The social media business model is this: users are the product, to be sold to customers (advertisers) who provide the funds to keep the business going.
So that's the fundamental issue. Products don't have anonymity. Products can't expect to be treated like human beings. If you object to being treated like an inanimate object, then get off social media and stick only with services where you pay a subscription so you know that you are the customer, not the product.
Anybody who uses Facebook, Instagram, etc is either clueless or willingly putting themselves into a situation where they will be treated with no respect. I don't use social media at all (well okay YouTube but I don't really count that, it's more like free low-grade Netflix) and I'm surviving just fine.
Apple is banking on innovation to keep them ahead of the pack and that requires investment. For example, supposedly subscriptions are now the big thing as a new business model for them, but with AppleTV+, their attempts at news, etc, they have a ways to go. If they want to make this work, they'll need to invest heavily in it.
But Colgate...? Are there huge new developments in toothpaste that require investment?
Netflix has been famously (infamously?) in debt up to its eyeballs but just recently finally announced its cash flow is positive. This shouldn't have bothered investors because the reason they borrowed is that streaming is in its land-grab phase. Lock in subscribers now all over the world and most of them won't bother to cancel. Netflix's brand is now equivalent to streaming, it's the default service. That will pay dividends for decades.
This is a good example of "smart debt," where you have an actual plan to capitalize on that debt. As for AT&T, they have "dumb debt" (DirectTV - why buy any business in secular decline?) and "maybe okay debt" (Time Warner, assuming they can turn their HBO Max debacle around).
Free speech is a government thing, not a corporate thing. Governments protect free speech simply by not squelching it. And that's all free speech is. Governments not doing something.
Corporations have no role in this. They produce "speech" or acquire it by some means - hire a director to make a big budget movie, allow a President to start an ongoing Twitter rant - and then they sell tickets to the movie or get advertisers to pay them for the huge page view numbers that ensue.
They don't care if the speech is good or bad or right or wrong. They just want to make money off it. When the director becomes unpopular or the President becomes toxic and starts to scare advertisers or threaten to get the company into legal trouble, then they kick them to the curb.
The director and the President were just workers creating products for them to sell. If the product is no longer profitable, the worker gets fired. People keep on not understanding that when you post something on social media, you are making a product for a corporation to sell and not cut you in on the profit.
Maybe if you're on YouTube and very successful, you get a small % of ad revenues, but that's it. You're basically an unpaid employee. Corporations boot employees, paid or otherwise, all the time. And employees have no expectations of free speech when on the job.
Merkel doesn't understand how free speech works. We have free speech as long as the government doesn't interfere with it. If I can yack about my opinions on the street corner and not be bopped on the head by the cops and hauled off to prison, I have free speech. Americans have had free speech since 1776, when as far as I know, there was no social media. How did they manage without Twitter?
Twitter, Facebook, et al can snub me and not let me on their platform, but that is their right just like I can't barge into your house and start screaming my opinions in your face. That's private property and I have no right to the private property of others. I can buy my own private property, buy my own house and say what I like there, start my own social media platform and say what I like there.
Corporations are under no obligation to support free speech for all, or support free speech at all. And they've been doing this for a long time. The difference between social media and regular media is that Facebook and Twitter and YouTube figured out how to get people to make the media they sell to advertisers, for free (some YouTube creators get paid but it's peanuts).
That's better for them vs the traditional process, pay Spielberg or JJ Abrams to make a show or movie for you, and pay them millions. If I barged into Paramount or NBC and demanded a platform for my own show or movie, security would give me the boot. Twitter and Facebook are just like that, but they have far lower standards and don't boot their free content makers unless pushed to the brink.
We don't really know the terms of the agreement regarding what % Roku gets for signups via Roku, or for ads. But it's clear that whatever happens, Roku wins if big franchise movies go directly to Roku on the same day as theaters for all of 2021 (did AT&T commit to that in writing? what if the box office gets revived by fall?) AT&T may lose big if this tactic means they can't nurture new brands like Dune or revive dormant ones like Matrix without box office revenues.
