Wednesday, October 31, 2007

HD Radio. Anybody?

Apparently not. I know that the guy with the totally anti-HD Radio blog posted a link to the compete.com charts but I much prefer using Google Trends. Google being the largest search engine their Trends site is a pretty accurate view of what is hot and what is not in terms of what people are actually searching for.

Here is the Google Trends chart for Sirius, XM, HD Radio and Slacker:

Yep, nobody gives a good fat damn about (NBC Universal, Hulu.com or) HD Radio.

Slacker is a "slacker" as well.

That is a bit of a shock given the hype and excitement that existed not so long ago. I guess missing their target for releasing their portable by 4 months and counting had a bigger impact than they thought it would.

Monday, October 29, 2007

What happened with NBC/iTunes?

Mr. Zucker has sounded off.

You just knew it was about money. You know, NBC wanting to raise prices andhorn Jobs telling them to go screw. It is a very well known fact that most of the time these relationships between the content provider and Apple always come to blows over what Steve won't let them charge.

The content provider wanting to raise prices and Jobs holding the line. You can argue the point that it is the right of the content provider to set the price for their product, but I agree with Jobs when he says that .99 is the limit.

Well, according to Jeff Zucker, chief asshat of NBC Universal in an interview with Variety he pulled the NBC U content over money;

“We wanted to take one show, it didn’t matter which one it was, and experiment and sell it for $2.99,” he said. “We made that offer for months and they said no.”

How much is one episode of a TV show from the 3rd rated broadcast network worth? Jobs hit the nail on the head when he stated that TV shows on iTunes were over priced. If .99 will get me a song on iTunes then .99 should get me a low resolution TV show as well. At $3 a pop over the course of an entire TV season you could buy the DVD box set of Heroes and get a lot more content.

Executives from FOX have said the exact same thing. That they should be the one to set the price for their content, not Apple. Psst, hey dipshits; the consumer will set the price for your content. If you raise it above the point that consumers will spend you won't sell any content.

The proof already exists. iTunes has sold well over 3 billion songs on iTunes yet sales of TV shows lag well behind that pace in the low 10's of millions. Why is that? Could it be that people (just like me) think that $1.99 for a TV show episode is too much? Me thinks that it is. You couldn't convince these clowns of that. To them their 3rd and 4th rated network shows are worth MORE. Right.

Here's another priceless quote from Mr. Asshat;

“Apple sold millions of dollars worth of hardware off the back of our content and made a lot of money,” Zucker said. “They did not want to share in what they were making off the hardware or allow us to adjust pricing.”

They didn't want to share in revenue from hardware sales? And Zucker thinks that there is something wrong with that? Apple sold $15,000,000 worth of NBC programming, but sold BILLIONS of dollars worth of hardware. I suppose that Mr. Asshat thinks that NBC deserves a cut every time Vizio or Sony sell a TV or every time Tivo sells a box. Or how about a percentage of the fee that I pay DirecTV every month.

A little over 7 million episodes sold should be worth what? A kick to the curb? Oh wait, that's exactly what they got.

Fox and NBC think that they have a better model and have started Hulu.com to serve up the content from their 3rd and 4th rated networks. Good on them. On their own site they will be able to do whatever it is that they like with their content. My bet is that just like when the shows air on TV most people will be watching something on another website (network).

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Pay fixed price for unlimited music?

Got this via Google Alerts this morning. Seems the Dutch version of RIAA is going to propose a plan where ALL Dutch Internet subscribers will pay what amounts to $30 US each month for unlimited P2P music downloads. This fee would apply to EVERYONE. Even those who don't download music.

Think that dog would hunt in the United States?

No word on who will provide the digital files or who would guarantee the quality of these files but I can assure you that it won't be the recording industry.

They will sit back and collect monster fees from people who don't even download music and will do nothing at all to ensure people that do download that they are actually getting a quality product.

Under this plan, not only will the music suck in most cases, but so will the digital files and you won't have anyone to bitch to.

I don't buy $30 worth of music (I don't steal it either) each month because frankly the vast majority of music today SUCKS. On both Sirius and XM I find myself listening to the channels that play classic rock and blues.

I won't go for this and I would bet that one of the loopholes if this becomes reality would be business class subscribers would be exempt. Sign me right up. I would much rather pay my cable company the $100 or so for a business class account than pay $70 a month with $30 going to RIAA.

Here is the quote from the article that points out that the music industry looks at even their paying customers as thieves:

The license was suggested by the executive manager of the ISPI, Jesper Bay, in an interview titled "Pay fixed price for unlimited digital music." But the next day, he called for watermarking music files to prevent piracy.

They want to charge everyone $30 a month for unlimited downloads and watermark the files to prevent piracy. But if everyone is paying who is the pirate? The paying customers, that's who. Dutch people will seed these files because it's "legal" for them to do so. But who is downloading? The Dutch people will become the pirate because they will offer the files on P2P to people that aren't being fleeced by this music tax.

The Dutch people will shoulder the financial burden of all of the pirates in countries that don't adopt this model. The fee is as high as it is in hopes that the recording industry can get someone, anyone to compensate it for lost revenue from theft.

Technorati tags: , , ,