3 ms·

You make a good point about video availability between different channels (something I hadn't really considered here, surprisingly), but I'm somewhat more optim

You make a good point about video availability between different channels (something I hadn't really considered here, surprisingly), but I'm somewhat more optimistic. Some of the best television I've seen over the past few years has been exclusive content. The example I always come back to is The Wire. On one hand, I'll be sad to see online services becoming the new premium cable channels, but on the other, I look forward to more excellent shows. It's worth the problems with distribution if we can get some more high quality content.

macrael 16y ago
You're quite right about The Wire. Maybe this is just naturally the way that the art is going to be funded in the future. Really, all television is developed exclusively at the network level. NBC, CBS, and HBO all fund the creation of TV that they then broadcast exclusively at a specified time. They go out through the cable wires to their subscribers who either pay by watching ads (NBC), or by paying for access (HBO) (or both, right? (basic cable?)). Then after a while, it comes out on DVD, and can be syndicated by other channels. In that light, these new digital distributors really are changing things up. The idea that the show would be watchable somewhere besides the cable channel at the specific time and date is quite novel. So, the networks now make shows available on their own websites, on Hulu, on iTunes, eventually on Netflix. I guess I just saw the digital distributors as competitors to cable as a whole instead of new 'networks'. There is some truth to my original impression: many different networks, creators of video, distribute their wares on these sites. You see shows from NBC, Fox, etc. all sharing space on Hulu. My guess is that those relationships are going to be strained by having these distributors also pushing their own video. My worry is that now these distributors are becoming networks too, and that that is going to cause problems that didn't exist in the past. Perhaps it is going to solve some problems too, but we'll see.

macrael 16y ago

You're quite right about The Wire. Maybe this is just naturally the way that the art is going to be funded in the future. Really, all television is developed exclusively at the network level. NBC, CBS, and HBO all fund the creation of TV that they then broadcast exclusively at a specified time. They go out through the cable wires to their subscribers who either pay by watching ads (NBC), or by paying for access (HBO) (or both, right? (basic cable?)). Then after a while, it comes out on DVD, and can be syndicated by other channels. In that light, these new digital distributors really are changing things up. The idea that the show would be watchable somewhere besides the cable channel at the specific time and date is quite novel. So, the networks now make shows available on their own websites, on Hulu, on iTunes, eventually on Netflix. I guess I just saw the digital distributors as competitors to cable as a whole instead of new 'networks'. There is some truth to my original impression: many different networks, creators of video, distribute their wares on these sites. You see shows from NBC, Fox, etc. all sharing space on Hulu. My guess is that those relationships are going to be strained by having these distributors also pushing their own video. My worry is that now these distributors are becoming networks too, and that that is going to cause problems that didn't exist in the past. Perhaps it is going to solve some problems too, but we'll see.