in the Ars Technica article. They all say the same thing that everyone here is saying especially Mike. Also I do think it was good for Ars to publish this. They made it clear that it was an opinion and that he was legitimately trying to convince people (that he is completely wrong is another story).
Are distractions and time wasters really bad? Taken to an extreme yes, but overall? I would argue no. Just look at TV I know there was a huge "OMG people will never leave there house " because of TV reaction. Just look at people today, with the advent of Facebook and things like that people are interacting with more people then ever. Besides how often do you "just need a break"? Some people just use Facebook etc, for that. (Just want to add in that I don't use Facebook because I think it's a huge stalker net)
"The content is what people want, but they have learned and been trained not to pay for it in any manner"
Last time I checked there were adds on Hulu... so how is that something for nothing? If you are saying that people have been trained to expect TV for nothing then that would be the TV companies own fault. They started putting adds in TV shows, not the consumers.
"Would you prefer that they sold you 1Mbp..."
No I would prefer to pay for 12 and get 12... If their network can't handle 12, cool, just promise what you can deliver. I prefer honest people that tell me what I can really expect. Under promise, over deliver and everyone will be much happier.
As to your last comment I enjoy paying for internet and TV. I don't like someone who keeps jacking up rates then providing less service and then expects me to be happy about it.
"programming is valuable and desirable, and people are willing to go a long way to get it, no matter the legality"
I think that if the cable companies gave people what they wanted they would go the legal route. Almost everybody I know would prefer to do things the legal way. However because people are being limited by the companies they cannnot do it the legal way. Hulu is a prime example just look at how many people are going to Hulu Instead of downloading content. Look at how much outrage there was when Hulu announced it was going to start charging. Everyone said they were going Back to downloading.
"So "what customers want" is what they are selling." except they are selling it at a price people want.
"suggesting that the cable companies should drop their subscription model"
I don't think Mike is suggesting that, I think he is suggesting that they find business models that work. I don't have a problem with paying x dollars a month for cable. I have a problem for paying for 12Mbps and getting 6Mbps because of traffic shaping. (Oh just as a side note the US pays more for less broadband then the rest of the world, and the profits of these companies have been rising while the costs of running the networks are dropping and speeds are staying the same)
"When what the consumer wants is "something for nothing", it's pretty much a non-starter discussion."
I don't think this is true at all. People will pay for what they like. For example I am more then happy to pay for Football tickets, despite them being very expensive. If you give people what they want a price they like they will buy it.
In summary wake up and smell the roses times are changing and you can adapt or die.
Or better idea they give me a universal format (.avi, and mp3 are examples) and then let me buy and player that plays that format. See with this novel idea you don't need DRM. What a crazy idea, you let the person who bought the stuff decide how to use it.
No it's not a wise move by Hulu. Why would you want to prevent people from seeing your adds? Hulu's content owners are being a damn ostrich and sticking their heads in the sand and hoping it all will go away.
not all of them are "productive" most of them are a way to take a break from work. I can't focus for 8 hrs a day and be productive. I have to take a break and these sites allow that pretty easily.
"The fair use deal has everything to do with international trade agreements. Get over it already."
You mean the ones they made in secret so they could force the US to change it's current laws?
"Copyright wasn't "renegotiated", it was changed by congress, the house, and signed into law by the president."
Pretty sure that they negotiated the changes in Congress. It's possible that everyone in Congress had an epiphany all at once but I am going to assume that since I am still alive that didn't happen.
"This one doesn't even make sense. What are you babbling about?"
The Happy Birthday song....Or another example http://techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0146316418.shtml
Why would you do this??? I mean you are preventing people from seeing your ads. With more and more people that have smart phones as a smart website you should make a mobile version. Just think of the money you could get if you made a mobile Hulu. This is so moronic that it defies all logic.
yeah man steam sucks. I only use it because to play certain games you just have to. Steam does have DRM they just don't label it as such. I like the easy of use but hate the fact that every time I try and play a game on steam I have to wait 20 mins for it to update.
