[mythtv-users] Written proof that we've all been conned about SD
jon.the.wise.gdrive at gmail.com
Tue Sep 11 04:51:28 UTC 2007
On Sep 8, 2007, at 11:41 PM, kijuhty kijuhty wrote:
> My frustration has *nothing* to do with whether Tribune tried to
> con anyone or whether Isaac, Myth, SD, Tribune or anyone else is
> making any money. Nor any posts like Andreas' or Brad's that argue
> that SD is a good thing. It's not about that. My frustration is
> that talking to the guys who insist TMS really was going to shut
> down zap2it labs is like talking to someone from the flat earth
> society. You can point out crystal clear facts over and over
> again, but no matter how much logic and reason you throw at the
> person, they're still convinced the earth is flat. R.G. and John
> both insist that my conclusion is wrong "that if the Myth community
> said 'no' to SD and threatened to do screen scraping, then the
> guide data would still be free like it was before".
Dude, if zap2it labs wasn't ever really going to shutdown, why isn't
the site functioning anymore?
> That is what is so shocking... It is so obvious and so logical.
> Have you guys seen a company's income statement before? You know:
> Revenue - Expenses = Profit. The whole goal of a company is to
> boost revenue and reduce expenses. *EVERY* company does that.
Yea, but apparently you haven't been too involved in a corporation.
There's a bunch of dumbfucks that make decisions, based on their
beliefs... If you worked at my company, you would understand (we just
recently went from a very stable, low resource incident tracking
system to a web based solution that costs less, but requires ActiveX
and a working copy of internet explorer. Our workstations are the
only PCs, the entire datacenter is run in Linux and Unix. Great idea!
But it saved money. This is what Companies do.)
> The post I referred to (assuming it's true) indicates that a
> commercial sponsor offered to cover all the costs of implementing
> zap2it *and* pay Tribune money. On the income statement that means
> a positive number goes onto the revenue section (the sponsorship
> money), and there's a reduction in the expense section (the cost of
> implementing zap2it labs). Positive revenue plus less expenses =
> MORE PROFIT, which equals more dividends for the shareholders and
> bigger bonuses for the executives. With me so far?
So, they could make $24k a year, OR they could outsource their
service to SD and not have to deal with the billing, etc, and have
potential profits that are much higher, just based on the number of
users they see using their service already... I'm not saying there's
that many people that will use SD and make TMS money, but I can see
how the meetings would have gone. Businesses are still ran by people,
and people are, in general, fucking idiots.
> But John insists that instead of taking the sponsorship offer to
> keep data direct free, which equals profit, TMS would have shut
> down data direct, forcing users to screen scrape and then "TMS
> would then make the data harder to scrape and also pursue legal
> action against the copyright violations just as software companies
> go after piracy."
Hate to say it, but yea, it makes more sense to shut down all that
hardware, no longer have to pay the fees for maintainence, leasing,
software, etc. (companies don't BUY computers anymore, they lease
them and get service contracts, it's more cost effective, as they
don't have to sell and buy new systems at a loss, they just budget a
lease fee, and the systems are rolled over as they go obsolete...
cost never changes, but is consistant, shutting system down
eliminates that cost)
Then, they take their lawyers (already paying the retainer) and send
them after the screen scrapers, and anyone who helps with that.
> Hmmm... If TMS did this, then the net impact on the income
> statement would be (a) a reduction in revenue, since they would
> give up the revenue from the sponsorship, and (b) a huge increase
> in the expenses, since they would have to pay developers to rewrite
> the site and pay attorneys to go after the violators, knowing the
> violators had no money to pay any settlement. They wouldn't do
> this. EVER! It makes no sense. No company turns down positive
> revenue and negative expenses and opts instead to reduce revenue
> and increase expenses like John and R.G. are asserting. It just
> doesn't happen. If a company says they're going to do this,
> *THEY'RE BLUFFING*! Tribune was NOT going to shut down zap2it labs
> if the Myth community rejected SD; they would have accepted the
> sponsor instead. They were bluffing. Duh!
Nope, reduction in costs, because they don't pay for the hardware
anymore, they already were paying the lawyers, and they're already
paying the developers. You obviously don't understand corporate culture.
> Imagine if a company said to the RIAA "We're going to fund a
> venture that will stop anybody from illegally stealing music again,
> *AND* we will pay you money for the privilege of doing it." What
> would the RIAA do? Say, "No, we don't want your money, and we want
> kids to steal music because we like suing them, even though we
> never get anything from them." That's exactly what John and R.G.
> are saying.
Unless someone specifically offered to pay for EVERY SINGLE track
that was downloaded, and offered a system to track and monitor the
volume, the RIAA wouldn't accept that option, because it isn't
profitable for them to set a "flat fee" for "unlimited use" this is
what was being offered to TMS.
> According to that pluto post (again, this is all assuming it's
> real), a sponsor agreed to fund a venture that would have prevented
> anybody from even contemplating stealing Tribune's guide data,
> *AND* would have paid Tribune for the privilege of doing it.
Do you even know how much SD has to pay TMS on a yearly basis? If you
don't know that, then how would you know that it's not more
profitable this way?
> But you guys are arguing that "No, TMS wouldn't have accepted their
> offer. They would have instead killed data direct so that
> everybody started screen scraping so then TMS could spend a fortune
> suing everyone." It makes no sense!
It makes more sense when you make less assumptions about how much
cheaper it would have been for them to leave it all the way it was.
More information about the mythtv-users