• Reuters TV Launches for the iPhone, Provides On-Demand and Live News Content



    The folks over at Reuters recently released a new app for the iPhone called Reuters TV. The app offers access to on-demand video content and live feeds of any events that Reuters offers live coverage for. It also offers the ability to auto-download content for offline viewing and customization features that Reuters say tailors content based on your location and interests. Among the recently added features is the ability to set the length of your personalized news show from 5 minutes to 30 minutes.

    The app is offering the first month for free but will set users back $1.99 per month every month after that. According to the company, you can also expect to see “limited, premium advertising.” The description of the app reads the following:

    REUTERS NOW is a customized news show. Ready when you are it offers insightful coverage of national and international news.

    • On-demand: Ready whenever and wherever you are – even without connectivity
    • Up to date: Insightful coverage of national and international news that’s always current
    • Relevant to you: Tailored to your interests and location
    • Any duration: Choose the length of your news show, from 5 to 30 minutes
    • LIVE FEEDS allows you to watch world events that make the world stand still wherever you may be.
    • Global events: From protests in Egypt to Presidential speeches in Washington D.C., watch events as they unfold
    • Unfiltered: You choose the events you want to watch with beautifully unfiltered coverage
    Those of you interested in downloading the Reuters TV app can do so from the App Store in the US and the UK.

    Source: iTunes
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Reuters TV Launches for the iPhone, Provides On-Demand and Live News Content started by Akshay Masand View original post
    Comments 12 Comments
    1. SpiderManAPV's Avatar
      SpiderManAPV -
      I'm sorry, but if I'm paying per month I don't want ads. That's kinda the point right?
    1. severe's Avatar
      severe -
      Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanAPV View Post
      I'm sorry, but if I'm paying per month I don't want ads. That's kinda the point right?
      Not exactly. The subscription pays for the service, the ads pay for the programming. ...or something.

      At any rate, if what you're suggesting were true, cable television would be commercial free. Sh*t, it's not even censor free and we're paying through the nose.
    1. Evaded's Avatar
      Evaded -
      No different than Hulu. You pay $7.99/mo but still have commercials during programming.
    1. SpiderManAPV's Avatar
      SpiderManAPV -
      True point. Dumb, but true. That's why I use an antenna.
    1. docmagoo2's Avatar
      docmagoo2 -
      Quote Originally Posted by severe View Post
      Not exactly. The subscription pays for the service, the ads pay for the programming. ...or something.

      At any rate, if what you're suggesting were true, cable television would be commercial free. Sh*t, it's not even censor free and we're paying through the nose.
      US TV is a nightmare for ads. Seems like they're every 5 minutes. UK TV is getting nearly as bad esp on satellite
    1. 2Jaze's Avatar
      2Jaze -
      Quote Originally Posted by SpidermanAPV View Post
      I'm sorry, but if I'm paying per month I don't want ads. That's kinda the point right?

      That's like saying you don't want commercials because you pay monthly for cable television service.
    1. SpiderManAPV's Avatar
      SpiderManAPV -
      Quote Originally Posted by 2Jaze View Post
      That's like saying you don't want commercials because you pay monthly for cable television service.
      I still think it's different. First, I have an antenna, so I don't pay that. Second, the commercials pay the network (NBC, ABC, etc.) While I pay the distributor for cable (Comcast, Time Warner, etc.). They're related, but not quite the same. This is just Reuters double dipping. Not saying it's wrong or anything, but just dumb.
    1. Werty12's Avatar
      Werty12 -
      That's why I use Xbmc no commercials EVER!
    1. quidam_brujah's Avatar
      quidam_brujah -
      Quote Originally Posted by Evaded View Post
      No different than Hulu. You pay $7.99/mo but still have commercials during programming.
      Hulu gives access to the content but doesn't create the content. Reuters creates the content. So it's not really the same thing. For your analogy to work, Amazon and Netflix would have to charge different rates for the content they create versus the content they distribute.
    1. Evaded's Avatar
      Evaded -
      Quote Originally Posted by quidam_brujah View Post
      Hulu gives access to the content but doesn't create the content. Reuters creates the content. So it's not really the same thing. For your analogy to work, Amazon and Netflix would have to charge different rates for the content they create versus the content they distribute.
      You should research the owners of Hulu
    1. quidam_brujah's Avatar
      quidam_brujah -
      I stand corrected. Not only does Hulu have original content, but you're paying for ads.

      Original Programming | Hulu Advertising

      So, unfortunately it looks like they all do it: charge for content distribution and for the content itself which means you are also paying for distribution and the ads themselves. Their argument would be that you would have to pay substantially more for something ad-free, which I think is BS: they will all charge and have as many as ads as they think they can get away with. The bottom line is that it does cost something to both create and distribute content but, what's the least painful way to pay for it?
    1. Evaded's Avatar
      Evaded -
      Quote Originally Posted by quidam_brujah View Post
      I stand corrected. Not only does Hulu have original content, but you're paying for ads.

      Original Programming | Hulu Advertising

      So, unfortunately it looks like they all do it: charge for content distribution and for the content itself which means you are also paying for distribution and the ads themselves. Their argument would be that you would have to pay substantially more for something ad-free, which I think is BS: they will all charge and have as many as ads as they think they can get away with. The bottom line is that it does cost something to both create and distribute content but, what's the least painful way to pay for it?
      The three companies that mutually own Hulu — 21st Century Fox, the Walt Disney Company and NBCUniversal
  • Connect With Us

  • Twitter Box

  • Facebook