Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Unregistered
aliases
- mark cuban
- mark
- mark cuban
- mark cuban
- mark cuban
- mark cuban
- mark cuban
- mark cuban
- mark cuban
mark cuban
Is this you? Claim Profile »
3 months ago
in Mark Cuban: We don't think you are stupid but that doesn't mean we agree on BijanBlog
Thanks for the post Jeff, I can answer your question bijan. Todd wagner and I own Landmark Theaters, which is in 18 of the 20 largest markets. We own HDNet, which has 14mm subscribers. We own Magnolia Pictures that distributes on DVD, VOD, ITunes.
TOgether we created Ultra VOD. Here is how it works. We take a movie like Two Lovers (the movie Juaquin Phoenix was promoting on his infamous Letterman flipout appearance). Like all our Ultra VOD movies (which is most), we release them to pay VOD on cable and satellite companies THREE WEEKS before its theatrical release. We charge a premium for it (9.95 or a little more). It allows us to build a buzz for the movie and significantly cut our promotional costs forthe movie.
The Wednesday before its friday theatrical release, we offer a free showing on HDNet Movies (on all major carriers but Cablevision), obviously as an incentive for people to subscribe.
Then the movie is released theatrically to markets we think are the best fit. We put it in Landmark Theaters along with other independently owned theaters (other than Clearview, the big chains like Regal, Cinemark, NAI have refused to show our Ultra VOD movies).
Then the movie is released shortly there after the DVD, Netflix, Itunes, Xbox,. Also , FWIW, we do not copy protect any of our DVDs. Its not worth wasting the money.
We have had great success with the model and are obviously unique in our approach.
What we dont do with HDNet however is stream our shows. We sell them on Itunes, XBox Live and DVD. If you want to buy them, we are happy to sell them. But we want the price you pay ala carte to act as an incentive for people to make the choice to subscribe to HDNet on their cable or sat provider.
TOgether we created Ultra VOD. Here is how it works. We take a movie like Two Lovers (the movie Juaquin Phoenix was promoting on his infamous Letterman flipout appearance). Like all our Ultra VOD movies (which is most), we release them to pay VOD on cable and satellite companies THREE WEEKS before its theatrical release. We charge a premium for it (9.95 or a little more). It allows us to build a buzz for the movie and significantly cut our promotional costs forthe movie.
The Wednesday before its friday theatrical release, we offer a free showing on HDNet Movies (on all major carriers but Cablevision), obviously as an incentive for people to subscribe.
Then the movie is released theatrically to markets we think are the best fit. We put it in Landmark Theaters along with other independently owned theaters (other than Clearview, the big chains like Regal, Cinemark, NAI have refused to show our Ultra VOD movies).
Then the movie is released shortly there after the DVD, Netflix, Itunes, Xbox,. Also , FWIW, we do not copy protect any of our DVDs. Its not worth wasting the money.
We have had great success with the model and are obviously unique in our approach.
What we dont do with HDNet however is stream our shows. We sell them on Itunes, XBox Live and DVD. If you want to buy them, we are happy to sell them. But we want the price you pay ala carte to act as an incentive for people to make the choice to subscribe to HDNet on their cable or sat provider.
2 replies
bijan
Thanks Mark for the info
That is a great approach
Btw, nothing about boxee is opposed to pay per view or subscription online.
We already support netflix and more pay options coming
I am all for content owners getting paid.
That is a great approach
Btw, nothing about boxee is opposed to pay per view or subscription online.
We already support netflix and more pay options coming
I am all for content owners getting paid.
3 months ago
in Mark Cuban: We don't think you are stupid but that doesn't mean we agree on BijanBlog
you are twisting my comments from 2006. And you are taking poetic license with your own points.
The point I made back in 2006 was that in order to really watch HD in HD you actually had to connect to your HDTV with a digital or component connection. That watching HD content in HD was going to be limited by that factor. Which it has been.
