Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Leaving MSNBC TV Partnership

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the long-term-deals-that-end-in-divorce dept.

Microsoft 176

pnewhook writes to tell us The New York Times is reporting that Microsoft and NBC have announced that they will be dissolving their joint cable TV news channel, MSNBC, with NBC retaining control. From the article: "NBC has completed a deal to assume majority control of the channel immediately, with an 82 percent stake, and it will become the sole owner within two years, NBC executives said yesterday. The two companies did not disclose financial terms of the deal. But the partners will continue their 50-50 ownership of the MSNBC Web site, which, partly as a consequence of its affiliation with Microsoft, is the most-used news site on the Internet."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Over a barrel? (4, Insightful)

Tufriast (824996) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332793)

I guess NBC got tired of M$'s demanding ways. Either that, or M$ wasn't really doing anything with the TV division...and they just were using it for marketing.
Try the Guardian for better news, or the BBC. The Brits got one thing right in my opinion: good *newsworthy* journalism. (And yeah, I'm ignoring their tabloid division...lol.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ [guardian.co.uk] http://news.bbc.co.uk/ [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Over a barrel? (2, Informative)

dubsyngin (941155) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332801)

actual link to the BBC Story bbc story [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Over a barrel? (1)

aszlej (886876) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332809)

I agree, BBC has IMHO the best news website avaiable right now :)

being a 'Brit' (2, Interesting)

Skiron (735617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332846)

That is a terrible term. I am English. There are Welsh, Scottish and Irish people... a 'Brit' is unknown here.

Anyway, as to the BBC. It is terribly bias toward 'correctness' and really sometimes reports really bad information - "Cyclist dies after colliding with car" - of course, really the car hit the cyclist... etc. etc.

The BBC news site is perhaps the best around (the best of the worse), but it is very far from being perfect and 'unbiased', as it still is a mouthpiece for the Government, and thus, has to follow Government rules on what it can, and what it cannot, say (or report) correctly.

Re:being a 'Brit' (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14332855)

Yeah well you faggots are always calling us "yanks", so shut up and take your medicine, Snaggletooth.

Re:being a 'Brit' (2, Funny)

xs650 (741277) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332909)

That's a relief, I thought they were calling us wanks.

Ummm (1)

Skiron (735617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332923)

Well you are 'Yanks'. It even rhymes with "Tom 'Miss USA' Hanks", the typical 'yank'.

There is no such thing as a 'Brit'. :-p

Re:Ummm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14332947)

I hate to tell you this, but within the US, "yank" -- or "yankee", as we use -- specifically refers to somebody who lives in the northeastern area of the country. Calling every American a "yank" is just as accurate as calling every European a "Brit."

Re:Ummm (1)

shoor (33382) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333217)

I lived in Massachusetts for awhile in the 1980s. Apparently it wasn't fashionable to be a Yankee then, because nobody would admit to being one. Yankees, it seemed, were always people who lived North and East of you.

Re:being a 'Brit' (2, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332884)

What's the problem with Brit? You don't (often) hear Americans complaining that they're actually from a particular state, why's it any different for us? Hell, I'm happy enough to be grouped in as European to be honest (although the rest of Europe may not be so happy with that), it's not like it really matters exactly where you're from.

As for the BBC, I agree they aren't perfect, but they're also a far cry from being a 'mouthpiece for the government'. If they're guilty of anything it's the overall 'softening' to come into line with the likes of ITN - they're nowhere near as bad as that yet, but they're showing signs of definite dumbing down; that said, I'd rather a station like the BBC had mass appeal and kept the facts pretty much straight rather than going for super-detail and driving all it's viewers to Sky News or Channel 5.

Re:being a 'Brit' (1)

TheBracket (307388) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333030)

I think the problem with the 'Brit' term is that the only people who don't mind it tend to be the English. My Welsh relatives are adamant that they are Welsh first, and British second. Same goes for some Scottish friends. Sadly, I don't know many Irish people right now.

Re:being a 'Brit' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333121)

On the other hand, around here most people are pretty annoyed that "American" is taken to mean someone from the US.

Re:being a 'Brit' (1)

rking (32070) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333358)

I think the problem with the 'Brit' term is that the only people who don't mind it tend to be the English.

I'm English and while I don't have a problem with being called British, I would say that "Brit" has an unpleasant slangy quality to it. Not that it's worth making a big deal of *shrug*

Re:being a 'Brit' (1)

Edzor (744072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333109)

i am a big fan of Channel 4 news [channel4.com] , with John Snow. As it lasts for an hour ( ok about 50 mins with ads) it can spen much more time on each topic, rather than the 1 mintue summery and generic live feed to journo in the field replying to quikly surmised answers. although i agree the BBC has to be the best online news site.

