Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Will DVR usage lead to Pay TV?
23 views
Skip to first unread message
David
Oct 10, 2012, 11:05:24 AM10/10/12
to
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118060500?refCatId=14
Straight talk for DVR-happy viewers
Audiences have to accept paying for TV with their time or money
By Brian Lowry
The ratings for young-skewing shows like “Revolution” go up when
delayed viewing is figured in, but DVRs’ ad-skipping capabilities
still threaten TV’s business model.
In the case of the political class, the elephant in the room involves
a blunt conversation about taxes -- which most people don't relish
paying -- as a tradeoff for providing government services they're
accustomed to receiving and do like.
For TV, it's the question of advertising, and whether the traditional
system can survive if consumers continue to indulge their
technology-given right to circumvent ads whenever possible.
The second heart-to-heart talk boils down to a simple query for TV
viewers: "If you like these shows, what are you willing to give up to
keep them viable: Time or money?"
One of the most interesting wrinkles in analyzing the new fall TV
season has been the boost networks are seeing thanks to DVR viewing.
Ratings increase more than 20% for many shows (the percentages
sometimes appear inflated because the base was so low) once three-day
averages are included. The DVR bump is more pronounced than it was a
year ago, reflecting higher penetration of the devices and more usage.
Moreover, live-plus-three-day gains are generally higher
percentage-wise among key demographics -- those most important to
advertisers. This seems logical, since younger adults are presumably
more fluent in time-shifting strategies than, say, their grandparents,
who tend to watch more.
That people are still finding and sampling new shows is, of course,
welcome news for broadcasters. Yet while networks fought hard to win
concessions from media buyers about counting time-shifted viewing when
selling spots, the growth in DVR-mediated consumption doesn't bode
well for an ad-supported model, given how easy it is -- even without
something like Dish's ad-skipping Auto Hop function, which triggered
outrage among broadcasters -- to zap past commercials.
Yes, networks can point to counterintuitive research that shows
viewers still see a surprising number of ads, even when watching on a
delayed basis. According to this argument, ordinary people are less
zap-happy than media-saturated critics, yielding headlines like "Do
Americans Watch More DVR'd Commercials Than You Think?"
Even if true, this argument is somewhat self-defeating. If your
audience is too inert, ignorant or indifferent to realize they can
watch an episode of "The Good Wife" in roughly 43 minutes by excising
all the clutter, it's questionable whether they're a particularly
desirable bunch at which to target upscale products in the first
place.
Anecdotally, on Sunday night I efficiently sped through ABC's trio of
scripted one-hour dramas in about 140 minutes. In the course of that
span I saw innumerable bumper promos for "Nashville" -- hard to miss
or avoid those -- and one spot for DreamWorks' upcoming movie "Rise of
the Guardians." That's it.
The Obama campaign has spoken of "economic patriotism," trying to
persuade voters (particularly those in upper-income brackets) to
accept anteing up, tax-wise. Networks may need to embrace a similar
strategy -- advocating "programming pragmatism," perhaps -- to
reinforce the idea that TV fans can't expect a completely free ride.
Just as the government needs tax revenues to function, those who want
"free" TV programs must pay the freight too, either by shelling out
cash directly -- as they do for Showtime or HBO -- or enduring
commercials. And while networks remain understandably fretful about
"unintended consequences to messing with the TV ecosystem," as the Los
Angeles Times recently put it, it's only a question of what form the
messing will take.
The newspaper industry clearly suffered for being slow about prodding
customers to understand the shifting realities assailing its business
model. While TV is better situated to cash in on digital and on-demand
technology, migrating consumption to the digital realm is fraught with
peril as well, and efforts to thwart ad-skipping methods in that space
will almost certainly face their own challenges.
As noted, Hollywood and Washington have been in lockstep when it comes
to balking at initiating these uncomfortable conversations; instead,
the tendency is to delay, hoping the bill finally comes due on some
other poor slob's watch.
