Oh, another reason I hate Netflix. I was watching some gay movie; I think this happend because I watched "I love you Phillip Morris". I thought it was going to be a documentary about the Marlboro man or something! Anyway, I also watched Scarface. So now, when everyone gets on my Netflix, one of the main categories for movies recommended that comes up, is "Gay movies from the '70s" and everyone who uses the Netflix is now questioning my sexuality thanks to some genius' algorithm.

 

My taste in movies is so varied. There's no way Pandora, Netflix or anyone else can guess what I'm going to like or not like.

 

I have to admit though, I'm not sure what you guys are talking about when you say Netflix is bad quality streaming video. For me, it's about the same as cable and I've never had any loading or "buffering" issues at all, despite having multiple devices connected to a router. I use WOW! Cable for internet service. Maybe you guys aren't getting enough bandwidth or less is allocated to devices other than the computer and Netflix software is designed to use a lower resolution with less bandwidth. That's my guess. The quality is pretty remarkable for streaming video, IMO.

 

NetFlix is the devil!

^ And there's your problem right there.

^If you have the time, they have something like a 20 page survey asking you about every possible movie genre / sub genre, style, language, etc. that you could think of.

 

At the end of the day, the streaming library of any provider is going to be slim until the media companies get on board (MTS get on that, will you?). It can be done so we can get the content, and the people making the movies get what they deserve. But someone's got to admit that they can't control everything from production to distribution, to how the public consumes it. We get to have a say too. If it were up to the movie houses, we'd all still watching newsreels in the movie theaters.

 

It's a very  complicated Matrix.  I can't even explain to you guys how this works.  As a film studio you want to protect and promote your product brand.  Having someone else do that, while they are competing against you isn't best.

Yeah....I get it, there's a lot of competing interests. That doesn't change the fact that the technology is here, and it is broadly accepted. There's no going back, so obstruction is only going to further frustrate the consuming masses, and drive them to avenues that give the studios zero revenue. So, you can have a part of something, or all of nothing, and then spend millions of dollars suing your customer base.

 

It's a very  complicated Matrix.  I can't even explain to you guys how this works.  As a film studio you want to protect and promote your product brand.  Having someone else do that, while they are competing against you isn't best

Bit Torrent it is then. :wave:

^If you have the time, they have something like a 20 page survey asking you about every possible movie genre / sub genre, style, language, etc. that you could think of.

 

At the end of the day, the streaming library of any provider is going to be slim until the media companies get on board (MTS get on that, will you?). It can be done so we can get the content, and the people making the movies get what they deserve. But someone's got to admit that they can't control everything from production to distribution, to how the public consumes it. We get to have a say too. If it were up to the movie houses, we'd all still watching newsreels in the movie theaters.

 

It's a very  complicated Matrix.  I can't even explain to you guys how this works.  As a film studio you want to protect and promote your product brand.  Having someone else do that, while they are competing against you isn't best.

 

This is why I'm surprised that networks/studios haven't created their own channels, especially as Roku is set up to charge for channels.  Even if you want to make it a subscription based service, instead of a one time access fee, that is the same model as Hulu.  I guess it is just suprising that there seems to be a demand for this service yet no one is able to offer it right now.

 

I'm sure most of this is due to how contracts for various shows/distribution is written.  Hopefully as more of those come up for renewal more streaming options will be available.

 

I cut the cord about 5 years ago.  Internet and an antenna works for me.  I rarely watch TV anyways.

^If you have the time, they have something like a 20 page survey asking you about every possible movie genre / sub genre, style, language, etc. that you could think of.

 

At the end of the day, the streaming library of any provider is going to be slim until the media companies get on board (MTS get on that, will you?). It can be done so we can get the content, and the people making the movies get what they deserve. But someone's got to admit that they can't control everything from production to distribution, to how the public consumes it. We get to have a say too. If it were up to the movie houses, we'd all still watching newsreels in the movie theaters.

 

It's a very  complicated Matrix.  I can't even explain to you guys how this works.  As a film studio you want to protect and promote your product brand.  Having someone else do that, while they are competing against you isn't best.

 

This is why I'm surprised that networks/studios haven't created their own channels, especially as Roku is set up to charge for channels.  Even if you want to make it a subscription based service, instead of a one time access fee, that is the same model as Hulu.  I guess it is just suprising that there seems to be a demand for this service yet no one is able to offer it right now.

