It all depends on whether the pricing plan is ala carte or all you can eat.
As someone who has watched five episodes of Ii>It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia in a row and gone on long Sarah Conner Chronicles benders, it makes a difference.
If I had wanted to pay for that crap, I would have 'bought' it from iTunes or waited for the inevitable DVD.
I wouldn't have a problem with this if the price is reasonable (less than 5/month), there were no commercials, and most importantly they kept all episodes of a show. It really burns my butter that I can't watch Fringe from the beginning!
It's not not on the agenda? Which means it is on the agenda?
Anyway, their loss if they start charging. They should think back and remember why they started up this site in the first place. It wasn't because people were paying for this content on that "other" video site.
@DorothyBarker: If you're betting they will, yeah, sure, I like winning money as much as the next person. Otherwise, it's like asking people to bet you that Obama won't win the election. They're hardly going to go to the mat for a SAG contract that allows them not to do that and then turn around and get philanthropic out of the kindness of their hearts.
@MissNormaDesmond: Um... the is what the Writers Guild Strike was about last year? There is a formula now for streaming shows that are under a WGA contract.
@Carol Gardens: And? I'm not understanding your point. Even if we grant that the WGA deal was a good one for the WGA, they're not "all the creatives", and SAG's getting screwed.
@MissNormaDesmond: Oh, I'm agreeing that they won't share unless forced to. Just pointing out that WGA got some movement on the issue because they were willing to got through that strike. I miss the inflatable rat.
I’d pay a modest subscription fee (ca. $5/mo.), if I could watch new episodes of shows as soon as they’re released conventionally. Or maybe $0.50 per "new" episode (however we define "new")? I’d want higher resolution, though, and even better caching of the stream.
Ugh, that'll suck. But it's totally expected. Newspapers, Hulu -- they're all going to make us pay to use the Internet in a worthwhile way, and it's going to happen very soon. And, in a way, why the hell should we expect so much content for nothing?
@Awesome X: Well, see, I pay $44.95 a month for access to the content as it is. All this shit adds up, ya know? I think the advertisers need to come up with some ideas and maybe get some money from the cable/phone companies that provide internet service. I agree it needs to be funded but there is going to be a limit to how much I can pay. I used to buy tons of magazines. I quit because they were too expensive. I can't afford to pay $5/month for all this different stuff.
@downlow: Hey, I'm with you. Think about this: a daily subscription to The New York Times dino-edition costs $600. For a Midwest regional paper, you'll pay about half that. That's a load of money somebody is paying to read a newspaper. I guess the point is that people used to be okay with paying for stuff, and now we think it should all be free on the Internet. I write for a media company, and somebody has to pay my salary. Shouldn't the consumer at least pay something? Sure, you're paying for Internet access -- but Internet providers aren't about to surrender their slice. They're more likely to come up with ways to squeeze more money out of us than share revenue with newspapers. It was stupid for these companies to offer content free in the first place, but costly content is the once and future king.
As long as it's a reasonable price, I wouldn't be opposed to becoming a subscriber. I don't watch things on Hulu because they are free; I use the site because it's convenient and usually offers me content that would be difficult to find anywhere else, such as old television shows or movies. It's also great when you forget to set something to record on the DVR, or when the rest of your family is hogging the only television connected to the DVR...
@croush1211: It depends on a couple of things. Content that's worth paying for, and a consistent stream that doesn't require gobs and gobs of bandwidth. Oh, and if I could stream it with my new Roku box so I wouldn't have to watch it on my PC, that would be sweeeeeeeeeet.
Incidentally, I've been running Roku with Netflix for a couple of weeks now, and it has vastly exceeded my expectations with my 3MBPS Verizon DSL. I can see the day when subscription services like this replace cable and DTS satellite. I can hardly wait.
06/04/09
As someone who has watched five episodes of Ii>It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia in a row and gone on long Sarah Conner Chronicles benders, it makes a difference.
If I had wanted to pay for that crap, I would have 'bought' it from iTunes or waited for the inevitable DVD.
06/04/09
06/04/09
06/04/09
Anyway, their loss if they start charging. They should think back and remember why they started up this site in the first place. It wasn't because people were paying for this content on that "other" video site.
06/04/09
06/04/09
06/04/09
06/04/09
06/04/09
06/05/09
06/05/09
06/04/09
06/04/09
06/04/09
06/04/09
/just one point of view
06/04/09
06/04/09
06/04/09
Show those hippie cheapo losers, Mr. Big Time Capitalist!
06/04/09
06/04/09
06/04/09
Incidentally, I've been running Roku with Netflix for a couple of weeks now, and it has vastly exceeded my expectations with my 3MBPS Verizon DSL. I can see the day when subscription services like this replace cable and DTS satellite. I can hardly wait.