Apple TV: TV show rentals?
I'm really curious why Apple refuses to do this and/or why the TV show production companies refuse to.
First of all, due to our current subscription, we have satellite TV without a PVR box. In order to get a PVR, we'd have to renew our subscription which, for reasons I won't get into, we can't do.
For us, this means that the only way to watch TV shows on a one-off basis (without the intent of buying the show) are to:
1) Wait for the show to come on at its regularly scheduled time and watch it.
2) Program a VCR to tape the show and watch it later.
3) Buy a season of the show on DVD and then sell it on the second hand market when we're done with it.
4) Piracy.
Given that I'm too lazy to do 1) or 2), and that latency/reliability/patience/moral issues prevent me from doing 4), I've tended for 3), which is still tedious because I have to go to a brick and mortar store to do so.
What I don't understand is why I can't have:
5) Rent each episode online with terms similar to Apple TV movie rentals but for far less than the ludicrous $4 being charged for downloads of some episodes.
I refuse to buy a TV episode laden with DRM that will take up part of my precious 40 Gb disk space. Hell, I find the $5 price tag for standard definition movie rentals barely acceptable, since it's the same price I would pay to rent them from Blockbuster and the studios save money on physical distribution costs.
So why don't they do this? Are the TV show production houses so afraid of pricing *any* content below $1 so as to "dilute the value of their content" or other such nonsense that Big Content preaches? Do the TV studios have incriminating photos of some of the TV show producers executives? Is there some sort of quid-pro-quo between them?
Whatever reasons they are, they make absolutely no sense for the consumer, and I'd argue that it makes for a poor business model from the producers' point of view, since it alienates customers who like TV shows but no longer wish to deal with cable/satellite companies trying to make them pay them to watch ads.
First of all, due to our current subscription, we have satellite TV without a PVR box. In order to get a PVR, we'd have to renew our subscription which, for reasons I won't get into, we can't do.
For us, this means that the only way to watch TV shows on a one-off basis (without the intent of buying the show) are to:
1) Wait for the show to come on at its regularly scheduled time and watch it.
2) Program a VCR to tape the show and watch it later.
3) Buy a season of the show on DVD and then sell it on the second hand market when we're done with it.
4) Piracy.
Given that I'm too lazy to do 1) or 2), and that latency/reliability/patience/moral issues prevent me from doing 4), I've tended for 3), which is still tedious because I have to go to a brick and mortar store to do so.
What I don't understand is why I can't have:
5) Rent each episode online with terms similar to Apple TV movie rentals but for far less than the ludicrous $4 being charged for downloads of some episodes.
I refuse to buy a TV episode laden with DRM that will take up part of my precious 40 Gb disk space. Hell, I find the $5 price tag for standard definition movie rentals barely acceptable, since it's the same price I would pay to rent them from Blockbuster and the studios save money on physical distribution costs.
So why don't they do this? Are the TV show production houses so afraid of pricing *any* content below $1 so as to "dilute the value of their content" or other such nonsense that Big Content preaches? Do the TV studios have incriminating photos of some of the TV show producers executives? Is there some sort of quid-pro-quo between them?
Whatever reasons they are, they make absolutely no sense for the consumer, and I'd argue that it makes for a poor business model from the producers' point of view, since it alienates customers who like TV shows but no longer wish to deal with cable/satellite companies trying to make them pay them to watch ads.
Comments
I'm really curious why Apple refuses to do this and/or why the TV show production companies refuse to.
First of all, due to our current subscription, we have satellite TV without a PVR box. In order to get a PVR, we'd have to renew our subscription which, for reasons I won't get into, we can't do.
For us, this means that the only way to watch TV shows on a one-off basis (without the intent of buying the show) are to:
1) Wait for the show to come on at its regularly scheduled time and watch it.
2) Program a VCR to tape the show and watch it later.
3) Buy a season of the show on DVD and then sell it on the second hand market when we're done with it.
4) Piracy.
Given that I'm too lazy to do 1) or 2), and that latency/reliability/patience/moral issues prevent me from doing 4), I've tended for 3), which is still tedious because I have to go to a brick and mortar store to do so.