 

I'm sure most of this is due to how contracts for various shows/distribution is written.  Hopefully as more of those come up for renewal more streaming options will be available.

 

 

Now answer this?  Who owns Hulu?  Who is Roku's biggest partner?

^If you have the time, they have something like a 20 page survey asking you about every possible movie genre / sub genre, style, language, etc. that you could think of.

 

At the end of the day, the streaming library of any provider is going to be slim until the media companies get on board (MTS get on that, will you?). It can be done so we can get the content, and the people making the movies get what they deserve. But someone's got to admit that they can't control everything from production to distribution, to how the public consumes it. We get to have a say too. If it were up to the movie houses, we'd all still watching newsreels in the movie theaters.

 

It's a very  complicated Matrix.  I can't even explain to you guys how this works.  As a film studio you want to protect and promote your product brand.  Having someone else do that, while they are competing against you isn't best.

 

This is why I'm surprised that networks/studios haven't created their own channels, especially as Roku is set up to charge for channels.  Even if you want to make it a subscription based service, instead of a one time access fee, that is the same model as Hulu.  I guess it is just suprising that there seems to be a demand for this service yet no one is able to offer it right now.

 

I'm sure most of this is due to how contracts for various shows/distribution is written.  Hopefully as more of those come up for renewal more streaming options will be available.

 

 

Now answer this?  Who owns Hulu?  Who is Roku's biggest partner?

 

Right I know that NBC/Universal and FOX own Hulu, but I was thinking more along the lines of ESPN and other typical cable channels creating a streaming option.  It seams like it would be in their interest as they would bypass the cable companies, who presently act as gate keepers. 

 

Never realized that Roku was originally developed at Netflix.  <a href=http://www.roku.com/about/management>Read here about the founder</a>.  Although I have a feeling you knew that already. 

 

I could see why certain companies would not create channels, such as TNT.  It wouldn't really make sense to create a streaming channel that would compete against the in house cable brand. 

 

Hopefully AMC will be creating a channel now that they have been spun off from NBC (I think).  I want to watch zombies again.

 

edit: just found that Disney/ABC et al has an equity stake in hulu as well.  Sounds like they could be the only option that is needed streaming wise to compete with cable.  Well at least if ou can pick up the CBS station OTA

^ Comcast owns NBC/Universal, and thus part of Hulu, so they've got there hands in both cookie jars - streaming and cable; Comcast has also been pushing hard to cap broadband data amounts and/or charge per amount used monthly.  They'll either make money by overcharging for streaming, or bringing cable subscribers back from Hulu due to the raising costs.  Also, ESPN is owned by /ABC, who also has a stake in Hulu, should they decide to do sports streaming of some sort.  And on that note, Fox Entertainment is also a part owner of Hulu.  Time Warner and CBS seem to be the ones on the outside.  That's my 5 minute Wikipedia analysis of the corporate entanglement.

Until subscription rates plummet ESPN cannot risk pissing of cable/sat companies.  Which means no internet channels that don't require a cable/sat subscription.  They have too much money in gigantic broadcast contracts to risk being mobile in their business model.  This should be a damaging or fatal flaw for the company in a time of change but you're dealing with incredibly small numbers of decision makers because of the professional and collegiate sports cartels that also are fine with the status quo.

^ Comcast owns NBC/Universal, and thus part of Hulu, so they've got there hands in both cookie jars - streaming and cable; Comcast has also been pushing hard to cap broadband data amounts and/or charge per amount used monthly.  They'll either make money by overcharging for streaming, or bringing cable subscribers back from Hulu due to the raising costs.  Also, ESPN is owned by /ABC, who also has a stake in Hulu, should they decide to do sports streaming of some sort.  And on that note, Fox Entertainment is also a part owner of Hulu.  Time Warner and CBS seem to be the ones on the outside.  That's my 5 minute Wikipedia analysis of the corporate entanglement.

 

"Entanglement" being a good word to use. Thus why certain company's are not involved of chose to limit a certain amount of programming to be offered.

 

Again, someone else or a competitor has their hands on my product.  I can't manage my product/brand effectively in that manner.

 

The only way to manage that is the Martha Stewart way with Kmart, which no one in their right mind would do today.

