NBC has put themselves in a good position with SyFy and other bits they own including production companies that control quite a few good shows. They may have more than you think - or maybe you won't care but I like sci fi (even if it is a bit weak on their channel).
It was mentioned in a prior post what properties that NBC/Universal has which are significant. Battlestar Galactica is over, so unless you love to watch cheesy movies of killer ants trying to take over the world on Syfy, that channel is garbage.
If you needed two companies to start with it would be CBS & Disney.
It was mentioned in a prior post what properties that NBC/Universal has which are significant. Battlestar Galactica is over, so unless you love to watch cheesy movies of killer ants trying to take over the world on Syfy, that channel is garbage.
If you needed two companies to start with it would be CBS & Disney.
I like the new "Stargate; Universe?. They?ve had enough successes over the years that I don?t think it will be long before we see another good series pop up.
A problem I see with this setup is networks taking obvious hits and putting them on one of their lesser networks in order to attract viewers to pay for an additional ?channel?. That would not be good, especially if they air through cable and sat providers on one network and then stream it through a different one. You might say they?d never do that but they already air broadcast TV shows on cable networks, as a syndication I presume, almost immediately these days. I think ?House? will air on USA at the end of the week after it airs on FOX, if I?m not mistaken.
$1.99 is alot!?? compared to what?? This is whats wrong with society..
Can't speak for the OP of this comment but for me personally $1.99 for a show is a bit much. Why?
1) A service like NetFlix is $X/month with more or less unlimited watching. The cost per show is far lower. I don't really want to own the show. I might want to watch it once or twice in my life yeah but it's bubble gum entertainment mostly. It's not something I'm going to revisit often. You have to wait for it to come out on DVD but I'm good with that. I'm not sitting around counting the seconds until a new TV show comes out. I'll watch it when I get time or I just won't ever watch it at all. TV isn't that valuable to me.
2) I can rent a movie for $4.99 or less on iTunes. That's usually a minimum of 2 hours of entertainment. A 22 or 45 minute TV show for $1.99. That doesn't jive for me. A cheaper option to stream/rent make a lot more sense. Again I'm just not interested in owning it. Another example: I'm 20 hours deep into an audiobook that cost me about $10 via Audible's monthly subscription plan. I have another 14 hours to go. A $60 game may provide hundreds of hours of entertainment. $1.99 for 22 or 45 minutes of entertainment? Ehhhh It would have to be REALLY amazingly good and original.
You compared it to an expensive cup of coffee but the coffee has more real value to me. I really like coffee quite a lot.
Please bring a la carte choices. I will pay for ESPN.
And there it is. This plan sounds amazing to me, but if I can't get ESPN, and to a lesser extent networks like the NFL network, Big Ten Network, etc., this is a no deal, and I think it is for a lot of people. ESPN is one of the big ones that would hold this back. I for one could not cancel my Fios subscription simply for that.
LOL. If people could get around to getting that eight dollar coffee for free they would. As far as TV production costs go, advertising pays the cost. Further, media companies are evil. Originally, copyright laws protected a work for something like fourteen years, a period that was renewable if the author was still alive at the end. Then the work went into the public domain so the public could use the work. That was the whole purpose of granting a copyright: namely to motivate authors to create things for the public benefit.
Now copyright is over a hundred years. Since the media companies screwed the public, my thoughts are screw the media companies. I am all for paying that extra two dollars for sustainable milk, and I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorybalmer
$1.99 is alot!?? compared to what?? This is whats wrong with society.. we'll pay $8 for a coffee, but we woun't pay a dollar for a song to support an artist, or an extra 2 bucks for milk produced sustainably.. or $1.99 for a half an hour tv show.. do you know how much work goes into making a tv show?
It was mentioned in a prior post what properties that NBC/Universal has which are significant. Battlestar Galactica is over, so unless you love to watch cheesy movies of killer ants trying to take over the world on Syfy, that channel is garbage.
If you needed two companies to start with it would be CBS & Disney.
Agreed and there is nothing preventing the Disney group producing some good Sci-Fi of their own either if NBC are a hold out. I happen to enjoy good Sci_Fi and I think there are plenty that do but I see no reason why one cable company should have a monopoly on it.
And there it is. This plan sounds amazing to me, but if I can't get ESPN, and to a lesser extent networks like the NFL network, Big Ten Network, etc., this is a no deal, and I think it is for a lot of people. ESPN is one of the big ones that would hold this back. I for one could not cancel my Fios subscription simply for that.
Same here but ... but I assume we can keep FiOS internet without the TV and Phone right? I don't fancy loosing the fiber optics!
It was mentioned in a prior post what properties that NBC/Universal has which are significant. Battlestar Galactica is over, so unless you love to watch cheesy movies of killer ants trying to take over the world on Syfy, that channel is garbage.
It's all a matter of opinion. There are probably plenty of fans of Lost on here, but I wouldn't pay a cup of warm piss to watch that show. Syfy does have their crappy monster of the week movie, but it's not like they're spinning those to sound better than Lord of the Rings or anything. They're B movies with B actors, a dumb way to kill a Saturday while you have a couple of drinks with some friends like a do-it-yourself MST3K.
Personally, I enjoy Eureka and Warehouse 13 on that network. Sure there's a bunch of crap as well, but there's a bunch of crap on every network. And what's crap to one person is the favorite show of someone else. I mean really, who the heck watches "Professional" wrestling?
I do NOT have cable TV, I don't watch enough TV to warrant paying $55 a month for Comcast. However I do have internet. If they offer subscription based content on TV I would jump right on it!
I think cable companies are a monopoly (you only have one to choose from unless you want dish) and it's total b.s. It would be nice if every area had two cable companies to choose from so it would force prices down. Therefore I choose to NOT have cable TV. I do however have cable internet for the simple fact that DSL is slow in my area.
It would be AWESOME if Apple could work something like this out. I mean.... they already have the internet radio stations like cable TV has on their 900 channels
It was an aside but it's worth noting that the tablet, according to this report, is not going to come with a 10-inch screen. The tablet would not, after all, be smaller than a netbook if it had a 10-inch screen.
I think something in the 5-inch to 7-inch range makes sense in that it would mean significantly better battery life and a more portable form factor than your typical netbook. Best of all, avoid the temptation to go with a bigger screen and you keep the cost down all-around.
It's not at all clear that there is a market for a $700 10-inch tablet but bring a $500 7-inch version of the Touch to market and Apple couldn't crank 'em out fast enough to meet demand.
Introducing a larger version of the Touch is such a rational next move in the evolution of Apple's touch-screen technology, that it's hard to figure out why the rumour of a 10-inch tablet had the legs that it did.
It's not that I have any inside info or that I'm absolutely convinced that the 10-inch touchscreen is a red herring. But looking at this logically, it seems to me that there is no apparent logic to Apple going that route. In contrast, a Touch with a screen in the 5-inch to 7-inch range is such a no-brainer, the question is why would Apple not do it? If the argument is that such a Touch model would weaken the market for the 10-inch tablet, my response is, What market? Netbooks have the bottom end covered and they will improve while laptops, especially Apple's, provide good performance in a portable form factor. The 10-inch tablet would be about as expensive as a laptop and not much more useful than a netbook. Bad combination from a marketing perspective.
In regards to Apple's subscription plans, I hope Apple succeeds. Cable and satellite providers have long gouged us and more competition is a good thing.
I would love subscription content *per show*. I don't want to subscribe per channel. That's lame.
At those prices though, I don't see how they would do this without commercials, and if I'm stuck with commercials, then I'm sticking with my cable company because at least then I can use my tivo to skip commercials.
Seems like all syfy plays anymore are monster movies and that stupid waste of time ghost hunters. Of all the good sci-fi content created over the years that's all they can find to play. Their main original shows - SG-U, Sanctuary, Eureka, Warehouse 13 only take up a few hours a week - the rest of the time is filled with ghost and monster crap, which is hardly Sci-Fi. I can get those shows on Apple TV and Hulu without ever having to tune into Syfy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
It's all a matter of opinion. There are probably plenty of fans of Lost on here, but I wouldn't pay a cup of warm piss to watch that show. Syfy does have their crappy monster of the week movie, but it's not like they're spinning those to sound better than Lord of the Rings or anything. They're B movies with B actors, a dumb way to kill a Saturday while you have a couple of drinks with some friends like a do-it-yourself MST3K.
Personally, I enjoy Eureka and Warehouse 13 on that network. Sure there's a bunch of crap as well, but there's a bunch of crap on every network. And what's crap to one person is the favorite show of someone else. I mean really, who the heck watches "Professional" wrestling?
Seems like all syfy plays anymore are monster movies and that stupid waste of time ghost hunters. Of all the good sci-fi content created over the years that's all they can find to play. Their main original shows - SG-U, Sanctuary, Eureka, Warehouse 13 only take up a few hours a week - the rest of the time is filled with ghost and monster crap, which is hardly Sci-Fi. I can get those shows on Apple TV and Hulu without ever having to tune into Syfy.
Again, the same thing could be said for any channel. I'm sure if you looked, you'd find that you like about as much of Fox's schedule as you do Syfy's (I really only watch Bones on Fox, and occasionally House). Or ABC where the only show that interests me is "V". Or USA where I only watch Psych and Monk. You're probably never going to find a network where you like even 50% of their program, unless it's extremely focused like the NFL Channel or the Tennis Channel.
Seems like all syfy plays anymore are monster movies and that stupid waste of time ghost hunters. Of all the good sci-fi content created over the years that's all they can find to play. Their main original shows - SG-U, Sanctuary, Eureka, Warehouse 13 only take up a few hours a week - the rest of the time is filled with ghost and monster crap, which is hardly Sci-Fi. I can get those shows on Apple TV and Hulu without ever having to tune into Syfy.
I agree with that - since I brought SyFy into the mix I figured I should qualify that. The original programming is mostly good (the examples listed here). I can do without the other stuff and especially these weekly much worse than B movies they play up each week for Sat night.
I didn't mean to get so far off topic but while we're already in the ditch headed for the fence - I would much rather see the old B movies (like the material Mystery Science Theatre 3000 used) from 50's - 60's than that reality ghost buster crap and wrestling. How did that get on SyFy anyway?
About 20 years ago there was an option to purchase a subscription by channel. This was an option with the large satellite dish (~20 ft diameter) that rotated in your back yard. It's a shame comcast nearly has a monopoly and has created such a horrible business model.
Comments
NBC has put themselves in a good position with SyFy and other bits they own including production companies that control quite a few good shows. They may have more than you think - or maybe you won't care but I like sci fi (even if it is a bit weak on their channel).
It was mentioned in a prior post what properties that NBC/Universal has which are significant. Battlestar Galactica is over, so unless you love to watch cheesy movies of killer ants trying to take over the world on Syfy, that channel is garbage.
If you needed two companies to start with it would be CBS & Disney.
It was mentioned in a prior post what properties that NBC/Universal has which are significant. Battlestar Galactica is over, so unless you love to watch cheesy movies of killer ants trying to take over the world on Syfy, that channel is garbage.
If you needed two companies to start with it would be CBS & Disney.
I like the new "Stargate; Universe?. They?ve had enough successes over the years that I don?t think it will be long before we see another good series pop up.
A problem I see with this setup is networks taking obvious hits and putting them on one of their lesser networks in order to attract viewers to pay for an additional ?channel?. That would not be good, especially if they air through cable and sat providers on one network and then stream it through a different one. You might say they?d never do that but they already air broadcast TV shows on cable networks, as a syndication I presume, almost immediately these days. I think ?House? will air on USA at the end of the week after it airs on FOX, if I?m not mistaken.
$1.99 is alot!?? compared to what?? This is whats wrong with society..
Can't speak for the OP of this comment but for me personally $1.99 for a show is a bit much. Why?
1) A service like NetFlix is $X/month with more or less unlimited watching. The cost per show is far lower. I don't really want to own the show. I might want to watch it once or twice in my life yeah but it's bubble gum entertainment mostly. It's not something I'm going to revisit often. You have to wait for it to come out on DVD but I'm good with that. I'm not sitting around counting the seconds until a new TV show comes out. I'll watch it when I get time or I just won't ever watch it at all. TV isn't that valuable to me.
2) I can rent a movie for $4.99 or less on iTunes. That's usually a minimum of 2 hours of entertainment. A 22 or 45 minute TV show for $1.99. That doesn't jive for me. A cheaper option to stream/rent make a lot more sense. Again I'm just not interested in owning it. Another example: I'm 20 hours deep into an audiobook that cost me about $10 via Audible's monthly subscription plan. I have another 14 hours to go. A $60 game may provide hundreds of hours of entertainment. $1.99 for 22 or 45 minutes of entertainment? Ehhhh It would have to be REALLY amazingly good and original.
You compared it to an expensive cup of coffee but the coffee has more real value to me. I really like coffee quite a lot.
Please bring a la carte choices. I will pay for ESPN.
And there it is. This plan sounds amazing to me, but if I can't get ESPN, and to a lesser extent networks like the NFL network, Big Ten Network, etc., this is a no deal, and I think it is for a lot of people. ESPN is one of the big ones that would hold this back. I for one could not cancel my Fios subscription simply for that.
Throw in live sports and I'm in.
Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. I also see these available after initial broadcast. Think Hulu without the ads.
Now copyright is over a hundred years. Since the media companies screwed the public, my thoughts are screw the media companies. I am all for paying that extra two dollars for sustainable milk, and I do.
$1.99 is alot!?? compared to what?? This is whats wrong with society.. we'll pay $8 for a coffee, but we woun't pay a dollar for a song to support an artist, or an extra 2 bucks for milk produced sustainably.. or $1.99 for a half an hour tv show.. do you know how much work goes into making a tv show?
It was mentioned in a prior post what properties that NBC/Universal has which are significant. Battlestar Galactica is over, so unless you love to watch cheesy movies of killer ants trying to take over the world on Syfy, that channel is garbage.
If you needed two companies to start with it would be CBS & Disney.
Agreed and there is nothing preventing the Disney group producing some good Sci-Fi of their own either if NBC are a hold out. I happen to enjoy good Sci_Fi and I think there are plenty that do but I see no reason why one cable company should have a monopoly on it.
And there it is. This plan sounds amazing to me, but if I can't get ESPN, and to a lesser extent networks like the NFL network, Big Ten Network, etc., this is a no deal, and I think it is for a lot of people. ESPN is one of the big ones that would hold this back. I for one could not cancel my Fios subscription simply for that.
Same here but ... but I assume we can keep FiOS internet without the TV and Phone right? I don't fancy loosing the fiber optics!
It was mentioned in a prior post what properties that NBC/Universal has which are significant. Battlestar Galactica is over, so unless you love to watch cheesy movies of killer ants trying to take over the world on Syfy, that channel is garbage.
It's all a matter of opinion. There are probably plenty of fans of Lost on here, but I wouldn't pay a cup of warm piss to watch that show. Syfy does have their crappy monster of the week movie, but it's not like they're spinning those to sound better than Lord of the Rings or anything. They're B movies with B actors, a dumb way to kill a Saturday while you have a couple of drinks with some friends like a do-it-yourself MST3K.
Personally, I enjoy Eureka and Warehouse 13 on that network. Sure there's a bunch of crap as well, but there's a bunch of crap on every network. And what's crap to one person is the favorite show of someone else. I mean really, who the heck watches "Professional" wrestling?
I think cable companies are a monopoly (you only have one to choose from unless you want dish) and it's total b.s. It would be nice if every area had two cable companies to choose from so it would force prices down. Therefore I choose to NOT have cable TV. I do however have cable internet for the simple fact that DSL is slow in my area.
It would be AWESOME if Apple could work something like this out. I mean.... they already have the internet radio stations like cable TV has on their 900 channels
I think something in the 5-inch to 7-inch range makes sense in that it would mean significantly better battery life and a more portable form factor than your typical netbook. Best of all, avoid the temptation to go with a bigger screen and you keep the cost down all-around.
It's not at all clear that there is a market for a $700 10-inch tablet but bring a $500 7-inch version of the Touch to market and Apple couldn't crank 'em out fast enough to meet demand.
Introducing a larger version of the Touch is such a rational next move in the evolution of Apple's touch-screen technology, that it's hard to figure out why the rumour of a 10-inch tablet had the legs that it did.
It's not that I have any inside info or that I'm absolutely convinced that the 10-inch touchscreen is a red herring. But looking at this logically, it seems to me that there is no apparent logic to Apple going that route. In contrast, a Touch with a screen in the 5-inch to 7-inch range is such a no-brainer, the question is why would Apple not do it? If the argument is that such a Touch model would weaken the market for the 10-inch tablet, my response is, What market? Netbooks have the bottom end covered and they will improve while laptops, especially Apple's, provide good performance in a portable form factor. The 10-inch tablet would be about as expensive as a laptop and not much more useful than a netbook. Bad combination from a marketing perspective.
In regards to Apple's subscription plans, I hope Apple succeeds. Cable and satellite providers have long gouged us and more competition is a good thing.
I would love subscription content. Bring it on.
I would love subscription content *per show*. I don't want to subscribe per channel. That's lame.
At those prices though, I don't see how they would do this without commercials, and if I'm stuck with commercials, then I'm sticking with my cable company because at least then I can use my tivo to skip commercials.
It's all a matter of opinion. There are probably plenty of fans of Lost on here, but I wouldn't pay a cup of warm piss to watch that show. Syfy does have their crappy monster of the week movie, but it's not like they're spinning those to sound better than Lord of the Rings or anything. They're B movies with B actors, a dumb way to kill a Saturday while you have a couple of drinks with some friends like a do-it-yourself MST3K.
Personally, I enjoy Eureka and Warehouse 13 on that network. Sure there's a bunch of crap as well, but there's a bunch of crap on every network. And what's crap to one person is the favorite show of someone else. I mean really, who the heck watches "Professional" wrestling?
Seems like all syfy plays anymore are monster movies and that stupid waste of time ghost hunters. Of all the good sci-fi content created over the years that's all they can find to play. Their main original shows - SG-U, Sanctuary, Eureka, Warehouse 13 only take up a few hours a week - the rest of the time is filled with ghost and monster crap, which is hardly Sci-Fi. I can get those shows on Apple TV and Hulu without ever having to tune into Syfy.
Again, the same thing could be said for any channel. I'm sure if you looked, you'd find that you like about as much of Fox's schedule as you do Syfy's (I really only watch Bones on Fox, and occasionally House). Or ABC where the only show that interests me is "V". Or USA where I only watch Psych and Monk. You're probably never going to find a network where you like even 50% of their program, unless it's extremely focused like the NFL Channel or the Tennis Channel.
Seems like all syfy plays anymore are monster movies and that stupid waste of time ghost hunters. Of all the good sci-fi content created over the years that's all they can find to play. Their main original shows - SG-U, Sanctuary, Eureka, Warehouse 13 only take up a few hours a week - the rest of the time is filled with ghost and monster crap, which is hardly Sci-Fi. I can get those shows on Apple TV and Hulu without ever having to tune into Syfy.
I agree with that - since I brought SyFy into the mix I figured I should qualify that. The original programming is mostly good (the examples listed here). I can do without the other stuff and especially these weekly much worse than B movies they play up each week for Sat night.
I didn't mean to get so far off topic but while we're already in the ditch headed for the fence - I would much rather see the old B movies (like the material Mystery Science Theatre 3000 used) from 50's - 60's than that reality ghost buster crap and wrestling. How did that get on SyFy anyway?
? than that reality ghost buster crap and wrestling. How did that get on SyFy anyway?
They both cover the ?fiction? aspect of the channel and both can be scientifically disproven as ?real? so there you go.