CBS, NBC to Offer TV Shows for 99 Cents 303
According to an AP report. "CBS and NBC have announced deals to offer replays of prime-time programs for 99 cents per episode, shifting television toward a sales model that gained popularity with downloaded music." But the shows will only be available over Comcast on Demand, not for download.
For the cost of fifty shows (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet TV is next (Score:5, Insightful)
Then comes internet only TV.
On-demand, lower broadcast costs, and the replacement of 'public access' with equal opportunity online broadcasts [vobbo.com] all push internet video over it's ancient predecesor.
It's only a matter of time until the TV joins the newspaper in it's slow walk to the grave.
Now watch what they do in DC (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:iPOD comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should I pay for this? (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes time-shifting Survivor worth 99 cents when I can time-shift The Sopranos for free?
Re:For the cost of fifty shows (Score:5, Insightful)
Note: I love my TiVo and think it's worth every penny.
Re:For the cost of fifty shows (Score:1, Insightful)
Run it till the tires fall off... (Score:5, Insightful)
My Hacked DirecTiVo works 1 step simple to get any show i want with my iPod (now, with Video), doesn't cost me per play, works great with my Mac, and doesn't have any DRM.
These things are going to be insanely valuable in years to come because of their incredible feature set, lack of DRM, and compatibility with so many other devices.
meanwhile, newer systems are going to be less and less useful and less interesting to me. HDTV doesn't make my skirt fly up compared to a well written show or good coverage of a hockey game... neither of which requires higher resolution.
Deja vu? (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember when cable TV first appeared, and nearly every channel that existed did this for a monthly fee instead of per-episode. It was
called "syndication".
shifting television toward a sales model that gained popularity with downloaded music
Minus the entire computer this time.
Thanks, but no thanks. (Score:2, Insightful)
99 cents WITH commercials (Score:5, Insightful)
1. While downloading for iPod is mentioned in the article, NBC and CBS are referring to OnDemand (same ol' crap that cable companies have been pushing for years) with their set top boxes.
2. The article says that 99 cents is the cost, but it includes commercials. So you're paying $1 to watch a free show WITH commercials.
3. NBC still believes there "aren't enough protections" to put their content on the internet.
These guys don't realize that their shows are mediocre at best and placing any higher threshold on watching them will actually DECREASE viewers, not increase it. I'm not going to pay extra to watch a show with commercials (which you probably can't skip).
Apple's solution for $1.99 adds the benefit of watching it where you want and without commercials. It's great for the occasional missed episode that I can catch up with while traveling.
I've never used OnDemand TV (whether Cable or Satellite) and this won't be any different.
Let me get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, I have no idea how the cable industry can explain how this business model will work now that PVRs are becoming popular.
It doesn't even make sense. People know they don't own the shows they watch, unlike they do with the music they download. If the cable industry wants to copy the music industry, then they would have to let people pay for shows al la carte, and give them access to that same episode as many times as they want. But then the industry wouldn't be able to charge for those huge DVD episode packs, nor if people recorded movies would people ever need to buy DVDs in general. That's not going to happen.
But then again, the point may be to simply capitalize on the millions of people out there who forget to do things. HUGE amounts of money are made from people who forget to cancel subscriptions, who return rented movies late, or who don't know anything about how simple it is to same money by using a free program on their computers. I guess if they really think this is going to work, then there must be a LOT of people who don't own PVRs and who forget to watch shows, that they would be willing to pay 99c to be able to see.
Does not compare with iTMS Video... requires a DVR (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, this looks ready to fail. Why don't these guys ever get it?
still miss the big picture (Score:3, Insightful)
"My" DVR box is very convenient. I time shift shows and then erase them.
But when it comes to movies, I'm one of those people that likes to own the movies I very much like, just like books or music. I like to have it close at hand for reference, entertainment, whatever.
Now I realize that they're not selling movies yet, but maybe at some point they will.
