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

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 02:44:28PM -0400, Joe Borne wrote:
>    ** 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.

Nope, I didn't.

Gmail has the knob, too; somewhere.. :-)

Really. Find it.  Unwrapping your quotes to readability is a pain in
the ass.

>    >>    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?"

You're going to have to define "which situation" you think "they know
sucks for them."

>    >>    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.

That's one reason why I'm not tergeting merely MythTV users.

>    >>                                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.

You're equating TMS's motivations with the stations' motivations, then?

TMS makes a *ton* of money off the issue we're discussing.  On the
reasonably close order of 5000 stations (WP says 8839 per FCC: I'm
cutting that by a third) times $75 a month is not chicken feed, and
that's on the *producer* side.

>    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".

TMS *costs* the stations money.

>    >>    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.

I will.  :-)

60 days?  Yes.  No.

>    *****also******
>    >On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:26:33PM -0500, [1]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)

True of Linus.  Not true of RMS, and without the GPL, Linus' OS
wouldn't amount to a hill of beans.

>    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.

Why is this a horrible idea?  I detect another strawman.

>    >> ...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).

Yes; that was precisely his point.

>    You really aren't following the logic here. Every action is in some
>    way selfish - EVERY ACTION, without exception.

Ah... an objectivist.

I'm a Heinlein fan, myself.

>                                                     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.

They may be flawed, but I'm not certain it's clear that they're
*fundamentally* flawed, and even if they are, I'm not sure we're in the
crunch that mandates ruling out their consideration yet, anyway.

Which doesn't mean I don't think we're well served by hearing
contrarian opinions.

But you might want to moderate the rhetoric a bit.   *I* am.  Check my
DejaGoo history if you don't believe me.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                   Baylink                      jra at baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com                     '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274