- 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: Why piracy is common
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:33 am to CottonWasKing
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:33 am to CottonWasKing
quote:
What's an hbo subscription per month? 15-20 bucks? Why not just offer hbogo for the same or even slightly higher price tag?
I think it is closer to $9.95 with most Cable subscriptions, but it doesn't matter. They don't offer it another way because they don't want to. It is their show. HBO alone should determine how to deliver it. If consumers don't like it, they have every right not to buy it.
2
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:35 am to H-Town Tiger
computer piracy came out big in 1998 with Napster, its 14 years later, some kids know nothing else.
Its just so common now for people to have movies and TV shows. Why else do we even need 2TB HDDs? Heck pretty much everyone I know (even non-tech savvy) has over 10gb in music and triple that in Movies/tv shows on their computer.
Why go to Itunes when other sites allow for free downloads? I get that its stealing, but its just too easy for most. Within a few seconds I could have any song I wanted, a few minutes for a movie; an entire season of a TV show in a couple of hours. Its just too hard to pass up.
Its just so common now for people to have movies and TV shows. Why else do we even need 2TB HDDs? Heck pretty much everyone I know (even non-tech savvy) has over 10gb in music and triple that in Movies/tv shows on their computer.
Why go to Itunes when other sites allow for free downloads? I get that its stealing, but its just too easy for most. Within a few seconds I could have any song I wanted, a few minutes for a movie; an entire season of a TV show in a couple of hours. Its just too hard to pass up.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:35 am to Pilot Tiger
quote:
you have to pay for cable, a cable box, installation. THEN you order HBO for about 16/mo on top of that.
That's not the same thing as offering an HBOGO subscription separately
no it's not, but the only real difference is price. convenience has nothing to do with the streaming issues of HBOGO
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:36 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:you have to have these to watch shows through cable as well. What's your point?
electricty and a TV
Obviously there are costs that consumers have to deal with when consuming content.
The people in the market for consuming tv shows have tv's and electricity
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:36 am to Tiger in NY
The thing is they also have the ability to steal it relatively risk free.
I don't want to lock my doors but I do it to keep people from stealing my shite.
I don't want to lock my doors but I do it to keep people from stealing my shite.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:36 am to WikiTiger
that is an interesting breakdown. Maybe in the future they will let people order their own channels through their remote like ordering a PPV movie.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:38 am to WikiTiger
quote:
and the other thing that will die out with it is niche programing.
fear mongering
No, reality. First of all you are acting like the 2 models can't both exist. I said a while back that there is certainly room for ala carte programing, but there is also a market for bundling. Just like there are specialty stores and department stores.
What do you think would have more subscripers ala carte ESPN or the military chanel? Fact is, people that only watch ESPN are subsidising these other smaller channels.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:38 am to Tiger in NY
quote:mine is $15.99/month
I think it is closer to $9.95 with most Cable subscriptions
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:40 am to H-Town Tiger
Unbundling cable channels would set the market back 30 years. They'd only be able to afford the ten most valuable stations. We'd probably say goodbye to a lot of crap channels, but would also start to lose channels that a lot of us watch, at least, some of.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:42 am to Pilot Tiger
quote:
I don't know what im going to do when the Lifetime Real Women channel goes under
I forgot it was all about you
And that's not the type of shite that will go away. Why do you think the networks have gone so heavy for "reality" shows? Its cheaper and more profitable to produce. Squeeze the margins more and see what you get.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:44 am to Tiger in NY
quote:
but would also start to lose channels that a lot of us watch, at least, some of.
this is what i don't get, honestly
if people watch these networks, why can't they be successful independently?
or i'll break it down moreso: if people like particular SHOWS, why won't they find a home somewhere?
i just don't get the whole economics of bundling, i suppose. it seems highly inefficient
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:45 am to Pilot Tiger
quote:
The people in the market for consuming tv shows have tv's and electricity
to get streaming you'd have to have cable or and internet service, I don't get your whining about have to pay for cable to get HBO.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:47 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:well it's all about us. And we are saying that we dont want Lifetime Real Women because it's one of the most heavily subsized channels
I forgot it was all about you
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:49 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:I'm not whining
to get streaming you'd have to have cable or and internet service, I don't get your whining about have to pay for cable to get HBO.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:49 am to Tiger in NY
quote:
Unbundling cable channels would set the market back 30 years. They'd only be able to afford the ten most valuable stations.
