Comcast's NBC deal could be roadblock for Apple's subscription hopes - Page 2

Comcast is a public company has no majority holders of note. ( actually they have the lowest insider ownership of any company I've ever seen... just proves what a bottom of the barrel sleeze company they are ) Apple could easily buy a large stake in the company and get a seat on the board.

heck, 51% ownership in the company at its current stock price that would end up being ~$20B, which apple has in cash on hand right now. ( not that I think it would be a good way to spend their money )

I'd rather seem them buy netflix.

It would piss off alot of people though

Maybe this has already been brought up, but the new spelling looks like the abbreviated name for syphilis.

Just saying...

Is that the reason why they changed it? Like you said, SciFi isn't trademarketable, but SciFi Channel would be, no? I mean, the History Channel didn't change it's name to the HsTrY or some other variant. Besides, aren't businesses more logo oriented, than name oriented?

explain your pov?

True. I wonder if they've signed any understandings NOT to make new deals while this is investigated.


Interesting. I presume Comcast sees producing content as the premium revenue area, while the cable to the home is more a commodity. As such... would they do their best to market their content everywhere, or make it exclusive to Comcast to force subscriptions. Would they take Syfy off Dish networks to encourage their own cable?


Do you mean LIVE news? Or regular news? Nobody has got it yet - but an a-la-carte online TV news service could be far superior... allowing choice of articles, links to more indepth coverage, etc. Live news can't match until streaming is equivalent quality.


Yes we need a bridge from the old to the new.

Personally I'd like to see the "Free to Air" (advertiser supported) move to "Free to Download". Still provide a 'free' service, with fewer commercials but customised specifically to us.

This wont stop - just delay the inevitable. They say nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. In this case, it is just a question of time before all the parts of the equation fall in place, and Apple (or someone else) can offer an iTunes or NetFlix like business model for TV Shows.

For Live News, it is actually already better to access online - because you get to choose what news stories you want to watch, how much detail you want on these stories, etc.

For Live Sports, I am not sure what the situation is, with respect to US sports, but there are quite a few sports that have embraced the online model willingly. Cricket boards across the world, and the ICC have sold "Internet rights" along with TV Rights for several years now. There are websites like willow.com, etc that exist exclusively for live online cricket viewing. It is just a question of time before this becomes universal.

In any case, a lot of premium sports have a separate charge, and are not included in the "regular" cable bill - so might as well pay this separate charge to an online provider.

There isn't a big enough market for satellite radio to support two separate companies, and that merger didn't create the vertical integration issues would arise if Comcast were allowed to buy NBC. I doubt that this one will be allowed under the current administration.

Like I said above, nobody has made a profit off their online streaming business. Explain how Apple could make a profit by producing a show at a cost of $1.2 million per episode (average cost for a 1 hour drama) and then offer it for free online? Even Hulu, which sells ad space, doesn't make enough money to pay for a single TV show--last year its profits were estimated at less than $20 million, which isn't enough to pay for a single season of 24 or Heroes.


The US sports broadcasting rights are much more lucrative than abroad. Right now the NFL sells its TV broadcasting rights to the tune of $21 BILLION dollars to all 4 networks. Since nobody can make money streaming online content right now, let alone 21 billion dollars worth, I don't think live sports will go away anytime soon.


That's not true for mainstream sports. The NFL, MLB, NBA and Olympics all have broadcast agreements with broadcast (e.g. free) networks. If say the NFL were relegated to a sports package, not only would customers be livid (around 60 million people watch the NFL a week) but it would be stupid on the part of the NFL. Why would they jeopardize their $21 billion in revenue from NBC, CBS, ABC/ESPN and Fox just so they can earn a couple dollars from the NFL Network?

Oh, I agree that the commercials aren't as bad as what's on broadcast, but they're still commercials. I guess I've been spoiled by Tivo, I FF through 99.9% of them. But compared to what I'm used to from Tivo, iTunes, and Netflix too, Hulu is the bottom of the barrel as far as I'm concerned.

As I mentioned before, Comcast is keeping with their core strength... shit.

Yes, but there will be commerical-free or download premium options. The networks are quickly figuring out that online streaming of episodes leads to viewers and ad revenue they never would have gotten before. That being said, for the free stuff, I think you'll start seeing 2 or even 3 commercials in the breaks instead of just one.

And its a pretty good bet that approval will come with some conditions from regulators.

Why?

Are they saying that Comcast will introduce a Hulu-like service of their own, for which they can either charge a small fee or sponsor with ads?

Well, they already have a history of leveraging SyFy to "encourage" customers to upgrade to a higher tier of their programming packages. Where I live, first they bumped it from their analog channel lineup to a digital-only channel, forcing me to upgrade my package and rent one of their set-top boxes (losing my TiVo in the process). Then later they moved it up to their next higher digital package forcing another upgrade to my service. (I've since moved back down a tier because it wasn't worth it since there were only two channels, SyFy being one of them, that I watched from that tier.)

Refusing to sell to satellite providers would probably get them in trouble, especially if it was NBC. But they could easily use SyFy and USA as bargaining chips by setting such a high price to the sat providers that they are forced to move those stations to higher priced service tiers, make the total cost of satellite higher for people who want those stations. Or they could tell the satellite providers that if they want USA they must also carry Comcast SportsNet (that's a common practice which is why you are forced to have all those channels that nobody ever watches...CBS says "if you want to include CBS in your channel lineup you also have to carry our weather channel and our 24-hour news channel, etc.")