The point of the article is that Diller see the web moving back to an AOL (walled garden) set up. Diller and others it seems, think that people will be willing to pay to access every website out there. They think that people will be willing to pay to access select content. This is in contrast to what we do now. No one, I don't think , would say that something is 100% free, someone had to make it/think of it etc. That's not the point. Diller's statement about people wiling to pay for something they see is valuable is very true. All it takes to ruin their model is for a few "rebels" to offer quality content and not make people give them a credit card to see it. This site wouldn't even have to be add supported, think open source software. Once this happens people will quit visiting the paid site since this one is "free". The value to the consumer will be higher then the paid site.
The politicians don't care about the laws, they just want the votes. Most of them, I hope, have been told about how they have no legal basis. They are just choosing to ignore that and proceed on, and Craigslist is helping by doing what they want.
I think you have a good point. People would behave differently if they knew that when the downloaded that song there were big red letters that said this is a lease. This would also expose how many business treat digital goods. If they have to be very open about what you are actually buying, people will either agree or quit buying.
It really needs to be a hybrid system. If you only teach principles people won't know how to apply them. The opposite is also true. I know my teachers that only taught the principles, but then on the tests they put only real problems. Without ever seeing any real examples the test were very difficult to complete.
RSS
Twitter
Read the Comments (as Chris)
in the Ars Technica article. They all say the same thing that everyone here is saying especially Mike. Also I do think it was good for Ars to publish this. They made it clear that it was an opinion and that he was legitimately trying to convince people (that he is completely wrong is another story).
Re: progress isn't in the eyes of the beholder (as imfaral)
Are distractions and time wasters really bad? Taken to an extreme yes, but overall? I would argue no. Just look at TV I know there was a huge "OMG people will never leave there house " because of TV reaction. Just look at people today, with the advent of Facebook and things like that people are interacting with more people then ever. Besides how often do you "just need a break"? Some people just use Facebook etc, for that. (Just want to add in that I don't use Facebook because I think it's a huge stalker net)
Re: Re: Re: (as imfaral)
"The content is what people want, but they have learned and been trained not to pay for it in any manner"
Last time I checked there were adds on Hulu... so how is that something for nothing? If you are saying that people have been trained to expect TV for nothing then that would be the TV companies own fault. They started putting adds in TV shows, not the consumers.
"Would you prefer that they sold you 1Mbp..."
No I would prefer to pay for 12 and get 12... If their network can't handle 12, cool, just promise what you can deliver. I prefer honest people that tell me what I can really expect. Under promise, over deliver and everyone will be much happier.
As to your last comment I enjoy paying for internet and TV. I don't like someone who keeps jacking up rates then providing less service and then expects me to be happy about it.
Re: (as imfaral)
"programming is valuable and desirable, and people are willing to go a long way to get it, no matter the legality"
I think that if the cable companies gave people what they wanted they would go the legal route. Almost everybody I know would prefer to do things the legal way. However because people are being limited by the companies they cannnot do it the legal way. Hulu is a prime example just look at how many people are going to Hulu Instead of downloading content. Look at how much outrage there was when Hulu announced it was going to start charging. Everyone said they were going Back to downloading.
"So "what customers want" is what they are selling." except they are selling it at a price people want.
"suggesting that the cable companies should drop their subscription model"
I don't think Mike is suggesting that, I think he is suggesting that they find business models that work. I don't have a problem with paying x dollars a month for cable. I have a problem for paying for 12Mbps and getting 6Mbps because of traffic shaping. (Oh just as a side note the US pays more for less broadband then the rest of the world, and the profits of these companies have been rising while the costs of running the networks are dropping and speeds are staying the same)
"When what the consumer wants is "something for nothing", it's pretty much a non-starter discussion."
