未來也許會有一家新的公司，為影視制作商提供支付和流媒體服務(wù)，這一模式可能比現(xiàn)有的視頻網(wǎng)站更被用戶接受橱野！就像Apple Pay一樣是一個無線刷卡器，和支付寶不一樣善玫！
4．互聯(lián)網(wǎng)影視
好萊塢也開始與網(wǎng)絡(luò)接軌水援，過去這被認(rèn)為是一個錯誤的選擇密强；但現(xiàn)在看來，在這場媒體傳輸戰(zhàn)中蜗元，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)是最后的贏家或渤。
互聯(lián)網(wǎng)網(wǎng)的勝出要歸結(jié)于電視觀眾們，大家往往等不及電視臺的更新速度奕扣；幾個月前大家將電視機(jī)更換成iMac薪鹦，盡管那個無線鼠標(biāo)不是很容易操作，但整體的體驗效果比電視機(jī)好太多了惯豆。
有些人會經(jīng)常觀看一些電影池磁，電視機(jī)被許多其他無關(guān)的事物取代了，像是某個社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)楷兽，或者是游戲地熄。也有人會想看傳統(tǒng)戲劇。要怎樣通過網(wǎng)絡(luò)來傳輸戲勑旧薄端考？人們在電腦前開始觀看時，他們可以隨意觀看電視劇的某一集揭厚？或者是完整的一部電影却特？
以下是兩種傳輸和支付方式。
一種是像Netflix或者和蘋果一樣筛圆，成為娛樂的App store裂明；如果這些所謂的應(yīng)用商店實在搞不定用戶，那么就會有新的公司應(yīng)運而生顽染，為制作商提供支付和流媒體服務(wù)漾岳。如果這樣的話轰绵，相應(yīng)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施公司也會大有需求粉寞。
http://www.leiphone.com/news/201406/paul-graham-ambitious.html
4.互聯(lián)網(wǎng)影視
[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]
[endif] 好萊塢一度曾不情愿對互聯(lián)網(wǎng)敞開自己的懷抱。這是個錯誤左腔，因為我認(rèn)為在交付機(jī)制方面我們現(xiàn)在可以找出獲勝者了唧垦，它是互聯(lián)網(wǎng)，而不是有線電視液样。
[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]
[endif] 其中非常多的原因要歸咎于有線的客戶端振亮，也即電視。我們的家庭期盼的不是 Apple TV鞭莽。而是因為我們對自己的上一臺電視已經(jīng)恨之入骨了坊秸，以至于幾個月前我們用一臺固定在墻上的 iMac 把它給換了。用無線鼠標(biāo)來控制它還有點不便澎怒，但是整個體驗已經(jīng)比之前我們不得不與之打交道的夢魘般的 UI 要好得多了褒搔。
[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]
[endif] 當(dāng)前人們看電影和電視的一部分注意力會被似乎是完全不相關(guān)的東西奪去，如社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)應(yīng)用。而更多的注意力則會被更相近一點的東西偷走星瘾，如游戲走孽。不過，也許傳統(tǒng)影視—也就是那種你被動地坐在那里琳状，然后觀看某一情節(jié)發(fā)生的表現(xiàn)形式總會殘留有一部分的需求的磕瓷。那么在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上應(yīng)該怎樣交付這一表現(xiàn)形式呢？我想念逞，不管你做什么困食，其規(guī)模都得比 Youtube 視頻剪輯那樣的形式要大才行。大家坐下來看節(jié)目的時候翎承，會想要知道自己馬上能得到什么東西：或者是一系列自己熟悉的角色的一部分陷舅，或者是一部基本前提已經(jīng)事先知曉的更長一點的 “電影”。
[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]
[endif] 交付和支付有兩種實現(xiàn)方式审洞。要么是像 Netflix 或者蘋果這樣的公司成為娛樂的應(yīng)用商店莱睁，你將會通過他們來獲得觀眾。要么就是設(shè)想中的應(yīng)用商店對此實在是鞭長莫及芒澜，或者在技術(shù)上不夠靈活仰剿，那么就會有公司誕生出來為戲劇的制作商提供點播式的支付和流媒體服務(wù)。如果是這么做的話痴晦，還需要有此類基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施公司的出現(xiàn)南吮。
http://36kr.com/p/89762.html
原文：
4. Internet Drama
Hollywood has been slow to embrace the Internet. That was a mistake, because I think we can now call a winner in the race between delivery mechanisms, and it is the Internet, not cable.
A lot of the reason is the horribleness of cable clients, also known as TVs. Our family didn't wait for Apple TV. We hated our last TV so much that a few months ago we replaced it with an iMac bolted to the wall. It's a little inconvenient to control it with a wireless mouse, but the overall experience is much better than the nightmare UI we had to deal with before.
Some of the attention people currently devote to watching movies and TV can be stolen by things that seem completely unrelated, like social networking apps. More can be stolen by things that are a little more closely related, like games. But there will probably always remain some residual demand for conventional drama, where you sit passively and watch as a plot happens. So how do you deliver drama via the Internet? Whatever you make will have to be on a larger scale than Youtube clips. When people sit down to watch a show, they want to know what they're going to get: either part of a series with familiar characters, or a single longer "movie" whose basic premise they know in advance.
There are two ways delivery and payment could play out. Either some company like Netflix or Apple will be the app store for entertainment, and you'll reach audiences through them. Or the would-be app stores will be too overreaching, or too technically inflexible, and companies will arise to supply payment and streaming a la carte to the producers of drama. If that's the way things play out, there will also be a need for such infrastructure companies.
http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html
