | Apple may create its own content My gut tells me that Apple will say "we tried to get you on board, and you refused, now, watch the power of this fully functional Apple content producing station destroy you to smithereens"
Apple can turn around and commission its own TV series, and have worldwide distribution rights.
More and more, I don't think that TV will evolve, I think it will be replaced by streaming who will develop better and better content while TV will see its revenues coontinue to drop because they won't evolve. | |
|
OwlSaverOwlSaverPremium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA | Content Creators will Follow the Money Right now, the studios make content for ABC, CBS, and NBC for the most part. There is lots of original content being made for HGTV and Discovery but it does not have the draw. Some really good content has already moved to HBO, Showtime, and such.
When Google can get high quality content on YouTube, the switch will be on. Particularly if they can guarantee more money to the content creators. I expect the result to be a very fragmented model where you watch shows on demand on applications on your smart tv. Some will be subscription, some will be pay per view, and some will be advertising supported.
The "channels" and MSO's will not be able to stop it if the money is there. | |
|
| jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 | Re: Content Creators will Follow the Money Apple has enough spare change in its savings account that the bank probably had to get programmers to widen the "account balance" field in all its software to handle going from 99 billion to 100 billion.
If Apple wanted to commission the next "Lost" or a new Star Trek series, it could afford to.
If the traditional studios would't want to produce a series paid for by Apple, then Apple can afford to build its own studios and lure the good producers, directors etc away from the legacy networks.
If you produce original content then the legacy networks can't stop you from offering it on-line all around the world.
What is not clear to me is what will happen to Steve Job's share of Disney/ABC. He was able to leverage this to ensure Apple got access to Disney content (which pushed other networks to accept also).
But with his shares no longer owned by the same people who drive Apple, it isn't clear that Apple can leverage that block of shares to its advantage. | |
|
| | Surprised No one Else Commented on This Moonves said he was bullish on political advertising from Super- PACs fueling the bottom line at CBS-owned stations.
"It may be bad for America but it's good for CBS," Moonves joked.
Wow... I don't even know what to say. | |
|
| | Why doesn't apple Just start hiring people to make its own shows then. TO heck with HOLLYWOOD....OH right....THEY just about are hollywood. | |
|
|
|
·