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!

TV Networks Discussing YouTube Rival

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the hard-to-get-that-right dept.

Television 72

An anonymous reader writes "Reuters is carrying a story indicating that NBC, CBS, Fox, and Viacom are considering banding together to work on a competitive video-hosting site. The goal would be to provide an alternative to Google's YouTube, and presumably direct some revenue in their direction." From the article: "While a deal is still far off, the four media companies envision a jointly owned site that would be the primary Web source for videos from their television networks, the paper said in an online report on, citing people close to the situation. The companies aim to cash in on the fast-growing market of Web video advertising and have also discussed building a Web video player that could play clips, the Journal said. "

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

Whatever (3, Insightful)

Kiba Ruby (1037440) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177360)

And they are going to use DRM. Wow...such a compelling service...NOT!

Re:Whatever (4, Insightful)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177618)

Plus, they'll make us watch a 20 second commercial before the video, and 12 30 second commercials during the sitcom. How fun.

If the networks were smart, they'd encourage viewers to submit good/funny clips from their top shows to Youtube and other video channels. CBS realized the value of posting online with their CBS YouTube channel [] , which helped to increase TV viewership as well.

Internet viewers want to quickly scan 100's of videos to find what works, most don't want to sit down in front of their 17 in monitor in the office and watch TV sitcoms with the family. The advertising model that works for TV just doesn't work on the internet, and networks won't understand this. For now, they should ditch their idea and use the internet to drive traffic to their TV shows, which has huge potential (the only reason I watch The Office is because I saw clips online first).

Re:Whatever (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17178186)

Internet viewers want to quickly scan 100's of videos to find what works, most don't want to sit down in front of their 17 in monitor in the office and watch TV sitcoms with the family.
If the networks ever want to compete on the Internet, they're going to have to take the plunge and put content out there, even though most people don't have the hardware to display it on their TV yet. It's a chicken-in-egg problem, and in this case it's a lot easier for the content producers to move first.

Re:Whatever (2, Informative)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17179366)

NBC has already put up all eleven episodes of Heroes [] in full.

Re:Whatever (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 7 years ago | (#17180006)

Yeah, with their shitty player that won't go fullscreen. I was going to post a comment about how much I liked the "Adult Swim Fix" website, but now it looks like it's a pretty useless as well.

Re:Whatever (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17177756)

Of course there will be DRM. It's their IP, they can do what they want with it. You are free not to use their service.

Re:Whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17181546)

Nobody can tell that that was a troll?

Re:Whatever (1)

karmachild (1036700) | more than 7 years ago | (#17178012)

Obviously Capitalism is NOT working for you!

Hopefully they just use those transparent "sponsored by" splashes as the video plays, or something.

It appears that the business model of TV production is not going to be re-factored with the advent of web-based content delivery.

The internet "itself" has turned into one big "commercial." Filtering all the online ads is a test of endurance, however 'there's no free lunch'.

KEEP CONTENT FREE!! -Attention is expensive.

"I'm a honest hoe, and all my hoes is honest."

Re:Whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17179978)

your sig is dumb, and you misspelled "than"

And suddenly ... (1)

kitzilla (266382) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177366)

... the whole concept of social media ran into a brick wall. A bank wall, at that.

Exclusive content? (3, Interesting)

SilentOneNCW (943611) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177370)

I don't think the property of *exclusive content* applies to the internet. Digital information can be too easily copied for any exclusive content to stay exclusive for long.

Re:Exclusive content? (3, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177422)

I think it'll be the first step in an effort to remove their stuff from the 'net. Once they're up and running, they'll have a stronger claim that YouTube is a rival, hosting their IP, for free, and doing little to stop it.

Presumably they'll also be selling their stuff over the net?

Re:Exclusive content? (1)

Altima(BoB) (602987) | more than 7 years ago | (#17180274)

Well, if the content in question is lame or uninspiring enough that no one bothers to copy it... well then it stays exclusive. Hooray for big TV network dinosaurs!

Hah.. (1)

Chicane-UK (455253) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177392)

If all those companies can come together to produce a site as easy, unrestricted, and as free of 'red tape' as YouTube i'll eat my hat.

I'll say it here now.. nothing that the networks will ever develop (regardless of how many of them get involved) will ever compete with YouTube - just won't. Simple as.

