NBC Direct to Offer TV Shows

[rt_brained]

You can see where this is going. Free episodes until they've established a sizable user base. 12 months later, NBC announces a 'restructured' NBC Direct program to better service the individual needs of their users:

"Now, get unlimited free episodes (still only playable for 1 week) with your $12.95 yearly subscription to NBC Direct. Or, upgrade to commercial-free* episodes (again, only playable for 1 week) for just $18.95 per year. Download, hi res HDTV-capable video episodes for just $2.99 per episode ($29.95 for a show's full season) with your $15.95 annual subscription."

Subscribers will also benefit from loads of spam from NBC Direct promoting other great NBC shows you're not gonna want to miss PLUS links to cast interviews, deleted scenes, and special subscriber-only sneak previews! Yay!

*Commercial-free, that is, for the length of the episode. NBC Direct reserves the right to place bumper ads before and after each episode purchased.

F-NBC and the peacock they rode in on.

 

[ncoffey]

Forgive me if I missed a mention of this somewhere but I wonder if this will be a US only thing as their previous ventures have been.

 

[megfilmworks]

Well so much for watching NBC. Windows Media Player with no Mac support?
One huge step backward in quality and good press. This is their big power play to put Apple in place? I guess Microsoft is trying to wield its big stockholder stick. I would be very upset if I currently had a show on NBC. Kinda like 1st class passage on the Titanic.

 

[spazzcat]

I beg to differ. Plenty of people who didn't TiVo the episode or those who just want to watch a past episode (not referring to this damn NBC thing) just pay the $1.99 and enjoy the episode... unless youre talking 24 here. then u need a good old 65" Plasma with surround sound

only good show on NBC right now is 30 Rock... glad Seinfeld is back!

That is what is good about iTunes. I can watch on my iPhone, iPod, TV and other I guess on their macs

 

[jblodgett]

What happened to Hulu.com or whatever it was called???

Did they ditch that idea already?

 

[gceo]

What happened to Hulu.com? I thought they inked a deal with them, and they are listed on their website.

This is going to end up like that BBC Media Player....

EDIT: what are the odds. double post.

For anyone that thinks this is a good idea, just type iPlayer and Lawsuit into Google.

 

[milo]

Now most shows run any where from 38-40 min's

I think 42-43 is the usual standard. It is pretty lame. There are only a few shows I'm willing to sit through the commercials for. Heroes, Lost, and I guess I'm one of the few to watch nbc's thursday night comedies.

The biggest problem I have with this is I have zero interest in watching on a computer. If I can't get it to my TV, that's a dealbreaker.

Unless it costs more than iTunes or has some insanely restrictive DRM not allowing play on an iPod, I don't see any problem with a network distributing their own shows and I'm surprised it took them this long to do it.

It looks like no play on an ipod, or a mac at all. Windows machines only, and maybe some portable devices that support whatever windows DRM they're using. And it didn't take this long, multiple networks were streaming their shows last year. The only thing new about this is download instead of streaming.

 

[acslater017]

NBC's web site seems to be designed for that 0.1%
of TV viewers that do not fit the above pattern. Very few will got to NBC to see what they have. Most just go to TV and wath anything that is on.

I don't think that's true. Increasingly, people are turning away from television and towards the internet. Personally, I very rarely channel surf - since I know that there are only a handful of programs that I actually enjoy. I end up wasting hours of my time flipping through the channels and I feel disgusted with myself afterward. I think aversion to "trying to see what sucks the least" is what actually compels people to simply download their favorite programs.

I mostly download my fave (written) shows - the Office, 30 Rock, Man vs Wild - and use TV for live things like the news, sports, and occasional History Channel special. More people than you think are willing to watch material in non-TV formats.

 

[rumplestiltskin]

Another miss

When will the networks just incorporate Bittorrent technology and let us share their shows with the commercials intact?

Frankly, if I could simply download the shows and pop them into my AppleTV so I could watch them on my TV set, would I even bother screwing around with editing out the commercials? What value is there in doing that?

I love the commercials; I can get a cup of coffee or take a leak. Does NBC imagine that watching shows on my computer will cause me to change this habit?

