Also, anybody that thinks this deal is about NBC is not paying attention. This deal is about the NBC properties. NBC owns more cable networks than anybody else, and Comcast is a cable company. This deal is about USA, the highest rated cable network, The Weather Channel, and NBC Universal Studios, which produces the TV shows for USA and NBC and some other networks.
That is a great observation. In fact NBC itself is the 'dog' in this portfolio of assets (e.g., while all of NBC-U made an operating profit of ~1.5B in 2009, but NBC itself is rumored to have lost $400 million).
In addition, the implied $30B valuation for NBC-U is on the high side, therefore every incremental dollar of revenue and cost synergies will matter to justify the price paid. To ignore or sideline the emerging giant in digital distribution (Apple) would be financial harakiri for Comcast.
Apple saved the music industry from self destruction. Those fat, lazy-ass, money hungry music label companies needed someone to kick them in the ass and tell them how people want to get there music! And Apple (Steve Jobs) showed them how, even though they were crying, kicking and screaming like little girls the whole way. I really hate companies like NBC and Comcast! I hope one day we will have the choice to pick and choose what and when we want to watch our content. A-la-carte style. It is time. The internet has provided us with the medium and these "Big" companies are pissing in there pants!! Sorry so blunt! I just really hate these guys!!
We can all thank the Bush Administration for allowing all these monster mergers to take place. It was once against the law for a cable company to own a TV station or a phone company or a newspaper. Comcast is now an active participant in every type of media.
What purpose do these mergers serve to the public? Absolutely none. It reduces jobs, stifles competition, limits choice and destroys innovation. It does nothing but enrich a handful of greedy bastards. So much for democracy and freedom of choice in America.
Washing should block this monster merger. It is a venomous octopus and must be killed. Write your congress man/woman, contact the FCC and say NO to greed.
Write your congress man/woman, contact the FCC and say NO to greed.
Agreed.
I have actually written them all, including John Hall, my rep in the House. It would be advantageous for everyone, if we could legislate the "pipes" from the "content". We tried that once, and failed. With a little history lesson and looking at what pretty much every other country on the planet has done, we in the States could succeed in ridding the monopolies. All it takes is some bitching and grumbling from the people.
You all know you are on the internet in forums bitching throughout the day; just pen those complaints in to your Representatives and Senators. It's not that hard.
They changed their name when they started showing less and less sci fi shows (like showing professional wrestling). One day they'll be like MTV not playing music anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LighteningKid
The article seems to completely avoid what I thought was one of the basic questions in journalism - why? Why exactly would Comcast tell Apple to take a hike if approached with this deal? Maybe it's something obvious to the States-men, but us syrup-suckers can't always keep up.
I though it was kinda obvious. If everyone gets their content over the internet they can cancel their $100/month cable service. If Comcast can keep popular channels like NBC, USA, and SyFy hard to access via the internet (ie, no subscriptions), then people will need to keep their cable subscriptions.
TV execs need to get real. Whether they like it or not, their goods will be available for FREE online from some source. At least with iTunes they can charge for their product and tap in to a segment of the population that actually pays for "intellectual media" (compared to most others).
As a consumer, I'd hate to have to go to different sites to download or stream different shows. iTunes works.
What makes you think that hulu will remain free? Drug dealers always give the first taste for free.
Hulu is NOT free... sure, you don't pay money, but you pay in time and brain damage from the insipid commercials they force you to sit through; there is no way to fast forward through them or otherwise avoid them. It's completely set up to protect their advertising revenues. And yes, eventually they'll start charging a subscription fee to use their service at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OC4Theo
We can all thank the Bush Administration for allowing all these monster mergers to take place. It was once against the law for a cable company to own a TV station or a phone company or a newspaper. Comcast is now an active participant in every type of media.
What purpose do these mergers serve to the public? Absolutely none. It reduces jobs, stifles competition, limits choice and destroys innovation. It does nothing but enrich a handful of greedy bastards. So much for democracy and freedom of choice in America.
Washing should block this monster merger. It is a venomous octopus and must be killed. Write your congress man/woman, contact the FCC and say NO to greed.
Agreed.
