Slashdot Mirror
ABC Affiliates Grapple With TV-Show Downloads
Carl Bialik writes "By making an episode of 'Lost' available for download last week just half a day after it aired, for a $1.99 charge, 'Apple may have helped open a Pandora's box for the media business,' the Wall Street Journal reports. The president of the association representing ABC's affiliate stations sent a letter to the president of ABC, reading in part, 'It is both disappointing and unsettling that ABC would embark on a new -- and competitive -- network program distribution partnership without the fundamental courtesy of consultation' with its affiliates. While the extent of Apple's TV downloads is limited, the Journal parses the potential impact: 'if downloading episodes over the Internet proves popular, analysts believe Apple will get permission to offer shows with better-fidelity pictures. Any success Apple has won't go unnoticed by other online media powerhouses with expanding video initiatives like Yahoo Inc., Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp., which could all help extend TV downloading to more viewers.'"
Thank you Apple! Once again this company (along with ABC this time) has the stones to step up and offer a service that is a market primed to explode. The iTMS has proven to be a good long tail business model for the distribution of music, offering popular and otherwise out of print or hard to find (Indie) tracks that are simply unavailable in the large retail outlets. I have not watched much TV in the past while, but having the iTMS model of distribution for TV shows that are out of syndication or are otherwise hard to obtain would be a tremendous boon. And if Ted Turner would get on the ball, all sorts of older movies could also be made available via this model, that would increase revenues over what they are making by the current limited access to the media. Documentaries, "foreign" (to the US) films, and indie films could make it truly big by talking to Apple. Sundance Channel and TCM, you are the big guys in this market......So, are you paying attention? And for you TIVOheads out there, in essence, if this propagates to the rest of the industry, this will be a centralized TIVO allowing you to pick and choose without having to take the time to program, and like the article said, this could make the ala carte system moot. Who knows, this could even open up the option of letting us pay for content that is without commercials or get it for "free" if we agree to watch the commercials. It's could simply be our choice.
P.S., Ted, thanks for the buffalo ranching, but there is more money to be made still in media. Don't give up.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Sometimes I want to pull my hair out!
Exactly how is this bad for the affiliate stations? For a nano second I can't imagine this didn't help these affiliates. How much you wanna bet the viewership was up for the episode of Lost following the announcement of the video iPod? Peoples' normal reactions would be along the lines of:
I don't think any of the above are off-the-scale guesses of peoples' reactions and I think the viewership because of the video iPod could actually increase!
But, let's assume the death star, end-of-the-universe scenario the affiliates and others see this as. They see this as a threat rather than an extension. So, if it is true, boo-hoo!
Thank goodness the lobbyists and power brokers circling the wagons today for the hapless industry wasn't present in the late 19th and early 20th century to protect the horse and buggy industry in the same way... We'd have no cars today (since that would have threatened the established travel industry).
(So, for the record, does anyone know what the comparison was for Lost pre- vs. post-video iPod announcement? I don't really care, but it'd be interesting to know.)
"It is unsettling that ABC has chosen to act as an independent agent in a free market, rather than subjecting its decisions to cartel politics. ABC's rash action opens up an incredible Pandora's box; once we start provide the customers with what they want at prices they are willing to pay, who knows where THAT dangerous path might end?"
I could still just download it via bittorrent for free.....
We seldom regret saying too little but often regret saying too much.
You snooze, you lose. No one said your competitors had to tell you when they're going to... you know... compete!
Business models change over time. Companies can either attempt to adjust their business models to take advantage of those changes or try to fight those changes (RIAA). If the TV companies were smart and downloading shows of the internet proves to be the "wave of the future" they need to find a way to take advantage of that instead of trying to stop it.
. . . broadcast TV is dead. Or is this another Wolf-cry like VHS destroying the theater business or catalogs (or the internet) closing every mall in America?
Advertising, in my opinion, is a huge reason behind the controversy. The traditional distribution model allows media outlets to force consumers to have interrupted commercial sessions. With a single point of exit media outlets can statistically figure out how much viewership they have and set appropriate advertising rates. Now that ABC has broken the mold its causes much concern among affiliates on the future of advertising rates and whether they can still drive as much revenue. Of course I'm just speculating.
Most of national advertising rates fluctuate as they are based off of current Nielsen ratings which samples viewing habits year round. However local advertising rates are set for a yearly basis based off the TV audience during a specific period 4 times a year(Sweeps Week). With a smaller audience watching TV through this traditional method local affiliates lose a huge chunk of ad revenue.
They can stop crying and start getting ready for it. If they don't fill the demand, someone will. As soon as I can have a high speed internet connection without the help of either the local cable company or telephone company then I'll be free of both.
At that point, any content I can't get online, I simply will do without. Sell me entertainment online, or sell me nothing. It makes no difference to me. There's plenty of free and legal clips of amusement here and there at least as worthwhile as the junk they air on TV anyway.
Besides, I find reading books and doing technical reading online is a better use of my time than watching television in the first place.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
You are correct for the moment, but once this catches on, people will realize it is a better, more enjoyable method of entertainment.
:D
Forget tivo. This is it.
As far as I'm concerned, the modern day affiliate station is a simple load-balancing device.
The funeral for tivo will be held tomorrow evening, 2100 hours, at 1, infinity loop, Cupertino, CA.
Affiliate stations: BE AFRAID
But the question is can I use this magic Itunes on my box here to view TV shows?
No. Guess I'll have to stick with good old BitTorrent. I wouldn't actually mind paying for it, it's just that I am not allowed to..
it's incredable these people haven't be investigated for anti competitive behaviour yet.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
What was ABC thinking, doing something as offensive and inexcusable as making content available to consumers in a more convenient yet still-lucrative form? Absolutely unforgivable!
Really, this seems like a very self-regulating situation. If consumers enjoy and respond to this offering, then both content producers and consumers have a great new option, and neither one of them owes previous distribution channels a damn thing. If people don't care for the new format, then existing distribution channels continue to maintain their position and profits.
Obviously this has a strong chance of being a bad deal for advertising-driven distribution in the long term. But even if it is, the notion that content producers had any obligation to avoid it out of mere politeness is absurd.
I wonder when we'll see FedEx and UPS complaining that offering software for download--rather than shipping CDs--was a very rude thing for the software industry to begin doing without so much as a by-your-leave.
Jeez, it's not like I wasn't doing this before...Ever heard of usenet or even bit torrent? Come on. I swear to god, young people just need to take over the world...Otherwise it should be mandatory for old people to hang out with internet saavy people for more than an hour a day. Let's level the playing field already.
People love Tivos. But if you look at why, it's simply because it takes a broadcast show and turns it into real digital media that you can do the normal things digital media allows, like scnaning or random access.
It makes no sense any longer for people to do ANYTHING but download shows and access the contents as they please, when they please. That's what Apple is opening up to the mass market for current TV, and what people will most naturally except. Fighting this migration is a loosing battle.
I really feel like as cool as Tivo is, it's trapped between a rock and a hard place. The rock are media companies that are unsure about people being able to record anything. The hard place is when people discover they like random media so much, they'd rather just download everything and use it that way. Apple is taking over the space Tivo could have if they'd started looking at a downloadable TV market.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I don't get it. What's the guy complaining about? Not that I'd buy a TV show to watch on a puny little screen, but I believe it's a step in the right direction.
:)
He even says that Apple-NBC's move would initiate other tech giants to provide their own services which "could all help extend TV downloading to more viewers." Is that a bad thing? Now the "find new ways to advertise" part is what I don't like.
When I originally read about this, I wondered what the quality would be like. A brief googling suggests that the files are about 150-200MB, which seems like the quality should be better than I was expecting.
Does anyone have any first hand experience with the downloaded episodes? How is the quality on a pc or tv screen?
It looks like slowly but surely, we are getting to see the future of entertainment in this country... no more being forced to sit through annoying commercials, but just being able to watch what we really want... It would be worth it to me, to pay a small price each month, to not have to see commercials ever, and just watch the content only... Not to mention, if we could just click and choose what we wanted to watch, that would be far better, then being stuck with the static content we have now... Imagine the possibilities... I can not wait :)
Need a Nerd?
Nerd Systems
With enough money paid to the right powerful people, big rich corporations like ClearChannel will pay someone to solve the issue of closing this supposedly "uncloseable" Pandora's box.
Okay, I get the fact that they feel slighted because ABC didn't tell them they were doing this.
However, why the hell would the Affiliates even care? They still get the first airing of the show and thats the important airing. After that, their add buys are so crazy low anyways, what does it matter if I can get it for $1.99 online? If the Affiliates really want to do something, they should learn and start making things like local news casts available online for say $.50 or free with 2-3 min of comercials in there.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Why pay $1.99 per episode when you can just take the video you saved using Mythtv and download it to your ipod. You could even take out the commercials if you like.