I don't think this is true at all. People will pay for what they like. For example I am more then happy to pay for Football tickets, despite them being very expensive. If you give people what they want a price they like they will buy it.
In summary wake up and smell the roses times are changing and you can adapt or die.
Re: (as imfaral)
Or better idea they give me a universal format (.avi, and mp3 are examples) and then let me buy and player that plays that format. See with this novel idea you don't need DRM. What a crazy idea, you let the person who bought the stuff decide how to use it.
Re: The Big Deal? (as imfaral)
I don't get VOD either, however where does the MPAA think it has the audacity to break my stuff just because they are greedy?
Re: Re: Re: (as imfaral)
No it's not a wise move by Hulu. Why would you want to prevent people from seeing your adds? Hulu's content owners are being a damn ostrich and sticking their heads in the sand and hoping it all will go away.
Re: (as imfaral)
Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin (RIAA), the more star systems(opportunities) will slip through your fingers.
Re: Not convinced (as imfaral)
not all of them are "productive" most of them are a way to take a break from work. I can't focus for 8 hrs a day and be productive. I have to take a break and these sites allow that pretty easily.
Re: Re: Re: (as imfaral)
"The fair use deal has everything to do with international trade agreements. Get over it already."
You mean the ones they made in secret so they could force the US to change it's current laws?
"Copyright wasn't "renegotiated", it was changed by congress, the house, and signed into law by the president."
Pretty sure that they negotiated the changes in Congress. It's possible that everyone in Congress had an epiphany all at once but I am going to assume that since I am still alive that didn't happen.
"This one doesn't even make sense. What are you babbling about?"
The Happy Birthday song....Or another example http://techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0146316418.shtml
wow (as imfaral)
What a fun tidbit of info, this will get filed away in the fun facts category.
Re: he can huff and puff (as imfaral)
Shh, you are using logic and reason to try and these types of people don't like or understand any of that.
omg why? (as imfaral)
Why would you do this??? I mean you are preventing people from seeing your ads. With more and more people that have smart phones as a smart website you should make a mobile version. Just think of the money you could get if you made a mobile Hulu. This is so moronic that it defies all logic.
Re: Here's the dirty little secret (as imfaral)
well said
Re: (as imfaral)
I love that agreement. I think more people should put wherever you have stupid agreements like this
Re: Scary part about well-done DRM (as imfaral)
yeah man steam sucks. I only use it because to play certain games you just have to. Steam does have DRM they just don't label it as such. I like the easy of use but hate the fact that every time I try and play a game on steam I have to wait 20 mins for it to update.
You're missing the point (as imfaral)
The point of the article is that Diller see the web moving back to an AOL (walled garden) set up. Diller and others it seems, think that people will be willing to pay to access every website out there. They think that people will be willing to pay to access select content. This is in contrast to what we do now. No one, I don't think , would say that something is 100% free, someone had to make it/think of it etc. That's not the point. Diller's statement about people wiling to pay for something they see is valuable is very true. All it takes to ruin their model is for a few "rebels" to offer quality content and not make people give them a credit card to see it. This site wouldn't even have to be add supported, think open source software. Once this happens people will quit visiting the paid site since this one is "free". The value to the consumer will be higher then the paid site.
They don't care (as imfaral)
The politicians don't care about the laws, they just want the votes. Most of them, I hope, have been told about how they have no legal basis. They are just choosing to ignore that and proceed on, and Craigslist is helping by doing what they want.
Re: Define "property" (as imfaral)
I think you have a good point. People would behave differently if they knew that when the downloaded that song there were big red letters that said this is a lease. This would also expose how many business treat digital goods. If they have to be very open about what you are actually buying, people will either agree or quit buying.
Re: Requires a new system (as imfaral)
It really needs to be a hybrid system. If you only teach principles people won't know how to apply them. The opposite is also true. I know my teachers that only taught the principles, but then on the tests they put only real problems. Without ever seeing any real examples the test were very difficult to complete.