Android Devices
ABC, CBS, and NBC say no to Google TV, block content from being played
October 22, 2010 | by Andrew Kameka
Google TV
Google knew it would experience some resistance from television networks concerning Google TV, so no one should be surprised that broadcasters are making that message clear to consumers as well.
Reuters reports that ABC, CBS, and NBC have already blocked Google TV from accessing the full episodes available on their websites, and FOX may follow suit. Hulu, a joint venture owned by the major TV networks, also denies access to Google TV users, even after applying a hack that identifies the device’s browser as generic.
Google touted its new TV service as a tool that would bring all of the video content available on the web into one place, but that premise takes a severe hit with resistance from networks. Google is “actively negotiating” with the networks to gain access to their content, and that will probably involve some licensing or revenue sharing. Television networks have been resistant to online technology in the interest of protecting the traditional ad-based broadcast model, so Google – and Google TV owners – may be waiting for a while to get the faucet turned back on.
Old media is singing the same old song.
[Reuters]
Ok, forgive me for being dumb, but why are they throwing a fit now when we’ve been accessing their sites via internet all along? I don’t understand it.As I see it, all Google does is carry our already installed internet that we pay for every month to our tv. Am I wrong?
It's one thing when people watch TV on their computers. it's another when they can do it from the comfort of a couch on a 42 inch screen optimized for playing web video. That makes the networks nervous and want to block it unless they get money. It's just another sign of traditional companies failing to adapt to disruption. They better pay attention to how the music industry started dying when they resisted online purchases or they could be in even bigger trouble.
I sure hope you're not on the board of a major TV network. At the very least, why wouldn't you hold out for a bidding war to see who would pay more, Apple or Google? Why would you just roll over and say "Yes, please destroy my business model by selling my content at break-even prices so that you can sell more hardware." Everyone does realize that Apple has DESTROYED the music business. Yes, it's great for consumers (lots of cheap free content), and it's good for amateur and semi-pro musicians (democratized distribution). But NOBODY is making money selling music anymore. The only people making money are those that can afford to put on mega concert tours or get endorsement deals. iTunes exists only to help Apple sell more iPods and iPhones. And Google TV exists ONLY to give Google another channel to sell advertising. So why would someone else who also sells advertising want to just roll over to Google?
>> all Google does is carry our already installed internet that we pay for every month to our tv. >> Am I wrong? The fundamental difference that you're missing is that the difference between a laptop computer connected to the internet and Google TV connected to the internet is that Google TV is an advertising channel. Google makes money selling ads. Selling ads via search. They give away a phone operating system so they can make money on ads sold into mobile search. They are not making Google TV just out of the goodness of their hearts, or to compete with Dell and HP in the laptop space, or to make money from nominal licensing fees. * * Google TV exists so they have another place to sell ads. * * And the TV networks do not want someone plopping in their own ads on top of content that they did not pay for. That would be like you re-broadcasting a feed of ABC and inserting ads for a local pizza parlor that you sold locally.
And they wonder why other networks are "stealing" viewers from them?
So NBC wants to control what types of computers I visit their website with? What is next? Are they going to start demanding money from Dell, HP, Acer and others for allowing their customer’s to access their web sites with the computers they sell?
Does Dell give money to every web site that their customers are permitted to visit with Dell computers?
Do TV manufacturers have to pay money to the networks? This is like being mugged on the street. I hope more and more content creators use you tube and iTunes to go around these networks and keep all the advertising money to themselves.
>> content creators use you tube and iTunes to go around these networks and >> keep all the advertising money to themselves Ummm… When an artist puts a song on iTunes or a video on YouTube, the artist gets NOTHING from ads. Ads on iTunes make money for Apple. Ads on YouTube make money for Google. Episodes of "Modern Family" don't get made for free. Money to make TV shows and movies has to come from somewhere. The networks have to pay for those TV shows, and they make that money back with ads. If Google wants to contract with a production company to make episodes of CSI and 30 Rock, then fine. But I don't see why Google should make money from something that NBC and ABC paid to have made.
I think it's naive and unobservant to say that "old media is singing the same old song" and that "the networks better pay attention"… I think the networks ARE paying attention and they aren't going to let Google kill the music industry the same way Apple killed the music industry. All of the comments above so far are from a consumer perspective (yes, you want everything for free on every device you own). The networks make money by selling ads. Google makes money by selling ads. Why would the networks want to give Google their content so Google can sell Google ads instead of the networks selling their ads? The examples above about Dell and TVs miss the point. Dell and LG don't make money selling ads within content. Google makes ALL its money selling ads. So why would the networks want to just roll over and give that ad revenue over to Google for free?