I never said they wouldnt want to connect their TVs to their PCs to watch standard video. Although the reality is that even the number of people who do so is small, i can see why people like myself connect our big screens to our PCs, why wouldnt we ? That doesnt mean we prefer to use the net to watch HD or any video as our source.
The only place I underestimated usage is with XBox. They have done a great job of enabling their users to download and stream content. Particularly with their Netflix partnership. But even their delivery of content faces the same challenges of the last mile and in home bandwidth and their numbers are not huge for streaming either. All that said, and with all the techonlogical changes you refer to, TV viewership continues to increase. Even among young demos.
And I would challenge that I am resistant to change. In fact, its the exact opposite. There is nothing new or original about what is going on with internet video any more than there are new and exciting things going on with Desktop PCs or Windows App Software. When you get to a point where people are arguing about features and business plans, its a technology that has jumped the shark.
Internet Video is still consumed primarily during work hours and most of that afrom work. Bandwidth to the home is and will be constrained. Thats not to say it wont increase. Of course it will. But real creativity and change will come from applications that put the bandwidth to far better use than trying to copy TV.
If you want to talk about change, Im thrilled to talk about new application opportunities that are bandwidth hogs. The possibilities are endless, but they dont include internet video on demand.
If you want to talk about opportunity for change as it relates to traditional TV, im thrilled to talk about Tru2Way/EBIF, network DVRs and such. That is where the real change ishappening in the tv space. Its just not on the internet.
m
The point I made back in 2006 was that in order to really watch HD in HD you actually had to connect to your HDTV with a digital or component connection. That watching HD content in HD was going to be limited by that factor. Which it has been.
I never said they wouldnt want to connect their TVs to their PCs to watch standard video. Although the reality is that even the number of people who do so is small, i can see why people like myself connect our big screens to our PCs, why wouldnt we ? That doesnt mean we prefer to use the net to watch HD or any video as our source.
The only place I underestimated usage is with XBox. They have done a great job of enabling their users to download and stream content. Particularly with their Netflix partnership. But even their delivery of content faces the same challenges of the last mile and in home bandwidth and their numbers are not huge for streaming either. All that said, and with all the techonlogical changes you refer to, TV viewership continues to increase. Even among young demos.
And I would challenge that I am resistant to change. In fact, its the exact opposite. There is nothing new or original about what is going on with internet video any more than there are new and exciting things going on with Desktop PCs or Windows App Software. When you get to a point where people are arguing about features and business plans, its a technology that has jumped the shark.
Internet Video is still consumed primarily during work hours and most of that afrom work. Bandwidth to the home is and will be constrained. Thats not to say it wont increase. Of course it will. But real creativity and change will come from applications that put the bandwidth to far better use than trying to copy TV.
If you want to talk about change, Im thrilled to talk about new application opportunities that are bandwidth hogs. The possibilities are endless, but they dont include internet video on demand.
If you want to talk about opportunity for change as it relates to traditional TV, im thrilled to talk about Tru2Way/EBIF, network DVRs and such. That is where the real change ishappening in the tv space. Its just not on the internet.
m
1 reply
bijan
I linked to your post and my resonse at the time so people can draw their own conclusions.
(Yep you underestimated xbox and that is essentially my point)
How long have we been talking and waiting for cablecards/tru2way to really deliver.
By my count I remember talking about it back during my webtv and them msft days. Which was more than 10 years ago.
Just ask my friends at tivo how its going and how much you gotta add to the BOM to support multiple tuners/memory/sw to just make cablecard kinda work.
I have a hard time believing reports that tv usage is going up. That is from the same folks that say people who own DVRs still watch ads. Don't buy it
I have the numbers of people that stream online video from veoh and boxee. And they aren't doing it at work mostly. They are doing it at primetime.
(Yep you underestimated xbox and that is essentially my point)
How long have we been talking and waiting for cablecards/tru2way to really deliver.
By my count I remember talking about it back during my webtv and them msft days. Which was more than 10 years ago.
