Epix Provides "Free" HD Studio Content Via TV and Internet 68
It looks as though the movie studios are at least trying to learn from past failures and others' success with the upcoming launch of Epix (beta starts today), an HD television channel and accompanying online 720p service. The good part about this service is, if you are lucky enough to have a television provider who decides to become a partner, you wont have to pay extra to get it. The main downside, of course, is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe. "Like Hulu, the Epix movie service is a joint venture formed by the content owners; in this case, the service is powered by the movie studios Lions Gate, Paramount, and MGM. The Epix TV network will air movies that are in the "pay-TV" window — those weeks before a film appears on DVD in which it is available on pay-per-view or HBO, among others."
Sweet! (Score:1)
ESPN Now Has this Model... (Score:2)
"The main downside of course is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe."
Yeah, that's what ESPN is doing now with ESPN 360. The ISP subscribes or you are out of luck. ESPN would actually make money off of me if they bothered to set up their own network infrastructure instead of charging local ISPs for the privilege.
Re: (Score:2)
However this is the 'proper' way of doing it.
I have no problem if a content provider wants to try to reinvent the wheel and make the new AOL. It's their content, it's up to them to 'sell' it as they best feel they can.
It's when someone I pay for a connection to the internet turns around and tells me that I can't access content or that I can only do so in a degraded manner, because someone hasn't paid the ISP some 'protection money', that I get
Re: (Score:2)
If you think you aren't getting enough moola from ME, then raise your prices and watch me leave for another provider that isn't as greedy
So what will you do when the other provider doesn't have the titles you want or the titles your SO or children want?
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the fact that the quoted sentence has nothing to do with the idea of being signed up for a service such as this:
The same thing I'd do today without the service?
Either get over it, get a copy of the movie from the DVD rental store, buy it from Best Bu
Re: (Score:1)
Except that when shit like this catches on, we all lose when we get weighed down with websites that get bundled with our connection, raising prices for all of us - including the ones that don't care, while simultaneously lining the pockets of people who already get too much money off their content.
It's nice that someone's attempting to get movies on the internet, but the distribution method is still a dick move, regardless of the content behind it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How is this any different from AOL, CompuServe, Delphi, our ghosts in the past?
"Get access to our exclusive content, and internet too!" has been around for a long time and it's never (since there was an option) ever beat out vanilla internet.
It's hardly likely this to catch on either, and even if it does, it won't be universal by any means. They'll be companies out there willing to work for your buck by selling you 'cut rate connections without all that overhead' just as there will be companies out there te
Re: (Score:2)
Do you see how that would empower the telcos who own most of the network needed to do what you describe?
Remember that the telcos are trying to extend their monopoly into entertainment while POTS service slowly dies. The entertainment conglomerates would rather maintain their own monopoly over the distribution of entertainment at the expense of the telcos.
Do you see how a-la-carte media distribution will probably never come to pass in the U.S.?
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would they do this? This is going to compete against both pay-per-view/HBO and DVD sales/rentals, both of which bring in real revenue. Are they really betting the ad revenue from Epix will offset that loss? Or are they simply trying to attract attention without a business model?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The cable company pays them for the right to carry the service/channel. By bundling the paywall in with your cable, they (in all fairness) open up a cheap and legal means for a large number of people to watch network shows online. On the downside (and more cynical side), this is now being bundled with your cable bill whether you like it or not, essentially forcing all cable subscribers to subsidize the program.
Re: (Score:1)
If the ISPs had any sense they'd implement their own open payment system where third parties could charge consumers via the ISP and ha
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well I can't say for sure, but my guess would be that they're looking at how much revenue they're losing to online torrents and asking themselves, "Is there any way we can get that business?"
As for the alternatives, they don't care about cannibalizing DVD rentals, because they don't really make money from them. They could license the same content to HBO, but then they basically have to take the cut of profits that HBO gives them. Why not just start your own channel and keep all the profits for yourself? They might hurt DVD sales, but they might believe that DVD sales are already on the way out.
