Anyway getting back to the point of this article, if you want to get the real scoop about a publicly traded company, read shareholder commentary. Nobody is parrotting any press releases when they are ranting about the dividends they're not getting or a stagnant share price.
I've seen investors and shareholders used interchangeably. If you buy a share, you're an investor. And how much control you have definitely depends on the number of shares you buy.
Shareholders can have a lot of power, especially in aggregate. Right now with AT&T the big issue is the income investors who expected to get dividends from AT&T doing their boring telephone thing. But instead they decided to try the high wire media act (growth, not income), and fell off the wire.
So they've managed to piss off both groups. Their share price is stagnant. Management teams that oversee a stagnant share price aren't well regarded and there can be consequences.
Well who's in charge of corporations, anyway? Investors! It's their money that's getting piled up in a huge mountain and set on fire by these nitwits.
Check out seekingalpha sometime, an investor site, and look for stories about AT&T (easy to find, just search for T). It's become a running joke how many articles slamming AT&T there have been. A new one every day. The comments sections are a lot more fun than you'd think from a group that worries about P/E ratios and ARPU (not a Simpsons character).
The way to stop another AT&T is for investors to wise up and give them no money.
20 years or 200, what really matters is not experience but the ability to adapt to new ways people are consuming media, and Comcrap can't handle that. It's still stuck in antique cable ways of thinking.
If they were up to date, they would have:
-A premium priced ad-free tier for those who no longer waste their time watching ads. $20 for 2 weeks seems like a reasonable price
-Robust sorting mechanisms that allow users to choose the vanilla option (focus on big events, American athletes, lots of talking head blather) or curate their own experience (filter by nation, sport, team, athlete, trials vs finals and events-only vs ceremonies, talking head blather etc).
-Allow users to set their owns schedules (live, if they want to be awake for Tokyo time, or delayed otherwise) and receive alerts when something on their schedule has become available. The problem of avoiding spoilers is up to the individual. Just avoid social media for two weeks. If you can't get off Facebook for two weeks, you have a problem.
Comcast should point a camera at everything that happens at the Olympics, upload the footage to their app, and provide sorting mechanisms that give users total control over what they experience and when. If I just want to see the Albanian water ballet team, and watch every last thing they do or say, then that should be accessible via the app, and I should be able to filter everything else out (especially the ads).
Re: If those other companies would have been smart...
There was an attempt at that, it was called Hulu. Well it still exists but I think of it in the past tense. By having a bunch of owners, it didn't have the impetus to really compete.
Disney was one of the owners, yet when it got serious about streaming, it launched Disney+. It's trying to buy Comcast's share of Hulu but by the time that's completed, Hulu will be even more of an afterthought. Never did go global, did it? How can it get anywhere by being domestic only?
Companies don't play well with other companies until they are bought by other companies. Fox cooperates very well with Disney since Disney bought it.
The average household supposedly has 3-4 paid streaming services. I think they're starting to realize that 1-2 is perfectly sufficient, and if they want variety, they can churn around.
So the whole streaming field will hammer down to just a handful of big winners with the second tier falling by the wayside (and being acquired). Netflix should end up one of the winners but this is the first indication of the squeeze. I think Disney's explosive growth is hitting a wall too.
Hulu will end up absorbed by Disney, HBO Max may survive under its new owners, Amazon and Apple will do their own thing but Paramount+, Peacock and lesser contenders won't make it.
Whatever happened to the pro-business, pro-freedom Republicans who wouldn't dream of meddling in a corporation's policies, trusting in the invisible hand of yadda yadda to make everything right? This weird new Republican party using the government to harass and hamstring business is just bizarre and i gotta wonder, what's the point? We have the Dems to corral big business, don't we?
Re: Re: EVEN IF were right, We The People can make it SO!
Shareholders can sell their stocks in a corporation that they find objectionable. I follow an investing blog and often see investors whining about Disney or CNN and how "woke" they are and how they're selling and getting out. Good. Sell your shares for no good (profit-driven) reason so the price will tank and I'll snap some up on the cheap.
I've never seen a movie like Raiders of the Lost Ark paid for and launched for free on YouTube. Have you? Please provide a link, I'd love to see it. But of course your lying and it doesn't exist.