Just ask my friends at tivo how its going and how much you gotta add to the BOM to support multiple tuners/memory/sw to just make cablecard kinda work.
I have a hard time believing reports that tv usage is going up. That is from the same folks that say people who own DVRs still watch ads. Don't buy it
I have the numbers of people that stream online video from veoh and boxee. And they aren't doing it at work mostly. They are doing it at primetime.
1 year ago
in 2007/11/23/mark-cuban-stop-p2p-traffic/ on Mashable - The Social Media Guide
Joost is a perfect example of what is wrong with P2P. It is a for profit corporation that is attempting to develop a tv like product without paying (as best i can tell, correct me if im wrong), for the bandwidth its users are consuming. Call me crazy, but to me thats wrong.
This doesnt mean that Joost isnt a valid application. It is. If they were to put P2P on a CDN and pay for the bandwidth they consume, I would be all for it.
To be clear, Im not against P2P across the board, just in instances where its used as a bandwidth leach.
As far as CDN vs P2P, i would guess that for non pirated bits, that CDNs consume more bandwidth than P2P does. Again, Im fine with this because it requires companies to pay for the bandwidth they use.
And P2P beats downloading from a single source in many cases, but who downloads from a single source these days ? There are untold non P2P options, CDNs and multiple file download hosts that require the distributor to pay for the bandwidth they consume and distribute the bits to end users in an very efficient manner.
The Google option is for file distribution rather than emulating a video distribution option. Google is preferable because they have what is arguably the best network for content distribution in the world and they have made a business decision to subsidize the cost of anyone wants to use it.
And I think its a bad idea because of the confusion it would cause, not because its not a viable business model. I havent done a complete analysis, but from a cursory glance it seems like it could lead to the opportunity for lower pricing alternatives (if ISPs were smart enough to avail themselves of this alternative)
Bottom line is that P2P hasnt solved a single problem for recipients of files. It has solved a cost problem for distribution of content/files/other bits. It has moved the cost of distribution from the source to the destination. I think thats wrong.
obviously , not everyone agrees.
If we want to push for ISPs to optimize our experience and minimize our costs, then lets push for multicast. Lets push for better accounting of usage and more realism in advertising of just want we get for our money and what we dont get.
I can think of 100 different ways to improve the ISP experience.
I can also think of 100 internet sacred cows that need to be challenged. Challenging them in blog posts is a lot more fun
m
This doesnt mean that Joost isnt a valid application. It is. If they were to put P2P on a CDN and pay for the bandwidth they consume, I would be all for it.
To be clear, Im not against P2P across the board, just in instances where its used as a bandwidth leach.
As far as CDN vs P2P, i would guess that for non pirated bits, that CDNs consume more bandwidth than P2P does. Again, Im fine with this because it requires companies to pay for the bandwidth they use.
And P2P beats downloading from a single source in many cases, but who downloads from a single source these days ? There are untold non P2P options, CDNs and multiple file download hosts that require the distributor to pay for the bandwidth they consume and distribute the bits to end users in an very efficient manner.
The Google option is for file distribution rather than emulating a video distribution option. Google is preferable because they have what is arguably the best network for content distribution in the world and they have made a business decision to subsidize the cost of anyone wants to use it.
And I think its a bad idea because of the confusion it would cause, not because its not a viable business model. I havent done a complete analysis, but from a cursory glance it seems like it could lead to the opportunity for lower pricing alternatives (if ISPs were smart enough to avail themselves of this alternative)
Bottom line is that P2P hasnt solved a single problem for recipients of files. It has solved a cost problem for distribution of content/files/other bits. It has moved the cost of distribution from the source to the destination. I think thats wrong.
obviously , not everyone agrees.
If we want to push for ISPs to optimize our experience and minimize our costs, then lets push for multicast. Lets push for better accounting of usage and more realism in advertising of just want we get for our money and what we dont get.
I can think of 100 different ways to improve the ISP experience.
