<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More TV vs Internet debate with Ian Methods</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.polaine.com/2005/11/23/more-tv-vs-internet-debate-with-ian-methods/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.polaine.com/2005/11/23/more-tv-vs-internet-debate-with-ian-methods/</link>
	<description>Uncommon Sense</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:40:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Methods</title>
		<link>http://www.polaine.com/2005/11/23/more-tv-vs-internet-debate-with-ian-methods/comment-page-1/#comment-68</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Methods</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:11:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.polaine.com/playpen/2005/11/20/from-ian-methods/#comment-68</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m sure there will always be a proportion of viewers who are prepared to download shows illegally, and no-one really supposes that legitimate new on-demand systems will really get around this since they&#039;ve already proved that (a) laws don&#039;t suit them, (c) they don&#039;t want to pay and (c) they have the technical know-how to access shows the average viewer does not (presently).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;However, I don&#039;t accept that Mark&#039;s thoughts or that the long tail theory undermines the network&#039;s importance of the whole broadcasting ecology.  Any news you read about on-demand deals being struck at the moment tend to focus on the big shows as being the drivers of consumption in this space.  We shall see whether this actually turns out to be the case in time, but at the moment I think it&#039;s fair to say that the video i-pod might not have launched to such a fanfare if it was What About Brian and Inconceivable that Disney had decided to distribute on that platform instead of Lost and Desperate Housewives.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So the thinking may be turned on its head, but I suspect it may remain just that - thinking - while the practice differs.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sure there will always be a proportion of viewers who are prepared to download shows illegally, and no-one really supposes that legitimate new on-demand systems will really get around this since they&#8217;ve already proved that (a) laws don&#8217;t suit them, (c) they don&#8217;t want to pay and (c) they have the technical know-how to access shows the average viewer does not (presently).</p>

<p>However, I don&#8217;t accept that Mark&#8217;s thoughts or that the long tail theory undermines the network&#8217;s importance of the whole broadcasting ecology.  Any news you read about on-demand deals being struck at the moment tend to focus on the big shows as being the drivers of consumption in this space.  We shall see whether this actually turns out to be the case in time, but at the moment I think it&#8217;s fair to say that the video i-pod might not have launched to such a fanfare if it was What About Brian and Inconceivable that Disney had decided to distribute on that platform instead of Lost and Desperate Housewives.</p>

<p>So the thinking may be turned on its head, but I suspect it may remain just that &#8211; thinking &#8211; while the practice differs.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