The only way they'll ever beat YouTube is with litigation.

Re:Hah.. (2, Interesting)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177500)

It's not possible for NBC, CBS, Fox, and Viacom to work together. The closest any one of them came to working with another major corporation is M$ and NBC forming MSNBC. Everything else has been a merger, buyout or ridiculously complex business partnerships. YouTube is the king until they figure out talent > management ego.

Re:Hah.. (1)

Josh Lindenmuth (1029922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177698)

Hey, if they could work together to create The Battle of the Network Stars [] 30 years ago, they can work together again, right?

Re:Hah.. (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17178836)

it's just a short sighted attempt to get a foothold in what they see as dangerous competitor. However youtube would never have got started if people were happy with video piped at the whim of corporations. People like choice and proactive involvement, not buzzworded crap spouting adverts and effectivelly censored output.

The people trying to do this are the same kind of people who canned Firefly, an act for which I may never forgive them....

"and presumably direct some revenue" (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177410)

What revenue?

TV = Boring , predictable. (1, Troll)

zymano (581466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177452)

Just copycats with ZERO originality.

Should have fought the republican/red state censorship. Nope, you guys rolled over like lapdogs.

Censorship = boring television. It stifles originality. I enjoy plot and dialogue but I also enjoy nudity and real-life speech(expletives).

Anyways TV is now mainly aimed at demographics of women and teen girls.

TV=newspapers. Could be dying out.

pfft (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177736)

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip
The Colbert Report

You can get your boobs and cursing from movies. Go watch seasons 1 - 4 of The West Wing and tell me it isn't great TV.

Re:pfft (1)

Lunar_Lamp (976812) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177928)

Whilst I agree that The West Wing is great, I think it's very much in the minority. The departure after series 4 of the star writer, Aaron Sorkin (sp?), also suggests an inability of TV executives to really capitalise on their best quality shows. To be honest, even living in the UK where we typically believe our television shows to be of a higher quality than in the US (and containing FAAAAR fewer adverts), I consider there to be so few TV shows worth watching that I'm not willing to pay for a TV licence and as such don't own a TV.

Re:pfft (1)

pnattress (1002576) | more than 7 years ago | (#17178036)

I live in the UK, and I think the US makes much better TV. It's not that we don't try, it just seems to be budgeting constraints and the channels' love for ad revenue (the Beeb notwithstanding) which get in the way. Whilst the popular stuff from US broadcast networks like 24 and House is fun, the real good stuff comes from HBO and to a lesser extent Showtime. For example, I've been watching The Wire and it's bloody great; some of the best TV I've ever seen. It's easy to deride popular TV but there's plenty of excellent shows out there if you know where to look.

Re:TV = Boring , predictable. (1)

Plutonite (999141) | more than 7 years ago | (#17178142)

What? Nudity in movies is the source of originality? I'm against censorship for the most part, but you're off the tracks there mate. There's a reason why hollywood productions are dubbed kiss-kiss-bang-bang, and the meaningless use of sex + explosions + bad language is the reason movies get boring.

That said, kids(10+) should be exposed to a little violence and real life. If not, they will find it on the street, or in school, or on YouTube, and when they do their reaction will not be what the protective parent would have hoped for.

You're an example of the Slashdot paradox. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17179086)

You claim that TV is boring, rehashed stuff. Yet TV is eagerly pirated. This does not compute. If TV was indeed so boring, why is it so sought after? There's only one Occamish conclusion: YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG.

Re:You're an example of the Slashdot paradox. (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17179420)

American Idol tops the ratings charts. That is ultimate proof of human stupidity. Most Slashdotters complaining about the general decline of TV also complain about general human stupidity, which, being something proven, Occams itself in. (I complain about the latter but not the former--I watch the shows that I like and only mention those I don't as an example when I need it, and I know that Sturgeon's Law rules over mankind)

Revenue... (4, Funny)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177462)

I'll give even odds that they use Google AdSense for their revenue stream. ;-)

Competitive? (4, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177474)

Reuters is carrying a story indicating that NBC, CBS, Fox, and Viacom are considering banding together to work on a competitive video-hosting site.

Uh, so just about the entire US broadcast industry is banding together to distribute content through a joint venture. I think the word you want is "anti-competitive", not "competitive".

