“As major broadcast networks begin offering some of their hottest programs via video-on-demand, AOL and Warner Bros. have a new weapon of their own — ‘Welcome Back, Kotter.’ In the latest sign that the rules of television are being turned on their head, the two divisions of Time Warner Inc. have formed a partnership to offer ‘vintage’ shows, including ‘Kotter,’ ‘Wonder Woman’ and ‘Kung Fu,’ free online. The venture is believed to be the first time a major TV studio has made prime-time entertainment programs available over the Internet at no charge,” Matthew Karnitsching reports for The Wall Street Journal.
“Yet it’s not totally a free lunch. Unlike other recent on-demand offerings, which carry a fee but typically allow consumers to bypass advertising, the AOL-Warner Bros. service will include 15-second commercials that viewers can’t circumvent. AOL-Warner Bros. will keep control of the video feed and viewers won’t be allowed to record shows. Dubbed ‘In2TV,’ the service will start in January and initially include six channels, ranging from comedy to drama,” Karnitsching reports. “Beyond the ads, some analysts question how many people will watch entire TV shows on a computer screen — and whether the typically youthful online audience will be lured by decades-old fare.”
“In2TV plans to offer 300 episodes per month and about 100 shows in the first year. Warner Bros. has cleared 300 series, or about 14,000 individual episodes, for use on the service… In2TV will rely on video-streaming technology, which doesn’t require time-consuming downloads, to send the shows. The companies say they are using the most advanced technology available to prevent piracy, including a feature that allows them to pinpoint the homes using the service,” Karnitsching reports. “Most of the shows — roughly 300 in total — have been on the shelf for a while and aren’t earning much money. That makes it less risky for the studio to make them available than, say, ‘Friends,’ from which Warner Bros. reaps millions of dollars in syndication revenues a year. If successful, the venture may eventually include more newer programming, the company said.”
“Yet by focusing initially on older shows, In2TV is going after a segment now dominated by Viacom’s Nick at Nite and TV Land cable networks. Those channels draw large audiences and have been highly profitable,” Karnitsching reports. “Larry Jones, president of Nick at Nite and TV Land, said he’s not worried In2TV will erode the audience of his networks any more than the recent boom in classic TV shows on DVDs did. Though he says In2TV is an ‘interesting experiment,’ he added that his networks provide a valuable service by acting as filter. ‘We pick the best of the best from multiple studios,’ he said. ‘I don’t know if viewers are ready for so much choice. Ultimately what [In2TV] does is force viewers to be their own programmers.'”
Full article here.
Advertisement: The New iPod with Video. The ultimate music + video experience on the go. From $299. Free shipping.
Oh, don’t worry Mr. Jones, as any iPod owner can tell you, we can program our entertainment for ourselves much better than anyone else.
Related articles:
Who would have thought that a computer company would change the face of TV? – November 11, 2005
NBC, CBS ‘shows on demand for 99 cents’ plans laughable compared to Apple iTunes+iPod – November 08, 2005
Apple’s iTunes Music Store sells over one million videos in under 20 days – October 31, 2005
Can Apple’s iTunes Store resurrect old time TV? – October 30, 2005
Has Apple’s Steve Jobs saved network television or simply helped hasten its death? – October 27, 2005
TV network presidents see no threat from Apple video iTunes+iPod – October 27, 2005
BusinessWeek: Apple iPod+iTunes video marks new era for digital media – October 27, 2005
TV Critic: Apple iPod video strikingly bright, crisp, very fluid; TV will have to reorient itself – October 27, 2005
Thurrott: Apple iPod ‘the new standard by which all are measured – highly recommended’ – October 26, 2005
Chicago Tribune: Apple’s new iPod is a showstopper – October 26, 2005
PC Magazine review gives Apple’s new video-capable iPod 5 out of 5 stars – October 21, 2005
CBS News: New iPod shows ‘Apple will continue to dominate portable digital media player market’ – October 21, 2005
Apple’s video-capable iPod and iTunes are first vital link in new distribution paradigm – October 21, 2005
USA Today: Apple’s new iPod + video: world’s foremost portable music players have gotten only better – October 20, 2005