Ultimately they're faced with a problem. Their old business model depended on having complete control over distribution, so if you wanted to see a movie just out in theaters, you had to rush to see in in theaters or else wait a year for it to come out on video. If you wanted to see the movie during the time between theatrical release and video release, well... tough. These days, if you really want to see a movie, you can often get it online before the theatrical release, most likely before it comes out on video, and certainly once it's been released to video. The movie studio has to make it a little more pleasant and convenient for people to see the movies they want to see, when they want to see it, and how they want to see it, or risk having their current business model fall apart.
Like ESPN360? (Score:2)
I think this is like ESPN360 [espn360.com] like AT&T ISP can show this, but not TWC's RoadRunner.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, considering that this isn't up yet, and you need to have both cable and internet from the same company if you want it to work, bragging rights, assuming you have the ability.
Learn from past mistakes? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think not. This is the content providers selling access to their cable arms. This is just another attempt to turn the internet into AOL.
If they had learned anything the films would be available to anyone with the cash in hand and would be in an unDRMed format.
Cable providers biting the hands that feed them? (Score:2, Interesting)
Just like Hulu (Score:1)
They both rot your brains.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I can watch all sorts of PBS documentaries on Hulu...please take your pseudo intellectual indignation elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
I am a Tivo/MythTV user.
I haven't seen a commercial since the last Millenium...
No chance (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Cable companies make money on pay-per-view. This product would provide the same movies for free to subscribers, and would probably cost cable companies themselves to offer it. Given that cable companies are in the business of making money, it would seem like they have every reason to avoid this.
2. The article says that Netflix isn't a viable outlet for the studios because it doesn't have many new releases.
"the real question is why the studios would launch their own distribution network instead of just offloading the films to partners already equipped to handle them? Rensing insists that the services are just too different. While Hulu does offer some films, it's focused almost exclusively on TV at the moment and is ad-supported. Netflix On Demand doesn't have access to the same super-recent hit titles." [FTFA, no edits]
How is that a reason? The studios don't let Netflix stream the new movies. That's not a distribution system issue, it's a policy decision by these very studios. It's just sloppy reporting, I guess. It should just say "The studios don't want to use Netflix On Demand."
Re: (Score:1)
1. Cable companies make money on pay-per-view. This product would provide the same movies for free to subscribers, and would probably cost cable companies themselves to offer it. Given that cable companies are in the business of making money, it would seem like they have every reason to avoid this.
They don't have to offer this channel in the "basic" package so they may be "making money" by selling the higher priced packages to more subscribers.
Re: (Score:2)
And when it dies (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I predict it still won't be recordable over Firewire on a PC or Mac. Wherever it fits in the tiers of service and where amongst the switched digital video channels, it'll still be encrypted.
(I had accidentally typed "channels" as "chanels" and was tempted to leave it like that.)
Seriously? (Score:4, Informative)
Is this really a good idea?
Upsides:
No fees listed on cable bill
Can stream to computer or watch HD channel directly
No ads
Downsides:
Service is -not- free. Only way to get it is for your Cable provider to subscribe and pass that cost on to every single subscriber, whether they want it or not, as part of their standard cable bill.
This could be a nice service, if you could sign up for it as an individual and it was reasonably priced. I can't see how it could possibly be reasonably priced, though, since they are putting up movies that compete with rentals and PPV. Unless, of course, it's only old crappy movies, and then it's crap you could watch anyhow, but with ads.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree.
How about the movie studios stop being raging assholes and allow Netflix to stream the new releases?
No need to create a new model, if you want it you can subscribe. Everyone is happy.
Plus I dont have to make the old lady down the street pay for my movie subscription with their trickle down pricing pyramid scheme.
Could be nice in the begining. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Greed and capitalism is the reason most products exist in the first place. Do you think these millionaire socialists and communists in Hollywood make these massively expensive movies just to release them for free? Why bother? Even the quasi-communistic F/OSS we all know and love is driven by certain types of greed, and increasing amounts of capitalism.
