AOL, Warner to Bring Old TV Shows Online

[bossjock967]

[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Nov 15 2005, 12:07 PM\']However, according to the ads, if you're dissatisfied with the service, you can march right into an AOL board meeting, jump up on the table, and tell them.

[snapback]102294[/snapback]

[/quote]
I tried that.  I'm due in court next week.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'bossjock967\' date=\'Nov 15 2005, 09:28 AM\']I tried that.  I'm due in court next week.

[snapback]102295[/snapback]

[/quote]
Best of luck to you. I assure you, if I ever walked into an AOL board meeting, they would have to warm up Old Sparky, because it would be like the scene in Dogma when Matt & Ben walk into the Mooby headquarters.

[uncamark]

A Broadcasting & Cable article did say that after the original six channels (comedy, drama, S-F/fantasy, action, animation, "classics") roll out in January, AOL intends to add a reality channel and a "cancelled shows" channel (which could add shows when immediately cancelled by the networks and include unaired episodes) later.  Don't know if "reality" will extend to game shows, but we'll find out eventually.

Aaron Barnhart is rather dismissive of the scheme on his KC Star blog (www.tvbarn.com), but I think it'll hold promise.  Granted, these shows are mostly past their prime, but the hardcore vintage TV fan who complains about TVL and NAN will be glad to have this available--well, at least for some of the shows.

[mmb5]

[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Nov 16 2005, 12:53 PM\']Aaron Barnhart is rather dismissive of the scheme on his KC Star blog (www.tvbarn.com), but I think it'll hold promise.  Granted, these shows are mostly past their prime, but the hardcore vintage TV fan who complains about TVL and NAN will be glad to have this available--well, at least for some of the shows.

[snapback]102378[/snapback]

[/quote]

As somebody who is quasi-in this industry, I don't think it's ready yet, bascially because:

1-The speeds aren't fast enough.  It takes a few seconds to get a 3-4 minute song, it's going to take a long time to download the video component.

2-The quality won't be that great.  We've seen DVD-quality and we're not going to go back.  This is going to mean 720x480 images, and that's going to be a pretty big honking file.  To make it more palatable, they'll probably reduce the quality.  I don't want some blob on Gabe Kaplan's mouth, I want each indivudal moustache hair or it's just not worth it.

3-There's no ownership.  Any and all music-renting schemes have failed, and only the ones that gave you the physical product have been successful.

4-The cost.  At $2.49 show, it's not worth it when you can spend $25 and get the whole season.  On media that you own.

This will work, and only work, when it's relatively instantenous and you get a full quality image that will look good on your TV -- you're big honking 27" TV -- so your whole family can sit down and watch it again and again.  If it's horribly pixelized on a 14" computer monitor and you have to re-download it for each viewing, what's the point?


--Mike

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'mmb5\' date=\'Nov 16 2005, 01:02 PM\']If it's horribly pixelized on a 14" computer monitor and you have to re-download it for each viewing, what's the point?
[/quote]
There is none, but when has AOL cared about quality?

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'mmb5\' date=\'Nov 16 2005, 10:02 AM\'] If it's horribly pixelized on a 14" computer monitor and you have to re-download it for each viewing, what's the point?
[/quote]
I think the point is, you have to start somewhere. Remember, you wouldn't even HAVE that 50" hi-def television if it weren't for a crappy, fuzzy, barely legible image of Felix The Cat in the 1930's.

[Terry K]

[quote name=\'mmb5\' date=\'Nov 16 2005, 01:02 PM\']
As somebody who is quasi-in this industry, I don't think it's ready yet, bascially because:

1-The speeds aren't fast enough.  It takes a few seconds to get a 3-4 minute song, it's going to take a long time to download the video component.

2-The quality won't be that great.  We've seen DVD-quality and we're not going to go back.  This is going to mean 720x480 images, and that's going to be a pretty big honking file.  To make it more palatable, they'll probably reduce the quality.  I don't want some blob on Gabe Kaplan's mouth, I want each indivudal moustache hair or it's just not worth it.

3-There's no ownership.  Any and all music-renting schemes have failed, and only the ones that gave you the physical product have been successful.

4-The cost.  At $2.49 show, it's not worth it when you can spend $25 and get the whole season.  On media that you own.

--Mike

[snapback]102380[/snapback]

[/quote]

Where does this 2.49 come from?  As I understand it, these programs will be free of charge as it is (with the commercials of course)

You get what you pay for =)

[rugrats1]

[quote name=\'Terry K\' date=\'Nov 17 2005, 07:11 AM\']Where does this 2.49 come from? [/quote]

He probably confused this with NBC's plan of making their latest shows available online with no commercials for that price.

[mmb5]

[quote name=\'Terry K\' date=\'Nov 17 2005, 07:11 AM\'][quote name=\'mmb5\' date=\'Nov 16 2005, 01:02 PM\']
4-The cost.  At $2.49 show, it's not worth it when you can spend $25 and get the whole season.  On media that you own.

--Mike

[snapback]102380[/snapback]

[/quote]

Where does this 2.49 come from?  As I understand it, these programs will be free of charge as it is (with the commercials of course)

You get what you pay for =)

[snapback]102476[/snapback]

[/quote]

I cheerfully withdraw #4 for the consumer, but now the model looks real stupid for the provider.  Streaming media isn't free and commercials don't pay the bills (yet).


--Mike