[opendtv] Re: Catch-up TV
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2015 08:53:44 -0500
On Nov 27, 2015, at 5:21 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
So Craig has discovered that even before TV episodes were available on demand
online, they had become available on demand via proprietary cable system
techniques, not associated with IP. Something else that I pointed out on
multiple occasions, when Craig claimed that IP delivery's main contribution
was that it introduced on demand service for TV.
No discovery here Bert. I told you I was downloading movies and shows from
Apple at the end of 2005. I cited this article to prove to you that the content
congloms were afraid of making their content available for free in the
2005-2007 timeframe. The first article explicitly stated that they were worried
about undercutting their ability to sell commercials in their broadcasts. They
REQUIRED Comcast to charge 99 cents for a replay; the fact that this was
in-band, not IP is irrelevant, OTHER THAN the reality that watching streaming
programs was a pain due to buffering and dropped frames.
That is why the services that WERE using IP were selling downloads, not
streams. When I downloaded my first movie from iTunes it took almost three
hours for a program that was less than two hours long; if you wanted to wait an
hour to preload the buffers, the rest would download while you cleared out the
buffered bits.
Then Google started selling downloads after Apple. It was late in 2007,
actually early in 2008 before we started seeing streaming services like Hulu
and Netflix begging operations. And as the article I posted related, the
broadcast networks were reluctant to provide content to Hulu at first; you
could not stream Fox shows without authentication until 2011. And, as was the
case with iTunes and Google, you had to pay to watch network programs from
Netflix.
Remember this paragraph Bert?
Thus, for TV executives the latest agreements are less about making money
than they are about trying to maintain some control over their content, by
offering people the chance to watch shows through an unconventional route.
They hope that this will eventually lead to a substantial new revenue stream.
And guess what? It did. The content congloms have made billions selling their
content through Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Google and Hulu.
The article that Craig used was "updated" 11/2005, and its main point was
that the TV networks wanted to retain control over how and where their
content is distributed, when they distributed via third parties. Not
surprising. And certainly, if the congloms did not begin their own full
length episodes online until 2006, or even 2007 now, on their own web sites,
that would easily fall in the "10 years give or take a year," since congloms
set up their own episode catch-up service.
But they did not give their shows away via their own sites in 2006 or 2007. I
can't find the exact date they started to offer full episodes, and to date you
have not been able to do so either. The only thing I have found that pins down
a date are articles about the networks and Hulu blocking Google TV in October
of 2010. So the actual date they started streaming was likely in 2008 or 2009.
So please don't try to tell us again that you were streaming full episodes for
free before 2008, unless you can come up with some proof.
The Wired magazine article Craig cites says that Techcrunch readers voted
calls Hulu the "best TV startup of 2007." And certainly this too would be
well before 2010, when Craig claims that online TV full length episodes were
first a big deal. Hulu "officially opened for business" Q1 2008, but it
hardly seems unlikely that the individual congloms that agreed to use Hulu
had not already done this over their own sites. After all, I never used Hulu
back then, so I was hardly waiting for them with baited breath.
It is HIGHLY unlikely they were streaming full episodes before Hulu. The
articles clearly point out they were afraid to do so because they thought it
would erode their profits. Hulu was their first experiment with stream full
shows Bert.
Either provide us with evidence to the contrary or shut up.
In this article about Hulu, Peter Chernin, president (then president?) of
News Corp, was quoted as saying, "So what? You can't protect old business
models artificially." It goes on to say that the media companies have to put
their content online, or someone else will.
Someone else WAS. The primary source of pirated content was Bit Torrent, but
many people were just trading pirated files privately. That's why the networks
started selling shows for download in 2005/6 and agreed to up port Hulu in
2007/8.
All points that Craig has refused to accept, even though this article was
written more than 7 years ago.
All point that I have been staying for weeks. Sorry Bert, but your attempts at
revisionist history are not working.
Bottom line is, it seems impossible to find exactly when the TV networks
began streaming full length episodes on their own separate sites, competing
directly with one another without a common delivery platform, much as they
compete OTA. But whatever the exact date, it's well before 2010. By 2010, I
had become convinced that it was high time to connect a PC to the TV/stereo
system. And I'm hardly an impulse buyer.
It is clear that the success of Hulu prompted the networks to start streaming
shows from their own sites. And as I stated above, they blocked Google TV in
2010, so we know they were up and running then.
So let's just agree that by 2010, when you decided to dedicate a PC to a TV to
watch OTT streams, that there was a robust and growing market. This is
supported by all kinds of statistics about the growth of Netflix, and streaming
video since 2010.
Now let's just move on to the next disagreement.
Regards
Craig
Other related posts:
