The Business of Streaming Thread

[vertigop1ayer]

Originally Posted by An4h0ny

Yep. I can absolutely see that.

It definitely is a huge value-add for them.

They should have just run with that plan from the start.

But hindsight is 20/20, etc...

You're probably being too generous towards them. This CNN+ concept never made any sense. It's an OTT service for CNN where you.....don't even get live news? And do I recall you have to have cable to access it anyway?

This idea that these major cable/broadcast news names are like beloved celebrities and people would pay to get even more was nonsense, and worse it was build on the foundation of what appears to be nearly news-free content.

Why they thought all of this was worth a separate service when they rolled all these other brands into Max is bizarre. And maybe they weren't expecting gigantic numbers, but the rest of media has been throwing around some hefty sums spent on CNN+, and their rumored audience size is/was dismal.

This made even less sense than Quibi and was timed worse, arguably.

[An4h0ny]

Originally Posted by vertigop1ayer

You're probably being too generous towards them. This CNN+ concept never made any sense. It's an OTT service for CNN where you.....don't even get live news? And do I recall you have to have cable to access it anyway?

This idea that these major cable/broadcast news names are like beloved celebrities and people would pay to get even more was nonsense, and worse it was build on the foundation of what appears to be nearly news-free content.

Why they thought all of this was worth a separate service when they rolled all these other brands into Max is bizarre. And maybe they weren't expecting gigantic numbers, but the rest of media has been throwing around some hefty sums spent on CNN+, and their rumored audience size is/was dismal.

This made even less sense than Quibi and was timed worse, arguably.

Well, we all just got a reality check on current demand vs supply in this space.

It is still an important co-brand or sub-brand or w/e it's called.

But definitely not something that can stand on its own. It is surprising they spent so much but I'm sure there is a "roll back" or B plan. Once the Discovery team takes over they will know how to use this content. They have been doing a great job so far, imo.

[vertigop1ayer]

Originally Posted by An4h0ny

Well, we all just got a reality check on current demand vs supply in this space.

It is still an important co-brand or sub-brand or w/e it's called.

But definitely not something that can stand on its own. It is surprising they spent so much but I'm sure there is a "roll back" or B plan. Once the Discovery team takes over they will know how to use this content. They have been doing a great job so far, imo.

CNN definitely has name recognition. I think the question is more what that brand is worth now and in the near-to-medium term.

But even if CNN could negotiate deals allowing them to have an app with a livestreaming service, I just don't see that being a successful streaming service anywhere near what allegedly was spent on CNN+. Granted, they could've invested more in content for true learning (like a big budget version of Curiosity Stream), and that probably would've been more successful, but I think there are limitations to the brand (as with any of the legacy major media companies - maybe a "PBS+" would be the one possibility).

[An4h0ny]

Originally Posted by vertigop1ayer

CNN definitely has name recognition. I think the question is more what that brand is worth now and in the near-to-medium term.

But even if CNN could negotiate deals allowing them to have an app with a livestreaming service, I just don't see that being a successful streaming service anywhere near what allegedly was spent on CNN+. Granted, they could've invested more in content for true learning (like a big budget version of Curiosity Stream), and that probably would've been more successful, but I think there are limitations to the brand (as with any of the legacy major media companies - maybe a "PBS+" would be the one possibility).

Definitely agree with all this.

[filmbuffTX]

Comcast, Charter Team to Develop Nationwide Streaming Platform

Comcast will license Flex, its aggregated streaming platform and hardware, and contribute streamer Xumo to the joint venture, which aims to "compete at scale with established national platforms."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...6ab039a7423e93

I suppose this will be a competitor to Roku, Amazon Fire, and AppleTV devices?

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by filmbuffTX

Comcast, Charter Team to Develop Nationwide Streaming Platform

Comcast will license Flex, its aggregated streaming platform and hardware, and contribute streamer Xumo to the joint venture, which aims to "compete at scale with established national platforms."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...6ab039a7423e93

I suppose this will be a competitor to Roku, Amazon Fire, and AppleTV devices?

I have a Flex box (it's free for Internet subscribers). Unpacked it, activated the Flex service (mainly to get Peacock "Premium" for free, which is also a joke BTW), played a bit with it. Then disconnected it and put it right back in its box. Terrible device. It's slow, the UI is convoluted, and the remote barely responsive.

[bhampton]

Streaming services should all have ads.
People still want online stuff to be free and ads is the way that works.

Someone offered me HBO Max password for Batman - I'll just wait for the better presentation, I have the disc pre ordered.
I've heard the steaming version has crushed blacks to go with the over compressed soundtrack. Nice, I can wait. It could be good or bad but I'm going to at least see a well produced version of it.


"It's slow, the UI is convoluted, and the remote barely responsive." That's Comcastic!