Collusion (1)

booch (4157) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177786)

I think the word we want here is "collusion [] ". Or possibly "cartel".

Re:Competitive? (1)

staticsage (889437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17178780)

Competitive in the sense that they are competing with YouTube.

Re:Competitive? (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 7 years ago | (#17180622)

Agreed, you and booch capture my thought+wording. Next thing we know, the company founded to run the website will end up owning controlling shares in all those companys!


Re:Competitive? (1)

voteforbird (1007569) | more than 7 years ago | (#17180858)

Competitive with YouTube, you boob.

Re:Competitive? (1)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182908)

Well if they can yank all the copyrighted content off Google and YouTube, they are empty... and screwed.

Maybe someone will find a way to pay the people that MAKE the videos unlike Google and YouTube? Nah!

Re:Competitive? (1)

GWBasic (900357) | more than 7 years ago | (#17201988)

Yes, but...

Something to consider is that the "business" of making a television show will change dramatically in the next few years. It used to be that you'd shop around the major networks until someone gave you money for a pilot. Now, you can put together a short clip and post it on YouTube. (Remember, South Park started because of a short that was floating around the internet...)

I really believe that in 5-10 years we'll be watching shows that started as short clips on YouTube. These shows might end up being hosted by Google.

Marketing spin... (4, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177508)

No Need For YouTube When OurTube Is Your Tube!

Re:Marketing spin... (1)

JazzLad (935151) | more than 7 years ago | (#17181576)

Except in this case, DRM makes Yourtube Our(the networks')Tube

That doesn't make your post less funny, though.

Catching up to the times (1)

chia_monkey (593501) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177536)

And they say they"...have also discussed building a Web video player that could play clips"

Wow...what a revolutionary idea...
Next they'll start putting ads on sites. Or charge for premium content. Dare I say they bring the blink tag back?

Again? (1)

cabd (970146) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177544)

Whats with all the "killers" these days? I mean, first it was iPod killers, and now we have one of many Youtube killers. DRM+MOVIES+"exclusive content"=Crap All these companies finally agreeing on something, and it has to be a ripoff of another company. The again, ripping people off is what they do best.

Wow, this is pretty interesting... (5, Interesting)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177616)

First, Cuban says Google is stupid for buying YouTube, now all the megamediagiants want to band together to try to beat Google at its own game? Google has some work cut out for it... maybe?

If you consider that **AA wants to pull the rug out from under Google et al, now MS is trying their hand at the online video thing... then along comes johnny mediagiant to try too.

Perhaps there is more to this free internet videos thing after all?

How can the MPAA continue to want to control content and then want to play in the same space as Google?

The only thing I'm certain of is that this could be very interesting...

Re:Wow, this is pretty interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17177650)

mark cuban is an idiot though

Re:Wow, this is pretty interesting... (2, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177782)

If ebay has shown anything, firstmover status (specifically the domain name attached to it) in the internet is very important - no matter how crappy the service becomes. It becomes very hard to come into the internet later on and take on a sucessful service that is moderately competent at what they do. (I'm still amazed that Google managed to win search away from yahoo because of this).

Google didn't buy a videosharing service, they bought a domain name for that 1.5B. And they are banking that it will be the future of Television on the internet.

I also learned that whenever the oldschool wants in on the internet, they become secondtier (barnes and noble), and if it's a collaboration (modern, forget about it - the bosses just don't understand what makes a sucessful site or internet service and they'll hamper whatever their employees are trying to put together, much like all the other divisions of Sony hampered the PS3 division until it became compromised to the market.

Youtube is under no threat whatsoever unless they drop the ball themselves.

Re:Wow, this is pretty interesting... (1)

BostonVaulter (867329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17182022)

Ebay isn't necessarily a good example because they need a critical mass of users much more than a video hosting site does.

Re:Wow, this is pretty interesting... (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 7 years ago | (#17190748)

Youtube has not content, it is all other poeples content, that it is just hosting. Most of the video I have seen lately was at another site that just linked to youtube, so where ever that content holder choose to hotst their content was where I went i.e. zero video site loyalty.

The big issue is how much content people are actually watching by going to you tube direct and creating web site loyalty and how many are just linking and are completely indifferent to the site hosting the content.