Re:being a 'Brit' (2, Informative)

oberondarksoul (723118) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332905)

The BBC is hardly a 'mouthpiece for the Government' - while it receives funding in the form of the licence fee it has a duty to be impartial and not simply tell the news as the Government wants it.

As for the 'Brit' term, I have no problem with it - I'm English, and British. Being called either is fine with me. "English" just denotes me as being from a specific country within the UK, whereas British indicates I'm from the country as a whole. I don't see the controversy - it's not like calling a Scot an Englishman.

Re:being a 'Brit' (0)

Skiron (735617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332954)

'Britain' isn't a country, so how the hell you become a 'Brit' I don't know. You are either 'English', 'Welsh', 'Scottish' or 'Irish', which are countries called England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland respectively that make up the 'British Isles'.

Re:being a 'Brit' (3, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333039)

"'Britain' isn't a country", really?

Huh, conventional long form: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; note - Great Britain includes England, Scotland, and Wales http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ uk.html [cia.gov]

http://www.visitbritain.com/default.aspx [visitbritain.com]

Calling someone from the United Kingdom's main island, Great Britain, a Brit is like calling someone from the United States of America an American.

You want to be called by your State name, English or other, then let us know where you are from and please ask everyone from the United States of America what State, Commonwealth, Protectorate, District, Indian Reservation, Incorporated Territory or Unincorperated Territory they are from and refer to us properly too. I'm a South Dakotan from the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation.

Re:being a 'Brit' (1)

rking (32070) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333347)

Calling someone from the United Kingdom's main island, Great Britain, a Brit is like calling someone from the United States of America an American.

No, it isn't. It's like calling them an Ameri. The term for someone from Great Britain is "British", not "Brit".

Re:being a 'Brit' (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333402)

Actually, the short form of American seems to be "Yank", you know the word used in the UK, Ireland and Australia in a fairly derogatory manner to refer to Americans.

As soon as the Brits stop using Yank, I'll stop using Brit.

Re:being a 'Brit' (1)

rking (32070) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333415)

As soon as the Brits stop using Yank, I'll stop using Brit.

I don't call anyone a "yank" but if you feel some deep seated need to retaliate over others doing so then I'm sure I can cope with that. It doesn't seem to be exactly the best reason for a choice of words but I guess that's your problem.

Re:being a 'Brit' (1)

jcenters (570494) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333545)

Who cares?

Re:being a 'Brit' (1)

Skiron (735617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333075)

Heh - explain where it says Britain is a country? America is a country made up of States.

Britain is a Monarchy made up of COUNTRIES.

Get it right.

Re:being a 'Brit' (1)

gibbsjoh (186795) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333143)

Get over it, it's just a term... it may be technically incorrect but realistically, who cares? (Half-Welsh here btw, and even I don't care!)

In any case, the Beeb isn't a gov't mouthpiece... if it were, do you think things like Dead Ringers and Have I Got News For You would be "allowed"?

Re:being a 'Brit' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333332)

Skiron you're a tight ass. We call you guys Brits -- get over it. Nobody gives a shit what you call yourself.

Re:being a 'Brit' (1)

metalligoth (672285) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333338)

False. The political entity known as "The United States of America" is an alliance of sovereign nations. Back in 1776, State and Nation and Country were all synonymous.

Many of the United States were entirely sovereign, independent nations at one time or another (not existing in the Constitutional alliance), including, but not limited to:

New Hampshire
Massachusetts Bay
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Louisiana
Michigan
Texas
Hawaii

and, of course, the many Native American nations that still exist within the boundaries within the United States, some of which have not signed peace treaties and continue to be technically at war with the many United States.

When I declare citizenship at the border, I state my nation of citizenship, which is Michigan. The same could be said of any of the Founding Fathers of the United States. When asked in diplomatic meetings what country he was from, George Washington always replied, "I am a Virginian". When in France as our ambassador, Benjamin Franklin stated he was "...a Pennsylvanian".

The USA, legally, are in a state of political alliance similar to the EU. I don't take particular offence when people call me "American", as I'm used to it. I will occasionally correct people, though.

Re:being a 'Brit' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333446)

America is a country made up of States.

Another view is that America is a continent or two, made up of countries. This view is held by most non-USian Americans.

Get it right.

That's what I'm trying to do.

Re:being a 'Brit' (3, Interesting)

QuatermassX (808146) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332911)

I'm not a Brit, but my girlfriend (who is, from Kent) usually prefers "British" to "English" when she's talking with Americans or someone from the EU ... although will more readily self-identify as "English" when talking to someone from, say, Scotland. Hmmm ... of course, if I decide to become a citizen, I'd be "British" ... or would I be an "AmeriBrit"? ;-)

And just to chime in: although I love the print and web edition of The Guardian (clean, crisp layout, great content is even more an attraction then the "Berliner" format they keeping boasting about). I'm not overly fond of the way information is organised on the BBC's site and subsites, but they are fascinating to page through endlessly.