To summarize, AT&T couldn't get Roku to stop playing hardball in negotiations so they sweetened the deal by throwing theaters under the bus an announcing their whole 2021 theatrical slate would go direct to streaming. Meaning, direct to Roku if HBO Max were on Roku.
That gives Roku the potential of a ton of new subscribers who Roku can then target with homepage ads for their free, ad-supported crap content. That was too juicy for Roku to resist. HBO Max and Roku win, moviemakers and theaters lose.
However AT&T may also lose. Who knows what the situation will be in fall 2021. If they scuttle Dune or a Matrix revival by sending them direct to HBO Max, and losing box office revenue, they are hurting themselves most of all.
I don't think Roku lost at all. Roku is the only surefire winner in this.
Corporations can be so stupid. A competitor to Sherwin-Williams that wants to build a hip image should hire this guy and let him go bananas. I mean he's mixing paint, as long as he doesn't get it in his eyes, what's the problem
Even Elliott has to concede defeat. AT&T is too screwed up for them to stick around. Time Warner/HBO will be run into the ground and AT&T will sell it at a steep loss to Apple or Amazon. Or maybe Netflix, that would be hilarious.
AT&T had their chance to prove that they knew what they're doing in streaming with HBO Max, which flopped. With everyone stuck at home and getting bored of the options on Netflix and Disney+, this is the best possible environment for a steaming service to launch. There is no excuse for HBO Max to flop, other than incompetent management.
HBO Max should be getting subscribers hand over fist. Netflix and Disney don't seem to be having any difficulties but that may be because thy know what they're doing. AT&T is badly run and has no clue how to monetize their Time Warner acqusition.
News and live TV aren't going to keep people with cable. Younger people see news as a free commodity, available all over the place and usually crap. Sports is really the last threshold keeping people with cable and when a good streaming sports solution emerges, it's all over for cable (and broadcast). It might be a service like Disney+ or Paramount+ getting a decent sports capacity, it might be MLB.com, NFL.com etc streaming games on a standalone app, but whatever it is, it's coming.
On the post: AT&T Spins Off DirecTV After Losing Billions On Its TV Dreams
Re: semantics
Pay TV is just industry jargon for cable. Streaming is usually called SVOD or (if ad supported AVOD).
On the post: Twitter Opposes 'Tweet' Trademark Application For Bird Food Company
I tat I taw a copyright lawyer
Why hasn't Warners sued Twitter for infringing on their Tweety Bird trademark?
On the post: Australian News Sites Shocked & Upset To Learn They Don't Need To Rely On Facebook For Traffic!
Facebook, not the most evil of them all?
Everyone is so used to Facebook being evil that it's confusing when they're not the most evil in any given situation.
On the post: No, Getting Rid Of Anonymity Will Not Fix Social Media; It Will Cause More Problems
the problem with social media
The social media business model is this: users are the product, to be sold to customers (advertisers) who provide the funds to keep the business going.
So that's the fundamental issue. Products don't have anonymity. Products can't expect to be treated like human beings. If you object to being treated like an inanimate object, then get off social media and stick only with services where you pay a subscription so you know that you are the customer, not the product.
Anybody who uses Facebook, Instagram, etc is either clueless or willingly putting themselves into a situation where they will be treated with no respect. I don't use social media at all (well okay YouTube but I don't really count that, it's more like free low-grade Netflix) and I'm surviving just fine.
On the post: AT&T & Verizon Got Billions From Government, Yet Laid Off 95,000 People In Just Five Years
Re: Re: Apple I can see...
Apple is banking on innovation to keep them ahead of the pack and that requires investment. For example, supposedly subscriptions are now the big thing as a new business model for them, but with AppleTV+, their attempts at news, etc, they have a ways to go. If they want to make this work, they'll need to invest heavily in it.