There's really no reason why a movie can't be launched in theaters and on streaming at the same time and still do good box office, it just has to be the right type. Godzilla vs King Kong launched on HBO Max and theaters the same day and did strong box office, even though people were still just getting used to being back in theaters.
That goes to show, if you have a "theatrical movie" - meaning one with eye candy, action, and ideally big recognizable brand names - you can lure folks back into theaters, and they will ignore or not even realize that they could see it for free on streaming. Who's gonna bother to watch Godzilla fight King Kong on your home theater setup when you could get the full effect on a massive screen with booming sound system.
If Spielberg comes out with a movie like that - and his name alone is the recognizable brand - something big, noisy, overwhelming, fun - then Netflix can do whatever they want with it, and still rake in serious box office. That's the future of movies: a simultaneous streaming launch that doesn't hurt box office because it's so much better in the theater.
However, most movies aren't like Godzilla vs King Kong so those might as well just go to streaming alone. Spielberg will be making movies like that too. Schindler's List didn't require a big screen to appreciate. If Spielberg comes up with another ET or Indiana Jones type franchise, then that’s a theatrical release. That’s what Netflix is hoping for.
The relevant difference is that ISPs are monopolies or duopolies in most markets - Comcast and AT&T - and can use that power to screw over customers. Try cancelling one of them if you want a taste of really crappy customer service. But if Netflix pisses you off, you cancel your account with a click of a button and try Disney+ or AppleTV+ instead. And then cancel and come back to Netflix later. And all the streaming services are dirt freaking cheap, some are so cheap it's hardly worth the bother to click a button.
Yeah, for instance, Netflix is producing content and selling it for what I regard as a fair price, $9/month. I "donate" to them monthly. If I feel like their content is no longer worth even that paltry sum, I can pause my account for as long as I want and then reactivate it later when the good stuff is built back up.
At the prices these streaming services are charging, there's really no excuse for piracy. AppleTV+, $5. Disney+ $8. How much cheaper do people expect to get billions of dollars worth of stuff?
HBO Max is kinda outrageous at $15 but look what happened, it failed, AT&T gave up and tossed it into Discovery's lap and it will be up to them to figure out the solution. They should carve off the non-Warners stuff and add it to Discovery for $10/month with the "real" HBO content a $5 upcharge. So that works out to $15 anyway but in a more palatable form. Just one of the many problems Discovery gets to fix.
I've been tracking the sports industry and how it's going to transition from dying cable/broadcast to streaming and I'm getting more and more convinced that they're going to "solve" the problem of overly greedy sports leagues (the reason Netflix won't touch sports) by adding a new revenue stream of gambling.
Of course free is a great business model, just look at YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Google. But of course these aren't really "free." They're ad-based which makes the user the product, not the customer. The customer is the advertiser.
I've played free to play games, and still do, but it's obvious now being free kinda screws things up when some people will pay real world money for enhancements to give them an edge. I refuse to do this on principal. Any fool can buy their way thru a game. I beat their asses anyway hah. I can tell who they are because they have items that are unobtainable through gameplay.
In the end, I only really trust products that ask me to pay them and don't show me ads. It's nice to have the payment upfront and not hidden.
Yeah, all these corporations are corporations. They can't be expected to fight governments that can just boot them. Look at how China won't let streaming companies like Netflix and Disney+ in, to begin with. They can block any company that gets out of line. India could do likewise, assuming the Indian population puts up with it. What if the Indian government decided to boot Facebook and Twitter? Its up to people to fight back.
Government censorship will be an eternal drag on global platforms. This also happens to companies like Netflix. Content producers in India are self-censoring the content they make in anticipation of the Indian government censoring it if they show something out of line like a Muslim and a Hindu falling in love and kissing, oh horrors.
This censorship might only apply to Indian Netflix but it applies to everyone since content that might have been made and shown to the world will now never exist and what does exist will be silly soapy sitcoms and other uninteresting fodder.
How about if everyone starts thinking about Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc this way: they are in effect magazines, with infinite numbers of pages to fill, and a very wide-ranging editorial stance that takes articles, videos and other contributions from millions of contributors. And in general they don't pay their writers/video makers.
But that doesn't mean they can't have an editorial stance and decide that they don't like this or that specific contribution, even when it is being offered for free. They are private publications, regardless of how many contributors they accept or how little they pay for contributions.