And, aside from that damn Java headlines thing on the front page, I do tend to give The Telegraph [telegraph.co.uk] 's site marks over The Times [timesonline.co.uk] (which used to be only partially accessible from outside Britain) and Independent [independent.co.uk] (and damn their crappy "portfolio" pay to read nonsense - wonder where the NYT got the idea) sites. Although the Telegraph's Opinion page is silly Tory at times, their features reporting is superb.

Re:being a 'Brit' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333224)

of course, if I decide to become a citizen, I'd be "British" ... or would I be an "AmeriBrit"? ;-)

You'd still be "Wanker"

Re:being a 'Brit' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14332934)

Go away, you silly English pigdog. I blow my nose at you and fart in your general direction!

Re:being a 'Brit' (1)

bheading (467684) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332949)

You've never heard of the Brit awards ? Or listened to any Britpop ?

A little story and a parallel to history (3, Interesting)

argoff (142580) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332895)

It was said that during the Mexican American war, that the Mexican armies had superior equiptment, training, and size to the US armies of the time. But the funny thing was that they lost badly because, it is said, that each general was so greedy for power and control - that they refused to work together with any of the other gnereals, thus fragmenting their forces and ensuring their loss.

In a way, it seems, that the same is true of the content cartels of today. They are so into controlling people to gain a monopoly on content distribution - that they can't possibly bring themselves to work with or to trust each other. Meanwhile Linux, and free and open source alternatives to media, contnet, and opperating systems are moving forward as a unified front.

I think both MS and NBC are going to get what's comming to them, and now considering the recnet X-box arrests where people were given hard time for merely copying content, and then charged with totally unrelated DMCA violations. (Two overkills with one stone) I will be all the more relieved to see Microsoft and the copyright cartel burn in financial hell when their time comes due. I really hope people don't get or return their X-boxes this season, if for anything - in the name of Christmas spirit.

HEY MODERATORS!!!! (1)

argoff (142580) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333304)

I'm sorry, but the parent post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172124&cid=143 32895 [slashdot.org] isn't flamebait. It's point is very on topic and real. Maybe some people are pissed off, because they don't like the trailing hint to toss their X-box and not game. But the truth is, it it entertainment, the sacrifice being made by people who are facing hard time is real. Considering Microsoft's role in all this, I thought is was a valad side point.

Re:Over a barrel? (2, Funny)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332945)

How much do you want to bet that in a year or two we'll see a Microsoft owned and run TV channel? Probably full of "studies" and "news stories" about how much Windows saved some company, too...

This just in: Microsoft Windows saved Joe's Sushi Emporium $28 million dollars over 1 month!

Re:Over a barrel? (1)

JWeinraub (773433) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332966)

i agree, the guardian is a good news site, but i think the bbc is even better. why? no fucking adverts!!! nothing to distract me but the news and that's all i want.

Happy Chrismas!! (1)

Skiron (735617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333004)

why? no fucking adverts!!!

I am glad my £110.00 a year TV licence fee I HAVE to pay goes to good causes to those that don't have to pay it.

Re:Happy Chrismas!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333073)

Hey, don't complain. I'd rather pay the BBC licence fee than of my local state network.

Re:Happy Chrismas!! (1)

JimmehAH (817552) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333169)

You don't have to pay it. You could always detune your TV.

Re:Happy Chrismas!! (2, Interesting)

JWeinraub (773433) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333253)

I would be very happy to pay £110.00 a year if it meant I can the full BBC without the editing they do to the shows when they replay them on the discovery channel.

Re:Over a barrel? (1)

XMilkProject (935232) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332987)

I know this is Slashdot as we love to just talk trash about microsoft, but this has nothing to do with their "demanding ways".

Microsoft is backing out becuase they were losing nearly 400 million a year on MSNBC, becuase no one is watching the station.

MSNBC doesn't appeal to any single audience, they have extreme left leaning shows, and extreme right leaning shows, which just manages to piss off any single viewer.

Those that prefer a left slant are watching CNN, and those that prefer a right slant are watching Fox News.

People like to watch a channel that gently reenforces their opinions, not one that flops back and forth.

In addition to that, IMHO, MSNBC has some of the worst anchor talent i've ever seen.

