Rubbish. > Video-content owners aren't looking for a savior and ultimately won't be satisfied with anything less than an open ecosystem accessible by any devic

Rubbish. > Video-content owners aren't looking for a savior and ultimately won't be satisfied with anything less than an open ecosystem accessible by any device. If they wanted an open ecosystem, they could have had it years ago. It's called the web. You might have heard of it. Did the networks see Youtube and say, "oh, we could have people pay to log in to a web site and watch TV! It would work on any web-capable device anywhere in the world! Hooray!" Heck no, they didn't. They don't want an open ecosystem, they want one that they control. Rather than build one that satisfies consumers, they've tried to destroy or control anyone else who builds one. This is not about openness; it's about control. > Television is about to demonstrate the inadequacy of Apple's own business model. Doesn't that sound a bit gloating? > How TV content owners in the future will get paid is but the flip side of the question of how pipe providers will get paid. This doesn't even make sense. We already know how "pipe providers" get paid: ISPs get paid by customers and peering agreements, and content providers get paid by viewers and listeners. The end. What's holding up the future is not Apple or Netflix or Google; it's content providers who want to keep getting paid for channels nobody watches, distributed and restricted under complex international agreements, when they could just offer on-demand content, for money, over IP, to anyone in the world. > Expect the TV and broadband businesses both to reorganize themselves almost overnight. You mean like, "hey, your cable TV is now an internet connection, so just click the programs you want to see. The bandwidth we used to spend sending 100 channels while you only watched one is enough to send the 1 show you actually want in higher resolution. Enjoy!" I guess they'll do that overnight as soon as the internet gets invented.