emaren wrote:... I decided that I was not going to spend $140+ a month to watch F1.
Here in the UK at least the races that are not broadcast on the good old BBC are carried by Sky and all it takes is a $15 'Now TV ' box and a £6.99 sports day pass ($12) to watch the race...
If Bernie wants to make his next $Quintillion, he needs to embrace live streaming...
...
If F1 is to survive, it needs to embrace the digital age and relegate TV, just like TV relegated Radio back in the 1970's...
Well, I'm not that sure what digital age means. Please, follow me for a moment, if you wish.
First, as you clearly understand, the prices you mention are simply not good for Internet, even if we do not take in account JustinTV or PirateBay.
I pay U$25 for a month of cable TV, including F1.
For this price, the number of ads is very small.
Perhaps they stop the race twice, for a couple of minutes, and they do it at 'strategical' moments, when there is not much action (that is, between laps 1 and 52,
when you're dozing watching Hamilton running two minutes ahead of Ricciardo).
The problem they have in Colombia to charge more is Netflix and similar alternatives.
Paying $140 dollars or even $12 for one show is out of the question for most Colombians.
I didn't pay 140 dollars for this mule, Mister... and it's faster than a Caterham!
Now, let's be sincere about "digital media".
Streaming is just a way of transmitting TV using the Internet.
I think streaming-as-of-today is not the future. It's a bizarre mixture of new and old: in the end, you're watching TV using the Internet.
... and not a very good TV, if you ask me
It's like using the Internet to ask via e-mail for a VHS cassette to be delivered to your house using UPS. Weird.
That's not the spirit of the Internet.
The Web is the same as The Internet? I don't think so
Things like Roku are a preview of the future, I think. A friend bought one recently. Man, that's neat.
Roku on a stick: better than Chromecast
You have to wonder if once you can broadcast from a Roku device or a Chromecast,
why this device cannot be used to feed one building or even a neighborhood?.
It can.
I imagine that hacks following that idea will appear soon if they haven't already.
They will be hard to prohibit, I guess.
During last World Cup
(Note for Americans, there is only one World Cup and it's what you call World Soccer Cup) we rigged one PC in the office to the cable box and streamed the signal to all PCs using the LAN and f@cking VLC!
VLC streams over a LAN, for the love of Pete
I realized (later on) that
you could do the same trick using Windows Media Player.
Lemme tell you this: productivity took a dive at the Ministry of Transportation in Colombia! We bogged down the LAN, proudly
Simple: if you have a LAN, any kind of LAN, you can stream the signal (any signal) that is in one PC to all the PCs in your LAN.
Here the (old) tutorial I just googled (we didn't even need a tutorial during the World Cup).
So, what about this? Instead of using a torrent to view movies you could imagine a "torrent" (?) of Rokus allowing multiples houses to watch the same set of channels.
It's all in the bandwidth.
Thus, perhaps the stranglehold they have in the cable is fuzzier when true WiFi enters the picture.
After all, once you get the signal from the WiFi, down into a cable, it's easier to hack things, I imagine.
This means that channels could be really, really accessible to a majority of the population, creating the "next quintillion" mentioned before.
I think it's all in the ability to distribute not to a country, not to a market segment, but to the World... and the world is not rich.