Oh Look, Another Set-top Box For Streaming Movies

from the heard-this-one-before,-I-think dept

One tech idea that simply won't go away is the set-top box for streaming movies. It's been tried plenty of times before (Netflix, Vudu, Akimbo, Moviebeam, and more) with little success, thanks to technical problems, poor content, bad business models, or some combination of all of them. Each iteration takes a slightly different tack, but the end result usually ends up the same: the dedicated set-top boxes go out with a whimper. Now, there's yet another one coming out, called ZillionTV, with its own take on things. It's the same basic idea: you hook the box up to your TV and your broadband connection, then use it to stream video content. The business model's a little different, though: it will be sold in partnership with ISPs, and users will be able to choose between pay-per-view content without ads, and ad-supported video, including both films and network TV shows. The usual bugbears seem to apply, including worries about the streaming quality and lack of a wide range of content. The ad-supported model, which will be based on targeting ads to users by tracking their viewing habits and other data, is interesting, though TiVo was playing around in a similar space a few years ago and their efforts seem to have gone quiet. What's a bit odd, though, is that the company says the box will cost $100, because "consumers didn't respond as well to free." That's puzzling -- especially if the company really hopes to make its money from advertising. In any case, we definitely won't hold our breath to see if ZillionTV can succeed where so many others have failed.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    R. Miles, 5 Mar 2009 @ 7:28am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Would you deny artists their right to profit from their work?
    I don't deny them one red cent. That's the record label doing that, or have you not paid attention to artist gripes for over 20 years.

    Artists who distribute via a record label isn't going to get my money this way. They'll get it DIRECTLY. And yes, I have done this. Just ask the band Scooter.

    Of that $1 per song the DISTRIBUTOR is charging, much of it isn't going to the artist. Don't sit there and think I'm going to line the pockets of a distributor taking advantage of me.

    Neither should you.

    Your $1 a song price is in part because a large percentage of total sales are lost because people like you think that the music has not monetary value.
    You're absolutely correct. I don't place value on the song. I place value on the performance of the song. HUGE difference.

    Anyone can sing a song. Some are better at it than others. Distributors don't sing, now do they? Instead, they control the market by falsifying the value of the song.

    Let me put it to you this way. Any song by Britney Spears has NO VALUE to me whatsoever. However, a song by Charlotte Church has INFINITE VALUE to me. Why? Because I want one but not the other.

    If Charlotte put out a new album on her website and charged me $1 for the song, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. Because I know ALL OF THAT $1 GOES TO HER.

    But not through her record label when ONLY PENNIES go to her of that $1.

    Screw that. Charlotte's revenues aren't derived from her music. It's from her concerts, which continue to sell out where ever she goes. Never once have I heard her bitching about me copying her music, but I sure do from her record label.

    not the removal of cost to create it.
    "Singing blah blah blah and no topic at all! Fala lee loo do dippity doo!"

    There. I just created a song. It cost me nothing to do it. Sing it, go ahead. I won't sue you. As an artist, if I want this song heard by others, I'm going to give it away for free. I won't charge.

    Why? Because if people like my song, they'll come to my concert. They'll buy my merchandise to be part of the experience. THAT'S where my money will be made, by making ME the scarce good, not a song that can be given away infinitely.

    And one more thing I want to point out: Just how much does it cost to make a song? Let's assume it's $20,000, k? So, wouldn't it make sense that AFTER $20,000, the song is paid for?

    At this point, the song SHOULD be free. Anything over $20,000 is profit, which is used to buy big houses, luxury cars, yachts, etc. The $20,000 obviously will cover the cost of the next song.

    And for you to sit there and tell me I'm stealing from this model is laughable, especially when there's so much money being made, both the ARTIST and the RECORD LABEL can buy big houses, luxury cars, yachts, etc. all the while YOUR wallet dwindles paying $1 per song.

    Tell me again why I'm the pirate? I'd love to hear this.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.