If I write a article and submit it to the New Yorker magazine, I don't expect that they must publish this article and decide my free speech is being infringed if they reject it. Same goes for social media, all of which are profit-motivated corporations just like the New Yorker.
It may be doable but people are getting used to streaming being like TV: you point the remote at the big screen in the living room and click to get your shows.
Having to hook up your laptop to the TV or watch shows on your teeny phone screen is not really a good alternative to point-and-click convenience. Which gives Roku leverage. Is it really worth all the bother to find another way to watch YouTubeTV (and why does that even have customers at $65/month when for that price you could sign up for 5 or so streaming platforms with no ads and have way too much content to get around to).
On the post: US Press Softsells The Real Scope Of AT&T's Merger Incompetence, Ensuring It Will Happen Again
Re: Re: Re: a fun site to check out
Anyway getting back to the point of this article, if you want to get the real scoop about a publicly traded company, read shareholder commentary. Nobody is parrotting any press releases when they are ranting about the dividends they're not getting or a stagnant share price.
On the post: US Press Softsells The Real Scope Of AT&T's Merger Incompetence, Ensuring It Will Happen Again
Re: Re: a fun site to check out
I've seen investors and shareholders used interchangeably. If you buy a share, you're an investor. And how much control you have definitely depends on the number of shares you buy.
Shareholders can have a lot of power, especially in aggregate. Right now with AT&T the big issue is the income investors who expected to get dividends from AT&T doing their boring telephone thing. But instead they decided to try the high wire media act (growth, not income), and fell off the wire.
So they've managed to piss off both groups. Their share price is stagnant. Management teams that oversee a stagnant share price aren't well regarded and there can be consequences.
On the post: US Press Softsells The Real Scope Of AT&T's Merger Incompetence, Ensuring It Will Happen Again
a fun site to check out
Well who's in charge of corporations, anyway? Investors! It's their money that's getting piled up in a huge mountain and set on fire by these nitwits.
Check out seekingalpha sometime, an investor site, and look for stories about AT&T (easy to find, just search for T). It's become a running joke how many articles slamming AT&T there have been. A new one every day. The comments sections are a lot more fun than you'd think from a group that worries about P/E ratios and ARPU (not a Simpsons character).
The way to stop another AT&T is for investors to wise up and give them no money.
On the post: Despite 20 Years Of Experience, Comcast/NBC Still Sucks At Olympics Coverage
they don't need 20 years of experience...
20 years or 200, what really matters is not experience but the ability to adapt to new ways people are consuming media, and Comcrap can't handle that. It's still stuck in antique cable ways of thinking.
If they were up to date, they would have:
-A premium priced ad-free tier for those who no longer waste their time watching ads. $20 for 2 weeks seems like a reasonable price
-Robust sorting mechanisms that allow users to choose the vanilla option (focus on big events, American athletes, lots of talking head blather) or curate their own experience (filter by nation, sport, team, athlete, trials vs finals and events-only vs ceremonies, talking head blather etc).
-Allow users to set their owns schedules (live, if they want to be awake for Tokyo time, or delayed otherwise) and receive alerts when something on their schedule has become available. The problem of avoiding spoilers is up to the individual. Just avoid social media for two weeks. If you can't get off Facebook for two weeks, you have a problem.
Comcast should point a camera at everything that happens at the Olympics, upload the footage to their app, and provide sorting mechanisms that give users total control over what they experience and when. If I just want to see the Albanian water ballet team, and watch every last thing they do or say, then that should be accessible via the app, and I should be able to filter everything else out (especially the ads).
On the post: Netflix Finally Faces Competition, Tries To Pretend Otherwise
Re: If those other companies would have been smart...
There was an attempt at that, it was called Hulu. Well it still exists but I think of it in the past tense. By having a bunch of owners, it didn't have the impetus to really compete.
Disney was one of the owners, yet when it got serious about streaming, it launched Disney+. It's trying to buy Comcast's share of Hulu but by the time that's completed, Hulu will be even more of an afterthought. Never did go global, did it? How can it get anywhere by being domestic only?
Companies don't play well with other companies until they are bought by other companies. Fox cooperates very well with Disney since Disney bought it.
On the post: Netflix Finally Faces Competition, Tries To Pretend Otherwise
the crunch is on
The average household supposedly has 3-4 paid streaming services. I think they're starting to realize that 1-2 is perfectly sufficient, and if they want variety, they can churn around.