Re:Over a barrel? (3, Insightful)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333162)

Those that prefer a left slant are watching CNN

Every time I see someone calling CNN "left-slanted", "left-biased" etc, I can't help but laugh at the success of the brainwashing of the American TV audience. "Left" biased?! Mother Jones [motherjones.com] or CounterPunch [counterpunch.org] are examples of a "left-biased" media not CNN. CNN to many of us Canadians looks like a bastion of inane apologisms for the ruling elites (regardless of which side they are on), generic, incompetent disinformation (mostly right leaning) combined with massive amounts of brainless "infotainment". In short, CNN is a pathetic result of trying to appear "unbiased" while pandering to the lowest common denominator. As opposed to FOX which tries hard to pander to the lowest elements of the right-wing crowds and thus tries to inflame and profit from "us vs them" psychosis, persecution complexes, medieval theocratic throwbacks etc, and yet it loudly proclaims to be "unbiased" and "no spin". While offering nothing but.

In general it appears that the enemies of the liberal phillosophies managed to shift the lanugage so that "left" is now renamed "extreme loony left", "center" to "left" and everything else "conservative". It is an interesting -- albait sad -- Orwellian language war to watch for us outsiders.

Re:Over a barrel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333502)

Why the hell do we care what Canadians, of all people, think? Fuck, you're the most insecure country on Earth. So fucking insecure about being "not America" that you suck up to the United States and even keep the Queen of a foreign nation on yuor currency. Grow some balls, Canada.

Re:Over a barrel? (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333033)

Maybe Microsoft jumped ship when NBC decided to offer their shows on iTunes? Apple is a competitor to Microsoft in digital media.

Re:Over a barrel? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333238)

Maybe Microsoft jumped ship when NBC decided to offer their shows on iTunes? Apple is a competitor to Microsoft in digital media.

iTunes drives sales of the iPod. But Apple had to port iTunes to Windows to gain significant market share. That lesson hasn't been lost on others in the business: Rhapsody, Yahoo! Unlimited, etc., and it is not good news for a consumer-oriented Linux distro.

used like the whore it is (5, Funny)

blueadept1 (844312) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332797)

is the most-used news site on the Internet.

Probably because every second person has it set as their *recommended* homepage as a result of installing MSN 150 times over the past 3 years. Now all we need is slashdot messenger... yes, that's it, create a further divide in IM... muahaha!

Re:used like the whore it is (1)

Hosiah (849792) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332938)

Don't you just love those claims? It's like saying 100% of Prohibition alcoholics preferred Al Capone's bootleg liquor...(because the ones who didn't like it are swimming with the fishes).

Re:used like the whore it is (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333297)

Bahahaahahaahah! I had managers who had the MSN or MSNBC web page set to default on their browsers and they searched them all day. Then they complained about the time I spent on MSDN researching technical issues and coding help and error codes. I was using my surfing for work and they used their surfing for play. While I was trying to figure out why the latest and greatest software from Microsoft was buggy and ways to work around those bugs, they were checking stock prices, news items, etc.

Re:used like the whore it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333422)

Then it should make sense why your managers didn't like you using MSDN:

Your managers only used MSN for personal surfing/time wasting and so, when you used a service they connected with MSN (MSDN), they logically assumed that you were using it in the same manner they were, i.e. non work related.

Now the real question is, Why wasn't their homepage Google's Firefox page?

Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14332803)

With the Xbox/Xbox 360 marketplace failure/fiasco, Microsoft music/.wma failure, and now their exit from the TV market, what is left of their media push?

Their horse in the next gen media storage race HD-DVD is dead.

No wonder the execs have been cashing out their shares as fast as they can over the past few years, it appears Microsoft's current management team's Big Plan is to milk as much wealth from the company before revenue growth turns negative and the stock starts to nosedive.

Re:Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14332821)

Wow, the Xbox patrol is out in force this morning!

Re:Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14332879)

Microsoft does appear to be losing badly to Apple in Music,TV, and Movies. TV and Movies are all flocking to Apple right now, but they are less dependant on format and hardware player, so Microsoft still has a chance with those two.

The Xbox 360 does look like it is a dead product - hard to imagine how a product launch and reception could go worse. They will most likely pull the plug on the Xbox stuff soon.

HD-DVD is looking like it is pretty much dead, but Microsoft really isn't that attached to the format. So no big deal there.

One area Microsoft still have a chance in is cutting deals with cable providers to get their OS and formats on to cable boxes in living rooms. Although they are going to have to go head to head with cable companies just opting for the easier route of putting Linux on these boxes.

Microsoft seems to be reeling from the assault of Linux and Open Document and they do appear to be having a tough time focusing on expanding out to new markets.

Re:Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14332942)

How does the Xbox 360 look even remotely dead?

Re:Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14332986)

"How does the Xbox 360 look even remotely dead?"

Was that a serious question?

It is already dead in one of the three major markets.

The manufacturing problems are clearly not a 'glitch' with the initial units, but a combination of serious design flaws having to do with overheating and disc scratching.

The number of units Microsoft is releasing at the current rate will barely get them to a million and a half units out there by the time the PS3 hits in March.

Even with the realitvely tiny number of units out on the store shelves, people are increasingly reporting seeing piles of unsold 360s in stores and the prices of 360s on eBay have plummeted down to near retail levels.

