NBC Direct Launches With Free Downloads 273
thefickler writes "It's here, and it's no joke. NBC has launched NBC Direct where most shows can be watched online and some shows are available for full episode downloads. This comes after NBC decided to pull out of iTunes." For now it's Windows only, XP or Vista, IE 6 or 7.
Not worth reporting. (Score:1, Insightful)
Windows DRM means not free. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Windows DRM means not free. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Streaming vs. Downloads... at the cost of DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
As an aside, the only videos I see with Windows DRM are porn spam that use a 'feature' of WMP to take you to a website for licenses and malware.
Strike (Score:5, Insightful)
NBC does not understand it... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm from Europe and I have one XP and two linux PCs. And your marketing department seems to be utterly clueless as to how they ever could target me via advertisements on a webpage or embedded in a video. And selling your old TV series to European TV stations years later does no cut it.
Yet any localized Google homepage shows me unobtrusive ads that are relevant to my search queries and geographical location. Times are changing NBC. Adapt or die.
Signed,
A user from Europe who wants to buy cheap American stuff.
Re:Windows DRM means not free. (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Goto BitTorrent... where new shows pop up right after they air, download speeds are insanely fast, there are no ads, there is no DRM, and I can get video that will play on whatever computer or device I want.
2) Goto NBC... where new shows pop up at 2am, I'm downloading from one source, there are ads, lots of ads, there is DRM, lots of DRM, and I can only play video on a Vista or XP computer.
NBC doesn't seem to realize that a conveniance based model has more opportunities for growth. Time after time the internet has favored those who have figured out how to make a profit by catering to conveniance.
Good Next Step... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Streaming vs. Downloads... at the cost of DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
If you just whinge here on slashdot and don't watch the episodes then you're not going to appear in their statistics. You -want- to appear in their statistics. Tell your friends about it. Get people to watch stuff. Whining about it not working -just right- for your situation doesn't help.
You -want- the statistics to reflect that there's interest in this service. You -want- the executives to notice that people are using it, that there's non-windows people using it, that people are actually providing constructive feedback to them. Sheesh!
Re:I should note... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not worth reporting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe 95%+ computer users who use Windows would be interested in this kind of news. Can't we just be happy that most of the population has access to free TV shows? Can't we just encourage and nurture this kind of behaviour from media companies without becoming green with envy? Can we constructively criticise, rather than resorting to "I don't even want to know" when they don't factor in your particular minority?
[/rant]
Great Timing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of makes a mockery of the studios argument, namely: giving this stuff away free on the net is just worthless promotional material. If that's truly the case, why not just give it away free? i.e. no DRM, and no region nor software restrictions.
Or might it be that the studios are... lying?
Re:NBC DO NOT offer FREE downloads (Score:5, Insightful)
- It has to be accessible to everyone on the planet
- It has to cost nothing to everyone on the planet
- It has to be obtainable conveniently to everyone on the planet
Thanks for the clarification. I was using the archaic definition of free, meaning "something I can get for nothing".
Re:Windows DRM means not free. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. They have a big advantage over the cap groups: they have the episode well before it's aired, in perfect quality. They could put up their own torrents for it the moment the episode ends on TV, or even halfway through it. Provide their own trackers, but submit the torrent to the popular sites so it's easy to access (in addition to putting it on their own website). Using their own trackers means they get viewership statistics -- probably more accurate than the Neilson family stats at that!
Most people will use the official torrent: it's guaranteed good quality, complete, available before anyone else's, and sanctioned by the producer. People will tolerate some ads, so long as they're not obnoxious. There's only so many companies that can be advertised in a global market, anyway. Add a "If you want to support this show, visit ..." to the end credits and have a site which lists the show's sponsors, a donation box, merchandise, etc. This site could use localisation to tell you about the sponsors nearest to you, so the networks don't need to miss out on local ad revenue.
It's interesting how big media still seems to believe they absolutely must exert 100% complete control over their content in order to be profitable, while seemingly oblivious to the fact they haven't had control for a long time and have been profitable regardless. Most people aren't greedy and selfish, but I think most people do feel completely disconnected from the fate of their favourite shows. For the vast majority of people, the networks have absolutely no idea what shows they watch. What does it matter if I torrent a show rather than watch it on TV? I'm not going to buy stuff I see advertised during it, and even if I did, the company that makes it has no real way of correlating that with the fact they sponsored a particular show.
