![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> I'm surprised the broadcasters haven't tried to sue the DVR
> manufacturers for loss of earnings by including a skip function.
I think TiVo got in trouble for having a button that was "skip to the end of
this set of commercials" or some such functionality.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:42 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:25:34 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospam com> did spake thusly:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:09:34 +0100, scott wrote:
>>
>>>> Heck, they could charge per program and get rid of the advertisers.
>>>> Now that's something I'd back.
>>>
>>> Nowadays I think the "flat rate" model makes more money, most people
>>> seem to be happy to pay a premium to have the knowledge that they
>>> *could* watch/surf/talk as much as they wanted.
>>>
>>> I suspect the TV companies are doing what they feel will make most
>>> money, if they switch to no adverts and charge the customers more then
>>> I suspect a lot of people would be unwilling to pay and would prefer
>>> the adverts. What they need is a two-tier system, where you can pay
>>> extra to have channels with no adverts, but not sure how that might
>>> work. Those sort of systems can make more money than having just one
>>> product.
>
> Unless the costs for starting and running it are too high; you'd need
> two concurrent signals because the scheduled would be completely
> different and you'd need extra shows to fill the gaps - take an hour
> show, remove the ads which makes it 45 minutes and afer 24 hours you'd
> need 8 more programmes to fill the slots. If you commision only
> hour-long programmes they won't be shown on the ad-channel or they will
> be but the two channels will drift out of sync. In a couple of months
> time the ad-free will be watching season 4 while the ad-channel will
> still be on season 2.
No, what is done is that the hour-long programmes get cut down to air on
the channel with commercials. I see that already with programs from the
BBC that air on BBC America. We typically lose 15-20 minutes of the show
(which is why I seek out the BBC versions of the show rather than record
them on BBCA on my DVR).
>> Well, it's important to know that at least in the US, television isn't
>> really about entertainment, it's about being an advertising vehicle.
>> The entertainment tends to be a loss leader; the channels make their
>> money from advertising, generally speaking.
>>
>> That model is breaking down now with the advent of DVRs.
>
> The model starting breaking down with VCRs. Although the loudest noise
> was about people taping and rewatching shows, i.e. not buying the
> released videos, some noise was made about people being able to
> fast-forward through the adverts
True, but with DVRs that becomes the whole purpose of FF/skip
functionality.
>> The industry
>> hasn't really known what to do about it, either - there have been some
>> attempts to do Truman Show-style product placement (ineffective =
>> Eureka; effective-ish = Damages), but there have been efforts as well
>> to prevent people from skipping commercials (which is why I had to
>> program my remote for a 30-second skip forward rather than Comcast
>> providing a remote that could do that already).
>
> I'm surprised the broadcasters haven't tried to sue the DVR
> manufacturers for loss of earnings by including a skip function.
That may be part of the reason why my Comcast DVR's remote doesn't
include the functionality by default.
>> The problem is that until they make it
>> impossible for people to leave the room their TV is in, people will
>> skip commercials, one way or the other.
>
> They could try broadcasting in our dreams, or fitting us with in-retina
> screens. Damn combine that with the smart editing programme and you can
> have one channel edit out your competitors brand completely (or replace
> it with something horrible) "Welcome to the Coca Cola channel"
> "[screams] what's that? It's hideous!" "That's a bottle of Pepsi sir"
> "Take it away! Take it away... oo is that Summer Glau holding that
> bottle of Coke?"
LOL....arguably, if Summer was holding a bottle of coke, she'd no doubt
be hitting someone with it.
(Cue reference to xkcd cartoon with the poster "River Tam Beats Up
Everybody")
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:06:56 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed
>> (in the UK) to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more
>> obtrusive to my mind.
>
> That and "product placement."
Especially the really obvious product placements like were in the last
season of Eureka. That was just awful.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 22 Jan 2009 11:27:08 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>Interesting....I had read a paper online about technology to
>realistically embed images in pre-recorded video (or in still photos) -
>the demo was quite impressive, replacing a picture with a video, for
>example. It tracked camera movement as well, which was really impressive.