And I don't have the time to go into the weak and poorly designed hardware when it is functioning properly and not overheating. Nor to the lack of developer beyond the original Xbox's.

With the wealth of problems Microsoft is having as a company these days, expensive distractions like the 360 are going to have a hard time surviving. The first Xbox is a wildly unpopular project at Microsoft among the execs. The 360 was supposed to be the one more chance to get it right. That didn't happen. Microsoft most likely won't pull the plug on the 360 until the PS3 has launched, but it is inevitable at this point. The only question is what face saving way will they go about it.

Re:Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333114)

You, are a goddamned retard. Though, you may have a future for Sony PR or as a SCO legal aide.

Re:Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333369)

Your future as a sycophantic Slashbot is very good!

Re:Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant - 360 as STB (3, Insightful)

bshensky (110723) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333164)

If you think the xbox is a gaming platform, then you clearly have your head on a collision course with your nearest rectal cavity.

The xbox is the manifest destiny of Microsoft - the acknowledgement that long term viability of their software - if only in the consumer market - is largely dependent on corresponding hardware...an appliance. In a world where Open Source has commoditized the OS to long-term irrelevancy, the Xbox 360 becomes M$'s iPod, destined to become the centerpiece of the digital home. And nary a game will need to be played for the 360 to fulfill that role.

It's Windows Media Center that is the maligned stepchild of this vision - a PC that poorly emulates a Tivo? The PC can never fill the role of Appliance in the minds of the market - it's just to generic of a unit to take on an appliance mentality or motif. No, if M$ executes correctly, the xbox becomes a head-end to IP-delivered media network content - Windows Media Center and your TV capture card together act as a headless Tivo "stop-gap" until IP media shows at the door.

I believe all this to be true after I (a) built a MythTV box and interfaced it to my local Comcast coaxial feed, (b) installed MythXBMC on my xbox, and (c) subscribed to countless RSS video feeds on XBMC. I now have IP-delivered cable TV and internet video coming to every xbox "set top box" and computer in the house. It's truly amazing.

To that end, I believe Myth, Slingbox, Sage, BeyondTV and the like are pioneers of the modern age - a bit ahead of their time due to an insufficient support network, ironically, a bit like MSNBC.

I say the rule goes: We don't see convergence until our parents see convergence. Even as they meander past the in-store kiosks, our parents are just now witnessing the enormous potential of the xbox 360 - and I don't mean the game-playing.

If MSNBC was a failure for M$, it is because broadcast TV itself is anachronistic to the next-generation media networks in which M$ hopes to thrive. If M$ gets out now, it saves millions per year until the "new" IP-delivered non-linear content (delivered to your local xbox 360) becomes ubiquitous. Maybe then Ballmer will knock on NBC's door whispering "hey, remember me?"

Any wonder why Cisco - yes, Cisco - purchased set-top-box manufacturer General Instruments this year? Cisco providing a game console? I don't think so. I see a future where xboxen win the appliance war against Cisco.

Re:Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant - 360 as STB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333325)

This is a very inteligent analysis. I think you really have it spot on.

Re:Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant - 360 as STB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333465)

Actually Cisco acquired Scientific-Atlanta recently. Motorola acquired General Instrument some time ago - it is now Motorola Broadband.

As trditional telecom carriers such as Verizon roll out fiber to the home and cable companies deploy next generation broadband networks both of which will increase the inbound bandwidth to the home, I see alot of what you mention becoming reality - of course, this presumes that the carriers and cable companies allow that content, which may compete with their offerings, to pass over their network with the appropriate QoS characteristics. We already hear rumblings that certain carriers are considering actions that may impact competing voice services.

Re:Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant (4, Funny)

dioscaido (541037) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332946)

Yeah, the Xbox 360 is going horribly. I love it how I can walk into the local Best Buy and there are mountains of xbox 360's just waiting there. And the media is just ignoring the console altogether. I feel bad for MS. /sarcasm

Re:Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333008)

Uh, 360s are in stores everywhere. People are talking about piles of 360s. I don't know about Best Buy, but Walmart, Targets, and other big retailers have piles of 360s in stores right now.

Just look at the prices of 360s on eBay, they have fallen to the same prices as retail 360s. Supply is not the problem for the 360, it is clearly the lack of demand outside the fairly small hardcore Xbox crowd.

Re:Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant (1)

YU Nicks NE Way (129084) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333160)

360s are in stores everywhere. People are talking about piles of 360s. I don't know about Best Buy, but Walmart, Targets, and other big retailers have piles of 360s in stores right now.
Really? I did some calling around here, and that doesn't seem to fit the local profile. I'd love to see some citations to "people talking about piles of 360s".