All content competes, there are only so many eyeballs and hours in the day. User created content competes for user time and means that in order to compete and regain access to the user, commercial content must be cheaper and even free. Consider the amount of time used up by slashdot, time the users would have spent with commercial copyrighted content in the prevvious century, that money is lost to the media cartels, who already have more content that any person could hope to make use of in their life time.

More and more content getting cheaper and cheaper, combined with ever greater user choice and the failing grip of B$ marketing is altering the whole media landscape. From severly limited TV licences and high capital investment of print media to the mass diversification and distribution channels of the internet. The media world is changing, and the high old world capital values of media distribution companies is just wacked in the new internet era, including the inflated values of the new internet players.

The future is more like [] where millions of people drift from site to site rather that any single portal. Consider the numbers, if every internet user creates just 30 seconds of interesting content, that 30 seconds on it's own would exceed the amount of content a person could make use of in a life time.

Yeah.. thanks, but no thanks (2, Informative)

Iriestx (1033648) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177624)

Wow.. compelling. As it stands now, I can 'TiVO' or download all the shows I want to watch, sans commercials and bullshit.. or I can subscribe to the networks' version of youtube for $11.99 a month, that has less content and comes complete with commercials and DRM. Yeah.. that's going to work out really well for them.

Re:Yeah.. thanks, but no thanks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17177672)

We can't help it that you're a common faggot. Go suck some more dicks you fucking faggot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17177662) [] just launched. This will be a new trend.

MusicNet (1)

panaceaa (205396) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177740)

Wow, this venture sounds both as exciting and successful as MusicNet [] . (Remember when the major music labels tried to do this?)


Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17177762)

Ubuntu sucks fucking monkey balls! What a piece of shit! Not even the installer of the latest release worked! FUCK YOU UBUNTU SHITHEADS! Save yourself, install GNU/Solaris now! It's called Nexenta OS - search for more information with Google and get the best OS out there.

Competing with Apple? (3, Interesting)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177812)

Are they really competing with YouTube? Rather, why are they competing with Apple? Apple is already selling (some of) their shows, and they're apparently pulling in mad bank for it.

Re:Competing with Apple? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17177952)

"Are they really competing with YouTube? Rather, why are they competing with Apple? Apple is already selling (some of) their shows, and they're apparently pulling in mad bank for it."

I think these are two different markets (if "market" is the right word); plus the networks just don't get it. They correctly see that people are watching illegal copies of their shows on YouTube; but they incorrectly assume that is what is drawing people to the site.

Apple is selling reasonably good quality, easily portable shows to people that are willing to pay for a solution that "just works". YouTube is completely different, and not just because its content is free (as in beer). It does have some television shows on it, which are usually broken into multiple pieces and of very poor quality. But I think the big thing about YouTube is the other content - it's not really quite social networking, rather it's the almost voyeuristic look you get into a part of other peoples' lives through the clips they voluntarily post. It can be wierdly compelling.

The follow on move is their real money-maker (3, Funny)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 7 years ago | (#17178034)

building a Web video player that could play clips

The TV networks aren't stupid. They've got a really long-term vision for this. After they create this "video player," which I hear is going to be called something like "FastTemporalMovement," or "HurryUpNow," they're going to start making some of these clips available on a vast, distributed network they are calling, "The ConnectedLattice." Originally they were going to call it "DenseAdaptiveRegisteredPlaybackAssociationNET," but apparently that was too close to some other experimental project someone else is working on. After their new distributed network gets activated, they're going to pass their video through a series of interconnected tubes and into this distributed network, which will then allow individual users to connect via the "FastTemporalMovement" video player and watch programming on.. get this, here's where it really gets exciting... THEIR HOME COMPUTERS!!!"

Now tell me the TV networks aren't technology and business innovators! Once people start getting a taste of this "video on your computer" thing, customers will start lining up to pay the networks for quality programming like American Idol and Deal or No Deal. The only potential snag in the networks' plan is that some viewers may, and I think this is only a slim possibility, may start producing their own video content and attempting to place it on the vast distributed network the clever TV folks thought up. What a funny thought that is: consumers actually producing content. Heh heh. Too funny. It'll never happen. The networks are WAY ahead of the game, folks.

Re:The follow on move is their real money-maker (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 7 years ago | (#17180680)

How did a giant joke get modded interesting? There is a word to describe jokes. But I already posted/don't have mod points.