So the whole streaming field will hammer down to just a handful of big winners with the second tier falling by the wayside (and being acquired). Netflix should end up one of the winners but this is the first indication of the squeeze. I think Disney's explosive growth is hitting a wall too.
Hulu will end up absorbed by Disney, HBO Max may survive under its new owners, Amazon and Apple will do their own thing but Paramount+, Peacock and lesser contenders won't make it.
On the post: Exactly Right: 'You're Not Entitled To A Platform, Boomer.'
I miss the old Republicans
Whatever happened to the pro-business, pro-freedom Republicans who wouldn't dream of meddling in a corporation's policies, trusting in the invisible hand of yadda yadda to make everything right? This weird new Republican party using the government to harass and hamstring business is just bizarre and i gotta wonder, what's the point? We have the Dems to corral big business, don't we?
On the post: Exactly Right: 'You're Not Entitled To A Platform, Boomer.'
Re: Re: EVEN IF were right, We The People can make it SO!
Shareholders can sell their stocks in a corporation that they find objectionable. I follow an investing blog and often see investors whining about Disney or CNN and how "woke" they are and how they're selling and getting out. Good. Sell your shares for no good (profit-driven) reason so the price will tank and I'll snap some up on the cheap.
On the post: Spielberg's Production Company Inks Multi-Film Deal With Netflix, I Guess To Win A Bunch Of Emmys Instead Of Oscars
Re:
Maybe he saw how Godzilla vs King Kong was launched in theaters and streaming on the same day and still did great box office.
On the post: Spielberg's Production Company Inks Multi-Film Deal With Netflix, I Guess To Win A Bunch Of Emmys Instead Of Oscars
Re: what YT have you been watching?
I've never seen a movie like Raiders of the Lost Ark paid for and launched for free on YouTube. Have you? Please provide a link, I'd love to see it. But of course your lying and it doesn't exist.
On the post: Spielberg's Production Company Inks Multi-Film Deal With Netflix, I Guess To Win A Bunch Of Emmys Instead Of Oscars
the future of streaming/theaters
There's really no reason why a movie can't be launched in theaters and on streaming at the same time and still do good box office, it just has to be the right type. Godzilla vs King Kong launched on HBO Max and theaters the same day and did strong box office, even though people were still just getting used to being back in theaters.
That goes to show, if you have a "theatrical movie" - meaning one with eye candy, action, and ideally big recognizable brand names - you can lure folks back into theaters, and they will ignore or not even realize that they could see it for free on streaming. Who's gonna bother to watch Godzilla fight King Kong on your home theater setup when you could get the full effect on a massive screen with booming sound system.
If Spielberg comes out with a movie like that - and his name alone is the recognizable brand - something big, noisy, overwhelming, fun - then Netflix can do whatever they want with it, and still rake in serious box office. That's the future of movies: a simultaneous streaming launch that doesn't hurt box office because it's so much better in the theater.
However, most movies aren't like Godzilla vs King Kong so those might as well just go to streaming alone. Spielberg will be making movies like that too. Schindler's List didn't require a big screen to appreciate. If Spielberg comes up with another ET or Indiana Jones type franchise, then that’s a theatrical release. That’s what Netflix is hoping for.
On the post: Study Shows Disney, Netflix Continue To Dominate Traditional TV In Customer Satisfaction
the only real difference
The relevant difference is that ISPs are monopolies or duopolies in most markets - Comcast and AT&T - and can use that power to screw over customers. Try cancelling one of them if you want a taste of really crappy customer service. But if Netflix pisses you off, you cancel your account with a click of a button and try Disney+ or AppleTV+ instead. And then cancel and come back to Netflix later. And all the streaming services are dirt freaking cheap, some are so cheap it's hardly worth the bother to click a button.
On the post: FTC Gives MoviePass Execs A Wrist Slap For Changing Passwords So Users Couldn't Watch Movies
you've already got what you want, be happy
Yeah, for instance, Netflix is producing content and selling it for what I regard as a fair price, $9/month. I "donate" to them monthly. If I feel like their content is no longer worth even that paltry sum, I can pause my account for as long as I want and then reactivate it later when the good stuff is built back up.
At the prices these streaming services are charging, there's really no excuse for piracy. AppleTV+, $5. Disney+ $8. How much cheaper do people expect to get billions of dollars worth of stuff?
