I have just installed an hdtv tuner in one of my pcs at home, and am using it to pull in the local hdtv channels, as opposed paying extra for satellite channels. I have no home theater system, just a dolby enabled receiver, some used bose speakers and a 32 inch sony analog tv. The quality is just as good as comes off the satellite.

Mark, have you explored using the secondary channels available on local broadcast stations to market the hdtv content you are generating?

I notice that our local PBS channel has 5 secondary channels…

The article points out that using digital projectors will not significantly alter the experience of movie-goers in a way that would increase the bottom line of theaters. Cuban does not disagree.

Cuban concedes that digital projector technology itself is almost superfluous in the theater experience – it’s all about content. You gotta give Cuban credit as a tech-savvy person to actually understand the relevance digital technology plays in the overall equation of the theater experience: almost nothing (remember Star Wars was made in 1977 with miniature models and reel-to-reel film). That tells me MC is not basing his business model on some techno-delusional mirage that will never come to fruition.

The main shortfall of the article was that it didn’t do justice to Cuban in that he has hedged his investments on both sides of the fence: in both movie-theaters with 2929 and with his cable network HDNet et al.

The more people are drawn away from theaters to the home because of improved HDTV experience, Cuban wins with his HDTV cable networks. If they chose to remain loyal to the theater-going experience, he’s got his foot on that base as well. It’s a fail-safe investment strategy, assuming HDNet and his theaters can attract a decent slice of the subscribership pie based on content.

So I don’t read the article as this huge hatchet-job on Cuban because it doesn’t really articulate any errors or misconceptions that Cuban is making. He comes across as well-aware of all the relevant issues. The negative slant of the article is just noise.

As TV set standards – and screen size – increase at home, film going will rapidly accelerate its decline until exhibitors develop a new business model which can only be done by ignoring all past models of the business of film exhibiton.

Ironically, exhbitors just need to look at the models developed by competing entertainment industries to realize that the obvious answer has been sitting right in front of them for decades. And Cuban has the perfect infrastructure to do this.

I dont know if only traditional reporting has weakend, I think you can see it accross the board.

Over the past year I have been interviewed by Business Week, ABC (New York), Telemundo, NPR…among many others, and I can tell you that no one, no one, does their homework. I was shocked at how little research anyone did.

But the thing is, I also dealt with many blog writers, and I dont think your points are any more valid for traditional media then they are for blogs…maybe you can say that reporting has suffered because of the many new distribution outlets for information, and so the bar for becomming a reporter has dropped accross the board.

What a funny world we live in. They ask you questions and then report on what they think you said…then you post the exact conversation and it’s completely different…

I read the Times article yesterday and while I thought it made some reasonable points, it possessed holes in its logic that you could sail the QE2 through. But, as usual, I’d say that we shouldn’t read malice into what can be explained by stupidity.

And how is Landmark doing this? By pointing out that once digital projection is a reality, it will be far and away the elite way to see a film. Cuban admits that the content must be there first, but that if the film is good then there will always be a significant amount of people who will want to see that film in the best way possible. What’s more, they’ll probably pay a premium to do so.