Re:The follow on move is their real money-maker (1)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 7 years ago | (#17191366)

How did a giant joke get modded interesting? There is a word to describe jokes. But I already posted/don't have mod points.

Someone from one of the networks read it and thought it would be a great idea.

Why a joint site? (3, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#17178044)

What do they need a joint site for? If all they want to do is allow limited downloads of their own content, each network can do that right now.

Also, with a Democratic Congress, anti-trust questions will be asked. Competitors aren't supposed to have joint marketing arrangements. "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court." (15 USC 2). Antitrust enforcement has been out to lunch since Bush came in, and Congress hasn't questioned this. That's going to change.

Re:Why a joint site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17179294)

But with a Democratic Congress copyright related questions will not be asked.

Mmm, where are all the media companies located? California.
Which way does California vote? Democrat.
Which party keeps extending copyright? Democrats.

I really don't think the Democrats in Congress are going to have any problem with what their buddies in the entertainment industry want to do.

But don't let facts ruin a good Jew Puppet Bu$Hitler Chimpy McHaliburton rant.

Re:Why a joint site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17194276)

too bad you added that last line.
I was going to give you mod points.


lame! (2, Insightful)

mshiltonj (220311) | more than 7 years ago | (#17178304)

have also discussed building a Web video player that could play clips

There *is* a player -- it's called Flash. Why do they need another player? DRM, perhaps? No thank you.

Simple (0, Offtopic)

drsquare (530038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17178414)

If they want to beat youtube, all they have to do is not have that recent youtube change whereby the left-hand menu is right on top of the first column of videos in Firefox. Makes it completely unusuable; apparently all those PHDs don't actually count for anything in the real world when a bug like that gets out.

Or maybe Google don't think it's worth their while testing on browsers other than IE.

How MySpace and News Corp fit into the picture (1)

5plicer (886415) | more than 7 years ago | (#17178600)

News Corp [] is the parent of both Fox and MySpace. Since MySpace already uses video technology akin to YouTube, it's a good bet that this new site might use a derivative of the MySpace video features. If they do go with the MySpace stuff, they'll have a lot of debugging to do ;)

Collision of philosophies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17178692)

Network tv has always been centralized, top to bottom, where a few selected execs, producers, editors, etc. make a decison that what IS content, when and how THEY will supply IT to THEM, the passive, consumer audience.

YouTube is the "network tv of the producers inside the consumers": grassroot, bottom to up, cowboy, wild west gold digger, narcistic, decentralized.

Network tv and YouTube are so far apart in basic philosophy (that governs how they work), as they possibly can.

Network tv still thinks that YouTube is just a popular web site. Network tv wants to create an other, similarly popular website.
But YouTube is not just a popular website. YouTube is everything that network tv is not - and never will be. But network tv execs will never understand this, because they are network tv execs, from head to toe.

Network tv and YouTube is just two different media species. Lightyears apart, with no hope for good sex together any time soon.


Posturing (2, Interesting)

OverflowingBitBucket (464177) | more than 7 years ago | (#17178714)

This is probably just posturing to get a better deal.

The TV networks probably aren't getting as sweet a deal as they'd like from Google/YouTube, so they're threatening to create a rival and use them exclusively. They just want Google to cave to their terms.

Chances are Google won't.

Chances are the TV networks won't be able to agree on exactly what they want for some time, will find out how hideously expensive creating a rival would be, and then realise they have to solve the problem as to how to get people to watch their rival as well. This will cost a hefty bucket of money, and there's no way they'll be able to agree how to split the cost fairly.

Then it'll be back to the negotiating table. Google will give them a token step towards their terms to protect their shattered egos, and the TV execs may or may not take it. Or, possibly, Google will give one TV network a sweet deal and refuse to budge on the others, and the others will effectively be forced to accept a crappy deal or face irrelevance.

How it works (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 7 years ago | (#17179126)

Some guy creates some new hot gee-whiz technology, mainly to have fun and see what it can do, not for others but what they think would be (which is usually a lot more than most big businesses would plan for the 'consumer')

Eventually some big company notices the interest in it and thinks, "We should jump in and get our cut out of this." and starts to dream talk up a 'better version' which is "improved by thier knowledge and experience".