Think of it as another form of delaying -- in this case, maybe the
inevitable.
Straight talk for DVR-happy viewers
Audiences have to accept paying for TV with their time or money
By Brian Lowry
The ratings for young-skewing shows like “Revolution” go up when
delayed viewing is figured in, but DVRs’ ad-skipping capabilities
still threaten TV’s business model.
In the case of the political class, the elephant in the room involves
a blunt conversation about taxes -- which most people don't relish
paying -- as a tradeoff for providing government services they're
accustomed to receiving and do like.
For TV, it's the question of advertising, and whether the traditional
system can survive if consumers continue to indulge their
technology-given right to circumvent ads whenever possible.
The second heart-to-heart talk boils down to a simple query for TV
viewers: "If you like these shows, what are you willing to give up to
keep them viable: Time or money?"
One of the most interesting wrinkles in analyzing the new fall TV
season has been the boost networks are seeing thanks to DVR viewing.
Ratings increase more than 20% for many shows (the percentages
sometimes appear inflated because the base was so low) once three-day
averages are included. The DVR bump is more pronounced than it was a
year ago, reflecting higher penetration of the devices and more usage.
Moreover, live-plus-three-day gains are generally higher
percentage-wise among key demographics -- those most important to
advertisers. This seems logical, since younger adults are presumably
more fluent in time-shifting strategies than, say, their grandparents,
who tend to watch more.
That people are still finding and sampling new shows is, of course,
welcome news for broadcasters. Yet while networks fought hard to win
concessions from media buyers about counting time-shifted viewing when
selling spots, the growth in DVR-mediated consumption doesn't bode
well for an ad-supported model, given how easy it is -- even without
something like Dish's ad-skipping Auto Hop function, which triggered
outrage among broadcasters -- to zap past commercials.
Yes, networks can point to counterintuitive research that shows
viewers still see a surprising number of ads, even when watching on a
delayed basis. According to this argument, ordinary people are less
zap-happy than media-saturated critics, yielding headlines like "Do
Americans Watch More DVR'd Commercials Than You Think?"
Even if true, this argument is somewhat self-defeating. If your
audience is too inert, ignorant or indifferent to realize they can
watch an episode of "The Good Wife" in roughly 43 minutes by excising
all the clutter, it's questionable whether they're a particularly
desirable bunch at which to target upscale products in the first
place.
Anecdotally, on Sunday night I efficiently sped through ABC's trio of
scripted one-hour dramas in about 140 minutes. In the course of that
span I saw innumerable bumper promos for "Nashville" -- hard to miss
or avoid those -- and one spot for DreamWorks' upcoming movie "Rise of
the Guardians." That's it.
The Obama campaign has spoken of "economic patriotism," trying to
persuade voters (particularly those in upper-income brackets) to
accept anteing up, tax-wise. Networks may need to embrace a similar
strategy -- advocating "programming pragmatism," perhaps -- to
reinforce the idea that TV fans can't expect a completely free ride.
Just as the government needs tax revenues to function, those who want
"free" TV programs must pay the freight too, either by shelling out
cash directly -- as they do for Showtime or HBO -- or enduring
commercials. And while networks remain understandably fretful about
"unintended consequences to messing with the TV ecosystem," as the Los
Angeles Times recently put it, it's only a question of what form the
messing will take.
The newspaper industry clearly suffered for being slow about prodding
customers to understand the shifting realities assailing its business
model. While TV is better situated to cash in on digital and on-demand
technology, migrating consumption to the digital realm is fraught with
peril as well, and efforts to thwart ad-skipping methods in that space
will almost certainly face their own challenges.
As noted, Hollywood and Washington have been in lockstep when it comes
to balking at initiating these uncomfortable conversations; instead,
the tendency is to delay, hoping the bill finally comes due on some
other poor slob's watch.
Think of it as another form of delaying -- in this case, maybe the
inevitable.