I could see Tivo making out well if they made it easy for ipod video users to sync to their PVR.
I don't watch much TV; most weeks it's less than 2 hrs. I enjoy Battlestar Galactica but shuffling my week around the TV schedule (or even shuffling it around time to be at home to watch a recorded version) is not convenient. If I could catch it on an iPod or laptop then I'd watch it... and I like the show enough that I'd fork out $2 per episode. Sounds like Apple has a solution for me.
Yes, Thank you Apple! Finnally someone has done what the consumers have been screaming for for years! So many nay-sayers look at the iPod Video and say it is some gimmick, but what they dont realise is exactly this pandoras box being opened!
The day when I can download my latest episodes of SG1 or my girlfriends O.C for $1.99 rather than wait 6-9months for it to come on TV in the UK is the day that I stop using eMule!
Thank you Apple you found the only way to stop priacy.
The resolution is not that high but the bitrate is pretty good... I would say it looks better than VHS, perhaps not quite as good as a digital satellite connection airing the original. I bought the first episode of Lost just to try it out (and see if I really want to buy the DVD set), and it's more than watchable to me.
I really look forward to when they start offering pay-per-download HDTV shows.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This just in: Buggy Whip manufacturer comes out against the combustion-engine.
maybe they should embrace it and try to get on with abc, rather than try to chastise them for it. every industry that has a strong foothold tris to fight innovation to some extent. after a certain point they either decide to run with it and prosper, or the fight it forever and die.
-- lol pwned
Bill has recently proven he can't negotiate a deal with the Media giants for content. Poor Bill, spent all that money developing DRM for them and when the time came to cash in? They treated him like the "help" and wouldn't even let him dine at the table. :-)
Network affiliates are the roadkill of the information superhighway.
Once broadband reaches 25mbps there is no reason for a separate tv connection.
The tv networks will become what UPN has already a dumping ground for
tv viewers who are Old and poor.
The networks however have a saving grace, they can still outcompete
itunes. People will happily accept commercials in their tv programs
if they get the programs for FREE...history has already proven this.
There is no technical reason people cant simply download their favorite
programs and watch them with commericals for free or commerical free
for an additional fee.
This would actually free up networks ro produce programs audiences wanted
instead of programs affiliates wanted...programs that could be targeted
to niche audiences rather than lowest common denominator.
"Lost?" Come on. I don't even watch that stuff on TV let alone waste bits from my broadband connection to download it...
Produce something worth watching and I'll go back to watching TV.
If you read the comment, it sounds like syndicates aren't complaining about iTMS selling TV as much as ABC doing deals that don't include them.
The reason syndicates weren't involved was because the deal was supposed to be secret "Apple Event" news.
Still, the syndicates run their business as customers beholden to the interests of a channel of programming, something like dealerships for a car company. (That's also as far as that analogy works.)
Sure, free publicity for the shows they are broadcasting is a win for syndicates, but nobody likes to delegate their life and death decisions away to third parties, particularly if they don't share the same interests.
--
www.roughlydrafted.com : todays slowdown brought to you by digg.com
Lobbyists are not a new invention. It appears the term was coined in the early 19th century. It's a shame really. If they were a recent invention, someone would have patented the business method and then we would at least be free of them for about 20 years ;-)
That particular episode of Lost is irrelevant in the big picture. The issue is whether the network is going to undercut its affiliates by building an alternate distribution model.
Be popular in the lunchroom as you show last night's latest crapola on the small screen so everybody can participate! Still, I bought one, it's shipped and I wouldn't mind downloading uppity fare, documentaries, indies, cartoons and animations, and Science Fiction, but I draw the network line at Arrested Development. This will create a demand for high quality programs that can't get an audience without a proper slot, or need more time to develop an audience. Think of this a a bandwidth amplifier that lets everybody watch whatever programs they want, when they want, and a PVR (without multiple simultaneous channel recording) surely can't do that. This is a win-win for everybody, as now we get to vote with our pocketbook.
I think you're right that this is the beginning of the end. The affiliates should be nervous and perhaps a little cranky since they were left of the negotiations. But in the short term the grandparent post is right: all the free press could do nothing but help the affiliates.
As of today, the TV (by which I mean broadcast, cable, satellite) plus TiVo (how can anyone live without TiVo?!) is a much nicer distribution system. But that's only because of the details. My family watches enough TV that it's cheaper for us to pay a flat rate DirecTV bill than to pay a la carte $1.99/show.
I spent $20 the first day it was available to download a few episodes just to try it out. My overall take: quality was not so hot: 320x240 resolution. An hour commercial free (~40 minutes) is about 200 MB for a bit rate of 660 kbps. DirecTV gives you about 1GB/hour or 2.2 Mbps. However when I played it back full screen on my laptop it wasn't terrible.
After a few years of polishing it could be a reasonable way to watch TV *IF* the prices drop or they offer volume/flat rate pricing, subscriptions w/ background download, etc. etc.
dude, you've just been dumped for somebody hotter.
FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codec
Networks are freaking out over this because it has the possibility of messing with the status-quo.
The business model is that shows are only available as a television broadcast or DVD purchase. Sure, you have Tivo, but that's still television.
Now, you're taking the content of television and putting it onto a new medium: the digital medium. Networks are going to throw up rad flags, thinking "WE'RE GOING TO LOSE MONEY! FUCK!"
Then again, digital content is a hot-topic issue (see: illegal use of P2P apps). This is a natural extension of that paranoia.
Here's a wacky idea, rather than just rebroadcasting network crap, why don't local affiliates actually produce quality programming of their own that they could sell on the iTunes video service. Believe it or not they used to do this sort of thing back in the day. Oh wait, that would require them to work, which is much harder than sitting on your ass and making a lot of money by squatting on publicly owned airwaves.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Quote: If downloading episodes over the Internet proves popular...
Uh, what do they mean if? It's already exceedingly popular on BitTorrent and the like, just not sanctioned by the media companies until now (OK, the BBC is doing it but not many others). The genie is already out of this bottle and yet another industry wants to bury it's head in the sand. They have to realize that people, including myself, are willing to pay money to see shows we've missed or cannot get in our area. Where's a capitalist when you need one? Steve Jobs yet again has pulled off a marvelous coup and now the affliates, Hollywood, SAG and anyone else who didn't have the forsight to start this on there own want a piece.
Cable costs 60 to 100 per month. Channels I'd like to watch out of 120 end up hovering at around 3. Of those 3 channels, I can only say I like 4 shows. But I don't get to pick and choose to watch what I want when I want.
Unlike everything else on this planet, I have to wait until some timeslot asshat allows me to see what I'm paying for at his convenience. I don't have time to sit around and plan my life around some work of fiction and advertisements. Entertainment is supposed to entertain. I don't like going to the movies at 6 fucking AM in the morning because it is not entertaining at 6 fucking AM in the morning.
So, what do I do? I don't watch TV at all. I haven't watched TV for about 5 years now. The shows I want to see- like stargate or babylon 5 or whichever- I download for nothing. And it takes time to do this. I would pay 1.50 per show to download and watch it. If I buy the DVD boxed set, it comes out to 2 bucks a show. All things being equal, I'll pay for that convenience of getting it when I want and how I want. Just like ATM machine's at 1.50 a pop.
The market has changed around you TV people. You know this. Now be an American and capitalize on it. The days of consumers sitting around waiting on you are fucking over. Deal or die you got damn idiots.
The affiliates should be scared, because today's TV mechanism is silly and out of date. The very idea of a "channel" is meaningless. And the advertisers are paying approx. $1/per hour to the stations for my time. $1 per hour! At that rate I will gladly outbid the advertisers to reclaim my time. And unlike bittorrent and unrestricted PVR's, legal downloads probably won't have the law working against them. Be afraid, affiliates, be very afraid.
Question: What is the point of Broadcast TV?
Answer: To show quality shows that everyone can enjoy.
errrrrr
WRONG
An affiliate broadcast TV station has one goal: To create revenue for the stockholders. This is done through advertising. Lost/Cosby show/Nighstalker/Full house whatever the show is has one purpose: Attract viewers so they can watch more advertising.
To think that consumers can get content from broadcast TV without commercials and advertising will for sure cause a stirr when the reason affiliates exist is to make money.
I dont see how your reasoning holds for the long run. Yes they probably got a boost from the extra press, but in the long run that's not going to keep happening. That's not to say it couldnt help the networks. But the help will come from new viewers who download a few episodes then decide that they like it well enough to watch it with better quality a day earlier than it's available online.
You characterized the affiliates as whiners but you have to remember that they've signed long term contracts with ABC to distribute it's media at a time when they were the only game in town. Now ABC blindsided them with this new competition. Companies are inevitably going to be hurt by shifts in distribution models but I think it's reasonable for ABC to at least give the affiliates a heads up. That's the price you pay for a Steve Jobs style launch I guess.
