[mythtv-users] Let's get our heads straight here on listings solutions

Joe Borne joe.borne at gmail.com
Fri Jun 22 18:44:28 UTC 2007


** Condensed for brevity**

>Please find the "HTML" knob on your mail client and turn it off; k?

It's Gmail dude, relax. Like I said in the beginning, don't take what I'm
saying personally, which you obviously did. We are, after all, on the same
side.

>>    This idea of getting all TV stations to post their listings is
> >   deeply flawed because it places the burden or all the work on the
>>    TV stations and gives them absolutely nothing in return.

>Please pay attention to the threads?  They *already* do the work, and
>they *PAY TRIBUNE MEDIA* for the privilege.

OK, just for clarity. I have read the threads, all of them in detail. I
assumed my point would be obvious, but I guess I have to spell this out.
"They already know this situation sucks for them. Why would they repeat it?"



>>    They have
>>    ZERO motivation to help us

>They want viewers to watch (and record, since Nielsen cares now) their
>programs.  Our having valid sked data is a perfectly sound motivation.

They already have a delivery method for said "sked" data that reaches
99.99%of their viewers. It's in the STB's they push and the TV guide
channels.
MythTV users represent too small a demographic currently to represent a
profitable venture. The Cost/Benefit analysis on that is a no-brainer.

>>                                and in fact the most powerful of all
>>    motivations not to - laziness. An effort such as this would require
>>    HUGE amounts of energy from us and would produce next to zero
>>    results because the stations get nothing out of it. Now, the folks
>>    who are discussing ways to get large vendors such as Yahoo, Google,
>>    Amazon etc involved with the enticement of a commercial opportunity
>>    are on the right track.

>Until *those* vendors decide that their interests aren't ours, as TMS
>already has.

Sigh. Do I have to use the term "straw man argument" here? TMS never made
money off of this. It was a charity venture for them. As soon as it became a
financial drain due to a variety of reasons, the motivation factors I
explained kicked in. To equate what has been going on with TMS to a "for
profit" venture with another entity is just a plain falicy.

So long as a venture remains profitable, the sponsoring entity will
perpetuate it. No one ever says "You know, that (entity)'s been making money
for me for 8 years without much hassle. I think I'll get rid of it".

>>    The psychological fact is - every entity, whether an individual or
>>    corporation is 100% selfishly motivated. Even people who give their
>>    lives to performing charitable works (yes, even GPL stuff) fall in
>>    this category because what they do makes them feel spiritually or
>>    psychologically fulfilled. They are still getting a payoff.

>Sure.  If you think we don't get that, you haven't been reading all of
>every message in these 4 thread, as I have.

See above. Please.

>>    If we want a long term, robust solution that gets better every
>>    year - find a way for someone to make money, or get a similarly
>>    satisfying reward doing it. Since corporations produce and control
>>    this data, and they care not for spiritual needs, appeal to their
>>    primary motivator - profit.

>Was planning to get their software vendors to toss the export feature
>in as a selling point -- even if we have to find a way to pay said
>vendors to do it -- then make the business case to the stations.

"First I'm going to convince a major software vendor to change their
software based on a zero-value business case. or I'll raise the money to pay
them myself. Then I'll get the companies to put in the effort to implement
the new version, and support something less than 1% of their consumers use.
And I'm going to get it done in 60 days."

Let me know how that turns out.

*****also******

>On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:26:33PM -0500, jedi at mishnet.org wrote:

>> As far as changing the tide goes...
>>
>> I suppose your right. No one would ever follow a freak from MIT
>> that never bathes or some kid from Helsinki that has an unhealthy
>> fixation with penguins.

Go back and read the original post and re-read the motivational logic. Your
examples here don't apply. All of those people did what they did for purely
selfish reasons. (Linus wrote the linux kernel because he was sick of the
high UNIX licensing costs etc) They were followed for the same motivations
(people wanted what they provided). They had the "Ferrari electric car"
thinking. They didn't come up with a horrible idea and ram it down
everyone's throats. They did something people wanted. End of story.

>>
>> ...and no Fortune 500 CIO would let you run an Enterprise RDBMS
>> on software cobbled together from across the globe by dreamers,
>> hippies and potential competitors.

Of course they would, if it served their interests (cost savings, higher
profits etc).

You really aren't following the logic here. Every action is in some way
selfish - EVERY ACTION, without exception. Even giving your life for another
is selfish because you are satisfying your own moral code and receive a
spiritual payoff (albeit you only get to enjoy it for a micro-second or
two). It's quite common for these selfish behaviors to also benefit others.
The whole idea of barter evolved from this.


My whole point here was not to say that people aren't having good ideas
here. Anyone who really read my post would see that (who's not reading now -
hmmmmm?). The point is that we need to focus on a solution that will benefit
the provider. If we can create that the other problems will solve
themselves. Some of the ideas currently being bantered about are
fundamentally flawed and we shouldn't waste time on them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20070622/574688ac/attachment.htm 


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list