| Disney Disney's name is Disney-ABC. Not Disney/EPSN.
And everyone knew that they wouldn't have any better TV deals. The same as Apple with AppleTV. Nothing new. Time to move on. |
|
| Still Cheaper $10 is less than what those premiums run from any provider that I've seen.
They're all around $19 a month here. |
|
1 edit | Cross referencing viewing habits with other Google services For better or worse Google will be able to cross reference viewing habits with other Google services that the other carriers can't compile. Like people who watch these channels or shows tend to search such and such web content, or are actually buying certain items via Google wallet, or reading these books, or is a constant traveler or is in low income area and buying these items.
Down the road Google could have embedded links within ads that directly take you to Google shopping for the product and buy instantly within Google Wallet. That's powerful as it can grab impulse buyers with a click.
You'd think TV content providers and advertisers would love to acquire such cross referenced information and no other cable/SAT provider could do that. If I were a content provider, I'd try to get on Google's system to at least explore all of these possibilities. It's at least something they should experiment with as it's just one market, a portion of a market.
Will be surprising if Google doesn't land every channel out there by end of year. Is surprising they already have this many without a single TV customer yet. I could see Google having more challenges with privacy than adding more content providers. |
|
| reply to osravens
Re: Still Cheaper If you are paying $19/month for just the Showtime channels or just Staz Channels, you are being grossly overcharged! |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | Will Google be offering channels a la carte? If they break down the $50 package into "a la carte" channels, they could really shake up the industry and win customers. |
|
| reply to xenophon
Re: Cross referencing viewing habits with other Google services I don't mind advertisement as long as the service is cheaper than Comcast and other providers. Advertisement is part of service regardless is free nor not. |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | reply to 25139889
Re: Disney said by 25139889:Disney's name is Disney-ABC. Not Disney/EPSN. Disney and ESPN are the primary channels people are after. I would be extremely surprised if anyone subscribes or doesn't subscribe due to the presence of ABC Family or SoapNet, the only two other assets that would be under the control of Disney-ABC besides the missing Disney and ESPN channels. The local ABC affiliate is already signed, so that would include any regular OTA ABC broadcasts including ABC News and ABC Daytime. |
|
|
|
AVonGaussPremium
join:2007-11-01
Boynton Beach, FL | Not a defense... Not a defense of the cable / media industry, I've dropped cable TV altogether at this point, but its probably worth noting that I don't believe Google is making a lot of money on the premium channels - especially considering their subscriber base. As others have already pointed out, Google probably intends to monetize in ways a traditional MSO could not. |
|
| Does anyone know what this is doing to the other ISP/Cable tv providers in the area? Are the worried or don't really give a crap? Seems like this could only drive prices down which would really shocking. |
|
 kpfx
join:2005-10-28
San Antonio, TX | reply to axus
Re: Will Google be offering channels a la carte? It would be nice... but this just just more proof that the "a-la carte" model is being restricted by the broadcasters / content providers and not the distributors.
While Google's Internet offerings are interesting, the TV packages are very much ho-hum. |
|
| reply to Rangersfan
Re: Still Cheaper I'm not, but my cable company is asking that much these days. |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Clear Wireless
| Interesting to see the response If Google subsidizes all of this with other revenues (meaning they take heavy losses doing this 'experiment' of theirs but keep it running because Google 'corporate' has deep pockets), the incumbents in the area will cry foul, as it would amount to predatory pricing whether that is Google's intention or not. And incumbents grease the wheels in the State legislatures do the AGs will be more than happy to do their bidding. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to cdru
Re: Disney if they add ESPN that is at least another $5 a month/sub. If what I have read is correct, ESPN is one of the most costly channels for the MSO business to deliver.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to kpfx
Re: Will Google be offering channels a la carte? said by kpfx:It would be nice... but this just just more proof that the "a-la carte" model is being restricted by the broadcasters / content providers and not the distributors.
While Google's Internet offerings are interesting, the TV packages are very much ho-hum.
Just more proof that what the other cable companies say about content for TV is true. That the prices are controlled by the content providers. People should stop complaining to the FCC about TV prices & pkgs offered by cable companies since the FCC has no control over that. They should complain to the DOJ about anti-trust remedies against the content providers.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care |
|
| reply to Kearnstd
Re: Disney I don't watch any sports so would rather it be an option. And if someone is only into football, they can subscribe just during NFL season. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Google's efforts will showcase the economics of PayTV It will becoming increasingly clear to the public that the ripoff is in the "Content" providers pricing and bundling demands. |
|
| reply to Linklist
Re: Will Google be offering channels a la carte? So what you're saying is you have stock in cable & telecom companies, but not entertainment. |
|
| reply to cdru
Re: Disney ABC Family is in that deal that Disney-ABC has to sign off on. There are more channels than just Disney and ESPN that are part of them.
And my point is the "article" is wrong. the company is Disney-ABC. |
|