Ian J. Ball
Oct 10, 2012, 11:35:14 AM10/10/12
to
In article <gf3b781a92ctpq4rb...@4ax.com>,
(and I am pretty sure no one else) is going to pay for cable *and*
subscription shows on top of that. Either the cable fees are going to
have to float everyone's boat, or just get rid of cable and go to a
subscription-only type model for TV shows.
I expect the latter is what will end up happening, probably within the
next decade, and probably as a 'streaming-only' model.
But, as I've said before - TV as a medium is dead, and on the way out.
--
"Surf-crazed aliens... Of course." - Amber, "Alien Surf Girls",
Episode #1.1, "Wipeout".
Wait a minute... "Of course"?! "*Of course*"?!! Did I miss a step here??!!
David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118060500?refCatId=14
>
> Straight talk for DVR-happy viewers
> Audiences have to accept paying for TV with their time or money
> By Brian Lowry
>
> The ratings for young-skewing shows like �Revolution� go up when
> delayed viewing is figured in, but DVRs� ad-skipping capabilities
> still threaten TV�s business model.
>
> In the case of the political class, the elephant in the room involves
> a blunt conversation about taxes -- which most people don't relish
> paying -- as a tradeoff for providing government services they're
> accustomed to receiving and do like.
>
> For TV, it's the question of advertising, and whether the traditional
> system can survive if consumers continue to indulge their
> technology-given right to circumvent ads whenever possible.
>
> The second heart-to-heart talk boils down to a simple query for TV
> viewers: "If you like these shows, what are you willing to give up to
> keep them viable: Time or money?"
Well, then the whole model needs to be thrown out, and started over - I
> http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118060500?refCatId=14
>
> Straight talk for DVR-happy viewers
> Audiences have to accept paying for TV with their time or money
> By Brian Lowry
>
> The ratings for young-skewing shows like �Revolution� go up when
> delayed viewing is figured in, but DVRs� ad-skipping capabilities
> still threaten TV�s business model.
>
> In the case of the political class, the elephant in the room involves
> a blunt conversation about taxes -- which most people don't relish
> paying -- as a tradeoff for providing government services they're
> accustomed to receiving and do like.
>
> For TV, it's the question of advertising, and whether the traditional
> system can survive if consumers continue to indulge their
> technology-given right to circumvent ads whenever possible.
>
> The second heart-to-heart talk boils down to a simple query for TV
> viewers: "If you like these shows, what are you willing to give up to
> keep them viable: Time or money?"
(and I am pretty sure no one else) is going to pay for cable *and*
subscription shows on top of that. Either the cable fees are going to
have to float everyone's boat, or just get rid of cable and go to a
subscription-only type model for TV shows.
I expect the latter is what will end up happening, probably within the
next decade, and probably as a 'streaming-only' model.
But, as I've said before - TV as a medium is dead, and on the way out.
--
"Surf-crazed aliens... Of course." - Amber, "Alien Surf Girls",
Episode #1.1, "Wipeout".
Wait a minute... "Of course"?! "*Of course*"?!! Did I miss a step here??!!
Obveeus
Oct 10, 2012, 12:35:12 PM10/10/12
to
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just as the government needs tax revenues to function, those who want
> "free" TV programs must pay the freight too, either by shelling out
> cash directly -- as they do for Showtime or HBO -- or enduring
> commercials.
platform so that you pay for the entertainment AND you still have to endure
commercials.
The rest of this article was full of lame attempts to compare the TV
industry with politics/taxes. That should have been an easy comparison to
make as people want the product, but never the hassle of paying for it.
Maybe the writer should have just recommended a form of 'pay cable' where
everyone gets to watch whatever they want and bill is scheduled to be
delivered to their grandchildren in a few decades?
David
Oct 10, 2012, 12:42:53 PM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:35:12 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>The rest of this article was full of lame attempts to compare the TV
>industry with politics/taxes. That should have been an easy comparison to
>make as people want the product, but never the hassle of paying for it.