HBO Max is kinda outrageous at $15 but look what happened, it failed, AT&T gave up and tossed it into Discovery's lap and it will be up to them to figure out the solution. They should carve off the non-Warners stuff and add it to Discovery for $10/month with the "real" HBO content a $5 upcharge. So that works out to $15 anyway but in a more palatable form. Just one of the many problems Discovery gets to fix.
On the post: Fortnite, A Free Game, Made $9 Billion In Two Years
Re: you wanna really lose sleep?
I've been tracking the sports industry and how it's going to transition from dying cable/broadcast to streaming and I'm getting more and more convinced that they're going to "solve" the problem of overly greedy sports leagues (the reason Netflix won't touch sports) by adding a new revenue stream of gambling.
On the post: Fortnite, A Free Game, Made $9 Billion In Two Years
there's no free lunch
Of course free is a great business model, just look at YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Google. But of course these aren't really "free." They're ad-based which makes the user the product, not the customer. The customer is the advertiser.
I've played free to play games, and still do, but it's obvious now being free kinda screws things up when some people will pay real world money for enhancements to give them an edge. I refuse to do this on principal. Any fool can buy their way thru a game. I beat their asses anyway hah. I can tell who they are because they have items that are unobtainable through gameplay.
In the end, I only really trust products that ask me to pay them and don't show me ads. It's nice to have the payment upfront and not hidden.
On the post: Oversight Board Tells Facebook It Needs To Shape Up And Be More Careful About Silencing Minorities Seeking To Criticize The Powerful
Re: Not surprised
Yeah, all these corporations are corporations. They can't be expected to fight governments that can just boot them. Look at how China won't let streaming companies like Netflix and Disney+ in, to begin with. They can block any company that gets out of line. India could do likewise, assuming the Indian population puts up with it. What if the Indian government decided to boot Facebook and Twitter? Its up to people to fight back.
On the post: Oversight Board Tells Facebook It Needs To Shape Up And Be More Careful About Silencing Minorities Seeking To Criticize The Powerful
Re: How to hold the middle ground?
Government censorship will be an eternal drag on global platforms. This also happens to companies like Netflix. Content producers in India are self-censoring the content they make in anticipation of the Indian government censoring it if they show something out of line like a Muslim and a Hindu falling in love and kissing, oh horrors.
This censorship might only apply to Indian Netflix but it applies to everyone since content that might have been made and shown to the world will now never exist and what does exist will be silly soapy sitcoms and other uninteresting fodder.
On the post: Oversight Board Tells Facebook It Needs To Shape Up And Be More Careful About Silencing Minorities Seeking To Criticize The Powerful
the best way to think about Twitter and Facebook
How about if everyone starts thinking about Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc this way: they are in effect magazines, with infinite numbers of pages to fill, and a very wide-ranging editorial stance that takes articles, videos and other contributions from millions of contributors. And in general they don't pay their writers/video makers.
But that doesn't mean they can't have an editorial stance and decide that they don't like this or that specific contribution, even when it is being offered for free. They are private publications, regardless of how many contributors they accept or how little they pay for contributions.
If I write a article and submit it to the New Yorker magazine, I don't expect that they must publish this article and decide my free speech is being infringed if they reject it. Same goes for social media, all of which are profit-motivated corporations just like the New Yorker.
On the post: Trump Shows Why He Doesn't Need Twitter Or Facebook, As He Launches His Own Twitter-Like Microblog
I got a name for Trumpbook...
He should call it the Echo Chamber. And it would be hilarious if he only allows himself to post.
This silly site will keep Cheetolini busy and give the FBI a single place where they can keep track of his demented followers. Win/win.
On the post: Roku Users Lose Access To YouTube TV As Dumb Contract Fights Shift From Cable TV To Streaming
Re: Re:
It may be doable but people are getting used to streaming being like TV: you point the remote at the big screen in the living room and click to get your shows.
Having to hook up your laptop to the TV or watch shows on your teeny phone screen is not really a good alternative to point-and-click convenience. Which gives Roku leverage. Is it really worth all the bother to find another way to watch YouTubeTV (and why does that even have customers at $65/month when for that price you could sign up for 5 or so streaming platforms with no ads and have way too much content to get around to).
Next >>