I usually watch TV for one of two reasons: to be entertained or to be educated. Last night’s telecast of the 79th Annual Academy Awards certainly couldn’t qualify as entertainment, so therefore, it must have been educational.
Therefore, I present what I learned from watching the Oscars with some of my fellow ‘Lopers last night:
After no doubt unfurling a huge banner in its offices that said “Mission Accomplished,” the Blu-ray Disc Association has declared that major combat operations in the Hi Def DVD Wars are over, and Blu-ray is the victor.
Oh yeah? Sorry, Blu-ray Disc Association, but I think that you are obviously suffering from an extreme case of “premature evictoration:” the declaration of a victory long before your opponent has actually been vanquished. As if just saying you won makes it so.
Sure, some of your backers might buy your load of B.S. — because you’re saying what they desperately need to hear — but it’s entirely possible that three-four years from now, you’ll still be bogged down in the trenches, begging for a surge in advertising dollars that will hopefully spur sales.
It’s beginning to look more and more like 2007 will be the year that gap between Web Video and your TV will be closed.
Sling Media, who make the Slingbox, a device that allows you to watch your TV’s programming on pretty much any compter anywhere, will be joining the parade of manufacturers who want to help cross that last 10 feet from the laptop to the big-screen.
There was a time when the release of a new James Bond movie meant that audiences would be treated to a fantastic collection of gadgets and inventions, each of which was devised with the sole purpose of rescuing Bond from some unlikely scenario. The recently released Casino Royale is not that kind of movie.
The new Bond is much closer to the literary character created by Ian Fleming than he is to the Hollywood Bond we’ve come to know over the last four decades. As a result, Casino Royale presents audiences with the most low-tech Bond yet.
While it’s true that Sean Connery didn’t have a laptop in Dr. No, the technology he did have was at least recognizably different from what the average viewer could buy at the local mall.
It wasn’t really a game of chicken because, well, in chicken, both parties have an equal chance. It wasn’t really a showdown because, well, in a showdown, it’s about being quickest to draw. It wasn’t even really a standoff because, well, Disney had very little to lose.
So when a retailing giant goes up against a major motion picture distributor and demands different prices or they’re going to cut back on efforts to sell the distributor’s products…and then said giant realizes that it’s on the cusp of the year’s biggest sales season and on the cusp of the release of what will surely be the year’s biggest DVD seller…what is it called? Tucking your tail between your legs and begging for forgiveness?
Read the entire entry …
The utopian dream of ubiquitous media access is on the verge of becoming a reality. Consumers can watch TV on their iPods, download sports highlights to their cell phones, and take vast libraries of music with them wherever they go. You would think that all of these new digital distribution systems would be a boon for consumers, but that isn’t necessarily the case.
There are signs that media companies are using the transition to digital distribution as an opportunity to redefine consumer expectations about the value of media products, while at the same time eliminating much of what is currently considered to be fair use.
When consumers buy digital music, movies, or television programs from iTunes, Amazon, and most other digital content sources, they are ultimately paying more, getting less, and being forced to make platform decisions with long term implications.
Here are nine reasons why most digital media products are a bad deal for consumers:
Ah, we have another one for the nostalgia file: the return of Wall Street to Hollywood. Back in the day — when home video was still seen as a risky business — tax law favored investment in movies. A lot of doctors and dentists bought shares in partnerships that invested heavily in the movies. Sure, there were some money-makers, but, as the doctors and dentist learned, sometimes you have to finance a lot of duds before you get to a real winner.
Now the investors are back and more eager than ever to get them some of that Hollywood glitter. In the deals of old, the investors partnered with the studio, sharing the risk based on overall dollars put into the production. The upshot was that there was a solid system behind the movie-making process. You know, studios, sound stages, payroll departments, marketing teams. The downside was that a lot of bad movies were made in the 80s. These days, in an attempt to “bypass” the studios, investors are making deals with producers directly.
Read the entire entry …
As part of my Medialoper reporting duties, I often venture into the real world to get a sense of what’s happening outside the walls of the Internet. I have set up a little lab to study the media consumption habits of ordinary Americans. In order to keep the science almost rigorous, the group I’ve assembled is pretty much random, much like, well, what you’d find in an average office setting.