The question is, why would I pay for a show twice, if I'm not gonna own it?
I pay for it with my cable subscription, and then again to rent it. That's not a very good value proposition (if I understand the buzzword correctly).
With iTunes I at least, get to keep my shows and some day hopefully movies.
They're not thinking "How can we increase our value to the consumer" but rather "How can we extract even more money out of them?" (Notice that these shows are not downloadable over the net, they go directly to your DVR.)
And that brings me to the second point. I like storing stuff on my PC. I've got all of my data there, my music, pr0n, whatever. I don't want to keep track of different devices for my collections...
Re:Now watch what they do in DC (Score:2, Insightful)
We're talking about the MPAA and their ilk. I'm not entirely sure they've ever heard of this "logic" of which you speak.
Re:Internet TV is next (Score:4, Insightful)
(1) Streaming TV at broadcast quality requires a lot more bandwidth than most "broadband" ISP customers current get to their homes.
(2) The backend link at most "broadband" ISPs has nowhere near enough capacity to stream a TV station per-customer. A lot of people have TVs on just as background -- this doesn't really happen with your computer. As a result, the models that "broadband" ISPs use to oversell their services go out the window.
(3) The two main providers of broadband Internet service in the US are cable companies and phone companies. Both of these guys are going for the so-called "triple-play" of TV, video and Internet. THey have a vested interest in doing what they can to keep TV off the Internet. This will probably just come from not providing enough bandwidth.
[#2 can be fixed, at least partially, through the judicious use of multicasting. But, that probably implies infrastructure in the ISP. They are going to expect to be compensated for this.]
I use the word "broadband" in quotes, because it's a relative word. In the US, compared to dialup, it's broadband. Compared to what folks on other continents get, it's narrow.
Re:can you record the shows using Direc TV PVR? (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe the hardware used for this "on-demand" process is a DVR. Shows are "pushed" onto a seperate part of the hard drive for play back at a later date, if you pay the price. However, the show was still on tv the night before it was pushed. Does this system keep you from recording CSI when it was aired on TV? Because otherwise this seems to be a fee for someone who can't remember to set their DVR.
TiVO Anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
DUH!
2 cents,
Queen B
You need to have one already. (Score:5, Insightful)
But this particular service isn't all that exciting. You need to have DirectTV's or Comcast's DVR already in order to use the service. That means that I could have been recording these shows and watching them whenever I wanted.
The price wouldn't be too bad on it's own. I figure that reasonable internet rental prices prices are $0.50 for a 20 minute show, $1.00 for a 40 minute show, and $2.00 for a movie. But this is on top of the $50-70 dollars that you are already paying for cable or satelite. I have already payed to watch these shows, I am not going to pay again.
I just got done ripping into this on my blog (Score:3, Insightful)
I think its entirely possible either these deals were in the works before the iTVS went public, so they just seem late, or else they are bids by these networks to have firmer footing in negotiations with Steve Jobs to offer their content through iTunes. Although why they would go with a lower pricepoint, I have no idea. I guess this scheme would have made more sense if they'd gone for a larger price. The article I read did not indicate how DRM'ed to death the episodes would be (as far as expiration and portability) but that might be a factor for negotiations. They may be opting for a 'but we already have an on-demand contract that works just fine for us' approach in order to get a larger percentage cut of the profit.
Re:99 cents WITH commercials (Score:3, Insightful)
These guys don't realize that their shows are mediocre at best and placing any higher threshold on watching them will actually DECREASE viewers, not increase it. I'm not going to pay extra to watch a show with commercials (which you probably can't skip).
More importantly they don't realize that their shows are already on the internet (without commercials) and seem likely to stay there. The only way to compete with that is to offer a better product (faster downloads, better organization, a variety of format options, higher quality etc) for a similar price. They could probably leave the commercials in if they provided the above.
