NBC to Offer Free Video Download Service

Damocles the Elder writes "Apparently NBC realized that people on the internet do watch TV, because after breaking up with Apple over iTunes pricing schemes, they're setting up their own free service." From the article "NBC first contracted with Amazon to offer its programs for sale to downloading devices like MP3 players. Now it is establishing its own downloading service, which NBC executives say they expect to become a viable competitor to iTunes. "With the creation of this new service, we are acknowledging that now, more than ever, viewers want to be in control of how, when and where they consume their favorite entertainment," said Vivi Zigler, the executive vice president of NBC Digital Entertainment. "Not only does this feature give them more control, but it also gives them a higher quality video experience."

Re:AntiTrust yet again....

[Anonymous Coward]

From Wikipedia- "Although Microsoft and NBC shared operations of the company at its founding, it was announced on December 23, 2005 that NBC Universal would purchase a majority stake in the television network, which left Microsoft with 18%. The two companies remain 50-50 partners in msnbc.com."

"Microsoft invested $220 million for a 50% share of the cable network, while MSNBC and Microsoft would share the cost of a $200 million newsroom based in Redmond, Washington. NBC supplied the space"

First off, I never said that Microsoft owned NBC. Reading comprehension is important. If you don't think that NBC and Microsoft could get in bed in areas outside of MSNBC, you are one naive dude. Oh...and check YOUR facts. I don't see any mention anywhere of Microsoft being "no longer interested in" MSNBC. Perhaps you have inside information that you would like to share with us Bill. Or is it Steve? ;)

Re:Yeah, whatever...

[TheRaven64]

I don't mind the producers making money, but they won't make any from me unless they sell me the product I want. For downloaded video, it has to be more convenient than renting the DVD. This means:

• Quick access. What I want, when I want it.
• No adverts. Adverts are the reason I stopped watching broadcast television.
• No DRM. Part of the convenience means allowing it to be played on portable devices. Unless your DRM supports Mac, iPod and Nokia devices, (and will support all future devices I might buy) it makes the content less valuable to me.
• No region restrictions.

I would love to pay a (reasonable) flat rate, in advance, for seasons of TV shows I want to watch, and have them automatically downloaded every week, but this seems not to be something the studios want to sell me. Until then, I'll stick to renting DVDs, typically some years after the shows have been created.

Re:I'm really happy to hear this

[TheRaven64]

iTunes shows cost $2. These shows contain unskipable adverts. Both contain DRM. Assuming they include 10 minutes of adverts in a one-hour video, and that you will only watch the show once, your time would have worth under $12/hour for them to be better value than the iTunes version. Where I live, that's barely minimum wage.

not free

[goombah99]

Also notice that the service only free till "mid 2008". And It also has commercials. The videos dont come out till a week after airing and expire 7 days after you download them. Finally what can we expect for the "real" price in 2008. Well some details have emerged on the price NBC wanted apple to charge. You may recall the price they wanted apple to charge was said to be $4.99 but NBC denied this vehemently. Well it turns out what they wanted was to force apple to purchase bundles of shows. SO to get a popular show like Heros apple would have to buy one episode of heros and 2 episodes of some re-run. The equivalent price of those 3 shows was 4.99. But apple could only charge 2.99 for the Hero's. This would have left apple with a net loss for all the re-runs it could not off load to other customers for 99 cents.

Re:Not as good as it sounds

[KClaisse]

Actually I did read the article and nowhere does it explicitly say that the costly one would have no commercials, they just said they were going to charge in '08. You quote where it says the commercials will be removed when they charge.

Re:Yeah, whatever...

[TheRaven64]

The product needs to be equal or better than what you can get "for free" over the air.

A few years ago, I'd have agreed with you. About five or six years ago, my father stopped owning a TV, and I thought this was really odd. At the end of the month, our TV license expires and we're not planning on renewing it, and quite a few of my friends have also ditched the TV. It's still by no means a majority who have no TV, but it's no longer regarded as particularly unusual.

Broadcast TV has a lot more competitors now than it used to. The internet is a good source of entertainment, as are rented DVDs (through the post, no hassle, no adverts). Computer games, including consoles, are starting to become a lot more mainstream too, and TV viewership figures have been dropping a corresponding amount for some years. A big reason there are more adverts in TV shows these days is that the income per viewer has remained roughly constant, but the number of viewers has dropped. This increase in adverts then drives more people away, perpetuating the spiral. It's not enough for a new service to be as good as TV, because TV is already starting to lose out. It has to be better.

Re:Used Amazon Unbox

[prockcore]

Same here.

I found that quite ironic. NBC fell upwards when Apple shut them out of iTunes. Amazon's Unbox offers better quality and more convenience for me. Being able to download shows directly to my TiVo and watch them in DVD quality had me immediately hooked on Amazon's Unbox. Plus I'm able to shop Unbox from either my TiVo or from any web browser.

Apple would never partner with TiVo because Apple suffers from NIH syndrome.