Perhaps if the commercials were something other than obnoxious car ads, we'd not be so quick to condemn them and try to speed-search through them (or edit them out).

But, of course, the people at NBC who will be making these decisions are idiots.

 

[TheBobcat]

People watch NBC?

 

[RidleyGriff]

I think this is a good move. This is the most likely approach to succeed. Apple is not setup to take allow the natural TV viewing model. This it the way we watch TV today. We don't pay for it (unless you count cable), and you end up having commercials. Why should it be different online.
iTunes and AppleTV don't support this model. Apple needs to do something to easily support this, at least allow AppleTV and iPods to work with something like this.
Apple should strive to be the gateway service for all media outlets. Instead its a bottleneck. Steve is fighting a losing battle if he thinks he's going to change the way this works.
I have never and will like never pay to watch a TV show that I can view for free when broadcast, even though it has commercials.

The only thing NBC is doing here is attempting to hinder technological evolution and adoption -- all in the name of preserving the traditional advertising-based business model.

Here's the fact -- we pay for TV. Granted, there are some folks out there who may still use antennas, even HD antennas, but the vast majority of people pay for either cable or satellite service. In Los Angeles, I pay around $100 a month. For that, I get access to the 6 channels I want, and about 134 I literally never watch. And every single major network show -- shows that I pay monthly for, whether I watch them or not -- are interrupted by commercials.

Does this make sense? Paying to receive advertising? Didn't think so. Come to think of it, it's almost glaringly offensive when looked at from a common sense point of view, isn't it?

But we'd all come to accept it over the years -- but what the networks have not realized, is that with the advent of DVD, and iTunes, we've all come to enjoy and appreciate the commercial free experience as well. Thanks to Tivo, i can start watching "24" fifteen minutes after it starts, and then just fast forward through all commercials, and just get the pure content.

We've come to accept this too, and we like it. This is the future. Traditional advertising in shows will die, because the consumer has been shown how great and logical it is to not have commercials. Tivo showed us, Apple showed us, the network-mandated DVD box set showed us. This isn't a battle that's just starting to be fought either; it's already over. The genie is already out of the bottle. Once again, just like with the record industry, tech companies came in while the media corporations ignored their customer's desires and created a new standard that doesn't leave much real estate for said media corporations.

It's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when". And "What is the new business model". That is what NBC should be asking themselves here. And instead, they are prolonging the inevitable, forcing the digital era into the 1950's advertisement era model, where it frankly just doesn't belong.

If NBC-Universal continues to be so short-sighted in its tactics (and yes, I think that assuming the average American consumer will want to watch a TV show on their PC vs. their iPod is STAGGERINGLY shortsighted) they will simply find themselves in an even worse position a year from now, with even less mindshare, less leverage, and even less say in their own future.

The record companies are coming down; TV networks will be next. Not because of the efforts of Apple, but because technology has evolved to the point where the services they provide, and the way they provide them, are simply no longer necessary.

 

[winterspan]

Terrible

What a truly HORRID Idea. Absolutely a step BACKWARDS.Yeah NBC, please give me ANOTHER ****ING Slow as Molasses, RAM Hogging, TOTALLY DRM infested Windows Client Software so I can watch yours stupid shows on my LAPTOP!?!
And then in a year from now it'll go from 'free' to charging me between $2.99 and $37.99 to download anything in a Low resolution, compressed, nasty DRM-infected format that I CAN'T move to my LCD television, Ipod or Iphone.

AND JUST WAIT FOR THE TOS! It'll be like Amazon Unbox:
"You DO NOT own the media you purchase. You are only purchasing the 'right' to watch it for a finite period of time that we can revoke at any time we want especially if you uninstall the software or don't update the software or if you turn off our secret Windows service that looks for copyrighted content and torrent files and alerts our legal department and MediaDefender"

OH MY GOD.. just disgusting. I think WE ALL NEED TO FORM A TOTAL BOYCOT of this NBC crap. NO ONE download this piece of junk.

 

[milo]

When will the networks just incorporate Bittorrent technology and let us share their shows with the commercials intact?

If you like the commercials you're in the minority. They would have to share a DRM'd version that only ran on a player that forced watching the commercials. And most people doing file sharing already would just grab the bootleg versions without commercials.