I guess realistically, it's easier for the networks to produce a few shows which rake in millions in advertising, than it is to produce a lot of shows which are individually profitable, but with smaller margins.
Re:Does not help me alot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Correction (Score:3, Insightful)
They offer for download an ad-supported version in a standard format and at multiple resolutions right when the show airs, or even before... And host it using something like Akamai...
So the legal one comes out first, is the same or better quality than the pirate version, downloads as quick or faster, but has ads. For most people, it will simply be easier to put up with the ads (providing they're not insanely intrusive) than to wait for a pirate version with the ads stripped.
So long as the pirate version is significantly better, people will have incentive to download that instead.
Re:Streaming vs. Downloads... at the cost of DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
and you have to watch it within 48 hours of downloading
those times and places where you're "not likely to have internet access" are a bit limited.
Jokes aside, I'd say that NBC has finally seen the light - The future of the Internet doesn't look like TV, as traditional media execs always hoped; More that the future of TV looks like YouTube.
If NBC has finally "gotten" it, good for them. This first laughable attempt at giving people what they want may have a few flaws. I don't know, I won't use it even having a capable machine, because I don't watch anything on NBC (used to watch The Office until they turned it into a tedious little soap opera; and SNL, well, TiVo'd I'll watch part of it, but if they won't let you skip commercials, they probably don't let you skip the 90% of really dumb sketches, either). But still, good to see them trying.
Re:Windows DRM means not free. (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, a IC that costs $5 probably has NRE costs upwards of a couple million dollars. Due to the cost of setting up chip fabrication and paying the engineers to do all the chip layout and design. The chip itself will cost pennies to fabricate, but the company producing the chip needs to recoup all the NRE costs spent to get to that first chip so they charge $5.
The same is true for non-free software. It may cost pennies to produce a CD or sub-pennies to download the binaries, but the company must recoup the NRE costs if they are to remain in business. That is why software costs money.
For free software, the makers of the software are looking to recoup their NRE in other ways. The hobbyist is usually looking for recognition, resume' enhancement, or just enjoyment. But, the hobbyist isn't looking to buy groceries with their good looks; the most likely have a day job that pays the bills. I posit that hobbyist do not produce the high quality free software that we've come to know and love, they just don't have the time or organization (they contribute but they are not the primary producers). The professional organization producing free software (IBM, RedHat, etc) are looking for other revenue streams from the free-customers to pay the NRE on the free software, through support fees or licensing related products.
All in all, to my point. Software is not free either. Somebody has to spend labor time producing it and those somebodies expect to get paid somehow.
Re:Strike (Score:3, Insightful)
The writer becomes the analog of the freeware developer, in which case that is his choice.
Re:Strike (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not worth reporting. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your numbers are way off. MS has about 90% of the PC market in the US (this is a US only service) according to most estimates of PC use. The Mac accounts for about 8%. Now exclude the large number of Windows machines running in business environments and which are not used to view entertainment media. You're probably looking at something closer to 70% of potential computer users that can run this. Now consider that 2% of those users are using versions of IE that are not supported by this service. Now consider that 15% of the market is running Firefox and while those users can run IE for the most part, some of them won't switch browsers just to watch a TV show. Now consider all the people using Web appliances, iPods, cell phones, and other handhelds.
By tying their technology to one specific vendor and one specific software instead of writing to standards they've assured that their potential market is probably about half of what it otherwise could be.
Capitalism works via enlightened self interest so... no. This move is just one more which contributes to keeping the PC market broken and uncompetitive and works towards consolidating the cartel run entertainment industry and the monopoly dominated desktop OS industry.
Re:Streaming vs. Downloads... at the cost of DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Two operating systems and 3 browsers for ABC's service is way better than MS Windows only and IE only with NBC's half-@ssed effort.
Re:Streaming vs. Downloads... at the cost of DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Streaming vs. Downloads... at the cost of DRM (Score:4, Insightful)