>Maybe the writer should have just recommended a form of 'pay cable' where
>everyone gets to watch whatever they want and bill is scheduled to be
>delivered to their grandchildren in a few decades?
I hope future generations blame you freeloading 47-percenters and not
>The rest of this article was full of lame attempts to compare the TV
>industry with politics/taxes. That should have been an easy comparison to
>make as people want the product, but never the hassle of paying for it.
>Maybe the writer should have just recommended a form of 'pay cable' where
>everyone gets to watch whatever they want and bill is scheduled to be
>delivered to their grandchildren in a few decades?
those of us who support television by watching shows on Hulu, even
when it means waiting 8 days.
Obveeus
Oct 10, 2012, 12:58:41 PM10/10/12
to
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:na9b78hgt8fnp2a8e...@4ax.com...
The 8 day wait represents the future of Healthcare under Obama.
Regular Hulu is for the people willing to pay their own way.
Hulu Plus is for people willing to pay twice their own way.
David
Oct 10, 2012, 1:09:23 PM10/10/12
to
>Hulu Plus is for people willing to pay twice their own way.
Obveeus
Oct 10, 2012, 1:26:51 PM10/10/12
to
erilar
Oct 10, 2012, 1:45:29 PM10/10/12
to
> The DVR bump is more pronounced than it was a
> year ago, reflecting higher penetration of the devices and more usage.
Maybe some others besides me are using the DVR more because of the
> year ago, reflecting higher penetration of the devices and more usage.
deluge of political ads this year? 8-)
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
David
Oct 10, 2012, 2:32:30 PM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:26:51 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Their selling point is getting Hulu on other devices.
>
>Ask Anim8r how well Hulu works on other devices.
I don't think he's worked out Hulu on the one device either.
>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Their selling point is getting Hulu on other devices.
>
>Ask Anim8r how well Hulu works on other devices.
anim8rFSK
Oct 10, 2012, 2:49:51 PM10/10/12
to
In article <k54b4t$f4$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
LOL
It sort of works on a late model MacBookPro running Lion, at least the
ones on IMDb that seem to just to to Amazon anyway, but, yeah, Hulu is
all but useless.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
It sort of works on a late model MacBookPro running Lion, at least the
ones on IMDb that seem to just to to Amazon anyway, but, yeah, Hulu is
all but useless.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
Professor Bubba
Oct 10, 2012, 3:24:51 PM10/10/12
to
In article <drache-67E44D....@news.eternal-september.org>,
ads have to be run, and it's mandated that they be given the cheapest
rate available. So when (as an example) Party City tries to buy bulk
time for its Halloween ads, there's hardly any available. I've seen
exactly one Party City ad this year, and that was only last week.
Usually we're flooded with them.
Anyway, I think the entire premise is false. Last year, a study showed
that people with DVRs were just as aware of particular ads as were
people without them. (Percentage was in the low 40s.) The thing about
a DVR is that you have to sit there and FF through the ads, so you're
going to get that impression no matter what. People without DVRs often
leave the room to make a sandwich, take a leak, whatever. I've
frequently gone back to watch an ad I'm interested in, particularly if
it's for a movie or some holiday-oriented thing.
But if the drug companies expect that I'm going to sit through the
300th showing of those middle-aged people in the bathtubs, forget it.
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <gf3b781a92ctpq4rb...@4ax.com>,
> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The DVR bump is more pronounced than it was a
> > year ago, reflecting higher penetration of the devices and more usage.
>
> Maybe some others besides me are using the DVR more because of the
> deluge of political ads this year? 8-)
Some advertisers are being squeezed out by political ads. Political
> In article <gf3b781a92ctpq4rb...@4ax.com>,
> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The DVR bump is more pronounced than it was a
> > year ago, reflecting higher penetration of the devices and more usage.
>
> Maybe some others besides me are using the DVR more because of the
> deluge of political ads this year? 8-)
ads have to be run, and it's mandated that they be given the cheapest
rate available. So when (as an example) Party City tries to buy bulk
time for its Halloween ads, there's hardly any available. I've seen
exactly one Party City ad this year, and that was only last week.
