- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BitTorrent Live - A potential ESPN killer?
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:32 pm to WikiTiger
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:32 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
I'll say 5 years, but otherwise agree with you.
I dunno about that. i have non techie friends that are cutting the cord. I think its going to snowball, especially as the cable companies think they deserve a check for $100 from you each month.
quote:
On a similar note, I wonder if all these conferences that are expanding right now are looking into the future and realizing that cable is on it's way out. It seems like they are making major decisions based on "cable TV markets" for their conference networks. I just don't see that as a good future move.
Yeah, but the conferences will have a much better out route than ESPN. They have to monetize their subscribers off a much smaller base, after all what SEC fan watches the Big10 channel?
Now, if the SEC said - all SEC games in HD streaming for $19.99 a month.....I would sign up instantly, after all I only really watch the SEC.
0
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:34 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
how will they make money off of these technologies?
That is what they have to figure out.
In the case of the music industry, it was coming to accept the reality that you aren't going to make as much money as before.
In 20 years or so, we went from a time where $120 per year bought you 104 songs ($15 per CD average, 13 songs per CD average). Now $120 per year will get you on demand commercial free access on any device to over 20,000,000 songs via Spotify.
And guess what, they are still making money. They survived.
quote:
people have to pay for digital cameras, so the people that make they make money.
The point was that Kodak was slow to adapt. And they have paid a heavy price for it.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:34 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Where I think we have a disconnect is how do the people that make the conect make money?
that is the beauty of capitalism, its their job to figure that out.
Who thought google would be a billion+$ company of search ads? I sure as hell didn't, otherwise I would have worked there.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:38 pm to buddhavista
quote:
The last 10 years is literally the corpses of businesses that couldn't keep up. blockbuster, circuit city, the record labels, etc. Adapt or die
The last 10? Try the last forever. Who makes the best buggie whips? Where is the White Star Line etc. That's not new, what is different here though is people wanting the content without paying for it seemingly.
quote:
Adapt or die, and this is a big hole for ESPN. Its going to bite them.
not really. who is going to broadcast the games? The image has to get from the stadium to you somehow, that's what ESPN does.
quote:
....I bet they have about 2 years before cutting the cord becomes a mainstream phenomena
no chance. 20 years or more if ever. remember, we were supposed to have a paperless office by 20 years ago.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:41 pm to H-Town Tiger
fwiw the only people in my office that use paper are the old people 
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:44 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
And guess what, they are still making money. They survived.
really, i remember someone, Baloo i think posting an article that some artist make like a few dollars having their songs played thousands of times. That's what is not sustainable.
quote:
In the case of the music industry, it was coming to accept the reality that you aren't going to make as much money as before.
that's a great way to attrach more talented people to an indusrty.
quote:
In 20 years or so, we went from a time where $120 per year bought you 104 songs ($15 per CD average, 13 songs per CD average
yeah, but its not like you could only hear those 104 songs. you listened to the radio, or out there were ways to hear songs. MTV when they played music,
This post was edited on 1/8/13 at 5:49 pm
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:45 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
people wanting the content without paying for it seemingly.
Right. That's the crux of this thread. How do companies adapt to this?
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:47 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
really, i remember someone, Baloo i think posting an article that some artist make like a few dollars having their songs played thousands of times. That's what is not sustainable.
Me and Baloo have some disagreements on this topic.
He doesn't think artists get paid enough. I have no problem with what the artists are getting paid. And they don't have to allow their music to be on Spotify anyway, but if they want exposure they will do it. Again, that's just the reality of the market. You can either fight it or adapt to it. It would behoove you to adapt.
quote:
that's a great way to attrach more talented people to an indusrty.
There are more music content producers than ever before.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:47 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
The last 10? Try the last forever. Who makes the best buggie whips? Where is the White Star Line etc. That's not new, what is different here though is people wanting the content without paying for it seemingly.
its getting much much much faster though. Look at the decline of circuit city. It was a couple of years. Compare that to wolworth's which was decades.