Apple didn't kill the music industry, record labels killed the music industry. They spent millions of dollars on stupid public awareness campaigns and lawsuits to shut down P2P networks instead of recognizing emerging markets and adapting their business model. Consumers went to Napster because it offered an easy solution to get free music. When that was shut down, 10 new methods popped up and record labels fought that instead of creating a source that could deliver digital music legally (iTunes). Record labels like to blame iTunes for the death of the industry, but that's obviously not true since digital music is wildly popular and still generating lots of money for them. What's really happening is that people are moving away from traditional cash cows (physical media) because they have no use for them. Walk into a Best Buy these days and the music section that once took up half the store is just a little corner near the washing machines. The labels eventually wised up and embraced digital music stores, but their initial resistance to it created a generation of people who stole music because it was easy and there weren't user-friendly means to obtain it legally. The television networks are faced with the same problem. They CANNOT stick to the traditional model and think it will last forever. Ratings have been falling for years and they were wise to create Hulu, but they keep doing things to prevent it from obtaining mass appeal (showing episodes a week late, not having it accessible on other devices, etc.). The objective of networks remains being watched, but they are resisting the ways that customers want to watch them. I missed an episode of Sons of Anarchy and couldn't find any way to watch it on Hulu or FX.com, so I downloaded it. Had FX created an easier way for me to watch it, I would have sat through the ads. Instead, they made nothing off me. Google TV sells ads, but when you go to ABC, FOX, etc. you're still seeing ABC, FOX, etc's ads! If they didn't block Hulu, you'd still be seeing Hulu ads, and that's my point about old media singing the same song. They are trying to protect a business model that is dying yet they don't want to try and build one that can live. Will this generate as much money as traditional broadcasts? Never, but scaring away your audience isn't the answer.
When you watch a TV show on a Dell laptop or a movie on a Sony TV, Dell and Sony don't insert their own ads into the TV show. Dell and Sony don't make their main revenue by selling ads, so the networks obviously are not going to do ridiculous things like charge a TV manufacturer a royalty. So, it's silly to say "Is Dell going to charge me to watch ABC.com?" Of course not. But if Google TV starts sticking their own ads on top of NBC programming, what sane competent business leader would say "Hey! We make all our money from ads. Let's just give that ad revenue to Google instead of making it ourselves!"
Hahahaaa. I watch Hulu from my custom built Linux box. Psh.
The Networks are living in the stone age as usual. We watch most of their shows on illegal downloads anyway yet they insist on assessing what's popular using Nielsen rating system that sans the ever more popular downloads. Here they have a chance to capitalise on downloaded TV shows and they snub it to remain under their rocks in the stone age. Frak 'em!
"All of the comments above so far are from a consumer perspective (yes, you want everything for free on every device you own). The networks make money by selling ads. Google makes money by selling ads. Why would the networks want to give Google their content so Google can sell Google ads instead of the networks selling their ads?" Last time I checked, the NBCs, CBSs, etc. of the world still show ads when you watch from their sites. Since Google TV is getting the content from the network sites, I seriously doubt that's changing. Watching a NBC show online (you could have a huge LCD monitor right?) is pretty much the same thing as watching it from Google TV. The networks are singing the same old song with this move. It's not like Google TV is in a gazillion homes already.
Just desire to say your article is as astounding. The clarity in your submit is just great and i could assume you’re a professional on this subject. Fine along with your permission let me to clutch your RSS feed to keep up to date with forthcoming post. Thank you one million and please continue the enjoyable work.
Hello! Perform you identify if they achieve some plugins to avoid with Search Engine Optimization? I’m trying to get my weblog to rank in support of roughly under attack keywords except I’m not since very clear gains. Qualification you know of any please distribute. Worth it!
I truly appreciate this publish. I have been searching throughout for this! Thank goodness I found it on Bing. You have produced my day! Thank you once more!
Hi there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my twitter group? There is lots of individuals that I believe would truly appreciate your content. Please allow me know. Thank you
I would like to thank you for your efforts you’ve put in creating this web site. I am hoping the same high-grade website post from you within the upcoming also. Actually your inventive writing skills has inspired me to get my own web site now. Really the blogging is spreading its wings fast. Your write up is a great example of it.
We’re a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community. Your web site provided us with valuable info to work on. You’ve done an impressive job and our entire community will be grateful to you.
My partner and I stumbled over here by a different page and thought I might check things out. I like what I see so now i am following you. Look forward to checking out your web page yet again.