But Colgate...? Are there huge new developments in toothpaste that require investment?
On the post: AT&T & Verizon Got Billions From Government, Yet Laid Off 95,000 People In Just Five Years
Re: yep Netflix
Netflix has been famously (infamously?) in debt up to its eyeballs but just recently finally announced its cash flow is positive. This shouldn't have bothered investors because the reason they borrowed is that streaming is in its land-grab phase. Lock in subscribers now all over the world and most of them won't bother to cancel. Netflix's brand is now equivalent to streaming, it's the default service. That will pay dividends for decades.
This is a good example of "smart debt," where you have an actual plan to capitalize on that debt. As for AT&T, they have "dumb debt" (DirectTV - why buy any business in secular decline?) and "maybe okay debt" (Time Warner, assuming they can turn their HBO Max debacle around).
On the post: House Passes Bill To Address The Internet Of Broken Things
no pun intended, honest!
"I had to pay some kid in the Ukraine $750 so I could access my own genitals" is a new wrinkle many hadn't seen coming.
But I'm pretty sure Philip K. Dick wrote a story about that.
On the post: Some Thoughts On Twitter Pulling The Plug On Trump's Account
this is so simple...
Free speech is a government thing, not a corporate thing. Governments protect free speech simply by not squelching it. And that's all free speech is. Governments not doing something.
Corporations have no role in this. They produce "speech" or acquire it by some means - hire a director to make a big budget movie, allow a President to start an ongoing Twitter rant - and then they sell tickets to the movie or get advertisers to pay them for the huge page view numbers that ensue.
They don't care if the speech is good or bad or right or wrong. They just want to make money off it. When the director becomes unpopular or the President becomes toxic and starts to scare advertisers or threaten to get the company into legal trouble, then they kick them to the curb.
The director and the President were just workers creating products for them to sell. If the product is no longer profitable, the worker gets fired. People keep on not understanding that when you post something on social media, you are making a product for a corporation to sell and not cut you in on the profit.
Maybe if you're on YouTube and very successful, you get a small % of ad revenues, but that's it. You're basically an unpaid employee. Corporations boot employees, paid or otherwise, all the time. And employees have no expectations of free speech when on the job.
On the post: Irony: German Chancellor Merkel Upset At Twitter For Banning Trump; Meanwhile Germany Demands Social Media Blocks Dangerous Content
somebody tell Mrs. Merkel how free speech works
Merkel doesn't understand how free speech works. We have free speech as long as the government doesn't interfere with it. If I can yack about my opinions on the street corner and not be bopped on the head by the cops and hauled off to prison, I have free speech. Americans have had free speech since 1776, when as far as I know, there was no social media. How did they manage without Twitter?
Twitter, Facebook, et al can snub me and not let me on their platform, but that is their right just like I can't barge into your house and start screaming my opinions in your face. That's private property and I have no right to the private property of others. I can buy my own private property, buy my own house and say what I like there, start my own social media platform and say what I like there.
Corporations are under no obligation to support free speech for all, or support free speech at all. And they've been doing this for a long time. The difference between social media and regular media is that Facebook and Twitter and YouTube figured out how to get people to make the media they sell to advertisers, for free (some YouTube creators get paid but it's peanuts).
That's better for them vs the traditional process, pay Spielberg or JJ Abrams to make a show or movie for you, and pay them millions. If I barged into Paramount or NBC and demanded a platform for my own show or movie, security would give me the boot. Twitter and Facebook are just like that, but they have far lower standards and don't boot their free content makers unless pushed to the brink.
On the post: Wonder Woman Forces AT&T & Roku To End Their Petty Squabbles
Re:
We don't really know the terms of the agreement regarding what % Roku gets for signups via Roku, or for ads. But it's clear that whatever happens, Roku wins if big franchise movies go directly to Roku on the same day as theaters for all of 2021 (did AT&T commit to that in writing? what if the box office gets revived by fall?) AT&T may lose big if this tactic means they can't nurture new brands like Dune or revive dormant ones like Matrix without box office revenues.