Another option would be a scheme where the customer agrees to watch say 5 commercials out of a selection of 20 or so and in exchange you get 1 month of free downloads. The advantage is that people would be watching only commercials for products that they were actually interested in and that data would itself be valuable.
Re:TiVO Anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a DVR with my cable subscription and I basically use it to record shows that I watch at a more convienient time and then delete the show. If you need to watch the same show over and over again, you are like my daughter when she was 4, couldn't wrestle certain VHS tapes away from her.
Again, why do you need to save a show and watch it 100 times over? That sounds more like a mental issue than a practical one.
Re:Coming About (Score:5, Insightful)
They're turning alright... Just in the other direction. This is the first step towards requiring payment for timeshifting. Want to record that show to your DVR or VCR? You have to pay. This is the beginning of the networks trying to get people back in their seats watching only one show in any particular prime time slot so their current ratings and advertisment rate paridigm will continue to work. You're *not* the customer, you're the product, and your eyes are being sold to the advertizers.
Re:99 cents WITH commercials (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it wouldn't make sense for the company to offer a tv program for free without commercials. I would just miss all of my favorite shows on purpose to watch the free commercial-free version.
It would if you WERE PAYING FOR THEM. The point of ratings is to get viewers so they can charge folks for commercials. Now they want to make money on both ends. I believe this will only work for the most popular of shows and with limited success.
The people that watch their programs on time, when they are aired, won't be affected. But the people who miss their programs get the added benefit of watching them some other time, for a fee.
I'm sorry -- I don't subscribe to the antiquated belief that Networks should dictate WHEN I watch a show. I have a Tivo that let's ME control what I watch and when I watch it.
Fanatics no longer have to cancel all of their evening plans just to catch their favorite show's episode.
If folks are THAT tied to meet the Networks' Programming Schedule, they need some serious help (or a Tivo).
Network scheduling and "Primetime" are all artifacts of the early TV days when folks would sit around their tubes in a big family event (and it usually wasn't EVERY DAY). TV Networks still follow this model some 50+ years later, despite the fact that folks have busy lives and there is a lot more content on. In my opinion, this is their biggest mistake.
Like RIAA and the MPAA, TV Networks are still running today's business using a business model from 50 years ago. Times have changed. They will either adapt their business model, or it will die. Many old business models do not work today, those of the three organizations mentioned above are among the models that are on their way out.
Re:For the cost of fifty shows (Score:4, Insightful)
I tried downloading stuff from torrents, and you know what? It's annoying. It takes time, only 50% of the time can you make a hard-copy that you can play on your good TV without jumping through ridiculous hoops, and it requires keeping up with the latest and greatest P2P clients. None of these are attractive to anybody with more important things to do. People such as those who are gainfully employed and have high disposable income.
"On demand" purchasing of TV shows is only worthwhile when you can purchase "on demand" ANY show, not just CBS or NBC. Short of that, I'll just watch the TV shows that are worth collecting as an entire season on DVDs from Netflix, as well as pretty much any movie I want.
Re:TiVO Anyone (Score:2, Insightful)
Because if you pay for it, you should be allowed to. Why the hell do you think people buy DVDs? To just watch them once and then hide them on a shelf forever? I personally buy movies and TV shows I like, as well as download them, to watch them again with friends. I like sharing the experience of something that I enjoy with others that might enjoy them as well. I got all of my friends hooked on Firefly by watching the entire show from beginning to end with anyone who was interested. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it impractical.
Re:iPOD comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
But I don't agree at all that advertising _should_ pay for content. I much prefer my content to be ad-free. I'd much rather buy HBO or DVDs than watch mind-numbing, repetitive ads. A lot of people agree with me on this too.
The thing I like the least is when people try to double-dip you. Ads in a $50.00 video game? Ads in my ISP (still don't know why people stood for this with AOL)? Ads when I go to the movie theater? I don't mind paying for ad-free content, but when I get "charged" twice, well, that pisses me off.
TW