Similarly with online content, they could either refuse to license it all together, or insist on such a high price that it wouldn't be affordable for online providers. Again, if they use NBC as leverage, they might get into trouble (and besides, most Americans could get NBC over the air if they had to), but all they'd have to do is make SyFy and USA unaffordable via online providers, and that would be enough for a lot of people to stick with cable.

GE-owned NBC was never as liberal as Fox News is conservative, nor does it play as central a role in liberal or Democratic-party messaging as Fox does for the other side. MSNBC is only allowed to be as liberal as does no harm to GE's interests. Phil Donahue was fired, even though his was the highest rated show on MSNBC, because having an anti-war advocate defining MSNBC's image in 2003 was intolerable to GE. By the time Keith Olbermann came along, being against the Iraq War was both popular and largely meaningless because the mission was accomplished, at least as far as defense contractors like GE were concerned, so he and Rachel Maddow are tolerated as niche money-makers. To this day NBC News has not been allowed to cover, at all, the Pulitzer-winning story in the New York Times about the conflicts of interest between on-air defense consultants who appear on news shows and the military and defense contractors they consult with and serve as mouthpieces for while falsely appearing to be giving independent (invariably pro-war) opinion.

I'm delighted Comcast is not a defense contractor. For all I know they do have military contracts to supply media services or something, but they don't make weapons systems as a primary business.

I don't think MSNBC is that liberal either, but, hey, Fox literally can't stand them!

Oddly, 'SciFi Channel' or 'SciFi Network' would be "trademarkable"... and no need for an idiotic spelling. SyFy is just horrible.

Eventually, they'll just be known as "Sy".

Exactly. Except your missing that FOX News is not FOX, and FOX News is far more rightwing than MSNBC is left wing.

But this isn't about Comcast or NBC or FOX for that matter. It's about neo-liberal economic policies from the Reagan Era that were good in that it shook up the system regarding taxes and welfare, but bad in accelerating deregulation and the dominance of the investor class over the labor class.

You don't need to be a socialist to see the results that have taken 20 years to develop. Reaganomics screws things up - just ask his friend Alan Greenspan who admitted that the free-marketeers were wrong to congress.

No cable company should be able to own a network. No multinational light bulb manufacturer should be allowed to run a news network. Microsoft shouldn't be able to marry NBC. And FOX News needs to be held to accountable for basic journalism requirements. Glenn Beck and Hannity need to have some sense of accountabilty.

Walter Cronkite was part of a capitalist, corporation, but he had integrity and journalistic freedom to report news and commentary independent of corporate oversight. Keith Olbermann goes over the top, but at least he sticks to facts and is clear when he is giving opinion and when he made a mistake. Beck acts like every beta-male 6th grader I've known, who becomes popular by ridiculing the teacher rather than learning the facts.

Anyway, there needs to be some fair, free-market way of re-regulating corporations so that accurate journalism - the life blood of democracy - does not totally fade away into left-wing and right-wing versions of the Home Shopping Channel.

But that is the problem. A free and fair and independent press is a vital national interest - as much as an independent military and democratic elections and open markets - and it should not be a commodity to buy and sell like Happy Meals!

Something similar began happening in the music industry. Artists with the technical know how began doing their own producing so they could get away from being owned by the record labels. I believe Dave Matthews started his own record label because of this & offered the label to assist other artists who didn't want to be controlled by the big labels.

I've been keeping an eye on Comcast, hoping they never buy out our local cable company. If they do they would ruin my internet service, someone really needs to put a stop to Comcast.

You seem to be providing conflicting statements here. You said that "nobody has made a profit off their online streaming business" and then you go on to say that Hulu made a profit of less than $20 million. They both can't be right.

Also I have to ask why would a show produced by Apple would have to cost $1.2 million an episode or whatever insane price popular TV shows go for these days? I have seen people throw something together in iMovie that has better plot, acting, and quality than something that was done by these "TV professionals".

Taken from the site you just linked "
Theyll suffocate online TV like Netflix, Miro and iTunes."

see, it's this kind of stuff that keeps flash from iPhones or DVR from Apple TV.
Wht bother offering free ABC LOST, example, all series, when they can get you to pay for $1.99 or $2.99 at iTunes. I'm just glad bittorents are alive and doing well. That way no one person can stop it and I dint forsee DVRs going away anytime soon.

Peace.

[QUOTE=monstrosity;1530951]"destroyed the music business," they did a fine job of destroying their own business without the help of Apple.
Such ungrateful fools![/QUOTE

yes. The business. Not sales for consumers. I worked at a label for 10 years. The labels had their chance and blew it. As an artist too. Most are doing their own recordings now which by the way is why we need stronger, upgradable mid range and not iMacs and mac pros.

Anyway. Am I reading this wrong. As is. You can go to abC and watch lost with 15 sec commercials watching almost all the seasons. On the iPhone n flash means you can't. On the apple tv no dvr means no record, that's like the dark ages. Anyway would this deal, if it worked pit allthose shows on for one price. As is is now you have free HD at ABC or $1.99-$2.99 PER EPISODE.

Can some explains. In a way I can see maybe, why tv and companies like Hearst wants Aple as far away as that means Apple hardware only and limited at that.

Thanks for any explanation.

Hulu used to be cool. Now all the shows thatvare on cable and networks are shows that are on the networks sites. Far cry from hili of several years ago. Peace.

Nah. If the shows not on. Bittorents. Problem solved and no commicials. Lol. P