The entertainment industries made their financial bets thinking cable would be the best internet connection in town for the foreseeable future. If cable has to *gasp* compete, there business model looks less stable and they may have to *gasp* compete too.
"The point is, we adapt to what’s available. If something gets scarce, its price goes up, and other alternatives become more economically attractive. The world will not suddenly run out of oil one day; its price will have pushed us onto alternatives long before then."
No, the point is we can either plan for a smooth transition to alternate technologies, or have a very rough "adaptation period" where lots of people die.
Hulu has been going this direction for years. I have cable, but I won't be going to the trouble of entering any information into hulu.
I also wonder how this is even legally feasible. Do cable companies give information about all their subscribers info to Hulu? Is it even legal if they do? I seem to remember something about information sharing by cable companies being illegal under one of the cable acts.
Well, if these studios want to put another nail in their own coffin, let them. There are plenty of other entertainment options out there.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
That's a little different. The companies service contract ended and they assumed they could renew it. They shouldn't have made investments to fulfill a contract they didn't have yet.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
Now that is socialization. It may have been wiser to use a sustainability mandate or adjust the tax structure so the companies have to pay for the environmental damage the non-sustainable sources cause.
Incentivization is almost always superior to socialization.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
I don't think I'd call it socialization. The shareholders are the customers. It sounds like a good way to ensure that both the shareholders and the customers get a good value for their investment to me.
I thought you were talking about comparisons between the valuation of different information brokers.
It's naive to think large corporations are going anywhere. Large corporations may bring efficiencies that allow all of us to have a better quality of life. They may also bring massive inefficiencies that harm us. Bigness, by itself, is not inherently beneficial or harmful.
I don't see how Silicon Valley is any different than Hollywood in this regard. Neither are dealing in providing or distributing scarce resources. Information isn't a scarce resource because it is easily reproducible with any number of non scarce resources.
Silicon Valley wants to give us an information buffet, because technology allows it. Hollywood, book publishers, and other traditional media corporations want to dole out little pieces of information to use for or against us at their whim.
Given these choices, I'll value silicon valley more every time.
In about 20 years when we run out of natural gas fracking locations. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's the realistic thing.
There are 3 types of people in this.
Type 1. People who don't want to do it, and won't. These are the minority.
Type 2. People who are not worried about an unsustainable population bubble because they are short-sighted, greedy, stupid, or a combination of the three.
Type 3. People that realize the type 2 people will fuck it all up anyway and so join in because the marginal benefits may as well go to them too.
It's nice to think there will be a massive down sizing of the consumption of the real scarce resources, but that's unlikely.
Inequality IS the downsizing of consumption. Group A gets to consume more than group B, but overall consumption drops because less people are holding little pieces of paper with president's heads on them that gives them permission to consume.
Anything that addresses inequality will increase the consumption of natural resources.
What we really need is an expansion of sustainable energy so we can give more people little pieces of paper that give them permission to consume without inflating an unsustainable population bubble.
On the post: Misguided Senators Propose Plan To Make It Harder For Law Enforcement To Track Down Human Trafficking Online
Agreed
On the post: Google's Fiber Makes MPAA Skittish. Why Does Hollywood See All Technology In Terms Of Piracy?
Re:
On the post: Google's Fiber Makes MPAA Skittish. Why Does Hollywood See All Technology In Terms Of Piracy?
Competition
Their real fear is a competitive market place.
On the post: DailyDirt: Doing Whatever A Spider Can...
Re:
I think (hope) carbon nanotubes will become economically viable before spider silk.
On the post: After Four Years Feds Finally Get Around To Prosecuting Ten Mod Chip Sellers
Re: That word...
On the post: DailyDirt: Fusion Without A Star
Nice.
On the post: Google Sued Because Some People Wonder If Jon Hamm Is Jewish
That's ridiculous. I hope Google crushes the group suing in court, and then makes a nice donation to a jewish charity with any fees they recover.
On the post: Grooveshark Tries To Force Digital Music News To Unveil Commenter, Ignoring First Amendment
Re:
https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
On the post: Does It Makes Sense To Charge Kids & Their Parents With Libel For Online Bullying?
If she did and the page wasn't taken down, it's absolutely appropriate.
On the post: DailyDirt: Unobtainium Will Save Us!
Re: Why Are Power Lines Not Made Of Silver?
No, the point is we can either plan for a smooth transition to alternate technologies, or have a very rough "adaptation period" where lots of people die.
On the post: Are Facebook 'Likes' Protected By The First Amendment?
Appeal
On the post: Hulu Puts Gun To Own Head: May Require Users To Show Proof Of Pay TV Subscription
Re: Re:
I expect this cluster fuck to go away before the lawyers get through with it.
On the post: Hulu Puts Gun To Own Head: May Require Users To Show Proof Of Pay TV Subscription
I also wonder how this is even legally feasible. Do cable companies give information about all their subscribers info to Hulu? Is it even legal if they do? I seem to remember something about information sharing by cable companies being illegal under one of the cable acts.
Well, if these studios want to put another nail in their own coffin, let them. There are plenty of other entertainment options out there.
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
Incentivization is almost always superior to socialization.
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: Re: Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
I thought you were talking about comparisons between the valuation of different information brokers.
It's naive to think large corporations are going anywhere. Large corporations may bring efficiencies that allow all of us to have a better quality of life. They may also bring massive inefficiencies that harm us. Bigness, by itself, is not inherently beneficial or harmful.
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
Silicon Valley wants to give us an information buffet, because technology allows it. Hollywood, book publishers, and other traditional media corporations want to dole out little pieces of information to use for or against us at their whim.
Given these choices, I'll value silicon valley more every time.
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: Re: Re: The new economic reality
In about 20 years when we run out of natural gas fracking locations. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it's the realistic thing.
There are 3 types of people in this.
Type 1. People who don't want to do it, and won't. These are the minority.
Type 2. People who are not worried about an unsustainable population bubble because they are short-sighted, greedy, stupid, or a combination of the three.
Type 3. People that realize the type 2 people will fuck it all up anyway and so join in because the marginal benefits may as well go to them too.
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: The new economic reality
Inequality IS the downsizing of consumption. Group A gets to consume more than group B, but overall consumption drops because less people are holding little pieces of paper with president's heads on them that gives them permission to consume.
Anything that addresses inequality will increase the consumption of natural resources.
What we really need is an expansion of sustainable energy so we can give more people little pieces of paper that give them permission to consume without inflating an unsustainable population bubble.
Next >>