--aiee
But will the downloads have commercials? I won't pay to download commercials. Not when I can record the shows I like on my PC based DVR (Sage) and watch when I get around to them. And skip the commercials with one button.
This is slightly more technical, but I've been wondering about if they are going to offer up a torrent style iTunes client. This could be a tremendeous boon for for instance podcasts, and video podcasts in general. Maybe only for free content but still.
Sure, many wouldn't be able to figure out how to open up their firewall, but enough people would, that it would make a tremendous difference for some poor podcaster. It will likely let them cut their provider bill in half. Or they could reach 10 times as many people for the same cost. They could even make sure that all their friends have seeds before they release the podcast, that way they don't even really need a server provider (not of the type where you need to know how many GB per month you are allowed).
This would also be a tremendous benefit for Apple since being on iTunes definitely would be the shiznat for all the podcasters because now it also has a very direct benefit for them.
Also, if they did the torrent thing then they would get some serious Google type respect from geeks. Apple would be credited for making decentralized file sharing mainstream.
I can't even think of a down side. Can someone slap me out of this?
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
Broadband + torrents + multicasting could make TV-on-demand-over-IP a reality. At the minimum, downloading tomorrow evening's programming tonight should be feasible soon. But right now, it takes an evening to fetch an episode over BT most of the time, and few servers can handle the full load of a TV ep, so I don't think the technology is quite there for 100% replacement for a normal couch-potato.
Allow me to be the first one to say (this minute at least): I sure as hell hope for the TV serie industry their downloadable material is at least better than the pirated versions. As a fan of Lost living in a country where Season 2 doesn't air, I have practically three choices:
* I wait an hour after the US airing and download a generic 350 MB HDTV-rip of the show. DVD quality. No ads.
* I wait two hours after the US airing and download the much better 700 MB HR HDTV-rip with surround sound. Better than DVD-quality. No ads.
* I log onto my non-existing iTunes account on an iTunes-network I am not allowed on and for $2 dollars download.. What exacly? Some kind of quicktime version?
Oh well, they will probably never try and do it right, because then they can't say this new distribution system didn't work.
The issue is whether the network is going to undercut its affiliates by building an alternate distribution model.
The network is clearly going to undercut its affiliates by building an alternate distribution model. In fact - this *is* an alternate distribution model. The issue is whether or not the affiliates will get any of the money from online distribution.
The answer is obviously going to be no.
The record labels are horrible beasts, but at least we know where we stand with them-- they own a song outright and have ultimate say as to what can be done and what the price should be. Television shows, on the other hand, are based on many complicated deals that extend far into the the future-- and they have to be, because there are a lot of people (and companies) involved in a production who all want their share of potential revenue. It's not all about the first run ad dollars.
"Lost" and "Desperate Housewives" are Touchstone productions, so Disney has a lot more control over their distribution. That's not always or even often the case-- many times a network works with a separate production company, and if it's an older show someone else may have the rights to syndication. Which basically means the contracts for many programs, especially those "in the vault", are going to have to be renegotiated before a network can make them available for download, and some won't be available at all. It also means $2 downloads may not end up being the standard.
I wouldn't be surprised if the guilds got involved, too. Actors, writers, and directors are due royalties from syndication and DVD compilations. Are they going to get a cut of that $2? Their contracts most likely specified terms for residuals from reruns, but what's their cut of an iTunes download? This will be addressed in every contract from today forward, but what about the ones in place now (and the ones from a decade ago?)
On the bright side, what I've noticed on Apple's marketing is that they keep slipping in references to "video podcasts"-- which at the moment barely exist. This could mean iTunes could branch into a new distribution channel for indie programs, like how Netflix is having some success as the sole distributor of certain movies.) It could be both the "bush leagues" for aspiring shows, or the place where shows with a fan base but who can't get the numbers to stay on the air (like Futurama or Freaks and Geeks) could end up.
The problem is ad revenue. Advertisers pay ABC to produce the show and ABC affiliates receive funding during such programming because more eyes are watching it. If popular programmes are being downloaded from the Internet, this may not hurt ABC per se, but this certainly cuts into affiliate revenues.
You have to remember, there are many people making money on the current television distribution system, from the people who make the programs to the guys who carry the video to the broadcast booth, all the way down to the local TV stations that get syndication revenues (which is why old popular TV shows are not already available for download).
As usual, the answer to the question is 'follow the money'.
You forgot one:
* Why bother turning on my TV when I can download it to my iPod? For quality? BAH, I say, BAH!!!
1) Lead
2) Follow
3) Get the hell out of the way
And Blockbuster, despite being really evil in most of their policies, are not making a big noise about P2P - why? Because they're not losing business... Common sense says that they would be the ones with the most to lose if the market for 2nd, 3rd, etc. viewings goes to downloaded shows. Maybe they've just got their heads in the sand - they missed the internet boat to Netflix - or maybe they've noticed that in the absence of compeling content on TV/in theatres, that they're still raking in the money...
Regards,
-Jeremy
I just find it funny that it costs at least 0.99 USD to purchase a three-and-a-half minute song, but only 1.99 USD to download an episode of a TV show, which has cast and crew to pay, filming, sets, etc. Combine this with the fact that the RIAA wants even more money for a single track...pretty amazing.
I suppose compared to purchasing a box set of a show that may cost up to 60 USD, at least TV episode downloading seems to offer some sort of significant price break from purchasing the actual high-quality non-DRM'd media from a store (new or used), and provides the a la carte option. The only question that I have regarding the a la carte option for TV shows is, wouldn't there be a much greater demand to own an entire season of a show than there would be to own an entire CD? After all, on a CD it's not as if Track 11 of an album doesn't make sense if you didn't listen to Track 9 or 10.
Others want more money too...
a ls/2100-1026_3-5896766.html?tag=nefd.top
http://news.com.com/Unions+seek+video+iPod+residu
If Apple is able to assemble enough top-notch TV programming for iTunes, it could prove vexing to cable operators like Comcast. In the past, cable operators have faced pressure by politicians and consumer groups to offer individual channels "a la carte," rather than forcing all subscribers to pay for large packages of programming that most don't watch in their entirety.
Oh yeah, baby - paypack is a bitch!!!
What's happening here is that the affiliates are seeing the writing on the wall. Downloads of shows aren't going to make a dent for a while but they could. If a significant amount of the viewership starts watching their TV shows via Apple's downloads then that is that many less people watching it on the air and seeing ads. TV stations know this as do the advertisers. Advertisers will not be willing to pay as much for those ad slots because there's less on-air viewership for that show at that time on that station.
The networks are going to make money either way as they are playing both ends against the middle. They make money from the affiliate licenses as well as from downloads from Apple. TV stations are just going to have to cope. This isn't going to go away. They'll have to find another way to keep their local viewership up.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
The local TV affiliate that starts a REAL educational show--not this happy horseshit Teletubby crap--with guest lecturers and subjects geared towards adults (who have MONEY, duh), will make a killing.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
what do you do to allow people to discover new programs? I think many popular shows start off in bad time slots and are either upgraded or dropped but are given a chanse. I know many shows I loved I stumbled on and would not do so at $2 a pop. Do execs offer some new shows for free until the catch on and then tack on the extra cost onto future episodes? As there is no garuntee of advertising time sales for the inital run of some new shows, which get some viewers out of the novelty, will we see less risks being taken with the 12th season of what sells today or would a show like Firefly be more popular as its profitability could be directly estimated (all the /. Nielson families please stand up)?
Today is a gift. Save the receipt.
Now I wish the NFL & Apple would partner up to download games. It still would be better to have real time like direct TV, but I would download the game after it is over, just so I can see my favorite team play. I hope the NFL reads slashdot!
In addition, the media giants picked another format for High Definition DVD than what Bill chose for his XBox 360.
Microsoft is incredibly rich. But people have realized that Microsoft isn't untouchable. The problems with Vista, the notion that Google is snubbing Microsoft time after another. And how exactly do you compete with an operating system that is free? And many others.
This gives other companies the balls to stand up against them. Or, I should say, this is my theory.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
What's sad is when other companies such as Google release TV-Related technologies in the future, people will claim they are copying Apple. When, in fact, TV downloads is something people have been talking and gossiping about all year. The fact that Apple did it first is cool, but you can expect this to just be a small step in the downloadable media craize of '06
google.slashdot
The last I remember, the affiliates didn't want to broadcast in HD because there wasn't any market yet, and customers didn't want to buy HD rigs because there wasn't anything to watch. Well, even though the HDTV market was moving slowly, now there's an incentive for the affiliates to get their act together.
ABC's affiliates will all probably be broadcasting all HD by the end of the week.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
legal downloads probably won't have the law working against them
Err..."probably" won't? Isn't that the definition of "legal"?
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
I think we have to look at this as being completely within its infancy.
