| This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 34 ( 1  ) || |
|Networks Blocking Shows On Google TV|
| 5:44 pm on Oct 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Networks Blocking Shows On Google TV [online.wsj.com]
ABC, CBS and NBC are blocking TV programming on their websites from being viewable on Google Inc.'s new Web-TV service, exposing the rift that remains between the technology giant and some of the media companies it wants to supply content for its new products.
Spokespeople for the three networks confirmed that they are blocking the episodes on their websites from playing on Google TV, although both ABC and NBC allow promotional clips to work using the service. ABC is owned by Walt Disney Co., CBS is part of CBS Corp., and NBC is a unit of General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal.
"Google TV enables access to all the Web content you already get today on your phone and PC, but it is ultimately the content owners' choice to restrict their fans from accessing their content on the platform," a Google spokeswoman said in a statement.
| 4:58 am on Oct 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The old Lernaean Hydra of content-restriction rears its head(s) again. Haven't they already been over this with Youtube?
Google can afford the bandwidth these days and should be commissioning their own content if they want an "in" to it, they've got the money.
| 5:58 am on Oct 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Google can afford the bandwidth these days and should be commissioning their own content if they want an "in" to it, they've got the money. |
See, this is where the ugly details come in. Content producers know that it requires creativity, talent, and time (read: money) to produce content that people want to see. Google understands this as well, but they have long ago taken the route to not spend money on content (except, maybe, for licences on Google Maps). Why? Because it is risky and damn expensive. It's easier to scrape the web, it's easier to let users upload content (that often is protected by copyright), it's easier to pick up video-streams from TV networks. Cost (and thus risk) for this is minimal, just a bit of development cost and bandwidth. But they don't want to spend money for the the content itself.
| 11:04 am on Oct 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Reminds me of one of the last article i submitted to traditional directories, I was wondering why i got no back links till i check and found the articles we up, but my "esteemed" fellow webmasters had changed the author names, removed the back links and helped themselves to works that had cost me time and money
indeed, why spend money an effort to create content, why not just scrape it from someone else, afterall , everyone is doing it and it seems to have general approval
| 12:21 am on Nov 2, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Get ready for quality to go way down, then. Money is the motivator for any quality programming you get. If profits go away, so will the quality. |
Agreed. If Google gets the cash from the advertising without having to pony up the cash to produce it then quality will certainly go down. For consumers it is great that the price of content and entertainment has gone down at least when accessed online but sooner or later the tipping point comes and quality takes a nose dive. Scraper/mashup sites that deliver no or very little value can make a lot more than a good content site.
On the other hand, that's just the way it is and the trend is for technology to continue to make content more easily accessible without the producers getting paid for it. For better or worse that's the trend that is likely to continue.
| This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 34 ( 1  ) |