Google is in talks with TV execs to stream commercial-free TV shows on YouTube for a buck ninety-nine each on the day after they're originally broadcast. So says a Tuesday report on The Wall Street Journal's All Things Digital blog, citing "multiple sources." The post makes no mention of whether the service would be US-only, …
They just won't learn will they !!!
When, oh when will the movie/TV/music/publishing industries learn ???!!!!
Amazon kindle book $10-79, physical book $10-99 ???!!!
We expect better access and more flexible usage for less money (since it costs the publishers less), not more restrictive "features" for more money.
The concept that we are being given something "better", even if we don't actually want/need it, hence should pay more for it just doesn't fly.
Blu-ray "online bonus features", double the price ???!!! WTF!!!???
Sounds dumb to me
At $2 each, after 50 or 60 shows you could've bought a Tivo. I can understand Apple's model where you get a copy of the show to keep. But $2 to watch a 30-minute show one time? Geez, that's as bad as the movie theaters.
Sounds good to me.
If for the same $50 a month I pay for cable, I could directly pay for the 25 shows I actually watch *and* know that more of my money went directly to the people responsible for said shows then I am all for it. As long as the quality is high enough (720p minimum IMHO), the service is reliable, *and* I don't have to watch them on my PC (I have a 52" TV for a reason) then I'm all for it. Toss in a bulk price discount for pre-paying for an entire season/series and download it to my TiVo automatically each week and I'll cancel my cable right now.
If I want to watch it again, I'll buy the DVD/Blu-ray like I already do. Or they can sell after-the-fact upgrades if you really want it right then and there.
PS: It occurs to me that shows distributed this way could circumvent the old "not quite popular enough" problem that plagues many TV shows these days. If "Firefly" (for example) had been distributed this way it might still be in production. It's average of 4.7million viewers per episode at $2/per would've more than paid for the estimated production costs of $2million (per episode).
Would I pay $1.99?
Would I heck! In the first place I hate prices ending in 99 - I'd rather pay $2. But why should I pay for a show that's gone out free to air the previous day, and that I can watch only once? I'd rather record it and fast-forward the ads.
Because I really want to use up my precious *capped* bandwidth downloading free to air TV shows for a one time view.
This is the sort of crack addled thinking I expect to come out of Redmond
Apple's TV and movie content is tied to permission-based DRM so it's essentially an extended rental even if you download it with the more expensive "Buy" button. As long as movie producers are clinging to their DRM, short and cheap is all that makes sense. Why Google is choosing a price so high for common TV is a mystery.
Can't you download a program that will record a audio/video stream? For free? Surely that would let you watch that $2 episode more than once.
I'd rather find the show via private BitTorrent boards later the same day, pull it down for free and watch it as many times as I like, then buy the boxed set when the season's over, like I do normally.
If you could watch a stream forever once you'd paid, or if there was a download option (if it's true that nobody cares, surely they wouldn't lose much this way?) then i'd consider it, but as the first poster says, I'm sick of being charged 99% of the offline fee for an inferior product I don't own.
It feels like some kind of crazy auction where they up the price, thinking that will increase demand.
"They won't buy it for $10? OK, offer them 10% of it for $9.99!
They don't want THAT either? Damn these pirates! Take away their internets!"
a step at least
Price is a bit expensive - but if they include a slightly more expensive option for watch-several-times, or for download... perhaps it's more palatable
Would I pay $2 for this?
The reasons have already been given, but in a word, no, I wouldn't.
...and to echo a comment above, no, they never do learn do they?
Pay for it and have commercials?
You know there would be commercials, too. So it would be like the cable tv deal, oh it may be commercial free, for a while, then later you would have both commercials and pay for it. Then no-skip commercials. Then a show cut by a few minutes, plus more no-skip commercials. We've seen this model before. Count me out, I'll be at the library reading Dostoevsky or Vonnegut.
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Microsoft refuses to nip 'Windows 9' unzip lip slip
- US Copyright Office rules that monkeys CAN'T claim copyright over their selfies
- Tesla: YES – We'll build a network of free Superchargers in Oz
- Netflix swallows yet another bitter pill, inks peering deal with TWC