Obviously, the quality leaves something to be desired for if you're on anything greater than a 9" screen. And the price isn't fesable to treat it as a replacement for TV. In the same manner, the iTunes Music Store doesn't replace the radio. (Although you could argue that iTunes does...)
Bottom line, ABC is going to see a lot of money from what is basically a technology trial. It'll be a long time though, before that money is greater than what they currently receive from advertisers, etc.
Time will only tell, but the concept is certainly 100000 times better than standard TV. Let's see...
1) on-demand
2) full transport control (can you believe you can't even pause normal tv?!)
3) watch as many times as you want
4) no commercials
So... yeah... Good things on the way.
So, why not put out -two- downloadable versions-one free and containing the normal ads (such ads could even be localized by ZIP code or IP address), and the paid version ad-free. They'd get the best of all worlds that way-people are going to continue to pay for on-the-air ads for quite some time to come, Joe Sixpack's not about to throw out his TV in favor of an iPod for quite some time. In the meantime, they're establishing both a new ad base (and giving themselves some time to make projections on how many eyeballs they're hitting), -and- getting a direct-payment stream established. This seems more a temper tantrum on the part of the affiliates.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Yeah, the way Apple has exploited their dominance of the OS market to take over the downloadable music market and the MP3 market is pretty heinous and I'm sure the DOJ is keeping a close eye on them. And the creation of a new market of downloading video clips! That's just the sort of unfair business practice to which the DOJ pays close attention. Reminds me exactly of how MS has bullied PC makers to maintain its monopoly.
Er, wait.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I certianly wouldn't want to buy any of these right now, sure the bit rate is good for the iPod video, or even a computer screen, but blowing them up on a TV must suck! Combine that with the fact that an average season (22-24 episodes) would cost $43.78 - $47.76 and I would much rather spend that money buying something that can be displayed on my TV! I am sure, over time as download bandwidth increases, the size of these shows will grow and eventually I will be able to play full HDTV on my HDTV. Of course there is also the issue with DRM. Seeing that this comes from Apple, I assume the DRM is FairPlay, if so, I have no problems with ripping it out (not that i would offer it to others to download, just cause I feel uneasy with DRM in general).
If you miss the first airing, you won't see it -- ever -- unless the show goes into syndication or it gets released on DVD. When people are interested in a show, they'll make an effort to watch it on broadcast. Making episodes available commercial free in a lower-quality format results in no lost revenue for the networks, especially if the show will not be aired again for some time. And with the popularity of iPods, it will be much, much easier for someone to get a friend hooked on a show, because all they have to do is have their iPod with them and let them watch. Voila -- another set of eyes to soak in that wonderful commercialism that takes up five minutes of every half-hour of programming.
Morphius could not have said it better,
"Welcome, to the Real World."
...you're going to tell me how Apple is going to cram a 35 inch screen inside your iPod case.
OK, so you can take your episode of Lost with you, and watch it on your pocket TV. Pocket TVs have been around for...what, more than a decade? How many people do you know stopped buying 25, 32, 50 inch TVs for their house, and multi-thousand dollar sound systems to plug those TVs into, because, well golly gee, now they can put their TV in their pocket.
iPod TV downloads and TiVo solve different problems related to TV viewing. The new iPod service lets you take portable TV shows with you. TiVo lets you time shift, search and archive, and if you have the personal motivation to set up TivoToGo and upgrade your PocketPC handheld with the right WMP software, take portable TV shows with you.
So really, the only thing the new iPod/ABC service does is remove the requirement that your TiVo be available at the time the show comes on the TV. Of course, it's not like you actually have to do anything to make your TiVo record...just set up the season pass, and they'll be there, assuming the show aired in the first place.
All the iPod/ABC service does is remove the requirement for the show to have aired at its original time. And it still has the shortcoming of only being watchable on a screen that, at it's best, is less than a quarter the size of the smallest laptop I've used in the last 5 years.
I wouldn't start the funeral dirge for PVRs and PVR services yet. Not unless that's a TV in your pocket, and not just that you're happy to see me.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
adapt or die
I'd like to say those to the president of the affiliate companies. I think he's become too comfortable in his position.
May they be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
While I seriously doubt that we will ever completly be rid of TV with commercials, I do suspect that at some point, that the TV viewing audience will be limited to the following:
1) Viewing Live Events
2) Viewing low quality shows
3) Those destitute enough to not afford to download favorite shows.
If viewers can pay to download a TV show they want to see, and keep it as long as they want, it will lead to several consequences. The first is that as noted in the article, the downloaded version of the show may be available in a higher definition. The second is that since its not broadcast, you wont have to worry about the FCC censoring naughty words or naughty images. The third is that the shows will no longer be forced to allow commercial breaks, and can run longer or shorter as needed by the story of that episode.
This in turn could create the possibility that the version of the show that gets broadcast will be the inferior version of the show. And if your a true fan of the show, why settle for the crappy version?
On top of that, once yoru no longer beholden to the schedule of the broadcaster, why be limted to watching only what they want to show you? If your a hard core sci-fi fan, why waste time with sitcoms? You could just download shows like every episode Star Trek, Battle Star Galactica, X-Files, Babylon 5, Firefly, and whatever else you actually want to watch. I am sure that the content providers will have no objections to selling to you from their back catalog.
When (not if) downloading a selected version of a TV show becomes viable choice, TV Advertisers will be largely screwed.
Welcome to the Revolution!
END COMMUNICATION
The time has come for broadcast TV to die. It requires too many annoying regulatory boondoggles, and said regulations lead to government censorship of content. Satellite, cable, and the internet are all excellent replacements for broadcast television that free us from much of the mess, and getting rid of local stations means no more whiny local stations in moralist backwaters like Kansas and most of the USA south of the Mason-Dixon Line griping about what their bible-thumping freak viewers don't want to see on television. Get rid of all this broadcast TV nonsense, so we can move on to the next step - elimination the networks themselves, so that all content is simply served up on demand, direct from its creators, without worries over competing timeslots, or network execs killing shows that are only mildly profitable in hopes that a replacement will do better.
Any success Apple has won't go unnoticed by other online media powerhouses with expanding video initiatives like Yahoo Inc., Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp., which could all help extend TV downloading to more viewers.
And....? Sounds good to me!
Everything I need to know about copyrights I learned from Slashdot.
I mean, it's so easy. All you have to do is go to your linux box, preferably with a custom Knoppix installation optimized for mythTV, but a red hat installation will do, just make sure you rebuild the kernel issuing all the right mantras.... then set up your partitions (be sure to choose the right filesystem), download and configure the appropriate mythTV packages that you wish to install (check your hardware of course and be sure you have the right video drivers and take a look at the docs for your sound card). Obviously check dependencies on all the components and also you might want to edit the usual files for something like this such as /etc/modprobe.conf. Make sure you get all the MythTV components, there should be 94 packages if you're installing on redhat, and check the dependencies for each one. You'll probably want an IR receiver so you can use remote too; find, download, configure, and install those packages too; you might want to fiddle with /etc/udev/rules.d/lirc.rules. Of course you'll have to set up MySQL to run at startup and issue the usual commands, things like mysql -u root -p documentation! Then just think of all the many things you can buy with the $2 that you just saved with these simple steps.
Why don't they offer it a day BEFORE it airs?
I mean, it's so easy. All you have to do is go to your linux box, preferably with a custom Knoppix installation optimized for mythTV, but a red hat installation will do, just make sure you rebuild the kernel issuing all the right mantras.... then set up your partitions (be sure to choose the right filesystem), download and configure the appropriate mythTV packages that you wish to install (check your hardware of course and be sure you have the right video drivers and take a look at the docs for your sound card). Obviously check dependencies on all the components and also you might want to edit the usual files for something like this such as /etc/modprobe.conf. Make sure you get all the MythTV components, there should be 94 packages if you're installing on redhat, and check the dependencies for each one. You'll probably want an IR receiver so you can use remote too; find, download, configure, and install those packages too; you might want to fiddle with /etc/udev/rules.d/lirc.rules. Of course you'll have to set up MySQL to run at startup and issue the usual commands, things like mysql -u root -p < /usr/share/doc/mythtv-0.18.1/database/mc.sql to get things running; the rest will be handled after you set up mythTV. Then populate the database (check dependencies first!) and if all goes well, all you need to do is edit your crontab to take care of mythfilldatabase every night and then you can configure automatic startup. Configure whatever MythTV addons you want and you're done! It's that simple! Problems? Read the documentation! Then just think of all the many things you can buy with the $2 that you just saved with these simple steps.
Additional production, distribution, and support costs. That, and any such plan to repurpose over-the-air ads for legal media downloads would necessitate further wrangling over sponsor contracts, fee schedules, and demographic targeting (hint: it won't be the same online as OTA). If one is to "add ads" to online media, might as well treat it all as a separate ad buy and not futz with the mess of region-locked ads that somehow overlap with OTA ad scheduling. Simpler, no?