Since the dawn of the 2006-2007 Fall television season, I’ve had two conversations relating to traditional motion picture viewing. The first was a rather bizarre discussion about Lost. It started out as a review of the season premiere, but, well, died. Somehow it was a rehash of Season One — which, thankfully, I had seen enough of to fake my way through the conversation. Never let it be said that we don’t go the extra mile here.
Read the entire entry …
The idea of true, pure, unfettered video-on-demand has been a movie industry chimera since the dawn of time. What if, executives say teasingly to their audiences, we gave you everything in our catalogs whenever you want it? You would never leave the couch.
Never mind that that studios don’t necessarily even know what they own. Video-on-demand, as imagined by consumers, requires unlimited bandwidth, unlimited storage, and unlimited time. I think we’d settle for wide selection at reasonable prices. First, of course, we need to get the households of America wired and networked for downloadable video. Total downloadable domination isn’t technically feasible yet, so why are the studios so terrified of angering Wal-Mart?
Let’s face facts. DVD sales are declining. Internet usage is up. Shelf space in bricks-and-mortar stores is limited. Hard drive space is cheap and easily expandable. Not everyone has access to a Wal-Mart. Not everyone has a broadband connection. Read the entire entry …
Kirk’s debunking of the Amazon myths briefly discussed the prices and restrictions being imposed on consumers who use this service. Simply put, it ain’t good for the customer.
Which, I suppose, will ultimately be bad for the studios.
Amazon has perversely chosen to ignore consumers wants and needs in an effort to bow to studio concerns about piracy. The result is prices that reflect the last century — apropos, as it was pointed out that the suggested technology for linking to your television gives you a picture straight out of 1995.
Medialoper is dedicated to making the future of digital media safe for consumers everywhere.
Why not let us send Medialoper right to your inbox? It's free and we promise not to share your email address with anyone else.
Show The Man who's boss. Wear a Medialoper t-shirt to your next business meeting or industry conference. Available exclusively in the Medialoper Company Store.
Explore these links for a deeper understanding of the Medialoper Universe.
We have an idea for a Comcast Traffic Management Plan: every single Comcast internet subscriber go to a different ISP.
Because if there is one thing that binds Democrats together, it's the ability to couch-surf!
Not really that much difference, is there?
Alex Trebek: "For $1000. The answer is 'Microsoft and Jerry Seinfeld." World: "What are two things that peaked in the 1990s?"
In the old days the computer Seinfeld never used was a Mac. I can see the new Microsoft commercials now. "Hi, I'm Jerry Seinfeld. For $10 million I switched to Windows Vista. What's your price?"
Here's an idea, if Comcast doesn't like the way consumers use the Internet maybe they should get out of the business altogether and stick with what they know -- providing crappy customer service to cable subscribers.
Yay! We like Rachel Maddow.
That's what happens when the remodel finishes. Remodel 'loper stops buying so many house magazines!
Actually, it's time to monetize. 100 million streams and meager advertising (mostly public service announcements) means Hulu is a big money loser at this point.
People, please! STOP BUYING STUFF FROM SPAMMERS!!!! 29% of you are actually encouraging them to send more spam. Enough already.
Let's try it this way: Is Jon Stewart the only "news" anchor out there who doesn't take campaign announcements at face value?
In which Fox decides it would be better to kill a slated movie (with high consumer interest) than accept financial settlement. Provided they prevail in this lawsuit. You gotta wonder about these people sometimes.
Finally, news about MSN that's actually interesting.
Yeah. Wow. Sounds sorta like the CW doesn't want anyone to know how bad this is going to be.
Is there anything worse than an interview with a "celebrity"? Well, in an era when David Letterman's interview with Spencer Pratt makes for the most delightful television viewing, the answer should be no. As this piece reveals, it's still very much yes.
Looks like Microsoft has finally figured out how to get back some of the browser market share they're losing to Firefox.
Because we aren't the only ones who know what an awesome little gem The Middleman is.
I'm so hoping this whole thing turns out to be a viral campaign for a new mockumentary.
When someone who has purchased over a dozen Apple products in the past few years is saying this, it might be time to pay attention.
When musicians release bad albums...
RSS
