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.
TiVo (Score:0, Interesting)
OnDemand doesn't work with DSL (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, eMule works fine with DSL and the price of t.v. shows from that venue are quite competitive. For some reason, using the Internet as my Tivo doesn't fill me with a twinge of guilt.
Rip Off!! (Score:1, Interesting)
So I have to pay for cable and/or satellite, then I have to pay more for a show that just aired?!?! Plus I don't get a copy of it?!?! I'm sticking with my SageTV PVR and a 250GB drive. I can record any show I want and keep it forever at no additional cost! I hope this fails miserably.
gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Re:OnDemand doesn't work with DSL (Score:4, Interesting)
... but this does not allow the user to keep, no? (Score:5, Interesting)
Rental schemes in the music industry have yet to take off (Napster? Yahoo music?). iTunes provides ownership, which I think is a cause of it's popularity
can you record the shows using Direc TV PVR? (Score:3, Interesting)
So they are recording a few shows from NBC, push them to your PVR, then let you pay money to watch them. Are you able to record them using the PVR in the first place for free? Or does the software prevent you. IF they prevent you from recording them yourself, this could be a preview of the boradcast flag, well a proprietary version of it.
The Discussion with a Real User (Score:5, Interesting)
Satellite company: Hey, but if you miss a show, you can download it to your DVR!
Me: Uh - that sounds pretty good. How much?
Satellite company: $0.99!
Me: Great - that's a better price than iTunes! So I can download it and watch it on my computer while I'm traveling -
Satellite company: No, you have to watch it at home.
Me: Oh. So can I sync it to my [insert portable video device here]?
Satellite company: No, you can watch it at home.
Me: But - could I just record the show with my DVR then? You know - the whole reason why I got a DVR?
Satellite company: You could, right until we decide that you can't record any shows you can buy. Isn't that swell?
Me: I knew there was a reason why I only use basic cable. This "digital crap but only through our proprietary boxes" is for losers.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
How quickly the big ones fall (Score:3, Interesting)
The water has turned out to be warm after all.
Not realistic in this marketplace. (Score:5, Interesting)
Its about time to face facts, people in general do not consider content to have the value that the companies would like to claim. I would suggest that a rough acceptable tariff for downloadable content would look like:
In addition I would suggest that people expect a licence to the content to mean they have a right to that content in any form with no extra licence costs. DRM might exist, but it can never interfere with the customer enjoying their property.I'll guess that there are rewards for the first company to realise where the market is going and act accordingly. People expect that the quality will not be there, and are unwilling to pay up on spec. Its a mass product market, not a premium product market.
Re:A La Carte (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not asking the cable company for free hardlines to my trailer. I'm asking for them to offer it free once they've recouped the expenses of rolling it out (if ever). I'd rather receive the On-Demand over IP if possible, but I don't see it happening any time soon. I honestly hate BitTorrent and Limewire (too slow, too long to find anything, too low quality in general). What P2P are people using for movies and TV shows?
Lame but Typical of Corporate Thugs (Score:2, Interesting)
I remember once reading the excited statements of the early engineers behind television in the 20th century. They believed (much like the internet in the 80s and 90s) that this new and wonderful technology would be used to bring culture, education and entertainment to the masses. They envisioned visual travelogues, remote classrooms, orchstral, operatic and stage productions being brought into people's living rooms. A populace with access to high quality content to enrich their minds and their lives. So we have the poorest funded public television network (PBS) that has to rely on donations because good quality television isn't profitable. Just like good quality internet resources aren't profitable.
It's not just the content that's crap. It's also the service. When I was growing up TV was percieved as "free" entertainment because you could just buy a TV and watch. Then cable came along with the promise of commercial free television. (PBS also offers this but no one is paying attention or paying donations) People rejoiced at the success of capitalism + television. You could PAY for better quality TV! But slowly the ads crept back in. Now you can't escape them. While the movies on certain cable and satellite channels might be free of commercials, the in between slots are marred with MORE commercials.
And your provider has the right to slap commercials over top of the network feed. Thereby allowing them far too much control over say... political ads. If the provider is biased towards a certain party or candidate, they can now completely slam competing candidates or issues out of your view without your consent. They can also make sure you're only aware of certain products. It's all too much control.