You had me going there until I read the following line.
:)
Oh yeah, Lost! Kind of forgot about that show. I think maybe I'll watch it again.
That would never happen, once you start watching, from the beginning you can't stop. It is the magical powers of the Island
-S, hooked on lost, S.
It is said that a child learns wisdom from the parent,
but the truly wise parent learns joy from the child
You mean like the rest of us got used to the idea of having our jobs outsourced to east Crapistan? I don't remember any consultation for that, do you guys?
So what's stopping you from forming a local group and developing your own content? Maybe that idea would occur to you if you weren't so busy whining about the world moving on.
This is what capitalism is all about. New technolgies arise and induce change. The market adapts and either business adapts or goes the way of RCA. You can either keep whining to the parent network, hoping they'll throw you a bone to get you to shut up. Or you can start understanding the new environment and content creation and get off your big, fat rolling in cash TV ass and learn to operate in the new reality.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
And then there is the completely ignored realm of Usenet. Newsgroups carry most popular (or cult popularity) shows. Really popular shows like Lost are usually ripped from HDTV sources and encoded to DIVX or XVID at a high bit rate (say 700MB for a 40 minute show).
Now content is dependant on your ISP's retention, but downloads are usually extremely fast. Alternately you can use a pay Usenet service like EasyNews or Giganews which have crazy retention periods.
How do you know what's up there and which group to access to find it? The handy dandy site newzBin is a searchable index of binary files available on Usenet.
I have Tivo and use it for a lot of stuff, but I started just grabbing HDTV rips of Battlestar Galactica off Usenet because the quality was so good.
...we don't have to worry if the broadcast flag passes now!
I gotta say, though, employees of some of these affiliate stations are going to be pretty pissed at apple. When people switch to downloading shows instead of watching broadcast versions, alot of these affiliates will end up going out of business (lack of advertising revenue).
Sure, this is still perhaps 5 years out, and the old "they should ban the internet to save libraries" argument applies, but I do think ABC should at least have prepared the affiliates for what's coming. I'm sure some advertisers are going to want partial refunds from affiliate stations after they hear that their target consumer base actually paid $1.99 for commercial-free TV on their media player of choice instead of sitting in front of the boob tube and watching their commercial(s).
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Yay! If this works, then not only can Apple offer higher quality and no commercials, but they're not limited to any particular format. For decades only two media formats have really been used:
/x/ minutes, that's fine, too. Content producers, rejoice! Finally, freedom from being squeezed into those little squares you see in the TV schedule!
- movie (usually 1.5-2.5 hours, but sometimes shorter or longer; one-time event, possibly followed by sequels after a couple years)
- TV show (30 or 60 minutes, minus commercials; weekly, with a yearly break to cut it up into "seasons")
HBO (among others) has had success doing a "mini-series", which is basically "an hour or two now and then, for some number of weeks". And countless film directors have tried to get around this by making a 2.5 hour movie, then releasing the "director's cut" (a 3-4 hour super-movie) when the DVD is released.
But if downloading becomes a primary way to get media, we're no longer limited to any particular format. If you want to make a 8-hour movie, go for it. If you want to split it up at natural breaks, instead of forcing every section to be exactly the same length, that's fine. If your shots don't lend to commercial breaks every
Also, the pool of content *producers* is no longer limited. It takes a lot of money to put something on broadcast TV. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry with a $1000 DV camera and Final Cut Pro can make a movie, and now he can distribute it. That is, assuming they eventually let independent artists use the new system, too, but (judging from the iTMS) I can't see why they wouldn't.
Apple brought desktop publishing to the masses in the 80's with Macintosh + Laserwriter. They brought music to the masses with iTunes + iTunes Music Store + GarageBand. I can see this, in a couple years, doing the same for video.
And if the local ABC station goes out of business, well, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that -- just as I wouldn't cry if the local paper went out of business because some guy bought a Laserwriter. If you don't produce something people want better than the other guys, you go out of business. Welcome to the free market.
Oh, and what a shame it would be if good shows didn't get cancelled. Imagine how a show like Firefly would've done if a lot of people were paying money to download it.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
It's so nice to finally see this happening, I mean I download TV (simpsons, family guy, CSI, etc). Millions of people are doing the same, it really will be interesting to see how long it takes hollywood to figure out that they don't need to print nearly so many DVDs, warehouse and ship them etc...
:D and have it zipped over to your PC, which is connected to your plasma TV... ooo the future looks fun!
Consumers are ready, there are more and more video capable players kicking around, and if enough big players follow suite, I can see the day when you'll be able to watch a simpsons on TV, and order it right away on your cell-phone (for $2
Perhaps we could even see shows that could download in advance, and "unlock" once they actually air, or offer real fans of the show the option to see the show a half hour early online... Wow, the marketing possibilities are making my head spin...
GO APPLE
Now, if we can only convince Sony to follow suite, and open up their entertainment properties to legal downloading, perhaps they could help stem the tide of red ink... and Microsoft and Intel will DRM everything, but hey, none of that matters, because we'll finally be able to legally bring our favorite shows with us...
I wonder if they will still have commercials....
The sky is falling!
The sky is falling!
The sky is falliny!
So said Chicken Little.
-buf
$2 a show and $0.99 for a song just seems incredibly disproportionate.
Get over it, this is popular, already people can download for free episodes of said such shows, via various clients. And it is very popular. When you see 10,000 people that are interested in downloading an episode of Lost, via a torrent, you know it's popular.
You know I currently do not have cable. I have broadband, and torrent sides from which I download everything from the Simpsons, to Battlestar Galatica to Rome to Weeds. With so many people encoding with AC3 audio and HDTV rips, it's really the way to go. Of course the rips won't be as good as an actual HDTV broadcast, but the quality is still damn good.
If these shows were available for immediate download for $1 ~ $2 each, I'd be all for it. It would be a whole lot more worthwhile than cable, and maybe the satellite companies would finally get it too and offer channel packs, plans where you could say, pick and choose 30 channels out of 100 for a lower price, leaving out all the shit you'd never watch.
"Lifetime, TV for idiots" (Family Guy)
Desperate Housewives commands $350,000 for a 30 second spot. There are 17 minutes of commercials in 1 episode, which means there are 34 commercials in each episode.
That comes to $11.9 million per episode. That means 6 million people need to purchase each episode in order to match what ABC currently gets from advertisers.
Somehow I think the people talking about the death of broadcast TV are a bit pre-mature.
There's Foxtel's new offering, the iQ. You could also have a look at http://www.peter.com.au/pvrs.html
Emerald Astrology
pls sir, perhaps you've said enough?
(pulls out his hypodermic of fentanyl)
That's right, it'll all be fine now, just relax.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
No magic there for me. Watched an episode and a half, was drawn out and dull I thought, so stopped. Although doing something like this makes me consider giving it another chance. :)
Not that it is either up to date, or iTMS even exists though, here! No iPod, either, come to that!
Not Free SF Reader
i think ABC just got Apple to get us to do their dirty work...
Just raise the taxes on crack.
The complaint didn't come from an ABC competitor, it came from an ABC affiliate. As in, one of the local stations that takes a part of the pie generated by the public's eyeballs. What ABC has done is completely circumvented its own affiliates without even so much as a heads up, which is quite a rude thing to do to your distribution channel. If iTunes TV distribution takes viewers away from the affiliates, Apple will win at their expense.
This is a far more subtle relationship than your "business models change, you have to adapt or die" dismissal warrants.
I don't see why the affiliates are making such a big deal out of this. After all, these shows have already premiered on their networks and DVDs of TV shows have already been sold forever. How does distributing it online make any difference?
This is why newsgroups are awesome.
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
is Hope!
You know, at one time there must've been dozens of companies making buggy whips. And I'll bet the last company around was the one that made the best goddamn buggy whip you ever saw. Now how would you have liked to have been a stockholder in that company? You invested in a business and this business is dead. Lets have the intelligence, lets have the DECENCY to sign the death certificate, collect the insurance, and invest in something with a future.
-- Lawrence Garfield (Danny DeVito), "Other People's Money"
UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
Read it and weep, apple fanboi!
From the linked article: "...content in 75 categories from 150 "providers." Some of the major networks using the service are CNN, TLC, Animal Planet, iFilm, TCM, MLB.com, History Channel, A&E..."
Who's your daddy now!
I think that we're actually looking at two different audiences here. The first is the people who would download a low res version to watch on their commute to work. These are the people who where not able to watch it when it aired on ABC. So the local stations aren't really losing any viewers. The show is getting viewers it would not otherwise have.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Anyway, as a result, the Bay Area's NBC affiliate went south to a San Jose station. Major embarassment for the prior NBC affiliate, who ended up losing all their good talent. And talent, as far as News goes.
It's actually a shame. Personally, I would have loved to see the former-NBC-affiliate-gone-independent say "Screw you! We can buy whatever content we choose".