>
Any examples?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:06:56 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> I read recently that because of that there is a scheme being trailed (in the UK)
>> to place adverts in clear areas of the screen. Even more obtrusive to my mind.
>
>That and "product placement."
That doesn't bother me too much but then I don't watch a lot of TV or film.
One exception recently has been Boston Legal. I've been getting the DVDs out
from Lovefilm. I wonder what the reactions of Americans are to it. It seems
slightly critical at times.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:09:14 -0000, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospam com> did spake thusly:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:42 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>> And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:25:34 -0000, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospam com> did spake thusly:
>>
> No, what is done is that the hour-long programmes get cut down to air on
> the channel with commercials. I see that already with programs from the
> BBC that air on BBC America. We typically lose 15-20 minutes of the show
> (which is why I seek out the BBC versions of the show rather than record
> them on BBCA on my DVR).
You're right - silly me yet another reason to tempt people into paying
more.
>> They could try broadcasting in our dreams, or fitting us with in-retina
>> screens. Damn combine that with the smart editing programme and you can
>> have one channel edit out your competitors brand completely (or replace
>> it with something horrible) "Welcome to the Coca Cola channel"
>> "[screams] what's that? It's hideous!" "That's a bottle of Pepsi sir"
>> "Take it away! Take it away... oo is that Summer Glau holding that
>> bottle of Coke?"
>
> LOL....arguably, if Summer was holding a bottle of coke, she'd no doubt
> be hitting someone with it.
Well if the editing programme's clever enough that would be the Pepsi
buyer she'd be hitting ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:54:41 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:09:14 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospam com> did spake thusly:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:00:42 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>>
>>> And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:25:34 -0000, Jim Henderson
>>> <nos### [at] nospam com> did spake thusly:
>>>
>> No, what is done is that the hour-long programmes get cut down to air
>> on the channel with commercials. I see that already with programs from
>> the BBC that air on BBC America. We typically lose 15-20 minutes of
>> the show (which is why I seek out the BBC versions of the show rather
>> than record them on BBCA on my DVR).
>
> You're right - silly me yet another reason to tempt people into paying
> more.
Yep. It would be more convenient for me if I didn't have to search for
the "full" version of the programme and acquire it, and that convenience
is worth something to me.
But I also think about the $75/month we pay for cable and the number of
subscribers that Comcast has - the revenue stream is pretty impressive.
It would be interesting to see how the subscription fees are used.
Similarly, when you pay for a technician to come out to do something that
could be done remotely (or left to the consumer - for example, if we get
a Tivo, we need two cable cards for it. The cards are essentially PCMCIA
cards that plug into the Tivo. They send a technician out to do install
these. Why? I can put two PCMCIA cards into the slots on the
machine.... - hell, I think my mother could even handle that).
>>> bottle of Pepsi sir" "Take it away! Take it away... oo is that Summer
>>> Glau holding that bottle of Coke?"
>>
>> LOL....arguably, if Summer was holding a bottle of coke, she'd no doubt
>> be hitting someone with it.
>
> Well if the editing programme's clever enough that would be the Pepsi
> buyer she'd be hitting ;-)
True. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:51:23 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2009 11:27:08 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>
>>Interesting....I had read a paper online about technology to
>>realistically embed images in pre-recorded video (or in still photos) -
>>the demo was quite impressive, replacing a picture with a video, for
>>example. It tracked camera movement as well, which was really
>>impressive.
>>
>>
> Any examples?
Let me see if I can track it down again....
Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 23 Jan 2009 13:44:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> Any examples?
>
>Let me see if I can track it down again....
>
>Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
>article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221
>
>
Thanks
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 19:23:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2009 13:44:15 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>
>>> Any examples?
>>
>>Let me see if I can track it down again....
>>
>>Here's the Slashdot article I started from http://tech.slashdot.org/
>>article.pl?sid=08/11/14/1653221
>>
>>
>>
> Thanks
Handy that it was still in my RSS reader. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |