NBC 'Peacock' streaming service expected in 2020 with 15,000 hours of content

Posted:
in General Discussion
NBCUniversal has revealed more details about its upcoming competitor to Apple TV+, including the initial launch content lineup for the service when it goes live in 2020, as well as officially naming the video streaming offering after its logo - 'Peacock.'




Revealed on Tuesday, Peacock is in reference to the company's logo, which consists of the bird with a multi-colored segmented tail. The service itself is expected to launch in April 2020, and will offer over 15,000 hours of content to its subscribers.

"The name Peacock plays homage to the quality content that audiences have come to expect from NBCUniversal," said Chairman of Direct-to-Consumer and Digital Enterprises Bonnie Hammer. "Peacock will be the go-to place for both the timely and timeless," referencing "can't-miss Olympic moments" and the 2020 election alongside classic fan favorite shows.

Heading up the list of content will be "The Office" and "Parks and Recreation," which are two highly-watched streaming series that will continue to be available to view via the NBCUniversal service. Along with exclusive rights to both shows, the list of content the service will offer also counts on its roster "30 Rock," "Battlestar Galactica," "Brooklyn Nine-Nine," "Cheers," "Frasier," "House," "Monk," "Saturday Night Live," and other shows.

NBC also announced a number of original programming efforts, including dramas "Dr. Death," "Brave New World," and "One of Us Is Lying," as well as another reboot of "Battlestar Galactica." Comedy originals are highlighted by "Rutherford Falls" and "Straight Talk," along with reboots of "Saved By the Bell" and "Punky Brewster."

The service will also offer original films, including animated content from DreamWorks and archived classics, such as the "Fast & Furious" and "Bourne" franchises, "E.T. The Extra Terrestrial," "Jaws," "Casino," and "Meet the Fockers." More than 3,000 hours of Telemundo Spanish-language content is also planned to be available to view.

Pricing for the service is currently unknown, with details to be provided closer to launch, but there will be both advertising-based and subscription options available.

Given the vast back catalog of content that will be on offer, it is unlikely that the price of the service for its ad-free subscription will be close to what Apple will charge for Apple TV+. Launching on November 1, Apple TV+ will cost $4.99 per month, with it also offered free for a year with Apple hardware purchases.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    Yay, yet another streaming service... Can never have too many of these damned things, right?  :| How many subscriptions can you collect?
    anantksundaramCarnagewatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 21
    Wow, so every network now thinks its back catalog of sitcom reruns is worth $10 a month....We'll see. When Hulu had multiple networks participating that made more sense for casual reruns. 

    The new content may help. A reboot of the BSG reboot? 
    edited September 17 gilly33watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 21
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,028member
    None of these streaming services are going to be worth anything if they don't have anything new and compelling to offer. All the successful ones to date, have been able to license new 3rd party content to offer their subscribers and produced a good handful of original shows that made subscribing worth it. That may be coming to end as content producers shift to also becoming their own providers and pull their content back "home".

    If anything, it's these that will eventually kill* Netflix, not Apple and their monopoly over their App Store. It's the producers and their monopoly over their content.

    edited September 17 magman1979applesnorangesentropysviclauyycwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 21
    Everyone and their uncle has a streaming service it seems.

    It just means I'll subscribe to none.
    razorpitmwhitemagman1979entropysviclauyycCarnagewatto_cobraJaphey
  • Reply 5 of 21
    “You can run, but you can’t hide!” Thought we could somehow dump the cable and get what we want to watch when we want to watch it and at a decent price. But no. It seems this is even WORSE than Cable TV turned out to be. Now it seems the new in thing is for EVERY Network to have it’s own streaming channel. So now we end up paying more than ever. I know I can’t afford all these streaming networks, so I have to pick one. I guess for me, it’s Amazon Prime. And for my Anime watching, VRV. Ok, content providers, YOU WIN! I’m getting off this crazy streaming ride! 
    gilly33
  • Reply 6 of 21
    dysamoria said:
    Yay, yet another streaming service... Can never have too many of these damned things, right?  :| How many subscriptions can you collect?
    Let’s see now. CBS, NBC, Disney, HBO (and competitors), Hulu, Netflix, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, Amazon Prime, Spotify/AppleMusic/Amazon, various sundry sports channels (NFL Gamepass, MLB, NBA), high-speed internet, mobile plan... what am I missing. 

    And this just the beginning. How laughably stupid can these people get?

    I think I’ll just keep my Xfinity and not worry about all this nonsense. 
    applesnorangesviclauyycCarnagewatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 21
    If one starts with the premise that content costs money to create, and therefore the creators must be compensated, then it sort of seems clear getting the consumer to pay is the logical consequence. But how?

    It seems perhaps there are 3 obvious models:

    1. Advertising pays. Traditional TV is predicated on this. Shows were even designed around acts and dramatic moments right before a commercial. The content was designed for this model. Even live sports events do this. 

    2. Subscription. You pay up front for the buffet. All you can eat, even if you can't eat any. 

    3. Pay per view. Buy a movie, or a "series pass."

    There are free things for sure. Go to the library, or something like PlutoTV. Are there any alternatives? Will OTA TV with an antenna and tuner go the way of the dodo? 

    ready go
    gilly33watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 21
    By the way, this streaming service name was suggested as a joke by Jason Snell on his podcast, “TV Talk Machine” some time ago. The pinheads at NBC must’ve taken him seriously.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 21
    StrangeDays said: The new content may help. A reboot of the BSG reboot? 
    I was wondering why they would be attempting this...but then I read an article that theorized it was an attempt to build up Galactica into more of a franchise. That makes more sense to me. 
  • Reply 10 of 21
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,443member
    The fascinating thing, well to me at least, is that the traditional 20th Century TV model is a dead technology walking in the face of on demand non-liear streaming technology.  So what choice do these linear TV broadcast models have left and what the heck is their alternative in the face of the obvious, the demise of linear TV transmissions?  They are faced with a paradigm shift of epic proportions that doesn't end well for Cable TV. I don't know the answer but they eaither get on board or make deals I guess.  If they get on board the streaming bandwagon then they we consumers will have to pick our poison selecting one or two I guess and in the end the best in-house content will win. That and a good porn service is history tells us anything!~  lol
    edited September 17 watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 21
    Over the years, I’ve seen just about all of the video content that interests me from the major TV networks. They’ve been beaming it out over the airwaves for more than 60 years. So I’m less likely to pay NBC or CBS for (re-run) programming than operators with less familiar video libraries, such as Netflix and CuriosityStream. I’ll try Apple TV+ when it becomes available.
    edited September 17 gilly33watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 21
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,741member
    Let them all slug it out and when all is said and done, only the strong will survive, and those who are most attractive to consumers, in terms of content and price.

    I don't have an issue with all of these streaming services. It's not like somebody has to be subscribed to all of them at the same time. People can choose and pick, maybe only subscribe to a service for one month, and then you will have seen what you intended to watch. Then jump to another service the next month and so on and so on.


    edited September 17 applesnorangeswatto_cobraJaphey
  • Reply 13 of 21
    We will eventually have dozens of streaming services. With that in mind $4.99 per month is the future. Competition will do its thing. $9.99 is unsustainable. Over the air TV will continue into the foreseeable future. I like what one commenter said in a previous comment about switching back and forth. 

    edited September 17 watto_cobraJaphey
  • Reply 14 of 21
    "PEE COCK"

    Why would you market a streaming platform with a name like that? Just changed one letter and I see an entirely different logo.

  • Reply 15 of 21
    "PEE COCK"

    Why would you market a streaming platform with a name like that? Just changed one letter and I see an entirely different logo.

    Yeah because everyone is gonna sit there and change letters around to make funny words. You must be bored or something....
    gilly33watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 21
    No thanks NBC. A bunch of classic programming and current shows for another fee. Even with original programming still not interested. Alas the streaming service wars have just begun. I'll pass on this one.
    edited September 17 watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 21
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,103member
    NBCUniversal is a subsidiary of Comcast Corporation so is this simply Comcast's streaming service rebranded so most people won't think it's just another Comcast grab for money? Peacock will already have access to everything Comcast has licensed so you might as well just subscribe to Comcast.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 21
    Wow so many services and so many hours of content!

    What else is going to be on Apple TV+ besides the handful of new shows? All these other services have catalogs of content from decades past. Genuinely curious.
  • Reply 19 of 21
    Revealed on Tuesday, Peacock refers to the company's logo, which consists of the bird with a multi-colored segmented tail.
    Wow. Are we so far removed from events these days that people don't even know the NBC peacock or that it was created to tout NBC's shows that were filmed in color?
    SpamSandwichwatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 21
    Wow so many services and so many hours of content!

    What else is going to be on Apple TV+ besides the handful of new shows? All these other services have catalogs of content from decades past. Genuinely curious.
    Apple will start off with about 10 and add more every month. By the end of the year will have over 30 "quality" shows.  Surveys show Apple's typical customer is the most educated and financially successful in the industry, so $4.99 will be a no brainer for tens of millions unless in the event that all of their shows are terrible.  

    The back catalogs are overrated as the vast majority of stuff is garbage that no one watches.  That's why a few shows like Seinfeld, Friends and The Office are the most watched and the bidding for the rights to them are insane.  Apple's Video Team clearly knows what it is doing.  And remember, within the year, Apple 's strategy of giving free subscriptions, along with paid subscribers, guarantees them that they will have the most subscribers, close to a quarter of a BILLION, in the world.
    edited September 18 watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.