 

[winterspan]

bad idea

This sounds much like what Channel 4 and the BBC are doing in the UK with their 4od and iPlayer services. Both use Kontiki (P2P thingy) and WMP, so only work on Windows. For both systems you can download shows for free up to seven days after they broadcast and then can watch them for about 30 days after that before the DRM kicks in. You can also stream them live, which makes more sense than waiting an hour for a show to download off iTunes. As far as I'm aware they've been quite successful (think iPlayer is only in beta though). BBC don't do ads, but the Channel 4 one is ad supported, and they only put one at the start of each download.

I'm much happier watching shows like this through Parallels/Bootcamp than I would be downloading them off itunes for £1.99.

I also think it makes good business sense for NBC too. It cuts out the middleman, and the Kontiki model allows for flexible pricing. All NBC have to do is license the software. I think more people are likely to watch shows this way when they can be live streamed as well.

Why all the complaints? Free shows vs. ones you pay for, both at (I'm assuming) the same bit rate. Step out the RDF.

Ive already seen and played with the changel 4 "4oD" thing or whatever. Terrible, just terrible. God forbid another POS windows DRM crap download software.
What DO YOU WANT ONE FOR EVERY FRICKEN CHANNEL or network???

After the client totally froze and crashed the first time I tried it, I uninstalled immediately. Worse than amazon unbox.

 

[macfan881]

People watch NBC?

you do realize heroes and The office are one of the top shows right? and theyre on nbc

 

[SiliconAddict]

This is the dumbest idea ever and a step backwards for Internet distribution.

Nope because OS X still consists of around 5% market share. Guess who has the rest. And with Macintels if you don't like it virtualize.

 

[thestaton]

I think this is pretty cool, I'll just load parallels and watch away. I'm glad it's free and I can deal with a few web commercials they are far less annoying than tv commercials and IT'S FREE!

 

[SiliconAddict]

you do realize heroes and The office are one of the top shows right? and theyre on nbc

Ahhh but they don't support Apple so they automatically suck. Anyone who doesn't support Apple 100% automatically sucks.

 

[KJESPOKO]

NBC Has no good Shows...except for one!

I don't feel bad that NBC has decided not to renew their contract with Apple. Lets face it NBC has only one good show "The Office"

Yes, I'm mad that I will not be able to continue purchasing The Office from iTunes, but other than that NBC is really struggling to put out any good shows. Since I only have a Mac I don't think I will even bother with NBC's store. Just you wait once NBC realizes they could be making money from iTunes they will be back soon enough.

 

[network23]

The only thing NBC is doing here is attempting to hinder technological evolution and adoption -- all in the name of preserving the traditional advertising-based business model.

Here's the fact -- we pay for TV. Granted, there are some folks out there who may still use antennas, even HD antennas, but the vast majority of people pay for either cable or satellite service. In Los Angeles, I pay around $100 a month. For that, I get access to the 6 channels I want, and about 134 I literally never watch. And every single major network show -- shows that I pay monthly for, whether I watch them or not -- are interrupted by commercials.

Unless the laws have changed in the 10 years I've been out of the televison business, the networks see exactly $0.00 of that money you pay monthly to your cable or dish company. Why? Broadcast is free. The cable companies literally stick an antenna on their roof just like everyone else, pull in the broadcast signals and transmit them through their cable. Sometimes they make a deal with the local stations to use a direct feed, but in most cases, it is a roof antenna.

Many years ago, there was an attempt to force cable companies pay the networks to rebroadcast their signals, but I don't remember the outcome. I'm pretty sure it failed.

Look at the Nielsen ratings. I think you'll still find that more often than not, the top 10 programs are all over-the-air network-based (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX). Believe it or not, the vast majority still get most of their programming from them. You'd be surprised how many people cannot afford cable, or how many don't have cable as an option and can't afford a dish. The same with high-speed internet, that "last mile" can be a deal-breaker.

There are laws too. Broadcast stations cannot charge for their "public service", so their only alternative is the advertising model. That public service requires that they broadcast programming such as news that is in the public interest and provide services such as EBS. They are also regulated (or at least they were years ago) in showing a certain percentage of "educational" or "children's/family" programming and by how much advertising they can include in children's shows.