There have to be economies of scale advantages to bundling.
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if people watch these networks, why can't they be successful independently?
well they have to start somewhere. If some new newtork becomes available, will there be enough intial demand to make a go of it? Eventually they seem to wind up catering to the median anyway, that's why we go from the History chanel showing history to a bunch of crappy reality shows.
quote:
or i'll break it down moreso: if people like particular SHOWS, why won't they find a home somewhere?
a lot of times they do. But in the case of GOT, it was HBO that created the show for the prupose of getting new subscribers to their network.
quote:
i just don't get the whole economics of bundling, i suppose. it seems highly inefficient
I don't know the particulars, but it seems like there'd be some economies of scale. For example if you and I have different networks we pay for, there has to be some cost to block the ones we are not paying for. Seems logical that it costs less to have 3 or 4 packages than an unlimited amount with 1 person maybe getting 10 channels, while some one else gets 23.
This post was edited on 4/9/12 at 11:57 am
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
this is what i don't get, honestly
if people watch these networks, why can't they be successful independently?
or i'll break it down moreso: if people like particular SHOWS, why won't they find a home somewhere?
Frankly, because not enough people watch these networks/shows for them to survive independently. It is TV welfare basically. I know that goes against the ideals of a free market, but it is for the overall good. Without this subsidy, we'd have 10 channels to watch.
In the telecom industry, you pay the same LD rate (typically) for a call from Louisiana to California that you would for a call from Louisiana to rural Montana. The costs for the carrier to deliver these calls is very different; however, they've bundled the higher and lower costs in order to bring an overall consumer-friendly product to market. We could make people pay the separate prices depending on which market (or carrier) the call terminates to, but consumers would not enjoy having 2000+ different rates that could apply to a call. Bundling often streamlines things for the consumer. It may not make sense in pure economic terms, but it does when you look at it as giving the consumers what they want.
This post was edited on 4/9/12 at 11:58 am
Posted on 4/9/12 at 11:55 am to H-Town Tiger
I think the biggest rift in this conversation is the idea of intellectual property.
People making the comparison of stealing 4 hot dog buns because that's all you want, isn't the same thing. If you had a magic machine that would clone the buns you want and not use up any additional resources, then yes it is the same. But the comparison of a tangible good isn't the same.
I must ask a question though....
If my neighbor has HBO and has a get together every week for shows like GoT and has over 10 people who do not pay for HBO, are these 10 people stealing? Where do we draw the line?
People making the comparison of stealing 4 hot dog buns because that's all you want, isn't the same thing. If you had a magic machine that would clone the buns you want and not use up any additional resources, then yes it is the same. But the comparison of a tangible good isn't the same.
I must ask a question though....
If my neighbor has HBO and has a get together every week for shows like GoT and has over 10 people who do not pay for HBO, are these 10 people stealing? Where do we draw the line?
Posted on 4/9/12 at 12:01 pm to Tiger in NY
quote:
It is TV welfare basically. I know that goes against the ideals of a free market
Not really, though we haven't discussed the role gov't regulations play in protecting cable providers and things like that. But bundling is like a store
Posted on 4/9/12 at 12:04 pm to Tiger in NY
quote:
. Bundling often streamlines things for the consumer. It may not make sense in pure economic terms, but it does when you look at it as giving the consumers what they want.
actually after thinking about it, reading an article about bundling, (and reading your post and H-Town's), i get it
cable pays almost nothing for these networks, and there is likely enough of a niche market for each to make their lineup more attractive.
the articles i read basically said that unbundling cable won't save many people money, b/c we basically DO pay for those 10-15 channels anyway, and the rest costs about the same as the (alleged) transactional costs (modifying and regulating 150M individual packages will cost more money)
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News