Usually we're flooded with them.
Anyway, I think the entire premise is false. Last year, a study showed
that people with DVRs were just as aware of particular ads as were
people without them. (Percentage was in the low 40s.) The thing about
a DVR is that you have to sit there and FF through the ads, so you're
going to get that impression no matter what. People without DVRs often
leave the room to make a sandwich, take a leak, whatever. I've
frequently gone back to watch an ad I'm interested in, particularly if
it's for a movie or some holiday-oriented thing.
But if the drug companies expect that I'm going to sit through the
300th showing of those middle-aged people in the bathtubs, forget it.
David
Oct 10, 2012, 3:29:35 PM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:24:51 -0400, Professor Bubba
<bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>In article <drache-67E44D....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>> Maybe some others besides me are using the DVR more because of the
>> deluge of political ads this year? 8-)
>Some advertisers are being squeezed out by political ads.
Not Geico, though. Never Geico.
<bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>In article <drache-67E44D....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>> Maybe some others besides me are using the DVR more because of the
>> deluge of political ads this year? 8-)
>Some advertisers are being squeezed out by political ads.
<eye twitching uncontrollably>
Obveeus
Oct 10, 2012, 3:33:20 PM10/10/12
to
chicagofan
Oct 10, 2012, 3:45:19 PM10/10/12
to
bj
David
Oct 10, 2012, 3:46:22 PM10/10/12
to
to go when the Rod Serling guy and the squealing pig are exhausted.
Mason Barge
Oct 10, 2012, 3:53:10 PM10/10/12
to
off about the Flash business.
Mason Barge
Oct 10, 2012, 4:04:31 PM10/10/12
to
boot.
But I have to say, that thing with the bodybuilder directing traffic made
me laugh.
anim8rFSK
Oct 10, 2012, 5:15:13 PM10/10/12
to
In article <afkb785pv3tslhi5m...@4ax.com>,
I'm happy about it. Flash needed to die (and I don't just mean Barry
Allen).
Allen).
Nobody
Oct 10, 2012, 7:21:35 PM10/10/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:05:24 -0400, David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118060500?refCatId=14
>
>Straight talk for DVR-happy viewers
>Audiences have to accept paying for TV with their time or money
>By Brian Lowry
[..]
>http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118060500?refCatId=14
>
>Straight talk for DVR-happy viewers
>Audiences have to accept paying for TV with their time or money
>By Brian Lowry
>The second heart-to-heart talk boils down to a simple query for TV
>viewers: "If you like these shows, what are you willing to give up to
>keep them viable: Time or money?"
The *show*. Duh! Is it really that long ago when people simply chose
>viewers: "If you like these shows, what are you willing to give up to
>keep them viable: Time or money?"
which channel to watch based on the show they liked better?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Mason Barge
Oct 11, 2012, 8:52:07 AM10/11/12
to
video format is great. Microsoft Silverlight and QuickTime need to die.
Mason Barge
Oct 11, 2012, 9:05:36 AM10/11/12
to
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:24:51 -0400, Professor Bubba
<bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
<bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>In article <drache-67E44D....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <gf3b781a92ctpq4rb...@4ax.com>,
>> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The DVR bump is more pronounced than it was a
>> > year ago, reflecting higher penetration of the devices and more usage.
>>
>> Maybe some others besides me are using the DVR more because of the
>> deluge of political ads this year? 8-)
>
>
>Some advertisers are being squeezed out by political ads. Political
>ads have to be run, and it's mandated that they be given the cheapest
>rate available.
I think that's actually a very limited rule. Doesn't it apply only to
>erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <gf3b781a92ctpq4rb...@4ax.com>,
>> David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The DVR bump is more pronounced than it was a
>> > year ago, reflecting higher penetration of the devices and more usage.