My wife and I have been using "comcastic" as a derogatory term for some time now, to indicate crappiness, shittiness, worthlessness, over-blown and over-hyped products/people/places/things that claim to be great but really are just shitty either because of their inherent nature or because of how the company that makes them does business. Comcast fits all these to a T.
A $30 a month subscription is expensive. I'll stick with my DVR and Comcast cable service which is a much better deal. If it were $15 a month similar to Netflix then I'd be all over it.
I only pay $9.95 for Netflix and get many TV series to choose from. Maybe not the latest but good enough.
If broadcast commercials were as simple as Hulu's. It's a short break of 30 seconds. Not 5 30 second commercials per break - one.
Frankly, I use Hulu, Netflix, and precious little of iTunes because of the cost. I have purchased TV shows when i wasn't patient enough to wait, but now I'm in the habit of waiting up to a year to watch it on NetFlix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser
Hulu is NOT free... sure, you don't pay money, but you pay in time and brain damage from the insipid commercials they force you to sit through; there is no way to fast forward through them or otherwise avoid them. It's completely set up to protect their advertising revenues. And yes, eventually they'll start charging a subscription fee to use their service at all.
Agreed.
My wife and I have been using "comcastic" as a derogatory term for some time now, to indicate crappiness, shittiness, worthlessness, over-blown and over-hyped products/people/places/things that claim to be great but really are just shitty either because of their inherent nature or because of how the company that makes them does business. Comcast fits all these to a T.
I though it was kinda obvious. If everyone gets their content over the internet they can cancel their $100/month cable service. If Comcast can keep popular channels like NBC, USA, and SyFy hard to access via the internet (ie, no subscriptions), then people will need to keep their cable subscriptions.
Yes, that ever-increasing cable bill for excessive programming availability has changed my viewing habits in favor of the internet or some other form of targeted access. I've already reduced my cable service. Pay-Per-View as an extra? Forget it.
Also, IMO, Comcast has a hard-nosed culture: constant blaring about teaser rates, even using a fake news anchor for self-promotion. So, how long can NBC News maintain their journalistic integrity? After all, old-style 'hard news' doesn't sell, right? Will this company keep a loss-leader as is?
Yeah, some of the same idiots that allowed Sirius to takeover and destroy XM Radio.
I just tried to access NBC and NBC Universal Studios shows on iTunes and a message popped up saying "The item you've requested is not currently availablee in the US Store".
I can access other networks and studios. hmmmm.......
You all know you are on the internet in forums bitching throughout the day; just pen those complaints in to your Representatives and Senators. It's not that hard.
Yes and write it on a stack of $100 bills. That way you may have a chance of the politicians paying as much attention to you as they do to all the well funded media industry lobbyists who assail them every day (and whose lapdogs and hand-puppets the politicians are).
Apple saved the music industry from self destruction. Those fat, lazy-ass, money hungry music label companies needed someone to kick them in the ass and tell them how people want to get there music! And Apple (Steve Jobs) showed them how, even though they were crying, kicking and screaming like little girls the whole way. I really hate companies like NBC and Comcast! I hope one day we will have the choice to pick and choose what and when we want to watch our content. A-la-carte style. It is time. The internet has provided us with the medium and these "Big" companies are pissing in there pants!! Sorry so blunt! I just really hate these guys!!
Magnificent statement....I think you nailed the sentiments of most of the people on this thread!
... But at what point does Apple become the "network" if they are the gateway between production companies and viewers? Could that even happen? Does Apple ever say "no" to indie labels (or others) for certain artists/content on iTunes today? I guess as long as Apple isn't saying "We'll take this series/show/program, but that other one isn't worth our server space," then it would work. But if they end up killing good programs the way networks do now, then we're no better off.
Nah, think about it a bit more. Why do networks have to be so ruthless about killing programs? What is their scarce resource? Time slots! One network can only broadcast one show at 8pm on Thursday night, so they NEED to be ruthless about killing stuff that doesn't get a lot of viewers. That's a motivation to acquire cable channels, as a venue to broadcast more content.
But with Apple's internet-on-demand delivery, anyone can watch (or download and wait) any show at any time, and it doesn't matter to Apple if 100 people download the same show or if they download 100 different shows. So they why would they kill, or even disallow programs? Unless a show was super hate-ridden or racist or something equally obnoxious (and ALL broadcast/cable operators have to deal with that), Apple would want to have as much content as possible. Ultimately they could become THE place for TV-holics to 'live'.
I see a future in which SOMEONE (maybe Apple, maybe another company) bridges the gap between the traditional-cable/networks and YouTube. A middle ground in which quality content of 30-60 minutes (uh, make that 22-42 minutes, but I digress) is available without "channel" or time slots. And open to anyone who has the means to produce video. Cable with some of the on-demand is edging into that model, but there's still limited content supply.
I hadn't realized they'd changed their name until one day I was searching for a show on iTMS. Used to be SciFi, now it's SyFy. But I'll agree with ?geez?.
I see a future in which SOMEONE (maybe Apple, maybe another company) bridges the gap between the traditional-cable/networks and YouTube. A middle ground in which quality content of 30-60 minutes (uh, make that 22-42 minutes, but I digress) is available without "channel" or time slots. And open to anyone who has the means to produce video. Cable with some of the on-demand is edging into that model, but there's still limited content supply.
This will never happen until somebody finds a way to make money off it. Quality television programs (read: WAY above YouTube quality programs) cost a crapton of money to produce, let alone develop and release. The average PRODUCTION cost of a 1 hour drama has exceeded $1 million an episode for years now; some dramas are easily exceeding $2 million an episode. In fact several shows on TV lose money but the networks make it up through DVD sales, syndication rights and cross promotion deals.
I don't see how Apple, or any other media company, can make $30 million a year (the cost for 24 episodes of 24) giving away content on-demand with few or no commercials.
The model is broken, but nobody has come up with a better one.
Yes and write it on a stack of $100 bills. That way you may have a chance of the politicians paying as much attention to you as they do to all the well funded media industry lobbyists who assail them every day (and whose lapdogs and hand-puppets the politicians are).
All I'm saying is write a proper complaint. Send it in. If everyone did it, hell, if half of people who believe in it did that, it might make news. And if that happens, politicians hate being on the wrong side of the public more than they like lobbyist money.
On a side note, anyone catch the FCC chairman on Digg?
And now Fox will have to infiltrate Comcast shareholder meetings! And GE will "return" to being republican because they all love big businesses, and now Comcast will be ridiculed as being socialist.
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 )
Comments
Also, anybody that thinks this deal is about NBC is not paying attention. This deal is about the NBC properties. NBC owns more cable networks than anybody else, and Comcast is a cable company. This deal is about USA, the highest rated cable network, The Weather Channel, and NBC Universal Studios, which produces the TV shows for USA and NBC and some other networks.
That is a great observation. In fact NBC itself is the 'dog' in this portfolio of assets (e.g., while all of NBC-U made an operating profit of ~1.5B in 2009, but NBC itself is rumored to have lost $400 million).
In addition, the implied $30B valuation for NBC-U is on the high side, therefore every incremental dollar of revenue and cost synergies will matter to justify the price paid. To ignore or sideline the emerging giant in digital distribution (Apple) would be financial harakiri for Comcast.
What purpose do these mergers serve to the public? Absolutely none. It reduces jobs, stifles competition, limits choice and destroys innovation. It does nothing but enrich a handful of greedy bastards. So much for democracy and freedom of choice in America.
Washing should block this monster merger. It is a venomous octopus and must be killed. Write your congress man/woman, contact the FCC and say NO to greed.
Write your congress man/woman, contact the FCC and say NO to greed.
Agreed.
I have actually written them all, including John Hall, my rep in the House. It would be advantageous for everyone, if we could legislate the "pipes" from the "content". We tried that once, and failed. With a little history lesson and looking at what pretty much every other country on the planet has done, we in the States could succeed in ridding the monopolies. All it takes is some bitching and grumbling from the people.
You all know you are on the internet in forums bitching throughout the day; just pen those complaints in to your Representatives and Senators. It's not that hard.
