Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 361 posts

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#151

Post by msla »

finnthehuman wrote: post #117
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you heard about Game of Thrones or Westworld or Stranger Things, or most recently, Tiger King, you'd realize this is very much still a thing for a large population. Weekly shows of certain types have massive speculation and plot discussion crowds with podcasts and analysis channels. Then there's a second viewership wave created by all the memes. Netflix's just drop the whole season model has cost them a lot in pub…

>this is very much still a thing for a large population No, it's so radically different that while there is still zeitgeist related to TV, it's not wrong to say the "tv zeitgeist" is dead. Following a TV show used to be even more in the moment than following sports are today. Either someone saw last night's game, or they didn't and you can't have a meaningful conversation with them. They might catch up watching the h…

After a certain point, the more well-off could own a VCR and record off TV; that is, time shifting, which is something Universal made a Federal case out of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_shifting

Incidentally, the practice of time shifting is a reason VHS caught on and other home video formats didn't:

LaserDisc didn't offer time shifting at all, so it wasn't even in the running here; as a result, its pitch wasn't as compelling.

Betamax did, but its tapes only held one hour to begin with, which isn't enough for a sports game or a TV movie. It was only arguably of higher quality on the TVs of the era, and the fact its time shifting capability was half of what VHS could offer in the same time period made it a less attractive option.

(Both Betamax and VHS increased recording times as the format war wore on. However, after a certain point, merely being the entrenched winner has an impact on how the competition goes.)

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#152

Post by meh2frdf »

caseysoftware wrote: post #26

It's amazing how much commercials have crept in. If you watch an "hour long" show from the early 80s, it's roughly 48 minutes. If you watch a similar show from 10-15 years ago, it's closer to 44-45 and in the last few years, it's more like 42 minutes. I assume it's only going to get worse as TV ad revenue drops faster with more alternatives.

In the UK the amount of minutes is regulated for broadcast.

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#153

Post by ben_w »

res0nat0r wrote: post #128
cheschire wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually this kind of approach would torpedo their company's growth. Every price hike alienates part of their base who, for whatever reason, cannot or will not accept the new higher price and they will jump to another provider who is the same or cheaper in price even if the product they receive is worse. At some point the price difference between the quality product and the cheap product becomes so vast that the qu…

Netflix per dollar is about the cheapest entertainment you can get. Frankly it should be MORE expensive for the amount of high quality content they release constantly.

While it is indeed cheap, that doesn’t mean everyone can afford it.

I won’t be surprised if they have more price tiers for different quality, or if the price tiers that already exist get wider. Kinda like the way the UK TV licence comes in normal and black & white.

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#154

Post by the_duke »

jimmaswell wrote: post #149
the_duke wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already plenty of product placement on Netflix. The smoking is notorious, for example. They cram in cigarettes wherever they can, often to the detriment of the scene. I really wish there were laws mandating a very obvious " this scene was sponsored by X" overlay.

You actually want movies you're watching to have a distracting overlay taking you out of the moment? Before the start of the movie or something would be a lot better.

That's exactly the reason why I want it during the scene.

Both to create awareness that you are being manipulated by this scene, and to discourage product placement in general.

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#155

Post by mortenlarsen »

res0nat0r wrote: post #128
cheschire wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually this kind of approach would torpedo their company's growth. Every price hike alienates part of their base who, for whatever reason, cannot or will not accept the new higher price and they will jump to another provider who is the same or cheaper in price even if the product they receive is worse. At some point the price difference between the quality product and the cheap product becomes so vast that the qu…

Netflix per dollar is about the cheapest entertainment you can get. Frankly it should be MORE expensive for the amount of high quality content they release constantly.

The three subscriptions available here in Denmark are: SD: $11.46, HD: $14.37, UHD: $18.72 (UHD is a bit of a joke with that birate, but that is another matter).

For low income households that can be quite a lot. Combine that with Netflix having significantly less content in Denmark than the rest of the world, and it might not be such a good deal the begin with after all.

So I guess it depends on where you live and your financial situation.

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#156

Post by saagarjha »

fulafel wrote: post #133
the_duke wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already plenty of product placement on Netflix. The smoking is notorious, for example. They cram in cigarettes wherever they can, often to the detriment of the scene. I really wish there were laws mandating a very obvious " this scene was sponsored by X" overlay.

Even bigger issue (measured in future loss of life years and ethics[1]): cars, there's so much driving. For environmental reasons we should heavily discourage that. [1] smoking mostly is self inflicted harm, GW kills others

Smoking commonly harms other people too, of course.

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#157

Post by zxcvbn4038 »

Im enjoying Hulu/Netflix/Prime Video while I can. My kid has grown up in a household without commercials and where you get points for who can hit “skip” the fastest when one does pop up. Commercials were always annoying but when you aren’t used to seeing them then it really hits home that your seeing the exact same commercial for floor wax sixteen times an hour and the exact same commercial for anti-AIDS drugs sixteen times per hour.

You can forgive broadcast TV - someone had money to spend and wanted to hawk floor wax to the ethos excessively. But lets look at YouTube for example - their algorithms are supposed to be so sophisticated but I’m outside every desirable demographic except maybe not dead, I don’t impulse buy, I don’t have any wax able floors, if I did I would switch apartments before waxing them, and I downvote, skip, or just kill the youtube app every time I see a commercial. I should be number one in the lost cause file, but instead they keep showing me the same stuff that I’ve already downloaded, skipped, stopped transferring countless times. How do you explain that in the era of machine learning and no holds barred privacy invasion?

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#158

Post by qubex »

lvs wrote: post #144
qubex wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can your hatred for any corporate lingo term outrank that reserved for the bulwarks ‘leverage’ and ‘synergy’? ‘Granularity’ is a big up-and-comer too.

Let me circle back and touch base with you by EOD.

I’ve tried to reach out to you.

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#159

Post by fulafel »

saagarjha wrote: post #156
fulafel wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even bigger issue (measured in future loss of life years and ethics[1]): cars, there's so much driving. For environmental reasons we should heavily discourage that. [1] smoking mostly is self inflicted harm, GW kills others

Smoking commonly harms other people too, of course.

Yep, hence "mostly". And car heavy culture of course has other death effects besides GW, like local pollution caused deaths, rainforest destruction from biofuels production, accidents, sedentary lifestyle, car suburbia environments, disposessed status of the carless (weighted toward women and children), etc.

Re: Will cable TV be invaded by commercials? (1981)

#160

Post by saagarjha »

lstamour wrote: post #101
eloisius wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not possible in native apps which have largely supplanted the use of web pages.

Users can still choose not to install native apps. For as long as the web remains free, I’ll happily support newspapers, magazines, YT Premium and Patreon with my dollars, while absolutely not using the apps with ads in them, in favour of using 3 different content blocking extensions in Safari, and Strict privacy mode in Edge with uBlock Origin on desktop. That said, because ads are inserted by third parties, you can…

As long as websites continue letting you access them on mobile without the app…
Post reply on HN