On the post: Wonder Woman Forces AT&T & Roku To End Their Petty Squabbles
corporate shenanigans
To summarize, AT&T couldn't get Roku to stop playing hardball in negotiations so they sweetened the deal by throwing theaters under the bus an announcing their whole 2021 theatrical slate would go direct to streaming. Meaning, direct to Roku if HBO Max were on Roku.
That gives Roku the potential of a ton of new subscribers who Roku can then target with homepage ads for their free, ad-supported crap content. That was too juicy for Roku to resist. HBO Max and Roku win, moviemakers and theaters lose.
However AT&T may also lose. Who knows what the situation will be in fall 2021. If they scuttle Dune or a Matrix revival by sending them direct to HBO Max, and losing box office revenue, they are hurting themselves most of all.
I don't think Roku lost at all. Roku is the only surefire winner in this.
On the post: Inconceivable: TikToker Who Made Paint Mixing Very, Very Cool... Is Fired From Sherwin-Williams For Doing So
this smells like lawyers
Corporations can be so stupid. A competitor to Sherwin-Williams that wants to build a hip image should hire this guy and let him go bananas. I mean he's mixing paint, as long as he doesn't get it in his eyes, what's the problem
On the post: 'Activist' Investor Elliott Management Sells Stake In AT&T After Encouraging Mass Firings
rats deserting the sinking ship
Even Elliott has to concede defeat. AT&T is too screwed up for them to stick around. Time Warner/HBO will be run into the ground and AT&T will sell it at a steep loss to Apple or Amazon. Or maybe Netflix, that would be hilarious.
On the post: Appeals Court Strips Immunity From Detectives Who Turned A Rape Report Into 18 Hours Of Terror For The Victim
another day in paradise
This article reads like a PSA for gun ownership.
On the post: Cable TV Execs Move Past Denial Stage, Now Fully Expect A 'Cord Cutting' Bloodbath
Re: don't worry about content
There's already more content than any sane person can consume being made by companies not on your list. Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Disney, ViacomCBS etc.
On the post: With 42,000 Layoffs Since 2017, AT&T Plans Thousands More Layoffs At HBO, Time Warner
Re: then why did HBO Max flop?
AT&T had their chance to prove that they knew what they're doing in streaming with HBO Max, which flopped. With everyone stuck at home and getting bored of the options on Netflix and Disney+, this is the best possible environment for a steaming service to launch. There is no excuse for HBO Max to flop, other than incompetent management.
On the post: With 42,000 Layoffs Since 2017, AT&T Plans Thousands More Layoffs At HBO, Time Warner
Re: Re: Movie theaters sure.
HBO Max should be getting subscribers hand over fist. Netflix and Disney don't seem to be having any difficulties but that may be because thy know what they're doing. AT&T is badly run and has no clue how to monetize their Time Warner acqusition.
On the post: Cord Cutting Has Utterly Exploded During the Covid Crisis
sports is the last shoe to drop
News and live TV aren't going to keep people with cable. Younger people see news as a free commodity, available all over the place and usually crap. Sports is really the last threshold keeping people with cable and when a good streaming sports solution emerges, it's all over for cable (and broadcast). It might be a service like Disney+ or Paramount+ getting a decent sports capacity, it might be MLB.com, NFL.com etc streaming games on a standalone app, but whatever it is, it's coming.
On the post: DOJ Releases Its List Of 'Anarchy' Jurisdictions The President Thinks Should Be Blocked From Receiving Federal Funds
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I believe Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was... a large Arctic region covered with ice."
-Steve Martin
Amazing how that joke just stuck in my mind long enough for to become relevant again.
On the post: DOJ Releases Its List Of 'Anarchy' Jurisdictions The President Thinks Should Be Blocked From Receiving Federal Funds
Re: Re: Re: Re:
dammit ninjaed
Next >>