"SyFy"?! or SciFi?! geez.
They changed their name when they started showing less and less sci fi shows (like showing professional wrestling). One day they'll be like MTV not playing music anymore.
The article seems to completely avoid what I thought was one of the basic questions in journalism - why? Why exactly would Comcast tell Apple to take a hike if approached with this deal? Maybe it's something obvious to the States-men, but us syrup-suckers can't always keep up.
I though it was kinda obvious. If everyone gets their content over the internet they can cancel their $100/month cable service. If Comcast can keep popular channels like NBC, USA, and SyFy hard to access via the internet (ie, no subscriptions), then people will need to keep their cable subscriptions.
As a consumer, I'd hate to have to go to different sites to download or stream different shows. iTunes works.
What makes you think that hulu will remain free? Drug dealers always give the first taste for free.
Hulu is NOT free... sure, you don't pay money, but you pay in time and brain damage from the insipid commercials they force you to sit through; there is no way to fast forward through them or otherwise avoid them. It's completely set up to protect their advertising revenues. And yes, eventually they'll start charging a subscription fee to use their service at all.
We can all thank the Bush Administration for allowing all these monster mergers to take place. It was once against the law for a cable company to own a TV station or a phone company or a newspaper. Comcast is now an active participant in every type of media.
What purpose do these mergers serve to the public? Absolutely none. It reduces jobs, stifles competition, limits choice and destroys innovation. It does nothing but enrich a handful of greedy bastards. So much for democracy and freedom of choice in America.
Washing should block this monster merger. It is a venomous octopus and must be killed. Write your congress man/woman, contact the FCC and say NO to greed.
Agreed.
My wife and I have been using "comcastic" as a derogatory term for some time now, to indicate crappiness, shittiness, worthlessness, over-blown and over-hyped products/people/places/things that claim to be great but really are just shitty either because of their inherent nature or because of how the company that makes them does business. Comcast fits all these to a T.
I only pay $9.95 for Netflix and get many TV series to choose from. Maybe not the latest but good enough.
Just remember a lot of government agencies have to Ok this deal before it is done.
Yeah, some of the same idiots that allowed Sirius to takeover and destroy XM Radio.
Frankly, I use Hulu, Netflix, and precious little of iTunes because of the cost. I have purchased TV shows when i wasn't patient enough to wait, but now I'm in the habit of waiting up to a year to watch it on NetFlix.
Hulu is NOT free... sure, you don't pay money, but you pay in time and brain damage from the insipid commercials they force you to sit through; there is no way to fast forward through them or otherwise avoid them. It's completely set up to protect their advertising revenues. And yes, eventually they'll start charging a subscription fee to use their service at all.
Agreed.
My wife and I have been using "comcastic" as a derogatory term for some time now, to indicate crappiness, shittiness, worthlessness, over-blown and over-hyped products/people/places/things that claim to be great but really are just shitty either because of their inherent nature or because of how the company that makes them does business. Comcast fits all these to a T.
I though it was kinda obvious. If everyone gets their content over the internet they can cancel their $100/month cable service. If Comcast can keep popular channels like NBC, USA, and SyFy hard to access via the internet (ie, no subscriptions), then people will need to keep their cable subscriptions.
Yes, that ever-increasing cable bill for excessive programming availability has changed my viewing habits in favor of the internet or some other form of targeted access. I've already reduced my cable service. Pay-Per-View as an extra? Forget it.
Also, IMO, Comcast has a hard-nosed culture: constant blaring about teaser rates, even using a fake news anchor for self-promotion. So, how long can NBC News maintain their journalistic integrity? After all, old-style 'hard news' doesn't sell, right? Will this company keep a loss-leader as is?
Yeah, some of the same idiots that allowed Sirius to takeover and destroy XM Radio.
I just tried to access NBC and NBC Universal Studios shows on iTunes and a message popped up saying "The item you've requested is not currently availablee in the US Store".
I can access other networks and studios. hmmmm.......
You all know you are on the internet in forums bitching throughout the day; just pen those complaints in to your Representatives and Senators. It's not that hard.