Comprehensive review of Apple’s iPod 5G with Video – October 20, 2005
The Motley Fool: ‘Apple’s new video-enabled iPod is about to save the televised content industry’ – October 20, 2005
Ars Technica reviews Apple’s new video-capable iPod – October 20, 2005
NY Times Pogue: ‘watching video on new iPod’s 2.5-inch screen is completely immersive’ – October 19, 2005
MSNBC columnist: after initial coolness wears off, Apple’s video iPod will wind up in dresser drawer
Apple’s $1.99 iTunes TV show downloads may be ‘the savior of good television’ – October 17, 2005
Apple opens Pandora’s box for the media business, could have profound long-term consequences – October 17, 2005
BofA analyst: Apple video play an ‘evolutionary opportunity,’ 9.3m iPods to be sold this quarter – October 17, 2005
Apple has the potential to change not just the audio industry, but the whole entertainment industry – October 17, 2005
Advertisers welcome Apple’s iTunes Store commerical-free content – October 17, 2005
New York Times writer can’t think different: ‘video iPod may not be ready for prime time’ – October 17, 2005
Cringely on Apple video experiment, future 802.11n Apple Video Express, Sony TVs in Apple stores – October 14, 2005
Podfather: iPod porn is going to be huge – October 14, 2005
Forrester Research: Apple transformed music distribution, now it is doing the same for video – October 14, 2005
Watching episode of ABC’s ‘Lost’ on 2.5-inch iPod screen surprisingly compelling – October 13, 2005
Get ready for the iPod video torrent search sites – October 13, 2005
Apple’s new iMac G5, iTunes 6, iPod video designed to bait Hollywood – October 13, 2005
Apple video iPod+iTunes could create mass audience for video on the go, despite studios’ misgivings – October 13, 2005
Using QuickTime Pro to create videos for playback in new Apple iPods – October 13, 2005
Analyst: Apple has just produced ‘the tipping point’ for entertainment content – October 13, 2005
Apple’s video play likely to unsettle movie, TV, advertising and retail markets for years to come – October 12, 2005
Apple unveils new 5th generation iPod, now plays music, photos, and video – October 12, 2005
yes! FIRST POST
Sounds like the TV companies are scrambling to keep the 800 pound gorilla out of their bedroom.
They are certainly being more pro-active than the Music companies were but it remains to be seen if they can come up with a solution as simple and clean as Apple’s. The millions of iPods with video that are gonna be sold this Christmas will be a big factor too.
I guess the TV execs have watched the “Think Different” commercial and took to heart the line “About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things.” Apple is shaking things up again.
COOL! I want the 6 Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman. Those aren’t on DVD.
Reminds me a lot of what happened after the iTunes Music Store came out. Everyone rushed out their own services without putting the development time in that Apple did and they mostly stunk.
Apple’s offering current hit TV shows and the ability to watch, fast forward, and rewind them on the go without being connected to the internet and without having big brother looking over their shoulder.
Or I could watch old shows that that were just collecting dust anyway while sitting only in one spot.
That said, it still may find an audience.
Streaming video blows. Even in this day of hyper-fast connections, it still blows. Fast-forward and reverse don’t work as well, if at all, and the video has a nasty tendency to freeze or stop playing altogether if the connection between here and there isn’t perfect every step of the way.
Unless there’s a monumental improvement, I can’t ever see a streaming service beating a download service. Sure downloads are “time-consuming”, but it’s not like you can’t do something else while the download takes place.
That said, it still may find an audience.
I think the demand for old TV programming is so mlarge that nearly any venture will make money. The key to long term success will be in which service gets the model right for the greatest number of users.
Frankly, I believe the people that really want to see old programming, will be more inclined to own it, rather than rent it, even if renting is less expensive.
This is great.
Even if Apple loses out to a compeditor, they will be remembered as the ones who started it all.
I’m with you, LordRobin, streaming video has little or no appeal.
get real, Warner.
