This has been the single most enlightening article I've read in a long time. It took a very small challenge to my concept of the alpha consumer, and now I can't believe I hadn't thought of this.
No one, I repeat, NO ONE, could criticize those numbers. Over $1mil in just two weeks for a no-name indie bundle with next-to-no marketing? That's fan-fucking-tastic! It's way more than I would have expected.
Won't work. Fun to try, but raw materials in a restaurant are expensive. This isn't being used as a loss-leader, so those economics are out the window. It would be easier to just sell sandwiches, but then the non-profit competes with their for-profit locations. No matter how they do this, Panera will be competing with itself.
Why aren't the employees volunteers? How will local governments respond to lost taxes? What about after people acclimate psychologically? Will they pay full price for a time, but then start skewing downward? The only example has been staying "afloat" since 2003.
The market, in its current situation, has provided 146,000 subscribers with an estimate of about $30mil in revenue.
If we assume that the content on the internet will simply get wider and MORE diverse, that means that they're already near the peak of the subscriber numbers that they are likely to get.
So he thinks that he can run a top-tier newspaper with $30mil per year. And if we assume that he's monetized the 1.9mil registered users to the tune of $.03 per user per day (based on my previous experiences with online advertising), that works out to another $20mil per year. So he's saying that he can run a top-flight newspaper on $50mil per year.
Considering that the NY Times newsroom is a $200mil per year expense, I find that claim dubious.
SlySoft AnyDVD FTW! It gets past all of your encryption schemes, has no restrictions, and you can't touch it.
I just need to wallow in this schadenfreude a bit, because this case has been pissing me off from the very beginning. This judge is absolutely out of her mind.
Even in another country, our issues should be of concern to you. Our companies are global, which means choices here will mirror choices in other countries. Viacom specifically is a French company. And our politics are frequently forced on other countries through back-door deals and trade agreements. Issues here will likely become issues there.
Daily Show and Colbert were the only reasons I ever went to Hulu. And Viacom's website interfaces are bad enough where I don't go there. Hulu's design and speed were much better.
Which... no longer applies? I just went to the Daily Show website, and new episodes are shown in a player oddly similar to Hulu.
How long has this been the case? My last trip a number of months ago had a really crappy design.
Ok, so. I guess Viacom FTW.
Still, it pisses me off that content providers are obsessed with taking things AWAY from the centralized media houses and trying to nestle it away on their own sites. Hulu was great because it had so much crap on it. Dailyshow.com has... Daily Show.
YouTube's been blocking access to lots of videos in their mobile version for a long time, now. Music is the most frequent culprit, but sometimes it's weird stuff.
Preventing me from listening to Madonna makes sense (sort of), at least insofar as stopping me from listening to the music on my cell phone will force me to buy the CD, as their logic goes.
But totally random shit like "Powerthirst" won't show up in the mobile version.
Of course, this doesn't stop me at all. I just open SkyFire and view the videos with that. It doesn't stop me. Hell, it doesn't even make it more difficult. It just pisses me off.
By the NY Times' OWN ADMISSION, their electronic edition has a distribution of 43,884.
If people can just open a browser with the included data plan, no one except perhaps some of those 43,884 ignorant fools will pay for the Times' content.
Everyone (in this crowd, who already hasn't) should watch "This Film is Not Yet Rated," a relatively scathing workup of the MPAA and its rating policy.
On the post: Report Claims Only 15,000 Signed Up For The Times Paywall
Disappointing?!
On the post: Peter Jenner Admits That Stopping File Sharing Is Impossible
Jenner?
Wait. What?
On the post: 'Hollywood Accounting' Losing In The Courts
Freakazoid
Fast forward to about 8:40 in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Matuxmatux#p/u/28/NbtqW62Ty0s
On the post: Forget The Early Adopters: Gadget Companies Should Target The Late Leapfroggers
Me
On the post: The Rise And Fall Of The RIAA
N'Sync
How appropriate for a manufactured boy band to be the peak of the industry.
On the post: Some Final Stats On The Humble Indie Bundle
Two weeks?
On the post: Panera Bread Testing The 'Pay What You Want' Model
Sounds fun, but...
Why aren't the employees volunteers? How will local governments respond to lost taxes? What about after people acclimate psychologically? Will they pay full price for a time, but then start skewing downward? The only example has been staying "afloat" since 2003.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Go Nina!
On the post: North Face Lawyers Try To Drag South Butt Family Through The Mud
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pay-per-view
On the post: Harvard Law Prof's Poor Economic Analysis Used As Cover For Unnecessary Fashion Copyright
Re: Crap...
On the post: FT Boss: Positive Thinking And Balls Are The Secrets To A Successful Paywall
RIP Financial Times
If we assume that the content on the internet will simply get wider and MORE diverse, that means that they're already near the peak of the subscriber numbers that they are likely to get.
So he thinks that he can run a top-tier newspaper with $30mil per year. And if we assume that he's monetized the 1.9mil registered users to the tune of $.03 per user per day (based on my previous experiences with online advertising), that works out to another $20mil per year. So he's saying that he can run a top-flight newspaper on $50mil per year.
Considering that the NY Times newsroom is a $200mil per year expense, I find that claim dubious.
On the post: RealNetworks Agrees To Pay $4.5 Million In Legal Fees To Hollywood Over RealDVD; Gives Up
FTW!
SlySoft AnyDVD FTW! It gets past all of your encryption schemes, has no restrictions, and you can't touch it.
I just need to wallow in this schadenfreude a bit, because this case has been pissing me off from the very beginning. This judge is absolutely out of her mind.
On the post: Hulu Loses The Daily Show And Colbert
Re:
On the post: Hulu Loses The Daily Show And Colbert
Re: Re:
That would mean recording TV with a VCR is piracy, which has been long-determined to be legal.
On the post: Hulu Loses The Daily Show And Colbert
Sad
Which... no longer applies? I just went to the Daily Show website, and new episodes are shown in a player oddly similar to Hulu.
How long has this been the case? My last trip a number of months ago had a really crappy design.
Ok, so. I guess Viacom FTW.
Still, it pisses me off that content providers are obsessed with taking things AWAY from the centralized media houses and trying to nestle it away on their own sites. Hulu was great because it had so much crap on it. Dailyshow.com has... Daily Show.
On the post: YouTube Joins Hulu In Letting Content Holders Block Access For TV-Connected Devices
Bah
Preventing me from listening to Madonna makes sense (sort of), at least insofar as stopping me from listening to the music on my cell phone will force me to buy the CD, as their logic goes.
But totally random shit like "Powerthirst" won't show up in the mobile version.
Of course, this doesn't stop me at all. I just open SkyFire and view the videos with that. It doesn't stop me. Hell, it doesn't even make it more difficult. It just pisses me off.
On the post: NY Times Execs Think People Will Pay $20 To $30 Per Month For The iPad Edition Of The NY Times
Out of their God-damned minds
By the NY Times' OWN ADMISSION, their electronic edition has a distribution of 43,884.
If people can just open a browser with the included data plan, no one except perhaps some of those 43,884 ignorant fools will pay for the Times' content.
On the post: MPAA Gives 'It's Complicated' An R Rating Because It Shows Pot Might Make You Giggle
A good study
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated
On the post: MPAA Gives 'It's Complicated' An R Rating Because It Shows Pot Might Make You Giggle
Re: Re: Re: You don't get out much, do you?
On the post: Microsoft Exec: Piracy No Longer A Threat To Us, Because Pirates Will Get Destroyed By Malware
Re: Re: Re:
My mom is gonna' be so angry.
Next >>