Then Marketing, Legal and PR guys gets wind of the concept and put in thier 12 cents: "lets take X out because we'd be giving that away, we could charge extra for it", "lock down Z else soneone *might* sue us", and "looks geeky, let's put more half-naked chicks on it to appeal to the market".

And what we get in return is an on-line rehash of thier tried and true (for them) business as usual with the talk that they are "innovating" and "being on the cutting edge".

Now most of the previously excited followers sigh and either put up with it as there is not much they can do since the Big Business has now muddied the waters and are wringing out every penny they can, or go on to look for something away from the hype all over again.

do get it (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 7 years ago | (#17179586)

TV networks just need to realise people are sick of their shit.

They just dont get the hint

Pipe YouTube into Cable TV (1)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17179620)

How come nobody mentions piping YouTube content out to a television channel, or to a series of television channels? This is so blatantly obvious to me.

Of course, I'm one of those nuts that wants to pipe Internet into TV Land. I've been trying to get the proper resources for a LPTV station, but it is taking me a little while to singlehandedly do this. I already record my own shows, commercials, and other TV-type content.

If the idea is to push video to users, wouldn't Cable/Satellite TV be ideal for that? I'm sure nobody wants more reality TV shows, but if you think about it, Reality Internet TV is the next obvious step.

I am too busy being a Hubster (1)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 7 years ago | (#17179866)

How will I find time to be creative with web tools provided by Viacom, when I already spend hours each week designing content and buying cool fashions at TheHub [] ?

(Visitors under 13 years of age, please enjoy with a parent or guardian.)

Not Surprising, But Mildly Impressive (2, Insightful)

Christopher_Edwardz (1036954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17180134)

The 'big media' conglomerates have always been geriatric/glacial in their movements into new technology.

I'm thinking this is worthy of note on just how fast they are um... talking about this. They probably see it as targeting a key demographic (the teenager - young adult crowd), which it does and would.

*deep breath* The reason, I'm guessing, for the seemingly slow movement would be the decision makers are older, fiscal conservatives who are fearful of new technology and systems/processes that transcend general media broadcast methods.

I had to chuckle over "a Web video player that could play clips". TFA doesn't go into enough detail, but it leads one to assume that it is a web client similar to what we have been using for YouTube [] . (May the Master Control Program derez it softly into oblivion.)

However, in the context, the hypothetical player could be either a physical web-appliance (doubtful) or a program that runs on a PC with web connectivity (similar to Media Player Classic [] ).

I would imagine that they want complete control over the project and will want a proprietary codec/format that they can load with DRM. Given their feelings (and their lawyer's) on the subject, this is fairly obvious. If this were not the case, I'd imagine they would use Apple Quicktime [] .

It is also obvious that Walt Disney wouldn't want to join in on this just yet. They are berserk about their intellectual property rights.

Given their track record, I'm slightly impressed. I think they will mess it up by being over-protective of their rights by having some snake-oil salesman tell them what they want to hear, but I'm still (mildly) impressed.

bah humbug!! (1)

Treates2 (1004837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17180306)

"lets all get on the inovation train.. everybody.. hop aboard our next destination is the tubess. the tubes of the internet!!!!"

No thanks (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 7 years ago | (#17181086)

If I wanted to watch commercials every five minutes during _Lost_ I'd just watch it on TV.

They Won't Get Eyeballs Unless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17182472)

...they use the Flash player. Hell, both Youtube and Google Video are Linux user friendly as they support the Flash player which ANY desktop OS from today can use. If they decide to go the route that someone like say... VONGO did, and use Windows Media Player as the base engine for their "web player", they will not get off the ground at all. I remember hitting Vongo from both my Linux box and my Mac and getting told that there is no support for my platform. It looks like they'll NEVER support Linux unless Wine can eventually support IE7+WMP11, or I just run Windows in a VM. It looks like they could support Mac OS X but ONLY if Microsoft shares the DRM code with Apple. So again possibly only a VM solution will work there. Pretty pathetic in my eyes. Are you listening you cluestick impaired suits at the big networks??? Likely as not.

Remember iCraveTV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17186350)

iCraveTV [] would have made big bux for the networks had the neo-Luddites not stomped on it. Let someone else do the technology right, then the networks could have taken their cut of the ad revenue stream (or have added value to their existing national advertising).
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?