81–90 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not just provide streaming versions for free, and insert new ads whenever they feel like it. It could even be like a website where a Person could find lots of different streaming video programs. I would use that in a heartbeat.
That already exists. It's called Hulu.
The giant elephant in the room is being overlooked: Advertisements have a lifespan measured in months, weeks, or days. Television content can stay relevant for decades. Imagine it's the year 1997. Aliens from the planet GNU have gone back in time and provided us with bittorrent, and technology making dial-up modems a million times faster (but they still drop their connection if your mom picks up the phone). You just…
I don't think it'd go to that extreme. Sure, the ads would be outdated, but the brands are still there. You're still exposed to the Apple brand, and are reminded that they've been (hypothetically) awesome since 1997 and beyond. You're still exposed to McDonald's and might head out for a Big Mac (I suspect that'll stay on forever). Maybe Volkswagens will get better in ten year's time ;-)
Ads are also really crafted at society at that given time. I heard a quote from a history professor who said he could teach American history using only Coca-Cola ads.
Product Placement. Product Placement. Product Placement. Product Placement. Product Placement. Product Placement. I know it's kind of annoying/cheap sometimes when a camera zooms in on the Bud Light logo in a fridge, or when Don Draper says that he loves Smirnoff (lawl), but its the only choice that the studios have. They must turn to product placement as their primary source of advertising revenue. Because if they j…
I hate product placement because it breaks the story and my suspension of disbelief.
But hey, maybe I would get more done that way.
For reference, I would regard access to every television show ever produced and streamed reliably, at high definition when available, as worth $150-200/month.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it'd go to that extreme. Sure, the ads would be outdated, but the brands are still there. You're still exposed to the Apple brand, and are reminded that they've been (hypothetically) awesome since 1997 and beyond. You're still exposed to McDonald's and might head out for a Big Mac (I suspect that'll stay on forever). Maybe Volkswagens will get better in ten year's time ;-)
The problem is that no one is going to pay for you watching their ads in 10 years. Ads are also really crafted at society at that given time. I heard a quote from a history professor who said he could teach American history using only Coca-Cola ads.
Anyone watching it 10 years down the line is just icing on the cake for you, but that's not what you'd pay for in such a model.
The giant elephant in the room is being overlooked: Advertisements have a lifespan measured in months, weeks, or days. Television content can stay relevant for decades. Imagine it's the year 1997. Aliens from the planet GNU have gone back in time and provided us with bittorrent, and technology making dial-up modems a million times faster (but they still drop their connection if your mom picks up the phone). You just…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That already exists. It's called Hulu.
Not available in Europe either. But then I guess such a torrent solution would be ip limited to the US as well...
Sure, there are a few global brands that might buy in anyway, but the advertising would be less targeted and there would be less competition for the same slots, so rates would be significantly lower while costs would stay the same (or even be higher.)
All this is ignoring the myriad existing deals that the networks have with peers in other contries offering exclusive region-wide access to certain content. Working around this would be possible, but would result in numerous IP blocks anyway.