Re:Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333396)

I just got back from Fry's where I picked up a copy of Burnout Revenge. Damn DQVIII was sold out though.

There were two large piles of new 360 boxes. One on the floor about three feet tall and another pile up on a shelf of about the same size.

And a few days ago the local target had quite a few sitting right behind the demo unit.

What stores are saying it is sold out?

Re:Microsoft Increasingly Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333152)

FYI, it was going around over a month ago that MSFT planned shorting the supply of xbox360's initially to build up the "Elmo" effect( free press on a "hot" product in short supply ). And another thing, the xbox360 is still a money loser for MSFT just like the original, which brought in around $200 loss on each box.

So, how long should a company be considered "relevant" when they lose money on all their products but the ones they have a monopoly in? 15, maybe 20 years? Irrelevant IMO.

Most used news site on the Internet? (5, Informative)

elvum (9344) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332807)

The MSNBC Web site... is the most-used news site on the Internet.

Sez who? Alexa.com puts it orders of magnitude below the BBC News website [alexa.com] , for example.

Re:Most used news site on the Internet? (1)

elvum (9344) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332815)

No wait, there's more than one MSNBC URL, isn't there? Panic over - everyone back to their own beds... ;-)

Re:Most used news site on the Internet? (1)

VJ42 (860241) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332877)

Infact, Alexa rates it thrird behind CNN aswell as the BBC
In order it goes:
1. CNN
2. BBC
3. MSNBC
followed by the Newyouk times, Google news etc. Link [alexa.com]

msn.com way ahead of bbc. (1)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332882)

the homepage of msnbc directs to an msn.com site, so, you should be comparing that. http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details? &compare_sites=msn.com&y=t&q=&url=news.bbc.co.uk [alexa.com] Of course, msn has other stuff.. but, you can't use alexa to weed that out. MSN is ranked #2 behind Yahoo for most web users by alexa.

Re:Most used news site on the Internet? (3, Informative)

badasscat (563442) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333037)

Sez who? Alexa.com puts it orders of magnitude below the BBC News website, for example.

Alexa is ranking bbc.co.uk, not the news site specifically. Alexa only distinguishes TLD's.

It would be the same thing if MSNBC numbers were counted as a part of the NBC web site, but they're not. MSNBC gets counted individually (because there is an "msnbc.com" TLD) and also as part of MSN's results (because MSNBC redirects to msnbc.msn.com).

The question is how many people get MSNBC news through MSN vs. manually typing in "www.msnbc.com" (or typing "msnbc" and hitting ctrl-enter). Myself, I type it in, but I suspect most people are just going to MSN.

So it's impossible to compare msnbc.com's numbers with news.bbc.co.uk's numbers because they're counted totally differently by Alexa. MSN itself has a much higher readership than the BBC as a whole, but you don't know what percentage of the users of each actually read the news on those sites.

btw, just related to the whole BBC issue - I find their news both as biased as anyone else and often pretty uninformed. The fact that they're biased more towards a European viewpoint, which may or may not better match the bias of most of the posters here, does not change anything. I also don't see any point whatsoever in linking to them for local stories in the United States, as I see happen often here - they are writing completely devoid of context. It is, specifically, incredibly annoying to me as a New Yorker when I see anyone link to them for a story about this city, because they always completely ignore the background issues at play, and are always writing with a skewed, bemused viewpoint that suggests "this isn't the way we do things in London!"

I would prefer it if article submitters would link to news sources with a better handle on the context of the stories they're reporting.

Re:Most used news site on the Internet? (1)

thefirelane (586885) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333163)

Key Word: used

That does not mean visited. Presumably, the marketing people think, although the BBC is visited more often... MSNBC's web page is 'used' more (perhaps more people later talk about the MSNBC stories around the water cooler than the BBC?)

It is like when a beer says it is 'the coldest tasting'. Coldest could be proven, coldest tasting can not... same thing here

Re:Most used news site on the Internet? (1)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333225)

I call BS on that one! I get my news from the following sources (in order):

Re:Most used news site on the Internet? (1)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333278)

I'm sorry, but I have to question Alexa in it's entirity; it's information is gathered from users with a piece of spyware installed that calls home and tells Alexa which sites are being used more than others.

Of course, this is fundamentally flawed; the people without the spyware or an alexa web-tag (which is unmeasurable short of a site survey of every website) simply aren't counted and are left out. I would like to believe that if the percentage is even 50/50 people with/without spyware, that destroys the conclusivity of their ranking system.

The web was designed so that no one site had to know anything else about another site. The greatest link between two websites would be the anchor tag, and there is no "central repository" that indexes anchor tag usage (a search engine might tell you the number of the tags out there, but a search engine can't nessicarily tell you how many times it was clicked.

I call bullocks on any website that claims itself to be more popular than any other website without seeing its logs.