 

[Rot'nApple]

Didn't NBC just announce their shows would be available from a different content provider after breaking with iTunes though?

Yep!

NBC Universal on iTunes equals 30 percent of tv show sales...

Now NBC Universal has to have multiple outlets such as Amazon.com, Hulu, and NBC Direct to hopefully equal that 30 percent of tv show sales again...

Good Luck with that!

 

[Passante]

I tried this and was not able to get a decent signal where I live. I use Dish Network now. I don't see anyway of using EyeTV.

You don't have analog cable? Perfectly usable for TV recording. Eyetv 250 is all you need.

 

[RidleyGriff]

Unless the laws have changed in the 10 years I've been out of the televison business, the networks see exactly $0.00 of that money you pay monthly to your cable or dish company. Why? Broadcast is free. The cable companies literally stick an antenna on their roof just like everyone else, pull in the broadcast signals and transmit them through their cable. Sometimes they make a deal with the local stations to use a direct feed, but in most cases, it is a roof antenna.

Many years ago, there was an attempt to force cable companies pay the networks to rebroadcast their signals, but I don't remember the outcome. I'm pretty sure it failed.

Look at the Nielsen ratings. I think you'll still find that more often than not, the top 10 programs are all over-the-air network-based (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX). Believe it or not, the vast majority still get most of their programming from them. You'd be surprised how many people cannot afford cable, or how many don't have cable as an option and can't afford a dish. The same with high-speed internet, that "last mile" can be a deal-breaker.

There are laws too. Broadcast stations cannot charge for their "public service", so their only alternative is the advertising model. That public service requires that they broadcast programming such as news that is in the public interest and provide services such as EBS. They are also regulated (or at least they were years ago) in showing a certain percentage of "educational" or "children's/family" programming and by how much advertising they can include in children's shows.

Agreed that the networks see none of the money from the cable providers, but I disagree with you on the OTA popularity.

In 2006, the FCC estimated that only 15% of television users relied on OTA. With HDTV becoming the defacto standard as of 2009, I think its safe to say we can expect this only to decline. Sure, the highest rated shows according to the Neilsens may indeed be shows that are ALSO broadcast as OTA signals, (the major networks all are, and the major networks tend to receive the highest ratings), but this says literally nothing about how viewers are receiving their content.

In any case, it is really just a matter of what viewers are conditioned to accept. We know now we don't need to accept commercials -- this resolve will only strengthen as time goes on. Networks may attempt to force us to watch them, but they're going to lose this battle.

As I said, the only question that should be asked right now is "What is the new model". NBC-Uni is ignoring this question.

 

[Stampyhead]

Unless the laws have changed in the 10 years I've been out of the televison business, the networks see exactly $0.00 of that money you pay monthly to your cable or dish company. Why? Broadcast is free. The cable companies literally stick an antenna on their roof just like everyone else, pull in the broadcast signals and transmit them through their cable. Sometimes they make a deal with the local stations to use a direct feed, but in most cases, it is a roof antenna.

Many years ago, there was an attempt to force cable companies pay the networks to rebroadcast their signals, but I don't remember the outcome. I'm pretty sure it failed.

Look at the Nielsen ratings. I think you'll still find that more often than not, the top 10 programs are all over-the-air network-based (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX). Believe it or not, the vast majority still get most of their programming from them. You'd be surprised how many people cannot afford cable, or how many don't have cable as an option and can't afford a dish. The same with high-speed internet, that "last mile" can be a deal-breaker.

There are laws too. Broadcast stations cannot charge for their "public service", so their only alternative is the advertising model. That public service requires that they broadcast programming such as news that is in the public interest and provide services such as EBS. They are also regulated (or at least they were years ago) in showing a certain percentage of "educational" or "children's/family" programming and by how much advertising they can include in children's shows.

It doesn't really matter who the money goes to. The point is that with cable you're paying to watch commercials. When I download TV shows from iTunes I pay for only what I want to watch and it's commercial-free. And that's the way it should be. If it weren't for my internet connection I'd cancel my cable altogether.

 

[p0intblank]

Well this is another "#!&@ you!" to Apple... NBC annoys the hell out of me lately.