USA distribution -CBS All Access discussion

[Albinator]

I don't have an issue paying $6 a month for a streaming service. I have an issue paying for another streaming service.

I already have Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO Now and Alpha (for geek and Sundry). I have to draw the line somewhere and this is it. Too little shows for what I want. netflix has more shows and I can binge watch them.

Now, i get why CBS is launching all access and not putting this on Netflix in the us. I don't think they ever will put it on netflix and I cans see them yanking all Star trek in the future. But for now, this one show that looks bad to me to begin with, on a service that has nothing else I am interested in, I can't binge watch it and I still have commercials means a pass for me.

I don't think All access will fail but when it becomes big enough and has stuff I want to watch then I will subscribe.

All totally understandable, if unfortunate for you as a Trek fan. Hopefully CBSAA debuts enough new/original/old content to make it a worthwhile service for you.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I first signed up for Netflix for the discs (4.99/m). I then upped to 7.99 for streaming because there was ONE show I wanted to watch. There are innumerable benefits to streaming over cable, and if you don't like that, that's fine, but history will look back at you as a fool.

I'm fairly sure that history won't remember most of us at all.

 

[Albinator]

I'm fairly sure that history won't remember most of us at all.

Speak for yourself!

 

[Jedi_Master]

Speak for yourself!

I'm the Queen of England.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Liz or Liz?

Or Viki.

 

[Spider]

The problem with CBS All Access is you can't just subscribe to it without a specific device on their list. So you'll need a ROKU or PS4 or Windows 10, plus others, they list several other ways to watch, none of which I have. So, not only do I have to subscribe to their service, I'll have to additionally purchase one of the devices on their list.

I've said several times that I'll do that but only if the broadcast premier makes it seem worth it. But it's a freaking hassle. I have Amazon Prime and subscriptions to HBO and Showtime through Amazon Prime. CBS is just making it difficult for their own purposes, understandable purposes I'd say, but they are making it difficult by forcing you to get a device to watch it.

Here is a list of devices they have listed you can access CBS All Access on.
https://cbsi.secure.force.com/CBSi/...e_cbsvod&referer=cbs.com/vod&data=&cfs=SFS_FT

 

[Albinator]

The problem with CBS All Access is you can't just subscribe to it without a specific device on their list. So you'll need a ROKU or PS4 or Windows 10, plus others, they list several other ways to watch, none of which I have. So, not only do I have to subscribe to their service, I'll have to additionally purchase one of the devices on their list.

These are indeed flaws that they'll either have to address, or risk failure. It seems to me that they have a VERY imperfect service, which is why I don't really have a ton of faith in CBSAA's longevity. Frankly, I don't think many of these services dedicated to a single channel stand much of a chance long term.

As said earlier, I think CBS would be wise to ally themselves with their CW partners Paramount and WB. Content from all 4 of those outlets would make for a much more appealing service.

 

[Krandor]

These are indeed flaws that they'll either have to address, or risk failure. It seems to me that they have a VERY imperfect service, which is why I don't really have a ton of faith in CBSAA's longevity. Frankly, I don't think many of these services dedicated to a single channel stand much of a chance long term.

As said earlier, I think CBS would be wise to ally themselves with their CW partners Paramount and WB. Content from all 4 of those outlets would make for a much more appealing service.

I don't see how being dedicated to a single channel makes a difference on a streaming service. A lot of stuff that airs on CBS isn't produced by CBS. CBS just handling the distribution of the content they buy from others. So on their streaming service they are also not restricted to stuff that they make in-house. They will likely start that way since it saves some money but it doesn't have to start that way.

There is a difference between CBS produced shows and CBS distributed shows and they do and have done both.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

That is not what I'm saying at all... what you're doing is a common logical fallacy known as a straw man argument.

It's not enough to say that I'm using a straw man. You have to articulate how your position is misrepresented to create the straw man in the first place.

It hardly makes me an old geezer to think this whole thing is a clusterf***.

Yes it does.