The new meaning of Free (Score:2)
No, this isn't a RMS-style rant.
Most of you gladly pay for your cable/satellite services. You watch maybe 10% of the stuff in a given package as sold by the providers. If, in some fairy tale, this service were actually to be bundled for the vast majority of you, it's hardly free.
Is this what 'free' has come to mean? It is a dumb question, but I just don't see how it can be rationalized as free to the point that editors will just let it go. OTOH, it could be a slashvertisement.
Still, I want to know. Is t
binary in their HTML code (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It translates to "We're no strangers to love You know the rules, and so do I"
Really? Then is this all some kind of late April Fools joke?
Why would they be rick-rolling us?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:binary in their HTML code (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about it: there are numerous folks on places like /. that would never DREAM of visiting a page like this under normal circumstances.
However, let one geek work out what that binary is and post it, and suddenly a large fraction of those folks will thunder over there to confirm it for themselves.
AAAAANNNNNND, those folks will be amused, and thus will be in a more receptive frame of mind to accept the sales pitch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The binary isn't the sales pitch. The binary is the means to get the reluctant to visit their site. Once there, the sales pitch begins.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
International? (Score:2)
This won't be launched internationally. right? :-p
I mean, then they'd risk competing with piracy at large, and it seems like they prefer pissing people off instead to get their way in that area. :p
Lionsgate (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh great Lionsgate is involved. That means 99.9995% of the content will be crap. .0001% will be decent and .0004% will do nicely in overseas markets when put on DVD.
A "Polished Turd" will stink up the basket no matter how many flowers you put in the basket with it....
Re: (Score:2)
What if the turd IS the basket?
http://www.cowpots.com/ [cowpots.com]
Not The Phone (Score:2)
Protip: This is unrelated to the Samsung Epix (i907) cellphone.
if you can't subscribe... (Score:3, Insightful)
"The main downside of course is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe."
So, about half the internet population heaves a sigh and says to themselves, "well, I guess I'll just have to go back to torrenting".
Re: (Score:1)
"The main downside of course is if your cable company decides not to plug this service in you will have no way to subscribe."
So, about half the internet population heaves a sigh and says to themselves, "well, I guess I'll just have to go back to torrenting".
When would you stop torrenting?
Re: (Score:2)
When would you stop torrenting?
Do you want the smart-ass answer or the serious answer?
The smart-ass answer involves seeding percentages.
The serious answer depends upon when traditional delivery channels resume being reliable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to think that one would stop torrenting the moment a reasonable substitute becomes available at a reasonable price.
Potential providers have to realize what their competition is. Common codecs that play in many different players on practically every platform. Total lack of DRM (or total DRM transparency). High quality video and sound. A huge, easily searchable library of immediately available content. Seamless integration into your media center.
What legal services I've seen so far are:
Mo
Re: (Score:2)
Is MCE really this bad at playing stuff through netflix?
Hell, it's not that much farther from what you are describing to just plain running
Internet Exploder in MythTV through wine in order to get to that sort of content.
Re: (Score:2)
Caveat: I'm still using Windows XP Media Center Edition. After reading reports about DRM, performance, media and network issues with Vista, I decided to wait for Windows 7. Parenthetically, if rumors turn out to be true and Windows 7 media center won't work with third party codecs, that's an automatic fail and I'll then be looking at MythTV and it's ilk.
So anyway, it's not that MCE is bad at playing video-on-demand. MCE (at least the XP version) has no awareness of the service. There just isn't any
Useless (Score:1)
Woot! (Score:2)
Finally we can play Lunar Outpost again?
Oh... not that Epyx. Nevermind.
SO let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Well, just the PPV for them but you know, online..
Oh..
Right before they go to DVD
Oh..
And only if your cable company subscribes to this..
Oh..
So if I already have cable with PPV, why do I need this again? Is it that the cable companies who do sign up wont have these available as regular PPV? I doubt it..
This is stupid in too many ways..
Aborting/Retry/Fail (Y) to all.