This is a great idea and not a real positive development for Apple and its pay per show. Unless Apple goes this route with an ad based model. (Which they should since Apple makes money off the hardware, not the shows…)
This new service will work similar to MDN – MDN provides old news information that it collects and repeats, is free to us consumers and MDN gets rich through advertising on the repeated news webpages.
And what a great way to spread the free-thinking, idea genrating, creative U.S. culture around the world. Now zillions of people can watch John Travolta in “Welcome Back Kotter” and lust after “Wonder Woman”.
This service will appeal to people with no money. Unfortunately they have no money so they’re not buying the advertised goods either.
LordRobin speak’eth the truth!
Lord Robin – streaming video works fine on my computer and DSL connection. Plus its free programming! Sure beats $1.99 per episode.
Does this mean another proprietary video player of some sort to play their lame video stream?
Will they play with some messed up customized version of RealPlayer (which has fowled up every computer I’ve ever installed it on)?
There’s a reason Apple has not chosen streaming for their video service…. it sucks!
John Kerry – “This service will appeal to people with no money. Unfortunately they have no money so they’re not buying the advertised goods either.”
What a twit. You do realize how stupid your remarks are don´t you? They got a $2,000 iMac and a $50 a month broadband connection and they can´t buy beer, coke and burgers, etc. that will advertised with these free shows?
Guess what John – television programs are free, radio is free. Who is watching and listening to those programs….poor, desititute people???
Repeat – what a twit.
Boring old TV shows that are not earning squat. Might as well put them on AOL. nuff said
Macs King “There’s a reason Apple has not chosen streaming for their video service…. it sucks!”
No, genius, because why would Apple need video streaming if the video has to go through iTunes on the computer and then onto the video iPod.
Apple is in the business of selling hardware, not videos and music. It needs to control the videos and music so it can sell its hardware.
Warner Brothers and AOL are not selling hardware, they are selling ad space.
The TV networks have clearly been rattled by the recent ABC/Apple maneuver. But their reactions so far, including this latest AOL/Warner move, do not even resemble what Apple has done.
At first glance they may look similar to Apple’s move, but only because the networks are deciding, one by one, to experiment with different distribution channels for the first time ever. They are alternatives, yes; but the resemblance ends there.
1. Ads vs. no ads.
2. Not portable vs. portable.
3. No fast-forward/rewind control vs. full control.
4. Single viewing vs. ownership.
5. Credit card purchase vs. one-click micropayment.
Welcome Back Kotter, Kung Fu, Wonder Woman… but no BJ And The Bear?
Injustice!
Well yes, I am a twit, but I’m rich!
Enjoy you’re new AOL programming!
PS: I doubt anyone with a $2000 iMac will be able to watch any of this (at least until the switch to Intel is complete). The ad revenue will be very small. Big advertisers like Anheuser Busch, Coors, Miller, McDonalds (beer and burgers) and others like a high number of impressions for the lowest cost each.
So this service will be funded by AOL Time Warner advertising themselves to a puny viewing audience running old PC’s on quirky $20 broadband connections (which are just right for halting a streamed video connection).
Sorry, I have no interest in streaming video. If I can’t download it and watch it whenever I want, I don’t want it.
This has been planned and developed long before Apple/ABC was announced. TW have been working on repositioning the AOL brand for content delivery for two years now, and have development teams at various locations (including London, hence I know about it) developing the systems.
John Kerry – no, your wife is rich (just like first one) and you are a twit.
John Kerry – “PS: I doubt anyone with a $2000 iMac will be able to watch any of this (at least until the switch to Intel is complete). “
What? Macs not good enough????
John Kerry: “Big advertisers like Anheuser Busch, Coors, Miller, McDonalds (beer and burgers) and others like a high number of impressions for the lowest cost each.”
Gee…what a genius, guess nobody ever thought of that before. The advertisers will be there; don´t you think they already shopped this around to advertisers before announcing it? You think Apple is the only one thinking about video on computers?
John, go back to counting your wife´s money and remembering your war crimes in VietNam and leave the serious thinking to the big boys.
Too many develop type words. Next time I promise I’ll use a Thesaurus.