Yes and write it on a stack of $100 bills. That way you may have a chance of the politicians paying as much attention to you as they do to all the well funded media industry lobbyists who assail them every day (and whose lapdogs and hand-puppets the politicians are).
Apple saved the music industry from self destruction. Those fat, lazy-ass, money hungry music label companies needed someone to kick them in the ass and tell them how people want to get there music! And Apple (Steve Jobs) showed them how, even though they were crying, kicking and screaming like little girls the whole way. I really hate companies like NBC and Comcast! I hope one day we will have the choice to pick and choose what and when we want to watch our content. A-la-carte style. It is time. The internet has provided us with the medium and these "Big" companies are pissing in there pants!! Sorry so blunt! I just really hate these guys!!
Magnificent statement....I think you nailed the sentiments of most of the people on this thread!
... But at what point does Apple become the "network" if they are the gateway between production companies and viewers? Could that even happen? Does Apple ever say "no" to indie labels (or others) for certain artists/content on iTunes today? I guess as long as Apple isn't saying "We'll take this series/show/program, but that other one isn't worth our server space," then it would work. But if they end up killing good programs the way networks do now, then we're no better off.
Nah, think about it a bit more. Why do networks have to be so ruthless about killing programs? What is their scarce resource? Time slots! One network can only broadcast one show at 8pm on Thursday night, so they NEED to be ruthless about killing stuff that doesn't get a lot of viewers. That's a motivation to acquire cable channels, as a venue to broadcast more content.
But with Apple's internet-on-demand delivery, anyone can watch (or download and wait) any show at any time, and it doesn't matter to Apple if 100 people download the same show or if they download 100 different shows. So they why would they kill, or even disallow programs? Unless a show was super hate-ridden or racist or something equally obnoxious (and ALL broadcast/cable operators have to deal with that), Apple would want to have as much content as possible. Ultimately they could become THE place for TV-holics to 'live'.
I see a future in which SOMEONE (maybe Apple, maybe another company) bridges the gap between the traditional-cable/networks and YouTube. A middle ground in which quality content of 30-60 minutes (uh, make that 22-42 minutes, but I digress) is available without "channel" or time slots. And open to anyone who has the means to produce video. Cable with some of the on-demand is edging into that model, but there's still limited content supply.
"SyFy"?! or SciFi?! geez.
I hadn't realized they'd changed their name until one day I was searching for a show on iTMS. Used to be SciFi, now it's SyFy. But I'll agree with ?geez?.
I see a future in which SOMEONE (maybe Apple, maybe another company) bridges the gap between the traditional-cable/networks and YouTube. A middle ground in which quality content of 30-60 minutes (uh, make that 22-42 minutes, but I digress) is available without "channel" or time slots. And open to anyone who has the means to produce video. Cable with some of the on-demand is edging into that model, but there's still limited content supply.
This will never happen until somebody finds a way to make money off it. Quality television programs (read: WAY above YouTube quality programs) cost a crapton of money to produce, let alone develop and release. The average PRODUCTION cost of a 1 hour drama has exceeded $1 million an episode for years now; some dramas are easily exceeding $2 million an episode. In fact several shows on TV lose money but the networks make it up through DVD sales, syndication rights and cross promotion deals.
I don't see how Apple, or any other media company, can make $30 million a year (the cost for 24 episodes of 24) giving away content on-demand with few or no commercials.
The model is broken, but nobody has come up with a better one.
Yes and write it on a stack of $100 bills. That way you may have a chance of the politicians paying as much attention to you as they do to all the well funded media industry lobbyists who assail them every day (and whose lapdogs and hand-puppets the politicians are).
All I'm saying is write a proper complaint. Send it in. If everyone did it, hell, if half of people who believe in it did that, it might make news. And if that happens, politicians hate being on the wrong side of the public more than they like lobbyist money.
On a side note, anyone catch the FCC chairman on Digg?
Apple = Disney = ABC
Comcast = NBC
FOX = slant
MSNBC = BIGGER SLANT
There I said enough
And now Fox will have to infiltrate Comcast shareholder meetings! And GE will "return" to being republican because they all love big businesses, and now Comcast will be ridiculed as being socialist.
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