train a comin'

There’s some talk about the intertubes that the purchase of NBC by Comcast may spell the end of Hulu.com, which is a joint venture between ABC and NBC, at least as we know it. Maybe it evaporates into the ether or maybe they start to charge for me to watch TV shows on-line. I’d have a problem if it completely disappeared because we use it quite a bit, but I don’t, on very general terms, have an issue with a process that asks me to pay for what I watch. The ‘very general part’ is an assumption that since I’m not paying for broadcast TV now I wouldn’t want to have to pay for those shows in the future. What’s most interesting about this oncoming change is that it’s one more example of an industry that relies on technology but either doesn’t understand it, or simply refuses to see the future.

Here’s what we know will happen in the next few years: television will available on-line for a nominal (or free) cost. Television will be in homes via either cable, satellite, and/or broadband streaming over the internet. People will not be watching TV at set times every night in order to watch their favorite TV shows – it will all be on-demand, all the time. TV that is steamed via broadband will be available in quality that allows us to watch it on the actual TVs in our houses. My point is this: do you believe that any of those things won’t happen? Not a chance. In my mind, as I’ve pointed out in endless conversations, is that we know where we will be in three years’ time – and we have actual events to back this up (music, newspapers, books) – so why do the ‘leaders of industry’ refuse to either learn or lead? If I were to say to you that in three years time the stock market will be down 45% and bonds will be up 15% from where they are now, what would you do? I know that seems a simplistic point-of-view but it’s perfectly valid. Within that example, what the TV industry is doing right now is trying to buy a bunch of stocks under some misguided illusion that they can will them higher. What they are doing in the real world is trying to sort a way to maximize profits while continuing to operate using decades-old rules and restrictions as a prop.

My favorite example of this methodology is the easiest, and earliest, story: music. If you really rack your brain and think back two decades you’ll remember the historical timeline: the move from LPs to 8-tracks to cassettes to CD (and the horrible digital disc) to on-line delivery. There was never a point, particularly once we’d digitized the process where any one thought that time would stand still. During CD adolescence there was the gnashing of teeth and limitations on ‘recordable’ blank discs; you couldn’t buy a machine that would record. Even though we knew that recordable data sources were going to happen the fight went on and on. Then we had internet distribution and the industry simply dug in its heels, prosecuted people, yelled and screamed about profits, and then, effectively, went under. What they wanted to do was limit access, maximize profits, and fuck the customer. What a forward thinking company, Apple, did was figure out a way to simply be a conduit for the goods, at a reasonable price, and reap the rewards. iTunes does nothing but take the money, move the music, and kill on the bottom line. Why? They actually thought ahead and figured that you can be a part of the revolution or you can sit on your ass and cry. Good riddance EMI, Atlantic, Sony Music, et al – enjoy your days a non-entities.

If, for now, we set aside newspapers and magazines, book publishing is the next to fall. Not because the written (or electronic) work isn’t viable anymore but because the group of smarty-pants refuse to see the future. We may think that they see it with the Kindle and Nook but both of those products are delivery products, Amazon and Barnes and Noble, respectively, that are stomping the life from the publishers, and rightly so. What the publishers are trying to do is continue to charge $20-$24 for a new book that costs nothing to publish or deliver; they have no idea that we once again know the end result of the dream and it’s not in buying stocks…again. The publishers will continue to battle this until the last breath leaves their collective body and, in the end, they will also be irrelevant. They have a chance to continue as a business but the model has to change – the tipping point is here.

TV, both delivery and content, is clearly on the same path. I’ll look into my crystal ball and say, with certainty, where the content will be in the end. I will also say that I know what the delivery and content holders will try to do over the next few years. I will also say, with certainty, I know the final result.

What’s funny about all of this is that that I’m not averse to paying for music, books, or TV. I’ve paid for every song in my vast collection, I’ll buy books for a reasonable price, and I’d pay for ala carte TV. The funny thing is that they tried to not allow it for music, they are doing the same for books, and TV is only following suit.

Smartest guys in the room; that’s funny every time I hear it.

What now, bitches?

T

get in my belly

As we've been watching Hulu lately there's suddenly some degree of commercial exposure on The Hilltop. Even when watching online, at least for now, you still get three or four 30-second spots every hour. My question is this: have GM and AT&T been running these horribly patronizing commercials for a long time? The GM commercial, with some hockey player down on the ice at one point, is covered by some bullshit narration about the 'new GM' that crows of a massive responsibility taken by GM to remedy the company's ways. I'm positive that a bunch of the mental midgets that run GM sat around saying to themselves in a meeting one day, "I think we should quit building Hummers." It comes off as a bit rich as they file for bankruptcy protection after getting something like $30 billion. Beyond that, it almost sounds as if they're claiming to have been beaten down by forces beyond their control; they're merely picking themselves up from the mat, dusting off, and are suddenly fighting fit because of the grand visions floating around that boardroom. You can see the commercial below (okay, I 'fess up. The first one you can watch is the actual commercial, the second one comes from some brilliant and gleaming lights in my universe busting on GM - stunning...and thiefs!). I couldn't find the AT&T commercial that outlines their unprompted "decision" to buy clean and efficient trucks and vans because of their great desire to help the American people.
 




This strange "guiding the public with junk input/output" popped into my head yesterday when, for reasons unknown, I clicked on a link at Yahoo! that appeared to discuss restaurant food and its health value. I thought to myself, "We only go out once in a blue moon (to FarrahOlivia) but I'm still curious to know what's going on in the Americana dining world these days." That was the wrong idea. Here's the sub-headline from the piece on food, calories, and fat intake:

"New list shows fried mac-and-cheese isn't as healthy as it sounds."

No way. Actually, it doesn't even sound healthy.

Do I need some crack journalist to break the story, and save my health, by showing that not only is plain mac-and-cheese pretty low on the dietary health table, but that when fried in clumps it's even worse? Fried mac-and-cheese actually screams that it's bad food. Was there really a question? Did someone actually think to themselves, "I need to cut back on all the sewage I'm shoveling into my gullet and try to eat better stuff. Hmm. Let's see. Yeah, I'm going to go with the fried mac-and-cheese grease cubes; but, I'll just have water to drink so I don't counterbalance my healthy selection with a sugary beverage." I really want to break this down - this fried bit - and come to a conclusion. Let's say you have a nice, fresh heirloom tomato sitting on your counter. You're thinking about slicing it up, slipping it on some farmer's bread, drizzling it with some olive oil, and nibbling on it as a nice afternoon snack. Or, you could just deep fry that mother and improve the nutritional value. I didn't think so. So, how exactly does anyone think that frying anything on this Earth could possibly make it healthier? Even if you just rolled out of bed in your shack in the woods, and fired up the Sterno to make some mac-and-cheese, you surely wouldn't suspect that adding a good deep fry to it would make your insides better, would you?

I will point out that this particular feast of fitness is available at...The Cheesecake Factory. I'll let you ponder that.

Love, kisses, and mac-and-cheese to all.

t