3 ms·

It still blows me away that Time Warner, Comcast, and others have failed to take advantage of their existing relationships with networks to rollout their own Ne

by rglover 13y ago

It still blows me away that Time Warner, Comcast, and others have failed to take advantage of their existing relationships with networks to rollout their own Netflix style of service. Nowadays, most of the content is already digitized, so building a VOD style of offering would only be a matter of setting up the infrastructure/team to manage it. Surely these massive companies have the resources? I don't subscribe to cable primarily because it's too expensive and also because I'm never around to watch what I want to when it's on.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 13y ago
> It still blows me away that Time Warner, Comcast, and others have failed to take advantage of their existing relationships with networks to rollout their own Netflix style of service. They have -- its the video-on-demand service that is part of their cable offerings. (And also available over the internet to their cable subscribers.) > so building a VOD style of offering would only be a matter of setting up the infrastructure/team to manage it. Cable services have had VOD offerings longer than Netflix has had streaming.
- rglover 13y ago
  > They have -- its the video-on-demand service that is part of their cable offerings. (And also available over the internet to their cable subscribers.) I should clarify, I mean purely internet/device based. Without an existing cable subscription/set top box setup.
macNchz 13y ago
Much like the music industry ~15 years ago, their model is still very profitable. As mentioned in the linked article, their disruptive competition (Netflix et al) has much less revenue per hour of content consumed. To explore alternative business models would potentially cut into their revenue and threaten relationships with content creators (who they would no longer be able to pay as well). I imagine that this inertia towards change will allow disruptive competition to eat away at their customer base for a few more years, until their attrition is so high that restructuring and providing a-la-carte/on demand service is not just a good, pro-active move to secure their future, but instead an important step to stay in business at all.
yaur 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Everywhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Everywhere is their answer. Cable is to big of a cash cow to give up.
mkr-hn 13y ago
Comcast has this. I can go to the Comcast website or app and watch most of the stuff I can get on Netflix.
- rglover 13y ago
  But you have to have an existing cable subscription, right? Meaning, I can't just go to comcast.com and signup for an account and start watching?
jejones3141 13y ago
They do, sort of. It's called "TV Everywhere", and it's as if when cars first came out there were a program called "Buggies Everywhere" that let you buy a car, but only if you also bought and maintained a horse and buggy.

by rglover 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 13y ago

> It still blows me away that Time Warner, Comcast, and others have failed to take advantage of their existing relationships with networks to rollout their own Netflix style of service. They have -- its the video-on-demand service that is part of their cable offerings. (And also available over the internet to their cable subscribers.) > so building a VOD style of offering would only be a matter of setting up the infrastructure/team to manage it. Cable services have had VOD offerings longer than Netflix has had streaming.

rglover 13y ago
> They have -- its the video-on-demand service that is part of their cable offerings. (And also available over the internet to their cable subscribers.) I should clarify, I mean purely internet/device based. Without an existing cable subscription/set top box setup.

macNchz 13y ago

Much like the music industry ~15 years ago, their model is still very profitable. As mentioned in the linked article, their disruptive competition (Netflix et al) has much less revenue per hour of content consumed. To explore alternative business models would potentially cut into their revenue and threaten relationships with content creators (who they would no longer be able to pay as well). I imagine that this inertia towards change will allow disruptive competition to eat away at their customer base for a few more years, until their attrition is so high that restructuring and providing a-la-carte/on demand service is not just a good, pro-active move to secure their future, but instead an important step to stay in business at all.

yaur 13y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Everywhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Everywhere is their answer. Cable is to big of a cash cow to give up.

mkr-hn 13y ago

Comcast has this. I can go to the Comcast website or app and watch most of the stuff I can get on Netflix.

rglover 13y ago
But you have to have an existing cable subscription, right? Meaning, I can't just go to comcast.com and signup for an account and start watching?

jejones3141 13y ago

They do, sort of. It's called "TV Everywhere", and it's as if when cars first came out there were a program called "Buggies Everywhere" that let you buy a car, but only if you also bought and maintained a horse and buggy.