Certainly seems like you're dismissing my valid concerns regarding the proliferation of streaming platforms. But if I haven't been specific enough, let me give you a few examples:

• Difficulty finding content spread over multiple networks, with old and new content potentially being on separate networks.
• People will have to separately search the Internet to identify what streaming platform contains the content they want.
• Devices using up precious memory to store a plethora of different streaming applications.
• More applications mean more attack surface for hackers.
• Some "streaming applications" may actually be trojans that are named similar to the streaming applications they pretend to be. Established streaming platforms, like Netflix, are typically included as a default application when you get your phone.
• The more streaming platforms there are, the fewer people use a given platform, which means that there will be fewer people reporting bugs and less money to fix them.
• Less mature streaming platforms will likely support fewer operating systems and devices. For instance, Netflix is supported on Linux via their HTML5 Player. CBS All Access, to my knowledge, is only supported via a native application for a specific set of platforms/devices.

Eventually, platforms will consolidate into, say, four or five offerings like I now realize you were implying, but until then it's going to be a real pain. I think the services will all eventually be Web applications with some platform-specific integration built on top of HTML5, Encrypted Media Extensions and Web Assembly.

Frankly, I don't think many of these services dedicated to a single channel stand much of a chance long term.

Agreed. I think you're right about CW + CW Seed + CBS + Paramount + Warner Brothers making a powerful combined platform, though. I might be willing to pay for that.

There is a difference between CBS produced shows and CBS distributed shows and they do and have done both.

I'm not sure that's a significant distinction. People are going to basically see CBS All Access as CBS shows plus a few pay-only shows. It doesn't really provide much more than HBO GO, with disadvantage that you can seem many of those shows for free over the air.

 

[Albinator]

It's not enough to say that I'm using a straw man. You have to articulate how your position is misrepresented to create the straw man in the first place.

My argument was not "if you don't pay $6 for CBSAA for the one show you want to watch then you're a fool" it was, essentially, "if you're stuck in the outmoded way of TV thinking (Cable/broadcast) and don't see the benefit long-term of streaming across apps as the primary means of watching TV, then you're a fool."

Certainly seems like you're dismissing my valid concerns regarding the proliferation of streaming platforms.

Yes, I am, because many of these aren't major concerns TODAY, and the minor concerns and issues that are present now will be addressed as the technology and platforms evolve in the years to come. This is a result of your backwards thinking-- an inability to see potential and future possibilities.

Eventually, platforms will consolidate into, say, four or five offerings like I now realize you were implying, but until then it's going to be a real pain.

Firstly, for who? It's certainly not a pain for most people I know. Maybe for the geezers!

Secondly, I didn't imply it at all, I said it very plainly and outright at the beginning of the discussion. I'll chalk it up to a few pages of dialog you probably missed it. It happens. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Mordock]

CBS just sent me an offer for a free month of All Access!

Offer expires on 8/18/2017 11:59 PM PT.

Uh huh. I see you.

 

[Albinator]

CBS just sent me an offer for a free month of All Access!



Uh huh. I see you.

These are the kinds of flaws and bad decisions that will hurt them. The smart thing would be to make CBSAA available free for the first 2-3 weeks of DSC's run. Yes, even after the premiere. Get as many people watching as possible.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

My argument was not "if you don't pay $6 for CBSAA for the one show you want to watch then you're a fool" it was, essentially, "if you're stuck in the outmoded way of TV thinking (Cable/broadcast) and don't see the benefit long-term of streaming across apps as the primary means of watching TV, then you're a fool."

Which is, in itself, a straw man. Most of us are already using streaming networks, but the idea that we've reached the point where cord cutting is the best solution for everyone is incorrect and naive. I do periodic cost estimates on cord cutting based on my current viewing habits, and I'm still finding it to be a wash for me at best. In fact, I was one of the first people to predict that content and networks would eventually go online, but I underestimated how obstructionist established media companies would be.

Another thing is that you often get discounts for having both Internet AND cable television. My cable box also doubles as a DVR and allows me to do things like pause live television and record a show in its entirety that I've already been watching for 20 minutes. You have to account for these things if you're deciding to cut the cord.

Of course, you don't actually need to get rid of cable TV to use a streaming service anyways. You also have the YouTube/Patreon model, where content is funded directly by the viewers. It's not a binary "past or future" decision.

Firstly, for who? It's certainly not a pain for most people I know. Maybe for the geezers!