>>
>> Maybe some others besides me are using the DVR more because of the
>> deluge of political ads this year? 8-)
>
>
>Some advertisers are being squeezed out by political ads. Political
>ads have to be run, and it's mandated that they be given the cheapest
>rate available.
Presidential and Senatorial candidates within 60 days of the election? And
also, I'm guessing (since it's an FCC rule) that it's broadcast t.v. only.
Also IIRC it doesn't apply to PACs, just to the campaigns themselves.
Anyway, I do know that the stations make a fortune off political ads.
Obveeus
Oct 11, 2012, 9:44:45 AM10/11/12
to
"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:15:13 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Apple and video are not a real good combination, IMO. I'm still pissed
>>> off about the Flash business.
>>
>>I'm happy about it. Flash needed to die (and I don't just mean Barry
>>Allen).
>
> Flash as a tool used to build websites needed to die, badly. Flash as a
> video format is great. Microsoft Silverlight and QuickTime need to die.
Silverlight works great. QuickTime...that needs to die.
>>> Apple and video are not a real good combination, IMO. I'm still pissed
>>> off about the Flash business.
>>
>>I'm happy about it. Flash needed to die (and I don't just mean Barry
>>Allen).
>
> Flash as a tool used to build websites needed to die, badly. Flash as a
> video format is great. Microsoft Silverlight and QuickTime need to die.
Mason Barge
Oct 11, 2012, 10:16:17 AM10/11/12
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:44:45 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:15:13 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Apple and video are not a real good combination, IMO. I'm still pissed
>>>> off about the Flash business.
>>>
>>>I'm happy about it. Flash needed to die (and I don't just mean Barry
>>>Allen).
>>
>> Flash as a tool used to build websites needed to die, badly. Flash as a
>> video format is great. Microsoft Silverlight and QuickTime need to die.
>
>Silverlight works great. QuickTime...that needs to die.
Silverlight works fine when it works. It has horrendous stability and
>
>"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:15:13 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Apple and video are not a real good combination, IMO. I'm still pissed
>>>> off about the Flash business.
>>>
>>>I'm happy about it. Flash needed to die (and I don't just mean Barry
>>>Allen).
>>
>> Flash as a tool used to build websites needed to die, badly. Flash as a
>> video format is great. Microsoft Silverlight and QuickTime need to die.
>
>Silverlight works great. QuickTime...that needs to die.
compatibility problems though, even in Windows 7.
I can't use it on my new desktop. I can't uninstall what's there, I can't
install over it, and I can't update it. It came as crapware with my new
computer.
I'm guessing I could go into the registry and fix it. Except, as a
practical matter, I'd probably damage the Windows installation beyond
repair and end up buying a new HD, spend $100 and 2 hours for a fresh
clean install, and be praying that I'd be able to get the $2000+ of
software I have at home installed again without having to repay for it.
Of course, there would be one benefit. I could do it on a solid state
drive and would not have a *single* item of crapware on it.
It is practically impossible to buy any computing device free of it. They
aren't all as bad as Dell or HP, but they all have it.
Did you know that, even if you do your own installation of Windows OS from
the DVD to a clean HD, you'll *still* get crapware if you're connected to
the internet?
Obveeus
Oct 11, 2012, 10:48:48 AM10/11/12
to
"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Did you know that, even if you do your own installation of Windows OS from
> the DVD to a clean HD, you'll *still* get crapware if you're connected to
> the internet?
downloaded to my computer as soon as I connected to the internet since I
would immediately set up a NETFLIX account so I could have access to the
best streaming content provider on the internet.
anim8rFSK
Oct 11, 2012, 11:37:05 AM10/11/12
to
Mason Barge
Oct 11, 2012, 12:58:51 PM10/11/12
to
pre-installed standalone program you don't necessarily want. It is
actually, in my case, something close to malware, because the preinstalled
version I got prevents me from getting a version that works.
"Crapware" doesn't necessarily mean the program is no good.
Jim G.