Why don't we have the promised "video dialtone" that AT&T was once working on? At one time there was talk of a new approach to video. TRUE on-demand content. And not just controlled content but ANY content. An actual realtime video library with on-demand access. It's a friday night and you want to watch a 50s Sci-Fi movie. You just do a search through the catalog, select the movie you want to watch. Go get some popcorn, come back and start the playback. You need to go to the bathroom? Pause it. Come back and pick up where you left off. You need to rewatch a section? Just rewind it. And since it's not tape, it's just the drag of a slider on your screen through a GUI. Once you're done watching it, the fair price charge ($.25 per hour) gets added to your phone bill. You only pay for what you watch.
Conversely, you want to watch the latest episode of a new series on SciFi, you again select from the same GUI based catalog and only get charged a fair price (which might be a bit higher for new content). Even better, for a slightly higher price you can watch it BEFORE it airs. True capitalism that works for the consumer and the service provider in a fair and balanced way instead of the rotten and corrupted version that has infected America. And if you REALLY wanted to own it, you could download it for a fair price a
Time Warner does the same... badly. (Score:2, Interesting)
All in all, I find it amusing but mostly worthless. If it was fast, easy to use and navigate, and priced the way it is now (from free to slightly-more-than-competitive) it might be worthwhile.
Re:iPOD comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
For now. That's the danger of the broadcast flag. It's currently defeated, but stay tuned, more to come after these messages.
NBC makes $0.00 if you record with MythTV
NBC makes $0.99 if you buy/rent/beg for it the next day
They probably understand these numbers very well, and will make no bones about describing MythTV, Tivo, et al. as "theft" devices to your local congressman. The way to prevent such "theft" is with a broadcast flag.
Remember boys and girls, anything that doesn't make money for media companies is stealing. People who steal media will damage the American economy. Terrorists want to damage the American economy. Therefore if you have MythTV you are clearly a terrorist.
TW
Re:iPOD comparison (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
No Commercials! (Score:3, Interesting)
Not exciting...until you can't timehift for free! (Score:3, Interesting)
I hear money changing hands...don't you?
(yes, I own 2 SD DirecTiVos and a soon-to-be-hacked HDTiVo)
Re:99 cents WITH commercials (Score:2, Interesting)
What I want is instant gratification, on-demand everything. I believe there are a lot of people trying to give me what I want. Below is a list of what I want in no particular order.
1. Single billing point - 1 content provider
2. The option to choose which format I want (SD or HD.)
3. The ability to choose between subscription and ppv models
4. The ability to choose from a library of all previously created content.
5. Ability to access the same/additional content creators that I currently have access to.
6. The ability to watch the content immediately after selecting it.
7. DVR type functions - fast foward, pause, etc...
That's it, that's the whole pie.
There isn't a single provider that currently offers all of this today. Many companies have a piece or large chunk of the pie, but nobody is offering the whole thing yet.
Notice that I didn't say "no commercials?" I'm ok with commericals, as long as I can fast forward through them if I choose to.
To give an example of how this would work:
I've have a:
$20/per month subscription to "movies"
$5/per month sub to NBC - with commercials
$5/per month sub to ABC - with commercials
$5/per month sub to CBS - with commercials
$5/per month sub to FOX - with commercials
$10/per month sub to Comedy Central - with commercials
$15/per month sub to HBO w/out commercials
$10/per month sub to Discovery channels - w/out commercials
$10/per month sub to History channels - w/out commercials
$10/per month in $1.99 charges for one off events
Total it up = $95/per month For fun lets just bump it up to $100 a month.
That about what I pay now for DirecTV and Netflix together. The interesting thing is under my "plan" I get less varied content than what I currently get... But I get more of what I want when I want it. More depth, less variety.
I think Apple is the only company currently in a position to offer such a thing or really anything much closer than what's currently available. Apple's current attempt is pretty weak, but it's a start. If they release a DVR type device with a remote that plugs into the TV, all they'd really have to do is increase the amount of content available and they'd be ready to go . (along with different billing options, and all the back end accounting stuff.)
I suppose I could say $15 a month for a subscription to Napster (or even iTunes Music if it existed) no thanks. But $100 a month for a subscription to all the video content I can eat when I want to eat it... Uh, yes please.
Internet TV is here (Score:2, Interesting)
It's all digital up to the set-top box in the living room, which converts it to plain old PAL, so the end user keeps using his analog TV.
Re:Quitting broadcast TV (Score:1, Interesting)