What I don't understand is why I can't have:
5) Rent each episode online with terms similar to Apple TV movie rentals but for far less than the ludicrous $4 being charged for downloads of some episodes.
I refuse to buy a TV episode laden with DRM that will take up part of my precious 40 Gb disk space. Hell, I find the $5 price tag for standard definition movie rentals barely acceptable, since it's the same price I would pay to rent them from Blockbuster and the studios save money on physical distribution costs.
So why don't they do this? Are the TV show production houses so afraid of pricing *any* content below $1 so as to "dilute the value of their content" or other such nonsense that Big Content preaches? Do the TV studios have incriminating photos of some of the TV show producers executives? Is there some sort of quid-pro-quo between them?
Whatever reasons they are, they make absolutely no sense for the consumer, and I'd argue that it makes for a poor business model from the producers' point of view, since it alienates customers who like TV shows but no longer wish to deal with cable/satellite companies trying to make them pay them to watch ads.
+1. I bet heavily on the former. Apple TV is just like Apple's b**tard child.. forgotten of and not noticed.. This is the onnly Apple product that does not seem to generate a single revenue for Apple.
+1. I bet heavily on the former. Apple TV is just like Apple's b**tard child.. forgotten of and not noticed.. This is the onnly Apple product that does not seem to generate a single revenue for Apple.
I'd say the AppleTV does generate revenue and profit, just not as much as Apple would like. The problem is that its only marketable feature is online movie rentals. While this is a good reason to buy an AppleTV, it makes the device a one-trick pony (yes, I know you can get music, podcasts, YouTube, etc on it).
I'd say the AppleTV does generate revenue and profit, just not as much as Apple would like. The problem is that its only marketable feature is online movie rentals. While this is a good reason to buy an AppleTV, it makes the device a one-trick pony (yes, I know you can get music, podcasts, YouTube, etc on it).
I agree with calling it a one-trick pony. If Apple could get an SDK out and set up an App Store then it could become so much more.
The fact that it already plays nicely with the iPhone and iPod Touch as input devices means there's lots of potential to explore there too.
I agree with calling it a one-trick pony. If Apple could get an SDK out and set up an App Store then it could become so much more.
The fact that it already plays nicely with the iPhone and iPod Touch as input devices means there's lots of potential to explore there too.
Yeah. But the problem seems like Apple is not doing anything to save it..
I agree with calling it a one-trick pony. If Apple could get an SDK out and set up an App Store then it could become so much more. The fact that it already plays nicely with the iPhone and iPod Touch as input devices means there's lots of potential to explore there too.
I've dabbled in writing plugins for the AppleTV but it was a while ago (when it 1st came out) and I'm not even sure if its still doable today. I got bored and frustrated trying to get things to behave the way I thought they should so I just lost interest...
Anyway... thats my history with developing on the AppleTV...
As far as your comment:
If Apple could get an SDK out and set up an App Store then it could become so much more
Here's the issues that I see with this (good on the surface) idea.
1 - Rolling out an SDK 'officially' is quite an expensive undertaking...
It's writing lots of highly technical documents in numerous languages keeping the documents current and producing numerous source code examples to assist developers.
2 - Its takes a once easily changeable collection of unpublished APIs and making it much much much more rigid and hard to change on a whim.
Unpublished APIs are all over the place in OS X... it allows Apples internal developers to save lots of coding time by using calls to built in code (just like a normal API) but Apple is free to change it, update it and/or totally remove it whenever they like without any discussion with 3rd party developers. Apple would obviously have to update any/all code they've written that might have made use of the undocumented API.
The AppleTV architecture is basically one giant collection undocumented APIs that Apple doesn't have to answer to anyone when they need to make an API change. If they actually published an official API then they would have to support developers who want to use the API and can't just make enormous changes the API because it would (likely) cause 3rd party plugins to fail.
Now lets face it, while the AppleTV is nice... But, as Steve Jobs said iirc 'The AppleTV a proof of concept' (might not have used those exact words but he gave the indication that the AppleTV would likely see potentailly dramatic changes as time goes by.
Lets look at the facts... When AppleTV was introduced it lacked a number of features which were so very obvious people (like me) cried foul when Apple omitted them.
