Yes there was a feature on pinkbike about Neethlings proto. They ARE slacker than the stock frames. Before that they were on CaneCreek anglesets.Do we know what sort of geo danny rides? I assume he's on a custom slacked-out bike, especially for that track?
One thing is for sure. Now all the guys who rocked glorys before get to be accused of being Sam I ams by all the guys who love to say they are anti-establishment.is the Giant Glory now the cool bike to have? Will the Sam I ams make the switch?
doubtful. the redesigned aluminum will show up next year as a 2013Carbon Glory imminent
Have you guys seen the spread of the race video? It's hitting the blogosphere with speed and drive behind it. That boys career just went vertical, let alone the revenue to freecaster from all of the advertising dollars.
maybe if freecaster had allowed a free replay of Hart's run they wouldn't have this issue.that last part is funny.... how is someone videotaping their computer screen to capture a payperview video helping freecaster? the vid is essentially stolen and reposted to youtube. None of those hits are going to freecaster from what is a pirate video.
so since they didnt, you think it is ok for someone to steal it and post pirated footage on youtube?maybe if freecaster had allowed a free replay of Hart's run they wouldn't have this issue.
I can understand charging for the live broadcast of the event. Shoot- I can understand charging for the replay of the entire event (I paid for it and loved it). But why not let the average joe watch a link to Hart's run off your site and rack up the number of hits to show to your advertisers?? By limiting who can watch, they have created a need for pirate video.
The people who were going to pay have already paid for the full run.
Him, or I, never said anything that could be construed as such. Saying one thing (Would have been smart for freecaster to release that footage themselves, thus gaining a substaintial increase in views/site hits) doesn't mean we're saying the other (I promote stealing!!).so since they didnt, you think it is ok for someone to steal it and post pirated footage on youtube?
I'm waiting for the version with the rainbow-stripe stickers.doubtful. the redesigned aluminum will show up next year as a 2013
I'm waiting for the version with the rainbow-stripe stickers.
Never said it was ok, only that it was inevitable. They missed a great opportunity and and I hope they are learning from their mistake. I would like to see them around next year doing what they do.so since they didnt, you think it is ok for someone to steal it and post pirated footage on youtube?
aaah come on you thought i was being serious?doubtful. the redesigned aluminum will show up next year as a 2013
Hindsight is 20/20.maybe if freecaster had allowed a free replay of Hart's run they wouldn't have this issue.
I can understand charging for the live broadcast of the event. Shoot- I can understand charging for the replay of the entire event (I paid for it and loved it). But why not let the average joe watch a link to Hart's run off your site and rack up the number of hits to show to your advertisers?? By limiting who can watch, they have created a need for pirate video.
The people who were going to pay have already paid for the full run.
What?? 65.5 is too steep. Anything steeper than 64 is too much.Anything slacker than 65.5 is too much
How did they drop the ball by trying to cover their own expenses? Jesus, some people really do have some massive self-entitlement issues.^ And if were FREE he'd have that many people visiting his site instead. It's everywhere. Even my friends who know nothing about the sport are posting it up on their FB pages. Freecaster dropped the ball on this one, imo. Could have had so many hits on their site in a matter of days.
Just releasing the Winning run as it's already over the web, Mr 'CNC' Fraser . The two posts above mine reiterate this point. They dropped the ball by not doing anything to gain momentum with free footage for people to visit their site. Even PB has the run for VOD. Ball: dropped.How did they drop the ball by trying to cover their own expenses? Jesus, some people really do have some massive self-entitlement issues.
It's called self-promotion.How did they drop the ball by trying to cover their own expenses? Jesus, some people really do have some massive self-entitlement issues.
So they should go bankrupt on the off chance that some retard will infringe copyright and put something on youtube?It's called self-promotion.
They should've realized that it getting posted on youtube was inevitable. Right or wrong, it is reality. People aren't gonna pay $20 to watch some 3 minute clip of a guy they've never heard of from a sport they've never heard of. They had a chance to bring some mass market appeal to their operation for the price of a $0 cash outlay (yes I realize putting the whole video/footage/operation isn't free), but, they decided not to and lost out.
I don't know how many of you watch football, but when the Patriots went 16-0, the last game was originally slated to be a Thursday night game shown only on NFL network, which few people have. So you know what the league did? "Hey we have a great event here and a chance to boost our long term health by letting EVERYONE watch this game. So instead of only letting the people who only have NFL network watch it, we'll change our strategy for this ONE game and put it on the major networks". Freecaster stepped over the dollars to pick up the pennies, bottom line.
P.S. I love freecaster and everything they're doing and will continue to support them.
They're going to bankrupt if all the people who watched it on youtube don't pay for it?So they should go bankrupt
Ya dood, people TOTALLY don't infringe on copyrights these days. This was completely out of left field. I never could've imagine someone would put something up on youtube they didn't have the rights for.on the off chance that some retard will infringe copyright and put something on youtube?
The fact is, the people watching it on youtube probably would never have paid for it anyways. So at the end of the day, freecaster still makes money from the people who ARE willing to pay. Make it free, and they go bankrupt. In this case, some is better than none.They're going to bankrupt if all the people who watched it on youtube don't pay for it?
Ya dood, people TOTALLY don't infringe on copyrights these days. This was completely out of left field. I never could've imagine someone would put something up on youtube they didn't have the rights for.
I'm not trying to argue right/wrong. Just pragmatic v. non-pragmatic
Popular videos on youtube get revenue sharing even for regular users. Free for the user doesn't mean no profit source.The fact is, the people watching it on youtube probably would never have paid for it anyways. So at the end of the day, freecaster still makes money from the people who ARE willing to pay. Make it free, and they go bankrupt. In this case, some is better than none.
their "partner program" would have been great if they had uploaded Hart's video.Popular videos on youtube get revenue sharing even for regular users. Free for the user doesn't mean no profit source.
http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/25/youtube-extends-revenue-sharing-program-to-anyone-with-a-viral-video/
Yup. If they had a youtube channel as a content provider they would have made more money with run clips than charging for the event as the only choice and losing out on the viral hart run. Myopic and greedy. You'd think the music industry's entry in to the digital age would make things clear for everyone else.their "partner program" would have been great if they had uploaded Hart's video.