Re:Most used news site on the Internet? (1)

Nivag064 (904744) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333533)

Well, I check the BBC news site http://news.bbc.co.uk/ [bbc.co.uk] several times a day, but the MSNBC site several time a year (and most often by "accident") - big diffrence.

I wonder how many people avoid MSNBC because of the connection to Microsoft? I know that makes me wary of it.

One of the advantages of the BBC news site is the complete absence of adverts!

-Nivag

"the most-used news site on the Internet" (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332813)

"But the partners will continue their 50-50 ownership of the MSNBC Web site, which, partly as a consequence of its affiliation with Microsoft, is the most-used news site on the Internet."

Of course, the New York Times [nytimes.com] and Slashdot [slashdot.org] stories that have referenced MSNBC's news surely helped too.

Most used news site? (0, Redundant)

earthstar (748263) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332835)

MSNBC Web site, which, partly as a consequence of its affiliation with Microsoft is the most-used news site on the Internet

What is the proof?

Re:Most used news site? (1)

Hosiah (849792) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332961)

What is the proof?

Their site's the easiest to crack? That's gotta count for something with the 2600 crowd.

Hidden at bottom of msnbc webpage (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14332862)

In pixel size print

All Your Base Are Belong To Us!

Media and computers don't seem to mix (3, Insightful)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332886)

Despite the market demand for computer media and success of the cable industry and broadband internet over cable, with the AOL/Time Warner issues and now the NBC and MS issues, it appears as though the media are still content being rich like they are now (who wouldn't??). But their strangle hold on the content and their inability to change is still evident, and the only people that are really slightly inconvenienced by their actions are their paying customers. Their non-paying counterparts are just inconvenienced. FYI, convenience sells (see iTunes, "fast" food, and convenience stores for an example).

AOL/Time Warner should have been a complete success. Time Warner owns stuff like HBO, and if they adopted something similar to the subscription model like "premium" channels it would have been a remarkable success. Content (Time Warner) and the control of the distribution channel (AOL) is ironically what they want, but can't seem to understand their own business very well. Look at the success of the porn industry with almost the same product, but they do not have a lock on the pipe like AOL/Time Warner did.

Personally, I never understood the NBC and MS union or what their goals were, but apparently neither did they.

MS is damn lucky Office and Windows are popular. (2, Insightful)

SensitiveMale (155605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332903)

Because they have lost money on 99% of their other ventures.

If Office and Windows wasn't keeping them afloat, MS would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.

Re:MS is damn lucky Office and Windows are popular (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333392)

Yeah, and Ford is pretty damn lucky cars are so popular!

Wait... (2, Funny)

RedNovember (887384) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332925)

So the MS in NBC stood for "Microsoft"? I always thought it was "More Stupid NBC"...

Come to think of it, there's not much difference there...

Re:Wait... (2, Insightful)

tdubya (823850) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333038)

maybe create an oribinal response next time rather than pulling it out a can... the only thing "more stupid" was your remark.

irony (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333049)

Saying the only thing "more stupid" was your remark: $0

Saying maybe create an oribinal response next time just before that: priceless

Re:Wait... (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333178)

I thought it was MSN BC (MSN Broadcasting Corporation or simply MSN Bullshit Channel).

Re:Wait... (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333360)

So the MS in NBC stood for "Microsoft"? I always thought it was "More Stupid NBC"...

Microsoft = More Stupid..... yeah. if you want to kick it up that extra level of abstraction, that still works.

Media Center (5, Interesting)

TheUncleD (940548) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332933)

Microsofts original idea was to tie in the media center to this. I had the 'not so' pleasurable opportunity to sit next to the head of the Media center department on an airplane ride once who told me the network was supposed to be used in conjunction with their M$ Media Center software for channel controls and additional advertising for M$ Products. I'm not a huge fan of NBC or M$'s Media Center products which have proven to do nothing extra-special (s-video out/in) boog whoopdiedoo. I think its a flop mainly. On some interesting facts, Media Center project employs 400 or so M$ employees and was in beta until last year.

Re:Media Center (2, Funny)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333058)

You win double Slashdot XP points for your use of "M$" four times in one paragraph! Congrats! You are enlightened, sir.

Re:Media Center (1)

Utopia (149375) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333385)

Media Center was in beta until last year.
I have been using the released version of Media Center since 2002.
BTW, Its the best product in the market -- and I have tried every other product in the US market starting from 1997.

Me thinks this your comment is the typical BS you read on Slashdot when it comes to MS products.

Unnatural quiet (1)

Cally (10873) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332960)

Blimey it's quiet around here. Where is everyone, I thought y'all had GPS powered wifi blogs to enable you to stay online at all times, even queueing in airports or foaming at the mouth over the latest revelations about how your President is turning out to be more than a little bit of a spooky bastard, but no.