Let's also not forget how easy it would be to fast forward through ads presented in a digital form.
Personally,
I think that Google's interest in AOL represents an interest in content creation. However, I think google content dreams go way beyond that. I think that Google would like to use a partnership with Time Warner to either be a major distributor of TV shows via the Internet, OR...actually begin to PRODUCE TV content with for direct Internet distribution.
Google is not stupid, this is where TV is going. I know I would rather download a program in HDTV in 5-10min then wait for the time that bone head TV producer wants me to see it. Think about it...what kills a tv show?(other then it being crap) Time-slot!!! Think about Fire-Fly....It was great!! I really loved that show, but it was on at time I could not always watch it. Ya sure...I would like to tape it, but I dont even have a VCR and my Hard Drive was almost full. But what if I could just download it? Then, I get to watch my show, the bean counters get to know the ACTUAL ratings so then the good shows stay on....its perfect.
And yes I know, your grandmother has dial-up...I don't care...your GM doesnt watch fire-fly either so it's moot.
Cheers
... TV that is ;-)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Along with the increased popularity of cable/satellite TV and the Internet in general, local affilates (along with the people who depend on them for news and entertainment) are in trouble.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
That's what it would take to get me interested since (live most geeks) I can already record stuff on my pvr/tivo at standard definition. Short of live events, I'd prefer this model for tv viewing. Maybe we'll see an apple set-top box.
I imagine your proposal could be workable, too. Bittorrent distribution could easily offset some of the bandwidth costs (with, perhaps, those who are good seeders getting a free ad-free version every so many GB's for incentive), and the ads treated as separate purchases for those placing them. I don't pretend to know all the logistics involved, but it has certainly, time and time again, proven financially viable to offer ad-supported (and otherwise "free") content online.
As to the support overhead? Could be lowered in a few ways-ensure that the transferred files are in a format that's pretty easily accessible on any OS (DivX, xvid, or mpg come to mind), and offer support only for paid purchasers-those downloading the free varieties are on their own. If it becomes popular enough, a support community will arise anyway.
I'm sure there are a hundred other ways that it could be done well (and probably a million that it could be done poorly), so this is by no means an assertion that my way's the only or even the best possibility. More trying to show that it -is- a possibility.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Really, cool. Now I guess my tv show torrents will have this funky grapple icon beside them.
Phooey. They're just mad because they either a. didn't think of it first or b. did think of it but didn't have the huevos to give it a try.
Sour grapes.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I'm puzzled why people think Apple selling one episode is the end of TV ntworks. Doesn't Time Warner have a TON of programming, and their own TV network? And, btw, don't they just happen to own AOL? Having their programming on AOL was the reason they bought AOL, wasn't it? Unfortunately for them both, that idea seemed to be a little ahead of its time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against taking the TV tuner card out of my PC, and just downloading the programs...
I can get how you'd prefer reading books to watching tv but I can't say the same for "technical reading online". In the long run, the best use of your time is whatever makes you happy for the longest time. There are some really nice/poignant/smart/funny/interesting tv shows out there that might make you happier :p
Then again, I might just be annoyed by the fact that some people actually ENJOY "technical readings" in their free time. How can a well-adjusted person like me supposed to compete with those freaks? (Previous comment *very* tongue in cheek)
That, and any such plan to repurpose over-the-air ads for legal media downloads would necessitate further wrangling over sponsor contracts, fee schedules, and demographic targeting (hint: it won't be the same online as OTA)
And lets not forget unions. Most radio stations are having trouble broadcasting online because the commercials are voiced by union actors who want to be paid for the extra medium.
...and that's all there is to it.
For those of you who don't want to read the original text of the letter, we now present the abridged version below:
Affiliates: Wah!
This has been a special presentation. We now return you to your busy work schedule.
Perhaps not the best subject, but I do find myself wondering. How many people will buy an Lost episode for $1.99 (which according to the article, isn't of the highest quality, aka doesn't look good on a large screen tv) when you can download the entire series in HDTV quality for free now? I realize that availibilty, technical know how and such are factors, but what exactly does this offer me? A way to put money into the pockets of another when I could be keeping it in mine? I realize that this is good for the industry and the public as a whole, but the distribution mechanism is already out. It takes the same amount of time to download (adjusting for size and quality, of course), the "pirate" version is better and free. Sure, you run the risk of jail time if caught, but techno-savvy people can surely find ways around detection. Basically, what I am wondering is, is this too little too late for the media companies. The content is going to get out no matter what. I actually not sure what the ideal or best solution is (ideal or best for whom?) but it sure is food for thought.
SealBeater
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
Well, I'm sorry for the creative destruction here, but, face it, TV affiliates:
Innovate, or die.You saw it coming with the dawn of the non-academic Internet, the World Wide Web, and, more tellingly, those old pre-dot-com "Push Technology" companies like PointCast, Marimba, etc. But, you didn't do anything. You could have offered your content many many years ago, or, if blocked by your networks, heavily lobbied for the right to do so. But you didn't. And now you're crying foul. Stop resting on your frequencies to save you - get creative! The resources required to serve your viewers and advertisers better are all there for you.
This crap better be commercial free or I am gonna scream. I don't give a rats ass about the economics of advertising dollars paying for the free broadcasting of television shows. I want my shit commercial free. It is bad enough that my TiVo finger is worn out because of all the fast forwarding I do...
Oh yea, this definitely beats Tivo. What could be better than DRM protected, 320x240 episodes of ABC shows.
Are you kidding me? It will only be "a better, more enjoyable method" when the video quality is actually viewable
on anything besides a cellphone/ipod.
The affiliate tv station system is a dinosaur. No one has the time to watch tv on someone else's schedule. Instead of trying to keep viewers by allowing them to record programs to view later, tv execs have fought hard to prevent it.
Then they complain that viewers are leaving.
The viewer is the customer. And a good business gives the customer what he/she wants.
http://www.shadowsinthecave.com/forums/
http://www.whatsnextnetwork.com/technology/
http://www.whatsnextnetwork.com/health/
http://www.digitalvideoexperts.com/
Except that Tivo has been leaning towards doing the same thing that Apple is doing -- except Tivo's download service will playback on the TV, not a 3 inch iPod screen.
I wouldn't count Tivo out yet. They're pretty much primed now to capitulate on this, now that Apple has "legitimized" digitally purchasing video online,
Network affiliates are the roadkill of the information superhighway. OhNOES!!1! Now where will I get my quality local new programming? How wil I manage without the nightly fire or robbery on the west side? What will I do without my weekly diet tips and Xmas toy fad pablum? How will I manage without Biff Jockitch's insightful sports highlights? How will I know if the expressways are passable without my fearmongering winter weather updates? Woe and doom are upon us!
There is no technical reason people cant simply download their favorite programs and watch them with commericals for free or commerical free for an additional fee.
While that sounds like a good idea, it also sounded like a good idea back when people said the same thing about cable TV and satellite radio. Boatloads of people eventually signed on and paid money so they could watch/listen to a wider variety of programming and because they didn't want to watch/listen to commercials... many cable TV channels now have more commercials than the broadcast channels and satellite radio stations are gradually introducing commercials as well.
What do you think the odds are that the same won't happen to downloadable paid-for TV programs once there's enough demand?
The business model, at least for ABC, is to draw the *largest viewership possible* and make them sit through ads. TiVo is almost as much of a threat as bittorrent because of the capabilities of skipping commercials (although with TiVo you actually learn the commercials because you're trying to time your fastforwarding :P you're still not *as* receptive to the marketing, though).
What ABC really should do is release Lost and every other program they have in a dozen different formats and qualities and keep their commercials in it. The simplicity (they might not even use bittorent, just a straight download) and the reliability would far outweigh issue of the tiny percentage of people who download it and clip the commercials out.
Or, and I really don't like this one, keep it up with those damn annoying ads that pop up at the bottom of the screen in the middle of the show. Then you can't speed by them because it's imprinted on the content. Sleazy, but a solution nonetheless.
My conclusion? Yay for ABC, but I'm still waiting for the real progress to begin.
The incentive is that it's legal and people that made the show you like get paid. Just like with ITMS.
The extra incentive is that it shows "official" demand for a product. For instance, imagine if people had been able to pay to download Firefly episodes rather than be at the mercy of Fox to decide if people liked it based on no valid data whatsoever.
The resolution is about 320x240 I think - not sure of the bitrate, but like I said it actually looks and sounds pretty good. Much better than you'd think from the resolution. If you aren't happy with it then buy the show and download the higher quality torrent guilt-free. Then even if you're not legally in the right morally you are.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
..you're going to tell me how Apple is going to cram a 35 inch screen inside your iPod case.
That's where the Mac MINI with proper home theater output comes into play. I don't like portable video either but would love a mac HTPC. You can already use the mini in just such a way but it's more cumbersome and involves external adaptors.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Here's my order of preference (#1 is most preferred) in obtaining/paying for content. Feel free to share with your marketing department.
1. high quality video file (low cost, fast download, no to few commercials)
2. high quality recorded TV (market rate, no commercials)
3. lower quality video file (no cost, no commercials)
4. high quality "live" TV (market rate, 20 minutes of commercials)
Speak truth to power.
I still think portable video devices are stupid and wont really be used all that much for video. It's really just a gimmick.
What you are utterly missing is that the big news is NOT a video iPod. Apple is perhaps using that to mask things, but at any rate the HUGE news is there is finally an official online store for TV and as I said in my other post all it takes is a Mac with a good TV hookup. It already has a DVD player, why couldn't it be DVD+ - you don't even have to add the ability to record anything to make it compelling when people can just buy outright what they want to watch.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
TV more convienient for news? I don't find it that way. My local news station has just about every segment they have on broadcast also on the web. In what way is a broadcast at a fixed time better than a web site I can access at a whim? The key is just getting it on the TV and easy to navigate.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The affiliates desperately need to stick to the schedules better... I don't know how many good shows get canceled by poor scheduling rather than being a bad show. Case in point, firefly.. it jumpped around so much on my local channel I almost never got to see it... and it was a hard story to follow. Once it was on Sci-fi every friday, I got to see enough of it to really like it. Enterprise followed the same fate. they started showing it several times a week at different times of day... it was easy to catch on a lazy sunday afternoon if you were busy friday night. Then somebody got greedy and tried moving it's day and taking away the extra showings... I lost half a season because I wasn't glued to my TV on their schedule!
I downloaded lost, which I had never seen. I got caught up. Now, I'm a regular viewer. BTW: No video iPod was needed.
It is character driven with outstanding production values and quality acting.
Now if only they'd put some of that effort into the technical writing.
Remember Sayid's attempt to triangulate the French woman's broadcast from season 1, by placing antennas at various points around the island and turning them on all at once, even though there was only one radio and it wasn't connected to any of them? Or how about when he walked around looking for cellphone-style "bars" on his walkie talkie so he could transmit a distress call? Or when he couldn't transmit because there was a powerful signal on a different frequency? Simply ridiculous.
People have been speculating about the machines in the hatch.. you know, "That computer looks like [system XYZ] but the Execute key only appeared on [system PQRS], so this must be a special lab if it has that kind of custom equipment!" I can't help but laugh, because the writers obviously don't care about making any of the technology realistic.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
I have downloaded two episodes of "Desperate Housewives," and while i was unimpressed with watching the first on my monitor, i was highly impressed with the quality while running from the s-video out of my powerbook to my girlfriend's tv. Not as good as a DVD, but after she liked the first episode so much, i was able to say "Want to watch another? I'll have it downloaded in about ten minutes." Can't do that with a DVD.
Lobbys in the nineteenth century did kill auto's, or at least trucks for fifty years. Steam driven tractor trailers were quite feasable by 1840. Some were built and steam trucking companies started. Not in the USA, but in England. Regulations were quickly passed to protect the "public." A man walking in front to warn people and horses. Regulated them out of business. Railroads may have had a piece of this action together with horse breeders and horse team truckers. These didn't go away until "fast" small gas cars came along, at first a rich man's toy. A whole different story suddenly.
A few musuem piece steam tractors still survive in rural England, huge cogged wheels to handle dirt roads.
They did a good job on telephones also. Here, Western Union and AT&T agreed to split the pie, the telegraph company had a killer patent on Edison's carbon mike. In England, they fought. Soon, there were a lot more phones per head here than in England.
You can seldom stop tech progress by renting a few politicans, but you sure can stall or slow it for a while. Happened before, happening now.
"My product is inferior, and thats not fair!"
I doubt anyone consulted with radio programmers before launching a TV news program.
Change with the times, or the times will change you.
"Why, what Apple is doing is being done today! Anyone who has cable - well that is digital cable - well that is digital cable with VOD - can do the same thing today. Although if they want to keep it I guess they have to figure out how to hook up a compute rto the cable box."
Apple has never been about doing things that are totally new. They just take things people would like to do and make them inviting for everyone to actually partake of.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...not Bluetooth. And even if it were Bluetooth, you'd still be able to use something like Salling Clicker to turn any Bluetooth-enabled phone or PDA into a remote, though this usually ends up sucking.
How many downloads there have been so far? Has anyone bought an episode? Having done that would you buy another?
Honestly I could care little less if the rest of the US networks joined in, but I would really like it if the BBC, channel 4, Discovery and PBS got into this. You want to get the suburban money, put the "New Yankee Workshop" out this way. Imagine there's no pledge weeks... SciFi already did the one episode of BG, could they be convinced to do more? As it is, I haven't owned a TV in 3 years, but I get shows from Netflix. At the speed I watch movies, it probably runs about $1.50 per disk.
Actually, I think the people who have to worry the most about this kind of service is the Nielsen company. No longer will you have to guess at how many people wanted to or actually did watch a show.
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
I thought I'd point out that not even Jobs is so sure portable video is a good idea yet - people are not going to buy them for video, they are buying them because they are iPods. A quote from Jobs in a Time magazine interview:
Â"There is no market today for portable video,Â" he says. Â"WeÂ're going to sell millions of these to people who want to play their music, and video is going to come along for the ride. Anyone who wants to put out video content will put it out for this. And weÂ'll find out what happens.Â" Yes, we will. WeÂ're all coming along for the ride, and we all know whoÂ's going to be driving.
So get over yourself already for being all smug thinking Apple users are doing an about face just bceause Jobs says to. Most Apple owners are a lot more individualistic than that it seems to me. You have to be to put up with constant ill-informed crap from people such as yourself. You might think we all worship Jobs; the truth is that we just appreciate a company that makes good products and seems to hink of what would be good for the consumer from time to time as opposed to the media industry.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The more corporations worry about DRM and other issues, the more complex and unreliable the products and services that deliver and playback content are going to become. (As an example, my iTunes no longer allows me to play the several songs I paid Apple for - and I have no idea why.) The American individual's obsession with possession over the Christian / Judaic / Islamic values of doing something for others for no personal gain is responsible for all this and needs to end. A radical shift in 'programmed values' from kindergarten through to adulthood is the only way this will come about. And yes, this is very appropriate to the subject of this /. article. And it's the answer to most of Americas current woes.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
Nothing more annoying than making a point and spoiling it with a grammatical error.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
Superbowl night is also probably a big earner for the regional networks. And how do they explain to their viewers that they can't see one of the most popular events of the year, because the affiliates are on strike? How much sympathy do you think they'll get?
Actually... No.
The Networks pay the Affiliates to carry their programming.
In the SF Bay Area there was a spat between NBC and then NBC-Afilliate KRON. KRON had recently been put up for auction and NBC was outbid by another company. To punish them NBC told them to keep their affiliateship they would have to pay NBC $7 million a year, instead of the $10 million a year they were getting from NBC before. KRON didn't budge and NBC in the SF Bay Area market changed from channel 4 to channel 11.
As it stands right now most affiliates are still being paid by the networks to carry network programming, however in most major markets, at least the top 5, the Big 3 networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) own the stations in those markets. (ABC and CBS owned their stations in the SF Bay Area prior to this, NBC ended up buying KNTV-11 from Granite Broadcasting)
However that really is minor. What it comes down to is that the affiliates only have the broadcast rights to that content in those markets, internet downloading is a completely different beast and there's a fair chance that the network doesn't have the internet resale rights for most of their shows. Notice that the two big ABC shows put up are both produced by Touchstone, which is another arm of the Disney corporation. More likely it is Touchstone's choice to offer that programming on iTMS, not ABC's, it just happens that ABC and Touchstone are both owned by Disney, which made the licensing for iTMS much easier to handle too.
Similarly, The West Wing, Friends and Joey were/are all produced by Warner, even though they air on NBC. The David Letterman Show is produced by 'World Wide Pants.' The same production company also made a show called 'Ed' for NBC.
So unbenkownst to many viewers the decision, at least currently, to place content on iTMS is going to rest on the Production Companies rather then the Networks.
if downloading episodes over the Internet proves popular
where are they from ?
Apple downloads are commercial-free. At least that's what Steve said during his announcement.
Karma Schmarma
crash anyone??
There's Foxtel's new offering, the iQ.
I really don't like Foxtel's setup. Their interface is so incredibly counter-intuitive that you can't even do basic channel surfing comfortably. Channel surfing was one of the important abilities of cable, enabling you to go skim content easily, sampling things that you haven't come across, or stumbling across breaking news.
Foxtel's cable interface requires you to go through so many steps just to start viewing a single channel. And it requires you to repeat all those steps from scratch just to go to another channel. You keep having to find one by scrolling through a text menu of them, from the beginning of the list each time. It's a couch potato's nightmare. What ends up happening is you find yourself sticking to only a few channels, and watching only shows you're already familiar with.