I see you haven't had the "pleasure" of using streaming applications that are so buggy that they often crash while loading, or crash while you're watching video, or won't let you in because you don't have the right cable company (because the cable company wants you to use their on demand service instead to access the same content). I've used several applications that have bugged orientation or that force portrait orientation while browsing but switch to landscape while playing the videos. I find that more than half the streaming apps I've tried are awful.

 

[Mordock]

These are the kinds of flaws and bad decisions that will hurt them. The smart thing would be to make CBSAA available free for the first 2-3 weeks of DSC's run. Yes, even after the premiere. Get as many people watching as possible.

Well, I don't know about that; they're already showing the premiere on broadcast as a tester. That's certainly a gamble on viewers finding the premiere impressive, but in my experience with sales, if you give away a little, prospective customers will keep pressing for more free stuff, so you have to draw a line at some point.

 

[Albinator]

Well, I don't know about that; they're already showing the premiere on broadcast as a tester. That's certainly a gamble on viewers finding the premiere impressive, but in my experience with sales, if you give away a little, prospective customers will keep pressing for more free stuff, so you have to draw a line at some point.

Funny. in my experience in sales (and I work in entertainment), more free "samples" leads to more sales. It's been shown time and time again that trailers, for example, that show more of the movie-- while pissing off the superfans-- actually attracts larger numbers of the broader audience.

This show needs broad exposure. In my opinion, they should broadcast the premiere on CBS *and* offer a free week or two of CBSAA at launch.

 

[Albinator]

Which is, in itself, a straw man.

Clearly you don't understand the concept of a straw man, so I'm done with this back and forth.

Most of us are already using streaming networks, but the idea that we've reached the point where cord cutting is the best solution for everyone is incorrect and naive.

Again, not the argument I'm making. Thanks, for playing though.

 

[Mordock]

This show needs broad exposure. In my opinion, they should broadcast the premiere on CBS *and* offer a free week or two of CBSAA at launch.

AFAIK, they've got a standing offer for a free week of All Access already. Assuming it isn't cut off early in the new year, one could conceivably binge-watch the entire first season when it finishes. Admittedly, it would require patience, which doesn't align terribly well with the culture of streaming, but it would be inexpensive.

 

[Albinator]

AFAIK, they've got a standing offer for a free week of All Access already. Assuming it isn't cut off early in the new year, one could conceivably binge-watch the entire first season when it finishes. Admittedly, it would require patience, which doesn't align terribly well with the culture of streaming, but it would be inexpensive.

I haven't even looked at the app yet, since I'm already happy to get it at launch, but that seems like a great promotion, and while I don't expect many Trekkies to do what you're saying, the option is there who can't afford the service (or refuse to on principle).

I do however, expect a lot of the fence-sitters to go for the free week maybe week 2 or 3, watch the first few episodes, and decide if the show is good enough to warrant purchase (if Episode 2 airs on the app on Saturday, fans can sign up for the free week on Sunday, and watch Episodes 2 and 3 in the free trial period).

 

[Mordock]

I do however, expect a lot of the fence-sitters to go for the free week maybe week 2 or 3, watch the first few episodes, and decide if the show is good enough to warrant purchase (if Episode 2 airs on the app on Saturday, fans can sign up for the free week on Sunday, and watch Episodes 2 and 3 in the free trial period).

Indeed, that's what I myself am planning to do. We'll soon find out how it works out. Peace and long life, Albinator!

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Clearly you don't understand the concept of a straw man, so I'm done with this back and forth.

1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

And your argument:

My argument was [...] essentially, "if you're stuck in the outmoded way of TV thinking (Cable/broadcast) and don't see the benefit long-term of streaming across apps as the primary means of watching TV, then you're a fool."

No one here is arguing against streaming in general or its importance in the long term. So either you're either misrepresenting someone's argument (in which case your argument is a straw man) or you're replying to an argument that was never made.

Again, not the argument I'm making. Thanks, for playing though.

You said "don't see the benefit long-term of streaming across apps as the primary means of watching TV". So the fact that we use streaming apps suggests we see the their "benefit long-term". It's a direct rebuttal of the argument you were making.