- Disc based media: Blue-Ray and HD-DVD were still slugging it out and as a result Apple couldn't seriously consider either as an AppleTV feature but at the same time the writing on the wall said DVD was on its way out so including that would have made the AppleTV 'dated' and/or 'yesterdays technology' an image Apple didn't want to have to deal with.
Translation: No disc based media support primarily due to external forces.
- DVR Support: A large majority of the TV watching households in the US (especially ones that would be a potential AppleTV buyer) get their TV from cable/satellite/fiber/whatever... In short, its delivered in a format that all but demands a set top decoder box for all but the most basic of services.
Now you can't very well put in DVR support if the person with the AppleTV needs a cable box to decode the signal... (yea yea yea I know, I know things can be made to work with the use of IR emitters and knowing the device codes of the cable box but its VERY messy and prone to failure at too many points) so technically yes DVR could have been added but it would have sucked at best.
The golden ticket for Apple is CableCard support... In a perfect world CableCard would have been bidirectional and found in every HDTV set in the world (so cable companies would have ironed out all the kinks the cards are prone to. Well, the world isn't perfect....
Translation: No DVR/TV Tuner support
Fast-forward to today:
- Disc based media has crowned a winner (Blue Ray) and interestingly enough, if the latest AI rumors are true; Blue Ray will be officially blessed by Apple.
- CableCards.... With the introduction of the TiVO3 the cable industry got FORCED (kicking , screaming and dragging its feat) into properly supported CableCard... This was not a great time to be a TiVO developer or a TiVO3 owner. The cable industry did everything in their power to make the concept of using cable cards on their system as unappealing as possible but thanks to an act of Congress (not joking either, an actual act of congress - lol) last I checked the cable companies are learning to deal with CableCards.... TiVO must have done A LOT of work to make it happen. The good news is, now that TiVO "took one for the team" Apple can revisit the idea of a PVR without the need for frequent trips to DC to get cable to behave.
Now rumors are starting to pop up that the AppleTV might be getting some additional attention soon... Hmmm I wonder why? Could it be the format war is over and TiVO fixed a good deal of what was broken with CableCards and more so the cable industry?
Anyway... with all that, Apple didn't need to have developers writing Applications for a device that would potentially receive some pretty huge changes in a few years time and even worse for Apple to officially commit to an API (then) that might have cause problems for them in the future (now) when new features are going to be added...
Yea a wall of text... sorry... but I think (above) is the best reason for why Apple didn't run with the AppleTV API rollout when it was first released.
Dave
I don't think the TV studios are necessarily blocking it. You can rent TV episodes for $1 a piece through Amazon on the $99 Roku box. It's possible some of the studios are asking more of Apple, giving competitors preferential advantage.
AppleTV is almost the child locked in the basement that no one wants to talk about.
I don't think the TV studios are necessarily blocking it. You can rent TV episodes for $1 a piece through Amazon on the $99 Roku box. It's possible some of the studios are asking more of Apple, giving competitors preferential advantage.
Yep... and its quite sad. Apples effort put into the AppleTV is the equivalent of asking Babe Ruth not kill it, just bunt one down the 3rd base line.
It lacks the kind of follow through that one normally expects from an Apple designed device. I just knew it would never be successful without supporting optical media.
My reason quite simple... most households have 2 maybe 3 devices connected to their HDTVs.
1. Cable Box (or TiVO with cable cards)
2. Blue Ray player (often a Sony PS3 since it was priced so aggressively)
3. A console game system (or none)
There's simply no room in most cases for the AppleTV...
First it comes to HDMI ports... The vast majority of (installed) HDTVs have 2 or 3 HDMI ports (the newest models have more thank God!), one for cable, one for dvd and one for game system. Switch boxes exist SURE but the wife, kids and in-laws will hate you for life if you introduce one to the family TV.
Second comes down to physical space... Lots of people have just enough room for the devices they already have... Most TV furniture doesn't have a whole lot of extra room for more than 4 pieces of hardware.
1 - Cable Box
2 - DVD / Blue Ray
3 - Game System
4 - Stereo
And heat issues usually don't allow for stacking equipment one on top of the other...
