On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I am interested in how you define the term "honest streaming" of >> programing. Does this only mean "free streaming"? >> > > It means a network or other content distributor providing programs for > audiences to consume. This can be through apps, website streaming, Hulu, > YouTube, NetFlix, or iTunes, each with varying prices ranging from free to > costly. What ABC announced is that online viewers now have an imposed > handicap they didn't have a week ago. The only people affected by this > change are those unwilling or unable to opt for one of the paid online > options. > Are you saying you would have been fine with this if ABC had been charging for immediate access from the start? > >> As I said, there are other legal options, specifically to me, not > watching anything offered on their network -- choosing other shows offered > by other content providers. This change affects lower and middle class > people who can't afford season passes on iTunes, but who are ironically a > highly sought demographic for most advertisers, since the upper class will > typically do as you suggest and pay extra for ad-free content. Forcing > those people (and those people includes me) to wait while others with > discretionary income don't have to wait is a good way to insult an > audience. And when you insult an audience, they are less likely to buy the > products you promote. And when advertisers don't get their money's worth, > they pull their money. And when networks don't get advertiser money, they > shut down. > I genuinely am not understanding your beef here. ABC's content is available immediately and for free to anyone with an OTA antenna. It is also available for free to anyone who can access the internet if they are willing to wait a week. This change will only affect people who a) do not have cable b) do not have OTA access c) do have internet and internet devices and d) can not afford or do not want to pay two bucks to watch a show immediately. I suspect we have just defined a rather small segment of the market, and none of those people who being denied access to anything essential for the well-being or safety. I do understand wanting things for free and instantly, but I don't understand how one can argue it is unfair, or even just bad business, to charge a fair price for access a company's service or product, especially when that company is making it available for free in several other rather easily accessible ways. There are 99 problems with corporate media, but a lack of free, instant on-demand online access to network programing ain't one. -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