I can also think of 100 internet sacred cows that need to be challenged. Challenging them in blog posts is a lot more fun
m
2 replies
CountRob
^ ^ ^
Wouldn't it be something if this guy won the trolling contest? Mark Cuban has my official nomination.
Wouldn't it be something if this guy won the trolling contest? Mark Cuban has my official nomination.
Stan_Schroeder
Let's try and approach this from a different angle.
Aren't you putting too much emphasis on bandwidth costs? If it were only about bandwidth, I think that Joost would gladly pay the bill. I think they're using P2P because they can't deliver enough quality video content to so many people with any other method.
I don't think that P2P was ever about the cost of bandwidth. It was about delivering files in a decentralized way to avoid having a dying central server that can't handle a lot of requests.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your point a lot better now, but I don't really see the need to save poor ISPs from all those bandwidth freeloaders, simply because bandwidth is not the main reason why they're using P2P.
Aren't you putting too much emphasis on bandwidth costs? If it were only about bandwidth, I think that Joost would gladly pay the bill. I think they're using P2P because they can't deliver enough quality video content to so many people with any other method.
I don't think that P2P was ever about the cost of bandwidth. It was about delivering files in a decentralized way to avoid having a dying central server that can't handle a lot of requests.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your point a lot better now, but I don't really see the need to save poor ISPs from all those bandwidth freeloaders, simply because bandwidth is not the main reason why they're using P2P.
1 year ago
in 2007/11/23/mark-cuban-stop-p2p-traffic/ on Mashable - The Social Media Guide
time for you guys to do your homework and maybe you should actually read what i wrote before you go off.
I said Google Video should replace P2P..no. I said it was better for audio and video. Understand the difference ?
And your example on efficiency only applies in the rare cases where 100pct of the seeds are on the same network segment.
and there are far better ways to do file distribution than p2p. Look up multicast. I guess i should have expected your post and done a "Turn Off P2P, replace it with multicast and...." post first. Would that have helped you ?
the redunancy and load balancing of P2P ? I would love to see that paper confirming that. The issue with P2P is that you dont know who your seeds are or when they are available and exactly how much bandwidth will be available. if you did, it wouldnt be a P2P network, it would be a CDN.
Im all for applying P2P principles on a CDN. A CDN has resources thats are clearly definable and for the most part deterministic. Something that an open internet P2P application doesnt have.
More importantly, CDNs pay to host their servers and for the bandwidth they use.
Open Internet P2P is a leach network. Its theft by stealing bandwidth a few bits at a time.
As bad as an idea as it would be, it would be fun to watch ISPs go to a pay per bit model rather than the disingenuous all you can eat model they currently have.
If not a pay per bit, how about an all you can download for free, but pay per bit for upload model ?
Want to see how inefficient a protocol P2P is ? Watch how quickly users would unload their clients when they got a bandwidth bill for their upstream bandwidth use.
I said Google Video should replace P2P..no. I said it was better for audio and video. Understand the difference ?
And your example on efficiency only applies in the rare cases where 100pct of the seeds are on the same network segment.
and there are far better ways to do file distribution than p2p. Look up multicast. I guess i should have expected your post and done a "Turn Off P2P, replace it with multicast and...." post first. Would that have helped you ?
the redunancy and load balancing of P2P ? I would love to see that paper confirming that. The issue with P2P is that you dont know who your seeds are or when they are available and exactly how much bandwidth will be available. if you did, it wouldnt be a P2P network, it would be a CDN.
Im all for applying P2P principles on a CDN. A CDN has resources thats are clearly definable and for the most part deterministic. Something that an open internet P2P application doesnt have.
More importantly, CDNs pay to host their servers and for the bandwidth they use.
Open Internet P2P is a leach network. Its theft by stealing bandwidth a few bits at a time.
As bad as an idea as it would be, it would be fun to watch ISPs go to a pay per bit model rather than the disingenuous all you can eat model they currently have.