Anyway... Apple really needed to be able to REPLACE an existing device... Be it the DVD/Blue Ray player (including an optical player) or the Cable Box/PVR (including cable card support) or with a device that could take the place of the kids game console (this one isn't too realistic even with the success of games on the iPhone).
Apple did none of the above and the result was exactly what I expected... Ho hum sales.
Dave
The AppleTV seems to fit in with much of Apple's business model, which is marketing devices to high-end customers. Those customers probably have larger HDTVs with four HDMI ports.
Consider this: For movies and TV shows, there are cheaper alternatives to viewing them online, including Hulu and Netflix. Apple makes the affair more convenient for iTunes and Mac users to integrate with the iTunes ecosystem by syncing their music and other content. For example, my girlfriend sometimes plays music from her iTunes while she's cooking or cleaning.
In terms of space, the AppleTV has a really low footprint. It seems to be designed to fit on top of another device, despite the heat issues you mention.
I own an Xbox (and since this weekend, a PS3 as an anniversary gift) and find the movie rental experience on both is a poor substitute for the AppleTV's. What's more, the library is limited. DVD/BluRay players don't offer much (if any) online functionality, which means they can't replace the AppleTV.
So, I wouldn't say the AppleTV has zero market. I'd say it's a niche product, with a small but tangible market.
The game changer may be the fact that iTunes 9 will allow Blu-Ray and maybe DVD managed copies. If that happens, then they AppleTV instantly becomes a two-trick pony (movie rentals + managed copy DVD/Blu-Ray file player). It would allow to eat into the market for standalone DVD/Blu-Ray player, which lack anything but disk-playing functionality. This means the AppleTV can fit into that third HDMI slot.
Now, if Apple enables TV show rentals, that would potentially replace the third device, namely, the cable decoder box.
Suddenly, the equation changes dramatically.
Yep... and its quite sad. Apples effort put into the AppleTV is the equivalent of asking Babe Ruth not kill it, just bunt one down the 3rd base line.
It lacks the kind of follow through that one normally expects from an Apple designed device. I just knew it would never be successful without supporting optical media.
My reason quite simple... most households have 2 maybe 3 devices connected to their HDTVs.
1. Cable Box (or TiVO with cable cards)
2. Blue Ray player (often a Sony PS3 since it was priced so aggressively)
3. A console game system (or none)
There's simply no room in most cases for the AppleTV...
First it comes to HDMI ports... The vast majority of (installed) HDTVs have 2 or 3 HDMI ports (the newest models have more thank God!), one for cable, one for dvd and one for game system. Switch boxes exist SURE but the wife, kids and in-laws will hate you for life if you introduce one to the family TV.
Second comes down to physical space... Lots of people have just enough room for the devices they already have... Most TV furniture doesn't have a whole lot of extra room for more than 4 pieces of hardware.
1 - Cable Box
2 - DVD / Blue Ray
3 - Game System
4 - Stereo
And heat issues usually don't allow for stacking equipment one on top of the other...
Anyway... Apple really needed to be able to REPLACE an existing device... Be it the DVD/Blue Ray player (including an optical player) or the Cable Box/PVR (including cable card support) or with a device that could take the place of the kids game console (this one isn't too realistic even with the success of games on the iPhone).
Apple did none of the above and the result was exactly what I expected... Ho hum sales.
Dave
I tend to disagree.
The game changer may be the fact that iTunes 9 will allow Blu-Ray and maybe DVD managed copies. If that happens, then they AppleTV instantly becomes a two-trick pony (movie rentals + managed copy DVD/Blu-Ray file player). It would allow to eat into the market for standalone DVD/Blu-Ray player, which lack anything but disk-playing functionality. This means the AppleTV can fit into that third HDMI slot.
This is an interesting little tidbit that I frankly missed when it was reported/rumored... Blu-Ray and perhaps DVD managed copies... now THAT would be extremely interesting indeed. If I'm to take that I would be legally be able to use Apple designed software to quickly 'rip' my dvd collection to my hard drive for anytime/anywhere playing on my various Apple computers and assorted devices.
Yea yea yea... I can easily see an AppleTV without optical disc player much more palatable than it is today.
Fingers crossed...
Dave