I do agree, that the creative destruction is part of capitalism. Its just the cycles are smaller.
And I would have absolutely no problem paying for ESPN, if it was a reasonable price. But its not. $80 a month so I can watch what is likely 3 games, and more likely 2.5 considering how annoying LSU plays. Sorry, I am not paying $80 for that. $20 sure, $30, maybe. But $80 is just too much IMHO.
quote:
not really. who is going to broadcast the games? The image has to get from the stadium to you somehow, that's what ESPN does.
I doubt ESPN goes out of business anytime soon. But this could materially impact their revenue over the coming years.
and there will always be a business for broadcasting sports. I don't think anyone has alleged otherwise.
quote:
no chance. 20 years or more if ever. remember, we were supposed to have a paperless office by 20 years ago.
I don't think cable tv disappears in 2 years, just the cutting the cord phenomena moves from early adopters to a broader audience. I doubt cable TV disappears, and if it does, people will still have packages they can order. Old people like that shite.
Almost my entire family is really intrigued how I got rid of cable but still watch what I want to watch. None are capable of doing it, but they are really just an ipod type innovation from being able to do so.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:48 pm to WikiTiger
quote:yep
people wanting the content without paying for it seemingly. Right. That's the crux of this thread. How do companies adapt to this?
there is a whole generation of people growing up who have never known about purchasing CD's/tapes at record stores. All they know is the itunes/spotify/torrent model.
We aren't cranking the time machine back to how it was once done
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:50 pm to Pilot Tiger
quote:
We aren't cranking the time machine back to how it was once done
if the people making the content can't make money, they won't provide the content.
quote:
fwiw the only people in my office that use paper are the old people
i bet you use a lot more paper than you realize.
another one is that we will be cashless society. That will never happen.
This post was edited on 1/8/13 at 5:52 pm
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:51 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
He doesn't think artists get paid enough. I have no problem with what the artists are getting paid. And they don't have to allow their music to be on Spotify anyway, but if they want exposure they will do it. Again, that's just the reality of the market. You can either fight it or adapt to it. It would behoove you to adapt.
lots of people are shortsighted when it comes to this. I pirate close to 100% of the music I listen to. However, I bet I spend 10x, if not 20x, more on music than the average person. I drop at least $200, if not closer to $300 a month of oging to concerts. if I didn't pirate music, I wouldn't attend that many shows.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:52 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:yea maybe THEY won't. someone ELSE will figure it out and provide content while making money
if the people making the content can't make money, they won't provide the content.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:52 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
if the people making the content can't make money, they won't provide the content.
this simply isn't true. Most bands lose money, or at best break even. They still make music, why? They love doing it and love sharing it.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:54 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:we're pretty close to it
another one is that we will be cashless society. That will never happen
trying using cash to pay for anything substantial. you get looked at like a fricking drug dealer
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:56 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
There are more music content producers than ever before.
because it is cheap for anyone to do it, that doesn't mean it is better quality. Music is art, so someone will always produce it, that's different than sports and even things like movies.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:58 pm to Pilot Tiger
quote:
trying using cash to pay for anything substantial. you get looked at like a fricking drug dealer
try tipping a doorman with a credit card.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 5:59 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:you've never done this?
try tipping a doorman with a credit card.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 6:01 pm to buddhavista
quote:
this simply isn't true. Most bands lose money, or at best break even. They still make music, why? They love doing it and love sharing it.
music is different from sporting events and big movies. The cost to make a song is practically nothing, that is not the case for a sporting event.
Football players make a lot more tha LaCrosse players because people are willing to pay to watch football. As a consequence, a lot more talented people focus on playing football. The quailty of game and athlete in football is much better today than 50 years ago, because more talented people do that.
Posted on 1/8/13 at 6:02 pm to Pilot Tiger
quote:
someone ELSE will figure it out and provide content while making money
how, if none of you ware willing to pay for it
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News