Oct 12, 2012, 6:21:49 PM10/12/12
to
anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:15:13 -0700:
What's with the Barry hate?
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Get down off the cross. We need the wood." -- Pete Lattimer, WAREHOUSE 13
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Get down off the cross. We need the wood." -- Pete Lattimer, WAREHOUSE 13
Jim G.
Oct 12, 2012, 6:21:49 PM10/12/12
to
Professor Bubba sent the following on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:24:51 -0400:
the magic and easy and not-so-secret "hack."
> The thing about
> a DVR is that you have to sit there and FF through the ads,
Not necessarily. And *definitely* not true for Tivo users if you know
> a DVR is that you have to sit there and FF through the ads,
the magic and easy and not-so-secret "hack."
Professor Bubba
Oct 12, 2012, 6:43:05 PM10/12/12
to
In article <9b4h78p6a0uo3nf9r...@4ax.com>, Jim G.
it. The commercials inevitably wandered from the 30-sec standard, and
there'd be little announcements about this and that, and so I'd wind up
ten or fifteen seconds (or even more) deep into the show I was
watching, and I'd have to backtrack. It was just easier to FF, stop
when I saw the show resume, and let the rollback do the work.
This is not to argue with you, though. There are many viewers who
micro-manage their buttoneering so they wind up seeing very few if any
ads. More power to them. The whole TV model needs to be reworked, and
if viewers have to lead the way, fine. They have before.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Professor Bubba sent the following on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:24:51 -0400:
> > The thing about
> > a DVR is that you have to sit there and FF through the ads,
>
> Not necessarily. And *definitely* not true for Tivo users if you know
> the magic and easy and not-so-secret "hack."
I know about the 30-sec skip, but back when I had TiVos I stopped using
> Professor Bubba sent the following on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:24:51 -0400:
> > The thing about
> > a DVR is that you have to sit there and FF through the ads,
>
> Not necessarily. And *definitely* not true for Tivo users if you know
> the magic and easy and not-so-secret "hack."
it. The commercials inevitably wandered from the 30-sec standard, and
there'd be little announcements about this and that, and so I'd wind up
ten or fifteen seconds (or even more) deep into the show I was
watching, and I'd have to backtrack. It was just easier to FF, stop
when I saw the show resume, and let the rollback do the work.
This is not to argue with you, though. There are many viewers who
micro-manage their buttoneering so they wind up seeing very few if any
ads. More power to them. The whole TV model needs to be reworked, and
if viewers have to lead the way, fine. They have before.
anim8rFSK
Oct 12, 2012, 8:02:03 PM10/12/12
to
In article <fa4h7859btj98oqnp...@4ax.com>,
understood?
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:15:13 -0700:
> > In article <afkb785pv3tslhi5m...@4ax.com>,
> > Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Apple and video are not a real good combination, IMO. I'm still pissed
> > > off about the Flash business.
> >
> > I'm happy about it. Flash needed to die (and I don't just mean Barry
> > Allen).
>
> What's with the Barry hate?
I love the Barry, but if I'd said Wally or Bart would people have
> anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:15:13 -0700:
> > In article <afkb785pv3tslhi5m...@4ax.com>,
> > Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Apple and video are not a real good combination, IMO. I'm still pissed
> > > off about the Flash business.
> >
> > I'm happy about it. Flash needed to die (and I don't just mean Barry
> > Allen).
>
> What's with the Barry hate?
understood?
Jim G.
Oct 15, 2012, 3:13:58 PM10/15/12
to
anim8rFSK sent the following on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:02:03 -0700:
Probably not, but I'm guessing that most people aren't as comic book
geeky as we are and wouldn't be any quicker to recognize Barry. :)
geeky as we are and wouldn't be any quicker to recognize Barry. :)
Jim G.
Oct 15, 2012, 3:13:58 PM10/15/12
to
Professor Bubba sent the following on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:43:05 -0400:
> It was just easier to FF, stop
> when I saw the show resume, and let the rollback do the work.