And now I find I have nothing to say about MS selling up and moving out of what I suppose we will not know as MSNBC.com for long... except that every so often, I like to take out a few old copies of Wired from the late 90s and reminisce... and afterwards, I remember the old days. One of my faves is the showing Gates and a number of other then-high profile media magnates as the poker-playing dogs of dodgy Medway pub fame. (I forget the other dogs, I think mebbe there was Steve Case, Ted Turner, Murdoch,.. anyone?) The cover story was about WebTV and how MS was going to produce an end-run around the new young Internet startups with a mass-market, set-top-box based walled-garden internet. That tanked, and thank god tehy've not gone back to it... what freaks me out is stuff like WINCE, the Windows Media Edition stuff, web service & things where they seem prepared to spend huge amounts of money over a long period of time (5-10 years, which is a lifetime these days) patiently tweaking and refining crappy products whilst relentlessly marketing them down people's throats so they become unwilling beta testers.

I blame the Dutch, godamnit. Bah, humbug!!

Now if they could just lose the silent "P" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14332991)

As in PMSNBC.

Because whenever I flip channels and see Keith Olbermann, he always sounds like he's got PMS.

In the beginning... (1)

doormat (63648) | more than 8 years ago | (#14332997)

There was TheSite - hosted by Soledad O'Brien with the animated charecter "Dev Null" (who was actually voiced by Leo Laporte). Of course this all started in the .com days too - the idea of "convergence" and that starting early would give them a leg up. Well convergence hasnt arrived yet (though I think it will before 2010). It makes sense for MS to exit the partership - they really aren't getting anything out of it. Hell, until this happened, I had forgot that the MS in MSNBC stood for Microsoft.

Soledad O'brien. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333191)

She is lucky that she is an attractive woman because she is spetacularly dumb.

LiNBC coming? (1)

milatchi (694575) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333079)

L
i
NBC
u
x

Oh yes, oh yes.

Re:LiNBC coming? (1)

towsonu2003 (928663) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333139)

L
i
NBC
u
x

Oh yes, oh yes.

Com'n now, don't you know: NBC dont run linux ;)

Burying News? (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333132)

despite the timing, the companies were not trying to bury the news on the slowest news weekend of the year.

Umm... Excuse me, but isn't the slowest news day of the year the WORST time to try and bury a story? The TV media has to fill their timeslots, and papers have to fill the space, so the slower the news day, the more coverage less significant things like this will recieve. Witness the multiple stories on /. the NYTimes write-up, etc.

New name: (3, Funny)

Catbeller (118204) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333199)

GOP-TV.

Re:New name: (2, Funny)

ciroknight (601098) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333309)

I always thought that was FOX though; the F is only a letter away from G, and the X is simply a clever ploy to hide the obvious P that should be there.

MSNBC never made sense (1)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333281)

There was nothing about this partnership that ever made good business sense, in my opinion. It was based on some vague notion that technology and the Internet were going to render traditional television irrelevant. NBC had no need for Microsoft, which is why MS ended up shouldering so much of the financial burden. It would make as little long-term sense as an ISP merging with an entertainment/media company. And who would be dumb enough to think THAT would work? :-)

Re:MSNBC never made sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333364)

It made absolute sense as far as the website is concerned.
NBC has made atleast five different attempt at making a sucessful news website. They have failed everytime.

NYT Sour Grapes? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 8 years ago | (#14333293)

But the partners will continue their 50-50 ownership of the MSNBC Web site, which, partly as a consequence of its affiliation with Microsoft, is the most-used news site on the Internet.
Emphasis mine

Wow. They made a point of pointing out that MSNBC.com is only #1 because it's Microsoft. Sounds like sour grapes to me. New York Times is just pissed that THEY'RE not number one. (Well, if they were to get rid of the stupid registration requirement just to read a frickin' story, they might be.)

You're really stretching (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14333412)

You're trying to see something when it's not really there. The sentence makes journalistic sense as it's written, simply because it is conveying the fact that msnbc.com is the most popular site because MS drives traffic there. As a reporter, you're constantly looking to answer readers' most obvious questions (in the context when they'll be wondering). In this case, it would be natural for the reader who reads that msnbc.com is the leading news site to be wondering, "How could that be since I don't see it as a leader?" The reporter has anticipated the obvious question by explaining that it's No. 1 because MS sends people there. It doesn't take the time or space to fully expand on the answer, but it provides enough information to make the facts make sense in context.

BTW, the NYT doesn't want to be the site with the most traffic. The company wants to be the one with the most paid customers accessing content. The Wall Street Journal has made a lot of money doing that, and the NYT is trying to see whether it can make its web site more profitable. You can debate all day whether it's a smart strategy or not, but it's very clear that they're not trying to compete with a site such as msnbc.com.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?