The remote is poorly designed and unnecessarily complicated, just like the interface. And you have to pay an extra couple of hundred dollars for the IQ, which according to the terms of agreement, you don't even own and is considered Foxtel's property, if I recall correctly. It records and makes you watch the ads too. Every time they upgrade the cable box, it becomes less usable and your monthly bill becomes larger.
I'd love to be able to design an interface for them. They have all the hardware in place, so it's only a matter of a software upgrade, which happens through the set-top boxes themselves. Even their remotes can be applied in a much better fashion with the proper interface. There's so much potential to their infrastructure that they're simply not addressing.
Apple will delay releasing new episodes until one week after they're broadcast. Therefore, people will flock to the affiliates to see it a week earlier. Sounds like a win.
"What's that doing on your screen?"
"Uh, it's another poisoned torrent dear, I was trying to get the Desperate Housewives we forgot to record last week"
AC ;-)
Isn't this how it always is? When someone comes up with an innovative, convenient, and more proffitable way to do business, any "big fish" in that particular pond cry foul and demand that they are somehow entitled to a "cut" of the proffit. (and unfortunately, all too often they GET it - taxing blank CDs for the RIAA comes immediately to mind) Often their only justification for getting the cut is simply because now they can't make as much money as they used to be able to. Like the world somehow owes them a certain amount of proffit each year, and if anything happens to take some of that away, they must be compensated.
That attitude is so presumptuous as to be beyond even laughing at. It's just sad. They're like 3 year olds demanding that someone OWES them candy. Just because they don't have enough already.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I think that there's still tons of money for various companies to make, but it just might not be the local TV stations. They're just going to have to figure out how to make money w/o the network programming cash-cow. And if they can't figure it out, then they'll disappear just like the horse-buggy manufacturing company.
I'm getting really sick and tired of uncreative people who are making tons of money complaining when outside forces affect their current business model -- Either get creative with your revenue streams or get out of business.
I think that the consumer is speaking pretty loudly on this subject - on-demand type media is now what the consumer not only wants, but pretty much expects. Companies that can deliver this service stand to make a lot of money.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Let's forget about that since I have my entire life used the commerical break as a "bathroom break", "get a beverage break", "talk to the person in the room break" ... and I think I'm not alone...and now with Tivo et al, the commercial is already perfectly skippable if you start watching the show at quarter after the hour instead of on the hour. Lastly, most of the shows are already available via commercial-free (illegal) downloads.
So instead, let's not forget about the pre-existing realities, and realise that legal downloads change nothing.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
I find the price seriously TO HIGH. This is the equivalent of 24$ per seson which if I'm not mistaken is MORE than buying the entire thing on DVD.
Seriously don't you think that downloaded material should be less expensive than de hardcopy equivalent?
These are the same local affiliates who refused my petitions to get a distant station on my satelite service, since I couldn't pick the station up with an antenna at my house anyway? The same ones who refused multiple petitions over a period of several years? Screw them and whatever their opinions might have been. The don't care about me, and the golden rule applies here.
They dominate one market, mp3 players, and with that leverage they have dominated the online music market
Apple is on target to have made $850m in revenues from iTMS by the end of the year. Yahoo is on target to make $875m by year's end from its music subscription service, and it has only been in this business for a third of that time.
Tell me again who is dominating what?
Da Blog
Run NBC2 (CBS2, FOX2, etc) as premium digital cable channels and run the exact same lineup of programming a day later. That way, if we miss a particular episode of AMAZING RACE (or other shows that aren't re-run) or President [insert-name-here] decides to pre-empt Thursday night programming again for no reason, then we could tune in the following day to catch it.
Or if there was something that drove a lot of water-cooler talk the next day and you missed it, it would be another opportunity to watch.
What do you do for programming outside of primetime? First, you run the primetime programs from 8p-11p as normal, then rerun it from 11p-2a again just because you can. You could certainly rerun soap operas and other national programming; do you turn the local timeslots back over to the local affiliates to fill with what they'd like? Commercials could be the same as the previous day (justifying slightly higher ad rates for duplicate airings). It would also be a way to show older programs (like TRIO was doing) when something comes up that couldn't be re-aired due to contractual issues.
People with TiVo would love it because for those rare occasions that they need to record more programs than their TiVo allows at one time (Alias, Joey, Survivor, Inside The NFL all at 8p on Thursdays), it would give them the ability to catch the programs again on a relatively quick timetable.
Affiliates get paid by the networks for running the networks' programming and advertisements. So this may mean that this issue is resolved through a negotiation of higher clearance fees received by the affiliates, with the affiliates making their case for getting more fees. After all, one could argue that there would be no demand for "Lost" except through the fan-base developed via viewers watching affiliates' programming.
On the other hand, ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox own the local stations in the major markets so they already have built-in access to a major portion of the audience. And as affiliates are free to pre-empt network programming, a network may say to an affiliate, "If you don't like that 'Despearate Housewives' will be available in a lower quality format tomorrow, don't clear the top rated program in its time slot on the night with the highest viewership. Please go and buy some other programming to fill the slot. Nice talking with you; say hi to the wife and kids, and don't let the door hit you on your way out." Or, the affiliates jump to another studio-network which doesn't offer downloads (for however long that alternative may last.)
Frankly, this is way too early for the affiliates to be making a ruckus, except as a negotiating play. No one has any idea if this will erode advertising revenues (as the audience numbers for first-runs and re-runs may be lessened, impacting viewership for the local programming and advertising surrounding and interspersed throughout the network blocks) or the reduce studio and producers' revenues from Season N DVD set sales. But, like everything else, nothing happens unless it's a hit, and right now, that is measured by Nielsen families watching tv.
Because iTunes just has to have its own look and feel on Windows, it seems like it discards the OS window draw services and consumes considerable resources just redrawing itself 60 times per second. On my machine at least, it is noticably less responsive than even big apps like Photoshop--because even Photoshop makes use of the OS-provided window draw, slider bar, resize, etc services. iTunes seems to recreate all that at the application layer, which consumes resources. Perhaps someone who's looked inside can fill in more details.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I suspect folks would even pay something between 0 and $1.99 for a downloadably TV show WITH commercials. They could get enough to cover the distribution, a bit of profit and show the commercials.
It is possible that the ability to skip over commercials in a digital download would keep this from working but with DRM the players used by the majority of the public would likely not skip the whole commercial. Maybe just do it high speed and, from what I have heard, the commercials are designed to be viewed at high speed anyway.
They're already doing it the next day. Since most shows are only broadcast once during a given week (aka no reruns), what's the difference?
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
There is no technical reason people cant simply download their favorite programs and watch them with commericals for free or commerical free for an additional fee. ...programs that could be targeted
to niche audiences rather than lowest common denominator.
The advertising could be targeted too. iTunes knows what music you like and what blogs you subscribe to. For example, marketers could extroplate that to what car you would like based on surveys taken at any mall.
I think I could write a script that would combine video clips and insert the targetted ads before the download started.
Everyone that was listening to Elvis Costello gets a Mini ad.
Not living the US I can't buy em :)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
$1.99 for music videos works, because you are likely to buy less of them, and to watch them over and over again. But TV shows you are likely to watch once or twice and then delete them. I think $0.50 or $0.25 a show would make me regularly buy shows.
Think Deeply.
Just like radio stations were destroyed by music and podcasts.
If they're not willing to sell the high resolution, no DRM files I can just get for free anyways, why should I bother? I'd be willing to pop out a couple bucks for (most of) the shows I watch, but if they're going to give me *less* than I can get without paying them, I'll just go around them.
It's not a question of whether the various rights holders want it released or not, it's whether they want people to be able to pay them or not. If they decline to offer a way to pay them, I won't, but I'll still download it.
Apple actually puts up the new episodes the day after they're broadcast on TV, not the week after.
I was simply posting my observations from reading previous stories posted before Apple released a portable video player. You can go back and look through the old stories if you'd like but i do not care if you do or not. You are getting pissed off and trying to put me down for pointing that out. That is fine if it makes you feel better but it does not change the fact that the general trend of posts previous to the video capable iPod release was a portable video player is useless and Apple would never release one because no one wants one. People only want a simple to use and slick looking portable music player, nothing more and nothing less. All of the other bells and whistles would add clutter and not fit with Apples "style".
The same thing is happening with the cell phones. No one wants an all in one device like that, it is a stupid idea. Wait till one gets released and see the sudden change of minds.
Andon a similar note, this provides an opportunity for advertisers to really start providing niche advertisemnets. Imagine local restaurants or shops producing cost-effective targeted ads based on geo-ip location technology to particular demographics. My local pizza joint could throw their ad on Simpsons downloaders within a specific zip-code region ( I realize the tech ain't there yet, but this is where it's going) Exciting times . . .
harmonious design