I've got an exciting antenna story. Couple months ago, I decided to hook up an Atari 2600 to a tube TV in the basement. After the 2600 was installed, I turned on the TV and it started naively auto-scanning for analog channels. Something most people don't know is that an Atari is actually a pretty good antenna with its long RF cable and circuitry. I forgot to turn on the Atari, so the TV went right past channel 3 and stopped on channel 44 which apparently still broadcasts home shopping over the analog airwaves. So, I'm wanting to play some Atari, but instead Snooki's coming through the Atari selling perfume and whatnots on home shopping. She was looking good, if not a bit snowy. I watched for over 10 minutes.

Those most awesome thing about this is that you still have your Atari.  My 5200 became an intergenerational hand-me-down as soon as I had younger cousins.  Sigh.

Those under the age of 16 can render a 5200 controller useless in seconds.

I still have two Intellivisions.

I have webtv

I have an Odyssey 2 and Atari 7800

I thought Jaguar was going to be the next big thing and I was kinda disappointed that it didn't get popular. I think they only made like 5 games for it, all together. It was a 64 bit system with 3D graphics. It couldn't compete with Sony or Nintendo.

The mid-'90s was a chaotic time in the video game business.

Jaguar was a cool system (alien vs predator and doom rocked) but its alleged 64 bit system was a complete lie. None of the games could reach that quality and how they calculated the bits was purposefully inaccurate, plus the system had serious design defects .

 

Bang for your buck, nothing can top the snes.  Most revolutionary games for its time (ie Mario cart, donkey kong, starfox, nba jam) and imo the best games (Mario world, castlevania, super star wars series, link, FF, and megaman follow ups,  and arguably the top 2 greatest games ever made - supermetroid and street fighter 2 turbo).

 

A flawless system with a high great game/crap game ratio.

 

Can someone explain why the dreamcast failed. It's one of the great video game mysteries. Great games, online play, good price and ads, and it had a huge start on the xbox (overrated), game cube, and the ps2

 

If halo sells xboxes alone, why not soul caliber or marvel v capcom. They were flawless ports

Ths thread has been epically derailed.

I haven't watched TV since 1996 and I've only been to a movie theater about 4 times as an adult, and not since 2006.  So no, I have never paid for cable. 

Can someone explain why the dreamcast failed. It's one of the great video game mysteries. Great games, online play, good price and ads, and it had a huge start on the xbox (overrated), game cube, and the ps2

 

If halo sells xboxes alone, why not soul caliber or marvel v capcom. They were flawless ports

 

Sega built up too much debt by releasing and redesigning all those different systems in the '90s. They had to get out of the hardware business. Sega also angered third-party companies by not telling them early enough about the system's release. That's why there's no EA games for Dreamcast.

Sega Saturn was terrible. Only console I have ever returned (and I have a lot of them).

 

Anyways, I am pretty close to cutting cable but I cannot get live sporting events. The only reason I still have cable is because of Big Ten Network.

People who don't watch tv LOVE pointing out that they don't watch TV. As if, unlike the rest of us, they aren't afflicted by pop culture. You all probably just download movies on Piratebay or Hulu anyway. You all sure as hell watch Youtube. Not watching TV doesn't make you special. It just means you waste more time online.

I watch seasons of shows via Netflix or iTunes, but I really have no interest in sitting down every __ night and watching new episodes. I love not seeing commercials.

>People who don't watch tv LOVE pointing out that they don't watch TV

 

People who make fun of people who say they don't watch TV are like hipsters who say if you complain about hipsters you are one. 

 

 

>Not watching TV doesn't make you special.

 

Oh yeah it does.  Don't own a TV and you're a one-percenter.  Subtract a car from the equation, and you're Warren Buffet, or maybe Prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud.

 

>People who don't watch tv LOVE pointing out that they don't watch TV

 

People who make fun of people who say they don't watch TV are like hipsters who say if you complain about hipsters you are one. 

 

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I watch seasons of shows via Netflix or iTunes, but I really have no interest in sitting down every __ night and watching new episodes. I love not seeing commercials.

 

Yeah, Netflix is great if you're into watching seasons of TV Shows. You can watch episode after episode without commercials and watch several seasons. I just don't like the selection of movies all that much. The really good, high-budget movies I'd normally order or rent--they don't have. Netflix is still awesome though.