Storm - Chat & Discussion

(07-08-2014 00:22 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 00:11 )Bandwagon Wrote:  Especially since little/lack of profit is most likely the reason for the stream closure anyway.

Yes, exactly right.

Nobody's saying any different

Perhaps you need to go back a couple of pages and start again.

(07-08-2014 00:33 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  Nobody's saying any different

Perhaps you need to go back a couple of pages and start again.

If everyone accepts that Bandwagon and I are right it would not be productive to go back a couple of pages and start again, although I nevertheless seem to remember that Storm were accused of lying about their reasons for not keeping the stream going.

(06-08-2014 21:59 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 21:55 )richpk Wrote:  I was replying to the comment about them saying the webstream generate zero calls, which is a lie
wish people actually read comments properly on the internet

No, not zero calls. The comment was ALMOST zero calls.

Wish people actually read comments properly on the internet

you are annoying arent you. you are still 100% wrong about what i said

(06-08-2014 22:54 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(06-08-2014 22:42 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  richpk never claimed they were making profit from the webstream, he said they were getting revenue from it.

Profit and revenue are two different things, he wasn't contradicting himself.

But they don't get enough revenue to make it worth bothering with. Unless there is enough revenue to make a profit the service isn't likely to continue. Surely that much is obvious.

Storm didn't ever deny receiving revenue. They denied receiving ENOUGH revenue to make the service viable.

which is what i said if you read my post correctly

(06-08-2014 22:31 )circles_o_o_o Wrote:  It's not as simple as counting calls to webstream numbers versus tv numbers.
How do they know that people watching the webstream aren't using the number advertised on the television show. People aren't stupid, if there's money to be saved.

that is 100% true and most likely reason the numbers dont add up for them

(07-08-2014 16:15 )richpk Wrote:  which is what i said if you read my post correctly

So you said that Storm were lying and I said they weren't lying, but according to you we're both right.

(07-08-2014 16:32 )admiral decker Wrote:  

(07-08-2014 16:15 )richpk Wrote:  which is what i said if you read my post correctly

So you said that Storm were lying and I said they weren't lying, but according to you we're both right.

are you really this stupid?

(07-08-2014 01:16 )admiral decker Wrote:  it would not be productive to go back a couple of pages and start again

But then you might be able to grasp the point I made.

Unless you're being deliberately obtuse, of course.

Is it my imagination or does the picture quality on Storm vary from night to night?

(06-08-2014 23:43 )admiral decker Wrote:  You are almost right. You just need to substitute revenues for profits, i.e. the cost of running it is greater than revenues lost since it's closure.

is there high cost of running the stream?