I usually know how many minutes each break is gonna be. If it's expected
to be three minutes, then I hit the button six times, etc. At most, I'll
have to hit the five-second reverse button once.
> This is not to argue with you, though. There are many viewers who
> micro-manage their buttoneering so they wind up seeing very few if any
> ads. More power to them. The whole TV model needs to be reworked, and
> if viewers have to lead the way, fine. They have before.
Yep. I don't feel guilty about any of it, especially with them filling
so much screen real estate with promos and pop-ups and whatnot these
days.
> In article <9b4h78p6a0uo3nf9r...@4ax.com>, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Professor Bubba sent the following on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:24:51 -0400:
> > > The thing about
> > > a DVR is that you have to sit there and FF through the ads,
> >
> > Not necessarily. And *definitely* not true for Tivo users if you know
> > the magic and easy and not-so-secret "hack."
>
>
> I know about the 30-sec skip, but back when I had TiVos I stopped using
> it. The commercials inevitably wandered from the 30-sec standard, and
> there'd be little announcements about this and that, and so I'd wind up
> ten or fifteen seconds (or even more) deep into the show I was
> watching, and I'd have to backtrack.
Easy-peasy with the five-second reverse button.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Professor Bubba sent the following on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:24:51 -0400:
> > > The thing about
> > > a DVR is that you have to sit there and FF through the ads,
> >
> > Not necessarily. And *definitely* not true for Tivo users if you know
> > the magic and easy and not-so-secret "hack."
>
>
> I know about the 30-sec skip, but back when I had TiVos I stopped using
> it. The commercials inevitably wandered from the 30-sec standard, and
> there'd be little announcements about this and that, and so I'd wind up
> ten or fifteen seconds (or even more) deep into the show I was
> watching, and I'd have to backtrack.
> It was just easier to FF, stop
> when I saw the show resume, and let the rollback do the work.
to be three minutes, then I hit the button six times, etc. At most, I'll
have to hit the five-second reverse button once.
> This is not to argue with you, though. There are many viewers who
> micro-manage their buttoneering so they wind up seeing very few if any
> ads. More power to them. The whole TV model needs to be reworked, and
> if viewers have to lead the way, fine. They have before.
so much screen real estate with promos and pop-ups and whatnot these
days.
anim8rFSK
Oct 15, 2012, 7:26:41 PM10/15/12
to
In article <3qio785epa4k1k5rr...@4ax.com>,
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> anim8rFSK sent the following on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:02:03 -0700:
> > In article <fa4h7859btj98oqnp...@4ax.com>,
> > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:15:13 -0700:
> > > > In article <afkb785pv3tslhi5m...@4ax.com>,
> > > > Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Apple and video are not a real good combination, IMO. I'm still
> > > > > pissed
> > > > > off about the Flash business.
> > > >
> > > > I'm happy about it. Flash needed to die (and I don't just mean Barry
> > > > Allen).
> > >
> > > What's with the Barry hate?
> >
> > I love the Barry, but if I'd said Wally or Bart would people have
> > understood?
>
> Probably not, but I'm guessing that most people aren't as comic book
> geeky as we are and wouldn't be any quicker to recognize Barry. :)
Yeah, good point.
> anim8rFSK sent the following on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:02:03 -0700:
> > In article <fa4h7859btj98oqnp...@4ax.com>,
> > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:15:13 -0700:
> > > > In article <afkb785pv3tslhi5m...@4ax.com>,
> > > > Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Apple and video are not a real good combination, IMO. I'm still
> > > > > pissed
> > > > > off about the Flash business.
> > > >
> > > > I'm happy about it. Flash needed to die (and I don't just mean Barry
> > > > Allen).
> > >
> > > What's with the Barry hate?
> >
> > I love the Barry, but if I'd said Wally or Bart would people have
> > understood?
>
> Probably not, but I'm guessing that most people aren't as comic book
> geeky as we are and wouldn't be any quicker to recognize Barry. :)
0 new messages