If not a pay per bit, how about an all you can download for free, but pay per bit for upload model ?
Want to see how inefficient a protocol P2P is ? Watch how quickly users would unload their clients when they got a bandwidth bill for their upstream bandwidth use.
2 replies
Stan_Schroeder
Hey, thanks for replying. I still don't see how Google Video could replace P2P, even if you limit the use to audio/video. Do you honestly think that if you moved all P2P video/audio transfer that's currently going on in the world and gave it all to Google Video to handle, that it would work? To go back to Joost, it's probably the best example of why P2P is a great way to distribute audio and video material.
As far as CDNs go, aren't they unsuitable for transferring a lot of very large files? A combination of CDN and P2P, maybe, for QOS reasons; but CDN replacing P2P, I don't see it happening.
About load balancing and redundancy, well there are plenty of papers on P2P out there; I don't mean to say that P2P is perfect, but it sure as hell beats simply everyone downloading from the same source, which is the common alternative.
About paying for upload, well, that would be another step back into the dark ages of the Internet and it's simply not going to happen. You said it yourself: it's a bad idea.
Bottom line: P2P is here, and it solved a lot of problems for the users. Has it created some new ones for the ISPs? Maybe. But we're paying them. They need to solve it to our satisfaction.
As far as CDNs go, aren't they unsuitable for transferring a lot of very large files? A combination of CDN and P2P, maybe, for QOS reasons; but CDN replacing P2P, I don't see it happening.
About load balancing and redundancy, well there are plenty of papers on P2P out there; I don't mean to say that P2P is perfect, but it sure as hell beats simply everyone downloading from the same source, which is the common alternative.
About paying for upload, well, that would be another step back into the dark ages of the Internet and it's simply not going to happen. You said it yourself: it's a bad idea.
Bottom line: P2P is here, and it solved a lot of problems for the users. Has it created some new ones for the ISPs? Maybe. But we're paying them. They need to solve it to our satisfaction.
CountRob
"The last thing I want slowing my internet service down are P2P freeloaders. Thats right, P2P content distributors are nothing more than freeloaders. The only person/organization that benefits from P2P usage are those that are trying to distribute content and want to distribute it on someone else's bandwidth dime." ~ Marc Cuban
I totally agree with your idea of a Centrally Planned and Controlled People's Internet, Mr. Cuban. I think there should be heavy restrictions on on what people can and can't do with the bandwidth they pay for.
And you are so right about P2P. It's ridiculously inefficient to have each client acting as a server, taking the load off the main site. So much bandwidth wasted!
I was on Ares last night and it brought down my ISP, because I was trying to download 8 songs at the same time. So that's proof right there that P2P is a failed technology.
Also, while I have you here, could you sign my petition to ban electric lightbulbs? They're totally inefficient and they waste electricity. Once we make them illegal, we can go back to using gas lamps.
I totally agree with your idea of a Centrally Planned and Controlled People's Internet, Mr. Cuban. I think there should be heavy restrictions on on what people can and can't do with the bandwidth they pay for.
And you are so right about P2P. It's ridiculously inefficient to have each client acting as a server, taking the load off the main site. So much bandwidth wasted!
I was on Ares last night and it brought down my ISP, because I was trying to download 8 songs at the same time. So that's proof right there that P2P is a failed technology.
Also, while I have you here, could you sign my petition to ban electric lightbulbs? They're totally inefficient and they waste electricity. Once we make them illegal, we can go back to using gas lamps.
I remember when you proposed this a couple years back and railed against the day and date approach to movies, and clear the lack of efficiency in marketing them primarily through theatrical releases (which I agreed with then, and do still now look at how DVD releases are getting closer and closer to theatricals), but now that you're a couple years in can you say its increased unit sales (across channels) YOY?
Or are your films operating as a loss leader for your HDNet subscribers?
Either way, when your investments are vertically integrated you're making your money somewhere, I guess its just a more precarious environment with players like boxee et al piping content cleanly through a laptop into an HD television.