I think that it’s an acceptable risk. If CBS wasn’t willing to potentially lose that amount of money they’ve spent, they wouldn’t spend it.
Doesn’t mean it’s not a gamble.
WIRED on the business of All Access and Trek
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
I think that it’s an acceptable risk. If CBS wasn’t willing to potentially lose that amount of money they’ve spent, they wouldn’t spend it.
Doesn’t mean it’s not a gamble.
Oh, it's a gamble. I just think it is a lesser gamble on All-Access versus traditional broadcast.
And I certainly don’t disagree with that. What all those who are whining about having to pay the price of one venti pumpkin spice latte a month don’t seem to realize is — if you want a show that’s actually going to compete these days, it has to be of quality. Quality in the actors, in the writing, the visuals, etc. You can’t do the kind of thing Discovery wants to do on network TV. You can’t have the visuals. Network shows are so prone to studio notes and the crew behind network series are pushed beyond their limits to produce 22 episodes a season. I welcome Star Trek with 15 hours, an amazing visual style, taking risks on a streaming service I have to spend a few bucks on. That’s okay by me. At the end of the day, if someone doesn’t see that? Okay. That’s your choice. But you might be missing out.
That's after you have the compatible platform to view it on. All Access supports substantially fewer platforms than other streaming services. Not everyone who watches, say, Netflix is ready to seamlessly add All Access.
And you need an internet connection, which you pay for. All this talk about buying a service at the cost of coffee isn't taking into effect the overhead that comes with it.
You can watch it on a computer, can’t you? You can watch it on a mobile device, right?
Sigh. That’s true but I’m not certain there would be that many people who would be interested in Disco who don’t already pay for an internet connection.
ETA: I’m not completely blind to the idea that there are those out there who don’t want to or can’t pay for internet access and a CBSAA account. Sure! I get that. But I think it’s far more likely that the people who are the loudest spend $250 a month on cable, internet, phone, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, HBO Now, some sort of music streaming service, whatever. Please say to me with a straight face that there is nothing they can cut in their entertainment budget to afford a $6 subscription to CBSAA. Please.
Last edited:
Are you talking about me? Me, personally, I'm fine.
But watching something on a PC or a mobile device isn't a preferred way of watching TV for, I don't know how many people, but it's a lot. A lot of people prefer to watch TV on their big screen TV in the living room that's hooked into the stereo or other home theater system. A lot of people want apps to work on their smart TV. All Access does not support that.
I was suggesting in general, not you. And yes, I get that it’s not the most ideal. But if you really can’t afford it, you make concessions. If you own a Samsung phone, you can stream to most Smart TVs, I believe even the older models. If that doesn’t work, take an HDMI cable and hook your computer up to the TV. There are options that can make it a little more bearable.
Barring all of that, you suck it up and watch it on your PC.
First off the article completely disregards the primary revenue of Discovery and that's its overseas Netflix deal.
CBS Online is using Trek's brand and overseas revenue stream to push its way into the streaming market. It wants market growth (which it actually has had the last two years to date) for CBS All Access, but I don't see the shows future tied dramatically to if it helps CBS subscriber base grow.
At most I can see CBS eventually (some time next year or later) getting the budget down to a more broadcast level (about half of what its currently set at).
We have to remember as a distributor of content and not just a created of content, CBS can't attempt to get into this side of the business. And if how they handled UPN (and later it's share of the CW) CBS is willing to throw hundreds of millions into a major investment and still not make profit off of its distribution.
We probably will never really know how the series is doing, but I think its pretty safe that you can count on at least 4 seasons in some form, enough to get to 70 plus episodes or so, if nothing else for its catalog business. And why shows that get renewed for a 3 season almost always get a fourth.
Plug said devices into a tv. If used my Mac mini as a digital hub for years. I haven't used a computer screen at home for probably a decade.
Yes, we've done that for years, too.
But again, my point is missed. This sort of marketing is not user-friendly. It's targeting only a subset of preexisting home theater configurations, and for everybody else it's "some assembly required." For some people, they'll run into the wall of it not working "right out of the box" and just say fuck it.
I will agree that CBSAA needs to get their app on more places. Maybe not so much blu-ray players but definitely on more smart TVs especially some of the big ones like Samsung. The easier they make it to get the app the better off it will be for them and Smart TV area is a huge gap right now for CBSAA.
That's pretty much my take. They're obviously hoping that the Game of Thrones model works for them. That people will subscribe just to get that show at the very least.
They are trying to bring it other shows too. Good fight did well fro them and they have 3 more coming as well. So while star trek will be the flasgship is by far the only show they are doing to the service.
and anybody subscribing who hasn't seen good fight I'd reccomend at least checking it out.
Other than cable and broadcast, CBS All Access looks to be available through the normal avenues: CBS All Access subscribers can simply download the CBS App on their mobile device, Roku Player, Apple TV, Chromecast, Android TV, Xbox 360, Xbox One, PlayStation 4, or Fire TV.
Personally, I use a $35 Chromecast. Works great.
Personally, I use a $35 Chromecast. Works great.
You realize that it's more likely some one has a device that can plug into a tv then a person owning a smart tv. And it's generally much cheaper, then upgrading to a new tv.
^ Exactly. With the external device (such as the AppleTV), that's all that you have to upgrade. You don't have to get a whole new TV each time.
It's why having things "built-in" is overrated, and can often be counterproductive.
It's why having things "built-in" is overrated, and can often be counterproductive.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_TV#Market_share:
According to a report from research group NPD In-Stat, in 2012 only about 12 million U.S. households had their Web-capable TVs connected to the Internet, although an estimated 25 million households owned a set with the built-in network capability. In-Stat predicted that by 2016, 100 million homes in North America and western Europe would be using television sets blending traditional programming with internet content.[50]
The number of households using over-the-top television services has rapidly increased over the years. In 2015, 52% of U.S. households subscribed to Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Hulu Plus; 43% of pay-TV subscribers also used Netflix, and 43% of adults used some streaming video on demand service at least monthly. Additionally, 19% of Netflix subscribers shared their subscription with people outside of their households. Ten percent of adults at the time showed interest in HBO Now.[51]
The number of households using over-the-top television services has rapidly increased over the years. In 2015, 52% of U.S. households subscribed to Netflix, Amazon Prime, or Hulu Plus; 43% of pay-TV subscribers also used Netflix, and 43% of adults used some streaming video on demand service at least monthly. Additionally, 19% of Netflix subscribers shared their subscription with people outside of their households. Ten percent of adults at the time showed interest in HBO Now.[51]
So... link?
The safety word is "nacelle"So Star Trek: BDSM?
Similar threads
